A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecom's Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible. It's not what you see, it's what goes on behind the scenes. Australia, the warrantless colony. Note: Site has more info in desktop mode or 'web version' as seen at bottom of page, when on smartphone.
24 July 2026
WHEN PRIVACY IS A CRIME: US government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
23 July 2026
Corporations DICTATE how we communicate on the internet.
Today the internet is not the same as the one that came into the homes of the general population, even though it is a government controlled carriageway.
FIRSTLY, there is no such thing as ‘freedom of speech’.
Your ‘opinion’, or even facts that you present are censored, moderated and/or removed by corporations, especially if they do not fit the current political/mainstream media narrative.
Today the internet is under the control of a corporatocracy, a handful of billionaires, also a totalitarian (virtual) state, that would make Mussolini smile in his grave, as it’s thriving in a world beyond his dreams.
Surveillance capitalism is also the order of the business day, where if something is for ‘free’, YOU are the product, period.
You are conned that the information collected is for 'advertisers', where it primarily goes into the annals of governments.
The world’s best surveillance device (for governments and corporations) is this self sponsored invention called the smartphone.
Governments and corporations are forcing, or rather ‘enticing’ the general population to use them, in order to monitor and later control them.
Personal Computers pale in comparison to the treasure trove of data that a smartphone produces.
Data is the new gold, as it has a many to one, sale relationship, compared to gold’s one to one.
A very popular resource/forum is reddit, where now it’s limiting how you communicate through it.
Before one could communicate via a browser on a PC or smartphone, whereas now if reddit detects that you’re using a browser on a smartphone, it will terminate your browsing where one MUST download the app to keep on using reddit.
So, where is the 'democracy' there? OOPS! There is none!
This is the way of the order of the new world, where privacy is becoming a criminal act.
13 July 2026
Apple conning you that iPhones need to verify your age in the UK.
People should all be aware that governments and corporation lie to us every single day.
Apple are prolific liars, and that’s without any exaggeration whatsoever.
The new age verification laws put in place all over the world have seriously nothing to do with ‘child safety’ but rather everything to do with data collection, so that this can be used against the people to not only monitor and control their movements, but more importantly especially to stifle so their so called ‘free speech’.
Corporations (and governments) are now dictating how people can communicate on the internet, and that's deliberate by design.
See approx. 17 minute explanation by David Bombal on YouTube within the video of the title: Install GrapheneOS Before Your Phone Becomes the Checkpoint:
Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 (UK) apply to websites and online services, where a phone's operating system does not fall under any of the two categories of the said Act.
Keeping in mind that Apple is an active participant of the FiveEyes 'Anglosphere' global surveillance network.
If you truly value your online security and privacy, the use of Apple products is not recommended.
20 May 2026
Ontario police using spyware to take over your phone, fighting to keep almost everything about it secret
The police use of ODITs is so secret that police forces have signed agreements to drop serious criminal investigations rather than reveal the name of their vendor.
The Joint Technical Assistance Centre (JTAC) makes local police and prosecutors agree not to disclose key details of the so-called ODITs. JTAC is a collaboration of the OPP, Toronto Police Service, Peel Regional Police, York Regional Police, Durham Regional Police and Ottawa Police Service. Led by the OPP.
When police in Windsor began looking into an alleged international auto‑theft ring in late 2022, they turned to familiar investigative techniques.
Some officers went undercover, others conducted long hours of surveillance, while the courts gave police permission to hide a tracking device in the alleged ringleader’s car and to intercept his cellphone location.
Within a few months, cellphone data placed the main suspect’s phone near 23 car thefts, sometimes hours apart. Yet, police never caught him actually stealing any vehicles.
Up to this point, it was an investigation like many others — but the police believed it wasn’t enough.
In April 2023, Ontario Provincial Police and Windsor Police Service asked a judge for something far more intrusive: authorization to wiretap phones, plant audio probes in homes and vehicles, and to secretly deploy what law enforcement calls “on‑device investigative tools,” or ODITs. Far more than a simple wiretap, these allow police to not just intercept calls, but to directly hack into a target’s phone or computer to extract everything from call logs and photos to encrypted messages, and more.
Essentially spyware, an ODIT can grant almost unlimited access. Investigators can capture screenshots, monitor keypresses, access emails and text messages — including those that are encrypted — and even remotely activate microphones and cameras. All without the owner knowing.
By August, police announced 23 arrests, 279 charges, and more than $9 million in recovered vehicles.
But the case has also done something else: It has pulled back the curtain on how police forces in Ontario — not just in Windsor, but in Toronto and Peel Region — are now using these powerful technologies to reach deep inside suspects’ devices. And despite ODITs growing use in major prosecutions in the province, government lawyers and police are fighting tooth and nail to keep almost everything about them secret: how they work; what safeguards, if any, govern their use; even the names of the companies that sell them.
The secrecy around the tool is so extreme that the Crown may abandon the prosecution rather than reveal the vendor’s identity and details of the ODITs capabilities and limitations, according to a court document filed in Windsor Superior Court.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says the lack of openness is troubling.
“If police want to make the case that use of spyware is justified, they need to do this in a transparent manner that fully explains the details and level of intrusiveness of the tool,” Tamir Israel, the CCLA’s director of privacy, surveillance and technology, wrote in an email in response to the Star’s questions.
If the secrecy makes it impossible for police to provide the information courts need to assess these tools, “then these tools are inappropriate for police investigations, and police should not be using them.”
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario — which has previously raised alarms about police use of artificial intelligence, facial recognition technology and genetic genealogy — shares the concern and says the office is “closely monitoring” ODITs in terms of technical capacity, privacy risks, guardrails and ongoing court cases where their use is involved.
Given the privacy and security risks, “it is critical that police adopt and apply an appropriate transparency and accountability framework,” the privacy commissioner’s office said in a statement.
How Ontario police are using ODITs
On Tuesday, a highly secretive court case involving the use of ODITs is set to resume in Brampton, where prosecutors are fighting to keep details about the spyware under wraps.
Most of the court documents in the opium-smuggling investigation are under seal, pretrial arguments have been held behind closed doors, and the judge’s 146-page decision relating to ODIT-related disclosure remains under a publication ban — at least for now.
The type of ODIT used in both the Windsor and Brampton cases has been “shrouded in secrecy,” defence lawyers Kim Schofield and Miranda Brar wrote in their factum filed in Ontario Superior Court in the Windsor case. Although based in Toronto, the lawyers also represent some of the accused in Project Fairfield, the name of the Windsor vehicle theft investigation.
Schofield and Brar are challenging the constitutionality of the ODIT warrant, saying police did not release volumes of related information to the authorizing judge, nor did they tell him such documentation even existed. They also didn’t tell the judge about the agreement between the police and the Crown to end the prosecution in the event the court orders them to disclose the identity of the ODIT vendor.
This “novel technique” demands “scrutiny and fully informed judicial oversight,” Schofield and Brar write in their filings, arguing they need these details to ensure there was no infringement of their clients’ constitutional rights.
They’re also arguing the warrant is invalid. Police obtained a general warrant when they should have requested a search warrant — hacking into a phone to seize data is essentially a search of the device, they argue.
The CCLA’s Israel says that because police in Ontario appear to be using commercial spyware tools, the public absolutely needs to know whether the currently secret vendor can see, store or access any of the data being collected.
“A court needs to understand the full scope of how the tool is going to operate if it’s going to fully assess its impact,” he wrote.
“This capability is among the most intrusive in terms of the detailed window it can open into any individual’s life and in a democratic society.”
He noted that regimes around the world lacking strong human rights protections have misused spyware tools to spy on political dissidents, journalists, civil society groups, political opponents and others in their home countries and around the world, including Canada.
Why so secret?
In court documents reviewed by the Star, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada says that, like other police techniques, details about how the spyware works must be kept secret if revealing them would compromise future investigations. The accused still gets full access to the evidence gathered — just not the technical play‑by‑play of how police obtained it, the Crown argues.
If disclosure “results in the police no longer having access to an effective technological tool that allows it to intercept communications, then that will have a profound impact on public safety and the ability of the police to do their job,” they write.
In the separate Brampton case, Schofield, Brar and lawyers Leora Shemesh and Michael Little are representing three brothers charged in connection with opium smuggling. They all declined to comment as their cases are before the court.
Dubbed Project Vegas, the Crown’s case against the accused drug dealers relies almost entirely on ODIT-derived messages. Defence lawyers are demanding access to the tool’s manuals, configuration details and vendor information, arguing it’s the only way they can make a full answer and defence.
The Windsor court documents indicate that federal prosecutors in Brampton have refused to release more than 140 documents related to the ODIT, citing Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. That section allows the Crown to object to disclosure of information on the grounds “of a specified public interest.”
The Windsor court documents reveal ODITs in Ontario are managed by the Joint Technical Assistance Centre (JTAC), a little‑known unit that pools resources from multiple police agencies — the OPP and the local services in Toronto, Ottawa and York, Peel and Durham regions — and is funded by the province.
The court documents say JTAC has a relationship with a private company vendor. But the information is so secret that JTAC is making the Crown and local police sign an agreement to potentially drop major prosecutions rather than reveal the name of the company that made the tool, Brar and Schofield write in their factum.
Disclosure of sensitive information — including the vendor’s identity, where they’re located, the name of the tool, its capabilities and its technical infrastructure — could impact “relationships with domestic and international partners, and undermine the JTAC’s ability to use the tools and techniques in the future,” reads an “engagement agreement” in the Windsor court documents.
There are a number of reasons why the vendor should be known, Israel argues. “Different companies have different track records when it comes to their data handling practices, their respect for human rights and more,” he writes, crediting the University of Toronto’s Citizen’s Lab for putting information about specific spyware tools and companies in the public domain.
“This is not a tool that police buy and operate themselves, and as a result, you cannot separate the vendor from the tool.”
A parliamentary committee report on the RCMP use of ODITs stated the Mounties have dropped a number of prosecutions rather than reveal key details.
The scrutiny pushed the Mounties, in 2024, to publish a “transparency bulletin” that said ODITs had been used in 32 investigations between 2017 and 2022.
However, in an email responding to the Star’s request for updated information, the RCMP indicated ODITs have only been used in three additional investigations since 2022. “To be clear, ODITs are used extremely rarely and in limited cases,” involving serious criminal and national security investigations, a spokesperson wrote in an email.
They’re also expensive.
A former senior intelligence officer and expert on national security and intelligence told a parliamentary committee that just one operation involving an ODIT “will easily reach half a million dollars. That’s just to make one interception on one target with maybe one device only.”
Source:Toronto Star
With regards to Australia's corrupt police forces, when will this technology be available to them and will the general population be aware of this?
03 May 2026
Google WIPES OUT over 700 videos of Israel's Human Rights abuse in Palestine - Of Course It Does!
"YouTube Quietly Erased More Than 700 Videos Documenting Israeli Human Rights Violations", 4 November 2025
A documentary featuring mothers surviving Israel’s genocide in Gaza. A video investigation uncovering Israel’s role in the killing of a Palestinian American journalist. Another video revealing Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank.
YouTube surreptitiously deleted all these videos in early October by wiping the accounts that posted them from its website, along with their channels’ archives. The accounts belonged to three prominent Palestinian human rights groups: Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
The move came in response to a U.S. government campaign to stifle accountability for alleged Israeli war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Palestinian groups’ YouTube channels hosted hours of footage documenting and highlighting alleged Israeli government violations of international law in both Gaza and the West Bank, including the killing of Palestinian civilians...
After the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants and charged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Secretary Yoav Gallant with war crimes in Gaza, the Trump administration escalated its defense of Israel’s actions by sanctioning ICC officials and targeting people and organizations that work with the court...
“Congress did not intend to allow the president to cut off the flow of information to the American public and the world — instead, information, including documents and videos, are specifically exempted under the statute that the president cited as his authority for issuing the ICC sanctions.”
YouTube...confirmed to The Intercept that it deleted the groups’ accounts as a direct result of State Department sanctions against the group after a review. The Trump administration leveled the sanctions against the organizations in September over their work with the International Criminal Court in cases charging Israeli officials of war crimes.
“Google is committed to compliance with applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws,” YouTube spokesperson Boot Bullwinkle said in a statement...
Al Mezan... told The Intercept that its YouTube channel was abruptly terminated this year on October 7 without prior notification...
...Al-Haq’s channel was deleted on October 3...with a message from YouTube that its “content violates our guidelines.”...
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which the U.N. describes as the oldest human rights organization in Gaza, said in a statement that YouTube’s move “protects perpetrators from accountability.”...
The three human rights groups’ account terminations cumulatively amount to the erasure of more than 700 videos...
The Al-Haq spokesperson said Mailchimp, the mailing list service, also deleted the group’s account in September. (Mailchimp and its parent company, Intuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)...
Source:business-humanrights.org
26 April 2026
The EU is Ditching WhatsApp and So Should YOU!
"WhatsApp is also not truly secure, no matter what Meta tells you"
NEVER forget the the creep Zuckerberg LIES to an authority (Congress) so why should he not lie to his 'products' you know the people that use his platforms.
See report:
TOP REPORT: Mark Zuckerberg Lied to Congress. We Can’t Trust His Testimony.
Never trust what the pervert says, especially when it's to the goyím (né cattle).
Keep in mind that he's a government 'resource' as he's operating under the Five-Eyes 'Anglosphere' surveillance network.
See under 10 minute video from TLDR News EU:
IF you truly value your products, you will not use Meta products, where YOU are the product, how ironic.
06 April 2026
Trump's Lies Exposed in a Series of Contradictions.
The old adage; "How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving" holds truth in Trump's public appearances.
See a collection of Trump's public appearances where he lies through his teeth to the world, as collated by Jimmy Dore within the video of the title: WATCH: Trump CAN’T STOP Contradicting Himself! , paying attention to Kurt Metzger's comments.
Trump lied on "regime change", day care, medicaid, medicare just to name a few.
With the U.S. and Israel attack on Iran, it's very clear that the US is Israel's soldier.
24 March 2026
Hong Kong police can demand phone and computer passwords under amended national security law
Refusing to comply could lead to year in jail and hefty fine, while providing false information carries up to three years in prison
Hong Kong police can now demand that people suspected of breaching the city’s national security law provide mobile phone or computer passwords in a further crackdown on dissent.
The amendments to the law also empower customs officers to seize items that are deemed to have “seditious intention”, regardless of whether any person has been arrested for an offence endangering national security because of the items.
Refusing to comply could lead to up to one year’s jail and a fine of up to HK$100,000 ($12,773), while providing false or misleading information could bring up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to HK$500,000.
The city government on Monday published the amendments to the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020, using powers to bypass Hong Kong’s legislature. Officials will brief lawmakers on Tuesday, a government statement said.
The sweeping law punishes acts, including subversion and collusion with foreign forces, with up to life imprisonment.
The law sparked criticism from western governments and rights groups but Beijing and Hong Kong officials said it was needed to restore stability after the city was rocked by months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.
The amendments empower police to require a person under investigation suspected of endangering national security to provide any password or decryption method for electronic devices and to give the police “any reasonable and necessary information or assistance”.
Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfered with fundamental liberties, including the privacy of communication and the right to a fair trial.
Chiu said: “The sweeping powers given to law enforcement officers without any need for judicial authorisation are grossly disproportionate to any legitimate aim the bylaw purports to achieve.”
A Hong Kong government spokesperson said the amended rules conformed to the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, and its human rights provisions, and “will not affect the lives of the general public or the normal operation of institutions and organisations”.
According to the Security Bureau, a total of 386 people have been arrested for national security crimes so far, with 176 people and four companies convicted. The Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai was sentenced to a 20-year jail term in February for collusion with foreign forces and sedition, sparking international criticism.
Source:theguardian
Coming to a colony (e.g. Australia), near you? Why not? We're half way there anyway!
21 March 2026
Meta deletes your personal messages
The online world, or rather the World Wide Web, is a fascist corporatocracy.
If people believe they have a right to ‘free speech’ under an amendment to whatever so called constitution their nation has, this is not the case in the digital world.
Corporations rule and are given free reign over the online serfs/slaves/products.
They and only they can decide what can be not only posted ‘publicly*’ but now privately, where there is little recourse if one has been banned from posting something.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger now deletes content in ‘private’ messages between people.
No only does it (Meta) delete the message from the sender but it also deletes the recipient’s message.
The message can as innocuous as a cat video can be, to political satire or a link to a medical article, where ZERO justification is given and the content is removed.
We have entered a new age of slavery, digital slavery that even law makers in the ‘real world’ are upholding.
TV series Black Mirror seems to be a dystopian documentary series rather than just ‘entertainment’.
IF you value your privacy (and therefore security), Meta products are not recommended to be used.
* IT’s not technically ‘public’ as it exists within the (private) domain of that corporation’s forum/platform
17 March 2026
Reddit User Uncovers Who Is Behind Meta’s $2B Lobbying for Invasive Age Verification Tech
A Reddit researcher just exposed how Meta funneled over $2 billion through shadowy nonprofits to push age verification laws that would force Apple and Google to build surveillance infrastructure into every device—while conveniently exempting Meta’s own platforms from the same requirements.
Following the Money Trail Through Dark Networks
Meta’s lobbying operation spans 45 states using nonprofit shells to avoid transparency requirements.
The investigation by GitHub user “upper-up” traces funding through organizations like the Digital Childhood Alliance (DCA), which launched December 18, 2024, and testified for Utah’s SB-142 just days later. Bloomberg and Deseret News reported Meta’s backing of DCA, part of a $70 million fragmented super PAC strategy designed to evade FEC tracking. Traditional election spending disclosure requirements don’t apply to this fragmented approach.
What ‘Get Age Category API’ Really Means for Your Device
Proposed laws would embed persistent identity verification directly into operating systems.
The technical reality hits harder than policy abstractions. These bills mandate OS-level APIs that apps can query for age data—creating a permanent identity layer baked into your phone’s core functions. Meta’s Horizon OS for Quest VR already implements this infrastructure through Family Center controls. Now they want Apple and Google to build similar systems that every app can access, turning age verification into persistent device fingerprinting.
The Curious Case of Platform Exemptions
Age verification bills target Meta’s competitors while leaving Meta platforms untouched.
Here’s where the lobbying gets surgical. The proposed laws hammer Apple’s App Store and Google Play with compliance requirements but reportedly spare social media platforms—Meta’s core business. It’s like Spotify lobbying for streaming regulations that only apply to Apple Music. The “child safety” rhetoric masks a competitive strategy that shifts liability from platforms to operating system makers.
Europe Shows a Different Path Forward
EU’s eIDAS 2.0 offers privacy-preserving age verification with zero-knowledge proofs that protect personal data.
The European Union’s Digital Identity Wallet takes a radically different approach. Zero-knowledge proofs let you verify age without revealing personal data—like showing you’re over 18 without disclosing your birthdate or identity details. It’s open-source, self-hostable, and only applies to large platforms while exempting FOSS and small entities. Meanwhile, US lawmakers seem ready to let Meta bamboozle them into complete privacy annihilation.
Your
device’s trustworthiness hangs in the balance. These laws could force
every Linux distribution and privacy-focused Android fork to implement
identity verification or face legal liability. The choice between
surveillance-free computing and regulatory compliance is coming faster
than you think.
Source:supplied
10 March 2026
Fuel & Other Shortages, a DELIBERATE 'failure of government'.
Australia has truly either absolute fuckwits or arseholes in charge of this colony.
In any event MANY should be removed from their positions, as they have failed the people.
Australia is one of the most resource rich land masses on the planet, yet it's wealth has been squandered by the morons in charge.
See a video of approx. a dozen minutes by TopherField:
"Australia - the 'Lucky Country'" run by total arseholes.
or more eloquently put by David Horne as explained in the following post:
TIL calling Australia 'The Lucky Country' was actually intended as an insult, not a compliment.
28 February 2026
Age Verification At Operating System Level, i.e. Windows/Linux
09 February 2026
How to determine Australian currency is real
Middle Eastern criminal syndicates from Melbourne and Sydney have been involved in the production of counterfeit currency for quite some time, and it seems that there is no stopping them.
Unfortunately the authorities are not doing enough, where the good people are ultimately victims of this highly organised criminal venture.
The new generation of Australian notes shown in the illustration below show that under UV (Ultra Violet) light features birds and flora which currently cannot be replicated in counterfeit currency.
Also, the other side of the notes shows their year of production under UV light as shown in the photo below.
See also a 'counterfeit detection guide' document from the Reserve Bank of Australia which contains information on the first generation of polymer notes:
20 January 2026
Google’s false information about 'protecting' its community.
Corporations lie to their stakeholders, users and the general population every single day.
Google has recently been lying on a global scale and there is zero repercussions.
There are a few ways into interact on the internet which can be summed up as either an active user or a passive one.
Let’s start with the passive example first.
A person can be the recipient of a TikTok/Instagram/YouTube link where it can be opened up in a web browser such as Brave/FireFox/Chromium without that person having to log in that corporation’s platform.
At that point in time that person cannot interact with the poster or community by writing a comment or even give a thumbs up to whatever was shown, where that person is also known as a ‘lurker’.
Since no interaction can be made, that person cannot allegedly be a danger to the community, as the community is not aware that the person even exists.
Now, if a person is logged in to TikTok/Facebook/YouTube then that person can post content that may not be safe for work, or even exercising one’s right to (alleged) ‘free speech’ by criticising a government’s new agenda or the passing of an unlawfully enacted law.
Those comments may then have to be moderated in order to allegedly ‘protect’ that online community.
So now Google (via Youtube) claims that when you are lurking on their platform, you could be a bot, implying that you could hurt the community, and when you log in “this helps protect our community”.
Quite simply put, no it does not! That is a blatant lie.
When will people wake up to the lies and deception by corporations.
It’s NOT about protecting their ‘community’ but rather surveillance capitalism, keeping in mind that Google is one of the world’s largest advertising data harvesting corporations, where they need to you log in to their platform so that they can sell you (the product) to others.
Who is "our community"? The people working for Google or the people using their platforms?
In the same vein as the above question, see link:
What is the first job of a government?
15 January 2026
The Plan is to Make the Internet Worse. Forever!
Enshittification*.
Google along with others are changing the internet for the worse for the general population.
“Everything becomes a printer” is the most accurate summary of the last decade:
subscriptions + anti-repair as the new business model.
You will own nothing, and not be happy?
The world is designed for the benefit of corporations and not the 'consumers'.
* See definition:
https://phys.org/news/2026-01-stages-enshittification-academic-publishing.pdf
12 January 2026
Australia to use phone monitoring tool like ICE in the US?
Australians are no longer in a democracy but rather under a socialist state.
In many instances you don't have a 'right' to 'free speech', but rather you have to ask for permission to protest.
Briefly,
404 Media has obtained material that explains how Tangles and Webloc, two surveillance systems ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) recently purchased, work.
Webloc can track phones without a warrant and follow their owners home or to their employer.
A social media and phone surveillance system ICE bought access to is designed to monitor a city neighbourhood or block for mobile phones, track the movements of those devices and their owners over time, and follow them from their places of work to home or other locations, according to material that describes how the system works obtained by 404 Media.
Commercial location data, in this case acquired from hundreds of millions of phones via a company called Penlink, can be queried without a warrant, according to an internal ICE legal analysis shared with 404 Media.
The purchase comes squarely during ICE’s mass deportation effort and continued crackdown on protected speech, alarming civil liberties experts and raising questions on what exactly ICE will use the surveillance system for.
This is a very dangerous tool in the hands of an out-of-control agency.
At the end of the day the surveillance on the general population is going to get worse and worse with ZERO oversight.
What's worse, is the people are accepting this.
29 December 2025
New anti-smoking drug a ‘Fizzer’?
The sole purpose that corporations exist for is not to create a product or service but rather to generate profit for the owners/stakeholders from this product or service.
In a fair few instances health of the consumers is not on the cards, with food-like products from corporations like McDonald's, Wendy's, Donut King, et al.
A global 'big pharma' giant has recently put together a drug that allegedly stops people from smoking.
So what they need to do now is to spruik their 'wares' to medical practitioners, where kickbacks are given for every prescription handed out the patient 'customer'/consumer.
That's all very nice, BUT the problem is that a confidential industry insider stated that the drug doesn't work, where the company that produced it, knows that.
Sounds familiar?
A few years ago the same corporation put out a drug that was forced or maybe 'enticed' onto the people, where it did not confer immunity therefore it was falsely labelled as a 'vaccine'.
Naturally it would a good idea to seek a professional medial opinion on this drug from a medical practitioner that has no vested interest in the product.
15 December 2025
F-Droid and Google's Developer Registration Decree
For the past 15 years, F-Droid has provided a safe and secure haven for Android users around the world to find and install free and open source apps. When contrasted with the commercial app stores — of which the Google Play store is the most prominent — the differences are stark: they are hotbeds of spyware and scams, blatantly promoting apps that prey on their users through attempts to monetize their attention and mine their intimate information through any means necessary, including trickery and dark patterns.
F-Droid is different. It distributes apps that have been validated to work for the user’s interests, rather than for the interests of the app’s distributors. The way F-Droid works is simple: when a developer creates an app and hosts the source code publicly somewhere, the F-Droid team reviews it, inspecting it to ensure that it is completely open source and contains no undocumented anti-features such as advertisements or trackers. Once it passes inspection, the F-Droid build service compiles and packages the app to make it ready for distribution. The package is then signed either with F-Droid’s cryptographic key, or, if the build is reproducible, enables distribution using the original developer’s private key. In this way, users can trust that any app distributed through F-Droid is the one that was built from the specified source code and has not been tampered with.
Do you want a weather app that doesn’t transmit your every movement to a shadowy data broker? Or a scheduling assistant that doesn’t siphon your intimate details into an advertisement network? F-Droid has your back. Just as sunlight is the best disinfectant against corruption, open source is the best defense against software acting against the interests of the user.
Google’s move to break free app distribution
The future of this elegant and proven system was put in jeopardy last month, when Google unilaterally decreed that Android developers everywhere in the world are going to be required to register centrally with Google. In addition to demanding payment of a registration fee and agreement to their (non-negotiable and ever-changing) terms and conditions, Google will also require the uploading of personally identifying documents, including government ID, by the authors of the software, as well as enumerating all the unique “application identifiers” for every app that is to be distributed by the registered developer.
The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.
If it were to be put into effect, the developer registration decree will end the F-Droid project and other free/open-source app distribution sources as we know them today, and the world will be deprived of the safety and security of the catalog of thousands of apps that can be trusted and verified by any and all. F-Droid’s myriad users will be left adrift, with no means to install — or even update their existing installed — applications. (How many F-Droid users are there, exactly? We don’t know, because we don’t track users or have any registration: “No user accounts, by design”)
The Security Canard
While directly installing — or “sideloading” — software can be construed as carrying some inherent risk, it is false to claim that centralized app stores are the only safe option for software distribution. Google Play itself has repeatedly hosted malware, proving that corporate gatekeeping doesn’t guarantee user protection. By contrast, F-Droid offers a trustworthy and transparent alternative approach to security: every app is free and open source, the code can be audited by anyone, the build process and logs are public, and reproducible builds ensure that what is published matches the source code exactly. This transparency and accountability provides a stronger basis for trust than closed platforms, while still giving users freedom to choose. Restricting direct app installation not only undermines that choice, it also erodes the diversity and resilience of the open-source ecosystem by consolidating control in the hands of a few corporate players.
Furthermore, Google’s framing that they need to mandate developer registration in order to defend against malware is disingenuous because they already have a remediation mechanism for malware they identify on a device: the Play Protect service that is enabled on all Android Certified devices already scans and disables apps that have been identified as malware, regardless of their provenience. Any perceived risks associated with direct app installation can be mitigated through user education, open-source transparency, and existing security measures without imposing exclusionary registration requirements.
We do not believe that developer registration is motivated by security. We believe it is about consolidating power and tightening control over a formerly open ecosystem.
The Right to Run
If you own a computer, you should have the right to run whatever programs you want on it. This is just as true with the apps on your Android/iPhone mobile device as it is with the applications on your Linux/Mac/Windows desktop or server. Forcing software creators into a centralized registration scheme in order to publish and distribute their works is as egregious as forcing writers and artists to register with a central authority in order to be able to distribute their creative works. It is an offense to the core principles of free speech and thought that are central to the workings of democratic societies around the world.
By tying application identifiers to personal ID checks and fees, Google is building a choke point that restricts competition and limits user freedom. It must find a solution which preserves user rights, freedom of choice, and a healthy, competitive ecosystem.
What do we propose?
Regulatory and competition authorities should look carefully at Google’s proposed activities, and ensure that policies designed to improve security are not abused to consolidate monopoly control. We urge regulators to safeguard the ability of alternative app stores and open-source projects to operate freely, and to protect developers who cannot or will not comply with exclusionary registration schemes and demands for personal information.
If you are a developer or user who values digital freedom, you can help. Write to your Member of Parliament, Congressperson or other representative, sign petitions in defense of sideloading and software freedom, and contact the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) team to express why preserving open distribution matters. By making your voice heard, you help defend not only F-Droid, but the principle that software should remain a commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.
Source:f-droid.org
IF you value your privacy & security, then using as least Google products as possible would be a wise choice.
09 December 2025
EU’s Chat Control illegal? ECHR thinks so! Podchasov precedent
Podchasov vs. Russia: ECHR Rejects Encryption Backdoors
Recently, the global conversation on digital privacy has been significantly influenced by the landmark case of "Podchasov vs. Russia" (ECHR Appl. No. 33696/19), a legal battle involving the messaging app Telegram and the Russian government. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated that the storage of communications data without adequate safeguards against abuse cannot be regarded as necessary in a democracy society. The ruling specifically stands against encryption backdoors. It underscores the critical challenge of balancing state security measures with the fundamental human right of privacy and offers a legal precedent.
Anton Podchasov is a Russian Telegram user who took the government to the ECHR because Russia’s laws forced messaging services to store everyone’s communications, give security services access to them, and even decrypt encrypted chats. He argued this violated his right to privacy — and the Court agreed.
This is all taken originally from this full report on the case: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-230854#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854%22]}
Background
In 2017, a significant legal battle unfolded in Russia, pitting the popular messaging app Telegram against the Russian government. This conflict was ignited by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB)'s demands for the decryption of messages, a move rooted in the controversial "Yarovaya Law." This law mandates telecommunications services to assist security agencies in decrypting user communications, justified by the Russian government as a necessary step in combating terrorism and protecting national security.
Critics of the law argued that such measures would lead to the creation of a "surveillance state," where citizens' private communications could be monitored without substantial checks and balances. Telegram, renowned for its commitment to user privacy and strong encryption, found itself at the forefront of this debate.
In 2017, the FSB filed a lawsuit for the non-fulfillment of the Yarovaya law by Telegram, with the judgment delivered in favor of the FSB. According to Pavel Durov, one of the founders of Telegram, the FSB's requirements were not feasible:
Anton Podchasov's legal battle began when the Russian government blocked access to the Telegram service in 2018. His involvement stemmed from his personal use of the app and his concerns over privacy rights, making him a key figure in the legal battle against the Russian government's demands for decryption. Podchasov's lawsuit, after being dismissed by the nation's supreme court, was ultimately taken up by the ECHR, which ruled in his favor.
Findings of the ECHR
In its landmark ruling on February 13, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a decisive judgment in the case of "Podchasov v. Russia," addressing a controversial issue at the intersection of privacy and state surveillance. The court's findings focused on the statutory requirements under Russian legislation, notably the controversial Information Act and Order No. 432 of July 19, 2016 (Yarovaya Law). These laws compelled information communications organizers, such as Telegram, to store all internet communications and related data and to provide this data, along with decryption tools (backdoors), to law enforcement upon request.
The ECHR closely inspected the far-reaching effects of this legislation, considering its substantial implications for users of communication services. The court underscored that the legislation indiscriminately affected all users, irrespective of any reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal or national security-threatening activities. This blanket approach raised serious concerns about the potential for unchecked state surveillance.
In its critical analysis, the ECHR identified several key issues:
- Broad Scope of Surveillance: The court emphasized that the legislation's expansive reach, affecting all network users, constituted a significant interference with an individual’s private life.
- Lack of Adequate Safeguards: The ECHR found the legal provisions governing surveillance to be lacking in effective guarantees against abuse. This deficiency heightened the risk of arbitrariness, making the surveillance measures susceptible to misuse.
- Impact on End-to-End Encryption: Central to the court's deliberation was the impact on communications protected by end-to-end encryption. The requirement for de-encryption, as mandated by Russian law, was found to affect users indiscriminately, infringing on the privacy of individuals who posed no threat to legitimate government interests. The prospect of creating backdoors for decryption was particularly troubling, as it could enable routine, widespread, and indiscriminate surveillance of personal electronic communications.
The ECHR's conclusion was indisputable: the access to and potential misuse of electronic communications content, on such a generalized scale and without robust safeguards, severely impaired the right to respect for private life. This infringement was in direct violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court's ruling, thus, marked a significant moment in the ongoing global dialogue about the delicate balance between state security measures and the preservation of fundamental human rights in the digital era.
Limitations of the Ruling
While the ECHR's decision in the case "Podchasov vs. Russia" marks a stance in favor of privacy rights, it is important to understand the specific context and limits of this ruling:
- Contextual Application: The ruling specifically addressed the legal obligation to decrypt end-to-end (E2E) communications, effectively creating backdoors in E2E encryption.
- Support of Alternative Solutions: The court supported alternative solutions that do not undermine protective encryption mechanisms, including traditional policing methods, undercover operations and metadata analysis.
- Derogable Right to Privacy: It's important to note that the right to privacy, while fundamental, is considered a derogable right under certain conditions. In extreme situations, such as a declared state of emergency threatening the life of a nation, governments may derogate from this right as necessary to address the emergency, as outlined in Article 15 of the ECHR.
This aspects underscore the complex balance between individual rights and national security interests that courts and governments must navigate.
Further Implications
The ECHR's ruling in "Podchasov vs. Russia" sets a precedent with far-reaching implications about the limits of state surveillance in the digital age. Governments grappling with the balance between security and privacy may need to reevaluate their laws and practices, especially those involved in collection and analysis of digital communications, such as UK's "Online Safety Bill". If similar requirements for weakening encryption are part of this bill, there is a potential concern that it might face challenges in domestic courts or even the European Court, based on the precedent set by this ruling.
EU Chat Control Sentiment by Country (Summer-Autumn 2025)
The EU's Chat Control proposal, aimed at detecting child sexual abuse material via chat scanning, saw shifting positions through late 2025, with the Council adopting a negotiating mandate in November that dropped mandatory scanning for voluntary measures and risk assessments, amid ongoing trilogues expected into 2026. Trusted sources primarily reported binary stances (support/oppose/undecided) rather than nuanced sentiment volumes, limiting granular PRO/CONTRA counts; relative PRO ratios (PRO / (PRO + CONTRA)) are derived from explicit mentions across sources, using 1 unit per unique trusted reference per stance. Countries lacking explicit mentions default to 0/0 (undefined ratio).[1][2][3][4][5]
| Country | PRO Units | CONTRA Units | PRO Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| France | 4 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Italy | 3 | 1 | 0.75 |
| Spain | 4 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Denmark | 2 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0.50 |
| Hungary | 2 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Ireland | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Cyprus | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Latvia | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Lithuania | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Bulgaria | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Croatia | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Portugal | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Romania | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Malta | 1 | 0 | 1.00 |
| Austria | 0 | 2 | 0.00 |
| Finland | 0 | 2 | 0.00 |
| Czech Republic | 0 | 4 | 0.00 |
| Netherlands | 0 | 3 | 0.00 |
| Poland | 0 | 3 | 0.00 |
| Belgium | 0 | 2 | 0.00 |
| Germany | 0 | 1 | 0.00 |
| Luxembourg | 0 | 1 | 0.00 |
Sources:
• Full ECHR Judgment: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-230854
• Communicated Case Summary (background + legal questions): https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-211286
• Academic Legal Analysis (Ghent University PDF): https://backoffice.biblio.ugent.be/download/01HSSD44R19CGSYXKF6KSWHFYR/00.pdf
• Privacy International (intervening organisation): https://privacyinternational.org
• European Information Society Institute (intervening organisation): https://eisi-io.eu
• Expert Summary – Centre for Democracy & Technology: https://cdt.org/insights/the-european-court-of-human-rights-concludes-encryption-backdoor-mandates-violate-the-right-to-private-life-of-all-users-online/
• United Nations Report on Digital Privacy (cited in the case): https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5117-right-privacy-digital-age
• Council of Europe Resolution on Mass Surveillance (cited in the case): https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21736
• join.tech