HIGHLY POTENT NEWS THAT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS

censorship

Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta issues fatwa against male-female online chatting

nsnbc international
Aug 31, 2014

Aya Samir (TCP) : Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta, a semi-governmental religious body responsible for issuing fatwas, said Saturday that chatting between male and female strangers on the internet is prohibited unless it is extremely necessary.

Answering an FAQ about religious rules on chatting on Dar al-Ifta’s official website, it said it was prohibited as it will “open the doors of evil, sedition and corruption.”

Dar al-Ifta_Egypt_TCPDar al-Ifta added in its fatwa that it is acceptable only in extremely necessary situations, “especially nowadays as these kinds of interactions are a waste of time with no benefit.”

The fatwa added that women should not be sending photos of themselves to strangers they don’t know in order to preserve their dignity, as “criminals have used photos of women strangers in bad, harmful ways.”

Amna Noser, a member of the National Council for Women and a professor of religion and philosophy at Al-Azhar University, told Youm7 Saturday that if the conversation was for something useful, then it is fine, “but saying that chatting in general is ‘haram’ (forbidden) is not really realistic, especially as social media has become a huge part of our life and can’t be denied.”

She explained that the reason for this fatwa, according to her point of view, is that “lately social media has become one of the methods that could be used to make girls sound like easy prey for anyone with twisted behavior online. However, it’s obvious what is considered ‘haram’ in chatting and what is ‘halal’ (religiously acceptable).”

Amr Ali, from the Revolutionary Political Bloc, told Al-Dostor Saturday that the fatwa was “weird” and will not find any positive feedback or acceptance among Egyptians.

“Social media was established in the first place to help people socialize. This fatwa takes the religious bodies back by years,” Ali said

Aya Samir, The Cairo Post


Spiral Of Silence Also Exists On Social Media: Pew Poll

redOrbit
Aug 27, 2014

Image Credit: Thinkstock.com

April Flowers for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

In our social circles – especially among family, friends and co-workers – we have a tendency to hold in our views on public policy issues. This is especially true when we think our own opinion isn’t widely shared in those groups, according to pre-internet human behavior studies. Scientists call this phenomenon the “spiral of silence.”

The hope for social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter was that they would provide such a wide variety of discussion forums that people holding minority views would feel free to express their opinions. Such freedom would broaden public discourse and add new perspectives to the discussions.

The Pew Internet Research Project studied the effect of social media on the spiral of science by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults in 2013. The survey was restricted to one public policy issue: Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records. Other Pew Research polls showed the division Americans were feeling over this issue, making it a timely question for the survey. These studies found that Americans were conflicted over both whether the information leaks were justified and whether the NSA policy itself was appropriate or not. One survey, for example, found that 44 percent say that the classified information leak harms the public interest, while 49 percent said it serves the public interest.

The current survey asked questions about people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, how willing they were to discuss the revelations in various in-person and online situations, and their perceptions of their peers’ views both online and in-person.

The results showed the following key findings:

• More people were willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in person than on social media — 86 percent were willing to discuss it in person, while only 42 percent of Facebook or Twitter users were willing to post about the issue.

• For those not willing to discuss the issue in person, social media did not provide an alternative platform. Only 0.3 percent of the 14 percent who were unwilling to discuss the issue face to face would post about it on social media.

• In both forums, people are more willing to share their views if they believe their audience agrees. People who believe their co-workers share their opinion were three times more likely to join a workplace conversation.

• Previous findings on the spiral of silence apply to social media platforms. Facebook users were twice as likely to join a conversation about the Snowden-NSA issue if they believed their followers agreed with them.

• Social media users were less likely to share their views in face to face settings, especially if they thought their social media followers disagreed with them. The average Facebook user is half as likely to share their opinion as other people.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


VIDEO — Kristov Atlas interview, pt. 2 – “Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography, and Online Safety” – #204 – Gnostic Media

Gnostic Media
Jul 2, 2014

GM_204

[click here for part 1]

This episode is part 2 about Bitcoin, cryptography and online security and safety and is called Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography and Online Safety: It’s being released on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, and was recorded yesterday on Tuesday, July 1, 2014.

Kristov Atlas is a network security and privacy researcher who studies crypto-currencies. He is the author of Anonymous Bitcoin: How to Keep Your Ƀ All to Yourself, a practical guide to maximizing financial privacy with Bitcoin. Kristov is also a correspondent for the World Crypto Network, appearing regularly on the the weekly roundtable show “The Bitcoin Group”, and host of “Dark News”, a show about un-censorship technologies.


References to this episode
:

Anonymous Bitcoin
book:
http://anonymousbitcoinbook.com

Dark News Show:
https://twitter.com/darknewsshow

Tor Project:
https://www.torproject.org

I2P Network:
https://geti2p.net/en/

Tails Linux
https://tails.boum.org

Send Bitcoin donations for this episode to:
12EQTDMzU5mxtEd8ZfyrHrxABZi3jtaCCo

Please make other forms of donations here:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/donate/

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Joseph
Tresor
Barry
David
Joseph
Salman

This episode is video only.

 


Thought Crime: Mozilla CEO Forced to Resign by LGBT Lobby Over ‘Opinion’ on Gay Marriage

[Apr 4, 2014]
21st Century Wire
says…

Our forefathers warned us to beware of mob rule.

Mozilla announced yesterday that its co-founder Brendan Eich (photo, left) is stepping down as CEO following LGBT lobby protests over his support for California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex, or ‘gay’ marriages in that state (the measure was later deemed unconstitutional following a federal court appeal).

Most mainstream media outlets are attributing his resignation to a boycott announcement by popular online dating site, OkCupid.com, who urged its users not to access their dating site through Mozilla’s Firefox browser, but to use Microsoft’s Internet Explorer or Google’s Chrome instead. But there’s a bit more to the story than this…

The internal storm began to brew when two gay software developers decided to launch a boycott of Firefox in protest against Eich’s new CEO appointment.

This appears to have snowballed into a full-blown feud within Mozilla over Eich’s personal views – which appear to have run contrary to those of Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, who then fired what looks to be the deadly PR round on March 29, when she first blogged that “Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality.”

Prior to resigning, CEO Eich clearly stated his position to the Guardian on Wednesday this week, “There’s a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”

Baker responded on Thursday stating, “We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

The only problem here is that Ms. Baker doesn’t seem to want to include Brendan Eich in her culture of ‘sharing beliefs and opinions’.

Baker then goes on the explain why Mozilla Corp forced Eich out, and how it is ultimately accountable to its ‘communitarians‘. She explains, “This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.”

She then added, “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it”. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

“We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”
At little over dramatic maybe, but it’s indicative of a US online tech industry seemingly dominated by a liberal herd. The polarity seems subtle at first glance, but the rifts are there: driving a Toyota Prius is considered virtuous, while Tweeting a conservative quip can trigger a firestorm.

Clearly, Eich and Baker’s differences could not be resolved, making for a very toxic working environment. What’s irrefutable here is that Baker chose to undermine her executive colleague in a very public manner, as Baker used her position to push her feud with Eich into the public domain, enabling her to then leverage additional support from the LGBT lobby as a result.

In a corporate setting, this precedent certainly opens the door to abuse. This scenario could be used by any employee of any company who feels they have unaddressed grievances – not just ideological ones, but personal ones – against a senior colleague, and then draw in a third party, like an LGBT lobby, in order to settle a personal score and assist in removing someone from an organisation. This creates a false “consensus”, followed by a tidal wave of online “campaigns” (see image, left) and petitions – where an innocent person can quickly be convicted in a Kangaroos Court of minority public opinion, underpinned by the highly spurious, if not dubious justification of “protecting the “ethos of the company”.

Eich is also one of the creators of the computer language known as Javascript, and has been widely recognised as one of the single most important contributors to the modern free internet.

What exactly Eich’s personal views on Prop 8 have to do with the ‘ethos’ of Mozilla is not clear. Mozilla’s Firefox browser was created by the Mozilla Foundation in 2003, a non-profit organization who supports the open source project run by Mozilla Corp. The mission of the non-profit is “putting individuals in control online.” The CEO’s personal opinions on hot social issues do not come into play at all with the functionality of Firefox, nor should they.

Ruling in Divided America

America has never been more divided along radical political lines as it is today. In many ways, a divided society suits the establishment in its will to rule with no emerging opposition to it. Radical activist groups play a key role in maintaining this vacuum of social solidarity. The age of social media means that, with a snap of the finger, special interest mobs can swarm corporations and individuals. Mobs rule by fear. It’s time to coin a new term: social racketeering.

It’s worth pointing out the obvious problem here – that in 2008, the Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ban actually passed in 2008 in California with the majority of voters backing the measure, and in a state with a population of 35 million.

So are the millions of Californians – like Brendan Eich, who voted for, or supported the gay marriage ban also “guilty” of this same thought crime, or crime of opinion? Should each voter, and person who wrote out a cheque to campaign for Proposition 8 be identified and perhaps hunted down, and forced to resign from their jobs? If all men and women are created equal, then why not exact the mob’s punishment on everyone classified as guilty by the LGBT lobby? Wouldn’t that be more fair?

The LGBT lobby’s answer to that question would of course be something along the lines of: “We are not targeting everyone who supported Prop 8, only the high profile people (in order to make an example out of them).” This kind of reply is a nicely spun version of, “We hope by publicly toppling Eich, this will serve to intimidate others from opposing the lobby’s will in future.”

This kind of ‘razor blade’ politiking has the following objectives: ruin the man, his career and his future – because he opposed your own social views. In this toxic social environment, ‘activism’ (as some still like to refer to it) has been weaponised.

In a country which purports to champion its citizens’ rights of freedom of speech, expression and more importantly – freedom of opinion, this disturbing trend of minority activist lobbies bullying individuals into submission because of their personal views (clearly the case with Brendan Eich) is simply a mob prosecution of ‘thought crime’, which any radical pragmatist, given the chance, would easily upgrade to ‘hate crime’. Is this Social racketeering, or cultural Marxism? Take your pick. Both are a step backwards, and are highly undesirable conditions in a truly egalitarian and free society.

The Slippery Slope of Tyranny

Uncomfortable to some as it might be, in the United States of America, it is not illegal, nor should it viewed as ‘undesirable’, for an individual to voice one’s opposition – for or against – any state or federal law. The dangers of enabling such a mob tyranny to single out individuals who are not guilty of any real crime are obvious – by crushing support or dissent for any one law, the mob is greasing a slippery slope towards the elimination of not only freedom of speech and beliefs, but dissent for any unconstitutional law. In the long run, this might empower the state over the individual. This might be a hard concept for some to grapple with who only see this issue a small victory nudging forward, but not to anyone with any foresight. Viewed in isolation, gang tackling a person out of his job today may not seem like much, but think about what the next step will look like – a digressive ‘Lord of the Flies’ society where the mobs determine who is innocent and who is guilty – and whether or not any actual crime is committed does not even factor in. Some will argue that we are already there.

Most certainly, gay rights, along with other minority rights of race minorities, disabled minorities, homeless persons, and religious minorities – should be defended. However, there exists a fine line between defending one’s rights and attacking one’s perceived political opponents. The latter is wrong, especially when conducted at the hands of an aggressive, politicized mob.

The fundamental concept which the LGBT ‘collective’ (lobby) do not understand, or are unable to grasp, is basic game theory, where an offensive strategy has consequences. Although it may seem politically vogue today, by exerting radical ‘communitarianism‘ influence through the deployment of fear, intimidation and harassment – any radical minority may in fact be sowing the seeds of their own demise, and society’s too, in the long run. History shows us that such counter-revolutionary movements, especially ultra-conservative ones – are swift and brutal. The only protection against this, is by guarding the inherent rights which we all share, even if that means defending the rights of those whom you may ideologically disagree with.

Targeting individuals and depriving them of their fundamental right to work, expression of a personal opinion, or even disagreement with the lobby, is merely aiding the acceleration of the erosion of universal rights for all citizens, including LGBT ones. Once those rights are gone, they are gone for everyone, and no one will have universal protection under the law, or a ‘Bill of Rights’.

After the LGBT lobby has finished its social cull of its alleged ideological opponents, then a new mob – whether it’s the establishment, or another radical conservative, or religious mob – will set its sights on the LGBT community.

In a free and fair America, LGBT activists should defend Brendan Eich’s right to have an opinion. That would be real tolerance. Anything else is cheap knockoff – phony freedom.

READ MORE LGBT NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire LGBT Files

-


PODCAST — Kristov Atlas interview, pt. 1 – “Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography, and Online Safety” – #203

Gnostic Media
June 25, 2014

GM_203
This episode is part 1 about Bitcoin, cryptography and online security and safety and is called Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography and Online Safety: It’s being released on Wednesday, June 25, 2014, and was recorded yesterday on Tuesday, June 24, 2014.

Kristov Atlas is a network security and privacy researcher who studies crypto-currencies. He is the author of Anonymous Bitcoin: How to Keep Your Ƀ All to Yourself, a practical guide to maximizing financial privacy with Bitcoin. Kristov is also a correspondent for the World Crypto Network, appearing regularly on the the weekly roundtable show “The Bitcoin Group”, and host of “Dark News”, a show about un-censorship technologies.

References to this episode
:

Anonymous Bitcoin
book:
http://anonymousbitcoinbook.com

Dark News Show:
https://twitter.com/darknewsshow

Tor Project:
https://www.torproject.org

I2P Network:
https://geti2p.net/en/

Dark Wallet:
https://darkwallet.unsystem.net

Dark Wallet in the News:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dark-wallet/
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/05/06/bitcoin-dark-money-dark-wallet

Panopticlick:
https://panopticlick.eff.org

Blockchain.info:
https://blockchain.info

Taint Analysis:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1dice6GV5Rz2iaifPvX7RMjfhaNPC8SXH

Bitcoin Fog:
http://www.bitcoinfog.com

Tails Linux (for next week’s episode)
https://tails.boum.org

Send Bitcoin donations for this episode to:
12EQTDMzU5mxtEd8ZfyrHrxABZi3jtaCCo

Please make other forms of donations here:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/donate/

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Paul
zdravko
Bill
James
Brandon
Barry
Mark
Jeremy
Tino
Steve

BTC:
1K8NfoB… x2

Video version:

Audio only:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:21:10 — 74.6MB) | Embed


Ecuador Bans Bitcoin, Plans Own Digital Money

by Stan Higgins
CoinDesk
Jul 25, 2014

The National Assembly of Ecuador has effectively banned bitcoin and decentralized digital currencies while establishing guidelines for the creation of a new, state-run currency.

With 91 votes in favor of the amendments to the country’s existing monetary and financial laws, the National Assembly approved a bill that now goes to President Rafael Correa for signature.

The law gives the government permission to make payments in ‘electronic money’, but decentralized digital currencies like bitcoin will now be prohibited.

The proposed electronic money is to be backed by the assets of the Banco Central del Ecuador, the nation’s central bank. The National Assembly will oversee the new currency while the central bank will develop and integrate it into the broader financial system. The electronic money will operate in tandem with the US dollar, Ecuador’s official currency, although it is not certain what exchange rate will be established.

Following the final tally, the National Assembly issued a statement declaring that the new electronic money would offer benefits to both the underbanked and the broader economy, saying:

“Electronic money will stimulate the economy, it will be possible to attract more Ecuadorian citizens, especially those who do not have checking or savings accounts and credit cards alone. The electronic currency will be backed by the assets of the Central Bank of Ecuador.”

Community voices concern prior to vote

Prior to the debate on amendments that instituted the decentralized digital currency prohibition, members of the local bitcoin community sought to shape the final outcome.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


RADIO — Mark Passio Detained by Police for Handing out Flyers — the Bob Tuskin show

Bob Tuskin
May 23, 2013

On 5/22/2013 Mark Passio appeared on the Bob Tuskin show to share his recent experience with police at the now infamous smokedown prohibition protest in Philadelphia. Mark was illegally detained, cited, assaulted and even stolen from by federal park police. This was the same event where N.A Poe and Adam Kokesh were arrested on trumped up, imaginary charges of “assaulting an officer”


PODCAST — Joshua Blakeney Interviews Arthur Topham: “Arrested for Opposing Zionist Genocides”

The Real Deal
Dec 2013

For more on this episode of The Real Deal read this Veterans Today article by Joshua Blakeney: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/…


PODCAST/VIDEO– Interview 856 – The Beard World Order roundtable on “Meta-Conspiracy”

The Corbett Report
Apr 9, 2014

via TracesOfReality.com:

Welcome to The Beard World Order: On today’s episode Tom, James, and Guillermo take on “meta-conspiracy” and the “conspiracy to inject conspiracy.”

Do the infiltration and subversion tactics of the NSA and private intelligence contractors present a unique challenge for activists and the alternative media in the 21st century? Are “sockpuppets” and other disinfo exploits any different than the decades old COINTELPRO? What is cognitive infiltration, and how has it already succeeded in invading our minds? Have privacy norms (#aftersex) been irreversibly altered? Is there any hope left for humanity? And why would the Department of Defense be involved in the making of Ernest Goes to Camp?

Your answers to these questions, beards, beards, yeah, and more.

Enjoy.

Contact Guillermo, James, and Tom with questions, comments, and suggestions for future topics to be discussed on the show.

For a High Quality audio download of this episode, click here (right-click, and save-as).

Show Notes:

Beard World Order: Episode 01 – Uncorking Conspiracy

Wired: Why You Should Embrace Surveillance, Not Fight It

Invasion of the Data Snatchers: Big Data and the Internet of Things Means the Surveillance of Everything

Americans say they’re shopping less online. Blame the NSA.

Many say NSA news changed their behavior

How Did Snowden Change Search Behavior? New Research Shows, More Than You Might Think

Beyond Snowden: Don’t Coddle the National Security State; Smash It

Border Patrol Throw Political Bone to Civil Libertarians; Will We Fetch?

TOR Radio: Drug Culture, Bodycams, and Romanticizing the Republic

The Corbett Report: Solutions: Sousveillance (video)

ClandesTime episode 025 – Fun with FOIA

Complete list of DOD-assisted movies

The House’s NSA bill could allow more spying than ever. You call this reform?

The #aftersex selfie is a betrayal of intimacy

Bearded bands and facial hair appreciation clubs: the hairy-faced trend is back

U.S. government sues Philadelphia schools over beard policy

Beard transplants (video)


MUST READ — The coming digital anarchy

Bitcoin is giving banks a run for their money. Now the same technology threatens to eradicate social networks, stock markets, even national governments. Are we heading towards an anarchic future where centralised power of any kind will dissolve?

The same technology that powers Bitcoin can be harnessed to disrupt a range of other systems | Photo: Bloomberg News

by Matthew Sparkes, Deputy Head of Technology
Telegraph
Jun 9, 2014

The rise and rise of Bitcoin has grabbed the world’s attention, yet its devastating potential still isn’t widely understood. Yes, we all know it’s a digital currency. But the developers who worked on Bitcoin believe that it represents a technological breakthrough that could sweep into obsolescence everything from social networks to stock markets… and even governments.

In short, Bitcoin could be the gateway to a coming digital anarchy – “a catalyst for change that creates a new and different world,” to quote Jeff Garzik, one of Bitcoin’s most prolific developers.

It’s already beginning. We used to need banks to keep track of who owned what. Not any more. Bitcoin and its rivals have proved that banks can be replaced with software and clever mathematics.

And now programmers of a libertarian bent are starting to ask what else we don’t need.

A Bitcoin dispensing machine at a shopping mall in Singapore

Imagine driverless taxis roaming from city to city in search of the most lucrative fares; a sky dark with hovering drones delivering your shopping or illicit drugs. Digital anarchy could fill your lives and your nightmares with machines that answer to you, your employers, crime syndicates… or no one at all. Nearly every aspect of our lives will be uprooted.

To understand how, we need to grasp the power of the “blockchain” – a peer-to-peer ledger which creates and records agreement on contentious issues with the aid of cryptography.

A blockchain forms the beating heart of Bitcoin. In time, blockchains will power many radical, disruptive technologies that smart people are working on right now.

Until recently, we’ve needed central bodies – banks, stock markets, governments, police forces – to settle vital questions. Who owns this money? Who controls this company? Who has the right to vote in this election?

Now we have a small piece of pure, incorruptible mathematics enshrined in computer code that will allow people to solve the thorniest problems without reference to “the authorities”.

The benefits of decentralised systems will be huge: slashed overheads, improved security and (in many circumstances) the removal of the weakest link of all – greedy, corruptible, fallible humans.

But how far will disruptive effects reach? Are we rapidly approaching a singularity where, thanks to Bitcoin-like tools, centralised power of any kind will seem as archaic as the feudal system?

If the internet revolution has taught us anything, it’s that when change comes, it comes fast.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


PODCAST/VIDEO — Why We Must Oppose Bilderberg

The Corbett Report
May 30, 2014

As the Bilderbergers gather in Denmark to discuss this year’s agenda, James Corbett presents “Why We Must Oppose Bilderberg” to the We The People Anti-Bilderberg Conference taking place in Copenhagen. Learn more about the history, aims, and goals of the Bilderberg Group, why they must be opposed, and how best to do it on this special edition of The Corbett Report podcast.

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=9338

[related videos:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 858 other followers