Bayou Renaissance Man

There are fewer and fewer of us who remember when privacy was something important, and tried to allow other people their space while insisting on our own.  Sadly, the intrusion of technology into every part of our lives has all but destroyed the concept of personal privacy.  Certainly, anything and everything one says over any electronic medium must be assumed to be unsafe/not secure.

Facebook is a perfect example of a company that doesn't give a damn about your privacy.

Using a panel of 709 volunteers who shared archives of their Facebook data, Consumer Reports found that a total of 186,892 companies sent data about them to the social network. On average, each participant in the study had their data sent to Facebook by 2,230 companies. That number varied significantly, with some panelists’ data listing over 7,000 companies providing their data.  The Markup helped Consumer Reports recruit participants for the study. Participants downloaded an archive of the previous three years of their data from their Facebook settings, then provided it to Consumer Reports.

By collecting data this way, the study was able to examine a form of tracking that is normally hidden: so-called server-to-server tracking, in which personal data goes from a company’s servers to Meta’s servers. Another form of tracking, in which Meta tracking pixels are placed on company websites, is visible to users’ browsers. 

. . .

Despite its limitations, the study offers a rare look, using data directly from Meta, on how personal information is collected and aggregated online.

Meta spokesperson Emil Vazquez defended the company’s practices. “We offer a number of transparency tools to help people understand the information that businesses choose to share with us, and manage how it’s used,” Vazquez wrote in an emailed statement to The Markup.

While Meta does provide transparency tools like the one that enabled the study, Consumer Reports identified problems with them, including that the identity of many data providers is unclear from the names disclosed to users and that companies that provide services to advertisers are often allowed to ignore opt-out requests.

One company appeared in 96 percent of participants’ data: LiveRamp, a data broker based in San Francisco. But the companies sharing your online activity to Facebook aren’t just little-known data brokers. Retailers like Home Depot, Macy’s, and Walmart, all were in the top 100 most frequently seen companies in the study. Credit reporting and consumer data companies such as Experian and TransUnion’s Neustar also made the list, as did Amazon, Etsy, and PayPal.

. . .

“This type of tracking which occurs entirely outside of the user’s view is just so far outside of what people expect when they use the internet,” Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told The Markup in an interview. Fitzgerald said that while users are likely aware that Meta knows what they are doing while they are on Facebook and Instagram, “they don’t expect Meta to know what stores they walk into or what news articles they’re reading or every site they visit online.”

There's more at the link.

I've never used Facebook, because I've been aware for a long time of its electronic intrusiveness and deliberate policy of nullifying efforts at personal privacy.  Reading that report merely confirms that only those who literally don't care about keeping anything private should be using it.

If our spouses tried to spy on us the way Facebook and its corporate customers do, it would probably be grounds for divorce:  yet we ignore or even invite such intrusion every time we use such services.  What's wrong with us, and with our society, that we've been conditioned to not just allow, but welcome that? - because if we continue to use Facebook and similar "social media" services after learning about such anti-privacy policies, that's exactly what we're doing.

Peter

For the past few weeks, when one tries to look at a story on Fox News, one increasingly gets this pop-up at the link:

That pretty much eliminates Fox News as a usable source, in my opinion.

Remember, businesses do things that make money for them.  If something doesn't make money for them, why should they do it?  When Fox News - or Epoch Times, or any other news source (or any other Web site, for that matter) - demands that you allow them to invade your privacy by giving them your e-mail address and/or other contact information in order to use their services, you can be sure they're not offering anything for your benefit.  No, it's for their benefit.  They expect to make money off of you, or send you advertisements or propaganda or whatever, or track your online activities so they can make money out of selling that information to data aggregators.

Therefore, when you come across any Web site or online business demanding that you sign up in some way to use their services, just remember - it's for their benefit, not yours.  If it weren't, they wouldn't be asking for it.

Therefore, Fox News has now been added to my list of Web sites that are untrustworthy and/or never to be used.  That's no loss, of course.  One can get news almost anywhere, courtesy of a quick Internet search on the subject, much of it free of paywalls, registration and other intrusions into one's privacy.  I'll find what I need that way.

Peter

In a world where nobody seems to care about privacy any more, I suppose it's not surprising that a case about what I'd call an egregious intrusion into personal privacy has been thrown out.

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to bring back a class action lawsuit alleging four auto manufacturers had violated Washington state’s privacy laws by using vehicles’ on-board infotainment systems to record and intercept customers’ private text messages and mobile phone call logs ... the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard that a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.

In an example of the issues at stake, plaintiffs in one of the five cases filed suit against Honda in 2021, arguing that beginning in at least 2014 infotainment systems in the company’s vehicles began downloading and storing a copy of all text messages on smartphones when they were connected to the system.

An Annapolis, Maryland-based company, Berla Corporation, provides the technology to some car manufacturers but does not offer it to the general public, the lawsuit said. Once messages are downloaded, Berla’s software makes it impossible for vehicle owners to access their communications and call logs but does provide law enforcement with access, the lawsuit said.

There's more at the link.

I've warned about this before, but nothing ever seems to be done to control it, and it keeps getting worse.  Once you link your smartphone to Apple CarPlay or Android Auto or a similar app in your vehicle, your entire cellphone usage is open to scrutiny, downloading and analysis, whether you like it or not.  What's more, it's highly likely to be aggregated and sold to companies who want to use that data for targeted advertising.  Even the dealer who services your vehicle can download your cellphone data, if he has the right software - and a surprising number of them do.

Even worse, that happens when you rent a car as well.  If you link your phone to the rental vehicle, the rental company now has that access as well, as does anyone else who rents the same vehicle later and knows how to access the activity logs of previous renters.

That's why I never, ever link my cellphone to a vehicle's internal systems, no matter how convenient the latter may be.  A lot of us old farts value our privacy, and take what steps we can to safeguard it . . . although in this day and age, that's probably more comforting than effective.

Peter

Last week I published an article titled "Big Brother's unwelcome surveillance tools".  I emphasized that we have no real electronic privacy.  Now France has taken the next step and authorized its law enforcement and prosecution authorities to snoop on any cellphone user in the country.

Amidst ongoing protests in France, the country has just passed a new bill that will allow police to remotely access suspects’ cameras, microphones, and GPS on cell phones and other devices.

As reported by Le Monde, the bill has been criticized by the French people as a “snoopers” charter that allows police unfettered access to the location of its citizens. Moreover, police can activate cameras and microphones to take video and audio recordings of suspects. The bill will reportedly only apply to suspects in crimes that are punishable by a minimum of five years in jail and Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti claimed that the new provision would only affect a few dozen cases per year. During a debate over the bill yesterday, French politicians added an amendment that orders judge approval for any surveillance conducted under the scope of the bill and limits the duration of surveillance to six months, according to Le Monde.

“For organized crime, the police can have access to the sound and image of a device. This concerns any connected device: telephone, speaker microphone, computer camera, computer system of a car... all without the knowledge of the persons concerned,” French advocacy group La Quadrature du Net said in a statement on Twitter last month, machine translated by Gizmodo. “In view of the growing place of digital tools in our lives, accepting the very principle that they are transformed into police auxiliaries without our being aware of it poses a serious problem in our societies.”

There's more at the link.

So, the French government gets to define who's a "suspect".  Given the massive demonstrations across the country against President Macron's pension reforms, that makes any demonstrator or protester potentially a part of the electronic dragnet.  Even carrying a sign or shouting a slogan - perhaps even merely attending a protest - may be enough to make one a "suspect".  There's no First Amendment in France;  no guaranteed civil right to "free" speech.  (Of course, there's not very much left of that right in this country, either, what with the Biden administration openly co-opting Big Tech and social media to crack down on dissenting views - or, at least, their free expression - and encouraging news media to spout propaganda rather than disseminate actual news.)

Big Brother is gorging himself on what remains of the privacy of private citizens, in France, in the USA, and elsewhere too.  Ireland is the most recent European nation to join in the witch-hunt against free speech, and it won't be the last.  Basically, if you intend to speak freely, your privacy will be at best disregarded;  at worst, stripped from you entirely.  Human rights?  What human rights?

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Grateful thanks to commenter Steve Sky (see below) for bringing a Massachusetts case to our attention.  It seems the state government contracted with Google to install a tracking app on the smartphones of over a million residents as part of its COVID-19 control efforts.  No permission was asked or obtained from any of those on whom this app was foisted.  There's a court case ongoing, and I hope the constitutional rights of individuals are resoundingly affirmed and upheld.

An article in the New York Times examines new Internet and cellphone traffic surveillance tools being developed in Russia.

As the war in Ukraine unfolded last year, Russia’s best digital spies turned to new tools to fight an enemy on another front: those inside its own borders who opposed the war.

To aid an internal crackdown, Russian authorities had amassed an arsenal of technologies to track the online lives of citizens. After it invaded Ukraine, its demand grew for more surveillance tools. That helped stoke a cottage industry of tech contractors, which built products that have become a powerful — and novel — means of digital surveillance.

The technologies have given the police and Russia’s Federal Security Service, better known as the F.S.B., access to a buffet of snooping capabilities focused on the day-to-day use of phones and websites. The tools offer ways to track certain kinds of activity on encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal, monitor the locations of phones, identify anonymous social media users and break into people’s accounts, according to documents from Russian surveillance providers obtained by The New York Times, as well as security experts, digital activists and a person involved with the country’s digital surveillance operations.

There's much more at the link (which takes you to an archived, non-paywalled version of the article).

The thing to remember is that Russia is actually behind the curve with respect to such tools.  The USA, China and Israel (and probably other nations as well) are far ahead of them, having been doing this for literally decades.  What's more, these countries often sell and/or share their technology with each other, because it's in Big Brother's interest to help other Big Brothers keep an eye on their more troublesome citizens, so they can tell each other of interesting developments.  Whether left-wing or right-wing, Big Brothers dislike dissent, and their operatives help each other more than you'd believe.

(I had personal experience of this, in a much more technologically limited way, back in South Africa in the 1970's.  I remember a fairly large room in a major underground command center that was filled with dozens upon dozens of double-banked teleprinters, each connected through dedicated, permanent circuits to a defense command or intelligence center in another country.  The whole of NATO was represented, plus others.  This was at a time when a mandatory international arms embargo was in place against South Africa, and formal contact between those nations' armed forces and South Africa's military was strictly verboten - but that didn't stop it happening on a daily basis.  The "powers that be", even nominal enemies [some of them actually shooting at each other at the time], nevertheless recognized each other's importance and talked to each other as a matter of routine.  Most politicians probably never knew such communications existed - or, if they did, they were careful never to take official notice of it.  The same sort of cooperation is doubtless ongoing to this day, albeit technologically far more advanced and much more intrusive in every sphere, not just military.)

As we've said many times before in these pages, you have no electronic privacy whatsoever, no matter what the laws in your country may say.  Every word you say or type on an electronic network is monitored, recorded and analyzed, even if only as part of broader traffic analysis.  If you're classified as one who does not "toe the Party line", you can expect that surveillance to be considerably more intensive.  Even if you're using so-called "secure" apps like Signal, I'm quite sure that someone, somewhere, can decrypt and read your messages at will, if you come to their notice as being worthy of the investment in time and effort it will take.  For organizations like the NSA, there probably needn't be a human in the decision loop at all:  it'll be an artificial intelligence system that scans all the data they gather, looks for key words or locations or traffic patterns, and scans deeper whenever it thinks it might be fruitful.

Peter

I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that software such as ProtonMail, or Signal, or Telegram, are protected from "snooping", and that anything posted there is private and won't be revealed to anyone, even law enforcement.

Oh, yeah?

On May 10, Stephan Walder, a public prosecutor and head of the Cybercrime Competence Center in Switzerland’s Canton of Zurich, had a presentation on cybercrime at an event. Martin Steiger, a Swiss lawyer who had been live-tweeting from the event, claims Walder incidentally mentioned ProtonMail as a service provider that voluntarily offers assistance to law enforcement for real-time surveillance, without requiring an order from a federal court.

Steiger has published a blog post on ProtonMail’s alleged practices — the blog post is available in both German and English — and summarized the obligations of such service providers for cooperating with authorities under Swiss laws.

While ProtonMail provides end-to-end encryption, which prevents the company from reading the actual content of emails, it does have access to metadata. Citing the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), Steiger pointed out that metadata can be highly valuable to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Steiger has highlighted that while ProtonMail uses the fact that it’s based in Switzerland as a marketing advantage, citing strict Swiss privacy laws, the company is actually subject to local surveillance laws, and while it’s not subject to more extensive surveillance obligations, it does voluntarily help law enforcement surveillance operations, based on what Walder allegedly said.

Steiger has pointed to ProtonMail’s transparency report, where the company mentions one case where it conducted real-time surveillance of a user at the request of authorities.

“Every user of ProtonMail (or ProtonVPN) must decide for himself whether the email service is trustworthy,” Steiger said. “The difference between advertising and reality at least speaks against too much trust for ProtonMail.”

There's more at the link.

ProtonMail has (of course) denied the allegations.  (What else would one expect?)  However, I believe them.  I don't think the Swiss authorities would allow ProtonMail to continue operating unless it cooperated with their security needs and concerns.  I don't think any national government would do so.  They're too paranoid, too obsessed with being able to gain access to whatever information they decide they need - and to hell with individual privacy, legislated or otherwise.  While ProtonMail may claim that they have no access to the contents of our e-mails, I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that more than one government has figured out back-door ways to examine those contents anytime they wish.  That's the way they operate.

The same goes double for US government security agencies, of course.  They're not just paranoid, they're manic.  As Sundance has pointed out several times, the "national security state" (what he calls the Fourth Branch of Government) is the true "Deep State", and they won't tolerate anything that impedes their snooping.

Former Obama era intelligence officials, those who helped construct, organize and assemble the public-private partnership between intelligence data networks and supported social media companies, have written a letter to congress warning that any effort to break up Big Tech (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Microsoft, etc.) would be catastrophic for the national security system they have created.

Citing the information control mechanisms they assembled, vis-a-vis the ability of social media networks to control and approve what is available for the public to read and review, the intelligence officials declare that any effort to break up the private side of the intel/tech partnership will only result in less ability of the intelligence apparatus to control public opinion.

They willfully admit that open and uncensored information is adverse to the interests of the intelligence state and therefore too dangerous to permit.   They specifically argue, if the modern system created by the partnership between the U.S. government and Big Tech is not retained, the national security of the United States is compromised.

. . .

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and even Google itself, are financially and operationally dependent on the scale of the data processing system that is run by the U.S. government.  The capacity of each of the big social media companies to exist, operate and be financially viable, is dependent on the backbone of interconnected data networking, and massive data processing.

The scale of simultaneous user data-processing is not financially viable without the U.S government subsidizing it.  That’s the free coffee that cannot be duplicated in the private sector by any competing social media company.  That’s the cost and scale system behind the partnership that permits Big Tech to operate.   Ultimately, this is what the intelligence apparatus needs to keep hidden from the American (and global) public.

. . .

Essentially, the U.S. government is in control of our social media networking.

Again, more at the link.

There is no privacy on the Internet.  Period.  That's the way it is.  Big Brother is watching us, and won't permit or tolerate any attempt by anybody to get around that.  If you don't believe that, try encoding or encrypting the text in a normal e-mail sent via any service you wish, and see whether it gets through or not.  I've heard more than a few reports, from people who've tried it, that the recipients didn't receive it, or it arrived "garbled" and unreadable, or that a critical attachment was missing.  Same goes for images you send.  Steganography is well-known, and there are filters that specifically examine images to see whether anything about them suggests that it's being used.  If those filters are tripped, you can bet your bottom dollar that your image will be copied and sent to people and agencies with no sense of humor at all, and you'll come under some pretty intensive scrutiny.

Every single electron or pixel that goes from our computers to others, or arrives on our computers, has been and is being scanned multiple times as it passes through various intermediate servers.  We have no electronic privacy whatsoever, whether we like it or not.  If you want to keep something private, talk about it or communicate through non-electronic media:  and even then, unless your communication is hand-carried from source to destination, don't assume it'll remain private.  Why else do you think the US Postal Service copies the address of every single item of post it handles, and keeps that information on hand?  There's no good operational reason to do so, except to snoop on what people are sending to whom.

Our government and its security services operate in a permanent persecution complex fueled by distrust and paranoia.  Any attempt to avoid or evade their scrutiny is, from their perspective, anomalous and therefore suspicious conduct.  That's the bottom line.  The only solution I can see comes, again, from Sundance:

The United States federal police force, the FBI, is politically weaponized against American citizens.

The United States intelligence community is politically weaponized against American citizens.

The United States justice department, the DOJ, is politically weaponized against American citizens.

We need to take down the four pillars that support the Fourth Branch of Government.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), the Dept of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), all need to be dissolved.

After those four pillars are removed, the Patriot Act needs to be abolished and the FBI placed under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Marshals service.

Agreed!

Peter

Motor Trend has a very interesting article showing how much data your car is gathering about you, and to whom it's reporting it - directly and indirectly.

What if there was a way for you to determine whether your car is collecting data and sending it to a third party? It's not an unreasonable or paranoid question to ask in our age of software-defined vehicles and connected cars. That's the aim of Privacy4Cars' new free privacy report service that gives owners a peek into what sort of data is harvested from their cars, how it's used, and who it's sent to ... Privacy4Cars generates a sort of window sticker, like the one you get with your new car outlining its features, fuel economy, pricing, and more, but for data use.

Simply go to https://vehicleprivacyreport.com/ and enter your ride's Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).  You may be surprised at what you learn.

Vehicle manufacturers are cashing in on all the information they collect from you.  They resell it in a number of ways.  In so many words, you've become a permanent cash cow for them, first by buying your vehicle, and then by continuing to use it.  I don't recall the manufacturers ever explaining that to us except in the most veiled, innocuous terms.

If that makes you angry, you aren't alone.

Peter

Neil Oliver points out that in Britain, the powers that be are doing a bait-and-switch with their proposed Digital ID expansion.  I haven't been able to find a transcript of his talk (which can normally be found at GBNews), but his message is so important that I've embedded the video, even without the transcript.  I highly recommend that you take eleven minutes out of your day to watch it.

Here's a key passage, speaking about the "bait" of the prospect of electric vehicles replacing all our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.

"Most of us won't have any sort of car at all.  Unless the demand for cars - any sort of cars - drops drastically, there's no way to hit the emissions targets our governments have loudly committed us to.  That's where the "15-minute cities" come in.  We'll be expected to walk or cycle.  Do you see the scam yet?  They advertise a world of electric cars, but what we'll end up buying is lives lived on foot, within 15 minutes of our homes."

That's about the size of it, in America as much as in Britain.  Back in pre-Industrial-Revolution times, most people were born, grew up, lived, worked, grew old and died within twenty miles of their birthplace - often less than that.  That's because travel was too difficult and too costly;  animal-powered, without roads worthy of the name, and very time-consuming.  Only the wealthy, or those making a living by moving goods and services from one place to another, could afford such travel.  In so many words, the "Green Revolution" is angling to push us all back into precisely that sort of lifestyle, where we simply can't travel much - whether we want to or not.

(What that means for folks who live out in the country, or in small towns, is left to the imagination.  In reality, the success of the 15-minute city project means that people like that will be forced to move to cities where they don't want to live, to "enjoy" a lifestyle that is anathema to them.  So much for personal freedom!)

Digital ID is yet another scam, a control freak's wet dream.  At present it's said to be "opt-in only":  if we don't want it, we won't be forced into it.  However, we all know that's nothing more than a sop to public opinion.  If the only way to access your state pension, or buy a ticket on a bus or train or aircraft, or purchase what you need, is to use your digital ID, then you have no option at all.  Worse, if we all carry ID that can be electronically scanned at any place, at any time, we will have no privacy left whatsoever.

If a crime is committed, anyone within a given distance of it will be traced, and can be interrogated at need.  We won't be able to buy or sell anything without it, because transactions will become cashless, built around the use of a digital ID to identify the purchaser (and, in the case of a private transaction, the seller).  Just think of the drools of eagerness of those wanting to ban private firearms sales.  They could identify both buyer and seller with trivial ease, just by looking back through our movements, keyed to our digital ID, and our financial transactions, keyed in the same way.  The same goes for anything and everything else.

Our privacy is already in rags and tatters.  Compulsory, enforced digital ID will destroy it completely.

Peter

Here's a short (15-minute) video clip outlining what the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) will mean.  The video speaks about the British banking system, but exactly the same thing would happen in the US banking system if CBDC's are introduced, and cash is outlawed.

THIS VIDEO IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.  Please don't dismiss it, or say "I don't have time to watch it".  Once you've seen it, you'll understand - and I hope you'll share it with your family and friends.  Too many people are complacent about what CBDC's mean for our financial future, without considering their very real dangers and the implications for control over almost every aspect of our lives.

Makes you think . . . doesn't it?

Peter

The Gateway Pundit claims to have identified a technical "hack" that may allow voting machines and computer systems to alter the vote on a ballot paper even before it's counted - and in a way that's untraceable.

There’s an election hack built before the 2020 election that can instantaneously swap the bubbles on your ballot. The “filled in” bubble of your candidate is moved to the hackers’ preferred candidate and swapped out with that empty bubble. The change is made before the “ballot Image” is stored on the election server and before it’s tabulated. By using the voter’s own marking style & penmanship, these changes are undetectable to the human eye.

. . .

Prior to the election, the attacker specifies the template, which races they want to affect (Pres, Senate, etc), and by how much. While ballots are being scanned, this malicious software keeps a running tally of the “real” ballot results. Ballot images are changed on the fly to achieve the desired election outcome. To avoid detection, attackers can specify just enough manipulated images to win the race, but not by alarming amounts. The only way to catch this hack is to compare the original paper ballot to the ballot image.

There's more at the link, including an animated simulation of how the attack works and a description of a test run by university students that demonstrated just how easy this is.  Highly recommended reading.

I have no idea whether or not this "hack" can be applied so widely as to imperil the results of an election;  but it looks feasible to this outsider.  I suppose the only way to prevent it would be to retain a copy of the original paper ballot, to which a given sample of the machine-counted ballot images could be compared;  but that would mean having a serial number or some other identifiable feature on every ballot, which in turn might impair the "secret ballot" pledge of confidentiality.  Nevertheless, given the widespread electoral shenanigans we saw in 2020 and have already seen this year, this may be just another weapon in the electoral fraud arsenal - a particularly effective one, since it's all but untraceable.

Can any readers comment?

Peter

A couple of years ago I wrote two articles about the danger of defending yourself in a progressive, left-wing, politically correct environment, such as is found in many "blue" cities and states.  I made the point that the authorities there are increasingly going after those defending themselves, rather than those who attack them, due to political favoritism.

I emphasized the need for discretion, and to be aware of public safety systems that might be used against you, no matter how legitimate your actions might be according to the letter of the law.  Among other dangers are surveillance cameras.  I noted, in the first of the articles linked above:

Are there security cameras on businesses or buildings overlooking where you might have to act?  (Don't forget innocuous-looking devices such as smart doorbells in residential areas - video from them has been used to catch criminals.)  What about cameras mounted on light poles or buildings to cover the street? ... you may be recorded on video and audio by such systems, providing evidence that may be used to identify, arrest and convict you.  Therefore, if you might have to take such action, you'll need to take that into account - particularly by avoiding areas where those are major concerns, or remaining as concealed as possible, or making yourself hard to recognize, while doing what's necessary and exiting the area.

(Law enforcement is already voicing concerns that face masks, mandatory in many areas thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, will stop facial recognition systems from working correctly.  I imagine large, dark sunglasses in combination with a face mask will render one almost unrecognizable.  See?  Even pandemics have upsides!  However, facial recognition isn't the only risk.  Gait analysis can also be used to identify you in security camera footage.  There are ways to defeat such analysis, but we don't have space or time to go into them here.)

There's more at the link.

The danger from such cameras is growing greater by the day, particularly because prosecutors and law enforcement authorities are increasingly trying to get access to recordings by any surveillance camera anywhere, whether or not the owners agree.  Here are wo examples from this week's news headlines.  Click either one to be taken to the article concerned.

Those who still think they have even a shred of privacy outside the four walls of their own homes should please take note.  In this day and age, with surveillance and security technology all over big cities, we have no - repeat, NO - expectation of privacy at all in public.  It can't be assumed, it can't be relied upon, and expectations of privacy most certainly can't be used to quibble about surveillance footage of us when we're about our lawful occasions.  Surveillance is now ubiquitous, and no matter how distasteful we may find it, our courts have ruled that in public, it's legal.

Ergo:  don't do anything in public that, even though legal, might be construed as illegal or politically incorrect - not unless you absolutely have to do so.  If push comes to shove and you have no choice, assume you're going to be seen and recorded when you do so.

If Antifa and BLM start their shenanigans again, or mass riots or demonstrations break out in your city or town, or crime is escalating beyond the ability of the police to control it ... move.  Get away from the danger area, certainly temporarily, and if possible permanently.  You can't assume that your right to own property and be secure in it, or your right to privacy, will be any protection at all against such pressures, particularly when "woke" prosecutors may use you as a scapegoat or a public example of political incorrectness.  It doesn't matter what the law says;  it matters how those who enforce the law interpret and apply it.

That advice may sound like cowardice to some, but it's the only real protection you have.  If you defend yourself against criminal attack or unrest, you may end up being the one charged with an offence, as we saw in New York City just last week.

Conduct yourself accordingly.

Peter

A friend reposted this on one of her social media pages.  I won't link to it or identify her, in order to preserve her anonymity:  but I think her point is worth sharing.  The link below, and highlights in orange, are my emphasis.

The covid bull**** did us all a favor. I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out for a minute. All the people demanding more lockdowns, that the unvaccinated be punished, that vaccine passports be required, that mask mandates remain in place forever, and all that **** are all speaking loudly and openly about it. Those are the people who are a threat to anyone who wants to remain free. They are the people who will report your activities to the government. They are the secret police. They're the people who will expose the Jews hiding in your attic, metaphorically. Take careful note of who those people are. Smile. Be polite. Tell them nothing. Do not invite them to your home. Do not make friends with them. Watch your communications carefully when they're around, and don't talk to any of their friends or family they haven't cut off. Those people may not be quite so far gone, but they are also an information security risk, because they will casually and unthinkingly tell their friend in the secret police anything you tell them. Because of this covid disaster, we no longer have to wonder who in our local area is a threat. They have self-identified, and we should act accordingly.

Indeed.  As our forebears were reminded during World War II:

In this day and age, when independent, questioning thinkers are regarded with profound suspicion by a "deep state" that's determined to force everybody into submission and compel compliance, keeping a low profile is more important than ever for those with a lot to lose.  Let the iceberg be our guide.  There's a whole lot more of it below the surface, out of sight, than is visible above.

Peter

I received an e-mail yesterday from a Canadian reader calling himself "Algyploreable".  He's preparing for hard times, just as many of us are, and recounts this incident.

[We have] a "larder" in our spare room that we resupply as we use and we have finally taken the plunge and had a safe installed so that we can have a ready supply of cash/silver on hand. We cashed out a chunk of our investments, the monetary value of which was deposited with our bank here in Canada.

Yesterday I went to our local branch to ask how much notice I needed to give to withdraw $XX thousand in cash, assuming that it would be 24/48hrs. The young teller I was speaking to said that her supervisor was on vacation until next week but if I came back on Monday she could help me. I told her that I needed the money by Friday, and that there must be someone who could facilitate that. She started an email exchange with the branch manager, asking me a question every now and then. One of the questions was "are you buying something?". Canadian banks were only too happy to freeze customer accounts at the behest of the Turdeau government during the Trucker Convoy, so I thought I'd better play their game and told her I was indeed buying a piece of equipment. After much to and fro between the teller and the manager she told me that because the amount was over $25000 a request would have to be put in to a team at head office to see if they would authorize the release of the money. If the authorization was granted I could hopefully get the money in 10 days. This is money that had been deposited by a recognized investment institution......I had not rolled in the week before with a duffel bag full of soiled twenties to deposit.

I became quite angry at this point, however I was cognizant that I was on many cameras and that other tellers were in earshot. I had my hands open, palms down on the counter (no fists) and I told the teller very politely that I wanted "MY" money by the weekend, not whenever the bank authorized me to get it. This led to a flurry of email exchanges and I was asked to take a seat and the manager would come and speak to me. The manager attempted to explain that the steps put in place were for my security as most people don't take that amount in cash from the bank. He suggested that I get a bankers draft to pay for the item I was buying. Time to play their game again. I told him that the guy selling the equipment was giving me a fantastic deal but that he only wanted cash and it needed to be by the weekend. The manager said that he was unable to process that amount in cash without putting in a request to "the team", and asked if I could wait. When I told him I couldn't he did try to come up with a solution (credit where it's due). As long as the amount was under $25000 he was able to authorize that amount, however he would have to order the cash to be delivered next week as they don't hold that amount at the branch. He could also increase my daily cash withdrawal limit so that I could make up the lump sum shortfall through ATM withdrawals over a period of time. I pointed out that if he could authorize amounts under $25000 that I would be happy to do numerous withdrawals that way, over a couple of weeks. Apparently "the team" views that as one withdrawal, but if I could wait three or four months between those withdrawals it wouldn't raise any flags. Once I agreed to the lump sum and daily ATM increase it was time to ask some questions again......all done with a smile and a concerned tone. The old non-conspiratorial me would have told him where to go, but in this brave new Canada I concocted a story that even impressed me. If things go as planned I will have all MY money in the safe by the end of next week.

This is a cautionary tale for Canadians, I have no idea what the banking establishment in the US is up to. It is very obvious here that the bank does not consider your money to be yours and needs some form of government approval for the withdrawal of large sums. Having to wait for the branch to have the required funds on hand is one thing, but needing authorization to withdraw your own money, regardless of the amount, is mind-boggling. When SHTF I can only imagine what an eye-opener it will be for people who think they can waltz into the bank and withdraw their savings. Cash will indeed be king for a while, for those who have it. Any of your Canadian readers might want to think about turning that savings account at the bank into useable funds now while the going is (relatively) good.

I'm sure US banks will be equally obstructionist, not necessarily because they want to, but because government agencies like the IRS want to keep track of big sums in cash.  I was told some years ago by a banking official in Tennessee that if a customer demanded a substantial sum in cash, he'd most likely get it in new banknotes, in serial number order, as received from the printing facility.  That means the IRS, DEA and other agencies know where the block of $100 notes, serial numbers XXXX1 through XXXX9, have gone.  If they show up in the course of normal commerce, the agencies can follow individual banknotes back through the system to figure out where and when they first appeared.  That, in turn, may help identify what that customer bought with them, and possibly where and from whom.  It's not perfect, but it's a lot easier than trying to track used banknotes in no particular sequence.

(This is also why central bank digital currency, or CBDC, is such an attractive concept to the powers that be.  It would completely supplant paper money or coins.  Your income, plus any government support, etc., would be deposited directly into your CBDC account, and you'd spend it by transferring sums from that account to whoever you were buying from.  There would be no cash withdrawals, and every transaction would be traceable.  You'd lose all privacy when it came to buying and selling.  The IRS would know every penny you received and how you spent it;  the DEA, FBI and other agencies would be able to follow your transactions and decide whether any appeared "suspicious", and if so what they were going to do about them;  and so on.  Even better, after an initial period (to allow you to hand over your existing cash in exchange for CBDC's), the use of existing cash can be banned, and the notes declared worthless.  If you happen to have a lot of cash on hand that you daren't deposit, for fear the IRS or others would ask questions about where it came from and its tax status, you'd lose your money. It's a statist's wet dream.)

Miss D. and I aren't wealthy, but we've long made it our policy to keep at least one month's routine expenditure on hand, in cash, just in case.  It won't go far if things go to hell in a handbasket, but if we hit an interruption in normal banking for a few weeks, it'll help keep our heads above water.  I'd love to increase that to six months' supply of cash, but that simply isn't feasible on our income.  (On the other hand, we do have a small stash of 1oz. silver rounds, which are fairly readily accepted by people in our area as a cash equivalent, and they'd stretch our emergency cash further.)  I hope and trust that my readers have made similar arrangements, even if it's only one week's cash on hand.  It can make a powerful difference when the lights go out, and credit or debit cards can no longer be used.

Have any readers recently tried to withdraw large sums in cash in the USA?  How did it go?  Any problems?  Please tell us about them in Comments.

Peter

I accept that businesses need to follow their goods through the supply chain, from ordering through shipping to arrival at their stores.  However, until now there's been a cutoff point:  when a customer buys the item, it's normally not been tracked out of the store into their homes, and while they're using it.  There's been at least a pretense of privacy.

That may be changing with a new tracking technology.

Wiliot, based in Caesarea, Israel, is one of a growing number of companies building tools aimed at monitoring goods as they move through distribution channels. The company says its tags are small and cheap enough for use in the many crates and carriers agriculture shippers use to get their products to markets.

. . .

The size of the devices is aimed at solving a gray area in supply chains. Typically, goods are tracked through devices in shipping containers and truck trailers, but because of the expense the technology is less common in smaller shipments.

“Now, everyday things, very ordinary things, our clothing, vaccine vials, plastic crates, plastic pallets, cardboard boxes, bags of lettuce—all of that will be linked to the internet,” said Stephen Statler, Wiliot’s senior vice president of marketing.

The tags don’t require batteries, cost 10 cents apiece and are connected to the cloud by Bluetooth, Mr. Statler said.

. . .

The tracking at the crate level could also provide a safeguard against theft, Wiliot says, because of the visibility the tags provide ... “The ability to see in real time that every crate of fruit and vegetables are being kept at the right temperature throughout the transportation process and to know exactly how much time has elapsed since they were harvested in the field until it arrives at the branch is nothing short of revolutionary,” said Zvika Fishheimer, Shufersal’s executive vice president.

There's more at the link.

This will undoubtedly help companies in all the ways listed in the article.  However, if the tags are so small (and will undoubtedly get smaller as technology improves), there's nothing to stop any company embedding them into products in such a way that consumers won't notice them, and therefore won't remove them after purchasing their goods.  That means manufacturers (and anyone else prepared to pay for the information) can see where the goods go after purchase, how they're treated, the environmental conditions in which they're kept or used (e.g. the temperature at which you keep your home), and a host of other information.  All that could be collected without your knowing anything about it.  It might even extend to outsiders being able to inventory the contents of your pantry or closet.  Consider how a company or bureaucrat might use such information:

• "Hey - this guy's got two dozen cans of corned beef.  He must be a prepper!  If an emergency arises, we can confiscate his food stash!"
• "Hello, ma'am.  This is your private investigator speaking.  On his last three business trips, your husband bought packets of condoms and took them back to his hotel.  We tracked them.  He didn't take them home with him."
• "Bob's got ten guns and several thousand rounds of ammunition.  They don't show up on official records, so he must be buying them privately or in small amounts.  When it's time to confiscate citizens' weapons, he'll be a good place to start."
• "Mary has a lot of medications in her bathroom.  Putting them together, we've got a pretty good idea of her probable medical condition.  She's not a good risk for life insurance, so let's decline her application."

Get the idea?

Pretty soon we're going to be living in a society where nothing whatsoever is private, and privacy restrictions are respected in the breach rather than the observance.  I grew up in a world where personal privacy was respected, and I absolutely loathe the prospect of giving this sort of access to the details of my life to anyone . . . but I guess people like me are in a minority these days.

Peter

It's an old, trite, but all-too-often true statement that "Something free is worth what you paid for it".  It's as true in the technology sphere as in any other, as users valuing their online privacy are reminded every time there's a new scandal about their personal information and online activities being monitored, sold and/or leaked.

Search engine DuckDuckGo is the latest to be caught.

The privacy-focused company offers a search engine that claims not to track people’s searches, or behavior, and also doesn't build user profiles that can be used to display personalized advertising.

Search engine aside, DuckDuckGo also offers a mobile browser(opens in new tab) of the same name, but this has raised concerns, as although this promises to block hidden third-party trackers, some from a certain tech giant are allowed to continue operating.

Namely, while Google’s and Facebook’s trackers are being blocked, those of Microsoft are allowed to continue running. Zach Edwards, the security researcher who first discovered the issue, later also found that trackers related to the bing.com and linkedin.com domains were also being allowed through the blocks. 

The news quickly drew in crowds of dissatisfied users, with DuckDuckGo founder and CEO Gabriel Weinberg, soon chiming in to confirm the authenticity of the findings ... What remains unknown is why the company who is known for its transparency decided to keep this agreement a secret for as long as it could.

In a statement ... Weinberg said that DuckDuckGo offers “above-and-beyond protection” other browsers don’t even think of doing, but that the company “never promised” full anonymity(opens in new tab) when browsing.

There's more at the link.

"Never promised", eh?  I wonder what Mr. Weinberg meant by asking users whether they're "tired of being tracked online", then promising that DuckDuckGo "can help".  The company also offers "privacy protection for any device".  Sounds a lot like promises to me . . . yet now we find that those affirmations weren't promises, or guarantees, or binding.  How would we feel if our partners and spouses treated us like that?  Would we ever trust them again?  I think not - so why should we trust DuckDuckGo?  As for it being "known for its transparency" . . . apparently not so much.

This demonstrates yet again that, if you can't figure out what product a company is selling, you're the product.  We aren't paying DuckDuckGo for its services, yet the company is making money out of us by getting paid for information about our online activities.  Our privacy, which we value, and which the company uses as a ploy to entice us to use its services, is in fact negated rather than enhanced if we use its search engine and/or browser.  In so many words, the company has lied to us by omission, rather than deliberate commission.

I don't know of any company that can be trusted absolutely when it comes to our online privacy.  The best I've been able to find so far, and assess through user comments, is the Brave browser's search engine.  I don't have the knowledge or resources to test its claims about privacy, but nobody's debunked those claims yet (at least publicly).  I also note that a great many intrusive Web sites, packed with trackers and analytic software, don't work as well using Brave as they do using other browsers.  I'm guessing that's because they're trying to force Brave to provide the information they want, and the browser isn't doing so.  I use that as a good litmus test for whether a site is worth visiting.  If it doesn't play well with Brave, it raises a caution flag as far as I'm concerned.  (Brave helpfully tells you how many trackers and other intrusive software a given site is trying to load.  Some of the totals are startlingly high.  For example, as I write these words while checking in another browser window, the Wall Street Journal currently tries to load 36;  Fox News, 35;  Accuweather, 30;  and CNN, 21.  Why do they need all that information about you?  They don't - they want to make money by selling it to other companies.)

Dad always told me, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is".  I suggest every "free" product, and every promise of privacy made by Big Tech, should be viewed in that light.  And, yes, we have to accept that we're going to be tracked online no matter how many precautions we take.  However, I'm still going to make that as difficult as possible, as a matter of basic principle.  Why make it easy for the intrusive b******s?

Peter

It seems that muting your microphone when on a video call . . . doesn't.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison investigated “many popular apps” to determine the extent that video conferencing apps capture data while users employ the in-software ‘mute’ button.

According to a university press release, their findings were substantial:

They used runtime binary analysis tools to trace raw audio in popular video conferencing applications as the audio traveled from the app to the computer audio driver and then to the network while the app was muted.

They found that all of the apps they tested occasionally gather raw audio data while mute is activated, with one popular app gathering information and delivering data to its server at the same rate regardless of whether the microphone is muted or not.

. . .

In other words: grad students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison were able to build machine learning models capable of determining what a teleconference app user was doing while their microphone was muted with greater than 80% accuracy.

File under: Imagine what Google or Microsoft could do with their massive AI models. Yikes!

There's more at the link, including ways to "double-mute" your microphone to overcome such snooping.

I'd love to know how many companies are using such software to "listen in" to what their work-from-home employees are really doing.  I'm willing to bet it won't be a small proportion.  This is yet another way in which our privacy is being degraded and ignored.

Peter

Central bank digital currencies (CBDC's) have been spoken of in theoretical terms for many years, but they're now becoming reality.  Three nations, including China, have already introduced them on a limited scale, and the USA is actively considering it too.  They promise (or should that be "threaten"?) a whole new way of managing our money - or, rather, letting the powers that be manage how much we have and what we do with it.

For an excellent introduction to CBDC's, see this article by Nick Corbishley.  It sums up their pro's and con's in a concise manner, and outlines the dangers they pose to individual rights and freedoms.  Here's an excerpt.

So how could CBDCs impact our lives? Here are four of the most important ways:

It will grant central banks far more power over our payment behavior. A central bank digital currency system will technically no longer require middlemen such as banks or credit card companies.

. . .

That power could be used to “program” our spending ... The Fed could directly subtract taxes and fees from any account, in real time, with every transaction or paycheck, if it wished. There could be no more tax evasion; the Fed would have a complete record of every transaction made by everyone. Money laundering, terrorist financing, any other unapproved transaction would become extremely difficult. Fines, such as for speeding or jaywalking, could be levied in real time, if CBDC accounts were connected to a network of “smart city” surveillance. Nor would there be any need to mail out stimulus checks, tax refunds, or other benefits, such as universal basic income payments. Such money could just be deposited directly into accounts ... Other potential forms of programming applications include setting expiry dates for stimulus funds or welfare payments to encourage users to spend it quickly ... Combining digital currencies with digital IDs while phasing out, or even banning, the use of cash would grant governments and central banks the ability not only to track every purchase we make but also to determine what we can and cannot spend out money on.

. . .

Financial exclusion on steroids. One of the most important benefits of cash is its universality, making it a vital public good, particularly for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Also excluded in a purely cashless society would be anyone who objected to having others spy on their transactions ... Lyons warns that CBDCs, “if not deliberately and carefully constrained in advance by law … have the potential to become even more than a technocratic central planner’s dream. They could represent the single greatest expansion of totalitarian power in history.”

There's more at the link.

Sundance notes, and warns:

The entry into a digital currency, needs a digital identity ... A digital currency allows ultimate control on a global basis by a one world government, or western system of collective governments, that can assign value.  No other mechanism will have as much control over the life of a person than a digital currency that will create a system of transactional credits and debits, perhaps also influenced by your social credit score.

The digital currency requires a digital identity in order for apportionment based on your value to society.  This is essentially an extension of the Fabian mindset into the world of financial transactions and monetary evaluations.  Fabians believed that some form of socioeconomic tribunal would be needed in order for each citizen to be quantified according to their “worth” to society.  The Chinese social credit score is a variant of that same concept.

The phrase “you didn’t build that,” when espoused by former President Obama and current Senator Elizabeth Warren is also based on this collective worldview. Both believe that individuals do not succeed independently, but rather gain their ability to grow wealth by using the resources of the larger society, infrastructure, labor and education.  The phrase “it takes a village” to raise a child, as espoused by Hillary Clinton is another variant of the same collective advocacy.

A digital currency and digital identity is not a conspiracy theory, these “global leaders” are explaining it to us out loud.  However, I am concerned that most will not hear it, or understand it, until it is too late.

Again, more at the link.

I agree with Sundance:  a CBDC is effectively the most sweeping control measure yet considered by a government over its citizens - so much so that they may devolve from 'citizens' into 'subjects', because their spending (and thus their actions and freedom of expression) might be subject to far stricter control, if a government wishes to exercise it.  That's what China has done with its social credit system.  If the "woke" mentality prevails in this country, you can imagine how much power CBDC's would give to those who want to crush individual rights and freedoms.

The trouble is, the sheer size of modern populations may make something like a CBDC inevitable.  Take, for example, the growing pressure to introduce some form of Universal Basic Income allowance.  In an era of massive unemployment, with little prospect of enough jobs being created to absorb people back into the workforce, UBI may be unavoidable - although one hopes it would fold into itself all the other allowances, grants, benefits and entitlement programs currently proliferating all over the sociopolitical landscape.  If UBI were to incorporate and replace Social Security, welfare payments, and they many other government payments and allowances out there, it would be both easier to fund and produce a greatly streamlined system of state assistance.  However, to do so, it would have to be centrally controlled, with measures to limit fraud and ensure prompt distribution of benefits.  A CBDC is probably the single most efficient way to do that, and politicians and bureaucrats will emphasize that.  (Also, of course, politicians and bureaucrats will consider a CBDC's potential for social control to be a feature, not a bug.  Their minds work that way.)

There's also the real danger that CBDC's might allow politicians to funnel funds to their supporters (individuals and groups) without it being noticed by the general public.  Take, for example, the calls for "reparations for slavery", or demands for public assistance to illegal aliens.  A left-wing administration could simply program the CBDC accounts of such individuals to get money every month, but the details would be lost in the clutter of all the other CBDC payments each month.  It would be hard to tell that an extra few hundred or few thousand dollars were being surreptitiously paid out to chosen people, provided the recipients kept their mouths shut about it.  It may even be illegal to spend public funds on some of those purposes - but in the absence of public accounting, who's to know?  Such illegal disbursements could be disguised under any number of other labels, and absent a forensic audit, nobody will ever know about them.

If you haven't thought much, or read up about, CBDC's and their implications, you really should do so.  It's the biggest threat to a cash economy that's yet arisen, and I think it's inevitably going to be foisted on us whether we like it or not.  The extent to which we can retain at least some limited financial independence will depend on electing politicians who are prepared to support that, rather than grab for as much power as they can get.  It's very hard to find politicians like that.

Peter

Since 2014 American drivers have had to put up with a "black box" device that automatically records various items of information about their vehicle and how they're driving it.  Those recordings can be - and have been - extracted from vehicles after accidents and used as evidence to exonerate, or convict, their drivers.  Nobody knows exactly how much information is recorded, or what it is, as manufacturers are free to design their recording devices as they please without having to tell their customers all about them.

Based on a separate NHTSA regulation passed in 2012, if a vehicle today does have an event data recorder, it must track 15 specific data points, including speed, steering, braking, acceleration, seatbelt use, and, in the event of a crash, force of impact and whether airbags deployed.

Depending on the automaker and car model, an event data recorder may capture many more functions, though car companies aren't required to disclose exactly what those are.

There's more at the link.

It's rumored that with the advent of automated driving systems, the recordings will basically cover anything and everything a driver does, from eye movements, to body posture, to hours behind the wheel, to speed, cornering and all the rest.  GM's OnStar and similar services from other manufacturers have long been able to listen to conversations inside your vehicle, slow down or stop it if requested by police, and perform many other privacy-intrusive functions without your knowledge.  The new technology is simply a more advanced version of what's been with us for a couple of decades.

Now Europe is to face the same thing, if not even more intrusive.

Starting this summer, all new cars sold in the EU will by law contain a ‘black box’ accessible by authorities that records driving data.

From July 6, 2022, all car manufacturers will be forced to fit new models with a system that keeps track of technical data.

The data recorded will include “the vehicle’s speed, braking, steering wheel angle, its incline on the road, and whether the vehicle’s various safety systems were in operation, starting with seatbelts.”

. . .

Authorities claim the data will be “anonymized,” meaning the information can’t be used to identify the owner of the vehicle, although only the incredibly naive would plausibly believe that.

For decades, government have been pushing for all cars to be fitted with black boxes that track location data.

The ultimate dystopian scenario involves giving police the power to utilize similar technology to completely disable the functioning of a vehicle if the driver is deemed to have committed an infraction.

This doesn’t need to be a criminal offense, if the pursuit of social credit score schemes continues to become more invasive, it would eventually be used as a form of punishment for everything from unpaid utility bills to offensive comments posted on social media.

Again, more at the link.

I hadn't thought of the use of such devices in conjunction with "social credit score schemes", but it's entirely feasible.  Imagine what would happen if insurance companies were to refuse to insure drivers who did not allow them to access their vehicle's "black box" on demand?  That would take those drivers off the road as effectively as confiscating their vehicle.  The insurers could then use the data they obtain to analyze what they consider "risky behavior", and use that to inform other coverage (life insurance, health insurance, etc.).  Those defined as "risky" due to their driving behavior might find themselves severely penalized and restricted in many other areas as well.  For example, what if no landlord will rent to a "risky" tenant?

That's a scary thought . . . but it's by no means impossible.

Peter

I've had conversations with a number of readers during the past few days.  It started with their being unhappy that I won't acknowledge or go into detail about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  (Turns out that those who believe in such theories - and it is almost a religious belief, because they won't listen to, or read, or investigate, or give even the time of day to fact-based analyses like the exhaustive investigations published by Popular Mechanics - aren't very tolerant of those who don't, particularly when the latter - including me - dismiss such theories as irrelevant.)  From there, the discussion segued into what's going to happen when the Biden administration inevitably overreaches itself, and provokes active resistance.  (Let's be blunt - their perspective is "when it provokes a civil war".  I'm still hoping and praying that can be averted.)

There are many dimensions to that problem, but I'd like to point out that the administration will deploy every force, trick and tactic at its disposal to squash such rebellion the moment it starts.  They'll reason that if they very publicly destroy such resistance, the rest of the country will be cowed into submission.  I think it'll go something like this with the first, or the first few, incidents of rebellion.

• The resistance will turn violent, possibly lethal, and some government officers and bureaucrats will be prevented from doing their job.  Some may be hurt or killed.
• The powers that be will flood that location with uniformed police, informants, left-wing fellow travelers (think BLM and Antifa), and anyone else they can use to intimidate those who dare stand against them.  The press - as always, eager allies of the Biden administration - will cover the response in admiring, boot-licking terms.
• The protections offered by our constitution to individual civil rights will be comprehensively ignored.  Premises will be searched without warrant, drivers will be stopped without probable cause, individuals will be detained for questioning - possibly for days, perhaps even weeks or months - without access to lawyers, etc.  (See the response to the Boston bombing for evidence of that in action.  Civil rights were effectively disregarded - and many citizens actually approved, and went along with it.)
• These measures will be publicly justified as a response to "right-wing extremism" or "domestic terrorism", and any disagreement with them will be ruthlessly steamrollered.  It's possible that voicing such disquiet may be treated as evidence that you're a terrorist too, and therefore you should be treated as such.
• Those responsible for the disruption will be given "show trials", with as many charges as possible levied against them, and will be given consecutive prison sentences on each of them, to ensure they stay locked up for a good long time.
• The area will then be declared "pacified".  The media will wrap up everything in nice, congratulatory ribbons and bows, and the government will assure citizens that it was "justified" in disregarding the Constitution, thanks to the immediate, clear and present danger posed by resistance to its decrees.

If you think something different will happen, I urge you to consider the following evidence to the contrary.

• Law enforcement agencies and officers are already militarized to an appalling extent, including armored vehicles being essentially given free of charge to agencies that request them.  Give such people toys, and they'll want to play with them - otherwise, what's the point?
• There's a strong movement on the progressive left to neuter or abolish local law enforcement agencies, and instead federalize the police to form a national force.  Such a force will operate under federal mandates, not local;  and that means local laws and protections for citizens under State constitutions may not be followed.  (See the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005:  I wrote about that very problem in the third and fourth of my after-action reports.)
• News media coverage of such problems is going to be overwhelmingly pro-progressive-left individuals and talking points, and virulently opposed to anything and anyone else.  (It is already, so why would it be any different in an emergency?  The media would simply be motivated to greater efforts.)
• Any opposition would be treated as active resistance, and intimidated or punished out of existence.  If in doubt, refer to how members of our armed services who object to forced vaccination are currently being treated, threatened, discouraged or even dismissed.  "Get with the program, or else!"

No, open rebellion will be ruthlessly, even viciously suppressed at first, in an attempt to scare anybody else even thinking about it into "running scared".

However, open rebellion isn't the best way to begin such opposition.  Aesop at Raconteur Report has a nasty sense of humor in his discussion of the possibilities, to which I'll refer you without further comment.  Of course, it goes without saying that his ideas are nothing but rampant speculation, and he isn't suggesting for a moment that you, or I, or anyone should do anything illegal.  Perish the thought!  (Although I did laugh out loud at the suggestion of one of his commenters:  "Be the cork in the asshole of progressivism!")

Also, make it your business to keep a record of every progressive sympathizer, activist, legislator, bureaucrat, business owner or manager, etc. in your area.  Note their names, and anything and everything else about them that might be relevant one day.  They're spreading poison, and sooner or later we're going to have to lance that poisonous boil, squeeze out the corruption, and bring healing to the infection it's caused in our body politic.  Whether that's done peacefully or not, it will have to be done - so, in the words of the Four Rules of firearms safety promulgated by the late, great Jeff Cooper, "be sure of your target and what is beyond it":  in this case, the latter includes the network of supporters and sympathizers who propagate the leftist gospel.  Even if you don't actively assist with that, those undertaking the work will be able to use your information.

We are currently governed by progressive leftists who are doing their very best to ignore or snuff out all of our constitutional protections, all of our civil rights, and all of our liberties that conflict with their totalitarian vision.  We're going to have to fight them and their vision - but let's not do it on their terms, where our actions play into their hands and give them the pretext(s) they need to crush opposition.  Work smarter, not harder!

That includes being extraordinarily careful with one's activism.  Some potential options:

• Keep one set of devices for "everyday", and a second (and/or third, and/or more) set for confidential use.  Never, ever allow one to be used in the other context.  The second set should never be powered up and/or used at home, or even be allowed to contact the Internet, in case location tracking should link them to you in some way (including their proximity to your "everyday" devices).
• Work through a phone or phones not registered to you, in locations where you're not usually present.  Don't even put in the batteries or turn the phones on until you're in those areas.
• Never take your own vehicles to and from such areas, and never carry your "everyday" cellphone or other electronics on such occasions, to prevent one cellphone being linked to another by location.
• When not in use, "secure" devices should be stored in Faraday cages (which can be bags or boxes), if possible with their batteries removed.  If they can't be activated or "pinged", they can't be used against you.
• When you talk about anything even remotely confidential, make sure all electronic devices - and I do mean ALL - are outside the room, where remote activation of their microphones can't overhear your conversation or allow it to be recorded.
• Use encryption on communications, and also for e-mail through completely separate, anonymous accounts that again are not linked to you at all.  (However, don't trust encryption alone - what one human can encrypt or encode, another, particularly with computer assistance, can decrypt or decode.)  Change such accounts frequently, and also any devices such as cellphones.  Throw away a burner phone after a few uses and replace it.  Don't buy the replacement yourself - use "cut-outs" who can't identify you as the user.  (One agency used to have one person buy a few burner phones, then hand them over to a courier who took them to another city and delivered them to a third person.  He/she activated the phones in several locations, using different numbers, then gave them to another courier for delivery to more than one distant location.  Someone there would receive them, then distribute them to those who would use them.  Complex and expensive?  Yes, but also pretty secure.)
• Use Virtual Private Networks (VPN's) for secure internet communications.  They're not foolproof - court orders can be obtained to force VPN's to monitor, record and hand over your traffic - but they prevent casual eavesdropping.  I know some people use two VPN's, layering one over the other, making interception even more difficult.

Everything I've said above is currently legal.  There are other techniques and methods as well - anyone who's had "fieldcraft" training in TLA's (see one US list here) or the military will know what I mean - but I won't go into those here.

As we've said many, many times before in these pages:  "Be the gray man".  Subtlety is better than in-your-face violence . . . until the time comes that the latter may be inevitable.  Sadly, sometimes it is.

Peter