With the Federal court in Toronto awarding $10.5 million dollars in statutory and punitive damages for running a website which merely linked to Simpsons and Family Guy episodes, one might wish to know how best to protect their identity in the interwebitudes…and with some VPNs touting their security while handing over users info to the US government, it’s hard to know where to turn.
Helpfully, TorrentFreak has reviewed the different VPN services to see which one take your anonymity most seriously:
‘More than a year ago TorrentFreak took a look at a selection of the web’s VPN services to see which ones really take privacy seriously. During the months that followed we received dozens of emails begging us to carry out an update and today here it is. The first installment in our list of VPN services that due to their setup cannot link user activity to external IP addresses and activities.’
Read the full article here.
Surprise, surprise: yet another enemy of real food attacks the traditional diet…
What is interesting in this article (and makes it worth reading) is this bit:
In 2009, former editor–in–chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell admitted that the “evidence-based” studies published in her former publication and most other “scientific” journals are totally unreliable:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
In her bombshell article, Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption, she documents how doctors and scientists are bought and paid for by Big Pharma.
“Clinical trials are also biased through designs for research that are chosen to yield favorable results for sponsors,” she writes.
Yet more evidence pouring in that ‘peer-review’ is more of a ‘pal-review’…
For a deeply insightful commentary on the state of science today, see CodeSlinger’s comment here.
Though his is not a household name, most people in the world have, by now, heard of the plight of Raif Badawi: that Saudi Arabian blogger who is imprisoned for his words.
First, he was tried for having written things on the internet that the Saudi Government disapproved of – and he was sentenced to 600 lashes and 7 years in jail.
Unacceptable!
No man or woman ought to be penalized for stating their honestly held views.
Those who have visited my blog in the past know I am a bit of a free speech fundamentalist and would not place any limits on speech whatsoever, if it were my call. And, I do mean all speech!
If we do not hold those who listen even to incitement to violence accountable for their actual deeds, then we are guilty of infantalizing them. A responsible adult can hear all kinds of incitements to violence, and choose to ignore them. If one chooses to act upon incitement, then one is responsible for their actions!
It is one’s actions we must judge, not one’s words!
But, Raif Badawi situation gets worse!!!
Now, the Saudi court had recommended that he be also tried for apostasy. In Saudi Arabia, this “crime” carries the death sentence!!!
Words cannot describe the outrage I feel.
We, all of us honest people in the world, must stand up and demand that Raif Badawi (and all other ‘blasphemy prisoners’) be set free and that countries that have blasphemy laws on their books and that imprison or even execute people for apostasy be immediately kicked out of the UN and all other organizations of civilized people!
Write, call or email your local legislators and demand they put pressure on the government to officially condemn this uncivilized behaviour and pressure these countries directly through diplomatic channels to alter their laws as well as indirectly through the UN.
And, if the UN refuses to take the side of the civilized countries on this issue, then the civilized countries MUST leave the UN in protest!
Anything less will make us complicit in their martyrdoom!!!
A message from Fight For the Future:
Yesterday, a Federal judge issued a fiery ruling condemning the NSA’s bulk phone record collection program as “likely” unconstitutional. Judge Richard Leon went on to call the program “almost Orwellian” and stated in no uncertain terms that it “infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.” (1)
This is a huge blow to the NSA’s programs — and one that would not have been possible without the massive grassroots movement that YOU helped us build. We’ve been saying these programs are unconstitutional since even before Snowden came along — it feels good to be vindicated, doesn’t it?
”They’re pushing a bill called the “FISA Improvements Act” that would legalize, and even expand, the very same program that Judge Leon just declared unconstitutional.
Make sure you take action on this one — it’s really important — but also take a minute today to savor how awesome this all is: the NSA’s power is crumbling. They’re taking a beating from the courts, the tech community, and even the UN, who recently de clared digital privacy a human right. (3)
It’s important that we keep the pressure on. We’re working on our campaign to take our privacy campaigns to an epic level in the coming year. There are incredibly powerful interests doing everything they can to muddy the debate and keep the NSA in the shadows. And even if Judge Leon’s ruling is upheld, it’s only a beginning, since it would primarily protect the rights of Americans and we all know that EVERYONE deserves freedom and privacy, regardless of where they live.
When I started writing this email, the first thing I wanted to say was “BOOH YAH NSA!” We have a long way to go, but everyone should savor this moment. It’s another big win to add to our streak.
This fight is in Congress, but if you’re not in the U.S. we still need your help to spread the word. U.S. laws unfortunately affect all of us, so share this image to voice your demands. We’re planning more action soon to tackle government surveillance internationally, so stay tuned.
Glad to have you on team Internet,
-Tiffiniy and Evan
Fight for the Future
P.S. We’re just about to start our year-end fundraising drive. Not everyone has the ability to donate, so if you do, please chip in whatever you can here.
P.P.S. We thought we’d leave you with this awesome quote from Edward Snowden himself about Judge Leon’s ruling. The last sentence will give you goosebumps. Also, be sure to read this fascinating account from a current NSA employee that seriously calls into question many of the government’s’ claims about Snowden.
“I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.” — Edward Snowden
SOURCES:
1) New York Times, Federal Judge’s Ruling on N.S.A. Lawsuit
2) Maplight, Senate NSA Data Collection Bills -Top Intelligence Contractors Contribute Three Times More to Feinstein Than Leahy
3) United Nations General Assembly, Third Committee Approves Text Titled “Right to Privacy in the Digital Age.”
Today, I was copied on an interesting letter which had been sent to Mr. Graeme Hamilton of the National Post as a reaction to his article in the National Post, which was highly critical of the Quebec charter of values. I thought you might like to read it:
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Periodically a poster is displayed, especially on university campuses, depicting a little Arab boy facing an Israeli helicopter swooping down on him armed to the teeth.
The image and connotations presented in that poster are a distortion of the reality. A more accurate redrawing would depict the little boy held up as a puppet on the end of a giant tentacle attached to a monster which would dwarf the helicopter in turn.
The redrawing is based on a cartoon that appeared in Private Eye some years ago, depicting a seal-hunter on the ice about to club what he thinks is a baby seal, but is really the snout of a giant Basilosaurus or Kronosaurus-type creature under the ice.
I’m afraid your Saturday article in the National Post, Home No More, contains a similar misconception.
These black shrouds often worn by Muslim women should be seen as weapons of war, similar to Highland dress and pipes in the aftermath of the Battle of Culloden, and the women wearing them as human shields.
The fact is, and this is being repeated over and over again in cities all over Europe, that once the Muslim population reaches a critical mass in a given area, ALL WOMEN have to cover up, for their own safety. Indeed, “This is a really serious slippery slope that we are all sliding down right now. I don’t like to be alarmist. I don’t like to talk like this. But I am seeing it happening in front of me. I am seeing …. women scared to walk in the streets” might be a description of precisely such a situation.
Passages such as: “She was walking to a physiotherapy appointment in her neighbourhood when she saw two men approaching …… growing number … who say they feel unwelcome [in what they thought were familiar neighbourhoods] … …… a wave of intolerance …… Only x% said they felt completely safe when they were outside their homes.” Indeed “ ….. maybe the tolerance and respect are already out the window.”….. “This is my home, but I no longer feel at home” are accurate descriptions of what such immigration has done to such cities in Europe.
Quebec is therefore to be applauded for its moves, which I hope are aimed at preventing such a situation from arising here. Self-indulgent twits such as Ms. Pichette should be grateful that they still live in a society where “TV host Richard Martineau dresses up in a burqa for laughs” is mostly the worst they have to put up with – although his comparison of burqas and niqabs to KKK sheets is apt. And if she really “fears for her 14-year-old daughter”, she should maybe stop forcing her to cover up in the first place.
It is incredible that so-called “feminists” are coming out in favour of women wearing these dalek suits. One might well seriously ask how voluntary it is, in the light of the large numbers of families one sees on hot summer days where the men and boys are dressed in comfortable Western-style shorts and T-shirts and the women tightly swaddled.
In fact, there was a case in a London teaching hospital a few years ago where the professor banned niqabs, burqas, etc., because of the risk of them getting caught in expensive lab equipment. The response of the Muslim women in the class was “thank you … thank you … our brothers, uncles, cousins, etc. are putting terrible pressure on us to cover up, and now we can tell them ….”
Another disturbing, and related, phenomenon is the way in which Muslim cab-drivers are allowed to refuse blind people’s guide dogs. As non-Muslim cab-drivers would be fired for this sort of nonsense, reports of Muslims getting favourable treatment should in such cases be described as accurate.
Sincerely,
(name redacted)
General warrants, anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL8Hd1Pb2LM
This does not even address the problems inherent in breathalyzer tests.
In other words, if we refuse to submit to a test with an instrument we know is likely to give an artificially high reading and against which there is no defense (as the analyzed sample cannot be retained for more accurate re-testing), we are automatically deemed guilty.
Please, don’t get me wrong: I do not advocate drunk driving. As a matter of fact, I will not drive after having had any alcohol – and will abstain from drinking alcohol if I expect to be driving. Even if I were well under the legal limit, if I were to get into an accident and harmed someone, knowing my reflexes might have been impaired by my irresponsible consumption of alcohol, I would have a hard time living with myself. So, I always drive sober!
In other words, the inaccurate readings of the breathalysers are not likely to ever affect me in the least and I truly ‘have nothing to hide’ – as the video stresses! It is not about ‘hiding something’ – it is about the principle involved!!!
How can so many of our ‘best and brightest’ be so dense?
Vancouver’s door knob ban gets ‘honourable mention’ in this month’s Reason TV’s Nanny of the Month!