Category: Technology

  • Earlier this month, all of the employees at 18F, a unit of government technologists under the General Services Administration, awoke to a surprise. 

    The entire department — which helps build, buy, and share technological products across government agencies — discovered they’d been placed on administrative leave. 

    18F, named after its headquarters at 18th and F Street, plays crucial roles across the federal bureaucracy: It’s the team behind the IRS free tax filing system, and the National Weather Service’s public website, weather.gov. It launched in 2014 under the Obama administration, emerging from the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, which sought to bring more “technologists” into the federal government. Following the disastrous implementation of healthcare.gov, 18F became a permanent home for government digital services. 

    In many ways, the writing had long been on the wall for the beleaguered staff at 18F. Republicans had routinely accused it of being too woke for its culture and practices — including a Slackbot that privately alerts staffers when they’ve used offensive or non-inclusive language. Weeks prior, Elon Musk had posted on his social platform X that 18F “has been deleted.”

    But for some employees at 18F, inclusive politics is only part of the explanation for why they were axed. Three former 18F employees who spoke with The Intercept argue that their role in safeguarding against unchecked technology spending put a Musk-sized target on their back. 

    “Our whole approach was saving the government money and time.”

    “It’s a move to cut the brakes guarding against reckless government technology spending,” said one former 18F employee. With 18F out of the picture, Musk “and other private corporations who want to basically take advantage of taxpayer money can get in with less scrutiny.” 

    The former employee, who spoke anonymously for fear of retaliation, said 18F had been in the crosshairs of the technology industry for years because it refused to overpay for Silicon Valley products and services. “Our whole approach was saving the government money and time, and building good quality public services. We never had an incentive to upsell,” the source said. “We’ve had a lot of enemies since our inception. I think because we can provide a better service at a lower cost.” 

    Another former employee in the department, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, agreed that 18F’s fastidious approach could have made the department a target for Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. 

    Musk, who spent at least a quarter-billion dollars to elect Trump, is expected to see his substantial wealth balloon over the course of the Trump administration through government contracts. Though Tesla stock has faltered as Musk has taken on a highly public role in gutting the federal workforce, Trump has sought to help the world’s richest man — going so far as to host a car show on the White House driveway to promote Musk’s Teslas

    If the Trump administration pushed for government contracts that would financially benefit Musk or other Trump allies and donors, the source said, 18F would have pushed back.

    “One-hundred percent that would be a reason,” they said. “We would have been outspoken. We would have been vocal.” 

    Along with specific projects it conducts for federal agencies, 18F also designed a public “de-risking guide” to help other parts of the government better vet and manage technology vendors. The guide along with the rest of 18F’s website has now been wiped from the internet, increasing the risk of government agencies being misled by technology vendors. 

    “We’ve already seen a pattern from Musk, documented in the media, of Musk taking government money,” said one former 18F employee, pointing to the $38 billion Musk has collected in federal contracts to date. “He’s been public beneficiary number one, and if there’s no one around to say, ‘Hey, this contract is not written well, this is going to get us the wrong project, we don’t need to be spending this much money.’ If the brakes are cut, who’s going to stop Musk from leveraging that hole where we no longer are and getting more government money?”

    A spokesperson for the GSA pushed back against the allegations against Musk, arguing that cutting 18F is indeed a means of lowering costs to taxpayers.

    “18F was intended to operate on a full cost recovery basis through the fees it charges federal agencies. Since its inception in 2014, 18F has underperformed on an annual basis relative to its cost recovery plan, creating a long-term shortfall of multi millions of dollars,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. “The rate charged by 18F was at the very high end of the technology consulting market; making it one of the most expensive technology consultancies in the United States. The same private sector talent doing the same work would have cost partner agencies, and the American taxpayer, less money. After a thorough review of 18F, GSA leadership – with concurrence from the Administration and following all OPM guidelines – determined that the business unit was not aligned with the Presidential EOs, statutorily required or critical activities.” 

    Related

    How to Leak Under the Trump Administration

    One former 18F employee said this response lacks a basic understanding of how the government, and specifically the 18F team, operates. Unlike congressionally appropriated agencies, 18F charges other agencies for its services. These agencies are given federal appropriation money to spend on technology services like 18F. So, for example, 18F charges agencies like the IRS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration an hourly rate to develop, maintain, and update their technological products, such as the IRS direct file website or weather.gov. In many cases, this means procuring and working with outside technology vendors to build and help maintain these sites, with the goal of giving the agencies as much autonomy over their projects as possible. 

    According to the GSA spokesperson, last year, 18F fell $18 million short of the cost-recovery target set by their agency. The rates 18F can charge and the amount it is supposed to recover from other agencies are established by the GSA. Ahead of its dismissal, 18F was set to charge $250 an hour for their services this fiscal year, according to the former 18F employee.

    The same former employee said that the GSA’s desired recovery amount was never achievable and was divorced from 18F’s costs — instead, they said, it was a target to fund work across the broader agency. The worker said 18F certainly would have been more effective and cost taxpayers less than commissioning big consultancies such as Deloitte and Booz Allen Hamilton.

    Regardless of why 18F was eliminated, employees at the unit are certain more vital agencies are next on the chopping block.

    “We’re a month into this administration, and they’re already cutting the people who put brakes on reckless technology spending. They’re cutting the people who are working on systems that help taxpayers save money filing their taxes,” said one 18F employee. “If they’re willing to cut all these things, cut all of these public services, what’s next?”

    The post Musk Is Firing Federal Workers Who Prevent Bloated Tech Contracts appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Earlier this month, all of the employees at 18F, a unit of government technologists under the General Services Administration, awoke to a surprise. 

    The entire department — which helps build, buy, and share technological products across government agencies — discovered they’d been placed on administrative leave. 

    18F, named after its headquarters at 18th and F Street, plays crucial roles across the federal bureaucracy: It’s the team behind the IRS free tax filing system, and the National Weather Service’s public website, weather.gov. It launched in 2014 under the Obama administration, emerging from the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, which sought to bring more “technologists” into the federal government. Following the disastrous implementation of healthcare.gov, 18F became a permanent home for government digital services. 

    In many ways, the writing had long been on the wall for the beleaguered staff at 18F. Republicans had routinely accused it of being too woke for its culture and practices — including a Slackbot that privately alerts staffers when they’ve used offensive or non-inclusive language. Weeks prior, Elon Musk had posted on his social platform X that 18F “has been deleted.”

    But for some employees at 18F, inclusive politics is only part of the explanation for why they were axed. Three former 18F employees who spoke with The Intercept argue that their role in safeguarding against unchecked technology spending put a Musk-sized target on their back. 

    “Our whole approach was saving the government money and time.”

    “It’s a move to cut the brakes guarding against reckless government technology spending,” said one former 18F employee. With 18F out of the picture, Musk “and other private corporations who want to basically take advantage of taxpayer money can get in with less scrutiny.” 

    The former employee, who spoke anonymously for fear of retaliation, said 18F had been in the crosshairs of the technology industry for years because it refused to overpay for Silicon Valley products and services. “Our whole approach was saving the government money and time, and building good quality public services. We never had an incentive to upsell,” the source said. “We’ve had a lot of enemies since our inception. I think because we can provide a better service at a lower cost.” 

    Another former employee in the department, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, agreed that 18F’s fastidious approach could have made the department a target for Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. 

    Musk, who spent at least a quarter-billion dollars to elect Trump, is expected to see his substantial wealth balloon over the course of the Trump administration through government contracts. Though Tesla stock has faltered as Musk has taken on a highly public role in gutting the federal workforce, Trump has sought to help the world’s richest man — going so far as to host a car show on the White House driveway to promote Musk’s Teslas

    If the Trump administration pushed for government contracts that would financially benefit Musk or other Trump allies and donors, the source said, 18F would have pushed back.

    “One-hundred percent that would be a reason,” they said. “We would have been outspoken. We would have been vocal.” 

    Along with specific projects it conducts for federal agencies, 18F also designed a public “de-risking guide” to help other parts of the government better vet and manage technology vendors. The guide along with the rest of 18F’s website has now been wiped from the internet, increasing the risk of government agencies being misled by technology vendors. 

    “We’ve already seen a pattern from Musk, documented in the media, of Musk taking government money,” said one former 18F employee, pointing to the $38 billion Musk has collected in federal contracts to date. “He’s been public beneficiary number one, and if there’s no one around to say, ‘Hey, this contract is not written well, this is going to get us the wrong project, we don’t need to be spending this much money.’ If the brakes are cut, who’s going to stop Musk from leveraging that hole where we no longer are and getting more government money?”

    A spokesperson for the GSA pushed back against the allegations against Musk, arguing that cutting 18F is indeed a means of lowering costs to taxpayers.

    “18F was intended to operate on a full cost recovery basis through the fees it charges federal agencies. Since its inception in 2014, 18F has underperformed on an annual basis relative to its cost recovery plan, creating a long-term shortfall of multi millions of dollars,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. “The rate charged by 18F was at the very high end of the technology consulting market; making it one of the most expensive technology consultancies in the United States. The same private sector talent doing the same work would have cost partner agencies, and the American taxpayer, less money. After a thorough review of 18F, GSA leadership – with concurrence from the Administration and following all OPM guidelines – determined that the business unit was not aligned with the Presidential EOs, statutorily required or critical activities.” 

    Related

    How to Leak Under the Trump Administration

    One former 18F employee said this response lacks a basic understanding of how the government, and specifically the 18F team, operates. Unlike congressionally appropriated agencies, 18F charges other agencies for its services. These agencies are given federal appropriation money to spend on technology services like 18F. So, for example, 18F charges agencies like the IRS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration an hourly rate to develop, maintain, and update their technological products, such as the IRS direct file website or weather.gov. In many cases, this means procuring and working with outside technology vendors to build and help maintain these sites, with the goal of giving the agencies as much autonomy over their projects as possible. 

    According to the GSA spokesperson, last year, 18F fell $18 million short of the cost-recovery target set by their agency. The rates 18F can charge and the amount it is supposed to recover from other agencies are established by the GSA. Ahead of its dismissal, 18F was set to charge $250 an hour for their services this fiscal year, according to the former 18F employee.

    The same former employee said that the GSA’s desired recovery amount was never achievable and was divorced from 18F’s costs — instead, they said, it was a target to fund work across the broader agency. The worker said 18F certainly would have been more effective and cost taxpayers less than commissioning big consultancies such as Deloitte and Booz Allen Hamilton.

    Regardless of why 18F was eliminated, employees at the unit are certain more vital agencies are next on the chopping block.

    “We’re a month into this administration, and they’re already cutting the people who put brakes on reckless technology spending. They’re cutting the people who are working on systems that help taxpayers save money filing their taxes,” said one 18F employee. “If they’re willing to cut all these things, cut all of these public services, what’s next?”

    The post Musk Is Firing Federal Workers Who Prevent Bloated Tech Contracts appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • You got your start as a recording artist, as a member of the industrial rock band Contagion. What’s your relationship with music like now and how does it influence your work currently?

    Music has always been part of my life and it was something that I started at a very young age and I came out to California to follow my career in music, as well as writing and film. I signed with Capital coming right out of college and started touring and we were opening up with Nine Inch Nails and Frontline Assembly and all these big industrial bands, and Skinny Puppy remixed one of our songs. It was amazing because we went on tour and we’re doing North American tours with all these great musicians. And from city to city, we were playing video games at the back of the tour bus, mainly Street Fighter and these other games. Now, come full circle, 30 years later, I’m directing Street Fighter.

    Music was the inroads for me to not only learn about the industry coming out of school, but also as a creator and as a storyteller. And tragically, about 12, 13 years ago, we had a fire here and it wiped out my whole music studio. It wiped out my equipment, all my synthesizers and samplers. We lost about a thousand music masters. Some of my albums were being re-released with Sony, who picked up our music catalog.

    So I had to restart my career. And in the middle of that, I had started writing Frost Road, and Frost Road was actually going to be a story that I was going to develop as a motion picture. And I had been boarding out the movie with Trevor Goring and then started to paint some of the images with Christopher Shy because we had worked on some graphic novels together.

    My career in music really forced me to evolve as a storyteller to then move into these other mediums. And that’s why I’m here today is that I’m still going back to my music and hoping to release a new album. And a lot of my music is still in heavy rotation around the world, but I’m hoping that I can use my love of music to better inform myself as a storyteller in film and television and obviously for my books that are coming up.

    It’s almost like a Phoenix allegory: a bit of your previous creative life having to die, outside of your control, and then helping to fuel the fire, so to speak, of the next stages of your career. I have to ask about Street Fighter. Who did you main on Street Fighter? Who do you like to play?

    I mean, for me, it was always Honda just because of the 100-hand slap—that was an age-old joke with us. When we were on tour, we had an incident where we were going across the Canadian border. They don’t really like musicians going back and forth over to Canada. They came on the bus at four in the morning and Michael, one of the guys in my band, was sleeping below us and they were asking us for our name and our country of origin and we were having to have our tour manager hand over our passports. Michael had no idea that this was a very upset customs agent that was boarding our bus and had already evicted the other band, Frontline Assembly. So the guy asked me my name and country of origin and I responded, and then he asked Michael, and Michael was sound asleep and had no idea what was going on.

    So our tour manager, Lane, kicked him because he was on the bottom bunk. We were in these bunks of these tour buses, and he kicked him and Michael’s two arms suddenly came out. We’d been playing Street Fighter, like non-stop, and Honda was always the most insane because of his 100-hand slap. And suddenly these two arms came out from the curtains in the bunk on the bottom and he just starts letting loose 100-hand slap on the customs agent thinking it was one of us on the band. The agent, he was this older African American guy, and he looks down and crosses his arms and shakes his head… Lane knew we were about to be completely hauled off the jail because they really didn’t want us there, and he just shakes his head and walks off the bus.

    You’ve worked across a large number of mediums and disciplines from video games to movies and now graphic novels. How do you handle the context switching between those mediums? What are some skills or learnings that you’ve had to grow over time and what are things that you’re still working on?

    It’s been a journey to move between these different disciplines and integrate them into all the stories that we love. I think as a storyteller, you have to tell the right story for the right medium. Sometimes that’s a linear medium, like a movie or a television show where it’s a passive experience where the audience is watching and has a suspension of disbelief as they’re watching you. Whereas in a video game, it’s an interactive experience and the story and the context doesn’t progress unless the audience engages with it, which is very similar to a book. A graphic novel or a comic book is the same way. The story really doesn’t progress unless you turn the page and you follow the dialogue and the characters at your own pace.

    I feel, as a storyteller, you really need to look at the characters and the world that you’re telling and what aspect works for the medium that you’re working on. So if you’re working in virtual reality, it’s a much different experience because you’re having to guide the audience through an experience and knowing where to look and where to experience. In a book, obviously, your focus is on your characters and the progression of the story and what part of the story works that way.

    I think I’ve had the privilege to get to work in so many different mediums because I love telling stories from music to comics to film, and it’s a different experience. If I’m doing a viral campaign for a movie and I’m doing hidden footage with a scavenger hunt and an alternate reality game, that’s a much different experience than trying to do a combat battle chatter on Call of Duty. It’s a very collaborative industry and you’re working with other creators. So not only do you have to respect your own creative goals, but also how that integrates with what the other creators you’re working with and collaborating with have in mind, and also what the audience likes because a lot of these projects take years to develop. The technology and the platforms are changing so fast that you have to look ahead to what storytelling is going to be like in two years from now and how you do that.

    With the advent of AI integrating as tools and other things that are challenging creators, both in a good and a bad way, it puts the onus on us to up our game to be better at our craft and understand how we can use these tools so they don’t overpower and take over our industry.

    I want to touch on the idea of continuing to collaborate, because especially in graphic novels, you’re working with illustrators and letterers and colorists and movie people. There’s a whole production line of folks and things change rapidly. I’m sure, at some point, you’ve come in with an idea or been passionate about something and have had to change that or relinquish the idea altogether. Can you talk about any challenges liks this, or how you’ve adopted some of those changes in format or technology?

    When I started, I didn’t rknow how to evolve from music and video games into film. Even though the game industry, from a financial standpoint, is more successful and more engaging in the sense of larger format and other things, I was really fascinated by not only working in motion pictures, but I had also grown up with comics and graphic novels. Arkham Asylum had been one of my favorite books—you had this hand-painted book, where every panel was painted. That and Heavy Metal and a lot of these things were early influences for me and so I envisioned that if I was going to work on my own projects, that everything had to be painted.

    When I first started trying to write, I didn’t know what the first step was as a creator. I had a great story. I knew I was on the right path with the story, but I didn’t know how to tell it.

    I had gone to San Diego Comic-Con after meeting with dozens of artists around and online, and I would start walking down Artist Alley and not only finding artwork that inspired me and was based on the images that I had in my head, but also meeting these artists and collaborating to see what it’s like to working with other people. It’s funny because the first artists I met are now some of the largest in the industry, and it was amazing because they were all in their early days of their career.

    My first book was in three acts, and so I figured Meavy Metal style, I would work with three different artists and collaborate. I had three different styles in mind. One of the artists I met with was Christopher Shy. He had been doing stuff for White Wolf. He’d been doing some of their comics in the video games, but he had never done a graphic novel. His artwork was just stunning, though, and it looked exactly like what I had in my head. It was painted. It was dreamy. It had this painterly kind of feel. It had a lot of depth. The funny thing was that Christopher and I became instant friends and I realized that this is someone I could collaborate with. We were both, in a sense, generalists. Instead of just focusing on only one craft, we all loved storytelling on a variety of different mediums.

    That was really the first experience for me collaborating with an artist who could do so many different things and explore how to tell a story this way. The lettering, the painting, the composition of the shots, the writing… collaborating on that became an interesting journey. I still worked and brought in other writers to help me, and other artists to help do finishing and other things, but it really came down to this core collaboration. It’s a challenge because you’re trying to tell a sequential story in either a comic or a graphic novel where you’re not only trying to explain the dialogue and the mood and the tone, but the composition has to really further that narrative.

    The thing Christopher and both learned, I think, was that it was intriguing to be able to bring people in with the visuals, but then how do we hook people on the story and the world and the characters that we’re doing? One of the most beneficial and rewarding parts of this collaboration I’ve had with Christopher now for 20 years is that we’ve been able to tell these impactful stories and use his artwork as the medium to do that, but also to create characters in these worlds that will hopefully translate into games and film.

    I want to talk more about the education you do. I know it’s a big part of the campaign that’s running and it’s also part of your overall approach to giving back to the creative community. You help others develop skills for technical acting and performance capture. What has teaching others taught you about yourself?

    Looking back on my career, I think I’ve had the benefit, the privilege, and the honor to work with so many amazing, talented performers and other writers and creators. I feel that all of us are learning constantly. I’m learning.

    I mean, this is my first real Kickstarter on my own after what I did with Wesley Snipes and Adam Lawson on Exiled. And this is a whole new learning process for me. I feel that all of us are at different stages of bettering ourselves and our careers.

    Part of my personal belief is that it’s important to share the knowledge we gain and the networking and the mentorship and to give it back to other creators. I’m not saying that I have the only way or the best way to do things. In fact, I’ve probably made more mistakes than I can imagine. But I feel that you need to make mistakes to learn. And, I mean, just because someone tells you something, it doesn’t always apply to your life in a way that you might be able to find usable or relatable, but I do like to experience things for myself with the guidance of someone who’s been through it.

    Even on this campaign, Jimmy Palmiotti, who’s an amazing writer and a creator who’s had many successful campaigns, mentored me on the Kickstarter community and how to do things in a way that we’re giving back to other creators. And Chris Yates who’s now part of our team here, we’ve collaborated on a lot of ideas of saying, “How do we share all the knowledge that we’ve been accumulating to pull together these successful projects and campaigns and share that back with the community?” For this one in particular, we felt that since it’s a new intellectual property and many people might not be familiar with it, just making a poster or a t-shirt or a statue or something else is nice, but that we have other things we can give back to the community in a bigger way.

    Some of the things that we haven’t announced yet as part of the campaign are going to happen as we hit certain stretch goals. We’re actually going to be funding other creators on Kickstarter. We’re going to be working very closely with the community to identify campaigns we believe in and help not just mentor them, but also to contribute towards those campaigns.

    One of the other things that we really want to do as industry professionals is share knowledge. Some of the reward tiers you’re going to see as part of this campaign might not be for fans, but more for creators who are looking to grow their careers. We’re going to have master classes and private panels and mentoring sessions and portfolio reviews and recorded panels and meet-and-greets and other opportunities, even at things like San Diego Comic Con where creators and fans get a chance to meet with us and talk with us and ask us questions. They might not normally have that opportunity, other than on social media or public events and that kind of thing.

    We felt Kickstarter was an amazing platform to not only launch an IP like Frost Road, but then to also share behind the scenes about how we’re going to continue to do it. As Frost Road is successful, we’re hoping to do many more campaigns—I feel that Kickstarter, in particular as a platform, empowers creators to explore their own creative ideas and not have the pressure of funding. It’s really getting the feedback and the interaction with the audience.

    There are examples of what we’ve done already with performance capture and teaching actors in the video game industry how to move into the game industry. We teach them about the business and the performance side and the technical side. I think a lot of creators are looking at things like: How do I get my own graphic novel or comic book off the ground? How do I take an idea that I want to make into a movie and where do I start? I think a lot of that is something we really see as an opportunity through Kickstarter to give back to that community in a variety of ways.

    **It’s admirable to be able to use your own time and platform to be to create opportunities for other people. You don’t know who you’re going to meet or how you’ll influence somebody else’s work or life. **

    You’ve worked on a large number of properties. Are there any white whales out there that you haven’t touched yet that you’re looking to your teeth into?

    As a creator, you’re always inspired by other creators and other people. This campaign is going to be the start of some special things, not just in publishing and film and games. I really see that creators across the world are disenfranchised right now—distribution is fairly broken. I don’t mean just the gatekeepers of people that fund and allow people to do their work, but the way distribution itself works is getting archaic in a sense that the way we buy books, the way we get our television shows, the way we see films, the way we interact with content is through very few gatekeepers. The way that distribution works is not very favorable or equitable to creators.

    I feel that it’s stacked against the creators to not only create the content, but then to understand the business and understand how to get their work see. And, even if they do do that, then to still participate and be sustainable. My white whale, as a creator, is to really start working on the platforms and the distribution that not only help give a voice to creators, but allow them to participate in the success of what they’re putting in, all the work and sweat equity and time that we put in that we’d love. It would be unfortunate for other people to profit off of that and not see the benefits of that.

    I really feel that through my journey as a creator and experiencing things firsthand, that I’ve been able to identify the pain points that many creators like myself go through—the frustrations that we see, the other people that take credit and profit from our work. I feel that my work in the game industry and technology platforms and the projects that I’ve been working on over the past several years are putting me in a position where I can give back not just on the knowledge and the education, but also the technology and the ability to help develop platforms that would be more equitable for creators and allow them to participate both creatively and financially. That’s my big hope behind all of this.

    I know that all sounds lofty and big and utopian, but it really is the truth. I think that’s why I keep coming back to Kickstarter. Kickstarter’s an amazing platform in itself, one that’s empowering creators to participate and put out their work and find their community. On a larger scale, ongoing distribution for whatever the medium might be is going to be the next evolution of that. I feel that Kickstarter is going to be a foundational part of what we’re going to do to help people launch their IP and then hopefully continue to find a way to participate in the fruits of their labor.

    Keith Arem Recommends:

    Keanu Reeve’s BZRKR comic from Boom! Studios.

    The Dune trilogy from Denis Villeneuve.

    Alien: Romulus and Alien: Earth on Hulu.

    Street Fighter series and the hundred hand slap.

    Yuri Lowenthal and Tara Platt’s graphic novel Topsy McGee and the Scarab of Solomon

    This post was originally published on The Creative Independent.

  • From press release dated: 13/03/2025

    New technology provides human rights defenders with tools to organize, spread information, and reach people. At the same time, many experience digital surveillance, online violence, and harassment. It is important that these issues are discussed in the UN, and therefore, Norway is presenting a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council this spring’, says Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide.

    The resolution emphasizes that human rights are universal and apply in the same manner online as offline.  It advocates for increased protection against digital threats and surveillance and ensures that new technology is not used to restrict freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, or the right to privacy. The resolution also highlights the need for dialogue with tech companies to discuss the challenges faced by human rights defenders in the digital space.

    ‘We want to gather broad support for the resolution and secure clear commitments from the international community to protect those who fight for our shared rights – also in the digital sphere’, says Eide.

    Norway has a long tradition of advocating for the protection of human rights defenders. The new resolution is the result of close dialogue with civil society actors, technology experts, and other countries. The resolution will be presented and adopted at the UN this spring. Moving forward, Norway will work to gain as much international support as possible for the resolution’s important message.

    https://www.norway.no/en/missions/wto-un/our-priorities/other-issues/pressreleasenorway/hrc58hrd/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Maria Ressa says rules-based order ‘can perhaps still exist’ but social media is being used to undermine democracy around the world

    The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte is a welcome sign that the rules-based order continues to hold, the Nobel laureate Maria Ressa has said, even as the global order has been marred by the US “descending into hell” at the hands of the same forces that consumed the Philippines.

    Ressa’s remarks came after Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, made his first appearance before the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, accused of committing crimes against humanity during his brutal “war on drugs”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • When the Drug Enforcement Administration’s access to a secret trove of billions of American phone records was exposed in 2013, the Obama administration said the data had been collected under a perfectly legal program.

    Civil liberties advocates, however, were not convinced about that the data collection program — which let the DEA see who you called, and who they called too — was aboveboard.

    Now, the advocates are learning more than a decade later that they had a clutch of surprising allies: DEA officials on the inside — whose internal alarms were kept secret.

    Watchdog findings released last week show that government officials had privately raised questions about the program for years — including a high-ranking DEA agent who expressed “major” concerns. The FBI even halted its own agents’ access to the database for months.

    The DEA’s “Hemisphere” project went ahead despite the apprehensions — and continues to this day.

    With new details about the program coming to light, the civil liberties advocates in Washington, including those in Congress are again raising their concerns. One watchdog group said the latest revelations show that the program was flawed from the beginning.

    “There should have been no question from the very start that this program needed a proper legal analysis, to determine whether there was the authority for the government to obtain this type of information in bulk through administrative subpoenas,” said Jeramie Scott, a senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It’s a real failure of oversight and accountability that years went by without a proper legal analysis.”

    Massive Collection

    When the DEA’s program was made public, it immediately drew comparisons to the National Security Agency’s domestic phone call database revealed by Edward Snowden.

    The key details of the DEA program were shocking to civil liberties advocates: AT&T had made billions of phone call records available to the agency and other law enforcement agencies in exchange for payment.

    Those records did not include the content of calls, but they did include metadata information on the time, and information on the number called, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The data extended far beyond AT&T’s own customers, since most calls pass through AT&T’s switches at some point.

    The “Hemisphere” project could provide call data not just about who a target was communicating with, but also so called “two-hop” data on who that second person was in phone contact with as well.

    Authorities could request the call records by sending a request to AT&T — without a court order required — and the company asked the government to keep the program secret. The DEA even sought to cover up the program’s existence by sending traditional subpoenas later on in cases headed for court, a process known as “parallel construction.”

    The program is also administered by regional anti-drug offices using money provided by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, a convoluted structure that Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in 2023 has allowed it to skip a mandatory federal privacy review.

    When the program was revealed by the New York Times in 2013, the Justice Department downplayed civil liberties concerns. It argued that the program was no different from the long-standing practice of subpoenaing individual phone providers.

    Critics, though, said the program had vast differences. “Hemisphere” produced information in hours instead of months; it included “two-hop” data about the people who had interacted with a target phone number’s calling partners; and it could provide analysis in response to a request for “advanced” information.

    Related

    The NSA’s Hidden Spy Hubs in Eight U.S. Cities

    The “advanced” products from AT&T appear to have involved the ability to uncover location data on cellphones, and to identify possible replacement phone numbers for so-called drop or burner phones, according to Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Scott.

    Scott, whose nonprofit sued the government for records on the program, said the search for drop phones likely involved analysis on AT&T’s part, taking it for legal purposes a far step beyond the typical “business records” that can be obtained by administrative subpoenas.

    Internal Alarm

    The “advanced” searches in particular appear to have raised internal concerns, according to portions of a 2019 report from the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General that were just made public last week.

    The Justice Department released the new version of that report six years after its original publication, after prodding from Wyden and Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.

    The new version shows that legal questions were raised about the “Hemisphere” program at least four times. In 2007, the same year it started, a DEA supervisor asked the agency’s Office of Chief Counsel for “assurance” that the program had legal approval.

    The legal office started reviewing the program, sending back to agents a request for more information on the “geographic” data it produced. The legal analysis, however, petered out without reaching a conclusion, according to the newly revealed portions of the inspector general report. There was “no evidence,” the report said, that the DEA’s lawyers “substantively addressed the issue raised in the memorandum at a later date.”

    In February 2008, a DEA special agent in charge expressed “major concerns” about the way the program was being used in an email to senior DEA officials. That email did produce a formal memorandum approved by agency lawyers with a data request protocol, but the memorandum was never distributed to DEA employees in the field.

    In August 2010, the FBI’s top lawyer contacted the DEA with concerns about the “Hemisphere” program. What the FBI discovered apparently alarmed it enough to completely suspend use of the program later that month.

    Discussions over the legality of the program’s “advanced” product continued for months, drawing in other agencies that employed the phone database including the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as well as the Department of Homeland Security.

    The FBI eventually reinstated its agents’ access but limited the kind of information they could request. The exact nature of that self-imposed limit remains redacted in the latest version of the inspector general report.

    Scott said it was notable that the FBI curbed its agents’ access to certain analyses when other agencies such as the DEA plowed ahead.

    “The DEA had less qualms about using advanced products that the FBI seemed to think were legally questionable,” he said.

    From September 2012 to January 2013, one of the DEA’s in-house lawyers conducted a draft analysis of the “Hemisphere” program that concluded it was on solid legal footing. Yet this analysis was never finalized or distributed, the inspector general report says.

    Ongoing Program

    While the revelation of the DEA program in September 2013 caused widespread alarm among civil liberties advocates, it never spurred meaningful restrictions.

    Instead, as Wyden detailed in a November 2023 letter to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the program continued after fits and starts “under a new generic sounding program name, ‘Data Analytical Services.’”

    By releasing the unredacted portions of the report, the Trump administration appears to have taken a step forward on transparency, but it is unclear whether it will follow through with reforms. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)

    In Congress, Wyden, Biggs, and other members have for years pushed a government surveillance reform act that would tackle a wide range of concerns. Among other policy changes, it would require regular inspector general reports on “Hemisphere.”

    The post DEA Insiders Warned About Legality of Phone Tracking Program. Their Concerns Were Kept Secret. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • In the first of two episodes on Elon Musk, Matt and Sam explore the billionaire’s fraught adolescence and first years in Silicon Valley.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • The post Addiction first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • One week after Hamas’s October 7 attack, thousands rallied outside the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles to protest the country’s retaliatory assault on Gaza. The protestors were peaceful, according to local media, “carrying signs that said ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘End the Occupation,’” and watched over by a “sizable police presence in the area.” The LAPD knew the protests were coming: Two days earlier, the department received advanced warning on Dataminr, a social media surveillance firm and “official partner” of X.

    Internal Los Angeles Police Department emails obtained via public records request show city police used Dataminr to track Gaza-related demonstrations and other constitutionally protected speech. The department receives real-time alerts from Dataminr not only about protests in progress, but also warnings of upcoming demonstrations as well. Police were tipped off about protests in the Los Angeles area and across the country. On at least one occasion, the emails show a Dataminr employee contacted the LAPD directly to inform officers of a protest being planned that apparently hadn’t been picked up by the company’s automated scanning.

    Based on the records obtained by The Intercept, which span October 2023 to April 2024, Dataminr alerted the LAPD of more than 50 different protests, including at least a dozen before they occurred.

    It’s unclear whether the LAPD used any of these notifications to inform its response to the wave of pro-Palestine protests that spread across Southern California over the last two years, which have resulted in hundreds of arrests.

    Neither the LAPD nor Dataminr responded to a request for comment.

    “They are using taxpayer money to enlist companies to conduct this surveillance on social media.”

    Privacy and civil liberties experts argue that police surveillance of First Amendment activity from afar has chilling effect on political association, discourse and dissent.

    “Police departments are surveilling protests which are First Amendment protected political activity about a matter of public importance,” Jennifer Granick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told The Intercept. “They are using taxpayer money to enlist companies to conduct this surveillance on social media. This is especially worrisome now that the Administration is targeting Gaza protesters for arrest and deportation based on protected activity.”

    The alerts began pouring in on October 9, when Dataminr flagged a “Protest mentioning Israel” blocking traffic in Beverly Hills, citing a tweet. Over the course of the month, Dataminr tipped off the LAPD to six different protests against the war across Los Angeles. These alerts included information about protests already in progress and information about the time and place of at least one LA protest planned for a future date.

    Emails produced by the LAPD in response to The Intercept’s records request show that along with its regular feed of information about constitutionally protected speech, it also provides the department with alerts curated through feeds with titles like “Domestic Demonstrations Awareness,” “LA demonstrations,” “LA unrest,” and “demonstrations,” indicating the department proactively monitors First Amendment gatherings using the platform.

    The department also began receiving a regular flow of alerts about protests thousands of miles away, including a “protest mentioning Palestinian territories outside the Consulate General of Israel” in Chicago,” and tweets from journalist Talia Jane, who was providing real-time updates on an antiwar rally in New York City.

    Jane told The Intercept that she objects to the monitoring of her reporting by police, and also said Dataminr’s summary of her posts were at times inaccurate. In one instance, she says, Dataminr attributed a Manhattan road closure to protesters, when it had in fact been closed by the NYPD. “It’s absurd any agency would spend money on a service that is apparently completely incapable of parsing information correctly,” she said, adding that “the surveillance of journalists’ social media to suppress First Amendment activity is exactly why members of the press have a responsibility to ensure their work is not used to harm people.”

    On October 17, Dataminr sent an “urgent update” to the department warning of a “Demonstration mentioning Palestinian territories planned for today at 17:00 in Rittenhouse Square area of Philadelphia,” based on a tweet. Three days later, a similar update noted another “Demonstration mentioning Palestinian territories” planned for Boston’s Copley Square. Another warned of a “protest mentioning Palestinian territories” in the planning stages at the Oregon State Capitol. It’s unclear if the department intended to cast such a wide net, or if the out-of-state protest alerts were sent in error. Dataminr’s threat notifications are known to turn up false positives; multiple tweets by angry Taylor Swift fans aimed at Ticketmaster were forwarded to the LAPD as “L.A. Threats and Disruptions,” the records show.

    Materials obtained by The Intercept also show that despite Dataminr’s marketing claims of being an “AI” intermediary between public data and customers, the firm has put its human fingers on the scales. On October 12, a Dataminr account manager emailed three LAPD officers, whose names are redacted, with the subject line “FYSA,” military shorthand meaning “for your situational awareness.” The email informed the officers of a “Protest planned for October 14 at 12:30 at Consulate General of Israel in Los Angeles,” with a link to a tweet by a Los Angeles university professor. It’s unclear if the LAPD has requested these manual tip-offs from Dataminr, or whether such personal service is routine; Dataminr did not respond when asked if it was a standard practice. But the hands-on approach undercuts Dataminr’s prior claims that it just passively provides alerts to customers about social media speech germane to their interests.

    A company spokesperson previously told The Intercept that “Every First Alert user has access to the exact same alerts and can choose to receive the alerts most relevant to them.””

    Dataminr pitches its clients across the private and public sector a social media superpower: What if you had immediate access tweet relevant to your interests — without having to even conduct a search? The company, founded in 2016 and valued at over $4 billion, claims a wide variety of customers, from media newsrooms to government agencies, including lucrative federal contracts with the Department of Defense. It has also found an avid customer base in law enforcement. While its direct access to Twitter has been a primary selling point, Dataminr also scours apps like Snap and Telegram.

    The company — which boasts both Twitter and the CIA as early investors — pitches its “First Alert” software platform as a public safety-oriented newsfeed of breaking events.

    It has for years defended its police work as simply news reporting, arguing it can’t be considered a surveillance tool because the information relayed to police is public and differs in no way from what an ordinary user browsing social media could access.

    Privacy advocates and civil libertarians have countered that the software provides the government with visibility that far surpasses what any individual user or even team of human officers could accomplish. Indeed, Dataminr’s own law enforcement marketing materials claim “30k people working 24/7 would only process 1% of all the data Dataminr ingests each day.” 

    Related

    U.S. Marshals Spied on Abortion Protesters Using Dataminr

    The company has this power because of its long-standing “official partner” status with both Twitter and now X. Dataminr purchases access to the platform’s data “firehose,” allowing it to query every single post and scan them on behalf of clients in real-time.

    Previous reporting by The Intercept has shown Dataminr has used this privileged access to surveil abortion rights rallies, Black Lives Matter protests, and other constitutionally protected speech on behalf of both local and federal police. Dataminr sources told The Intercept in 2020 how the company’s human analysts, helping tailor the service to its various police and military customers, at time demonstrated implicit biases in their work — an allegation the company denied.

    In its previous incarnation as Twitter before its purchase by Elon Musk, and today as X, the social media platform for years expressly prohibited third parties from using its user data for “monitoring sensitive events (including but not limited to protests, rallies, or community organizing meetings),” per its terms of service. Both companies have previously claimed that Dataminr’s service by definition cannot be considered surveillance because it is applied against public discourse; critics have often pointed out that while posts are technically public, only a company with data access as powerful as Dataminr’s would ever be able to find and flag all of these specific posts amid hundreds of millions of others. Neither company has directly addressed how Dataminr’s monitoring of protests is compatible with Twitter and X’s explicit prohibition against monitoring protests.

    Neither X nor Dataminr responded when asked about this contradiction.

    Related

    Why Trump Is So Desperate to Keep Mahmoud Khalil in Louisiana

    While Dataminr’s monitoring of campus protests began before the second Trump administration, it has taken on greater significance now given the White House’s overt attempts to criminalize speech critical of Israel and the war in Gaza. Earlier this month, former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who helped organize Columbia University’s student protests against the war, was abruptly arrested and jailed by plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The State Department and White House quickly confirmed the arrest was a function of Khalil’s antiwar protest efforts, which the administration has described without evidence or explanation as “aligned to Hamas.” The White House has pledged to arrest and deport more individuals who have taken part in similar campus protests against the war.

    Civil libertarians have long objected to dragnet monitoring of political speech on the grounds that it will have a chilling effect on speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. While fires, shootings, and natural disasters are of obvious interest to police, these critics frequently argue that if people know their tweets are subject to police scrutiny without any evidence of wrongdoing, they may tend to self-censor. 

    “Political action supporting any kind of government-disfavored viewpoint could be subject to the same over-policing: gun rights, animal rights, climate change are just a few examples,” the ACLU’s Granick added. “Law enforcement should leave online organizing alone.”

    The post LAPD Surveilled Gaza Protests Using This Social Media Tool appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This story contains references to homophobia, antisemitism and racism, as well as mass shootings and other violence.

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    On Jan. 19, 2024, the sheriff of Jacksonville, Florida, released a 27-page manifesto left behind by Ryan Palmeter, a 21-year old white man who had murdered three Black people at a Dollar General store before turning the gun on himself.

    The Florida Times-Union, a prominent local news outlet, said it would not be publishing the document, which it said used the N-word 183 times and had an “overall theme of white superiority.” T.K. Waters, the sheriff, said he had posted what he described as the “rantings of an isolated, hateful, madman” to keep his promise of public transparency. An attorney for one of the victims’ families urged the public “to not give Palmeter the satisfaction of publishing or distributing his manifesto,” saying it “contains not one redeemable thought.”

    Dallas Humber (Illustration for ProPublica)

    Thousands of miles away, in Elk Grove, California, Dallas Humber saw Palmeter’s view of the world as perfect for her audience of online neo-Nazis. Humber, a now-35-year-old woman with a penchant for dyeing her hair neon colors, was a leading voice in an online network of white supremacists who had coalesced in a dark corner of Telegram, a social media and messaging service with almost a billion users worldwide.

    She and her comrades called this constellation of interlocking Telegram accounts Terrorgram. Their shared goal was to topple modern democracies through terrorism and sabotage and then replace them with all-white ethno-states.

    Humber quickly turned Palmeter’s slur-riddled manifesto into an audiobook that she narrated in a monotone. Then she sent it into the world with her signature line:

    “So, let’s get this party started, Terrorbros.”

    The manifesto immediately began to spread, pinballing around the worldwide Terrorgram scene, which celebrated mass shooters like Palmeter as “saints.”

    The Terrorgram story is part of a much larger 21st century phenomenon. Over the past two decades, massive social networks like X, Facebook and Telegram have emerged as a powerful force for both good and evil. The ability to connect with like-minded strangers helped fuel uprisings like the Arab Spring and Iran’s pro-democracy movements. But it has also aided extremists, including brutal jihadist organizations like the Islamic State group and white supremacists around the world.

    About This Partnership

    This story is part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica that includes an upcoming documentary, “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” which premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

    Telegram, which is massively popular outside of the U.S., boasted an array of features that appealed to Humber and her fellow Terrorgammers. They could send encrypted direct messages, start big chat groups and create public channels to broadcast their messages. In the span of five years, they grew Terrorgram from a handful of accounts into a community with hundreds of chats and channels focused on recruiting would-be terrorists, sharing grisly videos and trading expertise on everything from assassination techniques to the best ways to sabotage water systems and electrical transmission lines. On one of her many accounts, Humber posted step-by-step instructions for making pipe bombs and synthesizing HMTD, a potent explosive.

    Humber went by a series of usernames but was eventually publicly exposed by a group of California activists. ProPublica and FRONTLINE reviewed chat logs — some provided by the Australian anti-facist research organization The White Rose Society — court records and Humber’s other digital accounts to independently confirm her identity.

    U.S. prosecutors say Humber helped lead the Terrorgram Collective, a transnational organization that ran popular Terrorgram accounts, produced sophisticated works of propaganda and distributed an alleged hit list of potential assassination targets. She is currently facing a host of federal terrorism charges, along with another alleged Terrorgram leader, Matthew Allison, a 38-year-old DJ from Boise, Idaho. Both have pleaded not guilty.

    To trace the rise and fall of Terrorgram, ProPublica and FRONTLINE obtained a trove of chat logs and got access to some of the extremists’ private channels, allowing reporters to track in real time their posts and relationships. We combed through legal documents, talked with law enforcement officials and researchers in six countries and interviewed a member of the collective in jail. Taken together, our reporting reveals new details about the Terrorgram Collective, showing how Humber and her compatriots were powerful social media influencers who, rather than peddling fashion or food, promoted murder and destruction.

    “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica, premieres March 25.

    The material illustrates the tension faced by every online platform: What limits should be imposed on the things users post or discuss? For years, social networks like Facebook and X employed thousands of people to review and take down offensive content, from pornography to racist memes to direct incitement of violence. The efforts at content moderation prompted complaints, primarily from conservatives, that the platforms were censoring conservative views of the world.

    Telegram was created in 2013 by Pavel Durov, a Russian-born technologist, and his brother Nikolai. Pavel Durov, a billionaire who posts pictures of himself on Instagram, baring his chiseled torso amid rock formations and sand dunes, became the face of the company. He marketed the platform as a free-speech-focused alternative to the Silicon Valley social media platforms, which in the mid-2010s had begun aggressively policing disinformation and racist and dehumanizing content. Telegram’s restrictions were far more lax than those of its competitors, and it quickly became a hub for hate as well as illegal activity like child sexual exploitation and gunrunning.

    Our review of thousands of Terrorgram posts shows that the lack of content moderation was crucial to the spread of the collective’s violent content. Telegram’s largely hands-off approach allowed Humber and her alleged confederates to reach an international audience of disaffected young people.

    They encouraged these followers to turn their violent thoughts into action. And some of them did.

    ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified 35 crimes linked to Terrorgram, including bomb plots, stabbings and shootings. Each case involved an individual who posted in Terrorgram chats, followed Terrorgram accounts or was a member of an organized group whose leaders participated in the Terrorgram community.

    One of the crimes was a 2022 shooting at an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, Slovakia, that left two people dead and another injured. In an earlier story, ProPublica and FRONTLINE detailed how the shooter, Juraj Krajčík, was coached to kill over three years by members of the Terrorgram Collective, a process that started when he was just 16 years old.

    Radka Trokšiarová survived the Bratislava attack after being shot twice in the leg. “Sometimes I catch myself wishing to be able to ask the gunman: ‘Why did you do it? What was the point and purpose of destroying so many lives?’” she said.

    Telegram declined repeated requests to make its executives available for interviews and would not answer specific questions about Humber and other Terrorgram leaders. But in a statement, the company said, “Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.”

    The company said that Telegram’s “significant growth has presented unique moderation challenges due to the sheer volume and diversity of content uploaded to the platform,” but that since 2023 it has stepped up its moderation practices, using AI and a team of about 750 contractors. Telegram said it now “proactively monitors public content across the platform and takes down objectionable content before it reaches users and has a chance to be reported.”

    Excerpt from “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    Right-wing extremists were flocking to Telegram by 2019.

    Many had been effectively exiled from major social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which, in response to public pressure, had built vast “trust and safety” teams tasked with purging hateful and violent content. The companies had also begun using a shared database of hashes — essentially digital fingerprints — to quickly identify and delete videos and images produced by terror groups.

    Even 8chan, an anonymous message board frequented by extremists, had begun pulling down particularly egregious posts and videos. Users there openly discussed moving to Telegram. One lengthy thread encouraged white supremacists to start using Telegram as a tool for communicating with like-minded people and spreading radical ideas to those they considered “normies.” “It offers a clean UI” — user interface — “and the best privacy protection we can get for this sort of social,” wrote one 8chan poster.

    Pavel Durov, the 40-year-old Telegram co-founder, had positioned himself as a stalwart champion of privacy and free expression, arguing that “privacy is more important than the fear of terrorism.” After the Iranian government blocked access to the app in that country in 2018, he called free speech an “undeniable human right.”

    To the extremists, Telegram and Durov seemed to be promising to leave them and their posts alone — no matter how offensive and alarming others might find their messages.

    Among those who joined the online migration were Pavol Beňadik and Matthew Althorpe. The two men quickly began testing Telegram’s limits by posting content explicitly aimed at inspiring acts of white supremacist terrorism.

    Then 23, Althorpe came from a small town on the Niagara River in Ontario, Canada; Beňadik, who was 19 at the time, lived in a village in Western Slovakia and went by the online handle Slovakbro.

    Both were believers in a doctrine called militant accelerationism, which has become popular with neo-Nazis over the past decade, the chat logs show. Militant accelerationists want to speed the collapse of society by committing destabilizing terrorist attacks and mass killings. They have frequently targeted their perceived enemies, including people of color, Muslims, Jews, gays and lesbians.

    Telegram gave them the ability to share tactics and targets with thousands of potential terrorists around the globe. Day after day they urged their followers to go out and kill as many people as possible to advance the white supremacist cause.

    Pavol Beňadik (Illustration for ProPublica)

    Beňadik had been immersed in the extremist scene since at least 2017, bouncing from one online space to the next, a review of his online life shows. He’d spent time on Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Gab and 4chan, another low-moderation message board.

    Beňadik would later tell authorities that he was inspired by Christopher Cantwell, a New Hampshire white supremacist known as the “Crying Nazi” for posting a video of himself sobbing after learning that he might be arrested for his actions during the deadly 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. From Slovakia, Beňadik listened to Cantwell’s podcast, which featured long racist diatribes and interviews with white nationalist figures like Richard Spencer.

    By 2019, Beňadik had created a chat group on Telegram in which he encouraged his followers to firebomb businesses, torch the homes of antifascists and seek out radioactive material to build dirty bombs and detonate them in American cities.

    Althorpe started a channel and uploaded a steady stream of violent propaganda, the Telegram chat logs show. He named his channel Terrorwave Refined.

    “Direct action against the system,” Althorpe argued in one post, is “the ONLY path toward total aryan victory.” Althorpe often shared detailed material that could aid in carrying out terrorist attacks, such as instructions for making the explosive thermite and plans for building assault rifles that couldn’t be traced by law enforcement.

    Other sizable social media platforms or online forums would have detected and deleted the material posted by Althorpe and Beňadik. But on Telegram, the posts stayed up.

    Soon others were creating similar content. In the summer of 2019, the duo began circulating online flyers listing allied Telegram chat groups and channels. Early on the network was small, just seven accounts.

    Beňadik and Althorpe began calling this new community Terrorgram. The moniker stuck.

    “I decided to become a fucking content producer,” Beňadik would later say on a podcast called HateLab, which has since been deleted. “I saw a niche and I decided to fill it.”

    They were becoming influencers.

    At the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, a gunman attacked worshippers in 2019, killing dozens. (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    As the pair grew their audience on Telegram, they studied a massacre that had occurred a few months earlier in New Zealand.

    A heavily armed man had murdered 51 Muslims at two mosques, livestreaming the carnage from a GoPro camera strapped to his ballistic helmet. To explain his motivations, Brenton Tarrant had drafted a 74-page treatise arguing that white people were being wiped out in an ongoing genocide. He described the Muslim worshippers he murdered as “invaders” and invoked a conspiracy theory claiming they were part of a plot to replace people of European ancestry with nonwhite people.

    Tarrant’s slaughter had sent a surge of fear through New Zealand society. And his written and visual propaganda, which was aimed at inspiring more violence, had spread widely. Researchers would later discover that more than 12,000 copies of the video had been posted online in the 24 hours after the massacre.

    Within the Terrorgram community, Tarrant became an icon.

    On Telegram, Beňadik and Althorpe dubbed him a “saint” — an honorific they bestowed on someone who killed in the name of the white supremacist movement.

    The two men saw Tarrant’s crime as a template for future attacks. Over and over, the duo encouraged their subscribers to follow Tarrant’s example and become the next saint.

    For extremism researchers, the rise of the Terrorgram community was alarming. “Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and antigovernment extremists are publishing volumes of propaganda advocating terrorism and mass shootings on Telegram,” warned an investigator with the Southern Poverty Law Center in June 2019. The investigator said he was unable to even reach anyone at Telegram at the time to discuss the matter.

    By August 2019, the Terrorgram network had grown to nearly 20 chat groups and channels. The Terrorwave Refined channel had ballooned to over 2,000 subscribers. “Thanks to everyone who helped us hit 2,000!” wrote Althorpe in a post. “HAIL THE SAINTS. HAIL HOLY TERROR.”

    In addition to his chat groups, Beňadik created an array of channels to distribute propaganda and guides to weaponry and explosives. One of the most popular attracted nearly 5,000 subscribers.

    “He was, I would say, a key architect behind Terrorgram,” said Rebecca Weiner, deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York Police Department. Weiner’s unit spent years monitoring the Terrorgram scene and assisted the FBI in investigating cases linked to the community.

    When compared to mainstream social media, the numbers were tiny. But looked at a different way, they were stunning: Althorpe and Beňadik had built an online community of thousands of people dedicated to celebrating and committing acts of terrorism.

    One of them was Jarrett Smith, a U.S. Army private based at Fort Riley in Kansas who was a regular in Beňadik’s chat group during the fall of 2019.

    A beefy guy who enjoyed posting photos of himself in military gear, Smith had a love of explosives — he urged his fellow Terrorgrammers to bomb electric power stations, cell towers and natural gas lines — and contempt for federal law enforcement agents. “Feds deserve to be shot. They are the enemy,” he wrote in one chat thread.

    Days after making the post, Smith unknowingly began communicating with a federal agent who was posing as an extremist.

    In a string of direct messages, the undercover agent asked for Smith’s help in assassinating government officials in Texas. “Got a liberal texas mayor in my sights!” wrote the agent.

    Happy to oblige, Smith provided the agent with a detailed step-by-step guide to building a potent improvised explosive device capable of destroying a car, as well as how-tos for several other types of bombs.

    He was arrested that September and later pleaded guilty to charges that he shared instructions for making bombs and homemade napalm. Smith was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

    The Terrorgram community was becoming a significant concern for law enforcement.

    An October 2019 intelligence bulletin noted: “Telegram has become increasingly popular with WSEs” — white supremacist extremists — “due to frequent suspensions and censorship of their accounts across multiple social media platforms. Currently, WSEs are able to maintain relatively extensive networks of public channels some of which have thousands of members with minimal disruptions.”

    The bulletin was produced by the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, an intelligence-sharing center staffed by federal, state and local law enforcement personnel. Today, that five-page document — which was not meant for public dissemination — seems prescient.

    It noted that while jihadist organizations and white supremacists were posting similar content on the platform, Telegram was treating the two camps in “vastly different” ways. The company, which had been headquartered in the United Arab Emirates since 2017, routinely shut down accounts created by the Islamic State group but it would “rarely remove WSE content, and typically only for high-profile accounts or posts that have received extensive media attention.”

    By 2020, a pattern emerged: When Telegram did take down an account, it was often quickly replaced by a new one — sometimes with a near-identical name.

    When the company deleted Althorpe’s Terrorwave Refined channel, he simply started a new one called Terrorwave Revived and began posting the same material. Within seven hours, he had attracted 1,000 followers, according to a post he wrote at the time.

    The Terrorgrammers saw the modest attempts at content moderation as a betrayal by Pavel Durov and Telegram. “You could do anything on 2019 Telegram,” wrote Beňadik in a 2021 post. “I told people how to plan a genocide,” he said, noting that the company did nothing about those posts.

    Apple, Google and Microsoft distribute the Telegram app through their respective online stores, giving them a measure of control over what their users could see on the platform. As the Terrorgram community attracted more notice from the outside world, including extremism researchers and law enforcement, these tech giants began restricting certain Terrorgram chats and channels, making them impossible to view.

    Still, the Terrorgrammers found ways to evade the blackouts and shared the work-arounds with their followers. The network eventually grew to include hundreds of chats and channels.

    The Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy, a German organization that studies online extremism, “has tracked about 400 channels and 200 group chats which are considered part of the Terrorgram community on Telegram,” said Jennefer Harper, a researcher with the center.

    As the content spread, so did crime. Using court records, news clips and Telegram data collected by Open Measures, a research platform that monitors social media, ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified a string of crimes tied to Terrorgram.

    Nicholas Welker, who was active in the Terrorgram community, is serving a 44-month prison sentence for making death threats toward a Brooklyn-based journalist reporting on a neo-Nazi group.

    A Missouri man who planned to blow up a hospital with a vehicle bomb was killed during a shootout with FBI agents in 2020; his neo-Nazi organization had posted in Beňadik’s chat group and was using it to enlist new members.

    The most deadly known crime stemming from Terrorgram occurred in 2022 Brazil, where a teenager who was allegedly in contact with Humber shot 15 people, killing four. The teen was later hailed as a saint by the Terrorgrammers.

    Excerpt from “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    While Terrorgram started as a loose collection of chats and channels, by 2021 Althorpe and Beňadik had created a more formal organization, according to Canadian court records and interviews with law enforcement sources in Slovakia. Their small, clandestine group was the Terrorgram Collective.

    The organization began producing more sophisticated content — books, videos and a roster of alleged assassination targets — and distributing the material to thousands of followers.

    Court documents, a U.S. State Department bulletin and Telegram logs show that over the next three years, the collective would come to include at least six other people in five countries.

    Over 14 months, the group generated three books and repeatedly posted them in PDF form on Terrorgram accounts. Ranging in length from 136 to 268 pages, the books offer a raft of specific advice for planning a terror attack, including how to sabotage railroads, electrical substations and other critical infrastructure. The publications also celebrated a pantheon of white supremacist saints — mass murderers including Timothy McVeigh, who in 1995 bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

    “That combination of tactical guidance plus propaganda is something that we’d seen a lot of coming out of ISIS in years past,” said Weiner of the NYPD. She added that the books are filled with “splashy graphics” designed to appeal to young people.

    “It’s a real manual on how to commit an act of terrorism,” Jakub Gajdoš, who helped oversee an investigation of Beňadik and Terrorgram for Slovakia’s federal police agency, said of one book. “A guide for killing people.”

    At least two Americans were involved in creating one of the books, according to U.S. federal prosecutors: Humber and Allison, the DJ from Boise, Idaho. The chat logs show they were both prolific creators and influencers in the Terrorgram community who frenetically generated new content, including videos, audiobooks, graphics and calendars, which they posted on an array of channels.

    Allison made around 120 Terrorgram videos, including editing “White Terror,” a quasi-documentary glorifying more than 100 white murderers and terrorists. Narrated by Humber, the video starts with the man who assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 and concludes with the young man who shot and killed 10 Black shoppers in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022.

    These “white men and women of action have taken it upon themselves to wage war against the system and our racial enemies,” Humber intones. “To the saints of tomorrow watching this today, know that when you succeed you will be celebrated with reverence and your sacrifice will not be in vain.”

    The pair also allegedly helped create “The List,” a detailed hit list of American politicians, corporate executives, academics and others, according to court documents. The List was shared on a series of dedicated Telegram channels, as well as an array of other accounts, some made to look like legitimate news aggregators. Each entry included a photo of the target and their home address.

    It was an escalation — and from court documents it’s clear that The List captured the attention of U.S. law enforcement agents, who worried that it might trigger a wave of assassinations.

    In 2022, a gunman attacked an LGBTQ+ bar in the Old Town neighborhood of Bratislava, Slovakia. (FRONTLINE)

    Watch video ➜

    The collective’s books influenced a new generation of armed extremists, some of them in their teens.

    One of these young disciples was Juraj Krajčík. The Slovakian student had joined Beňadik’s chat groups at the age of 16 and had become a frequent poster.

    ProPublica and FRONTLINE obtained an extensive trove of Terrorgram chat logs that show how Beňadik mentored Krajčík and played a profound role in shaping his beliefs. Over the span of three years, Beňadik, Allison and Humber all urged the teen to take action, the chat logs show.

    On the night of Oct. 12, 2022, Krajčík, armed with a handgun, opened fire on three people outside of Tepláreň, a small LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava’s Old Town neighborhood, killing Juraj Vankulič and Matúš Horváth and wounding their friend Radka Trokšiarová.

    “I was in terrible pain because the bullet went through my thighbone,” she recalled. “I am still in pain.”

    Krajčík took off on foot, and hours later he killed himself in a grove of trees next to a busy roadway. He was 19.

    Six thousand miles away in California, Humber promptly began making celebratory posts. Krajčík, she exclaimed, had achieved sainthood.

    Shortly after the Bratislava attack, Humber messaged Allison on Telegram, according to court records recently filed by federal prosecutors in the U.S.

    She told him she’d been communicating with another Terrorgrammer who was planning a racially motivated school shooting.The attack occurred weeks later in Aracruz, Brazil, when a 16-year-old wearing a skull mask shot 15 people at two schools, killing four. Another saint.

    On a Terrogram channel, Humber posted a ZIP file with info on the attack, including 17 photos and four videos. The massacre, she noted, was motivated by “Hatred of non-Whites.” And she made a pitch tailored for the next would-be teenage terrorist: The assailant, she wrote in a post, would get a “SLAP ON THE WRIST” prison sentence due to his age.

    While Krajčík was planning his attack, law enforcement agencies in Europe, the U.S. and Canada were quietly pursuing the leaders of the Terrorgram Collective.

    Beňadik was the first to fall. Using information collected by the FBI, investigators in Slovakia arrested him in May 2022 while he was on break from college. He’d been studying computer science at the Brno University of Technology in the Czech Republic.

    While in jail, Beňadik admitted his involvement with Terrorgram. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison shortly after the Tepláreň attacks.

    Describing Beňadik as “extremely intelligent,” prosecutor Peter Kysel said he believes the student never met with any of his fellow Terrorgrammers in person and didn’t even know their real names. “All the contacts was in the cyberspace,” he said.

    But Beňadik misled investigators about his connection to Krajčík, saying they had one brief interaction, via direct message. “This was the only communication,” said Daniel Lipšic, the prosecutor who investigated the Tepláreň attack.

    In fact, Beňadik and Krajčík had many conversations, the logs obtained by ProPublica and FRONTLINE show. The pair repeatedly discussed targeting Tepláreň, with the older man writing that killing the bar patrons with a nail bomb wasn’t brutal enough. Krajčík posted frequently about his animus toward gays and lesbians, which Beňadik encouraged.

    Alleged Terrorgram Collective co-founder Althorpe is also in custody. Canadian prosecutors have accused him of helping to produce the Terrorgram Collective publications, through which they say he “promoted genocide” and “knowingly instructed” others to carry out “terrorist activity.”

    At the time of his arrest, Althorpe was running a small company selling components for semi-automatic rifles such as AK-47s and AR-15s. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

    In the U.S., Humber and Allison are facing trial on charges including soliciting people to kill government officials through The List, distributing bomb-making instructions and providing material support to terrorists. Prosecutors say the two have been involved with the Terrorgram community since 2019.

    The 37-page indictment says they incited the attack on Tepláreň, noting that Krajčík “had frequent conversations with HUMBER, ALLISON, and other members of the Terrorgram Collective” before carrying out the crime.

    In a jailhouse interview that Allison gave against his lawyer’s advice, he admitted he produced content for the collective, including editing the “White Terror” video. Still, Allison insisted he never incited others to commit crimes and claimed The List wasn’t meant to be a guide for assassins. He said it was merely an exercise in doxxing, similar to how right-wing activists are outed by anti-fascist activists.

    All of his Telegram posts are protected under the First Amendment, according to a motion filed by his lawyers. They argue that while he was active in Telegram chats and channels, there is nothing in the government’s evidence to support the claim that he was a Terrorgram leader. “The chats are mostly a chaotic mix of hyperbole and posts without any recognized leader,” his lawyers wrote in the motion.

    Looking pale and grim, Humber declined to be interviewed when ProPublica and FRONTLINE visited the Sacramento County Jail. Her attorney declined to comment on the case.

    During the last days of the Biden administration, in January 2025, the State Department officially designated the Terrorgram Collective a global terrorist organization, hitting three more collective leaders in South Africa, Croatia and Brazil with sanctions. In February, Australia announced its own sanctions on Terrorgram, the first time that country’s government has imposed counterterrorism financing sanctions on an organization that is entirely based online.

    “The group has been majorly impacted in terms of its activity. We’ve seen many chats being voluntarily closed as people feel at risk of legal action, and we’ve seen generally the amount of discourse really reducing,” said Milo Comerford, an extremism expert at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based nonprofit that tracks hate groups and disinformation. The “organizational capabilities of the Terrorgram Collective itself have been severely undermined.”

    Pavel Durov (Illustration for ProPublica)

    The demise of Terrorgram has coincided with reforms announced at Telegram in the wake of one co-founder’s arrest last year in France. Pavel Durov is charged with allowing criminal activity, including drug trafficking and child sexual abuse, to flourish on his platform. He has called the charges “misguided,” saying CEOs should not be held liable for the misuse of their platforms. He was ordered to remain in France during the ongoing investigation, and, depending on the outcome, could face trial next year.

    In a statement, the company said, “Mr. Durov firmly denies all allegations.”

    The company said it has always complied with the European Union’s laws. “It is absurd to suggest that Telegram’s owner is responsible for the actions of a negligible fraction (<0.01%) of its 950M+ active users.”

    Still, after the arrest, the company announced a slew of reforms designed to make Telegram safer. It promised to police illegal content on the platform and share the IP addresses and phone numbers of alleged lawbreakers with authorities.

    In response, white supremacists began to flee the platform.

    Pete Simi, a sociology professor who studies extremism at Chapman University in Orange, California, said the incendiary ideas promoting race war and violence that animated the Terrorgram Collective will migrate to other platforms. “Especially given the broader climate that exists within our society,” Simi said. “There will be new Terrorgrams that take its place by another name, and we will continue to see this kind of extremism propagated through platforms of various sorts, not just Telegram.”

    Today, many extremists are gathering on X, where owner Elon Musk has loosened content restrictions. White supremacists frequently post a popular Terrorgram slogan about killing all Black people. There are several Brenton Tarrant fan accounts, and some racist and antisemitic influencers who were previously banned now have hundreds of thousands of followers.

    A review by ProPublica and FRONTLINE shows the company is removing some violent white supremacist content and suspending some extremist accounts. It also restricts the visibility of some racist and hateful posts by excluding them from search results or by adding a note to the post saying it violates X’s rules of community conduct. And we were unable to find posts on the platform that shared the bomb-making and terrorism manuals that had previously appeared on Telegram. The news organizations reached out to X multiple times but got no response.

    In early March, a person who had a history of posting Nazi imagery shared a 21-second video lionizing Juraj Krajčík. The clip shows one of his victims lying dead on the pavement.

    Tom Jennings, Annie Wong, Karina Meier and Max Maldonado of FRONTLINE, and Lukáš Diko of the Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak contributed reporting.


    This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by A.C. Thompson, ProPublica and FRONTLINE, and James Bandler, ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • President Donald Trump, the same man who once said that people promoting electric vehicles should “ROT IN HELL,” bought his own EV this week. He showed off his new Tesla Model S — red, like the Make America Great Again hats — outside the White House on Tuesday, piling compliments on his senior advisor Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, and declaring the company’s vehicles “beautiful.”

    It resembled a sales pitch for Musk’s company, the country’s biggest seller of EVs. Tesla has lost more than half of its value since December as sales have plummeted worldwide. With Musk dismantling parts of the federal government as the head of the new Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE, the vehicles have become a toxic symbol for Democrats, a large portion of Tesla owners. Over the past week, protesters have vandalized Tesla dealerships, set Cybertrucks aflame, and boycotted the brand. Liberal Tesla drivers have slapped stickers on their cars that read “I bought this before Elon went crazy.” 

    The strong feelings surrounding Musk have already started to scramble the politics around EVs. Trump’s exhibition at the White House on Tuesday was a defense of Musk, who he said had been unfairly penalized for “finding all sorts of terrible things that have taken place against our country.” Yet the bizarre scene of Trump showcasing a vehicle that runs on electricity instead of gas felt almost like a sketch from Saturday Night Live, and not just because the Trump administration has been trying to reverse Biden-era rules that would have sped up the adoption of low-emissions vehicles. Here were the two biggest characters in MAGA politics promoting a technology that’s been largely rejected by their right-wing base. 

    Other prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, quickly moved to defend Tesla against vandalism that Trump is labeling “domestic terrorism.” Tesla’s sudden shift from Democratic status symbol to Republican icon has some thinking the controversy around Musk could lead to a bipartisan embrace of EVs.

    “He’s uniquely positioned to and has the power to really shape this debate and help bridge the divide here,” said Joe Sacks, executive director of the American EV Jobs Alliance, a nonprofit trying to prevent “silly partisan politics” from stopping a manufacturing boom for electric vehicles. “I’m unsure if that’s what he’s going to use his new perch and his kind of role in the administration to do, but it seems like he has the ability to do that.” 

    According to polling the alliance conducted after the November election, Republicans have warmed up to Elon Musk, with 82 percent of those polled saying that Musk is a good ambassador for EVs. A solid majority of Trump voters — 64 percent — said they viewed Tesla favorably, compared with 59 percent of those who voted for Kamala Harris. “Republicans are probably inching towards the idea that there shouldn’t be much of a cultural divide on this product category, if the market leader CEO is sitting next to President Trump in the Oval Office during press conferences,” Sacks said.

    The data aligns with a recent analysis from the financial services firm Stifel, which found that Tesla has become more favorable among Republicans as its popularity plunges with Democrats. Compared to August, 13 percent more Republicans are willing to consider purchasing a Tesla.

    Photo of a Cybertruck painted like a flag with the word Trump over it
    A Donald Trump-themed Tesla Cybertruck sits in traffic in Washington, D.C.
    Christopher Furlong / Getty Images

    Yet there are reasons to suspect that EVs will continue to be a hard sell for Republicans. They are typically tradition-minded people who like big cars, not small cars with new technology they’ve never used before, said Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and co-author of the book Prius Or Pickup? “Conservatives don’t have the sensibility that fits with electric vehicles at all,” he said. “So I don’t think that you’re going to see a spike in Tesla sales among conservatives.”

    Alexander Edwards, president of the research consultancy Strategic Vision, said that Republicans view gas-powered cars as a more practical purchase for transporting their families from place to place. That’s based on his firm’s surveys, which examine the psychology behind the car choices of about a quarter-million Americans a year. “I think Elon made a bet that I think he’s secretly regretting, that Republicans would come out of the woodwork and say, ‘Yes, we’re going to support you,’” Edwards said.

    If they came around to any electric vehicle, however, it might be a Tesla. One of the primary things Republicans care about when it comes to buying a car is that it looks fast and goes fast, and Tesla has seen more Republican buyers for that reason, Edwards said. Democrats have consistently been buying electric vehicles at a rate of 4 to 1 compared to Republicans, but 2 to 1 when it comes to Teslas, according to Edwards’ data. Last year, more Republicans than Democrats bought Teslas for the first time — not because more Republican flocked to the brand, but because Democrats pulled away from it.

    For Democrats, who had long been criticized as having a smug attitude for driving a Prius, Teslas offered a cool and desirable alternative with less baggage when they took off in the early 2010s. “Tesla was able to finally give Democratic buyers what they were looking for — a Prius-like image of being thoughtful, combined with the fun and excitement of a real luxury sports car,” Edwards said. That started to change as Musk became a magnet for political controversy, starting with his takeover of Twitter in 2022. A Tesla EV became a symbol of Tesla’s CEO. 

    “Doesn’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat — when you jump into the Batmobile, you become Batman,” Edwards said. “And the same thing is true with the vehicles we purchase. We often want them to show who we are, what we’ve accomplished, what we stand for.”

    Of course, there are ways to depolarize electric vehicles that don’t rely on cues from Trump or Musk. Sacks recommends talking about the attributes of electric vehicles: their ability to accelerate faster and brake more crisply, as well as help people save money for every mile they drive, since there’s no need to buy gas. When people have friends or family who own an EV, that also helps break down the cultural divide, he said.

    In a way, you could see Trump becoming a salesman for electric vehicles as an example of that very phenomenon, with his self-described “first buddy” convincing him to come around. Just two years ago, Trump complained that EVs needed a charge every 15 minutes and would kill American jobs. But, after Musk endorsed his presidential campaign last summer and donated $288 million, Trump softened his tone, saying that he was in favor of “a very small slice” of cars being electric. “I have to be, you know,” Trump said, “because Elon endorsed me very strongly.” 

    On Tuesday, as Trump climbed into his new electric car for the first time, he seemed surprised by what he saw there. “That’s beautiful,” he said, admiring the dashboard. “This is a different panel than I’ve had. Everything’s computer!”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline MAGA Teslas? Elon Musk is upending the politics of EVs. on Mar 14, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • ANALYSIS: By Peter Davis

    With the sudden departure of New Zealand’s Reserve Bank Governor, one has to ask whether there is a pattern here — of a succession of public sector leaders leaving their posts in uncertain circumstances and a series of decisions being made without much regard for due process.

    It brings to mind the current spectacle of federal government politics playing out in the United States. Four years ago, we observed a concerted attempt by a raucous and determined crowd to storm the Capitol.

    Now a smaller, more disciplined and just as determined band is entering federal offices in Washington almost unhindered, to close agencies and programmes and to evict and terminate the employment of thousands of staff.

    This could never happen here. Or could it? Or has it and is it happening here? After all, we had an occupation of parliament, we had a rapid unravelling of a previous government’s legislative programme, and we have experienced the removal of CEOs and downgrading of key public agencies such as Kāinga Ora on slender pretexts, and the rapid and marked downsizing of the core public service establishment.

    Similarly, while the incoming Trump administration is targeting any federal diversity agenda, in New Zealand the incoming government has sought to curb the advancement of Māori interests, even to the extent of questioning elements of our basic constitutional framework.

    In other words, there are parallels, but also differences. This has mostly been conducted in a typical New Zealand low-key fashion, with more regard for legal niceties and less of the histrionics we see in Washington — yet it still bears comparison and probably reflects similar political dynamics.

    Nevertheless, the departure in quick succession of three health sector leaders and the targeting of Pharmac’s CEO suggest the agenda may be getting out of hand. In my experience of close contact with the DHB system the management and leadership teams at the top echelon were nothing short of outstanding.

    The Auckland District Health Board, as it then was, is the largest single organisation in Auckland — and the top management had to be up to the task. And they were.

    Value for money
    As for Pharmac, it is a standout agency for achieving value for money in the public sector. So why target it? The organisation has made cumulative savings of at least a billion dollars, equivalent to 5 percent of the annual health budget. Those monies have been reinvested elsewhere in the health sector. Furthermore, by distancing politicians from sometimes controversial funding decisions on a limited budget it shields them from public blowback.

    Unfortunately, Pharmac is the victim of its own success: the reinvestment of funds in the wider health sector has gone unheralded, and the shielding of politicians is rarely acknowledged.

    The job as CEO at Pharmac has got much harder with a limited budget, more expensive drugs targeting smaller groups, more vociferous patient groups — sometimes funded in part by drug companies — easy media stories (individuals being denied “lifesaving” treatments), and, more recently, less sympathetic political masters.

    Perhaps it was time for a changing of the guard, but the ungracious manner of it follows a similar pattern of other departures.

    The arrival of Sir Brian Roche as the new Public Service Commissioner may herald a more considered approach to public sector reform, rather than the slightly “wild west” New Zealand style with the unexplained abolition of the Productivity Commission, the premature ending of an expensive pumped hydro study, disbandment of sector industry groups, and the alleged cancellation of a large ferry contract by text, among other examples of a rather casual approach to due process.

    The danger we run is that the current cleaning out of public sector leaders is more than an expected turnover with a change of government, and rather a curbing of independent advice and thought. Will our public media agencies — TVNZ and RNZ — be next in line for the current thrust of popular and political attention?

    Major redundancies
    Taken together with the abolition of the Productivity Commission, major redundancies in the public sector, the removal of research funding for the humanities and the social sciences, a campaign by the Free Speech Union against university autonomy, the growing reliance on business lobbyists and lobby groups to determine decision-making, and the recent re-orientation of The New Zealand Herald towards a more populist stance, we could well be witnessing a concerted rebalancing of the ecosystem of advice and thought.

    In half a century of observing policy and politics from the relative safety of the university, I have never witnessed such a concerted campaign as we are experiencing. Not even in the turmoil of the 1990s.

    We need to change the national conversation before it is too late and we lose more of the key elements of the independence of advice and thought that we have established in the state and allied and quasi-autonomous agencies, as well as in the universities and the creative industries, and that lie at the heart of liberal democracy.

    Dr Peter Davis is emeritus professor of population health and social science at Auckland University, and a former elected member of the Auckland District Health Board. This article was first published by The Post and is republished with the author’s permission

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • More governments seeking to keep millions of people offline amid conflicts, protests and political instability

    Digital blackouts reached a record high in 2024 in Africa as more governments sought to keep millions of citizens off the internet than in any other period over the last decade.

    A report released by the internet rights group Access Now and #KeepItOn, a coalition of hundreds of civil society organisations worldwide, found there were 21 shutdowns in 15 African countries, surpassing the existing record of 19 shutdowns in 2020 and 2021.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • This story contains references to homophobia, antisemitism and racism, as well as mass shootings and other violence.

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” is part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica. The documentary premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

    The teen entered the chat with a friendly greeting.

    “Hello lads,” he typed.

    “Sup,” came a reply, along with a graphic that read “KILL JEWS.” Another poster shared a GIF of Adolf Hitler shaking hands with Benito Mussolini. Someone else added a short video of a gay pride flag being set on fire. Eventually, the talk in the group turned to mass shootings and bombings.

    And so in August 2019, Juraj Krajčík, then a soft-faced 16-year-old with a dense pile of brown hair, immersed himself in a loose collection of extremist chat groups and channels on the massive social media and messaging platform Telegram. This online community, which was dubbed Terrorgram, had a singular focus: inciting acts of white supremacist terrorism.

    Over the next three years, Krajčík made hundreds — possibly thousands — of posts in Terrorgram chats and channels, where a handful of influential content creators steered the conversation toward violence. Day after day, post after post, these influencers cultivated Krajčík, who lived with his family in a comfortable apartment in Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia. They reinforced his hatreds, fine-tuned his beliefs and fed him tips, encouraging him to attack gay and Jewish people and political leaders and become, in their parlance, a “saint.”

    On Oct. 12, 2022, Krajčík, armed with his father’s .45-caliber handgun, opened fire on three people sitting outside an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, killing two and wounding the third before fleeing the scene.

    That night, as police hunted for him, Krajčík spoke on the phone with Marek Madro, a Bratislava psychologist who runs a suicide hotline and mental health crisis team. “He hoped that what he had done would shake up society,” recalled Madro in an interview, adding that the teen was “very scared.”

    During the call, Krajčík kept repeating phrases from his manifesto, according to Madro. The 65-page document, written in crisp English and illustrated with graphics and photos, offered a detailed justification for his lethal actions. “Destroy the degenerates!” he wrote, before encouraging people to attack pride parades, gay and lesbian activists, and LGBTQ+ bars.

    Eventually Krajčík, standing in a small grove of trees alongside a busy roadway, put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

    The next day, Terrorgram influencers were praising the killer and circulating a PDF of his manifesto on Telegram.

    About This Partnership

    This story is part of a collaboration between ProPublica and FRONTLINE that includes an upcoming documentary.

    “We thank him from the bottom of our hearts and will never forget his sacrifice,” stated one post written by a Terrorgram leader in California. “FUCKING HAIL, BROTHER!!!”

    The story of Krajčík’s march to violence shows the murderous reach of the online extremists, who operated outside the view of local law enforcement. To police at the time, the killings seemed like the act of a lone gunman rather than what they were: the culmination of a coordinated recruiting effort that spanned two continents.

    ProPublica and the PBS series FRONTLINE, along with the Slovakian newsroom Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak, pieced together the story behind Krajčík’s evolution from a troubled teenager to mass shooter. We identified his user name on Telegram, which allowed us to sift through tens of thousands of now-deleted Telegram posts that had not previously been linked to him. Our team retraced his final hours, interviewing investigators, experts and victims in Slovakia, and mapped the links between Krajčík and the extremists in Europe and the U.S. who helped to shape him.

    The Terrorgram network has been gutted in recent months by the arrests of its leaders in North America and Europe. Telegram declined repeated requests to make its executives available for interviews but in a statement said, “Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.” The company also said that since 2023 it has stepped up moderation practices.

    Still, at a time when other mainstream social media companies such as X and Meta are cutting back on policing their online content, experts say the violent neo-Nazis that populated Telegram’s chats and channels will likely find an online home elsewhere.

    At first, Krajčík didn’t fit in with the Terrorgrammers. In one early post in 2019, he argued that the white nationalist movement would benefit from large public protests. The idea wasn’t well received.

    “Rallies won’t do shit,” replied one poster.

    Another told the teen that instead of organizing a rally, he should start murdering politicians, journalists and drag performers. “You need a mafia state of mind,” the person wrote.

    Krajčík had found his way to the Terrorgram community after hanging out on 8chan, a massive and anonymous forum that had long been an online haven for extremists; he would later say that he was “redpilled” — or radicalized — on the site.

    On 8chan, people posted racist memes and made plenty of vile comments. But the Terrorgram scene was different. In the Terrorgram chats people discussed, in detail, the best strategies for carrying out spectacular acts of violence aimed at toppling Western democracies and replacing them with all-white ethno-states.

    The chats Krajčík joined that summer of 2019 were administered by Pavol Beňadik, then a 20-year-old Slovakian college student who had helped create the Terrorgram community and was one of its leading personalities.

    A hybrid of a messaging service like WhatsApp and a social media platform like X or Facebook, Telegram offered features that appealed to extremists like Beňadik. They could engage in private encrypted discussions, start big chat groups or create public channels to broadcast their messages. Importantly, Telegram also allowed them to post huge PDF documents and lengthy video files.

    In his Terrorgram chats, Beňadik, who used the handle Slovakbro, relentlessly pressed for violent actions — although he never took any himself. Over two days in August, he posted instructions for making Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs, encouraged people to build radioactive dirty bombs and set them off in major cities, and called for the execution of police officers and other law enforcement agents. “TOTAL PIG DEATH,” he wrote.

    At the time, the chats were drawing hundreds of participants from around the world, including a large number of Americans.

    Beňadik, who was from a small village in western Slovakia, took a special interest in Krajčík, chatting with him in the Slovak language, discussing life in their country, and making him feel appreciated and respected.

    For Krajčík, this was a change. In his daily life outside of Terrorgram, he “felt completely unnoticed, unheard,” said Madro, who spoke with several of Krajčík’s classmates. “He often talked about his own feelings and thoughts publicly and felt like no one took him seriously.”

    Krajčík started spending massive amounts of time in the chat. On a single day, he posted 117 times over the span of 10 hours. The teen’s ideas began to closely echo those of Beňadik.

    In late September, two regulars had a friendly mixed martial arts bout and streamed it on YouTube. Krajčík shared the link with the rest of the chat group, who cheered and heckled as their online friends brawled. Beňadik encouraged Krajčík to participate in a similar bout in the future.

    “Porozmýšlam,” replied Krajčík: “I’ll think about it.”

    For Beňadik, the combatants were providing a good example. He wanted Terrorgrammers to transform themselves into Aryan warriors, hard men capable of doing serious physical harm to others.

    In reality, Krajčík was anything but a tough guy. A “severely bullied student,” Krajčík had transferred to a high school for academically gifted students, a school official told the Slovak newspaper Pravda. Two therapists “worked intensively with him for two years until the pandemic broke out and schools closed,” the official said.

    Juraj Krajčík posted this selfie on Twitter, which was later circulated on Terrorgram channels, accompanied by propaganda. (Obtained by Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak)

    Beňadik created at least five neo-Nazi channels and two chat groups on Telegram, one of which eventually attracted nearly 5,000 subscribers. He crafted an online persona as a sage leader, offering tips and guidance for carrying out effective attacks. He often posted practical materials, such as files for 3D-printing rifle parts, including auto sears, which transform a semiautomatic gun into a fully automatic weapon. “Read useful literature, get useful skills,” he said in an interview with a podcast. “You are the revolutionary, so act like it.”

    It was only a month after joining Beňadik’s Terrorgram chats that Krajčík first mentioned Tepláreň, the LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava he eventually attacked. On Sept. 18, 2019, he shared a link to a website called Queer Slovakia that featured an article on the bar.

    Beňadik responded immediately, writing that he was having a “copeland moment” — a reference to David Copeland, a British neo-Nazi who planted a nail bomb at an LGBTQ+ pub in London in 1999. The explosion killed three people and wounded nearly 80 others.

    “I DON’T ACTUALLY WANT TO NAIL BOMB THAT JOINT,” Beňadik continued. He wanted to do something far worse. “Hell,” Beňadik wrote, would be less brutal than what he had in mind.

    Another Terrorgrammer offered a suggestion: What about a bomb loaded with “Nails + ricin + chemicals?”

    Krajčík sounded a note of caution. “Just saying it will instantly make a squad of federal agents appear behind you and arrest you,” he wrote. Beňadik responded by complaining that Slovakia wasn’t producing enough “saints,” implicitly encouraging his mentee to achieve sainthood by committing a lethal act of terror.

    Two days later, Krajčík posted photos of people holding gay pride flags in downtown Bratislava. They were “degenerates,” he wrote, repeatedly using anti-gay slurs.

    One chat member told Krajčík he should’ve rounded up a group of Nazi skinheads and assaulted the demonstrators.

    Then Krajčík posted a photo of Tepláreň.

    Beňadik responded that “airborne paving stones make great gifts for such businesses.”

    In the chat, Beňadik repeatedly posted a PDF copy of the self-published memoirs of Eric Rudolph, the American terrorist who bombed the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and several other sites before going on the run. The autobiography contains a detailed description of Rudolph’s bombing of a lesbian bar, which wounded five people.

    Urging Krajčík to read the book, Beňadik described it as “AMAZING” and a “great read.” Rudolph, he wrote, had created the “archetype” for the “lone wolf” terrorist.

    Eventually, Krajčík joined at least 49 extremist Telegram chats, many of them nodes in the Terrorgram network, according to analysis by Pierre Vaux, a researcher who investigates threats to democracy and human rights abuses.

    While Terrorgram started as a loose collection of accounts, by 2021 Beňadik and some of his fellow influencers had created a more formal organization, which they called the Terrorgram Collective, according to interviews with experts and court records from Slovakia, the U.S. and Canada.

    The organization began producing more sophisticated content — books, videos and a roster of potential assassination targets — and distributing the material to thousands of followers.

    Krajčík was a fan of the collective’s books, which are loaded with highly pixelated black-and-white graphics and offer a raft of specific advice for anyone planning a terror attack.

    By the summer of 2022, Krajčík had become a regular poster in a Terrorgram chat run by another alleged leader of the collective, Dallas Humber of Elk Grove, California, a quiet suburb of Sacramento.

    Humber went by a series of usernames but was eventually publicly exposed by a group of activists, and later arrested and charged with terrorism-related offenses. ProPublica and FRONTLINE reviewed chat logs — provided by the anti-facist Australian research organization The White Rose Society — and other online materials, as well as court records, to independently confirm her identity.

    Beňadik was arrested in Slovakia and charged with more than 200 terrorism offenses. He pleaded guilty and would be sentenced to six years in prison.

    In his absence, Humber quickly slipped in as mentor and coach to Krajčík.

    She was explicit about her intentions, constantly encouraging followers in her chats and channels to go out and kill their perceived enemies — including Jewish and Muslim people, members of the queer community and anybody who wasn’t white. Her job, she wrote in one post, was to embrace disaffected young white men and guide them “through the end of the radicalization process.”

    On Aug. 2, 2022, Humber and Krajčík discussed a grisly incident that had occurred several days earlier: A white man had beaten to death a Nigerian immigrant on a city street in northern Italy.

    The killing, which was documented on video, was “fucking glorious,” wrote Humber, using a racial slur to describe the victim. “Please send any more pics, articles, info to the chat as more details come out,” she posted.

    Krajčík wrote that he didn’t know much about the circumstances surrounding the crime but was still convinced the murderer had chosen “the right path.”

    The killer, wrote Humber, would make an “ideal” boyfriend. “Every girl wants a man who would kill a [racial expletive] for her 🥰 how romantic.”

    Three days later, Humber’s chat was alive with tributes to and praise for another killer. Wade Page, a Nazi skinhead and former U.S. Army soldier, had murdered six Sikh worshippers at a temple outside of Milwaukee a decade earlier. (A seventh would later die of their injuries.)

    When police confronted Page, he began shooting at them, hitting one officer 15 times before killing himself.

    Humber was a big fan of the killer. Page, she wrote, planned the attack thoroughly and chose his targets carefully. “He even made a point to desocialize and cut ties with those close to him,” Humber noted. “No chance of them disrupting his plans.”

    “Page did his duty,” Krajčík wrote.

    During the same time period, Krajčík started doing reconnaissance on potential targets in his city, staking out the apartment of then-Prime Minister Eduard Heger, a Jewish community center and Tepláreň, the bar.

    He posted photos of the locations on his private Twitter account. And in a series of cryptic tweets, Krajčík hinted at the violence to come:

    “I don’t expect to make it. In all likelyhood I will die in the course of the operation.”

    “Before an operation, you will have to mentally deal with several important questions. You will have to deal with them alone, to not jeopardize your mission by leaking it.”

    “I want to damage the System to the best of my abilities.”

    Then, on Oct. 11, 2022, he wrote:

    “I have made my decision.”

    The next evening, after spending a half-hour outside the prime minister’s apartment, Krajčík made his way to Tepláreň. The bar sat on a steep, winding street lined with cafes, clothing boutiques and other small businesses. For about 40 minutes he lurked in a shadowy doorway up the hill. Then, at about 7 p.m., he approached a small group of people sitting in front of the bar and began shooting.

    He killed Matúš Horváth and Juraj Vankulič and wounded Radka Trokšiarová, shooting her twice in the leg.

    Krajčík, then 19, fled the scene. He had just committed a terrorist attack that would shock the nation.

    In court records, U.S. prosecutors have linked both Humber and another alleged Terrorgram leader, Matthew Allison of Boise, Idaho, to Krajčík’s crime. The pair were charged last fall with a raft of felonies related to their Terrorgram posts and propaganda, including conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and soliciting the murder of federal officials.

    Krajčík “was active on Terrorgram and had frequent conversations with ALLISON, HUMBER, and other members of the Terrorgram Collective,” prosecutors allege in the indictment. In another brief, they say Krajčík shared his manifesto with Allison before the attack. Then, immediately after the murders, he allegedly sent Allison direct messages saying, “not sure how much time I have but it’s happening,” and “just delete all messages about this convo.”

    The Terrorgram posts cited in court documents corroborate our team’s reporting.

    Allison spoke with one of our reporters from jail against his lawyer’s advice. He said he did not incite anyone to violence and that prosecutors had misconstrued the communications with Krajčík. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and in a motion, his legal team indicated it would argue that all of his posts are protected by the First Amendment. Humber also pleaded not guilty. She declined to be interviewed and to comment through her lawyer.

    While Krajčík was at large, Slovakian authorities tapped Madro, the psychologist, to try to communicate with the young man. “After 12 text messages, he finally picked up the phone,” Madro recalled.

    The brief conversation ended with Krajčík killing himself. “The shot rang out and there was silence,” Madro said.

    Within hours, Humber was making celebratory posts. Krajčík, she exclaimed, had achieved sainthood. “Saint Krajčík’s place in the Pantheon is undisputed, as is our enthusiastic support for his work,” she wrote on a Terrorgram channel where she posted a picture of the victims on the ground, blood streaking the pavement.

    She and Allison also circulated his manifesto.

    In it, Krajčík praised the Terrorgram Collective for its “incredible writing and art,” “political texts” and “practical guides.” And he thanked Beňadik: “Your work was some of the first that I encountered after making the switch to Telegram, and remains some of the greatest on the platform.”

    While they were spreading Krajčík’s propaganda, the owner of Tepláreň, Roman Samotný, was mourning.

    The bar “was kind of like a safe island for queer people here in Slovakia,” he recalled in an interview. “It was just the place where everybody felt welcomed and just accepted and relaxed.”

    Before the attack, Samotný’s major concern was that some homophobe would smash the bar’s windows. After the murders, he said, “the biggest change is the realization that we are not anymore safe here. … I was never thinking that we can be killed because of our identity.”

    Samotný has closed the bar.

    The survivor, Trokšiarová, was left with lingering physical pain and emotional distress. “I was deeply confused,” she said. “Why would anyone do it?”

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • The cryptocurrency investors and executives who crowded into the White House for a summit with Donald Trump on Friday represented billions in net worth.

    They also represented more than $11 million in donations to Trump’s inaugural committee, a review of the guest list by The Intercept shows.

    The list of invitees to the crypto summit offers a window into the tight links between Trump and the crypto world, which spent heavily last year to back candidates who favored looser regulation.

    Since taking office, the Trump administration has dropped legal action against several leading crypto companies and on Friday hosted the White House meeting that drew alarm from ethics watchdogs.

    Ahead of the White House summit, Trump signed an executive order creating a government bitcoin reserve — essentially telling the government to hold onto the bitcoin it has already acquired through forfeitures and directing it to find “budget-neutral strategies” for acquiring more. He also called on the government to maintain its holdings of more volatile “altcoins” other than bitcoin.

    “From this day on,” Trump said at the summit, “America will follow the rule that every bitcoiner knows very well, never sell your bitcoin. That’s a little phrase that they have. Is it right? Who the hell knows.”

    Watchdogs question Trump’s sudden embrace of crypto.

    “The outsized influence the crypto industry seems to have on the Trump administration is concerning,” said Delaney Marsco, director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit watchdog group. “When you put it in the context of the campaign donations, the inaugural fund donations, it paints a really troubling picture of potential corruption.”

    Running Down the List

    The invite list for Friday’s summit, as confirmed by White House crypto and AI czar David Sacks, included companies that donated heavily to Trump’s inaugural fund.

    Companies can give unlimited donations to that fund — making it an attractive way for them to curry favor. Large tech companies including Amazon, Meta, Google, and Microsoft rushed to donate to the fund after Trump’s victory left them in political peril.

    Among the companies invited to the summit, Crypto.com, Kraken, and Paradigm gave $1 million to the inauguration effort. They were outdone by the trading platform Robinhood, which gave $2 million, and by Ripple, which gave $5 million worth of its custom crypto token.

    Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase also donated $1 million. During last year’s campaign, the company spread money around both parties, including a $1 million donation to a pro-Kamala Harris super PAC.

    But the biggest item on Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s spending list was a pro-crypto super PAC, Fairshake, that disproportionately spent money on GOP candidates. Its spending may have helped tip the Senate for Republicans. Coinbase said in October that it would give another $25 million to the super PAC to help tip next year’s midterm elections as well.

    In total, Trump received at least $10 million donated by crypto interests to his campaign or super PACs supporting him, according to the tracking website Follow the Crypto.

    Some companies’ contributions to the fund may not have been made public yet, since the inaugural committee is not required to make a formal disclosure until 90 days after Trump’s swearing-in.

    In January, Chainlink Labs co-founder Sergey Nazarov, another invitee to the summit, posted pictures of himself at inaugural balls that the Trump team used to entice big-ticket donors. The company did not immediately respond to a question about whether it had donated.

    Many of the crypto executives invited to the gathering also made personal donations to Trump’s campaign or to pro-Trump super PACs.

    Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the twin brothers who co-founded the Gemini crypto exchange, gave more than $800,000 each to a Trump campaign committee.

    JP Richardson, the CEO of crypto wallet company Exodus, donated more than $850,000 worth of bitcoin to the campaign, according to a Fox Business report last year.

    Anchorage Digital CEO Nathan McCauley gave $300,00 to a Trump campaign committee, according to Federal Election Commission records.

    Kraken chair Jesse Powell, whose company was represented by another executive at the summit, said in June that he “personally donated” $1 million to Trump, complaining that “the Biden White House has stood by and allowed a campaign of unchecked regulation by enforcement.”

    Multicoin Capital managing partner Kyle Samani gave $300,000 to a Trump campaign committee and hundreds of thousands more to the Republican National Committee.

    David F. Bailey, the CEO of pro-crypto media company BTC, gave nearly $500,000 to a Trump campaign committee at the end of July.

    Bailey, who took a leading role in the successful campaign to pardon Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, celebrated on social media after Trump’s victory: “The reality of what we just pulled off is really starting to hit. I know we took a big chance by going all in, but it was the right call and I’m very thankful to the community for making the leap of faith.”

    Related

    Trump Appointees Can’t Own Crypto. That Rule Doesn’t Apply to Trump Himself.

    Trump has a direct financial interest in another company represented at the summit: World Liberty Financial, the decentralized finance company that lists Trump as its “chief crypto advocate.”

    World Liberty Financial bought up $20 million of several cryptocurrencies ahead of the summit, leading to further criticisms from ethics watchdogs.

    “President Trump has so many conflicts of interest broadly, it’s almost impossible to calculate how many conflicts of interest he has,” Campaign Legal Center’s Marsco said. “But it’s like this fox watching the henhouse situation, where you have a president who has a vested financial interest in crypto being a lucrative industry, and seeing itself become legitimized on a global scale.”

    Inside the White House

    Crypto leaders have influence outside and inside the White House.

    One of Trump’s first acts after winning the election was to appoint venture capitalist David Sacks as his crypto and artificial intelligence czar. Sacks’s firm was invested in a crypto index fund manager, although the firm recently updated its website to say it had exited that investment.

    Sacks also held undisclosed amounts of bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana but sold them before Trump’s inauguration, according to a social media post he made Sunday.

    Sacks sat to Trump’s left during the crypto summit and blasted the Biden administration’s attempt to enforce securities rules. Since taking office, the Trump administration has dropped cases against Coinbase and Kraken, and put on hold a fraud case against a crypto investor who had bought $30 million of tokens from Trump’s company.

    “This is an industry that was subjected to prosecution and persecution for the last four years. Horrible lawfare. And nobody knows what that feels like better than you do,” Sacks said. “You never back down, you stand to fight even in the face of an assassin’s bullet. It’s an inspiration to everyone in this room.”

    Sacks earlier this week promised to make more details about his divestment from crypto holdings public later, a promise that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., challenged him to follow through on immediately in a letter Thursday. Warren noted that all five of the crypto tokens that Trump listed as possible holdings in a U.S. crypto reserve also had been held by one of Sacks’s companies.

    “The planned Crypto Strategic Reserve is just the most recent example of a Trump Administration crypto policy with the potential to benefit a wealthy, well-connected few at the expense of taxpayers,” she said.

    Sacks is a special government employee, the same status wielded by Elon Musk as he oversees the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

    Another White House official with ties to the crypto world, Bo Hines, oversees Trump’s crypto council. Before moving to D.C., Hines’s media company joined forces with a meme coin that launched amid accusations of a pump-and-dump scheme.

    Hines sat to Sacks’s left during the summit Friday.

    The post Here’s How Much the Guests at Trump’s Crypto Summit Donated to His Inauguration appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Trump administration is planning to sell a major IRS computing center crucial to processing the tax returns of millions of Americans — just in time for tax season.

    The IRS Enterprise Computing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia, is included on a list of over 400 “empty and underutilized” federal properties marked for liquidation. It is one of two agency data facilities that make possible the collection of federal taxes in the United States. The Martinsburg data center has for decades housed the IRS “Master File,” an authoritative national record of tax return data and tax status for every tax-paying American individual and corporation, containing a historical computerized archive of every return and refund.

    While Martinsburg’s systems are vital around tax season — exactly when the Trump administration has ostensibly put it up for sale — its databases are queried year-round.

    On Tuesday, the Martinsburg center was flagged by the General Services Administration as one of hundreds of “noncore” facilities that should be sold off to save the federal government money. “Decades of funding deficiencies have resulted in many of these buildings becoming functionally obsolete and unsuitable for use by our federal workforce,” the GSA noted. But just last year, a GSA work order for roof repairs said the exact opposite about the Martinsburg facility, describing it as “a critical component of IRS’s operations, which, during peak season, processes over 13 million tax returns each day. Due to the continuous operations year-round and critical mission performed within, this project is viewed as a high priority.”

    It’s unclear if the administration intends to shutter the installation or eventually lease it back from private owners. Neither the GSA nor IRS immediately responded to a request for comment.

    Shortly after the GSA published the list of unwanted federal properties, it quickly amended and then deleted it entirely, leaving agencies in a state of confusion and disarray. On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that while the sales process had been paused, “the plan is still to dispose of the buildings.”

    Travis Thompson, a tax attorney with Boutin Jones and expert on IRS technology practices, told The Intercept the Martinsburg computing center is, contrary to the GSA’s new claim, absolutely mission-critical infrastructure.

    “It goes to the very backbone of what the IRS does,” Thompson said.

    The data housed at Martinsburg is also regularly tapped for internal investigations to ferret out fraud, Thompson said. He speculated that the sale, should it go through, would likely either result in the facility being sold to private owners and leased back to the federal government, or shuttered entirely. Owing to the extremely sensitive nature of the tax records held there, Martinsburg has always been a “super high-security facility,” and housing these computer systems under privatized ownership “does raise questions about protecting taxpayer data and the privacy of taxpayer data,” Thompson said. An interruption of service caused by a change in ownership would present potentially widespread disruption to the IRS and American taxpayers.

    Related

    The IRS Is Buying an AI Supercomputer From Nvidia

    In February, The Intercept reported that the IRS was purchasing a multimillion-dollar Nvidia AI supercomputing cluster which was to be installed at Martinsburg.

    In a statement to The Intercept, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., suggested private ownership is more likely.

    “If the Trump administration really sold this site, the IRS data system would be down to a single backup facility in Memphis, and all it would take to knock the entire agency offline is one hack or power outage. It’d be an economic disaster,” said Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. “That said, the likely story here is that Trump and Musk want to help a bunch of vultures plunder the country in a rent-seeking scheme, and after they sell off essential sites like this IRS facility, American taxpayers are going to be on the hook paying rent for real estate they should rightfully own.”

    The post It’s Tax Season — The Perfect Time for Trump to Sell This “Critical” IRS Computing Center appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The federal government has for the first time defined an ‘Australian business’ for procurement purposes as part of a multi-year project to extract more benefits from its $80 billion annual spend. About 20 per cent of the federal procurement spend goes to the technology sector, and Australian suppliers and advocates on Wednesday welcomed the new…

    The post ‘True blue’ tech suppliers to be recognised in procurement push appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Every month you pay an electricity bill, because there’s no choice if you want to keep the lights on. The power flows in one direction. But soon, utilities might desperately need something from you: electricity. 

    A system increasingly loaded with wind and solar will require customers to send power back into the system.  If the traditional grid centralized generation at power plants, experts believe the system of tomorrow will be more distributed, with power coming from what they call the “grid edge” — household batteries, electric cars, and other gadgets whose relationship with the grid has been one way.  More people, for example, are installing solar panels on their roofs backed up with home batteries. When electricity demand increases, a utility can draw power from those homes as a vast network of backup energy. 

    The big question is how to choreograph that electrical ballet — millions of different devices at the grid edge, owned by millions of different customers, that all need to talk to the utility’s systems. To address that problem, a team of researchers from several universities and national labs developed an algorithm for running a “local electricity market,” in which ratepayers would be compensated for allowing their devices to provide backup power to a utility. Their paper, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, described how the algorithm could coordinate so many sources of power — and then put the system to the test. “When you have numbers of that magnitude, then it becomes very difficult for one centralized entity to keep tabs on everything that’s going on,” said Anu Annaswamy, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the paper’s co-author. “Things need to become more distributed, and that is something the local electricity market can facilitate.”

    At the moment, utilities respond to a surge in demand for electricity by spinning up more generation at power plants running on fossil fuels. But they can’t necessarily do that with renewables, since the sun might not be shining, or the wind blowing. So as grids increasingly depend on clean energy, they’re getting more flexible: Giant banks of lithium-ion batteries, for instance, can store that juice for later use. 

    Yet grids will need even more flexibility in the event of a cyberattack or outage. If a hacker compromises a brand of smart thermostat to increase the load on a bunch of AC units at once, that could crash the grid by driving demand above available supply. With this sort of local electricity market imagined in the paper, a utility would call on other batteries in the network to boost supply,  stabilizing the grid. At the same time, electric water heaters and heat pumps for climate control could wind down, reducing demand. “In that sense, there’s not necessarily a fundamental difference between a battery and a smart device like a water heater, in terms of being able to provide the support to the grid,” said Jan Kleissl, director of the Center for Energy Research at the University of California, San Diego, who wasn’t involved in the new research.

    Along with this demand reduction, drawing power from devices along the grid edge would provide additional support. In testing out cyberattack scenarios and sustained inclement weather that reduces solar energy, the researchers found that the algorithm was able to restabilize the grid every time. The algorithm also provides a way to set the rates paid to households for their participation. That would depend on a number of factors such as time of day, location of the household, and the overall demand. “Consumers who provide flexibility are explicitly being compensated for that, rather than just people doing it voluntarily,” said Vineet J. Nair, a Ph.D. student at MIT and lead author of the paper. “That kind of compensation is a way to incentivize customers.”

    Utilities are already experimenting with these sorts of compensation programs, though on a much smaller scale. Electric buses in Oakland, California, for instance, are sending energy back to the grid when they’re not ferrying kids around. Utilities are also contracting with households to use their large home batteries, like Tesla’s Powerwall, as virtual power plants

    Building such systems is relatively easy, because homes with all their heat pumps and batteries are already hooked into the system, said Anna Lafoyiannis, senior team lead for transmission operations and planning at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. By contrast, connecting a solar and battery farm to the grid takes years of planning, permitting, and construction. “Distributed resources can be deployed really quickly on the grid,” she said. “When I look at flexibility, the time scale matters.”

    All these energy sources at the grid edge, combined with large battery farms operated by the utility, are dismantling the myth that renewables aren’t reliable enough to provide power on their own. One day, you might even get paid to help bury that myth for good.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Utilities may soon pay you to help support a greener grid on Mar 5, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Concerns about the potentially “catastrophic” introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into the nuclear weapons’ command, control and communication (N3) systems have been raised by the former First Sea Lord and former Security Minister Lord West of Spithead.

    An AI expert told the Canary that the potential worst-case scenario for introducing AI into nuclear weapons command and control systems is a situation like the one which caused the apocalypse in the Terminator franchise. 

    The Terminator films revolve around an event where the AI in control of the USA’s nuclear weapons system gains self-awareness, views its human controllers as a threat, and chooses to attempt to wipe out humanity. 

    Can’t, or wont?

    Lord West, a backbench Labour peer, raised his concerns via a parliamentary written question which was answered by Ministry of Defence minister of state Lord Coaker. 

    West asked:

    What work is being undertaken, and by whom, regarding the integration of AI in nuclear (1) command, (2) control, and (3) communications systems; and whether they have commissioned research to identify and manage high-risk AI applications?

    Responding, Lord Coaker said:

    The UK’s nuclear weapons are operationally independent and only the Prime Minister can authorise their use. It is a long-standing policy that we do not discuss detailed nuclear command and control matters and so will not be able to provide any additional detail.

    “Research to identify, understand, and mitigate against risks of AI in sensitive applications is underway. We will ensure that, regardless of any use of AI in our strategic systems, human political control of our nuclear weapons is maintained at all times.

    West confirmed to the Canary that his question was inspired by a recent briefing titled Assessing the implications of integrating AI in nuclear decision-making systems, published on 11 February 2025 by the European Leadership Network (ELN) and authored by Non-Resident Expert on AI at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) Alice Saltini. 

    The peer said he found Saltini’s paper very useful and:

    It’s the first time I’ve seen people really addressing [this issue].

    Peer warns about ‘catastrophic’ consequences of introducing AI into nuclear weapons

    West made it clear he doesn’t oppose AI, per se.

    There’s a lot of interest being shown in AI. I understand all of that. That’s fine, and I think there’s some good work going on

    He continued:

    I just am very, very nervous about getting AI into command and control and that area of nuclear weapons, because if anything goes wrong, the results can be so catastrophic.

    West was First Sea Lord and Commander in Chief of the Royal Navy from 2002 to 2006. 

    Reflecting on the response he got from the minister, West said:

    I just wanted to discover what actually has been going on. And I don’t think the answer really made me think, ‘Gosh, yes, they’re looking at this very carefully.

    I got the feeling that there are people saying, ‘Oh, maybe we could do this, that and the other with it’, and I’m not sure what safeguards and what work has been done to make sure that nothing silly is done.

    Explaining why he asked the question, in addition to being inspired by Saltini’s briefing, West said: 

    What I’d like to flag up is to anyone, let’s just be very wary if we do anything in this arena of AI, because [the] results could be so catastrophic.

    Reacting to the government’s line which implied it could use, or already be using AI, in “strategic systems”, West said:

    It gives a huge potential to all sorts of things.

    Appropriate oversight

    West said he wanted more reassurance from the government that it is at least being careful with the rollout of AI in the defence sector, including with appropriate oversight. He said: 

    What I’d like to flag up is to anyone, let’s just be very wary if we do anything in this arena of AI, because [the] results could be so catastrophic

    It would be very nice to have some more clarity about this, and some more reassurance about the work that’s actually going on.

    He recognised, however, that the government is likely unable to provide a full explanation of its activities in the areas of AI in defence because to do so could hand advantages to the UK’s adversaries. He said: 

    You can’t tell people what’s happening, because obviously, it’s going to be highly classified

    [However], you can reassure people and make sure people understand that work is going on – that can be done.

    On oversight specifically, he said:

    What I would like to see is that there’s someone who’s been set up to monitor and take charge of this and lay out the ground rules, and I’d like to know who that is.

    The government previously had a body called the AI Council which was “an independent expert committee that provided advice to government, and high-level leadership of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) ecosystem”, according to its website, but its last meeting was held in June 2023

    A newer body exists called the AI Security Institute, renamed recently from the AI Safety Institute, which appears to focus more on research into AI rather than providing oversight and governance.

    AI has “power-seeking tendencies”

    Saltini is described by the ELN as:

    specialising in the impact of AI on nuclear decision-making.

    She told the Canary:

    the government’s response doesn’t satisfactorily address the core problem of nuclear risks generated by AI.

    She said the reassurance in the parliamentary response that human political control would be maintained:

    rests on the familiar promise of keeping a human in the loop” but added “this approach is dangerously simplistic.

    A critical part of nuclear weapons development and maintenance is choices about the visibility of various parts of the weapon systems for adversaries because that visibility dictates how other states react to certain actions by nuclear-armed countries.

    Saltini said:

    the commitment to “human oversight […] mask critical vulnerabilities.

    As nuclear arsenals modernise under intense geopolitical pressure, integrating AI into nuclear decision-making carries a very real risk of unintended escalation

    Not every nuclear state has made an explicit commitment to human oversight, and even if they had, there is no straightforward way to verify these promises, leaving room for dangerous misinterpretations or misunderstandings of countries’ intentions.

    She explained that:

    AI tools are not perfect and have significant limitations for high-stakes domains” such as nuclear weapons. 

    They are prone to ‘hallucinations,’ where false information is generated with high confidence, and their opaque ‘black box’ nature means that even when a human is in the loop, the underlying processes can be too complex to fully understand. 

    “This is further compounded by cyber vulnerabilities and our inability to align AI outputs with human goals and values, potentially deviating from strategic objectives.

    She went on to hypothesise that introducing AI into nuclear weapons command and control systems could precipitate a situation like the one which leads to the apocalypse in the Terminator franchise. She said:

    As these systems gain greater operational agency, they may display power-seeking tendencies, potentially leading to rapid and unintended escalation in high-stakes environments. All of these limitations persist even when states maintain human oversight

    However, she did say that AI could have safer applications in the defence sector. 

    Generally speaking, when applied narrowly—with built-in redundancies and rigorous safeguards—AI can efficiently synthesise large volumes of data in a timely manner, support wargaming scenarios, and enhance training.

    In the nuclear weapons sector specifically, she said could “optimise logistics by streamlining maintenance schedules for nuclear assets and enhancing overall system efficiency, augmenting human capabilities and improving performance, rather than automating decisions.

    The answer on AI in nuclear weapons is not reassuring

    The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) said it strongly opposes the introduction of AI into systems related to nuclear weapons, as well as nuclear weapons themselves. 

    Reflecting on the minister’s response, CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    Their answer is not particularly reassuring. 

    Perhaps the Prime Minister is the only person who can authorise the use of nuclear weapons, but how much will the decision on what to do depend on information supplied by AI?

    Even if the PM has ultimate control, they would probably be ‘advised’ by AI systems that are there to provide possible strategies relevant to the perceived situation.

    Research into the risks of AI in sensitive applications is most definitely needed, but in the meantime, it seems that those AI systems already in the system will continue to operate.

    Bolt said the focus should be on de-escalation and disarmament, rather than introducing new technologies into nuclear weapons systems. She continued: 

    It would be easier, cheaper and safer for the government to spend time on negotiating nuclear arms reduction and eventual disarmament rather than trying to take part in a race to achieve some high tech goal that, even if achievable, will only be superseded by newer, more elaborate systems. 

    What is needed is a break in this technological anti-weapon – weapon cycle and a move to serious, in good faith, disarmament negotiations as required by our obligations under the NPT.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Tom Pashby

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Volker Türk alarmed at growing power of ‘unelected tech oligarchs’ and warns gender equality is being rolled back

    The UN human rights chief has warned of a “fundamental shift” in the US and sounded the alarm over the growing power of “unelected tech oligarchs”, in a stinging rebuke of Washington weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Volker Türk said there had been bipartisan support for human rights in the US for decades but said he was “now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • “The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity,” said fictional Captain Picard of “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

    Humanity is standing on the cusp. Climate change is presenting the U.S. with the same choice nature has gifted all its species: evolve or die; change is the only constant.

    As the cost of basic goods and, more importantly, energy continues to rise across the capitalist economies of Japan, Western Europe and North America, others have decided to utilize their economy to actually innovate. Instead of phallic vanity projects of the impotent super-wealthy, presented by SpaceX and Blue Origin, the “Chinese Academy of Space Technology” (CAST) has shown humanity a different way forward into the stars.

    The post Socialism Leads Humanity Out Of Artificial Scarcity appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In his first month back in the White House, US President Donald Trump indicated his interest in annexing Greenland and brokering a peace deal for Ukraine that would include access to Ukrainian minerals and metals. It is important to note that Greenland has already been a point of contention around its vast holdings of rare earth minerals with such remarkable names as dysprosium, neodymium, scandium, and yttrium (there are seventeen rare earth minerals that are central to any advanced technology). Given that Greenland is part of Denmark, it is therefore beholden to European Union (EU) rules.

    The post China Is Already The Leader In Advanced Critical Technologies appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Mayor Steve Fulop of Jersey City, New Jersey, was running for governor when he announced that he would invest part of his city’s pension fund in bitcoin.

    Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., was toying with a challenge to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul when he co-sponsored a resolution calling blockchain technology “the future of innovation.”

    Between them, the two represented an emerging trend among ambitious Democrats: Candidates angling for state office are touting support for the cryptocurrency industry.

    For crypto, the trend could yield rewards. Industry players would like to see friendly state-level financial regulation, loose rules for energy-intensive cryptocurrency mining, and potentially even state pension fund investments in their products.

    One industry critic chalked up the trend of Democrats paying homage to crypto to the industry’s money cannon.

    “I think it boils down to two words: opportunism and fear,” said Mark Hays, who works for the groups advocacy groups Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress. “I don’t think it gets more nuanced than that.”

    “Right now, a lot of folks are worried about being on the wrong side of that money.”

    For politicians, the push for crypto could draw votes from the young men mostly likely to trade crypto, but there could be bigger rewards to be reaped by attracting deep-pocketed industry donors. Supporters of crypto threw around large sums of money in last year’s elections for national offices and won nearly across the board.

    “The crypto industry, because the industry can print its own money, somewhat literally and metaphorically, it is able to pull a lot of money into electoral races and lobbying activity,” Hays said. “Right now, a lot of folks are worried about being on the wrong side of that money.”

    The move, though, could also invite backlash from Democratic primary voters at a time when the Dogecoin brand has been coopted by Elon Musk’s slash-and-burn government office and President Donald Trump has launched a meme coin of his own.

    Becoming Power Players

    Cryptocurrency companies have taken an improbable journey over the past decade from Silicon Valley startups to Washington power players.

    They first flexed their might in 2022, when Sam Bankman-Fried and other executives at the fraudulent crypto platform FTX showered tens of millions of dollars on Democratic and Republican campaigns.

    Bankman-Fried was behind bars by 2024, but other industry figures banded together on a super PAC that spent nearly $200 million on congressional races.

    The group was officially bipartisan and spent millions on Democrats, but it leaned Republican. The spending allocation may have ended up helping tip control of the Senate to Republicans and alienated one Democratic megadonor, who quit the effort in protest and eventually received a refund for his contribution.

    Last year, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the crypto’s top legislative priority, a bill called Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century, or FIT 21, that would slide most cryptocurrencies under an industry-friendly regulatory agency called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    Many Democrats were in favor of the bill — including two running in the crowded primary for the New Jersey governor’s race. Both of them, Rep. Mikie Sherrill and Rep. Josh Gottheimer, have been rated by the trade group Stand With Crypto as “strongly” supporting the industry.

    Neither Sherrill nor Gottheimer has talked up crypto on the campaign trail, and the issue has largely flown under the radar, according to an observer of state politics.

    “To most of the public, they haven’t encountered it in the gubernatorial race,” said Kristoffer Shields, the director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University.

    Shields still believes there are voters who care intensely about the issue, given the many finance industry professionals who work in New York City and Philadelphia but live in New Jersey.

    Public Pension Investments

    Fulop, the Jersey City mayor and a former Goldman Sachs banker, may have had those voters in mind when he announced in July that he would be investing part of Jersey City’s pension fund in bitcoin.

    Fulop said on X that he had “been a long time believer (through ups/downs) in crypto” and that blockchain, the technology underlying cryptocurrencies, “is amongst the most important new technology innovations since the internet.”

    “I believe in asset class diversification as a responsible investment strategy.”

    In a statement, Fulop said the city has allocated only a small percentage of its pension holdings to bitcoin through an exchange-traded fund and that it has performed well since the purchases began in November.

    State pension funds represent an attractive opportunity for crypto companies, who have begun lobbying states to invest in their products. If elected to the governor’s mansion, Fulop said he would be open to investing some of the state’s pension money in cryptocurrencies.

    “Similar to what we’ve done with Jersey City’s pension fund, I believe in asset class diversification as a responsible investment strategy,” he said. “Allocating 1 to 2 percent of a portfolio to crypto can provide reasonable exposure while managing risk appropriately.”

    From a political perspective, Shields said, investing in crypto could worry voters about losing money on risky bets. He believes, however, that associating with crypto also provides politicians to grab on to a rare issue that cuts across party lines.

    “The ones who do care care a lot.”

    “Most constituents haven’t thought too much about it or don’t care about it,” he said. “But the ones who do care care a lot.”

    So far, the industry has not directed its vast campaign holdings into the New Jersey gubernatorial race. At least three of the Democrats have received campaign donations from crypto companies or leaders, however.

    Crypto-aligned super PACs spent $242,000 backing Gottheimer during the last election cycle and crypto figures donated $51,000 directly to his campaign organizations, according to the tracker website Follow the Crypto. Money donated to his federal campaign account cannot be transferred to his state account.

    Industry figures have given far less — $3,333 — to Sherrill, who is leading in the polls so far.

    A super PAC supporting Fulop, meanwhile, received a $10,000 donation from Gregory Tusar, a vice president at the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase.

    “Greg and I have been personal friends for 20 years,” Fulop said in a statement. “We worked together in algorithmic trading at Goldman Sachs long before cryptocurrency even existed. His support of Coalition for Progress has nothing to do with the crypto industry.”

    New York Governor’s Race

    Across the Hudson River, the contours of the 2026 New York governor’s race are already taking shape. Sitting Gov. Kathy Hochul’s weak poll numbers have encouraged other Democrats to consider a primary challenge.

    Hochul in 2022 earned the enmity of the crypto industry by signing a two-year moratorium on cryptocurrency mining, which was motivated by concerns from environmentalists that it would incentivize the reopening of dirty power plants. So far, two rumored Democratic contenders to Hochul have strong connections to crypto.

    Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado was backed by a $1 million donation from an SBF-associated super PAC during his 2022 campaign, which drew accusations that he was supported by “dirty” money even before the collapse of FTX. Delgado’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    Meanwhile, Torres, the New York representative in Washington, has repeatedly touted the benefits of crypto from his perch in Congress. He lambasted regulators under former President Joe Biden for trying to crack down on companies such as Ripple Labs and Coinbase for violating securities laws.

    Both companies contributed to a network of super PACs that backed Torres with $173,000 in spending during the last election cycle. (Torres did not respond to a request for comment.)

    During his time in Congress, he has sponsored at least eight pro-crypto measures, the most recent a resolution expressing general support for digital assets and blockchain technology.

    “Blockchain technology and digital assets represent the future of innovation, economic growth, and financial inclusion,” Torres said in a February 5 statement accompanying the measure’s introduction. “The United States must lead in shaping a regulatory framework that fosters technological advancement while protecting consumers and ensuring transparency. By embracing this next generation, we can create a more equitable financial system that benefits every American.”

    $TRUMP

    Torres, one of two Democrats to co-sponsor the crypto resolution, was embracing crypto at a moment when crypto was embracing Trump.

    Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was one of the first executives to meet with Trump after his election in November. Last week, the company announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission would drop a 2023 lawsuit against it.

    “There is not much daylight at all between Elon Musk’s worldview and key leading figures of the crypto industry.”

    One of the biggest launches in the crypto world in recent months was by Trump himself, with the introduction hours before his inauguration of the $TRUMP token. The Trump coin sparked a backlash in the crypto world from figures who worried it would harm the industry’s reputation.

    Hays, the advocate with Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress, said candidates should be cautious when embracing the industry, because they may wind up embracing a worldview that alienates their voters.

    “Many, many people are concerned about what Elon Musk is doing. There is not much daylight at all between Elon Musk’s worldview, his goals and objectives, his ideas about how society should effectively be run by techno elites, and key leading figures of the crypto industry,” he said. “Those people see crypto as not only a representation of that worldview, but a means to an end.”

    The post “Opportunism and Fear”: Crypto Industry Sets Its Sights on Governors’ Mansions appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Over 20 U.S. federal tech workers who were forced into President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency resigned in protest on Tuesday, according to a joint letter obtained by The Associated Press.

    The 21 data scientists, engineers, and product managers were initially part of the United States Digital Service, established during the Obama administration. However, one of Trump’s first executive orders states that it “is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President.”

    The post Refusing To Help DOGE ‘Dismantle Critical Public Services,’ Tech Experts Resign appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • President Donald Trump doesn’t have fond feelings for whistleblowers.

    During his first term, Trump’s Justice Department carried out a clandestine spying operation to try to catch leakers. On the campaign trail, Trump on multiple occasions threatened to arrest journalists who don’t reveal their sources — and suggested they should be raped in prison until they give up names.

    For those who want to speak out against wrongdoing within the U.S. government, it has never been more critical to take steps to keep themselves safe. So we compiled these best practices for leaking information in public interest under the Trump administration.

    Don’t Call or Text

    Phone calls and text messages are convenient, but they aren’t safe for whistleblowers. As outlined in a December report from the Office of the Inspector General, the Justice Department in Trump’s first term repeatedly utilized “compulsory processes” — which include subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders — to request “non-content communications records” from phone carriers serving journalists at CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The requests were for both the reporters’ work numbers and their personal numbers.

    Non-content records don’t include the communications themselves — such as copies of text messages or voicemails. Instead, government investigators were keen to gather metadata pertaining to the communications: for instance, who sent a message or made a call to a journalist’s phone and at what time.

    Even if the contents of the conversation are not recorded, the metadata establishes clear links between parties.

    If a metadata search turns up evidence of communication with journalists or rights groups, this alone could reveal who is behind a leak.

    Don’t Email

    Never use a work or personal email address when communicating with journalists.

    In its attempt to root out leaks during Trump’s first term, the Justice Department also sought non-content information pertaining to reporters’ email communications from their email service providers. They wanted details such as the time an email was sent and received, as well as the sender’s email address.

    Related

    The Trump DOJ Loved Leaking, as Long as It Was to Rupert Murdoch’s Newspapers

    While email encryption technology can encrypt the body of the email message and in some cases subject lines as well, the email addresses themselves and dates and times emails are sent and received are not encrypted.

    This means it’s not hard for investigators to use email records to draw a clear line between a journalist and their source — even if they can’t determine what information specifically was exchanged.

    Setting up a separate email account entirely for communicating with journalists or rights groups is an option, but there are a number of potential gotchas. For instance, care should be taken to not reveal any identifying information when setting up a burner email account: Don’t use your phone number for two-factor authentication, choose a throwaway username that is not linked to you in any way, and select a vetted VPN or the Tor network to mask your IP address. Considering all these obstacles, it’s often best to avoid email altogether.

    Don’t Reach Out on Social Media

    The owners of tech’s biggest social media platforms have shown varying degrees of fealty to the Trump administration. These genuflections include Mark Zuckerberg ending DEI programs at Meta, Andy Yen, the CEO of “privacy-first” email provider Proton, going on about how the Republican party today stands for “the little guys,” and Elon Musk, the owner of X, calling shots as a “special government employee.”

    The fact that Trump’s richest fan also owns a popular social media platform should give pause about using X to share sensitive information. It doesn’t take an overactive imagination to see a scenario in which the companies that own communication channels are willing to provide user information to a government they’re eager to please.

    Although social media direct messages are generally unencrypted by default, some social media platforms now offer optional end-to-end encrypted messaging, though this feature needs to be enabled manually. For instance, X direct messages can be encrypted if both parties are verified users, and Facebook Messenger can also be used to send encrypted DMs. But the metadata, or non-content information, would still reveal that your account was in contact with a reporter’s account.

    Selectively Use Encrypted Communication Tools

    Similar metadata risks apply to messaging platforms such as Telegram and WhatsApp. Telegram offers encryption, but it is not enabled by default and comes with a number of limitations. WhatsApp encrypts messages by default, but nonetheless reveals a variety of metadata about communications themselves.

    Given the way government investigators typically demand non-content communication records, end-to-end encryption alone does not mask whether or not someone is talking to journalists or other entities.

    Secure communication tools such as Signal and Session minimize the amount of metadata and user information that platform operators themselves can access.

    Signal can identify the date a particular account was created, as well as when the account last accessed the service. It can also identify a phone number associated with an active username, which is vastly less metadata than other messaging platforms collect.   

    If you’re concerned about your username being linked to your phone number, change your username at regular intervals, which would prevent past usernames from being tied to your phone number.

    Signal routinely posts copies of the requests for user information it receives from the government. These disclosures show that Signal tends to share merely when a particular account was last accessed and first created. Government requests for information from service providers, however, may come with non-disclosure orders that could legally prevent operators from posting notice of these demands on their transparency pages and potentially bar them from notifying the affected users themselves.

    Session, a messenger whose tagline is “send messages, not metadata” reduces the amount of information it stores about its users by, for instance, not using centralized servers to relay messages.  

    Nothing Is a Substitute for OPSEC

    But the best end-to-end encryption and metadata minimization won’t keep you safe without basic operational security.

    Digital access logs may reveal who viewed, printed, or downloaded a copy of the file, and when. The more files you access, the more likely it is that you may be the one common individual who accessed all those files.

    Avoid whistleblower communications while physically present at work. Aside from someone seeing your screen, your employer may also be able to identify that you accessed a particular communication service while on a company network.

    Under no circumstances should you also use work devices when communicating with or transferring data to reporters or rights groups.

    Equally risky are personal devices with any work-assigned device management apps installed. It might seem old-fashioned, but rather than taking a screenshot of a specific document or chat record on a work device, take a photo of the screen with a separate one-time use phone, or at least a personal device.

    Make clear to anyone you might alert of wrongdoing that leaked photos or documents generally should not be published in their entirety. That’s because source material can potentially be linked to the specific device with which it was captured.

    A photo showing a file on your computer monitor, for instance, might include a blemish or a smudge of dirt on the screen. More sophisticated forensic techniques, such as watermarking, can be used to trace the origins of a leaked email or video conference.

    Even emails seemingly sent to a large number of recipients may be individually watermarked, with each message containing some unique change that can be traced to a single recipient. That’s why it’s safest for journalists not to reproduce emails verbatim and instead rely on selective quotes or summarizations.

    After communicating with outside parties, ensure that no records of sensitive communications persist. Be sure to delete not just specific messages, but entire chat histories from all linked devices on which your messaging app of choice is installed. Request that anyone with whom you share sensitive information does the same. Remember to not save each other in your contacts lists, either.

    Blowing the whistle can have a real impact in the world, but it also comes with risks — the threat of prosecution or losing your job among them. Although leak investigations may again become a priority in the Trump administration, these dos and don’ts can help reduce the chances of exposing yourself when you’re shining light on wrongdoing.

    The post How to Leak Under the Trump Administration appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

    • Location: Physical
    • Date: 07 March 2025
    • Time: 1:00PM – 2:00PM CET
    • Address: Room XXV, Palais des Nations
    • Event language(s) English
    • RSVP Needed: no

    New and emerging technologies have become a fundamental tool for human rights defenders to conduct their activities, boost solidarity among movements and reach different audiences. Unfortunately, these positive aspects have been overshadowed by negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, including increased threats and risks for human rights defenders. While we see the increased negative impacts of new technologies, we do not see that governments are addressing these impacts comprehensively.

    Furthermore, States and their law enforcement agencies (often through the help of non-State actors, including business enterprises) often take down or censor the information shared by defenders on social media and other platforms. In other cases, we have seen that businesses are also complicit in attacks and violations against human right defenders.

    Conversely, lack of access to the internet and the digital gaps in many countries and regions, or affecting specific groups, limits the potential of digital technologies for activism and movement building, as well as access to information. 

    The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted in 1998, does not consider these challenges, which have largely arisen with the rapid evolution of technology. In this context, and, as part of activities to mark the 25th anniversary of the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, a coalition of NGOs launched a consultative initiative to identify the key issues faced by human rights defenders that are insufficiently addressed by the UN Declaration, including on the area of digital and new technologies. These issues are also reflected in the open letter to States on the draft resolution on human rights defenders that will be considered during HRC58. 

    This side event will be an opportunity to continue discussing the reality and the challenges that human rights defenders face in the context of new and emerging technologies. It will also be an opportunity to hear directly from those who, on a daily basis, work with defenders in the field of digital rights while highlighting their specific protection needs. Finally, the event will also help remind States about the range of obligations in this field that can contribute to inform the consultations on the HRC58 resolution on human rights defenders. 

    Panelists:

    • Opening remarks: Permanent Mission of Norway
    • Speakers:
      • Carla Vitoria – Association for Progressive Communications 
      • Human rights defender from Kenya regarding the Safaricom case (via video message)
      • Woman human rights defender from Colombia regarding use of new technologies during peaceful protests
      • Human rights defender from Myanmar regarding online incitement to violence against Rohingya people
    • Video montage of civil society priorities for the human rights defender resolution at HRC58
    • Moderator: Ulises Quero, Programme Manager, Land, Environment and Business & Human Rights (ISHR)

    This event is co-sponsored by Access Now, Asian Forum for Human Rights & Development (FORUM-ASIA), Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa HRD Project), Huridocs, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA World), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Peace Brigades International, Privacy International, Protection International,  Regional Coalition of WHRDs in Southwest Asia and North Africa (WHRD MENA Coalition). 

    https://ishr.ch/events/protection-of-defenders-against-new-and-emerging-forms-of-technology-facilitated-rights-violations

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • The Donald Trump administration is holding talks between the United States and Russia, and he says he wants to end the war in Ukraine.

    Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has even proposed that the US could “partner with the Russians, geopolitically”.

    What is happening here? The simple answer is that this is all about China.

    Trump is trying to divide Russia from China, in an attempt to isolate Beijing.

    The United States sees China as the number one threat to its global dominance. This has been stated clearly by top officials in both the Trump administration and the previous Joe Biden administration.

    The post Trump Wants US To ‘Partner’ With Russia To Weaken China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    Hours after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, users spread a false claim on Facebook that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was paying a bounty for reports of undocumented people.

    “BREAKING — ICE is allegedly offering $750 per illegal immigrant that you turn in through their tip form,” read a post on a page called NO Filter Seeking Truth, adding, “Cash in folks.”

    Check Your Fact, Reuters and other fact-checkers debunked the claim, and Facebook added labels to posts warning that they contained false information or missing context. ICE has a tip line but said it does not offer cash bounties.

    This spring, Meta plans to stop working with fact-checkers in the U.S. to label false or misleading content, the company said on Jan. 7. And if a post like the one about ICE goes viral, the pages that spread it could earn a cash bonus.

    Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also said in January that the company was removing or dialing back automated systems that reduce the spread of false information. At the same time, Meta is revamping a program that has paid bonuses to creators for content based on views and engagement, potentially pouring accelerant on the kind of false posts it once policed. The new Facebook Content Monetization program is currently invite-only, but Meta plans to make it widely available this year.

    The upshot: a likely resurgence of incendiary false stories on Facebook, some of them funded by Meta, according to former professional Facebook hoaxsters and a former Meta data scientist who worked on trust and safety.

    ProPublica identified 95 Facebook pages that regularly post made-up headlines designed to draw engagement — and, often, stoke political divisions. The pages, most of which are managed by people overseas, have a total of more than 7.7 million followers.

    After a review, Meta said it had removed 81 pages for being managed by fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves as American while posting about politics and social issues. Tracy Clayton, a Meta spokesperson, declined to respond to specific questions, including whether any of the pages were eligible for or enrolled in the company’s viral content payout program.

    The pages collected by ProPublica offer a sample of those that could be poised to cash in.

    Meta has made debunking viral hoaxes created for money a top priority for nearly a decade, with one executive calling this content the “worst of the worst.” Meta has a policy against paying for content its fact-checkers label as false, but that rule will become irrelevant when the company stops working with them. Already, 404 Media found that overseas spammers are earning payouts using deceptive AI-generated content, including images of emaciated people meant to stoke emotion and engagement. Such content is rarely fact-checked because it doesn’t make any verifiable claims.

    With the removal of fact-checks in the U.S., “what is the protection now against viral hoaxes for profit?” said Jeff Allen, the chief research officer of the nonprofit Integrity Institute and a former Meta data scientist.

    “The systems are designed to amplify the most salacious and inciting content,” he added.

    In an exchange on Facebook Messenger, the manager of NO Filter Seeking Truth, which shared the false ICE post, told ProPublica that the page has been penalized so many times for sharing false information that Meta won’t allow it to earn money under the current rules. The page is run by a woman based in the southern U.S., who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she said she has received threats due to her posts. She said the news about the fact-checking system ending was “great information.”

    Clayton said Meta’s community standards and content moderation teams are still active and reiterated the company’s Jan. 7 statement that it is working to ensure it doesn’t “over-enforce” its rules by mistakenly banning or suppressing content.

    Meta’s changes mark a significant reversal of the company’s approach to moderating false and misleading information, reframing the labeling or downranking of content as a form of censorship. “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement. His stance reflects the approach of Elon Musk after acquiring Twitter, now X, in 2022. Musk has made drastic cuts to the company’s trust and safety team, reinstated thousands of suspended accounts including that of a prominent neo-Nazi and positioned Community Notes, which allows participating users to add context via notes appended to tweets, as the platform’s key system for flagging false and misleading content.

    Zuckerberg has said Meta will replace fact-checkers and some automated systems in the U.S. with a version of the Community Notes system. A Jan. 7 update to a Meta policy page said that in the U.S. the company “may still reduce the distribution of certain hoax content whose spread creates a particularly bad user or product experience (e.g., certain commercial hoaxes).”

    Clayton did not clarify whether posts with notes appended to them would be eligible for monetization. He provided links to academic papers that detail how crowdsourced fact-checking programs like Community Notes can be effective at identifying misinformation, building trust among users and addressing perceptions of bias.

    A 2023 ProPublica investigation, as well as reporting from Bloomberg, found that X’s Community Notes failed to effectively address the misinformation about the Israel-Hamas conflict. Reporting from the BBC and Agence France-Presse showed that X users who share false information have earned thousands of dollars thanks to X’s content monetization program, which also rewards high engagement.

    Keith Coleman, X’s vice president of product, previously told ProPublica that the analysis of Community Notes about the Israel-Hamas conflict did not include all of the relevant notes, and he said that the program “is found helpful by people globally, across the political spectrum.”

    Allen said it takes time, resources and oversight to scale up crowdsourced fact-checking systems. Meta’s decision to scrap fact-checking before giving the new approach time to prove itself is risky, he said.

    “We could in theory have a Community Notes program that was as effective, if not more effective, than the fact-checking program,” he said. “But to turn all these things off before you have the Community Notes thing in place definitely feels like we’re explicitly going to have a moment with little guardrails.”

    Before Facebook began cracking down on content in late 2016, American fake news peddlers and spammers based in North Macedonia and elsewhere cashed in on viral hoaxes that deepened political divisions and played on people’s fears.

    One American, Jestin Coler, ran a network of sites that earned money from hoax news stories for nearly a decade, including the infamous and false viral headline from 2016 “FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide.” He previously told NPR that he started the sites as a way to “infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right.” Coler said he earned five figures a month from the sites, which he operated in his spare time.

    When people clicked on the links to the stories in their news feed, they landed on websites full of ads, which generated revenue for Coler. That’s become a tougher business model since Meta has made story links less visible on Facebook in recent years.

    Facebook’s new program to pay publishers directly for viral content could unlock a fresh revenue stream for hoaxsters. “It’s still the same formula to get people riled up. It seems like it could just go right back to those days, like overnight,” Coler told ProPublica in a phone interview. He said he left the Facebook hoax business years ago and won’t return.

    In January, ProPublica compiled a list of pages that had been previously cited for posting hoaxes and false content and discovered dozens more through domain and content searches. The pages posted false headlines designed to spark controversy, such as “Lia Thomas Admits: ‘I Faked Being Trans to Expose How Gullible the Left Is’” and “Elon Musk announced that he has acquired MSNBC for $900 million to put an end to toxic programming.” The Musk headline was paired with an AI-generated image of him holding a contract with the MSNBC logo. It generated over 11,000 reactions, shares and comments.

    Most of the pages are managed by accounts outside of the U.S., including in North Macedonia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, according to data from Facebook. Many of these pages use AI-generated images to illustrate their made-up headlines.

    One network of overseas-run pages is connected to the site SpaceXMania.com, an ad-funded site filled with hoax articles like “Elon Musk Confronts Beyoncé Publicly: ‘Stop Pretending to Be Country, It’s Just Not You.’” SpaceX Fanclub, the network’s largest Facebook page, has close to 220,000 followers and labels its content as satire. One of its recent posts was a typo-laden AI-generated image of a sign that said, “There Are Only 2 2 Genders And Will Ban Atheletes From Women Sports — President.”

    SpaceXMania.com’s terms and conditions page says it’s owned by Funky Creations LTD, a United Kingdom company registered to Muhammad Shabayer Shaukat, a Pakistani national. ProPublica sent questions to the site and received an email response signed by Tim Lawson, who said he’s an American based in Florida who works with Shaukat. (ProPublica was unable to locate a person by that name in public records searches, based on the information he provided.)

    “Our work involves analyzing the latest trends and high-profile news related to celebrities and shaping it in a way that appeals to a specific audience — particularly conservatives and far-right groups who are predisposed to believe certain narratives,” the email said.

    Lawson said they earn between $500 and $1,500 per month from web ads and more than half of the traffic comes from people clicking on links on Facebook. The pages are not currently enrolled in the invitation-only Facebook Content Monetization program, according to Lawson.

    The SpaceXMania pages identified by ProPublica were recently taken offline. Lawson denied that they were removed by Meta and said he deactivated the pages “due to some security reasons.” Meta declined to comment.

    It remains to be seen how hoax page operators will fare as Meta’s algorithmic reversals take hold and the U.S. fact-checking program grinds to a halt. But some Facebook users are already taking advantage of the loosened guardrails.

    Soon after Zuckerberg announced the changes, people spread a fake screenshot of a Bloomberg article headlined, “The spark from Zuckerberg’s electric penis pump, might be responsible for the LA fires.”

    “Community note: verified true,” wrote one commenter.

    Mollie Simon contributed research.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • In 2025, we will be exploring ways to put this in practice in MONDRAGON’s cooperatives to learn how the principles behind citizens’ assemblies – sortition (randomly selecting decision makers), deliberation, and rotation – can be applied in the context of cooperative decision making and governance. The goals are to help lead to a more engaged workforce and membership, as well as to result in better, more informed, and legitimate decisions in times of complexity. 

    Furthermore, we will test how new technologies can enrich deliberation processes and facilitate new approaches to decision making in cooperatives.

    The post Tech-Enhanced Deliberation For Cooperative Decision-Making appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Matt and Sam are joined by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes to discuss his new book The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.