Category: Technology


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Heat pumps are essential for ditching fossil fuels. The appliances are many times more efficient than even the best gas furnaces, and they run on electricity, so they can draw power from renewables like wind and solar. 

    But the very thing that makes them such an amazing climate solution is also their biggest challenge. A common refrigerant called R-410A pumps through their innards so they can warm and cool homes and offices and anything else. But that refrigerant is also liquid irony, as it can escape as a greenhouse gas over 2,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. (This is known as its “global warming potential,” or how much energy a ton of the gas absorbs over a given amount of time compared to the same amount of CO2.) Leaks can happen during the installation, operation, and disposal of heat pumps. 

    But this year the industry is rolling out alternative refrigerant formulations like R-454B and R-32, which have around 75 percent less global warming potential. That’s in response to Environmental Protection Agency rules mandating that, starting this year, heat pump refrigerants have a global warming potential of no more than 700. Manufacturers are looking even farther ahead at the possibility of using propane, or even CO2, as the next generation of more atmospherically friendly refrigerants.

    “The whole industry is going to be transitioning away from R-410A, so that’s good,” said Jeff Stewart, the refrigeration chief engineer for residential heating, ventilation, and air conditioning at Trane Technologies, which makes heat pumps and gas furnaces. “We’re getting lower global warming potential. The problem is, it still has some, right? So there’s concern about ‘OK, is that low enough to really help the environment?’”

    To be clear, heat pumps do not release greenhouse gases at anywhere near the scale of burning natural gas to heat homes, so their environmental impact is way smaller. “Even if we lost all the refrigerant, it still actually has a much smaller effect just having a heat pump and not burning gas,” said Matthew Knoll, co-founder and chief technology officer at California-based Quilt, which builds heat pump systems for homes. “I would actually want to make sure that doesn’t hamper the rapid adoption of heat pumps.”

    But why does a heat pump need refrigerant? Well, to transfer heat. By changing the state of the liquid to a gas, then compressing it, the appliance absorbs heat from even very cold outdoor air and moves it indoors. Then in the summer, the process reverses to work like a traditional air conditioner.

    The potential for refrigerant leaks is much smaller if the heat pump is properly manufactured, installed, and maintained. When a manufacturer switches refrigerants, the basic operation of the heat pump stays the same. But some formulations operate at different pressures, meaning they’ll need slightly different sized components and perhaps stronger materials. “It’s all the same fundamental principles,” said Vince Romanin, CEO of San Francisco-based Gradient, which makes heat pumps that slip over window sills. “But it does take a re-engineering and a recertification of all of these components.”

    While Trane has transitioned to R-454B, Gradient and other companies are adopting R-32, which has a global warming potential of 675 and brings it in line with the new regulations. Gradient says that with engineering improvements, like hermetic sealing that makes it harder for refrigerants to escape, and by properly recycling its appliances, it can reduce the climate footprint of heat pumps by 95 percent. “Our math shows R-32, plus good refrigerant management, those two things combined solve almost all of the refrigerant problem,” said Romanin. “Because of that data, Gradient believes the industry should stay on R-32 until we’re ready for natural refrigerants.”

    Those include CO2, butane, and propane. CO2 has a global warming potential of just 1, but it works at much higher pressures, which requires thicker tubes and compressors. It’s also less efficient in hot weather, meaning it’s not the best option for a heat pump in cooling mode in the summer.

    Propane, on the other hand, excels in different conditions and operates at a lower pressure than the refrigerants it would replace. It also has a global warming potential of just 3. Propane is flammable, of course, but heat pumps can run it safely by separating sources of ignition, like electrical components, from the refrigerant compartments. “It is kind of perfect for heat pumps,” said Richard Gerbe, board member and technical advisor at Italy-based Aermec, another maker of heat pumps.

    That’s why Europe is already switching to propane, and why the U.S. may soon follow, Gerbe said. A typical heat pump will run about 10 pounds of propane, less than what’s found in a barbeque tank. Gas furnaces and stoves, by contrast, are constantly fed with flammable natural gas that can leak, potentially leading to explosions or carbon monoxide poisoning. “If you’ve got a comfort level with a gas stove in your house,” Gerbe said, “this is significantly less of a source.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The quest to fix the irony at the heart of every heat pump on Apr 4, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Five years after Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian assured employees that the company was “not working on any projects associated with immigration enforcement at the southern border,” federal contract documents reviewed by The Intercept show that the tech giant is at the center of project to upgrade the so-called virtual wall.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection is planning to modernize older video surveillance towers in Arizona that provide the agency an unblinking view of the border. A key part of the effort is adding machine-learning capabilities to CBP cameras, allowing the agency to automatically detect humans and vehicles as they approach the border without continuous monitoring by humans. CBP is purchasing computer vision powers from two vendors, IBM and Equitus. Google, the documents show, will play a critical role stitching those services together by operating a central repository for video surveillance data.

    Related

    The U.S. Border Patrol and an Israeli Military Contractor Are Putting a Native American Reservation Under “Persistent Surveillance”

    The work is focused on older towers purchased from Israeli military defense contractor Elbit. In all, the document notes “50 towers with up to 100 cameras across 6 sites in the Tucson Sector” will be upgraded with machine learning capabilities.

    IBM will provide its Maximo Visual Inspection software, a tool the company generally markets for industrial quality control inspections — not tracking humans. Equitus is offering its Video Sentinel, a more traditional video surveillance analytics program explicitly marketed for border surveillance that, according to a promotional YouTube video, recently taken offline, featuring a company executive, can detect “people walking caravan style … some of them are carrying backpacks and being identified as mules.”

    “Within 60 days from the start of the project, real life video from the southern border is available to train and create AI/ML models to be used by the Equitus Video Sentinel.”

    Tying together these machine learning surveillance tools is Google, which the document reveals is supplying CBP with a cloud computing platform known as MAGE: the ModulAr Google Cloud Platform Environment. Based on the document, Google is providing a hub for video surveillance data and will directly host the Equitus AI analysis tool. It appears every camera in CBP’s Tucson Sector will pipe data into Google servers: “This project will focus initially on 100 simultaneous video streams from the data source for processing,” the document reads, and “the resulting metadata and keyframes will be sent to CBP’s Google Cloud.”

    The diagram also notes that one of Google’s chief rivals, Amazon Web Services, provides CBP with unspecified cloud computing services.

    During President Trump’s first term, border surveillance and immigration enforcement work carried a stigma in the tech sector it has in part shed today.

    Related

    Google AI Tech Will Be Used for Virtual Border Wall, CBP Contract Shows

    In 2020, The Intercept revealed a document produced by the CBP Innovation Team, known as INVNT, that stated Google Cloud services would be used in conjunction with AI-augmented surveillance towers manufactured by defense contractor Anduril: “Google Cloud Platform (GCP) will be utilized for doing innovation projects for C1’s INVNT team like next generation IoT, NLP (Natural Language Processing), Language Translation and Andril [sic] image camera and any other future looking project for CBP. The GCP has unique product features which will help to execute on the mission needs.” (A CBP spokesperson confirmed to The Intercept that “Andril” was a misspelling of Anduril.)

    After the Anduril work came to light, Google’s cloud computing chief Thomas quickly attempted damage control, directly contradicting the Department of Homeland Security and telling concerned employees that the company was not involved in immigration enforcement on the Mexican border, CNBC reported at the time. “We have spoken directly with Customs and Border Patrol and they have confirmed that they are not testing our products for those purposes,” Kurian added.

    If this was true then, it’s certainly not now; references to Google services appear repeatedly throughout the tower modernization project document. A technical diagram showing how video data flows between various CBP servers shows Google’s MAGE literally in the middle.

    Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment about its use of Google Cloud.

    Google did not respond to specific questions about the project, nor address Kurian’s prior denial.

    In a statement provided to The Intercept, Google Public Sector executive Jim Kelly attempted to distance the company slightly from the border surveillance work. “CBP has been public about how it has a multicloud strategy and has used Google Cloud for work like translation,” Kelly wrote. “In this case, Google Cloud is not on the contract. That said, customers or partners can purchase Google Cloud’s off-the-shelf compute, storage, and networking products for their own use, much like they might use a mobile network or run their own computer hardware.”

    Kelly’s statement indicates the government is acquiring Google Cloud services through a reseller, as is common in federal procurement. But Kelly’s comparison of Google Cloud technology to buying off-the-shelf computer hardware is misleading. Even if it’s supplied through a subcontractor or reseller, CBP’s use of Google’s service still requires a constant and ongoing connection to the company’s cloud infrastructure. Were Google still serious about “not working on any projects associated with immigration enforcement at the southern border,” as Kurian claimed in 2020, it would be trivial to prevent CBP from using Google Cloud.

    “Border communities end up paying the price with their privacy.”

    Industry advocates and immigration hard-liners have long touted the “virtual wall” initiative, which substitutes iron and concrete barriers and Border Patrol agents for a 2,000 mile array of sensors, cameras, and computers. But critics say advanced technology is no substitute for policy reforms.

    “On top of the wasted tax dollars, border communities end up paying the price with their privacy, as demonstrated by the recent findings by the Government Accountability Office that CBP had failed to implement six out of six key privacy policy requirements,” Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Intercept, referring to the tower program’s dismal privacy protections record. “For more than two decades, surveillance towers at the border have proven to be a boondoggle, and adding AI isn’t going to make it any less of a boondoggle — it will just be an AI-powered boondoggle.”

    The post Google Is Helping the Trump Administration Deploy AI Along the Mexican Border appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Five years after Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian assured employees that the company was “not working on any projects associated with immigration enforcement at the southern border,” federal contract documents reviewed by The Intercept show that the tech giant is at the center of project to upgrade the so-called virtual wall.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection is planning to modernize older video surveillance towers in Arizona that provide the agency an unblinking view of the border. A key part of the effort is adding machine-learning capabilities to CBP cameras, allowing the agency to automatically detect humans and vehicles as they approach the border without continuous monitoring by humans. CBP is purchasing computer vision powers from two vendors, IBM and Equitus. Google, the documents show, will play a critical role stitching those services together by operating a central repository for video surveillance data.

    Related

    The U.S. Border Patrol and an Israeli Military Contractor Are Putting a Native American Reservation Under “Persistent Surveillance”

    The work is focused on older towers purchased from Israeli military defense contractor Elbit. In all, the document notes “50 towers with up to 100 cameras across 6 sites in the Tucson Sector” will be upgraded with machine learning capabilities.

    IBM will provide its Maximo Visual Inspection software, a tool the company generally markets for industrial quality control inspections — not tracking humans. Equitus is offering its Video Sentinel, a more traditional video surveillance analytics program explicitly marketed for border surveillance that, according to a promotional YouTube video, recently taken offline, featuring a company executive, can detect “people walking caravan style … some of them are carrying backpacks and being identified as mules.”

    “Within 60 days from the start of the project, real life video from the southern border is available to train and create AI/ML models to be used by the Equitus Video Sentinel.”

    Tying together these machine learning surveillance tools is Google, which the document reveals is supplying CBP with a cloud computing platform known as MAGE: the ModulAr Google Cloud Platform Environment. Based on the document, Google is providing a hub for video surveillance data and will directly host the Equitus AI analysis tool. It appears every camera in CBP’s Tucson Sector will pipe data into Google servers: “This project will focus initially on 100 simultaneous video streams from the data source for processing,” the document reads, and “the resulting metadata and keyframes will be sent to CBP’s Google Cloud.”

    The diagram also notes that one of Google’s chief rivals, Amazon Web Services, provides CBP with unspecified cloud computing services.

    During President Trump’s first term, border surveillance and immigration enforcement work carried a stigma in the tech sector it has in part shed today.

    Related

    Google AI Tech Will Be Used for Virtual Border Wall, CBP Contract Shows

    In 2020, The Intercept revealed a document produced by the CBP Innovation Team, known as INVNT, that stated Google Cloud services would be used in conjunction with AI-augmented surveillance towers manufactured by defense contractor Anduril: “Google Cloud Platform (GCP) will be utilized for doing innovation projects for C1’s INVNT team like next generation IoT, NLP (Natural Language Processing), Language Translation and Andril [sic] image camera and any other future looking project for CBP. The GCP has unique product features which will help to execute on the mission needs.” (A CBP spokesperson confirmed to The Intercept that “Andril” was a misspelling of Anduril.)

    After the Anduril work came to light, Google’s cloud computing chief Thomas quickly attempted damage control, directly contradicting the Department of Homeland Security and telling concerned employees that the company was not involved in immigration enforcement on the Mexican border, CNBC reported at the time. “We have spoken directly with Customs and Border Patrol and they have confirmed that they are not testing our products for those purposes,” Kurian added.

    If this was true then, it’s certainly not now; references to Google services appear repeatedly throughout the tower modernization project document. A technical diagram showing how video data flows between various CBP servers shows Google’s MAGE literally in the middle.

    Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment about its use of Google Cloud.

    Google did not respond to specific questions about the project, nor address Kurian’s prior denial.

    In a statement provided to The Intercept, Google Public Sector executive Jim Kelly attempted to distance the company slightly from the border surveillance work. “CBP has been public about how it has a multicloud strategy and has used Google Cloud for work like translation,” Kelly wrote. “In this case, Google Cloud is not on the contract. That said, customers or partners can purchase Google Cloud’s off-the-shelf compute, storage, and networking products for their own use, much like they might use a mobile network or run their own computer hardware.”

    Kelly’s statement indicates the government is acquiring Google Cloud services through a reseller, as is common in federal procurement. But Kelly’s comparison of Google Cloud technology to buying off-the-shelf computer hardware is misleading. Even if it’s supplied through a subcontractor or reseller, CBP’s use of Google’s service still requires a constant and ongoing connection to the company’s cloud infrastructure. Were Google still serious about “not working on any projects associated with immigration enforcement at the southern border,” as Kurian claimed in 2020, it would be trivial to prevent CBP from using Google Cloud.

    “Border communities end up paying the price with their privacy.”

    Industry advocates and immigration hard-liners have long touted the “virtual wall” initiative, which substitutes iron and concrete barriers and Border Patrol agents for a 2,000 mile array of sensors, cameras, and computers. But critics say advanced technology is no substitute for policy reforms.

    “On top of the wasted tax dollars, border communities end up paying the price with their privacy, as demonstrated by the recent findings by the Government Accountability Office that CBP had failed to implement six out of six key privacy policy requirements,” Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Intercept, referring to the tower program’s dismal privacy protections record. “For more than two decades, surveillance towers at the border have proven to be a boondoggle, and adding AI isn’t going to make it any less of a boondoggle — it will just be an AI-powered boondoggle.”

    The post Google Is Helping the Trump Administration Deploy AI Along the Mexican Border appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Found in everything from chewy candies and marshmallows to pharmaceutical capsules and even biodegradable packaging, gelatin is a multi-functional protein derived from animal collagen. But for those seeking more sustainable options that don’t come from animal products, finding a viable substitute that replicates gelatin’s gelling power, clarity, and elasticity has remained one of food science’s more stubborn challenges.

    Now, researchers at the University of Ottawa believe they may be getting closer.

    Plant-based gelatin 

    In a study published in Physics of Fluids by AIP Publishing, the research team explored the use of gum tragacanth, a plant-derived polysaccharide, as a potential substitute for gelatin in edible films. Though far from the first attempt at creating vegan gelatin, this latest study takes a more precise approach: replicating gelatin’s behavior at the microstructural level.

    VegNews.IsGelatinVegan.CanvaCanva

    “Gelatin has unique properties and its use is versatile,” said Ezgi Pulatsu, co-author of the study. “To fully replace gelatin, we must replicate its microstructure and understand its function in different applications.”

    Gum tragacanth is harvested from the sap of specific legumes and is already used in some food and pharmaceutical applications. Pulatsu and her colleagues experimented with films constructed from mixtures of gelatin and gum tragacanth in varying concentrations. Some films were made by layering the two, while others involved a more integrated blend. These prototypes were then tested for durability in water and saline solutions.

    The team found that using three parts gum tragacanth to one part gelatin created a mixture that held on to many of gelatin’s best-known traits, like that signature bouncy texture found in your favorite gummy candy.

    Gummy-BearsDmitry Dreyer | Unsplash

    But while the plant-based gum helped mimic that feel, it also made the films more porous—meaning they were easier for moisture to seep into and break down. That’s a drawback when it comes to long-lasting candies or protective capsules, but researchers see the work as a meaningful stride forward in reducing how much animal-based gelatin is used across food and medicine.

    “Partial replacement of gelatin will reduce animal-based product use,” Pulatsu said. “Our efforts in the full replacement of gelatin are ongoing.”

    The gelatin alternatives market

    Plant-based alternatives to gelatin have long existed, though none have been able to fully mimic its complex functionality. Agar-agar, made from red algae, is a popular vegan substitute and sets more firmly than gelatin, though it lacks the same elasticity. Carrageenan, another seaweed extract, has been used in dairy alternatives and desserts but can create a different texture that doesn’t always translate well to candy or capsules. Pectin, extracted from fruit peels, is a staple in jams and jellies but requires specific conditions to gel properly.

    Geltor, a San Francisco-based biotechnology firm, has developed a proprietary protein production platform that utilizes bacteria and yeast to produce gelatin through precision fermentation. This process involves inserting the genetic blueprint for collagen into microbes, which then ferment to produce a protein identical to animal-derived gelatin. Geltor’s ‘biodesigned’ vegan collagen is being tailored for applications in the food, nutrition, hair care, and skin care markets.

    VegNews.GeltorGeltor

    But Geltor isn’t the only company working on a gelatin alternative. Agricultural giant Cargill has introduced Lygomme PM 600, an ingredient solution combining pectin and pea protein designed to fully replace gelatin in products like vegan jellies and marshmallows. This innovation addresses the textural challenges associated with creating plant-based confectionery that mimics the mouthfeel of traditional gelatin-based treats.

    ​Other companies including Alland & Robert, VeCollal, and Evonik have also developed vegan gelatin and collagen replacements that mimic the key properties in gelatin but with a smaller environmental footprint.

    According to Grand View Research, the global gelatin market reached $6.51 billion in 2023 and is expected to more than double to $13.14 billion by 2030. That growth is largely driven by demand in functional foods and pharmaceutical applications, both of which increasingly intersect with consumer preferences for cleaner, plant-based formulations.

    gummy candies

    The implications of this work stretch beyond food. As the market for plastic-free packaging grows, edible films are gaining attention as sustainable alternatives. Here too, gelatin has played a starring role. A viable vegan gelatin could unlock new frontiers in biodegradable packaging, pharmaceutical coatings, and beyond.

    Still, technical hurdles remain. Gum tragacanth has promise, but its structural limitations must be overcome for it to become a one-to-one gelatin replacement. Pulatsu said the next phase of their work will explore chemical and structural modifications to improve its mechanical and barrier properties.

    “We are very excited to see the outcomes and share them with the community,” she said.

    This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

  • For a non-programmer, tell me about how you go about using a programming language to make generative art.

    This will touch on something that is unusual about how I use programming languages in general. The common practice in the industry is one that involves very slow feedback loops, these things we call compile-test cycles: edit, compile, test. I tend to use programming languages that are much more interactive. This is the family of programming languages that come down to us from the communities of LISP and SmallTalk, primarily. In these languages, you’re engaged in a conversation with the computer — your program is running the whole time, you’re modifying it while it’s running, and you can inspect the state within the program to see what’s happening.

    This is particularly good for exploratory programming, but also for art making. I can have a sketch running that is using a generative system I’ve created to produce some kind of visual effect. I could think, “What if this parameter were slightly different?” and instead of building a bespoke control panel to do that, I can execute a tiny snippet of code inside my editor that changes what’s happening in the program, so I’m still working in the same medium and I don’t need to switch to a different tool.

    I might start with a blank canvas with a loop running that is redrawing something, but it doesn’t know what it’s redrawing yet. Then I will gradually add elements, and those elements may have some innate structure. They may be drawn from nature in some way. Often, in my work, I will start with some natural system I found intriguing, and I’ll think, “What would have to happen geometrically to create a thing that has a form like that?” Then I’ll try to build a system where I’m planting the seed, but the growth happens within the simulation.

    I also do a lot of work that is inspired by different periods of art. Maybe there will be something Bauhaus-inspired; I’ll look at a pattern Kandinsky drew by hand and think, “What if I wanted an infinite number of those that were all as good as the one he did by hand? What would I need to tell the computer for it to know [how to do that]?” In that sense, my artwork is often at that meta level. I’m less interested in the single-object output than I am interested in the underlying system that makes things of that nature possible.

    Golden Aizawa Attractor, 2021

    Your background is traditionally technical. How has that influenced your identity or your sense of aesthetics as an artist?

    I don’t regard scientists and artists as fundamentally different kinds of people. In fact, I regard them as more alike than they are different.

    The sort of division you see among people in modern American culture is, to me, a cultural artifact; it’s just an accident of education. I would say the same thing about athletics. The jocks versus geeks division is an entirely synthetic thing that arose in post-1950s America and spread in a diseased way to other parts of the world. There’s nothing about being good at using your nervous system to move your body through space that would make you bad at using your nervous system to reason about geometry.

    Based on some early tests that show an aptitude or a proficiency, we’ve narrowly focused people into what we think is going to be the box in which they will perform, when we should be spending more time cultivating what people are innately and immediately good at but also filling in the rest of the profile. So if you’re somebody who finds mathematics easy but is intimidated by the idea of drawing classes, then you should be doing that. These things are all aspects of humanity, and it’s a mistake to leave any of them behind.

    In your 2019 ClojuTRE talk on computational creativity, you gave a brief survey of historical definitions of creativity. After absorbing all of those, where do you net out? What grand unified theory of creativity do you subscribe to?

    I think it’s the fundamental aspect that makes us human beings. Creative problem-solving is the thing that we do better [than any other species]. Communication is the other thing that we do better, which allows us to do creative problem-solving in groups. If you want to know why we’ve spread over the entire world and lived in every kind of ecosystem successfully, it’s because we’ve been able to creatively solve problems along the way. Without that, I don’t think we’re really people. Leaving aside your creative drives as an individual is a mistake, because it’s leaving aside your birthright as a human.

    A question in the AI discourse right now is whether AI will ever be able to create the way a human does. Large language models can create reasonable facsimiles of mediocre writing and drawing, but that sort of path-breaking creative synthesis still seems to be uniquely human. As someone who has been in this field for a long time, what do you think is coming in terms of the influence of AI?

    To touch on the first part of what you said, about mediocrity: when you have a big statistical model that is essentially taking the sum and then the average of the internet, whether it’s in words or pictures, then you can expect the output to be [average] by definition. Now, you can steer these models to get you somewhat surprising outputs, and that’s cool. I have some friends who train their own models and build complex workflows to come up with things that are very nice in terms of the outputs they achieve. For me, mostly, if I’m using a prompt to an LLM to generate an image, I can get an output that looks okay to good, because I word good and I have enough taste to pick the images that I think are okay. But after I’ve done that, I don’t feel like I’ve done anything, because I don’t feel like there’s any of me in the output.

    I think a lot of where our good stuff comes from is actually from how the act of making the art changes us as individuals. Ages ago, I went to art school at night while I was doing a startup in Silicon Valley. I’d been a lifelong musician, and playing music my whole life meant that I heard everything differently. When I hear the leaves rustling, I hear the rhythm of the leaves rolling along the ground. When I hear the whistle on my kettle, I know what pitch it is. So I thought, “I’ll go to art school, and maybe it will change the way I see.” And of course it did. There’s no way you can learn to draw in charcoal and capture light and shadow without it changing the way you see everything for the rest of your life.

    What if we take away the need to do any of those things to produce those outputs? Then we get an entire generation of people who do not transform themselves into having a higher level of perception. What does that do for our ability to discriminate between what is just AI slop and what is actually something amazing and beautiful? It’s leaving behind part of our birthright as humans, to outsource some of the best stuff we have going to the machines, even if the machines can do it.

    Also, the more stuff there is, the more sifting has to be done to find the good stuff. Making a machine for the unlimited production of mediocre junk means that the signal-to-noise ratio is getting worse all the time, and I dislike this vigorously.

    On the other hand, I think these technologies can become the components of amazing engineering solutions later on. An example of this, not in the artistic context, is that I took some LLMs and I attached them to a query apparatus for WikiData, the database version of Wikipedia. I was able to use the LLM to get the data into the system from natural language. Then I do a query against this fact database, and then I take the series of dry facts that it returns and have it reformatted as nice, flowing prose. So I get something that you can get into and out of with human language that doesn’t hallucinate any details, and this is actually immediately useful.

    I think many things of that nature are coming. Artistic tools where the trained model is more like a paintbrush and less like an outsourced cheap artist are going to be extremely powerful. In cinema, I think we’ll see the cost of making movies drop to one-one-hundredth of the time and one-one-hundredth of the cost using these kinds of tools, because CGI is such an important part of film production already. In this sense, when the good tools come out of it, you will see actual artists be able to do more and better.

    Asemic Writing, 2020

    Have you been able to find a balance between the things you do to pay the bills and the things you do to satisfy an artistic impulse? Do you find the same amount of creativity and joy in your work at Applied Sciences as you do in the art you make?

    Here, I have to start by saying that I’m in a position of ridiculous privilege. I came of age at a time when the things I liked to do for fun were among the most lucrative things you could do for a living.

    Throughout my career, I have been able to work on only things I’m interested in and be paid very well for them, both on the science and programming side and also on the art side. Obviously, I make more money from the tech stuff than the art stuff. But in years when I’m more active, like in 2020, I made enough that I could have made a living in Berlin just from the art side. This is possible. It’s difficult and it requires a lot of luck, but it is possible. So I’m in the weird position where I don’t have to choose between the things I love and the things that pay the bills because everything I get paid for is also something I love. And I recognize the tremendous privilege of that statement.

    What do you think it takes to do that, beyond luck? Are there things a person can do to be more likely to have that kind of outcome?

    Having a very active daily practice, and never letting it get away from you, is incredibly important. Björk has a fantastic quote about not letting yourself get gummed up and only releasing something every seven years because it puts you out of the flow of creating: “Don’t hold your breath for five or seven years and not release anything, and then you’ve just got clogged up with way too much stuff… You lose contact to the part of you, your subconscious, that’s writing songs all the time, and the part of you that’s showing it to the world… That’s more important, to sustain that flow, than to wait until things are perfect.”

    Whatever it is that you do, you have to really do it. If you have a choice between doing it for three hours on Sunday or doing it for 15 minutes a day for the rest of the week, do it 15 minutes a day, because what you do every day is what your brain is working on when you’re not paying attention. Your subconscious is making progress on the things you do constantly. There’s a bowdlerization of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that gets quoted a lot, which is that excellence is just a function of habit. It’s what you do repeatedly. Lean into it. Do the work.

    And — this is the bad news, because many programmers or artists are not necessarily interested in standing up on a chair and shouting about themselves in public—if you do beautiful work and nobody sees it, you’re not going to have a good career. You have to find a way to surface what you’re doing.

    If it were five to 10 years ago, I would say to get a Twitter account, communicate with the kinds of people who are interested in the kind of thing you do, post all of this work that you’re doing as your daily practice, and you will be noticed. Today, it’s a more complicated situation. Some arsonists have set fire to Twitter and it’s now full of smoke and dead bodies, so very few people you would want to find your work will go to that place. I think we’re in an interregnum where there isn’t a good public space to demonstrate excellence for most arts. But it is important that you find a way to do that, or you will likely go unnoticed.

    Taijiquan Performance Converted to Picasso-esque Plotter Doodles, 2019

    I also wanted to ask you about your time AT&T Research, formerly Bell Labs. Bell Labs has a mythical place in tech lore. It was a hotbed of innovation and a Schelling point for practically every computer science pioneer you’ve ever heard of. Did that still penetrate the company’s DNA when you were there?

    It was definitely a unique environment. First, as in any such situation, it was the people. You had a large concentration of brilliant people all in one place. That’s always a good thing.

    The facility where I worked, the Claude Shannon Lab, was in a leafy suburb in New Jersey. We would go down to eat in the cafeteria, and there were floor-to-ceiling glass windows, and we would see deer outside. In my wing, the people in the other offices were Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++, and David Korn, who created KornShell. I used to ride in his minivan from downtown Manhattan, because there were a bunch of us who preferred to live in the city. So the vibe had mostly to do with the people, and then the facility itself being the perfect leafy campus environment, but tuned for grown-ups — well, eternally Peter Pan grown-ups.

    We did some great work there, even though when I worked there it was after the heyday. Unix was invented around the time I was born, so I missed out on all those great things. But I know most of those people because I was very young when I got started in the industry, and they weren’t dead yet. Some of them are still walking around. So I have all the stories, I’m happy to report. The vibe, I think, was still similar, but obviously the level of work, while good, wasn’t as world-shaking as it was earlier in the 20th century.

    Why do you think that was? Was it a function of something changing in the way the work was supported?

    There were a couple of things. One is that the way research was supported changed. Here we come back to that idea of patronage. Both artists and scientists have in common that they do their best work when they are left alone and allowed to chase their own curiosity and their own aesthetics and their own feelings. The appetite and the surplus to allow that has decreased year on year since the middle of the 20th century.

    There was a period where this was really celebrated, and it was considered a good use of funds to have people do things that may pay you back nothing but also may give you a whole different world. You would fund it with some faith in the fact that if the people are talented enough, something good will come out of it.

    After the Reagan–Thatcher revolution, that became less of a thing. Ideologically, everything shifted to this idea that you should have a return-on-investment angle on what happens. And because you can’t predict the outcome of research, it is effectively impossible to have a return on investment attitude towards it.

    A great example of this is the iPhone. The capacitive touch display was invented 25 years before that at Bell Labs by somebody who was just chasing their own interest. If that person hadn’t had the opportunity to plant those seeds, then Apple could not have reaped the benefits later. Right now, I feel like we’ve really shifted towards reaping, and left sowing to be somebody else’s problem. This will continue to harm us in the future, because if we keep doing basically the same things over and over again, we won’t have any new seed corn.

    There are certainly little pockets where that focus on something other than ROI still exists. But I agree. It feels like everyone recognizes the value of something like Bell Labs, yet very few people have the risk appetite or long-term thinking to fund that anymore.

    It’s not just the absence of a Bell Labs sort of thing. There are other social opportunities available that are not followed. For example, I was talking to some people who will remain nameless but who are very high in an organization that makes a popular search engine and browser. I wanted them to fund some improvements to a text editor called Emacs that I’ve been using for nearly 40 years. With a good team working on it and with some actual financial support, a lot could be improved. Around half of their employees use Emacs, so it seemed like it would even pay them back, in some sense. But they told me that the most their enormous, many-billions-a-year company could possibly [contribute] was funding for some student [project].

    This kind of thing is insane. These are public goods that they consume, but they don’t see it as their responsibility to help support that commons. This is a problem with open-source software in general — it is insufficiently supported. It’s shared infrastructure, and shared infrastructure requires shared support.

    Isolation 3, 2020

    If you could reshape the way the internet has evolved, where would you start?

    I would try to prioritize [changing] some of the infantilizing drives of current products. It is very fashionable at the moment to believe that if a person can’t use something immediately on first seeing it, then it should be thrown away, because people are stupid and have no patience. This is a prevalent way of thinking about user interfaces. But if you look at the user interface of the violin, it’s terrible for quite a while. You have to put in some effort before you can do anything useful with the violin. But then you can do something that you simply cannot do with a tiny children’s xylophone. There are effects you can achieve if you’re willing to put in the work.

    I feel like there’s a large area to explore of slightly more difficult things that have a higher ceiling. I believe you should raise the floor as much as you can, but you shouldn’t do it by lowering the ceiling.

    I would like to make it more possible for people to, for example, automate things on their own; end user programming is the technical term for this. In a system like HyperCard, this was very effective. People could build systems to run their entire business inside of this very cool piece of software that you ran on a Macintosh. I don’t see a modern thing that is as good. There’s more we can do to democratize the programmatic aspects of owning a computer so that people have more power as individuals.

    There have to be these open-box systems where you can play with the parts. Otherwise, you’re strictly a consumer. On Instagram, that’s exactly how I feel. I post my artwork there, but that’s the limit of what I can do. Someone else has decided the limits of my world. And I resent that.

    At the end of your talk on creative computation, you give some recommendations for programmers who want to get in touch with their creative side: take an art course, meditate, take psychedelic mushrooms. I assume those recommendations still hold, but what else would you recommend to anybody who wants to connect with their creativity?

    The important thing, and I tried to stress it in that talk, is that you can approach things as a reasoning and reasonable agent who is putting one fact in front of another and trying to be very orderly and systematic. That is an important way of being. But there’s another way of approaching things, which is to open yourself up to your own intuition and to feel your way through things. That’s no less important a way of being. You have to have both to be a complete human being. So whether a person is a programmer who isn’t as in touch with their intuition, or they’re an artist who is not as in touch with their ability to be analytical, I feel that whichever side you’re coming from, you should be trying to fill in the part at which you are the weakest so that you can be a more complete person.

    For a lot of people, getting in touch with the intuitive side also has to do with the body itself, because many people are very disembodied. So, going to a yoga class, taking up meditation, doing things that allow you to realize that you are an embodied creature, and then starting to listen to how your body is feeling. Having a daily practice of checking in with yourself can automatically and immediately start to open you up to being able to do creative things. If you combine that with the daily practice of journaling or drawing or something else that allows you to focus those feelings and externalize them in some way, very quickly you’ll discover you have an artistic side you never knew was there.

    Jack Rusher recommends:

    Immerse yourself in generative art history, starting from the late 15th century but really taking off in the 20th with people like Bridget Riley, Sol Lewitt, Vera Molnár, Frieder Nake, Georg Nees, Manfred Mohr, and Laurie Spiegel.

    I’ve known many people to fail at taking up meditation until they try an app like Headspace. For that reason, I’d like to recommend the free and open-source meditation app Medito.

    In the search for embodiment, it’s important to develop some kind of personal daily habit. Everyone has different cultural and aesthetic preferences regarding which kind of exercise seems more or less for them. If you like the idea of lifting weights and being strong, you might consider finding someone to coach you through Starting Strength. If you’d prefer to be in a more meditative and feminine-coded space, you might consider ashtanga yoga. Maybe you grew up dancing and you’re already quite flexible, but you’re starting to have weird aches and pains—consider pilates! These are all roads to the same place—choose the one that speaks to you or find another that does (rock climbing! Brazilian jiujitsu! circus training!).

    Likewise, several traditions offer more or less the same concrete advice on how to get a grip on your mind, but present the advice differently. Buddhism, Stoic philosophy, and cognitive behavioral therapy all take you to the same place, with the main choice being whether you prefer to receive mysticism, philosophy, or a medical prescription. I recommend you investigate at least one of them.

    Decomposition of Phi, 2021

    This post was originally published on The Creative Independent.

  • The crackdown is already happening. First, Mahmoud Khalil was snatched from his home in New York. Then, immigrants in the U.S. were targeted for their political views, and foreigners reported being denied entry at the border after having their devices searched.

    Even before Donald Trump was sworn in, border searches of electronics were steadily rising. With fears mounting about the Trump administration’s attack on dissent, citizens and noncitizens alike are wondering how to protect their privacy.

    Experts say it is important to have a plan before you cross the border, to know the law, and to do what you can to minimize your digital footprint. The plans can vary widely based on a person’s immigration status and other factors.

    Here are some tips on the law — and how to prevent the U.S. government from using your own data against you.

    Know the Law

    If you think you will simply be able to decline when a border agent asks you to hand over your phone or computer, think again.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection claims broad authority to rifle through the electronic devices of traveling into and out of the country, regardless of their citizenship status. American citizens can decline to hand over their password or PIN code — but that could result in travel delays and in device confiscation, experts warn.

    CBP claims to place some limits on its own searches of devices, and courts have issued conflicting rulings about the extent of the government’s authority to search electronic devices collected at the border.

    Related

    Trump Wants Immigrants on U.S. Soil to Hand Over Social Media Accounts to Apply for Citizenship

    One of CBP’s policies states that border agents are not supposed to search information that has only been stored remotely. As a practical matter, that often means that border agents put a phone into airplane mode before searching it.

    Sophia Cope, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said it was useful to know CBP policies.

    “We know federal officers often don’t follow the law and their own policy,” said Cope, whose organization has published its own guide for travelers. “If you know they’re supposed to put the phone in airplane mode, for example, you can ask them about that.”

    CBP says that its officers can conduct “basic” searches — where an officer scrolls through a device’s contents on the spot — at their discretion. “Advanced,” forensic searches where devices are connected to outside devices for review are only supposed to occur upon “reasonable” suspicion of legal violations or a national security concern.

    Have a Plan

    It is important to think about what you will do if a border agent asks for your personal devices well before you head to the airport. The last thing you want to do is to be caught flat-footed, Cope said.

    Her organization has recommended that travelers conduct a risk analysis based on their personal profile, including whether they are a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or visa holder, as well as what kind of data is stored on their device.

    Citizens have the right to reenter the U.S., but they can still have their devices seized. The ACLU says the same “should” be true for lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders. However, the group also recommends that noncitizens concerned about having their devices searched “should consult with an immigration lawyer about your particular circumstances before traveling.”

    Visa holders, meanwhile, could be outright refused entry.

    “It really just depends on what the person’s unique situation is, and what their tolerance level is for confrontation and delay and short-term detention and missing their flights and — in more extreme cases — having their immigration status questioned,” Cope said.

    Consider Leaving Your Usual Devices at Home

    The best way to protect your personal and work devices from search and seizure is simply to leave them at home. Get separate devices that you only use when traveling, and reset them before each trip.

    Related

    Protesters, Here’s How to Set Up a Cheap Burner Phone

    Cheaper and refurbished devices may suffice for many trips. If you absolutely need your usual devices on your trip, consider mailing them to your destination, although this could raise its own risks.

    Log Out and Power Down

    Before you get to a security checkpoint, and ideally before you’re even at your port of entry or exit, fully power off all of your devices. This is important because some devices are in a more secure state before you log in to it for the first time after you’ve previously shut it down. For instance, forensics firms distinguish between iPhones in “before first unlock” versus “after first unlock” states, with the former coyly described as “less helpful” for data extraction.

    Part of practicing strong digital security is making sure you’re exercising what’s known as “defense in depth”: Making sure that should one level of security fail, another layer of protection is in place, just in case. For this reason, be sure to log out of all of your accounts before you power down. You could go as far as deleting the apps you’ve logged out from altogether, and reinstalling them after you’re safely beyond the security checkpoint.

    If you are worried about remembering a long list of passwords, that is a good sign you should use password manager software instead. Recommended by many experts, a password manager allows you to use one password to unlock all of your passwords. If your password manager has a travel mode that lets you restrict which specific accounts to display for the duration of your travel, enable it.

    Disable Biometrics

    Make sure that you’re using an alphanumeric password to access your phone and other devices. Turn off all biometrics like fingerprint access and facial recognition (branded Touch ID and Face ID, respectively, on iPhones). Otherwise, authorities could put your phone up in front of your face to gain access.

    Protect Your Data

    Aside from making sure you’re not logged into sensitive accounts, you should also make sure you’re not storing sensitive data on your phone. One option is to download data from your phone onto an encrypted device you’re not traveling with and leave it at home. Another option, if you need access to some data on the road, is to encrypt it using a tool like Cryptomator, store it on a cloud storage provider, and then download it when you’ve reached your destination.

    If you’re using an iPhone, you could back up your phone data using iCloud — just make sure you have Apple’s end-to-end encryption solution, Advanced Data Protection, enabled. (If you’re in certain regions, such as the U.K., you’ll need to switch your region location before you can use this feature.)

    Protect Your Contacts

    Don’t forget to make sure you also protect any sensitive contacts. Go through your contacts lists and remove any persons whose affiliation with you may potentially cause issues; for instance, if you have the names of activists, human rights defenders, or other sensitive sources. You could even export and then delete your entire contacts list and restore it later.

    At High Risk?

    If you believe you are at especially high risk when crossing the border, there are more advanced steps you can take.

    One option goes beyond leaving your phone at home. You could also leave your SIM card and phone number behind too. Let your contacts know that you’ll have a temporary number while traveling. You can purchase a temporary SIM once you’re in the country, or beforehand. The reason to leave behind your number is the same as leaving behind your phone — you don’t want the authorities or anyone else to take control of your phone number. For instance, if the authorities take your SIM card and place it into their own device, they may be able to receive messages and calls meant for you.

    Keep in mind that if you’re using SMS verification as a form of two-factor authentication for any accounts, you’ll need to temporarily update it to your current number, or have someone with access to your phone at home be able to log you in.

    Ideally, however, you shouldn’t be using SMS for two-factor authentication in the first place, as it’s vulnerable to attackers taking control of your phone number. If there is no other form of two-factor authentication, SMS authentication is still better than nothing at all.

    If you’re apprehensive that having a phone with minimal information on it may in itself cause you to stand out during an intrusive security check — which experts say is a legitimate concern — keep in mind that it may be preferable to revealing sensitive information.

    Another, more elaborate protection option, is what the intelligence community calls persona development: Creating alternate accounts which don’t contain any sensitive information. In other words, you can snap innocuous photos and upload them to separate social media accounts for traveling. If your phone is searched, only these accounts will then be visible to the authorities.

    The post Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The crackdown is already happening. First, Mahmoud Khalil was snatched from his home in New York. Then, immigrants in the U.S. were targeted for their political views, and foreigners reported being denied entry at the border after having their devices searched.

    Even before Donald Trump was sworn in, border searches of electronics were steadily rising. With fears mounting about the Trump administration’s attack on dissent, citizens and noncitizens alike are wondering how to protect their privacy.

    Experts say it is important to have a plan before you cross the border, to know the law, and to do what you can to minimize your digital footprint. The plans can vary widely based on a person’s immigration status and other factors.

    Here are some tips on the law — and how to prevent the U.S. government from using your own data against you.

    Know the Law

    If you think you will simply be able to decline when a border agent asks you to hand over your phone or computer, think again.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection claims broad authority to rifle through the electronic devices of traveling into and out of the country, regardless of their citizenship status. American citizens can decline to hand over their password or PIN code — but that could result in travel delays and in device confiscation, experts warn.

    CBP claims to place some limits on its own searches of devices, and courts have issued conflicting rulings about the extent of the government’s authority to search electronic devices collected at the border.

    Related

    Trump Wants Immigrants on U.S. Soil to Hand Over Social Media Accounts to Apply for Citizenship

    One of CBP’s policies states that border agents are not supposed to search information that has only been stored remotely. As a practical matter, that often means that border agents put a phone into airplane mode before searching it.

    Sophia Cope, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said it was useful to know CBP policies.

    “We know federal officers often don’t follow the law and their own policy,” said Cope, whose organization has published its own guide for travelers. “If you know they’re supposed to put the phone in airplane mode, for example, you can ask them about that.”

    CBP says that its officers can conduct “basic” searches — where an officer scrolls through a device’s contents on the spot — at their discretion. “Advanced,” forensic searches where devices are connected to outside devices for review are only supposed to occur upon “reasonable” suspicion of legal violations or a national security concern.

    Have a Plan

    It is important to think about what you will do if a border agent asks for your personal devices well before you head to the airport. The last thing you want to do is to be caught flat-footed, Cope said.

    Her organization has recommended that travelers conduct a risk analysis based on their personal profile, including whether they are a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or visa holder, as well as what kind of data is stored on their device.

    Citizens have the right to reenter the U.S., but they can still have their devices seized. The ACLU says the same “should” be true for lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders. However, the group also recommends that noncitizens concerned about having their devices searched “should consult with an immigration lawyer about your particular circumstances before traveling.”

    Visa holders, meanwhile, could be outright refused entry.

    “It really just depends on what the person’s unique situation is, and what their tolerance level is for confrontation and delay and short-term detention and missing their flights and — in more extreme cases — having their immigration status questioned,” Cope said.

    Consider Leaving Your Usual Devices at Home

    The best way to protect your personal and work devices from search and seizure is simply to leave them at home. Get separate devices that you only use when traveling, and reset them before each trip.

    Related

    Protesters, Here’s How to Set Up a Cheap Burner Phone

    Cheaper and refurbished devices may suffice for many trips. If you absolutely need your usual devices on your trip, consider mailing them to your destination, although this could raise its own risks.

    Log Out and Power Down

    Before you get to a security checkpoint, and ideally before you’re even at your port of entry or exit, fully power off all of your devices. This is important because some devices are in a more secure state before you log in to it for the first time after you’ve previously shut it down. For instance, forensics firms distinguish between iPhones in “before first unlock” versus “after first unlock” states, with the former coyly described as “less helpful” for data extraction.

    Part of practicing strong digital security is making sure you’re exercising what’s known as “defense in depth”: Making sure that, should one level of security fail, another layer of protection is in place, just in case. For this reason, be sure to log out of all of your accounts before you power down. You could go as far as deleting the apps you’ve logged out from altogether, and reinstalling them after you’re safely beyond the security checkpoint.

    If you are worried about remembering a long list of passwords, that is a good sign you should use password manager software instead. Recommended by many experts, a password manager allows you to use one password to unlock all of your passwords. If your password manager has a travel mode that lets you restrict which specific accounts to display for the duration of your travel, enable it.

    Disable Biometrics

    Make sure that you’re using an alphanumeric password to access your phone and other devices. Turn off all biometrics like fingerprint access and facial recognition (branded Touch ID and Face ID, respectively, on iPhones). Otherwise, authorities could put your phone up in front of your face to gain access.

    Protect Your Data

    Aside from making sure you’re not logged into sensitive accounts, you should also make sure you’re not storing sensitive data on your phone. One option is to download data from your phone onto an encrypted device you’re not traveling with and leave it at home. Another option, if you need access to some data on the road, is to encrypt it using a tool like Cryptomator, store it on a cloud storage provider, and then download it when you’ve reached your destination.

    If you’re using an iPhone, you could back up your phone data using iCloud — just make sure you have Apple’s end-to-end encryption solution, Advanced Data Protection, enabled. (If you’re in certain regions, such as the U.K., you’ll need to switch your region location before you can use this feature.)

    Protect Your Contacts

    Don’t forget to make sure you also protect any sensitive contacts. Go through your contacts lists and remove any persons whose affiliation with you may potentially cause issues; for instance, if you have the names of activists, human rights defenders, or other sensitive sources. You could even export and then delete your entire contacts list and restore it later.

    At High Risk?

    If you believe you are at especially high risk when crossing the border, there are more advanced steps you can take.

    One option goes beyond leaving your phone at home. You could also leave your SIM card and phone number behind too. Let your contacts know that you’ll have a temporary number while traveling. You can purchase a temporary SIM once you’re in the country, or beforehand. The reason to leave behind your number is the same as leaving behind your phone — you don’t want the authorities or anyone else to take control of your phone number. For instance, if the authorities take your SIM card and place it into their own device, they may be able to receive messages and calls meant for you.

    Keep in mind that if you’re using SMS verification as a form of two-factor authentication for any accounts, you’ll need to temporarily update it to your current number, or have someone with access to your phone at home be able to log you in.

    Ideally, however, you shouldn’t be using SMS for two-factor authentication in the first place, as it’s vulnerable to attackers taking control of your phone number. If there is no other form of two-factor authentication, SMS authentication is still better than nothing at all.

    If you’re apprehensive that having a phone with minimal information on it may in itself cause you to stand out during an intrusive security check — which experts say is a legitimate concern — keep in mind that it may be preferable to revealing sensitive information.

    Another, more elaborate protection option, is what the intelligence community calls persona development: Creating alternate accounts which don’t contain any sensitive information. In other words, you can snap innocuous photos and upload them to separate social media accounts for traveling. If your phone is searched, only these accounts will then be visible to the authorities.

    The post Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Tell me about HERVISIONS, a femme-focused curatorial agency.

    I really like hacking the system, making space where there isn’t space for marginalized voices. I’ve noticed how we have to exist [in multitudes], and the digital space allows that. It’s [where] more femme, or queer, and even neurodivergent perspectives intersect.

    Something that I’ve been trying to encapsulate through HERVISIONS is the outsider, the underdog. People that are undermined. I feel like I am constantly undermined in my ability because I’m a woman of color from a low socioeconomic background. My lived experience informs my practice. I want to be able to help other people like me. I’ve been doing HERVISIONS for nearly 10 years now.

    Wow, congratulations.

    Thank you. [*laughs*] Yeah, it’s still not sustainable. I really want to become more…

    Self-sufficient? Would that mean that you’re bringing in another voice?

    I guess it’s more about the infrastructure. I’ve been working project to project.

    A lot of creatives, in order to carve out space for themselves in an inaccessible industry, start up their own platforms, and they start with a lot of vim and energy. But then you realize that monetary support is few and far between.

    Exactly.

    It runs you down. It’s one of those things where, when you don’t have the building blocks, you start getting insular. But it’s still a living archive of the process that you went through to get where you are now.

    You’re right. You start to become insular, and you start to equate success with your own value, and that becomes really problematic… It’s not conducive to any sustainability, personally or as a business model. So I don’t want to keep doing HERVISIONS the way that I have been. I’ve been thinking, “What can I do that’s manageable and that I enjoy?”

    Fluid Imaginarium Instagram x Saatchi Gallery courtesy of HERVISIONS

    You don’t do this full time, right?

    I’m teaching now, associate lecturing at Camberwell University of The Arts, for their Computational Arts MA.

    What is it like passing that knowledge down?

    You always surprise yourself on what comes out. What if a student comes to me and I don’t know what to say?

    I think it’s okay to say you don’t know.

    Exactly. There’s always something you can connect to. There’s different styles of teaching. Sometimes it is critique-based, other times it’s workshopping… I’m still finding my teaching practice. Alternative education is really, really important.

    Alt Ed is the most important, to be honest. You have to be adaptable and elastic. Do you teach anything practical in that class?

    Good question. Because I’m coming from a more curatorial background—even though I’ve worked with digital tools for world-building with live-action, post-animation, or post-internet aesthetic effects—tools move so quickly. My curatorial practice has been one of collaboration, and intersecting with artistic mediums and practices that are still being developed. In Computational Arts there’s a lot of gaming engines, creative coding…

    What’s creative coding?

    Using Python or JavaScript, or p5.js. Anything digital is going to have some sort of code. If you can get into the backend and hack it, you can adapt [and] be creative with how you’re coding it. Now you can also use AI tools like ChatGPT to tell you the code. But you get into this really tricky area of ethics versus creativity versus accessibility versus resources… I feel like I’m constantly ping-ponging between that.

    Are you talking about AI when you’re talking about ethics?

    Well, all of it. If you’re using things like Spark AR, which is now closed and which was owned by Meta—Meta are just trying to capitalize on the way that we use the tool, our data, the artworks, the work that’s produced. The production of that work is still owned by them. They want to be able to have access to the collective consciousness, ultimately, and then teach AI how to replicate.

    There is a lot of anxiety about phasing out anything organic. I definitely want to talk about the environmental impact of tech, but I wanted to go back to the queering of tech, and neurodivergence. How can tech can be made ready for people with learning disabilities, given that they are pushed to the peripheries in a lot of standard education contexts?

    My theory is that the tech actually feeds into neurodivergence through the attention economy. So, how do we move away from that? You have to foster these tools to be able to create offline environments for people to connect in real time, in real life. Legacy Russell talks in Glitch Feminism about AFK: Away From Keyboard reality. There is this hybridity of having to exist offline… Artists Caroline Sinders and Romy Gad el Rab are doing a residency at the Delfina Foundation about mental health and how we can create digital interfaces to be more supportive of different needs and abilities.

    Wild Wired! Rewilding Encounters of Langthorne Park – Image courtesy of William Morris Gallery and HERVISIONS

    For me, I have dyslexia and I get very anxious when I see something and the interface doesn’t match how my brain can read it.

    Exactly. You’re like, “Oh my god. Where do I even look?”

    When I was at university and I did the dyslexic test, at the end they tested filters to see what color I read best in. I read best in pink, actually.

    [*laughs*] That is cool!

    I think most people respond to color, but hyper-capitalist cities just pull all the color out of everything, and when you go to somewhere like Mexico, or Cuba, and there’s color everywhere, you are automatically more jubilant and excited… A lot of coding spaces are black background and white text, or yellow text, or whatever.

    That’s why the integration of NLP, Natural Language Programs, [are important]. Technology is developing now beyond just the formulas of binary codes. Romy Gad, the psychologist and artist, works with people that have addictions to technology. People can know the standard thing—”It’s bad for your mental health because you’re going to get addicted to dopamine”—but we don’t know the actual ins and outs of that, in [our] buzzword culture.

    We simplify down to, “A + B = bad.” But we don’t actually know how to tackle or move past it. So artists, social thinkers, and psychologists are important to collaborate with. What have you learned about collaborating? What makes for a harmonious environment for positive collaboration?

    Collaboration is a practice in itself. You have to play to your strengths. And by practice, I mean there needs to be an understanding that it has to be a mutual benefit for everyone involved. Also, being realistic of the outcomes is so important.

    I think being realistic is [about] making manageable phases and not seeing everything as a finite outcome. You can try to have more bite-sized approaches to things. You can say, “We’re just going to prototype this, and then if it works, then we can develop it further.”

    Is there anything that you would avoid when collaborating? Something you’ve maybe learned that’s gone wrong?

    My expectations. It’s what you impose on yourself, and the people that you’re working with. Also I think the parameters, or the frameworks of what the collaborations are, or what everyone’s role is should be, should be clear from the beginning.

    Things can just run away with themselves. I really try to impose some sort of structure of what’s important, or the expectations within roles, and making sure that everyone understands their roles. But also openness around how those roles can shift; allowing for a little bit of that is also part of the magic. It’s like creative contingency, knowing that that’s what happens. Things don’t go the way you started. So being able to foresee that contingency, but seeing it as a positive.

    Underground Resistance, Living Memories, Josepha Ntjam, The Photographers Gallery, image courtesy of HERVISIONS

    I’ve definitely learned that when I’m under pressure, I’m not always the nicest person. I try to face that in myself and be honest with other people.

    I think it’s hard when you’re coming from a place of having to drive these things. When you’re like, “But if I don’t do this, no one else is going to do it. It’s my responsibility to do this, to get this done, and I have to pull people in.” If you’re the project lead, it comes from wanting everything to be perfect. But what I’ve learned is expecting a “no,” or expecting things to not be as you want, is a practice as well. Having that discipline to be able to step back. That is really learning about yourself.

    Do you have a favorite digital work or physical piece of yours?

    The project I did with the William Morris Gallery, “Wild Wired!,” felt very much like, “Ah, everything makes sense.” It was a site-specific digital intervention about rethinking the future of Langthorne Park in Leytonstone. It was a way to activate the local communities and introduce some sort of artwork connected to the William Morris Gallery’s Radical Landscapes exhibition. It was a project that combined community engagement, artist-led workshops, and digital technologies. We produced a site-specific, mobile-friendly game that you could access right in the park. It was accessible through scanning banners in the park. We were thinking about the park as a body—which was inspired by Taoism—and thinking about the medicinal properties of the plants in the park, and how they would impact our speculative future organs. We had different workshops where we asked artists, the community, and local residents to think about speculative organs. They did collages and we did writing and photography exercises.

    These methods of world-building were then intertwined into a narrative, which then was produced into a body of work—which was the game, a 3D-printed artwork, an interactive website, and a moving image piece. That was really a huge amount of work.

    It felt like everything clicked together for me. There were a lot of milestones within that project and there were a lot of production difficulties in terms of things not working the way we wanted, and that’s always what happens in technology. So it was just constantly problem solving.

    That’s also a good skill you have to be able to hone whenever you’re doing these types of things: being a problem solver. My last point is about the environment. I think and hope that more people are coppin’ onto the environmental cost of tech, in terms of how much water usage there is to cool all these database storage centers down… Basically, without water, there wouldn’t be any tech. But how can we care more for the environment? What are your feelings about that?

    I think this idea of reclaiming space and rewilding is an interesting way to think about it. The thing is, technical devices use a lot of mined minerals and components from the earth that we need for our smartphones. There’s a lot of reliance on nature, and how do we manage that? Gosh, I wish I had the answer.

    AI is really, really, really environmentally unfriendly, but then also crypto, blockchain… There was a lot of fuss about NFTs not being ethical or environmentally friendly—which, yes, there is a massive usage of energy that blockchain takes. But the proportion of that which the creative industries use, in relation to other industries that use blockchain, is also a very small amount. I feel like there needs to be more transparency [from larger] capitalist companies.

    I feel like artists, or creatives are just such little cogs in the system.

    I think, though, that 10,000 small cogs make up a ton. We do have a part to play.

    This post was originally published on The Creative Independent.

  • By Julie Decrand-Lardière and Clarissa Chan In an era where digital information is proliferating rapidly, the ability to effectively and ethically investigate potential human rights violations has never been more critical. The Digital Verification Unit (DVU) at the University of Essex, plays a vital role in equipping the next generation of human rights researchers with the skills […]

    This post was originally published on Human Rights Centre Blog.

  • The post Succumbing to Being Tracked first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Rows of dead batteries stretch across some 30 acres of high desert, organized in piles and boxes that are covered to shield them from the western Nevada sun. This vast field is where Redwood Materials stores the batteries it harvests from electric vehicles, laptops, toothbrushes, and the litany of other gadgets powered by lithium-ion technology. They now await recycling at what is the largest such facility in the country.  

    Redwood was founded in 2017 by former Tesla executive JB Straubel and says it processes about three-quarters of all lithium-ion batteries recycled in the United States. It is among a growing number of operations that shred the packs that power modern life into what is called “black mass,” then recoup upwards of 95 percent of the lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other minerals they contain. Every ounce they recover is an ounce that doesn’t need to be dug from the ground.

    an aerial view of a large industrial building in the desert
    Redwood’s Tahoe Campus in northern Nevada Redwood Materials

    Recycling could significantly reduce the need to extract virgin material, a process that is riddled with human rights and environmental concerns, such as the reliance on open pit mines in developing countries. Even beyond those worries, the Earth contains a finite source of minerals, and skyrocketing demand will squeeze supplies. The world currently extracts about 180,000 metric tons of lithium each year — and demand is expected to hit nearly 10 times that by 2050, as adoption of electric vehicles, battery storage, and other technology needed for a green transition surges. At those levels, there are only enough known reserves to last about 15 years. The projected runway for cobalt is even shorter.

    Before hitting these theoretical limits, though, demand for the metals is likely to outstrip the world’s ability to economically and ethically mine them, said Beatrice Browning, an expert on battery recycling at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which tracks the industry. “Recycling is going to plug that gap,” she told Grist. 

    Given these trends, the most remarkable thing about Redwood isn’t that it exists, but that it didn’t exist sooner. As the United States belatedly embraces the economic, national security, and environmental benefits that domestic battery recycling offers, it is trying to claw back market share from counties like South Korea, Japan, and especially China, which has a decades-long head start.
    “There is this race in terms of EV recycling that people are trying to capitalize on,” said Brian Cunningham, program manager for battery research and development at the Department of Energy. “Everybody understands that, in the long term, developing these robust supply chains is going to be incredibly reliant on battery recycling.”


    Straubel’s recycling journey began while he was still the chief technology officer at Tesla, which he co-founded with Elon Musk, and three others, in 2003. One of his roles was establishing the company’s first domestic battery manufacturing facility, Gigafactory Nevada. Material for Tesla’s batteries came from mines around the world, and Straubel understood that the trend would accelerate alongside demand for EVs, which has quintupled in number in the U.S. since 2020. He also knew that, in the years ahead, a growing number of electric vehicles would reach the end of their lives. According to consulting firm Circular Energy Storage, the world’s supply of retired batteries is expected to grow tenfold by 2030.

    “[We] need to be planning ahead and really keeping an eye toward what that future looks like, to be ready to recycle every one of those batteries,” Straubel said in 2023. “The worst thing we could do is go to all this destruction and trouble to mine it, refine it, build the product and then throw it away.”

    A man in a button-up shirt speaks in front of a podium with the Tesla logo
    JB Straubel, then-Tesla Motors chief technical officer, speaks during a ribbon cutting for a new Supercharger station outside of the Tesla Factory on August 16, 2013 in Fremont, California. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

    Last year, Redwood says it recycled 20 gigawatt-hours of lithium-ion batteries, or the equivalent of about a quarter-million EVs, generating $200 million in revenue. In addition to its headquarters in Carson City, Nevada, Redwood is building a campus in South Carolina. It isn’t alone in looking to expand. Ascend Elements, Cirba Solutions, Blue Whale Materials, and Li-Cycle are among a number of recyclers operating, or planning to operate, facilities in at least nine states across the country. More than 50 startups worldwide have attracted billions in investment in recent years. (Much of this outlay was driven by Biden-era legislation that Republicans are considering repealing, though it remains unclear just what such action might mean for spending already planned or underway.)

    Despite the boom, the reuse revolution won’t come quickly.

    Benchmark projects that recycled lithium and cobalt will account for a bit more than one-quarter of the global supply of those metals by 2040. A closed system in which battery manufacturers use only recycled material is considerably further off, because any increase in the number of old packs available to recycle will be outstripped by the need for new ones.

    Global demand for EV batteries, for example, is growing by about 24 percent per year and won’t level off until sometime after 2040 — the point at which Benchmark’s forecast ends and growth is still forecast at 6 percent per year. The battery powering an EV can last well over a decade or more, so there will be a lag before the supply of recycled material catches up to demand.

    Even today, the world’s recycling capacity outpaces the supply of batteries available to recycle, leaving everyone clambering to find more. That has meant waiting for EV batteries to reach the end of their lives, and attempting to recycle the small batteries in everyday gadgets that are often trashed. The dearth of material available for recycling is often attributed to the idea that only 5 percent of lithium batteries make it to companies like Redwood Materials. But the provenance of that number, cited everywhere from the Department of Energy and Ames National Laboratory to The New York Times and Grist, is murky. 

    “If you ever ask, ‘Where did that 5 percent number come from?’ no one can really track back to the data,” said Bryant Polzin, a process engineer at Argonne National Laboratory. Like other Department of Energy employees or affiliates quoted in this story, he spoke to Grist before President Trump was inaugurated. “I think it was just kind of a game of telephone.”

    Argonne’s research pegs the recycling rate for all lithium-ion batteries originating in the U.S. at 54 percent — 10 percent domestically and 44 percent in China — though it notes that data reliability remains an issue. Even that number, though, falls considerably short of what’s possible: 99 percent of lead acid batteries, like those used to start cars, in the United States are recycled, according to the Battery Council International trade association.

    Large wrapped slats of batteries in a warehouse setting
    Technicians operate automated recycling equipment at an electric vehicle power lithium battery recycling workshop in Hefei, Anhui province, China, in 2023. CFOTO / Future Publishing via Getty Images

    Redwood works with many automakers, including Toyota, BMW and Volkswagen, to gather EV batteries, and goes into the field to collect others from automotive repair shops, salvage yards, and the like. Policy tweaks could help recyclers acquire more. In California, for example, a state working group recommended more clearly delineating when various entities in the supply chain — from the battery supplier and auto manufacturer to a dismantler or refurbisher — are  responsible for ensuring a battery is recovered, reused, or recycled. This, the report said, could reduce the risk of “stranded” resources. 

    So far, though, this seems to be a rare occurance. The much bigger hindrance to EV recycling in the U.S. is simply that there aren’t enough old batteries to meet the demand for new ones. As that waiting game unfolds, recycling those often discarded as household waste could help bridge the gap.


    Small lithium-ion batteries power everything from phones and electric toothbrushes to toys. By Benchmark’s estimate, about 5 percent of virgin lithium is used in consumer devices, but when they die, many of them are squirreled away in a drawer or trashed.

    “A lot of household stuff does get chucked in the waste, and they’re not getting recycled,” said Andy Latham, the founder of Salvage Wire, a consulting firm focused on automotive battery recycling. Beyond being wasteful, dropping old batteries in the trash can be dangerous; scores of garbage trucks in cities from New York to Oregon have caught fire in recent years due to improperly disposed e-waste. 

    Data on just how much lithium is simply thrown away or hoarded remains elusive. But Latham says, in the short-term, batteries in portable electronics are “probably just as much, if not more of a factor” as those in EVs when it comes to advancing recycling. Redwood Materials, for one, is hoovering up as many as it can. It works with nonprofits and others to funnel them to its Nevada campus and hopes to establish drop-off locations at big-box retailers, similar to can and bottle collection in some states. 

    “Collection is definitely the biggest challenge,” said Alexis Georgeson, Redwood Materials’ vice president of government relations and policy. “It’s really a problem of how you get consumers to clean out their junk drawers.” 

    How to get rid of your e-waste

    Lithium-ion batteries can be found in laptops, phones, toothbrushes, Bluetooth speakers, and power tools, just to name a few things. But many people aren’t sure what to do with these gadgets once they die. Instead of tossing them in the trash, which can be dangerous, experts say to recycle them. Here’s how. 

    The nonprofit Call2Recycle operates some 16,000 sites nationwide where people can drop off their devices at no cost — at libraries, garbage dumps, and big box stores like Staples. The organization collected 5.4 million pounds of rechargeable batteries in 2023, and provides an online map to find a recycling location near you. Earth 911, Green Gadgets, and GreenCitizen also have locators. 

    Some cities offer curbside pickup, making recycling even easier. Call2Recycle, Electronic Recycling International, and others will take them by mail, usually for a fee. “Batteries sitting in a junk drawer or a box in the basement can accidentally cause a fire,”said Mia Roethlein, an environmental analyst at the Department of Environmental Conservation in Vermont, a national recycling leader. “Bring them to one of the free battery collection locations as soon as they are no longer usable.” 

    Until more people do that, recyclers count on a somewhat ironic source of material: Scraps from factories that make new batteries. One of Redwood’s primary feedstocks are the bits and pieces left over during the manufacturing process in places like Tesla’s Gigafactory, Georgeson said. Benchmark estimates that such leftovers represent about 84 percent of the material all battery recyclers use today.

    The authors of the Argonne paper underscored how vital this material is: “If no scrap was available,” they wrote, “the development of the U.S. recycling industry might be significantly delayed.”

    As more EVs hit the end of the road, consumer electronics are collected in greater numbers, and battery manufacturing yields less scrap as it grows more efficient, the composition of the material will adjust. New battery technologies could also have an impact, with emerging solid-state batteries, for example, expected to create more production waste in the short term but less in the long term. But few doubt recycling will be a thriving business that could help the country cut carbon emissions and decrease its dependency on places like China, Chile, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for increasingly vital minerals. It’s a future that American policymakers are trying to shape, hasten, and prepare for. 

    Although under threat from President Donald Trump’s administration, both the Biden-era bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, explicitly aim to bring battery manufacturing to the United States. They provided billions of dollars in grants and tax credits to incentivize building out domestic capacity (often in Republican congressional districts). The consumer-facing EV tax credit also requires that manufacturers source a minimum amount of both minerals and components locally. The government has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars in battery recycling as well, including Department of Energy support for everything from collection systems for small electronics to research into improving recycling technology

    “The work that we are funding is to really make those processes more efficient and economical,” said Jake Herb, technology development manager at the agency’s Vehicle Technologies Office. One success story is Ascend Elements, which Department of Energy funding helped grow from a Worcester Polytechnic Institute startup into a major player in the domestic industry. The department offered to loan Redwood Materials $2 billion to expand its factory, though the company declined the additional investment and says it has not accepted any federal funding. A robust domestic industry ensures that“we’re able to reclaim more materials [and] keep more of those materials domestic in the U.S,” Herb said.


    Several challenges remain as the country sprints toward that goal.

    One hurdle is figuring out when recycling is the best option. Argonne National Laboratory’s “battery material use hierarchy” puts recycling near the bottom of its list of possible outcomes. It’s better to find alternate uses for batteries, especially those from EVs, like refurbishing them for use in another car or directing them to less intensive applications, such as for energy storage. 

    “It would provide a much more economical solution to consumers,” said Vince Edivan, executive director of the Automotive Recyclers Association. 

    Still, this so-called “second life” market remains nascent in the U.S. Edivan says automakers could boost it by making it easier for salvage yards to assess a battery’s condition to determine whether it can be reused or should be recycled. They often consider that information proprietary, he said. “We’re shredding perfectly good batteries because we don’t know the state of health.”

    Battery recycling comes with another danger as well: fire. Dismantling and recovering batteries involves highly volatile processes. Last fall, a recycling plant in Missouri sparked a blaze that led many residents to evacuate. Thousands of dead fish washed up downstream of the plant

    It’s somewhat hazy who is supposed to regulate this rapidly growing industry. The Environmental Protection Agency considers lithium-ion batteries hazardous waste, which dictates how they should and shouldn’t be disposed of, but doesn’t directly address recycling. In 2021, Argonne signed on to help develop lithium recycling standards, though the status of that effort remains unclear. The task will likely fall to a patchwork of federal, state, and local authorities, which must keep the public both safe and confident in a process that will be critical to the country’s — and the climate’s — future.

    Perhaps the biggest challenge to creating a full-cycle loop in the United States is that before any reclaimed material can be used in a battery, it must be refined into an intermediary product, such as cathode, which makes up approximately 40 percent of a battery’s value. “You can’t send lithium to a Gigafactory,” said Georgeson. “It is like sending sand to a computer factory.”

    At the moment, no one is making cathode in the U.S. at scale — manufacturers are buying it from Asia. Redwood, Ascend Elements, and others are ramping up cathode facilities that should be online in the coming years (Panasonic plans to use Redwood cathode at its new battery plant in Kansas). But, for now, they are frequently selling their raw material abroad. 

    Georgeson sees federal policy as key to helping, or hindering, efforts to plug the cathode hole in the supply chain. One impediment has been a Treasury Department ruling that allows cathode sourced from allied countries to also qualify for the EV tax credit. That, she said, has pushed billions in business and investments to countries like South Korea instead of the United States. 

    It remains unclear exactly how the new administration will impact the industry, but President Trump could certainly upend it. If Congress rolls back the IRA’s investment and production tax credits, it could significantly handicap America’s burgeoning recycling buildout. On the other hand, tariffs, particularly aimed at China, could tip the economic scales toward American producers and recyclers by making imported batteries and their components more expensive.

    Redwood, for one, is optimistic that its goal of onshoring both battery recycling and cathode production aligns with Trump’s goals of putting “America first.” Straubel has said that the Trump administration could do a lot to encourage a more robust domestic supply chain, including making the battery origin requirements of the EV tax credit more stringent — rather than scrapping the incentive entirely. 

    Getting the policy wrong, the company argues, will put the U.S. at the mercy of others in a future where battery recycling will only become more critical. 

    Blanca Begert contributed reporting to this story.

    Read the full mining issue

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Mining is an environmental and human rights nightmare. Battery recycling can ease that. on Mar 26, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Scattered across the United States, hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines scar the earth, posing a safety hazard to passing hikers and a health risk to nearby communities. But cached inside piles of refuse and ponds of toxic waste, there are also elements as critical for the 21st-century economy as coal was for the industrial revolution. Now, an obscure federal government program known as the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, or Earth MRI, is identifying the high-tech minerals concealed in these mines — as well as those hidden beneath the Earth’s surface.

    Developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, during the first Trump administration, Earth MRI aims to comprehensively map the nation’s underground deposits of “critical minerals” — an ever-growing list of elements and compounds considered vital for national security and the economy. In 2021, Earth MRI received a massive funding boost through the bipartisan infrastructure law, accelerating federal scientists’ efforts to figure out which parts of the country are rich in minerals used in clean energy technologies, semiconductors, and high-tech weaponry. While the Trump administration has moved aggressively to reverse most of former President Joe Biden’s climate policies, it appears to agree with the prior administration’s desire to locate — and, eventually, mine — more of these resources. 

    Many Biden-era climate and energy initiatives remain in limbo following the Trump administration’s freeze on the disbursement of grant funding and mass firing of federal employees — but Earth MRI got an early greenlight to resume operations.

    “This is a program that has survived both the Trump and Biden administrations,” Peter Cook, a critical minerals policy expert at The Breakthrough Institute, an environmental solutions research organization, told Grist. “They’re both definitely interested in critical minerals.” 

    A screenshot of Earth MRI's acquisition viewer with a color-coded map of minerals next to a menu
    An Earth MRI map showing data collected by the program.
    USGS

    Minerals like lithium, graphite, and the group of 17 metallic elements known as rare earths are essential for a wide range of technologies, including those at the heart of the clean energy transition. The lithium-ion batteries that store renewable energy and power EVs can contain lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and more. Electric vehicle motors and some wind turbine generators contain magnets that require the rare earth element neodymium, and often smaller amounts of dysprosium and terbium. Certain solar panels require gallium, germanium, indium, and tellurium. The clean energy sector’s appetite for these metals is expected to surge as the energy transition accelerates: A recent report by The Breakthrough Institute found that EVs alone may account for two-thirds of future national demand of many key minerals. At the same time, critical minerals are vital for high-tech military technologies, advanced semiconductors, and more. 

    Despite these diverse needs, U.S. output of many minerals is limited. A 2020 report by the Commerce Department found that of an initial list of 35 critical minerals, America’s supply of 31 of them came mostly or entirely from foreign sources. Production of many critical minerals is dominated by China, which is engaged in a trade war with the United States that has involved tariffs and export restrictions on several metals. For some particularly scarce metals like gallium, used in advanced semiconductors, the U.S. has no domestic production at all. 

    While Biden saw domestic mineral supply chains as a key pillar of a U.S. clean energy manufacturing economy, Donald Trump’s interest in critical minerals appears more related to their military uses and national security implications. That interest can be seen in everything from a foreign policy focused on mining deals to a domestic agenda that includes cutting bureaucratic red tape to fuel additional mineral extraction. While Earth MRI hasn’t garnered the same level of attention as, say, Trump’s desire to buy Greenland for its rare earth resources or bargain with Ukraine for its minerals in exchange for military aid, the existence of the program reflects a long-standing focus on shoring up U.S. mineral supplies.

    The USGS established Earth MRI in 2019, following a Trump executive order that called on federal agencies to address vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical mineral supply chains. Initially, the program had a modest annual budget of about $11 million, which USGS scientists, in partnership with state geological surveys around the country, used to launch a national critical minerals mapping campaign that included a mix of airborne surveys and on-the-ground fieldwork. But the bipartisan infrastructure law, or BIL, allowed Earth MRI to kick into overdrive, with a $320 million funding boost spread over five years. In 2022, the program’s yearly budget jumped to $75 million, a level at which it will remain through 2026. 

    “We’re transforming the data landscape, and we’re transforming it in a big and consistent way through the sustained funding,” Earth MRI science coordinator Jamey Jones told Grist in an interview.

    Earth MRI’s recent list of achievements is impressive. 

    When the BIL passed into law in late 2021, scientists had collected high-quality geophysical data across only about 10 percent of the United States; by late 2024, that figure had jumped to nearly 25 percent. In the past two years alone, Jones said, Earth MRI scientists have conducted airborne magnetic surveys — which measure variations in Earth’s magnetic field to detect different subsurface rock types and identify features like faults — across an area twice the size of Montana. Late last year, Earth MRI and NASA completed the world’s largest high-quality hyperspectral survey over California, Nevada, and Arizona. Hyperspectral surveys, which measure reflected sunlight outside the range of human vision, can be used in arid regions to produce detailed mineral maps of the Earth’s surface. This year and next, NASA and Earth MRI will expand the survey to include parts of Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Oregon.

    In addition to mapping minerals still in the ground, Earth MRI is taking a closer look at ones that have already been extracted. In 2023, the program’s scientists accelerated their efforts to explore the critical mineral content of mine waste located in tailings ponds and rock piles around the country. Mine waste is considered a potentially valuable source of many important metals and minerals, but they have never been systematically studied. Thanks to BIL funding, Jones says that the USGS recently completed the first-ever comprehensive national inventory of abandoned mine lands, which it anticipates publishing later this year. In partnership with state geological surveys, Earth MRI is now in the process of dispatching researchers to abandoned mine sites to collect samples of waste rock that can be analyzed in the lab to assess their critical mineral content. “Eventually, we hope to produce a national assessment of critical mineral resources in mine waste,” Jones said.

    Photo of helicopter with geophysical equipment loop deployed below it via slingload. Technician for scale.
    A helicopter carries an airborne electromagnetic induction sensor over parts of northeastern Wisconsin for a USGS study in January 2021.
    USGS / Wisconsin Dept. of Agricultural, Trade, and Consumer Protection; Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources / Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey

    The data Earth MRI is collecting does not indicate which exact spots in the ground are the most attractive to mine. Rather, it supplies just enough information “to attract the private sector into an area” to conduct more detailed exploratory work, said Simon Jowitt, who directs the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and is Earth MRI’s primary point of contact for the state. The effort involved in collecting this preliminary, or “pre-competitive,” data often has an outsized economic benefit, Jowitt says. Research in other countries shows that for every dollar governments spend on it, tens to hundreds of dollars are returned to the economy through private investment in exploration and mining.

    “If we want to have more mineral exploration, more secure domestic supply chains of metals and minerals, then we need to have these data,” Jowitt added.

    Mining proposals often attract intense public opposition, due to fears about damage to ecosystems and water supplies. But both Trump and Biden — as well as members of Congress on both sides of the aisle — appear to support more of it. While it’s still too early to say how much of an impact Earth MRI will have on domestic mining — it often takes a decade or more to permit or build a mine even after all the exploratory work is complete — there are signs that private industry is taking a keen interest in its data. For instance, Jones said an exploration company in Nevada told the agency that it has discovered new lithium deposits based on geochemical data Earth MRI released.

    Even as Trump has sought to kneecap other federal agencies and projects, funding for Earth MRI never appeared to be in serious jeopardy. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that called for “terminating the Green New Deal” by pausing the disbursement of all funds appropriated through the BIL and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — a move that multiple judges have found to be illegal. But the same order directed the interior secretary to “prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States, with a focus on locating previously unknown deposits of critical minerals.” 

    “I think it was pretty quickly recognized that the priorities [of the order] would outweigh the freeze,” Jones said. After a four-week pause, the Trump administration restored Earth MRI’s funding on February 18. And this month, Trump issued another executive order calling for agency heads to identify “as many sites as possible” on federal land that may be suitable for critical minerals mining and invoking the Defense Production Act to accelerate mineral development.

    Lithium boron is found buried in the soils beneath Esmeralda County, Nevada.
    Slabs of lithium boron found beneath Esmeralda County, Nevada. Godofredo A. Vasquez/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images

    While the mapping program is moving full steam ahead for now, it remains to be seen what will become of it once BIL funding sunsets after 2026. Barring an additional infusion of cash from Congress, Jones says the most likely scenario is that the program’s budget will return to its pre-2022 baseline of about $11 million a year — a roughly 75 percent cut.

    Jowitt, the Nevada state geologist, says he’d “like to be optimistic” that Congress will authorize additional funds for Earth MRI so that scientists can continue to fill in the gaps in the nation’s geologic maps. But considering the Trump administration’s recent efforts to dramatically shrink federal spending, he isn’t sure what will happen.

    One thing is clear: There will be more work left to do after the BIL coffers are emptied. By 2027, “we can tell you exactly how much [geological data] coverage will have increased in the country for all of our different techniques,” Jones said. “And none of those numbers add up to 100 percent. Our job will not be complete.”

    Read the full mining issue

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why Biden and Trump both support this federal mineral mapping project on Mar 26, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • For years, U.S. officials villainized end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like Signal as the domain of criminals and terrorists and a threat to national security.

    As fallout over a Signal group chat about Yemen war plans ricocheted through Washington, however, CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday that the app is approved for official communication and even comes installed on agency computers.

    One longtime critic of government attacks on secure messaging said it was a sign that everybody else should follow suit.

    “For everyday Americans, this seems like an inadvertent but strong endorsement of the cybersecurity and privacy value that Signal represents — assuming you actually know who you’re adding to the given chats,” said Sean Vitka, executive director of the progressive group Demand Progress.

    “Going Dark”

    The highly sensitive discussion over whether and when to attack Houthis in Yemen included FBI Director Kash Patel, according to a blockbuster report Monday from The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

    There was particular irony to an FBI director’s presence on the thread. For years, Patel’s predecessors Chris Wray and James Comey had lambasted end-to-end encryption. The FBI popularized the idea that terrorists and drug cartels were “going dark” on law enforcement, and that the government needed to step in to do something about it.

    The FBI’s favored solution was to create a back door in the apps that would allow the government to snoop on conversations — but only with proper authority, the FBI said.

    In a 2014 speech, then-FBI Director Comey said that the “post-Snowden pendulum has swung too far” in favor of privacy. Without creating a back door, he added, “homicide cases could be stalled, suspects could walk free, and child exploitation victims might not be identified or recovered.”

    The FBI never made much progress in Congress toward securing a back door. Across the pond, attacks on end-to-end encryption are ongoing, with the United Kingdom reportedly ordering Apple in secret to create one. France’s National Assembly last week voted down a backdoor mandate sought by the country’s Interior Ministry.

    The CIA Seal of Approval

    The FBI’s official position became increasingly tenuous last year when revelations about “Salt Typhoon” hackers made clear that unencrypted communications were highly vulnerable to foreign adversaries.

    Related

    How to Protect Yourself From the Salt Typhoon Hack, No Matter What the FBI Says

    The hackers, who were allegedly affiliated with the Chinese government, targeted phones used by Donald Trump, JD Vance, and the Kamala Harris campaign, according to reports, and in some cases were able to scoop up the content of text conversations.

    By December, the FBI was still promoting back doors under the banner of what it calls “responsibly managed” encryption. At the same time, however, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency was advising end-to-end encrypted messaging apps such as Signal as a defense against Chinese hackers.

    Signal, which is based on an open-source protocol and operated by a nonprofit foundation, is designed to reduce to a minimum the amount of information that the app can access. Only the users involved in a conversation have decryption keys, making it impossible for the Signal Foundation to view unencrypted conversations. The foundation also cannot see metadata such as a user’s contacts.

    On Tuesday, Ratcliffe revealed that the government has adopted Signal at the highest echelons.

    “One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA.”

    “One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe said.

    The practice began during President Joe Biden’s administration and had the official approval of CIA records management officials, Ratcliffe said, as long as “any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels.”

    Critics of government secrecy were immediately alarmed that government officials might be trying to evade leaving records subject to the Freedom of Information Act or the Presidential Records Act by using private devices with disappearing messages.

    Despite the high level of protection that end-to-end encryption provides in transit, however, the group chat also raised serious security issues. Even secure messaging apps cannot solve the problem of hackers who have compromised the device running them. Nor can they keep information secret in the event of human error — say, inadvertently adding a journalist to a sensitive discussion of military strikes.

    Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard refused to say whether she used a personal or government-issued phone for her part of the conversation.

    Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., also asked Ratcliffe whether he was aware that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, another member of the group chat, was on a trip in Moscow during the conversation, raising more concerns.

    Signal offers users the ability to sync messages across multiple devices. Vitka, the advocate with Demand Progress, said that if government officials were syncing messages to vulnerable private devices, that would raise a host of questions.

    “That personal device could be the liability. And as soon as any of these devices are compromised, then the entire chat, the entire thread — then all of the information in it is compromised,” he said.

    Senate Republicans largely attempted to sidestep questions about the Yemen group chat during the committee hearing, but Democrats were united in their criticism.

    “This is an embarrassment. This is utterly unprofessional. There has been no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error,” said Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.

    The post U.S. Officials Called Signal a Tool for Terrorists and Criminals. Now They’re Using It. 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.

  • 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.