SEC Allows MasterCard to Monitor/Cut-off “Far-Right” Customers

Thanks to ZeroHedge for catching these articles.  From Buzzfeed.com an article about Mastercard proposing to establish an internal human rights committee that would monitor and prevent supposed white supremacist groups or anti-Islam activists from using the payment system. And an interview on RT America with journalist Ben Swann on the SEC reportedly blessed that action.

MasterCard is not the only holder of purse-strings that is mulling the selective banning of individuals from their services and funds. Patreon and PayPal have previously barred individuals from receiving payments using their platforms, due to their extreme views.

But unlike crowdfunding platforms, being cut off from one of the leading American multinational financial services corporations will, most likely, have a much greater impact on the financial stability of an individual or a group, especially after the US Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly blessed MasterCard’s undertaking.

By doing this, Swann believes the government granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”

The issue with such an approach, the investigative journalist argues, would lead to a wider crackdown on financial payments to anyone who the government would see as unfavorable.

“The fact that the SEC has given a green light to this essentially says the SEC supports the idea of censoring these groups in order to freeze out essentially anyone you don’t agree with,” the journalist said.

“It is such a dystopian 1984 world view and yet we’re living through it right now,” the journalist observed.

Watch the entire interview below:

CSG: Welcome to the Panopticon

Combat Studies Group has a comprehensive article up about choosing a secure chat/messaging application in this time of increasing governmental and corporate excess. It’s a long read, but if you are interested in your privacy you should give it a read. If you don’t understand what he’s talking about, then this is a starting point for your electronic privacy/security education.

Welcome To The Panopticon, or “How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Information Warfare”

So it’s 2019……and so far we have:

– Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and the like, de-platforming or censoring any content that leans towards the right or conservative side.

– Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, et al, doubling down on collection of people’s data.

– The US intelligence apparatus convincing major hotel chains (Marriot for one) to collect information and report on hotel guests (for the most trivial of “abnormalities”, if one can call them that).

– Amazon working with law enforcement to implement widespread facial recognition gathering.

– Those nifty DNA/ Heritage testing sites have been caught giving your DNA to Uncle Sam.

– Cellular providers selling your real-time location to anyone who wants to buy it.

– The proliferation of “smart” devices such as Alexa that is always listening.

– Web browsers screening the news you search for and only letting the “leftist” slanted news through.

I could go on for pages and pages, but you get the point. One needs to become aggressive to secure their privacy in this day and age….so with that in mind I thought it apropos to publish an updated breakdown of available options.

Lets establish some standards that should be adhered to when choosing a chat application.

1. It should be comprised of open-source code. Open source code can be audited by third parties for completeness, proper implementation and potential security vulnerabilities.

2. It should employ end to end encryption. In other words, the encryption happens on your device and the decryption happens on the recipient’s device versus a third party server. This removes the need to trust a third party with your keys.

3. It should utilize INFOSEC industry accepted standards for cipher primitives. It should use well studied ciphers, key exchanges and hashes such as: AES-256, RSA-4096, ChaCha20, ECC-512, Curve25519, Poly1305, secp256k1, Curve448, Twofish, SHA-3, Whirlpool, GPG.

4. It should utilize forward secrecy. This protects the user if they have a key that somehow gets compromised. In this setup the system renegotiates the key exchange at short, established time intervals. Diffie-Hellman  is a common implementation of this concept.

5. It should support the removal/destruction of messages on both ends of the conversation. This could be based on a timer, manual selection or a “destroy on read” protocol…

Click here to read the entire article at CSG.

Related:

Technology and Avoiding Censorship

 

Technology and Avoiding Censorship

The world of news reporting has been metamorphosing since the Internet became easily available. Print journalism is dying. The newspaper and magazine news sources that have survived have moved onto the internet to some extent, though they may still have a print presence. But the Internet is a funny place, and it, and dwindling financials, have changed those venerable news dinosaurs. Making profits became dependent upon Internet advertising which was measured by ad views or ad clicks. It became more important to these institutions to have stories that received more views rather than stories of deep substance, not that the two are mutually exclusive. Inevitably, the businesses started catering to specific audiences or demographics, posting stories and headlines that would invite those users to click into the article to view the ads. Once proud institutions like the New York Times have become more of a television sitcom, where the stories are played to a captive audience with implied “applause” and “laughter” cue cards. CNN is more like People magazine than a news network.

Speaking of television, much the same has happened to news sources there. As viewers switched from advertising-supported television channels (or paid cable channels) to watching shows and reading news on the Internet, the financial support of the captive television audience dwindled. As that revenue dwindled, television companies had less money with which to subsidize their news. When once news was a point of pride of the stations that they gladly subsidized, the broadcasters now had to compete for advertising revenue for their news shows. These causes likewise led to a similar chasing after of sensational headlines as was occurring in the Internet space.

In short, the mainstream media news sources have turned into a wasteland as far as actual news goes. Instead they relay stories that will play well with their respective cash-cow herds. Or they run stories that are profitable for them to air, either because they are paid to do so or to ingratiate themselves with government agencies or corporations in order to have access or the personal prestige of being seen with later (for those persons high up enough in the pseudo-news organization). It is well documented, for instance, that the CIA has for decades worked with news organizations of all kinds in order to either relay or suppress the stories or propaganda that they want to shape public opinion. This is no less true for many large corporations and political parties who actively work with these organizations for their own propagandistic ends.

It should be no surprise to anyone, then, that people have turned to alternative news sources. This is a great danger to the power of all those organizations currently involved in mainstream news organizations – i.e. government agencies, political parties, corporations, foreign entities, etc. Controlling the media is a way to control the people. People cannot get angry over something that they never hear about, or better yet, they can’t believe anything that the media is portraying as laughable. Because people are, indeed, looking for real news, these interests are doing their best to prevent alternative news sources or at least people’s access to these sources.

In the past several months, we’ve seen many alternative news voices as well as individual users banned from various Internet social media platforms which they used to communicate with the people who followed them – a process called de-platforming. Because these social media platforms are owned by private corporations there is no first amendment violation, even when some of the corporations are counseled by advisory entities with close government ties. Little justification is given for these deplatformings other than vague mumblings from the corporations about hate speech, extremism, insults, Russian spies, and so forth. The corporations are under no obligation, currently, to provide any truth. They say something the content creator did violated their terms of use and that is the end.  So far these deplatforming actions have been overwhelming against conservative voices, though not entirely so.

Continue reading “Technology and Avoiding Censorship”