als

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago

I'm sure that's the only factor yeah

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 3 weeks ago

I want off Mr Bone's wild ride

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

Archive link to bypass the paywall: https://archive.is/zdQWj

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd rather just not post than post ai generated slop with numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Wow this is awful

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What are they gonna do, take it to court?

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 weeks ago

Everyone can play your game 🏴‍☠️

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 45 points 3 weeks ago

This is the first I'm hearing of the CoMaps fork of Organic Maps so here's the FAQs for others wondering, like me

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

I've been loving Helluva Boss recently

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 weeks ago

Team Fortress 2

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 month ago

A cult leader grooming young girls? It'd be great if people tried something new

 
 
 
 

Archive link Written by Josiah Mortimer

Keir Starmer’s Government has abolished the role of Independent Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption, with the controversial appointee Lord Walney, aka John Woodcock no longer working for the Government as of tomorrow, Byline Times can reveal.

Woodcock, who is a former Labour MP, was appointed by Boris Johnson’s Government to the position in order to lead a review into tackling political extremism.

However, he was criticised by civil liberties groups after publishing his report under Rishi Sunak’s administration, in which he called for draconian new anti-protest measures, while also being a paid lobbyist for firms with arms industry and fossil fuel clients.

This week Byline Times revealed that Lord Walney’s role was only meant to last six months – but had been held by him since 2021, long after he completed his official report in May 2024.

Walney’s former responsibilities will be transferred to a new expanded Commissioner for Counter-Extremism role, as part of a wider reorganisation of how protest and extremism are monitored.

In a statement, Home Office Minister, Dan Jarvis thanked Walney for his work and confirmed they would now be seeking a candidate for the new role.

As part of the shakeup, the Home Office also confirmed that Conservative-appointed adviser Robin Simcox, the Government’s Commissioner for Countering Extremism (CCE) would also need to reapply for the newly expanded job when it comes up for renewal in July, with the role being advertised for open competition.

Last March, some Jewish Londoners and pro-Gaza campaigners slapped down Simcox’s claim that London had become a “no-go zone for Jews” during the weekly pro-Palestine marches.

Calling for tougher action against the Palestine protests, Government anti-extremism tsar Robin Simcox told the Telegraph: “We will not have become an authoritarian state if London is no longer permitted to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend… All these things and more have become normalised in the UK.” His comments dominated the paper’s Friday front page and led the BBC’s agenda. Simcox, a right-wing think tanker, was seen as close to the Conservative Party.

In a statement, Home Office Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, said: “To continue our fight against extremism and terrorism in whatever form they take we need expert advice and oversight. The role holders will be crucial in those efforts, and I look forward to working with the successful candidates.

“I would also like to thank Lord Walney and Robin Simcox for their work in their respective roles as Independent Advisor on Political Violence and Disruption and as Commissioner for Countering Extremism.”

Lord Walney worked closely with the last Conservative Government after backing Boris Johnson for Prime Minister in 2019. He had left the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn amid an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations, which he denied.

The Home Office also confirmed that the role of the current Counter-Extremism Commissioner will be expanded to incorporate parts of the Home Office’s ‘Prevent’ anti-extremism programme from Lord Walney. Simcox’s term ends in July.

Byline Times understands Simcox would be able to apply for the new expanded counter-extremism role.

Civil liberties groups have previously expressed concern about the increasing overlap between counter-terrorism powers and the policing of peaceful protest.

The changes mean that after today Woodcock will no longer have any Government responsibilities.

The Background

Walney’s 2024 report called for the Government to “expand the grounds on which a police force can recommend a march is not permitted to go ahead,” implement a blanket ban on face coverings at protests and extend anti-terrorism agencies’ role in policing protest.

It even called for forces to issue guidance on “statements, chants, or symbols that, in the context of a political protest, may constitute a [criminal] offence”.

Woodcock’s role itself is unpaid, with the independent peer earning income through his own lobbying roles with The Purpose Coalition (part of lobbying firm Crowne Associates) and lobbyists Rud Pedersen. Crowne Associates reports having clients in the private healthcare and transport sectors.

Woodcock’s own declaration of interests shows he was the paid chairman of the Purpose Defence Coalition, members of which include Leonardo, one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, with “extensive links” to Israel’s military. His official report called for tough clampdowns on direct action groups such as Palestine Action, which had targeted defence firms. He was also paid adviser for the Purpose Business Coalition, members of which include fossil fuel giant BP.

Woodcock remains a senior adviser to lobbyists Rud Pederson, clients of which include the fossil fuel commodities giant, Glencore. Glencore has been the target of climate protests in recent years for its role in the coal, oil and gas industries.

The peer’s Government role is officially up for review under a domestic counter-terrorism ‘sprint’ review launched when Labour came to office last July. But there has been no update since the election. Until today.

Hannah Greer, campaigns manager for Good Law Project, told this newspaper earlier this week: “The Home Office told us and MPs that a decision over Lord Walney’s independent advisory role will be made with the completion of the counter-extremism sprint. However, months later and even after the leaking of some of the findings of the sprint, there’s been no update.

“We’ve now written to the Home Office again to demand an answer and to highlight yet more questions surrounding his conflicts of interest, on the back of new information unearthed by Byline Times”.

 

Security officials in the United Kingdom have demanded that Apple create a back door allowing them to retrieve all the content any Apple user worldwide has uploaded to the cloud, people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post.

The British government’s undisclosed order, issued last month, requires blanket capability to view fully encrypted material, not merely assistance in cracking a specific account, and has no known precedent in major democracies. Its application would mark a significant defeat for tech companies in their decades-long battle to avoid being wielded as government tools against their users, the people said, speaking under the condition of anonymity to discuss legally and politically sensitive issues.

Rather than break the security promises it made to its users everywhere, Apple is likely to stop offering encrypted storage in the U.K., the people said. Yet that concession would not fulfill the U.K. demand for backdoor access to the service in other countries, including the United States.

The office of the Home Secretary has served Apple with a document called a technical capability notice, ordering it to provide access under the sweeping U.K. Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, which authorizes law enforcement to compel assistance from companies when needed to collect evidence, the people said.

The law, known by critics as the Snoopers’ Charter, makes it a criminal offense to reveal that the government has even made such a demand. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.

Apple can appeal the U.K. capability notice to a secret technical panel, which would consider arguments about the expense of the requirement, and to a judge who would weigh whether the request was in proportion to the government’s needs. But the law does not permit Apple to delay complying during an appeal.

In March, when the company was on notice that such a requirement might be coming, it told Parliament: “There is no reason why the U.K. [government] should have the authority to decide for citizens of the world whether they can avail themselves of the proven security benefits that flow from end-to-end encryption.”

The Home Office said Thursday that its policy was not to discuss any technical demands. “We do not comment on operational matters, including for example confirming or denying the existence of any such notices,” a spokesman said.

Senior national security officials in the Biden administration had been tracking the matter since the United Kingdom first told the company it might demand access and Apple said it would refuse. It could not be determined whether they raised objections to Britain. Trump White House and intelligence officials declined to comment.

One of the people briefed on the situation, a consultant advising the United States on encryption matters, said Apple would be barred from warning its users that its most advanced encryption no longer provided full security. The person deemed it shocking that the U.K. government was demanding Apple’s help to spy on non-British users without their governments’ knowledge. A former White House security adviser confirmed the existence of the British order.

At issue is cloud storage that only the user, not Apple, can unlock. Apple started rolling out the option, which it calls Advanced Data Protection, in 2022. It had sought to offer it several years earlier but backed off after objections from the FBI during the first term of President Donald Trump, who pilloried the company for not aiding in the arrest of “killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements.” The service is an available security option for Apple users in the United States and elsewhere.

While most iPhone and Mac computer users do not go through the steps to enable it, the service offers enhanced protection from hacking and shuts down a routine method law enforcement uses to access photos, messages and other material. iCloud storage and backups are favored targets for U.S. search warrants, which can be served on Apple without the user knowing.

Law enforcement authorities around the world have complained about increased use of encryption in communication modes beyond simple phone traffic, which in the United States can be monitored with a court’s permission.

The U.K. and FBI in particular have said that encryption lets terrorists and child abusers hide more easily. Tech companies have pushed back, stressing a right to privacy in personal communication and arguing that back doors for law enforcement are often exploited by criminals and can be abused by authoritarian regimes.

Most electronic communication is encrypted to some degree as it passes through privately owned systems before reaching its destination. Usually such intermediaries as email providers and internet access companies can obtain the plain text if police ask.

But an increasing number of tech offerings are encrypted end to end, meaning that no intermediary has access to the digital keys that would unlock the content. That includes Signal messages, Meta’s WhatsApp and Messenger texts, and Apple’s iMessages and FaceTime calls. Often such content loses its end-to-end protection when it is backed up for storage in the cloud. That does not happen with Apple’s Advanced Data Protection option.

Apple has made privacy a selling point for its phones for years, a stance that was enhanced in 2016 when it successfully fought a U.S. order to unlock the iPhone of a dead terrorist in San Bernardino, California. It has since sought to compromise, such as by developing a plan to scan user devices for illegal material. That initiative was shelved after heated criticism by privacy advocates and security experts, who said it would turn the technology against customers in unpredictable ways.

Google would be a bigger target for U.K. officials, because it has made the backups for Android phones encrypted by default since 2018. Google spokesman Ed Fernandez declined to say whether any government had sought a back door, but implied none have been implemented. “Google can’t access Android end-to-end encrypted backup data, even with a legal order,” he said.

Meta also offers encrypted backups for WhatsApp. A spokesperson declined to comment on government requests but pointed to a transparency statement on its website saying that no back doors or weakened architecture would be implemented.

If the U.K. secures access to the encrypted data, other countries that have allowed the encrypted storage, such as China, might be prompted to demand equal backdoor access, potentially prompting Apple to withdraw the service rather than comply.

The battle over storage privacy escalating in Britain is not entirely unexpected. In 2022 U.K. officials condemned Apple’s plans to introduce strong encryption for storage. “End-to-end encryption cannot be allowed to hamper efforts to catch perpetrators of the most serious crimes,” a government spokesperson told the Guardian newspaper, referring specifically to child safety laws.

After the Home Office gave Apple a draft of what would become the backdoor order, the company hinted to lawmakers and the public what might lie ahead.

During a debate in Parliament over amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act, Apple warned in March that the law allowed the government to demand back doors that could apply around the world. “These provisions could be used to force a company like Apple, that would never build a back door into its products, to publicly withdraw critical security features from the UK market, depriving UK users of these protections,” it said in a written submission.

Apple argued then that wielding the act against strong encryption would conflict with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that any law requiring companies to produce end-to-end encrypted communications “risks amounting to a requirement that providers of such services weaken the encryption mechanism for all users” and violates the European right to privacy.

In the United States, decades of complaints from law enforcement about encryption have recently been sidelined by massive hacks by suspected Chinese government agents, who breached the biggest communications companies and listened in on calls at will. In a joint December press briefing on the case with FBI leaders, a Department of Homeland Security official urged Americans not to rely on standard phone service for privacy and to use encrypted services when possible.

Also that month, the FBI, National Security Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency joined in recommending dozens of steps to counter the Chinese hacking spree, including “Ensure that traffic is end-to-end encrypted to the maximum extent possible.”

Officials in Canada, New Zealand and Australia endorsed the recommendations. Those in the United Kingdom did not.

 

Archive link: https://archive.is/NjIkK

 

Activists from Shut The System sabotaged telecommunications cables leading to far-right lobbyists’ headquarters at 55 Tufton Street on Saturday 4 January.

They passed a note under the door saying this:

The greed-fuelled climate denialists and racists in this building are silencing warnings about the lethal risks of climate change while sewing hatred and division across our communities, all to prop up their wealthy, corporate friends and funders.

Shut The System does not tolerate murder and racism. We have cut off your Wi-Fi in defiance against the millions of deaths on your hands.

 

Dropout is a subscription service born from the ashes of College Humor. It features live-play TTRPG series, improv comedy, panel shows and more. There's a lot of their content on YouTube for free, the subscription service costs $60 a year and they encourage password sharing.

Netflix's new password-sharing rule: Every 31 days your device must log in on your home network — or it will be blocked. QT from @dropout: Dropout's new password-sharing rule: you should share your password with a friend who can't afford Dropout, because it would be nice of you 🤗

I made !dropout@lemmy.blahaj.zone and a cobbled-together open source bot so that there would always be a place on lemmy/the fediverse to discuss the twists and turns of the current Dimension 20 campaign or share laughter from the latest crazed invention of the Game Changer writers.

 

Vic Parsons, 15 December 2024

On Wednesday, the British government permanently banned the prescription of puberty blockers to transgender young people, claiming the medication is dangerous. It remains legal for children who aren’t trans.

This year alone, both the Conservative and Labour governments have used emergency legislation to temporarily ban puberty blockers. It’s a stunning amount of political effort to block a form of healthcare that, in the 26 years it’s been recommended for trans youth in the UK, has been prescribed to less than a few hundred trans kids each year.

Before he made prescribing puberty blockers to trans kids illegal, Labour Health Secretary Wes Streeting conducted a targeted consultation asking organisations that he described as key stakeholders – including at least five anti-trans activist groups and one designated anti-LGBTQ+ hate group – whether they supported a permanent ban on puberty blockers. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents opposed a permanent ban; Streeting ignored them. Many respondents, including those who support the permanent ban, said that enacting it would have a negative impact on the mental health of young trans people.

Some young trans people from direct-action group Trans Kids Deserve Better went to Streeting’s constituency office in Ilford on Wednesday evening. They slept there overnight, drawn together by grief and rage. They kept each other warm. They made tiny coffins out of paper and left them for Streeting outside his office, wanting him to know that they think his decision to deprive trans kids of puberty blockers means trans children will die.

Streeting claims that his decision to ban puberty blockers is being done in the best interests of young trans people. I disagree. Puberty blockers have made life better for some young trans people, and they should be freely and readily available to anyone who wants them. Many studies have shown that transitioning is good for trans teens.

Puberty blockers are a small part of a much larger and richer picture of what it will take for trans people to have better lives; just as easy access to safe and free abortion is one component of reproductive justice, access to puberty blockers is one component of trans healthcare justice. And, like criminalising abortion, criminalising puberty blockers will not stop trans kids from taking them – it will just make it less safe.

For a better world for trans kids, we need hormones to be readily available to trans people of all ages; facial feminisation surgery to be available on the NHS; drastically improved provision of lower surgery for trans masculine people; GPs who can read a hormone levels blood test result. We need a world in which we move beyond such a limited understanding of gender, a world in which we stop confining everyone to one of two narrow and stifling boxes.

The ongoing media circus around puberty blockers reminds me of the one that resulted from government proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in 2017. Then, legal gender recognition became a defining issue of British trans rights – even though, as with the small number of trans kids who’ve accessed puberty blockers, very few trans people had actually used the GRA to change their legal gender.

Legal gender recognition and access to puberty blockers are neither what make us trans nor the only tools we need to live long, happy lives. Trans people do not spring into existence when our genders are recognised by the state, any more than puberty blockers create trans kids.

I asked Blue, 17, one of the young activists who slept outside Streeting’s office this week, what would improve trans kids’ quality of life. “A world where putting a gender marker next to name and date of birth is remembered as a bizarre obsession we’ve thankfully moved on from,” she said. “Hormones and puberty blockers can be stocked next to birth control in pharmacies and we never have to ask for permission because there is nothing to change. The formerly trans are able to have autonomy over our bodies, and the formerly cis are free to make their bodies their own, rather than measuring themselves by deviations from the all too stale concepts of ‘man’ and ‘woman’.”

“The only thing it takes is acceptance by wider society and a shift away from this whole culture war nonsense,” Blue added. “We are people too, with our own hopes and dreams. To be constantly trampled on by the government is quite dehumanising.”

Trans kids need respect and support from their families, teachers, peers and politicians; equal and timely access to healthcare, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; to grow up without being confined by gender; and to be listened to on issues that affect them. They need the government to stop using them to distract from political failures to tackle the climate crisis, genocide, ballooning corporate profits and child poverty.

Ultimately, children should be free to be themselves no matter whether they go through a puberty that is driven by hormones their own bodies make, or through a puberty driven by hormones they take. A better world for trans kids looks like a 15-year-old girl being able to get hormones without needing the approval of her parents or a psychiatrist, whether she wants them for contraception or for gender transition.

But puberty blockers alone are not a silver bullet that can make the UK a safer and easier place for trans kids to grow up in. For trans kids to be free to be themselves, we need a better world. Until then, as the state continues to attempt to squash trans kids out of existence, in the words of Trans Kids Deserve Better: “We will live out of spite.”

 
327
floating rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
 
228
80% rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
 
view more: ‹ prev next ›