Snowden's authenticity was questioned from the outset. Bill Binney raised concerns about the NSA years before Snowden did.
I was under the impression that Tor was designed to identify and target those interested in anonymous browsing - not to bust them for potential nefarious activity but because 'privacy' is the enemy of the surveillance state.
Most 'new'/alt media also serve the same function: to identify what and who you support. Some are controlled opposition; some are created opposition; and some are intelligence assets. They are divided into groups that constantly cross promote one another but rarely step out of their assigned squads.
They reveal themselves through association; sometimes through what info they suppress or never mention; often through which 'heroes' they continue to promote; and through obv promotion of their work by bog standard search engines.
You know what would make that all quite moot? You'll probably balk but this would do it, if we called for it in large numbers...making the internet totally open and free. All data can be seen by everyone. I can feel the eyebrows raising as I say this. But think of it - we'll all have access to everyone's data. That means we can see theirs too unlike today where they can see ours but we can't see theirs! You know what psychopaths shun? Openness. The only way psychopaths thrive is through secrecy. That's why psychopaths are always on the side of censorship. Yes everyone will see everyone's data, so everyone tends to behave a lot better then. And that's the objective.
If you wanted to demoralize your more-pesky citizens, to convince them that nothing in life is more certain than death, paying you taxes and you being all-powerful and all-knowing and god-like, would you:
A. Gnash your teeth that tech exists you can't hack, while doing nothing about it
B. Fund some of the projects, hoping that fact alone will scare people from using the tech
C. Fund some of the projects, gaining a backdoor into them, somehow silencing every single person involved who could understand what was happening, while letting them continue working on projects
C sounds obvious but B is a real possibility. Both demoralize resistance, making people give up and bow down before the ALL-POWERFUL, hail the ALL-POWERFUL entity.
This being the same all-powerful entity that has lost every recent war, has got itself into trillions of debt, has engaged in yet another losing conflict, is about to be overtaken by China of all places, and staffs key positions with the mentally unhinged?
Just as we now have to look at foods, meds etc as poisoned unless proven otherwise we should be aware the same applies to comms, but this has always been the case, though not as critical as it is today, and more so in the near future.
Snowden's authenticity was questioned from the outset. Bill Binney raised concerns about the NSA years before Snowden did.
I was under the impression that Tor was designed to identify and target those interested in anonymous browsing - not to bust them for potential nefarious activity but because 'privacy' is the enemy of the surveillance state.
Most 'new'/alt media also serve the same function: to identify what and who you support. Some are controlled opposition; some are created opposition; and some are intelligence assets. They are divided into groups that constantly cross promote one another but rarely step out of their assigned squads.
They reveal themselves through association; sometimes through what info they suppress or never mention; often through which 'heroes' they continue to promote; and through obv promotion of their work by bog standard search engines.
Thanks for linking to this from Kit's post. Great find!
What are your thoughts on Session Messenger?
I've done a preliminary investigation on them and come up empty. You can review it here:
https://actionabletruth.substack.com/i/126308952/session
I've also just checked and they don't appear on the list of OTF supported Projects.
Am deleting FileZilla and Briar as we speak though!
Thanks again for this post.
You know what would make that all quite moot? You'll probably balk but this would do it, if we called for it in large numbers...making the internet totally open and free. All data can be seen by everyone. I can feel the eyebrows raising as I say this. But think of it - we'll all have access to everyone's data. That means we can see theirs too unlike today where they can see ours but we can't see theirs! You know what psychopaths shun? Openness. The only way psychopaths thrive is through secrecy. That's why psychopaths are always on the side of censorship. Yes everyone will see everyone's data, so everyone tends to behave a lot better then. And that's the objective.
Let me raise a counter-argument....
If you wanted to demoralize your more-pesky citizens, to convince them that nothing in life is more certain than death, paying you taxes and you being all-powerful and all-knowing and god-like, would you:
A. Gnash your teeth that tech exists you can't hack, while doing nothing about it
B. Fund some of the projects, hoping that fact alone will scare people from using the tech
C. Fund some of the projects, gaining a backdoor into them, somehow silencing every single person involved who could understand what was happening, while letting them continue working on projects
C sounds obvious but B is a real possibility. Both demoralize resistance, making people give up and bow down before the ALL-POWERFUL, hail the ALL-POWERFUL entity.
This being the same all-powerful entity that has lost every recent war, has got itself into trillions of debt, has engaged in yet another losing conflict, is about to be overtaken by China of all places, and staffs key positions with the mentally unhinged?
Mmm. I'm going with B.
As you said it's illegal.
If you know their name they’re in the game, msm and government buries anyone they don’t want the public to hear or know about.
The US government became legally enabled to spread misinformation on September 18, 1947.
Just as we now have to look at foods, meds etc as poisoned unless proven otherwise we should be aware the same applies to comms, but this has always been the case, though not as critical as it is today, and more so in the near future.