Portable Bluetooth Speakers

what is evidence in law

Embark on a Quest with what is evidence in law

Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on what is evidence in law. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to what is evidence in law awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of what is evidence in law, you've arrived at the perfect destination.

Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding what is evidence in law. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of what is evidence in law. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of what is evidence in law, this promises to be an enriching experience.

The spotlight is firmly on what is evidence in law, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around what is evidence in law. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of what is evidence in law.

So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about what is evidence in law, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of what is evidence in law.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query what is evidence in law. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query what is evidence in law. Sort by date Show all posts

Amid War In Ukraine, Should Ordinary Russians Be Banned From Trading Crypto?


Russians against ukraine war russian opinion on ukraine war articles about the war in ukraine how goes the war in ukraine amid ukraine war china threat rises war in ukraine wiki russia supplies s 400 to india amid warfare amiad water systems amidaware
Amid War in Ukraine, Should Ordinary Russians Be Banned From Trading Crypto?


Amid War in Ukraine, Should Ordinary Russians Be Banned From Trading Crypto?

This story is part of War in Ukraine, CNET's coverage of events there and of the wider effects on the world.

As Russia's war on Ukraine intensifies, the US and its allies have continued to increase their economic pressure on the Russian government, to isolate the country further from the global financial system and debilitate its military capacity. Western allies have frozen Russian assets abroad, removed Russian banks from international banking networks and even banned all gas and oil imports, among other unprecedented penalties. But there's still growing concern that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his supporters might turn to cryptocurrencies to avoid economic sanctions.

With their ability to operate as alternatives to the traditional financial system, cryptocurrency exchanges -- digital marketplaces where you can buy and trade digital currencies -- have become an effective option both for Ukraine supporters to raise funds for relief efforts and for ordinary Russians to seek financial shelter from the economic sanctions imposed on their country.

That's why both the Ukrainian government and advocates for even further economic penalties against Russia have become increasingly vocal about the role crypto exchanges can play in the conflict. Hundreds of Western businesses, such as oil companies Shell and BP and tech players Netflix and Microsoft, have scaled back or halted their dealings in Russia since the beginning of the war. And some people argue that similarly stopping crypto operations in the country could significantly weaken Putin's hold on Russia's economy and its citizens.

"I'm asking all major crypto exchanges to block addresses of Russian users," Ukraine's vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, tweeted Feb. 28. "It's crucial to freeze not only the addresses linked to Russian and Belarusian politicians but also to sabotage ordinary users." 

Fedorov also sent letters to eight cryptocurrency exchanges, including two of the largest by volume, Coinbase and Binance, asking them to stop offering service to Russian users out of concern digital currencies are being used to evade sanctions.

The response was swift. 

"We are not preemptively banning all Russians from using Coinbase," CEO Brian Armstrong tweeted March 3. "We believe everyone deserves access to basic financial services unless the law says otherwise." And hours after getting Fedorov's letter, a Binance spokesperson told CNBC, "We are not going to unilaterally freeze millions of innocent users' accounts. Crypto is meant to provide greater financial freedom for people across the globe. To unilaterally decide to ban people's access to their crypto would fly in the face of the reason why crypto exists."

But the CEOs of several exchanges, including some that got Fedorov's letter, said that though they'll continue to offer access to ordinary Russians, they're complying with US law in regard to sanctions. On March 7, Coinbase reportedly said that to facilitate sanctions enforcement, it had blocked more than 25,000 wallet addresses related to Russian individuals or entities thought to have engaged in illicit activity and had reported them to the US government.

Ukraine's request for an all-out ban on Russian users, and the unequivocal rejection from most regulated crypto exchanges, has sparked a debate about the responsibilities digital currency platforms have in an international conflict. As a growing number of Western companies decide to stop conducting business in Russia, should crypto exchanges follow suit and go beyond what they're required to do by law? And even if they did, would banning all Russian users from crypto exchanges make a difference in slowing down Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

Some crypto specialists interviewed by CNET, including executives from crypto companies and public officials working to prevent Russia from using digital assets to sidestep economic sanctions, said a full Russian ban from crypto platforms could do more harm than good in regard to ordinary Russians. And some said the volume of the whole crypto market is still too small to really help Putin's government counter the impact of Western economic penalties, even if it tried.

But other experts on the role the private sector can play in global conflicts said bringing the Russian economy to a standstill is the one nonmilitary way to thwart Putin's advance on Ukraine, and that crypto exchanges can contribute to that only if they stop operating in Russia altogether. 

Cryptocurrencies are digital assets that are recorded on a blockchain, a distributed digital ledger that can't be altered. They usually aren't backed by an underlying asset, such as fiat currency. That's why they could be an ideal safe haven amid a wave of economic sanctions. 

Why crypto exchanges won't budge on Russia

In refusing to kick ordinary Russians off their platforms, cryptocurrency exchanges argue that the move would further hurt Russian citizens who are suffering from the economic impact of the war and who might consider buying cryptocurrencies as a way to protect their financial standing.

"We all saw those photos of runs on ATMs from Russian citizens -- lines around the block in Moscow," said Todd Conklin, counselor to the deputy secretary of the US Treasury Department. "One would suspect ordinary citizens may have been looking for an alternative to the ruble." Conklin made the remarks during a March 4 webinar hosted by blockchain analytics company TRM Labs about the possibility Russia could use cryptocurrencies to avoid economic sanctions. 

The ruble, Russia's national currency, has lost nearly 50% of its value against the US dollar since the start of the year, according to Reuters. Other parts of Russia's financial system have also been impacted by the West's pressure on the country to stop its aggression on Ukraine. Digital payment services such as Apple Pay, Google Pay and Samsung Pay aren't available in Russia any longer. Visa, Mastercard and PayPal also halted operations in the country. Ordinary Russian citizens, worried that economic sanctions will devastate the Russian economy even further, have flocked to ATMs and banks, seeking to withdraw as much cash as possible before it might be too late. 

"Some ordinary Russians are using crypto as a lifeline now that their currency has collapsed," Armstrong, the Coinbase CEO, tweeted. "Many of them likely oppose what their country is doing, and a ban would hurt them, too."

As long as US crypto businesses are complying with US laws in ensuring that sanctioned individuals or entities aren't using their platforms, "crypto could be a vital lifeline for ordinary Russians to preserve their savings [and] receive familial remittances," Michael Parker said in an email. Parker is a former federal prosecutor who's now head of anti-money laundering and sanctions practice at Ferrari & Associates, a Washington, DC-based law firm.

Jesse Powell, co-founder and CEO of Kraken Exchange, another crypto platform, tweeted that though he understood the rationale behind Ukraine's request to remove all Russians from crypto exchanges, Kraken "cannot freeze the accounts of our Russian clients without a legal requirement to do so." 

"I would guess that the vast majority of crypto holders on @krakenfx are anti-war," Powell tweeted. "#Bitcoin is the embodiment of libertarian values, which strongly favor individualism and human rights."

Given the anti-authority libertarian streak that fuels so much of the cryptocurrency sector, the refusal from crypto exchange executives to stop operations in Russia isn't surprising, said Yale University professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who's the president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute, a nonprofit focused on CEO leadership and corporate governance.

Crypto executives don't like "being told what to do," Sonnenfeld said. "And yet, there's a striking naivete [in] that they are working in support of [Putin], the greatest autocrat alive today, the most restricted world leader, [who] they are tacitly supporting by enabling a bypass, if it's even for the cognoscenti, for elites and for oligarchs, if it was as limited as some claim."

Sonnenfeld said that the reason more than 300 Western companies have pulled out of Russia so far isn't that the government told them to do so. "It's the maverick streak of these CEOs who pulled out and started this thundering herd," he said, "courageous CEOs who had the moral character to pull out."

What a full ban on Russia would and wouldn't do

Some specialists said that blocking all Russians from crypto would not only potentially inflict damage on millions of innocent citizens, but it would also do little to amplify the West's sanctions on Russia's economy. The reason? Russia doesn't have the digital infrastructure to tap into crypto assets at a level required to outmaneuver the economic penalties already imposed by the US and its allies.

"You can't flip a switch overnight and run a G20 economy on cryptocurrency," Conklin said during the webinar hosted by blockchain intelligence company TRM. He explained that in recent years, Russia has worked to bolster the ruble and build up its reserves, instead of laying the rails needed to support crypto. That's why US economic sanctions have been focused on preventing Russia from accessing the reserves it keeps overseas. "Big banks in an economy need real liquidity," Conklin said. "Conducting large-scale transactions in virtual currency is likely to be slow and expensive."

Anthony Citrano, founder of Los Angeles-based NFT platform Acquicent, pointed to crypto prices as a clue to what's going on. "If the Russian government really were using crypto as a major piece of their international finance strategy, you'd expect to see absolutely explosive growth in prices of major crypto [currencies]," he said, "which we have not seen. Time will tell, but for now there is zero evidence this is happening."

Former federal prosecutor Ari Redbord, who's now head of legal and government affairs at TRM, said the economic sanctions levied so far have been so "serious and so draconian in their measures" that Russia would need much more than crypto assets to counterbalance them. "We're talking about [the] potential loss of, or no access to, hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen [Russian] Central Bank assets. We're talking about $1.5 trillion in potential trade losses," he said. "The entire crypto market cap doesn't approach what ultimately Russia would need to prop up a G20 [economy] government and fight what is going to become a more and more costly war."

But that doesn't mean the Russian government or Putin's supporters won't try to use crypto to circumvent economic sanctions. "Russian actors are very adept at money laundering and have been for a long time," Redbord said. In the case of crypto, they'll be looking for "noncompliant exchanges in order to move those funds." 

Such exchanges include platforms like Suex, which was blacklisted by the Biden administration in September for allegedly helping launder ransomware payments. TRM has identified about 340 exchanges that are either in Russia or Russia-related and don't have compliance controls in place, "and that is where illicit actors will look to move on as on-ramps and off-ramps for crypto," Redbord said.

Those digital platforms are already operating outside the law, though. For any US business, including businesses in the crypto industry, "there is still a full compliance obligation to not deal with sanctioned parties or interests in blocked property," said Parker, from Ferrari & Associates. "US crypto businesses must, and largely do, institute robust compliance programs, including advanced analytics software, to ensure legal compliance with US sanctions."

Bringing Russia to a standstill

Yale's Sonnenfeld argues that it's beside the point whether Putin and his supporters can actually get their hands on enough digital assets to offset the impact of Western sanctions. He said that by halting all operations in Russia, crypto exchanges could contribute to putting even more pressure on Putin's government, until it reaches a tipping point.

"Government-ordered sanctions have limits," Sonnenfeld said, even if they're a coordinated effort between multiple international actors, including the US, the EU, the UK, Australia, Japan and the UN. "They work best when voluntary efforts of the private sector rally."

That's what happened in South Africa in the late 1980s, Sonnenfeld said, when international pressure contributed to putting an end to apartheid, a system of institutionalized racial segregation that had ruled the country for more than 40 years. Economic sanctions imposed by the US government had an effect only when dozens of major private companies joined in. "It brought civil society to a stop/standstill," he said.

Sonnenfeld and his research team at Yale compiled a list of companies that continued operating in Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. After the publication of a Washington Post story that mentioned that McDonald's and Starbucks were on the list, both chains announced plans to stop operating in Russia. Since the list was created and made public, it now shows "over 330 companies [that] have announced their withdrawal from Russia in protest" of the Ukraine war.

For Sonnenfeld, paralyzing Russia's economy is the only nonmilitary option the West has against Putin's advances on Ukraine.

"The humanitarian thing to do is to not go with bombs and bullets, and to strangle civil society" and dissolve Putin's image of being a totalitarian with full control over all sectors, he said. "If you can show him to be truly impotent over the economy, that he doesn't have control over civil society, then he and the oligarchs fall flat on their face, and that's what cryptocurrency mavericks can do" should they decide to halt operations in Russia. "They can be really helpful here." 

Allowing ordinary Russians to have access to digital assets through crypto exchanges is "not doing anything humanitarian," Sonnenfeld said. "People should be thrown out of work, they should be out on the street" due to an economic collapse brought on by government-ordered sanctions and to private companies denying Russian citizens access to services, goods and money. "Is that cruel?" Sonnenfeld said. "No, it is better than shooting them, than bombing them -- and that's the stage we're at right now."


Source

ExpressVPN Is A Case Study In Why VPN Reviews Require More Legwork


Expressvpn is a case study in why vpn reviews require synonym expressvpn is a case study in why vpn reviews require scripts expressvpn is a case study in why vpn reviews requirements expressvpn is a case study in why vpn reviews requirement expressvpn is a case study in why vpn won t expressvpn is a case study in food expressvpn is slow
ExpressVPN Is a Case Study in Why VPN Reviews Require More Legwork


ExpressVPN Is a Case Study in Why VPN Reviews Require More Legwork

Two members of Congress have called on the Federal Trade Commission to tackle a digital threat that privacy watchdogs have been concerned about for years: Virtual private network companies continue to profit from rising surveillance fears by advertising largely unverifiable promises not to log users' online activity.

In their July letter, Democrats Rep. Anna Eshoo, of California, and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden address what may finally be a tipping point in the fight for VPN transparency -- more abortion-seekers are now turning to VPNs for protection while risking imprisonment in pursuit of life-saving health care. The letter's concerns about VPNs include the following, some of which are also issues ExpressVPN has publicly dealt with, and all of which are issues affecting how VPNs are reviewed. 

First, ethically dubious VPN companies armed with outsized advertising budgets often fund glowing faux-reviews disguised as unbiased consumer advice. Even among editorially independent reviewers, though, properly testing a VPN already means grappling with the complexities of not just encryption tech but the industry's overall resistance to investigation. This muddies the waters for consumers and may potentially conflict with US advertising regulations. 

Second, VPN tech and the VPN industry are both opaque. VPN companies serve customers in countries with anti-VPN laws, so sometimes they have servers discreetly placed in those countries. VPN owners often hide their true identities with legal sleight-of-hand in off-shore company shell games. These are two common industry practices. In the best cases, these practices may protect a good VPN from a government takedown. In the worst cases, these practices can allow a VPN to become a business front for government surveillance (a honeypot). Either way, these practices are profitable and make it impossible to fully vet a VPN independently.

These issues are important because a low-quality VPN review from a popular website could land a trusting reader in jail or worse. 

Read more: With Roe v. Wade Overturned, Your Abortion Searches Could Be Used to Prosecute You

Since my last review, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden issued a tweet telling users to abandon ExpressVPN because ExpressVPN CIO Daniel Gericke was cooperating with the FBI in an unrelated DOJ investigation. Immediately following the DOJ news, a London-based parent company that used to sell ad tech (and is backed by a billionaire previously jailed for insider trading) bought ExpressVPN for $936 million. Many reviewers warned users away from ExpressVPN. I almost did too. But instead, I spent several months methodically investigating the service and its parent company. I still recommend it to privacy-critical users. But that isn't the point of this commentary. 

The point of this commentary is that Congress is calling for investigation into the VPN industry and -- given the above paragraphs' content -- I am also calling for VPN reviewers to do better at investigating the VPNs they review. ExpressVPN's story is a case study on how reviewers like me can do this better. 

Read more: How We Test VPNs

Kape's evolving business model

When ExpressVPN first announced that it was being bought by London-based Kape, our biggest concern was that the VPN would be forced to share customer registration data with Kape -- outside of the VPN's privacy-protective British Virgin Islands jurisdiction -- as other Kape subsidiaries' policies allow. I've repeatedly reached out to Kape for comment without response, but there are still a few ways we can define the relative range of risk Kape poses to ExpressVPN's privacy integrity. 

First, ExpressVPN's own repeated public assertions of continued operational independence from Kape are somewhat self-affirming; they indicate Kape isn't making moves to silence its new VPN. ExpressVPN's statements also gain more weight as it raises the stakes for its own -- and Kape's -- public image by being a loud voice in the i2Coalition's continued calls for transparency in the VPN industry.  

Kape's revenue incentives have shifted as well -- from ad-tech dollars based on its previous CrossRider product, to a booming privacy market that Kape expects to grow 17% a year. That shift has paid off for Kape with an 89% revenue spike from $122 million in 2020 to $231 million in 2021. Within that increase, privacy product revenue jumped 30% and accounted for $117 million -- about half of overall revenue. Security-related revenue rose by 18% when Kape-owned Intego antivirus revenues surged 20%. And Kape's digital content profits -- which came entirely from the acquisition of Webselenese in March 2021 -- reached $88 million by year's end, representing 53% year-over-year growth for Webselenese. 

Read more: What is Kape Technologies? What you need to know about the parent company of CyberGhost VPN

"100% of Kape's revenue comes from subscription services or online content publishing; 0% of revenue comes from ad serving. Digital privacy and security accounted for 73.5% and 26.5% of its FY2020 revenue respectively. Since 2016, Kape has not earned a single dollar of revenue from ad-tech or any other aspect of the former Crossrider platform," Kape said in a September 2021 release. 

While the release isn't enough to hang a hat on, its sentiment was echoed in March when Kape CEO Ido Erlichman filed the company's 2021 wrap-up, touting 20% organic customer growth and a VPN-driven 260% increase in paying subscribers, for a total of 6.5 million subscribers. 

Kape, Erlichman said, is "one of the sole players wholly focused on digital privacy, and without any monetisation from any customer data."

Kape projects revenues will hit $610 million to $624 million at the end of 2022 -- more than double last year's revenue. 


Kape's year-end investor presentation from March 2022 details the company's revenue sources, including areas of anticipated growth in the privacy and security sectors.

Kape Technologies

There aren't any former Crossrider execs left in Kape's C-suite to hear the good news but there are still some familiar faces, including Teddy Sagi. The billionaire, who was convicted of insider trading in 1994, held a 54.3% controlling share in Kape as of its January holdings statement, a slight uptick from December -- when he put $60 million worth of loans on the table for Kape. That's down from his 60.5% holding before ExpressVPN was bought. That $60 million might hold a lot of sway, but it's not enough to keep Kape on Sagi's leash now that Kape's got a boosted debt facility of $290 million from the Bank of Ireland, Barclays, Citibank and others. 

ExpressVPN co-founders Peter Burchhardt and Dan Pomerantz got $237 million worth of shares in the $936 million purchase, landing them a collective 13.6% share of Kape. Both are staying on with Kape, managing ExpressVPN's operations. Burchhardt also got the right to appoint a non-voting board member for the foreseeable future -- or so long as ExpressVPN accounts for at least 5% of Kape's earnings. 

With an average growth rate of 35.1% over the past four years, ExpressVPN is unlikely to fall short. In 2020, it pulled down $279.4 million in revenue -- a 37% jump from 2019. Along with a slate of hardware partnerships, the company brought 290 staffers into the Kape fold, 48% of whom are the R&D engineers Kape said it needs. About $30 million worth of "synergy" cuts are coming as backroom ExpressVPN staff get folded into Kape's. Most crucially, though, are the 3 million subscribers Kape got with the ExpressVPN purchase, bringing Kape's retention rate to 81%. 

That 81% is the key number here. Kape says 92% of its revenue is recurrent. With Kape no longer relying on ad tech dollars, the tent-post revenue strategy is cross-product subscriptions targeting current users, 30% of which are already in their third year of using a Kape product. 

Good press is hard to find, but easy to buy  

How is Kape going to target those customers for retention? Through a journalistic conflict of interest.  

As noted above, Kape also now owns Webselenese, a platform for two no-longer-independent VPN review sites, vpnMentor.com and Wizcase.com. Kape bought the platform for $155.1 million per its full-year filing in March 2021. Webselenese's "integration" grew Kape's audience size by 62% with 105 million readers.

"Webselenese's mission is to provide honest and unbiased information via its well-regarded websites," Kape said in its March buying statement. "Its team of researchers extensively research and test every product before reviewing and recommending it, in doing this, Webselenese only recommends products and services that its writers would use themselves."

Sudden changes to VPN rankings on vpnMentor.com and Wizcase.com suggest otherwise. As noted by more reviewers that I can link to, both sites dropped NordVPN and Surfshark from their top-three picks following the Kape buyout, replacing them with Kape-owned Cyberghost and Private Internet Access. 

Read more: Why you should be skeptical about a VPN's no-logs claims

To that end, it certainly appears that Kape is following in the footsteps of other digital giants by self-dealing -- guiding otherwise unaware readers to its own in-house products and services. And it's paying off: In a July 2021 trading update, Kape said buying Webselenese led to "reduction in average customer acquisition cost." By March 2022, Webselenese's revenue was up 53%. And Kape's digital content profits accounted for the largest chunk of Kape revenue. 

That's the irony of Kape's evolving business model: Unlike the CrossRider days, the monetization of data now appears to be more of a liability than an asset. If you look at the transparency in ExpressVPN's audited tech, it's easy to see the most obvious incentive Kape would have to preserve the integrity of its flagship VPN: Any per-person data set the VPN would be able to gather on Kape's behalf would be embarrassingly incomplete compared with the finely polished and hypertargeted per-person data sets offered in a bullish market of invasive data brokers. Likewise, selling that customer data would expose Kape's highest-performing new VPN (its entire portfolio, really) to dangerous market competition, destabilizing Kape's overall subscriber retention rate while the company still carries a truckload of debt.

After all, why risk the reputation of your crown jewel privacy product when it's far more profitable to own an advertising machine that poses as an independent consumer technology review site? 

Read more:  VPN FAQ: What you need to know about the basics of virtual private networks

Who reviews the reviewers? 

While prudent reviewers who waved readers off ExpressVPN in the past few months no doubt intended to offer "better safe than sorry" counsel, there's a risk of creating the opposite effect if you issue uncritical calls to abandon ship based on uncertain new ownership or yet-unseen US government VPN interference. Just as dangerous are uncritical calls to stay the course, even as red flags begin appearing. Whether panning or praising ExpressVPN, neither of those uncritical calls take seriously the privacy needs of a growing number of vulnerable people who are new to privacy tools. 

VPN users who need safety from local-level law enforcement and ISP data collection aren't limited to exiled ex-spies, international criminals or UAE-surveilled human rights activists. They're everyday users who walk among us, and we have to stop dismissing their privacy needs as though they are the demands of paranoid outliers. Period.

Read more: Casual vs. Critical: When Your VPN Is a Matter of Life or Death, Here's How to Pick One

Not every surveillance state shares intelligence with the US, nor is there evidence that the US' surveillance apparatus -- vast though it may be -- is omniscient. ExpressVPN's hard-tested security, sprawling global infrastructure and flexible protocols allow its 3 million users to get potentially lifesaving information past law enforcement in countries where other VPNs falter. You can't account for every countries' broadband infrastructure quality, political restrictions, and local intelligence gathering capabilities -- but if any VPN is up and running in one of the world's tight spots, you can almost bet it's going to be ExpressVPN. 

Shooing these users away from what may be their only locally reliable VPN doesn't help privacy-critical VPN users whose own political concerns don't include being targeted by the US federal government -- such as everyday users in China and Russia. 

Nor does it help users in US states (where half of ExpressVPN users register) who lack federal protection while trying to survive dangerous state restrictions -- like abortion seekers in my own state of Kentucky. Add to that list all the gay kids on conservative college campus networks, abuse victims seeking escape, workers organizing labor unions and people working in one state's legal cannabis industry while living in another, anti-cannabis state. The list goes on. All of them are privacy-critical users, and I recommend they use ExpressVPN.

As always, that recommendation could change in an instant, in the event of a security breach, a privacy violation, an unexpected change in corporate policy or a savvy rival that ends up outgunning Express in terms of value or technology. But until it does, I'm offering my recommendation to use it, right along with a maxim that once hung on the wall of the City News Bureau of Chicago: 

If your mother says she loves you, go check it out.


Source

How Russia Has Spent A Decade Crumbling Online Freedoms


Russia 20 billion a day how long has russia been around facts about russia today what did russia do today why is russia taking so long russia spending on war how much money has russia spent on the war why has russia invaded ukraine how russians sneeze how russia will collapse
How Russia has spent a decade crumbling online freedoms


How Russia has spent a decade crumbling online freedoms

Aleksandr Litreev was on a way to a business meeting last February when his life changed forever. En route to a hotel in Yakaterinburg, a day's drive east of Moscow, Litreev was pulled over by police. When they asked him to hand over his phone, the then-24-year-old knew it was no routine traffic stop. 

"They took me to a police station," Litreev recalls, "and magically some drugs appear." Litreev said he was arrested by around 10 armed policemen, beaten into confessing to ecstasy possession, and then detained for a month. He managed to flee to Estonia after being released into house arrest. 

Litreev is a member of Russia's liberal opposition. Rather than rousing people to the ballot box, he builds internet tools that help everyday Russians fight against an increasingly controlling state. As part of the tightest squeeze on freedoms in Russia this century, critical online media publications have been labeled foreign agents, and platforms like Twitter and Facebook are being pressured to purge their platforms of content the Kremlin disapproves of. 

With Russia's parliamentary elections running on Sept. 17 through Sept. 19, the Kremlin has stepped up censorship. It's demanded keywords associated with the opposition be blocked from Google and Yandex, the domestic search giant, and that Google and Apple kick an opposition-made app from their app stores.

Litreev has been fighting back for years, creating an app that sends lawyers to defend arrested protesters and joining the "digital resistance" that countered the government's attempt to block encrypted-messenger Telegram.

"If I go back to Russia now, I will get something like lifetime imprisonment," Litreev said. "Not gonna happen." 

Before fleeing to Estonia, Litreev also worked with Alexei Navalny, who, for the last 10 years, has been the face of Russia's opposition to President Vladimir Putin. Navalny was poisoned by Russian spies in August 2020 and has since been jailed. Navalny's case shows how the Kremlin has lost any of the patience it once had: He was tolerated for nearly a decade -- as a popular blogger, investigative journalist and later an opposition politician -- before authorities attempted to eliminate him altogether.

"The things that are happening now have never happened before," said Litreev, explaining that authorities poisoning an opposition candidate would have been inconceivable as recently as 2017. "And now we're here." 

Aleksandr Litreev, a software developer who fled to to Estona amid Russia's opposition crackdown.

Aleksandr Litreev

Digital wargames 

In 2017, Litreev made his first significant venture into opposition politics. A YouTube expose from Navalny alleged that then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had embezzled over $1.2 billion, sparking protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg that turned into a general rebuke of widespread corruption and political repression.

Litreev's contribution was an app called Red Button. If protesters thought they were at risk of arrest, they could open the app and press the big red button it presented. That would automatically call a lawyer, who also receives the protester's emergency contact details and a GPS signal of their location.

"It's basically Uber, but for a lawyer," Litreev said. It was used extensively by demonstrators at the time, which got the attention of Kremlin authorities. "That's the point where pressure on me started," he added.

Litreev, then 21 and fresh out of university, was motivated to join the opposition movement as he watched the Kremlin ratchet up internet restrictions. A 2014 law allowed the telecommunications regulator, Roskomnadzor, to block access to online media that called for "unsanctioned mass public events." In 2016, Putin signed a bill requiring telecommunications companies to store their customers' text messages and phone calls for up to six months. 

The law was used as a pretext to ban Telegram, a platform created by eccentric Russian-born developer Pavel Durov that doubles as an instant messenger and a social media platform. (Durov is now based in Dubai.) It allows for encrypted messages between people, like WhatsApp, but also for public figures and groups to create "channels" that can have millions of followers. Russian authorities wanted control over Telegram, and stopping them became Litreev's next project.

Thousands rallied for "internet freedom" in 2018 after Roskomnadzor banned Telegram. Many protested by bringing paper planes, Telegram's symbol.

Mikhail Tereshchenko/Getty

In 2018, the Kremlin ordered Durov to hand over keys that would allow the FSB, the successor to the Soviet KGB, to unscramble the app's encrypted messages. Roskomnadzor's stated goal was to fight terrorist attacks, like a 2017 train bombing in St. Petersburg, which it claimed were spreading thanks to Telegram and apps like it. Durov refused, calling the request both unconstitutional and technically untenable. What followed was a game of hide-and-seek that lasted for two years.

Roskomnadzor banned Telegram in April 2018, pulling down the app's servers. Scores of Russian internet users -- dubbed the Digital Resistance -- countered by hosting Telegram on proxy servers, which Roskomnadzor found and banned too. For his part, Litreev helped create software that deployed millions of proxy servers at once, making it impossible for Russian authorities to manually pull them down individually.

"They got tired of banning IP address by IP address, so they started to ban whole subnetworks, ranges of IP addresses," he said. "At some point, when we got our service hosted on Amazon and on Google Cloud, they accidentally banned a huge subnet which belongs to Google."

Those attempts to ban Telegram were unsuccessful. Not only did the service remain accessible, its Russian user base actually grew. Meanwhile, with authorities hastily banning up to 19 million IP addresses, Google and Amazon services were briefly unusable throughout Russia.

Roskomnadzor had a choice: either block a huge range of IP addresses and risk more catastrophic blackouts, or rescind the ban on Telegram. "It was a fight for all or nothing," Litreev said.

After two years, Roskomnadzor relented, lifting its Telegram ban last June on the grounds that the company would help it with terrorism inquiries in the future. The Digital Resistance won this battle, the latest in a war that had been going on since 2012. 

Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin in 2012. 

Natalia Kolesnikova/Getty

The first ruling 

Russia is often grouped with China as a troublesome autocracy. A common misconception related to this comparison is that Russia has always had a fiercely censored internet. But unlike China's internet, which was built from the ground up not to rely on Western companies or users, Russia's internet largely grew freely from the mid-'90s. 

That began to change in 2012, when Putin became president for the second time.

Much like the US, Russian presidents were bound by the constitution to serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms. So in 2008, when Putin swapped places with Dmitry Medvedev, becoming prime minister while Medvedev assumed the presidency, many suspected it was a ploy to circumvent constitutional limits. Those suspicions were confirmed when he announced his intention to run as president again in 2011.

When Putin's United Russia party retained a majority in the parliamentary elections two months later -- elections local monitors and the EU said were fraudulent -- protests erupted. Tens of thousands demanded free elections and the release of political prisoners. But what concerned the Kremlin wasn't the demonstrators, but how they managed to organize themselves. These protests were the biggest the country had seen since the '90s, and they were powered by social media.

"The driving force back then was the internet -- social media, Facebook and Twitter," said Andrei Soldatov, a journalist and co-author of The Red Web, a book that details Russia's tightening grip on internet freedoms. "That was the moment the Kremlin started paying attention to this new threat, and it was absolutely clear that it was the big thing for years to come."

The "Snow Revolution" protests in Moscow, 2011.

Epsilon/Getty

Online freedoms began unraveling a month after Putin took office in 2012. The Russian Duma (the lower house of the Federal Assembly) started drafting an internet restriction bill that lawmakers claimed was necessary to protect minors from child sexual abuse material, online drug markets and content that encouraged self harm. In practice, it allowed government authorities to create an internet blacklist.

Roskomnadzor now had legal cover to pull down websites it didn't like. Today, the internet in Russia is still markedly more open than it is in countries like China, Egypt and Vietnam. But Russia's strategy of censorship is more subtle, focused less on suppressing speech than on oppressing competition.

"The idea is not to prevent you from getting information," Soldatov said. "The idea is to discourage you from participating in political activities of any kind, online or offline." 

The Kremlin's aversion to political opposition explains why political protests are often followed by a tightening of controls. The Moscow demonstrations of 2011 and 2012 led to the first internet restriction bill, and Telegram was targeted in 2018 after protests were organized on the platform. 

Then, in 2019, the opposition began translating online engagement into electoral victories.

A new era

Activists, journalists and opposition politicians had proven adept at maneuvering around the digital barriers the Kremlin had been throwing up since 2012. Navalny continued to use his prominent online platform to trouble authorities. Though demonized on state TV, many of his YouTube documentaries on shadowy Kremlin activities racked up hundreds of millions of views. Older Russians who regularly watched Russian television thought Navalny was a menace. Many middle-class, internet-savvy Russians, however, were receptive to his cause.

Though the Kremlin punished Navalny in various ways, convicting him on trumped-up fraud charges and barring him from running for office, authorities showed some restraint in suppressing his movement.

"Navalny was tolerated for a decade," said William Partlett, a professor at Melbourne Law School who researches post-Soviet societies and is authoring a book on Navalny. "He was exposing high-level corruption among very important, powerful people in the inner circle of the Kremlin. And he was allowed to do that, and I think the idea was, 'we can manage this guy.'" 

That changed in 2019. Navalny, unable to run for Moscow city council himself, encouraged his followers to adopt the "smart voting" doctrine. It meant voting for anyone other than the ruling United Russia party, be they liberals, avowed communists or hardcore nationalists. The plan worked: The "systemic opposition" won 20 of Moscow's 45 seats, reducing the United Russia Party's majority from 38 to 25.

The same system was used successfully in regional elections, ousting three United Russia governors. In a world where freedom of expression is fine up until the point where it infringes on Kremlin control, this was all unacceptable. Navalny's opposition movement was powered by online platforms, from Telegram to Twitter, and now it was producing tangible offline results. 

"Now the question for Putin becomes, is the internet manageable?" Partlett said.

The Kremlin cracked down hard. An online libel law was enacted last December, allowing sites to be blocked and people to be jailed for "defaming" public figures. Specific activists and journalists have been targeted: one journalist was jailed for 25 days for retweeting a photo that carried the date and time of a planned protest, while a video of police violently interrogating blogger Gennady Shulga was leaked by the police themselves, Shulga said, "to show people what the authorities can do." 

Navalny's treatment played out in front of the world. He was poisoned in an airport in August 2020, then flown to Berlin, where he recuperated. After returning to Russia, he was immediately imprisoned. Meanwhile, Putin amended the constitution in April to allow him to rule as president until 2036. 

Alexei Navalny, the face of Russia's liberal opposition, is currently jailed in Russia. 

Dmitry Serebryakov/Getty

Taking on big tech

Litreev talks about his exploits like a nimble David outmaneuvering a lumbering, sluggish Goliath. He knows the battle will be perilous but expects he and his fellow activists will ultimately prevail. 

"The level of expertise and level of professionalism on the government side is much lower than our side," he said.

Litreev points to a spat between Twitter and Kremlin as evidence. In March, Roskomnadzor demanded Twitter take down thousands of tweets dating back to 2017 that encouraged illegal activity -- which includes child porn, drug markets and, of course, news stories related to opposition candidates. To motivate Twitter to fulfill the request, the telecoms regulator throttled Twitter's speed for months. 

But, in a flashback to the Roskomnadzor inadvertently blocking Google amid a clumsy attempt to ban Telegram, sites like Reddit.com and Microsoft.com went down too. People realized that authorities had targeted the "t.co" link-shortening formation Twitter uses, which clobbered any website that ended with the letter "t."

It was a conspicuous fumble on the part of Roskomnadzor, but authorities did manage to isolate and slow down Twitter. The initial missteps masked the use of a concerning new suite of powers that had been signed into law in 2019, called "the sovereign internet," or RuNet. 

The law requires ISPs to connect a new range of state hardware to internet exchange points. These "big red boxes" all direct to a control center in Moscow and allow the Kremlin to manage the flow of traffic from one region of the country to another. The system has been called a "digital Iron Curtain," akin to China's Great Firewall that separates its internet from the rest of the world. 

Soldatov says this comparison is inaccurate. The Kremlin isn't interested in isolating itself from the rest of the internet, he says, since that would prove economically ruinous. Rather, it's a tool to control the flow of information from one region of the country to the next.

"The sovereign internet was never about the West. It's about what's going on inside the country," he said. "The most sensitive content is generated inside the country."

Moscovites protesting the jailing of Navalny in April.

Anadolu Agency/Getty

Roskomnadzor was able to pair the new sovereign internet hardware with existing data surveillance technology to selectively slow Twitter traffic. In the future, the Kremlin could use the same technology to, for example, throttle certain apps to prevent livestreams from a protest in Moscow from reaching other parts of the country. 

It was the government's first known experiment with its newest online tools -- and it worked.

Twitter has removed over 6,000 tweets, according to Roskomnadzor. In the months since, Russian authorities have demanded Facebook take down content, fined Google $81,000 for not taking down content, and told Facebook and Twitter to store all data of Russian users within the country. On Aug. 26, Twitter and Facebook were both fined for not storing such data quickly enough.

Facebook, Google and Twitter declined to comment. Roskomnadzor was contacted but didn't respond. 

Just as the Kremlin pressures Facebook, Google and Twitter, it fosters local substitutes like RuTube, a YouTube alternative owned by the state gas company. Law requires Android phones to come preloaded with 16 Russian-made apps, including the VK social media app and the Yandex search engine, while Apple is required to prompt Russians to download the apps during the setup process of new iPhones. It's part of a plan meant to better allow authorities to control online platforms so that anti-Kremlin content can't go viral. 

"The tools the Russian government uses are evolving with time. They are much more advanced if we compare them to, say, 2018," Litreev acknowledged. "But modern problems require modern solutions." 

The modern problems

Litreev's latest project is Solar Labs, a decentralized VPN that's based on blockchain and incentivized with cryptocurrency. The Solar Labs platform will allow people around the world to host their own VPN servers, for which they'll be paid with Solar Labs cryptocurrency tokens. If enough people from a variety of countries host their own VPN servers, it'll be impossible for all servers to be taken down at once. 

"Even if the government will do whatever it takes to block our service, they will not succeed unless they just shut the whole internet for the whole country," he said. Solar Labs is designed to be useful not just for Russians, but also Iranians, Chinese and Belarussians, all of whom face strict internet censorship. 

Litreev says the Kremlin's crackdowns on activists, journalists and dissidents are acts of hysteria. The more extreme the measure, the more desperation it reflects. 

And the measures have gotten extreme. It's not just in Russia, either. In May, Belarus' ruler, who's closely aligned with Putin, used military force to ground a RyanAir plane midflight to detain a dissident journalist. The whole region's rules are being rewritten.

Litreev wants to go home to see old faces and places, but says people like him need to work to create a safe Russia. He hopes that Solar Labs' VPN, which launches in September, will be part of that process. Meanwhile, Litreev feels safe in Estonia -- though he makes sure any flights he takes avoid both Russian and Belarusian airspace. 

Soldatov, living in London, is less hopeful. He said he was optimistic five years ago, when he co-authored The Red Web, but that the events since then have sapped his confidence.

"We use this word, 'unprecedented,'" he said. "The problem when something is unprecedented is you cannot calculate your risks, because you do not know where they are going to stop." 


Source

Signal, WhatsApp And Telegram: Here's Which Secure Messaging App You Should Use


Signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secure messaging my healthevet signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secured signal whatsapp and telegram here s my number call me maybe signal whatsapp and telegram here she comes signal whatsapp and telegram here s lucy tv series signal whatsapp and telegram here s your perfect chords signal and power integrity simplified forex signal whatsapp group
Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram: Here's which secure messaging app you should use


Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram: Here's which secure messaging app you should use

If your choice of encrypted messaging app is a toss-up between Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp, do not waste your time with anything but Signal. This isn't about which one has cuter features, more bells and whistles or is the most convenient to use: It's purely about privacy. And if privacy's what you're after, nothing beats Signal.

You probably already know what happened. In a tweet heard 'round the world last January, tech mogul Elon Musk continued his feud with Facebook by advocating people drop its WhatsApp messenger and use Signal instead. Twitter's then-CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted Musk's call. Around the same time, right-wing social network Parler went dark following the Capitol attacks, while political boycotters fled Facebook and Twitter. It was the perfect storm -- the number of new users flocking to Signal and Telegram surged by tens of millions

Read more: Everything to know about Signal

The jolt also reignited security and privacy scrutiny over messaging apps more widely. Among the top players currently dominating download numbers, there are some commonalities. All are mobile apps available in the Google Play store and App Store that support cross-platform messaging, have group chat features, offer multifactor authentication and can be used to share files and multimedia. They all also provide encryption for texting, voice and video calls.

Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp use end-to-end encryption in some portion of their app, meaning that if an outside party intercepts your texts, they should be scrambled and unreadable. It also means that the exact content of your messages supposedly can't be viewed by employees of those companies when you are communicating with another private user. This prevents law enforcement, your mobile carrier and other snooping entities from being able to read your messages even when they intercept them (which happens more often than you might think). 

The privacy and security differences between Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp couldn't be bigger, though. Here's what you need to know about each of them. 

Getty/SOPA Images
  • Does not collect data, only your phone number
  • Free, no ads, funded by nonprofit Signal Foundation 
  • Fully open-source
  • Encryption: Signal Protocol

Signal is a typical one-tap install app that can be found in your normal marketplaces like Google Play and Apple's App Store and works just like the usual text-messaging app. It's an open-source development provided free of charge by the nonprofit Signal Foundation and has been famously used for years by high-profile privacy icons like Edward Snowden.

Signal's main function is that it can send -- to either an individual or a group -- fully encrypted text, video, audio and picture messages, after verifying your phone number and letting you independently verify other Signal users' identity. For a deeper dive into the potential pitfalls and limitations of encrypted messaging apps, CNET's Laura Hautala's explainer is a life-saver. 

When it comes to privacy, it's hard to beat Signal's offer. It doesn't store your user data. And beyond its encryption prowess, it gives you extended, onscreen privacy options, including app-specific locks, blank notification pop-ups, face-blurring antisurveillance tools and disappearing messages. 

Occasional bugs have proven that the tech is far from bulletproof, of course, but the overall arc of Signal's reputation and results have kept it at the top of every privacy-savvy person's list of identity protection tools. The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times (which also recommends WhatsApp) and The Wall Street Journal all recommend using Signal to contact their reporters safely. 

For years, the core privacy challenge for Signal lay not in its technology but in its wider adoption. Sending an encrypted Signal message is great, but if your recipient isn't using Signal, then your privacy may be nil. Think of it like the herd immunity created by vaccines, but for your messaging privacy. 

Now that Musk's and Dorsey's endorsements have sent a surge of users to get a privacy booster shot, however, that challenge may be a thing of the past. 

Getty/NurPhoto
  • Data linked to you: Name, phone number, contacts, user ID
  • Free, forthcoming Ad Platform and premium features, funded mainly by founder
  • Only partially open-source
  • Encryption: MTProto

Telegram falls somewhere in the middle of the privacy scale, and it stands apart from other messenger apps because of its efforts to create a social network-style environment. While it doesn't collect as much data as WhatsApp, it also doesn't offer encrypted group calls like WhatsApp, nor as much user data privacy and company transparency as Signal. Data collected by Telegram that could be linked to you includes your name, phone number, contact list and user ID. 

Telegram also collects your IP address, something else Signal doesn't do. And unlike Signal and WhatsApp, Telegram's one-to-one messages aren't encrypted by default. Rather, you have to turn them on in the app's settings. Telegram group messages also aren't encrypted. Researchers found that while some of Telegram's MTProto encryption scheme was open-source, some portions were not, so it's not completely clear what happens to your texts once they're in Telegram's servers. 

Telegram has seen several breaches. Some 42 million Telegram user IDs and phone numbers were exposed in March of 2020, thought to be the work of Iranian government officials. It would be the second massive breach linked to Iran, after 15 million Iranian users were exposed in 2016. A Telegram bug was exploited by Chinese authorities in 2019 during the Hong Kong protests. Then there was the deep-fake bot on Telegram that has been allowed to create forged nudes of women from regular pictures. Most recently, its GPS-enabled feature allowing you to find others near you has created obvious problems for privacy. 

I reached out to Telegram to find out whether there were any major security plans in the works for the app, and what its security priorities were after this latest user surge. I'll update this story when I hear back.

Angela Lang/CNET
  • Data linked to you: Too much to list (see below)
  • Free; business versions available for free, funded by Facebook
  • Not open-source, except for encryption
  • Encryption: Signal Protocol 

Let's be clear: There's a difference between security and privacy. Security is about safeguarding your data against unauthorized access, and privacy is about safeguarding your identity regardless of who has access to that data. 

On the security front, WhatsApp's encryption is the same as Signal's, and that encryption is secure. But that encryption protocol is one of the few open-source parts of WhatsApp, so we're being asked to trust WhatsApp more than we are Signal. WhatsApp's actual app and other infrastructure have also faced hacks, just as Telegram has. 

Jeff Bezos' phone was famously hacked in January of 2020 through a WhatsApp video message. In December of the same year, Texas' attorney general alleged -- though has not proven -- that Facebook and Google struck a back-room deal to reveal WhatsApp message content. A spyware vendor targeted a WhatsApp vulnerability with its software to hack 1,400 devices, resulting in a lawsuit from Facebook. WhatsApp's unencrypted cloud-based backup feature has long been considered a security risk by privacy experts and was one way the FBI got evidence on notorious political fixer Paul Manafort. To top it off, WhatsApp has also become known as a haven for scam artists and malware purveyors over the years (just as Telegram has attracted its own share of platform abuse, detailed above). 

Despite the hacks, it's not the security aspect that concerns me about WhatsApp as much as the privacy. I'm not eager for Facebook to have yet another piece of software installed on my phone from which it can cull still more behavioral data via an easy-to-use app with a pretty interface and more security than your regular messenger. 

When WhatsApp says it can't view the content of the encrypted messages you send to another WhatsApp user, what is doesn't say is that there's a laundry list of other data that it collects that could be linked to your identity: Your unique device ID, usage and advertising data, purchase history and financial information, physical location, phone number, your contact information and that of your list of contacts, what products you've interacted with, how often you use the app, and how it performs when you do. The list goes on. This is way more than Signal or Telegram. 

When I asked the company why users should settle for less data privacy, a WhatsApp spokesperson pointed out that it limits what it does with this user data, and that the data collection only applies to some users. For instance, financial transaction data collection would be relevant only to those WhatsApp users in Brazil, where the service is available. 

"We do not share your contacts with Facebook, and we cannot see your shared location," the WhatsApp spokesperson told CNET. 

"While most people use WhatsApp just to chat with friends and family, we've also begun to offer the ability for people to chat with businesses to get help or make a purchase, with health authorities to get information about COVID, with domestic violence support agencies, and with fact checkers to provide people with the ability to get accurate information," the spokesperson said. "As we've expanded our services, we continue to protect people's messages and limit the information we collect." 

Is WhatsApp more convenient than Signal and Telegram? Yes. Is it prettier? Sure. Is it just as secure? We won't know unless we see more of its source code. But is it more private? Not when it comes to how much data it collects comparatively. For real privacy, I'm sticking with Signal and I recommend you do the same. 


Source

https://pemudij.pops.my.id/

.

Signal, WhatsApp And Telegram: Here's Which Secure Messaging App You Should Use


Signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secure messaging relayhealth signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secure messaging platforms signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secure messaging irs signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secured signal whatsapp and telegram here s which crab signal whatsapp and telegram here s your perfect chords signal whatsapp and telegram here s to us halestorm signal whatsapp and call signal and track switch repairers busy signal whatsapp
Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram: Here's which secure messaging app you should use


Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram: Here's which secure messaging app you should use

If your choice of encrypted messaging app is a toss-up between Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp, do not waste your time with anything but Signal. This isn't about which one has cuter features, more bells and whistles or is the most convenient to use: It's purely about privacy. And if privacy's what you're after, nothing beats Signal.

You probably already know what happened. In a tweet heard 'round the world last January, tech mogul Elon Musk continued his feud with Facebook by advocating people drop its WhatsApp messenger and use Signal instead. Twitter's then-CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted Musk's call. Around the same time, right-wing social network Parler went dark following the Capitol attacks, while political boycotters fled Facebook and Twitter. It was the perfect storm -- the number of new users flocking to Signal and Telegram surged by tens of millions

Read more: Everything to know about Signal

The jolt also reignited security and privacy scrutiny over messaging apps more widely. Among the top players currently dominating download numbers, there are some commonalities. All are mobile apps available in the Google Play store and App Store that support cross-platform messaging, have group chat features, offer multifactor authentication and can be used to share files and multimedia. They all also provide encryption for texting, voice and video calls.

Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp use end-to-end encryption in some portion of their app, meaning that if an outside party intercepts your texts, they should be scrambled and unreadable. It also means that the exact content of your messages supposedly can't be viewed by employees of those companies when you are communicating with another private user. This prevents law enforcement, your mobile carrier and other snooping entities from being able to read your messages even when they intercept them (which happens more often than you might think). 

The privacy and security differences between Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp couldn't be bigger, though. Here's what you need to know about each of them. 

Getty/SOPA Images
  • Does not collect data, only your phone number
  • Free, no ads, funded by nonprofit Signal Foundation 
  • Fully open-source
  • Encryption: Signal Protocol

Signal is a typical one-tap install app that can be found in your normal marketplaces like Google Play and Apple's App Store and works just like the usual text-messaging app. It's an open-source development provided free of charge by the nonprofit Signal Foundation and has been famously used for years by high-profile privacy icons like Edward Snowden.

Signal's main function is that it can send -- to either an individual or a group -- fully encrypted text, video, audio and picture messages, after verifying your phone number and letting you independently verify other Signal users' identity. For a deeper dive into the potential pitfalls and limitations of encrypted messaging apps, CNET's Laura Hautala's explainer is a life-saver. 

When it comes to privacy, it's hard to beat Signal's offer. It doesn't store your user data. And beyond its encryption prowess, it gives you extended, onscreen privacy options, including app-specific locks, blank notification pop-ups, face-blurring antisurveillance tools and disappearing messages. 

Occasional bugs have proven that the tech is far from bulletproof, of course, but the overall arc of Signal's reputation and results have kept it at the top of every privacy-savvy person's list of identity protection tools. The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times (which also recommends WhatsApp) and The Wall Street Journal all recommend using Signal to contact their reporters safely. 

For years, the core privacy challenge for Signal lay not in its technology but in its wider adoption. Sending an encrypted Signal message is great, but if your recipient isn't using Signal, then your privacy may be nil. Think of it like the herd immunity created by vaccines, but for your messaging privacy. 

Now that Musk's and Dorsey's endorsements have sent a surge of users to get a privacy booster shot, however, that challenge may be a thing of the past. 

Getty/NurPhoto
  • Data linked to you: Name, phone number, contacts, user ID
  • Free, forthcoming Ad Platform and premium features, funded mainly by founder
  • Only partially open-source
  • Encryption: MTProto

Telegram falls somewhere in the middle of the privacy scale, and it stands apart from other messenger apps because of its efforts to create a social network-style environment. While it doesn't collect as much data as WhatsApp, it also doesn't offer encrypted group calls like WhatsApp, nor as much user data privacy and company transparency as Signal. Data collected by Telegram that could be linked to you includes your name, phone number, contact list and user ID. 

Telegram also collects your IP address, something else Signal doesn't do. And unlike Signal and WhatsApp, Telegram's one-to-one messages aren't encrypted by default. Rather, you have to turn them on in the app's settings. Telegram group messages also aren't encrypted. Researchers found that while some of Telegram's MTProto encryption scheme was open-source, some portions were not, so it's not completely clear what happens to your texts once they're in Telegram's servers. 

Telegram has seen several breaches. Some 42 million Telegram user IDs and phone numbers were exposed in March of 2020, thought to be the work of Iranian government officials. It would be the second massive breach linked to Iran, after 15 million Iranian users were exposed in 2016. A Telegram bug was exploited by Chinese authorities in 2019 during the Hong Kong protests. Then there was the deep-fake bot on Telegram that has been allowed to create forged nudes of women from regular pictures. Most recently, its GPS-enabled feature allowing you to find others near you has created obvious problems for privacy. 

I reached out to Telegram to find out whether there were any major security plans in the works for the app, and what its security priorities were after this latest user surge. I'll update this story when I hear back.

Angela Lang/CNET
  • Data linked to you: Too much to list (see below)
  • Free; business versions available for free, funded by Facebook
  • Not open-source, except for encryption
  • Encryption: Signal Protocol 

Let's be clear: There's a difference between security and privacy. Security is about safeguarding your data against unauthorized access, and privacy is about safeguarding your identity regardless of who has access to that data. 

On the security front, WhatsApp's encryption is the same as Signal's, and that encryption is secure. But that encryption protocol is one of the few open-source parts of WhatsApp, so we're being asked to trust WhatsApp more than we are Signal. WhatsApp's actual app and other infrastructure have also faced hacks, just as Telegram has. 

Jeff Bezos' phone was famously hacked in January of 2020 through a WhatsApp video message. In December of the same year, Texas' attorney general alleged -- though has not proven -- that Facebook and Google struck a back-room deal to reveal WhatsApp message content. A spyware vendor targeted a WhatsApp vulnerability with its software to hack 1,400 devices, resulting in a lawsuit from Facebook. WhatsApp's unencrypted cloud-based backup feature has long been considered a security risk by privacy experts and was one way the FBI got evidence on notorious political fixer Paul Manafort. To top it off, WhatsApp has also become known as a haven for scam artists and malware purveyors over the years (just as Telegram has attracted its own share of platform abuse, detailed above). 

Despite the hacks, it's not the security aspect that concerns me about WhatsApp as much as the privacy. I'm not eager for Facebook to have yet another piece of software installed on my phone from which it can cull still more behavioral data via an easy-to-use app with a pretty interface and more security than your regular messenger. 

When WhatsApp says it can't view the content of the encrypted messages you send to another WhatsApp user, what is doesn't say is that there's a laundry list of other data that it collects that could be linked to your identity: Your unique device ID, usage and advertising data, purchase history and financial information, physical location, phone number, your contact information and that of your list of contacts, what products you've interacted with, how often you use the app, and how it performs when you do. The list goes on. This is way more than Signal or Telegram. 

When I asked the company why users should settle for less data privacy, a WhatsApp spokesperson pointed out that it limits what it does with this user data, and that the data collection only applies to some users. For instance, financial transaction data collection would be relevant only to those WhatsApp users in Brazil, where the service is available. 

"We do not share your contacts with Facebook, and we cannot see your shared location," the WhatsApp spokesperson told CNET. 

"While most people use WhatsApp just to chat with friends and family, we've also begun to offer the ability for people to chat with businesses to get help or make a purchase, with health authorities to get information about COVID, with domestic violence support agencies, and with fact checkers to provide people with the ability to get accurate information," the spokesperson said. "As we've expanded our services, we continue to protect people's messages and limit the information we collect." 

Is WhatsApp more convenient than Signal and Telegram? Yes. Is it prettier? Sure. Is it just as secure? We won't know unless we see more of its source code. But is it more private? Not when it comes to how much data it collects comparatively. For real privacy, I'm sticking with Signal and I recommend you do the same. 


Source

When Local Newspapers Fold, Polarization Rises. Here's What You Can Do


When Local Newspapers Fold, Polarization Rises. Here's What You Can Do


When Local Newspapers Fold, Polarization Rises. Here's What You Can Do

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, rising energy costs and our ongoing struggles with the coronavirus pandemic take up a lot of our attention these days. But there's more going on a lot closer to home -- you just might not know it, because your local newspaper is gone.

More than a quarter of hometown newspapers have disappeared in the last century, leaving about 70 million Americans with little or no way to stay informed about their city and county governments, schools or businesses. As the country heads toward the 2022 midterm elections, Americans are increasingly turning to friends and social media to stay informed -- which isn't always trustworthy, as we learned during the 2016 election when around 44% of Americans were exposed to disinformation and misinformation through untrustworthy websites. 

"The state of local news in America is dire," said Tim Franklin, senior associate dean of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and head of the Medill Local News Initiative.

Local journalism isn't just a nice idea. Community newspapers report some of the most important stories in our country. That includes the Boston Globe's 2002 series exposing the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston's sex abuse of minors, Sara Ganim and The Patriot-News' coverage revealing Penn State sex abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky and the Charleston Gazette-Mail's 2017 expose on opioids flooding into West Virginia. 

Citizen Now

This is part of Citizen Now, a package that aims to empower readers with information about our changing world. 

CNET

But for every Pulitzer Prize-winning local journalism story, there are countless more that have  served as chroniclers of their communities and watchdogs of the people in power. And when they aren't there, research from the Brookings Institute found there's generally more government waste and fraud. 

"When you have less local news, there's various effects, some of which you'd find predictable: lower voting turnout, more corruption, more waste," said Steven Walden, president and co-founder of Report For America, a nonprofit that funds young reporters to work in understaffed newsrooms throughout the US. "There's also evidence that you have more polarization and misinformation."

The journalism industry has been struggling to adapt. Advertising, once a vital part of the newspaper world, has shifted to online. Meanwhile, profit-hungry newspaper owners have chosen to lay off staff and reduce the quality of their products.

Nonprofit organizations have stepped up to support newsrooms in several ways, but ultimately, they live or die by their communities. Many local papers and radio stations depend on individual donations to fund reporting that would never be done by larger publications, covering civic meetings and investigating local issues that lead to exposés which fix injustices. Even simply signing up for and reading local news draws people closer to issues that affect them -- and reinforces what publications do.

"Most of these stories weren't big but they mattered immensely to the residents in a community larger outlets didn't regularly cover," said Greg Yee, now a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, speaking about his year writing for the Farmington Daily Times in Farmington, New Mexico. (Full disclosure: Yee is a former colleague of this article's author.) Stories that stick out from that time include a mobile home park cut off from natural gas in winter and a new gas station opening in a Navajo Nation community, the only fuel access in 30 miles, that significantly improved locals' quality of life. 

"A good local news organization is a problem solver: it identifies problems and helps a community come together to solve it," said Penelope Abernathy, visiting professor at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, who heads a site dedicated to mapping news deserts, areas with one or zero local papers. "And a good news organization shows you how you are related to people you may not know you're related to in another part of the county, region or state."

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams speaks in front of a circle of reporters, some standing with big cameras and others crouching while recording with smartphones..
The Washington Post / Getty Images

Long, withering decline

Journalism jobs have been shrinking for decades, driven by declining newspaper circulation and the rise in digital advertising. The news industry's advertising and subscription businesses have roughly halved over the past decade. Much of that money's shifted to Google, Facebook and Amazon, which together now hold 64% of the US online advertising market.

For newspapers, that shift in spending is catastrophic. In the decade after the great recession in 2009, the Pew Research Center found newspaper newsroom employment in the US had dropped by more than half, to about 35,000 workers. 

Ironically, the news industry has more readers than ever before – upwards of 10 times as many, according to Danielle Coffey, vice president and general council of the News Media Alliance. 

"We don't have a broken product. It's being consumed at exponential rates," she said. "The source of the problem is the revenue problem."

It wasn't always this way. 

The founding fathers believed so strongly in newspapers as a public good that they set up government subsidies for postal rates, reducing the cost of distributing the news – which at the time, was delivered on horseback.

In the 1960s and '70s, though, publicly traded paper owners began fixating on profits. To impress shareholders, news organizations conglomerated into big chains that gobbled up local papers into regional networks, said Amanda Lotz, professor of the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University.

"The financialization pressure really moves [newspapers] away from the balance between a commercial and public service enterprise of providing news to a community," Lotz said. 

Rounds of acquisitions resulted in the gutting of editorial budgets and staff. With fewer reporters, newspapers started relying on national stories published by wire services, a trend that created "ghost papers" that had little or no local content. Meanwhile, the internet became an easy substitution for things online that had until then been exclusive to the paper, like weather, sports scores, classifieds and even news.

Venture capitalists and other financial firms began buying up newspapers in the 1980s but rapidly accelerated in the last two decades, growing to own over 23% of US newsrooms today while wringing out profits with more layoffs.

"Those losses put more strain on already stretched newsrooms and the publications ended up churning through staff," said Yee, who worked for four years at a pair of newspapers owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital. "All of that translates into worse, inconsistent coverage of the communities they're trying to serve."

As a result, from 2004 until the start of the pandemic in 2020, the US lost a quarter (around 2100) of its newspapers, according to a report from the University of North Carolina's Hussman School of Journalism and Media. By the end of last year, another hundred were gone, Poynter reported, expanding news deserts that are mostly located in financially-impacted rural areas in the country's interior.

Some papers have tried to rely more heavily on subscriptions, while transitioning to mainly digital publishing. Some success stories include the Chattanooga Times Free Press, which has been operating since 1869. Last September, it switched to a daily digital edition and a single print edition on Sunday from a daily print edition. The publication spent $6.1 million to give all its monthly subscribers iPads and train them one-on-one how to use them to access their daily paper, and it's retained subscribers through the transition. 

"There are some real success stories in this transition. If you can lower your paper costs and your distribution costs and if you can attract enough digital subscribers, you can support a local newsroom on that. But many local news organizations are still getting a significant chunk of their revenue from print advertising," Medill's Franklin said.

Senator Amy Klobuchar stands at a Senate podium to speak, with several men and women behind her.
Bloomberg / Getty News

Legislative fix, maybe

One way the news industry could regain revenue and profit is to seek compensation from big tech platforms. After all, advocates say, Facebook, Google, Twitter make money selling ads next to links, videos and photos published and shared freely to their networks. 

Legislators in Australia were the first to pass a law in February 2021 requiring Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers for compensation to use their work, while France followed with its own legislation shortly thereafter. The latter locked horns with Google before finally securing legal assurance that the search giant would pay local media outlets when they appear in search results. Critics like the Electronic Frontier Foundation lament that the Australian and French laws ensured deals for big media publishers at the expense of smaller ones, but that hasn't stopped  Canada and the UK from gearing up to pass their own versions. 

A version of that idea in the US, called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, was proposed in March, 2021 by Senators Amy Klobuchar, Rand Paul, Cory Booker, and Lindsey Graham -- a rare bipartisan effort. The bill would allow news organizations to collectively bargain with tech companies for compensation, but hasn't moved out of committee yet.

Another idea to fund journalism Is the Local Journalism Sustainability Act introduced a year ago in the House by Representatives Ann Kirkpatrick and Dan Newhouse. That bill, if it were to become law, would give newsrooms around $50,000 annually in tax breaks to hire reporters. Small businesses, meanwhile, would receive $5,000 for the first year to advertise in local papers, and Americans would get a $250 stipend to pay for news subscriptions. It's unlikely to pass, though, in part because of partisan bickering over other spending plans on Capitol Hill.

"We need to make sure these publications can sustain themselves through this crisis and beyond, and I believe the credits in this bill make significant progress in providing a pathway to that sustainability," Rep. Kirkpatrick said when announcing the bill. 

Nonprofit newsrooms 

Some news organizations are finding funding beyond ads and subscriptions. Nonprofit foundations and philanthropic organizations are funneling grants and other aid money to newsrooms, including a new wave of nonprofit publications, like ProPublica, which run mostly on foundation and individual donations.

The American Journalism Project is a self-described venture philanthropy firm that to date has raised $90 million to back 32 local nonprofit newsrooms. Founded in 2019, it's also helped launch four more, taking the startup incubation model and applying it to digital newsrooms.

The organization focuses on both funding newsrooms and guiding them toward self-sustainability by diversifying their revenue streams, said Sarabeth Berman, CEO of the American Journalism Project. Newsrooms they've helped grow by around 67% in their first year and are projected to double their revenue in three years. 

"Will local news only be nonprofit? No. Is nonprofit news vital for the future of an informed citizenry? We think so," Berman said.

Report For America, founded in 2017, describes itself as a service organization, which helps pair young reporters fresh out of college with legacy newsrooms. The organization financially supports the reporter by paying half their salary (up to $25,000) the first year, then a third (up to $20,000) the following year. After that, it's up to the publication to decide whether to hire them permanently. 

"If you're not in New York or Boston or Washington, some of these news organizations have trouble getting people to go out to smaller towns," said Report For America's Waldman. "We have a very significant recruiting operation and are able to create a sort of self-selected group of people who are really passionate about local."

Report For America has grown its graduating class to 130 reporters this year, up from its first class of 13 in 2018 -- to date, over 560 reporters have gone through the program and partnered with local newsrooms. They include Laura Roche of the Charlotte News & Observer writing about the fraught debate over museums returning the unethically sourced remains of Black people, Sierra Clark of the Traverse City Record-Eagle writing about Melissa Isaac and many others in her Anishinaabek Neighbors series, and Brandon Drenon of the Indianapolis Star writing about the NAACP and others criticizing Indiana schools for failing Black students.

Report for America also connects newsrooms with donors in their area in an effort to get the community more involved in funding its local news again.

"Our goal is to actually help change the local business models in a way that they can sustain that," Waldman said.

The nonprofit Knight Foundation pledged to give $300 million to news organizations in 2019, some of which will go to both the American Journalism Project and Report For America, among other nonprofits that in turn support local newsrooms -- efforts that can be seen city by city on this interactive map. The flow of financial support is important for local newsrooms that operate on nonprofit and for-profit models, which are both valuable to their communities, said Jim Brady, vice president of the Knight Foundation's journalism program.

"Nonprofits tend to be more investigative or enterprise in nature, and the for-profits tend to provide more information on how consumers can live their daily lives. So we think both must be part of the answer to how local news can thrive," Brady said. 

A map showing all the counties of the US considered news deserts with one or zero local newspapers. While only a couple dozen don't have any, half the counties (1,540) only have one newspaper.

An infographic from the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media's project website, The Expanding News Desert, headed by Penelope Abernathy.

UNC Hussman

What to do if you don't have local journalism

News experts have advice for what to do if you live in a news desert, with little or no coverage. First on the list: Stop thinking that social media posts are an informative replacement for reporting. Social media can help people know what's going on, but it's rife with bias and misinformation. 

"There's a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation that goes unchecked because there's no local journalist checking on the facts. [Social media is] a place where unvetted gossip can get spread," Franklin said.

People need to learn to spot misinformation that's spread on social media by publications that look like they're trustworthy but aren't. Both the World Health Organization and the Poynter Institute have their own free online courses to learn how to fact-check posts yourself -- not just to spot fake news, but also to understand the agenda behind why they're spreading in the first place.

In the voids left by local papers, citizen journalists and bloggers have stepped up to provide their communities with informative coverage, but they lack the oversight and vetting a newsroom provides. For lack of better options, a citizen reporter could start a site on Substack and write about local events, Franklin suggested. 

The best thing to do is to reach out to regional papers the next town over and request coverage. You can find your nearest local or regional paper on Newspapers.com or  NewspaperMap.com. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a station finder site too, and if you're a fan of National Public Radio, you can sign up to become a member of your local station in order to help support it. It isn't a perfect solution for an existing newsroom to stretch to cover another area, but is far better than starting a new local publication from scratch. 

But if your community decides to launch a new publication, organizing it as a nonprofit newsroom is a successful way to go. They rely on donations -- foundation support and individual giving account for a combined 83% of nonprofit revenue, according to the Institute of Nonprofit Newsrooms' 2021 Index. And that model is working: 83 of the over 400 nonprofit newsrooms affiliated with INN are less than five years old.

Then there's nonprofit newsroom Berkeleyside, which hosted the so-called first 'direct public offering' where it solicited a combined $1 million in funding from 355 of its readers (an average of $2,816 per person) in 2018 to get started. These are technically securities, but sold directly to its readers, and the publication continues to publish today. It's one of many ways newsrooms are innovating new ownership structures to stay solvent.

"We need to get more support from communities, from local community foundations, from national media foundations and from high net-worth individuals to help make local news sustainable in all areas of the country," Brady said.

Correction, June 28: The original version of this story incorrectly stated how many reporters were in Report For America's first graduating class. Its first graduating class of reporters was in 2018 and had 13 members.


Source

Tags:

Search This Blog

Menu Halaman Statis

close