Monthly Archives: September 2022

What Is TLS/SSL Offloading? – Security Boulevard

Posted on by

What Is TLS/SSL Offloading?97thfloorFri, 09/02/2022 07:48

A common misconception about TLS/SSL encryption is that a persons computer connects directly with a web server and information is sent directly between the two. In reality, the information can be sent to a separate machine or to a different processing device on the same machine. This process is known as TLS/SSL offloading.

Offloading works by taking on the processing load of encryption on a separate device or machine than is being used for the application processing. To configure this process, organizations route TLS/SSL requests to an application delivery control that intercepts the TLS/SSL traffic, decrypts the traffic, and then forwards the traffic to a web server. To configure end-to-end encryption, you must import a valid certificate and key and bind them to the web server.

There are two different ways to accomplish TLS/SSL offloading.

TLS/SSL termination is the simpler approach of the two. In this process, encrypted traffic is intercepted before it hits your servers and decrypted on a dedicated TLS/SSL termination device instead of the application server. Then the decrypted data is forwarded on to the application server.

TLS/SSL bridging adds another layer of security by performing extra checks for malware. Incoming data is decrypted, inspected for malicious code, then is re-encrypted and sent on to the web server. This form of TLS/SSL offloading is meant to increase security rather than reduce processing activities on the application server.

Organizations that handle a lot of encrypted data would benefit from TLS/SSL offloading so application servers can focus on their primary tasks rather than encryption. Reduced TLS/SSL workload can lead to:

Depending on what load balancer youre using, TLS/SSL offloading can also help with HTTPS inspection, reverse-proxying, cookie persistence, and traffic regulation. Attackers can hide in encrypted traffic, and the ability to inspect encrypted HTTPS traffic could save your organization from severe attacks.

Make sure your applications are running securely and efficiently by implementing TLS/SSL offloading. Offloading only works with valid certificates, so certificate lifecycle management is another crucial component of a healthy network. Make sure to keep track of all TLS/SSL certificates in use at your organization and when they expire so they dont cause a certificate-related outage.

Automate the certificate management process with machine identity management. Download our Machine Identity Management for dummies eBook to learn more about securing your applications and preventing certificate-related outages.

Alexa Hernandez

Encrypting data can introduce latency to connections because of the amount of computer processing that it requires. Thats where TLS/SSL offloading comes into play. This method can improve your page loading speeds and user experience. TLS/SSL offloading can also be used to introduce additional security checks for malware.

Off

UTM Campaign

Recommended-Resources

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Rss blog authored by 97thfloor. Read the original post at: https://www.venafi.com/blog/what-tlsssl-offloading

Follow this link:
What Is TLS/SSL Offloading? - Security Boulevard

Kingston Ironkey Locker+ 50 (LP50) Hardware Encrypted USB Review Affordable and easy to use – Mighty Gadget

Posted on by

Sharing is caring!

Kingston Ironkey Locker+ 50 (LP50) Review Rating

Summary

I think the Kingston Ironkey LP50 is an excellent choice for anyone looking for a good level of data security that is both affordable and user-friendly.

Pros

Cons

The new Kingston Ironkey Locker+ 50 USB drive is an affordable, secure drive that is a little bit different from all the other encrypted secure drives I have reviewed in the past.

There is no FIPs certification, nor is there any physical security. All the security is built around the hardware encryption built into the drive.

For users wanting a higher degree of security and more storage while still being easy to use, the Kingston IronKey Vault Privacy 80 External SSD is an excellent option.

I doubt this will appeal to the enterprise market, but it is probably the most attractive solutions for home users and small businesses that want to secure important files.

This is one of the easiest drives I have used for setup and management. That is because there is no physical security on the drive itself.

You plug it in, then Windows recognises it has a DVD drive, and from here, you can run the IronKey application.

The first run will guide you through the set up process, and once this is complete, it will load up the drive contents.

For input, you can optionally use the Virtual keyboard to avoid the risks of keyloggers.

The LP50 comes with a licence for ClevX USBtoCloud, which is a useful little application that you should use with caution.

Basically, it will back up the contents of the USB drive to your chosen cloud provider. However, there is no encryption applied beyond that which the provider applies themselves.

On the one hand, this is convenient. If you forget your password and need to reset the USB, you still have your important data.

But, a lot of people dont trust cloud services with sensitive data and would prefer to upload an encrypted file. Therefore, if that service does get hacked, then the data is secured. This is not an unreasonable security concern either; there are plenty of cases where people have had their Google accounts hacked. Even if you have 2FA enabled, SIM swap attacks are quite common and relatively easy to carry out.

For less sensitive data, this is probably not an issue. If you are travelling with work data, it is nice to know you have the data secured on the physical drive in the event you lose it.

Setting up ClevX USBtoCloud is easy. The app automatically loads the setup screen when you first log into the drive. I set it up with Google Drive and just had to authenticate my account via the browser.

Backups are done in the background and quickly.

When I started reviewing this drive, the immediate question that popped up in my head was, why not just use encryption software on a USB drive?

This is a perfectly viable option, and for anyone wanting to save money, this is well worth doing.

However, I decided to set up a VeraCrypt partition on a USB drive, and it is just not as user-friendly as the LP50. There are quite a lot of options to choose from, which is good for some but not so good for someone with limited computer knowledge. You can encrypt an entire drive, but you can have encrypted volumes. I think this could be one of the downfalls of some less competent users. It would be easy to end up creating an encrypted volume and then putting data on the none encrypted part of the drive.

The basic setup also process takes some time, and formatting the new encrypted volume takes several minutes. Again, not an issue for people like myself that are into IT, but plenty of other wants a thing that just works out of the box.

There is not much to write about performance; it is just a USB drive. But, I think it is worth highlighting how easy this is to use. You plug it in, the login dialogue opens, you type in your password, and the drive unlocks.

Performance is good, much better than the FIPS-certified USB drives you get. The drive also exceeds the quoted speeds from Kingston.

The Kingston IronKey Locker+ 50 is available from Amazon via the product boxes below. At the time of writing, it is a touch more expensive than Insight but with free delivery.

Insight Direct appear to be the official partner for Kingston. The prices are lower, but they charge 7 for delivery, so it will work out to be more expensive for individual products.

In comparison, if you went with a FIPS 197 certified 16GB iStorage datAshur Personal2, you would be paying almost double at 60.

This is the first time I have used a secure drive like this, and I quite like it. There are two big selling points, the price and the ease of use. It should also read/write faster than most of the pin-secured drives.

Plugging this in and typing out my password is just much more convenient than trying to press tiny keys on a USB. For a small business owner and homes user such as myself, I dont really have any files sensitive enough to require FIPS 140 or 197 certified drives.

The logical counterargument for this drive would be that you can use VeraCrypt to encrypt your data on any thumb drive achieving the same functionality for much less. The Kingston DataTraveler Exodia is just 6 for a 64GB model. However, that is a little less user-friendly, and I have a strong belief that anything not user-friendly is bad for data security.

Therefore, I think the Kingston Ironkey LP50 is an excellent choice for anyone looking for a good level of data security that is both affordable and user-friendly.

Last update on 2022-09-05 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API

Originally posted here:
Kingston Ironkey Locker+ 50 (LP50) Hardware Encrypted USB Review Affordable and easy to use - Mighty Gadget

New ransomware hits Windows, Linux servers of Chile govt agency – BleepingComputer

Posted on by

Chile's national computer security and incident response team (CSIRT) has announced that a ransomware attackhas impacted operations and online services of a government agency in the country.

The attack startedon Thursday, August 25, targeting Microsoft and VMware ESXi servers operated by the agency.

The hackersstopped all running virtual machines and encrypted their files, appending the ".crypt" filename extension.

"The ransomware would use the NTRUEncrypt public key encryption algorithm, targeting log files (.log), executable files (.exe), dynamic library files (.dll), swap files (.vswp), virtual disks (. vmdk), snapshot (.vmsn) files, and virtual machine memory (.vmem) files, among others," -Chile CSIRT

According to CSIRT, the malware used in this attack also had functions forstealing credentials from web browsers, list removabledevices for encryption, and evade antivirus detection using execution timeouts.

In typical double-extortion fashion, the intruders offered Chile'sCSIRT a communication channel to negotiate the payment of a ransom that would prevent leaking the files and unlock the encrypted data.

The attacker set a three-day deadline and threatened to sell the stolen data to other cybercriminalson the dark web.

Chile's CSIRTannouncement doesn't name the ransomware group is responsible for the attack, nor does it provide sufficient details that woul lead to identifying the malware.

The extension appended to the encrypted files does not offer any hint because it has been used by multiple threat actors.

While the little information Chile's CSIRTprovided on the behavior of the malware points to'RedAlert' ransomware (aka "N13V"), an operation launched in July 2022, technical details suggest otherwise.

RedAlert ransomwareusedthe ".crypt" extension in attacks, targets both Windows servers and Linux VMWare ESXi machines, is capable to force-stop all running VMs prior to encryption, and uses the NTRUEncrypt public-key encryption algorithm.

However, the indicators of compromise (IoCs) in Chile's CSIRT announcement are either associated with Contior are return an inconclusive result when fed to automated analysis systems.

Conti has been previously linked to attacks on entire nations, such as the one onCosta Ricain July 2022, which took five days from gaining initial access to stealing and encrypting the systems.

Chilean threat analyst Germn Fernndeztold BleepingComputer that the strain appears to be entirely new, and the researchers he talked to couldn't associate the malware with known families.

Fernandez also commented that the ransom note wasn't generated during the infection, a detail that BleepingComputercan confirm. The researcher said that the note was delivered before deploying the file-locking malware.

"One particular thing about the attack, is that the threat actors distributed the ransom note at a previous stage to the deployment of the ransomware as the final payload, possibly for evasion issues or to avoid having their contact details leaked when sharing the final sample." -Germn Fernndez

BleepingComputerwas able to analyze multiple samples of the malware used for the attack and retrieved a ransom note named 'readme_for_unlock.txt', seen below:

All ransom notes that BleepingComputer has seen when analyzing this ransomware strain includea link to a unique website in the Tor network along with a password to log in.

As far as we've seen a data leak site for this ransomware does not exist, yet. The Tor site is for showing a message box where victims can contact the hackers.

Accessing the above communication channel requires a password, which is included in the ransom note.

The malware configures itself to launch on Windows login and uses the name SecurityUpdateat startup.

From what BleepingComputer could learn so far about this ransomware, this is a new operation that launched at the beginning of August.

Chile's cybersecurity organization recommends all state entities as well as large private organizations in the country to apply the following measures:

Chile CSIRT has provided a set of indicators of compromise for files used in the attackthat defenders can use to protect their organizations.

Read more from the original source:
New ransomware hits Windows, Linux servers of Chile govt agency - BleepingComputer

Everything You Need to Know About SD-WAN – Spiceworks News and Insights

Posted on by

Software-defined WAN or SD-WAN is a virtual wide area network (WAN) that relies on software technologies like internet-based communication tunnels, software-driven network encryption, firewall software, etc. to operate a mid-sized to large-scale computer network spread across locations. This article explains how SD-WAN works, its benefits, and the best SD-WAN solutions in the market.

Software-defined WAN or SD-WAN is defined as a virtual wide area network (WAN) that relies on software technologies like internet-based communication tunnels, software-driven network encryption, firewall software, etc. to operate a mid-sized to large-scale computer network spread across locations.

A software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) uses software-defined technology and infrastructure. SD-WAN dissociates the networking hardware from the control mechanism and thus streamlines the WANs operation and management. Organizations that use SD-WAN solutions can build higher-performance WANs using inexpensive internet and at significantly lower costs than private WAN connection technologies such as multiprotocol label switching (MPLS).

SD-WAN solutions make it easier for organizations to manage firewalls and routers, upgrade software and firmware, virtual private networks (VPN), and remote clients through a centralized management interface. The centralized management control is used to securely and efficiently route traffic across the WAN directly to trusted providers such as software-as-a-service (SaaS) and infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS). It also minimizes labor costs by cutting maintenance costs and lowers the cost of equipment.

During the early years, WANs required backhauling of all traffic from branch offices to a data center where they applied advanced security services. Traffic between the source and data centers was based on complex routing protocols such as transmission control protocol (TCP/IP) addresses and control list tables.

Ultimately, it leads to delays resulting in poor application performance, user experience, and huge costs due to expensive bandwidths. Users also had to incur expenses to install MPLS routers at each location. Performing upgrades on firmware or software took longer times due to network complexities. The network architecture was also not optimized for cloud infrastructure. The limitations of traditional WANs drove the change to a better SD-WAN technology that replaced MPLS.

SD-WAN is deployed in an organized way in branch offices and data centers. It is optimized for cloud infrastructure and associates cloud technology with mobile computing. It separates the data plane and control plane of the network. It has a centralized management interface where traffic is managed and monitored. It has a single management portal which reduces complexities and makes it easier to track applications, thus improving performance and operational efficiencies.

By providing lower-cost infrastructure and transport costs, an organization can save. SD-WAN provides end-to-end encryption over the entire network, providing secure connections to its users. Additionally, SD-WAN can prioritize traffic on business-critical applications and route it through the most efficient pathway.

See More: How Does an Edge Network Work and What Does Its Future Hold? AT&Ts Theresa Lanowitz Answers

The main objective of SD-WAN is to connect end-users and the applications, notwithstanding the location of these end-users. SD-WAN drives traffic as per the business requirements of the application. These business requirements vary from the priority of the application to must-enforced security policies or application performance required. Usually, critical mission applications are given the highest priority. The networking approach may vary from MPLS to broadband to 4G LTE.

The SD-WAN architecture separates the control and management functions, applications, and WAN transport services. It has a centralized control plane that stores and manages all the data on the traffic and applications. The centralized control plane monitors and adapts traffic to suit the application demand and delivers the optimum experience.

The following are features of SD-WAN that users should consider before choosing an SD-WAN solution model:

See More: How To Make Networks Ready for Cloud-First Era With SD-WAN

SD-WAN allows organizations and small businesses to securely connect their users to applications by taking advantage of any combination of network services. When choosing the right SD-WAN solution providers, users should consider factors such as security, price, availability of hybrid wide area network (WAN) solutions, and the ease at which they can be deployed. The top 10 SD-WAN solutions include:

Powered by Meraki, Cisco SD-WAN is a scalable, programmable, and open solution that allows users to connect to any application. It offers control, visibility, and real-time analytics to its users. Cisco SD-WAN offers cloud management services and it can also be deployed on-premise. It is integrated with capabilities that allow it to perform optimization of applications, unified communications, multi-cloud services, and security.

Fortinet FortiGate provides a secure networking approach that combines SD-WAN, advanced routing, and next-generation firewall (NGFW) to promote consistent security and network policies and reduce operational costs through automation, self-healing, and deep analytics. This also simplifies wide-area network (WAN) architecture by accelerating network and security convergence. Fortinet FortiGate SD-WAN offers improved multi-cloud application performance through multi-path control, application steering and identification.

Oracle SD-WAN provides users with simplified WAN management services such as SD-WAN, firewall, routing, and WAN optimization. It provides users with high bandwidth and inexpensive internet connections and delivers easy-to-deploy and manages the network. Oracle SD-WAN offers its users reliable, quality, flexible and secure services. With its high availability, users can enjoy faster applications and better networks. It also allows for safer migrations of applications into the public cloud.

Citrix SD-WAN combines cloud-delivered and comprehensive security with SD-WAN, analytics, and secure internet access. It has strong security at the WAN Edge, providing complete protection against all threats. Its Citrix cloud on-ramps feature provides flexible on-ramp options for any cloud access that simplifies multi-cloud transition. Citrix SD-WAN reduces network costs and increases agility.

CenturyLink SD-WAN unifies network management across different network types, creating an agile and responsive wide area network. It enables users access to bandwidth to leverage broadband connections for bandwidth-intensive applications. It provides users with data analytics and reports while offering performance-based application routing. CenturyLink SD-WAN offers a reliable solution that allows users to reduce operating costs for equipment and staff.

Wanify has partnered with VeloCloud to deliver VeloCloud SD-WAN. It manages end-to-end processes and improves network performances by combining multiple connections for its users. It supports network agility and application growth by offering optimized access to cloud applications and data centers. It routes application traffic through efficient routes after gauging the real-time performance of the network. Wanify SD-WAN provides customer support and offers a secure and customizable solution for its clients. It also manages carriers for its users.

See More: What Is a Mesh Network? Meaning, Types Working, and Applications in 2022

Palo Alto Networks offer SD-WAN services through Prisma. It provides networking and security in a single platform. It enables app-defined policies for SD-WAN that eliminate network problems, increase bandwidth, and simplify management for its users. Palo Alto Networks Prims SD-WAN allows users superb control and connection options along with supporting machine learning and automation. It also provides users with router modernization and cloud migration.

Exinda SD-WAN provides businesses with a stable, secure, reliable, and cost-effective solution. It combines and manages up to 12 internet kinds of transport from local service providers. The Exinda SD-WAN network router monitors, detects, and adapts to fluctuations from internet service providers and also monitors traffic changes. It automatically solves network problems, thus avoiding interruptions to internet services and applications.

It allows users to add bandwidths to their networks when they need to increase network capacities. Integrating Exinda SD-WAN and Exinda network orchestrator enhances the ability to accelerate applications to better performance.

Masergy SD-WAN leverages its secure edge network with built-in Fortinet security. It provides clients with end-to-end visibilities and uses artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps) to analyze networks and make recommendations to improve reliability. It uses AIOps and shadows IT discovery tools to build overlays to fit networks. It customizes rules to meet network and application requirements. Masergy SD-WAN allows for co-managing with its users to streamline inefficiencies.

Aryaka SD-WAN has a built-in WAN optimization that guarantees application performance for this feature-rich platform. Aryaka SD-WAN service doesnt need the installation of complex appliances or network management software as it is a remote-based cloud system. Users can connect to it through virtual private networks (VPN). Aryaka SD-WAN provides insightful analytics in a secure platform that offers a multi-cloud networking service. It provides reliable throughput, real-time visibility, and single-day deployments for new technology.

See More: What Is Network Management? Definition, Key Components, and Best Practices

The global software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) market size is expected to increase exponentially from $1.9 billion in 2020 to $8.4 billion by 2025. This figure represents a compound annual growth rate (CGAR) of 34.5%, as per research by MarketsAndMarkets. These figures express an increasing appetite for SD-WAN solutions from enterprises due to a slew of business benefits. These include:

In the recent past, business enterprises and other organizations have embraced advanced technologies to gain an edge against their competitors in the market. However, its adoption has brought on its fair share of problems in the form of cybercrimes.

Most SD-WAN solutions offer basic built-in security features like firewall and VPN functions that improve security for their users. Additionally, users looking for advanced security features can look for SD-WAN solutions offering features to prevent data loss, downtime, and legal liabilities. Popular SD_WAN solutions include next-generation firewalls (NGFW), intrusion prevention systems (IPS), encryption, and sandboxing capabilities.

Users can configure SD-WAN to steer their business traffic through the most efficient route by prioritizing real-time services such as voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and business-critical traffic. SD-WAN, through its flexibility, allows users to vary bandwidth access via any local internet provider to promote increment in speeds to match real-time demand. Varying bandwidth using deduplication and compression also helps in reducing the total cost of ownership (TCO).

SD-WAN allows for bandwidth capacity to be scaled up or down through the direct addition of internet broadband connectivity. A single logical link can be formed when multiple WAN service types, such as direct internet or private multiprotocol label switching (MPLS), are bonded together.

Other optimization techniques that SD-WAN employs to improve network agility include data de-deduplication, data compression, and secure sockets layer (SSL).

According to a 2018 forecast survey by IDC Research, up to two-thirds of respondents expect to save 5-19%, while a quarter expect upwards of 39% savings when using SD-WAN technologies. SD-WAN technology allows for self-managed procedures and automation, which enables organizations to reduce the number of external IT experts required to carry out periodic tests and maintenance, thereby proving to be cost-effective.

SD-WAN aggregates multiple direct-to-internet (DIA) lines for WAN connectivity, thus reducing the overall cost for bandwidth as it requires less network hardware. Organizations can also easily set up new branches online at any location at less time and cost.

As small businesses use more technology solutions such as local, edge, and cloud-based applications, network complexity becomes a common problem. This is due to competition for limited bandwidth, which leads to poor network performance. It might also necessitate hiring more IT specialists on-site to manage local IT infrastructure, leading to increased costs. SD-WAN provides a solution through monitoring and alerting the performance of different data types to ensure enough bandwidth is allocated. Users can configure SD-WAN to prioritize critical traffic through the most efficient path to its destination to improve performance.

SD-WAN is usually managed through a centralized management interface that monitors it and manages traffic. From a single management portal, paths to applications are allocated according to criticality, new sites are provisioned, software and firmware upgrades are performed, and users can flex bandwidth from this point. Using a centralized management plan helps to reduce complexity and makes it easier to track applications and their performances from a single zone.

See More: What Is Network Hardware? Definition, Architecture, Challenges, and Best Practices

Organizations are gradually adopting cloud-based services. SD-WAN enables users to access the cloud remotely without burdening the core network with additional traffic to manage and secure. This may promote cost savings for organizations looking to cut down on office space, equipment and rent as employees can work remotely. The need for additional IT experts to manage and secure data traffic is also minimized.

SD-WAN solutions improve cloud applications performance by emphasizing business-critical applications and allowing them to communicate directly to the internet. SD-WAN guarantees quality and optimizes data, followed by directing network traffic along the most efficient routes.

Even with the gradual increase in the popularity of cloud-based resources, organizations still have to wait for weeks or months to set up new WAN circuits or managed service providers (MSPs). A fully managed cloud-first WAN service could offer cloud-based network offerings comparable with other cloud services through orchestration and automation.

This feature would promote quick turn-up of newer locations globally and services bolstering enterprise flexibility. It would also facilitate troubleshooting and increase the visibility of enterprises.

SD-WAN technologies offer predictive analytics enabling IT specialists to navigate potential outages and mitigate any other potential issues. SD-WAN monitors the system in real time and provides data analytics to determine and predict any problems. This ability helps to reduce resolution time for organizational IT troubleshooting, lowering TCO, and maintaining peak performances at all times. This leads to increased productivity in organizations and decreasing costs, as IT experts are not always required to be on-premises. In case a problem arises, they can quickly identify and fix the issue.

See More: How to Get SD-WAN Security Right?

Software-defined wide area network is a crucial enabler for enterprise digital transformation. It is highly extensible so it can integrate new-age security technologies like SASE with existing network infrastructure. It can also simplify IT operations by paving the way for AIOps alongside network management. Thats why it is vital to understand the working and potential benefits of SD-WAN to prepare for your adoption journey.

Did this article fully inform you about the role of SD-WAN in a modern enterprise? Tell us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Wed love to hear from you!

Follow this link:
Everything You Need to Know About SD-WAN - Spiceworks News and Insights

Trump Could Face The Same Charges As Assange, Snowden – UPROXX

Posted on by

Hyperbole and Donald Trump go together as perfectly as McDonalds burgers and Donald Trump. But in the case of a recent Twitter post about just how damning the potential charges the former president could be facing should he be prosecuted, Newsweek reports that you can believe the hype.

On Thursday, former Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor tweeted about the monumental irony that if legal action is taken against Trump for his hoarding of classified documents, he would essentially be facing the same charges as both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden two men who Trump has had lots to say about in the past, including that they both deserved to be executed.

But just how true is Taylors statement? According to Newsweek, its pretty damn accurate especially as it relates to Assange and WikiLeaks, who Trump has both praised (I love WIKILEAKS!!) and deemed disgraceful and deserving of the death penalty. (Though its worth noting that several Trump insiders, including Don Jr., had ongoing correspondences with WikiLeaks leading up to the 2016 election.)

As we learned from the affidavit authorizing the raid on Mar-a-Lago as well as accidentally, and hilariously, from Breitbart Trump is under investigation for violating the Espionage Act, or U.S. Code 793, which is where both Assange and Snowdens alleged crimes also fall, albeit with slight differences. As Tom Norton writes for Newsweek:

Julian Assange has been indicted on 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge of computer misuse for WikiLeaks publication of secret American military documents 10 years ago. He faces a potential 175-year prison sentence.

Assanges indictment sheet states a potential violation of section 793(e) of the Espionage Act, the same section of the act, which the DOJ also mentions in its affidavit to search Mar-a-Lago.

In other words: If prosecuted, Trump could be looking at violating both the same act as Assange as well as the same section of the act so, pretty much the same crime.

Snowdens case, however, is slightly different. While he, too, is wanted in the U.S. for violating the Espionage Act, the section of the act is different. Broadly speaking, however, it is true that Trump could face charges under the same U.S. act as Snowden and Assange, if not for the exact number or type of indictments, Norton writes.

Where the real irony comes in is in how hard Trump has publicly come down on both Assange who some have claimed the Trump administration plotted to assassinate, which is a charge he denies and Snowden, whom the former president repeatedly called a traitor and advocated for his execution:

Of course, Trump has (so far) not been charged with any crimes, so all of this is just food for thought.

(Via Newsweek)

Continue reading here:

Trump Could Face The Same Charges As Assange, Snowden - UPROXX

Why Trump will soon be indicted | News, Sports, Jobs – The Sentinel – Lewistown Sentinel

Posted on by

It gives me no joy to write this piece.

Even a cursory review of the redacted version of the affidavit submitted in support of the governments application for a search warrant at the home of former President Donald Trump reveals that he will soon be indicted by a federal grand jury for three crimes: Removing and concealing national defense information (NDI), giving NDI to those not legally entitled to possess it, and obstruction of justice by failing to return NDI to those who are legally entitled to retrieve it.

When he learned from a phone call that 30 FBI agents were at the front door of his Florida residence with a search warrant and he decided to reveal this publicly, Trump assumed that the agents were looking for classified top-secret materials that theyd allege he criminally possessed. His assumptions were apparently based on his gut instinct and not on a sophisticated analysis of the law. Hence, his public boast that he declassified all the formerly classified documents he took with him.

Unbeknownst to him, the feds had anticipated such a defense and are not preparing to indict him for possessing classified materials, even though he did possess hundreds of voluntarily surrendered materials marked top secret.

It is irrelevant if the documents were declassified, as the feds will charge crimes that do not require proof of classification. They told the federal judge who signed the search warrant that Trump still had NDI in his home. It appears they were correct.

Under the law, it doesnt matter if the documents on which NDI is contained are classified or not, as it is simply and always criminal to have NDI in a non-federal facility, to have those without security clearances move it from one place to another, and to keep it from the feds when they are seeking it. Stated differently, the absence of classification for whatever reason is not a defense to the charges that are likely to be filed against Trump.

Yet, misreading and underestimating the feds, Trump actually did them a favor. One of the elements that they must prove for any of the three crimes is that Trump knew that he had the documents. The favor he did was admitting to that when he boasted that they were no longer classified. He committed a mortal sin in the criminal defense world by denying something for which he had not been accused.

The second element that the feds must prove is that the documents actually do contain national defense information. And the third element they must prove is that Trump put these documents into the hands of those not authorized to hold them and stored them in a non-federally secured place. Intelligence community experts have already examined the documents taken from Trumps home and are prepared to tell a jury that they contain the names of foreign agents secretly working for the U.S. This is the crown jewel of government secrets. Moreover, Trumps Florida home is not a secure federal facility designated for the deposit of NDI.

The newest aspect of the case against Trump that we learned from the redacted affidavit is the obstruction allegation. This is not the obstruction that Robert Mueller claimed he found Trump committed during the Russia investigation. This is a newer obstruction statute, signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, that places far fewer burdens on the feds to prove. The older statute is the one Mueller alleged. It characterizes any material interference with a judicial function as criminal. Thus, one who lies to a grand jury or prevents a witness from testifying commits this variant of obstruction.

But the Bush-era statute, the one the feds contemplate charging Trump with having violated, makes it a crime of obstruction by failing to return government property or by sending the FBI on a wild goose chase looking for something that belongs to the government and that you know that you have. This statute does not require the preexistence of a judicial proceeding. It only requires that the defendant has the governments property, knows that he has it and baselessly resists efforts by the government to get it back.

Where does all this leave Trump? The short answer is: in hot water. The longer answer is: He is confronting yet again the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities for which he has rightly expressed such public disdain. He had valid points of expression during the Russia investigation. He has little ground upon which to stand today.

I have often argued that many of these statutes that the feds have enacted to protect themselves are morally unjust and not grounded in the Constitution. One of my intellectual heroes, the great Murray Rothbard, taught that the government protects itself far more aggressively than it protects our natural rights.

In a monumental irony, both Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalist who exposed American war crimes during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who exposed criminal mass government surveillance upon the American public, stand charged with the very same crimes that are likely to be brought against Trump. On both Assange and Snowden, Trump argued that they should be executed. Fortunately for all three, these statutes do not provide for capital punishment.

Rothbard warned that the feds aggressively protect themselves. Yet, both Assange and Snowden are heroic defenders of liberty with valid moral and legal defenses. Assange is protected by the Pentagon Papers case, which insulates the media from criminal or civil liability for revealing stolen matters of interest to the public, so long as the revealer is not the thief. Snowden is protected by the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the warrantless surveillance he revealed, which was the most massive peacetime abuse of government power.

What will Trump say is his defense to taking national defense information? I cannot think of a legally viable one.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more:

Why Trump will soon be indicted | News, Sports, Jobs - The Sentinel - Lewistown Sentinel

why the giants fight over open source – Gearrice

Posted on by

Open source is the origin of much of the progress that we now enjoy and, in a way, a bastion of some early internet culture that many think is being lost.

Android, Linux or the Firefox browser are the great examples, which have a huge list of software whose code can be freely shared and improved. What is perhaps not so well known is that for quite some time the big technology companies themselves, the ones that do the most business with proprietary software, have been its main promoters.

And that has good and bad things.

Recently, there has just been a turn of events in this throne of benefactors of the Open Source.

Google has increased its commitments to open source software and has overtaken Microsoft in terms of active contributions, according to a new analysis from Aiven using data from OSCI.

Microsoft had been the company that was giving the most resources until this year. Although, yes, the ranking has a certain trick because it breaks off the subsidiaries. For example, Microsofts GitHub or IBMs Red Hat. Counting them together, Microsoft would still be first.

It is perhaps hard to believe that Microsoft, which especially in the 90s had many litigations with Open Source promoters, has led this classification for so long. However, since the arrival of Satya Nadella, his perspective has changed, and a lot.

Google, for its part, has always supported and supported open source. Again, for better or for worse. It has turned Android into a standard, but it has also been criticized for closing APIs of, for example, Chromium, according to its interests.

According to data from the Open Source Contributor Index (OCSI), Google had 5,421 active contributors in August, compared to 5,268 for Microsoft.

Red Hat, Intel and IBM have systematically followed Google and Microsoft in terms of the number of taxpayers this year and also in the last five years.

In the meantime, Amazon is one rung behind, with 1,963 contributions. However, Amazon is showing higher monthly growth than some of the other companies on the list.

There are also differences by language. Looking at the type of projects they work on, Aivens team found that while Google and Amazon mostly work on C++, Java, and Python, Microsoft prefers its own languages: Powershell and C#.

The data is obtained by counting the commits on GitHub. Altogether, the commits Monthly open source projects from Google, Microsoft and Amazon grew 300% in six years, from 2,654 contributors in May 2016 to 10,549 in May 2022.

Heikki Nousiainen, field technology director and co-founder of Aiven, said in the report that the big tech trio is putting more resources and development time into open source, something the community needs to ensure that important projects are sustained.

Their input also helps promote clean, transparent, and secure code, says Nousiainen, which will help ensure that security vulnerabilities like Log4Shell, a javascript vulnerability that caused chaos in IT departments around the world, dont reoccur. the world last year.

This is especially relevant because large companies commonly hide behind security problems to privatize some elements of the code.

That Google has overtaken Microsoft is especially surprising, says Nousiainen. A contributing factor has been the decline in Microsofts year-over-year commitments to open source projects. However, Microsofts commitment to developer freedom and innovation is constant, as the company it is a major player in open source, and even bought GitHub in 2018, he commented.

But, why is it so interesting?. Open source is a neutral no mans land, says Aivens founder. People have always engaged with each other, but now its more because people expect companies to engage more and connect. The ecosystem is a much more powerful thing now and its easier to build.

However, as we mentioned, not always everything is so idyllic. In March 2021, Google limited access to many Chrome APIs within the open source Chromium web browser, which Chrome and many other browsers are based on.

Google justified its decision by saying that Third-party Chromium-based browsers integrate features based on Googles cloud, which were intended only for Google Chrome users.

In other words, this meant that a small fraction of users could access their Google account and store their personal Chrome sync data, such as bookmarks, not only with Google Chrome, but also with some Chromium-based third-party browsers. .

Googles move caused many Chromium developers and maintainers on other versions to see their work disrupted.

It should be noted that almost 90% of the browsers used by all Internet users are based on Chromium. In this way, Google may not be using, as Microsoft did in the 90s, its predominance to sell its products, but it has made it clear that it continues to have the upper hand in some decisions that may be critical.

See the article here:
why the giants fight over open source - Gearrice

Compare Files in Linux With These Tools – It’s FOSS

Posted on by

Whether youre a programmer, creative professional, or someone who just wants to browse the web, there are times when you find yourself finding the differences between files.

There are two main tools that you can use for comparing files in Linux:

But there are several other tools with different features for comparing files. Here, let me mention some useful GUI and CLI tools for checking the differences between files and folders.

Note: The tools arent ranked in any particular order. Choose what you find the best for you.

Diff stands for difference (obviously!) and is used to find the difference between two files by scanning them line by line. Its a core UNIX utility, developed in the 70s.

Diff will show you lines that are required to change in compared files to make them identical.

Key Features of Diff:

And, the best part is, diff comes pre-installed in every Linux distro.

As you can see in the screenshot above, its not easy to understand the diff command output in the first attempt. Worry not. We have a detailed guide on using diff command for you to explore.

For some reason, if you find Diff utility a bit bland in terms of colors, you can use Colordiff which is a modified version of the diff command utility with enhanced color and highlighting.

Key Features Colordiff:

Installation:

Colordiff is available in the default repository of almost every popular Linux distribution and if youre using any Debian derivative, you can type in the following:

Wdiff is the CLI front end of the Diff utility, and it has a different approach for comparing files i.e it scans on a word-per-word basis.

It starts by creating two temporary files and will run Diff over them. Finally, it collects the output from youre met with word differences between two files.

Key Features of Wdiff:

Installation:

Wdiff is available in the default repository of Debian derivatives and other distros. For Ubuntu-based distros, use the following command to get it installed:

Key Features of Vimdiff:

Its one of the most powerful features that you get with Vim editor. Whether you are using Vim in your terminal or the GUI version, you can use the vimdiff command.

Vimdiff works in a more advanced manner than the usual diff utility. For starters, when you enter vimdiff command, it starts the vim editor with your usual diff. However, if you know how to get around your way through Vim and its commands, you can perform a variety of tasks along with it.

So, Id highly recommend you to get familiar with the basic commands of Vim if you intend to use this. Furthermore, having an idea of how to use buffers in Vim will be beneficial.

Installation:

To use Vimdiff, you would need to have Vim installed on your system. We also have a tutorial on how to install the latest Vim on Ubuntu.

You can use the command below to get it installed (if youre not worried about the version you install):

As its name suggests, this utility works over a Git repository.

This command will utilize the diff command we discussed earlier and will run over git data sources. That can be anything from commits, and branches to files and a lot more.

Key features of Gitdiff:

Installation:

Gitdiff does not require any separate installation unless you dont have Git installed on your system. And if youre looking for the most recent version, we have a tutorial on how to install the latest Git version on Ubuntu.

Or, you can just follow the given command to install Git on your Ubuntu-based distro:

Looking for a GUI tool that not just differentiates files, but also allows you to create and apply patches to them?

Then Kompare by KDE will be an interesting choice!

Primarily, it is used to view source files to compare and merge. But, you can get creative with it!

Kompare can be used over multiple files, and directories and supports multiple Diff formats.

Key Features of Kompare:

Installation:

Being part of the KDE family, Kompare can be found easily on the default repository of popular Linux distros and the software center. But, if you prefer the command-line, heres the command:

Tools like Kompare may overwhelm new users as they offer a plethora of features, but if youre looking for simple, Meld is a good pick.

Meld provides up to three-way comparison for files and directories and has built-in support for version control systems. You can also refer to a detailed guide on how to compare files using Meld to know more about it.

Key Features of Meld:

Installation:

Meld is popular software and can be found easily on the default repository of almost any Linux distro. And for installation on Ubuntu, you can use this command:

Coming from the developers of the famed Sublime Text editor, Sublime Merge is targeted at programmers who are constantly dealing with version control systems, especially Git, as having the best workflow with Git is its primary focus.

From command line integration, powerful search, and flexibility to Git flow integration, anything that powers your workflow comes with it.

Like Sublime Text, Sublime Merge is also not open source. Similarly, it is also free but encourages you to buy a license for continuous use. However, you can continue using it without purchasing the license forever.

There are a few more tools like Sublime Merge. P4Merge and Beyond Compare come to my mind. These are not open source software but they are available for the Linux platform.

In my opinion, the diff command and Meld tools are enough for most of your file comparison needs. Specific scenarios like dealing with Git could benefit from specialized tools like GitDiff.

What do you find the best for your use case? Share your thoughts in the comments down below.

More:
Compare Files in Linux With These Tools - It's FOSS

Biden Admin’s ‘Misinformation’ Crusade is Censorship by Proxy – Reason

Posted on by

On July 16, 2021, the day that Joe Biden accused Facebook of "killing people" by failing to suppress misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, a senior executive at the social media platform's parent company emailed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in an effort to assuage the president's anger. "Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and culminating today in the President's remarks about us," the Meta executive wrote. "I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward."

Murthy had just published an advisory in which he urged a "whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health" posed by "health misinformation," possibly including "appropriate legal and regulatory measures." Biden's homicide charge came the next day, and Meta was keen to address the president's concerns by cracking down on speech that offended him.

The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure violates the First Amendment.

"Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left," the lawsuit says, "senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called 'disinformation,' 'misinformation,' and 'malinformation.'As a direct result of these actions, there has been an unprecedented rise in censorship and suppression of free speechincluding core political speechon social-media platforms."

Landry and Schmitt reiterate that point in a "joint statement of discovery disputes" they filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. "Under the First Amendment, the federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas," they say. "But that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scalea scale whose full scope and impact [are] yet to be determined."

So far, Schmitt reports, documents produced by the government in response to a court order have identified 45 federal officials who "communicate with social media platforms about 'misinformation' and censorship." Schmitt and Landry think many other officials are involved in "a vast 'Censorship Enterprise' across a multitude of federal agencies," and they are seeking additional documents to confirm that suspicion.

In response to inquiries, Landry and Schmitt say, "Facebook and Instagram identified 32 federal officials, including eight current and former White House officials," who have contacted them regarding "misinformation and censorship of social-media content." YouTube "identified 11 federal officials, including five current and former White House officials," while Twitter "identified nine federal officials, including at least one White House official."

Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals, which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal government has to make life difficult for these businesses through public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is what it gets.

Shortly after sending the July 16 email to Murthy, according to Landry and Schmitt's joint statement, the same Meta executive sent the surgeon general a text message. "It's not great to be accused of killing people," he said, adding that he was "keen to find a way to deescalate and work together collaboratively."

And so he did. "Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today," the Meta executive says in a July 23, 2021, to an official at the Department of Health and Human Services.* "I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the 'disinfo dozen.'" He brags that Meta has removed objectionable pages, groups, and Instagram accounts; taken steps to make several pages and profiles "more difficult to find on our platform"; and "expanded the group of false claims that we remove to keep up with recent trends."

Twitter also was eager to fall in line. "I'm looking forward to setting up regular chats," says an April 8, 2021, message from Twitter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "My team has asked for examples of problematic content so we can examine trends. All examples of misinformation are helpful, but in particular, if you have any examples of fraudsuch as fraudulent covid cures, fraudulent vaccine cards, etc, that would be very helpful."

Twitter responded swiftly to the government's censorship suggestions. "Thanks so much for this," a Twitter official says in an April 16, 2021, email to the CDC. "We actioned (by labeling or removing) the Tweets in violation of our Rules." The message, which is headed "Request for problem accounts," is signed with "warmest" regards.

The government also got fast service from Instagram. In a July 20, 2021, email, Clarke Humphrey, digital director for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, requests the deletion of an Instagram parody of Anthony Fauci, Biden's top medical adviser. "Any way we can get this pulled down?" Humphrey asks. "It is not actually one of ours." Less than a minute later, he gets his answer: "Yep, on it!"

Twitter's desperation to please the Biden administration likewise went beyond deleting specific messages. Landry and Schmitt note "internal Twitter communications" indicating that senior White House officials "specifically pressured Twitter to deplatform" anti-vaccine writer Alex Berenson, "which Twitter did." In an April 16, 2021, email about a "Twitter VaccineMisinfo Briefing" on Zoom, Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty tells colleagues that Twitter will inform "White House staff" about "the tangible effects seen from recent policy changes, what interventions are currently being implemented in addition to previous policy changes, and ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work."

Like Twitter, Facebook was thirsty for government guidance. In a July 28, 2021, email to the CDC headed "FB Misinformation Claims_Help Debunking," a Facebook official says, "I have been talking about in addition to our weekly meetings, doing a monthly disinfo/debunking meeting, with maybe claim topics communicated a few days prior so that you can bring in the matching experts and chat casually for 30 minutes or so. Is that something you'd be interested in?" The CDC's response is enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do that."

The communications uncovered so far mainly involved anti-vaccine messages, many of which are verifiably false. But Americans have a First Amendment right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided or ill-informed. That does not mean social media platforms are obligated to host those opinions. To the contrary, they have a First Amendment right to exercise editorial discretion. But that's not what is really happening when their decisions are shaped by implicit or explicit threats from the government. Notwithstanding all the friendly words, Facebook et al. have strong incentives to cooperate with a government that otherwise might punish them in various ways.

Ostensibly, the Biden administration is merely asking social media companies to enforce their own rules. But those rules are open to interpretation, and the government is encouraging the companies to read them more broadly than they otherwise might.

Maybe Twitter would have banished Alex Berenson even if White House officials had not intervened, but maybe not. Multiply that question across the myriad moderation decisions that social media platforms make every day, and you have a situation where it is increasingly difficult to tell whether they are exercising independent judgment or taking orders from the government.

"Although a 'private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,'" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a 2021 concurrence, "it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly." That is the gist of the argument that Landry and Schmitt are making in their lawsuit.

The danger posed by the Biden administration's creepy crusade against "misinformation" is magnified by its broad definition of that concept, which encompasses speech that the government deems "misleading," even when it is arguably or demonstrably true. "Claims can be highly misleading and harmful even if the science on an issue isn't yet settled," Murthy says, and "what counts as misinformation can change over time with new evidence and scientific consensus."

In other words, the "scientific consensus," however Murthy defines it, can be wrong, as illustrated by the federal government's ever-evolving advice about the utility of face masks in preventing COVID-19 transmission. The CDC initially dismissed the value of general masking, then embraced it as "the most important, powerful public health tool we have." More recently, it has conceded that commonly used cloth masks do little, if anything, to stop coronavirus transmission.

"Twitter's 'COVID-19 misleading information policy,' as of December 2021, noted that Twitter will censor (label or remove) speech claiming that 'face masksdo not work to reduce transmission or to protect against COVID-19,'" Schmitt says. "Other platforms had similar policies. Both Senator Rand Paul and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis were censored by Youtube for questioning the efficacy of masks." Twitter even removed a mask-skeptical tweet by Scott Atlas, a member of the Trump administration's coronavirus task force. But "now," Schmitt says, "a growing body of science shows that masks, especially cloth masks, are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, and can impose negative impacts on children."

Landry and Schmitt's lawsuit also notes Twitter's blocking of theNew York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which was deemed "disinformation" prior to the 2020 presidential election but turned out to be accurate. Social media companies have made similarly questionable decisions regarding discussion of the COVID-19 "lab leak" theory, which remains contested but has not been disproven.

Even acting on their own, social media platforms are bound to make bad calls. But when the government demands that they all hew to an officially recognized "consensus," the threat to free inquiry and open debate is far graver.

*CORRECTION: The name of the HHS official is blacked out in the email obtained by Landry and Schmitt, so it's not clear whether the recipient was Murthy.

Read more here:

Biden Admin's 'Misinformation' Crusade is Censorship by Proxy - Reason

Faucis Red Guards: The Mass Censoring of Social Media – Brownstone Institute

Posted on by

One aspect of dictatorships that citizens of democratic nations often find puzzling is how the population can be convinced to support such dystopian policies. How do they get people to run those concentration camps? How do they find people to take food from starving villagers? How can they get so many people to support policies that, to any outsider, are so needlessly destructive, cruel, and dumb?

The answer lies in forced preference falsification. When those who speak up in principled opposition to a dictators policies are punished and forced into silence, those with similar opinions are forced into silence as well, or even forced to pretend they support policies in which they do not actually believe. Emboldened by this facade of unanimity, supporters of the regimes policies, or even those who did not previously have strong opinions, become convinced that the regimes policies are just and goodregardless of what those policies actually areand that those critical of them are even more deserving of punishment.

One of historys great masters of forced preference falsification was Chairman Mao Zedong. As Lszl Ladnyrecalled, Maos decades-long campaign to remold the people of China in his own image began as soon as he took power after the Chinese Civil War.

By the fall of 1951, 80 percent of all Chinese had had to take part in mass accusation meetings, or to watch organized lynchings and public executions.These grim liturgies followed set patterns that once more were reminiscent of gangland practices:during these proceedings, rhetorical questions were addressed to the crowd, which, in turn, had to roar its approval in unisonthe purpose of the exercise being to ensure collective participation in the murder of innocent victims; the latter were selected not on the basis of what they had done, but of who they were, or sometimes for no better reason than the need to meet the quota of capital executions which had been arbitrarily set beforehand by the Party authorities. From that time on, every two or three years, a new campaign would be launched, with its usual accompaniment of mass accusations, struggle meetings, self-accusations, and public executionsRemolding the minds, brainwashing as it is usually called, is a chief instrument of Chinese communism, and the technique goes as far back as the early consolidation of Maos rule in Yanan.

This decades-long campaign of forced preference falsification reached its apex during the Cultural Revolution, in which Mao deputized radical youths across China, called Red Guards, to purge all vestiges of capitalism and traditional society and impose Mao Zedong Thought as Chinas dominant ideology. Red Guards attacked anyone they perceived as Maos enemies, burned books, persecuted intellectuals, and engaged in the systematic destruction of their countrys own history, demolishing Chinas relics en masse.

Through this method of forced preference falsification, any mass of people can be made to support virtually any policy, no matter how destructive or inimical to the interests of the people. Avoiding this spiral of preference falsification is therefore why freedom of speech is such a central tenet of the Enlightenment, and why it is given such primacy in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. No regime in American history has ever previously had the power to force preference falsification by systematically and clandestinely silencing those critical of its policies.

Until now. As it turns out, anastonishingnewreleaseofdiscoverydocuments inMissouri v. Bidenin which NCLA Legal is representing plaintiffs including Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty against the Biden administration for violations of free speech during Covidreveal a vast federal censorship army, with more than 50 federal officials across at least 11 federal agencies having secretly coordinated with social media companies to censor private speech.

Secretary Mayorkas of DHS commented that the federal Governments efforts to police private speech on social media are occurring across the federal enterprise. It turns out that this statement is true, on a scale beyond what Plaintiffs could ever have anticipated.The limited discovery produced so far provides a tantalizing snapshot into a massive, sprawling federal Censorship Enterprise, which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components identified so far, who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social mediaall with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor.

The scale of this federal censorship enterprise appears to be far beyond what anyone imagined, involving even senior White House officials. The government is protecting Anthony Fauci and other high level officials by refusing to reveal documents related to their involvement.

The discovery provided so far demonstrates that this Censorship Enterprise is extremely broad, includingofficials in the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, and the Office of the Surgeon General; and evidently other agencies as well, such as the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the US Election Assistance Commission.And it rises to the highest levels of the US Government, including numerous White House officials In their initial response to interrogatories, Defendants initially identifiedforty-fivefederal officials at DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, and the Office of the Surgeon General (all within only two federal agencies, DHS and HHS), who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation and censorship.

Federal officials are coordinating to censor private speech across all major social media platforms.

The third-party social-media platforms, moreover, have revealed that more federal agencies are involved.Meta, for example, has disclosed that at least 32 federal officialsincluding senior officials at the FDA, the US Election Assistance Commission, and the White Househave communicated with Meta about content moderation on its platforms, many of whom were not disclosed in response to Plaintiffs interrogatories to Defendants.YouTube disclosed eleven federal officialsengaged in such communications, including officials at the Census Bureau and the White House, many of whom were also not disclosed by Defendants.Twitter disclosed nine federal officials,including senior officials at the State Department who were not previously disclosed by Defendants.

Federal officials are granted privileged status by social media companies for the purpose of censoring speech on their platforms, and officials hold weekly meetings on what to censor.

These federal bureaucrats are deeply embedded in a joint enterprise with social-media companies to procure the censorship of social-media speech.Officials at HHS routinely flag content for censorship, for example, by organizing weekly Be On The Lookout meetings to flag disfavored content, sending lengthy lists of examples of disfavored posts to be censored,serving as privileged fact checkers whom social-media platforms consult about censoring private speech, and receiving detailed reports from social-media companies about so-called misinformation and disinformation activities online, among others.

Social media companies have even set up secret, privileged channels to give federal officials expedited means to censor content on their platforms.

For example,Facebook trained CDC and Census Bureau officials on how to use a Facebook misinfo reporting channel. Twitter offered federal officials a privileged channel for flagging misinformation through a Partner Support Portal.YouTube has disclosed that it granted trusted flagger status to Census Bureau officials,which allows privileged and expedited consideration of their claims that content should be censored.

Many suspected that some coordination between social media companies and the federal government was occurring, but the breadth, depth, and coordination of this apparatus is far beyond what virtually anyone imagined. And the scale of this censorship apparatus raises troubling questions.

How could so many federal officials be convinced to engage in the clandestine censorship of opposition to tin-pot public health policies fromChinawhich havekilledtens of thousands of young Americans andlets be honestwere never really that popular to begin with? The answer, I believe, is that high-level White House officials such as Anthony Fauci must have been simultaneously threatening social media companies if they did not comply with federal censorship demands, while also threatening entire federal bureaucracies if they did not toe the Party line.

By simultaneously threatening both the federal bureaucracy and social media companies, a handful of high-level officials could effectively transform the federal government into a sprawling censorship army reminiscent of Maos Red Guards, silencing any opposition to tin-pot public health policies with increasing detachment and certitude as this systematic silencing falsely convinced them that the regimes policies were just and good. A few of these federal employees must have eventually let slip to the Republicans that this jawboning was taking place, which appears to have been how this suit began.

In plaintiff Aaron Kheriatyswords:

Hyperbole and exaggeration have been common features on both sides of covid policy disputes. But I can say with all soberness and circumspection (and you, kind readers, will correct me if I am wrong here):this evidence suggests we are uncovering the most serious, coordinated, and large-scale violation of First Amendment free speech rights by the federal governments executive branch in US history.

Republished from the authors Substack

Michael P Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. He has been researching the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the worlds response to COVID-19 since March 2020 and previously authored Chinas Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign and The Masked Ball of Cowardice in Tablet Magazine. You can follow his work on Substack

READ MORE

Read more:

Faucis Red Guards: The Mass Censoring of Social Media - Brownstone Institute