**********

December 15, 2020 | Development Focus Changes for CentOS

IT IS EXACTLY ONE WEEK ago, to the day, the CentOS community learned of a

major shift in the development focus of their beloved operating system.

In a blog post published by CentOS Community Manager, Rich Bowen, he

outlined, "The future of the CentOS Project is CentOS Stream".

After reading the post, I can reveal it took more than a couple of

minutes to digest what I had just read.

CentOS is, and has been for a long time, one of the most stable server

operating systems among the Linux ecosystem.

So stable in fact, that it often goes unappreciated for its stability and

reliability.

Only now, post announcement the development focus of CentOS is to be

uprooted within the Red Hat development platform, that so many CentOS

users and many within the tight-knit Linux community feel the need to

express their displeasure that CentOS stable releases will be

discontinued in favor of shifting the development focus to CentOS Stream.

What will change, precisely? Well, that question can be answered two

ways.

Not much, and a lot.

Confused? Well, allow me to explain.

It's important to understand development of the CentOS project is not

ceasing.

It will continue, as before.

I believe the shift in development focus doesn't have to be painted in

such a negative light, as so many in the Linux community have chosen to

do.

We need to take a look at some fine print, because it's really important

to understand what precisely is happening.

CentOS 7 will continue to be supported for the duration of the Red Hat

Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7 support lifecycle.

This means it will continue to be patched until 2024.

No changes here.

The changes specifically affect CentOS 8, which has had its support

lifecycle massacred and will now end in 2021 instead of the originally

planned 2029.

From December 31, 2021 onwards, CentOS 8 will be transitioned to CentOS

Stream.

There will be no CentOS 9.

CentOS Stream is traditionally an upstream version of CentOS stable.

The new sole focus on CentOS Stream effectively repositions the entire

CentOS project in the development platform for Red Hat.

CentOS and RHEL will reverse roles and will see CentOS Stream become the

development platform for which RHEL will be based.

Regular CentOS stable builds will cease and all development focus will

shift to CentOS Stream as it becomes the upstream version of RHEL.

Make sense? Good.

It has ignited the argument that the repositioning of the CentOS project

in Red Hat's development platform has made CentOS Stream unsuitable for

mission critical deployment in production environments.

While I personally don't subscribe to that argument, I admit it is a

perfectly justified argument.

Red Hat's development platform has become complex and confusing.

There is a lot of variables that affect the outcomes of what packages

appear where and how they are distributed.

The announcement to shift all focus to CentOS Stream has only added

further confusion.

To simplify things, let us assume the traditional development platform

for Red Hat has looked a little something like this:

Fedora Rawhide > Fedora > RHEL > CentOS

After the changes come into effect, a revised development platform will

look something like this:

Fedora Rawhide > Fedora > CentOS Stream > RHEL

Like I said, there are a lot of variables to consider.

But generally, I think it is a really good move and it makes perfect

sense from a development perspective.

While the motivation behind development of CentOS Stream may not have any

specific focus on attracting a bigger chunk of the desktop user-base -

such as that enjoyed by Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE and perhaps even Manjaro

Linux - it would be silly to rule out the possibility of external

pressure from IBM, parent company of Red Hat, to reposition CentOS Stream

to increase brand attraction.

With CentOS stable traditionally being positioned at the end of the

development platform chain, based on RHEL, it has continued to produce a

tried and tested operating system.

In real world deployment this translates into system stability.

By being uprooted and placed in front of RHEL (upstream), CentOS Stream

will now become somewhat of a testing ground for RHEL.

It is the threat of upsetting a proven development model which has so

many angry.

What options do CentOS users have? Well, it's important to remember

change is not occurring overnight.

There is still plenty time to consider your options.

Some may choose to transition their CentOS 8 servers to CentOS Stream and

adapt.

Some may choose to migrate off CentOS altogether.

If the latter occurs, there can be little doubt Debian and Ubuntu Server

deployments will see an increase.

Both of which are viable alternatives, I might add.

Some independent developers have declared war on CentOS and in

retaliation claim they will fork the distribution.

How many of these independent projects come to fruition and become stable

projects, and how many are just rhetoric remains unclear at this point.

One notable declaration which grabbed my attention was that of one of the

original CentOS co-founders, Gregory Kurtzer.

Within two days of the CentOS Stream announcement, Kurtzer had declared

the establishment of a new project called "Rocky Linux".

He says it aims to become 100% compatible with RHEL.

The project's name pays homage to fellow CentOS co-founder, Rocky

McGaugh.

Kurtzer says, "He [Rocky McGaugh] is no longer with us" and he "never got

to see the success that CentOS came to be".

Rocky Linux is still new and in a state of planning and development, so

it may be some time before a production ready version goes gold.

The project's GitHub page currently states, "There is not currently an

ETA for release.".

Still, it is most definitely a project to watch and one that has very

real potential to attract a lot of attention from unhappy CentOS users.

Of course, we can't ignore Oracle.

The company has nabbed the opportunity to remind the Linux community

their own offering of RHEL compatible distribution, Oracle Linux, is

ready for immediate deployment.

For some users it may very well fill the void they feel will be left,

with the shift in development focus to CentOS Stream.

I close by reminding you, dear reader, CentOS 8 is still supported until

December 31, 2021.

My advice - take some time and consider your options.

There is no need to rush into making a decision to migrate to another

distribution without careful consideration of whether it's the right

choice for you and your clients.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

December 5, 2020 | Submission to Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity in

Australia

Opening Statement

Freedom Publishers Union is increasingly disturbed by the trend we

continue to observe by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to push for the

establishment of a Royal Commission into the impact and influence on

media diversity by the "Murdoch media".

Although the Senate Inquiry into media diversity in Australia is not

explicitly linked to the push to establish the aforementioned Royal

Commission, the obvious link between the two cannot be ignored.

Freedom Publishers Union believes the Senate Inquiry has been established

as somewhat of a precursor to what we refer to as a "full-fledged assault

on Australian media, targeting Murdoch media and News Corp".

We acknowledge the limited scope of the Senate Inquiry.

Despite its limits, there is little doubt the motive is directed towards

Murdoch media.

Freedom Publishers Union has stated prior to the establish of the Senate

Inquiry, the proposed Royal Commission is deliberately "targeted by

design".

We apply the same description to the Senate Inquiry.

Scope of Submission

-- "The state of media diversity, independence and reliability in

Australia and the impact that this has on public interest journalism and

democracy, including:" --

Freedom Publishers Union believes the current state of media diversity,

independence and reliability is under no immediate threat.

Unrelated, the foundations which mesh Australia's free press have become

fragile.

While we continue to make the argument of fragility of the free press in

Australia, we cannot in any way link the fragility to a lack of

diversity, independence or reliability.

-- "The current state of public interest journalism in Australia and any

barriers to Australian voters' ability to access reliable, accurate and

independent news:" --

Freedom Publishers Union believes there is no immediate threat to public

interest journalism.

Australia enjoys an extremely diverse concentration of media choice.

We believe the diversity and choice of media is often taken for granted,

albeit not deliberately.

The common practice of failing to separate media ownership from the point

of diversity and choice, often confuses hysteria as fact.

-- "The effect of media concentration on democracy in Australia:" --

Freedom Publishers Union is impressed with the abilities of the media

industry to engage in aggressive, yet fair, competition.

Despite the passive aggressive nature of the business, Australian media

outlets are united in their duty and cause.

In our view, the greater threats to the free press and media diversity in

Australia come from the lack of laws which protect whistleblowers,

journalists and publishers.

We do not support the untrue claims that Australia's media concentration

is a threat to the free press, media diversity or democracy, as we are

yet to be presented with any credible data which credits such claims.

-- "The impact of Australia's media ownership laws on media concentration

in Australia:" --

Freedom Publishers Union supports the current format of Australian media

ownership laws.

We believe the current format largely allows the ownership concentration

to flow according to free market liberal philosophy.

While it remains true that News Corp do own a significant percentage of

Australia's media landscape, the percentage of ownership does not reflect

anything of a "monopoly", as is often suggested.

Observers may attempt to frame the significant percentage of ownership by

News Corp as unfair.

We disagree.

There is effectively no restrictions applied to rival media outlets that

prevent media expansion to counter the concentration of News Corp.

-- "The impact of significant changes to media business models since the

advent of online news and the barriers to viability and profitability of

public interest news services:" --

The changed business models that media outlets have been forced to adopt

is not limited to Australia.

Traditional frameworks that defined the function and role of media are no

longer relevant.

This forced change has been felt by media outlets and publishers in all

formats, globally.

The changes have placed crippling financial strain on all global media

owners.

This has unfortunately resulted in many small players in the media

industry, with limited financial streams and assets, be forced into a

state of closure or a contraction of operations to reduce operating

costs.

These changes are unfortunate.

But it must be understood and acknowledged that the changes have resulted

from the organic shift in a highly evolving industry and not that of

decisions or business operations from any specific media outlet.

-- "The impact of online global platforms such as Facebook, Google and

Twitter on the media industry and sharing of news in Australia:" --

There are few that could place any serious doubt on the suggestion that

digital platforms and social media networks have placed significant added

strain on the business models of traditional media outlets.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to refrain from singling out one

or two specific digital platforms, as we believe it is a combination of

many issues, not covered within the scope of the Senate Inquiry, that

have accelerated the challenges media outlets continue to face.

As noted, media outlets continue to face significant financial strain to

existing business models, which have already been forced to adapt from

traditional frameworks to compensate for challenges presented by the

encroachment of digital news distribution.

Digital platforms which offer free access to what would otherwise be only

accessible by subscription or other paywall mechanism, add further

challenges to media outlets.

Freedom Publishers Union does not support digital platforms providing

free access to paid content as it hurts the business models of media

outlets who rely on revenue streams to continue to operate.

There is significant evidence which indicates media diversity could be

affected by the role of digital platforms.

A balance must be brought to the industry where commercial networks,

public broadcasters and independent media have equal opportunities to

distribute content without unauthorized interference by the digital

platforms.

-- "The barriers faced by small, independent and community news outlets

in Australia:" --

As an independent media outlet with no revenue stream being generated

through publishing operations, Freedom Publishers Union understands the

financial strain that the independent media sector faces.

Australia enjoys a high concentration of well-placed and financially

viable media outlets which continue to evolve and adapt to constant

changes in the industry.

While these larger outlets have the financial freedom and capacity to do

so, independent media outlets may find it more difficult without access

to funding.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to advocate for industry changes to

better acknowledge and appreciate the value to diversity that independent

media adds.

We believe an increase in concentration of reputable independent media

outlets would increase diversity in public opinion.

Government sponsored programs and grants which are designed to grow

independent media and develop the skills of independent journalists are

almost non-existent.

Freedom Publishers Union recommends greater emphasis be placed on the

absence of such programs and encourage the government of the day to

acknowledge and understand the important, yet ignored, role that

independent media have on media diversity.

-- "The role that a newswire service plays in supporting diverse public

interest journalism in Australia:" --

Freedom Publishers Union acknowledges the importance of newswire

services.

However, there are two sides to the argument of the benefits such

services provide to the wider media industry.

Newswire services, such as the former Australian Associated Press (AAP),

play an important role in media diversity because they have the potential

to offer media outlets an unbiased source of reporting which can

complement news delivery handled in-house by media outlets.

Newswire services, such as the News Corp owned and operated NCA Newswire,

pose a potentially significant problem to media diversity.

NCA Newswire benefits the News Corp business model and offers a biased

source of news reporting.

NCA Newswire is still a reasonably new service for News Corp and we view

it as a business model which has not yet "settled".

Freedom Publishers Union observes the NCA Newswire service as an

extension of the regular business model of News Corp and an attempt to

influence media outlets beyond its traditional reach.

Newswire services in Australia are currently in a stage of

transformation.

The former AAP is still in the process of adapting to a new business

model under new ownership, while the NCA Newswire service is still yet to

reach its full potential.

Freedom Publishers Union observes this area with great interest.

We cannot form a definitive position at present on the effects of

newswire services on media diversity and public interest journalism.

-- "The state of local, regional and rural media outlets in Australia:" -

Freedom Publishers Union is extremely concerned about the poor

availability of news and viability of media outlets in regional and rural

areas.

We believe the public broadcaster, ABC, is best positioned to deliver

quality and accurate news to regional and rural areas.

We cannot foresee any financially viable and sustainable business model

which could be adopted by commercial media to enable them to produce and

present news in regional and rural areas, to equal effect of a properly

reformed and appropriately resourced ABC.

Freedom Publishers Union firmly believes that more emphasis must be

placed on reforming the ABC Act and the ABC Charter, to accommodate the

most important elements appropriate for news service delivery and remove

unnecessary obligations.

-- "The role of government in supporting a viable and diverse public

interest journalism sector in Australia:" --

The role of government in supporting a "viable and diverse" public

interest journalism sector is critical.

It is critical the government continue to support the public broadcasters

of ABC and SBS.

Freedom Publishers Union believes the budget delivered to the ABC and SBS

is fair and adequate.

Freedom Publishers Union constantly argues that the budget of the ABC is

not being allocated appropriately, within the Australian Broadcasting

Corporation.

This is, in our view, a side-effect of unnecessary obligations placed

upon the ABC which dictates it must produce and present specific news and

entertainment content.

The ABC Act must be reformed and the ABC Charter must be adapted, so the

ABC can become a media outlet solely focused on news service delivery.

This would allow ‘wasted' funds allocated to producing entertainment

programming, simply to fulfil its obligations under the ABC Act and

Charter, to be reallocated to restoring lost news programming and

improving news delivery services.

Freedom Publishers Union does not specifically propose a merger of ABC

and SBS, however we do not oppose it.

A merger of Australia's public broadcasters must be considered as a

future option, rather than an immediate necessity, as we don't believe a

merger will add any value to media diversity or public journalism in

Australia.

Conclusion

Freedom Publishers Union treats all of the issues we have outlined in our

Submission as serious.

The issues we draw attention to and outline have not specifically been

brought to attention for the purpose of the Senate Inquiry and are of

ongoing interest to our organization.

Despite some of the issues we draw attention to being serious and

requiring action, we conclude there is no immediate problem or threat to

media diversity in Australia.

Additionally, we cannot see any of these issues growing to an

unmanageable level.

All of these issues are manageable with an appropriate course of action,

where required.

As harsh as it may be, it is our continued belief the Senate Inquiry into

media diversity in Australia has been established as a precursor,

potentially to be used as a launch pad for a much harder push by a select

group, consisting of politicians and ex-politicians, for the

establishment of a Royal Commission into Murdoch media.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that both the Senate Inquiry into media

diversity and the proposed Royal Commission are targeted, by design, to

attack a specific spectrum of the media.

It is this deliberate targeting that we oppose.

It is not appropriate, it is unacceptable and attacking specific

spectrums of Australian media, deliberately, is a threat to media

diversity in itself.

Media diversity and an independent press should come as a result of free

market forces and the pillars which enable the free press - forces that

must not be interfered with by government.

As Australia has no Constitutional protections for the free press, like

the United States, it is even more critical that Australians take it upon

ourselves to protect the free press.

Australians have an extensive choice of leading media outlets.

In print and digital form, this includes the mastheads of The Australian,

The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, ABC News, The

Guardian, The Saturday Paper, plus more that we have not listed but

deserve recognition.

In television broadcast, this includes Sky News and ABC News 24.

As long as Australian citizens have such extensive choice in news media

consumption the media industry should not be subjected to unnecessary and

targeted inquiries.

Freedom Publishers Union does not support the Senate Inquiry into media

diversity.

Freedom Publishers Union vehemently opposes any proposal for a Royal

Commission into the influence of Murdoch media.

-----

Authorized by GC Media Publishing Management

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] November 26, 2020 | [ANALYSIS] Public Release of

Afghanistan Inquiry Suggests the Worst War Crimes Are Still Being

Concealed, by Australia

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE Australian Defense Force (IGADF), Major

General Paul Brereton, released the long-awaited Afghanistan Inquiry

Report, on November 19, 2020.

The report has been dubbed the "Brereton Report" or "Afghanistan

Inquiry".

The Brereton Report was commissioned in 2016 to investigate information

and "rumors" which had been circulated, suggesting Australian Defense

Force personnel, specifically those within the Special Air Service

Regiment (SAS), were involved in or committed unlawful killing of

innocent prisoners and civilians, in Afghanistan.

If substantial and credible evidence could be collected by Brereton, it

could conclude that Australia was involved in and complicit in war

crimes.

The Brereton Report covers the period of deployment of Australian Special

Operation Task Group in Afghanistan, from 2005 through to 2016.

The public release of the document is available in the public domain and

is heavily redacted, to hide sensitive content.

It has been claimed the redacted sections were necessary as the concealed

information could "compromise" future legal proceedings for war crimes.

Freedom Publishers Union commends the release of the Brereton Report,

although we express our dissatisfaction with the process of the public

release being so heavily redacted.

We consistently advocate our principles of transparency and open

government.

This includes advocacy for near-complete disclosure of all government

associated and sponsored reports, such as the Brereton Report.

Freedom Publishers Union has no obvious reasons to doubt the specific

claims that redacted information has been concealed to protect future

legal proceedings from being unduly compromised, yet we hold a high

amount of concern that the concealed information also intentionally hides

some of the most extreme acts of obvious war crimes, by Australian SAS

personnel.

See page 103 Chapter 2.50.

We know this incident was in 2012.

But nothing else is revealed.

The entire incident is concealed through redaction.

There is reason to conclude it is extreme in content, as Brereton's

briefing note underneath the incident states "what is described in this

Chapter is possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military

history".

The public deserves full disclosure of the details of all potential and

alleged war crimes that are produced in the Brereton Report.

The deliberate withholding and concealment of critical information and

details is reflective of the release of the US Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence report into the 'CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program',

in late 2014.

That report was dubbed the "Torture Report".

Since 2014-15, Freedom Publishers Union has consistently called for the

disclosure of the full unredacted Torture Report, which details some of

the most extreme and gruesome acts of torture of prisoners and terror

suspects detained by CIA operatives.

In the public release of the Torture Report, which is effectively just a

summary, information was concealed as a deliberate process to hide acts

of torture committed by personnel working for the security, intelligence

and defense apparatus of the United States of America.

To date, the secret unredacted version of the Torture Report has never

been released and remains highly classified.

The complete report is known to run more than 6,700 pages.

The summary released to the public was just over 500 pages - only a short

summary of the complete report.

There has previously been some media reports that suggest all existing

copies of the complete report may have been destroyed, "accidently".

We believe this to be false information.

If all existing copies were actually destroyed, we cannot possibly

subscribe to any suggestion that one of the world's most secretive and

highly classified reports was destroyed "accidently".

Destruction of such a highly classified report could only be performed by

intent, to stop future leaks or disclosure.

The US is known to maintain high levels of secrecy with intelligence

information.

There is cause to believe that Australia engages in the same levels of

secrecy as its primary intelligence partner.

Freedom Publishers Union initiated our interest in allegations of

Australian SAS personnel breaching the laws of war in 2018, post

publication of stories and allegations by Australia's public broadcaster,

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Sydney Morning Herald

(SMH).

We continue to analyze the contents of the Brereton Report.

The details are disturbing and the allegations of possible war crimes by

Australian SAS personnel are justified.

Brereton outlines in his report, based on witness testimony, that

Australian SAS personnel killed innocent and unarmed prisoners and

civilians, including women and children, in Afghanistan.

23 incidents of alleged war crimes are believed to have been committed,

which resulted in the killing of 39 people.

The alleged war crimes were committed by current and former serving

personnel of the SAS.

19 individuals have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for

criminal prosecution.

One of the most alarming and disturbing concluding statements from

Brereton is, "None of these alleged crimes was committed during the heat

of battle".

Details provided in the report outline a culture of hostile autonomy

adopted by SAS personnel, where Afghan nationals were always presumed to

be hostile and considered the enemy, irrespective of circumstances which

led to their encounter.

There was never any intention to make a friendly and peaceful connection

with Afghan nationals.

Brereton states that "winning of the hearts and minds of local nationals

was not given priority.".

Selected testimony published in the report indicated a high level of no

confidence in the chain of command and reporting procedures for personnel

who had been witness to possible activity which may be in breach of the

laws of war.

Also, it is clear from testimonies that the reputation of individual

soldiers was of great importance, as was that for those observing alleged

activities of war crimes, those alleged to be engaging in said

activities, the SAS and the entire Australian Defense Force.

Large chunks of the Brereton Report have been redacted.

Sometimes it is small portions of selective text within sentences.

Other times it is entire paragraphs.

In many instances, entire pages are redacted.

Sometimes it is single pages and other times several pages running are

entirely redacted.

Series of pages have been removed entirely from the public release of the

report.

Several sections were stamped with a notice stating the series of pages

were removed, which run anywhere between 10 pages to more than 50 pages

removed in one redaction series.

The redacted content is critically important and when analyzing sections

of the report it is at times difficult to draw a complete picture of what

the text specifically details.

The public release of the Brereton Report runs at 465 pages.

Without having any access to the complete report, unredacted, it is

impossible to know how many pages the complete report contains.

The last page of the public release is stamped as page "531".

We believe that is a modest figure of the length of the complete report.

During the compiling of the Brereton Report, more than 20,000 documents

were analyzed, 25,000 images were assessed and 423 witnesses interviewed.

The report validates almost all of the information detailed in previous

publications by Freedom Publishers Union and mainstream media mastheads..

The internal culture within the Australian SAS has been described as that

of a "brotherhood", or "warrior" culture, built upon structures of

"secrecy".

Following the release of the Brereton Report, we now understand the 2nd

Squadron of the SAS has been disbanded.

Freedom Publishers Union welcomes the disbandment of the 2nd Squadron of

the SAS, but is disappointed by the limited response.

We firmly believe the problems that we have consistently and tirelessly

claimed exist within the SAS, now confirmed by the Brereton Report, can

only be eliminated by complete disbandment of the Australian SAS

Regiment.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] November 9, 2020 | [OPINION] ABC is No Longer

Impartial.

Trust is Diminished

TONIGHT, THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ABC) aired its popular

weekly current affairs program, Four Corners, in Australia.

The program has failed to harness the same level of fanfare it once

enjoyed, which has largely resulted from a constant reduction in the

number of its journalists, combined with continued reductions in

production costs, but the program is still respected by many ABC

loyalists.

Tonight's controversial episode was preceded by a day of political

tension in Australia's political capital city, Canberra.

Tension was running high, specifically from politicians in the Liberal

Party.

Many observers were quick to note the elevated levels of tension and

questions were already being asked why it appeared to be limited to the

Liberal Party ranks, prior to the program even being aired.

Prior to viewing, I expressed concern of the possibility that the program

was set to produce an anti-Liberal story with near-zero focus on any

other party or political members of the Australian Parliament.

I observed the program, which ran approximately 45 minutes, with only a

30 second declaration at the end of the program which stated that Four

Corners was not suggesting misconduct of politicians was limited to the

Liberal Party.

Tonight's episode of Four Corners was accompanied with a title which was

misleading - "Inside the Canberra Bubble".

I believe the title was deliberately misleading and did not reflect the

content of the production, which was indisputably anti-Liberal.

Production of anti-Liberal (or anti-Labor) content by the ABC, a public

broadcaster, is in direct violation of its editorial policies which

emphasize the requirement for impartial content production.

The ABC should never be open to adopting a specific political view.

It has become all too clear that is precisely what has been allowed to

occur within the ABC.

Bias is certainly not limited to the Four Corners program, it is rife

throughout the entire corporation.

The ABC has been one of the most stable and reliable media sources that I

have trusted, for many years.

In recent months I have witnessed a disturbing trend of unsettling

behavior which I can no longer ignore.

It's a disturbing pattern of questionable editorial decision making,

dangerous testing of the boundaries of impartiality and on occasion,

intentional violation of its editorial policy to favor story narratives.

The ABC is frequently at odds with, and possibly contradicting, the

principles and expectation of standards of a taxpayer funded media

outlet.

The ABC frequently, and increasingly, demonstrates its inability to

produce and present impartial content, which is free from political bias

and continuously presents editorial views which favor the left political

view.

I am specifically concerned by the editorials and productions by the ABC

which continue to demonstrate an increased amount of left political bias.

As an insider to independent media, this places me in the difficult

position of having to decide whether to push for a review of our support

for the ABC and whether it should still be considered a trusted media

source.

Political bias is common for media outlets to adopt.

At times, that bias is embraced by the outlet so much that it becomes

part of their editorial standards and goes unquestioned.

Political bias is not acceptable for a media outlet which makes up a

majority of Australia's fragile public broadcasting ecosystem.

Tonight, it certainly felt like Four Corners and the ABC declared war on

the Liberal Party.

That is not the role of a public broadcaster.

I really wouldn't be surprised at all if multiple complaints are lodged

to the ABC, by the Communications Minister or other Liberal Party

ministers.

I'd support those complaints.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

Thoughts of 2020 US Presidential Election and the future of democracy

Nov 5, 2020

The 2020 US Presidential Election was always going to be controversial.

That was predicted and reality has delivered.

As I write this column, the Presidency is still yet undecided.

Counting all the votes takes time and the process should be respected.

While counting is a slow process, understandably, the media coverage

appears to be moving faster and at times it is difficult to move away

from the TV.

Thankfully, the media has been reasonably well balanced and fair.

Even some of the more typically aggressive right-wing media organizations

that have supported the Trump campaign have been subdued in their

analysis.

So, where do we stand at the moment? Well, as the minutes and hours tick

by it is looking increasingly more likely that Joe Biden will become the

46th President of the United States of America.

In August, I all but concluded that Donald Trump would win.

I made that declaration with confidence, but with an open invitation to

the US people that they prove me wrong.

I was not happy with accepting the likelihood of a second term President

Trump, but I was being realistic.

The numbers appear to be favoring Biden at this stage, but who knows what

Trump has planned next to upset the natural flow of the process.

His performance last night was reckless and weak, albeit in character of

the man the world has come to know.

Frankly, would anyone expect anything different?

To stand up, declare victory in States that were not called, declare the

election process fraudulent without a hint of evidence, then declare an

overall victory and indicate a willingness to take it all the way to the

Supreme Court, all beggars belief even by Trump standards.

Hard Trump supporters might think it was the sign of a strong man – a

strong President.

It was effectively the opposite.

It demonstrated how weak and compromised Trump must be feeling.

He knows he has most likely lost the Presidency and perhaps making

baseless claims of fraud is the only ammunition he has left.

I emphasize, nothing has been decided and the counting continues.

This is an ongoing reality TV show which could yet deliver more

unexpected twists.

This election, again, places the messy and overly complex US voting

processes under the spotlight.

It’s not correct to say it is fraudulent.

That is just Trump rhetoric.

But it is correct to say it is a mess and reform has become a necessity.

Reform of democratic voting processes, around the world, need a

revolution.

While postal votes, specifically, have always been open to criticism and

claims of possible fraud, they still remain an important element of the

current structures which define democracy.

I see the future of democracy shifting from processes of in-person voting

by pen and paper, complemented by snail mail, to adopting and embracing

the benefits of digital voting.

The benefits digital voting could offer is phenomenal and should not be

so quickly dismissed.

If developed and implemented properly, digital voting could offer

confidence, security and real-time results.

Instead of waiting for armies of humans to sit down and count scribbles

on pieces of paper, real-time results could be produced, possibly

defining an election within minutes – or hours – following the closure of

voting.

Digital voting would eliminate so much of the post-election tension that

citizens are subjected to.

Also, it would leave candidates and their political parties with a much

smaller avenue to launch into public accusations of fraud.

Any form of democracy and its voting processes will be open to criticism

and scrutiny, as they should be.

But understand, much of the post-election tension results from delays in

counting.

Voter participation for the 2020 US Presidential Election is historically

high, so voting is taking much longer.

It is time digital voting is considered.

The future of democracy will depend on it.

If Trump is not returned to The White House for a second term, then we

certainly cannot eliminate the possibility he will run for the 2024

Presidential Election.

Then we see the cycle begin, all over again.

This mess must be fixed.

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] October 15, 2020 | [ANALYSIS] Extradition Hearing of

Julian Assange

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION CONTINUES TO support Julian Assange by repeating

our calls for his release and for the United States (US) to immediately

drop all charges.

We also continue to call on the United Kingdom (UK) to protect the

fundamentals of press freedom, which includes the right of Julian Assange

to engage in his publishing responsibilities as a publisher and

journalist for Wikileaks.

The UK has continued to ignore the global calls for justice of Assange.

We are extremely disappointed in the continued failures demonstrated by

the justice system of the UK and its complacency of refusing to stand up

to the political pressure by the US and to protect the rights of Assange.

Julian Assange has endured unacceptable levels of mental torture

throughout the duration of his detainment.

The respect of his most basic and fundamental human rights have continued

to be tested, and in many instances have been violated.

The aggressive case being led by the US, against Assange, continues to

increase in its levels of pressure, aggression, lack of transparency and

secrecy surrounding key timeframes, post arrest.

It has been clear to observers for a long time the US is engaged in what

is an unjust, deliberate and politically motivated pursuit of a

journalist and publisher who not only has published the truth, but has

become the epitome of press freedom around the world.

The course of the extradition hearing, held in London (UK), has been

subjected to many delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Although the delays could not have been avoided and have been

unintentional, there should be no disputing the delays have caused

further mental distress to Assange.

Assange and his legal team, we're sure, would have appreciated the

extradition hearing to have been resolved as soon as possible.

However, Judge Vanessa Baraitser has pushed the decision beyond the date

of the US election and into the early months of 2021, adding even further

mental distress to Assange and with further delays a real possibility.

It is unknown how the US election will influence the final decision of

Judge Vanessa Baraitser or how it will affect the charges against

Assange.

Freedom Publishers Union has been supporting Julian Assange and fighting

to protect the free press, generally, since 2013.

At times it has felt like the limited support from our own organization,

and the many other dedicated supporters, has had no effect.

However, recently we have been encouraged to see more mainstream media

interest in the extradition hearing.

As encouraging as the interest shown by mainstream media is, it remains

limited in scope.

It cannot compare to the dedication and longevity of support that is

offered to Assange by independent media and independent supporters who

have demonstrated constant reliability of their support and absolute

loyalty.

There has been a very disturbing pattern of shifting legal rights

permissible to Assange and his legal team.

Assange's legal defense has faced constant setbacks, with Assange being

provided little resources himself, to prepare.

In some reported instances, there has been evidence of deliberate

tampering of provided resources, or outright refusal to provide any

resources at all.

The misappropriation of legal rights provided to Assange has been the

subject of concern expressed by many supporters.

It not only puts Assange's legal team in an unfair position and at an

immediate disadvantage in the defense, but it tarnishes the credibility

of the extradition hearing, in terms of fair justice being served.

One of the greatest challenges to journalists covering the extradition

hearing has undoubtedly been gaining physical access to the court.

Access has been upset by social distancing rules which have only allowed

four people to observe proceedings from the public gallery.

This, combined with the unfair and abrupt decision of Judge Vanessa

Baraitser to deny access, even remotely, for selected non-government

organizations, which has included Amnesty International and Editor-in-

Chief of Wikileaks, Kristinn Hrafnnson, has removed all credibility of

the claims of fair justice.

The entire case against Julian Assange and extended attacks on press

freedom is plain wrong, on every front.

The strange circumstances of the entire pursuit is unjust and it's

obvious the traditional rules of the law no longer apply.

They continue to be twisted to favor the US, without any resistance from

the UK or any support provided to Assange by the Australian Government -

the country he was born.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to hold genuine concerns for the

physical and mental health of Assange, in the immediate term.

In the long-term, we hold genuine concerns for not only his physical and

mental health, but for how existing health problems already experienced

by Assange could be further accelerated.

If Assange is to be extradited to the US we know he will not face

anything resemblant of a fair trial, will face extended and indefinite

solitary confinement and risk of suicide will increase exponentially.

The latter is not a matter of opinion, rather expression of concern by

multiple members in the medical profession.

Pre-existing concerns held by Freedom Publishers Union and those of

Assange's supporters were validated on September 22, 2020, when Assange's

partner, Stella Moris, called for Julian to be treated with dignity and

respect as his private health details became a matter of public interest

during the course of the extradition hearing.

Freedom Publishers Union has long believed that there was property taken

from Assange's accommodation inside the Ecuadorian Embassy following his

sudden arrest April 11, 2019.

Our belief has been based on suspicion and vague information provided to

us.

We have been unable to validate the information and have been unable to

determine what items, specifically, were taken from the accommodation

inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

One member of Assange's legal defense, Gareth Peirce, says on the day of

Assange's arrest, she "made immediate contact with the embassy in regard

to legally privileged material" and that it was "an issue of huge

concern".

Peirce also says Assange requested all property of his that was taken out

of the embassy, including "confidential medical data", to be "identified

and released to his lawyers.".

This specific point in time - the minutes immediately following Assange's

arrest - requires closer examination.

We believe not enough focus has been placed on what happened inside the

embassy, in these immediate moments.

There is more to be known.

Freedom Publishers Union must emphasize that we are not suggesting that

any acts of illegality have been acted by reports of confiscated property

belonging to Julian Assange.

What we do want to emphasize is the clear failure to transparently

disclose the existence of the precise confiscated property.

Failure of disclosure could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to

impede the legal defense of Assange and his legal team, while also

further building on existing high levels of secrecy and effectively

eradicating any credibility the US-led case ever had.

Which in our view, was not much.

Freedom Publishers Union's support for Julian Assange and press freedom

remains unmoved and we remain committed 100%.

We continue to fight for the freedom of Assange.

We continue to call on the US to drop its charges against Assange and to

put an immediate end to its politically motivated pursuit.

We continue to call on the UK to resist the political pressure from the

US and appreciate the obvious facts that indicate with almost near

certainty that this is politically motivated and initiated by the US, as

a form of retaliation for the diplomatic embarrassment the US has endured

resulting from material published by Wikileaks.

Finally, and importantly, we continue to call on the Australian

Government to stop sitting on its hands, idle, support Julian Assange -

an Australian - and engage in diplomatic dialog to push for his immediate

release, allow for safe passage to Australia with guaranteed rights of

protection from future extradition attempts by the US.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #11 | September 26, 2020

POLITICAL PARTIES APPEAR TO BE experiencing a peculiar transition.

The major parties are shifting policy focus away from the set of core

values which have traditionally defined the parties identities to the

voting public.

The Liberal Party has withdrawn slightly from traditional liberal policy

and engaged in a unique backwards flirtation with policy areas usually

associated with the Labor Party.

The craziest example of this, this week, was the announcement by the NBN

that the corporation is ready to embrace fiber to the premise (FTTP),

with complete support from the Liberal Party.

FTTP is precisely what was proposed in Labor's original national

broadband network blueprint.

The Liberal Party scoffed at the concept of FTTP and the blueprint was

disgraced.

Now, the Liberal Party has backflipped and owning its embrace of FTTP.

It's still much too early to conclude whether the policy backflip will be

welcomed by Liberal voters or result in complete utter embarrassment for

the Liberal Party.

By rights, it should be embarrassed.

While the policy flirtation may upset some Liberal Party voters, it

probably upsets Labor Party voters more, because the more the Liberals

skirt around the policy borders of Labor policy, it increases the

challenge for the Labor Party to regain some of its lost voter trust.

It all very well may be an intentional game of politics being played by

the Liberal Party, I'm not entirely sure.

But if their aim is to stop the Labor Party regaining lost voter trust,

then polls suggest the Liberal Party is succeeding.

And those same polls also suggest the Labor Party is continuing to

struggle to gain any effective momentum with their own agenda - whatever

that might be.

Poll numbers relevant to The Greens suggest the party holds steady on all

fronts.

I personally feel the 10-12% margin of support The Greens continue to

hold is resemblant of a big hole the party has dug itself that is much

too deep to dig out from, without significant policy reform.

The current policies of The Greens is true to the principles of what the

party should represent as a party of the green-left.

But it has become stale and must be reformed to adapt the party into a

modern political force designed to focus on the challenges of a post-

covid Australia.

Generally, voters would elect a Liberal government because they are most

trusted for their safe fiscal management.

It's a reasonable analysis and historical data validates the public

trust.

Lately, the Liberal Party - the Government at present - has adopted a

'policy on-the-run' mantra, where important decisions are decided on an

as-needed basis and too often developed to deliberately bypass the usual

parliamentary processes.

This is not how democracy should function.

While a position of policy complacency while in government should

generally not be considered acceptable, it is expected.

This is especially relevant to a Liberal government where a majority of

its most senior ministers have aligned themselves with conservative

factions.

What isn't expected though, is the adoption of the aforementioned

'policy-on-the-run' mantra.

It's obvious it has spawned from the global Covid-19 pandemic, but sooner

or later the 'policy-on-the-run' agenda must be broken and the Government

must return to a more traditional form of governance.

One that is familiar and resonates with the Australian voter.

When I opened the morning papers yesterday and read that the Treasurer,

Josh Frydenberg, is pushing for immediate easing of banking regulations

for loan assessments, I was in a genuine state of disbelief.

My initial response I posted to my Twitter account caught my disbelief

well.

I wrote, "With an uncertain fiscal future, this could be a grave mistake.

Lending huge amounts to people who may not have the capacity to repay it

then banks escaping any responsibility of bad lending.

Seen this picture before.

It didn't end well the first time.".

Think pre-GFC, the specific dark period which saw US banks and financial

institutions willingly offering cheap home loans to clients they knew

were never able to afford the repayments.

Also, we must not forget, conveniently, the extensive client abuse by

members of the Australian financial industry that we learned of as a

result of the "Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking,

Superannuation and Financial Services Industry".

While the client abuse that became public knowledge during, and following

the completion of, the Royal Commission was not directly related to easy

bank loans provided to clients that could not afford the repayments, it

was client abuse nevertheless and is almost sure to reoccur once the

Treasurer relaxes the regulations as he has announced, paving the way for

banks to go handing out cheap money to potentially vulnerable clients.

I'm certainly no advocate for excessive red tape or over regulation.

However, considering the financial sector's proven history of client

abuse, you can never have too much regulation if implemented and managed

appropriately when it has client protection by intent.

Lack of regulation can be dangerous, as can be removing necessary

regulation that serves a genuine good deed of client protection.

It's fair to say Frydenberg, as Treasurer, has faced some of the most

difficult circumstances a Federal Treasurer could possibly be presented.

He has been presented circumstances that nobody could possibly have seen

coming and nobody could have been prepared.

He has made some good decisions, in addition to some bad decisions.

But removing or waivering regulations that aim to protect bank clients

from financial industry abuse could very well turn out to be one of his

worst decisions yet.

Or, just another policy backflip from the Liberal Party.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #11 | September 16, 2020

WHENEVER ANYONE SUGGESTS CANBERRA GET involved with sorting out problems

at the ABC it's always a bit sensitive.

As it rightly should be.

Apart from the necessary funding allocations to the public broadcasters

we generally don't want to see Canberra screwing with the formula that

allows the ABC and SBS to function.

I can often seem harsh in my observations of the ABC.

Sometimes I can be brutal.

But it is not a blanket position of discontent.

I commend the ABC on a job well done as often as I will call them out for

their failures.

The same rules of observation apply to the entire Australian media

establishment.

I believe The Australian to be one of the world's best news mastheads.

It is my morning go-to, followed by the Sydney Morning Herald.

I hold both of these mastheads in the highest esteem but that still

doesn't make them immune to scrutiny.

I passionately believe all media should be continuously scrutinized to

keep the system balanced and fair.

Unfortunately for the ABC, they've been failing in many aspects for many

months.

Possibly even years, it could be argued.

It is because of its consistent trend of failures it seems unable to

recognize, rectify and prevent, that I have found myself taking a more

negative tune to the public broadcaster than what would normally be

observed by me.

Are my negative observations of the ABC fair and justified? Well, that's

up to you - the dear reader - to be the judge.

But I believe I have been both fair and patient.

Australian citizens have long placed their trust in the publicly funded

platform that makes up the ABC.

That trust extends to its journalists.

It would be fair to say that trust extends even further than the ABC

bubble to include the SBS network too.

For now, my focus remains on the ABC.

Some of the nation's most trusted and respected journalists - present and

past - have at some point in their media career worked for the ABC.

Some have spent the entire duration of their career with the ABC alone.

Some have departed and moved to commercial broadcasting, only to return

to the ABC.

While some never returned or left the media completely.

Irrespective of the circumstances of the careers of these journalists,

they all have one specific thing in common.

That is, very few could dispute that it is their association with the ABC

that has really helped them develop into the professional journalist that

can be trusted by Australian citizens.

Sure, you could argue that journalists write their own career path

because they are genuinely just good at what they do.

But the ABC has always been Australia's trusted platform and the unspoken

'ABC effect' sows journalists.

Recent data illustrates the familiar pattern of trust in the ABC.

As my own trust continues to wane, I continue to question the

sustainability of citizen trust.

The recent forced departure of respected economic journalist, Emma

Alberici, gives further credit to my waning trust.

Alberici is not the first highly regarded journalist to no longer work at

the ABC.

Many have departed and I fear what very few remain, are on limited time.

There has been multiple cases where it has bemused me that almost nobody

in the media establishment has called out the ABC for failing to abide by

its charter, known as the ABC charter.

The charter itself is part of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act

of 1983.

The ABC routinely scouts the borders of impartiality by increasingly

demonstrating a green-left publishing tendency.

It has become increasingly comfortable and complicit in continued

mismanagement at the highest of levels.

It continues to fail to appropriately manage its public funds to ensure

the corporation operates in accordance to its fiscal budget.

It must, and does remain, within budget, but it has come with the removal

of almost every top journalist at the ABC while top-level management

remains unaffected.

There is more, but I'm trying to be modest.

Readers might assume my frustrations with the ABC are sudden.

I can assure you they have not developed over the course of a day or two,

rather stem back at least two years.

I contributed to an editorial early 2018, where concerns were expressed

over decision making at the ABC for a sequence of events that occured

within its news division.

I concluded it to be political interference.

A series of complaints were lodged by the former Communications Minister,

Mitch Fifield, and then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

The Director of news at the ABC, Gaven Morris, was complicit with the

demands of just about every government complaint.

It was during this time it was becoming increasingly clear that the ABC

was starting to lose its credibility of standing up to government

intimidation.

Instead, the ABC would surrender to government demands by retracting

previously published works, forcing rewrites, which would then be

republished.

It was political interference unashamedly on public display.

Public expression of discontent of the unprofessional conduct of the ABC

was minimal and there appeared little public appetite to hold Gaven

Morris accountable.

Isn't it supposed to be "Our ABC"? That proclamation is comedic when the

Australian public sits back and says nothing.

Instead, most recently Emma Alberici was targeted, prompting an ugly

legal battle between herself and the ABC which has only recently been

resolved.

Thankfully, despite Alberici no longer working as a journalist and

stating she has no intentions to for the foreseeable future, her dignity

remains intact as does industry respect for her proven journalistic

record.

The questionable decision making of top-level management at the ABC,

however, remains a problem conveniently ignored.

There has never been any repercussions for the political interference

engaged by Mitch Fifield or Malcolm Turnbull.

Nor has there been any repercussions for Gaven Morris, who remains the

Director of news with editorial oversight of State and Territory news,

7.30, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Four Corners, Q&A, radio

programs AM, PM, RN Breakfast, RN Drive, the ABC NEWS website and all

social media channels, the ABC NEWS 24 TV channel and all Asia-Pacific

newsroom content.

It's a ridiculously huge portfolio for a public broadcaster.

A top-level management reform proposal must be considered and it must be

made priority.

If the extensive editorial power enjoyed by the Director of news is not

curbed then I can only see three viable paths to secure the longevity of

the ABC - 1.

A merger with SBS; 2.

Privatization of the ABC; 3.

A merger with SBS prior to privatization.

I used to believe reforming the ABC charter would resolve many of the

problems the ABC suffers.

Now, I believe the ABC has become too big an establishment.

It is at risk of being permanently driven by agenda rather than

impartiality.

The ABC suffers from systemic failures of management and operates without

any direction by the ABC Managing Director, David Anderson, or ABC Chair,

Ita Buttrose - both of who are indisputably blind to the aforementioned

systemic failures of the establishment they are supposed to protect and

guide.

I believe the time has come for Canberra to intervene.

I'm not just talking about fiddling with the fiscal budget.

That could be used as a mechanism to shrink the ABC establishment, but

it's also ignoring the cancerous problems that continue to plague the

ABC.

We need meaningful intervention from Canberra and for it to place

pressure on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to force reform which

can resolve the mess before this once precious resource implodes and the

mess becomes irreversible.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #10 | August 15, 2020

THE INQUIRY COMMISSIONED BY THE Berejiklian Government into the Ruby

Princess COVID-19 disaster has laid blame on NSW health officials, who

made "inexcusable" and "inexplicable" mistakes.

It also exonerated the Australian Border Force.

In the report, the Federal Government was sharply criticized for refusing

to allow an official to appear before the inquiry, with commissioner Bret

Walker SC saying this belied Prime Minister Scott Morrison's promise of

full cooperation.

Some 2700 passengers from the Carnival Australia cruise ship were allowed

to disembark on March 19 before the test results for COVID-19 had come

back.

The passengers, some of whom had displayed respiratory symptoms,

scattered widely, spreading the virus.

This led to hundreds of cases, with some 28 deaths linked to the cluster.

Walker found serious mistakes and misjudgements on the part of health

officials.

He said that in light of all the information the NSW health expert panel

had, "the decision to assess the risk of the Ruby Princess as 'low risk'

- meaning, in effect, 'do nothing' - is as inexplicable as it is

unjustifiable.

It was a serious mistake.".

It should have been assumed there were possible infected passengers "who

could transmit the virus and perhaps spark an outbreak of infection, if

no steps were taken to prevent or limit that outcome.".

Passengers should not have been allowed to spread through the community

until test results were known.

"The delay in obtaining test results for the swabs taken from the Ruby

Princess on the morning of 19 March is inexcusable.

Those swabs should have been tested immediately.", Walker said.

"The failure to await test results on 19 March is a large factor in this

commission's findings as to the mistakes and misjudgements that caused

the scattering of infected passengers.".

Walker criticized the cruise line for not having enough swabs aboard but

said, given this, there should have been dockside swabbing.

There has been speculation about whether the Australian Border Force had

any responsibility for the disaster, but Walker stressed "neither the ABF

nor any ABF officers played any part in the mishap.".

"The relevant legislative provisions make it crystal clear that the

Australian Border Force (ABF), despite its portentous title, has no

relevant responsibility for the processes by which, by reference to

health risks to the Australian community, passengers were permitted to

disembark.", he said.

But Walker was blunt about the Federal Government's attitude to the

inquiry.

"The one fly in the ointment so far as assistance to this commission

goes, is the stance of the Commonwealth.".

"A summons to a Commonwealth officer to attend and give evidence about

the grant of pratique for the Ruby Princess was met with steps towards

proceedings in the High Court of Australia.".

"Quite how this met the Prime Minister's early assurance of full

cooperation with the commission escapes me.".

"This waste of time and resources, when time, in particular, was always

pressing, was most regrettable.".

Walker said it seemed a "practical approach was swamped by a

determination never to concede, apparently on constitutional grounds, the

power of a state parliament to compel evidence to be provided to a state

executive inquiry (such as a royal commission or a special commission of

inquiry) by the Commonwealth or any of its officers, agencies or

authorities.".

Labor's Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, Kristina Keneally, said that on

March 15, Morrison had said he was putting in place "bespoke

arrangements" for arriving cruise ships.

"He promised cruise ships would be 'directly under the command of the

Australian Border Force'.

What 'bespoke arrangements' did Scott Morrison put in place for arriving

cruise ships? This report shows there were none.", Keneally said.

-----

Written by Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow of University of

Canberra.

This edition of Green View is authored by a third-party.

The third-party author has no working relationship with the publisher(s)

of Green View.

It is authorized for republication under the terms of the Creative

Commons license that is applicable to the published works.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author, yet are aligned with that of Green View, and do not necessarily

reflect the precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

Re-Published by Freedom Publishers Union.

Originally published as https://www.theconversation.com/ruby-princess-

inquiry-blames-nsw-health-officials-for-debacle-144512

Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0

International (CC BY-ND 4.0)

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #10 | August 5, 2020

NOT TOO OFTEN DO I explore State politics when writing for The Canberra

Reflection.

I remain a keen observer of both Federal and State politics, but when my

observations are specific to State politics they habitually remain purely

that of "observation" only.

Right now, I feel it justified to shift my immediate attention off

Canberra and onto Melbourne, to what is unfolding in the State of

Victoria at the present.

And I'm not alone.

Right now, it seems the entire nation is paying more attention to the

domestic politics of Victoria than what they are of their local levels of

administrations of governance.

There is much intensive scrutiny currently being directed towards the

Victorian Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews, with military crosshair

precision.

It should come as no great surprise that the most intense attacks are

coming from the powerful and influential corners of the Murdoch press

rooms.

Regular viewers of Peta Credlin, of Sky News, will certainly have

detected her increase in intensity.

Credlin's comments are, by natural habit, sharp and guided.

Credlin's attacks have also continued in print, through the many Murdoch-

owned mastheads.

I think there is merit in the suggestion we all need to be a little more

considerate of the Federal, State and Territory leaders and their chief

health ministers.

There has been some incredibly difficult decisions to be made.

There can be no doubt there will be many more to be made, yet, that will

be equally as difficult.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one having to make such difficult

decisions, nor do I genuinely believe that there would be too many who

would willingly volunteer to be placed into such a difficult position.

I repeat what so many have said already - there is no instruction manual.

Many decisions are being made on-the-fly and with that comes the

inevitability that some of the decisions made will not be so good.

The Daniel Andrews I see face up to the media each day looks exhausted.

He is human.

Yet, not only does he continue to face the media pack every day, he

follows it up with patiently answering often ridiculous questions by time

wasting journalists intent on ridiculing the man no matter the answer he

provides.

Andrews' press conferences have now become marathons.

He should be commended for his patience and tolerance.

Like most, Daniel Andrews has a family too.

We should rally behind Victoria's effort to break the spine of the

increasing numbers of Covid infections.

The constant critiquing of every single decision made does not help in

the response.

It simply creates further distractions for all involved.

Victoria and New South Wales, combined, make up the majority of

Australia's economy.

Therefore, it absolutely remains in the entire nation's interest to rally

behind Victoria and offer our support.

That support should also extend to Daniel Andrews.

Who nobody can dispute, has an extremely challenging role right now.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #9 | July 18, 2020

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GREENS? What is their purpose at present? Or,

perhaps the more accurate question we need to ask is, what happened to

the debate on climate change? Some political commentators have actually

posed that question.

It has been suggested the more the global health pandemic deepens, the

more the climate change debate becomes irrelevant.

I think that is an odd conclusion to draw.

Not inaccurate.

Just odd.

Climate change doesn't just magically switch on and off like the light

switch on your wall.

If the attention span of climate change activists is indeed so short that

the moment a health crisis grips the world they immediately forget about

climate change - that being the survival of humans and the planet - then

we must question not only their loyalty but also whether they genuinely

believe that climate change is real.

I don't wish to throw fuel to the flames on any debate.

I've said all along there is in fact nothing to debate.

Climate change is real, we know that.

It shouldn't be a question of whether climate change is real, rather a

push for what exactly we are going to do as a response to climate change.

The Greens are increasingly looking like a lost cause.

The unnamed political commentators I cite believe the global health

pandemic has blurred the political focus of The Greens.

It's true, it may have had some effect.

But I believe any negative effect that has come specifically as the

result of the pandemic to be minimal.

In fact, I believe the blurring of the political focus of The Greens

started before the Coronavirus pandemic unfolded, in the West.

The mood shifted among The Greens immediately following the announcement

by Richard Di Natale that he would resign as leader of the Australian

Greens and depart from Federal Politics.

That announcement was in the very early days of February 2020 and it was

sudden.

Speculation was immediate that Adam Bandt would be the successor to Di

Natale.

This was an obvious choice and was called by many political commentators

before the due process carried through to make it official.

I don't know much about Bandt.

I really don't.

So my comments based on my own observations hold limited credibility.

Still, from what I can see, Bandt's charisma fails to emulate that of Di

Natale.

Despite nasty political games that play out in the public eye and under

the roof of the Australian Senate by those on the opposite sides, Di

Natale was respected by many.

Including those within The Greens.

He was able to bring a sense of confidence to the Party.

Under his leadership, The Greens did fail to foster anywhere near the

targeted 20% chunk of Australian voters which was sought.

But it did find relative stability from its 12-13% support base, which

was regularly illustrated by political polls published by Australia's

leading news mastheads.

To the best of my knowledge, under the still fresh leadership of Bandt,

The Greens have retained their 12% support base.

But I'd need to check the latest polls to confirm that claim.

There are three things which The Greens need to pay attention to.

Two of the three require immediate attention, I believe.

First, The Greens must rediscover their base by redefining their

principles.

Are they a political party solely focused on climate change and

environmental issues, or a party seeking to broaden their policy base to

attract more mainstream voter support? Second, The Greens must push their

leader to be more public.

Adam Bandt was placed into the position as leader of the Australian

Greens and there has been no disputing the attainment of the position.

But he must place his face in the public eye, with confidence and with a

new party direction.

His public acceptance without the usual Green-fury expressed by so many

can only be achieved if he can successfully complement his public image

with the first issue I raise.

By letting the Australian people know what The Greens stand for, now, and

how they intend to adapt the Party to a very altered political landscape.

These two issues are urgent, in my view.

Lastly, The Greens must learn to compromise on policy.

That is not to direct any criticism on any specific current policy of The

Greens, but if they are to ever broaden their policy scope to foster more

mainstream support and grab the attention of voters of the two major

parties, then they must compromise and loosen their stranglehold of their

current strict and unrealistic policies.

There is an unfair stereotype which is usually associated with Green

politics.

They must shake this stereotype that consists of tree hugging hippies and

vegetarians who don't at all understand politics.

To be content with such an assertion, as The Greens seem to be, is both

unfair on the Party's members and plain unacceptable.

The Greens, as a political movement, is so much more.

Yet it can be so much more, still, than what it is.

I've witnessed firsthand on the ground what occurs within the Party, at

the branch level.

It ain't pretty.

It's dysfunctional, messy and lies are accepted as truth without question

or scrutiny.

This rubbish hurts the Party and it has to stop.

Under the right leader, one that has confidence and grit, all these

problems can be resolved.

The Greens have become so blind to their faults they simply do not accept

there are obvious problems.

Problems present not only with how the Party functions at the branch

level, but how Green politics is digested by the Australian voter.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #9 | July 8, 2020

IF YOU'RE STRUGGLING EVEN JUST a little bit with 2020, you better strap

yourself in becausewe're only half way through as all indications point

towards things most likely getting worse.Every Prime Minister throughout

Australia's young history has had a unique set of challenges whichhas

defined their leadership.

Success or failure is often difficult to determine at a time a

leader'sskills are being tested.

Instead, it's left to history books to define success or failure.

While thisall remains true, it's fair to say that the current Prime

Minister, Scott Morrison, has probablyhad more challenges placed before

him than what most would expect during their tenure as Prime Ministerof

Australia.

I'm not the biggest supporter of Morrison, but I'm also not a hater.

I'm at times very criticalof his decisions.

I make no apologies for my 'hard to please' attitude towards our nation's

leader.

In fact, it often concerns me that there is simply way too many 'yes men

and women' among societywhich fail to critique as hard as I do.

Complacency is just one benefit of democracy.

However it shouldnever be taken for granted because as I have stated on

many occasions previously, complacency also has the potential to grow

democracy mould.

I certainly don't make any specific claim that Morrison is engaging in

acts which are directly eroding our democracy.

Not in this particular column anyway.

So, how do I think Morrison is performing as Prime Minister under

difficult, complex and often tense circumstances? To provide an answer to

that question, generally, we need to handpick a few issues to base an

answer.

A few come to mind - global Covid-19 pandemic, state of the economy,

State flame wars and border closures, ongoing cyberattacks from China,

China's takeover of Hong Kong, potential banning of the TikTok social

media app, plus more.

There's lots to consider, really.

Before I make any applied judgement of Morrison, I think it's important

to take a moment to consider how any regular person would respond to all

of these domestic and international issues.

For most, it would be enough to surrender to the powers at be, pack a bag

and walk out of The Lodge.

Morrison however, has kept his cool and continues to make decisions with

what I'd consider a pretty level-head.

But here's the thing, and this throws back to what I said before, we are

only just realizing the negative effects of the Government's response to

the bushfire crisis 6 months ago.

There was some praise for the Government's response at the time, yet as

time has clocked over, things have not been so friendly to the Government

and Morrison on this issue.

Morrison has been the subject of much blame from bushfire victims who

claim they are not getting payment entitlements.

And some communities are still wiped off the map, unable to yet rebuild

due to lack of promised Government funds.

The accuracy of the claims may be in doubt, but the broader point I make

is that decisions Morrison makes today, tomorrow, next week and even next

month, may seem appropriate and reasonable, yet it will only be after 6-

12 months has passed will we know whether Morrison's decisions were fair

judgement or just plain bad.

Morrison's performance is difficult to judge in the immediate.

But if really pressed, I'd have to say he's doing a reasonable job.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

----------

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION

Supported and endorsed by GC Media Publishing Management

Editorial Process Review Committee

(Partial) Review of Editorial Processes and Media Sources

2020 #1

Released June 28, 2020

Published June 29, 2020

----------

Contents

----------

Part 1 - Scope

Part 2 - Review Process

Part 3 - Media Sources

Part 4 - Review Notes

Part 5 - Committee Observations

Part 6 - Committee Conclusion

Part 7 - Conclusion Summary

Part 8 - Further Notes

----------

Part 1, Scope

----------

The partial review focused on two specific media sources:

* The Guardian

* China Daily

The two specific media sources were predetermined by the Editorial

Process Review Committee prior to the establishment of the partial

review.

No other media sources have been observed or assessed for the duration of

the partial review.

----------

Part 2, Review Process

----------

The establishment and conducting of the partial review was supported and

endorsed by GC Media Publishing Management.

Support and endorsement is limited to that only.

GC Media Publishing Management had no influence or any other involvement

in the conducting of the partial review.

The process of the partial review was the responsibility of the Freedom

Publishers Union Editorial Process Review Committee (otherwise referred

to as "the Committee"), consisting of:

* Chris McGimpsey-Jones (Committee Chairman)

* Brett Brennan

* Amit Gautam

All members of the Committee hold additional roles within the Freedom

Publishers Union organization.

It was the responsibility of the Committee Chairman to ensure all

responsibilities associated with the assigned role as a member of the

Committee was treated independent, at all times, of regular roles held

within Freedom Publishers Union.

The Editorial Process Review Committee was established as a temporary

body, within Freedom Publishers Union, to be assigned specifically to

tasks of observing, assessing and reporting on designated activities

related to the editorial processes of the Freedom Publishers Union

organization and all its related publishing partners.

The Editorial Process Review Committee is to be dissolved only after the

completion and conclusion of all outstanding tasks designated to the

Committee.

The (this) partial review is limited to its Scope only and has not

explored, observed or assessed any editorial process(es) outside of its

defined Scope.

All its details and information are to be considered partial, yet

complete, as defined by its Scope.

----------

Part 3, Media Sources

----------

[1-3a] The Guardian - "Independence matters.

It means that we can pursue a story without fear of where it might take

us.

We can expose corruption or foul play wherever we find it.

No shareholders, advertisers or billionaire owners can tell us to censor,

edit or drop a story.

Our unique ownership structure ensures this.

The Scott Trust, set up in 1936, is our sole shareholder, safeguarding

our financial and editorial independence, and liberal values, in

perpetuity.

All profits of the organization are re-invested in journalism and the

constitution of The Scott Trust Limited contains provisions to ensure

that no shareholder can benefit financially.".

-- Notes by the Committee;

Freedom Publishers Union's concerns about The Guardian are

explicitly related to the accuracy of information in their reporting, as

Freedom Publishers Union editorial processes detected publication detail

inaccuracies across multiple topics and on multiple occasions.

[2-3b] China Daily - "China Daily, established in 1981 as the national

English-language newspaper, has developed into a multi-media information

platform combining newspapers, websites and apps with a strong presence

on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo and WeChat.

It serves more than 200 million readers all over the world and is a

default choice for people who read about China in English.

The group play an important role as a channel for information exchanges

between China and the rest of the world.".

-- Notes by the Committee;

Freedom Publishers Union's concerns about China Daily are related

to the accuracy and credibility of the information in their reporting.

Additional concerns about China Daily are related to publication bias

which could be considered to be beyond reasonable and not reflective of

normal industry standards.

[1-3a] Source, The Guardian website.

www.theguardian.com

[2-3b] Source, China Daily website.

www.chinadaily.com.cn

----------

Part 4, Review Notes

----------

Prior to the establishment of the partial review, multiple concerns over

the quality and accuracy of the information and data published,

collectively, by The Guardian and China Daily had been raised by staff

members of Freedom Publishers Union.

Following initial brief assessment of the concerns, it was concluded that

the concerns were to be considered serious and there was potential for

the concerns to affect the quality and accuracy of publications by

Freedom Publishers Union and/or its related publishing partners, due to

current editorial processes associated with The Guardian and China Daily

relying on the in-house 5-tier ranking system which determines a rating

of 1-5, according to fact, accuracy and reliability of publications from

the media source(s).

As a result of the seriousness of the concerns and potential negative

implications that could arise, it was concluded by the Business Principal

of Freedom Publishers Union, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, that a partial review

focused specifically on the media sources that were the focus of the

concerns raised, would be the best solution to resolve the matter.

----------

Part 5, Committee Observations

----------

Following participation of the partial review, Chris McGimpsey-Jones

concluded that both The Guardian and China Daily should be removed from

the Freedom Publishers Union list of trusted sources.

Additionally, he concluded that a reduction in rank rating for both of

the media sources would be insufficient to resolve the concerns raised,

hence concluded removal as a necessary step.

Upon participation of the partial review, Brett Brennan concluded that

both The Guardian and China Daily should remain on the Freedom Publishers

Union list of trusted sources, suggesting that each media source offers a

different perspective on issues.

Additionally, Brett Brennan noted that both of the media sources are

known [throughout the industry] for "telling mistruths" with their

explanations/interpretations, which is often misrepresented as "Fact"

instead of "Opinion".

Further observations by Brett Brennan prompted the suggestion that

Freedom Publishers Union could benefit from reforming and expanding its

current 5-tier ranking system, primarily to accommodate the adoption and

implementation of a second rating indicator to identify;

* How accurate and detailed the reporting of the data is, by the media

source;

* How much bias/distortion is added into the interpretation of the data,

by the media source.

Brett Brennan noted that both The Guardian and China Daily are good in

their base data, however, both are equally prone to bias their

interpretation with their ideological and political policy, respectively.

It is suggested that Freedom Publishers Union could use this to the

organization's advantage to check the veracity of the facts with multiple

media sources.

Furthermore, the latter is needed to cross-check bias in sources that

Freedom Publishers Union accept as low-bias.

Upon participation of the partial review, Amit Gautam concluded that both

The Guardian and China Daily should remain on the Freedom Publishers

Union list of trusted sources.

Amit Gautam also agreed that both The Guardian and China Daily offer a

different perspective, through their bias.

This reiterated the importance of Freedom Publishers Union taking

advantage of the difference in perspective when using The Guardian and

China Daily as media sources or any other point of reference.

The conclusion by Amit Gautam reflects the same conclusion of Brett

Brennan.

Combined, the two conclusions overrule that of the counter-conclusion of

Chris McGimpsey-Jones and enabled the free path to an overall conclusion

by the Committee.

----------

Part 6, Committee Conclusion

----------

Limited third-party observations, analysis and opinions, combined with

additional facts that were compiled for the purpose of assisting the

Editorial Process Review Committee for the duration of the partial review

contributed by assisting the Committee to form a conclusion.

It is the conclusion of Freedom Publishers Union Editorial Process Review

Committee that both The Guardian and China Daily have significant and

present problems with the quality and accuracy of the information and

data reporting and published by the mastheads.

The problems the Committee identified are present, ongoing and deeply

concerning.

It must be acknowledged that the problems identified cannot be resolved

by Freedom Publishers Union.

The Committee concluded that despite the problems identified, both The

Guardian and China Daily should remain on the list of trusted sources for

Freedom Publishers Union with a reduced rating on the in-house 5-tier

ranking system which is better reflective of their operations, as

identified by the Committee.

The Committee has placed The Guardian and China Daily on "Review

Probation".

This will effectively place both of the aforementioned media sources 'on

notice', with the Editorial Process Review Committee placing specific

closer emphasis and attention to the two sources, above all other trusted

media sources of Freedom Publishers Union.

There has been no specified duration, time-frame or time of expiration

agreed which outlines the Committee's commitment to continued priority

observation of The Guardian and China Daily.

Instead, it has been decided by the Committee if either of the

aforementioned media sources is to be identified as failing in their

media responsibilities of ensuring quality and accuracy of the

information and data reported and published, then the Committee, or any

other non-Committee staff member associated with Freedom Publishers

Union, will formally request the specific media source is removed from

the list of trusted sources for Freedom Publishers Union without any

further review by the Editorial Process Review Committee.

----------

Part 7, Conclusion Summary

----------

* The Guardian and China Daily will remain on list of trusted sources.

* The Guardian and China Daily will have a reduced rating on in-house 5-

tier ranking system.

* The Guardian and China Daily have been placed on "Review Probation".

* Further failures of media responsibilities (ensuring quality and

accuracy) by The Guardian or China Daily may result in immediate removal

from list of trusted sources.

----------

Part 8, Further Notes

----------

During the compilation of the partial review, similar concerns of those

related to The Guardian and China Daily were raised to Freedom Publishers

Union, specifically related to the media source RT (sometimes referred to

as RT News or Russia Today).

A basic assessment of the feasibility of including RT into this partial

review concluded that it was not possible, due to limited resources and

already strained time constraints.

As the concerns raised about RT were assessed as deserving of further

attention and cannot be dismissed, Freedom Publishers Union has concluded

that RT will be subjected to a similar partial review to be conducted by

the Editorial Process Review Committee at a later date which is yet to be

determined.

----------

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 8, 2020 | [ANALYSIS] As the World Ignores India

Suffering from Covid-19 Pandemic, Concerns Raised Over State of Democracy

FOR TOO LONG THE WORLD has been near forced to listen to the political

rhetoric coming out of communist China, as mainstream Western media has

saturated their reporting with China related news.

China continues to execute its intent to shroud the true origins of the

Coronavirus in secrecy, continues to force Hong Kong into submission by

applied political pressures, while simultaneously threatening the

independence of Taiwan.

While the actions of China are important and require mainstream media

attention, it should not be saturated and wash out reporting on other

important issues.

An extremely dire situation has been developing in India, but has been

largely ignored by the mainstream media, partocularly in the West.

While China was keeping the world engaged with its rhetoric and political

intimidation, the mainstream media appeared to simply be unable to look

any other direction.

Then came the murder of George Floyd - a black man - by a police officer

- a white man.

Since, the US has been engulfed in a state of domestic democracy

turbulence with the civil unrest which continues to deepen.

The US has now entered a stage of unpredictability and uncertainty.

This has now grabbed the attention of mainstream Western media and

resulted in a great reduction of the saturated China reporting, to be

replaced with a saturation of the US civil unrest.

Yet still, the world appears oblivious to the dire situation that has

continued to engulf India.

According to information provided by sources in India, independently

verified for Freedom Publishers Union, many villages and slums have been

faced with many problems which have gone underreported, associated with

the Covid-19 pandemic.

Social distancing requirements are still in effect, yet India's

population density in many severely affected regions make following

social distancing requirements extremely difficult to follow.

In many cases, impossible.

Sources have confirmed to Freedom Publishers Union that the Indian

Government has attempted to place restrictions on passenger limits on

public transport - buses and trains - supposedly by 50%, yet buses are

still operating with near full capacity and in some cases there is

varying levels of overcrowding returning, which India has become so well

known for globally.

All branches of India's delicate medical system and hospitals continue to

be stress tested.

Hospitals have just simply been unable to keep up with patient demand due

to increasing infection rates of Covid-19.

With only sub-standard medical services available in India at best,

medical personnel are increasing being placed at greater risk while

treating patients.

Police officers and other government officials working among the public

continue to face increased risk of infection too.

Even journalists and photographers who continue to capture and report on

the situation in India continue to expose themselves to greater risk.

Data published on June 5, 2020, by The Wall Street Journal states a total

of 226,770 confirmed cases of Covid-19 infection and a total of 6,348

fatalities.

Freedom Publishers Union warns the data has not been independently

verified and multiple media reports claim that experts have indicated

that India's official Covid-19 statistics are greatly understated in

published numbers, due to differences and confusion of reporting

standards.

Many Indian citizens who reside in the cities and other busy centers have

chosen to leave and have been faced with the challenge of long distance

travel with limited transport options.

Some citizens are faced with a journey of many hundreds of miles.

Many citizens are traveling vast distances across the country due to loss

of employment, as the downturn in employment and economic activity hits

hard.

One source verified for Freedom Publishers Union tells of scenes that are

upsetting and disturbing.

The source describes one scene of a mother placing her child on top of a

suitcase to walk long distance.

In another scene a father carries two small children on his shoulders and

walking.

Many Indian citizens are extremely critical of the Indian Government's

response to the Covid-19 pandemic, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Multiple sources who contributed to the verification of some of the

details for this editorial, yet wish to remain anonymous for fear of

local retribution, described their frustrations to Freedom Publishers

Union.

In one such case, disappointment was expressed of the fact that the

Indian Government was "flying in international citizens on aircraft and

sending rockets up into space", yet were not providing train services to

Indian citizens.

This has resulted in so many being forced to find their own way, often by

foot.

Sources also tell of frustrations at the Indian Government for not

providing even the "most basic of services needed" for the Indian

citizens.

India is the second most populated country in the world.

According to an average figure calculated by Freedom Publishers Union

using three sources, the estimated total population of India is 1.37

billion.

Sources claim India's food prices have also increased drastically.

Market stalls continue to operate with insufficient health safety

precautions and social distancing rules largely being ignored.

This is especially so in some of the most dense locations where market

stalls are operating.

With food prices increasing and companies downsizing, it's a common trend

we've witnessed in many of the worst affected countries suffering from

the Covid-19 pandemic that have insufficient government resources to

cope.

Despite India being portrayed on the global stage as a free loving

liberal democracy, there is increasing concern among many Indian citizens

that their country is beginning to lose their freedoms.

According to concerns expressed to Freedom Publishers Union by multiple

sources, India is slowly shifting towards an authoritarian model, while

still claiming to be a democracy.

There is a genuine feel inside India of deep political division which

being driven by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, combined with increasing

religious tension which was the cause of the country's February riots in

the capital, Delhi.

Reports following the riots confirmed 53 people died.

On May 4, 2020, Freedom Publishers Union received concerning information

from one trusted source which described a riot in the nation's capital,

where they believed that more than 100 people had been killed.

As we understand, these specific riots do not appear to have been

reported in any detail by any trusted media sources, therefore Freedom

Publishers Union cannot verify the information we received with

confidence.

What does concern us though, is the fact these specific May riots were

not reported by the media, as assessed by us.

This provides indication that the Indian Government is controlling and

influencing what gets published, most likely to distort how the nation is

politically presented on the global stage.

Narendra Modi would certainly would not want any media reports published

which tarnish the democratic image of India.

This, despite increasing evidence that India is making a gradual shift in

the opposite direction to democracy.

India's mandatory contact tracing app for smartphones is also driving

mild paranoia inside India.

The app, called "Aarogya Setu", is conditionally mandatory and functions

similar to other contact tracing apps which are now being used by many

countries around the world to assist in the response to the Covid-19

pandemic.

Contact tracing apps, which rely on the bluetooth and GPS technology of

the smartphone, make the reverse process of contact tracing easier for

health officials.

The installation and usage of contact tracing apps has been a major

driver of privacy concerns all over the world, not just India.

Freedom Publishers Union recently offered support to Australia's own

contact tracing app, "COVIDSafe", under specific conditions.

We only offered our support if the source code of "COVIDSafe" was made

available in the public domain and installation was non-mandatory.

Both of these conditions were met by the Australian Government, therefore

it received the support of Freedom Publishers Union.

In the case of conditional mandatory installation of contact tracing

apps, like India's "Aarogya Setu", Freedom Publishers Union cannot offer

any universal support, primarily due to serious privacy concerns

presented to Freedom Publishers Union by security experts in India.

We feel, the privacy concerns expressed to us are valid and have not yet

been sufficiently addressed by the developers of "Aarogya Setu".

Freedom Publishers Union understands that the installation of "Aarogya

Setu" is mandatory, under specific conditions, yet we are currently

unaware of any department within, or associated with, the Indian

Government which is performing checks for verification of installation

where required.

We commend the actions of making "Aarogya Setu" open-source, with the

source code being made available on the popular GitHub developer

platform.

As with much of the information provided to Freedom Publishers Union by

our verified sources in India, the security experts that expressed

concerns over the privacy issues of "Aarogya Setu" asked to remain

anonymous, for fear of reprisal by the Indian Government which could

result in having their activities restricted.

Sources have accused the Indian Government of shutting down opposing

voices using the "Unlawful Activities Prevention Act", or UAPA.

There are sensational claims the UAPA is being used to silence university

students who express opposition to government actions, with the threat of

being labeled an "Enemy of the State" and jailed.

No specific case is cited by Freedom Publishers Union, however we have no

information available that could possibly deny the suggestion that the

UAPA is being used as a means of Government intimidation to silence

civilian opposition.

If this is the case and the claims can be verified, it would be extremely

concerning and would provide credible evidence of the erosion of India's

democracy.

Freedom Publishers Union has performed extensive research and fact

checking during the compiling of this editorial, using our trusted

sources, outside sources and independently verified sources.

During the process, it became more evident that credible information

coming directly out of India is fast becoming increasingly difficult to

source, as it is equally as difficult to verify with the high degree of

confidence required for publication by Freedom Publishers Union.

This gives even further merit to the suggestion that India's democracy is

waning.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center/FPUorg

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #8 | June 6, 2020

I'M LOST AND CONFUSED WHEN I think about Australian politics right now.

I have lost confidence in the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.

I have lost confidence in the Coalition.

I have lost confidence in the Opposition.

And The Greens, well, best not to think of them right now.

As a supporter of the latter I fight with my inner demons and continue to

ask myself is it worth supporting a party in such a mess? The Greens are

damaged goods and are beginning to look like there's not much left to

salvage.

When anybody loses confidence in the two major parties and the third

option is not exactly considered to be a viable alternative, the nation

has big problems.

Voters losing confidence in the major parties can be serious and risky.

When anybody loses that much confidence, they begin to seek out some kind

of political association and understanding with populist parties which

offer alternate policies as their platform.

But sometimes the alternate can be outright dangerous.

That's really how populist parties function though.

They prey on frustrated voters who have lost that confidence in

traditional political perspective.

They don't waste time and will not hesitate to pounce in dirty fashion

when they see the opportunity.

They do it because it works for them, not because it works for voters.

Generally, you could consider me a supporter of The Greens.

Yet my natural political impulses lean towards the liberal right.

They always have and most likely always will.

That's just fact.

I'm constantly asking myself why I continue to support The Greens when I

am actually a Liberal.

Well, it's a combination of many different problems which are currently

keeping me from voting for the Liberal Party of Australia.

Despite my present voting reservations which favor The Greens, I do

support liberal political principles.

Which is precisely why the current state of the Liberal Party of

Australia irks me so much.

It's not how it should be.

Some day I would hope The Greens shift a little more to the right to

foster some form of party balance.

Not likely, I know.

The current policy direction of the Liberal Party under leader Scott

Morrison is a mess.

Was it better under Tony Abbott? No.

Was it better under Malcolm Turnbull? It could have been.

JobSeeker is simply a refresh of the old Newstart Allowance, with an

increased level of payment.

The increase came as a response to the Coronavirus pandemic and was only

intended to be a temporary increase.

There is no debate required - the increase must be made permanent.

The original basic amount of Newstart Allowance is absolutely

unacceptable and if reinstated, will become a driver of poverty, not a

safety net.

JobKeeper was conceived as a quick hash job with a goal of keeping people

employed throughout the pandemic, avoiding mass unemployment.

It's still too early to pull any data to see how effective JobKeeper has

been, but it is expensive.

That much we do know.

It must be phased out.

Workers that still have legitimate employment can be returned to being

paid by their employer.

Those that have genuinely lost employment can be transitioned onto

JobSeeker at the current increased amount.

I have been critical from the very first snippet of detail I read about

the HomeBuilder policy.

I truly believe it to be the worst policy the Liberal Party of Australia

has developed in the past two decades.

HomeBuilder will do zero to boost a post-pandemic economy.

Tradies are not facing any realistic prospects of mass unemployment.

Unlike those working in society's slave jobs of retail and waitressing.

HomeBuilder is political spin and an attempt to attract Labor voters.

Then, combine that with the trade union and multiples of other useless

committees commissioned by the Coalition, and you have one enticing

looking Labor tea party.

If you need further evidence of Labor voter smooching, consider the

Government bringing in the parasite of Australian politics, Sally

McManus.

Nothing Morrison is doing, post-pandemic, will help those who are so

desperately in need of a Liberal-led Government that embraces liberal

principles.

Instead, we see policies such as HomeBuilder, confirm the shift into

illiberal territory.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 3, 2020 | [ANALYSIS] Media Outlets Have a

Responsibility to Counter Misinformation and Mistruths

WE'VE NOW ENTERED AN ERA where digital media is king.

Technology used to access digital media has transformed the way consumers

read and access news content and public interest information.

This has become indisputably evident from the restructuring recently

announced by News Corp, to some strong criticism in Australia, which will

see some mastheads drop their traditional print editions and transform to

a digital-only access model.

Some mastheads will close entirely.

Also, many News Corp and contract staff from all levels may lose

employment as a direct result of the restructure, which is reflective of

a wider media transition which has occured throughout the entire

industry.

We can no longer deny the fact that so little few consumers purchase

paper copies of the newspapers.

Instead, iPads, tablets and cell phones have transformed news and are now

the preferred method of access.

Freedom Publishers Union has itself transformed into a subscription-only

access model, as part of the LinkNet digital distribution platform.

We have always embraced the industry-wide digital transition and see no

justification to embrace anything that aims to delay the inevitability,

being that almost every news masthead will need to adopt some form of

digital access model to remain relevant, competitive and financially

sustainable.

Whether it be an access model consisting of a soft paywall, hard paywall

or limited free access, will largely depend on the business model and

fiscal health of the publishers.

Reduced staff numbers are always difficult to accept and the constant

reduction in numbers across the entire media industry is at times

distressing.

Australia enjoys a relatively free and open press.

However, it does not make it immune to suffering from the same temptation

of publishing misinformation and mistruths as that of international media

outlets.

While many countries around the world have control over their media, by

employing varying tactics to force publication of propaganda which places

favorable government content as the utmost importance - notably China and

Russia - Western democracies have largely avoided such tight attempts at

controlling the flow of the free press with interference attempts

remaining minimal overall.

Internal observations of current media trends carried out by Freedom

Publishers Union suggests credibility of trusted news sources is waning.

This reiterates the important of independent publishers, which not only

offer independent perspectives on a range of important global issues, but

remain largely free from bias, outside influence or intervention.

The increasing presence of misinformation has become even more obvious

since the emergence of Covid-19, as media outlets have shamedly taken

advantage of the frequently changing nature of Covid-19 related

information and using it as a launchpad for deliberate manipulation of

the facts to reframe the context to fit a particular agenda.

This frequently changing nature of Covid-19 related information has

fueled debate among a small selection of political commentators in

Australia about what precisely is causing the deaths of those that have

been fallen victim to Covid-19 infection.

For example, it is often asked whether the death is the direct result of

the infection of the virus, a preexisting medical condition or other

unspecified medical complications the victim may have suffered.

These are actually difficult questions to answer definitively and with

confidence.

Especially for those journalists reporting on Covid-19 infection cases

where they have no medical expertise to guide the narrative.

Influencial right-wing political commentator on Australia's Sky News

channel, Andrew Bolt, shared his opinion.

On his Sky News program The Bolt Report, he says he has become

"suspicious" of the information being published in the media on Covid-19.

Bolt believes many of the reports are "exaggerations" delivered to drive

panic.

Once panic is instilled, it is then used as justification to the

sometimes questionable restrictions placed upon citizens during various

phases of lockdowns the country has experienced.

Bolt clarifies he is "not denying the virus is dangerous", yet believes

much of the information published in the media is exaggerated and has

turned out to be "untrue", in Australia at least.

Freedom Publishers Union does not seek to amplify, condone or accommodate

the same precise opinions shared by Bolt.

We simply use it as an example of direct manipulation of the

aforementioned frequently changing nature of Covid-19 related information

to suit the narrative.

In this particular case, the narrative of The Bolt Report program.

We understand the program is no stranger to drawing regular controversy,

as does its host.

The comments clearly divide opinion as one Bolt supporter confessed to

Freedom Publishers Union, "Bolt's assessment of the media handling of

Covid-19 related information was spot on".

A counter opinion expressed to us by a resident in the United States of

America who had no former recognition of Bolt or his Sky News program,

offering a highly charged response claiming, "These are exactly the

arguments given by Coronavirus 'truthers' here in America".

They continued to refer to the comments of Bolt as "conspiracy theory

material" or a form of "Covid-19 denial".

Scientific data and evidence almost always changes over time.

Cases of Covid-19 infections are no different.

Therefore, media outlets and their journalists have an inherent

responsibility to adapt to the fast-paced frequency of such change that

we've seen related to Covid-19.

But as mentioned before, often news stories are written by journalists

who have no medical expertise, presenting a very real risk of

misinformation or mistruth, probably unintentionally.

But as the Bolt example indicates, the misinformation is in some cases

intentional.

As more cases of Covid-19 have been identified, the mechanisms of the

infection have become more clearly understood and treatments that could

help the body stay alive have been identified.

The data medical scientists now have access to is incredible and

certainly much better than during the initial stages of the pandemic.

In the early stages, respirators were going to be needed.

That was a fact drawn from the relevant information that was available at

that time.

It is these same facts that were also being reported by the media, that

commentators like Bolt have decided to hand pick to be used as ammunition

for their deliberate spreading of misinformation, while claiming their

hand picked and outdated facts are actually the misinformation.

It was never suggested by those in the medical profession that

respirators were a cure for Covid-19, as so many in the media continue to

misunderstand.

The misinformation published about respirators has caused significant

confusion and anxiety among innocent citizens who are simply trying to

understand the situation based on the information they are presented by

the media, which they trust.

Initial projections provided indications that many respirators would be

needed as Covid-19 infections were overwhelming the limited capability of

hospitals.

This resulted in a push for more respirators to be made available, as a

priority, as it was just one tool that could be used to keep victims

alive.

Because "Flatten the Curve" campaigns worked quite well - particularly in

Australia - the number of respirators actually needed was no longer so

critical outide of the few global infection epicenters, like Wuhan and

New York City.

Methods of social distancing and isolation assisted in the reduction of

infections too.

As medical studies and testing continue to produce much welcome data

about Covid-19 and how it spreads, the critical respirator shortage that

was initially predicted has been largely avoided.

Covid-19 misinformation and mistruths have also revived and fueled the

global "anti-vaxx" movement.

Central to what is fueling the minds of and providing motivation to the

anti-vaxxer cause is the speed of attempts to develop a vaccine for

Covid-19.

The speed the vaccines are being developed is stunning, yet worrying.

Past SARS and MERS pandemics are still yet to benefit from any vaccine

and it is very possible that a vaccine for Covid-19 may also never

eventuate, despite the speed of development and positive early data being

produced.

Freedom Publishers Union remains neutral on the issue of pro/choice/anti

vaccination.

However, we urge that all and any information published about vaccines

should be factually correct and preferably sourced only from peer

reviewed material which has been assessed by the scientific community.

Any deliberate attempt(s) to otherwise present deliberate mistruths to

persuade citizens to adopt a specific position should be considered

reckless.

Freedom Publishers Union encourages media diversity through editorial and

opinion.

Unfortunately, with the industry embrace of digital access models comes

the temptation and prevalence for increased publication of misinformation

and mistruths.

This could be due to the obvious fact that digital information can be so

easily manipulated, compared to information that has been printed on

paper.

Still, we must not let this be a deterrent for embracing digital access

models.

Part of the problem is the 'publish first' mentality which has infected

the media industry.

Media outlets must take control and adopt a more disciplined publishing

model to counter the silly mentality.

They need to direct more time and resources on improving their editorial

processes to ensure publishing of misinformation and mistruths is

eliminated.

Freedom Publishers Union is certainly not advocating for any immediate

halt to the 24/7 global news cycle.

Instead, it is up to world's leading media outlets, in which citizens

place their trust, to lead and counter misinformation instead of offering

a platform which encourages deliberate manipulation of data and

information.

Freedom Publishers Union has spent much time and resources into adapting

our editorial processes to focus squarely on quality and accuracy.

Our strict processes ensure that editorials we do publish stand up to our

editorial principles of remaining precise and accurate.

This has placed Freedom Publishers Union into a niche market and limits

us to the independent media ecosystem.

These market limitations have financially crippled our business model,

yet we are extremely proud and believe our editorial processes are world-

leading.

They are some of the most disciplined across the entire media ecosystem

of both commercial and independent sectors.

If more media outlets followed our strict example, the media industry and

consumers of news would be much better off and there would be much more

accurate information being published by all publishers, and not just a

few.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #8 | May 27, 2020

POLITICS CAN BE STINKY BUSINESS.

At its very stinkiest, you'd be forgiven for assuming it was rotten at

its core.

Some would argue it is just that.

Yet strangely, despite the eternal stench, recent polling seems to

suggest that Australian citizens continue to be attracted to the smell.

If that were not curious enough, the same polls also suggest an

attraction to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, in the form of

relatively encouraging satisfaction ratings based on his recent

performance during the Covid-19 crisis, a crisis ongoing.

The continuing positive attraction to politics, generally, is undoubtedly

being enjoyed by the Federal and State Governments which are made up of a

combination of Liberal and Labor party branches, and comes at a time when

the wheels of the National Cabinet appear to have not just loosened, but

fallen off in transit.

What's worse, nobody in Canberra appears to know precisely where they

fell off or at what point the return to traditional party politics got so

bitter.

An expected return, nevertheless.

The difference in political dialog now, is stark in contrast to just 6-8

weeks ago when the National Cabinet appeared to be the platform which had

been successful in uniting the Federal and State Governments, allowing

ideological differences to be set aside to achieve a common agenda.

Any success was short-lived.

Australia is now at increasing odds with China - on the origins of the

Coronavirus and trade.

The tensions have now developed into one of the most sensitive political

issues Australia has had to contend with, probably since World War II.

The Australia-China tensions are complicated and really stem from China's

obvious dissatisfaction with Australia's continued push for an

independent inquiry into the origins of the Coronavirus.

Being careful to avoid the Wuhan lab creation theory, which has been

suggested on multiple occasions by US President Donald Trump, Australia

has been consistent in its push for an inquiry in which Morrison says

should include powers equivalent of those of the United Nations weapons

inspectors.

China has appeared to reluctantly agree with an inquiry into the response

of the Coronavirus, but will not take even a whiff of any suggestion of

inspectors running around, probing freely, within the country's borders.

China is all about control, afterall.

Although it has agreed to a limited inquiry to assess its response to the

Coronavirus outbreak, I remain skeptical of any credible inquiry coming

to fruition that could be recognized by the international community as

legitimate.

While Morrison continues to lead Australia into a new type of cold war

with China, China continues to use the State of Victoria as its

international child-pawn.

The behavior demonstrated by the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, by

playing along and holding hands with China while embracing its Belt and

Road trade initiative, is polar opposite to the firm position of the

Federal Government.

The Federal Government has consistently made it crystal clear that it is

not interested in China's Belt and Road trade initiative.

Andrews knows this.

Keep in mind for a second the Government of Victoria is run by the State

arm of the Labor Party.

Remember that point.

Andrews is effectively holding the Federal Government to ransom and

causing the Prime Minister unnecessary headaches, using the power he

currently posesses by leaning on the protections enabled by State

Constitutional rights.

On matters of national security, the Labor Party usually finds itself

morally on par with the Liberal Party (when the Coalition is in

Government).

I'm not so sure the Australian Labor Party led by Anthony Albanese

embraces wholly China's Belt and Road trade initiative as much as the

Victorian Premier.

Yet, Albo has not exactly been out publicly denouncing the conduct of his

Victorian State Labor colleague either.

Honestly, if the conduct of Andrews were to be executed in a private

corporate environment, he would be sacked for misconduct of some kind,

for sure.

Yet here he is, sitting at the top of the perch of the Victorian

Government cosying up with the Chinese Communist regime and looking to

sell out the State to Chinese investment, under the poor disguise of

trade.

Somehow, I think Prime Minister Scott Morrison will have to find a way to

step in and act.

How that can be done will remain to be seen as there are State and

Federal Constitutional limitations that must be assessed, which only a

constitutional lawyer could probably interpret.

But it brings me to raise the proposition of it most likely being a case

of Andrews playing party politics and enjoying the sleepless nights he is

causing the Prime Minister and the rest of those on the right.

If you thought the political disunity couldn't fray more, consider the

New South Wales attack it has launched against Queensland over the

continued closure of its borders.

You can pick a side if you wish, but the fact is Queensland is not the

only State (or Territory) focusing on border security.

At the time of writing this column, South Australia, Western Australia,

Northern Territory and even Tasmania all have border restrictions of some

type in effect.

So why so much attention on Queensland you might wonder? Again, party

politics.

The Government of Queensland is run by the State arm of the Labor Party.

The Government of New South Wales is run by the State arm of the Liberal

Party.

Consider that Queensland citizens will be heading to the voting booths in

the last quarter of the year, Queensland Labor and the State Premier,

Annastacia Palaszczuk, is doing everything she can to retain the support

of her voter base.

And the New South Wales Liberal Party, with the natural backing of the

Federal Government, the Liberal Party of Australia, is doing evertything

possible to rattle Palaszczuk because they know that any mistep will hurt

her and the Queensland Government at the coming State election.

So far, Palaszczuk has been able to hold firm and has owned her decision

to keep Queensland closed.

How does her decision resonate with Queensland citizens? Early polling

indicated that the majority of the State's citizens supported the

continued closure of the State borders.

However, more recently, media indicators now suggest that the support is

ailing and just how much longer the borders can remain closed now appears

limited.

Otherwise, the real risk of citizen discontent creeps in as does the fear

of discontent becoming unmanageable, from a political perspective.

Eventually, the Queensland Premier must respond.

It will be the ultimate political game of chess for Palaszczuk, as the

Queensland citizens have a reputation for being unforgiving at the voting

booth.

If Palaszczuk gets the timing wrong, it will hurt her, there can be no

doubt about that.

This is precisely why the State Labor Government of New South Wales is

trying so desperately to rock the boat of its northern neighbor State, in

the hope that voter appetite will shift from Labor to Liberal before the

coming election later in the year.

Will the decision to keep Queensland closed a little longer hurt its

already crippled tourism sector? It's too early to pull any data, but

yes, I believe it will.

Which is exactly why timing is such a critical element of the decision

making process which will prompt the eventual reopening of the borders.

At the time of writing, according to Covid-19 infections data provided by

the Department of Health, Queensland has had a total of 1057 confirmed

cases, 6 deaths and 1 new case in the past 24 hours.

The same data for New South Wales details a total of 3092 confirmed

cases, 48 deaths and 2 new cases in the past 24 hours.

The Queensland State is more than twice the geographical land area of New

South Wales, yet the latter State has twice the number of Covid-19

infections and many more deaths.

Albeit, Queensland has a slightly less population count.

But still, the Department of Health data gives plentiful merit to the

argument made by Palaszczuk that keeping the Queensland borders closed is

to protect Queensland citizens from increased rates of infection from

interstate.

New Zealand says it may reopen limited international travel routes with

Australia soon.

But it claims the irony is it would still not be allowed entry into

Queensland (and the other States that also have current restrictions).

This has drawn its Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, into the nasty and

bitter war of words between the State leaders of New South Wales and

Queensland.

In my view, this does not concern Ardern or any political official from

New Zealand.

Political matters within Australia are the domestic responsibility of our

Federal and State Governments.

Ardern has no right in interfering in our domestic politics, in any

capacity, and further engagement by Arden into the debate should be

considered a serious breach of trust between Australia and New Zealand,

and should be considered political interference by Canberra.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] May 6, 2020 | Freedom Publishers Union Encourages

Australians to Install COVIDSafe Contact Tracing App, Based on Facts and

Not Misinformation

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION HAS BEEN very encouraged by the level of

enthusiasm demonstrated by Australian citizens who have decided to

download and install the contact tracing app, COVIDSafe, which has been

developed by the Australian Government, which is largely based on the

source code of Singapore's own contact tracing app, Tracetogether.

Prior to launch, there was genuine concern among the ranks of Government

that the effectiveness of COVIDSafe may be seriously compromised if not

enough citizens install COVIDSafe, due to lack of incentive to do so.

The goal to convince a minimum of 40% of Australian citizens with

smartphones to install COVIDSafe looked almost destined to fail.

On the first evening COVIDSafe was made available the app saw more than 1

million downloads, which quickly doubled over the next 12 hours.

This resulted in over 2 million downloads within the first 24 hours of

avaiilablity.

The early uptake was welcomed and has turned the once pessimistic

adoption predictions into a more positive outlook.

As we go to press the Government says COVIDSafe has now been installed on

over 4 million smartphone and is fast approaching 5 million, making

reaching the targeted 40% adoption rate appear very possible, sooner than

first thought.

Observations of societal behavioral patterns offer indications that

Australian citizens have become generally quite protective over their

privacy and will defend their privacy rights when they are presented with

any potential threat to those rights.

Freedom Publishers Union believes this to be a good thing and should not

be discouraged.

These defenses often get amplified when any possibility of threat to

privacy rights comes from a level of government.

This is apparent more so now, as polls on citizen trust in politics and

confidence of government generally indicates it to be very low.

Specifically on the privacy of the COVIDSafe, there has varying levels of

concerns expressed over its potential privacy violations.

The problem is the concerns expressed were not entirely justified as

Freedom Publishers Union has observed large amounts of misinformation

spread by almost every mainstream media network in Australia.

The misinformation becomes even more prevalent on social media platforms,

which is not surprising and not uncommon.

What is extremely concerning, is sometimes the misinformation has been

deliberate, in an attempt to align media commentary with a predefined

agenda to discourage Australians from installing COVIDSafe.

Other times, the misinformation has been unintentional and has come about

as a result of the article authors simply being unfamiliar with the

technology behind the contact tracing methods employed by TraceTogether

and COVIDSafe.

Freedom Publishers Union released a press statement on April 27, 2020,

which declared for the first time publicly, our support for the COVIDSafe

contact tracing app.

In the press statement, we outlined two key points that most influenced

our decision.

One, we believed the app must be open-source.

While Freedom Publishers Union remains confident the public will see a

partial release of the source code, it falls short of our recommendation

that the app should be completely open-source.

After internal discussion, we are making a compromise as we have

confidence in the work of the security analysts at Data61 - a data

science division of the CSIRO - who reviewed the source code of COVIDSafe

prior to its release.

Independent security analysts which have also contributed to the

assessment of the security of COVIDSafe, post release, by methods of

clever reverse engineering and debugging portions of the source code

harvested.

Despite the vastly different methods of security analysis done, both the

conclusions of Data61 and the independent security analysts has been near

unanimous in that COVIDSafe functions as intended by its design, as

outlined by the Government and has a high-level of security.

Freedom Publishers Union commends the conclusions.

Two, Freedom Publishers Union has always maintained the belief that it

must remain non-mandatory and should be installed on a voluntary basis.

On this second point, the Government made COVIDSafe available to the

public on a non-mandatory basis and is to be installed by users

voluntarily.

This was completely satisfactory with the second condition outlined by

Freedom Publishers Union for the COVIDSafe to attain or support.

Freedom Publishers Union performed our own limited internal assessment of

COVIDSafe and our own conclusion is aligned to that of the aforementioned

assessments by Data61 and independent security analysts.

Our limited internal assessment confirmed that the app does not track and

log geolocation data of users using GPS services for the purpose of

contact tracing.

COVIDSafe relies on the bluetooth technology of the smartphone to

function.

The limited function provided by the bluetooth service allows COVIDSafe

to communicate with other devices that are also running the COVIDSafe

contact tracing app, only when the users are in close proximity for a

length of 15 minutes or more.

COVIDSafe keeps a log of contact numbers of those users that have come

into close contact with each other.

The log data is encrypted on the device and can only be decrypted by

designated Australian health officials.

The encrypted data is kept on the device for a total of 21 days, before

it is wiped and rendered inaccessible.

We also confirmed that any uploaded data will be stored within Australian

jurisdiction, using Amazon Web Services (AWS) technology.

There is some confusing information circulating that aims to discredit

Amazon (and AWS), along with incorrect claims that the data stored on AWS

servers will be defacto accessible to intelligence agencies in the United

States (US).

Freedom Publishers Union understands that although it may be technically

possible for US-based intelligence agencies to gain access to the data

from AWS servers within Australian jurisdiction, it may also be

technically unfeasible, in practice, to do so.

We also believe it would be highly unlikely to occur as there are

existing lawful data access mechanisms and processes already in place,

between the US and Australia, that could be executed should any data

access be required.

Any form of circumvention of the existing lawful methods would quickly

make access of the data unlawful.

We cannot put enough emphasis on how highly unlikely this would be to

occur.

Our internal assessment which considered the possibility of this occuring

estimated a near-zero chance of any such illegal data access occuring.

Freedom Publishers Union is confident in our declared position of support

for COVIDSafe.

We have not a single reason to doubt its intended purpose and legitimacy.

In fact, it is quite the opposite.

We have every reason to accept it for its intended purpose, and have

assessed and concluded it to be absolutely legitimate for assisting

Australian health officials in contact tracing related to Covid-19

infections.

We feel our organization is extremely well placed and qualified to make

such a confident claim of support for COVIDSafe.

Our staff are professionals in various fields of technology, programming,

computer science and computer security analysis.

Additionally, we have an in-house professional data scientist based in

the US, and a member of the Advisory Board who is also a professional

data scientist, based in India.

Our combined expertise and skills have all been placed together for our

assessments of the security of the COVIDSafe contact tracing app, with

unanimous agreement of the integrity of the high-level of security of the

app.

Freedom Publishers Union urges any Australian citizen considering not

installing COVIDSafe to reconsider their decision.

We reiterate our commitment to supporting its non-mandatory status and

remind that it should only be installed on a voluntary basis.

However, we continue to urge that any decision made should be made with

complete understanding of the facts presented in the public domain from

professionals who not only understand the technology, but can pull it

apart and make an assessment based on raw data put together from their

examinations and observations of COVIDSafe.

We would like to make an additional important and crucial point, that

citizens must understand that there is already indiscriminate and hidden

tracking performed on a device absent of the installation of the

COVIDSafe contact tracing app, by generic apps.

These generic apps are used on a daily basis by hundreds of millions of

people around the world who casually continue to ignore the privacy

implications and stuttered track records these apps have when it comes to

the issue of respecting the privacy of the user and their data.

Refusal to install COVIDSafe must be a conciencious decision based on the

facts.

Not an uninformed opinion where the data and industry expert opinion

proves wrong.

If you trust the Australian Government, which has been democratically

elected, by the people, then your expectation is 'do no harm' to the best

of the Government's ability.

If you do not trust them, then all the checks and balances, and legal

protections that are to be implemented are not going to matter because

your expectation is for malfeasance first.

-----

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] April 21, 2020 | [ANALYSIS] Revelation of Identity of

Julian Assange's Partner and Children, Combined with Ongoing Health

Concerns and Covid-19, Complicate Renewed Calls for His Release and

Dropping of Charges

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION CONTINUE TO express extreme concern over the

immediate health and wellbeing of Wikileaks Founder and Publisher, Julian

Assange.

Mr. Assange is currently detained in Belmarsh Prison, a maximum security

facility located in London, UK.

Freedom Publishers Union has learned from multiple media sources

detailing at times Mr. Assange has experienced what can be described as a

form of solitary confinement, with information that suggests that he has

been made to suffer up to 22-23 hours a day detained to his prison cell,

leaving only 1-2 hours per day of allocated exercise time.

Freedom Publishers Union cannot independently verify the information.

We consistently expressed concern over the health and wellbeing of Mr.

Assange during his detainment to the Ecuadorian Embassy.

His ongoing health problems continue to go unattended, unresolved and

continue to be dismissed as not serious and/or not urgent.

The ill physical health of Mr. Assange is not a new revelation and it has

been known for a long time that the continued detainment to the

Ecuadorian Embassy had a severe negative effect on his health.

Therefore, the ignorance which continues to be demonstrated by the

Belmarsh Prison authorities and the departments that form the functions

UK justice system is increasingly alarming.

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply disturbed that for over a decade, the

collaborative actions by the US and the UK - with direct and indirect

assistance from other nations - continue to go unchallenged by any

individual or global power with enough influence and legislative

instruments at their disposal to successfully free Mr. Assange.

It is genuinely a human rights tragedy which has broader implications to

the global free press if Mr. Assange is to be successfully extradited to

the US, prosecuted and imprisoned, unquestionably for the remainder of

his life.

We have continued to bare witness to an unjustified, relentless and

cowardly pursuit with an agenda to destroy all aspects of the personal

and professional life of Mr. Assange, to destroy the publications and

server infrastructure of Wikileaks and to put an end to the wider unseen

benefits and motivation the Wikileaks publishing model offers the global

free press.

It is distrubing and saddening, from a human rights perspective, that

such pursuit of a professional journalist and publisher, and champion of

the free press, can have his life literally destroyed by the application

of unfair legal pressure, which ultimately spawned from the publications

of confidential military information which documented and proved various

war crimes were committed, resulting in civilian casualties, knowingly,

by the US Military.

The aforementioned publications by Wikileaks - which Julian Assange was

Editor at the time - gained deserved global attention.

The publications were widely praised.

It is the belief of Freedom Publishers Union, in principle, that the

publications by Wikileaks were necessary, to bring to light in the public

domain the war crimes the US and its coalition partners were knowingly

engaged in, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There can be no room to doubt the publications were 100% justified and

were absolutely in the public interest.

Therefore, we have always supported the publications, the activities of

Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Unfortunately, the current situation of Mr. Assange's health has been

added with another layer of complexity - adding extra concern - due to

the global outbreak of Covid-19 (Coronavirus).

Belmarsh Prison is not immune to the effects of Covid-19, which is why

Freedom Publishers Union is calling for the immediate release of Julian

Assange from Belmarsh Prison.

After a careful and considered assessment, Freedom Publishers Union

believes that any release of Mr. Assange should accompanied by the

immediate dropping of what we believe to be unfair charges.

The charges are - and have always been - weak.

The charges are politically motivated by the US and are being

orchestrated by the UK justice system in tandem with the justice system

of the US.

The US justice system have made it no public secret of their motivation

to seek custody and prosecution of Julian Assange, and possibly more

Wikileaks colleagues, for the publications related to US war crimes, in

Afghanistan and Iraq.

Citing US court papers dated April 11, 2019, we know Julian Assange was

charged on one count of computer crimes, for allegedly providing

assistance to Chelsea Manning to break into secret military computer

networks.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that the court documents unsealed on

April 11 (2019) were originally dated one year earlier, 2018, but were

sealed.

Just one month after the first charge was unsealed, 17 new charges were

revealed on May 23, 2019.

The new charges were part of a new indictment which superceded the prior

indictment.

The 17 new charges are effectively an extension of the original charge.

The new charges raised serious questions over their credibility as they

included charges for actions performed by Mr. Assange which are precisely

what all professional journalists perform as part of their press

responsibilities.

The new charges sent shivers up the spines of those working in the media

industry, leaving many to conclude that Mr. Assange was being used as a

prosecution pawn, where the same actions could effectively be directed at

them, for doing the same thing as Mr. Assange and Wikileaks.

Many of the same concerned journalists were now beginning to seriously

question how is it that they can be assured that the functions of the

free media were not under direct threat.

In a publication dated the same day the superceding indictment was

revealed, May 23, 2019, ABC News said, "The [Assange] case presents

immediate questions about media freedom, including whether the [US]

Justice Department is charging Assange for actions - such as soliciting

and publishing classified information - that journalists tackle as a

matter of course.", adding further justification for the increased level

of concern that the free press was being threatened.

The US justice department have a long and unforgiving history which

thrives on secrecy, especially in recent times, and moreso on legal

matters related to whistleblowers, Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

Whether further charges exist and are yet to be unsealed, we do not know.

Freedom Publishers Union has no information to indicate that to be the

case.

However, Freedom Publishers Union has been assessing the possibility that

further charges are yet to be revealed, upon successful extradition of

Mr. Assange to the US.

Our internal assessment concluded that there is a 60-80% chance that more

charges will be applied.

We identified the leading concern to be the question of trust (or lack

thereof) of the US justice department and fairness of any future

potential trial.

In other words, we conclude there is a high-probability that any future

potential trial will have a pre-determined verdict.

For our internal assessment we also considered the possibility of

inevitability that further charges are unsealed, as we believe, from the

perspective of the US justice department, the more charges are placed

against Julian Assange the more chance there is that some of the charges

hold.

The relentless attacks on Mr. Assange, specifically more recently, by the

UK justice department, showed no signs of easing as Judge Vanessa

Baraister threatened to publicly reveal the identity of Mr. Assange's

partner, on the date of April 14, 2020.

Freedom Publishers Union supported the original argument by Mr. Assange

and his legal team that publicly revealing the identity of his partner

must not occur and that they should remain anonymous, as they personally

preferred.

The argument was squashed by Judge Baraister, stating that to reveal the

identity of Mr. Assanges partner (and two children) was important for

open justice.

Freedom Publishers Union clarifies that our organization and staff were

unaware that Mr. Assange had a partner (and further children), until

after the publicly released court information from Judge Baraister was

forwarded to our office.

We still hold the firm belief that unless the identity of Mr. Assange's

partner is of immediate critical importance to the legal case against Mr.

Assange, then there was no legal justification for the public release of

her identity.

Judge Baraister's argument of "open justice" does not stick and is

pathetic, to say the least.

On April 12, 2020, two days before the specified date (April 14, 2020)

Judge Baraister was to publicly reveal the identity of Mr. Assange's

partner, through careful collaboration with Wikileaks, she revealed her

own identity to the public by a video published to The Wikileaks Channel,

on the popular video streaming platform, YouTube.

We can now confirm Julian Assange's partner to be Stella Moris.

Together, Assange and Moris have two children - Gabriel (aged 2) and Max

(aged 1).

At the time of this editorial going to press, Freedom Publishers Union

has been unable to independently verify any precise date or specific

timeline which validates the meeting between Assange and Moris.

However, according to information revealed by Moris herself, in the video

published to YouTube, she claims to have known Julian Assange since circa

2010-2011, yet did not form a relationship until circa 2015.

According to information reported by CNN, but not independently verified

by Freedom Publishers Union, Moris was previously part of Mr. Assange's

international legal team.

But we understand Moris is not involved in the current extradition case.

Multiple sources have reported that the couple got engaged in 2017.

This has also been confirmed by Stella Moris.

Freedom Publishers Union regrets the awkward and emotionally painful

position Moris was placed in which caused her to act and reveal her

identity, before the courts could act.

Revealing her identity and confirming her relationship with Julian

Assange has allowed Moris to explain 'how' and 'why'.

This provides Mr. Assange's legal team with at least a brief turn with

the upper hand over the media.

An early assessment of the latest change in circumstances by Freedom

Publishers Union suggests that the identity of Stella Moris now being in

the public domain will not have any effect on the outcome of Mr.

Assange's legal case, at present.

We acknowledge the possibility that Moris may be taken into custody and

questioned, as she may still know certain information that is relevant

and of significant interest to the UK (and potentially the US) justice

department in their case against Mr. Assange.

The public emergence and revelation of the identity of Stella Moris has

ensured Mr. Assange's legal team can now fight for the cause of

'freedom', for Moris, rather than her risking becoming a pawn in the

legal process.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to observe and assess all aspects of

the legal case(s) of Julian Assange and now, Stella Moris too.

Our support remains in their favor.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center/FPUorg

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #7 | April 11, 2020

AS A SUPPORTER OF THE Greens, I always try to support the Party as best I

can.

I carefully consider every aspect of their policies and any reaction from

me will always be based on merit.

It's a simple methodology that is non-partisan and can be applied to any

political party of any persuasion.

I have long believed that any and all political reaction, no matter who

initiates it, should come from a place where merit has absolutely been

key to the decision made which generates the reaction.

Sadly, there is still too many politicians across all parties, and even

among the Australian political communities on social media platforms,

that just cannot fathom political exploration outside of their

restrictive ideological bubble.

They just don't get it.

Merit? Forget it, I guess you could say.

My stringent application of political judgement based on merit is firm.

While it is unreasonable to expect all others to follow the same precise

formula I subject myself to, I do not consider it unreasonable to expect

others to consider understanding why I make political judgement based on

merit.

It's a perfectly reasonable, fair and justified argument.

I was left absolutely stunned this week when a particular disturbed

Twitter user declared a political flame war on a group of users,

including myself.

It didn't take many stupid, idiotic and factually incorrect responses

from this individual for me to presume that they were; A.

Mentally disturbed, or, B.

Under the influence of illicit drugs.

Possibly there was a combination of the two.

Social media is great for establishing connections with family, friends

and other individuals.

Unfortunately, for the legitimate users of the platforms to enjoy the

benefits, we are forced to run a gauntlet where worthless trolls reside,

not on both sides of the bridge but underneath it too.

I don't engage in political flame wars on social media.

However, I will always go to great lengths to place an offering of

rational political debate on the table.

In this case, after 4-5 calm, rational, carefully constructed messages

posted by myself which I knew the facts were 100% correct, I was still

met with a flurry of responses by the troll that were 100% incorrect and

just blatently offensive.

Multiple times I was accused of responding the same way all "lefties" do.

I proceeded to explain why it is that I cannot be accurately described as

a "leftie".

Sure, I am a supporter of The Greens.

But throughout the history of my eligibility to vote, the fact is I have

voted more times for the Liberal Party than the Labor Party and The

Greens, combined.

I explained to the troll that my political reactions are based on merit.

Sure, we all have a natural reaction to be persuaded one way or the

other, yet merit trumps persuasion.

"Still a leftie", I was accused.

My eyes were rolling.

I further explained that I couldn't possibly be a "leftie" by giving

another real-world example.

I was directly involved with Forward Thinking Australia prior to the last

Federal Election which had concluded that the Liberal Party of Australia

was the best party equipped to form government, under the political

climate at the time.

It makes no sense to directly accuse anyone for being a "leftie" when

they've provided direct support and endorsement for the recommendation

the Liberal Party of Australia form government.

Nope, I'm "still a leftie", apparently.

To be frank, I had now concluded that this particular troll had

absolutely no grasp on the concept of political persuasion of the left

and right.

But I also concluded they had no physical determination of directional

left and right.

They couldn't possibly.

Thank goodness social media platforms provide blocking functions.

Truth is, I think I knew my attempt at inviting rational political debate

was pointless.

Still, as a pacifist, I have to always try.

The issue of trolls plaguing social media platforms is certainly nothing

new.

I find it very unfortunate that during the Covid-19 crisis the trolls

have seemingly quadrupled, twice over, and mutated into something much

more ugly than what existed before.

There's a common acknowledged, yet unwritten, internet law that lays out

the basic guidelines for the best way to deal with online trolls - 'Don't

feed the trolls.

Ignore the trolls and they will go away.'.

Pretty simple guidelines to follow.

No matter how much you refuse to feed these worthless incoherent lost

souls that fill the black voids of the internet and offer them a chance

to prove their worth, they somehow continue to choose the path of

worthlessness and thrive as trolls.

It's a shame.

Social media platforms could be a place of political free thought and

provide the perfect breeding ground for fresh ideas to foster.

They could provoke political processes and in essence seek better ways to

govern.

At the moment, we're a long way from it.

Trolls are just parasites of online free speech.

They ignore all aspects of the argument for rational political debate.

They ignore the concept of political persuasion and lack any

comprehension of how rational political debate, despite the existence of

persuasion-based differences, can lead to compromise from all parties and

find middle-ground political commonality.

What concerns me even more is that many of these trolls which plague the

social media gauntlet that is #auspol, apply to their bio profiles the

description of "Aussie Patriot".

After my experience with so many of these trolls on #auspol, particularly

in the past fortnight, I am inclined to believe that the term "Aussie

Patriot" is some kind of unintentional secret code for 'Aussie Redneck'.

When trolls deny the truth, deny the facts, deny the existence of data

and information that is a matter of public record, and accessible in the

public domain, then you know you're dealing with people that can only be

described as an insult to the notion of the right to vote, which shapes

Australia's future through the process of compulsory voting.

I continue to support compulsory voting, yet it's a major hit to the

confidence of the process when you unfortunately encounter people that

are happy to insult their democratic privilege.

Their worrying idealogy simply doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't fit the mould which guides regular political association.

Instead, they float on the borders of crazy and are deserving of the

idealogical thought pattern that can only be described as a 'Flat-

Earther'.

I make no secret of my history of discontent at some of the behavior put

on public display by The Greens.

Sometimes I express discontent of a specific Greens Senator.

Sometimes I may express my discontent of The Greens, as a Party whole.

Sometimes, as I confess I have done on multiple occasions, I go further

than expressions of discontent and narrow an issue right down to a

particular State or Branch of The Greens.

As precise as my expressions of disconent may be at times, and as petty

as they may seem at times, they always fall back to the formula of

reaction based on merit.

I have no problem with admitting my support for The Greens.

But if they stray from their own path of political philosophy and

principles defined by their policies, then I equally have no problem

expressing my discontent where justified.

On that note, I'm taking some time off over the Easter period.

Happy Easter.

Stay at home and stay safe.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #7 | April 1, 2020

I AM PROUD TO BE a civil libertarian.

It's a self-described application of the term I proudly place upon myself

and wear with pride.

Self-described as it may be, I take the accompanied responsibilities very

serious.

Usually, I am one of the first to publicly call out questionable actions

by governments which risk impeding civil liberties.

The scope of my attention knows no boundaries, yet there are limits to

the effect of calling out potentially impeding actions when I see them.

The same rule applies for all civil libertarians.

This is especially applicable when the responsible government impeding on

the freedoms of its citizens is an authoritarian or communist regime.

The new restrictions from both the State and Federal Governments which

have been gradually, carefully and consistently rolled out as a

responsive attempt to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, or Covid-19,

have given Australians a mild taste of what it is like to live under an

authoritarian regime.

Thankfully, the restrictions placed upon Australians are only temporary.

There is an interesting and confusing mix of restrictions which have been

implemented by different means.

There is council bans, bi-laws, State and Federal bans and some

legislated laws.

Some of these laws vary from State to State.

I use the word "confusing" with minimal descriptive impact though.

Confusion could result from one person following laws in their home State

and then failing to determine definitively whether the same laws apply in

another State.

However, it is a moot point because State borders are basically closed

throughout the entire country and attempting any form of travel between

States is risky and is an act of ignorance to the acceptance of the wider

health crisis presented by Covid-19.

Despite the aforementioned array of restrictions, the underlying

motivation and purpose is universal.

I believe the Government, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has done

a fine job in handling the Covid-19 crisis.

The Government as an entire body deserves recognition for the

effectiveness of the response and the critique must be ignored.

There is early data that indicates that the response is working and is

slowing the spread of Covid-19, throughout Australia, at least.

As many political commentators have already noted, it's too early to get

excited and make hasty decisions in response to the indicative data.

The data is indicative of a slow down, yes, but we have a long way to go

yet before the Government should even think about considering rolling

back any restrictions of association and movement of citizens.

Any premature rolling back of restrictions would undoubtedly be a

reckoning for the Government's response, would see a complete 180 degree

reversal of the slow down and result in Covid-19 aggressively continue to

spread.

Some political commentators have expressed genuine concern of the

Government's response which essentially restricts the association and

movement of citizens.

Some believe the restrictions go too far and terms like "draconian" and

"police state" are beginning to be injected into the public debate.

As a civil libertarian, I have naturally been observing the Government's

response.

Under normal circumstances, yes, the restrictions of association and

movement of citizens that have been placed upon Australians at present

would usually justify being called out as a deliberate attempt to impede

on the civil liberties, and freedom of association and movement of

citizens.

However, it is important to understand and remember that we are currently

experiencing circumstances which nobody could describe as 'normal'.

This is a health crisis which has required extreme measures designed to

bring effective results.

There has never been, to the best of my understanding, any suggestion

that the restrictions are to find a permanent home in the book of law, in

Australia.

It's quite a ridiculous assertion to suggest such possibility.

And I say that from the observation stand-point as a civil liberatarian.

Finally, as a civil libertarian and at risk of contradicting my own

argument, I do actually welcome the caution card being played by those

who for so long have happily gone about their daily lives without as much

of a sniff of care when it comes to the erosion of the free press - an

issue I have written about on many occasions.

The free press is thankfully an issue currently immune (no pun intended)

to the Covid-19 health crisis.

The civil liberties issue might be a little over-hyped at the moment, but

we must remain realistic and confident that the restrictions are all

temporary and have been implemented with good intent.

Morrison and the State leaders have never been shy about the fact that

life as we knew it would not return for a long time.

There is differing public opinion on what precisely defines a 'long

time'.

Still, for now, the nation needs to unite, cooperate and the civil

libertarians need to suppress any natural reactive emotion, for now.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #6 | March 28, 2020

I TRY TO BE UNDERSTANDING and tolerant of all political perspectives.

I may agree with some, but I may disagree with others.

This common behaviorial trait just makes me human.

We can expect ourselves and others to be as understanding and tolerant as

much as possible, but as humans we also have the right to disagree when

we see it fit for purpose and to express any disagreement.

Media and editorial responsibilities have provided me with the necessary

experience to develop skills of limited bias.

I have learned to recognize when I am being bias and when I am reading

bias.

Therefore, if I write an expression of thought that is bias then it is

most likely intentional because I will have identified it beforehand.

There is no denying my right-wing Liberal political roots.

In a state of critical decision making and crisis, I will usually lean to

support the right.

However, I don't completely ignore the left.

I have voted for the Labor Party in the past because I assessed the

political situation and the important issues at the time and made a

judgment that the Labor Party was the best resourced party to deal with

those issues.

And for the last two-three elections I have voted for The Greens.

I am a former member of The Greens and continue to support the Party.

So, is it hypocritical to claim right-wing roots while I additionally

support and vote for the green-left too? No, it isn't.

It's sensible.

I take all political issues and decision making and judge every element

of it, on deserved merit.

So for anyone to think about suggesting I am too critical of the left, is

not correct and I take offense to any suggestion.

Thankfully, opinion columns such as Green View allow me to be flexible in

expression of my views.

Regular readers will notice I've been pretty vocal of the traditional

political attack games the Labor Party has chosen to launch at the

Government, during a time of a health and economic crisis which deserves

a cooling of such attacks.

My outspoken disgust at the Labor Party to refuse to jump on board 'Team

Australia' and get behind the Government in the management of the

coronavirus crisis hasn't been limited to my regular political columns

either.

I have been equally outspoken on my personal social media accounts.

Despite what could be interpreted, judged by my constant expressions of

frustration at the Labor Party, it really isn't just the Labor Party.

Also, this isn't a right-wing expression of bias.

It's simply calling out the obvious.

The Greens have also pulled a card, it seems, from the deck of political

irrelevance and embraced the same games as Labor.

The Greens have a bigger problem though.

The Party and its members are not the most skilled when it comes to

public expression.

The Greens have consistently failed in public communication of their

message and has earned them a repuation as a group of political activists

rather than a legitimate political party determined to make a dent in the

two-party system of the Australian Parliament.

At the crux of it, it's a communication problem.

This much was evident to me personally when I was a member of a

Queensland Greens branch on the Gold Coast.

Communication was just unnecessarily poor, and in some cases non-

existent.

The communication that did pass through was often confusing, poorly

executed and simply not focused on the wider message of The Greens.

At times, the communication was so constrained and limited in effect,

that there may as well not have been any communication at all.

It was just a mess, no matter how you assess it.

On a personal level, I offered to assist the branch in the specific area

of branch-level communication.

I offered to implement better IT infrastructure and accompanying

software, allowing for better communication between branch members,

organization of important matters related to branch activites and

workflow with other State branches.

\However, despite my generous offer of volunteer assistance, it was

outright ignored.

It's a shame.

Because The Greens could vastly improve the Party's political messaging

and communication with very little investment and resources.

The Greens must learn to accept the presence of the problems and change

must come from the branch level.

A much reduced Parliament sat for one lone day this week.

It was an important sitting day, however, to introduce and pass the

economic stimulus legislation required for the full benefits to be

delivered to Australians.

Despite the political attacking and rhetoric we're seeing from the Labor

Party and to a lesser degree, The Greens, the stimulus legislation was

passed without too much resistance.

Australians will benefit from the stimulus measures being implemented, as

will the economy.

Probably not as much as was originally hoped, as the economy continues to

crumble and the unemployment continues to rise, on a daily basis.

The Greens have got back to business as usual - mixing realistic

proposals with proposals which are simply unrealistic.

They want guarantees of no evictions for renters who fail to make rental

payments during the coronavirus crisis - a reasonable proposal.

They also want varying degrees of rental freezes during the coronavirus

crisis - an unreasonable proposal.

Plus, there is a host of other inconsistent and unrealistic proposals

too.

I'm sure all the proposals are made with good intent.

But once again, it's the inconsistency and communication of the message

which continues to hurt The Greens.

Instead of united and consistent communication with realistic proposals

to benefit Australians in a way which is fair and which can come to

fruition, we get different members of The Greens all playing their own

individual game of political activism, which at times departs from any

suggested universal green principles of the Party.

There was proof of this on Monday as Senator Mehreen Faruqi, from

Australian Greens, pitched her own form of political activism to the

Upper House by trying to claim the coronavirus was a gender crisis which

is hurting females more than males.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Not only does the data prove Faruqi's claim wrong, but The Greens need to

learn it is this type of political activism which continues to hurt the

reputation of The Greens.

Faruqi is a known feminist and on this occasion has allowed her personal

activism to cloud her political judgment.

Instead of The Greens being accepted as a political party with genuine

potential, they appear to remain content with being consistently refered

to as a party comprised of political activists with individual agendas.

Some would even refer to them as extremists.

Although even I would admit the latter is an exaggeration.

Individual agendas in politics is fine.

In fact, it's an underlying element of the culture of politics,

generally.

But individual agendas must be the undertone of a united political party

message, not the overtone.

It is the latter which is affecting The Greens and until they come to

terms with the critical faults of the structures of the Party, The Greens

will continue to suffer and continue to stay largely irrelevant.

Polls continue to suggest The Greens are able to cling to a consistent

voter base of around 12-13%.

That's fine.

As a Greens supporter myself, I welcome and encourage the current loyal

voter base to stick with the Party, for now.

However, don't be afraid to be outspoken of the failures of The Greens

and its members.

Ignoring the failures is to be complacent with the failures.

That is a failure in itself, as is remaining complacent with a base of

12-13% when it really should be much higher if any notion of distrust of

the two major parties is to be accepted.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #6 | March 18, 2020

NEVER IN MY LIFETIME HAVE I witnessed such a fast moving news story where

details change so frequently.

Unless you're living in a remote Amazonian village segregated from the

rest of civilization, I'm sure you know I refer to the coronavirus,

(COVID-19).

Usually when I write my columns I prepare drafts a couple of days before

the scheduled publication date and amend the key details as they change

or as new information becomes available.

I had to change tactics for this column because it didn't matter what I

wrote about the coronavirus it would most likely be outdated and

inaccurate by the time it went to press.

That's how rapidly this story is moving through the media, with the

COVID-19 statistics changing just as fast.

Every aspect of the coronavirus pandemic is astounding.

Global borders are certainly no boundary for a virus and its now a global

problem which is seriously challenging the world.

As Australian media continue to push stories at rates we've never

witnessed, it often becomes difficult to keep up.

It's no surprise that citizens have entered a stage of panic.

The panic is fueling further panic.

The Government continues to advise citizens to calm down.

It's sound advice which should be adhered.

There's justification for caution, but no justification for panic.

Traditional politics are subdued, at present.

The Labor camp are at ease with their hands tied behind their back.

Being in opposition can be difficult sometimes.

So far, they've handled themselves quite well.

The political attacks on the Prime Minister from Labor have been minimal.

So they should be.

Challenging times require traditional strategies be side-lined, because

to continue to go on the political attack against the opposite side

during a time of crisis, such as the coronavirus, is both insensitive and

leaves voters with a bitter taste in their mouths.

This leaves Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, with not much to do.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Albo could use the spare time to get to work on an election campaign for

the future Federal Election.

Even that's quite unpredictable at this point, because the coronavirus

has changed so much of just about everything, it's now incredibly

difficult to predict what the country will need in the future and what

issues will resonate with voters.

Right now, self-preservation engulfs the nation and party politics is not

exactly considered important at this very moment.

This throws the Labor Party further into the realm of irrelevance.

How Albo handles himself in opposition during the coronavirus crisis will

be a real character test.

So far, he's doing just fine.

The most productive thing he could do is provide support to the

Government on economic stimulus and not stand in the way.

Citizen panic is evident by the videos we continue to see, of shoppers in

Coles and Woolworths, fighting over toilet paper.

The frenzy over toilet paper was just the beginning.

Grocery stores are now limiting sales of toilet paper, rice, pasta and

other items which have become victim to the panic, causing many sensible

shoppers to miss out.

Grocery stores have started opening for a dedicated hour, in the morning,

specifically for the elderly and disabled.

This is a great initiative, even though I believe the 7.00-8.00am

dedicated time-slot is a bit ridiculous.

Perhaps an additional one hour during the afternoon could have also been

allocated.

Still, it's great to see Australia's grocery store chains responding to

the panic buying and doing what they can to ease the situation.

There's no long-term supply problems of goods, only immediate supply

problems which are a direct result of the panic buying shoppers are

engaging.

Whatever can be done to ease the panic buying will benefit everyone.

It starts with being fair and respectful to the needs of others.

The mad behavior of Australian citizens is not unique, or unusual by any

sense.

The mad behavior is mirrored in just about every developed nation

affected by the coronavirus.

Governments are responding as best they can and there appears to be

pretty good international cooperation on both the health response and the

economic response.

I've been pretty harsh at times of my critique on Prime Minister, Scott

Morrison.

His response to the bushfires and drought was awful and unforgiving.

However, he seems to have pulled himself together a bit better with

Australia's response to the coronavirus.

Most decisions so far have been carefully calculated and have been done

to protect the health and safety of Australian citizens.

He appears to be putting Australians first.

That's what any good leader must do.

It's fair to point out that Morrison is acting on the advice and

expertise of the medical and industry professionals.

They deserve credit too.

One area of Morrison's decision making which has been disappointing is on

the closure of schools.

It's been a topic of serious discussion, with mixed views.

Thankfully, my little one is not of school age yet.

However, I made the decision to keep him home from playgroup.

After I made the decision the announcement came that playgroup had been

cancelled anyway.

But as a parent, I took the initiative to make a decision first, based on

my parental instinct.

In times of crisis, parents need to act first and decide on what is best

for their children.

Don't sit around waiting for others to make a decision which has the

potential to directly affect the health of your children.

Morrison has made a distinct habit of sitting on the fence for too long

before he decides which side to jump.

It's exactly what he's doing as he ponders the possibility of school

closures.

My advice - just close the damn schools.

The economic response is calculated and being performed with good

international cooperation.

The world's economies are so intertwined now that they really act as one.

There are limits to what governments can do with their domestic economic

policies without it having an effect on global partners.

That's why there is no going two ways about the economic response to the

coronavirus.

Sensible international cooperation is a necessity if governments are to

keep the foundations of the modern economy afloat.

It is possible, but we are on the verge of entering a new era burdened

with what can only be described as super-debt.

Several governments have made it clear they are willing to spend whatever

is needed to get through the economic challenges brought on by the

coronavirus, which can only include going into massive amounts of debt.

There is simply not enough funds available without entering into debt

levels the world has never seen.

I have a deep fear that the coronavirus has planted a nasty evil seed

which the economic downturn are the fruits of the seed.

Things will get much worse yet, before life as we all knew it returns to

what we now refer to as 'normal'.

Perhaps we all took normal for granted.

With Parliament now almost certain to be suspended indefinitely,

following the upcoming reduced sitting week, all legislative reforms

other than critical economic stimulus legislation will no doubt be placed

on the bottom of the pile.

There's no disputing the coronavirus is interrupting the free-flow of

democracy and slowly picking apart functions of society as we know it.

Perhaps it's a great opportunity to think about how we can do things

better.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #5 | February 19, 2020

RESUMPTION OF PARLIAMENT FOR 2020 saw the return of the tired old circus

of internal party unrest.

The latest bulge of problems for the Liberals started in 2018 when former

Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was consequently deposed as leader of

the Liberal Party and his position as the nation's PM.

It was all the result of an ugly series of events, prompted initially by

discontent by the publicly loathed Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton.

A quick rehash of the said "ugly series of events" saw Dutton lose, only

to challenge again with then Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, and Scott

Morrison, Treasurer at the time, also throwing their hats into the

challenge for the leadership.

We all know the end result.

But sadly the problems for the Liberal Party didn't end in 2018 as they

would have liked them to following a transition to a new leader and Prime

Minister.

The problems have flowed right through 2019 and seeped into 2020, despite

Scott Morrison winning the unwinnable election from a Bill Shorten led

Labor Party, which so many thought was a shoo-in.

Many of the problems Morrison is currently forced to face have come about

from his own stupid decision making on what many consider pretty

important matters - climate policy direction, drought response and

management, and his lapse and weak bushfire response which saw him island

hop from Australia to Hawaii to relax on the beach, instead of leading -

as Australians expect their leaders to do and what we effectively elect

them to do.

Canberra must have their own dictionary which sets out the definition of

what "lead" is defined.

Morrison's pain is self-inflicted, indeed.

The case can be argued that he deserves the public lashing he has

received from just about everyone in the media, with the exception of the

right-wing media brigade at The Australian and its echo chamber, Sky News

after dark.

This is not an opportunity for me to start poking the right-wing media

estate, or said echo chamber media members, instead let's attempt to

summarize it like this - in the eyes of those wielding the influence on

Sky News after dark, members of the Liberal Party can do no wrong, while

they hold the firm belief than any members from the left have a natural

inhibition to inflict their political evil on the nation.

On Morrison, we need to look at each decision made, what has resulted

from his decisions and how the public, overall, has reacted.

There's a new problem stewing on climate policy, specifically around a

possible commitment to a zero emissions target by 2050.

The onus is on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to do something on climate.

While a commitment to a zero emissions target for 2050 might be a

political point scorer with the public, possibly temporary at best,

Morrison will struggle with internal opposition from not only members in

his own party room, but The Nationals too.

Morrison could please the public with climate commitments, because after

all, the public want to see serious action on climate change.

But where he may score a goal on one side of the field, the other side of

the field may hold the belief such a commitment is reckless and political

suicide at the ballot box.

The majority in the Lower House is beginning to look like it's hanging by

a thread, which nobody can determine just how frail that thread is.

Morrison is in a difficult corner, indeed.

While Morrison and the Liberals still struggle with climate policy, Labor

continues to plod along at their own pace without making any commitment

on their own alternative climate policy, and pretty much everything else.

At the moment, both of the major parties appear stuck in the dry windy

baron and empty desert where rolling tumble weeds could be considered

friends.

Many held hope that Anthony Albanese would save the Labor Party from

ultimate demise and irrelevance, but unless we start to see some policy

direction indicators, that circling question of demise and irrelevance

will continue to fester.

Ultimately, Albo is struggling with his own conundrum.

Will he commit to a zero emissions by 2050 target? If not, he may face

losing the existing loyal yet fragile support base.

But if a target is adopted, then Albo faces internal factional critics,

including the supposedly powerful Otis group, led by the influential pro-

coal Labor member, Joel Fitzgibbon.

If Scott Morrison or Anthony Albanese commit to a zero emissions target

of any format, any commitment is baseless and nothing more than just

words without a policy which can lay the path to actually achieve a zero

emissions target.

Right now, neither Liberal or Labor have the policy direction required to

achieve it.

That's an insult to Australians who continue to call for action on

climate change.

As if waking up in the morning with the climate headache that plagues

Morrison isn't bad enough, he continues to cop it for his lapse response

to the drought which has crippled so much of the nation.

Ironically, as he continues to be flamed for a lapse drought response,

the heavens have opened on much of the drought stricken land and taken a

lot of the political heat off him.

I'm sure he's grateful for the rain for that reason alone, because it

provides him ample opportunity to boast about his personal belief that

climate change is all fake news and there's no such thing.

It's always 'touch and go' as to whether anyone should refer to the

recent heavy rains as drought breaking.

It is safe to say, the rain is extremely welcome and we can only hope

rain continues to fall a bit more regularly.

I don't want to sit here and pick apart Morrison's response to each and

every major issue I've outlined in this column.

I genuinely believe that all the issues I have mentioned are all directly

related to each other.

To put the relation-link into an understandable format, lack of climate

policy has led to poor land management, mitigation and fire preparation.

The poor land management has led to one of the worst fire seasons that

Australia has endured, which has been fueled, yes by arson, but also such

dry environmental conditions and lack of preparation.

It doesn't matter how you twist the formula and move the numbers around,

it doesn't change the relation-link.

Before anyone can begin to adopt appropriate and effective response

solutions, this relation needs to understood and accepted as fact.

The State Governments are talking about holding inquiries into the fires.

The Federal Government is calling on the States to support a Federal

Royal Commission.

While commissions, inquiries and reports are great and all, we need to

think about what we are actually going to learn about the bushfire season

that we don't know already.

I have not yet committed to supporting any inquiry or Royal Commission.

As I write this, I don't even know whether the Labor Party and The Greens

are in support of a Federal Royal Commission.

But I do fear this is another political point scoring technique designed

by Morrison to take the heat away from such a tragic political off-season

he had, which placed his weak leadership skills under the public

microscope.

There are whispers of an early Federal Election.

Yes, those whispers already.

But honestly, this is a case of just whispers, I believe.

Neither side of politics is anywhere near ready for another election

showdown.

The Liberals would want to get their rocky relationship with The

Nationals under control.

Or at least tamed, a little.

Labor is probably even further away from ready.

As I continue to point out, Albo still can't figure out which way is

forward and which way is backward.

Poor Albo.

I like the man, but he needs to pull his compass out very soon or

questions are going to be being asked whether he really was the best

choice of leader to replace the publicly loathed Bill Shorten.

Luckily for Albo, the public seem slightly more smitten towards him than

what they were with Shorten.

This is enough of a positive sign that Albo has a chance of getting the

job done.

But he needs to get a move on a find the right formula to really do any

measurable and irreparable damage to Morrison.

The thing is, the voting public have extremely short memories.

How long will the public remember the weak leadership demonstrated by the

Prime Minister over the summer? They've probably forgotten already.

Until the next Federal Election, we might not know the answer.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #5 | February 29, 2020

GO NUCLEAR! WELL, AT LEAST that's what some are saying.

Calls to adopt and integrate nuclear power into Australia's energy mix

are increasing, interestingly, from the right and left of the political

spectrum.

Except from The Greens.

There lies a big problem though, around the sometimes sensitive topic of

nuclear energy.

Particularly in Australia, where we have a national moratorium in effect

which forbids domestic use of nuclear energy.

Still, uranium is a thriving export industry for Australia.

While I sit quite idle at present on the domestic nuclear issue, some

believe it's ludicrous that we export uranium for foreign use yet we are

unable to take maximum advantage of it, domestically.

It cannot be considered unfair to ask how is this acceptable.

There lies an even greater problem though, that being lack of proper

education and knowledge of nuclear energy.

Generally, when people think of "nuclear", one of two things will come to

most people's minds - Chernobyl or Homer Simpson.

Immediately thinking of the former is justified but it must also be

understood that there is a lot of misunderstanding around modern nuclear

energy and its potential.

Chernobyl was a disaster reflective of the nuclear era it occurred.

Thankfully, as best as I understand it, nuclear energy and safety around

its use has drastically improved since Chernobyl.

If you are in the bunch that associates the latter, Homer Simpson, with

nuclear then it's probably safe to say you'd reach the same disastrous

conclusion of the use of nuclear as those who associate it with

Chernobyl.

Irrespective of the position of The Greens on nuclear energy, I remain a

supporter of the party and can still understand why they hold their firm

opposition.

But I also think it is crucial that we debate the possibility of taking

advantage of nuclear energy in the future.

The Greens are adamant it's dangerous and should be avoided completely.

But I purposely sit idle on the nuclear debate because I know quite a bit

about a number of things, but I must confess, nuclear energy and

everything it involves is something I am absolutely clueless about other

than the most basic knowledge.

Obviously, it's a complex area of science and most people aren't expected

to know much about it.

This is exactly the reason that we need not only to debate nuclear energy

in Australia, but to educate those that do not know much about it.

There are important key facts around its use, safety, energy potential,

disposal techniques, plus more.

It's complex and is completely foreign to many.

As a limited supporter of The Greens, I have no obligation to support the

party on all political issues and positions of policy.

Unfortunately, The Greens sometimes suffer from a unique formula of

policy opposition which can often derive from unintentional

misinformation, lack of education of the finer scientific details or

thankfully, more rarely, adopting an extreme and unjustified view solely

for political purpose.

The Greens' current position on nuclear is clear - they oppose it.

That's fair.

But I urge The Greens to only base this strict form of opposition to

nuclear based on science and facts, not activist rhetoric or extremist

political positioning.

While I understand The Greens feel a political obligation to oppose

nuclear, I think it's possibly the wrong position and they're really not

pleading a realistic cause which offers a viable alternative base load

energy source to nuclear.

To open up your mind and accept the possibility of nuclear energy is not

giving up on wind, solar and other renewables.

There is now little doubt that the future energy mix must contain wind,

solar and battery storage for grid reliability and stability assurance.

But it doesn't solve the existential challenge of base load generation.

It's no good denying the big hole which presents itself if you take coal

out of the mix.

There is some merit to the argument that gas could fill the void,

however, I'm quite skeptical of the future guarantee of supply of gas.

It may possibly be used as an interim energy source as we ease our

reliance off coal.

But we need to look beyond gas and I believe nuclear could provide the

answer.

But first, let's end the moratorium which doesn't really make sense in

2020 and start a civil and meaningful debate on the potential use of

nuclear for energy generation.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #4 | December 7, 2019

THERE IS A COUPLE OF ways we can look back at the political year.

We can pick apart each political party - Liberal, Labor and The Greens -

and examine the success stories and the failures of each.

Or we can skip all that and just be grateful for Australian democracy.

On the latter part, we have a problem.

Democracy is ailing and the actions of our Prime Minister indicate an

ambition towards authoritarianism.

It's getting serious and it concerns me.

On picking apart parties, that's easy.

The common theme has been the Liberal Party running dry of any

identifiable agenda, the Labor Party still cowering like a puppy with its

tail between its legs and The Greens still floating about trying to find

exactly where it fits in to the Australian political sphere.

But finding success stories is a little more difficult than finding

stories of failure.

Let's start with the Coalition, specifically the Liberal Party.

The Nationals matter, but not for the purpose of point making.

I've spoke a few times this year about not knowing what precise agenda

the Liberal Party is running with in Government.

The economy is kind of plodding along on its own just fine.

A little slow, but still pretty fine and doesn't really require much

Government intervention on that front.

So there can be no genuine claim that the Liberal Party are running an

economic agenda.

On the crippling drought, despite their confidence, the Liberal Party has

failed miserably to not just tackle the drought, but to recognize it for

its severity.

The same applies for the Murray-Darling Basin and environmental

protection and management of its resources, in general.

The Murray-Darling Basin is sick and its management plan is sick also.

We need much more attention to be paid to this growing catastrophe.

If there is any classification beyond catastrophic, then that's where

we're heading.

Sure, we need rain, and lots of it.

But the management of what very little water resources the Basin still

has at present needs much better care and management than what it is

currently receiving.

Environmental protections are almost non-existent and what protections

are supposedly in effect are failing, in addition to basically all areas

of animal rights.

Live exports should immediately cease.

The evidence is clear and indisputable that it's cruel and protection

mechanisms are failing.

Animals are dying in cruel circumstances which are preventable and with

minimal economic hit.

Horse and dog racing should see a Federal-based ban on the practice.

On animal rights specifically, I cite the recent horrific case of the

South Australian police officer who was filmed stoning an innocent wombat

to death.

What action did the South Australian police take? None.

They said no further action was necessary as the officer was of

Indigenous culture and he is rightfully permitted to hunt wombats for

food.

That is shocking, pathetic and weak.

This man was not hunting.

The filming of the wombat stoning was for fun and there should have been

severe consequences for such a cruel, menacing and disgusting act.

It remains true this is a South Australian State Government matter.

However, the fact that there has been no action taken by the State of

South Australia on what is a clear act of animal cruelty highlights that

the States are incapable of dealing with animal rights.

We need much stronger and firmer action, through reform of laws and

penalties, on protection of animals and animal rights initiated and

brought on at the Federal-level.

Climate change must be recognized for its severity.

The Extinction Rebellion continue to call for action and for recognition

of the "climate emergency".

I'm happy to lend my support to the Extinction Rebellion and call for a

climate emergency.

There's no greater emergency than looking after our planet - our home.

We only get one.

The Liberal Party continue to potter around with their hands behind their

backs lazily, failing to recognize that climate change is possibly past a

tipping point and cannot be reversed.

We could be a world leader through aggressive investment in renewable

energy, setting an example while advocating the rest of the world follow

us on a path to a world built on clean energy generation.

What a lost opportunity.

The Coalition has been successful in repealing the medevac laws, which

offered a humane pathway for proper medical treatment for those detained

to offshore detention centers which make up Australia's brutal border

control regime, which has been deemed illegal by the United Nations.

It's disappointing the Parliament repealed the laws, which the pathway of

repeal only being made possible by a secret deal between independent

Senator Jacqui Lambie and the Government.

Secret deals being done between independent Senators and the Government

adds more dirt to an already tarnished democracy.

The erosion of democracy and the free press has been a standout for this

the Morrison-led Government.

If deconstruction of the pillars of democracy is their secret agenda,

then I guess you could say their efforts so far have been a major

success.

There is absolutely no doubt the reckless and selfish political antics of

Senator Jacqui Lambie have pushed along the deconstruction process just

that little bit more.

I never had any confidence in Senator Lambie.

She is unpredictable, selfish, has no interest in serving for the needs

of her electorate, the State of Tasmania or the interests of Australia.

Her political history paints the precise picture.

Her vote to enable the repeal of the medevac laws just adds more paint to

the same canvas.

Julian Assange - the forgotten Australian publisher of Wikileaks.

Our Prime Minister seems more than content with the idea that Assange is

sitting in a British prison with his health deteriorating and a degraded

state of mental health.

Australia's excuse for not intervening is lousy, at best.

Despite what the Government says, we can intervene and all efforts should

be made to bring Assange back home to Australia where he can be better

protected from the poaching hunters of the United States.

Instead, Australia chooses to be the lapdog of the Trump Administration

and are willing to stay clear of Assange so that the United States get

their prize.

And they will, eventually.

What a disgrace.

We've assisted drug dealers and smugglers in legal trouble overseas.

Assange is a special case and deserves immediate assistance.

As we enter 2020 I would like to see the Australian public wake up to the

failings of the Coalition and start to recognize the need for louder

calls on so many outstanding issues that are being deliberately side-

lined or just outright ignored, through Liberal ignorance.

The Greens are typically better at recognizing the issues that go

unnoticed, making being a supporter of The Greens a very lonely place

sometimes.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

November 27, 2019 | GIMP Has Been Forked.

Welcome, Glimpse Image Editor

SOMEONE HAS FORKED THE PROGRAM you probably know by its abbreviated title

- GIMP.

The full title of the program is GNU Image Manipulation Program.

When we first read about the fork our reaction was probably the same as

yours - why? There are a couple of reasons provided by the new project's

developers, actually.

Whether they are justification to fork the popular image editing program

is really up to the users to decide.

You will either welcome the fork with open arms, or turn your back on it

choosing to lay your loyalty to GIMP.

GIMP is a well established package with the first release dating back

circa late 1995-early 1996.

There has been some attempts at forking GIMP, with CinePaint being the

most notable.

CinePaint was used in film production as it focused on frame-by-frame

film editing.

It did enjoy some success in the early 2000s and was even used in the

production of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films, among other

titles.

But development ultimately stalled and in 2013 the future of CinePaint

was cast in doubt when the project lead, Robin Rowe, posted an update to

the CinePaint website stating, "I've been working on the development of a

major online game server, nothing to do with CinePaint.

My work life has been an astounding amount of crazy hours that were

promised to ease up a year ago.".

From this post forward it was a little unclear about the current state of

CinePaint.

In 2018, CinePaint was offered a lifeline of hope when Rowe published an

update stating, "After a long hiatus, I'm back working on CinePaint.".

He finished the post by saying, "CinePaint 1.0 hasn't been updated in

some time and 2.0 hasn't been released yet.

It's coming.".

We attempted to view the progress of the source code development through

the known source code portals of CinePaint.

It appears that the source code has been removed.

Whether this is an indication the project as an open-source package is

dead or whether Rowe doesn't want users to install it until development

of version 2.0 is ready, we don't know.

Either way, it appears CinePaint being recognized as a fork of GIMP is

probably no longer appropriate.

Our attention has switched to the new fork, called Glimpse Image Editor.

The fork is motivated by several aspects which the developers are not

afraid to talk about.

This is a good thing.

We encourage free software and forking a project to build upon or

experiment with new ideas is a great thing and should always be embraced.

According to the front page of the website for Glimpse Image Editor, "The

goal is to experiment with new ideas and expand the use of free

software.".

They also cite issues they have with the title GIMP and claim, "In some

countries it is considered a slur against disabled people and a

playground insult directed at unpopular children.

It can also be linked to certain 'after dark' activities performed by

consenting adults.".

The issues outlined related to the GIMP title completely ignore the fact

that it is actually a four-letter abbreviation.

Still, they are upfront about their concerns and it should be appreciated

by users and those taking an interest in the project.

Personally, we don't care.

That's the beauty of free and open-source software.

If you want to fork it, fork it.

License permitting, of course.

Developers shouldn't feel the need to prove themselves and make a public

declaration to justify their decision.

On concerns that potential users might assume the project has been forked

because of their issues with the GIMP title only, the project goes out of

its way to express explicitly that the primary reason isn't that at all.

Instead, "What this project aims to do is inject some new ideas, energy,

contributions and money into a tool that most of us take for granted.

We also want to expand the adoption of a great piece of free software.".

The project is not aiming to replace GIMP by any means.

Instead, they consider the main GIMP development to be the upstream

project of Glimpse Image Editor and intend to also contribute their own

development efforts upstream, in the spirit of the free software

philosophy.

This commitment complements what appears to be a well developed and

carefully considered Code of Conduct, accompanied by a governing body to

administer all aspects of the project.

This is a well organized fork project which has a clear focus on making

it a public success.

It would serve no purpose to review Glimpse Image Editor, as at current

there is nothing to technically differentiate it from GIMP aside from an

obvious re-branding of the title.

This is further proved when you run:

$ glimpse-editor --version

Glimpse version 2.10.12

This is actually the upstream version of GIMP where the source code has

been pulled and is the best indication the project is in its infancy.

The project states they have future development plans to write a new

front-end, but admits that this is many years away from being achieved.

So how do you install Glimpse Image Editor? Well, it's easy.

It will also happily reside on the same system that already has GIMP

installed.

We installed Glimpse Image Editor 0.1.0 on Ubuntu 19.10 side-by-side with

GIMP 2.10.8 using Snap, by running the following command:

$ sudo snap install glimpse-editor

We are impressed at the level of enthusiasm the project demonstrates and

Tecseek Technology will definitely keep a close watch on its progress.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #4 | November 27, 2019

THE POLITICAL SHENANIGANS BEING PLAYED out around the repeal of the

medevac legislation is ridiculous.

The legislation was developed and voted into law for the primary purpose

of providing a platform for doctors and medical professionals to have a

much better say on whether detainees on Manus Island and Nauru should be

transferred to mainland for medical treatment, due to insufficient

medical resources on the remote islands.

We don't need to pour over all of the finer details of the legislation

again in this column, but we do need to understand the very purpose the

legislation was developed and passed through both Houses of Parliament

was to help detainees in need.

Legislation that helps people in need of urgent medical attention that

does not put the nation's security at risk - sounds pretty reasonable,

right? Apparently not.

There are some boneheads in Parliament who are playing games with the

legislation and sadly, the legislation that was passed with a purpose to

help people is now on the brink of being repealed.

There's one kingmaker who holds the power now, an independent Senator of

Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie.

The Upper House requires her final vote to repeal the medevac

legislation.

At the time of going to press with this column, The Guardian and News

Corp papers are reporting late tonight that Lambie has one specific

demand that she asks is met without compromise before she will provide

the required vote for repeal.

What is the demand she is making? Well, we don't know.

Apparently it's a secret.

Lambie is on the record for joking about holding the balance of power in

the Upper House, before she was re-elected into the Senate.

Well she got her wish and she must be relishing in being in the position

of being the one holding the Government to ransom with her vote.

Unfortunately for her, her embrace of the secrecy culture wars has just

placed her in the same basket as the Liberal mobsters who thrive on their

political culture of secrecy.

As if secrets from the Liberal Party aren't enough of an annoyance for

the Australian people to have to put up with.

Now we have to sit here and watch independent senators play the secrecy

game too.

Is this really the way Australia wants our democracy to function?

Apparently the voters wants and needs don't matter anymore.

In fact, it's increasingly clear that our opinion doesn't matter anymore

either.

Political parties have turned to secrecy and turned it into a norm of

operations.

The independents are now getting a whiff of the secret candy too.

It must be good stuff.

All of the secrecy of negotiations and deal making behind the scenes

between parties, ministers and senators is turning the Houses of

Parliament into two chambers operating on foundations of secrecy rather

than foundations of democracy.

It's not democracy, it's not what the voting public asks of their

representatives and senators, and it has got to stop.

On the medevac legislation repeal, sadly the entire purpose of the

legislation is being conveniently ignored with the hope that it will be

repealed and its very existence forgotten - remembered only by the text

archives of Hansard.

The repeal, if successful, will effectively remove the powers of doctors

and medical professionals to have the final say on urgent and serious

medical matters of detainees on offshore detention centers, in favor of

returning the powers to politicians in Canberra which do not have the

professional qualifications or competency to be making such important

medical decisions and dicing with the future of people's lives.

Do the politicians stop and think, for even just a second, how their

political bargaining and deal making affects the detainees experiencing

serious medical problems that could actually benefit from the medevac

laws? Lambie is known to support the punishing offshore detention regime

which has been deemed illegal by the United Nations.

We don't know what demands Lambie is calling for, but it is known to be

related to national security.

Her demands are obviously completely unrelated to the health and well-

being of those illegally detained by Australia on remote islands.

If she was concerned at all for detainees, she would not continue to

support such a brutal and illegal regime and there would be no

negotiating which involved using the medevac legislation as the bet on

the table.

Politicians are not fit to decide on matters related to medical

conditions and illness.

That is a decision for doctors and medical professionals.

That's a position backed by Amnesty International.

Just try telling self-serving power-hungry politicians that, because

there's no shortage of them.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] November 25, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Sweden Dropping

Investigation into Julian Assange Provides False Sense of Hope

LAST WEEK, SWEDISH AUTHORITIES ANNOUNCED they have dropped their

investigation into Julian Assange, for allegations of specific sexual

misconduct made against him in 2010.

The said allegations were made by two females who have been consistently

legally identified as "Miss A" and "Miss W", in what has been a failed

effort to protect the actual identities of the accusers.

Information widely available in the public domain identifies "Miss A" as

feminist Anna Ardin, who has long confirmed herself as one of the two

Swedish accusers.

The identity of "Miss W" has never officially been made public, however

it is widely known to be photographer and artist Sofia Wilén.

Freedom Publishers Union has long believed that the identities of both

accusers should be made public in official and legal capacity, as their

decision(s) in 2010 to formally accuse Assange of sexual misconduct

without any evidence being presented to date has effectively destroyed

the life of Assange.

Furthermore, if the accusers remain confident of the credibility and

accuracy of their allegations then they should at least have enough

courage to continue to stand by their allegations.

While some personal details of Ardin are known, Wilén has largely

remained out of the public sphere and has remained almost completely

silent on the accusations.

The announcement from Swedish authorities has been welcomed by Freedom

Publishers Union and Assange supporters.

There remains pressing concerns that Assange may actually be unaware of

the latest developments related to the Swedish accusations, as he is

imprisoned in Britain awaiting a court decision in the early months of

2020 on his extradition to the United States of America (USA).

There are conflicting reports as to what information is available to

Assange at present, and how consistent and reliable the flow of

information is.

Swedish authorities cite "the long period of time that has elapsed since

the events in question", on the allegations made against Assange, as a

primary contributing reason for the dropping of the investigation.

Freedom Publishers Union accepts the decision with caution as we note

Swedish authorities had previously announced in 2017 that their

investigation into Assange was being dropped.

When British authorities forcefully removed Assange from the Ecuadorian

Embassy in April (2019), Swedish authorities were quick to reverse their

decision and announced they were reopening the investigation, less than

once month later in May (2019).

In our view, Sweden cannot be trusted.

The most recent announcement provides no more assurance than the last

time that the decision will stick.

We would hope the decision is not reversed again as the extradition

hearing approaches.

The immediate focus of Assange's fight for freedom can now shift to

fighting extradition to the US, where Freedom Publishers Union believes

he will not only face an unfair trial, but be forced through a falsely

portrayed trial which is most likely to be predetermined.

There is immediate cause for concern of the physical and mental health of

Assange.

In a court hearing in October (2019), news sources reported that Assange

appeared confused.

Assange's Father, John Shipton, has also expressed serious concern for

his mental health after visiting his son in prison.

These same concerns are echoed by Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief, Kristinn

Hrafnsson.

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned that Assange is not receiving fair

treatment and being provided access to the necessary resources to

sufficiently build a case of defense.

We are also concerned of the continued reports that he is being denied

visitation rights.

Members of Assange's legal team have called for a delay in the

extradition hearing, which is currently scheduled for February 2020,

citing a need for more time to compile their defense.

Freedom Publishers Union understands the extension request was denied and

it remains unclear whether any further extension requests will be made by

Assange and his legal team.

The case against Julian Assange is part of a much broader and more

aggressive war on the free press and whistleblowers - a war waged not

only by the US Government, but many governments of nations that have

traditionally taken the foundations of a functioning free press for

granted by trusting it was protected by elements of political democracy.

Fear that the free press is under attack is very real and it is

abundantly clear that legislation that is supposed to protect the free

press, is effectively failing to uphold those supposed protections.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center/FPUorg

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] November 23, 2019 | [OPINION] Hong Kong

Dangerously on the Brink of Implosion

MODERN PROTESTS ARE STILL FAILING to achieve change or become a

revolution like we've witnessed historically.

They often start with an agenda but end up imploding and risk becoming a

lost cause resulting in violence without a purpose.

That is precisely what is happening in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is dangerously on the brink of implosion as the protests have

achieved very little and have festered mob hate groups intent on causing

violence and disruption under the democracy banner.

We are now learning that the public has been subjected to deliberately

manipulated video footage of violent clashes between protesters and Hong

Kong police, selectively played back from specific frames to portray the

message that the police response is heavy handed.

Nobody can dispute the police response is actually heavy handed and at

times violent, but so too is the actions of the protesters.

It's no longer a case of the public playing the game of pick a side.

It's now become a game of trying to determine the truth of what's being

shown in the news media.

The continued violence may very well see China take Hong Kong sooner

rather than later.

It's just ugly.

The Chinese are known to be very patient, but they're also known to not

forget.

Hong Kong is going to end up like the Prague Spring of Czechoslovakia,

1968.

This is China's problem: they waited too long after the transition from

British rule to implement mainland structure.

China originally thought an autonomous Hong Kong would give them access

to Western capital markets - which it did - but as soon as China began

attracting direct Western investment, they should've started implementing

mainland rules.

The continued failing of protest movements to achieve a revolution is

entirely down to the news media.

Social changes are treated as memes and not researched news.

It's exciting for the first week or two but when the movement gets into

actual negotiations - which don't have action events every night - it

falls off of page one and gets buried.

Hong Kong is indeed going to implode.

Unfortunately, America has just jammed a thumb in China's eye: President

Trump just committed America publicly to support the protesters -

diplomatically for now, meaning the trade war and South China Sea

negotiations are going to depend on China recognizing the protests.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] November 7, 2019 | [TECHNOLOGY] Linux Could

Prove to be Savior for Frustrated Windows 10 Users

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION RECENTLY PURCHASED a new laptop computer.

It adds to our office resources and will significantly assist in our

abilities to continue to publish quality content.

There were many considerations that we made when making our purchase.

Were we going to stick with Windows 10, opt for a Chromebook, or purchase

a system which we know provides great hardware support for Linux shall we

make the decision to ditch Windows 10 in favor of Linux.

After consideration, we settled on a HP.

We were comfortable with our purchase for two reasons: One, we already

have HP computers running in our office and we never experience any

problems.

Two, HP have brilliant hardware support for Linux.

Our computer come with Windows 10 S preinstalled.

We decided to be patient and gave Microsoft a couple of days to impress

us.

It is not as though we are unfamiliar with Windows 10, as the platform is

not new by any means.

But it has been receiving some pretty important updates recently.

We only have previous experience with the Home and Professional editions,

so S was certainly something new for us to explore.

The first thing that bothered us is the requirement of an Outlook email

address to create a user account on the computer.

If the user doesn't have an Outlook account, one can be created.

Gone is the option to create a simple username/password combination for

access.

This left a really sour taste with us.

Our patience run out pretty quickly.

By day three, we had had enough of the Microsoft rubbish with Windows 10

It was a horrible experience.

Windows 10 on 4GB of RAM is not very nice, the experience made worse by

the restrictions imposed on the user with the S version.

It locks down the Command-Prompt, PowerShell, Regedit and just about

anything else that makes Windows usable for power-users.

There is also no way to run executable files, forcing the user to install

only apps from the Windows Store which provides some pretty poor choices.

We had very little patience left and the discovery that we couldn't

install our own software using executable files was the last straw.

We rebooted, disabled SecureBoot and installed Linux.

In less than 15 minutes we had a running system comprising of Ubuntu MATE

19.10.

Improvements in performance were immediately noticeable when we launched

a Facebook video call.

With Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge browser we experienced stuttering

video and constant connection drop-outs.

With Ubuntu MATE and Chromium Browser performance was flawless with no

video stuttering or any connection drop-outs.

General system performance has been impressive too, even though RAM is

limited to 4GB.

But it's not a problem for Ubuntu MATE which has rarely used more than 1

out of the 4GB memory available.

Where does this leave Windows 10 in 2019? The latest iteration has been

turned into a burnt s'more by a huge number of cheesed-off users who feel

the burn of Windows Vista returning with missing hardware support and

subscriptions needed for nearly every application.

Especially the ones you already own that stop working and require an

upgrade to unlock your existing work.

Suddenly Linux has materialized on everyone's radar as a way to stop

paying hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of dollars every year to

continue to use their computer.

With free alternatives to the expensive subscriptions now spanning to

even games, Linux is suddenly no longer just for nerds.

It's actually a very appealing and viable alternative for users

frustrated with what they've been provided by Microsoft.

Many people are trying various Linux distributions - commonly referred to

as "flavors" - that do many different and sometimes specific things.

Staff in our office have been using Linux since 1992 and its predecessor

Unix, since 1978.

We are happy to welcome Windows refugees across the border.

Several of the more popular distributions give you a starting point for

trying Linux.

But we warn, if you're brand new to the Linux world, don't convert your

main computer right off the bat.

Take one of your old computers and convert it first.

If you can replace the hard disk with a cheap blank disk, do that too.

But it's not essential.

Stuck on where to start? Explore some of the websites for the popular

distributions - Ubuntu, Fedora or OpenSUSE.

Most of them do a good job of detailing how to download and install their

distribution from scratch.

You will have a running system in about 15 minutes.

All total, it shouldn't take anything over an hour to get started with an

old PC and tweak things to your liking.

From there, it's just a matter of doing some searching on the internet

and trying things.

And remember, you can start over any time you want with something brand

new by trying a different distribution.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] November 6, 2019 | Freedom Publishers Union

Executive Board Votes to Continue to Support the Free Software Foundation

PROMPTED BY RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WHICH led to the resignation of Richard

M. Stallman from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), Freedom Publishers

Union carried out an internal review with a purpose to decide whether it

was in the best interests of our Organization to continue to support the

FSF.

As a result of our internal review, the Executive Board has decided by

majority vote of 4:1 it remains in the interests of Freedom Publishers

Union to continue to support the Free Software Foundation.

-----

Written by the Executive Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] November 4, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Response and Conclusion

to Digital Platforms Inquiry

Introduction

JUNE 2019, THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

completed its much anticipated Digital Platforms Inquiry.

I had ordered that Freedom Publishers Union take maximum advantage of the

opportunity to contribute to the inquiry by commissioning two public

submissions.

The first was signed off by our Spokesperson and submitted to the ACCC on

March 11, 2018, following the release of the Issues Paper and prior to

the Preliminary Report being produced.

The second was signed off and submitted on January 31, 2019, post release

of the Preliminary Report.

In our original submission, Freedom Publishers Union outlined our

concerns in the form of five key points.

We suggested that the ACCC take into consideration the global market

share dominance of a concentration of dominant digital media distributors

and how their effective dominance is having an effect on the quality of

journalism and consumer choice.

Freedom Publishers Union also outlined concerns that the free

distribution model adopted and utilized by a concentraiton of digital

media distributors has shifted traditional market strategies which had

upheld a proven industry tradition of focusing on quality content,

instead to focus on fast media distribution of information, news and

media.

It is the conclusion of Freedom Publishers Union that it is the same

technology trend which enables fast media distribution which is also

drawing away appreciation of traditional mastheads who continue to strive

to deliver quality journalism, yet are faced with reduced audiences and

reduced advertising revenue which supports the journalistic delivery,

where traditional advertising revenue is being aggressively taken away by

the concentrated digital media distributors through their free

distribution models.

Traditional mastheads now face immediate and increasing challenges to

find ways to continue to operate and deliver quality journalism.

The most effective and fair response has been the subscription model

where mastheads place a soft/hard paywall in front of their content,

encouraging their audience to subscribe for complete access.

Subscription revenue then flows through the business operations to

support the masthead and their ability to continue to produce and publish

quality journalism.

The subscription model does not replace traditional revenue raised by

advertising, in terms of equivalent dollar value, however it still

remains the most effective means to counter the free delivery model

utilized by the concentrated digital media distributors.

The subscription model is a model that Freedom Publishers Union supports.

I personally, along with everyone at Freedom Publishers Union, appreciate

the quality of the information and data produced by the Digital Platforms

Inquiry, compiled and published by the ACCC.

The quality of the report, its findings, extensive data produced and the

23 recommendations is not only industry leading but world leading and is

yet to be matched.

Freedom Publishers Union specifically supports recommendations 3, 6, 7,

9, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 23.

After careful internal consultation and extended consideration, Freedom

Publishers Union does not support recommendation 8.

Furthermore, it is of the opinion of Freedom Publishers Union that

recommendation 18 requires further review before we can commend it as

outlined in the Digital Platforms Inquiry.

Any specific recommendation(s) absent from our conclusion does not mean

we commend or do not commend the absent recommendation(s).

Instead, Freedom Publishers Union has a restricted scope of interest for

the Digital Platforms Inquiry and the absence of any specific

recommendation(s) should simply be interpreted to be outside the scope of

interest and our review process of the Digital Platforms Inquiry.

Additionally, the specific recommendations we have outlined in our

conclusion may not be explicitly relevant to our restricted scope of

interest, instead may have simply been brought to our attention as a

matter of wider external interest, and what Freedom Publishers Union

believes to be relevant to the wider interest of the general public

and/or to improve the industry and media standards and practices.

Our response and conclusion to the Digital Platforms Inquiry should

certainly not be viewed as any kind of indication that we intend to rest

the issues surrounding digital platforms and associated rights.

Freedom Publishers Union intends to continue to pay specific attention to

not only the matters of interest and concern that have arisen from the

Digita Platforms Inquiry, but all matters and concern in relation to

digital rights.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Business Principal

Recommendation 3

Freedom Publishers Union supports measures that would require Google to

provide a choice of search engines from a list of popular search engine

alternatives, other than relying on the preset "Google" setting.

We would also support the additional requirement for Google to provide

the option to keep the preset "Chrome Browser" setting of the default

internet browser or to search the Play Store for an alternative internet

browser.

Both of the aforementioned proposals should be applicable to new and

existing Android devices, as it is fair to conclude it is well within the

technical capabilities of Google to implement such proposals.

Freedom Publishers Union also believes market fairness must be retained

and would support an extension of the same proposals to be applied to

Apple on new and existing iPhone and iPad devices.

Recommendations 6 and 7

Freedom Publishers Union supports the establishment of a new regulatory

framework specifically designed around the requirement to regulate and

monitor digital media distributors.

We do however have minor reservations and would advise it is approached

with a certain amount of caution when including provisions of oversight

with the power of enforcement to act.

If not approached with caution, then it could easily be used as a weapon

towards enforcing sanctions against digital media distributors which are

unfair and unrealistic in comparison to real-world market practices,

which can sometimes to misunderstood by ill-developed regulatory

frameworks and authoritative bodies.

Specifically related to recommendation 7, Freedom Publishers Union

believes that if the concept of a code-of-conduct model for digital media

distributors be developed, it could become part of the regulatory

framework as proposed in recommendation 6.

Recommendation 9

Freedom Publishers Union have long been advocates for Australia's public

broadcasting sector.

We will continue to advocate for the public broadcasting sector as a

whole, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special

Broadcasting Service (SBS).

We will continue to support measures that will deliver stable and

adequate funding for the sector, which at present should be considered

inadequately funded.

Recommendation 11

Freedom Publishers Union has a strong interest in philanthropic funded

journalism.

Although it is not within our scope of interest of the specifics of tax

and accounting requirements to properly and legally fund public interest

journalism through philanthropic means, we would encourage any measures

which further streamline the process to generate more philanthropic

investment for public interest journalism.

Philanthropic funded journalism complements the existing saturation of

commercial media entities and is highly under-valued for its very

important purpose to counter industry imbalance, which currently favors

commercial media entities.

Therefore, further support for philanthropic funded public interest

journalism should always be encouraged by the entire industry.

Recommendation 15

Freedom Publishers Union supports measures to counter disinformation and

complaints about questionable content on the platforms of digital media

distributors, within reasonable limits.

We urge that this should be approached with extreme caution.

Such caution was urged by Freedom Publishers Union with recommendation 6,

and the same caution applies here.

The establishment of a new code specifically designed to counter

disinformation and complaints about questionable content must be

carefully constructed to include the input of digital media distributors

and the appropriate body, or set of bodies, to eliminate an imbalance of

power which favors the body responsible.

Freedom Publishers Union genuinely believes that the digital media

distributors understand their business operations and platforms better

than any current body, or future created body.

It is because of the indisputable fact of their level of understanding,

we believe the digital media distributors are best placed to hold the

majority of responsibility for countering disinformation and complaints

about questionable content on their platforms.

Therefore, it is possible a new code could be developed but it must be

constrained, within reasonable limits, and any imbalance that comes as a

result of its development should sway in favor of the digital media

distributors.

Recommendations 16 and 17

Freedom Publishers Union have long been advocates for improving

Australia's Privacy Act.

It was developed in an era where digital information - as we understand

it - was in its infancy.

The Privacy Act is largely outdated, is overdue for serious reform and

must be amended to bring it to a point of relevance applicable to the

digital age of information.

Freedom Publishers Union would support changes to the definition of

"personal information" to accommodate digital information which can be

used to identify a person.

Additionally, we absolutely support the concept of the "Right-to-be-

forgotten" and have previously worked with other independent

organizations to promote the concept.

Individuals must have a legal right to compel a business or organization

to remove their personal data at their request, without any unjustified

delay to the request.

There must also be a suitable and effective mechanism in place to deal

with complaints by individuals where failure to comply with their request

has been identified.

Specifically related to recommendation 17, Freedom Publishers Union

believes the Privacy Act requires more extensive review than the proposed

changes outlined in the Digital Platforms Inquiry.

We cite this has been noted in recommendation 17 and we offer our support

for further review of the Privacy Act.

Recommendation 23

Freedom Publishers Union believes the establishment of a digital

platforms ombudsman is justified.

How it should be implemented and what specific role and responsibility

the ombudsman might hold must be considered carefully.

Still, despite minor concerns over giving a proposed ombudsman too much

authoritative responsibility, Freedom Publishers Union believes that the

justification for such establishment of the proposed position outweighs

such minor concerns, which could be dealt with, with considered

establishment of the position of a digital platforms ombudsman.

Recommendation 8

Freedom Publishers Union expresses opposition to recommendation 8.

Our position of opposition stems from specific core political values that

our organization was founded.

We believe the proposals in recommendation 8 are possibly in direct

conflict with up to three core political values Freedom Publishers Union

is bound;

"Digital Liberties - We will always defend to the highest extent

possible, the internet's founding design principles, the freedom and

openness it permits and will always resist any attempts to control it."

"Net Neutrality - Uninterrupted, clean internet access is a fundamental

element to the operations of the internet's core design.

We advocate that internet access should be open and equal to all, by the

prevention of gatekeepers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down

content based on the source, destination, owner or intended data access

purpose."

"Censorship - We support full freedom of expression off-line and online,

therefore oppose any form of government censorship, regulation or

attempts to control communications, media and technology."

Freedom Publishers Union operates to protect and uphold a free and open

internet.

Supporting the establishment and implementation of a code which permits

an easy path for rights holders to have content removed that they believe

they have usage rights to, is a system we believe is ripe for abuse

before it has even come to fruition.

We oppose such proposals to the highest extent possible.

If such a proposal was to come to be established and implemented in

Australia, Freedom Publishers Union would unfortunately be forced into a

position where we, as an organization along with individual staff

members, would publicly condemn, discredit and oppose the implemented

scheme, to align our operations to, and respect, our founding core

political values which place us under the obligation to protect and

uphold a free and open internet.

Recommendation 18

Freedom Publishers Union has not yet formed an official position to

recommendation 18.

There are some elements of the recommendation which we can offer

immediate support, such as opt-out controls which propose to give

consumers the choice to opt-out (or opt-in) of personal information

collection and for what purpose(s) it should be used.

We can also offer immediate support for restrictions on data retention

applicable to personal data.

Other proposals require further consideration, combined with further

examination of how the two aforementioned elements would blend with other

proposals of recommendation 18 or whether they would be best integrated

into other proposals in other recommendations.

Therefore, we remain neutral in our conclusion of recommendation 18.

Further matters

Freedom Publishers Union initially devised our interest in the Digital

Platforms Inquiry with an applied set of specific points of concern.

Despite this applied set of specific points of concern, we were always

open to ideas and areas of interest and concern that would be presented

in the Digital Platforms Inquiry that we had not previously thought of,

yet now believe are deserved of greater attention.

As a result of the compilation and publication of the Digital Platforms

Inquiry, Freedom Publishers Union has now learned of the negative impact

that Google and Facebook's advertising majority has had on Australian

country - regional and rural - news mastheads.

The majority of digital advertising revenue has hit regional and rural

mastheads hard and the massive reduction in traditional advertising

dollars have had a significant impact on the ability of mastheads to

continue to operate in these areas.

The effects have been felt much harder in regional and rural areas

compared to city mastheads, which face challenges but have managed to

stay operational.

Unfortunately, the effects have been so hard in regional and rural areas,

some mastheads have disappeared completely.

Additionally, Freedom Publishers Union has also now learned of the

importance of what has previously been outlined in our response to

recommendation 3.

Conclusion

Freedom Publishers Union concludes by thanking the Chair of the

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims.

We also thank his staff and everyone at the ACCC who contributed to

producing the Digital Platforms Inquiry Preliminary Report and Final

Report.

We would also like to thank all the stakeholders and digital media

platforms who contributed.

Finally, we thank all the industry entities, organizations and

individuals who made submissions to the Digital Platforms Inquiry.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #3 | October 26, 2019

LAST WEEK, AUSTRALIANS WITNESSED ANOTHER horrific story which again

brought to public attention the dark side of the horse racing industry.

I care for the environment and support land protection.

I also support animal rights and have formed a strong position against

the use of animals for the purpose of sport and entertainment.

My position was formed at a very young age when I heard stories of

animals being shot at circuses when injuries occur, horses being shot at

racing events when serious injury comes as the result of falls and then

revelations of the discovery of mass graves of greyhound carcasses which

were the result of ex or unwanted racing dogs.

My position is simple and uncompromising - animals do not belong in sport

and should not be used for entertainment value.

Everyday Australians were sickened by the story presented by the ABC

program, 7.30, which reported on ex-race horses being abused and sent for

slaughter to be turned into pet meat.

To add further insult, it has been reported that some of the ex-race

horses that were processed into pet meat, the food was then sold to

greyhound owners.

Race dogs being fed ex-race horse meat - what could be more chilling.

As the report points out, the racing industry has rules and regulations

in place which are supposed to eliminate abuse of ex-race horses, yet the

abuse continues and the racing industry's governing bodies have no means

to stop it, now or in the future.

The horse racing industry is no different to the greyhound racing

industry, which also has a history of animal abuse and ill treatment of

ex-race dogs which are often the subject of mass-kills then secretly

dumped in mass graves instead of being re-homed.

The ignorant argue that re-homing ex-race horses and dogs is an extremely

difficult task and not always an option.

To those supporting such an ignorant and ridiculous argument and to those

involved in either of the racing industries, if you are unwilling to make

the effort to look after the animals that are making you hundreds of

thousands of dollars and in some cases millions, get out of the industry.

To the governing bodies of these industries, you're weak, have no ability

to enforce the regulations the industry currently has let alone be able

to enforce further regulations if introduced.

If anyone at all thinks this can be resolved and controlled within the

racing industries of horses and dogs then you're naive in your view and

choosing to ignore the issues that have been deeply embedded like cancer,

for many years.

There is some weak suggestion floating around that a race horse register

is the answer to stop ex-race horses from receiving a fate of being

slaughtered and placed into a tin can for pet meat.

If that's the best suggestion that can be thought of to end such animal

abuse which is rife throughout the entire industry, then shame on those

supporting such a weak resolution proposal.

This will not end until the industries are shut down.

We must cease racing horses and dogs immediately and the industries

should be shut down permanently.

There is no economic argument that can hold up to support the

continuation of the industries.

Racing dollars are kept within the industries and do not flow through to

local economies and better the community.

The industries make money off gambling and alcohol, with revenues and

profits instilled in a limited industry bubble with the nasty side-effect

of habitual animal abuse by race animal owners and trainers when their

money making commodity is deemed useless.

It's time to burst that bubble and finally support the rights of animals

and end the cruelty for good.

If the industries are allowed to continue to operate, then the parallel

abuse of animals is guaranteed to continue also.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

October 23, 2019 | IBM/Fedora 31 Review

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IBM/Fedora 31 (IBM/F31) has been designed to

perform as a workhorse.

Whether you're rolling it out in volume on enterprise workstations,

building an in-house server or simply installing one of the many

available Spins on your home computer, you can forget about Red Hat

Enterprise Linux or CentOS, you only need IBM/F31.

Tecseek Technology are now part of LinkNet and our staff have had the

benefit of being able to closely observe testing of certain LinkNet

features of which portions were running IBM/F31 Beta.

We were able to foresee from development stage that IBM/F31 was one heck

of a beast built to perform.

We certainly like where the Fedora Project is heading and if quality

releases such as this continue to be developed, we see a positive future

ahead for the project and its community of users.

IBM/F31 ships with GNOME 3.33.92.

Our builds were running Linux kernel 5.3.0, but we understand that by the

time you read this review updates to the kernel will be available.

We gave GNOME a good chance to impress us.

That it even got a look at we think is generous.

We usually ignore it completely.

We performed our routine poking around at seeing what makes up this

release.

The Anaconda installer is always a delight to use and there's no big

changes to note.

It has always been the best installer in the Linux ecosystem to handle

RAID pools upon initial installation and that trend continues.

We found GNOME took a little longer to install than the Spins though.

XFCE and MATE were on par with each other but both were notably quicker

to install compared to GNOME.

As usual, dnf performs tasks at lighting speed and doesn't disappoint.

dnf is quickly becoming one of our favorite package tools, building on

the strengths of rpm.

Debian's package tool apt is a solid offering, but it is starting to ail

by comparison.

We feel it might possibly be taken for granted for its years of service

providing brilliant stability and reliability.

We constantly see improvements to compression technology and delta

functions of dnf and OpenSUSE's zypper package tool which has resulted in

really impressive speed improvements of function.

dnf and zypper are blazing fast.

apt needs work.

GNOME fans will be pleased with the inclusion of the updated Shell, but

we found once the initial excitement was over we were just way too keen

to ditch GNOME for the lighter alternatives we're accustomed to.

GNOME doesn't work for us and we hate the constant absence of the

Minimize and Maximize window buttons combined with the extra chunky

window title bar which just wastes way too much screen real estate.

This is even more annoying for those using smaller screens.

XFCE has been our go-to graphical desktop environment for a long time.

We just consider it our home.

IBM/F31 includes the updated XFCE 4.14 package.

We're not going to run over all the changes again because we've already

touched on them in our review of Ubuntu 19.10 and the same is applicable

to IBM/F31.

But we remind readers there's a lot of updates, with the most important

changes being the result of the porting of old GTK2 components to GTK3.

XFCE is always reliable, always stable and we trust it.

XFCE 4.14 running on IBM/F31 reinforces that trust and combined, make a

seriously stable Linux operating system that shouldn't be ignored.

If you're an existing user of XFCE then you should update to the latest

version because the polish enjoyed by the GTK3 updates alone are enough

of an incentive.

Feeling adventurous, we wanted to compare the experience of GNOME and

XFCE to that of MATE desktop on IBM/F31.

GNOME is certainly no match for XFCE in terms of responsiveness and

usablity.

MATE offers more hope.

While we felt MATE on IBM/F31 isn't quite as polished as Ubuntu MATE, the

experience was very enjoyable.

It took us a little time to get things right to meet our high

expectations, but we believe that's a positive and actually accentuates

one of the stand-out benefits of MATE in that it's completely

customizable and can match XFCE if you spend the time hacking it.

Performance is not bad by default, but we expected a little more

responsiveness.

We do like the default inclusion of Compiz window manager.

It provides a neat little icon in the desktop panel which allows

switching windows managers on-the-fly, between Marco and Compiz.

Also, you can switch between window decorator modes of Emerald and GTK.

We found Compiz enabled does provide much more pleasant aesthetics and

smoother window movement and transition, but lag overhead was noticeable.

This is not unique to IBM/F31 though and is completely normal behavior

for Compiz.

Switching to the Marco window manager reduced precision aesthetics but

returned the desktop to a better state of responsiveness.

Either mode is acceptable, really.

The lag that Compiz brings with it is only minimal and if you're willing

to suffer the very slight performance hit for a better looking desktop,

then it works well.

We really like IBM/F31.

It's a huge improvement in Fedora 30 (F30) which we found to be very

buggy and were forced to grapple with disappointing performance.

None of the problems experienced with F30 seem to be present in IBM/F31.

All three graphical desktop environments we tested were a pleasure to use

and non presented us with any performance problems.

F30 was so bad we struggled to recommend it, at the time of review.

This time, we're glad to be able to do a complete reversal and have every

reason to recommend you consider IBM/F31.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

October 17, 2019 | [EXCLUSIVE] Ubuntu 19.10 (Eoan Ermine) Review

IGNORING THE QUIRKY CODE NAME for the release of Ubuntu 19.10, which

aside from forming part of the title of the article, we refuse to repeat

it anywhere else in this review simply because we hate it so much.

Thankfully, the stupid code name is no reflection on the quality of

19.10.

We tested a couple of different systems running XFCE and MATE throughout

its development phase.

By the time the final release was let into the wild it didn't really feel

special or new.

Instead, it felt very familiar.

It's a delight to work with and has been a delight throughout the course

of its development which matured very early on to a point where it was

extremely stable and absolutely usable.

19.10 comes with XFCE 4.14, which we understand has been in development

for four years.

The updated version of the popular traditional lightweight desktop

environment offers a lot of updates under the keyboard, but visually it

looks very much the same.

It benefits from many bug fixes, performance improvements and older

components previously stuck on GTK2 have finally been ported to support

GTK3.

The latter being the most labor intensive of all changes.

All up, 4.14 offers users a stable and fast desktop environment.

19.04 was a brilliant release and we engaged in some pretty in-depth

testing for that beast.

We enjoyed every second of it.

19.10 builds on the same level of stability and quality of its

predecessor making it equal by comparison.

The engine moving this thing along is the Linux kernel 5.3.0.

The software selection has become quite predictable for Ubuntu so there's

nothing that will jump out and surprise you.

Firefox Quantum is included like usual too, shipping the 69.0.3 build.

This might appear a bleeding edge build to ship, but it is certainly

stable.

Firefox development progresses relatively fast now, with the latest

Firefox Nightly already at 71.

We really love the wallpaper of the XFCE desktop.

The tones of blue are easy on the retinas and won't fry them like the

horrible disgusting theme that gets shipped with vanilla Ubuntu and

GNOME.

XFCE comes with a small, yet appreciated, collection of themes to change

the appearance.

Greybird is the middle-ground default and employs lots of grays.

But if gray just isn't your thing and you prefer something lighter, then

Raleigh is a nice option.

Or, if you have a thirst for the dark side, then Adwaita-dark is sure to

wet the appetite.

Numix is worth a mention with its elegant blend of white, gray and peach.

But we felt Numix was a little too kiddie-like.

Still, it will definitely appeal to some.

We mentioned the default wallpaper before and how much we love it.

There are others that are shipped that you can change it to, however

these are all the same ones shipped with previous versions of XFCE.

This is one area which could do with getting some fresh attention.

Obviously the next best option will be to perform an online wallpaper

search for a nicer alternative.

Still, we hope to see some new wallpaper inclusions in future releases

and see some of the older stale ones removed.

Tecseek Technology was incredibly impressed with the MATE release of

19.10.

For those unfamiliar with MATE, the project is a continuation of the old

GNOME 2.x project which was effectively abandoned once GNOME adopted

their new future vision for the graphical desktop on Linux.

That vision is now reflected in the GNOME Shell desktop.

It's all history now, but fast forward to today and the project of old

lives on in the form of MATE.

It's certainly not a new project, but Ubuntu was late to the party to

officially support MATE as an officially recognized Ubuntu release.

But it hasn't all been pretty the entire time.

Previous version of MATE on Ubuntu have been a bit flaky and this is

acknowledged by the project's Co-Founder and Project Lead, Martin

Wimpress.

He says, "I have not been completely happy with the quality of recent

Ubuntu MATE releases.".

The Ubuntu MATE team have been working extremely hard at improving things

for the release of 19.10.

Their hard work shows too.

Ubuntu MATE is a wonderful operating system to use and has all the

aesthetics which place it into a very respectable position to be compared

to that of Linux Mint.

Ubuntu MATE ships with 1.22.2.

Plus, according to the development notes there are extra packages which

have been pulled from MATE upstream development and included in 19.10.

Caja extensions and Pluma plugins are notorious for not loading properly

and often a cause of user frustration, so it's nice to see them being

fixed this time.

There's also better support for HiDPI rendering too, which XFCE also

benefits, complemented by improvements to better support NVIDIA drivers.

MATE also includes some serious improvements to the Marco window manager,

which sees nasty screen tearing eradicated, or so claimed.

Game frame rates are also said to benefit from the improvements to Marco.

We are unable to perform any game testing, however it should seriously

impress the Linux gamers out there if the claimed improvements are

correct.

The improvements to Marco have also resulted in Compiz being removed as

it is no longer required due to Marco now handling the features Compiz

was originally included for.

The MATE panel has received a number of bug and reliability fixes, which

also see the notorious bug that results in over-sized icons plaguing the

indicators section on the MATE panel, squashed for good.

Brisk is the default menu handler.

It performs without any obvious issues, yet we prefer the traditional

three-level MATE menu as we believe the separation of Applications,

Places and System is quicker to navigate around.

This is a personal choice and easy enough to change anyway.

But if you're happy with Brisk, then that's fine too.

Software changes specific to Ubuntu MATE have seen Thunderbird ditched in

favor of Evolution, as the default email client.

Tecseek Technology have been advocating for the removal of Thunderbird

for some time.

One of the reasons we believe justifies the removal is its obvious large

package size.

It is unnecessarily big and takes up way too much valued space in the

final ISO build that is eventually shipped.

Ubuntu MATE developers apparently echo our complaint, claiming,

"Thunderbird and Lightning occupies 171MB on the ISO image, while

Evolution uses 46MB".

Nobody can argue with that statement of the obvious.

Ubuntu MATE developers also cite that Evolution has much better

interoperability with LibreOffice, Google Mail and Exchange.

Other software changes that may upset some media lovers is the removal of

VLC, in favor of GNOME MPV which has now been renamed to Celluloid.

VLC loyalists might be displeased at the decision, but we prefer the mpv

backend anyway.

Celluloid is simply a graphical frontend to mpv, which itself is a fork

of the original mplayer/2 source code.

Gotta love open-source software! Still, if the decision to drop VLC does

piss off the loyalists, they can simply reinstall it anyway as it will

always be available in the repositories.

19.10 running XFCE genuinely just feels like a natural continuation of

19.04, sticking to the same path of excellence.

We are really happy with the latest update.

19.10 running MATE feels like a reset for the Ubuntu MATE project.

Faced with past releases which have been bug-ridden and pretty

uninspiring in their development, the latest update to MATE feels much

more ready to provide a serious alternative to the mainstream.

XFCE or MATE - which one to pick? We love them both and actually struggle

to pick favorites.

Especially when you have two excellent packages side-by-side which

deserve equal credit for the hard work the developers put in.

The hard work has paid off and is on full show.

If you absolutely insist that we pick a favorite, then we're gonna have

to point to Ubuntu MATE.

It left a really positive impression on us.

It looks good and it feels good through its fast and stable performance.

Where some distributions have struggled to get the perfect blend of all

the development components required to make a release what it is, Ubuntu

MATE 19.10 feels like the project has moved one step closer to perfection

- if such a thing exists.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #3 | October 16, 2019

IF YOU'RE FEELING AUSTRALIAN POLITICS is a little dry at the moment or

leaving a bad taste in your mouth, you are not alone.

There is serious issues that require greater policy attention but the

Liberal Government is ignoring just about every single one of them, while

cleverly avoiding just about every question put to them and engaging

their automatic robot-like response which usually consists of political-

nothing-spew involving "jobs and growth".

It's become quite ridiculous, to be frank.

The level of ignorance and gall the Liberal Party goons have, to ignore

real issues that affect everyday Australians is outright insulting.

This Liberal Government led by Scott Morrison is quickly becoming worthy

of being recorded in the history books as being the 'government of

nothing'.

A quick scan of the media shows many pressing global issues - Australia's

relationship with China, Turkey's invasion of Northern Syria and BREXIT.

I'm sure there's something about Donald Trump thrown into the mix

somewhere too.

All of these global issues have varying levels of importance.

But what about the real issues on the ground in Australia's cities and

towns across the country.

Towns running out of water? Increasingly unaffordable rent costs?

Unacceptably high energy costs for families? Ridiculously low social

security rates? Accessible incentives for independent business startups?

There could be an infinite list to draft, yet the Government seems to go

to great lengths to avoid recognizing any of these issues.

We've got no hope in a Government addressing any of these issues when

they fail to acknowledge the issues to begin with.

The Federal Government's reaction to Extinction Rebellion protests has

been pathetic.

Referring to them all as a collective of welfare recipients and

psychedelic nutters who prefer to protest instead of looking for a job -

what a low blow.

If that wasn't low enough, the Government went lower by threatening to

strip welfare benefits off protesters who are deemed to be receiving any

form of welfare.

If such an authoritative avenue was pursued by the Government I'm sure

legal hurdles would be encountered.

But to suggest such ridiculous action as a response to climate protests

is stupid and beggars belief.

Seriously, is Australia still a democracy? I know democratic rights are

being eroded, but by threatening to strip welfare benefits from

recipients who choose to stand up for the action on climate and on an

issue they feel passionate about is borderline totalitarian stuff and

makes your head shake in disbelief.

The Queensland Premier has been driving the political condemnation of

climate protests.

While we're on climate talk, let's talk drought.

There can be absolutely no denial that Australia is suffering from a

devastating drought at present.

The entire country is feeling the pinch from the severe shortage of

significant rainfall.

When it does rain, it fails to fill the nation's dams and catchments.

Nobody is feeling the pinch more than the farmers.

Government response? Throw a couple of hundred dollars extra at farmers

in a bid to keep them from complaining and commit to building more dams.

Build more dams, are you serious? To hold what water? Even if the nation

miraculously experiences significant and heavy rainfall it will still

struggle to fill existing dams, without the need for building extra dams.

I'm quickly becoming convinced that the Liberal Party have at some point

circulated an internal memo which not only claims climate change is a

conspiracy theory, but so is Australia's drought.

Don't hold out any hope the Labor Party will come to the rescue.

Their internal fighting continues.

After the shock loss at the last Federal Election I think internal

fighting within the party ranks was always predictable and probably

inevitable.

Labor need to get their act together and come up with a serious and

viable policy alternative to the Liberal Party.

Because right now, they have nothing to offer in the way of any

alternative government to the circus of nothing we are forced to endure

at the moment.

The Greens offer a sensible policy alternative and should be taking

maximum advantage of the current weak position Labor has brought upon

itself and foster support from voters who simply find the Liberal and

Labor parties too vile to support.

Now on the weird and completely unexpected opinion expressed by Barnaby

Joyce, who claims Australia has not done enough to support Julian

Assange.

Yes, that was not a typo.

You read it correct.

Joyce is absolutely correct.

The Liberal Government (and former Labor Government's) have never

provided any significant support to Assange who continues to be faced

with extraordinary circumstances like nothing experienced by any other

Australian, overseas.

The public comments by Joyce - accusing his own Government of not doing

enough and failing to try to stop the extradition of Assange to the US

from Britain where he is currently imprisoned - was interesting.

Joyce is known as not being able to be silenced on matters he feels

strongly about.

Sometimes his rhetoric is disposable.

Yet in this case, he might seem to actually be making sense.

Not surprisingly, his opinion has been silenced by his Liberal Party

colleagues by their reactive silence in return.

Scott Morrison has made his position clear in the past and refuses to

provide any special support to Assange, despite the special circumstances

Assange faces.

It's all too often claimed Assange already receives consular assistance

like every other Australian overseas.

However, previous statements from Assange and his legal team indicate the

Australian Government has never offered any significant assistance.

Despite what I feel was an important opinion expressed by Joyce, it

appears it has fallen on deaf years within the Liberal Party ranks.

And that's very sad.

On international matters in brief, Australia's relationship with China is

increasingly fragile and requires daily attention to find the right

balance between geopolitical respect and condemning them for their

misdeeds.

I'm not so sure the Government has got the balance right.

On Turkey's invasion of Northern Syria which has come as a result of the

US pulling out troops from the region and paving an uninterrupted path

for the Turks to move in and take over, like usual, the Prime Minister is

all chummy touting the strength of Australia's relationship with the US.

In the eyes of Scott Morrison, US President Donald Trump can do no wrong.

Syria was already wrecked beyond the stage of peaceful nation rebuilding.

Now with more war led by Turkey, comes increased inevitability of more

civilian casualties and slaughtering of the Kurds.

Islamic State was never defeated.

At least not the ideology.

Any suggestion to the contrary is an underestimation of how deep their

ideology runs.

The most recent turn of events is no doubt going to see a vibrant

reemergence of the Islamic State, forming a revived group of individuals

who thrive on the notion of violence and suffering.

Trump pulling out the troops and leaving the Kurds - our friends - to

fend for themselves against the Turks was a mistake.

Morrison should have condemned Trump for such a reckless decision.

Then finally, BREXIT.

Well, that's all I have to say about BREXIT.

There's nothing left to say.

The current domestic political landscape can only be summarized as this;

The Labor Party is often portrayed as a party without a clear path ahead.

That portrayal is still reasonably accurate.

Things aren't much better for the Liberal Party though with all

indicators blinking red-alert, placing the party as top candidate as a

party without a clear path ahead.

In opposition, it's a bad position to be in.

But in government, it's much worse.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] October 9, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] In Defense of

Richard M. Stallman

SEPTEMBER SAW THE UNFORTUNATE FALL of one of the world's leading free

software pioneers and advocates, Richard M. Stallman, or better known as

simply RMS.

The downfall of Stallman has unfortunately played out in the most unfair

and unjust courts of all - the court of public opinion - which can be

harsh and all too often formed from inaccurate and misunderstood

information.

Sub-Editor of Freedom Publishers Union, Brett Brennan, expresses concern

over the problem.

He says, "There are so many issues with public opinion and the media that

it is impossible to pick a starting point for understanding how we got

here.".

Stallman's problems started when he questioned the legitimacy of the

accusations, by definition of "sexual assault" - specifically related to

accusations on Marvin Minsky - on the MIT CSAIL mailing list on September

11, 2019.

Interestingly, a redacted copy of the mailing list thread that has been

published in the public domain contains a stark warning that states

anyone with an opinion differing to that of the legal determination of

sexual assault should "refrain from saying so in this same discussion

group out of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued

by the press".

The date of the post indicates the warning was published after the

contributions to the list by Stallman.

Unfortunately for Stallman, his contributions and comments were indeed

misconstrued in the media.

Freedom Publishers Union has no way to independently verify the

legitimacy of the leaked mailing list thread.

Stallman has not denied the list's legitimacy therefore we simply take

that as a clear indicator the list is authentic.

We have chosen to re-publish the list to prove that Stallman's

contributions contained in the list have been deliberately

mischaracterized, and to encourage readers to read it and make their own

interpretation.

A disappointing yet vital element which is being overlooked by many is an

admission by the original author of the article published on Medium, who

identifies as a Robotic Engineer from MIT known as Selam G, who would

also leak copies of the mailing list thread to Vice.

But in her Medium post (September 11, 2019) titled "Remove Richard

Stallman", she admits to not even knowing Stallman.

"Did I even really know who Richard Stallman was before those emails? To

be honest, not really", she says.

With such an obtuse post title followed by a tirade of anger-driven text,

the motive of Selam G appears pretty clear.

If she deliberately started writing with an end-goal of publicly

castigating Stallman because he shared different views to those who hold

on to the #MeToo motive feeling an obligation to do so just by being

female, then I guess she succeeded.

Stallman never disputed that violence or force against women is wrong.

And he certainly didn't promote it.

Admittedly, it could be argued the point he was trying to convey was not

very well constructed by his choice of words.

However, it could be counter-argued that it was still coherently clear

that Stallman was stating that by definition sexual assault defines

"force" or "violence" against another, unwilling participant.

We agree.

He further questioned how law in a specific jurisdiction could define

sexual assault.

This is precisely where the entire argument gets taken out of context.

Stallman was arguing whether if a female is 17 or 18, is it right that

sexual assault accusations can be placed against a male if the female is

sexually willing, simply because the law of the jurisdiction defines it

as sexual assault based on the age of 17 and not the act itself? Also, he

argued if the same act occurs with the exact same circumstances and the

female is 18 and in the same jurisdiction, is it right there's no basis

for a sexual assault accusation? As pointed out already, the choice of

words by Stallman to make the argument may have been poorly chosen but it

absolutely does not justify the public castigating that he has been

forced to endure, which was ultimately started by Salem G on Medium.

It was never the law that Stallman was disputing, rather an

interpretation of how sexual assault is defined and applied under law.

Stallman obviously found the mounting pressure too much and brought

himself to the conclusion there was no choice but to resign from both his

position at MIT CSAIL and from the Free Software Foundation (FSF), an

organization he founded in 1985.

Freedom Publishers Union stands ready to defend Stallman and will

continue to support the cause he leads as an advocate for the free

software movement.

Freedom Publishers Union increasingly finds it very disturbing that even

those in leading and respected positions can be placed into the court of

public opinion for simply presenting an alternative viewpoint on a

particular topic.

Stallman is known to have alternate views on many things the world

accepts as 'normal' and it should be no basis for judgment.

Yet it has frequently been a source to many, to draw criticism directed

towards Stallman.

The latest attacks are no different and it is because the views and

opinions of Stallman differ - on many things - makes him an easy target,

especially from the overzealous females willing to kick along the #MeToo

movement without cause or basis, giving further fuel to a social media

driven movement which continues to purport every man with non-simplistic

views towards females in general, as women haters.

It is simply not the case.

Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, Chris McGimpsey-Jones,

has been particularly critical of the #MeToo movement and urges caution

on joining social media campaigns that fail to define their goal.

He says, "Many social media campaigns are worthy of supporting -

environment, climate change and political issues - they all have a

purpose and will usually outline a plan of what participants can do.

But unfortunately there are some social media campaigns that simply have

no purpose.

#MeToo is one of them.

It doesn't have a purpose other than making females feel like they have

an avenue of expression in the public arena to share their experiences

with certain males.

Applying a #MeToo hashtag to your tweet and a name of an individual is

not a campaign.

It's about the author of the tweet making themselves feel better.

It's a targeted attack on the individual.

It can have consequences on the individual, and ultimately has absolutely

no other goal other than to destroy the reputation of the individual that

had their name attached.

It's wrong and unfair.".

Stallman is simply collateral damage from the Jeffrey Epstein saga and

has wrongfully been accused of being a supporter of violence against

women, a women hater and even been accused as being a pedophile.

All of the accusations that paint Stallman as such a figure are

demeaning, unfair, baseless and unjustified.

Freedom Publishers Union also believes that there is evidence to justify

the suggestion the attacks against Stallman have been deliberate.

The email thread released is heavily redacted with all names removed

except for that of Stallman.

The fact Stallman has been hand-picked on a mailing list to not have his

name redacted is unfair and indicative of a vendetta and deliberate

attempt at a public reckoning of a often misunderstood individual, albeit

respected.

Writing for WIRED, respected technology journalist Steven Levy wrote,

"Stallman reacted in a way that anyone who knew him would not be

surprised to see".

It was encouraging to see somebody willing to publicly identify and

acknowledge the unique characteristics of Stallman that so many others

have so conveniently chosen to ignore in their reporting and commentary.

However, we also note that the rest of the article by Levy was quite

disappointing and failed to adequately defend him.

In fact, it was quite the opposite.

The article was given the title of "Richard Stallman and the Fall of the

Clueless Nerd".

To suggest Stallman is "Clueless" is outright offensive to Stallman and

those that know him.

Freedom Publishers Union would refrain from applying any label to

Stallman, but many have suggested he is a genius.

We certainly could not argue with that description of him.

On the WIRED article, it is unclear whether it was the editors of WIRED

that applied the title or Levy himself.

Irrespective of who authorized its title, it is extremely disappointing

to see an article written by such a long established and respected

technology journalist and equal associated masthead offend Stallman by

referencing him as "Clueless", without justification.

In this case, it appears WIRED has instead simply followed the rest of

the media parade of Stallman hatred holding burning torches and

pitchforks.

Stallman's story isn't unique.

Again, Brett Brennan says, "These attacks have destroyed countless lives,

simply because a good story sells.".

Chris McGimpsey-Jones also concurs and says "yes, the court of public

opinion is harsh and amplified by the press" and that Stallman's downfall

"has been the result of hatred by others and not actually something he

has done other than have a different opinion.".

Levy of WIRED concludes on a somber note, warning we should "not call him

the last of his kind.

More will fall as the reckoning continues.".

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply disappointed that the FSF has chosen

to be near silent on the departure of Stallman.

To be fair to the FSF, it is not their fight.

It is Stallman's fight.

He made it more-so since he resigned from the FSF.

But we expected a better response from the Board of Directors of the

organization founded by Stallman.

The FSF simply published a short few sentences stating the Stallman had

resigned from all positions at the FSF and a search for his replacement

was underway.

A very weak response, Freedom Publishers Union believes.

As a result, we are currently placing our support for the FSF under

immediate review and intend to contact the FSF and notify our intention

to do so.

During the compiling of this editorial, Freedom Publishers Union became

extremely concerned for the personal welfare of Stallman when we were

notified he had posted a message to his personal website asking for

offers of accommodation.

Although details of the past living conditions of Stallman are

speculation and we have no credible evidence to support it, it is widely

believed that he had been living in his MIT office.

Previous colleagues have confirmed that he had a mattress in his office.

This seems plausible, as the request for accommodation came soon after he

resigned from MIT CSAIL and indicates Stallman was staying at his MIT

office.

In what capacity, we do not know.

Thankfully, the accommodation request was changed to a message of

gratitude, thanking those that contacted him with offers and stated he

had found accommodation.

We wish Stallman well, but the accommodation request specifically was a

very clear indication of just how hard the fallout from the gang-vendetta

and the court of public opinion has been for Stallman.

The disappointment is further enhanced when one considers the extensive

contributions Stallman has made to the free software movement over the

last 35 years.

We believe he deserves much more respect than what has been shown.

Freedom Publishers Union remains confident that Stallman will endure the

most recent public castigation he has so unfairly faced and will continue

his efforts of advocating for free and open-source software.

Despite his resignation from the FSF, we are encouraged by his decision

to remain with the GNU Project, which will continue to enjoy the support

of Freedom Publishers Union.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] October 5, 2019 | [TECHNOLOGY] Red Hat Forum 2012

(Brisbane, Australia)

IBM is currently engaging with industry insiders through its Red Hat

conferences, around the world and in many cities.

In 2012, I attended one of the same conferences hosted by Red Hat, before

it was acquired by IBM.

It was exciting and engaging.

The industry knowledge I gained about the technology Red Hat was working

on at the time, was incredible.

I certainly hope that I have the privilege to be invited to one of the

conferences in the future.

During my attendance at the Red Hat Forum in 2012, I was working for the

now defunct Unixmen website.

I attended the conference as a representative of Unixmen.

The article being published today was acquired by Freedom Publishers

Union and I thought it would be a great idea to have our Asia/Pacific

Press Office revisit the summary of the conference detailed in this

editorial which was compiled from my attendance.

Plus to have some fun comparing technology trends, from 2012 to now.

In 2012 cloud computing technology was still maturing and the transition

of data and services into the cloud was in its relative infancy.

In 2019, the cloud is everywhere!

Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy this two-piece (unedited)

editorial from the archives of 2012.

Part 1

I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO be invited to the Red Hat Forum 2012, which was

held in the city of Brisbane QLD, Australia.

I attended the conference and represented Unixmen.

The topic was "Build Your Own Open Hybrid Cloud Today!".

It was a very professional event and it was a real privilege to attend.

To present the Red Hat Forum 2012 summary to Unixmen readers, we've

decided to split it into two parts to make things easier, as there's a

lot of technical information that follows in our summary.

The "Keynote Presentation" was held by Tom Warner, Red Hat Territory

Manager.

Tom introduced Red Hat to the audience for those that were perhaps

unfamiliar with what services the company provides.

Tom detailed how the methods of delivery of software services have

changed and evolved over the course of many years.

He used the method of App delivery as demonstrated by Google (Android)

and Apple, as a good example of how the cost of software services can be

brought down to an absolute minimum, for both the business and customer.

"Back in the 90s, who would have ever thought you could buy a piece of

quality software for 99cents? Not many of us.", suggests Tom.

Tom Warner finalized his introduction by touting the power of free and

open-source software and how Red Hat has built upon open-source, in-turn

making them a 1 billion dollar company.

"The Open Everything" was introduced by Akhil Bhaskar, Manager of JBoss

Enterprise Middleware.

Very soft spoken, Akhil demonstrated how Red Hat had built on the

foundations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as its core and how Red

Hat sees its own future business structure.

"Red Hat want to go beyond RHEL and focus on all enterprise services as a

whole", speaks Akhil.

The next major step for Red Hat is Virtualization and Storage.

Akhil says Red Hat is not satisfied with becoming the world's first 1

billion dollar open-source software company.

They want more.

Akhil states Red Hat intends on becoming a 5 billion dollar company.

And Akhil believes that this is where Red Hat is heading and that it's

certainly a possibility it will occur in the next 5 years.

Very optimistic on Red Hat's behalf.

Akhil also took the audience back to the 1990s and stated that Intel and

AMD had achieved a lot in standardizing hardware specifications.

As a result of hardware standards set up in the 90s, hardware costs

across the industry have been driven down to very affordable levels.

Lower hardware costs have led to more and more computer systems being

implemented on a worldwide scale.

And the side effect of all these computer systems is the ever increasing

requirement for more storage.

And more specifically, enterprise and data center storage.

But then we get to the problem of increasing costs.

And this is where the early seeds of virtualization were planted.

Linux combined with virtualization is just one of many ways enterprise

and business can keep computer resource costs to an affordable level.

But then Akhil took his speech in a different direction, which appeared

to have caught the audience by surprise, including myself.

Akhil went into details of an initiative developed by Facebook, the "Open

Compute Project".

He described what the Open Compute Project is and how Red Hat is

collaborating with Facebook.

The first step was to certify RHEL for the hardware developed for the

initiative and then to implement Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV)

technologies.

"What next for Red Hat? The cloud.

But what to do with the cloud?", describes Akhil Bhaskar.

That is where JBoss Middleware comes into the scene.

Akhil did not delve in to the specifics of JBoss Enterprise Middleware,

but rather left that for the next speaker to cover.

Akhil then raised the issue of data center storage and how to migrate

that data from location A to location B.

That is the key focus of what Red Hat is currently working on with its

Red Hat Storage technologies.

Akhil Bhaskar described further how one key focus of Red Hat's business

structure is having all available services based around openness and

working with the client regardless of existing technologies they may

already have established.

And one problem Red Hat is facing, is ensuring clients do not experience

any downtime or interruptions when changing and integrating to Red Hat

services and technologies.

Akhil explained in great and fine detail all of Red Hat's cloud options

and seems confident they have all bases covered for the present and the

future.

Enterprise cloud computing is highly technical stuff, as was described by

Akhil.

In short, Red Hat Private Cloud (also known as On-Premise) can be thought

of as traditional datacenter storage with network-attached-storage (NAS).

Storage and even I/O bandwidth can be added at any time to ensure the on-

premise storage capabilities meet ever increasing and demanding

requirements.

Red Hat Public Cloud is based around a fully POSIX compatible, scale-out

NAS and object storage.

Red Hat Public Cloud is built and designed for Amazon Web Services public

cloud infrastructure.

Built upon industry tested GlusterFS and RHEL, clients are provided with

an Amazon Machine Image for quick and seamless deployment to the Public

Cloud, Red Hat assures.

And finally, Red Hat Hybrid Cloud, which Red Hat describes as a software-

only solution that can be deployed to either a Private or Public Cloud.

Again, built upon scale-out NAS and object storage, both on premise and

in the Amazon Web Services Public Cloud.

The Hybrid Cloud is also based around GlusterFS but also integrates the

extensible file system or XFS.

There are a lot more technical details related to Red Hat's cloud storage

options.

But in all honesty, there are too many details to be put into one article

here.

At the conference, we were shown graphical demonstrations of the Red Hat

Cloud setups which made it a lot easier to understand.

But unfortunately, I don't have access to the same graphical slides to

present to Unixmen readers.

But I do suggest you check out the Cloud Services section on the Red Hat

website, as there's lots of interesting information and technical details

to demonstrate in greater detail all available options.

Following Akhil Bhaskar's speech on Red Hat's Cloud services in detail,

he began to wrap up his time with an introduction to the next topic,

JBoss Middleware.

Akhil brings forth a very important issue.

"Once these cloud computing systems have been implemented, how do you

deal with legacy systems? But not just legacy hardware but also legacy

software?", Akhil says.

"How do you bring it all together?".

Akhil completed his presentation by reminding the audience that Red Hat

promotes and encourages the use and development of free and open-source

software.

And Akhil says, Red Hat truly believes that the way forward and to

innovate, lies within the open-source development community.

This concludes Part 1 of our Red Hat Forum 2012 summary.

In Part 2 of the summary which includes two more presentations, topics

include JBoss Enterprise Middleware and Red Hat Storage.

Part 2

This is the second and final part of our Red Hat Forum 2012 summary,

which was held in the city of Brisbane QLD, Australia.

I attended the conference and represented Unixmen.

The topic was "Build Your Own Open Hybrid Cloud Today!".

The third presentation was held by Red Hat Solution Architect, Stefano

Picozzi, "JBoss Enterprise Middleware".

Stefano started by describing that Middleware is everywhere and many

people may not even realize it.

And that Middleware is not one thing, but can be many things.

An interesting opening statement, I thought, and definitely had me

wanting to know more about Middleware.

Middleware to Red Hat is described as 'software glue'.

And it's the important piece that consolidates all existing Red Hat

services and turns it into something useful to suit the clients needs and

requirements.

Stefano continued to describe how JBoss Middleware is being implemented.

Stefano Picozzi made a particular point of ensuring the audience that

since Red Hat's acquisition of JBoss in 2006, Red Hat is "Full steam

ahead" with development of the technology.

Stefano presented the audience with details of how the Data

Virtualization Layer is used to reduce disruptions and breakages and

allow updates and changes to the Middleware system.

But one topic that Stefano went in to detail about was Enterprise

Messaging.

Current proprietary implementations make things difficult when Red Hat

arrive on the scene to implement their technologies and systems.

He specifically pointed the finger at Oracle and criticized the vendor

lock-in trap as a whole.

As a result, Red Hat has been forced to work around the need for this

proprietary service and implement an open standards base, Advanced

Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), with no compromise on performance or

features.

Stefano Picozzi took the opportunity to present to us "The JBoss Way", an

initiative for developers to get involved and help improve JBoss, through

the JBoss Development Studio.

He then quickly moved on to describe "OpenShift".

OpenShift is a pretty simple concept which can be understood by almost

anyone.

Build your application, coded in a selection of programming languages and

deploy your application to the cloud within minutes.

It all sounds very simple.

And that's because it is.

Steffano was quick to point out that the best feature of OpenShift lies

within its 'No Lock-in' open technology which allows the developer to

take their work with them, wherever they go.

Stefano Picozzi moved into the final phase of his presentation and made

an interesting comparison.

He compared the traditional method of software distribution to that of a

cloud based method.

One thing is for certain, the differences are stark indeed.

And we have definitely moved on from an old fashioned delivery method of

having big boxes of unused software sitting on the shelves in our

computer retail stores.

Cloud based options have really made delivery not only faster and easier,

but also so much more financially viable for business.

The final presentation of the day was held by Red Hat Platform Solution

Architect, Andrew Hatfield.

Software and storage solutions, was the topic for Andrew's speech, "Red

Hat Storage".

"Personally, I hate the term cloud computing.", introduced Andrew.

He explained that the term has no standard definition and that it was a

loose term that has a very broad scope of meaning.

Andrew used the interesting term of 'Virtualization Diversification'.

Personally, I think that term is just as broad as 'Cloud Computing'.

But I accept Andrew's point.

He began by talking about Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV).

And in particular, the benefits of the upcoming version 3.x over the

current version 2 implementation.

Many recommendations, improvements and contributions to development have

been included in RHEV 3.x.

Red Hat has collaborated with its clients including IBM, Intel and Cisco.

Major steps have been taken on improving and maintaining backward

compatibility with proprietary technology but have removed all forms of

proprietary code from the entire source code base.

.NET code has all been removed and replaced with open-source equivalent

code.

Red Hat also has the Web UI which is used for the administration side of

things.

So there's no longer the need for command-line driven administration

tasks.

But of course, that is all still there for those who want to stick to

that route.

Interestingly, Andrew Hatfield touted the Web UI as the way ahead for

system administrators.

And he went as far as to say that the traditional command-line

administering of such high-end enterprise systems was no longer relevant

and the Web UI was the way forward.

I thought this was quite a revealing statement from such a company as Red

Hat.

Or perhaps that's just my inner geek, preferring to use the command-line

for just about everything possible.

However you look at his statement, I thought it was quite brash.

But Andrew did reiterate that the command-line options will always remain

available.

A rather interesting comment nevertheless.

"Red Hat Storage is all about overcoming the global storage problem.",

states Andrew.

One of the big problems of data center storage and migrations of such

large amounts of data is the problem of different hardware

infrastructure, setups and software.

All of which can pose great issues for the system administrators

performing such tasks.

Red Hat Storage solves a great deal of issues by stripping the

unnecessary metadata.

And by doing this, it also increases the compatibility of access to the

data.

Andrew Hatfield wrapped up his time with ensuring the audience that Red

Hat Storage is dedicated to ensuring data accessibility remains as

flexible as possible.

Whether the data sits on a private cloud, public cloud or hybrid cloud,

linking all data via the Red Hat Storage Web UI is crucial.

Incidentally, the Red Hat Storage Web UI is built around the same base as

the Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Web UI.

Essentially, as long as you have access to that data, you can perform a

migration without the assistance or requirement of any proprietary

technology.

This concludes Part 2 of our Red Hat Forum 2012 summary.

Closing Notes

The Red Hat Forum 2012 was an interesting conference to attend.

I gained a new found respect for Red Hat as a company.

And their support and interest in open-source software is second-to-none

and more so than any other software and technology based company in the

world.

Red Hat is dedicated to not only serving the needs of their clients, but

also being a leader and important driver for innovation in the open-

source sector.

And they never seem to forget the community of developers sitting outside

the fence, people like you and I.

And I can't wait for the next Red Hat event I'm either invited to or get

the chance to attend and represent Unixmen.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen.

The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the

article is published under the Creative Commons license model.

The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the

terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has

changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own.

This is incorrect.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now

published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original

author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct

terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #2 | September 28, 2019

IN MY PREVIOUS COLUMN FOR Green View I wrote about the Prime Minister,

Scott Morrison, and his inability to fathom the science around climate

change and his failure to build any sensible international relationship

with our neighbors in the Pacific.

Morrison continues to deny climate science the academic credibility that

it deserves as proven by the data.

Therefore, there is never going to be any chance that he will ever be

able to develop any kind of international relationship which finds common

ground on the issue of climate change.

For a numbers man who is clearly not stupid, the only explanation that

can be applied in an attempt to explain his naive views is ignorance.

Morrison is a climate change denier - period.

He has somehow managed to form some kind of working relationship with the

US President, Donald Trump.

I completely accept and would never dispute that, irrespective of who is

in the White House serving as President of the US, Australia must always

develop and nurture a healthy and respective working relationship.

Kudos to Morrison for achieving this with Trump when so many others

before him have failed.

The relationship between Morrison and Trump has been cozy indeed, given

further assurances of success when they both are able to find common

ground on climate change denial, denial of the science and their joint

expressions of hatred towards Swedish environmental activist, Greta

Thunberg.

If you're unfamiliar with Greta Thunberg then you must have been living

under a rock somewhere out in a dry and desolate desert.

Thunberg is a 16 year old activist who has taken time away from her

studies to focus on her environmental activism, which started when she

was 15.

She has been able to quickly harness the wider public attention and the

school climate strikes are now synonymous with being associated to

Thunberg's activism.

Most recently, she spoke at the United Nations climate conference in New

York.

To say she blasted Trump and the world's political elite for the lack of

action on the global response to climate change would be an

understatement.

She tore them apart.

Her angry speech grabbed worldwide attention and is a reflection of just

how passionate Thunberg is about her environmental activism.

If you want to know more about Thunberg then check out some information

online because she is quickly fostering a huge following, for all the

right reasons.

The world needs more activists like Thunberg who are willing to stand up

to the world's political leaders and tell them exactly the things they'd

prefer to not hear.

Thunberg's message is meaningful and accurate, which is exactly why

Morrison and Trump do not want to listen and would prefer to have her

silenced.

While Thunberg enjoys growing support from the UN, climate scientists,

environmental protection organizations and basically the entire world,

the response to Thunberg from Trump (and Morrison) has been shallow, with

Trump preferring to throw pitiful child-like offensive remarks at

Thunberg suggesting that her Asperger's condition somehow makes her

comments and environmental activism less relevant and unimportant.

As a subscriber to the political ideology of The Greens and an

environmental advocate, with a dose of anarchist thrown in, I am no

stranger to having to face staunch opposition of the politicians when we

urge action in response to climate change.

It can be frustrating to constantly be at the forefront of a political

movement, advocating and spreading a political message and to be

constantly stonewalled as an automatic reaction from the conservatives.

Sometimes a political message can be no more than a philosophical

viewpoint which can differ to the mainstream political viewpoint - the

alternative.

It is this alternative viewpoint that opens itself up, by the very nature

that it is alternative to the mainstream, to criticism.

On climate change, it shouldn't be considered any form of alternate

viewpoint.

Because it is not.

But the conservatives view it as such, when it is actually a viewpoint

backed by peer reviewed science and accepted by the majority of academia

as authentic and genuine.

While conservative commentators continue to portray environmental

activists as spreaders of doomsday theories and evil information designed

to foster fear, it is in fact the comments of those conservative

commentators that are the ones spreading that message, not the

environmental activists.

The science is publicly accessible right now and continues to be modeled

and updated all the time, which then results in further peer reviewed

reports being produced which detail the latest information, data and

analysis.

Yet conservatives continue to claim that we must continue to look at the

science and make decisions based on facts.

Well, that's exactly what we've been saying the whole time, yet we call

for action and the conservatives continue to fail to act and return to

their same old message, refusing to move any further beyond that.

On the ABC program Q&A, last Monday, writer and former journalist Kerry

O'Brien summed it up better than anyone else has ever said it.

On climate, O'Brien said the climate change "debate has been going on

since 1979, where the only change has been that the science has become

more and more profoundly clear that this is an existential crisis.".

I wonder in another 40 years time whether we will still be having the

same debate over climate change.

The way things are going at the moment, we probably will be.

Or, politicians can start listening to Greta Thunberg and the activists.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

September 25, 2019 | How to Check Weather Details in Linux Terminal

Console

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED HOW to find the weather details of your home town

from the command-line in Linux without installing any additional software

applications? No problem.

It is easier than you think.

You don't have to install any extra utilities.

We can just use the 'curl' command, which is installed by default in most

Linux and Unix distributions, to display the weather details right from

the terminal console itself.

Now let us check the weather details from the command-line using the

'wttr.in' utility with the 'curl' command.

The following command will display the weather details of your current

location based on your IP address.

Open up your terminal console and run:

> curl wttr.in

You can even check the weather details for a specific location/city.

For example, to display the weather details of the city of Brisbane,

enter:

> curl wttr.in/Brisbane

Or if the location you want to check has split words in the name, then

use an underscore to separate the words.

To display the weather details of the city of Surfers Paradise, enter:

> curl wttr.in/Surfers_Paradise

If you don't wish to keep entering the long command to check the weather

details all the time, then you could wrap the syntax into a nice little

Bash script and make it executable:

#!/bin/bash

curl wttr.in/Surfers_Paradise

Save the script and make it executable:

> chmod +x weather_check

Now to check the weather details just run the script:

> ./weather_check

This is one of the easiest methods I have found to display the weather

details of any location from the command-line.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

This version of the article is an edited version of the original article

published to OSTechNix website, December 27, 2016.

**********

September 25, 2019 | How to Check Your Public IP Address in Linux

Terminal Console

YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR BY NOW how to locate your local network IP

address on your Linux system.

But what about locating your public IP address? Thankfully, it's easy

too.

With just one simple command using 'curl', you can find your public IP

address and display the results in your terminal console in Linux or

Unix.

To locate your public IP address, enter the following command in your

terminal console:

> curl ifconfig.co

210.1.195.55

Your public IP address will get returned following the command.

If you don't wish to keep entering the long command to locate your public

IP address all the time, then you could wrap the syntax into a nice

little Bash script and make it executable:

#!/bin/bash

curl ifconfig.co

Save the script and make it executable:

> chmod +x ip_check

Now to locate your public IP address just run the script:

> ./ip_check

Now you have a very easy way to locate your public IP address when

required.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

September 25, 2019 | Check Your Internet Connection Speed in Linux

Terminal Console

FOR CHECKING YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION speed there are a number of

services available online.

In fact, the number of such services is so high that it's kind of

confusing which one is more reliable.

In that case, SpeedTest is the top choice for the majority.

It's because the service is reliable and consistent with hundreds of

servers worldwide.

SpeedTest is also one of the most favored services for Linux server

administrators and enthusiasts.

It allows you to test your network speed, bandwidth and other connection

information within the comfort of a website.

As it's a website service you need to have access to a browser for

checking the connection, right? When working with a remote client without

any web browser access it can be pain to use the SpeedTest service.

Don't worry, because SpeedTest is still available for use from inside the

Linux terminal console.

It's called 'speedtest-cli' and is a command-line utility that allows any

user to run SpeedTest right from inside the terminal console.

This tool greatly depends on Python.

So please make sure that you have the latest version of Python installed

on your system.

The best thing about 'speedtest-cli' is that it's included in the Ubuntu

repositories and can easily be installed using the following command:

> sudo apt install speedtest-cli

Once the installation is complete, you can run a simple internet

connection speed test by using the following command:

> speedtest-cli

Retrieving speedtest.net configuration...

Testing from Comcen (210.1.195.55)...

Retrieving speedtest.net server list...

Selecting best server based on ping...

Hosted by 'Yes' Optus (Sydney) [5.57 km]: 35.366 ms

Testing download

speed....................................................................

............

Download: 5.47 Mbit/s

Testing upload

speed....................................................................

..................................

Upload: 0.71 Mbit/s

You can also add the --share argument to the syntax to get a URL link

which contains an image you can use to share your test results:

> speedtest-cli --share

Another method you can use to check your internet connection speed is to

use the 'fast' binary.

This can be done by downloading the 'fast' binary from the following link

using 'wget':

> wget

https://github.com/ddo/fast/releases/download/v0.0.4/fast_linux_amd64 -O

fast

Then simply make the 'fast' binary executable:

> chmod +x fast

Now run the 'fast' binary locally and it will report your internet

connection speed:

> ./fast

-> 6.41 Mbps

Voila! Testing your internet connection speed is now simpler, right?

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

This version of the article is an edited version of the original article

published to OSRadar website, September 26, 2018.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #2 | September 18, 2019

BEGINNING LAST WEEK AND ROLLING into this week, Liberal Party Minister

Gladys Liu has now experienced how much pressure one can face being a

member of government.

Liu has been heavily criticized in the media, from the public and from

within the political bubble of Canberra.

The mounting pressure comes after an on-air interview on Sky News after

dark, where Andrew Bolt put Liu through the blender of interrogation.

It's safe to say when you're being interviewed by Bolt, it's not really

an interview, rather an interrogation where guests are often offered

little time to even consider the question and provide an answer.

When guests do respond, Bolt is always ready to throw in the next series

of questions.

Bolt can often be aggressive.

It's a typical tactic played out by Bolt and he's somewhat of an expert

in making guests on his program uncomfortable.

Despite his increasing frustrations with Liu which was obvious judged by

his body language, it's fair to say Bolt was actually quite patient in

comparison to his usual mannerism.

Still, the interview of Gladys Liu on The Bolt Report did make for very

uncomfortable watch.

My own feeling towards Bolt I guess could be summed up by a comment I

posted to my Social Bubble on September 26, 2018.

Then, I said, "These political commentators are an absolute joke.

Especially Andrew Bolt of Sky News.

For a long time he has been whinging and whining about the ABC.

Clearly, he has run out of source whinge material.

Now, he's claiming to be the best friend of the ABC through supporting

Michelle Guthrie and making stupid comments about how rough she has been

treated by the ABC.".

My comments then were a natural reflex to Bolt's back-flip on his opinion

of the ABC network, which he's on the record for consistent expressions

of hatred of the network and its journalists.

When former Managing Director of the ABC network, Michelle Guthrie, was

forced out, Bolt suddenly cried foul that the ABC network which he had

then begun to claim he had always loved so much, was treating Guthrie so

terribly.

The entire Bolt back-flip was farcical, false and can go down in the

Australian media history books as one the best examples of the ignorance

and self-obsessed agenda of Andrew Bolt, which seems to mutate to form a

position which fits into his particular chosen narrative.

But back to Liu, what caused her to stumble so much during the Bolt

interview on Sky News after dark? For anyone that cares, there's a couple

of aspects that should be observed before forming any conclusion about

Liu and the possibility of Chinese influence as a result of her past

and/or current associations with various Chinese-linked organizations.

It can be observed that Liu showed clear signs of someone struggling with

anxiety.

I am just a writer and political observer from the outside.

I don't know Gladys Liu.

But if we give serious consideration to the possibility that Liu does

suffer from anxiety, then her stumbled responses to Bolt could be

accepted as a natural nervous reaction.

Anyone familiar with the said tactics of Bolt's interview methods will

know that he can be very intimidating towards those without a solid set

of nerves to weather his direct and often stormy flow of questions.

He tests people and Liu was just another victim and no match for Bolt.

Also - and this is a specific issue that I haven't yet witnessed any

mainstream journalist pay any particular attention to - we need to

question that if Liu was a member of the Labor Party would Prime Minister

Scott Morrison provide the same tactical response to what he has,

effectively supporting and [re]endorsing Liu? Before we go down that

route we need better examine a bit more why Liu was stumbling so much on

Sky News after dark.

As happy as I am to publicly discredit the credentials of Bolt as any

kind of serious journalist, nor do I believe that he makes any valuable

contribution to Australian political commentary by continuing to feed the

public content that could be described as disposable, I admit he did act

on his right to push Liu.

Her reported involvements and memberships with a series of different

Chinese-linked organizations is concerning and should attract scrutiny.

Also, Bolt pressed pretty hard on whether Liu viewed the Chinese leader

as a dictator and whether she is the subject of Chinese foreign

influence.

Liu's response to the reports of links to various organizations that have

ties back to the Chinese regime's propaganda machine and whether she was

sponsored by the regime to act as a mouthpiece for China, in Australia,

was seriously flawed, reckless and raises concern.

Liu continued to fail to clarify her position with any amount of accuracy

and has effectively wedged the door wide open and enabled the pressure

and speculation to reign upon her.

Also, when she failed to declare the Chinese leader a dictator it gave

credible weight to any suggestion that she may possibly be under the

influence by China and that any critique of the Chinese leader by

declaring him a dictator would be seen as deeply offensive by the regime.

Liu apologized and attempted to clarify her position by releasing a

statement the following day.

But it was probably too late.

The damage was already done.

We've been promised an audit, but a self-imposed and self-regulated audit

doesn't offer much promise, to be frank.

Only now are Australians learning just how much Chinese money has and

continues to flow into the accounts of Australian politicians and their

political parties.

To assume that Chinese money does not influence domestic decision making

is probably naive.

The jury is still out on Gladys Liu.

I refrain from taking a formal position, instead I will continue to soak

in the details and attempt to sort fact from fiction from speculation.

Others should do the same before judging Liu.

But the onus is on her.

Whether it comes as the result of her self-imposed audit or a gentle

nudge by Liberal Party power-brokers, she must be able to identify each

and every organization she has links to with confidence and identify just

how much Chinese influence those organizations might have over her by

association.

There is little choice for her other than to sever ties.

For now, I think Liu deserves a little bit of benefit of the doubt.

But going back to Scott Morrison who offers his continued support for

Liu, let's not be naive why he continues to do this.

This one is simple - the narrow margin that the Liberal Party hold in the

House of Representatives.

In a House of 151 members and the Liberal Party holding a total of 77,

it's a fair bet to declare that a pretty slim majority and Morrison

really wouldn't want to throw the Government into a position of possibly

losing a seat if Liu was forced to resign or quit on her own accord,

therefore forcing a by-election.

Any by-election could see the very real possibly that to the horror of

the Liberal Party, the Labor Party could steal the seat and reduce the

Liberal numbers in the Lower House to just 76.

Morrison wants the seat retained and if that means suppressing his own

disapproval of the activities of Liu, then that's what he will do.

Imagine, even just for a second, what the reaction would be from Morrison

if Liu was a member of the Labor Party.

Calls for the Labor Party to initiate the procedure for immediate sacking

would just be the start of the rhetoric.

Most likely accusations of the Labor Party allowing foreign influence of

the Australian Parliament would be thrown in for good measure too.

Morrison might not be the king of Australia, or the king of the Liberal

Party, but he could be very well be crowned the king of self-obsessed

agenda in Australian politics.

There are shadows following Liu which do require a light to be shone.

But there are shadows that follow Morrison too.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

September 13, 2019 | Setup Your Own DNS Forwarder With Zeroshell

I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU how to install Zeroshell.

Now it's time to continue exploring the underlying potential of Zeroshell

and set it to handle your network's DNS requests.

Before commencing to configure DNS forwarding in Zeroshell, it's

important to have a better understanding of what precisely DNS is, how it

came to be and its purpose.

DNS is the acronym for "Domain Name System".

Britannica Encyclopedia describes DNS as a "network service that converts

between World Wide Web 'name' addresses and numeric internet addresses".

The concept for DNS came to fruition in the 1970s with ARPANET, with the

original design being limited to a HOSTS.TXT file.

The file was basically a universal list which comprised of server names

and their associated numerical address.

While today's DNS servers do not implement such a simple mechanism that

relies solely on a simple configuration file that resides on the server

ripe for hacking, the basic principles of function and purpose of DNS

remain almost untouched for probably 40-50 years.

The most common DNS implementation is in the form of a resolver.

DNS makes the internet more easily accessible for everyone.

While remembering IP addresses of different servers might be an easy task

for your home network, it is unfeasible and unrealistic to expect anyone

to remember the IP addresses of every server you visit on the internet,

hence DNS.

It is often unappreciated just what an important role DNS plays to make

the internet so easily accessible.

DNS effectively translates the domain name you enter into your web

browser to the server IP address of where you are connecting - just like

the HOSTS.TXT file of ARPANET - the browser performing the entire process

almost completely transparently.

Now that you understand a bit more about DNS and the important role that

it plays to keep the world wide web connected, I will show you how to

configure Zeroshell as a DNS forwarder for our own network.

The first thing you need to do is open your web browser and navigate to

your Zeroshell server IP address and enter your login credentials.

Once logged into the Zeroshell web interface, on the left pane under

"NETWORK" you will see the "DNS" menu.

Click on it and it will take you to the DNS configuration of Zeroshell.

Now in the top pane click on "Forwarders".

This should present you with an external window which contains the

configuration options for Zeroshell DNS forwarding.

The configuration is very simple and only requires two entries.

In the "Domain" section simply enter "ANY".

This is telling Zeroshell to forward DNS requests it receives from any

local IP address.

In the "Server" section simply enter the IP address of the DNS server

that you want to forward the local DNS requests to.

This can be your ISPs DNS servers, OpenDNS or any other DNS server you

prefer to use.

There are many public DNS servers available to use.

CloudFlare and Google operate public DNS servers for everyone to use

which remain quite popular and are considered secure.

I have configured Zeroshell to forward DNS requests to CloudFlare's

primary public DNS server.

CloudFlare public DNS is at 1.1.1.1

Google public DNS is at 8.8.8.8

You can either use a single IP address or alternatively you can use

multiple IP addresses, which must be separated using a comma.

Save your configuration and you can now exit Zeroshell.

Now change the DNS settings in your operating system's network settings

to the IP address of Zeroshell.

Remember to change any other computers or cell phone devices too, so that

all devices on your network use Zeroshell for DNS requests.

Once you've changed your settings, now all DNS requests on your network

will be forwarded by Zeroshell to the DNS server you configured in

Zeroshell.

In my case, CloudFlare @ 1.1.1.1.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

September 7, 2019 | Write a Bash Script to Queue Links for youtube-dl

MOST PEOPLE USE YOUTUBE.

HOWEVER, if you are like me and don't like streaming your digital content

and instead prefer to have raw media files available on your hard disk

which can be played back at much better quality than streaming services

offer on unstable or slow internet connections, then you are probably

already using the popular youtube-dl tool to download digital content

from YouTube.

youtube-dl allows a user to download video and audio (or split the

audio/video into separate files) from YouTube links by simply pasting the

shared URL into the terminal console following the youtube-dl syntax.

That's the easy part.

But what do you do if you have more than one or two links?

Sometimes when I am browsing YouTube I collect a bunch of links which I

want to download.

Sometimes this can be 3-5 links, or sometimes I can end up with an

extensive list of 10 or more which I had not originally intended.

It can be time consuming manually pasting in links then waiting for each

download to complete before pasting in the next link and repeating the

process.

Thankfully, there is an easier way to do it by writing a neat little Bash

script.

Let's get started.

For example purposes, we will use the following fake randomly generated

links to download:

https://youtu.be/ACcLsrbigWu

https://youtu.be/BAbg6BnkB3F

https://youtu.be/l0eRloaKxVS

So let's write ourselves a neat little Bash script to deal with these

links, using a combination of Bash and youtube-dl.

I use Emacs for this kind of short-style scripting, but feel free to use

whatever code editor you prefer.

Let's just call our script something easy, like "yt-queue.sh":

> :ee yt-queue.sh

Then in your code editor, enter the following syntax:

#!/bin/bash

#start

#links

#end

This provides a basic and sensible script layout for your youtube-dl

queue.

Where we have "#links", press "ENTER" at the end of the line so we get a

new blank line.

Now we need to paste in the links to download.

But remember to write "youtube-dl" before each link.

This is effectively telling the Bash script to use youtube-dl to download

the link that follows.

Once one link has completed downloading, the script then passes onto the

next line in the queue, and then the next and so forth.

Stupidly simple, yet effective.

After pasting in the links, the script should look something like this:

#!/bin/bash

#start

#links

youtube-dl https://youtu.be/ACcLsrbigWu

youtube-dl https://youtu.be/BAbg6BnkB3F

youtube-dl https://youtu.be/l0eRloaKxVS

#end

The script is finished.

Now we need to just execute it when we are ready to start it.

This process is particularly useful for downloading extensive lists which

can be done overnight - write your script before you go to bed, execute

the script and by the morning your files will be completed.

Execute the script by simply running the following:

> bash yt-queue.sh

You have now learned how to write a simple Bash script to queue links for

youtube-dl.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

September 6, 2019 | Ditch Your Application Menu and Meet Albert

MANY ADVANCED USERS OF LINUX rarely use application menus.

I have spoke with people in the IT industry that literally do everything

inside a terminal console, never leaving the safety of their console

environment throughout the duration of an entire workday.

So very rarely used are application menus, many users are actually

removing them from their desktop environment, completely, and devising

much more productive ways to get things done without dribbling around in

infinite menus.

Removing the application menu doesn't remove access to your applications

as they are still all installed on your system.

It just means that you're not wasting valuable desktop real estate on a

tool that serves minimal, or no, purpose to you.

Today, I show you how to remove your application menu and replace it with

something which is much faster, much more useful and which stays out of

the way until its triggered by its associated hotkey - Albert.

Removing your application menu

Before I proceed to install Albert, I will remove the application menu.

I am using Arch Linux and the MATE desktop environment.

Removing the MATE application menu is as simple as right-clicking on the

menu attached to the MATE panel and selecting "Remove from panel".

The application menu has now been removed.

Installing Albert

Now, I need to install Albert.

To do this in Arch Linux, simply enter the following command into the

terminal console:

> sudo pacman -S albert

Albert will now proceed to install.

Post-installation clean-up

Once Albert has been installed, there are a couple of quick tasks that

need to be completed to polish off the installation and ensure Albert

starts at system boot.

First, I need to initiate Albert and set a hotkey.

Launch Albert using the application launcher by using the key combination

of "ALT+F2".

Now, enter "albert" then click "Run" to launch Albert.

I need to read and confirm all of the contents presented in the initial

dialog boxes until I reach the main program window.

Under the "General" tab, I will set the preferred hotkey which will be

used to launch Albert.

It is preferred to set a hotkey that is not used often for any other

purposes.

Personally, I find the tilde "~" key pretty useless most of the time,

therefore I choose it to set as my hotkey to launch Albert.

You can set your preferences to your own liking, but I recommend enabling

"Show tray icon" so you know Albert is actually running in the

background.

Under the "Extensions" tab, enable "Applications".

As you can see from the list of extensions Albert has the potential to be

so much more than just an application launcher.

But I prefer to keep things simple and limit its usage to a launcher

only.

But once you're familiar with how Albert functions, feel free to

experiment with other extensions.

Get creative!

The final step in the post-installation clean-up is to add Albert to the

system startup configuration.

In fact, to get to that I can now test out Albert!

I simply hit the hotkey and Albert should be triggered.

Enter the term "startup".

Press "ENTER" on "Startup Applications".

Now click the "Add" button and I can now add a new item into the auto-

start configuration using the following credentials:

Name: albert launcher

Command: albert

Comment: albert

I will save the changes by closing the Startup Applications window.

Now when anyone logs into the Linux desktop Albert will automatically

load into the background and will be ready to be launched when the preset

hotkey is pressed.

You might have previously noticed there is an option to select auto-start

at system startup in Albert's own program options.

I have previously tested this and found its behavior to be erratic and

very unreliable.

Therefore, the best workaround is to add your own auto-start entry into

the desktop environment's own auto-start configuration, which has proven

to be much more reliable.

I have successfully replaced the application menu with Albert application

launcher, leaving the system with much better aesthetics and a much

faster and more powerful tool to launch applications.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

August 30, 2019 | How to Install Zeroshell

AS YOU BROWSE THE INTERNET you probably don't give much thought to how

you are connected through your modem.

You probably just plugged in your modem when you signed up, configured

the connection settings and walked away.

But have you noticed how dull the web interfaces used to manage modems

are? They could be described as confusing, non-intuitive and when it

comes to real networking features, modems lack in this area too.

What if there was a better solution to that of your hardware modem? What

if there was a software solution which could act as your router and give

you the real power and control you seek for your network? Well, there is.

Using a software-based router offers you much better network performance,

flexibility and offers an extra layer of security that hardware modems

simply cannot provide.

There are many Linux-based router and firewall distributions.

I have been a long time user of a niche distribution called Zeroshell.

Zeroshell is often overlooked and it still surprises me today when people

tell me they've never heard of it.

I plan to write more tutorials in the coming months on how to do various

tasks using Zeroshell, but first I want to show you how to install it and

get a basic software router running.

The whole process is quick and takes no longer than 15 minutes.

You could build a dedicated box out of old hardware you have lying around

your garage to run Zeroshell, but it's simply not required.

For a simple router configuration using Zeroshell you can get away with

as little as 256MB RAM.

This makes Oracle VM VirtualBox the perfect platform for installing

Zeroshell.

Installation

I will assume you have Oracle VM VirtualBox already installed.

Create a new virtual machine.

Give your new virtual machine a name, I have used simply "zeroshell".

Select "Linux" as the Type and select "Other Linux 64-bit" for the

Version.

Allocate the virtual machine 256MB of shared memory and 8GB hard disk

space.

That is all that is required.

Once you have created the virtual machine, head into its settings and

change the Network adapter settings to "Bridged Adapter".

Then, head into the Storage settings and attach the Zeroshell

installation ISO to the virtual CD-ROM drive.

You are now ready to boot and install Zeroshell.

Click "Start" to boot the virtual machine.

Once the boot process has completed you will be presented with the

Zeroshell console where you can choose to install it to the hard disk,

along with a host of other changes that can be done through the console.

To install Zeroshell, press "A" on your keyboard.

Press "1" to select the hard disk for installation and it will ask you

for confirmation.

Confirm the installation to the hard disk by typing "yes".

The next two settings are irrelevant to achieving a basic Zeroshell

configuration so you can simply press "ENTER" to use the default settings

and then the installation will commence.

Once the installation to the hard disk is complete, press "ENTER" to

confirm the creation of a profile and use the default name for the

profile.

Change the hostname to something that suits your network configuration

and one that will uniquely identify Zeroshell.

If unsure, you can just use "zeroshell" as the hostname.

Enter an administrative password.

Remember this password as it will be used to log into the Zeroshell web

interface.

The next two settings can be ignored.

Press "ENTER" to proceed until you reach the network interface

configuration.

You must now assign an IP address to the network interface.

This will be used to identify Zeroshell on your network, like any other

connected computers.

It will also be used to access the web interface through your web

browser.

I am using the IP address of "192.168.1.88", but please just use whatever

suits your own network identification preferences.

Press "ENTER" to use 255.255.255.0 for the subnet.

Then enter the IP address for the gateway, which will be the source of

your internet connection and the IP address of the modem.

This will be different for everyone, but my own gateway is "192.168.1.1".

This is quite a common IP address used by modems.

The Zeroshell installation will now be complete.

Press "ENTER" to return to the Zeroshell console and then press "H" to

shutdown the system.

To confirm shutdown, press "y".

Once the system is shutdown you need to head back into the virtual

machine settings and detach the Zeroshell installation ISO.

You are now ready to start using Zeroshell.

Once you have rebooted Zeroshell and the console has loaded, you can now

log into the web interface.

So open your web browser and navigate to the IP address of Zeroshell.

Mine is "192.168.1.88", so I would use "http://192.168.1.88".

Enter the username "admin" and your password to login.

The first thing I always recommend with Zeroshell is to set the correct

timezone as it defaults to Europe/Rome.

So click on the "Time" tab at the top.

Now select your correct timezone and sync the time with the NTP server.

Zeroshell now takes on the role of your router, for your network.

Now you simply need to change the gateway IP address in your operating

system's network settings to the IP address of Zeroshell.

If you are unfamiliar with the interface of Zeroshell, it can appear

quite intimidating at first.

But over the next couple of weeks and months I will go through various

tasks using Zeroshell and show you how to setup a DNS forwarder, a

transparent proxy server, and show you how to use advanced features like

Quality of Service (QoS) and Net Balancer.

Zeroshell is a fantastic package which you will find is extremely

rewarding if you are patient enough to become familiar with its interface

and learn its powerful configuration options.

It's flexible and can be whatever you want it to be.

Leave Zeroshell running on your system in the background full-time.

You still need your hardware modem to access the internet, but all future

router tasks that you may have traditionally relied on your modem for are

now all handled by Zeroshell.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[GREEN VIEW] #1 | August 17, 2019

SCOTT MORRISON'S MANTRA OF "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" is beginning to get stale.

And then there's "if you have a go, you get a go".

Personally, I'm sick of hearing this kind of rubbish from politicians.

It makes them look ridiculously out of touch with the everyday Australian

and is especially insulting when it comes from the Prime Minister.

Morrison's political spiel he keeps pushing was initially developed to

win the election, so that's past its expiry date now.

The Coalition was reelected, but I'd argue that it wasn't because

Morrison was walking around city construction sites with a hard hat on,

or walking around a farm in the outback sporting an Akubra while staring

at the crusty remnants of what used to be a dam filled with water, while

cheerfully declaring that if Australians "have a go", his government will

"give them a go".

The Coalition found themselves reelected simply because Australians

didn't want Labor to form government with Bill Shorten at the helm.

Will Labor have a better chance at the next election with Anthony

Albanese as leader? I'll get to that proposition in a moment.

It's not only Australians that Morrison continues to insult and

frustrate.

At the Pacific Islands Forum Morrison pushed to great lengths to keep

discussion of "coal" off the agenda and tried to stop it from being

included into the draft of the communique - a supposed significant

document which will be used as a platform for future policy development

for the Pacific region.

Morrison cited coal as a politically sensitive topic of debate in

Australia.

And so it should be, and this is the precise reason it should have been

on the agenda.

It's not only the fact that Morrison didn't want to talk about

Australia's coal - use and export - Morrison also knows that Australia

continues to fail to get our emissions reductions under control.

The Government is in denial that targets have been exceeded on multiple

occasions.

The Liberals continue to deny the climate science, embrace cabinet

secrecy and play the complacency card.

Morrison has insulted the Pacific and has insulted Australians.

The Pacific are the ones that are being affected most by the world's

inaction on environmental protection and emissions reductions schemes.

It adds further insult to the Pacific because they have almost nil impact

on rising global emissions, yet continue to bare the most brutal of

consequences.

We can't blame them for being frustrated.

Morrison had a real chance at the Pacific Islands Forum to discuss what

we could do as a nation to help our Pacific neighbors and also how we

will drive down emissions which can have real effect, instead of

tampering with the numbers to present constant misconceptions of the real

data that the scientists continue to present, is peer-reviewed and

academically accepted by the majority as accurate.

At the Pacific Islands Forums Morrison instead chose to bash on about

skilling up Pacific workers, getting them ready for the jobs of the

future on the islands.

For a man so dedicated to his faith, how out of touch and insensitive can

the man be.

It's absolutely insulting and offensive to the Pacific to completely

disregard the threat their homes and villages are facing right now - not

ten years down the track - and continue the domestic rhetoric on the

Pacific stage under international watch.

He's made Australia look like a bunch of arrogant fools.

Morrison continuing to harp on about jobs and a fair go, combined with

the obvious lack of action on climate change and the environment,

presents the Labor Party with ample ammunition which Albanese needs to

figure out how to amplify to the Australian people.

It's still unclear what policy platform Labor plan to roll with in the

coming years leading up to the next election.

They now have a real opportunity to lay the groundwork for developing a

workable and realistic plan to phase out domestic coal usage by

aggressive and sustainable investment for providing more renewable energy

generation to be fed into the grid.

Phasing out coal and increasing renewable energy will naturally lower

emissions.

Labor must also repair the severely damaged relationship with the

Pacific, which is clearly so broken.

The Pacific will need realistic and sustainable financial support to help

them with the problems that we continue to force onto them.

Labor must also (re)build and maintain an important relationship which is

built on the foundations of trust that Australia can and will do the

right thing by phasing out coal and lowering our emissions.

Otherwise, all promises made are just words.

Morrison has also somehow managed to scorch our relationship with our

cousins in New Zealand.

I would usually advise against taking political lessons from the Kiwis.

But in this case, I welcome the strong condemnation by the New Zealand

Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who has been extremely critical of

Morrison on Australia's inaction to lower emissions and noted Australia

is placed into a position where we must now answer to the Pacific.

Upsetting our Pacific neighbors is one thing, but drawing the ire from

the Kiwis proves there's seriously something wrong in Morrison's

leadership formula and approach to climate change.

Political commentators must also support the cause.

Alan Jones is a climate change denier and the data he cites is almost

always incorrect or deliberately twisted to present mistruths.

Post Ardern calling out Australia on our inaction on climate change,

Jones goes on the public record and suggests that our Prime Minister,

Scott Morrison, should shove a sock down the throat of the New Zealand

Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern.

I like Alan Jones and I respect him.

However, on climate change he is just plain damn wrong and I absolutely

condemn him for such language targeting Ardern.

Getting Morrison to accept the science of climate change is the first

step.

That's proving difficult.

Then getting the conservative political commentators to also back the

science is also an important step, yet also proving difficult.

Australia, we have a long way to go and so little time.

Right now, we're going backwards and accelerating.

-----

Green View is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, the

Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union, publisher

of Green View masthead, and is the Commissioning Editor of ABC

Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and Green View, and do not necessarily reflect the precise views

of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[THE CANBERRA REFLECTION] #1 | August 7, 2019

THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON Intelligence and Security is

currently engaged in the "Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law

enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press".

It might appear that the inquiry is rolling along quite nicely, and it

probably is, but we must not hold out too much hope that anything

significant will come from the report at the conclusion of the inquiry.

This will be through no fault of the committee as a whole or the

abilities of its members, rather simply the issue of press freedom

requires a much more substantial inquiry that what the committee is able

to produce.

The inquiry commenced on July 4, 2019, allowing for public submissions in

what the Attorney General, Christian Porter, claims is an open effort to

ensure the right balance is determined between a free press and national

security.

Definitely something the Australian Government has failed at on so many

occasions before.

I am hesitant to recommend a Royal Commission into matters that are not

deserving of it.

Australia has engaged in many Royal Commissions.

I do not discredit the hard work that those involved in previous Royal

Commissions have done, however some of the Commissions probably should

never have been ordered and the recommendations that result are not

always adopted, to the dismay of those that were involved in the

production of the report.

But I can't place enough emphasis on just how important Australia's press

freedom is and it is certainly one issue that deserves an inquiry of the

highest focus and attention.

I feel the responsibility of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on

Intelligence and Security for conducting and reporting into press freedom

is the wrong committee and is somewhat counter-productive to the issues

of what the committee will look at.

The committee has had mixed results in the past - producing impressive

reports on some occasions, but seriously disappointing on others.

And on certain aspects, it is perfectly reasonable to question the

negative consequences some of the reporting of the committee has had on

and whether it has contributed to the accelerated erosion of the free

press.

If so, then it's equally reasonable to question why the committee has

been tasked with the responsibility to report on a problem they have

contributed to.

It's the loose equivalent of a government body investigating itself.

The only way we will get a serious report into press freedom which

importantly, also looks into interference by law enforcement and

intelligence agencies, is through a Royal Commission.

Since 1902, according to a list produced by Wikipedia, Australia has

conducted 137 national Royal Commissions and Commission of Inquiries,

before including equivalent inquiries conducted by individual States.

Despite my recommendation of a Royal Commission into press freedom, I

would also recommend a decision on whether to order one or not should

first wait for the conclusion of the current committee inquiry, which is

due to report by October 17, 2019.

A sensible approach must be taken.

Royal Commissions are expensive and resourceful, and we must be sure one

is absolutely justified.

I believe it would be.

The position I take for The Canberra Reflection is absolutely aligned

with that of Freedom Publishers Union, the publisher of this masthead,

but not through affiliation or necessity.

The Canberra Reflection enjoys a publishing collaboration arrangement but

I retain content independence through this column.

Specifically, Freedom Publishers Union outlines "Whistleblower and

Journalist Protections" as its seventh core political value.

The number not reflective of its priority.

The next value, listed as number eight on their list, is "Public

Broadcasting".

Through The Canberra Reflection, I am absolutely committed to upholding

these core values.

But Australia cannot stop at just taking note of a couple of important

elements that are vital to our free press.

There's so many more facets which hold a free press together.

But all facets must be respected, upheld and where possible protected

through legislation.

I will not hesitate to point out that Australia is in desperate need of a

protections act which would provide better protections for whistleblowers

and journalists, allowing them to do their job without fear of having

their home raided and headquarters invaded by federal officers with an

unspoken order to crush those responsible for writing and publishing

stories that are disliked by the Government.

Because let's face it, that's what this is about and the political spin

the Government is putting on this is farcical.

I also stress the importance of public broadcasters - ABC and SBS - who

are so often underappreciated for their value and contributions to the

free press.

I composed two editorials which were published by Mumbai Press Center, on

June 5 and June 6.

My editorials detailed raids that were conducted by the Australian

Federal Police on a News Corp journalist and the headquarters of

Australia's public broadcaster, the ABC.

The raids occurred precisely for the reasons I outlined in the last

paragraph.

This is at the very core of the problem.

Thankfully, Australian media companies have united and are fighting

against the Government-led war on the free press.

It's a welcome change from the usual hostile competition that they

normally engage in.

But Australia losing a free press is in nobody's interest and will not be

good for media companies and Australian citizens.

On June 10, just days after my two editorials were published, Freedom

Publishers Union published an editorial by Moscow Press which concluded

that the war on the free press is touching on the fringes of "dark edges

of totalitarianism".

And I feel like I am on repeat when I say this, but if we don't protect

our free press, then it may very well reach a point of no return.

This is serious.

As I am serious about protecting it.

-----

The Canberra Reflection is a bi-weekly column written by Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, the Co-Founder and Business Principal of Freedom Publishers Union,

publisher of The Canberra Reflection masthead, and is the Commissioning

Editor of ABC Integrated.

The opinions expressed in this column are the opinions and views of the

author and The Canberra Reflection, and do not necessarily reflect the

precise views of Freedom Publishers Union.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] August 1, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] The 'Five Eyes' Are

Creating a New Mass-Surveillance Behemoth and Want Forced Backdoors

THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED AND INITIATED attacks on encryption and mass-

surveillance had settled for a number of years, following the Snowden

leaks of 2013.

That doesn't in any way mean mass-surveillance and tracking has been

idle.

A steady yet relatively quiet stream of information has slowly been

passing through media channels, often below-the-fold, for anyone paying

attention, which all indicated that the surveillance network, primarily

operated by the Five Eyes intelligence sharing collaborative, has been

operating, building more sophisticated tools, scaling up and have now

issued the warning - we want backdoor access to encryption.

Yes, we've been here before.

We never left.

It's the same tired old story where governments want free and open

exclusive access to encryption and private data.

Government officials and intelligence minions know it's a tired old

story, which is exactly why officials have ditched the long-running

trusty old "terrorism" excuse as a means to justify their demands for

unrestricted secret access to encrypted data, this time adopting a new

pitch under the excuse of "child exploitation and abuse".

Please, they're actually just pissed that post-Snowden leaks their power

was curbed slightly and some oversight was added.

We have long known that the oversight has been worthless and has not

stopped rampant abuse of intelligence agency resources being used to

foster a new surveillance network, with an ultimate end-goal of

surpassing the power of the network of old.

They have long sought to not only restore the surveillance power and

reach of the previous spying-era, but to surpass it by implementing their

technology to reach an all new level of global mass-surveillance.

Freedom Publishers Union, information security specialists, privacy

advocates and digital rights organizations have all continued to warn to

not be complacent.

We also warned that the mass-surveillance network of the past would

return, with a more aggressive agenda.

We warned, and were labelled "conspiracy theory nutters".

We stood by our warnings, but we don't believe that anyone predicted just

how quickly it would return.

And the return of the mass-surveillance agenda is accompanied by the

continued stripping of civil liberties and a constant erosion of the free

press of the few Western democracies that still retain a free press.

It's an aggressive return and requires and equally aggressive response of

opposition.

A particularly alarming reported statement from the Five Eyes, that has

come out of their recent security meeting in London (UK) is, "We are

concerned where companies deliberately design their systems in a way that

precludes any form of access to content", which indicates there is every

intention the Five Eyes will proceed with any measures they deem

necessary which have the eventual goal of forced backdoors into

encryption - providing free and open access for them and eroding the

privacy of us.

The actions, aggressive behavior and access demands disguised as requests

by the Five Eyes has all the indications of a spy network which has given

up trying to hack into networks and devices because it's become too

difficult for the intelligence minions to find success in their

operations.

Following the Snowden leaks in 2013, the subject of encryption and the

immediate requirement to increase its usage prompted technology companies

and network operators to roll out increased encryption, in an effort to

curb secret government spying - actions highlighted by Snowden.

Clearly, the response from technology companies was always going to piss

off the Five Eyes as they were already facing a mild curb of their powers

by legislation.

Increased encryption - technology they loathed - had made their job more

difficult.

In some cases, impossible.

The positive is encryption is working and is reducing government access

and pissing off the Five Eyes on the way.

The USA might be the leader of the pack in the Five Eyes, but Australia

is a key initiator of some of the most aggressive and invasive agenda

items on international spying the Five Eyes engage in.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) is supposed to be the leading

digital rights group in the country, and Pirate Party of Australia (PPAU)

is the country's leading political party which has a mandate to fight for

the protection of digital rights.

Both continue to sit back in silence and allow digital rights in

Australia to be encroached upon.

Freedom Publishers Union together with our official international

associated media arms will continue to stand up, oppose and condemn to

the maximum extent possible the continued encroachment on, and the loss

of, digital rights and the privacy of citizens, many of whom are losing

their rights unknowingly.

EFA and PPAU continue to disappoint Australian citizens in the slow

action in calling out the Five Eyes nations for the latest suggestions of

forced backdoors.

The situation is particularly dire downunder and condemnation requires

urgency, as it has also been revealed by our trusted media sources that

organizations in Australia are exploiting loopholes in the nation's

draconian metadata laws and accessing data for a range of unrelated

purposes to what the legislation is intended.

Australia's largest national telecommunications company, Telstra, has

made the call for tighter restrictions as it has been revealed by a

Parliamentary Inquiry that at least 87 organizations and agencies have

accessed data, which includes city councils and other government-bodies

that are responsible on specific regulatory matters but of which are not

actually related to the intended purpose of the legislation.

Telstra has made the public call for tighter restrictions on data

requests and access, however, it remains unclear as a compulsory holder

of metadata - which must be retained for at least two years - just how

much of a fight Telstra put up to those requesting accessing to the data.

Questions should be put to Telstra over why the data has appeared to have

been provided to unauthorized entities so easily.

Telstra has not identified which agencies have requested access to the

data, nor has Telstra provided exact numbersof how many times they have

complied and how many times they've denied warrantless data requests.

We urge more transparency from Telstra.

It is not immediately clear to Freedom Publishers Union what precise

loophole (or loopholes) is being exploited to allow the unauthorized

organizations to so easily and successfully seek access to data for a

range of unauthorized purposes.

Freedom Publishers Union seeks better clarification on the specifics of

the loophole(s) being exploited.

But what is immediately clear to us is the inconsistency between Federal-

based laws and State-based laws, in Australia.

According to a statement on this issue by the Chief Executive Office of

Communications Alliance, John Stanton, published in The Australian

newspaper on July 31, 2019, "If the State-based agency has a lawful right

under its own legislation to request the data, well then the telco can't

refuse that under the Telecommunications Act.".

This poses many challenges.

On encryption and the deliberate introduction of backdoors, Freedom

Publishers Union echoes the statement by Zak Doffman of Forbes.

He says, "There was an immediate backlash to that news.

A backdoor is a vulnerability.

And introducing weakness into end-to-end encryption arguably renders that

encryption worthless.

If there is a backdoor, there is a key.

And keys can be found.".

Freedom Publishers Union adds that at the time of going to press we have

been unable to source any actual documentation publicly released from

representatives of the Five Eyes, instead relying on publicly available

information as reported by our trusted media sources.

The Five Eyes are notorious for operating in near-complete secrecy and

releasing only select information to a select number of media agencies.

We encourage the Five Eyes to release a public statement on their true

intentions and plans on this matter, to eliminate any possibility of

confusion and spreading of misinformation which may prove inaccurate and

cause unnecessary public tension.

Despite our repeated calls for better transparency, there is no doubt the

Five Eyes will continue to operate in near-total secrecy.

Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter and Telegram all continue

to strengthen their encryption practices, to satisfy consumer appetite

for better privacy.

End-to-end encryption is becoming increasingly common and is proven as

the best form of encryption implementation to maintain your privacy and

communications.

As the technology giants continue their path to ensuring their services

remain secure, the Trump Administration has begun to explore legislative

options which could involve making end-to-end encryption illegal or

forced backdoors, or worse, both.

Either measure, Freedom Publishers Union is absolutely opposed to.

Freedom Publishers Union acknowledged the problems with Australia's own

legislation which seeks to compel technology companies to bypass

encryption.

We, as did many others, outlined the significant problems with the

legislation's extremely broad and infinite scope and non-specific

terminology.

It stopped short of calling for backdoors to be created, and actually

included a poor attempt at diverting from the conclusion that that is

exactly what the legislation was attempting to do, without specifying

that is the intention.

With the new aggressive position jointly adopted by the Five Eyes member

nations, it is quickly becoming even more clear that is exactly what the

intention of Australia's legislation is.

Still, the Australian Government denies they want to force backdoors into

encryption and embarrass themselves in the process, looking like fools.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

July 29, 2019 | Part 3 of 3 - The Death of OS/2, and DOS Providing the

Platform for Future Dominance of Microsoft Windows

DEVELOPMENT OF WINDOWS 95 ACTUALLY started with the release of Windows

3.1.

Development on a new operating system was proposed under the loose code

name of "Cairo".

Cairo, as we understand it, was a loose code name because it was never

specific as to what it set out to achieve other than support development

of a next-generation operating system.

Microsoft itself was known to constantly change its mind of what Cairo

actually was.

It could have been an actual operating system, or it could have been a

collection of new technologies that could be used for a whole range of

products.

It was somewhat a mystery at the time, other than those within the walls

at Microsoft.

We now know from the historical information publicly available that Cairo

was a product to be based on Windows NT, and would feature a brand new

graphical interface.

But there was a problem with Cairo.

Microsoft had no intention of shipping anything that come from Cairo's

development before 1994.

It was April, 1992 and Microsoft found themselves facing another problem.

IBM was releasing OS/2 2.0 and Microsoft had realized they needed an

operating system which could operate on consumer-grade hardware and run

32bit applications while utilizing multi-tasking.

Development priority of Cairo was brushed aside for the time being and

immediate attention was given to Windows "Chicago", the code name for a

product that would eventually be shipped as Windows 95.

Originally, Windows 95 was to be shipped in 1993 under the name of

Windows 93.

Actually shipping Windows 93 with a new graphical interface was posing

problems for Microsoft developers.

They had not yet even developed their new interface, which was actually

part of the Cairo project, and that was not scheduled until years later.

Nor had they actually developed the operating system to run it.

The decision was made to ship Windows 93 without a graphical interface.

Microsoft already had MS-DOS 7.0 in development at the time, so they took

a page out of their own book and reverted to a formula they had used with

MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1.

Windows 93 would be shipped as a shell layered on top of MS-DOS 7.0,

giving Microsoft developers more time to focus on development of the

installation process, system configuration and networking, rather than be

bogged down trying to rush the development of a new graphical interface

and operating system.

Microsoft had developed a 32bit protected-mode kernel, which was

developed under the code name of "Cougar".

It would be the Cougar kernel which would eventually be rolled into

Windows Chicago, in June 1993 and while still under heavy development.

It is difficult to ascertain verifiable information which details when

the decision was made to include a graphical interface shell in Windows

Chicago.

We know that at some point throughout mid-1993, someone at Microsoft made

the decision to adopt the original Cairo plan of including a graphical

interface, however the plan was to be separated from Cairo.

This supports the suggestion that Cairo was a collection of technologies

and not just a single product.

We know that in August 1993 an early development build of Windows Chicago

emerged, which included an early working prototype of a new "Start" menu,

which originally comprised of three buttons.

The development build also included a brand new file explorer, called

Chicago Explorer.

It would eventually be renamed Windows Explorer.

Also included was native support for mouse right-click functionality

which also provided the ability to create desktop "Links", which would

later be referred to as "Shortcuts".

Further development builds of Windows Chicago were leaked, each including

a few more tweaks and updates from the leaked build before it.

The biggest change came in January 1994, when the previous three button

Start menu prototype was redesigned into a single-button design and

function - the same design we see today in Windows 10 and releases before

it, with the exception of Windows 8.x and Metro).

The latter releases saw Microsoft developers experiment with a new way

for users to interact with the Windows operating system through the use

of "Tiles".

It turned out to be a disaster as consumers hated it, vowing to stick

with Windows 7 to avoid Tiles.

Windows 10 adopts a blend of traditional Start menu function with a

minimal adaption of Tiles which can be scaled down to irrelevance by the

user.

Windows purists still prefer the old Start menu design, but the function

of the Start menu in Windows 10 is considered a reasonable compromise so

the two different designs can live in harmony without upsetting the user

too much.

September 1994 saw the most revealing leaked build emerge into the public

sphere, which included a completely redesigned interface and included

much of the polish of what was eventually released in the final retail

build of Windows 95.

The September 1994 leak still included some references to Windows

Chicago, but the final polish where applied included the final "Windows

95" branding.

It was the first time a leaked build had included the intended release

name of the product.

A few more leaked builds followed in the coming months, but nothing

significant had changed from the September 1994 build.

By June 1995, another development build was leaked, only this one

appeared to be the release candidate - the last stage of development

before the software is to be released to manufacturing - and to the

frustration of Microsoft.

Microsoft released Windows 95 to manufacturing on August 15, 1995.

It was made available to the general public on August 24, 1995.

There is still some mystery surrounding MS-DOS 7.0, 7.1 and even MS-DOS

8.0, which has not yet completely been acknowledged by Microsoft.

Some believe that Microsoft continued to develop MS-DOS as a standalone

software project and that MS-DOS 7.0 did actually exist as a product on

its own.

They believe that it was just never released because if it were, it would

have potentially held the industry back from swaying towards the use of

the graphical interface, which was primarily what Windows 95 was offering

and marketing as a major selling point.

MS-DOS 7.0 could possibly have been developed with the original intention

of remaining a separate operating system independent of Windows 95,

however it is absolutely very plausible to conclude that the decision to

use MS-DOS 7.0 as the underlying core for the Windows 95 shell was a

decision made due to time constraints with developing the entire Windows

95 operating system without any reliance on MS-DOS 7.0.

Whatever prompted the decision to run a Windows 95 shell on top of MS-DOS

7.0 is moot, because it worked and Windows 95 proved to be a success.

Windows 98 effectively followed the same formula.

It appears to run on top of a MS-DOS 7.1 base.

While it is possible to boot Windows 95 and 98 directly into DOS, the

same is not possible with Windows ME.

With its release, it was clear that a different approach was taken.

The formula appears the same though.

Windows ME appears to again be a graphical Windows shell running on top

of MS-DOS and possibly MS-DOS 8.0.

However, MS-DOS 8.0 has lots of functionality stripped from it and only

allows limited use.

Hackers have proven it is possible to extract the dedicated MS-DOS 7.x

systems from Windows 95 and 98.

But the same extraction that has been applied to Windows ME shows that

MS-DOS 8.0 is indeed present, however it is significantly stripped down

so much that it offers absolutely no improvement over MS-DOS 7.x.

Less functionality, actually.

So, we can ask the question whether there are independent versions of MS-

DOS 7.0, 7.1 or even 8.0 hidden deep in the development archives of

Microsoft servers at Redmond? Probably.

But what were the original plans for these hypothetical completed DOS

systems we presume are present? We'll never know.

We do know one thing for certain though - Windows 95 does rely on MS-DOS.

And if the latter operating system were not already under heavy

development when the decision was made to use it for Windows 95 and to

get it shipped as early as Microsoft did, then Microsoft could have been

caught napping by IBM and OS/2 may have had more of success than it did.

This article is Part 3 of a 3-part series.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 28, 2019 | Part 2 of 3 - The End of the DOS-era, a Broken

Microsoft/IBM Relationship and the NT Architecture That Would Shape the

Future of Windows

AS THE YEAR 2000 APPROACHED and the computer industry was in a frenzy

over Y2K concerns - which proved to be nothing more than media hype with

actual problems experienced being described as minimal interruption to

normal operations - it was quickly becoming very clear that DOS-based

operating systems were on the way to becoming largely irrelevant to

modern computing requirements.

Graphical desktop environments were quickly becoming adopted as the de

facto interface for home computing.

Still, IBM persisted.

It shipped PC-DOS 7.0 in 1995.

Despite DOS shifting onto the path of inevitable irrelevance, the release

did provide some decent performance and memory updates.

It was followed up with the oddly named PC-DOS 2000, which was actually a

simple update to 7.0 with some Y2K updates applied and a few more

erroneous fixes to boot.

Still, despite the PC-DOS 2000 moniker, its version reporting displayed

IBM PC DOS 7.00, revision 1 and validated the suggestion that PC-DOS 2000

was just PC-DOS 7.1 in disguise.

IBM did actually produce a build it called PC-DOS 7.1, but it turned out

to be a confusing array of multiple builds.

The scattering of 7.1 builds inconsistently flowed right up until 2003.

Most of the 7.1 builds never even shipped or were available as retail,

remaining limited to commercial release.

Some were never released at all.

IBM did find limited success in re-purposing PC-DOS for embedded devices

or as add-on services in specialized industry software.

It was all a bit messy and it effectively signaled the death of PC-DOS

and no more versions were developed by IBM.

So what happened to Advanced DOS? Well, most people will find it

difficult to find any information about it under that title.

That's because Advanced DOS was an unofficial name used as a reference by

Microsoft and IBM developers - an internal code name.

The code name CP/DOS was also used for the project.

There was never an actual "Advanced DOS" release, instead it was shipped

as "OS/2", in 1987.

So if you were looking for Advanced DOS, well you got it with OS/2.

One key design focus of OS/2 was to develop a multi-tasking operating

system which would replace the barriers posed by the single-task centric

MS-DOS/PC-DOS.

OS/2 would also take advantage of the growing popularity of the graphical

user interface.

Still, the first release of OS/2 saw it shipped with a text interface and

the graphical user interface would not be introduced until its first

update, with OS/2 1.1 arriving one year later.

Critics argue that OS/2 1.1 should have been 1.0.

But it was released instead without the graphical interface because it

just wasn't ready in time.

MS-DOS did experiment with multi-tasking with the release of MS-DOS 4.0.

But at the time there was a lack of significant interest within the

industry and the release saw limited availability.

The most significant uptake was in Europe.

Still, no accurate figures are publicly available to document just how

many numbers were shipped.

But it is widely thought to be very low.

It is also thought there was lots of discontent from IBM of Microsoft's

development of multi-tasking for MS-DOS 4.0, as IBM had provided

Microsoft with the source code of its own in-house developed multi-

tasking technology, TopView.

MS-DOS multi-tasking was quickly abandoned by Microsoft, most likely

because the company was feeling the pressure from IBM.

The multi-tasking version of MS-DOS often goes unacknowledged, giving

credit to the idea that perhaps IBM won this fight, in favor of

protecting its TopView technology.

Microsoft's multi-tasking would be removed in updated releases of MS-DOS.

Some industry insiders share a different view and believe the decision

for Microsoft to abandon multi-tasking in MS-DOS was a clever way to

convince those specifically seeking a multi-tasking feature to buy Xenix.

During this era, if you wanted multi-tasking abilities then a Unix

operating system provided the best experience.

Xenix was Microsoft's version of Unix and offered multi-tasking.

There is no definitive proof that the decision to drop multi-tasking in

MS-DOS was to boost support for Xenix, however it is a viable

proposition, is an interesting thought to ponder and most definitely

cannot be discredited as Microsoft is on the record publicly promoting

Xenix for its multi-tasking ability.

Multi-tasking may have been dropped from MS-DOS but it was not abandoned

completely.

Instead, the focus simply shifted to implementing multi-tasking into

OS/2.

While committed to joint development with IBM for OS/2, questions could

be asked of just how committed Microsoft actually was to the future and

success of OS/2.

Microsoft was aggressively running development of another operating

system of its own without any involvement with IBM and it was being

developed in parallel with OS/2.

This would actually become the source of a massive problem for the

business relationship between Microsoft and IBM, as the two companies

disagreed on how OS/2 should be marketed against Microsoft's new

operating system, Windows 3.0.

Microsoft held a significant advantage with Windows 3.0 over OS/2, as the

former was being shipped with new computers and the latter only being

available through third-party sales channels authorized by IBM.

This would pose an obvious set-back for ultimate success of OS/2.

It was the first real signs that Microsoft was committed to building a

business model on top of the Windows platform and a future separate to

any collaborated effort with IBM, which Microsoft loathed and viewed as

extra corporate baggage that must be rid.

Microsoft's success continued to accelerate with Windows 3.1.

It was actually a graphical interface layer which run on top of MS-DOS.

The differences between Microsoft and IBM had become irreparable and the

decision for Microsoft to sever the working relationship would prove to

change the course of history of the computer industry, in its favor.

Microsoft hired software engineer and developer Dave Cutler.

Throughout the industry, Cutler was known for his hatred of Unix-based

operating systems.

As Microsoft's future was firmly set on the success of Windows and not

Unix, it made him a good candidate to work on a new operating system

platform for Microsoft.

Cutler was hired in 1988 and is said to have created immediate tension

among OS/2 developers.

Cutler was known to be no fan of Unix, but there was something else.

He was certainly not a fan of OS/2 either.

Before Microsoft and IBM parted there was a last ditch attempt at a

compromised development arrangement with OS/2.

The proposal was that development of OS/2 2.0, which was facing heavy

delays, be taken over by IBM and Microsoft would concentrate on OS/2 3.0.

The problem was the appointment of Cutler.

He had no interest working on or supporting a platform he disliked and if

Cutler would be working on any OS/2 3.0 development, then he would insist

that it take a serious change of development direction.

So serious would the change be that OS/2 3.0 was actually initially

referred to as "NT OS/2".

The NT in the title means "New Technology" and reflects the new direction

that was being taken by Microsoft, led by their new appointment of

Cutler.

Although there is no specific details of what exactly happened next that

details it verbatim, we do know that it was decided Microsoft would take

its new NT architecture and use it to build a new version of its Windows

operating system.

NT OS/2 would no longer take the form of OS/2 3.0 as first proposed,

instead it would become Windows NT.

Windows NT does pay some unintended homage to its OS/2 roots though.

It is rumored that very early development builds and product samples of

Windows NT actually contained OS/2 copyright notices.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence to prove it, however Microsoft do

acknowledge that Windows NT was originally to be NT OS/2.

So it's very plausible that some OS/2 code did get migrated into the

early builds of Windows NT.

If it were the case, it would also hint that the early foundations of NT

were not entirely built from scratch, as Microsoft has always claimed.

Instead, it was recycled from some OS/2 code and adapted for NT.

Nevertheless, it was now public knowledge Microsoft and IBM had

officially broken ties.

Development of OS/2 continued, but the burden was now placed solely to

IBM.

Microsoft was focused on NT.

We will never know with any amount of certainly just how much Microsoft

gambled on the NT architecture.

Was it the intention to develop the NT hybrid kernel design to eventually

become the platform for their entire Windows operating system product

line? Or, was it the intention to develop it parallel to the existing

monolithic kernel design that was currently being used for MS-DOS and its

derivatives? We do know that the NT architecture proved so reliable and

secure that it was eventually adopted as the architecture of future

Windows releases.

The monolithic kernel design was used by Microsoft from MS-DOS 1.x all

the way through to Windows 95, 98 and ME.

The release of Windows 2000 paved the way for the future of Windows NT,

as it was the first release of Windows that was based on the NT

architecture without using the "NT" initials in the product name.

Windows ME was the last release of the 9x series.

Ignoring the adoption of the "ME" letters in the title for the release of

Windows ME, it remains part of the 9x product line-up.

All Windows releases from 2000 onward have been based on the NT

architecture.

You can actually follow the progress of the NT kernel development as it

can be identified in the Windows version information.

Windows 2000 - NT 5.0, Windows XP - NT 5.1 and 5.2, Windows Vista - NT

6.0, Windows 7 - NT 6.1, Windows 8 - NT 6.2 and Windows 8.1 - NT 6.3.

Then we get to Windows 10.

The first builds of Windows 10 actually reported the kernel as NT 6.4.

This suggested that Windows 10 was initially just a continuation of the

Windows 8.1 kernel.

This might be true, but Microsoft has drastically changed its approach to

Windows development now and the kernel has since been upgraded to report

as 10 and its now more difficult to track the development of,

specifically, the underlying NT architecture.

As Microsoft has completely overhauled the way it develops the Windows

operating system and serves Windows 10 as the placeholder that provides

the platform for a unified Windows architecture, instead of releasing

updated releases every few years, it has become a little more difficult

to track progress of its kernel.

In some ways, this benefits consumers.

But in other ways, we miss the old days of having a new Windows release

become available every couple of years.

There was always something to look forward to and new releases - positive

or negative - kept computing exciting.

A unified Windows 10 approach has somewhat made Windows computing boring

and there's no longer anything to look forward to with update

announcements.

There is of course alternative operating systems like Linux which do

offer a more traditional update model, but there are growing hints that

the big three mainstream releases of consumer Linux - Ubuntu, Fedora and

OpenSUSE - will eventually adopt a unified release model, much like

Windows 10.

We certainly hope not.

This article is Part 2 of a 3-part series.

In Part 3, Tecseek Technology examines what led to demise of OS/2.

Also, we continue to observe the aggressive development of the Windows

platform and the important role DOS played in the success of Windows 95 -

a release which changed the consumer operating system landscape forever.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 27, 2019 | Part 1 of 3 - Microsoft Pulled the Strings of IBM to

Shape DOS Development.

Collaborated Development Never Meant Collaborated Vision for the Industry

IN 1974, THE MIAMI DOLPHINS won the Superbowl and Lamborghini launched

its Countach supercar.

But for the two years prior, computer scientist Gary Kildall was busy

contemplating his vision that microprocessors had the capability to

become a working computer.

History suggests he is one of the first to envision the concept and see

the true future potential of microprocessors.

In 1974, he acted on his vision and founded a company called Digital

Research Incorporated, which would operate out of sunny California, USA.

Kildall had previously worked for Intel as a part-time consultant, but it

was the same year he founded Digital Research Inc., that he developed a

computer operating system called CP/M.

Originally, it was an abbreviation for Control Program/Monitor, but would

later be referenced as Control Program for Microcomputers.

It was the same decade which saw the childhood friends Paul Allen and

Bill Gates find a particularly useful purpose for CP/M.

The duo proceeded to form their first own business venture, called Traf-

O-Data.

It was a system which read and analyzed raw data sourced from traffic

counters and created a report for assessment by engineers.

A pretty meager task by today's standards, but not entirely useless at

the time.

Traf-O-Data didn't prove to be very successful, however it did prove to

be the launch pad for the pair who would eventually go on to create a new

company which would find success and not only change the technology

industry, but also the course of history.

In 1975, Gates contacted Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems

(MITS) after becoming curious when he read about a demonstration of an

Altair 8800, which utilized the Intel 8080 processor.

Gates contacted MITS and told them he and a friend (Paul Allen) were

working on a new interpreter for the Altair computer, which Gates had

called BASIC.

Gates had actually knowingly provided false information.

He and Allen never had anything that even resembled demonstration code.

But Gates was confident this would not be a problem.

A meeting with Altair was arranged, and Gates and Allen would over the

course of just a few weeks create the BASIC interpreter, which would run

on an Altair emulator they had also created.

The demonstration impressed those at MITS and a deal was struck almost

immediately.

MITS would distribute the interpreter as Altair BASIC.

Gates and Allen were to become employed by MITS.

Allen gave their business arrangement the title of Micro-Soft.

It was the following year in 1976 the company was registered with the

simplified title of Microsoft, which the company retains today.

Gates had a passion for computers, software and programming.

He would eventually establish a reputation for his vision that

information should be accessible at your fingertips.

Like Kildall's vision of the role microprocessors would play in the

future with computers, Gates had an uncanny ability to foresee how

computers had the potential to bring information directly to people.

At Microsoft, it made perfect sense that Gates concentrate on programming

and software development aspects and Allen remain focused on business

operations.

Both were playing at their personal strengths and interests.

Allen's involvement with Microsoft was critical in securing the deal with

IBM which would ensure Microsoft would be the company to supply the

operating system for the IBM PC.

It would only be revealed later that at the time Microsoft secured the

deal with IBM, they did not even have an operating system ready.

Late into 1978, Microsoft continued to grow and become more independent

in its operations to that of MITS.

The company would then find its own office space and be free from

interference and the watch of MITS, in 1979.

With a contract secured to provide the IBM PC with an operating system,

Microsoft had placed themselves into a tight position by not actually

having an operating system ready.

Allen made a deal to purchase QDOS from Seattle Computer Products (SCP).

The name was changed to 86-DOS, by SCP.

QDOS was a nasty abbreviation for Quick and Dirty Operating System.

86-DOS was a clone of CP/M and was developed by computer programmer Tim

Paterson.

The acquisition of 86-DOS made perfect sense because Gates and Allen were

already familiar with CP/M from their early business venture, Traf-O-

Data.

The acquisition didn't just fall into their lap though.

In 1980, Microsoft purchased a license for 86-DOS from SCP.

The following year Microsoft hired Paterson.

He was tasked with porting the operating system to the IBM PC.

The same year, 1981, Microsoft purchased all rights for 86-DOS from SCP

and worked hard to satisfy their obligations for their IBM contract.

Under development at Microsoft, 86-DOS would get re-branded to become MS-

DOS and was to be known as the abbreviation for Microsoft Disk Operating

System.

It was a big improvement on the previous "dirty" reference in the

abbreviation of the original QDOS.

Microsoft chose to license MS-DOS to IBM, with IBM choosing to release it

under its own title of PC-DOS.

PC-DOS 1.0 was shipped in 1981.

However, despite the version number suggesting to end-users this was a

brand new operating system, industry insiders knew the underlying source

code was already well established at this stage, as various iterations of

DOS had taken shape up to this point.

IBM successfully maintained business relations with Microsoft and

continued to license PC-DOS, despite sometimes heated debates between the

two companies about the development and direction of MS-DOS which also

had an effect on IBM's own derivative.

Throughout the mid-1980s there was a collaborative development

relationship between the two companies.

The arrangement often appeared to be informal and it was quickly becoming

obvious that Microsoft and IBM were both prying for influence over the

industry and the direction of the DOS operating system.

"The tension was always present.

Always simmering, just waiting to boil over.", says one insider.

By 1984, IBM had developed TopView.

TopView was an object-oriented, multi-tasking and windowing operating

environment developed specifically for PC-DOS.

IBM provided the entire source code of TopView to Microsoft which they

would then assist in refining the development.

Although Microsoft would cringe to admit that IBM had developed something

important and useful for DOS, independent of their involvement, the

TopView concept developed by IBM would be adopted but with limited

commercial success.

There were several other multi-tasking technology solutions available at

the time developed from a range of companies and there can be little

doubt that the technology IBM provided Microsoft spawned the thought that

multi-tasking would be an important aspect of computer operating systems

in the years ahead.

Multi-tasking would be the future.

IBM could see it but it was one aspect Microsoft had appeared to

undervalue its significance, at the time.

The ever-present tension continued to rise, yet somehow the two companies

still managed to maintain their very delicate business relationship.

But in 1985, the tension began to reach new heights.

Mid-1985, Microsoft and IBM signed a formal Development Agreement which

would see them continue to share development code and also create a new

operating system.

Initially it would be known as Advanced DOS.

Although development of the new operating system quickly became a

priority for developers at Microsoft, it didn't stop IBM from working on

the current - and still relevant - PC-DOS operating system.

Both companies were still focused on their respective DOS platforms, but

it was obvious that they were giving different levels of priorities to

different projects.

PC-DOS 3.3 was released in 1987 and would be the first release which was

the result of sole development of IBM and without any Microsoft

involvement.

The latter company appeared much too busy with development of Advanced

DOS.

PC-DOS 4.0 was shipped just one year later but failed to find success.

Despite the version number jump indicating big changes, the reality was

the changes were only minor and warranted the version to be referred to

internally as PC-DOS 3.4.

Still, it was marketed and released as 4.0.

The release was riddled with bugs and had many compatibility issues,

prompting many users to stick with PC-DOS 3.3 as it was proving to be the

better system.

PC-DOS 5 would not come until 1991.

It introduced many improvements.

Notably, it had much better and reduced memory usage handling.

It would also be the last version of DOS that IBM and Microsoft would

collaborate and share development code.

The companies had integrated DOS function into OS/2 2.0, which was the

result of the project that was originally envisioned as Advanced DOS.

Microsoft ensured the DOS influence remained and it would be integrated

into future versions of its Windows operating system, adapted to various

forms.

Microsoft shipped MS-DOS 6.0 in March 1993.

IBM followed up with the release of PC-DOS 6.1 just a couple of months

later, which was developed without Microsoft involvement.

Despite the two companies independently developing their respective

versions of DOS 6.x, most of the features that Microsoft implemented in

MS-DOS 6.0 were also implemented into PC-DOS 6.1, by IBM.

Also, despite IBM now releasing PC-DOS as its own, removing the popular

programming package QBasic and replacing MS-DOS Editor with its own IBM E

Editor, it was always obvious that the rest of the system was simply a

re-branded version of MS-DOS 6.0.

It was also evident when the version reporting of PC-DOS 6.1 was

displayed as DOS 6.00.

IBM thought it had a grip on PC-DOS and what it considered its own

operating system.

But Microsoft had a much firmer grip and had no intention of relenting to

IBM.

As long as their respective DOS operating systems shared the same

heritage, it didn't take a crystal ball to foresee that IBM would never

be able to market PC-DOS as its own.

PC-DOS would always be plagued with the MS-DOS and effective Microsoft

presence.

While it is difficult to pinpoint a specific time in the development

history of DOS to identify specifically where IBM and Microsoft's

priorities shifted and effectively forked to different paths, it is

obvious that IBM's priority was hardware and Microsoft's, led by Gates,

would be software.

A Gates-led Microsoft would always be the leader in the two-party race

with IBM, forcing IBM to play the embarrassing role of follower.

This article is Part 1 of a 3-part series.

In Part 2, Tecseek Technology explores what led to end of the DOS-era,

what went so wrong with the development of OS/2 and how Microsoft bet its

future on the success of their new NT architecture.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] June 10, 2019 | [OPINION] Erosion of Australia's Free

Press Pushing Island Nation to the "dark edges of totalitarianism"

AUSTRALIA IS CURRENTLY GRAPPLING WITH one of the most politically

sensitive problems the country has faced in its relatively young history,

with very real negative consequences for the future of its freedom and

democracy if a proportional response is not devised which respects the

serious nature of the problem.

As associates of Freedom Publishers Union, working in whatever capacity,

we have a responsibility to advocate for freedom of the press and we have

an ethical mandate to fight hard for this responsibility.

The responsibilities of an Editor-in-Chief might be carried out from an

obscure and discreet office from Berlin (Germany), but we are a globally

focused organization and said mandate fighting for and protecting the

free press extends way beyond our own European borders.

Australia's legislative response to a rapidly changing and increasingly

dangerous global political climate by consistently introducing national

security legislation has been very aggressive and has been dangerous for

its democracy.

Australia has introduced more pieces of national security focused

legislation than the United States and Britain.

Tallies indicate numbers in excess of 70 pieces of individual

legislation.

Local representatives of Freedom Publishers Union have expressed concern

on multiple occasions that legislation passes with too much ease, without

proper oversight, without review processes and with the support of the

opposition political party.

One might argue Australia's firm legislative response has been necessary

and is what has kept the island nation safe from any major terrorist

attacks like the ones that the United States and Europe have been

exposed.

But Australia's legislation has had nasty implications, as gradually each

legislative piece has eaten away at the civil liberties and the freedom

of the press.

This has now become so publicly evident with the unjustified actions by

Australia's Federal Police agency which has raided the home of a

journalist and the office headquarters of the nation's public

broadcasting news agency.

The raids were so serious, it drew international media critique and

raised legitimate questions of how a democratic nation as Australia could

allow this to happen.

The alarm bells should be ringing.

Since our proud independent media organization was established, we have

constantly warned of the toxic side-effects that national security

legislation has on civil liberties and many other rights.

We have a strong operations presence in Australia, but we also have a

virtual presence across Europe and other regions too.

Even from within the constraints of Berlin, we cannot remain silent when

we see a world leading nation of peace and freedom shift to the dark

edges of totalitarianism.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 6, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Raids on Media Confirm

Australian Journalists Are No Longer Safe

AS FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION WAS going to press yesterday our office was

alerted of a second raid that was being carried out by the Australian

Federal Police (AFP) on the Headquarters of Australia's leading public

broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), in Sydney.

The raid has sent shock waves throughout the Australian media landscape

and occurred the day after another raid at a journalists residence, after

she published a story in a News Corp paper (April 2018) which exposed

Australia's involvement in killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan

during the war.

The actions by the AFP has sent extremely cold chills down the spines of

journalists and some of the nation's largest media organizations.

The raids have also grabbed international attention of the BBC and New

York Times.

The outcry and condemnation of the raids by the AFP has been widespread,

and rightly so.

Freedom Publishers Union joins the united chorus of condemnation and we

share the same fears for the future of the press freedom in Australia as

everyone else.

Our warnings on the consistent erosion of press freedom in Australia have

been present for a very long time.

We warned about this type of government initiated tracking and

intervention of public interest journalism and the lack of effective

protections for journalists, sources and publishers.

Our warnings have unfortunately become reality and we fear that the

latest actions of the AFP raids have become the new norm for Australia's

press.

It serves as a grave reminder of the importance of privacy tools and the

usage of encryption services.

There are particularly concerning legal loopholes which the Australian

Government will undoubtedly attempt to exploit to defeat increased use of

encryption services and communications.

But at present, encryption still acts as the best defense against

government interference of the free press.

Freedom Publishers Union recommends that all journalists and publishers

take heed and pay much better attention to the benefits of encryption

services.

Australian journalist and publisher of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has

been subjected to unfair detainment and charged with crimes that are

designed to serve as a warning to all journalists that press freedom is

under attack.

The raids this week act as an alarming reminder that journalists are no

longer safe - within Australia's borders or within international

jurisdictions.

Raiding journalists and attacking the free press must stop, right now.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 5, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Australia's Press Freedom

is Under Attack, Right Now

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION HAS PREVIOUSLY warned of the erosion of press

freedom, which is happening at a rapid rate throughout Western

democracies and directly in front of the eyes of citizens.

We have focused much of our warnings on the erosion of the press freedom

on Australia.

More than any other democratic country.

What is equally as disturbing as the erosion of the press freedom is the

lack of protections for journalists, their sources and whistleblowers.

It has been a long time position of Freedom Publishers Union calling for

the implementation of a "Whistleblower and Journalist Protections Act".

Freedom Publishers Union is particularly concerned on the state of press

freedom in Australia because of our strong presence in the nation, where

we have three offices and two associated mastheads operating.

An incident on June 4, 2019, grabbed the specific attention of Freedom

Publishers Union and again placed our organization into a difficult

position of having to express our disappointment at the Australian

Government and its actions of using the nation's federal crime fighting

unit to attack some of the most critical pillars of the country's free

press.

The aforementioned June 4 incident saw Australia Federal Police (AFP)

raid the residence of News Corp journalist, Annika Smethurst.

Freedom Publishers Union understands the raid to be an aggressive

response to a publication that was published April 2018 by Smethurst, in

The Daily Telegraph.

The controversial story which has resulted in the AFP carrying out the

raid on the journalist's residence in the Australian Capital Territory

(ACT) had suggested that one of the country's most prominent intelligence

gathering agencies, Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), was seeking an

extension of their legal powers to permit the intelligence agency to spy

on Australian citizens without their knowledge.

Any extension of spy powers could include obtaining access to a target's

internet access data, email communications, bank records and cell phone

text messages.

The publication by Smethurst also included details and images from top

secret documents which were marked as AUSTEO, which identifies as

Australian Eyes Only.

Currently, Australian law does not permit the Australian intelligence

agency to spy domestically on its citizens.

However, there remains loop holes in the Intelligence Services Act 2001

which can be exploited and effectively permit the ASD to provide

technical advice to the AFP and Australian Security Intelligence

Organization (ASIO) if those agencies have obtained warrants which enable

their investigations.

In 2013, it was revealed in documents provided by former National

Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden, that Australian

intelligence agencies were illegally sharing data on Australian citizens

with its 'Five Eyes' partner intelligence agencies.

There has been no repercussions for any of the Australian intelligence

agencies that may have acted outside of the law on intelligence

operations including the spying on domestic citizens.

Since the release of the documents, Snowden has been forced to live in

self-imposed exile in Russia, relying on diplomatic protections provided

by the Russian Government.

On the same day as the raid on Smethurst's residence, radio host on the

2GB network, Ben Fordham, revealed that he is now part of an inquiry

being led by the Home Affairs Department, which Freedom Publishers Union

understands has been the result of reporting on the Monday - the day

before the Smethurst raid - that six asylum seeker boats were currently

on their way to Australia.

Allegedly, the boats originated from Sri Lanka.

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned the inquiry into Ben Fordham is

another attempt at curbing Australia's press freedom, specifically on

government-related matters of interest.

These attacks on press freedom come after the passing of changes to

Australia's espionage and foreign interference laws, one year ago.

The changes saw the inclusion of public interest defense provisions which

the Australian Government was pressured into implementing after

representatives of Australia's media and journalists raised alarms that

the laws did nothing to protect press freedom.

Freedom Publishers Union warned in an editorial published by Mumbai Press

Center that the so-called 'protection' provisions should not be

interpreted as protections at all.

We stated that the changes were simply a relaxation of some of the

existing most restrictive measures included in the espionage and foreign

interference laws.

We also warned that the line of what is considered public interest and

what the Australian Government determines as an unacceptable publication

and to be a national security risk, is extremely blurred and unclear.

Freedom Publishers Union has continued to warn of inadequate media

protections for journalists, their sources and whistleblowers in

Australia.

Freedom Publishers Union have also previously warned of the potential for

alternative motive creep of legislation.

We have been unable to confirm, but understand the raid on Smethurst was

applied under the Crimes Act 1914 and not the espionage and foreign

interference laws.

However, our warnings remain applicable and we can not rule out further

government-initiated attacks on press freedom in the future using a

combination of laws, which may also include the espionage and foreign

interference laws.

The possibility of combining laws which can be used to justify execution

of warrants on raiding journalists to curb press freedom concerns Freedom

Publishers Union and only adds to the confusion of what can safely be

considered to be in the public interest, by journalists.

According to a press statement released by the AFP, they claim "The

activity [the raid] is in regard to an investigation into the alleged

unauthorized disclosure of national security information that was

referred to the AFP.

This warrant relates to the alleged publishing of information classified

as an official secret, which is an extremely serious matter that has the

potential to undermine Australia's national security.".

It is unclear at present whether the Home Affairs Department had made the

initial referral to the AFP, or whether the referral came at the

direction of the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who many are accusing of

being the initiator of efforts to curb Australia's press freedom, with

the cooperation of the head of the Home Affairs Department, Peter Dutton.

Both members of the Liberal Party and Coalition Government have been

long-known staunch advocates for increased government secrecy and their

ministerial activities are continuously contrary to government

transparency.

President of the Press Gallery, David Crowe, says "Democracy suffers when

journalists are raided for reporting on governments".

Crowe continues, "The police raid is an attack on press freedom and a

danger for the wider freedoms of all Australians.".

Freedom Publishers Union agrees with the comments by Crowe and they

precisely reflect what we have previously warned.

In light of the most recent attacks on press freedom, the Government has

been questioned over what further protections it would offer journalists

in existing legislation.

It should be no surprise that Government representatives have stonewalled

the questions and provided no response.

It is further evidence that the Australian Government has protection for

journalists as a very low priority, and curbing press freedom as a very

high priority.

Shortly after the publication of the original story by Smethurst in April

2018, Dutton, said "as for some claim that there's going to be some

spying taking place on Australian citizens, it's complete nonsense.".

Freedom Publishers Union debates Dutton's comment, as the documents

published by Smethurst are direct and indisputable proof there was

discussion of the broadening of intelligence gathering powers.

There was apparently enough concern on the legitimacy of the details

inside the story among political circles in Canberra it spawned the

Shadow Attorney General, Mark Dreyfuss, into action and he raised

concerns with the Government and indicated that if further documents or

information is leaked to the public about details of domestic spying then

it could be damaging for national security.

Freedom Publishers Union debates the concerns of Dreyfuss too.

We have independently assessed all the details of the story and consulted

with David Institute for Politics and Science.

Upon consideration of our own assessment and their advice, we have

concluded that there was never any threat to national security and the

story was absolutely in the public interest.

Freedom Publishers Union protects press freedom and civil liberties.

There is no valid argument that justifies the activities of domestic

spying en-masse.

We are not suggesting that is what the Australian Government is doing

through utilizing the powers of its intelligence and security agencies.

But we do urge the Australian Government to be more transparent about any

domestic spying activities.

If activities are being carried out on Australians, then we need a clear

legal framework that permits it to occur within the constraints of

targeted spying which is executed only after a warrant is obtained.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center/FPUorg/David Institute

for Politics and Science

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

May 30, 2019 | OpenSUSE Leap 15.1 Review

TECSEEK TECHNOLOGY HAVE COME TO believe that we have been making a

serious mistake with our attitude of how we approach OpenSUSE.

Our unexpected change of attitude has no effect of our final opinion of

OpenSUSE Leap 15.1, but we've been making the mistake of comparing the

OpenSUSE distribution to the big two mainstream Linux distributions -

Ubuntu and Fedora - when we shouldn't.

The latest update, Leap 15.1 shone the distribution in a whole new light

to us and we can now see that it's deserving of recognition for a bunch

of qualities that have previously gone unacknowledged, and on their own

merit, rather than drawn from comparison.

To any developers and volunteers working with OpenSUSE that contribute

their valuable time and resources to the project, then we apologize for

making the unfair comparisons in the past.

Leap 15.1 builds on the strength of its predecessor and succeeds two-

fold, in our opinion.

The installation media of OpenSUSE has always been much larger than other

Linux distributions, but there's good reason for it.

The one single large installation package is all that is needed to build

and install the system just the way you like it.

You can build a system for the desktop, workstation or server, plus a

bunch of other specialty purposes.

Or, you can install a system comprised of the KDE Plasma Desktop, GNOME

Desktop, XFCE or other minimalistic window managers.

What's that? You have no purpose for a graphical desktop environment?

Well that's alright too because you can install a command-line only

system also.

It's all there.

If you don't find a suitable configuration option for your needs when

installing Leap 15.1, then we'd love to hear from you.

System installation and management is centered around the wonderful YAST,

which has been a software application which can hold its own against

anything that attempts to compete.

YAST continues to be a delight to work with and continues to prove to be

a crucial element of the foundations that hold the operating system

together.

Leap 15.1 can certainly be used for home desktop usage, but as the Leap

series of releases matures, they've really taken on a feel of having a

strong focus on business tasks.

It's these business-esque qualities that separate it from Ubuntu and

Fedora, giving OpenSUSE a real identity of its own and pulling it even

further away from the Linux distribution comparison game.

Tecseek Technology is so confident of the business capabilities of Leap

15.1, if we were launching a startup or were rolling out a fresh round of

shiny new computers, then we'd seriously consider installing Leap 15.1 on

them - combined with an in-house IT department to boot, of course.

We engaged in limited testing of Leap 15.1 which was constrained to a

single Oracle VM VirtualBox system.

Despite the obvious limitations that get imposed on any system when

running it inside a virtual sandbox, we were extremely impressed by the

response times and general performance of Leap 15.1.

The business focus becomes obvious again when you learn that Leap 15.1

runs the older, yet still relevant, Linux kernel 4.12.14.

Most other distributions have migrated to the 5.x branch of the kernel.

But the reliance on the older branch poses no limits on the performance

or security of Leap 15.1.

Firefox fans also suffer from the inclusion of a slightly downgraded

version of the web browser.

But this is because Leap 15.1 ships with the Extended Support Release

(ESR) branch.

It is common for business-centric systems to use the ESR branch.

Again, this is no problem but just another indicator that tells us Leap

15.1 is all about business.

Software application selection will be user dependent.

So there's no real fair and accurate way to measure this using any

balanced method.

But hey, it doesn't really matter these days anyway - it's Linux! If

something is missing, install it.

Or if you don't like something, remove it.

Simple.

Package management is powered by the excellent zypper, which is nimble,

smart and super quick to process packages.

Leap 15.1 might be a simple point upgrade from 15.0 > 15.1, but it's an

upgrade which is rewarding.

The only set back you might find is the lack of user community support.

Searching the internet for problems related to Ubuntu and Fedora pulls in

millions of source results and proposed solutions.

However, in our experience the OpenSUSE community of users are slightly

less willing to contribute the time to help resolve any problems related

to their beloved distribution.

So we recommend Leap 15.1 for advanced and power users, and those with a

deep understanding of troubleshooting and configuration of a Linux-based

operating systems.

OpenSUSE has always been quite difficult to get RAID arrays functioning

correctly and is also a bit temperamental with more complex and manual

disk management tasks.

And we also had some minor problems with our display detection and

resolutions.

We had to manually install some kernel header packages and then reinstall

and reconfigure the built-in VirtualBox support packages.

It was slightly tedious, yet not difficult for a bunch of Linux geeks in

an office who understand everything about Linux from the kernel source

code, up.

But it is for these few reasons alone we think that only those with

experience should install Leap 15.1.

If you are one of these power users, then this is undoubtedly the

distribution you need.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] May 27, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] USA vs Assange Case

Will Test the Constitution

I THINK THE [Julian] ASSANGE CASE - if he ever physically makes it to the

US, instead ending up in Sweden - will be an important test for not only

the validity of purpose of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States of America (USA), but it will test the strength and

effective power of the Constitution as a whole.

Is it truly a powerful document offering protections which are the

launchpad for further freedoms and liberty? Or, a worthless piece of

paper which serves as an indicative agenda only but actually is powerless

to protect?

This will be a landmark case for the Supreme Court.

And, I'm very much afraid, Wikileaks will allow the supremacists in

America to do what every other dictatorship in the world has done:

criminalize the exposure of government corruption.

Remember: the Supreme Courts - in pretty much all countries, even Russia,

Turkey and Venezuela - decides how to interpret the Constitution, the

fundamental framework that gives a country legitimacy.

And that interpretation changes over time as culture and economics change

the context surrounding the Constitution.

Internet and social media have changed the way people communicate, making

many Constitutional assumptions invalid.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA envisioned a society

of villages and rough territories that had an economic consistency.

The freedoms enshrined in it assumed that there would always be

dissenting voices, but moderated by a media that fundamentally supported

America.

It assumed it took time for dissent to propagate and be examined by the

press, which would ultimately weigh the voices if the multitude and

present government with a distilled result.

It did not envision the ability for an image, rumor, or even a political

position to bypass the media entirely and instantly become part of the

entire country's dialogue.

Where thought leadership could be usurped in a moment by an opposing or

even anarchistic voice.

Assange is the test for how America and the world handle this in the

future.

Unlike Nixon and the New York Times and Washington Post, which filtered

and released leaked information as stories based on facts and data,

making the stories both more damaging and believable, but without the

blatant public display of 'secrets'.

On most occasions, Wikileaks just publishes the raw data without

filtering.

This didn't include the work the newspapers did to research and interpret

the data, which it can be argued that this is a defining hallmark of true

journalism.

But nobody can outright deny that the Wikileaks publishing model

challenges traditional media operations, therefore challenging the

ability of the law to interpret the legality of its operations, who is

classified as a source and who is classified as a journalist.

Wikileaks comes at a bad time for journalists and First Amendment rights.

Between the publishing of raw intelligence, the environment of 'fake

news' and overt bias, the near-reactionary composition of the Supreme

Court, and attempts by Conservative politics to create a one-party State,

the result of a First Amendment case built on Assange's actions is

definitely going to cause some forms of free speech restrictions.

But what can be done to preserve free speech, not only in America, but

around the world? How do we defeat lies, bias and exaggeration - or at

least deliver a counter argument of equal weight? It is time for

journalists around the world to address these issues head-on.

Or maybe this is something only Revolution can fix.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News/FPUorg

Written by Brett Brennan.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] May 20, 2019 | [OPINION] Liberal Party Wins Australia

Federal Election.

The Polls Were Wrong.

And I Was Wrong Too.

ANY AUSTRALIAN THAT DID NOT follow the extensive election television

coverage on the night and instead relied on the news headlines on Sunday

morning for the results could possibly first think that they were reading

the wrong headlines on the wrong day.

Most were expecting to see a Liberal Party wash-out.

Instead, we all saw something odd and quite unbelievable.

As early as one hour after the voting booths had closed and the counting

commenced, the results actually defied what all polling had been

suggesting during and before the election campaign - the Liberal Party

had won and the Coalition would reform government.

Most people like Scott Morrison.

He appears like a decent human being.

But it was thought that most didn't like the Liberal Party he stood for.

But on Saturday night it become much clearer that all the assumptions and

indicators of people's trust in the Liberal Party were all so wrong,

specifically in the State of Queensland.

Scott Morrison, the man who almost campaigned for an entire party by

himself, had got the Liberals over the line and made history.

Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, was unable to fend off the

determination of independent candidate, Zali Steggall.

She trumped over Abbott with the help of the aggressive left-wing lobby

group GetUp and took the seat that has traditionally been enjoyed by

Abbott with a comfortable margin.

The seat is no longer to be considered 'safe'.

There is no doubt that Abbott was the source of a personal campaign

designed to attack him as an individual, rather than his political

philosophy.

Abbott may have strong opinions and a political philosophy defying

mainstream which made some people cringe, however that does not make him

a bad person.

He was subjected to some ugly political attacks which on too many

occasions became personal.

Abbott has been an outstanding member of his community with a long list

of community accomplishments and volunteer efforts to boot.

He has served as a Prime Minister of Australia.

He deserves respect for his contributions to public life and subjecting

him to personal and political attacks of the scale he was, has been

unacceptable.

The loss of Abbott is not only a loss for the Liberal Party, but it is a

valuable loss for the Parliament and Australian politics.

However, I do not wish to take anything away from the new elected

independent, Zali Steggall.

I am sure her own contributions will be appreciated and her fresh

political views will be much appreciated in the House of Representatives.

On my own predictions - I, like so many thousands of others, got it

wrong.

I had personally predicted a close result.

As late as yesterday morning, I had concluded that it was my belief that

the result would be so close that the possibility of a hung Parliament

could not go unacknowledged.

Many other political commentators had also motioned the same view.

Labor's performance was dismal and it is no surprise that after six years

of running the Labor Party in opposition Bill Shorten has quit.

It was the right thing to do.

The party must refocus and renew its base under a new leader.

Although there are a few names put forward at present of who will contend

for the leadership of an injured Labor Party, I believe Anthony Albanese

- or 'Albo' as everyone calls him - would be the most likely future

leader.

He is a fine minister and a true entleman.

Whether in a position of Opposition Leader or future Prime Minister, I

believe Albanese to be a man of great integrity and respect, and one that

would put Australians and the national interest above all.

But I will stop myself short of placing that prediction in stone.

As we have just learned over the course of the weekend, what you think is

an informed prediction can quickly become embarrassing and flawed.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

Due to unforeseen circumstances, the publication of this editorial was

delayed beyond its scheduled date.

It was completed as scheduled on May 19, but was not filed for

publication until May 20.

However, the information it contains remains accurate and relevant

despite the delay.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] May 18, 2019 | [OPINION] Australia Federal Election

2019.

Labor Party Most Likely Prospect to Form Next Government

ELECTION DAY HAS ARRIVED AND I have a confession - I was going to publish

this column yesterday, but instead chose to delay it until today.

Also, I was going to make it much longer, but I felt it unnecessary as

there's been enough media coverage every single day of the election

campaign from all the major Australian mastheads to keep you entertained.

So instead, I will keep this short and just say a few final points before

Australia heads out to vote.

Polls keep suggesting that it's a close race between the Liberal and

Labor parties.

But the polls paint a false picture, really.

They ignore the fact that for the Coalition to actually win the election

and (re)govern in its own right, it would have to actually gain seats.

This is a highly improbable scenario.

Liberal have been on a hot campaign trail to gain seats, sure.

But a more accurate description of their campaigning would suggest

they've been out to save the seats they already have, because they cannot

afford to lose any of them.

Not a single one.

Polls also suggest there is still public dislike for the Labor Party

leader, Bill Shorten.

However, I would conclude that the public will look past their dislike

for the Labor leader and the Labor Party will win.

But I also don't believe that people who do vote for Labor will be voting

Labor because they don't like Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

Polls suggest he is actually well liked and rates much more favorable to

Bill Shorten.

But Liberal voter revolt will ensue simply because the public are

unforgiving towards leadership spills.

Voters were disgusted by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd leadership swapping while

Labor was last in office.

So they voted in the Liberals and the Coalition formed government.

Voters were thinking things would be different and the believed the

Coalition could save the country from any further leadership

embarrassment.

Well, sadly, history tells the story of nothing but further

embarrassment.

In six years of a Coalition government, we've seen three different

leaders - Abbott, Turnbull and (current Prime Minister) Morrison.

Again, I think the public will express their disgust once again and swap

their votes back to Labor as a means to punish the Liberals for their

stupidity.

I believe Labor will win, however I do believe it will be by a relatively

small margin, and I wouldn't actually rule out a hung Parliament.

That is a very real possibility and should be considered.

The Liberal Party has senior ministers in some interesting and seemingly

now-fragile seats.

The ministers have for a long time appeared quite comfortable by the

margins they enjoyed, whatever that margin may be.

But this election campaign has really brought to light the fragility of

the Liberal Party as a unit, and more so of some of its most senior

minsters in office.

To hand pick a few - Josh Frydenberg, Christian Porter, Peter Dutton,

Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott are all facing voter revolt and losing their

seats is a very real possibility.

It is sure to be playing on the minds of those in the Coalition.

Also, there's the wild-card influencers that need to be considered too.

When the public are fed up with mainstream party antics, they will look

to outside representation.

The Greens appear to be unable to grow their support base, but it's not

evaporating either.

It remains steady.

The much loathed Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson camps have ups and downs

and the possible influence either of these parties will have on the

election results is even more difficult to predict.

Then we have a feast of independent candidates, which usually have

significant influence in the Senate - the Upper House.

Some argue that the Senate has become a much too hostile environment come

as a result of such diverse choice.

But who could argue that diversity is a bad thing.

Whatever happens today and whichever party wins the election and forms

government, does it really matter? Of course it matters.

But remember to remain grateful that Australia is the lucky country and

by you being able to peacefully walk into the polling booth and vote for

the party or candidate you want to form government, is the best prize of

all.

It is only fitting that as a former party member of the Queensland branch

of The Greens, and supporter of The Greens political philosophy, I'm

going to advocate for the party.

However, I'm not writing this column today to tell you who to vote for.

All I ask is that if you are displeased by the continued antics of the

Liberal and Labor sides of politics, then please do consider the green

side.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] May 17, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] The Greens Provide a Policy

Platform for a Better Australia

AUSTRALIAN VOTERS HEAD TO THE polling booths tomorrow to decide on which

major political party they believe is best fit to form the next

government of Australia.

Australia has two major parties - Liberal or Labor.

The former runs a Coalition with The Nationals party.

The latter has no official binding agreement with any other party,

however they have in the past traditionally formed a close alliance with

The Greens and it is widely accepted that when political stalemate

incurs, Labor call on The Greens for support.

It has been suggested that the election campaign has been "dull" and

"boring", by media and political commentators.

While the election campaign may have escaped any major controversy from

any specific candidate or party, there has been dirty tactics used by

some by digging deep into the archives of social media posts of

candidates to find posts which may be either controversial or counter to

the policies and political position of the candidate and/or their party.

While digging through social media posts of candidates to find content

and comments posted four or more years ago might be regarded as dirty and

distasteful, it also reflects the lows that political candidates and

their campaign staff now engage in, in the modern era of politics.

The economy has been a central focus from both parties in their policy

pitches, used as an effort to secure the votes of Australians.

Forward Thinking Australia assessed the Liberal Party of Australia as the

best party to continue stable economic management.

Traditionally, the Labor Party of Australia has failed at sensible and

stable economic management.

However, if voters are to believe the promises made by the Labor Party

this election, Labor has basically matched the Liberal Party when it

comes to economic policy proposals.

While there is absolutely no doubt that if Labor are to win the election

tomorrow by any margin of majority, then Australian's will endure higher

taxes which will go on to fund Labor's promises of massive spending

schemes.

Some economic analysts have commended the Labor Party for their

proposals.

Others have referred to the tarnished fiscal history of the Labor Party

which proves that despite the promises of a better managed economy,

spending has commonly blown out beyond budget lines and the Labor Party

has failed to reign in spending and manage the economy properly.

But the Liberal Party has failed in its own areas of funding too.

Forward Thinking Australia recommend the Liberal Party for economic

management, however they also express reservations with budget management

associated with social welfare, health, education and public broadcasting

- the latter, a specific area the Liberal Party and the party's ministers

in the past have proven hostile to.

The Labor Party has previously been more compensating to the public

broadcasting sector and have promised to restore some of the lost funding

under the Liberal Government.

Forward Thinking Australia believes that the lost funding not only needs

to be restored, but funding for public broadcasting needs to be increased

too.

Definitely a call supported by Freedom Publishers Union as we have been

key advocates for protecting Australia's public broadcasting sector.

Climate and energy has received a significant amount of interest too.

And it rightfully should.

Forward Thinking Australia believes that The Greens are the only party

that has policy that will "implement effective changes to establish an

affordable and stable supply of energy, with the ultimate and increased

focus on clean energy generation through investment and transition to

renewable energy.".

Australia's transition to renewable energy has stagnated under the

Liberal Government.

There has been absolutely no effective policy that has come from the

Liberal Party which promotes any positive focus on climate change and

reducing emissions, or any initiatives that will truly drive economic

investment in renewable energy.

Australia must take climate change serious and begin its transition away

from traditional energy sources like coal.

Australia has become much too reliant on coal (and coal exports) and is

ignorant to the environmental and economic benefits offered by increased

investment in renewable energy sources.

Australia has the potential to be a world leader in renewable energy

generation and infrastructure.

Freedom Publishers Union acknowledges that the Labor Party at least has

active climate and energy policy.

However, it is sometimes confusing and unclear of Labor's position on

specific environmental and energy issues.

Freedom Publishers Union have always opposed the Adani coal mine which is

seeking to commence operations in the Galilee Basin, once all

environmental approvals are passed.

Currently, the approvals are being held up by the Queensland State

Government.

Freedom Publishers Union has been specifically concerned about the

mismanaged and confusing position of the Labor Party on the Adani coal

mine and mining in the Galilee Basin, generally.

When questioned about their position, Labor Party leader and potential

next Prime Minister, Bill Shorten, has been confusing in his response and

fails to explicitly point out whether the Labor Party supports Adani or

will move to block the commencement of its operations.

Forward Thinking Australia believes that The Greens are the only party

which has had a considered, consistent and sensible position on Adani,

and the broadened scope of climate and energy policy for Australia's

future.

Border security policy, inclusive of the treatment of asylum seekers and

refugees, has been almost absent from discussion during the election

campaign.

The position of the Liberal Party is clear.

Their strict and harsh policies which directly affect the treatment of

asylum seekers and refugees is set to continue.

The Labor Party has also made a commitment to continue the harsh policies

of the Liberal Party.

They have indicated no changes.

The policies of Australia are harsh, break international law and are

internationally condemned, and possibly violate the human rights

convention of the United Nations.

The harsh policies result in innocent lives being sent to and locked up

in offshore detention centers.

Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island are all detention centers (or

zones) with varying degrees of operational status, at present.

But they are remain and stand ready to become fully operational at a

moments notice by order of the government.

There is no concern for the lives, physical or mental health of those

detained by the Australian Government.

Freedom Publishers Union has been critical of the harsh policies of

Australia, many times.

As we have also been critical of the operations of offshore detention

centers, operated by third-party contractors under the watch of the

Australian Government - a move designed by avoid direct responsibility

for the continued abuses and human rights violations of detainees.

Forward Thinking Australia has an uncompromising position, as does

Freedom Publishers Union.

At our core, we aim for protection and legal treatment of asylum seekers

and refugees, in accordance to international law.

Forward Thinking Australia believe that "immediate removal of detainees -

adults and children - out of detention center on Nauru, Manus Island and

Christmas Island" must proceed.

They also call for the "cease of all Australian operations of these

centers and procedures for permanent closure must be the final goal".

Freedom Publishers Union echoes their position and believe that the

closure of offshore detention centers should be an immediate priority.

Freedom Publishers Union have our own set of core political values, which

are aligned with that of independent political lobby group, Forward

Thinking Australia.

Our position advocates that a "processing center should be established on

the mainland", or a series of centers if necessary.

We also advocate for increased transparency and independent oversight of

immigration department operations.

There has been too much secrecy for much too long.

The only way to ensure the system genuinely improves is by transparency

and independent oversight.

As a result of the failures of the Liberal and Labor parties, it is

inevitable that Forward Thinking Australia support The Greens, a party

sharing the same values.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

May 16, 2019 | Microsoft Announces Critical Windows Security

Vulnerability and Releases Patch for Unsupported Systems, Due to Severity

MICROSOFT HAS ANNOUNCED A CRITICAL security vulnerability in its Windows

operating system, which affects versions Windows XP, 2003, 2008 and 7.

In the security bulletin issued by Microsoft, the vulnerability is known

as CVE-2019-0708 and is applicable to a Remote Code Execution security

issue in the Remote Desktop Services, formerly known as Terminal

Services.

At the time of going to press, Microsoft claims that no exploitation of

the vulnerability has yet been observed by the company, but has decided

to issue patches due to its severity, categorized as "Critical".

The action taken by Microsoft is particularly interesting as they have

issued patches for the Windows XP and Windows 2003 operating systems,

both of which are no longer supported.

However, Microsoft obviously felt the severity of the vulnerability

warranted patching the older systems to avoid a repeat scenario of the

WannaCry virus.

If a second bout of WannaCry, or similar virus outbreak, were to occur

and take advantage of CVE-2019-0708 on unpatched systems it is obvious

Microsoft would prefer to avoid being held to account by any lack of

response to patch the known vulnerability.

I personally run a Windows XP SP3 system and a Windows Server 2003 R2

file server, for non-critical home purposes.

I have patched my systems.

It is absolutely recommended that if you run any of the affected Windows

operating systems that you immediately download the patch for your

system, provided by Microsoft.

Windows 8/8.1 and Windows 10 systems remain unaffected, according to

Microsoft.

Security Bulletin (CVE-2019-0708) -

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/msrc/2019/05/14/prevent-a-worm-by-

updating-remote-desktop-services-cve-2019-0708/

Security Advisory - https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-

guidance/advisory/CVE-2019-0708

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] May 15, 2019 | [OPINION] Unemployed and Renters Being

Ignored by Political Parties During Federal Election Campaign

BESIDES THE ECONOMY, CLIMATE CHANGE and all the usual predictable policy

areas that you'd expect politicians to dish out false promises for,

neither of the two major parties - Liberal or Labor - have made any

mention of, or paid any attention to, the collective of common

Australians - unemployed and renters.

Yes, this collective do exist and the alarming link between employment

status and renting often goes unrecognized.

Renters are good people too and there is a rental epidemic in Australia

that requires much closer attention.

Politicians are all ignoring the pleas for help by renters.

When Liberal or Labor party members are faced with questions of what they

will do to help renters, their answers sometimes flag the positive

indicators and provide hope that something will be done to ease the

strain of high cost rents in Australia.

Yet no action comes nor does any real assistance to renters ever

eventuate.

Instead, we continue to see semi-passionate acknowledgment that there is

a big problem.

But that seems to be the limit.

Those affected by rental strain will often look outside of the two major

parties for political support.

But the story runs the same - acknowledgment of a problem and no real

action.

Rental prices in Australia are exorbitantly high and the problem

continues to get worse.

Rental prices continue to climb, yet wages are stagnant and what

increases do make it through the industrial relations system are simply

not keeping up with the rise of rental prices.

Many renters face financial difficulties when they do not have sufficient

employment, are unable to find employment or simply cannot find

employment that suits their family arrangements and other commitments.

No two situations are the same.

Under employment, lack of employment and unsuitable employment all have

additional problems that can be introduced too, which can then place

increased pressure on renters and their financial situations.

Under employment has become commonplace in Australia with the increase in

casual employment.

Casual employment is always appreciated by the employees that fill the

roles, however it does come with the insecurity of employment instability

and often have to endure unpredictable working hours.

In some cases, unsatisfactory workplace requirements are forced upon the

employee.

This places the employee in a difficult situation where they are forced

to comply, otherwise they are subjected to retaliation from their place

of employment which all too often results in work hours being reduced - a

cruel form of employer retaliation which can hit employees hard.

It can also result in bullying of the employee by management and

supervisors.

All of these problems place employees into the uncomfortable position

where they feel they do not have any choice to compromise and negotiate a

suitable employment agreement for fear they will lose work hours, have

less income and will then be unable to meet their rental payment

commitments.

The poverty experienced by so many Australian due to unemployment is a

huge problem which is simply not realistically represented by any data

graph or pie chart.

Ridiculously high rental prices are absolutely out of reach for many

unemployed people who rely on government welfare in the form of Newstart

Allowance and young adults on Youth Allowance.

The amount of funds provided by Newstart and Youth Allowance is

unacceptable.

Even for a single person, it is extremely difficult to find rental

accommodation which can be afforded while unemployed and receiving either

of the welfare payments.

Australia's three largest cities - Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane - have

exorbitant rental prices which make renting an impossibility.

Even moving out to the suburbs of these cities can prove a challenge,

even before taking in the consideration of reduced employment prospects

the further you move away from the city.

Smaller (yet growing) cities like the popular Gold Coast and Sunshine

Coast are also becoming difficult to find rental accommodation while

unemployed.

On the Gold Coast, a most basic two bedroom apartment is ~$350.00 per

week in the suburbs.

Newstart and Youth Allowance payments do not cover rental payments alone,

before basic living expenditures are even considered among other basic

living costs including clothing and food.

There is no compromise here.

The basic payments of Newstart and Youth Allowance is unacceptable and

impossible to live on.

It is impossible to live even the most simple of life.

It is creating situations where single people are often forced to move in

with family members, which is not always a suitable arrangement.

Particularly in broken families.

Single people with children find it extremely difficult and find they

have to either rely on family and friends for financial assistance, or

share their bedroom with their children and rent out the second bedroom

to a stranger.

This practice is sometimes not accepted by many rental agents, however it

has also become a necessary and common step taken by so many renters as a

means of basic survival.

Large families are of particular concern because their situations can

become much more complex.

Finding suitable accommodation is difficult and expensive.

Things get further complicated when school arrangements and childcare

requirements have to be considered.

So many renters are being placed on, or below, the poverty line and the

ignorance of politicians towards renters has become infectious.

Renters feel ignored, have become frustrated and can see no improvement

in their situation regardless of which major party forms government after

the Federal Election concludes.

Newstart and Youth Allowance are too low and must be increased.

But they require a major increase.

A small increase of $20-30 per week is not enough.

Any increase must be substantial.

But we must not be complacent with simply increasing Newstart and Youth

Allowance and walking away proudly and falsely believing the crisis his

suddenly resolved.

More attention must also be focused on reducing rental prices.

If rental prices are unable to be reduced, then the government must

immediately begin to explore options for rental subsidies so that people

can actually afford to pay their rent without living in poverty.

Perhaps they may actually then be able to afford food, clothing and

everyday essential items that provide them with the dignity everyone

deserves.

Supplementary payments of various types are offered to some recipients on

top of Newstart and Youth Allowance.

This can include energy rebates, family tax benefits or rental assistance

payments.

The amounts that these supplementary payments provide is a pittance.

It often equates to only an additional ~$30-40 on top of their Newstart

or Youth Allowance.

It is just not enough.

For politicians to use supplementary payments as an argument for the

justification of such pathetically low welfare payments is insulting.

Unsuitable employment is a huge problem too which is often ignored.

Any politician can make the weak and cowardly argument of 'get a job'.

It's a weak argument and it's offensive.

To assume which such confidence that simply 'getting a job' solves all

problems is not only showing their lack of acknowledgment of the real

problems faced by unemployed and renters, but it's ignorance towards the

inability of political parties to develop real policy that implements

real reform.

Employed people have real-life situations they have to deal with outside

of the workplace.

Many people have children they must drop off and/or collect from a

childcare center or school.

Many people have elderly people they are caring for and checking up on

outside of work hours.

The scope of real-life situations and commitments of people if infinite

and cannot be ignored.

There's certainly no objection that it remains important everyone finds

employment.

But we must ensure workplace and industrial relations acts guarantee the

rights of employees to negotiate with employers so that personal

situations of everyone can be respected and catered for by the workplace,

without discrimination.

The ignorance of politicians and political parties in Australia is

shameful.

Australia can do better than this.

We are treating the unemployed and renters like a problem.

They are not a problem to society, but do become a problem when they are

ignored and faced with situations which are simply impossible for them to

escape and tolerate.

There is little doubt evidence would suggest that it's a major source of

stress, mental health problems, domestic violence and sadly, suicide.

First, Australia need to abolish the Centerlink welfare delivery and

management system and implement a bold new system from the ground up, to

eliminate and resolve the seeming unsolvable problems that have plagued

the Centerlink system since its inception.

We must abolish Centerlink and start again.

Plus, and second, a Universal Basic Income (UBI) must be implemented.

A UBI would be indiscriminate and fair.

Australia can afford it and any argument against that is plain wrong.

Freedom Publishers Union believes the economic and welfare benefits that

would be provided by implementation of a UBI would be substantial.

A UBI in addition to an increase to existing welfare payments would

assist greatly in alleviating the financial burden of so many facing

financial difficulty.

Australia would see increased creative development because a UBI would

provide the basic society platform required for new ideas and projects to

be developed and would create a more equal society where everyone has

creative freedom and opportunities.

Come Saturday's Federal Election, who do unemployed and renters vote for?

Well unfortunately, as was mentioned at the beginning of this editorial,

none of the political candidates are talking about these issues.

To be fair to the Labor Party, they have indicated an increase in

Newstart Allowance is likely, following a formal review.

However this will be minimal and will do nowhere near enough to assist

unemployed and renters.

More will need to be done.

Tweaking the system and pushing through a few increases doesn't solve

everything.

Greater reform is needed.

We need all politicians and all political parties to start taking these

issues serious.

We need the voices of the smaller parties to back needed reform too.

Independents have their voice too, yet their influence can be limited in

scope.

But they must join a united chorus and expand on their agenda and also

call for reform.

Independent lobbying group, Forward Thinking Australia, indicate that the

Liberal Party are the best party for economic management.

This is probably an accurate endorsement for the wider scope of economic

management.

But the specifics of the economy that affect the unemployed and renters

are areas where the Liberal Party of Australia has failed.

From a certain aspect, their decision making has accelerated the problems

significantly.

They fail to acknowledge there is a problem in the rental sector and fail

to advocate that all problems are solved by 'getting a job'.

Forward Thinking Australia have recommended The Greens as the party best

placed in a position which could support policy areas that are important

to the lobby group.

The Greens have been a force behind calls to increase Newstart and Youth

Allowance for quite some time.

While the suggestion or implementation of a UBI is not a policy pitch at

this election, the concept is traditionally not entirely out of the realm

of the political ideology of The Greens.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] May 11, 2019 | [OPINION] Media Bias is Real.

"Finding the right balance has become the responsibility of the reader."

THERE'S LOTS OF MEDIA CHATTER and commentary at the moment about the bias

of News Corp.

The two major Murdoch mastheads of The Australian and The Daily Telegraph

have gained particular attention with the bias accusations.

Please don't fret, I'm not about to jump on the wagon and join the

assault against Rupert Murdoch and his influential media empire.

I'm way past all that.

Rupert may not have the same influence he once did, but it's becoming

more evident that his son Lachlan is sure making his own presence known.

And let's face it, News' mastheads probably are very focused on promoting

right-wing Liberal political philosophy and will almost always take up

the opportunity to kick the left in the guts.

It's not morally right, but it's always been that way.

Bias often becomes more noticeable during election season.

More so as we enter the final week before Australia votes.

The bias of News' mastheads has reared its head like usual, helped much

by the controversial article published in The Daily Telegraph which used

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's Mother as the focus of the story.

It was tacky, yeah.

Should they have used Shorten's Mother as the focus of the article during

election campaigning? Absolutely not.

Would we expect anything better from The Daily Telegraph? No.

Should The Daily Telegraph be condemned for it? No.

Why? Because we live in society which is and should always remain

tolerant of the views of the free press.

We may not always agree with the views and opinions of one particular

article, masthead or an entire media empire for that matter.

But we have choice.

News Corp.

don't have 100% media ownership over everything you read and watch.

They have a large chunk, but it's far from 100%.

The power and influence held by News Corp.

is all too often overstated.

The media of the left, traditionally the The Age and The Sydney Morning

Herald, have a bias instinct too.

Although I will argue that they have curbed their left bias somewhat

since the Nine takeover.

Many were critical of the Nine/Fairfax merger when it was first proposed.

Myself included.

It was thought that the merger would have negative impact on the overall

media landscape in Australia and that the independence of the mastheads

would be blown out the window.

As it turns out, things are shaping up pretty good so far.

Actually, I believe the mastheads have improved under Nine and reporting

is overall very fair.

In an opinion piece published to The Guardian on May 9, Tony Koch does go

a little extreme with his views of The Australian where Koch says, "If it

is not anti-Labor it is anti-Green or, quite ridiculously, anti-ABC.".

It's a fair assessment.

Yes, the paper is anti-Labor.

It is most definitely anti-Green and anti-ABC.

Many of the leading columnists at The Australian make it a weekly habit

to subject their readers to their public declarations of hatred towards

The Greens and the ABC.

Still, it's nothing compared to the rubbish that comes from Sky after

dark - notoriously known as the Liberal echo chamber.

A fitting label.

Unfortunately for Tony Koch of The Guardian, the rest of his opinion

piece was quite extreme and what can be described as an overreaction.

This can be quite common from contributors at The Guardian.

Take Van Badham for example.

Bias - who cares.

If anyone is to understand media, then they will understand all media is

bias to a certain degree.

If there was no such thing as bias, then bias indicators would not exist.

It's not the existence of bias that should concern readers.

In an era of 'fake news' and 'mistruths', it's the accuracy of

information that should be the main concern for readers.

Finding the right balance has become the responsibility of the reader.

Arm yourself with a copy of The Australian in the morning, but make sure

you grab a copy of The Age too.

Be sure to also grab a copy of the Australian Financial Review while

you're at it.

Between the three mastheads, you're essentially taking readership balance

back into your own hands.

So rather than throw your hands up in the air and ranting and raving that

the Murdoch empire is selling you lies and right-wing ideology, do

something about it.

While The Australian is traditionally bias to the right, The Age and The

Sydney Morning Herald will sway to the left.

The Australian Financial Review sits somewhere in the middle and is

usually considered to be fair and balanced.

Much like the ABC.

Once you're finished with the mainstream mastheads, make it a habit to

check in with the independent mastheads and public broadcasters.

But don't be naive to think they won't favor a certain political

persuasion too.

The Guardian's claims of non-bias becomes questionable all too often.

And while the ABC does appear to favor the left slightly more than the

right, most of the time this is a result of the refusal of those on the

right to respond to ABC's enquiries.

The Liberal Party, Coalition and right-wing thinkers have become hostile

towards the ABC.

Despite its slight lean to the left, it's still the most non-bias of them

all.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

May 4, 2019 | Fedora 30 Review

IBM MIGHT STILL BE DEEPLY engaged in consuming Red Hat and its assets,

but it certainly has not had any impact on the development of the Red Hat

sponsored community developed Fedora Project, which has just released its

latest update and pushed out Fedora 30 (F30) to the public.

How about that wallpaper, wow! The beautifully rendered image that graces

your eyes when you first boot into F30 is sure impressive.

We are not entirely sure what the image actually is, but it's definitely

uber cool and gives off immediate positive vibes about what F30 has to

offer, for sure.

Beyond the impressive wallpaper is a lucky dip grab bag.

How much luck is on your side when you use F30 is beyond any

predictability.

We can't honestly predict what experience you might have, but we can

certainly share some details of our own experience.

Tecseek Technology engaged with F30 independently, for testing.

We had been experimenting with the beta release at various intervals

leading up to the final release date to get a basic idea of what to

expect when the time came for us to review it in full.

We had some problems which plagued the XFCE release we were using.

We had concluded with reasonable confidence that it was the result of the

some buggy XFCE packages.

We had accepted that it could only be expected to experience some

difficulties as part of the beta release phase and were confident that

all the problems would be resolved once F30 went gold.

We were wrong.

As late as yesterday [at the time of writing], we are running the latest

build of F30 with the latest packages updated by dnf.

Unfortunately, we are still have some problems with the XFCE desktop

environment.

When tweaking the window settings we experienced random yet repeating

window manager failures.

We also experienced problems with the XFCE Panel shutting down and

failing to reload automatically, forcing us to invoke a manual reload of

the panel component by terminal console.

Although this problem was a little more unpredictable than the window

manager failures which we had learned how to trigger.

We were both plagued and mystified by these desktop environment bugs

which appeared to have an emerging pattern of what exactly triggered

them, yet we could not fix them.

We acted on a hunch and changed the desktop theme from the default

Adwaita theme to something a little more custom.

We opted for the Arc-Dark-solid theme with the Fedora icon set.

For no other reason other than to have some additional fun, we also made

some XFCE desktop tweaks and panel additions to spice up F30 and give it

some extra personality from the otherwise bland stock aesthetics of the

XFCE desktop.

The result was a fine looking desktop which unfortunately for us, didn't

perform quite as good as it looked.

Still, we were happy with our aesthetic tweaks.

We tried to look past the problems we were experiencing.

At times this proved difficult, but we tried hard and placed ourselves on

a mission to find something good about F30.

dnf package management makes up a pretty important part of the Fedora

system.

F30 now benefits from some zchunk compression improvements which sees

updated packages being pulled in at lightning speed.

The included Linux kernel gets upgraded to the 5.0 branch with the

inclusion of Linux 5.0.9.

The rest is catch-up updates, which really just brings the package

versions of everything into line with what any new Linux distribution

should include.

Bash gets updated to 5.0 and GNOME has been updated to the 3.32 branch,

with the latest branch proving to be a vast improvement in terms of

performance compared to its predecessors.

If you find you are bored of GNOME or find yourself looking for something

a bit more adventurous than what is offered by the official F30 Spins,

you now have the opportunity to install one of the two new desktop

environments that are available to install on F30 - Pantheon and

DeepinDE.

We were impressed by the amount of updates that have made their way into

F30.

It's technical specifications on paper indicate what should be a beast of

a system.

And it is.

But we were a little let down by the problems we experienced with XFCE

and really still expected better considering our system was of modest

specifications with a twin-core CPU, single solid state drive (SSD) and

twin displays.

However, we remain positive and are sure that any problems will be

identified, bug reports will get filed and hopefully we see some fixes

get shipped soon and get pulled in by dnf.

If you don't want to wait a couple more weeks until the problems all get

resolved, then give F30 a try now and you might very well have better

luck than us.

If the silly avoidable desktop bugs didn't bother us so much, we'd be

enticed to give Fedora 30 our recommendation.

But because of it, Tecseek Technology have been forced to reduce its

recommendation status slightly.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

May 4, 2019 | Julian Assange Sentencing in the UK

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION IS VERY disappointed with Julian Assange being

jailed for 50 weeks for the UK bail breach, however we believe it was

inevitable.

Whether we like the decision or not, it is the law.

The remaining concern now is the extradition hearing, which is still to

take place and will be opposed by Freedom Publishers Union and should be

opposed by everyone else.

As Freedom Publishers Union has been a constant - and remains a constant

- supporter of Mr. Assange we feel that we must always express our

disappointment with any negative developments surrounding his difficult

fight and complex situation.

However, as much as it pains us, we must also acknowledge the legal

conclusions of the law of the UK and it was effectively broken by Mr.

Assange's actions, which were acted out by him as a means of desperation

to avoid being unfairly extradited to the US, possibly by Sweden.

There has always been no doubt that Mr. Assange would face an unfair

trial in the US and there are also ongoing genuine concerns for his

immediate welfare, and future welfare if any efforts to extradite him to

the US are successful.

Detainment conditions of Mr. Assange have also become a pressing issue,

as reports suggest that Mr. Assange is being detained inside his prison

cell for a total of 23 out of 24 hours a day.

This would be defined as solitary confinement if proved to be correct.

These reports are unconfirmed by Freedom Publishers Union, but we

determine the possibility of their accuracy to be very plausible based on

the ongoing treatment and detainment of Chelsea Manning.

If the law defines Mr. Assange is not a journalist, then what is the law

defining as a 'journalist'? It's that simple.

Yet so undefined.

That is what Freedom Publishers Union, supporters of Mr. Assange and

media observers are struggling to understand.

Mr. Assange is doing much the same as other journalists, yet being

targeted and dissected as not a journalist.

Why? Because through Wikileaks he published some stuff people don't like.

So what.

Not only is it the view of Freedom Publishers Union that this is unfair

and unjustified, but it's very bias.

And whether Mr. Assange's publications are bias or not, again, who cares.

That should have no effect on the label associated with him, especially a

label applicable by the law or any case against him.

We believe Julian Assange to be an honest human being and is certainly

capable of making a mistake, and he has tried his best to be transparent

and non-partisan.

The same claims cannot be applied to the justice system which he is

facing, possibly in multiple countries.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] May 1, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Australian Labor Government

May Be Inevitable, But the Australian Economy Will Suffer

COLLATION AND ANALYSIS FROM A variety of sources of political polling

data has for a long time suggested that the public are more trusting of

the Australian Labor Party over the Liberal Party of Australia.

While polling data which focuses specifically on the preferred Prime

Minister reflects quite differently and suggests the public prefer Scott

Morrison as Prime Minister of Australia, over the leader of the

opposition Bill Shorten.

The most recent polling data produced this week has suggested that the

public might be warming to the concept of a Shorten-led Labor government,

which Labor may soon be presented the opportunity to form if elected.

The constant flow of big promises are coming with a potential big price

tag to complement, which will be sure to have a major hit to Australia's

economy, according to independent lobby group Forward Thinking Australia.

Before official campaigning commenced it was predicted by political

analysts Bill Shorten might lead this trend of big spend campaigning.

The Labor Party always do it.

It's been done by previous Labor Party leaders, so it was always logical

to conclude that a Shorten-led campaign would continue Labor's tradition.

Previous big spend Labor promises have not become a realistic problem for

Australia's economy in the last 6 years because the Liberal Party has

retained office and has actually been able to do a reasonable job of

maintaining good health of Australia's economy, while it continues to

grow.

It should be recognized too that the Liberal Party has somehow managed to

keep economic management quarantined from its internal party turmoil

which has engulfed the party and resulted in Scott Morrison becoming the

third Liberal Prime Minister in the last 6 years, following the party

assassination of Malcolm Turnbull, and Tony Abbott before him.

Labor is infamous for bad economic management.

Historical fiscal data leaves little room for denial.

When the Liberals came into office, led by then leader Tony Abbott, the

Australian economy was in a bad state and was the sole result of the bad

Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard Labor Governments before it.

It is fair to acknowledge that Australia also suffered from the Global

Financial Crisis (GFC) which admittedly hit the world's economies deep.

Australia was never going to be immune to its crippling effects.

Some economists commend the then Labor Government for sustaining

Australia's economy through the global chaos with minimal damage.

That is a fair assessment and they should be commended for it by all,

irrespective of where one sits on the political spectrum.

Still, they continued to spend too big and continued to mismanage

Australia's finances and Australia had officially left the previous years

of big surpluses and a healthy economy, which was produced by the fine

efforts of the previous Liberal Government which was led by the former

Prime Minister John Howard and his Treasurer Peter Costello.

The Liberals unfairly inherited a sick economy and the country was

burdened by heavy foreign debt - debt which is still being paid off with

high interest.

Forward Thinking Australia has recognized the good economic management of

the Liberal Party, through the Coalition, and it is their assessment that

the Liberal Party is best fit to continue to manage the economy.

However, Forward Thinking Australia does fall short of supporting the

Liberal Party on other policy areas.

In their lobbying efforts, Forward Thinking Australia are paying specific

attention to the "Economy and Public Broadcasting".

While the group recognizes the Liberal Party for good economic

management, it is scathing in its assessment of the party on its lack of

support for public broadcasting, and is extremely critical of the

continued funding cuts to the public broadcasting sector despite promises

cuts would not be made.

The scope of support Forward Thinking Australia offers remains limited,

albeit it must be understood that lobbying and supporting a particular

political party of influence is not its goal.

Instead, it has a mandate to support fair and balanced policy.

Forward Thinking Australia officially recognizes Liberal Party of

Australia, The Nationals, Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens

(The Greens).

While they do recognize smaller parties in the Australian political

sphere, Forward Thinking Australia acknowledge that the influence of the

smaller parties (and independents) is usually limited to the Upper House

- the Senate.

This is by no means any kind of oversight of the power of the influence

of the smaller parties, as the sometimes hostile Senate environment is

considered by many to be a chamber which can 'make or break' the path of

even good legislation.

Forward Thinking Australia departs from supporting the Liberal Party on

other policy areas.

It is their belief that the Liberal Party has ultimately failed on policy

areas, specifically on climate and energy.

Freedom Publishers Union does not support or advocate for any specific

technology for energy generation, but we are aligned with Forward

Thinking Australia and also believe that the Coalition has failed

miserably in this area, with no distinguished plan for the future.

This may be an election with a core focus on the economy, however,

opinion surveys have suggested that the Australian public is very keen to

see real action on climate and energy.

Forward Thinking Australia specifies that energy policy must focus on two

key issues - affordability and renewable energy generation.

Both issues the Liberal Government has failed to properly fix, despite

their rhetoric of claimed action.

Forward Thinking Australia do acknowledge that the Labor Party may offer

a slightly better solution to the aforementioned issues, but they have

determined that The Greens are the best party to support and the only

party which truly has the motivation and will to develop suitable climate

and energy policy for Australia.

Forward Thinking Australia does not form a specific position on coal

mining in the Galilee Basin by the Indian-owned Adani Group, or the

Murray-Darling Basin, but representatives express off-the-record to

Freedom Publishers Union they are issues that they are watching closely

and do not rule out forming a more formal and public position on these

issues in the future.

Most likely after the Australian Federal Election.

Freedom Publishers Union draws attention to the reckless spending

promises of the Labor Party.

In an analysis piece published by respected journalist Phillip Coorey of

the Australian Financial Review late on April 28 [2019] titled "Shorten

spends $230m a minute", he throws out some figures which although we

acknowledge their limited scope sticking to a 30 minutes time-frame, they

do reflect the wider and overall spending promise habits of Labor Party

leaders.

Coorey says, "In one 30-minute speech, Shorten pledged $6.9 billion over

the next four years to ease the cost of living - $4 billion in increased

childcare subsidies; $537 million in pay rises for childcare workers, 96

per cent of who are women; and $2.4 billion to provide 3 million aged

pensioners and Commonwealth Seniors Card holders $1000 in free dental

care every two years.".

Freedom Publishers Union does not dispute the legitimacy or good

intentions of any of the promises.

But Coorey says, "This sort of spending and its obvious appeal to the

recipients is what Labor is hoping will overwhelm the anger caused among

various constituencies from its proposed tax hikes.".

It appears that history is destined to repeat itself with the Labor

Party.

During the Labor tenures of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard we saw huge

amounts of spending which there really was actually no funds for.

The original development and roll-out of a fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP)

National Broadband Network (NBN) was costed at around ~$80 billion.

David Institute for Politics and Science believes this figure to be

modest for the plan that was originally put forward.

They say there is little doubt that it would have went over budget.

How was the Labor Party going to pay for it? The introduction of a mining

tax was the original planned source of revenue.

Ultimately, the mining tax implementation failed and it failed equally to

generate the intended revenue.

This left a massive shortfall in budget dollars.

The NBN ultimately never came to fruition in the form of its intended

design by the Labor Party, but at the very least, the Liberal Party was

motivated to improve network speeds and efficiency for a much lower cost

and in a much shorter time with improvements largely relying on existing

copper networks and rolling out more copper where it believed could

accommodate required improved network speeds.

David Institute for Politics and Science has expressed concerns to

Freedom Publishers Union at the apparent free thinking philosophy of the

Labor Party's campaign, led by Bill Shorten.

David Institute for Politics and Science say that the continued promises

of expensive policies is concerning while also pointing out that the

Labor Party appears to be in a race to implement every promise they are

making.

Many times, Bill Shorten has been observed claiming that policy X and Y

would be implemented within the first 100 days of office, if the Labor

Party were to win the election and form government.

David Institute for Politics and Science says that some may appreciate

the public demonstration showing Bill Shorten's motivation to get things

done, it is not always best to rush through legislation that is not

properly developed with appropriate industry and public consultation.

David Institute for Politics and Science use the encryption laws which

were rushed through at the end of 2018 as an example.

They say the encryption laws which were rushed through with careless

support from both of the major parties are one of the finest examples in

the democratic world of rushed legislation being pushed through a

parliamentary process, without proper consultation.

Still referring specifically to the encryption laws, they say the

legislation should have been provided more time, allowing for more

consultation which would in-effect have allowed it to be developed

properly.

Instead, it was pushed through with a 'implement now-fix later'

mentality.

It's not how democracy should function.

Instead, it turned out as one of the best examples of how democracy can

fail.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

April 19, 2019 | Disappointed with Ubuntu 19.04? Give ExTiX Linux 19.3 a

Try

WE RECENTLY PUBLISHED OUR REVIEW of the new release of Ubuntu - 19.04 or

'Disco Dingo'.

In the closing paragraph we declared, "This is an excellent update and

definitely the best update from Ubuntu developers in many years.".

That's our opinion.

Therefore, you're welcome to dispute our assessment and draw one of

opposite view from your own experience.

Let's be honest, as much as we love Ubuntu around this office it

certainly doesn't make us blind to other alternatives that offer a much

more customized Linux experience.

So if you have given Ubuntu 19.04 a try and concluded it's not for you or

it's just a little bit plain and boring (let's face it, mainstream

distributions can be boring sometimes), then there's another distribution

that you might want to take a look at that just might satisfy.

Until this article, nobody around this office had ever heard of the

distribution called ExTiX Linux 19.3.

The website is absolutely terrible.

It appears amateur and information is spread all over the place like a

piece of uncooperative abstract art.

In some cases, information is completely absent and leaves us to guess on

some of the technical details of the distribution's specifications.

What we have been able to gather from information on the website is that

it's a distribution based on Ubuntu 19.04 and Linux kernel 5.0.0.

Actually, as far as we know ExTiX was the first Linux distribution to be

released which included Linux kernel 5.0.0.

We still find it a little disturbing that a distribution could be

released that was based on Ubuntu 19.04 considering it was still

technically under development and there was the very real risk of buggy,

broken or insecure packages making their way through the source chain and

into ExTiX.

Eventually, any suspect packages would be resolved once Ubuntu 19.04 was

released and updated packages flowed through into ExTiX.

Still, the risk is real when this kind brave release-now-fix-later method

is followed.

Note: At the time of going to press, Ubuntu 19.04 has now been released.

So if you have installed ExTiX then we recommend you update it as soon as

possible.

We really tried hard to look past the strangeness of the website.

But we couldn't.

There is the main ExTiX Linux website where some information points to

another website, which could be the website of the owners or parent

group.

We're not entirely sure.

The other website is called Exton Linux.

The Exton Linux website appears to be an almost duplicate, yet much

cleaner, version of the ExTiX Linux website.

Closer examination of the Exton Linux website confuses us further when

our eyes are drawn to the little line of text that says "The Exton Linux

logo is made by Rob Tomsick and modified by me.".

We note the specific word "me", because this would indicate the developer

of ExTiX Linux, or Exton Linux, or just the website, maybe, is all just

the shoddy work of one person.

Odd? Yes.

But again, we're not entirely sure that's correct.

Confused yet? Yep, so are we.

Just prior to going to press, Tecseek Technology were alerted of further

websites that appeared to be promoting ExTiX/Exton Linux in various

hideous fashion.

In fact, we would describe the 'extra' propaganda sites as equally as

terrible and confusing.

The entire network of sites acts as one big spam catalog promoting

ExTiX/Exton Linux.

We actually gave up trying to make sense of it all.

We concluded after all the confusion and vague presentation of

information, we still actually had no idea who owns or who develops ExTiX

Linux.

Phew! That was just exhausting.

By Tecseek Technology declaring the entire network of sites as "spam", we

must point out that we are not suggesting there is anything sinister

going on, other than we suspect the entire project is driven by an

amateur, or group of amateurs, who need a lot of help to bring the

project under control.

OK, here's for another round of confusion.

Sorry, but we have to get all this out of the way now.

We used ExTiX Linux 19.3.

According to the website, there is also ExTiX Linux 19.4 available, which

is based on Deepin Linux and uses the very latest Linux kernel 5.0.8.

But before that, we have ExTiX Linux 19.1.2 which includes the LXQt

desktop and claims to be based on Debian and Ubuntu.

And finally, the one before that is ExTiX Linux 19.1 which makes similar

claims to 19.1.2 but includes the KDE desktop.

We're lost.

We're absolutely lost at just what this Linux distribution is actually

trying to achieve and what exactly it is choosing to be based on.

At the moment, it's choosing to be an absolute mind-fuck.

In trying to work anything out, we can only conclude there is no

development pattern.

Instead, the distributions are being released as some sort of hobby and

at will.

If it has one thing going for it, it's actually beating the mainstream

releases at their own game.

Still, it's risky, as we pointed out before.

If ExTiX or Exton or whatever the hell you're going to call it is going

to have any kind of respected future within the Linux community, there

are three MAJOR issue which need to be resolved, and quickly.

First, the spam network of websites must get sorted and the information

needs to be wiped clean.

The only way this could ever be cleaned up is to start all over again.

Trust us, it's that bad!

Second, a development path and version scheme must be established.

Third and last, pick a damn distribution base and desktop environment and

stick with it.

Only once these three key problems are sorted can this Linux distribution

have any hope in hell of gaining traction and respect among the sometimes

unforgiving Linux community.

We never let our collective disturbance turn us away from giving ExTiX a

shot to impress.

Wherever it sits in the portfolio of confusion, we used ExTiX Linux 19.3.

So here we have it - a Linux distribution based on Ubuntu 19.04, Linux

kernel 5.0.0 and shipped with an XFCE4 desktop environment.

Seems like a recipe for something worth sharing, right? Definitely.

Thankfully things didn't actually turn out half as bad as we were

expecting.

And if you separate the bad experience of the websites from the actual

experience of using the distribution, you will find they're quite at

opposite ends on the satisfaction scale.

ExTiX follows the modern Linux distribution tradition of providing a live

boot mode.

We didn't pay much attention to how it performed in live mode.

We booted, installed, then rebooted and we took full control from there

on.

Live mode is great in some cases, but it is always very limited and will

not give you the proper fair experience of how a distribution can perform

to its relative full potential.

The dread starts from the GRUB boot screen.

GRUB works just fine, but man, that background "GEEK" image has got to

go.

It tries to be cool, but it's just not.

It boots into the XFCE desktop which presents what appears to be a

strange science-fiction inspired wallpaper.

But we honestly can't look past the fact the dude in the wallpaper looks

like he has one leg.

Seriously, is it just us? We assume he has his legs crossed and only one

leg is visible.

Or he actually does only have just one leg.

A disabled scientist perhaps? Honestly, nothing would surprise us right

now from what we've experienced so far with ExTiX.

We played it safe and changed the wallpaper.

ExTiX includes a ton of extra goodness.

It declares itself the "Ultimate Linux", but we couldn't endorse that.

Not even close.

You're best to ignore that marketing mumbo jumbo and take a more modest

approach.

It comes pre-installed with the VirtualBox Guest Additions enabled and

NVIDIA X Server support.

We didn't require the latter, but it's a nice addition for NVIDIA users.

There are duplicate software applications.

We appear to have duplicate graphical file managers and duplicate text

editors.

Thunar is included, which comes as part of the XFCE desktop environment.

But ExTiX includes PCManFM too.

Also, Leafpad is included along with the gedit text editor.

Just more duplicates, really, and kind of unnecessary.

For more advanced coding, Geany is included.

All the rest is common stuff plus a few, but we like the software

inclusions consisting of Synaptic Package Manager for more advanced

package management and GParted for advanced disk management.

There's plenty more too, but we don't have room to list everything here.

The default appearance of ExTiX is not the greatest.

It's pretty stock.

But it is easily tweaked to make it your own, largely thanks to the high

level of customization options provided by the XFCE desktop environment.

What did we do? Well, we instantly changed the wallpaper from the one

legged scientist to something a little more, geek-aggressive.

There is only a small selection of wallpapers available.

They're not brilliant and actually look like they are simply sourced from

a random Google Images search.

Two more additional aesthetic tweaks we made were changing the theme to

Adwaita-dark and we also moved the window buttons to the left, our

preferred position.

We also tweaked our XFCE applications menu a little and added some text.

Small, yet effective and pleasing improvements.

Post-installation there are a couple of annoyances.

The installer is a modified version of the Ubiquity installer that is

typical of Ubuntu based distributions.

But it functions well, has some nice tweaks and the overall installation

was extremely quick for an installation build that weighs in at a hefty

~2.4GB from the get go.

And the extra packages included did not appear to make an ounce of

difference to the installation time.

We were left quite impressed, actually.

We were let down when we saw that the installer was left lingering upon

fresh reboot into the new installed system.

The "Install ExTiX" icons were still visible in the XFCE application menu

and were still residing in the panel too.

A slight oversight by the distributors.

Certainly nothing major, but still a little annoying.

We manually removed them from sight.

Also, the "Live" user account is left active post-installation.

This annoyed us so much that we broke out a terminal and manually locked

the account and then deleted it, along with its Home directory.

Again, another oversight but also had an easy fix.

What we were eventually left with was actually a rather attractive and

fast performing Linux desktop system.

We liked it.

The overall package and software application selection might be

questionable and there might be more hands-on work to do post-

installation that what you might be used to, but somewhere buried

underneath all the disorganization and chaos of ExTiX, there's a good

distribution crying for some attention.

Our own experience with ExTiX kind of reminded us of when we reviewed

BunsenLabs Linux back in June 8, 2018.

At the time, we said that it was "a breath of fresh air and a nice

reminder that the desktop is yours, therefore it must be owned by you.

It makes you work for it, but the satisfaction when complete is the

reward." We feel much the same way with ExTiX.

If you 'distro hop' lots and were disappointed with Ubuntu 19.04, then

ExTiX Linux 19.3 might fill in the gap for you until Fedora 30 arrives.

It's pretty good, it just needs a bit more love by everyone.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] April 16, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Pirate Party of Australia

Near Silent on Real Social Issues

THE PIRATE PARTY OF AUSTRALIA is Australia's sole representative

political party that practices the loose style of pirate politics.

But questions are beginning to be asked whether the party is able to

maintain relevance to the modern society of Australia.

Some argue that its the very style of pirate politics itself that is the

problem.

Freedom Publishers Union, publisher of Political Independent, argues very

differently.

It is not the style of pirate politics itself.

It is the problem of those that pretend to represent and uphold the

standards of pirate politics, instead prefer to be content with publicly

being associated with the political philosophy that has become synonymous

with fighting for digital rights and copyright reform.

The Pirate Party of Australia is a legitimate registered political party.

Admittedly, this is not a difficult feat to achieve in Australia.

But their activities and level of advocacy on real social issues appears

to be extremely limited, almost non-existent in the public eye.

The party has been been near silent on all matters of political debate so

far, with the Federal Election due on May 18, 2019.

The last public message from the Pirate Party of Australia was released

on their website March 16, 2019, and was simply a message of solidarity

in response to the Christchurch massacre.

Before that, February 19, 2019, they released a message endorsing an idea

proposed by some obscure Queensland 4WD group on modifications to

vehicles.

The message was confusing and unfocused, but it appeared to call for

"mutual" national recognition of motor vehicle modifications while also

acknowledging that each Australian State has their own laws and

regulations.

Strange and somewhat contradictory.

Political Independent spoke to one person who resides in the State of

Queensland and they told us they had "never heard of that 4WD group" and

that "whatever legislation the pirate party is talking about doesn't seem

to be anything the public is interested in with the federal election

campaigns now underway".

To the party's credit, there were two posts for the month of December

2018 which were of direct relevance of civil liberties and website

censorship.

In November 2018, there was nothing more than what appeared to be a blog

post on the party's website which told a personal story of a transgender

transition, published by their Senate Candidate for New South Wales, Sara

Joyce.

Again, strange and not exactly the platform for such a personal story.

In the months before there were just a few posts on some copyright stuff

and announcements of their support for Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning

- which were natural party reactions to events that were unfolding at the

time.

But you get the point.

The Pirate Party of Australia has lost its direction, does not appear to

have any sense of political values and their policy focus can only be

described as unstructured and scrambled.

They have a modest attitude towards digital rights and copyright reform.

Their activities closely resemble that of a digital rights organization

like Electronic Frontiers Australia and Digital Rights Watch, rather than

a political party.

Independent political lobby group, Forward Thinking Australia, points out

three core areas of political policy that have generated much public

interest during the campaigning for the upcoming Australian Federal

Election.

According to Forward Thinking Australia, they are focused on Climate and

Energy, Economy, and Border Security.

None of these issues appear to be on the political sphere of interest for

the Pirate Party of Australia.

Without taking any significant interest in any of these core issues, the

party has almost nil chance of getting elected to the Australian Senate.

Member discontent within the party appears rife too.

Political Independent spoke to two separate individuals - one a former

insider of the party and the other a former member.

In separate conversations, we are told that the internal structures of

the party are largely dysfunctional and do not provide for democratic

dialog and contributions from members and the community, and are either

brushed off or simply outright ignored.

Both of the two people that spoke to Political Independent are no longer

associated with the Pirate Party of Australia.

One claimed to have left due to frustration by the lack of accepting

community concerns and input.

The other person claimed the reason they left was because they joined the

party believing that their fellow pirate party members would share the

same passion they did for reforming digital rights in Australia, but was

disappointed by the lack of actual action by the party.

Political Independent has been unable to verify the stories and views

shared with us by the two people who both claim to be formerly associated

with the Pirate Party of Australia.

However, their stories corroborate with each other and their views are

aligned with that of a third-person that we come into contact with during

the compiling of this article.

Our third person was able to prove their former association with the

pirate party by showing us proof of their former membership.

The third person told us they previously had access to those with

"significance influence" over the internal structure and its operations.

They also told us that internally, the Pirate Party of Australia likes to

give the impression of transparency and democracy within its operations,

but realistically, it's operated like a dictatorship.

"There's certainly no fair treatment of members of the Oz Pirate Party.",

we were told.

As we go to press, Political Independent has provided the Pirate Party of

Australia the opportunity to respond to the information that we are

publishing in this article.

If our office receives a response it will be published as a footnote to

this article.

Our observations indicate that the Pirate Party of Australia has become

immune and intolerant to the core political issues that Australians are

truly interested in and concerned about.

The absence of a truly focused Australian-based pirate party that is

equally interested in common social issues, while remaining true to the

digital rights philosophies has not always been the case.

In 2015, Democratic Pirates Australia was born out of frustration with

the many fundamental failings of the Pirate Party of Australia.

Democratic Pirates Australia was active from 2015 through to the end of

2017.

In just two years, it had grown from just an idea, into a very structured

political party platform which was on the verge of positioning itself to

begin to foster enough public support to register to become a registered

political party in Australia.

The platform was built on the foundations of pirate politics, but the

difference between Democratic Pirates Australia and the Pirate Party of

Australia was that the former had built an extremely strong focus on

extended social policy.

Democratic Pirates Australia had come to the realization that as

important as digital rights and copyright reform are, social policy is

equally important and could not be ignored if a political party is to

remain relevant to the Australian public.

For the duration of its base establishment and operations, Democratic

Pirates Australia actively and aggressively engaged in political dialog

and advocacy on many core elements of digital rights and copyright

reform.

They contributed by making several important public submissions, engaged

with international pirate parties and even made an attempt at becoming

recognized through Pirate Parties International.

We understand it was unsuccessful as a result of a major failing of

understanding on certain correspondence aspects between Democratic

Pirates Australia and Pirate Parties International.

Although its recognition through Pirate Parties International never came

to fruition, there was genuine motivation to succeed and the passion was

fierce to push the limited boundaries of domestic pirate politics to

something more broad and with strong international relevance than what is

currently offered by the Pirate Party of Australia.

So if the motivation and structures were in place, what went wrong?

Nothing actually did go wrong.

Democratic Pirates Australia was founded by Chris McGimpsey-Jones who is

also one of the Co-Founders of our publisher, Freedom Publishers Union.

December 2017, a deal was made by all the administrators for Freedom

Publishers Union to acquire Democratic Pirates Australia.

Based on the grounds of a possible conflict of interest, Chris was not

part of the voting process.

At the time of the acquisition, Freedom Publishers Union declared it as

"a proud moment" and that "the data and website assets that we receive

through the acquisition is extremely rich in political value".

Since the acquisition of Democratic Pirates Australia, Freedom Publishers

Union has no doubt been further enriched with political value.

However, it did leave a major dent in the presence of an effective and

dedicated pirate party in Australia.

One would have hoped that the absence of Democratic Pirates Australia

would push the Pirate Party of Australia to broaden their political

philosophy and place additional focus on social issues, as Democratic

Pirates Australia had done.

Fighting for digital rights and copyright reform is important.

It's what Democratic Pirates Australia done.

But they went that one step further and paid further attention to the

majority of the Australian people, rather than focusing on the niche.

Following the acquisition of Democratic Pirates Australia, Freedom

Publishers Union have carried on the political advocacy and continuing

the difficult fight for digital rights, copyright reform and many other

important Australian political issues.

Freedom Publishers Union are dedicated to continuing the cause.

But it is not a political party.

There still remains room for a second pirate party in Australia.

The question must be asked, is anyone up to the challenge of embracing

the unique style of politics, become a pirate and sail the high seas of

bitter Australian politics? We'll see.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

Update: Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations made repeated attempts

to contact Pirate Party of Australia.

Despite their repeated attempts, Pirate Party of Australia was not

willing to respond and refused to comment.

**********

April 15, 2019 | [EXCLUSIVE] Ubuntu 19.04 (Disco Dingo) Review

QUADRANT COMPUTING WORKED TIRELESSLY WITH testing the development builds

of Ubuntu 19.04 (Disco Dingo).

In the weeks leading up to the final release date of 19.04, they dished

up their thoughts and conclusions inside two technical reports and

provided them to Tecseek Technology.

The reports detailed the issues that arose during their testing and noted

some things we should look out for during our own testing at Tecseek

Technology.

Thankfully, the reports were extremely positive and there was nothing

negative that Tecseek Technology could describe as serious in nature.

The reports provided to us were a great help, but we couldn't let

Quadrant Computing have all the fun could we? Absolutely not.

So once we had access to the final build of 19.04, Tecseek Technology

performed our own assessment and testing.

It was all a happy experience.

The first thing that was obvious to us when we booted 19.04 is the

quicker boot times.

There's a lot of work that has been done to improve resource usage of the

system and that has obviously flowed through to provide a more efficient

system boot.

19.04 boots quicker and each system process dealt with seems to be passed

off with ease.

After the release of Ubuntu 18.10, we walked away feeling a little flat

by its impact.

This time we're off to a good start, so we're feeling positive.

After you shake your head from the shock of experiencing that super-fast

boot, you will find your eyes taking in the feast the Disco Dingo offers.

Now, we've said in previous releases that Ubuntu wallpapers are not

usually anything specific that we get too excited about.

But the default wallpaper of 19.04 blew our previous statement right out

of the corn fields and across the border.

We understand we've been critical of the Ubuntu wallpapers in general,

however this is no indication that we do not appreciate quality digital

artwork when we see genuine creativity placed on public display.

The new wallpaper is just a real genuine artistic feast.

We love it.

Over at the XFCE camp, the wallpaper is equally impressive, albeit

entirely different to the GNOME version.

But regardless of your choice of desktop, your eyes will enjoy the feast

placed before them.

Once you've finished shaking your head a second time, to shake off the

shock of first impressions 19.04 will leave on you, you will undoubtedly

start poking around to see what makes up this release.

That's what we did and we're more than happy to share the juicy details

with you.

If the wallpaper failed to make your creative juices boil over with

positivity, then perhaps the Yaru icon updates might just turn up the

temperature a little.

The Yaru icon set was included in 18.10.

Its inclusion was nice and it was appreciated, however it didn't quite

have the final polish that was expected by many.

19.04 adds that final missing polish and also adds extra support for

third-party icons that were not catered for in 18.10.

Very nice.

The vanilla version of 19.04 utilizes GNOME 3.32.1.

Some GNOME loyalists are touting the 3.32 branch as one of the best set

of updates to GNOME 3, to date.

Once you spend a few minutes with it, you quickly understand how they

come to this conclusion.

It's got an entire basket of updated goodies included, which 19.04 also

benefits by the inclusion of GNOME 3.32.1.

Ubuntu developers have made some of their own tweaks too, but largely

most of the GNOME updates and improvements have been inherited.

One of the benefits is further polish to the Adwaita desktop theme.

With a finely polished Adwaita theme, Yaru icons combined with one of the

best Linux wallpapers we've bared eyes on results in one damn fine

looking Linux desktop.

GNOME 3.32.1 sees better Shell response times too.

When we read the developer notes, at first we thought this was the usual

marketing mumbo jumbo that was being spewed out in a concerted effort to

impress.

However, this is the real deal.

The response time improvements in Shell are noticeable and extremely

welcomed.

Shell has always suffered and Tecseek Technology have been leading

critics on this front.

We loath the Shell, but we also welcome the improvements and will

strongly encourage any developers who continue to work on this specific

area to continue to make it more responsive.

They're certainly on the right path and have gained a lot of respect from

us for the latest set of improvements.

We've been disappointed with Shell for a long time, but it's actually

starting to become a useful desktop environment.

Don't write it off completely just yet.

Let's be realistic here for just a second - if you're a Linux user,

you're going to be pulling out your terminal probably almost on a daily

basis.

Nothing helps get the job done quicker than a good terminal application

to match your terminal-ninja skills.

GNOME Terminal enjoys some improvements in 19.04, with a handy little

search addition which is quickly accessed from the application panel.

Seriously, this is such a no-brainer we can't help but wonder why didn't

anyone think of this before.

It's another welcome tweak.

As we're talking about terminals, we might as well make the point known

that 19.04 includes Bash 5.0.3.

We've had smooth waters so far.

But we did experience some choppiness.

Here's the thing.

If you are a fan of GNOME panel menus then you are most likely part of a

minority group of nerds.

Most GNOME users hate the feature.

We hated it too.

Thankfully, a healthy democratic combination of user demand and common

sense has initiated change and GNOME developers have removed panel menus,

and they have been returned to their traditional and rightful place of

belonging, inside the application panel.

It's a sensible tweak yet one that appears be unwelcome by Ubuntu

developers as they've made no effort to employ the tweak in 19.04.

Panel menus still make their unwelcome appearance and create a state of

confusion for users.

Some menus appear inside the application panel and some menus appear up

inside the panel menu.

And some use a combination of the two and leave the user swiping the

mouse up and down in a frantic effort trying to find what they are

looking for in the menus, or two menus.

It's this very confusion and unnecessary frantic mouse swiping which the

GNOME developers wanted to smash on the head.

It's unnecessary and ludicrous.

Ubuntu developers could have simply adopted the decision made by GNOME

developers and included this fix.

Instead, they appear to have blocked it.

Therefore, confusions ensues for Ubuntu users.

It's a big mistake and one we believe is probably one of the most stupid

decisions we've seen with 19.04 and one of which hopefully gets resolved

in future updates.

We're not scoring 19.04 at all, but if we were we would be forced to

penalize it for this stupidity.

Over at the XFCE camp, the mood is much more relaxed.

It's always a good place to visit.

XFCE users can expect to enjoy the nice new wallpaper that we've already

mentioned, but the desktop doesn't ship with the Yaru icon set and

doesn't look quite as impressive for it.

It remains a brilliant alternative to GNOME though, if you want something

much lighter.

Tecseek Technology spent lots of time inside GNOME and XFCE, we like both

equal.

During development there were doubts that Linux 5.0 would be released

before 19.04 entered the kernel freeze phase.

Thankfully, it was released before things froze over and the Linux 5.0

branch is what powers this beast.

Originally, Linux 5.0 was proposed to be released as Linux 4.21.

However, following the usual tradition of unpredictable behavior and

thought patterns of the leading brain behind Linux development, Linus

Torvalds decided to make the jump and 4.21 became the launch pad for the

Linux 5.0 branch.

Many software traditionalists expect big things from big version number

changes.

Much like when Linux 4.0 was introduced.

But it's well known that Torvalds doesn't embrace or care about that age-

old version philosophy.

So 5.0 is just the usual bunch of updates, really.

The updates are plentiful though and certainly pleasing.

If you're a user of AMD or Intel graphics adapters, then you will quickly

grow a smile on your pretty face when you learn that MESA 19.0 is

included in Linux 5.0.

In addition to the display driver updates, there is also some low-level

encryption tweaks, numerous driver updates and further improvements to

power management.

Btrfs and XFS filesystems receive some important and welcome updates and

fixes too.

That's pretty much the kernel covered.

Now we will take a look at some more Ubuntu-specific stuff.

19.04 has made some improvements to Live Patching.

The feature effectively allows users to apply kernel updates without the

immediate requirement of a system reboot.

It's implementation was noted in 18.10, but it was a little clunky, at

best.

The improvements made in 19.04 are good and encourage more users to take

advantage of the Live Patching feature.

It's also now included by means of its own dedicated tab inside the

Software and Applications tool.

A good example of the better inclusion of Live Patching.

Live kernel updates without the reboot requirement has been a feature

available for corporate Linux customers for a long time.

Years, in fact.

But it's only recently that consumers have began to be able to take

advantage of this impressive technology.

In our experience at Tecseek Technology with live kernel updating, we

believe it to be still too clunky to rely on completely.

At some point you're going to need a reboot anyway to complete the update

process and eliminate animosities from rearing their ugly head.

Our advice, update and then reboot immediately afterwards.

This process is proven and eliminates potential for problems related to

kernel updates.

Still, we're glad that development is being concentrated on improving

live kernel updating.

If it works for you, then that's great.

But it's not our preference.

Or maybe we're just getting too old around this place.

The dreaded Wayland - yes that pesky display server protocol - is present

again.

We frame that as though it's going to be dropped at some point.

We understand it's not.

But hey, we can keep on dreaming.

Thankfully, Wayland remains an option at login and staying out of our

way.

Just stay away from Wayland and stick to X server.

Trust us.

You will not be doing yourself any favors by employing Wayland.

Just turn the other way, grab the hand of X server and walk off into the

blissful sunset.

You'll have a much happier existence for it.

At best, in its current form, Wayland might serve as some sort of backup

display option if you experience problems with X server.

But meh.

We're hear to tell you right now that if you're having problems with X

server in the first place, Wayland is certainly not going to offer any

real solution to your display problems.

There's a particular feature packed deep inside the latest GNOME updates

called fractional scaling.

It's included in 19.04 too, but available for use with Wayland sessions

only.

There's also a second catch with fractional scaling, that being it's

disabled by default.

Tecseek Technology feels that it's a specific feature that will only

appeal to a specific group of users.

For most of us, it will be a feature that is just not relevant and can go

remaining disabled.

We part of the latter group, therefore we haven't delved into this

particular feature at all.

But we still felt it was important to mention for those that are

interested.

If you are interested, we're sure there will be plenty of information

available online to help you out with fractional scaling.

So that's it, we are moving on from that one.

Oh, and it's probably not that important anymore but we should also make

note that the 19.04 release is just an incremental release and support is

only offered until 2020.

So, we have taken a good look at the inner cogs of what drives 19.04.

Now we need to have a look at what it can actually do for us - the user.

19.04 has directly inherited better support for Btrfs and XFS filesystems

thanks to the Linux 5.0 kernel, so it was only fitting that Tecseek

Technology add some extra grunt to our system in the form of some extra

hard disks and do some filesystems tests.

We threw four new hard disks into the system.

We had two solid state drives (SSD) and two traditional mechanical drives

(HDD).

We formatted one of each hardware architecture as Btrfs and the other of

each as XFS.

We gave each disk an absolute flogging with data by way of multiple and

rather intensive read/write (r/w) tests.

We pushed both Btrfs and XFS to their limits.

We know that both are capable filesystems and never had any doubt of

their abilities of handling our r/w tests.

Our tests were in fact designed to focus more on how Ubuntu 19.04 handled

it.

Would it remain stable? That's what we were looking at, specifically.

We used hdparm and Bonnie++ for our r/w hard disk tests, respectively.

While hdparm produced cache read results for all four disks that were

consistent throughout all configurations, buffered disk reads performed

better on HDD than SSD.

Those results were a little surprising, actually.

Despite HDD being the older technology of the two, they're still holding

their own with buffered disk reads.

A side-by-side comparison of the two filesystems appeared to favor Btrfs

significantly for overall read times.

Closer analysis of and breaking down the disk write results produced by

Bonnie++, we can immediately see that Btrfs relied more intensively on

the CPU usage.

20% more than XFS in some tests.

Overall averages across all configurations combined were surprising

closer than we had expected, but we did analyze better performance by

Btrfs on SSD while XFS appeared to favor HDD by proving to be quite a bit

quicker for write times.

We don't have the data to prove it, but we believe this is most likely

because Btrfs is not a journal filesystem by default.

Therefore, due to technological differences, the write times of Btrfs

would naturally favor SSD.

XFS is older technology and is a journal filesystem.

Therefore, it's a natural conclusion it would favor HDD.

This is probably a good thing too, because journal filesystems usually

r/w more frequently than a comparable non-journal filesystem like Btrfs.

SSD hardware do have a much more limited r/w life over more traditional

HDD hardware.

Therefore if you are using SSD then you're probably going to want to

stick with Btrfs, despite the slight CPU overhead which was negligible,

really, but still worthy of a mention.

There is one other element of our r/w tests that we have not yet

mentioned.

In our write tests, we used benchmark settings which replicated a large

data file consisting of many smaller chunks.

But it is the overall factor of the large data size that could have

provided XFS an advantage, as it has much better capability by design for

large data size.

So our benchmark may not have been entirely fair to both Btrfs and XFS

and should be indicative only.

During our r/w tests, we monitored Ubuntu 19.04 using a combination of

top for system resource monitoring and iotop to keep a watch on disk r/w

rates.

19.04 handled our tests with ease and we witnessed no indication that the

system ever struggled to handle everything we threw at it.

CPU usage never once breached the 80% throttle, memory usage never

surpasses 50% and load measurements remained quite modest and controlled.

Definitely a thumbs up.

Still talking about hard disks, we were initially going to install 19.04

on a RAID0 disk configuration.

However, we had an apparent lapse in brain function and remembered that

Ubuntu still fails to include RAID support in the Ubiquity graphical

installer.

RAID can be employed by downloading and installing from the Alternate

Installer source which uses a text-based installer which includes RAID

support.

Since we already had default installation media provided to us, we

instead settled on a different hard disk configuration.

We built a system compromising of two separate hard disks.

The first a SSD.

The second a HDD.

On the first drive we settled for formatting it as ext2 and limited this

drive to handling /boot.

This provided a slight, albeit minimal, advantage at startup as the boot

process is drawn from the SSD.

We deliberately selected ext2 because of its absence of support for

journaling.

/boot does not require journaling, really.

And journaling shouldn't be utilized on SSD hardware anyway, for the

reasons we mentioned above.

The rest of the operating system resides on the HDD which was formatted

to ext4 to allow for journaling.

Although it was not our original intention, our compromised configuration

proved reliable, stable and very quick in performance.

We've had so much fun with playing around with Ubuntu 19.04 (Disco Dingo)

it's difficult to accept we have reached a point in this Review where we

need to draw this thing to a close.

We feel the fun is just starting and there's much more to enjoy yet.

If we must close, then let's close things on a high.

This is an excellent update and definitely the best update from Ubuntu

developers in many years.

It's a must have.

We're not going to hold you up any longer.

Go...

run...

download...

install...

grab an excessive supply of Red Bull and get the party started.

Because we're still raving!

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

April 11, 2019 | Julian Assange Arrested in London

AS WE GO TO PRESS, Julian Assange has just been arrested by British law

enforcement authorities inside the Ecuadorian Embassy, in London.

Early unverified video vision of Mr. Assange's arrest appears that he was

arrested and removed from the premises against his will and by

significant force.

Wikileaks and the activities of Mr. Assange have always enjoyed a large

amount of interest from Freedom Publishers Union.

It's absolutely fair to conclude that both subjects have probably enjoyed

more interest from us than any other topic or subject that we have turned

our attention to.

We are extremely alarmed by the arrest of Mr. Assange - publisher of

Wikileaks.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to offer our absolute dedicated

support to Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Preempting the many significant stories that will undoubtedly be

published in the news following the arrest of Mr. Assange, Freedom

Publishers Union felt it appropriate that we declare our intention to

refrain from all expressions of opinion, instead pledging to adhere to

our strict editorial process and fact checking procedures.

Due to the natural high level of global interest in the arrest and

subsequent legal occurrences that are yet to eventuate in relation to Mr.

Assange, it's fitting to assume that global news media will have an

unfortunate temptation to publishing questionable information and details

which cannot be guaranteed as credible in the immediacy.

Therefore, Freedom Publishers Union will make sure that anything we say

or publish is accurate and factual.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] April 5, 2019 | [OPINION] Facebook Challenges

'Old Media' Formula

FACEBOOK CONTINUOUSLY GETS LASHED BY the media.

Data breaches, failures to remove hate content, political advertising

potentially influencing international politics - well, it's not fair, but

then nothing at this level is.

That this is sucking up news space at all is a problem.

On data breaches specifically, these are highly technical issues with

telco-level equipment.

There's nothing the average person can do or say about it.

A problem that exposes credit card data to theft: that's a problem people

need to be aware of.

Anything else is a witch-hunt, but only because panicking people about

data security is a profitable topic for the media.

I'm becoming increasingly pissed off at mainstream media and the

editorial choices that are being made on what is presented to the public.

Most of American news is just reality TV without the humor.

The internet is actually working in reverse to the data mining

information that we're so afraid of.

Rather than tailoring your news feed to your real concerns (like more

local issues), media is going for the lowest common denominator, an

approach that was first perfected in the early twentieth century.

When the BBC leads with a Donald Trump story - while the country's

Parliament turns into a circus of sound bites in the most important event

that faces the country other than a world war - it shows that the editors

have completely lost perspective.

The New York Times is one of the very few sources that keeps its local

audience at the center of day-to-day reporting.

It covers the major stories in an obligatory way, but still manages to

have local news above the fold, even inside the app.

Australian media is good here too, but I'm not sure if that's because

Australian folks don't care about the rest of the world, or the local

politics is better than any TV sitcom on its own.

Everyone (meaning the media) wants to blame Facebook for their loss of

thought leadership.

Zuckerberg recognizes that Facebook is screwed regardless of what it

does.

The consensus is that the media wants Facebook to lose their revenue

stream by having the governments fine it out of them.

Governments are seeing a 'Facebook tax' opportunity (and Google, Twitter,

Amazon etc.) which is likely the real motivation here.

Everyone that got in early on social media has made their money, and the

advertisers are obviously doing well, as they've moved their advertising

spend from television and print to mostly social media.

So Zuckerberg sees the writing on the wall - he's going to get pilloried

no matter what - and those people yelling loudest for protection are the

same ones using Facebook most heavily.

This leads to my final statement.

If social media is do dangerous, damaging and loathsome, why do people

still flock to it? Seriously, the issues and dangers are in the news

world-wide daily.

People have been informed.

If the general populace actually believed what politicians and media

leaders are saying, wouldn't they stop using Facebook?

This is the problem and I've been saying this for a long time.

Social media is wrecking 'old media' by stealing advertising, because

advertising on social media works.

Yes, they mine your information, which pisses off the old media because

they've been trying to do this same thing for over a century,

unsuccessfully.

When they had a chance to invest in and grow social media before it took

off, old media blew it off.

They felt nothing would ever displace network television.

Forgetting that only 30 years earlier newspapers had said the same thing

about radio and television.

And at the same time, networks, newspapers and magazines were discovering

that cable TV had snuck in through the wall and stolen their customers.

For media, it's not hate speech or violence - it's all about the money.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Written by Brett Brennan.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] April 3, 2019 | [OPINION] Gun Violence is

Beyond Simple Legislative Reform.

Media Must Accept Responsibility

IN 1984, MYSELF AND SOME friends were walking around the Westwood

neighborhood in Los Angeles.

We walked into a bar, ordered some drinks and went up to the roof patio

for about an hour.

When we walked out, there were injured people, police and medics up and

down the sidewalk outside the bar.

We learned that literally as we walked into the bar, a car had raced down

the sidewalk mowing people down in the crowd.

The incident killed 1 and injured 54 more.

The incident wasn't considered terrorism back then.

It was just an angry, crazy guy who decided to take revenge on the LAPD

for what he felt was persecution.

Guns are used in a disproportionate number of violent acts.

But guns aren't the reason for the violence.

That is rooted into our societal structure.

Often, as in this case, it is triggered by a perception of injustice or

persecution that is inflamed indirectly by the way society dictates our

actions and norms and by the way media present these subjects.

In 1968, a Federal Gun Control Act was enacted to suppress the import,

manufacture and sale of a variety of guns, which included so-called

"Saturday Night Special" hand guns, which at the time were responsible

for a majority of American gun crime.

These were inexpensive small caliber weapons that were cheap enough for

anyone to purchase.

The legislation passed and there was initial indications of a dip in gun

crime.

However, the demand for these weapons continued, resulting in the

creation of new gun companies that specialized in making guns that met

the same requirements without being illegal.

Gun crime again rose in volume.

Amendments were made to try and close the loopholes, but for every change

a new solution was created.

America has approached the ban of firearms by using a variety of flawed

legislation.

In and of itself, the legislation has been successful in its narrow

intent; specific weapons and entire categories of guns have been

successfully removed from new sales.

In fact, the laws have been so successful that Colt, Browning and Smith &

Wesson have been faced with varying levels of financial challenges.

But foreign manufacturers and aftermarket companies have thrived in the

vacuum.

With today's technology, making a deadly accurate and functional gun is

within reach of nearly anyone.

It's possible to build a rifle out of mail order and 3D printed parts.

In fact, you could build a cache of weapons.

And magazines and receivers can provide ultra-capacity and semi-automatic

operation to weapons that didn't come from the factory with that feature.

The public tend to get caught up in gun violence every time there's

another "massacre" in the news.

What we as people always forget is that gun violence really isn't that

big a problem in the larger context.

Gun deaths - not just guns used against others, but all ways guns kill

people - are a larger problem, but are still less than automotive

accident deaths, preventable medical mistake deaths, cancer, heart

disease and countless other medical problems - including lack of medical

care because of poverty.

For media, gun deaths are exciting, dramatic and thrilling.

This is a hangover from the tabloid journalism of the 1920s, where

violence was elevated to entertainment.

But suicides aren't exciting or entertaining unless they're a result of

another gun crime.

If we could solve suicide, we'd solve most of our gun deaths and twice as

many non-gun suicides.

Investing in proper quality control in hospitals would save an equal

number of lives.

Increasing funding for medical research would save millions more.

Yet, instead of investing in saving lives wholesale, we argue over

spending many, many times the money to solve what amounts to a second-

tier threat to our lives.

Yet again, because the data presented to us as citizens is skewed and

disingenuous.

It is not provided to inform us, but as a third-handed way to get someone

paid.

Fix the problem with the news media and we'll fix a lot of problems.

Even gun violence.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News/FPUorg

Written by Brett Brennan.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] April 1, 2019 | [OPINION] Snowden Leaks Were From the

NSA, Not the CIA.

Please Get it Right!

WHEN JOURNALISTS GET THE FACTS wrong, corrections must be made and a

clarification of any necessary changes noted.

Freedom Publishers Union has strict editorial processes in place to

eliminate the chance of errors being made by our writers.

And we also have procedures in place to deal with errors if they do slip

through and get published.

We are bound to the "PRO-TRUTH PLEDGE" and the "CHARTER OF EDITORIAL

QUALITY AND ACCURACY ASSURANCE".

Any sensible media organization should have an equivalent set of

editorial processes in place.

To not have these mechanisms is editorial irresponsibility at its finest

and ultimately hurts the masthead's reputation and that of its publisher.

I was naturally alarmed this morning when prominent journalist and

columnist Chris Mitchell, who writes for The Australian newspaper, made a

critical error in his column titled "Russiagate a bonanza for media but a

blow to journalistic credibility".

Now, If Freedom Publishers Union detect errors in anything we have

published, the Pro-Truth Pledge to what we adhere that ensures truthful

and factual information gets published by us also prompts further action

if we fail.

When prompted to act on detected errors, we are bound by the last item of

our editorial assurance Charter.

It states, "We declare a public commitment to strive to uphold these

principles to the best of our ability and pledge to never knowingly

violate them.

Should we fail in this commitment, we pledge to quickly and honestly

report our errors, explain how we came to make the error, and describe

the actions and process we will undertake to prevent repeating the

failure in the future.".

While it is detailed and sometimes not all of the steps are necessary to

rectify errors, it does prompt for errors to be corrected, period.

In Chris Mitchell's column published in The Australian, today, he said:

"Greenwald won a Pulitzer Prize for The Guardian over the Edward Snowden

CIA/NSA leaks scandal and subsequent defection to Russia in 2013."

Readers of Freedom Publishers Union will already be familiar with the

Edward Snowden leaks and will already be aware that the leaks originated

from the National Security Agency (NSA) and not the Central Intelligence

Agency (CIA), as claimed in Chris Mitchell's column.

The CIA claim could be just a simple lazy error.

That's fair enough.

These things happen in journalism.

But it's also fair to say that a correction should be made and changes

should be clarified at the bottom on the column.

I had intended to personally contact Chris Mitchell by email and advise

of the error in his column.

It might appear to be a small insignificant error, but it could have

significant implications.

Despite Edward Snowden living in relative freedom provided by the

immediate safety of Russia's borders, he is still wanted in the United

States of America.

So making the clarification that the leaks were sourced from the NSA and

not the CIA, as Chris Mitchell claims, is very important.

I must express my frustration which heightened when I discovered that

there is no email address provided to contact Chris Mitchell.

Through Freedom Publishers Union, I am provided a subscription to The

Australian, which allowed me to publish a comment to the column noting

the error.

It was not my preferred method of contact to request a clarification, but

with no email address provided for Chris Mitchell, it was my only option.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from SYDNEY] March 31, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Al Jazeera Investigation

Exposes Pauline Hanson's One Nation for its Real Political Intentions

THE AL JAZEERA INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTARY titled "How to sell a massacre"

places Pauline Hanson's One Nation party under negative political

spotlight, and is a brilliant compilation of investigative journalism.

The natural defense mechanisms of Ms. Hanson have reacted, with her own

defensive attacks being targeted at Al Jazeera.

She has been critical against the media organization and claimed that Al

Jazeera is an illegitimate organization backed by Middle-East bodies with

an intention of influencing Australian politics.

These are false claims.

The Al Jazeera network is a globally recognized world news service and is

acknowledged as one of the least biased sources, on international

matters.

Freedom Publishers Union, publisher of Political Independent, rates Al

Jazeera with a top rating on its 5-tier ranking system - a system

employed by them which rates media sources around the world "according to

fact-based, accurate and reliable information".

A top rating identifies Al Jazeera as a "Trusted" source.

Therefore, Political Independent would assess Ms. Hanson's comments as

uninformed and having no merit.

The investigation focuses on the activities by One Nation's Chief of

Staff James Ashby and the Queensland Party Leader Steve Dickson.

The investigation was compiled with the complete cooperation of Rodger

Muller, who posed as the Founder and President of a gun lobby group

called Gun Rights Australia.

Gun Rights Australia was specifically set up for the purpose of the Al

Jazeera investigation, but had every appearance of a legitimate lobby

group with proper operations set up to achieve their cause.

With Mr. Muller acting as the President of Gun Rights Australia, he

accompanied Mr. Ashby and Mr. Dickson on their trip to Washington D.C.

Gun Rights Australia had a purported agenda to fight for gun rights

reform in Australia, which would see the easing of Australia's tight gun

restrictions.

This was also a policy being pursued, aggressively, by One Nation.

Gun Rights Australia and One Nation were the obvious suited pairing.

The Washington D.C. trip would see the trio attend gun conventions and

visit gun shops.

It also involved a meeting with representatives from the powerful

American gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association.

The group is more commonly known as the NRA and has known ties to pro-gun

politicians.

The trip also involved attending a meeting with representatives of the

notoriously wealthy Koch Industries.

The motivation of One Nation was to seek donation funds in the form

$20million (AU).

Sums of 10-20 million were continuously repeated by Mr. Ashby and Mr.

Dickson throughout the course of the investigation.

Koch Industries is very wealthy and very influential, politically.

They are continuously criticized for the secrecy of their business

activities and regularly accused of channeling funds for political

influence through deliberately complex onion layers to reduce the ability

to trace the origins of payments.

It is the secretive nature of the business and political activities of

Koch Industries that Mr. Ashby and Mr. Dickson appeared to be fascinated.

The seeking of donation funds by One Nation was also accompanied by

claims by Mr. Ashby and Mr. Dickson that if One Nation were able to

secure the amount of funds they sought, they would be able to manipulate

the way Australia's democracy functions and have a larger influence of

the voting powers of both Houses of the Australian Parliament.

There are many immediate and pressing concerns that have come to the

public's attention as a result of the Al Jazeera investigation.

Ms. Hanson's motivation and passion for pushing for the easing of gun

rights in Australia has now been placed into the public domain - a

motivation that is actively being exercised by One Nation's Chief of

Staff and Queensland Party Leader.

During the course of the investigation, it appeared on many occasions

that Mr. Ashby and Mr. Dickson were under the influence of alcohol.

On almost every occasion and meeting shown, the pair were within close

proximity to, or holding, bottles or glasses which appeared to contain

alcohol.

Since the investigation was published by Al Jazeera, the admission has

been made by Mr. Ashby that the One Nation pair were under the influence

of alcohol, on some occasions.

He has also claimed that the comments have been taken out of context and

were the result of excessive alcohol consumption.

The investigation also produced interesting insight into the secretive

operations of the powerful gun lobby group, the NRA.

The group does not currently have an official presence in Australia but

there are indications that the group are very interested in Australian

politics and how it influences American policy.

There appears to be a natural curiosity by the NRA on how gun rights in

Australia could possibly be eased and how citizens could get easier

access to high-powered guns.

Despite the attempts by Mr. Ashby and Mr. Dickson to lobby the NRA for

donation funds, there is no evidence to suggest that the NRA has provided

any funds or any other donations to One Nation.

Foreign donations to Australian political parties has been banned.

Therefore, any donation(s) by the NRA or any other international entity

would be illegal.

It was evident in the investigation the representative of the NRA made it

very clear of the reservations the NRA had of providing any donation

funds to an Australian political party.

They appeared to be very cautious of the laws surrounding foreign

donations and how it could also be perceived as America trying to

influence Australian politics.

It was obvious that the NRA does not want to publicly appear to be

influencing foreign politics, especially through providing illegal

donation funds.

However, it was also obvious that the NRA could be more encouraged to do

so if the law permitted it.

The investigation produced by Al Jazeera has been crucial in informing

the public of the true intentions of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party.

Specifically on gun rights in Australia.

Intentions that appear to have fostered the absolute support of party

members.

Since the broadcast of the investigation by Al Jazeera and the Australian

Broadcasting Corporation, Ms. Hanson has publicly defended her party by

holding a press conference, flanked by Mr. Ashby and Mr. Dickson,

offering her continued support to her two closest associates.

On a separate occasion.

she has congratulated them for their alcohol-fueled lobbying efforts in

Washington D.C., claiming the meetings were productive.

Political Independent acknowledges that Ms. Hanson was not present at the

meetings held in Washington D.C.

We understand from the investigation that she remained in Australia,

acting on her personal feelings that her security may be compromised if

she were to visit the United States of America.

Her comments on the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania that occurred in

1996, which ultimately led to then Prime Minister John Howard's historic

gun reforms, were also a subject of focus in the Al Jazeera

investigation.

Ms. Hanson has personally been subjected to negative media attention for

her suggestion that the massacre that occurred in Port Arthur was a

government-sponsored conspiracy and an event that needed to happen for

significant gun reforms to pass through the Australian Parliament.

The comments by Ms. Hanson suggesting there was a conspiracy are

disturbing and appear to be unfounded, since she claims she cannot recall

the exact title of the book she read which spawned her conspiratorial

ideology, claiming nothing more than "it had a blue cover".

How much negative influence the details revealed in the investigation

will have on One Nation at the upcoming Federal Election is difficult to

assess.

But there are indications that it may turn away potential new supporters,

while there are indications existing One Nation supporters will stand by

the party and have not been influenced in any negative way.

Pauline Hanson is on the public record for claiming that One Nation would

not seek or accept foreign political donations.

The evidence which is presented in the Al Jazeera investigation appears

to be contrary to her claims.

Also, Ms. Hanson claims that she does not support any kind of

international influence of Australian politics.

Again, the Al Jazeera investigation appears to be contrary to her claims.

One Nation have actively sought foreign political donations which would

undoubtedly subject the party to foreign influence, with the

encouragement and cooperation of One Nation's leader, Pauline Hanson.

-----

Political Independent

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] March 28, 2019 | [OPINION] The European Union Just

F**ked the Internet

A NEW COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE JUST changed the future of the internet.

The European Parliament voted in favor of the new copyright directive,

with two specific Articles drawing international attention - Article 13

and Article 11.

Article 13 prohibits uploading any content within the European Union (EU)

if complete copyright licensing is not obtained by the uploader.

This may also include licensing for things in the background of images

and videos which may include pictures and even music being played.

The compliance requirements are broad and the directive effectively holds

the website responsible for doing complete license checking before the

uploaded content goes live.

Due to their market dominance, a large chunk of this responsibility will

fall on Google and Facebook, period.

Article 11 prohibits quoting more than individual words from linked

content and prevents snippets.

This will effectively force news websites to just post naked URLs unless

they have a specific license to use a larger quote.

Many have assessed that the scope is so broad that no company - even

Google and Facebook - could possibly comply.

Google is especially hit hard by Article 11 as it will completely break

their search function in its current state.

Any search result that has more than one or two words from the link is

potentially a violation and Google will have to remove text snippets to

be completely compliant.

Article 11 will also break all other search engines and Wikipedia,

advertising content etc.

The most likely response is that big technology companies will simply

stop serving the EU and remind users that virtual private network

services are available.

Article 13 and Article 11 combined, effectively f**k the internet.

At least from within EU jurisdictions.

It's quite ridiculous actually.

To a large degree the directive actually overrides existing licenses and

Often the existing license and terms of service agreements go unenforced

and the agreements are reliant on mutual recognition.

But they do act as some kind of legal guidance and clearly outline how

the website's owners would prefer the user to use its services.

Despite the lack of legal enforcement of the aforementioned agreements,

generally it's sufficient.

Article 13 and Article 11 go one step too far and are draconian by

intent.

The directive means that EU members now have two years to pass

legislation that implement all provisions of the directive and make it

law.

Over the course of the next two years, we will continue to work with

Freedom Publishers Union and continue to watch the passing of legislation

by EU members.

But our immediate response to the directive is an expression of

disappointment and we believe that it has set a dangerous precedent for

further tough EU copyright restrictions, which will undoubtedly threaten

internet freedom for Europeans even further.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written and edited by Brett Brennan and Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from REYKJAVIK | International Media Group] March 24, 2019 |

[ANALYSIS] Containing Hate Content and Protecting the Internet Will

Require a Sensible, Collaborated Response

THE HORRIFIC EVENT DUBBED THE "Christchurch massacre" has spawned

political debate around the globe, with debate focused on multiple

angles.

Quality Publishing Works has paid specific attention to the immediate

concerns of censorship.

We believe it's important that Quality Publishing Works make the

clarification that we do not, and never have, condoned or encouraged the

viewing or sharing of the video of the massacre which showed the gunman

enter two mosques and kill 50 innocent civilians, and injuring more.

The censorship debate focuses not so much on viewing the video, but on

the sharing and distribution of the video.

Many have been critical of the social media networks for the amount of

time it took the moderators to take the video down, which was originally

streamed live on Facebook then spread throughout all the social media

networks.

To accompany the gunman's motivation and video was a manifesto written by

the gunman and posted to the 8chan website.

We do not pay particular attention to the exact claimed number of times

the video was viewed prior to it being taken down.

The exact numbers are not important in the wider debate.

Also, we have no possible way to verify the actual numbers and have

reason to believe that the claimed numbers are much lower than the actual

number of times it has been viewed across all social media networks

combined.

Therefore, the numbers are to be dismissed.

It's important to make it absolutely clear that Quality Publishing Works

does not specifically express criticism towards one platform over another

in any debate.

That is unjust and the social media ecosystem should be treated as one

entire entity, when applicable to the debate.

This is one instance.

Generally speaking, in our view, we genuinely believe that social media

networks are doing their best to deal with the types of problems that are

being seeded by the exposure and spreading of hate content.

However, we equally believe the despite their best efforts, social media

networks are failing.

Our own assessment of the failures of the social media networks is based

on a whole range of issues and examples and is not limited to just the

Christchurch massacre.

If any existential problem is present, then the precise problem - or

series of problems - need to be closer examined.

It needs to be identified specifically and a solution sought.

There is little arguing against the particular fact that social media

networks are challenged when it comes to dealing with hate content.

To put the challenge into perspective, just need to look at amount of

active users the social media networks have.

We have analyzed numbers applicable to Facebook because the information

proves more accessible than most other networks, due to its scale.

FPUorg analyzed statistics from three different independent sources and

were able to assess that Facebook has at least 2.2-2.3 billion active

users as of December 2018.

According to official figures provided by Facebook, there are 2.32

billion active monthly users.

That figure could possibly be as high as 2.7 billion when you integrate

monthly active users from right across the Facebook services portfolio

which also includes Instagram and WhatsApp.

But FPUorg assess the figure of 2.2-2.3 to be the most accurate

representation.

How many people Facebook directly employs also needs to be considered.

According to official figures provided by Facebook, there are 35,587

employees.

There are many more thousands which the company claims it works with by

using third-party contractors to assist in moderating its platform.

It proves difficult to assess any precise figures of how many third-party

contractors work with Facebook, with confidence.

But a simple assessment by FPUorg of the amount of direct employees

Facebook has compared against the number of active users proves an

equation which can only be summarized by one word - challenging.

On the challenges faced by the social media networks, Andrew Quodling

from Queensland University of Technology says, "Content moderation is a

complex and unenviable responsibility.

Platforms like Facebook and YouTube are expected to balance the virtues

of free expression and newsworthiness with socio-cultural norms and

personal desires, as well as the local regulatory regimes of the

countries they operate in.".

He continues, "People might reasonably expect platforms like Facebook and

YouTube to have thorough controls over what is uploaded on their sites.

However, the companies' huge user bases mean they often must balance the

application of automated, algorithmic systems for content moderation with

teams of human moderators.".

It's a fair assessment to say that Mark Zuckerberg has created a monster

which is proving difficult to tame.

Could it ever be tamed? It's difficult to determine.

And it's difficult to foresee where this will go and how much influence

any potential government intervention will have.

Rather than trying and devise a plan which attempts to eliminate the

problem of the spreading of hate content on social media networks, we

must take a step back and take a different approach - a more realistic

approach.

Can any of the social media networks truly eliminate hate content being

shared on their platforms? Probably not with 100% accuracy.

But it could be minimized or quarantined.

It must be a combined effort of utilizing artificial intelligence (AI)

and good old fashioned human interaction.

AI has benefits, but it has problems too.

AI is certainly not the answer to all technological challenges as it is

sometimes portrayed to be.

One feature of social media networks that is becoming increasingly

popular is live streaming.

It is particularly popular with the younger generation of users.

It was the live streaming feature that allowed the gunman to stream his

actions to the internet.

Some proponents of social media reform argue that live streaming should

have a broadcast delay.

This could be done and is already an existing feature sometimes used with

live television broadcasts.

If implemented into social media networks' live streaming features, it

could play a vitally important role to potentially allow social media

networks enough time to intercept a live stream, or minimize the exposure

time, which portrays harmful, violent or other illegal activity.

Quality Publishing Works believes that the proposal has merit, but also

believes the benefits to be minimal, at best.

It would be difficult to assume that social media networks would

implement a delay mechanism voluntarily and it is quite possible that it

would need to be legislated, to force the social media networks into

acting.

But that route poses an entire new set of challenges.

It may be accurate to say that the social media networks do hold a large

degree of responsibility for the spreading of hate content on the

internet.

But they do not hold all the responsibility.

The internet is an extremely vast network and a complex network.

It is often forgotten how much technology is connected to the internet

and the additional software that complement it.

Users browse the internet with software called a web browser.

But it's very likely they're using additional software within the web

browser in the form of plugins or add-ons that help perform additional

tasks that are not traditionally a default function of the web browser.

It's an important factor which needs to be considered because it is often

incorrectly assumed that sharing content on social media networks is

simply achieved by the user clicking that innocent little 'Share' button.

But this is not the only way content can be shared.

There are tons of additional ways to share all forms of content.

To truly tackle the spread of hate content on the internet, all the

technology, methods and procedures of how it is spread must be analyzed

and understood.

The live streaming feature provided by social media networks is just one

way for a user to distribute video content.

Though there is another problem.

Once it has been uploaded, there's many tricks and software that users

can (and do) use that actually download the video content to their hard

drive for local storage.

Irrespective of the specificity of the content, this has benefits when

there is genuine validated concern that the content is to be removed from

a particular service or platform.

If users want to ensure that content will not simply 'disappear' from the

public domain, they will download it and archive it to their hard drive.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about this practice, referencing

generally.

It is exactly what has happened with the Christchurch massacre video.

As late as just yesterday, at the time of writing, the video was still

available in some of the darker corners of the internet.

Quality Publishing Works was able to source it within about 2 minutes of

connecting to a popular file sharing network, using Tor Browser.

A quick search brought up the results we sought.

The Christchurch massacre video was still available and free to download

from multiple sources.

Traffic statistics next to each entry proves there is still genuine

interest in the video content.

Quite alarming, actually.

The keen level of interest became even more clear when we discovered that

some users have taken it to another level by bundling the video, the

gunman's manifesto and music into a compressed ZIP archive, making it

available for download.

Quality Publishing Works believes it is important to clarify that none of

our staff accessed the video, the manifesto or any other content related

to the Christchurch massacre.

We do not have any copies of the video or the manifesto and do not

advocate for anyone to access or share the video or the manifesto.

Quality Publishing Works simply demonstrate its accessibility for example

and demonstration purposes, for this article.

Information was sent to our publisher, Freedom Publishers Union, on March

22 that suggested New Zealand and Australian internet service providers

were blocking specific websites that were hosting the Christchurch

massacre video.

At the time of going to press, Quality Publishing Works have been unable

to compile or verify a definitive list of websites that are or have been

reportedly blocked.

The information and examples that were provided to Quality Publishing

Works by our publisher suggested that some of the websites being

subjected to censorship through blocking were legitimate websites that

serve a genuine and legal purpose of content distribution.

The fact legitimate websites were being subjected to censorship through

blocking quickly drew our attention.

It is still unclear whether the action was taken voluntarily by internet

service providers or whether by order from the New Zealand and Australian

Governments.

One of the reported websites to be subjected to a New Zealand block was

the file sharing website, Mega.

The Mega block specifically drew the attention of our publisher because

Freedom Publishers Union relies on Mega for assisting in the delivery of

some of the content published to its website.

At the time of writing, Freedom Publishers Union has confirmed to Quality

Publishing Works that Mega is still accessible within Australia.

However, we have been unable to confirm its accessibility within the New

Zealand borders.

Meera Kaushik is the External Communications Advisor at Vodafone New

Zealand and she says, "Where material is identified the site is

temporarily blocked and the site is notified, requesting they remove the

[Christchurch massacre] material".

She reiterates that blocks are temporary.

Quality Publishing Works finds it particularly concerning that internet

service providers hold the power to control access to specific websites

and exercise their power at will.

It resembles something of a modest version of an internet kill switch.

The latter reference is an entire different issue, but it does not make

the level of access control of internet service providers any less

concerning.

Quality Publishing Works would never argue against the right of website

administrators exercising the removal of specific content from their

websites or networks.

We also would never argue against governments or any other entities

making content removal requests.

However, when governments and internet service providers begin to take

the policing and effective governance of the internet into their own

hands, we have a problem and everyone should be concerned.

Quality Publishing Works will react.

It must be clear, we do not support internet censorship.

All content on the internet should always be open to question and the

right to have it scrutinized should always remain.

Website administrators and web hosts should retain their ability and

right to remove content, with due notice.

But those responsibilities should remain solely with the administrators

of websites and with web hosts.

The internet should not be assumed to be a platform for government

interference or a reason to start censoring specific content at their own

discretion.

Quality Publishing Works will always consider that a step too far.

The effect of censorship action must be questioned too.

Human and technological resources are wasted on pointless censorship

techniques.

Most of the time website blocking is easily bypassed.

It can be bypassed by many different techniques, in fact.

Sometimes it can be as simple as a DNS server change in the network

configuration.

Sometimes it may require connecting to a VPN server first, to access

specific websites.

Or, another popular method is to connect to the Tor network, using Tor

Browser.

Whatever the method employed, the fact remains that internet censorship

is often pointless and limited in effect when there are ready-made

techniques that can easily bypass censorship attempts.

Quality Publishing Works is motivated to protect a free and open

internet.

Illegal content must be sought by the law enforcement authorities and

removal requests be sent to website administrators and web hosts, where

necessary.

We believe that original websites, social media networks, file sharing

networks and content distribution platforms of all types should not be

subjected to censorship and mechanisms that implement blocking.

There is also an additional underlying belief that much of the

responsibility of hate content distribution and sharing lies with the

users that actually initiate the distribution and sharing.

If you upload hate content, then you are responsible for that content.

If you choose to share hate content, then you are responsible for its

distribution too.

Internet users must begin to take responsibility for their actions,

instead of recklessly and disrespectfully sharing 'everything' without

consideration to thought and then simply laying the blame on technology

platforms.

The foundations that make up the internet exist to promote and enable

creativity, interaction and communication.

It was never developed with the intention of creating and distributing

hate or any other harmful content.

That has come as the result of disturbing human behavior.

It is now be up to the technology experts to develop a blueprint for

action which is reasonable and fair, but does not interfere with the

foundations of the internet platform as it was originally developed.

It is not up to Freedom Publishers Union to develop the future plan for

the internet.

Instead, we and our partners will continue to promote our core values

which include freedom of speech, privately and publicly, without threat

of retaliation, digital liberties inclusive.

We are committed to defending the internet's founding design principles,

the freedom it enables and will push against any attempts to control it.

This is very clear and we have never remained silent on such important

issues.".

-----

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavik

Press/FPUorg/Freedom Publishers Union

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] March 8, 2019 | [OPINION] MH370: A Modern Aviation

Mystery Still Unsolved

IF YOU SEARCH THE ENTIRE Freedom Publishers Union website for the term

"MH370" or "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" you will find absolutely no

reference to it.

None whatsoever.

This is not because of any failure of a publisher's duty to publish

articles of great public interest.

In the case of the MH370 mystery, it is in truth a deliberate absence.

I have a deep interest in MH370 and have been researching and assessing

the known details of the mystery since the plane vanished, without

leaving any obvious clues about its precise whereabouts.

My research is unrelated to my work with Freedom Publishers Union so I'm

not going to share it here in this article.

It is carried out purely out of a personal interest and is unorganized

and amateur in its presentation.

A side-effect of the lack of closure which is indisputably a direct

result of the failures to locate the wreckage of MH370 has resulted in

many conspiracy theories being seeded.

Some of them plausible.

Yet some of them are just so outright ridiculous they don't deserve any

recognition.

But the point remains without any wreckage or a known location site of

the wreckage, there cannot be closure for the families of those onboard

MH370 that most probably perished so innocently and for the public that

have a thirst for a conclusion which defined the fate of MH370.

There has been a couple of oceanic searches for the wreckage.

Nothing has been found.

Some pieces of plane debris have been found in various locations in the

Western Indian Ocean and along the shores of the African coastline and

its islands.

The pieces of debris have been identified as parts of the MH370 Boeing

777-200ER aircraft with varying levels of scientific conclusion.

The searches have focused on South-East Asia and the Southern Indian

Ocean.

The latter is where the search should be focused, I believe.

Let's be honest, this part of the ocean is deep.

According to information provided to the public domain by the CIA,

through The World Factbook, parts of the Indian Ocean are more than 7

kilometers deep.

And it's vast, covering 68,556,000 square kilometers.

Finding the wreckage of MH370 in such complex waters is going to prove

difficult if any future search is to succeed.

Although I am not yet convinced of the validity of any specific

conspiracy theory, nor can I personally offer any better possible

alternative theory, I do have serious questions for the Australian

Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who have deliberately continued to

suppress information related to its investigation into MH370.

The Australian newspaper has been one of the leading Australian mastheads

in publishing articles and commentary on MH370.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been good too.

The Australian has actually gone to the extent of proceeding with Freedom

of Information (FOI) requests to the ATSB, only to have them rejected by

the information requested being denied.

There is no apparent explanation as to why the ATSB continue to suppress

the information and keep it secret.

It is widely thought that the Malaysian Government has also been involved

in the deliberate withholding of critical information in the form of raw

data obtained from military radars.

Again, I want to make it very clear that I do not support any specific

conspiracy theory.

But it is not unreasonable to expect the ATSB and the Malaysian

Government to release the information that many academics, researchers

and journalists seek to obtain access to.

If access was provided, it would allow investigators and researchers in

the private sector to continue their own research and potentially make an

important finding that has yet to be identified based on the selective

information provided by those who have unrestricted access to all the

information.

It could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt by the ATSB and the

Malaysian Government to hamper investigations into MH370.

We must ask further questions about what the Malaysian Government is

afraid of if the information being kept secret, with obvious cooperation

with the ATSB, were to be released.

Some conspiracy theories are plausible and should not be so easily

dismissed.

At one point during my own research on MH370, which is ongoing, I had

developed my own theory about what happened to MH370.

I won't share my theory at this point for two reasons: One - I do not

have evidence to support my theory and I do not wish to add fuel to the

accelerating conspiracy theory fire.

Two - My theory frequently changes based on new information and facts

that I read and access, and how I assess it.

If I were to share my theory it could be viewed that I have made a final

determination of just what exactly happened to MH370.

That would be wrong and it would be unfair.

My journalistic and editorial qualities know better.

But I will close by saying this - a search for MH370 must resume.

It is sourcing the funds to pay for it which continues to challenge

potential new candidates to conduct a search.

The Malaysian Government don't appear to want to throw any more money

into continued searches.

Perhaps they have a particular unspoken reason and preference for the

MH370 to remain 'unsolved'.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] February 28, 2019 | [OPINION] Relevance of

Suppression Orders and Journalists' Tolerance of Censorship

THE COURT CASE AND VERDICT of prominent Catholic George Pell is curious,

and disturbing in so many ways.

I have to admit I feel strange that I was penning a column for The Sunday

Roast - a column with no association with Freedom Publishers Union - back

in December 2018, which mentioned that George Pell was the named subject

of the case that was being censored in Australian media at the time.

Despite media reporting it was a secret court case, it was not.

It was a case which a suppression order was applied, also known as a gag

order.

I understand that by even mentioning "George Pell" by name in my column I

was breaking Australian law.

I acknowledged that very fact in the column at the time.

I never knew any of the specifics of the case, obviously, other than it

was a case where sexual abuse allegations had been made against George

Pell.

I knew he was the subject of the story.

That was it.

The entire theater show surrounding George Pell and the Catholic Church

should bring into question the relevance of court suppression orders in

the era of the internet.

I get their intended purpose.

I truly do.

But that doesn't mean I agree with it.

By the application of the suppression order against the case of George

Pell, it prevented Australian media from being permitted to report about

the case, its details and George Pell.

Therefore, it was censored.

Let's stop avoiding the use of the word and call it for what it is.

If I personally was able to identify the subject of the case that was

being censored with such minimal effort and in a relatively short amount

of time with the addition of some logical thinking, then I'm going to

safely assume that anyone else who wanted to know probably sought to find

out too, leaving no doubt they found their own success.

What's my level of interest in this specific case? Absolutely nothing.

What's my level of interest in George Pell? Absolutely zero.

Why am I still talking about it all? Because it absolutely astounds me

that so many Australian (based) journalists have written opinion pieces

about the case yet so many of them are still either missing or brushing

over the vital issue at hand - censorship.

As someone who is closely aligned with independent media and can take

advantage of the many benefits that it accommodates, I can offer some

level of leniency to these journalists as they are working for respected

news mastheads and hold a responsibility of accountability to their

employers and must always write to protect the reputation of the

masthead.

I broke the law, this is true.

But I stand by my decision.

My decision was considered though.

I knew and understood the potential legal consequences of my decision.

But to tell you the truth, I am always willing to bare the consequences

of my actions, and especially when censorship is applied to a matter of

public interest.

Mainstream news mastheads may buckle, but I can assure you that I will

not, and I will not allow Freedom Publishers Union to.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[THE CONVERSATION] February 25, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Part 2 of 2: Venezuela

- A Humanitarian and Security Crisis on the Border with Colombia

AS THE CRISIS IN VENEZUELA continues, aid trucks are being blocked at the

border with Colombia.

But this development isn't only about the two men claiming to be the

country's rightful president: it's also about the borderlands themselves.

The Colombia-Venezuela border is home to some of the worst violence and

organised crime in the region.

Aid blockages can be seen as yet another manifestation of these problems,

with armed groups playing power games at the expense of vulnerable local

people.

Concerns that Venezuela's instability could extend beyond its borders

have already materialised - 3m citizens have left the country.

Most of them are "absorbed" by borderland communities, pressurising

already strained governance systems.

As our research shows, the pressure on basic services in these

communities that have been deficient anyway - health, access to food and

jobs - fuels crime, prostitution, and begging, and deepens social

tensions.

Together with the xenophobic discourse of right-wing politicians, this

becomes an explosive mix.

Venezuela's crisis is also fuelling the expansion of criminal networks

that have ruled the region for decades, as they take advantage of the

economic crisis along the border.

Take cocaine production, for example.

Colombian coca cultivation has increased, especially near the border with

Venezuela.

As one civil society leader from Colombia told our research team, a

"labour force from Venezuela is arriving at the coca cultivations".

The money Venezuelans can make in coca farming exceeds normal salaries

back home, and may be the only income option available.

This constant availability of labour then allows armed groups to keep the

cocaine business going.

Yet this is not just about drugs.

As I show in my new book Borderland Battles, the Colombia-Venezuela

border features many illicit flows, including of weapons, gasoline and

people.

These are boosted by the crisis, with more Venezuelan women and children

being trafficked.

Furthermore, according to interviewees from the Venezuelan state of

Táchira, it is increasingly common to hear Mexican accents in Venezuelan

border towns.

This reflects the steady expansion of Mexican drug cartels into the

region, intensifying violent competition over the business.

Risking peace in Colombia

Upheaval in Venezuela has also intensified the cross-border violence

related to Colombia's armed conflict.

While Colombian guerrillas have used Venezuela as a safe haven for

decades, their presence in the country has now become more complex.

Despite Colombia's peace deal with the leftist guerrilla group, FARC,

there is ongoing conflict with the ELN rebels, who are believed to

operate in 12 Venezuelan states.

At the same time, FARC dissidents have expanded their control over gold

mining in southern Venezuela, and Colombian right-wing groups occupy

Venezuela's border regions.

They gain strength in Venezuela to strike Colombia, while adding to

Venezuela's internal violence as they clash with state forces.

Further afield, incidents such as the US national security advisor

writing "5,000 troops to Colombia" on his notepad serve only to escalate

tensions.

Back in 2012, a human rights defender in Venezuela explained to me that

the country needs to prepare itself for a US invasion, which would start

via Colombia.

For that reason, there are some who would welcome a FARC presence in

Venezuela - as a "buffer".

Such a scenario was engraved in many of my interviewees' minds, exposing

the irresponsibility of reviving such fears.

Meanwhile, bodies of Venezuelan nationals killed in combat between

Colombian state forces and guerrillas reveal that young Venezuelans in

search of a better future have become easy recruits for the ELN, FARC

dissidents, and other Colombian armed groups.

Moreover, Venezuelan "colectivos", radical left-wing groups, have

expanded into Colombia's border region.

Further violent escalation in Venezuela may give rise to a messy cross-

border conflict, rather than civil war.

Instead of the emergence of clear front lines, the Venezuelan state

forces might fragment into factions loyal to Maduro, others supporting

Guaidó, and yet others picking their own local leaders whose illicit

business interests do not stop at the border, as the aid blockages may

indicate.

With Colombia's peace on shaky grounds and the ELN's armed struggle

continuing, both organised and "disorganized" violence could develop

across the two countries.

Border control

The need for action is clear, but there are no easy fixes.

Shutting Venezuela's borders to avoid insecurity from "spilling over"

would be irresponsible.

At long borders with rough terrain, such as the Colombian-Venezuelan one

that extends 1,378 miles (comparable to the 1,954-mile US-Mexican

border), porous areas are inevitable.

Violent entrepreneurs use them to their advantage, while suffering people

are stuck.

This happened in 2015 after Maduro closed the border: illicit flows kept

thriving, but people's needs remained unmet.

Even a complete border closure serves to incentivise more illicit cross-

border activities, because with increased risk comes increased prices and

profits.

Instead, curbing people's insecurity amid Venezuela's turmoil requires a

dual approach.

In Venezuela, calls for unity and democracy need to extend to the

military to contain violence effectively.

In the borderlands, humanitarian assistance to Venezuelan refugees must

be combined with long term support for communities to "absorb" them by

stepping up the provision of services and sustainable job opportunities.

Sadly, violence knows no borders.

But nor do humanitarian principles and solidarity.

Venezuela's political future may still be uncertain, but one thing is

sure: turning a blind eye to the border region is no longer an option.

Borderland communities' security must come first.

-----

Annette Idler, Director of Studies and Senior Research Fellow, University

of Oxford

Original link: https://theconversation.com/venezuela-a-humanitarian-and-

security-crisis-on-the-border-with-colombia-112240

Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0

International (CC BY-ND 4.0)

Re-Published by Freedom Publishers Union

**********

[Filed from SANTIAGO] February 25, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Part 1 of 2:

Peaceful Resolution for Venezuela Crisis Must Be Sought, Before

Irreversible Escalation of Violence Becomes Inevitable

COULD THE GLOBAL POLITICAL DIFFERENCES surrounding the crisis in

Venezuela be the trigger that causes World War III? Let's just step back

for a second and leave that bleak sounding hypothesis inside its

quarantined thought bubble for now.

We do not dispute the possibility entirely, however the tensions need to

be kept in their current perspective and the facts lined up.

The first consideration to evaluate is the series of events that built up

and led to World War I and II placed against the situation of Venezuela.

They are so perplexingly different that it's mind boggling that anyone

can make a direct comparison to the crisis facing Venezuela.

But an escalation of violence could be inevitable.

A more plausible comparison would be to Syria.

Venezuela has not quite entered to a state of civil war, but without

clear and peaceful resolve, it's looking more likely that civil war could

be the next step of expression of discontent by the Venezuelan populous.

The Syrian regime is undemocratic and does not support or enable freedom

to its citizens.

Sound familiar? Although the internationally declared illegitimate

President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, will preach democracy and freedom

for the people of Venezuela, reality tells a different story.

The election which saw Nicolás Maduro assume the presidency was

manipulated and fixed.

It was an illegitimate election and smashes to pieces all claims of

governmental legitimacy and democracy for Venezuela.

Syria is widely condemned for the repression of its citizens.

Venezuela is fast becoming criticized for the repression of its citizens.

Its repression has been a large source of discontent in Venezuela.

Combined with terrible economic management, fraudulent government, mass

corruption and power seeking among the elite, the citizens are suffering.

Economic downturn has crippled the nation along with the ability for its

citizens' means to survive, by even the most basic of living standards.

Direct comparisons to Syria are credible when you focus on international

alliances.

When you break it down to the most focused and influential alliances,

Syria is supported by Russia and Iran.

Syria is being attacked by a Coalition of forces, primarily led by the

United States of America (USA) and Israel.

Despite the confusions over future missions in Syria by the USA, it is

believed that Israel will continue to bomb inside Syria.

This is being interpreted as a proxy nation doing the military dirty work

for the USA.

It's not an academically accepted conclusion, but a fair one at that.

The USA is supporting and officially recognizing Juan Guaidó as the

Interim President of Venezuela and declared the presidency of Maduro as

illegitimate.

The USA quickly fostered the support of some of the world's most powerful

nations including, Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany, France, Spain,

Israel, Brazil, Argentina and Peru.

More nations are undoubtedly still considering whether to throw their

support behind Guaidó.

And some may choose to remain neutral and prefer to not interfere with

geopolitics that are of no interest to them.

However, it was very predictable that once the USA had declared support

for Guaidó, Russia and China would be quick to announce their support for

Maduro.

This was obviously a two pronged response to the decision of the USA.

Both Russia and China rarely side with the USA on geopolitics.

And both Russia and China have significant economic interests tied into

Venezuela.

They would not be willing to allow their interests to be compromised in

the case of the USA taking a firmer position towards Venezuela with a

goal to resolve the political crisis.

The current crisis engulfing Venezuela is one of the most serious to hit

South America for a long time.

Despite his desperate attempt to cling onto power showing signs of

fraying, Maduro has still maintained the support of Russia, China, Cuba,

Iran and Turkey.

It is difficult to ascertain with complete confidence in accuracy which

exact countries support the recognition of Juan Guaidó as Interim

President of Venezuela, to compile a list at the time of going to press.

Freedom Publishers Union has used internal research information combined

with research information provided by FPUorg to best present the

information which we conclude as the most accurate.

But readers should understand the countries we have noted may or may not

have changed their position by the time we go to press.

General references indicate it is more than 50 countries that support and

recognize Juan Guaidó.

Freedom Publishers Union has never declared an official position on the

crisis in Venezuela nor have we officially declared support for either

party.

It's a complex situation and accuracy of information can sometimes be

difficult to verify.

Therefore, we do the best to detail what we can and what we believe to be

the most accurate.

However, we refrain from declaring any formal position other than declare

our commitment to the telling the truth.

The response from the United Nations on the crisis in Venezuela has been

limited.

The United Nations, along with all nations which have associated

themselves into the crisis, can mostly agree that a peaceful resolution

must be sought.

In a Statement released by the United Nations Spokesman for the

Secretary-General, Stephane Dujarric, on February 24, 2019, it says, "The

Secretary-General is following with increasing concern the escalation of

tensions in Venezuela.".

It continues, "The Secretary-General appeals for violence to be avoided

at any cost and for lethal force not to be used in any circumstances.".

From the geopolitical position of the USA, Venezuela is considered to be

right on the doorstep of North America.

The USA wants a stable Venezuela as it would certainly not want a war

right on its borders.

Naturally, the USA's interest in finding a quick and peaceful resolution

to Venezuela's crisis is potentially huge for them.

Freedom Publishers Union would urge the USA and its allies to work with

the United Nations to seek a peaceful resolve, free from further

violence.

One could argue that the USA could just send in the military and

effectively direct a peaceful transition to a new democratically elected

government.

If only it were that easy.

The USA is facing defiance from the Maduro regime, which currently enjoys

a majority of the support by his military.

Despite coaxing of Guaidó with support from the USA and other nations,

attempting to convince the military into supporting himself and to

distance themselves from the illegitimate regime of Maduro, defiance

ensues and Maduro remains in power.

Maduro's hold on power and control over the majority of the military is

strange and unpredictable.

Beyond Venezuelan domestic challenges, the USA faces further opposition

from Russia and China.

So powerful are the economic interests of the two countries, that their

ties with Venezuela is effectively holding the USA to ransom.

The European bloc which have declared their support for Guaidó tried

giving Maduro an ultimatum calling for fresh elections to be held.

That ultimatum failed miserably, despite the aggressive European tone.

The world watches to see the next move.

It is currently unclear how this will be resolved, peacefully.

With Venezuela on the immediate brink of civil war, the USA threatening a

military invasion, Russia and China threatening retaliation if the USA

invade, along with Maduro threatening to order his military to defend

against any future USA invasion of its "sovereignty", you have a nasty

three pronged heated pot of political tension which threatens to boil

over at any moment.

It may ultimately be up to the cool-headed Europeans (with the exception

of Russia and Turkey) to sort out the mess.

Not because they have particular geopolitical interest in a South

American crisis, but they see it fit to avert potential military conflict

which could roll out the red carpet for many more international parties

to become involved - World War III.

Footnote:

By the time this article was compiled and went to press, the Venezuelan

crisis escalated on its border with Colombia.

To include updated information on the crisis that could not be included

in Part 1 of the publication by Freedom Publishers Union, we have

published Part 2 of the publication by The Conversation.

-----

South American Press Office - Open House for Chile Journalists/FPUorg

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] February 22, 2019 | [OPINION] Acquisition of Red Hat

Makes IBM Best Placed to Protect and Support Fedora Linux and CentOS

WHEN I FIRST READ THE story published to the Wall Street Journal

newspaper on IBM acquiring Red Hat, like many of my fellow Linux geeks, I

was shocked.

It read like an April Fools' Day joke story.

I now have to admit, it took a few minutes to digest the news.

But I soon come to accept that this was actually going to happen.

The Linux community was wise to ponder the question of what could be the

possible interest IBM has in Red Hat that warrants such a large takeover,

amounting to US$34 billion.

IBM want exclusive access to Red Hat's extensive and advanced cloud

software.

They make no secret of this and it's outlined in the original Press

Release which announced the acquisition.

IBM Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Ginni Rometty said,

"The acquisition of Red Hat is a game-changer.

It changes everything about the cloud market," and "IBM will become the

world's #1 hybrid cloud provider, offering companies the only open cloud

solution that will unlock the full value of the cloud for their

businesses.".

IBM are proud to tout their long history supporting Linux while noting

their previous history of collaborating with Red Hat.

IBM have been in the game a very long time and were early supporters of

the Linux platform in the corporate sector.

IBM integrating the portfolio of Red Hat into that of IBM will, once

complete, create one powerhouse of a player in the crowded cloud market.

It's pretty safe to assume that there will not be any major alterations

to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

It is a crucial part of the Red Hat portfolio and there can be no benefit

to IBM discontinuing its support and development.

A re-branding to better acknowledge IBM could be justified, but the core

source code will remain much the same.

The Linux community is still worried that once the acquisition has passed

the regulators and finalized, IBM will decide to drop development and

funding for the Fedora Linux and CentOS projects.

If the projects are left without their major injection of funds which has

been traditionally provided by Red Hat, it will then be left to the

community to find a viable funding solution.

If that were to occur, it could be a big problem as there is already a

flooded market of Linux distributors all fighting for funding dollars.

Adding more to the mix and expecting the community to come to the rescue

just might not be enough to save both Fedora Linux and CentOS.

So can they both survive under IBM? We think so.

In an article published to OSRadar on October 29, 2018 written by my

colleague Brett Brennan, assured that Fedora Linux and CentOS are

integral parts of the Red Hat ecosystem in that they provide the

inventive spark for extensions to compete with Ubuntu and SUSE.

IBM will almost certainly continue their support and possibly even

increase it, while continuing to embrace the wider benefits the the open-

source community of developers can offer.

Remember, IBM already offers many variations of Unix/Linux operating

systems for IBM mainframes: AIX - developed off of the AT&T Unix source

code in the mid-to-late 1980s.

z/OS - a more recent development from IBM that emerged in the early

2000s.

z/VSE - a widely adopted system designed for secure online transactions

and batch workloads.

z/TPF - a sophisticated system aimed to deliver very high transaction

volumes at near real-time.

Linux on Z and z/VM - these services are not operating systems in a

traditional sense, it's the IBM Z Linux platform and hypervisor,

respectively.

This enables open-source Linux distributions to take full advantage of

IBM's mainframe capabilities, while the hypervisor can run thousands of

Linux on Z virtual machines on one mainframe and can host z/OS, z/VSE and

z/TPF systems too.

When you look at the advanced options that IBM already offers to

complement their Z mainframes, it does become crystal clear that IBM

didn't acquire Red Hat because it needed an operating system.

That is a certainty.

As has already been pointed out before, Red Hat to IBM is a strategic

business investment that adds to IBM's portfolio, and takes Red Hat

preemptively out-of-play for potential acquisition by Oracle, Microsoft,

Alphabet or Facebook.

IBM is actually placed in a very good position to protect Red Hat and

guarantee support for its entire portfolio, rather than drop anything,

which has been the leading worry of the Linux community.

Still, the discontent continues to bubble like soup.

One possible factor triggering the discontent - and my colleague Brett

Brennan touched on this in the aforementioned article - could be the

Linus Torvalds meltdown that called into question the stability of

licenses in the free and open-source community.

You can argue until your heart bleeds dry whether Linus' meltdown was

justified or a complete overreaction and somewhat reflection of his

personality and automatic defense mechanism to all potential and

sometimes non-existent threats to Linux.

I guess it's his right to defend his creation, so he should not be

crucified for it.

Whatever your assessment of his tirade, there can be no doubt that Linus

Torvalds hold significant influence over the Linux community hoards.

To some, he's a God worthy of worship.

But remember IBM has ownership of much of the old AT&T Unix source code

and patents, so if any licenses of Linux any components is challenged,

then IBM has the legal expertise and resources to defend, motivation

amplified further by its acquisition of Red Hat.

Given the questions over license control, ongoing support for development

- IBM and Red Hat combined make huge contributions to Linux development -

and their need for hybrid cloud technology extensions and revenue drawn

from contract support, IBM's acquisition of Red Hat actually makes

perfect sense and should be considered a protective measure to preserve

one of the world's most recognizable and respected platforms of Linux

against legal and financial challenges.

Since the community projects of Fedora Linux and CentOS are identified as

such integral slices to the Red Hat pie, support for them must surely

continue.

Red Hat actually benefits massively from the community developers that

make Fedora Linux and CentOS possible and it would be reckless for IBM to

throw away those free benefits, which come with potentially high reward.

IBM has been around the blocks of Silicon Valley for a very long time.

Before it was even dubbed "Silicon Valley", actually.

The company's habits of developing and buying technology which will

support the long-term viability of their existing portfolio is one of the

key factors of why they are still around today and remain one of the most

crucial and influential companies.

IBM may not have the college-esque flare or reputation of cool that some

of the more recent entries to Silicon Valley have fostered, but IBM has

the respect.

Their expertise in an industry they helped shape, goes unmatched.

Mainframes are an integral part of their business and company earnings.

Mainframes have been the core of IBM for over 50 years and remain the

core today.

It's difficult to pinpoint where the shift away from mainframes started,

but it is slow and it is gradual.

However, mainframes will remain the core of IBM business for as long as I

can foresee and they do it better than any of their competitors.

Everything, and I mean everything, IBM now develop and acquire is

centered around integration with existing technology which almost always

come back to its mainframes.

IBM's focus on hybrid cloud services and increased integration will

extend out to the portfolio of Red Hat, which is also very extensive in

its own right.

IBM was founded in 1911, over 100 years ago.

It's a century plus old company.

They service 177 countries and have 367,000 employees.

To put the figures into perspective and to really appreciate the

corporate power of IBM, we compare it to Oracle which has 137,000

employees, Microsoft has 135,000, Alphabet has 99,000 and Facebook has

30,000.

(Employee figures are not precise and are rounded off to simplify context

for illustration purposes.)

IBM is truly one of the darlings of Silicon Valley, yet is absolutely

under-appreciated for its value to the technology sector and often goes

without recognition for the advances in research and development they

continue to make, almost silently in the background and with minimal

public attention.

IBM was huge before.

Its acquisition just made it even more huge.

That's why the industry continues to refer to the company as "Big Blue".

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press, in collaboration with OSRadar

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] February 18, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] The Spy Game: America,

China and a Company Called Huawei

THE STRICT FOUR ELEMENTS OF editorial processes applied to content by

Freedom Publishers Union is what the organization prides itself on.

We consistently remind our readers of our strict and unrivaled processes

to foster reader trust.

Where opinion is presented and the content matter tests the boundaries of

fact, we clearly mark these published pieces with an "OPINION" tag.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that the unfair international case

building against Huawei is illegitimate, unjustified and largely a case

of American paranoia.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to publish as our strict processes

permit, even being applied to our coverage of Huawei related information.

Unfortunately, much of the reporting by some of the world's most

respected mastheads has been deliberately misrepresented, misreported or

constructed to portray a message favorable to American patriotism which

in-turn supports unjustified attacks against foreign-owned companies and

international business rivals the American Government sees as a threat.

Propaganda campaigns always result in accusations being recklessly thrown

around like grenades - spying, espionage, theft etc.

The only problem is the same can be caused by one company losing a

contract to another.

Huawei has many large government contracts at low cost.

Some of these big contracts which would frustrate Huawei's competitors.

Throwing some live spying and cyber-war grenades in the direction of

Huawei raises the obvious question of "why?".

From the perspective of Huawei, nothing would be gained from crippling

their biggest customers through jeopardizing large government contracts.

There's no benefit in any form of war - trade or otherwise.

Sure you want to get more of the pie, but if you ruin your customer's

economy, who's going to buy your goods and services.

Effectively, the 'Five Eyes' network of nations are holding a loaded

grenade in their hands with every intent of throwing it in the direction

of China when the opportunity presents itself.

The suggestions that China wants to ruin America, Australia and all the

rest as customers just so China can conquer them and then get stuck

bailing them out and fixing the damage is a ludicrous proposition,

really.

And what would the equivalent retaliation from America be, poison their

soy beans? Make their airplanes fall out of the sky? Only Americans are

stupid enough to think that way, because that's what they do on TV.

Don't underestimate the effect of fear delivered through TV

entertainment.

Humans are controlled by the psychology of fear.

There's a very valid argument that invocation of fear is what makes

religions so effective.

If you can control your followers through fear under the guise of faith,

and warn of nasty repercussions if they do wrong, then everyone falls

into line.

Fear is easy to invoke and control once it has been established.

But it can get out of hand and bite back really quickly.

The unrest in America is all on the American people.

Not some Chinese communist plot.

Here's an economic example of what happens when you confuse lack of

competitive motivation with an overt threat.

The dominance of American trucks and lack of sedans isn't because

Americans only want trucks.

It's because Americans won't buy the overpriced low-quality sedans from

Detroit when they can get better value from Seoul or Shanghai.

And rather than fix the problem (compete head-to-head and win), we blame

the competition and rig the game against them.

This reiterates the earlier argument - deliberate misrepresentation of

facts favorable to American patriotism.

Now Nissan, Honda, Toyota etc.

build good quality vehicles here in America with the same American

workers that make the low-quality sedans from Detroit.

So it isn't that lower costs and poor conditions that improve pricing,

the way its deliberately misrepresented.

Still, there can be very little doubt that the 'Five Eyes' have a

strategy to cripple China.

The question is, when they're done with Huawei, what's next?

The real question is, of course, what else does America see as a 'threat'

from China? Spying, sure.

Of course America has been up to these same tricks for decades, if not a

century.

Up until the end of the century, AT&T was 'the world's telco'.

Nearly all of the wire and fiber networks were built on AT&T designs and

usually a majority of AT&T hardware.

We learned from the leaks from Edward Snowden that AT&T networks are

infested with hacks to aid in the interception of messages and the remote

control of the networks.

We also know the National Security Agency (NSA) operated a secret room

inside AT&T's offices at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco (CA-USA).

The room is known as "Room 641A".

However, internal AT&T documents referred to the room by the cryptic name

of "SG3 [Study Group 3] Secure Room".

Obviously this was done to avoid suspicion of what the room was used for.

The existence of Room 641A was exposed by former AT&T technician Mark

Klein, in 2006, after Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched legal

action against AT&T.

Mark also revealed that this was not the only room used for interception

of communications by the NSA.

The rooms are known as "Black Rooms" and according to information

provided by Mark, Black Rooms are located in multiple locations across

the United States of America (USA) - all used for surveillance purposes.

It has been claimed that AT&T never had access to the room, yet it

completely cooperated with the NSA by allowing them to control complete

access to Room 641A and what the NSA used the room for.

AT&T never asked questions.

But there are additional reasons that can explain the sudden hostilities

to Chinese products.

There are actually three good reasons for blocking Huawei in the English

colonial hegemony.

China's tech superiority

China has surpassed America in technology innovation in the past one-to-

two years.

This is primarily due to the methodology of 'copy and improve' - to a

certain degree, reverse engineering.

It's what everyone does to learn about a market and how to disrupt it.

This is the kind of piracy that concerns the Americans to such a great

degree.

It's not stealing Disney films off the internet or the bad manufacturing

of Prada purses that scares nations, but the leap forward that reverse

engineering can offer late entrants to a market.

Now China has moved into a market leading position by leveraging open-

source and generic license technology to become cost and volume leader in

these key technology areas.

Thanks to the 5G specifications being available for years - and the

proprietary responses from American and European companies being well

documented - Chinese technology companies were able to get to market more

rapidly than their Western rivals.

This is a key reason Huawei has some of the best 5G networking gear and

has such large market share.

Thanks to the competitive environment in America, there are only a

handful of hardware technology leaders left in America - Intel, the

companies led by Elon Musk and Boeing, to name a few.

And because of their monopolistic position and shareholder greed, they

aren't investing in innovation as they did in their earlier days.

Their complacency has begun to bite.

Protection against tit-for-tat hardware hacking

When America held technology leadership by a generation or more, hacks

could be introduced supporting covert intelligence gathering without any

suspicion.

Now that leadership has been lost to China, it's fair to say there is a

very real possibility of the same types of hacks being used against

America.

Until America catches up with technology (which will involve the same

'copy and improve' process America object to) they will remain vulnerable

to hardware hacks.

Further gamesmanship in the USA-China trade conflict

America has been dogging China for over a decade about its attitude

toward intellectual property (IP) theft.

America is losing the IP battle.

Some experts argue it's been lost for good and that technology IP rights

could never return to previous American dominance.

Along with the loss of the IP battle, it is losing the ability to conduct

balanced trade.

Kicking China in the teeth of its latest technology win may cause pause

and rethinking of balancing trade values, even if it involves accepting

less desirable products from America in order to cement the lead.

Then there's the President of the USA who needs no excuse to threaten

nuclear war to get a discount.

But the Trump-tantrums are having less global effect as they once did in

his early stage of Presidency.

However, he notably still holds significant influence over economic

matters.

China's tariff concessions that has unfolded during all the Huawei drama

may reflect that it's simply easier to give Trump one thing he wants than

fight over any of it.

Once he gets distracted by something else - such as border wall funding -

the whole Huawei issue may disappear.

It's happened repeatedly before.

Back to the 'Five-Eyes'

In an Editorial published December 7, 2018 titled "Could the 'Five Eyes'

Agreement Survive without America Continuing to Pull the Strings?", we

stated that "countries that implement bans on Huawei (or any other

Chinese owned technology company) are doing so without presenting any

kind of evidence which justifies the ban.".

It concluded, "It's pretty clear what is going on here.

The Americans have a large amount of global influence.

Actually, they have a massive amount of global influence.".

And, "America has become scared about the potential of international

political abandonment.

Largely, this is the result of the unorthodox behavior of its President,

Donald Trump.

But whatever the reason, the Americans are trying to hold on with a very

firm grip whatever alliances and agreements they have.".

So, is the Huawei security issue (we hesitate to place any emphasize on

the term "security issue") simply America using its bully pulpit to get

weaker allies to back an American play, as has been suggested? Given the

way President Trump is treating European allies, we'd bet yes, America is

calling the tune here.

Especially after we've baited Russia by tearing up the nuclear

disarmament treaties and left North Korea in full possession of all their

atomic assets.

Australia is especially vulnerable to any potential North Korean threat,

although the actual level of threat is a point of important debate.

And having Australian foreign policy on Asia continue to frustrate China

means they certainly aren't going to step in front of a missile sent to

Australian territory.

So the 'Five Eyes' are beholden to America for their protection and

they'll do what they're told.

We genuinely wish there was better news to assess.

Isolating personal views towards China, their business practices and

politics, it must be accepted that Huawei is a legitimate business.

And despite international accusations (as we've established already, it

is primarily led by the Americans) nobody has tabled any shred of

evidence to justify the accusation that Huawei is spying on its customers

or is a legitimate immediate threat to anyone's national security.

The threat level must continue to be monitored and assessed on credible

plausibility.

Freedom Publishers Union believes Huawei has been caught up in a game of

'China bashing'.

But we also believe that laying this at the feet of the 'Five Eyes' is

simplistic and probably only part of the story, albeit a large part at

that.

There is a strong sentiment that this has more to do with owning the

technology for 5G network manufacturers.

That is, where do the labs and patents reside.

China is the 'Radio Shack' of the world.

All electronic stuff is eventually going to be made in China because that

is the 'Detroit of electronics'.

But who profits from the IP rights is more important than who executes

it.

England is protective of ARM.

They don't actually make any chips themselves.

Indeed, they don't even design the circuitry.

Instead, they are and remain the architects who define the designs and

charge licenses to the companies that execute the designs, who in turn

license foundries to manufacture the chips, who in turn sell them to

companies like Apple, Qualcomm and yes, Huawei.

Huawei is an architect of 5G networking technology, competing with

Qualcomm and others for the idea of how the platform fits together.

And they are proud of the fact.

Because China has been at the forefront of developing the hardware for

cell phones and has been a key participant in the standards process, they

have the ability to leverage all this into a commercial advantage.

Now, this doesn't eliminate any potential security risk inherent in

Chinese 5G designs.

Controlling the process from research to product does provide China a

realistic opportunity to subvert the design to include possible exploits.

Freedom Publishers Union is certainly not claiming that is what China has

done.

But the fact of open possibility must be acknowledged, as must we accept

every open possibility that the 'Five Eyes' would gladly do the same if

they wanted to.

To get a better understanding of current and future spying and espionage

possibilities, we need to look back at history.

It's bleak, really.

1993, the NSA promoted the "Clipper Chip", officially known as MYK-78.

It was a microchip designed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI

Technology Inc.

to be used for voice and data transmission.

By design, the chip included a backdoor, which could be legally exploited

by the NSA.

It was promoted by the NSA and Bill Clinton's Administration.

Together, the NSA and the Clinton Administration promoted the chip by

claiming it was necessary for law enforcement, by allowing them to have

better access to changing technology and to ensure national security.

The encryption algorithm used by the MYK-78 was top secret and known only

by the NSA.

It was called Skipjack.

The fact that the algorithm was kept top secret and could not be reviewed

by security analysts provided ample ammunition for consumer backlash.

With almost nil interest for uptake of MYK-78 by the technology industry

and consumer hostilities to government overreach and potential for mass-

surveillance programs, MYK-78 was defunct by 1996, just three years after

its inception.

Two years after that, the Skipjack algorithm was released to the public,

in 1998.

October, 2018, Bloomberg published an alarming investigative report which

detailed server motherboards manufactured by Supermicro had been

identified to have strange and unexpected microchips attached to the

boards.

It is alleged that a third-party contractor working for Amazon detected

the anomalies on the boards, prior to Amazon acquiring the company

Elemental Systems.

Elemental Systems specialized in high-end servers for big data.

The motherboards are manufactured by Supermicro.

Apple was also a notable customer of Supermicro, using their boards

through their extensive network of data centers.

Supermicro boards are in widespread use, utilized among many USA

Government agencies and intelligence agencies, including the CIA.

The Bloomberg report suggests that Amazon was cooperating with USA

Government investigators, in response to the discovery.

It has also been claimed that when Apple had learned of the existence of

the microchips, any servers running Supermicro boards were replaced

within weeks.

Possibly 7000 or more of them.

Both Amazon and Apple deny the discovery and existence of the microchips

and also refute the Bloomberg report.

Amazon also denies cooperating with any specific government investigation

and the USA Government does not appear to be prepared to reveal the

existence of any investigation.

There are many conflicting details which have led many to believe that

the Bloomberg report was not completely accurate in its entirety.

In response to the claim that Apple replaced the Supermicro boards inside

their data centers, Apple denies that too.

However, the Apple insiders that were part of the Bloomberg investigation

claim the program that saw the removal of Supermicro boards was known

internally as "Going to Zero" and was only known by a select few within

the company.

Very likely.

Apple confirms they are no longer working with Supermicro, yet their

reason for parting ways with Supermicro have been vague at best and Apple

appear to be unable to provide any specifics.

When Supermicro was asked of the reasons of why Apple was no longer a

customer, it was much the same response with Supermicro claiming there

was lack of agreement over pricing.

The secrecy over Apple's departure from working with Supermicro can only

add to the speculation that something went awry with Supermicro.

Therefore, Freedom Publishers Union believes this adds increased

credibility to the authenticity of the Bloomberg report.

The Bloomberg report sent the information security industry into a state

of alert and confusion.

While some disputed the accuracy of the Bloomberg report, it could not go

entirely ignored.

Because if it was proven to be accurate, then it would be a pretty major

hardware hack that would not want to go unchecked.

Most likely the biggest in history.

As the dust settled from the first report, roughly one week later another

report emerged from Bloomberg.

This time, it was claimed the Co-CEO of Sepio Systems Yossi Appleboum had

detected these same strange microchips on Supermicro boards.

Yossi claims he witnessed strange network traffic which suggested two

network streams of traffic were originating from the one Ethernet device.

After physical examination of the server, he detected what he claims was

an additional microchip attached to the Ethernet adapter of the board.

One that was definitely not meant to be there.

Yossi makes an additional claim that it is not just Supermicro boards

coming through with strange microchips attached that are not part of the

factory design, he says he has seen them on other manufacturer's boards

too.

He does not mention the other manufacturers out of respect for non-

disclosure agreements he is legally bound.

If we trust the details in the Bloomberg reports, then we understand that

the microchips work by altering the server board's core operating

instructions on startup, enabling it to ping another system and then wait

for further instructions.

This could be a local system, remote system or government sponsored

system in another country.

The specifics are unknown.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that the microchips do not appear to

have a standard.

Details suggest the microchips come in different sizes, shapes and are

located on different sections of the board and attached to different

components.

This would appear to suggest the installation of these secret microchips

is applied on request and would appear to be customized for specific

purposes, perhaps for specific customers.

The assessment by Freedom Publishers Union on the accuracy of the

Bloomberg reports remains inconclusive.

We have every reason to believe the reports and no reason to not believe

them.

Bloomberg have a very credible record for publishing accuracy.

However, we have reservations of determining the reports as credible for

the simple reason that we are unable to find any other source of

information that differentiates its source information from that of

Bloomberg.

All additional reporting and information almost always refers back to the

Bloomberg article.

This could be due to Bloomberg's sources agreeing to only speak with

Bloomberg exclusively.

In that case, it's definitely an exclusive and explosive story if

determined to be the truth.

Freedom Publishers Union staffers involved in the compiling of this

editorial did question why there did not appear to be any existence of

any photographic proof of the microchips to complement the reports.

Dissatisfied with the lack of any conclusion in our determination, we

turned to the opinions of two of the world's most respected security

researchers, Bruce Schneier and Brian Krebs.

Bruce Schneier accepted the story was plausible, yet also noted the

absence of any photographic evidence.

He concluded by saying, "I have no idea what's true.

The story is plausible.

The denials are about what you'd expect.

My lone hesitation to believing this is not seeing a photo of the

hardware implant.

If these things were in servers all over the US, you'd think someone

would have come up with a photograph by now.".

Brian Krebs provides a lengthy, dribbly and largely irrelevant blog post

on the topic.

His thoughts are best noted by him saying, "I heard similar allegations

earlier this year about Supermicro and tried mightily to verify them but

could not.

That in itself should be zero gauge of the story's potential merit.

After all, I am just one guy, whereas this is the type of scoop that

usually takes entire portions of a newsroom to research, report and vet.

By Bloomberg's own account, the story took more than a year to report and

write, and cites 17 anonymous sources as confirming the activity.".

While not an explicit declaration of adding his support to the Bloomberg

article, Krebs is suggesting that it is entirely plausible.

And then Krebs throws in this added comment, "Still, the issue here isn't

that we can't trust technology products made in China.

Indeed there are numerous examples of other countries - including the

United States and its allies - slipping their own backdoors into hardware

and software products.".

Finally, Freedom Publishers Union contacted CCTA, a specialized cyber-

threat analysis firm.

They concluded, "The specified details in the Bloomberg stories might be

very difficult to consume and digest, but that doesn't make it less

possible or less important.

It is of the view of CCTA that because the Bloomberg stories provide such

significant amount of information and detail, then it deserves a majority

support and should therefore be considered credible and truthful.

Unless we are provided a reason to believe anything to the contrary, then

we must accept the report for its face value and assume it to be

correct.".

A rather decisive conclusion by CCTA.

Freedom Publishers Union was specifically asked by an outside observer

why we had not published an editorial on the Bloomberg report,

considering that we specifically make a public declaration that "Computer

Security" is a topic of interest to Freedom Publishers Union.

It's a good question we feel we should provide an answer to.

When the original report was published by Bloomberg, we considered a

swift editorial response to the details in the report.

However, we were stopped when we were unable to satisfy all of the

editorial requirements that Freedom Publishers Union employs which ensure

the accuracy of our own publications.

Therefore, we were placed in the frustrating position of not being able

to publish an editorial on this specific topic.

We do consider the conclusions and opinions of the security industry as

important.

Based on the responses by Schneier, Krebs and CCTA, we would determine

they all reasonably concluded that the Bloomberg reports are what we

could determine as correct.

Huawei is also effectively in trouble for trading with embargoed

countries like Iran and North Korea.

This is kind of a gray area.

If China is a signatory to the boycott, then Huawei's trading is a

violation that China needs to deal with.

That's the problem with Huawei's executive detained in Canada and facing

extradition to America.

It's the Iranian sales rather than anything to do with alleged spying

from Huawei.

The threat is understood but it's important to understand the difference

of the two problems that Huawei are facing.

If Freedom Publishers Union were to make a public declaration right now,

based on the knowledge, information and understanding we have, then we

seriously doubt that Huawei would incorporate spy features in their

technology, in the form of backdoors.

At least nothing beyond the 'spying' that is required as a legitimate

function of network management, which is another aspect of digital

communications that most non-technical people have no clue about.

The problem is that most people hear one negative story, intentionally or

unintentionally, misinterpreted by the media then they immediately assume

that they are personally being targeted.

Especially if you combine "China" and "jobs" in the title, used as click-

bait.

Freedom Publishers Union has not viewed, accessed or ever been presented

anything specifically pointing to Huawei posing an immediate security

threat.

Therefore, we're inclined to attribute the attacks on China, and

specifically Huawei, to protectionism and market defense.

We stated this early in the article and stand by our position.

Without government intervention, telecommunications companies will buy

the most advanced technology that's extensible and available right now.

Huawei has that technology and has market appeal and value.

Early wins in 5G deployment means that Huawei will have the revenue and

install base to continue to lead the 5G market for many years and stay

ahead of their competition.

This effectively pushes all the other manufacturers back a generation,

meaning they've got ten years before the 6G (or whatever successor to 5G

emerges) technology will give them a chance to compete again.

They'll be able to compete in secondary markets, like upgrade components

and extensions, but competitors will be paying royalties to Huawei to use

or to plug into their designs.

European telecommunications companies aren't as competitive as American

companies.

Because of the European Union, they adhere to agreed upon standards that

generally slow uptake of technology until the standards are established.

This is why all cell phones sold in Europe work everywhere in Europe

seamlessly.

In America, we note there are many areas that are poorly served because

incompatible technology is dominant in that area.

Most other countries don't have this problem and is yet another reason

that Huawei's potential dominance in 5G would be seen as bad for America.

A single standard adopted by all would eliminate the compatibility issue

that keeps prices variable, meaning that all the American carriers could

compete on is price.

T-mobile is already leading the price war because it leverages the rest

of the world for hardware and market.

You can buy a phone in Germany or Italy and just switch SIM to be

completely on T-mobile in America.

Those phones only partially work in AT&T and don't work at all on Verizon

or Sprint.

With Huawei 5G, all cell phones work on all networks, meaning you simply

shop for the cheapest SIM when you visit America.

Freedom Publishers Union Sub-Editor Brett Brennan, adds a personal

perspective on Huawei.

"While I'd call bullshit on the US attack, there may yet be some

unpublished facts on security [of Huawei].

No, I'm just going to call bullshit and leave it at that.".

Chris McGimpsey-Jones adds some notes too.

"I have been extremely supportive of Huawei from the beginning.

I keep saying this.

Huawei has been nothing but transparent and open to scrutiny of its

hardware through examination and security research testing.

Whether it be through government sponsored research programs or Huawei

setting up a research center in X region, they should be commended for

their continued cooperation despite the ongoing international hostilities

towards its business.

They could not possibly be more open.

I completely understand their frustrations.

I really do.

I keep saying this too.

If the US has any evidence or security advice which suggests Huawei's

hardware is a threat to national security of any nation, then present the

damn security advice to the public domain.

Until they do, I just can't see how the US and its allies can justify

their position.

This is serious.

Germany's ministers are currently talking about whether to ban Huawei.

However Germany appears to be taking a different approach and is

considering a ban on Huawei based on their belief that the company is too

close to the Communist regime of China.

Whereas America and its allies cite security advice for their bans on

Huawei.

Whether Germany has access to the same security advice or not, we do not

know.

It's too early to say.

In fact, it's still too early to draw the curtain on this issue.

We must pay attention to the facts.

At the moment, despite consistent citation of security advice from

America and its allies, they still have not presented any of this advice

to the public.

And the absence of any security advice to cite poses conflict with

opinion.".

The best solution could be one proposed by Frank Sieren, a writer for

Germany's Deutsche Welle news.

Frank makes the suggestion, "The world urgently needs an independent

international telecommunications authority to foster transparency in the

industry".

Sounds like a reasonable proposal, because it's only through an

independent international cooperative regulatory authority that disputes

of this nature can be approached and resolved by a fair and non-biased

process.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] February 15, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Australia Delivers

Damning Report into its Banking Sector.

Complacency Among Banks Remains

MISCONDUCT, CORRUPTION AND CORPORATE GREED within the banking sector are

a global problem.

Much of it came to a head, specifically in the Unites States of America,

with the Global Financial Crisis which has been dubbed the "GFC" for

simplistic historical reference purposes.

The world's leading democracies continue to conduct countless reports and

investigations into banking practices, with some kind of hope that a

miracle will eventuate from the findings and banish all forms of

misconduct and corruption.

Instead, it usually follows a common trend of a report being presented,

politicians and the public condemning the sector once the findings are

determined and released then ends with politicians making baseless and

disingenuous promises to 'clean up' the sector.

What actually eventuates, is deep-set complacency.

Then everything settles down for a while.

Australia has launched several inquiries into the country's banking

sector in previous years.

Although we are certain the information collected and collated is

appreciated and does go some way to providing insight into the sometimes

questionable practices of the sector, none have really presented the

deserved critique to really push the politicians to place serious reform

onto the agenda.

And we mean real reform.

Not amendments to existing pieces of banking law.

Australia's politicians will argue different, but the changes that have

been passed over the years have always been amendments to existing

legislation.

The latest Royal Commission provides some hope.

Commissioner Kenneth M Hayne has finalized and presented the Royal

Commission Report into "Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and

Financial Services Industry".

It's the most critical and extensive report to date, which looks into the

banking sector and extends to present the ethics and misconduct across

the banking, superannuation and insurance industries.

The overall conclusion is understandably critical of all the sectors.

Public reception to the Report has been mixed, as is the reception from

Australia's political parties.

Despite the mixed reactions, there is one common agreement that has come

to fruition - reform must happen and be made a priority.

Supporter of The Greens, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, released a Press

Statement in response to the release of the Report.

In his Statement, he assesses "it is of my own conclusion that the

Australian Parliament must act to address the recommendations.".

Although, there is some skepticism as to whether the recommendations go

far enough.

He says, "The Greens have expressed a certain level of disappointment of

the conclusion of the Report.

The Greens believe that these industries require much more than just

legislative reform and although we would all like to see the Parliament

act on the recommendations, we admit it will only slow down the continued

high level of misconduct and will most certainly not eliminate it or

prevent it from reoccurring.".

The Liberal Party has been reasonably upfront about the requirement to

implement significant reform which can best address the recommendations

in the Report.

The Liberal Party is confident and pledged their commitment to addressing

all of Commissioner Hayne's recommendations.

However, this could be a baseless commitment as there are serious doubts

as to whether the Liberal Government will be reelected at the Federal

Election which is believed, yet unconfirmed, to be held in early May

(2019).

Political polls conducted by Australia's leading mastheads consistently

indicate that the Labor Party will win the election and become the

majority party elected to form the country's next government.

This essentially opens up another can of worms for Australian politics

and shuts down any plans the Liberal Party may have, due to obvious time

constraints.

Since the release of the Report by Commissioner Hayne, the Labor Party

has been almost silent on their plans on how to address the

recommendations.

During the country's latest session of Parliamentary debate this week,

the Labor Party has called for the sitting calendar to be extended to

allow for extra sessions to be held before the election.

This is a key point of debate between the nation's two major parties -

Liberal and Labor.

The Labor Party claim that the extra sessions for sitting could be used

to develop legislation that will address the recommendations presented by

Commissioner Hayne.

However, the Liberal Party (the current Government) argue that the two

extra sitting weeks that Labor is calling for is nowhere near enough to

develop what will effectively be extremely complex legislation to be

capable of proper and effective reform necessary.

Freedom Publishers Union agree with the Liberal Party.

For the Labor Party to expect sufficient and effective legislation be

developed within the course of a couple of weeks is ridiculous and

unrealistic.

If the Liberal Party continues to deny the request for extra sitting

sessions, then it will be up to the post-election government to develop

the required reform which can address the recommendations of the Report.

Referring back to the Statement by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, he concurs.

"It is of my opinion that the Parliamentary sitting calendar should not

be extended prior to the Federal Election for any reason(s) related to

drafting legislation in relation to the recommendations of the Report.".

He continues by saying, "Future legislation that is drafted to address

the recommendations of the Report must be carefully considered and

drafted properly.

If legislation is quickly drafted as a rash response to the

recommendations of the Report, then pushed through both Houses of

Parliament prior to the Federal Election, I believe that the legislation

will be insufficient in its content and fail in its effect to properly

address the problems they intend to solve.".

Then Chris concludes his Statement with the following, "The small

legislative changes that will inevitably and gradually be implemented may

go some way to perhaps improving financial services misconduct, but will

be limited and fall short of the major reform required to restore

confidence in the banking, superannuation and financial services

industries.".

In comments separate from that provided in his Statement, Chris tells

Freedom Publishers Union, "My closing comments in my Statement could

somewhat be determined as a reflection of the report in its entirety.

Don't take that out of context.

It's a great report and the Commissioner has done a fantastic job.

It's a complex issue.

But I think a lot of people are disappointed that the Commissioner was

not harder on the industries and the people involved in these

irresponsible and unacceptable financial practices which need to stop,

frankly.".

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the Chairman of the Advisory Council for Freedom

Publishers Union.

A complete copy of his Statement as a Supporter of The Greens was

provided to Freedom Publishers Union for citation.

Freedom Publishers Union commends the hard work of Commissioner Kenneth M

Hayne.

Politically, we believe that serious reform is required, but it will take

time.

This is a global problem, however Australia's focus on reform must remain

limited to Australia's financial sector.

Other reform measures must continue to get the attention required too,

such as multinational tax avoidance which continues to pose major

challenges for the world's biggest economies.

However, it must be accepted that is a completely separate issue and was

not part of the terms of reference for the Royal Commission Report titled

"Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services

Industry".

Following the release of the Report, National Australia Bank Chairman Ken

Henry and Chief Executive Officer Andrew Thorburn, announced their

departures from the bank and saying they were "deeply sorry".

The announcement of their departures came just several days after ABC

News reported that the day after the release of the Report, the banks

were trading well on the share market, "Financial stocks are having their

best day on the share market in nearly a decade", Michael Janda said.

Commissioner Hayne's Report was released on a Monday.

On the Tuesday that followed, Australia's biggest fours banks surged

ahead in valuation.

According to figures published by ABC News, Westpac was up 7.4%, ANZ up

6.5% CBA up 4.7% and NAB was up 3.9%.

It was certainly a good day for the banks considering the release of a

damning report the day before made direct accusations of serious

misconduct, which should have theoretically had a negative effect on the

stock values of the biggest four banks.

It didn't.

The increase in their stocks is an indicator that the level of

complacency of the bank's conduct, which the banks appear to believe is

just fine, extends to that of their shareholders which are clearly

holding equal complacency and satisfaction of their bank's conduct.

This is indicative of severe and deep cultural problems within the

sector.

In addition to legislative reform, further oversight could be key.

When speaking with Leigh Sales on ABC's 7.30 program, Australia's

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said "one of the recommendations of

Commissioner Hayne is actually that we set up a new oversight body of

both ASIC and APRA" and that "the Government has accepted that

recommendation.

They [a new oversight body] will look at the effectiveness and the

performance of those two bodies and report to government.".

It's kind of an ironic duplication of oversight considering that ASIC and

APRA are already primarily tasked with regulating the corporate and

financial sectors.

Effectively, the Treasurer is saying that they should establish a new

regulator to oversee the two existing regulators.

This would be a consideration ripe for political debate.

Freedom Publishers Union is critical of establishing further oversight

bodies.

They already exist and we believe that if the existing bodies are

failing, then we must look into the cause of the failures and identify

the problems present so solutions can be found.

Establishing additional oversight bodies is just unnecessarily adding

extra layers of bureaucratic complexities, increases the chances of

repeated failures of oversight procedures and adds increased costs to the

public purse, which can be avoided.

There are other suggestions which may have more merit.

Founder of Crikey Stephen Mayne, suggests that banks be subjected to

regularly scheduled Royal Commissions, paid for by the banks.

On ABC's QandA program on Monday night, Stephen says, "I think that

probably the better solution is we need a Royal Commission into the banks

every 7 years.".

Ambitious.

But the concept is worth serious consideration if we continue to see the

failure of banks to improve their own conduct and refocusing their

services to benefit clients first, over profits.

Stephen believes that the banks have simply got complacent.

He says they've adopted the attitude of "We got away with it, business as

usual.".

Stephen's opinion of bank complacency is much aligned with the opinion

expressed earlier by Supporter of The Greens Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

In an article published to The Conversation, Andrew Linden and Warren

Staples from RMIT University, observe that it's all cyclical.

They say, "Every 10 to 15 years it's the same." And, "There are two

particularly striking things about the 10-15 year cycle.

One is the rhythm of public inquiries followed by reports, then sometimes

trials, then books, then almost everyone forgetting only for problems to

resurface later.

The other is that the times between have been punctuated by government-

commissioned banking and financial system reviews.

Each either missed or downplayed the links between poor governance,

industry structure, systemic misconduct and prudential risk.".

They conclude, "Commissioner Kenneth Hayne's 1000-page final report

hasn't gone far enough to end this cycle.".

And finally, they make a startling comment which many experts agree is at

the very core of all other problems - vertical integration.

Andrew and Warren describe the banks as "one-stop shops" that are "very

profitable" which means "they [the banks] are very focused on shareholder

returns" - profits.

We must consider too that Australia's banks have donated large sums of

money to both political parties.

Freedom Publishers Union is definitely not suggesting there is anything

unethical or illegal about that.

But it is in the interests of the banks to do so, as it is in the

interests of political parties to accept the donations, with an unwritten

mutual understanding that reform will do nothing more than tweak the

system, appear to the public that 'something' is being done to pull in

the banks, while the effect of any tweaks remains minimal and does

absolutely nothing to really hurt them into any forced change to improve

their conduct.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that it's safe to back the conclusion

by Andrew Linden and Warren Staples from RMIT University - these things

are all cyclical, which "means we are once again 10 or 15 years away from

systemic misconduct resurfacing as big banks seek to become more

profitable.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] February 9, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Murray-Darling Basin

Royal Commission Report Released.

Freedom Publishers Union Still Supports Authority and the Plan

THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN ROYAL Commission Report has been released into

the public domain, conducted by the South Australia (SA) State

Government.

It has been provided to Freedom Publishers Union.

We are currently circulating the 750+ page Report around the appropriate

internal channels of communication.

Freedom Publishers Union has always supported the Murray-Darling Basin

Authority and the Basin Plan.

Although we have not yet completed our internal assessment of the final

Report, we remind the public that our ongoing support of the Authority

and the Plan does not mean that we are placing ourselves in a position

where we will not critique the Authority or the Plan, where critique is

justified, based on our assessment of the Report.

The political position of Freedom Publishers Union on this issue has

always been very clear.

It is outlined on our website and it states, "The Murray-Darling Basin is

of crucial importance to Australia's long-term water plan.".

We want to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority continues to

hold control over management of the Basin.

Additionally, we call for a complete review of all details of the

Authority's management legislation to ensure that all management and

operations details remain accurate, to provide the best results to enable

and allow for a coordinated, efficient and sustainable water and

resources delivery for the Murray-Darling Basin.

All water allocations must be based on a priority delivery mechanism,

whilst guaranteeing a fair and balanced system for agriculture,

irrigation, domestic and recreation.".

We believe our position is politically justified and reasonable.

As Freedom Publishers Union continue to assess the Report and collaborate

with ESA, we discredit any suggestion that the Murray-Darling Basin

Authority be dissolved and replaced by a new oversight body.

ESA believes, "This would be counter-productive, simply unnecessary and

would just duplicate the intent and purpose of the existing Authority,

under a new title.".

There is no sense in such bureaucratic duplication and then initiating

the dissolving of a pre-existing government department because of the

failings of the pre-existing department - failings which can be rectified

to eliminate a future repeat of those precise failings.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is the right government department to

be providing the management and oversight that is required for the

Murray-Darling Basin Plan to be successful and viable.

However, according to ESA, "Clearly there are issues that require

immediate attention.

This is illustrated inside the Royal Commission Report.".

Early observations by Freedom Publishers Union led us to conclude, albeit

not definitively and not on the basis of evidence, the problems which

have resulted in the Basin enduring such poor health and being classified

a critical environmental priority are the subject of a combination of

failures with the Plan and the management of the Plan, by the Authority.

We have continued to make calls for a review of the Plan, to ensure that

the timetable for the Plan's roll-out was suitable and to compensate,

where necessary, for frequently changing environmental conditions.

Freedom Publishers Union maintains, "All water allocations must be based

on a priority delivery mechanism".

It is our principle belief that the environment should remain top

priority.

However, it has become increasingly clear and obvious, backed by evidence

released from investigations conducted by Australian Broadcasting

Corporation (ABC) and Four Corners, that the critical condition of the

Basin has been the large result of the mismanagement of the delivery of

water allocations, worsened by cotton farmers abusing their allocations.

In some cases, reporting evidence suggests that some farmers have

actually engaged in illegal water storage and water meter tampering in an

outright attempt to intentionally hide their illegal, excess water use

habits.

We will continue to assess the Report's details, its conclusions and its

recommendations.

Freedom Publishers Union's final assessment will provide us with a

determination of whether there are any necessary changes to be applied to

our existing political position on the Murray-Darling Basin.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] February 5, 2019 | [OPINION] Liberal Party Ministers

Quitting to Maintain Their Political Integrity

THE RECENT EXODUS OF GOVERNMENT ministers from the Liberal Party of

Australia, with speculation from political observers that more will exit

before the Federal Election, is a sure sign that there is genuine panic

among the ranks of the Liberal Party of the forthcoming predictions of

dire consequences for the party.

All predictions and credible political observations point to absolute

decimation, with the Government sure to lose power and along with it,

many seats.

Among them, seats traditionally considered safe and thought to be

impenetrable.

Political polls should always be interpreted as a snapshot of a moment in

time and indicator only, rather than an actual reference for any accurate

representation of what the national result of an election could be.

But if the polls are any kind of accurate indication, then the Liberal

Party may face a humiliating defeat.

The defeat may come as a result of Labor Party candidates taking seats, a

possible strong result from The Greens or they could even be stolen from

independent candidates.

The Australian public remains angry over the political dysfunction of

Australian politics.

There is encouraging signs that independent candidates could gain much

support, which would effectively be a protest vote against the two major

parties.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that the Labor Party is almost

guaranteed a majority win and will form Australia's next government.

Current serving ministers know all of this.

Despite negative public opinion of politicians being stupid old gray-

heads that have not much intellect, one must understand they are actually

very well educated individuals and are able to foresee a sinking ship.

They can see it much the same way the Australian public can see it.

Those ministers that are choosing to quit to move to the crossbench,

retire from politics or depart on good terms to engage in family time,

are doing so to maintain their ministerial integrity.

At least when the ship does sink, they have assured themselves that they

will have reached safety first.

Those that choose to stay, well, they're not staying because they are

stupid (like some people mistakenly assume).

They know they are facing a possible humiliating defeat in the House of

Representatives.

But they are staying because they have political will to fight for their

party and for their core political values and beliefs.

That should be commended and not laughed at.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] February 3, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Lobby Groups

Potentially Changing the Course of Australia's Future

AS THE STORM CLOUDS OF another important national election in Australia

continue to build, newly formed political lobby group, Forward Thinking

Australia, is looking more likely to support left politics, while still

acknowledging the importance of the right on economic management.

Forward Thinking Australia is a new political lobby group which was

founded late last year (2018).

The group claims to be "funded and supported by like-minded individuals,

business and enterprise who share the same core values" they advocate.

As a result of so much political disunity and dysfunction currently

playing out in Australian politics, there has been an influx of new

political activist and lobby groups that have been formed.

There is little doubt it is the result of citizen frustration with the

country's hostile political culture.

Some of the groups have a specific persuasion of the political spectrum

they set out to protect, or a specific candidate.

However, Forward Thinking Australia differs as it was founded to not

support the left or the right, or any specific candidate.

Rather, its focus is on good policy.

That is proving difficult.

Forward Thinking Australia have declared on their website that no

determination for party recommendation has been been decided by the

group.

But they are making progress, as they have recently declared and

officially offered their support to The Greens, specifically on climate

and energy policy.

Despite its offer of support to The Greens on climate and energy, Forward

Thinking Australia depart from Greens politics on management of

Australia's economy.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that the group will officially offer

its support to the Liberal Party of Australia early next week, possibly

as early as tomorrow, on economic policy.

We also understand that it will be directly calling out the Liberal Party

of insufficient funding of the country's public broadcasting media sector

and will urge the Liberal Party to restore full funding if they are re-

elected.

Forward Thinking Australia is running their lobbying campaign on the

policy areas of just three core issues, of which they claim are important

to the future of the nation and its citizens.

The third policy area is that surrounding border control and immigration.

Although the group has stated that it has not yet officially decided

which party to support and engage with on this issue, based on its

declared position on the issue of border security, all indicators point

to either the Labor Party or The Greens.

The latter being the most likely.

Freedom Publishers Union takes great interest in Australian politics and

continues to engage with appropriate channels, to advocate on a range of

important policies.

The latest series of political activist and lobby groups that have been

founded to advocate on political policies and in support of candidates

(and in some cases to have a sitting MP unseated from their electorate)

is welcoming and should be encouraged.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

January 31, 2019 | Submission [#2] to Digital Platforms Inquiry

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION CONTINUES TO emphasize the importance of the

Digital Platforms Inquiry and we very much appreciate the continued

opportunity for comment, following the release of the Preliminary Report.

In our first Submission, prior to the release of the Preliminary Report,

Freedom Publishers Union stated that, "Primarily, we believe the Inquiry

will naturally focus largely on the operations of Google and Facebook,

simply due to the sheer scale of the company's combined market share,

which can not be ignored and probably should be taken into consideration.

However, we warn against making these two companies the sole focus and

recommend that all other companies involved in the distribution of

digital media, news and information also be considered.".

We continue to stand by this statement.

The Preliminary Report assessed that Google and Facebook currently enjoy

significant and influential market power, without any foreseeable

reduction.

Freedom Publishers Union concurs with the aforementioned assessment,

however, we remain adamant that the concentration of the Inquiry should

not remain limited to Google and Facebook.

This does not mean that the level of marketing power of Google and

Facebook should be ignored.

We will make the clarification that the issues and concerns raised by

Freedom Publishers Union in this Submission and our previous, are based

on our assessment of the [media] industry as a whole and is certainly not

limited to the level of marketing power of Google and Facebook.

In our first Submission we outlined our key issues.

We will take the opportunity to reiterate those issues, in summary and in

simplified text:

The global market share dominance of a concentrated selection of digital

media distributors are continuing to abuse their power, through dominance

of their services without regard to the wider effects on the quality of

journalism and accessibility of content;

ii.

There exists the potential for global implications from the impact the

platform service providers are having on reduced choice and the quality

and accuracy of content;

iii.

Continued and increasing business focus on targeted content is

effectively impeding on consumer choice;

iv.

The free distribution model has morphed into an effective proxy for a

fast and targeted distribution model designed to entice consumers to

click on targeted content so the digital media distributors benefit from

advertising revenue;

The impact of technology trends on competition in media and advertising

could result in reduced choice and more targeted content.

Specifically in relation to points (iii), (iv) and to a lesser extent (v)

[above], but not limited to these points, Freedom Publishers Union is

immediately concerned over implications of current data collection

methods, necessity of such large amounts of data and the rapid frequency

of data being collected.

It is primarily used to better target consumers based on their content

consuming habits to increase advertising revenue.

We believe the concerns we have expressed over data collection habits are

so serious that they cannot be dealt with sufficiently within the current

scope of this Inquiry, but should not be ignored completely.

Specifically in relation to point (v), but not limited to this point,

Freedom Publishers Union fears more traditional publishers will be forced

to shut down as subscription models will not have the required room to

grow at the same rate that free models can.

Specifically in relation to Preliminary Recommendation 3-choice of

browser and search engine, Freedom Publishers Union commends the

recommendation and understands its importance.

We have some reservations of any positive overall effect that the

recommendation would have if acted upon and specifically within the

current scope of this Inquiry.

Our consideration of Preliminary Recommendation 3 (a), combined with

third-party expert advice, concludes that operating system developers

should provide an option to install the web browser of choice, in no

specific order and without favoring a specific web browser and should not

have a web browser pre-installed as this potentially minimizes consumer

choice.

Furthermore, our consideration of Preliminary Recommendation 3 (b),

combined with third-party expert advice, concludes that web browser

developers should provide an option to select the search engine of choice

to use as the default option, in no specific order and without favoring a

specific search engine and should not have a search engine selected

automatically as this potentially minimizes consumer choice.

The Preliminary Report outlines issues surrounding low levels of

transparency of the algorithms of Google and Facebook.

Algorithms are key tools to the success of these businesses and Freedom

Publishers Union takes the position that to a large extent, the secrecy

surrounding precise details and functions of algorithms is justified and

must be respected, along with their right(s) to have them considered a

'trade secret'.

Instead, Freedom Publishers Union emphasizes that any suggestion of

increased transparency should be focused on getting a better

understanding of the algorithm's relationship between the platform

service providers and advertisers.

Freedom Publishers Union fears that without significant and effective

reform, which should theoretically come as a result of any

recommendations that are presented from this Inquiry, there will be less

quality and less accurate journalism produced and distributed.

And, consumers will be faced with the difficult and confusing decision of

making a determination of what can be classified as reliable source based

content and content that is typically and more commonly referred to as

'fake news', or simply unreliable source based content.

Freedom Publishers Union remains confident in our previous determination,

which concluded that consumers will generally be presented less

journalism, from less quality publications which will have less access

and availability to sustainable revenue sources necessary to produce

quality and accurate content.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] January 28, 2019 | [OPINION] China Must Release Yang

Hengjun

WHEN I FIRST LEARNED OF the story of fellow Australian, Yang Hengjun,

'disappearing' in China I immediately knew this would become an important

and much larger story than was originally publicized.

I also knew that I would feel compelled to break out of my usual

responsibilities to Freedom Publishers Union and pen this piece, in

support of Yang Hengjun.

Yang Hengjun is a former Chinese diplomat, writer and advocate for

democratic reform of Chinese politics.

Although, at the time I pen this column, Chinese officials have not

revealed the precise specifics of the reason he has been detained.

But I do however know he is facing espionage charges.

It is suspected that his advocacy for democratic reform is the most

likely reason - a reason completely unjustified.

Recent critique expressed by Yang Hengjun has been modest.

Announcement of a pending China visit to those closest to him saw

expressions of concern raised for his safety and he was advised to not

proceed.

Although I'm sure the advice was acknowledged and appreciated by Yang

Hengjun, he chose to go ahead as planned, ignoring the advice of others.

As I understand it, Yang Hengjun was immediately detained upon arrival in

China.

Initial consultation with China by Australian officials saw the usual

predictable Chinese denial of any involvement and pleading of ignorance

by claims that the whereabouts of Yang Hengjun were unknown.

Chinese officials delayed their admittance to detaining Yang Hengjun.

I have no doubt at all that this was intentional, to buy Chinese

authorities more time to get Yang Hengjun to a secure location which at

the time of writing, remains a secret.

China claims he is under "house arrest".

It is widely understood this is a polite term for "being detained in a

secret location", stripped of visitation rights by lawyers and family.

China must take responsibility for delaying admittance they had detained

Yang Hengjun and disclose the location of where he is being detained,

without further delay or intentional secrecy.

Additionally, Yang Hengjun must be allowed access to consultation

services with Australian officials who can then ensure his safety and

welfare, and apply diplomatic pressure that humane treatment remains a

priority concern for Australia.

I hold hope that Australia will assist Yang Hengjun as much as

diplomatically possible.

China has proven to be difficult on matters of international relations

and ensuring the welfare of international citizens it detains for

unjustified reasons.

I am also concerned that Australia will take on a position of

complacency.

Australia does not have a very positive and encouraging history of

assisting its citizens when they experience legal challenges on foreign

soil.

Julian Assange has practically been abandoned by his government and any

association with Australia, through lack of any support and assistance

offered by Australian officials.

I certainly hope that Yang Hengjun receives the assistance he deserves

and doesn't become another ignored Australian detained abroad facing

international injustice.

I will urge Freedom Publishers Union to take on an official position and

call for the immediate release of Yang Hengjun and allow for free passage

to return to Australia.

Freedom Publishers Union should also strongly advise that any Australian

citizen traveling to China do so with extreme caution and understand the

risks that China poses to international visitors.

With increasing tensions between China, USA, Canada and now, Australia,

ultimate safety of international visitors can no longer be assured for

those traveling to China.

China continues to demonstrate absolute disregard for international law,

deprives citizens and visitors of fair justice and is continuing to

increase political hostilities with democratic nations.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

**********

January 24, 2019 | Submission to Ministry of Electronics & Information

Technology (India)

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION UNDERSTANDS AND acknowledges the problems

related to false and misleading information that have arisen in India,

particularly over the duration of the past 12-24 months and specifically

on the WhatsApp social platform.

However, we cannot support the Government of India using these specific

set of challenges as a means to justify further encroachment on civil

liberties of the citizens of India through proposals to Section 79 of the

IT Act which would force WhatsApp, and potentially other encrypted

platforms, to decrypt secure data for the benefit of the Government of

India, under the all too typically used reason of "national security".

We believe the proposals are a great concern and also believe that they

are only the tip of the iceberg, as the Government of India attempts to

further emulate the civil liberties encroachment and removal of basic

freedoms of the citizens as has already been done, aggressively, and

against the expert advice by digital rights organizations and activists,

by Western democracies.

The Government of India has already authorized increased powers to phone

taps, which were then followed by further authorization for 10 government

security and intelligence agencies to intercept sensitive internet data

and seize electronic devices - All further evidence of the motivation of

the Government of India to emulate the behavior of Western governments to

increase mass-surveillance networks and increase government capabilities

to 'legally' remove the freedoms and basic rights of citizens.

Although we welcome the opportunity on this occasion to make a public

Submission, we do not believe that the Government of India has done

enough on previous occasions in relation to what we consider quite

important and invasive changes that do have real-world impact on the

computer and internet usage habits of the citizens of India.

It is of the political opinion of Freedom Publishers Union that the

citizens should always be provided advanced notice of proposed changes

and should always be provided with the opportunity for public Submission,

where possible.

Data and messages that are encrypted is done so to guarantee and

accommodate the right to privacy of users.

Any attempt(s) to modify, break or bypass encryption technology is

condemned by Freedom Publishers Union and a majority of the technology

industry.

Privacy is a right to be upheld, and not a right to allow for open abuse

by law enforcement, intelligence or any other government associated

agency.

Furthermore, enabling the Government of India the ability the decrypt

data would pose a significant threat to censorship of India's internet.

Based on the expert advice we have sought, Freedom Publishers Union

remains confident that internet censorship is not the intent of this

specific proposal, however we warn that further imposition of censorship

on India's internet could only be condemned, for adding to an already

messy censorship regime the country suffers.

The proposals, as Freedom Publishers Union interprets them, mirror

elements of the recent changes which have been implemented in Australia

which the Government claim will achieve the same intent of the proposals

by the Government of India.

We strongly condemned and opposed the Australian legislation, as did the

technology industry.

Therefore, we are in a position where we must also oppose any legislation

of the Government of India which attempts to replicate legislation to the

same relative effect as Australia.

It is currently unclear what level of cooperation WhatsApp and other

affected technology companies will offer the Government of India, in

response to any future changes to the law.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the collective technology and software

security industry to unite and push back against any changes that are

approved by the Government of India.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to advocate and educate our

supporters and internet users on technical methods and software that can

be used to increase their security through strong encryption that cannot

be cracked and to bypass censorship.

We do this not in defiance of any specific country's laws, but because an

open internet and free flow of information free from censorship and

government interference is a core principle of our philosophical

founding.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] January 23, 2019 | [ANALYSIS] Piracy Still Thriving,

as Streaming Services Flood, Fragment and Complicate the Market

EARLY JANUARY, WE WERE SENT an article by Associated Press, which touched

on rising consumer challenges for streaming services.

Digital media access has morphed many times, each time with the ultimate

goal of making it more accessible.

But above all else, make it legal and hope to rid the industry of piracy.

Digital media piracy gained traction in the mid-to-late 90s, largely with

the introduction of Napster.

Napster allowed anyone to access, download and share music and movie

files with fellow users through a network sharing method called peer-to-

peer networking.

While file sharing programs and the underlying technology has changed

since dramatically since, the underlying problem of piracy still exists,

despite the many streaming services that are now accessible and make

digital media access completely legal.

Naturally, the question must be pondered - why do users still pirate? As

you will read below, there is actually a very legitimate reason of why

some internet users still pirate.

It's not a field of flowing sunflowers for everyone connected to the

internet.

Some people have access to super-fast corporate connections, others have

fast connections at home and then there is the other end of the spectrum

which sadly, sees many in third-world countries still without any real

reliable way to connect to the internet for reasons ranging from terrible

investment and lack of infrastructure, government corruption and greed,

or simply because they cannot afford a device to access the internet

along with the associated costs of access.

For those privileged enough to have access to fast, stable internet

connections which enable streaming services, there are a whole new range

of challenges that are beginning to emerge.

As more companies begin to see the benefits of offering their customers

streaming services, the consumer is facing ever-changing streaming

offerings being thrown at them from all corners of the internet.

Disney owned and produced content used to be a boon for Netflix.

Since Disney announced they were launching their own streaming service,

its content has gradually been pulled off Netflix, leaving Disney fans

feeling somewhat 'empty' as they search for new ways to watch their

favorites from one of the world's most respected studios, which includes

the massively popular Marvel arm of movie franchises and Star Wars

franchise.

It's becoming an extremely fragmented marketplace, with WarnerMedia and

HBO also looking to separate their libraries and set up their own

streaming services.

As Mae Anderson of Associated Press puts it, "Just as Netflix, Hulu and

Amazon Prime tempted people to "cut the cord" by canceling traditional

cable TV packages, the newer services are looking to dismember those

more-inclusive options.".

Anderson continues, "Individual channels, such as Fox, ESPN, CBS and

Showtime, are also getting into the act.".

Undoubtedly, as more big commercial networks release their own streaming

services, it will add even further fragmentation to an already heavily

fragmented market.

As Anderson states, Netflix and other streaming services which currently

enjoy large catalogs of licensed content from their "soon-to-be rivals"

are going to have to make the difficult decision of what content they

believe justify the license fees which will no doubt increase over time

as more services come online.

Or, Netflix can aggressively pursue the alternative of producing their

own content for their own platform.

They have done this already with relative positive results, but at huge

dollar expense.

We begin to wonder, as more services come online, is there enough room in

the streaming sector for many more services.

A much more focused thought bubble would be can service owners genuinely

operate their streaming services, maintain financial viability and

actually generate worthy profit.

We don't believe so.

It's difficult to break down the growing market.

The streaming services market was once dominated by Netflix and Spotify.

Sure, Amazon Prime shook things up a bit along with Hulu.

But everyone knows Netlix and Spotify are synonymous with 'streaming'.

But as new entries are establishing foothold, it will continue to place

increasing pressure on both Netflix and consumers.

Services do not just offer a one-fee-one-level service.

Often, there are multi-tier options available with the same streaming

operator.

With multiples of streaming service choices and multiples of tier options

available, you can see that a once simplified market is growing into a

very complicated and potentially expensive market.

Where consumers would have their cable TV subscription fee and perhaps an

additional fee for Netflix and Spotify each month to fill in the gap that

their traditional cable was unable to offer, has now become a

subscription nightmare with consumers now having to choose from a messy

choice of streaming services to complement their cable TV subscription.

More importantly, it doesn't matter what choice they opt for, they're

probably going to miss out on a library that belongs to a different

operator anyway.

Unless, they choose to pay for multiples of streaming services, which

will undoubtedly see their monthly subscription fees quickly accelerate

beyond what most would consider affordable.

All these consumer challenges are associated around cost.

But cost is not the only factor which internet users must consider with

streaming services.

There is another consideration which which often overlooked.

You must ensure that you have the internet connection speed that is fast

enough and stable enough that can support enjoyable streaming.

This is a particularly prevalent problem with high-definition and

especially 4K video.

Audio streaming can often get away with relatively slow internet speeds

as any lag is often compensated by the buffer.

But when you're dealing with high-definition/4K video, it's an entirely

different scenario.

TV manufacturers are also struggling to meet consumer demand for the

inclusion of apps and other streaming capabilities into the latest smart

TV devices.

We are skeptical that manufacturers can meet demand, due to the fast pace

that the streaming market is evolving.

What works one week is certainly not guaranteed to work the following

week.

This could be due to legal fights which production studios always seem to

be engulfed in, combined with legal question-ability of included

streaming apps on smart TV devices upon purchase, all complicating an

already complicated market.

Introduction of these complexities was always predictable and has been

observed by industry watchers for a long time.

Some have the opinion that it will actually increase piracy rates.

The horrible combination of increasingly varying services, different

specifications and separate costs for each service are all going to

result in people jumping off the streaming ship and back into pirate

waters.

That's before you even touch on the increased challenges all the coming

changes and fragmentation of services will be for TV manufacturers who

are already struggling with keeping up with consumer demand.

At the moment, it's horrible.

And it is an area which looks like it could get much worse still.

Consumers have short fuses.

This is an observation all too often overlooked by the media industry.

Put simply, if something doesn't work as it should and doesn't offer

benefits over an already existing process, then consumers will react,

irrespective of the legalities of their actions (in relation to piracy).

And that reaction will often be reverting to a previous process which

will leave companies with less business dollars as a result of negative

consumer reaction.

The late Steve Jobs was a brilliant mind and was able to identify all

this before anyone else had considered it.

Consumers want things to be easy and accessible.

Nothing more.

Nobody wants to mess around anymore.

If it's complicated, then it's not going to work.

It's what the iPod offered music lovers and it's what the iPhone brought

to the smart cell phone sector - simplicity balanced with good design.

What does this all mean for streaming? It means that if consumers

conclude that streaming has become too hard and just not possible on

their internet connection, then they will most likely revert the the

previous process that worked best for them.

Guess what that is? Piracy.

There's many myths and inaccuracies of information when it comes to

piracy.

Most, is spread by the ignorance and intolerance of production studios,

combined with misinformed journalists, who in some cases are tasked with

covering the issue of piracy with no background information or knowledge

on the subject.

Sometimes they are forced by their superiors to put commercial interests

first, to work in favor of production studios and advertising dollars,

ignoring the actual reasons of why users revert to piracy.

When digital media piracy was in its infancy, there was a certain amount

of 'cool factor' attached.

Everyone pirated.

And everyone's friends pirated.

It was just normal, and common language around the issue had become,

'everyone does it'.

It really was the beginning of an irreversible downward spiral which saw

the sale and collecting of traditional music CDs and movie DVDs reduced

to a niche market.

It's just the way it was.

What started out as a casual trend though, actually had real genuine

motivation for change behind it.

It was the very seed of what would soon become an international thirst

for digital media which was more easily portable than traditional

physical formats, which were not exactly considered 'portable'.

Portable cassette and CD players worked for their intended generation,

but were never going to become something that could transition into the

next era of digital media.

When the global transitional was forced into play, by piracy, piracy

itself was not initially a really big problem.

But it was quickly declared a problem by production studios who -

incorrectly - saw no benefit for consumers storing their music and movies

in portable digital formats on digital devices.

Consumers also embraced the sharing culture, which was also quickly

stamped on by the studios who declared their non-compromising position of

opposition to sharing.

Largely, history tells the story.

Consumers ignored the studios and potential legal ramifications, as did

developers of encoding/decoding and file sharing programs and peer-to-

peer networks.

The war continues to this day, between consumers and production studios.

The position of the studios has barely moved.

On the consumer-side, their cause for war has transitioned into a fight

for copyright reform which includes fair-use provisions - a fight that

Freedom Publishers Union is actively embroiled in, along with many other

hordes of digital rights activists.

There was a point in time where piracy was a legitimate problem.

Not quite to the extent that production studios like to exaggerate, but

it was a problem.

It wasn't the act of the majority of those who pirated, it was the

behavior of a few that pirated and distributed en-mass which gave the act

of piracy a bad name for those who pirated for simple means of

entertainment.

Thankfully, technology and accessibility progressed, despite the staunch

argument and immovable position of production studios.

So, who still pirates? Well those who still resort to piracy believe they

have a valid argument to justify their behavior.

One casual consumer Freedom Publishers Union spoke to who lives in

Australia - a country notorious for increased levels of piracy - but

preferred to remain anonymous for fear of being wrongly portrayed as

someone who promotes piracy, justified their actions by explaining why

they still rely on pirated content.

"For me personally, I gave up on streaming a while back due to pathetic,

insufficient and unreliable internet infrastructure in Australia.

With the introduction of NBN [National Broadband Network], things have

gone from bad to absolutely bloody terrible and fucking slow.

Try to watch ABC iView? No chance.

Try Netflix? Forget it.

YouTube is barely tolerable.

I can't even stream the fucking news anymore.

This is not an isolated problem.

It happens across multiple locations, premises, different ISPs and

networks.

These days my Mother and I struggle with video calls without at least

four to five drop outs.

Yep, Australia is that bad.

Everyone is beginning to agree, NBN has fucked up this nation.

My brother is on the fast new NBN network and guess what, slow speeds,

random dropouts and unreliable connection stability.".

The frustration is clear from this consumer by the blunt language used.

It also supports the argument that Australia, as developed as the nation

may be, has lackluster internet infrastructure which has not kept up with

consumer demand and usage habits of the nation.

The angry anonymous consumer continues to complain to us.

"Like I keep saying, times were not just simpler in 1995 but they were a

hell of a lot more productive.

Everything has got too complicated and is burying productivity and along

with it, people's sanity.".

Then, he continues to argue that his actions of piracy are justified.

"Because of all these problems, I still, in 2019, rely on TPB [The Pirate

Bay] for entertainment.

This is also why fair-use provisions are so important to getting put into

Because it's OK for the industry production companies to turn around and

say legal streaming options are now accessible and can eradicate the need

to pirate, but for some of us, particularly in Australia with shit

internet connectivity, simply cannot enjoy those legal streaming options.

Hence, I just go ahead and download an illegal copy and screw away with

streaming.

Problem solved.

Piracy works.

Streaming doesn't.".

This reiterates exactly what Freedom Publishers Union stated earlier in

the article on consumers just wanting things to work.

"Perhaps this is why Australia has traditionally had some of the highest

rates of piracy in the world.

Often, it's not because we want to do it, rather it's a last resort to

accessing a movie for an evening of entertainment.".

The anonymous consumer did indicate a hint of regret at his behavior.

"I wish things were different.

But unfortunately, piracy still reigns in this household.".

In the United States of America, cities have consumer connections ranging

from 100Gb/s teamed fiber optic to 1.5Mb/s DSL running on copper.

According to sources we spoke to who have worked in the industry for many

years, we are told there was less regulation on cable networks build-out

in the 1980s.

Local authorities gave monopolies to cable companies to install

infrastructure, which resulted in most of urban America having high-

bandwidth internet connections to their homes by 2000.

But this was America.

Australia has a high rural to urban ratio which provided a very different

canvas to start from.

Rural consumers in America have been ignored because of natural market

focus on the more profitable cities.

Australia, through legislation, tried to address that as integral to the

[NBN] plan.

Unfortunately this killed both market solutions and, lacking the

technology at the time, made the cost unbearable.

Thanks to market pressure, America got better technology more quickly

than most other areas that weren't smaller.

The cost today in America is that there are entrenched monopolies,

marginal neutrality and political resistance to disruption.

Only a Silicon Valley behemoth, with infinitely deep pockets, can afford

to end-run the technical and political barriers to create new disruptive

technology and business models.

All the years of unfair deployment of internet infrastructure has allowed

the market to seed new companies which may just have the potential

resources and funds that can finally bring the technology to the

undeserved communities in ways where everyone benefits.

5G wireless internet networks may add increased competition to

terrestrial services in urban areas, creating a new 'market rush' to

attract consumers.

The economics argument can be argued dependent on the country of which

the consumer resides.

In Australia, a cable TV subscription with additional monthly

subscription fees for Netflix, Stan, Spotify and iTunes will cost the

consumer considerably, dependent on which combination of tiered services

is chosen.

Whereas in America, the opposite argument is made.

The low-incremental cost of streaming on cable TV, adding a subscription

of Netflix and Amazon Prime to fill in the entertainment gaps make piracy

the expensive option.

We spoke with a second anonymous source who resides in America.

They claim to still pirate their entertainment, but as a hobby rather

than a necessity.

They also claim long-term, it costs them more to keep terabytes of hard

disks full of video files laying around, along with potentially dozens of

external USB disk cases.

Then one needs to consider the productivity loss of managing an extremely

large unorganized collection.

It is suggested that it's more about just doing the opposite of what is

normal.

But the point is explicitly made that despite their pirating habits, they

also have active subscriptions for Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Admittedly, this serves dual purpose as it is also used to showcase what

they may want to pirate.

The Pirate Bay is still sailing the high seas.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] January 11, 2019 | Mel K, Good Luck, and Thank

You

WE REGRETFULLY ANNOUNCE THE DEPARTURE of our good friend of Freedom

Publishers Union, Mohamed Khamlichi, or Mel K as his colleagues know him.

Mel K has been a long time supporter of Freedom Publishers Union and has

been closely associated with its operations since the very beginning and

before we officially went online, working with the now defunct Unixmen.

He has assumed responsibility for several roles - as a supporter,

technical advisor and was the original founder of Tecseek Technology,

which remains our sister technology publication.

Mel K became a part owner of Freedom Publishers Union in February 2018

and has recently decided that now is the time to move on, allowing him to

concentrate on his many other business commitments.

On behalf of everyone at Freedom Publishers Union, we would like to thank

Mel K for his contributions and his long held support for Freedom

Publishers Union.

We are proud of his contributions and there is little doubt that he has

helped shape the organization into what it has become today.

Good luck, and thank you.

-----

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] January 10, 2019 | [OPINION] Russian and

American Rising Aggression, is "Just Theater"

RUSSIA AGAIN FACES INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION for its actions of blocking

ships from navigating through the Ukrainian Azov sea ports.

It is the most recent political crisis in the region which escalated in

December 2018, at a time when tensions were already high between Russia

and Ukraine, and have remained high since Russia annexed the Crimean

Peninsula in the early months of the first half of 2014 which also

resulted in international condemnation.

Russia has always held significant power in Europe.

While it often gets dismissed, it holds significant power in Asia too.

Russia has asserted its power repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet

Union and the international community has done nothing more than condemn

them.

The war against Da'esh in Syria placed American and Russian military

forces into an awkward position where they were forced to mutually work

together, with a common goal of defeating Da'esh.

There has been continued disagreement about what to do about the Assad

regime, but the common goal of the military operations in Syria were

aligned.

The recent decision by US President, Donald Trump, to pull American

forces out of Syria has changed the game, drastically.

Although, there is still some confusion as to the schedule of said

withdrawal and some even expressing skepticism as to the effectiveness of

any withdrawal.

The unexpected decision hit Washington hard, with many of the political

elite expressing their disappointment in what appeared to be an

uncalculated and uninformed decision by the President.

Congress, The White House and even those in the Pentagon were alarmed at

the possible repercussions of what could be the result of a sudden

withdrawal from Syria.

There was concern for American allies and also concern for the

possibility of the creation of another power vacuum if the Americans

withdraw.

Many blame the Americans for the very establishment of Da'esh, which is

said to have come as the result of the power vacuum that was left in Iraq

after the US invasion which saw the toppling of the Saddam Hussein

regime, with no real plan post-regime collapse.

There is fear history could repeat itself in Syria shall the Americans

withdraw without a proper exit strategy and without confidence that

Da'esh has been destroyed to a minority.

While the US President is optimistic that Da'esh has been destroyed, some

military officials and leading academics are much more cautious and less

optimistic than Trump's observations.

With an American withdrawal, it essentially passes the leading operations

into the hands of Russian and Syrian military forces.

America's problem with Russia, is propaganda and posturing.

The Russian political establishment, and America, understand that the

cold war was a great time of prosperity for all.

Both countries would like to return to that period, especially now that

Islamic fundamentalists have largely been brought under control.

Economically, it's better for everyone that Russia and America exchange

insults with each other, keeping the citizens scared and therefore

remaining patriotic.

It is the belief of Freedom Publishers Union that the accusations and

sanctions flying between the Russians and the Americans is just theater,

to keep citizens facing inward instead of getting into real economic

conflicts.

Neither Russia or America wants to pick on China because economically,

there is too much of the economy at stake which could be seriously

disrupted by any serious conflict with China.

The world has other problems just over the horizon that will eventually

distract from the Russian theater show.

European isolationism, a perennially unstable Middle-East which is sure

to be fueled further by increased Saudi Arabian friskiness and an Iranian

recovery.

Some Americans quietly hope that the Saudis turn on the Iranians, which

would effectively save America the need to punish either country, or

both.

Asian hegemony, lead by China - which has been largely the result of

America losing interest in key Asian geopolitical issues - in some

aspects nodes well for Australia but badly for Russia and America.

Russia does appears to be accelerating the development and production of

its military capabilities, while increasing their military preparedness.

Again, all part of the theater show aimed to create tension among the

citizens.

It is an economic move to up employment and generate more sales against

the US arms market.

Saber-rattling is like running adverts - it displays the new technology

with comparisons between competing armies and their 'wares'.

Essentially, it's like Coke vs.

Pepsi - buy from either and you'll get a good deal.

There is a very aggressive arms race occurring among the world's

superpowers which is being fueled by rising global political tensions.

Weapons are becoming increasingly advanced, increasingly deadly, are

capable of creating mass destruction across vast distances, while also

becoming less conventional.

We have entered an era of increased geopolitical tension, with a splash

of award-winning theatrical quality.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Written by Brett Brennan.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] December 14, 2018 | [ANALYSIS] Australia's National

Broadcasters Do Not Compete With, and Do Not Have Negative Impact on

Commercial Media Revenue

THE CRITIQUE THAT QUESTIONS THE political motives of some Australian

politicians that led to the establishment of the Australian "Inquiry into

Competitive Advantage of National Broadcasters" - ABC and SBS - is valid.

The Report was released this week by Australia's Communications Minister,

Mitch Fifield and the Department of Communications and the Arts, and it

outlines some interesting key points which deserve recognition and

genuine commendation.

The motive behind the Report was to scrutinize and determine whether the

country's national broadcasters are taking advantage of their privileged

position of receiving funding by the Australian Government, and to ensure

they are not acting to compete directly with commercial networks which

could have the potential to directly reflect negatively on financial

revenue and audience numbers of commercial networks.

It is evident through the Submissions, made public, by Australia's two

main commercial media giants, News Corp and Fairfax Media (now Nine, as a

result of a recent merger of Fairfax Media and Nine Entertainment), that

there was concern that the online news services delivered by the national

broadcasters was having a direct negative effect on financial revenue and

audience numbers of the commercial networks' mastheads.

According to the opening letter attached inside the Report released to

the public domain, the Report's findings conclude that Australia's

national broadcasters are "operating in a manner consistent with the

general principles of competitive neutrality.".

Simply put, it has been concluded that the ABC and SBS do not have a

competitive advantage and are not abusing their natural funding privilege

to try and give themselves any advantage over commercial networks.

Additionally, there were key recommendations for increased transparency

by both national broadcasters to better demonstrate certain aspects of

their operations and what actions they take to minimize the impact of

their business to commercial networks.

Freedom Publishers Union accepts the conclusion on competitive neutrality

and believes the transparency recommendation is a perfectly acceptable

and fair recommendation.

We commend both decisions by the independent panel.

Further analysis of the Report revealed that important questions were

identified and acknowledged, which refer to the more aggressive

competitive form of business of the SBS.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that the increased competitive nature

of business adopted by the SBS is justified.

We understand the ABC is 100% funded by the Australian Government.

While the SBS only receives a little more than just 70% of its funding by

the Australian Government, with specific legislated allowances permitted

so the network can engage in limited commercial marketing and advertising

to make up the remainder of the necessary funding to keep the national

broadcaster online.

Commercial networks appeared to be leading an allied assault against the

SBS, by attempting to claim that by legislating the SBS network the

freedom to pursue commercial marketing and advertising, it is actually

stealing target audience numbers and advertising revenue away from the

commercial networks' share of business, which they argue they rely on

just to stay online and to continue to produce content for the public

interest.

It is the opinion of Freedom Publishers Union that this is to be a rather

baseless and invalid argument without any accurate representative data to

back up such claims.

Data, which has not been produced to add any credibility to the argument

by the commercial networks alliance.

The Report concurs with the opinion of Freedom Publishers Union, as it

concludes that legislating the SBS network the freedom to pursue

commercial marketing and advertising is justified, necessary and has no

significant negative impact on commercial networks, and the actions by

the SBS are simply the network operating within the constraints of the

SBS charter.

Prior to the commencement of this particular inquiry, it was open for

public Submission.

Freedom Publishers Union Senior Management made the decision to not make

a public Submission to this inquiry, as they stated at the time, they

were confident that it was not necessary and it would not add any public

interest value to our already strong public advocacy for the public

broadcasting sector of the media.

Senior Management were equally confident that no operations by the ABC or

SBS networks could be determined as acting outside of the boundaries of

their respective charters and be of any significant threat to commercial

networks' existing business models.

Freedom Publishers Union have a proud history of advocating for a strong,

healthy and well funded public broadcasting sector.

More so, our argument of support and necessity for public broadcasting

existence is applicable to Australia.

This is reflected by the multiples of Press Statements and Editorials

that we have published, that share this message.

As an independent media organization continuing to push for exposure and

credibility, and fight for press freedom and justice, among the busy

global media behemoths, we have the advantage which allows us to continue

to operate and publish without the pressures of constantly impressing

shareholders and having to increasingly find ways to curb costs and

increase profits.

Freedom Publishers Union and our parent company, GC Media Publishing

Management, like all businesses, still has challenges.

We do have costs and it is the responsibility of our administrators to

always ensure our small operating budget - dependent on philanthropic

donations and supporter generosity - meets our operating costs.

However, it is our ultimate goal and commitment to continue to operate in

accordance with our publishing principles.

We do not seek profit and we do not seek to compete.

Freedom Publishers Union has previously been very harsh towards

commercial networks and their content.

But we do accept that there is a place in the media ecosystem for both

commercial networks and national broadcasters.

And there is room for independent media too.

And that means entities just like us! We must all operate in harmony -

together.

The focus must shift off massive profits and flooding readers with

advertising in a bid to get a few extra bucks from the reader.

It is proving to be a very thin source of media revenue anyway.

Freedom Publishers Union's own research data shows a majority of readers

rely on ad-blocking software to block ads from websites.

We must foster greater quality journalism, accompanied by an open media

which is free from all forms of censorship.

Largely, it is exactly what has been occurring to date.

At least on behalf of the two Australian national broadcasters.

This is reflected in the very conclusion and findings detailed inside the

Report.

Commercial networks must stop using the national broadcasters as

scapegoats and stop abusing their commercial positions to intimidate the

ABC and SBS by blaming them for the financial difficulties and challenges

everyone in the entire media industry, around the world, continues to

face.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to stand by public broadcasting and

will continue to reiterate their importance.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

December 9, 2018 | Fedora 29 Review

WE HAD A HARD TIME with Fedora 28 (F28).

We experienced lots of problems during installation.

Once we did get a working instance, we were quite unimpressed by the

final result that made up the system.

At the time we suggested people either install Ubuntu or wait for Fedora

29 (F29).

Was F29 worth the wait? Not really.

But as you will read soon, there's more to celebrate with the release of

F29.

We are very late to review F29.

To be honest, we didn't bother allocating much office or technical

resources to it.

Usually we would outsource some of the testing and be provided a report

and other useful feedback.

We kept things very simple this time by retaining all testing and

reviewing in-house.

Not only is this reflected by the delay in publication, but it's also

reflected in the very shallowness of this review.

Where we would usually dig deep into the Linux kernel running the system

and report on various software versions included, we have not bothered

for this one.

Our experience with F29 was intentionally kept basic, and brief.

We were provided with the F29 Release Notes before the actual

installation media package got dumped on us.

After going over the Release Notes in detail, we had a hunch that F29

would be as lackluster as F28.

Our hunch turned out to be right.

F29 installed just fine and the problems we experienced with F28 appeared

to have all been resolved.

We started by booting the default media which includes GNOME Shell

desktop environment.

We gave it a decent run through.

Our package arrived with two additional installation mediums, which

included the XFCE and LXDE Spins.

We unleashed the Spins on the same desktop and allowed them to shine.

We are quite fed up with GNOME Shell around here and the decision was

unanimous.

We all agreed that after playing around with F29, that if anyone is

considering installing F29 then its best to consider one of the Spins.

They offer a much lighter and more enjoyable desktop experience.

While the LXDE Spin probably wouldn't be what we'd conclude as the 'best'

choice of desktop environment, it was still better than GNOME Shell.

If we were pressed to make a choice, we'd have to recommend the XFCE

release.

It's superb for the reasons of the inclusion of XFCE, not because of

anything specific to the F29 release.

F29 is not too bad on its face value and performed just fine for us.

But we have to admit, it's quite bland and doesn't offer any kind of

value to the user.

We feel that the Fedora Project has lost its way.

It has no soul and does not appear to know what it stands for anymore or

what it is trying to offer the user.

The Fedora Project is funded and supported by Red Hat.

Now that IBM is currently in the process of gobbling up everything Red

Hat, we are unsure how this will affect the Fedora Project and its

funding and development future.

We're optimistic that it will survive the acquisition, continue to be

funded under IBM and things will travel along business as usual.

Fedora Linux has always been a bit of a testing ground for new technology

and we really don't see this changing under IBM.

But we can no longer deny that it feels like it has become tired and

needs something to reinvigorate its development and brand image, or so we

thought on the latter.

This will not happen overnight and may take a few more releases to get

some kind of momentum happening.

But it has become very clear that something has to change.

At least, in our view anyway.

For the Fedora loyalists, your product is there.

For others who take Linux serious, we just have more reasons to recommend

you look at other options rather than give any real consideration to

installing F29.

Sorry, but it's just the reality of the game.

Originally, we were going to leave our review right here.

Halt system, turn off computer, close door, go home.

Done.

But we somehow felt that it would be a little unfair to the Fedora

Project, which although is pushing out some pretty average releases at

the moment, is a respected veteran of the Linux market.

There's a lot of good people that work there and many of them put in

countless amounts of hours, just to keep pushing forward the open-source

agenda.

So in a bid to tone down our rhetoric a little, we want to close the

review by adding some additional notes on F29 and the Fedora Project as a

whole.

F29 marks the project's 15th year, since the announcement of Fedora Core

1 (FC1), which was let loose into the wild in 2003.

FC1 was released with Linux kernel 2.4.22 and GNOME 2.4 included and

under the code-name of "Yarrow".

F29 was released with Linux kernel 4.18 and GNOME Shell 3.30.

Oh how far things have come! Improvements have been made to the Linux

kernel, but you could argue whether the changes to the GNOME desktop and

its transition into GNOME Shell have been beneficial or not.

We would argue against the case and can reminisce of the simplistic days

of GNOME 2.x.

Thankfully, many agreed and it survives today as a forked project called

MATE Desktop and is still actively developed and maintained.

We have some Linux veterans here in the office at Tecseek Technology,

which is shared with Freedom Publishers Union.

While nobody here remembers the early release of FC1, we have one veteran

who remembers when he started using Fedora Core 5.

He also remembers when the transition from Fedora Core 6 to Fedora 7 was

made.

It was a significant milestone which came as a result of the merging of

the Red Hat 'Core' and Community 'Extras' repositories, hence the

dropping of "Core" from the official Fedora title of releases from

version 7+.

He even accurately recalled the code-name of Fedora 7, "Moonshine.

At first everyone in the Linux community was a little confused as to the

reason for the dropping of 'Core' from the name of this release and ones

that would follow.

It was left up to the community of users to have to explain it to the new

adopters.

Ah yes, there was plenty of confusion.

I remember clearly.".

To spice things up, we decided to break out a copy of FC1 and boot into

Oracle VM VirtualBox.

It instantly created a nostalgic buzz around the office with plenty of

commentary to follow.

While a graphical installation mode was available, the text installer was

our preferred method.

"There was no Live CD mode for these early Linux releases.

Live CD mode wouldn't become mainstream until a little later.".

We had some fun and installed FC1 into a virtual machine.

It did require a little ingenuity to get things working, due to

technology changes that have occurred since the days that FC1 was

developed, but we were running with a successfully installed system

within a very short period of time.

The observation comments kept flowing, "The biggest shock was remembering

the requirement of two installation CDs just to get a simple default

system installed.

We had forgot too that you actually had to have a bit of technical

understanding of systems and their hardware to install these early Linux

operating systems.

It was not that difficult, really.

But you did have to pay more attention than the installers we have today,

which for 90% of the installation process, is automated.".

There was such a buzz surrounding our FC1 installation experiment, that

conversation had quickly grown into calls for the office to host a Linux

installation party or hack-fest.

If one brand of Linux - Fedora - has the potential to spawn such a buzz

and positive vibe followed by calls for Linux hack-fests to be hosted,

then that in itself says something about the vibe that has emanated from

the Fedora Project and attached itself to the Linux community.

It's a good sign and we really love to see Linux users getting back to

their roots, sharing their experiences and planning Linux hack-fests.

It goes to the very core of what binds the open-source community together

- Linux, excessive amounts of Red Bull and hacking.

Flash back forward (does that make sense?) to the latest release and you

only have to ask the Fedora Project Leader to understand just how much

the project has achieved in 15 years.

In a release announcement for F29, Project Lead Matthew Miller elaborates

on the achievements and success they've made upon "announcing the release

of Fedora 29.

Now not just Core, but Workstation, Server, Atomic Host, a whole

collection of desktop Spins and special-purpose Labs, images for Cloud

and ARM devices, versions for Power and S390 and more.".

While Tecseek Technology respectfully disagrees with Matthew's assessment

of F29 as he proudly attempts to sell it, "This is, yet again, the best

Fedora operating system release ever.", the project has achieved lots and

reading the long list of development success the project has had, they do

have a lot to be proud of.

Not content with allowing the project to sit idle, development kicks

along behind the scenes as Matthew outlines some plans for the immediate

future, "Over the next six months Fedora CoreOS will replace Atomic Host

as our container-focused Edition, and we expect to officially add our

Internet of Things [IoT] Edition for Fedora 30.

And, keep an eye on Fedora Silverblue.

It uses the same technologies we're using for CoreOS and IoT to make a

consistent, container focused desktop environment.".

While it's difficult to pin a specific and accurate number of actual

users for any particular Linux distribution, due to the open nature of

the platform, according to estimates from the Fedora Project, the number

of Fedora Linux users is well over one million and possibly up to one and

a half million users.

In fact, it is well documented that at one point the Linux creator

himself, Linus Torvalds, was a user of Fedora Linux.

Although, it is not uncommon for Linux users to hop between

distributions, or 'distro hop', as the term is commonly used.

And it happens on a regular basis for some.

So we have no reason to believe that Torvalds wouldn't do the same if a

different distribution offered him a better working experience.

Tecseek Technology have no way to confirm whether Torvalds still uses

Fedora Linux as his primary Linux distribution.

However, referencing public comments he has made towards some of the

installation complexities of Debian which he just deems a waste of his

time, and Ubuntu which he has also publicly criticized to a lesser

extent, it is very likely he still uses Fedora Linux.

Tecseek Technology would like to say well done to all those who have

contributed to the Fedora Project over the past 15 years.

It's quite a feat and we can't take anything away from what the entire

project has achieved and wish the project and its developers nothing but

the best of luck for the future.

Happy hacking!

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] December 7, 2018 | [ANALYSIS] Could the 'Five Eyes'

Agreement Survive without America Continuing to Pull the Strings?

WITH INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CONSTANTLY FEELING like they are growing

further apart and becoming less politically stable, the 'Five Eyes'

intelligence partnership - enjoyed by the United States of America,

Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - feels like it's bonding

closer together, to seal what appears to be one of the single greatest

counter-intelligence threats to China.

With such a signaled push back from the free world, it should not come as

a surprise that China feels increasingly threatened.

Mumbai Press Center previously published a story which highlighted

Australia's ban on Chinese technology company, Huawei, contributing

crucial telecommunications networking equipment on the nation's 5G

cellular network.

While our highlight of the ban was not the central focus of the story we

published, we did make a passing suggestion that China may possibly be

responding to the Australian ban by enforcing stronger censorship of

Australian operated websites.

However, we admitted that although it's was a possibility, we did not

believe that the evidence is present to backup such a claim.

Several months before the aforementioned story went to press, our sister

press office in the US, Salt Lake City News, published a story which

focused on the Huawei issue a little better.

The story was published before the Huawei ban was applied by the

Australians and implied that if Australia were to apply a ban to Huawei,

then it would be simply because of US political persuasion and elbow

nudging.

But again, no evidence was available to make the claim definitive.

Now, we get to poor little New Zealand.

It might be a small country, but it holds a large amount of geopolitical

influence through its association with the 'Five Eyes'.

New Zealand particularly asserts a significant amount of influence over

many of the Pacific Islands.

Without this influence, let's face it, New Zealand wouldn't be very

useful to the US as an ally or as part of the 'Five Eyes'.

But the reality remains, that it is important.

But what remains quite unclear is the reason why New Zealand has also

banned Huawei telecommunications networking equipment.

Australia and New Zealand share an extremely close political and military

alliance, which extends to the US.

To some degree, on a two-country basis, if you screw with Australia,

you're effectively screwing with New Zealand too.

There are some major political differences present between the two

countries.

But on the global stage of regional security, the two are about as tight

as two foreign countries could be.

Nobody doubts the necessity of the strong alliance between the two

nations.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that Australia implemented a ban on

Huawei for very different reasons than what has been claimed.

We believe that the Australian's have unquestionably believed the

unproven Chinese-spying rhetoric of the US and banned Huawei because US

intelligence advice advised them to do so.

Or, ordered them to do so, to be more accurate.

New Zealand has now implemented a ban, for what could be one of two

reasons.

It is very likely that New Zealand is following the lead of Australia

simply to maintain good relations for the sake of their alliance.

Or, the other, and more likely reason, could be that New Zealand were

acting on the same American advice that the Australians perhaps may have

succumbed to.

It raises the question - Is the United States of America pulling the

strings of the 'Five Eyes' to advance their own political interests?

Freedom Publishers Union have expressed skepticism towards the official

reasons given, for one simple reason, and one simple reason alone -

countries that implement bans on Huawei (or any other Chinese owned

technology company) are doing so without presenting any kind of evidence

which justifies the ban.

We have seen nothing that actually backs up the suggestions that the

Chinese are using their technology exports to spy on foreign countries

and political rivals.

The most common sense approach to dealing with potential Huawei spying

has been taken by the British.

Nobody can dispute that Huawei has been quite reasonable in their

response.

The company has made numerous offers to collaborate with governments and

their security agencies to demonstrate the level of security of Huawei's

technology.

This is a direct move to prove that their technology has not been

programmed to spy.

Huawei has always been open, inviting and transparent, from our

determination.

At least they have been more transparent than most of the governments of

the 'Five Eyes'.

We understand the British accepted the offer from Huawei and set up a

security analysis program inside British borders, where security analysts

from the British government and its intelligence agencies can work

directly with Huawei technicians and engineers, to better understand and

harness the security of its technology.

At the moment, it appears the arrangement is working and Britain have not

publicly expressed any major concerns over the security of Huawei's

hardware.

Freedom Publishers Union understands a similar offer was made to

Australia, but the Australians rejected all offers.

Unable to confirm, we can only speculate the same offer was extended to

New Zealand.

If it were, obviously, it has been rejected by the New Zealanders too.

It is very complex and there is a lot of claims by different governments

being made against China, which specifically take aim at Huawei and to a

smaller degree, ZTE.

The claims are direct claims of illegal foreign spying.

Some of the claims can be dismissed as international paranoia against

China.

The same paranoia has been applied to Russia for decades and still

exists.

But the claims must be taken serious yet remain open to criticism.

We can no longer simply take the words of the governments of the free

world and their minions.

As democratic and free as the West's political foundations may be, it's

not a free ticket to simply expect nor demand that citizens always accept

what they are being told, irrespective of how much freedom they are given

as a result of the democracy the West enjoys.

It's pretty clear what is going on here.

The Americans have a large amount of global influence.

Actually, they have a massive amount of global influence.

Some people believe they have too much and should not try and behave like

the world's police.

That role should not be a self-appointed right, which appears to be what

the Americans have done and expect everyone else to concur.

America has become scared about the potential of international political

abandonment.

Largely, this is the result of the unorthodox behavior of its President,

Donald Trump.

But whatever the reason, the Americans are trying to hold on with a very

firm grip whatever alliances and agreements they have.

The Americans have allies in crucial regions of the world which you can

legitimately question the sincerity of genuine American interest, and

whether these allies share the same freedoms and values as the West.

Because let's be honest about this, Saudi Arabia and Israel do not share

the same freedoms and values as the West in terms of democracy and

respect to civil rights.

However, in terms in international geo-politics, their alliance with the

Americans is crucial.

At least that's what the American's believe.

Questions over the sincerity of political alliances are not limited to

just Saudi Arabia and Israel.

There are many American allies of questionable value that have shocking

human rights records.

Some of which match the shocking record of the Chinese.

Yet the Americans have the political gall to single out and accuse China

of human rights abuse, when some of its allies are of equal reputation.

Possibly worse.

The accusations of human rights abuse against China are completely

justified.

But they should not be singled out as the 'only' culprit.

The best asset the Americans can gamble on to retain their ultimate grip

on world power appears to be the 'Five Eyes'.

It is safe to assume that all five nations which make up the intelligence

sharing agreement, share the same basic political values and freedoms.

However, the four non-US nations must be clear in asserting their own

political will and not cower to the Americans at their demand.

Because right now, to the outside world, it's looking like a case of the

US declaring that, 'If you want our continued assistance and support,

then do what we say and don't question our authority.' At present, the

four non-US nations are doing exactly what the Americans demand of them.

Whether this can continue in the decades ahead as the US rivalry with

China deepens and the hostilities deteriorate, is the million dollar

question.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from CAPE TOWN] November 1, 2018 | [OPINION] Drawing a Definitive

Conclusion on the Case of Jamal Khashoggi Without Evidence

I AM THE LATEST IN a series of new appointments to Freedom Publishers

Union.

I am carrying the responsibility that comes with holding the title of

Editor-at-large.

To get started in my role, I wanted to grab the attention of the readers

of this fine digital publication by clarifying the position, or lack

thereof, that this publication has taken on the curious case of the

alleged murder of journalist and outspoken critic of the Saudi regime,

Jamal Khashoggi.

On October 18, Freedom Publishers Union did release an official statement

which did actually express a reasonable amount of concern surrounding the

case of Khashoggi.

The main element of focus of the statement at the time it was released

was "press freedom".

I feel the position that this publication takes on the case was not made

entirely clear through this statement and has drawn me to publish this

editorial today.

It is widely accepted, yet unproven, that Khashoggi was murdered inside

the Saudi Arabian Embassy in the city of Istanbul, Turkey.

The story has never been the problem.

The accuracy of details is the problem.

What is "widely accepted" can not necessarily be concluded as the truth.

But that does not make it untrue.

Freedom Publishers Union has an extremely tight editorial policy.

It does limit the flexibility of the publications that we can push out to

the public, but it goes to ensure that publications are almost guaranteed

in their accuracy.

The general consensus from the majority of staff involved with Freedom

Publishers Union on the case of Khashoggi is that he was murdered inside

the embassy, his body then dismembered and disposed of by the orders of

senior members of the Saudi regime.

But I must stress that this is by no means conclusive and cannot be

assumed as a final position taken by this publication.

It is simply informed opinion.

Even the term "informed" must be used quite loosely.

We are open to the core problem of lack of evidence released to the

public which can lead anyone to make a final conclusion.

Whether evidence exists, is unknown.

Some are becoming skeptical.

We do not make judgment as to its existence.

But until evidence does present itself and is verifiable, we can only

speculate.

And speculation is not a popular term commonly associated with Freedom

Publishers Union and is somewhat frowned upon by the editors.

However, I felt that the continued silence by Freedom Publishers Union on

the case of Jamal Khashoggi was deafening.

Although the accepted consensus remains purely based on speculation, as

Editor-at-large, it was important I inform the readers of this

publication that this is a case that we are all paying attention to and

like most credible media organizations, seek the truth through evidence

and facts that can be independently verified.

Because that is what we do.

-----

South African Press Office - The South Rover

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] October 28, 2018 | [ANALYSIS] Bruce Schneier Warns

Against Allowing Bypassing of Encryption

FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION HAS ALREADY expressed our position on

Australia's proposed legislation which attempts to make legal the seeking

of technical assistance from technology companies, in a bid to gain

access to encrypted information.

Last month, the issue grabbed the attention of computer security expert,

Bruce Schneier.

In an email, brought to the attention of Freedom Publishers Union,

Schneier targets his criticism specifically towards the Statement

released by Australia's Department of Home Affairs, on behalf of the

'Five Eyes' nations, titled "Statement of Principles on Access to

Evidence and Encryption".

He criticizes its focus on the purported needs for surveillance and the

Five Eyes' claim of how it outweighs everyone's needs for security and

privacy.

In the email, Schneier says the focus of the 'Five Eyes' is "reckless and

shortsighted".

Schneier reminds that he has previously outlined why the measures

proposed in the Australian example are not good, by using the FBI as his

example.

Back in 2016, Schneier said, "If the FBI can eavesdrop on your text

messages or get at your computer's hard drive [data], so can other

governments.

So can criminals.

So can terrorists.

This is not theoretical.

Again and again, backdoor accesses built for one purpose have been

surreptitiously used for another.".

Schneier indicates that is what the Australian Government is attempting

to do, by trying to work with Silicon Valley by persuasion to gain access

to encrypted information, which he says always "results in insecurity".

Schneier believes that a focus on "defense" would be much more effective.

He says that "we need to decide, as nations and as society, to put

defense first.

We need a defense dominant strategy for securing the internet and

everything attached to it.

This is important.

Our national security depends on the security of our technologies.

Demanding that technology companies add backdoors to computers and

communications systems puts us all at risk.".

This is a common argument made by many computer security experts and can

be simplified in just a few words - Enabling the bypassing of security

for a few is compromising security for all.

Bruce Schneier provides an extract from his latest book, "Click Here to

Kill Everybody", which he believes explains it well:

"There is simply no way to secure US networks while at the same time

leaving foreign networks open to eavesdropping and attack.

There's no way to secure our phones and computers from criminals and

terrorists without also securing the phones and computers of those

criminals and terrorists.

On the generalized worldwide network that is the Internet, anything we do

to secure its hardware and software secures it everywhere in the world.

And everything we do to keep it insecure similarly affects the entire

world.

This leaves us with a choice: either we secure our stuff, and as a side

effect also secure their stuff; or we keep their stuff vulnerable, and as

a side effect keep our own stuff vulnerable.

It's actually not a hard choice.

An analogy might bring this point home.

Imagine that every house could be opened with a master key, and this was

known to the criminals.

Fixing those locks would also mean that criminals' safe houses would be

more secure, but it's pretty clear that this downside would be worth the

trade-off of protecting everyone's house.

With the Internet+ increasing the risks from insecurity dramatically, the

choice is even more obvious.

We must secure the information systems used by our elected officials, our

critical infrastructure providers, and our businesses.

Yes, increasing our security will make it harder for us to eavesdrop, and

attack, our enemies in cyberspace.

(It won't make it impossible for law enforcement to solve crimes; I'll

get to that later in this chapter.) Regardless, it's worth it.

If we are ever going to secure the Internet+, we need to prioritize

defense over offense in all of its aspects.

We've got more to lose through our Internet+ vulnerabilities than our

adversaries do, and more to gain through Internet+ security.

We need to recognize that the security benefits of a secure Internet+

greatly outweigh the security benefits of a vulnerable one."

Those in the camps at Silicon Valley have expressed varying levels of

concern of the proposed legislation from Australia.

Apple revisited the aforementioned argument that the overall security of

"millions of law-abiding customers" is compromised "in order to

investigate the very few who pose a threat".

And one of the most recent to speak out is networking giant Cisco, who

said that if the legislation is passed in its current form without

appropriate amendments, it could "harm the security interests of

Australia by setting a precedent that could be adopted by less liberal

regimes".

But it is not only less liberal regimes that could follow the Australian

example.

There is genuine valid concern that the Australian push for such invasive

power is setting a precedent which will undoubtedly see the other 'Five

Eyes' partner nations follow suit and further enhancing the already

invasive mass-surveillance mechanisms which are already much too big and

complex, and operate with very deliberate little effective oversight.

Moscow Press decided to question the official position taken by Freedom

Publishers Union and sought comment from the Public Relations Department.

They referred Moscow Press to a letter written by them on October 8,

2018, addressed to the Minister of Home Affairs.

"Freedom Publishers Union is satisfied that the legislation is not

forcing implementation of backdoors or breaking encryption.

However, it fails to clearly define how it is expected technology

companies can assist Australian law enforcement authorities and meet the

requirements of the legislation without such methods of backdoors or

encryption manipulation.".

However, they state, "In its current form, Freedom Publishers Union

cannot support the proposed legislation." This is suggestive that the

legislation could possibly be supported by Freedom Publishers Union if it

were amended to better clarify the finer details which they deem are much

too broad.

Collectively taking into consideration all of the concerns raised, there

are some outstanding which should be addressed before the Australian

Government attempts to force the legislation through its Parliament.

But this might now prove more difficult because as we go to press, we

understand that the Liberal Government will lose its majority in the

House of Representatives.

This was the result of a recent by-election which came about when the

former ousted Prime Minister quit the Parliament, which triggered the

crucial by-election.

At the polls, the Liberal Party was effectively punished and an

Independent Candidate looks set to be formally elected into the seat,

which will see the Liberal Party lose its majority in the House.

Therefore, getting the aforementioned legislation through in its current

form may now prove more difficult.

However, Moscow Press do not completely understand to what degree the

opposition Labor Party supports or opposes the proposed legislation.

Our political sources tell us that the opposition has become notorious

for supporting any legislation that is marketed as being drafted for

reasons of national security.

Even if the legislation is bad.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

October 18, 2018 | [EXCLUSIVE] Ubuntu 18.10 (Cosmic Cuttlefish) Review

TALK HAS BEEN QUITE HUSHED surrounding the upcoming release of Ubuntu

18.10 (Cosmic Cuttlefish).

Not because it is bad.

In fact, there's nothing negative about it.

But we'll get to that soon.

Rather, we believe there are two reasons why there has been minimal hype.

First, the release earlier in the year of 18.04 (which has since been

updated to 18.04.1) was just so damn good, any update following it would

have a hard time surpassing its benchmark.

Second, it's the stark reality that 18.10 really doesn't bringing

anything to the table that we don't already enjoy.

Still, we think its worth taking a peek at.

Tecseek Technology were treated with something really special.

We were provided a special advanced copy of the final 18.10 build for

testing ourselves.

We also picked the brains of the good folks at Quadrant Computing who

have been working hard pulling apart the development builds of 18.10.

While they tell us that the final build is very stable, this was not the

case with some of the development builds they messed around with.

We mention this specifically, because throughout the entire development

process of 18.04, all builds were well performing and very little in the

way of obvious bugs made their way into working builds.

According to Quadrant Computing, 18.10 did have some early bugs.

They noted some problems with wireless network connectivity that

prevented them from connecting to the network without switching Wi-Fi off

and then back on again.

They tell us that this problem was not present in the final build.

Tecseek Technology can confirm that we didn't experience any problem

either.

We assume whatever was causing that niggle has been resolved.

Quadrant Computing remind us that these types of things are all just part

of the development process and is the very reason so much testing,

updating, fixing and rebuilding is done before pushing build points out

to the public.

It's the final build that matters most.

So naturally, it's only fitting that this is what Tecseek Technology will

draw our conclusion on.

18.10 comes with GNOME Shell 3.30.1 and runs a Linux 4.18-10 kernel.

While Bash and APT don't get any real love in the form of updates,

developers will be pleased with code compilers receiving some notable

revisions.

Firefox is the very latest build too, with version 63.0 making its way

into the final build.

Underneath the hood are some pretty nerdy algorithm changes which won't

make any sense to the average user without a mathematics college degree.

Basically, the changes are supposed to improve compression of key

components of the boot process.

We're sure going to welcome any changes such as this, but we will have to

take the word from the team at Quadrant Computing that the boot process

was improved by the algorithm changes.

In our own testing, while there may have been a slight increase in boot

times, it is negligible at that.

The major standout is the brand new desktop theme and icons.

They look fantastic.

They are bright, vibrant, welcoming and really are the first thing that

draws a reaction upon first boot.

The wallpaper itself is slightly boring though.

Some Ubuntu evangelists make a really big deal of the default Ubuntu

wallpaper.

Some, going to the extreme level of throwing parties to unveil the new

wallpaper when it is first released during the development phase of each

release.

In the Tecseek Technology office, you will be hard pressed to find anyone

here that gets too excited about it.

Most of us find them slightly boring and swaying on the side of

repetitive.

We opted to change it.

The selection of alternative wallpapers included is not great, but there

is a gentle offering which will please most Moms and Dads.

For the hardcore type, you will probably have your own prepared anyway.

Speaking of wallpapers, if you want a really cool desktop with a much

better default wallpaper, then try out the XFCE offering of Ubuntu 18.10.

Its default wallpaper is awesome! Along with the final build of Ubuntu

18.10 provided to us by Quadrant Computing, we were also supplied with a

development build of Xubuntu 18.10.

It includes the XFCE desktop and runs much faster than the vanilla

version of Ubuntu which comes bogged down with GNOME Shell.

We are split.

We do like the innovative approach to the desktop which has been adopted

by GNOME Shell.

However, we kind of miss the good old days of a fast snappy system.

We are very grateful that it is still possible to achieve this, largely

thanks to traditional desktop environments like XFCE and MATE.

Back when we used to run Windows 2000 and XP combined with some decent

hardware, the desktop was fast and reacted quicker than your own

reflexes.

Now, when using Ubuntu and GNOME Shell it does more often than not feel

like we are sitting back waiting for the desktop to process the requests

and to catch up to the user.

It's a waste of time and productivity and just unnecessarily annoying.

Despite all the advances in technology and increased processing

capabilities on the desktop computer, its being held back by the lagging

performance of GNOME Shell.

XFCE restores this lost confidence.

We have not really thought about this too much, but we reckon that XFCE

should seriously be considered as the default desktop for future versions

of Ubuntu.

We are leading in the direction of dropping GNOME Shell in favor of

returning to something much more capable than what GNOME Shell is able to

achieve.

We are glad that 18.10 maintains X server instead of trying to (still)

force Wayland on us as it does help maintain better performance in GNOME

Shell, at the moment.

But Shell does somehow feel limited and doesn't ever appear to get any

lighter or effectively quicker as development moves along.

We have taken quite a philosophical approach to this Review and this

issue specifically.

Again, we are not too sure how deep we feel about it yet and it remains

nothing more than a thought bubble at this stage.

But we believe that it is definitely something that does require more

discussion among developers and those who make the important decisions

for the future direction of Ubuntu as a Linux distribution.

We are not going to roll through and list all of the software

applications included in 18.10.

You know what's included already because its much the same as its

predecessors.

The only addition we found was the inclusion of GParted.

GNOME Disks is already included and has been the default disk manager for

a while.

Personally, we have never liked GNOME Disks and have always found its

behavior temperamental to the point it almost treats the user like an

idiot.

For advanced disk and partition management, it just doesn't stack up.

GParted has always been the bigger much more capable brother package and

we are glad to see it included by default.

While GNOME Disks might format your shiny new USB drive just fine, don't

even bother trying to get it to handle any serious kind of disk

management.

Take advantage of GParted instead.

So it's time to wrap things up and draw a conclusion.

If you already have 18.04.1 installed, we suggest you stick with it and

keep it updated for as long as support is provided.

It's a good release and as much as we enjoyed our time poking around the

gorgeous new environment that makes up 18.10, there's nothing in there

that you are going to miss if you don't update just yet.

If you really get desperate and want the new theme and icons, then if you

poke around hard enough we're confident you will be able to install the

new theme on an existing 18.04.1 desktop anyway.

However, if you find your hands holding onto a brand new system without

an operating system installed (or Windows 10), then we recommend

installing Ubuntu 18.10.

It would seem ridiculous to install an older version of Ubuntu on a brand

new build when you could instead complement a new build with a new

operating system.

Makes sense, right? Either way, to the user it will not make differene to

be frank.

18.04.1 and 18.10 - the difference between the two is moot.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] October 16, 2018 | [ANALYSIS] Communications Ban

Lifted for Julian Assange, New Editor for Wikileaks and the Future of the

Organization

YESTERDAY, FREEDOM PUBLISHERS UNION WAS contacted by representatives of

the activist group, WikiLeaks Connected, which is under the operations of

the Allied Advocacy Alliance, advising us that Julian Assange has had his

communications and visitation rights restored inside the Ecuadorian

Embassy.

It is important to make the clarification that WikiLeaks Connected is not

officially associated with or endorsed by Wikileaks.

WikiLeaks Connected has confirmed to Freedom Publishers Union that Mr.

Assange has internet and cell phone access.

Additionally, visits to Mr. Assange at the Embassy have also been

restored.

Whereas previously, under the restriction he had been placed under,

visits were limited to those who are Mr. Assange's legal representatives.

Also, Mr. Assange has appointed Kristinn Hrafnsson as the organization's

Editor-in-Chief.

On its Twitter profile, Wikileaks states, "ANNOUNCEMENT: Assange appoints

Hrafnsson Editor-in-Chief after six months of effective incommunicado

detention, remains publisher.".

The primary responsibility of Editor has previously been held by Mr.

Assange himself.

Mr. Hrafnsson is a long-time supported and member of Wikileaks and has

previously held the position of Spokesperson following the ugly

suspension and departure of Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Mr. Hrafnsson commended the decision to lift Mr. Assange's communications

restrictions, however he still expressed some reservations.

He says, "It is positive that through UN intervention Ecuador has partly

ended the isolation of Mr. Assange although it is of grave concern that

his freedom to express his opinions is still limited.".

Although the latest news of Mr. Assange's communications being restored

is welcome, it does not resolve the ongoing political stalemate which

sees Mr.

Assange still holed up and effectively detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy

in London, by UK authorities who have explicitly and definitively stated

he will be arrested if he exits the premises.

But at the very least, it does restore one very small aspect of the civil

liberties of Mr. Assange and allowing him to re-establish previous

connections that may have been lost as a result of the communications

cut-off.

Mr. Hrafnsson continues, "The UN has already declared Mr. Assange a

victim of arbitrary detention.

This unacceptable situation must end.".

We asked WikiLeaks Connected for their views of the latest news and what

it means for the organization and the situation of Mr. Assange.

A representative from WikiLeaks Connected responded with the following

statement, "The latest developments are positive news, which does not

happen much, unfortunately.

However, it must remain in perspective.

It does not at all change the fact that the UK continue to detain Julian

Assange, despite the verdict that the arbitrary detention is declared

illegal by the United Nations.

It continues to disturb everyone involved with WikiLeaks Connected that

the international community sit back and continue to allow this to happen

to a man that has never been charged with a crime.

It's quite astonishing.".

Mr. Hrafnsson concludes by elaborating that the "UK Government must abide

by the UN's ruling and guarantee that he can leave the Ecuadorian Embassy

without the threat of extradition to the United States.".

The comments of WikiLeaks Connected and Kristinn Hrafnsson are echoed by

others too.

Long time supporter, advocate and campaigner for Wikileaks and Julian

Assange, and former Editor of Freedom Publishers Union who is now a

Member of The Greens political party in Australia, Chris McGimpsey-Jones,

says, "It is an interesting development.

To be honest, I only became aware of the news this morning [October 15,

2018] and am still trying to make sense of it all.

For starters, the restoring of Julian's communications is way overdue.

Access to communications is a core pillar of civil liberties and in the

digital era, basically a human right.

The situation which sees Julian detained inside an international embassy

is bad enough.

But stripping him of further rights to access to communications was

outrageous.".

And when we pressed Chris on his opinion of the appointment of Kristinn

Hrafnsson as new Editor of Wikileaks he said, "That is equally

interesting in a sense that it he was the previous Spokesperson.

When he left, it was thought his relationship with Julian and Wikileaks

had deteriorated significantly.

However, this changes that belief and tells me that the relationship did

not deteriorate as many first thought.

In fact, it seems quite the opposite.

It is very likely that the working relationship between Julian and

Kristinn never changed.

Perhaps he was working in the background for Wikileaks but never publicly

spoke about it.

I have no idea.

But I hold the personal belief that more is yet to unfold.".

Sub-Editor of Freedom Publishers Union, Brett Brennan, took a

distinctively different perspective on the situation, "This may be the

best thing for Julian, as it removes him from the direct spotlight.

Maybe he really is going to hammer out a deal to get out but avoid

American extradition.".

Brett continues, "I'm still keeping my long-shot bet that if he [Julian]

gets to America, Trump will pardon him for his role in undercutting

Clinton.".

Then, interestingly, Brett continues to analyze and, to some degree,

scrutinize the current relevance of Wikileaks in the current media

landscape.

He assesses, "Wikileaks has become a footnote to contemporary history.

They were an important idea for a while, but the partisan bias [of Julian

Assange] over Clinton has tainted them.

That, and Wikileaks hasn't had any great reveals in quite a while.

I think that the drama has spooked sources.

Or, with all the alt-news and blogs, Wikileaks is just irrelevant.".

Brett concludes by posing the rhetorical question, "Why should we trust

Wikileaks any more than Alex Jones?".

And then ends with a rather disturbing statement, "I think the time of

Wikileaks is over.".

A chilling proposition.

On the point of the relevance of Wikileaks, Chris offers his own

perspective on this and suggests this could be a temporary set-back for

the organization.

He offers the following additional comments and somewhat concurs with the

latter views expressed by Brett, "I agree, Wikileaks has not really

published anything substantial for a long time.

That's not to suggest the publications Wikileaks have released while

Julian has been detained have had no impact at all.

Because that is simply incorrect.

I just think it has all been hampered by Julian's limitations [of access]

to technology as a result of his detention to the Embassy.

I understand that Julian had sole access to the Wikileaks submission

system for some duration.

So there could very well be something sitting on their servers that is of

significance but has simply not been processed yet.

Maybe, just maybe, that is what is behind the appointment of Kristinn as

Editor.

Sarah Harrison was deeply involved in the background but her involvement

is quite mysterious and not much is known about how deep she is still

involved.

But to the best of my understanding, I know Julian has 100% trust in

Kristinn and it is very likely that the submission system and all server

access will be handed to Kristinn for control.

Whether we will see bigger, better and more effective document dumps in

the future is anyone's guess.

I hope so.".

Freedom Publishers Union certainly hopes so too.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] October 11, 2018 | [ANALYSIS] Orca Whale Population

Suffers, From Decades Old PCB Waste

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL IS PROBABLY MORE commonly known as 'PCB'.

It is a particularly toxic compound (classified as a carcinogenic) which

was once used in manufacturing in a large range of products, most notably

electrical equipment.

Citing estimates from recent research, between 1930-1993, 1-1.5 million

metric tons of PCB was produced.

The USA was notorious for being the world's biggest user of PCBs, with

its share at an estimated 50% of the total global use.

During the 1960s, science identified its toxicity to humans, animals and

the environment.

Tougher regulations and restrictions followed the science into the 1970s

and by the end of the decade, PCBs experienced widespread bans.

The very nature of its toxicity unfortunately enables it to still pose

contamination problems to the environment, the ocean and marine life.

Whales are at risk as PCBs are particularly known to affect their

fertility.

A new science paper which was released last month by Science Magazine,

sent to Freedom Publishers Union, highlights that Orca whales are among

the most "contaminated mammals in the world", as a result of PCBs.

According to the paper, Orca whales show direct effects from PCB

contamination, damaging their immune system and affecting reproduction,

potentially lowering the quality of health in their calves.

This is threatening the long term population viability of more than half

of the Orca whale populations around the globe.

In the paper's opening summary, it predicts that Orca populations over

the next 100 years are at significant risk of a "population collapse".

The paper outlines that studies of the effects of PCB contamination of

Orca whales and its populations in the past, have been limited.

It has been suggested that expense is one major factor, as the methods of

studying the mammals is complicated by their size, natural behaviors and

obvious environmental barriers.

Also, studies usually require blubber samples of a deceased Orca,

creating further study complications.

Therefore, scientific modeling is the most efficient form of study of

this type.

Albeit, results are limited.

The paper claims that more studies of the effects on Orca whale

populations as a result of PCB contamination needs to be done.

The paper states that despite more than 35 years after global PCB bans

took effect, Orca whales still have PCB contamination levels which are

much too high and unacceptable.

It points out where populations once thrived everywhere around the globe

Orca whales are found, only in areas around the Arctic and Antarctica are

now seeing sustained population growth which is suggestive of much better

health of the mammals in these areas.

Freedom Publishers Union sought comment from the Chamber for Biological,

Environmental and Marine Studies, an independent broad focused study

center which operates out of New Zealand, to consider their assessment of

the research into Orca whale PCB contamination.

Representatives told us that according to their assessment of the

research, they believe, "The research is alarming and indicative of

greater and more wide-spread environmental impacts as a result of ongoing

PCB contamination and certainly is not limited to just Orca whales.".

This is also noted in the closing findings, with the research

recommending greater efforts be made, beyond what is required under the

Stockholm Convention on persistent Organic Pollutants, to clean up PCB

contamination and reduce potentially destructive increases in the levels

of contamination.

At current clean-up rates, it is predicted that the Convention's targets

for 2025 and 2028 will not be met, as researchers state, "It is estimated

that more than 80% of global PCB stocks are yet to be destroyed", as

required.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] October 8, 2018 | [PUBLIC RELATIONS] Letter to

the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton MP

To Peter Dutton MP;

Freedom Publishers Union upholds the principles of civil liberties, which

includes the right to privacy.

It is this right to privacy which extends to digital rights.

Encryption is key to the success of maintaining digital rights and

privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union will always oppose efforts which seek to

undermine encryption and which permit and enable unjustified access to

digitally secured information of citizens.

We refer the points of interest in this letter to be applicable to our

review of the Australian Government's proposed "Telecommunications and

Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018"

legislation.

While the proposed legislation may sufficiently meet the basic

requirements of information access justification principles through the

requirement of obtaining a warrant, it falls short of a broader

justification of requirements for the legislation to become law in

Australia, in its current form.

Freedom Publishers Union believes the impacts of the legislation are much

too broad in application and extend beyond Australia's jurisdiction to

impact the operations of international technology companies.

It is unacceptable for Australian policy makers to be developing any law

that has international repercussions, for the purpose of Australian law,

and is completely undemocratic.

Freedom Publishers Union can see no immediate requirement or any such

urgency for the passing of such legislation which has the potential for

such large implications.

More industry consultation should ensue and revisions should be made to

the current proposal which can meet the concerns that have been expressed

from those in the industry that will be affected.

The proposed legislation is misleading.

It attempts to portray its primary intention as voluntary.

It is actually compelling, and not voluntary.

It threatens technology companies with excessive penalties in the form of

monetary value if they do not comply with the request(s).

It is not voluntary via request and therefore should not be portrayed as

such.

Certain digital rights organizations have expressed concern over the

potential of "forced backdoors" being implemented by technology companies

as one method of complying with requests.

If this were to eventuate, it would be a violation of the privacy of

citizens which would be of great concern to us.

Freedom Publishers Union is satisfied that the legislation is not forcing

implementation of backdoors or breaking encryption.

However, it fails to clearly define how it is expected technology

companies can assist Australian law enforcement authorities and meet the

requirements of the legislation without such methods of backdoors or

encryption manipulation.

It could possibly be this lack of better technical clarification with the

proposed legislation which is fueling misinformation and misleading

reports being published in the media.

We reiterate that further industry consultation must be carried out, so

concerns can be addressed and the legislation be amended to better define

what is precisely required from technology companies to meet assistance

requirements.

In its current form, Freedom Publishers Union cannot support the proposed

legislation.

However, we do not directly oppose it and believe although we have

questions over its necessity, we believe with significant amendments it

can be developed into a fair, balanced and reasonable piece of

legislation suitable to be passed as Australian law.

Update: March 1, 2019 - Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations

Department received a response from the Australian Government Department

of Home Affairs - National Security Policy Branch.

-----

Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations Department

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] October 4, 2018 | [PUBLIC RELATIONS]

Clarification of Points from Editorial Published September 5, 2018

SOME CONFUSION AND A SENSE of frustration has been expressed directly to

Freedom Publishers Union by some of our supporters as to the position we

have taken following a previous Editorial published on September 5, 2018,

by our Asia/Pacific Press Office in Mumbai, when we described the

Australian Government's proposed "Telecommunications and Other

Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018" as "modest".

On behalf of Freedom Publishers Union, I want to take a brief moment to

reiterate that the broader position we take on privacy, security and

specifically, encryption, has not changed and we have no intention of

backing down on our strong opposition to any attempt by anyone in any

country which attempts to implement any measures which could potentially

see the weakening or tampering of security and encryption of technology,

which could potentially impede on the effectiveness of the entitlement to

privacy.

In reference to our original aforementioned article which has been the

primary cause for concern by some of our supporters, I as Editor, would

like to run through a few clarifications and citations from our September

5 article, with the intention of restating our position as published

previously and regaining the confidence of those that have expressed a

certain amount of confusion.

I begin with the acknowledgment of the potential for misleading our

readers with the Editorial's title.

Although Freedom Publishers Union does acknowledge that it may be

misleading, we also stand by the title as it is published, and believe it

is correct in context in relation to its accompanied article.

It should be noted that we pointed out in the September 2018 article that

Freedom Publishers Union had initially raised concerns on the issues

present, in previous articles.

As noted already, we have raised previous concerns in September 2016 and

again, in June 2017.

This was then followed up with the most recent article, which is the

source of some confusion and leading some to accuse us that we have

weakened our position.

Freedom Publishers Union have not.

I personally would like to point out previous articles published on the

issues before my tenure as Editor, to simply point out that under the

leadership of my predecessors, Freedom Publishers Union have been paying

a lot of attention to it and in great detail for over two years.

Under my leadership as Editor, with the guidance and support of my

superiors, we, as an independent media organization will continue to do

so.

The original conclusion of the proposed legislation being declared

"modest" was actually an independent conclusion which was reached by a

third-party consultancy firm, David Institute for Politics and Science.

We have complete confidence in their high standards of professional work

ethic and therefore had no reason to question their expert advice on this

issue.

Therefore, we adopted their advice and conclusion that the proposed

legislation was "modest".

The independence of this conclusion was actually published in the

original article and was never made to portray that it was the conclusion

originally reached by Freedom Publishers Union.

Despite David Institute for Politics and Science reaching a "modest"

conclusion, they were also critical of specifics of the legislation

proposal.

We specifically pointed out that they believed it to be "much too broad"

in the range of agencies that the legislation is applicable to.

They also pointed out that the warrant obtaining process must remain a

"reasonable due process".

Then, Freedom Publishers Union raised our own concerns, which were not

specifically the concerns of David Institute for Politics and Science,

that the recommended penalty of 5 years was "extreme and

disproportionate" to the crime of specifically "unauthorized disclosure"

of information in relation to a technical assistance request.

Upon reviewing the original Editorial published on September 5, 2018, by

the Mumbai Press Center, Freedom Publishers Union stands by it 100% and

believe the information published, based on the information available to

us at the time of press, was accurate in its nature, not misleading and

fair.

However, we always take feedback serious and always follow up where

possible to review where we possibly went wrong which provided enough

substance to initiate complaints, and to examine where we can do better

in the future to eliminate confusion and all possibility of misleading

our audience.

On behalf of Freedom Publishers Union, I sincerely apologize if our

position was not made specific and clear enough.

Our audience should always remain confident in our immovable position on

issues related to privacy, security and encryption.

I close by pointing out that Freedom Publishers Union was one of the

first independent media organizations to report and publish on this

issue, taking into account our publications as far back as 2016.

I take on the personal view and believe Freedom Publishers Union has been

ahead of the rest of the industry.

We previously also expressed disappointment that more Australian digital

rights organizations were not expressing their position on the

legislation.

It is not a matter for us to agree or disagree with their position, but

we appreciate the attention paid to the matter at hand, irrespective of

their position.

Since we expressed this disappointment, more organizations - Australian

and international - have put forward their views.

As much as we appreciate their views, we again point out that we were

very much ahead of the rest of the independent media industry.

We are continuing to pay attention to the legislative path of the

proposed legislation and Freedom Publishers Union is currently engaging

in internal discussion as to whether we will pursue the matter further by

making a political Submission to the Australian Parliament.

-----

Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations Department

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] September 29, 2018 | [ANALYSIS] China's Grip on

Freedom of Information Continues to Close, With Blocking of International

News Sites

CHINA HAS INFAMOUSLY CLAIMED THE title as the world's biggest censorship

machine.

And it's effective too.

Australia's lead public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting

Corporation (ABC), has now been censored from inside the borders of

China.

China's nation-sponsored and regime operated 'Great Firewall' has

reportedly been blocking access to the ABC website since August 22, 2018.

The ABC made official enquiries with Chinese authorities, which saw delay

before an official response was provided.

It was a vague response at that, with little more than a confirmation

that China was blocking access to the ABC website and its app, yet no

specific reason was provided with the response.

It is interesting to note that the date the ABC block took effect was

just one day after the announcement from the Australian Government that

they had banned Chinese technology giant Huawei from contributing to the

construction of Australia's 5G wireless network.

The ban would also include ZTE.

While it is easy to assume there may be a link between the Huawei/ZTE ban

and the effective blocking of the ABC, Freedom Publishers Union is not

convinced there is enough evidence to suggest there is any conclusive

link between the two events.

Instead, we suggest it to be a timing coincidence and would refrain from

suggesting anything other than that without any indication that points to

the contrary.

While the ABC website remains blocked at the time of going to press, we

understand that Australian commercial news media websites remain

available and uninterrupted.

Australia's second public broadcaster, Special Broadcasting Service

(SBS), also remains available according to sources at the ABC.

We independently verified the censorship claims made by the ABC through

FPUorg, who carried out their own tests and shared the results with

Freedom Publishers Union.

At the time of going to press, we can actually verify that the ABC is

indeed blocked from inside China from multiple locations that were

tested.

Locations verified to be blocking access to the ABC website and app were

Beijing and Shanghai.

Additional access testing was carried out from inside Hong Kong, a

location effectively under the control of China's influence, but its

internet infrastructure not being subjected to the 'Great Firewall'.

Results returned from inside Hong Kong were more encouraging and showed

that the ABC was still accessible.

The same tests were performed on The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald

websites, News Corp and Fairfax's leading mastheads, respectively, and it

demonstrated that uninterrupted access remained open to these sites.

The same testing was also performed for the SBS website, which also

returned positive results showing there was no restrictions placed upon

Australia's second public broadcaster.

The censorship that has been applied to the ABC, by China, appears to be

solely aimed specifically at just the ABC.

At least that appears to be the case for Australia.

We understand that the BBC was reporting that BBC News and New York Time

websites were being blocked also.

FPUorg did not test access to these two websites, so Freedom Publishers

Union is unable to verify these claims.

But we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the claims reported by

the BBC.

When Chinese officials were probed on the specific reasons as to why the

ABC was being censored, the response was vague, an expression of

arrogance and open to interpretation.

China claims that the ABC has violated the country's internet rules and

regulations, which led to the Office of the Cyberspace Affairs Commission

to take action.

It is also claimed the ABC is a danger to China's national security and

is damaging the nation's pride.

When probed further, specifically, of what the ABC had contributed to

prompt the Office of the Cyberspace Affairs Commission to act, no

specifics were stated.

Freedom Publishers Union are staunch advocates for an open internet which

remains neutral and free from censorship.

This includes advocating China relax its applied censorship and open up

its internet.

However, despite global pressure, the reverse is happening and China's

grip on information access continues to close even further.

Freedom Publishers Union's own servers have previously been exposed to

China's heavy handed approach to censorship.

The freedompublishersunion.com domain has previously experienced being

blocked from inside China.

Recent external security auditing - unrelated to the subject of this

story - can verify that we are current not blocked.

It adds to the mystery of what protocols are followed which actually lead

to a website or a domain being censored by the 'Great Firewall'.

To date, it remains unclear to us as to why we were blocked.

At the time, we considered making enquiries to Chinese authorities but

were not confident that we would successfully get a response.

Contacting Chinese authorities on specific matters of politics is not

exactly a streamlined process.

We could only make the general assumption that China did not respond

kindly to our position of promoting a free and open internet without

censorship.

Some of our advocacy has included critical mention of China's efforts of

implementing maximum censorship on the people of China.

Therefore, it could possibly be a simple case that advocacy for an open

internet accompanied by criticism of the Chinese regime's totalitarian

control of its internet access may be what leads to being censored from

inside the borders of China.

However, this does not completely explain how China censors websites or

domains for unspecified and sometimes odd periods of time, then appear to

drop off the censorship radar, without warning and once again become

accessible, as has occurred to Freedom Publishers Union.

The precise protocols and processes of how the 'Great Firewall' functions

is unclear.

But we do understand that ultimate decision making can flow right through

the channels of the Chinese regime and to the President himself.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MOSCOW] September 29, 2018 | [CAMPAIGN] Ecuador Must Act Now,

to Ensure Freedom of Julian Assange

THE WORLD SHOULD BE OUTRAGED by the continued treatment and detainment of

Wikileaks Editor, Julian Assange.

Mr. Assange has been detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012 and

remains trapped inside, without natural light, without fresh air, without

access to the most basic of human services and healthcare and without

communications.

The ongoing situation has become frustrated and entered the realm of

ridiculous.

It has gone beyond laying the blame on party A, B or C.

There are multiple factors at play and multiple parties to blame which

must accept responsibility of Mr. Assange being arbitrarily detained,

deemed illegal by the United Nations, and being denied many basic human

rights.

The situation is now critical and an appropriate and responsible

political solution must be sought by Ecuador and the UK, along with the

US, which also shares great interest in Mr. Assange's detainment.

We must see the freedom of Mr. Assange granted without any further

unnecessary delay and to take immediate effect.

Ecuador must take a strong stand and act.

The UK must end its threat of immediate arrest and cease its around-the-

clock surveillance of a political refugee, publisher and editor who has

not been charged with any crime.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

September 26, 2018 | Sony PlayStation Classic - Can Sony Get the Formula

Right, Where Others Have Failed? We Hope So

THE LATEST GAMING COMPANY TO announce their expanse into the realm of

classic gaming is Sony.

The company responsible for the PlayStation console has announced it will

soon release a PSX classic console, which will be called the PlayStation

Classic.

It will include 20 games pre-installed.

Little is known which exact titles will be included upon release of the

console on December 3, 2018, other than those officially announced by the

company.

So far, we know Final Fantasy VII, Jumping Flash, Ridge Racer Type 4,

Tekken 3 and Wild Arms will be included.

But there is some skepticism of the quality of titles that have been

announced so far.

Tecseek Technology admits, with the exception of Final Fantasy VII, the

titles are a little disappointing.

Perhaps Sony has something really special up its sleeve which is yet to

be revealed.

Or perhaps not.

But we certainly hope these titles are not the best on offer as we can't

exactly describe them as some of the most memorable of our many days

spent with the PSX console in the mid-to-late 90s.

Some technology websites have gone to some length to create lists of

games they would like to see included.

In a somewhat combined effort of keeping up with the rest of the

technology publishing industry and being able to reminisce for a moment,

these are just a few titles we would like to see included:

- Crash Bandicoot

- Gran Turismo

- MediEvil

- MediEvil II

- Metal Gear Solid

- Pandemonium

- Spyro the Dragon

- Tekken

- Tomb Raider

- Wipeout 2097

Sony released its first version of the PlayStation console, known as the

PSX or PSOne, in December 1994.

It was initially released in Japan.

It would be almost one year later when the US and Europe would get their

hands on it, in September 1995.

Australia had to wait just a couple more months, when it finally reached

the shores downunder, in November 1995.

The PSX was a milestone for the console gaming industry and the

PlayStation brand, which is today one of the world's most popular gaming

platforms.

It competes directly with the Microsoft XBox.

The Sony PlayStation has received significant technological advancements

over the years, spread across many different iterations, upgraded

versions and models.

The PSX was succeeded in 2000 by the release of the PlayStation 2, or PS2

as it would be referred to as.

That was then succeeded by the PS3 in 2006 and then finally - the current

model - the PS4 in 2014.

Sony is currently still working on the development of the successor.

The actual console name hasn't exactly been confirmed, but the industry

is referring to it as the PS5.

Not much is known yet about the future update to the console brand, but

it will be sure to improve on the PS4 and follow the traditional Sony

release model of containing some of the best gaming hardware inside.

While some technology analysists are pinning their hopes on a Christmas

2019 release, we believe that is slightly ambitious, albeit not

impossible.

A release date of mid-to-late 2020 or possibly running into the first

quarter of 2021 is probably more likely.

We're sure Sony will be watching what Microsoft does with the XBox Two

very closely.

And we have no doubts they'll respond accordingly.

Despite all the technological advances that games have made from the

ever-popular era of the 1990s, for some reason gamers still enjoy the

titles from the era of old.

Tecseek Technology is not aware of any academic study which illustrates

why gamers specifically enjoy and continue to enjoy the 90s era of gaming

so much.

But from our perspective, we believe it was the careful balance between

graphics and gameplay that played a major part.

There were some difficult and challenging titles.

But the general consensus seems to be one of enjoyable gameplay, despite

those challenges, which leads us to believe that games developers of the

1990s had found the right balance to hook gamers.

Gaming technology has come a long way.

Some gamers are critical of the way the industry has gone.

Some believe the gaming industry has developed into a 'Hollywood-style'

market, where titles are treated like blockbuster movies designed for

maximum profit, over providing quality and enjoyable gameplay for the

player.

In other words, they have the graphics-gameplay formula all wrong.

Some gamers are even critical of how long it takes to get a game running

now.

Despite advances in technology, games are taking longer to load than ever

before, often requiring several sign-in prompts to jump through and

updates to download and apply before you can even get the game started.

At times, it can become very cumbersome and has turned many gamers away.

Some have turned to mobile gaming which is effectively less tedious.

While others have simply given up gaming altogether, through

disappointment in the industry.

We feel their pain.

We suspect this could most likely add to the attraction of the classic

consoles that are being produced now.

In the 1990s, times were easier.

Whether you owned a SEGA Genesis or a Nintendo or a Super Nintendo, it

didn't matter.

All platforms were fast, friendly and simple to play.

It was a simple process - insert the cartridge, press the power button

and within just a couple of minutes the game would be ready to play.

We believe it is this level of well thought out simplicity that makes the

retro era of gaming so appealing and a delight to return to.

That, along with the strong focus on actual gameplay.

That is why the release of the SEGA Genesis Classic and the

Nintendo/Super Nintendo Classic consoles have been such a success.

While Atari has several iterations of the Flashback consoles available,

they don't seem to have gained as much love as the SEGA and Nintendo

versions.

Then, Atari confused its fans (and itself) even more, with the

announcement of the AtariVCS.

The AtariVCS appears to be a good effort with good intentions.

But the way the company has marketed it in the lead up to its scheduled

2019 release has confused many people as to what part of the gaming

market it is actually intended to serve.

I mean, it is meant to be a blend of modern aesthetic appeal while paying

homage to its heritage.

Again, we will criticize the company for its shocking marketing tactics

of the AtariVCS, because we still do not understand the specifics of the

technology that it will contain.

What we do understand though, is it will be powered by AMD hardware

running off a Linux-based operating system.

We understand Atari will call it Atari-OS.

The device will come pre-loaded with what Atari describes as a "ton" of

classic titles, but it falls short of providing a list.

It will also provide support for gaming using a joystick or a modern-

style gamepad, which we certainly hope is not the only attempt it will

make to blend modern with classic.

There has to be more to it if it is to gain mainstream attraction.

Otherwise, considering there are already Atari Flashback consoles on the

market, it begs us to ask the question of where exactly is the AtariVCS

meant to fit into all this? We remain confused.

The Commodore 64 Mini, or C64 Mini, has also been what feels like a

lackluster attempt and falls short of the potential it could have had.

The device is half the size of the original C64 from the early 1980s.

Its selection of games was a little disappointing.

Although it had a few respectable titles, some of the best games that

made the C64 so memorable are notably absent.

Perhaps due to licensing and legal issues surrounding redistribution,

we're not sure.

Tecseek Technology has not had a hands-on with an actual device, but most

technology websites were in agreement that the build quality of it was

sub-standard.

It just didn't quite match the expectations that was placed upon it.

There have been many different projects to try and revive the gaming

legacy that the Commodore brand left behind.

To date, all of them have simply felt like an attempt to cash-in on this

legacy.

Not for the love of the Commodore legacy and the brand, but for the love

of money.

Disappointing.

Tecseek Technology is feeling a positive vibe towards the release of the

PlayStation Classic.

It is difficult to pre-judge when the official games title list has not

yet been released.

There were so many memorable titles on the PSX.

Whether Sony is able to license the right titles to include some of the

best that the PSX is renowned for, will be the ultimate challenge to

pleasing market expectations.

So far, it looks quite promising.

But this could be an easy one for Sony to screw up if not done right.

While traditional gaming companies press ahead with reviving their past

through classic models of their previous success, where they fall short

will continue to be made up by the hardcore classic gamers through the

use of emulators and ROMS.

Gaming companies do not like emulators or the redistribution of ROMS

which do, rightfully, contain their product.

It is actually quite a legally aggressive part of the industry, which has

resulted in many ROM websites being forced to shut down.

But much like movie and music piracy websites, where one shuts down, more

open up shop.

It's the hydra formula.

This could be resolved by companies actually including titles that are

wanted by players, rather than a bunch of titles nobody ever played and,

in some cases, have never heard of, in an effort to sell the thing.

The onus is on the gaming companies.

They must lift their game.

Otherwise, gamers will simply continue to get their fix from emulators

and the continued distribution of ROMS.

Sony can learn from the mistakes of others.

It's their time to do it right.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] September 15, 2018 | [OPINION] Can Obama

Influence the American People and Change the Course of American

Democracy?

LAST WEEK, FORMER US PRESIDENT Barack Obama, presented the usual

encouraging and inspiring speech.

He reflected on the Donald Trump Administration and also touched on the

Op-Ed which was published by the New York Times, effectively creating a

firestorm of ripple effects through US politics.

The former president took quite an aggressive tone towards Trump's

leadership style and pointed out the obvious on the current state of US

politics.

Aside from a healthy economy, which is beginning to show cracks, there's

not much to praise of President Trump's tenure.

Obama pointed out the obvious and publicly thrashed Trump with views

which to be frank, most of us probably share.

Trump responded to Obama's comments in the usual predictable tone that

Trump observers have come to expect, by claiming that his speech was so

"boring" that he "fell asleep".

We're sure he didn't.

What is interesting to note though is how inspirational and powerful

Obama still appears to be, if one is to use the public's reaction as a

key indicator.

This comes even though he no longer has any political force other than

his voice of opinion.

Because that's what it is, really.

However, people seem to be very drawn to Obama and pay great attention

when he speaks.

He could stand up on a stage with a microphone and talk about anything at

all and people would still listen with absolute focus and attention, and

come away feeling inspired.

Then, many would probably refer to it as the best speech they've heard on

the topic - whatever the topic may be.

Take for example Obama's presidential inauguration speech.

We all remember it.

It was inspirational and offered a lot of hope to many who felt there was

not much hope left.

It's a shame that his own tenure as US President did not quite live up to

the hope of many Americans and didn't really deliver to the same standard

as his inauguration speech.

Well, that could be up for debate and is a matter of political opinion.

But we come back to saying - Obama spoke, people listened.

The question now remains, will Obama dish out any further public speeches

and will they have the same influence on the American people when it

comes to voting day at the upcoming mid-terms? We will soon see.

But when polls suggest that voter confidence is down, people will look

for alternative sources for inspiration.

Obama has the skills to tap into this source.

If the Democrats can rely on Obama to draw attention back to their side

of politics, then we may see a very different functioning of the Trump

Administration after the mid-terms if they are to sway in favor of the

Democrats.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Written by The Editorial Board.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] September 5, 2018 | Proposed Australian Legislation

Which Seeks Technical Assistance on Encryption from Silicon Valley,

Actually Quite Modest

The Australian proposed legislation titled "Telecommunications and Other

Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018" has been

provided to Freedom Publishers Union following the Government releasing

an Exposure Draft to the public domain.

Our concerns were initially placed on our radar on September 1, 2016,

when Salt Lake City News published an Editorial warning France was in the

midst of leading a global push for anti-encryption legislation.

Then Freedom Publishers Union warned of increasing government attacks on

encryption on June 12, 2017.

Concluding our warning then, we said that "We oppose any measures which

seek to impede, alter, challenge or block the use, development or

implementation of encryption or any other measure of computer security.".

The warning signs continued to grow louder when we warned again on July

19, 2017, of the ongoing government attacks against encryption.

This was amplified when the Australian Government created the super

ministry known as the Department of Home Affairs.

We said that the creation of the super ministry "will give absolutely no

operational improvements or benefit to the current system of intelligence

and law enforcement capabilities.".

And then we said that we viewed it as an opportunity for the Government

to take advantage of the super ministry and "to abuse the platform as a

new breeding ground for increased mass-surveillance and as a means of

justification for its increasing attacks on encryption and privacy

encroachment.".

Despite Freedom Publishers Union facing minor external criticism and

being dubbed as delving in the realm of conspiracy theory stuff, it

appears our warnings were correct, justified and our claims are always

backed by credible source information.

Just last week, Australia saw a change in its Government leader.

The Home Affairs super ministry has been stripped of its immigration

portfolio, effectively reversing a bad decision made by the former Prime

Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who was responsible for creating the super

ministry and handed ultimate power to one minister.

The current legislation proposal before us has grown from the previous

ministry and is guarantee to be still on the agenda to be debated in the

country's Parliament towards the later months of the year.

The original concerns we outlined were strong and valid.

As was our declaration to protect and oppose any attacks on encryption or

any other means which threaten the right to privacy.

The [Exposure Draft] bill proposes three key ways for technology

companies, software developers and others to assist spy agencies and

police:

- A technical assistance request: A company can choose to "voluntarily"

help, such as give details about the development of a new online service;

- A technical assistance notice: A company is required to give assistance

if they can.

For example, if they have the ability to decrypt a specific

communication, they must or face fines;

- A technical capability notice: The company must build a new function so

it can assist police, as long as it does not force encryption to be

broken.

[Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation]

On digital security, the Department of Home Affairs says, "Encryption and

other forms of electronic protection are vital security measures that

protect private, commercial and Government data and make the

communications and devices of all people more secure.".

Then it attempts to justify the proposed legislation by saying, "However,

these security measures are also being employed by terrorists, child sex

offenders and criminal organizations to mask illegal conduct.".

The Government believes the developed proposal to be a "reasonable and

proportionate response to the problems associated with the increasing use

of encrypted communications".

According to the Australian Government's own statistics, encryption

impacts at least 90% of priority cases handled by the nation's elite

intelligence agency, Australian Security Intelligence Organization

(ASIO), and over 90% of legally intercepted communications by the

Australia Federal Police (AFP).

Additionally, they believe that all illicit activity by "organized crime

and terrorists" will be encrypted by 2020, which continues to be a cause

a lot of concern within intelligence communities not only in Australia,

but also within the ranks of its intelligence sharing partners of the

'Five Eyes'.

Concern continues to mount because of continued difficulties in accessing

and extracting usable content from encrypted data, at least through a

streamlined arrangement with complete cooperation of Silicon Valley.

Furthermore, Australia's Department of Home Affairs reiterate that State-

level law enforcement agencies are facing their own set of challenges in

relation to encryption.

Ironically, the challenges faced from intelligence communities and law

enforcement agencies equates to good news for consumers in the sense that

strong encryption works.

And this is great news for privacy and those who wish to uphold their

right to privacy through use of encryption.

In a Press Statement released by Member of The Greens, Chris McGimpsey-

Jones, he states that he views the "draft bill to be quite moderate in

its intent and perhaps not as invasive as much of the public had

expected.".

We clarify this view expressed by Mr. McGimpsey-Jones was taken prior to

the release of the Exposure Draft.

However, he has since contacted our office and confirmed that after

reading the Exposure Draft in its entirety, his view remains unchanged.

We tasked David Institute for Politics and Science to analyze the

legislation proposal in closer detail to see just how concerned we should

be and to what effect the Australian Government seeks to push on its

legislative attempts of dealing with its challenges of encryption.

The conclusion made by David Institute for Politics and Science very much

reflects the moderate nature of the legislation and they told us that it

was not anywhere near as aggressive as they were expecting.

They specifically point out that the proposal permits no systemic

breaking of encryption and no systemic forced backdoors are permitted.

This is important to highlight, as there has been misinformed claims made

by publications, notably AppleInsider, in their August 13, 2018,

publication which starts with the following claim, "Australia's

government will debate proposed legislation before the end of this year

that could force Apple and other companies to introduce backdoors into

their products and services, such as the iPhone or iMessage, under the

guise of assisting with national security and law enforcement

investigations.".

This claim is wrong.

Freedom Publishers Union Communications Department has contacted

AppleInsider to draw their attention to this incorrect claim and have

provided them with an advanced edition of this Editorial.

At the time of going to press, our office has received no response.

The legislation is applicable to a very wide array of government

intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Of most importance, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization

(ASIO), Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), Australian Signals

Directorate (ASD) and Australian Federal Police (AFP).

Though the legislation extends further, to State-level law enforcement

agencies through to government watchdog commissions that are tasked with

investigating sometimes minor crime.

According to David Institute for Politics and Science, they assess that

it serves a very broad range of agencies - much too broad - many of them

most likely to be unnecessary and unlikely to exercise their powers.

Yet they reassure us that this is compensated somewhat by the moderate

nature of the legislation's content.

David Institute for Politics and Science also specifically draws

attention to the fact that the technical assistance sought through

exercising the powers of the legislation must be warranted, through what

they describe a reasonable due process of warrant obtaining mechanism.

According to details outlined in additional documents provided by the

Australian Government and the Department of Home Affairs, the legislation

is applicable to communications services and devices in Australia,

irrespective of where they base their corporation, servers or

manufacturing hubs.

Therefore, there will be no exclusion for international companies if the

device is within the borders of Australia and the device is the target of

a qualified investigation, as specified.

The Department of Home Affairs point out that although law enforcement

agencies already receive technical assistance from technology and

communications companies on a voluntary basis, they believe this to be an

unfair playing field and is creating an unequal level of compliance from

the industry.

The implementation of the legislation is one measure aimed at

establishing a more balanced and equal playing field for compliance.

Freedom Publishers Union understands from previous information supplied

to us from earlier publications, that Australian law enforcement agencies

regularly engage and seek assistance from Facebook and other social media

companies with pending and ongoing investigations.

We are unable to definitively confirm it in relation to the latest

proposed legislation as the information provided to us by the Australian

Government falls short of specifically naming any individual or group of

companies which it already receives voluntary assistance from.

We also have clarification that there are no provisions which prevent

communications providers from fixing or patching existing security flaws

in devices.

In fact, it is both encouraged and supported by the Department of Home

Affairs.

The remaining concerns that we have are minor, but worthy of

acknowledgement.

Freedom Publishers Union are concerned of the overuse of penalties in

relation to unauthorized disclosure of information detailing the

receiving of a request or notice.

It recommends a penalty of 5 years, which we believe to be quite extreme

and disproportionate to the crime of unauthorized disclosure.

Additionally, we draw specific attention to text on page 76 of the

Exposure Draft, where it is specified that the [proposed] legislation is

applicable to investigations that qualify for the "death penalty".

We believe this to be a rather extreme clause to be placed into

legislation of this nature.

Freedom Publishers Union are notable advocates against the death penalty

and believe this specific wording should be removed prior to any further

drafts being placed before the Australian Parliament for debate.

Based on the independent analysis and information we have been provided

and compared against the prior expectations from Freedom Publishers Union

of this legislation, we accept the conclusion put forward by David

Institute for Politics and Science that it remains a modest and

acceptable legislative proposal.

The quirks are minor and could be resolved with minimal political

intervention and amendments where required.

Freedom Publishers Union's position on protecting encryption and the

civil liberties of citizens stands as strong as ever.

Thankfully, we feel that we do not have to stand firm in opposition to

this proposed legislation and at its face value, can see no realistic

scenario of where it could be abused to knowingly undermine encryption or

the right to privacy, under actions described to be in the interest of

national security - a term which is regularly abused as a means to hide

illicit governmental activity which is knowingly questionable.

Freedom Publishers Union Communications Department contacted Electronic

Frontiers Australia (EFA) asking for comment on the Exposure Draft of the

proposed legislation.

We also asked whether EFA had any further plans and how they would

respond on the issue of encryption and privacy in response.

No reply was received.

This is disappointing considering EFA was once Australia's most reputable

organization for standing up for digital rights in Australia.

It appears to be a cause which has gradually lost the attention of the

organization.

We do acknowledge that EFA have been a supporter of the Secure Australia

campaign which they are a signatory.

However, we believe this is slightly odd considering that is a campaign

launched by Access Now, which is actually an American organization.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that Australian organizations are

placed in the best position to fight and support digital rights of and

for Australian citizens.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] August 30, 2018 | [PUBLIC RELATIONS] Ms. Chelsea

Manning entry to Australia

To David Coleman MP;

Freedom Publishers Union is receiving strong indication that Ms. Chelsea

Manning may be refused entry to Australia and have her visa cancelled,

under Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958.

We ask you to take serious consideration to the following points of

attention, in making your decision, with the intention to permit Ms.

Manning entry to Australia.

Freedom Publishers Union have supported Ms. Manning through her acts of

leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, which we deemed to be in the

public interest.

We continued to support her cause and defense through her legal case

which placed such significant stress on her mental well-being that it

resulted in multiple suicide attempts while she was detained in solitary

confinement.

Whilst you consider your decision on the entry of Ms. Manning, we ask you

to take further consideration into the fact that her sentence was

commuted by former US President, Barack Obama.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support Ms. Manning for the

principle reason of responsibility of ethics.

The Migration Act 1958-Section 501(1) outlines:

"(1) The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person

does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test."

The list of subsections and provisions which can affect the decision made

by the Minister for Immigration is extensive.

We have no precise knowledge of what exact subsection(s) or provision(s)

will affect your decision.

However, we do wish to outline that former criminals that have committed

much more heinous acts than that of Ms. Manning have previously been

granted entry into Australia.

Additionally, based on our independent advice, we believe there is no

reason to draw to the conclusion that Ms. Manning poses any threat to

Australia's national security, national interests and/or poses any threat

to Australian civilians.

It is on these points of interest that we draw to your attention that we

strongly conclude that Ms. Chelsea Manning should be granted entry to

Australia.

-----

Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations Department

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] August 18, 2018 | Former SAS Soldier, Ben Roberts-

Smith, Now a Core Focus of Military Inquiries into "Misconduct" and

Possible "War Crimes" in Afghanistan

What started as indirect allegations of possible human rights violations

and war crimes in Afghanistan, by the Australian SAS, has exploded [no

pun intended] into what appears to be direct allegations focusing on one

of Australia's most recognized SAS soldiers, Ben Roberts-Smith.

The extensive, exhaustive and extremely in-depth investigation published

by Fairfax Media was compiled over a period extending more than one year,

which included research and interviews with government officials,

military veterans and people which Fairfax simply describes as having

"knowledge of Roberts-Smith's personal conduct".

The report uncovers details that appear to have merit and can be

validated by several sources.

Freedom Publishers Union has also learned that Roberts-Smith has launched

legal action against Fairfax Media following the publication.

While some unspecified elements of the legal action were knocked back

without serious consideration, we are led to believe that some still

remain outstanding and unresolved.

The report claims that Roberts-Smith was a bully and regularly used his

large physical structure to engage in intimidation of his younger and

smaller colleagues.

It is said that Roberts-Smith bullied younger and less experienced

soldiers, supposedly under his command.

Accusations extend from bullying during training and also while carrying

out operations on the battlefield.

Accusations also lay claim that Roberts-Smith was involved in teams that

are suspected of carrying out abuse of unarmed civilians by using what is

described as "force that goes well beyond what is acceptable in the

theater of war".

This would suggest that Roberts-Smith had direct knowledge of human

rights violations as a result of SAS operations in Afghanistan -

violations which could amount to war crimes.

Ben Roberts-Smith remains one of Australia's most recognized and

celebrated SAS soldiers, often described as a respectable member of the

Australian business community, an advocate for mental health and more

notably, a recipient of the prestigious Victoria Cross (VC).

If the accusations presented in the Fairfax Media investigation are

proven to be correct, then it would raise serious questions of how much

scrutiny, present and former, military soldiers are placed under prior to

receiving such prestigious recognition for their actions in the

battlefield.

It is suggestive that there is no scrutiny.

We ask, how can the Australian Government award such a distinct and

respected award like the VC to a [former] soldier which has so many

accusations placed against him and so many unanswered questions that

remain present? These are questions that must be answered and have

legitimacy to their substance.

Freedom Publishers Union has brought forward to the attention of our

readers the culture of absolute secrecy which seems enshrined deep into

the brotherhood of the SAS.

The SAS have admitted they operate under secrecy.

It is that secrecy which is enabling the possibility of breaching the

rules of engagement and violating human rights of foreign civilians in a

war zone which could amount to war crimes.

Roberts-Smith is already under investigation for possible "misconduct" in

Afghanistan as part of the ongoing inquiry which is currently being

carried out by Army Reserve officer, Paul Brereton.

The stories of the accusations placed against the SAS and specifically,

Roberts-Smith, can be verified through multiple corresponding versions by

former and current serving SAS members.

While this may not be enough confirmation or verification to pursue any

form of legal action, Freedom Publishers Union believes that enough

information has been uncovered and the allegations are serious enough to

justify the latest inquiry.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the latest inquiry will be headed

by David Irvine, a former member of the intelligence community through

ASIO.

The latest inquiry will focus on the possibility of war crimes being

committed by SAS soldiers in Afghanistan and is the third special forces

inquiry in just two years.

Freedom Publishers Union commends what has resulted in the establishment

of the latest inquiry.

We remain very disappointed that the previous inquiries have not been

made public and remain sealed under secrecy.

We urge much better transparency for the latest inquiry, but remain not

very confident that the latest inquiry will be wrapped with any less

secrecy than the aforementioned inquiries.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Further reading 1: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/beneath-the-

bravery-of-our-most-decorated-soldier-20180801-p4zuwp.html

Further reading 2: https://theconversation.com/embattled-vc-winner-asks-

attorney-general-to-refer-fairfax-media-to-police-101435

**********

[Filed from REYKJAVIK | International Media Group] August 11, 2018 |

Unconfirmed Number of Civilians Killed in Yemen Attack, Indicative of a

Saudi-led Massacre

It is now widely accepted by the political world for Yemen to be

recognized as the world's worst ongoing humanitarian disaster, which

unfortunately has no end in sight, nor does the war that is the cause of

so much human pain and suffering.

Thursday this week, a school bus which was travelling through a

marketplace in Yemen which had many children onboard was bombed.

Saudi-led coalition forces claim that their military response was a

reaction to a previous attack by Houthi rebels.

The Saudi's claim their attack was targeting a legitimate military (yet

unspecified) asset and maintain it was completely legal.

Nasser Arrabyee, a Yemen journalist currently in Sanaa, said there were

no Houthi fighters in the vicinity of the market where the attack was

carried out.

Arrabyee also claims that the area is well known to be a marketplace and

equally well known for having no military installations.

He directly accuses the Saudi's of regularly targeting schools, weddings,

markets and other innocent civilian targets.

We can verify those claims, however we note that the claims have been

echoed by Al Jazeera journalist, Mohammed Adow, who says, "The Saudi's

tend to deny these kinds of actions which have sadly become all too

common.".

Others critical of the Saudi-led operations in Yemen have displayed the

same concerns expressed by the journalists.

Adow reminds us though, that it's not just the Saudi's failing to take

responsibility for their actions.

He says the Houthi's are also failing to acknowledge their own reckless

military actions too - making it a balanced argument.

Despite the claims by the Saudi's that their target was legitimate, it

remains unclear what exactly that target was or how it resulted in the

deaths of more civilians.

The exact numbers of confirmed dead remain unverified at present due to

limited resources on the ground.

Quality Publishing Works' sources have been able to determine the most

likely probable number of deaths, according to available information

which has been made public, is 50 civilians killed.

This same number is also reported by Turkish news outlet TRT World.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reports that 29 of

the casualties are children at the age of 15 or below.

Unverified details released from the Yemen television network, Al Masirah

TV, suggest 39 people were killed and 51 wounded.

While it remains no more specific about how many killed or wounded were

children, it did report initially that many were children.

According to details reported by CNN, the Houti-controlled Health

Ministry is claiming that 50 people were killed and 77 wounded.

These numbers are slightly inflated compared to figures provided by more

reputable sources.

These numbers remain unverified by Quality Publishing Works.

CNN also reports that Saudi-state media has acknowledged the incident,

but states that according to their figures, only 1 person was killed.

On those killed, CNN makes reference to the numbers provided by ICRC.

Al Jazeera also reports the same figure, but falls short of revealing

combined numbers for those killed and wounded.

In a report from the Israeli news outlet, Haaretz, Abdul-Ghani Nyeb, who

is the Head of the Health Department in Saada, reportedly told Reuters

that updated numbers had increased the death toll to 43, with 61 wounded.

More alarmingly, he claims that most of the children that were killed

were under the age of 10.

If confirmed, this would be a significant reduction from the previous

reports by ICRC, that children were age 15 and below.

However, he did not reveal how many children were included in the updated

death toll.

Quality Publishing Works could not verify the updated numbers.

SBS News reported numbers of those killed and wounded which also reflect

those of CNN and Al Jazeera.

The Council Body of Research and Study declared to Quality Publishing

Works that this is suggestive that these numbers are most probable to be

the most accurate at the time we go to press.

Following the attack, the United Nations (UN) called for an immediate

investigation into the incident.

The United States of America (US) and other Western nations provide

military equipment, arms and intelligence assistance to Saudi Arabia.

While the Saudi-led coalition claim to have a functioning committee which

investigates military incidents which result in mass casualties

(including civilian casualties), all indications suggest that the

committee has mostly cleared the Saudi's of any blame from the incidents

it has previously investigated.

Admittedly, we have no documentative evidence to confirm our conclusion.

But we see no obvious indication that the committee will hold the Saudi

Government/Military to account for this attack.

There was some initial confusion surrounding the official responses

provided by The White House and US State Department.

The National Security Council referred to the incident by claiming there

was "conflicting reports in global media".

While the State Department was busy claiming to have urged the Saudi-led

coalition to "conduct a thorough and transparent investigation".

When questioned on why there was differing views on the incident between

the departments, it was claimed by the State Department that there was no

differing views and that they shared the same view.

We believe their responses to be open to interpretation.

Russian news outlet, Russia Today (RT), took the opportunity to accuse

Western nations of ignoring the severity of the humanitarian disaster

which has unfolded in Yemen over the course of the war since it started

in 2015.

RT has claimed that the US and the UK prioritize their support for the

war in Syria, as they have extremely lucrative weapons business interests

with supplying arms to Saudi Arabia.

These weapons supplied by the US and the UK are used to boost the

military capabilities of Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen and effectively

allows it to continue.

While the war in Yemen continues, so does the arms trade which is sure to

work in favor of the US in terms in military economics, at the expense of

disposing human life for political gain.

US military support to Saudi Arabia has been verified and has been well

documented.

However, Quality Publishing Works could not verify the claims made by RT

that the UK also supports the Saudi operation through military equipment

support or trade.

But the claims by RT do echo similar reports by The Guardian published

several months earlier, which also claimed the UK supports the Saudi's in

addition to support provided from France, Spain and Italy.

Quality Publishing Works is extremely concerned, as is the entire world,

of the duration of the war in Yemen.

To the outside world, it appears no progress has been made and it can not

be entirely sure of what progress is being sought.

Too many civilians are being killed in a war that does not appear to have

an end goal, along with no side willing to take responsibility for the

civilians that are continuously getting caught up in reckless and

irresponsible military operations.

Rockets are still being launched, bombs continue to drop and the air

strikes are set to continue.

Quality Publishing Works continues to urge all fighting parties to seek

avenues to an immediate cease fire, commence peace talks under the advice

and cooperation of the UN with a view to finally draw the war in Yemen to

a close and stop the killing of innocent civilians - men, woman and

children.

The world deserves better.

As we go to press with this story, we learn of early unconfirmed reports

which indicate more attacks involving civilian casualties have occurred.

It is likely as a result of military operations in Idlib and Aleppo

(Syria), allegedly from air strikes from Syria and Russian forces.

More precise details remain unavailable at this time.

-----

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavik Press

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] August 8, 2018 | [1] Alex Jones and Infowars

Social Media Bans Fuel Wider Debate Over Free Speech

Freedom Publishers Union has learned that some of world's biggest

technology companies have banned from their platforms, broadcaster Alex

Jones.

Some content produced from his website, Infowars, has also been subjected

to the ban.

Alex Jones is a controversial broadcaster and his news website is largely

considered conspiracy theory, rather than respected journalism.

This is very much reflected in the ratings illustrated by the MEDIA

BIAS/FACT CHECK website which rates Infowars as "Conspiracy-

Pseudoscience".

At the time of going to press, the Conspiracy Level for Infowars remains

at the highest rating of "Tin Foil Hat".

The Pseudoscience Level remains at second highest rating of "Strong".

And the Factual Reporting rating sits at "Very Low".

Irrespective of all negative ratings, community opinion or perception,

Alex Jones and Infowars shares the same (US) First Amendment guarantee to

freedom of speech as others enjoy.

Since its founding in 1999, Infowars have consistently been accused of

spreading misleading and false information.

Recently, some of the information (unspecified by Freedom Publishers

Union) and views expressed from Alex Jones have been claimed to be an

attempt to create civil unrest and incite community anger through

spreading what some claim to be purely hate speech.

It is stated on this basis, that Silicon Valley has banned Alex Jones and

Infowars from their platforms.

At the time of going to press, Freedom Publishers Union can verify that

Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify have all taken various degrees of

action to ban Alex Jones from using their services to spread his

information.

So far, Twitter has not taken any action against Alex Jones' account and

he retains control over his active verified account.

Twitter has previously demonstrated strange and unpredictable behavior by

taking action on accounts for reasons that are contradictory to its

claims of platform policy, with often confusing responses being provided

as to why accounts are suspended.

Taking action on Twitter accounts appears to be very selective and not

driven by any kind of platform policy.

It is common to see accounts suspended and then reinstated, without

justification for the original suspension being provided.

[2] In an article published on CNBC on August 6, Twitter stated that no

action will be taken against the accounts of Alex Jones or Infowars as

the accounts do not violate the company's policies.

Then just today, the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, acknowledged in an

article published again to CNBC, that the company has "been terrible at

explaining our decisions in the past" and urges that they are working to

make improvements in this area.

On the bans, Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars said that it sets "a chilling

precedent for free speech.".

[3] Freedom Publishers Union disagrees with the summary expressed from

Watson as his comments are suggestive that the action taken against them

from selected social media platforms are a form of censorship.

This is not true censorship.

It is actually an implementation of editorial bias, which demonstrates

that the social media platforms can (and most likely do) have a tendency

to influence the direction of the content on their platforms.

Infowars is only excluded from selected social media platforms.

Not all of them.

The Infowars website is still very much accessible on the visible and

open internet.

Rather than being a harbinger of censorship, the Infowars conflict

demonstrates the true meaning of free speech.

Editorial bias is the expression of specific opinions and filtering of

information to support a political or social agenda.

It is also a key part of free speech, as a way of establishing context

for interpreting information.

Infowars has a specific bias and filter for presenting information, as do

newspapers, television and most social media.

Editorial bias is as much a part of free speech as the words themselves

and needs preservation as much as reporting and opinion do.

In the US, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

This is not subject to qualified freedom.

Any speech is allowed to be stated.

If that speech is considered harmful, damaging or offensive, then

appropriate legal action may be taken against it.

But free speech cannot be banned or censored until the specific instance

causes that harm.

Exercising free speech outside of an open forum - on private services

such as social media, printed in a newspaper or presented on television

program - is left to the discretion of the owners of the service.

Unless the property is a guaranteed open forum which enables any form of

speech, the owners have every right to control the content allowed, on

what can be effectively considered their property.

The internet backbone, as a common carrier, is prohibited from

discriminating against any communication so long as it causes no direct

harm.

Any internet content or activity considered illegal or harmful must be

prevented in the location of the origin of the activity.

Therefore, the laws of the location of the data and server determine the

legal action that can be taken.

In summary, Alex Jones' content can be banned on private servers of

social media services, as these are not considered common carrier

utilities and are under no obligation to provide open access.

However, the Infowars website cannot be blocked in the US, as this would

violate the First Amendment.

Despite reservations expressed internally from Freedom Publishers Union,

it was agreed that just as the American Civil Liberties Union defends

Nazi's rights to free speech, Freedom Publishers Union must also defend

the rights of the voices that we may disagree with.

We feel it is very important to have open access to public media and we

equally feel Freedom Publishers Union has an ethical and moral

responsibility to protect it.

If we do not, we could be faced with only a short slide from freedom-to-

censorship.

Once one topic of expression and discussion is banned, it opens up the

potential for any topic to also be banned arbitrarily.

We fear that in our journey in the defence of freedom and the pursuit of

fairness and justice on arbitrary restrictions to prevent perceived

unacceptable ideas, a 'controlling body' may be established.

From that, it is only semantics that will separate banned ideas from

approved ideas.

Those running this 'controlling body' will be the ones deciding on what

is socially acceptable and what is not.

Ultimately, it is the establishment of such a system that we must defend

against, no matter how hateful or distressing a message might be to us.

Finally, it's very important to understand that Alex Jones' claim of

blanket censorship is incorrect.

Being banned by social media is not censorship in the same way we think

about censorship applied against Chinese or Russian news.

The ban placed upon Alex Jones and Infowars is literally reflective of

the editorial policy of those services, which is legal and defendable.

If Infowars is blocked by internet service providers' firewalls or

removed from DNS servers, then that would be censorship.

The clarification surrounding the difference between "banned" and

"censored" should be clear and applied.

As advocates of true free speech, Freedom Publishers Union must ensure

that public networks provide carriage to all content, while only placing

limits or blocking to networks that are causing technical or security

problems and not because of the content or the message it contains.

Even if we personally or collectively feel that a site is spreading

hatred or outright offends us to any degree, we must still fight to

defend their rights to use the public networks, as anything less is

censorship.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

Notes on amendments:

[1] The title of the article has been amended from the original, to

better clarify the main point of the editorial.

[2] The original article claimed that Twitter had failed to provide any

indication that Twitter would or would not suspend the accounts of Alex

Jones or Infowars.

This was incorrect and brought to our attention after the article had

gone to press.

The article has been amended to reflect the correct information that was

provided by Twitter, as early as August 6, 2018.

Our apologies for this oversight.

[3] The original article stated that we agreed with the initial views

expressed from Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars, that the bans placed on

Alex Jones and Infowars set "a chilling precedent for free speech.".

This was incorrect and not a true reflection on our position.

Instead, we aim to make the stronger point that the social media bans are

actually an implementation of editorial bias.

The article has been amended to make this clarification.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] August 4, 2018 | Peter Dutton and Australia's

Immigration Program Continues to Violate Human Rights and Still Detain

Children on Nauru

Freedom Publishers Union have been long-term outspoken public opponents

of Australia's abusive and unjust offshore immigration program which

detains asylum seekers and refugees in offshore centers isolated on the

remote locations of Nauru and Manus Island.

The Australian Government operates the facilities under the deceiving

official titles of "Processing Centers", in effort to disguise their true

operations and purpose - detaining asylum seekers and refugees that

arrive illegally on its borders.

The centers continue to operate in secrecy, continue to block media

access and continue to violate even the most basic of human rights of

those detained.

The immigration policy of Australia has again been re-exposed to public

scrutiny, along with raising a large question mark over the decisions and

actions of the controversial Head of the Department of Home Affairs,

Peter Dutton, who has more political power and responsibility than any

other Minister in the Liberal Party Cabinet.

Mr. Dutton has constantly been criticized for his hard-line,

uncompromising approach and unmoved opposition to immigration.

On Thursday, an Australian Federal Court judge ordered that Mr. Dutton

reverse his prior decision and transfer a seriously ill young female from

Nauru to mainland Australia.

Although no specific location was specified, it is understood that she is

now in Sydney with family and receiving medical treatment.

The medical details surrounding her situation are detailed inside public

Federal Court documents, which have been accessed by Freedom Publishers

Union.

It is documented the female has engaged in self-harm, suffers severe

psychiatric failures and is in a constant severe depressive state.

Although it is not specified explicitly in the documents we had access

to, there is absolutely no room for doubt to conclude that her severely

depleted medical state is the result from extended detention on Nauru.

Mr. Dutton rejected the original request for the female to be transferred

off the remote nation of Nauru so that appropriate medical treatment

could be sought.

Instead, he attempted to claim that the her condition failed to qualify

as the required evidence of proof of her alleged serious medical

condition.

Mr. Dutton outright ignored the advice and reports from several medical

personnel on Nauru which assessed the female's condition.

Mr. Dutton's decision was rightly rejected by the Federal Court judge and

he was ordered to allow for the transfer of the female to the mainland.

Mr. Dutton has engaged in multiple attempts, possibly up to 12 times, at

blocking transfers of detainees - adults and children.

However these attempts are consistently overruled by the Federal Court

which force Mr. Dutton to reverse his decision.

Mr. Dutton's actions are placing detainee's health and lives at risk and

stripping many of the detainees on the islands of their human rights.

Freedom Publishers Union reached out to a member of a major political

party inside Australia.

We were able to get the following comments from a person who spoke to us

on the condition of anonymity.

"It is very clear, and has been clear for a long time, Minister Dutton is

giving absolutely no indication of attempting to manage the welfare of

those detained in centers on Nauru and Manus Island.

He never has had the welfare of them in his interest.

What interest has been shown is not even close to the acceptable standard

required under international law and he continues to initiate Australia's

violation of human rights.".

Citing Federal Court documents, Freedom Publishers Union reveals that the

female has been detained on Nauru since 2013, along with her Mother, two

sisters and one brother.

There are also some extended family which are also detained on Nauru.

It is not specified how long her family members have been in detention

for or how she and her family members arrived.

However, it does specify that the female is classified as a "refugee",

yet she still remains detained.

Reports from medical personnel on Nauru who assessed the female concluded

that her declining medical condition was so severe that she should be

transferred off Nauru within 24 hours (of one of the [undated]

assessments) as there was no appropriate medical facility on Nauru that

could see that she would receive the required treatment.

It is unknown and not specified in the court documents accessed by

Freedom Publishers Union when this assessment was made.

Furthermore, it remains unclear of just how much time had passed since

the assessment and the recommendation was made to the time the female was

actually transferred off the island.

Despite attempts, Freedom Publishers Union has been unable to confirm

this information.

Despite repeated claims made from the Liberal Government of Australia and

its immigration department that no children are detained inside the

centers, this case proves contradictory to these claims.

For legal reasons the female's age is not revealed.

This is suggestive that the female is a minor and qualifies as a child.

It remains extremely concerning that mainstream media has not been able

to make this determination that children are still being detained on the

center.

In this specific case, she has been detained since 2013 - 5 years to

date.

Freedom Publishers Union continues to advocate that Australia immediately

shut down its offshore immigration detention program and proceed, without

any unnecessary delay, to develop a local program which sees processing

of those seeking asylum, on the mainland.

Additionally, we stress that this must be accompanied by appropriate

operations transparency and media access rights to the center.

Furthermore, an independent oversight body must be established to ensure

that Australia upholds its obligations for human rights under the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter, to which Australia is a

signatory to.

At the moment, Australia is engaging in continued human rights abuse with

both the Liberal and Labor Parties supporting the nation's abusive

immigration regime which strips these humans of their basic rights,

dignity and access to suitable medical facilities.

It is only through a complete reformed immigration policy that Australia

can begin to restore its reputation on the international stage for

treating asylum seekers as humans, upholding their natural rights and

setting an example to other nations that also engage in continued human

rights abuse.

Because at the moment, Australia's international reputation in this area

is absolutely shattered.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

[Filed from REYKJAVIK | International Media Group] July 30, 2018 | CIA,

Torture, Denial and "The Panetta Review"

Leon Panetta was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, more

commonly known as the CIA, for the duration of February 13, 2009 through

until June 30, 2011.

At the time he was appointed Director by then President Barack Obama,

there was expressions of concern over Panetta's lack of experience in the

field of intelligence.

The only noted experience was two years in limited intelligence as a

military officer in the 1960s.

Some inside the US political scene at the time argued it was Panetta's

lack of intelligence experience, especially with the CIA, which made him

a good candidate for the role.

Others continued to oppose.

Despite some reservations and conflict, Panetta was confirmed the

appointment on February 12, 2009, by the Senate and sworn in one week

later, on February 19.

During the tenure of Panetta's appointment inside the CIA, he authorized

a secret internal review of the agency's role in the torture of suspected

terrorist detainees, during the George W.

Bush administration.

Torture, disguised under the official legislative term of "Enhanced

Interrogation Techniques".

Following the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks of 9/11, George W.

Bush launched a massive campaign like the US had never seen and one which

would change the world's perception of terrorism and bring on the

generational media buzz term of the "War on Terror".

The media, especially those inside the US, grabbed hold of the buzz term

and exploited it to maximum commercial effect.

In 2018, the world's media are still attempting to force the "War on

Terror" facade in our faces at every opportunity.

However, it now has much less effect than what it did in the early to mid

2000s when the visual images of passenger airliners flying into the WTC

towers was still fresh in people's minds.

There was lots of controversy surrounding the politics and reaction by

the Bush administration, following the 9/11 attacks.

Controversy which is completely justified by questions that still remain

unanswered to this day.

But we understand one definitive event that did occur - the torture of

suspected terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay between 2001-2006.

It was not until 2006 that Bush publicly admitted that the CIA had been

using secret prisons, known as "Black Sites" to detain suspected

terrorists prior to being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

It is now understood that Bush had ordered the directive which permitted

the CIA to detain and secretly interrogate detainees at these secret

black sites and permitting them to use the new Enhanced Interrogation

Techniques.

Quality Publishing Works understands through research provided to us by

the Council Body of Research and Study, that nine CIA black sites

existed.

It is unclear how many still secretly exist today and remain under the

control of the CIA.

It is also understood from documents shown to us by the Council Body of

Research and Study that President Donald Trump is in the process of

reviewing and drafting an Executive Order that could see the

reinstatement of secret CIA black sites and some form of extreme

interrogation processes, by the CIA.

This, combined with the appointment of new CIA Director, Gina Haspel, who

was Chief of Base for a CIA black site located in Thailand, is a cause

for extreme concern that a Trump administration may be returning the CIA

to the dark torturous era of the Bush administration.

Precise and accurate details are difficult to verify of just how much

knowledge or involvement Haspel played in the operations of black site

she was Chief.

The Thailand located black site is where the suspected al Qaeda

terrorists Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah were detained and

tortured, using the enhanced interrogation techniques.

US Officials claim that Haspel did not become Chief of the site until

after Zubaydah was tortured.

Haspel also played a limited role in the destruction of CIA interrogation

videos that were reported to have footage that demonstrated the enhanced

interrogation methods.

A recent released (redacted) document aims to draw proof that Haspel was

not held directly accountable for the destruction of the videos and her

involvement of the videos destruction was limited.

Terror suspects were being detained at black sites in various secret

locations around the world and operated under complete secrecy by the CIA

with the knowledge of and by order of the Bush administration.

Detainees were never put to any kind of military or legal trial or

offered any avenue to prove their innocence.

Instead, they were interrogated and tortured, which was shrouded under

the term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in an effort to persuade

critics that it was not torture and the CIA's means of interrogation were

justifiable and legal.

They were not.

It was confirmed by the release in December 2014 of what was to be

referred to as "The Torture Report", officially titled "Committee Study

of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation

Program", that these so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" used

were in fact regarded as torture.

The Report that was released to the public was scathing and raw.

It painted an ugly picture of the handing of detainees and abuse of power

of the CIA, under the direction of George W.

Bush.

Countless associates were also closely linked to being the architects of

and having direct knowledge of the development of the enhanced

interrogation program, including the Vice President Dick Cheney and

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Albeit, they were not the subject of The Torture Report.

There was suspicion that the CIA was carrying out torture to some extent

on terror suspects.

The details presented in The Torture Report confirmed lots.

But it was still hiding many more secrets.

Secrets that remain hidden and classified today.

What was even more disturbing than the interrogation procedures outlined

in the report, was the public version of the report that was eventually

released took eight months to get approval for what was to be released as

only a small portion of the final report.

And the details that were included in this portion report still remained

heavily redacted.

To put it into perspective of just how selective The Torture Report that

was released to the public is, it is compiled of just 525 pages.

The complete and full report contains more than 6,000 pages.

What remains hidden in the remaining five and a half thousand pages still

remains classified.

Effectively, there is a lot of secrets in the final report that still

remain secret and kept out of the public domain.

Even those in Congress can not get access to the full report, which

remains secretly held by the CIA.

The raw details that were included in the version released to the public

were disturbing and difficult to read, in detail.

The final and full unredacted report we can only assume is absolutely

shocking.

Quality Publishing Works has consistently supported calls for the public

release of the full 6,000+ page report.

However, four years after the release of the redacted version released to

the public, we are still no closer to getting the final report released -

redacted or unredacted.

Legal action has been launched and the release of the full report has

been sought, notably by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), but to

date all requests and attempts have been rejected.

During May 2016, it was revealed that CIA had destroyed an electronic

copy of the full report, along with the hard disk that it resided.

A claim that the CIA insists was "accidental".

Due to the secrecy surrounding the full report, it remains unclear where

the full report was/is held and how secure it remains from the CIA

destroying its very existence in an effort to cover up the full details

of the torture the agency carried out.

The CIA appears afraid of the reaction shall the full details be

revealed.

It would not be the first time that the agency has gone to extreme

lengths to cover up its torture.

The CIA had possession of the video footage of their interrogations in

2002 at the black site in Thailand, and most likely other black sites

too.

If leaked to the public, the videos would have provided further

disturbing proof that the CIA did in fact torture detainees, despite the

agency playing down the claims.

The CIA has been in a constant state of denial that their methods of

information gathering is torture.

Instead, they continue to believe that it was simply carrying out

enhanced interrogation methods.

It has been confirmed inside details of a memo, provided to us by the

Council Body of Research and Study, originally sent to the black site in

Thailand by then CIA officer, Jose Rodriguez, that the videos depicting

torture were destroyed on November 9, 2005.

Interestingly, the names of the CIA lawyers who authorized the

destruction were ommitted from the memo.

It is considered normal practice to include lawyers names on such memos

as a means of legal protection of the person making the order.

In this case, it would appear no lawyers authorized the destruction of

the videos.

It remains unclear how many videos in total contained footage of CIA

torture as the numbers that have been made public are conflicting among

media reports and cannot be verified accurately.

But one thing is certain, the CIA went to extreme lengths to destroy the

video evidence of its activities.

Knowledge of the videos and their destruction only became public

knowledge in December 2007, two years after the destruction order was

given.

Combined with a long and ongoing campaign to call for the release of the

full report, our publishing partners, Freedom Publishers Union, has also

been calling for the release of all documents associated with "The

Panetta Review".

The Panetta Review was a secret internal review that was conducted by

Leon Panetta.

The dates surrounding when the review was carried out remain vague and

again, cannot be accurately verified.

It was reported that Panetta ordered the review with the aim of finding

out how they ethics of the CIA officers was broken and how they could be

brought into line.

The review was never released to the public and to date, also remains

classified.

The very existence of The Panetta Review was made public by Senator Mark

Udall, on December 17, 2013.

Udall claims to have accessed and viewed portions of The Panetta Review

and its details provide consistency with those detailed in The Torture

Report which was released by the Intelligence Committee.

However, the Intelligence Committee's report was in conflict with the

CIA's official response.

It is long believed that the conclusive and matching findings of The

Panetta Review and Intelligence Committee's The Torture Report are in

direct conflict with the official response by the CIA, suggesting this is

the reason that The Panetta Review was never released and possibly even

suspended before it was completed.

If The Panetta Review was shut down before completion because its final

findings were deemed to be contradictory to the CIA's official response

given to the public, then that equates to an internal cover-up by Leon

Panetta.

It was claimed by the CIA that the Intelligence Committee had accessed

and taken portions of The Panetta Review from CIA facilities, without the

authorization of the agency.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was Chairwoman of the Intelligence

Committee, confirmed that the Committee had accessed and obtained

portions of The Panetta Review.

She claimed that they were transferred to a secure safe, reportedly

inside the Senate's Hart Office Building.

Feinstein maintains that the actions they took were absolutely required

to protect the documents from potential destruction by the CIA, which had

already previously destroyed evidence of torture through the destruction

of the black site videos, under the direction of Jose Rodriguez.

The dispute over access to The Panetta Review continued when Feinstein

accused the CIA of unlawfully accessing the computer systems of the

Intelligence Committee, in what is believed to be in an attempt to

discover how the Committee got access to the documents of The Panetta

Review in the first place.

It was also requested by the acting general council of the CIA, that the

FBI launch an investigation into the actions of the Intelligence

Committee.

There is no confirmation that any investigation actually took place by

the FBI.

It was identified later on that the acting general council for the CIA

was Robert Eatinger.

Interestingly, Eatinger was also later confirmed as one of the lawyers

that authorized the destruction of the CIA torture videos, but who's name

was omitted from the memo.

The entire saga even grabbed the attention of former NSA Contractor

turned mass-surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden.

He claimed that it was obvious that the FBI was playing a game of "keep

away" from The Panetta Review.

However, Snowden's position on the matter appears neutral when he

extended his observations to Feinstein's behavior and stated her

hypocrisy when complaints were made of CIA spying on the Intelligence

Committee, when Feinstein is supporting the global mass-surveillance

networks primary led by the NSA.

Everything appeared to come to a screaming halt in the month of July 2014

when the Justice Department confirmed it would not pursue legal action

against the CIA for its hacking into the Intelligence Committee's

computer system.

The actual hacking was confirmed by the CIA in the same month.

A claim that it had previously denied up until that time.

In December 2014, Senator Udall continued his pursuit for the release of

The Panetta Review.

He continued to denounce the torture program of the former Bush

administration and also criticized the Obama administration on its

actions that were effectively protecting the CIA of its past activities.

Udall declared The Panetta Review to be "a smoking gun".

He directly the accused the CIA of lying by saying, "One disturbing

finding," is "the CIA are continuing to willfully provide inaccurate

information and misrepresent the efficacy of torture.

In other words, the CIA is lying.".

In what appears to be the most revealing details of just what is inside

The Panetta Review, Udall says, "The Panetta Review found that the CIA

repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Congress, the President

and the public on the efficacy of its coercive techniques.".

Furthermore, the CIA "continues to insist the CIA's interrogations

produced unique intelligence to save lives, yet The Panetta Review

identifies dozens of documents that include inaccurate information used

to justify the use of torture and indicates that the inaccuracies it

identifies do not represent an exhaustive list.

The Panetta Review further describes how detainees provided intelligence

prior to the use of torture against them.

It describes how the CIA, contrary to its own representations, often

tortured detainees before trying an other approach.

It describes how the CIA tortured detainees even when less coercive

methods were yielding intelligence.

The Panetta Review further identified cases in which the CIA used

coercive techniques when it had no basis for determining whether a

detainee had critical intelligence at all.

In other words, CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they didn't

have intelligence, not because they thought they did.".

Senator Udall was defeated in the election that followed this speech.

The revelations by Udall were scathing and confirmed that the interest

and motivation to have The Panetta Review released to the public, should

remain a priority.

As late as January 2018, Investigative Reporter, Joshua Eaton from

ThinkProgress, received access to a small set of emails.

The email set which also included a legal declaration from the Chief of

the Litigation Support Unit of the CIA, Martha M.

Lutz.

The emails which have also been viewed by the Council Body of Research

and Study and relevant details provided to Quality Publishing Works,

include a letter sent to the President of the United States at the time,

Barack Obama.

In the letter, Senator Udall states his reasons for the request to have

The Panetta Review released.

Udall argues that its release was crucial to understanding the accuracy

of the torture details in their entirety.

From learning from the details, Udall says future decisions on policy can

be developed to ensure that this kind of unacceptable behavior from the

CIA is never repeated again from any US administration.

He also presses the President to ensure the CIA complies with any

requests made to have The Panetta Review shared with the Committee and to

declassify The Torture Report and release the entire full report, in

redacted form if necessary.

In follow up emails, it becomes clear that the CIA Director at the time,

John Brennan, had no intention of releasing any information, details or

documents related to any internal review of the enhanced interrogation

program - The Panetta Review.

Brennan argues that the material that make up the internal review were

incomplete and are made up of a series of drafts that still required

heavy editing.

In the declaration by Martha M.

Lutz, there is better clarification made as to the official legal

position and reasoning of why The Panetta Review has not been released.

The declaration also makes it clear that the CIA never has any intention

of ever releasing the material, which they again argue remains nothing

more than a set of incomplete drafts that do not provide any further

relevant details necessary to be released.

Instead, the declaration makes it clear of the intended continuation of

secrecy surrounding the CIA's operations and attempts to justify their

necessity of operating in complete secrecy.

Lutz also claims that the "documents remain in draft form, were never

completed, and were not presented as final products to the Director or

other senior CIA leaders".

In an attempt to stop any further enquiries into a potential release of

The Panetta Review, Lutz's claims somewhat echo that of Brennan, stating

that the internal review was suspended and no documents beyond the drafts

were produced.

Lutz claims in the declaration that it was determined that continuing

with the internal review might complicate any Department of Justice

investigation.

This alone is a very interesting comment which appears to be overlooked,

as no investigation even took place.

Perhaps Lutz was exercising her sense of duty to continue the trend of

diverting attention away from The Panetta Review.

One can not ignore the sense of urgency which can be determined from the

tone of the language used by Senator Udall, at the time.

After having partially viewed portions of The Panetta Review, he said "I

will tell you that the review is much more than a 'summary' and

'incomplete drafts', which is the way Mr. Brennan and former CIA

officials have characterized it in order to minimize its significance".

Udall makes the bold statement, "I have reviewed this document, and it is

as significant and relevant as it gets.".

Almost five years on from the public learning of the existence of The

Panetta Review, the sense of urgency remains the same.

The calls to have the review released are still active.

Those who make the call have an equal sense of urgency and worry that

some day, the CIA will 'conveniently' destroy The Panetta Review, along

with the full complete version of The Torture Report which includes over

6,000 pages of details which are almost certainly guaranteed to scar the

US Government, the Bush administration era and the CIA for many years to

come.

Still, the longer the CIA denies, lies and hides from the issue of

torture, the louder the calls for increased transparency become.

When asked if the CIA would place on the public record their response to

claims that The Panetta Review contradicts the official public response

given by CIA representatives and that is the reason it was never

released, the CIA falls silent and refused to comment.

Instead, they keep The Panetta Review locked away, barring all access by

Congress and the public.

Former Senator Mark Udall may no longer be a Senator, but sources close

to him state that his position on the matter has not changed and he still

calls for the release of The Panetta Review.

Despite repeated claims from George W.

Bush, former CIA Directors and Leon Panetta himself that the use of

"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" were crucial to extract valuable

source information from detainees, on terrorists and potential future

attacks, these claims have been proven to be wrong and documentative

evidence has been produced as proof.

Including revelations from the FBI and other sources that the crucial

information that was received was not provided as a result of torture of

the detainee.

Instead, the crucial information was provided before torture techniques

were initiated.

This is also confirmed in the opening pages of the Senate's report, under

"Finding and Conclusions".

The report concluded, "The Committee finds, based on a review of CIA

interrogation records, that the use of the CIA's enhanced interrogation

techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information

or gaining detainee cooperation.".

Effectively, when accurate information was received it was "prior to, or

without having been subjected to these techniques.".

And, "Detainees provided fabricated information on critical intelligence

issues, including the terrorist threats which the CIA identified as its

highest priorities.".

Crucially, the report found that "CIA officers regularly called into

question whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were

effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit

detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence.".

These key findings have consistently been disputed and rejected by CIA

Directors and representatives, who still believe that their harsh

techniques worked and were completely acceptable and legal.

The CIA is an agency in disgrace.

They know it.

It is this very reason that they continue to deny and fight so hard to

keep their secrets in the dark, in effort to hide their illegal and

disgraceful actions of torture at the hands of the former Bush

administration.

Quality Publishing Works will continue to support the call for the

release of the complete The Torture Report and The Panetta Review and

will not be satisfied until all associated documents are placed in the

public domain - in redacted form if necessary.

-----

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavik Press

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] July 24, 2018 | USA and Australia.

Russia and China - How Does Trump Deal With Such Complex and Problematic

International Relations?

There is a problem with today's mainstream press - Regardless of the

political persuasion, all of them want to report a controversy.

Consequently, whatever President Donald Trump does, there is some part of

the press that sees a controversy in the action and stops the story at

that point.

What they do not explore is the result of the action that Trump has

taken.

That result may actually be a positive change.

So far, the meeting with North Korea has produced real action in a sense

that it has made the North approachable, which was the result actually

needed before any other potential outcome could follow.

It is now far too late to put the nuclear weapons genie back in its

bottle.

North Korea needed to be invaded and occupied the first time sanctions

failed for any possibility of controlling the nation's nuclear weapons

program.

Instead, we saw the world toying around with the United Nations (UN) for

two decades and now it's too late.

Western countries have only focused on their needs, with the consequence

of losing the third or fourth largest economy overnight.

And that was the sword the Kim family held ever since the Korean War.

Trump, being a transactional negotiator, recognized that things weren't

going back to the 1980s anymore.

The best we could hope for is to draw a line under the past and move

forward, bring the North into world trade, where the free market would

end the Kim dynasty just as it ended Russia and China.

Now Trump is doing the same thing with 'the Soviet Union' - which is how

most politicians in the US view Russia, even today.

He sees them as a corrupt country that needs an autocrat to keep it from

breaking apart further.

He sees the Crimean invasion and subsequent actions in the context of

Russia taking advantage of the lack of response and action from the rest

of the world to look after its needs.

Perhaps that might be over-reach.

But the time to deal with it came and went before the UN could even hold

a meeting, which probably would have resulted in nothing more than vague

discussion leading to no results.

When events get ahead of responses, all leaders can realistically do is

condemn the action and move on.

This notion is widely accepted in politics as a legitimate response, but

not with the public and most certainly not with the press.

The Europeans certainly did that, because they need energy from Russia

more than they need an embargo or a war on their borders with the very

real potential to flow into their pride land.

Besides, Russia is a country that really should be an ally.

We share a lot of heritage in our people and they are another technology

leader that can, if we get the political diplomacy right, help balance

China with Europe.

So Trump does the transactional act - skip over the bad behavior and go

straight to a stand-up normalization of relations.

If Russia meddled in US elections, which the many substantive reports

that have been released and published here on Freedom Publishers Union

suggest they did, well, it's too late to act on it now.

We need to move on.

But we must also take the notion of Russian election meddling serious and

ensure the right precautions are put in place for future elections to

prevent foreign interference from any nation seeking to undermine

American democracy.

Australia is taking action in this area by recently introducing

legislation which aims to prevent foreign interference of its delicate

democracy.

However, there is much caution around the legislation.

The NY Times says, "The new laws are similar to but more far-reaching

than those passed in Britain and the United States after the terrorist

attacks of Sept.

11, 2001.

They prioritize an approach favored by security officials and give great

discretion to the Australian Attorney General, with limited checks and

balances.".

Freedom Publishers Union has also expressed concern over the legislation,

focusing on the potential effects it may have on journalism, publishers

and the free press.

Whilst the legislation has been amended somewhat from the original draft,

Freedom Publishers Union maintains the position that the changes do not

go far enough.

As pointed out, again by the NY Times, "Journalists accused of violating

the restrictions on sharing government information can also now claim a

"public interest" defense, arguing that the information they disclose has

value for democracy.".

However, it remains unclear as to how effective a "public interest" claim

would be in a court of law.

Especially in a hypothetical case where secret government information may

have been published which embarrasses the government and exposes

unethical (and most likely illegal) behavior.

Journalists would explicitly deem this to be in the public's interest.

But this may not be the view of the country's Attorney General which

would undoubtedly act to initiate legal proceedings with a firm view to

prosecute the journalist, publisher and their source(s).

The balance is all wrong.

The NY Times concludes by saying, "Beyond journalists and secrecy,

though, the laws have few exceptions.".

Putting focus on a specific country, the Australian example of foreign

interference laws are largely believed to be focusing on China.

Although the text of the legislation does not specifically mention China,

understandably.

It has long been suspected that Australia has been the target of Chinese

attempts to undermine its democracy.

It is unclear whether it is these suspicions which prompted the

legislation to be drafted.

China is adamant that it has no intention and never had intention of

interfering with Australia's political framework or democratic values.

SBS News reports the Chinese Embassy in Australia as saying Australia is

"exhibiting a Cold War mentality".

And directly accused Australian media of "fabricating stories about

Chinese Government influence".

The Australian example of its attempts of dealing with the potential for

election interference by a foreign power are slightly contradictory to

Australia's lazy attitude towards suspected Chinese interference, in a

sense that no investigations or reports have been released (to the

public) which investigate, analyze and assess for any Chinese

interference.

Freedom Publishers Union is unaware if any reports even exist.

We do not believe so.

Although Australia's attempts at dealing with potential election

interference should be commended, Freedom Publishers Union believes that

the Australian Government have just got the complete wrong balance of the

law.

It attempts to do too much, is far too broad in its scope and introduces

too many new laws for problems that do not exist.

Instead, the law itself is the guilty party in creating problems.

The Government claims that although the law could be used for prosecution

of journalists and publishers, extending to their sources in some cases,

it will not be used for that purpose.

Well Freedom Publishers Union argues that if it has no intention of using

the law for this purpose, then why was such a law introduced in the first

place.

Let's be blunt here - You do not introduce a law you have no intention of

using.

That is at the core of our concern and should act as a wakeup call for

America.

So where does this leave the US Government and what are its options for

taking precautionary measures to help eliminate the potential for Russian

interference with its elections? Well, it could follow Australia's lead.

But it must be extremely careful and must remain focused on the core

problem of election meddling and not broaden the scope too far, which is

the biggest mistake made by the Australians.

Despite what appears to be the majority public perception, President

Donald Trump is not an idiot.

What he sees is a manner of negotiation that, were real estate to use it,

would never get a building constructed and occupied in under a century.

People have been asking for decades why don't we just negotiate our

international commitments the way we negotiate other contracts.

Well, Trump has responded with a 'let's do it' mentality.

Speaking generally, Freedom Publishers Union disagrees with much of

Trump's actions and statements.

And perhaps his methods of governance could be described as unorthodox

and unusual.

Using Twitter as a main platform to communicate your message is

definitely unusual for such a person holding arguably the most powerful

position in the free world.

But bringing diplomacy into the 21st century is definitely worth a try.

After all, we aren't sending diplomatic correspondence back and forth

from negotiations via sailing ships anymore.

Realistically, a couple of emails, faxes and conference calls should be

able to do what takes months of traditional face-to-face negotiation

between nation's representatives.

Unfortunately, it also eliminates about 50% of the State Department and

reduces the Secretary of State from one of the most powerful politicians

to simply a department head which resembles that of a loans manager in a

financial institution.

Given that the State is where the wealthy scions of America's richest and

powerful families end up (the ones not running Wall Street), disrupting

the careers of these politically connected diplomats is not something you

do if you want their soft money and back-room dealing.

Trump, coming from the 'working class' of business executives, isn't part

of the 'old money elite', and doesn't need their support if he controls

the mob in the streets of populism.

That's why the he panders to the white, racist, blue-collar, ignorant

masses.

As long as he can win the electoral votes on the backs of these

constituents, he isn't beholden to the old power brokers.

Which effectively trades one form of corrupt leadership for another.

President Trump's seemingly bat-shit [sic] statements and ongoing stream

of reversals on policy position are a tool for keeping everyone off

balance in negotiations.

When he starts out daring North Korea to start a nuclear war, he calls

their bluff - at which point they will take the action that saves face

and lets them act as though they're being humble and leading to an

ultimate path to peace.

Which is where Trump wants to be.

Give them the choice between certain death and a comfortable life and

they'll take the life offer every time.

Of course, this strategy only works when the other party decides to act

rational.

If they decide to go to nuclear war, now you obviously have a very

different problem.

So far, President Donald Trump has won these challenges.

However, the big kahoona [sic] is the trade war with China.

The expectation is that China will negotiate a settlement rather than

lose access to American trade.

However, the numbers for the cost of the trade war are such that China

may be able to wait America out, while building leadership in other areas

of the world (Africa and South America).

This could actually be a challenge that doesn't work out.

Is Trump crazy and mentally unstable? No.

He's using shock and uncertainty to achieve the lesser goals, which were

his target all along.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] July 22, 2018 | Unverified Reports Ecuador Ready to

Hand Over Julian Assange to British Authorities

It is quickly becoming increasingly clear that the Editor of Wikileaks,

Julian Assange, has lost the support from the host country that has

allowed him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy, in London.

Assange sought and was granted political asylum by Ecuador and has

remained detained to the Embassy by threat of immediate arrest by British

authorities, since 2012.

In the past 24-48 hours, the world's media has begun to report that the

Ecuadorian President is close to reaching an agreement (or perhaps has

already reached an agreement) with the British Government to force

Assange from the Embassy.

A forced removal, by physical means or a voluntary exit by Assange as a

result of any agreement, would ultimately hand him to British authorities

outside the premises.

The media reports are unverified at the time Freedom Publishers Union

goes to press.

We seek further validation of the facts and we seek clarification whether

Assange or anyone from his legal team has been notified of any further

details.

We rely on the story published by Glenn Greenwald through The Intercept,

which he cites his anonymous source as someone with ties to the Embassy

where Assange is effectively detained.

Also, Russian media outlet RT also make similar reports which reflect on

the same noted facts as published by The Intercept.

The Editor-in-Chief of RT claims her source says that Ecuador is ready to

hand over Assange to British authorities within weeks, possibly days.

Weeks, days? As this is unverified developing news which is yet to be

confirmed by anyone with official ties to the ongoing political

stalemate, it is absolutely unclear how things will unfold when (and if)

Ecuador does follow through with the reported claims and forcefully

remove Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy.

It must be duly noted that in 2016 his detainment to the Embassy was

validated as illegal by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention.

Assange has never been charged with a crime.

Freedom Publishers Union has been at the absolute forefront of support

for the wider cause of Julian Assange and his publishing organization,

Wikileaks.

Our support remains unchanged by these recent developments.

We continue to monitor the situation surrounding the latest, unverified,

reports and will release information as we can validate the facts.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] July 16, 2018 | America Not Leading by Good

Example.

Should Australia Follow?

Chinese technology giant Huawei looks more likely to be facing a complete

ban from contributing to the construction of Australia's national 5G

network, for what the Government describes as "national security

reasons".

The Australians claim they have serious security concerns, backed by

their intelligence agencies, that Huawei will use their technology to

collect network data and share it with the Chinese Government.

We must reflect back to a decade or so ago when America was 'bitch-

slapped' for Cisco and other US suppliers leaving NSA backdoors in

commercial switches, routers and other networking equipment.

While it's difficult to plot the timeline of Cisco's history of NSA

backdoors being planted into their equipment, nobody can ignore the fact

that American equipment has been proven to be more susceptible to

government-sponsored security compromises than Chinese equipment - based

on evidence released to the public.

In America, there's growing concern towards Huawei too, with the FBI, CIA

and NSA all accusing the company of spying on American citizens through

its cell phones.

The situation here in America is a mirror image of the Australia-Huawei

situation.

Raymond Wong from Mashable says, "If you're Huawei, you'd be upset" [at

the spying allegations].

"Especially since there's been no evidence that Huawei's phones are

really spying on anyone.".

Wong reiterates on the concerns of lack of evidence against Huawei that

Freedom Publishers Union has by stating, "that's really the issue here.

There isn't any hard evidence at this time to back up any claims that

Huawei phones are a threat to personal or national security.

It's just a lot of smoke from Washington.".

Smoke which now appears to be bellowing from Australia's shores too.

Wong takes another swipe, "Ironically, the only known hacking we know of

that's closely related to Huawei wasn't done by the company or the

Chinese Government, but by the NSA.

In 2012, it was revealed the NSA had made a program called "Shotgiant"

that created backdoors into Huawei-made networking equipment in order to

monitor communications around the world and find ties between the Chinese

company and China's People's Liberation Army.".

Freedom Publishers Union suggests that domestic-made networking equipment

is no more secure than Chinese-made equipment.

And the American [and Australian] intelligence agencies aren't doing the

citizens any favors by placing backdoors into domestic-made devices.

The evidence we do see is absolutely contradictory to the claims that

Chinese networking equipment is not secure and is doing the spying.

The evidence is clear and no evidence has been presented that reverses

the security trend.

Any decision made by the Australian Government that results in Chinese

technology companies being banned because of any potential security

risk(s) should be largely based on whether there is proof of spyware,

backdoors and/or hardware inclusions that compromise network security.

If there is evidence present, then sure, ban them.

However, this should be accompanied by honesty with the Australian public

from its intelligence sources who have the evidence.

At the moment, all we see is political rhetoric which portrays as nothing

more than a formed political opinion which is increasingly bias against

China, rather than evidence based decision making.

This is also noted by communications construction business Transseed, who

just last week point out, "Other countries such as the UK, New Zealand,

Canada and Germany are also very wary about using Huawei equipment in

their network infrastructure but have enacted stringent cyber-security

checks to ensure there are no backdoors to the Chinese government.

Australia has taken a different approach by opting for an outright ban

despite the fact there has never been any public evidence to support the

suspicions.".

If, on the other hand, the Chinese spying card is being played as a means

to manipulate competition and spook the market interests into concluding

that Chinese technology companies are the evil nemesis, then no, it's not

a good idea to ban them.

Australia really needs to put its collective head together and decide if

following America's lead remains a good idea.

Australia should be a lot more concerned about pissing off China than

America, right now.

Given the current and foreseeable direction of American leadership and

policy under President Donald Trump, as another nation [Australia] far

from America, decisions should be made on the assumption that American

support is going to either be greatly reduced, or the alliance is going

to require expensive confrontation, with everyone on America's 'list'.

Australia is a great little country, with big borders.

But it is little compared to the superpowers of the developed world.

That isn't bad.

It's simply reality.

America is learning quickly that isolationism is going to make the USA

quickly fall out from its global leadership role and probably end up like

Britain - a shadow of its once glorious empire, still invited to

participate with the 'big kids' out of respect, but with no meaningful or

effective role.

Or, America could end up as the new North Korea - a political rogue

nation and isolated home of a Dr.

Evil and his 300,000,000 minions.

As the trade war escalates between America and China, with no finish line

within view, it's worth looking at a similar scenario to see just why

screwing with international trade relations for political gain doesn't

generally have positive domestic outcomes.

This latest trade war will not end well for America.

We need to just take a look at Toyota - a company that is getting heavy

tariffs for supposed national security reasons in America.

This is having a direct impact on the 138,000 Americans that work in

America directly for Toyota, in their factories and dealerships.

Plus, another 100,000 or so Americans that work supporting the Toyota

factories and the American companies that are suppliers to Toyota.

Toyota has explicitly stated that "a 25 percent tariff on automobiles

would increase the cost of every vehicle sold in the United States.".

That is not good for Americans.

Then, to bigger problems for our nation.

In the past 60-90 days we've seen the United States of America crash

through several of the last layers of protections to our democracy.

We have insulted, then injured our closest allies, challenged the

legitimacy of nearly every minority in America, effectively banned

collective bargaining and set up the framework to become a single-party

state in 2020.

This is the type of bloodless revolution Marx envisioned that would sweep

America.

Unfortunately, it is sweeping a fascist wave and dictatorship with strong

religious intolerance into what once was the beacon of freedom for the

world, all triggered by latent racism even worse than South Africa.

God have mercy on America!

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

July 2, 2018 | Linux Mint 19 "Tara" (Cinnamon) Review (Part 3 of 3)

We have reached the end of our journey with Linux Mint 19.

The last desktop environment we're going to take a quick look at is

Cinnamon.

Cinnamon has a similar founding to that of MATE.

Cinnamon was also forked from earlier GNOME source code.

It was forked due to discontent over the development path that official

GNOME development was taking, which effectively resulted in GNOME Shell

that we have today.

Mint developers took Cinnamon in a different direction to GNOME 3 and

instead decided to stick with traditional desktop principles.

How does Cinnamon compare to its XFCE and MATE sisters? Well, pretty

average actually.

Cinnamon is much more system resource intensive by nature.

Visually, it looks just as stunning, but simple desktop usage offers a

quick insight into its underlying focus on appearance.

Installation was all the same, with Tecseek Technology deciding to stick

with BtrFS for our Cinnamon desktop.

When you first boot into Cinnamon you will notice a small dialog box pop

up which warns you of graphics running in software mode.

This is one major contributor to the Cinnamon desktop being slightly

slower than its sister desktops.

You have two options.

You can actually leave Cinnamon running in software mode and suffer the

slight performance lag and extra strain it will put on your CPU.

Or, you can jump into the Driver Manager and install the appropriate

graphics driver for your hardware.

Once the driver is installed, it will greatly improve the performance of

Cinnamon.

Software selection as mentioned in previous Reviews of M19, is the same.

Cinnamon does inherit support for desktop Extensions, which is all

handled by the included tool in Cinnamon.

There's also support for Desklets.

You can simply right-click on the Cinnamon desktop and click Add

Desklets.

You will need to update the cache, but that only takes a few seconds.

You can then scroll through a list of available Desklets to install.

Personally, we like our desktop nice and clean and prefer to have minimal

items in this space.

But we can see the benefits of adding perhaps Google Calendar a the

Weather Desklet.

What we do like on our desktop is visual verbose feedback of system

resources.

We tried the System Monitor Desklet but found it didn't work.

We received a warning symbol which detailed that the desktop has

potential to crash Cinnamon.

We tried it.

While it failed to crash Cinnamon (a sign of Cinnamon's resilience

perhaps?), the Desklet did fail to load.

So we instead tried the CPU Usage Desklet combined with the top output

Desklet.

Together, they add an extra layer of spice to the system.

We liked it so much we actually left them running.

It kind of resembles Conky, albeit not quite as configurable as Conky's

Lua ability.

We have a confession.

When Cinnamon was first forked, our experience with it was horrible.

There was a time when we just outright refused to use it, instead

favoring MATE.

Early versions of Cinnamon were horrible, slow, would not allow much

customization and were just not very nice to use.

Regular readers of our Linux reviews will understand by now that Tecseek

Technology is quite harsh in our criticism and sometimes brutally honest.

If we don't like something or think something is crap, we let our readers

know it's crap.

It's that simple.

Lots of things have changed with Cinnamon.

It's matured and been tweaked and is now actually quite pleasant to use.

On previous iterations where there was just so much that the user was

unable to customize, we're glad to see now it can all be changed.

Right-clicking on just about everything will offer you custom options to

change it.

That's what we like in our desktops - choice.

And we're glad Cinnamon is now ready to be seriously considered as a

usable desktop, by Tecseek Technology.

The time has come when you may now be asking the question - So which

desktop do I download and install for M19?

We have a couple of answers to that question.

If you have the system resources to spare and download bandwidth is not

an issue for you, then download all three and give them a try in Live

Mode running inside Oracle VM VirtualBox.

If this is not possible for you and you need to settle on a single option

based on a recommendation from us, then we're going to recommend you

install the XFCE desktop.

Though, it must be understood that our recommendation of XFCE is based on

our pre-existing love for the XFCE desktop environment.

And this is exactly what we mentioned before.

Your choice will most likely be based on previous experience you've had

with a specific desktop environment.

Because the truth is that all three desktop options for M19 are excellent

and worth installing.

M19 is a great release.

There are only a few quirks and niggles that are pulling on our annoyance

strings, but they are easy resolved within seconds.

What you are guaranteed to get is a very well performing, stable desktop,

with the great backbone support of Ubuntu.

Surely, that's enough to entice you to install Linux Mint 19.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 2, 2018 | Linux Mint 19 "Tara" (MATE) Review (Part 2 of 3)

Tecseek Technology has already looked at the XFCE release of Linux Mint

19.

For the second Review, it's time we take a look at the MATE desktop.

Let's not waste anymore space on its introduction.

Instead, we're going to jump right in.

The installer for the MATE release of M19 is the same Ubiquity installer

used for all releases.

The same installation process applies.

Only this time, we paid more attention to disk partitioning and opted to

install using BtrFS, instead of ext4 which we regretfully chose for the

XFCE release.

Installation using BtrFS was no quicker than using ext4 but everything

worked without any issues.

That's what matters.

The advantage of opting to install on a BtrFS partition over ext3/4 is

you can utilize Timeshift to create system Snapshots so you can restore

your system to a specific point if things go pear shaped.

Timeshift has now been included in a few distributions that have rolled

through the office of Tecseek Technology.

As BtrFS becomes more mainstream as the default filesystem for Linux

distributions, we predict to see more of them including Timeshift to

complement the Snapshot capabilities of BtrFS.

Speaking of 'shifty' things, M19 also includes Redshift.

It's a small utility which sits in the desktop panel and automatically

controls the color temperature of the displays, according to the time of

day and translated position of the sun in accordance to the time and

location.

As humans are gradually becoming more aware of the extended hours we as

humans spend in front of our digital displays, tools like Redshift become

more useful and more popular.

We were mightily impressed with how well XFCE performs with M19.

The good news is the MATE desktop easily lives up to the same performance

standards.

And it looks every part as good too.

There's not much difference between the two, actually.

MATE was forked from the old GNOME 2 base source code.

At the time GNOME 2 was in active development it's performance was

relatively similar to that of the XFCE desktop environment.

That performance baseline has continued with the development of the MATE

desktop, with performance still impressive.

Especially comparing it to the more interactive-esque modern desktops of

GNOME Shell (or GNOME 3) and or even KDE Plasma, which is slowly becoming

bloated.

It's not quite there yet, but it's something the developers should be

concerned about.

But there is no such bloat worry with M19 and MATE.

The software selection is identical across the board with all desktop

releases of M19.

All the same major offerings apply on the MATE desktop too.

The only major difference in comparing MATE to XFCE (or Cinnamon) is that

MATE uses Caja as its default graphical file manager.

This is a moot point though, as their primary functions are almost

identical.

We had some issues on the XFCE desktop with the updated Linux kernel not

being pulled in with the rest of the updates when using APT in a terminal

console.

We performed the exact same routine in MATE and the same problem occurs.

It's effectively a M19 problem, or odd intention.

But the point is it is not a problem limited to just one desktop

variation.

Eventually, we decided to just perform the same routine and update

process and pull the Linux kernel update in via the mintUpdate tool.

Same routine, same result.

Kernel updated.

As mentioned, there's not really a lot to look at with the MATE desktop

that wasn't already present in XFCE.

If you had to make a choice of which desktop environment to install, it

wouldn't make the slightest bit of different which one you chose.

It's the equivalent of flipping a dime with heads on both sides.

You'll only get the same result anyway.

We suspect that it will come down to desktop environment user loyalty.

Believe us when we say there are such beings that exist.

Some Linux users take their desktop of choice very serious and outright

refuse to try anything outside of their first preference.

That's fine.

That's their right.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 2, 2018 | Linux Mint 19 "Tara" (XFCE) Review (Part 1 of 3)

Tecseek Technology are long time fans of Linux Mint and we have vast

experience in its use.

Despite this experience, we willingly declare that the amount of

attention we give it here is very unfair.

It deserves more attention.

That's why we are publishing three Reviews for the latest release of

"Tara", by taking a look at the XFCE, MATE and Cinnamon desktops.

Linux Mint 19 (M19) is code named "Tara".

We always have high expectations for Mint releases.

But that's a benchmark that the developers have placed upon themselves.

They consistently push out release after release which are of such great

quality, we now expect it every time.

M19 is based on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, so M19 was always going to inherit a

stable, quality base to work on, which almost guaranteed a path to

satisfaction for its users.

But how does the XFCE release fare? Let's take a look.

We installed M19 XFCE to an ext4 partition, which turned out to be a big

mistake on our behalf.

Why? Read on to find out.

The installation performed just fine.

It was completed in an acceptable amount of time.

Not the fastest distribution for installation.

But still respectable to say the least.

Aesthetics are very predictable, yet pleasant for M19.

The distribution has become famous for its traditional gray and green

textures.

It is its identity.

We like it.

It works well.

M19 continues the tradition with a few minor tweaks, so there's not

really a lot to talk about in this area.

So we will move on.

Upon fresh reboot, the user is presented with a typical XFCE desktop,

which remains clean and uncluttered.

There's a simple Home icon, which takes you straight into Thunar.

The desktop panel has Show Desktop, Firefox, Terminal Console and File

Manager (Thunar).

Just enough to get you started but not make the user feel too overwhelmed

at the options.

No doubt users will tweak all this stuff anyway, to their own

preferences.

We immediately updated the system with APT inside a terminal console.

We performed the usual routine of updating the repositories and followed

with dist-upgrade to ensure we got all the latest packages.

Everything appeared to be fine, so we assumed the system to be as up to

date as it could be.

But we noticed the update icon on the desktop panel was still active and

complaining of available updates to be applied.

Clicking on the icon took us into the mintUpdate tool, where we were

faced with a Timeshift dialog box.

This wasn't exactly what we asked for, but we continued.

We were offered the chance to create a Snapshot of the system with

Timeshift, prior to updating packages.

We confirmed Yes but then realized Timeshift only works with BtrFS

partitions.

This was where it become clear that installing with ext4 was a mistake

and an error of our judgment.

Take note, if you want to take full advantage and see the benefits of

Timeshift, then please install M19 on a BtrFS partition.

Lesson learned.

Bypassing Timeshift, we saw there was a kernel update to be applied.

We updated the outstanding Linux kernel update which brought the running

kernel up to version 4.15.0-23.

After it was updated mintUpdate offered us, through another dialog box, a

chance to update our repositories server to a local server for quicker

package downloads.

This was silly because it should have been offered before updates being

downloaded and applied.

Not once they were applied.

This whole dialog box silliness which results in a clicking frenzy that

we're not used to when updating systems, combined with the inability to

update the system completely as intended by using terminal console and

APT annoyed us to hell.

It's all unnecessary and it makes no sense as to what on Earth is going

on.

To tell our readers the absolute truth, we're still puzzled by this

oddity.

We believe in choice and freedom.

If this strange update behavior is intended, then it would appear M19 is

forcing the user to perform a specific task a specific way.

It's disappointing and definitely something we would like to see fixed in

future updates.

We understand the issue surrounding codec installation is nothing new and

a decision that was made some time ago, but we feel the need to bring it

up.

There was a time when Linux Mint was known as one of the best

distributions for out-of-the-box codec support for audio and video files.

No more.

Although there is an automated tool to simplify the whole process, which

feels like a legal compromise, it still seems like a step backwards for

the distribution to still have the user perform such a mundane task just

to listen to some music or watch a movie.

Software selection is all pretty standard now, with Firefox, LibreOffice

et al all making their way into M19.

A fresh installation before any updates gave us Bash version 4.4.19 and

Linux kernel 4.15.0-20.

Once updated, you'll get 4.15.0-23.

Not a major update, but some small improvements will be present

nevertheless.

M19 is based on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS.

This translates to M19 being one super reliable release and super stable

at that.

M19 has one of the best selections of wallpapers of any Linux

distribution we've seen.

The options on offer are some truly spectacular photography, if that's

the kind of backgrounds you like on your desktop.

M19 XFCE performs excellent, is extremely stable and we were happy with

our experience.

It truly is one of the best desktop environments if customization is your

cup of tea.

We made a few tweaks to our desktop and we were impressed with how good

it can be made to look.

That green is just, so, juicy and welcoming.

But it not only has the good looks, it has the power to match.

We have absolutely no reason to give it anything other than two thumbs

up.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

June 29, 2018 | Linux Lite 4.0 Review

There are lots of different Linux distributions available that claim to

be "light" on resources with "lite" versions of the included packages.

But do any of them live up to their claim? Actually, not many do.

That's not to say they are bad projects or are actually making false

claims.

That seems a little harsh.

We think it is the way that Linux users interpret the claims.

We would all like to believe that we could have a fully functional Linux

operating system using only ~50MB of our typical 8-16GB RAM equipped

systems.

But we need to be realistic.

And we're sorry, but that is just unrealistic.

Any Linux distribution that claims to be able to do this for you is most

likely a shell based distribution or something that resembles Tiny Core

Linux.

Let's face it, both are unrealistic options for the modern era of

consumer desktop usage.

One cannot seriously believe that you could perform all your daily

computing tasks inside a shell console without touching a graphical

desktop environment and the mouse at some point.

Tiny Core Linux doesn't make false claims.

It is tiny, but is also very unusable for any kind of daily computing.

It is intended for development and software engineers working with small

embedded devices.

That's most certainly not something we're willing to delve into today.

What we are willing to delve into is a Linux distribution which does

actually live up to its claims - Linux Lite 4.0, or LL as we charmingly

refer to it as.

When LL dropped to us, we thought it was just another one of those

aforementioned distributions which claim to be lightweight, but really

just perform like any other desktop.

We were skeptical, but willing to give it some love.

We booted up LL into Live Mode and were genuinely surprised by the

professional looking distribution that we were presented.

It is based on Ubuntu, but you would never know unless told beforehand.

LL has well and truly etched out its own identity and resembles only

itself.

We can't compare it to any other distribution that has come across our

screens.

It's clean straight lines present a certain amount of elegance that is

absolutely delightful to ogle at.

Immediately impressed by the attention given to aesthetics, we believed

it was worthy of an installation on some actual hardware to give it the

honest review that we thought it deserved.

We launched the installation tool, which predictably uses the Ubiquity

installer.

It has had some tweaks and theme applied and it matches the rest of the

desktop.

Sometimes developers spend lots of time and resources on making their

projects look great, but then mysteriously ignore the installation

package.

It became immediately clear LL was a distribution which didn't follow the

path of installer abandonment which is all too common nowadays, with the

developer rush to push distributions out.

Attention has been paid to every inch of the desktop.

Impressive stuff and a massive kudos to the developers for their efforts.

Looking beyond appearances, Ubiquity on LL is as streamlined as it always

is.

Simple and requiring minimal interaction.

Post-installation, we booted into the installed system.

At first login the user gets presented with a "Welcome" dialog box.

This is very useful, especially for beginners as it contains lots of

useful information, links and also buttons which can perform some tasks

for you.

A nice addition, but not required.

Thankfully, you can disable this with the checkbox and the system will

just boot to regular desktop next time.

Welcome dialog boxes are becoming more common on a lot of distributions

these days.

Sometimes they can be a little annoying, but if it helps the user find

their feet then we guess it can only be a good thing and should probably

be encouraged.

The desktop environment in LL runs XFCE, but it's heavily themed, albeit

simplistically.

It's a pleasure to use.

To be perfectly honest, we had to delve deep into the desktop settings to

actually determine which desktop setup LL was using, as it's so perfectly

decked out that it is not immediately obvious.

LL performance is brilliant.

Running in Live Mode was great.

Running on bare metal is top performance.

We didn't do any kind of deep hardware usage analysis or benchmarks, but

a quick peek told us RAM usage its at around 400MB.

Considering our Ubuntu 18.04 LTS running GNOME sits at ~1.0GB RAM usage

at idle, we find 400MB pretty impressive and very worthy of recognition

for LL claims of being a "lite" distribution.

So what packages make up LL? Well, the main packages are pretty standard

and not exactly what we would call lite versions.

Firefox is used for web browsing, GIMP is included for image editing, VLC

as the media player and LibreOffice for documents.

They are all the usual offerings and rather bulky packages.

If LL was to slim down the distribution further, it could be done by

adopting a few replacements like Chromium Browser and Pinta, for a couple

of quick examples.

Admittedly, VLC is probably the best choice for media and is very light

on system resources.

There are office alternatives and much lighter packages that could be

used as alternatives to LibreOffice.

But we believe LibreOffice is the best office suite for Linux.

Other alternatives get the job done, but do some strange formatting when

using documents that have been pre-drafted using other programs or other

formats.

So we always stick to recommending LibreOffice.

It can be effectively reduced in installation size by dropping

unnecessary packages from the suite as a compromise.

As elegant and streamlined as the aesthetics of LL are, you could mistake

it for a distribution aimed at Linux beginners.

It could be identified as elegant and professional, or kindergarten

newbie-like.

This couldn't be further from the truth though.

The fonts are chunky and large, but not over-sized and blend in with the

theme as a whole.

Very nice.

We wouldn't change anything.

When you dig deeper into LL, it doesn't take long to see that it is

actually built for beginners and advanced users.

All users will feel comfortable using it.

In the Settings menu there's an extensive collection of tools and

packages for advanced users.

There's packages for disk management, firewall and third-party drivers

(which worked successfully for us).

There's also "Lite" specific tools added into LL.

There's packages for system info, network shares and software

installation which makes it easier for installing Chromium Browser,

Audacity, Caliber, Dropbox, Handbrake, Kodi, PlayOnLinux, WINE, Skype,

Spotify, Steam, TeamViewer and Tor Browser.

There's also help to install the Restricted Extras packages.

LL has it all covered.

In addition to making it easy to install the aforementioned packages,

it's equally as easy to remove them with the same tool.

So thoughtful.

There's still more too.

There's tools for changing software sources (repositories), system

report, user management and also an upgrade tool for upgrading the system

to future versions.

We could not test this out because 4.0 is the latest version of LL.

So there's nothing to upgrade to, yet.

We particularly like the Lite Tweaks tool.

It allows easy setting of common options which can sometimes be tricky to

configure.

That's if you even find the right setting at all! The Lite Tweaks tool

can be your best friend, if you allow it to be.

From the tool you can clean RAM, set the default browser, change

hostname, install updated Linux kernels and remove them too.

We tried to install the 4.17.0 kernel.

Our attempts failed, after multiple attempts.

Everything else is fine in LL, so we were a little curious as to why this

one specific feature was failing.

It had to be something obvious standing in the way.

So we did some poking around and it turns out the update repositories for

LL were down while we were trying to upgrade the kernel.

Once the repositories came back online, it was sweet sailing from there.

If you find these software installation packages annoying and too

simplistic, then Synaptic is also installed.

Plus you also have the terminal console and APT, which we shouldn't have

to go over the benefits of.

Inside the System menu we found a NTFS configuration tool, which does

little other than enable/disable NTFS support for the system.

We're not sure why this is installed as NTFS is enabled by default.

We can't understand who on Earth would go ahead and disable it.

Still, it's there if you wake up one morning and decide to be a NTFS

hater.

Continuing, we found a resource usage package which effectively just

opens htop inside a terminal console.

Neat.

But if you prefer a graphical tool, then you can use the Task Manager for

that, which is included as part of the XFCE desktop environment.

We prefer htop.

But having the option of either is just another demonstration that LL is

not set on one specific type of user.

Instead, there are options and packages for everyone.

Finally, there's Timeshift.

It's a neat tool which allows you to explore snapshots of the system.

You can make use of snapshots with RSYNC or BtrFS.

We didn't find any use for it for a new installation.

But over time, we could see this being a handy utility to have at hand.

There's lots to love about LL.

It's fresh, neat and elegant.

Having the background support of Ubuntu is always a bonus when it comes

to package management and availability.

But other than using Ubuntu as a base, there's nothing Ubuntu-like about

it.

Linux Lite 4.0 is a real treat and much like a really well behaved and

disciplined child who doesn't do anything wrong.

It's just so enjoyable to be around and a genuine winner in our books.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] June 28, 2018 | Better Education and Support

Needed for Basic Minimum Income, Before Being Taken Serious

Freedom Publishers Union has referred to on more than one occasion, Basic

Minimum Income (BMI) and how the government doesn't need taxes or banks

to implement guaranteed money to everyone in the country.

Indeed, it was suggested that during a 10 year phase-in period, taxes

would gradually be eliminated as well as the government providing a

consistently larger salary that gradually replaces pay for work on a

dollar-for-dollar basis, if the employer wants to reduce wages by the

amount of BMI their employees receive.

The entire idea is based on the fact that money is not something that is

real.

Rather, money is simply a yard-stick that allows us to value completely

unrelated objects and actions, making it possible for person A to trade

their labor for the art of person B without the need for A to do labor

directly for B.

The market sets the relative worth of both sides of the transaction.

It has to be decided if the hours of work done is worth the value of the

art.

And it has to be decided if an offer of payment sufficiently repays the

creative labor.

The value of money as a yard-stick only works if every good or service is

measured in the same way - meaning that money needs to be universally

adopted by the entire economy in order to function.

This requires government that is universally respected to manage the

amount of money, otherwise anyone could just make up how ever much they

wanted, which would eventually make it worthless.

The government regulates money by setting the value via two mechanisms:

Purchasing goods and services directly - which establishes a baseline

value.

And through regulating the amount of money banks are allowed to possess -

which regulates the volume of money that exists.

Banks absorb and release money into the economy with savings and loans.

The former absorbing excess money that isn't being used for transaction,

and the latter releasing money for a new transaction.

As long as a majority of goods and services are produced and consumed

inside the economy, the amount of money required to allow everyone to

possess anything they want and work the way they want is easily

regulated.

If things become too expensive (too few things to buy and not enough

money), the government can encourage the production of more things by

giving more money to the scarce producers and would effectively add more

money by discouraging savings.

If the opposite happens, the government can encourage savings and make

loans harder to get.

What is the reason for all this? Although we believe this based on loose

empirical understanding of economics, we haven't found many big name

economists that support the BMI concept.

We need more economists and advocates for BMI to get financial

institutions, corporations and politicians to understand and support the

concept.

Otherwise, it will all remain just a concept.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

[Filed from SALT LAKE CITY] June 23, 2018 | Don't Be Fooled by the Media

Portrayal of Donald Trump/Kim Jong-un Friendship

What we are seeing with the political developments with the United States

of America and North Korea following the historical summit recently held

in Singapore, is the most profound change in politics since the

absolution of direct monarchies.

It has been predicted for decades by authors.

People have chosen the news they want.

It is a consequence of an Orwellian flood of simple, biased information

which has come to dominate public opinion, and thus their political

perspectives.

President Donald Trump has made use of Goebbels-style narratives to guide

opinions at all levels toward his goals.

This resembles the same method Brexit and the alt-right used to gain

dominance in Europe.

Trump tells the 'big lie' enough times to displace 'reality' and

conventional wisdom.

It appears to have worked.

However, this is not without merit.

Conventional politics is about saving face, not about solving problems.

Trump has addressed politics and diplomacy not as self-aggrandizing (not

in the conventional political sense of leading consensus), but in the

sense of transactional solutions to problems.

Transactional negotiation deals with actual solutions to problems by

negotiating over a measurable fiscal or practical result, not ideology.

The 'trade war' is about negotiating to fully open trading that has no

favorites, even though it sometimes appears one-sided.

Dealing with the North Korean leader is the same thing: rather than argue

ideology and morality, instead fix the problem economically, but with an

existential threat to back up the deal.

North Korea needs to reenter the developed world through interaction

first.

Then between solving their economy and greater prosperity, for the leader

and Koreans in general, the rest of the bad behaviors will gradually just

go away.

China has done it.

Russia has done it too.

North Korea now wants to do the same thing.

Trump just opened the door to enable this to happen.

Support from China and Russia makes this a very likely outcome which

would not be achieved outside of a war by conventional diplomacy.

This approach does have risks.

Trump can force transactional negotiations by threatening to do something

crazy and destabilizing - which usually works - because he's demonstrated

he'll actually do crazy and unexpected things.

Often to the surprise of his allies and even his closest advisors.

But if someone calls his bluff, he either carries out his threat of

nuclear war or caves and is never, ever able to con the world again.

That's the biggest fear.

There is the very real possibility a leader like Canadian Prime Minister,

Justin Trudeau actually tells Trump to 'go to hell', and when Canada

survives retaliation, every other country follows suit.

That will trigger economic instability in America, and sets up the

conditions for a real dictator (or religious zealot) to dissolve the US

Constitution and create 'a new Russia'.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 22, 2018 | Australian Government Attempts to

Censor Murray-Darling Basin Authority Staff from Contributing to Royal

Commission

There is an increased effort of what appears to be government sponsored

attempts at censorship and a shut down of transparency, through efforts

to thwart all possibility of transparency by taking questionable legal

steps to stop staff members of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)

from speaking with, disclosing any information and/or providing documents

to the Royal Commission on the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia,

which was initiated on January 23, 2018.

The hearing commenced on Monday, this week.

The Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin was established to

examine the effectiveness of the Basin system and to investigate of any

evidence of misconduct in accordance to the Water Act 2007 and the

Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Commonwealth Government, under the leadership of the Liberal Party of

Australia, has been critiqued for its lack of action taken leading up to

the Royal Commission, despite allegations of upstream water theft.

The Commonwealth Government has been accused of turning the other way and

ignoring concerns that have been raised specifically to water theft

allegations and possible misconduct of the MDBA.

We are very concerned of the actions and lengths that the Commonwealth

Government are going to, to keep the MDBA quiet and disassociate them

from the Royal Commission.

The attempts that are being made to protect the MDBA from contributing to

the investigation which is currently taking place, are concerning and can

be described as very aggressive.

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned that there may be something of

substance worth investigating with the activities of certain individuals

within the MDBA.

Yet, if the Commonwealth Government successfully censors the staff

members of the MDBA, then there is no immediate avenue for any possible

exposure of those activities.

If the Commonwealth Government is confident they have no knowledge of any

misconduct, then it should have no problem allowing staff members to

share any knowledge that may be required of them, to the Royal

Commission.

We find it alarming that the Commonwealth Government has the nerve to

stand up and censor staff, disallow information from operations of the

MDBA from being shared with the Royal Commission and ban all documents

from being presented.

All this is the reaction of a guilty party with something to hide, giving

justification to any logical conclusion being drawn to conclude that

there is something legitimate to hide which requires legal action to

ensure it remains hidden from becoming public knowledge.

We condemn the Australian Government for its lack of transparency.

We commend the South Australian Government for their establishment and

dedication to ensuring the Royal Commission is carried out to the best of

their ability.

Despite legal action being launched from the Commonwealth Government,

which is yet to be approved by the courts, it has the legal baring of its

intention.

However, the Commonwealth Government has still ordered all staff of the

MDBA to ignore any requests for assistance they receive, to contribute to

the Royal Commission, while reminding their staff that the South

Australian Government has no legal standing to compel anyone at the MDBA

to appear before the Royal Commission.

Freedom Publishers Union has a strong presence in Australia and we take a

strong political position on three very important matters that we feel we

have a responsibility to be politically engaged.

We want to continue ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin is protected

and managed properly and in accordance to the legislation the Murray-

Darling Basin Authority is bound.

We believe that the MDBA is the best agency to be managing the Basin, but

their management must also be accompanied by the appropriate amount of

transparency required to maintain public and political confidence.

With respect to the MDBA, they may very well have had every intention of

allowing staff to stand before the Royal Commission and may have had

every intention to provide documentative evidence to ensure any claims of

misconduct are proven to be false.

But the problem here is the Commonwealth Government, who has jumped in

the middle and effectively broken up any potential cooperation before it

was allowed to commence.

It raises questions.

The spotlight should now be moved off the MDBA, instead to be shone right

over the Commonwealth Government who continues to act in extremely

worrying ways which resemble a mild form of authoritarianism through

controlling who they believe should and shouldn't appear at

investigations hearings and deciding that there is no requirement for

transparency, by blocking all requests for information to be provided to

the Royal Commission.

Freedom Publishers Union is worried that Australia's democracy is

eroding.

It's not failing.

The foundations for one of the most respected and strongest forms of

democracy are still embedded deep into Australia's Parliament and its

political structures.

Yet the Government continue to push for censorship, control and ultimate

power of its citizens which is gradually, yet consistently, eroding the

civil liberties of Australian citizens and the transparent process of the

democracy it supposed to represent.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

June 13, 2018 | Microsoft Acquisition of GitHub is Not the End of Open-

Source Development

On June 4, 2018, the official announcement was made by Microsoft that it

had acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion.

Both companies posted press releases on their respective websites, making

the announcement.

In the weeks leading up to the official announcement there was market

talk on the potential acquisition.

Following the acquisition announcement, developers on the internet went

into a frenzy of panic and in some cases, anger.

Anger was expressed at both GitHub and Microsoft.

The former was accused of betraying software developers and the open-

source movement.

While the latter was accused of attempting to shut out open-source

software development through the acquisition.

A claim proving to be absolutely unfounded and ridiculous.

In comments made by GitHub and Microsoft representatives on the deal,

both have not only recognized the concerns expressed by developers,

rather it was pre-empted by Microsoft.

By pre-empting the uncomfortable feelings some developers would have

about the deal, it's a clear demonstration that Microsoft has good

intentions for GitHub and also demonstrates they are very well connected

and understanding of not only their current user base, but also the user

base they would be inheriting.

Some developers have persisted with their unfounded discontent and have

migrated their source code that was previously held on GitHub, to

alternative services - GitLab being a popular choice.

GitLab have reported massive levels of source code migration onto their

service, since.

Tecseek Technology believes the discontent to be massively overstated and

unfounded.

They have made the commitment to leave GitHub as an open platform which

will always support free and open-source software development, while

reminding everyone of Microsoft's continued contributions they have

already made and continue to make to open-source software development

projects across the world.

We have reached out to GitHub and GitLab for comment.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 12, 2018 | Australian Military Again Faces

Allegations of Human Rights Abuse and War Crimes, in Afghanistan.

Yet the Secrecy Continues

Freedom Publishers Union commends the investigations published by Fairfax

Media and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) which purported

multiple very serious allegations of systemic abuse of human rights and

possible war crimes, in Afghanistan, by the acts of Australia's elite SAS

regiment.

The publications were courageous, especially in light of the increasing

possibility of Australian media being stripped of much of its freedom,

with the new Foreign Interference legislation which looks set to pass the

Australian Parliament in the coming weeks.

Our Asia/Pacific Press Office in Mumbai published an article on July 18,

2017, which followed earlier details released by ABC News of "civilian

casualties in Afghanistan which includes the lethal shooting of children

and unarmed men which have fallen at the hands of Australian Military

involvement.".

At the time of going to press, Freedom Publishers Union was unable to

seek clarification that those incidents and the latest incidents to be

revealed by the FairFax Media/ABC joint investigation are related.

Largely due to the extreme government secrecy which surrounds the matters

and their internal investigations being kept confidential.

However, there is one common point that stands out more than anything

else.

One can not miss the explicit point that each time, the country of

"Australia" is associated with the allegations.

Back in July 2017, we made three important observations - culture of the

elite forces, operations secrecy and narrow oversight.

We also raised the valid question of whether Australia should be

reviewing their Rules of Engagement, as further details recently revealed

indicate that the Rules of Engagement have most likely been violated by

the Australian soldiers, in Afghanistan.

If proven to be correct, then it would possibly be breaking Australian

military law in addition to international law.

How precise this area of law is and how effective any repercussions from

a positive determination would actually be, remains unclear.

Furthermore, we noted in our publication in July 2017, that although the

incidents detailed in the The Afghan Files published by the ABC only

proceeded up until 2014, we believed at the time that the atrocities and

misconduct of Australian soldiers continued beyond 2014.

We were unable to come to any justified conclusion that war crimes had

been committed at the hands of Australian soldiers, however it is

increasingly more likely that war crimes have been committed than have

not.

But without much more transparency from the Australian Government, this

is difficult to conclude with certainty.

On civilian casualties, our July 2017 publication in stated, "what

Freedom Publishers Union immediately calls for is civilian casualties

properly acknowledged and respected, through proper documenting of the

incidents surrounding their deaths.".

And on transparency we stated, "We need greater transparency and we need

to see better public disclosure, whilst allowing independent monitoring

groups better access to limited military data for the purpose of

documentation of civilian casualties.".

To avoid the risk of repeating ourselves, we will simply state that the

position of Freedom Publishers Union remains firm.

We would urge the Australian Government to act immediately, ensure action

is taken and all investigations remain as thorough as possible.

Otherwise, the country may very well face the possibility of retaliation

by Afghan citizens, in the form of hatred towards Australian Military

personnel and Australia as a nation - which is quickly becoming known to

Afghans not for a country of peace, respect and fairness, but a country

which kills innocent civilians and irresponsibly detains innocent

citizens without any justified indication of suspicion of misdoing in

their homeland.

At present, to say the situation is out of control would be an

understatement.

We need critical action now and the severity and urgency on this matter

can not be ignored by the Australian Government and its Defense

Department investigators.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

[Filed from MUMBAI] June 11, 2018 | Australian Government Pushing Foreign

Interference Laws, Avoiding Debate and Eroding the Country's Free Press

In an article published to The Conversation last week, Tony Walker, a

Professor of the School of Communications at La Trobe University,

emphasized on the Coalition's apparent rush to get the controversial

Foreign Interference laws legislated through the Australian Parliament.

The amended draft which has now been presented has helped address to some

extent the concerns that Freedom Publishers Union has expressed over its

potential to restrict Australia's free press, through placing much

tighter restrictions on what Australian journalists and media can report

and publish.

Tony bluntly posed the rhetorical question, "What's the rush?".

It's a very good question of which requires a bit more attention.

Freedom Publishers Union is also concerned that the Australian Government

is trying to force the new laws through Parliament as a matter of purpose

to avoid any further debate.

Once the amended draft is reintroduced to Parliament and read, there will

be debate within the chambers of Canberra [the country's capital city].

However, there remains concern over just how effective the debating

points will be considering that the latest amendments that have been

implemented into the updated draft were worked on bi-partisan.

When a democratic system is built around the foundations of a two-party

majority system such as Australia's Liberal/Labor house majority, then

you begin to question the effectiveness of its democracy when bi-partisan

laws are drafted and agreed on before any effective debate can proceed.

Even if there were just a couple of ministers on either side of politics

which choose to vote against the legislation, combined with the small

parties and independents, it is most likely that any opposition will have

little effect to the free passage that the legislation will most likely

enjoy anyway.

Freedom Publishers Union still maintains the changes which have been

implemented into the amended draft do not go far enough.

Despite keen expression of concern raised by many academics and

journalists in the media, the message didn't seem to click with either

Liberal or Labor.

Tony points out, "Under the proposed legislation, bodies such as Amnesty

International that have been critical of Australian Government policies

may be vulnerable.".

It is becoming increasingly clear that Australia is using the Russian

interference allegations (we use the term 'allegations' quite loosely) in

the US Presidential election which saw Donald Trump become the US

President, as a means of justification of the immediate necessity that

the legislation is passed before the upcoming by-elections in Australia

set to be held in July, which the results will have somewhat great

importance on the Federal Election which will most likely follow in the

next 6-12 months.

Tony makes the point [that], "No reasonable person would argue against

the need for beefed-up legislation to deal with challenges to democratic

processes such as those witnessed during the recent US election.

Russian cyber interference in the US political process is hardly in

question, nor attempts by Russian agents of influence to suborn the

system.

The question is to what degree?".

And at what cost to the continued erosion of Australia's free press? Tony

continues by reiterating our previous point on the concerns over the

continued free media that Australia enjoys, which could soon take a turn

in a very dark direction.

On the original draft of the legislation, Tony says, "It represented an

unreasonable threat to individual liberties and freedom of expression.

It was particularly antagonistic to journalists operating in the security

space.

Long jail terms for publication of unauthorized security material were

incorporated.".

On the amendments Tony continues by saying, "The insertion of a public

interest amendment has somewhat alleviated that risk.".

Freedom Publishers Union believes the changes are more a relaxation of

the original restrictions.

They are still present.

In fact this has been echoed by a [verified] political source who spoke

to our Asia/Pacific Press Office on the condition of anonymity, "There

are still too many restrictions present, but they've just been relaxed

slightly and most certainly shouldn't be categorized as protections.

Not at all.".

As Tony makes clear, concerns have actually began to surface as reality

already, after "Fairfax Media's publication overnight of leaked documents

dealing with alleged war crimes by members of the Special Air Service

might have fallen foul of such provisions, and may still do so.".

So there is already a festering of fear within the media ranks in

Australia, of just where exactly the line gets drawn and just how much is

considered public interest journalism before the Government determines

that the line has been crossed.

It remains unclear, still.

Tony says, "Most of these recommendations are cosmetic, except those

relating to journalistic inquiry.

They include the need for security certifications to be validated before

proceedings could be initiated for an espionage or secrecy offense, and a

review of the legislation by the National Security Legislation Monitor

after three years.", then continues, "As interested parties digest the

provisions of the proposed amendments, it's likely more objections will

be raised".

Well those concerns are already present and not just from Freedom

Publishers Union, but also Claire O'Rourke, a representative from Amnesty

International Australia who told The Guardian, "under the Foreign

Influence Transparency Scheme Bill charities like Amnesty [International]

that hold the Australian Government to account on its human rights record

could face criminal charges.

This is clear government overreach and a cynical exercise by both sides

of politics to shield themselves from the scrutiny of Australian society,

including charities.".

Freedom Publishers Union believes more time is needed for scrutiny by all

sides of politics and the Australian public.

The Coalition is touting the target of the legislation as a means to halt

foreign interference in our democratic processes.

Freedom Publishers Union believes there to be an alternative motive for

this legislation.

By including such restrictions on journalists and the free press, the

government is hoping it will scare journalists into darkness and stop

media from publishing content and information that is critical of the

government and its international relations.

Specifically, publications such as those published by our friends at

Wikileaks and the mass-surveillance documents revealed by former NSA

Contractor, Edward Snowden.

We urge all Australian journalists, editors, publishers and media

entities to stand firm, continue to support Australia's free press and do

not cower to these overzealous unjustified laws.

Because once the free press is gone, it will become extremely difficult

to perform a 180 degree turn from the darkness that the country is

currently staring at.

Remember, it doesn't stop here.

There is more legislation to follow.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

June 8, 2018 | BunsenLabs Linux (Helium) Review

When you're in a privileged position to be able to sit around among

technology of all types, makes and models, hardware and software, and in

software the myriad of available Linux distributions, it's always a

pleasure to be able to write about the experience and present our

thoughts with our readers.

We never take it for granted.

But it's not always fun and games and not all software reviews end well.

We always try and bring our readers the best ones that do make the cut.

The ones that don't, we simply don't waste our time by giving them the

publicity they just don't deserve, frankly.

We also do not want to waste the time of our readers by having them sit

through what would result in a meaningless rant, if we were to publish.

When BunsenLabs Linux (BL) was dropped into the office, we were concerned

that it might just be another amateur release of Linux that won't make

the cut.

We didn't really take it serious and was ready to dump it in the trash

can before we even gave it a second thought.

The most obvious reason we quickly jumped to this assumption is because

it carried a branding we had not previously recognized.

This may seem a little unfair, initially.

But as we get a lot of 'unknown' distributions roll through the labs, we

have to draw a limit somewhere as we only have finite resources and it

would be reckless to expect us to be able to test absolutely all of them.

Sometimes, just sometimes, a distribution will come along and put us back

in our place.

It serves as a nice reminder that there are some genuine development

efforts still happening out there in the Linux ecosystem, which to be

honest is a little flooded of releases.

Still, we'd rather it be flooded than become a drought.

So we encourage the flood.

Where did BL come from? It is a community developed distribution which

evolved from the now defunct CrunchBang Linux and is based on Debian 9

(Stretch).

The latest release was announced in April 2018, under the release name of

"Helium".

We booted into BL not really knowing what to expect.

It is clear from the installation that it is Debian-based.

The installation was pretty standard Debian-esque - basic, fast and

minimal effort required to get the system installed.

Once installed, we rebooted to be presented with a really cool looking

desktop.

It runs on Linux kernel 4.9.0.6 and Bash 4.4.12 for the default shell.

Package management is handling by APT 1.4.8, as expected, being a

distribution based on the Debian base.

This is a distribution running on top of the Openbox window manager.

The first thing you notice is the system information on the right-side of

the screen.

Below that is some desktop keyboard shortcuts hints, for assistance.

The desktop is made up of Openbox, a custom top panel and Conky.

The latter package is used to display the system information text on the

desktop.

Conky is a funky kind of tweak tool that Linux users like to utilize to

customize their system.

Some users spend an incredible amount of time coding their Conky

configuration in Lua, and the level of attention paid to the code to

produce their desired results is often worthy of much respect.

We will make a couple of points and then attempt to clarify each one of

them in a bit more detail, based on our experience with BL.

Opting for Openbox is cool.

The menu that comes shipped with BL is terrible.

Adding Conky is cool.

It's implementation is pretty good, but needs a little attention and

polish.

The entire design concept is clear, but the developers have fallen short

to deliver on their intention, we believe.

But bare with us, it gets better.

Let's touch on Openbox first - It's a lightweight window manager which

can be used inside a graphical environment or solely as a window manager.

BL have opted to just stick with the latter choice.

It's a good decision as it keeps the desktop light on baggage.

The tricky part of using Openbox as a sole window manager which also

serves as the desktop environment for the user is having a suitable

desktop application menu to complement it.

This is the biggest failure of BL.

When you right-click on the desktop and bring up the menu, it displays

quite possibly one of the ugliest, messiest and disorganized menus we

have had the displeasure of focusing our eyes on.

It's that bad, it burned our retinas.

How it is written, laid out and organized (if you can call it that) is

just all terrible.

There's nothing to complement.

In a somewhat half-hearted attempt to try and throw a positive spin into

the works, we will say that among the mess, we think we can see what

developers were aiming for.

Necessary packages are installed and some extras are present too.

For the packages that are not included out-of-the-box, there are menu

entries to assist in installing them.

We tested a couple of these and they appear to symlink to pre-written

scripts which bring up a terminal console and prompt APT to install the

required package(s), with the user's consent.

Quite neat and effective actually.

It's a great idea, it just requires better implementation inside the

menu.

We don't want to harp on about how bad the menu is any further as we

think you get the point.

But we think that it was at this stage we started to realize this was a

Linux distribution for the advanced user.

You know, those type who are not afraid to get their hands dirty inside

Emacs, hacking configuration files.

Let's repeat that and make it very clear - BunsenLabs Linux is NOT a

Linux distribution for beginners.

Period.

We dug deep into the menu and tried to work out its structure.

We brought the configuration file up in the included BL Text Editor in an

effort to hack and chop away at the file to bring it to a point it could

all make sense and have some kind of logical layout and structure.

The more we looked inside and the deeper we dug, the more we began to

conclude that it would be best if it were just rewritten.

Well, a majority of it anyway.

That is what we did.

We removed almost everything, opting to reduce our menu to just seven

entries.

This included Run Program, Web Browser, File Manager, Text Editor,

Terminal, Lock Screen and Exit.

For us, that was enough.

Openbox and its menu is best when kept minimal.

If we find we need something at a later date, it's easy enough to add to

the menu's configuration file.

Now that the application menu has been taken care of, it was time to pay

some attention to Conky.

We like Conky, but we wanted to simplify it and to just clean things up a

little.

We wanted it to be a little more informative, yet simplified.

We opened up the configuration file in BL Text Editor.

Let the hacking begin!

We removed the keyboard shortcuts section completely as we felt it was

unnecessary for us.

We also think it just takes up too much screen real estate without

serving any real purpose.

We changed the System Info text to display the distribution name of

"BunsenLabs Linux" instead.

We also added some display text to display the current Linux kernel

installed, date and time and fixed some of the hardware feedback output.

Specifically, we altered the CPU core output so all cores were displayed

rather than just the average used across all cores.

Our hacks for Conky were relatively simple, yet effective.

And it makes a huge difference to the overall desktop aesthetics when

everything is much more clean and streamlined.

So, we need a final result.

A conclusion.

BL is awesome.

To come to the conclusion of awesomeness is to be prepared to hack away

at it, post-installation.

Once you do, it's a fine performing desktop and truly one of the most

beautiful and powerful Linux operating systems we've used.

We fell in love with it.

The more time we spent staring at the final results, the more we fell in

love.

We felt like we were having an affair with another Linux distribution.

Sure, the developers have a lot of work to do to polish things up a bit

for future releases.

But if you're not afraid to step up and do the work the old fashioned way

with a bit of hacking, then you will be greatly rewarded by a cool,

awesome, beautiful and gorgeous desktop which is sure to turn heads in

the office from those walking by.

If you're an advanced user who likes their desktop to look and feel good,

then this is the distribution for you.

If you're a beginner or office user who is looking for something that

just works out-of-the-box, this is most definitely not the distribution

you should be considering.

BL commands your attention.

When you're finished with it, you will be the one doing the commanding.

We can't express enough how rewarding it is.

Some Linux veterans will argue that modern Linux desktops have gone soft

by trying to make life easier for the user, by trying to do everything

for them.

Developers and early adopters of Linux will remember a time when it was

really up to the user to get their hands dirty and hack their systems to

get things just right.

In many cases, hacking was required to get things to just work! I guess

by comparison you could say modern Linux desktops have made life much

easier, but they are much less configurable than they used to be.

That is at least true for mainstream distributions which choose to run

mainstream desktop environments.

BunsenLabs Linux is a breath of fresh air and a nice reminder that the

desktop is yours, therefore it must be owned by you.

It makes you work for it, but the satisfaction when complete is the

reward.

We're still basking in the glow.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

June 4, 2018 | OpenSUSE Leap 15 Review

It's like Christmas time at Tecseek Technology when we are presented with

new releases of the big three Linux distributions - Ubuntu, Fedora and

OpenSUSE.

First, we should probably explain the version number change, just to help

clear up any possible confusion.

The previous version of Leap was 42.3, which we reviewed here at Tecseek

Technology.

The version number for this release is 15.

Confused? Initially, so were we.

Ultimately it was a decision made by the OpenSUSE Board with an aim to

match Leap with its enterprise-grade counterpart, which is precisely

where OpenSUSE pulls its packages from.

Some versions of packages get updated to more recent versions, but this

is only done where it is deemed necessary.

There's plenty of discussion online about the decision to change version

numbers (again), some of them extremely lengthy and running into

multiples of hundreds of responses.

We don't want to waste too much space here going into a rant about it.

We just want to boot it up and see what it offers.

Let's take a look at the distribution itself, see how it performs and see

how it stacks up against the latest versions of Ubuntu and Fedora.

Our Ubuntu testing was performed on a pretty standard hardware

configuration.

We threw quite a bit at Fedora, which really shined once we dumped it

into a quad SSD RAID0 configuration.

We thought we would try OpenSUSE Leap 15 in a similar kind of RAID0

setup.

We tried it on a dual SSD RAID0 configuration, without success.

There was no way could we figure out how to configure the partition tool

included with the Leap installer to actually commence installation on our

RAID0 setup.

We had the setup right, the drives were formatted, partitioned and ready

to go.

But nope, we had no luck.

After too many attempts, we simply took a step backward and opted to

install it on a single SSD setup instead.

We skipped any further RAID attempts and Leap 15 installed flawlessly.

It must be noted that there didn't appear to be any actual problem or

bugs anywhere in the partition tool or the installer.

Rather, Leap 15 seems extremely fussy on how its partitions are

configured.

If everything is not set just right and according to what Leap 15

believes the perfect setup should be, it chucks a tantrum and throws up

warning box after warning box.

In the end, we just got too annoyed and the result was our labs team

resorting to just keeping things simple.

I guess sometimes KISS really is the best philosophy to follow.

Moving on.

Once installed, we were blessed with the always beautiful KDE Plasma 5

desktop.

It's a beautiful desktop and if you are a real fan of KDE, then OpenSUSE

will most likely be your first choice of distribution as they certainly

know how to ship a KDE equipped desktop.

It is just perfect and gorgeous to look at, from all angles.

We were testing Leap 15 with a dual display configuration with both

displays being recognized and displaying resolutions correctly, without

any tinkering with display settings required.

The biggest gripe we have with KDE is the Kicker Application Menu.

It's become too bloated, confusing and just has way too many levels

before you actually get to the application you want.

And that's even if you find the right application in the right category

after you finish navigating through its multiple levels of sub-menus.

It's unnecessary and a complete waste of our time.

The search function is brilliant and makes it so easy to simply enter the

application that you want, but we still believe that any application menu

should remain simple, have minimal layers and be easy to find the right

application in no more than a couple of seconds.

On a busy day at the office, the last thing you want to have to worry

about is trying to remember which menu and sub-menu(s) you last saw that

obscure, yet necessary application that you need to boot up.

We advocate to return to KISS standards, again.

So that's what we done.

We hacked away at some settings.

We removed the favorites icons on the side of the menu which we found

unnecessary as we prefer to have favorites placed on the Plasma desktop

panel instead.

We also enabled the option to Flatten menu to a single level.

This rids the menu of all its sub-menu entries in favor of keeping things

down to just two levels, maximum.

We also disabled the Show recent applications and documents options,

which reduces that extra clutter we feel is a little bit useless.

These small changes result in a very minimal, clean and simplified

application menu which we would prefer to see rolled-out as default in

future Plasma iterations.

However, we accept the very high probability that this is not going to

happen in a mainstream KDE release such as OpenSUSE Leap.

We must admit though, we remain glad that the developers make it so damn

easy to configure almost every aspect of the desktop's functions and

appearance that you can think of.

Upon booting up a terminal console and running zypper to update the

system, we were a little surprised to see ~150MB of updates available.

Our copy of Leap 15 arrived one day after the official release date, so

to see this high amount of updates so shortly after shipping, was a

surprise.

Nevertheless, we updated the system which included a Linux kernel update

too, which brought the current running kernel up to 4.12.14.

It is a little behind that of Ubuntu and Fedora, staying in tradition

with their usual patterns, but OpenSUSE is closer to its enterprise

counterpart than the other two desktop offerings are.

Still, it's stable and there are no outstanding issues despite the

slightly older kernel.

So it's not a big problem.

If there's one thing that separates OpenSUSE from the other two

mainstream distributions, it's the size of the installation ISO.

Leap 15 comes in at the heavier end of the scale, @ ~4.7GB.

While the latter distributions come in @ ~1.0-1.5GB.

While neither choice is a real problem, it is obvious from the very

moment you boot up Leap 15 that it is aimed to have everything ready for

you, post-installation.

We love the fact you get a choice to install KDE Plasma, GNOME or a

Server instance, during installation.

We equally love the software selection and believe some of its inclusions

should be included in more distributions.

But we also have some reservations about the necessity of others.

Regular readers of Tecseek Technology will know we're always ranting on

about how GIMP should be included.

Well thankfully, Leap 15 keeps it right where it belongs.

Nice to see.

Fist pump in the air for that one fellas.

There is literally software included for everything.

Other inclusions are KDE Marble, an alternative to Google Earth which is

fantastic for research and reference.

It features a range of globe views including classic map, OpenStreet, a

range of satellite views and historical maps too.

And if Earth isn't enough for you, you can switch views and look up

instead, at the Moon.

There's only one simple viewing option for viewing the Moon.

But all of the rendering of the Moon's surface and reference information

available is all based on scientific and astronomical data, so it could

prove to be a vital resource for the academic nerds.

Taking a look at other software applications, we see a bunch of tools to

complement GIMP.

There's digiKam, Gwenview and Hugin for creating panoramic images from

your digital photos.

Vector based graphics packages include only LibreOffice Draw.

There's also a few extras for scanning and viewing PDF files and other

documents.

Internet applications include Firefox and Kmail as your default

offerings.

We have to admit, when Ubuntu 18.04 LTS dropped onto our desk, we were so

impressed that we honestly didn't believe that any Linux distribution due

to be released in 2018 could match its impressive performance.

We don't usually like to make too many comparisons between distributions,

as we feel each individual distribution should be tried, tested and

judged on their own merit.

But 18.04 LTS was so impressive, we believe that it set a new industry

benchmark for quality of a Linux distribution.

Most distributions are close to the same standard, but Ubuntu does seem

to have the upper hand.

However, that was until Leap 15 came along.

As was predictable, it is free of bugs, has some of the finest polish on

its aesthetics we've seen and is an absolute delight to become acquainted

with.

To separate Ubuntu 18.04 LTS and OpenSUSE Leap 15 and declare one

'better' than the other would be extremely unfair.

So we're not going to do it.

Instead, we would say they're both on the same level and sitting on the

high perch looking down at other distributions, wondering how long it

will take other Linux distributions to catch up and join the new standard

of the Linux desktop operating system.

Because it's come a long way.

We are excited for the future and can't wait to see how Ubuntu and

OpenSUSE top these quality releases in their future revisions.

Because it's going to be difficult.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

May 22, 2018 | Fedora 28 Review

There seems to have been very little media coverage surrounding the

development and release of Fedora 28 (F28).

We're not exactly sure why, but it could be because F28 has been

overshadowed by the hugely popular release and hype surrounding Ubuntu

18.04 LTS.

The attention on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS is well deserved, but F28 equally

deserves the same level of attention.

At least that's what Tecseek Technology believe.

Now, we say there's not much to talk about with F28 and we stand by this

rather narrow assessment.

During our testing, we experienced numerous problems with Anaconda, the

system's graphical installation tool.

On repeated attempts, we experienced random freezing, which we were

unable to debug to a specific problem.

We were able to reproduce the problem upon fresh installation attempts,

multiple times.

However, it seemed to happen at random stages of the installation process

and not really reflective of a specific problem that left us with a

choice to change our configuration settings or attempt to bypass the

buggy stage.

Instead, we were left baffled as to it's cause and relied on luck,

really.

We didn't keep record of the number of times we attempted our

installation.

But we can tell you, we find it unacceptable that F28 was pushed out in

this state.

Clearly there is a problem somewhere and this should have been noticed

and fixed before it went gold.

Eventually, we were able to get an installation complete and had a F28

GNOME desktop presented on screen, ready.

We found F28 to be quite sluggish.

There's not really any reason for it to be, as it is quite a bare bones

distribution out-of-the-box.

We did get much better performance by logging out of the default Wayland

session and changing to X display server.

There's also the GNOME Classic session available, which is also much

snappier than Wayland.

One specific feature that we pointed out the benefits of with Ubuntu

18.04 LTS was its continued use of X display server.

We recommend you stick to X with F28 too.

Wayland is just too slow and creates unnecessary drag on your system's

response frame rates.

It creates for a horrible experience and one that can be avoided.

Dissatisfied with the performance, we wanted to see what else we could do

to tweak the system and attempt to get things running a bit smoother.

Specifically, the desktop frame rate lag annoyed us so we wanted to

investigate further to find out what the heck was really causing it.

Here's a spoiler; we held back publication of this Review awaiting

results back from further testing.

This Review now reflects all extended test results.

Someone in the office initiated on a hunch, that installing into a RAID0

configuration would resolve the problem.

That hunch was taken literally and we reinstalled F28 to a two-disk RAID0

configuration.

To our dismay, it worked! RAID0 and running F28 using X display manager,

combined with the latest kernel update literally eliminated all

performance lag.

Still not satisfied, we went a little more hardcore.

We reinstalled it again, this time opting for a four-disk SSD RAID0

configuration.

This time, we left it running under Wayland and with no further kernel

updates, it still worked.

We had resolved our performance and lag problems.

It's all very strange because although using RAID0 will always give you

some added performance benefits, these benefits will usually only ever be

beneficial and noticeable when the hard disk are being utilized.

The only time this would occur is if the system was low on RAM

allocation, it would result in the SWAP space being thrashed.

The system was not low on RAM and the hard disks were not being thrashed,

according to both hardware and software disk usage monitors.

It's all very strange to us and to be honest with you, we have no real

technical explanation which can explain it logically.

We do not suspect this to be something that Red Hat/Fedora Developers

have missed.

Rather one of those simple technical quirks that goes down in the records

as 'just weird'.

The default setup includes the 4.16.3 Linux kernel and a GNOME 3.28.2

desktop environment.

We noticed within days of it going gold there was a kernel update

available.

In fact, as we go to press there has been a couple of kernel updates

pushed out already, giving us a system running Linux 4.16.8.

GNOME has not changed and most major software has remained the same, with

the exception of Firefox which has been updated to version 60.0.

The GNOME desktop in F28 has replaced Shotwell with Photos, for image

management.

This is a good decision as we never liked Shotwell anyway.

Nautilus is the graphical file manager included in GNOME and is as boring

as ever.

It gets the job done, but we always advocate that Linux users should

learn to rely on the console terminal more for file management.

For more complex tasks, you can break out Midnight Commander, or mc, as

the package is known by.

The Software application is a bit horrible.

We find it quite cumbersome and unnecessarily bloated.

Again, it's just no match for the terminal console and we suggest you

stick to using dnf for software management.

It's much quicker.

We have tried to find something in F28 to get excited about.

But we just can't.

Other technology sites seemed to have found a lot of interest in

something called Usage.

From what we can see, Usage is effectively just another built-in

graphical system monitoring package.

We searched our system for this supposedly fantastic tool, but found

nothing.

At first we couldn't make sense of why our system didn't have it

installed.

We proceeded to search the available packages and quickly discovered that

it is not installed by default.

We went ahead and installed it, out of interest.

We were left disappointed by it.

We will not point fingers at the specific publications which touted how

brilliant this package is, but we will say that it was more than just one

publication.

We're not sure what drugs their lab's team members were taking, but

there's a reason that Fedora have not inluded this package by default.

It adds nothing to the system that isn't already available.

There's plenty of this type of software already out there.

In fact, there's already an included graphical task manager and system

monitor, ironically, simply called System Monitor.

And it does a much better job than Usage anyway.

Graphical system monitoring packages might be a nice addition to any F28

system, but we still prefer console tools for system monitoring, such as

htop or glances.

For disk usage monitoring, we recommend iotop.

We might be taking the old fashioned route here by using and recommending

console based tools, but we believe in the right tool for the job is

always the best route.

Usage is not worth the bother of installation.

It's plain, useless and uninformative.

There's also great interest by software developers with the new modular

repository.

At the time of testing, we were stripped of resources here in the office

and under pressure of time constraints.

Therefore, we were unable to really test out this new feature.

Developers seem excited about it.

Essentially, the modular repository allows the user to run an alternative

version of a particular package whilst the rest of the system is up-to-

date and running the very latest available packages.

It sounds interesting and extremely useful for developers.

The more we read about it, the more we became disappointed that we didn't

have the time to dig deeper into this feature.

Aside from some added value for developers, we feel there's not much else

to present.

As always, it's best to add the RPM Fusion repositories, as they've been

updated to accommodate F28.

Or if you prefer, you can just stick with the free and open-source

offerings.

We would really love to be presenting you an awesome review which tells

you that F28 is great and well worth taking a look at.

It just isn't happening this time around.

We imagine F28 as a boring statue in the museum corner that everyone

takes a quick glance and then continues walking simply because there's

nothing worth stopping for.

If you're looking for an upgrade for your Linux computer, we recommend

you opt for Ubuntu 18.04 LTS instead.

If you're a die hard Fedora Linux fan, then by all means go for F28

because you probably have the experience to deal with any problems you

will encounter and also make the necessary changes to make it an exciting

system.

It has potential, but needs lots of work.

We are giving this one a miss.

If you really want to avoid Ubuntu (for whatever reason), then try

another Linux distribution for a year or more and then perhaps revisit

Fedora when 29 comes knocking.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

May 15, 2018 | Opposing Domestic Spying, Respecting Privacy and

Protecting Encryption

April 29 was a day that Australian's became increasingly alarmed when a

letter purported to be written by Mike Pezzullo, the Secretary of the

Department of Home Affairs sent to Greg Moriarty, the Defense Secretary,

leaked to the media and was published by The Daily Telegraph website.

Admittedly, Freedom Publishers Union was also alarmed at the media

report, which if assumed to be legitimate, suggested that the Australian

Government would soon be exploring options which may lead to legislating

and making legal domestic spying on Australian citizens.

Currently, Australian intelligence and spy agencies are permitted to spy

on citizens in foreign countries through a complex web of intelligence

programs spread across what is known as the 'Five Eyes' nations, which

Freedom Publishers Union has detailed previously.

The momentary state of panic which was quickly expressed by privacy

advocates and activists was completely justified.

Despite Freedom Publishers Union's initial concern, we held off from

publication of any response until all of the facts could be established

and verified.

Since the leak of the letter, several representatives from the Coalition

Government in Australia have responded and clearly stated and placed on

the public record that the text in the leaked letter was misinterpreted

and taken out of context.

This is somewhat considered reassurance from the Government that they

have no intention to draft any legislation that would make legal domestic

spying on Australian citizens and that they were satisfied that existing

legislation, some of which has already been expanded in scope, was

sufficient to meeting the country's national security requirements.

Freedom Publishers Union remains quite relaxed and confident that there

is no immediate plan to have legislation drafted which permits and makes

legal domestic spying.

We warn Australian citizens to not be complacent.

Remain vigilant and aware that there is always the very real possibility

of this kind of speculation becoming reality - through either side of

party politics.

We also warn to remain vigilant about privacy rights and encryption, with

the threat of legislation to force implementation of encryption backdoors

still circling overhead like vultures.

Freedom Publishers Union has received indication that the US, UK and

Australia are all exploring possible legislative options which will force

technology companies to implement backdoor access to their services,

which would result in free access to user's data by governments and

intelligence agencies.

However, we must clarify that this is indicative only and cannot be

verified at the time we go to press.

Ensuring uninterrupted privacy rights are protected and encryption

technology remains free from government forced backdoors is at the

forefront of our focus.

The types of proposals we understand the Australian Government is

considering would technically be classified as a backdoor.

Despite Coalition Government representatives publicly claiming that

backdoor implementation is not what they seek to legislate, surrounding

encryption.

However, we cite various Australian and international security experts

who consistently claim that the only way to access encrypted services is

through an intentionally placed backdoor with a provided key which allows

for free access, often unnoticed by the user but with full co-operation

with technology companies who operate the services.

And that is where the Government's plans could face huge set-backs, as

any legislation would require the full co-operation with some of the

biggest international technology companies in the world.

This could prove difficult and Freedom Publishers Union would urge

technology companies to oppose such invasive proposals which aim to

intentionally weaken their security features and encryption standards.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that there is currently no known way

to crack tough encryption when its implemented properly.

There is still some encryption technology available to the consumer of

which have questionable implementation.

However, big technology companies like Facebook, Google and Apple are

increasingly using end-to-end encryption, which is proving to be a

problem for intelligence and spy agencies who seek to access such

valuable and private communications data.

We cannot doubt that these services will be the primary focus of such

encryption backdoor legislation that may be in development now, or in the

future.

On responding to government pressure, Microsoft is much firmer than it

used to be.

However we remain skeptical of the security of its consumer operating

system, Windows 10.

We have reason to believe that Microsoft would be one of the first

technology companies to comply which government request(s) for access to

Windows 10 systems.

As advocates of free and open-source software, Freedom Publishers Union

reminds our readers of the security benefits of running a Linux based

operating system as an alternative to proprietary operating systems like

Microsoft Windows 10.

The Windows operating system will always grab attention when governments

seek technological co-operation with intelligence and spy agencies who

seek to exploit them as an effort to spy on users.

Linux based operating systems do not become the focus due to their

increased security and open-source nature of the source code.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Australian Government, and

additionally the UK and the US, to back away from pursuit of attempting

to implement forced backdoors.

Instead, they must respect the rights to privacy of citizens who utilize

encrypted technology.

Freedom Publishers Union has not yet been able to view or access any

details of any actual drafted legislation which relates to encrypted

technology.

We remain slightly skeptical that any exists at this stage.

But we warn Australian citizens, privacy advocates and activists to all

remain on guard and be willing to stand up for your privacy and

protection of encryption.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

May 14, 2018 | The NSA Has Data Addiction.

Mass-Surveillance Must Stop Now!

Quality Publishing Works is all too familiar of the continued operations

of mass-surveillance programs that continue to operate throughout the

world, under the guidance of the world's most powerful government

leaders.

However, it was to some surprise to learn that North America's lead

intelligence agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), has tripled the

amount of cell phone call and message data collected on American citizens

since 2016.

A media report published by Reuters, details that the NSA collected 534

million cell phone call and message records of Americans last year.

According to Reuters, the figures were sourced from a report released by

the NSA, which is available in the public domain.

Quality Publishing Works finds it extremely concerning that the data

collection by the NSA continues under the eyes of American citizens,

still without any effective oversight and without questioning whether the

sheer amount of data collected on Americans is actually justifiable.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the former Editor of our media partner Freedom

Publishers Union.

Chris is no longer the Editor for the publication but has extensive

insight and knowledge into mass-surveillance and government spying

programs and has covered the topic for many years.

He says, "This is just one data collecting program initiated and under

the control by the NSA.

The agency has many programs.

Way too many, in fact.

The amount of data the agency collects and stores is frankly mind-

boggling.".

The agency continues to run its global networks of mass-surveillance

operations.

Despite attempts to wind-back and limit intelligence gathering through

different pieces of legislation, most the operations continue only

moderately reformed and continue to be almost unchallenged.

There is still nowhere near enough transparency of the precise operations

that the NSA and its global intelligence partners are operating, nowhere

near enough oversight of the operations and all efforts and claims that

mass-surveillance is not on the same scale as it was before the

revelations by former NSA Contractor, Edward Snowden, are very

misleading.

The global intelligence and spy operations continue today, continue to

expand and continue to be shrouded in near secrecy without any effective

transparency, regulation or independent oversight.

Quality Publishing Works and our media partners Freedom Publishers Union

continue to advocate for improved political policy which implements

proper independent oversight with the power to act when abuse of

intelligence and spying power is witnessed.

At the moment, it continues to operate without question and seemingly

without anyone to monitor whether or not the amount of data gathered by

the NSA and its partners is simply too much and unjustified.

The White House and Congress continue to deem it necessary and reassure

the American people that all intelligence gathering operations are always

carried out to protect American citizens and in the name of national

security - an all too typical reason.

We need stronger protections on what data can be collected, how it can be

used and how long it is retained.

At the moment, Quality Publishing Works believes that too much private

data is collected, is misused and is stored for too long - irrespective

of whether the data collected is anonymized and transformed into

metadata.

Governments also like to abuse the term 'metadata' and sway public

impression that metadata is basically useless and cannot be used to

identify the private lives and activity of the origins of the data.

This is completely false, and the intelligence agencies know they are

deliberately misleading the public.

You simply need to ask, if metadata were so useless and invaluable, why

would the agencies be collecting it and storing it? It may be true that

in its rawest form, metadata is quite useless, but when it is compared

against other existing data the intelligence agencies already have or

have direct or indirect access to through their detailed and expansive

internal database search engines, is when metadata is matched and pieced

together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Therefore, it makes metadata incredibly useful and to some degree,

vitally important to completing the bigger puzzle of a potential data

trail.

The NSA has so much data collected, sourced by domestic and international

programs, that in May 2014 a new datacenter was built and established in

the State of Utah, USA.

The datacenter reportedly cost $1.5billion and under the control of the

NSA, used for storage of all forms of communications data collected by

intelligence agencies around the world.

This may include cell phone call and message records, emails, internet

search records, website visit histories and many other forms on private

data from citizens on the internet, inside America and around the world.

The data reach is limitless.

Before the revelations and document leaks from Edward Snowden,

representatives from the NSA made claims that the Utah facility would be

used for metadata storage.

But these claims were quickly derailed when documents leaked by Snowden

proved the existence of the PRISM program, which detailed that the NSA

was sweeping up much more data than simply metadata.

Former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower, William Binney,

describes the Utah facility as a datacenter built to store all records

and types of domestic data, not only metadata, as claimed by the NSA.

Binney also claims that the operations at the Utah facility include

unwarranted data mining.

Quality Publishing Works is unable to source any exact numbers which

detail the amount of storage the Utah facility has, but actual blueprints

that were published by Forbes in 2013 before the facility officially

opened, backed up by quite broad estimates based on storage technology

and square meter measurements of the facility's floor space suggested

that the facility would probably be capable of storing tens of exabytes.

Possibly more, if you take into consideration advances in data storage

technology.

But as stated, most (if not all) information related to the datacenter,

the technology inside and its precise purpose of operations are all

classified and remain secret.

The Founder of Utah-based internet service provider XMission, Pete

Ashdown, who was able to go inside the facility when it was being built

as part of a tour with the Utah datacenter Consortium says he became

quite suspicious about the activities and purpose of the building.

In a January 2016 interview, Ashdown stated that he was told that the

facility had no outside internet connectivity, which led him to conclude

that the facility was designed to be a purpose-built data storage

facility and not an actual surveillance operations facility.

Ashdown also stated that he believes that facility is used to store as

much data as possible, including data collected without warrant, with the

intent of holding on to it in case a warrant is provided to access the

stored data.

The debate continues as to whether the NSA's continued mass-surveillance

programs and those of their international intelligence and spy partners

have justification to continue.

We believe there is too much data being collected.

We remain skeptical whether intelligence legislation alone will stop or

even regulate the NSA.

It has become apparent by looking at the scale of storage space the Utah

datacenter alone is capable of holding, that the NSA has a mass-

surveillance disease which must be stopped.

Quality Publishing Works renews our call for the unwarranted dragnet

surveillance of innocent civilians to stop, restore civilian confidence

in the intelligence agencies and to take action and implement true reform

which restores meaningful operations which go towards protection and

security of citizens accompanied by effective oversight bodies with

actual power to act, independent of governmental and intelligence agency

interference.

Instead, we see a continuation down the path of creating a society which

is quickly becoming 'Orwellian'.

Or, we might possibly be there already and at the point of no return.

-----

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavik Press

**********

April 28, 2018 | Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver) Review

At Tecseek Technology, we have been using Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic

Beaver) for several weeks, relying on development builds.

Although this is not recommended for mission critical systems, we had

plans in place to avoid any loss of data as a result of something going

awry.

Yet we are glad to say that it has not been required that we roll-out our

emergency recovery plans we had set aside, as this latest Ubuntu release

has been rock solid stable for us for the duration of the final stages of

development.

We started testing 18.04 early so that it had a chance to prove itself

against what we consider high expectations of what produces a good Linux

distribution.

We have high standards.

Probably some would deem them too high.

But we believe that by having high standards, it is providing a better

benchmark to measure against which will ultimately help to determine the

good distributions from the bad and the plain old boring ones.

However, as you read on you will soon find out that 18.04 exceeded our

standards, with ease.

We are running two systems with 18.04 physically installed.

Sometimes we rely on virtual machines for our testing, but this time

around we have returned to doing things properly and keeping things more

traditional by relying on actual computer hardware.

We use Intel CPU chips on both systems while AMD and Intel handle the

graphics.

One system is connected to the network by ethernet and utilizing a VPN.

The other system connects to the same network by wireless connectivity

and also utilizes the same VPN service, but a different server location.

18.04 is a Long Term Support release.

So you are guaranteed updates from the Main repository right through

until April 2023 - 5 years from the date of release - for Desktop, Server

and Core versions.

While other official derivatives get a shorter support life of only 3

years.

Ubuntu Studio only gets 9 months of support, for some strange reason.

We are using the XFCE desktop on our main system which is running

Xubuntu.

Additionally, we are running vanilla Ubuntu which uses the default GNOME

desktop, on our laptop.

We can safely report to our readers that both releases work superbly.

We chose XFCE as our main desktop of choice because we wanted something a

bit more customizable and an environment that sticks to traditional

desktop usage principles.

This is one of the greatest strengths of XFCE.

Whilst our Lenovo laptop has some fancy extra buttons and functions, we

chose the vanilla version of Ubuntu and GNOME to ensure that we have

maximum support for Secure Boot and all our nice little extras.

The laptop originally had Windows 10 pre-installed, but we ditched it in

favor of Ubuntu.

Once we entered the UEFI/BIOS and disabled Secure Boot, we were able to

install Ubuntu without any problems.

Post-installation and upon reboot, we found everything worked as

intended.

This included bluetooth, Wi-Fi and all our extra function keys.

When Secure Boot was first implemented, the free software and Linux

development community threw their arms up in a state of panic and were

quickly concluding that Linux would lose out to Microsoft Windows 10 on

systems where the latter was pre-installed.

Although the concern is completely justified, in our experience Secure

Boot poses no realistic problem anymore once it is disabled.

There are various implementations, hacks and workarounds that have been

developed by the Linux development community which now properly cater for

Secure Boot and are doing their job just fine.

There is now suitable compatibility for Secure Boot from Ubuntu, OpenSUSE

and commercial Linux company, Red Hat, which extend their compatibility

to their community developed projects of CentOS and Fedora.

If you put the two desktop versions we use side-by-side, XFCE remains the

snappiest of the two.

But we don't take anything away from GNOME as to be fair, it is running

on a system with slightly lower specifications than our XFCE system.

XFCE is running on an effective 8 cores while GNOME is running off just 2

cores.

The total amount of RAM installed also plays a major part in performance.

The XFCE system has an extra 2GB on top of the GNOME system, which will

give XFCE an undisputed advantage.

So our comparison is to be taken as a guide only, rather than any serious

technical comparison or benchmark.

If anyone had actually been taking notice, they would have realized that

the official 18.04 package repositories were updated the night before

official release date.

We updated our systems the night before and received some final updates,

which included a kernel update.

Then we attempted another update the next day, once it had officially

been released yet APT reported that all packages were up to date.

Technically speaking, 18.04 comes with Linux kernel 4.15.0-20.

Considering the official latest stable kernel available from kernel.org

sits at 4.16.5, we remain pretty happy with the version included with

18.04.

Actually, considering this is a LTS release, it's a rather aggressive

approach compared to traditional inclusions of the Linux kernel in

releases with extended support.

If you're really keen, you can always roll out the latest Ubuntu Mainline

kernel anyway.

Or any custom kernels that you might prefer to install.

We don't feel the need to delve too deeply in what versions of software

are included.

Instead, we prefer to focus on how the desktop as a whole performs.

One word is all that is required to summarize our experience - Excellent.

We are extremely happy with the stability of this release.

Both the XFCE and GNOME desktops perform well and look great.

The default wallpapers are a little bit of a let down, but there is

plenty of beautiful options to choose from in the desktop settings if you

want to change it.

We changed them.

We also made a small change to the window buttons by bringing them back

to the left.

But that's up to you what you prefer.

While changing this on XFCE is as simple as heading into the Settings

Manager, it is a little more tricky on GNOME and required us to jump into

APT and install the GNOME Tweak Tool.

Although this is not difficult to do, we believe a simple tweak like this

should be simplified for GNOME users.

But that is just getting picky.

We also made another small tweak and changed the window move button to

ALT, instead of Super.

We believe this change is a no-brainer and the ALT key should be default

for moving windows with the mouse and not Super.

Our couple of small critiques aside, the Bionic Beaver is one heck of a

release.

It still runs X display server as default, with Wayland provided as an

option at login.

We're not too sure where Wayland development is at, but to be frank, we

don't care.

We stick to X on every Linux distribution that gets dropped onto our

desk, regardless.

We have experienced too many stability problems with Wayland so far and

just see no reason to pursue trying it any further.

To be honest, we're not really sure why Ubuntu Developers seem so

insistent on pursuing its development, as it continues to pose problems

and continues to be pushed back and delayed all the time.

So we're glad that X display manager is still used as default.

According to the official Release Notes provided with the arrival of

18.04, the included version of Wayland is still a Technical Preview.

Our advice, steer clear of it and don't even bother.

Just forget that it's even there.

We advocate that if there is nothing wrong with X display server (which

there is not), then why go developing any form of replacement that offers

nothing that can't be done already with X.

So stick with X, please.

LibreOffice is included, obviously.

It's a nice update too, with the inclusion of version 6.0.3.2.

Firefox Quantum is the latest version at 59.0.2.

There's plenty of updates included in Ubuntu Server, but we didn't touch

that variant this time and have no intention to.

But reading through the Release Notes we can see some nice updates to

Apache, Nginx and PHP.

All useful for system administrators intending to roll out the 18.04

update on a web server.

These would be welcome.

This is a release of Ubuntu that we can really appreciate.

Sometimes Long Term Support releases can be a little uninspiring and

you're made to feel like you need to upgrade anyway.

But this time it feels different.

It actually has the cool factor attached to it.

It actually makes Ubuntu a cool Linux distribution, again.

Powerful, if you will.

For a while, the Ubuntu brand name was heading on a path that we feared

it could never return.

A path which resembled an old man saying, 'I'm old, comfortable and don't

feel the need to be cool anymore'.

Tecseek Technology believes that in the world of Linux, that's nonsense.

Thankfully, Ubuntu has jumped off that path and onto a new path with a

more positive future.

With the release of 18.04 it seems everyone is again talking about Linux

and everyone wants to install Ubuntu.

We believe it's a good thing.

If you want to install Linux, then you must install Ubuntu 18.04 LTS

(Bionic Beaver).

You just have to!

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

April 15, 2018 | Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties

Freedom Publishers Union would like to present our formal Submission, in

response to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific

(CPTPP/TPP-11).

Our organization has remained in a consistent position of opposition to

this extremely complex and detailed trade deal.

As the CPTPP enters the final stages of administrative approval, and

despite our position of continued opposition, we remain realistic and

take the understanding that the agreement has enough support and momentum

from the Australian Parliament to be ratified.

The path to approval is very close, but we still wish to outline that we

remain very disappointed in the lack of transparency that has accompanied

the entire process for the duration of the negotiation stages, from when

the agreement was negotiated in the original TPP format through to the

latest iteration which has been reformed as the CPTPP.

The path of negotiation was carried out in absolute secrecy.

It is very disappointing that the negotiations for CPTPP followed the

same path of secrecy.

We remain concerned about key issues in the agreement, specifically:

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

Environment

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Pharmaceuticals

The focus of advocacy for Freedom Publishers Union will now shrink, and

shift to key political decision making points and legislation on these

specific issues.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

April 13, 2018 | Media Deliberately Targeting Facebook and Zuckerberg, in

Effort to Tarnish Reputation and Curb Facebook's Influence

As we go to press, Facebook Co-Founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, was busy

facing questions from Congress.

Information and views that have been expressed by media outlets as a

result of the Congressional hearing have not been included in this

Editorial due to editing and time constraints.

The Hollywood film "The Social Network" was primarily responsible for

tarnishing the public perception of Mark Zuckerberg.

The movie may have been released back in 2010, but the rather deceptive

and sneaky portrayal of the Co-Founder of Facebook stuck in the minds of

those who watched the film.

Facebook is the greatest public forum in digital history.

Until 'bullying' started to grab all the attention as a problem as the

result of social media, Facebook was the embodiment of 'free speech'.

The platform allowed anyone to say anything to anybody that cared to

listen.

It didn't take long for people to start getting their news, opinions and

most importantly, their advertising from Facebook.

The platform would mature to become a major challenge to traditional

journalism and media.

We must accept that Facebook is not under attack for being a forum for

free speech.

That's not really important and users don't really think twice about it.

Nor do they really care about the abuse of the Cambridge Analytica data.

Facebook carries out this type of research all the time - internally and

with third-parties.

It's how real-world testing is performed and how they determine how

people react.

When Facebook revealed to the public some of its research data and

statistics, privacy critics expressed great concern about the mining of

user's personal data for research purposes, despite the data being

rendered anonymous prior to application.

Also, the targeted Trump ads from alleged Russian hackers, or more likely

PR consultants, don't bother with the other media.

Duping the public through editorial bias was not a concept constructed by

Fox News or CNN.

It has a much longer history.

Duping people with social media is as old as politics - whispering

campaigns are still in trend as the place to drop a bombshell on an

affair or business deal.

Facebook is under attack by old model business and politicians.

The former, because they're losing revenue as a result of Facebook's

gradual move into news media.

The latter because their people didn't think of it first.

The furor of the Cambridge Analytica revelation is a culmination of the

constant barrage of attacks the media throws at Trump.

Because Trump doesn't care too much about the media reporting on him -

this is obvious as he prefers Twitter rhetoric over the traditional

formal press conference - traditional media has become even more

irrelevant than they already were.

Traditional and mainstream media started the campaign against Donald

Trump, not because they're all Communists, but because of the impact he

was having on core reporting and analysis.

It helps that the man is terribly inarticulate.

But so is the core demographic that supports him.

White, rural, poor, deeply Christian, under educated, and because of

their poverty, it puts them right on the edge of starvation and very

frightened of anything they don't understand.

Trump speaks to them in their language.

Mainstream media either held back the Cambridge Analytica story until

they found an appropriate spiraling news cycle was found to dump it into

- and tar Facebook and Trump - or they are incredibly ignorant and

slothful.

Sources close to Freedom Publishers Union discovered relevant information

associated with this story months before mainstream media decided to act.

By revealing all of the information now, media can suddenly become

relevant again, tie Facebook to a reviled politician and pretty much

torpedo the social media campaigns starting now, for the November

Congressional elections.

Facebook has become the first - and probably the last - universal free

speech forum in the world.

It allows Nazis, Islamism, Christians, spies and even some other

questionable propaganda to co-exist in the one platform.

However, the amount of content restrictions being placed on the platform

is increasing all the time and this is causing the platform to gradually

become one giant mechanism for censorship.

But if you ignore the content and the message that any of these groups or

organizations is spreading on the platform and take notice of the the

fact that all these voices are allowed to co-exist on the same platform,

means that speech is truly free.

That is the key to freedom - transparent communication.

If you don't like something you see, the mechanisms are in place for you

to block it.

Collectively, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and even Telegram, with the

hidden assistance of those in the underground working with Tor Browser

and other anonymous and privacy technology were all key players in the

various revolutions that were attempted in the past several years -

commonly referred to as the Arab Spring.

It was social media that was able to ignore censorship and continue to

broadcast the messages.

The bad news though is while the world was busy being thrilled by the

Arab Spring - which to be honest only had limited political success -

when the same thing is unleashed on Western nations, it doesn't feel so

good.

Facebook and other online gateways sell information to advertising

clients.

It is this kind of data profiling and sales that have been commonplace

since the 1950 onward.

Nielsen ratings tell advertisers who is watching what programs on

television by profiling down to the city block.

Newspapers do this too with changing insert sections for different

neighborhoods.

But until recently, Facebook had remained 'clean'.

They sold you placements based on several thousand characteristics that

an advertiser could specify.

Facebook didn't give the advertiser names or addresses.

That was up to the customer to provide in a follow-up.

It does appears that Facebook failed to do that in the Cambridge

Analytica case.

As a result, through the media driving this story at full steam ahead,

Facebook has lost the trust of some of its users.

Unlike most privacy concerns, this is not the end of users complaining.

It's the press - and now we understand what their underlying motivation

is.

The American press [among others] are continuing to attack Zuckerberg,

demanding he 'do something' to 'fix it'.

And now they're looking at Google for allowing this to happen.

"Apple doesn't do this" is now becoming a cry from the press, forgetting

[conveniently] that only a year or so ago, they were complaining of Apple

gathering information about their customers, like income, location etc.

because Apple would only show advertising to people it deemed 'rich

enough' for their products.

Journalists have a lot of power to guide the thoughts of Americans.

The press has been heralded as acting as the conscience of Americans,

ensuring that the rich and powerful are exposed and brought to justice.

Yet news media and journalists aren't elected, or even appointed.

They are brought and sold like sports teams by the very rich and powerful

they were meant to oversee.

Over the last 50 years the press has become consolidated into mega

corporations, often owned by the communications conglomerates that

regulation is meant to control.

The Facebook privacy violation isn't something that most people expected.

However, industry specific people absolutely expected exactly this.

It's worth noting that this is hinted at in the beginning of The Social

Network film, which is a portrayal of the beginnings of Facebook and

college life of Mark Zuckerberg.

It is now widely accepted that most citizens are simply too ignorant to

review the Terms and Conditions agreement prompt, or to check the type of

data collection that each app performs prior to installing.

This can be used as an excuse that journalists raise to a virtue that

renders the customers and users as 'victims' when the data is used to

manipulate them.

It is explicitly outlined in the Terms and Conditions that the customer

must accept to.

Hence why we will take the opportunity to defend Facebook and state that

it has not done anything legally wrong.

Indeed, it is important to note that most of these documents place the

agreement button below the contract which is to ensure that the customer

must scroll through the actual text before they agree.

If anyone is to play the blame game - the user should be the recipient of

any truthful blame.

But almost everyone, other than those with genuine legal or privacy

concern, ignores the content of the text and scrolls past it all then

clicks "Agree", while having a false sense of security in knowing that if

they think they were duped they can appeal to media and 'expose' what

they cry out to be a crime and portray themselves as the poor victim.

Instead of explaining these contracts to people, assisting them to make

sense of what to look for among the often complex legal jargon and what

it means for them if they accept the terms, the media instead guides the

public with fear about someone or some company stealing their information

and using it to brainwash them into purchases or political thoughts.

Loaded words surround these stories: [we quote] breach, attack, hack,

theft (of your private data).

This gives the public the impression that what has occurred is actually a

crime and the customer is the helpless victim.

Separate from social media - in reality, most people have no idea what

information they have explicitly volunteered to corporations and complete

strangers in the course of their daily lives.

We buy something at a store and are asked for our phone number, post code

or email address, totally ignorant to the fact that this basic piece of

information is as positive as your ID or DNA.

That, combined with a credit card purchase, unlocks your financial and

legal history.

It doesn't matter if you refuse or give false information, because at

some point you will divulge that information to someone and it will enter

the wild.

Some media reports are noting this point, whilst others are ignoring it

and frame Facebook as the first company to have harvested data from its

users.

Your information is out there already and there's no stopping it.

And if you believe you will have any kind of success in controlling or

deleting your data from the world wide web, then it's ignorance at the

highest level on your part.

This fact also renders the entire #DeleteFacebook campaign useless, as if

you go ahead and deactivate or delete your Facebook account right now, it

will have absolutely no effect on the problem of your data already being

out there and being traded by data brokers.

The real problem isn't the collection of data.

We must all give up information as a simple requirement to exist in

today's modern society.

The underlying problem is people not understanding what you give up and

how it is legitimately and illegitimately being used.

The whole Facebook/Trump news cycle will hit a dead end.

Freedom Publishers Union do not believe that any laws have actually been

broken by Facebook.

You legitimately agree to share your information and data to anyone on

Facebook and there is nothing illegal about doing a better job of

messaging the voters than the other guy.

Even telling straight up lies is not illegal.

Whether we see improvements in the area of data handling through incoming

data regulation or other legislative data control mechanisms, it is now

up to the voter to decide who will do the best job of representing them.

If they prefer lies to verified truth, it's in their hands through their

vote.

Though, as we have learned from Congress probing Zuckerberg on the

matter, he actually supports implementation of stronger data regulation.

The EU has much tighter controls over data regulation.

It seems now is the time that the US follow suit.

What is the net result for privacy? We have none.

We have had none for decades.

The only difference between now and 1960 is today we have finer

granularity in the data.

We didn't have the internet back in 1960, so the best we could do was

breakdown by demographic, location, income and a few dozen psychological

characteristics.

Pretty much the same as today, except today the ads are delivered

personally, not through TV or the newspapers.

But we are more diverse today than in 1960.

People were much more segregated then, not just by color, but by

economics, religion, job and school.

Today, we intermix pretty much everything and give it a fancy name called

multiculturalism to make it politically acceptable.

Some geographic and class divisions still exist.

And they always will.

But you find we now have fewer geographies of only white Catholics, Jews

or Baptists.

Messages are more targeted to individual characteristics, even if they're

delivered by mass media.

Radio and TV can provide good demographic separation by changing the

message slightly in each ad, targeting multiple audiences.

Facebook has been cast as the villain in this story, because you need a

villain in the news and people are sick of hearing about Trump.

Mainstream media will never, ever blame their audience for being

ignorant.

Indeed, they count on their audience to be easy, coheres into sales, for

advertisers and the studio's benefit.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

April 8, 2018 | CPTPP Open to Final Challenges Before Ratification

March 8, 2018, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

confirmed the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership

Agreement (CPTPP or TPP-11) was signed by the respective nation's trade

ministers in Santiago, Chile.

It was then brought back to Australia and tabled in the country's Federal

Parliament on March 26, 2018.

There is still the inevitable administrative steps that must be followed

with the CPTPP before it gets through both Houses of Australia's

Parliament and is ratified.

It will be reviewed by Australia's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties

(JSCOT) and public comment from interested parties and organizations have

been invited to make submissions on the CPTPP by April 20, 2018.

Freedom Publishers Union will make a brief Submission.

The United States of America controversially pulled out from the deal, a

move supported by Freedom Publishers Union.

The countries that remain part of the reformed CPTPP deal are (in

alphabetical order) Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia,

Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Following the signing of the trade deal in Chile, procedures for the

CPTPP to progress into the relative final stages and actually come into

effect must now proceed through the political processes required for

ratification, by all nations.

Our position on the CPTPP remains unchanged and we will continue to press

and advocate for better political outcomes on the issues associated with

the trade deal, that are of most concern and of which Freedom Publishers

Union has publicly expressed before.

We remain extremely disappointed of the conditions of secrecy of which

the trade deal was negotiated, allowing it to reach the stage of signing.

The entire process from the very beginning has been shrouded in complete

secrecy with no transparency from the countries involved.

The only way the public has learned of the details inside the trade deal

is through leaks of the draft documents from Wikileaks and other

independent media organizations - when the trade deal was referred to as

simply the TPP.

January 26, 2018, Freedom Publishers Union made a public call for the

reformed text of the CPTPP to be released.

It was released in the public domain on February 21, 2018, and is now

available for access on Freedom Publishers Union.

Politically, we intend to continue to challenge the details in the CPTPP

trade pact on the issues of:

-Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

-Environment

-Intellectual Property and Copyright

-Pharmaceuticals

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

March 27, 2018 | Infrastructure Investment and Increased Bandwidth Will

Solve Net Neutrality Problem.

Not Further Regulation

Most Americans use the internet for entertainment purposes.

By most, we mean a majority.

But we cannot forget the minority.

With recent changes to the rules surrounding net neutrality, the majority

of Americans will actually find their internet services may be improved,

which will see more internet bandwidth priority put towards entertainment

services, including Netflix and YouTube along with any pre-packaged

services.

Freedom Publishers Union still has many concerns on the rule changes

which could still impede on actual net neutrality principles.

But the real problem is bandwidth availability.

In the United States of America, this has somewhat been helped along by

Amazon, Google, Microsoft and even Netflix having caching servers

installed.

This actually helps alleviate some of the network congestion problems

which are generally caused by lack of available bandwidth.

This highlights another problem though, which probably goes more

unnoticed.

Traditional broadband companies which had a large grip on infrastructure

have merged into the realm of media.

The merge into media has been gradual, yet organic of liberal business

which expands and transitions into different sectors.

To solve the looming bandwidth problem is not going to be through net

neutrality laws.

The real solution will be found by forcing a company break-up into

different divisions - one which handles entertainment service delivery

and one which handles the infrastructure back-bone.

Infrastructure is simply a utility, which in business terms equates to a

not all that profitable sector.

But with remaining under the same ownership and parent company as

entertainment services delivery, the profits can be shifted to

infrastructure where needed and has the potential to actually benefit

everyone.

Looking even further ahead, service providers need to invest in

infrastructure development to grow the capabilities of the networks to a

point that net neutrality can actually be achieved through capacity and

pricing, where getting higher packet priority services will not matter as

there will effectively be enough bandwidth for everyone and the constant

screwing with net neutrality legislation will not be required.

The view on net neutrality is split.

Major organizations in support of retaining net neutrality rules are the

American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation,

Greenpeace and Mozilla Foundation.

Proponents claim that removing net neutrality hands too much power to

service providers and hands them the keys to operate a multi-tiered

system of control which is effectively aimed to direct flow of profits to

benefit them.

While opponents include the technology giants of Intel, Juniper,

Qualcomm, Cisco and old big blue, IBM.

They all argue that net neutrality rules defer investment in broadband

infrastructure.

Currently, there are many different States in the US taking up the fight

to the FCC in opposition to the recent changes - fighting in the name of

"net neutrality".

In late January, Wired website reported that 21 States were taking up the

fight and challenging the FCC.

A publicly available table on Wikipedia which is dated February 28,

details 23 States as suing the FCC.

While more recently, on March 19, independent media website Digital Music

News reported that up to 36 States were fighting.

Freedom Publishers Union is unable to verify the exact number of US

States in opposition to the FCC changes because each State is responding

differently in the fight.

Some are jointly suing the FCC.

Some are introducing legislation which either blocks the changes or has

workarounds which go towards restoring some net neutrality standards.

While others haven't actually introduced the legislation proposals yet

but have plans to do so soon.

One thing we can verify though, is that there is definitely opposition to

the FCC's decision and this matter does not seem like it has been

resolved just yet.

Freedom Publishers Union is led to conclude that this will not solve

anything nor will it improve the situation.

Instead, to find the right solution we need to look much broader than

just the pages of rule books.

They should be looking at options which eliminate competition laws and

create more incentive for more investment into network infrastructure.

Market forces will solve the problem of the current lack of investment in

this area, but it starts with removing the political barriers which stand

in the way of progress.

One could be forgiven for concluding that the whole net neutrality battle

is simply a smokescreen for covering the service provider's need to

generate revenue to pay for entertainment purchases to deliver to their

customers.

Service providers are actually against breaking up into separate business

divisions, as we mentioned earlier.

And they are also against local monopoly laws that are currently

preventing them from other service providers in small jurisdictions

neighborhood and city level.

Net neutrality forces service providers to provide transport to other

entertainment companies without prejudice.

That is actually part of the solution to this problem.

It allows customers to experience entertainment from other sources at

much lower cost than the service provider's choices offered.

Infrastructure is where service providers do have a legal monopoly.

Yes, from investment perspective, this would make the infrastructure

division function more like a utility company which to investors, is

rather boring and not that attractive.

So, we see continued investment in entertainment content and eliminating

competition by consolidating small services into entertainment mega-pack

delivery.

This is where the hole in net neutrality benefits service providers.

Wireless service delivery is exempted from neutral carriage, which is why

we are seeing wireless service providers offering so much zero-rating and

free entertainment from specific content sources.

Since wireless is cheaper per customer to roll-out and maintain compared

to traditional wired networks, we simply have a duplicate of the net

neutrality problem, just without the wires this time around.

With the incoming roll-out of 5G services, bandwidth availability will

rival that of wired networks.

Therefore, we may see a situation where the entire net neutrality fight

will start all over again.

To summarize everything - ultimately, the focus needs to shift to

infrastructure being forced through regulation and into a monopoly, or

duopoly, where we can see true focus and investment put into service

delivery capabilities rather than entertainment and other content being

prioritized.

This could have a side-effect of gradual price increases over time for

customers and may also slow roll-out of new technology, but it will

enforce connection consistency across America, on both wired and wireless

networks, which has much better and fair results for everyone.

Because at the end of the day, we do not want a two-tiered broadband

network for Americans across the nation which serves a majority one level

of service and a minority a different level.

Because if priority is given to the majority, it's the minority that will

ultimately suffer as focus of investment and delivery of services are

giving the majority priority over minority.

It is unfair.

And whether you agree with the definition of net neutrality or not, that

goes against the very principles of what it stands for.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

March 23, 2018 | Human Motive to Blame for Abuse of Deep Packet

Inspection Technology

It is the intention by design that deep packet inspection hardware is

supposed to look at data contents of a packet coming into the network and

determine what the content represents how it should treat it and by what

action.

If the content matches the profile for either a rogue website, malware or

anything else that may be determined to be harmful, the deep packet

inspection box is supposed to drop the packet and not act in order to

make the website think that it has given you the data and then proceed to

report the problem to the system administrators.

The problem with deep packet inspection boxes (or DPI for short)

technology is that it can also be used for good as well as evil.

At corporate sites, DPI boxes send a message to the system administrators

if anyone attempts to visit an external website that is on the list of

banned connections from the company.

For example, if YouTube is on the list of banned websites and person A

goes to YouTube on the company internet connection, a message stating

that person A is attempting to contact a restricted service will go

straight to the systems administrators.

Again, this is what DPI boxes are supposed to do in a corporate

environment and it's all completely normal procedure, really.

They both protect from external threats and limit potential internal

threats from going to places that the company deems as not business-

orientated or simply classified as insecure.

Because they have the ability to intercede and inject another website or

redirect to another URL, the DPI box can, if programmed, do malicious

things as well as good things.

That is obviously what the Sandvines packet monitor is doing.

In a sense, this is not outside of what the device is supposed to do.

However, it has been subverted to do something that is not in the best

interest of people inside the dictatorships of authoritarian governments

that are deploying this device in a subversive way.

The fact that Sandvine advertises this capability to its governmental

clients is questionable but it is not outside the capabilities of any DPI

box that's designed to provide the version of connections to sites that

are deemed not advantageous to the government or corporation that uses

it.

Malicious payloads are criminal only under the laws of the country where

diversion has taken place.

So, it might very well be that Turkey, Syria or any other countries that

have implemented the Sandvine device(s) are not aware of the malware it

is in fact diverting traffic too.

However, it might just be another way for them to use people they

considered to be a problem, to help them gain some revenue or use in

defense of things they want to protect.

We do not know for certain.

But it must also be considered.

Use of packet sniffers and deep packet inspection software to monitor

networks is not uncommon.

They are used for a variety of reasons, most of the time for legitimate

security monitoring of network traffic and packet activity.

Sometimes they are utilized to debug problem devices connected to the

network.

Generally, software tools do not have the same ability to do what DPI

hardware does.

They can't go in and edit packets and send them back on-the-fly.

Instead, software simply looks at what's going on and reports where

necessary.

They are effectively just monitors, with very specific limitations.

Still, it's important to understand the technical differences between

software and hardware network monitoring and packet inspection technology

and how each is implemented and utilized.

It is equally important to understand and acknowledge that deep packet

inspection, diversion or deletion of packets in a data stream is not

necessarily an evil or dishonest thing to do.

As noted earlier, corporate firewalls make use of this exact same

technology in order to protect the internal network from possible malware

coming from public sites.

It's also used to prevent employees from visiting sites that are

unrelated to work purposes and visiting sites that could potentially pose

a threat to corporate network security.

All this is something that is done at virtually every level of the

internet by the companies that provide the backbone of the infrastructure

that support it, interconnect it and ensure last-mile distribution and

connectivity.

Internet service providers often deploy this technology in order to send

messages or interrupt a customer's session.

We know of cases where this has been done.

It is also possible for the internet service provider to actually replace

advertising that is on the network coming from a remote site with their

own advertising, or to remove it completely because of its malicious

nature.

This could actually have the potential of raising legal questions in some

countries of whether it is deemed acceptable security practice or be

deemed to be interference with the service being provided to the client,

who is paying simply for internet access and no other service(s).

A good example which demonstrates this, only locally, is your ad-blocking

software that you're probably running inside your browser.

It is doing the exact same thing as these deep packet inspection boxes

are doing: it is examining the HTML code, looking for specific URL

patterns or other suspicious tags, and then either removing them or

replacing them with something else.

The script-blocking software NoScript does this down to a very specific,

programmable level.

You can have it eliminate each element one at a time, by groups or by a

variety of different filtering criteria.

In effect, it is working as a DPI firewall, within your browser.

The recent security research published by Citizen Lab is focused on the

Sandvine DPI device.

Virtually every hardware firewall device is capable of doing the same

thing.

Cisco, Barracuda etc.

can all be programmed to perform the same diversions outlined, including

malicious diversions too.

The only difference is the intent of the owners of the device: protecting

or deceiving their users.

It has been suggested that various countries around the world are placing

serious consideration to the concept of implementation of national-level

firewalls, similar to the Great Firewall of China.

There are already various means of which countries can block inbound or

outbound internet traffic from its borders.

And there have been rumors floating around of some countries having an

internet "kill switch", which would essentially stop all internet traffic

within the country with the simple launch of the rumored kill switch.

Although Freedom Publishers Union is not aware of such Hollywood-style

kill switch being in actual existence.

It was recently revealed that Russia is open to the possibility of

implementing its own internet, which would include the Russian operations

of a central domain name system, similar to ICANN, which holds primary

responsibility over access and traffic flow of the world's internet.

Some media outlets conclude this is an attempt by Russia to create an

entirely new and separate internet.

This is incorrect.

If Russia's concept was to come to realization, then it would effectively

create a separate backbone of access to the existing internet.

The concept requires further review and scrutiny, but based on what we

know so far, it's actually a perfectly reasonable and sensible proposal.

Whilst implementation of a national-level firewall is one option to

control internet access of a nation - which will probably be argued that

it is to protect citizens from exposure to malicious content - it does

raise many issues of civil liberties and freedom of access to the

internet which is free from censorship.

The alternative approach is the path the United States of America which

prefers to continue to operate mass-surveillance networks which are wide

in scope and vast in reach, to log, store, analyze and monitor traffic

from everywhere around the world, rather than block it.

Ultimately, this technology whether it be software or hardware in nature,

can be used beneficially or maliciously.

The use/abuse of it is determined by the laws of the country that hosts

the network.

A country that defends its citizens freedom of expression and the Rule of

Law to protect them will use these tools for good.

It is the duty of organizations like Freedom Publishers Union to keep

democratic nations that way.

-----

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavik Press

**********

March 11, 2018 | Submission [#1] to Digital Platforms Inquiry

Freedom Publishers Union considers the Digital Platforms Inquiry to be of

great importance, which will act as an attempt of grabbing a snapshot of

the current climate of Australian media and how it has been affected by

the encroachment onto Australia media by numerous digital media

distributors.

We believe that any information technology company that pursues

distribution of digital media, news and information over the internet

should be of interest to the Inquiry's goals.

Primarily, we believe the Inquiry will naturally focus largely on the

operations of Google and Facebook, simply due to the sheer scale of the

company's combined market share, which can not be ignored and probably

should be taken into consideration.

However, we warn against making these two companies the sole focus and

recommend that all other companies involved in the distribution of

digital media, news and information also be considered.

The Inquiry must focus on the distribution models of the content that is

under review as part of this Inquiry.

It should not matter whether the content is created inside the borders of

Australia or overseas.

Its creation origins are not going to have any overall effect to the

quality of journalism and news accessibility in Australia.

It is the actual distribution models that will have the greatest effect.

Freedom Publishers Union prides on our publishing and pays particular

attention to accuracy and fact checked information, which has been

properly researched and processed through our strict editorial

procedures.

We believe if we can achieve this with a small amount of staff members

which of most are volunteers, combined with absolute minimal costs and

resources, then large media companies can achieve the same if the effort

is made to resource them appropriately.

If it is deemed that Australian media is failing to deliver quality

journalism and news on digital platforms in accordance to the processes

that we outlined, then the questions must be asked as to why it is not

happening.

To a large degree, cost savings measures constantly being refined are

having a dramatic effect on allowable allocation of resources for large

media companies to achieve this.

This should be taken into consideration for this Inquiry.

In the Digital Platforms Inquiry Issues Paper, which has been accessed by

Freedom Publishers Union prior to preparation of our Submission, it

outlines the vast resources and platforms of distribution that Google has

at the company's disposal.

Google can effectively deliver digital media, news and information

through its Search engine, Google News, Play Newsstand and YouTube.

These are only the core platforms that Google can utilize.

It must be understood that the company has much more potential than

solely these platforms and it must also be taken into consideration how

intertwined Google's services are.

The company's extensive advertising network has very far reach and much

dominance in the digital advertising sector.

Following on from the information on Google detailed in the Issues Paper,

is profiling information on Facebook.

Facebook is at a transition.

The company was once primarily known as a social media company.

It is now entering the field of media.

Some industry analysts already identify Facebook as a media company.

We identify Facebook as a fully established software company.

As Facebook seeks to work out more ways to monetize its gradual, yet

inevitable slide into the media sphere, its influence will also grow.

Not too dissimilar to Google, Facebook also has a vast advertising

network which is constantly expanding throughout its portfolio of

software services including Facebook, Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp.

It has a lot of market share and has great potential to take even much

more.

In our Submission, we do not wish to focus too much on Google and

Facebook.

But as smaller information technology companies and startups use these

two giants as Silicon Valley role models, it gives some indication of the

areas that smaller and more aggressive companies seeking to prove

themselves will also begin to focus on as they also grow and look for new

markets, potentially in digital media distribution.

To make any credible analysis on the quality of the distribution of

digital media, news and information in Australia, Freedom Publishers

Union believes that any argument should start the basic question of 'free

versus subscription'.

Nobody can deny that the word "free" grabs attention.

It is within human nature that when we are offered two choices - free or

paid - by our very human nature we will almost every time choose free.

The issue of quality journalism, news and its accessibility is much more

complex than just a simple choice of free versus subscription.

On news, consumers must understand the difference between the two

distribution models and understand what they sacrifice to get something

for free and what they receive for their money when paying for

subscriptions.

Currently, public education is not so good and as a country, Australia

must do much better at educating those who consume news, of any

differences.

The argument was examined by us a little closer in September 2017 by our

(former) Editor-in-Chief, who published a column on Freedom Publishers

Union in which he poses the most obvious question, "why would you pay for

news when you can still read it for free.".

The opinion piece concludes that paying for news subscriptions is not

only a sign of appreciation for quality journalism and the publication

that publishes the piece, but it also goes a long way to supporting the

Australian media industry.

News generated by bots and other forms of artificial intelligence are

accelerating the pace of which news can be distributed to consumers.

This is having an overall negative effect on the quality of proper

journalism through traditionally respected publications.

It is putting great pressure on traditional publishers to follow suit and

join the 'publish now and publish fast' revolution that has engulfed

global media.

At the very least, paid subscriptions go a long way to restoring the

traditional model of journalism, eases the pressure to some degree and

also restores confidence in traditional media agencies by giving

assurance that their readers are willing to pay for quality journalism if

it is produced.

This is reiterated in the aforementioned opinion piece when it is said

that if you "pay for news through subscriptions services, it not only has

benefits for the media agency producing the news you consume", but

"retains the quality of the journalistic efforts".

Google, Facebook and other information technology companies are not

really content creators.

The news and information delivered by their services are usually

aggregated by the use of computer operated algorithms.

These algorithms make it easy for these services to generate news

summaries and headlines which grab the attention of the user.

Often, data already held by these companies is also used by the algorithm

to determine which news articles and stories are presented to the

consumer and which are disposed as not relevant.

Freedom Publishers Union believes this to be unfair as it does not give

the consumer the complete offer of available news articles and stories.

Naturally, the particular stories that will be shown will be based on

personality traits of the consumer, which has been determined through the

deep and often much too intensive personal data collection.

It is by allowing these companies to collect and store your data and

share it with advertisers and trade with data brokers, which makes these

services free.

When consumers agree to the terms and conditions upon signing up to these

services, they are actually giving the companies permission to raid their

personal information.

This is not the sole fault of the consumer and is not a case of simply

not reading the terms and conditions.

They are usually very lengthy and written in very complex legal jargon

which is not easily understood by the consumer.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that it is outright abuse of consumer

habit to take advantage of their natural reaction to just click "Agree"

and carry on with setting up their profile without thinking of the

eventual consequences of what the company will do with the consumer's

data and how the tweaking of the company's algorithms is performed to

adapt to certain personality traits which results in presenting the

consumer with a very limited set of news stories.

It is having an effect on the quality of journalism and accessibility of

certain stories which are not being offered the complete opportunity they

deserve to have their creative works distributed to the widest audience

possible across the networks of digital media distributors.

The result has been traditional publishers placing pay-walls onto their

news websites.

There is various models of accessibility in place with publishers.

Some allow a set number of free articles before you are forced to pay for

a subscription, while others will not let the reader view anything

without a paid subscription.

We believe that these pay-walls are not the best design for protecting

quality journalism and retaining accessibility to as many people as

possible.

But we also completely understand that due to aggregation services

effectively stealing the content from traditional publishers and

integrating them into their own services which are delivered to their

consumers for free, is both morally wrong and should be considered

stealing.

To conclude, we return to five key points of matters to be taken into

consideration, outlined in the Issues Paper and add our footnotes on each

to summarize our position.

Our position should be taken as general in nature and is not focused on

any specific digital media distributors:

the extent to which platform service providers are exercising market

power in commercial dealings with the creators of journalistic content

and advertisers;

Freedom Publishers Union believes primarily due to the shear massive

scale and global market share, digital media distributors abuse their

power through dominance of their services without regard to the wider

effects on the quality of journalism and accessibility of digital media,

news and information.

ii.

the impact of platform service providers on the level of choice and

quality of news and journalistic content to consumers;

The practices that are carried out by digital media distributors are not

producing appropriate choice of digital media, news and information to

the consumer.

By offering targeted content, it is effectively impeding on any consumer

choice and is making the choice for them.

iii.

the impact of platform service providers on media and advertising

markets;

It is clear that the free distribution model is not aimed at producing

quality content for consumers.

Rather, it is aimed at fast and targeted distribution which is further

aimed at getting the consumer to click on targeted and selective content

so the digital media distributor benefits from advertising revenue that

is produced.

If Australia were to have a majority subscription based media, then the

advertising sector would remain unaffected by any large degree and

consumers would see an increase in the quality of digital media, news and

information.

iv.

the impact of longer-term trends, including innovation and technological

change, on competition in media and advertising markets;

If the current trends are permitted to continue, Freedom Publishers Union

fears that consumers will see less choice and more targeted content

distributed.

This will undoubtedly have a flow on effect and force more traditional

publishers into shutting down operations as their subscription models

will not be allowed to grow at the same rate that free models can.

This will unfortunately lead to much less proper journalism and lower

quality digital media, news and information distributed.

And consumers will see a dramatic increase in unreliable news and

information produced by bots and other forms of artificial intelligence.

the impact of information asymmetry between platform service providers,

advertisers and consumers and the effect on competition in media and

advertising markets;

Taking all of the information, opinions and analysis that we have

outlined in this Submission into consideration, Freedom Publishers Union

remains certain that the eventual path will lead to less journalism, less

quality publications, less revenue to produce it and make news and

information unreliable and riddled with errors and unchecked claims.

Unless serious action is taken and reform is introduced by the Australian

Government which can protect traditional media distribution models, which

is effectively protecting the quality of journalism and guarantee their

continued operations, Freedom Publishers Union can only conclude that

quality journalism will drop back to just a few small independent

publications and digital media distributors, that will remain dedicated

to delivering services using the proven traditional media distribution

models.

If this were to be allowed to occur, it would not be good for Australian

democracy or the media industry.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

[Filed from GOLD COAST] February 23, 2018 | [PUBLIC RELATIONS] ABC

Management and Editors Must Stand Up Against Government

To ABC Management;

Freedom Publishers Union is an independent publishing organization that

operates primarily out of Australia, with co-operation from a limited

number of international media groups which assist to extend our media

reach and publication locale.

On February 20, 2018, our Asia/Pacific Press Office published quite a

strong worded Editorial which made accusations against the ABC network,

of giving in to government pressure on stories that it deemed critical

against government economic policy.

Our Editorial was mainly directed at the ABC's handling of two recent

stories publishing by Emma Alberici - One of which was removed in its

entirety and another which was highly edited, critical analysis removed

before the highly edited version was re-published.

We now understand that the story that was removed has also since been re-

published to the ABC website but has been drastically re-written by

Alberici.

We believe this comes as a result of pressure Emma Alberici was put under

by the ABC Management, which was unacceptable for a senior journalist of

her experience and journalistic integrity.

If media reports are to be believed, then we understand Alberici has

sought advice from lawyers following bad treatment in this instance, from

ABC Management.

However, we can not confirm this information which is being reported in

the media.

Freedom Publishers Union are staunch advocates against government

interference and editorial tampering, with Australia's free and open

press.

Our same advocacy and free press principles that we protect extend to all

countries in the world.

The ABC was once known for its tough nature in dealing with government

criticism against its publications.

We feel the recent handling of Alberici's stories by the ABC, which saw

multiple government complaints and resulting in the ABC making drastic

editing of the stories in question, has tarnished the reputation for the

ABC and has given the network a new alternate reputation that it will act

upon government requests through official complaints made to the network.

The ABC has publicly claimed that the specific reasons for the changes

that were made on Alberici's stories was for editorial reasons, and not

the direct result of political interference through the complaints that

were lodged.

Freedom Publishers Union disputes this official explanation.

Our dispute is echoed throughout the media industry.

This is a concern for us, as Freedom Publishers Union has always been

committed to supporting public broadcasting in Australia, including

directly campaigning for protection of the ABC and SBS networks.

We remain committed to supporting Australia's public broadcasting sector.

But we would like to urge the ABC to stand up against governmental

attempts at editorial interference and tampering.

-----

Freedom Publishers Union Public Relations Department

**********

February 20, 2018 | Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Submitting

to Government Pressure, Deleting and Editing Stories on Government

Request

The ABC News, Australia's flagship public broadcasting news agency

operated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, was once known for

cutting edge reporting, investigative journalism and fearless reporting

on all the important issues.

Something has changed within the walls of the ABC offices.

It has somewhat lost its edge and its age-old mantra of fearless

reporting is beginning to show signs of cracks around the edges.

Last week, The Guardian reported on a particular story which was written

by the much respected ABC journalist and presenter, Emma Alberici.

The piece that she published on the ABC was taken down off the website

after reported complaints by Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm

Turnbull.

(As we were about to go to press with this Editorial, Freedom Publishers

Union learned from The Australian that the Communications Minister, Mitch

Fifield, also made a formal complaint to the public broadcaster, in

addition to the complaint lodged by the Prime Minister.)

The Guardian reports that the ABC claims that the story was removed

because it did not meet the required editorial standards for an analysis

piece.

There was also another news story which accompanied the piece that was

also removed, which made accusations to QANTAS that the company had not

paid its corporate tax for 10 years.

At the same time Alberici's first story was being removed, her

accompanying story on QANTAS was being edited and rewritten by the news

editors.

It was republished, but key economic data and charts have been removed.

According to Guardian Australia, it reports that ABC management were

holding what it describes as 'crisis meetings', which occurred after the

Prime Minister launched attacks on the ABC story by Alberici in Question

Time.

This was followed up by an official complaint in written form, to the

public broadcaster.

Later, the ABC would claim the meetings were held before the complaints

were lodged.

Freedom Publishers Union is at odds with this claim and calls on the ABC

to produce meeting minutes as documentative evidence of the definitive

schedule of these meetings.

Freedom Publishers Union has become concerned that the ABC, particularly

its news division operated under the Director of News, Gaven Morris, is

willingly responding at the apparent request of government ministers to

have information edited or removed.

In this particular case, Australia's highest minister - the Prime

Minister.

ABC's Director of News, Gaven Morris, has seemingly caved in to

government pressure by acting on the complaint of the Prime Minister by

removing a story and having another edited.

Freedom Publishers Union is certainly not directly accusing Mr. Morris of

personally ordering the deletion and editing of stories to please

government officials.

But to hide behind reasons that particular stories are removed/edited for

simply not meeting editorial standards is strange.

Strange, as it is out of character for the ABC and also unjustified on

such an accomplished journalist such as Emma Alberici, who studied

economics and was also the hardline former presenter on Lateline, where

she was known for her tough and relentless interviews of Australia's most

prominent politicians.

Freedom Publishers Union is very concerned of the editorial tampering the

ABC's news-level management are taking against its journalists.

We were able to access the deleted story through the Wayback Machine and

can confirm that there was no data in the article that was incorrect.

Alberici opened the removed story with the following statement, which we

understand is the primary cause of the governmental complaints towards

the piece, with the following comments, "There is no compelling evidence

that giving the country's biggest companies a tax cut sees that money

passed on to workers in the form of higher wages.".

This opening comment was justified, absolutely has merit and is not just

a matter of uninformed economic opinion of the author, as suggested by

ABC editorial management.

Freedom Publishers Union researched and fact checked the information and

concurs with this opening statement.

Based on the interactive economic data and graphs we analyzed for the

period of 2008-2018, the data proves that company profits have increased

and company wage growth has actually dropped.

Economic projections for wage growth in Australia in 2018 is pretty

dismal too.

Projections show that Australia is set to grow wages at only 0.4%, some

of the lowest growth rates in developed economies.

The theory that lower tax rates bring better wages for workers is largely

based on theory, rather than actual historical data.

In fact, data proves contradictory to the theory.

We cite the UK, where over the last 10 years the corporate tax rate has

gone from 30% down to just 19%, the lowest it's ever been, yet has not

flowed through to wage growth.

Actual wage growth has dropped, and for most of the last 10 years has

been stagnant.

The data is much the same for Japan.

Despite over the same 10 year period of Japan's corporate tax rate

dropping from 40% to 30%, wage growth has been slow and again, quite

stagnant over the same period.

Our concerns over the integrity and editorial standards of the ABC extend

even further and are not solely related to this one instance.

Freedom Publishers Union were critical of the ABC's decision to return

the source document files from the relatively uneventful publication of

The Cabinet Files.

The documents that were used as the source of a very limited publication,

were handed to the ABC by a source who's identity has not been revealed.

Supposedly, the documents were acquired through the purchase of an ex-

government filing cabinet which was locked and sold without the key.

The new owner broke into the cabinet after allowing it to sit, unattended

for several months.

Reportedly, inside were thousands of government documents - some of which

were classified as "Secret" and were relevant to many different national

security matters.

Many of the documents were said to be marked "Australian Eyes Only".

Freedom Publishers Union understands that the source would have handed

these documents to the ABC because the ABC has been for a very long time

the most trusted source of news in the country.

It is much more respected than commercial news broadcasters.

We cannot independently confirm this was the reason for the source

trusting the ABC with the documents, but through careful analysis and

process of elimination, this was the most plausible conclusion that we

can draw.

It seems we are not alone.

Many analysts in the media have echoed our conclusion.

If this was in fact the case, then Freedom Publishers Union believes that

the ABC had a journalistic and ethical responsibility to carefully

analyze the documents, said to be in the thousands of pages, and report

on them using safe, ethical and responsible editorial and reporting

methods.

The ABC is more than capable of handling such sensitive documents and

information.

Why was it not able to handle the sensitivity surrounding the information

that was provided inside The Cabinet Files? Instead, we saw the ABC

managerial team swoop in and take over what was to be released and what

was to be handed back to the government.

And let's be honest, the stories that were published can be described as

disposable and genuinely uninteresting to most people.

It was only days later though, that government officials and ASIO

intelligence officers entered the office of the ABC and took possession

of the physical documents, supposedly to ensure national security

interests were protected.

Or the other possibility - to avoid international embarrassment through

the leaking of such sensitive intelligence information.

What Freedom Publishers Union finds extremely disturbing is that the ABC

is claiming that there was nothing in the documents that was of public

interest.

We just can't allow ourselves to believe this claim.

We seriously cannot conclude that there is nothing of public interest in

a cabinet full of government documents that many of them were marked

secret/top secret or for Australian Eyes Only.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for governmental operations

transparency.

But if such material was deemed to be too sensitive for public

disclosure, then we would expect the ABC to report on the information in

a responsible manner and by using appropriate, yet minimal document

redaction processes to ensure national security was respected and

maintained.

Freedom Publishers Union is not the first to point out that the ABC is

more than capable of such a task and is one of the best news agencies in

the country for dealing with investigate journalism and reporting on

sensitive issues.

Even the ABC network's own media program, Media Watch, expressed strong

views and skepticism towards the network's handling of The Cabinet Files.

Paul Barry of Media Watch cited Gaven Morris when he claimed, "We [the

ABC] could have told hundreds of stories over weeks or months".

Paul Barry responded by asking the most obvious rhetorical question, "If

that is so, why on Earth did the ABC not tell them?".

Investigative journalist, Brian Toohey, from the Australian Financial

Review responded with much the same response by saying, "The ABC's filing

cabinet kowtow to ASIO and the government was gutless".

Paul Barry sums it up very well by stating, "it is a sorry end to what in

many ways was a great get for the ABC" and reaffirms that the network was

"trusted by its source" and "how sad that what could have been a triumph

ended in something of a train wreck".

Freedom Publishers Union believes that the public broadcaster failed the

Australian people through deciding to not publish more detailed

information on The Cabinet Files.

And if the source of the documents chose to hand them over to the ABC for

proper investigative journalism to be carried out, then we expect they

must also be extremely disappointed in the way the nation's public

broadcaster buckled to government pressure to get their hands on the

documents.

In the end, the ABC failed and the government got their way.

Which seems to have become common practice now at the public broadcaster.

Freedom Publishers Union support Australia's free press.

The country is extremely lucky that it enjoys so much freedom.

But we feel under the current Liberal Party run Government that this is

gradually shifting into frightening territory and slowly, piece by piece,

these freedoms are eroding through overbearing legislation that impedes

on the nation's freedoms and rights of the people.

Specifically, the issues with the ABC started with reduced funding of the

public broadcasting sector, which also includes the SBS network.

Prior to the Liberal Party entering into government, there was a specific

promise to the Australian people that public broadcasting would not face

funding cuts.

Once Liberal was elected into office, they effectively backtracked on

this key election promise.

There is no denying that the Australian people were lied to.

Albeit, these reductions were small.

They were nevertheless reductions which has seen the ABC forced to make

major changes to its radio and television programming to accomodate.

Current affairs and news programming has suffered.

Whilst we're sure the public broadcasters are doing their best to

withstand the constant barrage of attacks from the government, we also

believe that they are growing weaker and are more likely to cooperate

with the government, or face the very real possibility of further funding

cuts if the ABC demonstrates too much independence.

The government is constantly attacking the ABC network when views and

opinions expressed through their journalism differs to government policy

or direction of political debate.

SBS remains unscathed most of the time.

This is very concerning and Freedom Publishers Union remains in the

constant battle to protect public broadcasting in Australia and aims to

protect journalism so it remains free from censorship, governmental

interference and can maintain editorial independence.

We constantly watch closely, just how much the government aims to curtail

the truth about its flawed economic policy, which when revealed to be

flawed through the use of actual data has the potential to influence

public opinion and turn the public's interest against the government's

agenda.

They don't like it.

Governments are free to disagree with media analysis and opinion.

However, they are not free to launch formal complaints just when they

disagree and put media and journalists under pressure to a point they

feel they must comply.

But this must be backed up with strong leadership and management from

media.

And this is the key area where the ABC is failing the public.

It no longer has a spine of stubbornness and is much too easily

intimidated by government pressure, which it appears to comply with at

almost every request.

Australian's once had a very strong public broadcaster and had confidence

in the ABC, which was usually reliable in standing up for its cause.

And Australia's media landscape was stronger for it.

Now, we're not so sure.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

February 4, 2018 | The Edge of Post-Privacy

Freedom Publishers Union is absolutely committed to spreading the message

of privacy.

Everyone deserves the right to privacy and to take action to uphold that

right.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) interprets Article 17 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as "a human

rights treaty that guarantees privacy rights.

More specifically, Article 17 of the ICCPR protects everyone from

arbitrary or unlawful interferences with their privacy".

Freedom Publishers Union notes, that the ICCPR is a civil rights document

and not specifically a human rights document.

However, in its interpretation, Article 17 is in fact a privacy right and

must be adhered to.

Whether 'privacy' itself is a civil right or a human right is a separate

debating point.

Irrespective of that, it is a right.

Article 17 reads:

Article 17

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his

privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his

honour and reputation.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such

interference or attacks.

When citizens take action to protect their privacy, they often get it

wrong.

This is not through fault of their own, rather, usually it is through

lack of being provided the education and knowledge required for action to

become effective.

This is why it has become so important for independent publications to

spread correct and accurate knowledge about security, privacy and the

tools to achieve it.

We need to get the message across and we need to get the message right.

But there is something that we cannot fix.

We are constantly faced with legislative decisions, even in free and

democratic countries, that threaten our ability to take action to protect

our privacy.

Additionally, we are losing our ability to remain completely anonymous on

the internet, which is a major building block of privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union is not totally comfortable with how privacy is

being handled.

The way we view privacy today is causing us to become fearful not just of

government or big business, but of ourselves.

The bad news is that there never really has been or will be true privacy.

We know more about it today because of people like Edward Snowden, but

we've always been faced with someone other than us snooping on our

secrets.

This has been a part of our history for as long as we've had written

record.

Data trails are left everywhere - on every website - on every server.

Before we begin to panic, we need to put things into perspective and

understand what happens with our data on the internet.

It can often be confusing.

It's certainly complex.

It's also very expansive.

When using mapping tools to view and analyze websites and where the data

is shared, you're truly only getting a glimpse of the entire connection

array.

These software tools are limited in scope and in some cases rely on

algorithms to predict where data is going based on previous connections,

to fill in the gaps.

Still, they offer incredible insight into just how far data sharing goes.

Google is trying to be an honest broker of the zettabytes of live data

that we as humans, scatter around the planet.

Amazon is also trying to act in our best interest.

After all, between Google and Amazon, the largest collection of

information about people is stored and accessible.

Facebook too has massive chunks of information stored on its users.

Their datacenters even hold records of internet users that do not even

have Facebook accounts but have accessed the website or any website that

has Facebook linked to it.

Whether it's through Facebook's advertising network or simply through

social media sharing, once the connection is made, all data that Facebook

can access, it retains for its own commercial advantage.

Let's be honest, Facebook is probably linked in some form to almost every

news website and blog in the world.

Facebook's stewardship is not lacking, but is being primarily directed by

the its users in a way that makes trying to keep information secure,

almost impossible.

And completely anonymous, equally impossible.

Transparency is a double-edged sword.

We need to be realistic.

Google - Amazon - Facebook - all of these companies make money by

connecting their users with advertising that may lead to a sale where

both parties share the benefits.

But it comes at the cost of sharing information.

That information has a different value to each of the parties.

These sources openly provide snippets (terabyte snippets, but still a

fraction of the raw data) for third-party analysis.

It's very easy to connect the dots and derive new information from the

large patterns that you find.

Facebook provides social interactions.

Amazon knows 'why we buy' and 'what we buy'.

Google provides insight into our curiosity and from that, what our

conscious interests are.

There are many other smaller firms focused on narrower data streams -

Axciom, Experian and Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) to name a few.

Taken together, all of these firms collect masses of anonymous data,

analyze it, then apply the analysis as filters over individuals.

Despite public perception and concerns over privacy violations, they

really don't care about the details of a single person, but they allow

individuals to be categorized in the context of a 'transaction'.

Whether it's buying a car, deciding on a book or planning a crime, the

data is meaningless outside of the context of the applied filter.

The data truly is anonymous right up to the very end.

Only when the final context is applied does the Schrödinger's Cat of

identity precipitate into a real person.

Effectively, it's our data that is being traded.

Not really our identities.

And that's the problem.

Because the data that's filtered relies on so many different sources with

different obfuscation and different data points in their storage, we end

up with blind men and an elephant.

No one has a full picture of all the data points that make up an

individual.

Schrödinger's Cat appears, but sometimes missing ears or a tail.

That's what causes the errors in results, why gay women get Viagra

adverts or an innocent person is swept up and accused of being a

terrorist.

This is a failing of algorithms and is why these advertising algorithms

are constantly being updated and refined, in an effort to be as precise

as possible within the contextual restraints of the data filters and with

minimal identity detection built in to the entire stream.

Transparency cuts both ways.

The problem is like medicine.

Every year we learn more about illness and curing disease, but those

diagnosed and treated last year could be out of luck.

The more that is known, the better the results become.

We don't drill holes in skulls for headaches!

Anonymity is a middle ground between secrecy and full transparency.

What we need to do is get to a point where we change our attitudes

towards things that really don't matter in the greater scheme and focus

on those aspects of 'our lives' that do matter.

People are more worried about the interpretation of a hug or a smile or a

friendship than they are about how their lives are being manipulated.

We need to learn and understanding the impact of privacy and the way

people can be hurt by it, and also understand the reality of what's

happening with the technology and the impact it can have on people's

lives.

We are right at the cusp of becoming a 'post-privacy' society.

Actually, it's difficult to pin-point whether we have entered the post-

privacy era or whether we are at the border, staring over into foreign

territory.

Following the original Snowden leaks, in an article titled "The Post-

Privacy World" written in July 2013 for Wired, Nova Spivack said, "While

it is tempting to have a knee-jerk reaction against government intrusion

in our lives, in fact it's not that simple.

Whether it's PRISM or Wikileaks that worries us more, we are clearly in a

different world now.

One in which privacy is being replaced by something new - transparency -

and this has implications that go right to the heart of our democracy.".

Furthermore, Nova adds, "Given that secrets will become ever more

difficult and costly to protect, our expectation of privacy has to

evolve.

We have to accept that it's impossible and unrealistic to achieve total

privacy".

Nova pretty much sums it up right there.

That folks, is our entry into the post-privacy era.

But there's a slight problem with this.

Nova wrote those words in 2013, and it's now 2018.

Almost 5 years have passed, yet it somehow feels that we are still

spooked by privacy violations of our identities online and having all our

actions scooped up in dragnet surveillance.

Nova continues by stating, "We are now entering the Age of Transparency,

an era of increasing openness at all levels of society.

Transparency arises when it becomes increasingly hard to keep secrets,

and so the focus shifts to how to behave when anything (from personal

info to state secrets) can be discovered if one is determined enough.".

Perhaps post-privacy doesn't exist and is simply something that we drum

up in our minds.

A kind of paranoia.

Facebook is leading the way to socialize the idea, and the other data

pools will follow soon after.

But, in order for this post-privacy world to function properly, people

need to understand that everything they do is being saved and stored in a

datacenter somewhere, by some company and most likely being traded too.

Problems won't become problems if enough context, enough data, exists to

clarify them.

Because anonymity is secure until the final moment, it's only when the

last step in the transaction executes that the data becomes a human.

So, if that moment can be held off, less data leakage will occur.

Whilst it can't be guaranteed to work, there is a concept that may come

close.

First, we need to create a true 'honest broker' to act as the secure

clearing house for personal data.

Think of an 'ICANN for data', if you will.

They assign everyone a unique key that is used to identify you and they

maintain the repositories of raw data, linked only by the unique key.

But the key is set up the way a one-time token is, and each request for

data gets a unique key, good only for that requestor and dataset.

The analysis can theoretically occur with complete anonymity.

When the final result is found, the request returns to the honest broker

- the request is verified - and the transaction is completed.

Through this process, each request for data and the results are

correlated and, using something like a blockchain, the audit trail is

maintained without compromising on security and anonymity.

If data does leak, it's simply a matter of crawling back up the

blockchain and identifying which request caused the leak.

Such a proposal would not be easy, would realistically take at least a

decade to implement properly and to receive the security it deserves.

And of course, governments and criminals will try to keep their own

copies.

But the costs of duplication will quickly eliminate the problem.

There should be no special requests for any court, media, journalist,

military, Kings/Queens or Congress.

The problem is developing a Charter that keeps the honest broker

completely transparent and neutral, as both would be key to the

successful rollout and also maintaining that the requests for special

access remain barred at all times.

Without a working prototype of such a proposal, it is difficult to

foresee what security vulnerabilities could arise.

The question of security is paramount and would need to be dealt with.

By having a centralized data broker, you cannot escape the realization

that security concerns are present and questions are going to be asked.

But if implemented properly, it would finally allow for all data to be

treated equal and all requests would be handled in the same transparent

manner.

Perhaps Julian Assange isn't so crazy after all.

He fights for total transparency.

It was once thought that his concept was crazy.

Now, it's becoming much more appealing.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

February 1, 2018 | Grip on Australia's Press Freedom Looks to be

Tightened.

Borders on Authoritarian!

It was on the last day of sitting for 2017 for Australia's House of

Representatives, that the Liberal Party of Australia introduced proposed

changes to the laws surrounding espionage and other matters of national

security, which could see the possibility of detrimental effects be

placed on the free press in the country.

Criticism comes as the Parliament is set to return next week.

The proposed changes in the legislation titled "National Security

Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017", is sure to

become a deep topic which will see heavy debate ensue.

The proposed espionage changes are reportedly in response to Australia

feeling the pinch from threats from foreign interference of other

nations.

Although it has not been officially recognized, China is at the heart of

their concerns, along with Russia.

Whether the two countries actually pose any legitimate threat to

Australia's strong functioning democracy, is an open question.

In fact, the proposals are more reflective of attacks that attempt to

silence specific areas of the media.

There are many valid concerns which have been raised by many journalists,

publishers and media outlets.

The proposed changes are complex in their writing and the scope much too

broad.

As outlined in the actual legislative document, anyone and media will be

forbidden to:

("it" refers to information)

-Receive or obtain it,

-collect it,

-possess it,

-make record of it,

-copy it,

-alter it,

-conceal it,

-communicate it,

-publish it,

-or make it available.

Freedom Publishers Union expresses opposition to the proposed changes

because there have already been sweeping changes over the past couple of

years with other parts of the law, directly related to national security

concerns.

"The changes Australia has already implemented have done enough.

In my opinion, they've already gone too far and already threaten the

freedom that Australia enjoys with a free press.

These latest proposals threaten the free press even further.

But not just the free press, but whistleblowers, journalists and

publishers.

Effectively, our own organization [Freedom Publishers Union] could face

legal action if we are to even receive information related to anything on

national security matters.

And that's even before we've made the information public.

To me, that sounds very authoritarian.", says Freedom Publishers Union

Editor, Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

Under the current proposals that have been tabled, journalists,

publishers and media outlets can all face heavy handed legal action

pushed against them when reporting on foreign intelligence and national

security matters.

And this is irrespective of whether it is in the public's interest.

The proposals actually take a much tighter grip on the free press, by

leaving open the possibility that those in media can face the same hefty

legal action if they do not report on the issues, but are in possession

of source documents that could be used for reporting on matters which the

Government is claiming are sensitive to matters of national security.

Whistleblowers could also face legal action placed against them.

There's nobody in the chain of how the source-to-media process operates

that would be free from possibility of prosecution under these draconian

espionage law changes, if they pass and get enacted.

Chris continues, "As the grip around freedom of speech and the free press

in Australia gets tightened, Freedom Publishers Union sees dark times

ahead for Australian media if we are not even allowed to report and

document on matters which may be based off leaked documents or other

information, deemed to be in the public interest and declared suitable

for public disclosure.".

In a completely ironic and unforeseen situation, as Freedom Publishers

Union were in the process of preparing this Editorial, a major developing

story broke from the nation's public broadcaster, Australian Broadcasting

Corporation (ABC).

The news agency has obtained thousands of pages of top secret and

classified documents from several different Parliamentary Cabinets.

The ABC obtained the documents from a source who purchased some ex-

government filing cabinets.

The filing cabinets were bought cheap as they were locked, reportedly

with no key for access.

The owner cracked into the filing cabinets to find the source documents,

unexpectedly.

Whilst this story is still effectively developing as we go to press, it

must be noted that to the best of our understanding, under current laws

the ABC is more than entitled to report on the documents.

However, under the aforementioned proposed changes, no media agency would

be permitted to report on them.

"Effectively, this is media censorship at its finest.

Here, in Australia, happening right in front of our eyes.", Chris

concludes.

The timing of the documents coming into the hands of the public

broadcaster could not be more perfect, as it puts on a public show by

example of the threat that the current espionage proposed changes

actually pose to Australia's free and open press which is still taken for

granted by so many Australian citizens.

Despite the claims by the Liberal Party that the legislation has

protection clauses drafted into the document to prevent any restrictions

being placed on the free press, we are not confident that it goes

anywhere near far enough.

As we have analyzed the proposed legislation, we can only find minimal

reference in just a line or two, noting that there will be legal

exclusion for "fair and accurate reporting".

Freedom Publishers Union advocates very strongly against the proposed

changes, unless serious amendments are put forward which will guarantee

protection for whistleblowers, journalists and publishers.

Australia enjoys a free press, much like the Unites States of America and

other democratic countries.

It must be protected against constant attempts to place restrictions on

what can be and what can't be reported by media.

Media outlets must be allowed to have the freedom to publish what they

deem to be in the public interest, in an ethical, and professionally

responsible manner.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

January 27, 2018 | NSA Deletes Surveillance Data From 2001-2007.

Conspiracy or Incompetence?

On January 19, 2018, Politico broke a story of which describes the

destruction of data related to one of the most intensive of the NSA's

vast network of surveillance programs - the President's Surveillance

Program (PSP).

Irrespective of the actual cause, it is clear that the NSA has failed in

its mandate to protect the data.

Since 2007, the NSA was ordered by the courts to ensure the protection of

surveillance data related to the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of

international communications, which was ordered and authorized by former

President George W.

Bush following the 2001 terror attacks on the Twin Towers, in New York.

Additional details have been revealed that backups of data from 2001-2007

have also been destroyed.

It is stated that backup tapes that could have potentially been used to

restore the original data, were destroyed in 2009, 2011 and 2016.

The NSA claims the data was destroyed as part of a "broad, housecleaning

effort" which was carried out to free up space for incoming data.

However, The Hill has reported that the NSA still retain the metadata of

the main data that was destroyed and if required, the metadata used as

evidence.

PSP was in operation from 2001 until it expired in 2007.

From 2007 onwards, it was significantly broken up and portions of the

program were renewed under different legislation, while other parts were

supposedly dropped.

Although the specifics of what went where are extremely complex and the

process has not exactly been transparent.

Therefore, speaking on a general basis, Freedom Publishers Union is

skeptical of any suggestion that the NSA has improved its ways and we

still believe there is much more oversight required to reign in much of

the NSA's unnecessary spying on civilians.

A lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested that the NSA

has a "tremendous volume of information they're [the agency] vacuuming

up" and that it is "impossible to be meticulous" in the safe management

of the data.

The NSA admits it has failed in its obligations to protect the data from

destruction, but makes no justification of why the backup data was also

destroyed.

And this is where privacy activists and civil libertarians are going to

focus their attacks on the NSA, which will undoubtedly be relentless and

unforgiving.

We must be careful and understand that it could very likely be a simple

error of judgment by some innocent worker(s) inside the agency.

It's difficult to conclude definitively, based on what representatives

from the NSA have publicly stated.

As the operations inside the agency are some of the most secretive in the

world, the public is forced to accept the public statements made by

officials from the NSA.

We note that in 2014, an official stated that "the NSA has stored these

tapes in the offices of its General Counsel".

But now four years later in 2018, the NSA now claims that that original

statement was only "partially accurate when made".

It raises the obvious question - Should the NSA still be engaging in

dragnet surveillance if it cannot properly manage and secure the data?

Freedom Publishers Union believes that mass-surveillance is returning to

the pre-Snowden era, is being expanded and broadened in scope under the

Trump Administration.

Where there are legal loop holes to be exploited, the NSA is exploiting

them.

Where there are no loopholes to jump through, the NSA uses the extensive

surveillance programs capabilities of its intelligence sharing partners

in the Five Eyes intelligence network.

The NSA has previously relied upon the operations carried out by their

British spying partners at the GCHQ.

This close relationship continues today.

Freedom Publishers Union has connected with people who have worked inside

both government agencies and in the private sector.

We have reason to believe that if the NSA destruction of the data was a

genuine accident, then it would not be the first time something this

silly has occurred inside such a high-level government agency.

We add that if it were a simple scenario of old data being deleted in an

effort to clear up some free space, then it is very likely that the

person who carried out the original removal were unaware of what the

precise data was and probably unaware it was meant to be safeguarded

against its removal.

But this would be put down to sloppy management of such critical data and

could not be deemed the sole fault of one (or more) individuals.

We also have information directly from sources who work have worked in

the big data industry for close to 40 years, who will gladly admit that

backups are the major joke of the industry.

Failing backup data is a regular occurrence and there's not much

confidence in backup storage technology in general.

If it were to be confirmed the destruction of the data was intentional,

it seems inevitable the US Government is going to get crucified.

One could not imagine a worse situation.

Politically, those on the opposite would use this to the highest extent

possible, leaving the government with not much defense.

If we see any kind of extensive investigation into the event, then it is

very likely that it might spread further than the walls of the NSA and

into the CIA, the FBI and further.

How long is a piece of string? This ordeal has the potential of making

the United States of America (USA) look stupid.

It is that bad.

The USA has very little credibility left, politically.

If a country has an intelligence information sharing arrangement with the

USA, then we'd recommend they tread carefully and take a few steps back

because everybody is going to become a suspect.

Surely, just surely, somebody inside the NSA - one of the world's most

elite spy agencies - could not be that stupid to recklessly hit the

delete key on such important data, without first verifying that it was no

longer needed? Or did 'that person' have higher authority permitting them

to execute the destruction of the data? Is this just how stupid,

incompetent and pythonesque governments have become? Occams razor

bloodies the idiots.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

January 19, 2018 | More Intel Vulnerabilities, with Active Management

Technology (AMT)

Technology is in every corner of the world and we appreciate it in each

step of our lives.

Technology unlocks the world before us and allows us to realize our

potential, but it also has the potential of unlocking a straight line of

access for attackers.

The word "hacking" is almost known by everyone in this digital life.

We believe hacking to be a good thing.

Yeah, it can be illegal.

But it is challenging the technology industry in a positive way which is

helping to make security stronger.

Now, we are part of a generation where we don't have to unlock our

devices by putting password manually because of our passwords can now be

our body parts, like the iris and fingerprints.

Sure, traditional methods of security still exist, but biometrics are

improving security and is an example of how we have improved our

security.

Hacking can be done through hardware or software.

Software has many options to hack because you can directly interact with

it through the network.

But hardware is a little bit different, as it has fewer options.

This is because you can't get direct access to it in the same way you can

with software.

Wikipedia describes Intel Active Management Technology (AMT) as "hardware

and firmware technology for remote out-of-band management of personal

computers.

It is used in order to monitor, maintain, update, upgrade and repair".

All this could be done through remote connectivity.

Like all technology, AMT has two faces - Advantage and Disadvantage.

Freedom Publishers Union learned of the loophole from a publication

released by security firm F-Secure.

But the original vulnerability is tracked back to a white hat hacker from

Finland, who is also a F-Secure Security Consultant, named Harry

Sintonen.

He discovered the AMT vulnerability back in July 4, 2017.

According to details in the full security advisory accessed by Freedom

Publishers Union, he made contactwith many technology companies including

Fujitsu, ASUS, Dell, Lenovo, HP, ASUS, Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba and

Acer.

Most importantly, Intel was notified on July 11 and July 12, 2017.

Intel confirmed the advisory was received on July 12, 2017.

Some of these companies responded to the advisory notice.

Specifically, Intel did take action in what seems like an attempt to

rectify the security issue.

Information was not available to Freedom Publishers Union at the time of

going to press as to how effective Intel's action has been to inform its

customers about the AMT vulnerability.

We were able to cite a technical security document supplied by Intel,

provided through F-Secure, that confirms that notification of the

vulnerability was confirmed by Intel by adding it to its Security

Advisories for Intel Active Management Technology, under the Advisory

Number "INTEL-SA-00075".

It was unclear to us what action other companies had taken, specifically

laptop vendors.

Essentially, there is a loophole in Intel processors that allow an

attacker to bypass logins, leaving open the potential to place a backdoor

on the laptop which allows adversaries remote access to laptops.

F- Secure claim the loophole can be exploited in less than one minute.

The technique requires attackers to have physical access to the computer

and also assumes the target has not configured their system to protect

the Intel Management Engine BIOS Extension (MEBx) account on computers

that support Intel AMT.

As we stated earlier, AMT is a remote feature of Intel processors

normally used in vPro enabled and Xeon processors.

But you may now be thinking what is MEBx account? MEBx is the account in

the Management Engine BIOS extension on AMT-based computers and is used

for initial authenticated access to the AMT firmware on in Configuration

Manager 2007 SP1 and later.

If you enable the out of band management feature, you must configure the

password to use for the MEBx account in the Configuration Manager 2007

console when migrating computers to Configuration Manager that have been

provisioned for AMT by using another management solution.

Physically, you would not find access to this account in any of the

operating system's access on the machine, apart from the BIOS menu.

F-Secure writes, "The issue allows a local intruder to backdoor almost

any corporate laptop in a matter of seconds, even if the BIOS password,

TPM Pin, Bitlocker and login credentials are in place.

No, we're not making this stuff up.

The setup is simple: an attacker starts by rebooting the target's

machine, after which they enter the boot menu.

In a normal situation, an intruder would be stopped here; as they won't

know the BIOS password, they can't really do anything harmful to the

computer.".

The F-Secure publication continues, "In this case, however, the attacker

has a workaround: AMT.

By selecting Intel's Management Engine BIOS Extension (MEBx), they can

been changed by the user.

By changing the default password, enabling remote access and setting

AMT's user opt-in to "None", a quick-fingered cyber-criminal

haseffectively compromised the machine.

Now the attacker can gain access to the system remotely, as long as

they're able to insert themselves onto the same network segment with the

victim.".

We conclude by pointing out that although physical access is required to

initiate the exploit, "this might not be as difficult for skilled

attackers to organize as you might think.", Harry Sintonen says.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

January 18, 2018 | Major Security Vulnerabilities Present with In-Browser

Password Managers and Auto-Fill

There is growing concern over the lack of attention to security that is

being provided to in-browser password managers, which are now commonly

included in almost all popular web browsers.

Whilst it is widely accepted among the computer security circles that

third-party password managers generally handle security better, in-

browser password managers are still widely used.

Their use which is considered pretty standard for password management,

can only be based on the fact they offer somewhat more convenience than a

third-party tool.

Well, that is the common perception anyway.

We believe security to be of the utmost importance.

When a consumer is offered a choice of convenience or high-security, then

the choice is very clear and should always be in favor of increased

security.

But sadly, among consumers this is still not the case.

Results published by the Princeton's Center for Information Technology

Policy, in-browser password managers are being exploited using known

vulnerabilities when combined with third-party scripts which are used for

tracking users.

According to the Princeton research, a user's credentials can be

exploited when the user saves their submitted credentials to the in-

browser password manager.

The third-party script is usually not present on the login page, yet when

the user is returned to a non-login page on the same website, a third-

party script can invisibly reside and then exploit the saved credentials.

The research warns of the vulnerability, which has been known to exist

for literally years.

Yet it continues to go unresolved, to the best of our understanding.

Usually, it is exploited by cross-site scripting, or otherwise known as

XSS.

The research claims that of the 50,000 websites that were analyzed, there

was no exploitation occurring using the technique described in the

research.

Instead, it was discovered that tracking scripts were actually embedded

by the first-party.

The scripts effectively siphon off the email address information and send

the relevant data to third-party tracking servers.

The scripts the Princeton research department found were present on 1,110

of the top 1 million websites on Alexa.

In an effort to prove their research, sample code is provided in source

form along with a demonstration of the code also being provided through a

running demo website.

In collaboration with our technology publishing partners, Tecseek

Technology, we tested the code and can independently verify that the

exploit is very real and does in fact leak user credentials that have

been saved to the in-browser password manager.

The simplicity of executing the exploit is what we find truly alarming.

All that is required for a web browser to determine which website is used

to enter the credentials using auto-fill, is a set of heuristics which

simply require a login form to be present.

Generally, this does not require any interaction by the user for the

password manager to automatically enter the credentials into the form.

This is what enables to possibility for the exploit to rear its ugly

head.

A third-party script can hide an invisible login form on the page and

effectively take advantage of the same auto-fill ability.

A third-party script can usually bedetected by anyone who cares to

analyze the site code in finer detail, which can easily be done from

inside the web browser's developer tools.

However, it is not a realistic or practical approach to dealing with this

security exploit.

There is concern over what precise information could be collected,

expanding in scope beyond simply an email address.

The research discovered that the common "OnAudience" script tracks the

email address, browser type, plugins installed, display dimensions and

resolution, time-zone and language configuration, user-agent, operating

system and CPU information.

Taking all this information into account, the script will generate a

fingerprint to identify the user.

"OnAudience" claim that they only collect anonymous information.

This is a false claim as email addresses are not anonymous and could

potentially be matched up with the supposedly unique fingerprint.

As stated earlier, these kinds of browser-based vulnerabilities are not

new.

We viewed bug reports as old as 10 years on the Mozilla Bugzilla

reporting platform.

Additionally, we cited multiple academicpapers from multiple colleges and

universities which have composed their own research, which not only

substantiate the concerns over security with in-browser password

managers, but also the auto-fill feature in general.

It's a more complicated problem than what you might first conclude.

Despite more than 10 years of complaints being made public, there is

still no potential 'fix' for this vulnerability.

Instead, we see browser developers and vendors touting that there is no

actual 'vulnerability', at least not in the same way they would determine

and label an actual vulnerability.

Therefore, as it goes, if there is no vulnerability then there is

realistically no hole in the software to be fixed in the first place.

Freedom Publishers Union don't quite share this conclusion and it appears

that browser developers and vendors are side-stepping on the issue and

don't seem very intent on finding any real solution to eliminate the

possibility of abuse of the vulnerability, or security hole.

The blame is actually being shifted onto website publishers for allowing

these tracking scripts onto their web platform, willingly and with

complete ignorance towards data being tracked and shared with third-party

servers and used for user tracking purposes.

In-browser password managers are part of the problem, as there should

never be a clear text exchange of credentials.

A one-time hash or some sort of non-identifying exchange should be the

norm for sites that require access while inside the secured part of a

website.

Even two-factor authentication doesn't address this issue, as the purpose

is simply to generate an identifier across multiple sites.

Hashing the User ID/Email ID is just a way to create a mostly unique

value for tracking purposes.

The problem is that getting an ID - whether it's the email address or

full credentials - has been handed off to unreliable third-party actors.

Remember, the actual site owner already knows your credentials and

probably has complete access to the database too.

They gain nothing from this entire exercise.

Only a third-party that is looking to inject ads or track users need this

information.

It's all about tracking for the purpose of third-party's gathering data.

This should be emphasized.

This could be addressed by standardizing on a single broker of identity.

Google is trying to do this by promoting your Google Ad ID - managed by

them - as an anonymous point of contact to a customer.

By being the middle man, Google ensures that identity stops at their

border.

But this approach is certainly not flawless and can raise further

security concerns.

It is perfectly legitimate to raise the question of why we should put all

our trust in Google, or any other single broker of identity, to be the

ultimate gatekeeper of our digital identity.

There is great potential for even further extension of security related

problems surrounding password managers included in web browsers.

As more and more browsers are shipped with the ability to authorize a

central database of user credentials to be shared across multiple

devices, also referred to as syncing, the problem has the very real

possibility of growing into something more than what was once thought to

be restricted to the computer web browser.

This was confirmed on August 2016, when Opera confirmed a server breach

on their Opera Sync software.

So, as we draw to a conclusion of our analysis of this problem, we must

attempt to answer the obvious question - What is the solution to avoid

becoming a victim of this vulnerability? Installing web browser

extensions that aim to block and illegitimate and unsafe XSS are the most

sensible solution and will give you immediate protection.

Something else you should consider is disabling any auto-fill feature

your web browser is using.

If you insist on using auto-fill, then consider implementing any options

your web browser provides which prompt for user authorization when auto-

fill is prompted.

This will force the user to actually authorize the auto-fill data to be

entered.

It might completely undo the entire purpose of auto-fill, however,

security of your data, maintaining your privacy and avoiding becoming a

victim of targeted third-party web tracking should be your highest

priority.

Computer security expert and cryptographer, Bruce Schneier, recommends

that users create password lists through a password manager that is a

completely separate program to that of your web browser.

We concur.

-----

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group - Reykjavik Press

**********

January 16, 2018 | Spectre and Meltdown Attacks Against Microprocessors

The following computer security essay was written by Computer Security

Expert and Cryptographer, Bruce Schneier and was distributed in the

January 15, 2018 edition of his "CRYPTO-GRAM" email newsletter which is

widely distributed and respected among the computer security community.

Freedom Publishers Union is re-publishing the essay here in its unedited

entirety.

The views expressed in the essay are that of Bruce Schneier and not that

of Freedom Publishers Union.

However, it is re-published here in accordance with our Editorial Process

and highly regarded as very accurate at the time of publishing.

---

The security of pretty much every computer on the planet has just gotten

a lot worse, and the only real solution -- which of course is not a

solution -- is to throw them all away and buy new ones.

On January 3, researchers announced a series of major security

vulnerabilities in the microprocessors at the heart of the world's

computers for the past 15-20 years.

They've been named Spectre and Meltdown, and they have to do with

manipulating different ways processors optimize performance by

rearranging the order of instructions or performing different

instructions in parallel.

An attacker who controls one process on a system can use the

vulnerabilities to steal secrets elsewhere on the computer.

This means that a malicious app on your phone could steal data from your

other apps.

Or a malicious program on your computer -- maybe one running in a browser

window from that sketchy site you're visiting, or as a result of a

phishing attack -- can steal data elsewhere on your machine.

Cloud services, which often share machines amongst several customers, are

especially vulnerable.

This affects corporate applications running on cloud infrastructure, and

end-user cloud applications like Google Drive.

Someone can run a process in the cloud and steal data from every other

user on the same hardware.

Information about these flaws has been secretly circulating amongst the

major IT companies for months as they researched the ramifications and

coordinated updates.

The details were supposed to be released next week, but the story broke

early and everyone is scrambling.

By now all the major cloud vendors have patched their systems against the

vulnerabilities that can be patched against.

"Throw it away and buy a new one" is ridiculous security advice, but it's

what US-CERT recommends.

It is also unworkable.

The problem is that there isn't anything to buy that isn't vulnerable.

Pretty much every major processor made in the past 20 years is vulnerable

to some flavor of these vulnerabilities.

Patching against Meltdown can degrade performance by almost a third.

And there's no patch for Spectre; the microprocessors have to be

redesigned to prevent the attack, and that will take years.

This is bad, but expect it more and more.

Several trends are converging in a way that makes our current system of

patching security vulnerabilities harder to implement.

The first is that these vulnerabilities affect embedded computers in

consumer devices.

Unlike our computers and phones, these systems are designed and produced

at a lower profit margin with less engineering expertise.

There aren't security teams on call to write patches, and there often

aren't mechanisms to push patches onto the devices.

We're already seeing this with home routers, digital video recorders, and

webcams.

The vulnerability that allowed them to be taken over by the Mirai botnet

last August simply can't be fixed.

The second is that some of the patches require updating the computer's

firmware.

This is much harder to walk consumers through, and is more likely to

permanently brick the device if something goes wrong.

It also requires more coordination.

In November, Intel released a firmware update to fix a vulnerability in

its Management Engine (ME): another flaw in its microprocessors.

But it couldn't get that update directly to users; it had to work with

the individual hardware companies, and some of them just weren't capable

of getting the update to their customers.

We're already seeing this.

Some patches require users to disable the computer's password, which

means organizations can't automate the patch.

Some antivirus software blocks the patch, or -- worse -- crashes the

computer.

This results in a three-step process: patch your antivirus software,

patch your operating system, and *then* patch the computer's firmware.

The final reason is the nature of these vulnerabilities themselves.

These aren't normal software vulnerabilities, where a patch fixes the

problem and everyone can move on.

These vulnerabilities are in the fundamentals of how the microprocessor

operates.

It shouldn't be surprising that microprocessor designers have been

building insecure hardware for 20 years.

What's surprising is that it took 20 years to discover it.

In their rush to make computers faster, they weren't thinking about

security.

They didn't have the expertise to find these vulnerabilities.

And those who did were too busy finding normal software vulnerabilities

to examine microprocessors.

Security researchers are starting to look more closely at these systems,

so expect to hear about more vulnerabilities along these lines.

Spectre and Meltdown are pretty catastrophic vulnerabilities, but they

only affect the confidentiality of data.

Now that they -- and the research into the Intel ME vulnerability -- have

shown researchers where to look, more is coming -- and what they'll find

will be worse than either Spectre or Meltdown.

There will be vulnerabilities that will allow attackers to manipulate or

delete data across processes, potentially fatal in the computers

controlling our cars or implanted medical devices.

These will be similarly impossible to fix, and the only strategy will be

to throw our devices away and buy new ones.

This isn't to say you should immediately turn your computers and phones

off and not use them for a few years.

For the average user, this is just another attack method amongst many.

All the major vendors are working on patches and workarounds for the

attacks they can mitigate.

All the normal security advice still applies: watch for phishing attacks,

don't click on strange e-mail attachments, don't visit sketchy websites

that might run malware on your browser, patch your systems regularly, and

generally be careful on the Internet.

You probably won't notice that performance hit once Meltdown is patched,

except maybe in backup programs and networking applications.

Embedded systems that do only one task, like your programmable thermostat

or the computer in your refrigerator, are unaffected.

Small microprocessors that don't do all of the vulnerable fancy

performance tricks are unaffected.

Browsers will figure out how to mitigate this in software.

Overall, the security of the average Internet-of-Things device is so bad

that this attack is in the noise compared to the previously known risks.

It's a much bigger problem for cloud vendors; the performance hit will be

expensive, but I expect that they'll figure out some clever way of

detecting and blocking the attacks.

All in all, as bad as Spectre and Meltdown are, I think we got lucky.

But more are coming, and they'll be worse.

2018 will be the year of microprocessor vulnerabilities, and it's going

to be a wild ride.

-----

Bruce Schneier - Computer Security Expert, Cryptographer and Chief

Technical Officer, IBM Resilient

**********

January 4, 2018 | Bitcoin Simplified Explanation

Bitcoin is described as a "cryptocurrency".

It was created under the developer alias of Satoshi Nakamoto and the

source code released as open-source, in 2009.

It differs to other forms of digital currency like PayPal, because it is

not owned, operated or controlled by one single person or organization.

One of the first concepts of a cryptocurrency was suggested by cypherpunk

and software engineer, Wei Dai, back in 1998.

It was said by Dai that cryptocurrency is "money which is impossible to

regulate".

Core concepts of Dai's cryptocurrency "b-money" were actually implemented

into Bitcoin.

It is claimed that Wei Dai and British cryptographer, Adam Back, were two

of the first people contacted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 when Bitcoin

was still under development.

The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto has never been revealed.

There has been speculation and claims by a few people of being the 'real'

Satoshi, however none of these claims have had enough evidence to

substantiate and verify their claims.

Therefore, they've all been disputed.

Many technologists and software engineers suggest that Satoshi Nakamoto

is actually a team of developers and not just one person, as originally

believed.

This is suggested because the source code is thought to be much too

complex to be the effort of one sole individual.

Tecseek Technology believes this to be a very plausible explanation.

It is most likely a group of developers who wish to see their work

adopted and spread organically, yet remain anonymous.

Essentially, Bitcoins are created by sophisticated computers processing

extremely complicated math problems.

The math problems are so complex, it is the intention that it become

extremely difficult to create fake Bitcoins.

To date, the technology has been relatively effective and it appears it

will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

While solving the math problems, the computers are also confirming

transactions on the network.

The entire Bitcoin public ledger of transactions is known as the

"Blockchain".

The Blockchain is kept by all miners.

The result of the Blockchain is a distributed public ledger.

This allows the Bitcoin public ledger to exist without any centralized or

controlled server.

It can be described as a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency network.

At the time of writing, the Blockchain is [1]145GB+ in size and grows

larger every time a new block is solved and added to the Blockchain.

[Source: [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size]

"Mining" is the term used to describe the process of adding transaction

records to the public ledger.

A "mining rig" is the term used to describe a single computer or server

system dedicated to performing the necessary and complex math

computations for the "mining" process.

Pool mining and Individual mining:

"Pool mining" is where a bunch of people pool their computers together to

mine and then the pool operator divides the rewards evenly among all the

miners in the pool.

"Individual mining" is pretty self-explanatory and describes an

individual person using one individual computer system to mine.

The kinds of math problems aren't the normal problems that we studied at

school.

Math problems in this case refers to the SHA-256 secure cryptographic

hashing function, created by the NSA.

It is used as a tool to secure the network, confirm transactions and

create secure Bitcoin addresses.

To wrap your brain around it, think of a Bitcoin address as a Bitcoin

account.

The network is not used to process real world math problems which will

produce a result.

It's about cryptography and security within the network.

These math problems are bundled together in groups called "Blocks".

These problems ensure that no one miner can just jump in and confirm all

transactions for themselves and claim the reward.

The math problems are the miner's "Proof of work".

When a block of these math problems is solved, Bitcoins are issued to the

miner that solves the block of problems.

The miner also receives the transaction fees of all of the transactions

that were processed in that block.

(Bitcoin users pay a transaction fee every time they want to send

payment.)

If you have a mining farm (a bunch of computers solving these math

problems and processing Bitcoin transactions) that solves a block, you

will get the reward.

So, you would get current Bitcoin rate plus all transaction fees that

were paid for the Bitcoin transactions in that block.

This goes on and on and on.

Once a block is solved and the coins issued, all of the work being done

by miners goes into a new block.

Assuming blockchain and Bitcoin technology is still around in 123 years

from now, the last Bitcoin will be mined in the year [2]2140.

[Source: [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply] From that

point onwards the miners will only earn the transaction fees for the

mining.

You can think of this whole process like an automated accountant.

The purpose:

1) Process Bitcoin transactions on the network.

2) Limit the supply of Bitcoins so that they are not worthless.

3) Serve as the "Proof of work" that a miner was actually processing the

mining for the network the entire time.

4) To create the public ledger of all transactions that takes place on

the network.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

Note: A special thank you to Senthil Kumar, who also contributed to this

article.

**********

December 31, 2017 | Lack of Education of Alternate Operating Systems is

Failing Our Students and the Industry

There is the very real potential for a global shortage of qualified and

quality computer and software technicians.

There are so many great alternate operating systems in the public domain,

some in a constant state of development, some readily available and

stable.

Many public high schools still have extremely sub-standard information

technology classes.

These public classes usually only focus on the sole usage of the

Microsoft Windows operating system.

In some cases, there may be some teaching using the Mac OS platform.

But generally, Windows is still assumed to be the default of most users.

To educate students on one or two platforms, whilst ignoring all the

alternatives, is much too limiting and does not nearly do enough to take

full advantage of the range of operating systems that are available.

It would not be uncommon to survey teenagers still studying in high

school, asking them to list the operating systems they are familiar with

and find a majority response would be the same two platforms listed -

Windows and Mac OS.

We would not at all be surprised if the result of reply with these same

two answers would be very close to 100%.

This lack of knowledge of what alternate operating systems are available

and in most cases completely free to download and use, is not the fault

of students.

It is a direct failing of the public high school curriculum.

Public education policy makers must start to pay attention and stop

ignoring this issue which has the potential to cause many problems in the

not too distant future.

And it may not be limited to just a few nations among the developed

world.

It could quickly expand into a global problem and affect many countries.

We need to start teaching our teenage students about the advantages and

disadvantages of different operating system platforms, who created them,

why they were supposedly created and their potential to fill a void in

the marketplace.

We need to look deep into the development ecosystems of alternate

operating systems and at different platforms, looking beyond the Windows,

Mac OS and even the Linux/Unix camps.

There are third-party projects out there which get almost no attention.

Are they worth the attention? Absolutely, yes.

Why do they not get the attention they deserve? Lack of education.

Windows and Mac OS are limited in scope, due to their commercial closed-

source nature.

Linux and BSD have brilliant mainstream offerings, but they have equal

brilliance beyond the mainstream projects which might be the default go-

to of the platform.

Sure, FreeBSD is great.

But what is even better and more fun to learn, is NetBSD.

If you like the familiarities of Windows, then give ReactOS a shot.

Or if you prefer the command-prompt environment of Windows, then that's

no problem either as you might enjoy FreeDOS.

Students need to be encouraged to be more open minded and be given

opportunities to explore the different options.

Not just in their spare time, but as part of their education curriculum.

We need to encourage installation of these operating systems.

We need to harvest and take full advantage of what modern software allows

us to do.

Grab hold of the capabilities to essentially sandbox your operating

system testing to Oracle VM VirtualBox and VMWare, or any other virtual

machine software.

We live in an era of technical and software brilliance that literally

hands everything to us on a silver platter.

Nobody gives a second thought to how that silver platter was constructed

or if there is a different variation of the silver platter available to

deliver your goods.

All of the above is what we need to encourage students to do, plus more.

Installing new operating systems, trying them, testing them, encouraging

them to break things and attempt to fix them when they break.

All of these things are of great importance and of equal importance to

each other.

Despite the negative attitudes towards proprietary and commercial

software from open-source advocates, closed-source software does have its

purpose in the market.

As does open-source software.

But it does not honestly have a place in technical teachings of operating

systems.

Education spawns with the use of free and open-source software.

The free and open-source software community does an amazing job of

spreading the word, the knowledge, their skills and the software itself

in binary and source form.

But it is no longer solely up to the community to do what high schools

should be doing.

Because it should never be underestimated of the what further skills can

be learned by literally heading into the unknown.

The result can be new skills learned, developed and improved.

If enough interest is generated, then it opens up a very wide door which

has the potential for further development - whether it be a fork of an

existing open-source project or something completely new.

It's what the industry needs to breed and develop new thoughts, new

technology and new interest.

Only through planting the seeds to grow this interest can we begin to

learn what potential we have at our disposal and begin to hone this

interest into further skills and areas within the information technology

sector that these skills will be of benefit most.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

December 30, 2017 | Yemen - 68 Civilians Killed in a Single Day, 109

Killed in 10 Days

The Yemeni Civil War is entering its third year.

What has changed and what progress has been made over its deadly course?

Nothing.

Zero.

We still see the same arguments from both sides, the same claims and we

still see civilians being caught up in the unjust war, often becoming the

targets.

In the past 10 days, 109 civilians have been killed, in two separate

incidents.

54 civilians were killed at a busy vegetable market in Attazziah, in the

province of Taiz.

Among those killed were 8 children.

The civilian casualties were the result of Saudi-led airstrike.

In another incident, a family of 14 were killed on a farm situated

further West, in Al Hudaydah.

The region is where Saudi Arabia believes that Iran is smuggling weapons

to Houthi rebels.

A claim that goes unconfirmed and is disputed by many.

It's all a too familiar scenario, as the United Nations (UN) states that

the Saudi-led coalition continuously target civilians and their

residencies.

International aid groups and advocacy groups echo the calls of the UN.

The accusations stand justified, by observing the continued destruction

of the country's medical facilities and other critical infrastructure.

Much of which is damaged beyond use or completely destroyed by airstrikes

and reduced to just rubble.

Freedom Publishers Union has recently learned that the Houthi's are not

an innocent party and should not be portrayed as such.

They now initiate crackdowns in regions that remain under their control.

As we understand, they are arresting hundreds of people they believe were

previously associated with the former Yemen President, Ali Abdullah

Saleh.

Despite the accusations being questionable, the automated assumption of

being guilty and no way to prove their validity, people are still being

arrested.

It remains unclear to Freedom Publishers Union what is happening to those

that are arrested and we have genuine concerns for the welfare of

innocent victims.

Houthi rebels are also blocking entry of humanitarian aid transport and

there are reports they are continuously trying to force the shutdown of

internet access.

Although Freedom Publishers Union can not independently verify the latter

claim.

Jamie McGoldrick of the UN says, "The incidents prove the complete

disregard for human life that all parties, including the Saudi-led

coalition, continue to show in this absurd war that has only resulted in

the destruction of the country [Yemen]".

Reportedly, the Saudi's are very unhappy with the comments and views made

public by Mr. Goldrick which give the impression the UN supports the

Houthi rebels.

The Saudi's also claim it puts doubt on the information and data gathered

and used by the UN to draw their positions on international matters.

A major sticking point with Saudi Arabia is their staunch view that the

Houthi rebels are supported by Iran.

It is well known to the international community the Saudi-led military

has the complete support and backing of the United States of America and

Britain, through political support, motive and arms sales.

UN officials clearly state that there are no military solutions that can

or will resolve this conflict.

Freedom Publishers Union calls for an immediate cease fire from all

sides, followed by peace negotiations.

That is what is needed.

Otherwise, we fear there will be no foreseeable end to the conflict and

it will potentially drag on for many years, with no vision or mission

which will see the end of this horrific war which is largely being

ignored by many parts of the developed world.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones of Freedom Publishers Union says, "It is quickly

becoming clear that those that have major influence and power in

international politics choose to stand by and watch the horrors of

civilian casualties inside Yemen, unfold right in front of their eyes.

They have the power to inluence an immediate change of course of this war

and put Yemen on a path to peace.

Yet it's clear they're choosing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of

civilian casualties.".

There is no accurate figure which can detail the increasing death toll,

but estimates suggest it to be over 10,000 killed.

That figure was an estimate put forward in 2016.

As we approach the last days of 2017, it is very likely the number is on

the conservative side and almost certain to be much higher.

Saudi Arabia have not officially released any statement or acknowledgment

in response to the deaths of the civilians, as an undisputed and direct

result of the latest round of airstrikes.

Instead, they are attempting to divert attention off civilian casualties

and are proudly announcing that they are allowing humanitarian aid to

pass through the port of Hodeidah, over the last couple of weeks.

Despite the UN pushing for the port to be reopened and utilized to its

full capacity, the Saudi's continue to only allow a small number of ships

into the port with the very real possibility that the port will again see

closure in just 30 days.

Yet they so proudly declare to the public of their shy efforts of

allowing humanitarian aid into Yemen, which is said to be starving up to

70% of the civilians stuck inside the war-torn country and who require

the aid so urgently.

The reopening of the port is a good thing.

It doesn't matter which side it comes from, if humanitarian aid is free

to travel through ports and into Yemen, then that can only be encouraged.

However, we must not ignore the hypocrisy of the Saudi's who attempt to

charm the international community by touting their lackluster

humanitarian contributions and use it as a façade to continue to launch

airstrikes on civilians which directly violate international law and

carry out human rights abuse on a grand scale in Yemen and within the

borders of their own country.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

**********

December 22, 2017 | Vaporware Worries Growing, as Atari Delays the

Release of Ataribox

It was way back in July that Tecseek Technology first brought you some

detailed hints of the Ataribox.

It's now December and the end of 2017 is fast approaching, but the

Ataribox is still yet to make an appearance.

Since our initial write up on what the Ataribox could potentially be and

what specifications it could contain on the inside, we've learned that

the unit will run on a Linux-based operating system, will contain Atari

classics games as well as some inclusions by indie developers.

Additionally, Atari has released a few preview images of the system's

joystick, which can be viewed on their Instagram.

At Tecseek Technology, we are a little disappointed that Atari hasn't

provided much more information on the technical specifications of the

unit.

According to the scarce details on the website, the unit is powered by

what Atari is calling Open Linux OS.

It remains unclear whether this is a customized version of a Linux-based

platform developed by Atari in-house specifically for the sole purpose of

gaming, or whether it's a modified Debian (or other) release.

It's also unclear how the games will be launched by the user interface.

A stimulating thought to ponder is whether Atari have figured out how to

run the games natively on top of Linux or whether the unit will simply

run the games from a pre-installed emulator.

Unconfirmed information available to Tecseek Technology suggest that the

Atari games will be run off an emulator, while users will have complete

access to the underlying Linux operating system to install additional

games.

If this information is confirmed, then we suspect that the hardware

inside will be very similar to a low-end PC.

There are reports that the Ataribox will run on a customized AMD CPU with

Radeon graphics adapter.

There is also the very real possibility of the unit including HDMI

connectivity, multiple USB ports, ethernet networking and an SD card slot

for extra storage.

How much flexibility there will be with the hardware and the operating

system is impossible to speculate.

Therefore, it remains speculation until we can cite confirmation by

Atari.

The eventual cost of the unit is also unclear and has not been confirmed

by Atari, but there are hints that it may be between $249 to $299 mark.

Assuming that the hardware will be similar to a low-end PC, this price

point sounds like it's heading in the right range.

Most likely towards the top end of that price range.

Atari sent out a press email on December 12, with brief details revealing

that the Ataribox would be available for pre-order on December 14.

But then on December 14, we received another press email titled "Launch

Delay".

The new email stated that the unit had been delayed.

The given reason by Atari was so the company could take "more time to

create the platform and ecosystem the Atari community deserves".

It's a very vague reason and does not really leave any hint as to when

the unit will be available.

Various online reports now suggest that it will most likely be delayed

until the second quarter of 2018.

We hope it does eventually arrive and sincerely hope that the entire

project doesn't turn to vaporware.

The Atari and retro gaming community are expecting something pretty

special from the company, with the upcoming release of the Ataribox.

We certainly hope the company can deliver on its promise and live up to

the hype and expectations of the gaming community that awaits.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

December 16, 2017 | Fedora 27 Review

The time between the release of Fedora 26 and 27 (F26 and F27,

respectively) was very short.

You could be forgiven for taking a position to believe the release of F27

was not the full 6 month release cycle.

It must be noted that in what was literally just a few months following

F26, F27 was not released early.

The close time frame between the releases was the result of F26 being

delayed.

But F27 is nowhere, it's running, so let's take a look at it.

Our initial thoughts follow on from F26, really.

This is a good release.

It's very sharp and nimble in operation.

We have had it installed since its release and it's never gave us any

problems since the initial installation.

It's also an attractive release.

But it doesn't just have good aesthetics, it has some solid goods

underneath which make the release worth the real estate on your hard

disk.

F27 comes with a Linux kernel 4.13.9 and GNOME Shell 3.26.

The best feature in this release is that it comes pre-loaded with Firefox

Quantum - the latest update to the popular Firefox web browser.

We believe Fedora 27 is the first version of a Linux based operating

system to have Firefox Quantum included out of the box.

Obviously, any other distribution can update the Firefox package to

Quantum.

And the next versions of all the mainstream Linux operating systems will

include Firefox Quantum also.

Still, it's great that F27 had the timing right and was able to include

Firefox Quantum, which we must stress is well worth the upgrade.

There are still some reports of some extensions not working correctly

with Firefox Quantum.

So if you're a heavy user of extensions, you might want to do your

research to ensure they will work correctly under Firefox Quantum.

By the time this Review goes to press [delayed, due to unforeseen

circumstances] most popular Firefox extensions should have been upgraded

to work with Quantum.

Everything else inside the final F27 package is pretty standard stuff.

There's not a lot of custom stuff that is visible to the eye ball.

But it has the true feel and spirit of Fedora, where it counts.

We recommend if you're already running F26, make the jump to F27.

There's many good releases of Linux based operating systems available

now.

It's becoming difficult to differentiate one distribution from the other.

But that's alright.

Because if they're stable and they're secure, then we have no problem

recommending any of the mainstream distributions to new Linux adoptees.

Thankfully, Fedora is fast, secure and its development and funding is

backed by Red Hat.

Therefore, we place it towards the top of the Linux recommendations camp.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

December 14, 2017 | Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Votes to Kill

Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to repeal the rules

that were put in place under the Obama Administration in 2015, which were

aimed to protect internet access from abuse of speed restrictions from

internet service providers of specific services whilst prioritizing

others, and to keep the internet open and fair.

Essentially, the rules were to ensure net neutrality was protected.

Yesterday, everything changed when the FCC voted 3-to-2, to repeal the

net neutrality rules.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for net neutrality and condemns the

latest vote by the FCC to repeal the rules.

We believe the internet should be free and accessible to everyone,

without restriction, censorship, interference and/or speed manipulation.

The repeal of the rules are set to favor big telecommunications companies

and internet service providers.

The path is now clear for service providers to prioritize specific

services over others.

Freedom Publishers Union Director, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "It is

unclear as to how this will affect consumers at this early stage.

But it is almost certain that the repeal will make it more difficult for

smaller service providers on the internet deliver their goods against the

giants of the internet - Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix.".

The internet delivery power these four giants of Silicon Valley hold is a

growing concern.

Whilst Netflix still has some competition, moreso now an agreement has

been made for Disney to acquire a major chunk of 21st Century Fox in an

effort to compete directly with Netflix, Google, Amazon and Facebook have

almost nil competition.

Now that net neutrality has effectively been killed by the FCC, their

power is guaranteed to increase.

This will accelerate the challenges startups face when trying to grow

their services and make it more difficult for them to compete for their

space on the internet, as internet service providers are now free to

prioritize service delivery to Google, Facebook and Netflix (or any other

service they reach a commercial deal with).

This is a slap in the face for both startups and consumers, and will

undoubtedly result in startups and smaller service providers being locked

out of the internet fast lane.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to advocate for a free and open

internet - net neutrality.

We are not alone.

There have been millions of internet activists speak out on the potential

dangers of killing net neutrality rules, as have many of the large

internet companies and service providers.

Chris adds, "The FCC outright ignore the purpose of the fundamental

design and foundations of why the internet was created.

Instead, they view it as a money making machine of which they insist on

handing control to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.".

These are the big three internet service providers that deliver a huge

chunk of internet access to consumers in the US.

Chris continues, "Instead, the internet should remain free and neutral,

and data should be allowed to flow freely in an organic nature, with

absolute minimal regulation.

Where regulation is applicable and necessary, and that's another matter

for argument, that regulation should not include placing impediments

against net neutrality.

As someone who is actively and aggressively involved with fighting for

digital rights, I view this as a big sticking up of the middle finger by

the FCC, accompanied with a big f**k you.".

Freedom Publishers Union expects there will be much negative feedback

that follows from the FCC decision.

We also expect to see legal action launched against the FCC.

Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has referred to

the telecommunications companies as the "online gatekeepers".

Jay continues on to state, "nobody should think that network neutrality

is dead.

We at the ACLU and our allies will be fighting back at the federal, state

and local level to restore the protections that the FCC has now

eviscerated.

And there is plenty that citizens can do.

But the clock is now ticking because Americans may soon begin to see

negative changes in the internet they've always known.".

Chris of Freedom Publishers Union concludes, "The fight is not over.

Net neutrality can still be upheld.".

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

November 15, 2017 | Illegal Access to Financial Data of US Citizens, Not

Necessarily Intentionally Illegal

On October 6, 2017, Buzzfeed revealed details of accusations that US

Government departments and intelligence agencies have been illegally

spying on American citizen's financial data.

Freedom Publishers Union always put forward our strong opposition to

government surveillance programs.

Most often, they are deemed illegal and are extremely complex and

sophisticated, intertwined networks.

The aforementioned details that emerged of the financial data of American

citizens being illegally accessed is slightly disturbing, but Freedom

Publishers Union does not believe that it is cause for too much concern.

This can be justified by the fact that it gained very little follow up

media coverage.

And the Buzzfeed publication itself was of questionable quality

journalism.

Instead, the publication was typical of Buzzfeed's usual hyper point-and-

print method of presentation.

But that's not to say they've brought up an important issue which

requires closer analysis.

Questionable access to this type of data is what happens when different

committees of the US Congress write laws unintentionally (or with

intentional forethought) don't coordinate their legislation to the extent

they should.

Especially under what Congress would consider 'crisis' situations, like

the common response to 'terrorism' or situations which are quickly, yet

unnecessarily deemed a threat to 'national security'.

Money laundering and other financial mischief has become a catch-all for

financial transactions that don't smell right to investigators from a

wide variety of law enforcement agencies, investigative departments

within the banking sector, federal intelligence agencies and the many

other organizations involved with investigating cases of money laundering

and other illegal financial activity.

Lest we forget the Treasury, which has responsibility for the accounting

for the US Government - including the ability to print money.

Which is not the same as the Federal Reserve, which has direct

responsibility for the economy outside of the Government.

Then there's the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA) and the now dissolved Office of Thrift Supervision

- those are just some of the federal agencies.

Every US State also has the same panoply of agencies that don't report to

the US Government.

Worse still, there are areas of financial law that are truly gray areas

where depending on a multitude of factors, a crime may or may not have

been committed.

It's a financial oversight minefield, yet with very good intention.

But the legal/illegal access of financial data and sharing of the data

between these oversight agencies in cases of legitimate investigation

into genuine illegal financial activity, is equal a minefield with the

after-effects creating just more minefields.

The question of legality spreads like a virus.

This must all be taken into perspective, before anyone can begin to

assess whether access to financial data is concluded as legal or illegal.

All of these agencies have some responsibility for monitoring financial

crimes.

Which of course, involves both identifying a financial crime and then

enforcing the criminal statute.

And therein lies the problem: The necessary information to identifying

and prosecuting a financial criminal is their finances and their

identity.

Pure and simple.

Thus, you're going to get overlap in finding this information, and in the

process, you will have agencies that are looking at data that is

potentially outside of their oversight jurisdiction, but required for

them to do their investigation.

A certain amount of backdoor co-operation between agencies is hardly

unknown.

Until the advent of data mining, this wasn't even a concern to defense

attorneys.

It was always assumed to happen.

The required financial brief and accompanying identification details

would be initially logged and eventually the correct agency would get the

data and collate it into an enforcement context allowing them to act on

the final gathered information and data.

In order for any enforcement to work today, each and every transaction in

the chain from start to end needs to be identified, reviewed and traced

before the actual criminal activity is identified.

Many of these schemes involve regular, everyday citizens that get sucked

into part of that chain whether the transactions be for work or private

purpose.

Many of which will appear to be completely normal unless you find them in

the longer chain of tracking the activity trail.

This is precisely why we have all these different agencies looking into

individual bank accounts, which is now being labeled "illegal".

An ugly combination of the hairball of unco-operative laws, the

separation of expertise into isolated agencies, and as much as anything,

the unjustified media hype surrounding all these actions portray the

government as snooping on your $20 withdrawals from your bank.

This is not exactly true and must be completely examined and put into

proper context.

It could be the simple result of someone (or a group of individuals in

any number of the aforementioned departments) may be either disobeying

the law because another law requires them to, disobeying a law

intentionally, or just doing gray area research in order to legitimately

carry out their investigation in an effort of genuine pursuit of

criminals.

It doesn't really matter to the individuals swept up in the financial

data analysis, as they are just anonymous points of data in a much, much

larger pattern of possible illegal activity.

So the whole "If you are not doing anything illegal, then you have

nothing to hide" statement, actually does apply in this case.

There's two vital questions which must be asked: Is this a consequence of

too zealously pursing illegal activities that suck millions of innocent

citizens into the confusion? Or is this the price we (Americans

specifically) have to pay to get the criminals that are allegedly ruining

our lives?

Finally, we propose a possible afterthought and ask further: Is this

actually making us safer? Or is it just another consequence of modern-day

prohibition where everyone is assumed a criminal?

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

October 27, 2017 | Russia Mass-Surveillance Revelations

September 19, 2017, Wikileaks dumped an unusual set of documents related

to mass-surveillance programs inside Russia.

The Wikileaks Press Release states that, "While the surveillance of

communication traffic is a global phenomena, the legal and technological

framework of its operation is different for each country.

Russia's laws - especially the new Yarovaya Law - make literally no

distinction between lawful interception and mass-surveillance by state

intelligence authorities without court orders.".

It continues by stating, "Russian communication providers are required by

Russian law to install the so-called SORM components for surveillance

provided by the FSB, at their own expense.

The SORM infrastructure is developed and deployed in Russia with close

co-operation between the FSB, the Interior Ministry of Russia and Russian

surveillance contractors.".

Information provided to Freedom Publishers Union details SORM as the

technical infrastructure for the Russian surveillance networks and is

operated on a national scale.

It dates back to 1995 and has evolved from SORM-1 (capturing telephone

and cell phone communications) and SORM-2 in 1999 (interception and

collection of internet traffic), to the current SORM-3.

SORM now collects information from all forms of Russian communications

networks, and provides long-term storage of all information and data,

including the possibility of storage of actual recordings and locations.

The infrastructure was expanded in 2014 to include social media

platforms.

The Ministry of Communications ordered companies to install new

networking and technical equipment with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)

capability.

In 2016, SORM-3 added additional classified regulations that apply to all

internet service providers operating inside Russia.

The European Court for Human Rights has previously deemed Russia's SORM

legislation in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, in 2015

(Zakharov v.

Russia).

Whilst most of the Wikileaks documents are in Russian, there are a couple

of English language documents in the collection which come from PETER-

SERVICE, a Russian billing services provider and now a major software

supplier of for the Russian mobile telecommunications industry.

According to information provided by Wikileaks, technology developed and

supplied by PETER-SERVICE extend beyond traditional billing services and

into mass-surveillance.

PETER-SERVICE goes beyond simply complying with strict Russian

surveillance laws and is apparently initiating partnerships and

establishing commercial business opportunities with Russia's state

intelligence departments.

Data retention is a crucial piece of the surveillance program operating

inside Russia.

According to a Data Retention System document released by Wikileaks, the

Data Retention System service "is an add-on product for the Core

Subsystems of SPS Family of Products (SVC_BASE).

It provides access to the main functions of PETER-SERVICE SVC_BASE by

means of the web interface".

Details inside the documents cited by Freedom Publishers Union include

meta-data search functions, filtering and search export options.

The descriptive details resemble that of what we learned from documents

provided by former intelligence and security contractor, Edward Snowden,

about the PRISM and ICReach programs which are part of the mass-

surveillance network operated by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Previous evidence published suggests that some NSA operated programs

extend accessibility to fellow agencies throughout the ¿Five Eyes'

intelligence network - USA/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand - and to the

CIA, then filtered all the way through to the FBI and the Defense

Intelligence Agency.

Access is vast and wide.

Therefore, there is every possibility that the Russian mass-surveillance

network that operates inside the country will have the same level of data

accessibility and free sharing of citizen's meta-data throughout Russian

Government departments, primarily the FSB.

Meta-data is required to be collected and stored for a duration of 3

years.

According to PETER-SERVICE, their data retention system components can

handle 500,000,000 connections per day, in one cluster.

The data retention laws and required time-frame for the data to be stored

is not unusual and has stark similarities to meta-data laws in Western

nations.

As PETER-SERVICE operates in the Russian mobile telecommunications

sector, it has put itself in a unique market position to be able to

collect meta-data, cell phone communications data, cell device

identification information, network connections information and cell

phone tracking through cell phone tower connection monitoring.

We do not know exactly the types of data that is being monitored and

collected, but potentially, the amount of data could be huge and resemble

that of other global mass-surveillance programs that operate.

The Russian documents release is a game changer on how we approach the

notion of mass-surveillance because now we have learned that these

programs that effectively spy on a country's citizens are operating on a

global scale - inside all types of oppressive, repressive, communist and

democratic regimes.

It's no longer safe to assume any country is free of mass-surveillance.

We need to stop focusing on any given country and start talking about

surveillance generically.

But we must also be careful to not accept that mass and dragnet

surveillance on sweeping scale is the norm and we must always raise

immediate concerns over potential violations of privacy and civil

liberties.

Ultimately, a set of United Nations guidelines on how all mass-

surveillance initiating countries should disclose and monitor their

compliance would be appropriate.

However, Freedom Publishers Union still believes it is still almost

impossible to achieve any kind of United Nations standards for

surveillance oversight and transparency, simply because many nations

still are not publicly admitting that many of these programs actually

exist and are operating.

Despite confirmation from the many documents that have been published

which prove their existence and continued operation, and despite

questionable legal right to operate.

Privacy in nearly all aspects of life is no longer possible, so it is

time that we focus on establishing what the different expectations of

privacy are, how they're defined, and how the scope of each can be

legally protected from abuse and whether lawful and realistic

transparency and public disclosure can be applied.

Because it's the abuse that is the driver of our fear against mass-

surveillance and fear of losing our privacy.

We need to define what abuse of privacy means in each of these legal and

illegal instances and continue to provide input and feedback to

governments and political legislators on how to define abuse and misuse,

and how to appropriately use laws to prevent abuse and compensate those

who are victims of any actual abuse that occurs.

The Russian-sponsored revelations are effectively the launchpad needed to

reboot public discourse on the dangers of mass-surveillance, the dangers

of passing laws that permit (and in some cases force) dragnet

surveillance through hardware and software data gathering technologies

and also the lack of sufficient oversight backed up by meaningful

transparency.

It is no longer about throwing out the message that surveillance should

be stopped completely.

Ultimately, we believe that it should be.

But realistically, surveillance must be structured according to our

aforementioned points of oversight, transparency and accountability for

abuse.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

**********

October 27, 2017 | Australian National Identification Database is an

Extension of Existing Mass-Surveillance Programs

The Australian Government is pushing its privacy attacking agenda onto

the State Governments, in an effort to harbor support which would see the

possible implementation of a national identification database.

As Freedom Publishers Union understands it, the national identification

database which would require the complete co-operation by State

Governments to proceed and citizen's identities and accompanying

information collated by using current photo identification from drivers

licenses, proof of age identification and passports.

We condemn the move and deem it unnecessary.

The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is claiming that the

creation of the database is necessary in Australia's fight against local

terrorism.

He continues to advocate that a national identification database would

greatly benefit law enforcement and intelligence agencies in their fight

against extremist behavior, particularly in events of mass gathering of

citizens.

We believe the creation of a national identification database has major

security concerns which need addressing which have been raised by privacy

advocates and civil libertarians, yet seemingly are being ignored and

brushed aside by the Government.

Instead, the Government presses ahead by claiming that it's an important

issue of national security.

Furthermore, the Australian Government with initial support from the

various State Governments, are making public claims that in the interest

of national security, the national identification database must be

established as national security is more important than civil liberties.

We dispute this claim, directly.

Nothing is beyond maintaining the civil liberties of a democratic

country's citizens.

It's these very civil liberties that exist within the foundations of

democracy which makes democracy function so well.

Particularly in Australia, where our democracy is the envy of the world.

Legislation has already been implemented in Australia which is directly

targeted at combating terrorism - locally and abroad.

Some of the current legislation we have opposed as civil liberties have

already been impeded.

Establishing a national identification database is a step too far and is

moving beyond fighting terrorism and into technological territory of

monitoring the behavior of innocent citizens who simply go about their

daily business, without harm.

We also fear further attacks on encryption and security technology is

next on the agenda for Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian Government's

continued attacks on Australian's rights to privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union makes no apologies for upholding civil liberties

and rights to privacy.

We see a national identification database as a primary centralized target

for international hacking groups, who seek easy access to mass data on

Australian citizens, through sub-standard computer security.

Systems and networks handled by the Australian Government contractors do

not have a good track record when it comes to maintaining strong

security.

There have been breaches in the past - some acknowledged, some

unacknowledged.

In some case, details of alleged breaches have to some degree been denied

or even ignored as nothing serious.

A classic case of 'nothing to see here'.

We do not trust that security surrounding any such central identification

database will see any further enhanced security than what Australian

Government systems are currently protected by.

The security is lapse and citizens that face their photo identification

and information being stored in a core database with sub-standard

security should be concerned - purely on merits of privacy concerns.

Additionally, Australia is a democracy which comes with natural civil

liberties.

The country's intelligence community and network of surveillance

programs, which is essentially connected to the 'Five Eyes' mass-

surveillance network, have become victim to surveillance creep.

Programs are established with good intention, but unfortunately get

integrated into more extensive programs and information further collated

into what essentially becomes a mass-surveillance program similar to what

we've seen exposed in the past by Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and other

media outlets - programs run by the NSA, GCHQ and the CIA.

Australia's intelligence agency, ASIO, is also a partner to these major

US and UK-based mass-surveillance initiating agencies who thrive on data

gathered by dragnet surveillance programs.

It seems Australia has simply followed the global mass-surveillance

trend, which continue to operate, gather more data and become more

complex, despite governments touting their efforts to reign in these

often illegal programs.

Freedom Publishers Union sees an Australian national identification

database as an extension of more extensive dragnet programs and therefore

can not support such creation of such an unnecessary and unjustified

central database, as it directly impedes on civil liberties and outright

breaches the privacy of Australian citizens.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

October 20, 2017 | Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark) Review

Before we delve into the release that is Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark),

we need to make a disclaimer.

The staff at Tecseek Technology have vast experience in testing and

reviewing lots of different free and open-source software and Linux

distributions - especially Ubuntu.

If you search our website for previous Ubuntu reviews, you might notice

there is a severe absence.

What you will find available to read on the website is limited.

Our limited coverage of Ubuntu is a result of a major data loss event

that we experienced recently.

The data loss was not the result of anything malicious, rather the sole

result of our own malpractice through a combination of hardware failures

and data migration between servers.

Therefore, despite our vast experience in publishing reputable Ubuntu

reviews, we are unable to present to you our previous efforts.

We apologize and is disappointing for us.

But we are looking forward to the future and taking this latest Ubuntu

release as an opportunity for a reboot.

Now with that out of the way, let's get to work and get rebooted in an

attempt to restore the faith our readers once had in our Ubuntu reviews,

which were always very much anticipated upon release of a new Ubuntu

version.

Read on loyal minions.

Equal to Tecseek Technology using this release as an opportunity to

reboot, the release of 17.10 is a fresh start for the popular

distribution.

It's the first release which utilizes the GNOME Shell as the default

desktop environment.

Ubuntu has decided to ditch the relatively unpopular Unity desktop in

favor of the much better developed and supported GNOME Shell.

It was a great decision, we believe, as we absolutely loathed Unity and

thought it was just unworkable.

And no matter how many additions, changes and tweaks Unity received, it

just never quite felt like it was workable as a desktop for daily usage.

So we're really happy that Ubuntu has adopted GNOME Shell.

That is the biggest update for 17.10.

We will happily declare that we've always had a soft spot for Ubuntu.

It really is the darling of Linux distributions that is well deserving of

the love that it receives from the open-source community.

We instantly fell in love with 17.10 from the moment we began testing the

development builds.

Visually, it's so fresh and appealing.

We love the aesthetics - the background, GNOME Shell and the semi-

transparent side-bar and top navigation bar.

We commenced testing 17.10 from the earliest of the daily builds.

As development has progressed, we witnessed 17.10 evolve into one of the

finest, most polished and reliable desktop Linux distributions available

at this very moment.

The world of Linux and the rapid progress of distribution development and

releases makes it really hard to pin-point the ¿best' distribution at any

point in time.

If we were to choose one right now, Ubuntu 17.10 would undoubtedly be our

first pick.

At the time we go to press, we are using a completely updated build of

17.10 with the latest packages running on GNOME Shell 3.26.1 and Linux

kernel 4.13.0.

To be honest, we're really surprised to find such a recent kernel in a

Ubuntu release.

Traditionally, the focus has been on stability and as a result of this

focus, the sacrifice has usually been made to drop back a couple of

kernel version numbers for something a little more proven.

By choosing to use a very recent kernel version it doesn't mean there's

any sacrifice in stability.

We put 17.10 through some pretty keen testing and experienced nothing

that could take points away from any such stability rating.

The only issue we can take with the default behavior of 17.10 is the

window control buttons.

The developers have chosen to move them back to the right.

Yes, you read that correct! The decision for Ubuntu to move them to the

left was taken way back in 2010.

Although it was controversial at the time, the decision was made on the

basis that it was more natural and also allowed for less mouse-drag due

to application menus also usually being located on the left of an

application's graphical interface.

It all made sense, really.

Since the move, we have actually adapted very well to having them on the

left and find it very natural indeed.

So natural that when we use a Windows-based system, we habitually move

the mouse over to the left.

But we quickly find ourselves flicking over to the right, because Windows

likes to stick to tradition.

Well, seven years on from the initial decision by Ubuntu to move them to

the left, tradition wins over innovation and they've moved back to the

right.

We could go ahead an write a ten thousand word essay on the advantages

and disadvantages of the specific location of the window control buttons

on an operating system.

Yet at the end of the day, it's going to come down to personal choice and

what feels natural for the user in front of the screen.

To us, we're sticking with our declaration that the left feels more

natural and still makes sense.

Therefore, switching them back to the left was one of the first tweaks we

performed upon fresh installation of 17.10.

This was easily achieved by one simple command in the terminal console.

An annoyance, for sure.

But certainly not a problem to resolve.

We don't want to focus too much on what applications you'll find pre-

installed.

But rest assured that all the usual applications are present.

There's enough to get you going right out-of-the-box.

For those software applications and packages you like to use that are

missing, they can obviously be quickly installed in the terminal console

in just minutes, using APT.

There's everything to love and nothing to hate with 17.10.

It's by far the most attractive Ubuntu release to date and the switch to

GNOME Shell has made it even more enticing.

Whereas distributions like OpenSUSE have previously beat Ubuntu out of

the gates on aesthetics and final system polish, it's a very different

story this round.

It has the goods - popularity, great community support, aesthetics,

stability and ease-of-use.

If someone was to ask us right this minute which Linux distribution is

the best to install on the desktop, we would find it hard to recommend

any other distribution other than Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark).

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

October 8, 2017 | CentOS 7.4 (1708) Review

We've taken a look at CentOS 7.4 (1708), which is the latest community

supported Linux distribution backed by the commercial giant, Red Hat.

In past months, we've looked in closer detail the releases of Fedora 26

and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4.

Now it's time we take a quick look at the latest offering to badge the

support of Red Hat.

Let's keep this simple - CentOS is basically RHEL, without commercial

support through paid subscriptions.

CentOS is based off the RHEL source code, however, it is supported

through the efforts of the Linux development community.

Does it differentiate that much from RHEL? Not really.

It performs well, is incredibly stable, very reliable and has fantastic

support for an operating system intended to be installed in a small

office environment or on enterprise systems that can be completely

supported and managed under the guidance of a small to medium in-house IT

department.

There's not much put into CentOS that sets it aside from RHEL.

It's almost identical in every way with the exception of logos and

branding.

We gave it a quick run through using Oracle's VM VirtualBox software.

It's stable and fast, yet still seems like an operating system limited in

use.

Whereas distributions like the more popular Ubuntu and Fedora have

slightly more flexibility, CentOS feels like it should stick to its

target market rather than thinking about mainstream wider adoption of

Linux desktop users.

Don't misinterpret our opinion.

The flexibility is there if you feel like doing some serious hacking and

reconfiguration of the core CentOS components.

But to be honest, we recommend you don't bother unless you're completely

bored and have nothing better to do with your time.

The points we make should not be viewed as a negative reflection of

CentOS.

Absolutely the opposite.

It's just set in its ways and fit for purpose, with no foreseeable

benefits of trying to force it to do anything out of its comfort zone.

At the time of going to press, our test CentOS virtual machine contained

the Linux kernel 3.10.0 and Bash 4.2.46.

It also runs the GNOME Shell desktop environment that is basically

identical to that of RHEL.

CentOS also sticks with YUM and RPM, versions 3.4.3 and 4.11.3 for system

package management, respectively.

As does RHEL.

Whilst Fedora opts for the more updated yet comparatively powerful DNF

package management software.

If you are already managing a small fleet of desktop systems running

CentOS, or perhaps a server or two, you will naturally make the upgrade.

In fact, by the time you read this piece, you're probably already running

it.

If it's fresh deployment with pretty strict control that you're looking

for, CentOS will have you covered.

But if you're running a support team and want your system's users to have

slightly more flexibility and control of what they do with their systems,

then we would probably recommend sticking with Fedora Linux, perhaps

accompanied with a server running CentOS.

There's absolutely no reason you can't accompany the two into the same

network and configuration.

It will all be dependent on the software requirements of your enterprise

users.

Before making any quick adoption, be sure CentOS is the right choice for

you and your production environment.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

September 23, 2017 | Increased Usage of CIA Drones Raises Questions of

Morality

Last week, the NY Times reported of new efforts underway within The White

House, to garner the appropriate measures required to remove any legal

restrictions currently imposed for operations of unmanned drones used by

the CIA for air-strikes, in Afghanistan.

There are three questions that require closer analysis by international

academics.

Right now, not enough questions are being asked by academics with global

influence.

This story was only covered by the NY Times, as most other reputable

media outlets ignored the story.

And the smaller agencies that did publish information on the story simply

produced recycled content from the original NY Times piece.

It's time that we start to begin asking the most vital and fundamental

questions as to the role the US plays in the world.

Is the US really in a position to declare itself the world's 'police

force', engaging 'criminals' at the regime level around the world?

Is this simply justification for being war-mongering racists?

Are we continuing to pursue the Taliban and al Qaeda because they have

political resonance in America, or because they are a real danger to

global stability?

As the continuing terrorist attacks in London and wider-Europe

illustrate, these terrorist groups and loyal followers are going to do

this no matter what.

Whether they are religious zealots or simply anarchist extremists,

terrorist acts will continue to attempt to disrupt our modern way of life

and our very democracy, as long as there are malcontent people.

The Jonestown massacre of 1978 in Guyana, or the Aum Shinrikyo subway

sarin attack of 1995 in Tokyo - there is no redeeming aspect of a cult

that exists solely to kill others, just because they believe they are

better off or live the better way of life.

The real question isn't can we take action to stop terrorism, because we

can't.

As long as there are malcontent people, there will be terrorists.

Historical evidence cements the theory.

What we need to know, is can we use military actions - overt or covert -

to significantly reduce terror attacks.

If al Qaeda is the fan club for terrorists (they get their membership

card, stickers for their notebook and cars, and a 20-page instruction

manual that gives them a public brand for their actions), then destroying

the club house is probably worthwhile.

If you are view al Qaeda as simply a Creative Commons-type service that

anyone can use (like a hash-tag) then it's pointless to try and destroy

leadership, because there isn't any.

It very much resembles the concept of the Anonymous computer hacker

collective.

You deal with them like any other brand that you want to eliminate - you

dilute the relevance of the brand by shifting the exposure of the brand

to totally meaningless gestures.

If they try to claim responsibility for a terrorist act, refuse to credit

them and give it to someone else with a more specific meaning focusing on

the individual who carried out the attack.

Media have a huge ethical responsibility here and must take action.

Unfortunately, we believe that won't happen.

News will continue to report terrorist attacks by brand name as it grabs

viewer's immediate attention and we will continue to use military

options.

Not because military options work.

But it's one of the few things governments can point to and say, "we're

working on it".

Just like the TSA searches at airports, the symbolism of inconvenience

makes people think 'something' is being done, even though the actual

activity does absolutely nothing to improve security procedures over

previous methods.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that drones do have a role in military

conflict.

However, we also have a strict view that they must be used for specific

targets which are based on very reliable source information.

CIA drones are too easily used as a tool to exclude all aspects of human

responsibility for civilian casualties, when they occur.

The fact can not be ignored that they will occur.

When civilians are killed, then the CIA, the US Military or any other

government associated killing force must act, own up and someone must

take full responsibility for civilian casualties from drones.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

September 20, 2017 | North Korea Peace Opportunities Are Becoming

Increasingly Difficult to Foresee

Freedom Publishers Union fears the time that the United Nations (UN)

could negotiate any kind of sustainable and effectively peaceful

settlement with North Korea ended back in the early 1960's, when North

Korea raised their million-man army.

If military conflict is to eventuate between North Korea and the United

States of America (USA), perhaps with assistance from its allies, then it

will likely be a very short war and remain conventional and without any

nuclear weapons being used by either side, other than rhetorical threats

to the effect of deterrence.

The issue is not that the USA, China, Russia or any UN coalition force

could not defeat North Korea, but the real problem is South Korea.

South Korea is one of the major manufacturing powers in the world, yet

unfortunately happens to share its border with a country that has the

ability to pretty much annihilate the South in a matter of minutes,

without any use of nuclear weapons.

North Korea has a massive amount of troops and equipment right on the

North/South Demilitarized Zone.

The artillery alone is capable of destroying 80% of the South Korean

capital of Seoul and the surrounding area in about one hour, with severe

punishment delivered within just the few first minutes.

Effectively, this holds the South to ransom in addition to its key ally,

the USA.

The million-man army of the North can literally be across the border and

enter the South and into what would be left of Seoul within hours, not

days, with the potential to extend through the rest of the country in

just weeks.

Freedom Publishers Union believe China and Russia are the reasonable ones

at the table, because they realize what the instant loss of South Korea

would mean.

China and Russia do massive trade and business with the South.

Even more than the USA and Australia, of which do privately recognize the

instant threat posed to the South, but are shy to go on public record of

the acknowledgement.

The dark realization is that unless the rest of the world is willing to

write-off South Korea and spend multiple trillions to rebuild it, there

will be no action against North Korea that we can foresee.

Whilst China and Russia have given support for some important sanctions,

they are on record at the UN for not increasing some sanctions and

actually relaxing them if North Korea sits still for a while.

Additionally, tough sanctions proposed by the UN have effectively been

watered-down by China and Russia in effort to gain their support through

the UN but to also protect important trade with the North.

Both countries have sternly warned the USA and its allies against

launching any military action against North Korea.

At least to preemptive strikes.

If North Korea was to attack first, then it might change the language of

China and Russia, and indeed may result in actual launch of military

action from them.

To what extent exactly, would remain a mystery.

To be frank, Kim Jong-un is not an idiot.

His actions and behavior may appear to present him as an idiot, but his

strategy is absolutely brilliant and to a large degree, is working.

He understands very well that he can rant and rave to keep the constant

media attention focused on his country and dictatorship.

He has the power and is using it to its fullest potential on the global

stage, albeit not in a peaceful way.

Kim also knows that the only card he holds is the potential of

obliterating South Korea within just minutes of any outbreak of war in

the region.

This goes to explain the sudden rush by the North to master nuclear

weapons and delivery systems.

Before their nuclear programs came to realization, North Korea would

still be able to destroy a large part of the South before any allied

response could follow.

But that would most likely guarantee that the any allied response would

certainly use nuclear arsenal and send the North back to the stone age

almost immediately and carry on to disassemble what was left of the

country's dictatorship regime and handing it to a democratic South.

A bi-lateral nuclear exchange is a completely different story.

Short range nuclear weapons - even carried in trucks and detonated after

the initial invasion - would make South Korea unrecoverable.

It would literally be the world creating a new Israel for the remaining

Koreans, as well as investing in the massive cleanup of hydrogen bomb

devastation on such a scale never attempted to this very day, and a

scenario we remain confident we will never see.

There is another ugly alternative on the Korean peninsula.

And it's not good.

South Korea could possibly be utterly destroyed at some point, because

there is no possible way to prevent it.

Even with the allies using tactical nuclear weapons to try and clear the

border threat - which is actually becoming the most realistic option to

solve the immediate border problem if you ignore the flow-on problems

such a response would generate - would be the only way to delay ultimate

destruction is to force the South Koreans to just accept that they are

living on a nuclear fault line and reach out to their neighbors and make

genuine efforts to achieve peace and acceptance.

But it also means that the South would continue to survive and would open

up the potential for trade with the North, which would increase their

standard of living and eventually integrate them into a single trade

entity.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

September 11, 2017 | Paid News Subscriptions Are Key to Sustainable Media

and Journalism

There was a moment in independent media history when I was a staunch

advocate against all forms of web advertising and paid news

subscriptions.

I thought the formula was just all wrong and thought it would be death of

media and news on the internet as we knew it.

It was some years ago, but to be fair, my strict opinion of the time was

probably justified and reflective of most people's opinions towards the

concept of paying for news.

Boy how times have changed.

I can unashamedly declare that I have gradually formed a view which could

be deemed polar opposite of the view that I used to have.

I now proudly pay for a number of news subscriptions and for those

services, among others, I actually allow web advertising through my ad-

blocking browser extensions.

Yes, a view completely of opposites.

Shock.

It's difficult to pinpoint a single time in history that I could state

that my opinion changed.

Rather, it's been a gradual shift through a combination of reflection of

the media industry as a whole, careful analysis of the differences

between mainstream commercial news and quality journalism and how

journalists and their work are both appreciated and not appreciated by

the audience.

As a result of my slow, yet careful and calculated reflection which has

been an assessment drawn out over the last two to three years, I've come

to a better understanding of all things media, the true benefits of

targeted web advertising for respective media agencies that actually

deserve the revenue they receive through advertising and also how funds

received through paid subscriptions not only benefits the quality of

journalism produced, but also carries on to breed and nurture further

quality journalism.

If I was to break it all down even further, I could say that paying for

news is paying the journalists for their work and tireless effort.

It's all about creating and sustaining a creative media platform.

If you don't show your appreciation for the hard work, then there will no

longer be quality journalists in media to produce such quality content

and instead we will see news being produced, recycled, facts twisted,

published and re-published by robots.

The sad fact is, this is already happening with some online media

producers.

Somewhere in my complicated unexplainable personal media analysis

algorithm, I guess this point was also included to bring me to any kind

of conclusive judgment of why we should be paying for news.

One can present the obvious counter-argument of why would you pay for

news when you can still read it for free.

Well, it's a fair argument to make as no one can deny there are still

many free news sites remaining online and don't look like they're going

to disappear anytime soon.

Still, if you are one of these people to assume the position that they're

always going to remain online, remain free and regarded as quality

journalism, then you're taking both a naive view towards the media

industry and showing not only lack of appreciation for proper quality

journalism which is fact based and properly researched, but also shows

your obvious display of no appreciation for the services you consume -

most likely every single day.

Running a media agency or publishing business is expensive.

Although it may not seem so obvious when you are staring into the glow of

a computer screen, everyone must understand that all aspects of the

operations cost money.

That money has to come from somewhere.

It must come from a combination of commercial interests through targeted

advertising and paid subscriptions.

I will refrain from publicly naming the news agencies and websites that I

now subscribe to, in effort to avoid promoting one agency over another

and to also avoid being shamed to taking a particular media bias or

political media perspective.

In fact, it's the opposite of that.

My own selection of media subscriptions that I have chosen to support

covers a range of left/right political bias and spreads across a national

Australian and international spectrum.

I also wish to make the point that if you pay for news through

subscription services, it not only has benefits for the media agency

producing the news you consume and retains the quality of the

journalistic efforts, but your support through subscription also has a

greater personal meaning when you visit that website.

When reading content through paid subscription, you begin to appreciate

the words you are reading.

They almost take on a completely different meaning and you begin to

respect journalists instead of taking them for granted.

The benefits are apparent for journalists, publishers, consumers and the

entire media industry.

---

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

September 8, 2017 | Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

"Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is also more commonly known as "The

Google Manifesto", first cicrulated as an internal memo within the ranks

of Google offices.

The manifesto is dated July 2017 and since its original publication on

the Gizmodo website, the author has been revealed as US-based Google

software engineer, James Damore.

The manifesto specifically outlines Damore's concerns on Google's

diversity policies and argues that Google continues to shut down

conversations about diversity within the Silicon Valley company.

Since the release of the manifesto, Damore has been fired from Google.

We believe the manifesto is important in the issues that it raises and

should be published, not censored.

We also believe that the firing of Damore was completely unjustified.

Although Damore's actions probably did violate Google's employee code of

conduct, we think the actions of firing the employee for his actions of

speaking out justify the issues he outlines in the manifesto - speak up,

and you get shut down.

Freedom Publishers Union has published the most complete and unedited

version of the text of the manifesto available, below.

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and

don't endorse using stereotypes.

When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to

look at population level differences in distributions.

If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly

solve the problem.

Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but

unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is

disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber.

Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many

personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for

bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would

never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture

and the possibility of being fired.

This needs to change.

TL:DR

- Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with

psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of

psychological safety.

- This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas

are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

- The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian

elements of this ideology.

- Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression.

- Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression.

- Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in

part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and

leadership.

Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad

for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are

invisible to us.

Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can

highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this

document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these

biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology.

What follows is by no means the complete story, but it's a perspective

that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google's biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race

and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases.

Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and

thus biases.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media,

and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

- Compassion for the weak

- Disparities are due to injustices

- Humans are inherently co-operative

- Change is good (unstable)

- Open

- Idealist

Right Biases

- Respect for the strong/authority

- Disparities are natural and just

- Humans are inherently competitive

- Change is dangerous (stable)

- Closed

- Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a

functioning society or, in this case, company.

A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical,

and untrusting of others.

In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing

(deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring

or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees

and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes

to diversity and inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically

correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into

silence.

This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and

authoritarian policies.

For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance

that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the

authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create

equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit

biases are holding women back in tech and leadership.

Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace

differently and we should be cognisant of this, but it's far from the

whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways.

These differences aren't just socially constructed because:

- They're universal across human cultures

- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal

testosterone

- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females

often still identify and act like males

- The underlying traits are highly heritable

- They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology

perspective

Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways

or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the

distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part

due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we

don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap

between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual

given these population level distributions.

Men's higher drive for status

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we

never ask why we see so many men in these jobs.

These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth

it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men

into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they

entail.

Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in

tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like

coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of

work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits

between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest

ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech and

without resorting to discrimination.

Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's

still instructive to list them:

- Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

- We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair

programming and more collaboration.

Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles

and Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into

thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into

coding might be doing this).

- Women on average are more co-operative

- Allow those exhibiting co-operative behaviour to thrive.

Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's

more we can do.

This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google.

Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't

necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in

education.

Women on average are more prone to anxiety.

Make tech and leadership less stressful.

Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses

and benefits.

- Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a

higher drive for status on average

- Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status,

lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them.

Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work

though can keep more women in tech.

- The male gender role is currently inflexible

- Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female

gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role.

If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap

will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership

for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering

of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and

women.

For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps

Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google ¿ with Google's

diversity being a component of that.

For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra

stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much,

it may have disastrous consequences.

Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind

that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than

is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google's biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should

strive for more.

However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google

has created several discriminatory practices:

- Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender

or race [5]

- A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates

- Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity"

candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

- Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not

showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation

bias)

- Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can

incentivise illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases

and can actually increase race and gender tensions.

We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally

and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just

veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we're blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run

counter to our internal values.

Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God >

humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the

Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between

people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).

Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally

aren't on the right.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social

scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation

bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains myths like social

constructionism and the gender wage gap[9].

Google's left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its

results, which we're using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are

generally biased towards protecting females.

As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically

disposable and because women are generally more co-operative and areeable

than men.

We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and

legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a

gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist and

whiner[10].

Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of

women's oppression.

As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of

"grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and

Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political

correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the

extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to

advance their cause.

While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists protests that we're

seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture

has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google

or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing

biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the

majority.

My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence

that don't fit a certain ideology.

I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender

roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as

individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

- As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in

terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral,

and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."

Stop alienating conservatives.

- Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity

and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant

ways in which people view things differently.

- In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that

feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility.

We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express

themselves.

- Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad

business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness,

which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work

characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google's biases.

- I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about

diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than

that.

- I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political

orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases

are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

- These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive.

Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our

diversity programs.

- Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is

as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women's representation

in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school

dropouts.

- There's currently very little transparency into the extend of our

diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside

its ideological echo chamber.

- These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-

progressives.

- I realise that some of our programs may be precautions against

government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire

since they incentivise illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

- We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive

effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

- We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of

diversity.

- Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and

testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more

removed from UX.

De-emphasise empathy.

- I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues.

While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think

the way they do, relying on affective empathy ¿ feeling another's pain ¿

causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and

harbour other irrational and dangerous biases.

Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritise intention.

- Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions

increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity

increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship,

leading to authoritarian policies.

Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to

psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by

judging unintentional transgressions.

- Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech

with violence and isn't backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

- Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed

or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the

human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo

committees.

- We haven't been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias

training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash,

especially if made mandatory.

- Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely

useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the

factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

- Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.

Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than

the training suggests (I'm not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic]

just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what's said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's

Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my

viewpoint.

In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and

strongly value individualism and reason.

I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more

citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software

engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged

by status and women by beauty.

Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and

several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people

with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics.

We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a

better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey

scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal

and I've seen it done).

Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-

sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to

capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic

failure.

As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies

wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist

intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race

politics.

The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is

the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when

meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for

a variety of reasons.

For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men.

Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents

how much the employees sacrifices (e.g.

more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our

stereotypes around power.

[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the

idea of men needing support.

Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems

on their own.

Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than

victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency.

This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether

individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners,

complainers, or weak."

[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of

expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or

insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated

against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a

tool of authoritarians.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

August 31, 2017 | Xenix: The Microsoft Unix That Once Was

One would not normally associate Microsoft with Unix.

While Microsoft's interest(s) in Unix may remain minimal in recent times,

history tells a very different story.

Let us take a quick journey down memory lane, back to the late 1970's and

into the early-mid 80's.

In 1979, Microsoft formed an agreement with AT&T Corporation to license

Unix from AT&T.

Then Microsoft licensed out its renamed Unix to OEM vendors, including

Intel, Tandy and SCO.

Those companies then ported it to their own hardware architectures and

requirements.

Microsoft was hit by a legal problem of the ¿UNIX¿ name not being able to

be used.

Therefore, Microsoft was forced to come up with their own distribution

name.

Xenix was chosen.

To put it simply, AT&T licensed Unix to Microsoft and then Microsoft

passed on the same Unix software re-branded as Xenix.

Microsoft's intention was to take Xenix to the 16bit microcomputer

market.

The initial port of Xenix was to the Zilog Z8000 series and then followed

on the the Intel 8086/8088 architecture.

By the time Microsoft reached the 7th edition, it was incorporating

elements of BSD.

Xenix became the most widely installed base of any Unix distribution.

This was largely due to the continued popularity of the relatively

inexpensive x86 processor.

There was lots of modifications being done to Xenix by many different

companies.

Microsoft Xenix originally run on the PDP-11.

It was then ported to the Zilog Z8001.

Altos ported it to their Intel 8086 based computers.

Tandy Corporation ported it to their 68000 based computers.

SCO released a port to the IBM PC in September 1983.

There was even a port for the 68000 based Apple Lisa.

During this time, Xenix was based on AT&T's Unix System III.

Xenix version 2.0 was released in 1985, based on Unix System V.

Microsoft then released the updated 2.1.1, which added support for the

Intel 80286 processor.

There were several more compatibility releases based on Unix System V.

In 1987, SCO ported Xenix to the Intel 386 processor, which was a 32bit

based chip.

Xenix 2.3.1 was released and included support for i386, SCSI and TCP/IP.

SCO's Xenix system was the first 32bit operating system available for the

x86 architecture.

By the mid 1980's, Microsoft signed an agreement with IBM to develop

OS/2.

The code name for the project would be called CP/DOS.

As Microsoft continued to develop CP/DOS with IBM, they gradually lost

interest in Xenix.

It took 2 years for IBM and Microsoft to develop the first release of

CP/DOS, which was released with the name OS/2.

It was released in 1987.

And in the same year, ownership of Xenix was transferred to SCO.

The agreement left Microsoft with a 25% ownership in SCO.

History would repeat itself with Microsoft and OS/2.

Microsoft lost interest in OS/2 development and focused its future and

company strategy towards Windows NT.

Despite Microsoft losing almost complete interest in Xenix, the company

is said to have used Xenix internally right up until as late as 1993.

SCO released SCO Unix which was based on System V Release 3.

SCO had included a number of improvements over Xenix.

Although, Xenix did remain in the services line-up for SCO.

AT&T and Sun Microsystems collaborated on merging portions of Xenix, BSD,

SunOS and System V in to what became System V Release 4.

Although SCO Unix was based on System V Release 3, it did include most of

the advanced features that were included to make up System V Release 4.

The last version of Xenix ever released was Xenix 2.3.4.

At that time, Microsoft had little or nothing to do with the release or

development.

The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) has gone through several transitions of

company re-organization and re-structuring.

The former SCO and SCO Group are now owned by UnXis Inc.

Derivatives of Xenix and SCO Unix continue on today and is now known as

SCO OpenServer.

It could be considered that if Xenix development had of continued,

OpenServer is what it would now have been.

The latest OpenServer 6.0 release still maintains backward-compatibility

for software applications developed for Xenix 286 forwards.

Wikipedia proved to be a great resource for my research on Xenix and

provided me with enough information to write this article.

Anyone can go to Wikipedia and read the whole story for themselves.

But I have attempted to simplify the details in to a more friendly and

readable format.

Personally, I find it an interesting story to find that early in

Microsoft's history as a software company, for many years there was a

serious reliance on Unix based operating systems for its initial

survival.

It probably ensured their long-term survival too.

Whether you agree with all the past, present and future decisions that

Microsoft made and continue to make, they're an interesting company to

observe and one that always presents an interesting story.

It's also worth noting although Microsoft don't necessarily have a Unix

or Linux based system available nowadays, they do contribute plenty of

source code to the Linux kernel tree and other software projects.

They have also rebooted their open-source initiatives in recent years

with the launch of an internal department titled Microsoft Open

Technologies.

Microsoft now provides access to native Ubuntu Linux running inside

Windows 10, as a sub-system.

And development continues to bring Fedora and OpenSUSE sub-systems into

Windows 10 also.

Microsoft can't really be famed for actually releasing any source code

for their own crucial software products and services.

But things are much better than they used to be.

This is highlighted by the company throwing PowerShell source code out to

the open-source community which has resulted in PowerShell binaries

running natively on Linux.

Also worth noting is the open-sourcing of the ChakraCore JavaScript

engine that remains a core component of its Edge Browser package.

These are all positive signs that Microsoft is beginning to accept that

free and open-source technology is a real and viable alternative to

proprietary.

The best thing we can at least expect is much better interoperability and

compatibility with FOSS alternatives.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen.

The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the

article is published under the Creative Commons license model.

The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the

terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has

changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own.

This is incorrect.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now

published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original

author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct

terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

**********

August 30, 2017 | The Children of Linux

Linux - It's really not a hard operating system to learn.

In fact, that statement is quite wrong.

Linux is not an operating system.

Linux is a kernel which is used as the very core to build an operating

system around.

But these are the things that children of today are not learning.

At least, not in the public schools anyway.

When I was a teenager, I was very interested in computers.

I looked forward to and really enjoyed my Information Technology classes.

But it wasn't just the computers that I was interested in.

The more I got involved with them, the more I wanted to know about what

goes on to make them work.

Or to be precise, the operating system.

It's a long time ago now, but I remember when I was talking to my teacher

one day he briefly said something about "Unix".

Until that time, I had never heard of this mysterious Unix system.

He mentioned it only this one time.

At the time, I really didn't know anything about Unix but was intrigued

of what Unix could be.

It was some years later before I got my first glimpse of anything to do

with Linux.

Which is the widely-accepted modern alternative to Unix.

My first encounter with Linux was SUSE 8, which came free on a magazine

at the time.

I might mention, it later came to my attention the magazine was not

actually meant to be giving the operating system away on the front cover

as they were.

Not long after my acquisition of the disc, I learned that I was the one

responsible for having the copies of the disc recalled by the magazine

publisher.

How many were actually returned out of ethical duty is anyone's guess.

I suspect it was not many.

But ever since my first experience with SUSE 8, I never let go of Linux

and have always been involved with it in one form or another.

Now as you all know and are well aware, Microsoft Windows is basically

the only operating system taught in our public schools.

I understand that the Windows operating system is the industry standard

and I can accept that.

But I don't believe teaching children how to use Windows solely, is the

way forward to a positive IT future.

And it is definitely not going to solve the problem of being able to fill

the coming flood of positions that are set to become available in the

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) sector.

If Linux even got a mention, it would be progress.

My high school years are well gone now, yet nothing has changed.

Public schools are still teaching children Windows and (unintentionally)

presenting it as the only operating system you'll ever need to learn and

the only operating system than can cater for your daily computing

requirements.

This assumption is just so untrue and Linux has now evolved to become a

great challenger to the Windows operating system in the home and office.

There arises many issues and setbacks with the aforementioned lack of

Linux teachings in high schools.

One of the primary reasons, being the IT teachers themselves having no

concept of how to use Linux.

There are many issues from many different angles.

We are very lucky in some ways that we live in a world of fast broadband

access where anyone can download and install Linux for free.

This is accompanied by the huge wealth of technical information, guides

and open-source development communities waiting to help, with a quick

search in your favorite search engine.

When I was in high school, a 56k dial-up internet connection was a true

privilege and there was only one computer in the whole school that had

internet access.

I'm probably still on that waiting list to use that computer, as the list

was always a mile long and your turn never seemed to arrive.

All my 15 years of Linux experience that I have today has all been self-

taught.

I have put myself through free courses and done my fair share of

tinkering, configuring and certainly my fair share of breaking systems -

sometimes accidental and sometimes intentional by motive of learning.

I continue to get yelled at by family members because I've broken the

computer once again or changed something! I'm sure it will continue for a

very long time.

Why? Because Linux offer endless learning capabilities.

And despite being a Linux veteran, I am still learning things on Linux on

a daily basis and still intentionally break things to see how they work

in detail.

In fact, I continue to experiment with third-party distributions and

development packages which have potential to provide a very different

user experience from the usual mainstream Linux distributions like Ubuntu

and Fedora.

That is where we begin the see the whole point.

There's endless possibilities of learning when it comes to Linux.

And perhaps that's the problem when it comes to public schools and

teaching Linux.

It is such a large scale eco-system with so many different facets, where

would one begin to teach.

I see that as an excuse for not teaching Linux and not a valid argument.

Because even giving children a glimpse of Linux in their high school

studies will no doubt have a flow-on effect to further private studies

and courses.

Linux must be taught to future high school students.

Otherwise, we are going to experience a severe shortage of knowledgeable

Linux administrators in the future.

We are already seeing the first signs of this problem and unless we start

arming the young nerds of today with the knowledge they require to make

up their own mind, we are going to continue to have even more problems

than we do at present.

If things don't change soon, I can only hope that today's students come

out of schooling as open-minded as I did and choose to at least give

Linux a try and see for themselves the true raw power of free and open-

source computing that is modern Unix - Linux.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen.

The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the

article is published under the Creative Commons license model.

The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the

terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has

changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own.

This is incorrect.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now

published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original

author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct

terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

**********

August 14, 2017 | Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4 Review

Red Hat have released their latest update to the company's enterprise

Linux line-up.

We set ourselves up to perform a full review of Red Hat Enterprise Linux

(RHEL) 7.4.

Although we're no strangers to RHEL, we must declare that this is the

first time we ever set out to review the much respected enterprise-grade

Linux operating system.

It's a very different animal to tame from what we're used to here at

Tecseek Technology.

So we will happily admit, we had to move away from our tradition approach

we take to Linux reviews and instead, rethink everything.

So what did we end up with as a result of our refreshed and rethought

attitude? Read ahead and see.

When you work with software and Linux for the purpose of testing and

reviews, you kind of get used to having the very latest in software

source code and binary builds right at our fingertips.

But then something strange happened.

We unexpectedly got RHEL dumped on our desk for testing and review.

The first thing we realized was the immediate need to wipe from our

brains the usual expected results of what Linux kernel version is

included in the build.

The latest Red Hat update includes the longterm support branch Linux

kernel 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64, accompanied by Bash 4.2.46 as the default

shell.

Usually, we see the latest kernel branches included in the latest Linux

distribution releases.

But obviously RHEL is a very different beast and is primary focused on

stability and support for enterprise systems.

It is the very core of Red Hat's commercial business structure.

So if you want a Red Hat endorsed Linux distribution that includes later

Linux kernel(s), then you will have to look at Fedora Linux.

The focus on stability is also visible when you take a look at Firefox,

which opts for the Extended Support Release (ESR) branch.

This guarantees support for extended periods of time.

Much longer than what is provided by later builds of mainstream Firefox.

OK, enough of the garble.

What how does RHEL perform as a daily Linux distribution? Let's look at

it in a little closer detail.

RHEL has made the move to GNOME 3 and finally embraced the Shell by

including a GNOME 3.22.3 desktop environment.

Red Hat makes a surprise inclusion of the popular GNOME Tweak Tool.

There are a bunch of extensions pre-loaded and enabled by default.

These go some way as to make the GNOME 3 desktop in RHEL much more usable

and friendly.

It's labeled as GNOME Classic at the login screen and is the default

environment.

You can switch the full GNOME Shell to give the user a more complete

GNOME experience, but we recommend sticking with GNOME Classic as the

default login for RHEL.

At the time of the announcement to move RHEL to GNOME 3, Red Hat was met

with some criticism among some of the more dedicated Linux circles.

Eventually, the change would have been inevitable due to support and

development being dropped for the old GNOME 2 source code.

The project was forked to eventually become MATE and is now a project

primarily led by Linux Mint developers.

But Red Hat decided it was in the best interest of RHEL to stick with the

well supported GNOME desktop.

They've made the necessary changes to make the transition as easy as

possible, largely thanks to the inclusion of the GNOME Tweak Tool and the

default changes Red Hat have shipped.

It works very well and we see no obvious reason why anyone could have

reason to complain about the desktop's behavior out-of-the-box.

Although, we're sure there is some people out there in the darkness

waiting to sit down at their desk in front of a shiny new workstation

running RHEL, ready to complain about it.

But we believe complaints are unjustified.

With an enterprise-grade operating system like RHEL that is focused on

stability and support, you don't really see many new features.

At least not visually.

Although we do like the RHEL 7.4 wallpapers! RHEL does include a couple

of features under-the-hood which grabbed our attention.

Anaconda will now specifically wait for network connectivity to become

available, in some installation environments.

Previously, failed DHCP requests would result in Anaconda proceeding to

installation.

Now, system administrators can add the waitfornet=X syntax to the boot

instructions.

Where X is the set amount of seconds to wait before the installer

continues on to a default installation.

This neat addition eliminates the possibility of the installer

unexpectedly proceeding before the network has been detected and an IP

address assigned to the system.

This is particularly useful on busy networks when detection of network

connectivity and DCHP assignment might take slightly longer than what

Anaconda expects.

Another feature we like is a cool package called USBGuard, which is

effectively a system protection tool that aims to protect the system in

the event that an intrusive or unwanted USB device is attached.

It functions on USB device attributes and according to a

whitelist/blacklist determination to apply its system protection.

Finally, more security enhancements have made their way into this release

with updates included for OpenSSL, OpenSSH plus additional firewall

changes for better system protection.

RHEL still uses YUM as the default tool for handling packaging and

updates.

It's interesting that Red Hat has not adapted DNF for RHEL, as they've

deprecated YUM for Fedora Linux in favor of DNF.

Although YUM is still included in RHEL, we feel that eventually it will

be deprecated also, in favor of the newer DNF packaging tool.

Regardless, YUM still gets the job done and is very fast.

BtrFS will be deprecated in RHEL.

It has previously included several technology preview releases, but Red

Hat has decided that BtrFS will not be moved to a full supported version

for RHEL and the popular filesystem will be deprecated in future

versions.

So if you're a system administrator planning on installing RHEL with

BtrFS, then you might want to reconsider your options and requirements.

If you're really keen on BtrFS, then you can still take up the options

that CentOS and Fedora Linux offer as it is a brilliant filesystem which

can hold its own against Oracle's ZFS and Microsoft's ReFS.

RHEL is only supported and updated by paid contract support by Red Hat.

So if you go ahead and install RHEL without proper support contracts in

effect, then don't be expecting to get updates filtered through to your

system.

You will also not be able to go ahead and install packages using YUM from

inside RHEL.

We bypassed the Red Hat subscription limitation (for testing purposes) by

adding the CentOS repositories to RHEL.

This is particularly useful if you want to add some software or

additional packages to RHEL.

But don't try updating the RHEL system using the CentOS repositories as

it will essentially convert your system into a CentOS system.

You will quickly see Red Hat logos and branding disappear and CentOS

branding put in its place.

If you want updates, then you will need to take a look at the community

supported offering of CentOS.

To summarize, CentOS is RHEL for the consumer, with financial backing and

official endorsement by Red Hat.

As a side-note, we should mention Tecseek Technology will be taking a

look at the new CentOS 7 (1708) release, which will be based on RHEL 7.4

source code.

The update should be available by mid-September.

We will take a look at it as soon as we get a build arrive on our desk.

In closing, RHEL 7.4 is a brilliant enterprise-grade Linux distribution.

Red Hat have led the field in the area of subscription-based Linux for

the enterprise sector, in addition to their massive development

contributions through source code development and financial support to a

whole range of Linux and open-source related projects.

Canonical (Founded in 2004) has made significant advancements along the

same lines, but don't seem to be able to grasp the same leverage that Red

Hat has achieved on open-source software.

But we need to mention the achievements Canonical have made on the

brilliant quality release of Linux, that is Ubuntu.

However, they have struggled slightly in the tight enterprise market.

That's not an entirely fair summary though, as Red Hat has been around

longer (Founded in 1993) and essentially had a head-start.

But we really love Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4.

And if you need fully supported Linux in the enterprise and business

sector, then it's going to be a no-brainer to use Red Hat as your first

choice.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

August 5, 2017 | OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 Review

The first thing you might notice about OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 is that

visually it appears to be almost identical to Leap 42.2.

If you were to look at the two side-by-side on identical systems, you'd

be forgiven for not being able to tell the difference between the two.

It's only when you jump into a terminal console and have a poke around

underneath is where you're able to go hunting for key differences.

ie.

Linux kernel version, Bash version.

Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.

It just makes it more difficult for us to differentiate the parts that

stand out the most for presenting this Review.

But we promise we will do our best in presenting the most honest Review

we possibly can to our readers.

As always, we proceeded our testing by updating the system through SSH

and PuTTY.

With very few updates required to be downloaded and installed, we had a

fully updated system within minutes of boot.

We opted to stick with KDE for Leap 42.3.

As you always like to point out, the installer has the option for KDE

Plasma, GNOME or Server instances.

The latter option will install a console system only, intended to be used

for servers or the very keen Linux user who has not yet moved on from the

days of old and into the world of the desktop GUI.

Or there might users out there that just simply have no logical reason to

be running Linux with a GUI.

Whatever the reason for your installation choice, OpenSUSE has all bases

covered.

What we absolutely love about OpenSUSE in general is the verbose power it

gives the user.

Essentially, the user can really own the system.

There is so much information that can be gathered by the user, it's

almost ridiculous.

This is largely thanks to the software management tools provided.

Two of the most important would have to be YaST and KInfocenter.

Combined, they provide all the power, control and information about your

system.

Add in the System Monitor and you have absolute killer system feedback

and technical information right at your fingertips.

Still, we find the System Monitor referenced under the very peculiar

entry of KSysGuard in the application menu.

Yet, when you actually enter the application and view the developer

credits and version information, everything refers to System Monitor.

This should actually be changed in the application menu to more suitably

refer to what it actually is, to avoid major confusion.

On the software side of things, it's business as usual.

And by that, we mean OpenSUSE and KDE have everything covered.

Firefox handles your web browsing needs, while Kmail has email under

control.

To complement Kmail, you also have KAddressbook, Kontact and KOrganizer.

It's great to have all these options available for all these different

packages, but we're beginning to wonder whether there's room for

consolidation in OpenSUSE, starting with integrating some of these

packages via a third-party developed wrapper program and into one office

productivity suite.

It seems a little overkill when you could simply install Thunderbird and

have basically all of those features in one software application.

Instead, we see OpenSUSE including 3-4 different applications to get your

emails, contacts and appointments organized.

However, this is where the KDE Plasma desktop takes over and one of its

biggest assets really shines.

It has an advantage over any other desktop environment - graphical

integration.

Even though many KDE-based applications are completely separate packages,

they remain tightly integrated thanks to KDE Plasma's unique ability to

make everything appear as one nicely integrated system.

Clever.

OpenSUSE is probably better known for its support and pushing of KDE

Plasma more than any other Linux distributor.

They deserve credit for it and for sticking with it for so many years.

Because KDE Plasma is a very different beast and has gone in a different

direction to where GNOME (and the now defunct Unity) have gone.

Still, we think application consolidation would not be a bad thing to

consider for future releases.

We'll mention a few miscellaneous packages too, for interests sake.

GIMP is still included, which is great to see.

Too many Linux distributions have dropped the inclusion of GIMP by

default, simply due to its size bloating the final ISO size.

But we believe it should be included in all mainstream distributions, as

size limits are not really a problem in 2017 with the benefits of digital

distribution and ISO size no longer being restricted to the CD-R size of

~700MB.

It's a moot excuse and we reckon it deserves its place to be included by

default.

Codecs have always been a sore spot for Linux users.

We still have to install codecs post-installation and Leap 42.3 is no

exception.

All popular codecs are located inside the Packman Repositories.

There is a brilliant website that you can visit called opensuse-

community.org and it includes the One-Click Installer buttons which will

handle the entire codec installation process for you.

Yes, it is a pain in the rear-end that we still have to go installing

codecs, but there's really no justification for complaint when the

process is made so simple.

Kudos to OpenSUSE Developers and the wider developer community for

filling the void here and making it simple.

Once codecs are installed, OpenSUSE has Amarok included for audio

playback and Dragon Player for video playback.

It's a bit of an unusual combination as personally, we don't like either

application.

We recommend a much more powerful combination of Qmmp for audio and VLC

for video.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 is a great release.

There's not really anything brand new and not really any groundbreaking

new feature that makes the release a must have.

It's an update to Leap 42.2, which was respectfully a brilliant release.

It works flawlessly inside a virtual machine with full support for

everything we threw at it, including display drivers which give us proper

screen resolutions without the restrictions that we experience with some

distributions.

Additionally, you get even better performance on bare metal.

With brilliant support for any environment, great performance and fine

KDE polish, we recommend you consider it as your latest Linux

installation.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

August 5, 2017 | Fedora 26 Review

We are still licking our wounds from the horror and torture we

experienced from Fedora 25.

In what was originally intended to be a Tecseek Technology full review of

Fedora 25 (F25), resulted in complete disaster and to the outside reader

could be read as a rant.

That would be a fair analysis.

It was absolutely a rant and we feel we had every right to publish a

rant, considering what a shoddy build F25 was.

We are still scarred from it.

If you wish to go back and read about our traumatic experience, feel free

to do so before reading our thoughts on Fedora 26 (F26).

Is there positive news ahead? Absolutely.

F26 is a completely different experience - a positive experience.

The new release restored our faith in the distribution and has some fine

polish to boot.

We always refer to Fedora as one of the most finely polished Linux

distributions available.

Probably on par with OpenSUSE which never disappoints in the competitive

arena of Linux polish.

F26 reaffirms this common perception and its overall aesthetics don't

disappoint.

We adore the default background for the Workstation build.

The optional stock wallpapers are always worthy of equal appreciation.

We logged on to our test build by through SSH using PuTTY and updated the

system to the latest packages.

The build we tested after a quick update containing ~500MB of package

updates, contained a Linux kernel 4.11.11.

Having a deeper poke around the desktop and we found some nice added

goodies, including a Clocks application accompanied with a World Clock, a

selection of Timers and an Alarm clock.

Similar to what you'd find on any typical cell phone device.

We found it a pleasant application to use on the desktop.

This was complemented by the equally neat Weather application.

You can add different cities into the Weather application or use

location-based detection if you roam around lots.

We find location-based services pretty ordinary on laptop systems as

location detection is usually sourced off your internet connection, which

if you're paying attention is more often than not, never actually where

you are physically located.

Effectively, this will produce weather feedback that may not be so

relevant to your actual current location.

Instead, we prefer to manually enter our locations of weather interest.

To finish off what we would describe as the smart desktop, we recommend

you take a look at the Maps and Contacts applications too.

The Workstation build is solid and we experienced nothing to complain

about.

The improvements that we've experienced in F26 compared to its

predecessor are vast and impressive.

Regardless of desktop environment of choice, we prefer dark themes.

Unfortunately, there's no global dark theme option inside F26.

So we installed the trusty GNOME Tweak Tool and enabled the global dark

theme.

While we were at it, we also changed the windows controls buttons to

display Maximize and Minimize buttons.

By default, the GNOME desktop shipped with F26 only displays a Close

button for your windows.

We find the absence of the Maximize/Minimize control buttons very

annoying and unnatural.

We were quick to reinstate them.

The fix is rather simple if their absence annoys you too.

For a little extra desktop juiciness, we added a Places button to the

GNOME desktop panel.

It makes the task of opening your files much quicker and it will have

positive productivity results if you're a heavy graphical file manager

user.

One last recommendation is to install PCManFM and change it to the

default graphical file manager.

We hate the default Nautilus/Files application.

It resembles nothing of the power that Nautilus once provided to the user

and PCManFM goes some way to restoring the user that lost power.

Or you can go full console file manager and install Midnight Commander

(mc).

The rest of the GNOME desktop on the F26 Workstation release is pretty

much GNOME standard, with the usual feast of Firefox for internet,

Evolution for email and LibreOffice to take care of your daily paperwork

requirements.

The inclusion of Evolution is interesting.

We prefer Thunderbird for email, however we can easily adapt to Evolution

if needed.

But if you really want to install Thunderbird, you can easily do so along

with removing Evolution in the process.

Overall, there is a nice blend of applications and if installed in the

workplace, everything is there to get your day started.

If there's anything that we would declare a must, post-installation, it

would be the installation of the aforementioned GNOME Tweak Tool.

Those few little extra tweaks it enables makes the GNOME desktop feel

that little more complete and consumer ready.

We like Fedora 26 and believe that if you're looking to install Linux

fresh, then out of all the mainstream distributions available, this would

be our recommendation.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 29, 2017 | Atari Still Teasing Us With Ataribox Details

When Atari first hinted at new Atari-branded gaming hardware, through the

release of its first teaser video, there was hysteria among internet

users, gamers and older Atari fans.

The promotional teaser didn't show much at all, really.

There is no mention of hardware type, specifications or what device was

actually in the release pipeline from the legendary technology company.

It was essentially a camera panning over a very traditional Atari design

of ribbed finished plastic and also elements of its traditional wood

grain finish.

We learned very little from the teaser video.

The video was released to simply achieve what it did - tease our Atari

senses and give us the sudden feeling of wanting more Atari goodness in

our fingers.

Tecseek Technology has been on the watch for any new information that may

hint at some kind of detail about what Atari is planning to release.

We suspect that it will be PC based hardware.

We have not yet received much information from Atari other than a press

email which recently arrived in our inbox.

We know it is currently being called the Ataribox.

Whether this is the final name of the device or whether it will be

changed when final release approaches, we do not know.

The press email did show an image of a design of the Ataribox.

Whether this image is the final design was not confirmed, but Atari are

claiming that the design aims to stay true to the company's heritage and

should please both old and new Atari fans.

Based on the images we've seen, we think it looks good and we are so damn

excited.

The Ataribox is sticking with the traditional ribbed design and contains

specific design elements which pay homage to the original Atari consoles

which made the company so famous.

Also, there are intentions to release two different designs - wood and a

black/red edition.

We have a basic understanding of the possible design of the Ataribox, but

what kind of hardware are we likely to see inside? Well according to the

press email we received, the unit will contain HDMI output, USB

connectivity and SD memory I/O.

There is no more information yet confirmed by Atari on internal hardware

specifications or what operating system the device will run.

Sony Playstation actually runs a BSD-based operating system whilst

Microsoft Xbox is running a modified Windows platform.

We watch with a keen eye to see whether the Ataribox gets a Linux-based

operating system.

Alternatively, Atari may very well choose to go down the same path as

Sony and opt for a modified BSD-based platform.

The company states that any further technical details will be released as

more information can be made public over the course of the duration of

development.

But Atari did confirm that the unit will deliver Atari gaming classics as

well as new game content.

In what kind of form the gaming experience will be delivered, remains a

mystery.

As expected, there's absolutely no information about any expected pricing

for the eventual Ataribox unit, games or accessories.

Understandably, it's just way too early to even consider what price

bracket the Ataribox will slip into.

But the company does claim that they are listening to community input,

reactions and social media feedback which hopefully, will be reflected in

the final unit's design and content delivery.

We eagerly await for more information and specifications for the

Ataribox.

Tecseek Technology will publish more details as it arrives in our inbox.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 18, 2017 | Civilian Casualties Abused and Disrespected by Coalition

Forces.

Bodies Just Become Collateral Damage Statistic

On July 11, 2017, ABC News in Australia published scathing details of

civilian casualties in Afghanistan which includes the lethal shooting of

children and unarmed men which have fallen at the hands of Australian

Military involvement.

This is followed up by details of abuse of bodies of the deceased in

Afghanistan, with documents dating incident from 2009 right through to

2014.

The Afghan Files publication by ABC News is very alarming and brings to

light the question of potential misconduct of Australian Special Forces

soldiers in the Afghan warzones and the broader aspects of the culture

that bonds these elite forces together, which mostly operate in secrecy

and under what appears to be very limited oversight from the Department

of Defense.

The details were based on leaked documents which authenticate the

horrific allegations of abuse, which the ABC has chosen not to publish in

full as many of them are marked with AUSTEO - Australian Eyes Only.

Additionally, the reports are said to include details of a secret

internal military inquiry into the cases of the civilian casualties and

abuse claims.

Understandably, there has been growing frustrations within Afghan

communities.

The frustrations are directed towards the Australian Military for the

many alleged cases of Australian soldiers killing innocent civilians, who

are often determined post-incident to be unarmed, uninvolved in the

conflict or in some cases found to be children.

As further details are revealed, unarmed civilians who have been killed

are often subjected to Australian soldiers setting up a 'scene' by

placing knives or guns onto or surrounding the bodies of dead victims to

portray them as being armed at the time of death by the Australians.

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply concerned by the details found in the

ABC publication and we urge the Australian Government and the Department

of Defense to look into the many outstanding issues surrounding these

claims, which have been documented, leaked and published by the ABC, yet

previously shrouded in secrecy from the wider public by the Department of

Defense.

Later details reveal disturbing details of Australian soldiers mutilating

dead Afghans by severing the hands off the bodies, in a so-called effort

of identification-related purposes.

As we understand it, Australian Military personnel are required to

collect fingerprints and eye scans as part of the identification process

of the deceased.

But only if possible to do so.

We are so disturbed that soldiers are resorting to what we view as

desperate measures of body mutilation, in an effort to gain

identification of the civilian casualties when they are not actually

required to do so if it is deemed not possible.

The published details are graphic, disturbing and raises many questions

of whether Australia's Military require closer oversight in war

operations and also raises the potential question of whether a review of

the current Rules of Engagement and other related military response and

operations guidelines should be further reviewed.

For obvious national security reasons, Rules of Engagement and other

related military operations techniques and guidelines are usually kept

secret and out of the public domain by the respective country's military.

Therefore, it remains nigh on impossible for Freedom Publishers Union to

put exact parts of such operations and techniques under further scrutiny

due to the surrounding secrecy measures implemented.

However, we feel we have every right to call out possibilities of

operations breaches if we have suspicion that there is in fact a breach

or multiple breaches which have occurred.

The allegations and details publicized by ABC News bring many of these

allegations to light, but it's also backed up by documented evidence that

these cases did occur and that the Australian Military was aware of the

possibility of multiple breaches, yet it was kept secret and out of the

public domain.

The latest documents were dated as late as 2014, yet the atrocities

carried out by Coalition forces, which includes Australia, continues

today.

It is important to view the violence from both sides of the coin and

understand that these acts of aggression and violence is not just carried

out by Coalition associated military forces, but also from Islamic State

(IS) forces.

On July 10, 2017, Amnesty International released a 50-page Report titled

"At Any Cost - The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul, Iraq".

The Report notes that in March and May 2017, Amnesty International

visited Northern Iraq to examine and investigate possible violations of

human rights abuses and international humanitarian law.

The Report outlines the war atrocities and horrific and often

unimaginable violence directly and indirectly involving civilians which

is carried out by both Coalition and IS Military Forces.

IS continues to disrespect and outright ignore the laws of war,

international humanitarian law and the most basic elements of human

rights.

The basic importance of human life also seems completely irrelevant in

many cases.

IS rounds up thousands of civilians at a time, moves them into known war

zones and uses them as human shields.

Essentially, this creates a very big problem.

When you can't distinguish the 'Enemy' from 'Civilian' - as is the case

fighting IS militants and the various off-shoot groups which are present

in so many of these places across Iraq and Syria - you're going to get

civilian casualties.

Furthermore, some of them are going to be deliberate killings.

You can report, document, investigate and prosecute the soldiers

retroactively, but as long as your are making war, this will continue to

happen.

What we do need and what Freedom Publishers Union immediately calls for

is civilian casualties properly acknowledged and respected, through

proper documenting of the incidents surrounding their deaths.

At present, we constantly see vast differences in the numbers of

civilians killed based on the figures from Amnesty International and

independent monitoring groups such as Airwars and Syrian Observatory for

Human Rights in camparison to 'official' acknowledged and documented

civilian casualties published in the public domain by The Pentagon.

With such vast difference in numbers of civilian casualties released to

the public, suspicion grows and questions need to be asked.

Somewhere between the high count of independent organizations and the

relative low count of documented civilian casualties published by

Government representative departments, we need to get a more accurate

figure.

We need greater transparency and we need to see better public disclosure,

whilst allowing independent monitoring groups better access to limited

military data for the purpose of documentation of civilian casualties.

Where classified information and sensitive data is involved, we urge

better collaboration between independent monitoring organizations and the

military to ensure proper security protocols are followed and respected.

This must also be followed up by ensuring that Rules of Engagement and

military operations manuals and techniques are adapted to better

accommodate the process for documenting incidents of civilians casualties

in a secure, respectful way without the secrecy and constant denial of

which we are currently witness to.

Too many civilians are being killed in Iraq and Syria and whilst being

denied recognition of their untimely and unexpected deaths, they are

equally being denied the respect they deserve.

These civilians of foreign countries being caught up in military conlfict

zones are still human and are therefore entitled to have their human

rights respected, inclusive of their dignity.

There is a deep problem.

It is war.

Civilian casualties happen.

The only way to not have civilian casualties is to not go to war in the

first place.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

July 6, 2017 | Google News Gutted Beyond Use

Google News has been one of the company's services that has seemingly

remained untouched for many years.

It wasn't a major problem, as the functionality was all there.

Google News is and remains a very popular service provided by this

behemoth of a company, Google which remains under its parent company

Alphabet Inc., and is primarily developed around the core function of

internet search.

The News service collated and aggregated news from a variety of sources

chosen by the user.

Or if the user was not logged in or using custom settings for their own

choice of news sources, Google would simply present the user with a

selection of news from sources chosen by them.

Essentially, this is done by Google's very advanced computer algorithms.

News was brilliant.

It was often underestimated just how good it was and how useful it could

be to news nerds and even those who work in the media and publishing

industry.

It would be safe to say that it was probably most likely a little

underappreciated as well.

Google knew this and undoubtedly it would have been taken into

consideration when the News service recently received its first interface

overhaul in many years.

Interestingly, there was very little excitement when Google recently

upgraded the appearance of News accompanied by some additional

functionality changes.

Google will tout the changes are actually improvements.

We absolutely dispute any comments from Google to suggest the changes are

any kind of improvement.

If that's what the changes were genuinely intended to be.

There has been a major loss of functionality and despite the Google News

Team's blog post about the update touting that the company want to give

the user more control, this is somewhat a little overstated as we have

noticed a significant amount of reduced functionality since the

introduction of the latest round of updates.

Settings we used to be able to change and tweak to our liking have now

been removed.

Settings that were once easy to find have now been skinned alive and

streamlined into a more simplified configuration interface and a more

narrow choice of configuration options.

Google News has effectively been gutted.

The changes have also removed several news and weather sections which

were very useful, based on the location set and locations detected.

Now, it attempts to provide news and weather based on detected location

rather than what you have set.

We tried changing this setting inside the configuration options to no

avail.

It insisted on providing us with news based on the location of Perth.

Our office is based on the Gold Coast in the State of Queensland.

If our readers are unfamiliar with the country of Australia, then we can

tell you our country is large.

The Gold Coast is on the east coast of the nation, Perth is on the west

coast.

Therefore, news provided for Perth has absolutely no relevance to us.

And neither does the weather for Perth.

We feel this is either a major oversight by News developers or a major

bug which made it way into the update roll out.

Or just a downright stupid decision.

Whatever the explanation, Google needs to fix this to regain any kind of

credibility to its News service.

News has been an important part of our office information gathering

process.

We operate in a shared office environment and news is sourced from a

variety of online services, sources and wires.

Google News provided us with a vital platform for news and information

gathering and offered the great aggregation platform that we have

required to get the news and facts in the one place, to be able to

present our readers the content that we publish at Tecseek Technology.

Now, we can't help but feel that we have been ripped off of all the

progress and ease-of-use that News offered.

All the advantages and gains that it has provided for news aggregation

and all the giant leaps forward that News provided have now been lost -

due to a simple yet effective update rolled out by Google.

As a result of the latest flawed updates, we have decided there is simply

too much functionality lost and the reduction of user control required

for the service to meet our need is no longer present.

Whilst our office still uses Google for our email services, we have

officially dropped Google News as our news aggregation platform.

Our decision to drop it was not taken lightly and has been more of a

frustration.

Google News was a vital service and it's very disappointing that Google

did not roll out the updates whilst still allowing the user to have the

same level of effective control over their news content, as before.

Usually, we embrace changes by Google as their changes are usually

useful, necessary and genuinely provide efficiency improvements.

Sadly, Google has let down their users on this occasion.

For us, it has let us down so much that we made the decision to drop the

service altogether.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

June 30, 2017 | Elon Musk's Multi-Planetary Civilization Essay, a

Blueprint for Serious Consideration

During the month of June, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk,

released a 16-page essay on multi-planetary civilization, the science

community was a little surprised.

Some academics were critical of the essay's contents and expressed

concern it has no scientific credibility and that it was nothing more

than a fantasy.

Before you go head and read the essay, one must open up their mind to the

concept of multi-planetary civilization.

In reference to Musk's essay and from a scientific stand point, there are

many innaccuracies and clear expressions of ignorance of some of the

major scientific and engineering challenges that such a cosmic venture

would pose.

Additionally, from an engineering perspective there remains many problems

which would potential make or break any plans for humans to settle on

Mars.

However, we need to take a step back for a second and look at the

structure of the essay.

Musk presents the essay by going through each challenge in the

appropriate steps which would be required to be completed for any such

plan to become reality and to be successful.

The essay starts by outlining humanity's necessity to consider migrating

to another planet.

In Musk's proposal, he has chosen Mars as his focus.

This is not just a random planet pick out of our solar system, he

actually does make his case for choosing Mars specifically.

The essay continues on and outlines in brief, the requirement for a

little more exploration of Mars prior to initiating plans for

civilization inhabiting the planet and to start building self-sustaining

cities.

He is not completely ignorant to the challenges posed by such an

ambitious plan.

Musk outlines the common challenges that require immediate attention.

Technology challenges are very present which would require heavy

investment, much research, technical and engineering development and vast

improvements to existing technology.

We also can't ignore the fact that in some cases we are considering

technology that does not yet exist and scientific challenges that have

not yet been explored, analyzed and produced any kind of unaninous

academic and scientific conclusion.

But it's not just the technical challenges that are of immediate concern,

there are additional multitudes of engineering challenges too.

The essay continues to detail space ship types and sizes required to

transport equipment and actual humans, along with the rocket and

propulsion technology required to launch, operate, direct and land these

massive ships of which the world has not yet witnessed anything that

comes close to resembling the size that Musk proposes is required.

Again, we need to remind people that it's a very ambitious plan which

will require much more detailed analysis and research.

Finally, the essay concludes with plans for refuelling these ships mid-

flight and even goes as far as detailing eventual requirement for fueling

'stations' located in various parts throughout solar system and beyond.

The main problem with the essay is it remains very brief.

The entirety of the essay is just 16-pages and it includes information,

technical details and diagrams to help illustrate the proposal.

The plan is all clear and for such a short essay with only brief

information, Musk does a great job of getting his point accross.

He deserves credit for that.

But where the essay remains very brief, is also the subject of its

negative critique.

For such a vast plan to be drafted and proposed in just 16-pages could be

viewed as ridiculous.

And if the proposal is to be ever taken serious, we feel that it would

require much more detail, technical specifications, scientific and

engineering analysis than this.

A serious proposal would most likely run into thousands of pages of text

and diagrams.

Elon Musk should not be ignored nor should this essay be treated as

ridiculous science fiction.

Some might make the assumption that Musk has fallen victim to his own

work to the same degree that Ron L.

Hubbard succumbed to his own science fiction stories by actually

believing what he was writing, to be the truth.

The concept of multi-planetary civilization is nothing new and Musk is

not the first person to come up with such a concept.

When reading the essay you can't help but feel the enthusiasm in Musk's

words.

His passion for the concept and further development to make the concept a

reality is very obvious.

On this front, he should be credited for spawning the idea.

After all, he founded Tesla and SpaceX to much critique in the early

development stages of the companies.

Despite the criticism, both Tesla and SpaceX have succeeded and continue

to make milestones in technologies and development in their respective

fields of business.

We should not discredit Musk and in fact, we should be embracing the

passion and thought put into the essay.

It's a starting point and all great ambitions start with a basic plan.

Even if that plan is to come across as initially crazy.

There are obvious challenges present which humans have not yet been

forced to deal with.

But that leads us to the point where we start believing that Elon Musk's

essay is not so ridiculous as you might think.

He has outlined problems.

He has only provided basic and vague ideas to overcome these challenges.

He is just one man.

But he is a visionary.

Imagine what the brilliant minds of humans could achieve if more thought,

research and development was put into multi-planetary exploration with an

eventual plan for civilization and establshment of self-sustaining cities

on Mars and beyond.

As humans continue to destroy Earth at rapid rate and continue to

absolutely outright ignore the problems we are already facing and will

face in the future by climate change, and take into consideration the

undisputed resource problems that our planet will face, we need a plan B.

Elon Musk has proposed an alternative.

Is it really such a bad thing to put forth a plan which could possibly

see the continued existence of our species? We say it again - He is just

one man.

But he is a visionary.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

June 25, 2017 | 'Five Eyes' Calls for Better Security co-operation Could

Still Lead to Attacks on Encryption and Forced Backdoors

Momentum is gaining traction for 'Five Eyes' nation's respective leaders

to (re)commence their attacks on encryption.

The new front is being led by Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm

Turnbull.

It comes not so long after the newly re-elected Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom, Theresa May, released a Party Manifesto which detailed in

disturbing detail a future vision for digital rights and the potential

for the UK to lead the way through introduction of legislation which

would see regulation of the internet.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for freedom of information which

includes freedom of accessibility and spreading of digital information on

the internet, without government intervention, tampering or mass-

surveillance.

It is the whole purpose of the open design and development of the

internet and the infrastructure that binds it together.

We will always aim to protect the organic nature of its design.

It has become increasingly clear since the revelations of government

sponsored and initiated mass-surveillance programs that governments were

unhappy about their secret programs becoming public knowledge.

Political discourse followed and legislation was gradually introduced by

a variety of parties and nations which aimed to regulate and reign in the

what were previously secret mass-surveillance programs which operated

under the radar and on sweeping scale.

The amount of data these sweeping programs were gathering and the rate of

collection was vast and in some cases required completely new datacenters

to be built, purely for secure storage of the data.

For a short while, Freedom Publishers Union was positive with the actions

that we were witness to.

There were signs that government bureaucrats were taking notice of

citizen discontent with their every move being tracked and logged.

But the path to surveillance cleansing has once again gone off-track and

we could comfortably conclude that we are going backwards and on a path

to mass-surveillance which if goes unchecked and unchallenged, will

undoubtedly grow to a scale larger than anything we've yet learned.

Privacy is important.

It is a civil liberty of citizens to enjoy and uphold their right to

privacy.

This right to privacy is enhanced through the use of encryption.

Before the revelations of secret mass-surveillance programs was revealed,

citizens were ignorant to encryption not through intention, but through

lack of knowledge and understanding of its purpose to protect their data

from the unwelcome eyes of sweeping surveillance programs like PRISM,

XKeyscore, Tempora, MUSCULAR and STATEROOM.

On the eve of the secret 'Five Eyes' security meeting in Canada,

Australia is calling for better co-operation from technology companies

with intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Malcolm Turnbull stops short of stating what specific measures he and his

Australian Attorney General, George Brandis, would be proposing.

But he did state that calls for increased co-operation does not mean that

pursuit of forced backdoor inclusion is on the table.

Freedom Publishers Union warns citizens, we must not be complacent in

trusting our democratic country's governments to always do the right

thing and protect our data.

It has now become all too clear that governments want our data, therefore

we must protect it.

We must not conclude that it is a war between governments and the

citizens.

Because it is not.

And this is a scenario which we prefer to avoid, frankly.

We believe that governments do have genuine intent when legislation is

passed that legalize surveillance programs under the banner of protecting

citizens through fighting terrorism.

Intent is there.

But the temptation for sweeping surveillance on mass scale is there, it

does happen and will continue to happen is pressure on governments and

intelligence agencies is not maintained.

Freedom Publishers Union reminds our supporters and readers that

protection of your data is your priority.

Encryption is available for free and much of it open-source.

You can openly and freely use it to protect your data right now.

There are tools for beginners and tools for advanced users.

But use of encryption to protect your data should not be your only

mission.

You should also be advocating for the use of encryption and other

software that protects privacy and data.

Help others download and install privacy software when you become

comfortable with how it works.

Let it be your mission to advocate and spread the message that our data

should remain exactly that - "Our data".

It is no longer the sole responsibility of advocacy groups and crypto-

anarchists to do the hard work and advocate for right to freedom and

privacy.

We have moved beyond that and it is now up to everyone to unite.

It's no longer a movement or a political activist campaign.

It is your right.

If you do not own your rights to privacy and continue to fight for your

civil liberties, they might very well be taken away from you by

overreaching governments and intelligence agencies.

It was all happening right under our noses prior to the courageous leaks

of Edward Snowden as a former NSA security analyst working on these

secret programs.

It could easily happen again if we don't stand up, unite on the privacy

frontline and speak out in support of encryption, privacy and civil

liberties that enable freedom to thrive to its truest form.

Never be complacent.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

June 19, 2017 | Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch) Review

Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch) has made its way into public hands.

Tecseek Technology has taken a look at the release.

We usually find Debian releases to be quite boring.

Yes, it's a brilliant base to provide other distribution developers a

platform to build upon.

Notably, Ubuntu being one of our favorites.

But Debian in its raw form feels quite lacklustre.

The release of Stretch is no different.

Don't be put off by our rather pessimistic perspective.

It's a finely polished product, there is no doubt on that.

Yet it just feels so naked.

Installation is fast and matches that of more popular mainstream

distributions.

Red Hat's Fedora distribution is probably the first that comes to our

minds when we think of fast installation.

Debian comes in at a close second.

Installation is easy and very efficient.

But it's the follow-up configuration which will consume most of your time

and hold most of your attention.

You still need to make a quick change to the APT configuration file to

get updates working post-installation.

And we still find that display drivers are limited in Debian which

resulted in us having a very limited display resolution.

This has always been a major point of frustration for us with Debian.

This release has that same frustration.

Overall, it's a stable release with no major problems that we can

determine.

There are some obvious niggles though.

Lack of proper support for display drivers is one.

LibreOffice launcher is present in the XFCE Application Menu is two.

We find this quite strange considering that LibreOffice is not even

installed in Stretch, by default.

XFCE is the only graphical desktop environment offered in the default

graphical installation.

If you were to be a little more crafty with your installation method, you

could easily enable some online repositories and pull in a new desktop

environment for installation.

But we took the lazy option and just installed with XFCE.

If you want a stable Linux distribution which commands your attention for

customization, then you will enjoy Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch).

It does demand your attention.

But if you prefer a more complete Linux distribution where everything is

installed for you and you don't have to spend too much time adding a

whole bunch of software post-installation, then we recommend looking at

one of the big four mainstream distributions as it's most likely what

you're seeking for desktop Linux.

Debian on the server is where it really shines.

Perhaps not so much on the desktop.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

June 19, 2017 | Misrepresentation of CIA Spying Activities, Following

Latest Vault 7 Release by Wikileaks

Wikileaks continues to disperse information which reveals just how deep

the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spying techniques really go.

The latest documents leak from the Vault 7 cache paints a true picture of

what we already suspected of the CIA intelligence gathering methods -

there really is no boundaries for their targets.

Essentially, everything is a target.

The latest documents contain information which detail with frightening

certainty that network hardware, routers, switches and firewalls are a

focus of the CIA's vast spy program.

The network routers that are the forefront of the Wikileaks publication

don't just single out one or two brands or models of network hardware,

but entire series of routers which the CIA has methods of tampering with,

typically by installing unauthorized modified firmware.

The hardware range targeted are some well known brands of D-Link, Belkin,

3Com, Linksys and Cisco.

Oddly, the equally popular consumer brands such as the Billion, Netgear

and TP-LINK network hardware are not mentioned.

We could make the assumption that the brands targeted have less security

and are easier for the CIA to manipulate and supposed non-targeted brands

have better security.

It's important to note this is assumption only and we have absolutely no

substance of data to back up this assumption.

We can not confirm whether there is more routers which have fallen into

the cross-hairs of the CIA, but there is some notable absences.

There has been some over-hyped reporting on the latest release.

But it's important to keep the entire Wikileaks publication in context.

The CIA has the ability, as we've now learned through these publications,

to install modified firmware onto these network hardware devices.

There is a mix of consumer level hardware and also business centric

hardware.

We do not urge panic.

We urge caution.

But we should never remain complacent and should always aim to stay one

step ahead of security contractors that work for government intelligence

gathering agencies and ahead of the intelligence gathering agencies

themselves.

ie.

CIA, FBI, NSA, GCHQ, ASIO and others.

Most good network administrators know their hardware very well and should

therefore know when/if firmware has been changed or updated without their

consent.

Freedom Publishers Union considers our own network security to be quite

strong.

Our server resides on a network behind multiple routers, multiple

switches and firewalls.

We are confident of our network security and always maintain priority of

our network activity at software and hardware level.

There are certain indicators which would draw immediate attention to

network hardware that has been tampered with.

However, in large corporate environments with large and complex

networking infrastructure, it would be fair to say that one could not

expect the administrators to be able to monitor their state of health and

security of every single hardware device connected to these networks.

It would be unfair to expect this and outright unrealistic to imply that

such undertaking could even be possible without appropriate resources and

personnel to carry out such a massive task.

This most likely explains the absence of most consumer level networking

hardware.

But we can not be sure whether there is more information that accompanies

what has been published by Wikileaks, or whether Wikileaks has purposely

held some information back.

Or it could be a case that such information never leaked through to

Wikileaks as part of the Vault 7 cache because it simply does not exist.

This much is speculation.

What is not speculation is the very fact that the CIA does carry out

spying, hacking and all other forms of intelligence gathering without

boundaries or morals.

We must remember to always go back to the source documents themselves and

analyze the finer detail where required.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

May 9, 2017 | Facebook Having Identity Crisis.

Must Look to Google for Inspiration

Facebook is facing a huge identity crisis.

To the initial public eye of familiarity, Facebook is still the daily

social media habit.

They are still a social media company, to be fair.

But things are changing at Facebook, yet we're not convinced that the

company is aware of the change that is underway and whether they are

working to best position themselves to accommodate its evolving identity.

To elaborate further and to find a possible solution to Facebook's

identity crisis, we need to take a look at one of its largest Silicon

Valley rivals - Google.

When Google made the announcement that it was being integrated into a

portfolio and under the banner of a brand new company called Alphabet

Inc., the corporate world was at first a little confused.

Google loyalists were equally confused and bewildered what was happening

to this giant of Silicon Valley.

The initial confusion was justified.

When you take a closer look at what Google done and the reasons for their

corporate shake-up and integration into a new parent company, we quickly

conclude that it was probably one of the smartest corporate choices

Silicon Valley has witnessed.

Google created Alphabet Inc.

to become the parent company of Google and its other company holdings,

subsidiaries and corporate projects.

The public will usually associate Google with being the friendly search

engine that pops up on most internet web browsers when you first open it.

Google is friendly, happy and familiar to everyone.

There was a more complex side to Google though, which may not have been

so obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the company's operations.

Google was much bigger than just a search engine.

Over the years of its existence, Google had acquired many other

businesses and also diversified into other areas of science, research and

development, computing, operating systems, software development and smart

phone development and operations.

If you were to summarize the operations of Google in just a couple of

words, you could only state that it was "huge and complex".

It had become so diversified and complex that it entered an internal

identity crisis itself.

But Google was quick to recognize this.

Quicker than what the public and corporate analysts had determined.

And it was upon this recognition that Alphabet Inc.

was founded and the divisions created.

Facebook must look to Google for inspiration.

Facebook has moved beyond the realm of being just a social media company.

It is (and has been for some time) involved in scientific research,

software development, gaming and hardware.

The next big thing for Facebook looks to be media and news.

It has somewhat experimented in this sector, with Trending Topics.

However, actual Trending Editors were replaced by internal algorithms.

This was not a major setback for Facebook media ambitions, if there are

any actual ambitions.

But it's safe to say the algorithms failed and were certainly not a

suitable replacement for actual content editors.

Trending Topics seems to have been brushed to the side in the Facebook

interface and it remains unclear how much focus this area will get.

So where does this take us? It leads us to question whether Facebook has

legitimate media ambitions or whether it is being pulled unwillingly into

the sector by internet market forces.

Change at the top could be key to regaining control.

Facebook potentially have two options to initiate change and regain

control of the company's direction.

One option is for them to create a Board of Directors.

Some believe that as long as Mark Zuckerberg has sole (majority) control,

there will be confusion.

To be fair, Facebook hasn't really reached the diversity of Google, yet.

Google's Board together with Eric Schmidt, Sergei Brin and Larry Page

figured out that Google has become a holding company without intending to

do so.

They understood the necessary changes and formally made the shift.

The changes also allowed them to formalize their company philosophy and

define what criteria each sector of the business needs to meet for

success and growth under Alphabet Inc.

Facebook hasn't diversifies as far from its roots and it's still mostly

about information sharing with advertising thrown into the mix, which is

not only keeping the business successful, but generating huge amounts of

cash reserves to be invested in other projects.

The trend is set to continue and Facebook is undoubtedly set to diversify

even more.

Unlike Google, it is apparent that Facebook has not yet learned how to

plan management and monetization as part of a new project.

They are still primarily focused in the one industry - information

collection and delivery.

In some ways, Facebook is closer to resembling News Corporation than what

it does Google.

There's lots going on at Facebook.

To be honest, it is confusing.

The company needs to define what it is.

Without even knowing it, it's trying to be too many things.

Splitting it would go some way to allowing it to focus on being a company

with different divisions which could focus on each sector more

appropriately.

Emulating exactly what Google has done.

It's almost becoming a media company in its own right, but not quite

there yet.

When Facebook reaches this point, it will be a very different kind of

media company.

Like nothing we've seen yet.

That is where the challenge lies - defining what it is and what they do.

We draw back to the point of Zuckerberg holding control of the company

operations, which is also our second option, of letting Zuckerberg retain

that control.

Although a Board of Directors at Facebook would not be the worst

decision, one could also be forgiven for believing that Zuckerberg has an

'ultimate' vision and is still the one person that should have sole

control to achieve that vision.

Looking outside the spectrum slightly, there is a problem with America

versus the rest of the world.

In the United States of America, corporations are treated as human

entities.

Whereas in Europe, the majority shareholder or Managing Director is

personally responsible for the actions of the company.

US corporations act as proxy for owners and management, which therefore

allows the company to pay any penalties and results and no responsibility

assigned to leadership level.

It's the moral equivalent in business of saying all the Nazi atrocities

were carried out by Germany and that Germany needs to go to jail, not

Hitler or the Nazi leadership.

Google made the transition from the duopoly of Brin and Page to a

diversified Board that allows responsibility to rest in the corporations,

while providing the measurement framework for these to meet.

Facebook must look for inspiration.

They're very lucky.

They don't have to look hard as the inspiration is right on their door

step.

Alphabet Inc.

is a proven success.

Facebook must recognize what it is, how to present itself to the public

and win back ultimate trust of investors and public users.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

April 17, 2017 | CIA Director Takes Aim at Wikileaks, Assange and

Publications of Leaked/Secret Information

In a recent spiel by the CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, at the Center for

Strategic and International Studies he spoke out about what he believes

are unfair injustices of sections of the publishing industry, followed up

by making several references that the Trump Administration will be

seeking to reform the media industry.

Media reform is not the problem, nor is it the simple fact that Pompeo

spoke out about his narrow-minded view of a supposed injustice.

Under the very free speech that Freedom Publishers Union advocates and

supports he is perfectly entitled to do so.

However, there are many aspects of his comments which must be scrutinized

in closer detail.

Specifically, Freedom Publishers Union is concerned of the direction of

which Pompeo's complaints were directed.

He complains of the publishing actions of Wikileaks and its Editor,

Julian Assange.

But he didn't stop there.

He continued on his rant to declare the apparent injustice and illegal

actions of leakers which provide media organizations with their caches of

information, data and/or documentation.

He describes the modern independent media trend as a "celebration of

entities like Wikileaks" and what he describes as being "both perplexing

and deeply troubling".

We disagree.

Freedom Publishers Union must make it very clear that we do not dispute

that much of the material that media organizations, including leak

websites such as Wikileaks, obtains probably is illegal.

However, there is a fine line, which remains quite gray and blurred,

which constitutes as news that is in the public interest and should be

released regardless of how it was obtained or whether the source obtains

the information by legal or illegal means.

When it comes to media, sure, we must all act accordingly and within the

boundaries of the law.

Yet we must also uphold our publishing responsibilities by sharing the

information that we obtain and provided to us, by our sources.

We point out that this extends rights across the media industry as a

whole and is not limited to Freedom Publishers Union, Wikileaks or any

other media organization.

Not at all.

It's a constantly growing industry, thanks to digital publication tools

readily available for anyone to utilize.

Why Pompeo's comments remain so tight in scope and focuses on Wikileaks,

remains a mystery.

Additionally, it concerns us that his comments also put Edward Snowden

and Chelsea Manning in his cross-hairs.

Snowden resides in Russia on temporary visa and Manning is still detained

in a military prison, awaiting her early release in coming months.

But this didn't stop Pompeo by using them as an example by claiming their

actions are carried out to "seek to use that information to make a name

for themselves".

A notion that we absolutely dispute.

And he claims, "As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about

the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national

security".

These are reckless comments coming from the Director of the CIA, as to

date no evidence has been presented to make the case that any such

publications by Wikileaks has ever put any persons or individuals at risk

of harm.

Disclosures released by Snowden have been dribble fed to small selections

of media organizations.

Although he has never stated why his disclosures are dribble fed at such

slow pace, Freedom Publishers Union can only conclude that this is done

to minimize political fallout and to minimize risk to persons associated

with such disclosures and the usually scathing details that he provides

through the source information.

Despite Pompeo claiming that Manning was directed by Assange to collect

the information that she was able to obtain, we must say that this is

absolutely false and is outright stupid to make this claim.

And it's obvious that Pompeo is making this a definitive claim, rather

than an accusation.

It is well known that Chelsea Manning acted alone, disturbed by the

activities she witnessed by the US Military in Iraq and Afghanistan which

prompted her to collect and forward the data onto Wikileaks.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that Assange had limited contact

with Manning during the transmission of data to Wikileaks, but it

certainly can not be claimed that Manning was under the direction or

orders of Assange.

Are the Director's comments truly aimed directly towards Julian Assange

and Wikileaks, rather than the media industry as a whole? We believe yes.

Careful analysis of the Pompeo's speech makes this an obvious point.

Are the frustrations of the political stalemate which sees Assange still

detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London beginning to reach boiling

point and the Trump Administration is seeking a quick resolution? This is

very possible.

Is this boiling point finally going to see the US legal system act on its

outstanding Grand Jury against Wikileaks and Assange? While the US

Government continue to shroud the Grand Jury in secrecy and deny its

existence, we believe this is still unlikely in the short-term, unless

more evidence of actual illegal activity becomes available.

In a Statement released by Julian Assange, he believes that the CIA

Director should have focused on more important and current issues of

international politics surrounding China and North Korea.

Interestingly, Assange failed to mention the outstanding US tensions

present with Russia.

This will be sure to add fuel to the fire of continued accusations that

Assange continues to speak out and work for the interests of Russia.

Freedom Publishers Union does not support this view and believes it is

completely unjustified.

But Assange could have put a stop to these unjustified accusations, by at

least mentioning Russia as a topic of concern in the same context he does

of China and North Korea - which we believe are justified by mention.

Assange concluded his response Statement very well, "Pompeo's speech

attempting to stifle speech only serves to underscore why Wikileaks'

publications are necessary.

Wikileaks will continue to publish true, newsworthy information that

contributes to the public debate".

Freedom Publishers Union echoes this statement and strives to always

follow the same publication path and standards, enhancing the free press

to a wider audience through publication of well researched and fact-based

information.

We hope that all independent media organizations follow the same path and

strive to do the same.

Freedom Publishers Union actually goes one step further and releases our

Editorials and original material under a combination of Creative Commons

and Konomark, which guarantees a careful and responsible balance of the

associated freedoms of sharing of this information and helps to ensure it

can not be removed or censored.

Pompeo continued to justify the points he makes in his tirade by quoting

hand-picked comments from The Intercept, which criticized Wikileaks for

"stretching the facts" and documents published were "not worth the

concern Wikileaks generated by its public comments".

Freedom Publishers Union does not work directly with Wikileaks or The

Intercept.

However, their work is part of our information gathering and Editorial

processing, often providing vital research material that can not be found

in mainstream media coverage of certain stories.

But we have also previously made direct judgment onboth Wikileaks and The

Intercept.

We have also directly criticized Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald (and

Edward Snowden), on various issues in the past.

The point is; even if a working relationship is in place, official or

unofficial, we still retain our right to openly criticize and put

pressure on each other where we feel there is justification for

criticism.

It's the democracy embedded in open and free media and it's this

criticism which keeps the free press healthy and goes to ensure accuracy

of information and helps to present non-bias, factual presentation of

information.

Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept sums it up well, "Trump's CIA Director

stood up in public and explicitly threatened to target free speech rights

and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to find even a single US

mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets

Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike - much the way that

many are willing to overlook or even sanction free speech repression if

the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular".

Greenwald goes on to quote Pompeo further, "A little less Constitutional

law and a lot more of a philosophical understanding.

Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges.

He is not a US citizen.

What I was speaking to is an understanding that these are not reporters

doing good work to try to keep the American Government on us.

These are actively recruiting agents to steal American secrets with the

sole intent of destroying the American way of life.

That is fundamentally different than a First Amendment activity as I

understand them.

This is what I was getting to.

We have had administrations before that have been too squeamish about

going after these people, after some concept of this right to publish.

Nobody has the right to actively engage in the theft of secrets from

American without the intent to do harm to it".

Greenwald responds by stating, "Given how menacing and extreme this

statement is, it is remarkable - and genuinely frightening - that it

received so little notice, let alone condemnation, from the US press

corps".

Freedom Publishers Union can not comment in legal terms, but Glenn

Greenwald from The Intercept claims that "the notion that Wikileaks has

no free press rights [under the US Constitution] because Assange is a

foreigner is both wrong and dangerous".

We can however express our own frustration among independent media

circles, when mainstream media fails to pick up on these issues or

outright ignores to cover them.

We believe there are greater implications to press freedom if the US were

to criminalize publication of classified information.

it is common practice among the free press, including mainstream US

media, to publish classified documents and information which is deemed in

the public interest by that media organization.

Furthermore, legally charging and prosecuting Wikileaks and its staff

members for publishing secret documents and information are a huge threat

to press freedom and also bring into question the purpose of the

purported protections and legal standing of the US Constitution.

This whole issue of drawing the line with First Amendment protections is

a huge can of worms.

Essentially, the official secrets protections are nothing more than a

Government Non-Disclosure Agreement which means that before you are

allowed to see the secrets, you agree to be prosecuted if you reveal the

secrets, without permission.

Let's be honest - you're never going to get permission to release

information which details secret government operations or mass-

surveillance programs.

Freedom Publishers Union points out that we must recognize illegal

activity when we see it.

We wouldn't even blink if Microsoft launched criminal proceedings against

someone who stole and published the source code to its Windows operating

system.

Or if someone published the complete text of J.K.

Rowling's next Harry Potter novel.

The person committing the theft is certainly guilty of a criminal act.

But that's where the free press has an ethical responsibility and needs

to make a decision - to publish if they deem it to be in interest of the

public or to refrain because it was sourced illegally.

Upon receiving the Iraq and Afghanistan material, Assange made an ethical

decision as Editor of Wikileaks, to publish the material.

Albeit, initially in redacted form.

Yet nobody must ignore that Chelsea Manning committed a criminal action

in stealing the information.

Justified or not, there is a fundamental breach of law involved.

Wikileaks obtained the documents.

Manning was caught and imprisoned.

That much is fact.

Where this gets complicated is what happens at the next level, after the

initial theft, the act of publication is essentially removed from the

theft.

If Glenn Greenwald publishes the verbatim text of aforementioned

hypothetical Harry Potter novel, knowing that it is the unpublished book,

he would also be committing a crime as an accessory to theft.

In effect, the second publisher becomes a fence of stolen property.

Even if criminal actions are discovered on the part of J.K.

Rowling, the theft and fence are still guilty of a crime.

Although charges would likely be dropped if the revelation of the other

crime was sufficiently heinous.

Under the same theory, the theft and publication of secret documents are

also crimes.

Just against a different victim.

The prosecution of the theft and publication of secrets is dealt with the

same as a Harry Potter theft.

If there is the revelation of criminal activity in the stolen material,

it is likely that the theft charges would be dropped - at least against

the journalist(s) that publish it.

A slightly different perspective, interestingly, the US Government could

probably make a case for copyright infringement stick.

Even if there is question about whether the publication of the stolen

documents are justified by revealing a more criminal act.

And that is if they copyrighted the secret documents in the first place.

Admittedly, this is taking a slightly different view on the issue.

But it is interesting nevertheless.

Freedom Publishers Union outright condemns the CIA Director, Michael

Pompeo, in taking a blatant stance to violate First Amendment guarantees.

But it must be acknowledged that somewhere in the mess of leaking and/or

stealing classified secret information and documents, there is a point

where a real criminal action occurred.

Where that happened and who bears responsibility for it is what legal

scholars will be debating for years to come.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

March 21, 2017 | Are We Forgetting About the CIA's Lack of Morals and

Ethics?

The Julian Assange and Wikileaks bashing has proceeded once again.

When the notorious publishing organization released the first dump as

part of the Vault 7 cache, the same old arguments were launched and

carried on for the days that proceeded.

These arguments are quite unjustified.

Assange, through Wikileaks, is constantly finding himself under scrutiny

for the controversial releases and files dumps of the content that the

publishing organization gets it hands on, through anonymous user

submission.

The work and data dumps of Wikileaks shouldn't be about Assange.

Nor should it be about Wikileaks.

Yet for some abhorrent reason, we constantly find mainstream media

outlets questioning the journalistic responsibility and integrity of

Assange and Wikileaks.

Again, Freedom Publishers Union reminds these select media groups that it

is not about Assange and it is not about Wikileaks.

The real focus of the story should be exactly what the data dump presents

- The CIA operating an internal hacking network and of which its

activities should be questioned for morals and ethics against the spy

agency's mandate.

The CIA should be put to scrutiny.

That is what should be the focus of the story.

It is precisely what Assange makes clear in his Press Statement which

accompanied this release.

The CIA has a mandate.

They have regulations and the agency must (and should) operate within the

boundaries of its mandate.

If it operates outside of its limitations, then it should be put in the

public spotlight and put on the stage of public debate.

Whether this is by means of internal whistleblowing and leaked data -

it's irrelevant.

The public debate on the actions of the CIA must ensue.

It will not come as a major shock to anyone to find out the CIA regularly

dabbles outside of its mandate.

Due to the serious nature of the agency's activities and operations that

it is tasked for, there should remain a certain amount of flexibility

within its operating activities.

It's also well known that the NSA operates mass-surveillance and spying

programs.

We have all put eye ball to the documents that prove these programs exist

through the very public discourse and extensive media coverage that

followed the initial release of the Snowden leaked documents from the NSA

and its intelligence sub-contractors.

Now we've learned through the most recent release from Wikileaks, the CIA

is also carrying out spying programs of its own, somewhat in competition

with its fellow spy agency, the NSA.

One thing is so obvious that you might as well head to the CIA

Headquarters and paint it on the front door - The agency has no morals

and no ethics.

It is that obvious.

One could make the argument that the CIA et al are spy agencies tasked

with spying.

It's what they do.

One could back up that argument with another, by stating that based on

those activities the agencies do not have to adhere to morals and ethics.

Freedom Publishers Union disagree.

The CIA, NSA and all government operated intelligence departments should

operate with a certain level of understanding of their moral and ethical

obligations.

Morals and ethics exist and should be followed.

The obvious absence of them is what should be reported.

These agencies are essentially behaving at free will, creating the tools

to initiate as much discomfort and annoyance they feel satisfies their

incredible need for knowledge and power over citizens and their civil

rights.

Please don't bring out the old 'we only perform these operations on

targets' card.

That card has failed every other time and it will continue to fail.

Much the same as the argument that everything is done to ensure 'national

security' from 'terrorists' and the other 'bad guys'.

Come on, please.

If these agencies think we sit idle and actually take notice of their

pathetic justifications for their over-use and overreach of their

surveillance and spy powers, then these agencies will continue to be

forced into the public spotlight by willing whistleblowers and brave

publishers such as Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

March 21, 2017 | Spying May Be Unethical But it Must be Done, Within

Legal Boundaries of the Law

The morality of spying.

This is not a new issue.

For many millennium, spying has been classified as an immoral operation.

Indeed, spies have been subjected to torture and ignominious death since

the Chinese and Egyptians ruled civilization because of their moral

turpitude.

In parallel with this, however, the amount of spying and its scope

certainly has never decreased.

So obviously there is a double standard in the way governments and rulers

see the utility of espionage vs morality.

Even the world's citizens see spying with two views.

We hail the men and women that worked in the underground against Germany

in World War II; stealing information and sending it on to the Allies for

action.

Indeed; the defeat of the German U-boats was only possible after

espionage was able to break the German (and Japanese) military codes.

Domestically, Americans have for decades known that the FBI uses

espionage to counter criminals, from wire-tapping to intercepting

messages and ciphers.

This has proven to have prevented many acts of crime and violence.

Our agencies - and indeed, the rest of the "Five Eyes" - do adhere to

standards of morality and legality.

And secrecy.

For nearly every person in America or elsewhere in the "Eyes", this has

been one of the foundations of our freedom.

We know that our privacy is being protected, because we aren't all being

arrested for committing the 'crimes that everyone in America commits'.

It is not against the law to bash our government; it isn't illegal to

trash talk our leaders; hell, it's not even illegal to discuss revolution

in public! If we were being spied upon, America would be a lot more like

Turkey or Egypt.

This must be remembered.

We have a tolerance for the morality of spying, so long as we feel that

it isn't being used on us.

I'm not going to discuss the way Americans and the rest of the world were

duped into questioning individual privacy.

But recognize that we, as citizens, look upon our privacy through a many-

faceted glass, causing us to reflect on freedom and privacy in many

different and often diametrically opposed ways.

On Wikileaks and their information; the publishing organization performs

a service that is critical to the functioning of freedom in the abstract

and practical sense.

It provides information about activities that are being done that may or

may not meet with our intellectual and moral approval.

Some of these actions may truly be illegal as well as immoral.

It is important for these actions to be revealed and corrected in order

to ensure that our freedom is based on the 'Rule of Law', both in its

scope and in the limits that we, as a civil society, must have.

However, we also need to look at Wikileaks with the same caution that we

use on any other media source.

While the information Wikileaks releases is usually verified by the same

agencies that stand accused of the actions in question, the information

does come from anonymous sources with little provable veracity - at least

until someone at NSA 'fesses up that 'it's true'.

Even then, 'first impressions' authenticity can still be put to question.

One of the problems with getting this information is that it is often

impossible to verify it before it is released.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the perpetrators usually admit to

the act and corrections are made.

However, over time it becomes more and more difficult for Wikileaks to

not be duped by cleverly created 'propaganda dumps'.

The release of the "DNC emails" during the election is an example of

something that - in and of itself - was not a really surprising or

shocking revelation for anyone that has worked in politics.

However, the cachet of being release by Wikileaks, a source we trust for

revealing hidden facts and secret stuff - and the fact that we were in a

contentious elections - caused the story to carry far more weight than

the facts it contained inside the documents.

It also can not be ignored that the DNC emails publication revealed a

bias in the Editorial staff of Wikileaks, that had been underplayed in

previous releases - A bias that has somewhat undermined the credibility

of the organization.

All of our intelligence agencies and all of our other Government

departments need to be held up and inspected on a regular basis through

genuine auditing and oversight.

It is far too easy to commit criminal acts where you're behind the line

of the law instead of in front.

But at the same time, everyone needs to put this information into a true

perspective, rather than simply take the spin a certain news organization

put on it.

As an example, the 'revelation' of the Samsung TV recording [spying]

capability - It is well known and documented elsewhere that nearly every

connected device in a home [Internet of Things (IoT)] can be hacked to

perform some form of spying or disruption.

Learning that a spy agency has that in its closet is completely obvious,

really.

And we must understand this isn't the first time this has happened.

Back in 2014 the Chinese company, Huawei, was banned from selling their

excellent switches in some countries because the CIA discovered that they

had malware baked in by the Chinese government.

No outcries from that!

It isn't government surveillance that I am concerned about.

It's the basis of the government itself.

Both the US and Australia are governed under a "Constitution" that

establishes the "Rule of Law" and how it is applied and enforced.

The Rule of Law ensures that when freedom or rights are violated, it is

redressed with the full force of the government of the nation.

Thus, if someone were to be harmed by unwarranted surveillance and

invasion of a guaranteed right, the agency committing the harm would be

fully liable under law.

Even if there is no known harm, once the violation is discovered, legal

proceedings to prevent future violation are undertaken.

You spy without legal permission, you and your agency are punished.

It has worked in the case of the Snowden revelations; it will continue to

work as long as the American Constitution is held supreme, as it must.

The bottom line is how intrusive the surveillance is.

Scanning phone records meta-data doesn't violate privacy in nearly all

cases.

If I call someone in country X, yes, that record will be scanned.

But there isn't anything actionable about it, so nothing happens.

It is, literally, the case of 'a tree falling in the woods'.

On the other hand, if that record triggers an investigation into me and

my actions, then, unless I've violated a law or I'm under suspicion of

violating a law, any result of that investigation constitutes a violation

of my rights under Constitutional law.

And I'd have a prima facia case in court.

Agencies like the CIA, NSA, GCHQ, ASIO and other members of the "Five

Eyes" DO NEED TO BE AUDITED TO PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

But the line must be drawn at when the agency actually breaks a law, not

merely that their action can potentially break a law.

Scanning meta-data is legal, so long as the results remain anonymous.

Listening to my conversation is illegal without a specific warrant - and

a FISA court warrant is still completely legal.

And adding software to a device to perform surveillance may be legal so

long as it doesn't immediately violate my Constitutional rights.

Especially if that software is actually in place for another purpose and

isn't specifically introduced for surveillance - like the inadvertent

ability to enable a web-cam already present in existing software.

Solong as a warrant is obtained to use it for surveillance purposes, it's

legal.

On the other hand, if the 'bug' is intentionally introduced, then a FISA

warrant better be in hand because that action borders on illegal - and

would be if it is used.

At Freedom Publishers Union we must stress that we are not advocating for

enabling a "Big Brother" state; far from it.

But we all need to understand the need for some of these techniques and

technologies: foreknowledge is forewarned.

There are times where the "Ends Justify the Means.

But in all cases, the agencies must work within the limits of their

charter and the Constitution and be held to it.

Even if sometimes the permission is retroactive.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

March 1, 2017 | Is Facebook Killing Snapchat One App at a Time?

In its early beginnings, Snapchat was a unique kind of app.

I guess you could say it was 'revolutionary', although we do despise

using that term which has become so synonymous when used in relation to

Apple.

At the time Snapchat was developed, it took some time to find its feet

for mainstream adoption.

However, it had the advantage that there was nothing comparable.

The giants of social media, Facebook and Twitter, were still observers to

what kind of threat Snapchat could possibly pose to their market share

dominance.

It was not until late 2012 heading into 2013 that Snapchat began to

really gain traction and a 'following'.

Then in the years that followed right up until present, Snapchat

(deservedly) forged its way into the category of mainstream apps and that

friendly little yellow Snap icon would be found on many smartphones,

sitting next to the icons of Facebook and Twitter that you now find on

most people's smartphones.

Facebook is long considered the behemoth of social media, closely

followed by Twitter.

Google+ is worthy of a mention with its various attempts at breaking into

the sector.

But let's be realistic - Google+ has failed to make any significant

impact on the user base of Facebook and Twitter.

But we're certainly not stating that Google+ is a bad service.

Because it is not.

It's important to understand that Facebook and Twitter both have

different market focus and are constantly evolving to adapt to consumer

demand for new services.

While Twitter was a bit more complacent and didn't feel the same level of

market threat from Snapchat, Facebook was feeling the heat or perhaps

could see the potential of Snapchat if its development path was

drastically overhauled.

It was late 2013 when the Wall Street Journal reported that Snapchat had

turned down an acquisition offer from Facebook, of US $3 billion.

Reports from various news agencies began to fluctuate the final offer

figure and we witnessed reports of Facebook offering amounts between $1

billion to $3.5 billion.

Despite the unconfirmed final figure of Facebook's offer, it proved what

many analysts were thinking - Facebook was feeling threatened.

Fast forward to late 2016 to right now and take a look at the feature set

that Facebook has launched across the company's portfolio.

FB Messenger, Instagram and the most recent update to WhatsApp have all

had features included which blatantly copy the features and functions of

Snapchat.

Carbon copy!

This much can not be denied.

It has been a major kick in the guts for Snapchat and despite the company

still increasing its user base (statistics from 2016 report on average

150-160 million daily users) questions must be asked about how much

longer the company can keep increasing its user base under the current

software's design and feature set which on its current development path,

seems limited in scope.

Snapchat is limited in functionality.

Its core functions remain the base of the product and everything is kind

of built around this core.

This is evident by its user interface and navigation gestures.

Snapchat has been criticized many times for its complicated navigation

and lack of instructions of how to use it, for new users.

Admittedly, it can be a little strange to navigate at times as it departs

from what most people would consider normal navigation and gestures.

It is sometimes much too difficult to discover how to perform the

simplest of tasks and is an issue that the development team are yet to

figure out how to overcome or improve.

Facebook is full steam ahead with its all-out assault on Snapchat.

But it's not just the feature copying that Facebook is rolling out across

its software, it's the tweaks it adds to these features which makes it

work.

Sometimes, we find that you can achieve the same (often much better)

results using these 'Snapchat-like' or 'Story' implementations in FB

Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp than what would otherwise prove very

cumbersome and slow using Snapchat.

Keeping all of the above in mind, combined with the market power of

Facebook, its ability to make life difficult for its rivals and powerful

access to developer resources, you can't help but wonder how much longer

Snapchat can resist the competition in this relatively niche arena of

social media.

When you have the world's most powerful social media company attacking

your product, software and features and rolling it out across their

entire software portfolio - it's in your face and can't be ignored.

If you're working at Snapchat you have to begin to wonder whether your

employer has a long-term future in Silicon Valley or whether the white

flags will soon be raised.

We don't know.

Where Snapchat has felt stale, Facebook has felt innovative.

Snapchat developers need to seriously innovate their product and find new

ways to stay relevant.

The ever changing trends of social media habits and consumer loyalty will

ultimately decide the future of whether Snapchat maintains its relevance

in an ever increasingly challenging industry that is social media.

From what we are seeing, there are dark clouds gathering on the horizon.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

February 12, 2017 | Time to Dump Insecure Windows XP, For Secure Linux!

We are still shocked to hear stories of people running Microsoft Windows

XP as their operating system.

Support, security patches and all other updates for the operating system

ceased way back in 2014.

Since then, we've seen Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and the latest update which has

also categorically become Microsoft's flagship software, Windows 10.

If you have missed out on the many free upgrade offers that Microsoft

were throwing out for bait to boost your system to Windows 10, or you

simply have an older system that will not run Windows 10 as good as what

it runs Windows XP, then Tecseek Technology has the solution for you.

We recommend you install a very light version of Ubuntu Linux, called

Lubuntu.

It's a very lightweight version of the popular Ubuntu Linux operating

system.

Once installed, you will find it a nice simple replacement for your aging

Windows XP system.

That old clunky system will feel new once again.

Most software you use on a daily basis is already installed in Lubuntu,

leaving you very little to do post-install.

We still recommend you perform a simple update which does not take long

and then you will be running a brand new operating system which is

completely updated and secure, leaving Windows XP in the history books of

Microsoft.

We believe Windows XP was a very good operating system, which is why it

was one of the most popular of all Windows operating systems in the

company's history (at the time of writing).

But its time is up and we see absolutely no sense in continuing to

condone the use of or support users who are still running this outdated

and now very insecure software.

Continuing to run Windows XP through ignorance or laziness to upgrade is

the equivalent of running down the street with a terrorist flag hanging

on your shoulders and cops yelling, "Let's get him".

Yes, XP has become nothing more than a target for hackers looking for

easy prey.

If we still haven't convinced you to ditch Windows XP, we seriously urge

you to reconsider.

Before you go ahead and install Lubuntu as your Windows XP replacement,

please ensure that you backup all of your personal files and data onto an

external hard disk or other means of external storage.

When you backup all your data, double check you have everything off your

drive that you want saved, because the installation of Lubuntu will

completely wipe the entire drive.

Also, please ensure that you unplug the backup storage device from the

system before you install Lubuntu.

While technically you can leave it plugged in, we recommend you remove it

to avoid any drive conflicts or confusion when installing Lubuntu.

Once Lubuntu has been installed, you can then re-plug the external drive

back in and copy your personal files and any other data onto the new

Lubuntu system.

We hope we have convinced you to install Lubuntu operating system as a

replacement for your old Microsoft Windows XP system.

You can now plug in your external media that you backed up your Windows

personal files on and now copy them onto the new Lubuntu system.

Linux is very secure and very simple to use.

Lubuntu is the best choice for older systems as it is very lightweight on

resources and is very simple to use.

Even for beginners!

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

January 28, 2017 | Trump's Influence on Balance of Privacy and Law

There is growing fear spreading throughout digital societies that our

privacy is being eroded.

Fears continue to be sparked, largely due to the erratic and somewhat

unpredictable behavior of newly elected US President Donald Trump and his

Administration.

A common term that we are beginning to hear get thrown around the office

is, "There is no such thing as privacy".

This term has a disturbing amount of truth to it.

If we specifically refer to modern computerized technology, our privacy

as it existed pre-modern computers, is being leaked to the world at rapid

rate and on a daily basis.

If we disregard privacy, it is possible to have temporary secrecy.

But even that can and will disappear as soon as there is value in doing

so.

It doesn't matter who is in charge of making the rules, because we

already know that the rule of law doesn't apply when it comes to privacy

and secrecy.

If we make privacy a legal right, then covert surveillance will be

conducted without legal oversight anyway.

If we acknowledge that there actually is no privacy, then we will prepare

ourselves for the consequences of our actions being revealed when we take

them.

We can't deny the fact that President Trump will be no more abusive with

privacy than any other President and Congress would be.

Even with strong laws protecting privacy, if there is a compelling reason

to violate the law and obtain the data, it will be done regardless of

legal status or classification.

By making it easy to obtain warrants publicly to conduct privacy

invasions, at least we can ensure that there is some level of

transparency, which therefore opens the door for accountability.

We can't ignore the possibility of the worst case scenario: strong

privacy laws making it impossible for journalists and publishers to do

their investigations and press duties legally.

Anything that is considered private, confidential or secret is now a

crime to reveal under various laws that already exist.

Even if the information leads to more criminal actions, it would become

inadmissible evidence, as obtaining it would violate the right to privacy

in the first place.

If it is leaked illegally, even if the leaker is captured and convicted,

the damage is already done.

There can not be a guarantee to the 'Right to Privacy'.

It needs to be clearly defined what constitutes private and privileged

communications, and what does not.

We must unambiguously create laws that define these boundaries, strictly.

And we need to ensure that all privacy laws apply equally regardless of

the station in life or publicity of the person or organization involved.

The challenge comes with being aware of what the consequences of these

laws are with regard to journalistic integrity and the response to

illegal violations of privacy and secrecy.

We cannot condone the actions of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks on one hand

and then condemn government agencies for doing the same thing - with the

power of law and warrant on their side.

Both parties need to be held to the same standards and those legal

boundaries must be clear enough to prevent unwarranted snooping yet

porous enough to permit reasonable investigative actions by both

journalists and government agencies.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

January 25, 2017 | Increased access to Telecommunications (Interception

and Access) Data Retention Data/Metadata

Freedom Publishers Union would like to make a formal Submission in

response to the Access to telecommunications data in civil proceedings

matter.

We are firmly against any extension of access to data/metadata collected

from the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Data Retention

regime, to civil proceedings.

Freedom Publishers Union is against the regime which legally allowed for

surveillance to be implemented in Australia, on a mass scale in

comparison to the operations that were already being carried out by

intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

We do respect that Australia's democratic and Parliamentary process

allowed this Bill to pass, and we must respect it.

However, we believe that any extension of access of any information, data

and metadata collected through this program is completely unjustifed and

unnecessary.

This is backed by the Advisory Report, carried out by the Parliamentary

Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security - where it has clearly been

defned in the Report that it is not recommended that civil proceedings be

allowed access of the said data.

We echo this recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on

Intelligence and Security.

Freedom Publishers Union would like a better explanation of what any new

law will do.

We express concern and do not want any court to be able to do an

unnecessary 'NSA - style' data grab for civil proceedings.

To our understanding, no reason(s) has (or have) been outlined by the

Attorney General's website for any specifc scenario that could justify

any extension of access.

permit increased access would be used to pursue cases of copyright

infringement , which we must point out is not the reason this

surveillance Bill was established.

There are already copyright laws that allow for investigation into

possible copyright infringement.

We believe that current copyright laws are sufficient and provide enough

access to allow for investigations into copyright infringement.

Albeit we acknowledge these laws are very much outdated and advocate that

any amendment to these laws should remain separate.

Additionally, and in conclusion, we do want to preserve access to court

records as required, to permit appropriate appeals and legal research.

But we specify, this should remain completely separate to permitted

access of data/metadata from the Telecommunications (Interception and

Access) Data Retention regime.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

January 9, 2017 | NES Classic Hacked, Regenerated Interest in Retro

Gaming

We believe Nintendo may have underestimated the extent of its fans and

the potential of hackers and the lengths that they will go to, to get

what they want, when it released the NES Classic Edition console.

The small console is a modern adaption of the much loved console of the

1980's and which spawned a trend that continued on well into the 1990's

with the release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, or more

commonly referred to as SNES.

The NES Classic Edition has a limited selection of games pre-installed,

for the retro enjoyment of a great gaming era for Nintendo.

Although Nintendo fans seemed super happy with the release of the neat

little console, there was still a certain amount of discontent among

gaming circles that it was locked down by not allowing users to modify

the system to play custom ROMS and adding more functionality to this

charming little beast of a box.

ROMS remain illegal in most countries, yet peculiarly remain really

popular among retro gamers and are enjoyed by many by using software

emulators.

Just this week, news broke out that the NES Classic Edition had been

hacked and users were able to play custom ROMS that are uploaded to the

device by USB.

As we go to press, the news is spreading, technical information and

instructions are being thrown around like rapid fire.

Equally, information is changing in detail at the same rapid pace as more

bugs are posted and improvements being applied.

Based on the information Tecseek Technology has read, the process is

quite complicated.

And unless you're technically advanced and skilled in this area, we

advise that you leave this one alone.

Or at least until the process becomes more streamlined and hacking

methods simplified.

From our understanding, the process involves booting the Linux-based

operating system that powers the console into a special mode known as FEL

mode.

It then requires you to inject ROM files into the device and make certain

configuration changes for authentication.

Warning are clear - there is a very real possibility of bricking the

device if the process is not performed correctly.

If you're not feeling confident, then we again strongly suggest that you

avoid attempting it.

You have been warned!

Nintendo has always had a loyal following.

This is proven throughout the history of the company.

The company has been written off many times by gaming industry analysts.

Yet somehow, Nintendo seems to reinvent itself time and time again,

whilst making significant dents in the gaming industry in the process.

Its loyal following is also backed up by the many fan created and

maintained websites and the myriad of software emulators available on all

computing platforms.

Many of these emulators are capable of playing the original games

flawlessly, on modern computer hardware and modern gaming controllers

which can have their keys mapped accordingly through the emulator.

If tried and tested is what you like, then we recommend checking out one

of the popular emulators.

If you want to get your hands dirty, then by all means, go ahead and try

hacking the NES Classic Edition.

But you must consider the risks of bricking the device and making it

unusable.

There's also the legal question - you most likely will be breaking the

law.

As a publishing organization, we can't condone illegal activity.

However, we advise that you make your own judgment of what is illegal and

what is ethically acceptable and who will really be at harm by your

actions.

One thing remains certain - interest in retro gaming remains strong and

interest in Nintendo never ceases to surprise us.

Even in the era of gaming of the 1980's and 90's that you thought was

long dead, has been revived once again.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

December 17, 2016 | Australian Federal Court Orders Block of The Pirate

Bay and Others

Freedom Publishers Union learned on December 15, 2016, the Australian

Federal Court handed down its judgment on the blocking of BitTorrent

website The Pirate Bay, along with several other websites - of which some

are now defunct.

Primarily, the target of the case was demonstratively The Pirate Bay, as

the Federal Court has ordered that the website must be blocked at the

ISP-level, by whatever means the ISP deems necessary to the acceptance

and standards accepted by rights-holders - in this case primarily led by

Foxtel and Village Roadshow.

Freedom Publishers Union holds a very strong view on censorship matters

and our position on this matter has never changed.

We support freedom of information and any technology that allows for

freedom of the flow of information.

This includes BitTorrent software and websites that index and provide

torrent and magnet information.

This is very well known.

If proper copyright reform was to be pursued, with the intention of the

addition of fair-use clauses and appropriate provisions, it would have a

much greater effect on reducing piracy levels than simple attempts of

website/domain blocking.

ie.

Censorship.

We believe the existence of The Pirate Bay and other websites that permit

for the freedom and dissemination of digital information on a mass scale

should be acknowledged for their technical expertise, abilities and

implementation and the possibilities that they enable by allowing for the

very freedom of information, distribution and dissemination that we refer

to.

We believe that they should never be used as a pawn for fighting for

which continue to demonstrate their absolute lack of understanding of the

larger issues.

This is not new, as has been done in the past many times and continues

with this latest case and judgment which has resulted in another country

(Australia) paving the way for blocking measures to be implemented.

We also believe that this is the very first step towards greater

implementation of censorship of Australian internet.

We will continue to fight for and advocate for freedom of information and

will always oppose against censorship and attacks against net neutrality.

Freedom Publishers Union will oppose the judgment to the fullest extent

and advocate that all blocking measures be reversed and seriously

reviewed so a better solution can be established with the pursuit and

addition of copyright reform.

Additionally, Freedom Publishers Union will continue to distribute

software that will bypass such blockages and offer a level of security

and anonymity, through digital dissemination and distribution of Tor

Browser packages and its source code.

We will also continue to operate our own The Pirate Bay sub-domain which

redirects to the official domain name.

If this results in blocked pages being displayed, as it will be dependent

on the blocking techniques implemented by the ISPs in Australia, then we

will guide our website users to information that will instruct them to

download and install Tor Browser, so that the intended website(s) and

page(s) can then be accessed - securely and with anonymity.

Heading into 2017, we will strive to continue to oppose governments,

their associated agencies and departments that implement any kind of

censorship on Australian users, as we will proceed to do the same in any

country implementing censorship on its internet users.

Finally, and in conclusion, we will continue to push for copyright reform

and the addition of fair use clauses and provisions.

piracy, not censorship.

Information should be free.

That is what Freedom Publishers Union will continue to fight for.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

December 5, 2016 | Fedora 25 Released - Look Down and Keep Walking

The past few months have seen the latest updates to the big three

mainstream Linux distributions of Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and now Fedora 25.

This will be the last Linux distribution that we will be taking a look at

for 2016.

But Tecseek Technology plans to check out many more as part of our

publications for 2017.

Briefly looking ahead into next year we will be attempting to keep up

with all the mainstream Linux releases, as well as taking a look at some

of the more not so mainstream and obscure releases that probably don't

really get the attention that they deserve.

There is some incredible Linux development work going on out there in the

wild, much of it goes unnoticed.

We feel more recognition needs to be given to the third-party and

sometimes 'better' options that are available.

But bringing us back to the present, let's take a look at what we have

right in front of us right now - Fedora 25 or simply referred to as F25.

We have taken a look at the default GNOME release and the XFCE release.

Both of which are technically the same, yet just running a different

desktop environment.

As is always the case with Fedora, we see some of the most recent

software and packages included.

Not quite as bleeding edge as Fedora's Rawhide release, but still pretty

on the edge regardless.

Fedora 25 follows on this tradition with a Linux kernel 4.8.6 on a fresh

installation.

Desktop environments we tested were GNOME 3.22.1 and XFCE 4.12.

GNOME was just the usual offering provided by Fedora, nothing to really

market that differs from any other release.

We found GNOME performance slightly disappointing.

There was obvious lag and in desktop use the responsiveness was just not

up to par with the GNOME desktop components that make up OpenSUSE 42.2

Leap.

We tried XFCE to find that performance improved a lot.

This much should be obvious though, as it is a much lighter desktop

environment than its GNOME counter-part.

We are going to sidetrack for a second and put it out there that we are

finding XFCE to be a little boring.

There's no innovation and development versions have stagnated.

We understand it aims to provide a fast flexible setup, yet the same can

be said from the GNOME 2 fork, now known as MATE.

Despite MATE aiming to remain a lightweight alternative the developers

have still managed to keep its desktop innovative and constantly updated.

It's sad to see XFCE sitting out in the cold, freezing a slow death.

We don't mean to sound so negative, as it's not all bad news as the

project is not dead.

But we would like to see some real attention and innovation get put into

this once reputable package in the very near future.

Otherwise, we feel its uptake will remain limited and only decrease over

time and becoming a desktop that will be used by only a very niche bunch

of users.

All of this is no reflection on F25, however we feel that considering we

did test the XFCE version of F25, it is worth mentioning to those of you

that might consider following our test path.

Your desktop will remainpretty ordinary and looking a little dated, to

say the least.

However, you have that edge of speed to boast about.

That's something.

Installation runs just fine.

Nothing has really changed from previous version of Anaconda and

installation was completed quite quickly.

We still maintain that Fedora remains one of the most consistently fast

full Linux distributions to install, that we regularly test anyway.

Post-installation, we were greeted with the usual Fedora screen that we

were kind of expecting.

Nothing fancy, just a desktop waiting for the user to do something.

Unfortunately, things went downhill for us from this point.

We immediately updated both F25 test systems using DNF at the terminal

console level.

Download of the updates proceeded just fine and the packages seemed to

install without any indicative issues.

Everything seemed to go as planned and routine, really.

Then when we attempted to reboot into the updated Linux kernel 4.8.10, we

were greeted with a no-boot black screen.

Nothing.

Our system was dead.

Initially, we thought it might be the updated kernel and thought

something had gone awry during its update.

So we attempted to boot back into the original 4.8.6 kernel which we knew

worked prior to our update.

Sadly, we entered the same no-boot black screen.

This is alarming and equally alarming when the recovery console can not

be reached either.

That system was absolutely useless and inaccessible in its current state.

We proceeded to try the same process on our F25 system running XFCE.

We updated our fresh install using DNF and rebooted into the new kernel.

Success.

The XFCE system had no problems and would successfully boot into either

kernel.

Out of pure determination and part-effort to discover where the root

cause of the problem was, we proceeded to setup a new GNOME system from

scratch.

We went through the entire procedure again then updated the system using

DNF.

Upon reboot into the updated kernel, we were able to replicate the same

no-boot black screen.

Nothing had changed.

It confirms that our issues were not one off instances, can easily be

replicated and proves that there is an update in there somewhere which is

affecting all installed kernels, making them unbootable and spreading

across the entire system.

This is serious and should not go ignored.

To throw a third scenario into the mix, we upgraded an existing and fully

updated and functioning Fedora 24 system.

The upgrade was simple and fast.

It was all too easy.

So easy that we don't really have anything more to say about it.

All settings and configurations of the pre-existing user accounts was

maintained and all packages were updated to the latest 25 core.

Extra points for the effort put into making system upgrades so easy

between build versions.

F25 is a pretty disappointing release with equally disappointing

performance.

Fedora loyalists will most likely find themselves upgrading out of simple

routine and eventual requirement to do so.

However, if you're looking for something fresh for a new system, then we

recommend you take a look at OpenSUSE 42.2 Leap instead.

OpenSUSE is much more stable and much more predictable.

Installing and running F25 feels like walking a Linux tightrope with no

safety net.

We found ourselves literally holding our breath way too many times, just

hoping that what we were doing would work.

If it did work, could it be done a second time with the same result?

Sadly, we were let down on too many occasions and in a big way.

We are just not confident enough to be recommending this release to

anyone as there is just much better options available without the stress

you will most likely endure with F25.

We were really impressed with F23 and 24.

But absolutely not impressed with F25.

It resembles that awkward experience of approaching someone you know but

don't like in the shopping mall, when you see them you deliberately look

the other way and pretend you never seen them at all.

When you see Fedora 25 coming your way, best to look the other way and

keep walking.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

November 30, 2016 | UK Now Has Legalized Dragnet Mass-Surveillance.

Carry On, Nothing to See Here.

Soon, the Investigatory Powers Bill will become law in the United

Kingdom.

The Bill is also commonly referred to as the "Snoopers Charter" or simply

the "IP Bill", and has passed both Houses in the UK Parliament.

Sadly, there was very little attention given to its finer details, nor

was it really put under the required scrutiny.

And, it seems there was very little interest in any amendments being put

forth which put any kind of restraint on the powers that the Bill

enables.

The only effective amendment was protective measures that allow for

Parliamentarians and specific Government officials to be excluded from

exposure to the Bill's Provisions.

Under the provisions of the IP Bill, it allows for lawful hacking by

police, security and intelligence services which can include computer

networks, mobile devices and servers.

Methods can include interference using existing vulnerabilities known, in

software to gain access, to extract data or monitor the device and

input/output data.

The only requirement for these tasks to be carried out and be deemed

legal, is for a warrant to be obtained.

At the time of going to press, It remains unclear of the broader terms

surrounding 'bulk hacking', with the Provision allowing for data

gathering from a large number of devices in a specific location.

This can include foreign regions suspected of terrorism activity.

Concerns are present, that data of untargeted and unknowing civilians

will be caught up in this mass-surveillance Clause, which uses terms much

too broad and very non-specific and allowing for extended surveillance

techniques to be carried out by UK law enforcement and intelligence

officials.

This is effectively dragnet surveillance.

Some measures are being taken to include steps are implemented to oversee

activities and to attend to any problems that shall arise.

This will be handled by an Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) and

Judicial Commissioners, which will be appointed by the Prime Minister of

the day, currently Theresa May.

The IPC will audit legislation compliance of hacking and surveillance

operations and carry out investigations into operations mismanagement, if

required.

Reporting and recommendations determined by the IPC are to be made

public.

Mandatory data retention of 12 months is to be maintained, with

requirement for data to be stored which includes web browsing history and

connections.

This data will be accessible to police, law enforcement and intelligence

agencies.

Combined, making these some of the most invasive data retention measures

in the democratic world.

Concerns over the precision and amount of data being required to be

stored is mounting and the fact can't be ignored of the immense pressure

which gets applied on internet service providers (ISPs).

This has been witnessed first-hand by financial constraints and pressure

on limited resources with ISPs in Australia - a country which has similar

provisions for data retention requirements, albeit meta-data only being

retained.

Under the IP Bill, data must include websites visited, servers accessed,

day, date, time, where it was accessed from and using what device on what

network.

In short, the Investigatory Powers Bill has just legalized dragnet mass-

surveillance in the UK.

Again, warrants must be obtained, but we suspect this will be much too

easy, enabling access of private data.

Privacy has been eroded to almost nothing, with the upcoming enactment of

the Snoopers Charter.

Civil liberties that lead to the right to privacy, has been eaten into,

in large bites.

Freedom Publishers Union urges citizens to play on the side of caution.

More thought and consideration of steps to implement encryption to

enhance ones privacy must now become priority.

Also, we need to make it difficult as possible for authorities to collect

the data in the first place.

This can be achieved by using tools which aim to implement anonymous

internet access, by using Tor Browser which connects to the encrypted

internet network of Tor, also referred to as "The Onion Router".

We must remember to call this invasive legislation out for what it is -

Snoopers Charter.

We must continue to apply pressure on future legislators which can make

future amendments which will see even a slight amount of curbing of some

of the worst Clauses and Provisions, which allow for this mass-

surveillance to continue under the banners of 'legality'.

And, we must continue to see that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner

and the Judicial Commissioners are held accountable for their actions, if

they fail to fulfill their duties of oversight of surveillance operations

and their compliance with the legislation set before the citizens of the

UK.

Civil liberties have been violated - a common theme which has been

replicated by many democratic governments across the globe.

Once invasive legislation which legalizes sweeping, dragnet mass-

surveillance is enacted and made law, focus must shift to amending the

legislation and implement the most important amendments which aim to curb

at least some of the most invasive measures.

Where violation of civil liberties has occurred, this must be counter-

balanced by operations transparency and accountability being ensured

through people power, by those who remain strong enough to stand up for

civil rights, their liberties and the right to privacy in the digital

sphere.

-----

European Press Office - Moscow Press

**********

November 13, 2016 | Australia's Refugee Situation Underscores Deep,

Global Problems

Asylum seekers and refugees - these are incredibly messy topics because

they need to be viewed with x-ray vision of economics and politics, and

not just through the rosy glasses of humanitarianism.

There is one reason people become refugees: they want to survive.

Sometimes this is a literal survival: escaping from Syria and ISIS is an

existential issue for most refugees.

But most of the time, survival is defined in quality of life terms.

Starving in the streets of Myanmar might be existential too, but often

it's a matter of wanting a better life, not necessarily escaping death.

Creating a "humanitarian crisis" is a well-known tactic used by

governments to change their population and send messages.

Consider the Mariel "boat-lift" that came from Cuba to Miami which

resulted in an influx of about 125,000 political refugees to the United

States of America.

Mixed in to that were a small, yet significant percentage of hardened

criminals and mental patients, intentionally released into the refugee

stream by Cuba to clear the jails.

Overall, the Mariel refugees integrated into the US with very few

problems.

Even in Miami, where a large number stayed after being processed through

refugee camps, had no long-term impact in its economy with the large

influx of Cuban unskilled labor.

The majority of these people were political refugees in the classic

sense: they faced imprisonment in Cuba for their religious and political

beliefs and therefore, met the international criteria for refugee status.

But unlike many other refugees, they also had massive support from their

associated community in America.

The Cuban-American community of Miami stepped up to orchestrate and

execute the rescue of these immigrants and provided support to the

Government in processing and relocating the refugees.

While there were some problems associated with what was perceived to be

incarceration of the refugees (in Arkansas, a riot at the refugee

processing center established at Fort Chaffee caused the then-Governor

Bill Clinton to lose re-election because of racist campaigning triggered

by the riots), the crisis was completely abated within 3 years.

Today, we see the same scenario playing out in many places around the

world.

However, this time the cases of the refugees aren't as easy to make as it

was for those from the Cuban dictatorship.

A similar scenario occurred in the US at the end of the Vietnam war.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees left Vietnam and came to the US.

Like the Cuban situation, they received massive support from Vietnamese-

Americans, mostly those living in Southern California, providing them the

resources to integrate into existing Vietnamese enclaves in the area and

entering the economy.

Today these ex-refugees are well-integrated into American society.

Australia, on the other hand, is facing a different problem.

Most of the refugees arriving on the doorstep are from war zones in

Islamic countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Sri Lanka etc.

Most of these people are legitimate asylum seekers: they are under threat

of death and violence because of their politics or religious beliefs and

see no alternative but immigration to escape death and torture.

Some are economic asylum seekers: they seek a better, not necessarily a

safer, life in another country.

But the majority can claim true threat to their lives and usually have

extensive documentation to support their claims.

The problem for Australian refugees is that they do not have the same

support structure awaiting them as the Cuban and Vietnamese did in the

US.

Most of them are Muslim and come from cultures that are radically

different than the Western, Euro-centric culture that permeates America

and Australia and Europe.

Many aspects of their culture and religion run completely counter to the

social norms of Western society, making their integration problematic

unless they are willing to change their values and beliefs to potentially

fit into their new society.

Without the social structure of enclaves of familiar religious and

cultural environments in which to settle, these refugees are at an

insurmountable disadvantage in attempting to immigrate to Australia.

While they may be legitimate refugees, there is - literally - nowhere for

them to 'go' in Australia.

There isn't a large Muslim, Afghan, Syrian or any other community that

has the ability to accept these people and provide the environment to

integrate them into their new lives.

(Some of the refugees are Christians: these people will most likely find

sponsorship in Australia or at least support to assist them in relocating

to an accepting environment.)

Australia is not the place these refugees need to escape to.

They need to go to a country that has the cultural and support system in

place to accept them as they are and help them transition to a more

Western society in various progressive stages.

Where would those places be? Often the places they are refugees from;

Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt - basically any

Muslim nation that isn't in the middle of a civil war.

The only problem is that most of those places have the same problem with

these refugees that their home country did; they are not a 'compatible'

sect of Islam that fit in with the religion and mores of other Muslim

nations either.

Australia is caught in a nasty situation here.

These refugees don't (and won't) fit into Australian society.

They are outcasts from their home countries, but not because they are

adherents to the 'Great Satan' of Western culture; rather because they

don't fit into the Muslim culture either.

The are the equivalent of those crazy sects of Christians in the US that

want to essentially create their own country and rules and won't accept

that other people may not want to follow them.

In the US, these people usually end up locked up in Federal prison for

life, simply because they violate nearly every felony law there is;

ranging from tax avoidance to child abuse to murder.

Or they all die in a horrific shoot-out and fire with ATF agents.

The problem that Australia is having is not that the Government is

intentionally being cruel and inhumane to these people through increased

tightening of immigration policy and legislation, although it may seem

that way.

The problem is that Australia is actually trying to accommodate asylum

seekers and refugees by keeping them somewhere safe and to themselves

(rather than on Australian mainland) where they don't have to face the

culture shock of Western life and society without the appropriate support

mechanism in-place.

The asylum seekers just keep coming faster than Australia can process

them.

And unlike the US, it doesn't have the relocation facilities at old

military bases that can be used to manage the refugees until they can be

absorbed by greater society.

If these people had come to the US, they would be sponsored by people

from Detroit or Minneapolis - two of the largest concentrations of

Muslims of all types outside of the Middle-East or the Far East.

There would be support culture and people to help them and they would

eventually fit in and maybe even move on to other places as American

citizens.

In Europe, refugees have been accepted into areas where there are

culturally similar enclaves and accommodation is being made available for

them.

However, even in Europe, which has the largest number of Muslims overall

outside of their home countries, acceptable space is running out to

continue to accept more refugees.

The sudden rise of anti-Islam feelings in Europe isn't just because of

xenophobia: it's because the communities that can accept these people are

saturated at present and as they arrive in Germany, Romania or other

countries, they end up in yet another ad-hoc refugee camp.

There's just no more space right now to take them in.

Australia could, given a couple of years and several hundred millions of

dollars, build a proper refugee processing facility and create 'cultural

cities' for these people to reside, while acclimatizing to Australian

life.

But not today.

And given the images that are being pirated out of these camps, probably

not ever.

Anyone can understand why the Australian Government wants to keep these

places and their operations secret.

It's not because of the inhumane treatment of the asylum seekers and

refugees, but that with the numbers arriving there is no other place for

them to go.

It's like the camps in Greece or other places in Europe where conditions

are worsening each day.

As quickly as one person is processed and relocated, twenty more show up

in their place.

As military conflict continues around the world, in many zones

increasingly getting worse, the cycle will continue and the global

refugee problem will continue to grow.

Australia has been stating ever since the beginning: "DO NOT COME TO

AUSTRALIA! STAY AT HOME OR GO ELSEWHERE! WE CAN'T HELP YOU!".

The Government has been doing everything it can to help.

It's just that is has become a case of too much, too quickly.

Finally, another factor in all of this is most of the asylum seekers

heading to Australia are using illegal smugglers to get there.

They aren't using relief agencies or Muslim organizations to coordinate

their movement - although the Vietnamese that came to California often

used the same methods.

The difference is in the numbers of people doing it.

Most of the Vietnamese came under the sponsorship of churches and

organizations from the Vietnamese community.

The Cubans were handled completely by the Cuban-American community of

Miami, which did the outreach and coordination with the US Government to

process the refugees.

But even that had problems.

When a paid smuggler ships people to Australia, they're not interested in

making all the connections, doing the paperwork and ensuring those on

board the boats have the appropriate documentation to legalize their

arrival, as a refugee.

All the people smugglers want is their money.

Without those groups of churches and communities from the same background

to help, asylum seekers are truly on a one-way ticket.

There is no coordination - just boats appearing with more people.

Before condemning the Australian Government for its 'failure' at the

asylum seeker and refugee situation, we need to think about what is

'really happening' here, and how different it is from the successful

migrations of the Cubans and Vietnamese in the United States of America.

America is on the verge of another wave of migrants washing up on its

shores very soon; all the people from Venezuela that are being starved to

death because of their failure to deal with the real world.

Already, many countries in South and Central America are taking refugees

from there, but they're about to become overrun the same as Australia or

Eastern Europe.

And, of course, they'll just keep sending the refugees north until they

wash up on the beaches of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia

and Florida.

And once again, America will have to deal with them.

The only problem; Americans are now very xenophobic and are not going to

tolerate any humanitarian effort that they see as 'more Mexicans'.

The Catholic church will be key in handling this, but there's only so

much even they can do.

Outside of Louisiana, Catholics are not looked upon very highly (American

Protestants have always had problems with Catholics, treating them almost

as badly as the Jews), and they won't get a lot of help from other

churches with this crisis.

With Donald Trump as President and a full Republican Congress, the

Government sure isn't looking like it's going to help.

So we may have our own Nauru and Manus Island going on in the US soon.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

November 11, 2016 | Linux Mint is Safe and Secure

There seems a certain amount of paranoia that has ensued since the

revelation of the hacking of Linux Mint servers, which resulted in

specific ISO images of the operating system being replaced with hacked

versions which contained a backdoor.

If you're part of the Linux paranoia group that I speak of, then please

limit your paranoia to yourself as it goes unjustified.

The paranoia has spawned from over-hyped media reports on the hacking and

the circulation of the ISOs which contain the backdoor.

It's important to understand that this kind of illegitimate web activity

occurs all the time and it is not limited in case.

Most of the time going unreported or deliberately not publicly revealed.

The team at Linux Mint did all the right things and immediately shut down

its website, with the exception of its Blog which was used to notify its

users of what had occurred.

The team and developers were completely transparent of all details at all

times.

To the best of our understanding, the team knew what exactly had

occurred, when it occurred, what specific ISOs were affected and where

the backdoor was located in the ISO filesystem.

The team needs to be commended for its quick action, notification to

users and its efforts of transparency.

Attacks against Linux Mint, its operating system and spreading false

rumors about the quality of the operating system and the project's team

members are completely unjustified and outright unfair for the amount of

hardwork and effort that goes into developing and producing this high-

quality Linux release.

Staff at Tecseek Technology have witnessed Linux advocates publicly

stating that they will "never use" or recommend Linux Mint anymore, as a

result of the hack.

The negative comments continue, with claims being made that the operating

system is "no longer safe to use".

But it doesn't stop there, with more concerning comments being made by

Linux users saying they will never use a "Ubuntu-based" Linux again.

Finally, at the extreme end of the scale and some of the more silly

comments stating that Linux interest and potential uptake as a whole will

"suffer" as a result of the hack, thanks to Linux Mint.

Let us be clear and put the whole scenario into its true perspective.

Linux Mint is perfectly safe to download, install and use.

The hacking of the project's servers has now been resolved and all images

have been verified via MD5 signature verification methods, deemed safe

and have not been tampered with in any way.

Any information being spread that does not conform to the true facts can

be misleading and verges on conspiracy theory and should be ignored.

I am a seasoned Linux user myself (Editor) - a veteran some might say.

I can personally assure people that Linux Mint is perfectly safe.

It is a top-quality Linux operating system based on Ubuntu, which also

remains top-quality.

Linux advocates need to understand the core facts of the situation, move

on and continue to do what we do best - advocate for free and open-source

software and Linux.

We can not let events like this deter us from our advocacy.

Instead, we need to understand what occurred, how it occurred, what can

be done to prevent this from occurring in the future and make efforts to

assist the Linux eco-system in achieving our goals rather than putting

our tails between our legs and running scared yelling "Linux has been

hacked.

It's not safe to use.".

Such comments and statements are simply false, reckless and unjustified.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

October 31, 2016 | OSTechNix Exclusive Interview: Chris McGimpsey-Jones,

An Open-Source Advocate

We have been thinking for a long time to interview people who use free,

open-source software and Linux from all around the world.

We recently interviewed one of our friends of the independent media

industry and mentor, Mr. Chris McGimpsey-Jones.

He is an open-source advocate, publisher and Pirate Party President from

Australia.

He is the Editor-in-Chief of the website, Freedom Publishers Union.

In addition to his duties as an Editor and Publisher, he is increasingly

involved in politics in his role as the President of Democratic Pirates

Australia, an alternate Australian-based Pirate Party.

We are thankful to Chris for taking time and giving OSTechNix our first

interview, in-between his busy schedule.

OSTechNix: How did you first become interested in the concept of software

freedom and the open-source software movement?

Chris: It was way back in 2002 when I was an avid reader of PC computing

and technology magazines.

It was when they used to include a CD-ROM disc on the cover each month,

which contained all the latest software and program updates.

There was one particular month that I bought the magazine and it

contained SUSE Linux 8.0 on the front cover.

At the time, I was naive and thought that Windows was the only operating

system for desktop users.

I had no idea there were other choices and prior to this moment, I had

never heard of Linux.

Naturally, curiosity got the better of me and I booted from the disc into

SUSE Linux.

When I booted into this 'brand new' operating system, I was blown away by

what I witnessed.

It was a feeling of instant excitement and amazement.

I still remember the feeling to this day.

The more I poked around inside SUSE Linux, the more excited I got.

Two important things I remember from that day have had a major influence

on what I do as a profession.

I couldn't believe there was an alternative desktop operating system that

was not Microsoft Windows.

Also, I kept wondering to myself why I did not know anything about Linux

prior to this moment.

It felt like this really cool operating system that gave users a real

choice, was being kept a big secret.

And I had been given access to that secret.

I instantly felt compelled from that moment on to share my new knowledge

with my fellow computing community.

The spark inside me had been set alight and the fire within still burns

strong to this day.

OSTechNix: Do you work with Linux/Unix and open-source software as a

professional, or is it just a hobby?

Chris: What started out as a hobby gradually opened up more and more

opportunities for me to share my knowledge and experience that I had

learned from Linux and open-source software.

Many years ago before people even knew what blogs were, I was writing on

different topics related to technology and other computing news for a

small website I had setup.

This spawned into a love for technical writing.

I worked on my own websites and then began to help others with their own

websites.

Casual writing jobs turned into full-time gigs.

Then I landed myself a role as Chief Editor of a popular Linux and open-

source software news site.

I performed in this role for about one year before I started to get

frustrated with specific elements of the role.

It seemed that I was not alone in my frustrations, so I made note that I

was leaving, to move on and form my own media website and was lucky

enough that many of my previous staff followed me onto the new platform.

Projects that I am now involved in started very small.

Now, they've developed into full-time roles which I literally work on

them 7 days a week to keep everything alive and thriving, with various

help from my loyal colleagues.

At times I get very tired and question myself as to whether it is all

worth it, to be so dedicated to sharing my knowledge and skills of free

and open-source software in the public domain.

I reach the same answer each and every time - It is absolutely worth it.

OSTechNix: How do you think Linux is shaping up against the latest

evolution of Windows 10 and Apple OS X?

Chris: That's always a really tough question to answer.

People need to remember that Linux itself is not a commercial entity.

It's a kernel that is the base for other operating systems.

Sure, there are commercial entities that have been built around the core

that is Linux such as Red Hat and Canonical.

But Linux itself doesn't have to compete in the same way Microsoft is

competing against Apple and vice versa.

Looking at Linux 1.0 and then looking at the latest stable versions of

Linux in 2016, heading into 2017, it has undoubtedly evolved.

There's a massive amount of support for it now and contributions to the

kernel development is applied from so many different aspects of the

industry.

It's literally mind boggling how far it has come.

People ask all the time, 'When is Linux going to take over the desktop?'

I say, well it was never the intention.

If Linux did go ahead and take over, that would create just another

monopoly.

I am not against commercial software and believe that we need diversity

in the sector.

Consumers need to have a choice of operating systems.

Linux is essentially providing that third choice if that's what consumers

want.

What I am against is locking down hardware so that third-party software

is effectively blocked from being installed on the platform.

Microsoft have tried this and for many years Apple done it.

To a large degree, they're still doing it.

Richard M. Stallman has spoke about this recently and I absolutely agree

with him.

An open platform and framework for hardware should be pursued because if

it's not, we're going to see commercial computer vendors locking down

systems by even more strict hardware methods than what we see today.

That could cause problems for open-source software and Linux.

Or it will simply spawn a new generation of hardware hackers determined

to get it installed and bypass any potential hardware restrictions that

are placed in front of them.

OSTechNix: Which Linux distribution do you use and why?

Chris: I operate a server which runs Linux Mint, which is essentially a

tweaked version of Ubuntu.

I always stick to the Ubuntu platform as my primary operating system.

I also run a couple of others in VirtualBox - Ubuntu 16.10, Fedora 25 and

OpenSUSE 42.2, the latter two being development builds.

As part of my work, I'm constantly playing around with new versions of

Linux distributions on physical hardware and virtual machines.

So I'm very adaptable to any Linux environment that I am placed in front

of.

OSTechNix: Do you use any other operating systems other than Linux? If

yes, which others do you use?

Chris: Yes, our office laptop runs Windows 10.

And we're also considering a new purchase of an Apple laptop in the first

half of 2017 as part of our small business expansion plans.

Like I mentioned earlier, we need diversity in the sector and that ethos

is echoed here in the office.

We simply don't restrict ourselves to one sole platform or operating

system.

Microsoft has done an excellent job with Windows 10 and reestablished

confidence in the Windows platform.

We might not agree with the marketing practices of Apple, but no one can

deny that they do produce beautifully designed hardware that can be

appreciated by anyone that understands quality design.

OSTechNix: Are you involved in software development or any other projects

as part of the free software movement?

Chris: I have developed a few pieces of code, yes.

One of my personal favorites that I developed is Powershell-Bash.

It was developed a few years ago to attempt to ease the burden of system

administrators who work in multi-platform environments and regularly

switch between Powershell and Bash shell environments.

I developed Powershell-Bash to use a sub-selection of the Powershell

syntax to perform the same equivalent function in a Bash environment on

Linux.

It's not really as necessary now that Microsoft is developing Powershell

to run natively on Linux, but for now it still serves its purpose well

and I still continue with its development along with a small integrated

package management program which cuts down long apt-get commands to much

shorter length, with performing the exact same functions.

Additionally, I have developed a couple of programming languages which

are not yet complete to any kind of workable state.

They require a hell of a lot more debugging before I release those into

the wild.

More recent stuff has included a encryption algorithm called Numerical-

Data-Scrambling, which I refer to as simply NDS.

Work is ongoing on this, but it's coming along nicely.

I have a couple of other smaller packages that I have developed over the

last 5 years, but nothing groundbreaking and mostly just used for

internal purpose.

With age comes coding laziness and it has turned me into a bit of a

script junkie these days.

In my spare time, I like to give back to the free and open-source

community.

I do this by dedicating 1-2 hours a week to sit on Ubuntu Support Channel

on IRC.

Helping out people who are completely new to the Ubuntu/Linux experience

is always satisfying.

Plus, I believe it's good to give back to a community in return for

everything that it has given me.

Finally, I'm a pretty passionate advocate for Creative Commons and Tor

Project.

OSTechNix: Who are your inspirations?

Chris: I have many inspirations, so I'll try and narrow it down to just a

few and keep my reasons brief.

Mark Zuckerberg, because he is part of a new generation of Silicon Valley

moguls.

He has developed the world's most connected social media platform, yet

still shows every sign of his original self when Facebook was in its

early days.

He is still young and already made such a massive impact on connecting

the world.

Absolute brilliance.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are some of the two most interesting,

inspirational individuals who both undoubtedly massively contributed and

helped shape the industry we see today.

Gates continues his efforts to better humanity using his great wealth for

philanthropic purposes.

Jobs was an extremely complex individual, yet somehow provided

inspiration to so many people, by his brutal work ethic methods.

Opinion on Jobs may differ greatly, yet I still believe him to be a very

inspirational person, albeit complex.

There is only several people that I would describe as genius.

Stephen Hawkings is textbook genius.

I don't believe I would come across anyone that would dispute that.

He has made massive contributions to help shape modern science, physics

and cosmology.

He may be disabled, yet he never lost his intelligence and is never shy

to put his wonderful sense of humor on public display.

I just love the guy.

There are probably others that provide inspiration to me, for a variety

of different reasons.

Richard M. Stallman being an inspiration to so many individuals among the

freedom software movement is also worthy of a mention.

Dennis M.

Ritchie, Ian Murdock, Aaron Swartz, Julian Assange - the list goes on and

on and on.

The people I have mentioned might seem mediocre, yet they are in-fact

making real visible change in the world and the effect of their actions

is being felt by so many.

Sadly a number of them are no longer with us.

But the effects of their contributions are still felt today, which

justifies their status for inspiration.

OSTechNix: What are your thoughts for Microsoft aggressively embracing

Linux through the Windows sub-system for Linux?

Chris: It's absolutely commendable.

And I don't honestly believe that it would have happened if Satya Nadella

was not appointed as Microsoft CEO.

To integrate native Linux inside Windows without the requirement for

running third-party virtual machine software is incredible.

As a developer, I can really appreciate the extra hurdles that have

essentially been removed for us as a result of the sub-system for Linux.

This comes in addition to Powershell being open-sourced and developed to

run natively on Linux.

It is really putting Microsoft's efforts to open up collaboration with

open-source software and the community in a sensible way on display and

good things can only come from it.

Integration and collaboration between operating systems and platform can

only bring positive results.

I look forward to the future.

OSTechNix: What does the future hold for the free software movement?

Chris: There will be progress, but I don't really think we're going to

see anything we have not yet witnessed.

Most likely just improvements.

Open-source software development will continue to developed, modified and

adopted across an entire range of technology and its associated sectors.

What should be of concern is keeping hardware open to allow for open-

source software to be applied in its intended form, rather than resort to

hacking.

It will be interesting to see where this goes heading into the next 5-10

years.

But we must not sit idle and wait for it to happen.

We must be part of the fight to prevent it from happening.

OSTechNix: On more recent events, there's an increasing amount of cases

of hacking and data breaches.

How do you think open-source software could be used to improve and better

the overall security of servers and systems?

Chris: Short answer is, it's already doing a very good job.

And if implemented and administered as it should be, it already does the

job of security very well.

Usually, data breaches or hacks are accessed because someone has

essentially 'left the door open' due to incompetence or lack of human

resources.

Sometimes this is unintentional by the individuals.

In most cases, the latter is most likely the cause for concern here.

Skimming on human ability to implement proper software security will have

a flow-on effect on software security and hackers will look for easy

targets and take advantage of this point.

It's that simple.

-----

Interview by Senthil Kumar, Founder and Editor of OSTechNix

Published by OSTechNix

**********

October 14, 2016 | Yahoo Inc.

- Initiator of Sweeping Surveillance

It was an explosive revelation when Reuters published details of Yahoo

Inc.

providing direct assistance to the conglomerate which has become

internationally recognized as the world's mass-surveillance state, the

United States of America and primarily, the NSA and its international

intelligence partners.

Details have emerged that Yahoo has cooperated directly, with a demand

from the US Government providing the platform for enablement of sweeping

surveillance by scanning all incoming Yahoo customer emails, for specific

keywords and character strings.

The practice was carried out by Yahoo, by providing the tools to enable

and perform the email scanning.

According to details since revealed, Yahoo performed the sweep by

modifying existing source code for a program the company already uses to

scan and identify malware inside its customer emails.

The new program was developed through heavy code modification, which

resulted in a complete new program going live on Yahoo servers.

The program was then used at the hands of Yahoo, in direct and undisputed

co-operation and as demanded by the US Government intelligence officials.

One of the most disturbing elements is that Yahoo representatives never

disputed, questioned or resisted the demand.

Exact details of the legal demand for Yahoo to perform the sweeping

surveillance have not yet been revealed at the time of going to press.

We do expect the precise legal details and documentation to be treated

with a high amount of secrecy - much like all operations directly related

to the US mass-surveillance programs.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns such undisputed sweeping surveillance

and untargeted mass-surveillance on any scale.

Any digital surveillance should be targeted and have a legally obtained

warrant provided.

When Apple was asked to assist the FBI with the cracking of one of the

company's iPhone devices in the San Bernadino case, Apple stood by its

company standards and refused to cooperate.

Apple's decision must not be confused here, as it is to quickly make an

assumption which is wrong.

Whilst the legal side of this case gets much more complicated, what we

learned from the public perspective is that Apple is willing to stand its

ground, stand by its products and uphold the privacy which is enabled by

the provided security on Apple devices.

The iPhone in the San Bernadino case was eventually cracked and data

accessed with the efforts of a third-party security company and without

any involvement from Apple.

Yet we must note that Apple never relented or caved into the mass-

surveillance institute led by the US Government.

Yahoo Inc.

has let its customers down, by simply cooperating with the mass-

surveillance regime, without question and with a certain amount of

enthusiasm from the company's CEO, Marissa Mayer.

According to sources inside Yahoo, it has been said that Mayer's actions,

judgment and lack of questioning of the reasons for the demanding of

email sweeping caused some major disunity among the executive ranks of

Yahoo.

Freedom Publishers Union maintains our view that digital surveillance

measures should be carried out as targeted operations based on a legally

obtained warrant and must be absolutely justified.

As we continue to debate privacy, encryption and civil liberties, this

case could easily become a reason to begin to question whether any

progress has in fact been made since the debate become mainstream back in

2013.

We believe it is fair to point out that progress is being made by a

majority of the big technology companies, who wish the gain back the

trust of their customers through providing better security and encryption

for their services.

Things are much better that just two years ago.

Yet equally, we still have a long way to go.

The institute of American-led mass-surveillance continues and the legal

loopholes that exist are being found and abused by the institute as a

means to justify their actions and be able to publicly claim their

operations 'are legal'.

Legal - perhaps.

Ethically responsible and acceptable - absolutely not.

Mass surveillance must stop.

Sweeping surveillance must stop.

The constant attempts of intelligence agencies and their legal goons to

use whatever means to find these legal loopholes and policy makers

deliberately creating the loop holes so they can be exploited by the

mass-surveillance institute must also stop.

Finally, technology companies must continue to provide better security

for their customers, not only through their services and products, but

backed up by said company standing firm against untargeted surveillance.

In this latest case, Yahoo Inc.

has failed on all counts.

We have lost what little respect we had for company.

Will it hurt the company's bottom line? Probably a little bit.

But probably not much.

What is guaranteed to stain Yahoo's immediate public image and become a

sore spot of its history, is its failure to stand by and protect the

privacy and rights of its customers in favor of preferring to collaborate

with the US mass-surveillance program and becoming a direct initiator of

a sweeping surveillance program through the development of software that

Yahoo developed.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

September 1, 2016 | France Leading Charge for EU and Global Push for

Anti-Encryption Legislation

For just once, we wish that all sides of the encryption wars would agree

on a cease fire and public and governments accept that encryption is a

tool and not an end-all in itself.

Freedom Publishers Union has published much content and documents

supporting encryption.

We are known advocates for encryption and see it as a vital tool to

enhance individual's privacy.

But not just encryption - strong encryption.

We understand its abilities to protect the privacy of an individual's

data - which is the purpose of encryption.

Equally, we understand that it is not a government's place to tamper with

or modify to any extent encryption algorithms or access methods - ie.

implementing government sponsored compulsory backdoors.

We stand by and always aim to protect the civil liberties of individuals

and their absolute right to protect their own privacy.

The connected world as we know it (as the internet) is under constant

mass-surveillance.

Thankfully, in a relatively short amount of time since we learned of

PRISM and its associated spying programs, the digital world has come a

long way, as has encryption.

But there is still a long way to go, as we are nowhere near where we

should be for protecting ourselves from these mass-surveillance programs.

The tools are readily available.

The software is already out there and most of it already open-source and

known to have not been tampered with.

When potential vulnerabilities are detected, patches are quickly

developed and pushed out to the public through the open-source

distribution model.

During the month of August, France made calls for nations in the European

Union to unite and campaign against the use of encryption.

It has specifically called upon Germany for help, to get the country to

start drumming up support for a campaign to stop implementation of strong

encryption.

This is a time when the citizens must equally unite and fight back, in

support of strong encryption.

Why is France complaining about encryption? According to a recent article

published by news giant Reuters, France believes one of the reasons they

are struggling to thwart terrorist attacks on home soil is because of

encryption.

The article specifically points out Telegram and its implementation of

end-to-end encryption.

This all needs to be kept in perspective; there are lots of good people,

businesses and non-profit organizations that use encryption software on a

daily basis, in a completely innocent manner - which is to enhance their

privacy and protect important data.

No harm intended, encryption used for protection of data and to maintain

privacy of legitimate behavior.

Whether this data needs to be protected or should be protected is not for

governments to make that judgment.

It is the right of civil liberties of any individual to make the call

whether they want their data protected.

Simply standing up and touting that the 'terrorists are using encryption,

let's stop all use of encryption' is not only taking the entire thing out

of context and perspective, but it also underlines the failings, again,

of the understanding of the purpose of encryption.

Telegram has been heavily criticized for its method of encryption and the

implementation of its algorithms which used to protect the communications

of its users.

This criticism has mostly come from respected members of the crypto

community.

However, there are some conflicts in the validity of the criticism and

the actual reliance of the security measures by Telegram.

The claims by French authorities that Telegram is a major cause for

concern because terrorists are using the software's encrypted chat

ability to organize and communicate their operations and their apparent

inability to penetrate the software's encryption provide much merit to

the software security mode, despite the criticism posed by security

researchers.

Freedom Publishers Union takes encryption seriously and we would actually

like to see more software services take encryption and its security

abilities much more serious.

There are still many software services that are used on a daily basis

that are still rendered insecure because there is simply no

implementation of encryption.

However, technology companies claim to be working on more secure

implementations of their services, albeit the development and roll out

has been slow to date.

Despite the Silicon Valley consistently telling us 'we are working on it'

and 'it is coming'.

The new French-born attack on encryption (with more EU countries most

likely to join), is unjustified.

By claiming that use of encryption must be reduced, stopped or backdoors

implemented (by law) so governments and their law enforcing and

intelligence agencies can snoop around their respective citizens' data is

just another gross display that governments still do not understand the

pillars of encryption, its purpose and how it actually enables security

conscious citizens to protect themselves and their data from the 'bad

guys'.

Even worse, they're having to use it to protect themselves from their own

governments too.

When citizens become scared of the bad people in society, there is most

likely issues with rising crime.

But when citizens become scared of the bad people within the governments

they entrust their confidence, yet who have apparently become absolutely

and certifyingly obsessed with knowing everything about everyone and then

sharing that information with their international allies, then its

another demonstration of the veracity of the ongoing crypto wars and the

wider implications of the ongoing mass-surveillance programs.

Unfortunately, the war is between the government and the citizenry -

rather than between the government and the bad people.

It's about how we look at it.

Encryption can be viewed and examined from many different aspects.

All issues surrounding encryption need to be kept in perspective,

otherwise it can be confusing and information that should be of relevant

importance becomes just a mess.

Strong encryption is no different than a strong safe.

A safe is used to store valuable or secret information, with the

assumption that it will be very difficult for anyone to open it without

authorization.

Law enforcement has been dealing with safes for centuries.

If the owner refuses to provide or authorize access, they are held in

contempt and law enforcement then has the authority - under a legally

obtained warrant - to break into the safe.

Companies like Chubb or Diebold certainly do not build backdoors into

their products simply because law enforcement would 'like to have them'.

And any attempt to pass legislation that would require a master key to

all safes - including banks - would be stopped at the doors of Congress.

Encryption should be treated the same way.

In the most famous case to date - breaking into the iPhone that was used

by the San Bernardino murderers - the phone was effectively cracked

without the assistance of Apple, the carrier or the deceased owner.

No one was forced to reveal secrets that made every other device

insecure.

Although challenges were made to weaken the safe of encryption, nothing

was actually legislated and no contempt charges against Apple or the

carriers were filed.

This is exactly the way it should be.

Treat encryption and safes the same way and be done with these

legislative tantrums.

It must be understood, if law enforcement does break encryption while

executing a warrant, they do not have to share the method with anyone.

If they can keep the 'secret' to breaking into an iPhone, then they are

welcome to it.

All this means is that the defense has to keep working to fix bugs and

improve safety.

Just as the offense continues to work on breaking through into the safe.

Because eventually any such 'secret' will be revealed, the bug fixed and

everyone goes back to square one.

Remember that this approach is completely within the boundaries of the

Constitution or Charter of most Western nations today.

Receiving court permission to gather evidence means that a robust case

was made that convinced a judge that there was merit in allowing the

action to proceed.

And if the warrant was issued without due process, there is redress in

law for the plaintiff.

If the laws surrounding the execution of these very important components

of fair jurisprudence and law enforcement are broken in the execution or

obtaining of a warrant, then this can be raised immediately and further

legal action taken.

We know that this works, as there are hundreds of cases dismissed because

of improper procedure every year, including some high-profile cases

dealing with exactly this issue in the mass collection of citizen's

information in America.

So we come to the conclusion.

Security researchers and cryptologists have been here so many times

before.

We pose the same argument for encryption, defining it's importance and

presenting scenarios to attempt to justify our argument.

Those against encryption do the same.

If one was to be uninformed of the definition and purpose of encryption

and read media accounts of the arguments and government calls for anti-

encryption legislation, it would all seem so simple.

"Bad guys are doing bad things with software that allows them to mask

their operations and communications." When looking at it through the

glasses of realism, you understand the complexities of encryption - its

history - its intended purpose - and how it surrounds us already through

technology integration.

This is too often over-looked when calls are made to reign in encryption

use.

We remain confident that common-sense will prevail in the long-term,

however it does not mean that we must remain complacent.

We will not stand by and watch encryption and security software be

attacked.

Freedom Publishers Union remains dedicated to upholding civil liberties

for all citizens around the world, including encryption and privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union is yet to view any actual EU legislative

proposal which has potential to affect, change or outlaw encryption from

the current form.

We will watch with a keen eye and publish any documents as they become

available.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

August 15, 2016 | Changes to ABC Transcription Service

To Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC);

As the Director of a small independent publishing business, I write to

you today expressing my genuine concern over media reports, published

today at The Guardian, which outlines future changes to ABC and its

transcription service.

I can not possibly explain how disappointed I am that the ABC has made

the decision to either reduce the service of providing timely transcripts

of important news and current affairs programming, whilst abruptly

proceeding with the discontinuation of others.

Transcripts provided by the ABC are a crucial source of reference and

citation for publishers and journalists.

Through my work with GC Media Publishing Management and other associated

roles within the publishing business, I personally will be affected by

this latest decision, by the ABC.

I use the transcripts on a weekly basis from a range of different ABC

programs.

They are used for a variety of roles within our business and their

discontinuation will place a major hurdle in our publishing operations as

our staff would be forced to source other references of source media,

which we believe to be more biased, less accurate, less reliable and less

reputable than what is currently provided by the ABC.

It would be a massive loss for so many Editors and Journalists and the

industry as a whole, which already fights many challenges in the digital

era of media - a sector GC Media Publishing Management understands very

well.

The decision by the ABC is unjustified and will be devastating for the

public broadcasting sector.

I would like to see the ABC review its decision, without further delay.

I believe the consequences will be devastating for the accuracy of

information in the publishing and media landscape of Australia, if this

decision is to be implemented as described to the best of our

understanding.

-----

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Director

**********

August 8, 2016 | Silicon Safe Device - Can it be Trusted as Safe?

In 2014-2015, we witnessed a large amount of database hacks which

eventuated in the release of many personal details being dumped onto the

internet.

The scary thing about the hacks is their frequency is increasing and to

see such massive scale hacks becoming all too common.

We must not be complacent.

It seems that British company Silicon Safe may have developed the answer

that the database security sector may be searching for, with the

development of a new security device which stores passwords in a separate

encrypted hardware box, off the main network.

In theory, the concept sounds great.

How it functions in practice will really prove whether the device is up

to the task of keeping client data safe and away from increasingly

advanced hackers.

Silicon Safe company Founders, Dr.

Will Harwood and Roger Gross in a recent interview with BBC stated that

the concept came from an "academic exercise", as they were unsatisfied

with existing database security technology and stated that current

technology was increasingly "proving ineffective\, according to Dr.

Harwood.

The concept proved itself in a controlled academic environment, so it was

decided to take the idea to a commercial venture.

The device is built-up from the hardware level.

The device does not run an operating system like computers, rather the

underlying software that runs the device is hard-coded into the hardware

chip itself - firmware.

According to Dr.

Harwood, this eliminates the potential for the device to be affected from

traditional software bugs and security holes.

The Founders of Silicon Safe claim that their method of hard-coding the

operating system into the hardware chip makes the device impossible to

crack, using commonly used hacking methods.

The key to the device's security is its small hard-coded operating

system, which was developed in approximately 10,000 lines of source code.

The source code used in traditional software methods of storing secure

passwords in database format exceed this by far.

Silicon Safe claim that this gives the device an advantage over

traditional database methods because the code focuses on only one task -

securing the data.

There is no log-in credentials required and also no way to log-in using a

common username/password method via a web-interface and the system has no

display output or graphical interface.

Tecseek Technology has been unable to get information on the exact

hardware specifications as they are kept secret.

Dr.

Harwood claims that hackers can not access the device via the internet

and only once they have physical access to the device, could they begin

to even attempt to gain access.

Therefore, extra security features were added to prevent this.

Dr.

Harwood details that after four attempts at unauthorized access, the

device notifies the system administrator.

At a hefty price tag of $100,000, Silicon Safe is certainly not targeting

the small-business end of the market or the general consumer.

The target market will be financial and enterprise sector.

With such a large price tag, we remain somewhat skeptical that the device

will appeal to even that end of the market.

Especially when large firms remain confident enough that their data is

already secure, using traditional software and hardware methods.

Although we do like the concept and hope it spawns a new open-source

variety based on the concept of external encrypted hardware devices kept

off main networks.

Nevertheless, we do hope that Silicon Safe find a market.

The concept is great and gives an entire new meaning to data and password

security.

The company states that the device fits in with current server rack

technology and infrastructure, including ease-of-integration with

existing network technology with very few changes required.

Silicon Safe has been trialled at some large UK companies, including a

financial institution and a telecommunications firm.

But it seems we are not the only skeptics of the device's capabilities to

secure data and passwords.

According to the BBC, Professor Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey

went as far as claiming that the way the device functions will make IT

departments in large firms lazy.

Professor Woodward went on to state that he believes system

administrators should know and understand what they are doing and using a

closed-device such as the Silicon Safe, which is engineered by one person

and where the administrators don't completely understand the technical

details and operations of the device, is not recommended and can

therefore not be classified as secure.

Tecseek Technology is concerned that according to the Silicon Safe

website, Ashley Madison is one of the company's clients.

We must point out that the Ashley Madison hack was one of the largest

database hacks to eventuate in 2015, with many gigabytes of database and

personal details dumped onto the internet.

Below the Ashley Madison (and other company logos), the tagline proudly

touts "Companies that may have benefited from Silicon:SAFE's Password

Protect".

The key-word in the tagline is "may have".

Ashley Madison did not benefit from Silicon Safe.

It's somewhat of a false claim, on the company's website.

This is a concern and we urge caution towards trusting this device.

Despite the skepticism expressed from Tecseek Technology and others,

Silicon Safe is out to prove its worth as the company holds a "hacker

challenge".

The challenge was to access 100 encrypted passwords held inside the

device.

Silicon Safe states that over 2.5 millions hacking attempts have been

made, yet not a single attempt has been able to crack the device and

access the encrypted data.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

July 13, 2016 | An Appeal for the Reduction of Confinement of Chelsea

Manning

Freedom Publishers Union has consistently called for better treatment of

Chelsea Manning and our call for Clemency remains.

Most notable Chelsea Manning leaks:

- Afghan War Diary

- Iraq War Diary

- Cablegate

- Collateral Murder" video

- "Granai Massacre" video [unreleased to date]

Chelsea Manning completed her 6 years of imprisonment by May 21, 2016.

While it is still a point to ponder whether she should be called a

whistleblower or a traitor, as she violated the terms and conditions of

her employer.

She was charged with 16 charges including those under the Espionage Act

and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

At Freedom Publishers Union we do not declare whether her confinement is

right or wrong, but to analyze the fact that her punishment is much more

than her crime (if whatever she did should be referred to as a crime).

Allegations

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) is responsible for

the biggest military leak in history [at the time of going to press],

which showed the 'other' face of modern warfare.

An aspect our governments do not want us to know.

The first leak was a video of a US Army Apache helicopter brutally

killing civilians in Baghdad, Iraq.

Helicopters misidentified two Reuters journalists as terrorists carrying

guns.

Without any warning or opportunity to surrender, the video shows the

helicopter's engagement, killing the innocent civilians.

Later, they also fired on a van which came on-site to collect the bodies

of injured and dead.

The people from the van also received the same fate.

Two children were also injured due to deliberate civilian firing.

The children were sitting in front seat of the van yet the pilots ignored

the fact and claimed that it was their fault that they bring children to

a crime scene.

The video was leaked to Wikileaks which then produced the video and

released it under the title of "Collateral Murder".

Many activists agreed on the name as the video clearly describes just

that.

Manning also leaked ~91,000 reports covering the war from 2004 to 2010

known as "Afghan War Diary".

Reports also describe the number of persons stated to be killed, wounded

or detailed during the course of the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghan War Diary is the most significant archive about the reality of

war to have ever been released during the course of a war.

The deaths of tens of thousands is normally only a statistic but the

archive reveals the locations and the key events behind each most of

these deaths.

"We hope its release will lead to a comprehensive understanding of the

war in Afghanistan and provide the raw ingredients necessary to change

its course", says Wikileaks Editor, Julian Assange.

Manning is also responsible for ~390,000 classified military documents on

the war and occupation in Iraq, from 2004 to 2009, as told by soldiers in

the US Army.

Notably, the months of May 2004 and March 2009 are absent.

This is known as "Iraq War Diary" and is one of the biggest military

warfare data leaks in history.

The majority of deaths in the Iraq war is civilians (60%) which is

[average] 31 civilians dying everyday over the span of 6 years.

During that time Iraq was five times more lethal with respect to

equivalent population.

"Cablegate" is another affiliation of Manning's data leaks, in which

~250,000 US diplomatic cables were leaked which comprised of talk from

274 embassies around the world.

This data shows the spying nature of US Government and how governments

have many faces.

Appraisals

Since her confinement, Manning has been awarded many times.

She is also three time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Which clearly indicates her good deeds towards the data leak concept.

But as the charges are applied on her, it is clearly a battle between law

and ethics.

Everyone must agree that no law is flawless and ethics are the same

throughout the world.

We are taught from our early childhood about how transparency, truth and

honesty are essential qualities and one must do good no matter what.

Chelsea Manning did the right thing and got many appraisals for that but

the law is clearly not happy with her.

She was reported to authorities by one of her confidants, a renowned

hacker [at the time].

After confinement she stated that her intention was not to hurt anyone or

give the leaked information into the wrong hands, but to ensure

transparency.

Manning's leaked documents showed us how modern warfare looks and how

innocent civilians are caught up in conflict and killed because of

corrupt and unethical politics.

Many of us will agree that the Iraq and Afghan war(s) changed the world,

but not for the better.

The Arab Spring is a result of multiple failures of US operations in

these countries and their neighbors.

Then we have the violent terrorist group, known as "Islamic State [also

known as ISIS, ISIL, Daesh]" which effectively developed as a result of

the power vacuum left by the Western invasion in the Middle-East.

War is bad and these documents are proof of that.

*** Older men declare war.

But it is the youth that must fight and die.

--Herbert Hoover ***

This was not the first time when documents regarding the war became

helpful and showed wider harms to the rest of the world.

The Diary of Anne Frank describes the situation of war [World War II,

1947] and today we can imagine the torridness of that era just by

analyzing such documents.

Back in those days when Adolf Hitler was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[1939], these documents show us their importance.

Some of us agree that single photo of Napalm Girl helped end the Vietnam

War.

So we can say that the data leaks by Chelsea Manning is good for whole

mankind.

Aftermath

Now, the more important thing is how this whole incident is going to

affect all of us.

Whistleblowers are definitely seen as selfless martyrs doing the right

thing for the right cause.

But this incident shows how whistleblower protection must be a real thing

with real powers.

And Manning's imprisonment for this duration [35 years] is too much

punishment and this contrasts with the decision of the rest of the world

where Manning is appreciated for her contributions.

If the confinement period is not reduced very soon, then surely

whistleblowing will be a thing of the past and we will keep struggling

with corruption and selfishness of our leaders.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

July 9, 2016 | Data or Just Numbers? British Intelligence Gathering Dates

Back to 1990's

On April 21, 2016, The Guardian published an article referencing

documents released by Privacy International which detailed extensive

surveillance, which dates back to the 1990's and how it was to be the

primary source of intelligence gathering for Britain's intelligence

organizations - GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

Freedom Publishers Union has viewed the documents, which includes 116

documents detailing intelligence gathering information across many

hundreds of pages.

The document dump was provided by Privacy International.

Through our US Press Office, upon closer review of the document dump by

Freedom Publishers Union Sub-Editor, Brett Brennan, he provided the

following analysis of the history of intelligence, whether privacy still

exists and how encryption is still so important, as failing on encryption

marks you as just another 'suspect' on a very long list.

I work with clients that take available data sources - most of them open

in the public record - and use data warehouses to compile multiple

sources of information into a detailed profile of literally millions of

people.

Financial institutions and risk analysis firms have access to additional

private data which they can legally, whilst following privacy guidelines,

combine with other data sources - often the same public data - to create

even more detailed profiles of individuals.

Then, law enforcement can take the data and combine it with their legally

obtained sources to create an even more detailed insight into people's

lives.

There are rules and laws surrounding what can and cannot be done with

this information.

Most of these agencies work within those rules.

Many of the rules didn't exist a decade ago, far less back through the

20th century.

FOIA works both ways: I can walk into a courthouse or records office and

look at data about anyone that is on public record, then take that

information with me and composite it with other information that obtain -

legally and openly - from other sources and build a profile that would be

scary to anyone other than a data scientist.

What we all need to consider is not so much the collection and

correlation of this data.

What is far, far more important is the uses that this data is often

compiled for.

Taking a bulk collection of CDR's (Call Detail Records - telephone bills)

and using it as an input into a profiling system doesn't violate legal

privacy.

No one is identified in the bulk data, it's just data - impersonal,

anonymous and massive.

Creating a profile of anyone based on the data in that data-set also

isn't an invasion of privacy - it's still just data, with more

attributes.

It's only when that data is put through a filter and a model is created

to use the data that we first start getting close to pin-pointing the

individuals contained within.

It's all in the 'context of the use', not the data itself, that defines

an invasion of privacy or anonymity.

And in most of the Western world, that last step requires legal

oversight.

Let me put it another way.

My Wife mines huge amounts of data from public records doing genealogy

research.

Most of the data she dumps, simply because it doesn't fit the model

(family history) that she is using as the filter criteria.

She has "viewed" private information that is in the public domain, but

doesn't act on it.

When she does use the data and enhances it with other sources, she can

paint a more detailed picture of the people that she is analyzing.

Cheating husbands and wives can be identified, splits in a family that

even the family didn't know about at the time, along with a lot more

information about the financial and even mental state of those

individuals that have their data in public records.

But even armed with that information, she still has not violated any

privacy laws of morals.

Her correlation is not the causation of the events that happened to these

people.

If she publishes the newly correlated data - which she (and everybody

else involved in genealogy research does) - she still hasn't violated

privacy laws.

The data is in public domain and effectively, anyone can do the same

process and arrive at the same data-set.

The consequence of this publication may cause people who are unaware of

the information to feel as though their privacy has been violated, simply

because this new view of the data breaks their preconceived and strongly

held belief of what the 'story' of their ancestors and living relatives

is.

When a Government or other associated agency collects data, it is simply

taking the data-sets and correlating them into a suitable model.

The result set is still nothing but just data, but it is now data that

meets the criteria of the model - the filter - being applied to it.

It is only when that data is used to precipitate an action does it

trigger consequences.

This brings us to the 'real' fears about data collection.

When there are thousands of laws being enforced, all of us are in

violation of some law at some point.

Maybe we skipped out on paying a parking ticket back in 1979 and that

minor violation has gone to warrant for arrest due to the failure to

comply with the parking law.

If that data is put into a database that any law enforcement agency can

access and they choose to check the ownership record of a vehicle against

outstanding warrants (mostly looking for stolen vehicles and criminals

known to possess a specific vehicle), they might just find that the

person who skipped that $12 parking ticket is wanted back in Kansas City

for a criminal charge.

They can then stop and arrest that person legally - and because there is

a crime involved - perform additional actions to determine if more crimes

have been committed by that individual.

Like having an open beer can in the car, which remains a crime in most of

the 50 States in the US, that requires arrest and arraignment.

So an unsuspecting person who has completely forgotten about a trivial

crime committed 20 years in the past and who has some trash in his car,

ends up incarcerated for a day or two, loses their driving privileges and

pays a hefty $2000 fine.

People are scared of being arrested for something minor.

This is simply because with new data collection capabilities, law

enforcement can uncover the violation and make a legal arrest.

Cops have been doing this for centuries without the help of bulk data

collection.

All computers do is make enforcing the law - even completely trivial laws

- that much easier.

Privacy is about hiding information.

The same as State Secrets.

The reason we hide information is to prevent moral or legal implications

to change our lives.

If we had a single law - one single law - in force throughout the world,

there would be people who had violated it always worrying about being

caught.

Discovery of this violation through data analysis would be a violation of

their privacy.

A completely legal and acceptable violation because laws protect the

rights of the many against the transgressions of the few.

It can not be disputed that privacy is dead and gone.

Never collecting any data won't change that.

We simply return to the halcyon days of the 1960's where testimony

(unreliable) and opinions (less reliable) substitute for evidence.

Any laws we enact around the use of data to prevent unauthorized use are

completely mooted when we live our lives on Facebook and Twitter,

literally.

Until strong and evolving encryption is used by everyone, then anyone who

uses encryption will be flagged by traffic analysis as a suspect.

Instead, let's deal with privacy from the root cause backwards.

Let's fix the laws so that anyone can understand which law they violate

immediately, rather than worrying about something that they just don't

know.

Data is extra-judicial.

It has no value, use or worth as a raw piece of information.

Phone numbers are just a random string of numbers, until a model

translates them into a useful piece of information.

Data is a Heisenberg uncertainty: until you give it context and a model,

it doesn't exist.

Only by understanding the context of the data we generate in our life-

wake can we understand its value.

And by removing the cause of the fear most people feel, more so in a

post-Snowden era, they can get on with their lives without worrying about

who has access to their data.

Because without laws to provide context, it's just Heisenberg numbers.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

June 17, 2016 | Death Penalty: Is it Justified or Just Plain Wrong and

Unethical?

May 13, 2016, The Guardian published an article on pharmaceutical giant,

Pfizer, and their decision to ban its products, through increased control

in an effort to ensure that the company's products are not used for the

purpose of lethal injection in prisons.

Freedom Publishers Union as an organization takes a strong stance against

the death penalty in any country.

On June 9, 2015, we released a Press Statement which initiated our global

condemnation against any nation that practices the death penalty.

Death as a punishment has been the reason of debate for a long time.

Before we start analyzing the pros and cons of death as punishment, we

must consider the opinions and mindset of whole humanity.

In many religions, people celebrate the death as it appears to them as a

gateway of another life.

But there are very few communities that celebrate the death of young

ones.

It can not be questioned that death penalty is extreme punishment.

Usually, we humans try to separate some individuals from the rest of us

because we think that these individuals are dangerous to others as they

violate some laws who are made for betterment of everyone.

We hope that within the time of solitude, that criminal will either learn

to live as everyone or he/she will be too weak to commit a crime after

the solitude.

But a criminals perspective is totally different.

Punishment for them is not related with introspection but pain for them

and their loved ones.

They fear to commit crime because they and their loved ones will be

tortured for their heinous act.

The gentlemen who decide the punishment for a criminal hope that during

the imprisonment, the person will look into their inner-self and he/she

will try to be good.

But that is not true always.

Death punishment comes as a liberty to some criminals.

They do not think much while committing a crime because their pain is for

once only.

Above all these, terrorists affiliated with Jihad embrace death.

Their mindset tells them that death while committing a crime is guarantee

to be martyr.

They believe and hope that after death they will go to heaven, so-called

Jannat, where they'll be caressed by fairies.

These criminals are more worried about their after life.

Death is not a punishment for them at all.

But these incidents encourage others like them to commit crime and

reserve some place in heaven.

While we are talking about artificial death, we must make equal

consideration of euthanasia.

It is also known as "death due to mercy".

Euthanasia can be categorized in different ways, which include voluntary,

non-voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries.

Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in

all countries, as we understand.

Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's

will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.

Methods which are used to carry out euthanasia are selected in such a way

that the candidate feels the least amount of pain.

But the same is true for the death penalty as well, or supposedly.

We stress there are many cases and claims of abuse of the practice of the

death penalty through lethal injection.

And these claims can not be ignored.

Some countries do not kill people for crime.

Other countries who still believe in law and democracy attempt to use the

least painful method for death.

In India, where hanging is method for death, the executioner prepares a

special rope for hanging.

He will even go to lengths to apply wax on the rope so that death is

instantaneous and painless.

So we can see that criminals fear of pain and the ultimate penalty of

death does not provide the pain they should in-fact be afraid of.

While a majority of criminals embrace death.

In all ways, the death penalty is totally illogical because people who

commit the heinous crimes and get punished by death are abnormal people.

They are mentally unstable and not enough attention is paid to this fact

and the immediate need for more medical treatment, as an alternative to

the death penalty.

However, the death penalty itself is not designed to impact the mental

state of the individual being killed.

Rather, it is intended to act as a deterrent to those elements of society

that may be contemplating the commission of a heinous crime.

It also acts to provide a sense of justice to other, 'decent' people in

that society: the perpetrator of this horrid, heinous crime is being

removed completely from society for all eternity.

It is this distinction that centers the debate on societal ritual killing

for justice.

The debate is whether the death penalty is a sufficient deterrent to

others and if it truly provides society with the catharsis and closure

needed to heal from the emotional upset of the crime.

In most modern societies, the majority of murders are committed as crimes

of passion.

They are the result of a momentary event that causes insanity in the

perpetrator.

Enough to override their instilled morality.

It is difficult to see societal value in death as punishment for these

crimes.

Many of these perpetrators end up committing suicide on their own when

the impact of their actions finally hits them.

The few murders that remain - those committed by psychopaths and fanatics

(which are just a special case of psychopath) - are not going to feel

remorse over their crime.

Indeed, most feel satisfaction as a result of their actions and are

expecting complete release and approbation from their deaths.

Keeping them alive does nothing to cause remorse; killing them does

nothing but satisfy them.

In these cases, the benefit to the greater society needs to be analyzed.

If society is going to benefit psychologically from their killing, then

it would be best to provide this closure, as the perpetrator just doesn't

care.

However, the way that the killing is done may need to be altered in order

for it to not only assuage society's feelings, but to send a message to

other potential murderers that this will not get them the satisfaction

they want.

This would probably involve setting aside the "cruel and unusual"

punishment clauses that promise a humane death.

How this is done is a topic for another debate on this already very

complex and sensitive topic.

-----

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

**********

May 12, 2016 | Productivity Commission Publication of Intellectual

Property Arrangements Draft Report

Freedom Publishers Union would like to make a formal Submission in

response to the Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft Report.

We commend the report and its greater detail, as it provides the best

source of information related to recommendations for reform to

intellectual property and copyright in Australia.

Freedom Publishers Union has always advocated and supported calls which

demonstrate the need for a sensible and realistic approach to assist the

reform of the aforementioned laws and legislation in Australia, whilst

upholding current outstanding international obligations.

We commend the following key recommendations as presented in the

Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft Report:

Support for geoblocking circumvention techniques and to not criminalize

those who implement such techniques;

Support for copyright reform;

Implementation of fair-use policy.

Geoblocking

We support a free and open internet across the entire world which

provides unrestricted flow of information and adheres to proper net

neutrality principles.

Geoblocking is a major hurdle which puts restrictions on internet users

rights and permissions to access specific content.

Companies and persons who carry out technical operations which go towards

implementing geoblocking mechanisms are failing to uphold the very basic

principles of net neutrality and Freedom Publishers Union condemns this

behavior of restricting specific internet users to specific content and

deem it unacceptable.

Internet users who aim to and successfully circumvent geoblocking in an

effort to simply access legal content which should be available to them

without having to resort to the use of such circumvention techniques,

should not be presented as criminals and should not be punished, in cases

where they are accessing and paying for legal content and of which has no

financial burden or effect on the content producers and/or distributors.

Essentially, we would support any recommendations made by the

Productivity Commission which would support and legally allow for use of

geoblocking circumvention techniques.

In its current form, we believe that Australia's (and the entire world's)

major contributor to high levels of piracy.

Consumers have demonstrated their frustrations with out-dated copyright

laws which do not reflect current content and media use in a digitally

connected world.

When copyright laws were devised, digital media and the way it is used by

consumers today (legally and illegally) was not considered, for obvious

reasons.

Therefore, we would support the Productivity Commission's recommendations

to have copyright law reformed and the duration of copyright reduced to a

more reasonable time frame.

Currently, copyright is having a negative effect to what it is supposed

to control - fair-use of material, content and media covered under

Fair-use

Emphasis must be made on fair-use of copyrighted material, content and

media.

Currently, we can see no fair-use provisions or clauses which accommodate

the behavior and methods of how material, content and media is sourced,

used and shared in the 'modern age'.

It's a trait of our very human nature to want to use, try, test and share

everything that we access, at a personal level.

allow for any type of defined fair-use of such content.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Productivity Commission to place

emphasis on recommendations that promote implementation of fair-use

provisions and clauses to be amended into copyright reform.

With legally allowable fair-use, we believe that this will ease the

burden off content and media producers who feel that their content usage

that is copyrighted is being abused or the copyright being ignored.

In many cases it is not and in-fact, the content and media is being used

or shared in a very fair, acceptable and what we consider 'reasonable'

manner which has absolute minimal or no financial impact on producers of

copyrighted content.

With all of the above taken into consideration, Freedom Publishers Union

believes that the Productivity Commission's key recommendations which

primarily promote reform of intellectual property rights in Australia,

whilst maintaining our international obligations under current (and

future) international trade agreements is a great start to achieving

overdue reform of the IP sector and to assist in promoting a positive

approach to legislative reform that could potentially be fair for all

parties.

-----

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

**********

April 28, 2016 | Australia's Continued Attempt to Silence Off-Shore

Detention Center Whistleblowers

Freedom Publishers Union originally raised concerns over Australia's

Border Force legislation in an Editorial published on June 25, 2015.

The Border Force Bill 2015 contains disturbing elements which aim to gag

whistleblowers who could potentially speak out against Government

wrongdoing or from associated organizations contracted by the Australian

Government.

Detainees on Australia's off-shore detention facilities of Nauru and

Manus Island are held under conditions which have been deemed to violate

international treaties on human rights.

Amnesty International called the conditions witnessed on Nauru "a human

rights catastrophe".

Freedom Publishers Union has continuously raised concerns over the

conditions of detainees of Australia's off-shore detention facilities.

Additionally, our calls have remained consistent that the conditions on

these facilities that asylum seekers and refugees are held under is

ethically and morally unacceptable and a violation of human rights.

In another Editorial published on October 2014, questions were being

raised whether Australia was following the basic principles set out in

the United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Then on April 26, 2016, came a landmark decision from Papua New Guinea's

Supreme Court, which concluded that the detention of asylum seekers and

refugees on Manus Island is illegal, a violation of the country's

Constitution and a violation of human rights and civil liberties.

Further, the Supreme Court urged both Papua New Guinea and Australia to

take immediate steps to ensure detainees have freedom of passage and

movement.

Justice Terence Higgins said that to continuously have those seeking

refugee status "as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or

status, is to offend against their rights and freedoms".

Freedom Publishers Union has accessed the legal document released from

the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea.

Australia's public broadcaster ABC, aired on its television program Four

Corners, details of the stories from former medical staff who have worked

on off-shore detention centers, under the operations of International SOS

and its subsidiary, International Health and Medical Services.

International Health and Medical Services runs the medical services

provided on Manus Island.

The medical practitioners who have spoken out on the program are

essentially defying the restrictions put on them under the aforementioned

Australian Border Force Bill.

Under the Bill, the medical practitioners could potentially be prosecuted

and jailed for revealing the disturbing details and mismanagement of

medical staff and the operations that have been occurring on Manus

Island.

The details revealed by the former staff who have either worked directly

at the facility or associated with its operations, are alarming.

Equally alarming is the gross mismanagement and sheer ignorance put forth

by Australia's Department of Immigration and Border Force who are

outright ignoring the advice and recommendations of medical staff and

healthcare workers, which is resulting in an already dire situation of

detainee's health conditions, getting worse.

This very mismanagement and ignorance from Department of Immigration and

Border Force resulted in the death of Iranian detainee Hamid Khazaei.

It was advised from several medical workers on Manus Island that Hamid

Khazaei be transferred to a better equipped medical hospital, without

delay.

Immigration officials in Australia halted any transfer of Mr. Khazaei

citing that there were issues with his visa.

His medical condition continued to deteriorate further and the Department

was again advised that Mr. Khazaei be transferred, but this time to

mainland Australia and to a hospital in the city of Brisbane.

This request from medical staff was also initially ignored and delays

continued.

After much delay by Australian Immigration officials, a transfer to

Brisbane was eventually approved for Mr. Khazaei.

This decision came at a time when doctors already suspected him to be

"brain-dead", as revealed by medical staff who have spoken out about the

details.

Their suspicions were proven correct when Mr. Khazaei arrived at

Brisbane's Mater Hospital.

His condition was so bad he was kept alive only by life-support machine.

Mr. Khazaei's life-support was switched off several days after his

arrival on mainland Australia.

It's important to understand the two different sides to the story.

However, Freedom Publishers Union believes they are directly related.

The rules which have been set out in the Border Force legislation are a

clear indication of the policy's failures.

By disallowing and restricting visits from journalists and media into the

detention facility on Manus Island, making it illegal to report on

operations of the facility and scaling back all forms of operational

transparency allows the detention center to operate in near-secrecy which

resembles something of a military base.

Section 42 of the Act is titled "Secrecy".

The term "Entrusted person" essentially means employees, consultants and

contractors.

In short, everyone involved in the operations of these torrid facilities.

"Protected information" means A information held by detention centers.

Continued attempts to restrict the exposure of the concerns expressed by

whistleblowers by gagging and the lingering potential of 2-year

imprisonment for those who reveal such operational details and

information, is not how democracy should function.

By disallowing and literally shutting down every window of opportunity

which sees off-shore detention centers scrutinized by the wider public,

we will almost certainly continue to see more examples of clear

mismanagement and dysfunction at these centers and also in the

operational back-end of the Department of Immigration and Border Force.

This is not simply an administration error which has resulted in the

death of Mr. Khazaei.

It is a direct result of flawed and failed Border Force legislation and

immigration policy which has enabled this to happen.

If the Australian Government or Government appointed contractors are

violating the United Nations and Papua New Guinea human rights laws (or

any other Constitutional or civil liberties laws) then there is clear

justification for a legal case against Australia.

[As we go to press with this story and following on from the legal

decision from PNG deeming the Manus Island detention center illegal and

violating the PNG Constitution through loss of civil liberties, the PNG

Government has now ordered that the center be closed.

The PNG Government and Australia are currently making arrangements to

resettle/move current detainees held at the Manus Island facility.

No final decision has yet been made as this is currently developing

news.]

One can not question the knowledge and understanding of the direct

operations and what occurs on off-shore detention centers which house

asylum seekers and refugees.

The Australian Government is well aware of the problems that are present

in off-shore detention facilities, in addition to its clear

administrative problems present which are on display by the Department of

Immigration and Border Force being unable to cope with the workload of

everyday operations, let alone deal with serious problems when they do

arise.

Such is clear with the terrible case and tragic death of Hamid Khazaei,

which if dealt with swiftly and as recommended by medical staff as they

are experts in their field, the fatality of an asylum seeker/refugee who

is under the care of Australia could possibly have been avoided.

What are the real and viable options Australia has in dealing with its

asylum seekers and refugees? Well, there are options of establishing a

new facility on mainland Australia which can be operated with much closer

supervision and which should allow for media and journalists to visit the

facility, paving the way for much more transparent operations than what

off-shore detention currently offers.

Such proposals have been made by some Australian Politicians and

Senators.

The concerns continue to grow as more details of human rights violations

are exposed.

In-fact, it has become party policy of some small political parties in

Australia that the off-shore detention centers of Nauru and Manus Island

be closed immediately, following the establishment of a new facility of

the mainland.

Such a solution would also have a realistic added benefit of a more cost

effective solution than the current expensive operations of off-shore

detention.

Human rights of those seeking asylum and those with who have acquired

genuine refugee status could also be closely scrutinized and to some

degree, we would see their civil liberties be upheld.

After all, seeking asylum is not illegal.

Violating human rights and stripping people of civil liberties in a

democratic sovereign State is illegal.

That is what is being carried out by the Australian Government, its

contractors and its Department of Immigration and Border Force, through

the use of the Border Force legislation and allowing it to all occur in

secret whilst gagging those who speak out of this abuse.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

February 19, 2016 | Site Blocking and Censorship Will Not Reduce Piracy

As reported on the torrent news website TorrentFreak, the attacks against

Australian internet users has jumped into another stage.

The next stage of the attack is being led by Australian premium cable

subscriber, Foxtel.

Additionally, in a separate yet related legal filing, Village RoadShow

have also launched their own legal action.

Combined, the legal action of the two entertainment entities is

supposedly in-favor of site-blocking mechanisms through DNS blocking.

Any site blocking implemented would aim to block mainstream file sharing

websites and websites that 'supposedly' promote and enable piracy.

Freedom Publishers Union has always advocated freedom of information flow

on the internet, without blocking, without censorship and without

restriction.

We do not condone piracy and do not believe a majority of Australian (and

International) internet users are mass-pirates.

This majority use file sharing websites for a combination of reasons,

including lack of access to compatible legal material which is free of

any type of digital rights management (DRM) and a genuine intent of

personal viewing/listening and fair use.

Detailed in a Report compiled for the Australian Department of

Communications, released on June 24, 2015, which focused on online

that 28% of users who downloaded illegal content in some form, had also

paid for legal content.

So there is a positive perspective.

There is definitely room for improvement, yet there is equal room for

improvement from entertainment companies offering digital content to

Australian internet users which can match or better the quality that can

easily be accessed for free through file sharing websites.

Let's be realistic; Apple has done a fine job for delivering music tracks

and albums through its iTunes service.

However, if a user chooses to use the Linux operating system, iTunes is

simply not an option for them as the operating system is not supported by

Apple.

Movies are much the same.

Movie files are normally accessed through some type of portal which

requires a user to register to all kinds of untrustworthy services and

way too many sign-up details required.

And if a user is patient enough to tolerate all the associated sign-up

rubbish and reach a point where the movie is ready to be delivered to the

user digitally via download, it usually requires them to download and

install a proprietary media player distributed by the studio providing

the digital download.

Both mainstream options for music and movie entertainment and limited,

restricting and highly inflexible.

This is why internet users pirate music and movies.

More so in Australia because the access and options are often limited in

comparison to that of the United States.

So let's get to the crux of the entire problem; flexibility.

It is what internet users want.

Music lovers want to be able to simply click DOWNLOAD on that MP3/AAC

file or album and get exactly what they want within minimal effort and

getting a resulting digital file free from all DRM.

And the scenario is exactly the same for movies.

Movie buffs simply want to perform the same actions as above and get a

resulting file, again, free from all forms of DRM and in MKV/MP4 format.

Internet users like files in formats which can be migrated, moved and

copied to their personal music devices, smartphones and media players.

Only when the music industry and movie studios can emulate the ease-of-

access and flexibility that file sharing websites offer, and on all

operating systems and platforms will the legal alternatives offered

become equally attractive.

So far, both the music industry and movie studios have failed.

In fact, they have failed so badly that they have not even commenced to

recognize where the problem lies.

Well, there it is.

It's ironic that they spend millions of dollars every year attempting to

counteract piracy levels, when the real solution is so simple and written

right in front of their eyes - Ease-of-access, DRM free and flexible file

format.

Freedom Publishers Union and our media partner Quality Publishing Works

has released many Press Statements, combined with the many Editorials on

the same topic, all in support of freedom of information flow and fair

use policy of digital media and access to file sharing websites.

We do believe that file sharing websites and legal media entertainment

websites offering the same files for reasonable cost can live in harmony

on the internet.

On March 6, 2015, Freedom Publishers Union along with limited

collaboration with Pirate Party Australia, made a 8-page submission to

Communications Alliance Ltd.

in response to the Copyright Notice Scheme Draft Industry Code.

In the submission's opening Statement, former Editor-in-Chief of Freedom

Publishers Union, Chris Jones, made claim that the Copyright Notice

Scheme was on the right track to becoming a viable code, if Clauses and

Provisions were included which enable "fair use".

The terms of "fair use" can not be under-recognized, as they always are.

It is not a method of escaping penalty for illegally downloading content.

It is simply something that actually does occur and should be recognized

exactly for what it is - fair use of the media accessed.

Currently, all legal action filed from Foxtel and Village RoadShow, along

with the potential for more in the future, are still outstanding and it

will take time to go through all the usual legal channels of process.

So nothing will change without prior warning.

File sharing websites are not going to suddenly become inaccessible for

Australian internet users.

In conclusion, we must point out the obvious; piracy is real.

We have never denied this.

But so is the realistic scenario of genuine innocent internet users who

do use file sharing websites for genuine personal entertainment listening

and viewing, often on a very reasonable scale.

It's well documented that these types of users also do purchase legal

material in addition to testing the waters with illegally downloaded

content.

Again, this is why we strongly advocate on fair use policy as it would

potentially eliminate time wasting legal pursuit of these types of users.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support and advocate for the

open access and freedom of information flow on the internet, which also

extends to file sharing websites.

Finally, as a precaution of concern for internet security and privacy of

users, we also take this opportunity to re-iterate our call for internet

users to use Tor Browser where appropriate and where specific blocking

and censorship measures are implemented.

Internet censorship must stop.

Freedom of information and data must flow freely without interference or

limits and net neutrality must be upheld.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

January 27, 2016 | Visual Studio on Linux, Now a Reality

Linux users are truly blessed with the sheer amount of code editors that

we have at our disposal for our programming and coding requirements.

But we all have our favorites and tend to stick with the same packages

for our work.

Or a dedicated collection of packages, at the very least.

There was a time when I did use Microsoft Windows for software

development.

When you're using Windows as your software development environment,

you're most likely familiar with Visual Studio.

You might even use it yourself!

Many years ago, I migrated to Linux.

At the time, I was forced to depart from my beloved Visual Studio package

in favor of free and open-source alternatives.

After many attempts of many different editors I settled for Emacs.

These days, I still use and prefer Emacs and is definitely one software

application that I have open on my desktop almost all the time, on a

daily basis.

It's my go-to tool of choice.

Although I remain content with Emacs, accompanied by a selection of other

applications, there is a place in my programming heart that will always

have a soft-spot for Visual Studio.

So as a Linux programmer, what options do we have for a viable Visual

Studio alternative? Up until December 2015 we didn't have much choice.

There were options to explore for running Visual Studio through Wine, but

all methods remained tedious and resulted in poor application

performance.

Let's be honest, it could not be taken serious.

Times have changed.

We now have a native Visual Studio application for Linux, called Visual

Studio Code.

Does it fill the void we've experienced for so many years? Let's find

out.

If you're looking for a full-featured Visual Studio package on Linux,

then Visual Studio Code is not for you.

It is not what it's designed to be.

If you want a more full-featured package, then you will probably be

better off taking a look at something like Geany or Atom.

Both of which we recommend as good code editors and development

environments.

Visual Studio Code is designed to be a minimal code editor which has just

enough features to get the job completed, yet stay out of your way.

It's a perfect blend and absolutely achieves exactly this.

There is limited syntax-highlighting, syntax detection for the most

common used programming languages and split screen code editing.

Heavy coding inside Visual Studio Code is an absolute breeze and it's not

hard to find yourself wired in to those long sessions that go deep into

the hours of the night, usually accompanied by piles of junk food and a

nice collection of red bull cans.

Digging a little deeper into the menus and you will find yourself a few

extra goodies.

Your usual suspects of Cut/Copy/Paste and Find/Find in Files options are

all present.

No grand surprises here.

There is also Zoom options to make your code bigger.

I guess this might only be a feature for the vision impaired.

But if your eye-sight is good, you're probably not going to be using this

feature.

But extras points given for the accessibility options.

You can use the Full Screen option to make Visual Studio Code consume

your entire screen real estsate.

This can also be activated by pressing F11, which is a common key-binding

found in many software programs for this feature.

And then the same key to deactivate and return to normal window mode.

The color scheme of the interface is completely customizable to suit you

own retina.

Light or dark themes can be applied as default.

I found the Dark (default color theme) the most suited for my eyes

throughout day and night editing sessions.

This will be personal preference and will differ for everyone.

Simply choose one that works for you and allows you to work for extended

periods of time without eye strain or having to squint your eyes from too

much screen glare due to white eye burn.

There are a bunch of keyboard shortcuts which can be customized.

But I will be honest here, I am not a massive user of keyboard shortcuts.

So this was of little value to me.

Some programmers love shortcuts and is literally built into their coding

habits and work-flow.

Those users will love the option to customize the shortcuts in Visual

Studio Code.

I find the most useful feature in Visual Studio Code is split screen

editing.

You can literally open two different files at once and work on them

simultaneously in the editor.

This is also available in most other editors already.

But it's great that Visual Studio Code has decided to also include the

feature too.

A little known feature that you could be forgiven for overlooking is the

Developer Tools.

At first it can be a little confusing to use and unless you're editing

HTML files inside Visual Studio Code, you will not find this feature all

that useful.

Loading up some HTML files made the Developer Tools very handy.

It is similar to what you will find in Chrome and Firefox web browsers.

Basically, if you're a HTML or web developer, you will appreciate these

extra little goodies.

Visual Studio Code does not have an automated installer at the moment.

The package can be simply downloaded, extracted and run from its own

directory.

This might sound difficult, but it's not.

For this Review I was using Linux Mint and decided to get a little more

crafty and extracted it to a directory inside the ~/ directory and then

added a custom launcher icon on both my Desktop and Panel.

Therefore, I can launch Visual Studio Code just like any other package

installed on my system.

Visual Studio Code has it all.

I had no problem with editing inside the application at anytime.

It is a nice addition to my already crowded list of source code editing

programs.

The fact remains, I have started using Visual Studio Code equal to my use

of Emacs.

That has got to count for something.

It tells me that it must be good.

If an Editor can hold its own up to a package like Emacs, then it's

worthy of maintaining its place on anyone's hard drive.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

January 16, 2016 | A Positive Open-Source Vision for Microsoft?

It was at the JSConf Last Call event, last December when Microsoft's

Gaurav Seth announced the core engine which powers Microsoft's latest web

browser, Edge, would be open-sourced.

The engine known as Chakra is a Javascript-based engine and has been

released on GitHub and is referred to as ChakraCore.

While the announcement of releasing the code to was one major surprise

coming from Microsoft, there was another announcement which surprised

some software developers even more - plans for porting ChakraCore to

Linux are in the pipeline.

In its current form, ChakraCore can be compiled with relative ease for

Windows 7 SP1 or above using Visual Studio 2013/2015, providing that C++

support is installed.

Microsoft has gone one step further by calling on the development

community for help and suggestions on what platforms they would like

ChakraCore developed for.

A clear priority for the road-map is to get the engine developed to

function natively on Linux, we see no reason that the same can not be

achieved for Android.

Developing ChakraCore for iOS is probably forward thinking a little too

far.

At least a development build supported by Microsoft.

However now the code is out in the wild and released under the MIT

License there is no genuine reason that no one in the open-source

software development community can not develop the engine for Apple

devices.

Even if we were to witness a build solely for Android devices, it would

be a major step towards entering a wider world in the mobile device

margin and away from the somewhat niche market of Windows Mobile that

Microsoft currently enjoys.

Under the leadership of its relatively new CEO, Satya Nadella, Microsoft

has really changed their view of open-source and freedom in software and

embraced Linux.

The latest decision to release the source code of ChakraCore displays

Microsoft's genuine intention to not only support free software, but

specifically free and open-source software development.

Releasing even small amounts of code or projects is its contribution.

Microsoft is no stranger to the open-source community and it has

previously been recognized for making many code contributions to the

Linux kernel, both officially as a company and through the work of its

employees developing in their free time away from the office.

Then in 2015 Microsoft embraced Ubuntu Linux as a platform, revealing

that the company uses the operating system to function many parts of its

cloud and networking software, simply because it made sense to use

existing open-source software which could easily be tailored to their

needs rather than developing and maintaining their own from scratch.

This also has the added benefit of getting patches and updates provided

by the open-source community and eliminating costs of maintaining their

own proprietary, in-house developed software.

Additionally, Microsoft now offers many different Linux distributions as

virtual machine options on its Azure cloud service.

According to official Microsoft sources, the Azure service supports

CentOS, CoreOS, Debian, Oracle Linux, RHEL, SUSE Linux Enterprise,

OpenSUSE and Ubuntu.

Reflecting on a recent article published to ZDNet, there is an apparent

common perception among Linux and the common open-source users that

Microsoft is evil and has no interest in free and open-source software.

At some point in the company's history we're not going to deny the

perception has some truth to it.

The company vision under the guidance of former CEO Steve Ballmer could

only be described as narrow-minded and dark.

It was clear the company was heading in the wrong direction.

It was clear for a very long time, yet Ballmer seemed determined to

continue on its dark and misguided path.

This was reinforced when the company replaced Ballmer in favor of Satya

Nadella.

The change in company vision was stark and was quickly embraced.

The company's evil past has mostly been left in the shadows and with a

new focus, vision and embrace of Linux and free and open-source software.

Whilst we would not go as far as to say Microsoft is going to open-source

its Windows operating system anytime in the foreseeable future, releasing

one service at a time and embracing open-source software and giving its

development a small boost by occasionally releasing code can only be a

good thing for the development community, with added benefits of

increased interoperability between all software across all platforms.

-----

Published by Tecseek Technology.

**********

January 4, 2016 | Tribute to Debian Founder, Ian Murdock

On December 28, 2015, the free software world lost of one its smartest

programmers and software engineers, Ian Murdock.

Ian was most well known for his founding and creation of one of the most

respected Linux distributions to date, Debian.

Through Ian's creation of Debian, the Linux operating system has gained a

reputation for being one of the most solid, reliable and versatile Linux

operating systems for the server and desktop sectors.

Debian has provided the basis for many Linux based operating systems,

including the world's most popular Linux system [at the time of going to

press], Ubuntu.

Debian development continues today through the volunteer efforts of

thousands of software developers and engineers.

Whilst Linus Torvalds is often considered the grandfather of Linux,

Debian is equally considered the grandfather of Linux based operating

systems.

The tireless work that Ian Murdock put into Debian and other projects

earned him the respect that he deserved.

In January, 2006 Ian's hard work led him to a role as Chief Technology

Officer (CTO) with the Free Standards Group, which eventually evolved

into the Linux Foundation.

Ian continued his role as CTO until the following year of March 2007

where he was employed at Sun Microsystems to lead Project Indiana.

When Sun Microsystems merged with software giant Oracle, Ian resigned

from the company.

From 2011-2015 Ian was employed by Salesforce Marketing Cloud, until in

November 2015 he joined Docker Inc.

His role with Docker was short-lived, when on December 30, 2015, Docker

announced his tragic passing.

Whilst specific circumstances surrounding his passing have not been

officially released, there are indications that Ian Murdock had taken his

own life.

Absolutely tragic and deeply saddening for Ian's family, friends,

colleagues and all of the free and open-source software community.

It's important to remember the legacy that Ian left behind, through his

work as a free and open-source software developer and engineer.

More specifically, Ian will always be remembered for the founding and

creation of the world's most loved and respected Linux operating systems,

Debian.

May you rest in peace Ian Murdock, you will be sorely missed.

-----

Freedom Publishers Union - Public Relations Department

**********

September 30, 2015 | Tribute to the Father of the C Programming Language,

Dennis Ritchie

Dennis Ritchie, the man behind the scenes who created the C programming

language or as they call him, the Father of the C programming language.

Richie was born on September 9, 1941 in Bronxville, New York.

His father Alistair Ritchie, was a switching systems engineer at Bell

Laboratories.

Dennis was later moved to Summit, New Jersey with his family.

Dennis graduated from Summit High School, then got a bachelors degree

from Harvard University in Physics and Applied Mathematics field in 1963,

and a PhD in Mathematics in 1968 from Harvard University.

He later moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dennis was a key developer of the UNIX operating system, and co-author of

the book "The C Programming Language".

He worked along with Ken Thompson (A scientist who wrote the original

UNIX).

Later, he developed a collaboration on the C programming language with

Brian Kernighan and they were known together as K&R (Kernighan &

Ritchie).

Dennis Ritchie had an important contribution to UNIX which was that UNIX

ported to different machines and platforms.

His ideas still live on, at the center of modern operating systems

design, in almost all new programming languages, and in every bit of open

systems.

Richie started his career in 1967, as he started to work at the Bell

Laboratories - Computing Sciences Research Center.

(One of the most famous centers of digital innovation in the world at

that time and the birthplace of the transistor).

Jeong Kim, President of Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs said, "Dennis was well

loved by his colleagues at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, and will be greatly

missed.

He was truly an inspiration to all of us, not just for his many

accomplishments, but because of who he was as a friend, an inventor, and

a humble and gracious man.

We would like to express our deepest sympathies to the Ritchie family,

and to all who have been touched in some way by Dennis.".

At Bell Laboratories, Ritchie worked on the Multics project.

Multics was an operating system which could replace the idea of batch

processing with interactivity.

(Programs were running one at a time from a cards stack by an operator

and the programmer or user themselves had full control during the writing

of a software).

There, Dennis met Ken Thompson, who later became one of Ritchie's main

collaborators.

Dennis said, "One of the obvious things that went wrong with Multics as a

commercial success was just that it was sort of over-engineered in a

sense.

There was just too much in it.".

Bell Laboratories stopped working on Multics, Ritchie and Ken decided to

not abandon the ideas of interaction and collaboration and they began to

work on a successor, called UNIX.

That modern operating system (UNIX) spread within Bell Laboratories and

later was announced to the world in 1973.

Computer hardware design in the 70's had many variations and

experimentations which reflected badly on software writers' life as they

had to either spend more time and energy recreating their software for

each new platform or limit their programs to run only on one particular

platform.

The original UNIX kernel was written in the Assembly language, but

Ritchie and Ken decided that they need a higher level language, to give

them more control over all the data which spanned the operating system.

Richie and Thompson used BCPL (Basic Combined Programming Language) to

write UNIX by squeezing it into 8 kilobytes and renamed it "B".

Ritchie responded to that problem by designing a new computer language,

called "C" as an upgrade of the B language by adding data types and new

syntax to it.

B was an interpreted language that was executed by an intermediate piece

of software running over CPU, but C was a compiled language translated

into machine code and then executed directly on the CPU.

Dennis once stated, "UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you

have to be a genius to understand the simplicity.".

C was able to easily and quickly move between different hardware.

Software that were written in C language could run with little or even no

modifications on any device that could run C.

C used very few syntax and little instructions, but it was extremely

modular and structured.

Because of this C was easy to use in different computers.

There were huge blocks of C functions which were already written and

programmers could copy the whole code into their own software without any

need to start from scratch, making it easier and faster to implement.

Such functions blocks were easily accessible and available in libraries,

so programmers could access them.

Ritchie and Ken rewrote the UNIX in the C language and they could give

UNIX the portability option as well as they gave programmers the chance

to learn one operating system, one programming language, and some set of

tools.

Only one side effect that UNIX later became a natural place for

experiments and inter-networking between various systems.

Dennis declared, "Obviously, the person who had most influence on my

career was Ken Thompson.".

In 1978, "The C Programming Language" book was published by Dennis

Ritchie and Brian Kernighan.

The book covered a brief definition of the C language and a peerless

introduction to different styles and techniques of programming in C.

This book still remains an inspiration reference and practical guide for

programmers, today.

By the middle of the 1980's, the C language became one of the most

popular programming languages in the world.

Because of the functionality and speed with which C could be easily used

to write software and run them, many companies started to use C to

develop their own applications.

The C programming language is still being universally used nowadays as

the second most popular programming language in the world in application

systems, operating systems and embedded systems development, and its

influence is still seen in most modern programming languages.

Also UNIX influences in establishing concepts and principles which are

now computing precepts.

"C was already implemented on several quite different machines and

operating systems.

UNIX was already being distributed on the PDP-11, but the portability of

the whole system was new.", says Dennis.

The last important technical contribution that was made by Dennis Richie

to UNIX was the Streams Mechanism which was used for interconnecting

devices, applications and protocols.

UNIX and C's spiritual descendants are hard to count, but they

respectively include Linux, Android, Mac OS, iOS, JavaScript, C++ and

many more that are used in internet technology and by a world full of

software developers.

Numerous amounts of applications were and still are written in C language

and its object oriented successor C++.

C was standardized by ANSI and ISO, that's why it was multi-purpose and

becomes in almost every aspect of the computing industry today.

As an example, languages which came later (such as C++ and Java) were

derived from the C language, [some] browser's code are written in C.

Also, Microsoft Windows was initially written in C.

Even Both of Apple's operating systems (Mac OS and iOS) are based on the

UNIX-derived system of FreeBSD.

There is no doubt that Dennis Ritchie's contributions on the computing

industry has significantly altered the core of the history of computing

industry.

Dennis said, "The kind of programming that C provides will probably

remain similar absolutely or slowly decline in usage, but relatively,

JavaScript or its variants, or XML, will continue to become more

central.".

Ritchie later became the head of Systems Software Research Department at

Lucent Technologies, and was striving to make computers work better and

more easily for users, until his retirement in 2007.

Dennis had admitted that his personal life and his professional life were

mixed together as he stated in an interview, "I've done a reasonable

amount of traveling, which I enjoyed, but not for too long at a time.

I'm a home-body and get fatigued by it fairly soon, but enjoy thinking

back on experiences when I've returned and then often wish I'd arranged a

longer stay in the somewhat exotic place.".

Dennis lived alone at his home in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.

He was found dead on October 12, 2011.

The cause and exact time of his death are unknown.

He spent several years in frail health following treatment for prostate

cancer and heart disease.

He died a week after death of Steve Jobs but his death did not receive as

much media coverage as Jobs.

The Fedora 16 Linux Distribution, was released and dedicated to his

memory in 2012.

The computer historian, Paul E.

Ceruzzi, stated on Dennis Ritchie's death, "Dennis Ritchie was under the

radar.

His name was not a household name at all, but if you had a microscope and

could look in a computer, you'd see his work everywhere inside.".

On Linux, Dennis stated, "I think the Linux phenomenon is quite

delightful, because it draws so strongly on the basis that UNIX provided.

Linux seems to be among the healthiest of the direct UNIX derivatives,

though there are also the various BSD systems as well as the more

official offerings from the workstation and mainframe manufacturers.".

Rest in peace Dennis Ritchie.

We miss you.

-----

Freedom Publishers Union - Public Relations Department

**********

June 25, 2015 | Australia's Democracy, Freedom and Civil Liberties Under

Threat

The Australian Government has gone out of its way to make a dramatic

shift towards ripping the democratic freedoms and civil liberties from

its citizens.

Since the Liberal Government was elected to Parliament in September 2013,

under the leadership of Tony Abbott, Freedom Publishers Union has

witnessed too much controversial legislation which directly attacks

multiple facets of Australia's freedom.

Intertwined inside all the complex legislation, freedom of expression has

been attacked and freedom of the press has also taken a hit.

As has journalism and publishing.

The current Government has been heavily criticized for legislation which

literally stampedes on these freedoms, which Australia has previously

enjoyed.

Unfortunately, Australia's Liberal Government has not solely had

Australian citizens in its cross-hair.

Refugees and asylum seekers have also had a target painted on their backs

and their boats, along with the country's digital society, with recent

passing of copyright reform legislation and measures to implement website

blocking and filtering technology - paving the legal path to a censored

and filtered internet for Australia.

Australians holding dual-citizenship (also known as dual-nationals) are

now in the political spotlight, as the Government has just introduced

measures to enable easy revocation of Australian citizenship and

deportation to a country of origin, through amendments being made to the

Citizenship Act 2007.

The final details are yet to be finalized.

On almost every occasion, the opposition Labor Party of Australia has

effectively failed the Australian public by providing almost nil

opposition or alternative proposal to counteract the controversial and

unfair legislation which attacks Australia's freedom and citizen's

rights.

The Labor Party of Australia has simply followed suit, based on

misinformation (and often lies) and rhetoric from the Liberal Party, in

an effort to get its suite of counter-terrorism legislation passed

through the Australian Parliament and Senate.

The Border Force Bill 2015 raises concerns in relation to gagging

potential whistleblowers.

In the legislation, there is potential 2-year imprisonment for health

workers who reveal details and information on conditions of detention

centers, where refugees and asylum seekers are detained, such as Nauru

and Manus Island.

Both for which have been criticized internationally and by Australia's

own Human Rights Commissioner in a recently released detailed report, for

human rights abuse and treatment of detainees.

Australia's national public television and radio broadcaster, ABC, points

out-Section 42 of the Act is titled "Secrecy".

The term "Entrusted person" essentially means employees, consultants and

contractors.

In short, everyone involved in the operations of these torrid facilities.

"Protected information" means any information held by detention centers.

The terminology used and for which the Border Force Bill contains, is

vast and very wide-spread.

This is deliberate in an effort to ensure no leaks occur from inside

Nauru or Manus Island - an attempt at gagging and preventing any

potential whistleblowers.

We have grave concerns for both of the aforementioned bills and their

included provisions.

Specifically, we have concerns with the proposed changes for the dual-

citizenship legislation.

The changes would be made through expansion of Section 35 of the current

Citizenship Act 2007.

Under the new laws, Australian citizenship status can be revoked from

Australians holding dual-citizenship and can then be forcefully removed

from Australia and deported back to country of origin.

How is this decided? By one single Government Minister.

Yes.

There is no judicial oversight or involvement in the process and the

decision will be handed down by the Australian Immigration Minister of

the day, currently Peter Dutton MP.

The process and final decision from the Minister is supposedly based off

evidence and information on the individual and their activities, both

home and abroad, as provided and sourced by Australia's intelligence and

spy agency, ASIO.

And it doesn't end there.

The Liberal Government has flagged proposals for getting the new laws to

apply to retrospective cases, which raises the concern of what so-called

evidence and information the Government is using to apply the new laws to

old cases and how reliable this information can be.

How far back does it want to go? As yet, this much is unclear.

As we have typically seen with all this over-hyped legislation, it all

comes presented and shrouded under the buzz-terms of the day -

"terrorism" and "national security".

Media outlets have publicly criticized the proposals.

The ABC has deemed the dual-citizenship changes "unconstitutional" and

possibly "illegal".

Whilst one of Australia's most prominent advocates for refugees, asylum

seekers and human rights, Julian Burnside, has also been critical of the

legislation.

At the time of going to press, the proposals are under closer review of

the Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Update: On July 1, 2015, The Guardian published an Open Letter written

and signed by 41 professionals, ranging from health workers, medical

practitioners, school teachers, youth workers, social services workers

and humanitarian officers.

The Guardian reports, "More than 40 staff who have worked at detention

centers on Manus Island, Nauru and across the Australian mainland have

spoken out on the same day that a new offence comes into force that

criminalizes the disclosure of information.".

The letter effectively defies the new law and challenges the Federal

Government, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Immigration Minister Peter

Dutton to prosecute the signatories of the letter, so the matter can be

resolved in the public presence in open court proceedings.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

The following Submission is made to Communications Alliance.

It was devised in collaboration between Freedom Publishers Union and

Pirate Party Australia.

It is an official joint Submission.

The Submission is our response to the recent publication titled

"Copyright Notice Scheme".

In our joint Submission, we outline a total of 19 concerns.

In addition to outlining our concerns, we additionally suggest our

recommendation of resolve for each concern to the extent of what we would

deem reasonable and in the interest of all parties that may be affected

from any eventual implementation of a Copyright Notice Scheme.

Initial concern - Actual details are not clear and detailed enough as to

what each of the three notices are, informing the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, preferably at the beginning of the document,

all relevant details which clearly state in obvious form, what each

notice is and what are the incursions for acknowledging and/or ignoring

the notice.

Initial concern - Actual details are not clear and detailed enough as to

what are the incursions for ignoring the third/final notice informing the

Account Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, what are the incursions for all concerned parties, if the

Account Holder ignores this notice.

Initial concern - Actual details are not clear and detailed enough as to

what are the incursions and resulting action be for Account Holder

ignoring the third/final notice.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, what are the incursions and resulting action from the ISP

and Rights Holder, if the Account Holder ignores this notice.

Initial concern - No Clause or Provisions set out in this document, for

"fair use", substitute or equivalent.

Recommendation - A Clause and associated Provisions must be added to the

document, which outline in specific detail some implementation of "fair

use" policy.

Additionally, there needs to be clear details which outline the specifics

of what is deemed "fair use".

Effectively, when a "fair use" Clause and associated Provisions are

implemented, relevant, sensible steps and guidelines need to be added and

strictly followed, to integrate the Clause and any Provisions into other

working and related Clauses and Provisions of this document.

Initial concern - What exact information is deemed "personal details".

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, what details and information of the Account Holder is

deemed "personal details".

Stating "Same as Privacy Act" is not sufficient in specifying what is

deemed "personal details".

It needs to be stated within a Clause of this document.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.12; How accurate is the

method(s) and technological techniques used for IP address detection of

possible copyright breach of the Rights Holder, from the ISP and Account

Holder.

Recommendation - There needs to be specific guidelines and procedures

outlined within a Clause and Provisions of this document, in which [a]

specific method(s) and technological technique(s) used for IP address

detection of possible copyright breach of the Rights Holder, from the

associated ISP and alleged Account Holder.

All outlined technological details and specifications presented in the

document, must read in basic, understandable terms and remain as

uncomplicated as possible.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.13; The Clause uses the term

"must" when referring to ISP issuing a notice upon request of the Rights

Holder.

What incursions result when a ISP fails to proceed with issuing a notice

to the Account Holder, as requested by the Rights Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, what are the incursions and resulting action from the

Rights Holder, for an ISP ignoring the request to issue notice to the

Account Holder.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.16; This Clause Requires

stronger emphasis.

Recommendation - Refer back to Privacy Act.

Initial concern - Will require further review when more information on

numbers is provided in the document.

Recommendation - Update document as necessary.

10.

Initial concern - Not enough detailed information is provided in the

document to describe what a "Preliminary Discovery Application" is.

Recommendation - Our understanding indicates it is the Rights Holder

gaining personal details and information of the Account Holder.

If this is correct, it needs to be ensured this is legally doable and

possible without breaching any Clauses or Provisions in the Privacy Act.

11.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.9.2 (6); Pop-up; How will this

technology be implemented.

Recommendation - There needs to be specific guidelines and procedures

outlined within a Clause and Provisions of this document, in which [a]

specific method(s) and technological technique(s) used for "pop-up" to

alert Account Holder of relevant alleged breach and possibly ignoring the

notice.

It needs to be guaranteed, to a 'reasonable' extent, to not be bypassed

(unintentionally through the use of ad-blocking software mechanisms) and

remain unacknowledged by the Account Holder.

12.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.9.2; It remains unclear

whether an ISP is required to re-attempt a second (or more) time if one

selected contact option fails to the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, if the ISP is required to re-attempt a second (or more)

time if one selected contact option fails to the Account Holder.

If repeated attempts are required, it must be specified how many times as

a minimum and to what maximum re-attempts is considered 'reasonable'.

13.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10; How can a Account Holder

obtain a Challenge Notice.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, how and where a Account Holder is to obtain a Challenge

Notice.

14.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10; How does the Account

Holder send the Challenge Notice to the Adjudication Panel.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, how and what method is used for the Account Holder to send

the Challenge Notice to the Adjudication Panel.

15.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10.6; In the details of this

Clause, it is unclear whether the stated "28 days" applies to the date

the Final Notice is sent to the Account Holder or the date the Final

Notice is received and officially acknowledged by the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, whether the stated "28 days" applies to the date the Final

Notice is sent to the Account Holder or the date the Final Notice is

received and officially acknowledged by the Account Holder.

16.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.10.13; The term "Privacy

Principles", as used in this Clause is too broad and non-specific.

Recommendation - Outline, all relevant details which clearly state in

obvious form, what specifically "Privacy Principles" defines and refer to

the official title of the Privacy Act.

17.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.11.1; The period for records

keeping at 24 months, as specified in this Clause is too long and

unnecessary.

Recommendation - The period for records keeping should be reduced to a

period of a maximum of 12 months.

18.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.11.2; Details outlined in the

Clause require amending in accordance to Clause 3.11.1.

Recommendation - Amend details outlined in Clause 3.11.2 in accordance to

Clause 3.11.1.

19.

Initial concern - In reference to Clause 3.11.2; The term "may destroy",

as used in this Clause is not sufficient in terms of respecting the

rights to privacy of the Account Holder.

Recommendation - Amend details outlined in Clause 3.11.2 and replace the

term "may destroy" with the effective term of "must destroy".

-----

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Director of Freedom Publishers Union and Member

of Pirate Party Australia

**********

October 4, 2014 | Australian Government May Be in Violation of 11

Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Freedom Publishers Union is publishing our growing concerns that with new

amendments and legislation the Australian Government is currently

implementing, it genuinely raises the legitimate question of whether

Australia is violating human rights, based on the United Nations' very

own document.

Freedom Publishers Union is not claiming that any specific legislation or

section of any legislation does actually violate any of these rights.

We simply note there are specifics in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights document, which we believe require very careful consideration from

the Australian Government.

We also understand that the said document from the United Nations is not

a legally binding document and United Nations countries are not legally

bound to abide by the Declaration.

But it does provide the basic fundamentals of civil and human rights

within a supposed free and democratic country.

Something Australia is quickly shifting away from.

As the Declaration is not legally binding, it begins to raise the

question of whether there is a valid point of having the Declaration in

the first place if countries are to simply outright ignore the civil

rights of its citizens and go ahead and introduce legislation which

legally wavers the country responsible for these human and civil rights.

Australia proudly touts itself as being one the eight original countries

involved in drafting the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Australia also so proudly chants how much of important role it played in

the founding of the United Nations and the UN Charter.

If Australia is so proud of its achievements and its involvements in the

United Nations, then it raises further questions of the integrity of the

current Australian Government and how it so proudly and possibly, breaks

up to 11 of the Articles in the United Nations - Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.

-----

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

**********

June 25, 2013 | Unixmen Exclusive Interview: Garrett D'Amore, Illumos

Founder

During the week, Unixmen exclusively interviewed Illumos Founder, Garrett

D'Amore.

Garrett has worked for the likes of Sun Microsystems and Nexenta.

Upon the announcement of Oracle closing development of OpenSolaris, he

founded the Illumos project which would become a continuation of the

OpenSolaris kernel.

We asked him to shed some light on what he thinks of the current

situation with OpenIndiana, the open-source desktop project which would

continue on from where OpenSolaris stopped so suddenly.

Unixmen would like to thank Garrett D'Amore for his time and expressing

his open, [yet limited] opinion about OpenIndiana.

Unixmen: When you first received word that Oracle was discontinuing

development of OpenSolaris, what prompted you to found the Illumos

project and become involved with OpenIndiana?

Garrett: I think you're confused about Illumos vs.

OpenIndiana.

Unfortunately, many people have the same confusion, which is one of the

problems I foresaw when the OI project was first described to me.

Alasdair Lumsden founded OpenIndiana.

I founded "Illumos", which occurred in advance of the OpenIndiana

project.

The Illumos project is just the kernel (and some supporting core

software), much like kernel.org hosts the Linux project.

OpenIndiana is to Illumos as Debian is to Linux.

Without Illumos, there would be no OpenIndiana, but Illumos lives quite

happily as the heart of many other projects besides OpenIndiana,

including a few commercial distributions, and several non-commercial

alternatives.

Unixmen: When Alasdair founded OpenIndiana, what do you think was

envisioned for the project?

Garrett: I think you'll have to ask Alasdair, because he founded the

project.

From my understanding, the sole purpose of OpenIndiana was to carry on

where Oracle left off, to be a free CentOS to Oracle's Solaris.

In many respects this mission was flawed from the get go, and I gave the

project my specific opinion to that effect.

OI needed to attempt to be more than that, and needed to divorce itself

from just being a free Solaris clone.

Because ultimately, once Solaris went back to being closed source, it

wasn't viable to continue to maintain the level of equality and

compatibility that was part of the OI mission statement.

Unixmen: Would you agree that OpenIndiana has some internal issues that

need to be sorted before the project can move forward and in to a more

positive direction?

Garrett: I think it's mostly a question of whether OI serves a purpose,

and deciding what that purpose is.

It's no longer the case that the world needs OI as a delivery vehicle for

Illumos technology.

Unixmen: What issues do you believe require immediate attention?

Garrett: OI needs to sort out the following:

a) What is its mission? What problem(s) are they trying to solve?

b) Equally important, what problems *aren't* they trying to solve?

c) How can they get folks to start contributing again?

d) How can they get to a regular/predictable release schedule?

The first two questions need to be sorted before any others.

Much of the debate and problems with the project came about because there

was no clear vision for the project, and so lots of people came to it

with different goals and ideas.

It's not practical to try to be all things to all people, and the project

lead, when there is one, has to be willing to accept that some folks are

not going to like whatever direction is taken.

That's ok.

The beauty of open-source is that we can have multiple different

projects, with different reasons to exist, and these projects can share

code and collaborate without having to be competitive.

Unixmen: When the Project Leader Alasdair Lumsden resigned, it was a big

blow for the project because Alasdair was a well respected member of the

project and upon his resignation he outlined his reasons for his

resignation.

And the issues raised by Alasdair still plague the project today.

Do you see the project introducing or promoting a new Project Leader

soon?

Garrett: It wouldn't be my place to do.

I have about as much control or influence over OI as Linus Torvalds does

over Red Hat or Debian.

Unixmen: And finally, do you see any short-term and long-term plans for

OpenIndiana?

Garrett: You'll have to ask the project team.

I think Andrzej Szeszo has taken over most of the leadership, and spawned

a new version of it called "hipster", which I think is an attempt to

modernize and move forward.

-----

Interview by Chris McGimpsey-Jones

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen.

The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the

article is published under the Creative Commons license model.

The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the

terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has

changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own.

This is incorrect.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now

published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original

author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct

terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

**********

September 21, 2012 | Unixmen Exclusive Interview: Alasdair Lumsden,

OpenIndiana Former Project Leader

At Unixmen, we were lucky enough to score an exclusive interview with

former Project Leader of OpenIndiana, Alasdair Lumsden.

Since Alasdair's resignation, it has not only sparked discussion on the

reasons of Alasdair's resignation from OpenIndiana, but also generated a

lot of interesting discussion on development and the future of

OpenIndiana.

I want to really thank Alasdair for taking the time to chat with Unixmen

and reveal all in this very intimate and honest view of OpenIndiana from

the very inside of the project.

Unixmen: As far as we are aware, you used to work for the Sun

Microsystems funded open-source project, OpenSolaris.

And when Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems and eventually announced they

would discontinue the OpenSolaris project, you obviously felt passionate

enough about the project to start the OpenIndiana project?

Alasdair: I never actually worked at Sun, or had any involvement in

OpenSolaris prior to OpenIndiana - believe it or not I only started using

Solaris in 2008, which does surprise a lot of people.

I run a Managed Hosting company in the UK and I saw a lot of promise in

technologies such as ZFS, Zones and SMF, which allow us be a lot more

agile than our much larger competitors.

I got stuck in and learned everything I could.

And within 6 months, most of our clients were going into Zones onto

Solaris servers.

Then in 2010 when Oracle bought Sun Microsystems and the future of

OpenSolaris became very uncertain, I started to worry.

Nobody knew what would happen next.

Oracle had canceled several open-source projects and there was complete

radio silence.

I had been attending the London OpenSolaris Users Group (LOSUG) quite a

lot.

And I decided to investigate the possibility of forking OpenSolaris, via

a weekend hackathon I advertised through LOSUG.

A surprisingly large number of people attended.

Nobody at that point had attempted to assemble the whole distribution

outside of Sun.

At the end of the hackathon it became apparent that it was entirely

possible, with some hard work and dedicated volunteers.

So we set to work.

Unixmen: Who was responsible for splitting the project in to two separate

entities to include OpenIndiana for an enterprise desktop development and

Illumos for the kernel development?

Alasdair: We weren't kernel engineers - the LOSUG hackathon hackers were

all systems administrators.

None of us had any experience hacking kernels.

I had sent some private emails out to various figureheads in the

OpenSolaris community to explain what I was up to and came into contact

with Garrett D'Amore.

Garrett was a seasoned kernel programmer at Sun who had left to join

Nexenta.

Nexenta saw the same threat we did.

Garrett's vision was to fork the kernel specifically.

(Actually OS/Net, which includes the core supporting userland tools such

as SMF, Dtrace, libc, etc).

That made perfect sense to us, so it became quite a symbiotic

relationship.

Unixmen: Do you believe splitting the two development branches in to two

different entities was the right thing to do at the time? Or do you

believe that it is contributing to the problems involved with the

development of OpenIndiana?

Alasdair: Oh it was definitely the correct decision - it's very much like

the Linux community - with various distributions based on a shared common

kernel.

You have Illumos and various Illumos based distributions such as Nexenta,

SmartOS, OpenIndiana etc.

The kernel+core userland is where all the amazing Solaris technologies

live.

So it makes sense for them to be maintained by a separate entity.

Having Illumos separate in no way hinders OpenIndiana, and vice versa.

In fact, it strengthens Illumos and therefore strengthens all of the

distributions, including OpenIndiana.

Unixmen: I think one of the major downsides of the free and open-source

software development model is the demand of volunteer developers free

time.

We all have day jobs and often our FOSS projects are something that we do

either as a hobby or just something we do because we enjoy it.

It's been seen time and time again people resigning from such positions

in various FOSS projects, was it simply lack of time which prompted your

decision to resign from the OpenIndiana project?

Alasdair: Yes, that was the biggest factor contributing to my

resignation.

Managing an operating system is the equivalent of a full-time job.

I already have one of those! I viewed OpenIndiana as the "Debian distro"

of the Illumos world - it was to be a community maintained general

purpose distribution that couldn't disappear because the company

maintaining it decides to pull the plug.

It's also the only widely used Illumos based distribution that has a

graphical environment that can function as a desktop OS (although desktop

was never a space we wanted to compete in - Solaris was always a server

operating system).

OpenIndiana was also a continuation of OpenSolaris.

A large numbers of OpenSolaris machines (perhaps even most of them) were

upgraded to OpenIndiana because it was just a "pkg update" away.

This gave OpenIndiana the largest user base of any of the other Illumos

based distributions.

I was never paid to work on OpenIndiana.

And neither were any of the other contributors.

But that's not true of all the other distributions - Nexenta, a large

storage vendor, maintain Nexenta and the bits of Illumos they are

interested in.

Joyent, a large cloud computing company biting at Amazon's heels,

maintain SmartOS.

OmniTI, an IT services company, maintain OmniOS.

I viewed the success of OpenIndiana as being of strategic importance to

all the companies invested in Illumos.

So I was rather disappointed by the fact that no Illumos developers and

none of the commercial companies who depend on Illumos helped us

directly.

Not even in their spare time! Nexenta to their credit did try, but their

staff were too busy to help.

We had no support from Joyent, OmniTI or Delphix.

Here I was volunteering large amounts of my personal time with little

help from some very large companies with deep pockets, who largely

ignored us, even though many of their developers were using OpenIndiana

on their workstations.

Ultimately if we were to fail, it would be bad for Illumos, and therefore

bad for them.

So yes, I did become bitter about it.

Working on OpenIndiana was a mammoth task.

Sun had left us with a huge mess to clean up (more on that shortly) and

none of us working on it had any experience of maintaining operating

systems before, or running open-source projects as a whole.

It took a huge amount of effort and time, and it just couldn't continue

indefinitely.

So there came the point at which I just had to resign.

Unixmen: In your resignation email, you referred to the Linux development

model and how the current development model for OpenIndiana just is "not

working".

Are you suggesting that OpenIndiana developers need to use Linux as a

good example and something to look up to and strive to be?

Alasdair: I don't think our development model is any different from the

Linux one - volunteers hacking away at a distribution.

Linux distributions are very healthy because they made it easy to

contribute, and OpenIndiana needs to do the same.

I was attempting that, but we haven't got there yet.

Unixmen: There's no doubt that OpenIndiana consists of some very outdated

software.

Do you think this is a contributing factor of the rather slow development

of OpenIndiana?

Alasdair: The slow development of OpenIndiana is down to one reason and

one reason alone - we inherited a gigantic mess from Sun.

OpenSolaris was built by a number of large teams spread around the globe,

all using different build systems, and Sun had a release engineering team

to assemble each bi-weekly build from all these different parts.

There are lots of different "consolidations" involved, everything from

g11n internationalization, through to JDS (Java Desktop System - Sun did

love putting Java in the name of everything whether it contained Java or

not), pkg, XNV, vpanels, SFW, userland, it goes on and on! As a small

project, that just doesn't work - we can't afford to employ full-time

staff to assemble the operating system, nor can we maintain it with so

many different (and quite awful) build-systems.

I tried to get the project focused on a single build-system, but it was

quite difficult and a slow process.

One of the main things that held us back was that most of our developers

lacked either the skills necessary to combat the hardest bits of work, or

they lacked the time or ability to commit to taking on such large tasks.

Many of our volunteers are general system administrators, with no

background in the complexities of compilers, linking software, writing

makefiles or overhauling build systems! It's hard work.

So that left me doing a lot of it, with help from others.

But I had to drive it.

It's still on-going.

Others have stepped up to assist, in particular Jon Tibble, who has been

doing our release engineering over the past 6 months.

And we'll get there I'm sure.

But until we get there, development will be slow because nobody wants to

maintain the old consolidations - it's hard, and very boring.

Unixmen: And what can be done to bring the software up to date and more

relevant to today's desktop users requirements?

Alasdair: Lots of people would come to us and say "Oh hey, I'd love to

help OpenIndiana - I would like to update [some software], how do I get

started?", and there would be no easy answer.

We'd point them at the relevant consolidation, which would have an obtuse

particular way of being built; they'd need a complex build environment,

and most just give up - it's way too difficult.

Once we're able to move towards a unified build system and release

regular updates, it will be a lot easier for users to contribute.

The idea is that anyone should be able to check out our source from a

single repo, edit the recipe (a makefile) of the software they want to

update, type "make" and off they go.

I hope we'll get there within the next 12 months, and then things should

really get moving.

Unixmen: In my previous articles, I've wrote about Unix versus Linux and

the future.

Do you think that OpenIndiana/Illumos and Unix as a whole has a positive

future ahead?

Alasdair: Without a shadow of a doubt, Illumos has a strong future ahead

of it.

As servers are getting bigger, it is making a lot of sense to consider

virtualization.

And Solaris comes from a strong history of running on large servers with

many CPUs and a lot of RAM.

Zones are such a cool feature.

They're like crack, in fact so many of our unique features are.

And going back to Linux, for me feels like stepping back in time.

Our userland software is old, but the kernel+core userland is full of

amazing technology.

Joyent are gunning for Amazon EC2 and are very well funded - lots of

vendors including Dell are pushing their SmartDataCenter service, which

is making its way into a lot of public clouds.

I'm sure we'll see a lot more of them over the coming months and years.

Nexenta are challenging NetApp and the other enterprise storage vendors.

So there is no doubt in my mind that Illumos has a strong future.

OpenIndiana itself could have a bright future as a general purpose

distribution, for users who want to play with server features on their

desktop.

Or perhaps for use as a workstation operating system.

But to achieve this, we still have a long way to go to.

If anything, my resignation has been a wake up call to various people.

There is a lot of talk going on about what can be done to speed up

development.

So I'm hopeful for the future and I will continue to help out in my spare

time.

A project is only dead when there is no interest in it.

But there is still plenty of people interested in OpenIndiana.

One thing we all need to do is find out how to reach out to users of

other platforms and sell our advantages.

Linux users seem to have a mindset that Linux is "the one true path", and

are almost religious in their beliefs.

I switched from Linux to Solaris because it had superior technologies -

ZFS, Dtrace, SMF, FMA, COMSTAR, Crossbow and Zones, just some examples.

So few Linux users are willing to give us a chance and actually make the

effort to discover what unique features we have on offer.

Unixmen: If you were staying on as Project Leader of OpenIndiana, looking

back at the decisions you've made, would you do anything different that

could have possibly taken OpenIndiana and Illumos in a different

direction?

Alasdair: If I could travel back in time, with the knowledge I have now,

I would immediately from day one decree "this mess of build systems must

die" and commence work immediately on the unified build system we're

working on at the moment.

It took us over 18 months of faffing with the mess we were left with from

Sun Microsystems before we concluded that.

And that hurt us.

But none of us had done anything like this before, so it was all a giant

learning experience.

I would also have set down our mission statement a lot more clearly,

stating that we were to be the 'leading general purpose community

developed Illumos distribution', showcasing the amazing technologies

Illumos has to offer.

Not having a clear mission statement led to confusion about what

OpenIndiana represented - Garrett D'Amore's response to my resignation

letter spoke of us as having a policy of following Oracle's lead with

Solaris 11, rather than innovating ourselves.

This demonstrated that I failed to convey what we were actually doing and

trying to achieve.

I would also have put my foot down a lot more.

I was very careful to solicit people's input and try to please everyone,

asking for opinions all the time.

This was completely counter to getting anything done and wasted more time

than I care to contemplate.

As a leader of an open-source project, you have to be brutal - you can't

please everyone, just bash on and get stuff done.

Ultimately I wish we'd spent more time doing, and less time talking.

And lastly, I might have picked a different name.

Originally "OpenSolaris" referred to the open-sourcing of the Solaris

code; it wasn't a distribution people could download and install.

Eventually Sun realized they needed a distribution, so project "Indiana"

was born.

All the other OpenSolaris distributions felt betrayed by Sun, and it

caused a lot of ill-feeling.

I also got the impression that Indiana was a sore point within Sun, for a

whole host of internal reasons.

As Solaris and OpenSolaris were trademarked, and we were the continuation

of "Project Indiana", OpenIndiana made sense to me as a project name.

But I think we ended up embodying in name all the ill feeling ex-Sun

engineers had about Solaris/OpenSolaris, and that might have contributed

us getting no ex-Sun contributors.

Lots of people with no knowledge of "Project Indiana" or Sun's internal

naming conventions also thought OpenIndiana was silly, thinking of

Indiana Jones or whatever.

It's also quite long.

So perhaps, on reflection, we should have picked something a bit

punchier.

-----

Interview by Chris McGimpsey-Jones

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen.

The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the

article is published under the Creative Commons license model.

The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the

terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has

changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own.

This is incorrect.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now

published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original

author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct

terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

**********