I have been using this and I have got to say this is one of the best open source projects at least for me as I need to look up URLs reputation and this is highly helpful in how everything is organized as cards. One screen to get all the helpful information you need. I'm looking forward to the API version and if I could use this as a replacement for VT. I did notice one thing sometimes when you lookup a URL you don't get back any response and when you check network activity tab on a browser you see the requests are getting rejected
Been following your story from the beginning Michael, as around the time your tinypilot/KVM came out, I was having the same issues but never occurred to me or had the energy to tackle it. So glad you did and gave an insight to your journey, truly shows the amount of grit it requires to run a business and happy that you finally were able to close.
True, I think every neutral party at the time knew that Iraq had no WMDs, crazy how just cause might is right we have let the instigators of Iraq war get away with it while they end up destabilizing a whole region
Nice extension, though due to the permissions it asks for its not for me. I did browse around the CRX source code and would have to say the license part is easy to bypass. You might want to work on that if you don't want to miss on some of your sales.
Shouldn't this lead to a broader question of whether spyware should be allowed to be sold to governments? Especially repressive ones which will obviously use it for nefarious reasons?
Or, what's the provision that allows these companies and actors to be exempted from CFAA?
If this was used on any US citizen who has been killed and the Fed doesn't prosecute because it's been tacitly approved as an armament in war, isn't that akin to another "collateral murder" situation?
Which government would qualify as repressive though? Pegasus is made in a place, where apartheid is the norm. The only qualifying criteria for that regime is if the other government is against them or not? And would they give pretty penny for it?
I’m not a lawyer, but at least in the United States at the minimum probable cause and a warrant should be required prior to their use per the 4th Amendment…
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The only time the U.S has cared about spying on their citizens is when snowden dropped the big leak and they were pissed they got caught with pants down.
> I’m not a lawyer, but at least in the United States at the minimum probable cause and a warrant should be required prior to their use per the 4th Amendment…
You do realize that FAANG are collecting user data and are more than happy to supply it to the government, don't you ? /s
Legally, yes. But the government does not break the encryption. Neither your favourite online provider. You just agreed to let them spy on you (TOS) and gave them access to your passwords.
Yes, they (companies) promise they won't sell your data and only give it to government with a warrant.
I'm not really sure pulling out a controversies tab from wikipedia is making the point that OP is trying to make. It's like citing BBC for their controversies
Every single news outlet is known to have issues with factuality. Reporting the news is expensive and the people paying for it almost always want their point of view to be taken into consideration, regardless of state or private funding.
There is a spectrum of factuality, BBC News has problems with the govt threatening to shut it down if it doesn’t report what the govt wants it to report, but it’s no Russia Today, Daily Mail, or Fox News.
>the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas
I am failing to see how an article about Russia's war correlates to OP's claim about Al Jazeera showing Hamas videos calling for an uprising. Can we get a direct link to the article that the OP mentioned?
Those are interviews with Hamas spokespeople. It isnt the opinion of al Jazeera being presented.
There's nothing more shocking than the stuff Ben Gvir (security minister of Israel) does or says.
The second interview even references his calls to burn women and children as, yknow, a bad thing.
"memri" doesnt seem to consider that valid context, that is probably because it is a state propaganda outfit acting on behalf of that same Israeli minister who openly expressed a desire to burn women and children.
It's not an interview if a spokesman is allowed to say whatever they like without being challenged. It's not an interview if you broadcast a pre-recorded speech without comment. Ben Gvir is awful, but that doesn't change the fact that Al Jazeera's Arabic service is not impartial and is not acting as a legitimate journalistic outlet.
99+% of interviews in American media aren't trying to challenge the interviewee. They're just trying to gather information from one side, and then they generally try to get a token representative quote from the other side at the very end of an article, but sometimes not even that.
So you seem to be trying to hold Al Jazeera to a vastly higher standard than mainstream US media, at least in this particular regard.
Simply reporting without comment on what important/influential individuals and groups are saying, and adding basic objective context, is a large part of mainstream journalism.
>So you seem to be trying to hold Al Jazeera to a vastly higher standard than mainstream US media, at least in this particular regard.
The mainstream US news media would fall foul of broadcasting standards laws in a lot of liberal Western democracies. Here in the UK, due impartiality is a legal duty of news broadcasters. The First Amendment is not the norm globally and the US is exceptionally laissez-faire when it comes to the regulation of broadcast news.
> It's not an interview if a spokesman is allowed to say whatever they like without being challenged.
This describes most interviews I've seen with Israeli government officials in the American press, although it's starting to change over the last few months.
It's hard for me to believe that your "Arabic" version is genuine. But if that's just me being naive, then I'd like to understand the truth, but I need actual evidence for that.
So if there are genuine headlines like that on Al Jazeera, it should be trivial for you to provide a couple of representative links that we can run through Google Translate to verify?
"تواصلت الاشتباكات بين القوات الإسرائيلية ومقاومين فلسطينيين بمواقع داخل إسرائيل، وذلك مع دخول اليوم الثالث من عملية طوفان الأقصى التي أطلقتها كتائب عز الدين القسام التابعة لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ضد الاحتلال الإسرائيلي..."
"The clashes between the Israeli forces and Palestinian resistance fighters continued at locations inside Israel, as the third day of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation launched by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas against the Israeli occupation proceeds..."
1. "مقاومين فلسطينيين" (Palestinian resistance fighters): The term "resistance fighters" conveys a sense of legitimacy and heroism to the Palestinian combatants, compared to more neutral terms like "militants" or "combatants."
2. "الاحتلال الإسرائيلي" (the Israeli occupation): This phrase inherently carries a negative connotation and frames Israel as an occupying force, which is a viewpoint that aligns with Palestinian narratives and is contentious in international discussions.
3. "عملية طوفان الأقصى" (Al-Aqsa Flood operation): The operation's name itself, invoking the Al-Aqsa mosque—a highly symbolic and emotive site in the conflict—suggests a righteous or justified struggle, further aligning the narrative with Palestinian perspectives.
These choices in vocabulary serve to frame the conflict in a way that emphasizes Palestinian resistance against an unjust "occupation," aligning closely with the Palestinian viewpoint and potentially eliciting a sympathetic response from Arab audiences.
This framing influences how readers perceive the events, creating a less neutral, more partisan view of the conflict.
That’s a lot less incendiary than your first example. As a simple point of fact, Israel is occupying territory whose inhabitants do not want them there and are not given a right to vote. What term would you consider more accurate?
Your last point seems to be unawareness that the name given is Hamas’ official name for that operation. Using it in the quoted sentence seems very similar to, say, reporting that U.S forces attacked Houthi rebel positions in the sixth month of Operation Prosperity Guardian. Whether or not you like the term, it’s the official name and it’s reasonable to expect readers to be familiar with it.
The great thing about the pro-Palestinian position is that it's super easy to understand. Zionists settled land that wasn't theirs and stole it. Easy. Simple. Wrong.
That it's wrong doesn't matter to most people. "Occupied land" has a specific, legal definition that in no way applies to Israel or Gaza, and probably does not apply to the West Bank. And, see, already I'm losing this discussion: with just a single misused word "occupation" you - perhaps unintentionally - sewed misinformation that needs to be unwound even assuming you have a good faith interest in doing that. Most anti Zionists are simply not interested.
So, yes, words matter. If you repeat that Israel has "occupied" territory "illegally" long enough in the media, people like yourself will accept it as true without really understanding what it means.
> That’s a lot less incendiary than your first example.
I don't know what you're taking about. This is my first contribution to the thread.
You saw that words matter, what term do you prefer? I asked for that but got three paragraphs of accusation of being “pro-Palestinian” and being told that I’m misusing a word but not what the correct term is. I suspect this is at least in part due to the conflation with the question illegality in your third paragraph: use of the term is well established but there’s considerable debate over whether it was ever legal or still is.
Here, for example, note that use of the term occupied is established enough to be used in official UN documents:
You know, we had an interesting discussion about Land Day a while back when you were accusing me of being an Islamist. I am saddened to see this regression on the issue of occupation/“pending final status determination”
You've crossed into religious flamewar. That's not allowed here, regardless of which religion the issue is with. We ban accounts that do it repeatedly, so please don't do it again.
Every square cm is an exaggeration. Malaysia and Indonesia in my understanding accepted Islam largely through peaceful trading contacts. The Levant in particular, however, was conquered militarily and Arabized by a succession of Muslim conquests:
Rashidun Caliphate (632–661)
Umayyad Caliphate (661–750)
Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258)
Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171)
Ayyubid Dynasty (1174–1260)
Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517)
Ottoman Empire (1517–1918)
Where there is overlap, they ruled different parts of the area.
Personally, I think the idea of prior indigenous claim is counter productive, but since it has been introduced by Palestinians as a kind of volksgemeinschaft, blut und boden, Jews would have prior claim by that standard.
I think the idea of prior indigenous claim is counter productive, but since it has been introduced by Palestinians as a kind of volksgemeinschaft, blut und boden, Jews would have prior claim by that standard.
The folks who first brought up this "prior indigenous claim" business were the early Zionists of course. The pre-1897 inhabitants didn't have to "claim" any special rights because they were already there (give or take some forced migration within the Ottoman empire), and not trying to expand into any new territory they hadn't been occupying in living memory -- and so had nothing to justify or explain.
Anyway it's all moot because the earliest known inhabitants in the region were not Jews in any recognizable sense, but predominantly the Canaanites and other bronze age cultures. Whose presence predates any traces of the Israelite culture by 2000+ years. And who were likely the primary genetic reservoir for both Palestinians and Jews as they are currently known, via significant mixtures with other groups from outside the region.
The whole idea of attempting to adjudicate anything happening on the ground today on the basis of any of this history (or our current conception of it) is completely vacuous of course. As is this bizarre Blut und Boden reference that you're trying to asign to the Palestinians, of all people.
This is not purposefully, Arabic is the main language of the people living in the regions, the Arabs. Just because they're catering to that out and giving news accordingly to the local demographics, bringing speakers from there doesn't make it their viewpoints. If you want to accuse someone of pushing agenda then Western media outlets and outlets that pushed the "40 babies beheading" stories is more factual.
Here's a random description of sources, with an illustration of what's happening right at the time I'm posting this, in a not particularly important news item.
(yes, this strange URL is just Google translate translating the arabic frontpage of Al-Jazeera. Don't worry, they're not going to stop the double speak)
Proudly declaring that Hezbollah attacks the Golan Heights of Israel with "booby-trapped drones". One might point out that booby trapping weapons is illegal under international law and a serious warcrime. A warcrime that even Russia, who see no problem with white phosphorous and poison gas, refuses to commit in Ukraine. Why? There's no telling who will be killed by booby trapped weapons (Booby trapped weapons legislation is about that will explode on impact, then explode again or otherwise injure people when it's getting cleaned up or examined. Because civilians might clean up weapons, or children might find them, this is a big no-no in international law)
The whole article is about using 10 different sources to brag how effective the attack was, and it just keeps and keeps going on about that. It mentions various sources, each more far fetched than the last, how "these types of rockets" cause enormous damage, death and injuries. It has no mention of this being a response to Israeli attacks, nor does it have any mention that Israel made a counterstrike.
It concludes by actually stating that the military campaign by Hezbollah is about to defeat the IDF.
In this, the "booby-trapped" part is gone, they are reporting it, pretending to be neutral about it (as opposed to in arabic, where they are anything but neutral) and the whole article starts trying to cause doubts about whether the attack happened at all.
Prominently featured in the article is that the Isreali military states no injuries where reported, and all the sources are suddenly gone. Instead, there is focus on that this is a "tit-for-tat" attack, that was really Israel's fault.
In other words, the article focuses on how this was a totally ineffective attack, that was justified because of Israeli killings in Lebanon, that absolutely does not merit any kind of counterattack.
In case you're wondering, Israeli press reported the same event:
1) 30 rockets (al Jazeera and Hezbollah reported many drones)
2) NO details, no statements from Hezbollah
3) it hit a town, Metulla, not a military base, either zero (Haaretz, Ynetnews) or two (Jerusalem Post) persons wounded, both civilians. The town, by the way, is in the foothills of the Golan heights at best, it is very much not actually in the Golan heights. But it's very close to Lebanon.
3) The IDF executed a military counterstrike, against military targets (which means Hezbollah launch sites)
That’s an error page but also it seems like you’re conceding the point if you can’t provide a single link and are basically telling someone to comb through the output of a large media organization to try to find support for someone else’s argument. At the very least, the Wikipedia criticism page would be a good place to start doing your own research:
I'm not the original commenter that made the claim, I'm just saying that anyone who wants to check for themselves can use the Arabic Al Jazeera and translate it into English.
Depends on the employer, question is do you want to work for someone as a mindless robot as they give you a paycheck or for someone that actually takes personal responsibility when things go wrong. At the end of the day most businesses would choose money
Most companies aren't looking to hire adults who think they are still in college and think doing a sit-in in the deans office is important use of their time and an effective tactic. Let alone people getting arrested for trespassing.
Some hiring managers might like their tweets and show support in their personal time but when it comes down to actually hiring them they'll wonder if this person will be disruptive and constantly bring their personal activist life into the workplace, making other employees lives difficult, lack self control and say the wrong thing to customers, etc.
It's no secret that companies prefer mindless robots. It's just easier to organize them when they don't have their own opinions.
> they'll wonder if this person will be disruptive and constantly bring their personal activist life into the workplace
Corporations very often take stance on political issues, also when interacting with their own employees. For example all the pride events, which Google is known for. So it's not like these employees started bringing politics to the office, but rather they dared to have their own opinion that the system didn't like.
People who just want to live their their best lives aren't "mindless robots". One could also characterize a "mindless robot" as someone who is willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause that they see in black and white.
If the protesters camped in an execs office for pride and refused to leave, they'd likely also get arrested. It's just that there wouldn't be such a protest in the first place.
Surprisingly we are well aware about Whatsapp groups which surfaced few months ago where executives and other high position holders of tech companies targeted tech works who were just posting on their personal regarding this. Why didn't something like that make national headlines and pushed from more accountability? Easy to point finger at employees when employers have the upper hand
Yeah I get that, but just plain old belief of right and wrong regardless of your feelings or political opinions, that's what justice stands for, not the murky thing we have made it now to serve the elites
Hamas is wrong, that's my idea of justice. I suppose your idea is the opposite, how do you think this should be settled in a workplace? Maybe it shouldn't be settled in the workplace.
My idea isn't even remotely related to right or wrong about Hamas or the other party, you need to break it down to the root problem as to why does an organization like Hamas exist? When you get to that point you have your answer and you can get to justice from there.
Your idea of why Hamas exists in the first place, or rather what Hamas really wants to achieve will be different than mine, so we will reach different conclusions.
Things won't be calm till businesses actually understand that working with genocidal governments and then labelling it "it's just business" and gaslighting their employees opinions on it when they have values like "responsibility" and making employees attend these HR training for these values and then turning their back on when employees actually stand for this. Sad world on how we are all becoming complicit to this genocide based on their presumption that some people from Europe can just claim lands as theirs as their book said so.
Reading this article and your comment makes one realize how weird it is that a company like TikTok can get a full force of US government against us but for a company under their own jurisdiction we still can't get a simple answer of whether WhatsApp is actually using "end-to-end" encryption as it's claiming and not selling any data of it's users?
