UK web dissident repressively censored

The Blog

Despite attempts by the British regime to silence dissident Simon Tomlin, he is continuing his publishing.

An indefinite gagging order issued on 12 December 2014 has prevented Tomlin's investigative journalism addressing the thuggery and connivance of UK police and authorities. According to Tomlin's new blog the Dissident, which succeeds the censored Daily Agenda blog before it, authorities invented their case against him in order to silence the inconvenient truths he sought to report.

From the new Dissident blog:

Simon would like to welcome everyone to his new blog, aptly titled ‘The Dissident'; on 27 March 2015 at Nottingham Crown Court, barrister Adrian Langdale said Simon was now “a dissident” and after being inspired by the top-ranked lawyer, Simon found a new purpose to continue the battle after 5 months in prison for thought crimes. 

The battle for freedom of speech affects everyone in Britain and indeed across the world, so Simon has to finish the job he set out to do in April 2002 in The Sunday Times. 

This new blog will concentrate on current issues in the news and he will not shirk from embarrassing those who abuse positions of public trust. Misconduct in a public office is unacceptable and the masses must have a voice to represent them against the big battalions.

Tomlin became a political prisoner for his dissident actions. He was arrested and imprisoned for his political reporting, which authorities deemed to be threatening their hold on sensitive information, and so they attempted to silence him.

Despite the attempts by UK authorities to portray Tomlin as a criminal, he is still favorably received in international dissident circles and his freedom of speech is still protected by civil liberties and human rights law in the interests of freedom of speech and conscience.

The Blog

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Read More »

The coward's "Patriot" Act in a nutshell

The Blog

The following are examples of US regime propaganda described by the Intercept's Glenn Greenwald in an article ahead of the vote of 1 June on the expiration of USA PATRIOT Act surveillance legislation.

“What you’re doing, essentially, is you’re playing national security Russian roulette,” one senior administration official said of allowing the powers to lapse. That prospect appears increasingly likely with the measure, the USA Freedom Act, stalled and lawmakers in their home states and districts during a congressional recess. 

“We’re in uncharted waters,” another senior member of the administration said at a briefing organized by the White House, where three officials spoke with reporters about the consequences of inaction by Congress. “We have not had to confront addressing theterrorist threat without these authorities, and it’s going to befraught with unnecessary risk.”

#IfThePatriotActExpires, the evil machine of tyrants and eavesdroppers will be terminated! http://t.co/mEyr8bXfIX pic.twitter.com/WzNkEb6dxP

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) May 30, 2015

Describing the so-called PATRIOT Act as "extremist", as he explains in his popular book No Place to Hide, Glenn Greenwald made the following commentary:

Obama officials such as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and new Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been engaged in rank fear-mongering to coerce renewal, warning that we’ll all be “less safe” if these provisions are allowed to “sunset” as originally intended, while invoking classic Cheneyite rhetoric by saying Patriot Act opponents will bear the blame for the next attack. In an interview yesterday with the Intercept, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer explained why those scare tactics are outright frivolous.

The Blog

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Read More »

Technology is change: forget about law

The Blog

Writing prior to the vote of 1 June on the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, C4SS writer Kevin Carson cautioned that politics is not the effective channel to challenge something like immoral state spying on society.

At the end of the day, the determined spies of the NSA don't care what the law says. They are part of a regime that will stop at nothing to get what it wants, and has no interest in anything more than a parody of democratic legitimacy and legality.

The theory advanced by Carson coincides with what the cypherpunk rebel elite and whistleblower Edward Snowden referred to variously as forces of nature, brute forces, or more specifically encryption. Theoretically, this is the second means available to challenge the use of the Internet as a spying apparatus, while the first is the US Constitution and the force of the law.

As Carson argues, "So long as the physical means of surveillance continue to exist at Fort Meade, the NSA and other federal spooks will spy on us just as long as they feel like it."

It is a call to action to the technology community and to lone hackers and coders to devise the means to blind the state to the citizen's communication. At present, this avenue of change is being pursued by enthusiasts who sustain the Tor Project and others. It is also being pursued by WikiLeaks itself, as it is tasked with keeping its sources as secure as possible from reprisals by repressive regimes, in particular the United States, which is the world's most sophisticated authoritarian state.

Get a copy of my #TechnoLiberation Thesis for the full spectrum of ideas I blog about. http://t.co/eLQMWcfS6y pic.twitter.com/XagYwfvbpg

— Harry Bentham (@hjbentham) May 30, 2015

Carson made reference to his existing theory of technological liberation, which coincides with similar works promoted by this blog such as the Catalyst thesis, arguing:

States exist to serve economic ruling classes. Trying to capture the apparatus of the capitalists’ state and reform the system is a losing game. In any case, with liberatory technologies like cheap, small-scale production machinery and networked communications, and the kind of convivial associations for mutual aid and cooperation (described by Kropotkin) which existed before the state suppressed them, we have no material need for any function the state provides. The state is only important insofar as it can stop us from building a networked, self-managed post-capitalist society amenable to human values. And that threat can be met far more effectively and cheaply by bypassing the state’s enforcement capabilities and then ignoring it, than by participating in the political process to obtain permission to build the kind of society we want.

The Blog

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Read More »