Censorship Industrial Complex
Telegram Will Now Share Users’ IP Addresses and Phone Numbers With Governments in Response to Legal Requests
News release from Reclaim The Net
Telegram, the messaging app that once positioned itself as the rebel’s answer to Big Tech surveillance, has made a sharp U-turn on the “we protect your data at all costs” highway. On Monday, the company quietly updated its privacy policy to allow for the disclosure of user information—like those precious IP addresses and phone numbers—to law enforcement, but only, of course, if they present a valid legal request.
As we all know, no one has ever stretched the definition of “valid” to fit their agenda, right? This revelation comes hot on the heels of a little incident back in August, when Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov found himself in handcuffs, detained by French authorities. What was the crime? Well, it appears Telegram was accused of playing hardball with French law enforcement, refusing to hand over data, leading to Durov’s arrest. It seems law enforcement didn’t take kindly to that level of noncompliance, especially after making 2,460 unanswered requests for information. The Policy Flip-Flop The new policy revision is a complete about-face from the one Telegram’s loyal fans were sold on. The old rules were crystal clear. Telegram might give up your details—your IP address and phone number—but only if you were a suspect in a terror case. The policy even reassured everyone that this kind of handover had never happened. Not anymore. Now, Telegram has widened the net. According to the newly revised policy, if you violate Telegram’s Terms of Service—you know, the thing no one ever reads—they may hand over your info if they get a “valid” order. The language is dripping with corporate hedging: “If Telegram receives a valid order from the relevant judicial authorities that confirms you’re a suspect in a case involving criminal activities that violate the Telegram Terms of Service, we will perform a legal analysis of the request and may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities.” |
Of course, Telegram is still committed to transparency—at least on paper. The company promises to disclose all such incidents in its quarterly transparency reports, which, conveniently, can be accessed via a dedicated bot.
Durov’s Declaration: Aimed at Who, Exactly? Durov took to Telegram to tell users, “We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, ensuring they are consistent across the world.” |
He continued, “We’ve made it clear that the IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate our rules can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.”Durov further added, “These measures should discourage criminals. Telegram Search is meant for finding friends and discovering news, not for promoting illegal goods. We won’t let bad actors jeopardize the integrity of our platform for almost a billion users.”
The French Connection But what really forced Telegram’s hand? Let’s rewind to Durov’s August airport arrest, where things started to get clearer. After allegedly over 2,400 ignored requests for data, French authorities had had enough. They brought in the National Gendarmerie to get to the bottom of Telegram’s refusal to cooperate. Apparently, turning over data wasn’t an option until they started detaining CEOs. |
|
Since you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The Net going.
Thank you.
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
Jordan Peterson agrees to social media ‘training’ mandate to defend free speech for all Canadians
From LifeSiteNews
The Canadian author and psychologist revealed that he will undergo ‘re-education’ mandated by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to fight for Canadian professionals who are not able to stand up to the mob.
Dr. Jordan Peterson accepted the College of Psychologists of Ontario’s (CPO) social media “training” as a way to defend free speech for all Canadians.
In an op-ed published September 14th by the National Post, the best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist who gained fame for his opposition to compelled speech and gender ideology, announced that he will undergo the social media “training” mandated by the CPO for challenging the LGBT agenda.
“I have accepted the college’s ruling, even though the so-called ‘social media experts’ recommended by that board are members of a profession that does not exist, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that their recommendations for altering my behaviour, whatever they might be, will have any effect whatsoever on improving my ability to function as a professional psychologist,” he wrote.
Last August, the regulatory body mandated that he undergo social media “training” after complaints related to his posts social media opposing gender ideology, specifically the mutilation of children. Peterson was threatened with the removal of his clinical license if he refused the training.
Peterson has spent months fighting the CPO’s mandate. His case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, in early August, the court rejected Peterson’s appeal, leading him to finally agree to the re-education program.
Peterson explained that he is “financially independent” and does not need his license to support himself, having closed his clinical practice some time ago.
Nevertheless, he declared that he will not leave quietly, instead fighting for other professionals who do not have the resources to stand up against the LGBT mob.
“However, this is not only about me, since all regulated professionals in our fair country find themselves in the same leaky boat I currently occupy,” he explained.
“Thus, if I capitulate in any manner — if I simply resign, if I settle in any other way without addressing the public issues that have been raised by the case — then all the engineers, teachers, lawyers, physicians, psychologists etc. in Canada remain at risk for reputation, financial security and livelihood every time they dare open their mouths,” he warned.
“How can Canadians possibly remain well served by those very professionals when they risk everything every time they dare offer their genuine opinions on such matters, say, as the gender identity of a confused adolescent (psychologically), or when they wish to express skepticism about some new wonder drug or treatment pushed forward by the pharmaceutical cabal, walking hand in hand with the very regulators they have captured (medically)?” he questioned.
Peterson also repeated his pledge to publicize “the details of this charade as widely and effectively as possible.”
“There is no bloody way I am going to allow my professional organization to maneuver as they prefer behind closed doors, in the secretive style all petty tyrants prefer,” he declared.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Australian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.
Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.
The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”
The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.
A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.
The problem here is that, if you cannot define a word, then how can you use it properly in a court of law? For example, if you do not know what a “woman” is, then how can you be said to have transitioned from a man to a woman, as Buckley is claiming?
This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.
That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.
In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.
Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.
In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.
On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
iPhone Now Collects Your Mental Health Data
-
Christopher Rufo2 days ago
Independent reporter takes on CBS News for contradicting his report “Cat Eaters of Ohio”
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden Admin Touts Reduction In Border Crossings While Flying In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Migrants
-
COVID-192 days ago
US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public
-
Addictions1 day ago
WATCH: “Government Heroin” documentary exposes safer supply scandal in London, Ontario
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
BP Dumping Key Green Energy Business
-
espionage1 day ago
Chronic Counter-terrorism Lapses at the Border
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Shoplifting And Vehicle Thefts Soared As Haitian Migrants Poured Into Ohio Town, Police Data Shows