from April 24, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Tuesday,
2018. There also is another file of
today, but this is mostly in Dutch, and is about my falling in
love, twentyfive years ago, with a young woman named Elise. That file
a crisis file; this file is.
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last five years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch, but
since 2010 in English) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I will
continue with it.
moment and since more than two years
problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and
I shall continue.
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from April 24, 2018
1. How Looming Privacy Regulations May Strengthen Facebook
The items 1 - 5
are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at every morning.
The indented text under each link is quoted from the link that starts
the item. Unindented text is by me:
2. Big Brother Is Programming Us
3. A History Professor Explains Why Trump's Presidency
Appears to Be
Reaching Its End
4. Urgent Demands for Congress to Act as
Net Neutrality's "Slow and
Insidious" Death Begins
Power to the Imagination
Looming Privacy Regulations May Strengthen Facebook and Google
article is by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Adam Satariano on The New York
Times. It starts as follows:
In Europe and the
United States, the conventional wisdom is that regulation is needed to
force Silicon Valley’s digital giants to respect people’s online
But new rules
may instead serve to strengthen Facebook’s and Google’s hegemony and
extend their lead on the internet.
That could begin
playing out next month, when Europe enacts
new regulations that prioritize people’s data privacy. The new
laws, which require tech companies to ask for users’ consent for their
data, are likely to hand Google and Facebook an advantage. That’s
because wary consumers are more prone to trust recognized names with
their information than unfamiliar newcomers. And the laws may deter
start-ups that do not have the resources to comply with the rules from
competing with the big companies.
In recent years,
other regulatory attempts at strengthening online privacy rules have
also had little effect at chipping away at the power of the largest
tech companies, ultimately aiding internet giants rather than hurting
which I do mostly because of this part: ¨wary consumers are more prone to trust
recognized names with
their information than unfamiliar newcomers¨.
And I do not
say this is false. What I say is that it seems quite strange to
me that ¨wary consumers¨ would choose the thieves of 600 MB to
6 GB (or more) of - mostly secret - data about themselves over persons
or firms they do not know.
again, there also is a way to account for that - in my opinion: thoroughly
crazy - idea, namely if
one realizes how very few of the users of
computers know how to program or know how computers do work.
more from the article:
and Google may emerge stronger from all of this can seem like a distant
prospect. The Silicon Valley companies have been under scrutiny for
months for the way they collect and use people’s data, with Facebook
reeling from revelations that the political research firm Cambridge
Analytica harvested the personal information of up to 87 million of
its users. That led Congress to drag Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief
executive, to Washington this month for
mostly true, except for the fact that Zuckerberg had no
grilling of any kind, in fact because - I suppose - the rules
for discussion were very limited and Senators had no more than five
there is this bit of degeneracy for the over 2 billion dumb fucks
- Zuckerberg´s own term for the people ¨who trusted me":
What a sick sadistic bag
of shit is Mark Zuckerberg!
out a new consent form asking users globally — not just Europeans —
to accept its targeted advertising and to allow features like face
recognition. It has also limited access to data brokers such as Acxiom,
in a concession to privacy advocates.
Brother Is Programming Us
article is by Julian Vigo on Truthidig. This is from near its beginning:
[I]t came as a
surprise when Zuckerberg revealed on April 11 that Facebook collects
approximately 29,000 points of data on each of its users, in
Well... I hate and
despise Facebook and Zuckerberg so much that as soon
as I know that Zuckerberg´s sick and degenerate Facebook has
a profile on me, I will say he is a degenerate sadofascistic subhuman
beast on this site: I do not want to be followed or profiled in
any way by his utterly sick corporation of frauds and bullshitters.
“detailed profiles on people who have never signed up for Facebook.”
This means that information is collected on people regardless of their
consent or location. And the bigger picture becomes clearer when we
understand the interstitial interactions taking place between
corporations and governments, especially in light of the recent
developments with Cambridge
Analytica (an offshoot of the SCL Group) and Facebook.
Here is more from the article:
The reality is far
more sinister. As we are now learning, the 2014 harvesting of the
original data set by Kogan’s Global Science Research occurred when the application
programming interface was far more porous than today. The data that
was scraped afforded access to a total of 87 million Facebook users.
This information was then
integrated with other data sets to build the profiles of somewhere
between 30 million and 50 million U.S. voters. And it gets worse, as Paul
Grewal, vice president and deputy general counsel of Facebook,
detailed on March 16, saying that SCL/Cambridge Analytica is “a firm
that does political, government and military work around the globe.”
Precisely - and as I
said: Each government has its own state
terrorists that it calls ¨spies¨, but whose current job
seems to be mostly the getting of all the information on anyone who
lives in a nation some other nation (such as the USA) is not
supposed to gather information on, and then exchange that
information with the state´s
terrorists of the USA.
Here is some more on
In states such the U.K.,
where the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), also known as the Snooper’s
Charter, has been in effect since 2017, the government has been granted
enormous surveillance powers. As stipulated by the IPA, internet
companies must now keep customers’ web traffic history for 12 months.
The IPA also authorizes spying agencies and the police to conduct the
mass hacking of personal computers, smartphones,
information technology infrastructures and any
electronic device. This legislation also includes the ability to
intercept or unlock
any software protocol that acts as a form of encryption
or data protection and to intercept computer systems
maintenance management system to include other preventative
maintenance software. In effect, the IPA allows the British state to
monitor, intercept, record and even hack internet communications,
granting it sweeping powers to carry out mass digital surveillance,
hacking,” which enables police and state agencies to access and
alter all types of electronic devices “on an industrial scale” even if
the owners of these devices are not suspected of a crime.
Yes indeed - and it are
these kinds of facts that made me conclude that
these enormous powers of the states´
terrorists (who call themselves ¨national security¨
etc.) will eventually bring full neofascism
- which then will also be much better defended than were Hitler and
Stalin (and may last forever, as long as there are human beings).
And I - still - think
that, apart from a major economical crisis that may change many
things, this is the most probable outcome of the internet: Full scale neofascism ran by extremely
few extremely rich people, all
in their own exclusive interests.
There is also this
Yes indeed. I live in
Holland, where neofascism
is quickly approaching. This is a recommended article.
Other European countries,
and the Netherlands,
have adopted the IPA
framework. Just last month in the Netherlands, a consultative
referendum over the Intelligence and Security Services Act of 2017,
also known as Sleepwet, was held
along with the
municipal elections. This act is similar to the U.K.’s Investigatory
Powers Act, as it also expands the government’s powers to monitor all
data that moves through the country’s internet infrastructure.
has left many Dutch citizens nervous about their privacy and the
possibility of bulk
acquisition warrants being utilized in the near future.
History Professor Explains Why Trump's Presidency Appears to Be
Reaching Its End
article is by Ronald Feinman on AlterNet and originally on History News
Network. It starts as follows:
Well... perhaps. Here is
The scandals surrounding
President Donald Trump are metastasizing rapidly, much more than anyone
would have thought just a few months ago.
The investigation by Robert
Mueller, now 11 months in duration, has been accumulating evidence of
possible Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, abuse of power,
violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and the
corruption surrounding many members of the Trump circle, including his
own children and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
But then the Stormy Daniels
scandal, and other related shameful episodes involving other women
became part of the equation, and the business dealings of Donald Trump
in New York State were added to the complicated situation. And now, the
seizure of materials and records of Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen
raises the ante on the troubles and turmoil surrounding Donald Trump.
With the midterm
congressional elections now less than seven months away, and with the
Republicans running scared about potential massive losses, and with
more criticism emerging from not only respectable conservatives, but
also from some of his own loyalists, Donald Trump’s time in the
Presidency seems rapidly coming toward a sudden end.
Actually, I think this
is - unfortunately - mostly wishful
thinking by a professor of history.
And if Trump family members
were to be indicted, it could put Trump under such pressure that
possible resignation, through some form of arranged “deal,” is not
beyond imagination. If the Democrats win control of the House of
Representatives in November, impeachment action seems highly likely in
2019, although conviction in the US Senate would be nearly impossible.
Here is the ending of the article:
So with 15 months
down in the Trump Presidency, the chance of his leaving in the next 14
months at the most is on the horizon.
Well... I hope Feinman
is right, but I am not as optimistic as he
Demands for Congress to Act as Net Neutrality's "Slow and Insidious"
article is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. it starts as follows:
Yes, I think this is
correct. Here is one more bit:
Today is the day that net
and insidious" death at the hands of the Republican-controlled FCC officially
begins, and Congress is facing urgent pressure to save the open
internet before it's too late.
With Monday marking 60 days
after the FCC's net neutrality repeal entered
the Federal Register, parts of the GOP-crafted plan—spearheaded by
agency chair and former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai—will now slowly begin
taking effect (...)
Net neutrality backers in
Congress, meanwhile, are still struggling to compile enough votes to
repeal Pai's new rules, despite the fact that they are deeply
unpopular among the American public.
The Senate needs just one more vote to pass a
Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to restore net neutrality
protections before it can move to the House, where it would face an
uphill battle. An official vote in the Senate has yet to be scheduled,
but could come in the next few weeks.
This is also correct
(but I am less optimistic about the single vote needed in the Senate).
And this is all I will quote from this article, in considerable
part because I do not see why I should have to read no less
than three Tweets by someone wholly anonymous. I strongly
Power to the Imagination
article is by Daniel
Cohn-Bendit and Claus Leggewie on The New York Review of Books. I
start with three initial remarks:
First, I have no idea why Cohn-Bendit is credited as the
co-author of his own interview, but he is.
Second, Cohn-Bendit says in the interview that what he says in
this interview is the only thing he will say about 1968.
And third, the interview is fairly long, but it is not very
good. I will quote four bits from it, and this is the first:
Leggewie: All power
to the imagination…
feeling we had in those days, which has shaped my entire life, really,
was: we’re making history. An exalted feeling—suddenly we had
become agents in world history. Not an easy thing to process when
you’re only twenty-three years old.
Leggewie: The most
famous image of May 1968 contains all the ingredients of the myth of
revolt. It shows you, the twenty-three-year-old sociology student,
face-to-face with a nameless member of the CRS [the
reserve of the national police], in front of the Sorbonne…
Well... I am ¨a
as well, but I also think very few ¨soixante-huitards¨ will
agree with Cohn-Bendit, that is, after June of 1968, simply
because the vast majority of the activists were anonymous,
and no one else became remotely as famous as Cohn-Bendit.
Here is some more:
I think this - about the mostly
positive reception of May ´68
after the fact - is mostly correct (but it started
already in the 1970ies and 1980ies).
that’s relevant about May 1968 is present in this image: above vs.
below, ancien régime vs. youth, system vs. movement, hero vs. villain,
power against counterpower, order against anarchy.
Cohn-Bendit: In a way
this image is my doctoral thesis—after all, I never went back to
university as a student afterward. It made me an icon of revolt. I call
it the “sun of ’68” because so many people associate positive things
with it: not violence, not the cobblestones that were thrown, but our
tongue-in-cheek way of provoking the powers that be. Recently Raphaël
Glucksmann did a survey for his Nouveau Magazine Littéraire,
and he was astonished at his findings: more than 60 percent of the
French associate positive things with ’68—not, as conservatives claim,
that our generation has destroyed schools, the ancient institutions of
marriage, the family, or the public order. Some two thirds even approve
of the slogan “It is forbidden to forbid”; they appreciate its poetical
quality and the message of potential it conveys.
There is this on the importance of May ´68:
Hannah Arendt predicted at the time, “It seems to me that the children
of the next century will once learn about 1968 the way we learned about
1848.” But what is it that we’re learning, exactly? In retrospect,
Jürgen Habermas believes it caused a “fundamental liberalization” of
German society that made it possible even for conservatives to change
their views. Children’s rights have found their way into the
constitution, cannabis has been legalized not just in California,
same-sex marriage is now possible, women hold leadership positions—is
that our time’s master narrative?
Well... I am sorry, but if
the effects of May ´68
(fifty years ago)
are today: ¨children´s rights¨, ¨cannabis has been legalized¨,
¨same-sex marriage is now possible¨ and ¨women hold leader- ship
positions¨, then I am sorry, but this seems very little to me,
given the fact that in France in 1968 there really was going on
a - failed - social revolution.
In fact, I agree with some critics of May ´68 who said that the events I just
mentioned would just as well have arrived without May ´68 if perhaps a little later. Then again,
my point is that May ´68 was not
just about these relatively minor points: It attempted a social
revolution (and failed).
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
Yes and no: Leggewie is
right ¨1968¨ started in the USA in 1965, but Cohn-Bendit seems mostly
mistaken in his history. In fact, the historical sequence I see
is: 1965, the Free Speech
Movement; 1967, the Digger
movement in San Francisco; and then in 1968 Paris and
France. Woodstock happened again a year later.
did not begin in Paris or Berlin, though, but in Berkeley, on the
American West Coast, around 1965. That’s where the Vietnam protests
originated, as well as the Free Speech Movement led by Mario Savio, the
teach-ins, the sit-ins, etc.
the revolt was far more American in origin than the Europeans cared to
admit. I was in the States in 1965–1966 and met Mark Rudd. The American
SDS was characterized by a veneration for the US
Constitution that was totally foreign to us. The militancy of the
Weathermen and the Black Panthers came later, in part as a reaction to
their being violently suppressed by the FBI. But
essentially the revolt was spurred by the idea of a counterculture,
which was mainly carried via rock music. “Woodstock Nation”: that was
the myth of a new America, and we were all for it.
Anyway. This is a recommended article in case you are interested in May
have now been
end of 2015 that
xs4all.nl is systematically
ruining my site by NOT updating it within a few seconds,
as it did between 1996 and 2015, but by updating it between
two to seven days later, that is, if I am lucky.
claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 2 years
as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
two reasons I remain with xs4all is that my site has been
there since 1996, and I have no reasons whatsoever to suppose that any
other Dutch provider is any better (!!).