#personal rights

[gramarobin]

[myfandomrealitea]

Honestly I'm getting really tired of how people treat celebrities.

People act like they're circus animals that exist solely to dance for their entertainment, and that being a celebrity means they don't deserve to have any boundaries or dignity or privacy.

Like I always see posts going "Oh boo hoo people are being mean to the poor celebrity, maybe they can wipe away their tears with their money while the rest of us starve :(" and it's like what the fuck are you talking about.

Them being famous and having a lot of money (although a lot of celebrities aren't actually super rich, which no one ever wants to acknowlege) doesn't give people the right to treat them the way they do.

Being rich means nothing if people are stalking you and breaking into your house and sending you unhinged love letters.

Being rich means nothing if people are taking pictures of your fucking children so they can sell the pictures to magazines.

Being rich means nothing if people are following you every time you're in public (or even in private!) so they can try and take a picture of you doing something embarassing or scandalous.

I'm honestly surprised there aren't more cases of celebrities having mental breakdowns and losing their shit due to the amount of harassment, stalking, and invasion of privacy they face.

Leave these goddamn people alone for fuck's sake.

I always see people saying:

"Its what you sign up for when you become famous."

And I just. No. So much no. No?? Non??? Nada.

Like yes when you're famous a certain amount of your privacy erodes because you become a public figure. Its in the name. But the way celebrities are literally treated like nothing more than creatures that exist for us to consume and observe and dictate and judge is fucking insane. We learned nothing from Britney Spears, apparently.

Celebrities have become such a disconnected reality from 'general living' that we are so fucking out of touch with the fact that they're literally just human beings. Eminem made a song about it and people just laughed it off as a great musical plotline and 'haha funny Stan lets turn it into fandom culture slang.' One Direction had to hide in unmarked trade vans and book out entire airports (which then got hacked) just to try to travel without getting mobbed. Toby Maguire got branded as 'rude and aggressive' for yelling at paparazzi who literally surrounded his car and blocked him from leaving a car park so they could take photos of him.

Celebrities should not have to take out contracts and protection orders and press gags just so they can raise their children in peace or take them on a fucking walk. Celebrities should not have to cover tattoos honoring their dead mother because some clown who thinks it'll turn into a Y/N moments replicates it without any care for its actual meaning. Celebrity nudes and sex tapes get hacked and leaked and the celebrity is simultaneously blamed for it and sexualised to absolute hell for it.

"Sources" are constantly selling-literally selling- private information about people and their lives and families and its just?? Considered so fucking normal?? Imagine having a miscarriage and finding out three days later that your co-worker sold that information to a news outlet and its now front-page news globally?

Imagine organising a secret, small wedding so you can have that special day with the person you love without it being ruined and you find out the fucking priest told the Daily Mail it was happening so your special day consists of hoards of photographers yelling at you while you try to speak your vows?

Honestly I believe we do need stricter regulations and laws regarding this kind of thing. I firmly believe in the freedom of photography in public spaces but I also firmly believe that should absolutely not cover paparazzi literally stalking people, mobbing them, blocking them in alleyways and parking lots, using telescopic lenses to take photographs inside their houses, ect. It simply shouldn't.

People need to start imagining themselves and their family members in these types of situations and recognise that its fucking inhumane.

[macwantspeace]

Tom The Dancing Bug. Trial By Ordeal

[sad face image here]

[knowledge-and-learning]

Supporting the Tor Project

Bruce Schneier is one of the most popular figures in the USA who supports the Tor browser project. Born in Brooklyn, New York, Schneier is an American computer security specialist, author, and cryptographer. He is the CEO of Counterpane Internet Security, a consulting and managed security operations firm that he founded in 2002. Schneier is also a contributing writer to The Guardian news site, where he has blogged about everything from surveillance and security to random topics such as Lego.

In addition to his work in the computer security field, Schneier is also a strong advocate for privacy rights. He is a vocal supporter of the Tor browser project, which allows users to browse the internet anonymously. In 2014, Schneier wrote an article for The Guardian entitled "Why I Support the Tor Project." In it, he discusses the importance of online privacy and he has been a vocal critic of the NSA's mass surveillance program, and has even written a book on the subject. In addition to his work as a computer security expert, he is also a civil liberties advocate. In 2014, he spoke out in support of the Tor browser project, saying that it is "an important tool for dissidents and journalists around the world." He has also been critical of government attempts to undermine encryption, saying that it is "a fundamental security tool." Schneier is one of the most respected voices in the security community, and his support for the Tor browser project helps to legitimize it in the eyes of many people.

Other public figures who openly support the Tor Project are :

* Jacob Appelbaum - an American developer who worked on the Tor Project and is a vocal privacy and civil liberties advocate. Born in Seattle, Washington, Appelbaum is a well-known figure in the hacker community. He has been involved in a number of high-profile projects, including the development of the Tor browser.

* Laura Poitras - an American filmmaker and journalist who is best known for her work on the NSA surveillance story. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Poitras is a three-time Academy Award nominee. Her film Citizenfour won the 2014 Best Documentary Feature Oscar. Poitras is a vocal advocate for privacy rights and has been a strong supporter of the Tor Project.

* Edward Snowden - an American computer professional who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA). Born in North Carolina, Snowden began working as a contractor

* Glenn Greenwald - an American journalist who wrote extensively about the NSA's mass surveillance program, based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Born in New York City, Greenwald is a former constitutional and civil rights litigator. He is currently a columnist for The Intercept.

These public figures help to legitimize the Tor Project and raise awareness about the importance of online privacy. Their support is crucial in the fight against mass surveillance and government attempts to undermine encryption.

Some hard facts about attempts of undermining encryption are :

In September of 2019, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intention to force Facebook to break the end-to-end encryption on its Messenger app. This would have allowed the DOJ to listen in on conversations between suspected criminals. However, Facebook refused to comply with the request, and the DOJ dropped the case.

In December of 2019, it was revealed that the United Kingdom's intelligence agency, GCHQ, had developed a tool to hack into Apple's iMessage platform. This allowed them to read messages that were encrypted with iMessage's end-to-end encryption. The news caused uproar among privacy advocates, and Apple quickly issued a patch to fix the security flaw.

The battle between the FBI and Apple over the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone. In 2016, the FBI demanded that Apple create a backdoor into the iPhone's encryption so they could access the shooter's data. However, Apple refused to comply, saying that creating such a backdoor would jeopardize the security of all iPhone users. The case eventually went to court, but the judge ruled in favor of Apple.

In 2016, on the orders of President Barack Obama, the US government banned strong encryption. The ban was short-lived, however, and was quickly reversed by President Donald Trump.

In 2016 the FBI tried to force Microsoft to hand over customer data that was stored on servers in Ireland. However, Microsoft refused to comply, saying that the FBI did not have jurisdiction over Irish servers. The case is still ongoing, but Microsoft has remained firm in its position.

It is clear that the government will continue to try to force companies to break encryption. However, it is also clear that many companies are unwilling to comply with these demands. This situation is likely to continue in the future, with the government making more demands and companies refusing to budge. There may be some legal battles, but ultimately it is up to the companies themselves to decide whether or not they want to give in to government demands.

The Tor Project is a critical tool in the fight against mass surveillance and government attempts to undermine encryption. The support of public figures helps to legitimize the project and raise awareness about the importance of online privacy. These attempts by the government are a clear violation of our rights.

How to support the Tor project :

There are many ways to support the Tor project. The most important thing is to raise awareness about the importance of online privacy and the threats to it. You can do this by talking to your friends and family about Tor, and telling them why you think it's important. You can also write articles or blog posts about Tor, or make videos about it. If you're a developer, you can help out with the development of the software. And of course, you can donate money to the project to help keep it running.

The fight for online privacy is an important one, and the Tor Project is at the forefront of that fight. With your support, we can continue to make progress in ensuring that everyone has the right to privacy online. Thank you for your support.

[ongovernment71]

“Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.”

— Calvin Coolidge

Calvin Coolidge, His Ideals of Citizenship as Revealed Through His Speeches and Writings (ed. 1924)

[survivorsuggest]

(Tw: threats on Internet privacy) This is not too time sensitive, but it would be great to get this answered or at least have me pointed in a direction of someone that could help. I’m 16 and in a very restricted situation as far as Internet independence goes, and my mother recently made the threat that once I have social media, if she finds that I have a second account, I’ll be “shut down,” my phone taken, and I “won’t have any freedom.” I don’t want to wait two years. What can I do? —🍄

hi anon,

first of all i'm really sorry you're living in such a restrictive environment. i know what it's like to be controlled and have your access to the internet taken away.

i can think of two possible solutions. one, depending on your mother's character, you could try to appeal to her conscience by explaining that a lot of social interaction nowadays takes place exclusively online and barring you from that is like if you weren't allowed to talk to people at school.

however, it sounds to me like she's monitoring your social media, is that correct? in that case, i'm afraid the only thing you could do is talk to an external helper, be that an older sibling who has left the house, an adult relative, a teacher or counsellor you trust. i'm not sure about the legal situation, it depends on where you live, but monitoring you could be an infringement on your rights. an adult on the outside might be able to step in or get you in touch with child protective services and/or legal help. there are also ways to emancipate yourself before you're 18; if your desire is to move out, it's possible to legally force your guardian to provide financial backing for that, but you will need to speak to a licensed counsellor or therapist who can facilitate that option.

i'm sorry i can't think of anything else to help you. maybe my followers can?

i'm wishing you all the best.

be safe, n

[addressingsophism]

The Poor Aren’t “Crazy”

It's a farce to cling to the narrative that most homeless are addicts or "mentally ill" (implied to be psychosis or incompetence), as very few homeless are diagnosed as delusional or developmentally disabled (and the statistics for undiagnosed individuals do not suggest the majority are overwhelming dysfunctional due to unprovoked internal mechanisms and genetic pathologies). Although those experiencing psychosis or development restrictions shouldn’t be marginalized, the stigmatic concepts of misapplied and misunderstood “mental illness” are often exaggerated in order to victim-blame and dismiss the entirety and/or majority of the homeless and impoverished populations. Impoverished people are often treated like pets or cattle, as opposed to capable thinking, feeling sentient beings deserving of respect, justice and equal opportunity. Most (per APA ,CDC, WHO, WPA) are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and studies routinely conclude that the most significant factors influencing this are a lack of sustainable occupations and housing for those with low status and low income (along with histories of ignored human rights abuses). If people were granted access to training that would give them credentials and access to clean, affordable living, there would be a serious reduction in homeless (and by extension drug abuse and disturbances of the peace).

The top issues related to homeless mental health are the following:

1. Depression and anxiety related to unresolved cases of domestic abuse or systematic psychological abuse and slander.

2. Depression and anxiety related to cases of scholastic neglect or unjust academic obstruction (limiting employment options).

3. Depression and anxiety related to cases of occupational obstruction (lack of available options; undependable systems/companies).

4. Depression and anxiety related to cases of overdiagnosis by community organizations that obtain wealth based on diagnosis.

5. Social and economic constrictions and restrictions imposed by agencies handling Social Services.

6. Addiction rooted in both depression/anxiety, and substance dependencies supplanted by healthcare agencies that gain material wealth from cycles of dependency for addiction and drug sales.

7. Psychological abuse by service providers that flex or treat consumers with condescension, bulverism and hegemonic double standards.

Here are some suggestions for tackling these issues:

1. Therapy services must focus on what is best for the client in regards to their full status of (tested) capability, and what is best for them in regards to economic options, academic options and results-based care.

2. Issues with abuse and neglect must take an open round-table approach focusing on objective investigative-and-results based outcomes, placing the rights of the consumer above reputation-control systems of groups, authorities, controlling families, academic institutions, companies, workers and systems.

3. Occupational services should focus on eliminating or improving options that otherwise lead to dead-end dependencies or low-income (crisis creating) cycles.

4. Agencies should eliminate all "subpar" declarative-status data that isn't based on objective testing in order to free people from undeserved obstruction, suspicion and stigma. All declarative statements about supposed "communications" should require signatures by consumers, and consumers should be discouraged from signing any documentation that isn't completely accurate, in order to eliminate misuse and incorrect care. All data of supposed declarative “symptoms” should require specific information about the circumstances, dates and times, triggering, environment, and duration of events related to symptomatic declarations, in order to separate the pathological from the physiological.

5. Social Service providers shouldn't attempt to restrict, force, reinforce or control the Social or Economic aspects of consumers lives unless objective testing has proven a lack of functional capability in relation to those concepts, restricted to evidence in relation to repeated violations of the law or the consumers own Human Rights.

6. Addiction counseling should be addressed with evidence-based practices, and consumers should not be trained to become solely dependent upon drugs in order to function. Drugs should also be restricted to extreme cases on non-choice based dysfunction and should never be utilized to control or manipulate the non-criminal behaviors of lawfully compliant but civically disobedient and protesting consumers.

7. There should be a zero tolerance policy for any disrespectful behaviors by those with any power in the system. Investigative techniques based on objective fact finding on all sides should be placed above short-handed bias.