in all the world is more dangerous, than sincere ignorance and
-- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
from March 22, 2019
This is a
Nederlog of Friday,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was until 2013:
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 three 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
five crisis files
that are mostly well worth reading:
A. Selections from March 22, 2019:
1. Facebook Exposed Millions of
Passwords to Employees
The items 1 - 5 are today's
selections from the 35 sites that I look at
everyorning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the
link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:
2. EU Leaders Open to Brexit Delay, but
May Face Storm at Home
3. The Washington Post's Disgraceful Coverage of
4. On Big Telecom Gutting Net Neutrality Bill
5. The Vote to Create Internet 'Censorship Machine'
Exposed Millions of Passwords to Employees
This article is by
Barbara Ortutay on Truthdig and originally on The Associated Press. It
starts as follows:
Well... I think Facebook
is lying, as
usual, and I think the same about the ¨digital gangster¨,
the extra-ordinarily creepy Mark Zuckerberg, although he is not
mentioned in this article.
Facebook said Thursday that
it stored millions of its users’ passwords in plain text for years.
The acknowledgement from
the social media giant came after a security researcher posted about
the issue online.
“Security rule 101 dictates
that under no circumstances passwords should be stored in plain text,
and at all times must be encrypted,” said cybersecurity expert Andrei
Barysevich of Recorded Future. “There is no valid reason why anyone in
an organization, especially the size of Facebook, needs to have access
to users’ passwords in plain text.”
Facebook said there is no
evidence its employees abused access to this data. But thousands of
employees could have searched them. The company said the passwords were
stored on internal company servers, where no outsiders could access
them. But the incident reveals a huge oversight [problem] for the
company amid a slew of bruises and stumbles in the last couple of years.
I think Facebook is lying because it makes its money by
data (from billions of its users) to advertisers, to whom - as e.g.
Analytica case illustrates - it gives all sorts of freedoms.
And needing only a possibly corrupted or possibly paid member
Facebook´s personal to get the millions of passwords of its users
- apart from legalities - one of the best ways that Facebook has to service
Then again, I admit I have no proof of my suspicions other
many previous lies from both Facebook employees and Zuckerberg.
Here is some more on the passwords of “hundreds of millions” of users of Facebook:
The last paragraph
indicates more lies by Facebook (whose employees lie most of
when their assertions can be checked). Anyway... this is a recommended
The security blog
KrebsOnSecurity said some 600
million Facebook users may have had their passwords stored in
plain text. Facebook said
in a blog post Thursday it will likely notify “hundreds of
millions” of Facebook Lite users, millions of Facebook users and tens
of thousands of Instagram users that their passwords were stored in
plain text. Facebook Lite is designed for users with older phones or
low-speed internet connections and is used primarily in developing
Facebook said it discovered
the problem in January. But, according to Brian Krebs, the security
researcher, in some cases the passwords had been stored in plain text
since 2012. Facebook Lite launched in 2015 and Facebook bought
Instagram in 2012.
Leaders Open to Brexit Delay, but May Face Storm at Home
article is by Lorne Cook and Jill Lawless on Truthdig and originally on
The Associated Press. It starts as follows:
European Union leaders
meeting for a Brexit summit are likely to grant Britain a short
extension, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday, if the U.K.
government can win parliamentary support next week for its divorce deal.
But the early signs of that
happening were not good. British Prime Minister Theresa May angered
many legislators with a televised speech late Wednesday blaming a
divided Parliament for an impasse that has left Britain eight days away
from crashing out of the bloc. One lawmaker slammed her remarks as
I review this article
basically because I want some clarity on Brexit (to which I was
opposed, but I am not a Brit), although I agree this is
hard to get for
various reasons, two of quite a few more are May´s incompetence
strongly divided parliament.
And I suppose the
bitter comments by quite a few reviewers on May´s latest speech were at
least in part caused by the fact that May seemed to claim no
responsibility whatsoever for the present Brexit mess.
Here is some more:
Her deal has been roundly
rejected twice by the U.K. Parliament, and EU leaders are being asked
to take the risk that May can convince the lawmakers next week.
That looked more uncertain
after her speech on the eve of the summit, in which May told a
Brexit-weary public: “You want this stage of the Brexit process to be
over and done with. I agree. I am on your side.”
May accused lawmakers of
“infighting, “political games” and “arcane procedural rows,” but
acknowledged no personal role in creating the impasse.
Well... as I said under the
previous quoted bit. Here is the last bit that I quote from this
May’s opponents, and EU
officials, say her refusal to budge on her rejected deal is pushing the
country to the brink of a catastrophic no-deal scenario, with huge
political and economic implications for Britain and the EU.
Merkel vowed to work “until
the last hour” to try and ensure that Britain doesn’t leave without a
deal, even though her government has already put “the most important
emergency measures” in place to deal with such a scenario just in case.
“We will, despite these
measures we have taken, work until the last day — I will say until the
last hour — to ensure that this emergency planning doesn’t come into
effect,” she said. “We will do everything in the remaining, admittedly
few, days to achieve an orderly, joint solution.”
I agree with ¨May’s opponents, and EU officials¨ and this is a recommended article, although
I admit it does not give much clarity on Brexit.
Washington Post's Disgraceful Coverage of Medicare-for-All
This article is by
Michael Cochran on Truthdig and originally on FAIR. It starts as
I say, and I quite agree
Cochran that describing e.g. the Consortium of
Citizens with Disabilities as “advocates
on the far left” is - in fact - pure propaganda.
Also, I want to
suggest that one of the main reasons this propaganda is written by the
Washington Post is that it belongs to Google´s boss Jim Bezos,
admit I have no further reasons than that.
The phrase “hard-line,” as
commonly used in the Washington Post, is almost always a
pejorative. Often it references official enemy states like Iran (5/4/18, 5/9/18)
or North Korea (1/18/19).
In a recent Post (3/11/19)
article, however, reporter Paige W. Cunningham used the term to refer
to a different kind of enemy: proponents of Medicare for All.
Among the “hard-line
liberal groups and unions” the article refers to in its headline and
lead is the Consortium
of Citizens with Disabilities, a coalition of approximately 100
national disability organizations. The “hard-line” groups include much
of the grassroots movements for healthcare justice in the country:
National Nurses United, Social Security Works and the Center for
These orgs—described elsewhere in the piece as “advocates on the far
left”—are devoted to such “hard-line” positions as universal
healthcare, protecting senior citizens and empowering voters and
Incidentally, I am disabled as well since more than 40 years with ¨a
serious chronic disease¨
that was not admitted to exist for 39 of these 40 years,
but then I -
happily enough - do not live in the USA.
Here is one more bit from this article:
Yes indeed - and the
second paragraph seems to imply that the Washington Post is intentionally
propagandizing and intentionally leaving out important facts in
its journalism. And this is a recommended article.
In fact, what
the Post describes as “hard-line” and “far left” is actually
a very popular position. Medicare for All has long polled well among
the public at large, especially Democratic voters.
A Reuters poll from 2018 (The Hill, 8/23/18) showed
70 percent of the public, 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of
Republicans support Medicare for All. That poll is the high water mark,
but the policy polls well in most other polls as well
This popular support was
not mentioned by the Post. In fact, the article asserted that the
“bill would overhaul the US healthcare system so dramatically that
summoning broad public support for it seems like a tall order.”
Big Telecom Gutting Net Neutrality Bill
This article is by
Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. I abbreviated the title. It starts as
I say. I am strongly
net neutrality, but I think the case is very probably lost, both in
USA and in Europe (see the next item).
"This could be the single
most important moment for net neutrality this year."
That was Fight for the
Future's urgent message to internet users across the U.S. on Thursday
as the group announced a massive
online protest to prevent telecom-backed lawmakers from gutting the
Save the Internet Act while no one's looking.
On Monday, the House
Communications and Technology Subcommittee is expected
to begin marking up Democrats' net neutrality legislation, which has
as the best plan to restore the open internet.
To stop telecom-friendly
lawmakers from using the amendment process to eviscerate the Save the
Internet Act, Fight for the Future is attempting to make the livestream
of the committee hearing go viral.
The goal, said Fight for
the Future, is to send lawmakers a simple warning: "The
whole internet is watching."
Here is some more from the present article:
Well... I agree
with the last paragraph. The first paragraph describes what has been
going on in the Senate and the House for decades
now, while I fail to see how the Fight for the Future could
be able to stop corruptions
of the chosen representatives. In brief, I hope for the best,
but I do not expect it. And this is a recommended article,
while the next article has more on the European situation:
"Telecom lobbyists are
working overtime to convince these lawmakers to add bad amendments that
could completely gut the bill and leave gaping loopholes for Internet
providers to block, throttle, and charge users new fees," Josh Tabish,
a tech fellow at Fight for the Future, wrote in an email to supporters
"If we get the bill out of
committee without any bad amendments, then we have a solid shot of
winning the next big vote on the House floor," Tabish said. "But if the
bill gets gutted, we're back to square one."
The online protest to
ensure the Save the Internet Act emerges out of committee intact comes
as a new
poll found that 80 percent of Americans overall—and 77 percent of
Republicans—support net neutrality.
Vote to Create Internet 'Censorship Machine'
This article is
by Jessica Corbett on Common Dreams. I abbreviated the title. It starts
Yes indeed, and I quite
agree that what the ¨members of the European Union's (EU) legislative
preparing is very probably the
death of the internet, and indeed also for NL (that you are reading
now), simply because I quote a
fair amount from news sites.
Free speech and digital
rights advocates across Europe blacked out websites on Thursday to
protest the controversial Copyright
Directive the European Parliament is scheduled to vote on next
Activists are also planning
protests, which are set to take place across Europe on
For the past few years,
members of the European Union's (EU) legislative assembly have negotiated
updates to continent-wide copyright rules that are nearly two decades
old. Digital experts and activists warn
that two particular provisions in the final text of the directive
(pdf) collectively would be a "catastrophe for free expression."
In fact, I quote a
fair amount from news sites (which I always do honestly and with links)
because doing so is the only means for me by which I can get a
tolerable view of the various political positions on matters I care
I will continue to do so after this has been forbidden, but
then I am not
allowed to publish what I think anymore, which is a stinking shame, and
effectively makes me into a sub-human
compared to the rights
I have had all my life.
In fact, here is my position on the media and the press (which
differs from my position on writers of real books, who often do
need some kind of copyright to earn anything), which can be stated by a
comment of the late Dutch writer Hugo Brandt
Corstius in the late 1960ies, that I remember as follows:
worth a million or more yesterday, 25 cents today, and nothing
tomorrow? The daily press.¨
I quite agree, and indeed
my own efforts over the past six to ten years have been to quote parts
of the daily media with my comments to preserve both.
Also, I think this is quite fair, among other things because
real journalists tend to be employed, unlike real writers of
books (who may be employed, but are rarely employed to write books,
again unlike journalists).
Anyway... that is my position. Here is more from the article:
Article 11 means total
censorship on nearly everyone who gathers news from journalists
desires to publish his findings. Something similar holds for
aka 17, though I suppose this will not endanger my site(s) because I do
not allow users to comment of my site by anything else than e-mails to
me (of which I rarely publish anything).
"Although there are
important wins for the open community in the current text, the
inclusion of Articles 11 and 13 will harm the way people find and share
information online," the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit that
promotes free knowledge, said
in a policy statement.
(Note: As part of the
legislative process, Article 13 has been renumbered as Article 17.)
Detailing the controversial
sections, the Wikimedia Foundation explained:
would allow news publishers to sell licenses for even the smallest
snippets taken from online news sites. If no license fee is paid, the
snippets would need to be removed from the search results and news
aggregation lists. By imposing these burdens on websites that collect,
organize, and make sense of the news, Article 11 will make it even
harder to sort through the noise to find high-quality news sources for
projects like Wikipedia.
[a.k.a. Article 17] creates new liability for websites that
host user-generated content, if they are unable to ensure that
infringing works are not re-uploaded to their sites. This would mean
that all uploads to platforms would have to be scanned and treated as
presumptively suspicious. Although non-commercial encyclopedias like
Wikipedia are exempted, the greater internet ecosystem our communities
rely upon will suffer if platforms are forced to privately enforce
Activists and website
administrators across Europe joined #Blackout21
on Thursday to protest the pair of provisions, which critics often call
the "link tax" and "censorship machine," respectively.
But as I have been saying before, I think the internet was designed to give the
national securities of every country full access to anyone writing on
the internet, including their private mail, their
private data, and their private anything (on their computers
connected to the internet), and this full
access to anyone´s values, ideas, income, health, opinions,
photographs, videos or anything else, has been meanwhile extended to
Google, Facebook, and hundreds more of rich corporations.
For more, see here. Here is the last
bit that I quote from this article:
Yes, I agree with Wikimedia, and
in fact go further: The internet was designed
to be the tool that would introduce neofascism
aka ¨the technotronic society¨ from the late 1960ies onwards.
Here is more by and about Brzezinski,
and here is more about the internet.
And this is a strongly recommended article.
Next week, MEPs "will get
to choose between supporting a reform that forces upload filters onto
the internet OR to reject the reform and demand a balanced revision of
the text for the benefit of citizens and creators," the site explains.
If the directive passes, "the next step is then the final approval of
the Council at the Ministerial level. There is no date yet for this
vote but it can be expected to take place in April."
In other words, as the
Wikimedia Foundation concluded it its statement, "this is the last
chance for Europeans who care about access to knowledge and the sharing
of diverse information on the internet to make their voice heard."
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 3 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 (!!).