Video download link



Summary: There's a false sense of security and privacy, perpetuated in part by corporate media, and we need to go back to basics

THERE is a profound difference between real security (or privacy) and promises of security (false marketing) from government informants such as Microsoft or Google. Like charlatans who promote so-called 'secure' boot (basically another Microsoft- and Intel-connected vulnerability marketed as "smart" and supposedly 'novel' [1, 2], seeking to replace what already works solidly by adhering to simplicity).

"IBM-controlled Red Hat should have all of its code scrutinised, even if it's Free software. Their overall agenda isn't the same as Debian's, for instance."In order to generally confuse the "average users", products that don't offer real security and generally seek to data-mine people (the opposite of guarding privacy) are being painted in the mainstream media as "privacy" and "safety".

The video above focuses on IBM/Red Hat, knowing that a lot of people out there typically overlook this elephant in the room, wrongly assuming only "GAFAM" work for imperialism while not accounting for Oracle, IBM, and a few other government contractors that are close to the military and espionage operations.

The above mentions 9 articles about IBM/Red Hat (especially Red Hat). In chronological order:

• Trusting Trust and Trusting Red Hat et al.
• For Real Security, Use CentOS -- Never RHEL -- and Run Neither on Amazon's Servers
• IBM Shows That Collaborations With the NSA Are a Company's Death Knell



• Poll: Only 39% Trust Red Hat Over Back Doors
• Red Hat Joins the Joke Which is Amazon's 'Secure' Federal 'Cloud'
• Red Hat Should Keep Its Distance From NSA Facilitator Microsoft



• Red Hat and NSA: This is Not News
• Red Hat's CEO is Still Connected to the NSA Through the Hortonworks Board
• Mixed Loyalties, Including to a Surveillance Industry

There's the old saying, "trust, but verify..."

In the case of Red Hat, "trust" has long been absent and IBM is even worse. So an IBM-controlled Red Hat should have all of its code scrutinised, even if it's Free software. Their overall agenda isn't the same as Debian's, for instance. Unfortunately, over time, Debian and Ubuntu become just another Red Hat/Fedora by adopting GNOME3, systemd, Wayland and so on. There are risks associated with that extra complexity and relatively immature/barely audited code. ⬆