“I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
“[Windows Vista DRM] seems a bit like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches.“
–Peter Gutmann
Summary: When so-called ‘open source’ programs strictly require Vista 10 (or similar) to run, how open are they really and does that not redefine the nature of Open Source while betraying everything Free/libre software stands for?
What good is “open source” that needs a back-doored, proprietary software (i.e. back doors cannot be removed) operating system with spying and DRM just to run it? We recently wrote about this kind of situation, offering examples from both Apple and Microsoft.
“And they say “soon open source” without specifying a licence or anything.”Here comes another new example from GHacks (lots of those lately; mostly from this site). “Sandboxie, a sandbox program for Microsoft’s Windows operating system, has been turned into a free application.” Freeware. And they say “soon open source” without specifying a licence or anything. Might as well turn out to be vapourware at the end…
Tabloid troll Catalin Cimpanu is already openwashing this proprietary software based on a promise from Sophos alone. Let’s rejoice “open source” that runs only on Windows. CBS and its tabloid ZDNet are once again proving to be Microsoft propaganda and this article comes from the person who constantly slanders Linux. Help Net Security said: “Sophos plans to open-source Sandboxie, a Windows utility that allows users to run apps in a sandbox. Until that happens, they’ve made the utility free.”
“When “open source” runs only on a proprietary platform with NSA back doors what is it really worth?”BetaNews — just like the above — put “open source” in the headline even though it’s only freeware. Great! And even though it’s Windows only; just like Steve Ballmer wanted…
When “open source” runs only on a proprietary platform with NSA back doors what is it really worth? Is it good for anything? Also, it’s not security; just illusion of it…
They claim that these applications improve security, but these applications only run on a platform with NSA back doors. Here’s another new example, this one of an “app” that only runs on iOS. “If you’re looking for an alternative for Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, LastPass Authenticator, or Authy, you may want to give Authenticator a chance,” it says. How does that improve security? The underlying operating system has well known back doors. The company that monopolised maintainer-ship works with the NSA and is in the PRISM spy programme. Ed Snowden’s leaks provided actual evidence and 2 years ago Wikileaks added more with Vault 7.
“Notice that all the above are security-oriented programs but not a single platform without NSA back doors is supported.”A similar example was covered 3 days ago by GHacks: “WinOTP Authenticator is an open-source alternative for WinAuth”
The “Win” means Windows; it means you lose security. You lose privacy. When “open source” runs only under proprietary software stacks with NSA back doors, such as Vista 10 (strictly in this case), a vendor can only pretend it offers security…
One of the virtues extolled by Free software proponents is superior security; well, how much do such claims hold when one must rent (license, temporarily) a bunch of dodgy binaries from NSA partners to run the said program/s? Notice that all the above are security-oriented programs but not a single platform without NSA back doors is supported. █
Summary: The Linux Foundation is sucking the life out of Linux, for a profit…
THE Linux Foundation is not dedicated to Linux any more than its pertinent members, which are mostly proprietary giants…
In that regard, Foundation members might be absolutely fine with that. They already dominate the Board.
“Linux is a powerful brand and if this misuse of this brand continues, its value will diminish.”The seniors at the Foundation think that Linux sucks, e.g. on laptops/desktops! They only use its name (trademark) for their openwashing services…
Yesterday we learned, based on a new “tweet”, that the sole editor of a Web site called Linux.com uses Xbox and Microsoft’s Vista 10. Running a Web site called Linux.com while using Windows is like running a Web site called EcoWatch while promoting tobacco (true story by the way!).
“Yesterday we learned, based on a new “tweet”, that the sole editor of a Web site called Linux.com uses Xbox and Microsoft’s Vista 10.”The person’s name isn’t what’s important*; let’s just say that yesterday he wrote about Microsoft’s ‘gift’ to Linux (“exFAT Is Coming to Linux”). exFAT has nothing to do with or in Linux; it’s about lousy copycats with bugs, not Microsoft’s proprietary and secret implementation of it; it’s not a working implementation but some inferior ("horrible," according to Linux developers) code. Same as happened with OOXML, which Microsoft itself never bother implementing.
To the people of the Linux Foundation Linux is, at best, a ‘side dish’. So they won’t care as long as Microsoft, a big sponsor, is pleased. Microsoft is at the top of the list of the Foundation’s sponsors, as absurd as that is.
“To the people of the Linux Foundation Linux is, at best, a ‘side dish’.”Is this a problem?
It certainly is.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish? Maybe. Not before Microsoft owns (or controls) Linux, which it tried to destroy many times (but always failed). According to this morning’s article from Phoronix about a Clear Linux survey: “By far the most used development tool was Visual Studio Code at 37.6%! That was quite surprising to see the Microsoft IDE coming out well ahead of Qt Creator at 8% and others like Intellij, Eclipse, Android Studio, GNOME Builder, and others. ”
Phoronix has a misleading headline; it cites a survey of just a couple hundred people choosing to use a lousy distro from a back doors giant; that’s what Clear Linux is (it’s not representative of GNU/Linux as a whole). So they obviously don’t care about Software Freedom. Earlier this week Linux.com actually promoted some rubbish about Visual Studio Code, together with proprietary software (SQL Server). █
___ * The name is Swapnil Bhartiya, but he doesn’t want his name mentioned. I didn’t respond to Swapnil after many abusive tweets he had sent me (maybe 8 in a row ignored by me). Now he blocks me in Twitter, where I ignore him anyway. Pathetic. Just like Jim Zemlin did. I’m not sure what Zemlin expected when he put Windows/Microsoft fans in charge of a site called Linux.com. Critics of it? BLOCKED. Just like Zemlin did. I’m also blocked by him. Not open for criticism/critics. Trying to hide from them instead.
Linux.com is run by a person who — going by his very own bio — currently works as a “science fiction writer.” Yes, lies are a form of fiction. Like openwashing proprietary software…
Like the notorious Laura DiDio with her fictional writings about houses ‘haunted’ by ‘ghosts’ (she actually meant that). She wrote fake stuff whilst attacking Linux through the Yankee Group.
At the Linux Foundation people’s past/background is mostly omitted; There’s no sign of eduction or formal training in technology. Jim Zemlin told Swapnil upfront in this public interview: “I have a very weak technical background.”
People with no grasp of technology and no suitable background (e.g. education in technology) dominate the Linux Foundation, where a tiny portion of the total budget goes to actual techies. The Linux Foundation being run by people with no background in technology isn’t an innocent ‘anomaly’. That’s like a car salesman who never drove a car and does not have a car.
Well anyway, Linux.com is a misleading domain name because it’s no longer about Linux and usually it’s not about Open Source, either. Here’s an example from yesterday. Does Swapnil know that both companies are 100% proprietary software and nothing to do with GNU/Linux (he probably doesn’t; and doesn’t care)? This morning he promoted a Windows-only laptop.
Welcome to ‘Linux Vista’ and Open-for-business Source (for some parts, for the openwashing factor)
Summary: Free/Open Source software (FOSS) and (GNU/)Linux don’t quite change the world as much as they’re being changed by monopolies (software, hardware and entertainment) to suit their agenda and eliminate any remnants of freedom
WHEN we say that Software Freedom is under attack we mean exactly that. We’re under attack; our rights and our dignity are under a heavy assault. We’re gradually losing control of everything digital. We become enslaved by technology, which rather than emancipate people devolves into a tool of oppression and imprisonment. Surveillance is one among many aspects of this.
“We become enslaved by technology, which rather than emancipate people devolves into a tool of oppression and imprisonment.”The harms of DRM are well documented, as are the effects of the DMCA. In the distant past (Windows Vista era) Microsoft colluded with hardware companies to put DRM in Windows and nowadays Google does the same to Linux (having already done the same to the WWW along with Microsoft and Neflix for the most part). It’s the evil DRM, not Direct Rendering (same acronym), which is mostly benign. According to this new post from Phoronix, AMD is doing the 'Intel thing' (which has done that with Vista/Microsoft and ChromeOS/Google). First the back doors (ME), now this…
To quote:
AMD developers have sent out their latest open-source Linux patches doing their kernel driver share for enabling High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) support for version 1.4 and newer.
While seeing HDCP support patches for open-source graphics drivers does irritate many in the community, similar to other open-source drivers supporting HDCP, this is only one part of the content protection puzzle. These patches alone do not impose any restrictions on users or other impairments, but mainly comes down to such proprietary software wanting to make use of HDCP capabilities on Linux. Open-source video players and the like can continue to enjoy GPU-based video acceleration uninterrupted.
[...]
Intel’s open-source Linux graphics driver only began seeing HDCP work relatively recently when Google engineers were interested with the Intel support in the context of Chromebook support.
All the news sites are still busy writing puff pieces about exFAT (at this stage we just skip these repetitive articles); no attention has been paid (or will be paid) to the issue above — an issue we investigated by analysing the kernel some months ago.
“The harms of DRM are well documented, as are the effects of the DMCA.”Make no mistake about it; Google surely spreads Linux, but at the same time it changes it in troubling ways. Yesterday/earlier today opensource.com promoted Google’s openwashing of its surveillance code — a subject that we covered in our previous Openwashing Report or two. To quote:
Developers at search engine giant Google have been busy on the open source front lately. In the last two weeks, they’ve released two very different systems as open source.
The first of those is the speech engine for Live Transcribe, a speech recognition and transcription tool for Android, which “uses machine learning algorithms to turn audio into real-time captions” on mobile devices. Google’s announcement states it is making Live Transcribe open source to “let any developer deliver captions for long-form conversations.”
Google is using this for surveillance, but we’re supposed to be all cheerful and gleeful because “open!”
“Red Hat’s opensource.com (above) actively participates in openwashing and Red Hat as a whole seem to have hired too many people from Microsoft, including managers.”We’ll do another Openwashing Report later this weekend. It’s a growing problem. It’s telling us that “open source” has “won”; what they mean by “won”, however, is co-opted by proprietary frameworks such as AWS, Azure, various spying devices that are dubbed “smart” and even totally meaningless mumbo-jumbo like "serverless". Some of our readers keep insisting that it’s time for the FSF to fight back.
Red Hat’s opensource.com (above) actively participates in openwashing and Red Hat as a whole seem to have hired too many people from Microsoft, including managers. It nearly sold itself to Microsoft and it promoted an Azure thing just before the weekend (we mentioned this in our daily links and it's not the first time).
What is going on? Have we lost sight of the fact that some companies strive to destroy Software Freedom?
“How long before we can call it “exterminate” or “extinguish”?”opensource.com has just published this article from Karl Fogel and James Vasile (we assume one of them is from Microsoft, but the bio was left empty). Microsoft executives — i.e. those who attack Open Source more than anyone — now try to hijack the narrative around its competition (speaking ‘for’ what it’s attacking). See paragraph 4: “Now we have a chance to have this discussion in a more regular and complete way: Microsoft has asked us to do a series of blog posts about open source, and the request was essentially “help organizations get better at open source” (not a direct quote, but a reasonable summary). They were very clear about the series being independent; they did not want editorial control and specifically did not want to be involved in any pre-approval before we publish a post. It goes without saying, but we’ll say it anyway, just so there’s no doubt, that the views we express in the series may or may not be shared by Microsoft.”
So a site called opensource.com is now being composed by/for Microsoft. How long before we can call it “exterminate” or “extinguish”? When will Microsoft ‘own’ Linux as much as it ‘owns’ the Linux Foundation? The Foundation has just outsourced some more projects to GitHub, i.e. to Microsoft. We put links about that in our daily roundup.
We’re being told that FOSS “won”; actually, software monopolies have “won” (read: dominate) FOSS. Who’s in control? █
Summary: People’s control over their own computers is being taken away; the model of rental better describes many of today’s purchases
IT HAS long been the case that computers are sold with an operating system rather than tested for a variety of them and handed over for the user to install one (of the user’s choosing). The bundling of operation systems has been an enabler of Microsoft’s monopoly, which pursued tying Windows to hardware and called everything else “naked PC” or “piracy”.
But there may be an even bigger problem, exacerbated in part by so-called ‘smart’phones, tablets and things such as Chromebooks. There seems to be no obligtation whatsoever to keep them updated for more than a few years; after that the users are left unable to upgrade the operating system and installing something else is technically difficult. There’s the expectation that this hardware will then be treated as ‘obsolete’ or “End of Life”, only for a new machine to be purchased to replace perfectly fine hardware. Of course the more technical people might choose to install GNU/Linux or otherwise deal with a critically vulnerable and out-of-date operating system that was never designed for security anyway.
“…there may be an even bigger problem, exacerbated in part by so-called ‘smart’phones, tablets and things such as Chromebooks.”What is Chrome OS anyway? Built on top of GNU/Linux or based on Gentoo, Chrome OS is designed to (mostly) spy on users and when it speaks of “Linux” it’s mostly just reinventing the wheel, allowing users to get back what they’d otherwise get on a platform such as Gentoo, including free updates, upgrades, maybe rolling releases.
Chromebooks were traditionally used to exchange the data invasion for subsidies that made these laptops somewhat cheaper, but at the higher end this is not the case. Announced yesterday, for instance, was this grossly overpriced product:
Google today announced a slew of Chrome Enterprise updates, including a faster Google Admin console and managed Linux environments. The company also unveiled the first Chromebook Enterprise laptops: Dell’s Latitude 5300 for $819 and Latitude 5400 for $699.
In August 2017, Google launched Chrome Enterprise for $50 per managed Chromebook per year. The subscription gives Chromebooks enterprise features like advanced security protections and fleet management. Today’s updates are Google’s latest push to bring Chrome OS to more businesses.
How long before the users are alerted that these are no longer supported and another expensive machine must be purchased to comply with business regulations?
“My laptop’s age is 10 and modern distributions can easily be installed on it without having to tinker with bootloaders, BIOS and such.”This is sadly becoming somewhat of a ‘norm’ — a normalcy wherein machines become ‘disposable’ even when they’re very expensive (almost a thousand bucks). There’s an envionmental impact.
My laptop’s age is 10 and modern distributions can easily be installed on it without having to tinker with bootloaders, BIOS and such.
The idea that Chrome OS can break Microsoft or end a Windows monopoly is a convenient one. But what are we striving to replace Windows with if not something that’s based on Linux but offers no freedom (libre)?
As somebody put it in a comment yesterday:
The battle is won, but the war is lost…
Everything runs on OSS these days, but the Libre part of it is missing more than ever. The biggest issue I see is the issue of “ownership”.
Physical ownership: I own my phone, my car, my house.
Virtual ownership: I own my data.
Streaming services are a case in point. You rent everything for $xx a month. If an actor becomes a persona non grata, and data with them is scrubbed (Think the Kevin Spacey situation, and, per events in march 2019, maybe upcoming with Michael Jackson), you don’t have access to it anymore.
Another case in point is Amazon’s removal of purchased e-books of 1984 from Kindle devices (in 2009, if memory serves).
You can’t (easily) rewrite a book purchased in paper form. You can rewrite an ebook.
The formula (Personal Hardware) + (Free Software) = (Digital Freedom) is more important than ever, but we do need to focus more on the Personal hardware part, and I agree it is part of a greater issue…
Control over one’s own hardware (that one pays for) is being diminished over time and with it the expectation of ownership as opposed to rent. We’re becoming mere tenants of what we’re paying a full price for. █
You are here ☞ Part 5: Microsoft’s War on the Right to Repair (One’s Own Computers) Makes Lundgren an ‘Enemy’ to Microsoft
Part 6: Damage Control Mode: Satya Nadella Fleeing Lundgren After Realising What Microsoft Had Done
Part 7: Slander and Libel From Microsoft (Demonising the Victim)
Part 8: Similar High-Profile ‘Bargains’ (Aaron Swartz and Marcus Hutchins)
The Legal Aftermath
Pending review and research
Summary: Microsoft killed legislation that allows people to repair their own computers and gadgets (that they paid full price for), so why not also destroy the life of a prominent recycler who helps hardware repairs at a vast scale (reducing demand for new electronics with new Microsoft Windows licences)?
TECHRIGHTS recently embarked on this series which may seem like old news even though some of the material is new. There’s new information and all material has rock-solid sources. We’ll also be posting proof, evidence, court material etc. There’s no lack of it. The Washington Post’s coverage of the Eric Lundgren case dealt with what happened last year and the year before that (see “Eric Lundgren, ‘e-waste’ recycling innovator, faces prison for trying to extend life span of PCs” and “How did this advocate of e-waste reuse end up behind bars?“). The Verge explained that by attacking Eric Lundgren Microsoft very well knew that it attacked everyone who recycled old PCs (“E-waste guru going to prison says cracking down on refurbishers is ‘harmful to society’“). The Verge, formerly edited by Bill Gates, unfortunately ended up amplifying Microsoft. On the same day it published a headline that contained Microsoft’s deliberate lie (‘he was counterfeiting Windows software’). Even Microsoft knew this was false, but again, this is Microsoft. Facts don’t matter. Only profits matter. As we shall explain in a moment, Microsoft’s attack on Lundgren was very much consistent with the company’s disdain if not sheer hatred of recycling in general. Lundgren and Microsoft are philosophically and ethically opposed.
“I currently support #RightToRepair,” Eric Lundgren told me after I had asked him about Software Freedom, e.g. use of GNU/Linux on recycled machines. “I currently support PIRG.” To quote the site: “Most of us have dozens of electronic devices in our lives, from smart phones and home computers, to inkjet printers and flat screen TVs. Things don’t last like they used to—a tiny broken part or outdated software can mean the end of the road, and the life spans seem to get shorter and shorter. This endless cycle of make, use, replace, and throw away may be good for the electronics companies’ bottom line, but when we stop and consider the impacts on the environment, and the threat to our health, it just makes no sense.”
Scroll down a just a little bit to find “TELL MICROSOFT: DON’T PUNISH RECYCLERS” (PIRG supports Lundgren in return, sending the love back). Lundgren is extremely popular among recyclers, but Microsoft defamed him to that effect (trying to portray him as a foe or a threat to the recyclers’ world). We’ll come to that later in this series. The demonisations were rather outlandish and way beyond insulting. Lundgren still thinks about suing over it. These psychological attacks (fabricating things and making up stuff to dehumanise the victim) have long-lasting effects.
To quote that page (the relavent part): “Microsoft pressed criminal charges against Eric Lundgren for making restore disks that allow people to fix old computers—even though the software on those disks is available online for free. We need to stand up for repair—or risk a chilling effect on repair and refurbishing, a key strategy to reducing electronic waste.”
It cannot be stressed strongly enough that recyclers support Lundgren; Microsoft tried driving a wedge between him and other recyclers. Did that work? Not exactly, but it served to show just how evil Microsoft still is. The only lesson here is that Microsoft would do anything to destroy critics. Last month we presented many other examples (Microsoft phoning people’s bosses, trying to get these people fired because of their stance on Microsoft). Microsoft is a bully incorporated into company form. It acts like a violent cult.
Further down PIRG tell “Eric Lundgren’s Story”:
Eric Lundgren is a recycling entrepreneur, and has made it his mission to extend the life cycle of used electronics. At age 19, he started a company that takes discarded electronics and rebuilds them into new, functional devices, thereby diverting working electronics from landfills. He even built the world’s longest-range electric car out of electronic waste, or e-waste, and set the world record for distance on a single charge.
Lundgren developed a strong passion for this cause in his twenties when he decided to follow America’s exported e-waste. He witnessed the harmful and toxic effects e-waste landfills had on people living in China, India and Africa at that time. It was clear that we needed to do more to keep toxic e-waste to a minimum.
But, Lundgren is heading to prison for providing restore disks that allow people to fix their old computers. Even though this software is given to everyone who buys a computer with a licensed operating system and can be downloaded for free, Microsoft decided to press criminal charges against Lundgren for planning distributing the disks to help people keep their own computers running longer. Eric did put the Microsoft logo on the disk, which is a copyright violation, but since the software is available for free, it’s not clear how Microsoft could claim this is criminal violation. Why not just ask that he take their logo off the disks, which he would surely have agreed to do?
While this is an extreme example, it could set a dangerous precedent and result in a chilling effect on electronic refurbishing across the globe. We’re standing up for repair by calling on Microsoft to work with people who recycle—not criminalize them.
Together, we can make sure Eric is last person who faces prison for doing what we all need to do more of—repair and reuse.
“Best to be guided by your heart’s conviction,” Lundgren told me. He wants justice. He also wants to recycle. Both things can take a lot of time and effort, endless energy, leading to fatigue. Mental exhaustion may seem inevitable, but Lundgren is surrounded by a lot of supportive people, who love him and want to help him. They give him hope and motivation. Microsoft was unable to change that (it tried hard). Worse — Microsoft is just making more enemies. Its attacks on Lundgren will backfire in a very big way.
“Microsoft fights the right to repair,” I told Lundgren. “The site Motherboard [among others] covered how Microsoft fought this legislation…”
“That is true,” he responded. “The founder of #RightToRepair told me all about it.”
And “that was months ago,” I continued, so “you probably could not read that at the time” (Lundgren was still in prison).
A lot of the media focused on Apple’s role (fighting the ‘Right to Repair’), e.g. [1, 2]. Lundgren heard all about it by now. He also mentioned the CEO of IFixIt.com. They have their rants about Microsoft-branded hardware (notoriously difficult to repair).
In an interview on iFixit’s Repair Radio, Morris, who was the original sponsor of the bill last year, claimed that “word on the street” was that big tech companies, specifically Microsoft, “marshaled forces to keep the bill from moving out of the House Rules committee.”
Rep. Morris further claimed that, while he didn’t see the “smoking gun,” “there was a tax proposal here…to pay for STEM education.” Furthermore, “in exchange for Microsoft support[ing that tax,] having Right to Repair die…” was a condition, as well as another privacy policy Microsoft wanted to advance.
He shed some light on the kinds of things Microsoft lobbyists were doing, saying that last year, “Microsoft was going around telling our members that they wouldn’t sell Surface Tablets in Washington any longer if we passed the bill.”
In our own conversations about the opposition to Right to Repair in Olympia, Microsoft’s full-throated opposition was often brought up by legislators, and it was to clear to us that the company was lobbying extensively against the bill, and was the most high-profile opponent.
Across the country, large manufacturers like Microsoft and Apple tend to do much of their public opposition to Right to Repair through trade associations. Microsoft is among the manufacturers represented by trade groups like CompTIA, Consumer Technology Association, Information Technology Industry Council and the Entertainment Software Association, which are all active opponents to Right to Repair reforms.
These trade associations can mask the role of an individual company, but are one of the key ways the opposition works to defeat pro-consumer Right to Repair legislation. But the behind-the-scenes targeting of Right to Repair by Microsoft seemed to play a more significant role in the bill’s demise.
Microsoft has a complicated recent history on repair
Last year, electronics recycler Eric Lundgren went to prison for duplicating Dell restore discs, software meant to help fix old computers and that is free to download. Microsoft faced intense scrutiny for their actions in that case.
In response, U.S. PIRG delivered more than 11,000 petitions to Microsoft offices, calling for greater accountability for electronic waste disposal and easier access to the tools and information needed to repair products.
The case also brought attention to several other ways Microsoft makes it difficult for people to reuse its products: lobbying against Right to Repair laws, violating warranty regulations by attempting to forbid independent repair in warranty clauses and “void warranty if removed” stickers, and making several products which are notoriously difficult (if not impossible) to repair.
On the other hand, Microsoft has taken steps to help computer recycling and reduce waste, making a new operating system that runs smoothly on older devices, reducing the need for new upgrades. That’s no small step, and iFixit praised it at the time.
“According to State Rep. Jeff Morris, Microsoft played a leading role,” PIRG said (a role in killing the bill). Here’s the video in which it’s covered:
On occasions I asked Lundgren about rejecting Windows and just putting GNU/Linux on computers instead. “I’m all hardware via Recycling,” he emphasised. “Don’t really know too much about software.” █
“The fact that there’s some e-mail here at MS that says, ‘let’s go up and beat this guy’…there’s nothing wrong with that. That is capitalism at work for consumers.”
–Bill Gates
Summary: Now that Mr. Lundgren is out of prison he’s able to tell his amazing story, which Microsoft desperately attempted to suppress
JUST over a week ago we began writing about Microsoft’s legal attacks on Eric Lundgren, who had been released from prison. We’ve been studying the case and we’re speaking to Lundgren these days. He’s a kind, generous person. He deserves medals, not lawsuits and jail time. This whole situation is a travesty and there’s so much to be said, so we’ll split the story into many parts.
“The total cost (to Lundgren) by far exceeds a million dollars if one considers the long-term consequences e.g. employment prospects.”He can be reached on ECAnetwork@Gmail.com and he’s a nice person. As we noted last weekend, "Eric Lundgren's story will hopefully be explained in meticulous details now that he is out of jail (for the non-crime which is recycling unused PCs)". We spoke to him earlier today. Expect us to write a lot more on this subject and share never-seen-before material. Our goal is to show the incredible extent of injustice. Lundgren, in his own words, spent nearly a million dollars defending himself. The “legal battle cost $870,000 USD,” he explained, “(+) $50,000 Court Fine (+) 15 Month Prison Sentence (+) Felony…”
The total cost (to Lundgren) by far exceeds a million dollars if one considers the long-term consequences e.g. employment prospects. He will never be a truly free man, but he’s a passionate and inspiring positive thinker, who looks forward to make the world a better place, looking ahead rather than back. To us, however, the long-lasting ordeals he went through do matter a great deal and we’ll delve into the finer details.
“The court documents ought to help objectivity (readers can assess these for themselves) and, if shown the defamatory statements from Microsoft, we can correct them. As we shall.”“My grandfather whom raised [me] died a few days ago,” he told me this morning. I know the feeling, but consider the fact that his grandfather’s latest and last days were spent without his (grand)son, who was arrested for doing the moral thing. Surely Microsoft wouldn’t like that aspect of the story told. The most common feedback after our seminal story about Lundgren was about Microsoft trying to silence those who covered his story. Microsoft threatened the media and we’ll cover that in a future part. We’re separating different aspect of his story as compartmentalisation will make it easier to follow. We may soon show court documents too and demonstrate, using photographs, Lundgren’s great contribution to society, which Microsoft ‘rewarded’ with a prison sentence (after he had spread Windows even further as part of his recycling campaign).
The court documents ought to help objectivity (readers can assess these for themselves) and, if shown the defamatory statements from Microsoft, we can correct them. As we shall. Fact-checking will be an integral part of this series. The court deliberately got many of the facts wrong or simply removed them (making them inadmissible).
Lundgren spent or wasted 15 months of his life in prison; he remains a debt prisoner for a long time to come (a longterm/permanent timeframe). It all happened after a dodgy trial, so let’s let the public decide, based on underlying evidence presented in that trial. Mischievous elements of what happened at the trial will be covered here too, albeit separately. It won’t be ‘trial by media’ but (re)trial by media; the outcome won’t change. One cannot undo a prison sentence or cancel the debt, which is enormous. One can, however, ensure that the record is set straight. Lundgren is still relatively young and has a lot to offer, much to promise.
“Lundgren spent or wasted 15 months of his life in prison; he remains a debt prisoner for a long time to come (a longterm/permanent timeframe).”Although we’re eager to just ‘spill the beans’ all at once we probably should not. One heavily-packed article can be powerful, but we need to do this in small chunks that readers can digest; it’s easier for us to compose and more effective overall (with an index and chapter-like breakdown).
Tomorrow we will post our next (fourth) part of this series, which we expect to span about a dozen parts and weeks if not months in the making. Let’s do justice for Mr. Lundgren. If not legal and financial justice, then at least moral justice. Lundgren isn’t in it for the money. Microsoft tarnishing his reputation and harming his life/health is something that someone out there should be held accountable for. Stay tuned to find out what happened when Mr. Lundgren came to see Microsoft’s CEO. █
“Our products just aren’t engineered for security.”
–Brian Valentine, Microsoft executive
Summary: Unfit-for-use Windows, as well as other software from Microsoft, has a high mortal cost (not just monetary cost) that the media fails to properly report on
IT IS no secret that the use of Microsoft Windows causes many fatalities. In our daily links we’ve included hundreds of links to press articles about hospitals getting stung/hit by ransomware, among other modern menaces that follow a digital compromise (seizure of hospital facilities and equipment). This is killing a lot of Americans every day, but corporate media is not talking about it (not in the correct terms) and it is habitually misplacing blame. The media and NSA-like agencies, for example, couldn’t care less about the role of back doors (making systems deliberately less secure); it’s more important for them to maintain back doors on almost every computer on the planet (at the expense of people/patients who die from these back doors).
“It serves to show that these incidents aren’t even rare anymore. They’ve become a sort of new ‘norm’ — however menacing and disturbing a norm.”Sometimes the media mentions what the compromised systems were built on, but usually it’s intentionally obscured. In this series we shall explain that it’s typically Windows. We shall soon be covering Microsoft’s role in killing patients. By all means Microsoft is culpable and it isn’t just incompetent and corrupt; people actually die — sometimes in big numbers — because of these criminals who work with the state and bribe states; they put their insecure-by-design systems inside hospitals. Gates and his flunkies would of course blame the victims, notably these hospitals.
Before we commence this series, which will be based on inside sources, here are some news clippings of interest (recent news). It serves to show that these incidents aren’t even rare anymore. They’ve become a sort of new ‘norm’ — however menacing and disturbing a norm. █
Summary: Eric Lundgren’s story will hopefully be explained in meticulous details now that he is out of jail (for the non-crime which is recycling unused PCs); we have another important series on the way, but it can take more time and preparation (for source protection and impact)
FOLLOWING our informal chat with Eric Lundgren (information gathering in an informal setting) we’re preparing for the possibility of in-depth analysis of his case, hopefully with legal papers showing his ordeals and Microsoft’s defamation of his character. Separately, we’re preparing a series on Microsoft’s accountability for deaths of many people. For the latter series we need to perform a lot of anonymisation. This means it can take a while longer to commence. Either way, we have some important stories on the way, so stay tuned. █
Summary: People’s control over their own computers is being taken away; the model of 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA