An American War on GNU/Linux, Software Freedom, and British Investigative, Science-Based Reporting - Part V - Attempts to Take Down and Suppress Criticism of Back Doors Controlled by Microsoft and the American Government
"I don’t want a back door. I want a front door." - Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), April 2015
The censorship attempt comes from a person who pretends to be something he is not. On January 22 this year his spouse said "he can’t code"; months earlier the spouse said "he can’t even fuck or hack" (there are other examples of the same). He is clearly very worried about people discovering what he is and what he did. The cost of maintaining this illusion is lawyers and a barrister who doesn't even know the client's name but can copy-paste obviously frivolous claims (for demands of mass-censorship to "settle"), then repeat again in the same year for a Serial Strangler from Microsoft, who is in cahoots all along - this is a case of docket-stuffing.
When dealing with security-hostile people falsely portraying themselves as security experts backlash can be expected, including the habitual doxing and abuse directed at colleagues, family etc. This is sometimes known as social engineering, ranging from blackmail to public humiliation (remember what they did to RMS, who gave a public talk some hours ago). They always try to shoot the messenger (this one has tried to "shoot" me since 2012) and then, when a response comes, they paint themselves as the victims. They amass misinformed mobs in social control media for an obscene reversal of narratives. In this case, I was subjected to ritual defamation for 14 years already. Why? Because I opposed Microsoft-controlled boot with kill switches [1, 2]. How dare I? And heck, unlike the people who did this ritual defamation, I'm not American and don't work for GAFAM (the proud purveyors of back doors).
It's All About Censorship
In today's part (more in Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV) we deal with the grounds for protest/dissent, seeing that the hired guns - flaunting proprietary Microsoft files (.docx) - tried to request removal of even more pages that deal with Microsoft-controlled boot with kill switches. This is a flagrant censorship expedition, going above and beyond what the Court spoke of. They hardly waited even a day. They also tried to take this site offline (to no avail). We've preserved evidence of this because their client has a history of contacting not only several webhosts but also my ISP. Under sworn oath he admitted to me that he had done this to others as well. He's not a security guru, he's a hypersensitive, thin-skinned mass censor. Now he tries to censor criticisms of his malicious work that puts at risk many people. I'm not alone in saying this, but they try to "make an example".
The National Security Aspect
At the end of last year I mentioned plans of appeal following my wife's appeal, the nature of which was unprecedented according to the Judge, and it was denied. The wife was attacked because of her husband, namely because of his writings on the topic of computer security for nearly two decades. We explained this in Part II of this series. It gives broader context.
The Order in its current form is potentially problematic; if misinterpreted (as it is by the hired guns), then it goes well beyond the scope of the issues at the case, hence resulting in the "chilling effect".
The Order tramples on my freedom of speech rights and obligation to condemn mechanisms of back door access through defunct (by design) security mechanisms which are remotely controlled by authorities. This results in:
- Risk of being unable to advocate and preach for real, genuine and technically potent computer security
- Impediment/prevention of coverage with public interest and public safety aspects
- A signal that Americans in a British court can target journalists and family members, pushing for remote US control over British computer systems at times of increasing political tensions and mistrust
World-renowned security guru Bruce Schneier sent me his latest book last year (shortly after the trial), implicitly acknowledging that my views on security are valued and recognised in his spheres. Unlike some person who lacks any background in Computer Science but compensates for it with pages and references composed by friends of his.
The United Kingdom is Not a US State
On the issue of deficient-by-designed security or remotely-controlled (by the US) mechanisms, the Claimant is exactly doing that, and has done that for many years (I've criticised his employer for this since 2012). In 2024 he joined forces with an American Microsoft employee (connected to the US military through his father) who had strangled American women and spent time in prison for it. Their aim was to deplete the legal funds of my wife and I, curtailing our efforts to sue him [1, 2] because, as the Judge noted this past November, we were unable to present evidence on financial grounds. They've already sent us about 75 KG of legal papers and did about a million dollars "worth" of legal work. This is about the depth of one's pockets or the sponsors one gets (rich people secretly funded the litigation against us). █
