Gratitude to Whistleblowers or Sources of Techrights
Whistleblowers are the lifeblood of this site and its most impactful journalism (and don't laugh, I've been doing journalism for over 20 years, even professionally; adversaries try to portray me as "blogger" or some derogatory words that belittle my publications and target my credibility based on "style" or self-serving cherry-picking).
Whistleblowers take enormous personal risk and I'd even die to protect them - as I have consistently done without exception (100% source protection record). Many of them know this and some have stated this more explicitly than others. I am grateful to them and their supportive words give me the strength to carry on. Earlier today I explained my principled stance on whistleblowers to a High Court judge and there will be another hearing some time soon.
Whistleblowers are what makes journalism work. They're where new information comes from, hence where exclusive stories (and not mere gossip or speculations) begin. They tend to be underappreciated because they're unnamed (anonymous). They're not celebrated by Bezos (GAFAM) owned media. Courage gets one sacked in such media. That media is way too busy celebrating people like Bill Epsteingate (malignant sociopath), who is probably paying more news sites than anyone else in the world.
At the EPO, there are lots of whistleblowers at many levels (senior too, not just junior staff). Whistleblowers from Europe are culturally different from American ones, at least in my experience. That probably has a lot to do with the culture of unionisation in Europe (as a sense of more collective protection or a shield from reprisal).
In the coming weeks we'll write a lot about EPO corruption. It'll inevitably extend to politics and EU affairs. We're not against the EU, we're against corruption. Whistleblowers can help the EU identify and weed out corruption; hence, they can make unity better - not just for Europeans (economically) but for lasting peace. Right now there is far too much influence corrupting the EU, and it is not limited to American corporations with endless ambitions and legions of lobbyists.
The US "EFF really dropped the ball on the EUCD," an associate has pointed out (similar to DMCA, which it is modeled after), "especially back in 2019 when article 17 (nee Article 13) was redone. Looking back, I presume they neglected to take action on purpose." I've long complained about (and sometimes directly to) the EFF doing absolutely nothing about EPO corruption. The simplest explanation for that was uncomfortable to digest: the EU, to the EFF at least, is like a US colony. His master's voice (GAFAM); when they wanted to have a say on upload filters they could very well intervene in Europe and do like 100+ articles about it. They'd work to benefit the likes of Google inside Europe, not advance Europe's interests (same as 'FSFE'). Then their mobilised people became back-stabbing opportunists, like Reda (Germany) bagging Google money, then taking a job at Microsoft (US). It's really awful. Many things frustrate us, especially defectors like these. But we try to see them as opportunities or things to combat. We need whistleblowers to help us do this. Resistance is not a bad thing; resistors are what drives society forwards in a good direction - more so in a society that is unjustly governed by power (or sheer wealth) rather than consent.
The EFF is a greedy institution that - contrary to its rhetoric - does not value free press or justice. It's selective enforcement/campaigning and its politicised narratives can sometimes be a disservice to the "public good". Worse yet, the EFF continues to promote compromised tools that can (and sometimes do) burn sources. As former "believers" in EFF (we linked to its protection of bloggers in the front page non-stop from 2007 until 2023), we can only advise well-meaning leakers to look away from the EFF and find something that's not GAFAM-funded or de facto "controlled opposition" - much like those political parties that are funded by the US (or by Russia) to grow inside the EU.
The current EPO series at techrights.org and gemini.techrights.org (not the same!) reminds people that major political parties in Europe were sometimes literally funded by the US (via literal suitcases of cash from the CIA) and they do not represent the interests of those who vote for them, based on well-funded marketing campaigns.
We shall carry on focusing on EPO abuses; betterment of Europe can come about only if we can only discuss the "hard issues". █