De VVD is een extreemrechtse partij.
Dat wist je natuurlijk al, zeker sinds ze een fascistische FvD motie steunden die antifascisme een vorm van "terrorisme" noemde.
Maar ze zijn zojuist wéér een stukje verder opgeschoven, weg van "fatsoenlijk" rechts. Ze voeren nu samen met neonazi's actief campagne tegen een AZC in De Bilt.
Waar overigens 15 jaar geleden een fijn AZC was, waar ook bij werd geprotesteerd door inwoners van de gemeente: namelijk toen het dicht ging. De omwonenden wilden het toen OPEN houden.
Maar de lokale VVD (die zich trouwens groen noemt omdat ze in haar verkiezingsprogramma heeft staan dat ze tegen windmolens is 😵💫 ), is nu fel tégen een AZC.
Dat nieuwe AZC komt misschien op het terrein van Berg & Bosch, een groen bedrijventerrein voor allerlei organisaties uit de sectoren zorg, gezondheid en sociaal-maatschappelijke dienstverlening. Er is genoeg plek over. Of het er echt komt, en in welke vorm, is nog totaal onduidelijk: de besluitvorming is pas net begonnen.
De VVD en een paar stinken
... Show more...De VVD is een extreemrechtse partij.
Dat wist je natuurlijk al, zeker sinds ze een fascistische FvD motie steunden die antifascisme een vorm van "terrorisme" noemde.
Maar ze zijn zojuist wéér een stukje verder opgeschoven, weg van "fatsoenlijk" rechts. Ze voeren nu samen met neonazi's actief campagne tegen een AZC in De Bilt.
Waar overigens 15 jaar geleden een fijn AZC was, waar ook bij werd geprotesteerd door inwoners van de gemeente: namelijk toen het dicht ging. De omwonenden wilden het toen OPEN houden.
Maar de lokale VVD (die zich trouwens groen noemt omdat ze in haar verkiezingsprogramma heeft staan dat ze tegen windmolens is 😵💫 ), is nu fel tégen een AZC.
Dat nieuwe AZC komt misschien op het terrein van Berg & Bosch, een groen bedrijventerrein voor allerlei organisaties uit de sectoren zorg, gezondheid en sociaal-maatschappelijke dienstverlening. Er is genoeg plek over. Of het er echt komt, en in welke vorm, is nog totaal onduidelijk: de besluitvorming is pas net begonnen.
De VVD en een paar stinkend rijke omwonenden beweren dat de bezoekers, omwonenden en asielzoekers zelf onveilig zouden zijn als er een asielzoekerscentrum komt, omdat er "te weinig straatlantarens" zouden zijn, en omdat er "geen lantarens bijgeplaatst" zouden mogen worden vanwege "het groen".
Dit is allicht volkomen bullshit. Het is nog niet eens bekend óf en waar op het terrein een AZC komt of in welke vorm, laat staan dat iemand iets weet over het aantal lampjes.
Ook wat betreft de veiligheidsgevoelens van de "kwetsbare bezoekers" van de zorgbedrijven op het terrein: daar ben ik er heel toevallig zelf eentje van. Het terrein is helemaal niet donker. En al was het dat wel: ik voel me er sowieso helemaal niet onveilig, maar als er naast witte mensen in zorginstellingen ook asielzoekers zouden wonen, voel ik me alleen maar nóg veiliger.
Een paar racistische omwonenden hebben "een professioneel onderzoeksbureau" ingehuurd "wat vaak voor de overheid werkt", om hun mening in een veiligheidsrapportje te laten verwoorden. Het gaat om het bedrijf Triangular Group Insights. Aan de website van de lokale VVD is duidelijk te zien dat zij flink hebben meegedacht, als ze niet al gewoon hoofdopdrachtgever zijn.
Dit "onderzoeksbureau" heeft voor haar rapport geen enkele keer contact gezocht met het COA, en heeft dus ook geen idee wat de plannen überhaupt zijn. Wel zocht ze voor de vorm contact met de gemeente.
RTV Utrecht:
"Een woordvoerder van de gemeente laat weten dat het bureau pas vorige week vrijdag wethouder Smolenaers benaderde. Die gaf aan het verzoek maandag 2 maart te bespreken met collega's. Op die dag nam hij contact op met het TGI om te vragen of zij het verzoek op papier wilden zetten. Een dag later ontving de wethouder dat verzoek. Daarbij werd ook gevraagd of Smolenaers gisteren of vandaag tijd had voor een afspraak om input te geven voor het onderzoek.
Vervolgens kreeg de gemeente te horen dat het onderzoek gisteren gepubliceerd zou worden. De Bilt vroeg nog om uitstel, maar kreeg als antwoord dat de opdrachtgever hier niet voor openstond. "Daarmee is input geven door de gemeente onmogelijk gemaakt.""
Dat was dus altijd al de bedoeling.
De VVD spint heel handig steeds die woorden "professioneel onderzoeksbureau, werkzaam voor oa overheden".
Ik dacht, ik zoek dat "Triangular Group Insights" (TGI) eens op.
Hier een screenshot van dat zogenaamde professionele onderzoeksbureau (wat niets loslaat over klanten, en wat super vaag is over opdrachten: ze zouden iets in Oekraïne doen, met commando's werken en in het buitenland 'een hoofddader van een miljoenendiefstal' hebben opgespoord, zonder zelfs maar te vertellen over welke diefstal dat dan zou gaan. Wel vragen ze ex-commando's, ontslagen politieagenten en, jawel, ex-spionnen om te solliciteren.)
Dit zijn huurlingen.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Yogthos reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •reshared this
⠵⠻⠷⠕⠭ 🍥🍉⚪🌹, Irenes (many) and quinta - Stefano Quintarelli reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Neil Brown reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Klaus Frank
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Yea, kill all anti-circumvention laws. It is time. We only implemented them because the US pressured us to do so with "tarrifs", but we now have tarrifs (as well as a quite unpredictable application of them).
So middle finger to the US and undo all anti-circumvention laws.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •ftm
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to ftm • • •@ftm Murena and iodé relentlessly spread false claims about GrapheneOS and our team. That includes personall targeting our team with absolutely vile bullying and harassment.
Here's the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena linking to content from a neo-nazi conspiracy site targeting our founder with blatant fabrications including links to harassment content from Kiwi Farms users:
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
Volla is fully aware of all this but works closely with these groups.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •DekOfTheYautja
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Daniël de Kok
in reply to ftm • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Daniël de Kok • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •reshared this
MaryMarasKittenBakery and Karl Voit reshared this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GeoRg
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GeoRg • • •tuxpingu
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to tuxpingu • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Pingitux Here's the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena linking to harassment content from a neo-nazi conspiracy site targeting our founder with fabrications:
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
Their founder and CEO has regularly engaged in vile personal attacks on our including spreading harassment content directly from Kiwi Farms.
Debunking lies about GrapheneOS and our team along with providing accurate information countering their false marketing isn't what you claim it is.
tuxpingu
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to tuxpingu • • •tuxpingu
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •tuxpingu
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to tuxpingu • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Pingitux Here's the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena linking to harassment content from a neo-nazi conspiracy site targeting our founder with fabrications:
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
Their founder and CEO has regularly engaged in vile personal attacks on our including spreading harassment content directly from Kiwi Farms.
Debunking lies about GrapheneOS and our team along with providing accurate information countering their false marketing isn't what you claim it is.
tuxpingu
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to tuxpingu • • •Phobos
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Any sort of regulation by governments would, inevitably, be in favor of things like the Integrity API; not against it.
I am convinced we *will* see proposals for regulations favoring exactly this in at most a year or two.
eduX
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •people who are buying these phone execute a form of digital self-imprisoning.
Why are these walled gardens so attractive?
dristor
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to dristor • • •Paul_stilgar
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@dristor
Is it me or grapheneos is only supporters on google pixel models ?
If yes why should we give money to google ?
#grapheneos #android
Alexia
in reply to dristor • • •android_translation_layer / Android Translation Layer · GitLab
GitLabTill Kleisli
in reply to dristor • • •AppSupport - The Privacy Respecting European OS and AI Solution Provider
Joona Petrell (The Privacy Respecting European OS and AI Solution Provider)Pilsnerd
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Eskuero
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •sounds like they are just trying to ride the wave of Europe trying to break free of their reliance on american digital companies, which I completely agree, to grab power for themselves, which is still shitty and nothing to celebrate.
Thankfully my bank's app still works fine with gos and they also allow full web access anyway
GrapheneOS reshared this.
zivi the "glowiest glowie to ever glow"
in reply to Eskuero • • •@eskuero
torment nexus
reshared this
Seirdy reshared this.
Xtreix
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •what the fuck. that is absolutely horrifying
remote attestation is a technology that has no good uses. it's just drm
everyone should have the freedom to run whatever they want on their own devices. this freedom should never be taken away and it should be enshrined in law that it can never be taken away
someone else should not be able to decide whether my device is "secure" enough for their purposes. this is reverse security. the os needs to boot securely and the attestation chain should go upwards, with each stage verifying the ones on top of it. not this opposite world bullshit
GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •does this mean, if i build grapheneos myself and flash it on my device, i could still run all these applications?
and i mean without contacting any third party or anything like that
edit: woops. replied to the wrong post. was meaning to reply to the latest one. sorry
GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •i think it is fundamentally wrong that the app gets to decide what it runs on. it should not have this authority as it is completely backwards
if i wanted to run the most insecure system, i should still be able to run whatever apps i want, as long as all the apis are implemented
of course i don't want to run an insecure system. but it's my device so i should be able to do whatever i want
GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •i think i might be confused as to what the difference between root-based and pinning-based attestation is
is the one allowlisting the app or the system?
GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •@lumi Root-based attestation is done by verifying certificates up to a root of trust which is a Google certificate authority for Google Mobile Services devices. The Android hardware attestation API is in fact not inherently biased towards Google itself but rather their documentation and open source sample libraries hard-wire their roots as the only ones which should be checked.
Android supports apps generating attest keys in the hardware keystore to use for signing attestations instead.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •oh! that makes sense then. so the app is checking that the system it initially verified on has the same trust as the system it is on right now
i still don't think it's the app's job to do this, but if people really want this, then heh, i don't really care
GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •🌸 lumi-nhac
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to 🌸 lumi-nhac • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •firedragon
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The Nostr based app store called "Zapstore" has already solved this problem. Zapstore empowers developers to sign and release apps over the Nostr protocol without needing to get permission from any app store or from any governnent or any other entity.
The Zapstore already has most of the useful F-Droid apps, and anyone can release more apps.
Zapstore.dev
fox
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to fox • • •fox
in reply to fox • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to fox • • •Bebef 🦦🇪🇺🏴☠️🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚙🐼🥦🚩🏴
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The same stuff that you need attestation in a phone for usually can be done using just a computer with a web browser. No attestation needed.
The only thing that I can think of that requires this attention and integrity stuff is anything shady that you want nobody to look at. 🤔
And device ecosystem extortion, of course.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Bebef 🦦🇪🇺🏴☠️🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚙🐼🥦🚩🏴 • • •Isarblues
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •I know what you think of Murena and /e/OS. I know that you prefer hardware attestation for good reasons and reject Google's policy regarding the Play Integrity API. And I know that most banking apps work on GrapheneOS - I myself have been using GrapheneOS with a banking app for many years. But I wonder what to do if more and more app manufacturers get serious and make their apps installable exclusively via Play Integrity API. 1/3
Isarblues
in reply to Isarblues • • •Wouldn't it then make sense or be helpful to have something like Unified Attestation as an alternative, even if there are many things to criticize about it? If the only option for me at some point were to have to use stock Android, then I (and many others too) would have a real problem. And it could be that Unified Attestation is then the only usable alternative, even if it's not perfect. 2/3
Isarblues
in reply to Isarblues • • •Thats why i was asking and I'm specifically interested in what, from your point of view, speaks against the Unified Attestation approach from a technical (not political) perspective. And whether Unified Attestation could also be used with GrapheneOS.
I also think it would be desirable for the EU to intervene with regulations. But it won't do that; the EU won't do anything against Google's will, and it won't mess with the MAGA regime. We shouldn't wait for that to happen. 3
GrapheneOS
in reply to Isarblues • • •Isarblues
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Once again: I am aware that you have good reasons for not liking /e/OS etc.
And I am NOT defending /e/OS etc. here.
My question was what technical (not political) arguments there are against Unified Attestation, so that it could be used if necessary, if at some point there are perhaps no better alternatives. And whether I could then also use it on GrapheneOS, so that I don't have to switch to stock Android.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Isarblues • • •Isarblues
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Or are you just a chatbot anyway?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Isarblues • • •Isarblues
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Once again: yes, they should. But what is to be done if the don't? That was my question.
As someone who has been using GrapheneOS for many years and supports the project with a monthly donation, I would have expected a factual question to be answered factually. Instead, you repeat political demands that I share, but which do not answer my question. This is unfortunate and makes you appear untrustworthy.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Isarblues • • •Isarblues
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> "No, your understanding is not correct."
Did you even read my post?
> "Apps shouldn't be enforcing using only specific operating systems. They're welcome to warn people about having an insecure OS but shouldn't be ban users from using what they want to use."
Yes, they shouldn't. But what if they do nevertheless? That was my question. What is your suggestion if this scenario occurs?
Neo
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Neo • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@neogoth @MrGR That video consists of targeting someone with bullying based on fabricating a false narrative about them and pushing tropes from the harassment/doxxing site where Rossmann is a member. Rossmann rants about people he dislikes on Kiwi Farms knowing they'll target thise people because they support him. Rossmann similarly knew the result of his incredibly dishonest video would be harassment and his phony justifications are thoroughly disproven at this point.
kiwifarms.st/members/larossman…
Just a moment...
kiwifarms.stGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •