## web0 is the decentralised web ## web3 = **decentralization** + blockchain + NFTs + metaverse web0 = **decentralization** - blockchain - NFTs - metaverse web0 = **decentralization** In other words, web0 is web3 without all the corporate right-libertarian Silicon Valley bullshit – Aral Balkan1 Head over here and sign the web0 Manifesto. This will probably not change the world overnight but let these different voices be heard. Thank you. ...

[First published on September 05, 2016] I am ditching WhatsApp, following Facebook’s decision to begin harvesting data from its messaging service. Even though Motherboard claims “it may be possible to prevent WhatsApp to give your phone number to Facebook” (LOL) WhatsApp will still harvest your metadata. “Sharing metadata with Facebook still exposes users to significant risks,” says Claire Gartland, consumer protection counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Facebook will have data indicating who WhatsApp users communicate with and how frequently, and connecting WhatsApp users with their social media accounts and broader online activity, associations, political affiliations, and more.” – Wired ...

Vu sur le site de l’ANSSI: Accompagnant la prise de conscience généralisée du besoin de sécuriser ses communications électroniques, de nombreuses applications de messagerie (quasi) instantanée ont fait leur apparition sur les ordiphones. Toutes annoncent un haut niveau de sécurité, laissant ainsi l’utilisateur dans le doute, vis-à-vis du niveau réel de sécurité à escompter. Donc, que privilégier entre Signal, Telegram ou XMPP? Je ne cite pas WhatsApp/Facecrook à dessein, hein. ...

Lowyat reported on Oct. 30, 2017 that a total of 46.2 Million Malaysian phone numbers were exposed, and the dataset included IC numbers, addresses, IMSI, IMEI and SIM numbers as well. Check yourself out Head over to SayaKenaHack.com, the dedicated website created by Keith Rozario and check if your details are part of the breach.

Nice pun Mailfence: the Peugeot 404, the first car I remember as a child. With red leather seats. What a beauty.

In North Sumatra, a former Indonesian radical has opened a boarding school for the children of terrorists to prevent their futures from looking like his own past. Words by: Gabrielle Lipton Photography by: Albert Ivan Damanik Wat happens when children begin to realise that their parents are following a different path? What happens when that path ends behind bars? Or on the receiving end of a bullet? What happens in the minds of children whose parents are terrorists? ...

The police have confirmed that some Malaysians, supported by the Islamic State (IS) militant group, are in the midst of engaging in ‘jihad’ in Myanmar to fight against the Myanmar Government for the oppressed Rohingya Muslim minority community in Rakhine State. – The MalayMail

Knowing it and getting used to it: surveillance apathy turns out to be more worrisome than the proper lack of understanding online surveillanc. You may be sick of worrying about online privacy, but surveillance apathy is also a problem. We all seem worried about privacy. Though it’s not only privacy itself we should be concerned about: it’s also our attitudes towards privacy that are important. When we stop caring about our digital privacy, we witness surveillance apathy. And it’s something that may be particularly significant for marginalised communities, who feel they hold no power to navigate or negotiate fair use of digital technologies. In the wake of the NSA leaks in 2013 led by Edward Snowden, we are more aware of the machinations of online companies such as Facebook and Google. Yet research shows1 some of us are apathetic when it comes to online surveillance. So while we’re aware of the issues with surveillance, we aren’t necessarily doing anything about it, or we’re prepared to make compromises when we perceive our safety is at stake. – Siobhan Lyons in The Conversation, 08 Nov. 2017 ...

– Cover of The New Yorker, Oct. 23 2017

A brief history of GnuPG: vital to online security but free and underfunded Donate to GnuPG. Most people have never heard of the software that makes up the machinery of the internet. Outside developer circles, its authors receive little reward for their efforts, in terms of either money or public recognition. One example is the encryption software GNU Privacy Guard (also known as GnuPG and GPG), and its authors are regularly forced to fundraise to continue the project. GnuPG is part of the GNU collection of free and open source software, but its story is an interesting one, and it begins with software engineer Phil Zimmermann. What is PGP? PGP implements a form of cryptography that is known as “asymmetric cryptography” or public-key cryptography. The story of its discovery is itself worth telling. It was invented in the 1970s by researchers at the British intelligence service GCHQ and then again by Stanford University academics in the US, although GCHQ’s results were only declassified in 1997. Asymmetric cryptography gives users two keys. The so-called “public” key is meant to be distributed to everyone and is used to encrypt messages or verify a “signature”. The “private” or “secret” key must be known only to the user. It helps decrypt messages or “sign” them - the digital equivalent of a seal to prove origin and authenticity. Zimmermann published PGP because he believed that everybody has a right to private communication. PGP was meant to be used for email, but could be used for any kind of electronic communication. The challenge facing security software Despite Zimmermann’s work, the dream of free encryption for everyone never quite came to full bloom. Neither Zimmermann’s original PGP nor the later GnuPG managed to become entirely user-friendly. Both use highly technical language, and the latter is still known for being accessible only by typing out commands - an anachronism even in the late 1990s, when most operating systems already used the mouse. Many users did not understand why they should encrypt their email at all, and attempts to integrate the tools with email clients were not particularly intuitive. The release of the Edward Snowden documents in 2013 spurred renewed interest in PGP. PGP today By today’s standards, GnuPG – like all implementations of OpenPGP – lacks additional security features that are provided by chat apps such as WhatsApp or Signal. Both are spiritual descendants of PGP and unthinkable without Zimmermann’s invention, but they go beyond what OpenPGP can do by protecting messages even in the case of a private key being lost. What’s more, email reveals the sender and receiver names anyway. In the age of data mining, this is often enough to infer the contents of encrypted communication. Nevertheless, GnuPG (and hence OpenPGP) are alive and well. Relative to the increased computational power available today, their cryptography is as strong today as it was in 1991. GnuPG just found new use cases - very important ones. Journalists use it to allow their sources to deposit confidential data and leaks. This is a vital and indispensable method of self-protection for the leaker and the journalist. But even more importantly, digital signatures are where GnuPG excels today. Linux is one of the world’s most common operating system (it even forms the basis of Android). On internet servers that run Linux, software is downloaded and updated from software repositories - and most of them sign their software with GnuPG to confirm its authenticity and origin. GnuPG works its magic behind closed curtains, once again. – Ralph Holz in The Conversation, July 17, 2017