DIGITAL ID PUSH

The digital era, with its myriad of innovations, has ushered in a wave of conveniences - but at what cost? The recent advocacy by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the Modular Open-Source Identification Platform (MOSIP) will now be under scrutiny by privacy advocates, questioning the broader implications of such a global digital identification system.

The Seattle-based Gates Foundation, guided by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, has actively endorsed MOSIP’s undertakings with a sizable $10 million pledge.

The Foundation's aim seems to , especially targeting low to middle-income economies. But as history has shown, with such advancements often come potential pitfalls, particularly regarding personal privacy.

The MOSIP initiative, although modeled after India's controversial state digital ID () system initiated in 2009, prompts a plethora of concerns.
While Aadhaar spurred global interest, the unique challenges faced by different countries meant that many had to grapple with potentially expensive and less transparent commercial systems, resulting in "vendor lock-in" and potential misuse of user data.

MOSIP, since its inception in 2018, presents itself as a remedy to these challenges, promoting its accessibility and adaptability to different nations.

While the Philippines led in its adoption, 11 countries, predominantly from Africa, have followed suit. However, with over 90 million digital IDs already distributed across the Philippines, Ethiopia, and Morocco, the magnitude of data collection and the potential risks associated with breaches or misuse become alarmingly evident.

Adapting MOSIP to each nation's unique requirements means collecting and customizing vast amounts of personal data. The system, despite its boasts of an 80+ vendor ecosystem, raises red flags.

The higher the number of vendors, the greater the potential access points for data breaches. Although MOSIP offers complimentary training, product showcases, and a certification process, the complexities of managing multiple vendors across various countries can jeopardize the sanctity of personal data.

MOSIP's ambitious plan to register 1 billion individuals in the coming decade only intensifies the concerns. While the Gates Foundation views digital ID systems as integral to fostering digital public infrastructure (DPI) that can, in theory, stimulate economic growth, the risks to personal privacy cannot be ignored.

Though DPI promises to streamline transactions for individuals and governments, its adoption without robust privacy safeguards can lead to potential misuse, surveillance, and unwarranted data access.

Personal data has become as valuable as gold and the push for such extensive digital ID systems, with such global intentions, needs to be critically examined. Privacy remains a fundamental right, and any compromise on it, however advanced or innovative the reason, deserves rigorous scrutiny. Digital ID in general undermines privacy.

SUPPORTERS

Anytype - a privacy and security-friendly and open source, cross-platform app that its makers say is for those who "celebrate trust and autonomy" - has entered the public beta stage of development in mid-July and we've been testing it ever since...

Keep reading by becoming a supporter

Become a supporter of Reclaim The Net to keep reading this post and the full archives.

Becoming a supporter gets you:

~ Supporter-only posts and full archive

~ Supporter-only articles in your podcast app so you can stay updated on the go

~ Tutorials and much more

GLOBAL CENSORSHIP

The UN is tripling down on its role as an important global player in the "fight against online misinformation" and amplification of the narrative of a supposedly serious threat this allegedly new phenomenon brings to humankind.

Thus UN peacekeepers are adding another task to the duties the member-states fund when they approve their missions meant to help people and countries devastated by war and other disasters: they are now also "building a digital army."

And according to a on the UN website, "misinformation" is viewed by the world organization in exceedingly alarmist terms as, "deadly," and posing "existential" risk to such core building blocks of modern societies as democratic institutions and fundamental human rights.

They really do make that connection, verbatim. And they now use the term "war" and "battlefield" to describe (mis)information and other goings on in the media, too.

We've heard this before, of course, from the Biden administration regarding the Covid vaccines/pandemic - but the identical wording may or may not be a coincidence.

In order to justify as much as it can this considerable shift in policy and focus from UN's traditional operations and purpose, the UN article doesn't talk only about things like undermining epidemic(s)-containing efforts, protecting scientific truths and facts (and, as recent experience has shown, "facts" as well ), and the like.

To prop up the argument, it is claimed that the peacekeeping work itself, and the safety and lives of peacekeepers are also falling victim to "large scale misinformation."

The UN's solutions: effectively testing "proactive" approaches to the problem they defined, and doing this in a number of war-torn African countries.

Leading the charge seems to be the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, known as MONUSCO (a French-language acronym).

Then there's something called the UN Verified initiative, which offers a course free of charge that is supposed to "educate" people in these physically dangerous places on how to keep themselves safe from - online "misinformation."

This effort expands on several basic topics, including how to recognize "disinformation," and the UN will also tell you why it is being spread.

Another one is to be able to discern emotional, dramatic, and provocative content (some might say the article from the UN site referenced here might easily qualify.)

If free speech is important to you, we could use your help. Please become a supporter . Thank you.

SO MUCH FOR "INDEPENDENT"

Those who doubt that "fact-checking" is an industry created around the push for internet censorship that's been going on these last years might be persuaded otherwise by information that emerged from a lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by Australia-based reporter and commentator Avi Yemini, and it reveals the amount of money changing hands between Facebook (Meta) and its notorious "fact-checkers" whose purpose is supposed to be weeding out "misinformation." And who are supposed to be “independent.”

However, these efforts disturbingly often end up in plain censorship of "disfavored" opinion on political and social issues.

And even though Yemini eventually had to withdraw his lawsuit in order to avoid costs he was unwilling or unable to pay, the legal process while it was ongoing produced some interesting findings, including the true nature of some of the "fact-checkers'" purported financial independence from Big Tech.

According to a deal cited in the court documents, the figure went up to half a million dollars annually - and that's involving just one "fact checking" operation, RMIT University's FactLab, also based in Australia.

The agreement was kept confidential, but surfaced in Yemini's defamation suit naming RMIT FactLab as the plaintiff. Yemini claimed that this group subjected one of his reports to a false "fact-check."

But, whether that's true or false, RMIT lab was given 800 Australian dollars per "check," up to 40,000 per month - with the contract stipulating that RMIT would run up to 50 articles through its "fact-checking machine" each month.

The issue that this discovery sheds light on is the nature of these arrangements - namely, "independent fact-checkers" seem to be very much involved in commercial dealings with social media giants, which has the inherent potential to sway the results of their work in a desired direction.

At the same time, given the reach and influence of the huge platforms where content is "arranged" in a certain way thanks, among other things, to the work of these organizations, this means that public opinion could be unfairly influenced through biased information.

RMIT University, which is behind RMIT FactLab, maintains that the group is in fact independent and that the money comes from "philanthropic donations and independent research grants."

ROUND TWO

In a bid to halt domestic surveillance operations on internet speech, Matt Gaetz, a Republican Representative from Florida, has kick-started a second attempt to pass the "USPIS Surveillance Protection Act." The proposed act is Gaetz's resolute answer to the contentious issue of

This , currently in operation, scrutinizes internet content, providing analytical assistance for digital investigations. Gaetz argues that the role of the Postal Service is not to manage a clandestine cyber surveillance operation, but rather to concentrate its efforts on efficient mail delivery within budget constraints.

Last year saw a controversy brewing, as a report uncovered an intensive trawling process online platforms, including Telegram and Parler. The purpose? To identify and collate "inflammatory" posts, later shared with various government bodies.

Influence from The House Oversight and Reform Committee pushed the US Postal Service’s Inspector General to release a report, expanding on how the proclaimed Internet Covert Operations Program overstepped its lawful authorities via "certain proactive searches" conducted in 2021.

Brushing it off as yet another case of government-endorsed eavesdropping on the American citizens it is meant to serve, Gaetz maintained that the clandestine operations are not only beyond the purview of the USPIS but infringe upon civil liberties. He emphasized that it's pivotal for Congress to put an end to this program without delay, in a determined fight to protect privacy rights.

Gaetz’s proposed legislation delivers a decisive blow to the Postal Service's funding allocated for this controversial program, effectively nullifying any financial support for similar programs in the future. While the original bill, introduced in April 2021, ran aground without leaving its committee, Gaetz remains hopeful this all-important issue will be brought back to the political forefront.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you .

Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Please help out and??Thank you.

Thanks for reading,

Reclaim The Net