The government of the United States has just announced a lawsuit over my memoir, which was just released today worldwide. This is the book the government does not want you to read: (link corrected) amazon.com/Permanent-Reco…
Statement by the American Civil Liberties Union on the government's lawsuit against myself and the publishers: aclu.org/press-releases…
It is hard to think of a greater stamp of authenticity than the US government filing a lawsuit claiming your book is so truthful that it was literally against the law to write.
The publisher should print excerpts from the government's furious objection to the publication of this book on the cover of every copy. I'm not sure I've ever seen a book that both the CIA *and* the NSA consider too dangerous to be read.
When I wrote this line on the third page of PERMANENT RECORD, I never imagined the government would underline it with a lawsuit on the very first day of publication:
Hours after the United States government filed a lawsuit seeking to punish the publication of my new memoir, #PermanentRecord, the very book the government does not want you to read just became the #1 best-selling book in the world. It is available wherever fine books are sold.
Yesterday, the government sued the publisher of #PermanentRecord for—not kidding—printing it without giving the CIA and NSA a change to erase details of their classified crimes from the manuscript. Today, it is the best-selling book in the world: static.macmillan.com/static/holt/pe…
In recent interviews, I've gotten questions over if or how I use a smartphone. They're so dangerous for someone like me, so it's quite difficult to give an in-depth answer. But I published a paper with @bunniestudios a few years ago discussing some risks: tjoe.org/pub/direct-rad…
Phone security has been something I've struggled with for a long time. I once spoke with @VICE's @shanesmith30 about how it's possible to physically remove internal microphones and cameras from a phone, but even that only mitigates a portion of the threat.
But as long as your phone is turned on, even with "location permissions" disabled, the radios in the phone that connect it to all the nice things you like are screaming into the air, reporting your presence to nearby cell towers, which then create records that are kept forever.
Software is equally important. The iOS and Android operating systems that run on nearly every smartphone conceal uncountable numbers of programming flaws, known as security vulnerabilities, that mean common apps like iMessage or web browsers become dangerous: you can be hacked.
If I were configuring a smartphone today, I'd use @DanielMicay's @GrapheneOS as the base operating system. I'd desolder the microphones and keep the radios (cellular, wifi, and bluetooth) turned off when I didn't need them. I would route traffic through the @torproject network.
I wouldn't use WiFi at home, because global maps of every wireless access point's unique ID—including yours—are free and constantly updated. I would use ethernet; yes, ethernet on a phone. I would deny network permissions to any app that doesn't need it using an app firewall.
I would use an ad blocker. I would use a password manager. I would block third-party cookies in the browser. These last three are steps that absolutely everyone should consider, because they're simple, cost little or nothing, and protect you while making your phone faster.
I'd disable javascript, tracking, and fingerprinting in the browser, and even then I'd avoid the browser unless I had no choice. Better to browse on a laptop (w/ @QubesOS) which does not have a history of everywhere I've been, since it lacks GPS & Wifi, and has @Whonix built-in.
I would not (and do not) use email, except as throwaways for registration. Email is a fundamentally insecure protocol that, in 2019, can and should be abandoned for the purposes of any meaningful communication. Email is unsafe. I'd use @signalapp or @wire as a safer alternative.
This is only a partial list, but I'll stop here. Even with all of these precautions, I still wouldn't consider a smartphone "safe," merely "safer." The technologies underpinning our most basic systems of communication are insecure, and often insecure *by design*.
My point is not that you should use a smartphone like me, but that you *shouldn't have to*. Privacy should not be a privilege, but because the legal system is broken, the average person today stands, at every stage of life, naked before the eyes of corporations and governments.
This system of predation has survived for so long because it occurs under the illusion of consent, but you were never asked your opinion in a way that could change the outcome. On the most consequential redistribution of power in modern life, you were never granted a vote.
The lie is that everything happening today is okay because ten years ago, you clicked a button that said "I agree." But you didn't agree to the 600 page contract: none of us read it. You were agreeing you needed a job; agreeing you needed directions, email, or even just a friend.
It wasn't a choice, but the illusion of it. The consent you granted was never meaningful, because you never had an alternative. You clicked the button, or you lost the job. You clicked the button, or you were left behind. And the consequences were hidden for ten years.
They can point to the law and tell us this is legal. They can point to the world and say everything is okay.
I disagree.
Every White House seeks to make the whistleblower the story, rather than the allegations. Whether you love or hate a President, what matters to a democracy is not the provenance of a claim, but the proof for it. Good or bad, the facts matter more than the man.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Look, I've been in the "controversial interview" seat. What @DonLemon came after @ElonMusk with felt like malice. Elon—in clear discomfort—opens up in good faith about intensely private struggles; Lemon picks precisely that moment to begin emptying an entire drawer of knives. 1/
@donlemon @elonmusk That's a dick move, sure, but it's Lemon's right. It comes with the territory of being a partisan football, and Musk should have expected it. The real loss is that it's a huge waste of an interview, because Lemon exhibits zero curiosity or interest in anything beyond posturing.
@donlemon @elonmusk You've got one of the world's most influential men in front of you, on camera, with his shields uncharacteristically down. There's rapport. You can get genuine, unconsidered answers—explore his unguarded thought and beliefs. Instead, you just slap him until his gloves come up?
"Despite Israel’s war on Gaza being perhaps the deadliest war for children in modern history, only 2 headlines out of over 1,100 in the study (of the biggest US mainstream news outlets' coverage) mention Gaza's children."
"While the war on Gaza has been one of the deadliest in modern history for journalists—overwhelmingly Palestinians—the word “journalists” (and its iterations such as “reporters” and “photojournalists”) only appear in 9 headlines out of over 1,100 articles studied." theintercept.com/2024/01/09/new…
"The lack of coverage for the unprecedented killing of children and journalists, groups that typically elicit sympathy from Western media, is conspicuous."
Today, an "anti-fake news" outlet (@InsiderEng) falsely claimed that I lived in a KGB safehouse. They even know which floor I'm on! What a scoop!
The problem? It's a lie. I don't cooperate with spies or live in a safe house, much less 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘒 𝘌𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘺! 🤦
@InsiderEng Bonus points for those who notice the absolutely massive train station and shopping complex full of cameras *directly behind* these knuckleheads' "safe house," which definitely sounds like a plausible place for a hunted whistleblower to live.
Deeply embarrassed for these people.
I used to believe that while the media does make mistakes from time to time, "most" things you read in the news could be relied on.
Nothing robs you of that innocence like becoming yourself the subject of news. When they write on what you 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, errors—and lies—are clear.
The obsession with platforms prostrating themselves before advertisers has always been misplaced, because on any scale longer than one bad news cycle, advertisers go where the audience is.
Optimize platforms for people, not brands, because people have a choice. Brands don't.
The entire point of advertisers is to carry out watering-hole attacks on human attention. If you keep enough attention, they're always going to be there -- right behind the tall grass.
Anybody at Twitter who cares about what advertisers think should not be working at Twitter. Twitter lives or dies based on a single metric: is the most important conversation in the world happening here?
Make it fun and make it matter. That's how you win.
So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility.
I want to see an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and frankly, I think all reasonable people share that position. The question nobody seems to want to contend with is whether amplifying official claims made without evidence are reducing hostilities, or are in fact provoking them.
If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong.
But remember, too that the source of my skepticism is that the US IC has (again) been making truly spectacular claims without presenting any evidence -- because you did not require it of them.