Human Rights✊⚖

Hello everyone,

We created and are developing an archive to document, archive, and expose the crimes of ICE.

It is on https://crimesofice.org/

TOR link: http://ice7fl7ycodmekhrch5wkclblrbbpjctvdniikzs5gfatnk6pgseilqd.onion/

Unfortunately, our abilities to find different videos and documents of ICE on the internet are still limited. We are a small team.

If you want join our team to help us find more material and show the crimes of ICE to the whole world, let us know :)

SimpleX Chat:

https://smp17.simplex.im/a#6B-MiQ-P7nUt5-xsf3iIfh6H-VS_LWBZoId9VqK4GMU

Matrix: @cardboardenjoyer:unredacted.org

Mail: basedbatman@airmail.cc

cross-posted from: https://libretechni.ca/post/715575

There are many manifestations of this way of thinking that people must conform to behaviour, methods and styles that differ from that of bots and criminals. For example:

• Countless websites falsely accuse me of being a robot based on whatever faulty logic is making poor assumptions. I cannot access publications of laws or my own credit history because Cloudflare benefits financially from crude and cheap access decisions.
• The Tor community is collectively targetted for opaque adverse treatment despite a vast majority of Tor users being non-criminal.
• Countless email servers falsely refuse my mail server on the crude basis of having a residential IP address - mandating that I conform by hiring a 3rd party relay service which then becomes an additional MitM.
• A landlord’s email system accepted my email but then silently directed it to a spam quarantine that the landlord never reviews. When a dispute errupted, the landlord claimed it was my fault he did not get my msgs. My fault, as if I have control over his mail server (which signalled to me the msg was delivered).
• Creditors refuse cash payments under the faulty premise that cash is used by criminals and thus non-criminals must change their lifestyle & give up using cash in order to support the faulty logic used in targetting criminals.
• Public libraries have removed or disabled ethernet ports (or neglect to install them) based on the faulty logic that cybercriminals use ethernet and legit users only use Wi-Fi.
• This nutter believes humans should not use emoji because he thinks bots use emoji and he would like his crude AI detector to work.
• We cannot buy lye in enough bulk to make our own biodiesel and bar soap from waste oil because lye is also used by meth labs.
• Asylum seekers cannot cross a national border because they are presumed criminal.
• (update) Cannot send email directly from your dynamic IP address because lazy email admins use that as a flag for spam.

All these scenarios represent different manifestations of the same oppressive paradigm: that it is okay to control people’s innocuous behaviour in order to support the convenience of a simplified and unsophisticated distinction from nefarious actors.

From a human rights standpoint, the result is a form of oppression that violates:

• autonomy
• self-determinism
• privacy
• consumer protection
• the right to a presumption of innocence

What do we call this?

• “Collective punishment” is somewhat fitting because a whole demographic of people are punitively targetted. But unlike the traditional meaning, it’s not a response to a particular incident. It’s more like a preemtive strike.
• “Collateral damage” is somewhat fitting because innocent people are damaged by the oppression. OTOH, collateral damage implies the victims are comrades aligned with the aggressors. But in reality the victims do not necessarily agree with the mission that causes the sloppy assault. I do not necessarily consider myself on the same team as the oppressors.

Neither are quite right. We need a term to express “pusher of forced lifestyle comformity to assist lazy baddy finders”.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/30909420

According to the linked leaflet, the EU’s payment services directive ensures that “You can no longer be charged extra costs by a merchant when you pay using a card issued in the EU.” But they neglect to extend reciprocity to cash payers.

Incidentally, this exacerbates adversely discriminatory treatment of Americans who face uniquely poor treatment by banks. Cash is the sole notable refuge from shitty banks.

Upcharging cash payers violates human rights. This is not only attributed to banks discriminating on the basis of nationality. We have a human right to:

• self-determinism
• autonomy
• consumer protection
• privacy

Penalising cash payers is an assault on any consumer who exercises their self-deterministic right to live autonomous and independent from banks.

No consumer protection is more important than the right to opt out of a transaction. It’s the only consumer protection that one can give themself without relying on others. Surcharging consumers who opt out of banking is an attack on that option. It puts a price on consumer protection.

Banking inherently entails abuse of privacy. The digital footprint is huge and undermins data minimisation rights.

(crossposted from !exclusive_public_resources)

The Council of State is a court that handles appeals, often to challenge non-court decisions like that of a public enforcement body. E.g. you report to SPF Mobilité that an airline or rail operator did not compensate you for a delay or cancellation, and they give you a flippant rejection, the Council of State is your recourse.

The Council of State will not open a case unless you pay a few hundred euros to their bank account. They do not accept cash.

So you might think: I’ll just hire a lawyer with cash and the lawyer will open the case. Nope. Belgian lawyers are prohibited from accepting cash.

I have two Beko washing machines, both “broken”. All components work fine - proven by hotwiring each component individually after some fixing. Yet the control panel wash LEDs just blink. The user manuals both conceal what the faults are, but leaked service manuals for similar models enabled me to expose the error codes, Beko tried to prevent me from seeing.

The errors are bullshit. One of them indicates “unbalanced load”. Beko actually designed the unbalanced load sensor to enter an error trap that cannot be escaped by the consumer. In effect, it is a kill switch. The service manual actually says to instruct the client on how to avoid unbalanced loads. But it does not tell the technician how to escape the error trap either. Reversing the kill switch is apparently so secret that they don’t even write it in the service manual. Putting it in writing would serve as hard evidence that the kill switch exists.

I have some amateur repair capability. I want to develop this skill so I can live independantly. I don’t want to be helplessly dependant on technicians that cost more than replacing the machine. I also respect the planet too much to throw away fixable machines. I believe my right to “self-determination” applies here, as well as autonomy and dignity. I choose not to be helpless. Throwing money at the problem is just another form helplessness. I intend to live a self-sufficient life.

When Beko creates these secret steps to unlock an otherwise working washing machine, they do so with intent to deprive people of their personal property, ultimately to boost more sales. Aspiring repairers are at a loss for self-determinism and autonomy. Self-sufficiency is both a matter of autonomy and dignity. Dependency strips us of dignity. As Beko assults consumer rights, environmental protection is also a human right they undermine. Forcing people to throw away working machines seems to violate all that.

Europe’s useless right to repair law is part of a higher green initiative (forgot what they called it). It apparently neglects non-environmental human rights, which I believe is why the law is so weak.

Is Beko violating human rights? This is what I find:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 17 (emphasis added)

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 22 (emphasis added)

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- Article 1 (emphasis added)

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights -- PART I, Article 1 (emphasis added)

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU -- Article 17

Right to property

1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU -- Article 37

Environmental protection
A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU -- Article 38

Consumer protection
Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.

European Convention on Human Rights -- Article 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(analysis of the above: “Guide on Article 8”)

1. Right to personal development and autonomy
   ¶253. Article 8 protects a right to personal development, … (Niemietz v. Germany, § 29; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, §§ 61 and 67; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, §§ 165-167;…).

FATCA specifically oppresses Americans who live outside the US. It strong-arms banks into treating Americans adversely different based on their national origin (ranging from denial of service to extra data collection and disclosure). I thought Americans were the only people who broadly face discrimination in banking due to their nationality. But I recently heard of other nationalities (not Americans) who are refused bank access due to their nationality (in Europe, where we might have a high expectation of human rights).

I could never get the details. People that report this to me have been vague. But I’ve heard it twice now. Does anyone know the specifics? Which nationalities and why?