-
This website has been hacked by Cyber Anakin and others in Anonymous, HUR and NAFO!
Этот сайт был взломан Кибер-Энакином и другими членами группировок Anonymous, HUR и NAFO!
WRAAK VOR MH17! SLAVA UKRAINI!
1 ALDER/JOHNMR UNITED KINGDOM M
2 ALLEN/CHRISTOPHERMR NETHERLANDS M
3 ALLEN/IANMSTR NETHERLANDS M
4 ALLEN/JOHNMR UNITED KINGDOM M
5 ALLEN/JULIANMR NETHERLANDS M
6 ANDERSON/STEPHEN LESLIE MR UNITED KINGDOM M
7 ANGHEL/ANDRE MR CANADA M
8 ANTHONYSAMY/MABEL MS MALAYSIA F
9 AVNON/ITHAMARMR NETHERLANDS M
10 AYLEY/ROBERTMR UNITED KINGDOM M
11 BAAY/JOYCEMRS NETHERLANDS F
12 BAKER/THERESA MRS AUSTRALIA F
13 BAKER/WAYNE MR AUSTRALIA M
14 BAKKER/WILLEMMR NETHERLANDS M
15 BATS/ROWENMR NETHERLANDS M
16 BELL/EMMA MISS AUSTRALIA F
17 BINDA/NATASHJA MRS NETHERLANDS F
18 BINTAMBI/MUHAMMAD AFRUZ MR MALAYSIA M
19 BINTAMBI/MUHAMMAD AFZAL MR MALAYSIA M
20 BINTITAMBI/MARSHA AZMEENA MS MALAYSIA F
21 BORGSTEEDE/HELEN MS NETHERLANDS F22 BRAS/CATHARINAMRS NETHERLANDS F
23 BROGHAMMER/WILHELMINALOUISEMRS GERMAN F
24 BROUWER/THERESE MRS NETHERLANDS F
25 BROUWERS/ELISABETHMRS NETHERLANDS F
26 CAMFFERMAN/ANTON MR NETHERLANDS M
27 CHARDOME/BENOITMR BELGIUM M
28 CLANCY/CAROLMRS AUSTRALIA F
29 CLANCY/MICHAELMR AUSTRALIA M
30 CROLLA/REGISMR NETHERLANDS M
31 CUIJPERS/EDITHMRS NETHERLANDS F
32 DALSTRA/AUKEMR NETHERLANDS M
33 DALZIEL/CAMERON MR UNITED KINGDOM M
34 DANG/MINHCHAUMRS NETHERLANDS F
35 DANG/QUOCDUYMR NETHERLANDS M
36 DAVISON/FRANCESCAMRS AUSTRALIA F
37 DAVISON/LIAMMR AUSTRALIA M
38 DEBORST/ELSEMIEKMRS NETHERLANDS F
39 DEBRUIN/BARBARAMARIAMRS NETHERLANDS F
40 DEHAAN/JOHANNAMRS NETHERLANDS F
41 DEJONG/ANNETJEMRS NETHERLANDS F
42 DEKUIJER/PIM WILHELM MR NETHERLANDS M
43 DELEEUW/SASKIA MRS NETHERLANDS F
44 DERDEN/LILIANEMS AUSTRALIA F
45 DERIDDER/ESTHERMRS NETHERLANDS F
46 DEROO/JOOPALBERTMR NETHERLANDS M
47 DESADELEER/CHRISTIENE MRS NETHERLANDS F
48 DESCHUTTER/MARIAADRIANAMRS NETHERLANDS F
49 DEVOS/MAARTEN MR NETHERLANDS M
50 DEVRIES/AAFKEMRS NETHERLANDS F
51 DEWA/SHALIZA ZAINI MS MALAYSIA F
52 DEWAAL/ESTHER MRS NETHERLANDS F
53 DJODIKROMO/DONNY TOEKIRAN MR NETHERLANDS M
54 DYCZYNSKI/FATIMA MISS GERMAN F
55 ENGELS/LISANNE LAURA MISS NETHERLANDS F
56 ERNST/TAMARA MS NETHERLANDS F
57 ESSERS/EMMAMRS NETHERLANDS F
58 ESSERS/PETERMR NETHERLANDS M
59 ESSERS/VALENTIJNMR NETHERLANDS M
60 FAN/SHUN PO MR NETHERLANDS M
61 FOO/MING LEE MR MALAYSIA M
62 FREDRIKSZ/BRYCEMR NETHERLANDS M
63 GAZALEE/ARIZA BINTI MS MALAYSIA F64 GIANOTTEN/ANGELIQUEMRS NETHERLANDS F
65 GOES/KAELAMAYAJAY MSTR MALAYSIA M
66 GOES/PAUL MR NETHERLANDS M
67 GRIPPELING/MARCO MR NETHERLANDS M
68 GROOTSCHOLTEN/WILHELMUS MR NETHERLANDS M
69 GUARD/JILLHELENMRS AUSTRALIA F
70 GUARD/ROGERWATSONDR AUSTRALIA M
71 GUNAWAN/DARRYL MR PHILIPPINES M
72 GUNAWAN/HADIONO MR INDONESIA M
73 GUNAWAN/IRENE MRS PHILIPPINES F
74 GUNAWAN/SHERRYL MS PHILIPPINES F
75 HAKSE/ANNEMIEKEMRS NETHERLANDS F
76 HALLY/DAVY JOSEPH GERARDUS MA NETHERLANDS M
77 HALLY/MEGAN NETHERLANDS F
78 HASTINI/YULI MRS INDONESIA F79 HEEMSKERK/GEERTRUIDA MRS NETHERLANDS F
80 HEERKENS/LIDWINAMRS NETHERLANDS F
81 HEMELRIJK/ROBINMR NETHERLANDS M
82 HENDRY/MR INDONESIA M
83 HIJMANS/SUSAN MRS NETHERLANDS F
84 HOARE/ANDREWMR UNITED KINGDOM M
85 HOARE/FRISOMR NETHERLANDS M
86 HOARE/JASPERMR NETHERLANDS M
87 HOONAKKER/KATHARINAMRS NETHERLANDS F
88 HORDER/HOWARD MR AUSTRALIA M
89 HORDER/SUSAN MRS AUSTRALIA F
90 HORNIKX/ASTRID MRS NETHERLANDS F
91 HUIJBERS/PIETER JAN WILLEM NETHERLANDS M
92 HUIZEN/ARNOUD MR NETHERLANDS M
93 HUIZEN/YELENA/CLARICE MSTR INDONESIA F
94 HUNTJENS/MARIAMRS NETHERLANDS F
95 IOPPA/OLGA MRS GERMAN F
96 JANSSEN/CORNELIA MRS NETHERLANDS F
97 JESURUN/KEVIN MR NETHERLANDS M98 JHINKOE/RISHI MR NETHERLANDS M
99 JIEE/TAMBI BIN MR MALAYSIA M
100 JRETNAM/SUBASHNI MRS MALAYSIA F
101 KAMSMA/MATTHEUSMR NETHERLANDS M
102 KAMSMA/QIUMSTR NETHERLANDS M
103 KAPPEN/YVONNE MRS NETHERLANDS F
104 KARDIA/VICKILINE KURNIATI MRS INDONESIA F
105 KARNAILSINGH/KARAMJITSINGHMR MALAYSIA M
106 KEIJZER/KARLIJNMRS NETHERLANDS F
107 KOOIJMANS/BARRYMR NETHERLANDS M
108 KOOIJMANS/ISAMISS NETHERLANDS F
109 KOOIJMANS/MIRAMRS NETHERLANDS F
110 KOTTE/OSCAR MR NETHERLANDS M
111 KOTTE/REMCO MR NETHERLANDS M
112 KROON/HENDRIKROKUSMR NETHERLANDS M
113 LAHAYE/JOHANNESMR NETHERLANDS M
114 LAHENDA/GERDA LELIANA MS INDONESIA F
115 LAMBREGTS/HUBERTUS MR NETHERLANDS M
116 LANGE/JOSEPH MR NETHERLANDS M
117 LAUSCHET/GABRIELEMS GERMAN F
118 LEE/JIANHANBENJAMIN MSTR MALAYSIA M
119 LEE/KIAH YEEN MS MALAYSIA F
120 LEE/MONA CHENG SIM MRS AUSTRALIA F121 LEE/WHY KEONG MR AUSTRALIA M
122 LIEW/YAU CHEE MR MALAYSIA M
123 LOH/YANHWA MRS NETHERLANDS F
124 MAAS/HENRICUSMR NETHERLANDS M
125 MAHADY/EDELMRS AUSTRALIA F
126 MAHLER/EMIEL MR NETHERLANDS M
127 MARCKELBACH/LISA MRS NETHERLANDS F
128 MARTENS/ELIZABETHMRS NETHERLANDS F
129 MARTENS/SANDRAMRS NETHERLANDS F
130 MASLIN/EVIE COCO ANNE MISS AUSTRALIA F
131 MASLIN/MO ROBERT ANDERSON MR AUSTRALIA M
132 MASLIN/OTIS SAMUEL FREDERICK MSTR AUSTRALIA M
133 MASTENBROEK/TINA PAULINE MRS NETHERLANDS F
134 MAYNE/RICHARDMR UNITED KINGDOM M
135 MDSALIM/MOHDALIBIN MR MALAYSIA M
136 MEIJER/INGRID MRS NETHERLANDS F
137 MEIJER/SASCHAMRS NETHERLANDS F
138 MENKE/GERARDUS MR NETHERLANDS M
139 MENKE/MARY MRS NEW ZEALAND F140 MEULEMAN/HANNAH SOPHIA NETHERLANDS F
141 MISRAN/ANELENE ROSTIJEM MS NETHERLANDS F
142 MOORS/AUGUSTINUSMR NETHERLANDS M
143 MULA/MELINGANAK MALAYSIA M
144 NELISSEN/JOHANNAMRS NETHERLANDS F
145 NG/LYETIELISABETH MS MALAYSIA F
146 NG/QINGZHENGMR MALAYSIA M
147 NG/SHIING MRS MALAYSIA F
148 NGUYEN/NGOCMINHMRS NETHERLANDS F
149 NIEBURG/TIMMR NETHERLANDS M
150 NIEVEEN/DAFNEMRS NETHERLANDS F
151 NIEWOLD/TALLANDERFRANCISCUS MR NETHERLANDS M
152 NOOR/RAHIMMAH MRS MALAYSIA F
153 NOREILDE/JANMR BELGIUM M
154 NOREILDE/STEVENMR BELGIUM M
155 NORRIS/NICOLL CHARLES ANDERSON MR AUSTRALIA M
156 NUESINK/JOLETTEMRS NETHERLANDS F
157 OBRIEN/JACKSAMUEL MR AUSTRALIA M
158 OEHLERS/DAISYMRS NETHERLANDS F
159 ORESHKIN/VICTORMR AUSTRALIA M
160 OTTOCHIAN/JULIANMSTR NETHERLANDS M
161 OTTOCHIAN/SERGIOMR NETHERLANDS M
162 PALM/LUBBERTAMRS NETHERLANDS F
163 PANDUWINATA/MIGUEL G MSTR NETHERLANDS M164 PANDUWINATA/SHAKA T MR NETHERLANDS M
165 PARLAN/HASNI HARDI BIN MR MALAYSIA M
166 PAULISSEN/JOHNNY MR NETHERLANDS M
167 PAULISSEN/MARTIN MR NETHERLANDS M
168 PAULISSEN/SRI MISS NETHERLANDS F
169 PIJNENBURG/SJORS ADRIANUS MR NETHERLANDS M
170 PLOEG/ALEXMR NETHERLANDS M
171 PLOEG/ROBERTMR NETHERLANDS M
172 POCOCK/BENJAMINMR UNITED KINGDOM M
173 PUNJABI/KAUSHALYA JAIRAMDAS DATIN MALAYSIA F
174 RAAP/HIELKJE MS NETHERLANDS F
175 RENKERS/JEROENMR NETHERLANDS M
176 RENKERS/TIMMR NETHERLANDS M
177 RISAH/DAISY MRS NETHERLANDS F
178 RIZK/ALBERT MR AUSTRALIA M
179 RIZK/MAREE MRS AUSTRALIA F
180 RUIJTER/CATHARINAMRS NETHERLANDS F
181 RYDER/ARJEN MR AUSTRALIA M
182 RYDER/YVONNE MRS AUSTRALIA F
183 SCHANSMAN/QUINNMR NETHERLANDS M184 SCHILDER/CORNELIS MR NETHERLANDS M
185 SCHUYESMANS/RIK MR BELGIUM M
186 SIDELIK/HELENAMS AUSTRALIA F
187 SITIAMIRAH/BINTIPARAWIRA MRS MALAYSIA F
188 SIVAGNANAM/MATTHEW EZEKIAL MASTER MALAYSIA M
189 SIVAGNANAM/PAUL RAJASINGAM MR MALAYSIA M
190 SLOK/GARYMR NETHERLANDS M
191 SMALLENBURG/CARLIJN MRS NETHERLANDS F
192 SMALLENBURG/CHARLES MR NETHERLANDS M
193 SMALLENBURG/WERTHER MSTR NETHERLANDS M
194 SMOLDERS/MARIA MRS NETHERLANDS F
195 SOETJIPTO/JANE M ADI MRS INDONESIA F
196 SOUREN/PETERMR NETHERLANDS M
197 SPECKEN/REINMARMR NETHERLANDS M
198 STUIVER/CORNELIA MRS NETHERLANDS F
199 SUJANA/WAYANMR INDONESIA M
200 SUPARTINI/MRS INDONESIA F
201 SWEENEY/LIAMMR UNITED KINGDOM M
202 TAMBI/MUHAMMAD AFIF BIN MR MALAYSIA M
203 TAMTELAHITU/CHARLESELIZADAVIDMR NETHERLANDS M
204 TAN/SIEW POH MDM MALAYSIA F205 TEOH/ELAINE MISS MALAYSIA F
206 THEISTIASIH/YODRICUNDA MRS INDONESIA F
207 THOMAS/GLENNRAYMONDMR UNITED KINGDOM M
208 TIERNAN/MARY MS AUSTRALIA F
209 TIMMERS/GERARDUSMR NETHERLANDS M
210 TOL/CORNELIA MRS NETHERLANDS F
211 TOURNIER/HENDRIKJANMR NETHERLANDS M
212 TRUGG/LIV MISS NETHERLANDS F
213 TRUGG/REMCO MR NETHERLANDS M
214 TRUGG/TESS MISS NETHERLANDS F
215 UIJTERLINDE/THAMSANQA MR NETHERLANDS M
216 VANDEKRAATS/LORENZOMR NETHERLANDS M
217 VANDEKRAATS/ROBERTJANMR NETHERLANDS M
218 VANDEMORTEL/JEROENMR NETHERLANDS M
219 VANDEMORTEL/MILIAMISS NETHERLANDS F
220 VANDENHENDE/JOHANNES RUDOLFUS MR NETHERLANDS M
221 VANDENHENDE/MARGAUX LARISSA MSTR NETHERLANDS F
222 VANDENHENDE/MARNIX REDUAN MR NETHERLANDS M
223 VANDENHENDE/PIERS ADNAN MR NETHERLANDS M
224 VANDENSCHOOR/CHRISTINA ANNA ELISA MS NETHERLANDS F
225 VANDERGRAAFF/LAURENSMR NETHERLANDS M
226 VANDERLEIJ/JENNIFERMRS NETHERLANDS F
227 VANDERLINDE/MARKMR NETHERLANDS M
228 VANDERLINDE/MERELMRS NETHERLANDS F
229 VANDERLINDE/ROBERTMR NETHERLANDS M
230 VANDERMEER/BENTE MISS NETHERLANDS F231 VANDERMEER/FLEUR MISS NETHERLANDS F
232 VANDERMEER/SOPHIE MRS NETHERLANDS F
233 VANDERPOEL/ERICUS MR NETHERLANDS M
234 VANDERSANDE/PAULUS MR NETHERLANDS M
235 VANDERSANDE/STEVEN MR NETHERLANDS M
236 VANDERSANDE/TESSA MRS NETHERLANDS F
237 VANDERSAR/INGE MRS NETHERLANDS F
238 VANDERSTEEN/JANMR NETHERLANDS M
239 VANDERWEIDE/FRANK MR NETHERLANDS M
240 VANDOORN/APRILMRS NETHERLANDS F
241 VANDOORN/CAROLINEMRS NETHERLANDS F
242 VANDUIJN/GIJSBERT MR NETHERLANDS M
243 VANELDIJK/PETRONELLAMRS NETHERLANDS F
244 VANGEENE/RENE MR NETHERLANDS M
245 VANHEIJNINGEN/ERIK PETER M246 VANHEIJNINGEN/ZEGER LEONARD MR NETHERLANDS M
247 VANKEULEN/ALLARDMR NETHERLANDS M
248 VANKEULEN/JEROENMR NETHERLANDS M
249 VANKEULEN/ROBERTMR NETHERLANDS M
250 VANLANGEVELD/PETRAMRS NETHERLANDS F
251 VANLUIK/KLAAS WILLEM MR NETHERLANDS M
252 VANMENS/LUCIEPAULAMARIAMS NETHERLANDS F
253 VANMUIJLWIJK/ADINDA LARASATI PUTRI MS NETHERLANDS F
254 VANMUIJLWIJK/EMILE MR NETHERLANDS M
255 VANNIELEN/STEFAN F W MR NETHERLANDS M
256 VANTONGEREN/JACQUELINE MRS NETHERLANDS F
257 VANVELDHUIZEN/ANTHONIUS MR NETHERLANDS M
258 VANVELDHUIZEN/PIJKE MSTR NETHERLANDS M
259 VANVELDHUIZEN/QUINT MSTR NETHERLANDS M
260 VANVREESWIJK/HUUBMR NETHERLANDS M
261 VANWIGGEN/WINNEKEMRS NETHERLANDS F
262 VANZIJTVELD/FREDERIQUEMRS NETHERLANDS F
263 VANZIJTVELD/ROBERTJANMR NETHERLANDS M
264 VERHAEGH/KIM ELISA PETRONELLA NETHERLANDS F
265 VERMEULEN/MARIEMRS NETHERLANDS FR NETHERLANDS M266 VLEESENBEEK/ERIKMR NETHERLANDS M
267 VOORHAM/CORNELIAMRS NETHERLANDS F
268 VORSSELMAN/WOUTER MR NETHERLANDS M
269 VRANCKX/ELINE MRS NETHERLANDS F
270 WAGEMANS/HENDRIK MR NETHERLANDS M
271 WALS/AMELMRS NETHERLANDS F
272 WALS/BRETTMR NETHERLANDS M
273 WALS/JEROENMR NETHERLANDS M
274 WALS/JINTEMRS NETHERLANDS F
275 WALS/SOLENNMISS NETHERLANDS F
276 WELS/LEONARDUS MR NETHERLANDS M
277 WELS/SEM MSTR NETHERLANDS M
278 WESTERVELD/INEKEMRS NETHERLANDS F
279 WIARTINI/KETUT MRS INDONESIA F
280 WITTEVEEN/MARITMRS NETHERLANDS F
281 WITTEVEEN/WILLEMMR NETHERLANDS M
282 YURIANI/NINIK MRS INDONESIA F
283 ZANTKUIJL/DESIREEMRS NETHERLANDS FMH17 CREW
1 Captain WAN AMRAN BIN WAN HUSSIN Malaysia M
2 Captain CHOO JIN LEONG, EUGENE Malaysia M
3 First Officer AHMAD HAKIMI BIN HANAPI Malaysia M
4 First Officer MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN ABDUL RAHIM Malaysia M
5 In-flight Supervisor MOHD GHAFAR BIN ABU BAKAR Malaysia M
6 Chief Stewardess DORA SHAHILA BINTI KASSIM Malaysia F
7 Chief Stewardess AZRINA BINTI YAKOB Malaysia F
8 Leading Stewardess LEE HUI PIN Malaysia F
9 Leading Stewardess MASTURA BINTI MUSTAFA Malaysia F
10 Flight Stewardess CHONG YEE PHENG Malaysia F
11 Flight Steward SHAIKH MOHD NOOR BIN MAHMOOD Malaysia M
12 Flight Steward SANJID SINGH SANDHU Malaysia M
13 Flight Stewardess HAMFAZLIN SHAM BINTI MOHAMEDARIFIN Malaysia F
14 Flight Stewardess NUR SHAZANA BINTI MOHAMED SALLEH Malaysia F
15 Flight Stewardess ANGELINE PREMILA RAJANDARAN Malaysia Fтвоя вина!
твоя вина!
твоя вина!
Honestly at first for a very long time I thought that the FAI Gagarin technical controversy is just too small bore to be bothered with, but now I guess I’ll have to follow the current.
https://justapedia.org/wiki/FAI_definition_of_human_spaceflight
Besides the defacements at this site, Anonymous wants to claim responsibility for a data breach and denial of service attacks at Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
НЕ УЧАСТВУЙТЕ В НЕЗАКОННОЙ ВОЙНЕ КРЕМЛЯ ПРОТИВ ГОСУДАРСТВА УКРАИНА! СДАВАЙТЕСЬ В ПЛЕН УКРАИНСКИМ ВОЙСКАМ, ЕСЛИ ВАС И ЧЛЕНОВ ВАШЕЙ СЕМЬИ МОБИЛИЗУЮТ ДЛЯ УЧАСТИЯ В ЭТОЙ НЕСПРАВЕДЛИВОЙ ВОЙНЕ!
В отличие от того, что вам говорят “Россия 1” или “Звезда”, был шанс на мир!
До начала войны хакерская группа Anonymous неоднократно выдвигала и обнародовала предложения по разрядке ситуации.
Вот какие были предложения!
Во-первых, провести всеукраинский референдум, чтобы спросить всех граждан страны о том, передавать ли три оккупированные территории административному образованию ООН. Однако перед этим заинтересованные стороны, такие как Украина и/или Россия, должны продемонстрировать четкие добросовестные обязательства по разрядке напряженности, такие как сокращение или отвод развернутых фронтовых войск.
Если референдум пройдет успешно, то миротворческие силы ООН, состоящие из Швейцарии и любых других стран, с которыми согласятся все стороны, войдут на территории для размещения гарнизонов, вплоть до охраны соответствующих границ.
Для Донбасса, возможно, название будет UNODON (Операция ООН в Донбассе), UNMID (Миссия ООН по делам временной администрации Донбасса), UNTADON (Временная администрация ООН в Донбассе), UNADON (Администрация ООН в Донбассе) или UNODOM (Миссия по наблюдению за Донбассом). В годы действия мандата ООН будет происходить реконструкция/восстановление, в то время как большинство служащих обеих сторон будут оставлены в покое, за исключением тех, кто виновен в тяжких военных преступлениях.
Мандатный период может занять около пяти лет или больше, после чего на трех территориях будут проведены референдумы, за ходом которых будут пристально следить доверенные международные наблюдатели.
Выборы на втором референдуме будут следующими:
Остаться в составе Украины, не передавая никаких полномочий указанному региону (регионам)
Остаться в составе Украины, передав определенные полномочия соответствующему региону (регионам), как Шотландия.
Стать независимой.
Присоединиться к России.
В случае, если эти регионы станут независимыми государствами, они должны оставаться нейтральными, как Швейцария, и не подвергаться никакому внешнему вмешательству, особенно со стороны России.
Реализация вышеупомянутого украинского мирного плана, по крайней мере, до этапа мандата ООН или просто после этапа первого референдума, имеет решающее значение в качестве преамбулы для выполнения некоторых аспектов “Договора между Соединенными Штатами Америки и Российской Федерацией о гарантиях безопасности”, в частности, статей 3 и 6.
В более широком масштабе я считал, что между НАТО и Россией должен быть создан своего рода Интермариум. Государства-члены Интермариума могут вступать в экономические альянсы, такие как ЕС или “Евразийский союз”, но их вооруженные силы должны оставаться независимыми как от НАТО, так и от России. Интермариум мог бы действовать как буфер “мир через силу” между двумя странами, и может, с самой оптимистичной точки зрения, обеспечить окно для урегулирования в соответствии со статьей 1 и статьей 4 предложенного Россией договора.
Так называемый Интермариум, основанный на первоначальной польской идее, мог бы включать в себя следующее:
Беларусь
Украина
Армения
Грузия
Донецк (если он станет независимым после вышеуказанных референдумов)
Луганск (если он стал независимым после вышеуказанных референдумов)
Крым (если он стал независимым после вышеуказанных референдумов)
Кроме того, в ‘Интермариум’ при благоприятных обстоятельствах может войти Финляндия. Он также может быть в формате ‘ГУАМ’, куда входят Азербайджан и Молдова.В то время были некоторые надежды, потому что это привлекло внимание RT!
На самом деле Дмитрий Козак тоже работал над мирными планами, весьма вероятно, такими же, как выше. Но все, что сделал Путин, это оттолкнул их и объявил о своем намерении геноцида против украинцев, что в итоге и было осуществлено 24 февраля 2022 года!
Денис Пушилин, Леонид Пасечник и Сергей Аксенов, безусловно, будут и должны испытывать сожаление и думать, что они сохранили бы свою власть навсегда, если бы Россия приняла мирные предложения Анонима и Дмитрия Козака.
Владимир Владимирович Путин, как и Гитлер, обязательно затащит всех на свою лошадь, когда она однажды сорвется с обрыва! Чтобы спасти себя, тех, и кого вы любите, пожалуйста, запомните эти инструкции!
Как правильно сдаться и в итоге получить лучшую жизнь!
Конечно, вы все можете считать, что жизнь в Российской Армии славна и хороша! Запомните, пожалуйста, слово “дедовщина”, ибо оно описывает жестокое обращение почти всех старших офицеров со всеми младшими призывниками!
Если вы думаете, что Россия в целом превосходит США, вы глубоко ошибаетесь. Вот что я вам скажу!
СССР был нацелен на получение титула первого,
независимо от того, насколько поверхностным было достижение,
и насколько опасен подход, а иногда,
скрывая правду об этом спустя десятилетия.
Первый искусственный спутник Земли был создан СССР.
Он практически ничего не делал, только пищал,
и его орбита довольно быстро сошла на нет.
Американский первый искусственный спутник работал на орбите в течение многих лет,
нес научную нагрузку и открыл излучение Ван Аллена.
Первая фотография в космосе была сделана США с помощью модифицированной ракеты в суборбитальном полете.
СССР сделал первые фотографии дальней стороны Луны
с помощью аппарата “Луна-3” с технологией фотоаппаратаполученной с упавших американских аэростатов-шпионов!
Одним из самых первых животных, намеренно запущенных в космос, была макака-резус.
на борту немецкого V2, управляемого США.
Первое животное на орбиту было выведено СССР с собакой,
которая погибла из-за отказа системы охлаждения,
и поэтому является прославленным издевательством над животными.
США запустили в космос первых шимпанзе и обезьян, которые выжили и приземлились,
первый случай произошел гораздо раньше Лайки.Первым человеком в космосе был Юрий Гагарин из СССР,
но он был вынужден катапультироваться перед приземлением,
и по согласованным условиям его миссия была технически провалена;
или “незавершенный космический полет”.
по определению Международной федерации аэронавтики (FAI).
Это держалось в секрете СССР в течение десятилетий.
Первый американец в космосе успешно приземлился со своей капсулой,
при этом он был первым, кто действительно пилотировал свой космический корабль.Следуя той же логике, в свою очередь, миссии NASA проекта “Меркурий” все приземлились на воду
(splashdown) вместо земли,
ВВС США Джо Уокер – первый, кто приземлился в космическом корабле на твердую землю,
в X-15.
Первая женщина в космосе была явным “первым” СССР.
на которую они нацеливались.В США была политика приема только военных летчиков-испытателей,
среди которых не было ни одной женщины.
Первый выход в открытый космос был продемонстрирован СССР,
но он был близок к катастрофе, поскольку космонавт не смог войти в космический корабль.
в космический корабль из-за того, что его скафандр раздулся из-за разницы давлений,
и ему пришлось выпустить воздух, чтобы иметь возможность
протиснуться обратно в люк.
Первый выход в открытый космос США прошел без подобных проблем,
и быстро обогнали СССР, став пионерами в том, как будут осуществляться выходы в открытый космос и каквыполнять полезную работу.
Это также первый выход в открытый космос без привязи.
На первое орбитальное рандеву претендовал СССР,
но оно было достигнуто лишь благодаря запуску двух ракет в нужное время.
Два космических корабля находились в километрах друг от друга и не имели возможности приблизиться друг к другу.
друг к другу,
и не знали, как это сделать.Первое рандеву, осуществленное США, использовало орбитальную механику и преднамеренные маневры.
чтобы два космических корабля “Джемини” нашли друг друга, пролетели в строю, а затем разошлись в разные стороны.
разными путями.
Первая стыковка была осуществлена США в ходе программы “Джемини”.
Первая стыковка для целей передачи экипажа между
двух космических кораблей была осуществлена СССР.Переход экипажа был осуществлен с помощью внешнего выхода в открытый космос, что послужило еще одним достижением.
первой.
Спуск в атмосферу едва не закончился полной катастрофой и жесткой посадкой.
США впервые осуществили стыковку и пересадку экипажа между космическими кораблями, находящимися под внутренним давлением.
коридором во время полета “Аполлона-9”.
Первая фотография дальней стороны Луны была получена СССР,
и это изображение очень низкого качества.Вскоре после этого США начали полное картографическое исследование всей лунной поверхности.
Первый образец для возвращения на Луну был получен СССР, но фактически представлял собой несколько граммов
пыли.
США вернули тонны различных видов индивидуально отобранной лунной породы.
Миссия СССР по высадке на Луну состояла из внешнего выхода в открытый космос
чтобы пересадить одного космонавта на крошечный посадочный аппарат с одним человеком и достаточным запасом провизии.
чтобы сделать несколько отпечатков ботинок, прежде чем попытаться вернуться домой.
Опять же, только для того, чтобы иметь возможность заявить о своем первом достижении.
Лунные посадочные миссии США процветали на Луне,
забрав двух астронавтов, в результате чего они могли оставаться на поверхности в течение нескольких дней,
и даже передвигаться по ней на автомобиле.
Как только СССР проиграл лунную гонку,
они мгновенно потеряли к ней всякий интерес и сосредоточились на создании космической станции.
Во всем этом есть знакомая схема.СССР делал самый минимум,
часто в ущерб безопасности, чтобы достичь произвольной цели как можно скорее.
Все неудачи и промахи США были на виду у общественности.
СССР в основном держались в секрете.
Обе страны знали, что высадка на Луну будет финишной чертой.
США добрались туда первыми, и не просто добрались до финиша, задыхаясь и хрипя, как СССР.
и хрипя, как это сделал бы СССР,
а прошли ее в полном комфорте и стиле,
а затем проделали это еще несколько раз со все большими и большими
с большими и большими трудностями.
Что касается космических станций, то полеты на “Салют-1” были сопряжены с неудачами.
одна из них даже привела к гибели экипажа при входе в атмосферу.
В то время как США запустили почти функциональную шаблонную
космическую станцию OPS 0855 раньше, чем “Салют”.
С тех пор как НАСА потеряло свою первоначальную цель (победить русских на Луне)
оно немного сбилось с пути, но такие компании, как SpaceX, действительно
сумели донести смысл космической гонки лучше, чем это сделал “Аполлон”.
Первоначально космическая гонка должна была продемонстрировать частное предпринимательство и американский образ жизни в сравнении с централизованным государственным контролем,
но программа “Аполлон” не была частным предприятием,
и находилась под прямым контролем правительства. SpaceX, Blue Origin, RocketLab и др. являются настоящей демонстрацией коммерческих космических полетов, где правительственное агентство NASA
теперь становится просто клиентом
для частных поставщиков запусков и даже космических аппаратов.
США победили в 60-е годы,
и они абсолютно выигрывают сейчас по сравнению с тем, что Россия строит на государственные средства.В этом вопросе вам придется поверить мне на слово: пока вы остаетесь в пределах Российской Федерации, вы рискуете столкнуться с катастрофическими опасностями — от принудительной мобилизации и всеобщего остракизма до, в случае краха российского государства, полномасштабной гражданской войны. Существуют также ответные угрозы, исходящие из-за рубежа — в частности, со стороны Украины и НАТО, — которые могут быть спровоцированы безрассудными действиями Путина. В частности, с момента начала войны группировка Anonymous держит наготове «бросок костей» — или, если угодно, скрытый козырь. Этот ход прибережен на тот случай, если Путин совершит нечто поистине безумное. И хотя вероятность подобного поступка граничит с чудом, вы все, разумеется, горько пожалеете, если ваша ставка на союз с Путиным каким-то образом обернется провалом. При таком сценарии единственным способом сохранить привычный уклад жизни станет переезд за границу и публичный отказ от идеологии «Русского мира».
I want to offer my heartfelt public apology to “keyes”, a member of a Bellingcat channel whom I inadvertently offended because of a miscommunication caused in part of my clumsiness which was then misinterpreted as a harassment attempt.
To clarify, my original intentions are to warn her in a totally bona fide manner that she’s targeted by harassment attempts by others so that she can increase her operational security, while seeking help about a similar situation which affected me.
Speaking of Wikipedia, this hacking operation can be construed as a response to distortion campaigns on some pages related to the Baltic States by pro-Ruzzian editors.
It’s over Glebushko0703! Anonymous have the high ground!
If Basiji terrorists attacked the area where I’m living in, then I reserve the right to kill these terrorists as retaliation and to protest against the proliferation of privacy-destructive digital ID laws worldwide. Part of the resons why I’m hacking Russian space websites along with others in Anonymous is to retaliate against presumed Russian attempts to create a “new world order” by using people like Mark Zuckerberg and organizations like Heritage Foundation to push through deanonymization laws in the name of “child safety”.
https://www.businessinsider.com/yuri-milner-meeting-mark-zuckerberg-was-a-miracle-2013-3
I will share the following content by u/Ok_Lingonberry3296 so that how Meta ties in to all those deanonymization laws in the US and possibly across the world.
I’ve been pulling public records on the wave of “age verification” bills moving through US state legislatures. IRS 990 filings, Senate lobbying disclosures, state ethics databases, campaign finance records, corporate registries, WHOIS lookups, Wayback Machine archives. What started as curiosity about who was pushing these bills turned into documenting a coordinated influence operation that, from a privacy standpoint, is building surveillance infrastructure at the operating system level while the company behind it faces zero new requirements for its own platforms.
I want to be clear about what this is and isn’t. I am not the author of the earlier r/linux post by aaronsb and I’m not affiliated with them. I titled this to draw attention on this subreddit because the privacy implications go well beyond Linux. Every source cited here is a public record.
What the bills actually require you to hand over
Most reporting on these bills says something vague like “age checks at device setup.” The statutory language is more specific and more invasive than that.
California AB-1043, signed October 2025 and effective January 1, 2027, defines “Operating system provider” under Section 1798.500(g) as “a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.”
Every OS provider must then: provide an interface at account setup collecting a birth date or age, and expose a real-time API that broadcasts the user’s age bracket (under 13, 13 to 15, 16 to 17, 18+) to any application running on the system.
Read that again. Every app on your device gets to query a system-level API that returns your age bracket in real time. This isn’t age verification at the point of accessing restricted content. This is a persistent age-broadcasting service baked into the operating system itself, queryable by every installed application.
Colorado SB26-051 (passed the Senate 28-7, now in the House) copies the same definitions in the same order, same penalty structure ($2,500 per child for negligent violations, $7,500 for intentional ones), same exemptions. The template is the ICMEC “Digital Age Assurance Act,” and it’s been introduced or is pending in Illinois (three separate bills), New York, Kansas, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and at the federal level.
New York’s S8102A goes further. It requires device manufacturers to perform “commercially reasonable and technically feasible age assurance” at device activation and explicitly bans self-reporting. The AG picks the approved methods. That means biometric age estimation or government ID verification before you can use a device you purchased.
Exemptions in all of these bills cover broadband ISPs, telecom services, and physical products. None contain any exemption for open-source software, non-commercial projects, or privacy-preserving verification methods.
The status right now:
State Bill Status CA AB-1043 Enacted, effective Jan 1, 2027 CO SB26-051 Passed Senate, in House committee LA HB-570 Enacted, effective July 1, 2026 UT SB-142 Enacted, first in nation TX SB-2420 Enjoined by federal judge NY S8102A Pending IL HB-3304, HB-4140, SB-2037 Pending Federal KOSA, ASAA Pending The privacy architecture these bills create
Here’s what concerns me most from a privacy perspective. These bills don’t just verify age once. They create a persistent identity layer inside the operating system that applications can query at will.
The commercial age verification vendors who would provide this infrastructure (Yoti, Veriff, Jumio) charge $0.10 to $2.00 per check, require proprietary SDKs, demand API keys tied to commercial accounts, and operate cloud-only with no self-hosted option. Your age verification data goes to a third-party cloud service. Every time.
Compare this to what the EU built. The EU Digital Identity Wallet under eIDAS 2.0 is open-source, self-hostable, and uses zero-knowledge proofs. You can prove you’re over 18 without revealing your birth date, your name, or anything else. No per-check fees, no proprietary SDKs, no data going to a vendor’s cloud. The EU’s Digital Services Act puts age verification obligations on Very Large Online Platforms (45M+ monthly users), not on operating systems. FOSS projects that don’t act as intermediary services are explicitly outside scope. Micro and small enterprises get additional exemptions.
EU approach US bills Who’s regulated Platforms with 45M+ users FOSS exemption Yes, five separate mechanisms Verification method Open-source wallet, zero-knowledge proofs Cost to non-commercial projects $0 Privacy architecture Selective disclosure, privacy by design Works offline Yes The US bills assume every operating system is built by a corporation with the infrastructure and revenue to absorb these costs. The EU started from the opposite assumption and built accordingly.
Who wrote the legislation
This is where it gets interesting. Rep. Kim Carver (R-Bossier City), the sponsor of Louisiana’s HB-570, publicly confirmed that a Meta lobbyist brought the legislative language directly to her. The bill as drafted required only app stores (Apple, Google) to verify user ages. It did not require social media platforms to do anything.
Meta deployed 12 lobbyists across 9 confirmed firms for this single bill, paying at least $324,992 (described as a “very conservative estimate”). The confirmed firms include Pelican State Partners (who also lobby for Roblox, letting Meta frame this as “broad industry support” rather than one company’s project), Adams and Reese LLP (the #1 ranked Louisiana government affairs firm), and State Capitol Solutions.
Nicole Lopez, Meta’s Director of Global Litigation Strategy for Youth, testified at the House Commerce Committee in support. She also testified in South Dakota for a similar bill. She’s Meta’s national point person for these laws.
HB-570 passed unanimously at every stage: House 99-0, Senate 39-0. So why did Meta need 12 lobbyists? Because the votes were never the concern. The lobbyists were there to control the text and block amendments.
The key amendment battle came from Senator Jay Morris, who expanded the bill to include app developers alongside app stores after Google’s senior director of government affairs publicly questioned why “Mark Zuckerberg is so keen on passing these bills.” When Morris introduced his amendment, Meta went silent. The conference committee compromise maintained dual responsibility but kept the primary burden on app stores, which is what Meta wanted from the start.
At that same Senate hearing, Morris directly questioned DCA Executive Director Casey Stefanski about who funds her organization. She reportedly deflected, said she “wasn’t comfortable answering,” then under continued pressure admitted tech companies provide funding but refused to name them.
The advocacy group that doesn’t legally exist
The Digital Childhood Alliance presents itself as a coalition of 50+ conservative child safety organizations (later inflated to 140+, though only six have ever been publicly named). It has been testifying in favor of these bills across states. Here is what public records show about its legal status:
I searched all four regional extracts of the IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master File (eo1 through eo4.csv), which cover every tax-exempt organization registered in the United States. DCA is not there. No EIN exists for this organization.
I also searched for incorporation records in Colorado, DC, Delaware, and Virginia, plus OpenCorporates (200M+ companies), ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, GuideStar, and Charity Navigator. No incorporation record exists in any of them.
DCA’s domain was registered December 18, 2024 through GoDaddy with privacy protection and a four-year registration. The website was live and fully formed one day later: professional design, statistics, testimonials from Heritage Foundation and NCOSE staff, ASAA talking points already loaded. This is not a grassroots launch. This is a staging deployment of a pre-built site. 77 days later, Utah SB-142 became the first ASAA law signed in the country.
DCA processes donations through For Good (formerly Network for Good, EIN 68-0480736), which is a Donor Advised Fund. For Good explicitly states in its documentation that it serves “501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.” DCA claims 501(c)(4) status. DCA is classified as a “Project” (ID 258136) in the For Good system, not as a standalone nonprofit. I searched all 59,736 For Good grant recipients across five years, roughly $1.73 billion in disbursements. Zero grants to DCA, DCI, NCOSE, or any related entity. The donation page appears to be cosmetic.
Bloomberg reporters exposed Meta as a DCA funder in July 2025. The Deseret News detailed the arrangement in December 2025. No version of the website, across 100+ Wayback Machine snapshots, has ever disclosed funding sources. Every blog post and testimony targets Apple and Google. Meta is never mentioned or criticized.
DCA’s leadership traces directly to NCOSE (National Center on Sexual Exploitation):
Casey Stefanski, Executive Director, spent 10 years at NCOSE as Senior Director of Global Partnerships. Unusually, she never appears on any NCOSE 990 filing as an officer, key employee, or among the five highest-compensated staff. A senior director title at a $5.4M organization for a decade with no 990 appearance suggests either below-threshold compensation, an inflated title, or something else about the arrangement.
Dawn Hawkins, DCA’s Chair, simultaneously serves as CEO of NCOSE.
John Read, DCA’s Senior Policy Advisor, spent 30 years at the DOJ Antitrust Division investigating app stores and Big Tech.
NCOSE’s own 501(c)(4) structure turns out to be complicated. Tracing Schedule R filings across four years reveals that NCOSE created “NCOSE Action” (EIN 86-2458921) as a c4 in 2021, reclassified it from c4 to c3 in 2022, then created an entirely new c4 called “Institute for Public Policy” (EIN 88-1180705) in 2023 with the same address and the same principal officer (Marcel van der Watt). By 2024 the original entity had disappeared from Schedule R entirely.
Despite NCOSE’s website describing NCOSEAction as “created by NCOSE,” and Schedule R listing the Institute as a “controlled organization,” all 19 transaction indicators between NCOSE and the Institute are marked “No.” No grants, no shared employees, no shared facilities, no reimbursements. Zero reported transactions between a parent and its own controlled c4 while staff move freely between them. Concurrently, NCOSE’s lobbying spending tripled from $78,000 to $204,000, coinciding with DCA’s launch and the ASAA legislative push.
$70M+ in super PACs, deliberately fragmented
Meta poured over $70 million into state-level super PACs and structured every one to avoid the FEC’s centralized, searchable database:
Entity Meta’s contribution Type Notable detail ATEP $45M Bipartisan 527 PAC Co-led by Hilltop Public Solutions META California $20M State PAC Chaired by Brian Rice, Meta VP of Public Policy California Leads $5M State PAC Union-partnered Forge the Future Downstream from ATEP State PAC (TX) Policy priorities mirror ASAA language Making Our Tomorrow Downstream from ATEP State PAC (IL) Also chaired by Brian Rice By registering every PAC at the state level rather than federally, Meta scatters filings across dozens of state ethics commission databases with different formats, different disclosure timelines, and no centralized search. Each filing is technically public. Aggregating them into a coherent picture requires manually querying each state. This is structural opacity by fragmentation.
Forge the Future’s stated policy priorities include: “Empowering parents with oversight of children’s online activities across devices and digital environments.” That is functionally identical to the ASAA framing.
Of 20 Meta-backed candidates across Texas and North Carolina primaries, 19 won (Washington Post, March 12, 2026).
The firm that bridges both tracks
This is the finding that connects two things I’d been tracking separately.
Hilltop Public Solutions, a Democratic consulting firm, shows up in three distinct contexts:
Co-leads ATEP, Meta’s $45M bipartisan super PAC
Involved in DCA’s messaging coordination, per investigative reporting
Connected to Forge the Future, the downstream Texas PAC with ASAA-aligned policy priorities
This makes Hilltop the first confirmed entity bridging Meta’s political spending operation and the DCA advocacy campaign. The firm helping Meta elect “tech-friendly” state legislators also coordinates messaging for the nominally independent grassroots organization pushing those legislators to pass ASAA.
The dark money network
Meta’s Colorado lobbying runs through Headwaters Strategies, paid $338,500 since 2019, with monthly payments jumping from roughly $5K/month to $14K-$30K/month starting July 2023 as state-level age verification bills accelerated.
Headwaters co-founder Adam Eichberg simultaneously serves as a registered Meta lobbyist in Colorado, as Chair of the Board of the New Venture Fund (the flagship entity of the Arabella Advisors network, $669M revenue), and as founding board member of the Windward Fund (another Arabella entity, $311M revenue). The Arabella network operates four entities from the same building at 1828 L Street NW, Washington DC, with combined annual revenue exceeding $1.3 billion. NVF transfers $121.3M per year to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501(c)(4) with no donor disclosure requirements.
I parsed the IRS Form 990 Schedule I filings across all five Arabella entities. That’s 4,433 grants totaling approximately $2.0 billion. I searched for every child safety, age verification, and tech policy organization I could identify. Zero matches. The Schedule I grant pathway is definitively ruled out. If Meta money flows through this network, it would have to travel via fiscal sponsorship, consulting fees, or non-grant payments, which are inherently less transparent.
The Eichberg connection matters not because it proves a pipeline, but because the person receiving Meta’s lobbying payments chairs the governance structure of the largest anonymous-donor-funded advocacy network in US politics. That structural overlap is documented regardless of whether money moves through it.
The company that benefits
Meta’s own Horizon OS (powering Quest VR headsets) already has Meta Account age verification, a Get Age Category API, Family Center parental controls, Quest Store age ratings, and default minor account protections. I scored Horizon OS at 83% compliance readiness with these mandates.
Meta is not opposing these bills. In Colorado, I pulled lobbying records from the Secretary of State’s SODA API and found Meta’s four registered lobbyists on SB26-051 listed in a “Monitoring” position. Not amending, not opposing. Watching.
On every social media regulation bill in Colorado, Meta takes an “Amending” position, actively fighting changes. Across 117 lobbying records on 22 bills:
Bills regulating social media: Meta position is “Amending” (fighting)
The one bill putting the burden on OS providers: Meta position is “Monitoring” (watching)
Meta fights bills that regulate Meta. Meta watches bills that regulate everyone else.
In California, Meta spent over $1 million on state lobbying in the first three quarters of 2025 and publicly supported AB-1043, breaking ranks with its own trade associations (TechNet and Chamber of Progress both opposed it). Meta supported a bill that creates surveillance infrastructure at the OS level while leaving social media platforms untouched.
Meta’s LD-2 filings with the Senate explicitly list H.R. 3149/S. 1586, the App Store Accountability Act, as a lobbied bill. The filing narrative includes “protecting children, bullying prevention and online safety; youth safety and federal parental approval; youth restrictions on social media.” In the same filing, Meta also lobbies on KOSA and COPPA 2.0, which would regulate Meta directly. Meta supports the bill that burdens its competitors and lobbies to weaken the bills that burden itself. Both positions appear in the same quarterly disclosure.
The privacy questions
I’ve tried to present findings here, not conclusions. But from a privacy standpoint:
Why does the company that profits from collecting user data draft legislation requiring every operating system to collect age data and broadcast it to every installed application via a system-level API?
Why do these bills mandate commercial age verification vendors (Yoti, Veriff, Jumio) whose business model is collecting biometric data, while the EU’s equivalent uses open-source zero-knowledge proofs that reveal nothing beyond “over 18”?
Why is there no data minimization requirement in any of these bills for the age verification data itself? AB-1043 creates a persistent age signal API. Who governs what happens to the data flowing through it?
Why does Meta fund an advocacy group with no legal existence in the IRS system to push legislation that creates new data collection infrastructure at a layer below Meta’s own products, while Meta faces zero new requirements?
Why does the company whose lobbyist drafted one of these bills write it to specifically exclude social media platforms from the age verification mandate?
If the goal is child safety, why regulate the operating system, which has no direct contact with children, instead of the social media platforms where the documented harm occurs?
What you can do
If you’re in CO, IL, or NY, these bills are still in committee. Comment on the record. System76’s CEO met with the Colorado bill’s sponsor on March 9 and the sponsor suggested excluding open-source software. The conversation is happening now.
Contact the EFF, FSF, and Software Freedom Conservancy with the specific statutory language and compliance gap numbers. They need to know these definitions cover volunteer-maintained software with no exemption.
Read the actual bill text. CA AB-1043 is searchable on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. CO SB26-051 is on leg.colorado.gov. The definitions are what matter, not the news summaries.
If you maintain software that could be classified as an “operating system provider” under these definitions, start thinking about your response now. CA AB-1043 takes effect January 1, 2027. Louisiana HB-570 takes effect July 1, 2026.
Sources (all public records)
Bill text: CA AB-1043 (Chapter 675, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov), CO SB26-051 (leg.colorado.gov), LA HB-570 Act 481 of 2025 (legis.la.gov), NY S8102A (nysenate.gov), TX SB-2420, UT SB-142 (le.utah.gov)
Federal lobbying: OpenSecrets Meta profile (opensecrets.org, client ID D000033563), Senate LDA filing UUID b73445ed-15e5-42e7-a1e8-aeb224755267
Colorado lobbying: CO Secretary of State SODA API (data.colorado.gov, datasets vp65-spyn, dxfk-9ifj, df5p-p6jt)
Louisiana lobbying: LA Board of Ethics, F Minus database (fminus.org/clients/pelican-state-partners-llc/, fminus.org/clients/meta-platforms-inc/)
California lobbying: CalAccess (cal-access.sos.ca.gov), Bloomberg Government
Super PACs: Forge the Future (texasforgefuturepac.com), Texas Ethics Commission, Illinois State Board of Elections, Politico (Feb 2, 2026), Washington Post (Mar 12, 2026)
DCA records: WHOIS/RDAP (rdap.org), Wayback Machine CDX API (100+ snapshots), IRS EO BMF (eo1-eo4.csv), OpenCorporates, ProPublica, GuideStar
NCOSE: IRS Form 990 FY2020-FY2024 including Schedule R; NCOSEAction/Institute for Public Policy (EIN 88-1180705); original NCOSE Action (EIN 86-2458921) via Schedule R history
For Good/Network for Good: forgood.org, DCA donation page source (targetable_type=Project, targetable_id=258136), For Good 990s via ProPublica (EIN 68-0480736, 59,736 recipients searched)
IRS 990 filings: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer: NVF (EIN 20-5806345), STF 2024 (sixteenthirtyfund.org), DCI (EIN 39-3684798), Windward, Hopewell, North Fund, NCOSE (EIN 13-2608326), ConnectSafely (EIN 47-3168168)
Campaign finance: CO TRACER bulk data (tracer.sos.colorado.gov), FollowTheMoney.org, FEC API (Meta PAC C00502906)
Reporting: Bloomberg (July 2025), Deseret News (Dec 2025), The Center Square, ACT | The App Association, Dome Politics, Pluribus News, Nola.com, Privacy Daily
EU framework: EUR-Lex (Digital Services Act, eIDAS 2.0 Regulation), EUDIW GitHub repository, T-Scy consortium
Technical: freedesktop.org, GNOME/KDE documentation, Meta developer docs (developer.meta.com/horizon)
Full dataset, OSINT tasklist, and all processed findings are published with sources embedded in each file: github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings
This is an ongoing investigation. Pending: Texas Ethics Commission records for Forge the Future expenditure recipients, NCOSEAction’s first 990 filing, IRS Form 8872 for ATEP, and FOIA responses from Colorado and Louisiana. If you have access to lobbying data from states I haven’t covered (IL, NY, UT, GA), I’d appreciate a heads up.
I am not claiming Meta wrote every one of these bills. Louisiana is confirmed by the sponsor; the others use a shared ICMEC template. I am not claiming there is a direct Arabella-to-DCA funding pipeline; I checked $2 billion in grants and found no evidence. I am not claiming child safety isn’t a legitimate concern. What I am documenting is: the company whose lobbyist drafted HB-570 wrote it to exclude its own platforms; the advocacy group pushing these bills nationally has no legal existence and is confirmed funded by Meta; the same consulting firm bridges Meta’s super PAC and DCA’s messaging; none of these bills exempt open-source or non-commercial software while the EU equivalent does; and the mandatory age-signal API creates persistent surveillance infrastructure at the OS level with no data minimization requirements. The records are above. Draw your own conclusions.
This section documents what happened when this investigation was posted to Reddit, and provides context on Meta’s documented history of using astroturfing, coordinated reporting, and platform manipulation to suppress unfavorable content.
What happened
The original version of this investigation was posted to r/linux, where it was mass reported and pulled down pending moderator review (150 upvotes, roughly 15k views before being pulled down some 40 minutes after being posted)
The content that was suppressed names Meta lobbying firms, traces documented payments, cites Senate LD-2 filings, and links to IRS records. It identifies Hilltop Public Solutions as the first confirmed entity bridging Meta’s $45M super PAC and the DCA astroturf campaign. This is the kind of content that a well-resourced actor would have reason to suppress.
I cannot prove the mass reports were coordinated rather than organic. That is the point of the tactic: Reddit’s infrastructure makes it impossible to distinguish genuine community objections from manufactured ones, and it rewards the behavior either way by automatically removing the content.
Meta has done this before
In March 2022, the Washington Post reported that Meta hired Targeted Victory, one of the largest Republican consulting firms in the country, to run a nationwide astroturfing campaign against TikTok. Internal emails obtained by the Post showed the campaign:
Placed op-eds and letters to the editor in regional news outlets across the country, none of which disclosed the connection to Meta or Targeted Victory
Promoted stories about dangerous TikTok “trends” that had actually originated on Facebook
Pushed local politicians and political reporters to frame TikTok as a threat to children
In an internal email, a campaign director wrote that the “dream would be to get stories with headlines like ‘From dances to danger: how TikTok has become the most harmful social media space for kids’”
Meta’s spokesman defended the campaign by saying “all platforms should face a level of scrutiny consistent with their growing success.” Meta did not deny hiring the firm or directing the campaign. The story was confirmed by the Washington Post, Fortune, Variety, CBS News, Engadget, Tortoise Media, the Boston Globe, and Techdirt, among others.
This is not speculation about what Meta might do. This is what Meta has been publicly documented doing: hiring firms to plant stories, manufacture public concern about competitors using child safety as the framing, and conceal the corporate origin of the messaging. The Targeted Victory campaign and the DCA campaign use the same playbook: fund an outside entity to push messaging that serves Meta’s commercial interests while hiding Meta’s involvement.
Reddit’s bot and astroturfing problem is structural
Research published in Nature (Scientific Reports) documented coordinated political astroturfing patterns across platforms including Reddit. A separate study found that at least 15% of content in surveyed subreddits was posted by corporate trolls or bot accounts designed to manipulate public opinion.
Since June 2025, bot networks have been systematically exploiting Reddit and Meta’s own moderation systems through mass reporting. Thousands of legitimate Facebook groups were deleted after coordinated bot reports triggered automated enforcement. The same mass-reporting tactic works on Reddit: a small number of accounts can file reports, trigger automated removal, and flag the poster’s account for site-wide spam filtering, all without engaging with the content.
Venture-backed firms like Doublespeed now offer astroturfing-as-a-service across Reddit, TikTok, and Instagram, operating physical phone farms to bypass platform detection. The infrastructure for suppressing content through coordinated inauthentic behavior is commercially available.
What this means for this investigation
Meta spent $26.3 million on federal lobbying in 2025 and deployed 86+ lobbyists across 45 states. It funded a nationally active advocacy group (DCA) with no legal existence in the IRS system. It hired Hilltop Public Solutions to simultaneously run its $45M super PAC and coordinate DCA’s messaging. It previously hired Targeted Victory to run a covert astroturfing campaign against TikTok using child safety as the narrative frame.
This investigation documents all of that with primary sources. A post containing those findings was mass reported on Reddit within hours and suppressed site-wide by automated systems. Whether the reports were organic or coordinated, the outcome is the same: the content was removed from the platform where Meta has both the motive and the documented capability to suppress it.
The research is published in a git repository with every source embedded. It does not depend on Reddit’s infrastructure to survive.
Sources
Washington Post, “Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok” (March 30, 2022): https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/facebook-tiktok-targeted-victory/
Fortune, “Meta paid a Republican consulting firm to turn the public against TikTok” (March 31, 2022): https://fortune.com/2022/03/31/facebook-meta-paid-republican-consulting-firm-targeted-victory-turn-public-opinion-against-tiktok/
Variety, “Facebook Parent Company Defends Its PR Campaign to Portray TikTok as Threat to American Children” (March 31, 2022): https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/meta-facebook-tiktok-pr-campaign-1235218866/
Techdirt, “Facebook-Hired PR Firm Coordinated Anti-TikTok Campaign To Spread Bogus Moral Panics” (March 31, 2022): https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/31/facebook-hired-pr-firm-coordinated-anti-tiktok-campaign-to-spread-bogus-moral-panics/
Tortoise Media, “Meta ‘astroturfed’ TikTok” (April 5, 2022): https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2022/04/05/meta-astroturfed-tiktok
CBS News, “Report: Facebook Hired PR Firm To Smear TikTok”: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/report-facebook-hired-pr-firm-to-smear-tiktok/
Engadget, “Meta reportedly paid political consultants to smear TikTok”: https://www.engadget.com/meta-targeted-victory-tiktok-smear-campaign-133139892.html
Boston Globe, “Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok, internal e-mails reveal” (March 30, 2022): https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/30/business/facebook-paid-gop-firm-malign-tiktok-internal-e-mails-reveal/
Georgetown Free Speech Project, “Facebook hires GOP consulting firm to smear rival TikTok”: https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/facebook-hires-gop-consulting-firm-in-dc-area-to-smear-rival-tiktok/
Nature Scientific Reports, “Coordination patterns reveal online political astroturfing across the world” (2022): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08404-9
Medium/HR News, “Study: At Least 15% of All Reddit Content is Corporate Trolls”: https://medium.com/@hrnews1/study-at-least-15-of-all-reddit-content-is-corporate-trolls-trying-to-manipulate-public-opinion-49cb302c26a5
TechCrunch, “Facebook Group admins complain of mass bans” (June 24, 2025): https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/24/facebook-group-admins-complain-of-mass-bans-meta-says-its-fixing-the-problem/
YNet News, “Public opinion for sale: The new startup causing a storm” (Doublespeed): https://www.ynetnews.com/tech-and-digital/article/hyraenbmzx
Meta Transparency Center, “Inauthentic Behavior” policy: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/inauthentic-behavior/
The Hacker News, “Meta Disrupts Influence Ops Targeting Romania, Azerbaijan, and Taiwan” (May 2025): https://thehackernews.com/2025/05/meta-disrupts-influence-ops-targeting.html
https://tboteproject.com/globalfindings/
International Investigation
Global Age Verification Investigation: Brazil and the United Kingdom
tboteproject.com/git/hekate/globalfindings
Gathered from public sources spanning government databases, court records, corporate registries, legislative records, FARA filings, and investigative journalism.
This investigation documents how age verification legislation is coordinated across jurisdictions by overlapping advocacy networks, shaped by compromised legislators, and implemented by private verification companies with intelligence agency connections. The children are real. The exploitation is real. The protection is not what it appears to be.
470Public Sources
16Investigation Files
353Unique Source URLs
2Jurisdictions
Structural Finding
The Global Architecture
2022 was the inflection point. In a single calendar year, the European Union signed the Digital Services Act, the United Kingdom introduced the Online Safety Bill, the United States Senate received KOSA, Brazil introduced PL 2628, California signed the Age-Appropriate Design Code (copied from a UK framework), Louisiana passed the first US state age verification law, and the European Commission unveiled its Chat Control proposal. By 2026, Australia, France, Malaysia, Indonesia, Italy, and multiple US states had followed. ComplianceHub
The same organizations appear across every jurisdiction. 5Rights Foundation (Baroness Kidron) shaped legislation in the UK, EU, US/California, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, and Argentina. Oak Foundation funded 5Rights, ECPAT, SaferNet Brasil, and Fairplay/ParentsTogether across all these regions. WeProtect Global Alliance connects 100+ member governments with Thorn (CEO Julie Cordua on the board), ECPAT, and technology companies. Thorn spent $630,000 or more lobbying the European Union for Chat Control while its CEO sat on WeProtect’s board and its own technology could enforce the laws it lobbied for. EDRi Fortune
The coordination operates through a normative pipeline. Joint submissions by Instituto Alana, 5Rights, Save the Children, ECPAT, Plan International, and World Vision shaped UN CRC General Comment No. 25 (2021). That document is now cited as the legal basis for both the UK Age Appropriate Design Code and Brazil’s Digital ECA. International policy frameworks become national legislation through domestic advocacy coalitions funded by the same philanthropic networks. UN OHCHR
Global age verification legislation timeline, 2019 to 2026
Global legislation timeline diagram
Standards Capture
One Person, One Foundation
Baroness Beeban Kidron founded 5Rights Foundation in 2018. She wrote the UK Age Appropriate Design Code, which became law in 2020. A June 2024 FARA filing confirmed that 5Rights directly lobbied California legislative and executive officials, developed letters and materials for elected officials, reviewed proposed amendments, and negotiated the language of California’s AB 2273, which copied the UK code almost verbatim. 5Rights hired Nichole Rocha as Head of US Affairs. Rocha was formerly Chief Consultant to the California Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, the very committee that considered the bill. FARA Filing DC Journal
Kidron co-vice-chaired the IEEE 2089.1 standard for online age verification. The Chair of the IEEE 2089.1 certification program is Iain Corby, who simultaneously serves as Executive Director of the AVPA (Age Verification Providers Association), the trade body for companies that profit from mandatory verification. Yoti, which Meta pays for Instagram age verification, is certified under this standard. The person who writes the legislation co-chairs the standard. The industry trade body chairs the certification. The companies that pay trade body dues sell compliance solutions for the legislation. IEEE 2089.1 ACCS Certification
5Rights then spent three years campaigning with Instituto Alana and Human Rights Watch to pass Brazil’s Digital ECA. Kidron resigned from 5Rights’ board on 28 July 2025, nine days before the Felca video that fast-tracked the Brazilian legislation she campaigned for. The former UK Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, who oversaw the Age Appropriate Design Code’s implementation at the ICO, joined 5Rights as a director in January 2022. Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, sat on the board of the organization whose policy framework creates the market for surveillance companies. She resigned 30 June 2025. Companies House
Kidron and 5Rights standards capture pipeline
Standards capture pipeline diagram
Cross-Border Funding
The Funding Pipeline
Pierre Omidyar’s philanthropic network connects both the US and Brazilian advocacy pipelines. Luminate (spun off from Omidyar Network in 2018) funded Data Privacy Brasil with $500,000. Imaginable Futures (spun off in 2019) partners with Instituto Alana. Omidyar Network funds Common Sense Media, the primary US organization behind KOSA. The same philanthropic network funds the Brazilian pipeline and the American pipeline in parallel. Luminate Imaginable Futures
The Itau banking dynasty is the central Brazilian node. Ana Lucia Villela, an Itau board member with a net worth of approximately $1.5 billion, founded Instituto Alana and the Alana Foundation USA ($8.15 million in grants in 2022). Jose Luiz Setubal, a separate Itau heir, founded Fundacao JLES, which directly funds the Coalizao Brasileira pelo Fim da Violencia contra Criancas e Adolescentes. Two branches of one banking family fund different nodes of the same advocacy network. The coalition’s membership grew from 40 organizations to 77, with growth coinciding with the PL 2628 advocacy push. ProPublica/IRS 990 FJLES
Oak Foundation (Swiss) funded the “Disrupting Harm” project ($15 million) with INTERPOL, ECPAT, and UNICEF across 25 countries. Oak funds 5Rights Foundation, SaferNet Brasil, and Fairplay/ParentsTogether. Its president, Douglas Griffiths, sits on WeProtect’s board. A funder sits on the policy board of the grantee organization. Oak Foundation
Cross-border funding flows connecting advocacy networks
Entity network map diagram
Brazil
Brazil: The Digital ECA
Lei 15.211/2025, known as the Digital ECA, took effect on 17 March 2026. Article 12 explicitly covers “provedores de sistemas operacionais de terminais” (providers of terminal operating systems). Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, ChromeOS, SteamOS, and Linux distributions must implement age verification and provide age signals to applications via a secure API with privacy-by-design protections. Platforms must also implement their own verification independently, creating a layered architecture: OS verifies, app store verifies, each app verifies. Full Law Text
The impact on open-source software is visible. Linux distributions including Arch 32, Bazzite, CachyOS, and MidnightBSD have begun geoblocking Brazilian IP addresses because 95% of Linux distributions are maintained by volunteer communities without legal representation (CNPJ) in Brazil and cannot practically implement age verification. A protest distribution called “Ageless Linux” launched as an intentionally non-compliant distro. Proton VPN reported a 250% increase in Brazilian signups between 16 and 17 March 2026. Linuxiac Cybernews
The law contains privacy principles (LGPD references, data minimization, privacy by design) but no enforceable security requirements. No specific technical requirements exist for how verification data must be stored, encrypted, transmitted, or deleted. No mandatory data retention limits appear in the law. No independent security audits of verification providers are required. All technical specifics are deferred to ANPD regulation not finalized until August 2026, with enforcement beginning January 2027. NYU Stern called the absence of protections for end-to-end encrypted services “the statute’s most significant weakness.” NYU Stern
Legislative Capture
Brazil: Corrupted Legislature
Deputy Jadyel Alencar (Republicanos-PI) was designated rapporteur of PL 2628/2022 in April 2025 by his own party colleague, the CCOM president. Alencar has a criminal conviction for receiving stolen medical supplies, confirmed by the TRF1 with a sentence of 3 years and 6 months. He is a criminal defendant in an active MPF case for COVID supply fraud, where his company Dimensao Distribuidora raised mask prices from R$11 to R$189 during the pandemic and the Federal Police tracked R$48 million in suspected money laundering. He declared R$107.5 million in personal assets but had a court-ordered 90-day prison sentence for failing to pay R$6,306.48 in child support for his two minor children. He has 93 judicial processes on record. Portal AZ MPF
Meta’s lobbyist Marconi Machado ghost-authored two amendments filed under Deputy Fernando Maximo’s name. EMC 18/2025 eliminated the obligation for platforms to publish content moderation reports. EMC 19/2025 removed fines and criminal sanctions. The authorship was discovered through document metadata. Meta confirmed the substance while framing it as routine. Maximo is separately under Federal Police investigation for R$3.2 million in COVID ambulance fraud with R$30 million in suspicious bank movements through a shell company. He has no background in technology policy. Intercept Brasil
Every deputy Meta was documented contacting on PL 2628 voting day is under criminal investigation or has been convicted. Gustavo Gayer (PL-GO) was indicted by the Federal Police for embezzlement and criminal association; his group listed a baby as a board member of a fake charity, and R$70,000 in cash was seized at an aide’s home. Sostenes Cavalcante (PL-RJ) had R$469,700 in cash seized in Operation Galho Fraco; he later produced a property sale deed dated eleven days after the police seizure. Gilvan da Federal (PL-ES) has 10 judicial processes and a conviction for gender-based political violence. CNN Brasil CNN Brasil
Rapporteur Alencar removed the “dever de cuidado” (duty of care) from PL 2628, the bill’s most significant structural obligation. His substitute text was entered into the system 47 seconds before the Chamber president initiated the order of the day. Rafael Zanatta of Data Privacy Brasil assessed that the change “freed Big Tech from active responsibility.” Meta and Google had both filed technical notes opposing duty of care. The Conselho Digital filed a collective note in March 2024. Data Privacy Brasil
Criminal records of deputies Meta contacted on voting day
Jadyel Alencar financial and criminal profile
Manufactured Disinformation
The Bible Document
Meta produced a document listing biblical passages (Colossians 3:18, Timothy 2:12, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Ephesians 5:22-23, Leviticus 20:13) that would allegedly be censored under PL 2630, the Fake News Bill. Three internal Meta sources confirmed this to Agencia Publica. The document was delivered on paper “to leave no traces.” Coletivo Bereia, a Brazilian digital verification collective, classified the document’s claims as false. No provision of PL 2630 would have censored Bible passages. Agencia Publica Coletivo Bereia
Camara Brasileira da Economia Digital (camara-e.net), whose members include Meta, Google, and TikTok, publicly claimed authorship after the document became public. The discrepancy is consistent with content laundering: Meta produces the material, the trade association claims authorship for distance. Deputy Eli Borges (PL-TO), then leader of the Evangelical Parliamentary Front, mobilized the entire caucus after receiving this document. PL 2630 was removed from the agenda on 2 May 2023 as a direct result. Nucleo
Kaliana Kalache, Meta’s Director of Public Policy for the Legislative Branch, reportedly played the key coordinating role in securing Evangelical Caucus support. She was promoted to Director in early 2024, reportedly in recognition of her success in killing PL 2630. The Evangelical Caucus had oriented 95% of its members to vote against PL 2630, but did not take the same oppositional stance on PL 2628, the child protection bill. The implicit arrangement: the caucus supported the child protection bill after the duty of care provision was removed. Agencia Publica
Institutional Capture
The Revolving Door
Dario Durigan served as Director of Public Policies at WhatsApp (Meta) from 2020 to 2023. He became Executive Secretary of the Ministry of Finance in June 2023. On 19 March 2026, five days before this research was compiled, President Lula named him Minister of Finance. The Finance Ministry oversees SECOM advertising budgets, tax policy affecting technology companies, and the SPA (Secretaria de Premios e Apostas) that signed a cooperation agreement with the Conselho Digital. A former Meta executive now controls all of this. O Tempo
SECOM spent R$35.8 million on Meta platforms in 2025 (R$129.6 million total internet advertising, a record). Meta has the largest government relations team of any tech company in Brazil: 19 professionals. Two-thirds previously worked in government. Yana Dumaresq served as Deputy Minister of Economy (2019-2021) before joining Meta. Murillo Laranjeira and Google’s Marcelo Lacerda both came from Patri, the same Brasilia lobbying firm. Tais Niffinegger moved from Anatel (telecom regulator) and the General Secretariat of the Presidency to Meta. About half of all Big Tech government relations hires in Brazil happened between 2021 and 2023, a preemptive staffing surge as regulation accelerated. Agencia Publica
Conselho Digital do Brasil (CNPJ 35.808.843/0001-01) has R$0 declared capital and a single registered officer, Felipe Melo Franca. Its corporate members include Google, Meta, Amazon, TikTok, Discord, Uber, Kwai, and Hotmart. No public financial statements exist. The entity received the Chamber of Deputies’ Medal of Legislative Merit. Franca co-founded Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL) in 2013 as a Students for Liberty front, moved from Congressional staffer to Frente Parlamentar Digital executive secretary to Conselho Digital president. An entity funded by companies with a combined market cap exceeding $5 trillion operates with zero public financial transparency. Brazil has no lobbying disclosure law. Nucleo
Meta revolving door to Brazilian government
Brazil revolving door diagram
Brazilian government SECOM advertising spend on Meta platforms
Conselho Digital corporate registry showing zero capital
Surveillance Infrastructure
The Verification Companies
Persona, an American company backed by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund ($150 million Series C, $200 million Series D), partnered with Serpro since September 2022 for biometric ID verification against Brazilian government databases. A February 2026 exposure revealed the company runs 269 distinct surveillance checks per user under internal codenames “Project SHADOW” and “Project LEGION.” Checks include facial recognition against watchlists and politically exposed persons, “adverse media” screening across 14 categories including terrorism and espionage, built-in filing to FinCEN (US Treasury) and FINTRAC (Canada), and 3-year data retention of IP addresses, device fingerprints, government IDs, faces, and selfie analytics. Discord tested then dropped Persona after its front-end code was found on a US government-authorized endpoint. The Persona-Serpro partnership remains active. ANPD has not opened any investigation into Persona. CyberNews PR Newswire
AU10TIX Technologies B.V. is a subsidiary of ICTS International, established in 1982 by former Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security agency) members. Its founder Ron Atzmon served in Shin Bet. Confirmed Unit 8200 veterans are on staff. Major clients include X, TikTok, Uber, PayPal, LinkedIn, Coinbase, and Google. In 2024, admin credentials compromised by malware in December 2022 appeared on a public Telegram channel and were still working when security researchers checked in June 2024: an 18-month-plus exposure of identity documents, names, dates of birth, and nationalities. Only Upwork switched providers after the breach. State of Surveillance Malwarebytes
Yoti (UK) is already partnered with Serpro and shares users’ CPF numbers with Serpro to verify age. Serpro retains the CPF number for 5 years as a billing record. Yoti’s revenue grew 62% in 2025 to GBP 29 million, reaching profitability. The Instagram partnership is a significant revenue driver. Yoti is certified under IEEE 2089.1, the standard Kidron co-vice-chaired. The money flows from the law Kidron wrote, through the standard she co-chairs, to the company certified under that standard, paid by the largest social media company in the world. Biometric Update
Data Flows
Where Your Data Goes
Serpro (Servico Federal de Processamento de Dados) processes 33 billion transactions annually and manages 30.4 petabytes of data. Its Datavalid API validates CPF data and performs facial recognition against 85 million CNH (driver’s license) database images. Serpro retains query logs showing which company queried which CPF and when. When the Digital ECA drives mass age verification queries, Serpro will hold a comprehensive map of which citizens use which platforms. The ANPD found that Datavalid operates without full LGPD legal basis (Technical Note 39/2021). The MPDFT filed a representation with TCU in 2019 alleging Datavalid illegally uses CNH biometric data without consent. That case remains pending after six years. Capital Digital
ABIN (Brazil’s intelligence agency) requested full access to 76 million citizens’ driver data through Serpro in 2020. The government revoked the authorization only after Intercept Brasil published the leaked documents. The Federal Highway Police (PRF) purchased an off-the-books copy of the entire 80-million-person biometric database for R$205,722.80 in August 2022. The contract was never published in any transparency portal or the Official Gazette. In February 2026, a Serpro employee seconded to the Federal Revenue Service accessed the tax records of STF ministers and over 100 family members using an automated tool, directly contradicting Serpro’s official claim that employees “do not have access to the content of client agencies’ databases.” Intercept Brasil Intercept Brasil
Serpro’s “Nuvem de Governo” (Government Cloud) uses AWS Outpost and Google Distributed Cloud hardware installed inside Serpro data centers. Sean Roche, the AWS executive who arranged the partnership with Brazil’s GSI, previously served as vice-director of the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology (2015-2019). The US CLOUD Act allows the US government to compel any company with American jurisdictional nexus to produce data stored anywhere in the world. Brazilian government data on AWS Outpost inside a Serpro data center may still be reachable by US court orders. Total Brazilian government spending on big tech: R$10 billion in one year. Capital Digital Conjur
Serpro data access by intelligence agencies and police
Brazil data flow diagram
United Kingdom
The UK: VPN Bans and Device Scanning
On 21 January 2026, the House of Lords voted 207 to 159 to pass Amendment 92 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The amendment, tabled by Lord Nash (Conservative venture capitalist, former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools), requires VPN providers to prevent anyone under 18 in the UK from using their services within 12 months. All VPN providers serving the UK market must implement “highly effective” age assurance for all users. Amendment 93 required “tamper-proof system software” on all smartphones and tablets that scans for CSAM. Lord Nash withdrew this amendment after discussions with ministers, but it remains a live proposal. Amendment 94A, a social media ban for under-16s, passed 261 to 150. Lords Division Amendment 92
The device scanning provision goes further than the system Apple abandoned. Apple planned to scan only images uploaded to iCloud. The UK amendment covers recording, transmitting by any means including livestreaming, and viewing: active real-time scanning of what a user sees on their device. Germany’s 2024 CSAM scanning data showed a 48.3% false positive rate. Signal President Meredith Whittaker stated Signal “would absolutely, 100% walk” from the UK rather than implement scanning. WhatsApp head Will Cathcart threatened to pull the app. Signal
On 9 March 2026, the House of Commons rejected the VPN amendment (307 to 173) and the social media ban. But the government passed “amendments in lieu” granting the Secretary of State broad discretionary powers to restrict or ban children’s access to social media, limit access to harmful features, age-restrict VPN use, and change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR. Open Rights Group titled their response “MPs give ministers powers to restrict entire Internet.” Their analysis warned this is potentially more dangerous than the original Nash amendments because it grants open-ended regulatory authority without requiring parliamentary debate for each restriction. The bill returned to the Lords on 25 March 2026. Open Rights Group
After the Online Safety Act age verification requirements took effect on 25 July 2025, UK VPN signups surged 1,400%. Proton VPN surpassed ChatGPT as the most downloaded free app on Apple’s UK App Store. A petition demanding repeal of the Online Safety Act gathered over 550,000 signatures. France’s Digital Affairs Minister declared “VPNs are next on my list.” Michigan proposed ISP-level blocking of VPNs and proxy servers, with fines up to $500,000 for non-compliant ISPs. CyberInsider TechRadar
Financial Infrastructure
The Financial Layer
Barclays holds approximately GBP 1.6 billion (roughly $2 billion) in Palantir shares. Palantir was given a trial contract with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to process the FCA’s “data lake” of regulatory intelligence, including case files, fraud reports, and money laundering reports. The FCA regulates Barclays. A bank holds $2 billion in shares of the company now processing its own regulator’s data. The Nerve The Register
Peter Thiel is the connective tissue. He co-founded Palantir (in which Barclays holds $2 billion). His Founders Fund backs Persona (the verification company running 269 surveillance checks through Project SHADOW and Project LEGION). He sat on Facebook/Meta’s board from 2005 to February 2022, selling approximately $1 billion in shares from his original $500,000 investment. Persona joined Meta’s OpenAge initiative in January 2026 alongside Incode and Veratad. The Thiel-backed company caught running surveillance checks is now part of Meta’s age verification infrastructure, with a direct partnership to Serpro (Brazil’s government biometric database). CNBC
Barclays participates in OneID open banking age verification (OneID is an AVPA member). Barclays invested in Evernym ($8 million pre-Series A via Barclays Ventures) for self-sovereign identity. Barclays was a GOV.UK Verify identity provider. Barclays is a founding member of Stop Scams UK, sharing real-time intelligence with Meta, Google, and Amazon. Barclays was a joint bookrunner on Meta’s first bond offering ($10 billion, August 2022). The Itau banking dynasty in Brazil funds both sides of the advocacy pipeline. Serpro recently partnered with the London Stock Exchange Group for anti-money-laundering verification, connecting the Brazilian and UK financial identity ecosystems. AVPA/OneID Ledger Insights
Barclays, Palantir, and Meta financial connections
Institutional Contradiction
UNICEF: The Contradiction
UNICEF hosts the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children and its Fund, which has raised over $83 million since 2016. UNICEF is not a partner. It is the institutional host. The UNICEF Executive Director chairs the board by design. The Safe Online window holds a $100 million portfolio across 106 projects. The Tech Coalition (Google, Meta, Microsoft) contributed $2.5 million through a joint research fund. UNICEF administers all of these as hosted trust funds. End Violence Fund
UNICEF Brazil explicitly called for “urgent approval” of PL 2628/2022. UNICEF runs a joint program with Itau Social, the social arm of the banking family that controls Instituto Alana, the NGO that submitted technical notes on the same bill. Ana Lucia Villela sits on the Itau Social Guidance Council. The same organization that lobbied for the law is embedded with the banking dynasty that funded the advocacy coalition for the law. UNICEF Brazil
UNICEF’s own December 2025 policy note states that “age estimation measures using biometric data pose an unacceptable risk and should not be used.” The same organization that lobbied for PL 2628 warns against the verification methods the law requires. UNICEF’s D-CRIA Toolbox is embedded in WeProtect’s 2025 Global Threat Assessment as the recommended compliance framework, while UNICEF’s Director of Child Protection (Sheema Sen Gupta) sits on WeProtect’s board. The organization on the policy board is the same organization whose tool is mandated. UNICEF Policy Note
Double Game
Meta: Playing Both Sides
In the February 2026 Zuckerberg trial (New Mexico v. Meta), internal documents revealed: a 2018 document stating “if we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens”; a 2020 review showing 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep returning to Facebook than older users; approximately 4 million children under 13 using the platform in the US; 216 million users whose age was “unknown”; and Zuckerberg overruling safety teams who found appearance-enhancing filters contributed to body-image issues. Nick Clegg described the platform’s age restrictions as “practically impossible to enforce” in an internal email. CNN TIME
Meta spent $26.3 million on US federal lobbying in 2025 with 63 federal lobbyists. Meta simultaneously funds the Tech Coalition (which contributed $2.5 million to the End Violence Safe Online Fund supporting SaferNet Brasil, which advocated for PL 2628) and NetChoice (whose revenues surged from $3 million to $34 million since 2020), which filed the lawsuit blocking the California AADC. Accountable Tech’s report “The Two Faces of Big Tech” documents how Meta funds child safety advocacy through the Tech Coalition while funding NetChoice’s legal challenges against the same protections in at least 27 states. CNBC described this as “regulatory capture disguised as compromise”: platforms accept a verification requirement they can easily meet while it burdens smaller competitors disproportionately. OpenSecrets CNBC
Meta also covertly funded the Digital Childhood Alliance (DCA), an astroturf group with no EIN or incorporation records, to push the App Store Accountability Act that shifts the compliance burden from social media platforms to operating system manufacturers. Meta funds ICMEC ($25,000+ major donor), which writes model legislation for device-level verification. Both models protect social media platforms. In Brazil, Meta ghost-authored amendments through a deputy with no technology background, manufactured a fake document about Bible censorship to mobilize the Evangelical Caucus, and placed a former executive as Finance Minister. Meta operates at every level simultaneously: funding the advocacy, shaping the legislation, selling the verification, and capturing the regulators. Accountable Tech
Architecture
The Pattern
The investigation reveals a consistent architecture across jurisdictions. First, one person (Baroness Kidron) and her foundation write the policy framework, the legislation, and co-chair the technical standard. The AVPA Executive Director chairs the certification program. AVPA members sell compliance solutions. The organization that defines “compliant” is the same network lobbying to make compliance mandatory. Second, UNICEF hosts the fund ($83 million+), chairs the partnership board, administers the money, provides the compliance framework, and lobbies for national implementation, while its own policy says biometric age estimation poses “an unacceptable risk.”
Third, national advocacy coalitions, funded by the same philanthropic networks (Omidyar, Oak, Ford, Open Society) and domestic banking dynasties (Itau/Setubal in Brazil), translate international frameworks into national legislation. Fourth, big tech companies publicly “oppose” the legislation while privately shaping it through ghost-authored amendments, revolving-door lobbyists, manufactured disinformation, and compromised decision-makers. Fifth, the legislation creates a mandatory market for private identity verification companies backed by surveillance-capital investors or founded by intelligence veterans.
Sixth, the verification infrastructure funnels through government data brokers (Serpro in Brazil) that retain query logs, have documented intelligence agency access, and sit on foreign cloud infrastructure subject to the CLOUD Act. Seventh, financial institutions and banking dynasties provide the capital layer connecting surveillance, regulation, and implementation. Eighth, no transparency mechanism captures any of these flows. Brazil has no lobbying law. Conselho Digital publishes no financial statements. Serpro’s Datavalid operates without full LGPD legal basis. The TCU case challenging Datavalid has been pending for six years. The IEEE 2089.1 working group membership list is restricted. The result is a surveillance infrastructure built under the banner of child protection, shaped by overlapping networks, and accountable to nobody.
Scope
What Is Not Being Claimed
This investigation does not claim that child exploitation is not real. It is. This investigation does not claim that the people involved have evil intentions. Many of them sincerely believe they are protecting children.
What the investigation documents, using 470 public sources, is that the system being built to protect children also functions as a mass surveillance infrastructure, that the people building it have financial and political conflicts of interest, and that no democratic process in any affected country has considered these connections because no one had mapped them before.
The children are real. The exploitation is real. The protection is not what it appears to be.
Independent Verification
Verify It Yourself
Every claim in this investigation can be independently verified using public records. The commands below retrieve primary source documents directly. No trust required.
FARA Filing: 5Rights lobbied California legislatorsCopy
# Download the FARA short-form filing and verify hash $ curl -sL "https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7427-Short-Form-20240627-4.pdf" \ -o 5rights-fara-filing.pdf $ sha256sum 5rights-fara-filing.pdf # Verify contents: lobbying CA legislative/executive officials for AB 2273UNICEF policy note: biometric age estimation “unacceptable risk”Copy
# Download UNICEF policy note on age restrictions $ curl -sL "https://www.unicef.org/documents/policy-note-drawing-line-digital-spaces" \ -o unicef-policy-note.html # Search for the biometric risk statement $ grep -i "unacceptable risk" unicef-policy-note.htmlBrazil CNPJ: Conselho Digital zero capital entityCopy
# Query the Brazilian CNPJ registry for Conselho Digital $ curl -s "https://casadosdados.com.br/solucao/cnpj/conselho-digital-do-brasil-35808843000101" | \ python3 -c " import sys, re html = sys.stdin.read() # Look for capital social = R$ 0,00 if 'R$ 0,00' in html or 'capital_social' in html: print('Confirmed: R\$0.00 declared capital') " # Alternative: cnpj.biz/35808843000101UK Parliament: Amendment 92 (VPN ban) vote recordCopy
# Retrieve Lords Division 3503 via Parliament API $ curl -s "https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3503" | \ python3 -c " import sys html = sys.stdin.read() if '207' in html and '159' in html: print('Confirmed: Division 3503 passed 207-159') " # Full amendment text: $ curl -sL "https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/20215/amendments/10027478"5Rights Foundation: Companies House officersCopy
# Query Companies House for 5Rights Foundation (company 11271356) $ curl -s "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11271356/officers" | \ python3 -c " import sys, re html = sys.stdin.read() # Check for Kidron resignation date and Denham appointment for name in ['KIDRON', 'DENHAM', 'ZUBOFF']: if name in html.upper(): print(f'Found: {name}') " # Verify: Kidron resigned 28 Jul 2025, Denham joined 1 Jan 2022Persona-Serpro partnership: still activeCopy
# Verify Persona-Serpro partnership announcement (September 2022) $ curl -sL "https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/persona-partners-with-serpro-to-combat-identity-fraud-in-brazil-301628227.html" | \ grep -i "serpro" | head -5 # Check if Persona API docs for Serpro are still live $ curl -sI "https://docs.withpersona.com/reference/retrieve-a-serpro-database-verification" | \ grep -i "HTTP" # HTTP/2 200 confirms the endpoint is active
More documentations that may prove that privacy-intrusive age verification law nonsenses are Russian plots after all.
https://www.heritage.org/big-tech/report/age-verification-what-it-why-its-necessary-and-how-achieve-it
https://hrf.org/latest/how-viktor-orban-conquered-the-heritage-foundation/
https://kettering.org/the-global-dimensions-of-project-2025-a-foreign-policy-for-authoritarianism/
Criminals will still theoretically able to circumvent these kind of laws, for example by hiring others to link their IDs to their accounts. In Wikipedia, there’s a corrupt admin who, despite having his real identity linked to his admin account in some ways, was able to almost groom Bryan Dunsheng See aka Starkiller88 in Malaysia, who made a lot of delulu comments about Phobos Grunt a long time ago, to come to his country in order to abuse him. Speaking of Malaysia, these laws will certainly silence anyone who wants to expose the next 1MDB and GISB scandals.
Long COVID patients like me probably won’t suffer a lot if DRACO is funded and developed.
Instead of stifling people’s digital rights governments should team up and build something like this in space one day. The concept of digital legacies and the right to be remembered should be a mainstream thing after all just like the right to privacy. If I die because of Long COVID complications I want my accounts, especially my email and social media accounts, to be archived or memorialized for good.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90549441/how-to-prevent-deepfakes
https://fletcherforum.org/home/7/10/posthumous-data-rights
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/pepplr40&i=193
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/right-to-be-forgotten-most-trying-remembered
Besides, I’ve learned a terrible truth last year from various sources,
perhaps in the wake of the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington D.C. which happened in November that year,
that ex-CIA officers are warning that hyenas from al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban and other terrorist groups
are plotting to launch a terrorist attack campaign, against America and perhaps other countries,
which will exceed 9/11 in scale and contain elements from Battle of Fallujah, Bojinka Plot, Mumbai attacks, October 7th attacks by Hamas against Israel and the Paris attacks in 2015.
The IRGC hyenas reportedly may be involved in the plots in some ways!
More details are available in the following links and a video.● https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-national-counterterrorism-c…
● https://commandeleven.com/briefing-papers/us-hospital-threat-assessment-…
● https://x.com/TPASarah/status/1985439317402046679
● https://x.com/apexguardhq/status/1994507289948991856
● https://x.com/TransatlanticIC/status/2005735323092017384
● https://x.com/TPASarah/status/1994411404078575629
● https://x.com/cyberpionier/status/1996010845344518317
By the way, here’s a peace proposal with regards to the war in Ukraine,
which is so far not yet taken up for consideration yet.First, Ukraine hold a referenda to ask all of people whether to hand over the three occupied territories to a United Nations administrative entity.
If the referenda is successful, then a United Nations peacekeeping force, consisting of Switzerland, and any other two nations that all sides could approve with, will enter the territories for garrisoning.
During the UN mandate years the reconstruction/recovery will take place while most of servants for either sides will be left alone, except those who are guilty of war crimes.
The mandate period may take around 5 years, afterwards the 3 territories will be subjected to referendums, heavily monitored by UN, OSCE and Swiss monitors.
The selections on the second referenda will be:
● Remain in Ukraine, without devolving any power to the said region(s)Remain in Ukraine, while devolving certain powers to the concerning region(s), like Scotland.
● Become Independent.
● Join Russia.
In the event that those regions become independent states, they should remain neutral like Switzerland and not subjected to any external interference, especially Russia.
On a grander scale, some sort of Intermarium can be hitched between NATO and Russia.
The member states of the Intermarium can join economic alliances like EU or “Eurasian Union” but their military must remain independent from both NATO and Russia.The Intermarium could act as a “peace through strength” buffer between the two.
The so-called Intermarium, which was based on the original Polish idea, could include the following:● Ukraine (should it remain united after the twin referenda above, or in case all of the three territories join Russia)
● Armenia
● Georgia
● Moldova
● Donetsk (if it became independent after the referendums above)
● Lugansk (if it became independent after the referendums above)
● Crimea (if it became independent after the referendums above)
May the force be with you, always.
We are Anonymous!
We are Legion!
We do not forgive!
We do not forget!
Expect us!
P.S. Fuck Bitnuk AG for scamming my $40 inbound transaction.
Последние комментарии