The following was a letter submitted by an anonymous Pirate supporter using the pseudonym “Forward Thoughts”, sharing critiques of the gap between the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and how they are often undermined in practice. This article is apart of the project “Message in a Bottle”, allowing supporters of the US Pirate Party to submit editorial articles to the United States Pirate Party website.

Not many people are educated on this matter, but there’s a difference between rights and freedoms. Rights are legal protection of entitlements in regards to ethical, social, or legal principles bestowed to a populace. Freedoms are the capability to believe, act, or think without inordinate deprivation focusing on freewill and autonomy.

Let’s talk about our good old rights. Made in your township, county, state, and in the case of our constitutional amends Washington D.C. Constitutional amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, are an example of rights you have.

Back in 1789 the US Constitution was conjured up to succeed the precursor to the Bill of Rights, which was called the Articles of Confederation. Difference between the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution was made for all states to abide by within the Union, emphasising on a sturdy centralized government while the Articles of Confederation was to confer autonomy to the states with an emphasis of there being amicable relations between the states.

Here in the USA we have constitutional amendments that are supposed to protect us against a tyrannical government. These rights include, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, fair trial, privacy, and right to bear arms (firearms).

Before America gained its independence from the British crown while under its colonial rule, our founding fathers included a statement in the Declaration of Independence that said “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Here’s something to think about: if these truths are self-evident, why do we need it written on a piece of paper by lawmakers in an ever ideological-shifting Congress subject to interpretation by Judges who again, shift from one ideology to another when they get impeached, pass away while in office, or retire?

Right to a fair and impartial trial is granted under the 6th amendment. Moreover, it entitles you the right to a speedy and jury trial.

Just because you have the right to a fair trial doesn’t mean you have the liberty to a fair trial. In other words, your rights are enshrined into law on a piece of paper in theory but not in practice.

For instance, 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp said the police can lie to you in an interrogation. That’s right, deception is not grounds for nullification of evidence in a criminal trial.

1986 U.S. Supreme Court case Lockhart v. McCree excludes objectors to the death penalty on juries in capital punishment cases.

1965 U.S. Supreme Court case Singer v. United States mandated jury trials in federal court unless given permission for a bench trial by the government.

2021 U.S. Supreme Court case Jones v. Mississippi rendered a finding of “permanent incorrigibility” in cases of sentencing minors to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole unnecessary.

1991 U.S. Supreme Court case Harmelin v. Michigan clarified that mandatory minimum sentences, even when excluding extenuating circumstances, don’t violate the 8th amendment.

1984 Pulley v. Harris determined courts aren’t required to compare death penalty eligible cases to that of other similar cases before meting out capital punishment to defendants.

Jurors in jury trials are mentally subjected to a litany of social, racial, ethnic, and mental biases clouding their judgement to deliver an impartial decision on deciding if a defendant or defendants are guilty or not guilty.

Anyone who understands the legal system knows it’s customary, a rite of passage if you will, to know about everyone’s Miranda rights stemming from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona case that ruled evidence obtained, i.e. statements, without advising suspects of their rights cannot be used against them at a criminal trial.

Why would you need to be protected against self-incrimination? Surely it’s to prevent the government from coercing a confession out of the accused.

It’s not just made for that, it also stands in as a consolation for police officers who are trained in interrogation using what’s called the “Reid technique” ensuring the defendant makes a false confession.

Not only is that used as a statement of admittance at trial, the defendant may also get charged with perjury.

Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine if a cop uses deceptive tactics on a suspect on the street and/or the interrogation room they won’t lie on the witness stand during proceedings of a trial?

Prosecutors have unfettered powers for what charges can be brought up against a defendant, even if the charges don’t make sense to be brought up on to a defendant to begin with. A legal precedent in the court system.

Moreover, they’re allocated a well-endowed budget. More so than the defendant, thus tilting the legal playing field in their favor for the so-called “public” to win.

Lastly, prosecutors use this morally (though not legally) coercive strategy where they’ll overcharge a defendant on crimes in order for them to plead guilty to fewer and/or lesser criminal charges.

Judges tend to be vindictive. It’s not supposed to be this way, yet it is.

What I mean by vindictive is if you don’t plead guilty to a crime, you’re most likely gonna be “made an example out of” and sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by statute.

In some cases, even flat-out pleading guilty can make Judges sentence you out of spite with zero consideration for severity of the crime or focus on rehabilitation, simply because no one can stop them from acting on feelings of lawfully despotism.

Cruel and usual punishment is protected under the 8th amendment. Ever wonder why we have the death penalty legal in the federal justice system and in some states across the USA?

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, four years later in 1976 we saw it reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia.

What amendment was this decided under you may ask? The one protecting us against cruel and unusual punishment.

Compare this to other developed nations around the world, you’ll see they don’t have the death penalty, thus highlighting capital punishment as unusual.

1987 U.S. Supreme Court case Singer v. United States found capital punishment is fair game even if the defendant didn’t intend to cause a death in a felony murder case.

1987 U.S. Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp disregards racial statistics on capital punishments.

2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Ewing v. California paved the way for the Golden State’s draconian 3-strikes law.

2006 U.S. Supreme Court case Oregon v. Guzek disregarded permitting defendants from submitting innocent-based evidence during a sentencing phase of trial.

2019 U.S. Supreme Court case Madison v. Alabama greenlights executions of those who didn’t remember committing a murder, i.e. dementia.

Protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, as well as protecting your right to have due process in the legal system, is protected under the 5th amendment.

In a sense, you’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Due process is futile when you have a bail system permitting courts to charge defendants bail to be released back into the community well before they’ve even been convicted of a crime of the nature brought forth against them by the state while awaiting their sentence.

Get this: courts have held that police can force you to unlock your cellphone if it has biometric (fingerprint and face scan) security.

2011 U.S. Supreme Court case Bobby v. Dixon contradicts Miranda v. Arizona in the way that police don’t have to tell you of your rights when you’re not in police custody.

2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins spat in the face of Miranda v. Arizona by taking away your right to be silent.

What I’m trying to say is you need to explicitly verbalize your right to remain silent to invoke your right to remain silent.

When your partner chooses not to answer you about whether or not they want to have sex with you, that’s not consent towards intercourse. At that point it’d be sexual assault.

The 2nd amendment explicitly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Meanwhile, people who use recreational drugs of any kind are statutorily prohibited by federal law from owning a firearm.

Granted, there’s been a federal case recently ruling in favor of a defendant charged with gun ownership while simultaneously being a user of marijuana and overturning their conviction at the time of this article being published.

To add insult to injury, any felonies on your record regardless if non-violent or violent is an automatic disqualifier from owning a gun.

If Uncle Sam wasn’t bad enough with unlawfully regulating firearms you should take a look at a handful of states.

California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New York are among the top 10 states for gun control in increments of high capacity bans, guns at protests prohibited, interview with local police chief for discretionary approval, fully-auto and assault weapon bans, and mandatory waiting periods for firearm purchases.

Freedom of speech in the 1st amendment is meant to protect you against unlawful curtailment of your right to say disparaging things about the government.

In addition, it gives you the right to practice any religion you see fit and to peacefully assemble (think protests).

Too bad the U.S. Supreme Court decided it didn’t retroactively apply in these cases.

1941 U.S. Supreme Court case Cox v. New Hampshire ruled that local and state governments can pass laws mandating permits for large gatherings of protests.

1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham gave way for townships and cities to deny permits to protest events if they deem it as a threat to public safety within their community.

2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Morse v. Frederick declared promoting illegal drug use was outside the protection of freedom of speech.

1988 U.S. Supreme Court Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier held that student speech in a school-sponsored newspaper can be censored by the faculty.

2025 U.S. Supreme Court case TikTok, Inc. v. Garland eroded TikTok’s ability to fall under the dominion of a foreign company under the guise of “national security”.

Imagine this: the 1st amendment doesn’t just protect people from freedom of speech, it protects unions, super PACs, and corporations.

2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC granted corporations, and super PACs (political action committees) and even unions the right to independently spend on politician and political issue-based campaigns.

Yes, you read that right! Super PACs, corporations, and unions have been recognized as being considered in the same category as people under the 1st amendment.

Right of privacy in the 4th amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizures without probable cause or a warrant.

However, you wouldn’t even think this for what I’m gonna explain to you.

1975 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce has established warrantless searches within 100 miles of the border.

1976 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Martinez-Fuerte gave border patrol the okay to set up checkpoints within the border zone to crack down on illegal immigration.

That same year, Heien v. North Carolina ruled an officer who mistakens the law when conducting a traffic stop doesn’t violate the 4th amendment.

2009 U.S. Supreme Court Herring v. United States said police can search you and your property illegally over a mistake.

2013 U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland v. King ruled that buccal swabs are permissible as if it were fingerprinting.

1990 U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz ruled that police sobriety checkpoints are legal.

1984 U.S. Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O. constructed a path for school administrators to search students on school property without a warrant.

In the exact same year, Oliver v. United States sprouted up a legal doctrine known as the “open-field doctrine” where searches done in a field not immediately surrounding a private quarters does not violate the 4th amendment.

Safford United School District v. Redding, while declaring the broad search done on a pupil who at the time was a girl was unconstitutional, school administrators were granted legal immunity from conducting illegal searches.

Slavery was abolished thanks to the passing of the 13th amendment.

Sadly, our judicial branch partially eroded this freedom via court cases.

1918 U.S. Supreme Court case Arver v. United States, otherwise known as Selective Draft Law Cases, finds the selective services, or the draft for times of war, to be a constitutional government program.

Upon thorough examination of the 13th amendment you’ll notice slavery is illegal except for instances where a victim has been subjected to incarceration.

Because that loophole was added into the final version of the amendment, prison labor is a lucrative business to corporations to have modern day slave labor produce their products at miniscule wages where they’re often sold at exorbitant prices on markets.

Your scope of freedoms are at the mercy of our 3 branches of government.

Moreover, they’re subject to scrutiny at the state level too.

Do we really need lawmakers wearing suits and ties to determine what’s good and bad for us?

If we did, could we truly rely on them to grant us liberty for us to live out an average day-to-day life not impeding on the well-being and safety of another person?

Will corruption get in the way of how judges are influenced?

Can judges not allow ideologies to interfere with just decisions?

Is there a necessity for a centralized governmental power in regards to control over how free a person becomes before it encroaches on another person’s free will?

Should we have security and insurance to protect others while depriving freedoms to others?

Here’s a quote I came up with: “Societies managed by the inhabitants with direct action have the most freedom while societies managed by the lawmakers with police have the least freedom.”

uspirates.org/message-in-a-bot…

The weaponization of the federal government against its critics used to be a Republican Party talking point when President Joe Biden was in office. Now that President Donald Trump’s in charge, it’s become their playbook.

Journalists and nonprofits, including nonprofit newsrooms, are particularly vulnerable to governmental attacks. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, for instance, has turned the investigatory power of the agency against the press, while the Department of Justice is pursuing investigations into nonprofits connected to left-leaning causes.

We wanted to learn more about how federal agencies like the FCC, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice are abusing their authority to target First Amendment rights, so we hosted a discussion with FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez and Ezra Reese, an expert in nonprofit tax law and political law from the Elias Law Group.

As Commissioner Gomez said at the outset of the event, “The First Amendment is, of course, a pillar of American democracy, and consumer access to independent, unbiased news and public information is being threatened by the government itself.” Gomez is so concerned about the Trump administration’s attacks on freedom of speech that she’s launched a “First Amendment Tour” to speak out against what she calls a campaign of censorship and control.

youtube.com/embed/7MPn-OIbGqI?…

With respect to the FCC, in particular, Gomez explained, “Our licensing authority is being weaponized to curtail the freedom of the press, and these actions set a dangerous precedent that undermines the freedom of the press and the trust in the FCC’s role as an impartial regulator.” Carr has revived, launched, or threatened a slew of baseless “investigations” into broadcasters and public media based on their First Amendment-protected activities.

As a result, Gomez said, broadcasters are being chilled. “I have heard from broadcasters who told me that they are asking their reporters to be careful about how they are reporting about this administration because they are so afraid of being dragged before the FCC,” she said.

Nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit newsrooms, are also feeling the chilling effect of investigations by the Department of Justice intended to silence critics of the administration. Reese described the DOJ’s targeting of nonprofit organizations as “terrifying,” citing investigations of environmental groups and Democratic fundraising outlets. One particular threat to nonprofits is the possibility of being designated a “terrorist” organization based on routine protest activity, Reese said.

In many instances discussed by Gomez and Reese, officials have hijacked vague legal standards to use them in ways that would threaten the First Amendment. The FCC, for instance, has brought investigations under its “news distortion” policy or sought to use its statutory language instructing it to license the airwaves in the public interest to go after news outlets it disfavors because of their coverage.

Gomez was highly critical of these moves, explaining, “The idea that the FCC would take enforcement action or revoke a broadcast license based on editorial decisions is antithetical to the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censorship.” As she succinctly put it, “The administration is conflating the public interest with its interests.”

Similarly, vague standards in criminal statutes or the tax code could also be used against nonprofits, including nonprofit news outlets, Reese warned. “The current law is very permissive to the federal government, either the president or using other agencies like the secretary of state declaring organizations to be terrorist organizations,” Reese said. “The standards are very loose.”

IRS standards that nonprofits rely on to guide their activities while maintaining their nonprofit status are also often “cobbled together” using administrative rulings by the IRS known as revenue rulings. These rulings, Reese said, “could easily be reversed.” For journalism nonprofits, in particular, Reese flagged that the precedents are “ancient” and do not address social media or shorter-form online journalism. While nonprofit news outlets have significant protections under tax law, Reese warned, “Any nonprofit organization should have some idea of what they’re going to do if the IRS or somebody else comes after them.”

In addition to being prepared, both Gomez and Reese emphasized the importance of speaking out in support of First Amendment rights. Reese cited the “power in shining a light,” noting that both journalists and individuals can bring attention to attacks but also to the organizations that are doing the right thing and fighting back. Similarly, Gomez said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and we cannot allow this administration to trample all over the First Amendment in our democracy without speaking up.”

Gomez and Reese are right. The Trump administration’s attacks on the press and nonprofits are meant to cement government control by silencing dissenting voices. That’s why here at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), we’ll continue to speak up against these abuses and encourage journalists and the public to do the same. Using our freedom of speech is our best and most powerful weapon for fighting back.

freedom.press/issues/federal-a…

Stavolta il post è lungo.
E' il brutto di lavorare a turni: il tempo per scrivere, se vuoi, si trova.

Ciò che sta accadendo tra #Israele ed #Iran ci porta sempre più vicino al punto di non ritorno.
Forse per questo mi sono dilungato.

Abbiate pazienza.

noblogo.org/transit/il-mondo-f…

Transit

2025-06-13 12:28:14

Il mondo finisce ad Oriente.

(168)

Nota: Lo so, non è da me farla così lunga, ma in un mondo che impazzisce forse un pochino di squilibrio ce lo metto anche io. La verità è che la #Pace è davvero impossibile. Almeno così sembra. Il che rende, fondamentalmente, questo uno sfogo. Ci vuole pazienza.

La notte tra il 12 e il 13 giugno 2025 ha visto l'ennesima escalation del conflitto mediorientale, quando #Israele ha lanciato un massiccio attacco aereo contro l' #Iran, mirato principalmente alle strutture nucleari e militari di Teheran. Le forze israeliane hanno colpito siti sensibili, distruggendo laboratori e centri di ricerca, nonché eliminando alcuni tra i principali comandanti delle Guardie della Rivoluzione, l'élite militare iraniana. Un colpo che ha scatenato una serie di reazioni internazionali. L'Iran, come prevedibile, ha replicato con una serie di droni che hanno tentato di colpire obiettivi strategici in Israele, gettando il paese in una nuova spirale di violenza.

Le parole di #DonaldTrump, che ha immediatamente espresso un sostegno incondizionato all'azione israeliana, hanno ulteriormente polarizzato il dibattito internazionale. Trump ha minacciato l'Iran con nuove offensive se non avesse accettato un accordo sul nucleare, aggiungendo così un ulteriore strato di complessità alla già tesa situazione geopolitica. L’appoggio degli Stati Uniti alla politica aggressiva di Israele sembra segnare il punto di non ritorno di un conflitto che ha radici profonde, alimentato da ideologie contrapposte e da interessi strategici divergenti.

Politicamente, l'attacco israeliano ha reso evidente l'intensificarsi della guerra a bassa intensità tra le potenze regionali. Israele, con la sua operazione “Leone Ascendente”, ha voluto chiarire una volta per tutte che non tollererà il programma nucleare iraniano, ritenuto una minaccia per la propria sicurezza nazionale. Questo attacco ha avuto l'effetto di indebolire momentaneamente l'Iran, uccidendo alcuni dei suoi strateghi più esperti e decimando parte delle sue capacità operative. Tuttavia, la risposta dell'Iran non si è fatta attendere: il lancio di droni ha avuto il chiaro intento di far capire a Israele che ogni azione avrà una controparte, anche se le capacità belliche di Teheran, pur impressionanti, non possono in alcun modo paragonarsi alla potenza di fuoco israeliana.

Le implicazioni politiche per il Medio Oriente sono incalcolabili. L'Iran ha immediatamente mobilitato le sue milizie alleate in Siria, Libano e Iraq, preparando il terreno per una possibile guerra per procura che potrebbe estendersi ben oltre i confini dei due paesi coinvolti. In questo scenario, la comunità internazionale rischia di assistere a una polarizzazione crescente, con i paesi arabi che, pur condannando l’aggressione israeliana, non sembrano disposti a schierarsi apertamente a favore di Teheran, temendo le ripercussioni di un allineamento troppo esplicito.

Moralmente, invece, l'attacco israeliano solleva interrogativi inquietanti sulla legittimità di un'azione preventiva, soprattutto quando si considera che l'Iran ha sempre sostenuto di non avere intenzioni belliche dirette contro Israele. Sebbene Israele possa giustificare il suo intervento come una misura di difesa preventiva, non si può ignorare la violazione della sovranità iraniana e il fatto che l’attacco possa generare un'ulteriore spirale di violenza e vendetta. La morte di alti ufficiali iraniani e scienziati nucleari potrebbe, inoltre, rafforzare la narrativa del martirio e alimentare il risentimento tra la popolazione iraniana, creando un ulteriore fossato tra l'Iran e l'Occidente.

Da un punto di vista etico, sorge anche la questione dell’equilibrio delle forze: mentre gli Stati Uniti e Israele vedono la sicurezza come una priorità assoluta, l'Iran non può fare a meno di difendere ciò che considera un diritto sovrano, ossia la propria capacità di autodefinirsi come potenza regionale. La domanda che sorge spontanea è quindi se la logica della deterrenza, che ha caratterizzato la guerra fredda, possa essere applicata efficacemente in un contesto così volatile e intrinsecamente pericoloso.

L'operazione ha accentuato le divisioni interne in Iran, dove il regime potrebbe trovarsi a fronteggiare un'ondata di proteste interne. La crisi economica che affligge Teheran, le sanzioni internazionali e il crescente malcontento popolare potrebbero minare ulteriormente la stabilità del governo. Tuttavia, un sentimento di orgoglio nazionale potrebbe temporaneamente consolidare il consenso interno contro l'invasore straniero, come spesso accade in contesti bellici.

In Europa, la situazione appare delicata. L'Unione Europea, da sempre promotrice di un approccio diplomatico e pacifico, si trova ora a dover navigare tra due fuochi: la necessità di mantenere relazioni economiche con l'Iran, e l'alleanza con Israele, che rappresenta uno dei suoi principali partner strategici. La Francia e la Germania hanno condannato l'escalation, chiedendo una de-escalation immediata, ma non sono riuscite a offrire una soluzione concreta. L'Italia, pur allineata in linea di principio con le posizioni europee, ha adottato un tono più cauto, sottolineando la necessità di una mediazione internazionale urgente per evitare che il conflitto degeneri in una guerra totale.

Il nostro stato si è trovato a giocare un ruolo delicato nel bilanciare il proprio supporto a Israele con l’esigenza di non alienarsi la cooperazione iraniana. Sebbene il governo italiano abbia espresso una condanna per l'aggressione israeliana, si è anche preoccupato delle implicazioni a lungo termine di una rottura totale tra l'Iran e l'Occidente. L'Italia, infatti, è da sempre favorevole a un approccio diplomatico per risolvere la crisi nucleare iraniana, e un’escalation militare potrebbe compromettere gli sforzi compiuti negli anni passati per stabilire un dialogo.

L’Unione Europea, nel suo insieme, ha rilasciato dichiarazioni ufficiali invocando una “de-escalation immediata”, ma la divisione tra i membri più favorevoli a un duro confronto (come la Polonia) e quelli più favorevoli a un negoziato (come l’Italia e la Spagna) è ormai palese. Il rischio è che l'Europa, incapace di adottare una linea unitaria, finisca per essere marginalizzata in un conflitto che potrebbe ridisegnare gli equilibri di potere nell'intera regione mediorientale.

L'attacco israeliano all'Iran ha profondamente scosso gli assetti geopolitici internazionali, mettendo in luce non solo le fragilità politiche e sociali dei protagonisti del conflitto, ma anche la difficoltà di una comunità internazionale a trovare un punto di mediazione efficace. Le conseguenze politiche, morali e sociali di questa nuova escalation sono ancora in divenire, ma una cosa è certa: l'Europa e l'Italia dovranno affrontare con urgenza la necessità di rinnovare i propri approcci diplomatici, se vogliono evitare che il conflitto si trasformi in una guerra su scala globale. La strada verso una stabilizzazione del Medio Oriente sembra sempre più incerta e tortuosa, e l'unica speranza risiede nel ritorno al dialogo e alla cooperazione internazionale.

#Blog #Iran #Israele #Medioriente #War #Guerra #Opinioni #Politica #Politics

Mastodon: @alda7069@mastodon.unoTelegram: t.me/transitblogFriendica: @danmatt@poliverso.orgBio Site (tutto in un posto solo, diamine): bio.site/danielemattioli

Gli scritti sono tutelati da “Creative Commons” (qui)

Tutte le opinioni qui riportate sono da considerarsi personali. Per eventuali problemi riscontrati con i testi, si prega di scrivere a: corubomatt@gmail.com

Transit

Il blog di Alessandra Corubolo & Daniele Mattioli. On line -in varie forme- dal 2005.

^Telegram

Despite the repeated warnings of system administrators, IT personnel, and anyone moderately aware of operational security, there are still quite a few people who will gladly plug a mysterious flash drive into their computers to see what’s on it. Devices which take advantage of this well-known behavioral vulnerability have a long history, the most famous of which is Hak5’s USB Rubber Ducky. That emulates a USB input device to rapidly execute attacker-defined commands on the target computer.

The main disadvantage of these keystroke injection attacks, from the attacker’s point of view, is that they’re not particularly subtle. It’s usually fairly obvious when something starts typing thousands of words per minute on your computer, and the victim’s next move is probably a call to IT. This is where [Krzysztof Witek]’s open-source Rubber Ducky clone has an advantage: it uses a signal detected by a SYN480R1 RF receiver to trigger the deployment of its payload. This does require the penetration tester who uses this to be on the site of the attack, but unlike with an always-on or timer-delayed Rubber Ducky, the attacker can trigger the payload when the victim is distracted or away from the computer.

This project is based around the ATmega16U2, and runs a firmware based on microdevt, a C framework for embedded development which [Krzysztof] also wrote. The project includes a custom compiler for a reduced form of Hak5’s payload programming language, so at least some of the available DuckyScript programs should be compatible with this. All of the project’s files are available on GitHub.

Perhaps due to the simplicity of the underlying concept, we’ve seen a few open source implementations of malicious input devices. One was even built into a USB cable.

hackaday.com/2025/06/13/a-remo…

Do you like Nintendo games? How about handhelds? Do you prefer the now-venerable Game Boy Advance (GBA) to more modern platforms, but wish your aging eyes could enjoy its content on a large CRT instead of a dinky LCD? If you answered yes to all those questions, you are exactly the type of person [GouldFish on Games] made this custom console for, and you should probably be friends.

The external appearance of this hack is slick: a 3D printed console with the contours of the GBA in that iconic purple, but with a cartridge bay door like an NES and a SNES controller port. It’s the GBA console Nintendo never made, sitting next to a period-appropriate CRT. Playing GBA game on a CRT with an SNES controller is already hacky; what makes it really hacky is the guts are yet another Nintendo system — the DS Lite.

Why a DS Lite? Two reasons: one, it is cheaper to get a busted DS Lite than an old GBA mainboard. Two, as we covered before, the DS Lite can do composite-out with a relatively cheap add-on board. [GouldFish] really is hacking on the shoulders of giants, and they acknowledge it in the video. Aside from the composite-out board, he also makes use of community knowledge on how to make the DS Lite boot without screens or batteries.

Should you be interested in putting your own version of this console together, [GouldFish] was kind enough to share the STLs for the 3D printed enclosure, as well as the Gerber files for the custom PCB that interfaces with the SNES controller port.

We featured a CRT mod for an original Game Boy before, but this seems a lot more practical, if a lot less portable. [GouldFish] has no shortage of old titles and newer homebrew to chose from for this console, but they could always use more. We once featured a primer on how to get into the GBA homebrew scene, if you want to make a game.

youtube.com/embed/niw_-F2xzqw?…

Thanks to [Kris] for the tip.

hackaday.com/2025/06/13/the-gb…

Napoli, 21 maggio 2025. In un punto preciso di via Posillipo, strada che abbraccia il versante meridionale dell’omonima collina, troneggia l’elegante Villa Cilento: un’opera d’arte incastonata tra il verde, con lo sguardo rivolto al mare dove Capri e Punta Campanella sembrano volersi stringere in un azzurro abbraccio.

Proprio qui, in questo scrigno di armonia tra architettura e natura, Huawei ha scelto di ambientare la seconda tappa del suo Enterprise Roadshow 2025, un viaggio che unisce tecnologia e bellezza per lanciare la strategia “Italia Intelligente”. Dopo Roma (14 maggio) e prima di Messina (28 maggio), Napoli diventa palcoscenico di innovazione: reti ICT, cloud e soluzioni di storage dialogano con un territorio che ha fatto della sinergia tra tradizione e futuro il suo marchio.
Villa Cilento
Un evento pensato per svelare la strategia “Italia Intelligente”. Un itinerario che ha confermato la volontà del colosso cinese di intrecciare la propria spinta innovativa con le specificità e le eccellenze del tessuto imprenditoriale italiano.

La giornata è stata arricchita da una significativa tavola rotonda dal titolo “Accelerating the Intelligent Italy”, che ha visto la partecipazione di figure chiave del panorama locale e nazionale come Augusto Natale (CEO, Nabacom). Renato Massa (dirigente ASL Napoli 3 Sud), Rocco Saviano (dirigente transizione digitale, Istituto Tumori Pascale di Napoli) e Riccardo Iuzzolino (presidente, Fondazione Cultura e Innovazione).

La Discussione

Durante la discussione sono emerse testimonianze dirette dell’impatto della collaborazione tecnologica sul territorio. Augusto Natale (Nabacom), unico Gold Partner Huawei del Sud Italia, ha lodato la reattività del supporto tecnico. Supporto cruciale per un system integrator che opera a stretto contatto con il cliente finale.

Un’esperienza di vicinanza al cliente confermata da Rocco Saviano (Pascale). Saviano che ha descritto il cruciale progetto di digital pathology della Rete Oncologica Campana. Destinato a impattare 17 strutture sanitarie e reso possibile da soluzioni di storage Huawei e da una profonda collaborazione tecnica che ha incluso la personalizzazione del software per ottimizzare la gestione di pesanti immagini diagnostiche.

Renato Massa (U.O.C. Sistemi Informatici e ICT ASL Napoli 3 Sud) ha illustrato come, nonostante le sfide di un’infrastruttura sanitaria estesa (98 sedi) e risorse umane limitate, soluzioni intelligenti come iMaster NCE e il Wi-Fi 7 di Huawei stiano abilitando la modernizzazione, la semplificazione gestionale e la pianificazione di servizi innovativi per i pazienti, come il monitoraggio dei flussi interni.

La Fondazione

Riccardo Iuzzolino (Fondazione Cultura e Innovazione) ha sottolineato come la sua Fondazione apprezzi la visione di Huawei, riconoscendola come un “partner strategico di circa 170 paesi”. Con la capacità di penetrare nei territori, affiancare gli stakeholder per innovare tecnologicamente i processi educativi e quelli della trasformazione digitale nel mondo enterprise.

Inoltre, questa filosofia si traduce in progetti concreti e pluripremiati (riconosciuti dalla Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri e dal Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito):

• la “tracciabilità della filiera 4.0” applicata a eccellenze del Made in Italy come la “pizza 4.0” e la “sfogliatella 4.0” (utilizzando soluzioni IoT e blockchain);
• la creazione del “quartiere intelligente” a Piazza del Gesù a Napoli, che connette sette scuole, artigiani e imprese attraverso tecnologie Huawei.

L’impegno di Huawei: vicinanza, servizi e partnership strategiche

L’impegno di Huawei verso l’Italia, forte di ingenti investimenti globali in Ricerca e Sviluppo (circa il 20% degli utili), è stato al centro dell’intervento di Eduardo Perone, vicepresidente Huawei Europa. Perone ha menzionato le proficue collaborazioni con eccellenze campane come l’Istituto Pascale e l’Università Federico II, definite “best practice nazionali e internazionali” presentate con orgoglio in Europa.

«Veniamo a metterci la faccia», ha affermato Perone con passione, «e ci fa piacere creare questo ponte tra Shenzhen… (La Silicon Valley cinese, ndr) e Napoli… È uno dei ponti più belli del mondo!»

Questo approccio riflette la filosofia Customer First dell’azienda, mirata a una profonda comprensione e vicinanza al cliente. A rafforzare questo impegno, Domenico Mittiga, direttore Service Partner Enablement, Huawei Italia, ha illustrato la strategia dedicata al potenziamento dei partner locali.

“Huawei investe anche sui servizi”, presentando un nuovo dipartimento focalizzato sullo sviluppo delle competenze dei collaboratori italiani attraverso programmi di formazione personalizzati e certificazioni mirate. L’obiettivo è lavorare “spalla a spalla con i nostri partner” per assicurare la trasformazione digitale dei clienti “in sicurezza, efficienza e qualità”.

Tecnologie chiave per l’Italia digitale

Il portfolio tecnologico svelato a Napoli ha confermato la notevole spinta innovativa di Huawei. Per i data center sono state presentate soluzioni ad altissime prestazioni, inclusi switch fino a 100 Tbps e gli avanzati sistemi di storage All-Flash OceanStor, cruciali per carichi mission-critical e la gestione di grandi volumi di dati.

Nel campo della connettività avanzata si è spaziato da FTTO (Fiber to the Office) e DCI (Data Center Interconnect) alla premiata soluzione Wi-Fi 7 AirEngine, per reti fisse e mobili ultraveloci, affidabili e a bassa latenza.

Cuore della strategia software è l’ecosistema Xinghe Intelligent Network, potenziato dall’IA per garantire automazione intelligente, sicurezza predittiva e ottimizzazione delle performance di rete. A questo si affianca la piattaforma Datacom, per cui Huawei è stata riconosciuta “Leader nel Magic Quadrant 2024 di Gartner” per le infrastrutture LAN cablate e wireless aziendali, a testimonianza della solidità della sua offerta.

Prosegue inoltre con decisione l’impegno verso il Net5.5G, standard che integra intelligenza artificiale ed efficienza energetica, proiettando le reti verso le esigenze del prossimo futuro.

Contesto e visione per la Campania

Mentre il dibattito tecnologico globale verte su temi quali sovranità digitale e sicurezza delle infrastrutture, e Huawei ribadisce il proprio impegno per trasparenza e conformità alle normative, l’intervento di Franco Picarone, presidente della Commissione Bilancio della Regione Campania, ha ancorato la discussione alla realtà dei cittadini. Con una visione pragmatica, ha infatti affermato: «Il cittadino non chiede se un chip è cinese o americano. Chiede servizi che funzionino».

Ha illustrato progetti regionali ambiziosi:

• Tracciabilità blockchain del latte di bufala “fino al singolo animale produttore”;
• Potenziamento della medicina territoriale nelle aree interne tramite “botteghe di comunità” e soluzioni di telemedicina;
• Accessibilità universale ai siti culturali per i disabili.

Per affrontare queste sfide servono “idee chiare e partner forti sul territorio”, sottolineando come “la tecnologia è imprescindibile” in un’epoca di grandi cambiamenti.
On. Franco Picarone. Presidente della Commissione Bilancio della Regione Campania

Conclusioni: un impegno per la crescita digitale

L’Enterprise Roadshow 2025 di Huawei ha confermato la determinazione del colosso cinese nel voler essere un protagonista attivo e propositivo nella trasformazione digitale italiana, mettendo a disposizione un notevole patrimonio di innovazione e un forte orientamento alla collaborazione con le specificità locali.

Per le aziende e la pubblica amministrazione italiana si presenta l’opportunità di esplorare e implementare queste tecnologie avanzate, attraverso un’attenta valutazione che consideri performance, sostenibilità, visione futura e integrazione armonica con i propri percorsi di crescita e le esigenze dei cittadini.

Con la tappa di Messina del 28 maggio, il Huawei Italy Enterprise Roadshow 2025 ha concluso il suo viaggio attraverso la penisola. Sarà interessante osservare nei prossimi mesi come le strategie e le soluzioni presentate si concretizzeranno in nuove opportunità e progetti per il dinamico mercato ICT italiano.

La capacità di Huawei di continuare a investire, dialogare e adattarsi alle dinamiche del mercato italiano sarà fondamentale per trasformare le sfide attuali in proficue opportunità di sviluppo reciproco.

Carlo Denza

L'articolo Huawei a Napoli: l’innovazione “intelligente” incontra l’Italia, tra visione tecnologica e dinamiche globali proviene da il blog della sicurezza informatica.

Last month PPI’s United Nations Office at Vienna main representative Kay Schroeder attended a side event co-hosted by Interpol and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime during the 34th Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The event focused on the use of neurotechnologies in criminal justice. PPI is closely monitoring these conversations out of our concern that overzealous institutions will use these technologies to infringe on civil liberties.

Neurotechnology includes everything from functional MRI scanners to brain stimulation devices. And the scary thing is that law enforcement have been adopting these technologies. While these capabilities promise new avenues for crime prevention, they also raise profound questions about privacy and social inequalities. The poor and weaker members of society are at risk, and we must defend them from being abused by these technologies. Unfortunately, many of the speakers at the event did not seem concerned about the negative consequences of unleashing these tools.

Several presenters cited pioneering studies that predict reoffending based on brain activity, showing that it is even more reliable than profiling demographic factors. We worry about the scientific rigor and transparency of these studies, as well as safeguards against discrimination. Neurodata should never be used to reinforce discrimination. A recurring theme was the tension between voluntary interventions and coercive mandates. Rather we believe funding should be allocated to community-led mental-health services, rather than cheap technological attempts to prevent crime.

Speakers touted next-generation wearable devices that can decode semantics from brain-wave patterns. This eerie technology brings to mind the Orwellian thought police. They suggested that within three years, such devices might achieve more than 95% accuracy in lie detection, surpassing polygraphs. Others on site raised immediate concerns about readings, whereby even a 5% error rate can unjustly convict or exonerate. Aside from this, the dystopian invasion of privacy cannot be ignored. What happens when a suspect refuses the test? Would such refusal be deemed noncooperation or proof of guilt? We recommend statutory prohibition on compulsory neural lie detection, judicial oversight, and defending the right to silence.

Several NGOs showcased pilot programs in which neurofeedback helped participants with PTSD, addiction, or impulse-control issues. Such programs that seek to help people might offer positive ways to use this technology. We can be optimistic about some uses of this technology, but we should be careful. We must require informed consent, future studies about long-term impacts before such technologies are implemented, and careful oversight about how these programs are funded. We worry about cases where prisoners and less developed countries will be used as guinea pigs.

A highlight of the side event was a panel on “Neurorights”. They proposed five core entitlements to counterbalance neurotech’s invasive potential: mental privacy, ensuring that personal identity is not reprogrammed to distort one’s sense of self, cognitive liberty, protection from bias, ensuring these technologies do not exacerbate socioeconomic divides.

We believe PPI should call for a ban on covert neural data collection. We also would emphasize that such a ban should be considered on using such technology, except for positive reasons that involve psychological treatments where the patients are fundamentally aware of their rights to participate or refuse treatment. Until rigorous long-term studies are conducted, we should consider banning this technology outright, as we have with chemical weapons and other atrocious tools. We also should be careful that informed consent is not coerced. If a prisoner’s early release hinges on compliance with a “neurorehabilitation” protocol, is consent truly voluntary? Side event speakers recounted cases where incarcerated individuals felt compelled to sign on for neurofeedback to avoid extended sentences.

The side event showed both the promise and the peril of integrating neurotechnology into criminal justice. We applaud technological developments. We do not want to say that we should limit technological development. This technology may have positive uses in psychology and other fields, which can dramatically improve the well-being of some individuals. However, in the context of crime prevention, the use of this technology is frightening. We risk eroding mental privacy, entrenching biases, and coercing vulnerable populations.

As a UN ECOSOC member NGO, we are committed to ensuring that our voice is heard at the UN on these issues.

If you would like to help PPI continue to send representatives to these meetings, please consider making a small donation to our organization or becoming a member. If you would like to be involved personally in the movement, by writing about these issues or attending events, please let us know.

pp-international.net/2025/06/c…