Francisco Dominguez

Some scary stats on China's militaro-industrail complex's capacity: - China casts more metal products than the next nine countries combined and >5× the US. - Its shipbuilding capacity is ~200× the US (a total-capacity figure, not per-ship speed). - It makes ~90% of the world's commercial drones, and controls ~80% of drone components. - Chinese civilian factories could retool within a year to produce ~1 billion weaponized drones annually using under 1% of existing assembly capacity.

Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed that everyone in the EU will need to use the EU's app for identity authentication before being able to access or post on social media websites. 🇪🇺 As an expert in online child safety, I am here to expose the misinformation and misdirection in von der Leyen's statements. Today von der Leyen said: "This is not about whether children can access social media, it is about whether social media can access our children". 💡The first part is true. This isn't about children. It's about surveillance and combating political dissent. A state that can't control its own citizens is more dangerous than a state rife with criminals. The second part is a PR soundbite that politicians are using like a campaign slogan straight out of 1984. 🇪🇺"The question is no longer if children face risks online, but what can we do to give children a safer start online". 💡No. You can't give children a "safer start" online any more than you can offline. In the offline world, the government doesn't enforce curfews or ban children from entering liquor stores, bars or restaurants. That's a parent's responsibility. The digital world should be no different. 🇪🇺"The age verification app is one of the tools to get it done". 💡This is a contradiction because she also said "It won't be foolproof". 🇪🇺"It's easy to use, it is privacy preserving and it is open source". 💡The app was compromised as soon as it was released. "Privacy-preserving" age verification is an oxymoron. You can't verify a person's age without verifying their identity. Where or how that age is shared afterwards is irrelevant. 🇪🇺"This is basically about putting back the power into the hands of parents". 💡More from 1984. The EU is doing the opposite. Parents are having their authority stripped by politicians who think they know better. Many parents are capable and unaffected by peer pressure, and they know how to use parental controls to block any app classified as 13+. Some teens are safe, their parents trust them, and the state has no business overruling that trust. 🇪🇺"We don't give our children keys to the car before they have their licence" 💡Comparing an app to a car is a false equivalence used to justify mass surveillance. Governments don't decide when a young person is ready for car keys, guardians do. 💡Forcing every adult and child into a biometric checkpoint just to use an app or website is not licensing drivers. It's the state seizing everyone's keys, locking the garage, and forcing every driver to ask a private company for permission to take a drive. 💡 This is a gross, unethical overreach that strips authority from parents while imposing state sanctioned identity verification on every adult who doesn't even have a child. 💡Additionally, people who pass a test, obtain a licence and drive a car aren't forced to use an app to constantly authenticate their suitability to drive. 🇪🇺"We do not let them buy alcohol until they are legally allowed" 💡False equivalence. We don't force every person to show ID at a shopping mall entrance just because a few people might buy alcohol with a meal at a restaurant. Some parents are okay with their 12 year-old going to the mall with friends while others aren't. Either way, it's their choice. Whatever irresponsible decisions some parents might make, every adult in the country shouldn't be forced to pay the price. 🇪🇺"It won't be foolproof" 💡This is all the proof we need to show that the EU and every government know that banning social media for teens won't protect them. When pressed by journalists about VPNs being used to circumvent a ban, politicians always state the ban isn't a silver bullet and will take time. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan went as far as to say "we know it's not the solution". 💡Either age verification works, or it doesn't. As a technical expert in this space, I can tell you there are no additional steps to take and no progress to be made. Either the approach does what it is supposed to do, or it's not fit for purpose. If they claim a bulletproof solution is coming, it can only mean one thing. They intend to ban or restrict VPNs to people who verify their identity. 🇪🇺"It will take time to invite the cultural change that is already taking shape in our society, just as it took time to outlaw drink driving, just as it took time to use seatbelts in the cars. Great change never happens overnight, but when it comes to our safety it is always worth it". 💡Comparing a social media ban and age verification to seatbelts is a completely broken analogy. Seatbelts are a safety feature that protects children while allowing them to travel in a car. A ban doesn't give kids a seatbelt. It kicks them out of the car entirely. 💡Instead of supporting parents who want to guide their own children through the digital world, this heavy-handed law strips away parental authority by banning the apps and websites that many parents are perfectly fine with and actively monitor. 💡Furthermore, enforcing these bans requires biometric age verification, which means forcing millions of adult citizens to scan their IDs, faces or credit cards just to browse the internet. That isn't a common-sense traffic law. 💡It's a digital checkpoint on every street. True safety means teaching kids how to navigate the digital world safely with real guardrails and parental guidance, not burning down digital spaces for everyone under the guise of protection. 🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to ban teens from social media so every person is forced to verify their identity before they can read, share or post anything online. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous content. 🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to enforce "Chat Control" so every app has to monitor everything people say privately inside it, including apps with end-to-end encryption. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous criminals. 💡Where this ends 🇪🇺 "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever". George Orwell, 1984.

Researchers took known, publicly documented malware with published signatures and applied a combination of obfuscation techniques, none of them novel individually, and tested detection across 12 antivirus products and 4 EDRs. Old malware with publicly known signatures evaded the majority of products after obfuscation. The two novel techniques they used were manipulating multiple processes with different shellcodes and choosing which shellcode to deploy based on environmental conditions like folder existence. Neither technique was exotic. The malware underneath was already in every signature database.

My annual MRI scan gives me a USB stick with the data, but you need this commercial windows software to open it. Ran Claude on the stick and asked it to make me a html based viewer tool. This looks... way better.

Chat Control 1 is back. Despite the European Parliament voting down the legislation twice this year, the Council of the European Union and parts of the Parliament today managed – through an urgent procedure – to extend it for another two years. The law was originally introduced as temporary legislation, so that its effectiveness could be evaluated. At the end of 2025, the European Commission itself concluded that it was not possible to determine whether the law had any measurable effect. Even so, it has now been pushed through. Some of today's amendments could have stopped the law. And a majority of the voting MEPs wanted to do so. By a margin of 314-276, the Parliament voted to reject the proposal through these amendments. However, since it was an urgent procedure, 361 votes were required. As a result, the majority lost today and Chat Control 1 was passed. The urgent procedure was a dirty play by the Council and parts of the Parliament – it’s a procedure not meant to be used on legislation already rejected by the Parliament. For now, Chat Control 1 will remain in effect. This means that tech companies may continue scanning communications without a warrant or suspicion. However, the real battle is Chat Control 2. Unlike Chat Control 1, it would require all providers to scan communications, and to do so far more extensively than Chat Control 1 ever has.

🇪🇺 Chat Control has passed 😔 They can and will now legally scan any person's messages, emails and photos you send without a warrant The way they passed this law when the majority of the European Parliament was against it will shock you: They waited until most EP members were on holiday so only a few were present and then created an "urgent" vote for it to pass it through There's nothing democratic about any of it and big powerful forces are behind this that can manipulate the EU for whatever they want Democracy in Europe died a bit today 😔