Previous month:
July 17, 2021
Next month:
July 19, 2021

FREEDOM PHONE: A STUDY IN MARKING-UP AND MARKETING LOW-COST CHINESE PHONES?

UPDATE (07/24/21)... In an interview with John Solomon from "Just the News," Freedom Phone's CEO Erik Finman pushed back against some of the negative reporting on his Freedom Phone. Characterizing much of the reporting as ill-informed or politically motivated.

Although Finman is promising to provide the phone's specifications and vendors in the near future, his basic points are: (1) this is not the cheap $120 burner phone as some sources claim; (2) the phone uses a "de-Googled" customized version of the open source Android operating system with built-in security features that "silo" apps to prevent them from interacting with each other and allow a user to turn off location tracking; (3) the basic chip is not made in China but in Taiwan; and (4) the phone may be less suceptible to viruses.

It should be noted that all phones are trackable and connection metadata captured as a normal cell-phone function. Even changing SimCards does not charge the embedded device ID.

The big point Finman stresses is FREDOM -- your choice of carriers and pre-loaded apps which stress privacy and censor-free usage.

I guess we will have to wait for more details.

-- Original Post -- 

Have you ever wondered why right-wing publications often carry advertisements for dodgy advertisers offering medical and financial advice newsletters, vitamins and supplements, and off-brand electronic gadgets and gizmos? Or why well-known, if aging, right-wing personalities shill for such offers?

Like progressive political consultant James Carville might say, it’s the money stupid.

The margins are often so great as to purchase large ad campaigns and pay significant money to right-wing influencers.

Now comes the latest device…

Ostensibly created by  Erik Finman, self-proclaimed as the “youngest bitcoin millionaire,” the “Freedom phone” promises to free you from the intrusive Silicon Valley tech tyrants with their prying eyes and right-wing censorship.

fp-hdr

$499.99

The Freedom Phone is a free speech and privacy first focused phone. With features like tracking blockers and an uncensorable app store.

Works with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, & Sprint, and all other domestic & international carriers. Move phones over in 60 seconds as soon as the phone arrives.

ffphone-t

Uncensorable App Store

Our own app store. Read what you like. Watch what you like. Think what you like. Nothing is censored.

Pre-Loaded Apps

Some of the most popular banned & unbanned conservative sites & apps. Pre-loaded directly on your phone.

A Free-Speech First Operating System

We've developed the first mass-marketable mobile phone operating system based on free speech.

YOUR PRIVACY GUARD

Say Hello To Trust

Your data, your rules. With powerful tools such as Trust, you are in control of what your apps can do whenever you want.

Trust will help you understand the security of your device and warn you about possible threats.

We want to create a future where free communication is not banned by Big Tech.

We want to bring back free speech. Forever.

The Phone.

Not just making America great. But also making a great phone.

ff-hdr2

<Source>

So many unanswered questions…

  • But what is it really?
  • Who manufactured the phone?
  • What are the phone’s actual specifications?
  • What is the operating system?
  • Who controls the app store?
  • And, most of all, who is really behind the phone?

According to published reports…

“The Freedom Phone appears to be a simple rebranding of a budget phone called the “Umidigi A9 Pro,” made by the Chinese tech company Umidigi.”

“The Freedom Phone’s $500 price tag would represent a substantial markup on the Umidigi A9 Pro. That phone is available on Chinese retail giant AliExpress for $134 — less than one quarter of the price of a Freedom Phone.”

While “Finman claimed “Nothing’s manufactured itself in mainland China,” Umidigi’s headquarters is located in Shenzhen City, People’s .Republic of China, a mainland Chinese city near Hong Kong.

“Freedom Phone’s “Freedom OS” operating system is based on Google’s Android operating system.”

“The device appears to be based on a MediaTek processor which are notoriously known for being easy to hack.”

Who are some of the conservative “influencers” flogging the phone…

  • Roger Stone
  • Ali Alexander
  • Dinesh D’Souza
  • Candace Owens
  • Jack Posobiec
  • John Solomon
  • Ryan Fournier

It appears that using a “promo” code can earn the influencer $50 per sale… <Source>

ffpromo

Bottom line…

Nothing free about Freedom Phone. You may be still supporting our enemy, who uses slave labor and live-organ-harvesting. Not to mention that little global pandemic thing. At least with the known brands, you know someone is standing behind the sale.

Would I buy a cheap Chinese phone for $500? NO! My best advice, follow the Better Business Bureau – “Investigate BEFORE you invest.”

Being conservative doesn’t mean you should believe everything being promoted by even well-known right-wing influencers.

-- steve 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS FIGHTING AN AUDIT THAT COULD PROVE THEIR CASE?

AZ-AUDIT

The questions that are rarely asked by most publications are the most relevant.

(1)  Shouldn’t the responsibility to demonstrate the integrity of an election and the correctness of its tallies lie with those government officials who managed the election?

(2)  If a third-party audit would demonstrate the integrity of an election, that an election was run honestly and efficiently, allowing, of course, for minor localized glitches encountered in any large undertaking, why do we find that the government officials who ran the election resisting any audit attempts where they do not fully and completely control the audit?

(3)  What is the appropriate method to handle legitimate “evidence” advanced as allegations by citizen-voters who have provided sworn, under penalty of perjury, declarations, and affidavits detailing their direct observations?

(4)  Shouldn’t the duty of election officials include acceptably answering credible allegations advanced as declarations and affidavits in a transparent manner?

(5)  If election equipment is required to be examined, documented, and certified before an election, why are election officials refusing to use election equipment that has been examined by third parties using documented forensic methods that do not alter or modify the hardware or software in any manner? They need to recertify and recalibrate the equipment before the next election anyway. 

Coverage from a publication aimed at those governing states and localities…

gov-hdr

Search for Election Fraud Persists, Despite No Evidence

[OCS: The headline is both false and misleading given the number of sworn statements, declarations, and affidavits that can be presented in courts of competent jurisdiction. To say there is “no evidence” is manifestly wrong.]

Ongoing efforts to find election irregularities might serve the ambitions of some in politics, but they aren’t viewed favorably by many Americans. A new report documents the spread of unconventional “audits” to new states.

[OCS: Almost everyone, on one side or the other, seems to be politically motivated when it comes to the conduct of elections and their outcome.

As expected, the results are almost always challenged by those affected by an unfavorable outcome.

It is precisely this tension between the contestants that is supposed to serve as checks and balances on the electoral process.

Every American has a vested and personal interest in transparent and honest elections that serve as the underpinning of their exceptional country.

It is no surprise that most of the surveys taken break along partisan lines and are conditioned by media narratives and election results.

What constitutes an “unconventional audit?” In this instance, it appears to be the disparaging characterization of an audit executed by someone other than the government who was in charge of the election.

Government officials who would have a massive conflict of interest in directing an audit. Protecting themselves from an audit result that could embarrass key election officials or suggest criminal wrongdoing.]

If the unconventional “audit” of election results in Maricopa County, Ariz., is truly intended to bolster public confidence in elections, the experiment does not seem to be working. Most Arizonans disapprove of the effort and almost half would be inclined to vote against a candidate who supported it.

[OCS: The word “unconventional” is used in a pejorative manner as there is nothing “unconventional” about a well-planned, well-documented, well-executed audit using open, transparent, and observable methods.

To claim that most Arizonans disprove of the audit -- and some would be inclined to vote against any candidate supporting it -- is an example of political intimidation.

Without knowing the results and the counter-responses, one could not possibly have an informed opinion. This is the type of meaningless opinion poll that produces sensational headlines and furthers a political narrative.

And, if one would look behind the poll conducted by Bendixen & Amandi International, one would find a firm that specializes in Hispanic media and with strong ties to the Democrat Party. Performing both polling and targeted communications on behalf of their clients.

Reading the 40-page poll results did not provide any information on who commissioned the poll, which appeared in a progressive partisan publication.

The audit is intended to restore integrity to the electoral process, and to suggest otherwise is to falsely impugn the auditors and their motives.

Another example of a B&A poll result – “The GOP has a Latino voter problem, and its name is @realDonaldTrump. Bendixen & Amandi International is proud to present our latest survey conducted in partnership with The Tarrance Group on behalf of Univision Communications and The Washington Post.]

Sean Lowe, a prominent Republican political consultant in the state, described the audit as a “joke” and a “failure.” Secretary of State Katie Hobbs dismisses it as a partisan “fraudit” with no purpose beyond keeping election falsehoods on life support.

[OCS: One can always find a disaffected party member, mostly establishment RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), to produce a negative comment.

Likewise, a comment from a hyper-partisan election official – who should know how to keep quiet and answer any audit’s findings with demonstrable truths and facts.

Why an elected official should find it necessary to disparage an audit attempt before reviewing its results is indicative of a suspect party.

Note the mischaracterization of the audit as being a “Trump” affair rather than to reassure Arizonans that their election was fair and free of taint.]

A recent Monmouth University poll found that voters elsewhere in the country are also distrustful of the motives behind continuing calls to look for election fraud, with nearly 6 in 10 seeing them as attempts to undermine valid results. Overall, 40 percent believe they could weaken American democracy.

[OCS: Another worthless poll that breaks along party lines and is conditioned by a false and misleading narrative by the mainstream media which appears to function as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

Perhaps one should consider that how poll questions are framed is a precursor to a predetermined poll outcome?] 

Conservatives have a different perspective on these investigations, however. Recent surveys have found that three out of four Republican voters support them, and expect them to change the outcome of an election. Three in 10 have told pollsters that they expect the former president to be reinstated, though there is no real-world cause of action to support this.

[OCS: Again, there should be no surprise that opinions break by political affiliation.

As for the former president being reinstated to office, this is speculative conjecture because there is absolutely no controlling legal authority to adjudicate this matter as it is an unprecedented historical occurrence.]

To read the rest of the article, in full and in context, one can find it here.

About the author…

Carl Smith is a senior staff writer for Governing and covers a broad range of issues affecting states and localities. He can be reached at carl.smith@governing.com or on

About Governing

Governing provides news, analysis and insights for the professionals leading America’s states and localities.

Published since 1987, Governing is a trusted source of record for elected, appointed and other public leaders looking to manage the present and anticipate the future of state and local government.

Our Mission & Vision:

Today’s state and local leaders govern during a period of dramatic shifts in technology, demography and the economy that are driving societal transformation. Governing: The Future of States and Localities takes on the question of what state and local government looks like in this world of rapid change.

[OCS: Who is really behind Governing?]

e.Republic, Inc. is a Folsom, California-based research and media company. Nearly all of e.Republic's owners and upper management, and many other employees, are Scientologists.

In March 2021, The Daily Beast published an article in which current and former employees "reveal how the media firm e.Republic was not only run Scientologist execs but that they employed ruthless Scientology management principles." How Scientologist Execs at Media Company e.Republic Made Workers’ Lives a Living Hell 

Paradox or paradiddle...

How can the Democrats claim that the 2020 election was the “most secure ever” and that any allegations of voter fraud are “baseless” while doing everything possible to prevent a forensic audit that would prove their point?

Explain how such an audit would constitute a “threat to democracy” and diminish election integrity?

If recent the recent history of the Democrat Party and their propagandists in the mainstream media reveals anything, it is that, whatever the Democrats claim, the opposite is closer to the truth.

And, as an example of the duplicity of the Democrats, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors keeps babbling on and on about the auditors performing the audit as being "uncertified." Full well knowing that there are no certified election auditors, and the two companies hired to certify the hardware are only authorized to certify the machines. 

Bottom line…

Why? Why I ask you, are they fighting so hard to destroy the audit that can prove their point that elections were transparent, free, and honest?

Unless, of course, there is something to hide.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell