
Alexander is a writer, traveler, and serial digital entrepreneur. He’s the founder of the Tushi, the Gen X personal growth newsletter Further, and offers small business advice at Unemployable.

Twitter

Linkedin

Facebook

Director and Chief Evangelist

Alexander Hipp


Anil is a content-obsessed marketer who loves driving organic traffic for outstanding companies. He is also the creator of Hack the Content, co-host of The Runner, and owner of several digital commerce sites.

Managing Partner

Anil Vugels


Monika is a writer, musician, and content strategist with a passion for language. When she isn’t helping clients, you can find her writing songs, hiking in a northern forest, or furiously journaling.

Director of Operations

Ann Monika

Mastodon

Github

Programmer / Founder / Student

Tim Schupp


Retro Escape is a simple but challenging puzzle game. Guide a character from the start to the end tile while navigating walls, collecting items in the right order, and using them appropriately to solve each level.

However, that's not all — programmable blocks and recursive objects unlock new puzzle concepts and level designs.

Not only can you challenge your mind by solving tricky levels, you can also use your creativity to build unique ones. The built-in level editor includes all game blocks and offers a simple script language to interface with the programmable blocks. Created levels can be saved or shared via file and QR code.

The game was developed cross-platform using the LibGDX framework. It was written in Kotlin and uses the ZXING library for QR code detection. An Android beta was released featuring 30 levels.

### Gallery

![Retro Escape banner](/assets/archive/banner_rtesc_3.png)

![Retro Escape banner](/assets/archive/banner_rtesc_4.png)

![Retro Escape banner](/assets/archive/banner_rtesc_5.png)

![Retro Escape banner](/assets/archive/banner_rtesc_6.png)

![Gameplay](/assets/archive/retro_escape_play.gif)




A simple yet challenging puzzle game with programmable blocks, a level editor, and QR-based sharing. Built with Kotlin/LibGDX and ZXing.

Retro Escape


Frequency Quick Response (FQR) Codes enable sending small to medium-sized files by converting data into a sequence of QR codes.

This sequence is displayed by an app on the sender's device and captured by the receiver's camera — no network connection required.

Because transfer happens via QR codes, an FQR sequence can also be printed, passed on paper, and re-scanned later. For example, small flipbooks can be used as physical data carriers and distributed as a novel brochure format.

One major advantage of FQR is that it does not require a connection like Wi‑Fi, Bluetooth, or cellular, which might incur costs or be unavailable. In areas without mobile coverage — or when large files would deplete data plans — FQR can be a faster and more practical alternative on smartphones.

Like traditional QR codes on paper, FQR codes can be shown on screens — in broadcasts or shop windows — to transfer additional materials directly to users' devices.

### Further reading

- [Ausarbeitung (PDF)](/assets/archive/FQRAusarbeitung.pdf)
- Jugend forscht: Frequency Quick Response Code: https://www.jugend-forscht.de/projektdatenbank/frequency-quick-response-code.html
- Weser Kurier: Erfolgreiche Forscher: https://www.weser-kurier.de/region/die-norddeutsche_artikel,-erfolgreiche-forscher-_arid,1587114.html
- „Jugend forscht“: Ideen aus dem Klassenzimmer: https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/bremen/ideen-klassenzimmer-8008471.html

![FQR infographic](/assets/archive/fqr_info_graphic.png)




Offline file transfer by streaming sequences of QR codes — printable, scannable, and network-free.

Frequency Quick Response (FQR) Code


This list is in no way exhaustive, nor does it deeply analyze and or compare.
The list is meant for later reference and comments, if you find factually false information, please contact me `tim+blog@timschupp.de`.
If you have comments are discussion points, also contact me. For a [change log, check the github history of this article](https://github.com/tbscode/tims-blog-posts/).

The developments in Surveillance are related to the power exercises of a few,
there are many more laws and regulation being instated that don't directly foster surveillance but ensure retention of power and ongoing corruption in governments and state actors. This goes so far that we pass many laws that have 'seemingly good intentions' but contain many causes that directly consolidate power of a few companies and actors, **this is a whole topic in itself and thus will receive it's own blog article in the future**.

<p style="text-align:center;">
  <img src="/static/assets/ClippyTimDark.png" alt="Clippy and Calvin" />
</p>

#### Why this list?

I'm convinced that misinformation and surveillance are some of the biggest Threats to democracy our way to live and our freedom to manage and control the live we lead. Especially currently I feel that a lot of the privacy protections the EU had in place are weakening and we are rapidly making steps towards surveillance.
Therefore I created this curated list, so I can share it when this topic is touched in a conversation.

Some quotes:

- `"[NSA] surveillance… threatens the core principles of a democratic society."` — Sir Tim Berners-Lee (2013)
- `"Spying on individuals on a massive scale, without strict legal rules and democratic oversight, ... harms freedom of speech, association and participation."` — Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2013)

## `#UK-1` Online Safety Act

Under the umbrella of 'protect children online' the UK-Online-Safety-Act enables nationwide censorship of content.
It enforces age-checks on any publicly accessible web-page in the UK that host content which is 'age-restricted'.
The UK's Office for Communications (Ofcom) is enforcing the law by fining website owners that don't introduce age verification.
Age verification 

Additional Concerns are that the Online Safety act also contains status around *Encryption & client-side scanning*,
which some argue could enable even further reaching surveillance.

**Tim's Comment**: The enforcement hits the wrong target here. If it were actually fulfilling the goal of online safety, it would be no issue at all to enable global authentication at carrier level, thus restrict children's access without enforcing change with the platform owners. The way the law is currently set-up it allows for targeted censorship, which use we have already seen (3). Also forcing plattform owner to perform the age verification on their plattform but trough a 3rd party ventor, opens up many new angels for internet usage tracking of individuals.
The EU's Digital Services Act is a somewhat 'weaker' but well better designed law that enforce similar but more controlled measures to protect against similar dangers.

#### Reference:

1. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023)
2. [Discord Data Breach](https://proton.me/blog/discord-age-verfication-breach) Though this is only indirectly related to the safety act it clearly shows the danger of processing and storing ID's.
3. [Safety Act Used For Censorship Instead Protection](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/04/social-media-battles-and-barbs-on-both-sides-of-atlantic-over-uk-online-safety-act?utm_source=chatgpt.com)


## `#EU-1` Chat-Control

Since 2022 brought to the EU courts multiple times, a law under the name "Chat-Control" Proposes measure toward ensuring child safety, combating [CSAM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography) online, targeting specifically messaging services.
 
The proposal calls for scanning messaging content for CSAM or abuse, many experts have noted that this crashes with end-to-end-encryption on a technical level, and thus would only be feasible with client side scanning, which in turn bypasses the whole concept of end to end encryption.

**Tim's Comment**: Again, enforcement seems misdirected. If the actual goal is protecting children, this can be pursued with targeted, court-supervised investigations and better cross-border policing **and especially better education and measure for parents to protect their kids**. But not through normalizing client side bulk scanning. Mandating mechanisms that break or bypass E2EE opens the door to selective filtering and abuse. As with many other these, we know **existing capabilities WILL be abused**.

#### Reference:

1. [Wikipedia: EU regulation on CSAM detection/"Chat Control"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_control)
2. [EDRi: Why client-side scanning is a threat to privacy and security](https://edri.org/our-work/chat-control-what-is-actually-going-on/)
3. [Signal: Scanning content on your phone breaks end-to-end encryption](https://aboutsignal.com/news/the-end-of-private-conversations-signal-threatens-to-leave-the-eu-if-chat-control-becomes-mandatory/).
4. [Bugs in our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning](https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07450)


## `#EU-2` Facial Scanning and the EU-AI-Act

The new EU-AI-Act contain several regulation in terms of use and application of facial recognition - which can be in-part seen as positive protection - of application for facial scanning, and the use of biometric data.
If compared to several other countries this law is very careful and mandates regulatory oversight and allows use only in narrowly defined scenarios, but regardless it mandates the use of facial scanning in several scenarios. It gives the regulatory decision power to the member state in question and enforces reporting and self-regulation.

**Tim's Comment**: Forbidding facial scanning in many scenarios is a step in the right direction! But the effectiveness and the bias of regulatory oversight for the cases where it will be permitted is to be questioned. Also the member state enforcement or actions if these rules are broken aren't defined well. Thus generally more options for surveillance are given and roll-out of these systems will be supported by these regulation existing.


#### Reference:

1. [EU Parliament](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law#:~:text=Law%20enforcement%20exemptions%20The%20use,linked%20to%20a%20criminal%20offence)

## `#GOGL-1` Mandatory developer verification coming for all APP's

Starting in September 2026 (with rollout stages beginning March 2026), Google will require **developer verification** for **every app** installed on certified Android devices—including apps from third‑party stores and direct APK installs; ADB installs are the notable exception (1)(2)(4). Any install outside Play (F‑Droid, other stores, direct downloads) must be tied to a verified legal identity and registered package names, extending Play‑style checks to off‑Play distribution (1)(3).

Practically, anonymous or hobbyist distribution becomes much harder: unverified installs ( which they want use to call 'sideloads' ) will fail on certified devices, and third‑party stores can only ship apps from verified developers (4)(5). Google presents this as curbing PHAs and ban‑evasion while "keeping Android open and safe" (1).

This coincides with broader use of Play Integrity, where apps check "installed by Play" and device/strong integrity. That tends to exclude non‑certified OSes like GrapheneOS despite strong security properties, leading to breakage in banking, payments, transit, streaming, and games when developers enforce those verdicts (5)(6).

**Tim's Comment**: Useful against re‑uploads, but it centralizes control and blurs certification with security. Prefer **hardware key attestation** for stronger, targeted trust—and treat "installed by Play" and device/strong integrity as advisory, not hard gates, so secure alt‑OS users aren’t collateral (6)(5).

#### Reference:

1. [Android Developer Verification Policy](https://developer.android.com/developer-verification?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
2. [Android Developers Blog: Rollout Timeline](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
3. [The Verge: Google Verification Requirement](https://www.theverge.com/news/765881/google-android-apps-side-loading-developer-verification?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
4. [Hackaday: Non-ADB APK Installs Require Registration](https://hackaday.com/2025/10/06/google-confirms-non-adb-apk-installs-will-require-developer-registration/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
5. [Play Integrity API Overview](https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
6. [GrapheneOS: Attestation Compatibility Guide](https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
7. [F-Droids statement](https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html)


## `#MSFT-1` Windows Recal + MSA tied TUID

Windows 11 develops in a similar way as Android and IOS with their device integrity apis.
With Win11 TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot are enableed by default and and siginifantly harder up to impossible to circumvent.
This plus moving windows towards being usable with Microsoft Account, Any attestation, any system callback, anything that leaves a trace really, can easily be linked to your microsoft identity. And even worse with the Mandatory Roll-Out of Windows-Recall, which is supposed to take screenshots every 5 minutes, even apps that try to protect your privacy will be exposed. All Security Prommises microsoft makes are directly hiding a pricacy concession, microsoft also joins the companies normalizing hardware-rooted, cloud tied attestation.

TPM 2.0 + Secure Boot are the default for supported installs, while setup heavily steers you into a Microsoft Account. The TPM isn't "spyware"; it's a secure coprocessor (keys, PCR measurements, sealing, attestation). But combined with Windows' security stack (BitLocker/Device Encryption, VBS/HVCI, Windows Hello) and the cloud defaults (OneDrive/Store/Widgets/Copilot), it makes proving "this exact machine, in this exact state, used by this signed‑in person" easy—when services choose to enforce it. That's great for stopping disk theft and some malware; it's bad for staying low‑friction anonymous. Remote attestation can become a gate: prove genuine Windows and an unmodified boot chain or get blocked, a model already used in enterprise and increasingly mirrored by anti‑cheat/DRM‑like systems. With MSA, devices are registered, encryption keys may be backed up, and telemetry/online features link behavior to account and hardware; Pluton on some CPUs further centralizes the root of trust. You can still go local‑account, trim telemetry, avoid MS services, use a VM, or switch OS—but these are now "advanced user paths," and the trend is to narrow them.

**Tim's Comment**: The mechanisms (TPM, Secure Boot) are genuinely useful for security, but the risk is how they're combined with mandatory online identity, opaque telemetry, and attestation used as an access/lockdown weapon. This shifts power from the device owner to the platform vendor. Remote attestation can become "show me you're running unmodified, approved software or you're out"—already happening in enterprise and anti‑cheat scenarios. The MSA requirement + TPM‑backed identity + telemetry systematicly threaten user anonymity and privacy. As with other surveillance capabilities, we know **existing capabilities WILL be abused**. The trend toward narrowing local‑account and offline paths, while pushing cloud‑first defaults, makes truly anonymous, de‑tethered usage more work than on older Windows—and Microsoft keeps closing workarounds.

#### References:

1. [The Hidden Spy in Windows 11 (TPM Chips)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1eX_vvAlUc)

### More to check-out

This Post isn't finished, nor does it contain really much, just contains what I was able to write down in a few hours.
I strongly encourage everyone to do their own research on the topic, circle back, comment, [and maybe also help me extend this post, simply open an issue on my github with your proposed changes.](https://github.com/tbscode/tims-blog-posts/issues/new/choose).

##### Reference:

1. [The Survailence Report](https://surveillancereport.tech/)
2. [Missfits: Enshitification](https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374619329/enshittification/)
3. [Manufacturing Consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent) A book more relevant then ever. 
*Quick Call-out: 🔩 you Studien Stiftung Deutschland for discrediting 'Manufactoring Consent' as globally not relevant topic in 2017*
4. [Consumer Rights](https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Main_Page)
5. [Flock Safetly Cameras](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a14lplBg2Y)

A quote from the Party in George Orwell's 1984. Indicators for increasing Surveillance, just a curated reference list, with some comments.

Latest Posts

Retro Escape

Frequency Quick Response (FQR) Code

'War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.'