New “Privacy-First” Phones & Computers Give The Middle Finger To Big Tech! w/ Hakeem Anwar

The phrase “New ‘Privacy-First’ Phones & Computers Give The Middle Finger To Big Tech!” refers to a viral interview featuring Hakeem Anwar, founder of Above Phone, appearing on The Jimmy Dore Show.
In this discussion, Anwar critiques the surveillance capitalism model of major technology corporations and presents hardware alternatives designed to restore user privacy and data sovereignty. The conversation highlights the environmental and privacy costs of the current AI boom and offers tangible solutions for consumers wishing to opt out of the mainstream tech ecosystem.

The Environmental and Privacy Cost of Big Tech

A central theme of Anwar’s argument is the massive infrastructure required to sustain modern AI and data collection. He warns that 384 hyperscale AI data centers currently consume approximately 10% of US power demand, with plans for 300 more that could quadruple this usage to 40% of the nation’s supply. These facilities require enormous amounts of water for cooling, often in regions already facing water stress. Anwar points out that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Google, and Apple account for 41% of data center growth, creating a system where user data fuels an energy-intensive machine.

The Above Phone Solution

Anwar advocates for personal choice as the primary solution, urging users to replace standard devices with privacy-first alternatives like the Above Phone. This device is marketed as a “de-Googled” smartphone that eliminates ads and tracking by default. Key features include:

No Unavoidable AI: Any AI features present can be completely turned off.
Open-Source Software: The operating system is self-hostable and does not rely on third-party proprietary companies.
Data Sovereignty: The architecture focuses on local processing and encrypted communications, ensuring users retain ownership of their data rather than feeding it into corporate clouds.

Risks and Motivations

Anwar acknowledges the potential personal risks associated with challenging powerful tech monopolies, drawing parallels to the early persecution of crypto pioneers who were later embraced by the establishment. Despite the possibility of legal or social pushback, he frames his work as a moral imperative, stating he is “doing what I’m called to do” and trusts in divine protection. The movement is positioned not just as a technological shift, but as a form of digital independence and rebellion against centralized control.

10 Examples of Privacy-First Concepts and Devices

The following table outlines ten examples of privacy-first principles, specific devices, and software strategies often cited in this movement as alternatives to mainstream Big Tech offerings:

#	Example/Device	Key Privacy Feature	Contrast with Big Tech
1	Above Phone	“De-Googled” Android with no tracking or ads.	Removes Google Play Services and telemetry common in standard Android phones.
2	Open-Source OS	Uses operating systems like GrapheneOS or CalyxOS.	Replaces proprietary iOS/Android kernels with auditable, community-driven code.
3	Local Processing	AI and data processing happen on the device, not the cloud.	Prevents personal data from being sent to hyperscale data centers for analysis.
4	Self-Hostable Services	Users host their own email and cloud storage.	Eliminates reliance on third-party servers owned by Amazon or Microsoft.
5	Encrypted Communications	Default end-to-end encryption for calls and messages.	Unlike standard SMS or non-private apps, metadata is minimized or obscured.
6	Hardware Kill Switches	Physical switches to disconnect camera, mic, and Wi-Fi.	Provides physical assurance of privacy rather than relying on software permissions.
7	No AI Assistants	Devices lack always-on voice assistants like Siri or Alexa.	Stops continuous audio monitoring and behavior profiling for ad targeting.
8	Alternative App Stores	Use of F-Droid or Aurora Store instead of Google Play.	Avoids apps that require invasive permissions to function.
9	Decentralized Networks	Connectivity via mesh networks or peer-to-peer protocols.	Reduces dependency on centralized ISP and telecom infrastructure tracking.
10	Minimalist Data Policies	Companies explicitly state they do not sell or store user data.	Contrasts with business models where the user product is the data sold to advertisers.

Cybersecurity Analyst Report Example

A hypothetical cybersecurity analyst report regarding the adoption of privacy-first devices would likely focus on threat reduction and data sovereignty. Below is an example structure of such a report based on the principles discussed by Anwar and privacy advocates:

Report Title: Impact Assessment of Migrating to Privacy-First Mobile Infrastructure Date: June 2026 Analyst Summary: Migration to privacy-first devices (e.g., Above Phone, GrapheneOS) significantly reduces the attack surface related to data exfiltration and corporate surveillance. Key Findings:

Data Minimization: Devices utilizing local processing eliminate the risk of cloud-side data breaches affecting user history, as data is not transmitted to external servers.
Supply Chain Transparency: Open-source software allows for independent auditing of code, reducing the risk of embedded backdoors often found in proprietary “black box” systems.
Resource Decoupling: Adopting these devices reduces the organizational carbon footprint associated with supporting energy-intensive AI data centers. Recommendation: For high-risk individuals and privacy-conscious consumers, replacing standard smartphones with de-Googled alternatives is a viable strategy to mitigate surveillance capitalism and enhance personal digital security.

Note: We do use YouTube Video’s under the “Fair Use” Act under the Copyright Law:

“Fair use is a doctrine in the United States copyright law codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.¹ It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.⁰¹ The U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index should prove helpful in understanding what courts have to date considered to be fair or not fair but it is not a substitute for legal advice.²“