Canada’s Bill C-34 Would Require ID or Face Scan to Use Social Media

Canada’s long-anticipated and dreaded Bill C-34 arrived on June 10 with the usual fanfare about protecting children.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Marc Miller, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, tabled it.

Strip off the press release and what is left is a law that lets an appointed federal body order Canadians’ posts deleted across the country, decide which platforms can give an account to a 15-year-old, and tell AI chatbots to watch what you type.

It also bans Canadians under 16 from social media by charging the whole country for it, in the currency of everyone’s privacy.

The government calls it the Safe Social Media Act. Safe for whom is the question it would rather you not dwell on.

The law creates a Digital Safety Commission of Canada. Cabinet appoints its three to five members. The same body writes the rules, runs the inspections, hears the complaints, and hands out the fines, which is a regulator and a courtroom folded into one office that answers to no voter.

Everything hangs on a phrase the bill declines to nail down, “harmful content.” There are seven categories, among them “content used to bully a child” and “content that foments hatred.”

The drafters did take the trouble to say content is not hateful merely because it “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends,” which is more care than these laws usually take.

It also changes very little because the people drawing the line day to day are the platforms, working from rules the Commission can rewrite whenever it wants. The edge of what a Canadian is allowed to say can shift without anyone in Parliament casting a vote.

So here is how a deletion goes. A platform decides it has “reasonable grounds to suspect” your post is child sexual abuse material or an intimate image shared without consent.

From that moment it has 24 hours to make the post inaccessible to every person in Canada. Down first, explained afterward. You can file representations and request a reconsideration, and your words stay gone the entire time you are waiting. Or someone skips you altogether and reports the post to the Commission, which can order it made “permanently inaccessible.” No judge appears anywhere in that sequence.

The definitions get bigger the longer you look at them. “Intimate content communicated without consent” now reaches AI images “likely to be mistaken for” a real recording of a person.

As a ban on revenge porn; reasonable, depending on how it’s implemented. But as written, those same words also cover a tasteless deepfake of a sitting politician, and the person sorting one from the other works for the company that gets fined either way.

Companies do not agonize over that distinction. They delete and move on.

Keep reading

Gabbard releases intelligence showing federal government has funded 120 biolabs in 30 countries

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Friday that she is releasing never-before-seen documents concerning the U.S. government funding 120 biolabs in 30 countries, including Ukraine.

“In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function research around the world, and increase transparency and accountability, ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] will continue working with partners across the administration to identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what ‘research’ is being conducted,” Gabbard said in X.

In Friday’s announcement, Gabbard said that the Intelligence Community had previously warned that a biolab funded by the U.S. existed in Ukraine and likely contained dangerous pathogens. As the war with Russia continues, the labs are vulnerable to Russian attack, seizure or damage.

Many of the 120 labs engaged in research involving highly contagious pathogens and gain-of-function research with little oversight, according to the ODNI release.

“Despite the obvious potential for catastrophic global impact research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have, politicians, so-called health professionals like Dr. [Anthony] Fauci, and entities within the Biden administration’s national security team lied to the American people about the existence of U.S.-funded and supported biolabs, and threatened those who attempted to expose the truth,” Gabbard said in a statement.

Keep reading

Trump’s ‘narco‑terrorism’ war in Latin America evokes Reagan – then as now, it’s more about fighting leftists than drug runners

More than any other U.S. president in decades, Donald Trump has aggressively pursued military interventions in Latin America.

On Jan. 3, 2026, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on charges of narco-terrorism. In the months before the operation, U.S. Southern Command began targeting small, fast-moving boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The death toll from the continuing war on these alleged narco-terrorists has risen to over 200 people.

At the heart of these events is the Trump administration’s stated goal of combating drug trafficking organizations. The White House and State Department have designated a plethora of guerrilla groups, drug cartels, gangs and criminal enterprises as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Washington has also expanded security ties with Ecuador and El Salvador, which are led by right-wing Trump allies. At the same time, the administration has pressured left-wing governments in Colombia, GuatemalaBrazil and Mexico to join the U.S. war on drugs or else risk Trump’s wrath.

When it comes to opening legal avenues for the application of armed force, the narco-terrorism label is useful. Indeed, it is how the Trump administration justified Operation Absolute Resolve to capture and indict Maduro. Yet Trump’s decision to pardon a right-wing ally – former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández – who was convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking and related weapons offenses, appeared to some observers to be “at odds with Trump’s war on drugs.”

The history of that war on drugs, however, especially during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, shows that the narco-terrorism label has always been politicized. My research on Reagan and the drug war suggests that the nebulousness of the concept aided U.S. policymakers in achieving fundamentally anti-communist and anti-leftist political objectives.

Keep reading

Senate wants to force US to share sensitive intel with Israel

Buried deep inside a 192-page intelligence authorization bill is Section 622, titled “United States-Israel Intelligence Sharing Enhancement.” It would require the president, acting through the director of national intelligence and as necessary the secretary of defense, to “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel” on a list of subjects that encompasses almost every topic of intelligence interest in the Middle East.

The bill, put forward by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would prohibit any suspension, reduction, or limitation of such sharing “except on the basis of a specific and identifiable national security concern determined by the President.” Any such exception would require a report to Congress within fifteen days detailing not only the reason for the change but also the categories of information involved. The same report would require an assessment of the anticipated impact on regional security and various other matters.

This proposal is one of several recent moves by those in Washington who carry the Israeli government’s water to keep the United States tied to Israel despite plummeting support for the country among the American public. The most salient form of U.S. support to Israel has been more than $300 billion in economic and especially military assistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to get ahead of the declining public support and avoid embarrassing losses by suggesting it would be fine with him to phase out the military aid.

Israel’s strategy and that of its U.S. supporters is now to rely on ties with, and support from, the United States that are not as salient as the military aid with its prominent price tag. The strategy includes forms of military integration that are less visible than congressionally appropriated grant aid and therefore less publicly accountable. Section 224 of a defense authorization bill currently in the House of Representatives embodies this form of integration.

The mandating of intelligence sharing carries this strategy further by moving it into the shadowy world of relations between intelligence agencies. That world is even farther removed from public visibility and accountability than the defense integration, and even less likely to stimulate thoughts about American taxpayers’ money going to a foreign country. So far, Section 622 of the intelligence bill has received less attention than Section 224 of the defense bill.

The notion of legislating an intelligence liaison relationship in this way, with any foreign country, is bizarre. Liaison with counterpart foreign services, including exchanges of information, is an important but complex part of the intelligence business. The nature of a liaison relationship depends partly on the temperature of the overall political relationship with the country in question but also on other factors known mostly to intelligence officers.

These include the collection requirements levied on them, their ability or inability to meet those requirements with national resources, their assessment of the foreign service’s ability and willingness to fill collection gaps, the role that any trading of information plays as quid pro quos in operational cooperation, and the risks of compromising intelligence sources and methods.

Moreover, no single liaison relationship exists in isolation. The U.S. intelligence services need to consider possible implications for their other foreign relationships. For example, one generally does not share with country A information about country B if the United States has a relationship with B that is about at the same level as it has with A.

Keep reading

New UFO files dump reveals CIA destroyed a ‘message from space’

The Pentagon released a third batch of UFO files today, including documents that claim the CIA destroyed a ‘message from space.’

Among the tranche is a 1958 CIA memorandum discussing a phone conversation with a scientist regarding concerns about a destroyed ‘space message and its transmitter.’

The scientist, Dr. Leon Davidson, was a chemical engineer who worked on the Manhattan Project and at Los Alamos, and studied UFOs.

The memo stated that Davidson was told by the CIA that the agency ‘cannot resolve his problem concerning the space message and its transmitter because records on the matter have been destroyed by the evaluating agency.’

The third set of documents was quietly uploaded to the Department of War’s website on Friday morning.

According to the Pentagon, there have been ‘unprecedented levels of interest’ in the UFO files, and the Department of War’s website has received over 1.7 billion hits worldwide since its launch in May.

The latest trove of files includes dozens of new documents, photographs and videos to the government’s rapidly expanding archive of unexplained sightings.

A one-page memo in the third tranche of UFO files released on Friday revealed a 1958 phone conversation between the CIA and a scientist about an alleged ‘space message’ which had been destroyed after its reception on Earth.

The scientist, Dr Leon Davidson, was a chemical engineer and UFO researcher who worked on the Manhattan Project, the mission to create the world’s first atomic bomb in World War II.

The memo stated that Davidson was told by the CIA that the agency ‘cannot resolve his problem concerning the space message and its transmitter because records on the matter have been destroyed by the evaluating agency.’

The memo then acknowledged that two agents from the CIA had been in contact with Davidson before the scientist reached out to the agency regarding the mysterious transmission.

The memo admitted that agents ‘Walker and Skakich’ attempted to conceal their identity from Davidson while speaking to him about the message from space.

‘Referenced telephone conversation disclosed that there is nothing in the record to show that Davidson knew he was dealing with the Agency in his contacts with Walker and Skakich, that in fact, an effort had been made to to conceal their CIA identity from him.’

‘But the answer was hardly fair to Davidson, and one not likely to be fully accepted by him,’ the memo continued, noting that Davidson was given no answers on how or why the transmission was destroyed.

It is unclear when and where Davidson allegedly received his message from space.

Keep reading

California cult leader sentenced to 225 years for raping, molesting followers

An Oroville man who used a religious organization he founded to sexually assault women and young girls was sentenced to 225 years to life in prison this week, the maximum allowed under California law.

Sansue Bee Vang, 58, was convicted in February by a Butte County jury of eight counts of child molestation and three counts of rape involving members of his Hmong congregation.

At the hearing, five of the six named victims addressed the court, each describing the lasting toll Vang’s assaults had taken on their mental health and family relationships, according to the news release from the Butte County District Attorney’s Office

Vang founded the organization Kev Ntseeg Leej Niam Kee Tiam Vaj Lis Thum, loosely translated as “Belief in the Mother,” in Appleton, Wisconsin. The Hmong are an ethnic minority originally from Southeast Asia, and large numbers of Hmong people have immigrated to the United States and California over the past five decades. After building a following in Wisconsin, Vang moved the group to Fresno in 2015 before relocating select families from Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Carolina and Fresno to Oroville in 2020. There, they began constructing a temple and religious community at the base of Table Mountain. According to state records, the organization is based at 274 Thompson Flat Road, north of Oroville, near Highway 70. The group’s website describes plans to develop a temple and community on 170 acres of land at a projected cost of $15 million to $20 million.

Followers regarded Vang as a prophet, the Butte County District Attorney’s Office said.   

Keep reading

Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.

The preliminary ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices. After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet.

That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews. And because, at least initially, the company did not, it therefore “must be held accountable,” the court ruled. Beyond that, Google’s argument was deemed particularly weak, since the AI overview in this case “contains statements that do not appear in the search results at all.”

The court’s order—requiring a temporary injunction barring Google from spreading the false claims in any further AI Overviews—may have global implications, as the court seems to be the first to hold an AI firm liable for AI speech.

In the past, AI firms have hoped that disclaimers warning about misinformation would protect them from lawsuits over untrustworthy outputs. Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it.

According to a Google translation of the German court ruling, however, the false outputs were “primarily an expression of the defendant’s commercial activity,” and the AI tool’s “opinions” and false statements were capable of impacting public opinion.

The court concluded that, in weighing the balance, publishers’ interest in removing the false information outweighed Google’s commercial speech rights.

Keep reading

Pentagon amends ‘Christian’ designations after Mormon members of Congress complain

The U.S. Department of War further amended its recently revised list of recognized religious affiliations Monday after several Mormon members of Congress expressed outrage that Mormonism was initially listed as separate from other Christian denominations.

“Last week, a proposed list of simplified faith codes was released to the media. The Pentagon list included redundant and unnecessary labeling, and the mistake has been fixed,” the Department of War said in statement that was forwarded to The Christian Post.

“The goal of this effort is to simplify a previously out-of-control ‘belief’ coding system that had ballooned to over 200 codes. In order to clarify the work of chaplains, and simplify the work of commanders, the Pentagon has consolidated and simplified the list to roughly thirty codes — using the previously used labels for faiths.”

The Pentagon added that its job “is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks.”

Keep reading

Fully Autonomous Drones Have Killed Human Soldiers For the First Time

Longtime Slashdot reader MattSparkes shares a report from NewScientist, captioned: “For years we’ve had unconfirmed reports, rumors, hints… now we know.” From the report:Fully autonomous drones with no human oversight have killed soldiers on the battlefield for the first time. This is according to a senior figure in the Ukrainian defense industry, marking a watershed moment in warfare. The one-off test involved 10 AI-controlled “Terminator” drones on the front line of the Ukraine war. Russian soldiers were killed.

“We tried it,” says drone-maker Alexander Kokhanovskyy, who supplied the technology and spoke to New Scientist at a press event hosted by the Ukrainian embassy. “It’s a test. We never implemented it [more widely].” The test took place two years ago and involved quadcopter drones that were programmed to fly towards the front line, cover between 3 and 5 kilometres over around 10 minutes and then engage “Terminator mode,” in which an AI model searches for and intercepts targets. “We just launch it and we know everything will be dead — everything that will be found there in this particular area will be dead,” says Kokhanovskyy. “There is no connection to the drone at all, you cannot see the video, nothing… Everything it sees will be killed.”

With no way to tell what the automated drones had seen or targeted, human-piloted drones were sent into the area after the test to manually check results. Victims included “a couple of soldiers, one truck,” says Kokhanovskyy. While there is no recording of the automated drones attacking these targets, it was concluded that the drones had killed them. Kokhanovskyy says that he was not at the test personally but that it was carried out by an unnamed military unit near the cities of Bakhmut and Chasiv Yar as part of a Ukrainian counteroffensive push. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence did not respond to questions about the test or the current legal position on the use of fully autonomous weapons.

Keep reading

US Investigating Iran War Critic Trita Parsi, Co-Founder Of Non-Interventionist Think Tank

The Trump administration has launched an investigation into prominent Iran war critic Trita Parsi, according to a report in the Free Press.

According to US officials and documents reviewed by the pro-Trump outlet, officials are looking into the possibility of deporting Parsi, who holds both Iranian and Swedish citizenship.

Parsi, who is co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and co-founded the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), has been a vocal opponent of the ongoing US attacks on Iran.

A Trump official told the Free Press that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been “very clear” in his intentions to tackle “people who support adversaries of ours and whose work furthers their agenda and undermines our security.

“Anyone who seeks to undermine the US, we’re taking a hard look at,” the official said.

Since the beginning of the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February, the Trump administration has increasingly targeted figures of Iranian descent in the US.

In April, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter Sarina were detained and had their residency permits rescinded after they were – incorrectly – identified as relatives of former Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani by far-right influencer Laura Loomer.

Despite denying their links to Soleimani, the pair remain in custody in Texas.

The US also detained and revoked the green cards of relatives of former Iranian minister Masoumeh Ebtekar in April.

Parsi is a critic of the Islamic Republic whose family fled to Sweden to escape persecution in Iran. He has faced attacks from Iranian monarchists and pro-Trump figures over his opposition to the conflict.

He has also been highly critical of US backing for what many call Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its attacks on Lebanon.

Speaking to Middle East Eye in May, Parsi warned that the US’s ability to secure a deal with Iran would ultimately come down to its ability to restrain Israeli attacks in the region.

“If Trump either cannot or will not do so, then the value of any agreement with Washington comes sharply into question,” he said.

Keep reading