Tag: internet

Microsoft Shifts All Activations to Online Accounts

Microsoft’s removal of phone activation for Windows and Office is another signal that the company is locking users into a fully connected, account-bound environment where privacy and ownership steadily fade.

In the past, activating Windows could be done privately without linking the computer to any online profile. Users could install the system, call an automated number, and receive a confirmation code. No internet, no account, no tracking.

That layer of independence is gone. Today, activation demands a Microsoft account and an active connection to the company’s servers.

The change surfaced when YouTuber Ben Kleinberg tried to activate Windows 7 and Office 2010 with an OEM key.

Expecting the old process, he found that the phone number now plays a recorded message telling callers that “support for product activation has moved online.”

A follow-up text message pointed him to the Microsoft Product Activation Portal, where sign-in is mandatory.

It is easy to miss what has been lost here. Phone activation might have been old-fashioned, but it was more private.

You could install software without revealing your identity or linking it to a broader ecosystem. The new system transforms that private transaction into an interaction within Microsoft’s cloud, where every activation, every license, and every key is associated with an online identity.

This is not isolated. In recent versions of Windows, Microsoft has made it increasingly difficult to create local accounts or complete setup without going online.

Now, even activating a legitimate copy of the operating system has become part of the same pattern: tie every function to a Microsoft account, require internet access, and collect the corresponding data.

That approach quietly redefines what ownership means in the digital age. Buying a license no longer guarantees control over your software; it grants permission to use it under terms that depend on ongoing connectivity.

The computer becomes less of a personal device and more of a terminal inside a managed network.

Keep reading

Pakistan Blocks Major VPNs Under New Licensing Rules, Expanding State Control Over Internet Access

Over the past two weeks, internet users in Pakistan have watched their encrypted connections vanish one after another. Beginning December 22, 2025, major VPNs, including Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, Surfshark, Mullvad, Cloudflare WARP, and Psiphon have been systematically blocked across the country, according to Daily Pakistan.

The blackout follows a government licensing framework that, on paper, regulates VPN providers but in practice gives the state the power to decide which privacy tools are permitted.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) began enforcing its Class Value Added Services (CVAS-Data) licensing rules in November 2025, nearly a year after quietly introducing the policy.

Under these regulations, companies that want to operate legally must install “Legal Interception” compliant hardware and hand it over “to nationally authorized security organizations” at their own expense whenever instructed.

Any VPN not listed as licensed is automatically subject to blocking by domestic internet providers.

Keep reading

EU Veterans Rally to Recast the Digital Services Act as Accountability Not Control

It’s not every day that a collection of retired European grandees emerges from Brussels’ revolving doors to tell everyone how misunderstood the European Union is.

Yet here we are, with Bertrand Badré, Margrethe Vestager, Mariya Gabriel, Nicolas Schmit, and Guillaume Klossa linking arms to pen a sentimental defense of the bloc’s new digital commandments.

Their essay, “The Truth About Europe’s Regulation of Digital Platforms,” aims to assure us that Europe’s online rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), does not constitute censorship. It is “accountability,” they say.

In their telling, the DSA is less a blunt legal instrument than a moral document, a kind of digital Magna Carta designed to civilize Silicon Valley’s chaotic playground.

“There is no content regulation at the EU level,” they wrote, invoking the phrase like a magic spell meant to ward off skeptics.

The laws, they explained, simply make big tech companies “evaluate and mitigate systemic risks” and “act against illegal content.” Nothing to see here, just a little transparency, a dash of democracy protection, and the occasional removal of whatever a member state happens to call “illegal.”

It is the sort of language that can only come from officials who have spent decades describing regulation as liberation.

The letter was a response to a growing chorus of critics, including former US officials, who say Europe’s digital regime gives bureaucrats indirect control over what billions of people can see or say online.

Under the DSA, platforms must scan for “harmful or misleading” content, report their mitigation efforts, and warn users when something gets zapped.

Free speech groups have pointed out that when the law tells companies to “evaluate risks to democracy,” those companies tend to err on the side of deleting anything remotely controversial.

To them, “mitigation” often means mass deletion.

Badré and company brushed this off. “When we require platforms to be transparent about their algorithms, to assess risks to democracy and mental health, to remove clearly illegal content while notifying those affected, we are not censoring,” they wrote.

“We are insisting that companies with unprecedented power over public discourse operate with some measure of public accountability.”

When Europe does it, it is not censorship, it is civic hygiene.

Keep reading

Germany’s “Transparency Act” Lets Regulators Search Media Offices and Platforms Without Warrants

The German government has discovered a clever way to expand its surveillance powers: call it “transparency.” The federal cabinet has approved a bill that would let state agents enter media offices and digital platforms without needing a judge’s permission.

The official justification, ensuring honesty in political advertising, sounds harmless enough until you read the fine print and realize it’s about as transparent as a brick wall.

The “Political Advertising Transparency Act” is described as an effort to align with new EU rules on political ad disclosure.

What it actually does is grant the Bundesnetzagentur, a telecom regulator, search powers usually reserved for criminal investigators.

If the agency suspects a company has failed to file the right paperwork, it could send its people to “inspect” offices without a court order, provided they claim there’s an “imminent danger.”

“Imminent danger” is one of those magic bureaucratic phrases that can mean anything from “credible bomb threat” to “somebody forgot to upload a PDF.”

Once that phrase appears in law, the limits become a matter of interpretation.

Legal experts have warned that the law tramples Germany’s Basic Law, which guarantees the inviolability of the home. For journalists, the stakes are higher.

Confidential sources, ongoing investigations, and protected data could all be exposed to inspection because a regulator feels “concerned” about compliance.

In plain language: this opens the door to state intrusion under the banner of good governance.

Keep reading

10 convicted of cyberbullying France’s First Lady Brigitte Macron

A Paris court on Jan 5 found 10 people guilty of the cyberharassment of France’s First Lady, Mrs Brigitte Macron, for spreading false claims that she is a transgender woman who was born male.

Mrs Macron and her husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, have long faced such falsehoods, including allegations that she was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux – the actual name of her older brother.

The couple’s 24-year age gap has also drawn criticism and barbs, which they largely ignored for years, but have recently begun challenging in court.

The ruling on Jan 5 marks a victory for the Macrons as they pursue a separate high-profile US defamation lawsuit against right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens, who has also claimed Mrs Macron was born male.

The eight men and two women were found guilty of making malicious comments about Mrs Macron’s gender and sexuality, even equating her age difference with her husband to “paedophilia”.

They received a range of sentences. One received a six-month jail sentence without suspension. Others received suspended jail terms of up to eight months.

Keep reading

4chan and Kiwi Farms Tell Ofcom It Can’t Censor and Run From Lawsuits

Attorneys representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed an opposition to the UK Office of Communications’ (Ofcom) motion to dismiss their US lawsuit, arguing that the British regulator’s attempt to enforce its Online Safety Act (OSA) on American platforms amounts to unlawful foreign censorship and overreach into the United States’ constitutional domain.

The filing, made in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 29, 2025, contends that Ofcom’s actions, sending legally binding “Section 100 Orders” via email to compel compliance with the OSA, violate US sovereignty and the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

The plaintiffs assert that Ofcom’s conduct has no legal force in the United States because it bypassed all recognized international service procedures, including the Hague Service Convention and the US–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

Lawyers Ron Coleman and Preston Byrne argue that Ofcom’s regulatory model functions like a commercial enterprise rather than a sovereign body, funded through fees extracted from companies it regulates.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the plaintiffs maintain that this structure places Ofcom’s operations within the “commercial activity” exception, thereby stripping it of immunity from suit in US courts.

The opposition brief situates the dispute within a broader geopolitical context, describing a “diplomatic standoff” between Washington and London over the reach of online speech laws.

Keep reading

Ireland’s Simon Harris to Push EU-Wide Ban on Social Media Anonymity

Ireland’s next term leading the European Union will be used to promote a new agenda: an effort to end online anonymity and make verified identity the standard across social media platforms.

Tánaiste Simon Harris said the government plans to use Ireland’s presidency to push for EU-wide rules that would require users to confirm their identities before posting or interacting online.

Speaking to Extra.ie, Harris described the plan as part of a broader attempt to defend what he called “democracy” from anonymous abuse and digital manipulation.

He said the initiative will coincide with another policy being developed by Media Minister Patrick O’Donovan, aimed at preventing children from accessing social media.

O’Donovan’s proposal, modeled on Australian restrictions, is expected to be introduced while Ireland holds the EU presidency next year.

Both ideas would involve rewriting parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, which already governs how online platforms operate within the bloc.

Expanding it to require verified identities would mark a major shift toward government involvement in online identity systems, a move that many privacy advocates believe could expose citizens to new forms of monitoring and limit open speech.

Harris said his motivation comes from concerns about the health of public life, not personal grievance.

Harris said he believes Ireland will find allies across Europe for the initiative.

He pointed to recent statements from French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who he said have shown interest in following Australia’s lead. “If you look at the comments of Emmanuel Macron…of Keir Starmer…recently, in terms of being open to considering what Australia have done…You know this is a global conversation Ireland will and should be a part of,” he said.

Technology companies based in Ireland, many of which already face scrutiny under existing EU rules, are likely to resist further regulation.

The United States government has also expressed growing hostility toward European efforts to regulate speech on its major tech firms, recently imposing visa bans on several EU officials connected to such laws.

Keep reading

Virginia to Enforce Verification Law for Social Media on January 1, 2026, Despite Free Speech Concerns

Virginia is preparing to enforce a new online regulation that will curtail how minors access social media, setting up a direct clash between state lawmakers and advocates for digital free expression.

Beginning January 1, 2026, a law known as Senate Bill 854 will compel social media companies to confirm the ages of all users through “commercially reasonable methods” and to restrict anyone under sixteen to one hour of use per platform per day.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Parents will have the option to override those limits through what the statute calls “verifiable parental consent.”

The measure is written into the state’s Consumer Data Protection Act, and it bars companies from using any information gathered for age checks for any other purpose.

Lawmakers from both parties rallied behind the bill, portraying it as a way to reduce what they described as addictive and harmful online habits among young people.

Delegate Wendell Walker argued that social media “is almost like a drug addiction,” while Delegate Sam Rasoul said that “people are concerned about the addiction of screen time” and accused companies of building algorithms that “keep us more and more addicted.”

Enforcement authority falls to the Office of the Attorney General, which may seek injunctions or impose civil fines reaching $7,500 per violation for noncompliance.

But this policy, framed as a health measure, has triggered strong constitutional objections from the technology industry and free speech advocates.

The trade association NetChoice filed a federal lawsuit (NetChoice v. Miyares) in November 2025, arguing that Virginia’s statute unlawfully restricts access to lawful speech online.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The complaint draws parallels to earlier moral panics over books, comic strips, rock music, and video games, warning that SB 854 “does not enforce parental authority; it imposes governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto.”

Keep reading

New York To Demand Warning Labels On Social Media Platforms

New York is requiring warning labels on social media platforms about addictive features in a bid to address a youth mental health crisis.

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the bill into law on Dec. 26, targeting infinite scrolling, auto-play videos, and algorithmic feeds that encourage prolonged use.

The law, S4505/A5346, sponsored by Democrats state Sen. Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Nily Rozic, requires social media platforms to display non-dismissible warnings when young users first encounter these features and at regular intervals during use.

As The Epoch Times’ Kimberley Hayek details below, the required warnings are based on consumer protections seen on products such as tobacco and alcohol, noting risks like increased anxiety, depression, and poor body image.

“Keeping New Yorkers safe has been my top priority since taking office, and that includes protecting our kids from the potential harms of social media features that encourage excessive use,” Hochul said in a statement.

“New Yorkers deserve transparency. With the amount of information that can be shared online, it is essential that we prioritize mental health and take the steps necessary to ensure that people are aware of any potential risks.”

Studies highlighted in the legislation suggest that teens spending more than three hours daily on social media face doubled risks of anxiety and depression symptoms. About half of adolescents report that platforms worsen their body image, and those with heavy usage are nearly twice as likely to describe their mental health as poor.

“New York families deserve honesty about how social media platforms impact mental health. By requiring warning labels based on the latest medical research, this law puts public health first and finally gives us the tools we need to make informed decisions,” Rozic said in a statement.

“I’m proud to sponsor this legislation alongside Senator Gounardes as part of our broader effort to create a safer digital environment for kids.”

In June 2024, Hochul signed the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, also sponsored by Gounardes and Rozic, mandating parental consent for minors to access addictive algorithms while also banning unsolicited nighttime notifications.

The SAFE Act aims to address how platforms exploit vulnerabilities for engagement while profiting billions in ad revenue from minors. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who helped draft the bill, sought public input on it in 2024.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Texas App Store Digital ID Age Verification Law, Citing First Amendment Violations

A new Texas statute aimed at inserting the state into routine decisions about app downloads has been stopped at the courthouse door, at least for now.

A federal judge ruled days before the law’s scheduled launch that its design collides with the First Amendment and cannot be enforced while the case moves forward.

Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking Senate Bill 2420, the Texas App Store Accountability Act, which was set to take effect on January 1.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The law would have required app stores to verify every user’s age (which would mean digital ID checks or biometric scans) and forced minors to obtain parental approval before downloading apps or buying in-app content.

In a detailed written ruling, Pitman concluded the statute is both constitutionally defective and structurally unworkable.

“The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book,” he wrote.

He added that “when considered on the merits, SB 2420 violates the First Amendment.”

SB 2420 does not target a narrow category of online services. It applies to nearly every app store and app developer operating in Texas, bringing in news outlets, streaming platforms, educational tools, fitness apps, and digital libraries alongside social media and games.

Under the statute, developers must assign state-defined age ratings, explain the reasoning behind each rating, and report significant changes to content or features.

Keep reading