Tag: mass surveillance

Palantir’s ELITE: Not All Maps Are Meant To Guide Us

Many memorable journeys start with a map. Maps have been around for ages, guiding humanity on its way in grand style. Maps have helped sailors cross oceans, caravans traverse deserts, and armies march into the pages of history. Maps have been staple tools of exploration, survival, and sovereignty. And today? Today, they’re on our devices, and we use them to find literally everything, including the nearest taco truck, coffee shop, and gas station. Yet, today’s maps don’t just show us where we are and where we are going. Increasingly, they also tell someone else the gist of who we are. What does that mean exactly? It means not all maps are made for us. Some maps are made about us. Case in point—the objective of Palantir’s ELITE demands our immediate attention. ELITE is a digital map used by ICE to identify neighborhoods, households, and individuals for targeted enforcement, drawing on data that was never meant to become ammunition.

No, Palantir’s ELITE is not strictly limited to use by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but its primary and reported use is specifically for immigration enforcement. ELITE, which stands for Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement, is a software tool/app developed by Palantir for ICE to find, classify, and prioritize presumably illegal immigrants for deportation. It was rolled out in late 2025, with reports of use starting in September 2025. Essentially, ELITE is a map that pulls data from across federal systems—including agencies like Medicaid and Health Department information—and uses it to compile dossiers on people, complete with address confidence scores and patterns of residence density. It tells ICE agents where individuals live and how likely they are to be there so that ICE can prioritize “target-rich environments” for raids.

In other words, data that was once siloed for entirely different purposes—health records, public assistance, demographic lists—is now being fused into a single dashboard designed to help federal agents decide where to show up and who to detain. While no one wants criminal illegal aliens freely roaming the streets of our nation, the result of the operation is not “analytics”—it is anticipatory policing dressed as operational efficiency. One might think the scenario sounds like something only seen in dystopian fiction, and others agree. Advocates for freedom have pointed out that ELITE’s model resembles (in unsettling ways) systems designed to anticipate behavior rather than respond to actual wrongdoing. Beyond that, what else could it be used for, and when will that next step begin?

Keep reading

Britain To Roll Out Facial Recognition in Police Overhaul

Britain’s policing system, we are told, is broken. And on Monday, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced that the fix would arrive in the form of algorithms, facial recognition vans, and a large check made out to the future.

The government plans to spend £140m ($191M) on artificial intelligence and related technology, with the promise that it will free up six million police hours a year, the equivalent of 3,000 officers.

It is being billed as the biggest overhaul of policing in England and Wales in 200 years, aimed at dragging a creaking system into the modern world.

The ambition is serious. The implications are too.

The plan is for AI software that will analyze CCTV, doorbell, and mobile phone footage, detect deepfakes, carry out digital forensics, and handle administrative tasks such as form filling, redaction, and transcription. Mahmood’s argument is that criminals are getting smarter, while parts of the police service are stuck with tools that belong to another era.

She put it plainly: “Criminals are operating in increasingly sophisticated ways. However, some police forces are still fighting crime with analogue methods.”

And she promised results: “We will roll out state-of-the-art tech to get more officers on the streets and put rapists and murderers behind bars.”

There is logic here. Few people would argue that trained officers should be buried in paperwork. Technology can help with that. The concern is what else comes with it.

Live facial recognition is being expanded aggressively. The number of police vans equipped with the technology will increase fivefold, from ten to fifty, operating across the country. These systems scan faces in public spaces and compare them to watch lists of wanted individuals.

This is a form of mass surveillance and when automated systems get things wrong, the consequences fall on real people.

Keep reading

Government-Controlled Digital ID is Not the Optional Convenience It Is Being Sold As

The UK government has pledged to introduce a digital ID system for all UK citizens and legal residents by the end of the current Parliament (so no later than 2029). The integration of digital ID into government services, though already under way, has hitherto been largely voluntary. However, it is becoming steadily less optional, as the government has said it will now be required as a precondition for work in the UK, and a version of it (GOV.UK One Login) is already being imposed unilaterally upon company directors throughout the UK.

Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones has suggested in a recent interview (19/11) that digital ID is completely optional and will simply make government services more accessible and convenient. But this is a rather disingenuous sales pitch. On the one hand, Starmer himself insists that digital ID will be required as a precondition to work legally in the UK; on the other hand, like any new technology, there will be a transition period, but voluntariness is unlikely to last forever. 

Keep reading

DHS Invokes Immigration Enforcement To Justify Gathering Americans’ DNA

Government agencies inevitably turn enforcement responsibilities into opportunities to extend the security state. Every initiative to document, monitor, track, or otherwise spy on Americans starts with a mandate to ensure that people are obeying some rule or law. So it is with immigration policies, which fuel government efforts to gather biometric information not just on those who want to enter the country, but on citizens born and raised here. Fortunately, the scheme is getting pushback.

Massive Data Sweep Hiding in a Proposed Rule Change

On November 3 of last year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule change allowing its agents to gather and store more biometric data on anybody associated with applications for “benefits” including family visas, Permanent Resident (green) Cards, and work permits. The DHS summary of the rule states, in part:

DHS proposes to require submission of biometrics by any individual, regardless of age, filing or associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, unless exempted; expand biometrics collection authority upon alien arrest; define “biometrics;” codify reuse requirements; codify and expand DNA testing, use and storage; establish an “extraordinary circumstances” standard to excuse a failure to appear at a biometric services appointment…

According to the proposal, the purpose of gathering biometric data, including fingerprints, photographs, signatures, voice prints, ocular images, and DNA (which is heavily emphasized by DHS) is “identity management” to verify that people are who they say they are.

Immigrants aren’t especially popular in certain U.S. circles at the moment, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that leniency towards those who want to enter the country is unpopular. But the rule change also ropes in lots of Americans. The proposal specifies that “by ‘associated,’ DHS means a person with substantial involvement or participation in the immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, such as a named derivative, beneficiary, petitioner’s signatory, sponsor, or co-applicant.”

As attorneys Alessandra Carbajal, Lee Gibbs Depret-Bixio, and Ryan Mosser  note in an analysis, the new rule would affect not just immigrants but “U.S. citizens, nationals, and lawful permanent residents, regardless of age.” They add that “signatories for employers that serve as sponsors/petitioners may potentially be subject to biometrics requirements. This would mark a departure from current practice, where only foreign nationals seeking benefits typically provide biometrics.”

“This data collection would not be limited to just immigrants, it would also impact millions of American citizens,” agrees Institute for Justice (I.J.) attorney Tahmineh Dehbozorgi. “DHS is claiming this DNA collection is meant to serve one narrow purpose, but realistically, it is creating a vast genetic dragnet that endangers the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone, all without Congress’ approval.”

Keep reading

UK Orders Ofcom to Explore Encryption Backdoors

By now, we’ve all heard the familiar refrain: “It’s for your safety.” It’s the soothing mantra of every government official who’s ever wanted a peek behind your digital curtains.

This week, with a move that would make East Germany blush, the UK government officially confirmed its intention to hand Ofcom  (yes, that Ofcom, the regulator that once investigated whether Love Island was too spicy) the keys to your private messages.

The country, already experiencing rapidly declining civil liberties, is now planning to scan encrypted chats for “bad stuff.”

Now, for those unfamiliar, Ofcom is the UK’s communications regulator that has recently been given censorship pressure powers for online speech.

It’s become the government’s Swiss Army knife for everything from internet censorship to now, apparently, full-blown surveillance.

Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has been handed something called Section 121, which sounds like a tax loophole but is actually a legal crowbar for prying open encrypted messages.

It allows the regulator to compel any online service that lets people talk to each other, Facebook Messenger, Signal, iMessage, etc to install “accredited technology” to scan for terrorism or child abuse material.

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

As Mexico’s Biometric ID Draws Closer, Implementation Remains Uncertain

Looking toward 2026, Mexicans and foreigners residing in Mexico are preparing to navigate an uncertain future regarding new laws that require biometric identification for certain services.

In July 2025, several new laws took effect in Mexico that greatly increase opportunities for government surveillance and coerce the population into registering for a biometric program required to access many services, including banking, health programs, social welfare, education, cellphone service, and internet access.

While the laws are set to be phased into practice beginning in February and continuing throughout the spring of 2026, it remains unclear how the policies will be enforced in a country known for its weak federal government and rampant corruption. It is also uncertain how the infrastructure for such programs will be implemented in Mexico’s vast rural areas, where as much as one fifth of the population resides.

The biometric requirement relates to Mexico’s personal identity code for citizens and residents, known as the Clave Única de Registro de Población (Unique Population Registry Code), or CURP. The CURP typically consists of 18 characters derived from a person’s family names, date and place of birth, and gender. It functions similarly to the US Social Security number.

The new laws will require the CURP to include the holder’s photograph and a QR code embedding biometric data, including scans of both fingerprints and irises. The legislation mandates the creation of a “Unified Identity Platform,” managed by the Ministry of the Interior and the Digital Transformation Agency. This platform will integrate the biometric CURP with the healthcare system as well.

The biometric CURP would also be required for purchasing internet and cellular services. This would force businesses selling these services to check a customer’s CURP before purchase. Individuals who do not comply with the CURP requirement could see their internet or phone service interrupted.

Mexico’s civilian intelligence service, the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia (CNI), and the National Guard will have access to the biometric data.

The Mexican government says these new laws are aimed at fighting organized crime and drug trafficking, as well as helping with the search for missing people. The government has also argued that controversial changes to the nation’s telecommunications laws are designed to bridge the so-called “digital divide,” referring to the limited access to internet and cellular service in rural areas compared to urban environments.

Keep reading

Russia expands biometric ID system (again)

The commercial enterprise that controls Russians’ biometric data has introduced new ways to use your face as a form of ID, resulting in unprecedented levels of safety and convenience in the Russian Federation.

Russians young and old are already reaping the benefits of their country’s “digital transformation”—including very, very young Russians.

The Russian government is working on amending federal legislation to allow schools across the country to monitor and identify students using biometrics, Kommersant reported on December 3. Plans for a standardized “biometric turnstile system” for Russian schools are already being tested in Tatarstan.

Authorities have stressed that schools will be able to choose whether or not to switch to biometric identification, adding that parents must first consent before their childrens’ faces are scanned and entered into Russia’s Unified Biometric System (UBS).

Keep reading

Indian Supreme Court Judge Says Those With Nothing to Hide Shouldn’t Fear Surveillance

A courtroom drama over state surveillance in India took a striking turn when a Supreme Court judge suggested that people who live transparently should not be troubled by government monitoring.

The case involved allegations that Telangana’s state intelligence apparatus was used for political snooping, but the discussion soon widened into a philosophical clash over privacy and power.

Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, accused of directing unlawful phone tapping during the previous BRS government, was before the bench as the State sought more time to keep him in police custody.

During the hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why citizens would object to being monitored at all, asking, “Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?”

Her comment prompted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to caution against normalizing government spying. He asked whether this meant “every government will have a free hand in putting people under surveillance,” warning that secret monitoring without authorization was unlawful and incompatible with basic freedoms.

Mehta reminded the bench that the Constitution, as affirmed in the landmark Puttaswamy ruling, enshrines privacy as part of human dignity and liberty.

“The Supreme Court knows the difference between an ‘open’ world and being under illegal surveillance. My personal communications with my wife… I have a right not to be under surveillance,” he said.

Keep reading

China bans sharing porn on messaging apps

China will expand a ban on sharing obscene materials to include content sent via phone and online messaging apps starting next year.

According to the revised law, anyone “disseminating obscene information using information networks, telephones, or other communication tools” will face up to 15 days in jail and a fine of up to 5,000 yuan ($711). Penalties will be higher if the content involves children.

The wording of the law has led to concerns from media and social networks as to whether it could be applied to private sexually explicit messages between adults, such as sexting.

However, according to multiple legal experts cited by Chinese state media, the legal changes will not affect one-on-one private communications. They argue that the revisions reflect technological development, increasing the maximum fines, while leaving detention periods unchanged.

“China has mature standards and procedures for identifying obscene materials. It is critical to clarify that ‘obscene’ does not equal ‘indecent’,” China Daily cited Ji Ying, an associate professor of law at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, as saying.

Keep reading