Tag: mass surveillance

House Renews FISA Section 702, Rejects Warrant Requirement

The House voted 235 to 191 on Wednesday to keep Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act running for another three years, declining once more to require federal agents to get a warrant before searching Americans’ communications scooped up under the program.

Around twenty Republican privacy hawks broke with leadership and joined Democrats in opposition, but the bill cleared the chamber with hours to spare before the Thursday midnight expiration.

Section 702, first authorized in 2008, lets intelligence agencies intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals outside the United States without a warrant.

The catch, and the part that has driven nearly two decades of reform fights, is that those intercepts routinely sweep up the texts, calls, and emails of Americans who happen to be in contact with the roughly 350,000 foreign targets surveilled each year. That data sits in a federal database, and the FBI can search it for Americans’ information without going to a judge first.

The reforms attached to the renewal do not change that. They tinker around the edges. Federal agents will need an attorney’s sign-off before targeted reviews of Americans’ data, each query will require written justification submitted to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and misuse can now carry up to five years in prison.

The FBI will also have to file monthly reports to oversight officials defending searches involving Americans.

None of this requires a judge or forces the government to articulate probable cause before reading what an American wrote or said.

A bipartisan bloc has pushed for almost twenty years to require specific court approval before agents can pull up an American’s communications from the 702 trove, arguing that anything less is a Fourth Amendment workaround.

The bill that passed Wednesday explicitly references the Fourth Amendment in its text. It just does not require a warrant to honor it.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Keep reading

Federal In-car Monitoring Mandate Expands Data Collection and Control Powers

A federal mandate rooted in a 2021 bipartisan law is set to reshape every new car sold in the United States, and potentially the boundaries of personal mobility itself. By the 2027 model year, vehicles will be required to include systems that monitor drivers for impairment and can intervene if necessary. Supporters frame it as a safety breakthrough. Critics call it a “kill switch.”

The policy has broad political backing. It passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans and has remained intact across administrations, including under the recent Consolidated Appropriations Act, which preserved both funding and the mandate. In January, that support was tested when the House voted down an amendment that would have stripped funding for the requirement, effectively keeping the rule on track.

One of the most persistent critics is Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who continues to lead opposition alongside a small group of lawmakers. Massie warns that Congress is normalizing continuous monitoring inside privately owned vehicles, a shift he argues carries implications far beyond roadway safety.

The Law

The requirement comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, specifically Section 24220. The law directs regulators to establish a safety standard for what it calls “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.”

The statute defines that technology as a system that can

(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;

It also allows for systems that can “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver … is equal to or greater than” the legal limit, with authority to intervene. The law sets the objective, not the method.

It also cites research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimating that such technology “can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually.”

The mandate and its funding were reaffirmed in early 2026, when President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, ensuring the requirement remains in force.

From Safety Feature to Standard Equipment

Driver monitoring is not new. It is already embedded in many modern vehicles, especially those equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems.

General Motors says its Super Cruise system “tracks the driver’s head position and/or the driver’s gaze” and alerts the driver when attention drifts. Chevrolet describes the system as using a camera mounted on the steering wheel to track “head and eye movement.”

Similarly, Ford’s BlueCruise uses “a driver-facing camera and infrared lighting” to confirm that the driver remains focused on the road. Subaru’s DriverFocus system uses comparable technology, capable of alerting occupants if the driver appears drowsy or distracted.

Today, these systems primarily issue warnings. Under the federal rule, similar technology could become standard in every new vehicle. It would not simply prompt the driver. It could help determine whether the vehicle should start or continue operating.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) describes the current landscape in similar terms. Its 2026 report to Congress explains that indirect systems infer driver state “through camera-based monitoring and vehicle inputs.” It also notes that most current systems are designed to detect “drowsiness, inattention, and sudden sickness,” not alcohol impairment.

That distinction matters. A system designed to detect distraction is not automatically capable of reliably identifying intoxication. Yet the mandate moves in that direction, turning optional in-cabin monitoring into a required compliance system.

Keep reading

New Digital ID Bill Ties Your Identity to Your Phone—and Everything You Do Online

Republicans are once again teaming up with Democrats to ram Digital ID through at the federal level.

The bill they’ve just introduced is, if you can believe it, worse than all the others before it.

HR 8250, deceptively named the Parents Decide Act, doesn’t just force everyone to link their identity to use apps on their phones, it mandates that they must do it to use ANY operating system. That means Apple, iOS, Windows, Google, Android, even Samsung—basically everything.

And once that’s in place, there’s nowhere to step outside of it.

But one brave group is refusing to go along.

GrapheneOS has made a statement saying: GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification, or an account.

Glenn and Eric Meder from Privacy Academy have been working to educate people on how to escape the digital control grid, including how to put GrapheneOS on your phone—for free. And they have a solution to Digital ID right now.

Keep reading

Your Car Could Soon Become a Federal Surveillance Device — What to Know

New cars will automatically disable themselves when they detect a drunk or tired driver. The tech promises to save lives, but also raises privacy, cost and other concerns.

Starting in 2027, federally mandated safety technology will begin rolling out in new cars that monitor eye and steering movements and use passive breathalyzers to detect whether a driver is drunk, fatigued or otherwise impaired.

“Yes, you read that right,” says cybersecurity expert Rafay Baloch. “A new active driver alertness system is coming to a car near you in the next three years. But who will actually want it?”

Here is what to know about this new vehicle surveillance tech, from its history, to what it means for road safety, personal privacy and cost.

History of the Laws Leading Here

The push for preemptive surveillance tech began in 2008, with a project called DADSS, or Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. The effort was a collaboration between the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and automakers. Back in 2015, the advocacy group MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) also began lobbying for the tech.

Their efforts came to fruition with the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which directed NHTSA to require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” to be used in all new passenger vehicles.

Originally, the new tech was supposed to be implemented by the 2026 to 2027 model year window, but as of yet, the tech isn’t ready. So while a few brands are launching preview options, it will probably be another few years before it’s fully in place.

What the Surveillance Tech Does

The system uses passive breath sensors to detect the driver’s blood alcohol concentration. It also uses infrared cameras to monitor eye movement, head position and steering behavior. If it detects impairment from drugs, alcohol, fatigue or health events, the system can lock the ignition or restrict the vehicle’s speed.

Keep reading

Google is Tracking Your Life – Photo Cloud Feeding AI System

There was a time when your photo album sat in a drawer, private, personal, and disconnected from the outside world. Privacy no longer exists in the modern world as personal data will become the key tool of control, and now Google is taking the next step by turning your memories into fuel for artificial intelligence.

According to a recent report, Google has rolled out a major update to its Photos platform that allows its AI system, Gemini, to scan your entire photo library to build what it calls “Personal Intelligence.” What this means in plain English is that your images are no longer just stored, they are analyzed and integrated into a broader behavioral profile. Google openly admits the system can use actual images of you and your loved ones to generate AI content, eliminating the need for users to manually upload reference photos.

This is not a minor tweak to a photo app, but a structural shift in how data is harvested and understood, because every image you have ever taken now becomes part of a living model that attempts to understand who you are, who you associate with, where you go, and how you live your life. What was once private into something continuously processed and categorized.

Keep reading

“An Occupied Nation”: Whistleblower Says Palantir Has Taken Over The US Government

A former Palantir executive recently confirmed what many have long suspected. In a public statement, the whistleblower said it plainly: Palantir intended to take over the US government, and many of his former colleagues are now installed inside the federal apparatus. He called it an occupied nation. He is not alone. Thirteen former Palantir employees—engineers, managers, and a member of the company’s own privacy team—signed a letter shared with NPR warning that guardrails meant to prevent discrimination, disinformation, and abuse of power have been violated and are being rapidly dismantled.

What Palantir represents is something unprecedented: the convergence of American imperialism, Zionism, technofascism, and surveillance capitalism into a single instrument of control. Understanding how we got here requires looking at the machine Palantir has built, who built it, and what they believe.

Palantir was founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. Its first major investor was In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, which seeded the company with millions and opened the door to every major intelligence and defense agency. The logic was deliberate: The American ruling class recognized decades ago that the state’s coercive power—surveillance, targeting, data harvesting—could be run more effectively and more profitably through private contractors. When a government agency surveils its own citizens, there are hearings, FOIA requests, oversight committees. When a private company does it, it is a trade secret.

That strategy has paid off enormously. Palantir now holds contracts worth over $10 billion with the US Army alone. The Trump regime tapped Palantir to build a master database on American citizens. The Pentagon expanded its Maven Smart System contract by $795 million to deploy AI-powered battlefield intelligence across the empire. In June, the military swore in four tech executives as Army Reserve lieutenant colonels—including Palantir’s CTO—in a program that embeds Silicon Valley directly into military planning. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) signed a $30 million contract for Palantir’s ImmigrationOS platform, which provides near real-time tracking of people targeted for deportation. Thousands of American police departments use Palantir’s Gotham platform for domestic surveillance.

Abroad, the consequences are even more devastating. Palantir’s AI platforms have been deployed by Israel’s military to systematically prosecute the assault on Gaza. AI targeting systems built on Palantir’s architecture—known by names like Lavender, The Gospel, and Where’s Daddy—have enabled the kind of automated killing that produces mass civilian casualties at scale. Palantir’s own executives have been recorded discussing how bombing densely populated areas generates the movement data their algorithms need to train on. When people flee, make phone calls, search for loved ones, rush to hospitals that no longer exist—that movement becomes fuel for the machine. Palantir’s platforms were deployed in the illegal capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Israel’s terrorist pager attack against Lebanon, and the US carpet bombing of Iran at the behest of Israel—the same campaign that destroyed a girls’ elementary school in Minab.

Keep reading

Bank of Korea Vows to Create CBDC

The Bank of Korea has now made its position unmistakably clear, and this is precisely what I have been warning about for years. In his very first address, Governor Shin Hyun-song did not merely suggest innovation in digital finance, he explicitly prioritized a system built around central bank digital currencies and bank-issued deposit tokens, while deliberately omitting stablecoins entirely from the discussion. What you are witnessing is not competition in money, it is the consolidation of control.

They are trying to rebrand this as modernization, but behind the curtain this is about power. Shin outlined that CBDCs and deposit tokens will form the core of South Korea’s future monetary system, reinforcing a structure where the central bank and regulated banking institutions remain the gatekeepers of all financial activity. This is not accidental. Deposit tokens are essentially programmable bank liabilities tied directly into a centrally controlled system, ensuring that even when money becomes “digital,” it never leaves the institutional framework.

What stands out is not what he said, but what he refused to say. Stablecoins, which represent a competing form of digital liquidity outside direct state control, were entirely absent from his inaugural speech despite ongoing legislative efforts in South Korea to establish a domestic stablecoin market. That omission speaks volumes. Central banks do not fear volatility, they fear competition.

Even when pressed previously, Shin made it clear that stablecoins would only play a “supplementary” role, not a foundational one. In other words, private digital money may exist, but only within boundaries defined by the state. This is the same pattern we are seeing globally. Governments will tolerate innovation only to the extent that it does not threaten their monopoly over money and taxation.

The Bank of Korea is already expanding real-world testing through initiatives like Project Hangang, aiming to integrate CBDCs and deposit tokens into everyday transactions and even government spending. This is how it always unfolds. First comes the pilot program, then limited adoption, and finally full integration under the justification of efficiency and stability. By the time the public realizes what has happened, the infrastructure is already in place.

They will argue this is about improving payment systems, reducing friction, and enhancing transparency. But transparency for whom? Governments will gain unprecedented visibility into every transaction, every movement of capital, and ultimately every individual’s economic behavior. The original promise of cryptocurrency was decentralization and financial sovereignty. What is being constructed here is the exact opposite.

Keep reading

Facial recognition to be ‘rolled out’ across UK after human rights challenge fails

Facial recognition systems will be introduced across the country, the government has said as it welcomed the failure of a legal challenge to the technology.

The case against the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition technology (LFT) in London was brought by two people over concerns it could be used arbitrarily or in a discriminatory way.

The cameras are usually mounted on vans in busy high streets and designed to identify people on police watchlists if they pass by.

Youth worker Shaun Thompson, one of the claimants, said he was misidentified by the technology. The other person bringing the claim was Silkie Carlo, from the group Big Brother Watch.

Their lawyer told the High Court that LFT would also make it “impossible” for Londoners to travel without their biometric data being taken.

But judges ruled on Tuesday that the claimants’ human rights had not been breached and the force’s policy gave “adequate indication of the circumstances in which LFR will be used”.

They also said the argument the technology risked discriminating against people due to their race had not been convincing.

Keep reading

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

A bill introduced by Representative Josh Gottheimer in the House on April 13 would require Apple, Google, and every other operating system vendor to verify the age of anyone setting up a new device in the United States.

The legislation, H.R. 8250, travels under the friendlier name of the Parents Decide Act, and it is among the most aggressive surveillance mandates ever proposed for American consumer technology.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The press releases describing it lead with children. The text describes something much larger. To confirm a child is under 18, the system has to identify everyone else, too, and the bill builds the infrastructure to do exactly that.

This is child safety as a delivery mechanism for mass identification. The pattern is familiar by now. A genuine harm gets named, a sympathetic victim gets centered, and the solution proposed reshapes the digital lives of three hundred million people who were not the problem.

The Parents Decide Act follows that template with unusual precision. It takes the real suffering of real children and uses it to justify building a national identity layer underneath every device sold in the country, administered by two private companies, with the details to be filled in later.

The mandate sits in Section 2(a)(1), which obligates providers to “Require any user of the operating system to provide the date of birth of the user” both to set up an account and to use the device at all. Adults included.

There is no carve-out for grown users, no opt-out for people who simply want to turn on a phone without handing a date of birth to Apple or Google first.

The age check is the entry fee for owning a computer. What happens to that data afterward gets handed off to the Federal Trade Commission to sort out later. A federal bill that mandates identification as a condition of using a general-purpose computing device represents something the United States has not previously had, which is a national ID requirement for turning on a device.

Gottheimer framed the proposal at a Ridgewood news conference on April 2, standing outside the local YMCA with a coalition of allies. “With each passing day, the internet is becoming more and more treacherous for our kids. We’re not just talking about social media anymore — we’re talking about artificial intelligence and platforms that are shaping how our kids think, feel, and act, often without any real guardrails,” he said.

His diagnosis of the current system is accurate enough. “Children are able to bypass age requirements by entering a different birthday and accessing apps without any real verification. Kids can bypass age requirements by simply typing in a different birthday. That’s it. That’s the system,” he said.

Keep reading

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

A bill introduced by Representative Josh Gottheimer in the House on April 13 would require Apple, Google, and every other operating system vendor to verify the age of anyone setting up a new device in the United States.

The legislation, H.R. 8250, travels under the friendlier name of the Parents Decide Act, and it is among the most aggressive surveillance mandates ever proposed for American consumer technology.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The press releases describing it lead with children. The text describes something much larger. To confirm a child is under 18, the system has to identify everyone else, too, and the bill builds the infrastructure to do exactly that.

This is child safety as a delivery mechanism for mass identification. The pattern is familiar by now. A genuine harm gets named, a sympathetic victim gets centered, and the solution proposed reshapes the digital lives of three hundred million people who were not the problem.

The Parents Decide Act follows that template with unusual precision. It takes the real suffering of real children and uses it to justify building a national identity layer underneath every device sold in the country, administered by two private companies, with the details to be filled in later.

The mandate sits in Section 2(a)(1), which obligates providers to “Require any user of the operating system to provide the date of birth of the user” both to set up an account and to use the device at all. Adults included.

There is no carve-out for grown users, no opt-out for people who simply want to turn on a phone without handing a date of birth to Apple or Google first.

The age check is the entry fee for owning a computer. What happens to that data afterward gets handed off to the Federal Trade Commission to sort out later. A federal bill that mandates identification as a condition of using a general-purpose computing device represents something the United States has not previously had, which is a national ID requirement for turning on a device.

Keep reading