Tag: mass surveillance

French justice minister calls for abolishing cash

France’s Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin has proposed abolishing cash transactions, arguing that digital payments – including cryptocurrencies – are much easier to trace than physical money and would help authorities combat drug trafficking and other criminal activity.

Restrictions on cash transactions in France and across the EU have already tightened in recent years.

Speaking before a Senate commission on Thursday, Darmanin said that “a large part of daily delinquency and even criminal networks rely on cash,” and declared that “the end of cash would prevent the establishment of drug dealing points.”

Darmanin, who previously oversaw public finances as Minister of Public Action and Accounts, acknowledged that banning physical money wouldn’t eliminate the drug trade, but insisted that “once the money is traceable,” it becomes “more complicated” for both consumers and dealers to escape financial oversight.

Keep reading

New Orleans Police Secretly Used Prohibited Facial Recognition Surveillance for Years

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) secretly received real-time, AI-generated alerts from 200 facial recognition cameras throughout the city for two years, despite a city ordinance barring generalized surveillance of the public.

“Police increasingly use facial recognition software to identify unknown culprits from still images, usually taken by surveillance cameras at or near the scene of a crime,” an exposé by The Washington Post explains. However, “New Orleans police took this technology a step further,” automatically alerting officers with real-time updates of names and locations of possible matches of wanted suspects from a private network of cameras through a mobile app. 

“This is the facial recognition technology nightmare scenario that we have been worried about,” Nathan Freed Wessler, a deputy director for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, told the Post. “This is the government giving itself the power to track anyone—for that matter, everyone—as we go about our lives walking around in public.” According to Wessler, New Orleans is the first known instance in which a major American city has used artificial intelligence to identify people through live footage for the purpose of making arrests.

The use of these automatic alerts may have violated a city ordinance meant to protect the public’s privacy from a generalized surveillance tool and prevent wrongful arrests due to software errors. 

Passed in 2022 in response to New Orleans’ post-pandemic crime wave, the Surveillance Technology and Data Protection Ordinance removed a previous prohibition on surveillance technology in criminal investigations to increase public safety. Mayor LaToya Cantrell said at the time that the NOPD needed “every tool available at their disposal” to keep the city’s “residents, businesses and visitors safe.” However, the ordinance stopped short of allowing the NOPD to utilize a “face surveillance system”—defined as “any computer software or application that performs face surveillance”—while limiting data collection to “only the minimum amount of personal information needed to fulfill a narrow well-defined purpose.”  

While violent crime in New Orleans has declined since 2022, so have the crime rates in most major American cities that do not use real-time facial recognition surveillance systems. 

Anne Kirkpatrick, superintendent of the NOPD since September 2023, paused the automatic alerts in April after learning about potential legal problems with using the system. Records obtained by the Post reveal that Kirkpatrick sent an email to Project NOLA, the nonprofit that provides the NOPD with facial recognition services, on April 8 stating “that the automated alerts must be turned off until she is ‘sure that the use of the app meets all the requirements of the law and policies.'” The network of cameras remains in place. 

While automatic pings of potential suspect matches to NOPD officers are paused, Kirkpatrick maintains that facial recognition technology is essential to law enforcement. On May 16, 10 inmates escaped from the New Orleans jail, prompting a manhunt (five inmates remain at large). Facial recognition is credited with the capture of two of the escaped inmates. Kirkpatrick told WVUE, the local Fox affiliate, that such a situation is “the exact reason facial recognition technology is so critical and well within our boundaries of the ordinance here.” Bryan Lagarde, Project NOLA’s executive director, confirmed that NOPD is not currently using real-time, AI-generated alerts but is still utilizing facial recognition technology and footage from 5,000 cameras across New Orleans to track and apprehend the escapees. Lagarde described to WVUE an instance in which officers narrowly missed an inmate by a matter of minutes, insinuating that automated alerts might be necessary to protect public safety, despite the cost to privacy. 

Keep reading

Proton Threatens to Leave Switzerland Over Proposed Surveillance Law Expansion

Proton, the Swiss tech firm recognized for its privacy-first services like Proton Mail and Proton VPN, has issued a stark warning: if Switzerland enacts a sweeping expansion of its surveillance law, the company will relocate out of the country.

The proposed legal overhaul seeks to broaden data retention mandates, extending them beyond mobile and internet service providers to encompass VPNs, messaging platforms, and social networks. Privacy advocates argue this would obliterate core safeguards around encryption and user anonymity, long considered hallmarks of Switzerland’s digital landscape.

Speaking to Swiss broadcaster RTS, Proton CEO Andy Yen cautioned that the move would not only undermine civil liberties but also tarnish Switzerland’s reputation as a haven for secure, privacy-respecting technology companies.

“This revision attempts to implement something that has been deemed illegal in the EU and the United States. The only country in Europe with a roughly equivalent law is Russia,” Yen said.

Under the proposed changes, companies classified as “derived service providers” would be brought under new monitoring obligations, with requirements to store specific categories of user data and submit to enhanced surveillance protocols. Such measures would force Proton to break from its no-logs policy and compromise encryption standards that its users depend on.

Yen was unequivocal about the company’s position. “I think we would have no choice but to leave Switzerland,” he said. “The law would become almost identical to the one in force today in Russia. It’s an untenable situation. We would be less confidential as a company in Switzerland than Google, based in the United States. So it’s impossible for our business model.”

Although the consultation period ended on May 6, 2025, the backlash against the proposal has been gaining momentum. Swiss political parties, civil society groups, and private firms have expressed deep concern about the implications for digital freedoms. In some regions, including Geneva, officials have invoked the recently recognized right to digital integrity as a constitutional safeguard.

Roussel has been at the forefront of efforts to enshrine digital integrity into law. The principle was formally adopted by Geneva in 2023 and Neuchâtel in 2024, with more than 90 percent public support.

Keep reading

Holes in the Constitution

Among the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The wall was intended to prevent law enforcement from accessing and using data gathered by America’s domestic spying agencies.

For 24 years, government spying has been rampant in the U.S., and the feds regularly engage in it as part of law enforcement’s well-known antipathy to the Fourth Amendment.

Here is the backstory.

After President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress investigated his abuse of the FBI and CIA as domestic spying agencies. Some of the spying was on political dissenters and some on political opponents. None of it was lawful.

What is lawful domestic spying?

The modern Supreme Court has made it clear that domestic spying is a “search” and the acquisition of data from a search is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime presented under oath to the judge for a search or seizure to be lawful. The amendment also requires that all search warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

The language in the Fourth Amendment is the most precise in the Constitution because of the colonial experiences with British general warrants. A general warrant was issued to British agents by a secret court in London and did not require probable cause, only “governmental needs.” That, of course, was no standard whatsoever, as whatever the government wants it will claim that it needs.

General warrants did not specify what was to be searched or seized. Rather, they authorized the bearers to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found — stated differently, to engage in fishing expeditions.

When Congress learned of Nixon’s excesses, it enacted FISA, which required that all domestic spying be authorized by the new and secret FISA Court. Congress then lowered the probable cause of crime standard for the FISA Court to probable cause of being a foreign agent, and it permitted the FISA Court to issue general warrants.

How can Congress, which is itself a creature of the Constitution, change standards established by the Constitution? It cannot legally or constitutionally do so. But it did so nevertheless.

Yet, the FISA compromise that was engineered in order to attract congressional votes was the wall. The wall consisted of language reflecting that whatever data was acquired from surveillance conducted pursuant to a FISA warrant could not be shared with law enforcement.

So, if a janitor in the Russian embassy was really an intelligence agent who was distributing illegal drugs as lures to get Americans to spy for him, and all this was learned via a FISA warrant that authorized listening to phone calls from the embassy, the telephonic evidence of the drug dealing could not be given to the FBI.

The purpose of the wall was not to protect foreign agents from domestic criminal prosecutions; it was to prevent American law enforcement from violating personal privacy by spying on Americans without search warrants.

Fast forward to the weeks after 9/11 when, with no serious debate, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. In addition to permitting one federal agent to authorize another to search private records — contrary to the Fourth Amendment — it also removed the wall between law enforcement and spying.

Keep reading

Luna Introduces Bill to Repeal Patriot Act, Restore Privacy

US Representative Anna Paulina Luna has introduced a bill, the American Privacy Restoration Act, that aims to repeal the Patriot Act, passed in 2001.

The Florida Republican believes that what has in the meantime become the notorious post-9/11 legislation, has been abused by “rogue” intelligence officers to carry out mass surveillance in unlawful ways.

Announcing the bill, Luna mentioned that the Patriot Act has over the last decades been used to interfere in elections, violate innocent Americans’ privacy by spying on them, and even “settle personal scores.”

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

According to the representative, the ability to misuse and abuse the Patriot Act in such a way turned it into a tool for what is known as “the deep state” – whereas her legislative proposal seeks to take away the ability of these permanent power centers to violate the Fourth Amendment, that should protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Keep reading

India Poised to Approve Starlink, Provided It Supports User Surveillance and Content Censorship

India’s Ministry of Communications has issued a memorandum that details the conditions under which the country’s authorities would approve licenses to Starlink and other Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS) companies.

A set of rules required of these operators is interpreted in some reports as an obligation to agree to facilitate surveillance and censorship.

At the same time, it is acknowledged that most countries impose similar rules – but the memo and its provisions are above all framed as a test for Starlink owner, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, and his commitment to free speech.

Starlink has shown interest in entering the Indian market and has service resale deals with two of the country’s largest telecommunications firms. But making those deals operational depends on being granted a license, with the memorandum now explaining the 29 conditions that companies must meet.

GMPCS operators will have to ensure security clearance for gateway/hub location in India, as well as that functionality such as lawful interception facility, monitoring/control facility of user terminals, data traffic routing, etc., are located in the country.

Unregistered terminals will be immediately disconnected, while those registered for one location and then moved will be locked.

“Rogue for malicious activities” terminals are to be blocked without delay.

During hostilities, those issued GMPCS licenses must be able to restrict or deny service either based on specific geo-locations or to individuals or groups of subscribers.

Another requirement is to set up special monitoring zones 50 kilometers within the land borders and the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles).

Keep reading

Real ID Is Not About Keeping You Safe

Today, after nearly two decades of implementation and delays, the federal government’s new identification requirements for traveling by plane domestically or entering federal buildings technically go into effect. This federally-compliant ID card—known as Real ID—can only be attained with specific records and documents laid out by the federal government. It’s labeled by a black or gold star in the upper right corner.

Even though DHS Secretary Kristi Noem promised that, at least initially, people without a Real ID will only have to face some “extra scrutiny” at security checkpoints, it’s safe to assume that, as the full requirement sets in over the next several weeks and months, some number of people will show up to airports unaware that they no longer have the documents required to board their plane. And, because the process of getting through most domestic airports was grueling enough before the deadline, many expect air travel to be especially arduous during the transition.

Because of the absoluteness of this new requirement and the harsh punishments for non-compliance—just picture what would happen to you if you tried to get into a federal building or onto a plane without the accepted forms of ID—it can be easy to write off the Real ID requirement as some new rule that, while annoying, is probably being implemented for a good reason.

It’s not.

As mentioned above, the Real ID Act was passed twenty years ago in 2005. It was one of the many measures rolled out in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that was presented to the public as being necessary to ensure that similar attacks would never happen again.

The original bill specified that the federal government would refuse to accept any form of ID that did not meet the requirements Congress had passed by May of 2008. But as that date drew closer, few states had implemented the new provisions. Some governors had vocally refused to comply because they opposed what was, in effect, the implementation of a national identification database.

That prompted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to delay the deadline several times—first to 2011, then a complicated range of deadlines from 2013 to 2017 based on age and state of residence, and then to one universal deadline in October 2020.

Then the pandemic hit, and the deadline was extended again to 2021, then 2023, and finally to today, May 7, 2025.

If these new ID requirements were as crucial to the safety of air travelers—and the American public at large—as the federal government has claimed, the sheer time it’s taken to implement would be unacceptable. That alone is a sign that, perhaps, the federal government’s motivations are not what they say.

Keep reading

Be Not Enticed To Tyranny: Oppose The Surveillance State

A surveillance state is being erected around the American public at an alarming rate. In many urban and suburban settings, anyone traveling on public streets or sidewalks will have his image captured by the ubiquitous surveillance cameras. A leisurely stroll around the neighborhood, as well as any conversation along the way, might be recorded if the city uses surveillance-enabled street lights. Even our own front yards might not be safe from the prying eyes of the state if a neighbor has a “smart” doorbell that shares data with law enforcement.

Rural areas are not exempt from this intrusion. Automatic License Plate Reader cameras (ALPRs, often contracted under the brand name FLOCK), are being placed on rural highways and on county lines in an increasing number of areas. Audio and video surveillance now cover remote corners of the Amazon Basin. Satellite technology could ensure that, one day, no square foot of the planet is unobserved.

The power of the modern surveillance state is without historical precedent. The argument that “there is no expectation of privacy in public” no longer adequately addresses the huge quantities of data that surveillance apparatus captures, stores, and analyzes.

While civil rights and other niche groups are sounding the alarm about the dangers of Big Brother, critics are surprisingly underrepresented among popular news outlets. When the topic of citizen surveillance is covered at all, these stories are often portrayed as a benign solution to a dangerous problem with the dangers to civil liberties receiving a brief nod, if even mentioned.

So why does the average citizen not have greater concern over these intrusions upon their civil liberties, in some cases even championing it? One answer to that question might be that these systems are a Trojan Horse. While they are dressed up as a gift that will protect society from all that they fear, it is the gift itself that poses the greatest threat.

The use of fear to gain power is a tale as old as time, but our unprecedented access to information has not made us any less vulnerable to it. Each decade of the lives of the modern citizen has brought about its own moral panic with the accompanying “solution.” From the Satanic Panic to the War on Drugs, fear has driven consistent relinquishment of our individual rights over time.

The justification for the modern surveillance state began on Sept. 11, 2001. The fear inspired by those terrible events was the foundation for the unconstitutional provisions of The PATRIOT Act, the advent of real-time crime centers, and the birth of the TSA. Public fear of terrorism enabled the government to impose security measures that would never have been tolerated in the absence of a crisis.

With greater public acceptance of an increasingly Orwellian environment, expanding surveillance from the airport into the streets required only amplifying stories of gang warfare, a problem portrayed as solvable only with the rampant use of cameras. 

Keep reading

The Next Phase Of Surveillance? Getting Under Your Skin

AI and transhumanism: Hackable animals

My friends, let me introduce you to Yuval Noah Harari, a man chock-full of big ideas. He explained during the COVID crisis:

“COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance. If we want to stop this epidemic, we need not just to monitor people, we need to monitor what’s happening under their skin.”

In a 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, Harari repeated this idea: “What we have seen so far is corporations and governments collecting data about where we go, who we meet, what movies we watch.

The next phase is the surveillance going under our skin … He likewise told India Today, when commenting on changes accepted by the population during COVID-19:

“We now see mass surveillance systems established even in democratic countries which previously rejected them, and we also see a change in the nature of surveillance. Previously, surveillance was mainly above the skin; now we want it under the skin.

“Governments want to know not just where we go or who we meet. They want to know what’s happening under our skin: what is our body temperature; what is our blood pressure; what is our medical condition?”

Harari is clearly a man who wants to … get under your skin. He just might succeed.

Another recent interview finds him waxing philosophical:

“Now humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before. We are really acquiring divine powers of creation and destruction. We are really upgrading humans into gods. We are acquiring, for instance, the power to re-engineer human life.”

As Kierkegaard once said of Hegel when he talks about the Absolute, when Harari talks about the future, he sounds like he’s going up in a balloon.

Forgive me, but a few last nuggets from professor Harari will round out the picture of his philosophy, and his lofty hopes and dreams:

“Humans are now hackable animals. You know, the whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit, and they have free will and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so, whatever I choose, whether in the election or in the supermarket, that’s my free will — that’s over.”

Harari explains that to hack human being, you need a lot of computing power and a lot of biometric data, which was not possible until recently with the advent of AI.

Keep reading

Digital ID is a danger to us all

Few things stir the imagination of conspiracy theorists like the prospect of a government-backed digital-identity scheme. The obsessive advocacy of digital ID by Tony Blair of all people is just more grist to their mill. But there are perfectly rational reasons to be wary of the British state’s digital-ID scheme. For one thing, it will make us less safe.

As I recently reported in the Telegraph, I was contacted by a senior civil servant working on One Login, the UK’s digital-identity project. Announced in 2021 and developed by the Government Digital Service (GDS), One Login has absorbed over £300million in public funds so far. It is ultimately designed to help citizens access hundreds of government services and, in the shape of the gov.uk wallet, retain digital documents including an individual’s driving licence. It currently processes the sensitive personal and biometric data for three million citizens, but that number is expected to rise as the service expands.

What the senior civil servant told me was disturbing. He arrived on the project in 2022 to set up an information-assurance team, which performs a function similar to that of an auditor, assessing risk. At One Login, he found a chaotic and insecure work culture. The system was being accessed by users with ‘do anything’ system-administrator privileges thousands of times a month. Many of these users did not have the recommended security-clearance level required to work with the sensitive personal data of millions of citizens. Moreover, the GDS did not mandate locked-down workstations for staff working from home, or for the hundreds of contractors developing the system – a legacy of the GDS’s ‘geeks in jeans’ culture once eulogised by commentators. The civil servant also discovered that part of the system was being developed in Romania, a nation named by Oxford University researchers as one of the world’s ‘key cyber-crime hotspots’.

It would only take one developer with the right administrator privileges to create havoc on the system, perhaps developing ‘back doors’ into One Login that no one would even be aware of.

Keep reading