Tag: mass surveillance

Intelligence Community Directive 406 Expands US Spy Agencies’ Ties with Big Tech

Intelligence Community Directive 406 was signed in the dying days of the Biden Administration – on January 16 – essentially, yet another part in a recent big drive, pushed particularly strongly during the recent WEF meetings in Davos, to promote “public-private” partnerships. The significance of Intelligence Community Directive 406 cannot be overstated.

The directive, as Ken Klippenstein reports signed by the then director of national intelligence, was focused on encouraging US intelligence agencies to “partner” with those privately owned corporations that already have troves of data at their disposal – such as, for example, tech corporations behind social platforms, but also those developing AI. The impact of Intelligence Community Directive 406 on these partnerships is critical.

A new administration has taken over in the US, and as of this time, it remains unclear how or if it intends to implement and use these newly introduced powers.

The order’s key provisions are to facilitate how spy agencies can use both data and expertise that corporations have. The misgivings about this particular policy view have to do with how vast both these categories have become, and how they have fueled financial success of tech companies, and therefore their role.

It could also be read as one last ditch effort to compromise the credibility of Big Tech, and put a question mark over some new trends, involving a number of these corporations openly turning against their “tormentors” of many years, and embracing the new administration.

Keep reading

EU AI Act Effectively Legalizes Biometric Mass Surveillance

On February 2, the EU AI Act, which came into force in August, reached the first compliance deadline. These are provisions that contain rules that allow the bloc to legalize biometric mass surveillance.

This is happening via Article 5, that on the face of it seeks to introduce protections against using AI systems that represent “unacceptable risk.” But, there are also exceptions to this, defined in the act as the “strictly necessary” cases when those same systems are allowed to be used.

It is this that gave rise to the fear that one of the consequences of the AI Act is to in fact legalize some highly contentious deployments of biometric data-fueled mass surveillance.

Article 5 prohibits real-time remote biometric ID systems from being used by law enforcement in public spaces – but only “unless and in so far as such use is strictly necessary.”

The “strictly necessary” instances are described as those when law enforcement is searching for “specific victims” of crimes like abduction, trafficking, and sexual exploitation, but also when they look for missing persons.

The second definition gets less precise in scope as it allows for AI surveillance systems to be used to prevent crime. This includes a threat to life or physical safety of individuals that is deemed to be “specific, substantial, and imminent” – or threat of a terrorist attack that law enforcement decides is “genuine and present” but also – “genuine and foreseeable.”

Lastly, the AI Act treats as “strictly necessary” to exempt from prohibited AI activities the following: “Localization or identification of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offense, for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation or prosecution or executing a criminal penalty for offenses.”

Keep reading

Digital Hegemony: Sophisticating Monitoring And Propaganda – Love Your Servitude!

Today, we are witnessing a profound transformation. We are increasingly impacted by algorithmic decision-making, artificial intelligence, data proliferation, data harvesting and sophisticated monitoring of how we think and act. This affects how we work, how we access services and how we relate to and interact with others. 

While digital innovations and online platforms offer unparalleled ease, they also raise critical concerns about our independence. The constant connectivity and data-driven decision-making that characterise modern life has major implications. Technological advancements are used to shape preferences and behaviour, and predictably, powerholders use the notion of convenience to manipulate and exert control over populations.

Giant corporations and the state are leveraging what is often termed ‘technological solutionism’ to establish a digital iron cage of control. By monitoring and predicting our thoughts and actions, these intertwined entities impose a tightening noose of automated systems, suffocating personal liberty.

We are increasingly hurtling toward a reality reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where a dystopian technocracy merges with a plutocracy.

Keep reading

Investigation: Healthcare Driven by AI Technology Will Lead to More Mass Surveillance of Americans

During a press conference with Silicon Valley luminaries during his second day in office, President Donald Trump threw his political support behind a $500 billion private-sector artificial intelligence (AI) project called Stargate.

The joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank and others will fund infrastructure for AI. Among other things, part of that funding will develop AI for early cancer detection and the rapid creation of mRNA cancer vaccines.

But well before Trump’s announcement, Silicon Valley and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) had already teamed up to transform U.S. healthcare into an AI-driven system — a system designed to unleash the power of “predictive medicine” for the early detection and treatment of disease, in an individual or population, sometimes even before an illness manifests, according to a new investigative report by Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones.

The future of predictive medicine depends on data sharing between the DOD, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees 13 public health agencies, and the private tech sector, Jones wrote.

Predictive medicine will be used for mass surveillance of Americans, and will inform future approaches to pandemics, Jones reported.

Jones said that at the heart of this new system is the Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics (CFA). Announced last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CFA aims to establish “a National Weather Service, but for infectious diseases” — using mass data collection to predict and control disease outbreaks, The Defender reported.

To launch the initiative, HHS announced an estimated $262 million in grant funding over five years to establish a network of 13 infectious disease forecasting and analytics centers to coordinate this work across the U.S.

Keep reading

UK Gov’t Wants Sweeping Powers to Spy on Your Bank Account

The UK’s Labour government announced plans this week that would further erode civil rights in the country, this time in the name of “preventing benefit fraud”.

The plans include revoking the driver’s licenses of those convicted of benefit fraud, “early morning raids” by “crack teams” from the DWP, and – most shockingly – permitting the government access to private banking information so they can take back money they believe they are owed, without the knowledge or permission of the accused.

In their own classically impartial fashion, the BBC reported this as:

Benefit cheats could be stripped of driving licenses

But this isn’t about “benefit cheats”. Even the government’s own figures say that benefit fraud makes up only ~3% of the welfare budget, and this move will only save £1.5 billion over the next five years.

£300 million per year is nothing in government terms. They just pledged 10x that amount, per year, to Ukraine.

They don’t care about the money, they care about power and precedent.

  • They want to be able to take away your driver’s license.
  • They want to be able to monitor your bank account.
  • They want to be able to take your money without your knowledge.
  • They want to be able to search your electronic devices and track your spending.

Maybe it will start with “reclaiming benefits”, but do you think it will end there?

Remember they also want to introduce Universal Basic Income, which would mean – technically – everyone is on “benefits”.

Keep reading

Phone Metadata Suddenly Not So ‘Harmless’ When It’s The FBI’s Data Being Harvested

The government’s next-best argument (after “Third Party Doctrine yo!”) in support of its bulk collection of US persons’ phone metadata via the (now partly-dead) Section 215 surveillance program was this: hey, it’s just metadata. How harmful could it be? (And if it’s of so little use to the NSA/FBI/others, how is it possible we’re using it to literally kill people?)

While trying to fend off attacks on Section 215 collections (most of which are governed [in the loosest sense of the word] by the Third Party Doctrine), the NSA and its domestic-facing remora, the FBI, insisted collecting and storing massive amounts of phone metadata was no more a constitutional violation than it was a privacy violation.

Suddenly — thanks to the ongoing, massive compromising of major US telecom firms by Chinese state-sanctioned hackers — the FBI is getting hot and bothered about the bulk collection of its own phone metadata by (gasp!) a government agency. (h/t Kevin Collier on Bluesky)

FBI leaders have warned that they believe hackers who broke into AT&T Inc.’s system last year stole months of their agents’ call and text logs, setting off a race within the bureau to protect the identities of confidential informants, a document reviewed by Bloomberg News shows.

[…]

The data was believed to include agents’ mobile phone numbers and the numbers with which they called and texted, the document shows. Records for calls and texts that weren’t on the AT&T network, such as through encrypted messaging apps, weren’t part of the stolen data.

The agency (quite correctly!) believes the metadata could be used to identify agents, as well as their contacts and confidential sources. Of course it can. That’s why the NSA liked gathering it. And that’s why the FBI liked collections it didn’t need a warrant to access. (But let’s not pretend this data was “stolen.” It was duplicated and exfiltrated, but AT&T isn’t suddenly missing thousands of records generated by FBI agents and their contacts.)

The issue, of course, is that the Intelligence Community consistently downplayed this exact aspect of the bulk collection, claiming it was no more intrusive than scanning every piece of domestic mail (!) or harvesting millions of credit card records just because the Fourth Amendment (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) doesn’t say the government can’t.

There are real risks to real people who are affected by hacks like these. The same thing applies when the US government does it. It’s not just a bunch of data that’s mostly useless. Harvesting metadata in bulk allows the US government to do the same thing Chinese hackers are doing with it: identifying individuals, sussing out their personal networks, and building from that to turn numbers into adversarial actions — whether it’s the arrest of suspected terrorists or the further compromising of US government agents by hostile foreign forces.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Law Requiring Small Businesses To Report Ownership Information

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 8–1 on Jan. 23 to allow the federal government to enforce an anti-money laundering law that a lower court blocked late last year.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the new ruling.

The statute at issue, the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), required millions of business entities to file information returns about their owners by Jan. 1, 2025.

An estimated 33 million small businesses face fines of as much as $591 per day should they fail to comply with the new rule, according to.a Treasury website.

Businesses with upwards of 20 employees, $5 million in annual sales, and a U.S. office qualify for exemptions from CTA reporting requirements.

The law provides that affected corporate entities must file reports with the federal government about their beneficial owners, which means individuals with substantial control over the entity or who own or control 25 percent of the entity.

Entities are required to provide the government with the names of their beneficial owners, along with their birthdates, addresses, and identifying information such as passport or driver’s license numbers.

The CTA’s reporting requirement was put on hold on Dec. 5, 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sided with challengers, granting a nationwide preliminary injunction—also known as a universal injunction—against the CTA.

The court found that the challengers would likely succeed with their claim that the act was unconstitutional.

On Dec. 13, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a federal agency, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stay the injunction.

The agency argued the law was constitutional and that the challenge to it would probably fail in the end.

The circuit court’s motions panel granted the government’s request on Dec. 23, 2024, and suspended the injunction pending appeal. FinCEN then extended the filing deadline for corporate entities to Jan. 13, 2025.

Keep reading

UK Gov’t Wants Sweeping Powers to Spy on Your Bank Account

The UK’s Labour government announced plans this week that would further erode civil rights in the country, this time in the name of “preventing benefit fraud”.

The plans include revoking the driver’s licenses of those convicted of benefit fraud, “early morning raids” by “crack teams” from the DWP, and –  most shockingly – permitting the government access to private banking information so they can take back money they believe they are owed, without the knowledge or permission of the accused.

In their own classically impartial fashion, the BBC reported this as:

Benefit cheats could be stripped of driving licenses

But this isn’t about “benefit cheats”. Even the government’s own figures say that benefit fraud makes up only ~3% of the welfare budget, and this move will only save £1.5 billion over the next five years.

£300 million per year is nothing in government terms. They just pledged 10x that amount, per year, to Ukraine.

They don’t care about the money, they care about power and precedent.

  • They want to be able to take away your driver’s license.
  • They want to be able to monitor your bank account.
  • They want to be able to take your money without your knowledge.
  • They want to be able to search your electronic devices and track your spending.

Maybe it will start with “reclaiming benefits”, but do you think it will end there?

Remember they also want to introduce Universal Basic Income, which would mean – technically – everyone is on “benefits”.

This is clearly a pathway to a “Social Credit” system.

Keep reading

Court Rules Warrantless Section 702 Searches Violated the Fourth Amendment

In a long-awaited ruling in United States v. Hasbajrami, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last night held that warrantless queries — or searches — conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment. The ruling is the first of its kind, and it follows years of public revelations about how Section 702 has been used by the government to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, including protesters, members of Congress, and journalists.

The court’s opinion addresses numerous queries the FBI conducted of the defendant, Mr. Agron Hasbajrami, during an investigation years ago. The government initially hid its use of Section 702 in Mr. Hasbajrami’s case and others, reversing course only after the Department of Justice’s policy of wrongly concealing Section 702 surveillance in criminal cases came to light.

“This is a major constitutional ruling on one of the most abused provisions of FISA,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “As the court recognized, the FBI’s rampant digital searches of Americans are an immense invasion of privacy, and trigger the bedrock protections of the Fourth Amendment. Section 702 is long overdue for reform by Congress, and this opinion shows why.”

The decision follows a groundbreaking 2019 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognized that Section 702 queries of people in the United States are searches that trigger separate Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The court of appeals sent the case back to the lower court for further constitutional analysis, culminating in yesterday’s ruling. While the new opinion holds that the FBI’s Section 702 queries violated the Fourth Amendment, the court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the resulting evidence on separate grounds.

Keep reading

The Predictable Capitulation of Tulsi Gabbard

Well, Tulsi Gabbard now says she is all for the unconstitutional law that permits the national security state to surveil Americans without obtaining legal warrants beforehand — a law Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence has previously and vigorously pledged to repeal.

As President-elect Trump’s inauguration approaches and his cabinet appointments will be confirmed or rejected in Senate hearings, Gabbard’s in-your-face betrayal of public trust ought to focus our minds very sharply and very fast. Some of these minds, I will say straightaway, have drifted far from reality since Trump began announcing his nominees. This was especially so in the case of Gabbard. 

As soon as Trump proposed Gabbard as his DNI, the shared expectation in some quarters, most of whose inhabitants I respect, was that she would — singlehandedly, I gathered from the commentaries — bring the hydra-headed monster euphemistically called “the intelligence community” under some semblance of political-civilian control. 

And now this: Professing support for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after opposing it for years, Gabbard seems to have shocked a lot of people. Reading this in the large, she has just told America it’s the same old imperium after all.  

Shall we join to sing “Up, Up, and Away” now that all the beautiful balloons have fallen to Earth and the world’s not a nicer place and doesn’t wear a nicer face?

Until her stunning volte-face last weekend, Gabbard had been single-mindedly steadfast in her opposition to many FISA provisions, notably but not only Section 702. A lot of people, I among them, put this among the most significant positions Gabbard, the former congresswoman, had taken on any policy question.

Keep reading