Tag: nanny state

Shapiro’s AI Chatbot Plan Opens the Door to ID-Gated, Surveilled Conversations

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is suing Character Technologies for letting its AI chatbot impersonate a psychiatrist.

Shapiro then proposed ideas that would require a digital ID to use an AI companion bot, force companies to surveil every conversation children have with chatbots, and automatically report flagged messages to authorities.

The proposals first appeared in Shapiro’s February 2026 budget address. The May 5 lawsuit press release recycles them for a second round of coverage, using a real legal action as a vehicle for something far broader.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Shapiro wants to “require age verification and parental consent to utilize AI companion bots.” Age verification that can’t be bypassed by typing a fake birthday means government-issued ID uploads, facial scans, credit card checks, or third-party identity services. There is no version of enforceable age verification that doesn’t harvest and store sensitive personal data. The proposal would turn chatbot access into an identity-checked activity, requiring you to prove who you are with documents before a bot will talk to you.

This mirrors Senator Josh Hawley’s federal GUARD Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced 22-0 on April 30. The GUARD Act explicitly states that a “reasonable age verification measure” cannot be a checkbox or a self-entered birth date. What it can be is a government ID, a biometric scan, or a financial record tied to your legal name.

Shapiro’s proposal doesn’t spell out its methods yet but if the goal is real enforcement rather than theater, it lands in the same place. Between Harrisburg and Washington, showing papers to chat is becoming a bipartisan consensus.

Keep reading

San Francisco plots outdoor smoking ban as locals erupt

San Francisco is rolling out a sweeping outdoor smoking ban that would snuff out cigarettes on bar patios and parklets across the city.

The move has ignited outrage among local business owners, who argue the draconian measure is just the latest example of government overreach putting neighborhood bars at risk.

The controversial ordinance, being crafted by Supervisor Myrna Melgar and Dr. John Maa of the San Francisco Marin Medical Society, would require bars and taverns to follow the same smoke-free outdoor regulations already imposed on restaurants under state and local law, KTVU reported.

If passed, customers would no longer be allowed to smoke while enjoying drinks at outdoor bar spaces across the notoriously left-leaning city.

Maa, a surgeon backing the proposal, insisted the crackdown is necessary to protect patrons, workers and pedestrians from secondhand smoke.

“This is to protect the patrons of these establishments and also importantly, the employees and anyone who might be exposed to secondhand smoke,” Maa told the outlet.

He argued San Francisco should put public health ahead of business profits.

But furious bar owners have slammed the proposal as an example of heavy-handed government meddling.

Keep reading

DYSTOPIAN Truck Tech: AI Scans Faces, Reads Lips & Checks Police Database BEFORE You Can Drive

A video exposing Ford’s dystopian patents for new vehicles has gone viral on X, fueling outrage over the accelerating war on personal vehicle ownership and freedom of movement. 

The clip details in-cabin cameras, biometric scanners, lip-reading AI, emotion detection, and real-time criminal database queries – all deciding whether your truck will let you drive.

In the video, the narrator states “imagine there was an emergency outside the truck… An accident…I jump in this truck. But it won’t shift into drive. Why? Because cameras and sensors inside of my cab won’t let me shift.”

“It detects that my eyes are big. There’s some emotion. Some panic. And doesn’t feel like I’m fit to drive. That isn’t science fiction. This is happening. Ford just filed patents,” he explains.

He continues: “Ford actually has a series of patents down at the U.S. Patent and Trade Office that deal with sensors and cameras inside their cab. And if that sensor determines you’re not fit to drive, the truck won’t shift from park to drive.”

The patents extend deep into control. Biometric systems scan face, iris, and fingerprint, cross-referencing law enforcement databases before allowing movement. 

“You wake up one morning, walk out to the driveway, climb into a vehicle with your name on the title… Before you go anywhere, before you’ve done a single thing wrong, your truck has already run your face through a law enforcement database. Ford’s own patent language describes this as ‘potentially useful for police,’” the narrator further outlines.

Lip-reading tech uses interior cameras and machine learning on vast mouth-movement datasets, plus inaudible sound waves. This enables not just voice commands in noisy conditions but also monitoring for targeted ads based on conversations. 

Ford Pro Telematics also already feeds live driver video to fleet managers.

This corporate push dovetails perfectly with government efforts to restrict mobility. Just weeks ago, Massachusetts Democrats advanced Senate Bill S.2246, directing MassDOT to set binding goals for slashing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under “climate” pretexts. 

The bill creates a new council to shove residents onto public transit, hitting rural drivers hardest who rely on cars for work, family, and essentials.

Keep reading

Canadian smoking ban ‘being looked into’: health minister

The federal health minister says she is looking into legislation that would permanently ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2008.

Speaking on Parliament Hill Tuesday, Majorie Michel was asked if Canada would consider legislation similar to the United Kingdom’s recently proposed bill that aims to reduce the use of cigarettes and vapes for young people.

“I am looking into it right now,” she told reporters. “We saw what the U.K. did, but I am looking into it with all partners for now.”

Last week, both houses of the U.K. Parliament passed what’s being called the “Tobacco and Vapes Bill,” aimed to stop anyone born after Jan. 1, 2009, now aged 17, from taking up smoking. The bill still requires royal assent.

Asked whether Health Canada has been tasked with looking into a U.K.-style ban, a spokesperson for the department said they had nothing to add to a statement issued to CTV News last week.

On April 22, Health Canada told CTV News the Government of Canada has invested $66 million annually since 2018 to help Canadians quit smoking and reduce the harms of nicotine addiction. The department did not specifically say whether it was, or had ever, seriously considered a lifetime ban for people aged 17 and younger.

“The Government of Canada works collaboratively with partners and key stakeholders to protect Canadians, especially youth, from the harms of smoking using the best available data and evidence,” said Mark Johnson, a spokesperson for Health Canada.

Canada has set a goal of reducing tobacco use to less than five per cent by 2035. The 2024 Canadian Community Health Survey estimates 11 per cent of Canadians aged 18 years and over reported smoking.

When it comes to vaping, data from Statistics Canada suggests one in 10 Canadians aged 20 to 24, and one in 50 aged 25 and older, use a vape every day.

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

How Liberalism Inevitably Turns to Managerialism

mong the more curious developments in modern liberal orthodoxy is its increasingly schizophrenic disposition towards political authority. Liberals are infinitely permissive with what they deem to be matters of personal expression, such as drug use, abortion, and various sexual contrivances. Yet, at the same time, on other sets of issues, liberals have adopted stringently authoritarian attitudes, supporting without compunction such draconian measures as censorship bureaus, speech codes, election nullification, and invasive medical overreach.

What is interesting about both these developments is how liberals will justify both moral laxity and political repression by invoking expert authority. The Left largely grounded its support for medicalized gender-affirmation on the judgment of purported expert institutions like WPATH; they justified permissive “harm reduction” approaches to managing homelessness by citing organizations like Harm Reduction International. Meanwhile, on the authoritarian end of the ledger, the Left invoked authorities like the Disinformation Governance Board (run out of DHS) and the Stanford Internet Observatory to argue for flagrant state censorship. Whether the cause of the hour is of the libertine or authoritarian variety, the Left invariably justifies it by appeal to scientific or technical expertise.

These developments in liberal politics — the schizophrenic lurching between permissiveness and authoritarianism, the endless exaltation of experts — are rooted in a vulnerability inherent in liberalism itself, namely that liberalism is inherently deconstructive. It is a political formula for dismantling social customs and hierarchies in pursuit of ever greater individual autonomy and equality — that is, in theory.

The problem for liberals is that this process only goes one way. Once Liberalism becomes the dominant social ethos, it discovers that it lacks the internal resources to construct and legitimate any social hierarchy. This creates problems for the exercise of governance, which is inherently hierarchical and authoritarian. (For evidence of this, the next time one is pulled over, one should deny the authority of the officer on the scene on the grounds of the inherent equality of all human beings; see what happens.)

In light of this, liberals have striven, over centuries, to devise some system that can justify hierarchical governance structures within their egalitarian ethos, postulating such schemes as Social Contract theory, Proprietorial Libertarianism, the Veil of Ignorance, Popular Sovereignty, and countless others. Historically, the only such systems that have proven politically viable are those ostensibly grounded in ‘technical expertise,’ that is to say, managerial liberalism.

The political viability of managerial liberalism has nothing to do with the inherent justness or validity of this solution. On the contrary, institutions of technical or professional authority, once leveraged for political authority, immediately become compromised. Their ‘expert opinions’ quickly degenerate into flagrantly pretextual covers for purely political machinations. Note that the various institutions cited at the outset, WPATH, the Disinformation Governance Board, and so forth, have since collapsed in a heap from their own corruption.

Keep reading

New Restrictions On SNAP Purchases To Take Effect In More States In April

Food stamp recipients in Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will face restrictions on buying certain kinds of less nutritious items such as soda and candy, some starting in April.

West Virginia’s restrictions became effective on Jan. 1, but retailers have until April 1 to be fully compliant.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved Colorado’s restrictions waiver, but the state has delayed implementation of restrictions on certain items for food stamp recipients until after April 30 and stated that it would have a final vote on April 3 on the program.

The Trump administration is clamping down on soda and candy being charged to food stamps, as 22 states now have been approved to restrict certain purchases under the program. The restrictions still require state approval before taking effect.

Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming were the latest states to receive USDA approval for food and beverage restrictions.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, had 40.7 million people participating nationwide at a monthly cost of $7.97 billion as of November 2025.

“The Trump Administration is leading bold reform to strengthen integrity and restore nutritional value within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the USDA stated on its website. “USDA is empowering states with greater flexibility to manage their programs by approving SNAP Food Restriction Waivers that restrict the purchase of non-nutritious items like soda and candy. These waivers are a key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP.”

For example, starting on April 1, Texas residents will not be able to buy candy or sweetened drinks on their SNAP-provided Lone Star Cards. Those restrictions will ban such purchases as candy bars, gum, and taffy, as well as nuts, raisins, or fruits that have been “candied, crystallized, glazed or coated with chocolate, yogurt or caramel.”

Texas also will ban sweetened non-alcoholic beverages made with water that contain 5 or more grams of sugar or artificial sweetener, according to Texas Health and Human Services.

Keep reading

The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family

Many traditions throughout history have come to view the prenatal period and childbirth as one of the most important moments in a human’s life as it sets the stage for all that follows. Unfortunately, much in the same way we desecrate the death process by over-medicalizing it (to the point research has found doctors are less likely to seek end of life care at a medical facility), the same issue also exists with childbirth. Many physicians I know who are familiar with the hospital birthing process chose to skip it and give birth at home (along with many more doctors featured in a 2016 documentary).

Conversely, a minority of childbirths do need advanced medical care, and for those mothers, access to a hospital greatly benefits them, particularly if actions are taken to mitigate the most dangerous aspects of hospital birth. As such, childbirth occupies a similar place as many other medical controversies; neither side of the issue is entirely correct. However, the discussion remains perpetually polarized because advocates on either side will not acknowledge the valid points raised by the other side for fear of weakening their own position. Since I feel strongly about the dangers of hospital birth, it is my hope in this article that I will be able to portray both sides of the issue fairly.

Keep reading

Politicians Want To Ban Gambling Ads To Stop Youth Addiction. What Do the Data Say About Teens and Betting?

Are young boys everywhere on the verge of being pulled down into the abyss of online gambling? 

If you’ve been reading the news lately, you might be tempted to think so. Young men are all addicted to sports betting, and now the industry’s incessant advertising is luring in kids, so say some media outlets. If something isn’t done to limit ads for gambling apps, some argue, kids will continue to be taken advantage of. 

These dire predictions have reached Colorado lawmakers, who are now considering Senate Bill 26-131, which would place major restrictions on sports betting in the state. In addition to barring adults from making more than five separate deposits with an individual betting operator within a 24-hour period, the bill would also make it illegal to broadcast an ad “for a sports betting operation from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. or during a live broadcast of an athletic competition.” . 

The bill’s supporters defend this prohibition by saying it’s necessary to protect kids. In reality, gambling ads pose very little threat to children. Even for those who find ways around age restrictions, the data show that they make bets only occasionally (similar to most adults). While gambling can and does ruin lives for the small fraction of adults who become addicted to it, it’s a relatively harmless form of entertainment for the vast majority of users. And for those who do have a genuine gambling problem, advertisements for legitimate betting apps can help direct them toward well-regulated companies and steer them away from dangerous, illegal gambling operations. 

The moral panic over online sports betting has made some people wildly overestimate the power of TV commercials. State Sen. Matt Ball (D–Denver), one of the bill’s sponsors, compared sports betting ads to those for cigarettes. “The whole point is we try to restrict that advertising from getting to kids,” he told Denver 7, a local ABC News affiliate. “At the end of the day, gambling is an addiction. It’s like alcoholism. It’s like substance abuse.” The theory seems to be that, if kids see ads for gambling apps, they’ll start gambling themselves and immediately develop an addiction that will destroy their lives. 

A recent survey by Common Sense Media on gambling amongst minors is helping to fuel those concerns. The survey found that 36 percent of boys aged 11 to 17 said they gambled online within the past year.    

Keep reading

The Feds Are Investing in Wearable Health Trackers. That Could Put Your Private Data at Risk.

By gathering continuous data about sleep, heart rate, and physical activity, biowearable devices can give individuals more control over their well-being. But they also create a detailed digital record of our daily lives—one that the federal government may soon be able to access readily.

Consider this scenario.

You’ve recently received a government-subsidized biowearable. Accordingly, the authorities now know when you’re sleeping, because the device reports your sleep cycle, location, and daily movements in real time to a cloud server accessible through a legal process. It knows when you’re home. It knows when you leave.

Those data are then obtained by an FBI field office (either through direct purchase or, if necessary, a legal process), because a federal prosecutor has decided that your criticism of immigration enforcement operations and your social media posts supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters constitute “incitement to violence” against federal agents. Under the Trump administration’s elastic (and legally dubious) domestic terrorism definitions and designations, that is enough to open a criminal investigation.

And because the government has known for weeks when you’re at home sleeping, it knows exactly when to break down your door.

That scenario may sound far-fetched, but it is getting closer to reality. In March, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) would begin investing in new biowearable technologies through a program it called Delphi, after the ancient Greek sanctuary where the maxim “know thyself” was inscribed. It’s a fitting name for a program designed to help people understand their bodies, but it also raises an uncomfortable question: Who else might come to know them just as well?

The program aims to develop biosensors capable of continuously monitoring cytokines (cellular inflammation markers) and hormone levels, going substantially beyond what current wearables can detect. Funding will be determined on a competitive basis as private-sector stakeholders submit proposals; no specific appropriation has been announced.

It remains unclear why this taxpayer funding is necessary in a field that is already thriving. The global wearables market was valued at roughly $43 billion in 2024 and is projected to exceed $168 billion by 2030.

Devices worn on the wrist, finger, or skin can already monitor heart rates, blood oxygen levels, sleep patterns, physical activity, and—in the case of continuous glucose monitors—blood sugar levels in real time. Some smartwatches can even conduct electrocardiograms capable of detecting irregular heart rhythms, such as atrial fibrillation.

Until recently, people could access most of this information only during periodic visits to a clinic or hospital. Biowearables now enable people to monitor many of these signals continuously in everyday life.

Keep reading