Tag: police state

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

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

In my last post, I wrote that “The campaign to ban Alternative für Deutschland is not going well.” Today – a mere 72 hours later – you could say that the campaign to ban Alternative für Deutschland is all but dead. This is because the people most committed to banning the AfD also happen to be some of the stupidest, most incompetent legal and political operators the world has ever seen. Their incompetence is so enormous that I am for once willing to entertain conspiracy theories as to why they might have undermined their own project. It is that bad.

Two weeks ago, you may remember, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser forced the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) to rush its long-planned upgrade of the AfD and declare the party to be a “confirmed Right-wing extremist” organisation. Word spread of a mysterious 1,100-page assessment, full of damning proofs that allegedly supported this upgrade. This document had to be kept secret, Faeser explained in an interview, “to protect sources and withhold indications of how our findings were obtained”. So espionage, much secret, wow.

The thing was, the anti-AfD dossier could not have been that secret, because somebody (almost certainly somebody in the Interior Ministry) immediately leaked it to Der Spiegel, whose journalists published various excerpts in an effort to make the case for how evil and fascist and Nazi and Hitler the AfD is. In this way the press could climax repeatedly in a wave of unceasing democratic orgasms over the renewed possibility of an AfD ban, even in the absence of the supersecret report.

The media circus dissipated quickly, however. The publicity campaign, the rollout – a lot of things went wrong, some of them inexplicably wrong. Still, I thought there was a 40% chance that the Bundestag would try to open ban proceedings sometime this year. That, as I said, was on Monday. What happened on Tuesday, is that Cicero, NiUS and Junge Freiheit all received the secret 1,100-page assessment (actually, it contains 1,108 pages) and published it in its entirety. Since Tuesday evening, a great many people have been reading this document, and they have been realising various things.

The first thing they’ve realised, is that it contains hardly anything derived from supersecret spy sources at all. It is little more than a collection of public statements by AfD politicians. Faeser’s sources-and-methods justification for keeping the report hidden was a total lie.

Keep reading

Why Is The Secret German Spy Report On The AfD Party Only Filled With Public Statements?

The German domestic spy service, the Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has released a 1,100-page report on the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which it used to label the party a “confirmed” right-wing extremist party. The report is huge and reads like it was written by Antifa, but that was to be expected. However, one interesting point is that it contains only public statements, including quotes made by AfD politicians and a lot of memes.

Why is that?

We already know that the BfV is secretly surveilling AfD members in certain German states, mostly in the east, where the party is “confirmed right-wing extremist” already. This designation allows for the BfV in those states to partake in extraordinary surveillance powers over AfD members, including reading their chats and emails. Presumably, they can also track their browsing history, and perhaps they are even listening in on their conversations at home.

What this means is that the BfV has plenty of statements, memes and content to use based on private statements, but it is purposefully choosing not to use them. After all, a certain number of those AfD members, in private moments, probably also express opinions, post memes, or share thoughts that the BfV would love to include in a secret report on the party, which many hope will eventually justify an outright ban.

Again, why is the BfV not using these private statements?

There are multiple reasons.

For one, a big part of the apparatus of spy agencies is to obtain information, but not release it to the public. The public may not be able to stomach such personal and private information and the means that were used to obtain it. Since the Edward Snowden revelations, and even before then, we have become acutely aware that we have accepted devices into our lives and homes that can be used to spy on us on a scale never seen before in history. However, even now — even after all this information has been revealed — I believe nearly all of us still cannot quite grasp what this means — nor do we want to.

Yes, we know that AfD members are being spied on across Germany. Their emails are read, their phone calls are recorded. AI is being used to sort out keywords of interest to the security services. However, nobody really knows how this information is being processed and what it is being used for, or even who is reading it. The spies who control this information have extraordinary power. As a significant portion of them are now far left, at least in Germany, they believe they are acting as a bulwark against the rise of Nazism, and the ends justify the means when it comes to the AfD. There are other psychological motives at work, of course, as spy agencies are on the whole very good at keeping their secrets, not even necessarily because of internal controls, but because the spies are dedicated to their mission. There is, also, the sense of power that comes with being the watcher, and for many spies, this is a powerful intoxicant. They know, while you are in the dark.

Keep reading

Colorado Could Be The Parental Rights Canary In The Coal Mine

Some may look at the pending Colorado legislation destroying parental rights and wrongly see the last gasps of a dying woke regime.   

The dystopian state house bill, HB 25-1312 or better known as the “Kelly Loving Act,” allows the Colorado government to remove a child from her parents if parents refuse to go along with her gender dysphoria and self-styled new identity. It represents the most totalitarian legal destruction of parental rights in American history. 

The bill passed the Colorado House and Senate. To understand why this destructive legislation might become Colorado law, we need to look closer at the cultural understructure. 

The most politically powerful defenders of children are married, biological parents. In 1970, married households with kids under age 18 made up 40 percent of all American households. Today, that number stands at just 17.8 percent of all households. 

Colorado sits on the front edge of the demographic cliff with K-12 schools already starting to shutter. According to the US Census, married households with kids in the state are just 81 percent of the national average at 14.4 percent of all households.   

So, this evil legislation makes some political sense. The less married parents with kids in any electorate district, the more vulnerable parents and kids are to the onslaught of state power. 

And given current trends in marriage and fertility rates – our future politics may look a lot more like Colorado’s politics than anyone realizes. This legal threat to parental rights will spread. 

Here’s what we know both from the data and common sense.  

A man not married to the mother of his child is less present in the day-to-day life of his child. Nearly all unmarried dads are nonresident dads who see their child less than once a week within two years of becoming a nonresident dad. A large portion of these men see their child only monthly or even less. These children don’t just lack the vital day-to-day influence that only a loving, present father can provide, they lose a powerful advocate and protector – particularly in politics.   

Keep reading

Family says woman declared brain dead but her pregnancy continues under state law

The family of a 30-year-old metro Atlanta mother and nurse said she was declared brain dead more than 90 days ago — but is still being kept alive because she’s pregnant.

Adriana Smith, a registered nurse at Emory University Hospital, was nearly nine weeks pregnant in early February when she started experiencing intense headaches. According to her mother, April Newkirk, Smith sought treatment at Northside Hospital but was released after being given medication.

“They gave her some medication, but they didn’t do any tests. No CT scan,” Newkirk said. “If they had done that or kept her overnight, they would have caught it. It could have been prevented.”

The next morning, Newkirk said Smith’s boyfriend woke to her gasping for air in her sleep—gargling sounds he believes were caused by internal bleeding. 

He called 911. Smith was taken to Emory Decatur and later transferred to Emory University Hospital where she worked. A CT scan revealed multiple blood clots in her brain.

“They asked me if I would agree to a procedure to relieve the pressure, and I said yes,” Newkirk said. “Then they called me back and said they couldn’t do it.”

Smith was declared brain dead. Her family has been by her side every day since, including her young son, who they said still believes his mother is just sleeping.

Keep reading

Redefining Obscenity: Lawmakers Take Aim at More Online Content

Two Republican lawmakers are advancing a bill that could dramatically expand the federal government’s ability to criminalize certain content online.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Mary Miller of Illinois have introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), legislation that aims to overhaul the legal definition of obscenity and give prosecutors wide authority to target more online content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters of the bill claim it is designed to protect families and children from harmful material, but civil liberties advocates warn that its sweeping language threatens to criminalize large swaths of constitutionally protected expression.

IODA discards key elements of the Supreme Court’s long-standing Miller test, which has served as the nation’s benchmark for identifying obscene content since 1973. Under that framework, courts assess whether material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive” way by community standards, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller’s bill replaces that careful balancing test with a rigid federal definition. According to the proposed language, content is considered obscene if “taken as a whole, [it] appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,” if it “depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person,” and if it “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Promoting the bill, Lee declared, “Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children.” He added, “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

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

German Conservative Media Leak Secret Police Dossier Used to Ban and Spy on AfD: Criticizing Mass Migration is “Far Right”

Several conservative German media have published the allegedly “secret” dossier the German intel service used to justify classifying the largest German opposition party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as “confirmed far-right”. The 1100-page dossier contains mainly public statements by party members which criticize open borders and mass immigration.

“Cicero“, “Tichy’s Einblick” and “Junge Freiheit” obtained the 1,100 page dossier which ex-Interior Minister Nancy Faeser used to drop a bomb on the AfD on her last day in office. The German secret political police (Office for the Protection of the Constitution – Verfassungsschutz / BfV) has since retracted its classification of the AfD as “far-right” after the AfD sued in court and US Senator Tom Cotton wrote to DNI Tulsi Gabbard to ask US intel agencies to stop exchanging information with German secret services that spy on the political opposition.

The dossier released by the conservative media did not contain any new revelations, but consists entirely of public statements by AfD politcians that most US conservatives will find completely normal sentiments, such as a Facebook post by the party from September 25, 2023:

Instead of a pointless housing summit: Deportation for more housing! If hundreds of thousands or even millions enter Germany every year without the same number of apartments being built, there won’t be enough housing. So due to rising demand, rents also increase. The result: According to calculations by the housing industry association, up to one million apartments may be missing by 2025. But instead of even talking about how this problem can be reduced through consistent deportations and protected borders, the established parties organize a pointless housing summit and decide on brutal regulations at the expense of the Germans.

Pretty extreme, huh?

Keep reading

Finland to criminalise Holocaust denial

The government is proposing to add a provision to the criminal code to outlaw Holocaust denial and other serious international crimes.

Suggesting that the Holocaust did not happen will become a punishable offence, with the penalty ranging from a fine to two years’ imprisonment.

The government submitted the legislative proposal to Parliament on Thursday, with the law expected to come into force this autumn.

The Finnish government proposal is based on the EU’s framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.

Keep reading

‘No trace of alcohol’: Police thought Amazon worker’s stroke was a DWI, then threw him in jail for 7 hours and caused him to go blind, lawsuit says

A Missouri man who was wrongly arrested for DWI while he was exhibiting symptoms of a stroke is suing the sheriff’s office for not getting him the medical treatment he needed.

In a complaint filed in federal court in April, Paul Espinosa, 54, claimed that while he was arriving at the parking lot of the Amazon Warehouse in Republic, Missouri, where he worked, he was pulled over by Greene County Sheriff’s Deputy Kyle Winchell. Winchell claimed that Espinosa’s car was “weaving,” and the deputy suspected he was driving while intoxicated. Espinosa agreed to a field sobriety test, including a Breathalyzer test, which yielded a reading of 0.000% — indicating there was “no trace of alcohol in his system,” the lawsuit states.

However, Espinosa showed signs of “swaying” during other parts of the test, and Winchell arrested Espinosa on suspicion of DWI. Espinosa was put in the back of Winchell’s vehicle and transported to the jail. Espinosa began “sweating profusely” during the transport, despite the car’s air conditioning running throughout the trip. Upon their arrival at the jail, Espinosa’s “motor skills were declining,” the lawsuit states.

Keep reading