Tag: police state

New York Wants Online Digital ID Rules for Social Media Feeds Under “SAFE For Kids Act”

New York is advancing a set of proposed regulations that would require social media platforms to verify users’ ages before granting access to algorithm-driven feeds or allowing nighttime alerts.

Attorney General Letitia James introduced the draft rules on Monday, tied to the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) For Kids Act, which was signed into law last year by Governor Kathy Hochul.

Presented as part of an effort to reduce mental health harms linked to social media, the law would compel platforms to restrict algorithmic content for anyone under 18 or anyone who hasn’t completed an age verification process, which would mean the introduction of digital ID checks to access online platforms.

In those cases, users would be limited to seeing content in chronological order from accounts they already follow.

Platforms would also be barred from sending notifications between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. to those users.

The rules give companies some flexibility in how they confirm a user’s age, as long as the method is considered effective and designed to protect personal data.

Acceptable alternatives to submitting a government ID include facial analysis that estimates age. Any identifying information collected during verification must be deleted “immediately,” according to the proposal.

For minors to access personalized algorithmic feeds, parental permission would be required.

That too involves a verification step, with the same data-deletion requirements in place once the process is complete.

The SAFE For Kids Act targets platforms where user-generated content is central and where at least 20 percent of time spent involves engagement with feeds tailored to user behavior or device data.

Keep reading

Bipartisan Lawmakers Propose Federal Digital Identity Agency

A bipartisan push in Congress is calling for the creation of a federal agency to regulate digital identity systems, at a time of growing concerns over the digital ID push.

Representatives Bill Foster of Illinois and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania are leading the initiative, which would give the new agency broad authority to certify and audit both the software and hardware used to verify identities online.

Current federal guidance, such as that from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, remains optional.

The proposed agency would go further by establishing rules that digital ID systems must follow. It would serve as an independent authority to evaluate whether a technology is secure enough for government or commercial use, particularly as digital ID tools become more widespread.

Foster, a longtime proponent of government involvement in digital identity policy, has previously introduced versions of the Improving Digital Identity Act. That legislation called for the development of consent-based systems to allow people to confirm their identity online without relying on private platforms or vulnerable credentials.

“The next best thing you can do is provide people with at least the ability to prove they are who they say they are and not a deepfake,” he said last year.

But the push for a national digital identity framework raises serious alarms for privacy advocates who warn that such systems could erode the last vestiges of online anonymity.

By tying identity verification directly to state-issued credentials and biometric data, digital ID programs risk creating a surveillance infrastructure where every online interaction, transaction, or login is linked back to a traceable individual.

This fundamentally changes the nature of the internet, replacing pseudonymous participation with state-verified presence.

Privacy protections promised by digital ID proponents often hinge on enforcement by government agencies that have a long history of overreach.

While lawmakers emphasize that these tools will help curb fraud or impersonation, they rarely address how digital identity mandates could chill free speech.

Keep reading

Welcome To Big Brother’s Digital Prison, Part I: Central Bank Digital Currencies

Globalist leaders are working at full speed to introduce central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). A CBDC is a digital currency that is issued directly by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve in the US, the European Central Bank in the EU’s eurozone, and the Bank of England in the UK.

A CBDC will be the final straw that ensures that every dream of suppression and control that the globalists nurture will come true. Several of those dreams are already a reality, including shutting down dissent and free speech, as in Europe, where people are routinely fined and arrested for saying things their governments do not like. A host of other controlling measures are already in the works, including herding people into “15-minute cities” where it is easier to monitor them, keep tabs on their use of private cars, decide what they can and cannot eat – ideally “ecologically preferable” bugs and lab-grown meat, no beef or cheese — track their “carbon footprints”, determine where and how they can travel, oversee their vaccines and so on.

The Oxford-educated, German economist Richard A. Werner said in an interview last year.

“The push for CBDCs is the final step in a multi-decade program by central planners to increase their power over the people and over countries. This is the ultimate step because the powers of CBDCs are so extraordinary that, I mean, even the worst dictators of past centuries could only have dreamt of having such enormous power over the lives of so many people.

“We are talking about a very dystopian future if we allow central banks to issue central bank digital currencies. You know, even if the original designers and heads of central banks who are launching this are super well-meaning, you know, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, we just know what human nature is like and history is the best guide…

“I think the power would be abused, if not by the original generation of launchers, then by the next generation…. It will be a completely totalitarian system of such frightening proportions, it’s hard to imagine…

“The micromanaging decision [about your spending] will then be automated and… you have no right to appeal the algorithm… You just won’t be able to use your money for certain things and then there is nothing that you can do… That by definition ends freedom….

“Dictators like Stalin and other dictators, they could only have dreamt of, you know, the enormous power that central bank digital currencies give to central planners… We are talking about dystopian digital prisons that will be created through central bank digital currencies, because the programmability – and this has been mentioned in the studies by the central banks – include of course geography, and there is this proposal for climate change, whatever reasons, that people… should stay within their 15-minute walking small local area… and there will be digital controls… when you walk with all your RFID chips in your cards and your CBDC anyway, of course you will be immediately recognized if you’re out of the area and you will be punished. It’s a digital prison.”

Keep reading

UK Police Show Up at Cancer Patient’s Door Demanding an Apology For Social Media Post

Just when you thought British speech policing had reached the bottom of the absurdity barrel, they bring a jackhammer.

In June, Thames Valley Police managed to dispatch one of their elite to investigate a grave national threat: an American cancer patient who may have written something a bit spicy on social media.

Yes. That’s not a joke. That is, in fact, the plot of a low-budget dystopian sitcom that the real world seems hell-bent on adapting in full.

Deborah Anderson, a mother of two, a member of the Free Speech Union, a cancer patient, and, as she put it herself, “an elderly woman,” was enjoying the blissful serenity of not being in prison when a Thames Valley Police officer showed up at her front door.

Why? Because “something that we believe you’ve written on Facebook has upset someone.”

Let’s pause here.

We are no longer talking about crime. We are no longer talking about justice. We are now fully submerged in the soggy underworld of “upset someone.”

This is what policing has become in Britain; knocking on doors to gently scold the sick and the elderly because someone got their feelings hurt.

“I’m a member of the Free Speech Union, and I’m an American citizen. I’ll have Elon Musk on you so quick your feet won’t touch,” Anderson told the officer, who probably realized at that exact moment that his day’s mission had veered into Monty Python territory.

The officer, in all his taxpayer-funded wisdom, suggested that Deborah Anderson could simply apologize and make the whole thing go away, as if groveling before the offended masses had suddenly become a formal step in police procedure.

It was less “serve and protect” and more “say sorry and maybe we won’t waste more of your time.”

Keep reading

Bipartisan Push in Congress to Weaken Section 230, Expand Online Surveillance, and Increase Platform Liability

During this week’s testimony before both chambers of Congress, FBI Director Kash Patel and several lawmakers made a concerted push to weaken protections for online platforms, advance surveillance partnerships, and promote government intervention in digital speech spaces.

The hearings revealed a rare bipartisan consensus around dismantling Section 230 and tightening control over how people interact and communicate online.

In the Senate, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham opened his questioning by linking online platforms to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, then repeatedly pressed Patel on whether the internet was a breeding ground for radicalization and crime.

Throughout their exchange, Graham blurred the lines between criminal behavior, such as grooming or inciting violence, and broad categories like bullying.

“Is there any law that can shut down one of these sites? For bullying children or allowing sexual predators on the site,” Graham asked.

He repeatedly implied that websites hosting objectionable content should be held legally responsible, asking, “Would you advocate a sunsetting of Section 230 to bring more liability to the companies who send this stuff out?”

Patel replied, “I’ve advocated for that for years.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a legal provision that protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users.

Keep reading

Now British ‘thought police’ order Trump-supporting pensioner to apologise for ‘upsetting’ Facebook post or face investigation

British police have been accused of a ‘dystopian’ attack on free speech after an American woman was threatened with investigation – over her posts online. 

Footage of the encounter has been seen more 1.3million times since it was posted last night and has sparked a furious response from campaigners. 

It shows a woman, named as American cancer patient and Donald Trump supporter Deborah Anderson, being confronted in her home in Slough, Berkshire, by Thames Valley Police.

The MAGA-backing mother-of-two was accused of ‘upsetting’ a person following an alleged ‘threatening’ post she made on Facebook, which was reported to police. 

The officer declined to say which of the alleged posts had been complained about.   

In the video, ‘elderly’ Ms Anderson then flatly refuses to apologise for her comments online before she is threatened with the potential of a formal interview at a police station. 

The incident, filmed in June, prompted an intervention by the Free Speech Union (FSU), who last night claimed Thames Valley Police had since dropped the case. The force today confirmed no further action was taken over the allegations.

It comes as Britain faces fierce criticism over a recent clampdown on free speech, which has seen people being arrested, convicted or jailed over posts made online. 

The issue has prompted concern from US President Donald Trump – who is in the UK on his state visit – and warned earlier this month ‘strange things are happening over there, they are cracking down… I’m very surprised to see what’s happening’.

Keep reading

Digital ID: Vietnam to delete 86 MILLION “unverified” bank accounts

tarting this month, banks all across Vietnam will begin deleting over 86,000,000 bank accounts that have not been “verified” under the countries new digital ID scheme.

The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) are calling it a “system clean-up measure”.

This “clean up” is part of the government’s “digital transformation” plan, a drive to “modernise” the country’s information infrastructure, and more specifically a drive to promote non-cash payments.

Speaking at a press conference promoting “Cashless Day” earlier this year, Pham Anh Tuan, Director of the Payment Department at the SBV called it “a data-cleansing revolution”.

Central to this “revolution” is the new “Decree on Regulations for Electronic Identification and Authentication”, passed in July of 2024 and coming in to force July 1st of this year.

Keep reading

House passes bills giving president power to choose D.C. judges, loosen police pursuit rules

The Republican-led House approved legislation on Wednesday that would give the president greater authority in choosing D.C. Superior Court judges and would relax pursuit restrictions for the Metropolitan Police Department, further overriding the District’s control over its criminal justice system.

The bills’ passage followed the House’s approval on Tuesday of legislation that seeks to lower the age at which juveniles can be charged as adults in the District and revoke the sentencing leniency that young adult convicts can receive in court.

The four proposals are part of a package of more than a dozen bills aiming to curtail public safety laws enacted in the District. House Democrats accused their Republican colleagues of being too eager to trample on the District’s autonomy, but the GOP members were unfazed.

Keep reading

Liberals admit to pushing emissions cap without studying impact on Canadian families

The Liberals are pushing ahead with their oil and gas emissions cap, a production ban in everything but name, while failing to study how it will impact Canadian families.

Conservative MP Arnold Viersen asked the Liberals to spell out the real-world consequences:

  • What will it mean for the price of groceries, gas, and home heating over the next eight years?
  • How many jobs will be lost in the oil and gas sector?
  • What impact will it have on imports from countries with lower environmental and human-rights standards?
  • How will it affect other sectors like construction, manufacturing, finance, and hospitality?
  • And how does Canada compete if global rivals like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, or the U.S. face no such restrictions?

Instead of answering, Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin pointed to modelling in the Canada Gazette. That “analysis” claimed the cost to families would be “minimal” because energy prices are set internationally, but it gave no breakdowns for household bills. Instead, the government focused on industry stats: oil and gas production is projected to rise 16% with the cap versus 17% without, and labour spending to grow 53% instead of 55% — a 1.6% difference Ottawa is holding up as proof Canadians won’t feel a thing.

The government never studied the effect on families’ wallets. By refusing to account for higher energy costs, job losses, or the knock-on impact on food and housing, Ottawa is leaving Canadians in the dark about how much this policy will cost them.

The emissions cap, announced in November 2024, is supposed to cut oil and gas emissions by one-third starting in 2030.

Keep reading

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading