Tag: police state

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

Marijuana Rescheduling Blocked By Opposition ‘From Within’ DEA, Biden’s Drug Czar Says

Former President Joe Biden’s drug czar says the process to reschedule marijuana as initiated under the last administration may have been compromised by officials with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which was supposed to be defending the proposed policy change.

At the same time, a pro-legalization former  OP congressman allied with President Donald Trump is raising questions about the sincerity of the current president’s endorsement of rescheduling on the campaign trail.

About four months into Trump’s second term, there has still been no movement on the pending plan to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), leaving advocates and stakeholders frustrated both by the current inaction but also the Biden administration’s failure to get the job done before the transition.

According to former White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Director Rahul Gupta, that may have been due to deliberate resistance from within DEA—a suspicion shared widely among supporters of the reform, including those involved in an administrative hearing that’s been stalled for months, with no clear indication it will proceed any time soon.

“We got stuck moving at the slow speed of government, which was also marred, potentially, by some opposing it from within,” Gupta told The New York Times as part of a broader story examining the rescheduling effort.

The article also features interviews with a former senior DEA agent and former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who notably suggested that Trump’s endorsement of a Schedule III reclassification on the campaign trail was essentially an attempt to shore up support among young voters rather than a sincere reflection of his personal views about cannabis.

As far as speculation about DEA’s role in the protracted process goes, there are several factors that have led many to conclude the agency’s leadership internally opposed the proposal, including the fact that there was a break in precedent when then-Attorney General Merrick Garland signed off on it after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made the recommendation. Historically, the DEA administrator approves drug scheduling proposals.

Keep reading

Comey’s Recent Behavior Confirms He’s Our Worst FBI Director

James B. Comey posted on Instagram a photo of seashells arranged to read “86 47,” which could be interpreted as a threat against the 47th president. Comey has since denied that he intended violence; nonetheless the Secret Service is reportedly investigating. This posting may have been a lapse of judgment on Comey’s part or something more nefarious.

Comey’s conduct in this instance, however, fits well with his previous anti-Trump behavior and demonstrably poor judgment. His judgment has been a serious concern for many of us who were proud to serve in the FBI and care about the bureau’s credibility and reputation. In his book and elsewhere, he described the sole origin of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Trump’s first presidential campaign as based on a report “from an allied ambassador” of an encounter in London between a Trump adviser and “a Russian agent.”

That’s Comey’s characterization of George Papadopoulos’ meeting with Joseph Mifsud, a pan-European academic. Mifsud told the then-Trump aide the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Comey has piously huffed that it would have been “dereliction” not to proceed with a counterintelligence investigation based on that report. But to proceed with such an intrusive investigation on so little was an abuse.

A secondhand rumor should never be enough to justify opening a counterintelligence investigation of any American, much less a presidential candidate. This off-handed conversation initiated a counterintelligence case that disrupted Trump’s first term as president. Like directors before him, Comey should have said, “We need more probable cause” before moving forward with an investigation.

In the encounter Comey cited, there was no mention of emails. Only after the WikiLeaks disclosures was an assumption made by both Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer, Comey’s “allied ambassador,” and Papadopoulos, that the “dirt” was in Hillary’s emails.

Comey’s indignant complaints about Trump are an effort to distract from the dangerous and faulty decisions made on his watch. His initiation of the counterintelligence investigation against Trump was an error of historical proportions.

Comey has tried to justify the spying — electronic surveillance — of Carter Page, a U.S. citizen, by writing that a federal judge granted “permission.” We now know the FISA Court was seriously misled by Comey’s FBI.

Comey grossly usurped the prosecutor’s role in virtually declining prosecution in the Clinton email investigation. That usurpation was spelled out in Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s memo justifying Comey’s firing. Comey also had further muddied the waters by announcing the reopening of the Clinton email investigation just days before the 2016 election.

Keep reading

Conservative Surrender: Italy and Switzerland Bow to Islamic Pressure, Ban Free Speech Leader Rasmus Paludan

PAY ATTENTION, AMERICA! If you think being in a conservative-led country or a so-called ‘neutral state’ will protect your right to speak out against radical ideologies, think again.

Human rights activist and Islam critic Rasmus Paludan, a Danish-Swedish politician known for his relentless stance on free speech, has once again become the target of government censorship. This time, it happened in Italy, a country supposedly led by conservatives who claim to champion Western values.

Islam – A Subject You Dare Not Speak About

The shocking truth revealed by these incidents is that Islam has become a subject so sensitive that even non-Muslim countries impose blasphemy-like restrictions to appease violent reactions. Rather than confront the problem—an imported crisis fueled by mass Islamic immigration – these countries are instead targeting the critics. It’s safer, they think, to ban the critic rather than face the backlash. This massive problem could have been prevented and even deported, as promised by the supposedly conservative Giorgia Meloni government, which has fallen woefully short of its commitments.

Italy: Conservative-Led, But Not Safe for Islam Critics

Days ago, Rasmus Paludan was stopped at Milan Malpensa Airport and denied entry into Italy. According to Paludan, he was informed by the prefect of Varese that his presence in the country could provoke anger from others. As a result, he was banned from entering Italy for five years.

“I can’t leave the airport. The prefect has decided that since other people will be angry if I’m in Italy, it’s best if I’m not allowed into the country for five years,” Paludan told RAIR Foundation.

This decision raises troubling questions about the state of free speech and the willingness of conservative governments to bow to potential threats instead of upholding the right to criticize any ideology. Instead of deporting the violent threats, Italy finds it easier to block the critic, revealing a cowardly capitulation to potential violence rather than an enforcement of democratic principles.

Keep reading

Jailed wife of ex-Tory councillor loses sentence appeal over Southport tweet

A childminder who was jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire after the Southport attacks has lost an appeal against her sentence at the court of appeal.

Lucy Connolly, who is married to a former Conservative councillor, said in an X post in July last year: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.”

The post came after three girls were killed in a knife attack at a holiday club in Southport on 29 July, sparking nationwide unrest. It was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before Connolly deleted it.

In a written judgment published on Tuesday, the appeal court judge Lord Justice Holroyde said: “There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence therefore fails and is refused.”

He said the principal ground for appeal “was substantially based on a version of events put forward by the applicant which we have rejected”.

The former childminder was sentenced at Birmingham crown court last October after pleading guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred.

She is married to Raymond Connolly, who was a Tory councillor for West Northamptonshire but lost his seat in May this year.

The court heard that the day before Connolly was arrested, she sent a WhatsApp message saying the “raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol”. She also said she would “play the mental health card” if arrested, and would deny responsibility for the post if asked.

Naeem Valli, prosecuting, said Connolly, who had no previous conviction, also sent a message saying she intended to work her notice period as a childminder “on the sly” despite being deregistered.

She sent another tweet commenting on a sword attack that read: “I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders.”

Keep reading

Russia outlaws Amnesty International in latest crackdown on dissent and activists

The Russian authorities on Monday outlawed Amnesty International as an “undesirable organization,” a label that under a 2015 law makes involvement with such organizations a criminal offense.

The decision by the Russian Prosecutor General’s office, announced in an online statement, is the latest in the unrelenting crackdown on Kremlin critics, journalists and activists that intensified to unprecedented levels after Moscow invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

The designation means the international human rights group must stop any work in Russia, and it subjects those who cooperate with it or support it to prosecution, including if anyone shares Amnesty International’s reports on social media.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s secretary general, said the move was part of the Russian government’s efforts to silence dissent and isolate civil society. “The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by labeling our organization ‘undesirable,’ we will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations – quite the opposite,” she said in a statement. “We will not give in to the threats and will continue undeterred to work to ensure that people in Russia are able to enjoy their human rights without discrimination.”

Keep reading

Trump Signs Take It Down Act

President Donald Trump has now signed into law the Take It Down Act, a measure designed to address the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly prevalent AI-generated deepfakes.

While the legislation is being celebrated by both major parties as a victory for online safety, particularly for children and victims of abuse, it has also raised concerns about the potential for overreach, selective enforcement, and the erosion of free speech under the guise of digital protection, particularly because of the broad wording of the bill.

The law’s most prominent advocate within the administration has been First Lady Melania Trump, who campaigned heavily for its passage and made rare public appearances to promote it. During the Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump invited her to add her signature beneath his, an unusual but symbolic gesture that underscored her role in pushing the legislation forward.

“This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” Mrs Trump said. In her remarks, she repeated her criticism of AI and social media, calling them “the digital candy for the next generation,” and warned that these technologies “can be weaponized, shaped beliefs, and sadly affect emotions and even be deadly.”

President Trump, for his part, appeared to dismiss constitutional concerns. “People talked about all sorts of First Amendment, Second Amendment. They talked about any amendment they could make up, and we got it through because of some very brave people,” he said.

Earlier in the year, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump had signaled his intent to sign the bill. “The Senate passed the Take It Down Act…Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While made in jest, the remark pointed to an unresolved issue: how this law will be enforced, and who will benefit most from it.

There is no denying the harm caused by NCII. Victims often struggle to remove intimate images, whether real or AI-generated, while the content continues to spread. The Take It Down Act requires websites to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a complaint. But, just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms have little way of determining if a complaint is legitimate or being used as a censorship mechanism.

That timeline is designed to offer swift recourse to victims. However, the law’s broad wording leaves its applications open to interpretation.

The bill defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without offering a clear or narrow definition of what that conduct entails. This vagueness creates a gray area that could easily be used to suppress satire, parody, or even critical political speech.

Keep reading

Police could search homes and phones after pregnancy loss

Police have been issued guidance on how to search women’s homes for abortion drugs and check their phones for menstrual cycle tracking apps after unexpected pregnancy loss.

New guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) on “child death investigation” advises officers to search for “drugs that can terminate pregnancy” in cases involving stillbirths. The NPCC, which sets strategic direction for policing across the country UK, also suggests a woman’s digital devices could be seized to help investigators “establish a woman’s knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy”. That could include checking a woman’s internet searches, messages to friends and family, and health apps, “such as menstrual cycle and fertility trackers”, it states.

Details are also provided for how police could bypass legal requirements for a court order to obtain medical records about a woman’s abortion from NHS providers.

Abortion law in the UK is based on the Offences Against the Person Act from 1861. In recent years, an increasing number of women have been investigated and prosecuted under this law. The Abortion Act of 1967 allows women to end their pregnancies under medical supervision up to 24 weeks, or beyond in certain circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is at risk or if the foetus has a serious abnormality.

The guidance replaces a 2014 document that did not mention investigating stillbirths, but had one mention of investigating women who may have had an illegal abortion. The new guidance, published in January and developed by a sub-group of the NPCC’s Homicide Working Group alongside the College of Policing, National Crime Agency and Metropolitan Police, covers the scenario over several pages.

The lead authors were Ch Supt Liz Hughes of Avon and Somerset police force; Det Supt Jon Holmes of Lancashire; DCS David Ashton of Durham; Ch Supt Fiona Bitters of Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Sonya Baylis, of the National Crime Agency; and DS Robert Simmons of Suffolk.

Dr Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), said: “The new guidance is shocking. Women in these circumstances have a right to compassionate care and to have their dignity and privacy respected, not to have their homes, phones, ­computers and health apps searched, or be arrested and interrogated.”

Leading abortion providers, legal experts and medical professionals have told The Observer they were not consulted over the NPCC guidance and called for it to be amended.

Katie Saxon at BPAS, the leading abortion provider, said the organisation was aware of an increase in police investigating women who had had abortions in recent years, “but to see it in black and white after years of criticisms of the way this outdated law is enforced is harrowing”.

She added: “This [NPCC] guidance was written at the same time as unprecedented threats to global abortion rights and while parliament was set to consider decriminalising women abortion. To write it without public conversation or discussion with experts shows just how detached from reality the NPCC is.”

Louise McCudden at the abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices said the guidance was “fuelling a culture of hostility and suspicion towards abortion and pregnancy loss”.

Keep reading

Hospital Retaliates For Home Birth By Calling CPS & Then Forced HIV Medicine For Newborn!!!

I’m writing to you with a story that has shaken me to the core; not just because of what happened to us, but because I now understand just how vulnerable parents are when we choose a path that challenges institutional norms.

My wife and I chose a homebirth for our son because we believe birth is sacred. We wanted to welcome our child into the world in an environment filled with peace, warmth, and autonomy — not fluorescent lights, hospital monitors, or rushed protocols. Our son was born safely and beautifully at home, surrounded by calm, intention, and love.

It was, in every way, the birth we had hoped for.

About 30 minutes after delivery, we noticed the placenta hadn’t yet detached. We weren’t panicked — we were informed and prepared — but we decided to transfer to the hospital out of an abundance of caution. We drove there ourselves. My wife was treated, blood was drawn, and we were discharged shortly afterward. Everything seemed routine.

That illusion shattered just two hours later, when we received a call from Child Protective Services. Then, we called the hospital to get the test results: my wife had tested HIV Reactive on the rapid HIV test.

We returned voluntarily to the hospital under the guise that we were only coming in seeking clarity and confirmatory testing. Instead of support, we were met with force and coercion. We were told the rapid test had a 99.7% accuracy, this is inaccurate and incomplete information. With extremely low risk groups and immune disorders the likelihood of false positives is up to 60%.

We were told our newborn would be given antiretroviral drugs, “by force or by choice.” When we asked for time, information, or to wait for confirmatory testing, we were denied. When we attempted to leave, armed guards met us from two separate hallways blocking us in the NICU unit.

Keep reading

Britain ‘investing in 30,000 more electronic tags for criminals’ amid massive overhaul

Britain is investing in 30,000 more electronic tags for criminals as part of a massive overhaul in sentencing law.

The huge expansion of tagging technology will see nearly 40,000 criminals electronically monitored at once.

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is understood to have secured £700 million in funding from the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, to buy the devices.

This will increase the Probation Service’s budget by roughly a third and enable it to quadruple the number of criminals fitted with electronic tags, The Times reports.

It comes as David Gauke, the former Conservative justice secretary, will publish a long-awaited sentencing review this month.

The report is expected to lead to the most drastic shake-up of sentencing legislation in decades and, the government is predicted to accept most of his recommendations.

A MoJ spokesman said last week: ‘This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with prisons days from collapse.

‘David Gauke is conducting a sentencing review to ensure that we never run out of prison places again, and we are committed to reforming sentencing to ensure our prisons cut crime and keep the public safe.’

The Ministry of Justice is also thought to be preparing to announce a new type of tag that will measure the level of drugs in an offender’s system by monitoring their blood pressure and heart rate.

Mahmood said the new devices are the ‘holy grail’ of tagging technology because of the large proportion of criminals whose offending is driven by drugs.

Keep reading