Tag: police state

The Government Compels Silence Again

When Congress enacted the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA), it claimed the statute would guarantee the privacy of digital data that service providers were retaining in storage. The act prohibited the providers from sharing the stored data, and it prohibited unauthorized access to the data, commonly called computer hacking – except, of course, if the recipients or the hackers were working for the federal government.

Just as it did with the Patriot Act of 2001 – which permits one federal agent to authorize another to conduct a search of stored data, without a judicially issued search warrant – the SCA permits judges to issue “orders” for searches without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth Amendment.

Just like the Patriot Act – which in its original form prohibited the recipient of agent-issued search warrants, called National Security Letters (NSLs), from telling any persons of their existence – the SCA requires judges who issue orders for a search, upon the request of the government, to bar the custodian of the data who has received the order from informing the person whose data is sought.

What if the person whose data is sought has a claim of privacy on the data? What if the owner and creator of the data relied on the Fourth Amendment to keep the government’s hands off of it? What if that person was the President of the United States at the time he created the data? What if he has a claim of executive privilege on it? What if all persons have a privacy claim on all stored data and have a right to resist the government’s efforts to seek it?

Keep reading

Most People Don’t Trust The Government For Marijuana Information, Federally Funded Study Shows

American adults typically don’t get their information about about marijuana from government or medical sources, instead relying mostly on friends and family, according to a new study that was partially funded by a federal agency.

The nationally representative survey of 1,161 adults found that government agencies were the least popular source of cannabis-related information (4.7 percent in the probability-weighted results). And while health and medical care providers were also among the least common sources, at 9.3 percent, they were higher on the list than budtenders (8.6 percent).

The most popular sources of marijuana information, meanwhile, were friends and family (35.6 percent) and websites (33.7 percent).

The study, which received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and was published this month in the Journal of Cannabis Research, concludes that most people “draw healthcare information about cannabis from friends and family or online, with very few consulting their healthcare provider or government agencies.”

Notably, people who reported using cannabis for medical reasons were significantly more likely than others to cite healthcare professionals as a source of their marijuana-related information compared to other respondents (16.4 percent versus 5.2 percent, respectively).

Given the trend toward liberalization of cannabis policies in the U.S.—and what the paper describes as potentially “broad effects on public health outcomes related to cannabis” if marijuana is moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act—the paper urges more attention to ensuring healthcare providers are educated on cannabis-related matters and that government messaging is handled with care.

“As cannabis accessibility and legality is increasing,” it says, “there is a strong need for better clinician education, public outreach strategies, and improved communication between patients and clinicians about cannabis.”

NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said of the new survey findings that cannabis use “is not a new phenomenon and is not going away” and that sources like healthcare providers and government agencies have a responsibility to seek out and provide accurate information.

Keep reading

Banking on Betrayal: UK Government’s New Plan for Mass Bank Spying

Civil rights advocates may be saying, “stop bank spying” – but authoritarian-presenting governments are sure to be thinking, “who better to spy on you with?”

Banks not only have fine-grained information about their clients’ financial situation, but also their behavior and habits – and as recent incidents, for example in Canada, but also the UK in different circumstances show, they are not above using their power to debank and therefore censor people. On behalf of governments.

This time in the UK, the Labor cabinet looks set to bring back a legislative plan that would give financial institutions new mass surveillance powers. Now as before, the premise, activists say, is combating welfare fraud.

But the result would be mass bank spying – and “a severe intrusion into the nation’s privacy,” as Big Brother Watch put it.

In a letter to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall, the privacy group and a number of like-minded allies informed the official that they oppose the Fraud, Error and Debt Bill, and refer to it as work to usher in mass financial surveillance powers in the UK.

This time via banks, with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as the government actor.

Keep reading

Disinformation Isn’t the Problem — Government Coverups and Censorship Are the Problem

“What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer… And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”—Hannah Arendt

In a perfect example of the Nanny State mindset at work, Hillary Clinton insists that the powers-that-be need “total control” in order to make the internet a safer place for users and protect us harm.

Clinton is not alone in her distaste for unregulated, free speech online.

A bipartisan chorus that includes both presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump has long clamored to weaken or do away with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially acts as a bulwark against online censorship.

It’s a complicated legal issue that involves debates over immunity, liability, net neutrality and whether or not internet sites are publishers with editorial responsibility for the content posted to their sites, but really, it comes down to the tug-of-war over where censorship (corporate and government) begins and free speech ends.

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes for Reason, “What both the right and left attacks on the provision share is a willingness to use whatever excuses resonate—saving children, stopping bias, preventing terrorism, misogyny, and religious intolerance—to ensure more centralized control of online speech. They may couch these in partisan terms that play well with their respective bases, but their aim is essentially the same.”

In other words, the government will use any excuse to suppress dissent and control the narrative.

Keep reading

Virginia Prosecutors Fight to Uphold Life Sentence for Man Found Not Guilty

In 1998, someone shot and killed police officer Allen Gibson in the woods behind an apartment complex in the small town of Waverly, Virginia. Police arrested Terence Richardson and Ferrone Claiborne for Gibson’s murder days later—despite a lack of physical evidence linking them to the crime and the presence of another possible suspect. 

In 2001, a jury found them not guilty of murder. A judge sentenced them to life in prison anyway. 

Richardson and Claiborne have been fighting to prove their innocence ever since.

In February, the Virginia Supreme Court gave Richardson a chance to make his case by ordering a new hearing to examine potentially exculpatory evidence. Richardson’s legal team says this material was never shared with his original defense attorneys—a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Brady v. Maryland. (Richardson’s case is following a separate procedure than Claiborne’s.)

The innocence claim centers around three pieces of evidence: an anonymous call to a police tip line identifying someone other than Richardson as a suspect, a photo lineup administered to a 9-year-old witness, in which she identified a suspect other than Richardson, and a statement made by her on the day of Gibson’s death in 1998 describing someone whose hairstyle did not match Richardson’s.

At the hearing in Sussex County Circuit Court this May, Richardson’s legal team set out to prove that this evidence could have changed the outcome of the case. But they were derailed by what Richardson’s attorneys have characterized as a deliberate effort by state prosecutors and federal law enforcement officials to undermine Richardson’s innocence claim.

“Terence and Ferrone are innocent,” Jarrett Adams, an attorney for both Richardson and Claiborne, told The Appeal. “They are not innocent by accident.”

For Richardson and Claiborne, the hearing was perhaps their best chance to bolster their innocence claims with recently unearthed evidence. But ultimately, the judge allowed only one item to be admitted as evidence before the Virginia Court of Appeals—the same court that had previously dismissed his case.  With Richardson’s case now once again set to go before the potentially unfriendly Appeals court, his legal team fears he faces an uphill battle to prove his innocence.

“We’re up against the impossible,” Adams said.

Keep reading

The Big Tech Think Tank Campaigning to Censor Satire

The Brookings Institution, seems to believe it has solved the problem faced by those who would like to censor memes. The problem is that memes are a form of satire, and censoring them while claiming to be a democracy is a difficult task.

But now, senior Brookings Institution fellow Nicol Turner Lee and Isabella Panico Hernandez, a project assistant, have revealed their thinking: AI memes should be treated as election disinformation “manifested” through satire.

One could use a similar form of mental gymnastics to say that this kind of argument represents a call for censorship manifested through supposed concern about disinformation.

The Brookings, meanwhile, is not just any foot soldier in the “war on memes”: it is a powerful think tank funded by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, but also massive financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase (via its philanthropic foundation) and that of Mastercard, Impact Fund.

Brookings speaks about memes, particularly those AI-generated (adding some AI panic into the mix can only help the cause), as an extremely dangerous phenomenon hidden behind humor, and perceived as humor by pretty much everyone.

But the think tank, and others going after memes, present themselves as smarter and able to understand the true nature of this clearly humorous and often satirical imagery, which they say only “seem harmless” and “appear innocuous.”

Instead, the authors of the article say memes can influence how voters perceive candidates and other election-related information, “could potentially lead to violence” – and are “globally perceived” as being capable to “fuel extremist behavior” – which is in contrast to the US, supposedly because of the lack of appropriate regulation.

And so, less than a month before the presidential election, these according to the authors insidious messages use humor merely as a vehicle to spread dangerous influence, but are not properly tackled in the US.

Keep reading

Jack Smith Trump Filing Argues That Free Speech Is Criminal

Illegal DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith wants Twitter jail to be physical. His new election-interfering filing against Donald Trump essentially argues that Trump’s free speech should be considered criminal.

Challenging the integrity of election results is almost as old as the United States itself, and Democrats have most certainly been claiming that elections are fraudulent or illegitimate since Andrew Jackson. Remember when Hillary Clinton and her supporters claimed that the 2016 election was a fraud? Jack Smith apparently does not, because his new filing against Trump argues that Trump’s speech, including his tweets, about election integrity and election fraud is reason to prosecute and convict the former president.

The First Amendment protects Americans’ free speech when criticizing the government and criticizing elections. In America, you have always been allowed to claim that you thought elections were fraudulent, whether that is true or not. It’s a First Amendment right. Smith wants to criminalize that constitutionally protected free speech when the Democrats’ most formidable opponent uttered it. But if you think it will stop with Trump, think again. The Democrat party has become the anti-free speech party, the party of the censorship industrial complex.

The Biden-Harris administration and the Harris-Walz ticket want to silence Americans as much as Smith wants to silence Trump. Didn’t John Kerry just describe the First Amendment as a “block,” and didn’t Tim Walz just endorse and defend censorship during the vice presidential debate?

Keep reading

These 12 Policies Need to Change If We Want True Health Freedom

As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the U.S., we must first define what is meant by health freedom.

A simple definition is the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply or something airborne.

In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience; it’s an imperative.

In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors and chemicals.

Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society that values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another.

Moreover, the government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever — Americans are merely chattel.

Keep reading

Germany Rushes to Expand Biometric Surveillance

Germany is a leader in privacy and data protection, with many Germans being particularly sensitive to the processing of their personal data – owing to the country’s totalitarian history and the role of surveillance in both Nazi Germany and East Germany.

So, it is disappointing that the German government is trying to push through Parliament, at record speed, a “security package” that would increase biometric surveillance at an unprecedented scale. The proposed measures contravene the government’s own coalition agreement, and undermine European law and the German constitution.

In response to a knife-stabbing in the West-German town of Solingen in late-August, the government has introduced a so-called “security package” consisting of a bouquet of measures to tighten asylum rules and introduce new powers for law enforcement authorities.

Among them, three stand out due to their possibly disastrous effect on fundamental rights online. 

Keep reading

Columbia Law School Told Professors to Call Campus Police on Student Protesters

Administrators at Columbia University braced themselves over the weekend for planned citywide walkouts marking the one-year anniversary of the October 7 attacks in Israel and the start of the war on Gaza. In an email Sunday evening, a Columbia Law school administrator told professors to call campus security officers on protesters who did not heed requests to stop any disruptions in classrooms.    

The administrator’s email instructed professors to give two warnings to “students or others who violate the Rules of University Conduct.” Afterward, professors and teaching assistants were told to call the campus Public Safety department if the students “involved in the disruption refuse to stop despite your request they do so” and “there is no immediate safety concern,” according to the email, which was obtained by The Intercept. The email referred to the instructions as “highly practical tips for addressing and de-escalating classroom disruptions.”

The email also instructed professors to call 911 “if the disruptive behavior is so severe that it poses an immediate threat to your safety or the safety of others.” Campus security officers are unarmed.

Keep reading