Tag: police state

Apple Removes Private VPN Apps From Russia App Store

Apple pulled several custom VPN clients from the Russian App Store last week, including Streisand, V2Box, v2RayTun, and Happ Proxy Utility.

These aren’t the big-name commercial VPN providers that Apple already removed in 2024 at Roskomnadzor’s request. These are tools that let users connect to their own private servers and configure manual proxies, the kind of apps that give technically savvy Russians the ability to route around state censorship without depending on any company’s infrastructure.

Russian tech outlet Kod Durova first reported the removals, noting that the same apps remain available through Google Play on Android.

Days before the removals surfaced, Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadayev announced the Kremlin’s most aggressive anti-VPN campaign yet. “We have an obligation to fulfill the tasks that have been set before us. In this case, the task is to reduce the use of VPNs,” Shadayev said on the state-backed messenger Max.

He linked the push to what he called “long, difficult and ultimately unsuccessful” talks with foreign tech companies over compliance with Russian law.

Keep reading

New York’s Governor Seems Indifferent to the Health Consequences of a Steep Tax on Nicotine Pouches

By pushing a 75 percent wholesale tax on nicotine pouches, New York State Budget Director Blake Washington says, Gov. Kathy Hochul is trying to address “a public health concern.” That rationale is absurd on its face, since this tax would sharply raise the cost of a nicotine product that is far less hazardous than cigarettes, perversely discouraging smokers from making a switch that could save their lives.

Hochul, who seems determined to portray a money grab as a benevolent intervention, is either oblivious or indifferent to the health consequences of taxing nicotine patches at the same rate as cigarettes. “We see it as a distinction without a difference,” Washington told reporters in January.

That position ignores the huge difference between inhaling tobacco smoke, which contains myriad toxins and carcinogens, and orally absorbing nicotine from a pouch placed between the lip and gums. Hochul’s framing also contradicts what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said four days before the end of the Biden administration, when it authorized the marketing of Zyn nicotine pouches in two doses and 10 flavors.

That decision was based on the FDA’s determination that “the new products offer greater benefits to population health than risks.” The data, said Matthew Farrelly, director of the Office of Science at the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, “show that these nicotine pouch products meet that bar by benefiting adults who use cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products and completely switch to these products.”

Nicotine pouches contain “substantially lower amounts of harmful constituents than cigarettes,” the FDA noted. They therefore offer “a lower-risk alternative for adults who smoke cigarettes.”

How much lower? To give you a sense of the difference, the Royal College of Physicians estimates that “the hazard to health” from e-cigarettes, which likewise do not contain tobacco or burn anything but do require inhalation, “is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco.”

Nicotine pouches “contain far, far fewer harmful constituents compared to traditional tobacco products,” notes Mary Hrywna, a tobacco control specialist at the Rutgers School of Public Health. The FDA’s Zyn decision implicitly acknowledged that nicotine pouches are “much safer than cigarettes,” says Ray Niaura, a professor at New York University’s School of Global Public Health.

Keep reading

Truth, Fear, and the Collapse of Control

There are moments in history when systems of control begin to lose their effectiveness—not because they are dismantled, but because they are no longer believed.

We may be entering such a moment now.

The signals are contradictory. On the surface, the world appears increasingly unstable—conflicts escalate in the Middle East, economic pressures tighten, energy costs rise, political narratives shift rapidly, and digital systems expand their reach into everyday life. At the same time, something more subtle is occurring. More people are beginning to recognize that fear itself has become one of the primary instruments through which modern systems maintain influence.

This is not a conspiracy in the simplistic sense. It is structural.

Modern governance—whether expressed through media institutions, financial systems, technological platforms, or regulatory frameworks—depends less on direct coercion than on the management of perception. Control is exercised not only through laws or force, but through the shaping of attention, the framing of events, and the constant stimulation of emotional response.

Fear plays a central role in this arrangement.

A population that is uncertain, anxious, and reactive is easier to guide than one that is stable, reflective, and inwardly anchored. Under conditions of sustained pressure—economic, informational, or social—people become more likely to defer judgment, seek authority, and accept narratives they might otherwise question. In this way, fear does not merely accompany modern systems of power; it sustains them.

Yet this mechanism has limits.

When fear becomes constant, it begins to lose its effect. When every development is presented as urgent, every disagreement as existential, and every event as a crisis, fatigue sets in. People may not fully understand what is happening, but they begin to sense that something is off—that the intensity of the messaging no longer matches their direct experience of reality.

This is where a shift begins.

It does not start with large-scale political change. It begins at the level of perception. Individuals start to withdraw their automatic emotional investment from the stream of narratives presented to them. They still observe events, but with greater distance. They become less willing to be pulled into cycles of alarm and reaction, and begin—however tentatively—to rely more on their own judgment.

This is a quiet development, but a significant one.

Keep reading

NO-FLY ZONE: China is Dominant in Today’s Drone Industry – But It’s Tightening Penalties for Civilian Operators To Include Prison Time

To fly a drone over a Chinese city may result in a jail sentence.

China now dominates the global drone industry, but it has become one of the toughest places to fly an FPV due to the new regulations.

The New York Times reported:

“New regulations are sharply tightening rules for recreational and civilian operators. Since January, officials have ramped up the penalties for unauthorized flying of drones to include possible jail time. Starting in May, all drones must be registered with the owners’ real names, requiring operators to link their flight equipment to their official identification or cellphone number.

Permits will be required at least a day in advance in restricted zones, which cover most cities. The rules make an exception for small drones flying below 400 feet in some open areas, but those areas are very limited.”

Flight data will be transmitted to the government in real time, and in cities like Beijing, a near-total drone ban is now in force.

Keep reading

Washington Sheriffs File Lawsuit to Block Unconstitutional Law Allowing Unelected Commission to Remove Them From Office

Yesterday, four Washington County Sheriffs sued the State of WA, the State Legislature, and Governor Bob Ferguson, asking the court to block a blatantly unconstitutional new law that gives a newly formed, unelected state commission the power to end their careers without a vote, a recall, or a court order.

Of all the terrible bills the (other than their unconstitutional income tax) that Democrats passed in the 2026 legislative session. 2SSB 5974 may be the worst. Duly elected County Sheriffs, Police Chiefs, and Town Marshals are now subject to a state-appointed, unelected bureaucratic board and can be “decertified” and removed from office.

This is another blatantly unconstitutional and sinister Democrat bill, where over 50 Republican Amendments were not adopted! Under the law, its 21 commissioners are appointed by the Governor (who appoints them to six-year terms, with some staggered).

Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels, Pend Oreille County Sheriff Glenn Blakeslee, Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in Pend Oreille County. A hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for April 16.

The legal action comes with the consent and support of Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Preston McCollam, Pend Oreille County Prosecuting Attorney Dolly Hunt, Stevens County Prosecuting Attorney Erika George, and Ferry County Prosecuting Attorney Michael Golden.

The sheriffs’ motion argues the governor and legislature “adopted a modern-day McCarthy loyalty oath in the form of 2SSB 5974,” calling it “not a close constitutional call but rather a flatly prohibited practice from a dark period of our country’s history that must never be resurrected.”

Keep reading

The Tyranny Of Compelled Speech

While censorship is often the main focus of discussions about free speech, there’s a related phenomenon that can do just as much damage to a free society. Not by preventing people from saying things they believe in, but by forcing them to say things they do not.

Compelled speech requires people to use certain words or phrases, or to partake in upholding certain ideological beliefs. It is just as dangerous to free expression as overt censorship.

The constant recitation of indigenous “land acknowledgements” illustrates Canada’s shift towards enforced mass-compliance on complicated social issues. These statements have become ubiquitous in Canadian public life: at schools, workplaces, government functions, ceremonies, and sporting events. Institutions display them on websites, documents, email signatures, and social media. A busy person in Canada may come across dozens of land acknowledgements per day in various contexts.

Although framed as optional gestures of respect, many organizations now have policies mandating land acknowledgements; in other circumstances, social pressure can make them seem obligatory even if they’re not.

Land acknowledgements have morphed well beyond a simple sharing of history into something much more problematic: they have become a sort of sacred ritual with near-spiritual implications, tying certain ethnic groups to ownership over nature itself. When unpacked, there is a lot being said between the lines.

Stepping out of line on land acknowledgements can set off a variety of hostile reactions, ranging from social condemnation to significant legal consequences. Geoffrey Horsman is a biochemistry professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. As a parent of three children in the local school system and a member of his local school’s parent council, he noted the growing politicization of the regional school system. Of particular concern was the practice of opening every meeting with a land acknowledgement, which took up valuable time and reinforced what he considers a divisive premise.

“I don’t think there is anything good that can come out of the idea that a certain ethnic group are the true inheritors of this land,” Horsman said in an interview. But when he raised his objections about the practice, he encountered immediate resistance. In a series of meetings with Waterloo Region District School Board staff, he was told that even discussing the issue was off the table. He has since brought a legal case against the board.

Catherine Kronas, the mother of a student attending Ancaster High Secondary School in Hamilton, Ont., actually lost her position as an elected member of her school council last year after she politely disagreed with land statements being read out loud before meetings. “School councils should decide what gets said in their meetings, and we shouldn’t have to recite something mandated by the government,” she told me. Kronas was reinstated only after threatening legal action.

Horsman’s and Kronas’s cases are both about indigenous land acknowledgements, but the issues they raise run deeper. They could have been challenging any form of imposed ideological speech. In fact, many Canadian governments and institutions are developing a worrying track record of legally enforcing ideological language on a number of topics

Keep reading

POWDER KEG EUROPE: German Men Now Have to Ask the Army for Permission to Leave the Country for More Than Three Months

German fighting-age males are getting an early taste of the military escalation on the old continent.

We have been reporting here on TGP how the Euro-Globalist ‘leaders’ in Europe have been pushing their countries through a military buildup not seen since the end of the Cold War.

But it did take us by surprise just how fast Germany escalated their military service rules into draconian demands.

It has now been reported that German men ‘of fighting age’ must now ask the Bundeswehr for permission to leave the country for more than three months.

The Telegraph reported:

“The government has introduced a new military service scheme this year that stops short of conscription but requires men born from 2008 onwards to take a medical exam and fill in a survey about their fitness for service.

It has emerged that a clause in the law also requires men aged between 17 and 45 to obtain a permit from the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, before leaving the country for extended periods.”

Keep reading

Americans Traveling to Hong Kong Will Now Face ARREST for Refusing to Hand Over Phones, Laptops, and Passwords

The era of privacy is officially over in the “New Hong Kong,” and if you’re an American traveling abroad, you are now a target for the Communist-controlled regime.

According to a recent warning issued by the U.S. Consulate, Americans entering or even transiting through Hong Kong could now face criminal charges simply for refusing to unlock their phones or provide passwords to authorities.

Under newly updated enforcement rules tied to Hong Kong’s sweeping National Security Law, police now have the authority to demand access to personal electronic devices, including phones and laptops, on the spot.

And here’s the catch:

This applies to everyone, residents, tourists, business travelers, and even passengers just passing through the airport.

The U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macao issued the following alert:

On March 23, 2026, the Hong Kong government changed the implementing rules relating to the National Security Law. It is now a criminal offense to refuse to give the Hong Kong police the passwords or decryption assistance to access all personal electronic devices including cellphones and laptops. This legal change applies to everyone, including U.S. citizens, in Hong Kong, arriving or just transiting Hong Kong International Airport. In addition, the Hong Kong government also has more authority to take and keep any personal devices, as evidence, that they claim are linked to national security offenses.

Keep reading

Maine Lobsterman Asks the Supreme Court To Strike Down a Rule Allowing the Government To Track His Boat 24/7

In March 2022, a rule was finalized requiring all federally permitted lobster vessels in 10 East Coast states to install GPS tracking. Now one lobsterman is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the regulation.

Last week, Frank Thompson, a fifth-generation Maine lobsterman, filed a petition to the Supreme Court challenging a rule set by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). This rule required lobstermen to install a GPS device on their boats, which tracks and sends locations on a minute-by-minute basis to government agencies—even when the boat is being used recreationally. The systems—which are Bluetooth compatible and can collect audio—also record and update the boat’s location every six hours when it is docked or moored. Failing to comply with the rule could lead to fines, forfeiture of fishing licenses, jail time, and even a federal moratorium on lobstering in noncompliant states.

The rule was pitched as a way to save lobstermen time. Rather than using written logs, the GPS device would automatically track their day. It was also proposed to better track and reduce the environmental impact of the industry. However, these fishermen are already ecologically conscious because their livelihood depends on it. The industry has received praise from the state’s fishing commissioner for being a “model of conservation.”

Whatever the motivation, fishermen say the rule violates their constitutional rights. In 2024, Thompson challenged the regulation in federal court, arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Both the district court and appeals court sided with the government, saying that since lobstering was considered a “closely regulated” industry, it did not enjoy the same constitutional protections from warrantless searches that less-regulated businesses enjoy.

But “digital surveillance without a warrant is unconstitutional—regardless of industry,” says the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public-interest law firm that is representing Thompson. “The government cannot exclude licensed professions from the Fourth Amendment’s protections and compel lobstermen to submit to government trespass and around-the-clock” federal surveillance.

Keep reading

Ohio Church Wins Homeless Ministry Legal Battle With City

A Bryan, Ohio, church may continue its 24-hour homeless ministry after a legal battle over fire code enforcement, a judge ruled on April 1.

Judge James D. Bates of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the city’s lawsuit against Dad’s Place church with prejudice, ending civil proceedings aimed at shutting down the church’s overnight shelter ministry.

The ruling allows Dad’s Place, led by Pastor Chris Avell, to continue operating its 24-hour ministry serving vulnerable individuals in Bryan.

Court records show the case stemmed from enforcement actions by Bryan Fire Chief Douglas Pool, who sought to halt the church’s overnight activities over fire code concerns.

“The Court, from the initial time it was appointed to the case, felt that it would have to find for the Fire Chief,” Bates wrote.

“Having applied strict scrutiny … the Court concedes that the Fire Chief’s enforcement of the fire code fails because it lacks a compelling interest and isn’t the least restrictive means of enforcing fire safety. The City has given waivers to other businesses like hotels, but has refused to give the church a similar accommodation. This is fatal under strict scrutiny. Therefore, a judgment in favor of Dad’s Place must be entered.”

Keep reading