police state – Page 22 – Hellbound and Down

TSA Announces $45 Fee for Passengers With No REAL ID, Passports, or Other Accepted Documents

Passengers who lack a REAL ID, passport, or another equivalent document will have to pay a $45 fee to travel domestically, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced on Dec. 1.

The agency will start charging air travelers $45 on Feb. 1 if their IDs do not meet the new, stricter federal standards.

Travelers without a REAL ID will have to use the TSA Confirm.ID for 10 days, which will cost $45, according to the agency. It advised people to schedule an appointment at a local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) location to update their IDs as soon as possible before traveling by plane.

“All travelers without an acceptable ID, including those who present a non-REAL ID-compliant state driver’s license or ID, will be referred to the optional TSA Confirm.ID process for identity verification upon TSA check-in and prior to entering the security line,” the TSA stated.

“This process will differ airport to airport, and TSA is working with private industry to proactively offer online payment options prior to arrival at the airport.”

Passengers without REAL ID or another accepted form will face longer wait times at airports, the TSA warned.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Fails to Keep a Tight Leash on Police K-9 Drug-Sniff Searches That Intrude Into Vehicles, Raising Fourth Amendment Concerns

In yet another ruling that contributes to the steady normalization of police overreach, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to rein in police K-9 drug-sniff searches during traffic stops.

By declining to hear an appeal in Mumford v. Iowa, the Court let stand an Iowa Supreme Court ruling that allows police to rely on a drug dog’s intrusion into a car’s interior during a traffic stop—even when officers lack probable cause to believe the car contains contraband. In a 5-2 decision in Mumford v. Iowa, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a search in which a police K-9 placed its paws on a car door and inserted its snout through an open window before alerting to drugs.

The Rutherford Institute, joined by Restore the Fourth, had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, arguing that warrantless, nonconsensual intrusions into protected spaces violate the Fourth Amendment, which extends its protection to a person’s vehicle. The amicus brief further warned that allowing a police dog to breach the interior of a car provides no limiting principle: if a dog’s snout may trespass inside a vehicle without probable cause, then so might thermal-imaging devices, x-ray scanners, fiberscopes, or other police technologies.

“What this ruling makes clear is that no American is safe from government intrusion, not even during a routine traffic stop. This is how constitutional rights are lost—not in dramatic sweeps, but in small, incremental intrusions that courts refuse to check,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “If a police dog’s snout can be used to justify a warrantless search of a car, then there is nothing to stop the government from using ever more intrusive technologies, surveillance tools, and police instrumentalities to invade our privacy with little to no judicial oversight.”

The case arose after an Iowa police officer initiated a traffic stop of Ashlee Mumford’s vehicle, claiming the last two numbers on her license plate were obscured by dirt and grime. The officer summoned a K-9 unit, and Mumford and her passenger were ordered out of the vehicle “for their own safety” while the handler walked the dog around the car to conduct a “free air sniff.” Because Mumford’s passenger had left his window open, the dog pushed its snout through the open window into the cabin before alerting to drugs. A subsequent search of the vehicle uncovered drugs in the glove compartment which apparently belonged to the passenger. Officers then searched Mumford’s purse—which she had taken with her upon exiting the vehicle—and found marijuana and a pipe.

Keep reading

British Transport Police Launch Facial Recognition Trials in London Stations

Some people, when they want to improve public transport safety, hire more staff, fix the lighting, or maybe even try being on time.

The British Transport Police, however, have gone full Black Mirror, deciding the best way to protect you from crime on your morning commute is by pointing cameras at your face and feeding your biometric soul into a machine.

Yes, for many Britons, facial recognition is coming to a railway station near them. Smile. Or don’t. It makes no difference. The algorithm will be watching anyway.

In the coming weeks, British Transport Police (BTP) will be trialling Live Facial Recognition (LFR) tech in London stations. It’s being sold as a six-month pilot program, which in government-speak usually means it will last somewhere between forever and the heat death of the universe.

The idea is to deploy these cameras in “key transport hubs,” which is bureaucratic code for: “places you’re likely to be standing around long enough for a camera to decide whether or not you look criminal.”

BTP assures us that the system is “intelligence-led,” which doesn’t mean they’ll be targeting shady characters with crowbars, but rather that the cameras will be feeding your face into a watchlist generated from police data systems.

They’re looking for criminals and missing people, they say. But here’s how it works: if your face doesn’t match anyone on the list, it gets deleted immediately. Allegedly. If it does match, an officer gets a ping, stares at a screen, and decides whether you’re a knife-wielding fugitive or just a man who looks like one.

And you have to love the quaint touch of QR codes, and signs stuck up around the station letting you know that, yes, your biometric identity is being scanned in real time.

Chief Superintendent Chris Casey would like you to know that “we’re absolutely committed to using LFR ethically and in line with privacy safeguards.”

The deployments, we’re told, will come with “internal governance” and even “external engagement with ethics and independent advisory groups.”

Keep reading

Files expose Britain’s secret D-Notice censorship regime

Documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal how British soldiers and spies censor news reporting on ‘national security,’ coercing reporters into silence. The files show the Committee boasting of a “90% + success rate” in enforcing the official British line on any controversial story – or disappearing reports entirely.

A new trove of documents obtained by The Grayzone through freedom of information (FOI) requests provide unprecedented insight into Britain’s little-known military and intelligence censorship board. The contents lay bare how the secretive Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee censors the output of British journalists, while categorizing independent media as “extremist” for publishing “embarrassing” stories. The body imposes what are known as D-Notices, gag-orders systematically suppressing information available to the public.

The files provide the clearest view to date of the inner workings of the opaque committee, exposing which news items the British national security state has sought to shape or keep from public view. These include the bizarre 2010 death of a GCHQ codebreaker, MI6 and British special forces activity in the Middle East and Africa, the sexual abuse of children by government officials, and the death of Princess Diana.

The files show the shadowy Committee maintains an iron grip over the output of legacy British media outlets, transforming British journalists to royal court stenographers. With the Committee having firmly imposed themselves on the editorial process, a wide range of reporters have submitted “apologies” to the board for their media offenses, flaunting their subservience in order to maintain their standing within British mainstream media.

In addition, the documents also show the Committee’s intentions to extend the D-Notice system to social media, stating its desire to engage with “tech giants” in a push to suppress revealing disclosures on platforms like Meta and Twitter/X.

How The Grayzone obtained the files

The DSMA Committee describes itself as “an independent advisory body composed of senior civil servants and editors” which brings together representatives of the security services, army, government officials, press association chiefs, senior editors, and reporters. The system forges a potent clientelist rapport between journalists and powerful state agencies, heavily influencing what national security matters get reported on in the mainstream, and how. The Committee also routinely issues so-called “D-Notices,” demanding media outlets seek its “advice” before reporting certain stories, or simply asking they avoid particular topics outright.

The DSMA Committee is funded by and housed in Britain’s Ministry of Defence (MOD), chaired by the MOD’s Director General of Security Policy Paul Wyatt, and 36-year British Army veteran Brigadier Geoffery Dodds serves as its Secretary, raising serious questions about the extent to which British ‘news’ on national security could effectively be written by the Ministry of Defence.

Even though the MOD explicitly retains the right to dismiss its Secretary, the DSMA Committee insists it operates independently from the British government. This means the Committee isn’t subject to British FOI laws.

So how did The Grayzone obtain these files?

The unprecedented disclosure was the result of an effort by the Committee to assist Australia’s government in creating a D-Notice system of their own. In doing so, it established a papertrail which Canberra was forced to release under its own FOI laws. Australian authorities fought tooth and nail to prevent the documents’ release for over five months, until the country’s Information Commissioner forced the Department of Home Affairs to release them.

Keep reading

They Built a Hemp Business in Good Faith but Washington Is About To Crush It

As the Senate prepared to vote on the funding bill to reopen the federal government earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned that passing the legislation would “regulate the hemp industry to death.” Buried deep inside the continuing resolution was a provision that would completely reverse nearly seven years of industry progress—and potentially wipe out small hemp-based businesses.

In 2019, after the 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act, cousins Jim Higdon and Eric Zipperle founded Cornbread Hemp. The Kentucky-based company manufactures and sells hemp-related products directly to consumers nationwide, and it stands out in a highly competitive market thanks to the quality of its organic hemp.

Cornbread pioneered a flower-only production model that uses only cannabis flowers in extraction, yielding higher-quality products. It also enforces a strict set of growing standards.

“We’re farming land that has not had pesticides on it for three years—verified. We’re using non-GMO seeds, no pesticides, and no synthetic fertilizers,” said Higdon. “The only fertilizer input we use is chicken litter…from a certified organic chicken farm.”

That quality has earned Cornbread a loyal and growing customer base, 60 percent of whom are over 66 years old and rely on these products to relieve chronic pain.

It is estimated that the number of licensed growers rose from about 3,500 in 2018 to over 21,000 in 2020. The rush subsided, and by 2021, the market steadied and licenses fell to about 9,700. Even with that correction, the economic impact of industrial hemp is undeniable. Industry estimates suggest the hemp market supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, with one model putting the number at roughly 325,000 workers in farming, biomass processing, product manufacturing, distribution, and retail nationwide. According to Department of Agriculture data, the value of U.S. industrial hemp production was about $824 million in 2021 and approximately $445 million in 2024.

And yet, even before the most recent move by Congress, many small companies, including Cornbread, have been hit by a wave of new state regulations threatening their survival. In 2025, Tennessee passed a law placing the hemp industry under the jurisdiction of the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The state’s longstanding three-tier system for policing liquor sales now extends to hemp products as well.

Beginning in January 2026, out-of-state hemp companies, such as Cornbread, wanting to do business in Tennessee must first sell their product to a Tennessee-licensed wholesaler, which must then sell it to a Tennessee retail shop. Only then can customers visit the physical store and purchase the product.

While Cornbread can set up its own wholesaler and retail facilities in Tennessee, doing so would be impractical and prohibitively expensive.

Beyond its practical business burdens, Tennessee’s law infringes on Cornbread and other companies’ fundamental right to earn a living. The law also violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state businesses and shielding in-state interests from legitimate competition.

Keep reading

Canadian Muslims Take to Streets in Anger After Quebec Pushes Forward With Ban on Public Prayer

The Canadian province of Quebec is planning to ban all public prayer as part of an aggressive push toward secularization.

Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the laws were designed to accelerate his push toward secularization.

The Guardian reports:

Quebec says it will intensify its crackdown on public displays of religion in a sweeping new law that critics say pushes Canadian provinces into private spaces and disproportionately affects Muslims.

Bill 9, introduced by the governing Coalition Avenir Québec on Thursday, bans prayer in public institutions, including in colleges and universities.

It also bans communal prayer on public roads and in parks, with the threat of fines of C$1,125 for groups in contravention of the prohibition. Short public events with prior approval are exempt.

CAQ has made secularism a key legislative priority, passing the controversial Bill 21 – which bans some public sector employees from wearing religious symbol – in 2019.

It plans to extend that prohibition to anyone working in daycares, colleges, universities and private schools. Full face coverings would be banned for anyone in those institutions, including students.

Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the laws were designed to accelerate his push toward secularization.

“It’s shocking to see people blocking traffic, taking possession of the public space without a permit, without warning, and then turning our streets, our parks, our public squares into places of worship,” he explained.

He added that schools are “are not temples or churches or those kinds of places.”

Keep reading

We Must Resist The Rise Of A Global Censorship Regime

The ordeal of Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who just stood trial a third time – after being acquitted twice – for a 2019 tweet in which she simply shared a Scripture verse and her faith-based views on marriage and sexuality, is a warning to all who value the right to speak freely across the world.

When governments claim the power to police opinions, even peaceful expressions of faith can be dragged through the courts.

And now this promises to be a much more pervasive reality in Europe as a result of the 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA). Ahead of the European Union’s review of the DSA, 113 international experts committed to free speech wrote to the European Commission highlighting the law’s incompatibility with free expression, citing the possibility of worldwide takedown orders. Räsänen was a signatory to the letter, alongside a former vice president of Yahoo Europe, a former U.S. senator, and politicians, academics, lawyers, and journalists from around the globe.

The DSA gives the E.U. authority to enforce moderation of “illegal content” on platforms and search engines with over 45 million monthly users. It enables bureaucrats to control online speech at scale under the guise of “safety” and “protecting democracy.”

However, E.U. member states may have different definitions of illegal content. Thus, under the law, anything deemed illegal under the speech laws of any one E.U. member state could potentially be removed across all of Europe. That means the harshest censorship laws in Europe could soon govern the entire continent, and possibly the internet worldwide. And if platforms fail to comply, they face billions in fines, thus providing clear incentive to censor and none to promote free speech.

Late last month, the E.U. announced that Meta and TikTok will face fines of up to 6 percent of their global sales for accusations of violating the DSA on matters related to transparency. But the well-founded fear is that this law—which grants sweeping authority to European regulators to control online speech across such platforms—including X, YouTube, and Facebook—will enable the kind of censorship endured by Räsänen on a global scale.

Further, citizens in countries outside of the E.U., like the United States, are at risk of facing new levels of censorship, because the DSA applies to large online digital platforms and search engines accessed within the E.U. but that have a global presence. It explicitly states its extraterritorial applicability as it covers platforms used by people “that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of where the providers of those intermediary services [the platforms] have their place of establishment.”

Platforms are incentivized to adapt their international content moderation policies to E.U. censorship. If those platforms deem something “illegal” under E.U. rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.

Keep reading

UK Ofcom Pushes Rules Targeting “Misogynistic” Content, Prompting (Even More) Free Speech Concerns

Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has unveiled a new framework urging social media and technology companies to censor so-called “misogynistic” content as part of its A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls campaign.

The initiative, framed as an effort to protect women from online abuse, further weakens the distinction between “harmful” conduct and lawful expression, a tension Ofcom itself acknowledges in its own documentation.

The regulator’s new guidance encourages platforms to adopt a wide range of “safety” measures, many of which would directly influence what users can post, see, and share.

These include inserting prompts that nudge users to “reconsider” certain comments, suppressing “misogynistic” material in recommendation feeds and search results, temporarily suspending users who post repeated “abuse,” and de-monetizing content flagged under this category.

Moderators would also receive special training on “gender-based harms,” while posting rates could be throttled to slow the spread of unwanted speech.

Ofcom’s document also endorses the use of automated scanning systems like “hash-matching” to locate and delete non-consensual intimate imagery.

While intended to prevent the circulation of explicit photos, such systems typically involve the mass analysis of user uploads and can wrongly flag legitimate material.

Additional proposals include “trusted flagger” partnerships with NGOs, identity verification options, and algorithmic “friction” mechanisms, small design barriers meant to deter impulsive posting.

Some of the ideas, such as warning prompts and educational links, are voluntary.

Yet several major advocacy groups, including Refuge and Internet Matters, are pressing for the government to make them binding on all platforms.

If adopted wholesale, these measures would effectively place Ofcom in a position to oversee the policing of legal speech, with tech firms acting as its enforcement arm.

In a letter announcing the guidance, Ofcom’s Chief Executive Melanie Dawes declared that “the digital world is not serving women and girls the way it should,” describing online misogyny and non-consensual deepfakes as pervasive problems that justify immediate “industry-wide action.”

She stated that Ofcom would “follow up to understand how you are applying this Guidance” and publish a progress report in 2027.

Keep reading

	Who Is Funding and O… on Who Is Funding and Organizing…
	How the US Regime Su… on How the US Regime Subsidizes I…
	Gretchen Whitmer Def… on Gretchen Whitmer Defends Abort…
	While Serving in Con… on WHAT A COINCIDENCE: While Serv…
	Bay Area scientist l… on Bay Area scientist launches ne…