Tag: police state

Footage Shows Cop Stalking Woman He Met on a TV Set After Surveilling Her With a License Plate Reader

A police officer speeds 70 MPH down a two-lane highway running over a bridge in the Florida Keys. He passes a dump truck in a no-passing zone, then immediately does it again, crossing over a double-yellow line to pass another truck. He passes a third vehicle, nearly causing a head-on collision with a white pickup truck that veers away from him in the oncoming traffic. The cop keeps driving, and sees the SUV he’s been in pursuit of. He flicks his sirens and lights on and pulls it over.

The cop, Lamar Roman, wasn’t trying to pull over a suspected criminal. He was tracking and chasing a woman that he met and harassed on the set of the AppleTV+ show Bad Monkey, which he had worked a security detail shift on a few weeks prior to pulling her over. After meeting the woman, catcalling her and harassing her for her full name and Instagram details, the cop illegally looked up her vehicle information on DAVID, a Florida Department of Motor Vehicles database for law enforcement. He then put her license plate details on a surveillance “hotlist,” meaning he would get a notification in real time anytime she drove by an AI-powered license plate surveillance camera.

Roman told investigators that he saw the woman as a “shiny thing” and knew that using surveillance tools to track her was illegal, according to police records. He told investigators that “I knew that when I put [her into DAVID], I’m like ‘fuck’ and that’s why I stopped right after and nothing else.” But that wasn’t the end of it; he investigated the woman then used a powerful license plate tracking database to find her location and chase her down. In doing so, he also “almost cause[d] a head on collision while passing as a white truck traveling northbound had to veer off the roadway to avoid a collision.”

Keep reading

Surveillance Disguised as Safety: Cars Sold in EU To Spy on Drivers 24/7

As of Tuesday, July 7th, all new cars sold within the European Union are required by law to include an extra spy gadget, whether you want it or not. 

The so-called driver monitoring camera, switched on at all times while the car is running above 20 km/h, and capable of precisely tracking the driver’s eye movements, is part of the now mandatory Advanced Driver Distraction Warning system, or ADDW. 

Its purpose is to detect if the driver falls asleep or gets distracted, and if they look away from the road for a certain amount of time, depending on the speed, the car warns them with a combination of sound, light, or vibration. 

The tech must also be so advanced as to know exactly if the driver is looking at the speedometer or the display screen, for instance, each with its own allowed number of seconds before the system activates. Looking at a phone or turning back to the kids, however, earns an instant warning.

BREAKING:

The EU today introduced the new requirement for all new cars registered in Europe to have installed cameras filming the driver’s face.

The system is called Advanced Driver Distraction Warning, ADDW, and is part of the EU’s General Safety Regulation.

The camera tracks… pic.twitter.com/oqnWXuz0ir— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 7, 2026

The idea may be a noble one, as the EU estimated that the new measure will save 25,000 lives by 2038. However, it’s also problematic on multiple fronts. 

Not only is it the latest annoying piece of EU overregulation—tests indicate that the system activates way too often, confuses blinking with drowsiness, and tends to tell drivers to take a break even if they’ve been driving for ten minutes—but the regulation leaves room for plenty of privacy concerns.

On paper, the ADDW should work on a “closed loop” system, meaning all data is processed locally, within the car, and no footage should be uploaded to any third-party server, be it the car manufacturer’s or law enforcement’s. 

However, data privacy experts warned that the implementation might not be so straightforward. 

For one, the EU regulation does not impose any independent audit to ensure that the ADDW systems installed actually operate on a closed-loop basis. Meaning both the car manufacturers and the tech companies selling them these systems could theoretically circumvent the rules and stealthily collect data on drivers.

Secondly, the EU offers little clarity over how the data is handled. We don’t know how much footage the system captures once a “distraction” decision has been made, nor how long that data is stored or when it gets deleted, if it ever does. 

The implications are obvious. The continuous surveillance of the inside of a car can net car companies (or any third party that’s capable of hacking into it) a treasure trove of data that’s too valuable to pass on. Put simply, driver behavior can be turned into precious consumer data to be used internally or sold to the highest bidder.

And this is not just a hypothetical, but something that already happened. In 2024, GM, Honda, Acura, Kia, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi were all caught sharing driver behavior data—including mileage, speed, hard braking, and rapid acceleration—with multiple data brokers. These turned the data into “risk scores” and sold them to insurance companies, which then freely used them to increase their personalized rates by over 20%.

Another investigation in 2023 revealed that Tesla employees had been secretly pulling and sharing video footage made by the forward-facing cameras of their cars, including clips of crashes, road-rage incidents, and even of people getting undressed near their vehicles. 

Now imagine what could go wrong when suddenly millions of European cars all have cameras facing inside. Even if GDPR should protect consumers on paper, it’s only a matter of time until someone gains access to all the sensitive data and footage these cameras capture along the way.

Keep reading

Waymo Robotaxi “Snitches” On Two 15-Year-Olds Drinking & Shooting Orbeez Guns In Bay Area

Two 15-year-old boys were detained in San Mateo Monday afternoon after the Waymo robotaxi they were riding in reported them to police – for drinking alcohol and firing a gel-bead blaster out of the moving car – then pulled itself over so officers could collect them.

Waymo’s remote monitors spotted the behavior on the vehicle’s interior cameras and called the San Mateo Police Department around 2:10 p.m. with the car’s exact location. The company then disabled the vehicle near 20th Avenue and El Camino Real, telling the pair the car was having trouble – a ruse that bought officers time to get into position.

Because the initial report described what looked like a real firearm, police conducted a high-risk stop, approaching with guns drawn and a police dog deployed. No one was hurt. Inside, officers found an Orbeez-style gel blaster – painted over to pass for the real thing – and open alcohol.

The teens cooperated, were detained, and were released to their parents. The case has been forwarded to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office for review of possible charges, including underage drinking, and police say they plan to pull the Waymo’s interior video.

“Parents do you know where your teens are? @waymo does!” The department wrote on Facebook: “After calling us and stopping the car, we were able to safely remove both subjects and determined they were shooting Orbeez from the car as they sipped on afternoon libations while being chauffeured around town in the driverless vehicle.”

“While there was some ingenuity to this scheme, toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye… Shooting projectiles at speed can cause real damage. And lest not forget the underage drinking. All bad ideas today for these two. Well, the Waymo might have been the smartest idea yet, because driving impaired would’ve made this so much worse.”

Keep reading

Air Force Engineer Accused Of Cutting Down AI Cameras Becomes Unlikely Hero, Raises Thousands For Legal Defense

A U.S. Air Force engineer charged with allegedly destroying a series of AI-powered license plate surveillance cameras has become an unlikely cause célèbre among privacy advocates, drawing thousands of dollars in donations to help fund his legal defense, according to Yahoo News.

Jeffrey Sovern, a 41-year-old Air Force engineer and mechanic from Virginia, is accused of cutting down multiple Flock Safety license plate reader cameras. He now faces 13 counts of destruction of property, along with six counts each of petit larceny and possession of burglary tools.

The case comes as Flock Safety’s automated license plate reader network continues to spread rapidly across the country. Supporters say the cameras help police solve crimes, while critics argue they create a growing surveillance network that tracks the movements of ordinary Americans and raises serious privacy concerns.

Yahoo News writes that opposition to the systems has intensified in some communities, with vandals reportedly using everything from spray paint and garbage bags to chainsaws to disable or destroy the cameras.

Sovern has made no secret of his views. In a GoFundMe campaign created to cover his legal expenses, he framed the case as a fight over privacy rights.

“My name is Jeff and I appreciate my privacy. I appreciate everyone’s right to privacy, enshrined in the fourth amendment,” Sovern wrote.

He said the criminal case has taken a significant emotional toll on him and those close to him, adding that the encouragement he has received online prompted him to launch the fundraiser.

Originally seeking $8,500, the campaign has gained momentum as news of the case has spread. It has now brought in more than $15,000 from over 400 contributors, far surpassing its initial goal.

In a recent update following a preliminary hearing, Sovern thanked supporters for helping bring attention to the issue.

“Thank you to those that had the time to show support this week!” he wrote. “We have seen a huge uptick in awareness of the system and this case.”

He also urged supporters to continue advocating against what he called an expanding surveillance network, encouraging people to “reach out to the local governments and demand that these systems are taken down.”

Keep reading

Carney is considering lawsuits over “misinformation” posts

The federal government’s latest attack on free expression is straight out of 1984.

An Access to Information memo obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter shows the Industry Department is weighing legal action against social media users accused of spreading “false and misleading information.” The heavily redacted 35-page memo offers no details on the proposed legal action.

This contrasts with the Liberal government’s past stance against internet control as a human rights threat.

Four years ago, they said, “the rights and freedoms that individuals have offline must also be protected online.”

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules Against Amish Families in Religious Exemption Case — Will Supreme Court Have the Last Word?

A federal court last week ruled against a group of Amish parents who sought religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements for their children — a ruling that legal experts suggest may lead to a U.S. Supreme Court showdown that could determine the future of religious exemptions nationwide.

In its ruling in Miller v. McDonald, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said New York State’s law eliminating religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements is “neutral and generally applicable,” doesn’t discriminate against specific religious practices and furthers the state’s interest in protecting the public from disease.

The plaintiffs, a group of parents and representatives of Amish schools in New York, sued New York’s Department of Health and Department of Education in 2023, alleging the state’s law barring religious exemptions violates the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause under the First and 14th Amendments.

The parents face $118,000 in fines for noncompliance with the state’s vaccination requirements.

Last week’s decision was the second time the 2nd Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs. The same court previously dismissed the suit in 2024, upholding a decision by another federal court earlier that year.

In December 2025, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the 2nd Circuit, asking it to review constitutional questions arising out of a separate ruling, Mahmoud v. Taylor, in 2024. In that case, the Supreme Court found that parents have the right to request an exemption for their children from LGBTQ curriculum on religious grounds.

According to The Washington Post, last week’s ruling in Miller v. McDonald may “set the stage for a potential Supreme Court battle over vaccine mandates,” citing legal experts who suggested the court is likely to accept the case for review on constitutional grounds and in light of the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision.

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University professor of health law and an outspoken vaccine proponent, told the Post he expects the Supreme Court to “reverse the appellate court’s decision” if it chooses to review the case.

A review could result in a ruling that would “allow religious vaccine exemptions nationwide,” the Post reported.

The Post reported last month that the Supreme Court has signaled that it “may be open to a constitutional claim based on the lack of a religious exemption for vaccine mandates in New York.”

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Amish plaintiffs would be “the anti-vaccine movement’s biggest win,” the Post wrote.

Keep reading

UK Police Crack Down On Dangerous New Threat – People Standing Around Doing Nothing

British policing has reached new depths of absurdity and authoritarianism. Officers are inventing pre-crimes, harassing citizens for lawful filming or standing in public, and deploying to pubs to warn people off tweeting about councillors.

All while the same forces stand guard over brand-new taxpayer-funded houses handed to migrants and turn a blind eye to patterns of two-tier enforcement that have defined recent years.

In one widely shared incident, a female officer was caught on camera confronting a man peacefully filming in a public space.

In the footage she claims his mere presence “might” wind people up and lead someone else to lose their temper, threatening arrest to “prevent a breach of the peace.”

No actual crime had occurred. No law was being broken. As the man pointed out, the logic is straight out of the dystopian story Minority Report: punish the law-abiding person in case an offence is later committed.

The man was simply exercising his right to record in public. The response is to treat him as the threat.

This is far from an isolated incident.

Another viral video shows a male officer with wild, agitated behaviour confronting a citizen for filming. He threatens arrest for a “technically public order offence,” then pivots to demands for details, ultimately detaining the man.

Observers note the officer appears erratic, with exaggerated facial expressions and eye movements that have sparked widespread comment about his fitness for duty. The citizen was going about lawful business. The officer escalated without clear legal basis.

Keep reading

EU Reddit Users Must Verify Age With Government ID or Selfie

Reddit began forcing many of its European users to prove their age on June 24, and it chose an invasive way to do it. Anyone the platform’s automated systems flag as possibly under 18 now has to hand over a government ID or a live face scan to a third party before opening a single mature community. The rollout covers the European Union and Norway, and Reddit frames the whole thing as compliance with censorship and digital ID EU law.

If you refuse the check and you keep your account, though, the mature side of Reddit vanishes from view. Agree to it, and you feed your identity into Persona, the outside verification firm Reddit leans on to decide whether you are old enough to read what you came to read.

The screening starts before anyone asks for a document. Reddit runs software that monitors your every move and estimates your age from how you behave on the site, reading your posting history, and the words you use.

If you look like an adult to the machine, nothing changes. If you look like a teenager, the mature communities lock until you verify. The company has not published the full list of signals it weighs, which leaves users to reverse-engineer a system that has already decided something about them.

The net catches far more than adult content. Users posting screenshots of the verification flow reported that some mental health support communities are tagged NSFW, which drags them behind the same wall. Someone reaching out during a crisis can find themselves asked to show a passport first. Reddit built its name on letting people speak without one attached, and that is the exact thing the check strips away.

Teenagers face a separate set of rules. Accounts held by 13 to 15-year-olds are locked to the most restrictive privacy settings with no way to loosen them, covering chat, followers, and whether the profile surfaces in search. Yet, keep in mind, everyone’s privacy has already had to be invaded to get to this point.

Users who are 16 or 17 start with the same defaults but can change them. Reddit presents this as protection, and some of it does protect, though it arrives welded to the identity demand rather than offered instead of it.

The expansion follows months of regulatory pressure, most of it out of the United Kingdom. British regulators fined Reddit £14.47 million, roughly $19 million, earlier this year after finding the company had unlawfully handled children’s personal information between May 2018 and July 2025.

Reddit had let people self-declare their age at signup, a method the Information Commissioner’s Office said children could get around without effort. “It’s concerning that a company the size of Reddit failed in its legal duty to protect the personal information of UK children,” Information Commissioner John Edwards said.

Keep reading

YouTube Warns Independent UK Creators of Impending Censorship Push From Labour Government

American video-sharing platform YouTube told users in Britain that, under pressure from the left-wing Labour Party government, independent creators will likely see their content suppressed.

The British government has been accused of attempting to silence political opposition, with YouTube telling UK creators that proposed new rules would include a “prominence regime” that would force sites like YouTube to give a “privileged position” to the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and other legacy media.

The notice said that artificially propping up establishment media would naturally result in independent media being downranked and obscured from view, as “pushing this group forward means pushing everyone else downward. Mandatory prioritisation of broadcasters would affect how your content reaches your audience, regardless of what your audience actually wants to see.”

“Mandating prominence for established media networks would push the UK’s diverse mix of independent journalists, educators, and digital-first businesses down the line,” YouTube added.

Creators were also told that this would impact their ability to grow their communities, generate views, and ultimately earn money as a business.

The government is said to have told the site that legacy broadcasters had the “trust” of the state to provide accurate reporting, which YouTube noted implies that “digital-first voices are less credible, damaging the foundational trust that sustains the creator economy.”

This comes despite the BBC recently facing significant scandals involving the accuracy of its reporting, including last year when it was forced to apologise to U.S. President Trump after a documentary produced by the public broadcaster deceptively spliced together different sections of his speech on January 6th 2021, to falsely give the impression that he had encouraged supporters to riot, when he did the exact opposite.

Keep reading

Mexican Government Delays Biometric Registration Deadline After Massive Public Resistance

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has announced an extension to a controversial deadline that required Mexican citizens and foreign residents to register their phone lines with their identification. The move comes after less than half of the country signed up to register their phone lines.

On Thursday morning, Mexico’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT) announced a staggered extension for citizens to register their mobile phone lines with their identification. This controversial requirement has received pushback and resistance from the Mexican population, many of whom question how their data will be stored and used.

According to the announcement, prepaid phone lines that have not yet been linked to an identity will now have until between August and December to complete the process, with the deadline based on the last digit of the phone number. The new policy states that after the deadline expires, telephone companies will suspend service to non-compliant lines within 72 hours.

“For the safety of all, every telephone number must be registered in the name of one person, in order to eliminate the anonymity that has allowed crime such as fraud or extortion,” the press release reads. “With this measure, Mexico will cease to be one of the few countries that allowed the acquisition of a SIM card without identification, and will join the international practice currently in place in 166 countries.”

Calls for a deadline extension have increased in recent weeks, as many critics believe the government did not adequately prepare the public for the change. In late May, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim called for an extension because the process was “very complicated” and progressing slowly.

With the extension of the deadline, the Mexican government and telecom companies are hoping extra time is all that will be necessary to convince more than 50 million people to comply with the mandate. This may prove more challenging than they anticipated in a country well known for mistrust of official institutions.

The requirement to link a person’s ID with their phone line is a fairly new development in Mexico—one of the few places in the world where individuals could still purchase and use SIM cards in cellphones without registering a name or showing some form of identification. All of that changed in July 2025 when several new laws took effect that compel the population to register for a biometric program required to access many services, including phone and internet access. Phone users were originally instructed to register their phone line with their telecommunications provider before June 30, 2026, or face interruption of service. This would force businesses selling these services to check a customer’s CURP before purchase.

Keep reading