Tag: police state

How new social media checks would change travel to US

The US is seeking to significantly expand its 

vetting of social media accounts for people who want to enter the country.

In 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, the US imposed a requirement that visa applicants disclose their social media accounts. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now aims to apply a similar requirement to another group: travellers from countries such as the UK, Japan and Australia whose citizens can enter the US without a visa.

The Trump administration argues that the rule change is necessary to ensure travellers entering the country “do not bear hostile attitudes” to the US and its citizens. Civil-liberties groups warn that the approach marks a sweeping expansion of federal surveillance over routine travel. Here’s what to know.

What exactly is the US proposing?

The US is proposing that foreign visitors from countries whose citizens can travel to the US without a visa, but must still apply online for advance authorisation, provide their social media history from the last five years. 

DHS did not respond to a query about what information applicants from visa-waiver countries would need to supply for the social media screening. (Visa applicants are required to list all social media identifiers they have used in the past five years.)

Applicants would also be required to supply, when “feasible,” a broad set of additional personal information: telephone numbers used in the last five years; e-mail addresses used in the last ten years; IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos; family members’ names, residences, places and dates of birth, and phone numbers used in the last five years; and personal biometrics – fingerprints, DNA samples, iris scans, and facial images. The proposal does not clarify how biometric information would be collected. 

Keep reading

UK Parliament Rejects Petition to Repeal Online Censorship Law, Calls for Expanded Censorship

This week in the UK, Parliament held a debate in response to a public petition that gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA).

It was a rare opportunity for elected officials to prove they still listen to their constituents.

Instead, the overwhelming message from MPs was clear: thanks for your concern, but we’d actually like even more control over what you can do online.

One by one, MPs stood up not to defend free expression, or question whether one of the most radical internet control laws in modern British history might have gone too far, but to argue that it hadn’t gone far enough.

“It’s Not Censorship, It’s Responsibility” (Apparently)

Lizzi Collinge, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, insisted the OSA “is not about controlling speech.” She claimed it was about giving the online world the same “safety features” as the offline one.

This was a recurring theme throughout the debate: reassure the public that speech isn’t being restricted while calling for more mechanisms to restrict it.

Ian Murray, Minister for Digital Government and Data, also insisted the OSA protects freedom of expression. According to him, there’s no contradiction in saying people can speak freely, as long as they’re age-verified, avoid VPNs, and don’t say anything that might be flagged by a government regulator.

It’s a neat trick. Say you support free speech, then build an entire law designed to monitor, filter, and police it.

VPNs in the Firing Line

There is a growing fixation inside government with VPNs. These are basic privacy tools used by millions of people every day, often to protect their data. But several MPs, including Jim McMahon, Julia Lopez, and Ian Murray, suggested VPNs should be subject to age verification or regulatory restrictions.

It’s unclear whether these MPs understand how VPNs work or if they simply dislike the idea of anyone browsing the internet without supervision.

Either way, the intent is clear. The government wants fewer ways for people to browse anonymously.

Keep reading

Faith on Trial in Canada as Parliament Moves to Rewrite the Rules of Speech

A Canadian parliamentary committee has set in motion a change that could recast the balance between expression and state control over “hate speech.”

Members of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution.

The decision forms part of the government’s Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9), legislation that introduces new offences tied to “hate” and the public display of certain symbols.

The focus is on Section 319(3)(b), which currently ensures that “no person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

That safeguard would vanish if the Bloc Québécois amendment approved this month survives the remaining stages of debate.

Liberal MPs backed the Bloc’s proposal, which Bloc MP Rhéal Éloi Fortin introduced after his party leader, Yves-François Blanchet, made its passage a precondition for Bloc support of the bill.

Fortin argued that the religious exemption could permit “someone could commit actions or say things that would otherwise be forbidden under the Criminal Code.”

The amendment was adopted during a marathon session that came only after the committee chair, Liberal MP James Maloney, abruptly ended an earlier meeting and canceled the next one to allow MPs time to “regroup.”

On December 9, the committee returned for an eight-hour clause-by-clause review, with government members determined to complete key sections of the bill before the winter recess.

The broader legislation targets intimidation around religious institutions and bans the display of defined “hate” and “terrorism” symbols.

Yet most debate now centers on whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings.

As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”

Keep reading

Governments Are Pushing Digital IDs. Are You Ready To Be Tracked?

Politicians push government IDs.

In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.”

European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev.

They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do.

Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” on social media!

Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.”

Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs.

The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.”

That’s a good thing?

“That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism,” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.”

“I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?”

“It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier.

“You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister.

Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.'”

Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily.

Keep reading

Porn Sites Must Block VPNs To Comply With Indiana’s Age-Verification Law, State Suggests in New Lawsuit

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is suing dozens of porn websites, claiming that they are in violation of the state’s age-verification law and seeking “injunctive relief, civil penalties, and recovery of costs incurred to investigate and maintain the action.”

Last year, Indiana Senate Bill 17 mandated that websites featuring “material harmful to minors” must verify that visitors are age 18 or above. Rather than start checking IDs, Aylo—the parent company of Pornhub and an array of other adult websites—responded by blocking access for Indiana residents.

Now, Indiana says this is not good enough. To successfully comply, Pornhub and other Aylo platforms (which include Brazzers, Youporn, and Redtube, among others) must also block virtual private networks and other tools that allow internet users to mask their IP addresses, the state suggests.

This is an insane—and frighteningly dystopian—interpretation of the law.

Broad Anti-Privacy Logic

In a section of the suit detailing how Aylo allegedly violated the age-check law, Indiana notes that last July, “an investigator employed by the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (‘OAG Investigator’) accessed Pornhub.com from Indiana using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) with a Chicago, Illinois IP address.”

“Defendants have not implemented any reasonable form of age verification on its website Pornhub.com,” the suit states. It goes on to detail how Indiana investigators also accessed Brazzers.com, Faketaxi.com, Spicevids.com, and other adult websites using a VPN.

Keep reading

Tim Walz Goes It Alone: Uses Executive Orders for Gun Control After Legislature Rejects His Push

Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed executive orders Tuesday expanding Minnesota’s red flag law and creating a “Statewide Safety Council” intended to prevent “mass violence” and “targeted attacks.”

Walz’s gun control executive orders come after the state legislature refused to pass gun control measures he pushed after the August 27, 2025, Minneapolis Catholic school attack, in which a transgender man who had been identifying as a woman opened fire during mass.

According to KSTP, Walz said:

These actions today don’t limit your freedoms at all. Being shot dead in your school certainly does. … There’s no one fix to this, but there are certainly things that we know, there are certain things we’ve learned globally that make a difference, and these two actions will be another step in that direction.

Walz did not mention that the Catholic school attacker used three guns–a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun–and that he bought all three guns legally, which means he complied with the left’s gun controls on acquisition.

Keep reading

Twitter user is jailed for 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets made after Christmas market car attack that were viewed just 33 times

A Twitter user who posted two anti-immigration tweets that were viewed just 33 times has been jailed for stirring up racial hatred.

Luke Yarwood, 36, received an 18-month sentence after tweeting in the wake of the Christmas market car attack in Magdeburg, Germany, in December 2024.

His posts were reported to the police by Yarwood’s own brother-in-law who he did not get on with.

The case has drawn comparisons with Lucy Connolly, the 42-year-old wife of a Tory councillor from Northampton, who was jailed after she called for people to ‘set fire’ to asylum hotels in the wake of the Southport attack in July 2024.

Siobhan Linsley, prosecuting, said Yarwood’s ‘extremely unpleasant posts’ had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three high-profile migrant hotels in Bournemouth, Dorset, near to where he lives.

His barrister argued the posts had 33 views between them and were the ‘impotent rantings of a socially isolated man’ that had no ‘real-world’ consequences.

But Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood’s ‘odious’ tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him.

Bournemouth Crown Court heard Yarwood from Burton, near Christchurch, Dorset, made a series of anti-Muslim and anti-immigration posts from December 21, 2024 to January 29, 2025.

It started the day after the car attack in Germany in which six people were killed. At the time misinformation on social media suggested the person responsible was an Islamic extremist.

Yarwood responded to a post that stated thousands of Germans were taking to the streets and they wanted their country back.

Yarwood replied: ‘Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.’

While further posts by him displayed a ‘rabid dislike’ for foreigners, particularly Islam, these did not stir up racial hatred or incite violence.

For example, Yarwood wrote about the amount of foreign people in Bournemouth, stating: ‘Walking for ages and not hearing a word of English.’

He also wrote of his disgust at seeing ‘asylum seekers outside the hotel staring at young college girls’.

The second illegal tweet was made in response to a post by GB News.

Keep reading

The UK’s Plan to Put an Age Verification Chaperone in Every Pocket

UK officials are preparing to urge Apple and Google to redesign their operating systems so that every phone and computer sold in the country can automatically block nude imagery unless the user has proved they are an adult.

The proposal, part of the Home Office’s upcoming plan under the premise of combating violence against women and girls, would rely on technology built directly into devices, with software capable of scanning images locally to detect material.

Under the plan, as reported by FT, such scanning would be turned on by default. Anyone wanting to take, send, or open an explicit photo would first have to verify their age using a government-issued ID or a biometric check.

The goal, officials say, is to prevent children from being exposed to sexual material or drawn into exploitative exchanges online.

People briefed on the discussions said the Home Office had explored the possibility of making these tools a legal requirement but decided, for now, to rely on encouragement rather than legislation.

Even so, the expectation is that large manufacturers will come under intense pressure to comply.

The government’s approach reflects growing anxiety about how easily minors can access sexual content and how grooming can occur through everyday apps.

Instead of copying Australia’s decision to ban social media use for under-16s, British ministers have chosen to focus on controlling imagery itself.

Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips has praised technology firms that already filter content at the device level. She cited HMD Global, maker of Nokia phones, for embedding child-protection software called HarmBlock, created by UK-based SafeToNet, which automatically blocks explicit images from being viewed or shared.

Apple and Google have built smaller-scale systems of their own. Apple’s “Communication Safety” function scans photos in apps like Messages, AirDrop, and FaceTime and warns children when nudity is detected, but teens can ignore the alert.

Google’s Family Link and “sensitive content warnings” work similarly on Android, though they stop short of scanning across all apps. Both companies allow parents to apply restrictions, but neither has a universal filter that covers the entire operating system.

The Home Office wants to go further, calling for a system that would block any nude image unless an adult identity check has been passed.

Keep reading

There’s No Evidence Australia’s Strict Gun Control Laws Are Effective

emocrats in the United States repeatedly praise Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation law as a successful model to emulate, while many Australians — especially after the Bondi Beach terror attack earlier this week — argue that the confiscation helped but failed to go far enough. Yet the supposed benefits of this policy rest on deeply flawed statistical analysis.

After the Minneapolis school shooting in September, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz claimed, “When they had a school shooting in Scotland or they had an incident in Australia, they simply made changes. … And since they did those things, they don’t have them. We’re an outlier amongst nations in terms of what happens to our children.” Prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, have echoed this praise for Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation law.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reinforced this narrative on Monday after the massacre, stating that a prior administration’s gun laws “have made an enormous difference in Australia and are a proud moment of reform, quite rightly, achieved across the parliament with bipartisan support.” Supporters typically point to declines in firearm homicides and firearm suicides as evidence of success.

Relying on that perceived success, Albanese has promised even stricter gun control, arguing that tighter laws would yield even greater benefits. Policymakers already advocate proposals such as limits on the number of firearms individuals may own and periodic license reviews.

For years, major media outlets — including USA Today, The New York Times, and The Washington Post — have published stories crediting Australia’s 1996–1997 gun confiscation with cutting firearm homicide and suicide rates in half and eliminating mass public shootings.

Keep reading

UK To Introduce ‘Anti-Muslim Hate’ Definition

Ministers in the UK are steeling themselves for a storm of criticism as Communities Secretary Steve Reed prepares to unveil a new official definition of “anti-Muslim hate” this week. 

Critics, led by the Free Speech Union, warn that the expansive terminology risks creating a de facto blasphemy law, stifling legitimate debate on issues like grooming gangs and Islamist terrorism.

The shift away from the term “Islamophobia” aims to provide guidance for public bodies, councils, and businesses in combating prejudice against Muslims. Yet, according to leaked drafts, it could label prejudicial stereotyping or “racialisation designed to incite hate” as hateful acts, potentially encompassing discussions that highlight patterns in crimes predominantly involving Muslim perpetrators.

Keep reading