Tag: police state

Achtung! US Travel To Europe Will Require Prior Approval, Biometric Scanning

Traveling to most European countries is about to get more complicated and invasive for American citizens: In spring 2025, you’ll have to first request permission.  And you’ll be saying adieu to passport stamps and ciao to facial and fingerprint scans — and having your biometric data stored in an enormous government database. 

On Friday, an agency of the European Union announced the updated timing for the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS), which has first set to roll out in 2024. It applies to travelers from more than 60 countries that are currently exempt from visa requirements. Those countries have an aggregate population of 1.4 billion. 

As is the case today, Americans won’t need a visa, but they will need to apply in advance for permission to visit any of 30 EU countries for stays lasting up to 90 days. It will cost about $8 to apply, with requests submitted via the official ETIAS website or ETIAS mobile app. With activation of the process more than a year away, neither is yet configured to collect applications. ETIAS assures the public that most applications will be processed in minutes. 

The approval will be tied to your passport, and will be valid for up to three years or until your passport expires, whichever comes earlier. Once you have it, you’ll be able to visit as much as you want, so long as it’s a “short-term stay,” which generally means up to 90 days in a 180-day period. 

ETIAS recommends applying for permission “well in advance” of your trip, but doesn’t specify what that means. The agency does caution that the approval period “could be extended by up to 14 days if you are requested to provide additional information or documentation, or up to 30 days if you are invited to an interview.” There’s no indication where such interviews would be conducted or by whom. 

Keep reading

Conservatives are increasingly knives out for the nation’s top cyber agency

An agency set up under Donald Trump to protect elections and key U.S. infrastructure from foreign hackers is now fighting off increasingly intense threats from hard-right Republicans who argue it’s gone too far and are looking for ways to rein it in.

These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices and infringes upon free speech rights — an allegation the agency vehemently denies and the Biden administration is contesting in court. The accusations started in the wake of the 2020 election and are ramping up ahead of 2024, with lawmakers now calling for crippling cuts at the agency.

“CISA has blatantly violated the First Amendment and colluded with Big Tech to censor the speech of ordinary Americans,” Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which oversees CISA, said in a statement to POLITICO.

Keep reading

UK government keeping files on teaching assistants’ and librarians’ internet activity

The government has been monitoring the social media accounts of “dozens” of ordinary teaching staff, including teaching assistants, and is keeping files on posts that criticise education policies, the Observer has learned.

Two weeks ago, this newspaper revealed how the Department for Education is monitoring the social media activity of some of the country’s leading education experts. Now evidence has emerged that the monitoring is much more widespread, covering even the lowest paid members of staff.

Ordinary teaching and support staff said this weekend that they were “gobsmacked” and angry after discovering that the department had files on them. Many outraged educators have rushed to submit subject access requests [SARs] compelling the DfE to release any information it holds under their name, after discovering there were files up to 60 pages long about their tweets and comments challenging government policy or the schools inspectorate, Ofsted.

Nikki Cleveland, a higher-level teaching assistant and primary school librarian, who mainly posts uncontroversial children’s book reviews, discovered from a SAR that the DfE had a file alerting colleagues to tweets from her complaining about lack of funding for school libraries and about Ofsted. She said: “I was gobsmacked that I was even on their radar.”

Cleveland expressed anger that while the department was flagging tweets about schools struggling to balance their budgets, meet the growing needs of pupils without enough staff and deal with unreasonable demands from Ofsted, “nothing has changed”.

“The whole thing makes me even more cynical that no one in the government or the DfE cares about what is happening in schools on a day-to-day basis,” she added.

Keep reading

Destroying Liberty Through State Protection: The First Amendment

For a state to continue existing in any meaningful way, it must constantly seek to centralize power. Regardless of the original intentions of a state’s founders or the heritage that a state claims, if those running the state simply maintain their existing powers rather than growing them, they will find themselves circumvented. Subdivisions and organic local communities nominally under the state will develop independently from the state’s center of power, and the state’s power will, over a period lacking in centralization, be rendered negligible at best. This necessitates that the state centralize in response to any diverging localities to continue existing.

To sustain its centralization, the state relies on narratives and justifications propagated by its apologists. One of the most popular justifications for the increasing scope of power since the early modern era has been the safeguarding of rights and liberties of the people subjected to the state. Contrary to the promise, the safeguarding of rights and liberties only serves to expand the power of the state, further centralizing its domains and in time inevitably regulating the rights and liberties, eroding the cause itself. This is demonstrated no clearer than in the history of the United States, specifically in the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Climate Crisis Proponents Want to Criminalize Climate Change Doubts

Climate militants seek to criminalize any opinion or facts contrary to the religion of climate change.

Will the wrong ideas about climate change get you fined, jailed, or even worse?

Could voicing an opinion that questions the facts and fictions that surround the climate change hysteria soon become illegal, as in lawfully forbidden and a criminal offense?

It’s looking like that may become the reality sooner rather than later.

It would be one thing if such a monstrous idea were restricted to a small minority of powerless climate change fanatics, tree huggers, and earth worshippers. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.

What’s more, this unbelievable and un-American notion is so irrational that it seems impossible to believe.

Keep reading

Israel slated to shut ‘pro-Hamas’ network Al Jazeera run by Qatar

The Qatar state-owned network Al Jazeera is facing intense criticism that it is assisting the Hamas terrorist movement in its war against the Jewish state, prompting the government to declare that Al Jazeera’s operation will be outlawed in Israel for transmitting “sensitive information to our enemies.” 

When asked about a ban on Al Jazeera and two additional reportedly pro-Hamas news outlets, foreign ministry spokesman, Lior Haiat, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday “The government is working on something. And it is being led by the Communications Ministry and the Defence Ministry. The idea is if they are crossing the line in assisting Hamas, we can shut out the entire channel. “

He added that the closure of a network is “directed at channels that are crossing the line in assisting Hamas.”

Keep reading

US Senator Michael Bennet Invokes EU’s Censorship Demands, Calls For Big Tech to Censor “Misinformation”

Senator Michael Bennet has criticized tech behemoths such as Meta, X, Google, and TikTok, accusing them of having lax policies that seemingly sanction the spread of untruths.

The turbulent situation between Israel and Hamas was recently seized upon by Democratic Senator Michael Bennet as another pretext to launch an offensive against the digital landscape.

Bennet targeted X, Meta, TikTok, and Alphabet in a letter dated October 17, imploring them to “extinguish the proliferation of inaccurate and misleading content” related to the Middle East conflict.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

On the surface, the Senator’s request appears aligned with social responsibility while mitigating harm. However, the true objective surfaced, revealing Bennet’s obsession with enhancing the influence of censorship-prone entities that preside over content veracity.

Bennet’s stance is in alignment with European Union officials who are exerting pressure on these tech giants to aggressively deal with misinformation, via a letter addressed to the executives.

Keep reading

Why should I be at risk of jail for saying a trans woman is not a real woman?

This is what it has come to. J. K. Rowling says that she will stand up for women’s rights even if it means being sent to prison.

And if the Labour Party comes into power, the Harry Potter author might very well end up behind bars quicker than you can say Avada Kedavra!

Because Labour, in all its wizarding woke wisdom, has promised to make attacks motivated by hatred of a victim’s gender identity into what the courts call an ‘aggravated offence’.

This move would bring ‘transphobic abuse’ into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.

But it is all relative, isn’t it?

It all depends on who you are and what you believe in, rather than what you actually do and say. Under these laws, the pro-Palestinian supporters who were tearing down posters of kidnapped Israeli children in London this week should be jailed.

Yet somehow — call it crazy intuition — we all know that these people are not going be jailed, don’t we? However, in the brave new world of Prime Minister Starmer — Expelliarmus! — the person who would be jailed would be J. K. Rowling.

Under a Labour government, expressing the belief that a person’s sex is immutable and that a trans woman is not a woman would be a crime.

Yet how can holding this view be against the law or deemed to be motivated by hatred, when it is merely propelled by common sense, biology and what the vast majority of us believe to be true? Yet here we are, swirling in this perilous dogma, fighting for women-only spaces and sex-based rights, heading into a future that might criminalise us for doing so.

Under the carapace of progressive thinking, Lisa Nandy and all the headbangers in the Shadow Cabinet who support this nonsense are only making matters worse.

For instead of encouraging a middle ground, where transgender people can live happy and confident lives in society, all it does is polarise opinion and encourage extremism.

Replying to a post on Twitter/X, Rowling said: ‘I’ll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex. Bring on the court case, I say. It’ll be more fun than I’ve ever had on a red carpet.’

Keep reading

Odd Colorado Ruling Upholds Internet Keyword Search Warrant

What would your internet searches reveal about you if others could scrutinize and second-guess them? It’s something to think about, given that the big search engines, like Google, store search histories and make them available to the authorities. In fact, as happened in a recently decided Colorado case, police can start from search terms of interest and pressure tech companies to surrender the identities of anyone who has surfed for specified keywords. The decision is chilling for anybody who has ever pondered their online history in the hands of a stranger—or who just cares about privacy.

“Today, the Colorado Supreme Court became the first state supreme court in the country to address the constitutionality of a keyword warrant—a digital dragnet tool that allows law enforcement to identify everyone who searched the internet for a specific term or phrase,” Jennifer Lynch and Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported on Monday. “The case is People v. Seymour, which involved a tragic home arson that killed several people. Police didn’t have a suspect, so they used a keyword warrant to ask Google for identifying information on anyone and everyone who searched for variations on the home’s street address in the two weeks prior to the arson.”

Keep reading