Tag: police state

House Renews FISA Section 702, Rejects Warrant Requirement

The House voted 235 to 191 on Wednesday to keep Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act running for another three years, declining once more to require federal agents to get a warrant before searching Americans’ communications scooped up under the program.

Around twenty Republican privacy hawks broke with leadership and joined Democrats in opposition, but the bill cleared the chamber with hours to spare before the Thursday midnight expiration.

Section 702, first authorized in 2008, lets intelligence agencies intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals outside the United States without a warrant.

The catch, and the part that has driven nearly two decades of reform fights, is that those intercepts routinely sweep up the texts, calls, and emails of Americans who happen to be in contact with the roughly 350,000 foreign targets surveilled each year. That data sits in a federal database, and the FBI can search it for Americans’ information without going to a judge first.

The reforms attached to the renewal do not change that. They tinker around the edges. Federal agents will need an attorney’s sign-off before targeted reviews of Americans’ data, each query will require written justification submitted to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and misuse can now carry up to five years in prison.

The FBI will also have to file monthly reports to oversight officials defending searches involving Americans.

None of this requires a judge or forces the government to articulate probable cause before reading what an American wrote or said.

A bipartisan bloc has pushed for almost twenty years to require specific court approval before agents can pull up an American’s communications from the 702 trove, arguing that anything less is a Fourth Amendment workaround.

The bill that passed Wednesday explicitly references the Fourth Amendment in its text. It just does not require a warrant to honor it.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Keep reading

Biden admin ‘zealously’ probed ‘traditional’ Christians — even keeping tabs on priests: DOJ report

The Biden administration “zealously” investigated, penalized, and engaged in “aggressive prosecutions” of Christians “with traditional biblical views” — ignoring their conscientious objections and even secretly keeping tabs on Catholic priests, a Department of Justice task force found.

The DOJ-led Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias released 14 findings Thursday, confirming the 46th president’s officials “forc[ed] Christians with traditional biblical views to choose whether to live in accordance with their faith or risk violating federal law.”

In a 200-page report, the task force concluded: “The Biden Administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith.”

That included prosecutions of pro-life Christians who were given longer sentences than their pro-abortion peers for violations of a federal law protecting access to abortion clinics or pregnancy resource centers.

The report also unearthed new details about a January 2023 FBI memo sent to multiple field offices that called for the targeting of “radical-traditionalist” Catholics as a result of “baseless allegations” from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center.

Keep reading

Miliband Bans Tumble Dryers in Net Zero Drive

The sale of traditional tumble dryers is to be stamped out in a Net Zero drive that will push consumers toward more expensive heat pump machines that take longer to dry clothes. The Telegraph has the story.

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, is introducing new laws that will phase out the sale of condenser tumble dryers and promote heat-pump alternatives to help cut carbon emissions.

The move, condemned as a “mad” form of “Soviet control” by the Tories and Reform, will align Britain more closely with the European Union which has already implemented similar rules.

Traditional dryers use a heating element to warm air, which passes through your clothes and removes moisture. That moisture is then condensed into water and collected in a reservoir, before being drained away.

A heat-pump dryer uses a closed-loop system that recycles warm air and runs at a lower temperature – around 50°C instead of the standard 70-75°C.

Heat-pump dryers cost £40 more to buy on average than traditional dryers, with premium heat-pump machines costing as much as £1,650.

They can take as much as half an hour longer to dry clothes, with users on consumer forums complaining that they are spending far longer drying multiple loads for their families.

While the Government believes the more modern and cheaper-to-run heat-pump dryers will save consumers in the long run, critics say they can fail in very cold conditions. Others have raised concerns about how much noise they make, complaining about a droning hum akin to the sound of an air-conditioning unit.

Advocates say they do less damage to clothes over time, but some users have complained their clothes feel cold and as if they are still damp after the lower-temperature drying cycles finish.

On top of this, certain models have been affected by technical faults that have caused the machines to burst into flames.

Plans for a de facto sales ban were quietly confirmed in documents published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on a Sunday earlier this month, with new regulations published on Friday.

The department has already instigated bans on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, as well as on gas boilers in new homes and has mandated solar panels to be installed on all new properties.

Richard Tice, Reform UK’s Business, Trade and Energy Secretary, described the latest move as ludicrous.

“Mad Miliband’s latest Net Zero push to get rid of the traditional tumble dryer and force a more expensive alternative is utter madness. This new ludicrous move will not only push bills even higher in the short term, but it will also take longer to dry clothes and come with a huge fire risk.

“At a time when families are struggling with household costs, Labour is choosing to focus on tone-deaf green ideologies rather than listening to what the public wants.

“Reform UK will scrap the failing and disastrous Net Zero agenda and focus on bringing energy bills down.”

Keep reading

UK Gov’t Promises More Social Media “Restrictions”

While embattled PM Sir Keir Starmer takes a pointless grilling on the even more pointless existence of Peter Mandelson, other members of his cabinet were busily paving the way for the next construction phase of our increasingly dystopian society.

Speaking to Sky News earlier today, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson promised…

“more action to keep young people safe online, including around social media”.

Which is delightfully vague.

Education Minister Olivia Bailey kept her cards similarly close to her chest, whilst trying to sound forceful:

“It is a question of how we act, not if, but to put this beyond any doubt, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State ‘must’, rather than ‘may’, act […] We are clear that under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16.”

So we know they’re going to do something…we just don’t know what. And, if I had to guess, neither do Bridget or Olivia. Neither seems like the kind of people that get kept in the loop, and that flavour of waffle is usually the reserve of those who have no idea what’s going on.

Many commenters – both for and against – have interpreted this promised action as an Australia-style social media ban for children. Certainly, that’s what Conservative MP Laura Trott seems to think in her champagne-popping tweet:

…but the signs might be pointing in another direction.

After all, the Social Media Ban is practically on the books. It was introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill, and has already passed the Lords four times. It could have become law already, but Ministers and MPs have repeatedly overturned the vote, declaring the need for further consultation.

Then, earlier today and coinciding with this government pledge to take action, the Independent published a report that suggests Australia’s social media ban doesn’t work.

Two thirds of Australian teens still using social media despite under-16s ban

Keep reading

Federal In-car Monitoring Mandate Expands Data Collection and Control Powers

A federal mandate rooted in a 2021 bipartisan law is set to reshape every new car sold in the United States, and potentially the boundaries of personal mobility itself. By the 2027 model year, vehicles will be required to include systems that monitor drivers for impairment and can intervene if necessary. Supporters frame it as a safety breakthrough. Critics call it a “kill switch.”

The policy has broad political backing. It passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans and has remained intact across administrations, including under the recent Consolidated Appropriations Act, which preserved both funding and the mandate. In January, that support was tested when the House voted down an amendment that would have stripped funding for the requirement, effectively keeping the rule on track.

One of the most persistent critics is Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who continues to lead opposition alongside a small group of lawmakers. Massie warns that Congress is normalizing continuous monitoring inside privately owned vehicles, a shift he argues carries implications far beyond roadway safety.

The Law

The requirement comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, specifically Section 24220. The law directs regulators to establish a safety standard for what it calls “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.”

The statute defines that technology as a system that can

(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;

It also allows for systems that can “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver … is equal to or greater than” the legal limit, with authority to intervene. The law sets the objective, not the method.

It also cites research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimating that such technology “can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually.”

The mandate and its funding were reaffirmed in early 2026, when President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, ensuring the requirement remains in force.

From Safety Feature to Standard Equipment

Driver monitoring is not new. It is already embedded in many modern vehicles, especially those equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems.

General Motors says its Super Cruise system “tracks the driver’s head position and/or the driver’s gaze” and alerts the driver when attention drifts. Chevrolet describes the system as using a camera mounted on the steering wheel to track “head and eye movement.”

Similarly, Ford’s BlueCruise uses “a driver-facing camera and infrared lighting” to confirm that the driver remains focused on the road. Subaru’s DriverFocus system uses comparable technology, capable of alerting occupants if the driver appears drowsy or distracted.

Today, these systems primarily issue warnings. Under the federal rule, similar technology could become standard in every new vehicle. It would not simply prompt the driver. It could help determine whether the vehicle should start or continue operating.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) describes the current landscape in similar terms. Its 2026 report to Congress explains that indirect systems infer driver state “through camera-based monitoring and vehicle inputs.” It also notes that most current systems are designed to detect “drowsiness, inattention, and sudden sickness,” not alcohol impairment.

That distinction matters. A system designed to detect distraction is not automatically capable of reliably identifying intoxication. Yet the mandate moves in that direction, turning optional in-cabin monitoring into a required compliance system.

Keep reading

Connecticut Democrats Move Bills To Force Vaccines On Unwilling Residents

he supermajority Democratic legislature of Connecticut has passed a radical “vaccine standards” bill in an apparent display of power directed at President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“This legislation ensures that our state immunization standards are grounded in the consensus professional judgment of the nation’s leading medical and public health practitioners, not the ideological agenda of the Trump regime,” State Senate President Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said Thursday following passage of HB 5044, “An Act Establishing Connecticut Vaccine Standards.”

The fiercely debated bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont for signature.

While Democrats are insisting the bill does not mandate any vaccines — but will simply ensure all Connecticut residents have access to them — State Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Cheshire, called it out Thursday as an “anti-freedom vaccine mandate.”

“They’re trying to actually send a message to Connecticut residents, particularly Connecticut residents that value freedom: gun owners, homeschoolers, people concerned about religious freedom,” he explained on Newsmax. “And they’re sending a message to them that they’re just not welcome in our state, and that’s why we keep seeing these bills one after another, just empowering the government and basically making a threat to people that value liberty.”

Pushing Vaccines

According to Bill Track 50’s “AI Summary” of the legislation, its key provisions include expanding the power of the unelected commissioner of public health to “establish the standard of care for immunization for residents of this state;” requiring “health insurance policies to cover immunizations within the established standard of care;” updating “regulations for nursing homes to ensure residents are protected by adequate immunization against respiratory viral diseases;” establishing that “religious freedom protections do not apply to certain vaccine requirements;” and introducing a “’standing order’ provision allowing the commissioner to authorize medical interventions, including vaccinations, during public health emergencies.”

Additionally, the bill will expand the state’s power to buy and distribute vaccines, a provision that is apparently based on Democrats’ fears that the Trump administration will not make vaccines available to those Americans who want them.

Keep reading

New Digital ID Bill Ties Your Identity to Your Phone—and Everything You Do Online

Republicans are once again teaming up with Democrats to ram Digital ID through at the federal level.

The bill they’ve just introduced is, if you can believe it, worse than all the others before it.

HR 8250, deceptively named the Parents Decide Act, doesn’t just force everyone to link their identity to use apps on their phones, it mandates that they must do it to use ANY operating system. That means Apple, iOS, Windows, Google, Android, even Samsung—basically everything.

And once that’s in place, there’s nowhere to step outside of it.

But one brave group is refusing to go along.

GrapheneOS has made a statement saying: GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification, or an account.

Glenn and Eric Meder from Privacy Academy have been working to educate people on how to escape the digital control grid, including how to put GrapheneOS on your phone—for free. And they have a solution to Digital ID right now.

Keep reading

EU Pushes Age Verification App for All States

The European Commission wants every member state running age verification by the end of 2026, and it wants them running its own app to do it. A recommendation adopted Wednesday tells the bloc’s twenty-seven governments to accelerate deployment of the EU Age Verification App and have it available to citizens before the year is out, regardless of the unease some capitals have expressed about adopting Brussels’ code over their own.

The push lands months after security researchers tore through the same app the Commission is now urging governments to ship. In April, consultant Paul Moore bypassed the app’s protections in under two minutes, demonstrating that the rate-limiting controls were stored in an editable file, biometric authentication could be turned off with a simple configuration change, and sensitive credentials were accessible without secure hardware protection.

The Commission patched the headline issues. It is now telling governments the app is ready for production.

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, framed the recommendation as the next step toward shielding minors online. “Effective and privacy-preserving age verification is the next piece of the puzzle that we are getting closer to completing, as we work towards an online space where our children are safe and empowered to use positively and responsibly without restricting the rights of adults,” she said.

Keep reading

NJ recreational marijuana could put PA buyers in legal trouble

Recreational marijuana is legal in 24 states and Washington D.C., but Pennsylvania has yet to approve its use

But while it is readily accessible nearby, especially in Bucks County with easy borders to New Jersey, a short trip over the bridge to purchase fun weed could still get you a long prison term and may force you to forfeit your gun rights and face fines.

The law allows for drug trafficking charges up to $250,000 under the federal Controlled Substances Act, since it still classifies marijuana as a “Schedule I” narcotic as dangerous as heroin.

While there’s been a shift in the public’s attitude toward marijuana, penalties for possessing it have not eased with the federal government or with Pennsylvania.

Here’s what you should know if you buy New Jersey recreational weed, but live in Bucks County.

Can I buy recreational marijuana in New Jersey if I’m from Pennsylvania?

Yes. Since 2022, when NJ legalized recreational marijuana, any shop will sell it to you. Five shops this news organization visited this spring said they have no idea how many out-of-state buyers they have, and take a don’t ask-don’t tell attitude.

“Our busiest days are Fridays when everyone’s coming home from work, (after 5 p.m.) and Sunday’s right before Eagles games,” said a Willingboro shop employee, who asked that his name not be published.

Do NJ weed shops require identification?

The shops we visited require a current driver’s license or government issued ID to enter. In New Jersey, you must be 21 to use recreational marijuana. Your ID is digitally scanned and, if you’re purchasing medical marijuana, it’s sent to Trenton, the state capital where the the Cannabis Regulatory Commission controls sales.

Is there a record of my purchase?

Yes. For medical marijuana, time, date and what you bought is recorded and retained for four years, but not for recreational cannabis, according to the state website, and those records are kept for four years. Weed shops aren’t permitted to copy your ID or retain record of your purchase “beyond what is required for the completion of that single financial transaction.” If you put your name on a mailing list for customer programs, that’s considered voluntary and can be subject to review by the authorities.

Keep reading

Louisiana Lawmakers Pass Bill To Send People To Jail For Smoking Marijuana Near College Campuses

Louisiana lawmakers have approved a bill that threatens to send people to jail for up to one year if they smoke marijuana within 2,000 feet of a school property—including a college campus.

The legislation from Rep. Gabe Firment (R) was passed by the House of Representatives in a 59-34 vote last week.

HB 568, which now heads to the Senate for consideration, applies to people who violate drug laws “while smoking, vaping, or otherwise abusing such controlled dangerous substance while on any property used for school purposes by any school, within two thousand feet of any such property, or while on a school bus.”

The pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) said the “incredibly draconian penalties” in the legislation threaten to reverse cannabis reform progress made in the state in recent years.

In 2021, then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a bill decriminalizing marijuana by removing the threat of jail time for possessing up to 14 grams.

“HB 568 would make cannabis use a felony in huge swaths of urban and suburban areas. Two thousand feet is a little over ⅓ of a mile,” Kevin Caldwell, MPP”s Southeast legislative manager, said in an action alert to supporters. “In addition to mandatory incarceration of up to a year, the bill includes a fine of up to $1,000.”

“This is an attempt to bring back the draconian penalties that Louisiana was infamous for in decades past. This bill seeks to undo years of hard work by advocates for ending jail time for minor cannabis offenses,” he said. “Under this legislation, a student could be incarcerated for a year for consuming in a college dorm room.”

Keep reading