Tag: police state

Indian Supreme Court Judge Says Those With Nothing to Hide Shouldn’t Fear Surveillance

A courtroom drama over state surveillance in India took a striking turn when a Supreme Court judge suggested that people who live transparently should not be troubled by government monitoring.

The case involved allegations that Telangana’s state intelligence apparatus was used for political snooping, but the discussion soon widened into a philosophical clash over privacy and power.

Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, accused of directing unlawful phone tapping during the previous BRS government, was before the bench as the State sought more time to keep him in police custody.

During the hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why citizens would object to being monitored at all, asking, “Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?”

Her comment prompted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to caution against normalizing government spying. He asked whether this meant “every government will have a free hand in putting people under surveillance,” warning that secret monitoring without authorization was unlawful and incompatible with basic freedoms.

Mehta reminded the bench that the Constitution, as affirmed in the landmark Puttaswamy ruling, enshrines privacy as part of human dignity and liberty.

“The Supreme Court knows the difference between an ‘open’ world and being under illegal surveillance. My personal communications with my wife… I have a right not to be under surveillance,” he said.

Keep reading

China bans sharing porn on messaging apps

China will expand a ban on sharing obscene materials to include content sent via phone and online messaging apps starting next year.

According to the revised law, anyone “disseminating obscene information using information networks, telephones, or other communication tools” will face up to 15 days in jail and a fine of up to 5,000 yuan ($711). Penalties will be higher if the content involves children.

The wording of the law has led to concerns from media and social networks as to whether it could be applied to private sexually explicit messages between adults, such as sexting.

However, according to multiple legal experts cited by Chinese state media, the legal changes will not affect one-on-one private communications. They argue that the revisions reflect technological development, increasing the maximum fines, while leaving detention periods unchanged.

“China has mature standards and procedures for identifying obscene materials. It is critical to clarify that ‘obscene’ does not equal ‘indecent’,” China Daily cited Ji Ying, an associate professor of law at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, as saying.

Keep reading

Romania’s Globalist Regime Goes Full Police State: Masked Prison Assault Used to Coerce Testimony Against Călin Georgescu

Romania’s globalist-controlled government, widely seen as illegitimate after canceling the first round of the last presidential election and barring frontrunner Călin Georgescu, has crossed yet another chilling line as disturbing revelations emerge from inside Rahova prison.

What is unfolding looks less like justice and more like a coordinated campaign of intimidation against national-conservative figures who refuse to bow to thuggish globalist power.

Horațiu Potra, a key defendant in a politically charged case aimed at Romanian conservative, anti-globalist circles surrounding Călin Georgescu, winner of Romania’s last presidential first round, was brutally assaulted in his cell late at night, reports from the Romanian news outlet Realitatea has revealed.

According to accounts from his legal team, masked inmates entered his cell and beat him until he lost consciousness, raising serious questions about who authorized or facilitated the attack.

The violence did not end there. The following morning, Potra was allegedly confronted by prison authorities and threatened in a manner that evokes Romania’s darkest communist-era abuses.

According to his lawyer, Potra was told that unless he agreed to give statements against Călin Georgescu, his son would be thrown into a cell with some of Romania’s most violent criminals. The message: cooperate with the globalist regime or watch your children suffer.

This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of coercion surrounding a high-profile case accusing Georgescu, Potra, and others of vague “actions against the constitutional order.” Despite the seriousness of the charges, critics argue that prosecutors have produced no concrete evidence to substantiate claims of an “attempted coup,” mirroring their earlier failure to prove allegations of so-called “Russian interference” in the last presidential election.

Keep reading

Ukrainian draft officer pepper-sprays woman holding child – media 

A Ukrainian conscription official has been filmed appearing to pepper-spray a woman holding a child during a recruitment raid.

The mandatory military draft, which Kiev enforces to replenish combat losses in the conflict with Russia, is an increasingly contentious issue in Ukraine, as many eligible men evade service through bribery or by hiding from officials. Kiev claims most videos showing brutal tactics are fabrications and says internal investigations usually find no wrongdoing.

The incident, highlighted by Ukrainian online media on Wednesday, reportedly occurred in the western city of Rovno. Footage that went viral was filmed by a resident in a nearby building.

Keep reading

Public assemblies banned for 14 days across Sydney as police enforce new powers under protest laws

Public assemblies have been banned for two weeks across Sydney after the NSW Police Commissioner activated powers prescribed after the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach. 

Reforms to the state’s laws on gun ownership and public assemblies were passed by parliament after a marathon debate in the early hours of Christmas Eve in response to the mass shooting on December 14 that left 15 people dead.

Under the laws, the Commissioner has the power to temporarily designate public areas as “restricted” from assemblies following a declared terrorist incident, which was made on the day of the mass shooting.

In a statement, Commissioner Mal Layon said any protest action at this time would “aggravate fear and divisiveness in the community”.

“The NSW Police is committed to exercising these new powers responsibly and transparently,” he said.

Keep reading

Macron accuses US of ‘intimidation’ against EU

US visa restrictions against several senior EU officials amount to “intimidation and coercion” aimed at undermining the bloc’s digital policies and sovereignty, French President Emmanuel Macron has said.

On Tuesday, the administration of US President Donald Trump announced new sanctions targeting Thierry Breton, the former European Commissioner for Internal Market appointed by Macron himself, and four other officials over what it described as “efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose.”

At the core of the dispute are the EU’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, which impose strict competition and transparency obligations on large online platforms. Given that most such firms – including Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon – are headquartered in the US, American officials have argued the framework is discriminatory. Breton in particular was among the officials who played a pivotal role in establishing the EU digital rulebook.

Keep reading

UK says ‘committed’ to upholding free speech after US visa bans

The UK government said Wednesday it is “fully committed” to upholding free speech, after the US slapped visa bans on five prominent Europeans working in the tech sphere, including two Britons.

“While every country has the right to set its own visa rules, we support the laws and institutions which are working to keep the Internet free from the most harmful content,” a British government spokesperson said.

“The UK is fully committed to upholding the right to free speech,” the spokesperson added.

The US State Department announced sanctions Tuesday against Britons Imran Ahmed — of the anti-misinformation nonprofit the Center for Countering Digital Hate — and Clare Melford, who leads the UK-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

It also targeted former EU commissioner Thierry Breton and two others.

It accused them all of promoting “censorship crackdowns by foreign states — in each case targeting American speakers and American companies”.

It follows Washington ramping up its attacks on EU regulations after Brussels earlier this month fined Elon Musk’s X for violating rules on transparency in advertising and its methods for ensuring users were verified and actual people.

The US administration of President Donald Trump has also been highly critical of the UK over tech and free speech, attacking its Online Safety Act that seeks to impose content moderation requirements on major social media platforms.

In August, the State Department said Britain had “significant human rights issues”, including restrictions on free speech, and last week the White House suspended implementation of a multi-billion-dollar tech cooperation deal.

It emerged that this was due to opposition to the UK’s tech rules.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania High Court Rules Police Can Access Google Searches Without Warrant

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a new definition of “reasonable expectation.” According to the justices, it’s no longer reasonable to assume that what you type into Google is yours to keep.

In a decision that reads like a love letter to the surveillance economy, the court ruled that police were within their rights to access a convicted rapist’s search history without a warrant. The reasoning is that everyone knows they’re being watched anyway.

The opinion, issued Tuesday, leaned on the idea that the public has already surrendered its privacy to Silicon Valley.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

“It is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications, and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data,” the court said, as if mass exploitation of personal information had become a civic tradition.

Because that practice is so widely known, the court concluded, users cannot reasonably expect privacy. In other words, if corporations do it first, the government gets a free pass.

The case traces back to a rape and home invasion investigation that had gone cold. In a final effort, police asked Google to identify anyone who searched for the victim’s address the week before the crime. Google obliged. The search came from an IP address linked to John Edward Kurtz, later convicted in the case.

It’s hard to argue with the result; no one’s defending a rapist, but the method drew a line through an already fading concept: digital privacy.

Investigators didn’t start with a suspect; they started with everyone. That’s the quiet power of a “reverse keyword search,” a dragnet that scoops up the thoughts of every user who happens to type a particular phrase.

The justices pointed to Google’s own privacy policy as a kind of consent form. “In the case before us, Google went beyond subtle indicators,” they wrote. “Google expressly informed its users that one should not expect any privacy when using its services.”

Keep reading

Britain Has Officially Criminalized Journalism

The moment the British government began proscribing political movements as terrorist organisations, rather than just militant groups, it was inevitable that saying factual things, making truthful statements, would become a crime.

And lo behold, here we are.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has a series of provisions that make it difficult to voice or show any kind of support for an organisation proscribed under the legislation, whether it is writing an article or wearing a T-shirt.

Recent attention has focused on Section 13, which is being used to hound thousands of mostly elderly people who have held signs saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” They now face a terrorism conviction and up to six months in jail.

But an amendment introduced in 2019 to Section 12 of the act has been largely overlooked, even though it is even more repressive. It makes it a terrorism offence for a person to express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” and in doing so be “reckless” about whether anyone else might be “encouraged to support” the organisation.

It is hard to believe this clause was not inserted specifically to target the watchdog professions: journalists, human rights groups and lawyers. They now face up to 14 years in jail for contravening this provision.

When it was introduced, six years ago, Section 12 made it impossible to write or speak in ways that might encourage support for groups whose central aim was using violence against people to achieve their aims.

The law effectively required journalists and others to adopt a blanket condemnatory approach to proscribed militant groups. That had its own drawbacks. It made it difficult, and possibly a terrorist offence, to discuss or analyse these organisations and their goals in relation to international law, which, for example, allows armed resistance — violence — against an occupying army.

But these problems have grown exponentially since the Conservatives proscribed Hamas’ political wing in 2021 and the government of Keir Starmer proscribed Palestine Action in 2025, the first time in British history a direction-action group targeting property had been declared a terrorist group.

Keep reading

Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”

Victoria is preparing to introduce some of the most far-reaching online censorship and surveillance powers ever proposed in an Australian state, following the Bondi Beach terror attack.

Premier Jacinta Allan’s new five-point plan, presented as a response to antisemitism, includes measures that would compel social media platforms to identify users accused of “hate speech” and make companies legally liable if they cannot.

Presented as a defense against hate, the plan’s mechanisms cut directly into long-standing principles of privacy and freedom of expression. It positions anonymity online as a form of protection for “cowards,” creating a precedent for government-mandated identity disclosure that could chill lawful speech and dissent.

During her announcement, Premier Allan said:

“That’s why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and their anonymous users to account – and we’ll commission a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.”

Under the proposal, if a user accused of “vilification” cannot be identified, the platform itself could be held responsible for damages. This effectively converts private platforms into instruments of state enforcement, obligating them to expose user data or face financial risk.

The Premier also announced plans to accelerate the introduction of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2024, which had been due to take effect in mid-2026. It will now be brought forward to April 2026.

The law allows individuals to sue others for public conduct, including online speech, that a “reasonable person” might find “hateful, contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing” toward someone with a protected attribute. These protected categories include religion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.

This framework gives the state and private citizens broad interpretive power to determine what speech is “hateful.” As many civil liberties experts note, such wording opens the door to legal action based on subjective offense rather than clear, objective harm.

Keep reading