Tag: police state

UK COUNTER-TERROR Police Ad Warns Teens Sharing ‘Funny’ Content Could Be TERRORISM

The UK’s Counter Terrorism Police have released a disturbing advertisement depicting a white teenager facing police seizure of devices and a potential criminal record simply for sharing a link he found “funny”—content, we are told, was later deemed terrorist material.

This move, part of the broader Prevent anti-radicalization strategy, underscores the UK regime’s push to police online activity among youth, framing it as a gateway to extremism while ignoring surging real-world dangers from mass migration.

In the ad, a teen laments: “I just got all my device taken away by the police… My mom couldn’t believe it. I might get a criminal record and not be able to go to college.” He then explains: “I only shared a link. I just thought it was funny, but it was terrorist content.”

Counter Terrorism Policing describes itself as “a collaboration of UK police forces working with the UK intelligence community to help protect the public and our national security by preventing, deterring, and investigating terrorist activity.”

A recent academic analysis in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism highlights the escalating involvement of family courts and Prevent in childhood radicalization cases, noting “the number of children referred to Prevent and Channel due to concerns that they might be at risk of, or from, radicalisation has been steadily increasing since 2015.”

It adds that professionals like teachers are “legally obligated to refer that child to the police under the auspices of Prevent” if suspecting risk.

Government guidance on Prevent duty in schools urges communication with parents to spot signs, but also empowers referrals if family members show vulnerability. As one factsheet states, referrals can come from “a family member, friend, colleague, or a professional.”

Keep reading

Florida Legislators Advance a Bill Authorizing Government Surveillance Based on ‘Views’ or ‘Opinions’

A bill that is advancing in the Florida Legislature would authorize government surveillance of people whose “views” or “opinions” are deemed “a threat” to state or national “interests.” What could possibly go wrong?

“This outrageous claim of authority would be a profound betrayal of Americans’ First Amendment rights,” Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, warns in a press release. “Imagine being arrested or having your home raided because the government has decided that your opinions are a ‘threat’ or simply don’t align with its interests. This puts everyone’s free speech rights at risk. Even if your views aren’t in the state’s crosshairs today, they could be tomorrow. Free societies do not investigate or arrest their own citizens for their opinions.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida also has “grave concerns” about the bill. It “could easily be used to silence dissenting voices under the guise of security,” ACLU of Florida strategist Abdelilah Skhir told Florida Politics last month. “The vague and overbroad language could easily be weaponized against everyday Floridians engaged in First Amendment protected activity.”

State Rep. Danny Alvarez (R–Riverview), who filed the bill on December 30, does not understand what all the fuss is about. He says he is simply trying to combat threats such as “drug cartels,” “terrorist organizations,” and foreign “intelligence entities.” Last week, the Florida Phoenix reported that “Alvarez said it’s only been in the past week that he’s become aware of First Amendment concerns.”

Alvarez’s bill, H.B. 945, would create a Statewide Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Unit within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, consisting of “at least seven” 10-member teams. The unit would be charged with “identify[ing] threats by analyzing patterns of life, gathering actionable intelligence, and formulating effective plans of action, and by executing arrests or by revealing its intent to compel a response using all counterintelligence and counterterrorism tradecraft necessary to protect the state from adversary intelligence entities.”

What is an “adversary intelligence entity”? The bill’s definition goes far beyond spies employed by foreign governments. It says the term “includes, but is not limited to, any national, foreign, multinational, friendly, competitor, opponent, adversary, or recognized enemy government or nongovernmental organization, company, business, corporation, consortium, group, agency, cell, terrorist, insurgent, guerrilla entity, or person whose demonstrated actions, views, or opinions are a threat or are inimical to the interests of this state and the United States of America.”

On its face, the bill would empower the Statewide Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Unit to investigate organizations and individuals based on the “views” or “opinions” they express. Alvarez insists that is not his intent. But by his own account, he did not recognize the obvious First Amendment implications of that broad mandate until a month and a half after he introduced the bill.

When some of his colleagues alerted him to those civil liberties concerns, Alvarez promised to address them. “We are very, very aware of the questions regarding [the] First Amendment,” he told Florida Politics last week. “We’re going to address that in an amendment that comes to the next committee.” He told reporters he was willing to excise the language referring to any “person whose demonstrated actions, views, or opinions are a threat or are inimical to the interests of this state and the United States of America.”

So far, however, the original version of the bill is the only one listed on the Florida Legislature’s website. And despite his avowed willingness to amend the bill, Alvarez does not seem to think it is actually necessary to do so.

Keep reading

Arizona Senators Scale Back Bills To Punish Marijuana Users Over Excess Smoke Or Odor Complaints

Arizona senators have dialed back a pair of measures that would penalize people who create “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke or odor, with members advancing revised versions of the legislation following criticism that, as introduced, they would have added criminalization provisions back into the state’s cannabis use laws.

The latest bill and companion resolution, sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R), were amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, with a floor vote on third reading now imminent. While the bill would on its own enact a statutory policy change, the separate resolution would put the issue before voters to decide.

As the original proposals moved through the legislative process, advocates and certain lawmakers voiced concerns about undermining the will of voters who passed legalization at the ballot, as well as the ambiguity around enforceability and what constitutes “excessive” marijuana smoke.

The legislation was previously amended in committee last month in an attempt to provide a clearer definition of “excessive” smoke and remove a reference to making the offense a “crime.”

The latest revised definition of excessive cannabis smoke or odor describes it as “airborne emissions resulting from the burning, heating or vaporizing of marijuana or marijuana products,” according to a summary of the adopted floor amendment.

Such emissions must also be “detectable by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities on other private property” and “occur for more than 30 consecutive minutes on a single occasion or on three or more separate days within a 30-day period.”

Members further revised the legislation in response to criticism that the committee-passed versions continued to lack clarity and would pose the threat of criminalization by making the offense a class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a maximum $500 fine and up to one year of probation.

That, too, was ultimately changed in the bill (SB 1725) and resolution (SCR 1048) that are teed up to advance through the full Senate.

Specifically, the legislation stipulates that “excessive marijuana smoke or odor is a public nuisance if the person’s conduct is intentional or the person knowingly and substantially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” a summary of the amendment says.

The proposals also now specify that “lawful possession or use of marijuana does not preclude a finding of nuisance, except that a court may consider possession of a valid registry identification card as a mitigating factor,” and they provide that “a person is not liable for committing a private nuisance unless the person has received notice of the interference and fails to abate it within five days.”

Under the revised legislation, the affected party would first have to file a compliant with local officials before they pursue action with the state, but only if the municipality has already adopted an ordinance regulating excessive cannabis smoke or odor.

A person would be deemed in violation of the law if a local court has issued a written order directing them to “abate excessive marijuana smoke or odor that constitutes a nuance” and that person “knowingly violates or refuses to comply with the order.”

Each day of non-compliance after failing to adhere to the order would be consider a separate offense, and failure to comply would be a petty offense, rather than a criminal violation.

Keep reading

Congress Is Considering Abolishing Your Right to Be Anonymous Online

In August 2024, the Biden administration hosted hundreds of influencers at the White House for the first-ever Creator Economy Conference. Neera Tanden, a senior Biden adviser, took to the stage and bemoaned anonymity online. The influencers alongside her agreed, pushing the idea that anonymous speech on the internet is harmful, and regulation is needed to force the use of real names on social media. The audience whispered excitedly as those on stage spoke about how proposed laws like the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, could unmask every troll. 

This narrative of online safety, particularly in relation to children, has become central to the bipartisan effort to censor and deanonymize the internet for everyone. Today, a package of a dozen “child online safety” bills is moving forward in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. The laws, framed as a way to crack down on harmful content and make the internet safer, would force social media companies to enact invasive identity verification measures in order to keep children from accessing online spaces.

The problem is that there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are. A platform cannot magically discern that a user is 16 without collecting identifying information, whether through government documents such as a passport, payment information like a credit card, or other identity-disclosing data. Whether that data is stored by the platform itself or outsourced to a vendor, the result is always the same: A user’s offline identity is forever linked with their online behavior.

Stripping anonymity from the internet would constitute one of the most sweeping rollbacks of civil rights in recent history. It would allow for unprecedented levels of mass surveillance and censorship, endangering the most marginalized members of society. Whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing could be tracked and fired, government employees speaking out about illegal behavior or bad policies could face prosecution, and activists organizing protests could be identified and surveilled before ever setting foot on the street.

Keep reading

New Jersey Cities Must Explain Marijuana Business Denials, Court Says

New Jersey’s cannabis industry scored a victory Tuesday when a state appellate panel ruled that municipalities must explain why they deny requests for local support to open dispensaries, a decision that could have implications for legal weed retailers statewide.

The 23-page decision rejects an argument by the Burlington City Council that it is allowed to reject those requests without explaining why. The council was sued by the owners of a planned cannabis dispensary after council members denied the owners’ request for a resolution of local support, a document required to open recreational cannabis dispensaries in New Jersey.

“While the City Council was permitted to consider all relevant evidence and has wide discretion under its general police powers to deny the issuance of an ROS, we hold that the City Council has to provide a discernible reason for its determination,” reads the ruling by Judge Lisa Perez Friscia.

Tuesday’s decision rejects a lower court judge’s ruling that required Burlington to issue the resolution of support to the owners of the planned dispensary, called Higher Breed. The newer ruling requires the Burlington council to reconsider Higher Breed’s request for support and then issue a resolution that provides a basis for the council’s decision.

A request for comment from Higher Breed’s attorneys was not returned.

New Jersey voters opted in 2020 to legalize cannabis, but the state’s legalization law allowed towns to opt out of cannabis sales, and about 70 percent of towns did so. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission, which is tasked with approving cannabis retail licenses, requires prospective license holders to obtain a resolution of local support from the town where they plan to operate.

In December 2023, Higher Breed, owned by Jim and Karen Waltz, applied to the Burlington City Council for a resolution of local support for a store on East Route 130. After hearing from a real estate broker who does not live in Burlington and claimed the property’s owner was “dishonest” and owed him a real estate commission, the council ultimately rejected Higher Breed’s request for a resolution of local support. Higher Breed then sued.

Keep reading

UK Government Secretly Tracked 25 Million People as Potential EV Owners

The UK government spent two years tracking 25 million mobile devices to build a picture of who drives electric cars. Not suspects or criminals. Just ordinary people whose browsing history mentioned EVs often enough to flag them as worth following.

The Department for Transport paid telecoms company O2 £600,000 ($809,000) to run the operation. According to the Telegraph, O2 trawled through its customers’ web browsing histories and app records, flagging anyone who visited an EV-related site at least once a month across two or more months.

That pool extended beyond O2’s own customers to include people on Tesco Mobile, GiffGaff, and Virgin Mobile, networks that run on O2’s infrastructure and whose users had no idea their data was being packaged and sold to a government agency.

Once flagged as a “potential EV owner,” your physical movements were traced across the country. London, the North-West, and the East of England received particular attention.

The techniques are standard in serious organized crime investigations. The DfT applied them to people buying environmentally friendly cars.

Andy Palmer, former executive at Nissan and Aston Martin, put it plainly: “I’m told it’s anonymized and aggregated, and that may well satisfy legal thresholds. But legality and legitimacy are not the same thing.” He added: “If you erode public trust in how that data is gathered, you undermine the very transition you are trying to accelerate.”

The idea of “anonymized” data means very little.

The surveillance ran for two years before the DfT quietly admitted defeat in April 2024, conceding that “mobile data cannot directly be used to provide information around charging behaviour or travel time.”

The program ended not because anyone questioned whether mass tracking of innocent people was appropriate, but because the data turned out to be useless for its stated purpose.

Civil servants from the DfT and Treasury were simultaneously exploring new EV taxes to replace fuel duty revenue. The people being surveilled were doing exactly what government policy encouraged them to do.

Conservative MP Sir David Davis drew the obvious conclusion: “It’s an object lesson in why you can’t trust the state with unfettered access to people’s information, because they’ve obviously taken this information without people’s permission with the objective of disadvantaging them, either by tax or other policy matters. If they’ll do it on this, with people who are doing what the government wants in policy terms, namely, pursuing green policies, what on Earth will they do elsewhere?”

Keep reading

Scientists warn against crappy age verification: ‘if implemented without careful consideration… the new regulation might cause more harm than good’

As age verification becomes more commonplace across the web, there are some trying to oppose its rollout on security and privacy grounds. An open letter signed by over 400 researchers and scientists arguing the many reasons why age verification (and most especially the current age assurance technology) isn’t all it’s cracked up to be is now available to read in full.

Here’s a precis on the whole thing: Governments across the world are adopting legislation to ensure usage or compliance with age assurance methods, in the name of keeping kids off the bad parts of the web. That sounds like a good idea until you look into the details. Those details suggest these are often haphazardly applied and with little regard for privacy and data protection.

The open letter outlines a few key arguments:

How easily age verification can be bypassed. This being evident by Discord’s age verification, provided by K-id, which could be bypassed by using Sam’s face in Death Stranding. As the open letter points out, it’s possible to lie about one’s age, trick a system, or buy age-verified credentials online. VPNs are also widely available and prove an easy way to bypass any and all age assurance methods, even if access to said VPNs is age-restricted.

How unreliable age estimation can be. All while potentially necessitating large-scale and invasive data collection or widespread use of government IDs at every online interaction for any semblance of effectiveness. As the letter notes, “We conclude that age assessment presents an inherent disproportionate risk of serious privacy violations and discrimination, without guarantees of effectiveness.”

How it necessitates a global trust infrastructure. This being one of the main goals of the EU’s digital identity wallet, though only pan-EU, being used as a common foundation for all member states to meet one another for age assurance. Though as the letter suggests, “even if such a trust infrastructure would exist, checks can be circumvented by acquiring valid certificates or using VPNs, as long as age assurance regulations are not universally enforced by all affected services.”

How it can push users to lesser-known, potentially dangerous websites. By enforcing age assurance, and with the larger, more responsible websites complying, there is a chance of pushing users to lesser-known, potentially dangerous or scam websites. Following the rollout of the UK’s Online Safety Act, one of the first investigations it launched was into porn websites that did not immediately comply with the new rules for age verification checks. Other websites chose to turn off services to the UK altogether.

Keep reading

California Law Forces Age-Tracking Into Every Operating System by 2027

California wants to build a surveillance layer into every device its residents touch. Assembly Bill 1043, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom and taking effect January 1, 2027, requires every operating system provider to collect age information from users at account setup and broadcast that data to app developers through a real-time API.

Windows, macOS, Android, iOS, Linux distributions, Valve’s SteamOS: if it runs an operating system, it’s covered by this overreaching law.

The proposals are particularly dumb for open-source Linux operating systems. Linux exists specifically because some people want computing that doesn’t surveil them. That’s not incidental to why the platform exists; it’s foundational.

Distributions like Arch, Debian, and Gentoo have no centralized account infrastructure by design. Users download ISOs from mirrors, modify source code freely, and run systems that report to nobody.

Keep reading

Mexico Mandates Biometric SIM Registration for All Phone Numbers

Anonymous prepaid SIM cards are dying in Mexico. By July 1, 2026, every active cell phone number in the country must be biometrically linked to a named, government-credentialed individual or face suspension. That’s around 127 million numbers, each one tethered to an identity the Mexican government can look up by name.

The mobile registration law took effect January 9, 2026, covering prepaid and postpaid plans, physical SIMs, and eSIMs alike. Existing subscribers have until June 30 to complete registration. New lines activated after January 9 get 30 days. Miss the window, and the line goes dark.

The enforcement mechanism runs through the CURP Biométrica, Mexico’s biometric upgrade to its existing population registry code. The new credential embeds a photograph, electronic signature, and QR code that ties directly to biometrically verified records held in the national registry.

Residents registering a mobile line must provide their CURP number alongside a valid government ID, which makes biometric enrollment not optional but structurally required. You cannot register a phone number without first handing your biometric data to the state.

What Mexico is building here is a national phone network where every number has a face attached to it.

Keep reading

Are We in a Free Speech Recession?

For years, debates over hate speech laws have been framed as moral disputes about civility and protection. Increasingly, however, they are becoming legal and political battles over the limits of “free” expression in democratic societies. 

A report by the Future of Free Speech project, titled The Free Speech Recession Hits Home, argues that established democracies are experiencing measurable declines in protections for speech once considered firmly safeguarded. The report contends that restrictions once associated primarily with authoritarian regimes are now expanding across Western countries under the banner of combating hate, misinformation, and extremism. 

Hate speech laws are being broadly interpreted all over the Western world, and their continued expansion is reshaping the boundaries of lawful expression. 

Keep reading