Tag: police state

Proper Flock’d: What This Cop Did Raises Major Red Flags…

A Naperville police officer turned a statewide camera grid into a personal tracking app, ran a man’s plate about 150 times, and then retired like the file never existed.

The story serves as yet another example of how the burgeoning mass surveillance grid is being abused on a regular basis.

Patrick Dowhen was not a suspect. He was the ex. After Officer Oscar Maldonado started a relationship with Dowhen’s fiancée, Flock became the shortcut. No warrant. No case number that mattered. Just a badge, a login, and a national lattice of plate readers that can reconstruct where you went, when you went, and how often you go there.

“Anywhere I went in the country, I was being tracked,” Dowhen told ABC7 Chicago’s I-Team. “It was scary, it was really scary.”

Internal records obtained by the I-Team show the pattern started after Maldonado’s relationship with Dowhen’s then-fiancée began. Investigators found evidence he searched Flock for Dowhen’s vehicle approximately 150 times over a three-month stretch last year.

Chicago Tribune reporting, from a separate FOIA haul, put the plate runs between June 18 and Sept. 15, 2025, and said Maldonado tracked plates for non-police reasons hundreds of times.

Dowhen said the surveillance was not abstract. “My ex-fiancée would tell me where I was at, or what I was doing, and he [Maldonado] was feeding her information,” he said. “He’s an officer, feeding a civilian, you know, inside information.” He tore his truck apart looking for a tracker. Then he went to Naperville Police Chief Jason Arres. That complaint opened the internal case last September.

Maldonado’s story to interrogators was protection: the woman, himself, his family. Naperville investigators did not buy it. They wrote that the “evidence contradicts Maldonado’s explanation that he only used Flock for the safety of himself, his family,” and Dowhen’s ex-fiancée.

The report also concluded there was “a preponderance of the evidence that shows Maldonado did commit the crime of Official Misconduct,” adding that he “admitted to using FLOCK for personal reasons.”

Then on May 1, 2026, Maldonado retired. Department spokesman Rick Krakow said the internal case was complete but not closed because discipline had not been imposed. “However, the officer resigned before his disciplinary meeting with the chief, which essentially closed the case.”

No arrest. No plate charges. A referral to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board. Will County prosecutors would not confirm or deny a criminal review. Dowhen later obtained a stalking no-contact order that noted Maldonado “was tracking my plate since 06/2025.” That order was dropped after both men agreed to a two-year mutual no-contact deal.

“He could very well get a job as a police officer again and have, you know, all these same electronic things available to him at any time and stalk anybody you want,” Dowhen said, “because at this point he has no criminal record.”

ABC7 chief legal analyst Gil Soffer laid out the gap that let a 150-search campaign end in a retirement party. “It’s not enough to say that a police officer violated internal laws, you’d have to show that a police officer knowingly violated a law, a statute, a constitutional provision,” he said.

He added, “An official misconduct statute in Illinois won’t necessarily cover the simple situation where a police officer accesses license plate information for an improper purpose.”

Maldonado’s own lawyer, Jeff Tomczak, made the same point from the other side of the table. “I’m a defense attorney. It should be a crime. It should absolutely be a crime. The legislature should act, create the crime of misuse of Flock. Don’t require the state’s attorneys to be creative.”

A private company sold cities a warrantless movement database. Departments wrote policy memos. The statute book never caught up. When an officer treated the grid like a jealous-ex app, the fallback was an employee manual and a quiet exit.

The I-Team says this is not one suburban rogue. It identified 14 Chicago-area cases of officers accused of misusing Flock, with at least five sent to prosecutors. Berwyn’s mayor, Robert Lovero, issued an executive order this week suspending the city’s cameras.

Keep reading

This Group Made Tech to Protect Users’ Privacy. Trump Labeled Them Terrorists.

When the government puts a target on your back, every corner of online organizing becomes a puzzle. How do you ensure that your emails are private, when Google will hand over the contents of your emails to prosecutors, sometimes without ever notifying you? How do you keep your comrades informed, when maintaining an email list poses a security risk? How do you share information online without compromising the security of your web visitors?

Until September 6, the Autistici/Inventati (A/I) Collective provided privacy-focused digital infrastructure that allowed aligned groups around the world to evade government surveillance. Under siege, groups from Hamas to the Seattle Anarchist Book Fair sought refuge from the prying eyes of three-letter agencies through the use of A/I Collective email addresses, websites, mailing lists, and blogs. The users of A/I Collective technology were no strangers to the United States counterterrorism apparatus, but on August 26, 2026, the Trump administration took the unusual escalatory step of listing the technology provider itself as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization.

Legal uncertainty and disruption ensued immediately after the designation. The sanctions framework maps far more cleanly onto groups directly engaged in violence than it does onto a group providing anti-surveillance technology. Under the post-9/11 executive order establishing the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list, fundraising for ISIS or holding joint press conferences with al-Qaeda is verboten. But could posting on blogs hosted by the A/I Collective trigger a $1 million fine and 20 years of imprisonment? Official communications provide little assistance; the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control FAQ unhelpfully states that the exchange of information may be either blocked or exempt.

In a press release, the State Department pointed to the A/I Collective’s vetting of users for “ideological affinity,” folding the targeting of the organization into the enforcement of Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which has initiated a crackdown on the global left. Civil society groups immediately noted the escalation into targeting not only those accused of violence, but their purported backers. “The designation of A/I Collective is significant because Treasury is applying counterterrorism sanctions not only to organizations it alleges engage directly in violence, but also to entities it characterizes as providing enabling infrastructure to designated or terrorist-linked groups…[G]roups and individuals that rely on the A/I Collective’s infrastructure may now need to assess whether continued use creates sanctions exposure,” wrote the Charity & Security Network, a coalition that has helped nonprofits navigate sanctions risk since 2009.

While users of A/I Collective services struggled to interpret the sanctions, the hammer came down immediately on the volunteer collective. Within 48 hours of the designation, the United States-based holder of the autistici.org domain shuttered the website, leaving A/I Collective to flee to an alternate domain. The Italian Banca Etica suspended the bank account the volunteer collective used to collect donations, citing sanctions risk. Backed into a corner, with no way to protect users and collect the donations needed to fund its €13,000 annual budget, the A/I Collective announced the shutdown of all of its services on September 6, 2026. In a statement, the A/I Collective wrote: “The possibility that our work may cause legal and financial consequences to those who are close to us — or even only have something to do with us — leaves us no choice.” On September 20, an estimated 10,000 NoBlogs sites went dark, stranding the radical activists who used the A/I Collective-hosted blogging platform to share everything from zines to direct-action tactical communiques.

Keep reading

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court’s October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons in out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins).

A recent column from Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again. The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases. Here is the portion that I wanted to address:

The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently. Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms” left undisturbed, part III said “we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns). I add emphasis on “at the time,” because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this “important limitation.”

As the solicitor general’s brief notes, “the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956,” and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the “most commonly owned rifle[] in America” today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use “at the time” the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Indeed, as the SG’s brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general’s Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s “are in common use” today (again, my emphasis). This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing “were” to “are”) – an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh’s 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011. Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say.

As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller.

Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way…Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court).

Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases.

I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as “earth-shattering.” I do not.

I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in “changing ‘were’ to ‘are.'”

This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word “were.”

Keep reading

COVID Response: Do We Really Want To Go Back To That?

COVID changed the way I hear the word “temporary.”

Before 2020, ‘temporary’ was temporary. Something happened, you dealt with it, and eventually you went back to living your life.

Then came COVID.

Most of us remember the rest. The empty streets. The closed businesses. The masks. The six-foot circles on the floor. Schools closed, churches restricted, nursing homes became nearly impossible to visit, and governments suddenly had an extraordinary amount to say about what ordinary Americans could and could not do.

I don’t need to make a list of everything that happened. You lived through it.

So did I.

What interests me now isn’t relitigating every lockdown decision or deciding which governor got which decision right. It is what the whole experience taught us about government power.

We learned that “temporary” can become a remarkably elastic word.

We also learned how quickly people will surrender ordinary freedoms when the circumstances are frightening enough.

I understood the fear. I had elderly people in my family, and I wanted to protect them. That’s why I eventually took the COVID shot.

I don’t regret doing it for them.

But I remember watching government move from telling us to be careful to telling us what we could do. At one point, OSHA tried to impose a vaccine-or-test requirement on businesses with 100 or more employees, covering roughly 84 million workers. The Supreme Court stopped it.

That was the moment the issue became especially clear to me.

This wasn’t simply about where I could go anymore. Government was reaching into the relationship between an employee and an employer.

That’s a lot of power.

And once you’ve seen government exercise that kind of power, you don’t forget it.

The consequences weren’t confined to the moment, either. Children lost months of schooling. Businesses that had taken years to build disappeared. Families missed funerals and time with dying relatives. Some of those losses can’t be measured by a statistic because there isn’t a statistic for a grandmother who couldn’t hug her grandchild.

NWEA’s 2023-24 analysis found that students still needed the equivalent of 4.8 additional months of schooling in reading and 4.3 months in math to reach pre-COVID achievement levels.

Those are the numbers.

Keep reading

Drones Are Bringing The Surveillance State To Your Front Door

At the moment, the United States government has no official public count of how many drones law enforcement agencies own and fly in the U.S. There is no list from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any state agency accessible to the public. Various industry estimates put police drone programs in the thousands — one recently cited as high as about 6,000. Congress should not have to take its numbers from corporate executives on quarterly earnings calls about how many drones are already circling overhead and surveilling the American people. The Department of Transportation, FAA, DOJ, and the Office of Justice Programs should put the fleets on the books and brief the House and Senate.

Until recently, most drones sold to police departments were made in China, raising significant concerns about Chinese government access and influence — either directly from China or through American companies that marked them up and profited. Congress has spent years trying to stop the Chinese drone invasion of our police departments. Those efforts were necessary. They are not finished. Even if new sales slow, fleets of Chinese drones remain deployed across the nation. And there are still continued efforts to keep Chinese components, software, and supply chains in the fleet.

Not one piece of hardware or software from the People’s Republic of China belongs on a police or federal drone in the United States, or in any piece of related equipment for that matter.

Not the chip, camera, battery, flight controller, app, firmware, or cloud login.

Grant funding, FAA registration, and operational approval should not be granted to aircraft or ground systems that contain Chinese hardware or software. American first responders deserve American supply chains.

That is already the direction of federal law, and it ought to be enforced without loopholes. Section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 barred the Department of Defense from operating or contracting for covered foreign unmanned aircraft systems and critical components. The American Security Drone Act of 2023 was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. The order on funding Unmanned Aircraft Systems says no Office of Justice Programs funds may go to unmanned aircraft systems manufactured or assembled by a covered foreign entity, with only limited exceptions.

Members of Congress should not have to guess how many drones are flying overhead. Congress must investigate and coordinate with executive agencies to determine the facts: how many unmanned aircraft federal agencies and state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies already fly; fleet size by agency; their missions and payloads; and under what rules, if any, they operate. That is the level of transparency we need for government-used drones. Existing fleets should be registered within 30 days of operational deployment so we can put the brakes on unfettered overhead surveillance.

Federal tax dollars should go to real emergencies — search and rescue, wrecks, officer safety, and a barricaded suspect — not ever-present aerial patrol above American homes.

Those dollars already flow through the Office of Justice Programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services Office, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, among others. Unmanned aerial systems are an explicit priority for Fiscal Year 2026 Community Oriented Policing Services Community Policing Development. “Drone as first responder” is not a substitute for a warrant. Persistent neighborhood surveillance is a general warrant from the sky, and a microphone on a drone is an intercept. Listening should require the same legal process as a Title III wiretap under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523, or the state equivalent — no fishing expeditions, audit logs, and short retention.

Weaponized drones bought with Department of Justice grant money are already banned. That ban should apply to all related funding streams unless Congress authorizes otherwise.

Keep reading

Burnham Announces ‘Ministry of Truth’ to ‘Defend Democracy’ From ‘Russia-Amplified Far-Right Narratives’

The belief that the United Kingdom is experiencing decline, the view that there are negative elements to modern life, and the feeling of unrest after terror attacks are among “far-right narratives” pushed by Russian intelligence that bear “no resemblance to reality,” Prime Minister Andy Burnham declared as he announced plans for a new National Centre for Information Defence.

The UK has more experience than most Western countries in being attacked with information warfare and will establish a new government body to disrupt “hostile state information attacks”, Andy Burnham said during his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, while tipping that this model could be exported to other countries to protect them from unwelcome information as well.

Though the wide-ranging speech touched on a series of issues, the lion’s share of the new British Prime Minister’s speaking time was spent explaining how narratives contrary to his view of modern Britain not only bear “no resemblance to reality”, but are engineered by foreign powers to undermine national security.

The country’s deeper experience in this sort of warfare goes back ten years, Burnham said — not naming the defeat of progressive sentiment in the Brexit referendum ten years ago in 2016, but tacitly implying this was the first battle in this shadow war against information — stating British elections had also been targeted by Russia.

Because there is “no national security” without a cohesive society to build it on, Burnham said the level of threat he intended to fight justified extraordinary reach for this new information control body, stating:

The Kremlin spends about £1.3 billion each year on manipulating information. We’re talking about an insidious campaign that reaches into people’s homes and twists what they feel about their own country and community, creating a narrative of decline, stoking division, and sowing despair… we are going to help our people to strengthen their resilience, because faced with their information warfare, security starts in every home.

The variety of opinions being forced on unsuspecting Britons by Russia was, the Prime Minister said, considerable, and conveniently aligns reasonably neatly with practically everything his Labour Party stands against.

This “industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment in the UK” by “Russian agencies” includes spreading disinformation to prey on ordinary people’s fears, he said, and amplifying “far-right narratives” by stoking “tensions and unrest in the wake of horrific events”, terror attacks.

Keep reading

New Jersey Faces Lawsuit Over Knife, Baseball Bat Ban For Self-Defense

A pro-Second Amendment group led a lawsuit Monday seeking to have New Jersey’s laws barring the carrying of items like baseball bats and knives for self-defense thrown out.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and Knife Rights filed the lawsuit on behalf of four individual plaintiffs, arguing that by prohibiting the use of items other than firearms for self-defense, New Jersey was violating the Second Amendment rights of residents. The complaint said that the state has been in “panic mode” since the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller v. District of Columbia.

“New Jersey demands that its citizens be defenseless when they go about their day in public. Defenseless. Until forced to issue Permits to Carry a Handgun by the Bruen decision in 2022, New Jersey banned its citizens from carrying any weapon for self-defense,” the complaint filed Monday says. “Still today, New Jerseyans cannot carry any ordinary object for protection against violent crime, not a baseball bat, not a stick, not a knife, not a pair of scissors, not anything. If a person keeps an ordinary baseball bat in her car or if she keeps a small baton (sometimes called a kuboton) on her keychain she can find herself arrested and thrown in prison under New Jersey law.”

“The Second Amendment protects all common arms not just guns. There are many situations in which a person may prefer to defend against violent attack with something other than a firearm,” the legal filing continued. “New Jersey does not allow that. This is how a single mom using a carpet cutter to defend herself and her young daughter against a violent and potentially fatal beating found herself a convicted felon.”

In a 1990 decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, the conviction of a single mother for carrying a carpet cutter and using it to protect herself when an ex-boyfriend was beating her was upheld.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on non-firearms being protected, issuing a unanimous ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts that held that stun guns were protected by the Second Amendment. While the main opinion was unsigned (also known as a “per curiam” opinion), a concurrence from Associate Justice Samuel Alito went into more detail.

“A weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself,” Alito wrote in a separate opinion. “Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.”

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself,” Alito added. “To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life.”

Second Amendment Foundation President Massad Ayoob, who has decades of experience as a law enforcement officer, firearms instructor and an expert witness in the use of force for self-defense, explained why many states tend to treat knives and other items more stringently in self-defense cases in an August interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Historically, the pistol was seen as the weapon that would be chosen by the lady or the gentleman and the knife and the club were seen as the weapons of the thug and there’s a little bit of that yet today,” Ayoob said.

Keep reading

‘She did not consent’: Police investigate Ontario grandmother’s MAiD euthanasia

An Ontario grandmother’s assisted death is under police investigation after her family alleged the 83-year-old was confused, tried to back out and never clearly consented before she was given a lethal injection.

Brigitte Stegemann died through medical assistance in dying (MAiD) on July 10 at The Pearl care home in Cannifton, Ontario, after being diagnosed with stage-four stomach cancer in February.

The case was first reported by veteran Kelsi Sheren on Substack before the Daily Mail published a detailed account of the family’s allegations.

But her granddaughter and longtime caregiver, Brigitte Kranendonk, alleges serious failures occurred in the days leading up to her death.

Two days before the procedure, Kranendonk said she bluntly asked her grandmother whether she understood she was going to die Friday.

Stegemann began crying and said, “I’ve made a mistake,” according to her granddaughter.

Keep reading

Flock Is Discovering That Americans Do Not Want to Live in a Surveillance State

Morale inside the surveillance company has deteriorated so badly amid the public backlash that employees are considering leaving. Flock has now introduced a voluntary separation program offering severance, subsidized healthcare, and additional time to exercise vested stock options. People familiar with the program believe a significant number of Flock’s roughly 1,500 employees could apply. This is what happens when people finally discover what has been constructed around them.

Flock was sold to communities as a crime fighting tool. Put cameras around town, read license plates, find stolen cars, catch criminals. It always begins with something that sounds reasonable. Nobody walks into a city council meeting and announces, “We would like to construct a nationwide surveillance network capable of recording where ordinary citizens travel.” You sell it incrementally under the banner of safety. Then the network expands, databases become interconnected, thousands of agencies gain access, and suddenly technology created to find a stolen automobile can potentially reconstruct the movements of people who have committed no crime whatsoever.

The abuses are precisely why the public has become angry. Neowin recounts cases involving officers allegedly using Flock to track women with whom they had personal relationships. In Georgia, an officer was accused of searching for his former girlfriend and her teenage daughter hundreds of times. In San Jose, an officer was fired after authorities said he used the system to obtain location information involving a woman and shared information with a man accused of abusing her. There have also been reports of innocent motorists being stopped after automated systems incorrectly identified vehicles.

Flock cameras are operating in roughly 6,000 communities across every state except Alaska. Hackers who obtained data from a Flock camera found that the devices could capture far more information than merely a license plate. WIRED reported that the recovered material showed cameras taking numerous images associated with vehicle detections and detecting people as well as automobiles. Data associated with one city’s system could reportedly be accessed across a network involving more than 2,000 agencies. Flock maintains that tampering with its equipment is illegal and says researchers should use authorized security-reporting channels, but the technical revelations illustrate why people are asking how extensive this system really is.

Now the backlash is hitting the company itself. Cities have been terminating contracts. An anti-surveillance group identified 90 cities dropping Flock during August alone, while Florida and Texas have also moved away from using the company’s technology in certain contexts. Flock CEO Garrett Langley has acknowledged that the controversy has damaged internal morale. In August, he publicly apologized for instances in which the technology had been abused and announced additional safeguards.

This is what I have always said about government surveillance. The question is NEVER whether today’s politicians promise to use a technology responsibly. The question is what the NEXT government can do with the infrastructure you surrender to them today. Once the cameras exist, once the databases exist, once your movements can be searched, the political promises surrounding their original purpose become meaningless.

Most people had no idea this infrastructure existed. They did not realize how extensive license plate surveillance had become, how broadly information could potentially be accessed, or how easily technology designed for legitimate police work could allegedly be misused by individual officers. The technology expanded faster than public awareness.

There was a time when following somebody required manpower. The government needed agents, vehicles, warrants, and resources. Those practical limitations themselves provided a degree of protection because governments could not physically monitor everyone. Technology removes that barrier. A computer does not sleep. It does not demand overtime. It can potentially search billions of records in seconds.

This is why privacy cannot be dismissed with that ridiculous argument, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” That turns the entire principle of a free society upside down. The government is supposed to have probable cause to investigate YOU. You are not supposed to prove your innocence every time you drive down the street.

Flock may survive this controversy. It may change its policies. Governments may impose stronger safeguards. But the larger issue will remain long after this particular company disappears from the headlines. Every government in history has sought more information about its citizens because information is power. AI has now made gathering, analyzing, and connecting that information cheaper than at any point in human history.

Keep reading

Euthanasia bills will be used to mass murder the mentally ill and the poor as part of the Great Reset’s global depopulation plan

The approved mass slaughter of the disabled, the poor, the frail, the old, the unemployed and the unwanted is, with quiet certainty and to the eternal shame of politicians, becoming global. It is part of the Great Reset and it is an essential part of the depopulation programme.

They call it doctor-assisted suicide, and it’s already available in a number of countries (notably and with most seemingly uncensored enthusiasm in Canada and Holland) – but the concept of death by doctor is spreading fast, and like everything else bad that is happening, it is global. Opposing this sinister, contemptible and malevolent new movement is one of the most difficult challenges we face in the years ahead.

Voluntary euthanasia, aka assisted dying, aka “death by doctor,” really began in earnest in Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg at the start of the 21st century. (Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942, but only in a vague sort of way in that helping someone kill themselves is legal if the person helping does not have selfish motives.)

After Belgium and Holland allowed death by doctor, there was a hiatus of several years and then came a sudden and seemingly inexplicable explosion in the number of countries succumbing to pressure and introducing similar schemes of their own. (The explosion was inexplicable only to those who do not realise that “death by doctor” is an essential part of the Great Reset.)

Euthanasia was legalised in Canada in 2016. In Spain in 2021, Austria in 2022, in Portugal in 2023, in Colombia in 2022, in Cuba in 2023, in Ecuador in 2024, in Australia in 2025, in New Zealand in 2021, in Jersey in 2026, in Uruguay in 2025, in France in 2026 and in recent years in 13 states in the USA. Legislation is being drafted in Germany and Italy.

In Britain, the pro-euthanasia supporters have for years been pushing hard for new legislation in Britain – for legislation which would undoubtedly legalise the mass murder of the weak and the innocent.

The supporters of “doctor-assisted dying” bills have repeatedly tried to push their lethal legislation through the British Parliamentary System. And each time wise, humane heads have ensured that they have failed. (Curiously, although the most recent two attempts received massive help from the Labour Government, the Labour leaders, knowing that patients prefer their doctors to try to keep them alive rather than to kill them, never had the courage to promote the death-by-doctor bills as official government Bills but preferred the proposed legislation to be presented by backbenchers and then given quiet support in an unsuccessful attempt to ensure it was passed.)

The latest “legalised euthanasia bill,” surely one of the most badly conceived, misleading and dangerous pieces of legislation ever introduced into the British Parliament, was, in September 2026, yet again rejected.

The one certainty is that a small number of people pushing this deadly legislation (more than a few of them professionals, employed to promote “assisted dying”) will be back for yet another attempt at pushing through legislation which will, I believe, eventually result in the disabled, the mentally ill and the poor being killed as part of the global depopulation plan which is part of the Great Reset.

This is already happening around the world. And when similar legislation suddenly appears all around the world, and a clear pattern has emerged, I find myself being suspicious about the motives of those promoting the Great Reset.

When politicians or the public reject “death by doctor” legislation, they are told to vote again. And again. And again. And again. Normally once would be enough. Politicians don’t usually bring back legislation which has been rejected once, let alone five times.

Five times in recent years there have been attempts to introduce “death by doctor” laws into the UK. And five times the attempts have failed.

But the promoters of “death by doctor” bills will try again, despite the fact that the idea of allowing doctors to kill patients is unpopular both with doctors and with patients. No one wants this damned legislation except a few insane fanatics working towards the Great Reset and global depopulation.

“Death by doctor” bills are, like those monsters which used to scare children in the 1960s, never allowed to crawl away into a corner and die quietly. “Death by doctor” bills will always be back because euthanasia (or whatever the politicians choose to call it) is part of the Great Reset.

Every time one of these bills gets rejected, there is another vote, and another vote – in the same way that voters who choose the “wrong” answer at the ballot box are, these days, asked to try again until they get it right (particularly if the vote affects the European Union in any way).

The supporters of this dangerous legislation, which will allow doctors to kill patients who have been convinced that death is their only answer, will say that they will only offer euthanasia to a small number of patients who are in terrible pain and who are desperate to die.

And some naïve and ignorant campaigners may think that’s what will happen.

But in every country where doctor-assisted suicide has been made legal, the rules about who can be killed have been quickly changed – with the parameters being extended and the original restrictions brushed aside.

What starts out as an apparently well-meant service for the few quickly becomes nothing less than the mass murder of people who are regarded by the conspirators and their slaves as a useless drain on society.

Keep reading