Tag: police state

London is the Testing Lab for Big Brother Mass Facial Scanning Tech

Since the start of 2024, the Metropolitan Police has been quietly transforming London into a testing ground for live facial recognition (LFR).

Depending on who you ask, this is either a technological triumph that’s making the capital safer or a mass surveillance experiment that would make any privacy advocate wince.

The numbers are eye-watering: in just over 18 months, the Met has scanned the faces of around 2.4 million people. And from that sea of biometric data, they’ve made 1,035 arrests. That’s a hit rate of 0.04%. Or, to put it plainly, more than 99.9% of those scanned had done absolutely nothing wrong.

The police, of course, are eager to present this as a success story. Lindsey Chiswick, who oversees the Met’s facial recognition program, calls it a game-changer. “This milestone of 1,000 arrests is a demonstration of how cutting-edge technology can make London safer by removing dangerous offenders from our streets,” she said.

Of those arrested, 773 were charged or cautioned. Some were suspects in serious cases, including violent crimes against women and girls.

But here’s where things get complicated. To secure those 1,000 arrests, millions of innocent people have had their faces scanned and processed.

What’s being billed as precision policing can start to look more like casting an enormous net and hoping you catch something worthwhile.

Keep reading

‘Delete, Silence, Abolish’: America’s estranged allies ramp up perceived censorship, speech rules

Overt government control of the internet is expanding within America’s increasingly estranged allies and threatening to spill over national boundaries, likely renewing earlier confrontations with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the world’s richest man and creator of America’s newest nascent political party.

The European Union last week made its officially voluntary three-year-old “Code of Practice on Disinformation” legally binding under the Digital Services Act. It’s now a “Code of Conduct” to be used as a “relevant benchmark for determining DSA compliance” for Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Bing, TikTok, YouTube and Google Search.

These “very large” online platforms and online search engines were already signatories of the 2022 code, whose commitments include taking “stronger measures to demonetise disinformation,” increasing fact-checking across the EU and its languages and improved reduction of “current and emerging manipulative behaviour.”

Australia imposed an age-verification law for harmful content that makes the Texas law recently upheld by the Supreme Court look like a type-your-age prompt, applying to not only pornography but also “violent content” and “themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating,” in the words of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Last week she registered three of nine “codes” submitted by the online industry, covering “search engine services … enterprise hosting services and internet carriage services such as telcos,” and has sought “additional safety commitments” on remaining codes for “app stores, device manufacturers, social media services and messaging” and broader categories.

The same day, Canada suspended a U.S. tech firm tax to avoid trade recriminations from the Trump administration. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told the Canadian Press that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is taking a “fresh” look at predecessor Justin Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Act, which went down in Trudeau’s political downfall.

Anti-censorship group Reclaim the Net flagged pressure on Carney’s government to revive C-63, which famed Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson claims would criminalize wrongthink. Trudeau-appointed Senator Kristopher Wells pressed Government Representative Marc Gold to commit to further criminalizing “hate” in a “questions period” last month.

Keep reading

Oregon Police Improperly Used Aerial Camera To Bust Marijuana Grow, State Appeals Court Says

Oregon’s Court of Appeals chided the state’s police force on Wednesday for using warrantless “technologically-enhanced surveillance” to bust an illegal marijuana operation, sending the court’s clearest message yet about how law enforcement may use the increasingly popular, but controversial technology.

The case, captured in an eight-page ruling from a three-judge panel, centers on a June 2021 multi-county investigation involving the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and Oregon State Police. The defendant, 54-year-old Sengdara Nakhiengchahn, was not the target of the investigation, but Oregon State Police Sergeant Tyler Bechtel, a leading officer on the case, noticed “what looked to be a massive agricultural operation” that “was likely a marijuana grow,” while flying in a surveillance plane nearly 5,000 feet in the air, according to the ruling.

The defendant was charged in August 2021 with two felonies for possession and manufacturing of marijuana. She pled guilty in a conditional deal that allowed her to get the possession charge dropped by serving two years of probation, court records show. But she maintained her right to appeal the charges, arguing the evidence gathered from aerial surveillance constitutes a warrantless and unlawful search and should not have been admissible.

The appeals court agreed with Nakhiengchahn, returning the case back to the trial court where she can withdraw her guilty plea. Bechtel did not respond to an email seeking comment.

“While the trial court didn’t agree with us, we’re grateful the appellate court did,” said Luke Miller, Nakhiengchahn’s trial attorney, in a statement. “It’s important for Oregonians to maintain the right to privacy, and be free from government intrusion absent legal justification for such intrusion.”

Jenny Hansson, a spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of Justice, said officials were still reviewing the decision and could decide to appeal the court’s ruling in the coming weeks.

Jolene Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Oregon State Police, declined to comment on the ruling or its findings, but said in an email the agency “remains committed to following applicable laws and court directives.”

The ruling was lauded by civil rights advocates and privacy watchdogs who were fresh off of a fight in the Oregon Legislature over Senate Bill 238, which would have extended unprecedented power to police to use unmanned aerial surveillance devices like drones when responding to 911 calls, executing a warrant or responding to “exigent circumstances.” The bill ultimately died in the House Rules Committee without a vote.

The ACLU of Oregon opposed the bill, warning in a news release that it was unnecessary and “undermines basic rights including privacy and free speech.”

Kelly Simon, legal director of the ACLU of Oregon, said Wednesday’s ruling marks an “important decision to ensure that as police technology advances, we are maintaining the integrity of our warrant requirements under the Oregon Constitution.”

“We’re beginning to see in the surveillance tech industry all sorts of high-powered enhancements,” she told the Capital Chronicle. “It is important that our courts maintain the integrity of our warrant requirements by making sure that if law enforcement wants to use those enhancements, they go to court first, they present the evidence they have against a person and they get permission to do that.”

In the ruling, Justice Scott A. Shorr wrote that state police saw “materially different information” through a camera attached to their aircraft than what could’ve been seen with a naked eye, striking down a decision by Polk County Circuit Judge Rafael A. Caso to allow evidence tied to the camera footage to be admitted at trial.

“We have never upheld as constitutionally permissible an officer’s technologically enhanced surveillance to see what was otherwise indiscernible. We decline to do so here,” Shorr said. “In this case, the officer used technology to obtain information from inside defendant’s private structures that was undetectable from his vantage point in public airspace.”

Keep reading

CHANGE: Trump’s TSA Reportedly Ending Stupid Shoe Removal Policy at Airports With a Catch

One of the most notorious elements of security theater is going away from our nation’s airports for at least some passengers.

The New York Times reported on Monday that for the first time since 2006, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is actually letting people keep their shoes on during airport screenings. Precheck passengers had enjoyed this perk at most U.S. airports.

A source told the outlet the TSA began dropping the requirement over the past few days.

There is a catch, however. As Yahoo notes, individuals must have a pre-approved, mandatory Real ID document to qualify.

People who do not possess a Real ID may still have to take their shoes off in the nasty airports and get subjected to further screening by TSA agents.

So, people will essentially have a choice between what type of invasion of privacy they prefer. Does this really enhance our Constitutional liberties?

The TSA responded to this reported change with neither a confirmation nor a denial.

“TSA and DHS are always exploring new and innovative ways to enhance the passenger experience and our strong security posture,” a spokesman for the agency told The New York Times. “Any potential updates to our security process will be issued through official channels.”

As CBS notes, the no-shoes rule was implemented by TSA nationwide five years after British citizen Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tried to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami with explosives hidden in his shoe in December 2001.

Thankfully, his plan failed, and the plane landed safely in Boston after passengers helped take him down. Massachusetts State Police officers took him into custody.

Reid is currently serving a life sentence.

Keep reading

Data Collection Can Be Effective and Legal

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Data Collection Can Be Effective and Legal

Introduction

It’s an Artificial Conundrum

It is not necessary to make an end-run around the U.S. Constitution to thwart terrorism and other crimes.

Those claiming otherwise have been far from candid – especially since June 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed gross violations of the Fourth Amendment by NSA’s bulk electronic collection. U.S. citizens have been widely misled into believing that their Constitutional right to privacy had to yield to a superseding need to combat terrorism.

The choice was presented as an Either-Or conundrum. In what follows, we will show that this is a false choice. Rather, the “choice” can be a Both-And. In sum, all that is needed is to place advanced technology that has been already demonstrated into the hands of officials not driven by lust for a cushy retirement.

Sophisticated collection and processing technology that also protects the right to privacy has been available for decades, enabling highly efficient and discriminating collection. Despite that, top officials have opted for quasi-legal, cumbersome, ineffective – and wildly expensive – technology that has done little more than line the pockets of contractors and “old-friend” retirees.

U.S. officials have been caught lying under oath – with impunity – with false claims about the effectiveness of the intrusive, high price-tag technology they procured and implemented.

In the Annex to this Memo we briefly portray the illustrative behavior of one such senior official. We do so in the belief that a short case study may shed light on the apparent motivation of many senior officials who seem to take far too lightly their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

We took the same oath. It has no expiration date.

Keep reading

Beware The ‘Omniwar’: Catherine Austin Fitts Fears ‘Weaponization Of Everything’

Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), publisher of “The Solari Report,” is back with a new cutting-edge publication called “Omniwar.”  Mankind is under attack from all angles, and it’s not simply to control us but to kill us too. 

CAF says, “Omniwar is the weaponization of everything…”

“It’s the weaponization of all the different systems we use, including food, health and finance…

There are literally injections that are bioweapons, and this is the weaponization of our healthcare system.  I do a screen for a mutual fund, and one of the funeral home companies is a stock, which has more than doubled or about doubled since we bought it.  So, you’ve got a recent healthcare insurance stock going down 40%, while the funeral homes are going up significantly. 

People have been observing this because this is not the first insurance company to take a nosedive from the drop in life expectancy and  acceleration of the deaths.”

The poison we are getting is being delivered to us on purpose.  It is high tech, and it’s not just in the CV19 bioweapon injections.  Fitts says,

“We are ingesting these nanoparticles or nanobots. We have done interviews at Solari.com about the mysterious ingredients in the food.  So, it’s in the injections, it’s in the spray and it’s in the food.  This is one of the things I believe causes all this sickness. . ..  This is all part of the great poisoning.  I have subscribers who have been hip to this for more than a decade.  They understand the great poisoning is happening.  They are in a war, it’s an Omniwar and they started to take action on how they organized their health, food and finances.  You know something, they are doing great. . . . I know it’s depressing. 

As Curtis Mayfield says, ‘It’s a New World Order.  It’s a brand-new day.  It’s a New World Order, and brother, you are the prey.’  It is not supportive of your social prestige knowing you are in a war and you are the prey. 

At the same time, once you understand, and you can get in the game, you can start to protect your health, finances and food, and what a difference it makes.”

CAF talks about many war fronts in “Omniwar.”  She does a deep dive on the ever-increasing control grid.  Writer David Hughs (PhD) describes the phenomenon of “Omniwar” as “a war in every conceivable domain by a transnational ruling class against the rest of humanity.”  They uncover how evil forces are “targeting your brain.”  CAF shows how humans are being reengineered with “synthetic biology.”  CAF encourages people and shows them how freedom “starts with one person at a time.”  These are just a few of the Omniwar fronts.  CAF shows you how to fight back too with an “action check list.”

Keep reading

Bombshell report exposes attempts by Muslim Council of Britain group to censor UK media

The Muslim Council of Britain’s media monitoring unit “acted in bad faith” by trying to suppress accurate reporting about terrorism and risks curtailing press freedom, a bombshell report has claimed.

Policy Exchange tonight released its 94-page report, titled ‘Bad Faith Actor: A study of the Centre for Media Monitoring’, which exposed the organisation’s inadequate methods of documenting Islamophobia and its partisan agenda.

Despite the CfMM claiming that 60 per cent of stories about Muslims are “offending” and negative, Policy Exchange found that just one complaint made by the group resulted in a newspaper being required to make a correction.

Policy Exchange revealed that CfMM, which sat on a working group at press regulator Ipso, counted factual reports of Islamist terror attacks in its 60 per cent figure of Islamophobic journalism, including a Manchester terror attack report by agency AP that accurately used the phrase “knife-wielding man yelling Islamic slogans”.

Keep reading

Canada Eyes Revival of Online Censorship Bill

As Canada’s government hints at reviving its shelved Online Harms Bill, concerns are mounting that this could signal a renewed assault on free speech. The legislation, once known as Bill C-63, had been left behind when Parliament was prorogued earlier this year.

Now, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Liberals appear ready to give their controversial plan another try, leaving civil liberties groups on high alert.

The Democracy Fund (TDF), a leading voice in the fight for free expression, has been quick to sound the alarm. Mark Joseph, TDF’s litigation director, argues that no sweeping new regime is necessary.

“There are laws in place that the government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted,” he pointed out.

In Joseph’s view, any genuine gaps in the Criminal Code could be addressed with targeted amendments, rather than broad measures that risk suffocating debate.

“The previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship,” he warned, adding that TDF remains determined to resist efforts to criminalize speech and punish lawful debate.

The government, for its part, insists it is simply reassessing its approach. Justice Minister Sean Fraser has described the current review as a “fresh look” at how best to address online harms.

But for those who value open dialogue, such language offers little comfort, raising fears of government overreach cloaked in promises of safety.

Keep reading

Roger Waters reported to counter-terror police after declaring support for Palestine Action

Former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters has been reported to counter-terror police after sharing a Facebook post declaring his unwavering support of Palestine Action – a day after it was officially proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

In the three-minute clip, posted to Waters’ Facebook page just hours after the ban came into effect, the 81-year-old stated: “I support Palestine Action. And I always will because that is the right thing to do.”

He also shared a hand-written sign he’d made, which read: “Roger Waters supports Palestine Action 5th July 2025. Parliament has been corrupted by agents of a genocidal foreign power. Stand up and be counted its now.”

The proscription came into force at midnight on the morning of July 5.

Speaking to the camera, Waters declared: “I am Spartacus. OK, this is Independence Day, July 5th 2025. I declare my independence from the government of the UK who have just designated Palestine Action a terrorist – a proscribed terrorist organisation.

“For the record I support Palestine Action. It’s a great organisation. They are non-violent. They are absolutely not terrorist in any way.

“They are a non-violent protesting organization, protesting the presence in the UK of Elbit Systems who are an Israeli arms manufacturing organization. Alright so that’s that. I support Palestine Action. And I always will because that is the right thing to do.”

Caroline Turner, director of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), which reported Waters to counter-terrorism police, commented: “Palestine Action have been anything but a non-violent organisation, using sledgehammers to smash windows and machinery, and causing millions of pounds of damage over the past few years in order to intimidate the public and certain companies, and to advance their own ideological cause.

Keep reading

ICE Is Using A New Facial Recognition App To Identify People, Leaked Emails Show

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is using a new mobile phone app that can identify someone based on their fingerprints or face by simply pointing a smartphone camera at them, according to internal ICE emails viewed by 404 Media. The underlying system used for the facial recognition component of the app is ordinarily used when people enter or exit the U.S. Now, that system is being used inside the U.S. by ICE to identify people in the field.

The news highlights the Trump administration’s growing use of sophisticated technology for its mass deportation efforts and ICE’s enforcement of its arrest quotas. The document also shows how biometric systems built for one reason can be repurposed for another, a constant fear and critique from civil liberties proponents of facial recognition tools.

“Face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country. Immigration agents relying on this technology to try to identify people on the street is a recipe for disaster. Congress has never authorized DHS to use face recognition technology in this way, and the agency should shut this dangerous experiment down,” Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404 Media in an email.

“The Mobile Fortify App empowers users with real-time biometric identity verification capabilities utilizing contactless fingerprints and facial images captured by the camera on an ICE issued cell phone without a secondary collection device,” one of the emails, which was sent to all Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) personnel and seen by 404 Media, reads. ERO is the section of ICE specifically focused on deporting people.

The idea is for ICE to use this new tool to identify people whose identity ICE officers do not know. “This information can be used to identify unknown subjects in the field,” the email continues. “Officers are reminded that the fingerprint matching is currently the most accurate biometric indicator available in the application,” it adds, indicating that the fingerprint functionality is more accurate than the facial recognition component.

The emails also show the app has a “training range,” a feature that lets ICE officers practice capturing facial images and fingerprints in a “training non-live environment.”

A video posted to social media this month shows apparent ICE officers carefully pointing their phones at a protester in his vehicle, but it is not clear if the officers were taking ordinary photos or using this tool.

Broadly, facial recognition tools work by taking one image to be tested and comparing it to a database of other images. Clearview AI for example, a commercially available facial recognition tool which is used by law enforcement but which doesn’t appear to be related to this ICE tool, compares a photo to a massive database of peoples’ photos scraped from social media and the wider web.

Keep reading