Tag: privacy

What in the Actual? Mamdani Doxxes NYC’s Wealthy by Publishing Their Names and Addresses

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) just made it a whole lot easier for anyone to look up the names and home addresses of wealthy New Yorkers who own second properties in the city.

How? By publishing a searchable database of properties that could fall under the new pied-à-terre tax, complete with the owners’ full names and addresses.

The list covers unoccupied, non-primary residences worth more than $1 million across the five boroughs.

The New York Post reports that the move by the administration is “effectively doxxing thousands of wealthy New Yorkers.”

I’m almost certain that those individuals are thrilled to have their potentially empty homes’ addresses advertised to unhinged “tax the rich” leftists.

For property owners who already felt targeted by the city’s new tax push, having their personal information posted online is only pouring fuel on the fire, which is the intent, really. Mamdani is literally trying to drive wealthy individuals out of the city that serves as the economic engine of the nation.

It fits a clear pattern of taunting. RedState’s Nick Arama detailed how Mamdani recently mocked second-home owners online by gloating that notification letters for the new pied-à-terre tax were already in the mail and that “you’ve got mail.”

Arama accurately described the derisive message as “gross,” which might as well be an evergreen description going forward for Mamdani’s economically illiterate reign.

Keep reading

GrapheneOS Wipe at Airport Leads to Federal Charge in Atlanta

The Justice Department is asking a federal court in Atlanta to treat a man’s erasure of his own phone as destruction of property, in the first known US prosecution built on a phone’s duress password.

Samuel Tunick faces one count under Title 18, Section 2232(a), a statute covering the destruction of property to stop the government from taking it. Prosecutors say he handed Customs and Border Protection officers a passcode that deleted the contents of his Google Pixel instead of unlocking it. His lawyers appeared before the court for the first time on Monday, arguing that officers ran a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, denied him a lawyer, and searched him unlawfully. They want everything obtained from the encounter suppressed.

CBP pulled Tunick into secondary inspection at Hartsfield-Jackson on January 24, 2025, as he returned from the Dominican Republic. An FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force officer and an FBI special agent had coordinated with CBP in advance to question and search him on arrival. The account comes from the defense filing, which draws on the government’s own reports. Officers from CBP’s Tactical Terrorism Response Team opened by telling him they were “looking for people who are pedophiles.”

Officers never read Tunick his Miranda rights. He said early in the interview that he did not want to keep talking without a lawyer, then asked to call one repeatedly. Questioning continued. One officer told him his refusal to talk gave them authority to go through his phone. When he asked again about his attorney, an officer told him customs and immigration work was a different matter, “and we have search authority, we don’t need a warrant.”

Tunick eventually provided a password for his phone and his e-reader. The screen “went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart,” according to the government’s report. Officers seized the devices anyway and told him they would be returned after thirty days. A third officer took him to another room for a pat-down that was not recorded. A DHS agent then told him he was free to leave once the other agents were finished with him.

The government’s reports contain no indication that anyone suspected Tunick of carrying illegal images, his lawyers wrote. The reports record an interest in his association with Defend the Atlanta Forest, the movement opposing the clearing of the South River Forest for the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. Opponents call the 85-acre, $115 million police facility Cop City. Federal documents label the movement an “Anti-Government, Anti-Authority Violent Extremist Group.” Tunick has not been charged with any offense connected to it.

Eleventh Circuit precedent favors the government. Its 2018 ruling in United States v. Touset permits forensic searches of electronic devices at the border with no warrant, no probable cause, and no individualized suspicion. Tunick’s lawyers cite decisions from the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits going the other way, including a Fourth Circuit holding that warrantless border searches of devices cannot be used to hunt for evidence of domestic crime. They also argue that surrendering a passcode is testimonial, relying on a 2012 Eleventh Circuit decision that decrypting and producing the contents of a hard drive triggers Fifth Amendment protection.

Courts allow suspicionless border searches to keep contraband out of the country. The accusation here is that data left a phone rather than entered the United States, and digital files move across borders over the internet anyway. A ruling on the motion is not expected before the end of October.

GrapheneOS, the hardened Android build that replaces the stock software on Pixel devices, lets an owner set a second PIN or password that irreversibly wipes the device and any installed eSIMs when entered at a credential prompt. No confirmation dialog appears, and nothing distinguishes it from a normal unlock.

Bill Budington, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Runa Sandvik, founder of the security firm Granitt, both said they had seen no comparable prosecution. Sandvik said she had discussed the scenario with activists and journalists for years and advised travelers to leave sensitive data off devices they carry across borders rather than count on wiping it. Christophe Boutry told the Guardian the prosecution “sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default.”

Matthew Dodge, an assistant federal public defender on Tunick’s legal team, said the statute is rarely seen in an indictment. Tunick was arrested about ten months after the airport stop. His crowdfunding page says he was pulled over for a purported tail light fault and cuffed by FBI and DHS officers when he stepped out of the car. He has pleaded not guilty. The single-count indictment  accuses him of acting to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel to impair the government’s lawful authority to take it, in violation of Title 18 of what the document calls the “Untied States Code.”

Keep reading

India Orders GitHub to Block BitChat

India’s Cyber Crime Coordination Centre last night ordered GitHub to disable access to BitChat, the peer-to-peer messaging app backed by Jack Dorsey. The order, Notice No. 11072601011432, went out at 11:16 pm under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021.

It named three repositories, including the Android application and its release files, and gave GitHub three hours to take them down. It warned that failure would cost the platform its safe harbor and open it to criminal prosecution.

The government did not publish the order. The public learned of it from a post by Jack Dorsey, whose team develops BitChat, who wrote that “the government of India does not like technologies like BitChat and wants it taken down.”

BitChat is open source and uncensorable, and is one of Reclaim The Net’s recommended messaging apps for situations where the internet may be cut off. It carries messages from phone to phone over Bluetooth, hopping between nearby devices, with “no internet, servers, phone numbers, or accounts.” It keeps working when the mobile network does not.

Around this protest, the government, getting increasingly brazen with its blocking orders, has switched the mobile network off. Since July 17 the Ministry of Home Affairs has suspended mobile internet around Jantar Mantar in New Delhi about five times.

The most recent suspension ran from 4 pm to midnight on July 23, inside a 1.5-kilometer radius that takes in Janpath and part of Connaught Place. People at the site reported signal jammers, and walking two kilometers before a phone found a signal.

Inside that radius, a student separated from her group during a detention sweep could not send a message to say where she was.

The protesters are students. Tens of thousands have camped at Jantar Mantar since June, demanding accountability for the leak of the NEET medical entrance exam and the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Their march to Parliament was refused. Metro stations near the site were closed.

When the shutdowns cut the network, protesters turned to BitChat and other Bluetooth mesh apps to reach each other inside the dead zone.

The order did not name a single message sent on BitChat. It just objected to what the app can do. In the agency’s words, BitChat “significantly impedes lawful interception, attribution, and investigation,” and could be used during “public disorder, riots, terrorism, organized crime, or internet shutdowns.”

The order lists internet shutdowns among the dangers. The government has imposed one at Jantar Mantar. BitChat kept working inside it.

The order used Section 79(3)(b) to demand the block. In 2015, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Section 79(3)(b) lets the government require a takedown only through a court order, or a notice confined to the grounds in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

India has a separate law for blocking an app, Section 69A, which requires a hearing and reasons set down in writing. The order against GitHub used neither. It went out through the Home Ministry’s Sahyog portal, the channel Indian High Courts are now hearing constitutional challenges against.

The order says the repositories hold information prohibited under law. It names none. It points instead to what the app is “capable of” enabling.

It reaches into criminal law as well. Alongside Section 43 of the IT Act, a civil compensation provision, it invokes conspiracy and abetment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023, against a platform that hosts code.

Keep reading

‘VPNs are lawful technical tools,’ says EU Court in landmark Anne Frank copyright ruling

In a major victory for digital rights and common sense, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has officially categorized Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) as “lawful technical tools” while establishing new boundaries for online copyright disputes.

The landmark judgment — handed down in July 2026 — stems from a complex legal battle over the online publication of Anne Frank’s historical manuscripts. At its core, the case forced Europe’s top judges to answer a highly technical question: if a publisher actively tries to block visitors from a specific country, are they still breaking the law if a user sneaks past the digital border using circumvention software?

According to the CJEU, the answer is no. As long as a website employs “state-of-the-art” geo-blocking technology, the publisher cannot be held liable for copyright infringement simply because a determined reader decides to fire up the best VPN to bypass the restrictions.

The ruling sets a massive precedent. It confirms that copyright holders cannot point to the mere existence of VPNs to claim a website’s security measures are completely ineffective.

More importantly for privacy advocates, the court firmly pushed back against the demonization of privacy software, cementing the legitimate status of VPN providers across the European Union.

Keep reading

Microsoft Confirms Windows GDID Device Identifier That Cannot Be Disabled, Documented in FBI Case Filing

Microsoft has publicly acknowledged the existence of the Global Device Identifier (GDID), a device-specific ID assigned to Windows installations, in a federal complaint filed by US prosecutors against an alleged member of the Scattered Spider hacking group.

The ID is generated when Windows is set up with a Microsoft Account, persists through Windows updates, and cannot be disabled without affecting Windows activation and Microsoft Store apps.

Microsoft briefly mentioned GDID in the Azure Monitor documentation, describing it only as “an identifier used by Microsoft internally.” The complaint cites a Microsoft representative describing GDID as “a persistent, device-level identifier designed to uniquely identify an installation of a Windows operating system on a device, either a physical device such as a mobile phone or laptop or a virtual machine, across certain Microsoft services and scenarios.”

What the Windows Global Device Identifier Is and How the FBI Used It

The Global Device Identifier (GDID) is a permanent ID assigned when Windows provisions against a Microsoft Account. It is generated by a chain of Windows services.

The wlidsvc service requests a Device PUID from login.live.com, which is then registered into Microsoft’s Device Directory Service by the Connected Devices Platform.

Delivery Optimization reports the GDID back to Microsoft when the PC shares or downloads updates. This identifier is stored in the Windows registry under HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\IdentityCRL\ExtendedProperties and formatted with a lowercase “g” prefix followed by a decimal number.

It is reported to Microsoft servers and remains persistent across Windows updates, but it is not retained after a clean reinstall. Microsoft has acknowledged that one user can have multiple GDIDs linked through their account, OneDrive, and activation history.

The FBI used the GDID to track Peter Stokes, alleged member of Scattered Spider, across VPN connections, proxy servers, and through four countries over roughly eight months.

According to the complaint, the GDID g:6755467234350028 was recorded visiting the ngrok signup page at the same time an account used in the attack was created via a Tzulo VPN proxy. Three hours later, the same GDID accessed a victim retailer’s website through the same proxy.

The device was cross-referenced with IP addresses linked to Stokes’s accounts on Snapchat, Facebook, Apple, and Ubisoft across Estonia, New York, Thailand, and other locations. Stokes’s public Snapchat photos matched hotel bookings, locations, and travel timelines associated with the GDID.

The persistent nature of the GDID across VPN sessions proved a key investigative asset. While VPN IP addresses change frequently, the underlying Windows installation continued reporting the same identifier, aiding investigators in their tracking efforts.

Keep reading

Chip Roy Unveils Bill Requiring Hospitals Participating in Federal Healthcare Programs to Report Immigration Status Data

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) is introducing legislation that would require hospitals participating in federal health care programs to ask patients to indicate their immigration status.

The hospitals would have to report aggregate totals, including the number of patients who say they are not lawfully present in the United States. 

Roy’s “Illegal Alien Patient Reporting Act” would amend Title XI of the Social Security Act and exclude hospitals from participation in federal healthcare programs if they fail to comply with the legislation’s reporting requirements.

“For years, Americans have watched overcrowded emergency rooms, rising healthcare costs, and strained hospital resources while being kept in the dark about the potential billions of taxpayer dollars spent on healthcare for those who are in the country illegally,” Roy told Breitbart News.

“That lack of accountability is unacceptable and absurd,” the Texas Republican continued. “The Illegal Alien Patient Reporting Act delivers the transparency and accountability Americans deserve by ensuring hospitals report the extent to which illegal aliens are adding to the fiscal burden of our healthcare system.”

Under the bill, hospital admission, registration, and other intake forms would be required to ask patients or their authorized representatives to indicate the patient’s immigration status.

Keep reading

Quote of the day by Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy: ‘You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it’ — an early declaration foreshadowing the modern era

Sun Microsystems was a huge force in the technology landscape, with its co-founder and CEO Scott McNealy an outspoken and brash maverick in the early Silicon Valley ecosystem. The company had just launched a new system, and McNealy was quick to push back on any critique centering around the implications for user data.

During an informal Q&A session with reporters, McNealy slapped down concerns that the newly launched Jini platform could pose a risk to user privacy.

The system, as it was engineered, was a revelation – but ultimately failed to catch on due to some pretty significant hardware hurdles. Designed to allow devices to communicate with and share resources, the Jini network architecture allowed unadulterated communication without configuration, driver installations, or human intervention.

It was an early and ambitious effort to establish a vision for smart homes and offices. The trouble was that it required devices to continuously upload data and lease space on networks, with the system creating a massive digital footprint.

Erosion of privacy

McNealy’s comments, unsurprisingly, drew immediate and sharp criticism from privacy advocates and campaigners. Lori Fena, then chairman of the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the comments were “completely irresponsible”, for example.

Keep reading

Prince Harry Loses Years-Long Privacy Lawsuit Against Daily Mail Publisher, as Controversial UK Trip Is Off to a Bad Start

A victory for free press, or a whitewashing?

We have been reporting here on how Prince Harry’s UK trip ended up mired in controversy and logistical chaos.

He was just told by Buckingham Palace that he would not be able to stay there anymore for confirming his presence too late.

And in his first public engagement, Harry was dealt a big setback, as the Duke of Sussex lost his years-long, £50 million privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.

Fox News reported:

“Harry and six other claimants, including Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, lost their privacy case against the publisher. The U.K.’s High Court dismissed their claims after finding the claimants had failed to prove their allegations of unlawful information gathering.”

Keep reading

Mexican Government Delays Biometric Registration Deadline After Massive Public Resistance

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has announced an extension to a controversial deadline that required Mexican citizens and foreign residents to register their phone lines with their identification. The move comes after less than half of the country signed up to register their phone lines.

On Thursday morning, Mexico’s Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT) announced a staggered extension for citizens to register their mobile phone lines with their identification. This controversial requirement has received pushback and resistance from the Mexican population, many of whom question how their data will be stored and used.

According to the announcement, prepaid phone lines that have not yet been linked to an identity will now have until between August and December to complete the process, with the deadline based on the last digit of the phone number. The new policy states that after the deadline expires, telephone companies will suspend service to non-compliant lines within 72 hours.

“For the safety of all, every telephone number must be registered in the name of one person, in order to eliminate the anonymity that has allowed crime such as fraud or extortion,” the press release reads. “With this measure, Mexico will cease to be one of the few countries that allowed the acquisition of a SIM card without identification, and will join the international practice currently in place in 166 countries.”

Calls for a deadline extension have increased in recent weeks, as many critics believe the government did not adequately prepare the public for the change. In late May, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim called for an extension because the process was “very complicated” and progressing slowly.

With the extension of the deadline, the Mexican government and telecom companies are hoping extra time is all that will be necessary to convince more than 50 million people to comply with the mandate. This may prove more challenging than they anticipated in a country well known for mistrust of official institutions.

The requirement to link a person’s ID with their phone line is a fairly new development in Mexico—one of the few places in the world where individuals could still purchase and use SIM cards in cellphones without registering a name or showing some form of identification. All of that changed in July 2025 when several new laws took effect that compel the population to register for a biometric program required to access many services, including phone and internet access. Phone users were originally instructed to register their phone line with their telecommunications provider before June 30, 2026, or face interruption of service. This would force businesses selling these services to check a customer’s CURP before purchase.

Keep reading

New EU proposal aims to stop drivers from speeding using satellites

According to the proposal, every new car would be equipped with a device that can limit the engine’s power for drivers who are speeding. This would be done remotely, based on their speed and location.

The system would use a combination of GPS technology, satellite data, and cameras to identify speed limits and monitor vehicle speed.

How would this work? First, satellites pinpoint the car’s location and determine its speed. Next, the car’s onboard cameras spot traffic signs that indicate the maximum speed. If a driver is speeding, the car’s built-in computer forces it to slow down to the maximum speed limit.

Safety campaigners believe the technology will significantly reduce casualties by 20%.

If approved, the system could be mandatory for all new vehicles in the EU by 2030.

The United Kingdom would be exempted because of Brexit. However, experts expect that car manufacturers will introduce the proposed technology in the UK as well, as it would be too expensive to build cars just for the UK market.

Shadow Transport Secretary Richard Holden has raised concerns about the technology’s reliability, fears of hacking, and doubts about drivers’ privacy.

Keep reading