Tag: surveillance

Report: SFPD Already Using Surveillance Video From Self-Driving Cars

An internal SFPD document obtained by VICE News shows that not only can the SF Police Department pull the camera video from autonomous Waymo and Cruise cars, but more chillingly, that they have “already done this several times.”

We all had a good laugh last month at the “Ain’t nobody in it!” video when SFPD pulled over a driverless car that had no human being inside. A sensible conclusion to draw was that law enforcement was having a hard time coming to terms with these strange new fleets of robot cars that are suddenly ubiquitously all over San Francisco streets. But a new report from VICE News suggests that the relationship between the SF Police Department, and Google-owned Waymo and GM-owned Cruise, is far more advanced than we’d realized.

“‘Autonomous vehicles are recording their surroundings continuously and have the potential to help with investigative leads,’” says a San Francisco Police department training document obtained by Motherboard via a public records request,” VICE News reports. “‘Investigations has already done this several times.”

VICE News has the goods in a three-page SFPD training document outlining policies and procedures for dealing  with autonomous vehicles when encountering issues with them on the road. A lot of it is perfunctory, nuts-and-bolts stuff, like where to send the citation if the self-driving car commits a traffic violation, or what to do if the car becomes disabled.

But the very chilling phrase that really jumps out is “Autonomous vehicles are recording their surroundings continuously and have the potential to help with investigative leads,” and “Information will be sent in how to access this potential evidence (Investigations has already done this several times).”

Privacy advocates are of course worried. “​​As companies continue to make public roadways their testing grounds for these vehicles, everyone should understand them for what they are—rolling surveillance devices that expand existing widespread spying technologies,” Chris Gilliard, Visiting Research Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center, told VICE News. “Law enforcement agencies already have access to automated license plate readers, geofence warrants, Ring Doorbell footage, as well as the ability to purchase location data. This practice will extend the reach of an already pervasive web of surveillance.”

For their part, Waymo said in a statement to VICE News that the company “requires law enforcement agencies who seek information and data from Waymo to follow valid legal processes in making such requests (e.g. secure and present a valid warrant, etc.). Our policy is to challenge, limit or reject requests that do not have a valid legal basis or are overly broad.”

Cruise took a similar line, saying, “ We share footage and other information when we are served with a valid warrant or subpoena, and we may voluntarily share information if public safety is at risk.”

Keep reading

British Royal Navy’s Spy Drones Have Cameras Suspected of Sending Back Data to China

Who are these drones spying for, in the end?

The Royal Navy is fighting a war with Britain, to have resources to modernize and expand the much-diminished forced, said to be the smallest-ever.

But even when modernization efforts do come, they are not without issues, as we’ve learned this week.

It’s been widely reported that the Royal Navy spy drones used by Britain’s elite special forces had cameras suspected to be secretly sending sent data to China, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Telegraph reported:

“The cameras on the K3 Scout surveillance drones had components made in China which were transmitting information to a device in the country.

The Royal Marines have been using the £12m fleet since March and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was forced to remove all internet connectivity from the cameras after discovering the breach.

The revelation raises fears that Beijing has been attempting to spy on Britain’s military after years of security warnings about the threat from the country.”

Keep reading

Newsom’s Wife Wiretapped in Sprawling Corruption Probe

Investigators have extensive wiretap evidence and may soon charge several individuals in a sprawling corruption probe involving Gavin Newsom and his wife Jennifer Newsom.

It was reported earlier this month that the FBI used a Democrat insider as an informant to infiltrate Governor Gavin Newsom’s inner circle before the corruption probe expanded into the governor and his wife Jennifer Newsom.

Recall that Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was indicted on federal wire fraud charges last year.

Last month, Newsom fumed as he announced the corruption probe had expanded, and he and his wife are now under investigation.

Newsom said federal agents have contacted people and organizations close to him and his wife, Jennifer Newsom.

“Today, my wife and I joined Donald Trump’s hit list. He has directed his Department of Justice to investigate us. They have not found a crime – they are simply trying to find one,” Newsom said in a video posted to X last month.

“If he can’t intimidate me, he’ll go after the mother of our children,” Newsom said.

People close to the Newsoms have been subpoenaed for records, according to the governor.

According to Semafor, there are several investigations related to Newsom and they are focused on Jennifer Newsom’s taxes (+ his chief of staff).

Contrary to Newsom’s claims, the investigations did not originate from main DOJ in DC, but are out of Sacramento and involve whistleblowers, Semafor reported.

Earlier this month, the New York Post reported that Democrat insider Alexis Podesta wore a wire and recorded conversations during the corruption probe into Dana Williamson.

The investigation is much bigger than previously reported.

According to award winning reporter Adam Housley, investigators have extensive wiretap evidence… and additional people are implicated beyond those publicly known.

Keep reading

The Fourth Circuit Says Border Agents Can Search Your Phone By Hand, No Suspicion Required

The Fourth Circuit issued a disappointing opinion in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo, a case in which EFF filed an amicus brief, alongside the national ACLU, its Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia affiliates, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).

We argued that electronic device searches at the border should require a warrant based on probable cause, but at minimum, regardless of whether an officer searches by hand or with forensic software that plugs into a device and downloads its entire contents for search, the same Fourth Amendment standard should apply to all device searches at the border.

Unfortunately, the court rejected that argument and ruled that a lower standard applies to manual searches, allowing the government to conduct extraordinarily invasive electronic device searches without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply because the border officer chooses to search by hand rather than with a forensic tool.

The Border Search Exception Meets Your Phone

The Fourth Amendment requires that government searches of persons or property be reasonable, which usually means obtaining a warrant based on probable cause from a judge.

But a warrantless search can still be reasonable if it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement, including the exception that allows officers to search your belongings at the border. The border search exception allows warrantless searches of persons or property crossing the U.S. border, including the functional equivalent of the border such as international airports, given the government’s interests in controlling who and what may enter the country.

Historically, courts have categorized border searches of luggage, vehicles, and personal effects as “routine” and thus reasonable even if conducted without any suspicion that the traveler has engaged in wrongdoing; courts have also held that more invasive “nonroutine” searches, such as certain body searches and searches that damage property, require reasonable suspicion.

But a person’s privacy interests in the personal data on a phone or laptop are extraordinarily different than their limited privacy interests in the contents of their suitcase.

Keep reading

‘Whoever came up with this is a massive idiot’: LG’s gaming monitors and TVs are facing a user revolt, due to seemingly installing adware on PCs — and telling you to warn guests they may be recorded by AI features, to comply with ‘wiretapping’ laws

How smart should a smart TV be? According to LG‘s latest TV terms and conditions, the answer is “not quite smart enough to comply with wiretapping laws”, because that’s now your responsibility if LG captures the voice of a guest in your house through its AI voice services. Though the situation with LG monitors appears to be even more dramatic.

As Gamers Nexus reports, some LG monitors appear to be installing adware on Windows PCs without asking for permission: in addition to the LG Monitor App Installer, they also install McAfee Scam Detector.

LG’s own app requires full access to all system resources, which potentially includes all your online activity, logins, hardware, location and more — while McAfee has a long history of being installed on devices as ‘bloatware’, and people are not reacting positively to suddenly finding it on their PC.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for all of this, but when big tech firms keep getting caught doing bad things because they thought they could get away with it, it’s no wonder people are assuming the worst.

The bit that’s causing consternation regarding smart TVs is part 6(d) of the new LG Electronics terms of service, headed Voice Recognition and Privacy Compliance.

As Notebookcheck‘s Hannes Brecher notes, the section states that it’s your responsibility “to obtain all necessary consents from any third parties whose voices may be captured by the Product and to notify household members and guests that their voices may be captured and processed, in compliance with applicable wiretapping, eavesdropping, and privacy laws.”

There are three ways around that. One, you can turn off all microphone-based features. Some people won’t mind that, but they can be useful — especially asking it for settings you don’t know how to find.

Keep reading

California Grocery Stores Use Facial Recognition Technology To Combat Theft

Faced with a shoplifting epidemic that has battered California retailers for years, Grocery Outlet is fighting back with technology.

Customers are not thrilled about it.

The Emeryville-based discount grocery chain has begun installing facial recognition software called SAFR at a handful of Bay Area stores, including its Pleasant Hill “Bargain Market” location, CBS News San Francisco reported.

Customers walking through the doors will find signs warning them the system is in use, a disclosure the company says is meant to keep shoppers informed.

The rollout comes as California tries to combat a shoplifting problem that has spiraled out of control.

FBI data cited by CBS shows theft in the state has jumped 50 percent since the COVID-19 pandemic, a surge that has forced retailers from big-box chains to neighborhood grocers to spend millions on security measures, or in some cases, shutter stores altogether.

For June Guerrero, who spent years managing a retail store, the new technology is a welcome and overdue response to a problem she saw firsthand.

“I worked for years as a manager of a store and the theft was just unbelievable,” Guerrero told CBS News. “I agree with it.”

Not every customer sees it that way. Barbara Jackson told the outlet she’s uneasy about having her face scanned every time she shops for groceries.

“I do understand, but invading my privacy with my picture, I don’t agree on that,” Jackson said. “You gotta find a better way.”

Shopper Steve Burdette raised a different concern: the risk of the system misidentifying innocent customers as thieves.

“It could lead to a lot of problems, I think for companies and businesses and people,” he said.

SAFR president Charisse Jacques pushed back on the notion that the technology amounts to mass surveillance. She said the company does not maintain a database of every customer who walks through the door, retains information on suspected shoplifters only for a limited window, and does not share data with outside agencies — including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the New York Post.

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

Jack Smith team read messages between Trump officials, dozens of lawmakers of both parties: ‘Ran roughshod over the Constitution’

More than 40 members of Congress had their text messages viewed by former special counsel Jack Smith’s team amid a probe into President Trump, a move that Republicans say “ran roughshod over the Constitution.”

The Department of Justice released records to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday revealing that the special counsel’s office had accessed communications between Trump White House personnel and 44 lawmakers from both parties.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ); Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the current ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee; current Los Angeles mayor and former Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.); and former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), now the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, were just some of the new names whose messages were seen.

Grassley himself, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), House Majority Leader Steve Scalies (R-La.) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) were also targeted.

Asked during a December 2025 congressional deposition whether his team looked at “the content of text messages” during his twin probes into the 45th and 47th president, Smith answered, “No.”

Keep reading

Jack Smith’s Team Spied On 44 Lawmakers’ Texts, Built A Case On Them, And Misled Congress: Grassley

Former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigators blew past the Justice Department’s own privilege safeguards to directly access text messages between Trump White House officials and 44 members of Congress – then had the FBI match the phone numbers to lawmakers’ names, according to DOJ records released Tuesday.

Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in a letter accompanying the records that Smith’s team “bypassed the Filter Team and directly accessed these text messages.” The FBI then worked out which senators and House members had sent or received them, Davis wrote.

The filter unit existed for one purpose: to screen messages pulled from the National Archives for privileged material before line investigators ever laid eyes on them.

“All communication to/from the Filter Team must go through the Coordinator,” one internal protocol document states – adding that nothing was to reach the investigative team without a filter attorney’s sign-off.

The messages, sent between October 2020 and Jan. 20, 2021, ran between a bipartisan roster of lawmakers and Trump White House figures including chief of staff Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, now-CIA Director John Ratcliffe and now-FBI Director Kash Patel, the records show.

Keep reading

Under Israeli pressure, US seizes Max Blumenthal’s devices on return from Tehran reporting trip


On July 10, 2026, American journalist Max Blumenthal was traveling back to the United States from Iran, which he had visited to report on the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the largest gathering in human history. While in Iran, Blumenthal interviewed members of Iran’s negotiation team, top political officials, academics and average citizens for a series of video and print reports for this news outlet, which he founded.

He also documented several US and Israeli war crimes from the ground, including the destruction of an entire neighborhood in Eastern Tehran which left at least 40 civilians dead.

Upon reentering the country at Dulles International Airport, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) interrogated Blumenthal about his trip, searched his belongings, and demanded that he provide access to his smart phones. When he refused to open his phones, CBP officers forced him to turn them over for detention. Other journalists and travelers have been threatened with the loss of their passports for a month for failing to hand over their devices.

Blumenthal entered Iran exactly as reporters working for establishment media outlets like CNN and NBC did – on a press visa granted by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. While in Tehran, he participated in official press events alongside those mainstream reporters, who were also in the country to cover the Ayatollah’s funeral. When journalists from CNN, NBC, and other American outlets returned to the US, however, they were not subjected to the same harassment Blumenthal experienced, nor were they required to give the US government their electronic devices.

Blumenthal is a widely recognized journalist in American independent media, with a record of reporting spanning 25 years. He is the author of four books, including a New York Times bestselling volume, and numerous widely viewed documentary films. Having reported from numerous countries and conflict zones around the world, he is the winner of several awards, including the Online Journalism Award and, most recently, the Pierre Sprey Award for Defense Reporting and Analysis.

Keep reading