5 More Highly Concerning Technologies in Development

There has been quite a growing number of highly concerning technologies in development, as reflected in an article I wrote, while highlighting ethical, moral and safety issues/concerns… 

As a follow-up, here are 5 more highly concerning technologies currently in development, again having a number of serious issues/concerns.

1.Google’s DeepMind AlphaGenome Human “designer” DNA

There’s been a lot of attention given to DNA. Deciphering how, at the molecular level, genomic DNA sequencing and resulting genetic expression occurs. 

In other words, given that the smallest alterations to DNA can change an organism’s physical appearance, ability to regulate or control biological functions, or affect its susceptibility to disease… there is indeed much to be gained from understanding the related underlying mechanisms. 

-Consider Google’s DeepMind, having plans to launch AlphaGenome, a new AI tool that looks at how human DNA sequences vary. How this technology can be used to detect DNA sequences for predictive purposes… 

This is what Google DeepMind has to say (excerpt):  

“Our AlphaGenome model takes a long DNA sequence as input – up to 1 million letters, also known as base pairs – and predicts thousands of molecular properties that characterize its regulatory activity. It can also assess the effects of genetic variants or mutations by comparing predictions of mutated sequences with those of non-mutated sequences…”

Further, stated by Google DeepMind (website), the research project’s goals are to 1.Understand disease, 2.Understand how to apply synthetic biology and 3.Have deeper insight into how DNA works. 

In light of this new technology, when DNA’s building blocks are understood, consider how it could be used for “enhancement.” How it could be used for human “designer” DNA. 

Consider the controversy surrounding this, as for instance, shown in the 1997 movie entitled “GATTACA.” -An absorbing futuristic science fiction movie set in a dystopia where selective breeding through designer DNA was commonly practiced. In other words, the human race was driven by eugenics and transhumanism.

In this movie, the controversy was over the discrimination of those having “good genes” when comparing people with “bad genes.” Who decides what are “good genes” or “bad genes?”

-As “designer” DNA progresses, we’re getting closer to a world where genetic enhancement, for example, selectively bred babies, could become the norm.  

This raises a number of serious issues/concerns when considering the technocratic overlords overseeing this future in the name of next-phase “evolution,” viewing us humans as nothing more than mechanistic bio-hackable soulless automatons.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case On Geofence Warrants, Testing Digital Privacy Limits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a high-stakes case that could reshape Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age and determine the future of controversial “geofence” search warrants used by law enforcement.

Geofence warrants allow police and federal agents to compel companies like Google to disclose location data for all users present in a designated geographic area during a specific time window. Investigators use the tool to identify potential suspects by sifting through vast troves of smartphone location information, effectively searching first and developing probable cause later.

Civil liberties groups argue the practice is inherently overbroad and violates constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches. Critics point to instances where innocent bystanders, protest attendees, and unrelated individuals have had their data swept up, sometimes due to warrants that extended far beyond the crime scene, reported Tech Crunch.

The case stems from the 2019 armed robbery of a bank in Virginia. Surveillance footage showed a suspect using a cellphone. Police obtained a geofence warrant from Google, requesting anonymized location data for devices within a small radius of the bank around the time of the crime. Google initially provided data for multiple accounts. Investigators then sought identifying information for a subset of users, including Okello Chatrie, who was later linked to the scene, arrested, and sentenced to more than 11 years in prison after pleading guilty.

Chatrie’s legal team challenged the warrant, contending it lacked sufficient probable cause tying him—or any specific account—to the robbery. Lower courts split on the issue, with one ruling the warrant failed to meet constitutional standards but ultimately allowing the evidence under the “good faith” exception. Chatrie’s appeal argues the warrant unconstitutionally permitted a broad search of hundreds of millions of Google users’ data.

Keep reading

More Details Emerge of Trump’s Secret Use of ICE to Spy on Critics

Lawmakers and privacy advocates are demanding answers from the Trump administration about its weaponization of digital tools and popular web platforms to spy on critics and activists. Targets have included a student who attended a pro-Palestine protest and anonymous web users posting about President Donald Trump’s violent immigration crackdown, but the administration’s secret systems of surveillance likely cast a wide net.

Privacy groups are also making demands of Big Tech firms such as Meta and Google, which have come under pressure from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hand over identifying information for anonymous users. Officials from the agency have wielded legally dubious administrative subpoenas — meant to be used to determine duties on imported products — in an attempt to compel the information.

The efforts to expose domestic spying under the Trump administration offer a preview of how Democrats could yield subpoena power next year if voters hand them the House majority in November. Rep. Delia Ramirez, a Democrat from Illinois who was appointed ranking member of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security this week, said emerging technologies are being used to violate civil rights and target Trump’s critics.

“The Trump-Miller regime is weaponizing the government and abusing every authority to persecute anyone whom they perceive as an enemy,” Ramirez told Truthout in a text on April 29, referencing Stephen Miller, the anti-immigrant extremist serving as a top adviser to Trump. “And fascism always requires a public enemy.”

ICE Targets Personal Information of Trump Critics

On April 17, attorneys with the Civil Liberties Defense Center filed a motion in federal court to throw out a grand jury subpoena that Reddit received from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) demanding “extensive private information” about an anonymous user. The user had posted statements critical of ICE and other political content on Reddit, a popular online discussion forum.

Reddit originally received an administrative subpoena from an ICE official in Virginia demanding the user’s personal information, The Intercept first reported earlier this month. The Civil Liberties Defense Center, representing the Reddit user, immediately filed a motion against the summons. Rather than defend the original administrative subpoena in court, ICE switched tactics in early April and demanded that Reddit attorneys appear before a secret grand jury, according to organization’s executive director Lauren Regan.

Keep reading

They’re All Ears: Apple’s Plan to Read Your Mind

We’ve handed over our location, our browsing history, our voice, our face, and our purchasing habits. In exchange, we’ve gotten convenience. Now Apple wants the one thing each of us might have thought was still ours—the electrical activity of our brain. And this time, they’re not even asking. What are we talking about here?

In January 2023, Apple quietly filed patent US20230225659A1 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The filing describes a wearable electronic device—an earbud—equipped with multiple electrodes embedded directly into the ear tip and housing. These electrodes aren’t for audio. They are not there to improve our sound quality. No indeed. Instead, they are there to read our brain—using the same EEG technology doctors use to monitor neurological activity in clinical settings. And because every ear canal is shaped differently, Apple’s patent describes a machine-learning model that figures out which electrode combinations work best for each person’s specific anatomy, then keeps refining that over time. The result is a read that is accurate, continuous, and tailored to each of us personally. The digital signal is then transmitted wirelessly to our phone—and, per the patent’s own language, to a server, where it can be stored as “historic data” accessible by “another person given permission.”

Read that sentence again.

What EEG Actually Reveals
This is not science fiction, and it is worth understanding what EEG data actually captures—because it is a lot more than Apple’s marketing department will ever tell you. Brain waves are not background noise. They are a direct readout of our inner life. The alpha, beta, delta, theta, and gamma frequencies each correspond to distinct mental states—relaxation, intense focus, deep sleep, creativity, active learning. Together they paint an individual portrait of our mind that is more revealing than anything we have ever typed into a search bar or whispered to a smart speaker. These frequencies, as Loyola University researchers have noted, are also the same signals measured in polygraph tests—the ones used to determine whether someone is lying. They can reveal our stress levels, our concentration, our emotional state, and potentially flag neurological conditions that have not yet been diagnosed. As one researcher at the Neurorights Foundation put it in a Science Friday interview, neural circuits in the brain create our thoughts, emotions, memories, decision-making, and our very sense of self.

Apple wants that data streaming off our ears into their servers.

Are There Any Upsides?
Fair is fair—applications for in-ear EEG technology are being floated, and it’s worth addressing them. As Neurofounders reports, startups like NextSense are already developing in-ear EEG devices to improve clinical sleep staging. Detecting seizure disorders from continuous passive monitoring is another possibility. Early signals for degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s may surface in EEG data years before symptoms appear. And researchers have argued that natural-environment EEG collection—on the couch, at work, during real life rather than inside a sterile lab—would produce more accurate data on attention and cognitive states than anything gathered under clinical conditions.

These applications sound compelling on the surface. But step back for a second. Americans are not sleeping poorly because they lack a brain-monitoring device. They are sleeping poorly because they are overprescribed, overstimulated, and undernourished—and the same medical system profiting from that reality is not exactly rushing to fix it. Handing our neural data to Apple is not a solution to a pharmaceutical-created problem. It is just a new layer of surveillance dressed up as fake wellness. The idea that we should surrender the electrical activity of our brains as the price of entry for better sleep tracking should raise more than a few eyebrows.

Who Gets the Data?
Here is where things get serious. A 2024 Neurorights Foundation report pulled back the curtain on 30 companies already selling consumer neurotechnology devices. What they found should stop you cold. Twenty-nine of the thirty companies claimed unlimited rights to their users’ neural data. Most had quietly written third-party data sharing directly into their terms—buried in the kind of legal language nobody reads until it’s too late. Fewer than half even encrypt the data or de-identify users. There is no federal law in the United States governing how neural data collected by consumer devices can be used or sold. A handful of states—Colorado, California, Illinois—have moved to address this, but protections remain patchwork at best.

As a published paper in PMC bluntly put it, bulk sales of neural data by tech giants to third parties may already be occurring with minimal accountability. Data brokers could soon be cataloging individual “brain fingerprints” on a mass scale—data as uniquely identifying as a fingerprint, and infinitely more revealing.

Apple has faced its own data breach history. As Pearl Cohen’s legal analysts note, the patent describes data transmission to external servers accessible by parties beyond the user. The company that couldn’t keep our FaceID data secure wants a continuous stream of our brain’s electrical activity.

Keep reading

Biden admin ‘zealously’ probed ‘traditional’ Christians — even keeping tabs on priests: DOJ report

The Biden administration “zealously” investigated, penalized, and engaged in “aggressive prosecutions” of Christians “with traditional biblical views” — ignoring their conscientious objections and even secretly keeping tabs on Catholic priests, a Department of Justice task force found.

The DOJ-led Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias released 14 findings Thursday, confirming the 46th president’s officials “forc[ed] Christians with traditional biblical views to choose whether to live in accordance with their faith or risk violating federal law.”

In a 200-page report, the task force concluded: “The Biden Administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith.”

That included prosecutions of pro-life Christians who were given longer sentences than their pro-abortion peers for violations of a federal law protecting access to abortion clinics or pregnancy resource centers.

The report also unearthed new details about a January 2023 FBI memo sent to multiple field offices that called for the targeting of “radical-traditionalist” Catholics as a result of “baseless allegations” from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center.

Keep reading

House Judiciary expands probe into allegations Biden admin spied on GOP members of Congress

ouse Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan expanded his committee’s investigation Monday into allegations that the Biden administration spied on Republican lawmakers. 

Revelations last year claimed the Biden FBI snooped on the phone records of multiple Republican members of Congress, including eight senators, during its January 6 investigation known as Arctic Frost. 

Jordan sent the latest letter to Alpine Bank CEO Glen Jammaron requesting documents and communications related to allegations that the Biden administration’s Department of Justice may have subpoenaed financial institutions for records of private customer data for Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert.

The letter asks the bank to produce documents and communications relating to any material sought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in relation to investigations about the 2020 presidential election.

It also sought documents and material related to Arctic Frost and activities conducted by former Special Counsel Jack Smith and asked for the material by no later than May 11.

Keep reading

Supreme Court To Review Geofencing In Pivotal Case For Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on April 27 will hear oral arguments in a case with major implications for privacy rights—and how law enforcement uses Americans’ cell phone data while investigating crimes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on law enforcement’s use of “geofencing warrants”—judge-authorized requests for cell phone location data near the scene of a crime.

Okello Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the government’s use of these warrants, which resulted in a criminal conviction over his robbing a bank while his smart phone was on his person, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that such data is not protected when provided voluntarily to a “third party” like Google.

The court said it would focus on the circumstances of Chatrie’s case rather than the constitutionality of geofencing more generally. However, experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate through future cases concerning privacy in the digital age.

Dr. David Super, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, described the case to The Epoch Times as “once-in-a-generation,” whatever the outcome.

Chatrie’s Warrant

In 2019, law enforcement received a geofence warrant from a state court seeking anonymized location data for devices within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of the bank robbery. In this form, the data couldn’t be used to identify specific cellphone users.

After Google complied with the first request, law enforcement then sought location data for devices over a longer, two-hour period, without seeking an additional court warrant. Google again provided the information.

Then—still without seeking a warrant—investigators asked Google for “de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices,” and Google complied.

One of those devices belonged to Chatrie, and the information provided the basis for Chatrie’s eventual conviction for armed robbery.

Though Chatrie confessed, his lawyers argue that the geofencing evidence should be tossed because the warrant deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that the geofence warrant allowed investigators to gather the location history of people who were near the scene of the crime even though there was no other probable cause.

Super told The Epoch Times that geofencing was “pivotal” to the case against Chatrie. “The question in Chatrie is whether something as dramatic as a geofencing search is limited by the Fourth Amendment and requires the government to show specific needs with a proper basis,” he said.

Keep reading

Apple Fixes Bug That Allowed FBI To Read Deleted Signal Messages

Tech giant Apple has fixed a security flaw that had allowed the FBI to access a Signal user’s deleted messages through their phone’s push notification database, despite the app being deleted and messages being set to disappear.

In a security advisory released on Wednesday, Apple said it had fixed a bug that allowed “notifications marked for deletion” to be “unexpectedly retained on the device.”

In an X post on Wednesday, Signal said the update fixed the issue that made a user’s messages retrievable by law enforcement.

“Apple’s advisory confirmed that the bugs that allowed this to happen have been fixed in the latest iOS release,” Signal said.

Signal uses end-to-end encryption to secure messages between its users. The bug is a reminder that messaging encryption may not be enough to keep data protected when using certain devices or operating systems.

Keep reading

Beyond Cookies – How To Stop The Invisible Browser Fingerprint That Tracks You Everywhere

For years, the privacy advice was simple: clear your cookies, use incognito mode, or click “Reject All” on those annoying consent banners. That advice is now outdated.

A groundbreaking study published last year has delivered the first peer-reviewed proof that the $600 billion online advertising industry has moved on from cookies. The new tracking method is called browser fingerprinting, and it works even if you never log in, never accept cookies, and have legally opted out under privacy laws.

Researchers from Texas A&M University and Johns Hopkins University built a tool named FPTrace to measure exactly how this works in the wild. They simulated real user sessions, systematically altered browser fingerprints, and watched what happened to the ads being served and the bids advertisers placed in real time. The results were clear: when the fingerprint changed, the price advertisers were willing to pay to target that “user” changed with it. Tracking signals dropped. The system was actively using the fingerprint to follow people across sessions and sites.

And crucially, this happened even in tests where cookies were fully deleted and users were in “opt-out” mode under GDPR and CCPA rules. The law’s exit door for cookies does not cover fingerprinting.

How Browser Fingerprinting Works (No Permission Required)

Every time your browser loads a page, it leaks dozens of tiny, seemingly harmless signals:

  • Screen resolution and color depth
  • Installed fonts
  • GPU model and graphics capabilities
  • Audio processing signatures
  • Browser version, plugins, and language settings
  • Time zone
  • Canvas rendering differences (how it draws hidden shapes)
  • Whether you run an ad blocker
  • Even battery level in some cases

Alone, each detail is common. Combined, they create a unique “fingerprint” that can identify your device with startling precision. No cookies. No login. No pop-up asking for consent. Just loading the page is enough.

Keep reading

British universities paid security firm to ‘spy’ on pro-Palestine students

Twelve British universities paid a private firm run by former military intelligence officials to “spy” on student protesters and academics, including those who have expressed solidarity with Palestine, it can be revealed.

A joint investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates has uncovered evidence that Horus Security Consultancy Limited trawled through student social media feeds and conducted secret counter-terror threat assessments on behalf of some of Britain’s most elite institutions.

Horus, which describes itself as a “leading intelligence” firm, has been paid at least 440,000 pounds ($594,000) by universities since 2022.

Among those monitored were a Palestinian academic invited to give a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University and a pro-Gaza PhD student at the London School of Economics, according to internal documents.

In October 2024, the University of Bristol provided the firm with a list of student protest groups it wished to receive alerts about, an internal university email suggests. It included pro-Palestinian and animal rights activists.

In total, 12 universities paid the firm to monitor campus protest activity. Others include the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London (UCL), King’s College London (KCL), the University of Sheffield, the University of Leicester, the University of Nottingham and Cardiff Metropolitan University.

There is no suggestion that this activity is illegal.

These findings have come to light after Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates submitted freedom of information (FOI) requests to more than 150 universities.

All the institutions named in this article were approached for comment by Al Jazeera and Liberty Investigates.

The University of Oxford, UCL, KCL, the University of Leicester and the University of Nottingham did not respond to requests for comment.

Keep reading