Tag: technology

Sophisticated drones attacked Louisiana’s Barksdale bomber base

Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, in Bossier Parish not far from Shreveport, was attacked by drone swarms during the week of March 9. The attack disrupted B-52H aircraft launches in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. It is the first time a US airbase was temporarily put out of operation in wartime, something that never happened even in World War II.

Each wave forced the Air Force to halt operations and send its personnel to shelters. Barksdale is the command hub of the US Air Force Global Strike Command. Not only are B-52s based there, but the base is part of America’s nuclear triad. It shelters long range nuclear cruise missiles (such as the AGM-86B) and will soon house a new Long Range Standoff cruise missile. Shelters and storage sites for the new missiles are under construction.

The only other significant US airbase for B-52s is in Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. Both bases are supporting Epic Fury. The aircraft can either fly to the UK and then on to Iran, or (as they did during the period when the UK blocked them) fly directly from Barksdale to Iran, a very long mission requiring eight in-air refuelings.

The drone waves lasted around four hours each day, an extraordinarily long loiter time for a drone. It is not known if the drones were fixed wing or quadcopter types, or how they were powered (liquid fuel or electrical). Each wave consisted of 12 to 15 drones, and the drones flew with their lights on, intentionally making them visible.

Barksdale AFB does not have air defenses, nor does it have fighter jets that can take down drones.

The airbase does have some electronic countermeasures that were designed to disable GPS and the datalinks between the drones and their remote operators. The electronic countermeasures failed to work.

The drones themselves may have been autonomous or semi-autonomous, and operated in ways suggesting the drones were equipped with multiple sensors that directed the behavior of each drone over the base and in response to attempts at jamming.

Keep reading

REPORT TO CONGRESS: GANGSTALKING Who watches the watchers?

A small but legally significant segment of the American telecommunications market consists of privately owned carriers that operate and maintain their own physical infrastructure — including switching equipment, fiber runs, tower assets, and routing hardware. While these providers collectively represent a minority share of total subscribers, their independent control over physical network infrastructure creates structural conditions that, absent adequate federal oversight, enable systematic and illegal surveillance of private citizens without judicial authorization, law enforcement nexus, or public accountability.

This report has been expanded beyond its original scope to address a phenomenon that intersects telecommunications abuse with organized criminal exploitation of individuals: the practice commonly referred to as “gangstalking,” its documented connections to corrupt law enforcement networks, and the use of illegally obtained surveillance data to facilitate human trafficking, coerced criminality, blackmail, and the systematic destruction of targeted individuals’ lives. This report is written in part for the benefit of members, staff, and constituents who may not be familiar with these practices and who may be skeptical of their existence. The evidence base for each section is grounded in documented federal cases, congressional testimony, and peer-reviewed research.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks Trump From Forcing Pentagon, Every Federal Agency to Cut Ties with Anthropic, a ‘Woke’ AI Company That is ‘Putting Troops in Danger’

A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump Administration from forcing the Pentagon and every federal agency to cut ties with Anthropic.

Judge Rita Lin, a Biden appointee said Trump’s ban is a First Amendment violation.

The judge halted her ruling for a week to give the Justice Department time to appeal her decision.

Last month, President Trump ordered every federal agency to cease use of Anthropic AI after the company refused to comply with the Pentagon’s demands.

“THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military,” Trump said.

“The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY,” Trump said.

“Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow,” Trump added.

“WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump added.

Keep reading

Trump, Blackburn Push to Federalize AI Control

The Trump administration and its allies in Congress are moving to define the rules of the digital future, with consequences that could extend far beyond artificial intelligence (AI).

Last week, the White House released a national AI legislative framework, while Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a sweeping, 291-page companion bill to codify it into law. Together, they mark the most aggressive federal push yet to define how Americans access, use, and build AI systems.

Supporters argue the country needs a single national standard to compete with China and rein in Big Tech. The language is polished and ambitious. It promises to protect children, safeguard free speech, support creators, spur innovation, empower communities, and prepare Americans for an “AI-driven economy.”

Critics see something else: Identity-gated access, continuous monitoring, traceable content, and federally managed AI development.

At the center of the debate is a simple question: Who controls access to AI, and at what cost?

One National Framework

At the core of the Trump administration’s AI push is a single premise: Centralization of AI regulation.

The White House states it plainly:

Importantly, this framework can succeed only if it is applied uniformly across the United States. A patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.

Blackburn’s bill sharpens the point. Its title is telling:

The Republic Unifying Meritocratic Performance Advancing Machine Intelligence by Eliminating Regulatory Interstate Chaos Across American Industry Act (TRUMP AMERICA AI Act).

In other words, when states regulate AI, it is, in the senator’s telling, “chaos.” When Washington does it, it a “unifying” order.

“The Federal government is uniquely positioned to set a consistent national policy,” the White House adds.

The effect is sweeping. A single federal framework would override emerging state laws. States such as California and New York have already begun shaping AI rules. Under this model, those efforts would be sidelined.

Blackburn’s bill turns that vision into structure. It consolidates authority across safety, liability, and enforcement. It expands federal oversight and delegates rulemaking authority to agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Other provisions reinforce the shift. The Department of Energy (DOE) gains authority to evaluate advanced systems, centralizing access to data and infrastructure.

Keep reading

Days Before Iran Strikes, DOJ Charged Silicon Valley Engineers in Case Involving Tech Secrets Sent to Tehran

With the United States forces engaged in destroying the Iranian military, it’s easy for Americans to think the enemy is on the other side of the world.

But a Department of Justice operation that resulted in the arrests of three Iranian-born computer engineers on the virtual eve of Operation Epic Fury has a different kind of message:

The danger can be much, much closer to home.

As the New York Post reported Monday, two sisters and the husband of one of the women were arrested in mid-February, 10 days before military operations against Iran began, and charged with stealing trade secrets from Google and other Silicon Valley powerhouses.

A Department of Justice news release from Feb. 19 identified the trio as Soroor Ghandali, 32; Samaneh Ghandali, 41; and Samaneh Ghandali’s husband, Mohammadjavad Khosravi, 40.

The Ghandali sisters are former Google engineers who went on to work at another unidentified tech company; Khosravi worked at a third tech company, the release said.

And they apparently operated like trained professionals.

“As part of the alleged scheme to commit trade secret theft, the defendants used their employment to obtain access to confidential and sensitive information,” according to the DOJ release.

“The defendants then exfiltrated confidential and sensitive documents, including trade secrets related to processor security and cryptography and other technologies, from Google and other technology companies to unauthorized third-party and personal locations, including to work devices associated with each other’s employers, and to Iran.”

In official terms, the three are charged with “conspiring to commit trade secret theft from Google and other leading technology companies, theft and attempted theft of trade secrets, and obstruction of justice,” according to the news release.

But as the U.K.’s Daily Mail noted, “trade secrets” in this case sounds more like a euphemism for technology that can pose a direct danger to American troops, and the country itself.

Keep reading

Apple Forces UK iPhone Age Checks in iOS 26.4

With iOS 26.4, Apple has turned every iPhone in the UK into an identity checkpoint. The update, released March 24, requires all UK users to confirm they’re 18 or older before accessing certain features and services on their Apple Account.

UK communications regulator Ofcom called it “a real win for children and families.”

The infrastructure being built is more of a problem than that framing suggests.

Apple has, without warning, placed a gatekeeper on the devices of 35 million UK users who paid good money for full-featured smartphones and now find themselves holding something closer to a supervised children’s tablet.

It’s a corporate ultimatum: hand over sensitive personal data or lose functionality you already paid for.

The verification prompt appears immediately after the update installs.

Apple checks whether your account already has a credit card linked or whether the account has existed long enough to establish you as an adult.

For many existing users, the process is essentially automatic. For everyone else, the options narrow quickly: link a credit card, scan a government-issued photo ID, or accept that your account defaults to teen restrictions, with Apple’s Web Content Filter and Communication Safety features switched on across all browsers and messaging apps and FaceTime, monitoring communications.

Web Content Filter blocks websites Apple classifies as explicit, operating across Safari and third-party browsers alike.

Communication Safety scans incoming and outgoing images and videos for nudity. Both activate silently for anyone who hasn’t cleared the adult threshold. Skip verification, or lack a credit card and a government ID, and Apple decides what you’re allowed to see.

Users without a credit card or government ID have no other path. Reports from UK users confirm it. Scan the card, upload the ID, or live with restricted access. The system doesn’t offer alternatives.

Ofcom praised the rollout in a statement, saying it had coordinated extensively with Apple and others on age assurance under the Online Safety Act: “Apple’s decision that the UK will be one of the first countries in the world to receive new child safety protections on devices is a real win for children and families…We’ve worked closely with Apple and other services to ensure they can be applied in a variety of contexts in order to ensure users are protected. This will build on the strong foundations of the Online Safety Act, from widespread age checks that keep young people away from harmful content, to blocking high-risk sites and stepping up action against child sexual abuse material.”

Keep reading

FC Barcelona Fined for Privacy Violations Over Biometric Data Collection

FC Barcelona got fined €500,000 ($579,219) for scanning the faces and recording the voices of over 100,000 members without doing the legal homework first.

Spain’s data protection authority, the AEPD, found the club had deployed biometric identity verification during a membership census update and processed all of it without a valid Data Protection Impact Assessment.

Members renewing their details remotely were required to either submit a facial scan through their device camera or record their voice. Both systems were live, both were processing biometric data at scale, and the documentation Barcelona produced to justify any of it didn’t meet the bar GDPR sets for high-risk processing.

Article 35 of the GDPR requires organizations to conduct a DPIA before deploying any system likely to create a high risk for individuals. Biometric data used for identification qualifies automatically.

Processing that touches more than 100,000 people, including minors, qualifies. Using new technologies qualifies. Barcelona’s system hit all three. The AEPD concluded the club’s documentation was missing the essential components of a genuine assessment: no real necessity and proportionality analysis, no adequate evaluation of what the processing actually risks for the people whose faces and voices it captured.

The AEPD’s decision in case PS-00450-2024 makes one point with particular clarity: consent doesn’t substitute for a DPIA. Barcelona had asked members to agree to biometric data collection, and members had agreed.

That agreement is legally irrelevant to the separate procedural obligation to assess risk before the system goes live. The GDPR treats them as independent requirements. Satisfying one doesn’t discharge the other.

What a valid DPIA actually requires, according to the decision, is a clear description of the processing, a genuine necessity and proportionality assessment, a detailed risk evaluation, proposed mitigation measures, and a residual risk assessment after mitigations are applied. Organizations that generate DPIA documentation as a compliance checkbox, without substantively working through those questions, remain exposed regardless of what consent language they put in front of users.

The appetite for facial biometric data has become near-universal across industries, and the Barcelona case lands in a moment when that appetite is accelerating faster than the rules meant to govern it.

Keep reading

School used AI to purge library of ‘inappropriate’ books including Orwell’s 1984 and Twilight, with librarian branded ‘safeguarding risk’

A school used artificial intelligence to censor books in its library including George Orwell’s 1984 and Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight, campaigners claim.

An investigation by Index on Censorship found a secondary school in Greater Manchester earmarked almost 200 books for removal from its library that were deemed ‘inappropriate’.

These also included Michelle Obama‘s autobiography, Becoming and The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks.

The charity, which campaigns for free expression, says the school got AI to generate summaries justifying why each book was not suitable for pupils.

Incredibly, the school librarian was also put under a ‘safeguarding’ investigation – leading to her resignation – for allowing the books in the library.

Index said it would not reveal the name of the librarian or the school, due to her being vulnerable.

Although many of the books were initially removed, it is not known if all of those on the list remain banned from the library.

The case was exposed this week by the school librarian, who spoke to the organisation on condition of her anonymity.

She said the purge began in November 2025, when the headteacher demanded the removal of Laura Bates’ nonfiction title Men Who Hate Women, which is an exposé of incel culture.

The head thought the book was inappropriate due to ‘exposure of misogynistic beliefs’, even though it was kept in a special section for older pupils.

Off the back of this incident, the school then launched an ‘investigation’ into the librarian, and closed the library as a ‘temporary safeguarding measure’.

She was then asked to remove any book that was ‘not written for children’, had ‘themes that could be upsetting to children’ and those that were ‘inappropriate or constitute a safeguarding risk’.

She told Index: ‘I was absolutely gobsmacked. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.’

The school also reported her to the council as a safeguarding risk due to introducing ‘inappropriate’ books – and there was also a threat of gross misconduct proceedings.

The school shared with her a list of 193 books which it deemed might be inappropriate, seen by Index.

Index said it had seen another document in which the school admitted the reasons given for the censorship had been written by AI.

Keep reading

Trump Officials Flee Into the Bunker

In the last few days, drones have reportedly been spotted over Fort Lesley J. McNair, in Washington, DC, where Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth live. Officials are worried, and so am I, though for different reasons. 

Did you know our secretary of state and secretary of defense live on an army base? 

And they’re not the only ones.

Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, and other senior Trump officials have moved into military housing. Tulsi Gabbard and Russell Vought are browsing the available housing, but have not moved yet. One more senior official, unidentified, has been advised to move by security officials.

The official excuse is that they face threats from a range of purported foes, including, we are told, cartels, foreign adversaries, and protesters. 

But I can’t help feeling we’re not getting the real story. And, frankly, what that might be chills me. 

Why does a king (and his courtiers) go into his castle and pull up the drawbridge? 

Because they see themselves as besieged — or are planning to do something they know will cause them to be besieged.   

Harvard professor Steven Levitsky — an expert on threats to democracies — made this sobering observation:

It is something you never see in a democracy. Government officials live on military bases or other sort of fortified zones [only] in authoritarian regimes.

In authoritarian regimes.

Coming at a time when fair elections are openly threatened and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms challenged at every turn, when we see this group withdraw to a hardened inner sanctum, we’d better be paying close attention. 

But thus far little attention has been paid to this matter, and what it may mean. 

Keep reading

Georgia House Committee Quietly Removes Key Section of IT Expert’s Public Comment on Critical Voting Machine Vulnerabilities

During a hearing in the Georgia legislature on March 17th, 2026, a 40-year IT professional testified during public comment and offered to show the committee evidence of vulnerabilities in the election software they use.

Mark Cook, who testified as an expert witness in Tina Peters’ trial in 2024, used his time during public comment to offer evidence to the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee as they considered a Georgia election bill.

The online recording of the hearing that includes public comment contains the following from Cook:

“I have evidence right here, that I was hoping to show you, that can show that there are absolutely, and I know you guys have heard this, but I’ve got the proof right here, backdoors built-in to electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes.  The testing labs all missed this.  Then they’re blindly certified.  Then we’re told that everything is safe and secure.  It’s absolutely not.”

Mysteriously, according to the timestamp shown in the top right corner, Cook’s public comment at one point goes from 1:02:18 to 1:02:29 instantly.  A cut in the testimony appears to have been made to his public comment.

Fortunately, Cook’s public comment was also recorded.  The following statement in bold was removed from Cook’s public comment:

“I have evidence right here, that I was hoping to show you, that can show that there are absolutely, and I know you guys have heard this, but I’ve got the proof right here, backdoors built-in to electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes, infiltrating the system, all built in, set up in a way that makes it easy, and untraceable.  I can demonstrate this to you even while I’m still here in this building and I’m happy to do so.  The testing labs all missed this.  Then they’re blindly certified.  Then we’re told that everything is safe and secure.  It’s absolutely not.”

Keep reading