If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A proposed Canadian law aimed at tightening border control is sparking intense backlash about granting authorities broad access to personal data without court approval. Bill C‑2, titled the Strong Borders Act, could allow police, intelligence agents, and other officials to demand information from any service provider about a person’s activities. The law permits inquiries into whether someone has used a particular service, such as a clinic, hotel, or medical office. Authorities could ask when the service began or ended and whether the provider holds any additional data on the individual. No judicial authorization would be required for this level of access. Legal experts warn the threshold for these demands is alarmingly low. Officials only need to suspect a possible violation of any federal law. Providers served with a demand must comply quickly and are forbidden from disclosing that they received one. There is a narrow five-day window to challenge the request in court. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has raised serious concerns about the law’s implications for privacy. “With these powers, any official tasked with enforcing a federal law could go to the company you rented a car from or the hotel you stayed at and paint a detailed picture of your activities simply by confirming the various companies you interacted with,” said Tamir Israel, CCLA’s director of privacy, surveillance, and technology. He added that healthcare workers could be compelled to reveal if someone is a patient unless they act fast to contest the request. While lawyers might rely on solicitor-client privilege, other service providers would not have the same protections. So far, the government has not published a Charter compliance review for Bill C‑2, despite having done so for similar legislation in the past. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree insists the measures are limited and comply with constitutional safeguards. Privacy experts remain unconvinced. Kate Robertson from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto criticized the bill’s lack of precision. “It appears to be a power of unlimited scope to ask what services people use in any aspect of their life…or online digital services that are equally broad in scope and deeply personal,” she said. The legislation would also empower officials to obtain subscriber information, such as the municipality a person lives in, from internet providers without involving a judge. In the past, such surveillance focused solely on telecom companies. Bill C‑2 expands the definition of who can be asked for information to include any service provider. The phrase “any person who provides services to the public” is so broad that it could cover hospitals, schools, financial institutions, or even barbers and dry cleaners. Under this language, a business would be required to confirm whether they have provided services to an individual, reveal any related data, list the timeframes, and disclose any known referrals to other services. NDP MP Jenny Kwan warned the bill could let authorities construct detailed profiles of individuals’ lives by tracing connections between service providers. “Canadians who voted for Carney never asked for this,” she said. She also raised concerns that landlords might be ordered to share information about tenants without any court process. The Privacy Commissioner’s office is currently reviewing the bill. The government has not yet responded to questions about its scope or intent. Privacy advocates argue that this proposal surpasses even the controversial 2010 surveillance bill led by then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. While earlier laws confined data demands to telecom firms, Bill C‑2 removes such limits and introduces powers that could impact anyone offering a public service. With no clear definition of which services fall under the law, and only minimal legal thresholds required for data access, experts warn that Bill C‑2 represents a serious departure from long-established privacy norms. If adopted, it could mark the most intrusive expansion of state surveillance in Canada’s recent history. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Canada’s Bill C‑2 Sparks Outcry Over Warrantless Data Access and Privacy Erosion appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Could Israel Deploy Massive Bunkers That Duplicate US Capabilities?

The recent assassinations of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband have led the media to try to figure out a way to blame the Republican Party for it. On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Morning Joe invited Michael Tomasky, to elaborate on the current state of political violence and stated that “the MAGA grip on the Republican Party, with its winking at violence” is the problem. On Monday, Tomasky published an article titled, “America Is at a Terrifying Turning Point-and There’s No Going Back.”  The motivation for his piece focused on the assassination that took place in Minnesota, Senator Padilla’s actions during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s press conference, and ICE handling the New York City mayoral candidate, Brad Lander. To Tomasky, these events are worse than the political violence in the 1960s and 70s: I say in this piece, we did go through a period of pretty extreme political violence in the United States in the late 1960s and early and mid-1970s. This feels worse to me. This feels more permanent. That felt like it was aberrational because it was about a couple of issues that caused a generational convulsion, Vietnam and civil rights. This though feels different because frankly, one of our two major political parties winks at, and sometimes abets, and then sometimes literally pardons political violence.     Tomasky later voiced that the people who experienced the Vietnam War or the civil rights movement knew it would end, but emphasized what is happening today feels “permanent.” To the left-wing media, the political violence today “feels worse” because they can blame it on the Republican Party. Surprisingly, host Joe Scarborough played devil's advocate by pointing back to the two assassination attempts on President Trump’s life last summer. Scarborough observed what should be obvious: “This obviously is not just a MAGA right phenomenon.” Tomasky's response was in conflict with the facts: Well, there doesn't seem to have been a strong political motivation for either of those shooters. Obviously, those were horrible events. But there doesn’t seem to have been a strong political motivation identified by the FBI in either of those cases. More broadly, though, Joe, you make a fair point and a point that I should address. There’s some political violence that emanates from the left, there’s no question about it. But there were political motivations behind Trump's assassination attempts. The media quickly brushed over Trump's almost assassin at Butler, PA, Thomas Matthew Crooks, and there are still questions that need to be answered. But you don't attempt to kill Trump if you're a Republican. The second almost-assassin at Palm Beach, Florida Ryan Wesley Routh, did have a handwritten letter addressed to “Dear World” that read, “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you,” and $150,000 to anyone who could “finish the job.” If Trump’s assassination attempts were not brought up in that segment, would American citizens just have to forget that political violence has happened to Republicans? It’s important to see how quick the liberal media is to side with what supports their agenda, but when someone from the opposing party is the victim of violence, it is forgotten.  Click here for the transcript:  MSNBC’s Morning Joe 6/18/25 6:44 a.m. Eastern  JONATHAN LEMIRE: Let's bring in the editor of The New Republic, Michael Tomasky. Ed Luce, of the Financial Times, still with us as well for this conversation. Michael, good to see you. Your recent piece reflects on the consequential events of this past weekend with the headline, “America Is at a Terrifying Turning Point-and There's No Going Back.” Tell us what you mean. MICHAEL TOMASKY: Well, good morning Jonathan. I think we all woke up Saturday to that absolutely shocking news out of Minnesota about the shootings. And it was just very hard to process. And then of course, we followed the manhunt over the succeeding days and learned more about the assailant, the alleged assailant. That was preceded, though, by what happened to Senator Padilla in Los Angeles the previous week. And now ever since I wrote that piece, it's been followed by what happened to Brad Lander, the Mayoral Candidate in New York yesterday, when he also was manhandled by ICE agents. You can't watch these things and not see a pattern. They always teach us in journalism that three is a pattern, but more seriously, I mean, you can't. watch these things and not suspect that something bad is happening that's new and unique and that isn't where we've been before. I say in the piece, we did go through a period of pretty extreme political violence in the United States in the late 1960s and early and mid 1970s. This feels worse to me. This feels more permanent. That felt like it was aberrational because it was about a couple of issues that caused a generational convulsion, Vietnam and civil rights. This though feels different because frankly, one of our two major political parties winks at, and sometimes abets, and then sometimes literally pardons political violence. JONATHAN LEMIRE: And Ed Luse, you covered similar ground in your latest piece with this chilling headline, “Return to the American Assassin.” EDWARD LUSE: Yeah, so I strongly agree with what Michael just said, that we're at a, we've been at a turning point for a while. The difference between previous periods of political assassination, political violence, fringe sort of terrorist kind of activity in the late 60s and the 70s was that that was not being exhorted from the White House, that was not being encouraged by the White House. What Donald Trump has done, and it's the first big act, of course, when he, after he was inaugurated this time in January, was to pardon those hundreds of people who were felons because of the Jan six storming and of course, commuting the sentences of those who had plotted it and been involved directly in violence. That signaled that Trump has your back, if you commit violence in his cause. He has also recently said he's considering pardoning the nine men who were convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Again, exactly the same. Exactly the same signal green light is being sent from the White House. We never had that coming from the White House, under LBJ or under even Nixon, let alone under Carter. This is a very, very different kind of situation. So I strongly agree with Michael's point that there's a pattern here, and that pattern originates from the top, not from the fringes. JOHN HEILEMANN: Hey, Michael, it's Heilemann here. I think, you know, you see the, it's not doesn't feel coincidental that you've seen the assassinations. You've seen the Senator Padilla. Now, here in New York you've seen a Mayoral Candidate, the Comptroller taken away. These are, you know, talk about three's a pattern, you know, etc. As you say. And I think in some respects, obviously it feels it feels more focused than the violence in the 60s. The point that you make more – I'm not sure, worse or better, because some of the things happened in the 60s were pretty horrific, from Kent State to the bombings at Columbia, etc, etc. But the point you make also is here to stay. And I want to try to get you to comment on that. What makes this feel to you as though the 60s was transient and that the patterns we're seeing now might be even longer lasting? TOMASKY: Because you felt the Vietnam war was going to end eventually, you felt that the civil rights movement was, you know, that at some point we were going to find some kind of equilibrium there. It's arguable whether we have even yet today. But, you know, those didn't feel like things that were permanent features of our political life and culture. But this does now. And because as I wrote and because, as Ed said, it's coming from the top. It's being abetted and winked at by the White House. And that's a really different thing. Now, will that change? Maybe that will change. You know, if the Republicans lose spectacularly in 2028, assuming there's an election and the Democrats win and Republicans decide to do an autopsy and decide to change course. But I think the MAGA grip on the Republican Party, with its winking at violence and sometimes even worse than that. I think that's here to stay for the foreseeable future, for sure. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, Michael, of course, people on the MAGA right would remind you and remind everybody in this conversation that it was Donald Trump himself who was a target of two assassination attempts over the past summer during the middle of the campaign. I think one of you, I, I think it may have been Ed talked about hard to imagine the horrific consequences if those one of those two assassination attempts had been successful. So this obviously is not just a MAGA right phenomenon. What explains what happened to Donald Trump twice over the past summer? TOMASKY:  Well, there doesn't seem to have been a strong political motivation for either of those shooters. Obviously, those were horrible events. But there doesn't seem to have been a strong political motivation identified by the FBI in either of those cases. More broadly, though, Joe, you make a fair point and a point that I should address. There's some political violence that emanates from the left, there's no question about it. But, you know, here's the difference. Antifa, you know, they hate the Democratic Party as much as they hate the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is just part of the capitalist oppressor class. To those people. They weren't running to the polls to vote for Kamala Harris. And, you know, if those kinds of groups had offered their support to Harris or any high ranking Democrat, it would have been, I'm sure, spurned. But not that any such offer would have been made because those groups hate the Democrats. On the right, there's a different relationship between the extremist groups and the Republican Party and the sitting president. Very different. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, and Ed Luse I’ll ask the same question of you, obviously, you wrote about the two assassination attempts against President Trump over the past summer. Explain how that fits into your thesis. LUSE:  Well, what's odd about that is, that Trump isn't more concerned about the danger of bullets in politics. I mean, as I wrote, if Trump had been killed last July, goodness knows what the social breakdown would have been, of course, in itself would have been a tragic crime to kill the nominee of one of America's two parties. But the backlash to that is just unknowable, which makes it all the more puzzling that, you know, when the department of homeland security and the FBI and American threat assessors for domestic violence have consistently over many years been saying, look, the terrorist threat and lone wolf threat of political assassination and other and other terror events comes from these far right militias. It makes it all the more surprising that Trump's administration is dismantling those units that were set up at the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to monitor those groups and try and preempt such violence. So I don't think there's any allegation, not that Trump's used to it, that he's being consistent here, but he was within a quarter of inch of losing his life. And I think some of the actions he's taken to remove these monitoring groups at federal agencies are making it likely that other, other such tragedies like we saw in Minnesota are going to take place. I mean, that's just a real puzzle. And it shouldn't be happening.

The Democratic Party is once again in shambles, and even its own members are starting to speak out. The Democratic Party has remained in free fall ever since President Donald Trump's sweeping victory, and its members have not yet regained their footing. Most recently, the Democratic National Committee has taken on new leadership in an attempt to salvage the party, but even its staff said the organization is in disarray. In just four and a half months, DNC Chair Ken Martin has apparently run the party into the ground. Multiple reports quote party officials criticizing Martin's handling of the DNC's finances, calling him "weak and whiny" and describing his tenure as "disappointing."'We’re in the most serious existential crisis.'Rahm Emanuel, who served as chief of staff for former President Barack Obama, expressed frustration about the Democratic Party's incompetence in the aftermath of Trump's election."We’re in the most serious existential crisis with Donald Trump both at home and abroad — and with the biggest political opportunity in a decade," Emanuel said. "And the DNC has spent six months on a firing squad in the circle and can’t even fire a shot out. And Trump’s world is a target-rich environment."RELATED: Democratic Party's collapse continues: Teachers' union boss Randi Weingarten ditches DNC after 23 years Photo by Christopher Mark Juhn/Anadolu via Getty ImagesThe DNC has been plagued by disorder for months now, with much of the infighting focused on leadership. Gun control activist David Hogg briefly served as a vice chair of the DNC before he was unceremoniously ousted following a lot of internal drama."This is worse than some high school student council drama," Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin told the New York Times. RELATED: Jasmine Crockett says Trump impeachment inquiry 'absolutely' on the table Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty ImagesThe DNC's crippling financial state may also have caused much of the infighting, with the organization's funds reportedly shrinking by $4 million from January to April. During the same period, the Republican National Committee's funds increased by about $29 million. Multiple sources told the New York Times that donors have been more stingy with Martin at the helm, which has further strained relations within the DNC. Despite this chaos, Martin remains confident in his leadership and the future of the party. "People invested more money than they ever had before, they dug deeper than they ever had, and they are quite frustrated by the result," Mr. Martin said. “They want answers. I don’t take it personally. I wasn’t in charge.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Video cameras captured the moment that a SpaceX Starship rocket exploded into a fireball at the Starbase facility in Texas on Wednesday evening.The company said in a statement on social media that the rocket known as Ship 36 was preparing for its 10th flight test when it experienced a "major anomaly" while on the test stand.'Our Starbase team is actively working to safe the test site and the immediate surrounding area in conjunction with local officials.' "A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for," SpaceX said."Our Starbase team is actively working to safe the test site and the immediate surrounding area in conjunction with local officials. There are no hazards to residents in surrounding communities, and we ask that individuals do not attempt to approach the area," the company added.Musk appeared to respond to the explosion in a three-word message on X, the social media platform he also owns."Just a scratch," he wrote.RELATED: Elon Musk expresses regret over comments about Trump after deleting most provocative tweets: 'Love to see this' He also retweeted a post reading, "RIP Ship 36," with a meme about the explosion.Critics on the left have accused Musk of ignoring deleterious effects from his space endeavors on the local community. Others said that his joining the Trump administration at the Department of Government Efficiency was motivated by the opportunity to undermine agencies that were regulating his companies.Musk has since ended his time at DOGE and returned to managing his companies, which have been the subject of violent protests and vandalism from the left.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Dead by Daylight has never really been anything but successful. More than any other game in its genre, it's maintained a strong player base on the strength of its design fundamentals and, of course, the many crossovers with other horror media that have been added to it. From Silent Hill and Resident Evil to Alan Wake and Castlevania additions, DBD has kept the game fresh for existing players while attracting new audiences for years now. That strategy has continued to pay off with its Five Nights at Freddy's DLC, which has brought a ton of new players to the game who will now have an influx of others to join matches with as DBD offers a free weekend, starting now. Continue reading Now it's more popular than ever, you can play Dead by Daylight free MORE FROM PCGAMESN: DBD killer tier list, Best horror games, DBD codes

One of the best things about Xbox Game Pass is the ability to pick up games on Day One. This means that when a game is released, it's available the same day with our Game Pass subscription.

Broken Arrow, the most highly anticipated RTS of the year, is out now.

Steam Next Fest rolls around a few times a year, and this June it's completely jam-packed with a bunch of breakout indies, and a few well-known franchises slipping in, all providing banger demos.

One of the biggest surprises in gaming this year isn't the runaway success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. It's the resurgence of Star Wars: Battlefront 2, which recently doubled its Steam player count peak.