A wildlife lover shared her heart-warming encounter with a robin last Monday. Photographer Fay Wadsworth from Sheffield, England, was visiting a park in Doncaster when the friendly bird came over and nestled right atop her camera near the warmth of her jacket. “I was blessed by this very friendly—and presumably cold—robin at Yorkshire Wildlife Park,” […] The post Bird Snuggles into Photographer’s Chest And Stayed With Her for Warmth on a Snowy Day (LOOK) appeared first on Good News Network.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Germany’s government is preparing to give its foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), far broader powers over online surveillance and hacking than it has ever had before. A draft amendment to the BND Act, circulating by German media, would transform the agency’s reach by authorizing it to break into foreign digital systems, collect and store large portions of internet traffic, and analyze those communications retroactively. At the core of this plan is Frankfurt’s DE-CIX internet exchange, one of the largest data junctions on the planet. For thirty years, global traffic has passed through this node, and for just as long, the BND has quietly operated there under government supervision, scanning international data streams for intelligence clues. More: Germany Turns Its Back on Decades‑Old Privacy Protections with Sweeping Surveillance Bill Until now, this monitoring has been limited. The agency could capture metadata such as connection records, but not the full content of messages, and any data collected had to be reviewed and filtered quickly. The proposed legal reform would overturn those restrictions. The BND would be permitted to copy and retain not only metadata but also entire online conversations, including emails, chats, and other content, for up to six months. Officials expect that roughly 30 percent of the world’s internet traffic moving through German collection points could be subject to capture. A two-step process would follow. First, the BND would stockpile the data. Later, analysts could open and inspect specific content after the fact. Supporters in the Chancellery say that this is not a radical expansion but a modernization that brings Germany into alignment with foreign partners. They claim that other countries’ intelligence services already hold data for longer periods, two years in the Netherlands, four years in France, and indefinitely in Britain and Italy. The government’s view is that the BND must have comparable tools to operate independently rather than relying on allied services for insight. Yet the amendment goes far beyond storage. It would also legalize direct hacking operations against companies and infrastructure that do not cooperate voluntarily with BND requests. Under the term “Computer Network Exploitation,” the agency could secretly access the systems of online providers like Google, Meta, or X. These intrusions would be permitted both abroad and, in some circumstances, within Germany itself, especially if justified as a defense against cyberattacks. Another provision would sharply reduce existing privacy protections for journalists. At present, reporters enjoy near absolute protection from state surveillance. The draft law, however, introduces an exception. Employees of media organizations tied to “authoritarian” governments could be monitored, with the justification that such journalists might be acting on behalf of their states rather than as independent observers. The Chancellery has declined to comment publicly, saying only that the amendment is still under internal review. But the direction is unmistakable. Germany appears ready to embed mass interception and hacking powers into law, effectively normalizing surveillance once viewed as excessive during the Snowden era. While the government frames this as a strategic update, the effect would be the routine collection and long-term storage of personal communications flowing through German networks. Such a structure risks making mass surveillance a permanent feature of the digital world, one that alters the balance of power further away from individual privacy and toward an intelligence system designed to watch nearly everything that passes through its cables. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Germany Considers Broader Legal Authority for Internet Surveillance and State Hacking appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, has fined Cloudflare €14.2 million after the company declined to apply government-ordered blocks on its public DNS resolver. The case has become one of the clearest examples in Europe of how national censorship mandates can collide with global internet infrastructure. Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 service, widely used for privacy and fast DNS resolution, was ordered to participate in Italy’s anti-piracy system known as Piracy Shield. The program, launched in 2024, was designed to cut off access to live sports streams and other copyrighted material in near real time. The program has been a disaster. The company refused. Cloudflare argued, rightly, that filtering its DNS traffic would be “impossible” without causing harm to the entire service. AGCOM rejected that defense, claiming the company is not a purely “neutral intermediary” and is capable of implementing technical restrictions when it chooses to. Piracy Shield gives AGCOM authority to order the blocking of domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes of a request from rights holders. Officials present the system as an innovative solution for piracy, but its automated structure has repeatedly led to overblocking. Legitimate websites have been mistakenly blacklisted, and many of those incidents involved services connected through Cloudflare’s network. Cloudflare has long questioned the legality and accuracy of Piracy Shield, warning that its opaque design lacks meaningful review or transparency. Despite those objections, the company was formally instructed to comply with Order 49/25/CONS, issued in February 2025. The directive extended blocking obligations to DNS and VPN providers, requiring them to deny resolution of domains identified as infringing. Cloudflare declined to enforce the order, acknowledging that interference with its DNS resolver would disrupt billions of queries each day and degrade performance for lawful users. The company warned that such filtering would have an “extremely negative impact on latency,” reducing service quality worldwide. AGCOM dismissed these concerns and described the company’s defense as a “too big to block” argument. The regulator concluded that Cloudflare had violated its legal obligations and imposed a penalty of €14,247,698, equal to one percent of the company’s global revenue. Italian law allows for fines up to twice that amount. Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince framed AGCOM’s action as something far broader than a copyright dispute. “Yesterday a quasi-judicial body in Italy fined @Cloudflare $17 million for failing to go along with their scheme to censor the Internet,” he wrote, situating the fine within what he described as a systemic attempt to normalize state-directed content control. His description places the regulator’s action within a governance structure that operates outside traditional judicial safeguards, raising questions about accountability and limits on regulatory power. Prince focused particular attention on the operational demands imposed by the Italian system. He stated that the scheme “required us within a mere 30 minutes of notification to fully censor from the Internet any sites a shadowy cabal of European media elites deemed against their interests.” He emphasized the absence of institutional safeguards, writing, “No judicial oversight. No due process. No appeal. No transparency.” This framing highlights a process where enforcement decisions are made rapidly and without meaningful checks, a structure that increases the risk of error and misuse. The technical implications were central to his warning. Prince wrote that compliance would have required Cloudflare “to not just remove customers, but also censor our 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver meaning it risked blacking out any site on the Internet.” In its announcement, AGCOM described the decision as both novel and proportionate. “The measure, in addition to being one of the first financial penalties imposed in the copyright sector, is particularly significant given the role played by Cloudflare,” the regulator said. It claimed that about 70 percent of the targeted pirate sites rely on Cloudflare’s infrastructure and that the company’s participation is “essential” to the success of national enforcement efforts. AGCOM’s conduct reflects a regulatory mindset that prioritizes control over technical reality. By compelling a global DNS operator to implement local censorship orders, the agency demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how internet infrastructure functions. DNS services like Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 do not operate on national boundaries, and forcing them to filter queries risks creating fragmented, inconsistent access across networks. This approach undermines reliability and transparency, while exposing ordinary users to arbitrary disruptions. Instead of addressing piracy through measured, rights-based enforcement, AGCOM has opted for blunt coercion that endangers both the neutrality of the network and the principle of free access to information. Cloudflare is expected to appeal the fine. The company has repeatedly stated that Piracy Shield lacks proper oversight and violates principles of due process. Similar global providers, such as Google and OpenDNS, are watching closely, as the outcome could determine whether countries can compel DNS operators to enforce national blocking laws. AGCOM says it intends to keep expanding the program. Since February 2024, the regulator reports that 65,000 domain names and 14,000 IP addresses have been blocked under Piracy Shield. This case as a warning. If a national authority can force a global DNS provider to censor lookups inside its borders, the precedent may encourage others to extend similar powers. The underlying risk is that tools built to target piracy could evolve into mechanisms that limit access to lawful information, gradually eroding the neutrality of core internet infrastructure. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Censors Strike Back: Italy’s Crusade Against the Open Internet appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The German political establishment has been thrown into a new controversy after Schleswig-Holstein’s Prime Minister Daniel Günther (CDU) publicly urged tighter state regulation of media outlets and social networks, declaring that some platforms are “opponents and enemies of democracy.” His televised comments have reignited the country’s ongoing struggle over how far the state should go in policing speech. Günther warned that “democracy will not be recognized in Germany in ten years” unless civil society takes a tougher stand against what he called “excesses.” When pressed by the host about whether his approach implied regulation, censorship, or even bans, he replied without hesitation: “Yes. That’s what we’re talking about.” He went on to propose barring anyone under sixteen from social networks, a move that would require full age verification for all users. Günther said the state should work directly with large technology companies “similar to what Australia has done,” in order to protect minors “from disinformation” and “from sexual assault.” The CDU premier also lashed out at independent media. His remarks drew immediate resistance across the political spectrum. Volker Boehme-Neßler, professor of constitutional law, said he was “shocked at how little understanding and how little feeling for freedom of expression a German prime minister has.” He emphasized that freedom of speech extends even to opinions many find absurd or false: “You are allowed to say nonsense. That is part of freedom of opinion and media, as long as it does not constitute incitement to hatred and is not punishable by law.” Within Günther’s own ranks, dissent surfaced quickly. Jan Jacobi, a CDU regional chairman in Potsdam, wrote on X: “I am appalled at how a CDU prime minister fantasises about which opinions should still be permitted in our country.” Yet others inside the party backed Günther’s view, with former general secretary Ruprecht Polenz stating: “Günther is completely right.” CDU leader Friedrich Merz and general secretary Carsten Linnemann opted to stay silent. The sharpest rebukes came from outside the CDU. FDP deputy leader Wolfgang Kubicki denounced Günther’s stance as “absolutely unacceptable, authoritarian ramblings” and warned him to keep his “hands off press freedom.” AfD co-leader Alice Weidel called the proposal “authoritarian madness,” adding: “Whoever abolishes freedom of opinion is themselves an enemy of the constitution!” Günther’s televised comments have widened a divide that has been building in Germany for years. While the government insists it is combating “disinformation,” its increasing cooperation with major online platforms and use of speech laws has repeatedly been challenged in court. A federal court overturned the government’s attempt to ban the conservative magazine Compact on free-expression grounds, and journalist David Bendels continues to face prosecution for a satirical meme mocking then interior minister Nancy Faeser. What unites these episodes is a pattern. Political leaders confronted with dissenting voices no longer seem willing to argue with them. Instead, they turn to regulatory power, administrative bans, or content-policing partnerships with private corporations. Günther’s remarks crystallize this shift, the idea that speech itself, not violence or crime, must be managed by the state. As Germany’s constitution guarantees broad protection for opinion and media freedom, Günther’s call for censorship has alarmed many who see it as an erosion of the principles upon which the republic was built. Whether his proposal gains traction or collapses under public resistance may signal how committed Germany remains to the idea that open debate, not government filtering, is the foundation of democracy. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post German Premier Daniel Günther Faces Uproar Over Call to Censor Media and Social Platforms appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Minneapolis On the Edge

The Orlando Sentinel's banner front-page headline on Wednesday twisted an already over-credulous Associated Press dispatch from Caracas into a full-fledged scandal implicating the United States and Donald Trump in war crimes. “Venezuela calls deaths ‘war crime’” included a photo of a menacing Trump speaking at a GOP retreat. (The AP story has been updated since Wednesday morning’s print version appeared in the Sentinel -- the linked piece above now includes details about Venezuelan oil to the headline and at the front of the story.) The Sentinel, which is becoming notorious for its nasty banner stories, was one of the few if any newspapers, at least in America, that borrowed such harsh blame-America language in a banner headline. Regina Garcia Cano, Aamer Madhani and Megan Janetsky contributed to the AP story, which had more favorable facts deeper inside about what was a wildly successful extraction mission that the Sentinel could have worked into a more informative and balanced headline. CARACAS, Venezuela - At least 24 Venezuelan security officers were killed in the dead-of-night U.S. military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro and spirit him to the United States to face drug charges, officials said Tuesday. Venezuela's Attorney General Tarek William Saab said overall "dozens" of officials and civilians were killed in the strike and that prosecutors would investigate the deaths in what he described as a "war crime." He didn't specify if the estimate was specifically referring to Venezuelans. In addition to the Venezuelan security officials, Cuba's government on Sunday announced that 32 Cuban military and police officers working in Venezuela were killed in the raid. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Monday said U.S. officials believe that the Cuban government, which provided Maduro with security protection in Caracas, was undercounting the death toll of its personnel. Some of the wording was unnecessarily fulsome to Maduro's security personnel. The U.S. has said some of the nearly 200 U.S. personnel who took part in the operation were injured, but none were killed. The Pentagon has not provided any details about the injuries despite multiple inquiries over several days. A video tribute to the slain Venezuelan security officials posted to the military's Instagram features faces of the fallen over black-and-white videos of soldiers, American aircraft flying over Caracas and armored vehicles destroyed by the blasts. "Their spilled blood does not cry out for vengeance, but for justice and strength," the military wrote in an Instagram post. "It reaffirms our unwavering oath not to rest until we rescue our legitimate President, completely dismantle the terrorist groups operating from abroad, and ensure that events such as these never again sully our sovereign soil." President Donald Trump on Tuesday pushed back against Democratic criticism of this weekend's military operation, noting that his Democratic predecessor President Joe Biden had also called for the arrest of the Venezuelan leader on drug trafficking charges. A few days earlier, Madhani penned a dispatch with this provocative title: "After Maduro capture, Trump’s tough talk evokes a return to the days of American imperialism."

Most drivers don’t expect to hear from the federal government — unless something has gone very wrong.But this month, more than 168,000 Americans opened their mailboxes to find checks from the Federal Trade Commission, tied to a case that exposed widespread deception in the vehicle service contract industry.The FTC’s action may be a turning point, signaling that regulators are paying close attention to misleading automotive advertising.The fallout is significant: More than $9.6 million is being returned to consumers who were misled and often left paying for repairs they believed were covered by CarShield and American Auto Shield.It’s one of the largest automotive-related refunds of the year — and it raises serious questions about how these companies operate, what consumers should watch for, and whether the settlement goes far enough.Scam watchAfter years investigating automotive scams and pushing for transparency, I can say this case highlights a deeper problem: service contract companies relying on aggressive marketing, inflated promises, and fine print that favors the seller.In July 2024, CarShield and American Auto Shield — two of the most recognizable names in the extended warranty business — agreed to pay nearly $10 million to settle an FTC complaint. The allegations included misleading advertising, deceptive telemarketing, and coverage claims that didn’t match reality.Many drivers believed they were buying protection for major repairs, sometimes paying up to $120 a month. When problems arose, they discovered that coverage often disappeared behind exclusions, denials, and carefully crafted contract language.Cover storyAccording to the FTC, the companies advertised that virtually all repairs — or all repairs to “covered” systems — would be paid. Drivers were told they could use any repair shop and receive free rental cars during breakdowns. Instead, many were stuck with bills they thought they had avoided.The FTC argued these claims persuaded consumers to buy service contracts that failed to deliver. Under the settlement, both companies must stop deceptive marketing practices and ensure that endorsements and testimonials reflect real, verifiable customer experiences — an important change given how central celebrity endorsements were to their advertising.Checks and balancesRefunds are already under way. Checks have been mailed to 168,179 affected drivers and must be cashed within 90 days. No banking information or payment is required. Consumers with questions are directed to the refund administrator or the FTC’s website.This action is part of a broader FTC push to hold companies accountable in industries where consumers are easily confused or misled. In 2024 alone, FTC enforcement returned more than $339 million to consumers nationwide. Automotive issues remain a major focus because unexpected repair costs can quickly become a financial burden.Vehicle service contracts — often sold as “extended warranties” — can be useful when offered clearly and honestly. Too often, however, consumers are sold peace of mind that turns into high monthly payments and denied claims, with exclusions overwhelming any real benefit.RELATED: Ford just lost $20 billion on its EV investment Bloomberg/Getty ImagesNew scrutinyThe FTC’s move may signal a shift toward tougher oversight of automotive advertising. Whether it leads to broader industry reform remains to be seen, but companies using vague language and unrealistic promises are clearly facing more scrutiny.Drivers deserve clear information and coverage that matches what is advertised. This case is a reminder to stay skeptical: If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.Bottom line: Big print gives, small print takes away. Read the contract carefully — because most of these deals simply aren’t worth it.

Despite a relationship spanning more than 20 years, President Donald Trump said he will not intervene in Sean "Diddy" Combs' jail sentence.Combs is currently serving a 50-month prison sentence after being charged for two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution in 2025.'I was very friendly with him. I got along with him great and seemed like a nice guy.'After the president stated in October that Combs had asked him for a pardon, he recently confirmed to the New York Times that the request came in the form of a letter.Pardon meThe two-hour interview with the Times serves as the first official confirmation that the letter to the president exists, with Trump allegedly saying he was willing to show it off to reporters, but ultimately did not.Trump reportedly told the outlet that Combs "asked me for a pardon," which was "through a letter," but revealed he is not considering granting the request.RELATED: Diddy's Big Circus Photo by Sonia Moskowitz/Getty Images"I have a lot of people [who] have asked me for pardons," the president said in October. "I call him Puff Daddy, has asked me for a pardon," he added, referring to one of Combs' previous aliases as an artist.Friendship ended?As Blaze News reported, Trump told Newsmax in 2025 that the two had a prior relationship, but Diddy apparently made remarks that turned the president sour."I was very friendly with him. I got along with him great and seemed like a nice guy. I didn't know him well. But when I ran for office, he was very hostile. And it's hard. Like you, we're human beings, and we don't like to have things cloud our judgment. But when you knew someone and you were fine, and then you run for office and he made some terrible statements.""He was essentially, I guess, sort of half-innocent," Trump included.RELATED: 25 years later, the gaming console that caused so much chaos is still No. 1 Photo by Richard Corkery/NY Daily News Archive via Getty ImagesCombs overRecently, Combs has asked an appeals court to overturn his convictions and release him from jail.A report from the BBC said Diddy's attorney made the argument that the producer was improperly sentenced and that his conduct was not criminal in nature.In addition, photos have resurfaced of Trump and Combs standing side by side, appearing to get along in 1998. The photos were taken at the Mercedes-Benz Polo Challenge in Bridgehampton, Long Island.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek Says State is 'Shaken and Outraged' at Shooting of Tren de Aragua Gangbanger

New Video Puts the Final Mushroom Cloud Over Lying Adam Schiff's BS Talking Points About MN ICE Shooting