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.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Keir Starmer has signaled he is prepared to back regulatory action that could ultimately result in X being blocked in the UK. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has suggested, more or less, that because Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has been generating images of women and minors in bikinis, he’ll support going as far as hitting the kill switch and blocking access to the entire platform. “The situation is disgraceful and disgusting,” Starmer said on Greatest Hits Radio; the station best known for playing ABBA and now, apparently, for frontline authoritarian tech policy announcements. “X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action…I’ve asked for all options to be on the table.” “All options,” for those who don’t speak fluent Whitehall euphemism, now apparently includes turning Britain’s digital infrastructure into a sort of beige North Korea, where a bunch of government bureaucrats, armed with nothing but Online Safety Act censorship law and the panic of a 90s tabloid, get to decide which speech the public is allowed to see. Now, you might be wondering: Surely he’s bluffing? Oh no. According to Downing Street sources, they’re quite serious. And they’ve even named the mechanism: the Online Safety Act; that cheery little piece of legislation that sounds like it’s going to help grandmothers avoid email scams, but actually gives Ofcom the power to block platforms, fine them into oblivion, or ban them entirely if they don’t comply with government censorship orders. More: Keir Starmer’s Censorship Playbook Ofcom, the country’s media regulator, is now in “urgent contact” with both X and xAI, Grok’s parent company, after reports that users were using the chatbot to generate images of real people in bikinis. UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Liz Kendall told Ofcom it should consider blocking X in the UK, that she expects action in “days not weeks,” and that Ofcom would have the “full backing of the government” if it used blocking powers. But here’s the problem. In the government’s fury over Grok and its users, they’re now open to ban an entire global communications platform. The equivalent of bulldozing the post office because someone sent a rude postcard. People have been using Photoshop to create fake, explicit, deeply creepy images for decades. If you had a PC, half a clue, and a little too much time in the early 2000s, you could slap a celebrity’s face onto anything you wanted; with results that ranged from ridiculous to criminal. And nobody suggested shutting down Adobe, or banning Microsoft Paint, or arresting the paperclip from Word for aiding and abetting. Because, and this used to be common sense: the tool is not the crime. But now, with AI, all that reason goes out the window. Grok, Midjourney, DALL·E; you name it. These systems don’t wake up in the morning and decide to be pervy. They generate what they’re told to generate. That’s it. They don’t have taste, they don’t have shame, and they certainly don’t have a moral compass. They have some restraints, but they can easily be overcome if people know how to prompt. This will always be true. They’re glorified suggestion boxes that vomit out whatever the user types in. If someone prompts an AI to produce a woman in a bikini and you think that’s a problem, that someone is the problem; not the platform, not the algorithm, and not the wires it’s running on. You can do the exact same thing with a pencil and paper. In fact, some of the most disturbing imagery ever created didn’t come out of a neural net. It came from human hands, in basements, bedrooms, and badly lit studios. But we’re not banning Bic pens. We’re not raiding Staples because someone bought a sketchpad and had dark thoughts. Predictably, Elon Musk is not thrilled. He has accused the UK government of attempting to “suppress the people.” “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” Musk added, putting the blame on the users, not the tool. It’s not just Elon either. Sarah B Rogers, the US Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, warned: “Erecting a ‘Great Wall’ to ban X, or lobotomizing AI, is neither tailored nor thoughtful.” President Trump has previously referred to the UK’s online censorship law as as “not a good thing,” and while Keir Starmer is playing Internet Emperor, Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican congresswoman who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is calling out the UK’s absurd overreach and threatening to bring legislation to sanction both Starmer and the country if he goes ahead with his tantrum. Some of the images in question are inappropriate. Some are satire. But they’re not being created by X itself. They’re being created by users. People. And even with guardrails on Grok, there are always ways to prompt your way around them. So even though there are likely millions of tools that can put a woman in a bikini, why is Starmer threatening to support the blocking of the entirety of X? When BBC News host Huw Edwards was convicted of having actual images of child abuse and only received a suspended sentence, Starmer famously said: “As far as the sentence is concerned, I mean, that is for the court to decide.” Without even getting into the hypocrisy of Starmer, his duplicity means what we’re looking at here is less about child protection and more about a government flailing in the age of AI, social media, and digital speech it no longer understands or controls. The government is looking for any excuse to suppress one of the biggest thorns in its side. It’s political theater; the kind that looks strong on morning television but crumbles under scrutiny. What makes that clear is that plenty of other AI systems can do the exact same thing Grok’s being dragged over the coals for. OpenAI’s image models have slipped up. Some AI image generators have whole fanbases built around photorealistic deepfakes of celebrities. There are dodgy Discord bots out there generating worse in seconds, with less scrutiny and zero accountability. But none of those platforms are being threatened with a national ban. And let’s not kid ourselves here: X is one of the last places online where you can still talk about things Keir Starmer would really, really rather you didn’t. Ever since Elon Musk got his hands on Twitter, the platform has become a giant headache for the political establishment, and not just because people keep replying to their speeches with clown emojis. The real reason they hate it is that it’s torched their grip on the flow of information. X moves faster than the official narrative. Way faster. Before a newsroom has even had time to spin up a headline, the footage is already out there; raw, unedited, and usually filmed by someone on the ground with a phone and zero interest in protecting anyone’s PR strategy. Leaks, whistleblowers, inconvenient facts: they don’t wait for permission to speak anymore, they just hit “post.” It’s also true that the major platform Keir Starmer’s government is gearing up to punish, with the full force of Ofcom and the legal system revving like a bulldozer, is also the only major platform where he gets roasted in real time. X is where Starmer gets community-noted, quote-tweeted, and ratio’d into orbit every time he opens his mouth. So now the platform isn’t only a tech problem. It’s a PR problem. And in modern politics, that’s the only kind anyone actually takes seriously. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Starmer’s Looking for an Excuse to Ban X appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Become a Member and Keep Reading… Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back. Join Already a supporter? Sign In. (If you’re already logged in but still seeing this, refresh this page to show the post.) The post The Year of the Linux Desktop appeared first on Reclaim The Net.