If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Wisconsin legislators have found a new villain in their quest to save people from themselves: the Virtual Private Network. The state’s latest moral technology initiative, split into Assembly Bill 105 and Senate Bill 130, would force adult websites to verify user ages and ban anyone connecting through a VPN. It passed the Assembly in March and now waits in the Senate, where someone will have to pretend this is enforceable. Supporters are selling the plan as a way to “protect minors from explicit material.” The bill’s machinery reads like a privacy demolition project written by people who still call tech support to reset passwords. The law would apply to any site that “knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors.” It then defines that material as anything lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” The wording is broad enough to rope in half the internet, yet somehow manages to exclude “bona fide news” (as to be determined by the state) and cloud platforms that don’t create the content themselves. Whether that covers social media depends on who you ask: lawyers, lobbyists, or whichever intern wrote the definitions section. The bill instructs websites to delete verification data after access is granted or denied. That sounds good until you recall how the tech industry handles deletion promises. Au10tix left user records exposed for a year after pledging to delete them within 30 days. Tea suffered multiple breaches despite assurances of immediate deletion. In the real world, “deleted” often means “archived on an unsecured server until a hacker finds it.” The headline feature is a rule penalizing anyone who uses a VPN to access restricted material. VPNs encrypt internet traffic and disguise user locations, which lawmakers apparently see as a threat to order. The logic is that if people can hide their IP addresses, the state can’t check their ID to ensure they’re old enough to view certain content. That’s technically true and philosophically disturbing. Officials in other places are already cheering this idea. Michigan introduced a proposal requiring internet providers to detect and block VPN traffic. If Wisconsin adopts the rule, VPN users would become collateral damage. Journalists, activists, and everyday users who rely on encryption for safety would be swept up in the ban. The bill’s VPN clause is built on a fantasy of control that ignores how the internet works. VPNs use encryption and obfuscation to hide their traffic, making it nearly impossible for websites to detect them if the VPN provider implements enough measures. To comply, adult sites would have to block every VPN connection worldwide or collect biometric data from users to prove identity. Either approach would create new privacy risks while pretending to solve an old one. As always, lawmakers insist they’re protecting children. But the bill’s real achievement is to turn privacy itself into something suspicious. By targeting VPNs and forcing ID checks, the legislation pushes the internet toward a future where every click is tagged with your real name and birthdate, waiting for the next data breach to make it public. Wisconsin’s plan imagines a digital world policed by filters, IDs, and trust in the very corporations that keep leaking personal data. If this is what child safety looks like, it’s hard to tell where protection ends and surveillance begins. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Wisconsin Lawmakers Propose VPN Ban and ID Checks on Adult Sites appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Federal regulators are now investigating JPMorgan Chase following allegations that the bank may have shut out customers for political or ideological reasons, an issue that gained national attention after President Donald Trump said his accounts were rejected. In its latest quarterly filing, JPMorgan disclosed that it is “responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers.” The statement confirms that officials are reviewing how the bank determines who can access its services. According to the company, the review stems from an executive order Trump issued in August that directed regulators to investigate whether financial institutions had engaged in “politicized or unlawful debanking.” Trump issued the directive after accusing major banks of closing the accounts of politically active people. The former president claimed that soon after leaving office, JPMorgan and Bank of America refused to accept more than $1 million in deposits. “I was loaded up with cash, and they told me, ‘I’m sorry, sir, we can’t have you. You have 20 days to get out.’ I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding. I’ve been with you for 35, 40 years,” Trump said. First Lady Melania Trump has also said her personal bank account was closed shortly after the January 6 events at the Capitol. In January, Trump criticized Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan during the World Economic Forum in Davos. “I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank,” Trump said in a video message. “And I don’t know if the regulators mandated that because of Biden or what…I hope you’re going to open your banks to conservatives, because what you’re doing is wrong.” Bank of America, in its own recent report, confirmed that it is “responding to demands and requests regarding ‘fair access to banking’” as part of the same inquiry. The bank declined to comment, and JPMorgan did not respond to media questions. Over the last five years, businesses connected to cryptocurrency, gun rights advocacy, religion, or conservative political movements have reported losing access to banking services. These closures were often attributed to so-called “reputation risk” concerns. Banking associations argue that regulatory pressure surrounding politically exposed clients has caused institutions to become overly cautious about whom they accept. Trump’s executive order directs agencies to examine how “reputation risk” policies have been used to justify closing accounts for customers with controversial views. The order noted that those affected have “suffered frozen payrolls, debt and crushing interest, and other significant harms to their livelihoods, reputations, and financial well-being.” If regulators determine that banks discriminated against customers for political reasons, financial institutions could face fines or enforcement measures. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Regulators Probe JPMorgan Over Alleged Political Account Bans appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Australia’s continuing clash over online speech has deepened after the Federal Court ordered Telegram to define the limits of its lawsuit against eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant by November 7. The directive followed complaints from the regulator that Telegram had widened its challenge beyond what it originally filed, introducing new arguments at a late stage. The dispute centers on the controversial Online Safety Act 2021, which gives the eSafety Commissioner broad authority to demand information from online platforms about their handling of “harmful” content and to impose penalties for non-compliance. Telegram is challenging both the Commissioner’s authority under that law and the A$957,780 ($622k) fine issued earlier this year after it allegedly missed a reporting deadline. In March 2024, eSafety issued notices to six major technology companies, including Google, Meta, X, Reddit, WhatsApp, and Telegram. The notices required detailed reports about how each company was combating material connected to “terror and violent extremism” and demanded responses within 49 days. According to eSafety, Telegram failed to comply within that timeframe, leading to the fine on February 24, 2025. Telegram has rejected both the fine and the regulator’s jurisdiction. The company argues that it is not a “provider of social-media services” under the law and therefore cannot be bound by Section 56(2), which authorizes eSafety to compel cooperation from social media or electronic service providers. Telegram also claims that it never received the March 2024 notice because it was sent to an incorrect address in Dubai and to unrelated email inboxes. The company maintains that it only learned of the request in late August 2024 and still provided responses in October “in circumstances where it was not compelled to do so.” During a recent hearing, eSafety’s lawyer Philip Solomon said Telegram had suddenly expanded its case to challenge not only the legality of the reporting notice but also the fine itself. “ We want to know the case we have to meet. We want a fair opportunity to meet it,” Solomon told the court, urging clarity ahead of the next hearing. Judge Christopher Horan agreed, instructing Telegram to confirm by November 7 which arguments it intends to pursue. Any grounds left out of the amended filing will be treated as withdrawn. The case is scheduled for a two-day hearing in December. Telegram’s lawyer, David Klempfner, has criticized the “scope and volume of affidavit material” produced by eSafety, saying the regulator’s approach has complicated what should be a straightforward judicial review. Telegram is seeking to overturn the fine and recover its legal costs. Beyond the procedural fight, the case raises larger questions about the reach of government control over digital communications. Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, has become one of the most polarizing figures in the country’s digital policy world because of her strong support for far-reaching online regulation. Her office has given itself extensive powers under the Online Safety Act, enabling it to demand reports from technology companies, order the removal or restriction of content, and impose significant fines for non-compliance. While her supporters argue that these measures are essential to address online abuse and harmful material, others see them as an excessive extension of government authority into the realm of free expression. By allowing a regulator to define what counts as “harmful content,” the law gives broad discretion that many believe could lead to the suppression of lawful speech simply because it is unpopular or politically inconvenient. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Telegram Pushes Back as Australia’s Online Censorship Battle Heats Up appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Mythical Games has entered into a partnership with Sam Altman’s World ID project to bring biometric identity checks into its gaming ecosystem, a move that is drawing new scrutiny over the use of real-world ID tools in digital entertainment. The collaboration will introduce World ID verification across major Mythical titles, including NFL Rivals, FIFA Rivals, and Pudgy Party. The system relies on biometric scans to confirm that players are genuine humans, a method the companies say will reduce bot-driven fraud, leaderboard tampering, and manipulation of in-game economies. Yet linking gameplay to biometric data has raised concern among privacy advocates, who warn that it could normalize intrusive identification practices in everyday online experiences. “Mythical is teaming up with World to bring proof of human and trust into the next era of gaming,” said John Linden, CEO of Mythical Games. “Our goal is to make every player (whether in FIFA Rivals, Pudgy Party, or NFL Rivals) part of a verified global economy where digital ownership and fair play are guaranteed.” More: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Pitches Eyeball-Scanning World ID to Bankers Ajay Patel, Head of World ID at Tools for Humanity, framed the partnership as essential in the face of increasingly capable AI systems. “Proof of human restores trust to that equation,” Patel said. “By integrating it into Mythical’s ecosystem, we’re giving millions of gamers the ability to prove they’re real and ensuring that ownership, creativity, and competition all remain human.” The two companies are also working together on Mythos Chain, a new Layer 3 blockchain that will operate on top of World Chain’s Layer 2 infrastructure. World’s iris-scanning verification has faced repeated regulatory challenges in various countries, largely due to questions about how biometric data is collected, stored, and potentially shared. Linking such data to gaming accounts, often involving minors and large global audiences, has raised concerns that personal identifiers could become another layer of information vulnerable to misuse. World, formerly known as Worldcoin, has continued to expand its “proof of humanity” network worldwide, marketing it as a way to protect authenticity in the age of AI. However, concerns remain about whether biometric authentication should be treated as a prerequisite for participation in online economies. World, which rebranded from Worldcoin earlier this year, continues to roll out its iris-scanning identity system worldwide under the banner of “proof of humanity.” While the company presents it as a safeguard against AI impersonation and online fraud, its reliance on biometric data has triggered investigations in several regions over privacy and data protection concerns. Regulators have questioned how sensitive eye-scan information is stored, who can access it, and whether users can meaningfully consent to such collection. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Mythical Games Integrates Sam Altman’s World ID for Player Verification appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Calls for wider deployment of live facial recognition technology have intensified following Saturday’s knife attack on a train in Cambridgeshire, England, an incident that left 11 passengers injured and a railway worker fighting for his life. Both the UK government and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp have voiced support for expanding surveillance capabilities, arguing that the technology can help police identify offenders more effectively. A Home Office spokesperson told The Telegraph that “facial recognition tools are vital in helping police tackle crime, protect the public and bring offenders to justice” and added: “The minister for Policing and Crime has been clear that she wants the police to use facial recognition more widely. That’s why we will soon be launching a public consultation to support a responsible increase in its use.” Philp, writing separately in The Telegraph, urged a nationwide rollout of live facial recognition in public spaces such as town centers and train stations, alongside a dramatic increase in stop and search operations to “take far more knives off the street.” The stabbing occurred on a high-speed train bound for London after it departed Peterborough at around 7:30 p.m. Witnesses described a chaotic scene as passengers tried to escape or hide, with some using their clothes to stop the bleeding of those injured. According to police, the attacker, a 32-year-old British national, was armed with a large kitchen knife and was eventually subdued by armed officers after shouting “kill me, kill me.” Police have ruled out terrorism but continue to investigate the motive. An LNER employee who attempted to intervene remains in critical condition, while other passengers were praised for acts of courage that likely prevented further casualties. The push for increased use of facial recognition comes as privacy advocates continue to raise concerns about unchecked surveillance and its potential misuse. Although the Home Office insists the upcoming consultation will promote “responsible” use, campaigners have long warned that live facial recognition risks normalizing mass monitoring of the public and eroding civil liberties without sufficient oversight or transparency. *** The Metropolitan Police has revealed that it scanned more than three million faces across London using live facial recognition between September 2024 and September 2025, a figure that shows the growing scale of mass biometric surveillance in the UK. The force’s own data shows that these millions of scans produced only 962 arrests, meaning that roughly 99.97% of the people captured by the cameras were not suspected of any crime. Statistically, this equates to over 3,000 innocent individuals being scanned for every single arrest. Of those arrests, 113 led to no further action, suggesting that many of the identifications failed to result in charges or prosecutions. The report also revealed that 16 arrests were related to “Telecommunications” offenses, but it provided no explanation of what those crimes entailed. The absence of detail has prompted speculation that some identifications may have been linked to online activity, though the Met has not confirmed any connection. The data also recorded 10 false alerts, cases where the system incorrectly matched a person’s face to someone on a watchlist. Jasleen Chaggar, Legal & Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch, said it was “alarming that over 3 million people have been scanned with police facial recognition cameras in the past year in London alone.” Chaggar condemned the technology as “an Orwellian and authoritarian technology that treats millions of innocent people like suspects and risks serious injustice,” and urged the government to immediately halt its use. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Knife Attack Fuels Renewed Push for Facial Recognition appeared first on Reclaim The Net.