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 How to Keep Your Encryption Keys Out of Big Tech’s Hands appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Britain’s policing system, we are told, is broken. And on Monday, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced that the fix would arrive in the form of algorithms, facial recognition vans, and a large check made out to the future. The government plans to spend £140m ($191M) on artificial intelligence and related technology, with the promise that it will free up six million police hours a year, the equivalent of 3,000 officers. It is being billed as the biggest overhaul of policing in England and Wales in 200 years, aimed at dragging a creaking system into the modern world. The ambition is serious. The implications are too. The plan is for AI software that will analyze CCTV, doorbell, and mobile phone footage, detect deepfakes, carry out digital forensics, and handle administrative tasks such as form filling, redaction, and transcription. Mahmood’s argument is that criminals are getting smarter, while parts of the police service are stuck with tools that belong to another era. She put it plainly: “Criminals are operating in increasingly sophisticated ways. However, some police forces are still fighting crime with analogue methods.” And she promised results: “We will roll out state-of-the-art tech to get more officers on the streets and put rapists and murderers behind bars.” There is logic here. Few people would argue that trained officers should be buried in paperwork. Technology can help with that. The concern is what else comes with it. Live facial recognition is being expanded aggressively. The number of police vans equipped with the technology will increase fivefold, from ten to fifty, operating across the country. These systems scan faces in public spaces and compare them to watch lists of wanted individuals. This is a form of mass surveillance and when automated systems get things wrong, the consequences fall on real people. That is true for Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime campaigner, who was wrongly caught in the Metropolitan Police’s facial recognition tech. Earlier this month, Mahmood took a tone explicitly embracing the logic of the panopticon rather than warning against it. She argued that the knowledge of being observed can itself deter crime, describing visibility and certainty as powerful tools in modern policing. In her account, technology that makes offenders feel watched is not a threat to public life but a feature of a safer one, provided it is deployed by the state rather than left to chance or private actors. Mahmood said: “When the future arrives, there are always doubters. 100 years ago, fingerprinting was decried as curtailing our civil liberties. But today, we could not imagine policing without it. “I have no doubt the same will prove true of facial recognition technology in the years to come.” Facial recognition is not the same as fingerprinting because it operates at a distance and without active participation. Fingerprints are taken after arrest or with consent, in controlled settings, and they sit quietly in databases until a specific investigative need arises. Facial recognition works in public spaces, scanning faces automatically as people go about their lives, many of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing, and checking them against databases. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Britain To Roll Out Facial Recognition in Police Overhaul appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A federal jury has determined that officials at Marlin Independent School District (ISD) violated the constitutional rights of several parents and students after the families criticized school leadership on social media, delivering a verdict that affirms the right to challenge public officials without fear of reprisal. The decision ends nearly two years of conflict between the district, located southeast of Waco, and several parents who accused administrators of using school authority to punish them for expressing dissent. Jurors awarded the plaintiffs more than $7.5 million in damages, including $4 million in punitive awards against former Superintendent Dr. Darryl J. Henson and Chief of Police John Simmons. It began in May 2023 when Henson delayed the high school graduation ceremony, saying that only five seniors had met the required standards to graduate. Parents and students quickly disputed that claim, stating that most of the class had in fact completed their coursework. The decision provoked widespread anger, both in the community and online, as parents questioned Henson’s leadership and circulated a petition demanding his removal. Among those who spoke out were Monica Johnson, Brandolyn, and Clifford Jones. Their criticism, according to court records, triggered a series of retaliatory actions. The parents said that their children’s grades were changed, that they were banned from district property under criminal trespass orders, and that officials used legal threats to silence them. One student, valedictorian Me’Kia Mouling, was blocked from delivering her graduation speech after her mother challenged the superintendent publicly. The complaint, filed in February 2024, stated that Marlin ISD officials “acted in concert and conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their First Amendment rights because of their viewpoints.” The document cited public statements, petitions, and social media posts as the basis for the targeting. Henson and Simmons denied the allegations and claimed that the district had endured a “relentless campaign of misinformation.” Jurors, however, heard testimony that most of the seniors were eligible to graduate, and they rejected the district’s defense completely. Before filing the lawsuit, Johnson and the Jones family pursued grievances with both the Texas Education Agency and the district itself. Because of earlier Texas grievance procedures, Henson was allowed to review and decide a complaint that named him directly. He ruled in his own favor, a fact later used in court to show how little oversight existed at the district level. Tensions escalated when West & Associates LLP, the Dallas law firm that also represents State Senator Royce West, sent cease and desist letters on February 12, 2024, to Johnson and Jones. The letters accused them of defamation for their social media posts and demanded that they stop commenting about the district and Henson. That threat prompted the families to move forward with the lawsuit, Johnson v. Henson. At trial, the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) argued that school officials had intentionally punished parents and students for protected speech. The group said administrators altered grades, restricted campus access, and used intimidation tactics rather than addressing concerns through lawful means. Evidence presented in court showed that these actions were directed at families who had criticized district leadership. The jury sided with the parents and students. It found that the defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that student plaintiff Addai Jones was also subjected to discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The damages included $3,753,437 against Henson and $254,762 against Simmons. “This verdict sends a clear message that public officials cannot use their authority to silence parents or punish students for speaking out,” said Janelle Davis, lead attorney for PJI, in a statement sent to Reclaim The Net. “School districts are entrusted with educating children, not intimidating families who demand accountability. The Constitution protects the right to challenge government misconduct, and this jury affirmed that principle.” PJI President Brad Dacus said, “This jury stood up for the First Amendment and reminded every school district that the Constitution is not optional. The jury’s decision reinforces that public school officials are not above the law and will be held accountable when they violate the constitutional rights of parents and students.” Following the verdict, Marlin ISD released a brief statement: “The District is currently reviewing the verdict with its legal team to evaluate all post-trial motions. It is important to note that under federal law, there are rigorous standards for municipal liability and qualified immunity. … Because this remains an active legal matter pending further judicial review, the district will have no further comment at this time.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Jury Awards $7.5M After Texas School Officials Violate Parents’ and Students’ First Amendment Rights appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. European regulators have launched a new investigation into Elon Musk’s X, focusing on alleged failures to control sexually explicit imagery generated by the company’s AI chatbot, Grok. The case is being pursued under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that grants the European Commission expansive powers to police digital platforms for potential “harms.” In a statement, the Commission said, “The new investigation will assess whether the company properly assessed and mitigated risks associated with the deployment of Grok’s functionalities into X in the EU.” The agency added that the review includes “risks related to the dissemination of illegal content in the EU, such as manipulated sexually explicit images, including content that may amount to child sexual abuse material.” Officials stated that these threats “seem to have materialized, exposing citizens in the EU to serious harm.” More: Democrats Demand Apple and Google Ban X From App Stores  The Commission’s decision to open a full probe follows reports that Grok could be used to create or edit sexualized images. Musk’s company said it had “implemented technological measures” to prevent the Grok account on X “from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis.” It also limited Grok’s image-editing functions on X to paid subscribers, while the separate Grok application, operating outside the public platform, still allows non-paying users to generate AI imagery. What stands out about this investigation is not the issue itself, but who is being singled out. The ability to produce manipulated sexual imagery is not unique to Grok. Similar behavior has been observed in systems developed by other AI providers that can be prompted, sometimes indirectly, to produce sexualized or non-consensual images. Yet, none of those companies has been subjected to a comparable EU enforcement action or public investigation under the DSA. This selective scrutiny has prompted questions about whether the European Commission is applying its new powers evenly or whether X has become a political test case. Musk’s open criticism of EU content censorship laws and his stated opposition to government-imposed restrictions on speech have frequently drawn public friction with European officials. The timing of multiple investigations into X, while other platforms with similar technical capabilities face limited oversight, suggests that the Commission may be using the DSA as leverage against one of the few major platforms challenging regulatory orthodoxy. US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers previously said, “Deepfakes are a troubling, frontier issue that call for tailored, thoughtful responses. Erecting a ‘Great Firewall’ to ban X, or lobotomizing AI, is neither tailored nor thoughtful. We stand ready to work with the EU on better ideas.” Her statement shows growing unease about government responses that risk suppressing lawful expression in pursuit of technological control. The EU’s pressure on X adds to the company’s existing legal troubles. In December 2025, the Commission fined X 120 million euros ($142.3 million) for violations tied to its content recommendation systems, also under the DSA. The earlier probe began in 2023 and focused on how X amplifies information across its network. The DSA’s broad design gives regulators discretion to define what constitutes “systemic risk,” a term that now encompasses generative AI models. While the regulation’s stated purpose is to safeguard users, its implementation has raised concerns about arbitrary enforcement and the potential for political targeting. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Targets X (Again) in Grok AI Probe appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. TikTok’s American operations are entering a new phase under a recently finalized joint venture with US investors, and one of its first moves has been to broaden the kinds of personal data it can gather. A freshly published privacy policy confirms that the platform may now “collect precise location data, depending on your settings,” a marked change from its earlier limit to “approximate” location tracking. The timing of the change coincides with the formal separation of TikTok’s US business from direct control by its Chinese parent, ByteDance. The deal, completed last week, places the US branch under TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, a consortium that includes Oracle, Silver Lake, and Abu Dhabi’s MGX. ByteDance will keep just under a 20 percent stake. While TikTok has said the new measures comply with all relevant privacy laws, the update signals a clear expansion in what the company can access about users’ whereabouts. Americans using TikTok can disable the feature through device settings, and the company says location sharing will remain optional and disabled by default when the change takes effect. Previously, the app drew only on information such as IP addresses and SIM data to estimate where users were located, avoiding direct GPS collection. That approach was spelled out in TikTok’s 2024 US privacy policy, which explicitly stated that even approximate GPS coordinates were not being recorded from American users. The new venture appears poised to alter that boundary. In the U.K. and Europe, TikTok already gathers precise location information to support a “Nearby Feed,” which recommends local businesses and events. The same system is expected to arrive in the US, though no rollout date has been announced. The revised policy also broadens what the company can record about how people use its artificial intelligence features. Prompts entered by users and metadata about when and where AI-generated material is created will now be included in TikTok’s US data collection. Oracle, which chairs the new partnership and manages the platform’s American data infrastructure, said the algorithm guiding TikTok’s recommendations “will be secured in Oracle’s US cloud environment.” The company added that it will handle retraining of the algorithm using existing US user data. Oracle’s chairman, Larry Ellison, has previously made these thoughts about user data and privacy known. That agreement caps years of political tension between Washington and Beijing. In 2024, US lawmakers passed legislation ordering ByteDance to divest TikTok’s US assets or face a national ban by early 2025. President Trump repeatedly extended the enforcement deadlines, allowing the venture to be finalized this week. The new policy may reassure regulators that control over US user data is being localized, but it also gives TikTok broader rights to gather personal information within US borders. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok’s New US Joint Venture Expands Data Collection to Include Precise Location Tracking appeared first on Reclaim The Net.