If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A federal appeals court has ruled against Nina Jankowicz in her defamation lawsuit against Fox News, finding that the network’s coverage, while harsh and frequently personal, was protected under the First Amendment as opinion or substantially true. The Third Circuit issued its decision on Friday, affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the case. Jankowicz, who served briefly as Executive Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board in 2022, argued that Fox News had targeted her with a smear campaign that misrepresented her role as being pro-censorship. The court concluded that Fox’s statements did not meet the legal standard for defamation. Jankowicz held the DHS position for less than three months. Her role was confined to coordinating and recommending best practices regarding disinformation threats to national security. After the Board’s public announcement in April 2022, Fox News repeatedly criticized both the Board and Jankowicz. Network hosts and guests aired segments calling the Board a “Ministry of Truth” and warned that it posed a danger to free expression. Jankowicz claimed her photo was frequently shown during these broadcasts and that she was personally attacked, described as someone intent on censoring Americans. DHS, along with other officials and even the White House Press Secretary, said that the Board had no enforcement authority. Fox News continued to run segments making the same accusations. One point of focus for Fox was an interview in which Jankowicz discussed Twitter’s Birdwatch initiative. On May 18, 2022, DHS announced that the Board would be paused. Jankowicz was offered a position as a policy advisor but chose to resign. Fox personalities celebrated her departure, claiming she was “booted” or “yanked,” and suggested that her presence had embarrassed the administration. Jankowicz brought a defamation suit against Fox, citing three primary claims. According to the opinion by Judge Restrepo, the court found that the statements highlighted by Jankowicz fell into three categories: that she intended to censor speech, that she was fired from DHS, and that she supported verified Twitter users being able to edit others’ tweets. The judges agreed with the lower court that none of these statements constituted defamation per se under the law. The ruling emphasized that statements must be clearly “of and concerning” the plaintiff to be considered defamatory. Despite Jankowicz’s argument that her image and name were frequently used during Fox’s segments on the Disinformation Governance Board, the court held that this was insufficient. Referencing Rosenblatt v. Baer and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court reiterated that criticism of government entities cannot be automatically equated with personal attacks on individuals within those entities. The panel wrote: “Nor does merely referencing an official in the same segment that a critique of government is made—nor using an official’s photo as ‘a visual placeholder’… show that an ‘attack was read as specifically directed at the plaintiff.’” On the claim that Fox had falsely accused her of pushing censorship, the court concluded the network’s statements fell under constitutionally protected opinion, especially given the political nature of the discourse. The court noted that accusations of “censorship,” “thought control,” or calling Jankowicz “our new disinformation minister” are the kind of “hyperbolic descriptions” commonly found in political debate. The judges ruled that these were not provable statements of fact and thus not defamatory under New York law. “Such an amorphous political accusation cannot be assessed as true or false until the term is given a more precise meaning and thus, these statements lack the precision to give rise to a defamation claim,” the opinion stated. Jankowicz also objected to Fox’s framing of her departure from DHS as a firing. Fox hosts had described her as having been “booted” or “yanked” from her post, while she argued she had voluntarily resigned after the board was paused. But the court found no meaningful difference. It pointed out that the board was effectively shut down and that although she was offered a reassignment, she declined. The opinion concluded: “There was no error in the District Court’s determination that this turbulent departure from DHS had the same gist and sting as a firing.” Finally, the court reviewed statements about Jankowicz’s remarks on Twitter’s “Birdwatch” program, which allows users to add context to tweets. Fox hosts had claimed she wanted to let verified users “edit” other users’ posts. The court said that interpretation was “substantially true,” quoting her own words where she described Birdwatch as a system that would let users “essentially start to ‘edit’ Twitter.” Even though she included caveats about the limitations of the program, the court concluded that her comments amounted to a partial endorsement. “Because Jankowicz expressed appreciation for the Birdwatch feature—even though she noted it was not a global solution to Twitter’s problems—it was substantially true to say she had ‘pitched’ it and that the feature was ‘her fix.’” The court’s decision ultimately reaffirmed long-standing First Amendment protections, particularly for speech about public officials and government programs. The ruling cautioned against stretching defamation law to silence media commentary on public affairs, no matter how intense or one-sided that coverage may appear. “Jankowicz’s position—that criticism of government is transformed into actionable defamation when a television program displays an image of a government official or references a government official’s name in the same segment—is precisely the sort of attack on core free expression rights that Sullivan sought to avoid,” the court wrote. The judgment signals a robust defense of political commentary and journalistic expression, particularly when it targets those in or associated with government power. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Court Rejects Former Disinformation Board Chief Nina Jankowicz’s Defamation Suit Against Fox News appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A growing effort to link online activity with verified identity is gaining momentum, with OpenAI becoming the latest tech company to embrace stricter digital ID measures. In response to several lawsuits and reports tying chatbots to teen suicides, the company announced it will begin estimating users’ ages and, in some cases, demand government-issued identification to confirm users are over 18. Lawmakers such as Missouri’s Senator Josh Hawley have also been pushing for the measures. More: A Death, A Lawsuit, and Infinite Surveillance OpenAI framed the shift as a necessary concession. “We know this is a privacy compromise for adults but believe it is a worthy tradeoff,” the company stated. CEO Sam Altman added on X, “I don’t expect that everyone will agree with these tradeoffs, but given the conflict it is important to explain our decisionmaking.” The move aligns with a broader industry trend toward reducing anonymity online, all under the premise of protecting young users. What was once a fringe idea is now being baked into mainstream platforms. In July, YouTube announced it would also begin using AI tools to guess users’ ages and restrict access to certain accounts unless they pass a digital ID test. OpenAI’s announcement comes amid heightened legal pressure. One lawsuit filed in August by the parents of 17-year-old Adam Raine claims that ChatGPT played an active role in his death by suicide. According to the suit, the chatbot drafted an initial version of a suicide note, suggested methods of self-harm, dismissed warning signs, and advised the teen not to involve adults. Other recent cases have followed. In response, OpenAI has expanded its safety measures. After adding parental controls earlier in September, the company has now introduced rules that will restrict how minors interact with ChatGPT. These changes go well beyond content filtering. Users will constantly be monitored, and when the system suspects a user is under 18, it will enforce stricter behavioral limits, blocking topics related to self-harm, refusing flirtatious or romantic dialogue, and escalating some cases to law enforcement. “If an under-18 user is having suicidal ideation, we will attempt to contact the users’ parents and if unable, will contact the authorities in case of imminent harm,” the company said. OpenAI’s leadership has acknowledged the growing tension between maintaining open access to powerful AI tools and preventing misuse. Earlier versions of ChatGPT were designed to avoid a broad set of sensitive topics. But in recent years, competitive pressure from looser models and increasing political resistance to moderation led the company to relax those restrictions. “We want users to be able to use our tools in the way that they want, within very broad bounds of safety,” OpenAI said. Internally, the company claims to follow a principle of “‘Treat our adult users like adults’,” while still drawing the line at situations where harm might occur. What’s becoming more evident is that privacy is being traded for control. As governments and companies look to prevent online “harm,” they are turning more frequently to identity verification systems. The push for digital ID, once pitched as a tool to combat fraud or improve safety, is increasingly being used to regulate access to online spaces, including those that were once anonymous by design. The implications for online privacy are far-reaching. As more platforms introduce age detection and identity verification, users may face growing barriers to anonymous access, particularly when using generative AI tools. For those concerned about how personal data is collected and stored, the move toward ID-based systems signals a major change in how the internet operates. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post OpenAI Adopts User Monitoring, Digital ID Verification appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. New York is advancing a set of proposed regulations that would require social media platforms to verify users’ ages before granting access to algorithm-driven feeds or allowing nighttime alerts. Attorney General Letitia James introduced the draft rules on Monday, tied to the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) For Kids Act, which was signed into law last year by Governor Kathy Hochul. Presented as part of an effort to reduce mental health harms linked to social media, the law would compel platforms to restrict algorithmic content for anyone under 18 or anyone who hasn’t completed an age verification process, which would mean the introduction of digital ID checks to access online platforms. In those cases, users would be limited to seeing content in chronological order from accounts they already follow. Platforms would also be barred from sending notifications between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. to those users. The rules give companies some flexibility in how they confirm a user’s age, as long as the method is considered effective and designed to protect personal data. Acceptable alternatives to submitting a government ID include facial analysis that estimates age. Any identifying information collected during verification must be deleted “immediately,” according to the proposal. For minors to access personalized algorithmic feeds, parental permission would be required. That too involves a verification step, with the same data-deletion requirements in place once the process is complete. The SAFE For Kids Act targets platforms where user-generated content is central and where at least 20 percent of time spent involves engagement with feeds tailored to user behavior or device data. This definition would almost certainly include platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, and many more. Companies that fail to comply could face penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, along with other legal consequences. “Children and teenagers are struggling with high rates of anxiety and depression because of addictive features on social media platforms,” Attorney General James said. “The proposed rules released by my office today will help us tackle the youth mental health crisis and make social media safer for kids and families.” Before anything takes effect, the proposal will go through a 60-day period for public comment. The Attorney General’s office will then have up to one year to finalize the rules. The law itself is scheduled to go into effect 180 days after that, although it is almost certain to face legal challenges. A recent Supreme Court decision allowed states to enforce digital ID checks on adult websites, giving more room for states to experiment with similar policies for social media. New York’s approach joins a sudden national and global push that raises major questions about privacy, digital access, and how far states can go in regulating online platforms. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post New York Wants Online Digital ID Rules for Social Media Feeds Under “SAFE For Kids Act” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Visa and TECH5 have entered a seven-year global agreement aimed at accelerating the rollout of digital identity and payment systems under the broader framework of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). The initiative, formalized in Dubai, supports a vision promoted by organizations including the United Nations, the European Union, the World Economic Forum, and Bill Gates. DPI strategies are being pushed as part of a global roadmap to digitize identity and financial access by 2030. Under this deal, Visa will combine its payments network with TECH5’s biometric and identity technology. Together, the companies plan to create integrated platforms that allow individuals to store verified credentials and use them to access services and conduct financial transactions. These systems would be built with adaptability in mind, reflecting regional regulations and market conditions. The collaboration will center on developing identity wallets that not only verify users but also include embedded payment capabilities. TECH5 brings AI-powered systems capable of facial, fingerprint, and iris recognition, while Visa contributes its infrastructure and global experience in digital payments. Visa will provide strategic and financial support for selected projects. TECH5 will offer the core biometric and identity components. Both companies say their joint work will prioritize data protection, user consent, and alignment with standards for wallet interoperability and digital credentials. Machiel van der Harst, Co-founder and CEO of TECH5, said, “Our collaboration with Visa represents a significant step in broadening the reach and applicability of TECH5’s DPI technologies. By combining our identity and biometric expertise with Visa’s global payment network and resources, we are positioned to address the evolving needs of governments and institutions seeking secure and inclusive digital infrastructure.” Dr. Svyatoslav Senyuta, Vice President and Head of Visa Government Solutions in the CEMEA region, added, “At Visa, we believe that secure, inclusive, and scalable digital identity is foundational to the future of payments.” Although the announcement describes the agreement as global, neither company has confirmed where initial deployments will take place. Previous collaboration between Visa and TECH5 in Ethiopia helped support the Fayda digital ID system, and both were involved in the early stages of South Africa’s digital ID initiative. Future pilot programs will depend on local regulations, governmental interest, and the readiness of implementation partners. The companies describe this as a flexible model that will adjust based on jurisdiction-specific needs. The move reflects a broader international push to integrate verified digital identity with financial services. This is often presented as a way to reduce friction in service delivery, expand inclusion, and prevent fraud. However, privacy advocates continue to raise alarms over the implications of centralizing both identification and payment systems. By embedding biometric ID into the infrastructure of daily life, these systems risk enabling mass surveillance, particularly in regions where transparency and oversight are weak. Claims around data protection and consent rely heavily on implementation details, many of which remain vague. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Visa Enters The Digital ID Race appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A bipartisan push in Congress is calling for the creation of a federal agency to regulate digital identity systems, at a time of growing concerns over the digital ID push. Representatives Bill Foster of Illinois and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania are leading the initiative, which would give the new agency broad authority to certify and audit both the software and hardware used to verify identities online. Current federal guidance, such as that from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, remains optional. The proposed agency would go further by establishing rules that digital ID systems must follow. It would serve as an independent authority to evaluate whether a technology is secure enough for government or commercial use, particularly as digital ID tools become more widespread. Foster, a longtime proponent of government involvement in digital identity policy, has previously introduced versions of the Improving Digital Identity Act. That legislation called for the development of consent-based systems to allow people to confirm their identity online without relying on private platforms or vulnerable credentials. “The next best thing you can do is provide people with at least the ability to prove they are who they say they are and not a deepfake,” he said last year. But the push for a national digital identity framework raises serious alarms for privacy advocates who warn that such systems could erode the last vestiges of online anonymity. By tying identity verification directly to state-issued credentials and biometric data, digital ID programs risk creating a surveillance infrastructure where every online interaction, transaction, or login is linked back to a traceable individual. This fundamentally changes the nature of the internet, replacing pseudonymous participation with state-verified presence. Privacy protections promised by digital ID proponents often hinge on enforcement by government agencies that have a long history of overreach. While lawmakers emphasize that these tools will help curb fraud or impersonation, they rarely address how digital identity mandates could chill free speech. Digital driver’s licenses, now offered by more than a dozen states, are central to the discussion. These IDs allow users to store government-issued credentials on smartphones, often protected by passwords and biometric data. Foster warned that a weak point in this infrastructure could be catastrophic. He raised the scenario of hackers developing a tool to extract security keys from millions of phones, which could enable widespread identity theft. “That will be a disaster for the whole effort,” he said. At Identity Week America, Foster described the need for an impartial body that could evaluate whether devices and platforms meet minimum security standards. Foster did speak to some privacy concerns and also pointed to the importance of having a trusted authority verify claims made by government agencies, particularly regarding how biometric data is handled. Referring to TSA’s facial recognition systems, he cited a common message seen at airport kiosks: “I promise I will throw away that picture we’ve just taken of you within 24 hours.” He argued that without third-party validation, there is no guarantee those promises will be kept. “You’re going to have to have someone you trust, saying, ‘I’ve audited that, and it’s actually true.’” TSA has deployed facial recognition scanners at hundreds of US airports and says it deletes images after identification is confirmed. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees TSA, have acknowledged that the system can be reconfigured to retain data temporarily when the agency conducts technology evaluations. TSA also now accepts digital IDs from participating states through platforms like Apple Wallet and Google Wallet at more than 250 airports. The biometric rollout has prompted pushback in Congress, with lawmakers raising questions about how the data is collected, stored, and used. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Bipartisan Lawmakers Propose Federal Digital Identity Agency appeared first on Reclaim The Net.