Illinois wants to track every mile its drivers drive — is your state next?



The next big fight over your car isn’t about gas prices, emissions, or electric vehicles. It’s about something bigger: who controls the road — and how much control they have over you while you’re on it.

What’s happening in Illinois should get drivers’ attentions. Lawmakers are advancing the Road Usage Charge Act, introduced by state Rep. Ram Villivalam (D), as a pilot program to study a mileage-based tax. On paper, it sounds routine. In reality, it’s the first step toward replacing the gas tax with a system that charges you for every mile you drive.

History shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

For decades, drivers have paid for roads through fuel taxes. You fill up, you pay your share. It’s simple, predictable, and largely invisible. But as more drivers move into electric vehicles and high-efficiency cars, gas tax revenue is declining. States like Illinois, which rely heavily on that revenue, are looking for alternatives.

Instead of cutting spending or rethinking how funds are used, they’re moving toward a system that expands oversight.

Double trouble

Illinois drivers are already paying for the road — heavily. Under Gov. JB Pritzker (D), the state doubled its gas tax in 2019, making it one of the highest in the country. Add tolls, registration fees, and local taxes, and drivers are already funding the system at a premium. Now comes the next step: charging not for fuel, but for movement itself.

A mileage-based tax — often called a vehicle miles traveled tax — sounds straightforward. Drive more, pay more. But the details matter. Some proposals rely on annual odometer reporting. Others involve installing tracking devices or using connected vehicle data.

This is where it stops being just a tax policy.

Once a system is in place to measure how far you drive, it can also measure when you drive, where you go, and how often you travel. Even groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns about the risks that come with collecting that kind of data. And history shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

RELATED: FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock

VIEW Press/Getty Images

Miles to go

Supporters argue this is about fairness. If electric vehicle owners aren’t paying gas taxes, they should still contribute to road funding. On its face, that argument makes sense. But this proposal doesn’t just target EVs. It applies to everyone — including drivers already paying high fuel taxes every time they fill up.

The result could be double taxation.

There’s also the cost of running the system itself. A mileage-based tax isn’t free to administer. It requires new technology, enforcement mechanisms, and ongoing oversight. Those costs don’t disappear — they get passed on to drivers, adding another layer of expense before you even get to the per-mile charge.

Before any of that happens, there’s a more basic question: Where is the current money going? States already collect billions through gas taxes, tolls, and vehicle fees. Before asking drivers to pay more — or pay differently — there should be clear accountability for how those funds are being used.

That question rarely gets answered.

What tends to grow instead is the system itself — more programs, more layers, more cost.

I spy

Illinois has already seen pushback on similar proposals. A 2019 effort was shelved after public backlash. Drivers understood what was at stake: not just higher costs, but more oversight and less control.

At its core, this is about how driving is changing. Driving in America has always meant a certain level of independence — the ability to go where you want, when you want, without someone tracking the details. A mileage-based system, especially one tied to data collection, begins to change that, turning driving into something that’s measured, recorded, and managed.

That’s a fundamental shift.

A better way

To be clear, declining gas tax revenue is a real issue. As vehicles become more efficient and electric adoption grows, states will need to adapt. But there are simpler ways to do it. If EVs aren’t contributing equally, adjust registration fees. Create transparent, targeted solutions. Keep the system straightforward and limited.

What’s being proposed goes further. It builds a framework that could apply to every driver, not just the segment creating the revenue gap. And once that framework exists, it won’t stay narrow — these systems tend to expand over time.

Illinois may be calling this a pilot program. But other states are watching closely.

Drivers should be asking a basic question: Is paying for the road one thing — and being tracked to use it something else entirely?

Because once the system is in place, it won’t be easy to roll back.

How To Stop School ‘Mindfulness’ Apps From Harvesting Your Child’s Health Data

Schools' mindfulness meditation programs come with a hidden cost — the collection of children’s data, which could potentially be misused.

‘Nonpartisan’ Voter Registration Groups Target Likely-Democrat Voters In Virginia Elections

The Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information are targeting likely-Dem voters in Virginia's fall elections.

Who's stealing your data, the left or the right?



A bombshell report from the New York Times accused the federal government of working with data processing company Palantir to develop a database of Americans' private information.

The idea has been criticized as a way for the government to compile sensitive data against naysayers, detractors, or immigrants who could get the boot over their politics. Another interpretation is that the government is simply sharing data between agencies to make processes more efficient, like streamlining tax data or locating illegal immigrants.

'Palantir never collects data to unlawfully surveil Americans.'

In March, President Trump signed an executive order "ensuring Federal Agencies share critical data, consistent with applicable privacy protections."

By April, the New York Times was warning that this compilation of data could mean the government would have hands on civilian information like alimony payments, IP addresses, or student loan defaults, all in the same place.

A lot of the data listed would come as no surprise to the average person, given that his Social Security number or criminal history is already firmly in the government's purview. However, the issue rises with the company Palantir — founded by Trump-supporting mega-donor Peter Thiel — gaining access to all this data and compiling it through government contracts.

As Newsweek reported, Trump may have allegedly tapped Palantir to create a database of Americans' private information.

RELATED: CNBC host tries to get Palantir CEO to side against Rubio, Musk on European speech — but gets a surprise response

Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel speaks at the Cambridge Union on May 08, 2024, in Cambridge, England. Photo by Nordin Catic/Getty Images

Palantir was founded in 2003 by Thiel and Alex Karp, but did not go public until 2020. Karp has publicly boasted about stopping the "far right" in Europe through Palantir's software and the company's work with COVID-19 vaccine distribution.

That work is just one of many integrations with the federal government pointed out by the New York Times in a subsequent investigation.

For example, Palantir engineers have worked with the IRS since April to organize data on taxpayers, according to two unnamed government officials.

According to Wired, Palantir also has a $30 million deal to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement to implement software to achieve "near-real-time" tracking on illegal immigrants.

The Social Security Administration and Department of Education are also using Palantir's data integration and analysis tool called Foundry, according to Yahoo.

Palantir's response to this firestorm of accusations from left-wing outlets started with directing the Times to a blog post from 2020. Titled "Palantir Is Not a Data Company," the blog states that the company is not a data broker or seller.

"Unlike many tech companies, our business model is not based on the monetization of personal data," the tech company wrote. "We do not collect, store, or sell personal data. We don't use personal data to train proprietary AI or machine learning models to share or resell to other customers."

On June 3, five days after the report accused Palantir of undermining Americans' trust, the tech company took to its X page to accuse the New York Times of publishing "blatantly untrue" content.

Echoing its years-old blog post, Palantir said it "never collects data to unlawfully surveil Americans, and our Foundry platform employs granular security protections. If the facts were on its side, the New York Times would not have needed to twist the truth."

RELATED: Oculus creator fires back at 'politically obsessive journalists' as hit-piece culture dies

— (@)

"The Times seeks the facts and the truth," the outlet replied. "Our article is based on excellent, factual reporting, including conversations with Palantir employees and federal officials who have knowledge of Palantir's business before the U.S. government."

Palantir's Bill Rivers then went on the attack the next day and accused the New York Times itself of collecting and selling data.

"Palantir doesn't collect data on Americans but The New York Times does," he wrote. "If you compare third party tracking on NYT vs Palantir websites, NYT makes 38 third-party requests. Palantir makes NONE. They bash Palantir for data privacy but sell and track customer data THEMSELVES."

Blaze News asked the New York Times about its data collection and whether or not the outlet sells user data to third parties.

Spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the outlet's reporting on Palantir is based on "a pursuit of facts and truth about a company with large amounts of contracts with the U.S. government, paid for by American taxpayers."

"Our reporting is driven by transparency, accountability, and insight for our readers to better understand the forces at play between the government and a large tech company," Stadtlander continued. "Conflating run-of-the-mill corporate policies with the truths expertly uncovered in this reporting seems to be an attempt at deflection and distraction."

Stadtlander did not address any collection or sale of user data.

Palantir has a point, though, even if it is a misdirection. News websites are havens of data collection, and the farther east you go, the more prevalent it seems to be.

A 2018 study from Nieman Lab found that European news outlets are rampant with third-party cookies tracking user data. U.K. and Spanish outlets were by far the worst offenders, followed by French, Polish, Finnish, and German news companies.

Websites in just seven European countries averaged 81 third-party cookies per page. Other popular websites (non-news) had just 12 on average.

In the battle of data, the left wing does appear to be winning the Pokemon-style game of collecting it all.

Google, Facebook, and Adobe were ranked as the top three companies collecting data in 2021, according to pCloud.

In 2022, Clario did a deep dive into which apps are tracking user data, including location and contact info. Apple Messages, Snapchat, Instagram, Apple Photos, Safari, and of course Google Maps all ask users for this data.

At the same time Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter (pre-Elon Musk), and Tinder were all using face recognition and environment recognition while seeking access to contacts and images. Of those, only Tinder was not taking in voice data/recognition.

These are not exactly right-wing companies.

'... playing it safe is the most dangerous thing an administration like Trump’s could do.'

Return's James Poulos explained that from a tech angle, the federal government is, and has been, in dire need of more security for its data.

“It’s been a rough century for civil libertarians, whose dreams of a Wild West web have been dashed at every turn," Poulos said. "Almost always the justification has been the hardest one to challenge: national security."

Poulos says that America is so vulnerable to a systemic attack by China that there is not much of an alternative other than to quickly secure its data all at once.

He added, "The ancients were well aware that in tough times people would often have to accept regimes of a type and severity that fell below normal hopes and expectations. Here we are again. There's plenty of blame to go around, but with a hand this bad, playing it safe is the most dangerous thing an administration like Trump’s could do."

While it will continue to be difficult to discern whether any political aisle is trustworthy with your data, it seems clear that while the left wing is busy pointing out right-wing intrusions — as it should — it may also be acting in self-service, introducing a welcomed distraction from its own data mining.

There does exist a third possibility, however: that President Trump is taking a calculated risk by allowing certain actors to secure sensitive information rather than have it fall into the hands of a hostile nation.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Report: AI Company DeepSeek ‘Funnels’ American User Data To Red China

The Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek is allegedly syphoning American user data to China’s communist government, according to a new congressional report. Released on Wednesday by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the 16-page analysis contends that the China-based AI firm “collects detailed user data, which it transmits via backend […]

Apple Rejects Attempts To Protect Children From Online Sex Abuse, Repeal Harmful DEI Policies

'This is the beginning of a conversation, and it's going to be a long one, until we see the changes that we want from this company.'

Federal facial recognition for babies? How the border is fueling a surveillance state



Tech that recognizes faces, enabling the user to permanently track, say, you, is becoming ubiquitous — now a fixture of airport security, with stadiums the next big “market.” However, the full potential of facial recognition is unrealized due to a simple obstacle: children.

Now, in the name of border security, that may be about to change — for everyone.

“Facial recognition technology (FRT) has traditionally not been applied to children,” observed the MIT Technology Review in an extensive report this month, “largely because training data sets of real children’s faces are few and far between, and consist of either low-quality images drawn from the internet or small sample sizes with little diversity. Such limitations reflect the significant sensitivities regarding privacy and consent when it comes to minors.”

Democrats have abandoned the party’s historically anti-corporate, pro-civil-liberties core, which considered the strong central government to be the people’s only bulwark against systematic injustice and exploitation.

But the current thinking at the Department of Homeland Security, aired over the summer during at least one conference, suggests bureaucrats are committed to breaking the taboo on minor facial recognition. Despite denials that minor scanning is taking place, insiders approached by the Review warned that the practice could already be under way.

At June’s Federal Identity Forum and Exposition, a yearly confab drawing together government employees and contractors in what’s called the “identity management” space, the assistant director of the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management — one John Boyd — openly speculated that the agency’s so-called craniofacial structural progression initiative could soon be applied “down to the infant” at locations where the United States government receives and processes immigrants.

“If we pick up someone from Panama at the southern border at age 4,” he asked, “and then pick them up at age 6, are we going to recognize them?”

But “the border” effectively transcends the line between the U.S. and Mexico stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. Since last year, according to the Review, Customs and Border Protection “has been using a mobile app, CBP One, for asylum seekers to submit biometric data even before they enter the United States. ... After crossing into the United States, migrants submit to collection of more biometric data, including DNA.” Citing a Georgetown Law School report, the Review tallies at least 1.5 million DNA profiles in the CBP One database, “primarily from migrants crossing the border, to law enforcement databases since it began collecting DNA 'from any person in CBP custody subject to fingerprinting' in January 2020.”

In stark terms, the “border” of the United States of America is becoming any place United States government technology digitally harvests the biometric identity of people considered to be entering or exiting its territory or jurisdiction.

The transformation raises intense questions about the constitutionality of the identity-based surveillance and tracking model to which this approach to “border” security applies — one that, it’s all too easy to see, can promptly be scaled to incorporate any and all Americans, especially those targeted politically by the government or singled out for suspicion and enhanced scrutiny.

For those on the political left, the use of the border to feed the biometric borg underscores how much establishment Democrats have abandoned the party’s historically anti-corporate, pro-civil-liberties core, which considered the strong central government to be the people’s only bulwark against systematic injustice and exploitation.

But for those on the political right, who have long considered heightened border security a necessity in reclaiming American sovereignty from established elites bent on flouting the rule of law to strengthen their political and economic interests, the border-to-borg pipeline dramatizes how leading-edge security technology is being used in ways the regime can and does repurpose to nullify constitutional protections for citizens, especially critics of the regime itself.

The DHS told MIT Tech Review it “ensures all technologies, regardless of type, are operated under the established authorities and within the scope of the law” while “protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all individuals who may be subject to the technology we use to keep the nation safe and secure.” What’s more, according to the statement, it “does not collect facial images from minors under 14 and has no current plans to do so for either operational or research purposes.”

Yet an anonymous former CBP official familiar with immigrant processing centers told the Review that each center he visited “had biometric identity collection, and everybody was going through it” without the facility “separating out children.”

Philadelphia’s Partnership With Democrat Data Firm Raises ‘Potential Legal Issues,’ Election Specialist Says

The Philadelphia mayor's office has been using a data-gathering software provider that works exclusively with the Democrat Party.

Politicians Who Refuse To Stop Big Tech’s Rabid Data Mining Are Complicit In Tyranny

Regulation will not be enough to stop Big Tech. We must also starve the beast that feeds on your private information and uses it against you.

Newly declassified letter warns CIA has conducted 'secret' program that collects 'bulk' data on Americans



The Central Intelligence Agency has used a "secret" program to collect data on American citizens in "bulk," according to a letter that was partially declassified on Thursday.

What are the details?

Two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (N.M.) — wrote CIA Director William Burns and National Intelligence Director Avril Haines in April 2021 expressing concern over the apparent unlawful data collection on American citizens.

The letter was released on Thursday with significant redactions.

The data collection is reportedly connected to counterterrorism intelligence, Bloomberg reported, and the program is being operated under Executive Order 12333. That executive order was signed by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

But according to Wyden and Heinrich, the CIA "has secretly conducted its own bulk program" and "has done so entirely outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection, and without any of the judicial, congressional or even executive branch oversight that comes with FISA collection."

"This basic fact has been kept from the public and from Congress. Until the [Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board] report was delivered last month, the nature and full extent of the CIA's collection was withheld even from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence," the senators added.

Unfortunately, the letter does not indicate, as Bloomberg noted, "how long, exactly, the surveillance had unfolded, how widespread it had been, or what sort of information was collected and from whom."

The CIA also released the PCLOB's report, which was heavily redacted. One of the problems the PCLOB, an internal government watchdog, noted was that when CIA analysts seek information that may be connected to U.S. citizens, "a popup box will appear to remind the analysts that an [foreign intelligence] purpose is required for such a query." However, the problem is that "analysts are not required to memorialize the justification for their queries."

What was the response?

In a joint statement, Wyden and Heinrich called for more transparency from the CIA about what data was collected and under what legal authority the collection happened.

"[W]hat these documents demonstrate is that many of the same concerns that Americans have about their privacy and civil liberties also apply to how the CIA collects and handles information under executive order and outside the FISA law," the senators also explained. "In particular, these documents reveal serious problems associated with warrantless backdoor searches of Americans, the same issue that has generated bipartisan concern in the FISA context."

Meanwhile, CIA privacy and civil liberties officer Kristi Scott said in a statement the spy agency is committed to respecting privacy and civil liberties.

"CIA recognizes and takes very seriously our obligation to respect the privacy and civil liberties of US persons in the conduct of our vital national security mission, and conducts our activities, including collection activities, in compliance with U.S. law, Executive Order 12333, and our Attorney General guidelines," Scott said. "CIA is committed to transparency consistent with our obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods."