Can we have online safety without total surveillance? Yes. Here's how.



Digital age verification is a hot topic right now, with lawmakers pushing for legislation that would ban users from accessing their favorite apps, webpages, and even their devices without showing an ID. As I previously covered, these bills are largely a government power grab disguised as child protection. What if there was a better solution — a way to give lawmakers the verification they crave without sacrificing the privacy and security of American citizens? Here’s what it would take to get the best of both worlds.

Efforts to sign age verification into law

The age verification bills permeating the House and Senate right now are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they protect underage users from online adult content that they shouldn’t see on various platforms and apps. On the other hand, these bills give Big Tech and the government a pathway to capture, digitize, and store users’ real government-issued IDs — the makings of a digital ID database that links online activity to user identities.

The war on age verification has even become a bipartisan effort, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushing for federal legislation. Most notably, you have Democrat Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) proposing the Parents Decide Act, which would require operating system developers, like Apple, Google, and Microsoft, to verify the ages of their users any time someone sets up a new device. On the right, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) champions the GUARD Act, which would require users to show an ID to access AI chatbots, possibly leading to broader restrictions on the internet at large as AI expands into every corner of the web.

Both bills aim for age verification to protect children, and both would restrict Americans’ rights to freely access their devices, the internet, and online information without an ID.

Apple and Google actually built a way to handle the most personal and private information.

Make no mistake. If these bills pass, the government will limit or even revoke your access to your favorite apps, services, and devices unless someone finds a better solution — one that still enables age verification without actually giving your ID to tech companies and federal agencies.

Luckily, there is a possible solution, if Big Tech chooses to build it.

Security in the enclave

Whether you trust Big Tech with your data or you lock your phone in a Faraday cage at night, Apple and Google actually built a way to handle the most personal and private information about its users years ago. The key is found in a tiny locked vault stored in the processing chip in your phone. It’s disconnected from the internet, it’s never backed up in iCloud or Google Drive (you have to set it back up every time you wipe and restore your phone), and it’s encrypted.

Apple calls it the Secure Enclave. Google named it the Trusted Execution Environment. Together, they’re both “dedicated secure subsystems” that do the same thing: store your biometric data.

If you’ve ever unlocked your phone with your face or your fingerprint, you’ve used this subsystem (which we’ll refer to as “vaults” for the sake of simplicity). The best part about it is that it’s fast, efficient, and completely private. Through these vaults, Apple and Google can save your biometric data, but they can’t see it or access it themselves, and neither can third-party apps. The only thing the system can reveal is whether the face or fingerprint of the person holding the device matches the version saved privately in the system. That’s it.

We need a similar solution for age verification.

RELATED: Hackers easily fool Instagram's new AI identity verification, humiliating Meta once again

Fotkam/Getty Images

The age verification solution we need

Instead of giving Big Tech a plain copy of your ID, what if there was a way to save it in the vault? Just like setting up FaceID on iPhone or your fingerprint on Android, your phone could prompt you to take a photo of your ID and store it inside the vault as part of your biometric data. To make sure the ID is real and that it belongs to an adult, the vault could include on-device authentication software that checks for the user’s birth date, the official Real ID star, barcode on the back, and any other unique state identifiers.

Once saved, ID-backed age verification would work in the same manner that facial and fingerprint authentication works today. When you log into an app, service, or device that requires ID, the system would prompt the vault to verify the information stored inside. If the system agrees that you’re an adult, it will let you through. If the ID belongs to a minor or is missing entirely, the system could then place restrictions on the user as mandated by law. In this way, the vault serves as a bridge between the user’s ID and websites, services, and apps, providing only authentication while keeping the user’s actual identification private.

The future of age verification

To make this work, of course, both Apple and Google need to adopt this technology and integrate it directly into their operating systems. Then the government would have to accept this technology as a valid form of verification that satisfies the new laws. Lastly, major tech companies would have to accept this form of verification, which they ultimately would, as long as they know Apple’s and Google’s solutions are legitimate, just like they do with face and fingerprint password protection today.

If we must turn over our photo IDs, locking them inside the secure subsystem is the only solution that makes sense. It would give politicians the government control over device access that they so desperately desire while enabling citizens to maintain their anonymity and privacy.

Or — and I might be asking a lot here — the politicians could just stop trying to hamper our rights and leave our devices alone. I like that one better.

This new tech defeats license plate cameras 'ethically and legally'



A proposal called the Scarecrow system says evading automated license plate recognition from unwarranted photography and capture can be done without breaking any laws.

The research predominantly rejects the collection of license plate data by ALPR operators like Flock, a company that controls cameras in thousands of jurisdictions in the United States.

'They capture and index every plate that passes.'

Flock currently has over 100,000 monitored surveillance cameras across the country, and as the researcher Max Harari states, these cameras exist in "our neighborhoods, parking lots, and police networks."

"They capture and index every plate that passes, feeding a searchable surveillance database with no warrant, no notification, and in most cases no public oversight," Harari writes.

Harari's project uses what he calls adversarial frame pattern optimization that generates a grayscale pattern to be placed on a frame around the license plate. The aim is to "suppress detection" while remaining legible to the naked eye and unobscured to humans in real life.

RELATED: Big Brother on the road: Backlash grows against license plate surveillance

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

Using the Scarecrow method, ALPR detection confidence allegedly drops from 0.84 to 0.00, which is described as "full evasion."

The methods of distortion used include rotation and perspective warp, brightness and contrast shifts, motion blur, "additive noise," and distance distortion.

All of these tactics allegedly disrupt Flock and "most" ALPR cameras that are mounted between eight and 12 feet.

The custom license plate requires a photo of the owner's plate and promises to deliver an individualized pattern that completely evades AI camera detection.

The requirement of having a 3D printer means it is likely that the cover has varying depths and tangible patterns.

RELATED: License plate readers or surveillance? The number of AI cameras in the US is shocking

Rich Sugg/The Kansas City Star/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

"A system that can track anyone, anywhere, with no transparency or accountability is fundamentally immoral. This project is my way of exploring what can be done about it, ethically and legally," the researcher argued.

Harari also said in a post that he has not tested the system on an actual Flock camera, but his research indicates it should work across different hardware and license plate detection models.

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

The AI boom is turning public meetings into crime scenes



Big Tech companies helped censor Americans during COVID. Now many of the same interests pillaging rural America for surveillance data centers want to suppress debate over their next great project. This time, they are not merely trying to censor speech. They are helping create the pretext to criminalize it.

Federal and state law enforcement should have their hands full with real threats: jihadist networks, political assassinations, attacks against ICE, and the growing culture of left-wing violence that led to Charlie Kirk’s murder. Yet last week, Wired obtained documents showing a coordinated effort among the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and roughly 80 regional fusion centers to monitor supposed anti-tech and anti-data-center violence.

It is disgraceful to watch law enforcement silence Americans on behalf of Big Tech.

More than 1,000 pages of internal DHS, FBI, and fusion-center reports describe “anti-technology extremism” as an emerging domestic threat based largely on a handful of unverified threats against politicians. No one should excuse genuine threats or violence. But the idea that data-center opponents have created a domestic threat requiring this level of federal coordination is absurd. It is gaslighting dressed up as intelligence work.

This is the same logic behind the Trump administration’s decision to station marshals with surveyors for data-center transmission lines in Carroll County, Maryland. The point was not to respond to credible threats. The point was to frame opposition — especially in one of Maryland’s most conservative counties — as dangerous before the debate even began.

Which brings us to Dixon, Illinois.

Last week, resident Harley Delander organized a Facebook protest outside the home of former state Rep. Tom Demmer (R), who is now promoting a 387-acre data-center site through the Lee County Industrial Development Association. People can debate the prudence of protesting at an official’s residence, though such protests have become common in local disputes. But police produced no credible evidence that Delander or his friends planned violence.

Delander was arrested outside his home 12 hours later and charged with two felonies: intimidation and stalking. Police said his communications “knowingly and willfully” caused fear for Demmer and his family’s safety. Delander recorded the arrest.

This reflects a growing trend: criminalizing sharp public debate based on how a public official claims to feel rather than what a citizen actually did.

A Massachusetts resident was sentenced to prison and spent a full year behind bars before trial for writing angry emails to a local Michigan politician. The emails were ugly — the sort of language elected officials receive every day — but they contained no personal threats or even veiled threats. He was extradited to Oakland County, Michigan, in December 2023 and charged under Michigan’s law against intimidating public officials, which hinges on whether the “victim” felt “terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”

RELATED:After fierce debate, Trump opts for federal controls in AI development

Arvitalya/Getty Images

We have reached the point where heated political debate — a tradition as old as Adams and Jefferson — can become grounds for abridging the First Amendment. What a way to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence!

The crackdown is not limited to nasty emails or home protests. Across the country, law-abiding rural residents, many of them seniors, are getting roughed up or arrested for speaking too long or objecting too loudly at data-center hearings.

On February 17, Oklahoma farmer Darren Blanchard exceeded his three-minute speaking limit by a few seconds at a Claremore City Council town hall on “Project Mustang,” a proposed AI data center backed by Beale Infrastructure. Once his time expired, he stopped speaking and walked to the rostrum to give the city manager a written copy of his remarks. For that, police handcuffed and removed him, transported him to Rogers County Jail, and booked him on criminal trespassing charges.

In April, Imperial County, California, resident Ismael Arvizu was arrested and charged with trespassing, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and threatening a public official. Did he attack an official? No. After speaking during his allotted time at an Imperial County Board of Supervisors meeting, Arvizu applauded when another resident threatened to start a recall petition against the supervisors. The Los Angeles Times reported that an officer led him out and arrested him, and prosecutors charged him with threatening a public official.

In Midland, Texas, video shows a resident calmly calling for a point of order under meeting rules at a data-center meeting. He was immediately grabbed and removed from the room. He does not appear to have been arrested or charged, but the point remains: Police increasingly seem prepared to remove data-center opponents before their speech, outbursts, or objections would traditionally qualify as disrupting a meeting.

RELATED: Self-driving trucks are about controlling the roads — not making them safer

Dylan Hollingsworth/Bloomberg/Getty Images

This is happening in deep-red counties across America. It is disgraceful to watch law enforcement silence Americans on behalf of Big Tech.

Recently, the Intercept obtained a law-enforcement bulletin from a fusion center housed within the Philadelphia Police Department showing that federal authorities were monitoring anti-data-center social media posts for “domestic violent extremists.” The bulletin warned that “domestic violent extremists” were “likely interested in targeting artificial intelligence data centers,” posing physical and cyber threats to infrastructure in the Philadelphia region. Then it conceded that authorities lacked “specific information on plans to target AI data centers in the Philadelphia area.”

That is the whole game. Invent a vague threat, inflate it into a domestic extremism category, and use it to justify surveillance, intimidation, and arrests. Then pretend ordinary citizens are dangerous because they object to surrendering their land, power, and communities to Big Tech.

The irony is hard to miss. Governments at every level are deploying censorship, surveillance, and criminal enforcement to service an agenda built on surveillance, data extraction, and control.

Talk about paying for the rope to hang ourselves!

EXCLUSIVE: House Freedom Caucus Demands FISA Reform Ahead Of Major Surveillance Vote
play icon

EXCLUSIVE: House Freedom Caucus Demands FISA Reform Ahead Of Major Surveillance Vote

'If they can spy on a member of Congress, they can spy on you.'

Washington Nationals Executive Fired After Admitting The Team Discriminated Against Christian Player

"If accurate, this ... is a direct admission that a Catholic player may have been excluded from official team promotion because he publicly defended his faith."

License plate readers or surveillance? The number of AI cameras in the US is shocking



Cities are starting to reject the idea of having surveillance cameras that promise to curb crime, but there's a long way to go.

In fact, the largest surveillance company in the United States says it's under attack from activists who want to defund the police.

'Flock, and the law enforcement agencies we partner with, are under coordinated attack.'

Citizens can now view a comprehensive map of Automated License Plate Recognition cameras that are popping up in cities all along the coastline and the Great Lakes region.

As it stands, there are almost 100,000 of these cameras in place in the United States. According to DeFlock Maps, the exact number is just north of 97,000, with a vast majority of them (80,000+) coming from one company: Flock Safety.

This tech and surveillance company out of Atlanta has about 1,500 employees and has been steadily building its network that promises a decrease in crime in communities that implement its systems.

On its website, Flock cites that it is trusted by more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies, providing examples like a 56% reduction in year-over-year crime in one California city and a 52% reduction in robberies in Cobb County, Georgia.

These solar-powered, AI-backed cameras are meant to operate as part of a complex grid of connected devices that allow police agencies to tap into surveillance inside stores, parking lots, and city streets to identify suspects and the cars they are driving; all to allegedly solve crimes.

However, some cities have rejected the service on grounds of citizen privacy.

RELATED: Meta's Ray-Bans allegedly record your private moments — as contractors watch it all

Hyoung Chang/Denver Post

In addition to Bend, Oregon, where a comprehensive report about the surveillance capabilities appeared on CNet, Charlottesville and Staunton, Virginia, both ended their contracts with Flock and both received an email from the company that was described as "pouting."

"That email was sent to every client that they had, including us," Charlottesville Police Chief Michael Kochis said. "I looked at it and just, honestly, chalked it up to an unprofessional email from a venting CEO. I just ignored it, I'll be honest," he told Cville Right Now.

Staunton Police Chief Jim Williams shared the email he received from Flock CEO Garrett Langley, which claimed the company was under "attack" from activists.

"Flock, and the law enforcement agencies we partner with, are under coordinated attack. The attacks aren't new. You've been dealing with this for forever, and we've been dealing with this since our founding," Langley wrote.

The CEO continued, saying the same activist groups "who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness" were behind critical YouTube videos and misleading headlines.

The letter, dated December 8, 2025, received a response from Williams four days later, which read:

"As far as your assertion that we are current[y under attack, I do not believe that this is so. ... What we are seeing here is a group of local citizens who are raising concerns that we could be potentially surveilling private citizens, residents, and visitors and using the data for nefarious purposes."

Just a week later, Staunton announced it was terminating its contract with Flock.

RELATED: 'Everything on the internet is fake': Social media marketers reveal that most online trends are fabricated

One of the organizations Langley may be referring to is the ACLU, which said last August that Flock was building a "dangerous nationwide mass-surveillance infrastructure."

However, the ACLU's main concern was that the resources were being used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement against illegal immigrants.

Still, Langley is consistently stating that voting Flock out of jurisdictions will hinder the prevention of gun crime. The CEO cited a Mississippi city that allegedly saw violent crime decrease by 79% and homicide by 90% in one year.

Langley wrote on X, "When the loudest voices tell you to vote Flock out of your community, ask yourself: are they also the ones outraged by gun violence when a shooting occurs, or in this case 12?"

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

Almonds feed a people. AI feeds a machine.



The artificial intelligence boom has become one of the biggest engines of the American economy. It has also triggered a growing backlash against the data centers that make the boom possible. Tech moguls have rushed to build giant warehouses packed with the computing power needed to run AI systems, but they have done almost nothing to explain to ordinary Americans why those facilities deserve so much land, water, electricity, and political favoritism.

That failure should have created an obvious opening for libertarians. Governments shower data-center projects with subsidies, wield eminent domain to seize land, and help politically connected corporations reshape local communities in the name of technological progress. A coherent libertarian response would attack the merger of state power and corporate power.

The first great use of AI will not be liberation. It will be surveillance and control.

Instead, many libertarians have chosen to cheer the expansion without asking what the technology will be used for or whom it will serve. Their quasi-religious loyalty to capital has pushed them into another foolish position and exposed the danger of turning an economic theory into a full worldview.

The tech elite insist that AI will revolutionize the world, but they have done almost nothing to tell average people how their own lives will improve. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs spin wild stories about superhuman intelligence and the automation of tens of millions of jobs. That does not sound like a sales pitch. It sounds like the setup for a science-fiction dystopia. The one concrete justification they offer is strategic: AI will supposedly define the future of warfare, and America must stay ahead of China.

That argument would carry more weight if the same people pushing AI were not also so committed to building the kind of technology most likely to be used against Americans. They are not preparing some noble shield for the republic. They are building tools that can make the United States look a lot more like the techno-authoritarian China they claim to fear.

Data centers consume staggering amounts of electricity, sometimes drawing as much power as a moderate-sized city. They also use enormous volumes of water, create nonstop noise, and disfigure the landscape. Developers have found ways to soften some of those costs by building new power infrastructure and improving cooling efficiency, but none of the problems have been solved. In the meantime, local communities absorb the burden.

The economic case is weak as well. Data centers create construction jobs while they are being built, but once construction ends, they employ surprisingly few people. Governments usually justify subsidies by promising long-term economic activity and job growth. In the case of data centers, corporations collect the incentives while communities get very little in return.

A sane political movement would notice that. Many libertarians have not. Instead of challenging subsidies and land seizures, they have fought to champion the projects. Nick Gillespie of Reason recently posted a chart showing that almond farms use far more water than AI data centers. Almonds are notoriously inefficient in water use, and agriculture probably does consume more water overall.

But the comparison gives away the problem. People eat food. AI, at least so far, mostly offers job displacement and surveillance.

RELATED: Your enemies aren’t mentally ill. They apparently just want to kill you.

Blaze Media Illustration

Libertarianism grew, in part, out of the Austrian school of economics, which is useful for understanding markets. It was never meant to serve as a complete theory of human life. Like Marxists, however, many libertarians have turned an economic framework into a totalizing ideology. Free markets, contract law, and voluntary exchange become an all-encompassing lens through which everything must be judged. Once that happens, it becomes difficult to see anything that does not show up in GDP.

The real question is not how much of a resource gets spent, but for what purpose. Most people would not give up a hand to save a cockroach. Most would give up their lives to save a child. On paper, preserving the cockroach may look like the more efficient transaction. Only a lunatic would fail to understand why no sane person would ever choose it over the child.

Economics helps explain financial exchange, but in its hunger for abstraction, it often strips away the human element that drives actual decisions. Treat almonds and AI as interchangeable “economic activity,” and you erase the context that gives moral meaning to both. That is the error every ideology makes. Grand unified theories comfort the rational mind because they promise predictive clarity. Then they collide with actual human beings living in actual places.

Kevin O’Leary recently went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast to praise the record-setting data center he wants to build in Utah. Carlson pressed him repeatedly to name a job AI would create for ordinary Americans. O’Leary could not identify a single one. He fell back on vague assurances that new technologies always create jobs somewhere in the future. The one benefit he seemed sure about was that AI might help America defend Taiwan in a future war with China. That is a revealing answer to citizens asking how this technology will help their own country.

RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide

Blaze Media Illustration

Many libertarians now seem to support data centers out of sheer loyalty to capital itself. Economic activity becomes an end in itself. Progress, no matter the cost, is presumed to produce more liberty. That is delusional. The first great use of AI will not be liberation. It will be surveillance and control. The same corporate and political class that backed vaccine mandates, digital surveillance, censorship, and biometric passes during COVID is now demanding trust on AI. Nothing in its conduct suggests a change of heart.

Our tech oligarchs lined up with Democrats, outsourced American jobs, embraced censorship, and showed enormous appetite for monitoring the population. They are not trustworthy allies.

The backlash against data centers may lack intellectual polish, but the instinct is sound. The elites driving AI are not on our side, and Americans have no reason to sacrifice their communities, resources, and liberty on behalf of people who plainly intend to use this technology against them.

Meta's Ray-Bans allegedly record your private moments — as contractors watch it all



Meta was one of the first tech giants to bring smart glasses to the mainstream market, thanks to a partnership with Ray-Ban. Unfortunately, Meta’s reputation for spying on users just landed a vicious blow to its hardware ambitions. According to a former business partner, Meta is secretly recording and saving everything its users see through its Meta Ray-Ban glasses, from simple outings to much more intimate encounters.

Sama says Meta is watching

The claim comes from Sama, a Kenyan-based AI company that partnered with Meta starting in 2017. According to its website, Sama helps train AI and machine learning models by annotating, validating, and evaluating large swaths of data. It’s also part of the Everest Group, an organization recognized by former President Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for outsourcing jobs to “underserved communities.” During their partnership, Sama provided moderation services to Meta that are no longer part of its business portfolio.

Privacy is more at risk now than ever.

In 2022, Sama filed a lawsuit against Meta over poor working conditions, unreasonable pay, poor mental health support for employees, and infringement on employee privacy. As part of their moderation partnership, some employees were forced to view and flag distressing content on Meta’s platforms, including murder and sex crimes involving minors. However, the companies continued to work together for many years, leading up to this year.

In April 2026, Sama employees filed new complaints expressing that they reviewed intimate footage captured by customers’ Meta Ray-Ban glasses. While not as graphic as the scenes from 2022, content included users visiting the bathroom, undressing in their bedrooms, and even engaging in private adult relations.

Weeks after these details emerged, Meta severed its contract with Sama, forcing its former partner to fire more than 1,000 staff members to account for the financial loss.

The worst part

It’s honestly hard to pick out the worst part of this story. Is it Meta’s alleged negligence of Sama’s employees? Is it the illegal content that requires human moderation on Meta’s platforms? Is it the fact that Sama continued to work with Meta, despite the poor conditions?

It’s all terrible. But looking at the story from a tech angle, it’s particularly disturbing that Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses captured footage and uploaded it directly to Meta’s servers to be saved and reviewed, especially when users weren’t aware this was happening. The news is a clear violation of user privacy, and it highlights Meta’s blatant lie that “you’re in control of your data and content.”

Clearly not.

RELATED: Trump phones begin shipping as liberal media melts down: 'You got scammed'

Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Meta’s privacy policies

The marketing drivel Meta pushes on a webpage is one thing though. What do its legally binding privacy policies say? Several times, the original policy mentions that humans may review user content for various purposes, especially to “combat harmful or unlawful behavior,” including scenes deemed to be troubling until a person reviews it and decides otherwise. The page reads:

The Meta products are designed to research and help ensure the safety, integrity, and security of those services and those people who enjoy them, on and off Meta products. We process information we have associated with you and apply automated processing techniques and, in some instances, conduct manual (human) review.

A second policy specifically for “supplemental Meta platforms” includes AI-powered smart glasses like Meta Ray-Ban. Under the photos, videos, and audio section, it states:

You can use the AI Glasses to take photos and video recordings with audio. ... We will process your Media when you turn on cloud processing on your AI Glasses, interact with the Meta AI service on your AI Glasses, or upload your Media to certain services provided by Meta (i.e., Facebook or Instagram). You can change your choices about cloud processing of your Media at any time in Settings.

In other words, Meta Ray-Bans may process footage on Meta’s servers when cloud services are turned on, and this feature can be disabled in settings. Unfortunately, the only thing that mentions human review in the policy references audio processing for Meta VR products, like the Meta Quest. That means, as far as the supplemental privacy policy is concerned, Meta employees should not have the right to review footage captured on Meta Ray-Ban glasses.

Yet, Sama says it does.

Maybe don’t trust that camera on your face

Smart glasses are a niche product that haven’t fully caught on with the general public, and no one’s exactly sure how to feel about them. On one hand, smart glasses can be used for noble causes, like making the streets safer from illegal aliens and criminals. On the other, it opens Pandora's box for mass surveillance of the American people. Clearly, Meta is choosing the latter, even if it doesn’t say it out loud.

The moral of the story is that Meta Ray-Ban glasses can’t be trusted, whether you wear a pair yourself or you know someone who does. These devices can record everything they see, with that footage accessible to third-party contractors and Meta employees.

Of course, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone familiar with Meta’s business practices. The company has found itself in plenty of privacy-related legal trouble over the years, from WhatsApp’s questionable encryption to its now-defunct Onavo Protect VPN data-tracking scandal, and more.

At their core, Meta Ray-Bans are intrusive with huge privacy implications for their users and the people around them. This is the same problem Google Glass faced more than a decade ago, and now that extended reality glasses are on the rise again, privacy is more at risk now than ever.

'Deleted from society': Tommy Robinson sounds alarm on UK free speech crackdown as Keir Starmer escalates surveillance push



As Britain cracks down on free speech and heightens surveillance measures, it’s becoming a cautionary tale for the rest of the Western world — one that Tommy Robinson has experienced firsthand.

“They wanted us isolated, they wanted us alone, wanted total control, which they had. Total control. I was invisible,” Robinson tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, explaining that the media in the U.K. has branded him as one of the “far-right, racist, extremist agitators who are intent on violence.”

“You couldn’t even mention my name ... deleted from society for daring to show — and what was I showing? The problems of mass open-border immigration,” Robinson says.

“Why do they want to hide it?” he asks. “Because it lays at their feet.”


And U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s latest ad is only proving Robinson right.

“This is our country with a majority who share those values. A majority who may not always be as loud but must always define who we are. So my government will not stand in the way of peaceful protest,” Starmer said, adding, “But we will act decisively against hatred.”

“We will use the full force of the law when that hatred manifests as violence. And we will ban those coming into the U.K. who seek to stir it up as we have done already because this country belong to all of us, and I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to stand in the way of that,” Starmer finished.

Robinson notes that Starmer has already made his last few points in the video crystal clear.

“After the 2024 riots ... he politicized the judiciary, weaponized the media, and he sent mothers to jail for 31 months for tweets. He sent Peter Lynch, a grandfather, to jail, who has died in jail. He sent innocent people to jail,” he explained, noting that Starmer did it to “instill fear in the British public.”

“The problem he’s got is he didn’t instill fear. It lit a fire in the heart of us. ... This is a battle for the soul of this nation, and it’s a battle he’s going to lose. He’s losing,” he continues, adding, “They’re losing. We’re winning the hearts and minds of the public whether he likes it or not.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Orwellian ‘Kill Switch’ Some Republicans Want In Your Car

'A car that is surveilling you'