Trump's potential pick for FBI director haunted by Russiagate, 'security state' loyalties



FBI Director Christopher Wray's 10-year term does not expire until 2027. President-elect Donald Trump is, however, expected to replace him upon taking office. While Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who Trump said is "a very talented guy," might be in contention, the two men whose names keep popping up in discussions of a potential successor are former National Security Council official Kash Patel and former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers.

Establishmentarians have piled on Patel, characterizing him as inexperienced, revenge-driven, and "dangerous."

While Rogers, who specialized in organized crime as a special agent at the FBI's Chicago office, has so far avoided similar abuse, Trump loyalists and critics of the American intelligence community have expressed concerns about his past associations with individuals and censorious groups antagonistic to Trump; his historic support for surveillance programs; and the role he apparently played in pushing Russiagate.

Former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon asked Mike Benz, the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, this week why the "MAGA right" would be "particularly upset about a guy like Mike Rogers, who in normal times would be looked at as a fine, center-right candidate put up by a Romney-type Republican administration?"

'You can't really have a compromised candidate.'

Benz, keen to see Patel nominated, suggested that Rogers' involvement with the Atlantic Council — "probably the number-one apex predator in the entire censorship industry" — and his help advancing Russiagate were disqualifying.

"The relationship between the Justice Department and the FBI is the same relationship that's shared between the U.S. State Department and the CIA. They need to be constantly in sync," said Benz.

"You can't really have a compromised candidate where one person supports the president and the other person is looking to put a knife in the president's back. That is simply untenable when you're dealing with the kind of special, compartmentalized operations that happen at the FBI level."

The Daily Caller reported that Rogers is not only a member of the Aspen Cybersecurity Institute, a left-leaning think tank, but also served as an adviser to the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy initiative, spearheaded by a former foreign policy adviser to failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and aimed at tackling supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The ASD launched the Hamilton 68 Dashboard in 2017 to monitor hundreds of then-Twitter accounts allegedly linked to Russian influence efforts online — a project likened by investigative reporter Matt Taibbi to "digital McCarthyism that was repeatedly used by establishment media publications as a source to push the Russian influence and interference narratives that Democrats, in turn, exploited during Trump's first term."

According to Taibbi, when Twitter executives attempted to recreate the group's list of accounts, they determined that the accounts were "neither strongly Russia nor strongly bots," and indicated that "there is no evidence to support their statements that the dashboard is a finger on the pulse of Russian information ops."

When pressed for comment, Rogers' spokesman Chris Gustafon said in a statement to the Caller, "President-elect Trump is once again assembling a fantastic administration to help the American people and Make America Great Again."

Wikileaks, which has been highly critical of Rogers as an FBI director aspirant, suggested that the ASD was a "central player in efforts to tie President Donald Trump and his supporters to Russian interference in the 2016 election" and that the Hamilton 68 Dashboard's "true purpose appeared to be casting suspicion on Trump supporters and reinforcing claims that his presidency was illegitimate."

Wikileaks also highlighted how in 2018, Rogers advocated for the suppression of a Republican memo critical of the FBI's spying on the Trump campaign.

Rogers told NPR at the time the memo should not be released because

you're only going to get a small part of the picture. And so what they're purportedly alleging is going to come out in the memo today is that there was some misconduct on behalf of FBI agents and some DOJ officials, lawyers at the Department of Justice, in the application for something called the FISA, which is the secret court that does counterintelligence, espionage cases, terrorism cases, where it needs to be in a classified setting.

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald, responding to a video of Rogers apparently joking with Hunter Biden "intel" letter signatory Michael Hayden about having Edward Snowden assassinated, tweeted, "There's literally no worse appointment possible than choosing Mike Rogers for FBI Director, or for any government position. He's the single most devoted loyalist to the US Security State and all of its multi-faceted abuses. It doesn't get worse than Mike Rogers."

While Rogers' past remarks and associations may serve as red flags for the president-elect, Trump endorsed him in March for his unsuccessful bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan — months after the former congressman and defense lobbyist criticized the Biden Justice Department's "war" against Trump.

Patel endorsed Rogers for Senate in April, saying he would "hold the FBI and DOJ accountable."

"I am a big fan of Mike Rogers, and should there be an opening [for FBI director], he would be my choice," said Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R).

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, "Mike Rogers is a terrific guy. I don't know Kash Patel."

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

How your smart TVs are spying on you and your loved ones



Once, not that long ago, televisions were beloved devices that brought families together for regular rituals of laughter, drama, and storytelling. But today, as we settle in for a night of streaming on our sleek smart TVs, that warmth feels increasingly distant. These modern monstrosities offer endless options and voice-activated convenience, but this comes at a steep price. While we put our feet up and enjoy our favorite shows, we’re also inviting a level of surveillance into our homes that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.

According to a new report by the Center for Digital Democracy, smart TVs have become yet another cog in a massive, data-driven machine. Specifically, this machine is an ecosystem that harvests viewer data with military-like precision, prioritizing profits over privacy, individual autonomy, and, arguably, our collective well-being.

Big Brother isn't just in your living room — he knows what you’re watching, what you’re thinking, what you’re buying, and even where you’re going.

A Trojan horse in disguise

As the report details, these devices function as sophisticated surveillance tools, tracking viewers' every move across platforms. From Tubi to Netflix to Disney+, streaming services rely heavily on various data collection mechanisms to fuel a relentless advertising engine. These companies boast about their ability to collect "billions of rows of data" on their viewers, using machine learning algorithms to personalize the entire experience — from what shows are recommended to the ads viewers are served.

Tools like Automatic Content Recognition — built into TVs by companies such as LG, Samsung, and Roku — track and analyze everything you watch. ACR collects data frame by frame, creating detailed viewer profiles that are then used for targeted advertising. These profiles can include information about the devices in your home and the content you purchase, all feeding into a continuous feedback loop for advertisers. The more you watch, the more the system learns about you — and the greater its ability to shape your choices. The “non-skippable” ads, personalized to reflect intimate knowledge about viewers' behaviors and vulnerabilities, are particularly disturbing. They are engineered to be as compelling and intrusive as possible.

Smart TVs are living up to their names. They know everything about you. And I mean absolutely everything.

Data-driven manipulation

The streaming industry has rapidly grown into one of the most lucrative advertising sectors, with streaming platforms like Disney+, Netflix, and Amazon Prime attracting billions in ad revenue. As the report warns, these platforms now use advanced generative AI and machine learning to produce thousands of hyper-targeted ads in seconds — ads for Mom, ads for Dad, and ads for the little ones. By employing tools like identity graphs, which compile data from across an individual’s digital footprint, streaming services can track and target viewers on their televisions and throughout their entire digital lives. That's right. Smart TVs seamlessly interact with other smart devices, basically "talking" to each other and sharing valuable gossip.

This data collection goes far beyond tracking viewing habits. The report reveals that companies like Experian and TransUnion have developed identifiers that encompass deeply personal details, such as health information, financial status, and political views. Who will you vote for in November? You already know — and so does your TV.

Crooked capitalism

At its core, capitalism has been a driving force of innovation, progress, and prosperity. Its brilliance lies in its ability to harness human creativity and ambition, rewarding those who bring value to the market. In its purest form, capitalism is entirely meritocratic. Capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty through competition and the pursuit of profit. Capitalism helped make America the greatest nation known to man.

However, we see today a gross distortion of capitalism’s core principles. Surveillance capitalism has taken the place of pure capitalism. Instead of fostering innovation, this monstrous model feeds off personal data, often without our knowledge or consent. It preys particularly on vulnerable groups like children, exploiting their behaviors and emotions to turn a profit. The same system that once championed freedom now thrives on violating privacy, reducing human experiences to commodities.

Smart TVs and surveillance capitalism go hand in hand.

This raises an urgent question: What can we do about it? While it’s tempting to grab a sledgehammer and smash your nosy device into a million pieces, more practical solutions exist.

Start by diving into your TV's settings and disabling data tracking features such as ACR. You can also refuse to sign up for accounts or services that require extensive data sharing. For those willing to pay a bit more, opting for ad-free services can limit the data collected on your viewing habits, though it’s not a foolproof solution.

Additionally, advocating for stronger regulations on data privacy and transparency in advertising technologies is crucial. As consumers, we need to push policymakers to implement stricter laws that hold companies accountable for the data they collect and how they use it. Organizations like the Center for Digital Democracy, which authored this important report, are already fighting for these changes. This is a matter of critical importance. Close to 80% of homes in the U.S. have a smart TV.

Big Brother isn't just in your living room — he knows what you’re watching, what you’re thinking, what you’re buying, and even where you’re going. Not for the sledgehammer, I hope.

New Intelligence Rules Let The U.S. Military Help Kill Americans, But Not Directly

The directive is authorizing military intelligence assets to surveil, monitor, and evaluate U.S. citizens so civil authorities may kill some of those same citizens.

Detroit Accused Of Deleting Ballot Drop Box Surveillance Footage After Republicans Asked To See It

The RNC is suing Detroit, warning of 'irreparable injury' if the city deletes more drop box surveillance footage.

Tech titan Larry Ellison teases AI-powered surveillance state that will keep you on your 'best behavior'



Oracle chairman and chief technology officer Larry Ellison, the world's second-richest man, recently revealed how his company could furnish authorities with the technological means to better surveil the populace and socially engineer those involuntarily living their lives on camera.

"Citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on," Ellison said last week at the database and cloud computing company's financial analyst meeting. "It's AI that's looking at the cameras."

After discussing broadening and implementing surveillance systems in the health and education sectors, Ellison raised the matter of law enforcement applications and police body cameras.

'Truth is we don't really turn it off.'

"We completely redesigned body cameras," said the billionaire. "The camera's always on. You don't turn it on and off."

Whether an officer is having lunch with friends or in the lavatory, Oracle will never shut its eyes.

Ellison noted, for example, that if a police officer wants a moment of relative privacy so that he can go to the washroom, he must notify Oracle.

"We'll turn it off. Truth is, we don't really turn it off. What we do is we record it so no one can see it," said Ellison. "No one can get into that recording without a court order. You get the privacy you requested ... but if you get a court order, we will judge — I want to look at that, this so-called bathroom break."

"We transmit the video back to headquarters," continued the Oracle CTO, "and AI is constantly monitoring the video."

If AI spots behavior it has been trained to regard as suspicious, then it will flag it and issue an alert to the relevant authorities.

By constructing what is effectively a high-tech panopticon, Ellison indicated that police officers and citizens alike would be more inclined to behave as convention and law dictated they should "because we're constantly recording — watching and recording — everything that's going on."

Ellison indicated that this system of digital eyes on cars, drones, and humans amounts to "supervision."

The tech magnate framed these applications as benign — as ways to curb police brutality. However, Oracle has recently given cause to suspect that there is potential for abuse.

In July, Oracle agreed to pay $115 million to settle a lawsuit in which the company was accused of running roughshod over people's privacy by collecting their data and selling it to third parties, reported Reuters.

According to the plaintiffs, Oracle created unauthorized "digital dossiers" for hundreds of millions of people, which were then allegedly sold to marketers and other organizations.

Critics responding online to Ellison's remarks also expressed concerns over how such applications will all but guarantee a communist Chinese-style surveillance state in the West — something that's already under way in the U.K., one of the most surveilled countries on the planet.

'There isn't much not being watched by somebody.'

The U.K.'s former Home Office biometrics and surveillance commissioner Fraser Sampson told the Guardian before ending his term last year that AI was supercharging Britain's public-private "omni-surveillance" society.

"There was a lawyer back in 2010 who used the expression 'omni-surveillance,' and I think, yes, we are in that. There isn't much not being watched by somebody. The thing is, almost all of it's been watched by people on private devices. And they now share it, whether they want them to or not, with everybody, the police, the state, the foreign government, anybody," said Sampson.

"When all that needed a human to edit it, it wasn't an issue because no one was going to live long enough to get through 10 minutes. But now you can do it with AI editing. All of a sudden you can tap that ocean," added the watchdog.

The U.K. has ostensibly taken a turn for the worse under the current Labor government, which is working to greatly expand the use of live facial recognition technology.

While some have taken to keyboards to bemoan the growth of the Western surveillance state, so-called Blade Runner activists have, in recent years, taken to chopping down public and private cameras, including low-emission cameras.

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

Blaze News original: The true cost of cheap surveillance: How Chinese tech puts US safety at risk



Is the Chinese government spying on you through cameras manufactured by Chinese companies? According to the FCC and several state governments, the answer might well be “yes,” and regulators are attempting to take action to protect Americans’ privacy.

Two of the largest surveillance camera manufacturers in the world — Hikvision and Dahua — are based in China and have strong ties to the Chinese Communist Party government. Because of the “unacceptable risk” their equipment allegedly poses to U.S. national security, the FCC banned sales and import of new technology from Hikvision and Dahua in 2022.

In recent years, several governments — including Australia, the U.K., and India — have also taken action against the companies.

Blaze News wanted to know to what extent the equipment manufactured by Hikvision and Dahua remains available in the U.S. and whether users are at risk of unwittingly sharing their data with China.

The answers are in some respects disturbing, but in others encouraging.

‘Related to the Communist Party of China’: Hikvision and Dahua

Cameras have become nearly ubiquitous in American culture, and we've embraced them because of their clear benefits. Cameras record precious memories, help secure private property, and even allow governments to identify toll-road users without disrupting traffic flows and nab speeding drivers at low cost.

While few Americans, especially those in younger generations, worry about possible privacy concerns associated with these cameras, even fewer concern themselves about the implications of relying on equipment manufactured by a foreign adversary.

They should.

According to Radio Liberty, a Ukrainian outlet, 20% of all video surveillance cameras in the entire world are manufactured by Hikvision and another 10% by Dahua.

The state of Nevada, for example, prohibits Hikvision and Dahua equipment at all state government offices and agencies out of 'security concerns.'

What’s more, 37% of Hikvision is owned by CET HikGroup, which answers to other organizations run by the Chinese government. Chinese law reportedly demands that businesses share with the Chinese Communist Party some — if not all — of the critical information they glean through normal operations.

“It should be understood that the companies of the People's Republic of China are companies that are closely related to the Communist Party of China. That is, there is no large, completely independent business in the PRC,” said Agia Zagrebelska, head of the Department of Minimization of Corruption Risks at the Ukrainian National Agency on Corruption Prevention, according to Radio Liberty.

“This is not my subjective assessment,” Zagrebelska continued. “These are the requirements of their legislation.”

Federal and state governments here in the U.S. are likewise highly concerned about Hikvision and Dahua. The Department of Defense included both companies on its list of designated “Chinese military companies operating in the U.S.,” a list released the same year the FCC banned sales and imports of the companies' new equipment.

“These new rules are an important part of our ongoing actions to protect the American people from national security threats involving telecommunications,” FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said at the time in a statement, according to Tech Crunch.

In April, a federal court upheld the inclusion of Hikvision and Dahua on the FCC’s Covered List, though it ruled that the FCC had likewise defined “critical infrastructure” too broadly when issuing the bans.

At least 10 U.S. states have also imposed their own restrictions on Hikvision and Dahua equipment, IVPM reported. The state of Nevada, for example, prohibits Hikvision and Dahua equipment at all state government offices and agencies out of “security concerns.”

In a statement, Hikvision told Blaze News:

Hikvision disagrees with the FCC’s decision to include Hikvision into the “Covered List,” but it is important to note that the Court “vacated” and rejected the scope of the FCC’s “overbroad” and “entirely implausible” restrictions. Hikvision has always been clear that the company and its products present no threat to national security of the U.S. or the security of American consumers. No respected technical institution or assessment has concluded otherwise.

Possible threats to American consumers

Though federal and state governments have sounded the alarm about Hikvision and Dahua, surveillance cameras manufactured by these companies are still readily available for purchase in the U.S.

A quick search of Amazon reveals that surveillance cameras emblazoned with the Hikvision name are available for as little as $50, with an average cost of about $100. The company even has its own Amazon store, offering an array of products, though notably, no surveillance cameras are advertised there, and the webcam tab is empty.

With its many options and affordable prices, Hikvision views small- and medium-sized businesses as its target client base, according to the Record.

At about $70 per unit, Dahua cameras on Amazon are roughly in the same price range as Hikvision cameras and target the same business market, though Dahua does not have its own Amazon store.

Some may be surprised to learn that equipment manufactured by companies red-flagged by the government may still be sold legally in the U.S., but the reason is rather simple: The FCC banned only new technology from Hikvision and Dahua. Older technology is still available, though it could be banned later should regulators determine that such a step is necessary.

‘Physical separation’: Guarding against cyber menaces

By all appearances, Hikvision and Dahua cameras look like typical surveillance cameras and in and of themselves do not pose a security risk upon installation. Potential problems arise only when these cameras are connected to the internet.

'You've now just given them the keys to the kingdom.'

Many individuals and businesses prefer to connect cameras and servers to the internet to avail themselves of cloud storage and remote-access capabilities. However, users must segment their systems to prevent bad actors — like some foreign companies and governments — from tapping into the devices from the outside.

“It's like having a fence in your yard,” Rob Coté, owner of a small cybersecurity company called Security Vitals, explained to Blaze News. “You have a physical separation, and it … thwarts the potential of a remote data grab.”

“If the cameras had malicious content or the ability for remote access from an external resource built into them and you connect them to your core network, you've now just given them the keys to the kingdom.”

In addition, businesses also ought to position surveillance cameras so as to prevent them from capturing sensitive or proprietary information, knowing that images captured on surveillance could be accessed in the case of a cyberattack.

Thus, while the risk of possible data compromise is significant, average American consumers, even those who are not tech-savvy, can take steps to protect themselves and their sensitive data.

First, they should take the time to do basic research into equipment before making any purchases and, as they would with other products, remain wary of attractive price tags.

Secondly, they should consider purchasing other key cybersecurity equipment such as firewalls from a reputable vendor. Such vendors specialize in securing cyber environments for those without the means or inclination to do so themselves.

“Make sure that those cameras are on a separate network that doesn't touch your key corporate assets or your core resources,” Coté further advised.

In a statement, Hikvision told Blaze News:

Hikvision’s business model in overseas markets generally involves selling products via distribution networks to integrators who then install the equipment at end-user facilities. Hikvision does not install devices at end users’ sites and end users have full control over how the equipment is used, which means that Hikvision, as an equipment manufacturer, has no visibility or access into end users’ video data.

Dahua did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

‘Close rapport between Beijing and Moscow’: Other concerns

As IPVM noted, governments from around the world have likewise banned or at least restricted the use of Hikvision and Dahua products at and by state agencies. Ukraine in particular became wary of the two camera manufacturers because of the recent political alliance between China and Russia.

According to a January report from the Kyiv Independent, Hikvision and Dahua cameras are widely used in Ukraine in both private and public sectors. Should those companies access Ukrainian data and exfiltrate it to China, the data could make its way to Russian military leaders who might exploit it.

'Although the information is sent in encrypted form ... for the manufacturer and developer of these cameras, decoding such information will not pose a problem.'

In fact, the outlet indicated that may have already happened: “Russian intelligence services have reportedly managed to access surveillance cameras, including older Hikvision devices, to guide strikes against Ukraine's cities, for example, during a mass missile attack on Jan. 2.”

While the outlet could not confirm whether Russia had gained access to sensitive Ukrainian data, it insisted that “the close rapport between Beijing and Moscow makes the data transmission a security risk.”

Furthermore, the outlet noted that the older Hikvision and Dahua models — some of which are almost assuredly in use in the U.S. — were easily hacked, creating other security complications.

In practice tests conducted at the behest of Radio Liberty, the Ukrainian outlet cited above, skilled experts could hack into an older Hikvision model within 15 minutes.

Other tests conducted on older models revealed that some servers in countries like Ireland and Germany were actually owned by American companies, including Amazon Web Services, but rented by Hikvision or Dahua, meaning that these Chinese companies effectively remained in control of servers in foreign countries thousands of miles away.

“We see that even when the user wants to turn off the connection to the Dahua cloud service, such a connection still continues and information continues to reach the servers rented by Dahua via the internet,” Serhiy Denysenko, executive director of Laboratories of Computer Forensics, told Radio Liberty about a Dahua unit released in 2019.

“And although the information is sent in encrypted form, I believe that for the manufacturer and developer of these cameras, decoding such information will not pose a problem,” Denysenko continued. “And these are precisely the security risks for the user, about which the manufacturer did not inform him.”

In a statement, Hikvision told Blaze News:

As a publicly traded commercial manufacturer, all of Hikvision offerings are designed for civil use. Hikvision declines to comment about the use of its equipment in specific markets. Separately, Hikvision becomes aware of a hack of any kind, it acts swiftly and takes every possible step to address it.

Dahua and Amazon Web Services did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

By far, the most secure “older” model camera that Radio Liberty tested was a Hikvision camera released in 2023. Because the unit demanded a more complex password for sign-in purposes and did not automatically transmit data upon connection to a network, Denysenko described it as “much safer.”

Without more specific details about the model, it is difficult to determine whether that particular Hikvision model is available for purchase on Amazon. But with the FCC banning new technology from Hikvision and Dahua, the agency may have inadvertently prevented Americans from purchasing newer cameras with more advanced, built-in security protections.

'Always on and watching': Hikvision and Chinese detention camps

Bet_Noire/Getty

Another serious problem with Hikvision is its apparent history with the detention camps in China. According to one former detainee, Hikvision cameras installed in the camps ostensibly allowed guards to detect the slightest sound or movement and rebuke prisoners angrily for speaking without authorization.

Ovalbek Turdakun — an ethnic Kyrgyz and a Christian — spent 10 months in a concentration camp in the Chinese region of Xinjiang in 2018. While incarcerated, Turdakun was subjected to horrific torture as well as onerous surveillance reportedly facilitated through Hikvision cameras.

Though prisoners were crowded into cells and shut in for months at a time, they kept almost entirely silent because surveillance cameras installed there were “always on and watching,” Turdakun — who has since defected to the U.S. with his wife and son — told Tech Crunch through a translator.

Prisoners even raised their hand and asked permission when they had to use the latrine hole “because of the cameras watching, always,” Turdakun reiterated. The slightest attempt at conversation incited angry censure transmitted through surveillance cameras.

When shown the Hikvision logo, Turdakun claimed he saw it on all the cameras in the detention camp and in the surrounding Chinese city. While on house arrest, Hikvision cameras positioned in the city would alert authorities to Turdakun’s movements, prompting further harassment, he said.

“The cameras are about [6 feet] in height — also Hikvision — and they’re on every sidewalk,” Turdakun explained to Tech Crunch.

“There are so many of them, they don’t need to change the directions of the cameras. It doesn’t matter how long the road is, even the shortest road will have cameras. The whole entire city has cameras watching.”

Tech Crunch admitted that it could not independently verify Turdakun’s reports but claimed they aligned with other reports given by survivors of Chinese detention camps.

In a statement, Hikvision did not deny its previous association with Chinese detention camps, telling Blaze News:

Hikvision takes all reports regarding human rights very seriously. As a market leader, we recognize our responsibility for protecting people and firmly oppose all forms of forced labor, child labor, and modern slavery. …

Hikvision’s products and technologies serve vital roles in protecting people and society in more than 150 countries. Since entering global markets, Hikvision has and will continue to strictly comply with applicable laws and regulations in the countries where we operate and follow internationally accepted business ethics and business standards. We also continuously review and refine our personal data protection practices and policies to prevent misuse of our products.

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

Big Brother Ford awarded patent to snitch to cops when you speed



Ford, once an icon of American innovation, now wants to take the lead on another emerging and upcoming trend — mass surveillance.

In January 2023, Ford filed a patent application for a new technology that would allow it to track the driving behavior of vehicles on the road and report speeding violations to law enforcement. Vehicles would have cameras that activate if they detect speeding vehicles nearby and capture high-quality images of the offending vehicle and its identifying features, such as license plates or accessories attached to the offending car. Then, those images and GPS data would be shared with local law enforcement to decide whether to initiate a chase.

Many believe that these cameras violate drivers’ privacy. But it shouldn’t come as a surprise that corporations and governments worldwide already have methods to spy on their citizens. Governments have been found to hack into private individuals’ phones through software provided by corporations, and the NSA admits to purchasing Americans’ sensitive data.

Local law enforcement has always partnered with corporations to surveil the public by installing cameras to detect speeding and running red lights. These cameras have come under fire for their questionable legality and efficacy, spurring some states to ban them.

Car makers already have a habit of violating drivers’ privacy. A New York Times reporter found that General Motors 'tricked millions of drivers into being spied on' by tracking detailed driving data and adjusting insurance rates accordingly; those with supposedly poor driving behavior would see their rates increase.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill to ban red-light cameras in 2019, two years after KXAN, an Austin-based NBC affiliate, reported that almost all cities with red-light cameras had illegally issued traffic tickets. Their investigation also found that drivers paid the city of Austin over $7 million in fines since the cameras were installed, and cities in Texas made over $500 million from the cameras since 2007.

For now, Ford’s new camera idea remains a patent application, so it's not certain whether we’ll see F-150s snitching on you for going five mph over the limit, even if Ford is granted the patent. But if it does become reality, we’ll probably see F-150s snitching on you for no reason at all. After all, if red-light cameras are faulty, why won’t Ford’s camera be?

A bad habit

Car makers already have a habit of violating drivers’ privacy. A New York Times reporter found that General Motors “tricked millions of drivers into being spied on” by tracking detailed driving data and adjusting insurance rates accordingly; those with supposedly poor driving behavior would see their rates increase.

As a result, lawmakers urged the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on car makers’ privacy violations. In a letter to the FTC, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) accused GM, Honda, and Hyundai of spying on drivers and selling data for pennies. In the letter, they claim that Honda sold data from 97,000 cars, at a rate of 26 cents per car, to Verisk, a data analytics provider for insurance companies, between 2020 and 2024. Between 2019 and 2024, Hyundai sold data from 1.7 million vehicles, at a rate of 61 cents per car, to Verisk.

“The FTC should hold accountable the automakers, which shared their customers’ data with data brokers without obtaining informed consent, as well as the data brokers, which resold data that had not been obtained in a lawful manner,” the two senators urged.

Car makers aren’t the only ones scheming to snitch on drivers, though. Popular apps like Life360, a location-sharing app popular for families with teens, are accused of selling families’ data to insurance companies. Despite being advertised as an app that helps improve families’ safety, it violates families’ privacy. In 2021, one former X-mode employee claimed, “Life360 had the ‘most valuable offerings due to the sheer volume and precision’ compared to other sources of data,” according to the Verge.

MyRadar, a weather forecast app, and GasBuddy, which finds the cheapest gas stations, are also accused of violating privacy for profit.

Some insurance companies are finding ways to gather driving data without buying it from someone else. Progressive, for example, has a product called the Progressive Snapshot. Drivers voluntarily attach the device to their vehicles, allowing Progressive to track their driving behavior. Each time the device detects a hard brake, it will beep, encouraging drivers to alter their behavior on the road.

Progressive claims that safe drivers will be rewarded with discounts, but it's uncertain whether it will benefit most drivers. People who work in big cities must deal with bumper-to-bumper traffic during rush hour, causing them to brake harder or unexpectedly. Even though frequent hard braking is out of their control, they may see their insurance rates increase.

Fortunately, Progressive Snapshot is a voluntary program. However, insurance companies already have ways to track driving behavior without alerting their customers. In an era that feels eerily similar to Orwell’s "1984," it's only a matter of time until all Americans realize they’re being spied on.

Tulsi Gabbard fears for family and freedom upon learning Harris admin allegedly targeted her for surveillance



Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) revealed Friday to nationally syndicated radio host and co-founder of Blaze Media Glenn Beck precisely how devastated she was to learn that the Harris administration may be surveilling her via a program designed to identify and monitor potential terrorists.

While she feels personally betrayed — having enlisted in the military in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, countering extremism across three war zones — Gabbard expressed concern that her family could be at risk and that she is "not the only veteran or service member who they have chosen to put on this list."

"This goes against the core of our First Amendment, which our founders intentionally put in place to ensure our protected speech, whether we be praising the government or we be criticizing our government," said Gabbard. "That is core to the founding of who we are as a country."

Several Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers recently came forward with information indicating that Gabbard may be enrolled in the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Quiet Skies program adds "another layer of risk-based security by identifying individuals who may pose an elevated security risk in addition to individuals on other watch lists maintained by the Federal government, so that TSA can take appropriate actions to address and mitigate that risk."

UncoverDC reported that the whistleblowers initially shared evidence of Gabbard's placement on what is effectively a terror watch list with Sonya LaBosco, executive director of the Air Marshal National Council. LaBosco subsequently revealed at least one of the marshals is willing to go on the record with the relevant evidence.

'They see those of us who rightly criticize our governments, and their corruption, and their abuse of power, as a domestic threat.'

Unbeknownst to Gabbard — at least until this week — every time she got on an airplane, there with her were two explosive detection canine teams, a transportation security specialist, a plainclothes TSA supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals, said Bosco.

When pressed on allegations about Gabbard's listing, a TSA spokesman recently told investigative reporter Matt Taibbi:

TSA uses multi-layered security processes to protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA's Quiet Skies program uses a risk-based approach to identify passengers and apply enhanced security measures on some domestic and outbound international flights.

The spokesman added, "To safeguard sensitive national security measures, TSA does not confirm or deny whether any individual has matched to a risk-based rule. These rules are applied to a limited number of travelers for a limited period of time. Simply matching to a risk-based rule does not constitute derogatory information about an individual."

There has been speculation that Gabbard's criticism of the Washington establishment's reflexive interventionism and her departure from the Democratic Party may have prompted her alleged enrollment in Quiet Skies program. Gabbard is also unlikely to have made friends in the current administration by tanking Kamala Harris' presidential bid in 2020.

While mystified by "their insane, tyrannical thinking," Gabbard told Beck that her targeting by the Democratic administration would be par for the course given that "we've already seen proof over these last four years ... they will weaponize any levers of power they have within the government to go after those who they deem to be a threat to their power, who they deem to be a political opponent."

Beck alluded to failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's Oct. 17, 2019, smear against Gabbard, when she suggested Gabbard is "the favorite of the Russians. ... Yeah, she's a Russian asset."

"They see those of us who rightly criticize our governments, and their corruption, and their abuse of power, as a domestic threat," continued Gabbard. "They say so publicly. They say, 'Hey, those who criticize public institutions may be domestic extremists or terrorists.'"

In recent years, it has taken a whole lot less than criticism of the state to warrant suspicion as a potential domestic terrorist.

For instance, Blaze News reported late last year on a report from the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government indicating that the FBI "abused its counterterrorism tools to target Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists."

"The only assumption that I can make is that they're coming after me because of my speaking the truth and revealing who they really are," Gabbard told Beck.

The former congresswoman indicated that the possibility of her enrollment in Quiet Skies is already having a chilling effect — that she now faces the "constant stress of knowing that I am being surveilled by my government and wondering if and how they are doing that. How are they monitoring my movement? Are they listening to my phone calls? Are they reading my emails and text messages?"

Gabbard emphasized that it is impossible to live freely under the thumb of a regime that has "no hesitation in weaponizing whatever they can get their hands on."

Such a state of play is reminiscent of "the Stalin approach," she added. "Find me the man, and I'll tell you the crime."

— (@)

U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who penned a letter to TSA Administrator David Pekoske Thursday regarding the veracity of the whistleblowers' claims, said he found the allegations "profoundly troubling."

Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, indicated that his outfit is "launching a multipronged legal effort not only to defend Tulsi Gabbard but to defeat the weaponization of government against conservatives, our military, and the free speech of all Americans once and for all."

The ACLJ intends to file Freedom of Information Act requests with the TSA, the DHS, and the FBI, seeking answers about Gabbard's alleged targeting.

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

Watchdog: TSA Punishing Whistleblower Who Exposed Surveillance Abuses Is ‘Classic Retaliation’

TSA aims to punish an employee with the Federal Air Marshal Service who made protected disclosures that unearthed deep-state misconduct.

The UK is weaponizing a COVID-era 'disinformation' agency against those posting about the riots



The U.K. established a spy agency in 2019 called the Counter Disinformation Unit. Its stated purpose is "to understand disinformation narratives and attempts to artificially manipulate the information environment to ensure that the government understands the scope and reach of harmful mis and disinformation and can take appropriate action."

Like the Harris-Biden administration and the Stanford Internet Observatory across the Atlantic, the CDU has leaned on social media companies in recent years to flag and censor supposed disinformation. During the pandemic, for instance, it monitored lockdown and vaccine critics and targeted critics of government policy.

Amid calls for review and controversy over its censorious practices, the CDU was rebranded as the National Security Online Information Team.

Notwithstanding ongoing concerns over its apparent attempt to replicate the Chinese communists' surveillance regime, the British government has found yet another narrative it would like the NSOIT to cure.

'Keyboard warriors also cannot hide.'

Axel Rudakubana, the 18-year-old son of Rwandan immigrants, apparently stormed into a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England, on July 29 and butchered three girls — Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar, and Bebe King. Rudakubana also grievously wounded five other children and two adults.

The initial refusal of authorities to indicate the attacker's nationality or release his name upon his arrest — apparently customary when dealing with minors who are suspects — prompted many to suspect that he was an asylum seeker captive to a radical ideology.

Protests and riots, fueled further by longstanding frustrations with unchecked migration, British Islamicization, coverups, and a failure of assimilation, soon began to sweep the country.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky News Monday, "There has to be a reckoning."

"Those individuals who are involved in the disorder need to know that they will pay a price," said Cooper. "There have already been hundreds of arrests, and we have made very clear to the police they have our full support in pursuing the full range of prosecutions and penalties, including serious prison sentences, long-term tagging, travel bans, and more."

While hundreds of rioters have reportedly been arrested, authorities are also going after those whose related posts and comments online are supposedly false or inflammatory.

Cooper further emphasized that "keyboard warriors also cannot hide" and will be "liable for prosecution and strong penalties too," reported the BBC.

According to the Telegraph, the NSOIT is now being used to monitor social media posts regarding the riots.

Peter Kyle, the new leftist government's technology secretary, has asked the NSOIT to track online activity regarding the discussion of the butchered Southport girls and the protests.

Silkie Carlo, the director of the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, told the Telegraph, "There are serious questions as to whether NSOIT is fit for this task, given its chilling track record of monitoring the lawful and accurate speech of journalists, scientists, parliamentarians, human rights advocates and members of the public during the pandemic when they rightly questioned the government’s pandemic management."

'This is '1984' in practice.'

"It's worrying to see NSOIT brought into action shortly after its controversial activities were exposed, and before it has been subject to the important independent review the culture committee called for," added Carlo.

Carlo subsequently wrote in an op-ed:

The explanation of 'internet lies' is a neat way to package the long-term break down in law and order, disintegrating social fabric and simmering racism in our country – and it comes with the very neat response of online censorship that benefits elites who have never really trusted us with free and open access to information online.

A government spokesman downplayed the online surveillance and information clampdowns, telling the Telegraph, "We have been abundantly clear — what is illegal offline is illegal online, and it’s right that any thugs stoking violence on the streets meet the full force of the law."

"We make no apology for monitoring publicly available content that threatens public safety. The information is flagged up to social media firms when it is likely to have breached their terms of service, and the police when it meets a criminal threshold," added the spokesman.

Apparently the NSOIT is not alone in making sure that Britons are sharing only government-approved information online.

Stephen Parkinson, director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales, recently told Sky News, "We do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for [racially inflammatory] material, and then follow up with identification, arrests, and so forth."

"People might think they're not doing anything harmful. They are," added Parkinson. "And the consequences will be visited upon them."

Fr. Calvin Robinson responded to Parkinson's comments, telling "Blaze News Tonight," "This is '1984' in practice."

Regardless of how they've framed such efforts, Robinson indicated further that the police and the government are working to stop information from spreading that "they don't see as true; that we may see as true but they don't."

In addition to the British government working harder to control the flow of information online, leftist Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised a "wider deployment of facial recognition technology."

Carlo responded, saying, "This AI surveillance turns members of the public into walking ID cards, is dangerously inaccurate and has no explicit legal basis in the UK."

Big Brother Watch indicated that the vast majority of police live facial recognition matches in the U.K. are false positives, meaning "they have wrongly flagged innocent members of the public as people of interest."

Daragh Murray, a senior lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, told the Guardian, "There is a clear danger that in responding to a tragedy and public unrest we expand and entrench police surveillance without appropriate scrutiny. Given that the police have responded to disorder and riots for decades, why is facial recognition needed now?"

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