Is the AI boom really about intelligence — or building a surveillance state?



Artificial intelligence has already transformed the way Americans work and research.

But BlazeTV host Daniel Horowitz believes the public is being sold an inflated vision of artificial general intelligence — and pouring staggering resources into the wrong model to achieve it.

“I actually like AI,” Horowitz tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace. “And I believe for narrow tasks, edge computing, localized sovereign data ... there’s a lot of good stuff being done.”

“My concern is, we’re misallocating resources away from the most useful, least painful, least consuming analogues of AI and using an all-of-government approach towards this AGI, which in my view is the least useful ... most expensive, really unfeasible the way they’re trying to do it, and also problematic,” he explains.

“For the average person out there, like me, that only knows about AI doing that or asking ChatGPT questions, help them understand the distinction that you just drew in ways that would relate to their understanding of the technology,” Deace says.


“If you want an ‘ask me anything,’ what they did was get people addicted to it, and then they’re like, ‘OK, it doesn’t cost anything,’” Horowitz explains.

“But then it does. Actually, we’re going to have to build five hyperscales in every county, and this much power, and yada yada, and make everything else more expensive,” he says.

“So, now that’s an ROI thing,” he continues. “It’s not that there is no use to artificial general intelligence, right — this open-ended generative AI. It’s not that there’s no use to it. It’s that there is a question of an ROI in the way they’re going about doing it.”

“Is it accurate to say that you believe, therefore, we’re overselling this technology to the American people based on what you just told us?” Deace asks.

“We’re overselling the need and utility of centralized cloud hyperscale model for AI. In terms of deploying it in low latency, narrow at the edge, there's things like the Iron Dome in Israel. You know, Israel has no hyperscale,” Horowitz replies.

“My core thesis is what they’re selling you on — again, and people could disagree with me, but my contention is that, just the opposite. Not only am I not opposed to it, I believe they are doing what government does in health care and many other sectors,” he continues.

“They’re misallocating resources towards a bubble and to Oracle’s grift of their 1970s technology of a centralized cloud in an impossible way that would perpetually have to scale in a way that either becomes obsolete or unfeasible,” he adds.

Horowitz goes on to explain that one of the only reasons this is being done is “a surveillance state.”

“Remember, China doesn’t have nearly as many of these because they built their surveillance state — in large part from these same companies, by the way — before AI. So, they already have it. They don’t need it,” he says.

And what Horowitz finds extremely concerning is that auto companies have just “won the rights to your texts when they get cycled through the car player.”

“They got all of it, and they won in court that they’re able to keep it,” he says.

“Your car, your home, your appliances. They would ideally want every step you make, every breath you take,” he adds.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

AOC’s latest ICE rant sounds like a campaign launch



Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent speech demonizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement not only infuriates the “Pat Gray Unleashed" panel, it makes them think the democratic socialist is gearing up for a presidential run.

On September 27 during More Perfect University’s “Students vs. Billionaires” series, AOC compared ICE to a black-box surveillance stack.

“ICE is an agency that has not even existed for as long as many of us have even been alive. They are a new agency created in the surveillance state establishment after 9/11,” she said. “ICE is Palantir; ICE is AI; ICE is facial recognition; ICE is surveillance — and ICE is coming after you regardless of your status.”

Pat is incensed at her calling ICE a new agency.

“They’re 25 years old — 25!” he exclaims. “That's a new agency? ... Compared to what? The fall of Rome?”

“She's also trying to pin this on Trump for starting ICE. That's what they desperately want to do,” he adds.

But it’s the progressive's comparison of ICE to Palantir, AI, facial recognition, and surveillance that really ticks him off.

“Wow, is that irresponsible,” he sighs. “It's just a flat-out communist lie. ... This is what gets people killed.”

“How she's saying it just made me think she's running for higher [office],” adds co-host Jeffy. “She’s not screeching about it.”

Pat agrees, mocking, “This darn Donald Trump and his new agencies.”

To hear more of the panel’s commentary and see the clip of AOC’s speech, watch the video above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image



Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, recently offered a reassuring vision of our technological future. Artificial intelligence, he predicted, will soon monitor police body cameras, security cameras, doorbell cameras, and vehicle dashboards. “Citizens will be on their best behavior,” he explained, “because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on.”

One is tempted to ask whether “best behavior” includes declining to construct an electronic surveillance state. Presumably, the algorithm will decide.

The surveillance state does not make good citizens. It makes practiced actors.

Ellison envisions AI supervising police officers as well as ordinary citizens. If an officer does something wrong, the system will detect the problem and report it to the appropriate authorities. Drones may even replace police cars during high-speed pursuits. The drone will follow the suspect while artificial intelligence records the proceedings and analyzes everyone involved.

Ellison, who is an atheist, wants an all-knowing being that is perfectly good and will judge our behavior.

It is difficult not to admire the efficiency. We have finally devised a deity suitable for the modern secular mind: omnipresent, nearly omniscient, and conveniently owned by a corporation, with promises of suitable oversight.

For generations, atheists and secularists have assured us that civilized people can dispense with belief in a God who sees our actions, judges our conduct, and holds us accountable. The notion of divine judgment was dismissed as primitive, oppressive, and psychologically unhealthy.

Enlightened people, we were told, do not need the threat of an all-seeing eye to behave morally.

Now, having removed God from heaven, our technological elites propose installing His replacement on every lamppost.

The secular project promised liberation from divine surveillance. Its culmination may be a camera that never blinks, connected to a machine that never sleeps, operated by authorities who never admit error.

Of course, artificial intelligence is not God. It is not even intelligent in the full human sense. It has no conscience, understands no moral law, and possesses no wisdom. It processes information according to purposes and standards supplied by human beings.

RELATED: The 9/11 generation may be building AI’s 9/11 moment

BlackJack3D/Getty Images

This creates a slight difficulty: If AI is to report “bad behavior,” someone must first tell it what bad behavior is.

Who will do that?

The programmers? Oracle executives? Government agencies? More AI? The same institutions that cannot define a woman may soon be entrusted with defining acceptable behavior for every citizen.

AI can recognize a face, track a vehicle, and perhaps identify a raised voice. It cannot tell us why assault is wrong, why citizens possess rights, or why the government should be restrained in its treatment of them.

The atheist insists that the universe contains no transcendent moral order. Human beings are products of impersonal matter, motion, and chance. Yet he continues speaking of justice, dignity, equality, and human rights as if these were eternal truths rather than temporary preferences produced by an unusual arrangement of atoms.

Having denied a Lawgiver above the state, he inevitably looks to the state to serve as lawgiver.

The God of Scripture sees everything, but His omniscience is joined to perfect knowledge, righteousness, and justice. He knows not merely what we do but why we do it. He judges the heart as well as the outward act.

Most importantly, God is not accountable to a government contractor, a political party, or Oracle’s quarterly earnings report because God is the standard for what is good, righteous, and holy.

RELATED: When government breaks the law, can you even sue?

DNY59/iStock/Getty Images

AI surveillance offers omnipresence without wisdom, judgment without righteousness, and accountability without any objective account of the good. It cannot produce virtue. At most, it can produce outward conformity in people who know they are being watched.

A man who refrains from stealing because theft is wrong possesses a measure of virtue. A man who refrains because six cameras and a drone are recording him possesses a measure of caution. The surveillance state does not make good citizens. It makes practiced actors.

Nor does recording everything solve the oldest political problem: Who watches the watchers? AI will report citizens to “the appropriate person,” Ellison tells us. This formulation is meant to be comforting, though history offers few reasons to assume that the person receiving unlimited information about the population will remain permanently appropriate.

The atheist rejected God because he did not want an authority above man. He is now constructing an artificial authority beneath man — but controlled by a small number of particularly powerful men. That is simply a transfer of divine attributes to institutions conspicuously lacking divine character.

We were told that when God disappeared, mankind would come of age. Instead, mankind immediately began shopping for cameras.

The choice is not between accountability and freedom from accountability. Every society will hold its members answerable to some standard. The real question is whether that standard rests upon a moral law higher than rulers or upon whatever rules the rulers program into their machines.

A God who judges governments as well as citizens is a barrier to tyranny. An AI system operated by the government is an instrument of it.

Our secular technologists have discovered that a society cannot survive unless people believe their actions are seen and judged. They have merely concluded that God’s principal defect was that He could not be purchased from Oracle.

What the Flock? Knoxville mayor explains the dark truth about Flock cameras: ‘Not your grandma's license plate readers’



Flock cameras — the automated license plate readers that photograph passing vehicles to capture their license plates, make, model, color, and other details, turning them into searchable records — are popping up all over the country. Proponents argue that they help solve crime and keep Americans safe, but is that actually true?

According to Glenn Jacobs, mayor of Knox County, Tennessee, the answer is no. He argues that Flock cameras actually endanger Americans by putting them under constant surveillance, giving the government a complete record of every citizen’s movements.

On this episode of “Kibbe on Liberty,” Matt Kibbe sits down with Jacobs to discuss why he believes Flock cameras are a dire threat to privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

“The more I've researched [Flock cameras], the more I dislike them and consider them a very dire threat to our privacy and to the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment,” says Jacobs.

Kibbe, calling Flock cameras “Orwellian,” is concerned that such surveillance will turn America into China 2.0.

“How is this any different than kind of a Chinese surveillance system?” he asks.

Jacobs indicates that it’s not all that different. Flock cameras, he explains, are marketed as license plate readers, but “they do a lot more than that.”

“With the Flock system, it is literally harvesting data. Every car that goes by, it pulls their license plate, but it also uses AI to develop a vehicle footprint,” he says.

“So it's your license plate, but also make, model, color, distinguishing features, roof racks, bumper stickers, all these different things that then go into a database and remain there for 30 days or more, depending on the policy of that particular agency. Then it can be searched through without a warrant for whatever,” he continues.

The lack of established parameters around Flock cameras also gives Jacobs serious pause.

“In Tennessee there's no state rules about how this can be used, and there's no federal guidelines either, so what's happened is this technology has gone out there and it's — until now, it's kind of flown under the radar,” he says.

Then there’s public opinion to consider. As Americans find out more and more about Flock cameras, the opposition has only grown.

“These things are not popular at all, and the more people learn about them, the more they literally hate them,” says Jacobs.

For example, it’s coming out that Flock cameras can gather enough data to form “a pattern of your movements.”

Jacobs illustrates the danger of such power with a hypothetical.

“They could say, you know, Glenn goes to the gun range at least once a week, twice on Sundays. If this happened during COVID, you know, he goes to anti-COVID meetings and rallies. All of a sudden they have a profile on me,” he says.

“No, we do not have an expectation of privacy when we're in public places and on public roads, but the Supreme Court has ruled that without a warrant, your movements can't be tracked like that. They ruled that in Carpenter v. United States in 2018,” he continues, predicting that it’s a matter of time before the Supreme Court will “squash” Flock cameras.

“But in the meantime, it's just important that people are aware that these are not your grandma's license plate readers. These are something much much different,” he warns.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Matt Kibbe?

To enjoy more of Matt's liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Is Government Surveillance Getting Out Of Hand? 🚨
play icon

Is Government Surveillance Getting Out Of Hand? 🚨

College student accused of destroying Flock cameras — and the community comes out in droves to defend him



A 20-year-old college student is accused of destroying Flock Safety cameras in a West Virginia town, but he's getting support from hundreds online.

Wesley Jackson allegedly damaged cameras that were installed at the intersection of Chestnut Ridge Road and Suburban Court in Morgantown, according to the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office.

'Can't be. He was helping me take care of my sick mother and 8 foster children at the time.'

Investigators said they were able to identify Jackson as a suspect through other business surveillance footage, information from a nearby license plate reader, and other records obtained through search warrants.

He identified an alleged accomplice during a police interview, and that man was also later arrested.

The nationwide furor over privacy issues related to Flock cameras manifested itself in the comments on the arrest, where many defended Jackson's alleged actions and others offered humorous alibis for the accused.

"Y’all’re confused, this fine young man was rescuing my cat from a tree at the time of the incident," read one comment on Facebook.

"This fine gentleman was actually with me burning a couch," said another.

"So weird, he was preparing food for the soup kitchen at that time," another commenter said.

"We were at a convention in DC doing a seminar on the 4th amendment," read another reply.

"Can't be. He was helping me take care of my sick mother and 8 foster children at the time," replied another user.

"No way he could have done it, we was fishing that day," recalled one commenter.

Video of some the comments were posted to social media.

"I was the flock camera. this is definitely not the guy that stole me," replied one user.

RELATED: FIVE police officers FIRED and charged after allegedly abusing Flock surveillance system

Jackson was charged with two felonies: damage, destruction, or theft of equipment used by emergency responders and conspiracy to commit a felony.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was released on a $15,000 bond.

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

Flock around and lose your rights



Few surveillance products have ever been named more appropriately than Flock. A flock of sheep has no rights. It exists to be watched, counted, and managed by whoever owns the field. That increasingly resembles how government treats Americans as officials cover streets and neighborhoods with cameras under the familiar but false promise of public safety.

Flock’s automated license-plate readers are not ordinary security cameras. They record every passing vehicle, capturing plate numbers, makes, colors, damage, bumper stickers, and other identifiers. Those records enter a private cloud that participating local and federal agencies can search across a network of more than 116,000 devices.

Swapping freedom for security rarely delivers either. A government that refuses to control criminals should not receive limitless power to track everyone else.

The system can reveal patterns of life: who visits a church, clinic, protest, political meeting, or friend’s home. It can do so without individualized suspicion and often without a warrant.

Tracking plates means tracking people across time and space. These cameras do not sit only along highways. They appear in residential neighborhoods and on local streets. InvestigateTV demonstrated how Flock’s Condor cameras can move and follow an individual within view.

When asked whether he envisioned “a future with a Flock camera on every street corner,” Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley said yes. He described an America where crime no longer exists.

The sales pitch is always safety. The practical result is a searchable record of ordinary people’s movements.

Local media in Windsor, Connecticut, reported that a resident’s public records request revealed more than 500,000 third-party searches of camera data in nine weeks. Officials may insist that systems like Flock exist only to recover stolen vehicles or locate dangerous suspects. A database this valuable will inevitably attract more agencies, more vendors, and more uses.

Government surveillance programs always begin with sympathetic cases: stolen cars, missing children, wandering dementia patients, and violent fugitives. Those benefits are real. They do not answer the central question. Should every citizen become continuously searchable because the technology sometimes helps police solve a crime?

After the COVID era, Americans have no excuse for assuming that every agency will use sweeping powers narrowly. Officials used emergency authorities, corporate data, and private platforms in ways the public was repeatedly assured would never happen. A permanent vehicle-tracking network deserves more skepticism, not less.

Flock’s defenders also evade the real cause of persistent crime. Police rarely lack the ability to identify repeat juvenile carjackers and other violent offenders. The deeper failure lies in prosecutors, judges, legislators, and “criminal justice reform” policies that return dangerous offenders to the street.

The Baltimore region illustrates the contradiction. Flock cameras dot the area, yet juvenile carjackings remain rampant because offenders often face little meaningful punishment. Cameras may help identify the same criminal again. They cannot supply the deterrence that prosecutors and courts refuse to impose.

RELATED: America’s newest jail has no walls

Blaze Media Illustration

We already know how to reduce violent crime: incapacitate repeat offenders and impose sentences severe enough to deter others. Government instead weakens punishment, tolerates disorder, and then asks the public to surrender more privacy to manage the consequences.

Resistance to automated plate readers is growing across liberal and conservative communities. Residents have vandalized or dismantled cameras, while local officials have voted to ban or remove them. In conservative counties, however, sheriffs often become the greatest obstacle to reform because state and federal grants subsidize the equipment and stretch cash-starved departmental budgets.

Programs such as the Homeland Security Grant Program, State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and COPS Office Technology and Equipment Program can finance systems that local departments could not otherwise afford. Counterterrorism and infrastructure protection become convenient justifications for constructing a domestic surveillance network.

The incentives are understandable. Sheriffs cannot control soft prosecutors, lenient judges, or lawmakers who empty jails. They can control front-end policing, and grants let them expand their technological reach. But frustration with failed criminal-justice policy does not justify treating every driver as a suspect.

RELATED: We’re winning the fight against Flock — but the surveillance isn't going away that easily

Cindy Schultz/Washington Post/Getty Images

Nor should Americans assume that every officer with access will behave honorably. More than 20 documented cases of police misuse have surfaced since 2023. Officers have reportedly used the system to stalk romantic partners and rivals. One Idaho officer searched his wife’s movements more than 700 times, labeling the queries “test” to avoid suspicion.

That abuse is not an aberration from the system’s purpose. It is the predictable result of giving thousands of people effortless access to intimate location data with weak oversight.

Flock presents Americans with a false choice between crime and constant surveillance. We can enforce the law, incapacitate violent offenders, and protect communities without allowing government to reconstruct every citizen’s daily movements.

The answer to failed policing is better policing. The answer to lenient prosecution is accountability. The answer to repeat offenders is punishment. None requires a camera on every corner or a permanent cloud archive of where every American has been.

Swapping freedom for security rarely delivers either. A government that refuses to control criminals should not receive limitless power to track everyone else.

Docs: Democrat Special Counsel Jack Smith Spied On, Lied To Congress

An executive agent spying on members of a legislature not only violates the Constitution but is a hallmark of authoritarian states.

'Keep drivers focused': EU mandates eye-tracking cameras in every car



The European Union says it wants to keep drivers safe by mandating new safety protocols surrounding emergency detection and distracted drivers.

The method of achieving these safety measures is likely to anger some drivers, if not many.

'This requirement does not forbid the ADDW system to use data from the camera.'

In an article titled "Safer cars, safer roads: New rules take effect," the EU announced that its new "life-saving systems" are required for all newly registered cars and vans starting on July 7.

This includes requirements for expanded safety glass, new tests for worn tires, emergency brake detections, and most notably, an "advanced driver distraction warning system to keep drivers focused."

According to official EU documents, these ADDW systems are required to monitor where the driver is looking at all times.

"The presence of the driver's gaze shall be monitored by the ADDW system in the areas of interest," the documents state.

Although the amount of cameras (and their placement) is not described, the set of rules does define what is considered a "distraction" area for the driver. This includes the driver's lap, the center console, and behind the driver's seat.

RELATED: Swedish government wants tracking devices on children — and it's already watching them

Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images

Allowable areas include the entire view of the windshield and the passenger window area.

The allottable time a driver is allowed to "gaze" into the distracted areas depends on the driver's speed. At speeds between 20 kph and 50 kph (between 12 mph and 31 mph), "if the driver's gaze remains within the defined 'distracted' vision area for more than 6 seconds," the car will issue a warning, InterRegs writes.

Above 50 kph, the time of allowed drifting gaze is just 3.5 seconds. Any violation of the allotted times will trigger a "visual warning ... to inform the driver, and an acoustic and/or a haptic warning shall be used" as well.

The warnings may "cascade and intensify" until the trigger conditions are met, the rules state. At the same time, there does not exist any verbiage that describes vehicle intervention or any kill switch to cut off the car's engine if the driver fails to comply.

RELATED: Republicans speak out against 'kill switch' mandate for all new cars: 'The technology is unworkable'

Francis DEMANGE/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images

In April, Republicans argued against similar technology being implemented in the United States, which included both passive and active monitoring tools, some of which can be powered by artificial intelligence.

Not only were infrared cameras that track a driver's eye movements and pupil dilation a possibility, but so were "cockpit-embedded sensors" capable of estimating blood alcohol levels through a driver's breath.

Other proposed methods have included touch-based sensors that detect alcohol through the skin of a finger or palm.

The EU says the new systems must function "without relying on biometric personal data of any vehicle occupants."

This data refers to any "physical, physiological, or behavioural characteristics" that identify the person, including "facial images."

"This requirement does not forbid the ADDW system to use data from the camera(s) equipped in the vehicle, it forbids the identification of the person by the ADDW system."

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

The KIDS Act would turn web browsing into a TSA line



Lawmakers never tire of devising new ways to undermine digital privacy and First Amendment rights, always under the guise of “protecting kids.”

The KIDS Act — the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act — is the latest piece of smug political branding and virtue-signaling to dress up heavy-handed federal overreach in the gentle language of child welfare. Lawmakers considering this legislation should ask a simple question: Could its broad and vague provisions someday be wielded by their political opponents to muzzle speech they favor?

Children deserve real and meaningful protection in the digital age. But true safety comes from empowering parents and holding actual bad actors accountable under existing laws.

Congress should reject the KIDS Act and defend the constitutional rights of all Americans.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) claim this latest “safety package” is about “empowering parents, establishing safety as a default, strengthening privacy for children and teens, increasing transparency around data brokers, and holding Big Tech accountable.”

Washington has heard this pitch before. Wide-ranging digital legislation is routinely sold as a privacy measure even when it undermines privacy.

As Taxpayers Protection Alliance research director David McGarry wrote in December, “Consensus [around digital safety legislation] remains elusive, and for good reason. The regulation of the internet is shot through with difficulties.”

The Kids Online Safety Act proves the point. McGarry observed, “Seeing the imprudence and constitutional vulnerabilities of the bill, its supporters have continuously trimmed and reshaped the legislation, each time declaring that this time — finally — the bill had been rid of its deficiencies. Each time, however, the amendments proved wanting, and further efforts to amend KOSA were undertaken.”

That analysis applies just as well to the current version of KOSA included in the KIDS Act.

Supporters claim the latest version removes the “duty of care” requirement that would have forced platforms to withhold poorly defined categories of online content from underage users. But the bill still targets broad categories of constitutionally protected speech.

Digital platforms are instructed to “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce reasonable policies, practices, and procedures” addressing supposed harms to minors, including the “use of ... alcohol”; “threats of physical violence so severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive that such threats impact a major life activity of a minor”; and “financial harm caused by deceptive practices.”

RELATED: Digital tyrants want your face, your ID … and your freedom

imaginima/iStock/Getty Images

Those terms are vague and dangerously elastic. What counts as the “use” of alcohol? Could a platform face scrutiny for allowing video clips featuring champagne toasts? Could a joke between friends be treated as a threat of physical violence? Because “deceptive” remains undefined, virtually any online transaction or promoted product could become a federal enforcement hook.

This minefield of liability makes a mockery of the First Amendment and chills expression across the digital domain.

The bill’s most insidious provision involves age verification.

On paper, the KIDS Act says it does not mandate age verification. That language sounds reassuring, but it functions as a legislative bait and switch. The bill imposes a legal standard holding tech platforms liable for content if they “know or should have known” a user’s age.

Consider the real-world meaning of “should have known.” If a company faces massive legal penalties or federal lawsuits for failing to determine a user’s age, it will feel compelled to verify the identity of everyone who logs on — children and adults alike.

That creates a de facto mandate requiring adults to upload driver’s licenses, biometric data, or government IDs just to read a news article, browse a forum, or use a search engine. Web users would be asked to hand over their most sensitive personal information to corporate databases that have repeatedly proved vulnerable to data breaches and foreign hackers.

Age verification on this scale is not a “best practice,” as the bill’s language suggests. It is constitutional malpractice.

The KIDS Act also responds to alleged online harms by expanding federal bureaucracy and spending more taxpayer dollars. It establishes a asinine array of busywork for busybodies: Federal Trade Commission and Health and Human Services studies, a four-year National Institutes of Health longitudinal study, public awareness campaigns, and a new “Kids Internet Safety Partnership” inside the Department of Commerce.

RELATED: Age verification laws do not make us safer

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images

This amounts to a major expansion of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy tasked with creating a “playbook” for more age verification.

Supporters will note that lawmakers stripped the highly controversial “duty of care” provision from previous versions of KOSA and retained explicit protections for data encryption. But removing the worst elements of an inherently broken bill does not transform it into good policy.

Children deserve real and meaningful protection in the digital age. But true safety comes from empowering parents with robust tools, advancing media literacy, and holding actual bad actors accountable under existing criminal laws.

It does not come from turning the internet into a surveillance state where adults must show their papers to browse the web.

Congress must reject the KIDS Act and protect both the Constitution and the digital domain.