Connect with us

Government Surveillance

FBI admits they interrogate Americans over social media posts ‘every day, all day long,’

Published

on

Government surveillance practices have come under scrutiny once again, as revealed in a recent encounter between an Oklahoma woman and some people claiming to be FBI agents at her residence. Rolla Abdeljawad of Stillwater was visited by alleged FBI agents who informed her that they regularly scrutinize social media posts, quoting their routine as “every day, all day long.”

Abdeljawad’s encounter with the agents was captured in a video posted by her lawyer, Hassan Shibly. In the footage, she can be seen requesting the agents to display their badges on camera, a request which was declined and not explained as to why they would not provide proper identification. Despite her reluctance to engage in conversation, the agents proceeded to inform her that Facebook had provided screenshots of her online activity.

Expressing her concerns, Abdeljawad questioned the erosion of free expression rights, to which one agent replied affirmatively, stating their objective was to ensure public safety rather than to make arrests.

While the specific posts that caught the alleged FBI’s attention remain undisclosed, Abdeljawad had been vocal on social media regarding the conflict in Gaza, referring to Israel as “Israhell” and expressing solidarity with Palestine. In one post, she denounced what she called “Israhelli terrorist filth” and advocated for the destruction of Zionists.

Abdeljawad had also warned her social media followers, particularly those in the Muslim and pro-Palestinian communities, about potential government monitoring of their online activities. She cautioned against complacency and urged vigilance, claiming that the community was under surveillance.

The incident raises questions about the extent of government surveillance and the role of social media companies in colluding and providing said information to the government. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, has a policy of cooperating with law enforcement agencies under specific circumstances, such as court orders or emergencies involving imminent harm.

Abdeljawad’s lawyer, Hassan Shibly, commended her decision not to engage with the agents without legal representation and emphasized the importance of exercising one’s rights in such situations. However, he did caution against interacting with law enforcement without legal counsel present.

The encounter serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between national security interests and individual privacy rights, prompting concerns about the scope and implications of government surveillance practices in the digital age.

Biden Administration

DHS and FBI Issue Warning About Large Fourth of July Events as ‘Attractive’ Targets for

Published

on

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a warning on Wednesday regarding potential threats to large Fourth of July celebrations. According to an internal bulletin obtained by ABC News, these events are considered “attractive” targets for lone offenders and small groups with malicious intentions.

The bulletin emphasizes the risk posed by individuals and small groups who might exploit the gatherings for terrorism or other harmful activities. The warning comes as the nation prepares for Independence Day festivities, which traditionally draw large crowds to public spaces.

The FBI and DHS are urging local law enforcement and event organizers to increase vigilance and security measures. The agencies highlight the importance of public awareness and cooperation, encouraging individuals to report any suspicious activities immediately.

Continue Reading

Government Surveillance

Supreme Court to Review Texas Digital ID Verification Law

Published

on

The Supreme Court has announced it will review a legal challenge against a Texas statute mandating digital ID verification for any websites and apps that could be deemed “harmful to minors.” While the law is typically associated with pornographic material, the broad term “harmful to minors” could apply to a wide range of websites, preventing users from accessing content without first uploading their ID.

This legal battle revolves around Texas’ age verification bill, introduced in 2023. The law also requires these sites to present health warnings about the alleged psychological dangers of pornography consumption. Notably, this labeling requirement does not yet extend to search engines or social media platforms.

Websites that fail to comply with the law face steep fines, including daily civil penalties of up to $10,000 and potential fines from the Texas attorney general of up to $250,000 per instance if a minor accesses restricted content. Similar laws are currently active in seven other states and are set to be introduced in more states soon.

The Free Speech Coalition, along with several adult website operators, filed a lawsuit against the bill. Their argument is that the law infringes on First Amendment rights. A federal district court initially halted the law’s enforcement just before its implementation on September 1, 2023.

Mandatory digital ID requirements for website and social media use raise significant concerns about the chilling effect on free speech. These requirements can deter online participation due to privacy fears and undermine the anonymity vital for activists and whistleblowers. Such policies may also lead to self-censorship, as users might avoid sharing controversial opinions out of fear of being easily traced. Additionally, implementing digital IDs poses complex legal, technical, and logistical challenges that could result in bureaucratic errors and data breaches. The major Big Tech ID verification company AU10TIX was recently reported to have suffered a data leak, though the company says it hasn’t seen evidence of any user data being exploited.

The majority of the panel at the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that the Texas law is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in preventing minors’ access to pornography,” using the least stringent rational-basis review standard, and thus did not violate the First Amendment. In contrast, Judge Patrick Higginbotham dissented, arguing that the law necessitates strict scrutiny due to its content-based restrictions on adult access to protected speech.

As the 5th Circuit allowed its decision to stand, the Free Speech Coalition and the affected websites escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Their appeal emphasized the contradiction between the 5th Circuit’s decision and established Supreme Court precedents regarding sexual content and expression. They argue that the law unduly burdens adults’ constitutional rights by requiring the disclosure of personal information, thus increasing the risk of data breaches and privacy violations.

Texas officials defend the legislation, asserting it as a reasonable measure to protect minors from sexually explicit materials and not an undue burden on the porn industry.

As the Supreme Court prepares to review the case, the decision will have significant implications for digital privacy, free speech, and the regulation of online content across the United States.

Continue Reading

Government Surveillance

Automakers Confirm Warrantless Location Data Sharing With US Agencies

Published

on

Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Volkswagen, BMW, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, and Kia all have confirmed that they have tech embedded in their vehicles allowing them to turn over location data to US government based solely on a subpoena, without a judge having to sign off on an approval.

Volkswagen is the “outlier” here, in that this company will do the same if the data is six days or less old – a subpoena will do. But an actual warrant will be needed to turn over data that spans data collected over a week, according to reports.

Recognizing the need to address these concerns, Democrat Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey reached out to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate car manufacturers’ sharing of data with law enforcement agencies.

Their letter highlighted various scenarios where the sharing of location data could infringe upon individuals’ rights, including cases involving sensitive matters like abortion access and instances of stalking. The broader question remains: why is the fundamental right to privacy seemingly eroding, regardless of suspected violations?

Here is a copy of the newly obtained letter.

Continue Reading

Trending