Today, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) voted in favour of a new Europol Regulation, part of the EU’s so-called Facilitators Package, despite widespread warnings from civil society and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The vote was voted for by 59 MEPs, whilst 10 voted against and 4 abstained.
The European Parliament’s LIBE Committee has backed a new Europol Regulation granting the agency unprecedented powers to collect, process & share personal data — including biometrics & facial recognition — with non-EU states.
👁️🗨️ If approved in plenary later this month, it will hand Europol vast surveillance powers, further entrenching the EU’s criminalisation of migration & solidarity.
🗳️ MEPs still have one last chance to stop this dystopian reform: vote NO in plenary.
📸 All photos by @Omarhavana 🩵 Huge thanks to all our sponsors for making #PrivacyCamp25 possible: @EDPS as our general event partner, @nordvpn, @Surfshark, @flokinet, Center for AI and Digital Policy , Kobler, Amnezia VPN and Tech Hive Advisory 👏🏽
All photos are licensed under CC-BY 4.0 European Digital Rights. Photos were taken by Omar Havana. Are you in one of these pictures, even though you were wearing a no-photo (red) lanyard? Or did you change your mind about being photographed? Let us k…
For years, we have spoken about the decentralising power of technologies, of a "disintermediated" digital future in which we can interact "peer to peer," point to point. However, the world appears to be moving in a direction opposed to the many good intentions and experiments aimed at decentralisation, transparency, and horizontality on the web.
The future of identification technologies will involve delegating tasks to automated agents. Between the decentralised dream and the password asphyxiation, a third actor is emerging: the automatic intermediary.
In Deutschland werden nur 1 % aller Urteile veröffentlicht. Du kannst das ändern! Frage ein Urteil kostenlos zur Veröffentlichung bei Gericht an. Wir helfen!
Die freie und kostenlose Verfügbarkeit von #Urteilen ist tatsächlich ein wichtiger Aspekt der #Transparenz staatlichen Handelns, hier der #Justiz. Dass bislang eher wenig #Entscheidungen veröffentlicht werden, hat aber nichts mit Heimlichtuerei oder #Geheimjustiz zu tun. Vielmehr gibt es dafür v.a. zwei Gründe, die aber aktuell an Relevanz verlieren:
1. Bislang war die #Anonymisierung #personenbezogener Daten in Urteilen sehr aufwändig, weil von Hand vorzunehmen. In Kürze werden KI-Tools hierfür marktreif sein. Dann reduziert sich der händische Aufwand darauf, zu kontrollieren, ob auch alle relevanten Daten anonymisiert wurden.
2. Bislang haben #Richter*innen Urteile v.a. dann veröffentlicht, wenn darin "juritische Neuigkeiten" enthalten waren, also eine Änderung der #Rechtsprechung, erstmalige Auslegung neuer Normen u.ä. In Zeiten von KI werden Urteile aber auch als #Trainingsdaten interessant und für eine quantitative Auswertung. Von daher entwickelt die Justiz auch selbst ein größeres und in der Zielrichtung neues Interesse an steigenden Veröffentlichungsquoten.
Super wäre es, wenn damit auch ein Wandel in der Urteilssprache einhergehen könnte. Denn wenn Urteile auch für Nicht-Jurist*innen verständlich werden, ist das noch einmal ein wichtiger Beitrag zur Transparenz.
Artikel 139 GG: Der antifaschistische Auftrag des Grundgesetzes – Wolfgang Abendroth über die Bedeutung des Artikels 139 GG
Artikel 139 GG nimmt dem formellen Inhalt nach die zur »Befreiung des deutschen Volkes von Nationalsozialismus und Militarismu…
🇩🇪⚠️ Perfides Täuschungsmanöver? EU-Rat droht durch die Hintertür 🚪 doch eine Pflicht zur #Chatkontrolle einzuführen: Artikel 4-Erweiterung soll „alle angemessenen Risikominderungsmaßnahmen“ inkl. Chatkontrolle VORSCHREIBEN, sanktionsbewehrt! 😡 cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/…
🇪🇺⚠️ A perfidious trick? The EU Council Presidency wants to introduce mandatory #ChatControl through the backdoor 🚪: An Art. 4 amendment would MANDATE "all reasonable mitigation measures," including scanning, enforced with sanctions! 😡 cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/…
🇫🇷⚠️ Perfide manœuvre ? La présidence du Conseil de l'UE veut imposer le #ChatControl par la petite porte 🚪 : une modification de l'art. 4 pour EXIGER « toutes les mesures d'atténuation raisonnable », y compris le scan ! 😡 cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/…
🇮🇹⚠️ Perfido inganno? La presidenza del Consiglio UE vuole imporre il #ChatControl dalla porta di servizio 🚪: una modifica all'art. 4 per PRESCRIVERE «tutte le misure di attenuazione ragionevoli», inclusa la scansione, pena sanzioni! 😡 cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/…
Die deutsche Vertretung in Brüssel beschwert sich über den Widerstand gegen die Chatkontrolle. Das geht aus einem internen Drahtbericht hervor, den wir veröffentlichen.
Now we comparing rights, folks. And they are indirectly blaming us. Remember when they told that we were bought by Big Tech corporations? Those big freedom freaks!
So the presidency wants to decide what everyone else had a problem with, scratch out some of those things from the proposal and push through all the rest? How does this make sense in any form?
Mich würde wirklich einmal interessieren, was das eigentliche Playbook hinter diesen Zensurmaßnahmen ist. Warum haben so viele Politker/innen ein so großes Interesse an totaler Kontrolle? Wer bringt es immer wieder auf den Tisch? Wie wird hinter verschlossenen Türen argumentiert, dass man sich immer wieder so auf Scheinargumente gestützt nach vorn traut? Wer erhofft sich was genau?
Kannst du das anhand der des Textes im Link bitte etwas genauer erklären? Mir sagen diese Buchstaben nicht allzu viel! Schon gar nicht in einer Fremdsprache.
@Mons1serrata Im Dokument heißt es übersetzt: "Die freiwilligen Maßnahmen von Anbietern nach EU-Verordnung 2021/1232 würden als mögliche Risikominderungsmaßnahme in Artikel 4 aufgenommen." Und Artikel 4 verpflichtet dazu "alle angemessenen Risikominderungsmaßnahmen" umzusetzen. Dazu würde dann auch die #Chatkontrolle zählen.
Ich weiß nicht ob du es wusstest aber jeder Mensch mit einem Gehirn wusste, dass die große Freude "die Chatkontrolle endgültig abgewehrt" zu haben völlig bescheuert war.
So lange wir vom Kapital gesteuerte Politik haben, werden wir verschiebung richtung dystopie und tod haben.
Bitte helft mit, geld aus der politik zu verbannen.
Amidst the realistic negativity here, it is not the end. Hope is the last to die. Email your MEPS, the German ones, send letters, call them and sign petitions if one arises. Do not give up. You are not alone. We are in this together.
The United States Pirate Party, during our November 2nd meeting, voting to endorse Hunter Rand, who is running for 2nd Ward of the Sparks, Nevada city council!
The Pirate National Committee voted unanimously to endorse Hunter Rand.
This is not Hunter’s first time being involved with the party. Previously, Hunter was a guest speaker during our 2022 Pirate National Conference.
“He is a Pirate” is the sentiment echoed during last night’s meeting.
Hunter, pitching his campaign, went through our platform and discussed how “potholes don’t care who you vote for.”
“I don’t want to be a career politician and everything I do reflects that. My website isn’t ‘Hunter Rand for Office’ or ‘Hunter Rand for Ward 2′”.
Every Thursday of the week, Bastian’s Night is broadcast from 21:30 CEST (new time).
Bastian’s Night is a live talk show in German with lots of music, a weekly round-up of news from around the world, and a glimpse into the host’s crazy week in the pirate movement.
You do research on a product, maybe a pair of shoes, a gadget, or a flight ticket. And all of a sudden, every other ad on your screen is a copy of the same. It is easy and convenient to get over it – until you stop to think: how come the internet knows me so well?
This is not how the periphery of an algorithm works, but a systematically curated process designed to influence user behaviour, shaping not just what we buy, but how we think and choose.
As Europe now discusses “digital sovereignty,” it’s worth asking: who truly holds the reins of your digital life—you, your government, or the tech giants?
A recent article by Politico explains how France and Germany, in alliance with the United States, are championing a “sovereign digital transition,” the idea that Europe must reduce its dependence on foreign Big Tech giants and establish its own technological foundations. On paper, it appears to be a bold step toward autonomy. In practice, however, citizens across Europe are asking: What does this mean for me, my data, my digital life? (archive.ph/k7Nyz)
The Promise of a European Stack – What’s at Stake?
The ambition is high: from sovereign cloud infrastructure to home-grown AI and chip design, the goal is a Europe where tech is owned, governed, and secured by Europeans. But this raises significant questions. Who controls these platforms? Are they built for citizen empowerment or just national-industrial competition? Is “sovereignty” being framed as freedom, or as new walls around users’ data and digital behaviours?
Ground-Level Reality: Data, Dependence, and Digital Discomfort
Commuters from the EU are receiving fines from London’s ULEZ zone even though they never drove there. The cross-border data sharing behind that fine is not some distant regulation—it’s a personal intrusion. (Source: Guardian – theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/j…? | archive.ph/s9EBF)
DataReportal’s “Digital 2025: Online Privacy Concerns” section highlights that in Europe, the number of connected adults worried about how companies use their personal data is a meaningful trend (although slightly down from previous years). (Source: Dataportal – datareportal.com/reports/digit… | archive.ph/vOwZp )
A case where the European Commission was ordered to compensate a citizen for improperly transferring his personal data outside the EU, illustrating how even high-level institutions can breach data-protection rights. (Source: Brussels Signal – brusselssignal.eu/2025/01/eu-c… | archive.ph/bN5lF)
These stories illustrate that what starts as “digital sovereignty” in high-level Brussels dialogue ends up in your bank records, your home, and your social feed.
Where Sovereignty Risks Turning Into Surveillance
According to the Politico piece, Europe’s push to take control of its tech stack is partly a response to U.S. dominance. But replacing one system with another raises the same concerns:
Will European infrastructure keep privacy at the centre, or will it become just another corporate/state-controlled ecosystem?
When national or bloc-level systems enforce age checks, data localization, and surveillance capabilities, will citizens gain freedom or lose it?
The Pirate Perspective: Tech for People, Not Power
For the European Pirates Party, the question isn’t whether Europe should build tech. It’s how and for whom. True sovereignty starts with the user’s choice, not just the state’s contracts and cloud servers.
Digital freedom means:
Transparent platforms where citizens can inspect how their data is used.
User-controlled infrastructure, where opting out isn’t a penalty.
Open standards and interoperability, rather than locked-in systems that create new dependencies.
Governance by citizens, not just by ministers or industrial lobbyists.
What It Means For You
Ask: Who owns the cloud where your photos are stored? If Europe builds its own stack, will you still have the right to move your data freely?
Watch for: Platforms that claim “European control” but push the same manipulative algorithms and business models as before.
Insist on: User education and choice because no matter how sovereign the tech gets, if you don’t understand it, you are still powerless.
Final Word
Europe’s digital sovereignty drive is exciting and potentially transformative. Europe’s digital sovereignty drive is exciting and potentially transformative. However, if it continues without electing citizens to govern, we risk establishing a “sovereign tech” environment that denies users authority.
The Pirates’ message is unmistakable: sovereignty devoid of popular authority is merely another form of reliance. Let’s ensure that users, not tech companies or anyone else, own the data revolution.
As usual, this will be an online conference. However, we will have an in person meeting in Potsdam, Germany. Please let us know if you are planning on physically coming to Potsdam, so we can plan a proper venue.
As usual, we will have speakers, elections, motions, and any other business. Please remember to suggest any statute revisions at least a month beforehand, if any. We will present more detailed announcements about motions. You are free to join in the organization by joining the Discourse: ga.pp-international.net/c/wint…
Thomas Ney and Lilia Kayra Kuyumcu will speak on behalf of the German Pirate Party.
All Pirate Parties and supporters are invited to attend.
More information, including the agenda and connection details, will be published soon.
Inizia:Giovedì Novembre 06, 2025 @ 6:30 PM GMT+01:00 (Europe/Rome)
Finisce:Giovedì Novembre 06, 2025 @ 9:30 PM GMT+01:00 (Europe/Rome)
Giovedì 6 novembre torniamo con il Logout di TWC Roma, il ritrovo per tech workers che vogliono incontrarsi dopo lavoro: un'occasione per socializzare, conoscersi, parlare del nostro lavoro e come organizzarci nei prossimi mesi!
Ci vediamo giovedì 6 novembre, alle 18.30, da 568 Public House a Garbatella!
Sezione romana di @twcita. Uno spazio per discussioni di rilevanza locale tra tech worker. Pure er posto giusto pe dasse na punta ogni tanto ;) Info & Regolamento: https://t.me/twcitagruppo/80268
🇩🇪#Chatkontrolle-Grundsatzdebatte jetzt offiziell auf der EU-Tagesordnung für Mittwoch: Status quo beibehalten (#Chatkontrolle 1.0) oder Wiedervorlage der extremen #Chatkontrolle 2.0 zu einem günstigeren, späteren Zeitpunkt?
🇪🇺Policy decision on #ChatControl now official on the EU agenda for Wednesday: Maintain status quo (#ChatControl 1.0) or reintroduce the extreme #ChatControl 2.0 at a more favorable, later time? Nothing is off the table yet! parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXVII…
🇮🇹Decisione di principio sul #ChatControl ora all'ordine del giorno UE per mercoledì: mantenere lo status quo (#ChatControl 1.0) o ripresentare la versione estrema #ChatControl 2.0 in un momento più favorevole? Nulla è ancora deciso parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXVII…
🇳🇱Beleidsbeslissing over #ChatControl staat nu officieel op de EU-agenda voor woensdag: status quo handhaven (#ChatControl 1.0) of het extreme #ChatControl 2.0 op een gunstiger, later moment opnieuw indienen? Het is nog niet van de tafel! parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXVII…
Choosing between "stupid" and "evil" shouldn't be hard, but apparently it is.
Remember the people who push for the end of privacy, and make sure they never hold public office again. We have not been vindictive enough. People like Peter Hummelgaard deserve to be despised.
isn't that the same strategy they pulled the last 10 times? Trying to reintroduce it at a more favorable later time when people forgot about it? 🙄 They wanna annoy is until we say yes?
It’s been 220 days since Rümeysa Öztürk was arrested for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like. Read on for news from California, Washington D.C. and Maryland as the government shutdown drags on.
Public records are for the public
When Wired made public records-based stories free, subscriptions went up.
When 404 Media published reporting that relied on the Freedom of Information Act without a paywall, new sources came forward.
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) spoke to Wired Global Editorial Director and FPF board member Katie Drummond, and 404 Media co-founder Joseph Cox about why giving the public access to public records reporting is good for journalism — and for business. Read more here.
Shutting down the government doesn’t shut down the First Amendment
It’s absurd and unconstitutional to exclude reporters from immigration hearings unless they get government permission to attend, especially when it’s impossible to obtain permission due to the government shutdown, and particularly when the current government despises First Amendment freedoms and will use any opportunity to evade transparency.
And yet that’s exactly what an immigration court in Maryland did this week. We wrote a detailed letter to the top judge at the courthouse explaining why they need to reverse course, both to comply with the law and for the sake of democracy. The next day, Capital News Service reported that the court had backed down and lifted the ban. Read the letter here.
No secret police in LA
Award-winning journalist Cerise Castle sued Los Angeles County in July and obtained a court order for the department to release the sheriff’s deputy ID photographs.
But now the county is appealing. Its objection to allowing the public to identify law enforcement officers is especially striking when Angelenos and others across the country are outraged by unidentified, masked federal immigration officers abducting their neighbors. It also comes on the heels of the city of Los Angeles embarrassing itself with its failed effort to sue a journalist for publishing officer photographs.
We connected with Castle’s lawyer, Susan Seager, to try to figure out what the department is thinking. Read more here.
Top three questions about the White House ballroom
FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper has lots of questions about the demolition of a section of the White House to construct a ballroom.
She wrote about three of them for our government secrecy site, The Classifieds: (1) Is there a budget? (2) Who are the donors, and what do they get in return? and (3) Where should we look for answers about what’s going on at the East Wing? Read more here.
What we’re reading
U.S. assessment of Israeli shooting of journalist divided American officials (The New York Times). A retired U.S. colonel has gone public with his concern that the Biden administration’s findings about the 2022 killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by the Israeli military were “soft-pedaled to appease Israel.” There has been “a miscarriage of justice,” he says.
ICE detains British journalist after criticism of Israel on US tour (The Guardian). The detention of Sami Hamdi by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement solely for his views while on a speaking tour in the U.S. is a blatant assault on free speech. These are the tactics of the thought police.
Trump and Leavitt watch with glee as the press is crumbling (Salon). “As the press becomes more subservient and less independent, the firsthand knowledge needed to even stage a fight to get our mojo back is a whisper in the ether,” writes Brian Karem. That’s why veteran journalists who know how abnormal this all is need to be extra vocal these days.
Atlanta journalist says he ‘won’t be the only’ one deported by Trump officials (The Guardian). “It’s not the way I wanted to come back to my country – deported like a criminal,” journalist Mario Guevara told Briana Erickson of FPF’s U.S. Press Freedom Tracker from El Salvador. Read The Guardian’s story, based on reporting by the Tracker.
One third of all journalists are creator journalists, new report finds (Poynter). It’s no time for gatekeeping. There aren’t enough traditional J-School trained journalists to adequately document every ICE abduction – let alone everything else going on. We appreciate everyone who is exercising their press freedom rights, no matter how they’re categorized.
Award-winning journalist Cerise Castle has some history with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. In 2021, she chronicled how deputies formed violent gangs within the department. She then turned “A Tradition of Violence,” her 15-part series for Knock LA, into a podcast by the same name.
Perhaps that’s why the department was spooked when Castle submitted a Public Records Act request for names and official ID photographs of all sworn personnel, “excluding those in undercover assignments.” Or maybe the department was merely committed to following its routine practice of delaying and denying records requests.
In any case, the department produced the names of about 8,500 deputies but refused to produce any photographs except of the sheriff and his undersheriffs. They claimed that producing photographs of the deputies would violate their right to privacy and might endanger them in the future, if they ever go undercover.
But the department’s rationale seemed suspect because it also refused to comply with separate requests for headshots of three deputies who have been convicted of serious felonies, fired, and obviously won’t be sent on any future undercover operations for the department.
Castle won her Los Angeles County Superior Court Public Records Act lawsuit in July, and the court ordered the department to release the deputy ID photographs. But now the county is appealing. Its objection to allowing the public to identify law enforcement officers is especially striking when Angelenos and others across the country are outraged by unidentified, masked federal immigration officers abducting their neighbors.
The timing is also particularly odd after the California Legislature just enacted Sen. Scott Wiener’s new law, the No Secret Police Act, barring law enforcement officers operating in the state from masking their faces when working in public, beginning on Jan. 1, 2026.
We spoke to Castle’s lawyer, Susan Seager, to learn more about the case and her client’s opposition to the county’s appeal.
What is the county’s basis for its opposition to producing pictures of law enforcement officers who operate in public and serve the public at the public’s expense?
They claim that no deputy will ever work undercover again because if a deputy’s photo is posted online, and if that deputy works undercover in the future, and if a “criminal” uses facial recognition technology, then that future undercover deputy will be recognized by criminals. But the court rejected this argument because it’s all speculation. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant followed decisions by the California Supreme Court, such as Commission on Peace Officer Certification Standards and Training v. Superior Court, which held that ordinary police officers don’t have a right to privacy in their identities and mere “speculation” about safety risks to the general police force is not enough to block disclosure of public records containing individual police officers’ identities.
The top brass at the LA Sheriff’s Department don’t want their deputies to be accountable to the public they serve. The Sheriff’s Department fights all Public Records Act cases. It’s a knee-jerk reaction.
Susan Seager
Have similar arguments been rejected by the courts before?
No. As far as I know, this is the first case where a court decided that official police department officer ID photos are disclosable under the Public Records Act. The city of LA and city of Santa Ana both voluntarily gave journalist Ben Camacho official police officer ID photos in response to his Public Records Act legal actions, but they did so before a court ruled on his request. The LAPD photos are now online for public use at Watch the Watchers.
It seems notable that LA County is pursuing this appeal so soon after the city of Los Angeles wasted its time and the taxpayers’ money, and embarrassed itself in the Camacho case. Why is the county repeating the city’s mistakes?
The problem is that both the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council appear to be very hands-off on the litigation against them, including cases involving their sheriff’s department and police department, respectively. The elected officials seem to let their lawyers make all the decisions on litigation strategies, appeals, etc., without asking for any updates or to be involved in any decisions to appeal in cases against the government agencies. LA’s elected officials need to take more control over litigation involving their police officers. They need to stop wasting taxpayer money fighting Public Records Act cases like this, especially after a superior court orders the police agency to release the records.
Many people in Los Angeles and around the country have been outraged in recent months by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wearing masks, and other efforts by the Trump administration to discourage and even criminalize identifying law enforcement officers. What do you make of LA County litigating the right to keep deputies’ identities secret against that backdrop?
LA deputies probably wish they could wear masks as well. And the top brass at the LA Sheriff’s Department don’t want their deputies to be accountable to the public they serve. The Sheriff’s Department fights all Public Records Act cases. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. And the lawyers hired by the county don’t care about public accountability — they are hired to fight and win.
What’s your theory about why the county is pursuing this? Where is the pressure coming from? Do they seriously believe that this is a meritorious appeal that they have a real chance of winning? Or do they just not care because taxpayers are funding it?
This is typical for the county of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. They fight all Public Records Act cases. In this case, there is extra pressure coming from the labor unions representing the deputies. The deputies’ labor unions actually joined in the case as intervenors, so we are fighting against the county and the labor unions.
If journalists are not able to obtain photos of law enforcement officers through public records requests, what kind of reporting will the public lose out on?
In the age of everyone carrying a smartphone and filming police, and posting images of police on social media or news sites, the public and the press can use those images to identify officers and investigate their past history. There may be instances where deputies use excessive force or threaten members of the public, but the victim doesn’t know the name of the deputy. Photographs help identify officers.
We will meet at the 5 Callender Street entrance to the Cambridge Community Center. As part of the meetup, we will divide up the area around the Community Center and go searching for Ring and other cameras to add to our Surveillance Camera Map. We mapped some of the cameras in the area and expect there will be more.
Eine staatlich angeordnete Chatkontrolle ist vom Tisch. Das gemeinsame Ziel der Bundesregierung ist es, Kindesmissbrauchsdarstellungen im Netz wirksamer zu bekämpfen.“
🇪🇺German Federal Justice Minister welcomes Danish proposal to scrap mandatory #ChatControl and continue voluntary Chat Control 1.0 as a "decisive step" towards Council agreement. bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Zitate/DE/2…
Eine staatlich angeordnete Chatkontrolle ist vom Tisch. Das gemeinsame Ziel der Bundesregierung ist es, Kindesmissbrauchsdarstellungen im Netz wirksamer zu bekämpfen.“
🇫🇷La ministre fédérale allemande de la Justice accueille le projet de supprimer le #ChatControl obligatoire et de poursuivre le Chat Control 1.0 volontaire comme un "pas décisif" vers un accord au Conseil. bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Zitate/DE/2…
Eine staatlich angeordnete Chatkontrolle ist vom Tisch. Das gemeinsame Ziel der Bundesregierung ist es, Kindesmissbrauchsdarstellungen im Netz wirksamer zu bekämpfen.“
🇮🇹 Ministra Giustizia 🇩🇪: proposta di abolire #ChatControl obbligatorio e continuare il volontario è un "passo decisivo" per l'accordo in Consiglio. bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Zitate/DE/2…
Eine staatlich angeordnete Chatkontrolle ist vom Tisch. Das gemeinsame Ziel der Bundesregierung ist es, Kindesmissbrauchsdarstellungen im Netz wirksamer zu bekämpfen.“
🇫🇷 French: Traduction du dossier Chat Control 2.0 🇸🇪 Swedish: Chat Control 2.0🇳🇱 Dutch: Chatcontrole
The End of the Privacy of Digital Correspondence
Take action to stop Chat Control now!
The Chat Control 2.
Und sie kommen sofort wieder mit #vds "Die Einführung einer verpflichtenden IP-Adressenspeicherung ist dafür unverzichtbar. Wir werden dazu bald Vorschläge vorlegen, die effektive Strafverfolgung mit dem Schutz der Grundrechte verbinden.“
The future of identification technologies will involve delegating tasks to automated agents. Between the decentralised dream and the password asphyxiation, a third actor is emerging: the automatic intermediary.
When Wired published the contents of 911 calls coming from inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, revealing shocking reports of overcrowding and sexual assault, the story wasn’t just harrowing. It was also freely available to anyone who wanted to read it.
And when 404 Media reported that law enforcement agents were tapping into a nationwide network of license plate readers — including one Texas officer who used the system to track a woman who’d self-administered an abortion — it made sure the news story and every record it was based on were unpaywalled.
Wired and 404 Media are two of the news organizations leading the way in removing paywalls for public records-based reporting. Recently, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) sat down with Katie Drummond, global editorial director of Wired and an FPF board member; Joseph Cox, co-founder of 404 Media; and FPF’s Lauren Harper to discuss why reporting based on public records should be free.
Drummond, Cox, and Harper described how unpaywalling reporting based on records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act or other public records laws not only serves democracy but also strengthens journalism itself.
For both Wired and 404 Media, the reasons for removing paywalls for public records-based reporting are self-evident.
“It’s a very valuable public service to make people aware of what tools and tactics are being deployed to monitor and surveil people,” said Drummond, speaking about some of Wired’s public records reporting. “They should know what’s sort of happening that they may not be aware of, and to be able, again, to make that available to our audience without a paywall is important.”
Similarly, Cox described how reporting based on public records can lead to real-world reforms, especially when it’s widely available to the public and lawmakers. For instance, 404 Media’s reporting on Flock Safety, the license plate reader company, didn’t just expose surveillance abuses. It also caused Flock to make “radical changes to its product” and triggered congressional investigations, Cox said.
Additionally, by making the reporting and records about Flock freely available, 404 Media helped other journalists. The free access “created this sort of wave of local media coverage where now local journalists are doing basically the same public records request, but for their own communities or towns or cities,” Cox said.
Free access to public records-based reporting at 404 Media “created this sort of wave of local media coverage where now local journalists are doing basically the same public records request, but for their own communities or towns or cities.”
Joseph Cox, co-founder of 404 Media
Flagging new sources for future reporting
Free access to public records-based reporting also builds trust and relationships with readers and sources.
“There’s just something about being able to have a government document,” Cox said. “It’s real. You got it from the government through a FOIA request, or a lawsuit, or whatever, and you can then show that to readers. We don’t want to get in the way of that.”
Making this reporting and the records it’s based on free can also draw the attention of important sources for future reporting. Cox described how his reporting based on FOIA requests sends a signal to readers and sources that he’s interested in particular companies or topics.
Sources reading the free articles realize, Cox said, “‘Oh, this journalist is interested in Flock, in Palantir, or whatever it might be.’ And then, lo and behold, because we make it so easy for potential sources to reach us securely, on Signal or through other methods, we’ll probably end up getting a leak from one of those companies as well.”
Harper, who often writes about her FOIA requests for FPF, shared how publishing FOIA work openly can attract new sources and deepen reporting. “The more obvious I make my FOIA work, the more feedback I get from folks” about what to file future FOIA requests for, she explained.
That kind of transparency fuels better journalism, she said. “It is a virtuous cycle. The more we talk about and advertise FOIA, the better our FOIA requests become as a result.”
The economics of openness
Yet, the public records reporting that Wired and 404 Media have made freely available isn’t free to produce. Both news outlets rely on subscriptions and paywalls to fund their journalism.
As Drummond explained, “The FOIA process can often be labor-intensive, resource-intensive, time-consuming — all of the things that would increase your incentive to put a paywall up on that work,” she said.
But both Wired and 404 Media have found that removing paywalls for public records-based reporting is actually the better decision, financially.
“We made a calculated bet that our audience would show up for us when we did this,” Drummond said. “That bet paid off above and beyond what I could have possibly imagined.”
“That bet paid off above and beyond what I could have possibly imagined.”
Katie Drummond, global editorial director of Wired
After Wired announced it would unpaywall its public records-based stories, Drummond said it saw a “huge increase in subscribers” and received “hundreds of emails from people thanking us for doing it.” Far from hurting the bottom line, she said, “It has been additive to the business rather than taking anything away, from a financial point of view.”
For Cox, the same principle holds true: Transparency drives reader trust, and trust drives support. Every FOIA-based story on 404 Media’s website includes a short note explaining that it’s free but inviting readers to support the outlet’s work through a subscription or one-time donation.
“Look, we’re trying to run a business,” Cox said. “But we’re in it for the journalism. That’s literally why we wake up every single morning, to go write articles and put them on the internet.” He added, “And it does pay off, I think, journalistically, ethically, and businesswise as well.”
‘It’s very hard for me to think of a compelling reason not to do this’
If public records laws like FOIA are tools for public accountability, then journalism that relies on them should be public too. Simply put, “Public records belong to the public,” as Harper said. In a moment when the public’s access to government information is being increasingly curtailed, Wired and 404 Media are proving that openness isn’t just ethical — it’s effective.
Other news outlets should follow their lead. “It is of tremendous value for your audience,” said Drummond. “It’s very hard for me to think of a compelling reason not to do this.”
Cox echoed the sentiment: “There’s a public interest in getting those documents in front of more people. And there is, maybe counterintuitively, but there definitely is, a business benefit to it as well.”
🇩🇪🏆 Neuer Etappensieg für die digitale Freiheitsbewegung: Nach massiver Kritik soll #Chatkontrolle freiwillig bleiben! +++ Aber Achtung: Überzeugt das die Hardliner? ⚠️ Und Massenüberwachung, digitaler Hausarrest, Anonymitätsverbot drohen weiterhin: patrick-breyer.de/halbguter-ne…
Dänemark, das derzeit den Vorsitz im EU-Rat innehat, schlägt eine wichtige Änderung des viel kritisierten EU-Vorschlags zur Chatkontrolle vor: Anstatt die massenhafte Durchsuchung privater Chats vorzuschreiben soll die Chatkontrolle wie bisher im Erm…
🇪🇺🏆 New milestone for our digital freedom movement: After massive criticism, #ChatControl is proposed to remain voluntary! But beware: Will this convince the hardliners? ⚠️ Also mass surveillance, digital house arrest, anonymity ban still loom: patrick-breyer.de/en/half-good…
Denmark, currently presiding over the EU Council, proposes a major change to the much-criticised EU chat control proposal to search all private chats for suspicious content, even at the cost of destroying secure end-to-end encryption: Instead of mand…
🇫🇷🏆 Nouvelle étape pour la liberté numérique : il est proposé que le #ChatControl reste volontaire ! Mais attention : cela convaincra-t-il les partisans de la ligne dure ? ⚠️ Et surveillance de masse, interdiction de l'anonymat etc. planent toujours : patrick-breyer.de/en/half-good…
Denmark, currently presiding over the EU Council, proposes a major change to the much-criticised EU chat control proposal to search all private chats for suspicious content, even at the cost of destroying secure end-to-end encryption: Instead of mand…
🇮🇹🏆 Nuova tappa per la libertà digitale: Si propone che il #ChatControl resti volontario! Ma attenzione: basterà a convincere gli "hardliner"? ⚠️ Sorveglianza di massa, arresti digitali e divieto di anonimato restano una minaccia incombente: patrick-breyer.de/en/half-good…
Denmark, currently presiding over the EU Council, proposes a major change to the much-criticised EU chat control proposal to search all private chats for suspicious content, even at the cost of destroying secure end-to-end encryption: Instead of mand…
They will try again and again until they pass it. Or try to pass laws with different wordings. Or the next EU presidency or the next or the next. Also if mass surveillance is legislated this mean of course chat control and viewing e2ee messaging.In the meantime some artificial crisis will be used to say how good it would have been if we had read all these e2ee messages...
thank you for the correction, yes, you are correct. It's a small victory, but it still is possible that it's only temporary as there can be political and financial pressure to urge or force the providers to "opt-in" to these measures. I'm glad the proposal is withdrawn but it's certainly far from over.
Bernard
in reply to EDRi • • •