In his opinion, the Court’s Advocate General assesses the compliance of the French law regulating the collection of biometric data by police with EU data protection criteria. Although his interpretation remains strictly theoretical and fails to account for the reality of police practices in France, one of his proposals might become handy for people when seeking redress after abusive data collection.

The post Climate justice action repression vs EU data protection law: the Advocate General’s opinion appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

While the EU's AI Act aims to regulate high-risk AI systems, it is undermined by major loopholes that allow their unchecked use in the context of national security and law enforcement. These exemptions risk enabling, among others, mass surveillance of protests and discriminatory migration practices. To prevent this, EDRi affiliate Danes je nov dan has published recommendations for Slovenia to adopt stricter national safeguards and transparent oversight mechanisms.

The post The AI Act isn’t enough: closing the dangerous loopholes that enable rights violations appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

127 civil society organisations and unions are urging the European Commission to halt its planned Digital Omnibus, warning that the proposals would weaken core EU laws like the GDPR and AI Act, and represent the biggest rollback of digital rights in EU history.

The post Forthcoming Digital Omnibus would mark point of no return appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Press freedom just scored a $3 million win in Kansas. The county that participated in an illegal raid on the Marion County Record in 2023 is cutting big checks to journalists and a city councilor to settle their lawsuits.

As part of the settlement, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office also made a statement of “regret” for the raid, saying, “This likely would not have happened if established law had been reviewed and applied prior to the execution of the warrants.”

You think? Any police officer or judge with half an understanding of the First Amendment should’ve known better than to ask for or sign off on the raid on the Record and the home of owners Eric and Joan Meyer.

But apparently, police don’t always read the law, and judges may need a refresher, too. Let’s break down the flashing red lights any judge or cop should heed before storming a newsroom.

The First and Fourth amendments strongly protect against searches of journalists and newsrooms.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, which means a likelihood that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. The government must also specify the place to be searched and the thing to be seized.

When a search warrant targets materials protected by the First Amendment — like notes, recordings, drafts, and materials used or created by journalists — the Fourth Amendment’s requirements must be scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court has said.

This means that judges must be extra strict in applying the Fourth Amendment’s requirements when a search impacts First Amendment rights, which it will any time it involves a journalist or newsroom. What judges should never do is allow overly broad searches where police rifle through journalists’ desks and computer files willy-nilly in the hopes of turning up something “incriminating.”

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 forbids the use of search warrants to seize materials from journalists, with only a few narrow exceptions.

The PPA is a federal law that requires law enforcement to get a subpoena, not just a search warrant, in most cases when dealing with reporters and newsrooms. Subpoenas give journalists the chance to challenge a demand for documents or equipment in court before police can seize them. If police had sought a subpoena for the Record’s newsgathering materials, for instance, the newspaper could have successfully challenged the demand in court, meaning that the newsroom would never have been raided and the Record’s confidential sources would have been protected.

There are narrow exceptions to the PPA’s subpoena requirement, including when there is probable cause to believe a journalist has committed a criminal offense related to the material sought. But, in general, the offense cannot relate to the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of newsgathering materials or information.

Journalists can read a guide on our website for more information about the PPA.

State shield laws are another barrier to newsroom searches.

Almost every state has a reporter’s shield law on the books that protects journalists from the compelled disclosure of their confidential sources and unpublished information, and sometimes protects against the forced disclosure of nonconfidential information, too. Courts around the country have also recognized a First Amendment and common law reporter’s privilege that can provide similar protections.

Kansas’ shield law, for instance, applies to “any information gathered, received or processed by a journalist, whether or not such information is actually published, and whether or not related information has been disseminated.” It forbids compelling a journalist from disclosing unpublished information or confidential sources until after a court hearing.

Other states’ shield laws have similar protections. Barging into a newsroom and searching it violates those laws and the established processes for law enforcement to obtain information from the press.

Accessing publicly available information or information provided by a source is not a crime, and is protected by the First Amendment.

Seems obvious, but judging by how often this comes up, maybe not.

Everyone has a First Amendment right to read, watch, or view publicly available information. It’s not a crime to access a record made publicly available by a government agency (as reporters at the Record did), to read something that someone published on a public website, even if it was published by accident, or to photograph police officers in public.

Journalists also have a right to publish information given to them by a source, even if the source obtained it illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t participate in the illegality. That means that if a source gives a journalist a document or recording that the source stole, the journalist can’t be punished for publishing it.

Because these things are not crimes, it also means that accessing publicly available information or publishing information that a source illegally obtained can’t be the basis for a raid on a newsroom or search of a journalist’s materials.

Next time, think before you raid.

The $3 million settlement is a step toward accountability, but it can’t undo the damage to the Record’s journalists or sources, and especially not to Joan Meyer, who died the day after police invaded her home.

If local communities don’t want to keep learning First Amendment law the expensive way, they must insist that law enforcement actually read the Constitution and the law before targeting the press.

freedom.press/issues/kansas-co…

Last month, we wrote to the Hyattsville Immigration Court in Maryland to express our alarm over a report that two journalists from Capital News Service had been expelled for not seeking express permission from the federal government to cover immigration proceedings.

Not only was that a blatant First Amendment violation, it was contrary to the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s own fact sheet, in which the arm of the Justice Department said that coordinating media visits with the government in advance was “encouraged,” not mandatory. It’s hard to blame journalists for not wanting to go out of their way to put themselves on the radar by “coordinating” with an administration that abhors the free press.

But we noticed another problem with the fact sheet. It said reporters “must” check in upon arriving at immigration court. We’d been hearing anecdotes for some time about journalists being asked to “check in” at lobbies of immigration courts in other parts of the country. The fact sheet confirmed it.

We expressed our concerns to the EOIR, which was (surprisingly) responsive to our initial letter, despite the shutdown. It confirmed that, as CNS reported, the journalists’ access had been restored and they were free to report on immigration court proceedings.

It also stated that journalists are not required to either coordinate visits with the government in advance or check in with courthouse personnel upon arrival. It explained that it prefers journalists check in so that they can arrange for priority seating, but that they do not have to do so. And it issued a new fact sheet to make that clear. Yes, the fact sheet reflects that EOIR, like far too many local and federal agencies, still unconstitutionally demands that all media inquiries be routed through a public information office. But that‘s a battle for another day.

We’re posting the email exchange and new fact sheet below so that any journalist who is told something to the contrary can show it to whoever is giving them incorrect information.

And kudos to the unnamed EOIR official who took care of this promptly. Let’s hope the Trump administration doesn’t fire them for gross competence.

freedom.press/static/pdf.js/we…

freedom.press/static/pdf.js/we…

freedom.press/issues/no-journa…

Ahoy Pirates,

Our next PPI board meeting will take place on 18.11.2025, 14:00 UTC / 15:00 CET.

All official PPI proceedings, Board meetings included, are open to the public. Feel free to stop by. We’ll be happy to have you.

Where:jitsi.pirati.cz/PPI-Board

Agenda: Pad: https://etherpad.pp-international.net/p/ppi-board-meeting-2025-08-05-vnly0cj

All of our meetings are posted to our calendar: pp-international.net/calendar/

We look forward to seeing visitors.

Thank you for your support,

The Board of PPI

pp-international.net/2025/11/p…

PPI’s main delegate at the United Nations Office of Geneva, Mr. Carlos Polo, attended events of the Environmental Programme (UNEP) this August. We attach some pictures of his visit, and we offer some comments about the efforts of our organization in helping to shape environmental policy.

The UNEP oordinates environmental work across the UN, but it is not the only organization. The UN has now created the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Each organization deals with separate environmenal issues and hosts its own conferences that include negotiations between nations and sometimes ask for statements and opinions of NGOs like our own. Currently the UNFCCC is hosting the COP conference in Brazil.

Carlos was able to observe the UNEP negotiations, but as we are not a nation (aka Party) we do not have a voice. Furthermore, we are not yet members of any of these conventions. PPI needs to establish more direct activities that promote environmental protection so that we can be accepted as members of these organizations, in addition to the Economic and Social Affairs Committee (ECOSOC) where we are already members.

We are hoping to make a bigger impact on international environmental governance. As an NGO, our abilities are limited. NGOs often watch from the back of the room. Our speaking time is scarce. The actual negotiation where the decisions are made take place behind closed doors, and we are simply able to only provide statements at the conference or as a published policy statement. One additional opportunity is that we can host side events. We have discussed cohosting a side even with other NGOs. If anyone is interested in collaborating, please contact us.

board@pp-international.net

Donations

pp-international.net/donations…

pp-international.net/2025/11/g…

Riportiamo la traduzione del post pubblicato da Patrick Breyer sul suo blog Poco prima di un incontro decisivo a Bruxelles, l’esperto di diritti digitali ed ex membro del Parlamento europeo, il Dott. Patrick Breyer, lancia l’allarme. Con un “ingannevole gioco di prestigio”, un controllo obbligatorio e ampliato della messaggistica privata viene imposto dalla porta sul retro…

Source

Do you know your neighbors?

How familiar are you with the person who lives next door to or above you? Down the street or down the hall? Across the street and kitty-corner from where you live?

Did they grew up in the town or city you both live in? Did you? Did they serve? Did you? Are they a U.S. citizen? Are you?

Are you sure?

Is the qualification “I was born here”? What if your parents weren’t? Did you come here legally? Are you white enough? Are you the right kind of Christian?

What if you’re not Christian? What if you’re something non-Abrahamic at all? Let’s pretend you’re a Sikh.

In fact, let’s pretend you are Bhagat Singh Thind.

So who are you? You’re Bhagat Singh Thind, born October 3rd, 1892 near Amritsar, Punjab in what is today modern day India. You come to the United States around just 20 years old and, just five years later, you’re recruited by the U.S. Army to fight in the Great War, the War to End All Wars, or as it has sadly become known, World War I.

Recruited in July, honorably discharged by December. Thank you for serving your country.

A week before your discharge, you receive your certificate of U.S. citizenship while wearing your U.S. Army uniform. Except, three days before your discharge, the federal government catches wind of the news and revokes it. After all, you’re a “Hindoo” (you’re not; you’re a Sikh) and not a “white man”, so no citizenship for you.

Thanks for nothing.

So you try again. You move from Washington to Oregon and you apply for citizenship around five months later. The federal official that revoked your citizenship the first time goes to the Oregon judge and tries to sabotage your chances.

The judge, taking into account your arguments for citizenship and your military record, grants you citizenship for the second time. Thank you for serving your country.

Not satisfied, the Bureau of Naturalization, who this whole time has been seemingly out to get you and refusing to let this be a precedent, appealed to the higher courts until landing before the Supreme Court.

Their task was to answer these two questions:

“Is a high caste Hindu of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India, a white person within the meaning of Section 2169, Revised Statutes?”

(Again, you are Sikh.)

&

“Does the act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. L. 875, Section 3) disqualify from naturalization as citizens those Hindus, now barred by that act, who had lawfully entered the United States prior to the passage of said act?”

They find the answer to the first question is “No”, making the second question moot. You’re not white, so you cannot be naturalized. The Bureau of Nationalization strips you for a second time in 1926.

Thanks for nothing.

It wouldn’t be until the mid 1930s when Congress passed into law that all WWI veterans would be granted citizenship, regardless of race. For a third time, you seek citizenship.

This time, you finally get it. It’s the real thing, the Bureau of Nationalization isn’t breathing down your neck, and you are finally a U.S. citizen. Thank you for serving your country.

This all happened roughly 100 years ago, but the question of “what is a citizen” remains at large and, as was before, at the whim of the State. Bhagat Singh Thind was finally granted citizenship not because of a reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision, but because of a law by Congress that honored WWI veterans. Not goodwill, but a just reward for military service.

So what is a citizen? Is it someone who shows they are willing to die and kill for their country? Is it someone who won the “born under the right circumstances” lottery that did nothing otherwise to “earn” their citizenship? Is a citizen someone who pays taxes and nothing else? Is it who the State decides is worthy? Are you always going to just agree with what the State says?

If you take a step back, you might realize “Does any of that really matter?”. Someone like Bhagat Singh Thind, who served in the U.S. Army, had to jump through countless hoops to received that illustrious seal of approval from Uncle Sam. But if he was living next door to you, and he served your country, and he was shopping in the same stores and sent his kids to the same school. Would you care about his legal status? Or would you see him as your neighbor?

Bhagat Singh Thind was finally granted that citizenship as a thank you for serving in the Army during WWI. Not every immigrant in this country can or will put their life on the line for the whims of the U.S. government. Hell, there are people born in this country that won’t do that. Your commitment to the state apparatus nationwide shouldn’t matter in a local setting.

How committed are you to your neighbors? To me, that is the truest sense of community and belonging. The local stuff, the stuff that impacts you, matters far more than national narratives.

The United States Pirate Party preaches to anyone seeking office to “run locally” because “it is where the impact will be felt the most”. Service to your neighbors and community, where you rest your head at night, is a cause we champion. Our ideals are applied nationwide, but felt most locally.

The USPP also believes in the free movement of all Americans, from Greenland to Patagonia. We don’t believe the imaginary lines drawn on a map should be inhibiting of the people who share this great American continent.

So when people speak of “illegal immigrants” living in communities across the United States, it strikes me as ridiculous. Uncle Sam said my neighbor is illegal? Why? Didn’t come here the right way? Didn’t get your permission to cross an imaginary line and enter society as essentially a lower caste laborer?

If you are upset by the state narratives of “illegal immigration”, I ask you: what about them coming here bothers you? It doesn’t flatter you that they left everything behind to start a new life where you call home? Is it the taxes? You feel like your hard earned money is being taken and they somehow have it easy?

First of all, these migrants are all almost certainly renting. So the landlord would be paying taxes… with their money.

Second, if they aren’t paying income tax, is that because they aren’t receiving a check, since tax is automatically deducted? If they’re being paid income cash, who is to blame? Are they to blame for taking it, or do you point the figure at the business owner who gave a job to them and decided to pay them under the table.

That job wasn’t stolen, and certainly not by the immigrant. Can the so-called “job creator” really ever allow the jobs they create and give out to be “stolen”? Or did they willingly pay someone cheaper instead of someone in a position to demand more.

Do not let the State turn you against your neighbors when they are trying to live like you. Do not allow Uncle Sam to cause you to fail to see the humanity of your neighbors.

Don’t be terrorized and made fearful. They are human; they bleed like you.

As of writing, the United States of America has decided to unleash masked terrorists onto the streets of cities across the U.S. in order to corral and correct what it calls an “illegal immigrant problem”. This organization is named “ICE”.

Before continuing, I must affirm something to you, dear reader. Merriam-Webster defines “terrorism” as “the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion”. Further, they define “terror” as “violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion”.

Now, dear reader, consider what ICE is doing. Simply ask: is ICE using violence or the threat of violence as a weapon of intimidation or coercion?

It was recently Halloween, and kids were unable to peacefully Trick-or-Treat in certain Chicagoland locations due to ICE harassment, including tear-gassing.

ICE, in their raids and targeting, has arrested “legal” citizens. They have arrested parents in front of their children. They have made arrests in South Shore, Chicago, in the middle of the night via a warrant-less raid and informed the residents they’d “only be released if they had no outstanding warrants”.

The State decides whether or not you’re upstanding and “worthy”. It doesn’t matter if you go through all the proper rigmarole or serve the country. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re white enough. The State is the final authority in the matter.

But you know better. You know your neighbors are good people just trying to make an honest living. You know the crime of “falsifying” is a common one. You’ve seen kids use fake addresses to get into better school districts. You’ve had friends of friends not change their ID, despite not living in a specific state full time and instead continuing to pay to that state. You know the system isn’t followed to a T by everybody.

You know, deep down, this entire thing is bullshit.

Uncle Sam is a fickle dude with some skeletons in his closet. These skeletons are, unfortunately, in the front yard. He can decide you’re unworthy of citizenship if he so chooses.

When Washington D.C. tells you from thousands of miles away to turn on your back on your neighbor because they’re “not a citizen”, I want you to remember that they are still your neighbor.

And to the volunteer officers of ICE: thanks for nothing.

uspirates.org/through-the-spyg…

As part of our ongoing effort to connect the international Pirate community, we are reviewing and translating recent news from various Pirate Parties into English. This week, we highlight important reports from the Pirate Party of Slovenia, covering issues of corruption in green energy projects, technological sovereignty, and energy policy in Europe. As will be noted, much of their news is not country specific but reflects wider European issues. We look forward to sharing more news from PPSI and all of the Pirate parties around the world.

New suspicion of abuse and corruption related to wind farms

Following a report from a civil initiative, law enforcement agencies began to investigate whether funds from a state-owned company were used for unlawful influence on local decision-makers and whether donations from the investor constituted a form of bribery.

Just as during the epidemic millions of taxpayer euros were spent under the guise of necessity, today something similar is happening in the field of green energy, which has become a major source of abuse of public funds due to poor legislation.

Instead of the Ministry of Energy increasing oversight of the use of public funds, with ever new legislative proposals the sector is being even more deregulated, expanding opportunities for corruption and manipulation.

Unfortunately, what we are witnessing is not a green transition, but a diversion of millions of euros of public money into the accounts of a select few.]Here is the English translation of the requested article:

Following a report from a civil initiative, law enforcement agencies began to investigate whether funds from a state-owned company were used for unlawful influence on local decision-makers and whether donations from the investor constituted a form of bribery.

Just as during the epidemic millions of taxpayer euros were spent under the guise of necessity, today something similar is happening in the field of green energy, which has become a major source of abuse of public funds due to poor legislation.

Instead of the Ministry of Energy increasing oversight of the use of public funds, with ever new legislative proposals the sector is being even more deregulated, expanding opportunities for corruption and manipulation.

Unfortunately, what we are witnessing is not a green transition, but a diversion of millions of euros of public money into the accounts of a select few.]

piratskastranka.si/nov-sum-zlo…

In Norway, it was discovered that a manufacturer could remotely shut down 850 buses

Although Norwegian taxpayers paid for these buses, they are not completely under their control.

Such practices are not limited only to China. Many Western manufacturers, with the notorious American company John Deere being a prime example, have for years implemented similar mechanisms for remote vehicle control.

Farmers can have their tractors disabled remotely, for instance, if they are late with a leasing payment or try to repair the machine themselves without official service.

We increasingly encounter products that we physically purchase, yet manufacturers, through pre-installed software, protections, and remote control, take away real control over what we have bought.

If we buy a product, we must have full control over it. We must have the right to use, repair, and modify the product without restrictions from the manufacturer.

Such cases should be understood as a warning that Europe needs to strengthen technological sovereignty and protect the right to repair.]

piratskastranka.si/na-norveske…

Germans demolish nuclear power plant that could operate for another 30 years

German policy has decided to shut down all nuclear power plants in the country, and Grafenrheinfeld was closed as part of this plan in 2015.

The plant operated for only 33 years, although it could have easily operated for another 30 years or even longer.

During its operation, it prevented emissions of more than 300 million tons of CO2 through clean energy production.

Germany’s Green Party forced the early closure of nuclear power plants by manipulating data and reports.

Just as they rushed to shut down nuclear power plants, they are now hastily dismantling them.

This will deprive future German governments of the option to simply restore and restart the shut-down nuclear reactors.

It is a waste of the future—a climatic, economic, and energy crime.]

piratskastranka.si/nemci-rusij…

pp-international.net/2025/11/p…