Riportiamo la traduzione del post pubblicato oggi sul sito del Partito Pirata Europeo Scansionare tutti i messaggi, le foto e i file senza consenso o anche solo sospetto rappresenta una grave violazione del nostro diritto alla privacy e un’enorme minaccia per la sicurezza. Ciononostante, i legislatori europei stanno ancora portando avanti la cosiddetta legislazione sul Controllo delle Chat.
Esaminare tutti i nostri messaggi privati è una pessima idea. Il webinar del PPEU
Limitare le capacità dei nostri governi è uno dei metodi per applicare la legge, quindi è necessario sviluppare un sistema legislativo che vieti ai nostri governi di utilizzare questa tecnologia.
Limitare le capacità dei nostri governi è uno dei metodi per applicare la legge, quindi è necessario sviluppare un sistema legislativo che vieti ai nostri…
Scanning all messages, photos and files, without consent or even suspicion is a major breach of our right to privacy and a huge… The post Scanning all our private messages is a very bad idea. first appeared on
Scanning all messages, photos and files, without consent or even suspicion is a major breach of our right to privacy and a huge security threat. Nevertheless, the European lawmakers are still pushing through with the so-called Chat Control legislation. Under the pretence that it would protect kids from online abuse, all checks and balances for the protection of our privacy are dismantled. And scientists already concluded that Chat Control will not work.
It undermines the democracy, in its peoples ability to do those checks. Coordinated in private communications have been around for longer than Democracy itself. Now the ability to do those remotely (Online) is in danger, and the technology to execute on ‘Chat Control’ exists.
We propose legislation of another approach. Limiting our Governments’ abilities is one of the methods to apply law, so legislature to forbid our governments from using this technology should be developed.
Tuesday 30 September 18.30h CEST – Hosted by Pirate MEP Markéta Gregorová (Greens/EFA)
Guest experts:
Carmela Troncoso – from the Security and Privacy Engineering (SPRING) Laboratory. It is a research group at EPFL – École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland
Joachim – Representative of the Fight Chat Control initiative; will bring the citizen’s perspective on how public pressure shapes the debate.
Udbhav Tiwari – VP, Strategy and Global Affairs, Signal
Asha Allen – Director of The Centre for Democracy & Technology (CDT) Europe
The government should not have access to all the messages or photos you send. Period.
Giovedì, durante una conference call sui risultati finanziari, Julie Sweet, CEO di Accenture, ha illustrato i piani per tagliare il personale che non è in grado di riqualificarsi nel campo dell’intelligenza artificiale. L’azienda globale di servizi professionali ha registrato una crescita del fatturato del 7%, dovuta alla richiesta dei clienti di essere formati sull’uso dell’intelligenza artificiale. “Ogni CEO, consiglio di amministrazione e dirigenza riconosce che l’intelligenza artificiale avanzata è fondamentale per il futuro”, ha dichiarato Sweet alla CNBC.
Il contante è uno strumento “essenziale” per gestire i periodi di crisi, al punto che le autorità di diversi Paesi suggeriscono di “dotarsi di una riserva di contanti che consenta di effettuare gli acquisti essenziali per diversi giorni”: per esempio “le autorità di Paesi Bassi, Austria e Finlandia suggeriscono di detenere importi compresi approssimativamente fra 70 e 100 euro per ogni membro della famiglia, o sufficienti a coprire i bisogni essenziali per circa 72 ore”. A scriverlo è la Banca centrale Europa, nel suo bollettino economico, in cui è presente un’analisi titolata: “Keep calm and carry cash: indicazioni tratte da quattro crisi sul ruolo unico della moneta fisica”.
io continuo a tifare un terzo circuito, da affiancare a Visa e a Mastercard, ma totalmente UE based. Gli USA devono smetterla di dettare legge. Hanno stufato e non da oggi.
Perhaps it is a matter of translation, but the “digital equivalent of a sealed letter” nicely communicates the need for our governments to find ways to properly protect privacy.
Our every expression should not be fodder for commerce nor oversight.
When ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” last week following a shakedown from the Trump administration, celebrities, free speech advocates, and ordinary Americans voiced their outrage. They were right to sound the alarm — and it (mostly) worked. Kimmel’s back on the air.
But where is that same outrage against the government’s effort to deport Mario Guevara, an Atlanta-area journalist with a work visa who has lawfully resided in the U.S. for 20-plus years? His only “offense” is informing the public of protests against the government.
This week, a final removal order was issued against Guevara, who was arrested (with the baseless criminal charges since dropped) while livestreaming a July “No Kings” protest in Georgia. He might not have a late-night comedy show, but his right to report news is every bit as important as Kimmel’s right to tell jokes.
The stakes in Guevara’s case — both for him and for the country — are even higher than in the Kimmel fiasco that has dominated headlines. Guevara could be deported at any moment, likely to his birthplace, El Salvador, which he fled decades ago to escape political persecution.
Despite the extremely serious constitutional implications of Kimmel’s case, his worst-case scenario was moving from prime time to a podcast. There is no telling what fate might await Guevara if he’s thrown out of the country.
And if that happens, the chilling effect on journalists — particularly noncitizen ones, even those like Guevara with legal status — will be impossible to measure. After all, we only know what news we hear. We don’t know what news we don’t hear because journalists didn’t report it out of fear for their safety or freedom.
Kimmel‘s worst-case scenario was moving from prime time to a podcast. There is no telling what fate might await Guevara.
Kimmel’s professional peers — famous comedians and other celebrities — might feel relieved that Kimmel ultimately got his show back. But most journalists (or comedians, for that matter) aren’t famous and don’t have a Rolodex of Hollywood A-listers ready to come to their defense. Kimmel’s win offers them little comfort.
Independent journalists like Guevara also don’t have money for lawyers, lobbyists, or PR firms to make their case to judges, politicians, or the public (although fortunately, organizations like the ACLU, Free Press, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and others have stepped up).
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr tried to manufacture plausible deniability in Kimmel’s case, arguing that it wasn’t his public ultimatum but pressure from local audiences that led ABC and its affiliates to pull Kimmel. That’s nonsense, but in Guevara’s case — much like the case against Rümeysa Öztürk, the Tufts University student facing removal for co-writing an op-ed critical of Israel — the government is hardly attempting to hide its agenda.
The federal government seeks to deport Guevara — despite his work visa and despite local prosecutors dropping their case against him for livestreaming in public — because, to them, his reporting makes him an “undesirable.” How did journalism, the only career protected by the Constitution, become a disfavored profession in America?
Guevara’s reporting often focused on immigration enforcement abuses. That earns him no friends in a government that considers U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to be secret police. From seeking to punish social media users who identify ICE agents to investigating radio stations that report on ICE raids to threatening whistleblowers who undermine the official narrative, the administration has made every effort to intimidate those who speak the truth about its immigration policy.
The secrecy is by no means limited to ICE — while Kimmel’s show was in limbo and Guevara wrote letters from his cramped jail cell, the Pentagon announced it would force reporters to pledge to only report authorized information.
What this administration cannot seem to comprehend is that the First Amendment exists for the sole purpose of protecting the right to publish information the government does not want published. There would be no need for a constitutional right to publish what the government wants. Everyone loves free speech when the speaker is on their side.
Guevara is exactly who the constitution was intended to protect — and his retaliatory deportation is exactly the kind of authoritarian censorship it was intended to prevent.
Kimmel will be all right with or without ABC, and with or without you. That doesn’t mean not to protest efforts to censor him — the FCC’s antics are unconstitutional, un-American, and fully deserving of contempt. Carr should be fired and disbarred, and the corporations that caved to him should be ashamed.
But free speech is not only for celebrities. The real battles for our rights are not fought in television studios and theme parks but at protests and in citizen journalists’ home newsrooms. And these days, in detention centers and immigration courts.
It’s now been over 100 days since journalist Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest, and Rümeysa Öztürk has faced deportation for nearly 200 days over an op-ed the government didn’t like. Read on for why cases like these deserve as much outrage as the Federal Communications Commission’s latest attempt at silencing free speech.
Journalist facing deportation deserves same energy as Kimmel
When ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week following a shakedown from the Trump administration, celebrities, free speech advocates, and ordinary Americans voiced their outrage. They were right to sound the alarm — and it (mostly) worked. Kimmel’s back on the air.
But where is that same outrage against the government’s effort to deport Mario Guevara, an Atlanta-area journalist who has lawfully resided in the U.S. for 20-plus years? His only “offense” is informing the public of protests against the government, but he faces imminent deportation.
The immediate priority is getting Guevara’s case dropped, but we also don’t want there to be any more baseless deportation cases against journalists. Many newsrooms — not to mention freelancers — have little experience dealing with immigration authorities, though. Luckily, we know people who do.
We hosted a panel discussion featuring immigration lawyers, civil rights advocates, and journalists to talk about what to do when a journalist is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — and what must happen before that day ever comes. Read about it and watch it here.
First, President Donald Trump tried to downplay the policy. Now, in a letter responding to an inquiry from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, officials are trying to walk it back. Unfortunately, the response offers little reassurance that the Pentagon’s intentions are anything but censorial, and doubles down on restricting routine constitutionally protected newsgathering. Read more here.
Drop charges against Cincinnati journalists
Jury trials of journalists arrested while reporting news are exceedingly rare in the United States, but the next two are coming next week unless prosecutors come to their senses.
Journalists Madeline Fening and Lucas Griffith, both of whom were arrested while covering a protest on July 17 for Cincinnati-based CityBeat, are set to be tried Sept. 30 and Oct. 2, respectively. In an unfortunate irony, the protest was in opposition to the recently dropped immigration case against Ayman Soliman, who himself fled Egypt to escape persecution for his journalism. We led a letter to prosecutors from rights organizations and local journalism professors urging them to drop the baseless charges. Read more here.
Proposed ‘safety’ bill would undermine accountability for lawmakers
FPF’s Caitlin Vogus writes for The Minnesota Star Tribune that a bill sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ted Cruz to protect lawmakers won’t fully stop data brokers from trafficking their personal information but will stop journalists and watchdogs from holding them accountable.
A searchable public database known as the Police Records Access Project has made public for the first time more than 1.5 million pages of previously secret records about the use of force and misconduct by California police officers.
The California legislature, however, is trying to put police misconduct back under wraps. This month, it passed AB 1178, a new bill that would make it harder for the public to access these records. The bill is awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature or veto. Read more here.
What we’re reading
Urgent ideas for defending press freedom in Gaza (Columbia Journalism School). Columbia followed up on last month’s important article in Columbia Journalism Review with a discussion about finding creative ways to help journalists in Gaza despite anti-press regimes both here and in Israel. FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm and board member and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Azmat Khan were both on the panel.
Letter from ICE detention facility (The Bitter Southerner). Guevara recounts the harrowing details of his detention in an Atlanta federal prison. You can also read his son’s plea for his release.
Investors rejoice over looming TikTok deal despite political concerns (Al Jazeera). Days after Trump said frequent criticism of his administration should be illegal, he is finalizing plans to steer control of TikTok to his billionaire friends. “It would be naive to think they won’t censor Trump’s critics while boosting content that pleases him,” Stern said.
Trump signs order labeling antifa ‘domestic terrorist organization’ (The Hill). Trump’s executive orders on domestic terrorism and threats to use racketeering laws against protest movements can and will be used to threaten journalists and sources. Journalists who cover “antifa” or report on ICE must now risk being accused of terrorism.
Il rapporto, pubblicato dal senatore Gary Peters (D-MI), cita numerose rivelazioni di informatori, tra cui uno che ha affermato che lo scenario peggiore potrebbe comportare la necessità di riemettere i numeri di previdenza sociale a tutti gli abitanti del Paese.
Il database includerebbe anche luogo e data di nascita o lo stato del permesso di lavoro e i nomi dei genitori. Le potenziali minacce alla sicurezza spaziano dalle violazioni dei dati da parte di avversari stranieri, come Russia, Cina e Iran, agli stessi membri dello staff del DOGE, tra cui Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, che aveva accesso illimitato alle informazioni e che, a quanto pare, era stato licenziato da un precedente tirocinio per aver divulgato dati sensibili.
A new report from Senate Democrats reveals that Elon Musk’s DOGE has moved sensitive information, including Social Security Numbers, to a cloud server without verified security measures
Europe is rolling out one of the largest online age verification experiments. @jaromil examines the EUDI wallet prototype—how its privacy-preserving, zero-knowledge core is being defused by its implementation. Fresh from a Berlin digital identity retreat, he shares the most urgent takeaways.
Europe’s age‑verification pilots conflate censorship with guardianship. This essay argues for a decentralised approach that separates technical filtering from social responsibility.
Scansionare tutti i messaggi, le foto e i file senza consenso o anche solo sospetto rappresenta una grave violazione del nostro diritto alla privacy e un'enorme minaccia per la sicurezza. Ciononostante, i legislatori europei stanno ancora portando avanti la cosiddetta legislazione su chatcontrol. Con il pretesto che proteggerebbe i bambini dagli abusi online, tutti i controlli e gli equilibri per la tutela della nostra privacy vengono smantellati. E gli scienziati hanno già concluso che chatcontrol non funzionerà.
È tempo di unirci e porre fine a chatcontrol. In un'epoca in cui regimi autocratici in tutto il mondo minacciano la nostra libertà di comunicare, dobbiamo aumentare la tutela della privacy, non abbassare la guardia.
Martedì 30 settembre 18.30 CEST - Presentato dall'eurodeputata Pirata Markéta Gregorová (Verdi/ALE)
Esperti ospiti:
Carmela Troncoso – del Laboratorio di Ingegneria della Sicurezza e della Privacy (SPRING), un gruppo di ricerca presso l'EPFL – École Polytechnique Fédérale di Losanna in Svizzera. Joachim – Rappresentante dell'iniziativa Fight Chat Control ; offrirà il punto di vista dei cittadini su come la pressione pubblica influenza il dibattito. Udbhav Tiwari - Vicepresidente, Strategia e Affari Globali, Signal Asha Allen - Direttore del Centro per la Democrazia e la Tecnologia (CDT) Europa
The Pentagon faced bipartisan backlash for its ridiculous policy requiring journalists to agree not to obtain or report “unauthorized” information. Now, in a response to an inquiry from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, officials are trying to walk it back.
They claim the rules were intended to restrict Pentagon staffers from giving unauthorized information to journalists, not to restrict journalists from printing “unsolicited” tips they’re given. We’re not buying it. We commend RCFP for getting the Pentagon to elaborate on the policy — but, despite lots of legalese and doublespeak, its clarifications are mostly meaningless.
As an initial matter, a policy solely aimed at government employees would not need to be distributed to or acknowledged by journalists. To the extent that the government is permitted to keep information secret, the Supreme Court says that’s the government’s responsibility — officials aren’t entitled to shift the burden to reporters to keep their secrets for them. Even crediting the Pentagon’s explanation, the memo was clearly intended to do exactly that. It sends a message to the press, and that message is “tread carefully.”
Nor can the government restrict the press to publishing unsolicited tips. News doesn’t fall from the sky into reporters’ laps. Reporters are entitled to ask questions, cultivate sources, and seek out news (otherwise known as reporting), as long as they don’t break the law in doing so. That’s the job description — they’re journalists, not stenographers.
Journalists should not agree to this ridiculous policy in exchange for … what, exactly? The honor of being lied to at news conferences?
The Pentagon’s position seems to draw from the Supreme Court case Bartnicki v. Vopper, which held that journalists can obtain information given to them by sources that obtained it illegally as long as the journalists didn’t themselves participate in the illegality. By soliciting information from sources, the Pentagon’s reasoning apparently goes, journalists participate in the sources’ violations of Pentagon policy.
But nothing in Bartnicki limits constitutional protection to unsolicited information — the only exception it acknowledges is when journalists participate in a source’s illegal acts (in that case, an unlawful wiretap). There is no analogous underlying illegality here.
The whole purpose of the First Amendment is so that the government can’t stop journalists from publishing what the government does not want published. We wouldn’t need a constitutional right to publish what the government authorizes to be released — the government would have no reason to try to prevent that.
That’s the fundamental point that seems entirely lost on this administration. The press exists to hold it accountable, not to keep its secrets or do its bidding.
The other point Pentagon officials are missing – as their response to RCFP makes clear — is that they’re not entitled to scream “national security” like magic words when they want the First Amendment to disappear. The response, disturbingly, reserves the right for the administration to unilaterally deem reporting a national security danger after the fact and punish reporters for it.
But as the Pentagon Papers case made extremely clear, that’s not how it works: “The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” And that was a case involving a specific set of documents alleged to pose a threat — not a vague reservation of rights to declare hypothetical documents a threat.
And this administration is guaranteed not to invoke “national security” responsibly. It has claimed the right to deport journalists, activists, and op-ed writers who disagree with, or merely report or comment on its policies. The president has said that when officials want a journalist to give up sources, they can just “tell the reporter, ‘National security’.”
The Trump administration considers anything that threatens to harm its reputation or expose its lies a threat to national security. It considers the First Amendment and free press themselves threats to national security.
The Pentagon is essentially shifting its position from, “You can’t report anything we didn’t authorize you to report” to “You can’t report anything we didn’t authorize you to report unless we decide after the fact in our sole discretion that it’s OK.” That should not provide much comfort to journalists. They certainly should not agree to this ridiculous policy in exchange for … what, exactly? The honor of being lied to at news conferences?
The Washington Post reported today that officials plan to require Pentagon reporters to pledge not to gather or report any information that the government has not authorized for release, whether classified or unclassified. Violators risk having their press credentials revoked.
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that journalists are entitled to lawfully obtain and publish government secrets. That is essentially the job description of an investigative journalist. The law is also clear that the government can’t require people to contract away a constitutional right, like the right to obtain and publish secrets, in exchange for a benefit, like access to government buildings or press credentials.
“This policy operates as a prior restraint on publication, which is considered the most serious of First Amendment violations. As we learned in the Pentagon Papers case, the government cannot prohibit journalists from public information merely by claiming it’s a secret or even a national security threat. This is worse in a way, because the government isn’t only seeking to restrain specific documents it contends pose a unique threat, it’s seeking to restrain everything it doesn’t want the public to know. That is fundamentally un-American.
“In the meantime, journalists will need to decide whether they’re so dependent on physical access to the Pentagon that they’re willing to trade away their independence to retain it.
“I hope they won’t, and will find other ways to gather news. Agreeing not to look where the government doesn’t want you to look and, by extension, not to print what it doesn’t want you to print, is propaganda, not journalism. Caving to these kinds of demands would in some ways be the most outrageous capitulation yet, and there are plenty to choose from.
“Virtually every time this administration (and past ones) has tried to justify secrecy by claiming it’s protecting national security, its real agenda turned out to be saving itself from embarrassment or from having its lies exposed. There is no reason to think this is any different. Perhaps there are so many embarrassing documents at this point that it’s too difficult to keep finding bogus reasons to keep each of them secret. Maybe that’s why the administration is taking more of a wholesale approach to concealing records that may show wrongdoing, corruption, and incompetence.”
Please contact us if you would like further comment on the dangers this policy poses to press freedom in the United States.
Europe’s age‑verification pilots conflate censorship with guardianship. This essay argues for a decentralised approach that separates technical filtering from social responsibility. news.dyne.org/age-verification…
La Quadrature du Net recherche un·e stagiaire juriste pour le premier semestre 2026 à Paris. Venez contribuer au travail de plaidoyer et de contentieux de l'association, pour défendre les droits et libertés à l'ère du numérique ! ⬇️
- Contribuer juridiquement aux différents groupes de travail (veille législative, analyses juridiques, élaboration de la doctrine juridique, contentieux) - Participer à la communication sur les dossiers juridiques (produire des contenus de synthèse et de vulgarisation, développer l’outillage juridique) - Entretenir et développer les réseaux de l'asso (participer aux rencontres avec les acteurs institutionnels et avec les collectifs ou associations allié·es)
- Est inscrit·e dans un cursus académique en fin de formation en droit public ou privé (M2, stage PPI, autres formations) - A un niveau B2 anglais juridique - Est intéressé·e par la défense des libertés fondamentales dans le domaine du numérique, et par les enjeux politiques des technologies numériques - Est motivé·e, disponible, veut apprendre et travailler en équipe
Même s’il vous manque certains critères, nous vous encourageons à postuler !
Les candidatures sont ouvertes jusqu'au 2 novembre, les entretiens commenceront dès le 16 octobre.
Le stage démarrera en janvier 2026, pour une durée de 6 mois idéalement, et se déroulera au Garage, le local de La Quadrature (115 rue de Ménilmontant, 75020 Paris ; télétravail ponctuel possible).
Il se déroulera sur 35h/semaine et les mêmes avantages que pour les salarié·es sont prévus.
Nuova minaccia si muove attraverso una backdoor sofisticata, battezzata BRICKSTORM, che Google Threat Intelligence e Mandiant hanno portato alla luce. Non
For years, many researchers and activists – especially in the Global Majority - have been shining the spotlight on the massive impact on the climate and environment caused by the never-ending thirst for tech seen around the world. This blog explores EDRi's contribution to a large body of work meant to acknowledge the need for collective action in this field.
PrivacyCamp25 will take place on 30 September, 2025 online and at La Tricoterie, Brussels. Curious about what we have planned? Check out the final programme.
In summer 2025, so-called “Chat Control” became a huge topic of public attention. This is because in a major vote planned for 13 or 14 October, EU governments will decide whether to endorse or reject a mass surveillance, encryption-breaking and anonymity-ending law: the EU CSA Regulation. However, there remain many democratic checks-and-balances in the EU lawmaking system that mean we still have a strong chance to stop measures that would amount to Chat Control.
Ripubblichiamo in italiano il post di Patrick Breyer del 24 settembre 2025 L’attivista che lotta per le libertà digitali denuncia una campagna di disinformazione per spezzare la resistenza al “Chat Control 2.0” ed evidenzia l’ipocrita esenzione per polizia e militari mentre il voto del Consiglio dell’UE è in bilico. In una manovra disperata per far passare il controverso regolamento…
Digitalrechtsaktivist Patrick Breyer deckt Desinformationskampagne auf, um den Widerstand gegen die Chatkontrolle zu brechen: Der EU-Ratsvorsitz nutzt nachweislich falsche Behauptungen, um zögerliche EU-Innenminister zu erpressen.
🇪🇺🚨 EXPOSED: EU Council Presidency is using a lie to blackmail EU governments into passing #ChatControl, a law to scan every private message & photo you send. Your privacy is on the line. Read the full story and call your government now: patrick-breyer.de/en/former-me… #StopScanningMe
Digital freedom fighter exposes disinformation campaign to break resistance to "Chat Control 2.0," highlights hypocritical exemption for police and military as EU Council vote hangs in the balance.
🇫🇷🚨 SCANDALE : La présidence de l'UE ment pour nous imposer #ChatControl et le scan de tous nos messages privés ! Notre vie privée est en danger. Lisez toute l'histoire et appelez votre gouvernement maintenant : patrick-breyer.de/en/former-me… #StopScanningMe
Digital freedom fighter exposes disinformation campaign to break resistance to "Chat Control 2.0," highlights hypocritical exemption for police and military as EU Council vote hangs in the balance.
🇮🇹🚨 SCANDALO: La presidenza UE mente per imporci il #ChatControl e scansionare ogni nostro messaggio privato! La nostra privacy è a rischio. Leggi la storia completa e chiama subito il tuo governo: patrick-breyer.de/en/former-me… #StopScanningMe
Digital freedom fighter exposes disinformation campaign to break resistance to "Chat Control 2.0," highlights hypocritical exemption for police and military as EU Council vote hangs in the balance.
That's how it works. When they run out of arguments, they start lying. It seems that any means are acceptable to them when it comes to enforcing mass surveillance. Does anyone really still believe that this is about protecting children?
So Belgium is saying that service providers should just scan and read our E2EE messages but only pass them on after whoever in charge would approve. And "This would also allow detection to take place in an encrypted environment" (sic)
Do they think you can put a message in a magical "encrypted" box which does detection but totally not decryption, and only when a judge opens it anyone can know what it was?
💪Dank öffentlichen Drucks äußert Italien jetzt erstmals Zweifel!
😠Bundesregierung arbeitet weiter mit Hochdruck an "Kompromiss". ☎️Noch 20 Tage, um Innen- und Justizministerium zur Rettung des Briefgeheimnisses aufzufordern!
Dänemark will die Chatkontrolle in drei Wochen durchdrücken. Am Gesetz ändert die Ratspräsidentschaft nichts, stattdessen sollen Staaten ihre Meinung ändern. Die Position Deutschlands ist maßgeblich. Darüber entscheidet Innenminister Dobrindt.
Schwer, wenn man an Norwegen und den Fall Breivik denkt oder auch viele andere Taten, welche vielleicht verhindert hättet wären können.
Nur die Verteilung ist nicht richtig, weil nicht der Staat selbst, sondern die jeweiligen Regierenden allein kontrollieren und dies so zu Machtmissbrauch führt.
Die Wahrheit wird nur von Oben nach Unten verteilt, nicht umgekehrt!
Hier braucht es regionale bürgerliche Gremium, welche eine gleichmäßig Verteilung absichern !!!
Eine Frage habe ich noch: Haben sich eigentlich CDU und SPD überhaupt zum Thema gemeldet zusammen mit den anderen Regierungsanstalten? Selbst bei mir habe ich noch keine Rückantworten von denen per Mail erhalten. Normalerweise sorgt es nur für mehr Unruhen wenn die Politiker sich nicht dazuäußern wollen 🤨
Ansonsten werde ich weiterhin reposten, Infos weitervermitteln und an alle appellieren weiter Druck auszuüben für Europa. Das ist das mindeste was ich dazu beitragen kann.
📢 The Commission and EU member states must keep #AIAct implementation on track
The deadline for EU countries to enact the law and designate national authorities passed on 2 August. Almost none of the countries have done this 🙅🏽♀️
The Commission itself is also becoming a roadblock 🚧
✊🏽 31 civil society organisations urged the Commission and Member States to act decisively and immediately to ensure the timely national implementation of the AI Act.
EDRi, along with a broad coalition of civil society organisations, demands urgent action from the European Commission and Member States to ensure that the rights enshrined in the AI Act do not remain hollow promises.
🤩 The wait is over: the programme for #PrivacyCamp25 is out now!
📖 Explore the sessions, workshops & discussions that will bring together Europe’s digital rights community under this year’s theme: “Resilience and Resistance in Times of Deregulation and Authoritarianism”.
From platform regulation to surveillance, AI governance to digital justice, the event creates a space to learn, question & build collective power for a fairer digital future.
A searchable public database known as the Police Records Access Project has made public for the first time more than 1.5 million pages of previously secret records about the use of force and misconduct by California police officers.
The California Reporting Project, a collaboration between news outlets, universities, and civil society organizations, began collecting and organizing the documents after the passage of SB 1421, a landmark law that made them public records. The law was expanded in 2021 to give the public even greater access.
Now, however, the California legislature is beginning to reverse course. This month, it passed AB 1178, a new bill that would make it harder for the public to access police misconduct records. The bill is awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature or veto.
We spoke to journalist Lisa Pickoff-White, who is the director of research at the California Reporting Project, about what the CRP has accomplished so far and what AB 1178 could mean for transparency and accountability.
What are some of the most impactful stories journalists in the CRP have published using these records?
The project had impact from the beginning. A district attorney dropped charges against a woman who was wrongly arrested for allegedly misusing 911, after an investigation into one of the first cases released under SB 1421.
Reporters documented where departments failed to investigate police killings, found a homicide detective whose dishonesty upended criminal cases, and uncovered a pattern of excessive force at a state prison. We identified 22 people who died after officers held them face down, including two people who died after a state law banning the practice.
The governor is expected to sign a law barring agencies from using secret deals to conceal misconduct, prompted by an investigation exposing how 163 departments signed “clean-record agreements.”
What were some of the biggest challenges in collecting, reviewing, and standardizing these records and launching the database?
Obtaining records continues to be a major challenge. Just days before SB 1421 took effect, Inglewood destroyed records, for instance. In August, we sued San Joaquin County over the cost of autopsy reports related to deaths caused by law enforcement officers. We’ve made more than 3,500 record requests and maintain relationships with hundreds of agencies.
Once we have the records, assembling them is a challenge. There’s no standard police report, and we receive a great variety of files, from PDFs to surveillance video. We built tools to extract information, which researchers use to match files into a case. Then we reextract information from each case, some of which is published, and then also used to help us identify places where we need more records.
Now that the database is public, what should journalists know about using it? How has the public responded to the database since it launched?
So far, people have searched our archive more than 1 million times. We’ve heard from people who have lost loved ones to police violence that this database makes it easier to access records.
Expanding the search can help. Multiple agencies may have records about the same incident. If an officer shoots and kills someone, the police, the district attorney, and the medical examiner or coroner may hold records. A review board may have files. The state attorney general could investigate. Sometimes, agencies also investigate cases for each other; a local sheriff may investigate a shooting for a police department.
Officers can also appeal disciplinary charges. If you’re looking at a misconduct case, it might also be worth searching local administrative agencies or the state personnel board.
A new bill awaiting the signature or veto of Gov. Newsom, AB 1178, couldlead to more redactions when officers claim their duties require anonymity. What would it mean for transparency and accountability if misconduct records become harder for the press and the public to obtain?
Without AB 1178, agencies can already redact the names of undercover officers. Our records show that agencies across the state continue to improperly redact the names of officers. Meanwhile, the bill’s authors have yet to cite any harm that’s come from releasing the names of officers involved in use-of-force and misconduct incidents.
Our reporting, and other investigations, revealed that agencies can and do hire officers who previously violated policies. These officers are more likely to receive complaints again. For instance, Derek Chauvin had 18 prior complaints in the Minneapolis Police Department, two of which led to discipline, before killing George Floyd.
What lessons can journalists and advocates in other states learn from CRP’s work?
There is a vast amount of work to do and collaboration is the key to doing it. More than 100 reporters have worked on the project for the last seven years, and we needed people with a wide range of expertise to make requests, build tools, and report.
That mix of skills allowed us to build tools to spot the gaps between what cases agencies disclose and incidents listed in other data sources about shootings and sustained complaints. We’ve gained thousands of cases through this kind of check. Having a group of people with request aptitude, coding ability, and domain knowledge allowed us to identify what we needed and the incremental steps to take to get it.
Atlanta-based journalist Mario Guevara has been detained for nearly 100 days and is facing imminent deportation from the United States. His crime? Doing his job.
Guevara was detained first by local police and then by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in what experts say was retaliation for his reporting on immigration raids and subsequent protests.
Guevara’s case is a disturbing example of how ICE can target non-American journalists, with or without legal status. Recently, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted a panel discussion featuring immigration lawyers, civil rights advocates, and journalists to talk about what to do when a journalist is detained by ICE — and what must happen before that day ever comes.
Non-American journalists in the United States—especially those covering immigration or working in vulnerable roles like freelancers or independent journalists—are at serious risk as a result of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant and anti-press policies.
President Donald Trump’s campaign to retaliate against journalists who contradict the government’s preferred narrative, plus his administration’s promise to ramp up deportations, has created a “perfect storm for those, like immigrant reporters, who are on the front lines,” said Nora Benavidez of Free Press.
“This administration has made it very clear that it considers the public and press documenting immigration enforcement to be a threat,” explained American Civil Liberties Union’s Scarlet Kim, who is part of Guevara’s legal team.
What can be done? Advanced preparation is key.
The experts we spoke to agreed: Newsrooms can’t wait until a journalist is detained to act. Here are key steps newsrooms and reporters can take before it happens.
1. Create an action plan before you need it.
Journalist and Investigative Reporters and Editors board member Alejandra Cancino has been working with fellow reporters to create a checklist to help newsrooms prepare for the potential detention of one of their reporters by ICE.
The checklist includes steps like gathering key information ahead of time, such as about medical needs, emergency contacts, and immigration attorney contacts (more on that below).
Cancino also encouraged newsrooms to talk with non-American reporters about their concerns and how to mitigate them. “We obviously don’t want any reporter to be taken away from their beat,” she explained, but creative risk-mitigation measures can work, such as having a journalist facing heightened risks report from the newsroom based on information being provided from others in the field.
2. Get local immigration counsel — now.
Journalists at risk need an experienced immigration lawyer in place before they’re detained, experts said.
Newsrooms should consider keeping local immigration counsel on retainer. “Getting a roster of vetted attorneys together is the first important step,” explained Marium Uddin, legal director of the Muslim Legal Fund of America and a former immigration judge.
News outlets should also consider having non-American journalists they work with sign a retainer agreement with an immigration attorney in advance, paid for by the newsroom, so that representation of the journalist could be immediate if they were detained, Uddin said.
To build their rosters of immigration attorneys, newsroom lawyers should seek referrals from those in their networks who may already have strong reputations and experience with the local immigration courts. They can also seek referrals by contacting organizations like the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Immigration Advocates Network, and local legal aid offices.
Unfortunately, asylum cases can be expensive to litigate. In Texas, where Uddin is based, they can cost $10,000 to $20,000. While some immigration attorneys may offer free or low-cost services, newsrooms should budget for the cost of legal defense of non-American journalists detained by immigration authorities. Protecting journalists “is the cost of doing business,” said Cancino.
3. Act immediately to locate the detained journalist.
If a journalist is detained, one of the first steps will be to locate them, a process that can be made difficult by an opaque detention system and strategic shuffling of people around detention facilities.
Newsrooms should first determine if a detained journalist is in local custody, said Samantha Hamilton of the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, since people who are arrested are often taken first to the county jail before being transferred to ICE.
If they have been transferred to ICE, Hamilton recommended searching for them with the online ICE detainee locator, using the person’s alien registration number and country of birth. If you don’t have that information, you can also search using their last name and country of origin. Hamilton recommended using all variations of the name, especially if the person has multiple names or uses a nickname.
Once a newsroom locates the journalist, it will want to figure out how to contact them. Each facility can have different communication rules, explained Uddin, which can often be found on the facility’s official website or ICE’s general detention center directory. Legal visits may require special steps, like completing a legal notice of representation.
4. Consider all the legal options.
In addition to challenging the journalist’s detention and deportation in immigration court, a legal petition known as habeas corpus may present another way to challenge the detention in court if a journalist is detained in retaliation for their reporting, said ACLU attorney Kim. A habeas petition asks a federal judge for an order that a person in custody be brought before the court to determine if their detention is valid.
A successful habeas petition can free someone from immigration detention. However, it cannot resolve their immigration status or stop deportation proceedings altogether. Those legal issues must be addressed separately in immigration court.
Habeas is especially important in cases where immigration detention is being used to punish people for their speech or journalism. The ACLU has brought habeas petitions in Guevara’s case and also to challenge the detention of students by immigration officials based on their political speech.
One of the biggest challenges in bringing a habeas petition is timing. Kim warned that strategic transfers of detainees between ICE facilities without warning can make legal action harder, because petitions must usually be filed in the jurisdiction where the detainee is being held. That’s why it’s so important to have legal counsel lined up and to file a habeas petition as soon as possible, ideally before any transfer occurs.
The bigger picture
A recent court ruling in California reminded the public that “a camera and a notepad are not threats to the public,” said Uddin. Unfortunately, however, government retaliation against non-American journalists remains a real threat.
So it’s not enough for newsrooms and journalists to prepare. People outside the media industry need to see how detentions of non-American journalists and other attacks on the press impact us all and speak up against them, explained Benavidez. “Because if it is one of those other people today,” she said, “it could be one of us tomorrow.”
Log Out è il ritrovo dei Tech Worker che dopo il lavoro vogliono incontrarsi. Un incontro informale davanti ad una birra, un cocktail o una bibita per scaricare la stanchezza della giornata di lavoro. Un'occasione per socializzare, conoscersi, parlare del nostro lavoro e come organizzarci nei prossimi mesi!
Sezione bolognese di @twcita. Uno spazio per discussioni di rilevanza locale tra tech worker. Dove ci si organizza, tra una balotta e l'altra. Info & regolamento: https://t.me/twcitagruppo/80268/80519
His release is the result of tireless efforts by his family, human rights defenders, and countless allies across our community. It’s a powerful reminder that persistence matters, and that digital rights are human rights, inseparable from the broader struggle for freedom and dignity.
Alaa once told us: “You Have Not Yet Been Defeated.” Today, we celebrate those words and carry them with us into the struggles still ahead.
Katy B. 📚 🥛
in reply to The Pirate Post • • •Gli USA devono smetterla di dettare legge.
Hanno stufato e non da oggi.