Wij organiseerden samen met andere activisten dit protest tegen de mensenrechtenschendingen door ICE. De NAVO zegt democratische waarden te verdedigen, dus spreken wij ons als onderdeel van de democratie uit tegen de schendingen van deze democratische woorden door de VS. Trump is not our Daddy. Pers was aanwezig om verslag te doen. Hieronder zie je […]

Het bericht Piratenpartij bij protest voor ‘democratische waarden’ en tegen mensenrechtenschendingen door ICE verscheen eerst op Piratenpartij.

Authoritarians hate being laughed at. Maybe that’s why Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr continues to pick fights with late-night comedians.

Carr’s latest swipe is a public notice released on Jan. 21, 2026, warning late-night and daytime talk shows that their programs might no longer qualify for an exception to the FCC’s “equal time” rule.

The equal time rule requires broadcast stations that allow one candidate for office to use their airways during non-news programming to provide an equal opportunity for other candidates to do the same. Remember when Carr lost his mind about Kamala Harris appearing on “Saturday Night Live”? That was about the equal time rule.

NBC, to be clear, did not violate the rule. But the freak-out was a preview of how Carr is now preparing to use the rule against those who speak out against President Donald Trump.

Critically, the FCC’s public notice isn’t just a shot across the bow of Jimmy Kimmel, “The View,” and similar shows. It’s also a threat to every broadcast newsroom in the country.

That’s because of how the notice talks about an exception to the equal time rule for “bona fide” newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot news coverage. That exception is required by statute, but the law leaves the FCC the discretion as to what counts as a “bona fide.” The First Amendment restricts the FCC’s discretion, but it’s still dangerous. Carr has shown again and again how little he cares for constitutional limits.

In this instance, the public notice goes out of its way to stress that programs that “serve a political agenda” or are “unfairly putting their thumbs on the scale of one political candidate or set of candidates over another” do not qualify for the exception. That sounds reasonable, until you ask an obvious question: Who decides what is designed to serve a political agenda, or what it means to unfairly put a thumb on the scale?

Turns out it’s the not-so-independent FCC that would get to decide. And that’s a big problem.

Carr takes his marching orders from Trump, who believes that any news program that isn’t lavishly praising him is biased against him. The White House literally maintains a website dedicated to denouncing major news outlets, including broadcasters, as enemies and Democratic propagandists for the “crime” of reporting facts. Trump trots out made-up statistics (“97% BAD STORIES”!) to smear news outlets as partisan.

ABC, NBC, CBS — it doesn’t matter. Even capitulation doesn’t buy safety. CBS humiliated itself by paying Trump $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit, and ABC didn’t do much better by shelling out $15 million on a case it could have won. Yet Trump still accuses them of bias and even threatens to sue them again all the time.

Stations that want to continue to claim the exception may strive to ensure their coverage meets the approval of Carr and Trump, in a warped recreation of the old and discredited Fairness Doctrine.

Against this backdrop, it’s not hard to imagine this FCC chair — who wears a gold lapel pin of Trump’s face and has selective amnesia when it comes to the First Amendment — deciding that broadcast news aired on ABC, CBS, or NBC stations are not “bona fide” news programs because, according to the president, they “serve a political agenda.”

That would hand the federal government even more regulatory power to shape broadcast programming. Stations that want to continue to claim the exception may strive to ensure their coverage meets the approval of Carr and Trump, in a warped recreation of the old and discredited Fairness Doctrine.

Stations that don’t modify their coverage and are found not to qualify for the exception as a result could be forced to provide free airtime to candidates they don’t invite to appear on their news programs. Worse, Carr could hold up mergers and other transactions requiring FCC approval for licensees that don’t follow his interpretation of the equal time rule.

Sure, broadcasters could challenge Carr’s edicts under the First Amendment, but that’s a long process that would only further draw government ire in the meantime.

Enforcement of the exception under Carr’s possible new interpretation also would not necessarily be equal. The FCC could aggressively demand “equal time” for Trump-aligned candidates while ignoring violations that shut out Democrats.

Congress knew that without the bona fide news exception to the equal time rule, broadcast news may avoid covering candidates and campaigns, and would be forced to “both sides” discussions where one side is obviously lying. Stripping away that protection will result in a chilling effect that Congress was specifically trying to prevent.

That’s especially true when stations have to worry about the rule being turned against them by a hyperpartisan FCC chair. The result is that the public will be less likely to hear from candidates on broadcast news programs, especially those who may criticize Trump or other Republicans.

Congress must act to stop this reinterpretation of the equal time rule and bona fide news exemption in its tracks. Oversight hearings are a good start, but lawmakers should also amend the Communications Act to put in guardrails that prevent the FCC from acting as a censor in chief and an arbiter of free speech. Whether it’s late-night TV or the nightly news, free speech shouldn’t be subject to the whims of Brendan Carr and Donald Trump.

freedom.press/issues/fccs-late…

When federal agents raided Washington Post reporter Hannah Nantanson’s home earlier this month, it reignited discussions about how reporters can protect confidential sources and sensitive information.

“Having reported from dozens of countries with various levels of surveillance, I’ve found that the safest method for interacting with sources who would face the most jeopardy if exposed is to meet in person and cover your tracks,” said Steve Herman, executive director of the Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation, in a recent statement by the National Press Club Journalism Institute.

That’s good advice. But “covering your tracks” when meeting sources isn’t always easy. And a new Supreme Court case, Chatrie v. United States, could make it harder.

The dangers of geofence warrants

At the heart of the Chatrie case are legal orders known as geofence warrants. This controversial tool allows police to demand location data from tech companies (usually Google) to see every device in a specific area at a specific time. Imagine drawing a digital fence around a crime scene and demanding a list of every phone that crossed into it.

These demands can reveal precise details about people’s movements and locations. Authorities can pinpoint where someone stood within a couple of yards and whether they were on the first or second floor of a building.

But geofence warrants are also imprecise: They sweep up the movements not just of suspects but also of innocent people who happen to be within the digital fence. Demanding location data for a 150-yard radius of a bank in the hour before it was robbed, for example, may show the movements of people who worked at the bank, visited the psychiatrist’s office next door, worshipped at the church on the neighboring block, or dropped into the nearby strip club.

Lower courts disagree about whether these demands violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Some have held that they’re categorically unconstitutional. Others, like the appeals court that made the initial decision in Chatrie, have held that geofences are not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and would be perfectly constitutional even without a warrant.

Now, the Supreme Court will decide. If the court holds that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply to the use of geofences to obtain location data, it could greenlight mass surveillance on an enormous scale. The government could require tech companies to turn over location data, enabling it to surveil protesters, members of dissenting groups, and even the press.

A direct threat to journalists and sources

For journalists, the threat of their location data landing in the government’s hands is real. As our digital security training team at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) explains:

“Consider a sensitive story in which you are meeting a high-risk, anonymous source in person. Your adversaries could use location data to determine that you and the source were in the same spot at the same time, leading to the possible exposure of the source’s identity.

“Or perhaps you need to visit a particular location (e.g., a government building) that could put a given department or agency on notice that you are investigating them, in turn making the reporting process more challenging.”

Geofence warrants could easily expose confidential sources or tip off powerful government institutions that a reporter is investigating them. A single geofence warrant centered on a newsroom, for instance, could reveal everyone who’s visited, from whistleblowers to workers.

Even reporters who take precautions, like meeting sources in neutral locations, might not be safe. A geofence warrant could place them within yards of each other in the same parking garage or cafe, revealing their connection.

Holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to geofence warrants would prevent some of these abuses. Under the Fourth Amendment, courts must only approve warrants if there’s probable cause, which is unlikely to exist in fishing expeditions targeting journalists to uncover their confidential sources.

Why this matters, even after Google’s changes

Google took an important step in 2023 by changing how it stores user location data and for how long, making it harder for the government to use geofence warrants. But these protections aren’t foolproof. Other location data collected by Google or other companies could be vulnerable to geofence warrants.

As a result, the court’s decision in Chatrie still matters, and journalists may still want to take steps to limit exposure of their location data.

The outcome of Chatrie also touches on a deeper Fourth Amendment issue that could reverberate beyond geofence warrants: the “third-party doctrine.” This decades-old legal rule says that people lose their reasonable expectation of privacy once they share information voluntarily with third parties, like a phone company or a bank.

The court has limited the third-party doctrine in recent years, most famously in its decision in Carpenter v. United States. But its ruling in Chatrie has the potential to swing the pendulum back toward less privacy. That could impact Fourth Amendment protections for all kinds of data shared with third parties, such as information stored in the cloud or sensitive searches.

Every journalist, source, and citizen should be paying attention and demanding greater privacy protections from the courts and from Congress. If privacy is restricted in this case, our First Amendment rights are too. The free press can’t exist in a surveillance state.

freedom.press/issues/supreme-c…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2026 — A judge today blocked the government from searching data it seized during the outrageous raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home last week.

The following statement can be attributed to Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):

“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety. But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records. That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security. It was a fishing expedition intended to intimidate and retaliate against a journalist who had managed to cultivate sources all over the government. The judge was right to block it until a full hearing at which time he should block it permanently.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/judge-blo…

Misschien woon jij in een gemeente waar de Piratenpartij mee wil doen. Alleen met voldoende ondersteuningsverklaringen (OSV) zetten we de Piratenpartij op het stemformulier. Een OSV heet ook wel een H4-formulier. Download ze voor jouw gemeente: gemeente opsturen naar Amsterdam mailto:amsterdam@piratenpartij.nl stadsdeelcommissie Amsterdam – West mailto:amsterdam@piratenpartij.nl Procedure in het kort: Neem geldig ID mee! De […]

Het bericht Help de Piraten in jouw gemeente verscheen eerst op Piratenpartij.

What has the EDRi network been up to over the past few weeks? Find out the latest digital rights news in our bi-weekly newsletter. In this edition: EDRi’s 2025 year in review, new resource to support an EU spyware ban, DSA delayed in Poland, & more!

The post EDRi-gram, 21 January 2026 appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Bits of Freedom shares lessons learned while working on “Amsterdam Top400”, an invasive municipality project which involved the use of predictive policing and led to unwanted interference in the private lives of young people. Together with a coalition of professionals from different background and affected individuals, they explored the possibility of holding the municipality of Amsterdam accountable for violations of children’s rights, data protection law, and fundamental freedoms.

The post Fighting for algorithmic justice: lessons learned in working closely with affected people appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Spyware continues to spread across Europe despite years of scandals and undisputable evidence of fundamental rights violations. As the European Commission remains inactive, civil society, journalists and some lawmakers at the European Parliament are stepping up pressure for accountability. In this context, EDRi is launching a document pool to centralise resources that tracks abuse and support the growing push for a full EU-wide ban of spyware.

The post EDRi launches new resource to document abuses and support a full ban on spyware in Europe appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

As for most civil society organisations, 2025 was a tumultuous and challenging year for EDRi. Shifting political landscapes and shrinking civic space have made the work of civil society in Europe and around the world increasingly difficult for years . Yet we have nevertheless found many reasons to hope, celebrate, resist and persist.

The post EDRi’s 2025 in review: we resisted, we persisted appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Poland is among the last EU member states to implement the Digital Service Act. After two years of negotiations between the government and civil actors – led by the Panoptykon Foundation, the Polish NGO protecting fundamental rights in the online context – the implementing act was ready. President’s veto means that the process has to be started afresh.

The post President’s veto further delays the implementation of the DSA in Poland appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

A new study by Bits of Freedom shows that Snapchat sends users misleading notifications. This is banned under the Digital Services Act which prohibits misleading and manipulative design on online platforms. The results of this study make for important input into possible DSA enforcement actions and support including rules about attention-grabbing notifications in the upcoming Digital Fairness Act.

The post New research reveals how Snapchat uses notifications to manipulate users appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Every Thursday of the week, Bastian’s Night is broadcast from 21:30 CET.

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.

If you want to read more about @BastianBB: –> This way

piratesonair.net/bastians-nigh…

We elect our Pirate Council in February. Positions include Captain, First Officer, Quartermaster, PR/Media Director, Activism Director, Swarmwise Director, Web/Info Director, three Arbitrators and two representatives to the US Pirate Party.

If you are interested in throwing your hat in for any of these positions, nominations are open on-line until end of day Friday, January 30th. Before you do, become a member, join our activists email list, and read our Articles of Agreement and Code of Conduct.

Ballots will be sent out by February 13th and are due back by February 27th. We will use the same voting mechanism we used in our previous election. Voters will be emailed a randomly generated id that only the voter will know. Once the election is done, we will delete the ids. In this way, we can ensure that only supporters can vote, while also maintaining the secrecy of votes.

We look forward to multiple candidates for all positions.

masspirates.org/blog/2026/01/2…

10 organisation, including EDRi, have joined an ongoing coalition effort to challenge the discriminatory algorithms used by the family branch of the French welfare system (CNAF). In the current deregulation spree by the European Commission, this legal action represents resistance to the rollback of fundamental rights protections and the increase of rights infringing legislation. Read an update about the strengthened coalition and the legal action they have taken so far.

The post CNAF’s discriminatory scoring algorithm: 10 new organisations join the case before the Conseil d’État in France appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Spyware is one of the most serious threats to fundamental rights, democracy and civic space across Europe. This document pool brings together EDRi’s analysis, advocacy, research, and curated third-party resources as part of our push for a full EU-wide ban on spyware.

The post Spyware Document Pool appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

January 19 – Today is MLK Day, in which we celebrate the “birthday” of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (which was actually four days ago on the 15th) and remember him as a nonviolent activist and hero of Civil Rights.

To take a moment of reflection, I think it is especially important to remember the life, work and legacy of MLK Jr. for everything that it was. Martin Luther King Jr. is a figure that fills a hole I believe is deeply missing in today’s day and age.

Many people might overlook the fact, or write it off as a mere footnote, that Dr. King was a Reverend. But you shouldn’t overlook that fact.

Dr. King was apart of what we will boil down for simplicity purposes as “the Christian Left”.

What we are seeing in today’s day and age is the continual bastardization of Christian imagery in order to progress an agenda of “Christian Nationalism”. While Civil Rights should rightfully be recognized as Dr. King’s legacy, his role as a prominent Christian and the undeniable role his Christianity had on his words and actions must be acknowledged.

“Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.”

Because Christian Nationalists of 2026 use phrases such as “Christ is King”, many from left-of-center to far-left tend to completely disregard religion as toxic, antiquated, oppressive or even “opiate of the masses”.

They should not.

It is fine if you personally are non-religious, but many folks do take their faith seriously. It is central to their lives and often influences their day-to-day decisions.

The Reverend Dr. King is no exception, and to lessen that idea his motives were deeply Christian would be to belittle his legacy entirely.

For those of you who consider themselves “on the left”, it is important you do not forget or belittle the impact faith and religion has on people. Furthermore, it is important that you be not afraid of speaking loudly and proudly your faith, but to never force that faith upon other people.

It does not need to be limited to Christianity. Malcolm X, upon returning from his pilgrimage to Mecca, immediately saw the brotherhood of all races as possible and even emphasized the need for the United States to understand Islam in order to address its racial issues.

Even Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, has made no secret of his being Muslim as well as a Democratic Socialist. Even in the face of Islamophobic slander, Zohran has not wavered on his faith and his ideological beliefs. So much so that they have spawned “Socialist Jihadist” at him, which is certainly a buzzword.

Zohran Mamdani is not forcing everyone in the New York City to revert to Islam or pay the jizyah. His faith drives his actions and his actions thus become his word.

What Christian Nationalists are attempting to do is force the idea of “we are a Christian nation”, in which Christianity is the law of the land and Christians are first-class citizens. A Christian Republic.

That is an idea and concept Dr. King could not get behind.

Dr. King was openly and proudly Christian, and on the day in which he remember and celebrate the good Reverend, I ask that people of all faiths remember his message of love, justice and equality for all of the people on earth. “All of God’s Children”, if you will.

The United States Pirate Party is a secular organization, and I don’t wish to let this religiously themed post convince you all we are taking a religious approach.

But individuals in the party, myself (Captain Jolly Mitch) included, are believers of some kind. It is the individual, not the movement, who should keep and live by their faith. If your faith is what brings you to do good for the world, then is that not reason enough to hold it proudly?

Remember, and Dr. King was the exemplar of this: faith without works is dead.

uspirates.org/remembering-dr-k…

ICYMI

Arizona – the Arizona Pirate Party is seeking volunteers to assist with signature collecting for the Blase Henry campaign. If you are interested in helping Blase get on the ballot, check out their website or join their Discord to get in direct contact.

Pennsylvania – Drew Bingaman will be hosting campaign meet and greets for those in his district on February 2nd and 19th. Those interested can find out more by visiting his Facebook page and checking out “Events”

Conference News – The conference, scheduled for Boston on June 6th, 2026, has been penciled in to be a two day conference, with the final conference business wrapping up on Sunday, June 7th.

In addition, discussions have begun over the theme/tagline for the 2026 conference. Further information such as keynote and guest speakers, as well as discussion topics, will be revealed in the coming weeks. The determination of the theme/tagline may come as soon as next week’s meeting. Discussions and suggestions are currently open on our Discord server.

Young Pirates USA – In accordance with their new bylaws, YPUSA have opened up nominations for Secretary, Signal Officer and Treasurer. A nomination form has been provided to YPUSA members and will close on January 27th, immediately before their next meeting. The Young Pirate’s will have a proper election come the June conference.

uspirates.org/icymi-updates-fr…

The next Cambridge/Somerville Pirate Meetup is this Saturday:

• 1/24/2026, 3-4pm, Diesel Cafe, 257 Elm St., Somerville;
• 2/7/2026, 2-3pm, Tatte Bakery & Cafe, 318 Third St., Cambridge;
• 2/22/2026, 1-2pm, 37 Woodbine St., Somerville.

Afterwards, if the weather is good, we will map surveillance devices in the area.

Click the links to go to their respective registration pages. Knowing how many people plan to attend helps to choose the right sized table.

Looking forward to meeting with fellow pirates in Camberville!

PS: You can also join our local mailing list.

masspirates.org/blog/2026/01/1…