vittoria per @noybeu - Microsoft ha ordinato di smettere di tracciare i bambini delle scuole austriache. E in Italia come funziona?
L'autorità austriaca per la protezione dei dati (DSB) ha deciso che l'azienda ha installato illegalmente dei cookie sui dispositivi di un alunno senza consenso. Secondo la documentazione fornita da Microsoft, questi cookie analizzano il comportamento degli utenti, raccolgono dati sul browser e vengono utilizzati per la pubblicità.
Perché la privacy, ad esempio la protezione dei dati personali degli elettori, tutela la democrazia? L'Attorney General of the U.S. Pam Bondi in una lettera di tre pagine al Governatore del Minnesota Tim Walz ha chiesto, tra l'altro, di consegnare i dati personali degli elettori dello stato all’amministrazione Trump. L'amministrazione Trump si sta preparando alle elezioni di midterm del 3 novembre 2026 (ammesso che ci saranno) theguardian.com/us-news/2026/j…
January 26 – During yesterday’s meeting, members of the Pirate National Committee asked for and voted on a condemnation of ICE, their violence and the current administration directing the actions behind it.
Previously, we did release “Thanks for Nothing“, an entry in the Through the Spyglass series, which stated the following:
“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?”
The above and all further stylized quotations will come from Thanks for Nothing.
While that might have been buried in a Spyglass article, we felt it important to call it out on a more public, reachable forum: an explicit article saying the same thing. Since the publishing of that article, ICE actions have only grown more violent and deadly, especially in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In the shadow of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti of Minneapolis, in response to the killings in California of Keith Porter Jr., Jaime Alnanís and Roberto Carlos Montoya Valdés, in memory of Silverio Villegas González, all of whom were slain by ICE: enough is enough.
We, not only as member of the United States Pirate Party, but as citizens of the United States of America, cannot sit by idly and watch state-sponsored domestic terrorists continue to violate our neighbors.
You could not pay us to hate our fellow man for seeking a better life through hard work.
“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.”
To the architects of the terror we see today; Donald Trump, JD Vance, Stephen Miller, Gregory Bovino, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem and every single person in power in support of the ICE operations, be it Operation Metro Surge or otherwise: go fuck yourselves. You are domestic terrorists and we will not stand behind you.
To everyone who says “this is what I voted for!”, you are not welcomed in the United States Pirate Party. To have your empathy for your neighbor and fellow man dictated by what Uncle Sam says of their legal status, you must wake up to the fact that you have fallen for classic propaganda: “us vs them”. This round was “legal citizens versus ‘illegal’ immigrants”, and you decided to get in line with the in-group. They have killed U.S. citizens, and many of you still do not have it in your hearts to care or show basic human empathy.
You have no seat waiting for you on our ship nor in this party.
“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.”
This is a call for all: do not put your support behind this domestic terrorist organization. Refuse to throw your weight behind the organization committed to turning US Americans against our neighbors based on bureaucratic paperwork. Resist ICE in your neighborhoods and in your cities. Don’t allow this to become the modern day Palmer Raids. Don’t allow Uncle Sam to be your moral guide.
“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.”
To the Proud Boys ICE Agents terrorizing the people living in this country and trying to better their lives, abducting neighbors and killing people in the streets: history will remember your actions and motivation. If any of you are the God-fearing Christians you claim to be and claim you want this nation to become, know that you all would have crucified Jesus if given the chance. This is far from what Jesus would do.
This is what terrorists would do. ICE, each and everyone of your enlisted officers, and the administration enabling them: history will remember your names for the terror you caused. People will remember you for being terrorists to our countrymen.
Arizona – the Arizona Pirate Party is still seeking volunteers to assist with signature collecting for the Blase Henrycampaign. 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 is hosting two Meet and Greets events on the 2nd and 19th of February in Sunbury and Danville, respectively. More information can be found on his candidate page under the “Events” tab.
Committee News – Platform has been tasked with overlooking our “Putting People Before Corporations” platform plank and exploring further clarifying to mean “Putting Individuals Before Institutions”, better explaining our fight for self-determination and a free and open society; free from governmental and corporate oppression and overreach. IT has requested a ticket system be installed in the Discord, which should be installed once our monkey in a bow tie (me) finishes the job. Outreach is seeking a new chair to head regularly scheduled Outreach meetings per a 4-0-1 vote from the board. The position is available to whoever is willing to head meetings regularly.
Public Statement and Other Publications – Later today there will be an official statement from the United States Pirate Party regarding ICE, their actions, and the current administration directing those orders. There will also be another addition of our Through the Spyglass series out Thursday and Friday; our first two-part addition of the series.
The European Commission has opened a DSA investigation into Grok, X’s AI chatbot. EDRi welcomes this decision and is calling for a swift resolution to this matter, to ensure that X complies fully with its DSA obligations and protects its users.
Die Piratenpartei Schweiz hat an der Piratenversammlung ihre Parolen zu den Abstimmungsvorlagen vom 08. März 2026 gefasst:
Individualbesteuerung: JA
Klimafonds-Initiative: Stimmfreigabe
SRG-Initiative: Stimmfreigabe
Bargeld-Initiative: JA zur Initiative, JA zum Gegenvorschlag, Stichfrage: Gegenvorschlag
Individualbesteuerung: Die Gleichbehandlung der Steuerzahler ist sinnvoll. Sie führt zu faireren Abgaben und mehr Unabhängigkeit im Erwerbsleben. Jorgo Ananiadis, Präsident der Piratenpartei: „Die Loslösung vom Konstrukt der Ehe ist zeitgemäss. Die bisherigen negativen Erwerbsanreize auf Zweiteinkommen sind ein alter Zopf und gehören abgeschafft. Die Steuern müssen fair sein und dürfen nicht von individuellen Verträgen abhängen.“
Klimafonds-Initiative: Die Piraten erkennen Klimaschutz als wichtig an, jedoch erachten Sie den Weg der vorliegenden Initiative riskant. Viele Mitglieder befürchten, dass mit der Schaffung solcher Fonds viel Geld in Bürokratie und Administration versickert und eine Klientelwirtschaft erwartet werden kann – wie schon oft gesehen. Um die Klima-Probleme nachaltig zu lösen empfehlen wir jedem, die Pro- und Kontra-Argumente individuell abzuwägen.
SRG-Initiative: Die Piraten anerkennen viele Argumente der Initianten und würden eine deutliche Verschlankung und Fokussierung des Angebots auf Kernbereiche begrüssen. Jedoch sind bei einer so starken Gebührensenkung auch deutlich negative Auswirkungen auf die Schweizer Medienlandschaft zu befürchten. Pat Mächler, Vorstand der Piratenpartei: „Die aktuelle Strategie des Bundes, die öffentliche Berichterstattung der SRG im online-Bereich zu stutzen, ist schädlich und absurd. In den deutschsprachigen Nachbarländern ist der Fokus gerade andersrum.“. Die Piraten bereiten eine Petition vor, bei dem das Thema der Freigabe von öffentlich finanzierten Medieninhalten und die Barrierenfreiheit solcher Produktionen thematisiert wird – im Sinne von „Public money, public content!“
Bargeld-Initiative: Die Piratenpartei unterstützt das Anliegen deutlich, insbesondere weil Bargeld ein inhärenter Bestandteil der Initiative der Piratenpartei auf Digitale Integrität mit ihrem „Recht auf ein Offline-Leben“ ist, siehe https://digitaleintegritaet.ch/feed/ Da der Gegenentwurf den Initiativtext aus unserer Sicht noch etwas konkreter in die bestehende Gesetzgebung integriert, gibt die Piratenpartei dem Gegenentwurf den Vorzug.
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.
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.
The @EUCommission has opened a #DSA investigation into X’s AI chatbot Grok.
In just days, its produced 3M+ non-consensual sexualised images of women &minors, turning X into an infrastructure for AI-enabled sexual abuse. Elon Musk & his company have treated the harm like a game, putting profits over people.
We welcome the EC decision: strong safeguards, independent verification, dissuasive fines, and bold EU enforcement are non-negotiable.
Indagine formale dell'Europa su X dopo le proteste per l'incapacità della piattaforma di impedire a Grok di produrre pornografia non consensuale e CSAM
La Commissione europea ha avviato un'indagine formale su Grok, il chatbot di X, dopo che la funzione di modifica delle immagini del suo strumento di intelligenza artificiale integrato è stata ampiamente utilizzata per spogliare virtualmente immagini di donne reali e ragazze minorenni senza il loro consenso
The European Commission will open today a formal investigation into X after outcry at the platform's failure to prevent the creation of sexually explicit images of real people – including children.
La "regola del 3,5%": come una piccola minoranza può cambiare il mondo
Le proteste non violente hanno il doppio delle probabilità di successo rispetto ai conflitti armati e quelle che coinvolgono una soglia del 3,5% della popolazione non hanno mai mancato di produrre cambiamenti.
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
January 25th – In our last ICYMI, we put out the word that we are seeking volunteers to help collect signatures in Arizona to help Blase Henry get onto the ballot. This post is to gain further visibility on that goal.
Blase Henry, who is running for Arizona’s 17th Legislative District, officially received our endorsement back in August 2025. Blase is currently the Captain of the Arizona Pirate Party and current Scribe of the United States Pirate Party.
There is currently a ten week window for signature collection so if you are interested in helping out, reach out to Blase or the US Pirate Party via email, or join the USPP or AZPP Discord for more direct contact and information on campaign assistance.
And as always, thank you for your continued support of the United States Pirate Party!
Un bellissimo editoriale di Eric S. Chivian dello scorso 29 dicembre sul declino della libertà e dell'autonomia accademiche presso Harvard. Un declino già scritto nella governance dell'università oltre che, aggiungo io, nel diritto statunitense.
Teniamoci stretto il nostro art. 33 della Costituizione. Proviamo a fare qualcosa di concreto per tenerlo ancora in vita.
Proposta per una prossima riforma costituzionale: divisione della Presidenza del consiglio in due (ricordando il duunvirato della Repubblica romana) e sorteggio dei ministri tra una lista di eletti dal Parlamento. Dittatura in casi eccezionali, ma - attenzione -solo in casi eccezionali 😉 Sul tribunale dei ministri lascio libera la fantasia del lettore. Di modelli giuridici a cui ispirarsi ce ne sono.
Sì però prima di entrare in un qualsiasi posto di potere o anche solo lista elettorale è indispensabile un'attenta valutazione psicologica, di competenzereali e attitudinale. Abbasta con gente inadatta al ruolo!
Un bellissimo editoriale di Eric S. Chivian dello scorso 29 dicembre sul declino della libertà e dell'autonomia accademiche presso Harvard. Un declino già scritto nella governance dell'università oltre che, aggiungo io, nel diritto statunitense.
Teniamoci stretto il nostro art. 33 della Costituizione. Proviamo a fare qualcosa di concreto per tenerlo ancora in vita.
BitLocker: chiavi fuori dal cloud. Guida alla crittografia di Windows, passo per passo
Dopo il caso Forbes di pochi giorni fa, tra i social si notano discussioni e confusione su come viene gestita la crittografia di Microsoft, con BitLocker, quando si sceglie di proteggere il proprio device. Questa breve guida vuole essere un passo semplice e divulgativo, per risolvere alcuni dubbi che possono emergere in utenti poco esperti su questo aspetto e che si trovano a dover installare un nuovo dispositivo Windows, con applicazione della crittografia. Alcuni semplici accorgimenti che possono proteggere la nostra privacy, perchè spesso, in sistemi come quelli Microsoft, le scelte di default non sono sempre le migliori. Il caso di Forbes
Cosa è successo e perché è importante
Forbes ha rivelato che, in un’indagine su una frode legata ai fondi Covid a Guam, l’FBI ha chiesto a Microsoft le chiavi di recupero BitLocker di tre laptop; Microsoft le ha fornite perché quelle chiavi erano state salvate nel cloud associato agli account Microsoft degli utenti. L’azienda ha confermato che, quando ha accesso alle chiavi di BitLocker e riceve un’ordinanza valida, le consegna alle autorità, in media una ventina di volte l’anno.
Il motivo tecnico è semplice: nelle installazioni moderne di Windows 11, soprattutto su PC consumer, l’utente viene spinto a usare un account Microsoft online; quando attiva la crittografia del dispositivo o BitLocker, la chiave di recupero viene caricata automaticamente sull’account, “per sicurezza” e per evitare che l’utente la perda. Il risultato è che l’utente crede di avere cifratura forte “contro chiunque”, mentre in realtà ha delegato a Microsoft la custodia di una copia della chiave.
La guida a BitLocker, semplificata
Quando un utente installa Windows oggi, spesso non si rende conto di firmare un contratto implicito con Microsoft sulla gestione delle chiavi che cifrano il suo disco. Il recente report di Forbes su un’inchiesta dell’FBI a Guam, in cui Microsoft ha consegnato le chiavi di recupero BitLocker di alcuni laptop, non rivela una backdoor tecnica, ma mette in luce una scelta di design che molti utenti accettano senza capirla: se la chiave di recupero finisce nel cloud dell’account Microsoft, Microsoft può fornirla alle autorità quando riceve un ordine del giudice. Il problema non è BitLocker in sé, che resta un motore di cifratura robusto, ma il fatto che, per comodità, Windows tende a legare la crittografia al proprio account online, trasformando la protezione del dispositivo in un servizio di “surrender as a service” per chiunque abbia accesso legale alle chiavi.
Separare crittografia e account Microsoft
Per chi vuole davvero controllare i propri dati, la strada più coerente è separare due cose che Microsoft spinge a confondere: l’uso dell’account Microsoft per servizi cloud e la crittografia del disco locale. Il punto di partenza è chiaro: se durante la prima installazione di Windows 11 si sceglie subito un account Microsoft online, il sistema può attivare automaticamente la “Device Encryption”, una modalità semplificata che in pratica abilita BitLocker sul disco di sistema e su quelli fissi, con la chiave di recupero salvata nel cloud associato all’account. Questo è il comportamento che ha permesso a Microsoft di fornire le chiavi all’FBI nel caso di Guam, perché in quel contesto la chiave era stata espressamente salvata nel cloud dell’account utente e non solo conservata localmente.
Passo 1: installare Windows con account locale
Per evitare di cadere in questa configurazione “pre‑impostata”, la prima mossa è installare Windows usando un account locale, cioè un profilo creato direttamente sul PC senza passare da Outlook, Hotmail o simili. Su molte installazioni recenti, l’interfaccia cerca di dissuadere da questa scelta, ma è ancora possibile ottenere un account offline disconnettendo il PC da Internet durante la configurazione iniziale o sfruttando le opzioni avanzate che permettono di inserire nome utente e password senza un account Microsoft. L’obiettivo non è demonizzare l’account online, ma semplicemente rimandare la sua introduzione a un momento successivo, dopo aver impostato la crittografia in modo consapevole e aver salvato le chiavi in un luogo sotto il controllo diretto dell’utente.
Passo 2: abilitare BitLocker sulle unità disco
Una volta dentro con un account locale amministratore, è il momento di affrontare BitLocker “vero”, non la versione semplificata di Device Encryption. Su Windows 11 Pro o Enterprise, BitLocker è accessibile dal Pannello di controllo, sotto Sistema e sicurezza → Crittografia unità BitLocker, oppure dalle Impostazioni di sicurezza, dove appare come funzione distinta dalla generica crittografia del dispositivo. Qui l’utente può scegliere di cifrare esplicitamente l’unità di sistema e, se vuole, anche altri dischi interni o esterni, con BitLocker To Go per le chiavette USB. Questa granularità è importante perché permette di decidere esattamente quali volumi cifrare e come gestire le chiavi, anziché affidarsi a un wrapper automatico che si attiva e si nasconde da solo. Durante l’attivazione di BitLocker, Windows chiede come proteggere il disco all’avvio: la modalità più comune su PC moderni è quella che usa il TPM (Trusted Platform Module), un chip dedicato che custodisce la chiave principale e permette al sistema di avviarsi senza chiedere alcun codice, a patto che l’ambiente di boot non sia stato alterato. È possibile però innalzare il livello di sicurezza richiedendo un PIN pre‑boot o una chiave su USB, scelte che rendono più difficile l’accesso a chiunque abbia solo il disco fisico in mano. La guida può spiegare che il TPM non è una backdoor, ma un componente hardware progettato per proteggere le chiavi da estrazione diretta, e che la vera vulnerabilità nasce quando una copia della chiave viene esposta a terzi, come nel caso del backup nel cloud.
Passo 3: salvare le chiavi di recupero offline
Il momento decisivo è la schermata “Come vuoi eseguire il backup della chiave di ripristino?”, che appare sia durante l’attivazione di BitLocker sia quando si chiede un backup a posteriori. Le opzioni tipiche sono: salvare la chiave in un file, stamparla su carta, salvarla su un’unità USB oppure, se si è loggati con un account Microsoft, caricarla nel cloud associato all’account. È proprio questa ultima opzione che trasforma la crittografia in un sistema in cui Microsoft può diventare un punto di accesso legale, perché la chiave diventa un dato che l’azienda può consegnare quando riceve un ordine del giudice. La strategia che conviene adottare è semplice ma richiede disciplina: ignorare l’opzione “Salva nel tuo account Microsoft” e scegliere invece una o più soluzioni offline. Un file su una chiavetta USB dedicata, una stampa su carta conservata in un luogo sicuro, magari una copia in un archivio di password protetto da una passphrase forte, ma mai lasciata sul disco cifrato stesso. È utile spiegare ai lettori che la chiave di recupero è l’equivalente digitale di un master key: se la si perde, i dati possono diventare irrecuperabili, ma se la si lascia in giro o nel cloud, si annulla gran parte del valore della cifratura. Per ogni unità cifrata, BitLocker genera una chiave distinta, che va etichettata e archiviata con cura, ad esempio “Notebook‑Ufficio‑C:” o “SSD‑Backup‑E:”, per evitare confusione in caso di emergenza.
Passo 4: solo dopo, associare l’account Microsoft
Solo dopo aver completato questo passaggio, con tutte le unità crittografate e le chiavi di recupero al sicuro in forma offline, l’utente può decidere se associare il PC al proprio account Microsoft per sfruttare OneDrive, Store e altri servizi. Questa operazione, che può avvenire trasformando l’account locale in account Microsoft o aggiungendone uno come account aggiuntivo, non modifica retroattivamente il metodo con cui sono state salvate le chiavi di BitLocker. La guida può sottolineare che, a quel punto, l’account online serve per la sincronizzazione e l’accesso ai servizi, non per la custodia delle chiavi di cifratura del disco.
Per chi vuole spingere il livello di privacy ancora oltre, è possibile mantenere un profilo di sola cifratura locale, usando l’account Microsoft solo via browser o app dedicate, senza mai legarlo direttamente al profilo di sistema. In ogni caso, è consigliabile verificare periodicamente la pagina online dove Microsoft elenca le chiavi BitLocker associate all’account, per assicurarsi che non compaiano recuperi inattesi per dispositivi che si ritenevano “air‑gapped” dal punto di vista delle chiavi. Questo controllo è particolarmente importante dopo un aggiornamento di Windows o un cambio di hardware, che potrebbero innescare nuovi salvataggi automatici se non si presta attenzione.
Dal punto di vista teorico, la lezione da estrarre da questa storia è che la cifratura è solo una parte del problema; l’altra parte è la gestione delle chiavi. BitLocker, come sistema crittografico, non è stato compromesso, ma il suo modello di backup “conveniente” nel cloud ha creato un punto di accesso che le autorità possono sfruttare. La differenza tra password di accesso a Windows e chiave di recupero BitLocker è cruciale: la prima è solo un lucchetto all’account, mentre la seconda è ciò che consente di decifrare materialmente il contenuto del disco, rendendola un obiettivo privilegiato per chiunque voglia accedere ai dati.
L’invito qui è quello di trattare la crittografia come un processo consapevole, non come un’opzione che si accende e si dimentica. Installare Windows con un account locale, cifrare esplicitamente le unità con BitLocker, salvare le chiavi di recupero offline e solo dopo associare l’account Microsoft è un flusso che preserva sia la comodità dei servizi cloud sia il controllo effettivo sui dati.
In un mondo in cui le chiavi possono essere richieste a un terzo da un tribunale, la vera sicurezza sta nel decidere chi, oltre a noi, può avere accesso a quelle chiavi, e nel fare in modo che quella lista sia il più breve possibile.
According to a Forbes report, Microsoft will provide BitLocker encryption recovery keys stored in the cloud to law enforcement if presented with a valid legal order, such as a court-issued warrant.
Je kent het vast wel: een app of dienst die je jarenlang fijn gebruikte, wordt ineens volgepropt met advertenties, vervelende functies of ondoorzichtige algoritmes. Facebook werd irritant, Twitter (nu X) chaotisch, Netflix duurder terwijl het aanbod verslechtert. Dit is geen toeval – het is een bewuste strategie die ‘enshittification’ wordt genoemd. Wat is enshittification? De […]
Lo Scudo europeo per la democrazia viene presentato come un argine a disinformazione e interferenze straniere, ma finirà per istituzionalizzare la censura preventiva nello spazio informativo.
Feyerabend ci aveva avvertiti che la Scienza funziona ma che le sue teorie sono un accordo tra scienziati, umani, e risentono delle loro credenze filosofiche, sociali, psicologiche. Ho avuto conferma di questa osservazione non banale leggendo "la rivoluzione incompiuta di Einstein" di Lee Smolin, in cui si intuisce il terrore del noto fisico per la possibilità della sostituzione della Scienza con il misticismo per aver illuso I cittadini che la Scienza avrebbe trovato tutte le risposte.
@Tiberio@mastodon.uno Una cosa è la scienza, che è sempre - come diceva Wilhelm von Humboldt -un problema non del tutto risolto, un'altra lo scientismo il quale, proprio per la pretesa di essere un problema risolto, non ha nulla a che fare con la scienza.
Recently unsealed documents further demonstrate that Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 304 days solely for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, despite officials being fully aware that she has no known ties to antisemitism or terrorism. Meanwhile, journalist Ya’akub Vijandre remains locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over social media posts about issues he reported on. Read on for more of the week’s press freedom stories, including some much-needed good news.
DOJ fails in ridiculous attempt to prosecute Don Lemon
On Jan. 22, a federal court shut down the administration’s outrageous effort to charge journalist Don Lemon for simply reporting on an anti-ICE protest at a Minneapolis, Minnesota, church. The complaint and supporting affidavit against Lemon and his co-defendants show why. (Lemon’s name is redacted, but the complaint’s description matches the content of his livestream.)
Officials apparently sought to charge Lemon under a federal law banning intentionally obstructing or interfering with places of religious worship. That’s not what he did — his only intention was to document a newsworthy event. They also tried charging him under an equally inapplicable federal conspiracy law. The administration appears to rely on three not-so “smoking guns”: That Lemon livestreamed the protest, that he assured sources he would maintain confidences, and that he approached the pastor and asked him questions. Attorney General Pam Bondi was reportedly “enraged” that a judge did not believe this routine journalistic conduct was criminal.
Now, the government says it’s still exploring other ways to prosecute him. As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern told The Advocate, these attacks are “the latest example of the administration coming up with far-fetched ‘gotcha’ legal theories to send a message to journalists to tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them.”
Judge halts search of records seized from Washington Post reporter
A judge on Jan. 21 temporarily blocked the government from searching data it seized during the outrageous raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home earlier in the month.
Stern said in a statement that the raid “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.” He called for the judge to permanently bar the government from snooping into Natanson’s newsgathering. Even if her devices aren’t searched, she needs them back to be able to do her job.
But if the Supreme Court gets it wrong in a new case, Chatrie v. United States, those won’t be safe from surveillance either. FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus explains why a ruling that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply to the use of “geofences” to obtain location data could greenlight mass surveillance on an enormous scale, posing a direct threat to journalists and their sources.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is leading the charge to subpoena journalist Seth Harp and have him prosecuted for posting the name of a Delta Force commander involved in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
She claims Harp’s reporting violated the Espionage Act (among other completely inapplicable laws). But just a couple of years ago, Luna co-sponsored a resolution calling on the Biden administration to drop charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The resolution rightly proclaimed that journalists have a First Amendment right to publish classified information.
Vogus wrote about Luna’s astounding hypocrisy and the need to reform the Espionage Act for Luna’s local paper, the Tampa Bay Times.
FCC’s latest attack on late-night may preview new anti-press strategy
With raids and subpoenas dominating press freedom news so far in 2026, last year’s censorship supervillain, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, has been flying under the radar. He must have gotten jealous, because he’s back.
In an administration full of bootlickers, Carr stands out with pitiful displays of fealty, like his Donald Trump lapel pin. He’s the last person you want deciding which news broadcasts are sufficiently “bona fide” to qualify for editorial independence. And yet, as Vogus explains, a new FCC guidance could position him to attempt just that.
The Washington Post Three more journalists, including one who worked for both AFP and CBS, have been added to the devastating tally of the dead, despite the so-called ceasefire. Clearly, Israel and the United States don’t care about the deaths of journalists, or any civilians, in Gaza, but reporters and news organizations must speak out and demand accountability. That includes you, CBS.
Salon ICE frequently cites broad laws and loose concepts to intimidate those who record them. But as Stern explained, “It is not stalking to follow a law enforcement officer to document what they’re up to — that’s constitutionally protected conduct.”
The Seattle Times Speaking of intimidation: ICE doesn’t want people criticizing them to reporters either, apparently. Scare tactics meant to silence sources are straight out of the authoritarian playbook.
Las Vegas Review-Journal A judge can’t order journalists not to publish information disclosed in public court records and open court. Judge Jessica Peterson either doesn’t understand the First Amendment or doesn’t care.
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 […]
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.
Perversioni da traduttore, ma la cosa che mi intriga di più è quello "choc" scritto alla francese (anziché il più comune "shock"). Gap generazionale? Autore sulla sessantina?
Più on-topic, Microsoft ha risolto il problema da sola, eliminando un altro programma usatissimo su cui poteva tranquillamente vivere di rendita 😄 Teamviewer ringrazia? spcnet.it/microsoft-abbandona-…
@aran Si più o meno, gli ho incollato l'abstract di dell'inchiesta di Report RAI3 e gli ho aggiunto sotto le mie intenzioni di creare un meme per prendere in giro l'inchiesta visto che quel software non si può considerare spyware, ma piuttosto sottolineare che il vero problema è che sia un prodotto Microsoft
Il mercato europeo dello spionaggio digitale continua a prosperare nell’ombra, con software spyware che infettano smartphone e trasformano dispositivi personali in strumenti di sorveglianza totale, nonostante scandali ripetuti in numerosi paesi dell’Unione Europea. Queste tecnologie, spesso vendute a governi e agenzie private senza alcun controllo significativo, sfruttano vulnerabilità zero-day per ottenere accesso completo: lettura di messaggi, attivazione di microfoni e fotocamere, estrazione di dati sensibili, il tutto in modo invisibile e persistente, aggirando protezioni native come sandboxing e crittografia end-to-end.
La diffusione incontrollata
Programmi come Pegasus o tool di RCS Lab penetrano nei sistemi operativi mobili attraverso catene di exploit complessi, che iniziano con link malevoli in SMS o app legittime e culminano con l’installazione di rootkit kernel-level capaci di sopravvivere a reboot e aggiornamenti. Casi documentati riguardano Spagna, Polonia, Ungheria, Grecia, Italia, Slovacchia e Serbia, dove giornalisti, attivisti per i diritti umani, politici e oppositori sono stati presi di mira da agenzie statali, con operazioni che violano sistematicamente la proporzionalità e la necessità richieste dalle norme sui diritti fondamentali. L’assenza di “linee rosse” a livello UE permette a vendor commerciali di operare con impunità, ricevendo persino fondi pubblici europei, mentre le vittime rimangono prive di notifiche o rimedi legali efficaci.
Il ruolo di EDRi e il document pool
European Digital Rights (EDRi) ha lanciato un “spyware document pool”, una repository pubblica che aggrega analisi, indagini giornalistiche, valutazioni sui diritti umani e documenti ufficiali, inclusi i rapporti del comitato PEGA del Parlamento Europeo del 2023, per tracciare abusi e spingere verso un divieto totale. Questa risorsa centralizza evidenze frammentate: da report su scandali nazionali a ricerche tecniche su exploit, evidenziando come lo spyware comprometta l’integrità dei dispositivi e esponga dati massivi senza possibilità di oversight giudiziario adeguato. EDRi richiede un bando completo su produzione, vendita e uso di spyware commerciale, sanzioni mirate ai venditori, stop agli appalti pubblici e accesso prioritario a forensics digitali per le vittime.
Implicazioni tecniche e politiche
Dal punto di vista tecnico, questi malware evadono EDR aziendali e protezioni OS attraverso tecniche di offuscamento dinamico, iniezione di processi legittimi e persistence via meccanismi come launch daemons su iOS o servizi system su Android, rendendo la rilevazione forense un’impresa ardua che richiede analisi reverse engineering avanzata. Politicamente, la Commissione Europea non ha risposto alle raccomandazioni PEGA con legislazione vincolante, lasciando i vendor liberi di proliferare minacce transnazionali che erodono la fiducia democratica. Coalizioni di ONG e giornalisti insistono su riforme strutturali, inclusa la accountability politica e rimedi transfrontalieri per cause legali.
“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.
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.
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.
Today the @EUCommission unveiled its proposal for a Digital Networks Act (#DNA)... and it has far-reaching implications for Europe’s internet.
Despite being framed as a “technical update,” our member @epicenter_works's first analysis shows the proposal could dismantle key net neutrality safeguards, centralise political power, and threaten an open and neutral internet.
Today the EU Commission published the long-awaited Digital Networks Act. We analysed it immediately. Our first take: dangerous. The proposal threatens #NetNeutrality weakens independent regulators, and opens the door to network fees.
Google Chrome sta diventando sempre più un’estensione dell’intelligenza artificiale di Big G, con la “AI Mode” che si insinua nell’Omnibox e suggerisce risposte genera…
🗞️ Your favourite #DigitalRights newsletter is back! Strap in for the busy and buzzy first edition of the #EDRigram in 2026. On our agenda:
🕵🏾 new resource to strengthen the case for an EU-wide ban on #spyware ✊🏾 resisting discriminatory algorithms in the Netherlands with Bits of Freedom, and in France with La Quadrature du Net and coalition. 🤔 EDRi's 2025 year in review - resisting and persisting despite everything
Il caso di Forbes
SparkIT
in reply to Pirati.io • • •reshared this
Informatica (Italy e non Italy 😁) e Pirati.io reshared this.
Pirati.io
in reply to SparkIT • • •@SparkIT ovvio 😅
@informatica
SparkIT likes this.
Informatica (Italy e non Italy 😁) reshared this.