Michigan’s Grand Blanc Township thinks it has discovered a trick to weasel out of accountability: charging a reporter more for government records than most people earn in two years.

Independent journalist Anna Matson filed two requests for records about the township’s fire chief, Jamie Jent, being placed on administrative leave. That decision — later lifted after outcry from residents and firefighters — reportedly came after he raised concerns about staffing issues following the tragic September shooting at the township’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The government told her she’d have to pay a combined $164,000 in labor costs ($100,000 for her first request and $64,000 for a second) for finding and reviewing the records in order for them to respond to the request. That’s ridiculous. Michigan’s legislature should act to ensure that other local governments don’t get any ideas.

There’s nothing unusually burdensome about Matson’s requests. If the township’s recordkeeping is so shoddy and its search capabilities so lacking that it costs six figures’ worth of employee time to find some emails and documents, that’s the township’s problem, not Matson’s. If anything, it begs another Freedom of Information Act request to figure out how the township reached that level of incompetence, and what officials are spending money on instead of basic software.

The township doubled down on evasiveness when Matson showed up to a board meeting last week to contest the fees, and it made nonsensical excuses to enter into closed session so that it could discuss its secrecy in secret.

Maybe the township thinks the fees will discourage the press from trying to hold it accountable. More likely, it will do the opposite: inspire reporters to keep digging. Intrepid journalists see obvious obstruction tactics like these and think, “I must be on to something.” We’re confident Matson will eventually uncover whatever the township doesn’t want her and her readers to see.

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, like the federal FOIA and state public records laws across the country, was intended to let everyone — not just rich people — find out what their government is up to and how their money is being spent.

The law allows agencies to charge reasonable fees — copying costs, mailing expenses, and limited labor charges calculated at the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of doing the work. Agencies aren’t permitted to charge for the first two hours of labor, and they can only charge for search and review time if not doing so would result in “unreasonably high costs.”

Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom.

We’re not fans of charging any labor costs for FOIAs. Tax dollars already pay for agencies to maintain public records. Allowing the public to access them is a basic government function. But putting that aside, how does finding records about one employee during a limited time frame — which was all her first request sought — cost six figures? The $64,000 price tag for the second request for departmental records is equally absurd and also shows the arbitrariness of the whole thing — how does the broader request cost less than the narrower one?

This obstruction tactic is hardly a local innovation. Last year, Nebraska’s legislature had to step in after the state’s Department of Environment and Energy tried charging the Flatwater Free Press more than $44,000 to review environmental records. It claimed figuring out what exemptions to the public’s records law applied would be time-consuming — essentially making the press pay for their time figuring out legal arguments to not give it the records it wanted.

The Trump administration — which has attempted to close FOIA offices and fired officials who released embarrassing information pursuant to FOIAs — recently demanded journalist Brian Karem pay a $50,000 bond just to expedite a lawsuit for documents about the classified records Trump took to Mar-a-Lago. It’s far from the first instance of fee bullying by the federal government, regardless of who is president.

Trump, of course, claims he did nothing wrong by taking those documents, but doesn’t want to let the public be the judge. The situation in Grand Blanc Township is similar — the same government that may have punished a fire chief for speaking up about public safety wants to punish a journalist for asking questions about it. It’s secrecy stacked on secrecy.

It’s no coincidence that so many of these overcharging cases involve requests by independent journalists or small local outlets. The government knows the news industry is struggling economically. That’s no secret. Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom. If they get their way, transparency will become a luxury only affordable to major media outlets that are unlikely to have much interest in public records from Grand Blanc Township in the first place.

The township needs to rescind its invoice, apologize to Matson, and get her the records she’s entitled to right away. Beyond that, state legislators need to put politics aside and follow Nebraska’s example by narrowing what the government can charge the public for its own records and making those limits unambiguous (and of course, they should also remove absurd provisions exempting the governor and legislature from transparency).

And if agencies have the nerve to defend these shakedowns in court, judges should hold government lawyers accountable for whatever frivolous legal arguments they concoct to justify charging well over the cost of a house in Detroit for basic transparency.

freedom.press/issues/censorshi…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The White House has launched a media bias tracker to catalog instances of supposedly distorted coverage by the press. Predictably, the site is long on hyperbole and short on substance.

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

“If Trump thinks the media is getting stories wrong or being unfair to him, he should release the public records, correspondence, and legal memoranda that prove it, instead of wasting time and taxpayer money on silly websites.

“He’s got more power than anyone to correct the record with documented facts and has countless platforms on which to do so. Instead, he calls reporters ‘piggy’ and posts empty rants that don’t refute anything, while doing everything in his power to hinder Americans’ access to public records containing verifiable facts.

“Trump’s anti-speech antics are highly unpopular, and I doubt many people take his ramblings about ‘fake news’ seriously at this point. He has made it extremely clear that his beef is not with media bias but with journalists not flattering him and regurgitating his lies. It’s a safe bet that his bias tracker will not have anything to say about the influencers and propagandists he favors over serious journalists.

“People understand the obvious conflict inherent in an image-obsessed presidential administration appointing itself the arbiter of media bias. I expect that after the initial wave of publicity, few Americans will be paying attention to this latest stunt, let alone consulting it when deciding what news to consume. The gimmick is wearing thin.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/white-hou…

404 Media

2025-08-13 21:53:37

Trump Administration Outlines Plan to Throw Out an Agency's FOIA Requests En Masse

The Department of Energy (DOE) said in a public notice scheduled to be published Thursday that it will throw out all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests sent to the agency before October 1, 2024 unless the requester proactively emails the agency to tell it they are still interested in the documents they requested. This will result in the improper closure of likely thousands of FOIA requests if not more; government transparency experts told 404 Media that the move is “insane,” “ludicrous,” a “Pandora’s Box,” and “an underhanded attempt to close out as many FOIA requests as possible.”

The DOE notice says “requesters who submitted a FOIA request to DOE HQ at any time prior to October 1, 2024 (FY25), that is still open and is not under active litigation with DOE (or another Federal agency) shall email StillInterestedFOIA@hq.doe.gov to continue processing of the FOIA request […] If DOE HQ does not receive a response from requesters within the 30-day time-period with a DOE control number, no further action will be taken on the open FOIA request(s), and the file may be administratively closed.” A note at the top of the notice says it is scheduled to be formally published in the Federal Register on Thursday.

The agency will send out what are known as “still interested” letters, which federal agencies have used over the years to see if a requester wants to withdraw their request after a certain period of inactivity. These types of letters are controversial and perhaps not legal, and previous administrations have said that they should be used rarely and that requests should only be closed after an agency made multiple attempts to contact a requester over multiple methods of communication. What the DOE is doing now is sending these letters to submitters of all requests prior to October 1, 2024, which is not really that long ago; it also said it will close the requests of people who do not respond in a specific way to a specific email address.

FOIA requests—especially complicated ones—can often take months or years to process. I have outstanding FOIA requests with numerous federal agencies that I filed years ago, and am still interested in getting back, and I have gotten useful documents from federal agencies after years of waiting. The notion that large numbers of people who filed FOIA requests as recently as September 2024, which is less than a year ago, are suddenly uninterested in getting the documents they requested is absurd and should be seen as an attack on public transparency, experts told 404 Media. The DOE’s own reports show that it often does not respond to FOIA requests within a year, and, of course, a backlog exists in part because agencies are not terribly responsive to FOIA.

“If a requester proactively reaches out and says I am withdrawing my request, then no problem, they don’t have to process it,” Adam Marshall, senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told me. “The agency can’t say we’ve decided we’ve gotten a lot of requests and we don’t want to do them so we’re throwing them out.”

“I was pretty shocked when I saw this to be honest,” Marshall added. “I’ve never seen anything like this in 10 years of doing FOIA work, and it’s egregious for a few reasons. I don’t think agencies have the authority to close a FOIA request if they don’t get a response to a ‘still interested’ letter. The statute doesn’t provide for that authority, and the amount of time the agency is giving people to respond—30 days—it sounds like a long time but if you happen to miss that email or aren’t digging through your backlogs, it’s not a lot of time. The notion that FOIA requesters should keep an eye out in the Federal Register for this kind of notice is ludicrous.”

The DOE notice essentially claims that the agency believes it gets too many FOIA requests and doesn’t feel like answering them. “DOE’s incoming FOIA requests have more than tripled in the past four years, with over 4,000 requests received in FY24, and an expected 5,000 or more requests in FY25. DOE has limited resources to process the burgeoning number of FOIA requests,” the notice says. “Therefore, DOE is undertaking this endeavor as an attempt to free up government resources to better serve the American people and focus its efforts on more efficiently connecting the citizenry with the work of its government.”

Lauren Harper of the Freedom of the Press Foundation told me in an email that she also has not seen any sort of precedent for this and that “it is an underhanded attempt to close out as many FOIA requests as possible, because who in their right mind checks the federal register regularly, and it should be challenged in court. (On that note, I am filing a FOIA request about this proposal.)”

“The use of still interested letters isn't explicitly allowed in the FOIA statute at all, and, as far as I know, there is absolutely zero case law that would support the department sending a mass ‘still interested’ letter via the federal register,” she added. “That they are also sending emails is not a saving grace; these types of letters are supposed to be used sparingly—not as a flagrant attempt to reduce their backlog by any means necessary. I also worry it will open a Pandora's Box—if other agencies see this, some are sure to follow.”

Marshall said that FOIA response times have been getting worse for years across multiple administrations (which has also been my experience). The Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have cut a large number of jobs in many agencies across the government, which may have further degraded response times. But until this, there hadn’t been major proactive attempts taken by the self-defined “most transparent administration in history” to destroy FOIA.

“This is of a different nature than what we have seen so far, this affirmative, large-scale effort to purport to cancel a large number of pending FOIA requests,” Marshall said.

Limitations on Use of “Still-Interested” Inquiries

^{www.justice.gov}

Die Piratenpartei nimmt das Ergebnis der Volksabstimmung zur Digitalen Integrität in Zürich mit grossem Bedauern zur Kenntnis und wir bedanken uns bei allen, die Ja gestimmt haben. Wir respektieren selbstverständlich den demokratischen Entscheidungsprozess, doch das Ergebnis stellt einen Rückschlag für das wichtige Anliegen dar, ein Grundrecht auf ein selbstbestimmtes Offline‑Leben zu sichern.

Renato Sigg, Präsident Piratenpartei Zürich und Mitglied des Initiativkomitees: „Ohne die Digitale Integrität wird es keine menschenwürdige Digitalisierung geben. Sie braucht es auch, um eine nachhaltig erfolgreiche Resilienz und Digitale Souveränität sicherzustellen.“

Warum ist das Ergebnis problematisch?

Nur die AL stimmte für die Digitale Integrität. Die ablehnenden Parolen der etablierten Parteien – SVP, EDU, FDP, Mitte, EVP, GLP und Grüne signalisieren, dass Sie absichtlich in Kauf nehmen:

• Entscheidungen durch Algorithmen: Die Gefahr, dass Maschinen künftig über medizinische Eingriffe, Bewerbungsverfahren oder andere persönliche Angelegenheiten entscheiden.
• Umfassende Überwachung: Eine flächendeckende Erfassung, Vermessung und Analyse persönlicher Daten.
• Langfristige Datenspeicherung: Unbegrenzte Aufbewahrung personenbezogener Informationen ohne klare Fristen.
• Unsichere Datenlagerung: Risiken durch unzureichende Sicherheitsmassnahmen, die Missbrauch nahelegen.
• Digitale Monopolisierung von Dienstleistungen: Der Trend, physische Angebote (z. B. Billetautomaten) zugunsten rein digitaler Services abzuschaffen, wodurch Personen ohne digitale Anbindung benachteiligt werden.

Dies zeigt, dass die Piratenpartei die einzige Partei ist, die sich für eine menschenwürde Digitalisierung einsetzt und die Anliegen der Bevölkerung angemessen vertritt.

Melanie Hartmann, Vorstand Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Das Resultat an der Urne zeigt, dass Digitalpolitik immer noch nicht in der Mitte der Gesellschaft angekommen ist. Unabhängig davon ist und bleibt Digitale Integrität das dringend nötige Grundrecht für eine menschenwürdige Digitalisierung.“

Unser Appell

Wir fordern die politischen Entscheidungsträger auf, die Bedenken von Teilen der Bevölkerung ernst zu nehmen und die folgenden Prinzipien in zukünftige Gesetzgebungen einzubetten:

• Transparenz: Klare Offenlegung, welche Daten erhoben werden und zu welchem Zweck.
• Einwilligung: Strikte Vorgaben, dass jede Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten restriktiver geregelt wird.
• Recht auf Vergessenwerden: Garantierte Löschung von Daten nach Ablauf eines angemessenen Zeitraums oder auf Wunsch der betroffenen Person.
• Datensicherheit: Verpflichtende technische und organisatorische Maßnahmen zum Schutz vor unbefugtem Zugriff.
• Option für Offline‑Dienstleistungen: Sicherstellung, dass grundlegende öffentliche Dienste weiterhin ohne digitale Voraussetzung verfügbar bleiben.

Johannes Neukom, Vorstand der Piratenpartei Zürich: „Wir akzeptieren das Resultat, finden es aber schade, dass die Menschen die Notwendigkeit der Digitalen Integrität noch nicht erkannt haben. Der Kanton hätte als erstes alle seine M365-Projekte stoppen müssen. Diese Niederlage wird kein Hindernis sein, dass wir weiterhin für die digitalen Rechte im ganzen Kanton kämpfen werden. Eine Annahme der Initiative hätte uns diesen Kampf aber enorm erleichtert. Eine demokratische Gesellschaft ist ohne einen festgeschriebenen Schutz im digitalen Raum nicht möglich. Mit den kommenden Überwachungswerkzeugen, die dem Staat zur Verfügung stehen, wird das umso wichtiger.“

Ausblick

Die Piratenpartei wird das Ergebnis gründlich analysieren und gemeinsam mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Akteuren, Experten und interessierten Bürgerinnen und Bürgern an konkreten Alternativen arbeiten. Ziel ist es, ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen technologischem Fortschritt und dem Schutz individueller Freiheitsrechte zu schaffen.

Ivan Büchi,Präsident Piratenpartei Ostschweiz: „Im Verlauf der nächsten Wochen werden wir im Kanton Glarus einen Memorialsantrag zur digitalen Integrität einreichen. Das Recht auf ein offline Leben schulden wir nicht nur unseren Kindern, sondern allen Menschen, die ein Leben ohne ständige Smartphone‑Nutzung führen möchten.“

Alexis Roussel, ehemaliger Co-Präsident der Piratenpartei Schweiz und Autor des Buches „Notre si précieuse intégrité numérique“ (Unsere so wertvolle digitale Unversehrtheit):
Der weitere Weg ist klar: Die Einführung des Grundrechts auf Digitale Integrität in anderen Kantonen und auf Bundesebene ist der Weg für eine digitale Gesellschaft, in der die Menschen respektiert und nicht eingeschränkt oder zur Nutzung gezwungen sind.

Die Piratenpartei dankt ausserdem Philippe Burger, der mit seiner generellen grossen Unterstützung und tatkräftigen Mithilfe sowie Formulierung des Abstimmungstextes diese Volksinitiative überhaupt erst möglich gemacht hat.

piratenpartei.ch/2025/12/02/ab…

Steve and James discuss holiday ICE raids and airlines announcing that they will shutdown a program that sold our travel data to the government.

youtube.com/embed/Eg_ci8PEozY?…

Sign up to our newsletter to get notified of new events or volunteer. Join us on:

• Mastodon;
• Facebook;
• Blue Sky;
• Twitter.

Check out:

• Surveillance Memory Bank and Resources;
• Our Administrative Coup Memory Bank;
• Our Things to Do when Fascists are Taking Over.

Some links we mentioned:

• Trump DHS Plans Immigration Raids on Churches Over Holidays;
• Airlines Will Shut Down Program That Sold Your Flights Records to Government.

Image Credit: 4300streetcar, CC By-SA 4.0, Wikimedia commons page.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/12/0…

404 Media

2025-11-18 18:43:23

Airlines Will Shut Down Program That Sold Your Flights Records to Government

Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), a data broker owned by the U.S.’s major airlines, will shut down a program in which it sold access to hundreds of millions of flight records to the government and let agencies track peoples’ movements without a warrant, according to a letter from ARC shared with 404 Media.

ARC says it informed lawmakers and customers about the decision earlier this month. The move comes after intense pressure from lawmakers and 404 Media’s months-long reporting about ARC’s data selling practices. The news also comes after 404 Media reported on Tuesday that the IRS had searched the massive database of Americans flight data without a warrant.

“As part of ARC’s programmatic review of its commercial portfolio, we have previously determined that TIP is no longer aligned with ARC’s core goals of serving the travel industry,” the letter, written by ARC President and CEO Lauri Reishus, reads. TIP is the Travel Intelligence Program. As part of that, ARC sold access to a massive database of peoples’ flights, showing who travelled where, and when, and what credit card they used.
The ARC letter.
“All TIP customers, including the government agencies referenced in your letter, were notified on November 12, 2025, that TIP is sunsetting this year,” Reishus continued. Reishus was responding to a letter sent to airline executives earlier on Tuesday by Senator Ron Wyden, Congressman Andy Biggs, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Adriano Espaillat, and Senator Cynthia Lummis. That letter revealed the IRS’s warrantless use of ARC’s data and urged the airlines to stop the ARC program. ARC says it notified Espaillat's office on November 14.

ARC is co-owned by United, American, Delta, Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska, Lufthansa, Air France, and Air Canada. The data broker acts as a bridge between airlines and travel agencies. Whenever someone books a flight through one of more than 12,800 travel agencies, such as Expedia, Kayak, or Priceline, ARC receives information about that booking. It then packages much of that data and sells it to the government, which can search it by name, credit card, and more. 404 Media has reported that ARC’s customers include the FBI, multiple components of the Department of Homeland Security, ATF, the SEC, TSA, and the State Department.

Espaillat told 404 Media in a statement “this is what we do. This is how we’re fighting back. Other industry groups in the private sector should follow suit. They should not be in cahoots with ICE, especially in ways may be illegal.”

Wyden said in a statement “it shouldn't have taken pressure from Congress for the airlines to finally shut down the sale of their customers’ travel data to government agencies by ARC, but better late than never. I hope other industries will see that selling off their customers' data to the government and anyone with a checkbook is bad for business and follow suit.”

“Because ARC only has data on tickets booked through travel agencies, government agencies seeking information about Americans who book tickets directly with an airline must issue a subpoena or obtain a court order to obtain those records. But ARC’s data sales still enable government agencies to search through a database containing 50% of all tickets booked without seeking approval from a judge,” the letter from the lawmakers reads.

Update: this piece has been updated to include statements from CHC Chair Espaillat and Senator Wyden.

Airline-Owned Data Broker Selling Your Flight Info to DHS Finally Registers as a Data Broker

It’s a legal requirement for data brokers to register in the state of California. ARC, the airlines-owned data broker that has been selling your flight information to the government for years, only just registered after being contacted by the office …

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}

The US Patent Office has put forth regulations to end the our ability to challenge improperly granted patents in the Patent Office. These new rules will be a gift to patent trolls by keeping bad patents alive to stifle innovation. As the EFF notes: People targeted with troll lawsuits will be left with almost no realistic or affordable way to defend themselves.

We have until the end of Tuesday, December 2nd to file comments opposing these rules. The Biden administration tried to get these rules passed in 2023, but thousands of people stopped them. We need to stop the Trump administration from getting these rules passed!

The Inter partes review (IPR) process what voted on by Congress in 2013. Congress defined how it should work and who it applies to. The Patent Office must not add additional regulations that limit our access to it. The EFF points out why these rule changes are harmful:

Inter partes review, (IPR), isn’t perfect. It hasn’t eliminated patent trolling, and it’s not available in every case. But it is one of the few practical ways for ordinary developers, small companies, nonprofits, and creators to challenge a bad patent without spending millions of dollars in federal court. That’s why patent trolls hate it—and why the USPTO’s new rules are so dangerous.

IPR isn’t easy or cheap, but compared to years of litigation, it’s a lifeline. When the system works, it removes bogus patents from the table for everyone, not just the target of a single lawsuit.

IPR petitions are decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a panel of specialized administrative judges inside the USPTO. Congress designed IPR to provide a fresh, expert look at whether a patent should have been granted in the first place—especially when strong prior art surfaces. Unlike full federal trials, PTAB review is faster, more technical, and actually accessible to small companies, developers, and public-interest groups.

As an example why we need the IPR process: Personal Audio tried to squeeze royalties from podcasters. Without IPR, EFF would not have been able to challenge their patent and Personal Audio would have continued to shake down podcasters.

Please take a couple of minutes to submit your comments about why we cannot let bad patents slip through unchallenged. You can write your own or use the following draft comment we borrowed from the EFF and modified:

I oppose the USPTO’s proposed rule changes for inter partes review (IPR), Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025. The IPR process must remain open and fair. The Patent Office does not have the ability to legislate and must not limit who can take advantage of the IPR process beyond what Congress has authorized. Patent challenges should be decided on their merits, not shut out because of legal activity elsewhere. These rules would make it nearly impossible for the public to challenge bad patents, and that will harm innovation and everyday technology users.

or you can use their comment as they wrote it:

I oppose the USPTO’s proposed rule changes for inter partes review (IPR), Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025. The IPR process must remain open and fair. Patent challenges should be decided on their merits, not shut out because of legal activity elsewhere. These rules would make it nearly impossible for the public to challenge bad patents, and that will harm innovation and everyday technology users.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/12/0…

The 2026 Pirate National Conference has been subject to an elimination style bracket tournament to determine where we will host what will mark the 20th birthday of the United States Pirate Party.

As of today, we are down to four potential cities:

• Boston, Massachusetts
• Chicago, Illinois
• Seattle, Washington
• Vicksburg, Mississippi

Results from Round 2 are posted on our Discord server.

Eight other cities were previously in consideration and will no longer be considered for the 2026 conference. The eight eliminated cities, as well as the three cities that shall be eliminated by the conclusion of this tournament, shall be in permanent consideration for future Pirate National Conference locations until they have hosted. Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Louisville, Mobile, New Orleans, Plattsburgh, Portland (OR) and Providence shall all be in consideration in 2027 and beyond.

We now find ourselves in the Final Four, with two matchups this week that our members and supporters can vote on. Boston (1) will take on Seattle (9) while Vicksburg (4) takes on Chicago (6).
The Final Four
The tournament shall conclude on December 15th.

This tournament ending up in four totally different regions of the country is emblematic of the growth of this party. We might have states with a stronger presence of their Pirate Party, but our growth is nationwide and undeniable. After 20 years, the second oldest Pirate Party in the world will celebrate our conference on a boat and prepare for the next 20 years. We are looking forward to June 6th and hope you all are too.

Regardless of location, the conference will be A.) held on a boat and B.) hybrid, meaning those unable to attend in-person may still attend online.

Those who wish to vote can join our Discord server to find a link to the tournament. The Final Four closes out next week and the championship vote will begin from there.

uspirates.org/2026-pirate-nati…

Across Europe, a new concept known as chat scanning has entered the public debate. Supporters claim it will protect children from online harm. Chat control is formally part of the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR), aimed at combating CSAM (child sexual abuse material). However, many experts, privacy groups, and digital rights advocates warn that it poses a greater risk for everyone who uses a phone, especially young people who message daily.

What is chat scanning?

In simple terms, it is a system that checks your private messages before or as soon as you send them. The app you use would need to scan your texts, photos, or videos and determine whether they seem suspicious. If the scanner thinks something is “unsafe,” it can report the sender, even if the message was completely innocent.

This means the scanning occurs within your phone, not on a server elsewhere. Every typed or uploaded message is checked before it reaches a friend or family member. It is like having a digital security guard watching over your shoulder every time you write something personal.

For digital rights advocates, including the Pirate Party, this raises a serious concern: privacy is not something that can be switched on and off. Once a system is built to monitor everyone’s conversations, it becomes a permanent gateway to surveillance. It does not take much for such tools to be expanded, misused, or accessed by actors who do not have the public’s interest at heart.

Why Chat Control Is a Real Threat

Chat control systems are not theoretical risks. Automated scanners genuinely make mistakes. They often cannot understand teenage slang, humour, or personal images. A tool meant to protect vulnerable users can easily turn into one that falsely accuses innocent people. Meanwhile, determined bad actors can simply switch to apps that do not follow these rules, while ordinary citizens remain under constant monitoring.

This approach also weakens secure communication. End-to-end encryption is designed to protect everyone from hackers, identity theft, and even misuse of state power. Scanning messages before they are encrypted breaks that protection. Instead of keeping society safe, it exposes activists, families, journalists, and children to new dangers.

The Ripple Effect on Democracy

If chat controls become law with a full majority, the long-term consequences could spread slowly but deeply. The ripple effect would impact multiple pillars of democracy.

Privacy Erosion

What begins as limited scanning to target harmful content can gradually expand to include most users. When every message is subject to scrutiny, personal privacy is the first casualty.

Overwhelmed Law Enforcement

A flood of false positives would strain police resources. German experts who reviewed the proposal warned that law enforcement would be unable to handle the volume of inaccurate reports. This waste of time and energy increases the risk of people being wrongly investigated or prosecuted, ultimately making the public less safe.

Chilling of Free Expression

Journalists, activists, and vulnerable groups may start to self-censor because they no longer trust their communication channels. When private conversations feel monitored, open dialogue becomes rare.

Decline in Civic Participation

As trust in institutions weakens, people may disengage from democratic processes. Press freedom declines, and political debate becomes less open.

Shift in Social Norms

Over time, society may begin to accept the idea that monitoring private digital spaces is normal. Such a shift can alter the social contract itself, making surveillance an everyday expectation rather than an exception.

This is how a policy introduced in the name of protection can gradually erode the foundations of democracy.

Are there safer alternatives?

There are better ways to keep communities safe. Targeted investigations, stronger reporting channels, improved child protection services, and investment in digital literacy can genuinely support vulnerable groups without breaking the fundamental right to private communication.

Europe should not accept a future where every phone becomes a checkpoint. Safety should be built on rights, not surveillance. Protecting children and protecting privacy are not opposing goals. With smart policy and responsible technology, the EU can and must do both.

europeanpirates.eu/why-chat-sc…

The drive to protect minors online has been gaining momentum in recent years and is now making its mark in global policy circles. This shift, strongly supported by public sentiment, has also reached the European Union.

In a recent development, Members of the European Parliament, as part of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, approved a report raising serious concerns about the shortcomings of major online platforms in safeguarding minors. With 32 votes in favour, the Committee highlighted growing worries over issues such as online addiction, mental health impacts, and children’s exposure to illegal or harmful digital content.

What Is In The Report

The report discusses the creation of frameworks and systems to support age verification and protect children’s rights and privacy online. This calls for a significant push to incorporate safety measures as an integral part of the system’s design, within a social responsibility framework, to make the internet a safe environment for minors.

MEPs have proposed sixteen years as the minimum age for children to access social media, video-sharing platforms, and AI-based chat companions. Children below sixteen can access the above-mentioned platforms with parental permission. However, a proposal has been put forth demanding that an absolute minimum age of thirteen be set. This indicates that children under 13 cannot access or use social media platforms, even with parental permission.

In Short:

• Under 13 years of age: Not allowed on social media
• 13-15 years of age: Allowed with parents’ approval
• 16 years and above: Can use freely, no consent required

MEPs recommended stricter actions against non-compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA). Stricter actions range from holding the senior executives of the platforms responsible for breaches of security affecting minors to imposing huge fines.

The recommendations include banning addictive design features and engagement-driven algorithms, removing gambling-style elements in games, and ending the monetisation of minors as influencers. They also call for tighter control over AI tools that create fake or explicit content and stronger rules against manipulative chatbots.

What Do Reports And Research Say?

The operative smoothness and convenience introduced by the digital and technological advancements over the last two decades have changed how the world works and communicates. The internet provides a level field for everyone to connect, learn, and make an impact. However, the privacy of internet users and the access to and control over data are points of contention and a constant topic of debate. With an increasing percentage of minor users globally, the magnitude of risks has been multiplied. Lack or limited awareness of understanding of digital boundaries and the deceptive nature of the online environment make minors more susceptible to the dangers. Exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, financial scams, identity theft, and manipulation through social media or gaming platforms are a few risks to begin with. Their curiosity to explore beyond boundaries often makes minors easy targets for online predators.

Recent studies have made the following observations (the studies are EU-relevant):

• According to the Internet Watch Foundation Annual Data & Insights / 2024 (reported 2025 releases), Record levels of child sexual abuse imagery were discovered in 2024; IWF actioned 291,273 reports and found 62% of identified child sexual abuse webpages were hosted in EU countries.
• WeProtect Global Alliance Global Threat Assessment 2023 (relevant to the EU) reported an 87% increase in child sexual abuse material since 2019. Rapid grooming on social gaming platforms and emerging threats from AI-generated sexual abuse material are the new patterns of online exploitation.
• According to WHO/Europe HBSC Volume on Bullying & Peer Violence (2024), one in six school-aged children (around 15-16%) experienced cyberbullying in 2022, a rise from previous survey rounds.

These reports indicate the alarming situation regarding minors’ safety and reflect the urgency with which the Committee is advancing its recommendations. Voting is due on the 23rd-24th of November, 2025.

While these reports underline the scale of the threat, they also raise an important question: are current solutions, like age verification, truly effective?

How Foolproof Is Age Verification As A Measure?

The primary concern in promoting age verification as a defence mechanism against cybercrime is the authenticity of those verification processes and whether they are robust enough to eliminate unethical practices targeting users. For instance, if the respondent (user) provides inaccurate information during the age verification process, are there any mechanisms in place to verify its accuracy?

Additionally, implementing age verification for children is next to impossible without violating the rights to privacy and free speech of adults, raising the question of who shall have access to and control over users’ data – Government bodies or big tech companies. Has “maintenance of anonymity” while providing data been given enough thought in drafting these policies? This is a matter of concern.

According to EDRI, a leading European Digital Rights NGO, deploying age verification as a measure to tackle multiple forms of cybercrime against minors is not a new policy. Reportedly, social media platforms were made to adopt similar measures in 2009. However, the problem still exists. Age verification as a countermeasure to cybercrime against minors is a superficial fix. Do the Commission’s safety guidelines address the root cause of the problem – a toxic online environment – is an important question to answer.

EDRI’s Key arguments:

• Age verification is not a solution to problems of toxic platform design, such as addictive features and manipulative algorithms.
• It restricts children’s rights to access information and express themselves, rather than empowering them.
• It can exclude or discriminate against users without digital IDs or access to verification tools.
• Lawmakers are focusing on exclusion instead of systemic reform — creating safer, fairer online spaces for everyone.
• True protection lies in platform accountability and ethical design, not mass surveillance or one-size-fits-all age gates.

Read the complete article here:

edri.org/our-work/age-verifica… | archive.ph/wip/LIMUI

Before floating any policy into the periphery of execution, weighing the positive and negative user experiences is pivotal, because a blanket policy based on age brackets might make it ineffective at mitigating the risks of an unsafe online space. Here, educating and empowering both parents and children with digital literacy can have a more profound and meaningful impact rather than simply regulating age brackets. Change always comes with informed choices.

europeanpirates.eu/protecting-…

You do research on a product, maybe a pair of shoes, a gadget, or a flight ticket. And all of a sudden, every other ad on your screen is a copy of the same. It is easy and convenient to get over it – until you stop to think: how come the internet knows me so well?

• This is not how the periphery of an algorithm works, but a systematically curated process designed to influence user behaviour, shaping not just what we buy, but how we think and choose.

As Europe now discusses “digital sovereignty,” it’s worth asking: who truly holds the reins of your digital life—you, your government, or the tech giants?

A recent article by Politico explains how France and Germany, in alliance with the United States, are championing a “sovereign digital transition,” the idea that Europe must reduce its dependence on foreign Big Tech giants and establish its own technological foundations. On paper, it appears to be a bold step toward autonomy. In practice, however, citizens across Europe are asking: What does this mean for me, my data, my digital life? (archive.ph/k7Nyz)

The Promise of a European Stack – What’s at Stake?

The ambition is high: from sovereign cloud infrastructure to home-grown AI and chip design, the goal is a Europe where tech is owned, governed, and secured by Europeans. But this raises significant questions. Who controls these platforms? Are they built for citizen empowerment or just national-industrial competition? Is “sovereignty” being framed as freedom, or as new walls around users’ data and digital behaviours?

Ground-Level Reality: Data, Dependence, and Digital Discomfort

• Commuters from the EU are receiving fines from London’s ULEZ zone even though they never drove there. The cross-border data sharing behind that fine is not some distant regulation—it’s a personal intrusion. (Source: Guardian – theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/j…? | archive.ph/s9EBF)
• DataReportal’s “Digital 2025: Online Privacy Concerns” section highlights that in Europe, the number of connected adults worried about how companies use their personal data is a meaningful trend (although slightly down from previous years). (Source: Dataportal – datareportal.com/reports/digit… | archive.ph/vOwZp )
• A case where the European Commission was ordered to compensate a citizen for improperly transferring his personal data outside the EU, illustrating how even high-level institutions can breach data-protection rights. (Source: Brussels Signal – brusselssignal.eu/2025/01/eu-c… | archive.ph/bN5lF)

These stories illustrate that what starts as “digital sovereignty” in high-level Brussels dialogue ends up in your bank records, your home, and your social feed.

Where Sovereignty Risks Turning Into Surveillance

According to the Politico piece, Europe’s push to take control of its tech stack is partly a response to U.S. dominance. But replacing one system with another raises the same concerns:

Will European infrastructure keep privacy at the centre, or will it become just another corporate/state-controlled ecosystem?

When national or bloc-level systems enforce age checks, data localization, and surveillance capabilities, will citizens gain freedom or lose it?

The Pirate Perspective: Tech for People, Not Power

For the European Pirates Party, the question isn’t whether Europe should build tech. It’s how and for whom. True sovereignty starts with the user’s choice, not just the state’s contracts and cloud servers.

Digital freedom means:

• Transparent platforms where citizens can inspect how their data is used.
• User-controlled infrastructure, where opting out isn’t a penalty.
• Open standards and interoperability, rather than locked-in systems that create new dependencies.
• Governance by citizens, not just by ministers or industrial lobbyists.

What It Means For You

Ask: Who owns the cloud where your photos are stored? If Europe builds its own stack, will you still have the right to move your data freely?

Watch for: Platforms that claim “European control” but push the same manipulative algorithms and business models as before.

Insist on: User education and choice because no matter how sovereign the tech gets, if you don’t understand it, you are still powerless.

Final Word

Europe’s digital sovereignty drive is exciting and potentially transformative. Europe’s digital sovereignty drive is exciting and potentially transformative. However, if it continues without electing citizens to govern, we risk establishing a “sovereign tech” environment that denies users authority.

The Pirates’ message is unmistakable: sovereignty devoid of popular authority is merely another form of reliance. Let’s ensure that users, not tech companies or anyone else, own the data revolution.

europeanpirates.eu/when-digita…

The Netherlands once again finds itself at a political crossroads. Less than two years after a coalition government collapsed under the weight of internal tensions, Dutch voters are preparing to decide what kind of leadership they want for their future.

On the 29th of October, Dutch people will be going to the polls to elect a new Tweede Kamer (Dutch lower house). Initially, the next elections were scheduled for 2028, but due to the fall of the 2024 cabinet, snap elections were called for.

On the 3rd of June, Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right conservative party PVV (Party for Freedom), walked away from the coalition due to different views on asylum policies. The cabinet led by Dick Schoof as prime minister ended with his resignation. The upcoming elections thus pose an opportunity for voters to shape the composition of their parliament anew.

The elections held in November 2023 led to talks that concluded in 2024, with the coalition appointing the independent Schoof as prime minister. The coalition was formed by the Party for Freedom (PVV), the largest party in the House of Representatives, with the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), New Social Contract (NSC), and the Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB). The coalition was marked by its delicate nature and Wilders’ inability to converse with his fellow coalition members, often alienating them due to his narrow, inflexible views on migration, asylum, and social policies.

As the elections approach, a first debate was held on the 12th of October. It was expected that the populist nature of Wilders would take centre stage; however, he withdrew from the campaign and did not participate in the debate. [Earlier in the week, he had been mentioned in the list of targets of a terrorist group, and so, for security reasons, he decided not to participate in the debate, even after the group had been arrested, security had confirmed it to be safe, and possibilities for venue changes and online allocations were suggested.] In his absence, the leader of D66 (Democracy 66), Rob Jetten, joined in his place.

The debate featured Dilan Yeşilgöz, the leader of VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, a conservative-liberal party), Henri Bontenb from CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal), Frans Timmermans from the recently combined GroenLinks-PvdA party (social democracy, green politics), and Rob Jetten. Key debate topics included asylum policies, how to address the current housing crisis, health care practices, and issues in Gaza. Despite party leaders fixating on the language of the debate rather than the policy proposals and personal attacks, the key topics of the election agenda were raised.

Given Wilders’ absence from this weekend’s debate, other party leaders had the opportunity to present their positions more prominently. This offers a hopeful outlook, as his strongly right-aligned views were not the focal point, allowing voters to engage with other perspectives. Considering Wilders’ rigid stance on migration during the previous government, he may have alienated not only other parties but also segments of his own voter base.

According to polling conducted at the beginning of October (ipsos-publiek.nl/actueel/ipsos…), support for the PVV has declined compared to 2023, yet it remains the most popular party. The most notable change is the decline in support for the VVD and NSC, two former coalition parties. It is also key to highlight the rise in support for CDA, a party that has previously stated its preference to work with the VVD rather than the PVV.

The shifting popularity of some parties from the previous coalition may signal a potential change in the composition of the next one. This could be encouraging news: the Netherlands might see a government more centrally aligned in its social and immigration policies and more open to dialogue. While the left and more progressive parties have yet to gain significant momentum (including the Dutch Pirate Party), there remains a possibility for a more moderate, centre-right coalition to emerge (rather than the previous extreme-right one).

With Dutch voters heading to the polls at the end of the month, there is still room for public opinion to evolve and for parties to rethink their alliances. For the moment, there is a cautious hope that the next Dutch government may take a more moderate path.

So how are our Dutch Pirate Party colleagues faring?

The campaign has centered around the party leader Matthijs Pontier and focused on his appearances in public debates. The Piratenpartij Podcast has featured him and other candidates in discussions on the main Pirate points, and talking about Pirate Party history, and topics in the news.

A list of posts introducing the candidates of the Dutch Pirate Party follows:

Piratenpartij

@

1. Matthijs Pontier

"Ik ben fractievoorzitter in het Waterschap Amstel, Gooi en Vecht en heb een achtergrond op het gebied van Kunstmatige Intelligentie.

De Piratenpartij staat voor een vrije democratie waarin iedereen direct toegang heeft tot alle kennis, kunst en cultuur. We investeren in publieke voorzieningen​ zoals betaalbare woningen, zorg en onderwijs. We vertrouwen elkaar en hebben een gezond wantrouwen tegenover de macht van overheden en bedrijven."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 24, 2025, 16:03 2 boosts 3 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

4. Saira Sadloe, Purmerend

"Het ondersteunen van burgerrechten, directe democratie, databeveiliging, bescherming van persoonsgegevens, transparantie, vrijheid van kennis en informatie, goed toegankelijke onderwijs, universele gezondheidszorg en een stabiel basisinkomen. Dit zijn exact de steken die het huidige kabinet heeft laten vallen!

Daar waar anderen weg lopen, ga ik de strijd aan. Bij de Piratenpartij voel ik daadkracht en integriteit."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 24, 2025, 15:57 0 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

7. David van Deijk, Eindhoven

Ik ben geboren en wonende in Eindhoven en programmeur van beroep.

Binnen de campagne ben ik iemand die zorgt dat drempels voor activiteiten worden weggenomen in plaats van opgeworpen. Met mijn ervaringen binnen de Piratenpartij help ik ideeën van nieuwe actieve leden tot daadwerkelijke acties te brengen, en ben ik een bron van kennis op het gebied van acties die we in het verleden gedaan hebben.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 23, 2025, 15:23 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

Vervolg voorstelrondje:

10: Fleur Breman, Rotterdam

"Om mezelf recht in de spiegel aan te kunnen kijken, in de hoop op een leven waarvan de balans tussen geven en nemen doorslaat naar meer coöperatie – en daarmee het onderling vertrouwen, verkies ik in ieder opzicht partnerschap. Daarom kies ik voor de partij met de programmapunten die het beste in ons naar boven halen, zoals de invoering van een universeel basisinkomen en de bevrijding van informatie.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 23, 2025, 15:07 1 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

13. Jean-Aimé Musangamfura, Friesland – Amsterdam

"Wat ik vooral belangrijk vind is ervoor zorgen dat er in onze maatschappij internationale solidariteit is en dat er respectvol omgekeken wordt naar mensen in zwakkere posities, zoals bijv jongeren met een vluchtverleden.

Duurzaamheid, corporate sociaal responsibility, mensenrechten, armoedebestrijding en een weerbare digitale samenleving is waar ik me voor wil inzetten. En minder polarisatie graag, ook in de media."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 22, 2025, 14:37 1 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

16. Bianca Lubben – Emmeloord

"Ik ben 42 jaar en werkzaam in verschillende sectoren: zorg, kinderopvang en sociaal werk.

Er zijn heel veel dingen die veel beter kunnen in Nederland. Zorg, onderwijs, onderdak en voedselzekerheid zijn cruciaal en ik zal hier dan ook voor strijden. Ik zou namelijk graag in een land willen wonen waar niemand achterblijft en we Nederland eindelijk echt een welvarend land kunnen noemen."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 21, 2025, 12:54 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

19) Nabille el Hajoui

Amsterdamse nachtbraker met een groen hart.

Ik geef afval een tweede leven als Recycle Art.

Voor een creatieve en vrije stad en land.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 21, 2025, 12:41 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

23. Angeline Pot

"Vanuit mijn werk als maatschappelijk werker en psychosociaal therapeut zie ik dat de zorg, zowel medisch als het geestelijk welzijn in de knel is geraakt door het huidige beleid. Door de systemen en de macht van de grotere organisaties mis ik de menselijke maat, die men juist nodig heeft als men om hulp vraagt en zich kwetsbaar voelt.

Als ervaringsdeskundige loopt Angeline zelf ook tegen allerlei hindernissen aan, zoals bij de WMO

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 20, 2025, 14:31 1 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

29. Roberto Haak

"Ik ben een functionaris gegevensbescherming bij de overheid met een missie: zorgen dat organisaties niet als rovers omgaan met persoonsgegevens. Privacy en ethiek horen bovenaan de mast.

Ik vaar ook een koers als ondernemer: met mijn handel Hook Solutions verkoop ik haken voor huis, tuin en keuken, en Kapitein Haak-artikelen.
Met mijn achternaam kan ik onmogelijk níet met de Piratenpartij meevaren."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 18, 2025, 13:14 0 boosts 2 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

32) Jaap van Till

"Jongeren verdienen toekomstperspectief, geen vastgelopen systeem."

Hij zet in op constructieve oplossingen voor de transities van nu, naar o.a. decentrale AI. Voor innovatie die waarde deelt, niet onttrekt.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 18, 2025, 12:31 1 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

2. Kirsten Zimmerman, Amsterdam

"Ik ben sinds 2022 stadsdeelcommissielid in Amsterdam-Noord. Mijn speerpunten zijn behoud van het groen, directe democratie, privacy en sociale verbinding.

Daarnaast ben ik onderzoeker en schrijver.

Ik ben enthousiast, heb een duidelijke mening, kan tegelijkertijd goed samenwerken en de kar trekken. Ik ben kandidaat voor de Piratenpartij, omdat ik denk dat ik goed in staat ben om de partij een gezicht te geven.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 24, 2025, 16:00 0 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

Laatste ronde – onze top 5:

5. Wietze Brandsma, Burgum

"Als software-ontwikkelaar wil ik vrij kennis kunnen delen op het internet. Die vrijheid wordt bedreigd door BigTech. Om monopoliemacht te krijgen misbruiken ze softwarepatenten en auteursrechten.

Monopolievorming speelt niet alleen online, maar in de hele samenleving. We willen vrijheid om mee te doen met de economie en lokale zeggenschap."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025 #Piratenpartij

October 24, 2025, 15:55 1 boosts 4 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

8. Sabrina Grossman, Amsterdam

Als moeder van kinderen met bijzondere behoeften zet ik me in voor de rechten van personen met een handicap. Ons land voldoet niet aan internationale verdragen zoals de VN-verdragen Handicap en Inzake de Rechten van het Kind.

Mijn prioriteit is om de meest ernstige misstanden in de zorg te bestrijden. Ik pleit voor het aanstellen van een functionerende autoriteit boven de instellingen en organisaties, om menswaardige zorg te waarborgen.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 23, 2025, 15:14 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

11. Mark van Treuren, Schagen

"Veel mensen kennen mij van de markt, uit de zorg, als tegelzetter of goochelaar. Ik heb in elke uithoek van de maatschappij gewerkt.

Sinds 2020 ben ik actief voor de Piratenpartij. Twee jaar lang was ik met veel plezier partijvoorzitter. Er is moed nodig om de huidige problemen op te lossen. Denk aan doorgeslagen bureaucratie, corruptie, inbreuk op privacy van burgers, non-transparantie, milieuvervuiling, ongelijke machtsverhoudingen."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 22, 2025, 14:58 1 boosts 3 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

Vervolg voorstelrondje:

14. Dmitri Schrama, Utrecht

Langetijdpiraat, idealist, en een groot voorstander van gelijkwaardigheid en vrijheid.

"Kennis moet gedeeld kunnen worden anders kan ze niet groeien.
Daarbij willen wij kennis kunnen nemen van wat de overheid doet en welke verbindingen er bestaan tussen de overheid en het bedrijfsleven. Wij willen meer privacy voor burgers en transparantie van die overheid en bedrijven.

Stem voor jezelf! Stem piraat!"

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025

October 22, 2025, 14:25 0 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

17. Kees Valkhof:

"Ik kom uit Rotterdam en werk bij Lely waar ik 600+ ontwikkelaars ondersteun bij het bouwen van software.

Ik concentreer me op wat ik het recht op bezit noem. Met name software wordt zodanig geleverd dat het bedrijf achter het product bepaalt hoe, waar en hoelang je hun product mag gebruiken. Het liefst met grove inbreuk op je privacy."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025

October 21, 2025, 12:50 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

Vervolg voorstelrondje:

20) Teunis van Nes

Geboren in Rijsoord, ondernemer in Zeeland.

Net als mijn voorvader Aert van Nes vecht ik tegen onrecht en voor vrijheid.

Ik strijd voor een open overheid, gelijkheid en broederschap.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 21, 2025, 12:34 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

Vervolg voorstelrondje kandidaten:

25. Onze voorzitter Frank Wijnans

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

en 24. Ons Presidium-lid Edy Bouma:

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025

October 20, 2025, 14:27 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

30. André Linnenbank

"Ik ben natuurkundige en heb lange tijd als onderzoeker in het ziekenhuis gewerkt. Daar zag ik grote problemen met veilige data-opslag en uitwisseling van gegevens.

Tegenwoordig ben ik docent op een middelbare school in Amsterdam. Ik geef natuurkunde, natuur leven & technologie, en informatica aan vooral de bovenbouw leerlingen Mavo, Havo en VWO."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 18, 2025, 12:53 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

KENNISMAKING MET ONS TEAM!

We stellen de komende dagen alle kandidaten voor, startend bij nr. 33, onze lijstduwer Metje Blaak:

Wat haar aantrekt in de Piratenpartij is “je leven leiden zo als jij dat wilt”.

"Eigenlijk doe ik dat mijn hele leven al. Vandaar dat ik me graag aansluit bij de Piratenpartij, ook zodat ieder vrij is om zich te ontwikkelen en toegang heeft tot techniek en cultuur; of je nou zo arm als een kerkrat bent of rijk."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025

October 18, 2025, 12:15 2 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

3. Arjan Bresser, Nijmegen

Mensen zijn de grote drijfveer in mijn leven; eerst als buschauffeur, nu als conciërge op de Hogeschool Arnhem Nijmegen.

Als Piraat verzet ik mij tegen de inperkingen van onze vrijheden. In een ideale samenleving is informatie zo vrij en veel mogelijk beschikbaar voor ons allemaal, kan iedereen anoniem en privé communiceren, is er weinig surveillance en bespaart legalisering en regulering van drugs inzet van politiecapaciteit.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 24, 2025, 15:59 0 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

6. Goof Pontier, Doetinchem

Goof is 36 en zet zich al jaren in als gemeenteraadslid in Doetinchem.

"Als ambulant begeleider in de zorg en werkzaam bij een opvang voor dakloze jongeren heb ik dagelijks te maken met de uitdagingen waarmee mensen in moeilijke situaties worden geconfronteerd. Mijn hart ligt bij degenen die het meest kwetsbaar zijn in onze samenleving, en ik geloof dat we als partij een verschil kunnen maken door voor hen op te komen."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 23, 2025, 15:28 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

9. Eskild Wikkeling, Reeuwijk

Eskild, ICT’er en vader. Zijn centrale strijdpunten zijn de bescherming van digitale burgerrechten en online privacy voor alle burgers. Hij pleit ervoor dat betrouwbaar breedbandinternet een betaalbare nutsvoorziening wordt. Wikkeling wil dat overheden digitale mogelijkheden beter benutten om het leven van burgers te vereenvoudigen, bijvoorbeeld door het schrappen van overbodige formulieren.

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 23, 2025, 15:11 1 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

12. Mirjam van Rijn, Amsterdam

"Ik ben commissielid in Waterschap Amstel- Gooi en Vecht. Na zovele jaren uitkleden van zorg, sociale voorzieningen, drama’s als met de Toeslagenaffaire, vluchtelingen, covid, Groningen, etc. is er, nu gelukkig een nieuwe kans en kunnen we alles op alles zetten om onze thema’s eindelijk naar Den Haag te brengen."

Ook actief bij ATD Vierde Wereld, Stoere Vrouwen, Milieudefensie, Transnational Institute en SOMO,

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 22, 2025, 14:52 2 boosts 1 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

15. Dylan Hallegraeff, Den Haag

Dylan is een maker in de brede zin van het woord: dus van realtime calculated 3D-graphics tot lasershows en van lichteffecten tot hardcore tekno.

"In dit proces loop je onherroepelijk tegen juridische grenzen aan van wat wel en niet toegestaan is. Dit is een mijnenveld. De huidige copyrightwetgeving belemmert creativiteit, terwijl deze juist was opgezet om creativiteit te bevorderen."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#auteursrecht #TK2025

October 21, 2025, 12:58 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

18. Peter Braun:

Peter is al ruim 10 jaar lid van de Piratenpartij en woont in de mooie in Kerkrade.

Hij is ruim 20 jaar geluidtechnicus geweest en daarna journalist en fotograaf voor de jongerensite van Landgraaf en heeft onder andere ook in de Wsw-raad gezeten.

Tegenwoordig maakt hij nog steeds in zijn vrije tijd foto’s onder het creative common licentie model, schrijft wordpress plugins, maakt wordpress templates en werkt als operator in Gronsveld.
piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025

October 21, 2025, 12:45 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

22. Wouter van Dijke

"Geloven in vrijheid en autonomie vooronderstelt dat je het individu vertrouwt en daarom beschermt tegen bemoeienis van de autoriteiten.

Voor een Piraat is de vrije uitwisseling van informatie en ideeën nog steeds essentieel om onzin en onbegrip de wereld uit te helpen – die uitwisseling wordt niet opeens een gevaarlijke bron van desinformatie en extremisme omdat ze zich online afspeelt. Daarom pleiten we zo hard tegen censuur en voor privacy online".

21: Fanni Horvath

October 20, 2025, 14:35 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

26. Ron Smit

Ron Smit (1964) heeft de opleiding Informatica Technologie aan de universiteit in Amsterdam gevolgd. Hij is mede-oprichter van de Basisinkomen Partij in 2013. Ron onderzoekt nieuwe technologische ontwikkelingen in de wetenschap en is ook radiozendamateur (piraat).

October 19, 2025, 8:29 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

Vervolg: voorstelrondje kandidaten:

28. Ryszard Matenko

"Tussen 1990 en 1994 was ik raadslid in stadsdeel de Pijp. Ik woon nu in de Rivierenbuurt en zet me nog steeds in voor een leefbare buurt. Directe communicatie, dialogen en samenwerking met geestverwanten."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

27. Aloy Nauta:

"Ik vind dat de regering bewoners meer kansen moet aanreiken om macht in eigen handen te kunnen nemen wanneer het niet goed gaat in buurten of wijken."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

#TK2025

October 19, 2025, 8:16 0 boosts 0 favorites

Piratenpartij

@

31) Vincent van der Velde

"Als advocaat en ex-wethouder vecht ik voor jouw digitale rechten. Voor transparantie en de digitale underdog.

Als Piraat wil ik opkomen voor de digitale burgerrechten van iedereen en met mijn juridische kennis wil ik helpen aan het ontwikkelen en realiseren van die digitale burgerrechten. Mét de Piratenpartij zal ik bijdragen aan die digitale empowerment."

piratenpartij.nl/kandidaten-tk…

October 18, 2025, 12:40 0 boosts 1 favorites

PiraatNMGN

@

#Piratenpartij #tk2025 #verkiezingen #vote #Nijmegen

Stem voor jou privacy Piratenpartij!
Arjan Bresser nr. 3 lijst 21

nijmegen.nieuws.nl/lokaal/nijm…

October 19, 2025, 8:30 1 boosts 1 favorites

europeanpirates.eu/upcoming-el…

Hotel

2025-10-05 03:09:31

Piratenpartij Podcast - #01 - Social media en ... Jeugdzorg!

Deze Piraten Podcast werd opgenomen in het Blauwe Pand, Zaandam.

Met Matthijs, Leontien, Saira, Metje en Bart!
en dank aan: Andrel, Rene, Sabrina.

Muziek van 𝐌𝐄𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐎

Bern, 30. November 2025

Die Piratenpartei kämpft weiter für den Zusammenhalt der Bevölkerung, die gesellschaftliche Resilienz und damit für ein vernünftiges Milizsystem. Das heutige Stimmresultat zur Service Citoyen Initiative zeigt deutlich, wie stark die Bevölkerung mit halbgaren Argumenten verunsichert wurde.

Unsere Initiative hat viele richtige Antworten auf die Herausforderungen der Gegenwart und Zukunft geliefert. In Europa herrscht Krieg. Das Schweizer System ist zur Bewältigung von vielen Krisen schlecht vorbereitet, denn es ist im letzten Jahrtausend steckengeblieben. Der Baustein des „einzig wahren Wehrdienstes“, und damit der vorgegebene Weg über den Militärdienst, ist nicht mehr zeitgemäss.

Aktuell versuchen Bund und Behörden durch Aktivismus von den wahren Problemen abzulenken: Der Initiative wurden „hohe Kosten“ vorgeworfen, doch neuerdings soll die bestehende Armee durch eine höhere Mehrwertsteuer für alle finanziert werden, über doppelt so teuer wie Service Citoyen gewesen wäre. Beschaffungsprobleme des Militärs wie bei den Drohnen oder den überteuerten Fahrzeugsanierungen werden seit Jahren bewirtschaftet statt gelöst. Und den Fachkräftemangel im Militär versucht man neuerdings mit Aushebungs-Aufgeboten für Frauen zu lösen statt unser Milizsystem grundsätzlich zu verbessern.

Jorgo Ananiadis, Präsident der Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Alle Argumente von den Gegnern der Initiative wurden während dem Abstimmungskampf von ihnen selbst laufend gezielt hintertrieben. Moralisch haben wir also gewonnen und einige erste Reaktionen bei Bund und Behörden ausgelöst. Darauf bauen wir auf, denn die Piraten fordern auch zukünftig bessere Resilienz gegen die akuten Bedrohungen.“

piratenpartei.ch/2025/11/30/ab…