News

Friday 2026-01-16

07:00 PM

U.S. Court Order Against Anna’s Archive Spells More Trouble for the Site [TorrentFreak]

anna's archiveAnna’s Archive has had its fair share of domain troubles over the past two weeks.

First, the site lost control over its original annas-archive.org domain after the U.S.-based Public Interest Registry (PIR) placed it on serverHold.

PIR typically only takes these kinds of measures based on a court order. However, when we asked for more details, the registry informed us that it was “unable to comment on the situation at this time,” only adding to the mystery.

A few days ago, the domain trouble continued when Anna’s Archive’s .SE domain suddenly became unresponsive after being operational for years. For this domain, the registrar took action, as the site was put on clientHold. While we tried to get additional information from the registrar, our requests remained unanswered.

While it is clear that ‘something’ is going on, it’s not clear what. The troubles started not long after Anna’s Archive announced that it had backed up Spotify, but there is no concrete link to a music industry push against the site.

OCLC Seeks Permanent Injunction

What we do know for certain is that Anna’s Archive’s troubles are not over yet. Yesterday, a federal court in Ohio issued a default judgment and permanent injunction against the site’s unidentified operator(s).

This order was requested by OCLC, which owns the proprietary WorldCat database that was scraped and published by Anna’s Archive more than two years ago. OCLC initially demanded millions of dollars in damages but eventually dropped this request, focusing on taking the site down through an injunction that would also apply to intermediaries.

“Anna’s Archive’s flagrantly illegal actions have damaged and continue to irreparably damage OCLC. As such, issuance of a permanent injunction is necessary to stop any further harm to OCLC,” the request read.

This pivot makes sense since Anna’s Archive did not respond to the lawsuit and would likely ignore all payment demands too. However, with the right type of court order, third-party services such as hosting companies and domain registrars might come along.

Court Grants Default Judgment

The permanent injunction, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson yesterday, does not mention any third-party services by name. However, it is directed at all parties that are “in active concert and participation with” Anna’s Archive.

Specifically, the site’s operator and these third parties are prohibited from scraping WorldCat data, storing or distributing the data on Anna’s Archive websites, and encouraging others to store, use or share this data.

Additionally, the site has to delete all WorldCat data, which also includes all torrents.

The order

anna conclude

Judge Watson denied the default judgment for ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘tortious interference.’ However, he granted the order based on the ‘trespass to chattels’ and ‘breach of contract’ claims.

The latter is particularly noteworthy, as the judge ruled that because Anna’s Archive is a ‘sophisticated party’ that scraped the site daily, it had constructive notice of the terms and entered into a ‘browsewrap‘ agreement simply by using the service.

While these nuances are important for legal experts, the result for Anna’s Archive is that it lost. And while there are no monetary damages, the permanent injunction can certainly have an impact.

More Trouble Ahead?

It is expected that OCLC will use the injunction to motivate third-party intermediaries to take action against Anna’s Archive.

Whether intermediaries are considered in “active concert” with Anna’s Archive will differ based on who you ask. However, OCLC previously said that it intends to “take the
judgment to website hosting services to remove WorldCat data from Anna’s Archive’s websites”.

The injunction that was issued yesterday obviously cannot explain the earlier domain name troubles. That said, it’s not unthinkable that OCLC will also send the injunction to domain registrars and registries, to add further pressure.

A copy of the opinion and order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

04:00 PM

RFK Jr.’s FDA Removed A Webpage Of Warnings About Bogus Autism Treatments [Techdirt]

Welcome to year two of the unmitigated disaster that is RFK Jr. being in charge of Health and Human Services and its child agencies. To call Kennedy an anti-vaxxer is not remotely controversial any longer, and probably never was. To state that he’s a corrupt peddler of misinformation from which he has, likely still is, and will in the future profit should be equally uncontroversial. And if there is a single health issue on which Kennedy has staked his dubious claims more than any other, it certainly must be autism spectrum disorder.

Kennedy, and Trump right alongside him, have been all over the map when it comes to his claims about autism. Kennedy was one of those leading the charge for decades in claiming that thimerosal in childhood vaccines was responsible for rising rates in autism diagnoses. When thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines over two decades ago and autism rates didn’t decrease, rather than admitting they were wrong, Kennedy and his cadre of hapless buffoons simply pivoted to another vaccine ingredient: aluminum. That ingredient has also been deemed safe by countless studies and experts. You know, people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.

Since then, Kennedy has discovered all sorts of other causes of the disorder. Male circumcision? Autism! Make American girthy again, I suppose. Use of Tylenol by pregnant women and/or for young children? Autism! Fevers are super hot these days, y’all. And, of course, he is still claiming it might be vaccines too, because why the hell not? It’s not like measles is everywhere or anything.

Kennedy’s alteration of the CDC page on vaccines and autism to suggest that there just might be a link between the two is particularly appropriate, as the FDA just also disappeared a webpage informing the public on the various snake oil style scams that are out there purporting to treat autism as well.

…under anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who has numerous ties to the wellness industry—that FDA information webpage is now gone. It was quietly deleted at the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed to Ars Technica.

The defunct webpage, titled “Be Aware of Potentially Dangerous Products and Therapies that Claim to Treat Autism,” provided parents and other consumers with an overview of the problem. It began with a short description of autism and some evidence-based, FDA-approved medications that can help manage autism symptoms. Then, the regulatory agency provided a list of some false claims and unproven, potentially dangerous treatments it had been working to combat. “Some of these so-called therapies carry significant health risks,” the FDA wrote.

The list included chelation and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, treatments that those in the anti-vaccine and wellness spheres have championed.

It should be obvious already that there is no evidence to suggest that these so-called autism therapies work in any way, shape, or form. That’s why the FDA had a page up warning against their use. In some cases, the danger in using them is no joke either.

Hyperbaric oxygen chamber use is probably the lesser of the two concerns. They won’t do anything for your autism, but they are typically found in facilities with staff who aren’t medical professionals and aren’t always trained well in their use generally. That’s how one five year old (!!!) that visited a wellness center that claimed to treat autism with hyperbaric chambers was incinerated inside it when a spark went off and all of that concentrated oxygen ignited. On the one hand, this person certainly doesn’t have autism any longer, though I don’t think that’s how the result is supposed to be achieved.

Then there’s chelation therapy, a process by which chemical injections into the body are performed, so that these chemicals can bind to metals within a person’s bloodstream, allowing them to be excreted through waste. Chelation actually does have legitimate uses, such as when someone has heavy metal poisoning, typically from mercury, lead, or arsenic. Using chelation therarpy to remove non-approved minerals, however, can have negative health outcomes, including death. And, of course, one of Kennedy’s minions is David Geier. Geier is an anti-vaxxer who joined HHS to “find” the cause of autism and has long been advocate for chelation therapy.

To address this nonexistent problem, anti-vaccine activists have touted chelation as a way to remove metals delivered via vaccines and treat autism. One of the most notorious of these activists is David Geier, whom Kennedy hired to the US health department last year to study the debunked connection between vaccines and autism. David Geier, along with his late father, Mark Geier, faced discipline from the Maryland State Board of Physicians in 2011 for, among other things, putting the health of autistic children at risk by treating them with unproven and dangerous hormone and chelation therapies. Mark Geier was stripped of his medical license. David Geier, who is not a scientist or doctor, was issued a civil fine for practicing medicine without a license.

So why is all of this being done? Money, of course! Kennedy has surrounded himself with these “health guru” snakeoil salesmen, both in government and out, and the lot of them have made buckets and buckets of money doing this sort of thing.

In July, KFF Health News reported that Kennedy and his wellness allies have made millions promoting unproven wellness products and treatments. Likewise, a story last week from The Wall Street Journal reported that Kennedy has surrounded himself with wellness moguls, including Brecka, who are profiting from the administration’s unambiguous embrace of unproven treatments.

Generally, my experience is that people think RFK Jr. is one of two things. One common belief is that he’s a health savior, finally sticking it to a corrupt medical industry and telling the truth about the real causes of real disorders like autism. That’s incredibly wrong for a million different reasons. The other common belief is that Kennedy’s views on vaccines and health are super wrong, and that he’s very dumb, but also that he’s a true believer.

That’s wrong, too. This is a grift and always has been. A money-making scheme built on the backs of illness and death for those who listen to him, all while he collects a government paycheck. That he was confirmed as Secretary of HHS at all was profane. That our government has allowed all of his bullshit to go unchecked and unaddressed, however, is perverse.

12:00 PM

Pluralistic: How the Light Gets In (15 Jan 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Top Sources: None -->

Today's links



A wall with a crack running through it. Light is flooding through the crack. Circuit board traces are bleeding through the periphery of the wall.

How the Light Gets In (permalink)

Of all the tools that I use to maintain my equilibrium in these dark days, none is so important as remembering the distinction between happiness, optimism and hope.

Happiness is self-explanatory – and fleeting. Even in the worst of times, there are moments of happiness – a delicious meal with friends, a beautiful sunrise, a stolen moment with your love. These are the things we chase, and rightly so. But happiness is always a goal, rarely a steady state.

Optimism, on the other hand, is a toxin to be avoided. Optimism is a subgenre of fatalism, the belief that things will get better no matter what we do. It's just the obverse of pessimism. Both are ways of denying human agency. To be an optimist is to be a passenger of history, along for the ride, with no hope of changing its course.

But hope? That's the stuff. Hope is the belief that if we change the world for the better, even by just a little, that we will ascend a gradient towards a better future, and as we rise up that curve, new terrain will be revealed to us that we couldn't see from our lower vantage-point. It's not necessary – or even possible – to see a course from here to the world you want to live in. You can get there in stepwise fashion, one beneficial change at a time:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/03/hope-not-optimism/

These days, I am often unhappy, but I am filled with hope.

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a speech, "The Post-American Internet," at the 39th Chaos Communications Congress in Hamburg:

https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/#the-new-coalition

In that talk, I laid out the case for hope. So many of the worst aspects of modern life can be traced to our enshittified technology, from mass surveillance and totalitarian control to wage suppression and conspiratorial cults. This enshittified technology, in turn, is downstream of policy decisions made by politicians who were bullied into their positions by the US trade rep, who used the threat of tariffs to push for laws that protected the right of tech giants to plunder the world's money and data, by criminalizing competitors who disenshittified their products, leaving technology users defenseless.

Trump's tariffs have effectively killed that threat. If you can't tell from day to day – let alone year to year – whether the US will accept your exports, you can't rely on exporting to the USA. What's more, generations of pro-oligarch policies have stripped America's bottom 90% of discretionary income, stagnating their wages and leaving them mired in health, education, and housing debt (even as the system finds ever more sadistic and depraved ways for arm-breakers to collect on that debt):

https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/16/k-shaped-recovery/#disenshittification-nations

This is terrible for Americans, but when life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla. With the decline of the US market for global exporters, there's finally political space to stop worrying about tariffs and reconsider anti-circumvention laws, to create "disenshittification nations" that stage raids on the most valuable lines of business of the most profitable companies in world history – Big Tech:

https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/13/not-sorry/#mere-billions

People who dream of turning American tech trillions into their own billions are powerful allies in the fight against enshittification, but they're only one group that we can recruit to our side. There's another powerful bloc waiting in the wings: national security hawks.

These people are rightly terrified that Trump will order his tech companies to switch off their governments, businesses and households, all of whom are dependent on US cloud-based administrative software for email, document creation and archiving, databases, mobile devices. Trump's tech companies could also brick any nation's mobile phones, medical devices, cars, and tractors.

It's the same risk that China hawks warned of when it looked as though Huawei would provide all of the world's 5G infrastructure: allow companies that are absolutely beholden to an autocrat who is not restrained by the rule of law to permeate your society, and your society becomes a prisoner to the autocrat's whims and goodwill.

A coalition of digital rights activists; investors and entrepreneurs; and national security hawks makes for a powerful bloc indeed. Each partner in the coalition can mobilize different constituencies and can influence different parts of the state. These are very different groups, and that's why this coalition is so exciting: this is a three-pronged assault on the hegemony of Big Tech.

That's not to say that this will automatically happen. Nothing happens automatically. Fuck pessimism, and fuck optimism, too. Things happen because people do stuff:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/17/against-the-great-forces-of-history/

That's where hope comes in. The door to a better technological future has been slammed shut and triple-locked for 25 years. Today, it is open a crack. A crack isn't much, but as Leonard Cohen taught us, "that's how the light gets in":

https://genius.com/Leonard-cohen-anthem-lyrics

Understand: this isn't a bet on politicians discovering heretofore unsuspected wellsprings of courage or principle. This is a bet on politicians confronting unstoppable political will that corners them into doing the right thing.

I understand why Europeans, Canadians and Britons might feel cynical about their political classes (to say nothing of Americans, of course). It has been decades since a political party delivered broad, structural change that improved the lives of everyday people. Instead, we've had generations of neoliberal austerity sadists, autocrats and corrupt dolts who've helped billionaires stripmine our civilization and set the world on fire.

But politics have changed before, and they can change again (note that I didn't say they will change – just that they can, because we can change them). Society may feel deadlocked, but crises precipitate change. As I said in my Hamburg speech, the EU went from 15 years behind in their solar transition to ten years ahead, in just a few years, thanks to the energy crisis that slammed into the continent after Putin invaded Ukraine.

Crises precipitate change. The fact that the EU pivoted so quickly away from fossil fuels to solar is nothing short of a miracle. Anyone who feels like their politicians would never buck Big Tech needs to explain how it came to pass that these politicians just told Big Oil to fuck off. The fossil fuel industry is losing. This is goddamned wild – indeed, their loss might just be locked in at this point, because fossil fuel and its applications (like internal combustion) are now more expensive and more impractical than the cleantech alternatives:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/10/02/there-goes-the-sun/#carbon-shifting

Sure, it sucks that Trump has killed incentives to drive an EV and that the EU is dropping its goal for phasing out internal combustion engines, but given that EVs are faster, cheaper and better than conventional automobiles, the writing is on the wall for the IC fleet.

That's the wild thing about better technology: people want it, and they get pissed off when they're told they can't have it. When the Texas legislature tried to pass a law requiring that power companies add a watt of fossil-fuel generation capacity for every watt of solar they brought online, Trump-voting farmers and ranchers from the deepest red parts of Texas (Texas!!) flooded town halls and hearings, demanding an end to "DEI for natural gas":

https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/for-reality

They won.

Politics aren't just terrible today, they're in chaos. Crises precipitate change.

After World War II, one of Britain's two parties, the Liberals (AKA "Whigs") imploded. With them out of the way, the Labour Party rose to power, with a transformative agenda backed by a mass movement, which created the British welfare state.

Today, the British Conservative Party (AKA "Tories") are also imploding, and look set to be taken over by a fascist MAGA-alike party, Reform. As of a couple months ago, that seemed like very bad news, since Labour is also set to implode, thanks to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's austerity, authoritarianism, corruption and cowardice. For quite a while, it looked like when Starmer's Labour is totally wiped out in the next election, they would give way to Reform, plunging Britain into Hungarian- (or American)-style autocracy.

But all that has changed. Today, the UK Greens have a new leader, Zack Polanski, who has dragged the Greens into an agenda that promises transformations as bold as the ones that remade the country under Clement Attlee's Labour government. Polanski is a fantastic campaigner, and he is committed to the same kind of grassroots co-governance with a mass movement that characterized Zohran Mamdani's historic NYC mayoral campaign.

In other words, it seems like both of Britain's sclerotic mainstream parties will be wiped out in the next election, and the real fight in the UK is between two transformative upstart parties, one of which plans to spend billionaires' dark money to mobilize fascists yearning for ethnic cleansing; and the other wants a fair, prosperous and equitable society where we abolish billionaires, confront the climate emergency, and smash corporate power. In other words, the UK is heading into an election in which voters have a choice that's more meaningful than Coke vs Pepsi.

Versions of this are playing out around the world. Anti-billionaire policies have surfaced time and again, everywhere, since the late 2010s:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/06/28/mamdani/#trustbusting

None of this means that we will automatically win. I'm not asking you to be an optimist here, but I am demanding that you have hope. Hope is a discipline: it requires that you tirelessly seek out the best ways to climb up that gradient toward a better world, trusting that as you attain higher elevation, you will find new paths up that slope.

The door is open a crack. Now isn't the time to complain that it isn't open wider – now's the time to throw your shoulder against it.

(Image: Joe Mabel, CC BY 3.0)


Hey look at this (permalink)



A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#25yrsao Journal of a homeless woman in San Francisco: witty, articulate, pregnant, and addicted to heroin https://web.archive.org/web/20010124050200/https://www.thematrix.com/~sherrod/diary.html

#20yrsago Study: how Canadian copyright law is bought by entertainment co’s https://web.archive.org/web/20060207141159/http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1075

#20yrsago My Toronto Star editorial about Hollywood’s Member of Parliament https://web.archive.org/web/20060616024225/http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1137279034770

#10yrsago Aaron Swartz’s “Against School” – business leaders have been decrying education since 1845 https://newrepublic.com/article/127317/school

#10yrsago Yosemite agrees to change the names of its significant locations to appease trademark troll https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/yosemite-rename-several-iconic-places/?scope=anon

#10yrsago Bernie Sanders support soars among actual voters, if not Democratic Party power-brokers https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/14/bernie-sanders-is-winning-with-the-one-group-his-rivals-cant-sway-voters

#5yrsago Tesla's valuation is 1600x its profitability https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#intangibles

#5yrsago Disneyland kills annual passes https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#disney-dash

#5yrsago Machine learning is a honeypot for phrenologists https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#phrenology

#5yrsago Yugoslavia's Cold War obsession with Mexican music https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#yu-mex

#5yrsago I was investigated by the FBI https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#g-man

#5yrsago Facebook says it's the best henhouse fox https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#hens-need-foxes

#5yrsago Laura Poitras fired from First Look ( https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#poitras


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing: "The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America (1058 words today, 7122 total)

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.

  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

Democrats Can Stop Or Slow Down ICE [The Status Kuo]

Ranking Senate appropriator Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Photo courtesy of The Hill

Democratic lawmakers find themselves in a rare position to bear down on the Department of Homeland Security and even freeze its funding at 2024 levels unless the GOP agrees to meaningful major reforms. And they wouldn’t need to shut down the whole government to accomplish this.

What they do need is the political will to stand firm.

But wait a minute. Didn’t the GOP budget, in its absurdly titled “One Big Beautiful Bill,” already fund ICE? Technically yes, but that’s not the end of the story. As I’ll discuss below, Democrats still maintain significant leverage in who actually gets funded and under what conditions. And it’s high time that Democrats use that power to freeze ICE’s funding absent clear limitations and reforms.

When we talk about Congress still having the power of the purse, this is exactly what we mean.

Subscribe now

The rather insane way Congress actually funds the government

The GOP budget passed narrowly last year under a process called reconciliation, where it needed only a bare majority in each chamber to advance the legislation to the president’s desk. The GOP bill contains tens of billions more in ICE funding for 10,000 more agents and construction of many more immigrant detention centers. It threatened to create an ICE on steroids—a truly dystopian nightmare for the whole country.

But here’s the thing many don’t realize. ICE doesn’t actually have that money yet. Congress still has to pass an appropriations bill before DHS gets the funds, and that means getting 60 votes, not 51, in the Senate.

If that’s surprising to hear, it’s because the convoluted congressional budgeting process isn’t well understood by nearly anyone outside Congress, nor is it particularly logical. Why have a system that allows a budget resolution covering the entire federal government to pass by only a majority vote in each chamber when you know that the actual act of allocating the funds still has to pass by 60 votes in the Senate?

We can debate the merits of this system, but one thing is clear: The second requirement for actual funding means that spending remains a bipartisan affair, and that can have a highly moderating effect. That principle becomes very important when you’ve got extremists operating in parts of the government.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, threw down a gauntlet over this very issue back in December. She issued a statement blasting Republicans for trying to fund DHS through a one-sided partisan bill instead of working with Democrats on a negotiated bill:

We need more accountability from President Trump’s out-of-control Department of Homeland Security, and as we proceed to conference negotiations on this bill and the remainder of our bills, I am going to keep working to produce the strongest possible legislation. American families should be able to count on their own government to support them through serious natural disasters and to enforce our immigration laws humanely and in accordance with the law.

Republicans should have listened back then. Now DHS is dangling without a bipartisan bill to fund it, while the rest of the government, as I’ll discuss below, is getting what it needs.

Given ICE’s outrageous behavior, I can’t help but suspect that this is, at least in part, by design.

Where things stand with government funding

It already seems quite long ago, given all that’s happened since, but last quarter the government shut down for a record 43 days. The GOP in its usual dysfunction had not managed to fund any of the government through the regular 12 appropriations bills. And Democrats refused to support any more “continuing resolutions” to keep the government open so long as the GOP refused to extend ACA premium subsidies.

Democratic lawmakers eventually backed down from that demand in exchange for a Senate vote on the ACA subsidies, which went about as expected. The government reopened, and there still are no ACA premium subsidy extensions. But at least voters are now keenly aware of where the two parties’ priorities lie, and support for Democrats has increased markedly in generic polling for the November midterms.

As part of the agreement to reopen the government, three different bills to fund different parts of it passed both chambers and were signed into law last year. Another five passed the House this month, three in a package of bills on January 8 and another pair on January 14, and will proceed now to the Senate. That makes eight funding bills, with still more possible before the January 30 deadline. Once the five that passed the House get through the Senate and are signed into law, as is expected, many parts of the government will be funded, including Defense, Justice, Treasury, State, Interior, Agriculture, Veterans, Energy and the EPA.

In these spending bills, there’s the quiet part few outside Capitol Hill are talking about. Through the budgeting process so far, Democratic negotiators have managed to force the GOP-led House to give up on Trump’s most drastic spending cuts. As the New York Times reported today,

Congress is quietly rejecting almost all of the deepest cuts to federal programs that President Trump requested for this year, turning back his efforts to slash funding for foreign aid, global health programs, scientific research, the arts and more in a bipartisan repudiation of his spending plans.

The latest rejection of his budget blueprint came on Wednesday, after the House voted 341 to 79 to pass a pair of bills to fund the State and Treasury Departments, as well as other foreign aid programs, providing money for agencies that Mr. Trump had proposed eliminating entirely.

Let’s recognize and celebrate a big win when we see it. Democratic appropriators, led by unsung heroes Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), have managed to pull this off. They are leveraging the little understood quirk of the federal budgeting process, discussed earlier, that requires actual appropriations be more or less bipartisan in order to avoid a Democratic Senate filibuster.

So what could this mean for ICE funding?

You know what isn’t funded yet? Homeland Security. For it to spend newly budgeted money, it still needs an appropriation bill covering it. And that gives Democrats important leverage.

Some Dems want to pare back the new spending entirely. As Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) pointed out, money for the ACA premium subsidy extension that Democrats and 17 House Republicans voted for could come directly out of ICE’s funding increase. “We absolutely want to extend the ACA premiums tax credits, they shouldn’t be lapsing, but we’re funding it by taking money from ICE’s budget,” said Moulton, describing the Trump administration’s priorities as “completely out of whack.”

Could Dems actually prevent new money from flowing to ICE? Theoretically at least, yes. Dems could dig in and shut down the unfunded parts of the government, which would include Homeland Security. Or they could shrug and agree to another continuing resolution for the unfunded parts of government. That would still effectively freeze Homeland Security at 2024 funding levels for the immediate future.

Alternatively, Democratic lawmakers could insist upon reforms and conditions in exchange for ICE funding. Sen. Chris Murphy is the top Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security. As he told The Independent, “It’s obviously natural that Democrats would want to make sure that any money we spend in DHS is being spent lawfully, and right now that department is full of unlawful activity.”

Murphy signaled that a blank check in the form of a partisan funding bill wasn’t going to happen. “I’m just not interested in funding an agency that is operating outside of the law and it’s making our communities less safe,” Murphy said, adding that “in every bill, there’s language on how our money is spent, and I want to make sure that our money is spent lawfully.” Some of the reforms and conditions Murphy has proposed include limiting where DHS agents can operate (e.g., not so far from the border), and whether they must not operate with their identities hidden.

Whether it’s freezing ICE funding (which I’d love to see) or placing significant restrictions on DHS’s operations, Democrats need to use their leverage now while they have it and move to halt or at least significantly slow ICE in its tracks.

08:00 AM

Justice Gorsuch Reminds: The Fourth Amendment Isn’t Dead Yet [Techdirt]

The Supreme Court released a few decisions this week. All of them are important for the parties involved, and ultimately for everyone, but not to the immediate degree that some of the other pending cases are (like the tariffs case). But one of the decisions is worth calling out, not for the decision itself, but for what Justice Gorsuch said in his concurrence and how it bears on electronic surveillance and the crisis we find ourselves in where the Fourth Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) is providing none of its promised protection.

The decision at issue is Case v. Montana where a unanimous Court agreed that the Fourth Amendment did not actually apply.  The justices agreed that earlier precedent still held: it will not violate the Fourth Amendment for police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. It is a rule that on its face does not necessarily look unreasonable.  The problem, though, is that, over time, courts have found more and more rules describing circumstances when it is ok to supersede the Fourth Amendment’s own clear rule that the people should be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” from warrantless searches and seizures. As a result, over time the public has gotten less and less secure as fewer and fewer warrants have been needed by the government.

In his concurrence Justice Gorsuch agreed with the specific holding—that this sort of emergency rule exists, even in the shadow of the Fourth Amendment, and that it applied in this case—but he took some time ruminate on why it is a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment’s usual warrant requirement.

Does the Fourth Amendment tolerate this limited emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement just because five or more Justices of this Court happen to believe that such entries are “reasonable”? Or is this exception more directly “tied to the law”? Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296, 397 (2018) (GORSUCH , J., dissenting). The answer, I believe, is the latter.

The reason it is “tied to the law,” he explains, is because such an “emergency” rule would have been recognized in common law, and that rule would forgive anyone’s trespass for the purpose of giving aid, including the police’s:

Today’s decision echoes both the common-law emergency aid rule and its limitations. It does so, to be sure, in the context of a law enforcement officer, not a private citizen, who sought to enter another’s home. But on this point as well the common law has spoken, long providing that officers generally enjoy the same legal privileges as private citizens. See, e.g., Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 1066 (C. P. 1765); 1 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 36 (1819); 2 M. Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 91 (1736). And, reflecting the common law here again, this Court has held that the Fourth Amendment usually permits officers lacking a valid warrant to “take actions that any private citizen might do without fear of liability.” Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U. S. 194, 198 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The emergency of course does not give them carte blanche, however.  Police excused from needing a warrant to respond to an emergency “normally may do ‘no more’ than that.”

Contrary to Mr. Case’s argument, King v. Coate, Lofft. 73, 98 Eng. Rep. 539 (K. B. 1772), does not establish that the common law demanded an exacting showing of actual necessity to defeat a claim for trespass. True, Lord Mansfield explained that any necessity defense in that case would need to “stand the strictest test,” with the “necessity manifestly proved.” Id., at 75, 98 Eng. Rep., at 540. But Coate involved an effort to involuntarily “confin[e] a person in a madhouse” for two months, not a claim over a home entry. Id., at 74, 98 Eng. Rep., at 539. And it is hardly surprising that the common law would demand a good deal more to justify a serious deprivation of liberty than to excuse an invasion of property rights aimed at protecting human safety.

But what is most interesting about Gorsuch’s analysis is not how he applied the common law rule here but his larger argument that it is common law rules that should be applied to the Fourth Amendment analysis generally and not the line of precedent that has resulted since the Court decided Katz v. US in 1967.  Those subsequent decisions have instead emphasized that whether there was a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is key to determining whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated. So while Katz itself had the immediate effect of expanding the protective reach of the Fourth Amendment, as Gorsuch had earlier complained in his dissent in the Carpenter v. US case, it set subsequent precedent down a path that largely narrowed it.  As he wrote then:

Katz has yielded an often unpredictable—and sometimes unbelievable—jurisprudence. Smith and Miller are only two examples; there are many others. Take Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989), which says that a police helicopter hovering 400 feet above a person’s property invades no reasonable expectation of privacy. Try that one out on your neighbors. Or California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988), which holds that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage he puts out for collection. In that case, the Court said that the homeowners forfeited their privacy interests because “[i]t is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.” Id., at 40, 108 S.Ct. 1625 (footnotes omitted). But the habits of raccoons don’t prove much about the habits of the country. I doubt, too, that most people spotting a neighbor rummaging through their garbage would think they lacked reasonable grounds to confront the rummager. Making the decision all the stranger, California state law expressly protected a homeowner’s property rights in discarded trash. Id., at 43, 108 S.Ct. 1625. Yet rather than defer to that as evidence of the people’s habits and reasonable expectations of privacy, the Court substituted its own curious judgment.

Even in a case like Carpenter, which the government basically lost, Gorsuch still had dissented from the decision apparently because he felt the rationale was so poisoned by the post-Katz reasoning that had subsequently emerged in so many cases since. As he wrote then:

In the end, what do Smith and Miller add up to? A doubtful application of Katz that lets the government search almost whatever it wants whenever it wants. The Sixth Circuit had to follow that rule and faithfully did just that, but it’s not clear why we should.

One unfortunate way that Fourth Amendment protection has been narrowed since Katz is in the context of electronic surveillance. In case after case it has been an uphill battle to challenge programs that give the government so much information about people’s lives. Indeed, as Gorsuch had earlier worried in Carpenter, as long as the rule excusing an intrusion into what the Fourth Amendment would protect hinges on whether it invades a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” then there is effectively no protection to be had, because it simply isn’t a durable standard.  As his comment in this recent case about the “five or more Justices of this Court” harkened back to, it is subjectively dependent on the whims of the judges hearing the case.  As he also wrote then:

Maybe, then, the Katz test should be conceived as a normative question. But if that’s the case, why (again) do judges, rather than legislators, get to determine whether society should be prepared to recognize an expectation of privacy as legitimate? Deciding what privacy interests should be recognized often calls for a pure policy choice, many times between incommensurable goods—between the value of privacy in a particular setting and society’s interest in combating crime. Answering questions like that calls for the exercise of raw political will belonging to legislatures, not the legal judgment proper to courts. See The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). When judges abandon legal judgment for political will we not only risk decisions where “reasonable expectations of privacy” come to bear “an uncanny resemblance to those expectations of privacy” shared by Members of this Court. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 97, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring).

The case this week was not an electronic surveillance case. But it is worth noting that Gorsuch is still holding fast to his insistence that the common law is still the correct lens to use to evaluate potential Fourth Amendment violations, and not the “reasonable expectation of privacy” lens that has emerged since Katz.

It should come as no surprise that our decision today might accord with the accumulated learning of the common law—just as it should come as no surprise that our application of the Fourth Amendment ought to be informed by the common law’s lessons rather than mere intuition.

Because even if building off of Katz can sometimes result in even more protection, too often it has resulted in less, despite the Fourth Amendment’s articulated protection and history.

For a period, to be sure, the miasma created by this Court’s Katz era led some to think the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment depend on nothing more than current judicial instincts about “reasonable expectations of privacy.” See Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 394–395, 405–406 (GORSUCH , J., dissenting). But that confusion cannot last forever, for no one should think the rights of Americans hang on so thin a thread. Instead, and as Justice Story recognized, the Fourth Amendment is made of sturdier stuff, representing “the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law.” 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 748 (1833).

But his concurrence here may be more than just academic; it seems like it could be read to suggest that it may be time for litigants to take another swing at challenging the government’s warrantless electronic surveillance, especially given his callback to Carpenter, a case that implicated it. Because this time, he is intimating, the Court should get the analysis right, to find such surveillance anathema under the Fourth Amendment, by using more timeless common law principles than the courts since Katz have been free to use.  Because even if the lower courts have been stuck with the “reasonable expectation of privacy” framework, the Supreme Court is not.  And this concurrence reads as a clear call for the Court to revisit it.

Such challenges would also come not a moment too soon (assuming they are not already too late) given how the government’s data collection practices are now having immediate, direct, and horrific effect on people’s liberty writ large. It is not just personal information currently being seized but actual people, aided by the warrantless collection of their data. Or, in other words, and as it seems Gorsuch understands, what is happening is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to forestall. Thus it seems time for litigants to try again, to tee up before the Supreme Court the Fourth Amendment question that electronic surveillance implicates so that the Court can back up and try again, this time directing our subsequent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence down a different path from where it strayed post-Katz, and instead lead to one where the rights of Americans, particularly with respect to their electronic data, no longer “hang on so thin a thread.” It seems there’s already at least one justice on board with finding that the Fourth Amendment precludes what the government has been doing of late, and probably more.

Postscript: It is not the point of this post, but it is worth spending a moment to also digest Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence. In it she cautions that this decision should not be taken as a blanket rule that a police officer can always rush in without a warrant when they anticipate an emergency situation. Indeed, she notes, rushing in has the tendency to create the emergency, especially given the proliferation of firearms, and that danger should count heavily on the side of the ledger against the warrantless intrusion. Nevertheless, she continued, as in this case there can be factors counterbalancing those concerns and nevertheless justify the intrusion, which is why she joined the decision. But she was careful to emphasize in her concurrence that the rule here is not that all warrantless entrances in case of emergency are allowed; rather, the rule is that an assessment of whether there is an “objectively reasonable basis” for entering needs to always be made before such a warrantless intrusion can potentially be excused.

That conclusion, on the facts of this case, does not mean it will always be objectively reasonable for officers responding to a mental-health crisis to make a warrantless entry. A different mix of information [in this case here] might have led to the conclusion that the officers’ entry itself would put the occupant (and officers) at a greater risk of escalation and serious injury. Because the “objectively reasonable basis” test, as reaffirmed by the Court today, demands careful attention to the case-specific risks that attend mental-health crises, and requires officers to act reasonably in response, I join the Court’s opinion in full.

06:00 AM

DHS Expands Immigration Ban, Ensuring The Only Way An African Can Come To The US Is If We Bring Slavery Back [Techdirt]

Ever since Trump took office and turned over immigration enforcement to someone who killed pets more often than she’s experienced moments of joy, the world has been shrinking. It America vs. everyone else at this point, with the Trump administration adding hefty amounts of imperialism to its heady blend of white Christian fascism.

To be non-white is to be less than 2/3rds of a human, which is something I thought we might have moved past during the last 100 years or so. But everything old is new again, especially the stuff that should just be the relics of a shameful history, rather than the latest thing getting gilded by the administration’s ex-Fox News turd polishers.

After an Afghan refugee shot some National Guard troops, Trump and his DHS placed an indefinite pause on immigration applications from a total of 19 countries, including (of course) Afghanistan, a country we hastily exited and turned over to the Taliban.

For no discernible reason, another 20 countries have been added to the immigration ban. Unsurprisingly, none of these countries are mostly white. Here’s NPR with the details on the administration’s latest burst of xenophobia:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, in a memo released Thursday, said it would pause the review of all pending applications for visas, green cards, citizenship or asylum from immigrants from the additional countries. The memo also outlines plans to re-review applications of immigrants from these countries as far back as 2021.

The list, which is composed mostly of countries in Africa, includes Angola, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

Wow. Imagine that. There’s a pattern developing here, and it’s exactly what you think it is. Here’s the full list of countries whose residents are subject to an indefinite ban on immigration applications:

Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Haiti, Iran, Ivory Coast, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, The Gambia, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

Here’s what that looks like:

So, we’ve got more than half of Africa on the blocklist. It will never reach 100% because South Africa is home to some pretty feisty white colonials the president seems to personally appreciate despite (or because of) their white nationalist leanings.

Give it a few more months and the rest of that continent should be colored in. And while this government will pretend this is about national security and/or thwarting the international drug trade, it’s safe to assume any national security threat posed by autocrats Trump likes (Putin, Bukele, Orban, Erdogan) will be ignored to keep them, um, whitelisted. And any other nation that poses no threat one way or another but happens to be heavily populated by people with more skin pigmentation will find their immigration privileges suspended until at least January 2029.

We’re no longer part of the free world. We’re a nation that’s hastily and deliberately backsliding into the worst version of itself, thanks to the irrational hatred of those in power. We may not have forgotten our history, but we’re being ruled by people who want to doom us to repeat it.

05:00 AM

Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows License + Windows 11 Pro Bundle [Techdirt]

Microsoft Office 2021 Professional is the perfect choice for any professional who needs to handle data and documents. It comes with many new features that will make you more productive in every stage of development, whether it’s processing paperwork or creating presentations from scratch – whatever your needs are. Office Pro comes with MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote, Publisher, and Access. Microsoft Windows 11 Pro is exactly that. This operating system is designed with the modern professional in mind. Whether you are a developer who needs a secure platform, an artist seeking a seamless experience, or an entrepreneur needing to stay connected effortlessly, Windows 11 Pro is your solution. The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows + Windows 11 Pro Bundle is on sale for $39.97 for a very limited time.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

State Department Threatens UK Over Grok Investigation, Because Only The US Is Allowed To Ban Foreign Apps [Techdirt]

So let me get this straight. The United States government spent years championing a ban on TikTok, rushed it through the Supreme Court with claims of grave national security threats, got a 9-0 ruling blessing government censorship of an entire platform used by 170 million Americans… and now it’s the US State Department thinking that it’s all cool to threaten the United Kingdom for considering similar action against X’s Grok chatbot over its generation of sexualized deepfake images, including those of children?

We all know that the US can be hypocritical, but this all seems a bit over the top.

Here’s what actually happened: the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom opened an investigation into whether X violated the country’s Online Safety Act by allowing Grok to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images (NCII). This isn’t some theoretical concern—as I detailed last week, Grok has been churning out sexualized images at an alarming rate, with users publicly generating “undressing” content and worse, in many cases targeting real women and girls. UK Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told Parliament that Ofcom could impose fines up to £18 million or seek a court order to block X entirely if violations are found.

Enter Sarah B. Rogers, the Trump-appointed Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, who decided this was the perfect moment to threaten a close US ally. In an interview with GB News, Rogers declared:

I would say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response.

She went further, accusing the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes” and claiming that X has “a political valence that the British government is antagonistic to.”

This is weapons-grade nonsense, and Rogers knows it.

The UK isn’t investigating X because they don’t like Elon Musk’s politics. They’re investigating because Grok is being used to create sexualized deepfakes of real people without consent, including minors. Unless Rogers is prepared to stand up and argue that generating non-consensual sexualized imagery of real people—including children—is somehow quintessential “conservative speech” that the US must defend, she’s deliberately mischaracterizing what’s happening here. Is that really the hill the State Department wants to die on? That deepfake NCII is conservative speech?

As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson put it:

“It’s about the generation of criminal imagery of children and women and girls that is not acceptable. We cannot stand by and let that continue. And that is why we’ve taken the action we have.”

But here’s where the hypocrisy becomes truly spectacular: just this week, the Republican-led Senate unanimously passed the DEFIANCE Act for the second time. This legislation would create a federal civil cause of action allowing victims of non-consensual deepfake intimate imagery to sue the producers of such content. No matter what you think of that particular bill (I have my concerns about the specifics of how the bill works), it’s quite something when you have the State Department’s mafioso-like threat being issued to the UK if they take any action to respond to what’s happening on X at the same time the MAGA-led US Senate is voting unanimously to move forward on a bill that could have a similar impact.

So let’s review the US government’s position:

  • Banning an entire social media platform because China might access data (that they can already buy from data brokers anyway)? Perfectly fine, rush it through SCOTUS.
  • Allowing victims to sue over non-consensual sexualized deepfakes? Great idea, unanimous Senate support.
  • Another country investigating whether a platform violated laws against generating sexualized deepfakes of minors? UNACCEPTABLE CENSORSHIP, NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE.

The MAGA mindset in a nutshell: performative nonsense when it fits within a certain bucket (in this case the “OMG Europeans censoring Elon”) no matter that it conflicts with stated beliefs elsewhere.

It’s important to consider all of this in light of the whole TikTok ban fiasco. When the Supreme Court blessed Congress’s decision to ban an app based on vague national security concerns—concerns so urgent that the Biden administration immediately decided not to enforce the ban after winning in court and which Trump has continued to not enforce for an entire year—America effectively torched its moral authority to criticize other countries for restricting platforms.

As I wrote when that ruling came down, we essentially said it’s okay to create a Great Firewall of America. We told the world that if you claim “national security” loudly enough, with sufficient “bipartisan support,” you can ban whatever app you want, First Amendment concerns be damned. Chinese officials have pointed to the US’s TikTok ban to justify their own internet restrictions, and now we’re handing authoritarian regimes another gift: the US will threaten retaliation if you try to enforce laws against platforms generating sexualized imagery of children.

When you blow up the principle that countries shouldn’t ban apps based on content concerns, you don’t get to suddenly rediscover those principles when it’s your billionaire’s app on the chopping block.

And make no mistake about what Rogers is really defending here. Grok continues to generate sexualized content at scale. Elon Musk continues running X like an edgelord teenager who knows he’s rich enough to avoid consequences, and women—especially young women—continue facing harassment and abuse via these tools.

The State Department’s threats aren’t about defending free speech. They’re about protecting Musk’s business interests. It’s about maintaining the double standard that got us here: American companies can do whatever they want globally, but foreign companies operating in America face existential threats for far less.

The UK is investigating potential violations of laws against generating sexualized imagery of minors and non-consenting adults. If the State Department thinks that’s “censorship,” they should explain why the Senate just voted unanimously to let victims sue over exactly that conduct.

Look, the UK’s investigation may or may not lead anywhere. Ofcom may find violations, or it may not. They may impose fines, or they may not. They may seek to block X, or they may not. But the one thing the US government absolutely cannot do with a straight face is threaten them for even considering it.

You don’t get to ban TikTok and then act outraged when other countries contemplate similar actions against American companies. You don’t get to pass unanimous legislation allowing lawsuits over deepfake NCII while your State Department calls investigations into that same deepfake NCII “censorship.” You don’t get to spend years claiming that national security justifies any restriction on platforms and then suddenly discover that “free speech” means other countries can’t enforce their laws.

There are no principles here, only sheer abuse of power. And Sarah Rogers’s threat to the UK makes that abundantly clear: the rules we claimed justified banning TikTok apparently only apply when we’re the ones doing the banning.

02:00 AM

5 Ways Large Organizations Can Benefit from Lulu's Book Solutions [Write, Publish, and Sell]

5 Ways Large Organizations Can Benefit from Lulu's Book Solutions

The book supply chain has changed drastically in recent years. Part of that was, of course, the pandemic. But emerging social trends, an emphasis on owned audiences, and improvements in technology have played a huge part too.

In the last ten years, paper and material costs have risen, fulfillment services have experienced unexpected delays, sometimes due to labor issues, and unpredictable demand has made traditional publishing fragile. For many publishers, the economics that once justified large offset print runs are no longer reliable.

It’s always been a simple equation: you need about as many copies as you can sell. The gamble that publishing houses would historically take for their authors would be to predict the demand. 

Mess up on that prediction, and you’re stuck with excess stock and eventually write-offs. Those books will end up being pulped, and the cost to print, ship, and warehouse them will be completely lost. Underestimate demand and you’ve got lost sales and frustrated customers.

In the old model, publishers and content creators would need to commit to a large, expensive order from an offset printer, manage the logistics of storing those books, and handle shipping to bookstores, libraries, retailers, and individual shoppers.


Okay, so that H2 right there? ChatGPT wrote it. The robot also wrote this one for me:

“Publishers need a model that absorbs volatility rather than amplifying it.”

I had prompted it to help me outline sections for this post based on a few sentences and a stack of keywords. It decided to give those two lines as a footnote with the comment, you might find these useful. Thanks, ChatGPT.

Because yeah, it’s kind of a high-school-essay type of statement. But in this instance, the robot is right.

For a very long time (thanks mostly to Amazon and KDP), print-on-demand has been viewed as an access point to publishing for authors who couldn’t get a deal with a ‘real’ publishing house. No need to edit or pay for a print run—just sell books online as an ebook or printed on-demand. 

In that capacity, print-on-demand is pretty amazing. The entire publishing industry has changed because authors and creators no longer have any gatekeepers. Anyone with an audience can turn a book into a source of long-term revenue. Well, usually a few books, but you get the point.

The ease of access and low overhead cost, coupled with enormous improvements in digital printing hardware, transformed print-on-demand. The entire industry has shifted from a niche way to sell to niche audiences into a parallel service to complement offset printing.

How Publishers Use Print-on-Demand

Many (many) years ago, I was on the editorial board for a literary magazine. We had been publishing on a website monthly, but our readers were asking about print editions. So we started exploring doing a quarterly. As you might imagine, this small journal did not have 10,000+ readers, so a print run was out of the question.

Then someone mentioned print-on-demand options. Just like that, we were in business. The journal, to this day, puts out four editions a year and prints them on-demand for readers. 

Publishers are using print-on-demand to do similar things. They can take on authors with a smaller audience and not risk losing a substantial amount on their print run. Print-on-demand scales with actual demand. 

I think we can all agree that publishers opening the doors to more authors and creators is a good thing. Print-on-demand will give them the flexibility to do just that. Today, publishers are beginning to move toward hybrid strategies where POD operates alongside offset printers and integrates seamlessly into their retail and distribution systems. 

Lulu’s Flexible Print-on-Demand Solutions

When I first joined the Lulu team over 10 years ago, we were largely known as an indie self-publishing company. A smaller version of Amazon’s KDP (which was CreateSpace way back then); Lulu was among a handful of self-publishers turning the industry on its head. 

Here’s a look at the Lulu website back in 2012, when Lulu was established as one of the top three options for self-published authors.

5 Ways Large Organizations Can Benefit from Lulu's Book Solutions

Doesn’t that just scream self-publishing company

Today, we’re still offering the same opportunities:

  • Publishing is still free
  • You still control your work uploaded to Lulu
  • We’re still a viable way to reach more readers

Self-publishing revolutionized how individual authors and the traditional publishing industry operated. Two key things led to this:

  1. No gatekeepers preventing people from publishing and selling their books
  2. No massive, offset print runs were necessary

That second point is one that, if you’re an author, might seem like old news. Print-on-demand costs more per book to print, but allows for one-off printings. Offset printers usually need at least 10,000 copies in the order for it to be profitable for the printer. Most authors will never sell that many copies of a single book. Ever.

But there’s something critical we (by which I mean the wise leadership team at Lulu) realized after literal years of research and conversations with publishing and printing experts. While authors understood the value of print-on-demand, businesses did not.  

Businesses that sell books or use them as part of their other offerings (think coursework, training manuals, and the like) were still relying on large print runs or using even more expensive, lower-quality options. Largely because when they look at companies like Lulu, they see a self-publisher. A bookseller. A place for authors who can’t land publishing deals.

Which, we are still. But at the core, Lulu is a global print-on-demand network built on APIs and ecommerce integrations

Our infrastructure allows businesses and publishers to treat print as software: programmable, distributed, and responsive to demand in real time. Flexibility is where print-on-demand shines. Lulu is easily the most flexible option in the world for small, complex, or highly variable book printing. 

Solving the Biggest Publisher Pain Points

No, we don’t have the perfect formula for bestsellers or some secret to promoting new books. But Lulu does have practical, technology driven solutions to some of the costly problems modern publishers face.

For commercial printers and publishers, Lulu acts as an agile partner, able to handle overflow or sudden demand with ease. We can take on jobs that would otherwise disrupt press schedules or involve a substantial investment upfront.

1. Reducing Risk While Protecting Unit Economics

Inventory risk is one of the biggest drains on publishers’ profitability. They have to pay upfront for a print run based on the quantity they believe they can sell. This is long before demand is proven and even longer before the book has started to earn revenue.

With POD, books are printed based entirely on demand. That might mean printing each copy as it sells so books don’t need to be warehoused, or it could mean printing a few hundred copies to keep a small stock on hand but not risk the overhead of storing thousands of books. This shift alone frees up cash for businesses and reduces the financial impact of forecasting errors. Importantly, this doesn’t require sacrificing quality or brand control. Lulu offers over 3,200 different product combinations, with the most common inks, paper, and sizes readily available.

This actually leads to print-on-demand supporting per-unit margins that are competitive with offset printing. Once warehousing, returns, and write-offs are factored in, print-on-demand is almost always about as expensive to the business per book. 

The result is a more stable, predictable cost structure. 

Print-on-Demand Book API for Businesses | Lulu
Our free printing API is the perfect way to automate book fulfillment for businesses, publishers, entrepreneurs and startups.
5 Ways Large Organizations Can Benefit from Lulu's Book Solutions

2. Global Manufacturing Without Global Warehousing

Selling internationally has traditionally required international inventory. For a big book release, that might mean an offset order comes from China, is shipped to a variety of warehouses around the world, and stock for bookstores or orders will be shipped from those regional warehouses. Complex logistics, right? And all of this costs the business money up front, well before a single book has sold.

Lulu’s distributed manufacturing model flips that approach. Books are printed closer to the reader from one of our facilities (we’ve got 10 printers in seven countries) and routed based on destination. Publishers can expand into new regions without local inventory, customs complexity, or long shipping times. For books printed on-demand, warehousing might even be necessary.

For publishers selling globally, Lulu can function as a regional POD arm. The result is faster delivery, lower shipping costs, and a better customer experience, all without adding operational overhead.

3. Backlist Revival and OOP Recovery with Print-on-Demand

Backlist access is one of the clearest use cases for print-on-demand. Publisher catalogs with dozens or hundreds of titles that are no longer strong sellers can be brought back into distribution without any financial risk.

Traditional publishers, for most of their existence, have relied on a large upfront order to sell new books. Once that book has been out for a year or more, it moves to the publisher’s backlist. They might sell a few copies a month for a few more years, slowly working through the stock leftover from their initial purchase. 

The problem arises when a book that’s been out for some time has a surge in demand. Say from a movie or TV adaptation or viral content from the author. If the abrupt demand exceeds the books they still have in the warehouse. If there aren’t enough on hand, the publisher has to choose between missing out on potential sales or purchasing another large offset run. 

That’s when Lulu swoops in to save the day. On-demand printing makes it completely reasonable to order a short run or sell copies one at a time. Printing technology has advanced to a point that Toner and InkJet printing is on par with offset methods. And Lulu’s simple process for uploading files makes it easy for publishers to get the exact quantity they need in days rather than weeks or months. 

Instead of choosing which titles deserve to stay alive, publishers can let the market decide.

5 Ways Large Organizations Can Benefit from Lulu's Book Solutions

Your Free Lulu Account

Create a Lulu Account today to print and publish your book for readers all around the world

Create a Free Account

4. Direct-to-Consumer Without Becoming a Fulfillment Company

This is the idea that all print-on-demand dropshipping businesses are built on. You can offer a product on your website and when it sells, create and ship it to that customer. You never touch that product. Never warehouse it either. 

Direct-to-consumer also comes with access to first-party customer data, something increasingly vital. 

For businesses and publishers, offering books on-demand is a means to leverage the best things about direct-to-consumer sales to test new authors. You can test unique or custom formats, offer collections or special editions, or simply give a new author a chance without committing to expensive print runs. 

This advantage of print-on-demand is not being as heavily leveraged by businesses and publishers as the others. Yet. I would be surprised if we don’t see a continuing increase in publishers particularly using POD to test new authors or formats.

My Forever Books Case Study
Wonder how top content creators diversify revenue? Dive into the success story of Joshua from My Forever Books. Discover the potential of print-on-demand
5 Ways Large Organizations Can Benefit from Lulu's Book Solutions

5. Personalization and Experimentation at Scale

I just touched on experimentation. But the more common use case for print-on-demand is personalization.

Personalized books are popular right now and only getting more popular. Consider My Forever Books, a company that turns old text message chains into a printed keepsake. A uniquely simple idea that works because they were able to use Lulu’s API to send a unique file to print for each and every order. 

Other popular customizations include name insertions, dedications, custom editions, and creator-led personalization. Each of these can significantly increase conversion rates and average order value. Or potentially attract new customers who specifically seek out these kinds of personalized books. 

Through API-driven workflows (like Lulu’s API), personalization becomes scalable rather than manual. 

Why the Future of Publishing Demands Flexibility

The future of publishing isn’t about choosing one manufacturing model over another. It’s about building a flexible infrastructure that adapts to demand, absorbs risk, and supports business scaling. Publishers who embrace change will have a competitive advantage—not just in cost, but in resilience and flexibility.

Lulu helps publishers stabilize operations as a stopgap printer, scale globally with international printers, and grow revenue by always ensuring demand can be met.

Kanji of the Day: 幸 [Kanji of the Day]

✍8

小3

happiness, blessing, fortune

コウ

さいわ.い さち しあわ.せ

幸せ   (しあわせ)   —   happiness
幸福   (こうふく)   —   happiness
幸い   (さいわい)   —   happiness
不幸   (ふこう)   —   unhappiness
幸運   (こううん)   —   good luck
幸せ者   (しあわせもの)   —   fortunate person
海の幸   (うみのさち)   —   seafood
幸福の科学   (こうふくのかがく)   —   Kofuku-no-Kagaku
幸福感   (こうふくかん)   —   feeling of happiness
幸先   (さいさき)   —   sign (of things to come)

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 懲 [Kanji of the Day]

✍18

中学

penal, chastise, punish, discipline

チョウ

こ.りる こ.らす こ.らしめる

懲役   (ちょうえき)   —   penal servitude
懲戒処分   (ちょうかいしょぶん)   —   disciplinary measures
無期懲役   (むきちょうえき)   —   life imprisonment
懲戒免職   (ちょうかいめんしょく)   —   disciplinary dismissal (discharge)
懲戒   (ちょうかい)   —   discipline
懲罰   (ちょうばつ)   —   discipline
勧善懲悪   (かんぜんちょうあく)   —   rewarding good and punishing evil
懲役刑   (ちょうえきけい)   —   jail sentence
懲罰委員会   (ちょうばついいんかい)   —   disciplinary committee
懲りない   (こりない)   —   doesn't learn their lesson

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

12:00 AM

Trump, Ellison Wage War On ‘Woke Netflix’ In Effort To Scuttle Warner Brothers Deal, Dominate U.S. Media [Techdirt]

The Trump empire is nothing if not predictable.

Last year we noted repeatedly how the Trump administration and Larry Ellison (owner of CBS) would be joining forces to try and stop Netflix’s $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers. Larry, if you’re not aware, is attempting to buy up what’s left of America’s soggy-ass corporate media (and TikTok) to create a propaganda safe space for America’s increasingly unhinged and anti-democratic extraction class.

Warner Brothers rejected Ellison’s higher $108 billion offer for Netflix, citing Saudi money involvement and dodgy financial math as something that might make approval more difficult. When that failed, Ellison attempted a hostile takeover attempt with the help of the president’s son in law and the Saudis. When that didn’t work, Ellison tried to sue Warner Brothers.

With that going nowhere, Ellison has clearly turned to right wing propaganda to help portray the Netflix acquisition as somehow “woke” and dangerous:

The President has also taken to his personal right wing propaganda social media company to cry about woke Netflix (which had the audacity to air a military TV show featuring gay people that made right wing zealots cry not that long ago):

While Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Brothers likely won’t be great for labor, creatives, or consumers (and Netflix will be eager to debase itself further to get regulatory approval), letting Larry Ellison and his nepobaby son turn the remnants of U.S. corporate media into yet another right wing propaganda empire is arguably a far worse outcome for a country already on the brink of collapse.

When this lazy “woke Netflix” campaign fails, I suspect the Trump DOJ will ultimately launch a bogus antitrust inquiry into the Netflix Warner Brothers merger. This campaign will highlight all manner of real and manufactured horrible impacts of the Netflix deal, ignoring the fact that letting one of the nation’s richest right wing extremists own most of U.S. media would be decidedly worse.

Something of note: Netflix has made it clear it only wants the Warner Brothers studio assets. It doesn’t want the sagging-ratings albatrosses that are CNN or the Discovery TV networks. So even if the Netflix deal somehow survives DOJ challenge, it’s still likely those spun-off assets are acquired by Ellison anyway, at which point he’ll be sure to do the same thing to them he’s currently doing to CBS. Just without the money making IP (DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc.) Warner Brothers owns as a backstop.

Which would still result in a more powerful Larry Ellison agitprop empire, but one slightly more likely to collapse from mismanagement. These are all bad outcomes, but some (authoritarian dominance of the entirety of media of the kind we’ve seen in Orban’s Hungary) are decidedly worse than others. Competent Dem strategists or fans of Democracy looking to help need to make stopping that the top priority, since the ideal outcome (blocking all of these deals) simply isn’t realistically on the table.

Thursday 2026-01-15

11:00 PM

Mad magazine autostereogram, cutecore [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Pop culture is spiralling.

I had no idea what “mad magazine autostereogram, cutecore” meant, but it was enough for Midjourney to create this:

Older generations have always been left out of the codewords and trends of the makers of pop culture, but the gatekeepers and lack of shelf space kept pop, popular. There are only 40 songs in the Top 40, only a few hit network TV shows.

Three things have changed:

  1. The long tail means that there’s room for more. Always. As many as 25% of all Spotify songs have only been listened to a few times. The average video on YouTube is seen once a day.
  2. AI generation of art, music, video and writing means that the pace of creation is going to grow exponentially.
  3. Memetic identities, genres and codewords are easier for AI to begin with than complex images. And so, new genres multiply, get exaggerated, evolve and morph into new genres. It’s genetic material, run amok.

The end result is that pop is not popular anymore. It may never be again. The center was a moment in time, but the edges are now everywhere.

We should plan accordingly.

      

09:00 PM

New Release: Tails 7.4 [Tor Project blog]

New feature

Persistent language and formats

You can now save your language, keyboard layout, and formats from the Welcome Screen to the USB stick. These settings will be applied automatically when restarting Tails.

If you turn on this option, your language and formats settings are saved unencrypted on the USB stick to help you type the passphrase of your Persistent Storage more easily.

Changes and updates

  • Update Tor Browser to 15.0.4.

  • Update Thunderbird to 140.6.0.

  • Update the Linux kernel to 6.12.63.

  • Drop support for BitTorrent download.

With the ongoing transition from BitTorrent v1 to v2, the BitTorrent v1 files that we provided until now can become a security concern. We don't think that updating to BitTorrent v2 is worth the extra migration and maintenance cost for our team.

Direct download from one of our mirrors is usually faster.

Fixed problems

  • Fix opening .gpg encrypted files in Kleopatra when double-clicking or selecting Open with Kleopatra from the shortcut menu. (#21281)

  • Fix the desktop crashing when unlocking VeraCrypt volumes with a wrong password. (#21286)

  • Use 24-hour time format consistently in the top navigation bar and the lock screen. (#21310)

For more details, read our changelog.

Get Tails 7.4

To upgrade your Tails USB stick and keep your Persistent Storage

  • Automatic upgrades are available from Tails 7.0 or later to 7.4.

  • If you cannot do an automatic upgrade or if Tails fails to start after an automatic upgrade, please try to do a manual upgrade.

To install Tails 7.4 on a new USB stick

Follow our installation instructions:

The Persistent Storage on the USB stick will be lost if you install instead of upgrading.

To download only

If you don't need installation or upgrade instructions, you can download Tails 7.4 directly:

Support and feedback

For support and feedback, visit the Support section on the Tails website.

07:00 PM

French Court Orders Popular VPNs to Block More Pirate Sites, Despite Opposition [TorrentFreak]

goalSince 2024, the Paris Judicial Court has expanded the typical piracy site blocking orders beyond Internet providers.

Initially, rightsholders set their aim at DNS resolvers. This resulted in orders targeted at Cloudflare, Google, and others, requiring them to actively block access to pirate sites through their public DNS resolvers.

These blocking expansions were requested by sports rights holders, covering Formula 1, football Ligue 1, MotoGP, and other major sporting brands. They claimed that public DNS resolvers could help users to bypass existing ISP blockades, and the court agreed.

Last year, rightsholders cast their net even wider by targeting VPN providers with similar blocking demands. Again, the Paris Court acknowledged the threat of circumvention, ordering CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN, and Surfshark to start blocking access to specific websites in France.

VPN Blocking Expands

The VPN blocking effort was not a one-off. After the first order was granted in May, more followed in June and July. These additional orders target various sports piracy sites as requested by the French entertainment powerhouse Canal Plus (SECP) and beIN Sports.

After this initial barrage, the blocking activity seemed to have quieted down, but it is far from over. On December 18, the Paris Judicial Court issued a new blocking order. This time around, the French top football league (LFP) and its commercial arm are the requesting parties.

As in previous orders, ProtonVPN, Nordvpn, Cyberghost, Surfshark and ExpressVPN are the main targets. These VPN providers have to block access to several domains that provide access to pirated sports streams.

The order covers 13 initial domains, including miztv.top, strikeout.im, and prosmarterstv.com. However, it is a ‘dynamic’ order in the sense that, through the overseeing body ARCOM, LFP can add new domains in case additional mirrors and proxies are launched. These blocks remain active for the entire 2025/2026 football season.

The court concludes that these VPNs help people to bypass existing site-blocking measures, rendering ISP blocking ineffective. While the VPN blockades are no silver bullet, combined with other blocking measures they should make it more difficult to access these pirate sites.

The No-Log Defense

All VPN providers, except ProtonVPN, appeared in court to argue a defense. They raised various arguments, with the “no-log” defense from Surfshark and NordVPN standing out.

Specifically, the VPNs argued that their “no-log” policy means they do not track user IP addresses or geolocate their users. Therefore, a court order to block access only for French users would violate their contractual obligations.

The court was not very receptive to this argument. Instead, it bluntly concluded that “the contractual stipulations binding VPN service providers to their clients cannot be invoked against [the plaintiffs] who have demonstrated an infringement of their rights.”

The court stressed that blocking the domains does not require the service to permanently store information on its users. The VPNs simply have to make sure that the sites are blocked from France.

In addition, the court rejected the notion that the blocking measures would constitute a “general monitoring obligation”, which is not allowed under the EU’s DSA, because the measures are limited to specific domains and end after the 2025-2026 football season.

Court Rejects Other Defenses

The VPNs also argued that their services don’t qualify as “technical intermediaries” under Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code, but that was denied by the Paris court as well. The same applies to the proportionality and effectiveness arguments, which all failed.

The court’s logic throughout the order is that technical neutrality does not equal legal immunity.

By citing the DSA and the Sports Code, the judge effectively argues that VPN services can be key intermediaries in the piracy ecosystem. Therefore, they are legally obligated to act.

“Contrary to the assertions of Surfshark and NordVPN, the mere act of serving as a bridge to enable access to the pirate sites fulfills the function of transmission. Even if an intermediary acts in a passive, automatic, and neutral manner during the connection between internet domains, it nonetheless remains an essential agent in the transmission of data from one domain to another,” the (translated) order reads.

What Happens Next?

The latest ruling confirms that VPN providers can be obligated to block pirate sites, at least in France. However, the final word hasn’t been said.

Speaking with TorrentFreak this week, a NordVPN spokesperson confirms that their appeal is already underway. The company did not directly explain how it complies with the court order but instead said that site-blocking measures are futile.

“While it may address superficial cases, it fails to tackle the root causes of piracy. Pirates can easily circumvent these blocks by using subdomains: blocking does not eliminate the content itself or reduce the incentives for piracy,” NordVPN notes.

“Effective piracy control should focus on eliminating the source of the content, targeting hosting providers, cutting off financing for illegal operations, and increasing the availability of legitimate content.”

In addition, NordVPN notes that, since the French order targets reputable VPNs, users may choose lower-quality free VPNs that will remain a loophole for pirates.

For now, however, the targeted VPN providers have to find a way to implement the blocking order. The court order doesn’t specify any technical measures, so they are free to do as they please, as long as the targeted sites are unavailable.

If the French VPN blockades are ultimately upheld, some providers may choose to leave the country entirely, but none have made this drastic step yet.

A copy of the order issued by the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris in favor of LFP is available here (pdf). A list of all the targeted domain names is available below.

1. miztv.top
2. strikeout.im
3. qatarstreams.me
4. iptvfrancai.com
5. vip.kata17.xyz
6. iptv-france4k.fr
7. front-main.4k-drm.com
8. prosmarterstv.com
9. line.line-dino.com
10. iptvninja.fr
11. cdnhome.pro
12. elitetv.fr
13. smatest.xyz

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

03:00 PM

New Year, But The Same Measles Crises Rages On [Techdirt]

Meet the new year, same as the old year, at least as far as America’s measles problem goes. We talked a lot about this disease last year, and for good reason. In RFK Jr.’s first year as Secretary of HHS, America managed to suffer its worst measles infection count since 1991. A direct product of the anti-vaxxer bullshit Kennedy and his followers have been pushing for years, America collected 2,144 confirmed cases of measles in 2025. That number is certainly an under-count, with who knows how many undiagnosed cases existing out there. Three people, including two otherwise healthy children, died. America is all but certain to have lost its elimination status of the disease. Of all the gravel-mouthed words that spilled out of Kennedy’s mouth in 2025, there were relatively few of them reserved for this highly contagious and deadly disease that is now circulating via various outbreaks in the country who’s health he’s in charge of managing.

The start of 2026 is likely to set us up for an even worse year for measles than the last. Over 5% of the total infections of measles in 2025 were reported in the last week of the year or so. It’s not slowing down. This disaster of a train may be still pulling out of the station, but it’s picking up speed. And while the CDC’s measles website, linked above, isn’t updated more than once a week at most, health officials are reporting a ton of infections in the ongoing South Carolina outbreak alone.

In a regularly scheduled update this afternoon, the health department said 99 cases were identified since Tuesday, bringing the outbreak total to 310 cases. There are currently 200 people in quarantine and nine in isolation. However, the outbreak is expanding so quickly and with so many exposure sites that health officials are struggling to trace cases and identify people at risk.

“An increasing number of public exposure sites are being identified with likely hundreds more people exposed who are not aware they should be in quarantine if they are not immune to measles,” Linda Bell, state epidemiologist and the health department’s incident commander for the measles outbreak, said in the announcement. “Previous measles transmission studies have shown that one measles case can result in up to 20 new infections among unvaccinated contacts.”

It’s not just the unvaccinated any longer. As 2025 went on, we began to see an uptick in what are called “breakthrough cases.” Health professionals who know what they’re talking about will tell you that 2 doses of the MMR vaccine are roughly 97% effective in preventing a measles infection. That leaves 3% of people exposed at a minimum and that’s before we get into the discussion of how that number is impacted the lower we get from the 95% immunization target to achieve true herd immunity. And if you followed the reported infection statistics throughout last year as I did, you saw the percentage of infections occurring among those that had gotten either 1 or 2 doses of the MMR vaccine increase.

At the end of the year, 3% of the infected had had one dose of the MMR vaccine, and 4% had two doses. Early in the year, those were hovering between 1% and 2% and then grew. Responsible people who protected not only themselves but their fellow citizens by doing the right thing and getting their shots were put at risk and infected by those who didn’t. This failure of civil responsibility once again went largely unchallenged by RFK Jr. because of some combination of lunacy and his own financial interests.

And the real fun hasn’t even begun yet. Measles is crazy infectious and likes to hide its contagious nature early in the infection, not to mention that the disease causes immunity amnesia for all kinds of other diseases, making those infected susceptible to all kinds of diseases despite inoculation, such as chickenpox and COVID19.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which only has data as of January 6, has tallied three confirmed cases for this year (two in South Carolina and one in North Carolina, linked to the South Carolina outbreak). Since then, South Carolina reported 26 cases on Tuesday and 99 today, totaling 125. North Carolina also reported three additional cases Tuesday, again linked to the South Carolina outbreak. In all, that brings the US tally to at least 131 just nine days into the year.

Do the math. Even if we pretend for a moment that infectious diseases like measles don’t work on an exponential schedule, we’re already on pace for well over 5,000 measles infections this year. Unless something is done, it will be many, many more cases than that. And a possible resurgence of COVID19, something to which I really did think Trump would be particularly allergic.

Unfortunately, rationality appears to have gone out of style. Replaced, I suppose, by a facial rash that then descends into further complications.

12:00 PM

We Found More Than 40 Cases Of Immigration Agents Using Banned Chokeholds And Other Moves That Can Cut Off Breathing [Techdirt]

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license. The original version has even more horrifying photographs and videos of agents engaging in this kind of behavior.

Immigration agents have put civilians’ lives at risk using more than their guns.

An agent in Houston put a teenage citizen into a chokehold, wrapping his arm around the boy’s neck, choking him so hard that his neck had red welts hours later. A black-masked agent in Los Angeles pressed his knee into a woman’s neck while she was handcuffed; she then appeared to pass out. An agent in Massachusetts jabbed his finger and thumb into the neck and arteries of a young father who refused to be separated from his wife and 1-year-old daughter. The man’s eyes rolled back in his head and he started convulsing.

After George Floyd’s murder by a police officer six years ago in Minneapolis — less than a mile from where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good last week — police departments and federal agencies banned chokeholds and other moves that can restrict breathing or blood flow.

But those tactics are back, now at the hands of agents conducting President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Examples are scattered across social media. ProPublica found more than 40 cases over the past year of immigration agents using these life-threatening maneuvers on immigrants, citizens and protesters. The agents are usually masked, their identities secret. The government won’t say if any of them have been punished.

In nearly 20 cases, agents appeared to use chokeholds and other neck restraints that the Department of Homeland Security prohibits “unless deadly force is authorized.”

About two dozen videos show officers kneeling on people’s necks or backs or keeping them face down on the ground while already handcuffed. Such tactics are not prohibited outright but are often discouraged, including by federal trainers, in part because using them for a prolonged time risks asphyxiation.

We reviewed footage with a panel of eight former police officers and law enforcement experts. They were appalled.

This is what bad policing looks like, they said. And it puts everyone at risk.

“I arrested dozens upon dozens of drug traffickers, human smugglers, child molesters — some of them will resist,” said Eric Balliet, who spent more than two decades working at Homeland Security Investigations and Border Patrol, including in the first Trump administration. “I don’t remember putting anybody in a chokehold. Period.”

“If this was one of my officers, he or she would be facing discipline,” said Gil Kerlikowske, a longtime police chief in Seattle who also served as Customs and Border Protection commissioner under President Barack Obama. “You have these guys running around in fatigues, with masks, with ‘Police’ on their uniform,” but they aren’t acting like professional police.

Over the past week, the conduct of agents has come under intense scrutiny after an ICE officer in Minneapolis killed Good, a mother of three. The next day, a Border Patrol agent in Portland, Oregon, shot a man and woman in a hospital parking lot.

Top administration officials rushed to defend the officers. Speaking about the agent who shot Good, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said, “This is an experienced officer who followed his training.”

Officials said the same thing to us after we showed them footage of officers using prohibited chokeholds. Federal agents have “followed their training to use the least amount of force necessary,” department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said.

“Officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.

Both DHS and the White House lauded the “utmost professionalism” of their agents.

Our compilation of incidents is far from complete. Just as the government does not count how often it detains citizens or smashes through vehicle windows during immigration arrests, it does not publicly track how many times agents have choked civilians or otherwise inhibited their breathing or blood flow. We gathered cases by searching legal filings, social media posts and local press reports in English and Spanish.

Given the lack of any count over time, it’s impossible to know for certain how agents’ current use of the banned and dangerous tactics compares with earlier periods.

But former immigration officials told us they rarely heard of such incidents during their long tenures. They also recalled little pushback when DHS formally banned chokeholds and other tactics in 2023; it was merely codifying the norm.

That norm has now been broken.

One of the citizens whom agents put in a chokehold was 16 years old.

Tenth grader Arnoldo Bazan and his father were getting McDonald’s before school when their car was pulled over by unmarked vehicles. Masked immigration agents started banging on their windows. As Arnoldo’s undocumented father, Arnulfo Bazan Carrillo, drove off, the terrified teenager began filming on his phone. The video shows the agents repeatedly ramming the Bazans’ car during a slow chase through the city.

Bazan Carrillo eventually parked and ran into a restaurant supply store. When Arnoldo saw agents taking his father violently to the ground, Arnoldo went inside too, yelling at the agents to stop.

One agent put Arnoldo in a chokehold while another pressed a knee into his father’s neck. “I was going to school!” the boy pleaded. He said later that when he told the agent he was a citizen and a minor, the agent didn’t stop.

“I started screaming with everything I had, because I couldn’t even breathe,” Arnoldo told ProPublica, showing where the agent’s hands had closed around his throat. “I felt like I was going to pass out and die.”

DHS’ McLaughlin accused Arnoldo’s dad of ramming his car “into a federal law enforcement vehicle,” but he was never charged for that, and the videos we reviewed do not support this claim. Our examination of his criminal history — separate from any immigration violations — found only that Bazan Carrillo pleaded guilty a decade ago to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated.

McLaughlin also said the younger Bazan elbowed an officer in the face as he was detained, which the teen denies. She said that Arnoldo was taken into custody to confirm his identity and make sure he didn’t have any weapons. McLaughlin did not answer whether the agent’s conduct was justified.

Experts who reviewed video of the Bazans’ arrests could make no sense of the agents’ actions.

“Why are you in the middle of a store trying to grab somebody?” said Marc Brown, a former police officer turned instructor who taught ICE and Border Patrol officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. “Your arm underneath the neck, like a choking motion? No! The knee on the neck? Absolutely not.”

DHS revamped its training curriculum after George Floyd’s murder to underscore those tactics were out of bounds, Brown said. “DHS specifically was very big on no choking,” he said. “We don’t teach that. They were, like, hardcore against it. They didn’t want to see anything with the word ‘choke.’”

After agents used another banned neck restraint — a carotid hold — a man started convulsing and passed out.

In early November, ICE agents in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, stopped a young father, Carlos Sebastian Zapata Rivera, as he drove with his family. They had come for his undocumented wife, whom they targeted after she was charged with assault for allegedly stabbing a co-worker in the hand with scissors.

Body camera footage from the local police, obtained by ProPublica, captured much of what happened. The couple’s 1-year-old daughter began crying. Agents surrounded the car, looking in through open doors.

According to the footage, an agent told Zapata Rivera that if his wife wouldn’t come out, they would have to arrest him, too — and their daughter would be sent into the foster system. The agent recounted the conversation to a local cop: “Technically, I can arrest both of you,” he said. “If you no longer have a child, because the child is now in state custody, you’re both gonna be arrested. Do you want to give your child to the state?”

Zapata Rivera, who has a pending asylum claim, clung to his family. His wife kept saying she wouldn’t go anywhere without her daughter, whom she said was still breastfeeding. Zapata Rivera wouldn’t let go of either of them.

Federal agents seemed conflicted on how to proceed. “I refuse to have us videotaped throwing someone to the ground while they have a child in their hands,” one ICE agent told a police officer at the scene.

But after more than an hour, agents held down Zapata Rivera’s arms. One, who Zapata Rivera’s lawyer says wore a baseball cap reading “Ne Quis Effugiat” — Latin for “So That None Will Escape” — pressed his thumbs into the arteries on Zapata Rivera’s neck. The young man then appeared to pass out as bystanders screamed.

The technique is known as a carotid restraint. The two carotid arteries carry 70% of the brain’s blood flow; block them, and a person can quickly lose consciousness. The tactic can cause strokes, seizures, brain damage — and death.

“Even milliseconds or seconds of interrupted blood flow to the brain can have serious consequences,” Dr. Altaf Saadi, a neurologist and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, told us. Saadi said she couldn’t comment on specific cases, “but there is no amount of training or method of applying pressure on the neck that is foolproof in terms of avoiding neurologic damage.”

In a bystander video of Zapata Rivera’s arrest, his eyes roll back in his head and he suffers an apparent seizure, convulsing so violently that his daughter, seated in his lap, shakes with him.

“Carotid restraints are prohibited unless deadly force is authorized,” DHS’ use-of-force policy states. Deadly force is authorized only when an officer believes there’s an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” and there is “no alternative.”

In a social media post after the incident and in its statement to ProPublica, DHS did not cite a deadly threat. Instead, it referenced the charges against Zapata Rivera’s wife and suggested he had only pretended to have a medical crisis while refusing help from paramedics. “Imagine FAKING a seizure to help a criminal escape justice,” the post said.

“These statements were lies,” Zapata Rivera alleges in an ongoing civil rights lawsuit he filed against the ICE agent who used the carotid restraint. His lawyer told ProPublica that Zapata Rivera was disoriented after regaining consciousness; the lawsuit says he was denied medical attention. (Representatives for Zapata Rivera declined our requests for an interview with him. His wife has been released on bond, and her assault case awaits trial.)

A police report and bodycam footage from Fitchburg officers at the scene, obtained via a public records request, back up Zapata Rivera’s account of being denied assistance. “He’s fine,” an agent told paramedics, according to footage. The police report says Zapata Rivera wanted medical attention but “agents continued without stopping.”

Saadi, the Harvard neurologist, said that as a general matter, determining whether someone had a seizure is “not something even neurologists can do accurately just by looking at it.”

DHS policy bars using chokeholds and carotid restraints just because someone is resisting arrest. Agents are doing it anyway.

When DHS issued restrictions on chokeholds and carotid restraints, it stated that the moves “must not be used as a means to control non-compliant subjects or persons resisting arrest.” Deadly force “shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject.”

But videos reviewed by ProPublica show that agents have been using these restraints to do just that.

In Los Angeles in June, masked officers from ICE, Border Patrol and other federal agencies pepper-sprayed and then tackled another citizen, Luis Hipolito. As Hipolito struggled to get away, one of the agents put him in a chokehold. Another pointed a Taser at bystanders filming.

Then Hipolito’s body began to convulse — a possible seizure. An onlooker warned the agents, “You gonna let him die.”

When officers make a mistake in the heat of the moment, said Danny Murphy, a former deputy commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department, they need to “correct it as quickly as possible.”

That didn’t happen in Hipolito’s case. The footage shows the immigration agent not only wrapping his arm around Hipolito’s neck as he takes him down but also sticking with the chokehold after Hipolito is pinned on the ground.

The agent’s actions are “dangerous and unreasonable,” Murphy said.

Asked about the case, McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson, said that Hipolito was arrested for assaulting an ICE officer. Hipolito’s lawyers did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Hipolito limped into court days after the incident. Another citizen who was with him the day of the incident was also charged, but her case was dropped. Hipolito pleaded not guilty and goes to trial in February.

Some of the conduct in the footage isn’t banned — but it’s discouraged and dangerous.

A video from Los Angeles shows a Colombian-born TikTokker who often filmed ICE apparently passed out after officers pulled her from her Tesla and knelt on her neck. Another video shows a DoorDash driver in Portland, Oregon, screaming for air as four officers pin him face down in the street. “Aire, aire, aire,” he says. “No puedo respirar” — I can’t breathe. Then: “Estoy muriendo” — I’m dying. A third video, from Chicago, shows an agent straddling a citizen and repeatedly pressing his face into the asphalt. Onlookers yell that the man can’t breathe.

Placing a knee on a prone subject’s neck or weight on their back isn’t banned under DHS’ use-of-force policy, but it can be dangerous — and the longer it goes on, the higher the risk that the person won’t be able to breathe.

“You really don’t want to spend that amount of time just trying to get somebody handcuffed,” said Kerlikowske, the former CPB commissioner, of the video of the arrest in Portland.

Brown, the former federal instructor and now a lead police trainer at the University of South Carolina, echoed that. “Once you get them handcuffed, you get them up, get them out of there,” he said. “If they’re saying they can’t breathe, hurry up.”

Taking a person down to the ground and restraining them there can be an appropriate way to get them in handcuffs, said Seth Stoughton, a former police officer turned law professor who also works at the University of South Carolina. But officers have long known to make it quick. By the mid-1990s, the federal government was advising officers against keeping people prolongedly in a prone position.

When a federal agent kneeled on the neck of an intensive care nurse in August, she said she understood the danger she was in and tried to scream.

“I knew that the amount of pressure being placed on the back of my neck could definitely hurt me,” said Amanda Trebach, a citizen and activist who was arrested in Los Angeles while monitoring immigration agents. “I was having a hard time breathing because my chest was on the ground.”

McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson, said Trebach impeded agents’ vehicles and struck them with her signs and fists.

Trebach denies this. She was released without any charges.

Protesters have also been choked and strangled.

In the fall, a protester in Chicago refused to stand back after a federal agent told him to do so. Suddenly, the agent grabbed the man by the throat and slammed him to the ground.

“No, no!” one bystander exclaims. “He’s not doing anything!”

DHS’ McLaughlin did not respond to questions about the incident.

Along with two similar choking incidents at protests outside of ICE facilities, this is one of the few videos in which the run-up to the violence is clear. And the experts were aghast.

“Without anything I could see as even remotely a deadly force threat, he immediately goes for the throat,” said Ashley Heiberger, a retired police captain from Pennsylvania who frequently testifies in use-of-force cases. Balliet, the former immigration official, said the agent turned the scene into a “pissing contest” that was “explicitly out of control.”

“It’s so clearly excessive and ridiculous,” Murphy said. “That’s the kind of action which should get you fired.”

“How big a threat did you think he was?” Brown said, noting that the officer slung his rifle around his back before grabbing and body-slamming the protester. “You can’t go grab someone just because they say, ‘F the police.’”

Roving patrols + unplanned arrests = unsafe tactics.

In November, Border Patrol agents rushed into the construction site of a future Panda Express in Charlotte, North Carolina, to check workers’ papers. When one man tried to run, an officer put him in a chokehold and later marched him out, bloodied, to a waiting SUV.

The Charlotte operation was one of Border Patrol’s many forays into American cities, as agents led by commander-at-large Gregory Bovino claimed to target “criminal illegal aliens” but frequently chased down landscapers, construction workers and U.S. citizens in roving patrols through predominantly immigrant or Latino communities.

Freelance photographer Ryan Murphy, who had been following Border Patrol’s convoys around Charlotte, documented the Panda Express arrest.

“Their tactics are less sophisticated than you would think,” he told ProPublica. “They sort of drive along the streets, and if they see somebody who looks to them like they could potentially be undocumented, they pull over.”

Experts told ProPublica that if officers are targeting a specific individual, they can minimize risks by deciding when, where and how to take them into custody. But when they don’t know their target in advance, chaos — and abuse — can follow.

“They are encountering people they don’t know anything about,” said Scott Shuchart, a former assistant director at ICE.

“The stuff that I’ve been seeing in the videos,” Kerlikowske said, “has been just ragtag, random.”

There may be other factors, too, our experts said, including quotas and a lack of consequences amid gutted oversight. With officers wearing masks, Shuchart said, “even if they punch grandma in the face, they won’t be identified.”

As they sweep into American cities, immigration officers are unconstrained — and, the experts said, unprepared. Even well-trained officers may not be trained for the environments where they now operate. Patrolling a little-populated border region takes one set of skills. Working in urban areas, where citizens — and protesters — abound, takes another.

DHS and Bovino did not respond to questions about their agents’ preparation or about the chokehold in Charlotte.

Experts may think there’s abuse. But holding officers to account? That’s another matter.

Back in Houston, immigration officers dropped 16-year-old Arnoldo off at the doorstep of his family home a few hours after the arrest. His neck was bruised, and his new shirt was shredded. Videos taken by his older sisters show the soccer star struggling to speak through sobs.

Uncertain what exactly had happened to him, his sister Maria Bazan took him to Texas Children’s Hospital, where staff identified signs of the chokehold and moved him to the trauma unit. Hospital records show he was given morphine for pain and that doctors ordered a dozen CT scans and X-rays, including of his neck, spine and head.

From the hospital, Maria called the Houston Police Department and tried to file a report, the family said. After several unsuccessful attempts, she took Arnoldo to the department in person, where she says officers were skeptical of the account and their own ability to investigate federal agents.

Arnoldo had filmed much of the incident, but agents had taken his phone. He used Find My to locate the phone — at a vending machine for used electronics miles away, close to an ICE detention center. The footage, which ProPublica has reviewed, backed the family’s account of the chase.

The family says Houston police still haven’t interviewed them. A department spokesperson told ProPublica it was not investigating the case, referring questions to DHS. But the police have also not released bodycam footage and case files aside from a top sheet, citing an open investigation.

“We can’t do anything,” Maria said one officer told her. “What can HPD do to federal agents?”

Elsewhere in the country, some officials are trying to hold federal immigration officers to account.

In California, the state Legislature passed bills prohibiting immigration officers from wearing masks and requiring them to display identification during operations.

In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker signed a law that allows residents to sue any officer who violates state or federal constitutional rights. (The Trump administration quickly filed legal challenges against California and Illinois, claiming their new laws are unconstitutional.)

In Colorado, Durango’s police chief saw a recent video of an immigration officer using a chokehold on a protester and reported it to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which announced it was looking into the incident.

In Minnesota, state and local leaders are collecting evidence in Renee Good’s killing even as the federal government cut the state out of its investigation.

Arnoldo is still waiting for Houston authorities to help him, still terrified that a masked agent will come first. Amid soccer practice and making up schoolwork he missed while recovering, he watches and rewatches the videos from that day. The car chase, the chokehold, his own screams at the officers to leave his dad alone. His father in the driver’s seat, calmly handing Arnoldo his wallet and phone while stopping mid-chase for red lights.

The Bazan family said agents threatened to charge Arnoldo if his dad didn’t agree to be deported. DHS spokesperson McLaughlin did not respond when asked about the alleged threat. Arnoldo’s dad is now in Mexico. 

Asked why an officer choked Arnoldo, McLaughlin pointed to the boy’s alleged assault with his elbow, adding, “The federal law enforcement officer graciously chose not to press charges.”

How We Did It

ProPublica journalists Nicole Foy, McKenzie Funk, Joanna Shan, Haley Clark and Cengiz Yar gathered videos via Spanish and English social media posts, local press reports and court records. We then sent a selection of these videos to eight police experts and former immigration officials, along with as much information as we could gather about the lead-up to and context of each incident. The experts analyzed the videos with us, explaining when and how officers used dangerous tactics that appeared to go against their training or that have been banned under the Department of Homeland Security’s use-of-force policy.

We also tried to contact every person we could identify being choked or kneeled on. In some cases, we also reached out to bystanders.

Research reporter Mariam Elba conducted criminal record searches of every person we featured in this story. She also attempted to fact-check the allegations that DHS made about the civilians and their arrests. Our findings are not comprehensive because there is no universal criminal record database.

We also sent every video cited in this story to the White House, DHS, CBP, ICE, border czar Tom Homan and Border Patrol’s Gregory Bovino. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin provided a statement responding to some of the incidents we found but she did not explain why agents used banned tactics or whether any of the agents have been disciplined for doing so.

10:00 AM

Pluralistic: It's not normal (14 Jan 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Top Sources: None -->

Today's links



A 1790 illustration entitled 'The World Turned Upside-Down.' It features a topsy-turvy nature scene in which a giant fish stands on the bank, fishing for a human who is gasping in the water. The sky is filled with flying fishes and eels, the sea is filled with swimming birds. The image has been hand-tinted. The background has been replaced with a printed circuit board.

It's not normal (permalink)

Samantha: This town has a weird smell that you're all probably used to…but I'm not.

Mrs Krabappel: It'll take you about six weeks, dear.

-The Simpsons, "Bart's Friend Falls in Love," S3E23, May 7, 1992

We are living through weird times, and they've persisted for so long that you probably don't even notice it. But these times are not normal.

Now, I realize that this covers a lot of ground, and without detracting from all the other ways in which the world is weird and bad, I want to focus on one specific and pervasive and awful way in which this world is not normal, in part because this abnormality has a defined cause, a precise start date, and an obvious, actionable remedy.

6 years, 5 months and 22 days after Fox aired "Bart's Friend Falls in Love," Bill Clinton signed a new bill into law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).

Under Section 1201 of the DMCA, it's a felony to modify your own property in ways that the manufacturer disapproves of, even if your modifications accomplish some totally innocuous, legal, and socially beneficial goal. Not a little felony, either: DMCA 1201 provides for a five year sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first offense.

Back when the DMCA was being debated, its proponents insisted that their critics were overreacting. They pointed to the legal barriers to invoking DMCA 1201, and insisted that these new restrictions would only apply to a few marginal products in narrow ways that the average person would never even notice.

But that was obvious nonsense, obvious even in 1998, and far more obvious today, more than a quarter-century on. In order for a manufacturer to criminalize modifications to your own property, they have to satisfy two criteria: first, they must sell you a device with a computer in it; and second, they must design that computer with an "access control" that you have to work around in order to make a modification.

For example, say your toaster requires that you scan your bread before it will toast it, to make sure that you're only using a special, expensive kind of bread that kicks back a royalty to the manufacturer. If the embedded computer that does the scanning ships from the factory with a program that is supposed to prevent you from turning off the scanning step, then it is a felony to modify your toaster to work with "unauthorized bread":

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/

If this sounds outlandish, then a) You definitely didn't walk the floor at CES last week, where there were a zillion "cooking robots" that required proprietary feedstock; and b) You haven't really thought hard about your iPhone (which will not allow you to install software of your choosing):

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

But back in 1998, computers – even the kind of low-powered computers that you'd embed in an appliance – were expensive and relatively rare. No longer! Today, manufacturers source powerful "System on a Chip" (SoC) processors at prices ranging from $0.25 to $8. These are full-fledged computers, easily capable of running an "access control" that satisfies DMCA 1201.

Likewise, in 1998, "access controls" (also called "DRM," "technical protection measures," etc) were a rarity in the field. That was because computer scientists broadly viewed these measures as useless. A determined adversary could always find a way around an access control, and they could package up that break as a software tool and costlessly, instantaneously distribute it over the internet to everyone in the world who wanted to do something that an access control impeded. Access controls were a stupid waste of engineering resources and a source of needless complexity and brittleness:

https://memex.craphound.com/2012/01/10/lockdown-the-coming-war-on-general-purpose-computing/

But – as critics pointed out in 1998 – chips were obviously going to get much cheaper, and if the US Congress made it a felony to bypass an access control, then every kind of manufacturer would be tempted to add some cheap SoCs to their products so they could add access controls and thereby felonize any uses of their products that cut into their profits. Basically, the DMCA offered manufacturers a bargain: add a dollar or two to the bill of materials for your product, and in return, the US government will imprison any competitors who offer your customers a "complementary good" that improves on it.

It's even worse than this: another thing that was obvious in 1998 was that once a manufacturer added a chip to a device, they would probably also figure out a way to connect it to the internet. Once that device is connected to the internet, the manufacturer can push software updates to it at will, which will be installed without user intervention. What's more, by using an access control in connection with that over-the-air update mechanism, the manufacturer can make it a felony to block its updates.

Which means that a manufacturer can sell you a device and then mandatorily update it at a later date to take away its functionality, and then sell that functionality back to you as a "subscription":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/28/fade-to-black/#trust-the-process

A thing that keeps happening:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/20/24202166/snoo-premium-subscription-happiest-baby

And happening:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

And happening:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/24/record-scratch/#autoenshittification

In fact, it happens so often I've coined a term for it, "The Darth Vader MBA" (as in, "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further"):

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/01/fulu/#i-am-altering-the-deal

Here's what this all means: any manufacturer who devotes a small amount of engineering work and incurs a small hardware expense can extinguish private property rights altogether.

What do I mean by private property? Well, we can look to Blackstone's 1753 treatise:

The right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.

You can't own your iPhone. If you take your iPhone to Apple and they tell you that it is beyond repair, you have to throw it away. If the repair your phone needs involves "parts pairing" (where a new part won't be recognized until an Apple technician "initializes" it through a DMCA-protected access control), then it's a felony to get that phone fixed somewhere else. If Apple tells you your phone is no longer supported because they've updated their OS, then it's a felony to wipe the phone and put a different OS on it (because installing a new OS involves bypassing an "access control" in the phone's bootloader). If Apple tells you that you can't have a piece of software – like ICE Block, an app that warns you if there are nearby ICE killers who might shoot you in the head through your windshield, which Apple has barred from its App Store on the grounds that ICE is a "protected class" – then you can't install it, because installing software that isn't delivered via the App Store involves bypassing an "access control" that checks software to ensure that it's authorized (just like the toaster with its unauthorized bread).

It's not just iPhones: versions of this play out in your medical implants (hearing aid, insulin pump, etc); appliances (stoves, fridges, washing machines); cars and ebikes; set-top boxes and game consoles; ebooks and streaming videos; small appliances (toothbrushes, TVs, speakers), and more.

Increasingly, things that you actually own are the exception, not the rule.

And this is not normal. The end of ownership represents an overturn of a foundation of modern civilization. The fact that the only "people" who can truly own something are the transhuman, immortal colony organisms we call "Limited Liability Corporations" is an absolutely surreal reversal of the normal order of things.

It's a reversal with deep implications: for one thing, it means that you can't protect yourself from raids on your private data or ready cash by adding privacy blockers to your device, which would make it impossible for airlines or ecommerce sites to guess about how rich/desperate you are before quoting you a "personalized price":

https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/11/nothing-personal/#instacartography

It also means you can't stop your device from leaking information about your movements, or even your conversations – Microsoft has announced that it will gather all of your private communications and ship them to its servers for use by "agentic AI":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ANECpNdt-4

Microsoft has also confirmed that it provides US authorities with warrantless, secret access to your data:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2025/07/22/microsoft-cant-keep-eu-data-safe-from-us-authorities/

This is deeply abnormal. Sure, greedy corporate control freaks weren't invented in the 21st century, but the laws that let those sociopaths put you in prison for failing to arrange your affairs to their benefit – and your own detriment – are.

But because computers got faster and cheaper over decades, the end of ownership has had an incremental rollout, and we've barely noticed that it's happened. Sure, we get irritated when our garage-door opener suddenly requires us to look at seven ads every time we use the app that makes it open or close:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

But societally, we haven't connected that incident to this wider phenomenon. It stinks here, but we're all used to it.

It's not normal to buy a book and then not be able to lend it, sell it, or give it away. Lending, selling and giving away books is older than copyright. It's older than publishing. It's older than printing. It's older than paper. It is fucking weird (and also terrible) (obviously) that there's a new kind of very popular book that you can go to prison for lending, selling or giving away.

We're just a few cycles away from a pair of shoes that can figure out which shoelaces you're using, or a dishwasher that can block you from using third-party dishes:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/if-dishwashers-were-iphones

It's not normal, and it has profound implications for our security, our privacy, and our society. It makes us easy pickings for corporate vampires who drain our wallets through the gadgets and tools we rely on. It makes us easy pickings for fascists and authoritarians who ally themselves with corporate vampires by promising them tax breaks in exchange for collusion in the destruction of a free society.

I know that these problems are more important than whether or not we think this is normal. But still. It. Is. Just. Not. Normal.


Hey look at this (permalink)



A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#15yrsago Belarusian mobile operators gave police list of demonstrators https://charter97.org/en/news/2011/1/12/35161/

#15yrsago Threatened library gets its patrons to clear the shelves https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/14/stony-stratford-library-shelves-protest

#15yrsago Canadian regulator smacks Rogers for Net Neutrality failures https://web.archive.org/web/20110116044741/https://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5574/125/

#10yrsago A day in the life of a public service serial killer’s intern https://web.archive.org/web/20160116122141/https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-killing-jar

#10yrsago How an obsessive jailhouse lawyer revealed the existence of Stingray surveillance devices https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/13/10758380/stingray-surveillance-device-daniel-rigmaiden-case

#10yrsago The Internet of Things in Your Butt: smart rectal thermometer https://web.archive.org/web/20160116182024/https://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-rectal-thermometer-is-the-logical-conclusion-of-the-internet-of-things

#10yrsago UK Home Secretary auditions for a Python sketch: “UK does not undertake mass surveillance” https://web.archive.org/web/20160114224805/https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-uk-does-not-undertake-mass-surveillance-says-uk-home-secretary

#10yrsago US Treasury Dept wants to know which offshore crimelords are buying all those NYC and Miami penthouses https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0113/Are-luxury-condo-purchases-hiding-dirty-money

#5yrsag Facebook shows mall ninja gear ads on insurrection articles https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/14/10-point-program/#monetizing

#5yrsago The Black Panther self-care method https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/14/10-point-program/#panthers


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing: "The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America (1001 words today, 6053 total)

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.

  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

Is Anyone Doing Anything?! [The Status Kuo]

Image courtesy of TOI

Think back to the start of Trump’s second term. DOGE arrived alongside a deluge of head-spinning executive orders. The White House illegally impounded billions in grant funding, paralyzing science and research. It closed whole agencies, including all of USAID, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of aid recipients. It mass-fired federal workers. It rendered hundreds of migrants, including many innocent men, to a torture prison in El Salvador. It deployed ICE to Los Angeles and federalized the National Guard, sending it into blue enclaves.

Many wondered what, if anything, was being done to stop him and his cronies like Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem.

Much was happening, but it took time. Blue state governors and civil rights groups filed suit. Federal judges ultimately blocked the regime on many fronts. Then No Kings protesters began taking to the streets, growing to the millions by summer.

Now, the Trump regime is making its second power play. It has surged ICE agents to Minneapolis, terrorizing immigrant communities. It attacked Venezuela and is actively threatening a NATO ally over Greenland. And it’s launched a bogus and pretextual criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell and moved to strip Sen. Mark Kelly of his military pension.

So we ask again: Is anyone doing anything about it? The answer is a heartening “yes, absolutely.”

Subscribe now

Response to ICE abuses in Minnesota

The plan by the Trump regime was as transparent as it was cynical: Use bogus claims of “day care fraud” to create a Reaganesque “welfare queen” moment. Use that “fraud” claim to justify a harsh crackdown on the Somali immigrant community in Minneapolis. Surge 2,000+ federal immigration agents to that city to show the liberals who’s boss and rally the MAGA base around federal power and authority.

It’s not going as planned.

The murder of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross became a rallying point and set off a national condemnation of ICE. The hardened, anti-factual response of the White House quickly started backfiring as the public saw the truth through the denials. Now Minnesota and the Twin Cities have sued to enjoin DHS’s operations there, as has the State of Illinois.

After federal officials began a massive cover-up and refused to launch an investigation into Good’s killer, local and state prosecutors announced their own independent investigations. The Hennepin County Attorney, Mary Moriarty, disclosed that her office had received a “substantial” number of submissions. And Minnesota AG Keith Ellison warned that there is no statute of limitations on murder.

In response to the DOJ’s decision to ignore Good but pursue a witch-hunt investigation into the politics of Good’s widow (yes, this really happened), six prosecutors resigned from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Minnesota. Meanwhile, four attorneys within the Civil Rights Division accelerated their departures to protest that office’s decision not to pursue an investigation into Good’s murder. Unlike many big law firms and media companies, these professionals refused to be complicit in politicized injustice by the White House.

Across American cities, from large urban centers to towns in South Carolina, protests broke out immediately against ICE over the weekend. The infrastructure for rapid, mass protest now exists where it did not before.

And in Congress, there are now active measures to rein in ICE, including a three-point plan from Sen. Chris Murphy to limit border patrol jurisdiction and Democratic-led moves to condition ICE funding on key reforms, including disallowing masked agents.

On the internet, videos circulated widely documenting widespread ICE abuses, including of peaceful protesters and legal observers who are U.S. citizens. (To view collections of these clips, I recommend the accounts LongTimeHistory, Oliya Scootercast and Status Coup (no relation!), all of which you can view on the Twitter mirror site Xcancel.)

The White House has also seen its support erode rapidly among outspoken influencers with gigantic platforms. Radio host Charlamagne tha God called the murder of Good’s murder “domestic terrorism,” throwing the false claim by Kristi Noem about Good directly back at her.

And podcaster Joe Rogan even compared ICE to the Gestapo:

The President’s own party is pushing back

Within hours after Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell issued a remarkable, scathing criticism of the criminal prosecution opened against him by Trump’s Justice Department, key GOP senators, notably Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, opposed the move. Other GOP senators, such as John Kennedy of Louisiana, came to Powell’s defense. Kennedy said he knows Powell “very well” and that he would be “stunned and shocked if he has done anything wrong.” (Susan Collins showed her usual “concern” by noting that the probe “may be more about maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve, which I support.”)

While two opposed senators do not a majority make, even when joined by all the Democrats, the announcement by Tillis that he would block any of Trump’s replacements of Powell when his term is up in July is notable. Tillis sits on the Senate Banking Committee, which is split 13-11 in favor of the GOP. That means that any single defection by a GOP senator would create a tie vote, and no candidate could advance out of that committee and on to a full Senate vote.

While criticism of Tillis for allowing horrific candidates like Pete Hegseth to advance is completely valid, his recent opposition to Trump’s picks has carried real consequences. He opposed Trump’s nominee Ed Martin for U.S. Attorney for D.C., sinking his chances before it even came to a vote. And he stalled four other Trump judicial and U.S. attorney picks until his demands on unrelated legislation (federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe) were met.

Should Tillis hold firm on his current position on the bogus Fed Chair criminal investigation, this would have the ironic effect of keeping Jerome Powell in his position after his term is set to expire, dealing Trump a blow and creating a political self-own that the passage of time could have simply avoided.

In other embarrassing votes against the president, Sen. Murkowski was joined by four GOP senators—Josh Hawley (R-MO), Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Todd Young (R-IN)—to vote with Senate Democrats to require Trump to obtain congressional approval for any future military action in Venezuela.

And in the House, 17 GOP House members joined Democrats to pass a three-year extension of ACA premium subsidies, which came to a full vote by way of a discharge petition. If you’re counting, that’s the third House discharge petition in recent months, meaning Speaker Johnson has effectively lost control of the floor.

Heroes among the people

We’ve seen the bravery and impact of ordinary people who are rallying to their immigrant neighbors’ aid. At significant risk to their own safety, and in the face of illegal threats and arrests by ICE, they are speaking out, documenting abuses and standing firm.

The bravery is contagious. Yesterday, we even saw another hero stand up to Trump himself with exactly zeros Fs to give. A Ford autoworker in Dearborn, Michigan named TJ Sabula shouted “pedophile protector” during Trump’s visit to the plant, causing a rattled Trump to curse and give him the finger. Very presidential.

Ford punished Sabula by suspending him for his act of defiance, but in his defense Sabula said, “I don’t feel as though fate looks upon you often—and when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity.” A GoFundMe to support Sabula after his suspension has already raised around a quarter of a million dollars as of the time of this writing.

In sum, the Trump regime is lashing out. We expected it to, after all. We all have long understood that the more pressure Trump faces on all fronts, including those pesky Epstein files, the more desperate and reckless he will become. That is precisely what we’re seeing.

But unlike how it felt last January, the resistance is organized, ready and responding rapidly and effectively.

07:00 AM

ICE Is Going On A Surveillance Shopping Spree [Techdirt]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a new budget under the current administration, and they are going on a surveillance tech shopping spree. Standing at $28.7 billion dollars for the year 2025 (nearly triple their 2024 budget) and at least another $56.25 billion over the next three years, ICE’s budget would be the envy of many national militaries around the world. Indeed, this budget would put ICE as the 14th most well-funded military in the world, right between Ukraine and Israel.  

There are many different agencies under U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that deal with immigration, as well as non-immigration related agencies such as Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ICE is specifically the enforcement arm of the U.S. immigration apparatus. Their stated mission is to “[p]rotect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.” 

Of course, ICE doesn’t just end up targeting, surveillingharassingassaultingdetaining, and torturing people who are undocumented immigrants. They have targeted people on work permitsasylum seekerspermanent residents (people holding “green cards”), naturalized citizens, and even citizens by birth. 

While the NSA and FBI might be the first agencies that come to mind when thinking about surveillance in the U.S., ICE should not be discounted. ICE has always engaged in surveillance and intelligence-gathering as part of their mission. A 2022 report by Georgetown Law’s Center for Privacy and Technology found the following:

  • ICE had scanned the driver’s license photos of 1 in 3 adults.
  • ICE had access to the driver’s license data of 3 in 4 adults.
  • ICE was tracking the movements of drivers in cities home to 3 in 4 adults.
  • ICE could locate 3 in 4 adults through their utility records.
  • ​​ICE built its surveillance dragnet by tapping data from private companies and state and local bureaucracies.
  • ICE spent approximately $2.8 billion between 2008 and 2021 on new surveillance, data collection and data-sharing programs. 

With a budget for 2025 that is 10 times the size of the agency’s total surveillance spending over the last 13 years, ICE is going on a shopping spree, creating one of the largest, most comprehensive domestic surveillance machines in history. 

How We Got Here

The entire surveillance industry has been allowed to grow and flourish under both Democratic and Republican regimes. For example, President Obama dramatically expanded ICE from its more limited origins, while at the same time narrowing its focus to undocumented people accused of crimes. Under the first and second Trump administrations, ICE ramped up its operations significantly, increasing raids in major cities far from the southern border and casting a much wider net on potential targets. ICE has most recently expanded its partnerships with sheriffs across the U.S., and deported more than 1.5 million people cumulatively under the Trump administrations (600,000 of those were just during the first year of Trump’s second term according to DHS statistics), not including the 1.6 million people DHS claims have “self-deported.” More horrifying is that in just the last year of the current administration, 4,250 people detained by ICE have gone missing, and 31 have died in custody or while being detained. In contrast, 24 people died in ICE custody during the entirety of the Biden administration.

ICE also has openly stated that they plan to spy on the American public, looking for any signs of left-wing dissent against their domestic military-like presence. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a recent interview that his agency “was dedicated to the mission of going after” Antifa and left-wing gun clubs. 

On a long enough timeline, any surveillance tool you build will eventually be used by people you don’t like for reasons that you disagree with. A surveillance-industrial complex and a democratic society are fundamentally incompatible, regardless of your political party. 

EFF recently published a guide to using government databases to dig up homeland security spending and compiled our own dataset of companies selling tech to DHS components. In 2025, ICE entered new contracts with several private companies for location surveillance, social media surveillance, face surveillance, spyware, and phone surveillance. Let’s dig into each.

Phone Surveillance Tools 

One common surveillance tactic of immigration officials is to get physical access to a person’s phone, either while the person is detained at a border crossing, or while they are under arrest. ICE renewed an $11 million contract with a company called Cellebrite, which helps ICE unlock phones and then can take a complete image of all the data on the phone, including apps, location history, photos, notes, call records, text messages, and even Signal and WhatsApp messages. ICE also signed a $3 million contract with Cellebrite’s main competitor Magnet Forensics, makers of the Graykey device for unlocking phones. DHS has had contracts with Cellebrite since 2008, but the number of phones they search has risen dramatically each year, reaching a new high of 14,899 devices searched by ICE’s sister agency U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) between April and June of 2025. 

If ICE can’t get physical access to your phone, that won’t stop them from trying to gain access to your data. They have also resumed a $2 million contract with the spyware manufacturer, Paragon. Paragon makes the Graphite spyware, which made headlines in 2025 for being found on the phones of several dozen members of Italian civil society. Graphite is able to harvest messages from multiple different encrypted chat apps such as Signal and WhatsApp without the user ever knowing. 

Our concern with ICE buying this software is the likelihood that it will be used against undocumented people and immigrants who are here legally, as well as U.S. citizens who have spoken up against ICE or who work with immigrant communities. Malware such as Graphite can be used to read encrypted messages as they are sent, other forms of spyware can also download files, photos, location history, record phone calls, and even discretely turn on your microphone to record you. 

How to Protect Yourself 

The most effective way to protect yourself from smartphone surveillance would be to not have a phone. But that’s not realistic advice in modern society. Fortunately, for most people there are other ways you can make it harder for ICE to spy on your digital life. 

The first and easiest step is to keep your phone up to date. Installing security updates makes it harder to use malware against you and makes it less likely for Cellebrite to break into your phone. Likewise, both iPhone (Lockdown Mode) and Android (Advanced Protection) offer special modes that lock your phone down and can help protect against some malware.

Having your phone’s software up to date and locked with a strong alphanumeric password will offer some protection against Cellebrite, depending on your model of phone. However, the strongest protection is simply to keep your phone turned off, which puts it in “before first unlock” mode and has been typically harder for law enforcement to bypass. This is good to do if you are at a protest and expect to be arrested, if you are crossing a border, or if you are expecting to encounter ICE. Keeping your phone on airplane mode should be enough to protect against cell-site simulators, but turning your phone off will offer extra protection against cell-site simulators and Cellebrite devices. If you aren’t able to turn your phone off, it’s a good idea to at least turn off face/fingerprint unlock to make it harder for police to force you to unlock your phone. While EFF continues to fight to strengthen our legal protections against compelling people to decrypt their devices, there is currently less protection against compelled face and fingerprint unlocking than there is against compelled password disclosure.

Internet Surveillance 

ICE has also spent $5 million to acquire at least two location and social media surveillance tools: Webloc and Tangles, from a company called Pen Link, an established player in the open source intelligence space. Webloc gathers the locations of millions of phones by gathering data from mobile data brokers and linking it together with other information about users. Tangles is a social media surveillance tool which combines web scraping with access to social media application programming interfaces. These tools are able to build a dossier on anyone who has a public social media account. Tangles is able to link together a person’s posting history, posts, and comments containing keywords, location history, tags, social graph, and photos with those of their friends and family. Penlink then sells this information to law enforcement, allowing law enforcement to avoid the need for a warrant. This means ICE can look up historic and current locations of many people all across the U.S. without ever having to get a warrant.

ICE also has established contracts with other social media scanning and AI analysis companies, such as a $4.2 million contract with a company called Fivecast for the social media surveillance and AI analysis tool ONYX. According to Fivecast, ONYX can conduct “automated, continuous and targeted collection of multimedia data” from all major “news streams, search engines, social media, marketplaces, the dark web, etc.” ONYX can build what it calls “digital footprints” from biographical data and curated datasets spanning numerous platforms, and “track shifts in sentiment and emotion” and identify the level of risk associated with an individual. 

Another contract is with ShadowDragon for their product Social Net, which is able to monitor publicly available data from over 200 websites. In an acquisition document from 2022, ICE confirmed that ShadowDragon allowed the agency to search “100+ social networking sites,” noting that “[p]ersistent access to Facebook and Twitter provided by ShadowDragon SocialNet is of the utmost importance as they are the most prominent social media platforms.”

ICE has also indicated that they intend to spend between 20 and 50 million dollars on building and staffing a 24/7 social media monitoring office with at least 30 full time agents to comb every major social media website for leads that could generate enforcement raids. 

How to protect yourself 

For U.S. citizens, making your account private on social media is a good place to start. You might also consider having accounts under a pseudonym, or deleting your social media accounts altogether. For more information, check out our guide to protecting yourself on social media. Unfortunately, people immigrating to the U.S. might be subject to greater scrutiny, including mandatory social media checks, and should consult with an immigration attorney before taking any action. For people traveling to the U.S., new rules will soon likely require them to reveal five years of social media history and 10 years of past email addresses to immigration officials. 

Street-Level Surveillance 

But it’s not just your digital habits ICE wants to surveil; they also want to spy on you in the physical world. ICE has contracts with multiple automated license plate reader (ALPR) companies and is able to follow the driving habits of a large percentage of Americans. ICE uses this data to track down specific people anywhere in the country. ICE has a $6 million contract through a Thomson Reuters subsidiary to access ALPR data from Motorola Solutions. ICE has also persuaded local law enforcement officers to run searches on their behalf through Flock Safety’s massive network of ALPR data. CBP, including Border Patrol, also operates a network of covert ALPR systems in many areas. 

ICE has also invested in biometric surveillance tools, such as face recognition software called Mobile Fortify to scan the faces of people they stop to determine if they are here legally. Mobile Fortify checks the pictures it takes against a database of 200 million photos for a match (the source of the photos is unknown). Additionally, ICE has a $10 million contract with Clearview AI for face recognition. ICE has also contracted with iris scanning company BI2 technologies for even more invasive biometric surveillance. ICE agents have also been spotted wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban video recording sunglasses. 

ICE has acquired trucks equipped with cell-site simulators (AKA Stingrays) from a company called TechOps Specialty Vehicles (likely the cell-site simulators were manufactured by another company). This is not the first time ICE has bought this technology. According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, ICE deployed cell-site simulators at least 466 times between 2017 and 2019, and ICE more than 1,885 times between 2013 and 2017, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News. Cell-site simulators can be used to track down a specific person in real time, with more granularity than a phone company or tools like Webloc can provide, though Webloc has the distinct advantage of being used without a warrant and not requiring agents to be in the vicinity of the person being tracked. 

How to protect yourself 

Taking public transit or bicycling is a great way to keep yourself off ALPR databases, but an even better way is to go to your local city council meetings and demand the city cancels contracts with ALPR companies, like people have done in Flagstaff, Arizona; Eugene, Oregon; and Denver, Colorado, among others. 

If you are at a protest, putting your phone on airplane mode could help protect you from cell-site simulators and from apps on your phone disclosing your location, but might leave you vulnerable to advanced targeted attacks. For more advanced protection, turning your phone completely off protects against all radio based attacks, and also makes it harder for tools like Cellebrite to break into your phone as discussed above. But each individual will need to weigh their need for security from advanced radio based attacks against their need to document potential abuses through photo or video. For more information about protecting yourself at a protest, head over to SSD.

There is nothing you can do to change your face, which is why we need more stringent privacy laws such as Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Tying All the Data Together 

Last but not least, ICE uses tools to combine and search all this data along with the data on Americans they have acquired from private companies, the IRS, TSA, and other government databases. 

To search all this data, ICE uses ImmigrationOS, a system that came from a $30-million contract with Palantir. What Palantir does is hard to explain, even for people who work there, but essentially they are plumbers. Palantir makes it so that ICE has all the data they have acquired in one place so it’s easy to search through. Palantir links data from different databases, like IRS data, immigration records, and private databases, and enables ICE to view all of this data about a specific person in one place. 

The true civil liberties nightmare of Palantir is that they enable governments to link data that should have never been linked. There are good civil liberties reasons why IRS data was never linked with immigration data and was never linked with social media data, but Palantir breaks those firewalls. Palantir has labeled themselves as a progressive, human rights centric company historically, but their recent actions have given them away as just another tech company enabling surveillance nightmares.

Threat Modeling When ICE Is Your Adversary 

 Understanding the capabilities and limits of ICE and how to threat model helps you and your community fight back, remain powerful, and protect yourself.

One of the most important things you can do is to not spread rumors and misinformation. Rumors like “ICE has malware so now everyone’s phones are compromised” or “Palantir knows what you are doing all the time” or “Signal is broken” don’t help your community. It’s more useful to spread facts, ways to protect yourself, and ways to fight back. For information about how to create a security plan for yourself or your community, and other tips to protect yourself, read our Surveillance Self-Defense guides.

How EFF Is Fighting Back

One way to fight back against ICE is in the courts. EFF currently has a lawsuit against ICE over their pressure on Apple and Google to take down ICE spotting apps, like ICEBlock. We also represent multiple labor unions suing ICE over their social media surveillance practices

We have also demanded the San Francisco Police Department stop sharing data illegally with ICE, and issued a statement condemning the collaboration between ICE and the malware provider Paragon. We also continue to maintain our Rayhunter project for detecting cell-site simulators. 

Other civil liberties organizations are also suing ICE. ACLU has sued ICE over a subpoena to Meta attempting to identify the owner of an account providing advice to protestors, and another coalition of groups has thus far successfully sued the IRS to stop sharing taxpayer data with ICE

We need to have a hard look at the surveillance industry. It is a key enabler of vast and untold violations of human rights and civil liberties, and it continues to be used by aspiring autocrats to threaten our very democracy. As long as it exists, the surveillance industry, and the data it generates, will be an irresistible tool for anti-democratic forces.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

05:00 AM

Daily Deal: The Complete CompTIA And IT Exam Prep Bundle [Techdirt]

The Complete CompTIA and IT Exam Prep Bundle has a variety of courses, labs, and exam simulators to help you prepare for certification courses. You’ll have access to Cramwise (an exam simulator), DojoLab (labs, practice exams, and PBQs), CodeDirect (beginner Python courses), ExamsDigest (labs and PBQs focusing on CompTIA, Cisco, and AWS), and LinuxPath. It’s on sale for $40.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Bari Weiss Is Sad That People Aren’t Enjoying Her Clumsy Destruction Of CBS News [Techdirt]

If you missed it, Trump-allied billionaire Larry Ellison and his nepobaby son David hired an unqualified troll named Bari Weiss to “run” CBS News. And by “run” CBS news, I mean destroying what little journalism was left at the media giant and creating an alternate-reality safe space for right wing billionaires and their increasingly radical ideologies. While pretending to be “restoring trust in journalism.”

It’s… not going well.

Weiss’ inaugural “town hall” with opportunistic right wing grifter Erika Kirk was a ratings dud, Weiss’ new nightly news broadcast has been an error-prone hot mess, and her murder of a 60 Minutes story about Trump concentration camps continues to plague the network and cause a continued revolt among remaining journalists. Meanwhile, the new CBS is now the butt of jokes at the Golden Globes.

Weiss is, according to a new New York Times article, not enjoying all the criticism and, like any good leader, blaming her subordinates for the problems she’s causing:

“Privately, Ms. Weiss has been deeply frustrated by the negative reaction to her decisions, and has blamed some subordinates for not stanching the criticism, three people familiar with internal discussions said.”

It’s always important to reiterate that CBS wasn’t doing all that well when Weiss got there. The network’s previous owners’ very first response to surging U.S. authoritarianism was to hire more on-air authoritarians. The last act of the outgoing CBS leadership was to bribe our authoritarian president to get a terrible new merger approved. It’s only gone downhill since then.

The “entertaining” bit is that Weiss doesn’t appear to be good at either journalism (because she’s barely done any) or agitprop (arguably the whole reason the Ellison family hired her). That’s causing some weird frictions, including this bit in the Times article where Weiss insists she doesn’t want CBS to report the news, she wants it to “be” the news:

“The goal for this road show is not to deliver the news so much as it is to *drive the news*,” Ms. Weiss wrote in a note obtained by The New York Times. “We need to *be the news* for these 10 days.”

That is an intentional misrepresentation of journalism’s function by somebody who wants to be an effective engagement troll that chases virality, but clearly doesn’t really know how to go about it at this sort of scale. Weiss built a weird little contrarian trolling blog, but that’s a completely different animal from creating a mass media propaganda machine. Just ask Roger Aisles.

I think, like many in the extraction-class funded engagement trolling industry, Weiss has deluded herself into genuinely believing she’s helping fix journalism. But again, that’s not what the weird mishmash of 80s ski comedy villains at Ellison’s Paramount want. And I suspect that if Weiss doesn’t start doing a better job of lying to the electorate in a more exciting and ratings-grabbing way pretty soon, she’ll be replaced by a much bigger asshole (and more effective culture war troll) before the summer arrives.

Prosecutors Flee DOJ After Being Told To Investigate The Murdered Woman, Not The Murderer [Techdirt]

Last week, we wrote about how ICE agent Jonathan Ross murdered Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old poet and mother, on a Minneapolis street in broad daylight. We wrote about how the Trump administration immediately began lying about it despite multiple video angles showing exactly what happened. We wrote about how the media called documented murder a “dispute.”

This week, we’re writing about how career Justice Department prosecutors—people who’ve spent their careers putting away fraudsters, drug dealers, and actual criminals—looked at how the administration is handling this case and said: we want no part of this.

Because apparently the DOJ’s response to an ICE agent murdering an unarmed American citizen wasn’t to investigate the agent who pulled the trigger. It was to investigate the victim and her widow.

A federal agent shot an unarmed woman multiple times in the head at close range. Video evidence directly contradicts every administration claim about what happened. And the Justice Department’s priority is figuring out what activist groups the dead woman might have been associated with?

Really?

According to reporting from the New York Times, at least six federal prosecutors in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office resigned on Tuesday over this approach:

Joseph H. Thompson, who was second in command at the U.S. attorney’s office and oversaw a sprawling fraud investigation that has roiled Minnesota’s political landscape, was among those who quit on Tuesday, according to three people with knowledge of the decision.

Mr. Thompson’s resignation came after senior Justice Department officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the actions of the widow of Renee Nicole Good, the Minneapolis woman killed by an ICE agent on Wednesday.

Mr. Thompson, 47, a career prosecutor, objected to that approach, as well as to the Justice Department’s refusal to include state officials in investigating whether the shooting itself was lawful, the people familiar with his decision said.

Read that again. Senior DOJ officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the widow. The woman whose wife was just murdered by a federal agent. That’s what prompted career prosecutors to walk out the door.

And Thompson wasn’t alone. The Times reports that Harry Jacobs (Thompson’s deputy on the fraud cases), Melinda Williams (who ran the criminal division and successfully prosecuted sex traffickers and fentanyl dealers), and Thomas Calhoun-Lopez (chief of violent and major crimes) all quit as well.

The Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office wasn’t the only place seeing an exodus.

According to MS Now, at least six leaders of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division—the unit that’s supposed to investigate police killings—also resigned in protest:

Top leaders of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division have left their jobs to register their frustration with the department after the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon decided not to investigate the ICE officer’s fatal shooting of Renee Good last week. The criminal section of the division would normally investigate any fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer and specializes in probing potential or alleged abuse or improper use of force by law enforcement. 

The departures – including that of the chief of the section, as well as the principal deputy chief, deputy chief and acting deputy chief – represent the most significant mass resignation at the Justice Department since February.

So we potentially have twelve or more DOJ officials walking out the door because of how this administration is handling a single case. Career prosecutors who spent years working for the DOJ and at least a year under this administration. People who had no apparent problem with everything else this DOJ has been doing. But investigating a murder victim while protecting her killer was apparently the line they couldn’t cross.

Let me say it plainly: when career prosecutors who’ve stuck around through a year of this administration’s chaos decide this is the moment to quit, it tells you something important about just how far outside normal law enforcement practice this has gone.

Also, remember why ICE supposedly flooded Minneapolis in the first place? Daycare fraud. A viral video from a small-time MAGA grifter claiming day cares were running scams, which the administration used to justify what it called “the largest immigration enforcement operation in history.”

And who was the lead prosecutor on those fraud cases? Joe Thompson. The same guy who just quit because the DOJ would rather investigate a murder victim’s activist connections than the agent who killed her.

As Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara put it to the NY Times:

“When you lose the leader responsible for making the fraud cases, it tells you this isn’t really about prosecuting fraud,”

No shit.

If you want evidence of just how upside-down the Justice Department’s priorities have become, look no further than what they’re actually investigating. A separate Times report from Sunday laid out how the FBI’s inquiry into the shooting is focused not on the agent’s actions, but on Good’s “possible connections to activist groups“:

The decision by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to scrutinize Ms. Good’s activities and her potential connections to local activists is in line with the White House’s strategy of deflecting blame for the shooting away from federal law enforcement and toward opponents they have described as domestic terrorists, often without providing evidence.

Let’s summarize again: an ICE agent murders a woman in broad daylight. The division specifically designed to investigate when cops kill people has decided not to investigate the murderer. Instead, the DOJ is being told to investigate the dead woman and her widow’s social media connections.

And long term DOJ officials are rushing out the door, wanting absolutely nothing to do with any of this nonsense.

Meanwhile, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon was busy on social media retweeting posts warning people not to “ram ICE officers” because they’ll use deadly force—you know, completely prejudging the case she’s supposed to be overseeing. As former DOJ domestic terrorism counsel Thomas Brzozowski put it to the NY Times:

“It’s not appropriate for officials to characterize this incident as domestic terrorism before the investigation is complete,” said Thomas E. Brzozowski, the former counsel for domestic terrorism in the Justice Department’s national security division. “There used to be a process, deliberate and considered, to figure out if behavior could be legitimately described as domestic terrorism.”

“And when it’s not followed,” Mr. Brzozowski said, “then the term becomes little more than a political cudgel to bash one’s enemies.”

“There used to be a process.” Past tense. That’s where we are now.

The administration’s approach makes sense only if you understand that the goal was never justice—it was narrative control. The White House needs Good to be a terrorist, not a victim, because acknowledging that an ICE agent murdered an unarmed American citizen for no reason undermines everything they’ve been saying about their immigration crackdown. So they investigate the victim. They investigate the widow. They investigate the “activist groups.” Anything but investigate the guy who actually pulled the trigger.

Former Trump attorney and current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s statement was revealing: “there is currently no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation into the ICE agent.”

No basis. A federal agent shot an unarmed woman multiple times in the head. Video shows her trying to drive away, not toward officers. And there’s “no basis” for investigation. There’s a reason why every time a Trump legal move is flailing around, Blanche seems to show up and wave his arms theatrically yelling “nothing to see here folks.”

What would constitute a basis, exactly? Does the agent need to announce “I am now violating this person’s civil rights” before pulling the trigger?

Minnesota officials aren’t buying it. Governor Tim Walz called Thompson “a principled public servant” and added that his resignation is “the latest sign Trump is pushing nonpartisan career professionals out of the justice department, replacing them with his sycophants.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called the resigned prosecutors “heroes” and the people pushing to prosecute Good’s widow “monsters.”

Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension—the state agency that normally investigates police shootings and which the DOJ has deliberately excluded from this investigation—put it simply:

“We’re losing a true public servant,” said Mr. Evans. “We really need professional prosecutors.”

The absence of a credible and comprehensive investigation into Ms. Good’s killing stands to “undermine trust in our public safety agencies,” Mr. Evans added.

We’re well past that point. When the Justice Department investigates murder victims while shielding their killers, “trust” has already been destroyed.

The mass resignations tell us something crucial: there are still at least a few people inside the system who know the difference between law enforcement and state-sanctioned murder. Though, it raises the question of whether there’s anyone left who knows that distinction.

Thompson and his colleagues apparently decided they’d rather walk away from careers they spent decades building than participate in the investigation of a grieving widow while her wife’s killer walks free.

But their departures also mean the fraud cases—the ones the administration claimed justified this whole Minneapolis operation—are now in serious jeopardy. The prosecutor who knew every defendant, every transaction, who’d built those cases from the ground up over years, just walked out the door. If the administration actually cared about prosecuting fraud in Minnesota, they’d be begging Thompson to stay. Instead, they drove him out because protecting an ICE agent from accountability matters more to them than the stated reason they sent ICE to Minneapolis in the first place.

Renee Nicole Good was murdered by her own government. And the Justice Department’s response was to investigate her.

That’s the country we live in now.

02:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 次 [Kanji of the Day]

✍6

小3

next, order, sequence

ジ シ

つ.ぐ つぎ

次第   (しだい)   —   depending on
次官   (じかん)   —   vice-minister
次回   (じかい)   —   next time (occasion)
次々   (つぎつぎ)   —   in succession
相次いで   (あいついで)   —   one after the other
次期   (じき)   —   next term
次世代   (じせだい)   —   next generation
次男   (じなん)   —   second son
次々に   (つぎつぎに)   —   one by one
次第に   (しだいに)   —   gradually (progress into a state)

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 鬱 [Kanji of the Day]

✍29

中学

gloom, depression, melancholy, luxuriant

ウツ

うっ.する ふさ.ぐ しげ.る

憂鬱   (ゆううつ)   —   depression
鬱病   (うつびょう)   —   depression
鬱陶しい   (うっとうしい)   —   gloomy (e.g., mood)
鬱状態   (うつじょうたい)   —   depressive state (e.g., of manic depression)
鬱々   (うつうつ)   —   gloomy
鬱憤   (うっぷん)   —   resentment
躁鬱病   (そううつびょう)   —   manic depression
鬱屈   (うっくつ)   —   gloomy
陰鬱   (いんうつ)   —   gloomy
躁鬱   (そううつ)   —   manic depression

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Cissies [The Stranger]

Got problems? Yes, you do! Email your question for the column to mailbox@savage.love! by Dan Savage I am a 45-year-old femme-presenting genderqueer AFAB person. When I have romantic relationships with cis het men, I’ve noticed two general types: They either enjoy sex and prioritize pleasure and making things fun for their partners and themselves, but make no special big deal about it, and we usually have frequent enough sex and that’s enjoyable and good. Or the sex starts out pretty good but — at some point — they make it known to me that they need to have sex regularly, that they can’t tolerate a lack of sex, that they get grumpy if they don’t have sex, that they’ve been in sexless relationships before — blah blah blah — and soon the relationship starts to revolve around how much sex we’re having. Usually around this time the sex either gets worse or I realize that it wasn’t that good to begin with and then we start…

[ Read more ]

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Carlson Calamities 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Debian News 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML Debian Security 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML debito.org 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML dperkins 2026-01-16 12:00 PM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2026-01-15 10:00 PM
XML GIMP 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Japan Bash 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Let's Encrypt 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Marc Jones 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan - 自由な地図をみんなの手で/The Free Wiki World Map 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2026-01-16 12:00 PM
XML Popehat 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Ramen Adventures 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Release notes from server 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2026-01-16 12:00 PM
XML SNA Japan 2026-01-16 12:00 PM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML Techdirt 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML The Luddite 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML The Popehat Report 2026-01-16 12:00 PM
XML The Status Kuo 2026-01-16 12:00 PM
XML The Stranger 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML Tor Project blog 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML TorrentFreak 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML what if? 2026-01-16 07:00 PM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2026-01-11 10:00 PM
XML Write, Publish, and Sell 2026-01-16 02:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2026-01-16 07:00 PM