activistpost--2020-11-05--Clearview’s Faceprinting is Not Sheltered from Biometric Privacy Litigation by the First Amendment

Clearview AI extracts faceprints from billions of people , without their consent , and uses these faceprints to offer a service to law enforcement agencies seeking to identify suspects in photos .
Following an exposé by the New York Times this past January , Clearview faces more than ten lawsuits , including one brought by the ACLU , alleging the company ’ s faceprinting violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ( BIPA ) .
That watershed law requires opt-in consent before a company collects a person ’ s biometrics .
Clearview moved to dismiss , arguing that the First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just filed an amicus brief in this case , arguing that applying BIPA to Clearview ’ s faceprinting does not offend the First Amendment .
Following a short summary , this post walks through our arguments in detail .
Above all , EFF agrees with the ACLU that Clearview should be held accountable for invading the biometric privacy of the millions of individuals whose faceprints it extracted without consent .
EFF has a longstanding commitment to protecting both speech and privacy at the digital frontier , and the case brings these values into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-settled constitutional principles resolve this tension .
Faceprinting raises some First Amendment interests , because it is collection and creation of information for purposes of later expressing information .
However , as practiced by Clearview , this faceprinting does not enjoy the highest level of First Amendment protection , because it does not concern speech on a public matter , and the company ’ s interests are solely economic .
Under the correct First Amendment test , Clearview may not ignore BIPA , because there is a close fit between BIPA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and information security ) and its means ( requiring opt-in consent ) .
The First Amendment protects not just free expression , but also the necessary predicates that enable expression , including the collection and creation of information .
For example , the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment applies to reading books in libraries , gathering news inside courtrooms , creating video games , and newspapers ’ purchasing of ink by the barrel .
Thus , courts across the country have held that the First Amendment protects our right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officers .
In the words of one federal appellate court : “ The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure , or largely ineffective , if the antecedent act of making the recording is wholly unprotected.
” EFF has filed many amicus briefs in support of this right to record , and published suggestions about how to safely exercise this right during Black-led protests against police violence and racism .
Faceprinting is both the collection and creation of information and therefore involves First Amendment-protected interests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ measurements of a person ’ s face .
And it creates information about that face in the form of a numerical representation .
First Amendment protection of faceprinting is not diminished by the use of computer code to collect information about faces , or of mathematics to represent faces .
Courts have consistently held that “ code is speech , ” because , like a musical score , it “ is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas.
” EFF has advocated for this principle from its founding through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent computer security researchers , inventors , and manufacturers of privacy-protective consumer tech .
Clearview ’ s faceprinting does not enjoy the strongest protection First Amendment analysis only begins with determining whether the government ’ s regulation applies to speech or its necessary predicates .
If so , the next step is to select the proper test .
Here , courts should not apply “ strict scrutiny , ” one of the most searching levels of judicial inquiry , to BIPA ’ s limits on Clearview ’ s faceprinting .
Rather , courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for two intertwined reasons .
First , Clearview ’ s faceprinting does not concern a “ public issue.
” The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment is less protective of speech on “ purely private ” matters , compared to speech on public matters .
It has done so , for example , where speech allegedly violated a wiretapping statute or the common law torts of defamation or emotional distress .
The Court has explained that , consistent with the First Amendment ’ s core protection of robust public discourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters of public concern is necessarily broad , but it is not unlimited .
Lower courts follow this distinction when speech allegedly violates the common law tort of publication of private facts , and when collection of information allegedly violates the common law tort of intrusion on seclusion .
The courts held that that these privacy torts do not violate the First Amendment as long as they do not restrict discussion of matters of public concern .
Second , Clearview ’ s interests in faceprinting are solely economic .
The Supreme Court has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” meaning “ expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience , ” receives “ lesser protection ” compared to “ other constitutionally guaranteed expression.
” Thus , when faced with First Amendment challenges to laws that protect consumer data privacy from commercial data processing , lower courts apply intermediate judicial review under the commercial speech doctrine .
These decisions frequently focused not just on the commercial motivation , but also the lack of a matter of public concern .
To be sure , faceprinting can be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters of public concern .
For example , a journalist or police reform advocate might use faceprinting to publicly name the unidentified police officer depicted in a video using excessive force against a protester .
But this is not the application of faceprinting practiced by Clearview .
Instead , Clearview extracts faceprints from billions of face photos , absent any reason to think any particular person in those photos will engage in a matter of public concern .
Indeed , the overwhelming majority of these people have not and will not .
Clearview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the service of identifying people in probe photos , devoid of journalistic , artistic , scientific , or other purpose .
It makes this service available to a select set of paying customers who are contractually forbidden from redistribution of the faceprinting .
In short , courts here should apply intermediate First Amendment review .
To pass this test , BIPA must advance a “ substantial interest , ” and there must be a “ close fit ” between this interest and how BIPA limits speech .
First , Illinois has a substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a fundamental human right to privacy over our personal information .
But everywhere we go , we display a unique and indelible marker that can be seen from a distance : our own faces .
So corporations can use face surveillance technology ( coupled with the ubiquity of digital cameras ) to track where we go , who we are with , and what we are doing .
Second , Illinois has a substantial interest in protecting the many forms of expression that depend on privacy .
These include the rights to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak anonymously , to converse privately , to confidentially receive unpopular ideas , and to confidentially gather newsworthy information from undisclosed sources .
Police use faceprinting to identify protesters , including with Clearview ’ s help .
Government officials can likewise use faceprinting to identify who attended a protest planning meeting , who visited an investigative reporter , who entered a theater showing a controversial movie , and who left an unsigned pamphlet on a doorstep .
So Clearview is not the only party whose First Amendment interests are implicated by this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in protecting information security .
Data thieves regularly steal vast troves of personal data .
Criminals and foreign governments can use stolen faceprints to break into secured accounts that can be opened by the owner ’ s face .
Indeed , a team of security researchers did this with 3D models based on Facebook photos .
There is a close fit between BIPA and Illinois ’ interests BIPA requires private entities like Clearview to obtain a person ’ s opt-in consent before collecting their faceprint .
There is a close fit between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Information privacy requires , in the words of the Supreme Court , “ the individual ’ s control of information concerning [ their ] person.
” The problem is our lost control over our faceprints .
The solution is to restore our control , by means of an opt-in consent requirement .
Opt-in consent is far more effective at restoring this control , compared to other approaches like opt-out consent .
Many people won ’ t even know a business collected their faceprint .
Of those who do , many won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opt-out or how to do so .
Even an informed person might be deterred because the process is time-consuming , confusing , and frustrating , as studies have shown .
Indeed , many companies use “ dark patterns ” to purposefully design the user ’ s experience in a manner that manipulates so-called “ agreement ” to data processing .
Thus , numerous federal appellate and trial courts have upheld consumer data privacy laws like the one at issue here because of their close fit to substantial government interests .
Moving forward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biometric privacy laws , and robust judicial interpretations of those laws .
We will also continue to support bans on government use of face surveillance , including ( as here ) acquisition of information from corporations that wield this dangerous technology .
More broadly , Clearview ’ s faceprinting is another reminder of the need for comprehensive federal consumer data privacy legislation .
Finally , EFF will continue to oppose poorly taken First Amendment challenges to such laws , as we ’ ve done here .
You can read here our amicus brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Adam Schwartz and Andrew Crocker
Clearview AI extracts faceprints from billions of people, without their consent, and uses these faceprints to offer a service to law enforcement agencies seeking to identify suspects in photos. Following an exposé by the New York Times this past January, Clearview faces more than ten lawsuits, including one brought by the ACLU, alleging the company’s faceprinting violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). That watershed law requires opt-in consent before a company collects a person’s biometrics. Clearview moved to dismiss, arguing that the First Amendment bars this BIPA claim.
EFF just filed an amicus brief in this case, arguing that applying BIPA to Clearview’s faceprinting does not offend the First Amendment. Following a short summary, this post walks through our arguments in detail.
Above all, EFF agrees with the ACLU that Clearview should be held accountable for invading the biometric privacy of the millions of individuals whose faceprints it extracted without consent. EFF has a longstanding commitment to protecting both speech and privacy at the digital frontier, and the case brings these values into tension. But our brief explains that well-settled constitutional principles resolve this tension.
Faceprinting raises some First Amendment interests, because it is collection and creation of information for purposes of later expressing information. However, as practiced by Clearview, this faceprinting does not enjoy the highest level of First Amendment protection, because it does not concern speech on a public matter, and the company’s interests are solely economic. Under the correct First Amendment test, Clearview may not ignore BIPA, because there is a close fit between BIPA’s goals (protecting privacy, speech, and information security) and its means (requiring opt-in consent).
Clearview’s faceprinting enjoys some protection
The First Amendment protects not just free expression, but also the necessary predicates that enable expression, including the collection and creation of information. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment applies to reading books in libraries, gathering news inside courtrooms, creating video games, and newspapers’ purchasing of ink by the barrel.
Thus, courts across the country have held that the First Amendment protects our right to use our smartphones to record on-duty police officers. In the words of one federal appellate court: “The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, if the antecedent act of making the recording is wholly unprotected.” EFF has filed many amicus briefs in support of this right to record, and published suggestions about how to safely exercise this right during Black-led protests against police violence and racism.
Faceprinting is both the collection and creation of information and therefore involves First Amendment-protected interests. It collects information about the shape and measurements of a person’s face. And it creates information about that face in the form of a numerical representation.
First Amendment protection of faceprinting is not diminished by the use of computer code to collect information about faces, or of mathematics to represent faces. Courts have consistently held that “code is speech,” because, like a musical score, it “is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas.” EFF has advocated for this principle from its founding through the present, in support of cryptographers, independent computer security researchers, inventors, and manufacturers of privacy-protective consumer tech.
Clearview’s faceprinting does not enjoy the strongest protection
First Amendment analysis only begins with determining whether the government’s regulation applies to speech or its necessary predicates. If so, the next step is to select the proper test. Here, courts should not apply “strict scrutiny,” one of the most searching levels of judicial inquiry, to BIPA’s limits on Clearview’s faceprinting. Rather, courts should apply “intermediate scrutiny,” for two intertwined reasons.
First, Clearview’s faceprinting does not concern a “public issue.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment is less protective of speech on “purely private” matters, compared to speech on public matters. It has done so, for example, where speech allegedly violated a wiretapping statute or the common law torts of defamation or emotional distress. The Court has explained that, consistent with the First Amendment’s core protection of robust public discourse, the universe of speech that involves matters of public concern is necessarily broad, but it is not unlimited.
Lower courts follow this distinction when speech allegedly violates the common law tort of publication of private facts, and when collection of information allegedly violates the common law tort of intrusion on seclusion. The courts held that that these privacy torts do not violate the First Amendment as long as they do not restrict discussion of matters of public concern.
Second, Clearview’s interests in faceprinting are solely economic. The Supreme Court has long held that “commercial speech,” meaning “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience,” receives “lesser protection” compared to “other constitutionally guaranteed expression.” Thus, when faced with First Amendment challenges to laws that protect consumer data privacy from commercial data processing, lower courts apply intermediate judicial review under the commercial speech doctrine. These decisions frequently focused not just on the commercial motivation, but also the lack of a matter of public concern.
To be sure, faceprinting can be the predicate to expression that is relevant to matters of public concern. For example, a journalist or police reform advocate might use faceprinting to publicly name the unidentified police officer depicted in a video using excessive force against a protester. But this is not the application of faceprinting practiced by Clearview.
Instead, Clearview extracts faceprints from billions of face photos, absent any reason to think any particular person in those photos will engage in a matter of public concern. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these people have not and will not. Clearview’s sole purpose is to sell the service of identifying people in probe photos, devoid of journalistic, artistic, scientific, or other purpose. It makes this service available to a select set of paying customers who are contractually forbidden from redistribution of the faceprinting.
In short, courts here should apply intermediate First Amendment review. To pass this test, BIPA must advance a “substantial interest,” and there must be a “close fit” between this interest and how BIPA limits speech.
Illinois has substantial interests
BIPA advances three substantial government interests.
First, Illinois has a substantial interest in protecting biometric privacy. We have a fundamental human right to privacy over our personal information. But everywhere we go, we display a unique and indelible marker that can be seen from a distance: our own faces. So corporations can use face surveillance technology (coupled with the ubiquity of digital cameras) to track where we go, who we are with, and what we are doing.
Second, Illinois has a substantial interest in protecting the many forms of expression that depend on privacy. These include the rights to confidentially engage in expressive activity, to speak anonymously, to converse privately, to confidentially receive unpopular ideas, and to confidentially gather newsworthy information from undisclosed sources. Police use faceprinting to identify protesters, including with Clearview’s help. Government officials can likewise use faceprinting to identify who attended a protest planning meeting, who visited an investigative reporter, who entered a theater showing a controversial movie, and who left an unsigned pamphlet on a doorstep. So Clearview is not the only party whose First Amendment interests are implicated by this case.
Third, Illinois has a substantial interest in protecting information security. Data thieves regularly steal vast troves of personal data. Criminals and foreign governments can use stolen faceprints to break into secured accounts that can be opened by the owner’s face. Indeed, a team of security researchers did this with 3D models based on Facebook photos.
There is a close fit between BIPA and Illinois’ interests
BIPA requires private entities like Clearview to obtain a person’s opt-in consent before collecting their faceprint. There is a close fit between this rule and Illinois’ substantial interests. Information privacy requires, in the words of the Supreme Court, “the individual’s control of information concerning [their] person.” The problem is our lost control over our faceprints. The solution is to restore our control, by means of an opt-in consent requirement.
Opt-in consent is far more effective at restoring this control, compared to other approaches like opt-out consent. Many people won’t even know a business collected their faceprint. Of those who do, many won’t know they have the right to opt-out or how to do so. Even an informed person might be deterred because the process is time-consuming, confusing, and frustrating, as studies have shown. Indeed, many companies use “dark patterns” to purposefully design the user’s experience in a manner that manipulates so-called “agreement” to data processing.
Thus, numerous federal appellate and trial courts have upheld consumer data privacy laws like the one at issue here because of their close fit to substantial government interests.
Next steps
Moving forward, EFF will continue to advocate for strong biometric privacy laws, and robust judicial interpretations of those laws. We will also continue to support bans on government use of face surveillance, including (as here) acquisition of information from corporations that wield this dangerous technology. More broadly, Clearview’s faceprinting is another reminder of the need for comprehensive federal consumer data privacy legislation. Finally, EFF will continue to oppose poorly taken First Amendment challenges to such laws, as we’ve done here.
You can read here our amicus brief in ACLU v. Clearview AI.
Source: EFF.org
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--School Cop Found Guilty for Beating 11yo Girl with Special Needs

Farmington , NM — A veteran Farmington police officer was allowed to quietly resign in a move to escape accountability after horrifying video footage showed him attacking an 11-year-old girl with special needs .
At the time , he likely thought he got away , but thanks to pressure from accountability activists , former Farmington police officer Zachary Christensen is facing down a possible three-year sentence .
Christensen pleaded no contest to a felony charge of child abuse and a misdemeanor battery charge after roughing up an 11-year-old student at school .
As part of a plea deal , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the case was referred to the district attorney who naturally declined to prosecute the officer .
However , the state attorney general then stepped in and took up the case after receiving outside pressure .
“ I was very concerned with the safety of our victim , who was a child , and I think this conviction sends a strong message that no one is above the law , but we need to set a very high standard of care that protects students on our school campuses , ” said Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , despite the conviction , Christensen still has his state certification to be a law enforcement officer .
The incident unfolded on August 27 , 2019 but the officer ’ s lapel camera video wasn ’ t released until later .
It is nothing short of disturbing as it shows the officer , who is much bigger than the girl , slamming her down on the concrete while abusing her .
“ That ’ s not our standards .
That ’ s not who we are , ” said Farmington Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer in the video .
According to school officials , the girl had misbehaved in class and was waiting for her mother to come pick her up from school .
As she waited in the lobby of the school , the officer wrongly accused her of assault and then attacked her .
As KOB reports , the day of the incident , school administrators can be seen on the lapel video following the girl around campus as she waits for her mom to pick her up from school .
“ This morning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She took more milks than she was supposed to .
She threw a milk on the ground , ” said Officer Christensen in the lapel camera footage .
After savagely attacking the small girl , Officer Christensen attempted to claim in his report that “ the child assaulted two school employees that morning.
” He claimed that one assault occurred when the girl walked past the assistant principal and brushes past him and the second occurred when the girl attempted to open the door and walked past the principal .
However , none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick as the officer lacked any evidence of them .
Despite the girl not posing any threat to anyone , the officer attacked her anyway .
As the video shows , he grabs the 11-year-old girl with special needs by the backpack and throws her to the ground .
He then jumps on top of her , pinning her down for over six minutes as she screams in horror .
The entire time , the officer is yelling “ stop resisting , ” as if this has any effect on a special needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her size .
The situation became so unnerving that a school official was forced to step in and tell the officer to let the girl stand up .
“ Officer Christensen – she is not a threat to yourself or others at this moment , ” said the school employee .
“ No , she is !
” Christensen replied , claiming the girl , half his size , is a threat to an armed man in a bullet proof vest .
Laughably , the cop would go on to write in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very strong , stronger than I was.
” After the altercation lasted several more minutes , the school employee then demanded that the officer stop his attack , even using the term “ excessive force.
” “ We ’ re not going to use excessive force , ” the school employee said .
Naturally , the officer replied that “ It ’ s not excessive !
” But as the video shows , it was definitely excessive .
Never once did the girl attempt to fight back .
She was trying to comply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on her body would not let her move in the position he was demanding .
She even tried to explain this to him but to no avail .
After the incident , police were unable to find anything on which to charge the girl , so she was allowed to return to school as the officer was allowed to resign to escape accountability — for a little while .
The girl and her mother have retained an attorney to file a lawsuit against the city of Farmington and the school .
“ She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a shock to the system to see that this is a thing that can occur at a school by a certified peace officer , ” attorney Mark Curnutt said .
Curnutt then pointed out the fact that the officer attempted to accuse the girl of committing multiple felonies , none of which actually took place .
“ When you have a situation where there ’ s a report that says a felony is committed , another felony is committed , another felony is committed — and then you review the factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video and it doesn ’ t add up , there must be a level of accountability , ” Curnutt said .
This most disturbing video is available on YouTube here , news report below .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matt Agorist
Farmington, NM — A veteran Farmington police officer was allowed to quietly resign in a move to escape accountability after horrifying video footage showed him attacking an 11-year-old girl with special needs. At the time, he likely thought he got away, but thanks to pressure from accountability activists, former Farmington police officer Zachary Christensen is facing down a possible three-year sentence.
Christensen pleaded no contest to a felony charge of child abuse and a misdemeanor battery charge after roughing up an 11-year-old student at school. As part of a plea deal, two other battery charges were dropped.
Originally, the case was referred to the district attorney who naturally declined to prosecute the officer. However, the state attorney general then stepped in and took up the case after receiving outside pressure.
“I was very concerned with the safety of our victim, who was a child, and I think this conviction sends a strong message that no one is above the law, but we need to set a very high standard of care that protects students on our school campuses,” said Attorney General Hector Balderas.
In a corrupt twist, however, despite the conviction, Christensen still has his state certification to be a law enforcement officer.
The incident unfolded on August 27, 2019 but the officer’s lapel camera video wasn’t released until later. It is nothing short of disturbing as it shows the officer, who is much bigger than the girl, slamming her down on the concrete while abusing her.
“That’s not our standards. That’s not who we are,” said Farmington Police Chief Steven Hebbe in response to his officer in the video.
According to school officials, the girl had misbehaved in class and was waiting for her mother to come pick her up from school. As she waited in the lobby of the school, the officer wrongly accused her of assault and then attacked her.
As KOB reports, the day of the incident, school administrators can be seen on the lapel video following the girl around campus as she waits for her mom to pick her up from school.
“This morning, she went straight to the cafeteria. She took more milks than she was supposed to. She threw a milk on the ground,” said Officer Christensen in the lapel camera footage.
After savagely attacking the small girl, Officer Christensen attempted to claim in his report that “the child assaulted two school employees that morning.” He claimed that one assault occurred when the girl walked past the assistant principal and brushes past him and the second occurred when the girl attempted to open the door and walked past the principal.
However, none of these charges against the girl would stick as the officer lacked any evidence of them.
Despite the girl not posing any threat to anyone, the officer attacked her anyway. As the video shows, he grabs the 11-year-old girl with special needs by the backpack and throws her to the ground. He then jumps on top of her, pinning her down for over six minutes as she screams in horror.
The entire time, the officer is yelling “stop resisting,” as if this has any effect on a special needs child being attacked by a man twice her size.
The situation became so unnerving that a school official was forced to step in and tell the officer to let the girl stand up.
“Officer Christensen – she is not a threat to yourself or others at this moment,” said the school employee.
“No, she is!” Christensen replied, claiming the girl, half his size, is a threat to an armed man in a bullet proof vest.
Laughably, the cop would go on to write in his report that the 11-year-old girl “was very strong, stronger than I was.”
After the altercation lasted several more minutes, the school employee then demanded that the officer stop his attack, even using the term “excessive force.”
“We’re not going to use excessive force,” the school employee said.
Naturally, the officer replied that “It’s not excessive!”
But as the video shows, it was definitely excessive. Never once did the girl attempt to fight back. She was trying to comply, but the officer’s weight on her body would not let her move in the position he was demanding. She even tried to explain this to him but to no avail.
After the incident, police were unable to find anything on which to charge the girl, so she was allowed to return to school as the officer was allowed to resign to escape accountability — for a little while.
The girl and her mother have retained an attorney to file a lawsuit against the city of Farmington and the school.
“She’s an 11-year-old girl and it’s a shock to the system to see that this is a thing that can occur at a school by a certified peace officer,” attorney Mark Curnutt said.
Curnutt then pointed out the fact that the officer attempted to accuse the girl of committing multiple felonies, none of which actually took place.
“When you have a situation where there’s a report that says a felony is committed, another felony is committed, another felony is committed — and then you review the factual documentation you have of that through the video and it doesn’t add up, there must be a level of accountability,” Curnutt said.
This most disturbing video is available on YouTube here, news report below.
Source: The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--No Vaccine for Tyranny

No Vaccine for Tyranny

The World Health Organization ( WHO ) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good .
Following this announcement , one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns .
After all , the WHO ’ s pronouncements are considered infallible , so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO .
Yet , governors , mayors , and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO ’ s anti-lockdown position .
Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake , many in the political class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government , claim that we can not return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use .
This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will .
The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine .
Moncef Slaoui , the chief adviser of the Trump administration ’ s Operation Warp Speed , a “ public-private partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coronavirus vaccine , has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “ incredibly precise … tracking systems.
” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals .
So , the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance !
Slaoui is just the latest “ expert ” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus .
Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for coronavirus .
People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted .
Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program .
They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act ’ s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists .
However , these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes .
Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well .
Fauci and Gates ’ digital certificate could , and likely will , be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments .
The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person ’ s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases .
The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job .
Those who consider this “ paranoia ” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport .
Liberty lost in the “ war on covid ” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stop moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over .
Instead , the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians .
Fortunately , we still have the ability to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course .
We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “ dark winter ” of authoritarianism .
Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute .
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted , provided full credit and a live link are given .
Source : The Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Ron Paul
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good. Following this announcement, one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns. After all, the WHO’s pronouncements are considered infallible, so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO. Yet, governors, mayors, and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO’s anti-lockdown position.
Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.
The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, a “public-private partnership” in charge of producing and delivering a coronavirus vaccine, has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “incredibly precise … tracking systems.” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals. So, the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance!
Slaoui is just the latest “expert” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development of a digital certificate for those vaccinated for coronavirus. People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted.
Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program. They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists. However, these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes. Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for one reason it will inevitably use that power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well.
Fauci and Gates’ digital certificate could, and likely will, be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments. The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person’s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases.
The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel. It could also be combined with a future mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job. Those who consider this “paranoia” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport.
Liberty lost in the “war on covid” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stop moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over. Instead, the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians. Fortunately, we still have the ability to do so by the peaceful means of educating our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course. We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “dark winter” of authoritarianism.
Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Source: The Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--Pandemic Emergency Jobless Claims Soar To New Record High

Initial Jobless Claims rose by 751k last week , very slightly lower than last week ’ s upwardly revised 758k @ @ @ @ @ four times the pre-COVID-lockdown norms… Continuing Claims improved for the 8th week in a row @ @ @ @ @ But , as continuing claims slide , Pandemic Emergency Claims continue to soar to a @ @ @ @ @ around 22 million people on government jobless benefits… And what happens next with no fiscal @ @ @ @ @ Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources @ @ @ @ @ peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote @ @ @ @ @ .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free @ @ @ @ @ .

By Tyler Durden
Initial Jobless Claims rose by 751k last week, very slightly lower than last week’s upwardly revised 758k rise, but still around four times the pre-COVID-lockdown norms…
Continuing Claims improved for the 8th week in a row to its lowest since March…
But, as continuing claims slide, Pandemic Emergency Claims continue to soar to a new record high…
There remains around 22 million people on government jobless benefits…
And what happens next with no fiscal stimulus expected anytime soon?
Source: Zero Hedge
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--House Bills Introduced by Ohio Rep Promote Transportation Tech That Experts Say Isn’t Safe.  Stakeho

House Bills Introduced by Ohio Rep Promote Transportation Tech That Experts Say Isn’t Safe.  Stakeholders Applaud.

5G proponents are often also proponents of other “ Smart ” Technology including Autonomous Vehicles ( AV ) , Internet of Things ( IoT ) , utility “ Smart ” Meters , etc .
Countless experts have validated that all “ Smart ” technology is problematic in a variety of ways .
It is vulnerable to cybersecurity risks ( hacking , etc . )
, fires , explosions , mechanical problems , and more ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Reports continue to be published that Autonomous Vehicles ( AV ) are NOT safer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) .
In fact , there have been multiple reports about Teslas crashing and/or catching fire .
Owners have reported additional life-threatening situations as well ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Nevertheless , legislation has been introduced to authorize more “ Smart ” technology on all American roads .
Legislation that aims to promote the adoption of new technologies throughout the country ’ s transportation networks recently was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives .
The Strengthening Methods to Advance Research and Technology , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep .
Troy Balderson ( R-Ohio ) , would aim to advance innovation , efficiency and new safety programs across transportation corridors .
Specifically , the bill would authorize several programs at the U.S. Department of Transportation .
The programs pertain to advanced technologies , connected vehicles , automated driving systems and digital construction management systems .
Rural areas would be covered under the bill , according to background provided by the congressman ’ s office .
Ohioans are proud to be a national leader in smart mobility and advanced transportation research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with local infrastructure leaders to continue state-of-the-art work to improve road safety and transit efficiency in Ohio .
MORE : https : //t.co/p6fbbHeJHC pic.twitter.com/zOVD5DSIeS “ In central Ohio , we ’ re proud of our history as a national leader in smart mobility and advanced transportation research , ” Balderson , a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee , said in a statement Oct. 29 .
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
5G proponents are often also proponents of other “Smart” Technology including Autonomous Vehicles (AV), Internet of Things (IoT), utility “Smart” Meters, etc. Countless experts have validated that all “Smart” technology is problematic in a variety of ways. It is vulnerable to cybersecurity risks (hacking, etc.), fires, explosions, mechanical problems, and more (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
Reports continue to be published that Autonomous Vehicles (AV) are NOT safer than most human drivers (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In fact, there have been multiple reports about Teslas crashing and/or catching fire. Owners have reported additional life-threatening situations as well (see 1, 2).
Nevertheless, legislation has been introduced to authorize more “Smart” technology on all American roads.
From TT News:
New House Bill Promotes Transportation Technologies Legislation that aims to promote the adoption of new technologies throughout the country’s transportation networks recently was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Strengthening Methods to Advance Research and Technology, or SMART, Act, introduced by Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio), would aim to advance innovation, efficiency and new safety programs across transportation corridors. Specifically, the bill would authorize several programs at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The programs pertain to advanced technologies, connected vehicles, automated driving systems and digital construction management systems. Rural areas would be covered under the bill, according to background provided by the congressman’s office. Ohioans are proud to be a national leader in smart mobility and advanced transportation research. I’m excited to keep working with local infrastructure leaders to continue state-of-the-art work to improve road safety and transit efficiency in Ohio.
MORE: https://t.co/p6fbbHeJHC pic.twitter.com/zOVD5DSIeS — Congressman Troy Balderson (@RepBalderson) October 29, 2020 “In central Ohio, we’re proud of our history as a national leader in smart mobility and advanced transportation research,” Balderson, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in a statement Oct. 29. Read full article
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--sElection Chaos Proceeds as Planned — New World Next Week

Welcome back to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news .
This week : • Trump Campaign to ‘ Immediately ’ Request Recount In Wisconsin , Citing ‘ Irregularities ’ Story # 2 : Angelina Jolie ’ s MI6 Interview Shows Just How Connected Hollywood Is To the Deep State • Angelina Jolie Asks the Outgoing Head of MI6 About Protecting Democracy , Fighting Misinformation and His Life as a Spy Story # 3 : Forged Letter Warning About Wolves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Propaganda Campaign That Went Awry • Canadian Military FAKE WOLVES FEAR CAMPAIGN EXPOSED !
But You WON ’ T BELIEVE What They Are Doing NEXT !
!
!
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4 You can help support our independent and non-commercial work by visiting http : //CorbettReport.com/Support & http : //MediaMonarchy.com/Join .
Those in the US who want to support our work can send cash , check or money order ( payable to James Evan Pilato ) to : Visit James Corbett at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube and Bitchute , and support him on Patreon .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Corbett Report
Welcome back to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
Story #1: Biden’s Plan to Assert Control
Story #2: Angelina Jolie’s MI6 Interview Shows Just How Connected Hollywood Is To the Deep State
Story #3: Forged Letter Warning About Wolves on the Loose Part of Canadian Military Propaganda Campaign That Went Awry

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
You can help support our independent and non-commercial work by visiting http://CorbettReport.com/Support & http://MediaMonarchy.com/Join.
Those in the US who want to support our work can send cash, check or money order (payable to James Evan Pilato) to:
Media Monarchy
c/o James Evan Pilato
P.O. Box 22486
Santa Fe, NM 87502-2486
Thank You.
Visit James Corbett at CorbettReport.com. Subscribe to his channel on YouTube and Bitchute, and support him on Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--Dozens of Raids Over “Racist and Xenophobic” Online Speech Sweep Germany

Police have raided dozens of residences in Germany as a part of a Europe-wide effort to silence online speech deemed racist and xenophobic .
European Union law enforcement agency Europol and German prosecutors say that police have searched 83 apartments and other buildings on Tuesday to seize smartphones and laptops while 96 people are being questioned about “ hateful posts ” they made online , reports Reuters .
Reports suggest that some of the raids have been justified over anti-Semitic comments and in one instance insulting female politicians .
A Europol spokesman confirmed to Reuters that the raids specifically focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ xenophobia .
The speech clampdown is a part of an annual drive lead by German prosecutors , in company with Italy , France , Greece , Norway , Britain and the Czech Republic , under the coordination of Europol .
Similar raids to those that took place on Tuesday also occurred in 2019 when German police raided dozens of homes across the country for online posts deemed anti-Semitic insults , an insult to officials or a call for others to commit crimes .
Germany is home to some of the most authoritarian defamation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjective realm of enforcement .
Under Section 130 of the German criminal code , it is a crime to insult , maliciously slur or defame parts of the population ‘ in a manner violating their human dignity.
’ In 2018 , Germany put into place the “ NetzDG ” law that says social media platforms must remove “ hate speech ” within within 24 hours of receiving complaints from users and within seven days when content evaluation is more difficult .
Critics of the law say that it is a danger to free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overbroad , lacking clear definitions , and decisions on “ hate speech ” cases .
“ Governments and the public have valid concerns about the proliferation of illegal or abusive content online , but the new German law is fundamentally flawed , ” Wenzel Michalski , Germany director at Human Rights Watch said of NetzDG after its passage .
“ It is vague , overbroad , and turns private companies into overzealous censors to avoid steep fines , leaving users with no judicial oversight or right to appeal.
” Two key aspects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respect free speech , Human Rights Watch said .
First , the law places the burden on companies that host third-party content to make difficult determinations of when user speech violates the law , under conditions that encourage suppression of arguably lawful speech .
Even courts can find these determinations challenging , as they require a nuanced understanding of context , culture , and law .
Faced with short review periods and the risk of steep fines , companies have little incentive to err on the side of free expression The German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection to dangerous speech spewed by fringe far-right political groups who usually rail against the nation ’ s domestic immigration policy .
Joseph Jankowski is an Editor-at-Large for Planet Free Will .
His works have been published by major news publications such as ZeroHedge.com and Infowars.com .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Joe Jankowski
Police have raided dozens of residences in Germany as a part of a Europe-wide effort to silence online speech deemed racist and xenophobic.
European Union law enforcement agency Europol and German prosecutors say that police have searched 83 apartments and other buildings on Tuesday to seize smartphones and laptops while 96 people are being questioned about “hateful posts” they made online, reports Reuters.
Reports suggest that some of the raids have been justified over anti-Semitic comments and in one instance insulting female politicians.
A Europol spokesman confirmed to Reuters that the raids specifically focused on online posts that promote racism and xenophobia.
The speech clampdown is a part of an annual drive lead by German prosecutors, in company with Italy, France, Greece, Norway, Britain and the Czech Republic, under the coordination of Europol.
Similar raids to those that took place on Tuesday also occurred in 2019 when German police raided dozens of homes across the country for online posts deemed anti-Semitic insults, an insult to officials or a call for others to commit crimes.
Germany is home to some of the most authoritarian defamation and speech laws that stretch into a subjective realm of enforcement.
Under Section 130 of the German criminal code, it is a crime to insult, maliciously slur or defame parts of the population ‘in a manner violating their human dignity.’
In 2018, Germany put into place the “NetzDG” law that says social media platforms must remove “hate speech” within within 24 hours of receiving complaints from users and within seven days when content evaluation is more difficult.
Critics of the law say that it is a danger to free speech because it is too vague and overbroad, lacking clear definitions, and decisions on “hate speech” cases.
“Governments and the public have valid concerns about the proliferation of illegal or abusive content online, but the new German law is fundamentally flawed,” Wenzel Michalski, Germany director at Human Rights Watch said of NetzDG after its passage. “It is vague, overbroad, and turns private companies into overzealous censors to avoid steep fines, leaving users with no judicial oversight or right to appeal.”
Human Rights Watch would write:
Two key aspects of the law violate Germany’s obligation to respect free speech, Human Rights Watch said. First, the law places the burden on companies that host third-party content to make difficult determinations of when user speech violates the law, under conditions that encourage suppression of arguably lawful speech. Even courts can find these determinations challenging, as they require a nuanced understanding of context, culture, and law. Faced with short review periods and the risk of steep fines, companies have little incentive to err on the side of free expression
The German government defends the law as a public protection to dangerous speech spewed by fringe far-right political groups who usually rail against the nation’s domestic immigration policy.
Joseph Jankowski is an Editor-at-Large for Planet Free Will. His works have been published by major news publications such as ZeroHedge.com and Infowars.com.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--The Government’s Lust To Spy

The Government’s Lust To Spy

In 2019 , agents of the federal and state governments persuaded judges to issue 99 % of all requested intercepts .
An intercept is any type of government surveillance – telephone , text message , email , even in-person .
These are intercepts that theoretically are based on probable cause of crime , as is required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution .
The 2019 numbers – which the government released as we were all watching the end of the presidential election campaign – are staggering .
The feds , and local and state police in America engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested 17,101 people from among those intercepted and obtained convictions on the basis of evidence obtained via the intercepts on 5,304 .
That is a conviction rate of 4 % of all people spied upon by law enforcement in the United States .
Here is the backstory .
Readers of this column are familiar with the use by federal agents of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain intercepts using a standard of proof considerably lesser than probable cause of crime .
That came about because Congress basically has no respect for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue intercept warrants if federal agents can identify an American or a foreign person in America who has spoken to a foreign person in another country .
Call your cousin in Florence or a bookseller in Edinburgh or an art dealer in Brussels , and under FISA , the feds can get a warrant from the FISA Court to monitor your future calls and texts and emails .
This FISA system is profoundly unconstitutional ; the Fourth Amendment expressly requires that the government – state and federal – can only lawfully engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a judge based upon a showing under oath of probable cause of crime .
The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that intercepts and surveillances constitute searches and seizures .
The government searches a database of emails , texts or recorded phone calls and seizes the data it wants .
Thus , when the feds have targeted someone for prosecution and lack probable cause of crime about that person , they resort to FISA .
This is not only unlawful and unconstitutional , but also it is corrupting , as it permits criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of crimes outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment .
The use of the Fourth Amendment is the only lawful means of engaging in surveillance sufficient to introduce the fruits of the surveillance at a criminal trial .
If the feds happen upon evidence of a crime from their FISA-authorized intercepts , they then need to engage in deceptive acts of parallel construction .
That connotes the false creation of an ostensibly lawful intercept in order to claim that they obtained lawfully what they already have obtained unlawfully .
Law enforcement personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acquire evidence – even duping the prosecutors for whom they work – so the evidence will appear to have been obtained lawfully and thus can be used at trial .
At its essence , parallel construction is a deception on the court .
If the deception is perpetrated under oath , it is perjury – a felony .
This corruption of the Constitution by those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping happens every day in America .
The FISA-induced corruption has regrettably bled into the culture of non-FISA law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The statistics I cited above are not from FISA – those numbers are secret .
Rather , the statistics reflect the government ’ s voracious appetite for spying that now pervades non-FISA law enforcement .
This is so because judges accept uncritically the applications made before them for intercept or surveillance warrants .
Thus , even though the Fourth Amendment permits judges to issue warrants only upon the probable likelihood of evidence of a crime in the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized , the attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attenuated by both the law enforcement personnel who seek warrants and the judges who hear the applications .
We know this because we have not seen a number like 99 % of all warrant applications – every one supposedly based on probable cause of crime – granted .
Nor have we seen only 4 % of those intercepts resulting in convictions .
The rational conclusion is that the government ’ s appetite for surveillance remains voracious , and judges – whose affirmative duty it is to uphold the Constitution as against the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very little to abate this .
So , what becomes of the remaining 96 % of those on whom the government spied ?
That depends on whether the government charges anyone .
If a person is charged and acquitted , and law enforcement unlawfully obtained evidence against that person , his remedy is either persuading the court to suppress the evidence thus resulting in the acquittal , or suing the law enforcement agents who unlawfully spied on him .
Yet , under current Supreme Court decisions about who can sue the government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not charged you and not told you , you have no cause of action against the law enforcement agents who did this .
Stated differently , in 2019 , at least 760,739 people in America were spied upon pursuant to judicial orders allegedly based upon probable cause of crime and were neither charged nor informed of the spying .
My Fox colleagues often deride my attacks on those who fail to safeguard our privacy because they argue , we have no privacy .
Yet , as Justice Louis Brandeis wrote , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be let alone .
If we forget this , my colleagues will have the last laugh .
If we expose its violation , we might know the joys of unmonitored personal fulfillment .
Andrew P. Napolitano , a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey , is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel .
Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution .
The most recent is Suicide Pact : The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty .
To find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists , visit www.creators.com .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Andrew Napolitano
In 2019, agents of the federal and state governments persuaded judges to issue 99% of all requested intercepts. An intercept is any type of government surveillance – telephone, text message, email, even in-person. These are intercepts that theoretically are based on probable cause of crime, as is required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
The 2019 numbers – which the government released as we were all watching the end of the presidential election campaign – are staggering. The feds, and local and state police in America engaged in 27,431,687 intercepts on 777,840 people. They arrested 17,101 people from among those intercepted and obtained convictions on the basis of evidence obtained via the intercepts on 5,304. That is a conviction rate of 4% of all people spied upon by law enforcement in the United States.
Here is the backstory.
Readers of this column are familiar with the use by federal agents of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain intercepts using a standard of proof considerably lesser than probable cause of crime. That came about because Congress basically has no respect for the Constitution and authorized the FISA Court to issue intercept warrants if federal agents can identify an American or a foreign person in America who has spoken to a foreign person in another country.
Call your cousin in Florence or a bookseller in Edinburgh or an art dealer in Brussels, and under FISA, the feds can get a warrant from the FISA Court to monitor your future calls and texts and emails.
This FISA system is profoundly unconstitutional; the Fourth Amendment expressly requires that the government – state and federal – can only lawfully engage in searches and seizures pursuant to warrants issued by a judge based upon a showing under oath of probable cause of crime. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that intercepts and surveillances constitute searches and seizures. The government searches a database of emails, texts or recorded phone calls and seizes the data it wants.
Thus, when the feds have targeted someone for prosecution and lack probable cause of crime about that person, they resort to FISA. This is not only unlawful and unconstitutional, but also it is corrupting, as it permits criminal investigators to cut constitutional corners by obtaining evidence of crimes outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment. The use of the Fourth Amendment is the only lawful means of engaging in surveillance sufficient to introduce the fruits of the surveillance at a criminal trial.
If the feds happen upon evidence of a crime from their FISA-authorized intercepts, they then need to engage in deceptive acts of parallel construction. That connotes the false creation of an ostensibly lawful intercept in order to claim that they obtained lawfully what they already have obtained unlawfully.
Law enforcement personnel then fake the true means they used to acquire evidence – even duping the prosecutors for whom they work – so the evidence will appear to have been obtained lawfully and thus can be used at trial. At its essence, parallel construction is a deception on the court. If the deception is perpetrated under oath, it is perjury – a felony.
This corruption of the Constitution by those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping happens every day in America.
The FISA-induced corruption has regrettably bled into the culture of non-FISA law enforcement, and even into the judiciary. The statistics I cited above are not from FISA – those numbers are secret. Rather, the statistics reflect the government’s voracious appetite for spying that now pervades non-FISA law enforcement. This is so because judges accept uncritically the applications made before them for intercept or surveillance warrants.
Thus, even though the Fourth Amendment permits judges to issue warrants only upon the probable likelihood of evidence of a crime in the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, the attitude of what constitutes probable cause has been attenuated by both the law enforcement personnel who seek warrants and the judges who hear the applications. We know this because we have not seen a number like 99% of all warrant applications – every one supposedly based on probable cause of crime – granted. Nor have we seen only 4% of those intercepts resulting in convictions.
The rational conclusion is that the government’s appetite for surveillance remains voracious, and judges – whose affirmative duty it is to uphold the Constitution as against the other two branches of government – have done very little to abate this.
So, what becomes of the remaining 96% of those on whom the government spied? That depends on whether the government charges anyone. If a person is charged and acquitted, and law enforcement unlawfully obtained evidence against that person, his remedy is either persuading the court to suppress the evidence thus resulting in the acquittal, or suing the law enforcement agents who unlawfully spied on him.
Yet, under current Supreme Court decisions about who can sue the government, if the government has spied on you and not charged you and not told you, you have no cause of action against the law enforcement agents who did this.
Stated differently, in 2019, at least 760,739 people in America were spied upon pursuant to judicial orders allegedly based upon probable cause of crime and were neither charged nor informed of the spying.
My Fox colleagues often deride my attacks on those who fail to safeguard our privacy because they argue, we have no privacy. Yet, as Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, the most comprehensive of rights is the right to be let alone. If we forget this, my colleagues will have the last laugh. If we expose its violation, we might know the joys of unmonitored personal fulfillment.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2019 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO – DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Source: AntiWar.com
Image: The Anti-Media
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--Proposition 22 in California Passes – A Rare Win for Liberty

This author had previously written about Proposition 22 , which overturns AB 5 , here and here .
By overturning AB 5 , Proposition 22 protects the rights of drivers for various ride-sharing companies , primarily Lyft , Uber , and DoorDash , to work as independent contractors , rather than employees ( who would have to file a W-2 tax return and so forth ) .
Similarly , it also protects the ride-sharing companies ’ liberties to contract with drivers , rather then being forced to hire them as employees with expensive mandated benefits .
In a country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and extreme abuse of power by the government , on state , federal , and also various local levels , finally some liberty prevails .
Furthermore , Lyft and Uber will likely scrap their strongly considered plans to leave California and remain in operation in the state , keeping civilization from regressing into the days when ride-share and taxi services weren ’ t anywhere as convenient or inexpensive .
Much more work needs to be done to restore liberty , both in and outside of California , but at least this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it remains unlikely that other similar major advancements in liberty will be achieved any time soon , either in or out of California , at least this passing of Proposition 22 provides proof that liberty can prevail , even in the liberty adverse state of California , if the people take appropriate action and stop electing politicians that always find ways to pass all these wicked , liberty-violating laws – this primarily means governor Gavin Newsom and nearly every Democrat in California that unfortunately always finds ways to win .
So much for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop voting Democrat and continue voting to strike down all other laws that similarly violate liberty .
Let ’ s repeal all these totally illegitimate COVID-fueled lockdowns , stay-at-home orders , and mask mandates .
Let ’ s do the same for all the tax laws and unreasonably burdensome regulations , which the politicians who pass them rarely ever read ( if ever ) , on non-violent business and personal activities .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

Op-Ed by Krishna Chandrasekaran
This author had previously written about Proposition 22, which overturns AB 5, here and here. By overturning AB 5, Proposition 22 protects the rights of drivers for various ride-sharing companies, primarily Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash, to work as independent contractors, rather than employees (who would have to file a W-2 tax return and so forth). Similarly, it also protects the ride-sharing companies’ liberties to contract with drivers, rather then being forced to hire them as employees with expensive mandated benefits.
In a country and world full of anxiety, grief, and extreme abuse of power by the government, on state, federal, and also various local levels, finally some liberty prevails. Furthermore, Lyft and Uber will likely scrap their strongly considered plans to leave California and remain in operation in the state, keeping civilization from regressing into the days when ride-share and taxi services weren’t anywhere as convenient or inexpensive.
Much more work needs to be done to restore liberty, both in and outside of California, but at least this is a step in the right direction. While it remains unlikely that other similar major advancements in liberty will be achieved any time soon, either in or out of California, at least this passing of Proposition 22 provides proof that liberty can prevail, even in the liberty adverse state of California, if the people take appropriate action and stop electing politicians that always find ways to pass all these wicked, liberty-violating laws – this primarily means governor Gavin Newsom and nearly every Democrat in California that unfortunately always finds ways to win. So much for bipartisanship!
It’s time to stop voting Democrat and continue voting to strike down all other laws that similarly violate liberty. Let’s repeal all these totally illegitimate COVID-fueled lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, and mask mandates. Let’s do the same for all the tax laws and unreasonably burdensome regulations, which the politicians who pass them rarely ever read (if ever), on non-violent business and personal activities.
Source: Liberty Forecast Blog
Image: Pixabay
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--Companies Join Exodus To Suburbs As Cities Transform Into “Ghost Towns”

People and companies are leaving American cities in droves .
An urban exodus could persist for a couple of years as the virus pandemic and resulting socio-economic implosion has exacerbated quality of life problems – violent crime , homelessness , rising taxes , and high cost of living – those were some of the reasons , even before the pandemic , forcing city dwellers to rural communities .
We ’ ve presented enough evidence ( see : here & here & here ) of city dwellers fleeing for the exits , some of which was due to the virus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allowing these folks to work anywhere with an internet connection .
Over the summer , firms in New York ’ s financial district mulled over the idea of an exit .
At least one real estate company has confirmed that big and small companies are shifting to suburbia , reported Bloomberg .
IWG Plc , which operates Regus-branded offices in metro areas worldwide , said in a post-pandemic era , “ a strong pick-up in demand ” for suburban office space versus major cities has been observed .
They said deals for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 30 % since the pandemic ’ s beginning , citing a 40 % surge in southern Connecticut activity .
IWG notes big and small firms are moving to suburbia .
They said , “ sales of small offices accommodating one to two people have jumped 19 % amid growing demand for working closer to home.
” Numerous times this summer ( see : here & here & here ) , we ’ ve highlighted how the once-bustling New York City has transformed into a “ ghost town.
” And it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metros across the country are experiencing similar outflow trends of people and businesses .
This is also happening in Europe as people and companies shift out of densely populated areas .
U.K. housebuilder Crest Nicholson Holdings Plc said housing developments in southern England outside of London are experiencing rising demand as a “ structural change to the balance of office and home working ” is underway .
Escape from cities , no matter if its people or firms , is happening across the Western world .
This is terrible news for metro home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic recoveries for cities .
At least now , baby boomers in America who own McMansions and rural corporate real estate have a new wave of buyers to sell to .
So what about firms ?
Are they also running for the exits ?
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
People and companies are leaving American cities in droves. An urban exodus could persist for a couple of years as the virus pandemic and resulting socio-economic implosion has exacerbated quality of life problems – violent crime, homelessness, rising taxes, and high cost of living – those were some of the reasons, even before the pandemic, forcing city dwellers to rural communities.
We’ve presented enough evidence (see: here & here & here) of city dwellers fleeing for the exits, some of which was due to the virus pandemic unleashing a technological wave of remote working, allowing these folks to work anywhere with an internet connection.
Over the summer, firms in New York’s financial district mulled over the idea of an exit. At least one real estate company has confirmed that big and small companies are shifting to suburbia, reported Bloomberg.
IWG Plc, which operates Regus-branded offices in metro areas worldwide, said in a post-pandemic era, “a strong pick-up in demand” for suburban office space versus major cities has been observed. They said deals for downtown New York office spaces have fallen by 30% since the pandemic’s beginning, citing a 40% surge in southern Connecticut activity.
IWG notes big and small firms are moving to suburbia. They said, “sales of small offices accommodating one to two people have jumped 19% amid growing demand for working closer to home.”
Numerous times this summer (see: here & here & here), we’ve highlighted how the once-bustling New York City has transformed into a “ghost town.” And it’s not just New York City. Major metros across the country are experiencing similar outflow trends of people and businesses. This is also happening in Europe as people and companies shift out of densely populated areas.
U.K. housebuilder Crest Nicholson Holdings Plc said housing developments in southern England outside of London are experiencing rising demand as a “structural change to the balance of office and home working” is underway.
“This shows the current trend of buyers wanting more space — inside and outside of the house,” Bloomberg’s Iwona Hovenko said while referencing the latest Crest Nicholson report. “But it will be interesting if the trend lasts once the pandemic passes. I am a strong believer in London long-term.”
Escape from cities, no matter if its people or firms, is happening across the Western world. This is terrible news for metro home prices and will also result in slower economic recoveries for cities.
At least now, baby boomers in America who own McMansions and rural corporate real estate have a new wave of buyers to sell to.
Source: Zero Hedge
So what about firms? Are they also running for the exits?
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.