Speech Without Borders

expressive freedom worldwide

[Nym @nym]

DEVELOPING PRIVACY TECHNOLOGY IS NOT A CRIME

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

Encouraging to see, thank you!

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

Pleased to report that the defensive provisions of the GRANITE Act have been adopted as model policy by the American Legislative Exchange Council.

I am told the vote was unanimous.

The States will protect American speech online. Congress should follow.
https://t.co/eFM0L1yPXZ

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

@beeple https://t.co/4ztmrOSVTE

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

Great news for privacy and property rights! Thanks @ij

[Patrick Jaicomo @pjaicomo]

The open-fields doctrine is officially dead in Pennsylvania, care of @IJ and @windyjosh92!

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

@NZFreeSpeech So does privacy

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

this is not about guns

[Joel Telling - 3D Printing Nerd ✋ @joeltelling]

VERY PROUD of @David_Tobin leading the effort in California to stop AB2047. We have our own video coming soon, but here is what Louis Rossmann put together on the day (THANK YOU, Louis!)
https://t.co/v6zaXIEtnu

[Ramez Naam @ramez]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with AI is good guys with equally powerful AI.

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

@newtonlaw https://t.co/Ofca4PUdj8

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

On a related note,

https://t.co/NNDrmRH5iM

[Anthropic @AnthropicAI]

New Anthropic research: Agentic misalignment in Summer 2026.

A year after our blackmail experiments, we found four more ways that today’s autonomous AI agents misbehave in simulations.

Read more: https://t.co/MMDuJapeV6

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

Polarizing politics aside, algorithmic manipulation was fragmenting consensus reality before AI, and opaque power over augmented intelligence is an existential threat.

[Brian Roemmele @BrianRoemmele]

Anthropic just announced a product for teachers. They are working with Teacher’s union.

43% of Anthropic output is socialist/communist leaning.

This is what is coming for the kids now.

THIS IS THE REAL AI THREAT.

Indoctrination AI.

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

Great to see more projects like @ProtonPrivacy implementing social recovery options

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

This should not be happening in the United States

[Defending Rights & Dissent @RightsDissent]

Reporter @MaxBlumenthal, editor-in-chief of @TheGrayzoneNews, was stopped & searched at the U.S. border upon return from Iran, where he reported on the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. CPB forced him to turn over his smartphone.

Our statement on this attack on press freedom:

[Orin Kerr @OrinKerr]

It will be interesting to see if ALPRs are allowed after Chatrie—or, if warrants are permitted to use them, what kind of uses are deemed allowed with a warrant.

And if ALPRs systems are not allowed, what about a single ALPR? What about an officer with an iPhone? Stay tuned.

[Ramez Naam @ramez]

Excellent essay from Seb. AI 2040, while purporting to work against concentration of AI power, would instead hyper-concentrate it. Many other fine points throughout. Read the whole thign.

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

@AnthropicAI, why not just allow parents to optionally enable child-safety measures on accounts their children have access to?

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

“We’re not forcing flock on anyone”

Flock *is* being forced on us

[More Perfect Union @MorePerfectUS]

CEO of Flock: "Unfortunately, there’s terrorist organizations like DeFlock whose primary motivation is chaos. They’re closer to Antifa than they are anything else."

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

Ofcom has told the Independent newspaper that they intend to work with American police and the courts to recover fines from 4chan.

This is legally illiterate. If they really want to sue us in the United States to recover a foreign censorship penalty, we welcome the fight.

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

this is bad, m'kay

[Mullvad.net @mullvadnet]

Chat Control 1 is back. Despite the European Parliament voting down the legislation twice this year, the Council of the European Union and parts of the Parliament today managed – through an urgent procedure – to extend it for another two years. The law was originally introduced as temporary legislation, so that its effectiveness could be evaluated. At the end of 2025, the European Commission itself concluded that it was not possible to determine whether the law had any measurable effect. Even so, it has now been pushed through.

Some of today's amendments could have stopped the law. And a majority of the voting MEPs wanted to do so. By a margin of 314-276, the Parliament voted to reject the proposal through these amendments. However, since it was an urgent procedure, 361 votes were required. As a result, the majority lost today and Chat Control 1 was passed. The urgent procedure was a dirty play by the Council and parts of the Parliament – it’s a procedure not meant to be used on legislation already rejected by the Parliament.

For now, Chat Control 1 will remain in effect. This means that tech companies may continue scanning communications without a warrant or suspicion.

However, the real battle is Chat Control 2. Unlike Chat Control 1, it would require all providers to scan communications, and to do so far more extensively than Chat Control 1 ever has.

[Speech Without Borders @speech_ngo]

Let’s take a ‘yes, and’ approach to resisting mass surveillance

[Jason Bassler @JasonBassler1]

8 Ways To Take Down Flock Without A Sawzall:

1. Demand An Audit

Most cities never independently audit whether Flock cameras in town actually reduce crime. Ask your city council to show evidence that these cameras reduced violent crime. Make them prove it. They usually can't.

2. Find Out When the Contract Expires

Every Flock camera program has a contract renewal date. Use FOIAs to request the original contract, all amendments, renewal dates, and termination clauses.

This one is SO important because we must organize BEFORE renewal, not AFTER the cameras go up.

3. Demand the Privacy Impact Assessment

Before deploying any type of surveillance devices with public funds, many city governments are supposed to evaluate the privacy risks.

Ask for privacy Impact Assessment, civil liberties review, and constitutional analysis. If they never conducted one... Ask why not (they hate that.)

4. Show Up Before They Vote

Flock cameras aren't installed overnight. They usually require budget approval, council approval, contract approval. Use tools like "Citizen Portal" to setup automatic notifications for upcoming city council meetings. Speak before, not after installation.

5. Follow the Money

Want to know why your city suddenly wants Flock cameras? It's usually always grants or cronyism.

Ask for grant applications: DHS grants, DOJ grants, Homeland Security funding, ect. Surveillance programs begin because outside money make them "free."

6. Ask About Data Sharing

Every city should have to answer this question: "Exactly which agencies can search our city's license plate database?"

Ask for sharing agreements, MOUs, list of agencies with approval, and search logs. Most people think it's just local police. It rarely is, usually the feds too.

7. Audit Every Search

Public records requests aren't just for the contracts. You can publicly request every audit log showing who searched the Flock system and why.

Ask for date, user, reason for search and any case numbers. Abuse often shows up in the logs before it makes the news or a viral social media post.

8. Compare Crime Before & After

Download your city's crime data. Compare property and violent crime before and after Flock was installed.

If there's no meaningful change... Ask why taxpayers are still paying for it. If officials claim the cameras are effective, ask them to produce the evidence supporting continued funding.

[@levelsio @levelsio]

🇪🇺 The EU is now for the 6th time trying to force Chat Control through which lets them scan ALL your private messages, photos and emails without a warrant

Implictly showing the EU is not democratic and not about what the people of Europe want, because once a law is rejected, you just re-submit it until nobody is watching and it's passed

November 2023: ❌ Chat Control is rejected
June 2024: ❌ Chat Control is rejected
October 2025: ❌ Chat Control is rejected
November 2025: ❌ Chat Control is rejected
March 2026: ❌ Chat Control is rejected
July 2026: 📝 Chat Control is back

Even the EU's own lawyers stated Chat Control is unconstitutional: "generalised message scanning is incompatible with Article 7 of the EU Charter"

You have to wonder why the EU is so adament about reading your private chats, right?