#civilliberties — Public Fediverse posts

Here are examples of "How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech":
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/12/us/politics/trump-free-speech.html
#CivilLiberties #FreeSpeech copy: @renewedresistance #politics

Here are examples of "How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech":
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/12/us/politics/trump-free-speech.html
#CivilLiberties #FreeSpeech copy: @renewedresistance #politics

Here are examples of "How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech":
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/12/us/politics/trump-free-speech.html
#CivilLiberties #FreeSpeech copy: @renewedresistance #politics

Here are examples of "How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech":
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/12/us/politics/trump-free-speech.html
#CivilLiberties #FreeSpeech copy: @renewedresistance #politics

Iran’s Security Crackdown Runs Into Resistance From Within

Iran’s parliament is trying to turn fears of foreign infiltration into law. But as lawmakers work through the…
#NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #breakingnews #Civilliberties #foreignmedia #infiltrationbill #Intelligence #Iran #IRGC #MasoudPezeshkian #MohammadBaqerQalibaf #Parliament #surveillance
https://www.newsbeep.com/729087/

https://www.europesays.com/iran/289450/ Iran’s Security Crackdown Runs Into Resistance From Within #CivilLiberties #ForeignMedia #InfiltrationBill #Intelligence #Iran #IRGC #MasoudPezeshkian #MohammadBaqerQalibaf #Parliament #surveillance

America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.pressenza.com/2026/09/america-after-9-11-25-years-of-fear-war-surveillance-and-permanent-emergency/

America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.pressenza.com/2026/09/america-after-9-11-25-years-of-fear-war-surveillance-and-permanent-emergency/

America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.pressenza.com/2026/09/america-after-9-11-25-years-of-fear-war-surveillance-and-permanent-emergency/

America After 9/11: 25 Years of Fear, War, Surveillance and Permanent Emergency

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.pressenza.com/2026/09/america-after-9-11-25-years-of-fear-war-surveillance-and-permanent-emergency/

I want to congratulate librarians, not famous for their physical strength or their powerful political connections or their great wealth, who, all over this country, have staunchly resisted anti-democratic bullies who have tried to remove certain books from their shelves, and have refused to reveal to thought police the names of persons who have checked out those titles. So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media. The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries.
-- Kurt Vonnegut (A Man Without a Country)

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #KurtVonnegut #Bullies #CivilLiberties #FreeThought #Libraries

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Panopainting #Seashells #Everglades #Florida

The Age of Surveillance in 2026: Are We Ever Truly Alone Anymore?

You leave home and a doorbell camera records you. A camera at the traffic light captures your car. Your phone logs its location, nearby networks, and the applications you open. Your vehicle may record how fast you drive, how sharply you brake, and where you travel. At lunch, a platform studies how long you pause over a video. At home, a smart speaker waits for a command while a connected television measures what holds your attention.

Nothing dramatic has happened.

That is precisely the point.

Modern surveillance rarely announces itself. It does not always arrive through secret agents, hidden microphones, or somebody following you through the street. It often arrives disguised as convenience, personalisation, security, entertainment, or efficiency. It operates quietly in the background, gathering thousands of ordinary moments and converting them into something valuable: a record of who you are, where you go, what you believe, what you buy, whom you know, and what you might do next.

The question is no longer whether we are being watched.

The more difficult question is what happens to a society when being watched becomes the normal condition of everyday life.

1. Surveillance Is No Longer Just About Watching

Traditional surveillance involved observing a person, place, or communication. Digital surveillance goes much further. It does not merely see what happened. It stores events, connects them, compares them with other records, and uses algorithms to draw conclusions.

A camera records your face. Facial-recognition software may attempt to identify you. Your phone records a location. A data broker may connect that location to your home, workplace, religious attendance, medical visits, or political activity. A platform records what you clicked. Its systems may use that information to predict what will keep you watching, what you may purchase, or which message might influence you.

This is the difference between being observed and being analysed.

The most powerful surveillance systems are not necessarily those with the greatest number of cameras. They are the systems capable of combining information from cameras, phones, vehicles, websites, payment records, public databases, and private companies into one searchable picture of a human life.

2. Cameras Can Improve Security, but Their Value Has Limits

The strongest argument for public surveillance is straightforward. Cameras can help deter some offences, identify suspects, reconstruct events, locate missing people, and provide evidence after a crime. Those benefits are real.

But the evidence does not support the idea that installing more cameras automatically makes every environment safer. A major 40-year systematic review found that CCTV was associated with a statistically significant but modest reduction in crime. Its strongest and most consistent effects appeared in car parks, residential areas, and systems involving active monitoring. The evidence was weaker for preventing spontaneous violence.

That distinction matters. Cameras may be useful tools, but they are not neutral and they are not magical. A camera installed for one purpose can later be connected to facial recognition, behavioural analysis, licence-plate databases, or automated enforcement systems.

The political question is therefore not simply, “Do cameras work?”

It is:

Who operates them, what do they search for, how long is the information kept, who can access it, and what prevents the system from quietly expanding?

3. Facial Recognition Changes the Meaning of Public Space

Ordinary video surveillance records people passing through an area. Facial recognition can attempt to identify those people automatically and compare them with watchlists.

London offers a real example of how quickly this technology can scale. In its official report covering September 2024 to September 2025, the Metropolitan Police said approximately 3.15 million faces passed its live facial-recognition cameras during 207 deployments. The force reported 2,077 alerts, 10 false alerts, and 962 arrests. The Met presents those results as evidence that the system can locate people wanted by courts or suspected of offences more efficiently than officers relying on memory alone.

Those numbers also reveal the central privacy problem. Millions of people who were not suspected of wrongdoing had their faces processed so that the system could find a much smaller number of individuals.

The European Data Protection Board considers facial recognition a serious interference with fundamental rights even when a person produces no match. Its guidance stresses that biometric information is especially sensitive because, unlike a password or telephone number, a person cannot replace their face if the data is compromised. It also warns about discrimination, false results, automation bias, and the effect of large-scale biometric processing on democratic life.

Technical accuracy is improving, but accuracy is not a settled question. NIST continues to test face-recognition systems from hundreds of developers and published an updated one-to-one verification report in May 2026. Its broader evaluations have also documented that performance can vary across algorithms, image quality, age, sex, and demographic groups. A system being described as “accurate” does not mean it performs equally in every operational environment or for every person.

And even a technically perfect system would not settle the moral question. A machine could identify everyone correctly and still be used for an unjustifiable purpose.

4. Your Smartphone Is Also a Location Sensor

Most people do not think of their phone as a surveillance device because they chose to buy it. Yet the information generated through mobile applications can reveal an extraordinary amount about a person’s life.

The United States Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly acted against companies accused of collecting or selling sensitive location data without meaningful consent. Its cases have involved data that could expose visits to homes, places of worship, medical facilities, domestic-abuse shelters, and other sensitive locations. In 2026, the FTC announced a settlement intended to ban Kochava and a subsidiary from selling sensitive location data associated with millions of mobile devices. Earlier actions targeted X-Mode, InMarket, Mobilewalla, Gravy Analytics, and Venntel.

The problem is not restricted to phones. In 2025, the FTC alleged that General Motors and OnStar collected and sold precise geolocation and driving-behaviour information from millions of connected vehicles without adequately informing drivers or obtaining affirmative consent. The agency said that information could be used by consumer-reporting companies and could affect insurance rates.

The modern car is therefore not merely a machine that transports you. It may also be a rolling network of sensors capable of recording how, when, and where you travel.

5. Social Media Does Not Only Record What You Post

People often assume that social platforms know only what users voluntarily share. Official investigations indicate a much broader system.

A Federal Trade Commission investigation of nine major social-media and video-streaming services found that companies collected enormous amounts of information, including data obtained from brokers and information about people who did not use their services. The FTC reported that some companies could retain data indefinitely and engaged in extensive sharing, targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making.

The business value is not limited to advertising. In 2025, the FTC’s surveillance-pricing study found that data such as precise location and browsing history could be used to present different consumers with different prices for the same product or service.

That creates a different kind of power. Surveillance is no longer only about discovering what someone has done. It can influence what opportunities, prices, advertisements, political messages, and information that person sees.

Two people may search for the same product, read about the same political issue, or apply for the same service and receive different digital realities based on profiles they cannot inspect.

6. Surveillance Has Entered the Home

For most of history, the home represented a boundary. Governments, employers, advertisers, and strangers might observe public activity, but the private home offered at least some distance from outside scrutiny.

Connected devices have weakened that boundary.

Home-security cameras, smart speakers, televisions, appliances, children’s devices, and voice assistants can collect video, audio, behavioural, and location information. The danger is not theoretical.

In an enforcement action involving Ring, the FTC alleged that employees had improperly accessed customer videos and that weak security practices allowed hackers to take control of some users’ cameras. Ring agreed to privacy and security requirements and consumer refunds.

In a separate case involving Alexa, the FTC and US Department of Justice accused Amazon of retaining children’s voice recordings and geolocation information for years, failing to honour some deletion requests, and using retained information for algorithm training. The resulting order required deletion measures, privacy safeguards, and a $25 million payment.

These cases do not mean every smart device is secretly listening to every conversation. They demonstrate a more grounded danger: when intimate data exists, poor controls, deceptive practices, misuse, hacking, or future changes in policy can expose it.

The safest personal information is not always the information protected by the strongest promise. It is often the information that was never collected.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevegarfield/43023882962

7. The Psychological Cost Is Self-Censorship

The deepest harm caused by surveillance may not be what authorities or companies do with information. It may be what people stop doing because they believe the information could later be used against them.

A peer-reviewed 2026 field experiment followed 827 participants over six weeks. Researchers repeatedly exposed participants to information about digital surveillance. Within individuals, that exposure reduced comfort with sharing opinions, seeking information, and disclosing information online. The study described this as causal evidence that awareness of dataveillance can produce self-censorship.

This is known as the chilling effect.

A person does not need to be arrested, punished, or confronted for surveillance to influence them. Uncertainty may be enough. People may avoid searching for a controversial subject, attending a protest, contacting a journalist, questioning an employer, exploring an identity, or expressing an unpopular view because they do not know how a permanent digital record could be interpreted later.

Surveillance therefore changes behaviour even when nobody actively intervenes.

A society in which people are constantly identifiable may become orderly. It may also become less honest, less creative, and less willing to challenge authority.

8. The Security Argument Cannot Simply Be Ignored

A serious discussion must acknowledge that surveillance can protect people.

Live facial recognition has helped police locate people wanted by courts. CCTV can assist investigations and reduce some forms of property crime. Digital intelligence can help identify organized criminal networks, terrorism threats, exploitation, fraud, and missing persons. The US intelligence community continues to use surveillance authorities under FISA and other national-security laws, publishing annual statistics and oversight information through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The choice is not between a world with absolutely no surveillance and a world where every movement is recorded.

The real question is whether surveillance is:

• targeted or indiscriminate;
• necessary or merely convenient;
• temporary or permanent;
• independently authorized or internally approved;
• open to challenge or hidden behind secrecy;
• limited to serious threats or expanded to minor behaviour;
• effective enough to justify its cost to freedom.

Security can justify carefully limited surveillance. It cannot justify limitless collection simply because information may someday prove useful.

9. The Law Is Trying to Catch Up

Europe has moved further than many jurisdictions in recognizing data protection as a legal right rather than merely a consumer preference.

As of July 21, 2026, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act is approaching its main application date of August 2, 2026. Its prohibited-practices rules have applied since February 2025. The Act generally prohibits practices including social scoring, certain forms of predictive policing, and real-time remote biometric identification by law enforcement in public spaces, although narrow legal exceptions remain. Some high-risk AI obligations have later implementation dates.

The distinction between a general prohibition and a total ban matters. European law still allows some biometric surveillance in specific circumstances, but it places greater emphasis on legal authority, strict necessity, proportionality, documentation, and fundamental-rights safeguards.

The GDPR already gives people in the European Union rights to request access to their personal data, correct inaccurate information, object to some forms of processing, withdraw consent, and request deletion in qualifying circumstances. These rights are not absolute, but they provide individuals with legal tools that go beyond clicking a privacy setting.

Regulation alone will not solve the problem. Laws can be weakened by broad exceptions, slow enforcement, complex procedures, and technologies developing faster than institutions can examine them. But without enforceable limits, promises of responsible surveillance remain voluntary.

10. Consent Has Become a Ritual

Much of digital surveillance is defended through consent.

The user accepted the terms. The driver enabled the service. The customer clicked the box. The resident installed the camera. The parent activated the smart speaker.

But consent means very little when refusing it means losing access to communication, employment tools, transportation features, banking, social participation, or essential digital services.

A person cannot meaningfully evaluate dozens of policies written in complex legal language, especially when companies later combine information with data obtained elsewhere or use it for purposes that were not obvious when it was collected.

Real consent should be specific, understandable, freely given, and reversible. It should not require someone to surrender an entire behavioral profile merely to use a basic service.

Otherwise, the consent box becomes less like permission and more like a legal receipt proving that the surveillance occurred.

11. Privacy Is Not About Having Something to Hide

The phrase “I have nothing to hide” misunderstands what privacy protects.

Privacy allows people to think before speaking, make mistakes without permanent exposure, change political beliefs, explore relationships, recover from difficult periods, seek medical or psychological help, and become someone different from the person described by an old database.

A society without privacy does not merely expose criminals. It freezes ordinary people inside permanent records.

Information collected today may be analyzed by different institutions tomorrow. A location record gathered for advertising may later affect insurance. A photograph uploaded for entertainment may become biometric training data. A political opinion expressed under one government may be judged differently under another.

Privacy is therefore not secrecy.

It is the space required for freedom, dignity, experimentation, and change.

12. Are We Ever Truly Alone Anymore?

Probably less often than we realize.

But the future is not predetermined.

Societies can prohibit certain uses of biometric identification. Regulators can limit the sale of location data. Courts can require warrants and proportionality. Companies can minimize collection instead of retaining information indefinitely. Engineers can build privacy into devices rather than treating it as an optional setting. Citizens can demand clear explanations about systems deployed in their streets, schools, workplaces, vehicles, and homes.

Individuals can also reduce unnecessary exposure. Review application permissions, remove location access that is not essential, delete stored voice and video histories, use encrypted communication, disable unnecessary personalization, request copies of data held about you, and exercise deletion or objection rights where the law provides them.

None of these actions makes a person invisible. That should not be the standard.

The goal is not to disappear from society. It is to prevent participation in society from requiring the surrender of an intimate, permanent, and searchable record of our lives.

The defining political struggle of the surveillance age will not be whether technology can watch us.

It already can.

The struggle will be whether democratic societies remain capable of telling it when to stop.

Revealed: Trump’s War on ICE Protesters Is Collapsing in Court

https://www.rawamerica.com/p/revealed-trumps-war-on-ice-protesters

• The billionaires own the government

• Trump’s sons are quietly building a defense tech empire funded by your tax dollars

• True history of the Capitol attack

#TrumpAdministration #America #Truth #UnitedWeStand #OneNation #UnderGod #AmericanJustice #CivilLiberties #SocialTruth #ICECourt #FederalAgents #FederalCourt #Government #Billionaires #TrumpsWar #CapitalRiots #CyberPolice #AIPoliceForce

Hollow Mockery: Douglass, Jefferson, and 250 Years of a Promise Unkept

Mike Cone

“Your 4th of July is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license . . . your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery.”
— Frederick Douglass (1852)

These words still resonate today.

In the wake of our celebration of the 250th birthday of our independence, let us not forget the ugly truths in the birth and history of this nation. To wash over these truths, as our current administration is wont to do, is tantamount to erasing that part of our past which we should strive to learn from, and to better ourselves as a people, to truly become that nation where the words penned by Thomas Jefferson are not just hollow mockery, but true:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the unalienable rights bestowed upon us. These rights are not to be infringed upon for any reason, whether it be race, color, ethnicity, religious beliefs or social status. For this to be true, we as a people need to understand and accept that indeed “ALL” men are created equal. In this regard, we have failed as a nation time and time again. There are numerous examples of our nation suppressing the civil liberties of the many throughout our history: chattel slavery, the Tulsa Race Massacre, forced dispossession of ancestral Native American lands, Selma, Alabama, Jim Crow laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment, Kent State, the Patriot Act, just to name a few. Hell, even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

My point in all this is we need to do better. It is morally important that we learn from our past and not ignore or erase it just because at times it can be ugly and messy. We need to continue to move forward, toward morality and virtue, because virtue will always prevail.

Our current president is unwilling in this regard. 

President Trump is the converse of morality and virtue and continually seems to move us backward with his version of revisionist history, distorting, altering and even falsifying historical evidence to fit his agenda. He is forever suppressing or attempting to suppress the civil liberties of those who oppose him. He has actively supported and empowered local governments to ban and remove books from public institutions. He has removed or altered exhibits, plaques and monuments from our National Parks, exhibits he terms “inappropriately disparaging to Americans past or living.” These exhibits include the nation’s first executive mansion, which detailed the nine people enslaved by George Washington; the Bunker Hill Monument, to eliminate language he deemed contrary to founding principles; and locations highlighting Japanese American internment and Native American conflicts. He has sent federal troops into our cities in direct defiance of the Posse Comitatus Act. He has allowed his defense secretary, who some call a Christian White Nationalist, to deny high-ranking promotions to senior Army and Navy officers, the majority being women and minorities, and to intervene in a Navy one-star admiral promotion list, removing nine highly vetted officers. The final list of 22 nominees contained zero women and only two non-white officers. Finally, his immigration policies appear to be an obvious attempt to rid the country of Black and Brown people. This is just a small sample of Trump’s penchant for authoritarianism and what this author feels is a deep hatred and disdain for anyone other than his own race. Donald Trump is the ideological antithesis to the phrase “all men are created equal.”

With that said, I was having a conversation with my good friend Nick Allison, an Army combat veteran and fellow Chaos Section contributor, the other day and mentioned my feelings of anger and visceral disgust for our current administration, so much so that I could not find a reason to celebrate our 250 years of independence, particularly as a veteran. I’ll end with Nick’s response:

“You know what? I think we can always find a reason to celebrate, regardless of the current occupant in the Oval Office, because there are always things and ideas and people worth celebrating. This is still a great country with great people and a wonderfully unique experiment in constitutional representative freedom. It gets messy and sometimes runs off the rails, but that’s kind of the whole point of the experiment: we’re a nation of people governing ourselves, which means it’s on us to correct course when things go sideways. Most of human history has been kings, monarchs and strongmen who never had to answer to anybody. Making it 250 years as a self-correcting experiment, messy and beautiful and stupid and wonderful all at once, is reason enough to celebrate. Don’t let one egotistical, narcissistic old man who will be out of office in a couple years, dead within ten, take that away from you.”

Mike Cone is a Marine Corps infantry veteran who served as a mortarman and forward observer in Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines. “Hollow Mockery” is his first piece for The Chaos Section. He lives on Long Island with his wife Cynthia.

Dawn of our Country's Semiquincentennial at the Lewistown Courthouse. #Semiquincentennial #anniversary #usaanniversary #usacelebration #celebration #history #historical #celebrate #patriotic #jingo #jingoism #civilwar #civilwarmonument #monument #concrete #courthouse #civilliberties #civilrights #scotusiscorrupt #potusiscorrupt #flotusiscorrupt #corruption #corruptioningovernment #governmentcorruption #EndCitizensUnited

Your City Is Recording Your Voice (Flock’s New AI System)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jP5RksbJNz8

Flock quietly rolled out a feature that turns their gunshot detection microphones now listen for peoples voices. Most have no idea they’re being recorded.

Civil Rights & Civil Liberties

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523 https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-liberties/authorities/statutes/1285

#Flock #WiretapLaws #Privacy #ECPA #Freedom #USA #CivilRights #CivilLiberties #PrivacyAct

Battle of The Beanfield

There are certain moments in modern British history that seem to sit just beyond the edge of official memory. Events that everybody vaguely remembers, yet somehow never quite make it into the comfortable national story we tell ourselves.

The Battle of Orgreave is one. The miners’ strike is another. The poll tax riots. Hillsborough. Brixton. They linger in photographs, old television footage and the memories of those who were there, carrying the uncomfortable reminder that Britain is not always as civilised, measured and orderly as it likes to imagine itself to be.

The Battle of the Beanfield belongs firmly in that category.

Forty years on, it remains one of the most controversial policing operations in modern British history. More than 1,300 police officers confronted a convoy of around 600 New Age Travellers attempting to reach Stonehenge on 1 June 1985. By the end of the day, dozens of people had been injured, hundreds had been arrested and an entire way of life had effectively been marked for destruction.

What happened in that Hampshire beanfield has never been the subject of a full public inquiry. Yet for many people who witnessed the decline of Britain’s traditional industries during the Thatcher years, the images remain painfully familiar.

I grew up in Yorkshire through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I watched pit villages hollow out. I watched steelworks close. I watched communities that had existed for generations suddenly find themselves described as obstacles to progress. There was a language that emerged during those years. Certain groups became “the problem”. Miners. Trade unionists. Travellers. Alternative communities. Anyone who stood outside the increasingly rigid idea of what Britain was supposed to become.

That is one reason the Battle of the Beanfield still matters.

To understand the confrontation itself, we first need to understand the strange, colourful and often misunderstood world that produced it.

The Stonehenge Free Festival began in 1974. It emerged from the wider countercultural movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, combining music, environmentalism, spiritual exploration, political activism and communal living. Over the following decade it grew steadily, becoming one of the largest free gatherings in Britain. By the early 1980s thousands of people travelled to Stonehenge each summer to celebrate the solstice. The festival attracted an eclectic mix of punks, bikers, druids, musicians, environmental campaigners, anarchists, hippies and families living on the road.

The people who became known as the Peace Convoy were not a single organisation. They were a loose collection of travellers, festival-goers and alternative communities who spent much of the year moving between free festivals, protest camps and temporary settlements. Some were escaping unemployment. Some rejected consumer culture. Others simply wanted a different way of living. Many travelled in converted buses, coaches, ambulances and vans that doubled as homes.

To their supporters they represented freedom, creativity and resistance to conformity.

To their critics they represented disorder.

By 1984 tensions were reaching breaking point. The Stonehenge festival had become enormous. Estimates suggested attendance reached around 100,000 people. Concerns were raised about damage to the archaeological landscape, litter, unauthorised trading and open drug use. English Heritage, which had recently taken over management of the site, came under increasing pressure to act. Local authorities and police forces were equally determined that the gathering should not continue in its existing form. A High Court injunction was obtained to prevent the 1985 festival from taking place. The state had drawn a line.

On the morning of 1 June 1985, the Peace Convoy left Savernake Forest and began moving towards Stonehenge. Around 140 vehicles carried approximately 600 people. Many were families. Children were travelling alongside adults who had spent years living on the road. They knew there would be police opposition. Few appear to have anticipated what was waiting for them.

Police had prepared extensively.

The miners’ strike had ended only months earlier. During that bitter industrial conflict police forces had developed new methods of coordination, rapid deployment and large-scale public order operations. Senior officers later openly acknowledged that lessons learned during the strike had informed preparations for dealing with the travellers.

A four-mile exclusion zone had been established around Stonehenge. Roadblocks were prepared. Officers from multiple forces were assembled. Some estimates place police numbers at around 1,300. Others suggest even higher figures by the end of the operation.

The convoy encountered its first major roadblock near Shipton Bellinger, several miles from Stonehenge. According to police accounts, some traveller vehicles attempted to push through the blockade and rammed police vehicles. Travellers and independent witnesses tell a very different story. They describe a convoy seeking negotiation before finding itself trapped and surrounded.

Whatever happened during those first moments, the situation rapidly escalated.As vehicles attempted to leave the road and move into adjacent fields, police began smashing windows and making arrests. The convoy became scattered across farmland. Families were separated. Children became lost in the confusion. What followed would become one of the most infamous confrontations in modern British policing.

Television footage remains difficult to watch even now.

Officers in riot gear strike vehicle windows with truncheons. People are dragged from buses and vans. Terrified children can be seen inside shattered vehicles. Journalists and witnesses described police hitting men and women indiscriminately. Several accounts alleged pregnant women and individuals carrying babies were assaulted during the operation. Numerous vehicles that functioned as homes were systematically damaged.

The Earl of Cardigan, whose family owned Savernake Forest and who had followed the convoy on a motorcycle, later provided testimony that proved deeply damaging to official police narratives. He described officers rushing vehicles with drawn truncheons, shouting at occupants and creating scenes of intimidation and violence that contradicted many early police claims.

Journalists present that day reported similar concerns.

ITN footage captured scenes that shocked many viewers. Photographer Alan Lodge later described the event as an ambush rather than a battle. Others argued the very name “Battle of the Beanfield” created a misleading impression of two evenly matched sides. One side possessed riot shields, command structures, communications systems and overwhelming numerical superiority. The other consisted largely of civilians living in vehicles.

By the end of the operation, 537 people had been arrested. It remains one of the largest mass arrests of civilians in modern British history. Most of the charges eventually collapsed or were dismissed.

That fact alone raises uncomfortable questions.

If hundreds of supposedly dangerous lawbreakers had been lawfully apprehended while carrying out serious criminal acts, one might expect hundreds of successful prosecutions to follow. Instead, much of the legal case simply evaporated.

Years later, travellers successfully pursued civil actions against Wiltshire Police. Damages were awarded for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and property damage. One police sergeant was convicted of actual bodily harm arising from the events of that day.

Yet despite these outcomes, there has never been a full public inquiry.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield was about more than Stonehenge.

Looking back now, it feels impossible to separate it from the wider atmosphere of Britain in the mid-1980s. This was a country being transformed at extraordinary speed. Traditional industries were disappearing. Unemployment was soaring in many regions. Entire communities were fighting for survival. Alternative lifestyles increasingly found themselves portrayed as threats to public order rather than expressions of individual freedom.

For many people in mining and industrial areas, there is a recognisable pattern.

First comes the language.

A group is described as troublesome, outdated or undesirable.

Then comes the media narrative.

Then comes the justification.

Then comes the force.

That does not mean every traveller was a saint, any more than every miner was. Human beings are messy. Large gatherings bring problems. Some attendees at the Stonehenge festivals undoubtedly caused damage. Some individuals within the traveller movement undoubtedly committed crimes. A serious historical assessment has to acknowledge that reality. The archaeological concerns surrounding Stonehenge were genuine. Local residents had legitimate complaints. Authorities were entitled to seek solutions.

But none of that explains the scale of what happened on 1 June 1985.

The images of smashed homes, frightened children and riot police advancing across fields continue to disturb because they seem wildly disproportionate. They suggest a state determined not merely to enforce an injunction but to send a message.

And the message was received.

The traveller movement never fully recovered.

Legislation introduced during the following years increasingly restricted nomadic lifestyles and unauthorised gatherings. The Public Order Act 1986 and later the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created new powers that made life significantly harder for travellers, free festivals and eventually the emerging rave culture.

In many ways the Beanfield became a blueprint. The same language used against travellers would later be applied to ravers, squatters, protesters and environmental activists. Alternative communities were increasingly framed not as citizens exercising freedoms but as public order problems requiring management.

Yet the legacy of the Beanfield refuses to disappear.

Songs were written about it. The Levellers turned it into a folk-punk anthem that introduced a new generation to the story. Hawkwind referenced it. Writers, filmmakers and activists kept returning to it. Every summer solstice the memory resurfaces among those who remember what happened.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield sits at the crossroads of so many larger questions.

Who gets to occupy public space?

Who decides what constitutes a legitimate way of living?

How much power should the state possess when dealing with communities that reject mainstream norms?

And perhaps most importantly of all, what happens when governments begin to see certain groups not as citizens but as enemies?

Forty years later those questions feel remarkably current.

The travellers who set out for Stonehenge in 1985 were not trying to overthrow the government. They were trying to reach a festival. They were trying to celebrate a solstice. They were trying, in their own eccentric and imperfect way, to live differently.

Many paid a heavy price for that.

For those of us who grew up watching pits close, furnaces go cold and communities written off as inconvenient relics of the past, the Beanfield feels like part of the same story. Different people. Different landscape. Different politics perhaps. But the same underlying lesson.

When power decides a group no longer belongs, it rarely begins with dialogue.

It begins with exclusion.

Then comes the roadblock.

Further Reading

Andy Worthington, The Battle of the Beanfield

Christopher Chippindale, Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985

Emma Hallett, BBC News, Summer Solstice: How the Stonehenge Battles Faded

Tony Thompson, The Observer, Twenty Years After, Mystery Still Clouds Battle of the Beanfield

English Heritage, Stonehenge 1977–85: A Dig in Time and a Confrontation

Copyright © Mysterious Times 2026. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from Mysterious Times, except in the case of brief quotations used for review, criticism or scholarly reference.

Battle of The Beanfield

There are certain moments in modern British history that seem to sit just beyond the edge of official memory. Events that everybody vaguely remembers, yet somehow never quite make it into the comfortable national story we tell ourselves.

The Battle of Orgreave is one. The miners’ strike is another. The poll tax riots. Hillsborough. Brixton. They linger in photographs, old television footage and the memories of those who were there, carrying the uncomfortable reminder that Britain is not always as civilised, measured and orderly as it likes to imagine itself to be.

The Battle of the Beanfield belongs firmly in that category.

Forty years on, it remains one of the most controversial policing operations in modern British history. More than 1,300 police officers confronted a convoy of around 600 New Age Travellers attempting to reach Stonehenge on 1 June 1985. By the end of the day, dozens of people had been injured, hundreds had been arrested and an entire way of life had effectively been marked for destruction.

What happened in that Hampshire beanfield has never been the subject of a full public inquiry. Yet for many people who witnessed the decline of Britain’s traditional industries during the Thatcher years, the images remain painfully familiar.

I grew up in Yorkshire through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I watched pit villages hollow out. I watched steelworks close. I watched communities that had existed for generations suddenly find themselves described as obstacles to progress. There was a language that emerged during those years. Certain groups became “the problem”. Miners. Trade unionists. Travellers. Alternative communities. Anyone who stood outside the increasingly rigid idea of what Britain was supposed to become.

That is one reason the Battle of the Beanfield still matters.

To understand the confrontation itself, we first need to understand the strange, colourful and often misunderstood world that produced it.

The Stonehenge Free Festival began in 1974. It emerged from the wider countercultural movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, combining music, environmentalism, spiritual exploration, political activism and communal living. Over the following decade it grew steadily, becoming one of the largest free gatherings in Britain. By the early 1980s thousands of people travelled to Stonehenge each summer to celebrate the solstice. The festival attracted an eclectic mix of punks, bikers, druids, musicians, environmental campaigners, anarchists, hippies and families living on the road.

The people who became known as the Peace Convoy were not a single organisation. They were a loose collection of travellers, festival-goers and alternative communities who spent much of the year moving between free festivals, protest camps and temporary settlements. Some were escaping unemployment. Some rejected consumer culture. Others simply wanted a different way of living. Many travelled in converted buses, coaches, ambulances and vans that doubled as homes.

To their supporters they represented freedom, creativity and resistance to conformity.

To their critics they represented disorder.

By 1984 tensions were reaching breaking point. The Stonehenge festival had become enormous. Estimates suggested attendance reached around 100,000 people. Concerns were raised about damage to the archaeological landscape, litter, unauthorised trading and open drug use. English Heritage, which had recently taken over management of the site, came under increasing pressure to act. Local authorities and police forces were equally determined that the gathering should not continue in its existing form. A High Court injunction was obtained to prevent the 1985 festival from taking place. The state had drawn a line.

On the morning of 1 June 1985, the Peace Convoy left Savernake Forest and began moving towards Stonehenge. Around 140 vehicles carried approximately 600 people. Many were families. Children were travelling alongside adults who had spent years living on the road. They knew there would be police opposition. Few appear to have anticipated what was waiting for them.

Police had prepared extensively.

The miners’ strike had ended only months earlier. During that bitter industrial conflict police forces had developed new methods of coordination, rapid deployment and large-scale public order operations. Senior officers later openly acknowledged that lessons learned during the strike had informed preparations for dealing with the travellers.

A four-mile exclusion zone had been established around Stonehenge. Roadblocks were prepared. Officers from multiple forces were assembled. Some estimates place police numbers at around 1,300. Others suggest even higher figures by the end of the operation.

The convoy encountered its first major roadblock near Shipton Bellinger, several miles from Stonehenge. According to police accounts, some traveller vehicles attempted to push through the blockade and rammed police vehicles. Travellers and independent witnesses tell a very different story. They describe a convoy seeking negotiation before finding itself trapped and surrounded.

Whatever happened during those first moments, the situation rapidly escalated.As vehicles attempted to leave the road and move into adjacent fields, police began smashing windows and making arrests. The convoy became scattered across farmland. Families were separated. Children became lost in the confusion. What followed would become one of the most infamous confrontations in modern British policing.

Television footage remains difficult to watch even now.

Officers in riot gear strike vehicle windows with truncheons. People are dragged from buses and vans. Terrified children can be seen inside shattered vehicles. Journalists and witnesses described police hitting men and women indiscriminately. Several accounts alleged pregnant women and individuals carrying babies were assaulted during the operation. Numerous vehicles that functioned as homes were systematically damaged.

The Earl of Cardigan, whose family owned Savernake Forest and who had followed the convoy on a motorcycle, later provided testimony that proved deeply damaging to official police narratives. He described officers rushing vehicles with drawn truncheons, shouting at occupants and creating scenes of intimidation and violence that contradicted many early police claims.

Journalists present that day reported similar concerns.

ITN footage captured scenes that shocked many viewers. Photographer Alan Lodge later described the event as an ambush rather than a battle. Others argued the very name “Battle of the Beanfield” created a misleading impression of two evenly matched sides. One side possessed riot shields, command structures, communications systems and overwhelming numerical superiority. The other consisted largely of civilians living in vehicles.

By the end of the operation, 537 people had been arrested. It remains one of the largest mass arrests of civilians in modern British history. Most of the charges eventually collapsed or were dismissed.

That fact alone raises uncomfortable questions.

If hundreds of supposedly dangerous lawbreakers had been lawfully apprehended while carrying out serious criminal acts, one might expect hundreds of successful prosecutions to follow. Instead, much of the legal case simply evaporated.

Years later, travellers successfully pursued civil actions against Wiltshire Police. Damages were awarded for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and property damage. One police sergeant was convicted of actual bodily harm arising from the events of that day.

Yet despite these outcomes, there has never been a full public inquiry.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield was about more than Stonehenge.

Looking back now, it feels impossible to separate it from the wider atmosphere of Britain in the mid-1980s. This was a country being transformed at extraordinary speed. Traditional industries were disappearing. Unemployment was soaring in many regions. Entire communities were fighting for survival. Alternative lifestyles increasingly found themselves portrayed as threats to public order rather than expressions of individual freedom.

For many people in mining and industrial areas, there is a recognisable pattern.

First comes the language.

A group is described as troublesome, outdated or undesirable.

Then comes the media narrative.

Then comes the justification.

Then comes the force.

That does not mean every traveller was a saint, any more than every miner was. Human beings are messy. Large gatherings bring problems. Some attendees at the Stonehenge festivals undoubtedly caused damage. Some individuals within the traveller movement undoubtedly committed crimes. A serious historical assessment has to acknowledge that reality. The archaeological concerns surrounding Stonehenge were genuine. Local residents had legitimate complaints. Authorities were entitled to seek solutions.

But none of that explains the scale of what happened on 1 June 1985.

The images of smashed homes, frightened children and riot police advancing across fields continue to disturb because they seem wildly disproportionate. They suggest a state determined not merely to enforce an injunction but to send a message.

And the message was received.

The traveller movement never fully recovered.

Legislation introduced during the following years increasingly restricted nomadic lifestyles and unauthorised gatherings. The Public Order Act 1986 and later the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created new powers that made life significantly harder for travellers, free festivals and eventually the emerging rave culture.

In many ways the Beanfield became a blueprint. The same language used against travellers would later be applied to ravers, squatters, protesters and environmental activists. Alternative communities were increasingly framed not as citizens exercising freedoms but as public order problems requiring management.

Yet the legacy of the Beanfield refuses to disappear.

Songs were written about it. The Levellers turned it into a folk-punk anthem that introduced a new generation to the story. Hawkwind referenced it. Writers, filmmakers and activists kept returning to it. Every summer solstice the memory resurfaces among those who remember what happened.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield sits at the crossroads of so many larger questions.

Who gets to occupy public space?

Who decides what constitutes a legitimate way of living?

How much power should the state possess when dealing with communities that reject mainstream norms?

And perhaps most importantly of all, what happens when governments begin to see certain groups not as citizens but as enemies?

Forty years later those questions feel remarkably current.

The travellers who set out for Stonehenge in 1985 were not trying to overthrow the government. They were trying to reach a festival. They were trying to celebrate a solstice. They were trying, in their own eccentric and imperfect way, to live differently.

Many paid a heavy price for that.

For those of us who grew up watching pits close, furnaces go cold and communities written off as inconvenient relics of the past, the Beanfield feels like part of the same story. Different people. Different landscape. Different politics perhaps. But the same underlying lesson.

When power decides a group no longer belongs, it rarely begins with dialogue.

It begins with exclusion.

Then comes the roadblock.

Further Reading

Andy Worthington, The Battle of the Beanfield

Christopher Chippindale, Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985

Emma Hallett, BBC News, Summer Solstice: How the Stonehenge Battles Faded

Tony Thompson, The Observer, Twenty Years After, Mystery Still Clouds Battle of the Beanfield

English Heritage, Stonehenge 1977–85: A Dig in Time and a Confrontation

Copyright © Mysterious Times 2026. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from Mysterious Times, except in the case of brief quotations used for review, criticism or scholarly reference.

Battle of The Beanfield

There are certain moments in modern British history that seem to sit just beyond the edge of official memory. Events that everybody vaguely remembers, yet somehow never quite make it into the comfortable national story we tell ourselves.

The Battle of Orgreave is one. The miners’ strike is another. The poll tax riots. Hillsborough. Brixton. They linger in photographs, old television footage and the memories of those who were there, carrying the uncomfortable reminder that Britain is not always as civilised, measured and orderly as it likes to imagine itself to be.

The Battle of the Beanfield belongs firmly in that category.

Forty years on, it remains one of the most controversial policing operations in modern British history. More than 1,300 police officers confronted a convoy of around 600 New Age Travellers attempting to reach Stonehenge on 1 June 1985. By the end of the day, dozens of people had been injured, hundreds had been arrested and an entire way of life had effectively been marked for destruction.

What happened in that Hampshire beanfield has never been the subject of a full public inquiry. Yet for many people who witnessed the decline of Britain’s traditional industries during the Thatcher years, the images remain painfully familiar.

I grew up in Yorkshire through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I watched pit villages hollow out. I watched steelworks close. I watched communities that had existed for generations suddenly find themselves described as obstacles to progress. There was a language that emerged during those years. Certain groups became “the problem”. Miners. Trade unionists. Travellers. Alternative communities. Anyone who stood outside the increasingly rigid idea of what Britain was supposed to become.

That is one reason the Battle of the Beanfield still matters.

To understand the confrontation itself, we first need to understand the strange, colourful and often misunderstood world that produced it.

The Stonehenge Free Festival began in 1974. It emerged from the wider countercultural movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, combining music, environmentalism, spiritual exploration, political activism and communal living. Over the following decade it grew steadily, becoming one of the largest free gatherings in Britain. By the early 1980s thousands of people travelled to Stonehenge each summer to celebrate the solstice. The festival attracted an eclectic mix of punks, bikers, druids, musicians, environmental campaigners, anarchists, hippies and families living on the road.

The people who became known as the Peace Convoy were not a single organisation. They were a loose collection of travellers, festival-goers and alternative communities who spent much of the year moving between free festivals, protest camps and temporary settlements. Some were escaping unemployment. Some rejected consumer culture. Others simply wanted a different way of living. Many travelled in converted buses, coaches, ambulances and vans that doubled as homes.

To their supporters they represented freedom, creativity and resistance to conformity.

To their critics they represented disorder.

By 1984 tensions were reaching breaking point. The Stonehenge festival had become enormous. Estimates suggested attendance reached around 100,000 people. Concerns were raised about damage to the archaeological landscape, litter, unauthorised trading and open drug use. English Heritage, which had recently taken over management of the site, came under increasing pressure to act. Local authorities and police forces were equally determined that the gathering should not continue in its existing form. A High Court injunction was obtained to prevent the 1985 festival from taking place. The state had drawn a line.

On the morning of 1 June 1985, the Peace Convoy left Savernake Forest and began moving towards Stonehenge. Around 140 vehicles carried approximately 600 people. Many were families. Children were travelling alongside adults who had spent years living on the road. They knew there would be police opposition. Few appear to have anticipated what was waiting for them.

Police had prepared extensively.

The miners’ strike had ended only months earlier. During that bitter industrial conflict police forces had developed new methods of coordination, rapid deployment and large-scale public order operations. Senior officers later openly acknowledged that lessons learned during the strike had informed preparations for dealing with the travellers.

A four-mile exclusion zone had been established around Stonehenge. Roadblocks were prepared. Officers from multiple forces were assembled. Some estimates place police numbers at around 1,300. Others suggest even higher figures by the end of the operation.

The convoy encountered its first major roadblock near Shipton Bellinger, several miles from Stonehenge. According to police accounts, some traveller vehicles attempted to push through the blockade and rammed police vehicles. Travellers and independent witnesses tell a very different story. They describe a convoy seeking negotiation before finding itself trapped and surrounded.

Whatever happened during those first moments, the situation rapidly escalated.As vehicles attempted to leave the road and move into adjacent fields, police began smashing windows and making arrests. The convoy became scattered across farmland. Families were separated. Children became lost in the confusion. What followed would become one of the most infamous confrontations in modern British policing.

Television footage remains difficult to watch even now.

Officers in riot gear strike vehicle windows with truncheons. People are dragged from buses and vans. Terrified children can be seen inside shattered vehicles. Journalists and witnesses described police hitting men and women indiscriminately. Several accounts alleged pregnant women and individuals carrying babies were assaulted during the operation. Numerous vehicles that functioned as homes were systematically damaged.

The Earl of Cardigan, whose family owned Savernake Forest and who had followed the convoy on a motorcycle, later provided testimony that proved deeply damaging to official police narratives. He described officers rushing vehicles with drawn truncheons, shouting at occupants and creating scenes of intimidation and violence that contradicted many early police claims.

Journalists present that day reported similar concerns.

ITN footage captured scenes that shocked many viewers. Photographer Alan Lodge later described the event as an ambush rather than a battle. Others argued the very name “Battle of the Beanfield” created a misleading impression of two evenly matched sides. One side possessed riot shields, command structures, communications systems and overwhelming numerical superiority. The other consisted largely of civilians living in vehicles.

By the end of the operation, 537 people had been arrested. It remains one of the largest mass arrests of civilians in modern British history. Most of the charges eventually collapsed or were dismissed.

That fact alone raises uncomfortable questions.

If hundreds of supposedly dangerous lawbreakers had been lawfully apprehended while carrying out serious criminal acts, one might expect hundreds of successful prosecutions to follow. Instead, much of the legal case simply evaporated.

Years later, travellers successfully pursued civil actions against Wiltshire Police. Damages were awarded for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and property damage. One police sergeant was convicted of actual bodily harm arising from the events of that day.

Yet despite these outcomes, there has never been a full public inquiry.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield was about more than Stonehenge.

Looking back now, it feels impossible to separate it from the wider atmosphere of Britain in the mid-1980s. This was a country being transformed at extraordinary speed. Traditional industries were disappearing. Unemployment was soaring in many regions. Entire communities were fighting for survival. Alternative lifestyles increasingly found themselves portrayed as threats to public order rather than expressions of individual freedom.

For many people in mining and industrial areas, there is a recognisable pattern.

First comes the language.

A group is described as troublesome, outdated or undesirable.

Then comes the media narrative.

Then comes the justification.

Then comes the force.

That does not mean every traveller was a saint, any more than every miner was. Human beings are messy. Large gatherings bring problems. Some attendees at the Stonehenge festivals undoubtedly caused damage. Some individuals within the traveller movement undoubtedly committed crimes. A serious historical assessment has to acknowledge that reality. The archaeological concerns surrounding Stonehenge were genuine. Local residents had legitimate complaints. Authorities were entitled to seek solutions.

But none of that explains the scale of what happened on 1 June 1985.

The images of smashed homes, frightened children and riot police advancing across fields continue to disturb because they seem wildly disproportionate. They suggest a state determined not merely to enforce an injunction but to send a message.

And the message was received.

The traveller movement never fully recovered.

Legislation introduced during the following years increasingly restricted nomadic lifestyles and unauthorised gatherings. The Public Order Act 1986 and later the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created new powers that made life significantly harder for travellers, free festivals and eventually the emerging rave culture.

In many ways the Beanfield became a blueprint. The same language used against travellers would later be applied to ravers, squatters, protesters and environmental activists. Alternative communities were increasingly framed not as citizens exercising freedoms but as public order problems requiring management.

Yet the legacy of the Beanfield refuses to disappear.

Songs were written about it. The Levellers turned it into a folk-punk anthem that introduced a new generation to the story. Hawkwind referenced it. Writers, filmmakers and activists kept returning to it. Every summer solstice the memory resurfaces among those who remember what happened.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield sits at the crossroads of so many larger questions.

Who gets to occupy public space?

Who decides what constitutes a legitimate way of living?

How much power should the state possess when dealing with communities that reject mainstream norms?

And perhaps most importantly of all, what happens when governments begin to see certain groups not as citizens but as enemies?

Forty years later those questions feel remarkably current.

The travellers who set out for Stonehenge in 1985 were not trying to overthrow the government. They were trying to reach a festival. They were trying to celebrate a solstice. They were trying, in their own eccentric and imperfect way, to live differently.

Many paid a heavy price for that.

For those of us who grew up watching pits close, furnaces go cold and communities written off as inconvenient relics of the past, the Beanfield feels like part of the same story. Different people. Different landscape. Different politics perhaps. But the same underlying lesson.

When power decides a group no longer belongs, it rarely begins with dialogue.

It begins with exclusion.

Then comes the roadblock.

Further Reading

Andy Worthington, The Battle of the Beanfield

Christopher Chippindale, Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985

Emma Hallett, BBC News, Summer Solstice: How the Stonehenge Battles Faded

Tony Thompson, The Observer, Twenty Years After, Mystery Still Clouds Battle of the Beanfield

English Heritage, Stonehenge 1977–85: A Dig in Time and a Confrontation

Copyright © Mysterious Times 2026. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from Mysterious Times, except in the case of brief quotations used for review, criticism or scholarly reference.

Battle of The Beanfield

There are certain moments in modern British history that seem to sit just beyond the edge of official memory. Events that everybody vaguely remembers, yet somehow never quite make it into the comfortable national story we tell ourselves.

The Battle of Orgreave is one. The miners’ strike is another. The poll tax riots. Hillsborough. Brixton. They linger in photographs, old television footage and the memories of those who were there, carrying the uncomfortable reminder that Britain is not always as civilised, measured and orderly as it likes to imagine itself to be.

The Battle of the Beanfield belongs firmly in that category.

Forty years on, it remains one of the most controversial policing operations in modern British history. More than 1,300 police officers confronted a convoy of around 600 New Age Travellers attempting to reach Stonehenge on 1 June 1985. By the end of the day, dozens of people had been injured, hundreds had been arrested and an entire way of life had effectively been marked for destruction.

What happened in that Hampshire beanfield has never been the subject of a full public inquiry. Yet for many people who witnessed the decline of Britain’s traditional industries during the Thatcher years, the images remain painfully familiar.

I grew up in Yorkshire through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I watched pit villages hollow out. I watched steelworks close. I watched communities that had existed for generations suddenly find themselves described as obstacles to progress. There was a language that emerged during those years. Certain groups became “the problem”. Miners. Trade unionists. Travellers. Alternative communities. Anyone who stood outside the increasingly rigid idea of what Britain was supposed to become.

That is one reason the Battle of the Beanfield still matters.

To understand the confrontation itself, we first need to understand the strange, colourful and often misunderstood world that produced it.

The Stonehenge Free Festival began in 1974. It emerged from the wider countercultural movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, combining music, environmentalism, spiritual exploration, political activism and communal living. Over the following decade it grew steadily, becoming one of the largest free gatherings in Britain. By the early 1980s thousands of people travelled to Stonehenge each summer to celebrate the solstice. The festival attracted an eclectic mix of punks, bikers, druids, musicians, environmental campaigners, anarchists, hippies and families living on the road.

The people who became known as the Peace Convoy were not a single organisation. They were a loose collection of travellers, festival-goers and alternative communities who spent much of the year moving between free festivals, protest camps and temporary settlements. Some were escaping unemployment. Some rejected consumer culture. Others simply wanted a different way of living. Many travelled in converted buses, coaches, ambulances and vans that doubled as homes.

To their supporters they represented freedom, creativity and resistance to conformity.

To their critics they represented disorder.

By 1984 tensions were reaching breaking point. The Stonehenge festival had become enormous. Estimates suggested attendance reached around 100,000 people. Concerns were raised about damage to the archaeological landscape, litter, unauthorised trading and open drug use. English Heritage, which had recently taken over management of the site, came under increasing pressure to act. Local authorities and police forces were equally determined that the gathering should not continue in its existing form. A High Court injunction was obtained to prevent the 1985 festival from taking place. The state had drawn a line.

On the morning of 1 June 1985, the Peace Convoy left Savernake Forest and began moving towards Stonehenge. Around 140 vehicles carried approximately 600 people. Many were families. Children were travelling alongside adults who had spent years living on the road. They knew there would be police opposition. Few appear to have anticipated what was waiting for them.

Police had prepared extensively.

The miners’ strike had ended only months earlier. During that bitter industrial conflict police forces had developed new methods of coordination, rapid deployment and large-scale public order operations. Senior officers later openly acknowledged that lessons learned during the strike had informed preparations for dealing with the travellers.

A four-mile exclusion zone had been established around Stonehenge. Roadblocks were prepared. Officers from multiple forces were assembled. Some estimates place police numbers at around 1,300. Others suggest even higher figures by the end of the operation.

The convoy encountered its first major roadblock near Shipton Bellinger, several miles from Stonehenge. According to police accounts, some traveller vehicles attempted to push through the blockade and rammed police vehicles. Travellers and independent witnesses tell a very different story. They describe a convoy seeking negotiation before finding itself trapped and surrounded.

Whatever happened during those first moments, the situation rapidly escalated.As vehicles attempted to leave the road and move into adjacent fields, police began smashing windows and making arrests. The convoy became scattered across farmland. Families were separated. Children became lost in the confusion. What followed would become one of the most infamous confrontations in modern British policing.

Television footage remains difficult to watch even now.

Officers in riot gear strike vehicle windows with truncheons. People are dragged from buses and vans. Terrified children can be seen inside shattered vehicles. Journalists and witnesses described police hitting men and women indiscriminately. Several accounts alleged pregnant women and individuals carrying babies were assaulted during the operation. Numerous vehicles that functioned as homes were systematically damaged.

The Earl of Cardigan, whose family owned Savernake Forest and who had followed the convoy on a motorcycle, later provided testimony that proved deeply damaging to official police narratives. He described officers rushing vehicles with drawn truncheons, shouting at occupants and creating scenes of intimidation and violence that contradicted many early police claims.

Journalists present that day reported similar concerns.

ITN footage captured scenes that shocked many viewers. Photographer Alan Lodge later described the event as an ambush rather than a battle. Others argued the very name “Battle of the Beanfield” created a misleading impression of two evenly matched sides. One side possessed riot shields, command structures, communications systems and overwhelming numerical superiority. The other consisted largely of civilians living in vehicles.

By the end of the operation, 537 people had been arrested. It remains one of the largest mass arrests of civilians in modern British history. Most of the charges eventually collapsed or were dismissed.

That fact alone raises uncomfortable questions.

If hundreds of supposedly dangerous lawbreakers had been lawfully apprehended while carrying out serious criminal acts, one might expect hundreds of successful prosecutions to follow. Instead, much of the legal case simply evaporated.

Years later, travellers successfully pursued civil actions against Wiltshire Police. Damages were awarded for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and property damage. One police sergeant was convicted of actual bodily harm arising from the events of that day.

Yet despite these outcomes, there has never been a full public inquiry.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield was about more than Stonehenge.

Looking back now, it feels impossible to separate it from the wider atmosphere of Britain in the mid-1980s. This was a country being transformed at extraordinary speed. Traditional industries were disappearing. Unemployment was soaring in many regions. Entire communities were fighting for survival. Alternative lifestyles increasingly found themselves portrayed as threats to public order rather than expressions of individual freedom.

For many people in mining and industrial areas, there is a recognisable pattern.

First comes the language.

A group is described as troublesome, outdated or undesirable.

Then comes the media narrative.

Then comes the justification.

Then comes the force.

That does not mean every traveller was a saint, any more than every miner was. Human beings are messy. Large gatherings bring problems. Some attendees at the Stonehenge festivals undoubtedly caused damage. Some individuals within the traveller movement undoubtedly committed crimes. A serious historical assessment has to acknowledge that reality. The archaeological concerns surrounding Stonehenge were genuine. Local residents had legitimate complaints. Authorities were entitled to seek solutions.

But none of that explains the scale of what happened on 1 June 1985.

The images of smashed homes, frightened children and riot police advancing across fields continue to disturb because they seem wildly disproportionate. They suggest a state determined not merely to enforce an injunction but to send a message.

And the message was received.

The traveller movement never fully recovered.

Legislation introduced during the following years increasingly restricted nomadic lifestyles and unauthorised gatherings. The Public Order Act 1986 and later the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created new powers that made life significantly harder for travellers, free festivals and eventually the emerging rave culture.

In many ways the Beanfield became a blueprint. The same language used against travellers would later be applied to ravers, squatters, protesters and environmental activists. Alternative communities were increasingly framed not as citizens exercising freedoms but as public order problems requiring management.

Yet the legacy of the Beanfield refuses to disappear.

Songs were written about it. The Levellers turned it into a folk-punk anthem that introduced a new generation to the story. Hawkwind referenced it. Writers, filmmakers and activists kept returning to it. Every summer solstice the memory resurfaces among those who remember what happened.

Perhaps that is because the Battle of the Beanfield sits at the crossroads of so many larger questions.

Who gets to occupy public space?

Who decides what constitutes a legitimate way of living?

How much power should the state possess when dealing with communities that reject mainstream norms?

And perhaps most importantly of all, what happens when governments begin to see certain groups not as citizens but as enemies?

Forty years later those questions feel remarkably current.

The travellers who set out for Stonehenge in 1985 were not trying to overthrow the government. They were trying to reach a festival. They were trying to celebrate a solstice. They were trying, in their own eccentric and imperfect way, to live differently.

Many paid a heavy price for that.

For those of us who grew up watching pits close, furnaces go cold and communities written off as inconvenient relics of the past, the Beanfield feels like part of the same story. Different people. Different landscape. Different politics perhaps. But the same underlying lesson.

When power decides a group no longer belongs, it rarely begins with dialogue.

It begins with exclusion.

Then comes the roadblock.

Further Reading

Andy Worthington, The Battle of the Beanfield

Christopher Chippindale, Stoned Henge: Events and Issues at the Summer Solstice, 1985

Emma Hallett, BBC News, Summer Solstice: How the Stonehenge Battles Faded

Tony Thompson, The Observer, Twenty Years After, Mystery Still Clouds Battle of the Beanfield

English Heritage, Stonehenge 1977–85: A Dig in Time and a Confrontation

Copyright © Mysterious Times 2026. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from Mysterious Times, except in the case of brief quotations used for review, criticism or scholarly reference.

https://prismreports.org/2026/05/20/seattle-shield-private-companies-surveillance/

#SeattleShield #GlobalShieldNetwork #InfraGard #Privacy #Surveillance #CivilLiberties #DigitalRights #ICE #PoliceSurveillance #DataPrivacy #FourthAmendment #GovernmentSurveillance #TechPolicy #PrivacyRights #FacialRecognition #CyberSecurity #SPD #Amazon #Facebook #Meta #SeattlePolice #DBIAServices #ABM #ABMSecurityServices #NetSentinal #BlueLeaks

TL;DR:

A federal highway bill amendment would cut funding to states and cities unless they shut down automated license plate tracking programs, effectively banning the tech nationwide except for toll collection, over privacy and surveillance concerns.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-bipartisan-amendment-would-end-police-license-plate-tracking-nationwide/

#Privacy #Surveillance #CivilLiberties #DigitalRights #LicensePlateReaders #ALPR #PoliceSurveillance #DataPrivacy #FourthAmendment #GovernmentSurveillance #TechPolicy #PrivacyRights #FacialRecognition #Cybersecurity #EFF

A quotation from Henry Commager

Who are those who are really disloyal? Those who inflame racial hatreds, who sow religious and class dissensions. Those who subvert the Constitution by violating the freedom of the ballot box. Those who make a mockery of majority rule by the use of the filibuster. Those who impair democracy by denying equal educational facilities. Those who frustrate justice by lynch law or by making a farce of jury trials. Those who deny freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly. Those who press for special favors against the interest of the commonwealth. Those who regard public office as a source of private gain. Those who would exalt the military over the civil. Those who for selfish and private purposes stir up national antagonisms and expose the world to the ruin of war.

Henry Steele Commager (1902-1998) American historian, writer, activist
Essay (1947-09), “Who Is Loyal to America?” sec. 3, Harper’s Magazine, Vol. 195, No. 1168

More about this quote: wist.info/commager-henry-steel…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #henrycommager #America #civilliberties #civilrights #corruption #demagoguery #democracy #disloyalty #division #firstamendment #freepress #freespeech #freedomofreligion #freedomofspeech #freedomofthepress #injustice #jingoism #justice #loyalty #loyaltyoath #military #patriotism #publicoffice #religiousfreedom #unAmerican #usvsthem #votersuppression #votingrights #war #warmongering

🤯 Your face is data. And if you don't know who owns it, you're already at risk. #Deepfakes, facial recognition, and #biometrics. These technologies are blurring the line between who you are and who controls your data. But is the law keeping up? We break down the fight for digital rights! ✊

#DigitalPrivacy #Biometrics #Deepfakes #CivilLiberties #DataGovernance #LegalTech #PrivacyLaw #AIethics #PersonalIdentity #TechEthics

Massive Attack / Tom Waits - Boots on the Ground - https://youtu.be/L-57FrioeuE?si=lBApXbai35cdzo0x #MassiveAttack #TomWaits #BootsOnTheGround #ProtestSongs #CivilLiberties #ACLU #ChurchStateSeparation #ChristianNationalism #fascism #music #ProtestMusic

A Court Ordered Trump’s Department of Education to Roll Back Its Anti-DEI Efforts. Why haven’t Universities Reversed Course?

If you're paying for attendance at one of those colleges whose trustees are either friends of #thePædophile or unduly afraid of him, find a new college, now. Really.

#higherEd #educationNews #education #familyFinance #racismIsAmericanHistory #learning #whiteSupremacy #whiteNationalism #madrasa #liberalDemocracy #racialJustice #civilLiberties #ACLU

https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/20/a-court-ordered-trumps-department-of-education-to-roll-back-its-anti-dei-efforts-why-havent-universities-reversed-course/

> Last month, the department conceded that it could not make universities’ race-conscious efforts illegal, but universities nationwide have yet to reinstate their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts

How tight is the #RightToProtest?

From 418 arrests in 1977 to fresh clashes in Sydney: Debate over #Australia’s right to protest continues

"What many may not realise is that the right to protest in Australia is not protected by one simple law. It’s implied in the constitution under freedom of political communication and exists under international human rights law, which Australia has agreed to uphold. Only #Queensland, #Victoria and the #ACT explicitly protect the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression. And laws protecting the right to peaceful protest in Australia can be limited."

By Rhiannon Stevens
Sat 14 Feb, 2026

" 'The day of the political street march is over,' Joh Bjelke-Petersen declared. 'Don’t bother to apply for a permit. You won’t get one. That’s government policy now.'

"A few weeks later, thousands of people defied then-Queensland premier Bjelke-Petersen’s proclamation and gathered in Brisbane for an #AntiUranium march.

"Ian Curr remembers an intense, unrelenting heat on that day nearly 50 years ago. It was 'boiling hot', the long-time #AntiNuclear activist says. So hot that when protesters sat on the road, arms linked in passive defiance, it was 'not very pleasant' because the tarmac was scorching. Other memories emerge from the haze: lines of police, three and four deep, surrounding protesters; a woman with tears streaming down her face who had just heard her partner was arrested.

"Fear swirled up spines and into the air. These were the years after the #Springbok tour #AntiApartheid protests had been violently suppressed.

"That afternoon in October 1977, 418 people were arrested and Queensland’s 'RightToMarch' movement quickly entered a new era. #CivilLiberties demonstrations continued until the ban — originally enacted to curb a growing anti-nuclear movement — was lifted two years later.

"Ross Gwyther was exhilarated seeing some 5,000 anti-nuclear marchers turn out that day. But the sensation was tempered by an 'intense fear because there’d already been many cases of #PoliceBrutality'.

"These were extraordinary times, as the Fitzgerald Inquiry would later attest. For Gwyther and many of the #ratbags, #activists and #CivilLibertarians of Queensland it was a defining moment. That era in Brisbane radicalised a lot of people, Gwyther says, who embarked on a lifetime of 'political activism, both through parliamentary politics or by grassroots politics'.

"These moments mark you, Curr says, turning to the events in Sydney this week. 'The people who saw that violence in Sydney, in 40 or 50 years, they will not forget it. In the same way I do not forget police brandishing batons and punching and throwing people into paddy wagons. It’s something you do not forget.'

"In the aftermath of last Monday’s protest against Israeli President #IsaacHerzog’s visit in #Sydney, shaky, chaotic videos began to emerge online. A man lies on tram tracks, restrained by officers who punch him 18 times. #Protesters are pushed, they struggle to their feet, crowds stumble around them. Men bowed in prayer are wrenched from their worship by police. A grandmother is in hospital with a spinal injury. She says she feared being suffocated in a stampede as she lay on the ground in agony. She alleges she was pushed over by police."

Read more:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-15/right-to-protest-fragile-police-powers-gaza-herzog/106331356

#ACAB #AustraliaPol #AusPol #CriminalizingProtest #Australia #AntiProtestLaws #WaterIsLife #LandIsLife #UraniumMines #WorldPol #IsraeliWarCrimes

Now this is an IT company. Can you imagine all the weird stuff people will be able to experience when their governments demand their citizens to have a digital ID?

#DigitalID #DigitalPrivacy #SurveillanceState #PrivacyMatters #BigBrother #DigitalDystopia #GovernmentSurveillance #CivilLiberties #DataPrivacy #TechEthics
https://cloudisland.nz/@parisba/115710491106723110

The Holiday Odor Trap

Filed Under: Odor Politics

Most people assume the holiday rush is measured in miles, delays, and crowded kitchens. The truth is uglier. From Thanksgiving through New Year’s Eve, the country sees a spike in traffic stops that begin with the same old claim, that an officer “smelled marijuana.” Courts have spent years separating odor from impairment, yet the loophole stays wide open. It gives law enforcement a way to turn ordinary travel into a fishing expedition.

Some states have ruled that smell alone cannot justify a search, while others treat it as fair game. The public rarely knows the difference. Drivers heading to see family pass through counties where a scent on a jacket is enough to escalate a stop. Officers use it because it works. It softens the ground for questioning, it expands their authority, and it moves the conversation away from what actually matters, which is whether the driver is safe.

Most holiday travelers are not impaired. They are tired, stressed, and trying to get where they are going. cannabis lives in homes and clothes the same way kitchen spices do. A single smoked joint on Thanksgiving Eve can leave a jacket scented for days. Officers know this. Courts know this. Yet people still get pulled aside because the scent is treated like a confession.

The pattern is predictable. The officer leans in, mentions odor, then asks questions that have nothing to do with driving. People feel cornered and start explaining things they never needed to explain. That is the moment a simple stop becomes a long delay on the side of the road.

Holiday traffic and police practice collide in a way that punishes normal life. The country is filled with legal markets. People buy edibles and flower for the same reason they buy wine. They visit friends. They share a moment on the porch. The plant is legal in half the country, but its scent is still treated like probable cause.

The holiday season should not require a legal strategy, yet that is where the country stands. Smell is treated as suspicion even in states that claim to respect legalization. People drive through a patchwork of laws that shift from town to town. What protects a driver in one county is ignored in the next.

The courts may eventually close the gap. Legislatures may force consistency. Until then, drivers are left with common sense and preparation. The safest choice is to remove the excuse entirely. Officers cannot prove what they cannot smell, and they cannot escalate what they cannot justify.

Practical Tips For Holiday Drivers Who Want To Avoid The Odor Trap

Keep jackets and bags outside the smoking area. Most odor claims come from clothing, not the person.

Use clean gear during travel days. People who vape during the holiday tend to switch to something low profile. This is where PAX vaporizers fit naturally because they keep the ritual clean and contained.

advertisement

F O R T H E C U L T U R E B Y T H E C U L T U R E

N.Y. CANNABIS SCANDAL

New York’s cannabis market suffered a public collapse after regulators dropped a major case against Omnium Canna and forced out acting executive director Felicia A. B. Reid. The scandal revealed a system unable to enforce its own rules and a legal market left vulnerable to illegal competition, political pressure, and structural failure.

WHY WEED SHOPS DON’T HIRE HEADS

Weed shops profit from cannabis culture while refusing to hire the people who shaped it. Insurers, compliance officers, and corporate rules punish cannabis users even in legal states. Testing myths, background screening, and liability fear filter out anyone with real experience. The result is a workforce designed to exclude the culture that keeps the industry…

advertisement

Do not store old flower containers or ash in the car. Empty jars and forgotten tubes hold scent long after they are cleaned.

Seal anything with a smell. A simple airtight pouch prevents the easiest excuse an officer can use.

Travel clear headed. Some readers prefer relief without impairment during long drives. Endoca CBD has become a steady choice because it stays consistent.

Know the rules in the state you are driving through. Odor is not probable cause in some states, yet it remains a tool in others.

Keep conversations simple and respectful. You do not need to explain your holiday habits.

Remember that odor is not evidence of impairment. Courts have split them apart. Officers blend them because it expands their authority.

©2025 Pot Culture Magazine. All rights reserved. This content is the exclusive property of Pot Culture Magazine and may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the publisher, except for brief quotations in critical reviews.

Affiliate Disclosure: Pot Culture Magazine may receive commissions from purchases made through affiliate links such as Cheech & Chong and Endoca. This helps support our independent journalism without affecting our editorial standards.

F O R T H E C U L T U R E B Y T H E C U L T U R E

BAD SEEDS IN WASHINGTON

Federal lawmakers quietly inserted language into a budget bill that could criminalize countless cannabis seeds based solely on the THC profile of the parent plant. The move threatens growers, breeders, medical cultivators, and the genetic diversity that built modern cannabis culture. This seismic shift puts control of the plant’s future in the hands of federal…

Reefer Report Card Vol. 26: Nov 29-Dec 06

This week’s Reefer Report Card exposes the scromiting panic, Washington’s latest hemp crackdown, and the Supreme Court inching toward a decision that could rewrite prohibition. Patients and veterans stayed stuck in outdated systems while global reform moved forward with hesitation. Panic got headlines. Weed got scapegoated. The world kept smoking anyway.

THE SCROMITING SCAM

American newsrooms turned a simple overuse incident into a nationwide scare. Scromiting headlines exploded overnight, burying real CHS facts under panic and misinformation. Pot Culture breaks down what actually happened, why the media keeps confusing overuse with syndrome, and how fear travels faster than truth when cannabis is involved.

Omaha Tribe Legal Cannabis vs Nebraska Prohibition

Nebraska still criminalizes cannabis, yet the Omaha Tribe has built a legal system with real rules, licensing, and a working industry on sovereign land. This update shows how the Tribe keeps moving forward while the state stays rooted in prohibition. The border is now the flashpoint. Step across it with cannabis and everything changes.

Virginia Is For Tokers

Virginia just greenlit its long-delayed cannabis market. But is the launch plan built to last, or is it already showing cracks? The blueprint promises equity, protection from corporate takeover, and sustainable access. Advocates say it could be the first real test of Southern legalization. Pot Culture breaks it all down with facts, receipts, and no…

Holiday Survival with Cannabis, Not Chaos

The holidays hit harder than they should. Travel turns messy, families spark arguments, and the season demands cheer nobody actually feels. Cannabis becomes the counterweight, steadying people through the noise while alcohol keeps causing wreckage. This feature cuts through the lies, the pressure, and the culture, showing how the plant helps people survive December without…

#blackFriday #cannabis #cannabisCommunity #cannabisCulture #cannabisRights #cannabisSmell #cannabiscommunity #carSearches #civilLiberties #consumerSafety #courtRulings #crime #holidayTravel #lawEnforement #legalMarkets #marijuana #marijuanaNews #odorLaws #odorPolitics #police #policeStops #potCultureMagazine #roadsideEncounters #search #searchPractices #smell #thanksgiving #trafficStops #travelPrep

I want to congratulate librarians, not famous for their physical strength or their powerful political connections or their great wealth, who, all over this country, have staunchly resisted anti-democratic bullies who have tried to remove certain books from their shelves, and have refused to reveal to thought police the names of persons who have checked out those titles. So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media. The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries.
-- Kurt Vonnegut (A Man Without a Country)

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #KurtVonnegut #Bullies #CivilLiberties #FreeThought #Libraries

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Sunset #Kayaks #Everglades #Florida

@zackwhittaker @lorenzofb

#PrivacyMatters #CivilLiberties #DataPrivacy #Surveillance

#CellSiteSimulator #LawEnforcementTech
#GovernmentSurveillance
#MobileTracking
#TechForLawEnforcement
#ICEsurveillance
#SpyGear #SurveillanceVehicles
#DataCollectionTech #HomelandSecurity

🎯 FINAL Pre-Event Interview Alert! Next Stop: Las Vegas!

This is it—our last #BlackHat USA 2025 conversation before we hit the road to Vegas (and who knows, maybe we'll broadcast from a desert pit stop along the way! 🚗)

But what a way to close out our pre-event coverage...

When Constitutional Law Meets #Cybersecurity: A Critical Conversation We All Need to Hear

What happens when we stop seeing government surveillance as a necessary evil and start recognizing it as a primary threat to privacy?

Jennifer Granick, ACLU's Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel, challenges us to rethink everything we assume about digital #privacy in her upcoming #BlackHatUSA 2025 keynote.

In this preview conversation with Marco Ciappelli, Jennifer makes a compelling case:

✅ The Fourth Amendment hasn't kept pace with technology
✅ Legal reform is too slow—so technologists must lead
✅ Privacy isn't just a legal problem—it's a design challenge
✅ We need a new #threatmodel that puts unchecked surveillance at the center

From defending hackers since #DEFCON 3 to fighting surveillance overreach at the ACLU, Jennifer brings decades of frontline experience to this critical discussion.

The key takeaway? While lawmakers debate, engineers and designers hold the power to protect civil liberties through encryption, data minimization, and privacy-first architecture.

This isn't just another privacy talk—it's a call to action for every technologist, policymaker, and privacy advocate.

🎥 Watch: https://youtu.be/dPCvsBqu6Uc

🎧 Listen: https://itspmagazine.simplecast.com/episodes/from-hacker-defense-to-civil-liberties-threat-modeling-meets-constitutional-law-a-black-hat-usa-2025-keynote-conversation-with-jennifer-granick-on-location-coverage-with-sean-martin-and-marco-ciappelli

📍 Follow our complete Black Hat USA 2025 coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/bhusa25

See you in Vegas! 🎰 Feeling lucky, Sean Martin, CISSP?

#BlackHatUSA #Privacy #Cybersecurity #CivilLiberties #Surveillance #InfoSec #BHUSA25 #ThreatModeling #ACLU #PrivacyByDesign

1/2 US Protest Law Tracker - Updates to #Federal #Protest Laws introduced in 2025.

Latest updates: Jun. 10, 2025 (US Federal)

Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would cancel the visa of any individual convicted of protest-related crimes and provide for the individual’s deportation within 60 days. Under the bill, individuals convicted of any “crime (i) related to [their] conduct at and during the course of a protest; (ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of Federal property; or (iii) involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel” would be deportable. The bill requires that such individuals’ visas be “immediately” cancelled and the individuals removed from the US within 60 days. If enacted, a non-citizen convicted of even a nonviolent misdemeanor “related to” a protest, such as trespass or disorderly conduct, could face deportation. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in #LosAngeles as the impetus for his bill.
(Full text of Bill: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/61025novisasforviolentcriminalsactreintro.pdf)
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference

Heightened penalties for "#riot" offenses

Would amend the federal #AntiRioting law to raise the maximum penalty to ten years in prison, instead of five, for participating in or inciting a “riot,” or aiding or abetting someone to do so. The federal definition of “riot” is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the bill, someone who committed or abetted an “act of violence” during the commission of a “riot” offense would face a minimum one-year sentence, while an individual who assaulted a law enforcement officer would face a sentence of at least one year and up to life in prison. Federal law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against #property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. As such, if enacted, the bill could result in steep criminal penalties for protesters who do not actually engage in violence or destructive conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot

HR 2272: Blocking #FinancialAid to students who commit a "riot"-related offense

Would bar federal financial assistance and loan forgiveness for any student convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” The bar would apply to students convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would bar financial aid and #LoanForgiveness for students convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also bar financial aid and loan forgiveness to students convicted of any offense related to “#organizing, #promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2272)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): #CampusProtests, Riot, Limit on #PublicBenefits

#HR2273: Providing for visa revocation and deportation of #noncitizens who commit a "riot"-related offense

Would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of and make deportable a noncitizen #student, #scholar, #teacher, or #specialist convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals in the US on an F-1, J-1, or M-1 visa would have their visas revoked and would be deportable if they were convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would provide for the deportation of foreign students, scholars, and others convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also provide for their deportation if convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a #SocialMediaPost to cheering on #demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2273)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

#S1017: New federal criminal penalties for protests near #pipelines

Would create a new federal #felony offense that could apply to protests of planned or operational pipelines. The bill would broadly criminalize under federal law “knowingly and willfully” “#vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of” a gas pipeline. A range of peaceful activities could be deemed “disrupting… the construction of” a pipeline, from a rally that obstructs a road used by construction equipment, to a #lawsuit challenging a pipeline’s #permit or# zoning approval. The bill does not define “disrupt,” such that even a brief delay would seemingly be covered. Further, the underlying law provides that any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would be punished the same as actual commission. As such, individuals as well as organizations that engage in the planning or facilitation of a protest that is deemed to “disrupt” pipeline construction could be covered. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization.
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1017)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, #Infrastructure

#ProtestLaws #protestors #protestors_in_prison #CivilLiberties #Fascism #USA #USPol #NoKings #Project2025 #TrumpIsAFascist

Opinion | Here’s what’s really behind Toronto’s new bubble zones that limit protests — it’s deeply disappointing
May 28, 2025

By Edward Keenan City Columnist

#Toronto #TorontoPolitics #topoli #Canada #civilliberties #humanrights #FreePalestine #GazaGenocide #bubblezone #Ottawa

https://archive.is/jViUN

Bubble zone protest-bans threaten Palestine solidarity—and public dissent

The proposed laws, popping up across Canada, are part of an escalating crack down on expressions of Palestinian solidarity

by Desmond Cole

#Toronto #topoli #TorontoPolitics #Canada #FreePalestine #GazaGenocide #civilliberties #Democracy

https://breachmedia.ca/bubble-zone-protest-bans-threaten-palestine-solidarity-public-dissent/

#anncavoukian #CanadianCharter #CanadianConstitutionFoundation #canadianlaw #civilliberties #constitutionalrights #digitalsurveillancecanada #distracteddriving #dominicnaimool #dronepolicing #dronesurveillance #joshdehaas #KingstonPolice #lawenforcementtechnology #legalchallenge #personalprivacy #policedrones #policetechnologyethics #privacyrights #publicsafety #Section8 #surveillancecontroversy #trafficenforcement #unreasonablesearchandseizure

https://miltonmarketing.com/?p=69158

No-Bid #ICE Contract Went to Former ICE Agents Being Sued for Fabricating Criminal Evidence on the Job

The $73 million deal for assisting with deportations went to a company whose executives are accused of retaliating against a fellow ICE worker.

Sam Biddle, April 17 2025

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement just signed a contract worth $73 million with a firm whose executives are accused of taking part in a scheme to manufacture evidence against a co-worker during their time working at the Department of Homeland Security.

"According to a contract document reviewed by The Intercept, federal contractor #UniversalStrategicAdvisors will provide services pertaining to #ICE’s 'non-detained docket,' a master list of millions of #noncitizens believed to be removable from the United States but not yet in the agency’s custody.

"The contract cites President Donald #Trump’s declaration of a #NationalEmergency on the #USMexicoBorder, an overwhelming glut of potential #deportees, and a shortage of officers to process them all as justification for hiring a private vendor to assist with the collection of biometric data, coordinating removals, and monitoring #immigrant populations.

"The document says that with a fleet of new outsourced employees, ICE can reassign hundreds of officers to tasks that better align with Trump’s recent executive orders aimed at maximizing the agency’s detention and deportation operations. With the contractors onboard, the document says at least 675 ICE officers 'will be able to take all appropriate actions to comply with the EO’s by prioritizing conducting at-large arrests, removals, and detention related activities.'

"A former ICE official, who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity, said they were concerned by this plan to further privatize the agency’s operations at the same time as the Trump administration has dramatically slashed its workforce and gutted important oversight bodies like the Office for #CivilRights and #CivilLiberties, as well as the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. 'I certainly take issue with them firing career feds and demolishing whole offices, just to hire contractors to do the same work, many of them who are former ICE employees now retired,' the official said."

Read more:
https://theintercept.com/2025/04/17/ice-deportation-contracts-us-advisors/

Archived version:
https://archive.ph/DjRAG

#WorkerRetaliation #ICEDetention #Deportations #HumanRightsAbuses #USPol #WorldPol #Corporatocracy #CorporateFascism #Fascism #Authoritarianism #Cronyism

The War on #Masks Has Taken on a New Meaning

This time, the masks have nothing to do with #COVID19.

By Henry Grabar
Feb 05, 20254:57 PM

"Last month, state legislators in New York introduced a bill that would create a new crime: 'masked harassment.'

"That, the law explains, is when you wear a mask 'for the primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence against another person' or 'placing another person or group of persons in reasonable fear for their physical safety.'

"If that seems like a bit of a niche offense—threatening violence is already a crime, after all—it’s because the language has been watered down to attract political support. It’s a sign of New York Democrats’ cautious new approach over masks in public life, and a retreat from last spring, when anti-Israel protests, on top of a widespread urban crime panic, pushed leaders from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to consider mask bans.

"In its original form, the New York bill would have banned masks at public assemblies entirely. But the outcry from #DisabilityRights advocates, #CriminalJustice reformers, #HealthCareWorkers, and #CivilLiberties groups was swift, and so New York wound up with this bill on 'masked harassment' instead.

"Elsewhere, the pandemic-era leniency on masking in public is over. #NorthCarolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto last summer to once again #BanPublicFaceCoverings, except to stop the spread of contagious diseases. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost dusted off an old law to threaten #StudentProtesters with #felonies. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has asked the state’s Senate to consider a bill to #unmask #protesters this year.

"For Republicans, it’s a chance to kill two birds with one stone. They can strike back against the perceived overreach of pandemic-era #HealthDirectives and make it easier to arrest #demonstrators at the same time.

"In #Ohio and North Carolina, the original statutes were written in the 1950s to stop demonstrations by the #KuKluxKlan, but had been ignored or suspended during the #pandemic and the #GeorgeFloydProtests. Many lawmakers have cited the recent demonstrations in defense of #Gaza as a reason to crack down again. Defending the proposed mask ban in New York, Anti-Defamation League [#ADL] president Jonathan Greenblatt said the demonstrators were using '#KKK tactics' to intimidate Jewish New Yorkers.

"That instinct was bolstered by the sense among many city residents and elected leaders that widespread masking was a factor behind the pandemic-era crime spike. That led to #Philadelphia banning #SkiMasks in parks, on trains, and in public buildings. A more recent, high-profile example came in December with the Midtown Manhattan killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO #BrianThompson by a #MaskedAssassin, which prompted New York Mayor Eric Adams to call for cab drivers and business owners to ask customers to remove their masks. The new New York bill has won over the liberal Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who endorsed the 'tailored' approach. As the police say: #NoFaceNoCase.

"For what it’s worth, there are too many confounding variables and too little data to be sure if mask-wearing is associated with crime, said Ernesto Lopez at the Council for Criminal Justice, which collects crime reporting statistics from various cities. 'From a theoretical statement it makes sense that could occur, but it has not been demonstrated that’s the case,' he told me.

"But if all that weighed in favor of more mask bans, there was also widespread resistance. Disability advocates mobilized to defend the right to mask; North Carolina had to write a medical exemption into their bill at the insistence of a GOP House member. #PoliceReformers observed that #MaskBans have often been used for pretextual #policing and racial profiling against #BlackAmericans. (#AtlantaGeorgia tabled a mask ban for that reason.)

"What looms largest, as the second Trump administration begins, is the role of protest. As Semafor’s Dave Weigel has noted, masks have become a badge of left-wing protest culture. That’s in part an extension of politicized COVID-era concerns about health and civility, but at this point it is mostly a tactic to preserve anonymity in an era of #FacialRecognition, streaming video, and #doxing. Last year, the anonymous #ProIsrael website the #CanaryMission posted photographs of hundreds of students and faculty at campus protests and posted their names and photos online, labeling some as supporters of terrorism.

"'The concern takes on new urgency as Donald Trump pledges to revoke the visas of pro-Palestine protesters, and the Trump-Musk GOP embraces the naming and shaming of otherwise private citizens. A conservative group called the American Accountability Foundation has begun circulating lists of federal workers, many of them Black, who should be
'targets' for their alleged involvement in #DEI initiatives at work.

"Clearly, the masked protest does not always sit well with an older generation, many of whom cut their teeth in the protests of the pre-internet age. As Georgetown professor Michael Kazin told the New York Times last year: 'I do think if you are going to demonstrate, and it’s something you feel deeply about, you should be willing to stand up and be counted.'"

Source:
https://slate.com/business/2025/02/mask-bans-new-york-los-angeles-crime-protests-criminalize-face-coverings.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
#Fascism #AuthoritarianRule #BigBrother #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou #SurveillanceState #SilencingDissent

The War on #Masks Has Taken on a New Meaning

This time, the masks have nothing to do with #COVID19.

By Henry Grabar
Feb 05, 20254:57 PM

"Last month, state legislators in New York introduced a bill that would create a new crime: 'masked harassment.'

"That, the law explains, is when you wear a mask 'for the primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence against another person' or 'placing another person or group of persons in reasonable fear for their physical safety.'

"If that seems like a bit of a niche offense—threatening violence is already a crime, after all—it’s because the language has been watered down to attract political support. It’s a sign of New York Democrats’ cautious new approach over masks in public life, and a retreat from last spring, when anti-Israel protests, on top of a widespread urban crime panic, pushed leaders from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to consider mask bans.

"In its original form, the New York bill would have banned masks at public assemblies entirely. But the outcry from #DisabilityRights advocates, #CriminalJustice reformers, #HealthCareWorkers, and #CivilLiberties groups was swift, and so New York wound up with this bill on 'masked harassment' instead.

"Elsewhere, the pandemic-era leniency on masking in public is over. #NorthCarolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto last summer to once again #BanPublicFaceCoverings, except to stop the spread of contagious diseases. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost dusted off an old law to threaten #StudentProtesters with #felonies. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has asked the state’s Senate to consider a bill to #unmask #protesters this year.

"For Republicans, it’s a chance to kill two birds with one stone. They can strike back against the perceived overreach of pandemic-era #HealthDirectives and make it easier to arrest #demonstrators at the same time.

"In #Ohio and North Carolina, the original statutes were written in the 1950s to stop demonstrations by the #KuKluxKlan, but had been ignored or suspended during the #pandemic and the #GeorgeFloydProtests. Many lawmakers have cited the recent demonstrations in defense of #Gaza as a reason to crack down again. Defending the proposed mask ban in New York, Anti-Defamation League [#ADL] president Jonathan Greenblatt said the demonstrators were using '#KKK tactics' to intimidate Jewish New Yorkers.

"That instinct was bolstered by the sense among many city residents and elected leaders that widespread masking was a factor behind the pandemic-era crime spike. That led to #Philadelphia banning #SkiMasks in parks, on trains, and in public buildings. A more recent, high-profile example came in December with the Midtown Manhattan killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO #BrianThompson by a #MaskedAssassin, which prompted New York Mayor Eric Adams to call for cab drivers and business owners to ask customers to remove their masks. The new New York bill has won over the liberal Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who endorsed the 'tailored' approach. As the police say: #NoFaceNoCase.

"For what it’s worth, there are too many confounding variables and too little data to be sure if mask-wearing is associated with crime, said Ernesto Lopez at the Council for Criminal Justice, which collects crime reporting statistics from various cities. 'From a theoretical statement it makes sense that could occur, but it has not been demonstrated that’s the case,' he told me.

"But if all that weighed in favor of more mask bans, there was also widespread resistance. Disability advocates mobilized to defend the right to mask; North Carolina had to write a medical exemption into their bill at the insistence of a GOP House member. #PoliceReformers observed that #MaskBans have often been used for pretextual #policing and racial profiling against #BlackAmericans. (#AtlantaGeorgia tabled a mask ban for that reason.)

"What looms largest, as the second Trump administration begins, is the role of protest. As Semafor’s Dave Weigel has noted, masks have become a badge of left-wing protest culture. That’s in part an extension of politicized COVID-era concerns about health and civility, but at this point it is mostly a tactic to preserve anonymity in an era of #FacialRecognition, streaming video, and #doxing. Last year, the anonymous #ProIsrael website the #CanaryMission posted photographs of hundreds of students and faculty at campus protests and posted their names and photos online, labeling some as supporters of terrorism.

"'The concern takes on new urgency as Donald Trump pledges to revoke the visas of pro-Palestine protesters, and the Trump-Musk GOP embraces the naming and shaming of otherwise private citizens. A conservative group called the American Accountability Foundation has begun circulating lists of federal workers, many of them Black, who should be
'targets' for their alleged involvement in #DEI initiatives at work.

"Clearly, the masked protest does not always sit well with an older generation, many of whom cut their teeth in the protests of the pre-internet age. As Georgetown professor Michael Kazin told the New York Times last year: 'I do think if you are going to demonstrate, and it’s something you feel deeply about, you should be willing to stand up and be counted.'"

Source:
https://slate.com/business/2025/02/mask-bans-new-york-los-angeles-crime-protests-criminalize-face-coverings.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
#Fascism #AuthoritarianRule #BigBrother #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou #SurveillanceState #SilencingDissent

The War on #Masks Has Taken on a New Meaning

This time, the masks have nothing to do with #COVID19.

By Henry Grabar
Feb 05, 20254:57 PM

"Last month, state legislators in New York introduced a bill that would create a new crime: 'masked harassment.'

"That, the law explains, is when you wear a mask 'for the primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence against another person' or 'placing another person or group of persons in reasonable fear for their physical safety.'

"If that seems like a bit of a niche offense—threatening violence is already a crime, after all—it’s because the language has been watered down to attract political support. It’s a sign of New York Democrats’ cautious new approach over masks in public life, and a retreat from last spring, when anti-Israel protests, on top of a widespread urban crime panic, pushed leaders from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to consider mask bans.

"In its original form, the New York bill would have banned masks at public assemblies entirely. But the outcry from #DisabilityRights advocates, #CriminalJustice reformers, #HealthCareWorkers, and #CivilLiberties groups was swift, and so New York wound up with this bill on 'masked harassment' instead.

"Elsewhere, the pandemic-era leniency on masking in public is over. #NorthCarolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto last summer to once again #BanPublicFaceCoverings, except to stop the spread of contagious diseases. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost dusted off an old law to threaten #StudentProtesters with #felonies. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has asked the state’s Senate to consider a bill to #unmask #protesters this year.

"For Republicans, it’s a chance to kill two birds with one stone. They can strike back against the perceived overreach of pandemic-era #HealthDirectives and make it easier to arrest #demonstrators at the same time.

"In #Ohio and North Carolina, the original statutes were written in the 1950s to stop demonstrations by the #KuKluxKlan, but had been ignored or suspended during the #pandemic and the #GeorgeFloydProtests. Many lawmakers have cited the recent demonstrations in defense of #Gaza as a reason to crack down again. Defending the proposed mask ban in New York, Anti-Defamation League [#ADL] president Jonathan Greenblatt said the demonstrators were using '#KKK tactics' to intimidate Jewish New Yorkers.

"That instinct was bolstered by the sense among many city residents and elected leaders that widespread masking was a factor behind the pandemic-era crime spike. That led to #Philadelphia banning #SkiMasks in parks, on trains, and in public buildings. A more recent, high-profile example came in December with the Midtown Manhattan killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO #BrianThompson by a #MaskedAssassin, which prompted New York Mayor Eric Adams to call for cab drivers and business owners to ask customers to remove their masks. The new New York bill has won over the liberal Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who endorsed the 'tailored' approach. As the police say: #NoFaceNoCase.

"For what it’s worth, there are too many confounding variables and too little data to be sure if mask-wearing is associated with crime, said Ernesto Lopez at the Council for Criminal Justice, which collects crime reporting statistics from various cities. 'From a theoretical statement it makes sense that could occur, but it has not been demonstrated that’s the case,' he told me.

"But if all that weighed in favor of more mask bans, there was also widespread resistance. Disability advocates mobilized to defend the right to mask; North Carolina had to write a medical exemption into their bill at the insistence of a GOP House member. #PoliceReformers observed that #MaskBans have often been used for pretextual #policing and racial profiling against #BlackAmericans. (#AtlantaGeorgia tabled a mask ban for that reason.)

"What looms largest, as the second Trump administration begins, is the role of protest. As Semafor’s Dave Weigel has noted, masks have become a badge of left-wing protest culture. That’s in part an extension of politicized COVID-era concerns about health and civility, but at this point it is mostly a tactic to preserve anonymity in an era of #FacialRecognition, streaming video, and #doxing. Last year, the anonymous #ProIsrael website the #CanaryMission posted photographs of hundreds of students and faculty at campus protests and posted their names and photos online, labeling some as supporters of terrorism.

"'The concern takes on new urgency as Donald Trump pledges to revoke the visas of pro-Palestine protesters, and the Trump-Musk GOP embraces the naming and shaming of otherwise private citizens. A conservative group called the American Accountability Foundation has begun circulating lists of federal workers, many of them Black, who should be
'targets' for their alleged involvement in #DEI initiatives at work.

"Clearly, the masked protest does not always sit well with an older generation, many of whom cut their teeth in the protests of the pre-internet age. As Georgetown professor Michael Kazin told the New York Times last year: 'I do think if you are going to demonstrate, and it’s something you feel deeply about, you should be willing to stand up and be counted.'"

Source:
https://slate.com/business/2025/02/mask-bans-new-york-los-angeles-crime-protests-criminalize-face-coverings.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
#Fascism #AuthoritarianRule #BigBrother #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou #SurveillanceState #SilencingDissent

The War on #Masks Has Taken on a New Meaning

This time, the masks have nothing to do with #COVID19.

By Henry Grabar
Feb 05, 20254:57 PM

"Last month, state legislators in New York introduced a bill that would create a new crime: 'masked harassment.'

"That, the law explains, is when you wear a mask 'for the primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence against another person' or 'placing another person or group of persons in reasonable fear for their physical safety.'

"If that seems like a bit of a niche offense—threatening violence is already a crime, after all—it’s because the language has been watered down to attract political support. It’s a sign of New York Democrats’ cautious new approach over masks in public life, and a retreat from last spring, when anti-Israel protests, on top of a widespread urban crime panic, pushed leaders from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to consider mask bans.

"In its original form, the New York bill would have banned masks at public assemblies entirely. But the outcry from #DisabilityRights advocates, #CriminalJustice reformers, #HealthCareWorkers, and #CivilLiberties groups was swift, and so New York wound up with this bill on 'masked harassment' instead.

"Elsewhere, the pandemic-era leniency on masking in public is over. #NorthCarolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto last summer to once again #BanPublicFaceCoverings, except to stop the spread of contagious diseases. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost dusted off an old law to threaten #StudentProtesters with #felonies. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has asked the state’s Senate to consider a bill to #unmask #protesters this year.

"For Republicans, it’s a chance to kill two birds with one stone. They can strike back against the perceived overreach of pandemic-era #HealthDirectives and make it easier to arrest #demonstrators at the same time.

"In #Ohio and North Carolina, the original statutes were written in the 1950s to stop demonstrations by the #KuKluxKlan, but had been ignored or suspended during the #pandemic and the #GeorgeFloydProtests. Many lawmakers have cited the recent demonstrations in defense of #Gaza as a reason to crack down again. Defending the proposed mask ban in New York, Anti-Defamation League [#ADL] president Jonathan Greenblatt said the demonstrators were using '#KKK tactics' to intimidate Jewish New Yorkers.

"That instinct was bolstered by the sense among many city residents and elected leaders that widespread masking was a factor behind the pandemic-era crime spike. That led to #Philadelphia banning #SkiMasks in parks, on trains, and in public buildings. A more recent, high-profile example came in December with the Midtown Manhattan killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO #BrianThompson by a #MaskedAssassin, which prompted New York Mayor Eric Adams to call for cab drivers and business owners to ask customers to remove their masks. The new New York bill has won over the liberal Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who endorsed the 'tailored' approach. As the police say: #NoFaceNoCase.

"For what it’s worth, there are too many confounding variables and too little data to be sure if mask-wearing is associated with crime, said Ernesto Lopez at the Council for Criminal Justice, which collects crime reporting statistics from various cities. 'From a theoretical statement it makes sense that could occur, but it has not been demonstrated that’s the case,' he told me.

"But if all that weighed in favor of more mask bans, there was also widespread resistance. Disability advocates mobilized to defend the right to mask; North Carolina had to write a medical exemption into their bill at the insistence of a GOP House member. #PoliceReformers observed that #MaskBans have often been used for pretextual #policing and racial profiling against #BlackAmericans. (#AtlantaGeorgia tabled a mask ban for that reason.)

"What looms largest, as the second Trump administration begins, is the role of protest. As Semafor’s Dave Weigel has noted, masks have become a badge of left-wing protest culture. That’s in part an extension of politicized COVID-era concerns about health and civility, but at this point it is mostly a tactic to preserve anonymity in an era of #FacialRecognition, streaming video, and #doxing. Last year, the anonymous #ProIsrael website the #CanaryMission posted photographs of hundreds of students and faculty at campus protests and posted their names and photos online, labeling some as supporters of terrorism.

"'The concern takes on new urgency as Donald Trump pledges to revoke the visas of pro-Palestine protesters, and the Trump-Musk GOP embraces the naming and shaming of otherwise private citizens. A conservative group called the American Accountability Foundation has begun circulating lists of federal workers, many of them Black, who should be
'targets' for their alleged involvement in #DEI initiatives at work.

"Clearly, the masked protest does not always sit well with an older generation, many of whom cut their teeth in the protests of the pre-internet age. As Georgetown professor Michael Kazin told the New York Times last year: 'I do think if you are going to demonstrate, and it’s something you feel deeply about, you should be willing to stand up and be counted.'"

Source:
https://slate.com/business/2025/02/mask-bans-new-york-los-angeles-crime-protests-criminalize-face-coverings.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
#Fascism #AuthoritarianRule #BigBrother #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou #SurveillanceState #SilencingDissent

The War on #Masks Has Taken on a New Meaning

This time, the masks have nothing to do with #COVID19.

By Henry Grabar
Feb 05, 20254:57 PM

"Last month, state legislators in New York introduced a bill that would create a new crime: 'masked harassment.'

"That, the law explains, is when you wear a mask 'for the primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence against another person' or 'placing another person or group of persons in reasonable fear for their physical safety.'

"If that seems like a bit of a niche offense—threatening violence is already a crime, after all—it’s because the language has been watered down to attract political support. It’s a sign of New York Democrats’ cautious new approach over masks in public life, and a retreat from last spring, when anti-Israel protests, on top of a widespread urban crime panic, pushed leaders from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to consider mask bans.

"In its original form, the New York bill would have banned masks at public assemblies entirely. But the outcry from #DisabilityRights advocates, #CriminalJustice reformers, #HealthCareWorkers, and #CivilLiberties groups was swift, and so New York wound up with this bill on 'masked harassment' instead.

"Elsewhere, the pandemic-era leniency on masking in public is over. #NorthCarolina Republicans overrode a gubernatorial veto last summer to once again #BanPublicFaceCoverings, except to stop the spread of contagious diseases. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost dusted off an old law to threaten #StudentProtesters with #felonies. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has asked the state’s Senate to consider a bill to #unmask #protesters this year.

"For Republicans, it’s a chance to kill two birds with one stone. They can strike back against the perceived overreach of pandemic-era #HealthDirectives and make it easier to arrest #demonstrators at the same time.

"In #Ohio and North Carolina, the original statutes were written in the 1950s to stop demonstrations by the #KuKluxKlan, but had been ignored or suspended during the #pandemic and the #GeorgeFloydProtests. Many lawmakers have cited the recent demonstrations in defense of #Gaza as a reason to crack down again. Defending the proposed mask ban in New York, Anti-Defamation League [#ADL] president Jonathan Greenblatt said the demonstrators were using '#KKK tactics' to intimidate Jewish New Yorkers.

"That instinct was bolstered by the sense among many city residents and elected leaders that widespread masking was a factor behind the pandemic-era crime spike. That led to #Philadelphia banning #SkiMasks in parks, on trains, and in public buildings. A more recent, high-profile example came in December with the Midtown Manhattan killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO #BrianThompson by a #MaskedAssassin, which prompted New York Mayor Eric Adams to call for cab drivers and business owners to ask customers to remove their masks. The new New York bill has won over the liberal Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who endorsed the 'tailored' approach. As the police say: #NoFaceNoCase.

"For what it’s worth, there are too many confounding variables and too little data to be sure if mask-wearing is associated with crime, said Ernesto Lopez at the Council for Criminal Justice, which collects crime reporting statistics from various cities. 'From a theoretical statement it makes sense that could occur, but it has not been demonstrated that’s the case,' he told me.

"But if all that weighed in favor of more mask bans, there was also widespread resistance. Disability advocates mobilized to defend the right to mask; North Carolina had to write a medical exemption into their bill at the insistence of a GOP House member. #PoliceReformers observed that #MaskBans have often been used for pretextual #policing and racial profiling against #BlackAmericans. (#AtlantaGeorgia tabled a mask ban for that reason.)

"What looms largest, as the second Trump administration begins, is the role of protest. As Semafor’s Dave Weigel has noted, masks have become a badge of left-wing protest culture. That’s in part an extension of politicized COVID-era concerns about health and civility, but at this point it is mostly a tactic to preserve anonymity in an era of #FacialRecognition, streaming video, and #doxing. Last year, the anonymous #ProIsrael website the #CanaryMission posted photographs of hundreds of students and faculty at campus protests and posted their names and photos online, labeling some as supporters of terrorism.

"'The concern takes on new urgency as Donald Trump pledges to revoke the visas of pro-Palestine protesters, and the Trump-Musk GOP embraces the naming and shaming of otherwise private citizens. A conservative group called the American Accountability Foundation has begun circulating lists of federal workers, many of them Black, who should be
'targets' for their alleged involvement in #DEI initiatives at work.

"Clearly, the masked protest does not always sit well with an older generation, many of whom cut their teeth in the protests of the pre-internet age. As Georgetown professor Michael Kazin told the New York Times last year: 'I do think if you are going to demonstrate, and it’s something you feel deeply about, you should be willing to stand up and be counted.'"

Source:
https://slate.com/business/2025/02/mask-bans-new-york-los-angeles-crime-protests-criminalize-face-coverings.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
#Fascism #AuthoritarianRule #BigBrother #BigBrotherIsWatchingYou #SurveillanceState #SilencingDissent

"As with other forensic innovations, like forensic genetic genealogy or facial recognition, FDP is sold as an “investigative tool” — that is, a product not intended for use as evidence in a criminal proceeding, but as a behind-the-scenes aide to police searching for perpetrators. But selling a scientifically questionable product as a mere investigative tool can have real-world consequences.

For FDP in particular, experts warn that the composite images can reinforce racial stereotypes, encourage the over-surveillance of marginalized communities, and deny criminal defendants important information about how they became a target of an investigation, which raises serious implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Composites like those Parabon sells could also inadvertently taint the memories of eyewitnesses to a crime, risking potentially valuable evidence.

Paula Armentrout, Parabon’s co-founder, provided written responses to questions from The Intercept about the company’s Snapshot program. In part, the company said that The Intercept “should not quote any of the presenters” at the NAS workshop, who it claims “made many false, uninformed, and misleading statements that were not based on evidence or facts, but on misinformation propagated by inaccurate media articles, hearsay, and their own personal and political agendas.”

Walsh insists her criticisms are motivated solely by her fidelity to the science and to ensuring the transparency and accuracy of forensic tools used in the criminal legal system. To that end, she was emphatic during the workshop: Law enforcement should not be allowed to purchase phenotyping composites. “The science isn’t there. We shouldn’t be doing it,” she said. At this juncture, she said, those sketches are about as scientific as “my son drawing them.”"

https://theintercept.com/2025/02/02/forensic-dna-phenotyping-parabon-nanolabs-police/

#PseudoScience #Surveillance #Forensics #CivilLiberties #DNA #Phrenology

Just made my monthly phone call to shout at #SaanichPolice to remind them I will NEVER FORGET how their #policeUnion boss led team on night my Dad died & refused to put a mask on & refused to leave our home despite first arrival cops & paramedics determining it was a full medical cardiac emergency requiring ZERO COPS. I WILL NEVER STOP REMINDING #SAANICH PD HOW THEY COMPLETELY FUCKED UP & TRAUMATIZED US MORE ON NIGHT MY DAD DIED!!!

#VancouverIsland #YYJpoli #FuckThePolice #AbolishPoliceUnions #DemandTransparency #CivilLiberties #Saanich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICvDB57XnSs

#Austria 🇦🇹 #FreedomOfSpeech: Activists say basic #civilliberties under threat

#SupportStudentsAndFacultySupportingPalestine 🇵🇸
#JewsSayCeasefire✡️
#ProtestIsNOTACrime

#farright #Islamophobia #racism #rassissmus

#FreePalestineNow 🇵🇸

#Gaza in Context: A Collaborative Project

#Students Rising: Dismantling Reprression, Imagining Futures Part 4

A Conversation with Students & Activists on the Front Lines

1) https://youtu.be/a4ZIPjEhVTw
2) https://youtu.be/8w9U9TySY60
#Palestine #PalestineSolidarity #GazaSolidarity #GazaSolidarityEncampments #StudentActivism #StudentProtests #CampusActivism #PalestineActivism #USpol #USpolitics #FreeSpeech #StateRepression #PoliceViolence #CivilLiberties #Jadaliyya @palestine

@palestine

#Gaza in Context: A Collaborative Project

#Students Rising: Dismantling Repression, Imagining Futures Part 2

#StudentEncampment Representatives in conversation w/ #LisaWedeen & #BassamHaddad

https://youtu.be/UZgPbU8bMXY
#Palestine #PalestineSolidarity #GazaSolidarity #GazaSolidarityEncampments #StudentActivism #StudentProtests #CampusActivism #PalestineActivism #USpol #USpolitics #FreeSpeech #StateRepression #PoliceViolence #CivilLiberties #Jadaliyya

#Gaza in Context: A Collaborative Project

#Students Rising: Dismantling Repression, Imagining Futures Part 1 | A Conversation with #StudentEncampment Representatives

Students from DC/MD/VA/NY+ in conversation with #BassamHaddad

https://youtu.be/5j1_I3lL_jg

#Palestine #PalestineSolidarity #GazaSolidarity #GazaSolidarityEncampments #StudentActivism #StudentProtests #CampusActivism #PalestineActivism #USpol #USpolitics #StateRepression #FreeSpeech #CivilLiberties #Jadaliyya

@palestine

How Government #FusionCenters Violate Americans’ Rights — and How to Stop It

The Biden administration and Congress must impose oversight and accountability on the state-run centers.

by Mike German
December 15, 2022

"A federal jury awarded $300,000 this month to a #MaineStatePolice trooper who was demoted after blowing the whistle on privacy violations at the state’s intelligence #FusionCenter. The federal government spurred the development of fusion centers after 9/11 as a means for sharing counterterrorism intelligence among state and local governments, as well as select private entities. The facts revealed during this trial adds to a mountain of evidence that fusion centers require greater regulation and oversight.

"The trooper alleged that the Maine Intelligence and Analysis Center, 1 in a network of 80 fusion centers operating across the country, was illegally collecting and sharing information about Maine residents who weren’t suspected of criminal activity. They included gun purchasers, people #protesting the construction of a new power transmission line, the employees of a #peacebuilding #SummerCamp for teenagers, and even people who travelled to New York City frequently. The whistleblower also claimed that fusion center supervisors pressured him to illegally share sensitive FBI information he had access to because of his position on the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

[...]

"Shortly after the Maine trooper filed his lawsuit in May 2020, a hack of a fusion center contractor exposed 296 gigabytes of intelligence records from more than 200 law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and DHS. The records substantiated the trooper’s complaints about privacy and #CivilRights violations at the #Maine fusion center and showed similar abuse occurring throughout the network, particularly in tracking #BlackLivesMatter #protests. The documents also showed that fusion centers had regularly spread misinformation sourced from dubious social media posts, including false reports alleging that #antifascists were starting wildfires or planning acts of violence. These specious reports distracted law enforcement during public safety emergencies."

Read more:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-government-fusion-centers-violate-americans-rights-and-how-stop-it

#FTPFriday #ACAB #SLAPPs #Fascism #CivilLiberties #ClimateActivists #QuebecHydro #CMP #CMPCorridor #ForestDefenders #WaterProtectors #CorporateColonialism

We just watched #StormCenter (1956). It’s an imperfect film, but it’s well worth seeing, and its powerful message against #Censorship and #BookBanning remains very timely.

#BetteDavis #KimHunter #BrianKeith #FilmNoir #Drama #CivilLiberties #Tolerance #Cinema #Film #Noir #Libraries