Even Better: Bethesda Gives Full Throat Endorsement Of ‘Skyblivion’

Culture

from the being-human-and-awesome dept

One of things we’ve talked about repeatedly is how much better it would be for content producers, instead of immediately defaulting to behaving like IP protectionists, to treat their fans in a human and awesome way. There are times when the need for protecting IP makes sense, but there are far more times when creative avenues could be explored to allow fans to express themselves, or to simply leave the whole thing alone if it doesn’t represent any actual danger or negative outcomes. Far too often those considerations are sidelined and mercenary lawyers get involved instead.

It’s one of the reasons we were so pleasantly surprised recently that a fan-led team developing a remake of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in the Skyrim engine appeared to have Bethesda’s and Microsoft’s silent approval to continue moving forward, even after Bethesda released its own remaster of Oblivion. At that time, we had to take the word of the team behind Skyblivion, who stated that they were assured their project wouldn’t be shut down.

But it actually gets way, way better than that. What was once silent approval just became very, very vocal approval, as Bethesda’s latest developer spotlight fully celebrated Skyblivion’s existence.

On May 1, Bethesda published a new developer spotlight video focused on art and development lead Dan Lee. He’s been at Bethesda for a long time now, having worked on Fallout 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim, and the original Oblivion as well as the newly released remaster. And in his dev spotlight video he called out Skyblivion, a mod that’s been in development since 2012 and aims to recreate the OG game in the Skyrim engine. Bethesda even included gameplay footage of the ambitious fan mod in the spotlight video.

“Even though I worked on Oblivion Remastered, I’m still excited for Skyblivion,” said Lee at the end of the spotlight. “I think what they’re doing is very special and I’m excited to see their interpretation of what we’ve done in the past. And I think it’s a great year for Oblivion fans.”

Straight from an official channel for Bethesda, here we have not just the approval for the fan-made remake, but a full-throated endorsement of it. And you will notice how the developer focused on how good this is for fans of the original game. He’s right! Because Bethesda and Microsoft are being so awesome about this, fans will eventually have two different iterations of an updated Oblivion to play.

The company rightly understood there was no negative impact from Skyblivion existing. It didn’t stop over four million players of the official remastered version from getting the game. The fan game isn’t going to carry a price tag and requires players to have official versions of both games to play it. It didn’t reuse any Bethesda assets. This is just fans doing things fans love to do and the publisher being awesome about it.

And the Skyblivion team is managing to be human and awesome right back at them.

Dan, we’re just as excited to get Skyblivion into your hands this year as you are to play it,” posted the Skyblivion devs on social media. “Thanks for the shoutout and kind words. You said it best: It is a great year for Oblivion fans.”

Imagine how nice a place this would be if this approach was the norm rather than the exception.

Filed Under: fan games, skyblivion, video games
Companies: bethesda, microsoft

Texas Bookstores Push Back Against Bill That Would Allow Them To Be Sued Over ‘Harmful’ Content

Legal Issues

from the codifying-the-heckler's-veto dept

The free, independent state of Texas continues to make it clear it only respects certain rights and freedoms and only those that adhere to the Holy Trinity of guns, God, and, um… Nazi-adjacent Cybertruck manufacturers.

A number of efforts have been made to remove books from schools and public libraries in recent years. None of those efforts are still intact, despite the decidedly conservative stance of local state and federal courts. Even the Fifth Circuit somehow managed to avoid giving a book ban a total blessing while still managing to muddy the waters so thoroughly there’s no clear path to victory for either censorial legislators or plaintiffs challenging these unconstitutional laws.

Another ridiculous effort has been mounted by a member of the Texas legislature, one that would allow pretty much any allegedly aggrieved Texas resident to sue any bookseller just because their kid happened to come across a book containing (again, allegedly) “harmful material.”

Fortunately, this bill has already met stiff opposition from those affected by it, as Ashly Ibarra reports for Big Country News.

A bill set to be heard by the Judiciary and Jurisprudence Committee at the Texas House is sparking criticism from small business owners across the state. Arlene Kasselman, who owns Seven and One Books in downtown Abilene, is raising awareness on social media about House Bill 1375.

Here’s what concerns Kasselman and other bookstore owners:

Kasselman began researching the bill and discovered it could have serious implications for small businesses, potentially leading to censorship and limits on educational materials. HB1375 allows individuals to sue if they’re harmed by obscene or harmful content, particularly when it’s accessible to minors. Under the bill, businesses that help distribute such content can be held liable, and the law lowers the bar for plaintiffs to win those lawsuits.

This law creates a private cause of action for Texas residents to sue “any commercial entity” that “distributes, transmits, or displays harmful content” to minors. Obviously, most commercial entities dealing exclusively with adult-oriented material take care to prevent minors from accessing this content. However, bookstores aren’t in the adult-oriented business, even if some of the stuff on the shelves definitely isn’t meant for kids. Proprietors don’t card bookstore patrons because… well, before this new wave of bigoted censorship swept across the nation, it was never necessary.

That’s not the only problem with the bill. It also says individual employees of “news-gathering organizations” and “broadcasters” can be sued for making “harmful content” accessible to children, which is insane because, unlike a brick-and-mortar store with limited numbers of entrances, broadcasts and reporting can be accessed by anyone with the capability to do so.

It’s a litigation machine designed to provoke self-censorship. And whatever the intended victims (that being those targeted by the law) don’t censor for themselves, the Texas legislature will presumably get around to outlawing.

There’s also this addition from the legislature’s kangaroo courtesans: the barring of almost any defense that could be raised in the lawsuits this bill fully intends to generate. Under the heading PROHIBITED DEFENSES are all of these items (and more!):

–claims ignorance or mistake of law
-has a belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional
-relies on any court decision that has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision has not been overruled when the defendant engaged in the conduct that violates this chapter
-relies on any state or federal court decision that is not binding on the court in which the action has been brought

That’s some weird stuff right there, including the lead-off denial of mens rea requirements. And while the rest of it might work in terms of criminal prosecutions, this deals with civil litigation where the things the bill aims to deny defendants access to are actually meaningful parts of the equation. It’s a bold swing, but the only thing it really guarantees is the likelihood of it being struck down as unconstitutional before it can go into effect.

It’s a moonshot, as even the local GOP official admits:

Taylor County Republican Chairman Ryan Goodwin has previously voiced support for removing books deemed inappropriate for minors. He noted that conversations about book restrictions have been ongoing for years, but he’s skeptical that this particular bill will gain traction. 

But not for the obvious reasons people who aren’t bigots and are capable of understanding civil liberties would assume:

If similar legislation moves forward in the future, he hopes it will include clear and specific language defining what constitutes material harmful to minors.

Bro, there are plenty of laws on the books that deal with preventing minors from accessing harmful content. They’ve been on the books for years. Violations are normally handled through criminal prosecutions or administrative action against adult businesses (which are already heavily regulated). The problem isn’t the vagueness of the definitions (although that certainly doesn’t help). The problem is the bill drags broadcasters, journalists, and booksellers into an arena they’ve never deliberately entered.

It’s not like there’s a long history of these entities providing children with access to obscene or harmful content. The bill isn’t seeking to regulate a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s deliberately seeking to censor entities that have almost always complied with existing laws by giving hecklers the opportunity to veto content they don’t like via BS litigation and government power. Simply saying the bill has no chance to survive doesn’t make you any less complicit in its existence, you absolute schmuck. Just because certain constituents cheer when you hurt other constituents doesn’t make you a leader. It makes you nothing more than a cog in the machine that runs on bloodlust.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arlene kasselman, book bans, censorship, ryan goodwin, texas
Companies: seven and one books

How The Government Is Quietly Repurposing Everyone’s Data For Surveillance

Privacy

from the pervasive-surveillance dept

A whistleblower at the National Labor Relations Board reported an unusual spike in potentially sensitive data flowing out of the agency’s network in early March 2025 when staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency, which goes by DOGE, were granted access to the agency’s databases. On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security gained access to Internal Revenue Service tax data.

These seemingly unrelated events are examples of recent developments in the transformation of the structure and purpose of federal government data repositories. I am a researcher who studies the intersection of migration, data governance and digital technologies. I’m tracking how data that people provide to U.S. government agencies for public services such as tax filing, health care enrollment, unemployment assistance and education support is increasingly being redirected toward surveillance and law enforcement.

Originally collected to facilitate health care, eligibility for services and the administration of public services, this information is now shared across government agencies and with private companies, reshaping the infrastructure of public services into a mechanism of control. Once confined to separate bureaucracies, data now flows freely through a network of interagency agreements, outsourcing contracts and commercial partnerships built up in recent decades.

These data-sharing arrangements often take place outside public scrutiny, driven by national security justifications, fraud prevention initiatives and digital modernization efforts. The result is that the structure of government is quietly transforming into an integrated surveillance apparatus, capable of monitoring, predicting and flagging behavior at an unprecedented scale.

Executive orders signed by President Donald Trump aim to remove remaining institutional and legal barriers to completing this massive surveillance system.

DOGE and the private sector

Central to this transformation is DOGE, which is tasked via an executive order to “promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” An additional executive order calls for the federal government to eliminate its information silos.

By building interoperable systems, DOGE can enable real-time, cross-agency access to sensitive information and create a centralized database on people within the U.S. These developments are framed as administrative streamlining but lay the groundwork for mass surveillance.

Key to this data repurposing are public-private partnerships. The DHS and other agencies have turned to third-party contractors and data brokers to bypass direct restrictions. These intermediaries also consolidate data from social media, utility companies, supermarkets and many other sources, enabling enforcement agencies to construct detailed digital profiles of people without explicit consent or judicial oversight.

Palantir, a private data firm and prominent federal contractor, supplies investigative platforms to agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Internal Revenue Service. These platforms aggregate data from various sources – driver’s license photos, social services, financial information, educational data – and present it in centralized dashboards designed for predictive policing and algorithmic profiling. These tools extend government reach in ways that challenge existing norms of privacy and consent.

The role of AI

Artificial intelligence has further accelerated this shift.

Predictive algorithms now scan vast amounts of data to generate risk scores, detect anomalies and flag potential threats.

These systems ingest data from school enrollment records, housing applications, utility usage and even social media, all made available through contracts with data brokers and tech companies. Because these systems rely on machine learning, their inner workings are often proprietary, unexplainable and beyond meaningful public accountability.

Sometimes the results are inaccurate, generated by AI hallucinations – responses AI systems produce that sound convincing but are incorrect, made up or irrelevant. Minor data discrepancies can lead to major consequences: job loss, denial of benefits and wrongful targeting in law enforcement operations. Once flagged, individuals rarely have a clear pathway to contest the system’s conclusions.

Digital profiling

Participation in civic life, applying for a loan, seeking disaster relief and requesting student aid now contribute to a person’s digital footprint. Government entities could later interpret that data in ways that allow them to deny access to assistance. Data collected under the banner of care could be mined for evidence to justify placing someone under surveillance. And with growing dependence on private contractors, the boundaries between public governance and corporate surveillance continue to erode.

Artificial intelligence, facial recognition systems and predictive profiling systems lack oversight. They also disproportionately affect low-income individuals, immigrants and people of color, who are more frequently flagged as risks.

Initially built for benefits verification or crisis response, these data systems now feed into broader surveillance networks. The implications are profound. What began as a system targeting noncitizens and fraud suspects could easily be generalized to everyone in the country.

Eyes on everyone

This is not merely a question of data privacy. It is a broader transformation in the logic of governance. Systems once designed for administration have become tools for tracking and predicting people’s behavior. In this new paradigm, oversight is sparse and accountability is minimal.

AI allows for the interpretation of behavioral patterns at scale without direct interrogation or verification. Inferences replace facts. Correlations replace testimony.

The risk extends to everyone. While these technologies are often first deployed at the margins of society – against migrants, welfare recipients or those deemed “high risk” – there’s little to limit their scope. As the infrastructure expands, so does its reach into the lives of all citizens.

With every form submitted, interaction logged and device used, a digital profile deepens, often out of sight. The infrastructure for pervasive surveillance is in place. What remains uncertain is how far it will be allowed to go.

Nicole M. Bennett is a Ph.D. Candidate in Geography and Assistant Director at the Center for Refugee Studies, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: data, doge, privacy, surveillance

Trump Admits He Could Get Abrego Garcia Back, But Angrily Insists Non-Existent Tattoos Are The Reason He Won’t

Legal Issues

from the the-dumbest-people-on-earth-are-running-the-planet dept

Bizarrely buried near the bottom of NY Times article about the chaos behind the renditioning of people to a Salvadoran gulag is an important detail: the US and El Salvador have already brought back eight people who were “mistakenly” sent there:

In Washington, the Trump administration was working to address Mr. Bukele’s confusion about whom the United States had sent him. Eight women who had been mistakenly sent were swiftly flown back.

That seems to go hand in hand with something else the President said this week. In a revealing “100 days” interview with ABC’s Terry Moran, Donald Trump finally admitted what we’ve been saying all along: he absolutely could get Abrego Garcia — the man his administration illegally shipped to El Salvador — back to the US with a single phone call. And then, in the same breath, he explained why he won’t do it, which directly disobeys a court order, while insisting he “follows the law.”

The exchange about getting Garcia back is stunning in its brazen disregard for court orders and a weird claim that he’s somehow not in charge of his own presidency:

TERRY MORAN: You could get him back. There’s a phone on this desk.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I could.

TERRY MORAN: You could pick it up, and with all —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I could

TERRY MORAN: — the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, “Send him back,” right now.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.

TERRY MORAN: But the court has ordered you —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But he’s not.

TERRY MORAN: — to facilitate that — his release–

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’m not the one making this decision. We have lawyers that don’t want —

TERRY MORAN: You’re the president.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — to do this, Terry —

TERRY MORAN: Yeah, but the — but the buck stops in this office —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I — no, no, no, no. I follow the law. You want me to follow the law. If I were the president that just wanted to do anything, I’d probably keep him right where he is —

TERRY MORAN: The Supreme Court says what the law is.

As you’ll recall, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the district court’s order to “facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador” was perfectly valid. For months, the administration has pretended it was somehow impossible to get Garcia back. Now, with a single exchange, Trump — the ChatGPT President who typically generates plausible-sounding words disconnected from reality — accidentally stumbled into admitting the truth.

And that should be interesting to Judge Xinis in the district court, who has repeatedly asked the government what steps it has taken to do that facilitation.

It has been obvious that the answer is “fuck all” this whole time, but for a little while the administration kept (ludicrously) pretending that it was functionally impossible for the US to try to get him back.

So, now you have the President of the US admitting what everyone already knew: that of course he could call up Bukele and get Garcia back. I am assuming that this statement will show up in court before long, if it hasn’t been filed already.

The next part, though, is where things get ridiculous. For Trump to claim “I’m not the one making the decision” is laughable. Dude, you’re the President. You’re the one who keeps running around claiming to have the full power over the executive branch that no one can review. Now, suddenly it’s “the lawyers that don’t want to do this.” C’mon.

And then to put a cherry on top of this gaslighting sundae, he claims “I follow the law” in a discussion about how he is literally doing the exact opposite of that.

Trump’s admission about being able to get Garcia back couldn’t come at a worse time for the DOJ, which has been desperately trying to slow-walk the court case. Judge Xinis, already fed up with their delay tactics, recently shot down their latest attempt to stall. Despite a sealed motion from the government last week that briefly paused proceedings, on Wednesday she ordered discovery to continue on an expedited schedule — everything must be completed by May 14th.

Now the DOJ will need to explain to an increasingly impatient judge why they can’t get Garcia back when their own boss just admitted on national television that he could easily do it with a single phone call and the only thing holding him back were the very DOJ lawyers telling the judge that the President can’t do what she’s ordered.

Which he’s just admitted he can. You almost (but not really, they chose this) feel sorry for the DOJ lawyers who will have to face the judge.

And yet, somehow, admitting he could easily comply with a court order but won’t wasn’t even the craziest part of Trump’s Garcia comments. That distinction belongs to his utterly unhinged insistence that Garcia had “MS-13” tattooed on his knuckles. Let’s start with the actual evidence: when Senator Chris Van Hollen met with Garcia in El Salvador, the photos clearly showed his hand tattoos:

The very next day, Trump held up what he claimed was proof of MS-13 tattoos — but it was clearly just a visual aid with typed letters and explanatory text:

The disconnect between reality and Trump’s claims led to this surreal exchange:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I campaigned on that issue. I’ve done an amazing job. I have closed borders. He said you couldn’t do it, you wouldn’t be able to do it, it would never happen. Well, it happened. And it happened —

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — very quickly. Wait a minute. When we have criminals, murderers, criminals in this country, we have to get ’em out. And we’re doing it.

TERRY MORAN: By law —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And you’ll pick out one man, but even the man that you picked out —

TERRY MORAN: He’s got —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — he said he’d — wasn’t a member of a gang. And then they looked, and —

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: On his knuckles — he had MS-13 —

TERRY MORAN: Alright. There’s dis — there’s a dispute over that —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. He had MS-13 —

TERRY MORAN: Well —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — on his knuckles tattooed.

TERRY MORAN: — he — he — he — it didn’t say– oh, he had some tattoos that are inper — interpreted that way. But let’s move on

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Wait a minute.

TERRY MORAN: I want —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Hey, Terry. Terry. Terry.

TERRY MORAN: He — he did not have the letter —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Don’t do that — M-S-1-3 — It says M-S-one-three.

TERRY MORAN: I — that was Photoshop. So let me just–

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That was Photoshop? Terry, you can’t do that — he had —

— he– hey, they’re givin’ you the big break of a lifetime. You know, you’re doin’ the interview. I picked you because — frankly I never heard of you, but that’s okay —

TERRY MORAN: This — I knew this would come —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But I picked you — Terry — but you’re not being very nice. He had MS-13 tattooed —

TERRY MORAN: Alright. Alright. We’ll agree to disagree. I want to move on —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Terry.

TERRY MORAN: — to something else.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Terry. Do you want me to show the picture?

TERRY MORAN: I saw the picture. We’ll — we’ll — we’ll agree to disagree —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Oh, and you think it was Photoshop. Well —

TERRY MORAN: Here we go. Here we go.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — don’t Photoshop it. Go look —

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — at his hand. He had MS-13 —

TERRY MORAN: Fair enough, he did have tattoos that can be interpreted that way. I’m not an expert on them.

I want to turn to Ukraine, sir —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, no. Terry —

TERRY MORAN: I– I want to get to Ukraine–

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Terry, no, no. No, no. He had MS as clear as you can be. Not “interpreted.” This is why people —

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — no longer believe —

TERRY MORAN: Well.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: — the news, because it’s fake news —

TERRY MORAN: When he was photographed in El Sal — in– in El Salvador, they aren’t there. But let’s just go on —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: He is —

TERRY MORAN: They aren’t there when he’s in El Salvador.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: –there — oh, oh, they weren’t there —

TERRY MORAN: Take a look at the photograph —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But they’re there now, right?

TERRY MORAN: No. What —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But they’re there now?

TERRY MORAN: They’re in your picture.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Terry.

TERRY MORAN: Ukraine, sir.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: He’s got MS-13 on his knuckles.

TERRY MORAN: Alright. I —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Okay?

TERRY MORAN: — we’ll — we’ll take a look at it —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s — it’s — you do such a disservice —

TERRY MORAN: We’ll take a look. We’ll take a look at that, sir —

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Why don’t you just say, “Yes, he does,” and, you know, go on to something else —

TERRY MORAN: It’s contested.

The video of this exchange is even more jarring than the transcript suggests — Trump growing increasingly agitated as he insists on something demonstrably false:

Just to be 100% clear, the photo Trump held up has the letters M S 1 3 typed on the photo, where it was clearly meant to “explain” the actual symbols. It’s a bit hard to see but the text beneath each symbol is clearly typed on to explain things as well which (to be clear, since apparently this needs to be spelled out for some) do not actually appear on Abrego Garcia’s hand, say “Marijuana,” “Smile”, “Cross,” and “Skull.” The “Marijuana” and the “Smile” are meant to stand in for the supposed M and S of MS13.

This appears to have come via the dumbest game of “Telephone” ever, in which stupid nonsense gets passed along from one ignorant fool to another.

It started with an extremist racist MAGA account on ExTwitter who, four days before the Trump post, had posted a different picture of Garcia’s tattoos and claimed that they stood for MS13, saying “this looks like the most damning evidence yet” and then explaining his ridiculous theory:

Marijuana leaf = M

Smiley face = S

Cross coverup = 1

Skull coverup = 3

MS-13.

Note that, at this point, even he is claiming that the tattoos symbolize the characters. It seems likely that the White House team, whose brains are pickled in the ExTwitter MAGA swamps, likely saw this and decided to try to make a visual aid to match that dipshit’s “damning evidence.”

It appears they then handed their photo and visual aid to Trump, who held it up for a picture to push out on social media, but Trump is seemingly so confused that he saw the obviously typed over bits that are meant to explain the made up symbols that days ago were meant to “coverup” the true meaning… and believed they were actually on his hand, which they clearly are not.

And, just to be absolutely clear, no one who actually understands this stuff thinks those symbols mean MS-13. Every expert that everyone has spoken to gives some version of “what… no… that’s not how any of this works.”

Here’s one fact check that spoke to multiple experts:

“I don’t believe a dangerous individual would have such anodyne and farcically generic tattoos on his hand,” said Liliana Castaneda Rossmann, a California State University San Marcos emerita professor of communication and author of the book Transcending Gangs: Latinas Story Their Experience.

Sean Kennedy, a former federal public defender in California and now a Loyola Law School professor, said in his experience representing and interacting with current and former MS-13 members, “The tattoos in the photo don’t look familiar to me.”

Such designs are out of character with typical MS-13 tattoos, Kennedy said.

“Within MS-13 culture, such markings would likely be frowned upon and even viewed as a sign of cowardice, as they could be interpreted as an attempt to hide or downplay gang affiliation,” Kennedy said. “That type of concealment goes against the gang’s norms, which often demand bold, visible demonstrations of identity and loyalty.”

Charles Katz, director of Arizona State University’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, concurred.

While Katz said local law enforcement would be more familiar with specific tattoo designs in a given region, “I have worked on issues related to MS-13 for the past 15 years in El Salvador and the US, and I have never seen tattoos or graffiti suggesting that these particular tattoos are associated with MS-13.”

Another fact check had even more experts saying these claims make no sense:

“These are definitely NOT MS-13 tattoos,” Thomas Ward, a University of Southern California professor who spent years embedded with MS-13 researching the gang, and is the author of an ethnography that studies MS-13, said in an email.

“Those tattoos do not prove that he’s a member of MS-13,” said Susan Phillips, a Pitzer College professor who has studied gangs and written a book on gang graffiti.

While some gangs will opt for more low-profile or ambiguous means of identifying members to evade detection from law enforcement or rival gang members, MS-13 tattoos, according to Leap, aren’t exactly subtle. They are used to market the gang’s brutality.

“MS-13 members have tattoos that say ‘MS-13,’” Leap said. “They’re not head-scratchers; they’re billboards. There’s no ambiguity.”

So, just to drive this point home: he does not have MS13 tattooed on his hand. He has four symbols, which some rando MAGA dipshit on ExTwitter claimed was a hidden MS13 message that was “covered up.” Brain-pickled White House people tried to run with that rando’s claim by creating a visual aid, and our brain-fogged President stupidly interpreted the visual aid as things that were actually on Abrego Garcia’s hand, leading him to angrily insist to a hapless ABC News anchor that he really had the actual characters M S 1 3 on his knuckles.

It’s a multi-layer cake of stupidity.

This whole debacle exposes two terrifying realities about our current moment:

First, we have a President who can’t distinguish between a visual aid created by his own staff and reality, and who becomes increasingly aggressive when confronted with facts that contradict his delusions. This isn’t just about tattoos. It’s about the most powerful man on the planet with control over our nuclear arsenal, who can’t process basic visual evidence placed directly in front of him.

Second, we have a press corps that remains paralyzed when faced with easily disprovable lies. Moran had everything he needed — the actual photos, the visual aid Trump was misinterpreting (which Trump directly offered to go get!), the experts all saying this made no sense — to decisively show the President was wrong. Instead, he retreated to “let’s agree to disagree” and “it’s contested.”

That’s not journalism. That’s stenography with a side of cowardice.

A real journalist, faced with the most powerful man on earth caught in an easily proven lie, would have pulled up the photos and shown the truth. Instead, we got multiple attempts to “move on” while looking meek and confused. The term “photoshopped” might be technically accurate, but it missed the deeper absurdity: the President of the United States couldn’t tell the difference between his staff’s explanatory text and reality. This wasn’t a cleverly “photoshopped” image designed to fool the President. It was a visual aid that the President was supposed to use to explain the tattoo symbols, yet the President… believed the visual aid markings as if they were real.

The combination — a delusional president and a timid press — is how we got here in the first place. And it’s why Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, despite a court order and Trump’s own admission that a single phone call could bring him home.

Filed Under: abrego garcia, donald trump, kilmar abrego garcia, paula xinis, tattoos, terry moran

Trump Administration Violated Human Rights Law By Paying El Salvador To Imprison Immigrants

Legal Issues

from the par-for-Trump's-always-unlawful-course dept

This comes as no surprise. Pretty much everything about Trump’s extrajudicial rendering of undocumented migrants to a foreign hellhole prison has been awful, but rarely lawful, to twist a phrase that’s already pretty twisted.

Resurrecting a law last used to justify the mass incarceration of migrants during World War II, Trump 2.0’s acceleration of his previous administration’s expulsion of foreigners now involves multiple lawsuits, violated court orders, an absolutely inhumane refusal to facilitate the return of people who should never have been sent to El Salvador, and the deliberate refusal to recognize the due process rights those being expelled are entitled to.

That the Trump Administration is violating even more laws is about as surprising as water’s inherent wetness. This is what this administration is: a death cult that says it’s bringing back law and order while using both of those ideals as doormats for its jackboots.

Here’s Ariana Figueroa, reporting for News from the States, with the latest batch of unlawfulness from the Trump Administration.

The U.S. State Department is paying El Salvador $6 million to house hundreds of immigrants deported from the United States in an immense and brutal prison there, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

But a U.S. law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations. That has led those who wrote what’s known as the Leahy Law and enforced it for years to question the legality of the $6 million payment made as President Donald Trump carries out his campaign of mass deportation.

Of course, State Department head Marco Rubio claims nothing illegal is happening here, just the routine extrajudicial rendition of migrants the government has unilaterally alleged to be foreign gang members. Thanks to the utter lack of due process, those claims continue to go unchallenged by the only people who can actually challenge them. Instead, they’re hustled off El Salvador’s CECOT, which is the very reason this $6 million payment is illegal under the Leahy Law.

Here’s the State Department’s official statement on the matter:

“The Department is following all applicable laws related to foreign assistance, including the State Leahy Law,” a State Department spokesperson wrote in a statement to States Newsroom.

The spokesperson said the U.S. is engaged with El Salvador through foreign assistance to address unauthorized migration and human trafficking.

While it may be true existing foreign assistance agreements allow the US to deport migrants to El Salvador, the Leahy Law makes it pretty clear they can’t be housed in CECOT, at least not on the US government’s dime.

And the State Department definitely knows this because it wrote a report detailing the human rights violations occurring in El Salvadoran prisons. And there’s no reason to believe this doesn’t apply to the recently constructed CECOT, considering it’s run by the same government and its guards have been trained by those from existing prisons.

The State Department’s 2023 Human Rights Report on El Salvador noted there were credible reports from human rights organizations “of abuse and mistreatment of detainees by prison guards.”

Groups cited in the report interviewed people who were released from prisons in El Salvador and “reported systemic abuse in the prison system, including beatings by guards and the use of electric shocks.”

Given that, it’s clear the Trump Administration is ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the law. There’s no reason to believe things have changed all that much at CECOT since 2023. But it’s clear this administration simply doesn’t care and definitely won’t be looking too hard at its favored drop-off point for renditioned migrants because ignorance is useful bliss when it comes to defending its actions against multiple lawsuits.

Unfortunately, breaking this law has almost zero consequences, at least for the moment. While this new information may be of some use in ongoing court cases, the law ultimately has to be enforced by Congress. And there’s no way that’s happening, not while the Republican party holds a majority.

Filed Under: cecot, donald trump, el salvador, immigration, kristi noem, leahy law, marco rubio, state department

Daily Deal: The Complete 2025 CompTIA Training Super Bundle by IDUNOVA

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Prepare to sit a various CompTIA certification courses with the Complete 2025 CompTIA Certification Training Super Bundle by IDUNOVA. Over 17 courses, you’ll learn about penetration testing, network security, IT fundamentals, and more. It’s on sale for $50.

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

Filed Under: daily deal

Trump Appointed Judge: No You Can’t Use Alien Enemies Act To Rendition Venezuelans

Legal Issues

from the words,-what-do-they-mean,-man? dept

Well look who else thinks Trump’s plan to use a centuries-old law to vanish people to El Salvador is batshit crazy: one of his own judges, Fernando Rodriguez Jr. I’m sure the admin will be out there calling him a far-left radical Marxist before long.

Let’s be clear about how absolutely unhinged this whole thing is. Using the Alien Enemies Act to rendition people to a foreign concentration camp is shameful. The law itself was part of a package of historically shameful bills from the earliest decades of the US, the Alien and Sedition Acts. Every other law from that collection of bad laws was rightly tossed in history’s garbage bin, except this one, which has been used only a few times. Even there, the short history of its usage is embarrassing to the US as well: the last time it was used was to inter Japanese Americans during WWII. You know, that thing we now recognize as a shameful event in American history.

The courts have been looking at this nonsense and going “wtf are you doing?” Because here’s the thing: this law can only be used when we’re either at war or facing an invasion from a “foreign nation or government.” Last time I checked, Congress hasn’t declared war (yeah, that’s still their job, even if the entire country has been pretending otherwise for decades) and — shocking revelation here — no country has actually invaded us.

Stephen Miller’s Trump’s workaround? He just… declared by proclamation that the greatly exaggerated Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA), is totally working with Maduro. Evidence? Who needs evidence when you’ve got a proclamation? Certainly not this government!

Which takes us to the ruling barring the use of the AEA to remove Venezuelans. In short: the AEA requires things to happen that haven’t happened, and you can’t get around that by just having the President “declare” that it happened. That’s not to say the ruling is totally good, as there are some problematic aspects, even if it gets the larger picture correct.

The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the President can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of TdA. As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms. As a result, the Court concludes that as a matter of law, the Executive Branch cannot rely on the AEA, based on the Proclamation, to detain the Named Petitioners and the certified class, or to remove them from the country.

The judge walks us through the AEA’s greatest hits (spoiler alert: it’s a very short playlist, and every track is garbage), noting how it’s only ever been used during actual, official, Congress-declared wars. You know, real ones, and not just because the president had a bad morning and decided to declare war on reality to justify shipping brown people to a foreign gulag.

Without an actual declared war, the whole effort by the Trump administration hinges on a ridiculous interpretation of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. The judge starts out by exploring the meaning of those terms, including at the time the law was written back in the 18th century. And wouldn’t you know it? They were talking about actual military forces, not just people moving to America, trying to find a better life:

In the significant majority of the records, the use of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” referred to an attack by military forces. This held true even when the historical record did not concern the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. The usages of “predatory incursion” at times referred to entries by Native Americans into the western territories, as did usages of “incursion.” But even these records refer to an organized group of armed individuals entering an area to attack a fort, settlement, or town, and the writer typically discussed the need for a military response to the entry. In only a few sources did the use of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” reference a non-military action. While the Court does not represent that its review constitutes a vigorous corpus linguistics analysis, the results provide a significant level of confidence that a complete review would generate similar conclusions.

Also, it turns out that the Congressional record from the 18th century makes it clear that this is also what Congress intended:

In addition, the Court located only one relevant historical record from the debates over the AEA. Representative Robert Harper moved to strike the phrase “predatory incursion” from the proposed legislation, based on his belief that the bill granted “very extensive” powers that “he did not think ought to be given except in case of serious attack.” 8 Annals of Congress 1786.

Given that, the Court sees no way that the administration can properly argue that TdA has invaded or engaged in a “predatory incursion” into the country. While it admits that TdA is obviously dangerous and a real problem, and even accepts as given (more on that in a bit) that they can be tied to the Venezuelan government, it’s still a bridge too far to say that they invaded.

Based on the plain, ordinary meaning of those terms in the late 1790’s, the Court concludes that the factual statements do not. The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation. Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of “invasion” for purposes of the AEA. As for “predatory incursion,” the Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose of plundering or destroying property and lives. While the Proclamation references that TdA members have harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result, the Proclamation also falls short of describing a “predatory incursion” as that concept was understood at the time of the AEA’s enactment.

The judge basically said: “let me explain what words actually mean, since you seem confused.”

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful. Respondents do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.

So what’s the bottom line here? The administration can’t use this centuries-old law as their personal disappearing people machine — at least not for Venezuelans in the Southern District of Texas.

That said, there are still some parts of the ruling that are pretty scary, including that the judge feels that plenty of what Trump has done here is unreviewable by the courts as “political questions.” And he also makes it clear that Trump could use other laws to kick them out of the country (though, those other laws historically have more due process associated with them, which is why the admin went to the AEA in the first place).

Specifically, the court says that it can’t determine if the factual claims made in the White House’s proclamation (such as that TdA is working for Maduro and therefore an agent of the state of Venezuela) are true or not. Rather, it can only interpret the words in the statute, such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion.”

Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the AEA, as well as the principles enumerated in Baker, the Court concludes that while it may not adjudicate the veracity of the factual statements in the Proclamation, or the propriety of the steps taken by the President as to Venezuelan aliens and TdA members, the Court retains the authority to construe the AEA’s terms and determine whether the announced basis for the Proclamation properly invokes the statute.

That could create problems down the road if it remains. In part, the judge is giving the administration a roadmap to continue doing what they want to do. And it gets even worse:

Once a court defines the parameters of what conduct constitutes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA, the court leaves to the Executive Branch the determination of whether such conduct has been perpetrated, attempted, or threatened. For example, a court may decide that one aspect of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” requires physical entry into the United States. In other words, a court may conclude that no invasion or predatory incursion has occurred or has been threatened if the alleged conduct does not involve the entry of individuals into the country. The court having determined the meaning of these terms, it is left to the Executive Branch to determine whether a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated activity that includes such an entry. As to this decision, the court may not delve into whether the Executive Branch possesses sufficient support for its conclusion, or whether the court agrees with the Executive Branch’s determinations. That analysis would require the Executive Branch to disclose to the court the domestic and foreign intelligence that undergirds the finding of an actual or threatened invasion or predatory incursion. And requiring the Executive Branch to do so would run counter to the admonition that “it is inconceivable that before an alien enemy could be removed from the territory of this country in time of war, the President should be compelled to spread upon the public record in a judicial proceeding the method by which the Government may detect enemy activity within our borders[.]”

That creates a pretty big loophole for the Trump administration to go through even with this particular decision.

So yeah, this is a win — a Trump-appointed judge looked at this legal nonsense and said “nah.” That’s huge. But don’t get too excited. The administration’s already shown they’re willing to do just about anything to justify their actions. They’re not going to let a little thing like “judicial interpretation” or “what words actually mean” stop them from trying again.

The real question isn’t whether they’ll try to get around this ruling — it’s what creative legal interpretation they’ll cook up next. This particular dumpster fire is far from out.

Filed Under: alien enemies act, donald trump, fernando rodriguez, rendition, south texas, tda, tren de aragua

T-Mobile Responds To Lawsuits That Its ‘Price Lock’ Is Meaningless, With A New Meaningless ‘Price Lock’ Offer

Wireless

from the nothing-we-say-is-ever-actually-real dept

In the wake of the Sprint T-Mobile merger, data suggests that wireless carriers immediately stopped trying to compete on price (exactly what deal critics had warned the Trump administration would happen when you reduce sector competition).

Recently, T-Mobile imposed another $3-$5 per month price hike on most of its plans — including customers who believed they were under a “price lock” guarantee thanks to a 7-year-old promotion promising that their price would never change. But when users explored the fine print of that agreement it indicated that by “price lock,” T-Mobile actually meant it would pay your final monthly bill if the carrier raised the price and impacted customers decided to cancel. In other words, bullshit.

T-Mobile was flooded with complaints and lawsuits over the practice, but it has so far faced absolutely no accountability for lying to users. Now T-Mobile is back with yet another, new “price lock” guarantee that in no way locks in your pricing.

T-Mobile’s previous, shitty plans at least had “taxes and fees” included. This new promotion doesn’t do that, ensuring that T-Mobile can impose all manner of dodgy fake fees to jack up the advertised price and ignore its promise to not raise prices:

“This will make the plans cost more initially than customers might expect, and it gives T-Mobile wiggle room to raise prices during the five years of the price guarantee since it could increase any fees that are tacked onto the new plans. The fine print in today’s press release describes taxes and fees as “exclusions” to the price guarantee.”

U.S. telecoms have a long and proud history of imposing all sorts of bullshit and fake fees — many disguised to pretend they’re coming from government — to jack up the below the line costs. The Biden FCC and FTC had been taking some steps to combat that, but the second Trump administration has effectively abandoned consumer protection entirely. You know, for populism (?).

So instead of cracking down on telecoms that lie about pricing, FCC boss Brendan Carr spends his days harassing companies that aren’t racist and sexist enough, and bullying media companies that don’t kiss Donald Trump’s ass.

Filed Under: 5g, competition, fcc, price lock, price lock guarantee, prices, telecom, uncarrier, wireless
Companies: t-mobile