Not content to simply deport as many South American migrants from this country as possible, the Trump administration leaned into its lies about the latent threat to national security the mere existence of foreign people poses to national security.
This administration pretends everything is a “war,” even as it actively avoids seeking congressional approval to engage in acts of war. Migrants crossing the border is a “war.” Migrants residing in this country without the proper paperwork is a “war.” And now, foreign people in boats departing from countries Trump deeply dislikes is now an act of “war,” apparently justifying whatever actions the government chooses to take. In this case, it’s a ton of extrajudicial killings predicated on the after-the-fact assertion that alleged drug trafficking is a literal violent attack on America.
The administration’s extrajudicial killing program debuted days ahead of the eventual legal “justification” for murdering people in international waters. Since then, the number of attacks has continued to increase. And yet the administration has refused to provide anything more than conclusory statements in support of its actions, all written by loyalist lawyers who apparently feel their continued employment rests upon their willingness to be on the wrong side of history.
No doubt it does. As the attacks escalate, the administration keeps digging deeper in hopes of finding the magic (legal) bullet that will justify something that looks like straight-up murder. It still hasn’t found anything capable of heading off legal challenges to its boat strike program, but it’s apparently hoping this memo recently issued by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel will prevent anyone in the military associated with these extrajudicial killings from being held legally accountable for engaging in illegal activities.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) stated in a classified opinion drawn up in the summer that personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution, according to four people familiar with the matter.
The decision to pursue an opinion, drafted in July, reflects the heightened concerns within the government raised by senior civilian and military lawyers that such strikes would be illegal.
As the Washington Post report notes, more than few people in the higher ranks have questioned this shift towards attacking non-military targets who — at best — are only suspected of participating in drug trafficking. The administration insists (without facts in evidence) that everyone it kills is deeply involved in the international drug trade and are probably high-ranking members of drug cartels.
Obviously, that can’t possibly be true. And it definitely isn’t, as a recent investigation by US journalists made clear. These actions have prompted resignations by US military officials, including Admiral Alvin Holsey, who retired rather than serve a government that has deliberately unmoored itself from constitutional boundaries and long-held American ideals.
Of course, the Nimrods heading the “War Department” could care less about losing even more talent. All Trump and his immediate subordinates desire is more subordination from those in the ranks, especially those expected to support this regime’s authoritarian trickle-down effect.
A Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, has previously denied that Holsey had “hesitation or any concerns” about the mission. A spokesperson for Holsey said he had no information to provide about such discussions.
In a statement to The Post Wednesday, Parnell said, “current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law,” with all actions in “complete compliance with the law of armed conflict.”
Parnell, like all administration spokespeople, is not to be trusted. Everyone speaking for the administration lies constantly, when not otherwise engaged in social media posts even the most racist nine-year-old would find childish.
The memo issued by the OLC goes even further than the sock puppet currently speaking for the entire military. According to the OLC, boat strikes are justified because drug traffickers are using funds to engage in a “non-international armed conflict,” which seems pretty weird when everyone being murdered by the US military are in boats that have left foreign countries and are being sunk while still in international waters.
The OLC also claims the fact that drug money may be used to “finance campaigns of violence and extortion,” which apparently justifies what’s happening to whoever happens to be in boats destroyed by US military attacks. But that assertion is a deliberate twist of phrase that hopes to sweep these boat strikes under the Executive Branch’s absurdly large Article II powers rug. Violence and extortion are definitely part of drug trafficking, but those acts are committed to facilitate drug trafficking. Drug traffickers are not selling drugs to finance these criminal acts with the intent of targeting American citizens with violence. But that’s what’s being claimed here by the OLC, which is hoping to justify extrajudicial killings after the fact.
Just because this administration constantly says things that aren’t true doesn’t make them true, as legal professionals (including former OLC lawyers) are being forced to state with alarming frequency:
Adam Isacson, a scholar at the Washington Office on Latin America, said “there is no proof” that the gangs are using drug profits with the intent of promoting violence or mayhem in the United States.
“These groups are businesses,” he said. “If they are carrying out violence in the United States, they are doing it for profit, not for the purpose of sowing terror.”
Yeah, it’s an absurd assertion. I would assume the release of the OLC’s memo making these claims was greeted by constant [Many people are typing] messages in CIA chat groups. The CIA knows how to sell drugs and topple governments. The boats leaving Venezuela (allegedly) filled with drugs and traffickers ain’t it.
This is a government hoping to back its way into congressional and/or court blessing of its shoot-first, don’t even bother asking questions later off-shore murder operation. And now it’s telling those who might be first against the wall if and when it all falls apart that they don’t need to worry about being murderers because, at the very least, any DOJ run by Trump or one his successor puppets will never treat them like the accomplices they are.
MATLAB allows matrix manipulations, plotting of functions and data, implementation of algorithms, creating of user interfaces, and interfacing with programs written in other languages. That’s all well and good, but it means nothing if you don’t have a firm grasp of the data types used within MATLAB. In the Complete MATLAB Programming Master Class, you’ll cover not just data types, but also dive into their functions and how to perform conversions to make analysis and programming a greater experience. It’s on sale for $30.
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.
Democratic Senator Mark Kelly and Republican Senator John Curtis want to gut Section 230 to combat “political radicalization”—in honor of Charlie Kirk, whose entire career was built on political radicalization.
Kirk styled himself as a “free speech warrior” because he would show up on college campuses to “debate” people, but as we’ve covered, the “debate me bro” shtick was just trolling designed to generate polarizing content for social media. He made his living pushing exactly the kind of inflammatory political content that these senators now claim is so dangerous it requires dismantling core legal protections for speech. Their solution to political violence inspired by online rhetoric is to create a legal framework that will massively increase censorship of political speech.
Which they claim they’re doing… in support of free speech.
Almost everything about what they’re saying is backwards.
The two Senators spoke at an event at Utah Valley University, where Charlie Kirk was shot, to talk about how they were hoping to stop political violence. That’s a worthwhile goal, but their proposed solution reveals they don’t understand how Section 230 actually works.
The senators also used their bipartisan panel on Wednesday to announce plans to hold social media companies accountable for the type of harmful content promoted around the assassination of Kirk, which they say leads to political violence.
During their televised discussion, Curtis and Kelly previewed a bill they intend to introduce shortly that would remove liability protection for social media companies that boost content that contributes to political radicalization and violence.
The “Algorithm Accountability Act” would transform one of the pillars of internet governance by reforming a 30-year-old regulation known as Section 230 that gives online platforms legal immunity for content posted by their users.
“What we’re saying is this is creating an environment that is causing all sorts of harm in our society and particularly with our youth, and it needs to be addressed,” Curtis told the Deseret News.
The bill would strip Section 230 protections from companies if it can be proven in court that they used an algorithm to amplify content that caused harm. This change means tech giants would “own” the harmful content they promote, creating a private cause of action for individuals to sue.
Like so many politicians who want to gut Section 230, Kelly and Curtis clearly don’t understand how it actually works. Their “Algorithm Accountability Act” would create exactly the kind of censorship regime they claim to oppose.
It’s kind of incredible how many times I’ve had to say this to US Senators, but repealing 230 doesn’t make companies automatically responsible for speech. That’s literally not how it works. They’re still protected by the First Amendment.
It just makes it much more expensive to defend hosting speech, which means they will take one of two approaches: (1) host way less speech and become much, much more restricted in what people can say or (2) do little to no moderation, because under the First Amendment, they can only be held liable if they have knowledge of legally violative content.
And most of the content that would be covered by this bill “speech that contributes to political radicalization” is, um, kinda quintessentially protected by the First Amendment.
Kelly’s comments reveal the stunning cognitive dissonance at the heart of this proposal:
“I did not agree with him on much. But I’ll tell you what, I will go to war to fight for his right to say what he believes,” said Kelly, who is a former Navy pilot. “Even if you disagree with somebody, doesn’t mean you put a wall up between you and them.”
This is breathtaking doublethink. Kelly claims he’ll “go to war” to protect Kirk’s right to speak while literally authoring legislation that will silence the platforms where that speech happens. It’s like saying “I’ll defend your right to assembly” while bulldozing every meeting hall in town.
Curtis manages to be even more confused:
What this bill would do, Curtis explained, is open up these trillion-dollar companies to the same kind of liability that tobacco companies and other industries face.
“If they’re responsible for something going out that caused harm, they are responsible. So think twice before you magnify. Why do these things need to be magnified at all?” Curtis said.
This comparison is absurdly stupid. Tobacco is a physical product that literally destroys your lungs and causes cancer. Speech is expression protected by the First Amendment. Curtis is essentially arguing that if political speech influences someone’s behavior in a way he doesn’t like, the platform should be liable—as if words and ideas are chemically addictive carcinogens.
The entire point of the First Amendment is that we don’t consider speech to be harmful.
What Curtis is proposing is holding companies liable whenever speech “causes harm,” which is fucking terrifying when Trump and his FCC are already threatening platforms for hosting criticism of the administration.
The political implications here are staggering. Kelly, a Democrat, is signing onto a bill that will let Trump and MAGA supporters (the bill has a private right of action that will let anyone sue!) basically sue every internet platform for “promoting” content they deem politically polarizing, which they will say is anything that criticizes Trump or promotes “woke” views.
And why is he pushing such a bill in supposed support of Charlie Kirk, a person whose only job was pushing political polarization, and whose entire “debate me bro” shtick was entirely designed to push political polarization online?
What are we even doing here?
This entire proposal is a monument to confused thinking. Kelly and Curtis claim they want to honor Charlie Kirk by passing legislation that would have silenced the very platforms where he built his career. They claim to support free speech while authoring a bill designed to chill political expression. They worry about political polarization while creating a legal weapon that will be used almost exclusively by the most polarizing political actors to silence their critics.
Rolling back Section 230 will lead to much greater censorship, not less. Claiming it’s necessary to diminish political polarization is disconnected from reality. But at least it will come in handy for whoever challenges this law as unconstitutional—the backers are out there openly admitting they’re introducing legislation designed to violate the First Amendment.
Donald Trump and his earlobe nibbler (FCC boss Brendan Carr) are threatening to try and censor some more comedians after their efforts to cancel Jimmy Kimmel went so well (read: not well at all).
Over at the right wing white propaganda website formerly known as Twitter, Brendan Carr retweeted some whining from Donald Trump calling for the termination of late night comedian, Seth Meyers. In the tweet, Trump calls for NBC (which is hoping to gain Trump regulatory approval for an acquisition of Warner Brothers) to fire Meyers immediately for the criminal offense of… jokes:
That’s Carr posting a screenshot of Donald Trump posting to Truth Social:
NBC’s Seth Meyers is suffering from an incurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). He was viewed last night in an uncontrollable rage, likely due to the fact that his “show” is a Ratings DISASTER. Aside from everything else, Meyers has no talent, and NBC should fire him, IMMEDIATELY!
Also, the weird thing is that Trump posted on November 15th that he viewed Meyers “last night,” which is impressive since Meyers’ didn’t even have a new show airing on the 14th.
So it’s certainly possible that NBC executives could fire Seth Meyers in order to gain regulatory approval of Warner Brothers, but they, of course, won’t admit there would be any connection between the two. But even then, it would be quite a gambit with Trump’s popularity cratering.
So if they’re keen on making Seth Meyers more popular than ever, they should definitely proceed.
The great irony is it’s not like the comedians that most rile the president are even particularly edgy or boundary pushing in literally any way. Most of the stuff that deeply riles our toddler king is pretty basic observational late night comedy. Which makes you wonder how Trump would respond to modern U.S. comedy if it actually had some George Carlin, Richard Pryor, or Lenny Bruce style teeth.
Outside of a smattering of light criticism of hackish “anti-woke” comedians by the likes of Anthony Jeselnik, Marc Maron, and the Elephant Graveyard guy, U.S. comedy — much like U.S. media more broadly — has been a feckless mess when it comes to challenging authoritarianism. Which is unfortunate given how even the lightest mainstream jokes about their competency clearly gets under their very thin skin.
There is an incredible dearth of nuance when it comes to how some companies attempt to enforce their trademarks. A couple of things are true. First, an entity risks losing their marks if they don’t rigorously enforce them against actual infringement. Second, the USPTO is far too lenient in granting marks that are non-creative or which contain very basic characters, like individual letters and numbers. And, third, the results of this are company lawyers suing or opposing trademark applications in a manner that ultimately looks very, very silly.
Arena Football One is a league that has existed for about a year. The small league kicked off its inaugural season in 2024, shortly after filing for trademarks on its names and logo, the latter of which is “AF1”, with the “A” styled to have a football in the center of it. And then Formula 1 came calling.
On Oct. 3, Formula 1, which is a popular international auto racing league, filed a “Notice of Opposition” before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Arena Football One. F1’s grounds for appeal against AF1 include, “likelihood of confusion,” and “likelihood of dilution.”
“The [AF1] Services are entertainment services related to sports, which are highly related to the entertainment services offered by the Formula 1 Companies under the F1 Marks and covered by the F1 Registrations… The Applicant’s Mark encompasses in its entirety the Opposer’s F1 word mark and the ‘F1’ element is identical in sight, sound and commercial impression, and is highly similar to the F1 Marks overall. Both marks are pronounced similarly: ‘A-F-One” and ‘F-One.’ They share the dominant, final sound element “F-One.” The initial “A” in “AF1” is likely to be perceived as a minor variation or prefix, making the marks phonetically very close.” Attorneys for F1 stated in the appeal.
Likelihood of confusion is simply not on offer here. This is where the nuance of trademark law comes into play. It’s not enough for marks to be similar to allege confusion. They also have to, upon examination, exhibit a likelihood of confusion among the hurried morons of the world. I’m simply going to put F1’s and AF1’s logos side by side below for you and let you decide for yourself just how confusing they are.
I’m sorry, but no. The logos aren’t that similar, they use different color combinations, there’s a football in the AF1 logo, as well as the league’s goddamned name. Unless we’re arguing now that morons in a hurry can’t even read basic English words, then there is no confusion to be had here. And I myself am a “moron” when it comes to both F1 racing and arena football in the sense that I don’t know or care about either of them. If someone came up to me and asked if I wanted AF1 tickets, I would ask them what the hell they were talking about, not what time the race is. All the more-so if they called it “Arena Football One,” a name that F1 also opposed.
I suppose what they’re going for here on the dilution claim is dilution by blurring, meaning that F1’s famous mark will be weakened in strength of association with its product due to the similarities with AF1’s. I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit on that one, too. F1 has a handful of races in the United States, sure, but Arena Football One is a relatively small and obscure sports league. I would love to see a shred of evidence for true dilution due to its name and logo by F1. I have to believe the effects of AF1 existing on F1 are essentially non-existent. And, keep in mind, dilution is typically more challenging to prove, as you have to show it actually occurring.
Both Nike and Abercrombie & Fitch have also filed for extensions to oppose the marks. Those seem to make even less sense than the F1 opposition. I have no idea what Nike could be citing in opposition, but is Abercrombie & Fitch really going to suggest that it’s products are going to be confused with an arena football game?
So much of this sort of thing feels like attorneys filing oppositions for the sake of oppositions. And none of it appears designed to actually protect the consumer, which is supposed to be the point of trademark law.
More than 80 law enforcement agencies across the United States have used language perpetuating harmful stereotypes against Romani people when searching the nationwide Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) network, according to audit logs obtained and analyzed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
When police run a search through the Flock Safety network, which links thousands of ALPR systems, they are prompted to leave a reason and/or case number for the search. Between June 2024 and October 2025, cops performed hundreds of searches for license plates using terms such as “roma” and “g*psy,” and in many instances, without any mention of a suspected crime. Other uses include “g*psy vehicle,” “g*psy group,” “possible g*psy,” “roma traveler” and “g*psy ruse,” perpetuating systemic harm by demeaning individuals based on their race or ethnicity.
These queries were run through thousands of police departments’ systems—and it appears that none of these agencies flagged the searches as inappropriate.
These searches are, by definition, racist.
Word Choices and Flock Searches
We are using the terms “Roma” and “Romani people” as umbrella terms, recognizing that they represent different but related groups. Since 2020, the U.S. federal government has officially recognized “Anti-Roma Racism” as including behaviors such as “stereotyping Roma as persons who engage in criminal behavior” and using the slur “g*psy.” According to the U.S. Department of State, this language “leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.”
Nevertheless, police officers have run hundreds of searches for license plates using the terms “roma” and “g*psy.” (Unlike the police ALPR queries we’ve uncovered, we substitute an asterisk for the Y to avoid repeating this racist slur). In many cases, these terms have been used on their own, with no mention of crime. In other cases, the terms have been used in contexts like “g*psy scam” and “roma burglary,” when ethnicity should have no relevance to how a crime is investigated or prosecuted.
A “g*psy scam” and “roma burglary” do not exist in criminal law separate from any other type of fraud or burglary. Several agencies contacted by EFF have since acknowledged the inappropriate use and expressed efforts to address the issue internally.
“The use of the term does not reflect the values or expected practices of our department,” a representative of the Palos Heights (IL) Police Department wrote to EFF after being confronted with two dozen searches involving the term “g*psy.” “We do not condone the use of outdated or offensive terminology, and we will take this inquiry as an opportunity to educate those who are unaware of the negative connotation and to ensure that investigative notations and search reasons are documented in a manner that is accurate, professional, and free of potentially harmful language.”
Of course, the broader issue is that allowing “g*psy” or “Roma” as a reason for a search isn’t just offensive, it implies the criminalization an ethnic group. In fact, the Grand Prairie Police Department in Texas searched for “g*psy” six times while using Flock’s “Convoy” feature, which allows an agency to identify vehicles traveling together—in essence targeting an entire traveling community of Roma without specifying a crime.
At the bottom of this post is a list of agencies and the terms they used when searching the Flock system.
Anti-Roma Racism in an Age of Surveillance
Racism against Romani people has been a problem for centuries, with one of its most horrific manifestations during the Holocaust, when the Third Reich and its allies perpetuated genocide by murdering hundreds of thousands of Romani people and sterilizing thousands more. Despite efforts by the UN and EU to combat anti-Roma discrimination, this form of racism persists. As scholars Margareta Matache and Mary T. Bassett explain, it is perpetuated by modern American policing practices:
In recent years, police departments have set up task forces specialised in “G*psy crimes”, appointed “G*psy crime” detectives, and organised police training courses on “G*psy criminality”. The National Association of Bunco Investigators (NABI), an organisation of law enforcement professionals focusing on “non-traditional organised crime”, has even created a database of individuals arrested or suspected of criminal activity, which clearly marked those who were Roma.
Thus, it is no surprise that a 2020 Harvard University survey of Romani Americans found that 4 out of 10 respondents reported being subjected to racial profiling by police. This demonstrates the ongoing challenges they face due to systemic racism and biased policing.
Notably, many police agencies using surveillance technologies like ALPRs have adopted some sort of basic policy against biased policing or the use of these systems to target people based on race or ethnicity. But even when such policies are in place, an agency’s failure to enforce them allows these discriminatory practices to persist. These searches were also run through the systems of thousands of other police departments that may have their own policies and state laws that prohibit bias-based policing—yet none of those agencies appeared to have flagged the searches as inappropriate.
The Flock search data in question here shows that surveillance technology exacerbates racism, and even well-meaning policies to address bias can quickly fall apart without proper oversight and accountability.
Cops In Their Own Words
EFF reached out to a sample of the police departments that ran these searches. Here are five representative responses we received from police departments in Illinois, California, and Virginia. They do not inspire confidence.
1. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, IL
In June 2025, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office ran three searches for a dark colored pick-up truck, using the reason: “G*PSY Scam.” The search covered 1,233 networks, representing 14,467 different ALPR devices.
In response to EFF, a sheriff’s representative wrote via email:
“Thank you for reaching out and for bringing this to our attention. We certainly understand your concern regarding the use of that terminology, which we do not condone or support, and we want to assure you that we are looking into the matter.
Any sort of discriminatory practice is strictly prohibited at our organization. If you have the time to take a look at our commitment to the community and our strong relationship with the community, I firmly believe you will see discrimination is not tolerated and is quite frankly repudiated by those serving in our organization.
We appreciate you bringing this to our attention so we can look further into this and address it.”
2. Sacramento Police Department, CA
In May 2025, the Sacramento Police Department ran six searches using the term “g*psy.” The search covered 468 networks, representing 12,885 different ALPR devices.
In response to EFF, a police representative wrote:
“Thank you again for reaching out. We looked into the searches you mentioned and were able to confirm the entries. We’ve since reminded the team to be mindful about how they document investigative reasons. The entry reflected an investigative lead, not a disparaging reference.
We appreciate the chance to clarify.”
3. Palos Heights Police Department, IL
In September 2024, the Palos Heights Police Department ran more than two dozen searches using terms such as “g*psy vehicle,” “g*psy scam” and “g*psy concrete vehicle.” Most searches hit roughly 1,000 networks.
In response to EFF, a police representative said the searches were related to a singular criminal investigation into a vehicle involved in a “suspicious circumstance/fraudulent contracting incident” and is “not indicative of a general search based on racial or ethnic profiling.” However, the agency acknowledged the language was inappropriate:
“The use of the term does not reflect the values or expected practices of our department. We do not condone the use of outdated or offensive terminology, and we will take this inquiry as an opportunity to educate those who are unaware of the negative connotation and to ensure that investigative notations and search reasons are documented in a manner that is accurate, professional, and free of potentially harmful language.
We appreciate your outreach on this matter and the opportunity to provide clarification.”
4. Irvine Police Department, CA
In February and May 2025, the Irvine Police Department ran eight searches using the term “roma” in the reason field. The searches covered 1,420 networks, representing 29,364 different ALPR devices.
In a call with EFF, an IPD representative explained that the cases were related to a series of organized thefts. However, they acknowledged the issue, saying, “I think it’s an opportunity for our agency to look at those entries and to use a case number or use a different term.”
5. Fairfax County Police Department, VA
Between December 2024 and April 2025, the Fairfax County Police Department ran more than 150 searches involving terms such as “g*psy case” and “roma crew burglaries.” Fairfax County PD continued to defend its use of this language.
In response to EFF, a police representative wrote:
“Thank you for your inquiry. When conducting searches in investigative databases, our detectives must use the exact case identifiers, terms, or names connected to a criminal investigation in order to properly retrieve information. These entries reflect terminology already tied to specific cases and investigative files from other agencies, not a bias or judgment about any group of people. The use of such identifiers does not reflect bias or discrimination and is not inconsistent with our Bias-Based Policing policy within our Human Relations General Order.”
A National Trend
Roma individuals and families are not the only ones being systematically and discriminatorily targeted by ALPR surveillance technologies. For example, Flock audit logs show agencies ran 400 more searches using terms targeting Traveller communities more generally, with a specific focus on Irish Travellers, often without any mention of a crime.
Across the country, these tools are enabling and amplifying racial profiling by embedding longstanding policing biases into surveillance technologies. For example, data from Oak Park, IL, show that 84% of drivers stopped in Flock-related traffic incidents were Black—despite Black people making up only 19% of the local population. ALPR systems are far from being neutral tools for public safety and are increasingly being used to fuel discriminatory policing practices against historically marginalized people.
The racially coded language in Flock’s logs mirrors long-standing patterns of discriminatory policing. Terms like “furtive movements,” “suspicious behavior,” and “high crime area” have always been cited by police to try to justify stops and searches of Black, Latine, and Native communities. These phrases might not appear in official logs because they’re embedded earlier in enforcement—in the traffic stop without clear cause, the undocumented stop-and-frisk, the intelligence bulletin flagging entire neighborhoods as suspect. They function invisibly until a body-worn camera, court filing, or audit brings them to light. Flock’s network didn’t create racial profiling; it industrialized it, turning deeply encoded and vague language into scalable surveillance that can search thousands of cameras across state lines.
The Path Forward
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, recently recommended that local governments reevaluate their decisions to install Flock Safety in their communities. We agree, but we also understand that sometimes elected officials need to see the abuse with their own eyes first.
We know which agencies ran these racist searches, and they should be held accountable. But we also know that the vast majority of Flock Safety’s clients—thousands of police and sheriffs—also allowed those racist searches to run through their Flock Safety systems unchallenged.
Elected officials must act decisively to address the racist policing enabled by Flock’s infrastructure. First, they should demand a complete audit of all ALPR searches conducted in their jurisdiction and a review of search logs to determine (a) whether their police agencies participated in discriminatory policing and (b) what safeguards, if any, exist to prevent such abuse. Second, officials should institute immediate restrictions on data-sharing through Flock’s nationwide network. As demonstrated by California law, for example, police agencies should not be able to share their ALPR data with federal authorities or out-of-state agencies, thus eliminating a vehicle for discriminatory searches spreading across state lines.
Ultimately, elected officials must terminate Flock Safety contracts entirely. The evidence is now clear: audit logs and internal policies alone cannot prevent a surveillance system from becoming a tool for racist policing. The fundamental architecture of Flock—thousands of cameras feeding into a nationwide searchable network—makes discrimination inevitable when enforcement mechanisms fail.
As Sen. Wyden astutely explained, “local elected officials can best protect their constituents from the inevitable abuses of Flock cameras by removing Flock from their communities.”
Table Overview and Notes
The following table compiles terms used by agencies to describe the reasons for searching the Flock Safety ALPR database. In a small number of cases, we removed additional information such as case numbers, specific incident details, and officers’ names that were present in the reason field.
We removed one agency from the list due to the agency indicating that the word was a person’s name and not a reference to Romani people.
In general, we did not include searches that used the term “Romanian,” although many of those may also be indicative of anti-Roma bias. We also did not include uses of “traveler” or “Traveller” when it did not include a clear ethnic modifier; however, we believe many of those searches are likely relevant.
A text-based version of the spreadsheet is available here.
You know this is a spectacle, right? A show. That’s what it is. A performance for social media. With blood.
Pete Hegseth just ordered the twenty-first strike on a suspected drug boat. Three more bodies. Another video posted to X showing a vessel bursting into flames. “Three male narco-terrorists” dead, the military announces. No trial. No evidence presented. No due process. Just boats exploding on camera and bodies labeled terrorists because the Department of Defense says so.
This is governance as content creation. TikTok foreign policy. Snackable clips of military strikes designed for engagement metrics while everything that actually matters falls apart around us.
Blowing up drug-running boats in the Caribbean isn’t going to stop the flow of drugs into America. Everyone knows this. The drugs will keep coming—they always do, they always have. Different boats, different routes, same product reaching the same streets. This isn’t policy designed to solve problems. This is spectacle designed to produce feelings. The feeling that someone strong is doing strong things. The feeling that enemies are being punished. The feeling that something is being done even as nothing actually changes.
But it is illegal. Under United States law and international law. The rule of law is being killed alongside these men in these boats. Admiral Alvin Holsey—the four-star admiral overseeing these operations—resigned because the boats weren’t showing immediate hostile intent. Colombia says we’re killing their fishermen. Ecuador released survivors for lack of evidence. Congress hasn’t authorized any of this. The Constitution hasn’t been consulted. Just Hegseth ordering strikes and posting videos while the legal framework that makes civilization possible burns alongside the boats.
So they can post it on X. So they can show you what an amazing job they’re doing. While your prices rise. While the Epstein files document twenty thousand pages of connections that cannot be explained away. While the artificial intelligence market bubble exhausts its last breaths of irrational exuberance. While American citizens are illegally detained by masked federal agents and some have been shot. This is a show for social media.
Twenty-one strikes now. How many bodies for the algorithm? How many “narco-terrorists” killed without trial before someone asks to see evidence? How many boats exploding on camera before Congress remembers it’s supposed to authorize military action? The carrier arrives tomorrow. Fifteen thousand troops ready. And still no authorization. Still no debate. Just Trump saying he’s “sort of made up my mind” while Hegseth produces content.
This is what authoritarian governance looks like in the age of engagement metrics. The policy is the spectacle. The spectacle is the policy. You’re not supposed to ask whether it works. You’re supposed to watch the boats explode and feel like winning is happening. You’re supposed to see bodies labeled terrorists and feel safer. You’re supposed to consume the content and move on to the next post before you have time to ask: Where’s the evidence? Where’s the legal authority? Where’s Congress? What is this actually accomplishing besides producing clips for social media?
The boats keep exploding. The videos keep posting. The body count keeps rising. And while you watch the performance, Trump’s Epstein connections sit in those twenty thousand pages. While you debate whether the targets were really terrorists, American citizens are detained without warrants. While you argue about drugs, the Constitution collects dust and admirals resign in protest and the rule of law dies with every strike that produces another video for posting.
This is governance for the algorithm. Bodies for engagement. Military action as content strategy. Twenty-one strikes. The carrier arrives tomorrow. Eighty people dead in undeclared war. Congress silent. The Constitution ignored. Admirals resigning. The rule of law burning.
For fucking TikTok.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Imagine you’re writing an article about a popular policy trend. The trend is expensive to implement, disruptive to normal operations, and—here’s the key part—there’s substantial research showing it doesn’t actually work and can cause other significant problems. How would you structure that article?
One approach: Lead with the evidence. “Despite growing enthusiasm for [policy proposal], studies consistently find it doesn’t accomplish its stated goals.” Put that in paragraph one, maybe paragraph two or three with some lead-up if you’re feeling generous.
Another approach: Spend 13 paragraphs hyping up the trend, listing every conceivable harm it’s meant to address, quoting lawmakers and administrators who support it, and then—only then—casually mention that the evidence shows it doesn’t work.
Mobile phone bans in school and social media bans for kids are increasingly popular around the globe, driven largely by Jonathan Haidt’s bestselling book—which remains a bestseller despite actual experts debunking basically everything in it. So when the paper of record wades into this debate, you’d think they might lead with what the evidence actually shows. You’d think wrong.
The article opens with the traditional moral panic opening, playing up all the fear:
Bullying. Sextortion. Body-shaming. Self-harm. Viralstudent-fight videos. Never-ending newsfeeds. Unhealthy relationships with A.I. chatbots. Teenagers who can’t seem to put down their phones.
Parents and teachers are understandably concerned about social media. For all of the community, creativity and just plain fun kids enjoy online, hazards remain all too frequent, some children’s advocates say.
It’s the greatest-hits compilation of every anxiety adults have projected onto kids and technology for decades (centuries, really). Might as well add “Dungeons & Dragons will make them worship Satan” for completeness.
The piece does eventually ask “can these bans actually help?” But not before spending several more paragraphs cataloging every conceivable harm that’s ever been tangentially associated with social media, strongly implying the tech itself is to blame rather than, you know, humanity. Then it dutifully reports that “lawmakers and schools” see bans as the answer.
Only then—14 paragraphs deep—does the Times get around to mentioning:
Wehave limited researchon whether the bans work. After surveying more than 1,200 students in 30 schools across England, researchers at the University of Birmingham recently reported that cellphone bans did not improve students’ mental well-being.
“Limited research”?
No. We have plenty of research. There’s a comprehensive study in Australia that found no evidence bans helped kids. Multiple reports document actual harms from these bans—including privacy violations and safety issues when kids can’t reach parents during emergencies. It appears that the evidence is just inconvenient for the narrative.
But the Times isn’t done. The article includes a section on how bans “may have drawbacks”—and somehow the main drawback they identify is that bans don’t stop social media companies from doing bad things. Not that the bans don’t work. Not that they create new problems. Just that they don’t magically fix the platforms themselves:
Blanket tech bans can be crude instruments. They may make it harder for many young people to have social media accounts. But they often don’t change the underlying app features that many parents are worried about.
Many popular apps use powerful attention-hacking techniques that can hook young people, said Julia Powles, an Australian researcher who is the executive director of the U.C.L.A. Institute for Technology, Law and Policy. This keeps users online longer, she notes, and makes the companies more money from advertising.
This completely misses the point—which, as danah boyd has repeatedly explained, is that adults are confusing risks with harms. Many things are risky. Some can lead to harm. But we generally deal with risky things by teaching people how to manage those risks.
The response to potential harms from social media shouldn’t be to demand bans. It should be teaching kids how to navigate these spaces appropriately—how to recognize manipulation, how to minimize risks, what to do when something goes wrong. Instead, we hide it. We ban it. We shove it under the rug and pretend that if we just keep this scary thing away from kids, they’ll somehow be fine once the ban lifts.
And thus, we get the worst of everything. For every ban out there, kids will find their ways around them. Often, that will involve doing things surreptitiously, in places with fewer controls and less ability for parents and teachers to properly instruct kids how to use those tools appropriately. It actually puts kids in more danger by pretending that if we just “ban” places for them to communicate, that they’ll just become perfect little kids who never look elsewhere.
The Times had a chance here to actually inform the debate—to lead with what the evidence shows, to explain the tradeoffs, to challenge the reflexive push for bans. Instead, they wrote 13 paragraphs of pure moral panic before mentioning that these policies don’t work, then immediately pivoted back to fearmongering about “attention-hacking techniques.”
This all just feeds the moral panic. It gives politicians and administrators cover to implement bans that won’t help kids but will absolutely create new problems. And when those bans inevitably fail, the Times will probably write another breathless piece wondering why kids are still struggling—while once again burying the fact that we never actually tried teaching them how to navigate these spaces in the first place.
Well, well, well. If it isn’t the system of checks and balances. We’ve missed you, buddy!
Long story somewhat short: ICE has been terrible for years, but it’s been much worse under Trump. During Trump’s first regime (~2016-2020), ICE got rocked by a court decision that prevented it from engaging in traffic stops just so it could arrest people for looking vaguely Mexican.
That settlement — secured with the assistance of the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) — was enacted in 2022 during the brief period between Trump Oval Office interloping.
Interlopement or not, it’s still the law of the land in Illinois. And that’s not playing well with Trump’s recent federal invasion of the Chicago area — one spearheaded by Nazi cosplayer Gregory Bovino, last seen violating the law much further south as the commander of a California-based Border Patrol unit.
Bovino chose to violate court orders so often during his short stint in Chicago, he’s been sent elsewhere by the Trump administration. It’s definitely not a sign of disapproval. It’s a vote of confidence that says the presidency will keep changing tables every time it loses a hand to the federal courts.
The Nava consent decree that forbids ICE from doing what it’s been doing in Chicago since before Trump re-grooved his ass marks in the chair behind the Resolute Desk.
And that means a lot of stops, arrests, and ensuing detentions are illegal. And because they’re illegal, people must be freed. The administration continues to act like there’s nothing in the law that prevents it from jailing people who present no flight risk or threat to public safety. That’s definitely not the law of the land and it’s definitely not the law in Seventh Circuit, which has already received notice of the administration’s appeal.
For now, however, that means a lot of people rounded up during Trump’s invasion of Chicago and ICE operations in the area preceding the anti-Democratic Party surge d/b/a “immigration enforcement” will no longer be imprisoned.
District Judge Jeffrey Cummings on Wednesday afternoon ordered the release of at least 313 people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement between June and early October.
[…]
Cummings has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to immediately release 13 detainees held in Texas, Missouri and other states that both the government and plaintiffs agree were detained in violation of the Castañon Nava settlement that prohibits warrantless immigration arrest in Illinois.
The order [PDF] itself doesn’t limit itself to 13 people, much less the 313 people stated by this Axios article. It says the government must take a look at more than twice this number and provide some sort of evidence as to why this other 300+ should continue to be detained.
To this end, by 12:00 p.m. CST on November 14, 2025, with respect to the subset of 615 individuals discussed on the record, defendants shall provide the Court with their names and specify which of the individuals in this group have been identified by defendants as posing a “high public safety risk” if they were released.
That deadline has come and gone. And the only thing the administration has done is file motions asking for this order to be stayed until this case can be heard by the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court. It has offered nothing in defense of those arrests and continued detentions of people it’s unlikely to be able to prove must be indefinitely detained despite being arrested in violation of the Nava Agreement (2022). But it’s apparently hoping the court that didn’t feel Gregory Bovino should be forced to respect the law will have much to say about the consent decree violations it engaged in while Bovino was still running the show in Chicago.
The SunFounder Raspberry Pi Pico W Ultimate Starter Kit offers a rich learning experience for beginners aged 8 and up. With over 450 components, 117 projects, and expert-led tutorials, this kit makes learning microcontroller programming engaging and accessible. It also features 27 video lessons by renowned educator Paul McWhorter, simplifying microcontroller programming and IoT concepts. Packed with diverse hardware, including sensors, actuators, LEDs, and LCDs (list of components available in the Important Details section of the linked page), it enables endless experimentation and creativity. Supporting three programming languages, MicroPython, C/C++, and Piper Make, the kit caters to varying skill levels while fostering coding versatility. It’s on sale for $65.
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.
