If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Surprising exactly no one paying attention to the slow erosion of privacy, the US General Services Administration (GSA) has rolled out its shiny new toy: facial recognition technology for accessing login.gov. Yes, that beloved single sign-in service, connecting Americans to federal and state agencies, now wants your face—literally. This gateway, clicked into over 300 million times a year by citizens has decided the most efficient way to keep us all “safe” is by scanning our mugs. How very 2024. Related: Facial Recognition Continues To Proliferate at Concerts and Festivals But of course, this little “upgrade” didn’t just appear overnight. Oh no, it dragged itself through bureaucratic purgatory, complete with false starts, delays, and some spicy critique from the Inspector General. Apparently, login.gov had been fibbing about its compliance with Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2)—a fancy label for a government-mandated security standard that requires real-deal verification of who you are. Up until now, that “verification” meant having someone eyeball your ID card photo and say, “Yep, that looks about right,” rather than dipping into the biometric surveillance toolkit. Facial recognition was supposed to make its grand debut last year, but things got complicated when it turned out login.gov wasn’t actually playing by the rules it claimed to follow. The Inspector General, ever the fun police, caught them misrepresenting their tech’s adherence to the IAL2 standard, causing the rollout to stall while everyone scrambled to figure out if they could get away with this. Now, after enough piloting to give a nervous airline passenger a heart attack, login.gov has finally reached compliance, but not without leaving a greasy trail of unanswered questions in its wake. Smile for the Algorithm So here we are, with the GSA proudly offering up facial recognition as the answer to all our identity verification problems. Just snap a “live selfie,” upload it to the cloud, and let some “best in class” algorithm work its magic by comparing your face to the one on your government ID. What could possibly go wrong? According to the GSA, nothing. They swear these photos are used solely for verification purposes and won’t be stored, misused, or, you know, somehow end up in the hands of anyone you wouldn’t want to have your biometric data. But hey, let’s not get too distracted by the fine print. “Best in class” algorithms? That’s a bold claim coming from the same government that brought us Healthcare.gov’s disaster debut and the IRS phone service from hell. There’s something hilarious about throwing out a vague phrase like “best in class” as if it absolves them of any responsibility. We’re just supposed to trust that their mysterious, highly proprietary facial matching system is doing the right thing behind closed doors—no questions asked, citizen. The Privacy Mirage Of course, the skeptics among us—the kind of people who read the full terms of service before clicking “I agree”—aren’t buying the GSA’s feel-good assurances. Privacy advocates have been sounding the alarm for years about the dangers of biometric data collection, and facial recognition technology has become the poster child for Big Brother’s relentless march into our lives. How do we really know that these selfies won’t be stored somewhere, only to be hacked or sold off like digital cattle at a data auction? And even if they are just for verification now, who’s to say that won’t change later? Let’s not forget that the government doesn’t exactly have a spotless track record when it comes to handling sensitive personal data. The Office of Personnel Management hack in 2015, anyone? That little debacle only exposed the personal information of over 21 million people, including fingerprints. And yet, here we are, being asked to believe that this time, this time, they’ve got everything under control. It’s hard not to picture a row of bureaucrats crossing their fingers behind their backs while issuing their promises of security. Even Hanna Kim, the Director of login.gov, acknowledges that the decision to integrate biometric tech came in response to “partner agency demands for handling high-risk scenarios.” Translation: Some agencies wanted an easy way to ramp up security, so now the rest of us get to hand over our facial data for the sake of “high-risk” situations. Except, it’s not just the high-risk cases that should concern us—it’s the creeping normalization of using biometric data for everyday tasks. Today it’s logging into government websites. Tomorrow it’s buying groceries with a retinal scan. Choose Your Poison For now, users of login.gov still have a choice—they can opt to verify their identity the old-fashioned way, without giving up their face to the algorithmic overlords. But that choice, like so many others in the digital age, comes with strings attached. Sure, you can avoid the facial recognition route, but the fact that it’s now on the table means we’re only a few policy changes away from it becoming mandatory. After all, how long before certain agencies start saying, “You know, for security reasons, we need your biometric data. If you want that social security check or to file your tax return, you’re going to have to play ball”? Related: The TSA Plans Big Digital ID Push in 2024 There’s something sinister about this slow, methodical erosion of choice. First, it’s presented as an option, just one of many verification methods, no big deal. But as the machinery of government grinds on, options have a way of disappearing, replaced by convenient mandates. And when it comes to biometric data, once it’s out there, good luck getting it back. The Fine Print of Freedom Let’s call this what it is: another step towards a world where privacy is little more than a quaint relic of the past. The GSA’s move to facial recognition is part of a larger trend, one where security and convenience are dangled like carrots, while individual freedoms are quietly signed away in the background. Sure, your face is unique, but so is your right to keep it out of a database. At some point, we’re going to have to ask ourselves: is the convenience of a quicker login worth trading in the last shreds of privacy we’ve got left? Or are we too busy snapping selfies to notice that the surveillance state just got a little closer to home? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Logging Into a Brave New World: How Facial Recognition Just Got Personal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Without the State, Who Would Confiscate the Generators?

Stealth Edit: FBI Quietly Revises Violent Crime Stats Higher

Israel Is Getting Ready To Strike Iran, And Once That Happens Everything Will Change

Democrats (Re)Embrace Election Denial

Eat the Bugs Update: Nuclear for We and Not for Thee, Peasants

CNN senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson seems to be under the impression that if you repeat a falsehood enough times, it will suddenly become true. On Wednesday’s episode of Inside Politics, Henderson claimed that Donald Trump and Republicans are struggling on abortion because pro-life laws are killing women. Host Dana Bash recapped a recent town hall with Fox News and invited Henderson to “talk about that kind of big picture before we get to the nitty-gritty of IVF and abortion.”     Henderson declared, “If you're Donald Trump, you really hope that the campaign turns on these issues where he is strong with voters: immigration and crime, and in many ways, those are culture war issues,” because “he is very, very weak on abortion.” She further observed, “You see this playing up and down the ballot with not only Donald Trump, but Republican candidates all across the country who are really having to sort of try to reframe their approach in the language around abortion.” Henderson also claimed, “I think some of the most effective moments in the debate, some of the most effective moments that Kamala Harris has had on the campaign trail, have really been dissecting what their Republican approach has actually meant for actual women on the ground and some of these states, you saw Colin Allred, who we’ll talk about later, talk about this in the debate against Ted Cruz.” What Henderson meant by “actual women” is a story that the liberal media has repeated several times in recent weeks, “So, Donald Trump doesn't have a real answer for the reality that some women are facing, including some women who have died in Georgia, Amber Thurman, who died because of these abortion restrictions. He is fond of saying, 'Listen, it's back in the states of that's what everybody wanted. That's not what everybody wanted.'” Amber Thurman died because of medical malpractice by her doctors. There was nothing in Georgia’s pro-life law or pro-life ethics that prohibited her from getting the care she needed. The media also routinely likes to claim that Donald Trump is a lying liar who lies all the time, but as the narrative around Georgia’s pro-life law illustrates, for the media, some lies are better than others. Here is a transcript for the October 16 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 10/16/2024 12:05 PM ET DANA BASH: Let's talk about that kind of big picture before we get to the nitty-gritty of IVF and abortion. NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: Yeah, listen, I mean, if you're Donald Trump, you really hope that the campaign turns on these issues where he is strong with voters: immigration and crime, and in many ways, those are culture war issues. They are motivating issues, quite frankly, in a way that the economy is not. He is very, very weak on abortion and you see this playing up and down the ballot with not only Donald Trump, but Republican candidates all across the country who are really having to sort of try to reframe their approach in the language around abortion. And you saw, I think some of the most effective moments in the debate, some of the most effective moments that Kamala Harris has had on the campaign trail, have really been dissecting what their Republican approach has actually meant for actual women on the ground and some of these states, you saw Colin Allred, who we’ll talk about later, talk about this in the debate against Ted Cruz. So, Donald Trump doesn't have a real answer for the reality that some women are facing, including some women who have died in Georgia-- BASH: Yeah. HENDERSON: -- Amber Thurman, who died because of these abortion restrictions. He is fond of saying, “listen, it's back in the states of that's what everybody wanted. That's not what everybody wanted.”

ABC New is desperate to get Vice President Kamala Harris elected president. How desperate? Joy Behar, co-host of news program The View, repeatedly fear mongered that former President Trump planned to have “the Air Forces” bomb their studio and have the military kill liberals if he was elected again. On Wednesday’s show, she told viewers not to trust the polls and the media, suggesting they were on his side and were trying to depress Democratic voter turnout. “Let me tell you something. I was watching interviews with MAGA supporters. They do not believe that he will do what he says he’s going to do. That's what we're up against,” she decried on Tuesday’s episode. What sort of stuff was she upset MAGA supporters didn’t believe? She couldn’t wrap her mind around how they didn’t believe he was going to be a dictator like she did, or how she foresaw him bombing their studio: So, if you say he's going to be a dictator on day one, he wants to punish with the – with the air forces, whatever we have – the armed forces, he wants to punish people who disagree with him like people like us! Okay? And they say, ‘oh, he's not going to do that.’ He's going to take us out of NATO. ‘No, he's not going to do that.’ So, it's very hard for us to talk to these people, because they refuse to believe. And I guess they're hearing it on Fox or elsewhere. On Wednesday, she wanted “talk about fascism for a second,” and how Trump’s picture was in the dictionary.     “This is the definition. It’s defined as a political movement that embraces the far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government. That definition has Trump's picture next to it in the dictionary,” she proclaimed, without evidence of the picture. And without evidence of Trump claiming he was going to have liberals slaughtered if they disagree with him, the ABC News hosted repeated he claim: I mean, he wants to send the military to attack liberals if he gets in. That is basically – And the king of fascism is Mussolini who spoke better English than he does, by the way. And so, I think that to say that he's a fascist is completely accurate. I mean, it does fit the definition. He wants to send the military in to attack his opponents. I mean, what more do you need to hear? Later in the show, Behar pretended she was not a member of the media as she whined about them not rejecting the reality of the polling. “I'm starting to worry about the polls because I see a lot of the media saying that he's leading and everybody is getting nervous and all that,” she bellyached. She and moderator Whoopi Goldberg then proceeded to claim that the media was actually on Trump’s side and that they were intentionally trying to depressed Democratic voter turn out: GOLDBERG: That's why they're saying it. BEHAR: But they're doing that on purpose! GOLDBERG: Yes, that's what I've been saying! BEHAR: Because basically, it's so disheartening for Democrats and people who are leaning towards Kamala to say, ‘well, what's the point?’ Don't buy into that. Back in reality, numerous Media Research Center studies have shown that ABC was indeed in the tank for Harris (that’s not to mention CBS, the purported “fact-checkers,” and many more). And is Behar really thought Harris was in danger, why hadn’t she donated to her campaign yet? The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View October 15, 2024 11:09:58 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: Let me tell you something. I was watching interviews with MAGA supporters. They do not believe that he will do what he says he’s going to do. That's what we're up against. So, if you say he's going to be a dictator on day one, he wants to punish with the – with the air forces, whatever we have – the armed forces, he wants to punish people who disagree with him like people like us! Okay? And they say, ‘oh, he's not going to do that.’ He's going to take us out of NATO. ‘No, he's not going to do that.’ So, it's very hard for us to talk to these people, because they refuse to believe. And I guess they're hearing it on Fox or elsewhere. (…) October 16, 2024 11:07:53 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: Let's talk about fascism for a second. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Okay. BEHAR: Because that came up also. I think you covered this in your part. This is the definition. It’s defined as a political movement that embraces the far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government. That definition has Trump's picture next to it in the dictionary. SUNNY HOSTIN: Right. BEHAR: I mean, he wants to send the military to attack liberals if he gets in. That is basically – And the king of fascism is Mussolini who spoke better English than he does, by the way. [Laughter] And so, I think that to say that he's a fascist is completely accurate. I mean, it does fit the definition. He wants to send the military in to attack his opponents. I mean, what more do you need to hear? (…) 11:19:31 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I'm starting to worry about the polls because I see a lot of the media saying that he's leading and everybody is getting nervous and all that. GOLDBERG: That's why they're saying it. BEHAR: But they're doing that on purpose! GOLDBERG: Yes, that's what I've been saying! BEHAR: Because basically, it's so disheartening for Democrats and people who are leaning towards Kamala to say, ‘well, what's the point?’ Don't buy into that. (…)

Ana Kasparian of “The Young Turks” has notoriously preached Democratic talking points — but it seems her perspective has since shifted. In a recent interview, Kasparian made this clear when she explained to Jillian Michaels that she has left the left after realizing the dangers of “wokeism.” “In 2022, it was around March, I was walking my dog. It was not quite dark yet, but the sun was setting. As I’m walking my dog, I see these two guys that were just kind of like moving around weirdly. You know, they seemed kind of manic,” she explained. “Their clothes were tattered, so I just knew that they were probably homeless, and I also knew that they’re probably on something just based on the twitchy way they were acting,” she continued. “As I was bending down to pick up my dog's mess, one of the guys grabs me by my hips and he had an erection.” “I didn’t know what to do; I was terrified. I didn’t have a weapon on me; I had no way of defending myself. I didn’t know how far it was going to go, 'cause it’s two guys. I’m by myself with my little dog. It was one of the most terrifying things ever.” When she decided to open up about it on her own show, she was met with harsh blowback — including being called “racist” despite never disclosing the race of the men who did it. “I’m starting to get these messages and it’s like really harsh stuff, and it’s about how you are painting a picture of the homeless community, you know, ‘How could you be like this, these are your unhoused neighbors and they need help,’” she told Michaels, adding, “That woke me up.” Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” is thrilled to see her change her mind. “I am always very enthused when someone wakes up, and it’s interesting that it takes something so personal, like say a drug-addicted homeless guy with a boner attacking you, that will get people to wake up. So I would say that is a net good,” he says. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Vice President Kamala Harris said on Wednesday she believes former President Donald Trump is not mentally well enough to be president once again after years of assuring the nation President Joe Biden's mental state is good despite the obvious decline."There’s been a lot of recent questions based on an event [Trump] did recently. He played music for about 30 minutes straight, just questions about his mental fitness for office at this point. Do you think Donald Trump needs to take a cognitive test?" a reporter asked Harris.To this day, Harris still insists Biden is healthy enough for the rigorous demands of being president."Well, I’m going to say what I’ve said publicly and will say many times based on my observations and, I think, the observations of many. Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and as has been said by the people who have worked closely with him even when he was president, he’s unfit to be president of the United States," Harris replied.The music playing at the recent event in Pennsylvania was in response to two audience members having medical emergencies. Trump asked the audience whether they would want to listen to music as medics attended to the two. — (@) Biden is no longer the candidate for Democrats because of his disastrous performance in his debate against Trump in June. His confusion, slowness, and lack of energy were on full display in the unscripted event. After years of providing cover for Biden, Harris said everything was fine in the initial interviews after the debate.To this day, Harris still insists Biden is healthy enough for the rigorous demands of being president. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!