Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,768]

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/cross-pressured-voters-are-unrepresented

As Democrats begin to take stock of how they spent two years attacking Donald Trump as a threat to democracy only to see him emerge stronger than ever with unified control of Congress, the usual progressive versus moderate battles have begun.

The problem with these fights is that neither side truly has an answer about how to win back working-class voters.

Why? Because many working-class voters (and others) do not fall into the traditional progressive-moderate ideological templates. They are cross-pressured voters, desiring a mix of economic populism and nationalism along with socially conservative values that neither faction in the current Democratic Party fully represents.

On one side of the party divide, progressives want to ramp up the economic populism without confronting and purging their extreme cultural leftism and unworkable climate plans. For an example of this strategic drift, look no further than Bernie Sanders who ran a sharply focused class-based campaign in 2016 against the Democratic establishment and Trump only to turn around in 2020 to run on an intersectional cornucopia of “economic, racial, social, and environmental justice for all.” Likewise, the progressive movement went from pragmatic Obama-era policies on clean energy jobs and infrastructure to a wild-eyed Green New Deal proposal and increasingly over-the-top activism with apocalyptic rhetoric and themes like “climate reparations.” Same on civil rights and civil liberties. Progressive institutions moved from mainstream liberal positions guaranteeing equal rights and free speech for everyone regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, or religion to “structural racism and equity” models that actively pushed discrimination in the name of social justice. Open borders, drug decriminalization, de-policing—the list of bad ideas from the progressive movement that working-class voters dislike goes on and on.

To now say “turn up the populism” without first acknowledging and jettisoning these out-of-the mainstream views doesn’t fly and won’t bring back the black, Hispanic, and white working-class voters who have fled the Democrats in droves. Unfortunately, many solid left-liberal economic ideas never get a hearing with working-class voters because they too often come from cultural elites with strange beliefs.

On the other side of the party divide, moderate groups prudently want “common-sense” solutions and approaches grounded in reasonable rhetoric, pragmatic policies, and pluralistic values. All good electorally—and far better than progressive extremism. However, longstanding moderate groups should admit to themselves that they also acquiesced too much to the fashionable cultural leftism and climate priorities that took over the party brand in the past decade, along with pro-immigration policies that were unpopular with voters and a bevy of tax, trade, and spending priorities that mostly benefit well-off professionals and richer blue states and municipalities.

The moderate approach provides a stronger national brand for Democrats than its alternative on the left, but still works best in fairly affluent suburban and metropolitan areas rather than in working-class precincts. Something more will be needed to reach these voters.

Although the moderate faction still holds the upper hand in terms of winning in competitive districts and states—and includes a number of politically astute members attuned to their local communities—the moderate institutional infrastructure has not fully adjusted to the departure of the working class from the party by developing attractive economic and social policies clearly aimed at these voters.

What is the moderate agenda for the working class? No one really knows since we haven’t seen one work in recent years. For example, moderate Joe Biden’s mix of big government spending plus government-wide “equity” measures turned into inflation and misplaced priorities that cost Democrats tons of voters and eclipsed his smarter moves to shore up key industries and support good working-class jobs. Moderates do not want a repeat of what happened to the Biden administration politically by mixing unpopular progressive social and immigration policies with an economic agenda that fails to convince working-class voters that Democratic majorities help them.

---

The Democratic Party is an unruly conglomeration of interest groups. No one faction has ever dominated the party for very long without pushback and adjustment from the other ideological faction.

The more difficult question for the party now is whether it can recognize that both of its main ideological models are insufficient for regaining the trust of working-class voters and rebuilding the historic party of the common man and woman.

One idea worth considering is to start up an American version of the “Blue Labour” movement that laid the groundwork for UK Labour’s electoral landslide in 2024 and its return to power after 14 years in opposition. Blue Labour founder and leader Maurice Glasman lamented the drift of his party away from working-class communities, and crafted an interesting mix of approaches out of Catholic social teaching and traditional labor activism that was place-based, pro-family, communitarian, patriotic, and socially conservative—like much of the working class itself.

Blue Labour was decidedly a British effort and a Labour Party-oriented intellectual and policy movement. But it had the right thematic approach and overall ideas that Democrats should consider as a model for better representing cross-pressured working-class voters who do not fit into either of their current progressive or moderate camps.

A Democratic Party version of the “Blue Labour” approach in America would likely include the following elements:

• Economic development in all regions—plus family security for all

• The dismantling of concentrated economic power

• Strong local communities and labor markets

• Secure borders

• Law and order

• Traditional values

• Love of country

As Democrats pick themselves up off the ground from their latest electoral drubbing, they would be wise to at least try some new institutional approaches to help flesh out an agenda and organizing model that better represents a huge bloc of working-class voters who feel the party does not reflect their lives, their priorities, and their values.

Otherwise, like the Labour Party’s long sojourn in the political wilderness, Democrats should prepare themselves for possibly 12 years of Trump-Vance rule and a full realignment of multiracial working-class voters into the Republican Party.

[Vesper 28,768]

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

 

[KEVINAA 91]

 

Guardian quits X.

Read the replies and quotes.

[cosmicway 1,323]

Many of you people have n't seen huge political upsets in your lives - fear projects coming true.
I have seen about eoght in my country and abroad, counting last week's:

Junta 1967
Thatcher 1979
Pasok 1981
Pasok 1993
Syriza 2015
Brexit 2016
Trump 2016
Trump 2024

Edited 16 hours ago by cosmicway

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

A billionaire president and his billionaire friend are laying out their plans to strip the country for parts. Musk has no electoral mandate  and will help head up the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) along with former Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. The irony of the “efficiency” department having two co-leaders seems lost on them.

Rep Matt Gaetz (convicted sex-trafficker) will run Trump’s law enforcement, Tulsi Gabbard (known purveyor of Putin propaganda) will be the nation’s intelligence chief, and a former Fox News host will run Defence. What could possibly go wrong?

In any other country its called an oligarchy

[Vesper 28,768]

4 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

A billionaire president and his billionaire friend are laying out their plans to strip the country for parts. Musk has no electoral mandate  and will help head up the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) along with former Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. The irony of the “efficiency” department having two co-leaders seems lost on them.

Rep Matt Gaetz (convicted sex-trafficker) will run Trump’s law enforcement, Tulsi Gabbard (known purveyor of Putin propaganda) will be the nation’s intelligence chief, and a former Fox News host will run Defence. What could possibly go wrong?

In any other country its called an oligarchy

And now this madness:

Trump announces RFK Jr as his pick to lead US health department

A scion of Democratic dynasty, RFK Jr is known for embrace of anti-vaccine beliefs and other conspiracy theories

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/trump-administration-rfk

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

14 minutes ago, Vesper said:

And now this madness:

Trump announces RFK Jr as his pick to lead US health department

A scion of Democratic dynasty, RFK Jr is known for embrace of anti-vaccine beliefs and other conspiracy theories

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/trump-administration-rfk

 

He's taking the piss -sussing out which appointees will wind up his opponents the most

[Vesper 28,768]

4 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

He's taking the piss -sussing out which appointees will wind up his opponents the most

the danger is that the US recesses for 10 days after Trump is sworn is as POTUS

then Trump cna do recess appointments for any position that normally (per the US Constitution) requite 'advice and consent' of the Senate

no hearing, nothing

and those recess appointments can serve for 2 years (until after the next US Senate is seated after the 2026 midterms

IF, after the recount, Casey still lsoes the PA US Senate seat

that leaves the power balance in the US Senate at 53 R - 47 D

in 2026, even IF the Dems sweep the only 3 Republican seats at even romote risk in 2026 (ME, NC (the most vulnerable), and in theory, KY)

the Repubs still would control it via 50 - 50 tie, with Vance, as Vp (and the presiden tof the senat, like Harris is now) breaking ties

AND

the Dems ahve 3 seats potenially at risk in 2026

one of the in REAL risk (Ossoff in Georgia)

plus MI and MN

the Rethug 3 seats are not at all for sure flips

in Maine, Susan Collins, IF she runs again, will be odds-on favourite (unless Stephen King runs). IF she doesnt run, then the Dems have a good shot at flipping

In NC the Repub Tillis is a weak canadiate, but the best 2 Dems to run against him are now the NC Governor-elect (Josh Stein) and Jeff Jackson (the NC Attorney General-elect)

Finally, in Kentuck. Moscow Mitch is more than likely retiring, and the Dem Governor (super popular) Andy Beshear will have a hell of  ahard time winning a FEDERAL statewide office, as KY tolerates Dems at statewide levels but that almsot never translates to thsoe people winning a US Senate seat

Lets say Collins in ME doesnt run

I will give the Dems the seat

Also, IF the Dems find a decent candidate, they may flip NC

thats 2 flips

I cannot see even Beshear flipping KY US senate seat from R to D

so that leaves the US Senate, post 2026 51 R 49 D

and I can easily see Ossoff losing in GA

so that makes the final tally 52 48

Beshear could even pull off a huge upset and it still would be Republicans with control with 51 R to 49 D

[Vesper 28,768]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

the danger is that the US recesses for 10 days after Trump is sworn is as POTUS

then Trump cna do recess appointments for any position that normally (per the US Constitution) requite 'advice and consent' of the Senate

no hearing, nothing

and those recess appointments can serve for 2 years (until after the next US Senate is seated after the 2026 midterms

IF, after the recount, Casey still lsoes the PA US Senate seat

that leaves the power balance in the US Senate at 53 R - 47 D

in 2026, even IF the Dems sweep the only 3 Republican seats at even romote risk in 2026 (ME, NC (the most vulnerable), and in theory, KY)

the Repubs still would control it via 50 - 50 tie, with Vance, as Vp (and the presiden tof the senat, like Harris is now) breaking ties

AND

the Dems ahve 3 seats potenially at risk in 2026

one of the in REAL risk (Ossoff in Georgia)

plus MI and MN

the Rethug 3 seats are not at all for sure flips

in Maine, Susan Collins, IF she runs again, will be odds-on favourite (unless Stephen King runs). IF she doesnt run, then the Dems have a good shot at flipping

In NC the Repub Tillis is a weak canadiate, but the best 2 Dems to run against him are now the NC Governor-elect (Josh Stein) and Jeff Jackson (the NC Attorney General-elect)

Finally, in Kentuck. Moscow Mitch is more than likely retiring, and the Dem Governor (super popular) Andy Beshear will have a hell of  ahard time winning a FEDERAL statewide office, as KY tolerates Dems at statewide levels but that almsot never translates to thsoe people winning a US Senate seat

Lets say Collins in ME doesnt run

I will give the Dems the seat

Also, IF the Dems find a decent candidate, they may flip NC

thats 2 flips

I cannot see even Beshear flipping KY US senate seat from R to D

so that leaves the US Senate, post 2026 51 R 49 D

and I can easily see Ossoff losing in GA

so that makes the final tally 52 48

Beshear could even pull off a huge upset and it still would be Republicans with control with 51 R to 49 D

remember, IF Casey in PA somehow wins

my Senate preditions were perfect

I picked all seats correctly then, and only missed one (PA) if Casey loses

my 'Trump maximal Electoral College win' map was perfect

I picked every state correctly on it

(I missed PA, WI, MI on my Harris wins map, and the only one that really suprised me was MI, I struggled mightily, as shown on the board, with WI and PA, and foolishy gave in at the end to wish projection for those 2, as the so-called 'legit' polls ended up all being wrong, save for one, a UK-based poll, JL Partners):

 

I was the only pollster to predict the Trump landslide

James Johnson – a former adviser to Theresa May – reveals how his firm, JL Partners, called the scale of Trump’s shock victory. ‘Trump might be a wolf,’ one voter told him, ‘but he’s straight about it’

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-harris-election-polling-b2643873.html

 

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

the danger is that the US recesses for 10 days after Trump is sworn is as POTUS

then Trump cna do recess appointments for any position that normally (per the US Constitution) requite 'advice and consent' of the Senate

no hearing, nothing

and those recess appointments can serve for 2 years (until after the next US Senate is seated after the 2026 midterms

IF, after the recount, Casey still lsoes the PA US Senate seat

that leaves the power balance in the US Senate at 53 R - 47 D

in 2026, even IF the Dems sweep the only 3 Republican seats at even romote risk in 2026 (ME, NC (the most vulnerable), and in theory, KY)

the Repubs still would control it via 50 - 50 tie, with Vance, as Vp (and the presiden tof the senat, like Harris is now) breaking ties

AND

the Dems ahve 3 seats potenially at risk in 2026

one of the in REAL risk (Ossoff in Georgia)

plus MI and MN

the Rethug 3 seats are not at all for sure flips

in Maine, Susan Collins, IF she runs again, will be odds-on favourite (unless Stephen King runs). IF she doesnt run, then the Dems have a good shot at flipping

In NC the Repub Tillis is a weak canadiate, but the best 2 Dems to run against him are now the NC Governor-elect (Josh Stein) and Jeff Jackson (the NC Attorney General-elect)

Finally, in Kentuck. Moscow Mitch is more than likely retiring, and the Dem Governor (super popular) Andy Beshear will have a hell of  ahard time winning a FEDERAL statewide office, as KY tolerates Dems at statewide levels but that almsot never translates to thsoe people winning a US Senate seat

Lets say Collins in ME doesnt run

I will give the Dems the seat

Also, IF the Dems find a decent candidate, they may flip NC

thats 2 flips

I cannot see even Beshear flipping KY US senate seat from R to D

so that leaves the US Senate, post 2026 51 R 49 D

and I can easily see Ossoff losing in GA

so that makes the final tally 52 48

Beshear could even pull off a huge upset and it still would be Republicans with control with 51 R to 49 D

Shocking.

The GOP was dying on its arse and took a do or die gamble with Trump - could a Reality TV presenter appealing to peoples lowest common denominators pull it off ? Their gamble paid off

[Vesper 28,768]

Uncalled Congressional Races as of November 14

https://www.270towin.com/news/2024/11/14/uncalled-congressional-races-november-14_1681.html

Vote counts and race projections on 270toWin are by Decision Desk HQ. 

Senate

Republicans reclaimed the majority by flipping the open seat in West Virginia and defeating incumbent Democrats in Montana and Ohio. The party will hold at least 52 seats in January. Full Senate results >

Pennsylvania

While The Associated Press (AP) has called Pennsylvania for Republican David McCormick, they have not been joined by Decision Desk or most of the major television networks.

The race has gone to a recount, mandated by state law as the candidates are separated by less than 0.5% margin.¹ That process will play out over the next two weeks, with results published on November 27.

The recount itself isn't likely to make much of a difference.

The main issue, in terms of calling the race, is that there are approximately 80,000 provisional, mail-in, and absentee ballots that still need to be tabulated. While many of these provisional ballots won't end up being counted, the numbers are sufficient enough that a projection of the race can't yet be made with the necessary statistical certainty.

Assuming AP ultimately has it right on Pennsylvania, the final 2024 result will be a net gain of four seats for the GOP, giving it a 53-47 partisan edge.

 

House of Representatives

Since the last update, three races have been called for the Democrats (CA-09, CA-27, CA-47) and one for Republicans (CA-41). This brings the total to 219 Republicans, 212 Democrats. 

Thus far, 14 seats have flipped, with a net change of zero seats. Eight incumbents have been defeated. See the Changing Parties table >

The embedded counter above will change from 219-212 as more races are called, and you will see those winners highlighted in the embedded results below.

Full House results >

Uncalled Races

The four remaining races are held by two Democrats and two Republicans. 

In Alaska, there probably won't be a race call until the ranked choice tabulation on November 20. The other three races are in California, which is very slow to count.

 

Maine District 2

We've had some inquiries about this election, where a ranked choice tabulation is underway. Once that is complete, the final result will be available via the embed below.  

This is an unusual situation since there were only two candidates on the ballot.

However, there were enough ballots with nobody selected as a first choice to push both candidates below 50% when included in the total.

In 2018 and 2022 over 90% of blank ballots were just that -- no choices were made at all in the race.

According to our partner Decision Desk, even if 15% of voters made a second choice, Theriault would need to earn 97% of those to catch Golden. The math is nearly impossible. That is why they called the race for Golden.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Vesper

[Vesper 28,768]

Creators of This Police Location Tracking Tool Aren't Vetting Buyers.

Here's How To Protect Yourself

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/creators-police-location-tracking-tool-arent-vetting-buyers-heres-how-protect

404 Media, along with Haaretz, Notus, and Krebs On Security recently reported on a company that captures smartphone location data from a variety of sources and collates that data into an easy-to-use tool to track devices’ (and, by proxy, individuals’) locations. The dangers that this tool presents are especially grave for those traveling to or from out-of-state reproductive health clinics, places of worship, and the border.

The tool, called Locate X, is run by a company called Babel Street. Locate X is designed for law enforcement, but an investigator working with Atlas Privacy, a data removal service, was able to gain access to Locate X by simply asserting that they planned to work with law enforcement in the future.

With an incoming administration adversarial to those most at risk from location tracking using tools like Locate X, the time is ripe to bolster our digital defenses. Now more than ever, attorneys general in states hostile to reproductive choice will be emboldened to use every tool at their disposal to incriminate those exerting their bodily autonomy. Locate X is a powerful tool they can use to do this. So here are some timely tips to help protect your location privacy.

First, a short disclaimer: these tips provide some level of protection to mobile device-based tracking. This is not an exhaustive list of techniques, devices, or technologies that can help restore one’s location privacy. Your security plan should reflect how specifically targeted you are for surveillance. Additional steps, such as researching and mitigating the on-board devices included with your car, or sweeping for physical GPS trackers, may be prudent steps which are outside the scope of this post. Likewise, more advanced techniques such as flashing your device with a custom-built privacy- or security-focused operating system may provide additional protections which are not covered here. The intent is to give some basic tips for protecting yourself from mobile device location tracking services.

Disable Mobile Advertising Identifiers

Services like Locate X are built atop an online advertising ecosystem that incentivizes collecting troves of information from your device and delivering it to platforms to micro-target you with ads based on your online behavior. One linchpin in the way distinct information (in this case, location) delivered to an app or website at a certain point in time is connected to information delivered to a different app or website at the next point in time is through unique identifiers such as the mobile advertising identifiers (MAIDs). Essentially, MAIDs allow advertising platforms and the data brokers they sell to to “connect the dots” between an otherwise disconnected scatterplot of points on a map, resulting in a cohesive picture of the movement of a device through space and time.

As a result of significant pushback by privacy advocates, both Android and iOS provided ways to disable advertising identifiers from being delivered to third-parties. As we described in a recent post, you can do this on Android following these steps:

With the release of Android 12, Google began allowing users to delete their ad ID permanently. On devices that have this feature enabled, you can open the Settings app and navigate to Security & Privacy > Privacy > Ads. Tap “Delete advertising ID,” then tap it again on the next page to confirm. This will prevent any app on your phone from accessing it in the future.

The Android opt out should be available to most users on Android 12, but may not be available on older versions. If you don’t see an option to “delete” your ad ID, you can use the older version of Android’s privacy controls to reset it and ask apps not to track you.

And on iOS:

Apple requires apps to ask permission before they can access your IDFA. When you install a new app, it may ask you for permission to track you.

Select “Ask App Not to Track” to deny it IDFA access.

To see which apps you have previously granted access to, go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Tracking.

In this menu, you can disable tracking for individual apps that have previously received permission. Only apps that have permission to track you will be able to access your IDFA.

You can set the “Allow apps to Request to Track” switch to the “off” position (the slider is to the left and the background is gray). This will prevent apps from asking to track in the future. If you have granted apps permission to track you in the past, this will prompt you to ask those apps to stop tracking as well. You also have the option to grant or revoke tracking access on a per-app basis.

Apple has its own targeted advertising system, separate from the third-party tracking it enables with IDFA. To disable it, navigate to Settings > Privacy > Apple Advertising and set the “Personalized Ads” switch to the “off” position to disable Apple’s ad targeting.

Audit Your Apps’ Trackers and Permissions

In general, the more apps you have, the more intractable your digital footprint becomes. A separate app you’ve downloaded for flashlight functionality may also come pre-packaged with trackers delivering your sensitive details to third-parties. That’s why it’s advisable to limit the amount of apps you download and instead use your pre-existing apps or operating system to, say, find the bathroom light switch at night. It isn't just good for your privacy: any new app you download also increases your “attack surface,” or the possible paths hackers might have to compromise your device.

We get it though. Some apps you just can’t live without. For these, you can at least audit what trackers the app communicates with and what permissions it asks for. Both Android and iOS have a page in their Settings apps where you can review permissions you've granted apps. Not all of these are only “on” or “off.” Some, like photos, location, and contacts, offer more nuanced permissions. It’s worth going through each of these to make sure you still want that app to have that permission. If not, revoke or dial back the permission. To get to these pages:

On Android: Open Settings > Privacy & Security > Privacy Controls > Permission Manager. 

On iPhone: Open Settings > Privacy & Security.

If you're inclined to do so, there are tricks for further research. For example, you can look up tracks in Android apps using an excellent service called Exodus Privacy. As of iOS 15, you can check on the device itself by turning on the system-level app privacy report in Settings > Privacy > App Privacy Report. From that point on, browsing to that menu will allow you to see exactly what permissions an app uses, how often it uses them, and what domains it communicates with. You can investigate any given domain by just pasting it into a search engine and seeing what’s been reported on it. Pro tip: to exclude results from that domain itself and only include what other domains say about it, many search engines like Google allow you to use the syntax

-site:www.example.com

Disable Real-Time Tracking with Airplane Mode

To prevent an app from having network connectivity and sending out your location in real-time, you can put your phone into airplane mode. Although it won’t prevent an app from storing your location and delivering it to a tracker sometime later, most apps (even those filled with trackers) won’t bother with this extra complication. It is important to keep in mind that this will also prevent you from reaching out to friends and using most apps and services that you depend on. Because of these trade-offs, you likely will not want to keep Airplane Mode enabled all the time, but it may be useful when you are traveling to a particularly sensitive location.

Some apps are designed to allow you to navigate even in airplane mode. Tapping your profile picture in Google Maps will drop down a menu with Offline maps. Tapping this will allow you to draw a boundary box and pre-download an entire region, which you can do even without connectivity. As of iOS 18, you can do this on Apple Maps too: tap your profile picture, then “Offline Maps,” and “Download New Map.”

Other apps, such as Organic Maps, allow you to download large maps in advance. Since GPS itself determines your location passively (no transmissions need be sent, only received), connectivity is not needed for your device to determine its location and keep it updated on a map stored locally.

Keep in mind that you don’t need to be in airplane mode the entire time you’re navigating to a sensitive site. One strategy is to navigate to some place near your sensitive endpoint, then switch airplane mode on, and use offline maps for the last leg of the journey.

Separate Devices for Separate Purposes

Finally, you may want to bring a separate, clean device with you when you’re traveling to a sensitive location. We know this isn’t an option available to everyone. Not everyone can afford purchasing a separate device just for those times they may have heightened privacy concerns. If possible, though, this can provide some level of protection.

A separate device doesn’t necessarily mean a separate data plan: navigating offline as described in the previous step may bring you to a place you know Wi-Fi is available. It also means any persistent identifiers (such as the MAID described above) are different for this device, along with different device characteristics which won’t be tied to your normal personal smartphone. Going through this phone and keeping its apps, permissions, and browsing to an absolute minimum will avoid an instance where that random sketchy game you have on your normal device to kill time sends your location to its servers every 10 seconds.

One good (though more onerous) practice that would remove any persistent identifiers like long-lasting cookies or MAIDs is resetting your purpose-specific smartphone to factory settings after each visit to a sensitive location. Just remember to re-download your offline maps and increase your privacy settings afterwards.

Further Reading

Our own Surveillance Self-Defense site, as well as many other resources, are available to provide more guidance in protecting your digital privacy. Often, general privacy tips are applicable in protecting your location data from being divulged, as well.

The underlying situation that makes invasive tools like Locate X possible is the online advertising industry, which incentivises a massive siphoning of user data to micro-target audiences. Earlier this year, the FTC showed some appetite to pursue enforcement action against companies brokering the mobile location data of users. We applauded this enforcement, and hope it will continue into the next administration. But regulatory authorities only have the statutory mandate and ability to punish the worst examples of abuse of consumer data. A piecemeal solution is limited in its ability to protect citizens from the vast array of data brokers and advertising services profiting off of surveilling us all.

Only a federal privacy law with a strong private right of action which allows ordinary people to sue companies that broker their sensitive data, and which does not preempt states from enacting even stronger privacy protections for their own citizens, will have enough teeth to start to rein in the data broker industry. In the meantime, consumers are left to their own devices (pun not intended) in order to protect their most sensitive data, such as location. It’s up to us to protect ourselves, so let’s make it happen!

 

 

Related Updates

AI in Criminal Justice Is the Trend Attorneys Need to Know About

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into our criminal justice system is one of the most worrying developments across policing and the courts, and EFF has been tracking it for years. EFF recently contributed a chapter on AI’s use by law enforcement to the American Bar Association’s annual publication, ...

The Human Toll of ALPR Errors

This post was written by Gowri Nayar, an EFF legal intern. Imagine driving to get your nails done with your family and all of a sudden, you are pulled over by police officers for allegedly driving a stolen car. You are dragged out of the car and detained at gun...

Cop Companies Want All Your Data and Other Takeaways from This Year’s IACP Conference

Artificial intelligence dominated the technology talk on panels, among sponsors, and across the trade floor at this year’s annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).IACP, held Oct. 19 - 22 in Boston, brings together thousands of police employees with the businesses who want to sell them...

The Real Monsters of Street Level Surveillance

Safe trick-or-treating this Halloween means being aware of the real monsters of street-level surveillance. You might not always see these menaces, but they are watching you. The real-world harms of these terrors wreak havoc on our communities. Here, we highlight just a few of the beasts.

California Attorney General Issues New Guidance on Military Equipment to Law Enforcement

California law enforcement should take note: the state’s Attorney General has issued a new bulletin advising them on how to comply with AB 481—a state law that regulates how law enforcement agencies can use, purchase, and disclose information about military equipment at their disposal. This important guidance comes...

Prosecutors in Washington State Warn Police: Don’t Use Gen AI to Write Reports

The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which handles all prosecutions in the Seattle area, has instructed police in no uncertain terms: do not use AI to write police reports...for now. This is a good development. We hope prosecutors across the country will exercise such caution as companies continue to...

Civil Rights Commission Pans Face Recognition Technology

In its recent report, Civil Rights Implications of Face Recognition Technology (FRT), the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights identified serious problems with the federal government’s use of face recognition technology, and in doing so recognized EFF’s expertise on this issue. The Commission focused its investigation on the Department of...

You Really Do Have Some Expectation of Privacy in Public

When we spend time fighting the growing ubiquity of both public and private surveillance cameras we often hear a familiar refrain: “you don’t have an expectation of privacy in public.” This is not true. In the United States, you do have some expectation of privacy—even in public—and it’s important to...

[Vesper 28,768]

East Germany's exodus of women fuels growing political radicalisation

• FRANCE 24 English

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of industry in the former East Germany, many women have left the region and never returned. Men are now over-represented, with a surplus of up to 25 percent in some municipalities. This shortage of women has created a vicious cycle: a rapidly ageing population, a loss of social cohesion and a decline in the attractiveness of eastern cities. The gender imbalance is also fuelling political radicalisation, which Germany's far-right AfD party is taking advantage of. FRANCE 24's Anne Mailliet, Willy Mahler, Nick Holdsworth and Caroline du Bled report.

[Vesper 28,768]

Europe’s Shifting Alliances: Can the EU Stand Up to Trump?

Despite presenting itself as a bulwark of the global liberal order, the incoming new EU administration appears politically and culturally more aligned with the Trump White House than with the pro-European mainstream political forces supporting the incoming EU Commission. This makes the EU more vulnerable that it should be at unprecedented geopolitical times.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-shifting-alliances-can-the-eu-stand-up-to-trump

 

US President Donald Trump meets with Donald Tusk President of the European Council at the European Council building in Brussels, Belgium, on May 25, 2017 (photo: Alexandros Michailidis/shutterstock.com).

European Union leaders were once again caught off guard by Donald Trump’s victory. Despite the damage done by a president who disregarded his allies during his first term, today’s EU remains ill-prepared to withstand Trump’s renewed influence. Why is this the case?

Firstly, European security remains heavily dependent on the United States’ support through NATO. Secondly, European foreign policy is still closely aligned with the United States, whether on issues like Israel or China. Thirdly, Europe has not diversified its economic partnerships sufficiently, continuing to rely heavily on trade relations with the US—in the absence of a formal trade agreement—while seeking to reduce its energy dependence on Russia. Finally, Germany and France are weakened by internal political crises, creating a power vacuum that could be filled by pro-European forces like Poland’s Donald Tusk or by Trump-aligned far-right groups who see his return as an opportunity to reshape the EU from within.

Given these circumstances, it is unsurprising that many EU leaders rushed to congratulate the new President, often with unprecedented flattery. The EU remains vulnerable to trade wars from the US, China, and other emerging economies, as well as to a new multipolar security order. Meanwhile, the Union has lost—rather than gained—influence on the world stage, including in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Compared to 2016, the EU is now less capable of coping with or engaging the Trump administration. Today’s EU is not only geopolitically weaker but also more politically divided. Although Trump’s policies directly threaten European prosperity, security, and sustainability, European political forces may struggle to find a unified strategy this time around.

The current European Parliament is the most right-wing in EU history. Over half of its members belong to the traditionally conservative European People’s Party (EPP), of which Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is a member, or to far-right groups like the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The ECR unites Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party with other far-right factions, such as Éric Zemmour’s Reconquête in France, Spain’s Vox, and the Sweden Democrats. Additionally, the Patriots for Europe (PoE), co-led by Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orbán, and the Europe of Sovereign Nations group, dominated by Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, contribute to the strong right-wing presence. A similar picture emerges in other EU institutions, such as the European Commission and the European Council, where over half of the members come from governments comprising similarly right-wing forces.

From this perspective, the EU may be unprepared and unwilling to deal with threats from across the Atlantic in a united fashion. In other words, there might be more transatlantic political convergence than initially apparent.

Several examples illustrate this point. First, the Trump administration’s push to roll back environmental and climate standards—symbolized by its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—aligns with the deregulatory tendencies within von der Leyen’s Commission. Second, Trump’s plan to mass deport undocumented immigrants from the United States reflects a broader trend within the EU, which has increasingly moved away from upholding international law, as seen in the establishment of “return centers.” Third, Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours could find support not only among pro-Kremlin far-right groups like the Patriots of Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, but also among conservative elements within the EPP, as well as segments of the liberals and the left.

This suggests that the “new Europe” that emerged after the June European Parliament elections might be politically and culturally more aligned with the Trump administration than with pro-European mainstream forces. This unexpected and unlikely “meeting of the minds” across the Atlantic could undermine the EU’s ability to present a united front against an unreliable partner.

Moreover, while questions abound regarding whether the Trump administration will focus on political reforms or attempt to change the rules of democracy in America, the EU could witness an equally concerning development: Viktor Orbán’s blueprint for an authoritarian regime taking root. This could involve dismantling democratic institutions, gaining control over the judiciary and media, and serving the interests of those loyal to the President.

This scenario has been foreshadowed by multiple meetings between Viktor Orbán, the current holder of the EU Council presidency, and then-former President Trump. Yet, this transatlantic bond has largely gone unnoticed.

Following the recent summit of the nascent European Political Community (EPC) in Budapest, former French Commissioner Thierry Breton publicly acknowledged Orbán’s privileged relationship with Trump as an opportunity for the EU to advance its interests—despite these interests varying significantly across member states. Meanwhile, French President Macron’s call for the EPC to reduce dependence on the US may not align with the current political reality. Hence, efforts to pivot away from the EU towards an exclusively intergovernmental, geopolitical entity like the EPC seem increasingly problematic.

From this perspective, the current political juncture could act as a catalyst for significant changes to the European integration project, potentially steering it in the wrong direction. As the transatlantic bond weakens, some EU leaders—such as Italy’s conservative Giorgia Meloni or Spain’s socialist Pedro Sánchez—may be emboldened to pursue their national interests through bilateral rather than EU-based dialogues with the US. The EU’s mission and sense of direction have never been more fundamentally challenged by the very governments that make up the Union.

The silver lining in this otherwise challenging situation is that EU leaders are being pushed to clarify their common goals—both within the EU and the EPC. This moment of reckoning is likely to be accelerated by the moves of the incoming US administration, which is not hesitating to assert itself even before the January inauguration of the 47th President of the United States.

 

[Vesper 28,768]

 

OH, THE PLACES YOU'LL BOE(BERT)

Lauren Boebert Told Congress She Is Worried About Space Aliens Operating From Underwater “Bases”

The theater enthusiast also threw in her suspicions about birds, the moon landing, and a secret government project to create “hybrid” humans. (Has she heard about the Denver airport?)

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/rep-lauren-boebert-secret-underwater-alien-base-congress-ufo-hearing

 

 

Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert is at it again. No, we don’t mean vaping and getting handsy in the audience of the touring production of a Broadway musical about ghosts who are up to no good—this time, at least. On Wednesday, Boebert put in an honest day’s work in D.C. questioning UFO experts about the existence of secret underwater alien bases and the veracity of “rumors that have come up to the Hill" about government experiments creating “hybrid” humans with enhanced capabilities.

“The American people are being kept in the dark,” she said during a two-hour House Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.” The hearing’s focus was about government transparency regarding UAPs and UFOs, and whether there needs to be more of it. An expert panel consisted of retired Navy Rear Admiral Dr. Tim Gallaudet, former Department of Defense official Luis Elizondo, former NASA associate administrator of space policy Michael Gold, and journalist Michael Shellenberger.

Boebert went to town asking the panel about “rumors that have come up the hill”—the sources of which she did not cite—of “a secretive project within the Department of Defense involving the manipulation of human genetics with what is described as non-human genetic material for the enhancement of human capabilities, hybrids.”

“Are any of you familiar with that?” she asked. “Yes, or no?”

All four panelists answered no.

Conspiracy theories were on the congresswoman’s mind, it would seem. She opened her five-minute period of questioning by stating for the record, “I speak my mind often, so why not just keep going with it?” She dared some unknown entity to “put [her] on a list” for speaking her personal interpretation of the truth.

"May as well just go all out and say it: The Earth is flat, birds are government drones, and we've never set foot on the moon, and Joe Biden received 81 million votes in the 2020 election," she said. (Boebert did recently appear to like a Facebook post where a mother despaired that her son had been taught that the Earth was “round like a sphere.”)

When asked by Vanity Fair if Boebert actually believes those statements, which will live forever in the Library of Congress, a spokesman for Boebert said via email that “Congresswoman Boebert’s humorous remarks in committee were highlighting the reality that mentioning certain topics the government doesn’t want exposed, like the UAP Immaculate Constellation program, could land someone on a government surveillance watch list.”

He had a little more to add: “However, it is true that the 2020 election was stolen.”

Boebert continued her allotted time during the hearing by asking the panel about underwater alien activity.

“Are there any accounts of UAPs emerging from or submerging into our waters which could indicate a base or presence between the ocean's surface?” she asked. “Are there any technological capabilities that have been observed in these oceanic UAPs to defy our current understanding of physics or human engineering capabilities?”

The experts pointed out that the oceans have been largely unmapped and that anomalies have been observed, but not explained.

Perhaps Boebert was looking to once again switch congressional districts ahead of the next election. Does anyone know the residency requirements for representing the ocean floor in the House? A little closer to home, in Boebert's terrestrial state of Colorado, there's a wealth of whackadoo mystery surrounding Denver International Airport that seems ripe for the congresswoman to dig into.

In closing, Boebert vowed that she “will not relent until we get those answers to the American people.”

[Vesper 28,768]

The Archbishop of York has claimed no more bishops need to resign over the mishandling of allegations against a prolific abuser because Justin Welby has already taken the “institutional” blame 

PETER BROOKES

[Vesper 28,768]

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/farewell-to-the-rising-american-electorate

At one point in the initial rollout of Harris’s campaign, there was much happy (joyful?) talk of getting the band back together—the return of the mighty Obama coalition. The “rising American electorate” would have its revenge on Trump, the Republicans, and their retrograde supporters from declining demographics.

That’s not exactly how it worked out. Instead, Trump won every swing state and the election, carried the national popular vote and made dramatic headway among key demographics that were supposed to buoy the rising American electorate. In short, the rising American electorate didn’t rise, it crashed.

As Democrats dig out from their debacle, it’s important for them to understand just how far away they now are from the salad days of the Obama coalition. In 12 short years, they have lost two of three elections to Donald Trump and huge chunks of support from key demographics, including most of their rising constituencies. They need to face the uncomfortable fact that not only did the Obama coalition not come back, it’s likely never coming back. It’s time for a new coalitional strategy—a strategy that starts with rebuilding their support among working-class Americans of all races and forcefully jettisoning all the political baggage that is preventing them from doing so.

Here are data that illustrate the scale of decline since Obama vanquished Mitt Romney in 2012. For this exercise, I use the Catalist data from 2012, the best retrospective data available, and compare it to the demographic group estimates from AP VoteCast, the best 2024 election data currently available. (It would be preferable to use 2024 Catalist data for this comparison but their data are not yet available.)

Nonwhite voters overall. Obama carried these voters by 64 points; Harris carried them by 34 points. Democratic decline: 30 points.

Black voters. Obama carried black voters in 2012 by an amazing 93 points. Harris managed only a 67-point margin. Democratic decline: 26 points.

Latino voters. Obama carried Latinos by 39 points, Harris by just 12 points. Democratic decline: 27 points. It is interesting that the overall decline since 2012 is quite similar between blacks and Latinos; however, essentially all of the decline for Latinos was post-2016 while the black decline has been more or less continuous.

Working-class (non-college) voters overall. Obama was the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the working class as a whole (3-point margin). But Harris lost them solidly by 13 points. Democratic decline: 16 points.

White working-class voters. The traditional trouble spot for Democrats; Obama lost them by 20 points, which goes up to 30 points in this election. Democratic decline: 10 points—which is a substantial and very consequential decline among a huge voter group. However, that decline pales in magnitude when compared to the decline among nonwhite working class voters.

Nonwhite working class voters. Obama cleaned up among nonwhite working-class voters, carrying them by 67 points in 2012. This election the margin was down to 32 points, cutting the Democratic advantage by more than half. Democratic decline: 35 points.

Black working-class voters. Black working-class voters gave Obama a 94-point margin in 2012, actually higher than among their college-educated counterparts. But in 2024, the Democratic margin among the black working class—64 points—was lower than among the college-educated, reversing the class polarity of the black vote. Democratic decline: 30 points.

Latino working class voters. These voters gave Obama a 43-point advantage, much higher than among the Latino college-educated. In 2024 this crashed to a mere 8-point advantage for Harris. Democratic decline: 35 points, two and a half times the decline among the Hispanic college-educated.

Young voters. Obama carried voters under 30 by 23 points; this election Harris managed only a 4-point advantage among this age group to the shock of most, particularly Democratic, observers. Democratic decline: 19 points.

Of course, this is comparing an age group that had a different generational composition in the two elections. But this should provide little comfort to Democrats. The 18-29 year old age group in this election was composed almost entirely of Gen Z voters, supposedly the leading edge of a generational shift that would make the voting pool ever more Democratic. In 2012, the 18-29 year olds who provided Obama’s 23 point margin were all members of the Millennial generation. In 2024, those voters are now entirely contained in the 30-44 year old age group, where Harris eked out only a 3-point advantage. So much for the generational theory of political dominance.

Young black voters. Black voters under 30 gave Obama a 92-point margin in 2012. Harris carried them by only 50 points. Democratic decline: 42 points(!) The decline was almost as large among black voters 30-44.

Young Latino voters. In 2012, Obama dominated Hispanic voters under 30 by 54 points. Harris’s margin among these voters was just 17 points. Democratic decline: 37 points.

Male black voters. While black female voters have also shifted right over time, the shift among black men has been far larger—almost three times the size. In 2012, Obama carried black men by 91 points; Harris’ margin crashed to 49 points in 2024. Democratic decline: 42 points.

Male Latino voters. Latino men have also shifted harder right than their female counterparts. Obama enjoyed a 32-point advantage among Hispanic men in 2012. In this election, Harris was essentially tied among these voters, carrying them by only single percentage point. Democratic decline: 31 points.

---

So it’s time for Democrats to bid farewell to the rising American electorate. The Obama coalition is gone and in all likelihood it can’t be brought back. It would be a fool’s errand to even try.

It’s time—past time—for a new coalitional strategy for a new populist era. The Trump administration is likely to give them plenty of opportunity for a comeback. They should be ready with a new playbook.