Der Terrorismus der SPD - und andere Verbrechen

[AribertDeckers]

9.4.2026
Der Terrorismus der SPD - und andere Verbrechen


per Email von http://www.reclaimthenet.org :

[*quote*]
-----------------------
Subject: You Bought It, You Own It, But They Control the Off Switch
Date: 2026-04-09 14:57
From: Reclaim The Net

Plus: Congress Mandated the Backdoors That Got Hacked and Is Trying
to Demand More

RECLAIM THE NET IS FUNDED BY THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU SUPPORT FREE SPEECH
AND RESTORING PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, PLEASE BECOME A SUPPORTER
HERE [1]. THANK YOU.

APRIL 9, 2026

SUPPORTERS
        [1]


CONGRESS MANDATED THE BACKDOORS THAT GOT HACKED AND IS TRYING TO
DEMAND MORE [2]

Thirty years ago, Congress forced every phone company in America to
build a surveillance backdoor into its network. 

Last year, a foreign government walked right through it, and what they
accessed is worse than anything that's been publicly reported in the
headlines. 

But the real story isn't the hack. It's what happened next: who
lobbied whom, which rules got quietly killed, and how the government's
supposed "fix" has nothing to do with security and everything to do
with protecting the companies whose negligence made the breach
possible. 

Today, we follow the money, pull the timelines apart, and found a
pattern that keeps repeating, one that's about to repeat again with
your private messages...

BECOME A SUPPORTER HERE [1].

GET THE POST HERE [2].

        BECOME A SUPPORTER [1]

BRICKED

        [1]

YOUR OLD KINDLE STILL WORKS PERFECTLY. AMAZON IS KILLING IT ANYWAY [3]

A record player from 1972 still plays records. A paperback from 1985
still opens. A Kindle from 2011, the one that works perfectly, the one
with no cracked screen or dead battery, will stop functioning as an
e-reader on May 20, 2026, because Amazon decided it should.

Amazon sent emails this week to owners of Kindle devices manufactured
in 2012 or earlier, informing them that support for their hardware
would end in six weeks.

After May 20, those devices will no longer be able to buy, borrow, or
download books. The only content available will be whatever is already
sitting on the device. And if you factory reset your Kindle, or
deregister it from your Amazon account for any reason, you will not be
able to re-register it. At that point, the device becomes a plastic
rectangle.

        [1]

The affected models include the original Kindle, Kindle 2, Kindle DX,
Kindle Keyboard, Kindle 4, Kindle 5, Kindle Touch, and the
first-generation Kindle Paperwhite. Some of these devices have been in
continuous use for 14 years. They work. The screens display text. The
batteries hold a charge. The page-turn buttons click. None of that
matters.

Amazon spokesperson Jesse Carr said that, "These models have been
supported for at least 14 years — some as long as 18 years — but
technology has come a long way in that time, and these devices will no
longer be supported moving forward." He added that Amazon is
"notifying those still actively using them and offering promotions to
help with the transition to newer devices."

The promotion is a 20 percent discount on a new Kindle and a $20 eBook
credit. Amazon is offering customers a coupon to buy something they
didn't want to buy, to replace something that already works. The offer
expires June 20, 2026, which gives affected users exactly one month to
decide whether to spend money solving a problem Amazon created for
them.

The deregistration clause is where this gets ugly. The email Amazon
sent includes a specific warning: if you deregister or factory reset
your device after May 20, you cannot re-register it. The device
becomes permanently unusable as a Kindle.

Here's what that means.. Your Kindle glitches. You need to reboot
it. The reboot requires a factory reset. Your Kindle is now a brick.
You bought it, you paid for it, you've used it for over a decade, and
now it's garbage because a software handshake with Amazon's servers
failed, and there's no way to reconnect.

A Reddit user in r/mildlyinfuriating put it plainly: "I've had my
Kindle for years, but it still works perfectly and continues to serve
me well. How wasteful is it to make a product practically unusable in
order to force people to buy a newer model."

Amazon controls 72 percent of the global e-reader market. In the
United States, the company handles 67 percent of all digital book
sales, rising to 83 percent when Kindle Unlimited is included.

When Amazon decides your reading device is obsolete, you don't have a
lot of alternatives within the ecosystem you've been buying into for
years. Your library, your purchases, your reading history, all of it
lives on Amazon's servers. You can access your books through the
Kindle app on your phone or through Kindle for Web, Amazon says, but
the device you bought to read books on can no longer read new books.
The hardware is fine but the software permission has been revoked.

This keeps happening, and the pattern is always the same.

In April 2025, Google announced it would end support for its first and
second-generation Nest Learning Thermostats. Starting October 25,
2025, those devices lost the ability to connect to the Google Home
app, receive remote commands, or get software updates. A thermostat
that was sold as a smart device became a dumb one overnight. The
hardware worked. Google just stopped talking to it.

Google offered affected US customers a 50 percent discount on the
fourth-generation Nest thermostat, which costs $280 at retail. Same
formula as Amazon. _We broke your thing, here's a coupon for a new
thing._

A class action lawsuit was filed [4], alleging Google had deprived
consumers of features they'd already paid for. The lawsuit contends
that customers would not have purchased the thermostat, or would have
paid less, if they'd known Google could strip away core functionality
on a corporate whim.

The thermostats still work as basic temperature controllers. You can
still walk up to the wall and press buttons. But nobody paid $250 for
a device that lets you walk up to a wall and press buttons. They paid
for the app, the scheduling, the remote control, the energy savings
from smart algorithms. All of that disappeared on a date Google chose.

In 2019, Sonos launched a trade-up program that required customers to
put their older speakers into something called Recycle Mode. Once
activated, a 21-day countdown began, after which the speaker was
permanently bricked.

Sonos offered a 30 percent discount on newer speakers in exchange for
customers voluntarily destroying working hardware. After public
backlash, the company reversed course in March 2020 and stopped
requiring the bricking. But speakers that had already been put into
Recycle Mode stayed bricked. Those devices were gone.

In 2022, Insteon, a smart home company, abruptly shut down its cloud
servers without warning. Thousands of users woke up to find their
smart home hubs offline. Lights, thermostats, door locks, all
controlled through Insteon's servers, all suddenly unresponsive. The
hardware was fine. The company just stopped existing in the way that
mattered.

Lowe's did the same thing in 2019 when it shut down its Iris smart
home platform. CNET described the resulting hardware as "expensive
bricks."
Reading is not a complicated activity. A book is a self-contained
object. You buy it, you own it, you read it whenever you want, and
nobody can remotely disable it. The same is true of a record player, a
CD player, and a cassette deck. These are devices that perform their
function without asking permission from a server.

The Kindle changed that relationship. The Kindle is a reading device
that requires ongoing permission from Amazon to perform its basic
function. The permission can be revoked. And while Amazon frames this
as a natural consequence of technological progress, there's nothing
natural about it. The decision was made in a meeting. It was a
business choice.

The broader lesson here extends well beyond e-readers. Every
internet-connected device in your home carries the same risk. The
smart fridge that connects to an app for grocery lists. The smart
washing machine that lets you start a cycle from your phone, the smart
oven, the smart doorbell, the smart light bulbs; all of them depend on
servers maintained by companies that may decide, at any point, that
your model is no longer worth supporting.

When that happens, you have an appliance that was broken for you. The
motor in the washing machine still turns and the thermostat still
measures temperature. But the software layer that was sold as the
reason to buy these products gets switched off, and the company offers
you 20 percent off their new model.

A non-smart washing machine from 2005 still washes clothes. A
non-smart thermostat from the 1970s still controls temperature. A
paperback from any year still opens to the page you left off on. These
objects do what they were made to do because their function is
contained within them, not outsourced to a server farm that someone
else controls.

The Kindle was supposed to make reading more convenient. For millions
of people, it did, and still does. But the trade-off was always there,
buried in the terms of service: you are reading with permission, and
the permission can be revoked with six weeks' notice and a coupon.

Amazon reported roughly $28 billion in annual book sales worldwide.
The company's Kindle ecosystem is valued at approximately $18 billion.

This is not a company that cannot afford to maintain server
compatibility for older devices. This is a company that chose not to.
The 20 percent discount makes the motive clear enough. Amazon wants
these customers to buy new Kindles. The support cutoff is the
mechanism that makes it happen.

The oldest affected Kindle was released in 2007. If you bought one of
those, you've been an Amazon customer for 19 years. Amazon's reward
for that loyalty is an email telling you to buy a new one, with a
discount that expires in a month.

IF THIS COVERAGE MATTERS TO YOU, PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUPPORTER TODAY.
THE THREATS TO PRIVACY AND FREE SPEECH ARE ONLY GROWING, AND SO IS THE
WORK REQUIRED TO OPPOSE THEM. YOUR SUPPORT IS WHAT MAKES THAT
POSSIBLE.

        BECOME A SUPPORTER [1]

MANDATE PLANS

        [2]

EU SAYS EUDI WALLET IS VOLUNTARY; GERMANY'S SPD PLAN SAYS OTHERWISE
[5]

The EU's digital identity wallet is voluntary. That's the official
position, repeated often enough that the European Commission felt the
need to label the opposite claim a "myth."

Under the eIDAS 2.0 regulation [6], use of the wallet is voluntary and
free of charge for citizens. Nobody will be forced to download the
app. Nobody will be compelled to link their government ID to a
smartphone.

The EU has been very clear about this.

        [2]

Germany is now showing everyone what "voluntary" actually means.
The country's Social Democratic Party (SPD) has proposed [7] making
the EUDI Wallet the tool for accessing social media platforms, tying
the proposal to an impulse paper circulated ahead of a CDU federal
conference in Stuttgart.

The plan creates a three-tier system. Children under 14 would face a
complete ban, with platforms required to "technically prevent access."
Users aged 14 to 15 would get youth-only platform versions with
restricted algorithmic features, and everyone 16 and older would need
mandatory EUDI Wallet verification.

That last category includes every adult in Germany. The wallet that
nobody is forced to use becomes the only way to access Instagram,
TikTok, or Facebook.

SPD leader and Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil framed this as an
evolution in his own thinking. "A few years ago, we all emphasized the
freedom of the internet and said that there should be no restrictions
whatsoever," Klingbeil said. "But now we see in the debates that
something is happening in society, that young people are coming to me
and saying we need clear rules on how to deal with social networks. We
need restrictions... and we need to make decisions about that now."

SPD Secretary General Tim Klüssendorf confirmed [8] the party is
pushing the proposal forward, and he's already in talks with coalition
partner CDU, Chancellor Friedrich Merz's party, which called for an
end to online anonymity the previous week. Both governing parties now
want the same thing. Klüssendorf called it a matter of child
protection. "We are currently not meeting the state's obligation to
protect. I believe children and young people are particularly at risk
there. That has been proven," he said after an SPD leadership meeting
in Berlin. The platforms, he added, are currently "operating a
business model that is simply not compatible with our democratic
principles."

The privacy architecture of the EUDI Wallet is designed, at least on
paper, to share less than traditional ID checks. The system uses a
selective-disclosure mechanism that lets a user confirm they meet a
specific age threshold without revealing their name, address, or full
date of birth. A cryptographic proof goes to the platform. The
platform gets a yes or no. Your legal identity stays on your device.

That's the theory. The SPD's proposal starts dismantling it almost
immediately.

Users between 14 and 16 would only be able to access social media
through a parent or guardian's EUDI Wallet app, tying account access
to the identity credentials of an adult. For everyone 16 and older,
algorithmic content recommendations would be switched off by default,
and opting back in would require active consent.

Every login, every account creation, every new platform signup passes
through a government-issued digital identity. The wallet confirms your
age, sure. But the act of verification itself creates a record that
you accessed a specific service, at a specific time, from a specific
device.

Klüssendorf insisted the SPD wants "a very data-minimising solution
that is also in the hands of state regulation" rather than handing
platforms more user data. Instead of Meta profiling your behavior to
guess your age, the German state would verify your identity before
you're allowed to participate at all. The surveillance doesn't
disappear. It moves from the private sector to the government.

The proposal gets more aggressive when it comes to enforcement.
Klüssendorf said the goal must also be that workarounds "such as via
a VPN tunnel" would not work. There's no clean technical mechanism for
that.
 
Blocking VPN circumvention at scale requires either forcing VPN
providers to verify users themselves, deep packet inspection of
internet traffic at the network level, or both. These are the same
tools that authoritarian governments deploy to control what their
citizens can see online. Germany would be reaching for them because
teenagers use TikTok.

The broader EU framework around the wallet tells its own story about
where "voluntary" is heading. Under the eIDAS 2.0 regulation, all Very
Large Online Platforms and companies required by law to use strong
customer authentication must accept the EUDI Wallet by late 2027.

The EU's own Digital Decade target aims for 80% of citizens to use a
digital ID solution by 2030, with the EUDI Wallet as the primary
instrument for reaching that goal. You don't set an 80% adoption
target for something you genuinely intend to keep optional.

GET YOURS

        [2]

GET YOURS: SHOP NOW [9]

Getting merchandise for yourself or as a gift helps support the
mission to defend free speech and digital privacy.

It also helps raise awareness every time you wear or use it.

Your merch purchase goes directly toward sustaining our work and
growing our reach. 

It's a simple, effective way to support. Get yours now.

        SHOP NOW [9]

OVERREACH

        [3]

HOW UK REGULATOR OFCOM QUIETLY BYPASSED INTERNATIONAL LAW TO POLICE
AMERICAN SPEECH [10]

A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK's speech
regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off
197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online
Safety Act [11], and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for
exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of
those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies
operating entirely on American soil.

The number comes from a FOI request [12] filed by Daniel Lü, who
asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the
Online Safety Act against non-UK targets.

Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197
Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty
between the US and UK that governs how one country's legal process
gets enforced in the other's jurisdiction was treated as optional.
Ofcom decided it didn't apply.
That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the
American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted
by Ofcom.

Byrne called the 197 notices a "breathtaking" "attack on the First
Amendment" and pointed out the uncomfortable math.

Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to
comply with Ofcom's demands. If Byrne's assessment is right, that
leaves Ofcom enjoying "a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship
orders that violate the First Amendment."

A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies,
bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them
appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is
already here.

OFCOM USES FREE SPEECH TO HIDE ITS CENSORSHIP METHODS

Lü did more than ask for the number of notices. He asked for policy
documents about how Ofcom selects its foreign enforcement targets,
what guidance it gives its teams about the legality of emailing
criminal penalty warnings to US corporations, and whether Ofcom has
any internal guidance on protected speech.

Ofcom admitted it holds much of that information. Then it refused to
hand it over. The reason, cited directly from the FOI Act, was that
disclosure "would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank
exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and/or would
otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the
effective conduct of public affairs."

A speech regulator is claiming that transparency about its censorship
operations would damage free and frank deliberation. Ofcom is
borrowing the language of free expression to shield itself from
accountability over how it suppresses expression. The irony is so
complete it feels deliberate.

On the question of whether Ofcom holds any guidance on protected
speech, the answer was even more revealing. Ofcom said it doesn't have
any. No internal documents addressing what speech is protected when it
exercises its enforcement powers against foreign companies.

It pointed instead to its general obligations under the Online Safety
Act, the Communications Act 2003, and the European Convention on Human
Rights, along with links to already-public guidance documents. That's
the speech protection regime for companies being censored by the UK
from American soil: a few hyperlinks to existing publications.

THE MLAT PROBLEM ISN'T NEW. IT'S GETTING WORSE.

The treaty issue is central. MLAT exists so that when one country
wants to enforce its laws against people or companies in another
country, there's a formal process involving both governments. For the
US side, that means routing through the Department of Justice. A judge
gets involved. There's oversight. There are procedural protections.

Ofcom has previously argued [13] it doesn't need to use MLAT because
its Section 100 notices are administrative, not criminal. That
distinction might satisfy Ofcom's lawyers in London, but it doesn't
satisfy anyone else. Byrne and his clients have argued in federal
court [14] that Ofcom's demands have no legal force precisely because
they skipped the treaty process. 4chan and Kiwi Farms received their
enforcement demands by email, sent to addresses that in some cases
weren't even authorized to accept legal service.

The Lü FOI also asked whether Ofcom holds any correspondence with the
US Department of Justice or the FBI about its enforcement activity.
Ofcom's response: it holds no information related to this question.
The regulator didn't talk to anyone in the US government before firing
off 197 demands to US companies. It just hit send.

WHAT THE FOI ACTUALLY REVEALED, AND WHAT OFCOM HID

Lü's request covered six questions. The pattern in Ofcom's responses
tells its own story. On the questions where Ofcom could respond by
linking to documents that are already public, it was happy to share.
On everything else, it cited exemptions, claimed it didn't hold the
information, or both.

When asked for policy documents about enforcing the OSA against non-UK
providers, including any records discussing MLAT, Ofcom said it holds
some information but won't release it. It also claimed it holds no
records of MLAT discussions or legal guidance about whether emailing
criminal penalty warnings to American corporations is valid. Either
Ofcom never considered whether its enforcement method was legal under
international law, or it did consider it and doesn't want anyone to
see that analysis.

When asked how it selects non-UK enforcement targets, Ofcom cited
exemptions under the Communications Act 2003 and linked to its public
enforcement guidance, plus its own decisions against 4chan and other
US entities. The internal criteria, the actual decision-making process
for choosing which American companies to go after, stayed hidden.

When asked about its approach to "qualifying worldwide revenue," the
basis for calculating fines that can reach £18 million or 10% of
global revenue, Ofcom linked to its public guidance explaining that
companies are expected to self-report their revenue to Ofcom.
Companies that Ofcom is threatening with fines are supposed to
voluntarily tell Ofcom how much money they make, so that Ofcom can
calculate a bigger fine. The compliance incentives here are about as
perverse as they get.

BYRNE GOES TO CONGRESS

Byrne said he forwarded Ofcom's admission directly to the US
government. He tagged US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy
Sarah Rogers, Senator Eric Schmitt, and House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jim Jordan, and called on Congress to act. This is consistent
with Byrne's approach throughout the Ofcom fight. He has previously
said [15] he copies the US government on Ofcom correspondence that
crosses his desk.

The legal strategy from the US side has been to deny Ofcom any clean
precedent. The four companies that received formal enforcement action,
4chan, Kiwi Farms, a mental health forum called SaSu, and the social
network Gab, all refused to comply. 4chan responded to one of Ofcom's
fines with a picture of a hamster [16]. The point was to make Ofcom's
orders publicly and visibly unenforceable on American soil, turning
each attempted punishment into a political liability for the regulator
rather than a deterrent for the rest of the American internet.

But the 197 number changes the scale of the problem. Those four
companies were the public-facing enforcement targets, the ones Ofcom
wanted to make examples of. Behind them, 193 other US companies
apparently received quieter demands and, if Byrne's analysis is
correct, most of them complied without a fight. Without lawyers,
without publicity, without anyone in Congress knowing it happened.

Byrne has pushed the GRANITE Act [17], a proposed law that would allow
US entities to sue foreign governments for censorship attempts and
void foreign censorship orders in US courts. Sarah Rogers, the US
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, has appeared on GB News
in London suggesting Congress is considering a federal version of the
law [15]. The Trump administration has made public statements [18]
objecting to the Online Safety Act. The US State Department sent
diplomats to London in 2025 to challenge Ofcom directly.

Whether all of that translates into legislation remains an open
question.

Ofcom, for its part, has already moved on to bigger targets. After
spending a year trying to fine platforms like 4chan and getting
nowhere, the regulator recently opened new investigations [19] into
Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox, and X. The
small companies held the line. The question now is whether the large
ones will too, or whether they'll decide that complying with a foreign
regulator's censorship demands is easier than asserting their
constitutional rights.

NEW LAWSUIT

        [4]

RENO POLICE SUED AFTER WRONGFUL ARREST BASED ON FACIAL RECOGNITION
ERRORS [20]

Reno police treated a casino's facial recognition system as a reliable
witness for years, arresting people on algorithmic say-so with no
corroborating evidence, no follow-up investigation, and no department
policy telling them to do otherwise.

A federal lawsuit now alleges this wasn't one officer's mistake. It
was standard practice, applied to thousands of people.

The amended complaint, filed April 2, 2026, in US District Court,
names Officer Richard Jager and the city of Reno as defendants after
Federal Judge Miranda Du allowed the city to be added.

WE OBTAINED A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FOR YOU HERE [21].

Attorney Terri Keyser-Cooper, representing plaintiff Jason Killinger,
stated that "Jager's conduct was not a sporadic incident involving the
wrongful actions of a rogue employee, but the result of a widespread
custom and practice involving hundreds of municipal employees making
thousands of arrests in the same manner over a period of years."

Killinger's story shows exactly how this played out. He walked into
the Peppermill Casino in Reno in September 2023, and the casino's
surveillance system flagged him as a "100 percent match" for a person
who'd been banned from the property.

MORE: ANGELA LIPPS SPENT 108 DAYS IN JAIL BECAUSE A FACIAL
RECOGNITION ALGORITHM WAS WRONG [22]

The match was wrong. Killinger carried three forms of identification,
including a Real ID, and offered to get more from his vehicle. Jager's
arrest report mentioned none of that. The lawsuit alleges the report
falsely claimed Killinger presented conflicting identification, a
characterization that doesn't survive comparison with the bodycam
footage and documents now in the court record.

Killinger spent 11 hours in custody. A fingerprint check at Washoe
County jail confirmed what his driver's license, pay stub, and vehicle
registration had already shown: he was not the man the Peppermill had
banned.

Jager admitted under oath in January 2026 that the arrest "never
should have happened." He testified that the Reno Police Department's
custom and policy was to trust facial recognition software and to
arrest people based on it without any other corroborating evidence.

What happened after the fingerprints cleared, Killinger is almost as
troubling as the arrest itself. City prosecutors filed a criminal
complaint under the name "John Doe," and a municipal judge found
probable cause for trespass, even though the jail's own biometric data
had already proven Killinger's identity.

City attorney Jill Drake kept the case open after dismissal and
referred it to an RPD fraud detective. That detective sided with
Killinger, finding no identity theft and confirming the Peppermill had
made an error. A Reno sergeant later told Jager there was probable
cause for an identity theft charge against Killinger, despite the
fraud detective's findings. Jager declined to proceed.

The Reno Police Department operated for years without a policy stating
that a facial recognition match alone can't establish probable cause.
That gap isn't a technicality. The US Department of Justice published
a policy template back in 2017 through its Bureau of Justice
Assistance, characterizing facial recognition results as "advisory in
nature" that "do not establish probable cause." The template
explicitly states that results are not to be treated as positive
identification without further investigation.

RPD either ignored this guidance or never bothered to read it. Seven
states now prohibit police from using facial recognition as the sole
basis for an arrest, and four states require a warrant or probable
cause before officers can even run a facial recognition search. Nevada
has enacted no comparable restrictions, leaving departments like RPD
to write their own rules, or, in this case, to write none at all.

The case fits a pattern that has become depressingly familiar.
Detroit's Robert Williams was wrongfully arrested at his home in 2020
[23], in front of his wife and two children, after the department
relied on an incorrect facial recognition match. That case produced a
landmark settlement requiring Detroit police to stop arresting people
based solely on facial recognition results.

The surveillance question here extends beyond police practices.
Casinos like the Peppermill run facial recognition systems that scan
every person who walks through the door, building biometric profiles
of gamblers, tourists, and anyone else who happens to enter.

The trouble with treating facial recognition as gospel is that it
inverts how policing is supposed to work. Probable cause requires
evidence that a specific person committed a specific act. A facial
recognition match provides neither. It provides a statistical guess
that two faces look similar, generated by an algorithm whose
methodology, training data, and error rates are typically proprietary
and unavailable for scrutiny.

When police departments treat that guess as equivalent to an
eyewitness identification or a fingerprint match, they're building
arrests on a foundation that no officer can explain and no defendant
can meaningfully challenge.

The city attorney's office maintains Jager followed correct protocol,
a claim that becomes harder to square with Jager's own deposition
testimony and the department's lack of any written protocol governing
facial recognition arrests.

The complaint seeks punitive damages, compensation for injuries
Killinger sustained while handcuffed, and attorney's fees. A jury
trial has been requested. No date has been set. The city did not
respond to a request for comment.

IF THIS COVERAGE MATTERS TO YOU, PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUPPORTER TODAY.
THE THREATS TO PRIVACY AND FREE SPEECH ARE ONLY GROWING, AND SO IS THE
WORK REQUIRED TO OPPOSE THEM. YOUR SUPPORT IS WHAT MAKES THAT
POSSIBLE.

        BECOME A SUPPORTER [1]

Thanks for reading,

Reclaim The Net

You can unsubscribe [24] at any time. 

86-90 Paul Street
London
London
EC2A 4NE
United Kingdom

 

Links:
------
[1] https://reclaimthenet.org/go/support-rtn
[2] https://reclaimthenet.org/congress-mandated-the-backdoors-that-got-hacked-and-is-trying-to-demand-more
[3] https://reclaimthenet.org/your-old-kindle-still-works-perfectly-amazon-is-killing-it-anyway
[4] https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/tsourdinis-v-google.pdf
[5] https://reclaimthenet.org/eu-says-eudi-wallet-is-voluntary-germanys-spd-plan-says-otherwise
[6] https://reclaimthenet.org/eu-digital-identity-wallet-potential-consortium-privacy-concerns-2025
[7] https://www.heise.de/en/news/CDU-decides-on-social-media-ban-for-children-but-no-real-name-obligation-11185171.html
[8] https://reclaimthenet.org/germanys-spd-pushes-mandatory-government-id-verification-for-social-media
[9] https://shop.reclaimthenet.org/
[10] https://reclaimthenet.org/ofcom-bypassed-us-treaty-to-send-197-censorship-orders
[11] https://reclaimthenet.org/uks-online-safety-act-under-fire-as-officials-push-for-new-powers-to-police-misinformation
[12] https://philpapers.org/archive/LFOIAL.pdf
[13] https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-ofcom-claims-first-amendment-cant-shield-americans
[14] https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawsuit-ofcom-online-safety-act-4chan-kiwi-farms-first-amendment
[15] https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/12/04/the-ofcom-files-part-4-ofcom-rides-again/
[16] https://reclaimthenet.org/britains-free-speech-crisis-and-the-bill-that-would-fix-it
[17] https://reclaimthenet.org/wyoming-granite-act
[18] https://spectator.com/article/congress-shield-us-foreign-attacks-first-amendment/
[19] https://prestonbyrne.com/author/prestonbyrne/
[20] https://reclaimthenet.org/reno-police-sued-after-wrongful-arrest-based-on-facial-recognition-errors
[21] https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/killinger-v-reno-police-first-amended-complaint-2026-04-02.pdf
[22] https://reclaimthenet.org/woman-jailed-108-days-after-facial-recognition-error
[23] https://reclaimthenet.org/face-recognition-tech-wrongful-arrest
-----------------------
[*/quote*]