Splendid Isolation

Congress Playing Their Part

Hey, how can you argue with proposed legislation to rein in the jack-booted thugs of the ATF — especially when it’s known as the RIFLE Act?

Under the Biden Administration, ATF’s zero tolerance policy forced small and mid-sized gun stores out of business. The agency revoked Federal Firearm Licenses due to minor clerical errors like missing a customer’s middle initial or using a state’s abbreviation rather than the state’s full name. In 2024 alone, ATF saw the highest levels of gun store license revocations in 20 years—the third consecutive year of increased license revocations under President Biden’s leadership. Last week, the Biden Administration claimed it reversed its zero tolerance policy. Upon further review of the updated enforcement guidance, it appears to remain fully in effect.

Rep. Mann (R-KS) told Breitbart News, “President Biden did everything in his power to weaponize the federal government against gun store owners in the Big First District of Kansas and across the country. His zero tolerance policy undermined the Second Amendment and trampled on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Since day one, I have rigorously pushed back against this unconstitutional policy and fought for more oversight to rein in ATF’s abuse.”

He added, “On November 5, 2024, the country made it clear—our constitutional rights are not up for grabs. My bill makes that crystal clear by fortifying the Second Amendment rights of local gun stores and seeking to restore a degree of wholeness to individuals whose livelihoods were destroyed by this federal abuse. I look forward to working with President Trump to further strengthen the protection of the Second Amendment, deliver justice for our FFLs, and get our country back on track.”

Who’s the new head of the ATF, again?  (I know, I know:  a decent head of the ATF would rescind the enforcement instructions off his own bat — I know I would, if my application to head up the ATF had been successful.  But then again, considering that I’d have started shutting down the entire agency from Day 1 of my appointment, the whole issue would have been moot.)

Snoops

Yeah, don’t fuck mess with Texas:

Texas has sued insurance provider Allstate, alleging that the firm and its data broker subsidiary used data from apps like GasBuddy, Routely, and Life360 to quietly track drivers and adjust or cancel their policies.

Allstate and Arity, a “mobility data and analytics” firm founded by Allstate in 2016, collected “trillions of miles worth of location data” from more than 45 million people, then used that data to adjust rates, according to Texas’ lawsuit. This violates Texas’ Data Privacy and Security Act, which requires “clear notice and informed consent” on how collected data can be used. A statement from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the suit is the first-ever state action targeting comprehensive data privacy violations.

How so?

According to Texas’ complaint (PDF), the data collected included “a phone’s geolocation data, accelerometer data, magnetometer data, and gyroscopic data, which monitors details such as the phone’s altitude, longitude, latitude, bearing, GPS time, speed, and accuracy.”

With that data—plus, in some cases, data from connected vehicles—Allstate could see when, how far, and for how long someone was driving, along with “hard braking events” and “whether a consumer picked up or opened their phone while traveling at certain speeds.”

Texas’ lawsuit claims that Arity incentivized—through “generous bonus incentives”—apps like GasBuddy, a gas price-tracking app, and Life360, which is intended to keep tabs on family members’ location, to “increas[e] the size of their dataset.” Under their agreements with app makers, Arity had “varying levels of control over the privacy disclosures and consent language” shown to app users, according to the complaint.

And now for the doublespeak:

“Arity helps consumers get the most accurate auto insurance price after they consent in a simple and transparent way that fully complies with all laws and regulations.”

But they’re not the only villains in this piece:

The suit also cites Allstate as gathering direct car use data from Toyota, Lexus, Mazda, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, and Ram vehicles.

And if these assholes shared data with Allstate, you can bet your house that they did so with other insurance companies too.

If you’re not into letting corporations do this to you:

…you may want to avoid any dealings at all with these bastards.  It’s not like Stellantis (Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati) are reporting a boom in sales, after all.

When the Texans win their suit, at it should, I would argue against fines because those bastards will just pass the cost into their customers and claim a tax deduction at worst.

What I would do as TxAG is get a list of all Texans with Allstate policies, and demand that Allstate provide free insurance to them for a period of time commensurate with the start date of Arity’s snoopery.

I know, that would just cause Allstate to cease operations in Texas.  That’s fine, too — take away access to the second-largest pool of drivers in the U.S.

Aarfy IRL – AGAIN

I cannot count the number of timers I’ve written about this scenario:

One of my favorite-ever literary passages is in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, when Yossarian walks into a bedroom to discover that his lunatic navigator Aarfy has just murdered a prostitute by throwing her out the window.  While he’s remonstrating with Aarfy, the military police burst into the room — and arrest Yossarian for being AWOL.

The same thing has happened time and time again*.  And here’s yet another one to make your blood boil (as it did mine):

British police were called to a house after a neighbor heard screams. They found a young girl naked & drunk with 7 Pakistani men.

They arrested the girl for being drunk & convicted her. They reportedly didn’t even question the men.

Every single one of those cops should be taken to a windowless cell, tied to a chair and beaten with chains.  Followed by the same treatment for those seven asshole Pakis**.

This should also be seen in its larger context.  (Warning:  it’s really hard to read without an extreme RCOB*** occurring.


*Here. here and here are just three examples where I’ve written about this foul nonsense.

**I know very well that the term “Pakis” is offensive.  When it comes to these pedophiles, however, no descriptor is offensive enough.  Fuck ’em.

***Red Curtain Of Blood, which comes over your eyes when discovering massive bastardy and injustice.

No Resistance

When it comes to hatred of corporations, I yield to no man thereof.  Having worked in the festering cesspits of same on more than a couple of occasions, I know how they operate, and the depths of corporate bastardy in which they have no problems swimming.

This is especially loathsome when it comes to rolling over and offering up the corporate belly for the godless government agencies to scratch (and even claw, sometimes).

Small businesses, by comparison, have shown a great deal more spine than their larger brethren.  One has only to recall that gym owner in New Jersey who, when overcoming the totalitarian state government agents and the governor during the Great Covidiocy, ended up giving all of them the finger when the eighty (80!) charges against them were all dismissed with prejudice.

Back when I was running a supermarket chain’s loyalty program, I always made it clear that individuals’ right to privacy was paramount when it came to their shopping data and habits.  On more than one occasion I told divorce lawyers to piss off when they came snooping around, a couple of times facing them down when they threatened me with a subpoena.  (When I shared one of these incidents with the guys who were in my share group, one owner of a small chain said, “Oooh, I wish that some asshole would come after me with a subpoena;  I’d go to jail with the greatest of pleasure, and the positive PR I’d get for the company would be worth millions!”  He was seventy-five years old at the time.)

Of course, the banking industry — to a man, it seems — shows no such defiance when the feds come a-calling:

A new report released by the House Judiciary Committee, in partnership with the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, reveals extensive violations and abuse of the law by the federal government.

Advertisement

According to congressional investigators, the FBI abused the Bank Secrecy Act in order to work with banks to target opponents of the Biden administration and Trump supporters. 

“The information obtained during the Committee and Select Subcommittee’s investigation, and detailed in this report, is concerning. Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens.

“Documents obtained by the Committee and Select Subcommittee demonstrate that federal law enforcement increasingly relies on financial institutions for highly sensitive information about Americans without legal process. Federal law enforcement has effectively deputized financial institutions to advance its investigations and to gain access to the information that financial institutions possess. As financial institutions’ capacity to track and gather data on Americans continues to increase, federal law enforcement will continue to be incentivized to rely on banks for easy access to sensitive information about Americans’ private lives.”

Now I can — sorta — see the point if the purpose is to track down gangster money-launderers or tax evaders (and even then, I’m skeptical in the extreme because nunya).  But that wasn’t the case here:

In a previous investigation done by the Committees, investigators found the FBI was flagging purchases that included “MAGA,” “patriot” and even bibles. As Townhall reported in January 2024: 

Federal law enforcement agencies partnered with a number of financial institutions to flag transactions with the terms “MAGA,” “Trump” and more. They also monitored transactions at stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop. Other purchases linked to religious texts, like Christian bibles, were flagged under the guise of “preventing extremism.”

Further, the FBI has conducted hundreds of thousands of illegal searches without proper warrants in recent years.

I realize that Trump’s DOJ is going to have its hands full for the first couple years of the new Administration.  But I hope they can spare a few moments to track down the bastards who authorized this nonsense, prosecute and imprison them.

Then again, as it was the FBI themselves who indulged in this un-Constitutional larceny, I’m not holding out much hope.

And they wonder why pics like these are so popular…

Head Above Water

Reader Mike L. sent me this rather sad story:

A Colorado sheriff’s deputy resigned this week after officials learned she’d appeared in pornographic videos — a second career she took to “out of desperation” over mounting bills.

Oh no, how could she? OMG she’s supposed to be a role model, etc. etc. etc.

Right:

In part, that came from a June 2023 storm that left her home with $500,000 in hail and water damage that insurance wouldn’t cover; sky-high interest rates that tripled her adjustable-rate mortgage and led to foreclosure; and increasing utility, gas and food costs. She’d drained her savings, borrowed money from her family and cut spending, she told CBS. But the debt collectors kept calling.

You know what?  I cannot find it in me to judge or condemn her.  We’ve all been there, and she’s just lucky she had the errrr proper attributes to generate her alternative income stream.

That said:

Yowzer.

I just hope she can find another “regular” job, although it’s probably unlikely.

This may not end well, but it wasn’t going to end well anyway.  If I were in a position to offer her a job, I would.

Let’s just hope someone else feels that way.

Added Snoopery?

I started reading this article in the DM  more for entertainment value than any other reason:

I do not have a TV license as I only watch Netflix and Amazon. However, I’ve heard I will now need to buy a license. Is this true?

I know, I know:  the premise of the question is puzzling to my Murkin Readers, in that the very concept of a “TV license” is unfamiliar not to say abhorrent.  But leaving that aside for the moment, I found my amusement turning into something else altogether as I started reading the answer:

The general rule is that under UK law you need to have a current TV license if you, or anyone within your house, flat or premises, watches live television on any channel or service, record television programs as they are being broadcast live or watch anything on BBC iPlayer.

So when you tune in to watch ‘on demand’ television, such as Netflix, Amazon and other similar streaming services, no TV license is needed.

This is because here you are not watching ‘live’ programs – i.e. shows that are being broadcast when you watch or record them but, instead, choosing from a catalogue of options.

So far. so good (well no, not at all good, but whatever).  Here’s where I started to feel a familiar itch in the old trigger finger:

What you have heard about relates to Netflix, the US streaming giant which has 17.1 million UK subscribers and has launched a new service where it broadcasts ‘live’ events – for example the former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul boxing match being broadcast on Friday.

This is therefore ‘live’ television, meaning if you watch this, or any other Netflix live event, as it is broadcast, or even if you record it to watch later, you fall squarely into the territory of needing a TV license.

To clarify, you can continue to watch Netflix without a TV license if you chose not to watch the live events.

Which begs  raises the question:  how EXACTLY does the BBC licensing Stasi know whether you’re watching a movie or a live show?

It seems quite a simple deduction that that the answer is twofold:  either Netflix is sharing the viewing choices of the subscribers with the BBC, or the BBC is able somehow to monitor the channel feed, whether terrestrial or wireless.  Either answer is fucking terrible.

I should point out that the only way the BBC can enforce this ridiculous license fee nonsense is because Brits are largely disarmed.  If some Lizenzinspektor  came to the average Texan’s door and started with the strong-arm bullshit, there’d soon be murders.

And just so we know what this is all about:

The standard TV licence now costs £169.50 per year.  If you are required to have a license but fail to buy one, you risk being fined up to £1,000, plus any legal costs and compensation you may be ordered to pay. 

Let’s hear it for the Surveillance Society.