Your Biometrics Are Their Biometrics
📰 THE STORY: Mainstream media reports highlight The Intercept’s coverage of an FBI raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home, where agents demanded she unlock her phone, citing concerns about biometrics. The narrative focuses on the technical vulnerability of facial recognition and fingerprint locks, advising users to switch to passcodes to protect their privacy from state
overreach. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This 'raid' isn't an isolated incident. The US government's surveillance capabilities expanded exponentially post-9/11 with the PATRIOT Act (2001), granting broad powers for data collection. This is a direct lineage from COINTELPRO (1956-1971), where the FBI actively surveilled and destabilized civil rights and protest movements,
showcasing a long history of state suppression of dissent. Double Standard: While Western media sensationalizes such incidents when they involve journalists in 'democratic' nations, their silence is deafening when similar or far worse privacy invasions occur in the Global South. When nations like China or Iran are accused of digital surveillance, it's framed as 'authoritarian repression.' When the
US national security apparatus does it, it's a 'frightening reminder' or 'unfortunate necessity,' rarely leading to systemic critique or international condemnation. We certainly don't see urgent calls for UN resolutions against US digital spying on its own citizens or journalists. Follow the Money: The legal framework enabling this kind of state action is often buttressed by a revolving door