

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Kathleen Hanna (Bikini Kill, Le Tigre), Mannequin Pussy, Gramatik, Sadie Dupuis (Speedy Ortiz, Sad13), Jeff Rosenstock, Evan Greer, Anjimile, illuminati hotties, Martha, DIIV, Anti-Flag, Downtown Boys, and Mirah are among the hundreds of artists voicing their outrage at the recent introduction of Amazon palm scanning biometric surveillance devices at Red Rock through an open letter calling on the venue, its ticketing partner AXS, and AEG Worldwide to immediately cancel all contracts and plans to use Amazon's
Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Kathleen Hanna (Bikini Kill, Le Tigre), Mannequin Pussy, Gramatik, Sadie Dupuis (Speedy Ortiz, Sad13), Jeff Rosenstock, Evan Greer, Anjimile, illuminati hotties, Martha, DIIV, Anti-Flag, Downtown Boys, and Mirah are among the hundreds of artists voicing their outrage at the recent introduction of Amazon palm scanning biometric surveillance devices at Red Rock through an open letter calling on the venue, its ticketing partner AXS, and AEG Worldwide to immediately cancel all contracts and plans to use Amazon's palm scanning technology for event entry. The letter also demands an end to all biometric surveillance at venues and events. 30 leading human rights organizations have joined the list of endorsers, including United We Dream, Kairos, Access Now, Presente.org, American Friends Service Committee, Media Justice and Jobs With Justice.
The Amazon One scanners were introduced at Red Rocks in mid September - the result of a contract between AEG and Amazon. AXS, AEG's ticketing group, says other venues will soon be adding the palm scanning option, following Red Rocks. Fight for the Future contacted representatives of Red Rocks, AEG and AXS to request a meeting to discuss the dangers of palm scanning, but received no response.
The letter and accompanying background text state that Amazon, a corporation with a disturbing history of collaboration with law enforcement, could pass the biometric data collected from the palm scanning devices to government agencies that want to track and target political activists, people of color, and other marginalized groups. The fact that Amazon is storing the palm scan data in the cloud also raises unprecedented identity theft concerns, given that biometric data are largely immutable-they cannot be changed or replaced if stolen-and corporate cloud databases have frequently been targeted by hackers.
In 2019, a coalition of activist groups, artists and music fans (including some of the organizations and artists signed onto the Red Rocks letter) convinced 40 of the largest music festivals in the US to say no to dangerous facial recognition technology. AEG made a separate statement denouncing the use of facial recognition in response to the campaign.
"Thousands visit Red Rocks every month to experience amazing performances, not to be part of some dangerous biometric surveillance experiment. Amazon using the guise of convenience to convince droves of concert-goers to offer up their biometric data is twisted, disturbing, and unacceptable. Simply put, palm scans and other forms of biometric data collection, like facial recognition, are tools of state violence," said Siena Mann, Campaign Manager for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, "To this day, biometrics collection is central to Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) and police departments' surveillance infrastructure. Any commercial use of these tools has and will inevitably feed the discriminatory structures they emerged from. Even in instances of non-cooperation, make no mistake that once the databases are created, police and DHS will find ways to access them."
"I don't want anyone coming to one of my concerts to have to worry that they'll be subjected to invasive surveillance, or coerced into handing over their sensitive biometric information to a corporation," said Evan Greer (she/her), the director of Fight for the Future and a musician who recently released an album titled Spotify is Surveillance, "Music festivals and many concert venues are already unsafe, exclusive, and inaccessible for many marginalized folks, including trans and nonbinary people. Introducing biometric surveillance technology at events, even just for the marginal-at-best 'convenience' of making the line move faster, makes music fans less safe."
"Corporations have tried to make this tech sound harmless, but let's be clear: Amazon has a vested interest in getting millions of people to give up their palm scans. The palm scanning scheme at Red Rocks is simply priming people for the day when submitting iris scans, fingerprint scans, and face scans everywhere becomes totally normalized. With the next-level tracking that biometrics allow, Amazon will be able to exercise more influence over our thoughts and behaviors than ever before, and in turn, rake in unprecedented levels of profits," added Matt Nelson, Executive Director of Presente.org.
"I live 15 minutes from Red Rocks and have enjoyed so many amazing nights listening to live music there," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), Campaign Director at Fight for the Future. "It pains me that this palm scanning technology is being used in such a special place, on people who just want to go and enjoy a live show and likely don't understand the risks of giving over their biometric data - risks like identity theft and having data passed on to abusive law enforcement agencies or marketing companies. We have to stop this technology from spreading before it becomes impossible to avoid, and we expect places like Red Rocks to champion the safety of music lovers over this dangerous and invasive surveillance."
"Amazon is all about gathering and amassing the most intimate information and data from our lives and our bodies, but when it comes to violations and breaches of their devices and the data they've collected, the company has shown it simply does not care about customer safety or customer concerns. That's because Amazon isn't really paying the price for those breaches. We are. We're the ones who have to live the rest of our lives fighting identity theft and managing the fallout of these violations of our privacy. Their relentless push to place profits over people must end," said Isabela Bagueros, Executive Director of The Tor Project.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."