The UK’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), has fined Reddit £14.47 million for unlawfully processing children’s personal data. 

The penalty, covering a period from May 2018 to July 2025, stems from Reddit’s failure to implement effective age assurance mechanisms; Reddit instead relied on self-declaration, which the ICO deemed insufficient.

On Tuesday, the ICO announced it had fined Reddit, an American social news aggregation website and discussion portal, £14.47 (US$19.56) million for “serious failures in age assurance under UK data protection law” and so using “children’s personal information unlawfully.” 

In short, the fine was for failing to implement age verification on its platform as dictated by the UK’s Online Safety Act.  Or as Infowars put it, “Because Reddit let users self-declare their age at signup, a method the ICO called trivially easy for children to bypass, the regulator concluded Reddit ‘did not have a lawful basis for processing the personal information of children under the age of 13’. Children’s data was used ‘in ways they could not understand, consent to or control’.”

“The UK’s data protection regulator says it’s protecting children. What it’s actually building is a mandatory identity verification system that turns anonymous internet use into a surveillance exercise for every adult in the country,” Infowars said. 

Reddit’s self-declaration uses selfie-based age estimation or government ID upload, processed through the Peter Thiel-backed identity verification company Persona.

Related:  The master architect behind the technocratic takeover of the Trump Administration is Peter Thiel

Security researchers have recently found that Persona performs 269 distinct verification checks per user, facial recognition screening against watchlists, risk and similarity scores generated for each person, internet and government database searches for potential matches, financial data checks and multiple forms of biometric analysis on submitted selfies.

“To use Reddit without restrictions in the UK, you now submit your face or your government credentials to a third-party surveillance system. The ICO calls this progress. It looks more like an identity profiling operation that happens to include an age check,” Infowars noted.

Persona’s privacy policy indicates that they extend surveillance and profiling of users even further – and since users of Reddit will be unaware that Persona is being used, Reddit users are unknowingly submitting to Persona’s “privacy policy.” 

“[Persona’s privacy policy] says it may collect identifiers, device information and geolocation data from third parties, including data brokers, marketing partners and ‘publicly available sources…such as open government databases’,”  Infowars highlighted.

Adding, “Reddit says it doesn’t see photos submitted to Persona and only receives a user’s verification status and provided birthdate. What Persona builds from everything else is outside Reddit’s control and, apparently, outside the ICO’s concern.”

The fine is the largest ever issued by the ICO for breaches of children’s “privacy.” The decision considered the number of affected children, the potential harm, the duration of the failings and Reddit’s global turnover. Reddit has announced it intends to appeal the ruling.

The Register asked Reddit to comment.  A spokesperson said: “Reddit doesn’t require users to share information about their identities, regardless of age, because we are deeply committed to their privacy and safety. The ICO’s insistence that we collect more private information on every UK user is counterintuitive and at odds with our strong belief in our users’ online privacy and safety. We intend to appeal the ICO’s decision.”

The appeal is worth watching because Reddit has identified something the ICO has not answered: how does forcing mass biometric data collection protect privacy?

In its announcement of the fine, the ICO said it “is keeping Reddit’s processing of children’s personal information under review as part of ongoing work focusing on online platforms that primarily rely on self-declaration – an area of focus for the ICO.” And, “[the ICO] will continue to work closely with Ofcom, which has responsibility for enforcing the Online Safety Act, to ensure the efforts are coordinated.”

Reddit is not the only platform being “reviewed” for breaches of children’s “privacy.”  The ICO is investigating the age-assurance practices of at least 17 platforms “popular with children in the UK,” including Discord, Pinterest, and X. The diagram below, published by the ICO, illustrates the pervasiveness of the UK government’s attempt to control online discourse worldwide in the name of “children’s safety.”

Source: https://theexposenews.com/2026/02/26/ico-fines-reddit-over-14-million/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post ICO fines Reddit over £14 million for not implementing the UK’s age verification rules appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

• Two Sydneysiders challenged fines for Covid Public Health Order breaches
• Case was run by Redfern Legal Centre in New South Wales Supreme Court
• Thousands more such fines across NSW could now be found to be invalid
• There were 45,000 unpaid Covid fines worth millions of dollars as of July 

Thousands of Covid-19 fines worth millions of dollars could be ruled invalid after two Sydneysiders won a landmark test case in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

The man and woman claimed their infringement notices were issued in such vague terms they could not be legally enforced and would be difficult, if not impossible, to challenge in front of a magistrate.

On Tuesday morning, barrister David Kell SC for the Commissioner of Police told the Supreme Court the pair’s Covid penalty notices would no longer be enforced.

‘These two notices do not sufficiently state or describe the offences in general terms,’ Mr Kell said.

The two claimants, Brenden Beame and Teal Els, will have their fines refunded. A fine issued to a third claimant, Rohan Pank, had already been repaid.

The ruling could set a precedent that sees many of more than 45,000 unpaid penalty notices for Covid-related public health order breaches in NSW withdrawn.

Thousands of Covid-19 fines worth millions of dollars could be ruled invalid after a test case in the NSW Supreme Court was successful. A couple are questioned by police  at Sydney’s Bondi Beach on August 1 last year.

A man and woman claimed their Covid infringement notices were issued in such vague terms they could not be enforced and would be difficult, if not impossible, to legally challenge. Bondi residents are pictured out exercising in September last year surrounded by police officers

Kate Richardson SC, for the claimants, said there were 32,648 fines – totalling almost $33million – issued for the same reason as that given to Mr Beame so ‘in all likelihood’ they too would be declared legally invalid if challenged.

She has asked Justice Dina Yehia to publish detailed reasons for the fines being declared invalid to make it ‘absolutely plain’ why they were withdrawn.

‘This is a case that has ramifications beyond Ms Els and Mr Beame,’ Ms Richardson said.

Ms Els was fined $3,000 for unlawfully participating in an outdoor public gathering.

A class action in NSW could now go ahead and similar law suits would likely be pursued in other states. There were 19,000 fines handed out in Victoria for breaches of Covid lockdown laws, and tens of thousands across the rest of Australia.

Redfern Legal Centre ran the case against the NSW Police Commissioner and Commissioner of Fines Administration on behalf of Mr Beame and Ms Els.

Mr Pank had his $1,000 fine withdrawn in July after the administrative law court action was launched.

When the matter was before in court in July it was heard if the claims succeeded fines worth millions of dollars issued across NSW could be invalidated.

Between March 2020 and July this year there were 62,029 Covid fines issued totalling $56,499,080. As of May, 47,560 fines totalling $42,269,700 remained unpaid.

Most of the penalty notices were issued at the height of Sydney’s lockdown in August and September last year.

Thousands of those people who were fined requested a review and as of July this year Revenue NSW had withdrawn 12.6 per cent of penalty notices.

Police went to the extent of driving through Rushcutters Bay Park in Sydney’s east in March last year as they sought to fine locals for breaching Covid restrictions. A legal challenge to Covid fines could set a precedent that sees many of more than 45,000 such unpaid fines for public health order breaches in New South Wales withdrawn

Mr Pank was fined for sitting on a hill in a park with his girlfriend in August 2021 when they were approached by four police officers while Sydney was in lockdown.

He was within 1km of his home and was told by police he and his girlfriend had breached a public health order by not actively exercising.

At the time, interpretations of public health orders were constantly changing and there was confusion about the meaning of terms such as ‘exercise or recreation’.

NSW Health declared ‘sitting for relaxation’ was considered to be outdoor recreation in the days after Mr Pank was fined.

He had sought two reviews of his infringement notice but Revenue NSW rejected each one, according to Redfern Legal Centre.

Between March 2020 and July 2022 there were 62,029 Covid fines issued totalling $56,499,080. As of May, 47,560 fines totalling $42,269,700 remained unpaid

The agency first stated Mr Pank had been told by police he should not be away from his home without a reasonable excuse.

Next, it claimed Mr Pank breached a public health order by crossing into the City of Sydney from the Inner West local government area where he resided.

When Mr Pank had been sitting in the park, outdoor recreation was permitted within 10km of a person’s home with no requirement they stay within their council boundary.

Samantha Lee, senior police accountability solicitor at the Redfern Legal Centre, said public health orders changed 71 times between July and September last year – sometimes twice in one day.

‘Everyone was just confused,’ she said. ‘What we have seen was this pattern of people being fined not according to law.

‘Public health orders were not being applied correctly by police. What we found was that even Revenue NSW was applying the law wrongly or not applying the law at all.’

Most of the penalty notices were issued at the height of Sydney’s lockdown in August and September and Revenue NSW is now seeking they be enforced. Beachgoers not swimming or not exercising were at one time required to wear a mask

Ms Lee said fines were generally issued to people engaged in recreation or exercise and for not observing distance rules but some were for pursuing activities as basic as grocery shopping.

‘In most cases people weren’t flouting the laws,’ she said. ‘The laws were being applied wrongly.’

‘The crux of our mater is that these Covid fines are not fines because they don’t satisfy the legislative requirement under the Fines Act.’

Thousands of those people who were fined requested a revue and Revenue NSW has withdrawn 12.6 per cent of penalty notices. Stock image

There were hundreds of clauses included in ten public health orders but which of them had allegedly been breached was not specified in the fines.

For instance, Mr Pank’s supposed infringement was covered by Section 7, 8 and 9 of the orders.

Ms Lee said Covid fines were applied with a strict liability, such as with parking in a no stopping zone, where no intent had to be proved.

‘These fines required a lot of discretion by police to decide if someone had an excuse or not,’ she said.

‘We found that the review system and the police system was not providing justice to people on the ground and in fact was getting it all wrong.’

Ms Lee said the Covid infringement notices did not actually stipulate what someone had allegedly done wrong.

‘It doesn’t tell you what crime you’ve committed,’ she said. ‘For example, with the gathering fine it just says that you’ve gathered.

‘It doesn’t say what you’ve breached, which then made it impossible to try and appeal it because you don’t know what the police need to prove and then take it to court.

‘We are of the view that’s probably why there were so many issued – they were so easy to issue because they were so vague.’

There were hundreds of clauses under ten public health orders but which of them had allegedly been breached was not specified in the fines. A couple of beachgoers are questioned by a police officer in August last year.

A disproportionate number of fines was issued to residents in low socioeconomic areas during the height of lockdowns.

‘The problem with fines is they’re not means tested and therefore punish people more for the same offence if they’re on a lower income,’ Ms Lee said.

Between July 2020 and October last year there were 1,536 fines totalling $1,366,380 issued to Mount Druitt residents and 1,291 worth $1,157,680 at Liverpool – both in Sydney’s west – compared with just 25 ($24,000) at beachside Waverley.

Ms Lee said there were more police patrolling the areas where the most fines were issued and more restrictive orders in place in some of those suburbs.

‘Those people were out and about more because they had to get to work,’ she said. ‘A lot of them couldn’t work from home.’

A letter Revenue NSW sent to Mr Pank on July 15 did not properly explain why his fine had been withdrawn after it had been reviewed for the third time.

Between July 2020 and October last year there were 1,536 fines totalling $1,366,380 issued to Mount Druitt residents and 1,291 worth $1,157,680 at Liverpool compared with 25 ($24,000) at Waverley. Stock image

‘We re-examined your request of Fine 4066740792 for ‘Fail to comply with noticed direction in relation to section 7/8/9 – COVID-19 – Individual’ on 07 August 2021,’ the agency wrote.

‘Outcome of our review: We re-examined the fine using our Review Guidelines and after further consideration, we have decided to cancel the fine.’

Ms Lee said she did not think it was a coincidence that Mr Pank’s fine was withdrawn after his court papers were filed.

‘Mr Pank’s fine should have been withdrawn on the first review and it should never have been issued. Police got it wrong and then Revenue got it wrong.’

Ms Lee encouraged anyone who had been penalised for similar reasons to come forward to seek legal advice and a review of their fine.

Source Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479153/Redfern-Legal-Centre-WIN-Covid-fines-Supreme-Court-case-45-000-penalties-struck-down.html

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Bombshell as two Aussies WIN their Supreme Court case over Covid fines – and it means as many as 45,000 penalties could be struck down appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In a blatant attack on those who prefer living as self-sufficiently as possible, citizens of Montreal have been ordered to first register their wood-burning stoves, and then ultimately get rid of them within three years, unless they meet rigid air quality standards.

The deadline to register wood-burning stoves and fireplaces in Montreal was December 22, 2015, and the new emissions regulations will be implemented in 2018. Those who refuse to comply will be subject to fines, and those who are willing to adjust will be forced to pay for expensive modifications to their wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.

From the National Post.com:

“Starting in 2018, wood-burning appliances will be banned unless they meet the rigorous new emission standards of 2.5 grams of fine particles or less per hour. The bylaw is among the strictest in North America, said Real Menard, the city’s executive committee responsible for the environment. Presently, transforming a stove or fireplace with inserts so that it is in compliance with the coming regulations costs between $2,000 and $8,000.”

Many outraged Montreal citizens have left comments on news articles and social media platforms regarding the new regulations, voicing the fact that they see the new standards for exactly what they are: an attempt to demonize those who prefer to avoid dependence on the grid for their heating and cooking needs.

One such comment on the National Post story was submitted by a man named Tristan Verboven, who hit the proverbial nail on the head:

“After thousands of years relying on fire as a source of heat, suddenly humans have discovered fire is so dangerous that we must use the power provided by a government monopoly instead. Yet somehow vehicle and industrial emissions are not worth eliminating. Thats [sic] would be way more complicated than inspecting people’s private homes to enforce a law everyone knows is a racket.”

Wood-burning stove bans already common in the U.S.

These types of bans are already becoming commonplace in the United States. And although the U.S. bans are not directly issued by the EPA, the agency has issued stricter emissions guidelines that make compliance with local wood-burning restrictions nearly impossible to meet without either expensive modifications or investment in expensive new EPA-approved stoves and fireplaces.

From CFACT.org:

“It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80% of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.”

The argument in favor of wood-burning stoves

Not only are traditional wood-burning stoves and fireplaces a time-honored American tradition, but there are also compelling arguments in favor of their use.

One of the most eloquent and reasonable defenses of wood-burning appliances comes from the WoodHeat.org website, in an article entitled The Argument In Favor Of Wood Heating. It’s a lengthy read, but it offers a detailed analysis of the benefits of wood heating.

An excerpt:

“Judged by coverage in policy discussions about our energy future, wood heating is virtually nonexistent. Most politicians don’t debate its merits or plan for its strategic use. …

“The one thing that almost no governments do is encourage householders to heat with wood. Fuelwood is the only renewable energy resource that most governments don’t seem comfortable with.”

In other words, even though wood is a renewable resource that could reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, it is being systematically outlawed by the authorities.

The only logical reason for this is that governments do not want to encourage self-sufficiency; they would rather keep us completely dependent on them and the energy companies they represent for all of our needs.

Wood burning bans are just another method that the Agenda 21-promoting authorities use to keep us helpless and under their strict control, while generating enormous profits for energy providers.

Sources:

OffTheGridNews.com

News.NationalPost.com

CFact.org

WoodHeat.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052752_wood-burning_stoves_Agenda_21_Canadian_government.html#ixzz3ySApivJm

The post Canadian government orders residents to get rid of their old wood-burning stoves or pay thousands of dollars in fines appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.