iPhone Dystopia: Age Verification Baked Into IOS 27.2 Using Camera

iPhone Dystopia: Age Verification Baked Into IOS 27.2 Using Camera

Terrence Hill via Tech Times

It’s just one step closer to dystopia as Apple caves to government pressure for age verification. It lets Apple play in major markets around the world: Australia, Brazil, England, and South Korea. But it will also be used in the United States. Facebook uses a selfie to prove age to get a “verified age” badge, but that is an app; Apple baked it into the operating system.

Here are Apple’s claims:

• The selfie “isn’t accessible to anyone, not even Apple.”
• “Once your age is confirmed, your selfie is deleted and isn’t retained in any form.”
• Apple says PCC data is encrypted in transit and deleted afterward.

However, a user’s picture is sent to Apple’s cloud servers to be processed, where the data points remain. The picture is not needed at that point and can be deleted.

Governments can now mandate that Apple turn the feature on regardless of which apps are installed on the phone. Secondarily, governments can mandate that the apps access the feature before granting to access to their services. ⁃ Patrick Wood, Editor.

When Apple released iOS 27.2 on Sunday, it crossed a threshold no major operating system had crossed before: embedding a government-compelled biometric age gate directly into the OS layer itself — not inside an app, not inside a browser, but in the platform that every app runs on top of. 

South Korea is also part of the five-country rollout, but Apple’s selfie-based facial scan is not available there — South Korean users face annual carrier-verified identity checks instead. Adults who fail or decline the facial scan do not get a different app or a competing service; they get a permanently restricted device — or they get a different phone.

That architectural choice — OS-level rather than app-level — is the fact that makes iOS 27.2’s biometric gate different from every prior age-verification rollout in the industry, and it is the fact Apple’s public documentation downplays. Once this plumbing is baked into the operating system, every future government mandate that wants to require it will find Apple’s infrastructure already installed. That is not a side effect. It is the point.

Apple’s own support documentation describes the process as a liveness check more than an identity interrogation. Users are instructed to perform a deliberate four-angle head rotation — right, left, up, down — capturing their face from multiple perspectives. Apple advises removing anything that might obscure a result: masks, hats, sunglasses. The company calls the underlying technology an “age-estimation model,” not a facial recognition or identity-matching system, which is a meaningful distinction: estimation predicts a probabilistic age range from facial geometry rather than matching the face to a database record.

Apple promises the selfie “isn’t accessible to anyone, not even Apple,” and that “once your age is confirmed, your selfie is deleted and isn’t retained in any form” per its selfie verification support page. Users who are not cleared as adults are directed to try again with a fresh selfie, or to use an alternative: a credit card on file, Apple ID account-history signals, or a government-issued ID scan.

What distinguishes Apple’s implementation is architectural: not inside a single app or website, but embedded in the operating system itself. A user who dislikes Meta’s video selfie requirement can stop using Facebook. A user who dislikes Apple’s iOS 27.2 age scan cannot stop using the App Store without giving up iOS. The failure mode at this level is not correctable by switching apps; it is correctable only by switching platforms.

More...

What Happens Next In Israel? Four Paths Out Of The Election Deadlock

What Happens Next In Israel? Four Paths Out Of The Election Deadlock

 PNW STAFF

Israel’s voters have delivered a result that neither side can easily call a victory. With most ballots counted, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is projected to hold about 53 seats, the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot about 48, and Arab-led parties 19. A majority requires 61 seats. The final count could shift the numbers, but the central problem is already clear: no side has an obvious path to govern.

Now the campaign gives way to bargaining. Netanyahu has called for a right-wing government. Eisenkot says the public voted for change. Yet each potential coalition carries a price that could fracture the very bloc trying to build it. Four scenarios are emerging—and none promises a quick or easy resolution.

1. Netanyahu Finds Defectors Or A Way To Assemble A Majority

Netanyahu’s most direct route would be to bring enough lawmakers from outside his bloc into the coalition, or persuade them to support a government from the sidelines. With his bloc projected at 53 seats, he needs eight more for a majority.

That is a steep climb. Members of the opposition entered the election promising a change of government, and defecting to rescue Netanyahu would expose them to a furious response from their voters. Still, Israeli politics is built on negotiation, and a lawmaker’s calculations can change when the alternative is another election—or when a specific deal offers a way to address urgent national concerns.

Netanyahu could also seek support through narrower agreements rather than a full coalition partnership. A party might back a government on confidence votes or key legislation without joining the cabinet. But such an arrangement would leave the government vulnerable whenever the parties disagree. A narrow majority assembled through personal defections or conditional support could be born with a short fuse.

This outcome would let Netanyahu argue that he had turned his bloc’s lead into a governing mandate. But the arithmetic would make clear that his government depended on more than the voters who backed his existing partners. The question would be whether those partners could tolerate compromises needed to keep it alive.

2. An Opposition Government Turns To Arab Parties

The opposition bloc and the Arab-led parties together have enough seats, on the preliminary count, to cross the 61-seat threshold. That makes them the most obvious alternative source of votes—and the most politically explosive one.

Some opposition figures have already urged their bloc to work with Arab parties. But cooperation is not a simple matter of adding seats. The opposition includes parties with sharply different views on security, the Palestinians, the judiciary and the future direction of the country. Several have rejected relying on Arab parties, while Arab leaders would seek influence over policy in return for their support.

The arrangement could take more than one form. Arab parties might join a coalition, support it from outside, or agree to back a government on selected votes. Each option would bring its own disputes over what that support means and what the government would be expected to deliver.

Such a government could remove Netanyahu from power, but it would begin under pressure to prove that it can govern across deep divisions. Its opponents would present it as a government dependent on parties they regard as hostile to Israel’s national interests. Its supporters would argue that Arab citizens voted in record numbers and deserve a voice in the country’s political decisions. Those arguments would not disappear on the day a coalition is sworn in; they would become part of the coalition’s daily survival test.

Iran Could Turn Coalition Talks Into A Security Test

There is another urgent question hanging over these negotiations: what happens if the fighting with Iran resumes? U.S. officials have reportedly warned regional allies to prepare for possible renewed military action after the American midterm elections. Nothing is settled, and diplomatic efforts are still underway, but the possibility is serious enough that Israel’s next government may have to confront a major security crisis almost as soon as it takes office.

That prospect could strengthen the argument for a unity government. If Israel faces another round of conflict, leaders may be pressed to show a united front at home as well as resolve abroad. But unity cannot be produced by simply calling for it. The parties would still have to settle who leads, what policies change, and whether they can cooperate when the country’s security is at stake. The Iran question may not end Israel’s political divisions, but it could make the cost of leaving them unresolved far more immediate.

More...

A 90-Day Doomsday Plan? The Pentagon Prepares For Fortress America

A 90-Day Doomsday Plan? The Pentagon Prepares For Fortress America

PNW STAFF

For months, we have been reporting on Europe’s preparations for emergency scenarios, including the possibility of military conflict and disruptions to essential services. Now the Pentagon has unveiled its own effort to prepare America for a crisis that could knock out power, cripple supply chains and threaten military operations on U.S. soil.

The plan is called FORTRESS America. Much of it sounds like prudent preparation: keep bases supplied, secure backup power and make sure factories can produce what the military needs. But the scale raises a harder question. Why is the Pentagon planning for American military installations to survive for 90 days without outside support? Is this simply responsible planning—or a sign that military leaders see a level of danger the public has not fully grasped?

According to documents reviewed by Fox News, major military bases in the continental United States would be expected to maintain essential operations for at least 90 days without relying on civilian infrastructure. That means having dependable access to electricity, water, fuel and communications even if the systems around them fail.

The Pentagon’s concern is that a major conflict could reach beyond distant battlefields. A power grid could be attacked or sabotaged. Communications could be disrupted. Transportation and supply networks could seize up. Bases that depend on the same civilian systems as nearby communities could find themselves unable to operate when the military needs them most.

“We don’t want to rely on standard civilian municipal infrastructure to run our national defense,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Fox News. “We just simply can’t. It’s an intolerable risk.”

That is more than a backup generator. FORTRESS America envisions independent power systems, large batteries and potentially portable nuclear reactors. The plan also calls for stronger supply chains and stockpiles of items such as ammunition, fuel, spare parts, electronics and medical supplies.

The Pentagon is also looking beyond its own facilities. Through the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network, commercial factories could be identified and prepared to shift to defense production during a crisis. The idea is to work out the contracts, technical requirements and conversion procedures before a conflict begins—not while the country is already struggling to keep production moving.

The Russia–Ukraine war has shown how vulnerable essential infrastructure can be to repeated drone and missile attacks. Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy system have caused widespread power outages, while Ukrainian drones have hit Russian refineries and other energy sites, at times disrupting operations.

Drones are not impossible to stop, but defending every vulnerable site against repeated attacks is a difficult task. Even when many are intercepted, a large wave can stretch defenses and force a country to protect power facilities, fuel supplies and industrial sites across a wide area. The lesson for military planners is stark: a nation’s ability to keep operating can be targeted without an invading army crossing its borders.

More...

European Leaders Determined to Create WWIII

European Leaders Determined to Create WWIII

MARTIN ARMSTRONG

Europe will NEVER avoid war until it starts impeaching Kaja Kallas who was not directly elected by the public to the EU position she uses to oppose any peace deal. However, this is standard procedure for this role for the EU was established to actually prevent the people from having any say in the future of Europe. She claims only more sanctions will end the war when there is no evidence that sanctions have ever worked on anyone even once. She wants world war for her personal vendetta like Victoria Nuland et el.

Kaja Kallas was nominated by the European Council to become the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This nomination was made in June 2024 by the leaders of the EU member states. Following this nomination, her appointment was formalized through a European Council Decision on July 24, 2024. 

She was NOT elected to this position yet call Putin a Dictator and not Zelensky or herself!!!!! The High Representative is not a directly elected position; instead, the role is appointed by the European Council (with the agreement of the Commission President), which is the standard constitutional process for this office.

Here we have the PM of Britain putting out absolute lies. These politicians REFUSE to admit that people are rising up because of their policies that let in all the migrants who have been tearing Europe apart. Now this fraud Burnham is ensuring the complete destruction of the the United Kingdom outright lying that BRXIT would not have happened except for Russian interference and now they are claiming AfD in Germany is funded by Russia. These Socialist Marxist lovers REFUSE to admit that they have been wrong and they are spinning this as Russian interference as if the people would agree with their failed policies.

There can NEVER be peace as long as these types of people weasel their way into power and NEVER stand for election. They impose their agenda, usurp the foreign policy, all to carry out their personal hatreds and agenda with no regard for society or the people they pretend to represent. Kallas, I have warned in meetings, will do everything in her power to prevent peace. This is a personal vendetta against Russia and her hatred of the Russian people for the actions of Stalin. She has no problem with forgiving Germans for Hitler some argue because there are documented connections to controversial historical figures in her family tree regarding Nazis. The allegation has long been that she is OK with Germany for she would have to denounce her paternal great-grandfather, Eduard Alver.

Kaja Kallas has repeatedly and publicly stated that her family was persecuted by Russia (specifically the Soviet regime). She frequently cites her family’s deportation to Siberia as a direct and personal example of Russian repression. Destroying the Russian people is always her constant agenda, which is why she gets along with Zelensky, a Neo-Nazi. Perhaps she wants to beat Stalin’s record of killing 20 million Russians.

Here is their group of heros and they will NEVER admit for one second that their hatred of the rich and Russians is undermining Europe and as they start World War III all to prevent the EU from collapsing in this effort to retain power, all I can say is God help Europe. We will be looking at the timing at the next World Economic Conference.

For Europe to avoid war, they need political reform just as America has to clean house of its Neocons.

Ahead of another Iran strike? Report: CENTCOM chief briefs Trump at the White House

Ahead of another Iran strike? Report: CENTCOM chief briefs Trump at the White House

Elad Benari

US Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Admiral Brad Cooper met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday to discuss military options involving Iran, as Washington considers resuming major combat operations against the Islamic Republic, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The meeting, described as an unusual in-person briefing by the top American commander in the Middle East, was attended by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, according to US officials and other individuals familiar with the discussions.

Additional Cabinet members participated in the meeting, which also addressed other matters, including the continuing American blockade of Iran.

The high-level discussions followed a separate meeting Wednesday at the White House involving Cooper, other senior military officials, and Vice President JD Vance.

Cooper rarely briefs Trump in person, raising the possibility that the administration is moving closer to authorizing significant military action.

The admiral previously met with Trump in July, when he joined Hegseth and Caine for discussions aboard Air Force One in Delaware.

Neither the Pentagon nor CENTCOM responded substantively to the report, with spokespersons for both declining to comment.

Thursday's meeting comes amid growing indications that the United States is preparing for another potential confrontation with Iran following the November 3 midterm elections.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Washington had warned several Gulf Arab countries to prepare for a possible short but intensive American military campaign against Iran after the elections.

The report also indicated that the US military was strengthening regional air defenses and relocating personnel from bases considered vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

Trump, who has been campaigning for Republican candidates ahead of the midterms, has repeatedly declined to confirm whether he intends to order additional strikes.

Despite the military preparations, the administration has continued exploring diplomatic possibilities.

The Wall Street Journal previously reported Wednesday that Vance had established contactwith Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and a former longtime commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

According to the report, Vance sent Rezaei a letter intended to explore the possibility of restarting negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

One person familiar with the outreach said the communication had been initiated at Trump's direction and that the President was aware of the effort.