Speech-recognition devices that keep recordings of what people say — even if only some of the time — threaten constitutional rights.

An ethically designed speech recognition device will not save any voice recordings (or transcripts) of actual use, except when the user explicitly commands that it save one. Training the device to understand particular people's voices better should be something that users explicitly request.

I am looking for people to help install new political notes on the site. If you'd like to help me in this way, please write to rms at gnu period org.

Roughly 10,000 people die in London each year from air pollution, much of it from diesel engines.

The UK government attacks everyone's freedom, supposedly to reduce the already tiny danger of terrorism. But terrorists would find it exceedingly hard to kill even 1% as many people as the diesels do.

Britons should demand that the government end to massive surveillance and focus on the greater danger of cars. But this lesson is not limited to Britain.

How many thousands do diesels kill every year in France? I don't know, but it must be thousands. So why have a "state of emergency" that tramples human rights supposedly to protect against the secondary danger of terrorists, instead of against car companies?

SCROTUS have expanded their power to harass and intimidate Americans by giving congressional staff the power to interrogate people under oath.

Congressional investigations have a legitimate function, but Republicans are not interested in pursuing real abuses. Their goal is to crush despised climate defenders and abortion providers, by hook or by crook.

SCROTUS want to eliminate or neutralize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, because it does a good job of protecting people from banks that would cheat them.