Latest news with #DhruvMehrotra
Daily Mail
26-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Who WAS Jeffrey Epstein's mate in Sydney? Blockbuster new phone data reveals shocking Australian link to vile paedophile's island hideaway
A mysterious new Australian link to Jeffrey Epstein has been exposed in a massive data leak that has revealed the movements of hundreds of visitors to the sex trafficker's island. Analyst Dhruv Mehrotra claims to have laid bare their trips to and from Epstein's Caribbean seedy resort on Little Saint James, in the United States Virgin Islands. Hidden data leaking from the mobile phones of more than 200 super-rich guests has revealed precise details of their movements - and where they originated from. A huge cache of metadata contained in a dark web database, which had specifically targeted the island, allowed him to pinpoint exact home addresses and workplaces. In among a string of addresses linked to wealthy areas of the US, Europe and the Middle East, was metadata from mystery locations within Sydney. The exact addresses have not yet been revealed, nor the identity of the phones' owner or owners. But the revelation of the claims have sparked fresh speculation over who in Australia had such close ties to the convicted paedophile's dark inner circle. Epstein died by suicide in a New York prison in 2019 after being charged with federal sex trafficking offences. He was accused of grooming young and underage women to be sexually abused by his powerful and wealthy contacts who remain shielded from public exposure. Epstein was a registered sex offender in Florida after pleading guilty to two felony prostitution-related charges in 2008. The White House has recently come under increasing pressure to release the full contents of the Epstein files, which allegedly name many well-known accomplices. In October last year, Mr Mehrotra, a journalist for tech site Wired, said he had uncovered mobile phone data from devices belonging to those jetting into the island. 'The data was so precise, we were able to map the paths of these visitors to within centimetres, including their neighbourhoods, buildings of origin and the paths they took to get to the island,' he said in a YouTube video outlining his analysis. 'These digital trails document the numerous trips of wealthy and influential individuals, seemingly undeterred by Epstein's status as a convicted sex offender.' Epstein purchased Little Saint James in 1998 for $7.95million and made the island his primary residence. An interactive map shows how Mehrotra plotted 11,279 coordinates from the exposed metadata, represented as red dots on the screen Ghislaine Maxwell (pictured with Epstein), former British socialite and Epstein's accomplice, was convicted in 2021 on five counts including sexual trafficking of children by force 'They were left exposed online by a location data broker with ties to the Defence Department, called Near Intelligence, between 2016 and Epstein's final arrest in 2019,' he said. 'Near collected data on more than 200 cell phones that visited the island. 'We don't know why they did that or which client or prospective client of Near decided to query the data in this way to produce the maps.' The firm, which had offices in Singapore and India, sourced its location data from advertising exchanges. Before a targeted advertisement appears on an app or phone, information about the owner is sent to bidding platforms and ad exchanges and often includes users' location data. The painstaking and detailed metadata reveals where visitors to Epstein Island spent most of their time, including the main house, beach and pool area, and when. But the information tracking on their phones wasn't limited to Little Saint James and the surveillance continued after the visitors left to return home or to their work. 'A lot of people were visiting the island, even after Epstein had pleaded guilty in 2008, and served jail time for procuring a minor for prostitution,' said Mehrotra. Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire, tracked to a million-dollar home by federal agents using location data pulled from her mobile phone 'If we keep following the data trail and we widen our view, we'll see that the tracking of visitors continues once they have left the island, and presumably gone back home.' The Near Intelligence data pinpoints 166 locations throughout the United States, in 80 cities across 26 states. Topping the list were Florida, Texas, Michigan and New York and even included details of holiday homes. 'The data points are labelled as 'Common Evening Locations,' or 'Common Daytime Locations', typically, their home or work,' he said. Mehrotra zoomed out the map to reveal Australia had been picked up in the tracking, with specific points identified in Sydney. He noted that some of these points could also represent victims or employees who worked on the island. However, many of the coordinates captured by Near point to multimillion-dollar homes, in upmarket areas like Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. Ghislaine Maxwell, former British socialite and an Epstein accomplice, was convicted in 2021 on five counts including sexual trafficking of children by force. Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire, tracked to a million-dollar home by federal agents using location data pulled from her mobile phone.
WIRED
21-07-2025
- Entertainment
- WIRED
How WIRED Analyzed the Epstein Video
Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Photograph:All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links. the DOJ recently released what they described as raw footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein's death in 2019. When WIRED's Dhruv Mehrotra went through the metadata, he found that it had been, in fact, modified. In today's episode, we dive into what Dhruv found and what it means. Mentioned in this episode: The FBI's Jeffrey Epstein Prison Video Had Nearly 3 Minutes Cut Out by Dhruv Mehrotra Metadata Shows the FBI's 'Raw' Jeffrey Epstein Prison Video Was Likely Modified by Dhruv Mehrotra You can follow Michael Calore on Bluesky at @snackfight, Lauren Goode on Bluesky at @laurengoode, and Katie Drummond on Bluesky at @katie-drummond. Write to us at uncannyvalley@ How to Listen You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how: If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for 'uncanny valley.' We're on Spotify too. Transcript Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors. Michael Calore: Hey everyone, this is Mike. Before we start, I want to take the chance to remind you that we want to hear from you. Do you have a question around AI, politics or privacy that has been on your mind, or just a topic that you wish we talked about on the show? If so, you can write to us at uncannyvalley@ And if you listen to and enjoy our episodes, please rate the show and leave a review on your podcast app of choice. It really helps other people find us. How is everybody doing this week? Katie Drummond: I'm doing well. I am recovering from a vacation. I went to Detroit, Michigan with my family. If you haven't spent time in Detroit, I highly recommend it as a vacation destination, which may surprise you, depending on what kinds of vacations you like to take. But if you like to spend time in interesting cities with great food, you could spend some time in Detroit, it was awesome. So, I'm good. You come back from vacation and you're like, you hate everything, and so I'm there, but I'll get out of it. I'll be fine. Lauren Goode: Is it the purpose of a vacation though, to give you a little bit of relaxation and perspective so that you don't hate everything? Katie Drummond: That's not the kind of vacation I take, Lauren. And- Lauren Goode: Okay. We need to get you to a spa. Michael Calore: So, Detroit's famous for its pizza, for its square pizza. How does it rate? Lauren Goode: And its cars. Michael Calore: Yeah, and its cars, but really, we're more concerned about pizza. Katie Drummond: Car, great, great roads. We had pizza twice. We had Detroit style pizza night one. I mean, it's delicious. I find it very heavy. I like to power consume pizza, so I'm like 3, 4, 5 pieces of pizza. You can't do that with this pizza. You know what I mean? Michael Calore: Yes. Katie Drummond: So I find that to be kind of a bummer, but it's good, it's just very heavy. Lauren Goode: Katie, I have a very important question for you. Katie Drummond: Okay. Lauren Goode: Do you eat your pizza with a fork? Katie Drummond: No. Lauren Goode: Thank God, okay. Katie Drummond: Do you? Lauren Goode: We have shaken it out. We can keep going. Katie Drummond: Definitely not. Lauren Goode: Okay. No. Katie Drummond: No chance. Lauren Goode: No. Katie Drummond: No, no chance. Lauren Goode: As John Stewart once said, "You fold it and you eat it." Katie Drummond: Yes. Dhruv Mehrotra: I generally fold mine into a small sphere and I just take the whole thing and put it right in my mouth. Lauren Goode: I like that. Who is that voice who just joined us on this podcast? Dhruv Mehrotra: It's me, it's Dhruv. Lauren Goode: It's our resident conspiracy theorist. Michael Calore: This is WIRED's Uncanny Valley , a show about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley. Today, the Jeffrey Epstein prison tapes. Likely, you have heard that the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has released nearly 11 hours of footage from a camera outside Epstein's prison cell. The tape was from the night before he was found dead in his cell in 2019. When it was made public, we here at WIRED immediately analyzed the footage and found that it had been modified, and that nearly three minutes seemed to have been cut from the feed. WIRED's Dhruv Mehrotra and independent video forensic experts went through the footage's metadata and found that it was likely modified using Adobe video editing software. This news has led to a deluge of speculation across the internet about what the edits to the footage mean, if anything. We'll dive into what this means and why the Epstein case has proven to be a surprising fracturing point for Trump's right-wing base. I'm Michael Calore, Director of Consumer Tech and Culture here at WIRED. Lauren Goode: I'm Lauren Goode, I'm a senior correspondent at WIRED. Katie Drummond: And I'm Katie Drummond, WIRED's Global Editorial Director. Michael Calore: We are also incredibly lucky to have with us today our WIRED colleague who analyzed this recent released footage himself on the show. Please welcome Dhruv Mehrotra. Dhruv Mehrotra: Hi, thanks for having me. Michael Calore: Okay, well, let's start with why this video was released at all. It's been almost six years since Jeffrey Epstein's death, hasn't it? Lauren Goode: It has been. Jeffrey Epstein died in August of 2019, and pretty much from the start, his death has fueled all of these conspiracy theories, partly because of his very high profile associations. He was known to be friends with and business associates with and fraternize with celebrities and high ranking officials, and even technologists, also because of the explosive nature of the sex trafficking charges that Epstein was facing. So this all kind of had the elements that the internet needs to fuel a giant conspiracy theory. Now, one of the elements that fueled these theories was the fact that around the time when Epstein died by suicide, there was a malfunction in the cameras where he was being held, at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. About half their cameras weren't working, none of them had a clear view of Epstein's cell door, this has been previously reported by WIRED. And people have speculated that this is when he could have been killed, even though there's no proof whatsoever of that. Katie Drummond: And we'll talk more about this later, but this issue is still alive and thriving online because Trump and his allies really capitalized on these conspiracy theories, all the theories about Epstein and what happened to him in that prison, on the campaign trail. So, Trump promised running his campaign for his second term that his administration would release allegedly explosive revelations about what really happened when Epstein died in custody in 2019, and Epstein's supposed "client list." So for months leading up to the joint memo that the DOJ and FBI published last week, Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, had promised to release records related to Epstein. So, some of those have been slowly released, and this latest video that Dhruv has been reporting on is the latest piece of that rollout. So, that's really how we got here. Michael Calore: Yeah. Now, Dhruv, how did you go about analyzing the footage and how did you arrive at the conclusion that the video wasn't actually raw footage as it was described? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah, so on Monday last week, the DOJ and FBI released two videos, and there's sort of almost immediate speculation about whether or not these videos were doctored. So I wanted to look at the files themselves and not the sort of video feed, but examine the metadata of the video just to figure out if there was anything in there that I could see that could lead to any clues about it being doctored. This is something I often do because as a journalist, you're often vetting leaked or hacked documents to see if they were tampered with or something like that. So the first step was downloading both versions of the video that the FBI released, the so-called raw version, and then the enhanced one. They said that they had, alongside the raw video, they say they released a video that had some enhancements that helped their analysts come to the conclusion that Epstein in fact killed himself. So together, each video was about 21 gigabytes. I ran both of those files through this metadata analysis tool and I looked at what is called XMP metadata, which is basically data that's embedded by software on a file when it's touched, essentially. So looking at that data, it came became pretty clear pretty quickly actually, that it wasn't a direct export from a surveillance system as the FBI kind of described it in their memo. Instead, the metadata showed that the video had been assembled from two distinct clips, two different MP4 files, using Adobe Premiere. It even names the files in the metadata. So those files are listed in a metadata section called ingredients, which is how Premiere tracks source materials that are used in a project. And in that metadata, we also saw that the project was saved multiple times and that there were internal markers and comments left behind, likely used to flag activity during the review. So, all of this is sort of standard for edited video workflows, but it really contradicts the DOJ's description of this as raw video. It's not raw, it was manually edited and stitched together as a composite of two different video recordings. Katie Drummond: It's really wild to me in the context of unforced error. And how did no one in the DOJ or the FBI think, oh, maybe someone is going to look at the metadata? That's one very obvious question, but then Dhruv, on a more sort of technical note, if someone has that foresight, if they think, okay, there will be metadata attached to these files, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, someone could look at it, what are their options? Is there anything that you can do to scrub the metadata on video files like these, that potentially they could have done if they didn't want some annoying reporter like you to go looking or poking around to see sort of what was in there? Lauren Goode: She says that with maximum affection, Dhruv. Katie Drummond: Of course. You're not annoying to me, but you're definitely annoying to them right now. Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah, I definitely get the sense that I'm very annoying to them right now. Yes, there are plenty of things that you can do to scrub metadata from a file before you upload it somewhere for someone to download and inspect. In fact, that's sort of standard practice across the internet. I think most social media platforms, when you upload a photo from your iPhone or from your Android, it'll scrub the metadata before it puts it up on Instagram or whatever. And it's also standard practice for reporters to do that if we receive documents and we want to publish parts of the documents but not the entirety of them, we'll scrub metadata to make sure that nothing in the file can lead back to our sourcing. So it's standard practice and frankly, kind of surprising that the FBI didn't do it. With that said though, it also forensically, you could see a world where you would want to keep the metadata in to show the public, or show a judge, show attorneys exactly who touched a file before it was released publicly. So that way there was a sort of trail of custody to make sure that the evidence hadn't been tampered with. So, I can see it working both ways, but it seems like that's just neither of those cases is what happened here. Michael Calore: Do we know who touched this file? Dhruv Mehrotra: We do, sort of. We know that this file was edited by a Windows user with the name MJ Cole. I think that's a partial username, not a full username, but someone named MJ Cole, and perhaps a longer last name, I suppose. Michael Calore: Right. Lauren Goode: And we know, we have this name because this is the person who logged into the machine? This is the name attached to the Adobe license? How do we know this is actually the person? Because it could have just been another video editor logged into someone else's machine. Dhruv Mehrotra: No, that's a good point. I should say that we know that the user account that opened the file and edited it was MJ Cole. Whether or not someone else was using that Windows computer at the time, that's impossible for me to say with the metadata alone. Lauren Goode: Dhruv, I'm glad you mentioned that about the workflow of video journalists because a very long time ago I was a video journalist and I can attest to having exported the same video file multiple times from Apple Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere, with absolutely zero intention of manipulating the video content, just maybe trimming or making one small change in exporting the files. In this instance, what's notable about these file exports that could lead people to potentially believe that they were manipulated with mal-intent? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah, I mean, I think at first I was just trying to confirm that any kind of editing software had been used. Right? I think if you are just trying to export some proprietary surveillance CCTV footage to an MP4, there are lighter weight tools than Adobe Premiere, which has all of these actually additional AI based editing features to them. Right? And I think speaking to forensic experts, that was one of the big questions they had was like, look, if you're just going to export a video, why use Premiere? So that was one big question I had, right? But after getting a few tips, I also noticed more odd things in the metadata outside of them just using Adobe Premiere. Right? Specifically, there were timestamps in the source video clips that were composited to form the final video. The first source file is listed as being four hours and 19 minutes long, but the video that was actually used in the final output was only four hours and 16 minutes long, which means that nearly three minutes were cut from this original clip that was put into the video, which is, that's a sign of an edit, not just an export. When I spoke to Hany Farid, he's a UC Berkeley professor who focuses on digital forensics and frankly testifies in court often about manipulated media, he pointed out very quickly just watching the video that the aspect ratio of the footage changed throughout the video. So I think it was pretty widely reported when the video first came out that there was a missing minute. Attorney General Pam Bondi kind of attributed that missing minute to just routine turnover in surveillance footage and sort of just wrote it off as nothing to really be concerned about. But what's interesting about that is after that jump, the aspect ratio changes. You can see a little toolbar in the top right of the screen. So this isn't a raw export of surveillance footage, something else is kind of happening here. And we just don't know enough about the process the DOJ and the FBI used to analyze these videos to really say much. Katie Drummond: And obviously, we have plenty of sort of careful language in these stories that you've published Dhruv, but none of this proves that the videos were edited with the intention of deceiving people, of hiding something. Right? There are some pretty boring explanations for all of this, although I will say they're not exactly doing themselves any favors at all, which is so painful to witness because these do feel like a lot of real amateur hour unforced errors if in fact, this is all very banal stuff. Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah. I mean, look, the goal of the story wasn't to prove or disprove a conspiracy. It was really to independently verify what the DOJ and FBI said about the footage, which is that it was a raw surveillance video. And based on the metadata, that's just not accurate. It was processed, reviewed, and assembled from multiple clips, and that doesn't mean that anything nefarious happened, right? There are plenty of non-sinister reasons that footage might have been reviewed or exported that way, especially if it's being prepared for public release. But when the DOJ labels something as raw and then doesn't disclose that it's been edited or stitched together, that opens the door to a lot of suspicion. And in a case like this, a high-profile case where there already is a ton of suspicion and conspiracy around Epstein and his life, his death, I think any ambiguity will just lead to more conspiracies. Michael Calore: Right, and a lot of people online have taken this as confirmation of a cover-up. Did you anticipate that when you were putting the story out? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah, and I think to Katie's point about all the careful language in the story, we fully expected people to run with this story and to use it to fit whatever flavor of Epstein conspiracy they subscribe to, which is part of the reason that we wanted to lay out the facts very, very clearly. Because if you don't explain what the metadata actually means, someone might not do it responsibly, right? So we wanted to be very careful with how we presented the findings. Katie Drummond: Yeah, and I think I will pat everybody involved in this reporting on the back, I'm very proud to have published it. I wouldn't think twice or blink at the idea of publishing the work. It was very carefully done and very sort of clearly explained and articulated in both stories. I think there is this sort of interesting feeling as an editor, and I think as a reporter, when you publish a story like this and you know, you have a fairly good sense of how the internet will respond to it, which is, this is going to kick up a lot of dust. There's going to be a lot of really problematic conspiratorial conversation about this work, but the work is the work. It's true, it's accurate, it's carefully vetted, it's carefully written. And ultimately, you have an obligation to publish it, even if you know that some very special groups of people on Reddit and elsewhere on the internet are going to absolutely lose their minds. I mean, that is just, you can know it and you publish anyway, and I think this is a really good example of that kind of situation for us. Dhruv Mehrotra: Well, I think it's also important to point out here is we presented the facts to the DOJ and to the FBI and gave them the opportunity to respond and to clarify what exactly happened here. Right? And neither agency did. The DOJ referred us to the FBI, the FBI referred us back to the DOJ. We haven't had any clarity on what the process was for compiling this video. Lauren Goode: Dhruv, if I'm understanding correctly, after WIRED ran its story last Friday about the evidence that showed the video was edited. A couple days later, attorney General Bondi sort of explained that by saying that there is a flaw in the surveillance system's daily cycle at Metropolitan Correctional Center. She said that one minute is missing from every night's recording, which seems like an entirely plausible explanation. But unfortunately, they've already sort of shot themselves in the foot by claiming the footage was raw when it wasn't. And now, there's this new report you just published in WIRED saying actually, there was this three minute discrepancy here too. This is really just going to fuel even more conspiracy theories, right? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah. So, just to backtrack a bit on that, is that when Attorney General Bondi made the statement about the missing minute, that wasn't in response to WIRED's reporting, that was in response to just a very obvious missing minute that the internet found and immediately latched onto and a reporter asked her a question about it. But what we found today does sort of call into question the explanation of the missing minute. What we found is that the first clip that comprises the full "unedited, raw surveillance video," which is made up of two clips, that first clip, the total length of the clip is four hours and 19 minutes, but the final output only used four hours and 16 minutes of it. So there's three minutes of missing footage at the end of that first clip. And it just so turns out that that edit was made basically the frame before the missing minute that Pam Bondi described occurred. Right? So we don't know what's on that remaining three minutes, but maybe it's the missing minute, maybe it's not. The problem is that the DOJ hasn't told us anything. Michael Calore: So if I'm hearing you correctly, the first clip extends until after midnight, and the second clip starts at midnight. And when they made the edit, they edited it so that the first clip ends at 11:59. So they introduced the missing minute, possibly, or they had an opportunity to cut at midnight and not release a video that had a missing minute, and they did not take that opportunity? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah, I don't want to dive into conspiracy here. So we don't know what's in the last three minutes of the clip that was cut. Right? We don't know if it included footage into August 10th the following day, or if it cut after the missing minute and it just was dead air or something that needed to be cut out because it was some artifact of an old surveillance camera. We just don't know, and these are all questions we brought to the DOJ and they didn't respond. Michael Calore: I see. Lauren Goode: Dhruv, what has been the most surprising reaction to this or response to this that you've gotten on the internet since your stories have been published? Are all the conspiracy folks flooding your Signal now? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah, I have a very active inbox on both Signal and email. Lauren Goode: Oh, God. Dhruv Mehrotra: And to be fair to everyone who emails me, there's plenty of actually really good tips in there. In fact, this second story about the three-minute cut, that started from a tip. Someone said, "You should check out this aspect of the metadata." So there's plenty of really good stuff in my inbox, but there's also a ton of conspiracies, and that's what happens when you report about Epstein. And I think in all seriousness though, the volume of responses here kind of shows how little trust there is in institutions right now. Right? The vacuum gets filled pretty fast when there's any kind of whiff of inconsistency in a case like Epstein's, where people already think the story doesn't quite add up. Michael Calore: Right. Well, Dhruv, thank you so much for coming on and telling us about your reporting on this story. Dhruv Mehrotra: All right, well, thanks for having me. Michael Calore: We're going to take a quick break, but when we're back, we'll talk about why the Epstein prison tapes have become a wedge issue for one group in particular, Trump supporters. So at the beginning of our conversation, we were talking about why the Epstein case had become this infinite source for conspiracy theories, but who is most invested in these conspiracy theories at this moment? Katie Drummond: Oh, well, surprise, surprise, it is a significant portion of the right-wing base. So, led by key figures in the MAGA movement, people have been pushing these unsubstantiated claims that Epstein was murdered and that liberal "deep state actors" in the government did it essentially to hide his client's names and all of their awful criminal activities. So I'm talking about people like Steve Bannon, Laura Loomer. Laura, thank you for sharing our reporting on social, we really appreciate the traffic bump that we got from that. So it's the usual suspects. It's probably who you would expect if you pay much attention to MAGA world. But there was this shift last week, when the DOJ and the FBI released the memo announcing that these videos would be released, and this one video in particular. The memo also concluded that their investigation into the Epstein case was officially closed and that no foul play was found. That memo also stated that the Epstein client list that Bondi had said was on her desk in February, didn't actually exist. Very special. So, as you can probably guess, MAGA figures did not take kindly to those announcements. And Trump supporters had been expecting some kind of breakthrough, some kind of conspiratorial revelation in this saga. And so they really created the fumes for this conspiracy theory that now they can't put out and is really spiraling out of control. Michael Calore: And it's interesting, because the MAGA world and the Trump brand really just thrives in conspiracy theories, and it has for a long time. They put into question President Obama's citizenship, there was the whole pizza-gate fiasco, there was the whole theory that the 2020 election had been stolen. The list goes on. So, what went wrong, if you will, with the strategy of doubling down on conspiracy theories, in this case? Lauren Goode: Yeah, this is a good question. Our colleague, David Gilbert has been doing a lot of reporting on this, also on And what's interesting is the uproar around Epstein and the fact that folks within the MAGA sort of faction are starting to turn on Trump, is really part of a death by 1,000 cuts here. There are all kinds of groups that are mad at him for different things right now, and it's being led by different powerful right-wing figures as Katie pointed out. There's Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, who was mad about the bombing of Iran. For Loomer, she's a noted conspiracy theorist, it was Trump's acceptance of a luxury plane from Qatar. Ben Shapiro was mad about tariffs. Joe Rogan, mad about ICE raids targeting non-criminal migrant workers. Elon Musk eventually got mad at Trump, right? He was his buddy-in-chief, recently left his role in D.C. as a special government employee and has been railing about the big beautiful bill on mine. So there are all these different high-profile folks who have been turning on Trump lately, and I think Trump has been upsetting more and more of his base, bit by bit. The Epstein saga touches a slightly different nerve, too because it is centered on accusations of pedophilia. And also, the boogeymen in this case for so long were the Democratic Party. Trump's space was extremely riled up over it. Trump himself used to say that Epstein's death was a cover-up job. Now it turns out that the MAGA folks have reason to believe, whether it's a good reason, whether it's a valid reason, but reason to believe that Trump himself could possibly be one of the figures in this so-called list. Katie Drummond: Oh, it's exhausting just thinking about it. It is also worth remembering, and I think reinforcing that these conspiracy theories aren't random. They're not sort of just being pulled out of thin air. A lot of them coalesce actually around one very special conspiracy. QAnon, You may or may not remember it. I mean, that was all the rage a few years ago. But this idea that QAnon championed, and there are still certainly QAnon adherents out there, that there is this sort of shadowy cabal of government elites. They're working to cover up a global child sex trafficking operation. This was really foundational stuff for the MAGA movement. And QAnon borrowed from a long tradition of conspiracy theory movements in the US, think about Satanic panic from the '80s, and put those on steroids. So certainly, none of this started with the Trump Administration, I don't think it will stop with the Trump Administration. It really has become sort of embedded into the way of thinking and sort of navigating the world and seeing the world for an unfortunate number of people out there, quite honestly. Michael Calore: I'm curious to know what you both think this rift among the right-wing base and the overall proliferation of conspiracy theories means for the political and technological landscape of the country. Conspiracy theories aren't new, they're not going anywhere, but what does that mean in a world where tech companies are intrinsically more embedded in the political sphere? How much responsibility do these companies hold for the spread of these theories? Lauren Goode: I would really love to hear your guys' thoughts on this because the question of, how responsible are the tech companies, is just something that comes up literally every day for us, for the ills of society. You mentioned conspiracy theories are not new. They're not. They take hold in a different way though when they're on the internet, because they spread more rapidly and because of the way algorithms can surface different content more than others. Also in the United States, we have this legal framework that actually shields internet platforms for being responsible for some of the bad content, it's section 230. And of course, a lot of the tech companies themselves don't love the fact that they may have to invest in robust content moderation systems because they look at those things as a cost center. They don't look at it as an area of growth for them, because you're actually sort of restricting in some ways what people can put on the platforms. So when things go well or are relatively pleasant in an app, because a company has put the cost into decent content moderation, no one complains, everything seems relatively peachy. When all hell breaks loose, that's when everyone says, "Wait, who's moderating the content?" And that's sort of where we are perpetually living now. And I think unfortunately, the best chance we have in the short term of curbing conspiracy theories is probably trying to educate the public so that people can better understand what is real on the internet and what is not. I hate saying that, because it just puts so much more onus on the public, on the individual consumer to figure out what's real and what's not. But I think barring any regulation in the short term, barring any major changes to the way these platforms work, I think that's the nearest and best bet. That's what I do think internet platforms should be responsible about and possibly for the algorithms, because you don't have to amplify the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories on X or whatever it is that's bubbling to the surface. Katie Drummond: Yeah, I mean, you don't have to amplify it. I mean, you can also make deliberate choices to bury it. And I think Lauren, I wish I had a lot to add to that, but I just think that you're totally right. I mean, this is at the end of the day, conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists and miss and disinformation are not going anywhere. Right? They are here to stay. It's a regulation question. It's, what are we allowing people to see on the internet? What are these technology companies facilitating with their algorithms, with the way they run their companies? And as of now, they are by and large not held accountable for that at all. And it's really hard. I try to be relatively optimistic about things, I try to always have some solution in my head. This is one where there's a futility to it as AI and sort of more and more realistic looking nonsense and often dangerous nonsense sort of floods these platforms. It's very hard to see a solution short of really aggressive regulation. That's my 2 cents. And I think education, look, I think it's a nice idea. I think if we are trying to educate and empower people who are already down the Epstein rabbit hole, for example, among the many other rabbit holes they could already be down. There's a futility to that, it feels like a lost cause, almost like a lost couple of generations of people in some cases and that's very sad. So I don't have a solution, but it is a regulation issue. And again, in this current moment in time, it's hard to imagine any of that regulation actually coming to the fore. Michael Calore: Yeah, and I mean, to add to that, so many of the platforms are now turning to AI as a solution for moderation, right? They're building these AI tools that are going to be moderating in place of humans who might be able to make those decisions about choosing not to amplify things that are possibly harmful or intentionally harmful. And I don't know, the sick part of me is looking forward to the future where the AI tool that spends so much time moderating all of these conspiracy theories starts to generate its own conspiracy theories. And then the next big conspiracy theory is one that was born of AI and we just won't know. Lauren Goode: We're probably not that far from that. I think we're about two weeks from that. Katie Drummond: I can see that happening, yeah. Coming up soon on Michael Calore: All right, let's take another break and we'll come back with the recommendations. All right. Well, thanks to both of you for a great conversation today and thanks in absentia to Dhruv. Before we shift gears to our own personal recommendations, we have an update on our end. This is sadly Katie's last week on this roundtable edition of this show with me and Lauren. Lauren and I will still be here every Thursday, but it'll just be the two of us for a while. And Katie, you will be missed. Katie Drummond: It was short, it was sweet, and I've had a fantastic time and I just want everyone to know that I am not going too far. I have something new coming, something new and exciting on this very feed, spoiler alert, that I'm very excited to launch in the very near future. And I'm sure I will be back. I think you guys run a great show, just the two of you, but I would love to make a guest appearance every once in a while. Lauren Goode: Oh, we would love that. I was already thinking, when can we invite Katie back? Katie Drummond: Oh, that's so nice. Lauren Goode: We're basically building in Marvel Cinematic Universe here of WIRED reporters and editors. So we still have the Uncanny Valley news episode featuring Zoë Schiffer and other WIRED colleagues, that publishes later in the week. We have our roundtable, of course, Uncanny Valley on Thursdays, and now we have this new project coming from Katie. You'll see us moving around a bit, but don't go anywhere, stay subscribed to the feed. Tell us what you want to hear more about, leave us reviews, and we're very excited for you, Katie. Katie Drummond: I'm very excited for all of us. Michael Calore: All right, well, on a happier note, I know we all have really good recommendations because we've all been away on vacation for a week and we've had a long time to think about it. So Katie, you go first. What's your recommendation? Katie Drummond: Oh, no. Oh my God, I have one. This is so bad, this is classic Drummond, this is so bad. I'm watching this show on Bravo, surprise, surprise, called Next Gen NYC. Has anyone heard of this? Have you guys heard of this? Michael Calore: No. Katie Drummond: Well, listen up, listen up. This is like if the Real Housewives franchise featured 22-year olds, that's what this show is. Lauren Goode: So it's Girls? Katie Drummond: No, but it's a reality show, Lauren, and it's about a group of young people living in New York City. And the best part, several of them are the children of Real Housewives OG. Michael Calore: Wow. Lauren Goode: Wow. Katie Drummond: It's fantastic. It is the best reality TV I have seen in at least eight to 12 weeks. It's very good, it's very good. I joined the Reddit community, so I've been reading up, I've been following the discourse. I mean, look, I was on vacation, but also, would I watch this during my regular work life? Absolutely. It's very good, and if anyone needs to just unplug, watch the dumbest possible thing, it's really good. I recommend it. I'm sorry that I don't have recommendations other than bad TV and butter, but that's just my life. Michael Calore: Is this why you're such a big fan of reality television, because it's your method of unplugging and just watching the dumbest thing possible? Katie Drummond: Yeah. I found maybe six or seven years ago, maybe it was during the first Trump Administration and I was obviously covering it as a journalist, as we all were, living through it, I developed this inability to watch smart, serious TV. I used to watch, I mean, my husband and I watched Sons of Anarchy, we watched Mad Men, Breaking Bad, all of those sort of 2010 classics. We watched very serious TV, and then something happened, something changed in me, and I am only able to watch the dumbest, most mindless possible TV. And I think it's just like I need to fully disconnect from anything that's going to make me feel feelings because looking at everything happening in this country and in the world and the stress of the job, and you feel a lot of feelings. And it's nice to just watch Brooks and Ava and Charlie and all of their other friends at the bar arguing about how Ava said that Adriana couldn't possibly launch her own fashion line. That's just nice. That's a nice problem for them to have. Michael Calore: Lauren, what is your recommendation? Lauren Goode: My recommendation, I have two. One is the Planet Money. Well, first of all, just Planet Money, the podcast by NPR, fantastic. I am a subscriber. They did an episode recently on the Big Beautiful Bill, it was one of the best breakdowns I'd heard of what it actually contains, what's actually going to be happening to Medicaid. I thought it was really informative. Listened to it when I was at the gym because I'm a nerd like that. Check that out. My other recommendation, which is more in the vein of what Katie is saying, like unplug, give your mind a break. Go to the movies. Michael Calore: Go to the movies. Lauren Goode: Just go to the movies. Katie Drummond: I like that. Michael Calore: This is the worst time of year to go to the movies. Lauren Goode: No, it's the best time of the year because air conditioning and comfy seats. Michael Calore: Yeah, but it's- Katie Drummond: I'm with Lauren, that's great advice. Lauren Goode: No, I've been three times this year and every time, very last minute. A friend invited me last minute to go see the 40th anniversary of Goonies that was playing downtown. We went, it was fantastic. I was hanging out with friends one night and we said, "Let's go see Sinners." It was playing right across the street, fantastic. The theater was practically empty, it was glorious. The movie itself, actually, check out our friends, Critics at Large, New Yorker pod. They had some thoughts on the Materialists, so I'm going to toss it to them, but it was great. I was like, I need to go to the movies more. Michael Calore: Oh, for sure. Lauren Goode: What's your recommendation, Mike? Michael Calore: I'm going to recommend a book, and this is a book that I read over 4th of July weekend. It's called, I Cheerfully Refuse by Leif Enger. I believe this is Leif Enger's fourth novel. He's a bestseller, you may have heard of his name before. This is his new book, it is dystopian fiction. It depicts a world a few decades from now in which society has crumbled in a way that feels very recognizable and familiar, a bit like a more dangerous and uncertain version of today. The entire economy is controlled by a handful of super rich elites. The education system is crumbled, most Americans are proudly illiterate. We have a proudly illiterate president in this book. Satellite communications have been enshittified, are totally unreliable, GPS doesn't work anymore. It is just like an eroded version of the world that we live in, and it's really starkly rendered. We drop into this world and we follow the main character on a quest. The whole book takes place on Lake Superior in northern Minnesota and western Ontario. The main character gets in a boat and he goes and he sets sail on Lake Superior and we follow him around. I'm not going to spoil it by saying anything more than that, but it is gripping and unpredictable and also just beautifully, beautifully written at the sentence level. It is like poetry for pages. It's amazing, emotional, deep. It will enrage you because it is a book for this moment. It's just gorgeous. Lauren Goode: I don't know what to say to that, except that it sounds really deep. Katie Drummond: You are so much more sophisticated than both of us. Sorry, Lauren. Michael Calore: Well, I mean, not really. Lauren Goode: I accept this. Michael Calore: No, I mean, I know I recommended a nerdy book, but you should really read it just because it gives you a really sharp, sort potential future of what it's like if you just let the richest people in the world run the economy and run all of the basic services that we rely on, to the point where they just fall apart because the most important people don't need them anymore and it's the rest of us who have to suffer for it. And it's like, it's kind of grim, kind of feels like that's the way the world is moving, and that's the reason why the book resonated with me so much when I read it. Yeah. Lauren Goode: I'm going to add that to the good reads. Thanks so much. Michael Calore: Of course. Lauren Goode: Yeah. I almost recommended a book by a philosopher, but I'm going to hold off and keep it lowbrow for now. Once Katie's gone, we can just lit nerd out, Mike. Michael Calore: I don't know. I'm going to go watch Goonies. I don't know. Lauren Goode: Welcome to WIRED's Lit Nerd podcast. Michael Calore: All right, well thank you for listening to this episode of Uncanny Valley . If you liked what you heard today, make sure to follow us on our show and rate it on your podcast app of choice. If you'd like to get in touch with us with any questions, comments, or show suggestions, write to us at uncannyvalley@ Today's show was produced by Adriana Tapia. Amar Lal from Macrosound mixed this episode, Pran Bandi was our New York studio engineer. Mark Lyda was our San Francisco studio engineer. Kate Osborn is our executive producer. Katie Drummond is WIRED's Global editorial Director, and Chris Bannon is the Head of Global Audio.
WIRED
08-07-2025
- Politics
- WIRED
The 911 Calls Inside ICE Detention Centers
By Leah Feiger and Dhruv Mehrotra Jul 8, 2025 12:15 PM On this episode of Uncanny Valley , we unpack WIRED's recent investigation of 911 calls made from the facilities where Immigration and Customs Enforcement detains migrants. Photo-illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images Our senior politics editor Leah Feiger speaks with WIRED's Dhruv Mehrotra about an exclusive WIRED investigation into how serious medical incidents are increasing at some of the country's largest immigration detention centers. You can follow Leah Feiger on Bluesky at @leahfeiger and Dhruv Mehrotra on Bluesky at @dmehro. Write to us at uncannyvalley@ Mentioned in this episode: 'They're Not Breathing': Inside the Chaos of ICE Detention Center 911 Calls by Dhruv Mehrotra and Dell Cameron How to Protect Yourself From Phone Searches at the US Border by Lily Hay Newman and Matt Burgess The WIRED Guide to Protecting Yourself From Government Surveillance by Andy Greenberg and Lily Hay Newman Here's What Mark Zuckerberg Is Offering Top AI Talent by Zoë Schiffer How to Listen You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how: If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for 'uncanny valley.' We're on Spotify too. Transcript Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors. Leah Feiger: Hey, this is Leah. Do you have a tech-related question that's been on your mind or just a topic that you wish we talked about more on the show? If so, you can write to us at uncannyvalley@ And if you listen to and enjoy our episodes, please rate it and leave a review on your podcast app of choice. It really helps other people find us. And a heads up that this episode deals with sensitive content like suicide attempts and sexual assault, please take care while listening. Welcome to WIRED's Uncanny Valley . I'm WIRED Senior politics editor Leah Feiger, filling in today for Zoe Schiffer. Today on the show, an exclusive WIRED investigation on how serious medical incidents are increasing at some of the country's largest immigration detention centers. By looking at data from 911 calls, WIRED reporters, Dhruv Mehrotra and Del Cameron found that in at least 60% of the ICE centers they analyzed, there were reports of serious pregnancy complications, suicide attempts, or sexual assault allegations. Their findings show how these detention centers have quickly become overwhelmed, following the administration's immigration crackdown, and its mandate for more frequent and often indiscriminate arrests. To dive into the show, I'm joined by WIRED's Dhruv Mehrotra. Dhruv, welcome. Dhruv Mehrotra: Hi. Thanks for having me. Leah Feiger: So Dhruv, talk me through how you went about reporting this. What prompted you to look at the 911 calls from ICE detention centers? And most importantly, what did you find? Dhruv Mehrotra: Well, immigration detention centers are largely black boxes, right? Attorneys can't see living areas. And advocates told us that even tightly controlled tours have mostly stopped getting approved by ICE. At the same time arrests are surging, and we've been hearing reports about deteriorating conditions. So what we really wanted to know here was, what's actually happening inside of these overcrowded facilities right now? People in custody often are too afraid to speak publicly, and ICE can take months or even years in some cases to respond to records requests. So instead Del and I decided to kind of look more locally, right? We looked at local agencies like sheriff's departments and EMS crews for records from people who respond directly to ICE facilities when there's a real emergency. So that led us to these 911 call records, which offered one of the clearest, and frankly the most alarming windows into how overwhelmed the system really is. Leah Feiger: And so when tracing the spike in all of these medical incidents, you also looked at 10 of the country's largest immigration detention centers. There was one that really stood out. Stewart Detention Center in rural Georgia. You reported that the population at this center has actually increased by 10%, and the medical emergencies at the center have more than tripled. And they've also reported more in-custody deaths since 2017 than any other facility nationwide. What is going on there? How does something like that even happen? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah. As you mentioned, Stewart really stood out in the data. And in fact, as we were reporting the story out, two people at Stewart or on their way to Stewart died according to ICE, including one by suicide early last month. So part of what makes Stewart so dangerous, I think, is where it's located. Stewart is in a remote rural county in Georgia, hours from advanced medical care. Local hospitals have shut down, and according to the records we have, EMS response times are long. And in emergencies, detainees can be left waiting hours, right? One kind of particularly shocking call here is that we got a call from a pregnant woman who was reportedly spitting up blood. And EMS logs show that it took over two hours to clear that call. Leah Feiger: That's wild. Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah. It's devastating to listen to, and to think through what these records really mean. But the numbers don't really capture the full story. So we also spoke to families of people who were detained at Stewart, and attorneys who visited regularly. And they all largely described the same thing, which is a system that's really buckling under its own weight. Leah Feiger: I think something that really stood out to me as well from these cases from Stewart in your reporting, is all of the abruptly dropped 911 calls as well. It really created this picture of an us versus them. People just entirely captured, caged almost, while this is going on, unable to actually even get assistance. Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah. I mean, the records that we have are 911 calls, right? And so they are only records of things that resulted in a call. And experts tell us that for every one call that we got, there's probably many, many, many more medical emergencies that go unreported. And the records give some kind of clue into that, right? I think one good example of what you're talking about, Leah, is a call that we received from a woman at Stewart who got a hold of the phone, and called 911, and basically kept asking the dispatcher for help. She said, "I need help, I need a UTA." And the call abruptly dropped. [Archival audio]: 911, where is your emergency? [Archival audio]: Do you speak in Spanish? [Archival audio]: Excuse me? [Archival audio]: Do you speak in Spanish? [Archival audio]: No, ma'am. [Archival audio]: I need help, a UTA. [Archival audio]: Are you in the prison? [Archival audio]: Yeah. In jail, yeah, by name... Dhruv Mehrotra: So the dispatcher called back. And when the dispatcher called back, a staff member answered the phone, and basically dismissed it, saying, "Look, sorry, we're at a detention center, a detainee called 911." And no ambulance was sent. [Archival audio]: I'm sorry, we're at a- [Archival audio]: [Inaudible] [Archival audio]: We're a detention center, Stewart Detention Center, and the detainee called 911. I'm sorry. [Archival audio]: Okay, thank you. Dhruv Mehrotra: And even in that call, you can hear this detainee kind of pleading in the background. So clearly this is a moment where someone thought that they needed medical care, and they weren't able to get it and they were prevented from getting it. And really, this is just one example, multiple family members of detainees told us the same thing. That their loved ones haven't been able to get the care that they have needed, even in times when they believe that their loved one should have been brought to the hospital for a serious crisis. Leah Feiger: Right, and like you said, you spoke to family members and you also spoke to immigration lawyers and experts to really fill in these gaps and contextualize what you found because you had the 911 calls and not that much more else. What were some of these gaps that they filled in for you? Dhruv Mehrotra: We were careful not to treat the 911 data as the full story because sometimes it's just audio that we have, other times it's just sort of a brief narrative of a medical emergency. So these calls only capture moments when emergencies were bad enough, or visible enough for staff to pick up the phone and call. But experts and advocates are quick to point out that for every call there are likely many others that weren't made. So in the conversations that we had with attorneys and families and formerly detained people, those conversations were crucial, they gave us the context that the records alone couldn't. A woman named Mildred Pierre, her fiance is a double amputee who's detained at Stewart. She told us that in the last month or so, he broke his prosthetic limbs in a fall. And he had to wait for days to be even seen by medical staff at Stewart. Another example is a woman named Kylie Chinchilla who said that her daughter, who's a nursing student with scoliosis and also a detainee at Stewart, is often left sleeping on the floor in pain with parts of her face going numb. And her condition is getting worse and she's in pain. Leah Feiger: Let's take a quick break. We're going to be right back. And when we return, we're going to look further into what has led to this increase in medical emergencies at ICE centers. When considering what factors have led to this increase in medical emergencies at ICE centers, overcrowding is one of the main ones. Dhruv, can you tell me how bad is it right now? And is this a direct result of the current administration's immigration crackdown? Dhruv Mehrotra: So overcrowding is a critical piece of this puzzle according to experts and immigration attorneys that we spoke to. Overall ICE's detained population has jumped over 48% since January, now exceeding 59,000 people. And I mean, that's just an estimate, right? The numbers probably far higher than that. And that's swell in population isn't by accident, it follows a deliberate policy push by this administration. Earlier this year ICE, under the direction of senior administration officials, intensified enforcement efforts and ramped up arrests. And that, of course, led to an influx of detainees, many of whom have these pre-existing health conditions, and that stretched medical units and staffing beyond their limits, according to the experts that we spoke to. And remember, these aren't violent offenders who are being held. The administration has made it sort of deliberate policy choice to target virtually anyone, even people who have been here for decades and haven't been convicted of any kind of violent crime. Not that it matters in this case, right? No one should be treated like this, but I think it's important to contextualize who's being held here in civil detention, not criminal detention. Leah Feiger: Absolutely. President Donald Trump and his really right-hand man on immigration, Stephen Miller, they are pushing day in, day out. It feels like you cannot go a single week in this administration without hearing about these renewed goals to increase ICE numbers, and to increase ICE funding, and just their ability to take kind of whoever they want off the streets right now in an effort to really buoy their numbers. And you guys also spent a good bit of time talking about how these ICE centers are in such remote areas, which at least from the outside, makes it seem like it would be pretty hard to get these folks support that they would need. Is this tactical? Dhruv Mehrotra: Yeah. That's a good question. I can say that as a strategy, ICE has been moving people around from detention center to detention center. And in an effort from what experts described to kind of deprive people of the representation that they have, or the immigration attorneys that they've retained, or from family members and loved ones. So I think moving people around and moving people from, in one case I talked to someone who was moved from Buffalo, New York all the way to Adelanto, California in a matter of days, and that's across the country. He didn't know anybody over there. Leah Feiger: Right, that's massive, that's everything. That's your entire community. And you guys did also report that the vast majority of the centers that you looked into are owned by two private prison companies, the GEO Group and CoreCivic. How have they benefited from the administration's approach? And what did they say when you presented them with your findings? Dhruv Mehrotra: Geo Group and CoreCivic currently operate most of the ICE facilities that we reviewed, and I think they operate most of the ICE facilities in general. So under the current administration's aggressive enforcement strategy, which aims to detain around 100,000 people, these two corporations have secured numerous lucrative contracts including these no bid contracts for reopening shuttered prisons. And just to get a sense of the scale here, right? GEO anticipates earning over $70 million in annual revenue just from one new facility. And CoreCivic, the other sort of private prison giant here, they're opening or reopening multiple sites and benefiting from expanded bed capacity. And that's according to reporting from the AP. So we reached out to both of them, and CoreCivic emphasized that their facilities are staffed by licensed medical professionals and adhere to audits and national standards. And that's something that GEO groups similarly pointed out. But those responses, they focused on policy and paperwork, and not the actual kind of cost to families and attorneys and detainees had described. I think there seems to be an unwillingness to even concede that this stuff is happening in their facilities in spite of multiple reports. Leah Feiger: Obviously, the Trump administration has made immigration and immigration crackdown such a core part of their policy platform over the last couple of months. But I do have to say that for years there have been hundreds of reports of sexual assaults and other abuses happening at ICE centers. Is there a path forward for accountability, or are we kind of on pause for the next couple of years while the administration just keeps shoving as many people as they can into these facilities? Dhruv Mehrotra: Right. These problems didn't start with this administration. There have been a sort of long and well-documented history of things like sexual abuse inside of ICE detention centers. And in that regard, our own reporting we found multiple 911 calls in 2025 alone that reference sexual assaults, including one described as staff on detainee. I mean, as you said, it's a deeply serious allegation and it's not new. But what's changed is the ability to respond to it. In recent months, the Trump administration has gutted the oversight offices at DHS that were responsible for investigating these types of abuses in detention, including the CRCL, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. So without them, there's almost no system left to track or escalate these cases. One advocate I spoke to called it a "black box of impunity." And I think that's a good way to put it. Leah Feiger: We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to share our recommendations for what to check out on this week. Welcome back to WIRED's Uncanny Valley . I'm WIRED senior politics editor, Leah Feiger filling in today for Zoe Schiffer. Before we take off, Dhruv, tell our listeners what they absolutely need to read on Dhruv Mehrotra: There are two pieces that I keep returning to. I think if you're listening to this and you're thinking about how it all connects to your rights and your safety. The two pieces that I would recommend on WIRED right now are these guides. So first, we have a guide to how to protect yourself from phone searches at the U.S border. It's a great explainer on what CBP, Customs and Border Protection can do and can't do with your devices when you across the border. And the second piece in the same vein is a WIRED guide to protecting yourself from government surveillance. So yeah, I think those are two really good stories that give you some actionable things to do. Leah Feiger: They're so good. Honestly, cannot recommend those to enough. I feel like anytime that a relative, friend, whoever is like, "What can I do?" I send those guides over, and they're always greeted with a lot of enthusiasm and fear, and fear because it's really terrifying, but really, really good stuff. Okay. My recommendation is in a totally different direction, so bear with me. But the business desk this week led by Zoe Schiffer have been pulling scoop after scoop about the AI talent war that's going on between Sam Altman's OpenAI and Mark Zuckerberg's Meta. And the reason I think that I can't stop thinking about this, is obviously I usually edit politics coverage. And so it is so wild to see these grown adult men just throwing millions and millions and millions of dollars at AI, and random researchers, and talking about their companies as if they're going to save the world, while we're seeing all of this reporting on things that are so sad and so devastating. So I wouldn't say it's levity, but I would say that it is if you want to hate billionaires more, a good read, Dhruv, thank you so much for joining us today. Dhruv Mehrotra: Thanks for having me. Leah Feiger: That's our show for today. We're going to link to all the stories we spoke about in the show notes. Make sure to check out Thursday's episode of Uncanny Valley for a deep critical dive into the man who ushered in the era of artificial intelligence as we know it, Sam Altman. Adriana Tapia produced this episode. Amar Lal mixed this episode. Pran Bandi was our New York studio engineer. Jordan Bell is our executive producer. Conde Nast's Head of Global Audio is Chris Bannon. And Katie Drummond is WIRED's Global Editorial Director.
WIRED
04-06-2025
- General
- WIRED
The Texting Network for the End of the World
By Andrew Couts and Dhruv Mehrotra Jun 4, 2025 6:00 AM Everyone knows what it's like to lose cell service. A burgeoning open source project called Meshtastic is filling the gap for when you're in the middle of nowhere—or when disaster strikes. Photograph: Michael Tessier Hypothetical: You wake up tomorrow morning to find a superstorm that developed overnight thanks to climate change has sparked a chain of events that abruptly ushers in a new ice age and alters human society as we know it. (Yes, this is the plot of The Day After Tomorrow . Stick with us.) All the communication networks you relied on are down. Your phone is basically worthless. The internet has functionally ceased to exist. But you need to connect with people you trust to get help and survive. What do you do? More importantly, how did you prepare? Less Hollywood-esque versions of having no cell service or Wi-Fi happen all the time, of course; maybe you're hiking in a secluded area, white-knuckling through a major natural disaster, or living under a repressive regime that cuts internet access to quash public protests. Fortunately, for all these scenarios, there's a low-budget solution: Meshtastic. Meshtastic is a program that enables devices to send text messages over long distances without needing Wi-Fi or cell service. Long range radio (LoRa) nodes help pass messages along, forming a network of devices that can talk to each other even in remote areas. Messages hop from device to device, with each node relaying messages it hasn't seen before—extending the network's reach across miles using minimal power. That is to say, Meshtastic is designed specifically for sending text messages over free-to-use radio frequencies to both groups and individuals, even when cell service and internet connections are nowhere to be found. 'The cool thing about Meshtastic is that it's like a radio infrastructure without the infrastructure. It's ad hoc,' says Eric Kristoff, a volunteer member of the Chicago chapter of the Mars Society, a nonprofit that advocates for the human exploration and colonization of Mars. Kristoff says the group has been testing the use of Meshtastic as a way to give Mars Society 'analog astronauts' the ability to communicate and keep track of each others' locations without the use of earthly infrastructure. 'We have a set of Meshtastic T-Echo radios, about the size of a deck of cards, and they are worn on the person of the analog astronaut,' he says. Photograph: Michael Tessier Photograph: Michael Tessier The radios that use Meshtastic cost roughly $30 (though you can spend two, three, or four times that if you want to). And because they operate over unlicensed radio frequencies on a network created by personal devices, they're essentially free to use. Each message is end-to-end encrypted, ensuring privacy while it's relayed through the network. And Meshtastic's optional location-tracking capabilities give people a way to monitor their communities and keep tabs on their kids—or fellow analog astronauts—without using invasive, data-hungry apps. Kirstoff says that Mars Society members will take weeks-long excursions in remote areas with little cellular or Wi-Fi connectivity, which creates additional risks. 'There is heat stroke. We are two hours from the nearest hospital. If you go too far from the campus, it can get dangerous,' Kirstoff says of the experience. 'So anytime there's a risk, the risk is made worse if people don't know where you are.' Most Meshtatic devices currently on the market need to pair with a phone over Bluetooth to function as a texting alternative. Some devices are just a radio, antenna, and battery, with the expectation that you'll make the housing yourself. The radio does all the device-to-device communication, while the iOS and Android apps or the web client let you read and compose messages that are received or sent over the network—no service plan needed. The apps also allow you to see the approximate location of nearby nodes and a map of the Meshtastic network. But fancier stand-alone devices are already available, like a line of Meshtastic-enabled gadgets from maker-friendly tech firm LilyGo that, in addition to the T-Echo model used by Mars Society members, includes Blackberry-like handhelds with their own keyboards, a smartphone-like device with an e-paper screen, and even a Meshtastic-enabled smartwatch. Meshtastic was created by technologist Kevin Hester in early 2020 as a way to communicate while doing 'any hobby where you don't have reliable internet access,' and it remains a grassroots endeavor, with established local communities spanning from Argentina to China that are ripe with a DIY ethos. The software itself is open source, meaning anyone can theoretically contribute, and hundreds have. Still, as with many open source projects, a core group of volunteer developers help maintain the Meshtastic firmware, mobile apps, and more. Jonathan Bennett, a self-described 'Linux guy' who upgraded Meshtastic to stronger end-to-end encryption for direct messaging and keeps the software working on Linux, says he first got involved in the project after a listener of one his podcasts wanted a way to communicate with friends while attending a festival where the cell network could get overloaded. 'I put my open source enthusiast hat on and I went looking, and I came across Meshtastic,' he says. 'And it immediately tickled my interest.' Bennett says he ultimately connected with Garth Vander Houwen, a C# developer who wrote Meshtastic's iOS app, and Ben Meadows, another C# developer who took on maintaining the Android app, web client, firmware, and other parts of the Meshtastic ecosystem after Hester needed to step back due to health issues. Like Bennett, Vander Houwen and Meadows got involved with Meshtastic while looking for solutions to real-life problems. Vander Houwen, an iPhone user, says he found Meshtastic while on the hunt for a way to communicate as he hiked on remote trails in the Seattle area, just to find that it only had an Android app. He decided to write the iOS app himself. 'So the fact that there was not an iOS app for Meshtastic was kind of how I got started,' he says, 'and it's been a lot of fun.' Meadows says he came to Meshtastic after a dangerous tornado hit his home state of Arkansas, causing major damage. 'My kind of initial use case was honestly a backup communication for storm-related outages,' Meadows says. After taking part in the cleanup effort around Little Rock, he realized the value of a decentralized, off-grid communication network like Meshtastic. 'It's just really handy to have anywhere where you've got a limited connection to the grid.' None of which is to say you should throw your cell phone in the sea and go all-in on Meshtastic. At least not yet. First, getting into the world of LoRa remains a little bit technical, so if the idea of 'flashing' your device with new firmware makes you instinctively pick up your phone to scroll TikTok, it might not be the hobby for you. Even if you are tech savvy, the system has some notable limitations. Using the decentralized mesh network requires having your Meshtastic device in range of at least one other radio; obstructions like buildings, trees, and hills or mountains can prevent the line-of-sight communication needed to join the mesh network. This means it may only be reliable when there's a variety of other Meshtastic nodes in the area. Next is what Meadows calls the 'narrowness' of the network's technical capabilities. 'One of the most frequent things that we get is, 'Can I replace the internet with this?' No, no you cannot,' he says. 'You can send text messages.' Mercifully, that does include emoji. Photograph: Michael Tessier This may be obvious, but you also need to have a network set up before disaster hits, Meadows says. So, set up anyone who you might need to communicate with during a cell and internet blackout before it actually happens. And, due to relatively frequent firmware updates, you can't just toss your device in a bug-out bag and forget about it. But 'if it's something that you actually use, like if you pull it out and use it once a month, you'll be good to go,' Bennett says. Then there's the issue of raw bandwidth. This limitation can cause issues when a lot of people are trying to use the network at the same time. At a ham radio convention in Dayton, Ohio, last year (yes, it's called Hamvention), the Meshtastic network crashed after someone ran a program that flooded the network with additional traffic, pushing the Meshtastic network to its limits. 'Because literally one person turned on this MQTT bridge, which then joined the rest of us into this mesh in a metal building in Dayton, it crashed the whole mesh immediately,' Vander Houwen says. After this incident, Vander Houwen, Bennett, and Meadows went to work to prepare for the upcoming Defcon hacker convention in Las Vegas, ultimately releasing a special firmware for the much larger event that Vander Houwen estimates allows 'somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 nodes' to operate on the network simultaneously. A similar firmware released ahead of the 2025 Hamvention in May drew praise from the community. Despite Meshtastic's limitations, its promise as a backup communication system—and the sheer fun you can have with it—continues to pull in new enthusiasts. The Android app alone has drawn thousands of reviews, and the Meshtastic subreddit has grown to nearly 50,000 members. Some municipalities are even hoping to launch Meshtastic networks to help protect their communities in the event of natural disasters. For Bennett, Meadows, and Vander Houwen, they're excited to not just see the number of Meshtastic nodes increase, but to see the technology develop into something anyone can use without having to become an enthusiast or 'analog astronaut' at all. 'I think the biggest thing for me too is that it's not just accessible from the aspect of the hardware being available to more people. I want to make the software more accessible,' Meadows says. 'I want to make the experience such that I can hand this device to anybody and have them download the app and start messaging. We've come a long way. I think there's still some room to grow there.'
WIRED
14-05-2025
- Business
- WIRED
CFPB Quietly Kills Rule to Shield Americans From Data Brokers
Dell Cameron Dhruv Mehrotra May 14, 2025 12:53 PM Russell Vought, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has canceled plans to more tightly regulate the sale of Americans' sensitive personal data. Photograph:The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has cancelled plans to introduce new rules designed to limit the ability of US data brokers to sell sensitive information about Americans, including financial data, credit history, and Social Security numbers. CFPB proposed the new rule in early December under former director Rohit Chopra, who said the changes were necessary to combat commercial surveillance practices that 'threaten our personal safety and undermine America's national security.' The agency quietly withdrew the proposal on Tuesday morning, issuing a notice published in the Federal Register declaring the rule no longer 'necessary or appropriate.' CFBP received more than 600 comments from the public this year concerning the proposal, titled 'Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices.' The rule was crafted to ensure that data brokers obtain Americans' consent before selling or sharing sensitive personal information, including financial data such as income; regulations that US credit agencies are currently required to abide by under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, one of the nation's oldest privacy laws. In its notice, CFBP's acting director, Russel Vought, wrote that he was withdrawing the proposal 'in light of updates to Bureau policies,' and that it did not align with the agency's 'current interpretation of the FCRA,' which he added CFBP is 'in the process of revising.' CFBP did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Data brokers operate within a multi-billion-dollar industry built on the collection and sale of detailed personal information—often without individuals' knowledge or consent. These companies create extensive profiles on nearly every American, including highly sensitive data such as precise location history, political affiliations, and religious beliefs. This information is frequently resold for purposes ranging from marketing to law enforcement surveillance. Many people are unaware that data brokers even exist, let alone that their personal information is being traded. In January, the Texas Attorney General's Office, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton, accused Arity—a data broker owned by Allstate—of unlawfully collecting, using, and selling driving data from over 45 million Americans to insurance companies without their consent. The harms from data brokers can be severe–even violent. The Safety Net Project, part of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, warns that people-search websites, which compile information from data brokers, can serve as tools for abusers to track down information about their victims. Last year, Gravy Analytics—which processes billions of location signals daily—suffered a data breach that may have exposed the movements of millions of individuals, including politicians and military personnel. 'Russell Vought is undoing years of painstaking, bipartisan work in order to prop up data brokers' predatory, and profitable, surveillance of Americans,' says Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, a nonprofit that supported the rule. Added Vitka: 'By withdrawing the CFPB's data broker rulemaking, the Trump administration is ensuring that Americans will continue to be bombarded by scam texts, calls and emails, and that military members and their families can be targeted by spies and blackmailers.' Vought, who also serves as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, received a letter on Monday from the Financial Technology Association (FTA) calling for the rule to be withdrawn, claiming the rules exceed the agency's statutory mandate and would be 'harmful to financial institutions' efforts to detect and prevent fraud.' The FTA is a US-based trade organization that represents the interests of banks, lenders, payment platforms, and their executives. Privacy advocates have long pressed regulators to use the Fair Credit Reporting Act to crack down on the data broker industry. Common Defense, a veteran-led nonprofit, urged CFBP to take action in November, blaming data brokers for recklessly exposing sensitive information about US service members that placed them at 'substantial risk' of being blackmailed, scammed, or targeted by hostile foreign actors. A 2023 study cited by the group—funded by the US Military Academy at West Point—concluded that the current data broker ecosystem is a threat to US national security, permitting the sale of sensitive personal data that can be used to not only identify service members and 'other politically sensitive targets,' but offer details about medical conditions, financial problems, and political and religious beliefs. 'Foreign and malign actors with access to these datasets could uncover information about high-level targets, such as military service members, that could be used for coercion, reputational damage, and blackmail,' the authors report. Common Defense political director Naveed Shah, an Iraq War veteran, condemned the move to spike the proposed changes, accusing Vought of putting the profits of data brokers before the safety of millions of service members. "For the sake of military families and our national security, the administration must reverse course and ensure that these critical privacy protections are enacted," Shah says. Investigations by WIRED have shown data brokers have collected and made cheaply available information that can be used to reliably track the locations of American military and intelligence personnel overseas, including in and around sensitive installations overseas where US nuclear weapons are reportedly stored. WIRED reported in February that US data brokers were using Google's ad-tech tools to sell access to information about devices linked to military service members and national security decision makers, as well as federal contractors that manufacture and export classified defense-related technologies. Experts say it proves trivial for foreign adversaries to de-anonymize the data. "Data brokers inflict severe harm on individuals by degrading privacy, threatening national security, enabling scams and fraud, endangering public officials and survivors of domestic violence, and putting immigrant populations at risk,' says Caroline Kraczon, law fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center focused on consumer protection. 'The CFPB had a critical opportunity to address these harms by clarifying that data brokers must follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act,' adds Kraczon. 'This withdrawal is deeply disappointing and another attack in the administration's war against consumers on behalf of corporate interests." Last month, more than 1,400 CFPB employees had their positions at the agency terminated, leaving the agency with a staff of around 300 people. Elon Musk, whose so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has spearheaded the White House's efforts to radically restructure the federal government by slashing the size of the its workforce, last November called on President Donald Trump to 'delete' the CFBP, whose job includes shielding Americans from predatory lending practices.
