By John W. Whitehead:
“We’re going to continue to do business just as we've done it—we were prepared for 1070 as it was written when it went into law. For us, it isn't a matter of having to re-create any wheel here, we already have it.”—Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman
If you’re dark-haired, brown-skinned and have the misfortune of living in Arizona in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Arizona v. United States of America, get ready to be stopped, searched and questioned. Then again, if you’re a citizen living in the United States, this is merely one more component of the police state that appears to be descending upon us.
Thanks to a muddled decision handed down by the Supreme Court on June 25, Arizona police officers now have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals—citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling.
In Arizona v. United States, one of this term’s most controversial cases, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether federal law trumps Arizona’s immigration law, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070). A divided Court struck down as unconstitutional key provisions pertaining to the criminalizing of illegal immigrants (for not possessing their federal registration cards while working, applying for work or soliciting work) and warrantless arrests by police, declaring that “the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” At the same time, the Court unanimously affirmed the Arizona law’s “show me your papers” provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they stop for any reason.
It’s a mixed bag of a ruling that is being hailed as a victory by spin doctors at all ends of the political spectrum. President Obama, whose administration challenged the Arizona statute as attempting to preempt federal law, hailed the ruling as a clear referendum on the fact that “Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system—it's part of the problem.” Meanwhile, Jan Brewer, Arizona’s governor and a major player in the immigration wars, claimed the ruling as “a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”
Yet no amount of spin can detract from the fact that this ruling does little to recognize or counteract the real danger inherent in S.B. 1070, which is the erection of a prototype police state in Arizona. As Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman, made clear, all the pieces are already in place—all they’re waiting for is the go-ahead.
By allowing Arizona police to stop and search people, citizens and immigrants alike, based only on their own subjective suspicions and visual observations, and by failing to address the core issue being debated here—namely, whether Americans have any Fourth Amendment protections anymore—the Court has opened the door to a host of abuses, the least of which will be racial profiling. Without fail, we will be revisiting this issue again, especially in light of the fact that Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah have adopted similar laws.
Supreme Court Justice Harlan famously stated that “[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” However, S.B. 1070 and those like it have the very real potential to create both the perception and the reality that a new lower class of citizenship exists for one segment of citizens in the United States—those of Hispanic appearance. There can be no doubt that the effects of S.B. 1070 will primarily be felt by minorities. Citizenship and legal presence in the United States will be no protection against such racist policies. For now, in such an environment, the burden of proof will shift to compel those of Hispanic appearance to prove that their presence in the United States is legal. The consequence of such a policy of enforcement is obvious: it will “contribute to racial balkanization” and lead to second-class status for those American citizens whose skin color is anything other than white.
The concept of citizenship, as the Supreme Court recognized in its seminal Fourth Amendment case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), involves the enjoyment of “dignity and integrity.” At the very least, this means being “accorded a level of respect, regard, and autonomy in dealings with the police.” This goes to the crux of the problem: there is no room for dignity and integrity in a police state. Yet with every ruling being handed down right now, we’re being moved that much closer to such a state of affairs.
Frankly, when all is said and done, the mindset behind the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States is no different from that of Florence v. Burlington (which prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches), or Kentucky v. King (police were given greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant), or Brooks v. City of Seattle (police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution).
These seemingly unrelated cases perfectly encapsulate how much the snare enclosing us has tightened, how little recourse we really have—at least in the courts, and how truly bleak is the landscape of our freedoms. What these respective rulings reveal is that the governmental bureaucracy has stopped viewing us, the American people, as human beings who should be treated with worth and dignity. That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons and effects was designed so that government agents would be forced to treat us with due respect. With this protection now gone, those who attempt to exercise their rights will often be forced to defend themselves against an increasingly inflexible and uncompromising government. Some will come under scrutiny for their political or religious views, others for the color of their skin, while still others may be targeted for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or for trying to hold fast to some last shred of privacy.
In this way, the Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States sounds a warning far greater than the singular matter of how states deal with illegal immigration. To those who can hear it, it says beware: the police state is almost upon you.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/in_a_police_state_everyone_loses_the_supreme_courts_ruling_in_arizona_
Favorite Quotes
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Cellphone companies give police your records but won't provide them to the public.
Cellphone companies hold onto your location
information for years and routinely provide it to police and, in
anonymized form, to outside companies.
As they note in their privacy policies, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile all analyze your information to send you targeted ads for their own services or from outside companies. At least tens of thousands of times a year, they also hand cellphone location information to the FBI or police officers who have a court order.
Verizon
On releasing location data to you: “Verizon Wireless will release a subscriber’s location information to law enforcement with that subscriber’s written consent. These requests must come to Verizon Wireless through law enforcement; so we would provide info on your account to law enforcement— with your consent— but not directly to you.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: “ Unless a customer consents to the release of information or law enforcement certifies that there is an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury, Verizon Wireless does not release information to law enforcement without appropriate legal process.” A spokesman said being more specific would “require us to share proprietary information.”
Sprint
On releasing location data to you: “We do not normally release this information to customers for privacy reasons because call detail records contain all calls made or received, including calls where numbers are ‘blocked.’ Because of an FCC rule requiring that we not disclose ‘blocked’ numbers, we only release this information to a customer when we receive a valid legal demand for it.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: “If the government is seeking “basic subscriber information” (defined in 18 USC sec. 2701, et seq) it can obtain that information by issuing a subpoena. If the government is seeking Sprint records relating to our customers that go beyond “basic subscriber information” then the government must furnish Sprint with a court order based on specific and articulable facts. If the government is seeking customer’s content then it must obtain a warrant based on probable cause.”
AT&T
On releasing location data to you: “Giving customers location data for their wireless phones is not a service we provide.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: "We do share data with law enforcement as part of a valid legal process - for example, a court order or a subpoena."
T-Mobile
On releasing location data to you: “No comment.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: “For law enforcement agencies, we release customer information only when compelled or permitted under existing laws. This includes, but is not limited to, circumstances under which there is a declaration from law enforcement of an exigent circumstance, as well as other valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders.”
The Obama administration has maintained that mobile phone users have “no reasonable expectation of privacy.” The administration has argued against more stringent standards for police and the FBI to obtain location data.
The FBI also says data collected by cell phones is not necessarily accurate enough to pose much of a threat to your privacy— for instance, in a strip mall, cell phone records may not show whether you are in a coffee shop or the apartment next door.
Matt Blaze, a University of Pennsylvania professor said as the number of mobile phones continues to rise, cell phone companies are now installing thousands of small boxes known as microcells in crowded places like parking garages and shopping malls to enable them to provide better service.
Microcells, he said, also enable the phone companies to record highly precise location data. While your phone is on, he said, it is constantly recording your location.
http://www.propublica.org/article/cellphone-companies-will-share-your-location-data-just-not-with-you
As they note in their privacy policies, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile all analyze your information to send you targeted ads for their own services or from outside companies. At least tens of thousands of times a year, they also hand cellphone location information to the FBI or police officers who have a court order.
But ProPublica discovered that there’s one person cell phone companies will not share your location information with: You.
Verizon
On releasing location data to you: “Verizon Wireless will release a subscriber’s location information to law enforcement with that subscriber’s written consent. These requests must come to Verizon Wireless through law enforcement; so we would provide info on your account to law enforcement— with your consent— but not directly to you.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: “ Unless a customer consents to the release of information or law enforcement certifies that there is an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury, Verizon Wireless does not release information to law enforcement without appropriate legal process.” A spokesman said being more specific would “require us to share proprietary information.”
Sprint
On releasing location data to you: “We do not normally release this information to customers for privacy reasons because call detail records contain all calls made or received, including calls where numbers are ‘blocked.’ Because of an FCC rule requiring that we not disclose ‘blocked’ numbers, we only release this information to a customer when we receive a valid legal demand for it.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: “If the government is seeking “basic subscriber information” (defined in 18 USC sec. 2701, et seq) it can obtain that information by issuing a subpoena. If the government is seeking Sprint records relating to our customers that go beyond “basic subscriber information” then the government must furnish Sprint with a court order based on specific and articulable facts. If the government is seeking customer’s content then it must obtain a warrant based on probable cause.”
AT&T
On releasing location data to you: “Giving customers location data for their wireless phones is not a service we provide.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: "We do share data with law enforcement as part of a valid legal process - for example, a court order or a subpoena."
T-Mobile
On releasing location data to you: “No comment.”
On responding to requests from law enforcement: “For law enforcement agencies, we release customer information only when compelled or permitted under existing laws. This includes, but is not limited to, circumstances under which there is a declaration from law enforcement of an exigent circumstance, as well as other valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders.”
The Obama administration has maintained that mobile phone users have “no reasonable expectation of privacy.” The administration has argued against more stringent standards for police and the FBI to obtain location data.
The FBI also says data collected by cell phones is not necessarily accurate enough to pose much of a threat to your privacy— for instance, in a strip mall, cell phone records may not show whether you are in a coffee shop or the apartment next door.
Matt Blaze, a University of Pennsylvania professor said as the number of mobile phones continues to rise, cell phone companies are now installing thousands of small boxes known as microcells in crowded places like parking garages and shopping malls to enable them to provide better service.
Microcells, he said, also enable the phone companies to record highly precise location data. While your phone is on, he said, it is constantly recording your location.
http://www.propublica.org/article/cellphone-companies-will-share-your-location-data-just-not-with-you
Public must rely on information police agencies choose to share, even if it's wrong.
Across Virgina, there are almost no details available to the public about crime that happens every day. From petty larceny to murder, Virginia police officials routinely deny access to basic documents such as incident reports. In the case of Hailu Brook, his father Brook Beshah can't even get a copy of the investigation conducted by Arlington County officials detailing how Fairfax County police officers shot and killed his son — even though the case is closed.
When
the Associated Press tested the effectiveness of the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act in 2006 by sending reporters to each county to ask
for public records, only 43 percent had success. The rest were told
that the records would not be released or would cost thousands of
dollars in fees. Earlier this year, a State Integrity Investigation
ranked and graded each of the 50 states on government accountability,
transparency and corruption. Virginia got an F, largely because police
agencies use an exemption clause in the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act to withhold basic documents in all cases, regardless of what the
case is about and regardless of whether the case is open or closed.
There
is no question that under some circumstances that it is in the public
interest to protect the identities of some victims and some witnesses,"
said Lucy Dalglish, director of the Arlington-based Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press. "I just don't think it is necessary to protect
the identities of all victims and all witnesses in all circumstances."
This Week ,
law enforcement leaders and advocates for open government will meet in
Richmond to consider the fate of Senate Bill 711, originally introduced
in 2010 by state Sen. John Edwards (D-21). The effort has languished for
years as police chiefs and prosecutors from across the commonwealth
have spoken out against any effort to undermine their broad power of
exemption, which includes withholding "complaints, memoranda,
correspondence, case files or reports, witness statements, and evidence
relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution." The bill currently
under consideration would add the words "ongoing investigation" to that
list, allowing for the public release of documents in closed cases such
as the one conducted by the Arlington Police Department about the death
of Hailu Brook.
"There's
no policy reason why they should remain confidential once the case is
over," said Edwards. "My bill even allows law-enforcement officials to
shield confidential informants or techniques that are considered
confidential."
Police
chiefs, sheriff's deputies and prosecutors disagree. During a hearing
conducted by a subcommittee of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Advisory Council in 2010, law-enforcement officials from across the
commonwealth descended on the capital to oppose any effort to weaken the
exemption clause. Even if a case is closed, they said, releasing
documents would be a bad idea. Now, two years later, the same
subcommittee is set to meet yet again to consider the same legislation.
http://www.arlingtonconnection.com/news/2012/jun/25/police-documents-remain-unavailable/Supreme Court sides with newspaper in records dispute with Milwaukee police dep't.
The City of Milwaukee and the Journal Sentinel were in a dispute over whether a government body can charge for its employees to delete information deemed confidential from public records.
Reversing a Milwaukee County judge's ruling, the high court said Wisconsin's 30-year-old public records law has never allowed public agencies to charge requesters for redacting information from records.
The city argued it could charge for redacting under provisions of the law that allow fees to be charged for locating and copying records. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and said such fees could be used by governmental bodies to effectively deny release of records.
"This case is not about a direct denial of public access to records, but the issue in the present case directly implicates the accessibility of government records," Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote in the decision. "The greater the fee imposed on a requester of a public record, the less likely the requester will be willing and able to successfully make a record request."
Abrahamson wrote that Wisconsin's records law is to be "construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access."
"Wisconsin's commitment to open, transparent government rings loud and clear in the public records law," the opinion said. "The law reaffirms that the people have not only the opportunity but also the right to know what the government is doing and to monitor the government."
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who filed a brief on behalf of the Journal Sentinel, applauded the decision.
"This is the correct decision, and a decision which promotes open government," he said.
The lawsuit stemmed from a 2010 records request based on a Journal Sentinel attempt to do an audit of two weeks of incident reports for offenses such as assault, burglary and theft.
The department, which had produced 100 copies of incident reports for free, switched gears and sent the newspaper a letter saying the cost to obtain the additional 750 reports would be more than $4,500 and would take police more than nine months.
The lawsuit asked a judge to order the department to allow the Journal Sentinel to inspect and copy the records without prepayment of fees for redaction and without unreasonable delay.
"This ruling underlines what we have said all along: Unreasonable fees should not be used to hide information on vital issues from the public," said Greg Borowski, senior editor for projects and investigations at the Journal Sentinel. "This is a victory for the public, which is entitled to know how government is functioning."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/supreme-court-sides-with-newspaper-in-dispute-with-milwaukee-police-department-jl5tldj-160510565.html
Minorities are more likely to be searched by police.
Fayetteville, NC - A trial lawyers task force has studied a decade's worth of law
enforcement traffic stops in North Carolina and found that blacks and
Hispanics are "systematically searched at much higher rates than
whites."
The N.C. Advocates for Justice, formerly the
N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, analyzed almost 13.5 million traffic stop
records covering a period from 2000 to mid-2011.
In a
report this spring, the authors called their findings "deeply disturbing
and may be indicative of a problem." They have called for the creation
of a broad-based state commission to study the causes of the racial
disparities at traffic stops and make recommendations.
The comprehensive report is a first of its kind in North Carolina, but not many state officials are aware of it.
The
report was sent to only a half dozen of the state's top leaders,
including Gov. Bev Perdue and state Attorney General Roy Cooper. No
legislators from Cumberland County were aware of the report's existence
until a reporter contacted them this week.
The
Fayetteville Observer obtained a copy of the report's summary and
analysis from a source at the N.C. General Assembly on the condition of
anonymity.
http://www.news-record.com/node/146486
North Carolina Advocates for Justice: Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Bias Executive Summary:
http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/papers/NCAJ_Exec_Summary.pdfVera Institute - Do Race and Ethnicity Matter in Prosecution? A Review of Empirical Studies report:
http://www.vera.org/files/race-and-ethnicity-in-prosecution-first-edition.pdf
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
A U.S. city privatizes its Courts & city hall as private companies set up their home offices.
Sandy Springs, GA - If your image of a city hall involves a venerable building, some Roman
pillars and lots of public employees, the version offered by this
Atlanta suburb of 94,000 residents is a bit of a shocker.
The entire operation is housed in a generic, one-story industrial park,
along with a restaurant and a gym. And though the place has a large
staff, none are on the public payroll. O.K., seven are, including the
city manager. But unless you chance into one of them, the people you
meet here work for private companies through a variety of contracts.
Applying for a business license? Speak to a woman with Severn Trent, a
multinational company based in Coventry, England. Want to build a new
deck on your house? Chat with an employee of Collaborative Consulting,
based in Burlington, MA. Need a word with people who oversee trash
collection? That would be the URS Corporation, based in San Francisco.
Even the city’s court, which is in session on this May afternoon, next
to the revenue division, is handled by a private company, the Jacobs
Engineering Group of Pasadena, Calif. The company’s staff is in charge
of all administrative work, though the judge, Lawrence Young, is
essentially a legal temp, paid a flat rate of $100 an hour.
“I think of it as being a baby judge,” says Mr. Young, who spends most
of his time drafting trusts as a lawyer in a private practice, “because
we don’t have to deal with the terrible things that you find in Superior
Court.”
With public employee unions under attack in states like Wisconsin, and
with cities across the country looking to trim budgets, behold a town
built almost entirely on a series of public-private partnerships - a
system that leaders around here refer to, simply, as “the model.”
Cities have dabbled for years with privatization, but few have taken the idea as far as Sandy Springs.
Since the day it incorporated, Dec. 1, 2005, it has handed off to
private enterprise just about every service that can be evaluated
through metrics and inked into a contract.
To grasp how unusual this is, consider what Sandy Springs does not
have. It does not have a fleet of vehicles for road repair, or a yard
where the fleet is parked. It does not have long-term debt. It has no
pension obligations. It does not have a city hall, for that matter, if
your idea of a city hall is a building owned by the city. Sandy Springs
rents.
The town does have a conventional police force and fire
department, in part because the insurance premiums for a private company
providing those services were deemed prohibitively high. But its 911
dispatch center is operated by a private company, iXP, with headquarters
in Cranbury, N.J.
The prospect of more Sandy Springs-style incorporations concerns people
like Evan McKenzie, author of “Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and
the Rise of Residential Private Government.” He worries that rich
enclaves may decide to become gated communities writ large, walling
themselves off from areas that are economically distressed.
Nothing about Sandy Springs hints that it is one of the country’s purest
examples of a contract city. Even those city hall employees betray no
sign that they work for a jumble of corporations. Drive around and
you’ll see a nondescript upscale suburb, where the most notable features
are traffic lights that seem to take five minutes to turn green. There
is no downtown, or at least anything that looks like a main street.
Instead, there are strip malls with plenty of usual-suspect franchises —
although one strip mall, oddly enough, includes a small museum that tells the story of Anne Frank.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?_r=2&smid=pl-share
DHS gave $33.9 billion in homeland security contracts to New England companies.
Boston, MA - Federal defense and homeland security contracts added $33.9
billion to the New England economy in 2011 -- up 85%
from eight years ago, according to a new study from the University of
Massachusetts Donahue Institute.
The regional study commissioned by the Defense Technology Initiative found that the defense and homeland security industries are highly interconnected among all six New England states and important to the region's economy.
"The real value of the report is the beginning of our commitment to keep this data refreshed on a regular basis," said Initiative President Christopher Anderson.
Tracking data from 2003 to 2011, the report examines the trends in defense spending and the interconnections between the New England states. It estimates the total direct and indirect economic activity spurred by federal defense and security contracts in the region exceeded $62 billion last year.
The report found that Connecticut experienced the second largest revenue boost from federal contracts in the region, with $12.7 billion pumped into the state's economy last year -- up 58 percent from 2003 and accounting for more than 101,000 jobs.
New Hampshire gained $1.3 billion from defense contracts, more than doubling its revenue amount.
Maine's contract for new Navy destroyers at General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works contributed to the largest state increase since 2003, bringing in $5 billion in 2011, compared to the $1 billion brought in just eight years earlier.
Meanwhile, Rhode Island and Vermont received the smallest direct economic boost from federal defense and homeland security contracts, each taking in less than $1 billion in 2011.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/defense-security-spending-jumps-in-new-england_2012-06-26.html
The UMass Donahue Institute GSA Services, is a government company.
Harold D. Donahue Federal Building
595 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/22234
Contact: Laura Eve-Cowles, Ed.D
Phone 413.545.0001
Fax 413.545.3420
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.donahue.umassp.edu
The regional study commissioned by the Defense Technology Initiative found that the defense and homeland security industries are highly interconnected among all six New England states and important to the region's economy.
"The real value of the report is the beginning of our commitment to keep this data refreshed on a regular basis," said Initiative President Christopher Anderson.
Tracking data from 2003 to 2011, the report examines the trends in defense spending and the interconnections between the New England states. It estimates the total direct and indirect economic activity spurred by federal defense and security contracts in the region exceeded $62 billion last year.
Massachusetts, the report's top earner, received nearly $13.9 billion
from Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security
contracts -- an increase of 83 percent over the study period.
The report found that Connecticut experienced the second largest revenue boost from federal contracts in the region, with $12.7 billion pumped into the state's economy last year -- up 58 percent from 2003 and accounting for more than 101,000 jobs.
New Hampshire gained $1.3 billion from defense contracts, more than doubling its revenue amount.
Maine's contract for new Navy destroyers at General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works contributed to the largest state increase since 2003, bringing in $5 billion in 2011, compared to the $1 billion brought in just eight years earlier.
Meanwhile, Rhode Island and Vermont received the smallest direct economic boost from federal defense and homeland security contracts, each taking in less than $1 billion in 2011.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/defense-security-spending-jumps-in-new-england_2012-06-26.html
The New England Defense Industry: Current Profile & Economic Signifigance Study:
http://media.kjonline.com/documents/New+England+Defense+Study_06_20_12.pdfThe UMass Donahue Institute GSA Services, is a government company.
Harold D. Donahue Federal Building
595 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/22234
UMass Donahue Institute GSA Services
100 Venture Way, Suite 9 Hadley, MA 01035Contact: Laura Eve-Cowles, Ed.D
Phone 413.545.0001
Fax 413.545.3420
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.donahue.umassp.edu
Police departments across the country are acquiring military equipment from the U.S. government.
Small police departments across America are collecting
battlefield-grade arsenals thanks to a program that allows them to get
their hands on military surplus equipment – amphibious tanks,
night-vision goggles, and even barber chairs or underwear – at virtually
no cost, except for shipment and maintenance.
Over the last five years, the top 10 beneficiaries of this “Department of Defense Excess Property Program”
included small agencies such as the Fairmount Police Department. It
serves 7,000 people in northern Georgia and received 17,145 items from
the military. The cops in Issaquah, Washington, a town of 30,000 people,
acquired more than 37,000 pieces of gear.
In 2011 alone, more than 700,000 items were transferred to police
departments for a total value of $500 million. This year, as of May 15,
police departments already acquired almost $400 million worth of stuff.
Last year’s record would have certainly been shattered if the Arizona Republic hadn’t revealed in early May that a local police department used the program to stockpile equipment – and then sold the gear to others, something that is strictly forbidden. Three weeks after the revelation, the Pentagon decided to partly suspend distribution of surplus material
until all agencies could put together an up-to-date inventory of all
the stuff they got through the years. A second effort, which gives
federal grants to police departments to purchase equipment, is still
ongoing, however. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, since 9/11, the grants have totaled $34 billion.
Which means billions of dollars’ worth of military gear are in the
hands of small-town cops who neither need the equipment nor are properly
trained to use it, critics charge. At best, it’s a waste of resources
(since the gear still has to be maintained). At worst, it could cost
lives.
Take the 50-officer police department in Oxford, Alabama,
a town of 20,000 people. It has stockpiled around $3 million of
equipment, ranging from M-16s and helmet-mounted infrared goggles to its
own armored vehicle, a Puma.
In Tupelo, Mississippi, home to 35,000, the local police acquired a
helicopter for only $7,500 through the surplus program. The chopper,
however, had to be upgraded for $100,000 and it now costs $20,000 a year
in maintenance.
The Nebraska State Patrol has three amphibious eight-wheeled tanks.
Acquired almost three years ago, their highest achievement has been
helping with a flood last year and with a shooting a couple of weeks
ago. Overall, it has been deployed five times. At least, officers love
driving them. “They’re fun,” said trooper Art Frerichs to the Lincoln Journal Star in 2010. And the ride, according to Patrol Sgt. Loveless, “is very smooth.”
In Lebanon, Tennessee, a town of less than 30,000 people, Mike
Justice, the public safety coordinator, was so eager to accumulate
military goods that he used to wake up at 3:00 a.m. so he was the first
person logged in at the government’s first-come, first-serve online
store. Thanks to his sleepless nights, since 2007, Lebanon has collected
$4 million worth of stuff, including tanks, weapons and heavy equipment
like bulldozers and truck loaders. Lebanon’s tank, an LAV 150,
has been used only “five or six times,” according to Justice. Although
it did help save a man who tried to commit suicide, spotting him with
the tank’s infrared camera.
Gov't programs for state and local governments to acquire equipment:
Cooperative purchasing from the GSA:
IT Schedule 70 is the largest and most widely used acquisition vehicle
in the federal government. Schedule 70 is an indefinite delivery
indefinite quantity (IDIQ) multiple award schedule, providing direct
access to products and services from over 5,000 certified industry
partners.
Our industry partners have access to over $16 billion in revenue through IT Schedule 70.
Total solutions for law enforcement, security, facilities... Schedule 84
Whether it is protecting our shorelines, patrolling our harbors,
ports, and federally controlled lakes and rivers, or oil-spill
containment, this Schedule has all types of marine craft, equipment and
services to meet your needs. This schedule can provide equipment and
services for personal, vehicular, or facility applications for all of
your law enforcement protection, prevention, apprehension, or
investigation needs.
Items on this Schedule can help you extinguish fires, manage
controlled burns, and provide personal respiratory protection.
Additionally, products are included for search and rescue, both to
assist your entry into buildings or vehicles, and to safely evacuate
personnel.
Check out our process monitoring, hazard alarms, audible/visual
alarms, anti-theft alarms, patient wandering systems and fire alarm
systems. GSA has facility management systems for security and energy
management functions. Services such as professional security, facility
management and guard services are also located in this Schedule.
To protect one’s self from the elements, fire, biochemical exposure,
accidental immersion, or other hazardous materials, see what is
available in Schedule 84. Uniforms, safety shoes, and boots of all types
are available as well.
GSA's offerings include:
- Security System Management, Design & Support Services, Marine Craft & Waterfront Security Products & Services
- Alarm & Signal Systems, Facility Management Services, Professional Security/Facility Management Services & Guard Services
- Alarm & Signal Systems, Facility Management Services, Professional Security/Facility Management Services & Guard Services – For Other Types of Facilities
- Firefighting & Rescue Equipment – Urban & Wildland
- Law Enforcement & Security Equipment Supplies & Services
- Marine Craft & Equipment
- Special Purpose Clothing
The 1122 Program:
The 1122 Program offers Americans peace of mind by enabling
state and units of local government, access to federal sources of supply
to purchase equipment in support of counter-drug, homeland security and
emergency response activities.
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009 amended 10 U.S.C. 381, to expand the procurement authority under
the 1122 Program beyond counter-drug activities, to include equipment
for homeland security and emergency response activities. Details on the
program expansion including the requirements for State Point of Contact
(SPOC) certification are located in:
Here is the list of all states currently participating in the 1122
Program, along with their corresponding certified State Points of
Contact:
The Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and
the General Services Administration (GSA) all provide equipment for
purchase to the participating states under the program.
Additional GSA state and local programs:
In addition to the 1122 Program, state and local government entities
may take advantage of the purchasing power of the federal government
through the Cooperative Purchasing Program, the Disaster Recovery Purchasing Program, and the Public Health Emergencies Program.
The Federal Surplus Personal Property Donation Program
enables certain nonfederal organizations to obtain personal property
that the federal government no longer needs. Surplus personal property
includes all types and categories of personal property except:
- Land or other real property
- Certain naval vessels
- Records of the federal government
The following activities are eligible to receive donations of federal
property through the State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP). SASPs
are state-run organizations that coordinate the federal program for the
donation of federal surplus property to public, tax-supported entities
and eligible private nonprofit tax-exempt organizations. Details on each
category follow:
- State and Public Agencies
- Nonprofit Educational and Public Health Activities, Including Programs for the Homeless and Impoverished
- Nonprofit and Public Programs for the Elderly
- Public Airports
- Educational Activities of Special Interest to the Armed Services
- Special Categories
- http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105055
Obama administration tries to shut down a private investigator's website that was critical of the "Fast and Furious" debacle.
A political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the Fast and Furious scandal was ordered to be shut down by the Obama campaign’s ‘Truth Team’, according to private investigator Douglas Hagmann, who was told by ISP GoDaddy his site contained information that was “maliciously harmful to individuals in the government.”
Hagmann, CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., a
private investigative agency serving a roster of Fortune 500 clients,
was given 48 hours by GoDaddy to find a new home for his website before
it was deleted.
Hagmann was told the reason for the shut down was
because the website featured “morally objectionable” material. After
GoDaddy refused to identify the complainant, only saying that it was not
“any official government agency,” further investigation by Hagmann
revealed that the order came from a group tied to Obama campaign
headquarters.
Speaking with the chief investigator in the GoDaddy
Abuse division, Hagmann discovered, “Ultimately it was found that the
complaint originated ostensibly with a group associated with the
campaign to re-elect Barack Hussein Obama.”
Turning to his contacts within government, Hagmann then
spoke with another source who confirmed that the ‘Obama Truth Team’ was
responsible for the shut down order.
Despite the fact that his son was getting married on the same weekend, Hagmann was eventually able to move his website - HomelandSecurityus.com - to another server before it was deleted by GoDaddy.
“It took an incredible number of man hours and it was a
tedious (and costly) process, but I have successfully moved my site out
of reach,” Hagmann told us.
Hagmann noted that his story from last month about a DHS inside source warning of coming mass civil unrest, which went viral on the Internet, was one of the primary reasons behind the effort to shut down his website.
Hagmann is now warning that any independent website
which forcefully dissents against the Obama administration could be
targeted next.
“I respectfully ask that you spread the word – that the
Obama “Truth Team” is out in full force, scouring any U.S. based web
sites of any size or influence (yet small enough to be pushed around)
that contains any information deemed “objectionable” to the Obama
re-election campaign. Perhaps it’s already too late. Regardless, people
need to wake up now and listen to what we’ve been saying. There might
not be a tomorrow,” Hagmann told us in an email.
4016 Brooks Street
Erie, PA16506-3801
Phone: (814) 836-0426
http://www.infowars.com/obama-truth-team-orders-godaddy-to-shut-down-website/
More news about GoDaddy closing down a private investigator's website.
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Founder, Director
It was like something from George Orwell’s “1984.” Last Friday evening, I was notified by my internet service provider that I was in violation of the hosting company’s terms of service and I had 48 hours to find another hosting company or they would forcibly shut down my website.
This, after having my website in operation for the last ten-(10) years and weathering such controveries as showing the world videos of the unsanitized version of Muslim beheadings while the corporate media failed to explain such inhumanity. We’ve always prevailed in the storms of trumped-up so what has changed?
Truth Teams. Internet censorship. Why do yu think there’s been such a push for internet related legislation such as SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and so on? Why NOW?
The following is the e-mail letter I received from GoDaddy. Read it. More importantly, understand YOU could be next.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Our records indicate that you are responsible for the HOMELANDSECURITYUS.COM domain name and its hosted content. We have received complaints about your domain name and the contents of your website. Upon reviewing the situation, we have found that they are in violation on section 7 of your Domain Registration Agreement. (http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/legal_agreements/show_doc.asp?se=%2B&pageid=REG%5FSA)
We understand that this can be a very sensitive topic, and that there will likely be a difference of opinion as to the nature of the complaints. We are not making a determination in favor of either, but do not wish to be involved in such disputes. As a result, we ask that you move the registration and hosting for these sites to another provider (Not affiliated with GoDaddy.com or our Reseller division, WildWestDomains.com).
If you can initiate this move within 48 hours of the transmission of this notice, there will not need to be any downtime for your site. If the transfer is not initiated by this time, we may have to suspend services to your website. We strongly recommend you reply to this message as to your intentions. This will further help insure that no unnecessary downtime results for your site.
If you have any questions, please let us know. Please be aware that this decision is final, and we do not wish to debate the actual content of your site.
Regards,
Network Abuse Department
GoDaddy.com
24/7 Network Abuse Department
Hotline: 480-624-2505
ARID1020
In an attempt to determine the nature of my transgresssions, I contacted the abuse department.
I asked if it was a single complaint they received, or a series of complaints. I asked if they would identify the specific article or articles that spurred complaint(s). In short, I asked the representative to review their files so I could be provided with answers – answers I felt I deserved. The representative stated that there was not one specific article, but “it was the conclusion of the abuse department that the entirety of the my site contains published information they found to be morally objectionable.” After rephrasing the question in an effort to secure more specific information, the investigator finally became a bit short tempered and said that they made their decision and my site would be shut down for “morally objectionable content,” period. When I asked if they would provide me any information about the complainant, she said no.
As anyone knows, it takes time, money and a lot of resources time to move a large site from one server to another. It takes about 48 hours to point the DNS alone, so I was looking at the possibility of down time.
Several hours laer, still upset that I was given no information about who or what is behind this, I called the ISP abuse department back and spoke with an individual who seemed to be a bit more friendly. I repeated my initial questions, and although he refused to provide any specific details, eventually gave me some clues without breaking ranks from his company policies on not telling their customers anything. The clues pointed to Obama’s “truth teams.” It was also noted that the ranking on our site was rising and growing in traffic and popularity, and as such, is becomming a natural target.
People such as Steve Quayle warned people about this taking place, but has been routinely scoffed at on political forums, self-professed Christian sites, so-called “survival websites” and by idiots in general who know nothing, or by hired guns of this current administration. Steve Quayle and others are being vilified to this day by people who don’t have a clue about that which they write on internet forums or their own sites. Someday, when it is too late, they will experience this censorship, but who will hear their objections?
No one will be left.
I find that sad that truth has now become “morally objectionable” to publish. I for one will not be silenced, and truth itself must not be silenced.
People MUST understand, before it is too late, that they will feel the direct impact of this “Truth Team” that is out in full force, scouring for any “objectionable” information posted by private websites. Perhaps it’s already too late. Regardless, I will remain in the fight, relocate out of the reach of these despicable Marxists, and continue the battle until my last breath. Regardless, people need to wake up now. There might not be a tomorrow.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
330 vehicles stopped only 4 arrested for DUI are police checkpoints effective?
Belmont, New Hampshire - This checkpoint, about a mile west of the
Laconia line, was set to run from 9 p.m. Friday to 3 a.m. Saturday on
one of the busiest roads in the Lakes Region, with 20,000 cars passing
each day. It was placed within a quarter-mile of seven restaurants with
bars, a state liquor store and several convenience stores, police Sgt. Richard Mann said.
By the time the checkpoint was dismantled at 3 a.m., police had stopped 330 vehicles and had made four arrests for drunken driving, four arrests for drugged driving and one arrest of a person on a U.S. immigration charge. In addition, 28 drivers had been cautioned about vehicle safety issues.
“Actually, that's about what we had last year,” said Mann, sounding disappointed.
But he remained optimistic about the checkpoint's mission.
“If we stop a drunk or drugged driver, we've done a good thing. But with the publicity and the awareness that comes with these checkpoints, there's a deterrent effect. We stopped some people, but who knows how many people didn't drink and drive this week because they heard about the checkpoint? That's what we hope for.”
Report: Widespread police abuse in Puerto Rico, the 2nd. largest police dept. in the U.S.
The ACLU today released a report
that finds the Puerto Rico Police Department -- the second-largest
police department in the U.S. -- is plagued by a culture of unrestrained
abuse and brutality. The use of excessive or lethal force is routine
among the 17,000 officer-department. In recent years, civil and human
rights violations have resulted in the unjustifiable loss of civilians’
lives, and severe and lasting injuries.
Our report, “Island of Impunity: Puerto Rico’s Outlaw Police Force,” documents extensive violations of Puerto Ricans’ constitutional and human rights by the PRPD, including:
For example, in 2010 and 2011, PRPD officers killed at least 21 civilians. The per capita rate of fatal police shootings in 2010 was almost triple that of New York City the same year. Only about one percent of rapes are properly reported by the PRPD. In most U.S. jurisdictions the number of reported rapes is four times the number of homicides – in 2010, the PRPD reported 1,000 homicides, but only 39 rapes.
Meanwhile, Puerto Rico’s per capita rate of women murdered by their partners is the highest in the world. In 2011, the number of women killed by their partners in Puerto Rico was six times higher than Los Angeles, which has about the same population of 3.7 million.
Between 2005 and 2010, more than 1,700 PRPD officers were arrested for criminal activity including assault, domestic violence, drug trafficking and murder – amounting to 10 percent of the force. At least 84 still-active PRPD officers have been arrested two or more times for domestic violence.
The 180-page report comes nine months after the release of a scathing U.S. Justice Department report on the PRPD, which found numerous constitutional violations, including widespread use of excessive force.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-womens-rights/aclu-releases-new-report-widespread-police-brutality-puerto-rico
Our report, “Island of Impunity: Puerto Rico’s Outlaw Police Force,” documents extensive violations of Puerto Ricans’ constitutional and human rights by the PRPD, including:
• Use of excessive and lethal force against civilians, especially in poor and Black neighborhoods and Dominican communities, often resulting in serious injury and death.
• Violent suppression of peaceful protestors
using batons, rubber bullets, and a toxic form of tear gas that was
phased out by mainland U.S. police departments in the 1960’s.
• Failure to protect victims of domestic violence and to investigate reported crimes of domestic violence, rape, and other gender-based crimes.
The report identifies numerous deficiencies that are responsible for
the crisis at the PRPD, including a lack of procedures to monitor and
investigate abuse complaints – which are routinely covered up by the
department – and inadequate systems to train, supervise and discipline
officers. The lack of accountability and discipline has led to some
troubling statistics that starkly illustrate a department in crisis.For example, in 2010 and 2011, PRPD officers killed at least 21 civilians. The per capita rate of fatal police shootings in 2010 was almost triple that of New York City the same year. Only about one percent of rapes are properly reported by the PRPD. In most U.S. jurisdictions the number of reported rapes is four times the number of homicides – in 2010, the PRPD reported 1,000 homicides, but only 39 rapes.
Meanwhile, Puerto Rico’s per capita rate of women murdered by their partners is the highest in the world. In 2011, the number of women killed by their partners in Puerto Rico was six times higher than Los Angeles, which has about the same population of 3.7 million.
Between 2005 and 2010, more than 1,700 PRPD officers were arrested for criminal activity including assault, domestic violence, drug trafficking and murder – amounting to 10 percent of the force. At least 84 still-active PRPD officers have been arrested two or more times for domestic violence.
The 180-page report comes nine months after the release of a scathing U.S. Justice Department report on the PRPD, which found numerous constitutional violations, including widespread use of excessive force.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-womens-rights/aclu-releases-new-report-widespread-police-brutality-puerto-rico
EPIC wants DHS to suspend the "ATS" profiling of Americans program.
EPIC submitted comments to Customs and Border Protection, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, urging the agency to suspend the Automated Targeting System (ATS).
Although the System was initially created to screen shipping cargo, the
agency now monitors individuals, and creates "risk-assessment" profiles
on Americans who are not suspected of any crime. The agency makes
determinations about individuals based on such factors as race,
ethnicity, and gender. The agency even collects information on political
opinions and religious beliefs. An unfavorable "risk-based" evaluation
by ATS can subject individuals to investigation, government
surveillance, and denial of the right to travel.
http://epic.org/2012/06/epic-calls-for-suspension-of-h.html
http://epic.org/2012/06/epic-calls-for-suspension-of-h.html
DHS to track our every movement with a new mandatory spy app. disguised as a "wireless emergency alert" program.
Everyone will receive the "wireless emergency alerts" automatically, provided they have a newer smartphone or an older one with an up-to-date operating system. The WEA system is rolling out in Minnesota this week via the National Weather Service and Department of Homeland Security.
This nationwide mobile-alert system won't only transmit severe-weather alerts. Phone users also will get an Ambert Alert if a child goes missing. If the United States faces a nationwide crisis of some sort, the president can transmit a mobile alert that pops up automatically on phones across the country.
This mobile alert system is designed to flag handset users based on their current locations -- not where they live or work. Someone who lives in St. Paul but is visiting Cincinnati would receive the same alerts residents of that city receive.
"What the system does is actually follow you around wherever you are going," based on users' proximity to cellular towers, said Todd Krause, the weather-warning coordinator at the National Weather Service's office in Chanhassen.
Smartphone users can choose not to receive Amber and weather alerts -- though public-safety officials urge them not to do the latter for their own protection -- but can't block presidential alerts.
http://www.twincities.com/ci_20931233/smartphones-now-set-up-automatic-alert-system-weather
Apple’s iOS 6 includes ‘government alerts’
The federal government is keen to implement a centralized system of control over all communications, with last year’s announcement that all new cell phones will be required to comply with the PLAN program (Personal Localized Alerting Network), which will broadcast emergency alert messages directly to Americans’ cell phones.
Although users can opt out of receiving the alerts from FEMA and the Amber Alert program, messages direct from the president will be mandatory.
“Consumers will have the option….to block all PLAN alerts except for those issued by the president,” the L.A. Times reported last year.
The PLAN program is part of the wider move on behalf of the Dept. Homeland Security to create a public environment dominated by a pervasive sense of fear and paranoia, a context in which the safe exercise of constitutional freedoms doesn’t normally thrive.
For the first time ever the feds will have a direct line to the millions of Americans who use cell phones and be able to use the messages to transmit whatever they like, whether that be genuine safety information, fearmongering about spurious terror alerts, or political propaganda.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/apples-ios-6-includes-government-alerts.html
Monday, June 25, 2012
TSA/DHS sets their sites on mass transit, want to spy on Americans.
The Transportation Security Administration already shares intelligence it collects with airports. Now a House bill would expand TSA's intel sharing to local mass transit systems as well.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, said the legislation is a "common sense approach" to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.
In an interview with The Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp, Speier said the bill creates "fusion centers," where TSA can provide intel to local law enforcement and emergency management officials.
"We have put in place through TSA a very elaborate system [in airports]. We all go through those metal detectors and those secondary searches. And we've put a lot of focus on the airlines for good reason. But we have neglected the mass transit components, generally speaking," she said.
Speier said 2 million people fly each day, compared with more than 5 million who ride the subway each day in New York City alone. She pointed out that the most recent terrorist attacks have been on mass transit. Also, when U.S. Special Forces raided Osama Bin Laden's compound last year, intelligence gathered revealed the next attack was intended for mass transit.
"The writing is on the wall. We need to be better prepared than we are right now," Speier said. Transit riders probably won't see more TSA agents in subways or bus stops, though, Speier said. The expanded TSA role falls more on analysts, she said.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/482/2914641/House-bill-extends-TSA-intel-sharing-to-mass-transit
One of the most atrocious and hated government agencies, the Transportation Security Administration, (TSA) may gain massive power over all mass transit systems due to a new bill sponsored by Jackie Speier, Democrat from California.
House Resolution 3140 (H.R. 3140) has already passed the House, and now is in the Senate awaiting a vote. This bill if passed, will allow total intelligence sharing by the TSA with all local mass transit systems. This in my opinion, is a first step in allowing TSA to take over “security” for mass transit operations nationwide.
According to this article from Federalnewsradio.com:
“Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, said the legislation is a “common sense approach” to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.”
Of course, the stated reasoning for another assault on our liberty is to protect us all from terrorism. This is nothing more than fear-mongering rhetoric. This bill creates more fusion centers so that the TSA can store and give “intelligence” (illegal surveillance records) to local law enforcement. It only enhances spying, and the sharing of ill-gotten private information about the citizenry.
This is a great example of incrementalism, and is a way for the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security to not only get another foot in the door, but to eventually take full control of all security and surveillance in the U.S. The local police, and “state” military forces will play a role, but they will be fully controlled at the federal level. The end result will be that we all live under the rule of the very few in a dictatorial oligarchy.
What will be the next step in the federal takeover of America? It seems to matter little, as the masses continue wallowing in their apathy, dependence, and fear!
http://garydbarnett.com/GDBdaily/?p=840
FBI gets a broader role in coordinating domestic intelligence activities.
The FBI has been given an expanded role in coordinating the domestic intelligence-gathering activities of the CIA and other agencies under a plan enacted this year by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., officials said.
The bureau’s highest-ranking field agents now also serve as the DNI’s representatives across the country. The change is intended to improve collaboration, but some officials say it has created new friction between the FBI and CIA.
One former U.S. official said senior FBI agents recently used a meeting with executives from major manufacturing companies on the West Coast to instruct them to cut off contact with the CIA.
The FBI’s message was that “they were now in charge of relationships with the corporate sector, so the folks there should feel no need to deal with the agency,” said the former U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. The FBI agents apparently were not aware that a former CIA officer was among the executives in attendance. The former official declined to provide more details about the location of the meeting or its participants.
FBI spokesman Michael Kortan said that officials could not confirm the alleged incident and that such a statement to company executives by an FBI agent would be inaccurate.
Although the CIA is best known for its spy work overseas, the agency has stations in most major U.S. cities.
The FBI dramatically expanded its domestic intelligence-gathering operations as part of a reorganization after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Flynn said the DNI program is not meant to disrupt CIA efforts in the United States. “This program doesn’t change the authorities of the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security or anybody else in the system,” he said. “But there is more of a responsibility to share and work together.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-gets-a-broader-role-in-coordinating-domestic-intelligence-activities/2012/06/19/gJQAtmupoV_story.html
TSA- Advancing the security baseline.
TSA staff has worked closely with FTA colleagues to develop and publish the Security and Emergency Preparedness Action Items, an update of the former Top 20 Security Actions for Mass Transit Agencies produced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Coordinated with members of the TCLDR-GCC and the Mass Transit SCC, the newly enhanced Action Items represent a comprehensive and systematic approach to elevate baseline security posture and enhance security program management and implementation. They address the current security risks that confront transit agencies today and priority areas where gaps need to be closed in security and emergency preparedness programs. The 17 Action Items cover a range of areas including security program management and accountability, security and emergency response training, drills and exercises, public awareness, protective measures for the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) threat levels, physical security, personnel security, and information sharing and security.
Through the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), DHS has allocated $547 million to date to 60 of the Nation's mass transit and passenger rail systems in 25 states and the District of Columbia.
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/mass_transit/sec_baseline.shtm
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, said the legislation is a "common sense approach" to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.
In an interview with The Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp, Speier said the bill creates "fusion centers," where TSA can provide intel to local law enforcement and emergency management officials.
"We have put in place through TSA a very elaborate system [in airports]. We all go through those metal detectors and those secondary searches. And we've put a lot of focus on the airlines for good reason. But we have neglected the mass transit components, generally speaking," she said.
Speier said 2 million people fly each day, compared with more than 5 million who ride the subway each day in New York City alone. She pointed out that the most recent terrorist attacks have been on mass transit. Also, when U.S. Special Forces raided Osama Bin Laden's compound last year, intelligence gathered revealed the next attack was intended for mass transit.
"The writing is on the wall. We need to be better prepared than we are right now," Speier said. Transit riders probably won't see more TSA agents in subways or bus stops, though, Speier said. The expanded TSA role falls more on analysts, she said.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/482/2914641/House-bill-extends-TSA-intel-sharing-to-mass-transit
TSA to take over all mass transit systems?
One of the most atrocious and hated government agencies, the Transportation Security Administration, (TSA) may gain massive power over all mass transit systems due to a new bill sponsored by Jackie Speier, Democrat from California.
House Resolution 3140 (H.R. 3140) has already passed the House, and now is in the Senate awaiting a vote. This bill if passed, will allow total intelligence sharing by the TSA with all local mass transit systems. This in my opinion, is a first step in allowing TSA to take over “security” for mass transit operations nationwide.
According to this article from Federalnewsradio.com:
“Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, said the legislation is a “common sense approach” to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.”
Of course, the stated reasoning for another assault on our liberty is to protect us all from terrorism. This is nothing more than fear-mongering rhetoric. This bill creates more fusion centers so that the TSA can store and give “intelligence” (illegal surveillance records) to local law enforcement. It only enhances spying, and the sharing of ill-gotten private information about the citizenry.
This is a great example of incrementalism, and is a way for the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security to not only get another foot in the door, but to eventually take full control of all security and surveillance in the U.S. The local police, and “state” military forces will play a role, but they will be fully controlled at the federal level. The end result will be that we all live under the rule of the very few in a dictatorial oligarchy.
What will be the next step in the federal takeover of America? It seems to matter little, as the masses continue wallowing in their apathy, dependence, and fear!
http://garydbarnett.com/GDBdaily/?p=840
FBI gets a broader role in coordinating domestic intelligence activities.
The FBI has been given an expanded role in coordinating the domestic intelligence-gathering activities of the CIA and other agencies under a plan enacted this year by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., officials said.
The bureau’s highest-ranking field agents now also serve as the DNI’s representatives across the country. The change is intended to improve collaboration, but some officials say it has created new friction between the FBI and CIA.
One former U.S. official said senior FBI agents recently used a meeting with executives from major manufacturing companies on the West Coast to instruct them to cut off contact with the CIA.
The FBI’s message was that “they were now in charge of relationships with the corporate sector, so the folks there should feel no need to deal with the agency,” said the former U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. The FBI agents apparently were not aware that a former CIA officer was among the executives in attendance. The former official declined to provide more details about the location of the meeting or its participants.
FBI spokesman Michael Kortan said that officials could not confirm the alleged incident and that such a statement to company executives by an FBI agent would be inaccurate.
Although the CIA is best known for its spy work overseas, the agency has stations in most major U.S. cities.
The FBI dramatically expanded its domestic intelligence-gathering operations as part of a reorganization after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Flynn said the DNI program is not meant to disrupt CIA efforts in the United States. “This program doesn’t change the authorities of the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security or anybody else in the system,” he said. “But there is more of a responsibility to share and work together.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-gets-a-broader-role-in-coordinating-domestic-intelligence-activities/2012/06/19/gJQAtmupoV_story.html
TSA- Advancing the security baseline.
TSA staff has worked closely with FTA colleagues to develop and publish the Security and Emergency Preparedness Action Items, an update of the former Top 20 Security Actions for Mass Transit Agencies produced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Coordinated with members of the TCLDR-GCC and the Mass Transit SCC, the newly enhanced Action Items represent a comprehensive and systematic approach to elevate baseline security posture and enhance security program management and implementation. They address the current security risks that confront transit agencies today and priority areas where gaps need to be closed in security and emergency preparedness programs. The 17 Action Items cover a range of areas including security program management and accountability, security and emergency response training, drills and exercises, public awareness, protective measures for the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) threat levels, physical security, personnel security, and information sharing and security.
Through the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), DHS has allocated $547 million to date to 60 of the Nation's mass transit and passenger rail systems in 25 states and the District of Columbia.
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/mass_transit/sec_baseline.shtm
Accretive Health told to stop abusive collections tactics of hospital patients.
Hospital patients who can’t afford to pay their bills would get protection from abusive collections practices under new proposed rules issued by the U.S. Treasury Department.
The rules, which seek to clarify hospitals’ responsibilities under the federal Affordable Care Act, give patients at least four months to apply for financial help before hospitals can turn them over to collections agencies or file lawsuits.
The proposed regulations, announced on Friday, would also require hospitals to establish financial assistance policies and provide patients with the information needed to apply for such help.
“I think it’s a very helpful first step,” said Adam Linker, an analyst at the N.C. Health Access Coalition. “Virtually all of the hospitals have financial assistance policies. All that we’re asking is that they show them to patients, which doesn’t seem like a lot to ask.”
Most hospitals in North Carolina and across the nation are tax-exempt – a distinction that saves them millions each year. In exchange, they’re expected to provide financial help to those without the ability to pay.
But a recent investigation by The News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer found that many uninsured patients are never offered charity care – the act of forgiving all or part of a bill. More than one-third of North Carolina hospitals provided no details about their charity care policies on their websites.
And thousands of times a year, North Carolina hospitals are suing patients, the newspapers’ investigation showed. Many of those patients were uninsured – and a significant number should have qualified for free hospital care.
Other news stories this year focused on Accretive Health, a collection company that has been under scrutiny by Minnesota authorities for practices that included stationing employees in emergency rooms to demand that patients pay before receiving treatment.
“In recent months, we have heard concerns about aggressive hospital debt collection activities,” said Emily McMahon, the Treasury Department’s acting assistant secretary for tax policy. “… Our proposed rules will help ensure they don’t happen in charitable hospitals.”
The proposed rules don’t dictate what sort of financial assistance hospitals must provide. But McMahon said they are designed to “give hospitals the flexibility to establish programs that meet the needs of their communities.”
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/24/2155286/feds-to-hospitals-stop-abusive.html#storylink=cpy
http://blackpoliticalbuzz.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-treasury-proposes-ordering-hospitals.html
New rules proposed last Friday by the Treasury Department would require non-profit hospitals to give patients a four-month grace period to seek financial assistance to pay their bills before the hospitals could turn over the debt to a collection agency, according to a release on the Treasury web site.
The proposed rules are almost certainly a response, at least in part, to recent horror stories about Accretive Health, the Chicago-based debt collection company that's been accused of violating privacy laws and strong-arming Minnesota hospital patients while they try to get medical care.
Just a few months ago, Accretive had partnerships with three hospital companies in Minnesota. Now two of the three companies have cut ties with Accretive, and one of those companies, Fairview Health Services, has also jettisoned its CEO. Lori Swanson, Minnesota's attorney general, sued Accretive in January, and Senator Al Franken has led hearings into the company's practices.
The Treasury's proposals appear an attempt to civilize the whole process of paying medical bills -- at least at non-profit hospitals, which account for a little more than half of all hospitals in the country, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Despite the move, the hospital debt problem isn't likely to go away anytime soon. In 2010, hospitals provided more than $39 billion worth of care to people who could not afford to pay, according to The New York Times. Many facilities are operating under intense financial strain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/aggressive-hospital-debt-collection_n_1628914.html
The rules, which seek to clarify hospitals’ responsibilities under the federal Affordable Care Act, give patients at least four months to apply for financial help before hospitals can turn them over to collections agencies or file lawsuits.
The proposed regulations, announced on Friday, would also require hospitals to establish financial assistance policies and provide patients with the information needed to apply for such help.
“I think it’s a very helpful first step,” said Adam Linker, an analyst at the N.C. Health Access Coalition. “Virtually all of the hospitals have financial assistance policies. All that we’re asking is that they show them to patients, which doesn’t seem like a lot to ask.”
Most hospitals in North Carolina and across the nation are tax-exempt – a distinction that saves them millions each year. In exchange, they’re expected to provide financial help to those without the ability to pay.
But a recent investigation by The News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer found that many uninsured patients are never offered charity care – the act of forgiving all or part of a bill. More than one-third of North Carolina hospitals provided no details about their charity care policies on their websites.
And thousands of times a year, North Carolina hospitals are suing patients, the newspapers’ investigation showed. Many of those patients were uninsured – and a significant number should have qualified for free hospital care.
Other news stories this year focused on Accretive Health, a collection company that has been under scrutiny by Minnesota authorities for practices that included stationing employees in emergency rooms to demand that patients pay before receiving treatment.
“In recent months, we have heard concerns about aggressive hospital debt collection activities,” said Emily McMahon, the Treasury Department’s acting assistant secretary for tax policy. “… Our proposed rules will help ensure they don’t happen in charitable hospitals.”
The proposed rules don’t dictate what sort of financial assistance hospitals must provide. But McMahon said they are designed to “give hospitals the flexibility to establish programs that meet the needs of their communities.”
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/24/2155286/feds-to-hospitals-stop-abusive.html#storylink=cpy
http://blackpoliticalbuzz.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-treasury-proposes-ordering-hospitals.html
Aggressive hospital debt collection could be curbed by Treasury Dept. rules.
New rules proposed last Friday by the Treasury Department would require non-profit hospitals to give patients a four-month grace period to seek financial assistance to pay their bills before the hospitals could turn over the debt to a collection agency, according to a release on the Treasury web site.
The proposed rules are almost certainly a response, at least in part, to recent horror stories about Accretive Health, the Chicago-based debt collection company that's been accused of violating privacy laws and strong-arming Minnesota hospital patients while they try to get medical care.
Just a few months ago, Accretive had partnerships with three hospital companies in Minnesota. Now two of the three companies have cut ties with Accretive, and one of those companies, Fairview Health Services, has also jettisoned its CEO. Lori Swanson, Minnesota's attorney general, sued Accretive in January, and Senator Al Franken has led hearings into the company's practices.
The Treasury's proposals appear an attempt to civilize the whole process of paying medical bills -- at least at non-profit hospitals, which account for a little more than half of all hospitals in the country, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Despite the move, the hospital debt problem isn't likely to go away anytime soon. In 2010, hospitals provided more than $39 billion worth of care to people who could not afford to pay, according to The New York Times. Many facilities are operating under intense financial strain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/aggressive-hospital-debt-collection_n_1628914.html
PA. to destroy millions of written court records.
College indiscretions, traffic citations and small lawsuits have become easier to put behind you in Pennsylvania.
The state has restricted access to millions of court records involving minor crimes, traffic offenses, landlord-tenant disputes and small suits. Those records have been removed from the state’s website and now require a formal request — and a fee — to access.
Steve Schell, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, said the office changed the policy for the sake of consistency between paper and electronic records.
He said it made no sense for the court to keep electronic versions of records on the web after their paper copies had been destroyed.
But lawyers worry about the public’s ability to easily access the records of the state’s magisterial courts.
Edward Spreha, a Harrisburg-based defense attorney who frequently deals with traffic cases, said that the change will make it harder to find the criminal and civil court records of his clients, potential clients and witnesses.
“It really is a convenience issue for me,” he said. “It’s a shame that is not going to be there anymore.”
He said that the policy change would make criminal and civil searches that once took moments potentially last weeks.
The records, Schell said, have been moved to an archive and are not readily available to the public. He said that the public can submit requests for archived cases, but each request costs at least $80.
He said that is consistent with court policy; that electronic records must be maintained but do not need to be kept on the publicly accessible web portal. That same policy also mandates that only summary information about each case be kept, rather than the entire record of the case.
Schell said that cost and functionality were both concerns for the court system in making the change. He said that each record, both electronic and paper, had a cost associated with it to maintain. He also said that, as the electronic database grew, it became less efficient for each search.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/pennsylvania_restricts_access.html
The state has restricted access to millions of court records involving minor crimes, traffic offenses, landlord-tenant disputes and small suits. Those records have been removed from the state’s website and now require a formal request — and a fee — to access.
Steve Schell, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, said the office changed the policy for the sake of consistency between paper and electronic records.
He said it made no sense for the court to keep electronic versions of records on the web after their paper copies had been destroyed.
But lawyers worry about the public’s ability to easily access the records of the state’s magisterial courts.
Edward Spreha, a Harrisburg-based defense attorney who frequently deals with traffic cases, said that the change will make it harder to find the criminal and civil court records of his clients, potential clients and witnesses.
“It really is a convenience issue for me,” he said. “It’s a shame that is not going to be there anymore.”
He said that the policy change would make criminal and civil searches that once took moments potentially last weeks.
The records, Schell said, have been moved to an archive and are not readily available to the public. He said that the public can submit requests for archived cases, but each request costs at least $80.
He said that is consistent with court policy; that electronic records must be maintained but do not need to be kept on the publicly accessible web portal. That same policy also mandates that only summary information about each case be kept, rather than the entire record of the case.
Schell said that cost and functionality were both concerns for the court system in making the change. He said that each record, both electronic and paper, had a cost associated with it to maintain. He also said that, as the electronic database grew, it became less efficient for each search.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/pennsylvania_restricts_access.html
State troopers shouldn't be above the law.
Olympia, WA. - House Bill
2228 would require that an outside agency at least supervise the
investigation of any serious crash in which any law enforcement officer
is involved. The idea is to let the public see that police officers are
not above the law and that agencies are not covering up for their
officers' mistakes.
The bill would also require that law enforcement officers determined to be at fault in four accidents in any three-year period be suspended from driving on duty for at least a year. It would also require drug and alcohol tests of all parties in any fatal auto accident.
The onslaught of e-mails to Rep. Toby Nixon ran from the personal to the political.
"Shame on you, Mr. Nixon," read one. "And hope one day you and your family need the help of a trooper or a police officer to save one of you, and that those officers would not respond on time."
Another referred to the legislation as the "Crock" rather than "Brock" bill and threatened Nixon's political future. "It is simple math ... 1,100 troopers (times) 1,100 spouses/partners (times) all of their family members/friends/co-workers ... ." The missive also credited the WSP with defeating the election bid of veteran Mercer Island Republican Sen. Jim Horn last November.
An e-mail sent to senator Jim Horn said, Horn "lost his (seat) thanks to the WSPTA (Washington State Patrol Troopers Association). I hope you are next!"
That was news to Horn, who told me he had no knowledge of the agency or the troopers' association having any role in his defeat, which he links to how poorly the Bush/Cheney national ticket fared among voters in his district.
Coming from the father of a son who's honorably worn a badge, here's the bottom line on this bill: Serious accidents involving police officers should get extraordinary and thoroughly transparent attention and investigation. They're driving the taxpayers' rigs, at taxpayers' expense, acting in the public interest. Law enforcement management should have a mechanism to take demonstrably unsafe drivers out from behind the wheel of police vehicles.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Behind-the-wheel-troopers-shouldn-t-be-above-the-1167291.php#ixzz1yf8Cft00
The bill would also require that law enforcement officers determined to be at fault in four accidents in any three-year period be suspended from driving on duty for at least a year. It would also require drug and alcohol tests of all parties in any fatal auto accident.
The onslaught of e-mails to Rep. Toby Nixon ran from the personal to the political.
"Shame on you, Mr. Nixon," read one. "And hope one day you and your family need the help of a trooper or a police officer to save one of you, and that those officers would not respond on time."
Another referred to the legislation as the "Crock" rather than "Brock" bill and threatened Nixon's political future. "It is simple math ... 1,100 troopers (times) 1,100 spouses/partners (times) all of their family members/friends/co-workers ... ." The missive also credited the WSP with defeating the election bid of veteran Mercer Island Republican Sen. Jim Horn last November.
An e-mail sent to senator Jim Horn said, Horn "lost his (seat) thanks to the WSPTA (Washington State Patrol Troopers Association). I hope you are next!"
That was news to Horn, who told me he had no knowledge of the agency or the troopers' association having any role in his defeat, which he links to how poorly the Bush/Cheney national ticket fared among voters in his district.
Coming from the father of a son who's honorably worn a badge, here's the bottom line on this bill: Serious accidents involving police officers should get extraordinary and thoroughly transparent attention and investigation. They're driving the taxpayers' rigs, at taxpayers' expense, acting in the public interest. Law enforcement management should have a mechanism to take demonstrably unsafe drivers out from behind the wheel of police vehicles.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Behind-the-wheel-troopers-shouldn-t-be-above-the-1167291.php#ixzz1yf8Cft00
Friday, June 22, 2012
Governments are using Google to censor the internet.
Google claims that they have been told by authorities from various governments, by way of more than 1,000 requests, to remove content from YouTube in the last 6 months of 2011. Google says this is “an alarming trend”. This is an attempt to subvert responsibility from the mega search engine, who works for the National Security Agency (NSA).
A US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, ruled last month that the NSA does not need to confirm nor deny (known as a “Glomar” response) its collaborations with Google; how the two work together to spy on American citizens in the name of protecting the public from false flag “cyber-attacks”.
The court’s ruling states effectively that regardless of a filing by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) with the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents as to the relationship, the US government does not have to divulge any arrangement between the NSA and the search engine giant.
Dorothy Chou, Google’s senior policy analyst, states: “Unfortunately, what we’ve seen over the past couple years has been troubling, and today is no different. We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it’s not.”
Google now admits that these requests targeted political speech, as mentioned in their Transparency Report in 2010. Chou confirms that it is “not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect — Western democracies not typically associated with censorship.”
Google has simply complied with court orders and informal requested to remove content from the internet.
The search engine, subverting their influential responsibility, blames:
• Spanish regulators request 270 links to blogs, newspaper articles be removed criticizing public figures
• German government demands removal of Nazi references in YouTube videos
• Government officials in Thailand requested videos featuring their monarch be erased
• Canadian government said remove video of citizen urinating on Canadian passport; however in this one instance Google refused
Google, trying to clean up their image as a dominating force on the internet working for governments to subvert the freedom of the internet, is claiming that they are innocent in their removal of content by blaming government agencies and courts who demand corporations censor the internet for various reasons.
This bait and switch may convince the integrated masses who have not come to the realization that this world is controlled by a global Elite who is ushering in by incremental stages a one world government, but many are waking up to this fact.
And because the sheep are waking up, their efforts to purvey propaganda are losing its foothold.
http://occupycorporatism.com/google-admits-governments-using-their-services-to-censor-the-internet/
A US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, ruled last month that the NSA does not need to confirm nor deny (known as a “Glomar” response) its collaborations with Google; how the two work together to spy on American citizens in the name of protecting the public from false flag “cyber-attacks”.
The court’s ruling states effectively that regardless of a filing by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) with the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents as to the relationship, the US government does not have to divulge any arrangement between the NSA and the search engine giant.
Dorothy Chou, Google’s senior policy analyst, states: “Unfortunately, what we’ve seen over the past couple years has been troubling, and today is no different. We hoped this was an aberration. But now we know it’s not.”
Google now admits that these requests targeted political speech, as mentioned in their Transparency Report in 2010. Chou confirms that it is “not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect — Western democracies not typically associated with censorship.”
Google has simply complied with court orders and informal requested to remove content from the internet.
The search engine, subverting their influential responsibility, blames:
• Spanish regulators request 270 links to blogs, newspaper articles be removed criticizing public figures
• German government demands removal of Nazi references in YouTube videos
• Government officials in Thailand requested videos featuring their monarch be erased
• Canadian government said remove video of citizen urinating on Canadian passport; however in this one instance Google refused
Google, trying to clean up their image as a dominating force on the internet working for governments to subvert the freedom of the internet, is claiming that they are innocent in their removal of content by blaming government agencies and courts who demand corporations censor the internet for various reasons.
This bait and switch may convince the integrated masses who have not come to the realization that this world is controlled by a global Elite who is ushering in by incremental stages a one world government, but many are waking up to this fact.
And because the sheep are waking up, their efforts to purvey propaganda are losing its foothold.
http://occupycorporatism.com/google-admits-governments-using-their-services-to-censor-the-internet/
LinkedIn is being sued for $5 million over security breach.
After being attacked by a hacker who stole 6.5 million of its passwords, LinkedIn is now being sued by one of its users for $5 million.
The lawsuit was filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California by an Illinois woman named Katie Szpyrka who in the lawsuit says LinkedIn failed to safeguard its users passwords.
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, says LinkedIn did not meet its privacy policy, which states that the business social network protects its 160-million users' information with industry-standard protocols and technology.
But the lawsuit says the passwords stolen by LinkedIn were only protected by hashes — a form of password security — and weren't also salted — which is another form of password security typically used on top of hashing.
Erin O'Harra, a spokeswoman for LinkedIn, said the company has not found that any of its users' accounts were actually breached as a result of the attack.
"Therefore, it appears that these threats are driven by lawyers looking to take advantage of the situation," O'Harra said in an email statement. "We believe these claims are without merit, and we will defend the company vigorously against suits trying to leverage third-party criminal behavior."
The suit was filed about a week and half after LinkedIn confirmed the attack. The company on June 6 began looking into reports that a hacker had dumped a list containing 6.5 million of its users' passwords and later confirmed that they had in fact been stolen.
LinkedIn had to force its affected users as well as some other users they suspected may have also been compromised to change their passwords.
Following the attack, LinkedIn announced that it would now be salting its passwords.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-linkedin-5-million-hack-20120621,0,6430486.story?track=rss
The lawsuit was filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California by an Illinois woman named Katie Szpyrka who in the lawsuit says LinkedIn failed to safeguard its users passwords.
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, says LinkedIn did not meet its privacy policy, which states that the business social network protects its 160-million users' information with industry-standard protocols and technology.
But the lawsuit says the passwords stolen by LinkedIn were only protected by hashes — a form of password security — and weren't also salted — which is another form of password security typically used on top of hashing.
“Industry standards require at least the additional process of adding 'salt' to a password before running it through a hashing function,” the lawsuit claims according to eWeek. “This procedure drastically increases the difficult of deciphering the resulting encrypted password."
"Therefore, it appears that these threats are driven by lawyers looking to take advantage of the situation," O'Harra said in an email statement. "We believe these claims are without merit, and we will defend the company vigorously against suits trying to leverage third-party criminal behavior."
The suit was filed about a week and half after LinkedIn confirmed the attack. The company on June 6 began looking into reports that a hacker had dumped a list containing 6.5 million of its users' passwords and later confirmed that they had in fact been stolen.
LinkedIn had to force its affected users as well as some other users they suspected may have also been compromised to change their passwords.
Following the attack, LinkedIn announced that it would now be salting its passwords.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-linkedin-5-million-hack-20120621,0,6430486.story?track=rss
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Shawmut Design and Construction sign causes public outcry.
“Please respect the Harvard students. They’re better than you.”
So joked Harvard University post-doctoral candidate Rebecca Nappa yesterday, perfectly capturing the unspoken message —though not the words — of a sign posted at a Harvard construction site that’s caused a mini-brouhaha among future leaders of the free world. Actually, make that future leaders of the entire planet, and beyond.
Shawmut Design and Construction posted a sign that, basically, warned construction workers to behave themselves while allowed to step on Harvard’s hallowed ground.
“Show Respect for Harvard ... a world famous campus,” the sign read, Harvard’s Crimson reported. “Please display the highest level of respect for the students, faculty, and their campus ...”
No swearing. No “inappropriate comments” — such as remarking crudely on any future leaders of the free world in skimpy dresses. No drinking, no drugs, no loud noise, no parking on campus and, heaven help us, no sneaking into any campus buildings.
It other words, you construction workers toiling in yesterday’s broiling, blistering sun? Remember this: you’re the serfs. The Harvard crowd? They’re Masters of the Universe.
Or, to steal Occupy Wall Street’s language: The workers are 99 percenters. The Harvard kids: 1-percenters. The gulf between them: from here to the moon and back.
Apparently, this sign proved too blatant, too embarrassing and too guilt-inducing even for Harvard students, who complained. And the sign is now gone.
A sign encouraging construction workers to “Show Respect for Harvard” has been taken down following student protest. The sign was posted by Shawmut Design and Construction at the construction site on the Science Center plaza and contained both Shawmut and Harvard logos.
“When a concern was raised last week, Shawmut quickly removed the sign and will not be reposting it,” wrote Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesman Jeff Neal in an email to the Crimson.
The text of the sign informed workers that they are “working within an operational environment on a world famous campus,” and asked them to “please display the highest level of respect for the students, faculty, and their campus at all times.”
The sign noted that this meant no swearing, “inappropriate comments,” smoking, as well as “zero(!) tolerance for drugs and/or alcohol.” Workers were also expected to keep noise as low as possible, not park on campus, and were instructed to not enter any other campus buildings.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220621crass_act_at_harvard/srvc=home&position=2
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/6/20/construction-sign-removed-respect/
So joked Harvard University post-doctoral candidate Rebecca Nappa yesterday, perfectly capturing the unspoken message —though not the words — of a sign posted at a Harvard construction site that’s caused a mini-brouhaha among future leaders of the free world. Actually, make that future leaders of the entire planet, and beyond.
Shawmut Design and Construction posted a sign that, basically, warned construction workers to behave themselves while allowed to step on Harvard’s hallowed ground.
“Show Respect for Harvard ... a world famous campus,” the sign read, Harvard’s Crimson reported. “Please display the highest level of respect for the students, faculty, and their campus ...”
No swearing. No “inappropriate comments” — such as remarking crudely on any future leaders of the free world in skimpy dresses. No drinking, no drugs, no loud noise, no parking on campus and, heaven help us, no sneaking into any campus buildings.
It other words, you construction workers toiling in yesterday’s broiling, blistering sun? Remember this: you’re the serfs. The Harvard crowd? They’re Masters of the Universe.
Or, to steal Occupy Wall Street’s language: The workers are 99 percenters. The Harvard kids: 1-percenters. The gulf between them: from here to the moon and back.
Apparently, this sign proved too blatant, too embarrassing and too guilt-inducing even for Harvard students, who complained. And the sign is now gone.
A sign encouraging construction workers to “Show Respect for Harvard” has been taken down following student protest. The sign was posted by Shawmut Design and Construction at the construction site on the Science Center plaza and contained both Shawmut and Harvard logos.
“When a concern was raised last week, Shawmut quickly removed the sign and will not be reposting it,” wrote Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesman Jeff Neal in an email to the Crimson.
Neal also noted that the sign “has been used by Shawmut at construction projects at Harvard and other academic campuses for years without complaint.”
The text of the sign informed workers that they are “working within an operational environment on a world famous campus,” and asked them to “please display the highest level of respect for the students, faculty, and their campus at all times.”
The sign noted that this meant no swearing, “inappropriate comments,” smoking, as well as “zero(!) tolerance for drugs and/or alcohol.” Workers were also expected to keep noise as low as possible, not park on campus, and were instructed to not enter any other campus buildings.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220621crass_act_at_harvard/srvc=home&position=2
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/6/20/construction-sign-removed-respect/
House committee approves warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
A House committee on Tuesday reauthorized broad electronic
eavesdropping powers that largely legalized the Bush administration’s
warrantless wiretapping program.
The House Judiciary Committee, following the Senate Intelligence Committee’s lead last month,
(.pdf) voted 23-11 to reauthorize the FISA Amendments Act. The
legislation, expiring at year’s end, authorizes the government to
electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and emails without a
probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the
communication is outside the United States. The communications may be
intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and the committee’s chairman, said before
the vote that “We have a duty to ensure the intelligence community can
gather the intelligence they need to protect our country.” He said
terrorists “are committed to the destruction of our country.”
The FISA Amendments Act, which the Obama administration said was its top intelligence priority,
(.pdf) generally requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Court to rubber-stamp terror-related electronic surveillance requests
that ensnare Americans’ communications. The government does not have to
identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin
surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can
continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA
court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not
public.
The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security debated the measure last month
and was clearly willing to side with the Obama administration’s demands
that lawmakers re-authorize the bill, as the Senate Intelligence
committee did. The Senate’s measure extends the powers until June 1,
2017.
NSA: It would violate your privacy to say if we spied on you.
The surveillance experts at the National Security Agency won’t tell two powerful United States Senators how many Americans have had their communications picked up by the agency as part of its sweeping new counterterrorism powers. The reason: it would violate your privacy to say so.
That claim comes in a short letter sent Monday to civil libertarian Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. The two members of the Senate’s intelligence oversight committee asked the NSA a simple question last month: under the broad powers granted in 2008′s expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, how many persons inside the United States have been spied upon by the NSA?
The query bounced around the intelligence bureaucracy until it reached I. Charles McCullough, the Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the nominal head of the 16 U.S. spy agencies. In a letter acquired by Danger Room, McCullough told the senators that the NSA inspector general “and NSA leadership agreed that an IG review of the sort suggested would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons,” McCullough wrote.
“All that Senator Udall and I are asking for is a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have been monitored under this law, and it is disappointing that the Inspectors General cannot provide it,” Wyden told Danger Room on Monday. “If no one will even estimate how many Americans have had their communications collected under this law then it is all the more important that Congress act to close the ‘back door searches’ loophole, to keep the government from searching for Americans’ phone calls and emails without a warrant.”
What’s more, McCullough argued, giving such a figure of how many Americans were spied on was “beyond the capacity” of the NSA’s in-house watchdog — and to rectify it would require “imped[ing]” the very spy missions that concern Wyden and Udall. “I defer to [the NSA inspector general's] conclusion that obtaining such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission,” McCullough wrote.
The changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008 — which President Obama, then in the Senate, voted for — relaxed the standards under which communications with foreigners that passed through the United States could be collected by the spy agency. The NSA, for instance, no longer requires probable cause to intercept a person’s phone calls, text messages or emails within the United States as long as one party to the communications is “reasonably” believed to be outside the United States.
Longtime intelligence watchers found the stonewalling of an “entirely legitimate oversight question” to be “disappointing and unsatisfactory,” as Steve Aftergood, a secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists told Danger Room.
“If the FISA Amendments Act is not susceptible to oversight in this way,” Aftergood said, “it should be repealed, not renewed.”
Even though McCullough said the spy agencies wouldn’t tell the senators how many Americans have been spied upon under the new authorities, he told them he “firmly believe[s] that oversight of intelligence collection is a proper function of an Inspector General. I will continue to work with you and the [Senate intelligence] Committee to identify ways we can enhance our ability to conduct effective oversight.”
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)