Fusion Center director: We do not spy on US citizens, just anti-government groups.

 An official from an Arkansas State Fusion Center recently spoke to the press to clear up what he called "misconceptions" about what his office actually does, with depressingly hilarious results. 

   

"The misconceptions are that we are conducting spying operations on US citizens, which is of course not the fact. That is absolutely not what we do," fusion center director Richard Davis told the local press.

 

Fusion center employees are in a tight spot to justify the existence of their operations after multiple congressional reports over the past year took them to task for being poorly run, duplicative of other counterterrorism efforts, privacy violative wastes of money, or some combination of the three. 

 

So what does Mr. Davis' fusion center do, then? Why does it exist?

 

The Arkansas fusion center director, after having flatly denied that his office spies on US citizens, told the reporter the following:

 

"I do what I do because of what happened on 9/11," Davis says. "There's this urge and this feeling inside that you want to do something, and this is a perfect opportunity for me." 

 

Davis says Arkansas hasn't collected much information about international plots, but they do focus on groups closer to home.

 

"We focus a little more on that, domestic terrorism and certain groups that are anti-government," he says. "We want to kind of take a look at that and receive that information."

 

So the fusion center does in fact spy on US citizens! Among them, "groups that are anti-government." But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here: perhaps Mr. Davis thinks that people who hold "anti-government" views should not be treated as US citizens?

 

The fact is, in the United States, holding "anti-government" views is protected by the First Amendment. And everyone in the United States, not just its citizens, is protected by the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

Disliking the government isn't a crime. But that's not stopping many fusion centers from associating dissent with terrorism. 

 

A Department of Homeland Security white paper on budget recommendations for 2013 placed a strong emphasis on maintaining and growing fusion centers.

“The Budget continues to build State and local analytic capabilities through the National Network of Fusion Centers, with a focus on strengthening cross-Department and cross-government interaction with fusion centers,” the DHS paper states. 
http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=415892 

http://privacysos.org/node/1011

Police want to use red-light cameras to spy on citizens.

Police in Oregon and Washington want to expand the reach of red light cameras to catch the really bad guys – murderers, child abductors, armed robbers.

Both state legislatures are considering proposals that would eliminate provisions in the state laws that keep police from using the cameras for anything but red light running.

Police say they just want to use it to catch felons.

In Washington, police say being able to use the license plate image captured by red light cameras might have helped them catch a suspect in the drive-by shooting of a 21-year-old woman in Seattle. As the law stands now, police can only use the image to enforce traffic infractions.

But civil liberties advocates fear changing the red light camera law is one step closer to broadening government surveillance.

‘It’s a real slippery slope,” American Civil Liberties Union of Washington spokesman Doug Honig said. “The idea was these cameras should not become general surveillance systems for law enforcement, and now that’s the general direction they’re moving in. It’s known as ‘mission creep.’”

Washington’s bill has passed the House and sits in the Senate waiting action.

Oregon’s House Judiciary committee will hold a public hearing at 1 p.m. Thursday on HB 2601.
Beaverton Police Chief Geoff Spalding said the impetus of the bill came when he got a call from a fellow police chief wanting to know if they could check red light camera photos for a suspected bank robber. The law doesn’t allow it.

Spalding said police have no interest in using it for minor crimes.

“We are not interested in low-level type things,” he said. “We’re not looking for people that don’t have their seatbelt on, talking on their phone.”

But the bill is broad as it is written now, completely eliminating any restriction on the use of red light camera photos. Spalding said he expects an amendment will be added to just allow for the use in serious criminal investigations.

It’s an uncomfortable move for the ACLU of Oregon, which is working with lawmakers to narrow the bill.

Becky Straus, ACLU Oregon legislative director, said it’s concerning when the state sets up surveillance for a specific purpose but then brings it back to the legislature to start expanding the reach.

“It just seems to be creeping ever so slowly toward a surveillance state,” Straus said.

She added that the organization also is keeping an eye on Senate Bill 787, which would allow school districts to put cameras on buses. She said often times surveillance legislation is pushed through on an individualized situation that seems like a good idea but can be a slippery slope.

“We really encourage our lawmakers to look at these things comprehensively and think about what it means to have a camera on every school bus or a camera on every intersection and who has access to that information,” she said.

Spalding said he understands some people might have concerns about big brother keeping watch, but he thinks police should be able to use those photos if they can help catch felons.

“I don’t think anybody had intended to exclude serious criminal acts,” he said of the original red light camera law.
http://watchdog.org/76812/or-wa-police-would-use-red-light-cameras-to-catch-criminals/

The Golden Gate bridge is spying on every driver.

The Golden Gate Bridge switched to all-electronic tolling. Drivers entering San Francisco no longer have the option to pay the $6 cash toll to a human toll collector. Unfortunately, all of the bridge's electronic payment options track the identities of those paying the toll, and all represent a loss of privacy for visitors or commuters entering San Francisco by car. The current implementation of electronic tolling here (and elsewhere) is unnecessarily privacy-invasive and represents a missed opportunity to collect tolls electronically in more privacy-friendly ways.

Since March 27, motorists entering San Francisco have three different payment options. One option involves recognizing an RFID token in the motorist's vehicle, while the remaining two use a camera to photograph and recognize the license plate.

Motorists can sign up for a FasTrak RFID token, placed on the dashboard or under the windshield of their cars. The FasTrak system has operated for bridge-toll collection in California since 1997 and been available as an option for paying tolls on the Golden Gate Bridge since 2000. FasTrak subscribers must register an account (giving their legal names and license plate numbers, among other information) and obtain a token; as a car passes through the toll gates, an RFID reader detects the token's presence, reads its serial number, and debits the corresponding prepaid toll accounts. At the same time, a record is created in the FasTrak database.

They can also create a "license plate account" tied to their license plate number, and pre-pay money into this account. When a motorist with no FasTrak token drives through the toll gates, a license-plate reading camera records an image of their license plate, recognizes the number, and causes the prepaid account to be debited.

Motorists who haven't preregistered with either FasTrak or the license plate account system also have their license plates photographed as they pass through the toll gate. In this case, the Golden Gate Bridge toll operator will work with the Department of Motor Vehicles to send an invoice in the mail (akin to a parking or speeding ticket, but not including a fine or penalty). They must then pay the invoice by mail or online.

The change to FasTrak involved phasing out the traditional cash payment option, and expanding the use of existing license-plate recognition technology. As the Wall Street Journal explained last year in an in-depth report, this technology has become widely used by police and law enforcement, municipalities, and even private companies. (On the other side of the bridge, Tiburon,CA, uses license plate readers to track every car entering or leaving via the few roads leading in and out of town.)

The Golden Gate Bridge already had license plate readers in place, but in the past they were used only to ticket motorists who tried to evade tolls; now, they've been made a routine part of the toll-collection infrastructure itself. The privacy loss from creating a database of who crosses the bridge (and other toll roads and bridges across California) is considerable, though as the Journal noted, creating such records is only one example of "how storing and studying people's everyday activities,even the seemingly mundane, has become the default rather than the exception". Subpoenas to access FasTrak data for purposes other than toll collection have become a trend—even in contested divorce cases.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/golden-gate-bridge-watching-you

There are a number of other privacy and security concerns about FasTrak, which is using a pretty basic technology. Find out more - Highway to Hell: Hacking toll systems http://www.root.org/talks/BH2008_HackingTollSystems.pdf

(Video) Drivers beware: More cameras scanning license plates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50143529n

FEMA's guide to reporting suspicious activity openly encourages Americans to spy on each other.

Suspicious Activity Defined: (Where everyone in the US could be a terrorist, does this sound familiar? Regimes like Nazi Germany or the USSR encouraged the public to spy on its citizens.)

The Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative defines suspicious activity as “observed behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity.” IACP’s primary research found that most individuals rely on a combination of factors when determining if an activity, behavior, or object is suspicious and merits reporting to the authorities. These factors are:

• Concern about the potential for harm to the community. (How could a person holding a camera  harm the community?)
• Belief that the information may be useful to law enforcement. (A person's beliefs are enough to label someone suspicious?)
• Personal observation of activities. (CITIZENS SPYING on one another)
• Personal instinct. (If a cop or citizen has a feeling you're suspicious, that's good enough?)
• The agreement of others nearby that something isn’t right. (Paranoia 101, if your spouse or friends have a feeling, you're a suspicious person, that's good enough.)

-Suspicious activities in and of themselves may not always be criminal, but when combined with other activities may be precursors to a larger criminal or terrorist plot. This can include asking questions beyond mere curiosity about a building’s operations, security, or infrastructure such that a reasonable person would consider the activity suspicious. Suspicious objects may include bags, suitcases, packages, cars, and other objects that are left unattended or seem out of place in the surroundings. (The list is purposefully vague and meant to imply anyone, anywhere could be suspicious)

-Suspicious activity, behaviors, or objects may occur or be observed in areas around critical infrastructure. This includes transportation systems, power and electrical plants, hospitals, banking institutions, and other facilities that are considered essential for the functioning of society and economy. Increasingly, terrorists around the world are focusing on “soft targets” – locations with less political significance but typically with large amounts of people. These may include hotels, tourist attractions, and outdoor markets. Suspicious activity can occur anywhere – in residential neighborhood, rural areas, or larger metropolitan areas. (Could this include taking pictures of buildings, trains etc.? Don't believe it, then checkout Photography Is Not A Crime)

-Share the DHS “If You See Something, Say Something” video with community members for an overview of suspicious behaviors. (Let's have a community meeting & encourage paranoia, sorry I  mean spying on our fellow Americans)

- Caution people to keep a safe distance from, and never approach, a person that appears to be engaged in suspicious activity. If safe to do so, the observer should consider the entire situation and take note of additional observations before calling authorities. Terrorism planning involves the intent to commit a criminal act and it is the responsibility of law enforcement officials to determine if a report of suspicious activity builds enough cause for investigation. Individuals should not hesitate to report suspicious activity. (Call the police & report what you feel is suspicious, don't worry trust your feelings. Want to get rid of your annoying neighbor? Just report their activity as suspicious & they'll be put on a terrorist watch list)

-Consider any large dams, military bases, or bridges in your community. Your local emergency management office can tell you more about critical infrastructure concerns. By including information about local concerns into messaging, agencies can help residents better understand these issues and larger terrorist threats. Consider reaching out specifically to residents near local critical infrastructure to encourage them to partner in awareness efforts. (Taking pictures of bridges, dams etc. could label you as a terrorist)

-Encourage business owners and managers to train employees. Front line employees such as maids, clerks, receptionists, and parking attendants often have the most interaction with the public and are among the first to be aware of suspicious activity. It is important to familiarize them with the types of industry-specific suspicious activities, behaviors, or objects that they may encounter. (Encourage employees  to spy on citizens & treat them with suspicion? Where does this end? Do we throw away the Constitution?)
http://info.publicintelligence.net/FEMA-ImprovingSAR-Guide.pdf

Latest non-lethal weapons can kill people, so why are police allowed to use them?

Article first appeared in Activist Post:

The Taser - or stun gun - is another item in the non-lethal arsenal that is all but ubiquitous, but has come under intense scrutiny by researchers for its lethal results. Electrophysiologist, Dr. Douglas Zipes, published an article for the The American Heart Association which covered 8 cases where a 50,000 volt Electronic Control Device (TASER X26) was used and victims lost consciousness. His conclusion is that this non-lethal weapon can induce cardiac arrest.

But the above seem tame by comparison to new developments such as the microwave cannon crowd dispersal weapon which is euphemistically called an "Active Denial System."

The vehicle-mounted cannon combined with the power of electromagnetic radiation blasts a beam of heat that makes the target feel an intense waft of heat comparable to quickly opening an extremely hot oven, except reportedly with more pain. Unable to withstand the intensity and quickness of the heat, the beam makes people automatically run or jump out of the way. (Source)

Pesky protesters insurgents have much more that they can look forward to when they exit their homes to make their voices heard among the din of LRAD weapons "effective long range communications system used to clearly broadcast critical information, instructions and warning." Though it would seem difficult to hear subsequent "critical information" with permanent hearing loss.

Could it be that the local police, inadequately armed with conventional weapons, will be offered a solution with non-lethal tech . . . especially as they are increasingly outmatched by a gun-toting public?

A new Extraordinary Technology report of the latest non-lethal less lethal, but potential kill tech shows the following trends in the growing sector of "crowd control" amid nearly global civil unrest. Of particular note is the flexibility to apply these devices to either disperse the unruly, or offensively use them in a full-out war setting. It is the type of flexibility that has made the drone market so lucrative; everything from surveillance, to terrain mapping . . . and remote-controlled death if need be. As the report states quite correctly:

First, when looking into NLWs, it might seem logical to divide them into civilian and military, but for all practical purposes there is so much overlap that the distinction barely exists. In fact, some weapons that have been banned from the battlefield are approved for law enforcement, as we shall see. And in modern-day, nonconventional warfare, soldiers are increasingly called upon to perform police duties. So there’s little point in separating the two.

And I would add that police are increasingly called upon to perform soldier duties. The militarization of police is undeniable and all but guaranteed to usher in what is highlighted in this trends report of next-gen non-lethal tech:

• Shock Wave Generators -- Originally devised by the Israelis, it can knock people down from 100 meters but if you wind up to close to the blast source ... you're dead.
• Vortex Ring Gun -- Creates a high-energy gas vortex that can be directed toward a specific target. If pepper spray is a potentially lethal chemical weapon, then this just magnifies its potential by combining the effect with nausea-inducing chemicals ... all meant to linger on the target. This is also a favorite of Israeli Defense Forces, as noted in the report. 
• Mobility Denial System -- Another euphemism building off of the microwave cannon concept of Active Denial System. The report cites this as the “instant banana peel.” This is a class of weapons that were invented at Southwest Research Institute, which can disperse a slippery gel onto asphalt, concrete, wood, and even grass, making movement impossible without falling down. It can also disable vehicles in a similar manner. Self-defense would seem improbable under such circumstances, leaving your fate to be determined.
• Pulsed Energy Projectile --  Supposedly "under development" by the military. From the report: "It involves a weapon emitting an invisible laser pulse that, upon contact with the target, ablates the surface material and creates a bit of exploding plasma on the skin. This produces a pressure wave that stuns the target, knocking him down, as well as electromagnetic radiation that irritates nerve cells, causing pain." This is a more directed,  enhanced version of the Active Denial System noted above. 
• Sticky Foam -- Used in Somalia, possibility of suffocation if hit in the face.
• The Stingball Grenade -- Propels a cache of 100 tiny rubber balls in a circular pattern. The Modular Crowd Control Munition (MCCM) is the Stingball’s tightly directed big brother. It’s constructed like a Claymore mine but with 600 rubber balls inside that are sprayed out in a 45-degree arc. Even standard rubber bullets and "firearm rounds" have caused death. 
• Underwater Pulsed Sound Wave -- Under development by the Navy to deter SCUBA attacks within 150 meters.
• Next-Gen Microwave Ray Gun -- Called MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio). The device being built by Sierra Nevada Corp. fires short microwave pulses that penetrate the head and rapidly heat tissue, resulting in a shockwave inside the skull.

One of the most dangerous aspects of non-lethal weapons is that they are far more indiscriminate than conventional weapons; many can be fired at a distance (think drones) creating a far greater risk of abuse. Additionally, these are high-tech (expensive) weapons that have no parallel among what is available to the public subjected to them.

Non-lethal weapons used against peaceful civilians is a natural extension of a war culture. Protesters are now viewed by the militarized police as terrorists, and totalitarianism has been embraced as the new normal. Protesters/terrorists will be fair game for the whole catalog of weaponry. This catalog will not (cannot) diminish when the profits to made by kill tech far outweigh the business model for peace. Unless we the people are willing to make the commitment to stop funding this machine, it will continue to steamroll with increasing ease and lethality.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/latest-non-lethal-weapons-arsenal-that.html

FBI wants to spy in "real-time" on your Gmail messages.

Despite the pervasiveness of law enforcement surveillance of digital communication, the FBI still has a difficult time monitoring Gmail, Google Voice, and Dropbox in real time. But that may change soon, because the bureau says it has made gaining more powers to wiretap all forms of Internet conversation and cloud storage a “top priority” this year.

Last week, during a talk for the American Bar Association in Washington, D.C., FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann discussed some of the pressing surveillance and national security issues facing the bureau. He gave a few updates on the FBI’s efforts to address what it calls the “going dark” problem—how the rise in popularity of email and social networks has stifled its ability to monitor communications as they are being transmitted. It’s no secret that under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the feds can easily obtain archive copies of emails. When it comes to spying on emails or Gchat in real time, however, it’s a different story.

That’s because a 1994 surveillance law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act only allows the government to force Internet providers and phone companies to install surveillance equipment within their networks. But it doesn’t cover email, cloud services, or online chat providers like Skype. Weissmann said that the FBI wants the power to mandate real-time surveillance of everything from Dropbox and online games (“the chat feature in Scrabble”) to Gmail and Google Voice. “Those communications are being used for criminal conversations,” he said.

While it is true that CALEA can only be used to compel Internet and phone providers to build in surveillance capabilities into their networks, the feds do have some existing powers to request surveillance of other services. Authorities can use a “Title III” order under the “Wiretap Act” to ask email and online chat providers furnish the government with “technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception.” However, the FBI claims this is not sufficient because mandating that providers help with “technical assistance” is not the same thing as forcing them to “effectuate” a wiretap. In 2011, then-FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni—Weissmann’s predecessor—stated that Title III orders did not provide the bureau with an "effective lever" to "encourage providers" to set up live surveillance quickly and efficiently. In other words, the FBI believes it doesn’t have enough power under current legislation to strong-arm companies into providing real-time wiretaps of communications.

Because Gmail is sent between a user’s computer and Google’s servers using SSL encryption, for instance, the FBI can’t intercept it as it is flowing across networks and relies on the company to provide it with access. Google spokesman Chris Gaither hinted that it is already possible for the company to set up live surveillance under some circumstances. “CALEA doesn't apply to Gmail but an order under the Wiretap Act may,” Gaither told me in an email. “At some point we may expand our transparency report to cover this topic in more depth, but until then I'm not able to provide additional information.”

Either way, the FBI is not happy with the current arrangement and is on a crusade for more surveillance authority. According to Weissmann, the bureau is working with “members of intelligence community” to craft a proposal for new Internet spy powers as “a top priority this year.” Citing security concerns, he declined to reveal any specifics. “It's a very hard thing to talk about publicly,” he said, though acknowledged that “it's something that there should be a public debate about.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/26/andrew_weissmann_fbi_wants_real_time_gmail_dropbox_spying_power.html

Cell phone lawsuit could decide if 1st. Amendement applies to keeping your conversations private.

San Franciso, CA- If a San Francisco man wins a lawsuit filed Wednesday, keeping your cell phone conversations private could could become a First Amendment right in the state of California.

The man, Bob Offer-Westort, was arrested for pitching a tent in a public plaza during a January 2012 protest against new regulations in San Francisco that he argued would make life harder on the homeless. It was a peaceful act of civil disobedience -- but he said that when police took him back to the station house, their actions were invasive. One police officer, Offer-Westort claims, took his phone and started reading through the text messages on it.

At the time, Offer-Westort felt violated but powerless. Now he is launching a civil lawsuit that could test whether our cellphones are now so central to our lives that they are covered by the First Amendment's free speech and free association protections. The case is one of a handful at the forefront of the developing law around cell phone searches.

"We carry our cell phones everywhere we go. We have our whole life in our cell phones: where we go, who we know and what we do," said one of Offer-Westort's lawyers, Marley Degner. "And as our client shows, it's easy to get swept up in an arrest simply by attending a political protest."

California's Supreme Court has already ruled that phones carried in a pocket are fair game for police under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a 2011 bill that would have overturned that decision, saying the matter was best left to the courts.

Now, with Offer-Westort's lawsuit, the ACLU of Northern California is taking Brown up on that offer, arguing that when police read their client's conversations with friends and family, they violated his rights to free speech and free association.

"The compelled disclosure of information about individuals' communications or association risks chilling the exercise of these rights," the lawsuit says.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/cell-phone-privacy-bob-offer-westort-lawsuit_n_2933645.html

Court rules for EPIC, denies FBI request for delay in StingRay case:

A federal judge in Washington, DC issued an Opinion denying the FBI's motion to delay the release of records sought under the Freedom of Information Act.

Little-known StingRay surveillance tool raises concerns by judges, privacy activists:

Federal investigators in Northern California routinely used a sophisticated surveillance system to scoop up data from cellphones and other wireless devices in an effort to track criminal suspects — but failed to detail the practice to judges authorizing the probes.

The practice was disclosed Wednesday in documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California — in a glimpse into a technology that federal agents rarely discuss publicly.
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/rigmaiden_-_doj_stingray_emails_declaration.pdf

The investigations used a device known as a StingRay, which simulates a cellphone tower and enables agents to collect the serial numbers of individual cellphones and then locate them. Although law enforcement officials can employ StingRays and similar devices to locate suspects, privacy groups and some judges have raised concerns that the technology is so invasive — in some cases effectively penetrating the walls of homes — that its use should require a warrant.

The issues, judges and activists say, are twofold: whether federal agents are informing courts when seeking permission to monitor suspects, and whether they are providing enough evidence to justify the use of a tool that sweeps up data not only from a suspect’s wireless device but also from those of bystanders in the vicinity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/little-known-surveillance-tool-raises-concerns-by-judges-privacy-activists/2013/03/27/8b60e906-9712-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_story.html

EPIC v. FBI - Stingray / Cell Site Simulator:
https://epic.org/foia/fbi/stingray/default.html

Anonymized phone location data not so anonymous, researchers find:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/anonymous-phone-location-data/
 

Law enforcement usage of the illegal "Stingray" surveillance tool is increasing.

http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/02/law-enforcement-usage-of-illegal.html

DEA wants FedEx & UPS to spy on customers who use an online pharmacy.

In its ongoing effort to crack down on the nation's prescription-drug epidemic, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has gone after doctors, pharmacists, pharmacy chains, wholesale drug suppliers — and now FedEx and UPS.

Even though the DEA will not confirm it is engaged in the probe, both companies have disclosed in corporate filings that they are targets of a federal investigation related to packages shipped from online pharmacies.

Based on the allegations, it appears federal officials are suggesting the shipping companies take responsibility for the prescription drugs inside packages they are transporting.

FedEx officials have called the California-based probe "absurd and deeply disturbing" and a threat to customers' privacy.

"We are a transportation company — we are not law enforcement, we are not doctors and we are not pharmacists," FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said in a prepared statement.

Though the probe has been unfolding quietly for several years, the investigation is now gaining headlines and attention from politicians, including Winter Park U.S. Rep. John Mica.

In a letter sent to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart and Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this month, Mica asked the leaders to recognize "the difficulty and unfairness of requiring those carriers to assume responsibility for the legality and validity of the contents of the millions of sealed packages that they pick up and deliver ever day."

Mica — who reports FedEx as one of his top campaign contributors — told the Orlando Sentinel that, although he is "concerned by prescription drugs" and their distribution, it would be inefficient and ineffective for federal authorities to turn UPS and FedEx into deputy enforcers of drug policy.

"You can't stop commerce; you can't open every package," Mica said. "I'm only asking them [the DEA and DOJ] for a reasonable approach."

Mica did not offer a specific solution but said he hoped the two sides come to "some sort of accommodation."

When contacted by the Orlando Sentinel for comment, a DEA spokesman, Special Agent Mike Rothermund, said he would not "confirm or deny if there's an investigation."

"We have no interest in violating the privacy of our customers by opening and inspecting their packages in an attempt to determine the legality of the contents. We stand ready and willing to support and assist law enforcement," Fitzgerald stated. "We cannot, however, do their jobs for them."

The company said it asked the DEA for a list of online pharmacies suspected of illegal activity so it could stop shipping from those businesses. But the DEA has refused to provide FedEx such a list, Fitzgerald's statement said.

A UPS spokesman said he could not comment on the investigation.

But in a February corporate filing, UPS said it is cooperating with the investigation and is "exploring the possibility of resolving this matter, which could include our undertaking further enhancements to our compliance program and a payment."

FedEx officials say that, rather than working with the industry to implement solutions, the Department of Justice is focusing its attention and money on the potential prosecution of delivery companies.

"This is unwarranted by law and a dangerous distraction at a time when the purported illegal activity by these pharmacies continues," Fitzgerald wrote in a statement.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-fedex-dea-prescription-drug-battle-20130326,0,7342072.story

Don't depend on your iPhone passcode alone to secure your smartphone.

Recent iOS 6 passcode exploits allowed an attacker to glitch their way only into the Phone app, not the home screen. As such, they could place calls, see/edit your contacts and access your photos via the "assign new picture" option. So while it doesn't give someone total access to your phone, it's still enough to be concerned about.

The exploits affecting Samsung Galaxy phones worked a bit differently, flashing the home screen (or whatever was open before the phone locked) for no more than a second. While it doesn't seem all that nefarious, it's enough time to launch an app, and persistent attackers could use it repeatedly to download an app that would unlock your phone completely.

Both manufacturers are aware of these problems—Apple recently released iOS 6.1.3 to address its passcode issue, only to have it circumvented yet again. Samsung has also stated it's intent to do the same, although at the time that this is being written the only existing fix is a third party one.

It may seem like your phone's security has suddenly been compromised with all these passcode exploits, but really, passcodes have never been foolproof. In fact, they're no more secure than any other password or PIN: they can be cracked, and they really shouldn't be the only thing protecting your smartphone's data.

I reached out to security expert Brandon Gregg about the level of security a passcode affords. Here's what he had to say:

Passcodes do not mean encryption. Only if you specifically go to your Android settings can you encrypt your phone (and SD card) with a separate, strong password. Too many people believe their four digit Android or iOS passcodes protect their private information. First off, anyone can easily brute force your short 10,000 possibility password. Tools like XRY (which I use and was profiled on Gizmodo) can do the crack in milliseconds. Second, a passcode does not protect from direct forensic access by tools like XRY, MPE by Accessdata and the growing list of programs for Law Enforcement. Once inside the phone, all your data is up for grabs. The best thing you can do right now is full encryption. The above tools aren't designed for brute force at that level (yet) and the data will be useless.

Basically, your data is vulnerable on two levels. First, you have a lock screen passcode, which can be cracked, although using a strong alphanumeric password can make brute-forcing your phone take much longer to crack. However, your data is still sitting there on your phone's hard drive, and an attacker with the proper forensic equipment and enough patience can still get at your data—unless you have full disk encryption.

Android has had full disk encryption since Honeycomb (3.0), albeit with some limitations. iOS also has a Data Protection API that apps can use to encrypt and protect your data, but it's up to app developers to incorporate it (and it doesn't work with apps that use iCloud), so its a lot less useful. In both cases, however, the encryption key is the same as your passcode lock, and you'd have to use a strong passcode for the encryption to be effective. But who wants to enter in a long, alphanumeric password every time they need their phone? The point is to make it hard for hackers to get into your phone, not you.

Of course. There's no reason for you to make things easy for the thief who steals your phone. You could also be very fortunate and end up being robbed by someone who doesn't know the first thing about getting around lock screens. By all means, enable your passcode, and make sure it's a good one.
However, understand that your lock screen alone isn't going to truly protect your data, and encryption is far from perfect. To that end, we recommend setting up a service like Apple's Find My iPhone, or a third-party app like Prey. They can track your smartphone and wipe its data when you lose it (or it gets stolen). Hopefully, you'll never need to worry about this sort of thing, but you know what an ounce of prevention is worth.
http://lifehacker.com/5992740/how-secure-is-the-passcode-on-my-phone

 Use TapTapPass to enable your iPhones passcode.

By default, it takes you at least 6 steps to enable your device’s Passcode from your Home screen. You have to launch the Settings app, navigate through a couple of screens to the Passcode Lock window, and set it up.

While this process is just fine for folks who keep their iOS devices Passcode-protected at all times, it’s fairly tedious for those that only enable the security feature every once in a while. Luckily, there’s TapTapPass…

TapTapPass is a jailbreak tweak that allows you to enable your device’s Passcode with a tap, gesture or any other Activator function. So if you don’t usually have it on, but need to for some reason, you can do so quickly.

The package doesn’t have a Springboard icon or a Settings pane. You configure everything from within the Activator app, which can be accessed either by its Home screen icon, or the Activator panel in your Settings app.

Once you’ve chosen an Activator function, you’re all set. Now anytime you perform that function—shake your device, double tap your Status bar, etc.—TapTapPass will activate the default iOS Passcode for your device.

Upon unlocking the device with the Passcode, the feature will be disabled. And you can either use the function to lock it again, or use the Sleep button to perform a standard, no-password lock. It’s as simple as it sounds.

I wish the tweak would allow you to use a Simple 4-digit Passcode, but other than that it’s pretty solid. I won’t be keeping it, but if you think you could benefit from something like this, I recommend checking it out.

TapTapPass is available in Cydia, in the ModMyi repo, for free.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/03/26/taptappass-jailbreak-tweak/

Why everyone should be worried about police tracking our movements with automatic license plate readers.

CBS did a story on automatic license plate readers (ALPR) in California, highlighting a technology that is spreading like wildfire across police departments and even federal agencies nationwide. It's a tool that will have profound implications for the privacy of every person who drives, and yet many people have never even heard of it.

License plate reader cameras capture an image of each license plate they encounter, convert the plate number to machine readable text, and run it against a host of databases to look for hits pertaining to violations like auto theft, outstanding warrants, expired registrations, or even terrorist watchlist alerts. The machines are capable of processing thousands of plates per minute.

But that's only part of what the technology does. The systems also create a record for each plate they read, documenting not only photographs of the car and license plate, but also precise time, date and GPS location information showing when and where the machines encountered each car. 

There are therefore two fundamentally different ways license plate readers can be useful to the police. On the one hand, plate readers help officers identify people against whom some infraction or crime has been alleged. On the other, they create databases containing detailed records of where millions of drivers go every day in their cars, and when. 

The first use is a totally acceptable means of deploying a new technology to make police work more efficient. The second is an unacceptable workaround of the Fourth Amendment, enabling mass, retroactive and warrantless tracking of everyone who drives.

The threat is growing everyday, as law enforcement agencies pool our license plate information into regional databases, a trend that is spreading nationwide.

Many law enforcement agencies say they need to retain all captured license plate data for long periods of time (in Boston it's three months; New Jersey's state limit is five years) so they can use it to go back and solve serious crimes. But if police need to identify which cars were in an area during a murder or armed robbery, they can do it with a retention period of a few days or a week, tops. Storing the data for months or years is excessive and violates the privacy of everyone who drives.
http://privacysos.org/node/1008

NYPD pays $15,000 settlement to man who was arrested for giving cops the finger.

New York - On Aug. 6, 2011, Edison, N.J. resident Robert Bell left the Slaughtered Lamb Pub in New York City around 10 p.m. Though he did partake in consuming a few alcoholic beverages that evening, Bell was “far from intoxicated” when the 26-year-old decided to raise his middle finger after walking past three Greenwich Village police officers for “one to two seconds.”

Unfortunately for Bell, he didn’t see the fourth officer who was walking behind his fellow officers. The officer saw Bell’s gesture and arrested him. While arresting Bell, the officer asked him if he thought his gesture was funny, and according to the lawsuit, Bell told the officer he did it because he doesn’t like cops.

 Held in the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) 6th Precinct stationhouse for about two hours where he was taunted about his sexuality and charged with disorderly conduct for making an “obscene gesture” and causing “public alarm and annoyance,” Bell felt his First Amendment rights were violated and fought the charges.

“I don’t know what laws they’ve made up in their head,” Bell said. “I don’t know who’s a good cop and who’s a bad cop … I was more than a little bit scared. I knew I was within my rights, but that does not mean anything when the only people in charge of your custody are the police.”

Represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, Bell pleaded not guilty to the charge in October 2011 and his case was dismissed after the officer who filed the police report failed to appear in court.
“I’ve never seen a single case in New York saying that a middle finger is an obscene gesture under the disorderly conduct statute,” said Bell’s attorney Robert Quackenbush, who specializes in civil rights law. “[The police are] expected to be able to absorb a certain amount of criticism,” he added. “The targets of this gesture didn’t see it. It was just about squashing dissent.”

After his victory in court, Bell filed a lawsuit against the city, charging police with violating the Constitution, assault, false arrest, imprisonment and inflicting emotional distress, said Quackenbush. And on Tuesday, Bell won a $15,000 settlement from the city.

Bell said he felt “vindicated” by the decision and says he’ll give the NYPD the finger again. “If I thought [an officer] was in the wrong for something, I would do it,” he said. “I would just ensure that I prefaced any criticism with ‘with all due respect.’”

When asked what he’ll do with the money, Bell said he plans to attend law school and hopes to clarify what actions are allowed under the law in New York City.

Bell’s attorney Quackenbush said he believes the city opted to settle the civil liberties suit because city lawyers knew they had “no chance” at trial. “With outrageous facts like these, they knew they didn’t want a jury to hear about it,” he said.

City attorney Ryan Shaffer, who handled the case, said in a statement that the settlement is not an admission of NYPD error. “The settlement is in the parties’ best interest,” Shaffer said. “It is not an indication of any police wrongdoing.”
http://www.mintpress.net/nyc-pays-15000-settlement-to-man-arrested-for-giving-cops-the-finger/

Legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures.

Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.

The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.
What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.

A gun lobbyist told Secrets, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states."

Secrets has charted the growing group of sheriffs opposed to new gun control initiatives. They argue that citizens should be allowed by buy the types of weapons they want to defend themselves. They also claim that there is no way to tell the difference between old rifle and pistol magazines and new ones that President Obama wants to ban.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would-fire-sheriffs-for-defying-gun-control-measures/article/2525518

Is the USDA agricultural census program a covert surveillance operation?

The USDA "census of agriculture" is a government-run farm surveillance program designed to register and inventory detailed private data on farm assets, operations and personnel. A census form is mailed to each farmer in the United States, accompanied by threats of compliance and a warning that farmers who do not comply will be visited in person by government agents.

The USDA census is, of course, ridiculously invasive and onerous. It places an enormous burden on farmers to fill out the forms and derive financial numbers that are, frankly, private information. Legally speaking, the census forms are a violation of Fifth Amendment rights which say no American shall be forced to testify against himself.

Beyond the obvious invasion of privacy, census forms have become a frightening system of surveillance where the government pries into the private lives of innocent, hard-working farmers who are just trying to make a living by producing honest food. The government will obviously use this system to try to enforce its National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a federal animal tagging and tracking system that thrusts an onerous burden on farmers and ranchers.

The USDA, predictably, claims your data is all protected. "Once you fill out the Census, your personal information is protected by federal law. These laws require USDA to keep your identity and your answers completely confidential," they claim on their website. (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Help/FAQs/General_FAQs/)

But that's a complete joke, of course, because in 1791 we were promised a Bill of Rights that said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet it is routinely infringed by the federal government at every turn.

These agricultural census forms -- see a link to a scanned copy below -- demands farmers reveal the following information, all of which is compiled into a vast government database:

• # of acres of land owned
• Physical location of the land
• # of acres of croplands harvested
• # of acres of pasture land
• # of acres leased for cash
• # of acres irrigated
• How much money you've received from state or federal agricultural programs
• The exact number of acres grown and harvested for each crop: corn, oats, peanuts, cotton, rice, soybeans, wheat and many more
• # of acres of hey or forage crops
• # of acres used for Christmas trees or maple syrup
• Detailed inventory of your greenhouses, vegetable seeds, mushrooms and "propagative materials"
• Detail inventory of tobacco plants, berries, aquatic plants, sod, flowering plants and more
• # of acres of beans, cantaloupes, potatoes, corn and various melons
• # of acres of various fruit and nut crops including apples, grapes and pears
• The total dollar value of all the crops you sold
• Detailed inventory of berries, including blueberries, strawberries, blackberries and more
• Details on the number of cattle and calves
• Value of all cattle sold
• Details on pigs, horses, sheep, goats and other animals
• Details on aquaculture operations, including type of plants grown
• Details on poultry production, # of chickens, what kind, how much money, etc
• Details on bees, alpacas, bison, deer, elk, rabbits and more
• Full details on all production contracts including chicken eggs, feed, seed and more
• Full reporting of all income from farm-related sources
• Full details on all farm labor, how many people you hired, what you paid, etc.
• Grain storage capacity on your farm
• All production expenses: A full accouting of money spent, almost a full tax return all by itself
• Details on all fertilizers and chemicals applied to your farm
• Details on all organic food production
• The market value of all your land, machinery, buildings and equipment
• Details on all your tractors, what kind they are, how many horsepower, and all attachments
• Details on all sources of energy, including solar, wind, geoexchange, biodiesel and more
• Details on land use practices: erosion, conservation, cover crops and more
• Details on all your farming practices: crop rotations, reclamation projects, biomass harvesting, etc.
• Details on the dollar value of direct sales for human consumption
• The names and descriptions of all farm operators, including name, sex, age, race, hours of work and more
• Household income details
• Details of internet access

See a scanned copy of the full form (minus the first page) at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/USDA-agriculture-census.pdf

Most Americans don't yet realize that President Obama has already signed an executive order declaring government ownership and control over all farms, food, livestock, seeds, farm equipment and more. I've covered that news in full detail here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply....

The executive order is published at WhiteHouse.gov:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order...

Just over a year ago, on March 16, 2012, President Obama issued this executive order entitled, "NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS."

This executive order states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, industry, etc.) as long as it is done "to promote the national defense" -- a phrase so vague that it could mean practically anything.

The power to seize control and take over these resources is delegated to the following government authorities:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

As is readily apparent, the executive order admits that the federal government can seize all farms, food, seeds, livestock and water resources any time it wants. The USDA agricultural census document provides the U.S. government with a "registration list" of all farms, seeds, tractors, livestock and water resources. It tells them what each farm possesses and exactly where to find it.
http://www.naturalnews.com/039652_USDA_agriculture_census_government_surveillance.html

U.S. Dept. of Education helps leak students' personal data.

States and schools are signing over private data from millions of students to companies and researchers who hope to glean secrets of the human mind. 

Nine states have sent dossiers on students —including names, Social Security numbers, hobbies, addresses, test scores, attendance, career goals, and attitudes about school —to a public-private database, according to Reuters. Standardized tests are beginning to incorporate psychological and behavioral assessment. Every state is also building databases to collect and share such information among agencies and companies, and the U.S. Department of Education has recently reinterpreted federal privacy laws so that schools and governments don’t have to tell parents their kids’ information has been shared.

  

Promises of researchers’ and governments’ good intentions are not enough to justify this, especially when tax dollars are involved and government entities are helping invade students’ privacy without parents’ or even school officials’ knowledge.

Very few U.S. citizens want to see their government even slightly imitate China, which keeps dossiers on all citizens’ performance and attitudes. These records influence work, political, and school opportunities. Because “everything they do will be recorded for the rest of their life … the dossier discourages any ‘errant’ behavior,” says Chinese professor Ouyang Huhua. This is not to say big databases equal communist oppression. But we do things differently in the United States because we trust our citizenry and we believe in self-rule.

Any researcher or organization wanting to plumb data – perhaps to help kids learn more, faster – can do so without trampling individual rights. First, the historic and accepted practice with student records has been to keep them anonymous when shared outside of schools. Researchers and government accountability gurus don’t need to know that Sally Smith failed Algebra I, even if her parents and teachers do. Researchers do not need personally identifiable information such as names, Social Security numbers, and addresses. They just need to know, for example, whether lots of students are failing Algebra I. Schools and states should check these privacy firewalls.

Second, students and their guardians should have full access to their own records, with the ability to correct false information. They also should be informed of and able to opt out of all data-sharing involving their records. Schools need parent consent to give children so much as an aspirin. They should get consent to share a student’s psychological evaluations or test performances.

Third, agencies should be required to explain exactly how they will keep the sensitive information in their hands from being hacked or exposed. The more people and organizations have access, and the bigger a treasure trove these databases become, the more likely security breaches become. Hundreds of thousands of people were put at risk of identity theft in 2012 because of security breaches in government databases, including one affecting three-quarters of South Carolinians. And child identity theft is often not discovered until adulthood, which makes youngsters’ records even more attractive to thieves.

Because the U.S. Department of Education has unilaterally knocked down federal privacy protections, lawmakers need to rebuild that wall. Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, New York and Oregon are a few states considering such legislation. They should act swiftly, and so should others.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/education-dept.-helps-leak-students-personal-data/article/2525112

Supreme Court ruled U.S. govt. can be sued over actions of prison guards.

When can the federal government be sued when a law enforcement officer intentionally injures or harms someone? Apparently, any time the officer is acting within the scope of his or her employment.

That was the answer Justice Clarence Thomas gave when he wrote today's opinion for a unanimous court in Millbrook v. United States.

The allegations underlying the case are pretty graphic. Kim Lee Millbrook, a federal prisoner who's serving a 31-year sentence, claimed that he was assaulted by prison guards in March 2010. Allegedly one guard forced him to perform oral sex on him, while another guard held Millbrook in a choke hold, and a third officer stood watch nearby.

Whether the claims are truthful is not at issue in this case. What was at issue was whether Millbrook could proceed with a lawsuit against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Let's first talk about how the FTCA works. Under the law, the government allows itself to be sued when a government representative commits a tort. A tort is an act done negligently or intentionally that results in injury to someone. However, if the tort was intentional, the law does not allow the lawsuit to proceed — except in cases where the defendant is a law enforcement official. And even in those cases, the federal government can be liable only if the officer was acting "within the scope of his office or employment."

What does "scope of employment" mean? Some lower courts have confined the phrase to mean only when the officer was specifically engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or when the officer was making an arrest, seizing evidence or conducting a search. Millbrook argued that those lower court rulings are too narrow and wouldn't capture egregiously abusive conduct by prison officers in many instances.

The Court agreed the lower court rulings were too narrow, and held that people can sue the federal government under the FTCA for "acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest."

Whether Millbrook, a frequent litigant against the federal government who handwrote his own petition for writ of certiorari, will actually win his case in the lower court is another matter left for a future day. The Court didn't touch the issue of whether sexual assault could conceivably fall within the "scope" of a prison guard's employment.

Chris Paolella, Millbrook's lawyer, said it could, and that's why today's ruling is so important.

"Reprehensible activity can be within the scope of employment – it's a reprehensible way of doing a job, but they're doing it to exercise authority over the people that are in their charge," said Paolella.
And he said being able to sue the federal government when prison guards commit terrible acts is an important way to deter that conduct.

"Basically the government now has a direct pocketbook interest in stopping this kind of behavior," he said.

But Jeff Bucholtz, the lawyer for the other side, said any deterrence benefits of today's decision are minimal at best.

"FTCA judgments and settlements are not paid by the person who engaged in the misconduct and they're not paid by that person's employing agency," Bucholtz pointed out.

Instead, Bucholtz explained, FTCA judgments are paid by an unlimited fund provided by Congress, so it doesn't hurt prison guards or their supervisors when judgments are paid out under the statute.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/27/175494286/high-court-rules-u-s-government-can-be-sued-over-actions-of-prison-guards

Pro Publica report on wrongful convictions.

CASE FLAWS:

Trial By Fire, The New Yorker, September 2009
In 2004, Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham, an unemployed mechanic from Corsicana who had been convicted of killing his three children 12 years earlier by setting fire to his house. But as The New Yorker’s David Grann reports, the arson investigation findings that the prosecutors used to convict Willingham were based on “junk science,” according to a highly acclaimed fire investigator. The jailhouse informant who testified against him was unstable and had a history of addiction and mental illness. The year after Willingham’s execution, a fire scientist hired by a state commission concurred that the original investigators had no scientific basis for claiming the fire was arson.

Are Memphis Prosecutors Trying to Send an Innocent Man Back to Death Row?, The Nation, March 2013
Timothy Terrell McKinney is facing his third trial for the murder of an off-duty police officer in Memphis. His first case was overturned after the prosecution suppressed evidence that questioned McKinney’s guilt. Multiple testimonies now suggest it would be near impossible for McKinney to have committed the murder. But as one local put it, “when it’s a police officer killed here in Memphis, you know, they quick to nail somebody.”

Defendants Left Unaware of Flaws Found in Cases, The Washington Post, April 2012
In the 1990s, reviews by the Justice Department found shoddy testing in FBI labs was producing unreliable evidence. But that news failed to make its way to defendants who may have been wrongfully convicted based on flawed forensics. “Hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration [or] a retrial,” the Washington Post found.

The Hardest Cases: When Children Die, Justice Can Be Elusive, ProPublica, June 2011
Our 2011 investigation with Frontline and NPR found mistakes made by coroners and medical examiners led to the wrongful conviction of numerous babysitters, parents and others for murdering children. Ernie Lopez may be one such case: he was convicted for murdering a 6-month-old girl, despite evidence that later suggested she may have died from a rare blood disease. (Lopez later agreed to a plea deal for a reduced charge.)

Death Row Justice Derailed, The Chicago Tribune, November 1999
The first part of an epic investigation by Ken Armstrong and Steve Mills of how Illinois had sent innocent men to death row. “Capital punishment in Illinois,” Armstrong and Mills reported, “is a system so riddled with faulty evidence, unscrupulous trial tactics and legal incompetence that justice has been forsaken, a Tribune investigation has found.” The series helped convince Gov. George Ryan to put a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois the next year, which remains in effect today.

House of Screams, The Chicago Reader, 1990
Over 20 years ago, journalist John Conroy broke a story that shook the foundation of Chicago’s criminal justice system. Conroy unearthed the routine torture tactics used by then-police commander Jon Burge — from suffocation to electric shocks — that resulted in numerous false confessions and wrongful convictions.

DNA EVIDENCE:

The Innocent Man, Parts 1 and 2, Texas Monthly, November 2012
Michael Morton spent a quarter-century wrongfully behind bars for the brutal murder of his wife, Christine. In a two-part investigation, journalist Pamela Colloff reconstructs the exhausting years spent fighting for his innocence: from the fight for DNA testing to his battered relationship with his son.

Who Shot Valerie Finley?, Boston Review, March 2013

An examination of convictions overturned by DNA testing found three-quarters involved mistaken eyewitness identification. The Boston Review examines the case against Rodney Stanberry, accused of shooting 29-year-old Valerie Finley. Finley identified Stanberry as her shooter after awaking in the hospital from a coma. Stanberry was convicted, despite an alibi corroborated by at least six other testimonies. But without DNA evidence, his innocence has been nearly impossible to prove.

A Blind Faith in Eyewitnesses, The Dallas Morning News, October 2008
Wiley Fountain spent 15 years in prison after his rape conviction before DNA testing proved his innocence in 2002. The Dallas Morning News examined his case and those of 18 other exonerated men in Dallas County — which led the nation in DNA exonerations. Of the 19 cases, 18 of them were based on eyewitness testimony, which frequently convinces juries but is often fatally flawed.

DNA Evidence Exonerates Louisiana Death Row Inmate, The Washington Post, September 2012
Damon Thibodeaux, a deckhand on a Mississippi River workboat, spent more than 15 years in solitary confinement on death row in Louisiana, convicted of the rape and murder of his 14-year-old cousin. In September, Douglas A. Blackmon reports, he “became the 300th wrongly convicted person and 18th death-row inmate exonerated in the United States substantially on the basis of DNA evidence.”

AFTER INCARCERATION:

Freed Prisoners Lose Their Innocence, The Wisconsin State Journal, December 2011
Prisoners who are exonerated typically don’t receive the same support — a parole officer, mental health treatment, help finding employment — after they’re released that other inmates do, which can make for a hard readjustment. Take Forest Shomberg, The Wisconsin State Journal reports spent six years in jail before a judge overturned his sexual assault conviction on the basis of DNA evidence. But two years later, he was back in prison with a yearlong sentence after a suicide attempt.

The Exonerated, Texas Monthly, November 2008
By 2008, Texas had exonerated 37 men — who had served a combined 525 years in prison — on the basis of DNA evidence. Texas Monthly’s Michael Hall tracked down 32 of them: One has tried to kill himself three time since being released. Half a dozen of them spent more than two decades in prison. One man, James Waller, works in counseling now. “Send me the worst people they got,” he told Hall, “and I can give them a story where they will want to live again.”

Larry Peterson: Beyond Exoneration, NPR, June 2007
NPR’s Robert Siegel spent two years following the case of Larry Peterson, who was convicted of raping and murdering 25-year-old Jacqueline Harrison in 1989. Peterson spent almost 18 years in jail before being freed on the basis of DNA evidence. But two years after his release, Peterson was unemployed and was only beginning the long battle for restitution for his time in prison. And Patricia Harrison, Jacqueline’s sister, still believes he did it. “If I had my way, he’d be dead,” she told Siegel.
http://www.propublica.org/article/criminal-injustice-the-best-reporting-on-wrongful-convictions

Businessman describes Philadelphia cops as thugs.

Philadelphia police officers kicked in the teeth of a 60-year-old auto mechanic and robbed him of $34,000, the self-employed businessman claims in court.

 Warren Layre and Michael Tierney, co-owners of the shop, sued Philadelphia and five of its police officers: Thomas Liciardello, Brian Reynolds, Brian Speiser, Michael Spicer, and Lt. Robert Otto, in Federal Court.

Layre says in the complaint that he was doing business as usual in his shop on the night of June 23, 2011, when plainclothes officers broke through the garage door with a battering ram.

The officers, who did not identify themselves, handcuffed Layre and two other men - nonparties Thomas Basara and Brian Timer - forced them to the floor, and ransacked the shop, claiming to be looking for "money and contraband," according to the complaint.

"Officer Reynolds told plaintiff Layre that he was an FBI agent and he had been driving all day from a case in Virginia and that he was in a bad mood and that he would 'shoot you [Plaintiff Layre] in the head, myself,'" if Plaintiff Layre didn't tell him where the drugs and the money were hidden.," the complaint states.

It continues: "Defendant Officer Liciardello then demanded to know from plaintiff Layre where all the money and drugs were hidden. When plaintiff Layre said that he didn't know what the officer was talking about, defendant Officer Liciardello struck plaintiff Layre on the back of the head with a steel pipe, which caused plaintiff Layre to lose consciousness.

"While plaintiff Layre was lying on the floor of the auto shop and beginning to regain consciousness, defendant Officer Liciardello again demanded to know where the money and drugs were hidden. 

Defendant Officer Liciardello then kicked plaintiff Layre in the mouth, causing the front upper row of plaintiff Layer's teeth to separate from their roots and to bend back toward his throat. Subsequently, the entire upper room of plaintiff Layre's teeth had to be extracted by a dentist.

"Defendant Officer Liciardello then kicked plaintiff Layre twice in the scrotum. The second kick dislocated plaintiff Layre's index finger.

"Defendant Officer Liciardello then placed his service firearm to the head of plaintiff Layre and said, 'This is a .40 caliber Glock and I will blow your head off with it, you stinkin' drug junkie, if you don't tell me where the money and drugs are.'

The police then took Layre to a police station, without giving him medical attention. "Layre's face and chest were bloodied, his shirt had been torn off and his glasses were shattered," according to the complaint.

Not only that, but "Officer Liciardello spray painted his name on the shop wall," according to the complaint.

Then, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant officers looted Layre's bank account and safe deposit box, seizing more than $250,000 in direct and investment earnings, which Layre said were fully declared and documented in his tax returns over a 42-year period.

On July 14, 2011, the City of Philadelphia sealed and seized the auto shop and filed a petition for forfeiture of the property.

Layre and Tierney deny that they ever were involved in sale of illicit drugs.

They seek compensatory and punitive damages for unreasonable use of force, unlawful arrest, unlawful search and seizure, improper execution of a warrant, and malicious prosecution.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/27/56098.htm