Favorite Quotes

"Once you walk into a courtroom, you've already lost. The best way to win is to avoid it at all costs, because the justice system is anything but" Sydney Carton, Attorney. "There is no one in the criminal justice system who believes that system works well. Or if they are, they are for courts that are an embarrassment to the ideals of justice. The law of real people doesn't work" Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor.



Monday, September 30, 2013

The NSA is gathering your social-networking connections, what about the FBI?

 

Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.

The agency was authorized to conduct “large-scale graph analysis on very large sets of communications metadata without having to check foreignness” of every e-mail address, phone number or other identifier, the document said. Because of concerns about infringing on the privacy of American citizens, the computer analysis of such data had previously been permitted only for foreigners. (Does the gov't. really think the American public is that gullible? Click here to find out more )

The agency can augment the communications data with material from public, commercial and other sources, including bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and unspecified tax data, according to the documents. They do not indicate any restrictions on the use of such “enrichment” data, and several former senior Obama administration officials said the agency drew on it for both Americans and foreigners. 

N.S.A. officials declined to say how many Americans have been caught up in the effort, including people involved in no wrongdoing. The documents do not describe what has resulted from the scrutiny, which links phone numbers and e-mails in a “contact chain” tied directly or indirectly to a person or organization overseas that is of foreign intelligence interest. 

The new disclosures add to the growing body of knowledge in recent months about the N.S.A.’s access to and use of private information concerning Americans, prompting lawmakers in Washington to call for reining in the agency and President Obama to order an examination of its surveillance policies. Almost everything about the agency’s operations is hidden, and the decision to revise the limits concerning Americans was made in secret, without review by the nation’s intelligence court or any public debate. As far back as 2006, a Justice Department memo warned of the potential for the “misuse” of such information without adequate safeguards.

Phone and e-mail logs, for example, allow analysts to identify people’s friends and associates, detect where they were at a certain time, acquire clues to religious or political affiliations, and pick up sensitive information like regular calls to a psychiatrist’s office, late-night messages to an extramarital partner or exchanges with a fellow plotter. 

“Metadata can be very revealing,” said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “Knowing things like the number someone just dialed or the location of the person’s cellphone is going to allow them to assemble a picture of what someone is up to. It’s the digital equivalent of tailing a suspect.” 

The N.S.A. documents show that one of the main tools used for chaining phone numbers and e-mail addresses has the code name Mainway. It is a repository into which vast amounts of data flow daily from the agency’s fiber-optic cables, corporate partners and foreign computer networks that have been hacked. 

The documents show that significant amounts of information from the United States go into Mainway. An internal N.S.A. bulletin, for example, noted that in 2011 Mainway was taking in 700 million phone records per day. In August 2011, it began receiving an additional 1.1 billion cellphone records daily from an unnamed American service provider under Section 702 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which allows for the collection of the data of Americans if at least one end of the communication is believed to be foreign. 

The overall volume of metadata collected by the N.S.A. is reflected in the agency’s secret 2013 budget request to Congress. The budget document, disclosed by Mr. Snowden, shows that the agency is pouring money and manpower into creating a metadata repository capable of taking in 20 billion “record events” daily and making them available to N.S.A. analysts within 60 minutes. 

The spending includes support for the “Enterprise Knowledge System,” which has a $394 million multiyear budget and is designed to “rapidly discover and correlate complex relationships and patterns across diverse data sources on a massive scale,” according to a 2008 document. The data is automatically computed to speed queries and discover new targets for surveillance. 

A top-secret document titled “Better Person Centric Analysis” describes how the agency looks for 94 “entity types,” including phone numbers, e-mail addresses and IP addresses. In addition, the N.S.A. correlates 164 “relationship types” to build social networks and what the agency calls “community of interest” profiles, using queries like “travelsWith, hasFather, sentForumMessage, employs.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/nsa-examines-social-networks-of-us-citizens.html?_r=3&
http://www.businessinsider.com/report-the-nsa-is-gathering-data-on-americans-to-map-behavior-2013-9#ixzz2gFQk24p7
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/senator_feinste.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/nsas-spying-on-our-metadata-violates-our-freedom-of-association.html

12 True tales of creepy NSA cyberstalking:

The NSA has released some details of 12 incidents in which analysts used their access to America’s high-tech surveillance infrastructure to spy on girlfriends, boyfriends, and random people they met in social settings. It’s a fascinating look at what happens when the impulse that drives average netizens to look up long-ago ex-lovers on Facebook is mated with the power to fire up a wiretap with a few keystrokes.

One such analyst working on foreign soil started surveillance on nine phone numbers belonging to women over five years, from 1998 to 2003. He “listened to collected phone conversations,” according to a letter from the NSA’s Inspector General to Senator Charles Grassley released today. The unnamed spy conducted “call chaining” on one of the numbers — to determine who had called, or been called from, the phone — and then started surveillance on two of those numbers as well.

He was thwarted only after a woman he was sleeping with reported her suspicions that the analyst had been listening to her phone calls. The analyst resigned.

In 2011, another civilian NSA employee abroad “tasked” the telephone number of her boyfriend and other foreign nationals. When she was asked about it, she claimed it was her practice to query the phone numbers of people she met socially to make sure she wasn’t talking to “shady characters.” (Because you wouldn’t want that.)

In 2005, a military member used his first day of access to run six e-mail addresses belonging to an ex-girlfriend.

Click on the link below to read the letter:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-stalking/

ACLU report: The FBI has vastly expanded its domestic surveillance powers, spying on Americans phones & emails without a warrant

The ACLU is putting new pressure on the FBI, calling on the U.S. Attorney General and Congress to reign in the Bureau’s power to surveil Americans’ phone calls under the Patriot Act, restrict its ability to access Americans’ online data without a warrant, and take measures to prevent its surveillance focus on religious and ethnic minorities. “The ACLU has long warned that turning the FBI into a domestic intelligence agency by providing it with enhanced surveillance and investigative authorities that could be secretly used against Americans posed grave risks to our constitutional rights,” the report reads. “This is what a domestic intelligence enterprise looks like in our modern technological age.”

The ACLU’s renewed focus on the FBI may seem strange given the recent string of bombshell leaks about the NSA. But its report "Unleashed and Unaccountable: The FBI's Unchecked Abuse of Authority" emphasizes that the NSA’s collection of millions of Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint users’ cellphone metadata under the 215 section of the Patriot Act–perhaps the most controversial of the stories to follow NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s disclosures–has only been possible because of the FBI’s powers to secretly demand that phone companies turn over that data, before handing it to the NSA. “The critical role of one agency deeply involved in this scandal has not been fully examined…even though it requested the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Court order compelling companies to participate in the NSA’s bulk phone records collection program,” writes the ACLU’s Matthew Harwood in a blog post introducing the report. “That agency is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

Aside from describing how the FBI enables the NSA’s surveillance, the report goes on to accuse the bureau of abuses on more than a dozen different topics. A few of its points:
  • Since 2008, according to the report, the FBI has engaged in thousands of investigations of individuals without reasonable suspicion, opening investigations on 82,000 subjects from 2009 to 2011 alone while only finding information that justified such an investigation in 3,500 of the cases.
  • Aside from the Section 215 orders sent to telecom firms, the FBI secretly demands hundreds of thousands of individuals’ data from phone and Internet companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook using so-called National Security Letters–it sent 140,000 between 2003 and 2005 alone, almost half of which were targeted at Americans.
  • The report claims that the FBI has racially profiled communities across America to focus its surveillance, including Chinese and Russian Communities in San Francisco, Latinos in New Jersey and Alabama, African Americans in Georgia, and Middle-Eastern communities in Detroit.
  • The ACLU writes that by exempting the FBI from the Whistleblower Protection Act, Congress has allowed it to intimidate internal whistleblowers–28% of staff say they’ve witnessed but never reported misconduct. And it points out that the Bureau has engaged in recent campaigns of surveilling journalists to identify their government sources, including the staff of the Associated Press and a Fox News reporter.
  • The report also highlights that despite FBI’s growing surveillance powers, it remains incompetent at its core crime-fighting job, noting that according to the FBI’s own data more than half of 1.2 million violent crimes in 2011 went unsolved.

https://www.aclu.org/unleashed-and-unaccountable  

Unleashed and unaccountable: The FBI's unchecked abuse of authority:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountable-fbi-report.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau wants to spy on Americans emails:
http://cryptome.org/2013/09/census-13-0927.pdf 

Palantir is just one of the companies profiting from the American surveillance state:

Palantir is definitely a fairly well-known company in Silicon Valley. While Silicon Valley firms actually tend to have a reputation for being skeptical of partnering up with the intelligence community, Palantir has always focused on trying to work directly with the intelligence community, quite successfully. Palantir got a bit of notoriety a couple years ago, when it was revealed to be associated with HBGary Federal when Anonymous leaked plans to try to discredit Wikileaks and various critics (including Glenn Greenwald) in a pitch to Bank of America and the US Chamber of Commerce. However, with the latest stories about NSA surveillance, and questions concerning the involvement of Silicon Valley, more and more attention has been paid to Palantir. Andy Greenberg and Ryan Mac did a profile in Forbes of the "deviant philosopher" who built the company. And the Telegraph recently called it the creepiest startup ever.

Apparently all the revelations concerning the surveillance state haven't been bad for business either. Reports are that the company has recently closed on a little under $200 million from investors, bringing its total raised to around $500 million. Supposedly the latest valuation has the company around $8 billion -- which would mean that the $200 million only bought around 2.5% of the company.

Obviously, there's money in feeding the surveillance state. In fact, we've argued that so much of the hype around "cybersecurity" has really been about efforts to drum up more business for contractors, including Palantir. It's just a shame that all these revelations don't seem to have dampened the interest in building the surveillance state. Apparently the 4th Amendment doesn't mean too much when all that money is on the table.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130927/17175624683/helping-build-surveillance-state-is-good-business-palantir-gets-196-million-more-funding.shtml

The machines that police and other agencies use to spy on cell phones

 

Article first appeared in Arstechnica:

The Stingray has become the most widely known and contentious spy tool used by government agencies to track mobile phones, in part due to an Arizona court case that called the legality of its use into question. It’s a box-shaped portable device, sometimes described as an “IMSI catcher,” that gathers information from phones by sending out a signal that tricks them into connecting to it. The Stingray can be covertly set up virtually anywhere—in the back of a vehicle, for instance—and can be used over a targeted radius to collect hundreds of unique phone identifying codes, such as the International Mobile Subscriber Number (IMSI) and the Electronic Serial Number (ESM). Authorities can then hone in on specific phones of interest to monitor the location of the user in real time or use the spy tool to log a record of all phones in a targeted area at a particular time.

The FBI uses the Stingray to track suspects and says that it does not use the tool to intercept the content of communications. However, this capability does exist. Procurement documents indicate that the Stingray can also be used with software called “FishHawk,” (PDF) which boosts the device’s capabilities by allowing authorities to eavesdrop on conversations. Other similar Harris software includes “Porpoise,” which is sold on a USB drive and is designed to be installed on a laptop and used in conjunction with transceivers—possibly including the Stingray—for surveillance of text messages.

Similar devices are sold by other government spy technology suppliers, but US authorities appear to use Harris equipment exclusively. They've awarded the company “sole source” contracts because its spy tools provide capabilities that authorities claim other companies do not offer. The Stingray has become so popular, in fact, that “Stingray” has become a generic name used informally to describe all kinds of IMSI catcher-style devices.

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Stingray was first filed in August 2001. Earlier versions of the technology—sometimes described as “digital analyzers” or “cell site simulators” by the FBI—were being deployed in the mid-1990s. An upgraded version of the Stingray, named the “Stingray II,” was introduced to the spy tech market by Harris Corp. between 2007 and 2008. Photographs filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office depict the Stingray II as a more sophisticated device, with many additional USB inputs and a switch for a “GPS antenna,” which is likely used to assist in location tracking.

Cost: $68,479 for the original Stingray; $134,952 for Stingray II.
Agencies: Federal authorities have spent more than $30 million on Stingrays and related equipment and training since 2004, according to procurement records. Purchasing agencies include the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, the Army, and the Navy. Cops in Arizona, Maryland, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and California have also either purchased or considered purchasing the devices, according to public records. In one case, procurement records (PDF) show cops in Miami obtained a Stingray to monitor phones at a free trade conference held in Miami in 2003.

The Gossamer is a small portable device that can be used to secretly gather data on mobile phones operating in a target area. It sends out a covert signal that tricks phones into handing over their unique codes—such as the IMSI and TMSI—which can be used to identify users and home in on specific devices of interest. What makes it different from the Stingray? Not only is the Gossamer much smaller, but it can also be used to perform a denial-of-service attack on phone users, blocking targeted people from making or receiving calls, according to marketing materials (PDF) published by a Brazilian reseller of the Harris equipment. The Gossamer has the appearance of a clunky-looking handheld transceiver. 

One photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows it displaying an option for "mobile interrogation" on its small LCD screen, which sits above a telephone-style keypad.

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Gossamer was first filed in October 2001.
Cost: $19,696.

Agencies: Between 2005 and 2009, the FBI, Special Operations Command, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement spent more than $1.3 million purchasing Harris’ Gossamer technology and upgrading existing Gossamer units, according to procurement records. Most of the $1.3 million was spent by the FBI as part of a large contract in 2005.

The Triggerfish is an eavesdropping device. It allows authorities to covertly intercept mobile phone conversations in real time. This sets it apart from the original version of the Stingray, which marketing documents suggest was designed mainly for location monitoring and gathering metadata (though software can allow the Stingray to eavesdrop). The Triggerfish, which looks similar in size to the Stingray, can also be used to identify the location from which a phone call is being made. It can gather large amounts of data on users over a targeted area, allowing authorities to view identifying codes of up to 60,000 different phones at one time, according to marketing materials.

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Triggerfish was filed in July 2001, though its “first use anywhere” is listed as November 1997. It is not clear whether the Triggerfish is still for sale or whether its name has recently changed, as the trademark on the device was canceled in 2008, and it does not appear on Harris’ current federal price lists.

Cost: Between $90,000 and $102,000.

Agencies: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the DEA; and county cops in Miami-Dade invested in Triggerfish technology prior to 2004, according to procurement records. However, the procurement records (PDF) also show that the Miami-Dade authorities complained that the device "provided access" only to Cingular and AT&T wireless network carriers. (This was before the two companies merged.) To remedy that, the force complemented the Triggerfish tool with additional Harris technology, including the Stingray and Amberjack, which enabled monitoring of Metro PCS, Sprint, and Verizon. This gave the cops "the ability to track approximately ninety percent of the wireless industry," the procurement documents state.

The Kingfish is a surveillance transceiver that allows authorities to track and mine information from mobile phones over a targeted area. The device does not appear to enable interception of communications; instead, it can covertly gather unique identity codes and show connections between phones and numbers being dialed. It is smaller than the Stingray, black and gray in color, and can be controlled wirelessly by a conventional notebook PC using Bluetooth. You can even conceal it in a discreet-looking briefcase, according to marketing brochures.

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Kingfish was filed in August 2001. Its “first use anywhere” is listed in records as December 2003.
Cost: $25,349.

Agencies: Government agencies have spent about $13 million on Kingfish technology since 2006, sometimes as part of what is described in procurement documents as a “vehicular package” deal that includes a Stingray. The US Marshals Service; Secret Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Army; Air Force; state cops in Florida; county cops in Maricopa, Arizona; and Special Operations Command have all purchased a Kingfish in recent years.

The Amberjack is an antenna that is used to help track and locate mobile phones. It is designed to be used in conjunction with the Stingray, Gossamer, and Kingfish as a “direction-finding system” (PDF) that monitors the signal strength of the targeted phone in order to home in on the suspect’s location in real time. The device comes inbuilt with magnets so it can be attached to the roof of a police vehicle, and it has been designed to have a “low profile” for covert purposes. A photograph of the Amberjack filed with a trademark application reveals that the device, which is metallic and circular in shape, comes with a “tie-down kit” to prevent it from falling off the roof of a vehicle that is being driven at “highway speeds.”

First used: Trademark records show that a registration for the Amberjack was filed in August 2001 at the same time as the Stingray. Its “first use anywhere” is listed in records as October 2002.
Cost: $35,015

Agencies: The DEA; FBI; Special Operations Command; Secret Service; the Navy; the US Marshals Service; and cops in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas have all purchased Amberjack technology, according to procurement records. 

The Harpoon is an "amplifier" (PDF) that can boost the signal of a Stingray or Kingfish device, allowing it to project its surveillance signal farther or from a greater distance depending on the location of the targets. A photograph filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office shows that the device has two handles for carrying and a silver, metallic front with a series of inputs that allow it to be connected to other mobile phone spy devices.

First used: Trademark records show that a filing for the Harpoon was filed in June 2008.

Cost: $16,000 to $19,000.

Agencies: The DEA; state cops in Florida; city cops in Tempe, Arizona; the Army; and the Navy are among those to have purchased Harpoons since 2009.

The Hailstorm is the latest in the line of mobile phone tracking tools that Harris Corp. is offering authorities. However, few details about it have trickled into the public domain. It can be purchased as a standalone unit or as an upgrade to the Stingray or Kingfish, which suggests that it has the same functionality as these devices but has been tweaked with new or more advanced capabilities. Procurement documents (PDF) show that Harris Corp. has, in at least one case, recommended that authorities use the Hailstorm in conjunction with software made by Nebraska-based surveillance company Pen-Link. The Pen-Link software appears to enable authorities deploying the Hailstorm to directly communicate with cell phone carriers over an Internet connection, possibly to help coordinate the surveillance of targeted individuals.

First used: Unknown.

Cost: $169,602 as a standalone unit. The price is reduced when purchased as an upgrade.

Agencies: Public records show that earlier this year, the Baltimore Police Department, county cops in Oakland County, Michigan, and city cops in Phoenix, Arizona, each separately entered the procurement process to obtain the Hailstorm equipment. The Baltimore and Phoenix forces each set aside about $100,000 for the device, and they purchased it as an upgrade to Stingray II mobile phone spy technology. The Phoenix cops spent an additional $10,000 on Hailstorm training sessions conducted by Harris Corp. in Melbourne, Florida, and Oakland County authorities said they obtained a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to help finance the procurement of the Hailstorm tool. The Oakland authorities noted that the device was needed for “pinpoint tracking of criminal activity.” It is highly likely that other authorities—particularly federal agencies—will invest in the Hailstorm too, with procurement records eventually surfacing later this year or into 2014.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/meet-the-machines-that-steal-your-phones-data/

Police don’t need a warrant to obtain cell phone data:

In a significant victory for police, a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement authorities could obtain historical location data directly from telecommunications carriers without a search warrant, The New York Times reports.

According to the news report, “…the closely watched case, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is the first ruling that squarely addresses the constitutionality of warrantless searches of historical location data stored by cell phone service providers. Ruling two to one, the court said a warrantless search was ‘not per se unconstitutional’ because location data was ‘clearly a business record’ and, therefore, not protected by the Fourth Amendment.”

The federal appeals court acknowledged the government’s argument that consumers knowingly give up their location information to the telecommunications carrier every time they make a call or send a text message on their cell phones.

For now, the ruling sets an important precedent: It allows law enforcement officials in the Fifth Circuit to chronicle the whereabouts of an American with a court order that falls short of a search warrant based on probable cause. 

“This decision is a big deal,” said Catherine Crump, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s a big deal and a big blow to Americans’ privacy rights.” 

The group reviewed records from more than 200 local police departments last year, concluding that the demand for cellphone location data had led some cellphone companies to develop “surveillance fees” to enable police to track suspects.

The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on whether cellphone location data is protected by the Constitution. The case, which was initially brought in Texas, is not expected to go to the Supreme Court because it is “ex parte,” or filed by only one party — in this case, the government. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/technology/warrantless-cellphone-tracking-is-upheld.html?_r=1&

Dallas County Sherrif's have purchased a bulletproof, "Mine-Protected" military armored personnel carrier


Texas - Now that the war in Iraq is officially over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, the Department of Defense found itself facing a conundrum. It had just spent billions of dollars buying heavily armored personnel carriers designed to stand up to insurgent attacks only to find that it had run out of wars to use them in.

The initial plan was to shove the vehicles, called MRAPS (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) into a warehouse and let them collect dust. That changed when someone (DHS) decided that, having served so admirably overseas, it would be only just to bring the MRAPs stateside and deploy them in the domestic war on crime.

And so, for the past couple of months, news reports have been popping up announcing that places like Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Ohio State University have been receiving their very own military-grade armored SUVs.

See also: District Attorney Craig Watkins' Epic Quest to Use a Former Drug Dealer's Porsche Boxter
Now, it's Dallas' turn. Dallas County sheriff's deputies traveled to Fort Hood earlier this month and picked up their very own International MaxxPro MRAP. This particular truck has never seen any actual combat, having only been deployed stateside for training exercises, so it doesn't have any cool battle scars, but with the dealer's $600,000 price tag knocked down to nothing, and with just 10,000 miles on it, the deal was too good to pass up.

After making the 160-mile drive back to Dallas from Fort Hood, deputy James Blesoe declared that the vehicle "exceeded expectations," according to a memo to Dallas County commissioner's.

"Having a tactical vehicle will not only provide warrants execution with the equipment to assist in performing their jobs but will provide an overall safety arch," Chief Deputy Marlin Suell wrote to commissioners.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/dallas_county_now_has_its_very.php 

The Idaho police department has acquired an MRAP or armored personnel carrier:

“Potentially there are a lot of uses for this vehicle from deflecting an explosive device to containing or approaching an armed subject without use of greater force. We’re working with Boise Fire and other emergency response agencies throughout the Boise area to see what value this vehicle can bring to public safety. (was that mean as a joke?) We very much appreciate the federal government for providing this vehicle (tank) to our city,” Boise Deputy Chief William Bones said

Preston Police Chief Ken Geddes informed local residents of his department’s acquisition last week, saying the vehicles are essenital to increasing “domestic security” around the country.

“Our department has officers that have been trained and have personally used these armored vehicles in real world operations overseas. They feel this vehicle will be an asset in our area just as it was in combat situations,” Geddes said. “I appreciate our government and our military for the security they give us and for their help to increase our strength here in our schools and at home.”
http://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/preston-police-chief-touts-acquisition-of-armored-vehicle-for-department/article_9cccbc7c-2742-11e3-8c7e-0019bb2963f4.html

4th. Amend. is dead - Soldiers must show their ID to law enforcement whenever they ask for it:

Fort Hood service members who refuse to show identification to law enforcement officers can face action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to a policy issued by the 1st Cavalry Division commander Sept. 5.

Texas state law requires people to identify themselves to police only if they are legally arrested. But the Fort Hood policy requires soldiers to show their ID to law enforcement whenever they are asked to do so by authorities. (If our military personnel are being told they have to surrender their ID's when a police officer asks for it. What do you think will happen when these soldiers become police officers? What will they will expect from citizens?)

“Soldiers are prohibited from refusing to present a driver’s license or military identification card to any law enforcement officer in the exercise of his or her official duties, upon request by the law enforcement officer,” the memo issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Ierardi reads.

The policy comes after recent incidents in which soldiers openly carrying long guns were asked by police to show identification and they refused.

“The purpose of this policy is to assist law enforcement personnel in determining whether a service member constitutes a threat to the public safety, without confrontation, in order to protect service members and civilians from avoidable accidents or incidents that could result in death or serious injury,” the memo states.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309300005/Fort-Hood-soldiers-can-face-UCMJ-they-won-t-show-ID-cops

The  U.S. Department of Justice spent millions of dollars purchasing unmanned aerial drones:

The U.S. Department of Justice spent millions of dollars purchasing small unarmed drones for domestic use over the last decade, but the department lacks a comprehensive policy for the unmanned aircraft -- despite growing concern about their use.

In a report released Thursday, the DOJ's inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, said the department's agencies had an "uncoordinated approach" to their use of drones.

Horowitz noted that the use of small drones by law enforcement raises concerns about privacy, in part because the aircraft are able to "maneuver covertly in areas where individual expectations of privacy are not well-defined, such as in the immediate vicinity of residences."

"No agency, including the FBI, should deploy domestic surveillance drones without first having strong privacy guidelines in place," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/doj-drones-dea-atf_n_3997550.html

Map: Is your state a no-drone zone?

Only nine states have passed laws restricting drone use.

In less than two years, the United States will open its commercial airspace to drones, allowing these "unmanned aerial vehicles" to zip over American cities along with planes and helicopters. Tech enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, and law enforcement agencies are intrigued by the possibilities—burrito drones! And the roughly $6-billion-a-year drone industry has launched a lobbying offensive to ensure Federal Aviation Administration regulations are as broad and permissive as possible. But lawmakers and civil liberties groups are concerned about the privacy implications and potential safety issues, and at least nine states have passed laws restricting drone use by law enforcement, private citizens, or both.

Click here to view the map.

While drones were never banned in the United States, up until now their use has been strictly limited, with the FAA distributing a few hundred permits to researchers and law enforcement. But Congress has ordered the agency to open commercial airspace to a wide variety of unmanned vehicles by late 2015. And when it does, drones are bound to proliferate. The FAA anticipates there could be as many as 30,000 drones hurtling through US airspace by 2020.

Civil liberties advocates worry this trend could lead to abuses, with law enforcement agencies conducting unnecessary surveillance, especially given the lack of federal regulation governing the use of drones for law enforcement purposes. (At this point, it's not even clear whether police need a warrant to collect data on people using drones). "It's a core value in our society that the government doesn't watch us and collect information about innocent people," says Allie Bohm, an advocacy and policy strategist for the ACLU. "We need rules so that we can enjoy the benefits of this technology without becoming closer to a surveillance state."
 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/map-are-drones-illegal-your-state

Woman is suing Estelline,Texas, its former police chief & a police officer over illegal cash seizure:

An Azle woman on Thursday filed a federal wrongful arrest lawsuit against the city of Estelline, its former police chief and a former officer, alleging they violated her Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop last year.

The suit names the city, former Police Chief Chris Jolly and former officer Jayson Fry as defendants and claims the arrest humiliated and embarrassed Laura Dutton, who was arrested on a money laundering charge Nov. 28 after a traffic stop in Estelline.

The suit said Dutton was traveling from Azle to Amarillo to visit a friend when Fry pulled her over for a suspected speeding violation. Fry claimed he smelled marijuana in the vehicle and asked to search it, but Dutton refused. 

Dutton told the officers that the money they found inside the vehicle, still wrapped in bank wrappings, was the proceeds from a recent real estate transaction. 

Later, Jolly arrived with a drug dog that alerted on Fry’s vehicle and the officers seized more than $31,000 in cash from the pickup, the suit said.

In January, District Attorney Luke Inman’s office refused to accept charges in the case “due to the fact that the currency seized still contained U.S. mint/bank wrappings at the time of seizure” and because Dutton provided evidence she received the money from a property sale in Van Zandt County.

“In sum, plaintiff Dutton was arrested, searched, and her money was seized, despite the fact that she is a law-abiding citizen who had done nothing worse than speeding — simply because she chose to carry with her lawfully obtained money,” the suit said.

Estelline officials returned most of Dutton’s money in January, the suit said.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for loss of liberty, emotional distress, bond fees, among other claims.
http://amarillo.com/news/2013-09-19/woman-sues-estelline-former-officers-over-cash-seizure

Friday, September 27, 2013

Police are using the 'See Something, Say Something' campaign to target innocent Americans



The ACLU's recent release of "Suspicious Activity Reports" from various California law enforcement agencies (working with DHS Fusion Centers) shows that the government has developed a strong culture of paranoia through its increasingly-broad anti-terrorism efforts. The catchphrase, "If you see something, say something," has resulted in plenty of seeing and saying, but has failed to turn up much in the way of usable counter-terrorism intelligence.

Much in the way that intelligence agencies like gathering data "just in case," the Fusion Centers are aided and abetted by law enforcement officials who are willing to add to the data piles by approaching anything "suspicious" (very broadly defined) as potentially terrorist-related. This state-approved paranoia has spilled over into the private sector as the documents detail several second-hand reports from concerned citizens.


In both cases (law enforcement and private individuals), much of the "suspicion" seems to be based solely on reported persons being (or appearing to be) Middle Eastern. This term shows up so often it's often simply abbreviated as ME. For instance, page 21 has a report of some "suspicious" photography occurring on a Metrolink train, involving two people, one dressed in a "'Middle Eastern' costume."

Speaking of photography, aiming a camera at any government building, power station, railroad track, bridge, dam, oil refinery, airport building or any other building that an observer feels should remain unphotographed is enough to get your description (at the very least) added to the FBI's e-Guardian database. Even filming on-duty cops can raise the "suspicions" of law enforcement [p. 10].

 After responding to a call of disturbance aboard an MTA bus, a male white and a female white in a black Dodge Charger (newer model) video taping deputy personnel. When Sgt [redacted] attempted to contact the couple. they fled the scene and could not be located. The reason for the couple video taping is unknown.

Photographers filming a manufacturing plant deemed suspicious until questioning discovered they were filming the pollution, not the plant [p. 28]. Five males "photographing a mannequin on a bus bench" -- weird, but not dangerous [p. 50]. Man filming Highway 101, allegedly for a "Stop the Violence" video not cited or bothered further [p. 64], but like many others, had his case kicked up the ladder to the "JTTF" (Joint Terrorism Task Force). A citizen filming officers serving a warrant across the street from his/her house and is duly noted in the database [p. 167]. Throughout the 300 pages of reports, almost everything involving cameras, law enforcement (or concerned citizens) and structures is either added to the FBI's database or handed over to the JTTF.

This is troubling, but it gets worse. A demonstration against law enforcement's use of excessive force makes its way into the database [p. 165]. An "overly assertive" person complaining about security measures at the Shasta Dam (son had pocketknife confiscated) received his/her own entry into the e-Guardian database [p. 280]. 

An officer reports a traffic stop dealing with a person who was "unstable and possibly had a fetish about police that could easily turn to becoming antipolice" [p. 235]. This too results in a database entry. 

Going beyond all of the mostly useless stuff lies the truly disturbing.

Student Found in Possession of Notebook Containing Radical Writings
On May 12, 2012, a Roseville Police Department officer working in the capacity of a School Resource Officer observed the partial quote "the blood of tyrants" on a woodshop project… [p. 171]


On 12 February 2012 at 0800, a UC Davis PD officer took a vandalism report at Emerson Hall Dorm, 1st floor men's restroom of anti-government graffiti written in black marker on the wall signed by the moniker name of [redacted] with a circle around the "E." [p. 191]

On 11/21/2011, an anonymous female called the CCIC to report possible illegal selling of controlled substance, Oxycotton [sic]. The caller is associated with the subject [redacted] attempting to sell oxycotton [sic] on his [redacted] page… [p. 202]

On 28 October 2011, Sacramento Police Department officers found two sets of anti-religious graffiti on a wall of the [redacted] The first set of graffiti, in black spray paint, was of 2 upside down crosses with a pentagram in the middle of [report ends]. [p. 206] (Halloween much?) 


The ACLU points out, the system itself has been skewed towards collecting garbage for quite some time, thanks to the involved agencies' own efforts to expand the scope of their mission. 

So why are police submitting reports (sometimes received from community members, private security guards and via anonymous tips) about such innocuous conduct for inclusion in anti-terrorism databases? Because under the NSI and related programs,everyone – our neighbors, public employees, storekeepers – are encouraged to help. "If you see something, say something," says the Department of Homeland Security. The "Functional Standard" for Suspicious Activity Reporting defines "suspicious activity" to include many activities that are not only lawful, but protected by the First Amendment. Even worse, the FBI encourages fusion centers not to limit themselves to the Functional Standard and instead to report "all potentially terrorism-related activity." With such a broad and vague standard, no wonder we are seeing innocent activities reported as "suspicious," especially when they involve community groups against whom we still see significant governmental bias.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130924/10470524637/documents-obtained-aclu-show-fusion-centers-broad-surveillance-americans-everyday-activities.shtml 

Ultimate guide to safeguard & backup digital photos:

http://techpp.com/2011/10/11/how-to-save-photos/

How to recover deleted pictures from a memory card:

http://www.cardrecovery.com/how_to_recover_deleted_digital_pictures.asp


TSA to begin using “covert surveillance” vans in three cities

                                                            Image source Shook built surveillance van: 
                          http://www.shook-usa.com/Products_and_Services/Military_GSA/Aberdeen_Van.html

The TSA is about to roll out high-tech vehicles that will utilize secret technology to conduct “covert surveillance operations” in cities around the country.

According to a synopsis posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website (PDF), the TSA is set to purchase technology to retrofit three vans in Arlington, VA, Chicago, IL, and San Francisco, CA in order to convert them into surveillance vehicles that will “conduct covert surveillance operations in the course of investigations.”

Precisely where such covert surveillance will take place is not mentioned, although in 2010 it was revealed that US government agencies were already using roving street surveillance vans that deployed backscatter x-ray vision technology to inspect other vehicles.

The total cost of outfitting three vans with the covert surveillance technology is $160,000 dollars.

Despite their tax dollars paying for such equipment, American citizens are not privy to any detailed information on what this surveillance system will actually entail.

The TSA vehicles will be fitted with Crime Point IP Network Surveillance technology. When attempting to access details of the technology via the Crime Point website, the user is met with the message, “Due to its sensitive nature, the product content on this website is restricted to law enforcement professionals and government agencies only,” and a password is required to go any further.

Although the general public is barred from scrutinizing specific details, the company says that it provides “covert outdoor video systems” that “incorporate the latest emerging technologies.”
Crime Point provides surveillance vans of its own but, like details of the surveillance systems, that information is also restricted.

The legality of the TSA conducting “covert surveillance” of Americans, whether it be at transport hubs or on highways, conflicts with the Fourth Amendment, which protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Mistral is one company provides "Mobile C4ISR Platforms" or surveillance vans to police agencies and DHS
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-to-roll-out-covert-surveillance-vans/  

Documents reveal TSA research proposal to body-scan pedestrians, train passengers:

EPIC calls these vans "mobile strip search devices" because they give the federal government technology to look under your clothes without your permission or consent. 

It's also being done without probable cause, so it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment protections that are guaranteed to Americans under the Bill of Rights.

"It's a clear violation of the fourth amendment that's very invasive, not necessarily effective, and poses all the same radiation risks as the airport scans," said EPIC attorney Ginger McCall.

Privacy impact assessment for the rail security pilot study phase II at PATH:


Thursday, September 26, 2013

NSA document considers anyone speaking out against the drone program to be “adversaries,” “threats” and “propagandists"


A well-known and highly respected Yemeni anti-drone activist was detained yesterday by UK officials under that country's "anti-terrorism" law at Gatwick Airport, where he had traveled to speak at an event. Baraa Shiban, the project co-ordinator for the London-based legal charity Reprieve, was held for an hour and a half and repeatedly questioned about his anti-drone work and political views regarding human rights abuses in Yemen. 

When he objected that his political views had no relevance to security concerns, UK law enforcement officials threatened to detain him for the full nine hours allowed by the Terrorism Act of 2000, the same statute that was abused by UK officials last month to detain my partner, David Miranda, for nine hours. 

Shiban tells his story today, here, in the Guardian, and recounts how the UK official told him "he had detained me not merely because I was from Yemen, but also because of Reprieve's work investigating and criticizing the efficacy of US drone strikes in my country."

The notion that Shiban posed some sort of security threat was absurd on its face. As the Guardian reported Tuesday, "he visited the UK without incident earlier this summer and testified in May to a US congressional hearing on the impact of the covert drone program in Yemen."

Viewing anti-drone activism as indicative of a terrorism threat is noxious. As Reprieve's Cory Crider put it yesterday, "if there were any doubt the UK was abusing its counter-terrorism powers to silence critics, this ends it."

But perceiving drone opponents as "threats" or even "adversaries" is hardly new. Top secret US government documents obtained by the Guardian from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden characterize even the most basic political and legal opposition to drone attacks as part of "propaganda campaigns" from America's "adversaries".

Under the title "adversary propaganda themes", the document lists what it calls "examples of potential propaganda themes that could be employed against UAV operations".

One such example is entitled "Nationality of Target vs. Due Process". It states:

Attacks against American and European persons who have become violent extremists are often criticized by propagandists, arguing that lethal action against these individuals deprives them of due process."

In the eyes of the US government, "due process" – the idea that the US government should not deprive people of life away from a battlefield without presenting evidence of guilt – is no longer a basic staple of the American political system, but rather a malicious weapon of "propagandists". 

The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights, among many other groups, have made exactly that argument against the US drone targeting program ("the US government's killings of US citizens Anwar Al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011 violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law").

Another paragraph from the NSA entry complains that the phrase "drone strike" is a "loaded term", as it "connote[s] mindless automatons with no capability for independent thought" and thus "may invoke an emotional reaction". This, the document asserts, "is what propaganda intends to do".

Although the document at one points suggests that some drone opposition may come from "citizens with legitimate social agendas", the section on "adversary propaganda themes" includes virtually every one of the arguments most frequently made in the US against the US drone policy, including that the threat of terrorism is small when compared to other threats, that drone strikes intensify rather than curb the risk of terrorism by fueling anti-American animus, and that drones kill too many civilians.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/nsa-uk-drone-opponents-threats

Secret NSA drone document – selected excerpts:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/25/nsa-documents-top-secret-excerpts 

US Department of Justice spent millions on domestic drones:

In a report released Thursday, the DOJ's inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, said the department's agencies had an "uncoordinated approach" to their use of drones.

Horowitz noted that the use of small drones by law enforcement raises concerns about privacy, in part because the aircraft are able to "maneuver covertly in areas where individual expectations of privacy are not well-defined, such as in the immediate vicinity of residences."

The report found that two DOJ agencies -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- have active drone programs, with the FBI spending over $3 million and ATF spending almost $600,000 since 2004.

Another DOJ agency -- the National Institute of Justice in the Office of Justice Programs -- has "been working with the FAA to expand state and local law enforcement use [of unmanned aircraft systems] over a wider-number of areas," the report said.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and United States Marshals Service (USMS) also tested drones but have no plans to use them, according to the report.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) have given $1.2 million in grants to seven law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations that used the money to purchase small drones, the IG found.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/27/326233/us-spent-millions-on-domestic-drones/
You’re much more likely to be killed by lightning than by a terrorist:
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/09/police-chiefs-are-creating-domestic.html

Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism:

 http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/09/police-chiefs-are-creating-domestic.html



'Stop & Frisk' was ruled unconstitutional so why is it expanding to police dept's. across the U.S.?


Article first appeared in the ACLU blog:

The Vera Institute of Justice study  "Coming of Age with Stop and Frisk: Experiences, Self-Perceptions, and Public Safety Implications" examines the experiences of those growing up in the neighborhoods in New York City where people are most likely to be stopped. The study surveyed over 500 young adults and conducted in-depth interviews nearly 50 more, and paints a rich picture of what actually happens during stops, and why this matters for the safety of the most heavily policed communities.

The researchers found that the effect of Stop and Frisk on police-community relations is devastating: With each time a person is stopped, "respondents are eight percent less likely to report a future violent crime against them to the police," [emphasis in original], and nearly 60 percent responded that they would not feel comfortable asking a police officer for help if they were in trouble. Such findings complicate the already contested notion that stop and frisk makes the streets safer from violent crime, especially to the extent that "safety" is measured through crime reporting.

Given the study's accounts of what actually happens during stops, this shouldn't be surprising: nearly half of respondents reported that officers "threatened them and/or used physical force against them."

Twenty-five percent reported that police officers displayed a weapon, and less than a third reported ever being informed of the reason for their stop. Such practices are likely to lead to the pervasive distrust of the police that one respondent aptly encapsulated when asked if he would ever call the police: "I don't know, honestly I feel that if I call the police they'll either come to late or they won't do what they're there to do."

In other ways, the report strengthened our understanding of what's already known about Stop-and-Frisk: 85 percent of respondents have never had any illegal items found on them during stops (a number likely under representing the percentage for all stops, since a majority of such individuals have been stopped multiple times), and a majority believe they were treated worse because of their race or ethnicity (over 90 percent of respondents identified as people of color).

Unfortunately, the practice seems to be expanding nationwide. Last month, Mayor Bloomberg immediately appealed a Federal judge's ruling in cases brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, that Stop-and-Frisk is unconstitutional. The Detroit Police Department recently hired the Brattle Group and the Manhattan Group—two think tanks that helped construct New York's Stop and Frisk policy and train NYPD officers—as consultants to help construct their very own stop and frisk policy. Former LAPD and NYPD commissioner William Bratton, has claimed that police departments that don't use some form of stop and frisk are "doomed." Last year, Bratton was hired as a consultant for the Oakland Police Department.

The ACLU opposes Stop-and-Frisk as an infringement on civil liberties, a detriment to community-police relations, and as a component of the school to prison pipeline, the national phenomenon of overly punitive discipline and police involvement that compromises the education and future of young men and women of color. This is why the ACLU remains active litigation against the NYPD over the policies and practices of their School Safety Division, working to ensure that New York's public school students are free from unwarranted searches and seizures at school. The ACLU is litigating against unlawful stops, searches and seizures for the purposes of gang documentation through Winston et al. vs. Salt Lake City Police Department, et al. This case is a proposed class action lawsuit representing students at risk of being entered in to a "gang database," which subjects them to elevated police scrutiny and suspicion. It was filed in response to a 2010 police operation at a Salt Lake City high school in which dozens of students were questioned, searched and detained during school hours.

The public and the ACLU should demand that schools and police departments are properly held accountable for violating the rights of Americans.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/we-know-stop-and-frisk-all-kinds-horrible-so-why-it

(VIDEO) Why are police ignoring the rise in 'non-lethal' Taser related fatalities?


Despite cardiac arrest warnings, police fire Tasers into chests of suspects in the UK and U.S. 
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/07/despite-cardiac-arrest-warnings-police.html

AMA study: Tasers can cause cardiac arrest & death:
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2012/05/ama-study-tasers-can-cause-cardiac.html

Close to 100 people tasered in the U.S. in 2009 and nearly 4 deaths per month can be linked to being tasered:
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2010/09/close-to-100-people-tasered-in-us-in.html

The federal gov't. seized a family owned grocery store's checking account even thought they haven't commited any crimes


Can the government use civil forfeiture to take your money when you have done nothing wrong—and then pocket the proceeds?  The IRS thinks so.

For over 30 years, Terry Dehko has successfully run a grocery store in Fraser, Mich., with his daughter Sandy.  In January 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the Dehkos’ store bank account (more than $35,000) even though they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong.  Their American Dream is now a nightmare.

Federal civil forfeiture law features an appalling lack of due process:  It empowers the government to seize private property from Americans without ever charging, let alone convicting, them of a crime.  Perversely, the government then pockets the proceeds while providing no prompt way to get a court to review the seizure. 

On September 25, 2013, Terry and Sandy teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back in federal court.  A victory will vindicate not just their right to be free from abusive forfeiture tactics, but the right of every American not to have their property wrongfully seized by government.
http://www.ij.org/miforf 

DEA targeted man who purchased a one-way ticket for a train & seize (steal) $100,000 from briefcase:

Chicago - A man trying to reclaim the $100,000 cash he had in a briefcase must be given the chance to show that police were wrong to seize it as drug money, the 7th Circuit ruled.
   
In December 2002, Vincent Fallon bought a one-way tr o Seattle, leading the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to suspect he might be a drug courier.
    
After Fallon boarded the train at Chicago's Union Station, DEA agents approached him, claiming that they were doing a routine check, and asked him some questions.


Fallon told the agents he was unemployed and going to visit a friend in Seattle. He denied carrying more than $10,000 in cash, but when he refused to allow the agents to search his locked briefcase, he admitted that it contained about $50,000.
    
He claimed that he intended to buy a house in Seattle with the money.


The agents then ordered Fallon to get off the train, and in the station, a police dog named Deny alerted the agents to drugs in the briefcase.
    
The DEA then confiscated the luggage, and agents found that it contained $100,120 in cash.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/24/61400.htm

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

WTF? California governor signs bill to jail or fine photographers


Sacramento, CA — Paparazzi and others who harass the children of public figures will face tougher penalties under legislation that California Gov. Jerry Brown signed Tuesday.

The Senate bill 606 from state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, will boost penalties for actions that include taking photos and video of a child without consent and in a harassing manner.

Celebrities such as actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner urged lawmakers to support SB606. Berry testified before several legislative committees that her daughter has been intimidated by aggressive photographers who follow them daily, often shouting as they snap pictures.


The measure also will help protect the children of police officers, judges and others, who might be susceptible to harassment or unwanted attention due to their parents' occupations, de Leon said.

"Kids shouldn't be tabloid fodder nor the target of ongoing harassment," de León said. He added that the new law "will give children, no matter who their parents are, protection from harassers who go to extremes to turn a buck."

Under the legislation, which goes into effect in January, violators could face up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $10,000. Fines would increase for subsequent convictions.

The bill also allows for parents to bring a civil action against violators to seek damages and attorney's fees.

Media organizations, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association, opposed the legislation, saying it was overly broad and could restrict legitimate newsgathering activities.

De Leon's office says the bill does not infringe on First Amendment rights because it targets the photographer's conduct, not the act of taking a photograph. (how long before other states and police adopt this?)
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23520543/calif-governor-signs-bill-to-deter-paparazzi

Paparazzi Harassment Deterrent Bill 606:

http://sd22.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-09-24-release-paparazzi-harassment-deterrent-bill-signed-governor-increases-penalties-allo 




Twitter's MoPub can track everything you do on any device


Much of the data Twitter collects about you doesn't actually come from Twitter. Consider the little "tweet" buttons embedded on websites all over the net. Those can also function as tracking devices. Any website with a "tweet" button—from Mother Jones to Playboy—automatically informs Twitter that you've arrived. Last year, Twitter announced that it would start using its knowledge of your internet browsing habits to better recommend people to follow on Twitter. That's a step beyond the approach of Facebook, which claims its "like" buttons are never used for tracking. And it's not a big leap from there to using the same information to serve you targeted ads on all sorts of mobile platforms.

"It is certainly true that once a company starts monetizing its data, privacy problems often emerge," says David Jacobs, the consumer protection counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "If Twitter goes down that road, which it probably will, it will have to deal with the same privacy issues that Facebook and Google have dealt with."

Like it or not, that's just a small part of how Twitter is rebalancing profits and privacy. In July, the company announced a new targeted advertising initiative, which it sought to explain, a bit disingenuously, through the example of a "local florist shop" that "wants to advertise a Valentine's Day special on Twitter.

They'd prefer to show their ad to flower enthusiasts who frequent their website or subscribe to their newsletter. To get the special offer to those people who are also on Twitter, the shop may share with us a scrambled, unreadable email address (a hash) or browser information (a browser cookie ID). We can then match that information to accounts in order to show them a Promoted Tweet with the Valentine's Day deal.

Of course, advertisers with this level of sophistication aren't likely to be local florists. They'll be multinational companies like Toyota or identity brokers such as Acxiom, which will match personal Twitter accounts with the detailed consumer profiles that they keep on millions of Americans. Last year, Facebook quietly rolled out a similar program known as Custom Audiences.

"Most advertisers are seeing three different fuzzy images for the same person, and trying to hit one of them."

But whatever. These moves might seem quaint a year from now, when Twitter ranks as the most sophisticated advertising platform in cyberspace. Earlier this month, the company announced that it was acquiring MoPub, a middleman that places ads within mobile apps. "The MoPub acquisition allows Twitter to fundamentally change how mobile ads are purchased and places them at the forefront of how mobile, Web, and social ads interact," Antonio Garcia, a former Facebook employee and creator of its FBX real-time ad exchange, wrote on his blog last week. "This makes Twitter the most interesting company in advertising right now."

It also makes Twitter the most interesting challenge to online privacy. But before we get into why, you should understand how MoPub works:

Let's say Amy uses her smartphone to shop for shoes at Zappos.com before taking a break to play Rovio's Angry Birds. Rovio's server instantly recognizes Amy based on her phone's unique device ID (a sort of online fingerprint). It takes this information to the MoPub ad exchange, where it solicits bids for the right to show Amy an advertisement in between her rounds of killing pigs. Zappos, disappointed that Amy recently left its website without buying anything, might pay Rovio a premium for the right to show her its ad in the hope of luring her back with, say, a picture of those metallic gold pumps she'd lingered on.

While MoPub knows a lot about which websites and apps Amy has used, there's still a lot that it doesn't know. If Amy sets down her phone and buys those gold pumps using her laptop, MoPub (and Rovio and Zappos) won't know that she's the same person who was just playing Angry Birds. That's because MoPub doesn't actually know who Amy is. It knows her device IDs, but not the fact that they're linked to Amy, this person who enjoys playing Angry Birds and shopping for pumps.

"There is actually a deeply fractured state of targeting right now," Garcia told me. "It's like that line in Rocky III when Rocky is getting his ass kicked by that Russian guy. Rocky says, 'I see three of 'em,' and his trainer says: 'Oh, hit the guy in the middle!' Most advertisers are seeing three different fuzzy images for the same person, and trying to hit one of them, when it's really just one person."

The MoPub/Twitter hydra can now offer Zappos the rare chance to target her at just the right moment on whole a slew of apps and websites and, most importantly, on any and all of her devices.

Will Twitterers care whether the company shares their data with advertisers? Maybe not. Since the site serves as a public platform rather than a private social network, targeted ads next to tweets may feel less invasive than they would next to Facebook posts. And even if Twitter's integration with MoPub raises new privacy issues, they may not be evident to users. Amy, for instance, would have no way of knowing that Twitter enabled the Zappos ad on her Angry Birds screen.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/twitter-could-threaten-your-privacy-more-facebook

EasyJet refused to let The Drum columnist Mark Leiser on board for sending critical tweet:

EasyJet is at the center of fierce criticism after The Drum’s tech law columnist Mark Leiser tweeted that an easyJet manager had stopped him boarding a flight because he’d criticised the airline on Twitter.

Leiser, who also edits The Firm magazine and is based in Scotland, was booked on the 9.20pm flight from Glasgow to London but it was hit by delays. He tweeted late on Tuesday night that delays had prevented a serving soldier - who was on route to take part in active service - making an essential travel connection and easyJet had refused to help pay to get him to his destination.

A short time later, he tweeted that he’d then been told by a manager that he couldn’t board a flight because: “You’re a lawyer. You know you can’t tweet stuff like that and expect to get on an easyJet flight.”

“I put out a tweet about it and then when I got in the queue, and a member of staff approached me and asked if she could have a quick word," Leiser explained. "She said she understood I’d said something on social media about easyJet and then told me they were not allowing me to board the flight.

“I said you’re kidding me; I asked where that had come from and she told me I should know I’m not allowed to do that. I was stunned. I told her I didn’t really understand what she was telling me and she said: ‘You’re not allowed to talk about easyJet like that and then expect to get on a flight’.”

“She then asked me to step out of the queue and repeated that she was not letting me on the flight. I told her she’d better get somebody down to discuss this and she told me the manager was on his way to speak to me. Then she told said she couldn’t believe I thought what I’d done was appropriate. I was just sitting there in disbelief.

“So the the manager arrived and told me that based on my tweet they couldn’t let me board the flight because I wasn’t allowed to do that and I should know better. He then called over to the girl on the counter to instruct my bags be taken off the flight. It wasn’t until I asked him if he’d heard of free speech that the tone changed. He asked me if I was a lawyer and I told him I taught law at Strathclyde.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/09/25/easyjet-under-fire-after-claims-it-refused-let-drum-columnist-mark-leiser-board

Police can stop you if your third brake light is out calling it a "safety hazard to the public"


Police in Maryland can stop and interrogate a driver if he is driving a car with a burned out third brake light. The Court of Special Appeals ruled earlier this month that allowing the car to continue with only two functional brake lights would pose a safety hazard to the public.

The three-judge panel came to this conclusion in resolving the November 30, 2011 traffic stop of Marlon Smith in the city of Baltimore. Detective Kenneth Ramberg had been watching Smith as he walked on Darley Avenue, but he could not stop him because he was not engaged in any criminal behavior. Once Smith got in the passenger seat of a car with a broken rear deck brake light, Detective Ramberg pulled the car over.

The detective said he smelled marijuana and ordered both of its occupants out of the car. As he started looking inside the car, he spotted a handgun that belonged to Smith. Maryland does not allow citizens to carry a firearm except in rare circumstances. Smith appealed the firearms possession conviction, arguing the initial stop was invalid because state law only requires a vehicle to have two functioning brake lights.

"Every motor vehicle registered in this state and sold as a new vehicle after June 1, 1967, shall be equipped with at least two stop lamps," Maryland Code Section 22-206 states.

The court countered by citing a generic statute that allows an officer to issue an "equipment repair order" if a Maryland-registered vehicle does not meet state standards. The judges then cited Code of Maryland Regulations 11.14.02.10 which instructs state vehicle inspectors to fail cars made after 1985 if they do not have a functioning third brake light.

"Assuming arguendo that the traffic violation in this case was predicated solely on the Motor Vehicle Administration regulation, the stop was justified nonetheless on the basis that the vehicle was driven in an unsafe condition," Judge Irma S. Raker wrote for the court. "An officer is authorized to stop a vehicle that is being driven in an unsafe condition."

The court then cited research that claims the third brake light reduces rear-end collisions, and creating a condition that increases rear-end collisions is inherently unsafe.

"A study conducted by the NHTSA found that from 1986 to 1995, the high-mounted brake light reduced the frequency of rear impact accidents in every year the study was conducted," Raker wrote. "Therefore, even with two functioning rear brake lights, the specific safety advantages of the center high-mounted brake light demand that it function properly."
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/md-thirdlight.pdf'

DOJ report: Police behavior during traffic and street stops 2011

Black drivers were more likely than white and Hispanic drivers to be pulled over by police in 2011 and were less likely to believe the police behaved properly during the encounter, according to a report released today by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

The finding are based on the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), which asked a national sample of residents age 16 or older about experiences with police during the prior 12 months.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf