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.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Facebook knows who you're dating & is testing software to track your cursor on screen
Facebook data scientists can figure out who you're sleeping with, even if your relationship isn't "Facebook official," and in a new paper researchers explain how they figured out the method, the Atlantic reports. Turns out the key is to look at more than just mutual friends. "Embeddedness," or the number of mutual friends two people have, can show how close those people are (the more mutual friends, the closer they are). But researchers found embeddedness predicted the correct significant others just 24.7% of the time. A more accurate predictor is something called "dispersion."
That means researchers looked at how many networks were shared between two people, working on the theory that your romantic partner will have met your family and your current friends and co-workers, as well as old friends from high school or college. By looking at which friend was the most dispersed across all of a Facebook user's networks, researchers upped their accuracy at predicting significant others to 50%. "A spouse or romantic partner is a bridge between a person’s different social worlds," one researcher explains, according to the New York Times. Oh, and dispersion also works to predict the health of your relationship: The more dispersion a user had with his or her partner, the more likely the relationship was to last at least 60 days.
Facebookis testing technology that would greatly expand the scope of data that it collects about its users, the head of the company’s analytics group said Tuesday.
The social network may start collecting data on minute user interactions with its content, such as how long a user’s cursor hovers over a certain part of its website, or whether a user’s newsfeed is visible at a given moment on the screen of his or her mobile phone, Facebook analytics chief Ken Rudin said Tuesday during an interview.
Mr. Rudin said the captured information could be added to a data analytics warehouse that is available for use throughout the company for an endless range of purposes–from product development to more precise targeting of advertising.
Facebook collects two kinds of data, demographic and behavioral. The demographic data—such as where a user lives or went to school—documents a user’s life beyond the network. The behavioral data—such as one’s circle of Facebook friends, or “likes”—is captured in real time on the network itself. The ongoing tests would greatly expand the behavioral data that is collected, according to Mr. Rudin. The tests are ongoing and part of a broader technology testing program, but Facebook should know within months whether it makes sense to incorporate the new data collection into the business, he said
New types of data Facebook may collect include “did your cursor hover over that ad … and was the newsfeed in a viewable area,” Mr. Rudin said. “It is a never-ending phase. I can’t promise that it will roll out. We probably will know in a couple of months,” said Mr. Rudin, a Silicon Valley veteran who arrived at Facebook in April 2012 from Zynga Inc., where he was vice president of analytics and platform technologies.(Zynga analytics is a data company masquerading as a gaming company)
Facebook also is a major user of Hadoop, an open-source framework that is used to store large amounts of data on clusters of inexpensive machines. Facebook designs its own hardware to store its massive data analytics warehouse, which has grown 4,000 times during the last four years to a current level of 300 petabytes. The company uses a modified version of Hadoop to manage its data, according to Mr. Rudin. There are additional software layers on top of Hadoop, which rank the value of data and make sure it is accessible.
http://www.newser.com/story/176752/facebook-knows-who-youre-dating-heres-how.html
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/spotting-romantic-relationships-on-facebook/?_r=1&
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/10/30/facebook-considers-vast-increase-in-data-collection/
Where does Facebook stop & the NSA begin:
Facebook (along with Google, Microsoft, etc.) was already collaborating with the National Security Agency's PRISM program that swept up personal data on vast numbers of internet users.
Facebook had to promise the feds it would stop doing things like putting your picture in ads targeted at your "friends"; that promise lasted only until this past summer, when it suddenly "clarified" its right to do with your (and your kids') photos whatever it sees fit. And just this week, Facebook analytics chief Ken Rudin told the Wall Street Journal that the company is experimenting with new ways to suck up your data, such as "how long a user’s cursor hovers over a certain part of its website, or whether a user’s newsfeed is visible at a given moment on the screen of his or her mobile phone."
It's your data that makes Facebook worth $100 billion and Google $300 billion. It's your data that info-mining companies like Acxiom and Datalogix package, repackage, sift, and sell. And it's your data that, as we've now learned, tech giants also pass along to the government.
Companies have given the NSA access to the records of every phone call made in the United States. Companies have inserted NSA-designed "back doors" in security software, giving the government (and, potentially, hackers—or other governments) access to everything from bank records to medical data. And oh, yeah, companies also flat-out sell your data to the NSA and other agencies.
Mark Zuckerberg said at this year's TechCrunch conference: The NSA really "blew it," he said, by insisting that its spying was mostly directed at foreigners. "Like, oh, wonderful, that's really going to inspire confidence in American internet companies. I thought that was really bad." Shorter: What matters is how quickly Facebook can achieve total world domination.
Maybe the biggest upside to l'affaire Snowden is that Americans are starting to wise up. "Advertisers" rank barely behind "hackers or criminals" on the list of entities that internet users say they don't want to be tracked by (followed by "people from your past"). A solid majority say it's very important to control access to their email, downloads, and location data. Perhaps that's why, outside the more sycophantic crevices of the tech press, the new iPhone's biometric capability was not greeted with the unadulterated exultation of the pre-PRISM era.
How much privacy we'll trade for either convenience or security—in someone else's hands: It's our responsibility to take charge of our online behavior (So long as you want your boss, and your high school nemesis, to see 'em), and, more urgently, it's our job to prod our elected representatives to take on the intelligence agencies and their private-sector pals.
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/10/facebook-personal-data-online-privacy-social-norm
Macy's lawsuit claims security guards have arrest quotas and a 'race code system' for nonwhite shoppers
From the minute you walk into Macy’s until you leave, you are being watched. There are surveillance cameras everywhere that cover almost every square inch of the store. Some are so sophisticated that they can read the address on your drivers license.
KTRK legal analyst Joel Androphy says Gainous cold have refused. “If you walk into a store, you don’t sacrifice your personal liberties just because you’re shopping there.”
Macy's security guards worked on a quota system of five “arrests” per week — and nonwhite shoppers were identified by an internal “race code system,” according to a lawsuit.
The security guard, Brenda Howard, is named in the suit.
African-American men were referred to as “10-90s” and black women as “10-91s” among store security personnel, a Turkish immigrant charged in court papers after her 2010 arrest. The demeaning code was created by Macy’s “to facilitate its targeting of Middle Eastern, African-American/black and other nonwhite shoppers,” the suit charged.
Regarding the coding system for identifying shoppers, the retailer said what is known as the "10 Code System" is common and standard in the industry.
"The 10 code system is widely used by law enforcement and the military. It is an abbreviated form of communication that is solely used over radio," the statement red. "Ten codes are designed to prevent confusion or misunderstanding, and convey important information when identifying a person over radio communication. In no way do they imply targeting or categorizing of individuals."
The allegations have grabbed the attention of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who sent letters to Barneys New York and Macy's executives on Monday asking to meet with them to discuss the cases and requesting documentation by Friday that includes:
- The store's policies and procedures for stopping, detaining and questioning customers
- Numbers of stops and detentions of customers between Oct. 15, 2012 and 2013, broken down by race
- Anti-discrimination policies
- Customer complaints
- Copies of contracts or agreements with private security firms, law enforcement agencies or other security entities
- Training materials for store personnel
Plaintiff Ayla Gursoy, who is Muslim, said she was detained and arrested while shopping in the Herald Square store on Sept. 18, 2010. Charges were later dismissed.
In a partial deposition provided by her attorney, store detective Brenda Howard acknowledged five “arrests” per week was the target for security workers, according to the suit. Howard couldn’t be reached Tuesday. The attorney did not provide the full deposition.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/macy-security-arrest-quota-race-code-system-suit-article-1.1501037
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/macys-barneys-quotas-guards/3318115/
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2013/10/macys-guard-speaks-out-about-arrest.html
http://dmnewsi.com/2012/04/13/reporters-notebook-over-zealous-macys-security-gets-wrong-woman/
Profiling complaints by black shoppers followed changes to stores’ security policies:
A meeting was convened at Barneys New York to discuss a growing problem:
A significant amount of inventory was being lost to theft. Something
had to be done.
A new security management team instituted a more aggressive loss
prevention strategy. Security personnel said they were encouraged to
“take chances” in stopping suspicious customers, even if it meant
intercepting innocent people. Bad grabs, they said they were told, were
part of the business.
The number of contacts with the Police Department, made when security
workers suspected a person had been shoplifting or engaging in credit
card fraud, soon jumped drastically.
But along with the increase in cases, complaints began to surface from
black shoppers who said they were victims of racial profiling in the
store, on Madison Avenue. At least one shopper has filed a lawsuit
against Barneys, and another plans to.
The lawsuits, which came to light
last week and landed on the front page of The Daily News, attracted
national attention for their allegations of race- and class-based
discrimination. The suits raised criticism not only of Barneys, but of
celebrity figures, like Jay-Z, who has a partnership with the store.
At the flagship Macy’s store at Herald Square, at least two black shoppers, one of them
the actor Robert Brown, of the HBO series “Treme,” have said they were
similarly stopped this year by the police after, they said, store
security workers deemed their purchases suspicious. Mr. Schneiderman’s
inquiry also includes Macy’s.
None of those who have come forward to say they were detained by the police were charged with any crime.
The accusations were particularly troublesome for Macy’s, which, in 2005, reached an agreement
with the state attorney general’s office to amend its security
practices after investigators found black and Hispanic shoppers were
disproportionately stopped on suspicion of shoplifting. That agreement
ended in 2008. This year, said an official familiar with the current
investigation who was not permitted to comment publicly on its details,
the state attorney general has received close to a dozen complaints from
shoppers who said they had been profiled by security officers at
Macy’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/nyregion/black-shoppers-at-barneys-and-macys-say-they-were-profiled-by-security.html?_r=0
NYPD & Barney's arrested a black college student for buying a designer belt:
“His only crime was being a young black man,” his attorney, Michael Palillo, told The Post.
The Obama administration's unprecedented crackdown on gov't whistleblowers
IRS identifies their whistleblower, will he or she be arrested?
NOM chairman John Eastman wants the DOJ to prosecute both the unnamed IRS leaker and Meisel, the recipient of the leaked documents. “This should be a relatively simple matter,” he says. Also a professor of constitutional law, Eastman is point-blank. As if reading from the statute itself, he tells me, “Any person who inspects or discloses a tax return and knowingly is not authorized to have it is guilty of a felony, and we expect the Department of Justice to seek an indictment.” Only if Eric Holder’s DOJ does take up the case will the veil of privacy and the protection afforded by section 6103 be lifted.
Having committed a felony by disclosing NOM’s donor list, the perpetrator is protected by the same law he broke. “I am astounded at the ease by which an individual was able to obtain and release confidential information including private citizens’ names and addresses,” House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) tells National Review Online. “What makes the situation even worse is that the law, intended to protect taxpayers, is being used as a shield for those that perpetrate this wrongdoing.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-ids-irs-leaker-eliana-johnson
U.S. leads the world in global persecutions of journalists:
Recent attempts by the U.S. Congress to officially decide who qualifies as a journalist.
The freedom of the press has never experienced such a determined and relentless attack in all the years since its protection was enshrined in the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago.
Should the federal government succeed in establishing itself as the decider of who is and is not an “official journalist,” and if President Obama is allowed to persist in his persecution of anyone whose sense of duty compels him to disclose official misdeeds, then liberty will be yet another historic relic of republican government.
In September, during committee hearings on a bill aimed at protecting journalists from having to reveal their sources, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) offered an amendment that would have limited the protection to those reporters who conformed to her own narrow definition of a journalist.
Feinstein's contribution set out the definition of a "covered journalist,” a term that would have included someone who collects and/or reports news on behalf of "an entity or service that disseminates news and information," so long as they were carrying out "legitimate news-gathering activities.”
This provision amounted to nothing more or less than an attempt by Senator Feinstein to set up the Senate as the federal journalist licensing bureau.
Any such infringement on the freedom of the press is a hostile and open attack on the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Next, there is the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen. The Obama administration targeted Rosen, branding him a “conspirator” for having reported a story given him by a State Department employee. By being tagged with that title, Rosen could be prosecuted under anti-espionage acts.
In May, the story broke of Attorney General Eric Holder’s seizure of records of calls made to and from reporters for the Associated Press (AP). The New American reported at the time of the break of the scandal:
In what its top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" by the government into news gathering activities, the AP reported Monday that records were seized of calls from both office and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, and from general AP office numbers in New York, Washington, D.C., and Hartford, Connecticut, in addition to the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. Records for more than 20 different phone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists were seized for the months of April and May, 2012, according to AP lawyers.
More than 100 journalists work in the offices where the phone lines were targeted, the news agency said.
Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington, sent notice of the action in a letter the AP received on Friday. The records were obtained through Justice Department subpoenas, though it is not known whether a judge or grand jury authorized the subpoenas, the AP said.
The most recent example of the “war on journalism” occurred in August. As reported by The New American’s Alex Newman:
According to investigative reporter Audrey Hudson, an award-winning journalist who helped expose problems within the Department of Homeland Security in articles for the Washington Times, swarms of DHS agents and Maryland State Police officers descended on her home in a pre-dawn assault on August 6. Armed with full battle gear and a warrant authorizing a search for firearms (her husband was apparently convicted of “resisting arrest” almost three decades ago and so was supposedly not allowed to be near guns), the federal and state agents ended up seizing Hudson’s private notes, too.
“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson told the online Daily Caller, which first reported on the raid. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.” The federal agents, however, walked out with stacks of papers, including records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and notes of her interviews with “a lot” of confidential sources trying to expose wrongdoing. “When they called and told me about it, I just about had a heart attack,” she said. No charges have been filed so far.
In 2008, then-president-elect Obama declared, "We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.”
Not that politicians have a habit of keeping campaign promises, but President Obama’s policy of zealously pursuing, prosecuting, and punishing those who report abuses in government is remarkable for its relentlessness.
Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ government secrecy project, is quoted in a story published by Reason magazine online, explaining, “The administration’s aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than ‘authorized’ news.”
The first such whistleblower prosecuted by the president was Thomas Drake. Drake, a senior executive at the National Security Agency who made the mistake of revealing to the Baltimore Sun that the NSA’s Trailblazer Project, a project intended to analyze data carried on in the United States and elsewhere through the Internet, cellphones, and e-mails, not only violated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unwarranted searches and seizures, but it was a “billion-dollar computer boondoggle.”
In April 2010, Drake was indicted by a federal grand jury of several crimes, including violation of the Espionage Act.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16845-in-global-persecution-of-journalists-u-s-takes-the-lead
NSA broke into Yahoo & Google data centers to spy on Americans
The National Security Agency has secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world.
A secret accounting dated Jan. 9, 2013, indicates that NSA sends millions of records every day from Yahoo and Google internal networks to data warehouses at the agency's Fort Meade, Md., headquarters. In the last 30 days, field collectors had processed and sent back more than 180 million new records — ranging from "metadata," which would indicate who sent or received emails and when, to content such as text, audio and video, the Post reported Wednesday on its website.
New details about the NSA's access to Yahoo and Google data centers around the world come at a time when Congress is reconsidering the government's collection practices and authority, and as European governments are responding angrily to revelations that the NSA collected data on millions of communications in their countries. Details about the government's programs have been trickling out since Snowden shared documents with the Post and Guardian newspaper in June.
The NSA’s principal tool to exploit the data links is a project called MUSCULAR, operated jointly with the agency’s British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters . From undisclosed interception points, the NSA and the GCHQ are copying entire data flows across fiber-optic cables that carry information among the data centers of the Silicon Valley giants.
The MUSCULAR project appears to be an unusually aggressive use of NSA tradecraft against flagship American companies. The agency is built for high-tech spying, with a wide range of digital tools, but it has not been known to use them routinely against U.S. companies.
In an NSA presentation slide on “Google Cloud Exploitation,” however, a sketch shows where the “Public Internet” meets the internal “Google Cloud” where their data reside. In hand-printed letters, the drawing notes that encryption is “added and removed here!” The artist adds a smiley face, a cheeky celebration of victory over Google security.
Two engineers with close ties to Google exploded in profanity when they saw the drawing. “I hope you publish this,” one of them said.
The infiltration is especially striking because the NSA, under a separate program known as PRISM, has front-door access to Google and Yahoo user accounts through a court-approved process.
PRISM, uses a court order to compel Yahoo, Google and other Internet companies to provide certain data. It allows the NSA to reach into the companies' data streams and grab emails, video chats, pictures and more. U.S. officials have said the program is narrowly focused on foreign targets, and technology companies say they turn over information only if required by court order.
In an interview with Bloomberg News Wednesday, NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander was asked if the NSA has infiltrated Yahoo and Google databases, as detailed in the Post story.
"Not to my knowledge," said Alexander. "We are not authorized to go into a U.S. company's servers and take data. We'd have to go through a court process for doing that."
John Schindler, a former NSA chief analyst and frequent defender who teaches at the Naval War College, said it is obvious why the agency would prefer to avoid restrictions where it can.
“Look, NSA has platoons of lawyers, and their entire job is figuring out how to stay within the law and maximize collection by exploiting every loophole,” he said. “It’s fair to say the rules are less restrictive under Executive Order 12333 than they are under FISA,” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
To obtain free access to data- center traffic, the NSA had to circumvent gold-standard security measures. Google “goes to great lengths to protect the data and intellectual property in these centers,” according to one of the company’s blog posts, with tightly audited access controls, heat-sensitive cameras, round-the-clock guards and biometric verification of identities.
Eric Grosse, vice president for security engineering, said the company is rushing to encrypt the links between its data centers. “It’s an arms race,” he said then. “We see these government agencies as among the most skilled players in this game.”
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/how-the-nsas-muscular-program-collects-too-much-data-from-yahoo-and-google/543/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/nsa-yahoo-google_n_4178227.html
NSA records show they believe they can spy on everyone's location:
James Clapper has declassified another batch of documents on the NSA activities. We'll probably write about a few of them, but let's start with one that's getting a lot of initial attention: the document that discusses the "test" of collecting location info from the telcos based on where your mobile phone was. The short version? Do you know where you were on April 26, 2010? Because the NSA probably does. It had already been revealed that the NSA had run "a test" of obtaining location info from the telcos. This document, which is a memo from the NSA to the Senate Intelligence Committee is just explaining some of the details, with this being the key one:
In regards to the mobility testing effort, NSA consulted with DOJ before implementing this testing effort. Based upon our description of the proposed mobility data (cell site location information) testing plans, DOJ advised in February 2010 that obtaining the data for the described testing purposes was permissable based upon the current language of the Court's BR FISA order requiring the production of 'all call detail records.' It is our understanding that DOJ also orally advised the FISC, via its staff, that we had obtained a limited set of test data sampling of cellular mobility data (cell site location information) pursuant to the Court-authorized program and that we were exploring the possibility of acquiring such mobility under the BR FISA program in the near future based upon the authority currently granted by the Court.
The key takeaway here: the NSA believes that the current FISA approval of dragnet collection of metadata on every phone call includes permission to track location data as well, even though it doesn't currently do so. The "BR FISA order" means "business records" which is what Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is sometimes called. The fact that the NSA didn't seem to think it was necessary to check with the FISA Court before running this test, just to make sure it was actually allowed is rather telling.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131028/16041225043/latest-declassified-nsa-records-show-nsa-believes-it-can-spy-everyones-location-based-existing-approvals.shtml
Private companies profit from schools spying on students social media activities
Surveillance of students’ online speech, he said, can be cumbersome and
confusing. “Is this something that a student has the right to do, or is
this something that flies against the rules and regulations of a
district?”
Interviews with educators suggest that surveillance of students off
campus is still mostly done the old-fashioned way, by relying on
students to report trouble or following students on social networks.
Tracking students on social media comes with its own risks: One
principal in Missouri resigned last year after accusations that she had
snooped on students using a fake Facebook account. “It was our children
she was monitoring,” said
one Twitter user who identified herself as Judy Rayford, after the news
broke last year, without, she added, “authorization” from children or
parents.
But technology is catching on.
In August, officials in Glendale, a suburb in Southern California, paid
Geo Listening, a technology company, to comb through the social network
posts of children in the district. The company said its service was not
to pry, but to help the district, Glendale Unified, protect its students
after suicides by teenagers in the area.
Students mocked the effort on Twitter, saying officials at G.U.S.D., the
Glendale Unified School District, would not “even understand what I
tweet most of the time, they should hire a high school slang analyst #shoutout2GUSD.”
“We should be monitoring gusd instead,” one Twitter user wrote after an instructor was arrested on charges of sexual abuse; the instructor pleaded not guilty.
Chris Frydrych, the chief executive of Geo Listening, based in Hermosa
Beach, also in Southern California, declined to explain how his
company’s technology worked, except to say that it was “a sprinkling of
technology and a whole lot of human capital.” He said Geo Listening
looked for keywords and sentiments on posts that could be viewed
publicly. It cannot, for instance, read anyone’s Facebook posts that are
designated for “friends” or “friends of friends.”
But with Facebook’s announcement
this month that teenagers will be permitted to post public status
updates and images, Geo Listening and similar services will potentially
have access to more information on that social network.
Glendale has paid Geo Listening $40,500 to monitor the social media
posts. Mr. Frydrych declined to say which other schools his company
works with, except to predict that by the end of the year, his company
would have signed up 3,000 schools.
David Jones of CompuGuardian, based in Salt Lake City, said his product
let school officials monitor whether students were researching topics
like how to build bombs or discussing anorexia. His customers include
five schools, but he, too, is optimistic about market growth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/technology/some-schools-extend-surveillance-of-students-beyond-campus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
The National Library of Medicine is spying on social media for (alleged) information on health behavior
The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is “mining” Facebook and Twitter to improve its social media footprint and to assess how Tweets can be used as “change-agents” for health behaviors.
The NLM, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will have software installed on government computers that will store data from social media as part of a $30,000 project announced last week.
“The National Library of Medicine is the world’s largest biomedical library and makes its stored information available online at no charge to consumers, health professionals, and biomedical scientists through a diverse suite of resources,” the agency said in a contract posted on Oct. 23.
“Evaluating how its databases and other resources are utilized is an important component of continuing quality improvement and has long been an on-going program of NLM management through a potpourri of monitoring tools.”
“The world-wide explosion in the use of social media provides a unique opportunity for sampling sentiment and use patterns of NLM’s ‘customers’ and for comparing NLM to other sources of health-related information,” the agency said.
“By examining relevant tweets and other comments,” the contract said, “NLM will gain insights to extent of use, context for which information was sought, and effects of various health-related announcements and events on usage patterns.”
Specifically, NLM will look at the “value of tweets and other messages as teaching tools and change-agents for health-relevant behavior.”
“The overarching objective of these studies is to obtain a richer understanding of how consumers, clinicians, researchers actually look for the health-related information they seek, and what they do with what they find,” NLM said in a response to frequently asked questions about the project.
OhMyGov Inc., a media company that specializes in the promotion of government agencies, will be paid $30,660 to monitor social media for NLM for one year.
The company will install software on computers at NLM headquarters in Bethesda, Md. to “maintain a comprehensive ‘universe’ of social media data.” Government bureaucrats will be trained on the software so they can search the database for health-related content.
“Content from Twitter, Facebook, blogs, news sites, discussion boards, video and image sharing sites will be maintained by the Contractor and kept up-to-date in a timely manner and made available for query by Government,” the contract said.
http://freebeacon.com/government-mining-social-media-for-information-on-health-behavior/
Facebook/Feds now require some users to provide their drivers license to log in
A large number of Facebook users have been locked out of their accounts and are being forced to submit a government ID before they are allowed to log back in. This is part of a process that Facebook began over a year ago, which seeks to remove any trace of anonymity from Facebook, so every single profile is attached to someones personal identity.
Similar mass lockouts have occurred on Facebook in the past, most recently in January this year.
“This is just a general practice for both Facebook and Instagram to request photo IDs for verification purposes depending on what type of violation may have occurred,” Facebook said at the time.
According to Facebook help section:
We require everyone using Facebook to use their real name and birthday. This way, you always know who you’re connecting with. When we discover accounts that look fake or like they’re using fake information, we ask the owner to confirm that they are who they say they are.
In most cases, the easiest way to confirm your identity is to follow the on-screen steps to enter your mobile phone number and request a code.
If can’t verify your account using your mobile number, you’ll need to provide a copy of your photo ID. This could be a scanned copy or a close-up photo you’ve taken. We’ll permanently delete this document after we resolve your issue.
New research shows Facebook has lost a total of 11 million users, nine million in the US and two million in Britain. Researchers at the University of Vienna analyzed 600 users and found they quit for reasons like privacy concerns, general dissatisfaction, shallow conversations and fear of becoming addicted, Alalam reported.
http://intellihub.com/2013/10/29/facebook-login-demanding-government-id-users/
New report shows when campaign cash increased, courts ruled in favor of prosecutors & against criminal defendants
As campaigns for state supreme court seats become more expensive and more partisan, the fear of being portrayed as “soft on crime” is leading courts to rule more often for prosecutors and against criminal defendants, contends the Center for American Progress study.
A new
report from the Center for American Progress examines the impact on the criminal justice
system of the explosion in judicial campaign cash and the growing use
of political attack ads in state supreme court elections, which have
increased pressure on elected judges to appear “tough on crime.”
The
center studied high courts in Illinois, Mississippi, Washington,
Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada, and West Virginia. It looked at 4,684
rulings in criminal cases starting five years before a given state’s
first $3 million high court election and ending five years after that
election.
The findings reveal a clear trend: As campaign cash increased,
courts began to rule more often in favor of prosecutors and against
criminal defendants.
The 2004 Illinois Supreme Court race broke judicial
campaign spending records. As Illinois voters were bombarded with
attack ads featuring violent criminals, the high court ruled in favor of
the prosecution in 69 percent of its criminal cases—an 18 percent
increase over the previous year. Mississippi’s high court saw its first
$3 million election in 2000 and nasty political attack ads that same
year. When the next judicial election rolled around two years later,
Mississippi’s justices ruled against criminal defendants in 90 percent
of the high court’s criminal cases—a 20 percent increase from 2000.
These results suggest that as judges are more likely to rule against
criminal defendants as elections approach, state supreme courts are more
likely to rule for the state as the amount of money in high court
elections increases.
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CampaignCriminalCash-4.pdfACLU: Prison profiteers - There's a lot of money in mass incarceration
https://www.aclu.org/prison-profiteers
Image source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-23/profiting-prisoners
(Updated) 'If Boston Were Smart' article reveals how DHS funding leads to more spying on citizens
(UPDATED 11/1?2013) If Boston Were Smart: Boston University received millions of dollars in grants from National Science Foundation grant. How many colleges & universities are receiving similar government grants?
Smarter Security
Security officers could sort through billions of hours of video footage and spot unusual events, such as someone attempting to enter a building in the middle of the night, using specially designed cameras with embedded algorithms. Professor Janusz Konrad (ECE) and Venkatesh Saligrama (ECE, SE) have developed the technology, supported by more than $800,000 in funding from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies. (Info. found on the about us section of their website: The National Science Foundation supports collaborative projects involving academic institutions, private industry, and state and local governments. The Foundation also works closely with other Federal agencies such as DHS)
"We are tasked with keeping the United States at the leading edge of discovery in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology." (Oh. really? What has any of this got to do with astronomy etc.? This DHS 'front company' is masquerading as a science foundation and helping to create a giant spy network at our colleges & universities.)
Smarter Grid
Because the cost of electricity fluctuates throughout the day, depending on demand, smart meters that are currently available tell homeowners exactly how much energy they use and at what cost, encouraging them to delay energy-intensive activities until a time of day when demand and costs are low. Supported by a $2 million National Science Foundation grant, Professor Michael Caramanis (ME, SE), Professor John Baillieul (ME, SE) and two MIT faculty members are collaborating on a study of how these and larger-scale measures could result in a smarter electricity grid. In the United States, we lose about 8 percent of energy because it travels long distances between points of generation to use. Caramanis thinks the loss could be greatly reduced if we got our energy from closer and cleaner sources. A smarter grid could help us do that.
Smarter Traffic Lights
A smart traffic lighting system would mine GPS information from cars and smartphones and count the number of vehicles waiting at red lights. If there is no approaching traffic, it would switch lights from red to green. Professor Christos Cassandras (ECE, SE) is testing this system on a model mini-city in his lab.
Smarter Parking
Cassandras, working with research assistant Yanfeng Geng (PhD, SE ’13), has developed the BU Smart Parking application, which can be downloaded to a smartphone from the iPhone App Store by searching “BU smartparking.” Drivers tell the app when and where they want to park, prioritizing price and location, and the app searches for available spaces, all of which are networked to the device. When the app identifies a spot that meets the search criteria, it tells the driver where to go. At the same time, a light installed above the spot turns from green to red. When the driver who made the reservations approaches, the light turns yellow. The catch? At the moment the system works only in BU’s 730 Commonwealth Avenue garage, but Cassandras hopes to expand it to private parking facilities throughout Boston.
Smarter Lighting
The next-generation lightbulb could enhance sleep quality, send data like a Wi-Fi hotspot does, or help visitors navigate large buildings through a network of visible cues, while operating more efficiently. This technology is made possible by combining LEDs, sensors, and other control systems within a single hybrid bulb that needs 40 to 70 percent less energy than existing compact fluorescent lights or LED lightbulbs. It is being developed by Professor Thomas Little (ECE, SE), associate director of the Smart Lighting Engineering Research Center, working with researchers at the center under an $18.5 million National Science Foundation grant. Little is collaborating with colleagues from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of New Mexico.
Smarter Central Control
Imagine a network of sensors that would collect and send data to a centralized processor, which could order a garbage pickup or warn drivers of traffic jams. Cassandras, Professor Yannis Paschalidis (ECE, SE), codirector of the Center for Information & Systems Engineering, and Professor Assaf Kfoury (CS), are testing a miniature version of this network in Cassandras’ lab, with help from a $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation.
Smarter HVAC
BU engineers have designed software that, once uploaded to a building’s HVAC system, would measure airflow room by room and revise it to meet minimum standards, decreasing energy costs while keeping occupants happy. The invention earned Associate Professor Michael Gevelber (ME, SE), Adjunct Research Professor Donald Wroblewski (ME) and ENG and School of Management students first prize and $20,000 in this year’s MIT Clean Energy Competition. The team plans to develop and market the software through its newly formed company, Aeolus Building Efficiency.
Smarter Timing
Refrigerators and hot water heaters are duty-cycle appliances, meaning they need to run only two to three times each hour. Caramanis thinks they could be designed to communicate with the electricity grid and run when electrical demand is lowest during that time period. Alternatively, if either of these appliances is connected to a home photovoltaic unit, it could be programmed to detect when a passing cloud blocks the sun and choose to cycle at a later time. Caramanis says this technology is mostly being tested in pilot settings. A New Jersey-based company called FirstEnergy has installed temperature sensors and communication controllers that turn on and off the hot water heaters of thousands of consumers in relation to low or high energy costs in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland region.
http://www.bu.edu/ece/2013/10/30/if-boston-were-smart/
Court ruled GPS tracker evidence police gathered without a warrant must be suppressed
Evidence from a GPS tracker that police installed without a warrant before the law clearly required one must be suppressed, a divided panel of the 3rd Circuit ruled.
The case involves the 2010 investigation into a wave of Rite Aid pharmacy burglaries that hit Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey. Circumstantial evidence led police to suspect Harry Katzin and his brothers, Michael and Mark Katzin.
After consulting with the U.S. Attorney's Office, but without getting a warrant, the FBI affixed a "slap-on" Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker to Harry Katzin's van.
Within several days, the tracker yielded the evidence needed to arrest the brothers. It showed the van parked at a Rite Aid for two hours, after which local police stopped the van and found it full of stolen merchandise from the pharmacy.
A federal judge in Philadelphia suppressed the evidence discovered in the van for lack of a warrant, however, and a divided three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit affirmed last week.
"We have no hesitation in holding that the police must obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS device on a vehicle, thereby undertaking a search that the Supreme Court has compared to 'a constable's concealing himself in the target's coach in order to track its movements,'" Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr. wrote for the majority, citing the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in U.S. v. Jones that said police need a warrant before using a GPS device to track a suspect.
Greenaway rejected the government's arguments that this was a "special needs" case, or that reasonable suspicion absolved the officers of the need to obtain a warrant for GPS surveillance.
"While the interests the police wished to further in this case are certainly important, the same interests arise in every investigation where the police have a potential suspect," Greenaway wrote.
"We are hard pressed to say, therefore, that the police can - without warrant or probable cause - embark on a lengthy program of remote electronic surveillance that requires almost no law enforcement resources and physically intrudes upon an ordinary citizen's private property. Consequently, we hold that - absent some highly specific circumstances not present in this case - the police cannot justify a warrantless GPS search with reasonable suspicion alone."
The automobile warrant exception is also inapplicable here, the 61-page opinion states.
While a normal vehicle search is limited to one discrete moment in time, a GPS tracker is a far greater intrusion into privacy, creating "a continuous police presence for the purpose of discovering evidence that may come into existence and/or be placed within the vehicle at some point in the future," Greenaway said.
The court found that the officers' alleged good faith intentions, and the lack of appellate guidance in 2010 on the constitutionality of such searches, does not absolve them of their duties under the 4th Amendment.
"Here, law enforcement personnel made a deliberate decision to forego securing a warrant before attaching a GPS device directly to a target vehicle in the absence of binding Fourth Amendment precedent authorizing such a practice," Greenaway wrote. "Indeed, the police embarked on a long-term surveillance project using technology that allowed them to monitor a target vehicle's movements using only a laptop, all before either this Circuit or the Supreme Court had spoken on the constitutional propriety of such an endeavor."
He added: "Essentially, the officers extrapolated their own constitutional rule and applied it to this case. We fail to see how this absolves their behavior. The assumption by law enforcement personnel that their own self-derived rule sanctioned their conduct - to say nothing of their unstated belief that this Circuit would automatically side with a majority of the minority of our sister circuits - was constitutionally culpable."
Judge Franklin Van Antwerpen dissented from the majority's good-faith ruling, finding that the officers' should not be held accountable for failing to predict the outcome of Jones.
"United States v. Jones changed things; and changed them in a way very few - if any at all - predicted," Van Antwerpen wrote. "The exclusionary rule does not require us to punish the law enforcement officers here for failing to predict that sea change."
He concluded: "Under the circumstances present in this case, I do not find the law enforcement conduct to be 'sufficiently culpable' so that the benefit from deterring that conduct 'is worth the price paid by the justice system,' even if it might create a marginal incentive for officers to 'err on the side of constitutional behavior.'"
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/28/62416.htm
U.S. v. Harry Katzin ruling:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/28/gps%20warrant.pdf
Massachusetts case tests whether police need warrant for cellphone location data:
Shabazz Augustine stands accused of murdering a former girlfriend nine years ago. Massachusetts state prosecutors want to use information they got about the location of his cellphone at the time.
Matt Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, told the state's high court that the evidence should be thrown out, because police got it using a simple subpoena, not a search warrant.
"All the government has to show is that the information they're requesting is relevant and material to an ongoing investigation," Segal says.
That standard is too low, he says, and encourages searches before a crime is committed — like the collection of nearly all the nation's phone traffic by the NSA. The government relies on that same relevance standard to justify collecting bulk phone records.
Now, groups like the ACLU are arguing in court that widespread use of cell location data shows that digital information needs stronger protections. Segal says it should be released only when it meets a higher standard: probable cause to show someone has committed a crime.
"What we're focused on is the possibility that governments are obtaining this kind of location information on many people who have not committed crimes," Segal says.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/10/29/241415668/who-has-the-right-to-know-where-your-phone-has-been
How authorities mislead the Supreme Court so they could receive a key warrantless wiretapping ruling:
The New York Times reported that the Department of Justice recently changed policies, and will be notifying a criminal defendant that the evidence being used against them came from a warrantless wiretap. Just one problem: Justice told the Supreme Court that was standard policy already earlier this year.
According to the Times, prosecutors filed such a notice for the first time late on Friday. It was in the case of Jamshid Muhtorov, who is accused of providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a designated terrorist organization. The government alleges he was planning to travel abroad to join the group, but he has pleaded not guilty. According to the criminal complaint, much of the government's case was based on intercepted calls and e-mails. By giving him notice that some of that evidence was derived from warrantless surveillance, prosecutors have set him up to be able to challenge the constitutionality of those programs.
In February, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to FISA Amendments Act (FAA) surveillance programs brought by Amnesty International on standing grounds -- agreeing with the government that since Amnesty International could not prove that it was the victim surveillance at the time, it had no right to sue. That 5-4 decision at least partially relied on an argument made by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that while Amnesty International did not have grounds to sue, others might because "the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived" from the laws. In fact, the Supreme Court mirrors that language fairly explicitly in its ruling, saying that "if the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from” surveillance authorized by FAA “in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition."
The Times reports Verrilli discovered that Justice's National Security Division had actually not been notifying criminal defendants when evidence used against them was derived from warrantless snooping early in the investigative chain. This set off a months-long internal policy debate over whether or not Justice should be doing what they told the Supreme Court they were already doing.
It's obviously problematic that Justice misled the Supreme Court about how the agency was handling the law in practice. But the implications of that practice are even more troubling. Patrick Toomey, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented plaintiffs in Amnesty International case, said in a statement to the Times "by withholding notice, the government has avoided judicial review of its dragnet warrantless wiretapping program for five years.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/28/how-the-feds-won-a-key-warrantless-wiretapping-ruling-by-misleading-the-supreme-court/
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Universities secretive SWAT teams are being trained by Israeli SWAT teams
Article first appeared in the economicpolicyjournal:
California - I did have an interesting conversation with a salesman who sold night vision goggles to police SWAT teams. He said most of the training was aimed at battling terrorism. But then he added, "You know, the greater San Francisco area has more SWAT teams than any other part of the country."
SWAT, an acronym for "Special Weapons And Tactics," describes a team of law enforcement officers who are specifically trained to respond to potential life threatening situations. SWAT teams use military-grade weapons, ammunition and equipment to respond to hostage, terrorist, riot and heavily armed criminal situations.
The salesman considered San Jose to the south and Berkeley to the east as part of the
greater San Francisco area. He told me that the University of California,
Berkeley has its own SWAT team and the he said, "Even Pittsburgh, California
has a SWAT team, what the hell is Pittsburgh, California and why do they need a
SWAT team?"
In
October, UC Berkeley played host to an “ Urban Shield”
SWAT training exercise involving local and campus agencies, the
California National Guard, and special police forces from Israel,
Jordan, and Bahrain. And since 2010, West Texas A&M has played host
to paramilitary training programs for police from Mexico.
University police donned black military-style fatigues
and, armed with automatic weapons, practiced how to rescue hostages from
armed assailants and how to capture barricaded gunmen.
The unit will also be prepared for any potential trouble that might arise from the visit of a controversial political figure. Like when Gerry Adams, the leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, spoke to students.
Although college campuses have a lower crime rate than the nation over all, law-enforcement officials say that in these times campus police must be prepared for the most violent situations.
"Universities and campuses are not enclaves that are immune to these kind of things," said Chief Victoria L. Harrison of the university Police Department, which has more than 80 members.
The department has trained about 10 officers for the special weapons
and tactics group, or the "special response unit," as it is called here.
Chief Harrison said the unit would be summoned for "any kind of
situation that requires an exceptional response," and for serving arrest
warrants in cases in which weapons might be involved.
I asked him what other cities had strong SWAT teams presence. He told me
the names you would expect, Chicago, New York Los Angeles. Just to jilt the
conversation a bit, I asked him about Miami. He said, "Nothing registers on the
radar, the same with Atlanta, not much going on."
The SWAT team conference he was attending was a regional event. There were
36 SWAT teams attending, 30 from the San Francisco region and a few
outliers,including a SWAT team from Israel.
UNC-Charlotte has its own SWAT team.
UNC-Charlotte has its own SWAT team.
Why does the University of North Carolina-Charlotte need a SWAT team? "Virginia Tech and Columbine," explains Lieutenant Josh Huffman of Campus Police.
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte got its very own SWAT team, equipped with MP-15 rifles, M&P 40 sidearms, and Remington shotguns. “We have integrated SWAT officers into the squads that serve our campus day and night,” boasted UNC Charlotte Chief of Police Jeff Baker. The following month, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a SWAT team staged an armed raid on an occupied building, pointing assault rifles at the heads of activists, among them UNC students.
Radley Balko, a journalist who covers the militarization of police, says:
Any given middle school, high school, or college in America can expect to have exactly one homicide on its campus every 12,000 years. So how long before the UNC-Charlotte SWAT team feels the need to justify its existence by expanding its mission? I predict they’re serving drug warrants and raiding frat houses within a year.
Ohio University has a certified SWAT team for the first time in its history, an important capability for a rural campus.
Five
members of the Ohio University Police Department, who also completed
active shooter training in July, are undergoing formal basic SWAT
education on campus and in various locations in the
surrounding area.
OUPD Chief of Police Michael Martinsen recently created the SWAT team because he wants his department to be prepared for any type of emergency. Because of Athens' location, it would take between 60 to 90 minutes for the closest SWAT team to arrive on campus from Columbus.
"I had the idea of a SWAT team before Virginia Tech happened, but that incident confirmed my thoughts that we needed one," Martinsen said. "It will enhance the department's ability to respond to a crisis. Our SWAT team will be able to isolate a dangerous situation and move people away from the threat until more help arrives."
The Radford University Police Department SWAT team is comprised of highly trained officers who are dedicated to the safety of the RU community and to the preservation of life.
"We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice, which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."
OUPD Chief of Police Michael Martinsen recently created the SWAT team because he wants his department to be prepared for any type of emergency. Because of Athens' location, it would take between 60 to 90 minutes for the closest SWAT team to arrive on campus from Columbus.
"I had the idea of a SWAT team before Virginia Tech happened, but that incident confirmed my thoughts that we needed one," Martinsen said. "It will enhance the department's ability to respond to a crisis. Our SWAT team will be able to isolate a dangerous situation and move people away from the threat until more help arrives."
The Radford University Police Department SWAT team is comprised of highly trained officers who are dedicated to the safety of the RU community and to the preservation of life.
"We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice, which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."
SWAT teams & campus spies how DHS has taken over our universities:
Since 2007, campus police forces have decisively escalated their tactics, expanded their arsenals, and trained ever more of their officers in SWAT-style paramilitary policing. Many agencies acquire their arms directly from the Department of Defense through a surplus weapons sales program known as “ 1033,” which offers, among other things, “ used grenade launchers (for the deployment of less lethal weapons)... for a significantly reduced cost.”According to the most recent federal data available, nine out of 10 campus agencies with sworn police officers now deploy armed patrols authorized to use deadly force. Nine in 10 also authorize the use of chemical munitions, while one in five make regular use of Tasers. An 18-year old student athlete died after being tased at the University of Cincinnati.
Meanwhile, many campus police squads have been educated in the art of war through regular special weapons training sessions by “tactical officers’ associations” which run a kind of SWAT university.
“We have to go where terrorism takes us, so we often have to go onto campuses,” FBI Special Agent Jennifer Gant told Campus Safety Magazine in an interview last year. To that end, campus administrators and campus police chiefs are now known to coordinate their operations with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “ special advisors,” FBI “ campus liaison agents,” an FBI-led National Security Advisory Board, and a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which instructs local law enforcement in everything from “physical techniques” to “behavioral science.”
More
than half of campus police forces already have “ intelligence-sharing agreements” with these and other government agencies in place.
Students’ social media accounts have become a favorite destination
for everyone from campus police officers to analysts at the Department
of Homeland Security.
In 2010, the DHS National Operations Center established a Media Monitoring Capability (MMC). According to an internal agency document, MMC is tasked with “leveraging news stories, media reports and postings on social media sites… for operationally relevant data, information, analysis, and imagery.” The definition of operationally relevant data includes “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities,” “partisan or agenda-driven sites,” and a final category ambiguously labeled “research/studies, etc.”
With the Occupy movement coming to campus, even university police departments have gotten in on the action. According to a how-to guide called “ Essential Ingredients to Working with Campus Protests” by UC Santa Barbara police chief Dustin Olson, the first step to take is to “monitor social media sites continuously,” both for intelligence about the “leadership and agenda” and “for any messages that speak to violent or criminal behavior.”
At the core of the homeland security-university partnership are DHS’s 12 centers of excellence. (A number that has doubled since I first reported on the initiative in 2008.) The DHS Office of University Programs advertises the centers of excellence as an “extended consortium of hundreds of universities” which work together “to develop customer-driven research solutions” and “to provide essential training to the next generation of homeland security experts.”
But what kind of research is being carried out at these centers of excellence, with the support of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year? Among the 41 “ knowledge products” currently in use by DHS or being evaluated in pilot studies, we find an “extremist crime database,” a “Minorities at Risk for Organizational Behavior” dataset, analytics for aerial surveillance systems along the border, and social media monitoring technologies. Other research focuses include biometrics, “suspicious behavior detection,” and “violent radicalization.”
Universities like Harvard have struck multimillion-dollar deals with multinational private security firms like Securitas, deploying unsworn, underpaid, often untrained “protection officers” on campus as “ extra eyes and ears.” The University of Wisconsin-Madison, in one report, boasts that police and private partners have been “seamlessly integrated.”
Step by step, at school after school, the homeland security campus has
executed a silent coup in the decade since September 11th. The
university, thus usurped, has increasingly become an instrument not of
higher learning, but of intelligence gathering and paramilitary
training, of profit-taking on behalf of America’s increasingly embattled “1%.”
For many, the rise of the homeland security campus has provoked some
basic questions about the aims and principles of a higher education:
Whom does the university serve? Whom does it protect? Who is to speak?
Who is to be silenced? To whom does the future belong?
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=4359
NSA-like surveillance on today's campuses:
The National Security Agency? Nope. It's your average college or university.
FIRE's Nico Perrino cites examples ranging from Montana to Occidental to Kentucky to Valdosta State to St. Augustine's College to Johns Hopkins, noting the prevalence of the anti-privacy pattern. Perrino leads by recalling events from earlier this year at Harvard, when university officials eventually confessed to having snooped on the e-mails of 16 house resident deans. The resident deans are officially members of Harvard's faculty, and the searches violated Harvard policies.
The searches came after media revelations of Harvard's largest cheating scandal in recent memory. At the time, then-Harvard College dean Evelynn Hammonds justified the searches on grounds that "we needed to act to protect our students." Yet at least some of the resident deans exposed to the improper searches were also Harvard students (resident deans are often advanced graduate students). And, in any case, the searches seemed motivated less by a desire to protect students than to find blame for who might have exposed a deeply embarrassing event for the university--two of the students caught up in the cheating scandal were members of Harvard's APR-challenged basketball team, a fact that got significant play in media coverage. (APR, or Academic Progress Rate, introduced by the NCAA, measures the likelihood of graduation by Division I athletes.)
When Harvard University violated school policy by secretly searching deans' email accounts, the world glimpsed the intrusive measures one school took to monitor online activity of its staff. "We needed to act to protect our students," said then-dean of Harvard College Evelynn Hammonds, who authorized the search in response to leaked information about a high-profile cheating scandal at the Ivy League institution.
Unlike the NSA, universities don't play any role in protecting our national security. So the issue of privacy tradeoffs seems far less relevant to any discussion of privacy rights at college. Yet the Harvard episode--while extreme--is part of a troubling disregard of privacy on contemporary campuses. "At schools across the country," Perrino observes, "administrators use similarly invasive surveillance tools to monitor everything from students' off-campus behavior to their online speech."
But at schools across the country, administrators use similarly invasive surveillance tools to monitor everything from students' off-campus behavior to their online speech. University lawyers and administrators claim such surveillance programs are necessary to "protect" their stakeholders. But in reality, these actions are often just heavy-handed strategies colleges use to control their public image – at students' expense.
Many athletic departments hire companies like UDiligence and Varsity Monitor to watch after the social media profiles of their student athletes. The services search for keywords in athletes' profiles and alert coaches or administrators when they are used. Words or phrases like "Benjamins", "Sam Adams", and, bizarrely, "Gazongas" are among those keywords flagged by the monitoring programs.
In 2007, Valdosta State University student Hayden Barnes was expelled without due process (pdf) for protesting University President Ronald Zaccari's plan to spend $30m of student fee money on building campus parking garages. Zaccari went to extreme lengths to mute Barnes' criticism: he monitored Barnes' Facebook page, ordered university staff to look into his health, and ultimately had an expulsion note slipped under his dorm room door that identified him as a "clear and present danger" to campus. (In 2012, the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals held Zaccari personally liable for violating Barnes' legal rights.)
In another brazen exercise of snooping and censorship, St Augustine's College (SAC) in North Carolina punished student Roman Caple in 2011 for a Facebook post on the college's official page that, according to the school's vice president of student affairs, "jeopardized the integrity of the college". The offending post simply called for fellow students to "come correct, be prepared, and have supporting documents" at a public meeting where campus leaders were scheduled to discuss the school's response to a recent tornado that cut off power to many SAC students.
Lately, tracking student social media has gotten so out of control that Delaware and California have passed legislation limiting schools' ability to do such monitoring.
But as we know from the Harvard imbroglio, the monitoring of online activity isn't limited to students. Last month, a professor at Johns Hopkins University wrote a blog post critical of the NSA and was asked to take it down and stop using the NSA logo by one of the school's deans. (The school later apologized.) And at Occidental College, administrators recently confiscated the computers and cell phones of at least eight faculty members and dozens of staff members allegedly as part of an ongoing investigation by the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) into campus sexual assault procedures. But in an interview with The Huffington Post, an OCR official said that "OCR did not require Occidental to confiscate faculty members' laptops and cells".
Nor is the monitoring of students' lives limited to what they do online. Presumably to ensure they don't miss those moments when students are away from their computers, administrators at the University of Kentucky (UK) released a plan to install 2,000 surveillance cameras on campus and give students new ID cards that will contain chips that can track student movements in and out of buildings.
In an interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader, UK police Chief Joe Monroe said that the plan will give the school an "unprecedented capability for monitoring the campus for crime and protecting our students, employees and visitors". But as a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Kentucky told the Herald-Leader, the program is ripe for misuse depending how information is used and how long it is kept.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/22/online-social-media-surveillance-university-campuses
NSA-like surveillance on today's campuses:
The National Security Agency? Nope. It's your average college or university.
FIRE's Nico Perrino cites examples ranging from Montana to Occidental to Kentucky to Valdosta State to St. Augustine's College to Johns Hopkins, noting the prevalence of the anti-privacy pattern. Perrino leads by recalling events from earlier this year at Harvard, when university officials eventually confessed to having snooped on the e-mails of 16 house resident deans. The resident deans are officially members of Harvard's faculty, and the searches violated Harvard policies.
The searches came after media revelations of Harvard's largest cheating scandal in recent memory. At the time, then-Harvard College dean Evelynn Hammonds justified the searches on grounds that "we needed to act to protect our students." Yet at least some of the resident deans exposed to the improper searches were also Harvard students (resident deans are often advanced graduate students). And, in any case, the searches seemed motivated less by a desire to protect students than to find blame for who might have exposed a deeply embarrassing event for the university--two of the students caught up in the cheating scandal were members of Harvard's APR-challenged basketball team, a fact that got significant play in media coverage. (APR, or Academic Progress Rate, introduced by the NCAA, measures the likelihood of graduation by Division I athletes.)
When Harvard University violated school policy by secretly searching deans' email accounts, the world glimpsed the intrusive measures one school took to monitor online activity of its staff. "We needed to act to protect our students," said then-dean of Harvard College Evelynn Hammonds, who authorized the search in response to leaked information about a high-profile cheating scandal at the Ivy League institution.
Unlike the NSA, universities don't play any role in protecting our national security. So the issue of privacy tradeoffs seems far less relevant to any discussion of privacy rights at college. Yet the Harvard episode--while extreme--is part of a troubling disregard of privacy on contemporary campuses. "At schools across the country," Perrino observes, "administrators use similarly invasive surveillance tools to monitor everything from students' off-campus behavior to their online speech."
But at schools across the country, administrators use similarly invasive surveillance tools to monitor everything from students' off-campus behavior to their online speech. University lawyers and administrators claim such surveillance programs are necessary to "protect" their stakeholders. But in reality, these actions are often just heavy-handed strategies colleges use to control their public image – at students' expense.
Many athletic departments hire companies like UDiligence and Varsity Monitor to watch after the social media profiles of their student athletes. The services search for keywords in athletes' profiles and alert coaches or administrators when they are used. Words or phrases like "Benjamins", "Sam Adams", and, bizarrely, "Gazongas" are among those keywords flagged by the monitoring programs.
In 2007, Valdosta State University student Hayden Barnes was expelled without due process (pdf) for protesting University President Ronald Zaccari's plan to spend $30m of student fee money on building campus parking garages. Zaccari went to extreme lengths to mute Barnes' criticism: he monitored Barnes' Facebook page, ordered university staff to look into his health, and ultimately had an expulsion note slipped under his dorm room door that identified him as a "clear and present danger" to campus. (In 2012, the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals held Zaccari personally liable for violating Barnes' legal rights.)
In another brazen exercise of snooping and censorship, St Augustine's College (SAC) in North Carolina punished student Roman Caple in 2011 for a Facebook post on the college's official page that, according to the school's vice president of student affairs, "jeopardized the integrity of the college". The offending post simply called for fellow students to "come correct, be prepared, and have supporting documents" at a public meeting where campus leaders were scheduled to discuss the school's response to a recent tornado that cut off power to many SAC students.
Lately, tracking student social media has gotten so out of control that Delaware and California have passed legislation limiting schools' ability to do such monitoring.
But as we know from the Harvard imbroglio, the monitoring of online activity isn't limited to students. Last month, a professor at Johns Hopkins University wrote a blog post critical of the NSA and was asked to take it down and stop using the NSA logo by one of the school's deans. (The school later apologized.) And at Occidental College, administrators recently confiscated the computers and cell phones of at least eight faculty members and dozens of staff members allegedly as part of an ongoing investigation by the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) into campus sexual assault procedures. But in an interview with The Huffington Post, an OCR official said that "OCR did not require Occidental to confiscate faculty members' laptops and cells".
Nor is the monitoring of students' lives limited to what they do online. Presumably to ensure they don't miss those moments when students are away from their computers, administrators at the University of Kentucky (UK) released a plan to install 2,000 surveillance cameras on campus and give students new ID cards that will contain chips that can track student movements in and out of buildings.
In an interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader, UK police Chief Joe Monroe said that the plan will give the school an "unprecedented capability for monitoring the campus for crime and protecting our students, employees and visitors". But as a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Kentucky told the Herald-Leader, the program is ripe for misuse depending how information is used and how long it is kept.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/22/online-social-media-surveillance-university-campuses
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








