POLICE STATE 2011: 6 year old girl groped then drug tested by TSA

X-Ray Scans at Airports Leave Lingering Worries

New York Times
August 6, 2012, 5:26 pm
By Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Even before she was pregnant, Yolanda Marin-Czachor tried to avoid the full-body Invalid Link Removed scanners that security officers use to screen airport passengers. Now she’s adamant about it: She’ll take a radiation-free pat-down instead any day.
Invalid Link Removed

Advice on money and health.

“I had two Invalid Link Removed before this Invalid Link Removed,” Ms. Marin-Czachor, a 34-year-old mother and teacher from Green Bay, Wis., recalled, “and one of the first things my doctor said was: ‘Do not go through one of those machines. There have not been any long-term studies. I would prefer you stay away from it.’ ”

There are 244 full-body “backscatter” X-ray scanners in use at 36 airports in the United States. They operate almost nonstop, according to the Transportation Security Administration. Other airports use millimeter wave scanners, which look like glass telephone booths and do not use radiation, or metal detectors.

Most experts agree that as long as the X-ray backscatter machines are functioning properly, they expose passengers to only extremely low doses of ionizing radiation.

But some experts are less sanguine, and questions persist about the safety of using X-ray machines on such a large scale. A recent study reported that Invalid Link Removed. In another report, researchers estimated that Invalid Link Removed in the future. The European Union has Invalid Link Removed; it is against the law in several European countries to X-ray people without a medical reason.

The machines move a narrowly focused beam of high-intensity radiation very quickly across the body, and David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, says he worries about mechanical malfunctions that could cause the beam to stop in one place for even a few seconds, resulting in greater radiation exposure.

For security reasons, much about how the machines work has been kept secret. The T.S.A. says the full-body scanners have been assessed by the Food and Drug Administration, the United States Army Public Health Command and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

But researchers at these institutions have not always had direct access to the scanners in use, and some of the published reports about them have been heavily redacted, with the authors’ names removed. Independent scientists say limited access has hampered their ability to evaluate the systems.

John Sedat, emeritus professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, believes that the effective dose could be 45 times as high as the T.S.A. has estimated, equivalent to about 10 percent of a single chest X-ray.

T.S.A. officials scoff at scientists’ statements that measuring the effective radiation dose received by passengers is very complex, saying that it is not difficult, that the machines are inspected for problems at least once a year, and that they are equipped with fail-safe shutoff systems.

The machines, though, have had mechanical problems. A recent T.S.A. report said that between May 2010 and May 2011, Invalid Link Removed. Radiation safety surveys were conducted after only 2 percent of the calls.

In a letter to the federal Department of Health and Human Services dated Oct. 12, 2010, the scientists said that “the casual nature for maintenance of these devices is alarming to us. These machines are capable of delivering large X-ray doses.

They added, “Hospitals usually check for problems on X-ray machines daily.”

Most of what is known of the risks of radiation has been extrapolated from disease trends in Japan after World War II.

T.S.A. officials say that these low doses of radiation are safe for everyone, including pregnant women, infants and young children, even though children are significantly more sensitive to radiation’s effects.

Those at greatest risk, however, may be T.S.A. employees and others who work in the terminals and go through security daily. A 2004 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study of T.S.A. baggage screeners Invalid Link Removed, as many hospital and lab employees do, and to label machines more prominently. The agency has not done so.

While the risk to the average passenger may be low, here are some suggestions for those who wish to reduce their exposure.


¶ Get to the airport early. That gives you extra time to opt for a pat-down if you want.

¶ If you are pregnant or think you may be pregnant, tell a T.S.A. agent. You may be allowed to pass through a metal detector without additional screening.

¶ The younger children are, the more sensitive to radiation. T.S.A. employees have been known not to require children under 13 to go through an X-ray machine, although the agency denies there is any policy on this.

¶ If you have any concerns about medical conditions, you have the right to opt for a pat-down by a T.S.A. employee.
 
NYPD Unveils Orwellian ‘Domain Awareness System’

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
August 9, 2012

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is touting the latest police state technology.

Invalid Link Removed

The “Domain Awareness System,” aside from its blatantly Orwellian name, is a super surveillance database possible through a partnership between Microsoft and the city of New York. The system allows NYPD 24/7 access to closed-circuit TV feeds from around the city while simultaneously cross-checking criminal and terrorist databases.

Speaking of the importance of security over freedoms, Bloomberg stated at the unveiling Wednesday, “The bad guys have everything that we do, too. And if you really want to worry about security and freedoms, that’s the first thing…We are not your mom and pop police department anymore. We are in the next century. We are leading the pack.”

According to Invalid Link Removed, the system gives police the power to:


- Identify whether a radiation alarm was set off by actual radiation, a weapon, or a harmless medical isotope

- Track where a suspect’s car is located, and where it has been in the past few days, weeks or months

- Instantly see a suspect’s arrest record, and 911 calls related to the crime

The system will also use CCTV from about 3,000 cameras around the city to allow police to “travel back in time” and see how certain crimes were committed.

Although the threat of a Invalid Link Removed, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Invalid Link Removed as one of the reasons such a system is needed: “We realized that we had the opportunity to create a powerful system to help combat both terrorism and conventional crime, city-wide.”

Despite Microsoft providing the majority of technology and experience needed to build powerful high-tech computing machines, the Commissioner would have us believe his officers actually helped create the system, saying, “This system was developed by police officers for police officers.”

Kelly further attempts to sell the technology as “for the good of the people,” saying, “It’s a tool that meets the needs of the Department, one that will help protect New Yorkers and keep us safe from crime and terrorism for years to come.”

Invalid Link Removed to see the project succeed and be implemented across the country, especially since New York City will be getting a kickback on revenue from future sales: “I hope Microsoft sells a lot of copies of this system…because 30 percent of the profits will go to us…I think we can recoup all of our expenses, and maybe even make a few bucks.”

The new technology is reminiscent of the Minority Report-style Invalid Link Removed being implemented in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh; a system that records your conversations and barks orders at you.

Rest assured the rush to deploy the technology is more profit-driven than “for the good of the people,” as defended.

Under the guise of public safety, the creation of this technology represents the frantic determination of the upper-crust megalomaniacs to micro-manage and control every aspect of our lives…the public is the enemy.
 
The question is, what are we the citizens gonna do about it? Short answer: nothing...We deserve what happens to us as long as the majority of the population keeps engaging in willful ignorance.
 
broons said:
The question is, what are we the citizens gonna do about it? Short answer: nothing...We deserve what happens to us as long as the majority of the population keeps engaging in willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

I dont have alot of hope and I agree it seems the majority is just going along with it. I think its important for the minority to keep up the effort even if we lose. Forthcoming failure isnt an excuse to give up. Effort should be kept up even after total failure.
 
Invalid Link RemovedWikiLeaks Uncovers TrapWire Surveillance Network

TrapWire's high-end security software has been deployed all over the world, using sophisticated algorithms and facial recognition to connect the dots in potential security threats.


Invalid Link Removed August 12, 2012 By Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed


Big brother is already here. With the Invalid Link Removed from Wikileak’s Invalid Link Removed — 5 million emails hacked by Anonymous from intelligence company, Stratfor – Americans are now aware of TrapWire, an existing sophisticated surveillance system used by the government and many corporations. But before you fret about the government breaking down your door as a consequence of a compromised algorithm, take note: Most people shouldn’t have much to worry about, unless you engage in criminal activities.

Stratfor Invalid Link Removed with TrapWire in August of 2009, to promote each other’s products and services. Stratfor provides the analyses and reports tied to terrorism surveillance and pre-operational activities to TrapWire, while TrapWire has been offering Stratfor introductions to senior security officials. As The Global Intelligence Files emails have indicated, there have been significant discussions regarding TrapWire’s efficacy and the entities that have sought its services.

Through existing CCTV cameras that you’ll find at just about every intersection or a major corporation today, TrapWire’s “TrapWire Critical Infrastructure” can integrate a facial and pattern recognition monitoring rules-based algorithm to collect data over time. The data can be “Invalid Link Removed“ by TrapWire between the organizations that have installed TrapWire, to identify pre-attack activities hinting at terrorism or criminal activities in different locations. For example, the algorithm will take note of a suspicious individual patrolling a DC area subway, who had appeared to patrol New York City’s subways just a day earlier. Note that New York City subways have been hardened with 500 cameras sporting TrapWire, and is now probably among the last places you’d want to attempt an attack. TrapWire would then alert law enforcement, which would take its own measures to monitor and thwart an attack.

As the Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed has indicated, the technology is already prevalent in the United States government, many multinational corporations, and overseas government entities including UK’s MI5 and possibly Nigeria. It’s used by The Department of Homeland Secturity, local law enforcement agencies, the FBI, CIA, U.S. Secret Service, and likely just about every other government security agencies that exist today. In fact, according to an Invalid Link Removed by Stratfor’s CEO, Fred Burton, “TrapWire is in place at every [High Value Target] in NYC, DC, Vegas, London, Ottawa and LA.”

But so far what we can ascertain from the emails is that TrapWire’s existence is not yet all encompassing. Its primary installation efforts have been focused on “iconic targets” or high-value targets for terrorism (including areas for tourism), Federal institutions, followed by locations with mass transportation. Correspondence indicates that TrapWire has been installed in Vegas casinos surveillance systems, in other private companies that can foot the steep bill, and even around the homes of former United States Presidents. But unless you live in a major city, you likely have not yet been subject to being monitored for walking to your local supermarket.

The emails have in fact indicated TrapWire’s successes with upending very real terrorist threats in the United States. For example, TrapWire had uncovered an Invalid Link Removed when the system connected the dots between suspicious individuals who were surveying a financial institution, an entertainment center and a government building in Los Angeles.

With CCTV cameras just about everywhere, there’s a very real probability that TrapWire could be the sole intelligence system watching our streets. The thought of a computer monitoring your every movement may put you at unease, unless you’re a drug lord or a terrorist, you should probably be more worried about losing your job, or inevitable data plan hikes by Verizon and AT&T. At this point, there’s no evidence that TrapWire has been employed anywhere for non-security purposes.

Does that mean the system is foolproof? Not quite. We’d be more worried that terrorists or criminals will be able to work around the existing systems than an everyday citizen getting caught up in false accusations. For example, an email indicates that all it would take Invalid Link Removed of law enforcement would be to paint oxygen canisters with the yellow and black radioactive symbol.

In this day and age, we may have to come to grips with the reality that we’re going to be monitored 24/7 – if not by the government, then by the corporations that have purchased similar, more affordable surveillance and Invalid Link Removed.


Read more: Invalid Link Removed​
 
Pentagon Developing Autonomous Humanoid Robots To “Perform Evacuation Operations”

DARPA enlists makers of “BigDog” to construct machines that can think for themselves

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Aug 16, 2012

Invalid Link Removed

The Department of Defense has awarded a lucrative contract to an engineering and robotics design company to develop and build humanoid robots that can act intelligently without supervision.

Invalid Link Removed. has been contracted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the agency responsible for the development of new technologies for use by the military, in a deal worth $10.9 million.

The DoD Invalid Link Removed that “The robotic platforms will be humanoid, consisting of two legs, a torso, two arms with hands, a sensor head and on board computing.”

Invalid Link Removedsays that the robots will help “conduct humanitarian, disaster relief and related operations.”

“The plan identifies requirements to extend aid to victims of natural or man-made disasters and conduct evacuation operations.” reads the brief, first released in April as part of DARPA’s ‘Robotics Challenge’.

The robots will operate with “supervised autonomy”, according to DARPA, and will be able to act intelligently by themselves, making their own decisions if and when direct supervision is not possible.

The Pentagon also envisions that the robots will be able to use basic and diverse “tools”.

“The primary technical goal of the DRC is to develop ground robots capable of executing complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments. Competitors in the DRC are expected to focus on robots that can use standard tools and equipment commonly available in human environments, ranging from hand tools to vehicles, with an emphasis on adaptability to tools with diverse specifications.” reads the original brief.

The robots are set to be completed by Aug. 9, 2014, according to the contract.

Boston Dynamics has enjoyed a long working relationship with DARPA, during which time it has developed the rather frightening BigDog. This hydraulic quadruped robot can carry up to 340lb load, meaning it can be effectively weaponised, and recovers its balance even after sliding on ice and snow:



The company has also developed the CHEETAH- Fastest Legged Robot, a four-footed robot that gallops at 18 mph:



The company also developed RiSE, a robot that climbs vertical terrain such as walls, trees and fences, using feet with micro-claws to climb on textured surfaces:



In addition to a host of other smaller robots, Boston Dynamics is also developing PETMAN, a robot that simulates human physiology and balances itself as it walks, squats and does calisthenics:



While the Pentagon says the robots are for “humanitarian” missions, one cannot avoid thinking of the propensity to adapt this kind of military style technology for other more aggressive purposes.

Indeed, the Pentagon has, in the past, issued a request to contractors to develop teams of robots that can Invalid Link Removed

Issued in 2008, the request, called for a “Multi-Robot Pursuit System” to be operated by one person.

The proposal described the need to

“…develop a software/hardware suit that would enable a multi-robot team, together with a human operator, to search for and detect a non-cooperative human subject.

The main research task will involve determining the movements of the robot team through the environment to maximize the opportunity to find the subject, while minimizing the chances of missing the subject. If the operator is an active member of the search team, the software should minimize the chance that the operator may encounter the subject.”

​
It is seemingly important to the Pentagon that the operator should not have to come into contact with the person being chased down by the machines.

The description continues:

“The software should maintain awareness of line-of-sight, as well as communication and sensor limits. It will be necessary to determine an appropriate sensor suite that can reliably detect human presence and is suitable for implementation on small robotic platforms.”


​
Paul Marks at Invalid Link Removed pointed out such proposals are somewhat concerning, because they inevitably will be adapted for domestic purposes such as Invalid Link Removed.

“…how long before we see packs of droids hunting down pesky demonstrators with paralysing weapons? Or could the packs even be lethally armed?” Marks asks.

Marks interviewed Invalid Link Removed, an expert on police and military technologies, from Leeds Metropolitan University, who commented:


“The giveaway here is the phrase ‘a non-cooperative human subject’.

What we have here are the beginnings of something designed to enable robots to hunt down humans like a pack of dogs. Once the software is perfected we can reasonably anticipate that they will become autonomous and become armed.

We can also expect such systems to be equipped with human detection and tracking devices including sensors which detect human breath and the radio waves associated with a human heart beat. These are technologies already developed.”


​
Indeed, noted as PHASE III on the Pentagon proposal was the desire to have the robots developed to “intelligently and autonomously search”.

Top robotics expert, Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield, has previously Invalid Link Removed that the world may be sleepwalking into a potentially lethal technocracy and has called for safeguards on such technology to be put into place.
In 2008, Professor Sharkey told listeners of the Alex Jones show:

“If you have an autonomous robot then it’s going to make decisions who to kill, when to kill and where to kill them. The scary thing is that the reason this has to happen is because of mission complexity and also so that when there’s a problem with communications you can send a robot in with no communication and it will decide who to kill, and that is really worrying to me.”


​
The professor also warned that such autonomous weapons could easily be used in the future by law enforcement officials in cites, pointing out that South Korean authorities are already planning to have a fully armed autonomous robot police force in their cities.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
 
Federal Auditor: 2,527 DHS Employees and Co-Conspirators Convicted of Crimes since 2004

Edwin Mora
Invalid Link Removed
August 23, 2012

Invalid Link Removed

There have been 2,527 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees and co-conspirators convicted of corruption and other criminal misconduct since 2004, according to a federal auditor.

Charles Edwards, the acting inspector general (IG) at DHS, made that revelation in written testimony prepared for an Aug. 1 hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial Management.

In his remarks, Edwards added that as of July 15, the DHS OIG (Office of the Inspector General) was dealing with 1,591 open criminal cases involving DHS employees and some accomplices. Some cases date back to fiscal year 2004 (Oct. 1, 2003 thru Sept. 30, 2004) although the majority of the open investigations were initiated in the last three fiscal years. The DHS started operating in March 2003.

Invalid Link Removed
 
TSA Workers Perform Bag Searches at RNC

Screeners inspect hundreds of journalists and not one reports on it

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Illustrating once again how the federal agency’s role is being expanded well outside anything related to transport, TSA screeners are conducting bag searches at this week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa.



A short video clip filmed by journalists working for AMTV shows TSA workers putting personal belongings through an x-ray screener at the entrance to the convention.

​
Despite the fact that hundreds of reporters attending the convention have had their personal items inspected by TSA screeners when checking in for the event, not a single one has reported on it.

​
“Upon entering the Tampa Bay Convention Center AMTV spotted the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checking the RNC media pool as we checked in to cover the GOP convention. The MSM was swarming all over the place and not one reporter out of tens of hundreds bothered to report on the fact they were being inspected by numerous TSA agents,” Invalid Link Removed
​
AMTV’s Christopher Greene included a photo of his RNC press pass in the blog post to prove that the TSA screeners were at the convention.

Invalid Link Removed, TSA workers were also present at a recent Paul Ryan political event in The Villages, Florida, where the screeners conducted invasive bag searches as well as pat downs.

​
As we have previously documented, airport security style checkpoints and inspection procedures are already in place at Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, and are rapidly being Invalid Link Removed of America.

​
Agents have even been spotted roaming around at Invalid Link Removed such as sports games and music concerts, and even at Invalid Link Removed.​
The ‘Transportation’ part of the TSA’s acronym has presumably been dispensed with as the Department of Homeland Security attempts to create an occupying army of security goons at every public event.

​
The TSA even moved beyond its own borders this summer as agents were dispatched toInvalid Link Removed
​
The TSA has also announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a Invalid Link Removed and rolling out security procedures already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads and highways across the United States.
​
 
TSA Harasses Ron Paul and His Wife in Florida

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 29, 2012

On departing the RNC in Tampa yesterday, Ron Paul, his wife and grand-daughter were subjected to harassment by the TSA at a small airport in Clearwater, Florida.

Invalid Link Removed

Eight TSA goons told the Paul entourage they would need to be screened before they would be allowed to leave because Mitt Romney might be nearby.

The insinuation was obvious — Paul and his family pose a threat to the GOP presidential candidate.

After a protracted examination of Ron Paul’s credentials, the agents demanded they be allowed to check the airplane for explosives.

The incident ended after Ron Paul’s wife, Carol, who has a pacemaker, refused to be screened by the TSA and an aide started taking video.

The disgraceful incident serves as a vicious parting shot by the establishment. The GOP has consistently sabotaged Paul’s campaign and the corporate media has either ignored the candidate or portrayed him as a radical that had absolutely no chance of winning the nomination despite his huge and unprecedented following and popularity with the American people.

In March, we posted details from a report by an investigative journalist who documented efforts by GOP insiders to Invalid Link Removed and thwart his supporters in the primaries and during the convention.

The establishment media worked in concert with the GOP and refused to report that Paul had won the five state minimum required to be on the ballot for nomination at the Republican Convention.

In addition to revealing the lengths the establishment and its lapdog media will go to harass and discredit a candidate they consider dangerously unacceptable, the incident underscores the determination of the TSA to move into smaller airports despite an effort earlier this year by Republican lawmakers to expedite the implementation of a program that would Invalid Link Removed.

Ron Paul’s son, Rand, a Senator from Kentucky, was Invalid Link Removed by the TSA in Nashville. Following the incident, Rand Invalid Link Removed in which he vowed to lead the charge to “end the TSA” and put a stop to the needless and humiliating groping of toddlers and grandmothers.

In 2010, Invalid Link Removed that he was also molested by the TSA.

During an Invalid Link Removed, he said the TSA traps Americans into subjecting to the humiliating intrusive procedure at airports.

“There’s no way you can travel if you don’t do it. So I’ve said, you know, when you look at some of these pictures of probing groin areas and breast areas and all this, and old women having to take their clothes off, if we as a people are so complacent that we can look at that and say, oh, that’s OK, they’re making us safe.”

“It doesn’t make us safe. It undermines our liberties and there’s a much better way of giving us security at the airports than accepting the bureaucrats and the politicians in Washington. That is totally unacceptable from my viewpoint.” Paul said.

In 2010, Paul introduced the Invalid Link Removed to shield Americans from the abuses of the TSA.

“My legislation is simple,” he said in prepared remarks. “It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.”
 
TSA To Conduct Grope Downs at DNC

Federal agency running security checkpoints at public events becoming normalized

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, September 3, 2012

Invalid Link Removed

The Transportation Security Administration will be conducting grope downs and bag searches at three different locations in Charlotte this week at the Democratic National Convention, illustrating the fact that the TSA has expanded well beyond its remit of transportation and into public venues.

​
The DNC will be held at three separate sites this week, all of which will have security checkpoints staffed by TSA officers.​
55 TSA screeners “Will help the Secret Service with screening at Time Warner Cable Arena, the Convention Center and Bank of America stadium,” Invalid Link Removed
​
The first two days of the DNC will take place at the Time Warner Cable Arena, with the final day taking place at the Bank of America Stadium where Obama will deliver his acceptance speech. Events will concurrently be staged at the Charlotte Convention Center.

​
Attendees will be forced to undergo invasive pat downs and have their personal items scanned if they wish to enter any of these venues.​
The agency is also increasing its footprint of TSA agents at the Charlotte Douglas Airport, adding a whopping 161 extra TSA screeners including 20 “behavior detection” officers who will watch for suspicious activity and conduct “chat downs” with travelers. More than 700 TSA officers in the airport alone will be present for the duration of the convention.
Invalid Link Removed, TSA agents were also in attendance at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

​
Despite the fact that hundreds of journalists passed through TSA security to enter the Tampa Bay Convention Center, not a single one reported on it.

​
This illustrates how the TSA’s presence at public events which have nothing to do with transportation is becoming normalized as Invalid Link Removed greases the skids for thousands upon thousands of unannounced checkpoints across the country.

​
Invalid Link Removed by TSA agents after the RNC last week as TSA officials ludicrously insinuated that Paul, his family and his campaign staff could be a threat to Mitt Romney, who “might be nearby.”

​
TSA workers were Invalid Link Removed in The Villages, Florida, where the screeners conducted invasive bag searches as well as pat downs.

​
Last week the TSA also Invalid Link Removedas part of a PR drive in response to numerous scandals and embarrassments to plague the federal agency in recent months.​
 
Video Shows TSA’s Bizarre New Security Policy

Federal agency tests drinks purchased inside airport

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, September 3, 2012

A video clip shot yesterday at Columbus Ohio Airport illustrates how the Transportation Security Administration has dreamed up a bizarre new way to waste time and taxpayer dollars – by testing drinks purchased by travelers for explosives inside the airport long after they have already passed security.




The footage shows TSA agents walking around a departure lounge asking to test passengers’ drinks for explosive residue with a swab they hold over the liquid.

​
“Now remember that this is inside the terminal, well beyond the security check and purchased inside the terminal…just people waiting to get on the plane,” writes the You Tube user who uploaded the video.

​
“My wife and son came back from a coffee shop just around the corner, then we were approached. I asked them what they were doing. One of the TSA ladies said that they were checking for explosive chemicals (as we are drinking them). I said “really – inside the terminal? You have got to be kidding me.” I asked them if they wanted to swab us all. She responded with something like, ‘yes sometimes we need to do that’. I then asked if she wanted a urine sample…nonetheless, the TSA is way out of control,” he adds, joking that the TSA’s next move could be to visit people’s homes before they even leave for the airport (Invalid Link Removed)

​
Invalid Link Removed, the drinks policy was recently introduced with virtually no explanation from the TSA whatsoever. The much vaunted 2006 liquid bomb plot on which this nonsense is all based Invalid Link Removed and was revealed to be farcical at best.

Experts have savaged rules relating to liquids being carried through security Invalid Link Removed and yet they still remain in place six years later, with ludicrous cases routinely popping up of mothers having to drink their own breast milk or Invalid Link Removed
​
But this new rule applies to drinks purchased within the airport after travelers have already passed airport security, items that have presumably already had to pass some form of security check to be brought inside the airport in the first place.

​
The drinks testing farce has been accompanied by other harebrained TSA schemes which have virtually nothing to do with genuine security and everything to do with subjecting the public to intimidation and obedience training.

​
The federal agency Invalid Link Removed in which travelers are ordered to “freeze” on command by TSA screeners while passing through security – for no apparent reason other than to check they will obey orders without question.

​
Perhaps the TSA should concentrate on real security threats and cleaning up the behavior of their own criminally-prone employees instead of harassing travelers who have already been through the ordeal of a grope down or a radiation body scan.

​
Given the fact that TSA agents now festoon Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed and even Invalid Link Removed, how long is it before we have blue-shirted goons in fast food restaurants checking whether or not our Diet Cokes are weapons of mass destruction?​
 
FOIA Letters Reveal Shocking Cases Of TSA Groping Genitals

“Sexually abused by a government official”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, September 6, 2012

Hundreds of letters of complaint about the TSA’s invasive security procedures released this week under the Freedom of Information Act include numerous horror stories about TSA screeners directly touching people’s genitals during pat downs.

​
Invalid Link Removed

Following a FOIA request in 2010, the non-profit website Governmentattic.org has released the files after a two year battle with the TSA to make them public. The letters can be Invalid Link Removed.

​
The letters confirm what Invalid Link Removed, that the TSA’s new security procedures for “advanced pat downs” include literally touching and in some cases groping the genitals of travelers.

​
In one incident which occurred on October 29, 2010 at Hobby Airport, Houston, a woman reveals how a TSA screener “putting her hand on my vagina,” caused the woman to “have traumatic reaction that lasted for days.”

​
In another letter, a woman complains to Congressman Mike Turner about an incident that happened on November 12, 2010 at Dayton International AIrport. The woman explains how a TSA screener, “felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.”

​
The woman relates how she stood for a minute holding her baby without being able to move having been “sexually assaulted by a government official.”

​
“I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours and woke up the next day shaking,” she writes.

​
Another woman traveling through LAX on November 10, 2010 complains of how she was “sexually assaulted” after a TSA screener touched her vagina.

​
The files are also replete which cases of TSA screeners fondling men’s genitals.

​
A veteran of the 10th Special Forces from Bradenton, Florida, who had metal parts in his body as a result of combat injuries reveals how he was subjected to an aggressive pat down “so rough he injured my testicles and (I) was nauseated for hours.”

​
In another incident which occurred at Phoenix airport, a man with an enlarged prostate reveals how a TSA screener used a metal detecting wand to poke “my penis and my testicles very hard,” despite the fact that the man warned the TSA screener in advance that he suffered pain in his genitals.

In another letter, a former U.S. Air Force officer complains to his Congressman about an experience at Orlando AIrport during which a TSA agent shoved his genitals to one side in order to ensure “it really is your crotch.”

​
More incidents of TSA agents causing urostomy bags to break are also documented in the files.

​
Invalid Link Removed, “A woman flying out of Detroit Metro Airport tried to explain that after a rather serious cancer surgery she had been fitted with a urostomy bag for the collection of urine. Her searchers ignored her pleas that their rough grabbing and patting would break the seal of the bag and when it did, she wrote, “urine started dribbling down my shirt and into my pants.”

​
Invalid Link Removed that women who have been sexually assaulted face treatment metered out by TSA screeners that can be “extremely re-traumatizing to someone who has already experienced an invasion of their privacy and their body.” An estimated one in six women in the United States have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape.

​
Invalid Link Removed, we highlighted a number of other cases where TSA screeners have touched people’s genitals in addition to the ones highlighted in the complaint letters.

​
The TSA routinely claims that millions of travelers pass through the federal agency’s security procedures every year without complaint. However, when complaints are made, the agency is loathe to make them public.

​
Invalid Link Removed for the TSA to acquiesce to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by ProPublica’s Michael Grabell back in 2008 which asked the agency to reveal details of passenger complaints.

​
Invalid Link Removedon a year-old federal appeals court decision demanding the agency hold public hearings about the privacy and health concerns of the naked body scanner program.​
 
More New Documents Show TSA Intends To Deploy Body Scanners At Rail, Bus, Ferry Terminals

Mobile body scanner program was not discontinued, as agency claims

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Sept 7, 2012

Yet more documents uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that in the year prior to rolling out radiation body scanners in airports, the TSA was drawing up long term plans to deploy the machines at “ferry terminals, railway, and mass transit stations” as well as unspecified “other locations”.

The Invalid Link Removed, dating from 2008 were released to engineer Invalid Link Removedwho made headlines last year by infamously posted a video of himself demonstrating how the Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

“You can expect {the scanners] at train stations, bus stations, subways, highways, cruise ships, and anywhere that “transportation” happens (i.e., everywhere).” Corbett writes. “And, where the body scanners go, so does the groping, since the body scanners have at least a 40% false positive rate which needs to be resolved by blue-gloved gestapo.” he adds.

The documents also detail the fact that the TSA refused to conduct any form of study on what effect the radiation firing scanners would have on the environments they are placed into.

Indeed, the DHS specifically issued an order “exempting” the scanners from environmental review.

Invalid Link Removed

“Why not conduct an environmental impact study? Unless, of course, your device is leaking radiation everywhere…” Corbett notes.
He has a valid point, given that in March of this year, The TSA wasInvalid Link Removedthat it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

Scrutiny over radiation exposure was heightened last year following Invalid Link Removed a “cluster” of cancer cases amongst scanner operators at Boston-Logan airport. According to FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), when Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.
The documents indicated how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

In addition, further Invalid Link Removed show how the TSA “publicly mischaracterized” findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in stating that the agency had positively confirmed the safety of full body scanners in tests.

We have Invalid Link Removed how many experts are on record saying they feel the scanners are significant health risks. The TSA has cited numerous studies in its defense, yet no actual indpendent tests have been carried out.

The DHS has claimed that it dropped plans for mobile body scanners a long time ago. However, last month a separate set of Invalid Link Removed obtained by EPIC revealed that the DHS continued to pursue the plans.

The DHS was Invalid Link Removed, just two days prior to Invalid Link Removed it had “dropped the projects in a very early phase after testing showed flaws”.

Previous EPIC FOIA work also producedInvalid Link Removed showing that the DHS is actively moving to install radiation firing scanners in all manner of public places,

The technologies include “intelligent video,” backscatter x-ray, Millimeter Wave Radar, and Terahertz Wave, and could be deployed at Invalid Link Removed.

EPIC filed a Invalid Link Removedagainst the DHS for attempting to keep the program secret.

In February 2011,Invalid Link Removed (PDF) that the DHS had paid contractors “millions of dollars on mobile body scanner technology that could be used at railways, stadiums, and elsewhere” on crowds of moving people.

According to the documents, the TSA plans to expand the use of these systems to peer under clothes and inside bags away from airports.
The documents included a Invalid Link Removed which revealed details of conducting risk assessments and possible implementation of body scanners in “Mass transit, commuter and long-distance passenger rail, freight rail, commercial vehicles (including intercity buses), and pipelines, and related infrastructure (including roads and highways), that are within the territory of the United States.”

The DHS maintained that it had discontinued the program, but refused to provide the proof, invoking several FOIA exemption clauses, ironically including one that cited “invasion of personal privacy”.

EPIC also noted that the DHS has actively deployed “mobile body scanner technology in vans that are able to scan other vehicles while driving down public roadways.”

“These vans, known as ‘Z Backscatter Vans,’ are capable of seeing through vehicles and clothing and routinely store the images that they generate.” EPIC’s lawsuit notes.

Invalid Link Removed, while the focus remained on the TSA’s use of naked body scanners at airports, the feds had already purchased hundreds of x-ray scanners mounted in vans that were being used to randomly scan vehicles, passengers and homes in complete violation of the 4th amendment and with wanton disregard for any health consequences.

Invalid Link Removedon once instance of the mobile scanners being used to check trucks for explosive devices at an internal checkpoint set up by Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the TSA. Officials admitted there was no specific threat that justified the checkpoint, and although it was labeled a “counter-terror operation,” the scans were also being conducted in the name of “safety”.

Feds Radiating Americans at Roadside Checkpoints


The TSA has wholly failed to inform the American people before rolling out such technology. Indeed, EPIC continues to fight another ongoing lawsuit against the agency, which has already found that the TSA was in Invalid Link Removed when it deployed scanners to airports in 2009 without holding public notifiction hearings. Since that time the TSA has Invalid Link Removed to set the public comment process into motion.

As we have previously documented, airport security style checkpoints and inspection procedures are already in place at Invalid Link Removed,Invalid Link Removed, and are rapidly being Invalid Link Removed of America. The body scanners, it seems, are not far behind.
Agents have even been spotted roaming around at Invalid Link Removed such as sports games and music concerts, Invalid Link Removed, and even at Invalid Link Removed.

The ‘Transportation’ part of the TSA’s acronym has presumably been dispensed with as the Department of Homeland Security attempts to create an occupying army of security goons at every public event.

The TSA even moved beyond its own borders this summer as agents were dispatched to Invalid Link Removed

The TSA has also announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a Invalid Link Removed and rolling out security procedures already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads and highways across the United States.

Jon Corbett has continued his efforts to expose flaws in the body scanner program by interviewing TSA whistleblowers who have admitted that theInvalid Link Removedto pick up prohibited items such as knives, guns and powder designed to resemble explosive material.

Corbett also recently testified in a congressional hearing on the scanners.

As we have previously noted, Invalid Link Removed other Invalid Link Removed have Invalid Link Removed saying that the scanners are ineffective.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
 
DHS “See Something, Say Something” Campaign Headed For A Mall Near You

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
September 7, 2012

Residents of Indiana and Virginia could very soon start seeing signs and pamphlets in malls encouraging “If you see something, say something.”

Invalid Link Removed

According to a blog post URL found on the Department of Homeland Security website and information gathered from Government Security News article, the DHS has partnered with American real estate company Simon Property group, the owner of 393 properties worldwide, on September 6 to “keep shoppers safe.”

Mark Rockwell at Invalid Link Removed writes, “Under a new agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, 20 malls in Indiana and Virginia will participate in DHS’ “If you see something, say something” campaign, with possible expansion to other facilities nationwide.”
Rockwell states a post appeared on the DHS’ blog page stating that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had announced a partnership with Simon’s CEO Tim Earnest.

The blog post in question, however, cannot be found on the DHS homepage. See for yourself:

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Interestingly, a quick search on the DHS site (query: Simon) yields results apparently related to the partnership, but when the appropriate search result is selected, no information regarding the partnership appears on the landing page.

The screenshot below illustrates the posting URL originally belonging to the Simon partnership post, however, for some reason or other, the content on the page has nothing to do with the partnership.

Invalid Link Removed

Why would the DHS want to keep mum about their partnership with the mall owner? Could there be a false-flag terror attack planned in our near future? Or are they just laying the groundwork for an introduction of more extreme security measures to be implemented, such as body-scanners and/or TSA grope downs?

Recently, the DHS brought attention to their snitch campaign when they began asking Invalid Link Removed to “help keep the country safe by reporting anything suspicious they see,” but the program has been “keeping us safe” long before that.

In December 2010, DHS expanded their “See something, say something” campaign to the Invalid Link Removed, who is not owned by Simon. The campaign involved “both print and video advertisements throughout the mall’s shopping and amusement park areas to help the thousands of daily tourists and shoppers to identify potential threats and suspicious situations.”

Also in 2010, Invalid Link Removed an announcement Napolitano made basically stating that behavior scanners would be making their way into sports events, rock concerts and shopping malls. The Hill article has since Invalid Link Removed after their controversial headline sparked outrage. (Again, by looking at the URL we can see the original title of this article was “Next Step For Body Scanners Could be Trains, Boats and the Metro”

Invalid Link Removed, the behemoth governmental entity, created on the pretext of external terror threats, has gradually (and arguably effectively) managed to realign its cross-hairs to target domestic threats, specifically Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” “reverent of individual liberty,” and people that “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

Trumpeted as necessary for the safety and security of the public, the DHS’ snitch campaign, since its official implementation on January 1, 2011, has been incrementally conditioning unsuspecting Americans into welcoming a police state takeover wherein the TSA or DHS would be present at every public venue, be it federal building, sports stadium, high school prom, or even right in your community.

Instead of bringing about a safer society, programs like these actually breed suspicion, distrust, fear and contempt among the general population, essentially making participants lapdogs for the feds aiding in the search of a citizen domestic terrorist that does not exist.
 
Invalid Link Removed



Invalid Link Removed September 10, 2012 By Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed

The FBI is creating its own photo database. And you thought Facebook's face scanning system was scary.
A little over a year ago, Invalid Link Removed to the masses when it included the feature in its photo uploading process. And the masses, as you may assume, didn’t react all that well. There was plenty of conspiracy theory and privacy-concerned backlash, which died down as soon as everyone started talking about how the service was opt-in only. Since then, the feature has faded into the background and taken its rightful place among other Facebook-announcements-that-cause-us-to-wield-pitchforks-for-a-week-but-then-everyone’s-over-it.

But now, concerns over consumers’ image privacy have been resurrected by a billion dollar FBI project. According to Invalid Link Removed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching a $1 billion effort called the Next Generation Identification (NGI) program, which will use face detection as well as “biometrics such as iris scans, DNA analysis, and voice identification to the toolkit.” The system is already being ushered in, as some states have started uploaded images (currently it sounds as if this is limited to mugshots); it’s expected to be implemented nationwide by 2014.

As all things start, intentions are good: Such highly accurate identification systems would be used to focus on criminals faster, result in quicker arrests, and potentially stop illegal activity before it happens. Of course, all of that sounds incredibly Minority Report-ish – including this example use:

“Images of a person of interest from security cameras or publics photos uploaded onto the Internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an office to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.”

While current states that have participated in the pilot program have been uploading mugshots for the NGI, it’s uncertain whether this will eventually extend to include all of our images. In fact, New Scientist pointedly asked the FBI this question and no response was given.
In case it isn’t clear enough, what we very possibly have in the works here is a national civilian photograph database. Right now, the FBI hasn’t reached that far, but it’s very easy to assume it will – and it’s all legal under the US Privacy Act.

Before you start pointing fingers at user-facing (pun intended) face recognition software companies out there (think Invalid Link Removed – now Facebook-owned – and Invalid Link Removed),know that Facebook wouldn’t have any part in this: I reached out and was told that that simply isn’t how its face recognition system works. “Just giving us a picture and asking us to search our database… it doesn’t work that way,” a Facebook rep tells me. “And it would be incredibly computationally expensive.”

Also, consider the amount of state and federal operations that have your images. Your license, your passport, your public transportation ID… it goes on and on. If the government wants to harness image identification, it can and it will, and it won’t have to rely on social networks for help. That said, our increasing comfort with putting our likenesses all over the Internet is only making it easier for this type of system to be enacted.



Read more: Invalid Link Removed
​
 
Invalid Link Removed



Invalid Link Removed September 12, 2012 By Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed

A new Congressional report lays out in vivid detail the danger drones could pose for personal privacy. Here's everything you need to know.

Starting in 2015, the skies above the United States will become infiltrated by a rare creature: drones. Also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), drones are currently forbidden from flying in U.S. airspace above 400 feet, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides a license. But thanks to a Invalid Link Removed early this year to make these licenses easier to get, drones will likely become a part of everyday life for Americans.

While fun and futuristic, this coming reality unearths serious questions about privacy and personal liberty in the 21st century. A report published last week by the Invalid Link Removed (CRS) shows that our laws are currently unprepared to deal with the privacy implications posed by the use of drones. The report (Invalid Link Removed) is an excellent read — at least if you’re a wonk like me. But if you don’t have time to peruse a 20-page CRS report, here are the 13 things you must know about the looming drone privacy apocalypse.

1. There will be 30,000 drones in the sky in less than 20 years

Invalid Link Removed

The FAA estimates (Invalid Link Removed) that within the next 15 years, more than 20,000 drones will take to the skies in the U.S., including drones operated by police, military, public health and safety agencies, corporations, and the public in general. That number is expected to jump to 30,000 within 20 years from today — a number the FAA refers to as “relatively small.” Currently, the FAA has only given out about 300 licenses to fly drones capable of cruising at more than 400 feet in the air.

2. Matters of privacy are all about “reasonableness”

Invalid Link Removed

The Invalid Link Removed guarantees our right against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The key word here is “unreasonable” — and thanks to our rapidly changing technologies, its definition is in near-constant flux.

CRS researcher and legislative attorney Richard M. Thompson II, who authored the report on drones, explains in the report that “the reasonableness of drone surveillance [as considered by the courts] would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement.”

It’s this last part — “society’s conception of privacy” — that you should worry about on a daily basis, as it applies to the use of information gathered by everything from drones flying over our back yards to GPS capabilities in our smartphones to our Facebook profiles. Once society becomes generally “OK” with certain information becoming public, or becoming public in a certain way — once we think of these things as “reasonable — the Fourth Amendment protects us less.

3. The Fourth Amendment: It depends what the definition of “search” is

Invalid Link Removed

As with what can be considered “reasonable,” the definition of what constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment is a slippery beast. The Fourth Amendment provides for little wiggle room when it comes to activities performed in your home, behind closed doors and curtained windows. (No searches without a warrant there — most of the time, anyway.) But as soon as you leave the confines of your house, things start getting more complicated — and things get even worse when you consider surveillance that uses planes and helicopters. Throw drones in the mix and, well, the fine line across which surveillance by the state becomes “search” gets downright knotty.

Thompson’s CRS report explains that a court reviewing the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment will have to consider past cases that involved “privacy in the home, privacy in public spaces, location tracking, manned aerial surveillance, those involving the national border,” and instances when warrants aren’t needed to perform a “routine” search (like searching a car at a U.S. border), to determine the definition of a “search.”

4. Drones will have the ability to see through walls and ceilings

Invalid Link Removed

Thanks to technology like the Invalid Link Removed, which uses electromagnetic radar to construct 3D images of hidden objects, law enforcement and military personnel can now “see” through walls. Combine this with laser radar and thermal imaging techniques, and our homes practically have glass walls, as far as the police are concerned. Thompson estimates that similar technology will eventually be outfitted on drones, allowing them to see through ceilings and walls. The question before the courts will be: Without a warrant, is that reasonable?

5. Drones could be outfitted with face recognition technology

Invalid Link Removed

In addition to seeing through our walls, Thompson writes that law enforcement organizations “might seek to outfit drones with facial recognition or soft biometric recognition, which can recognize and track individuals based on attributes such as height, age, gender, and skin color.”

Considering that the FBI is currently undertaking Invalid Link Removed to build out its face recognition capabilities, this one seems all but inevitable. However, as Thompson explains, the sophisticated nature of such technology may determine whether the use of face recognition technology on drones “is lawful under the Fourth Amendment.”

6. Aerial searches in manned aircraft are not against the Fourth Amendment — but drone surveillance may be different

Invalid Link Removed

While the Fourth Amendment provides strict protections for privacy inside the home, anywhere outside the home falls into other categories of protection. The first is “curtilage,” which is defined as the area surrounding a home (like a front or back yard). Areas outside of that are referred to as “open fields.” The Fourth Amendment protections apply differently for each of these categories; curtilage is often nearly as highly protected as inside the home, while open fields may not be protected at all.

That said, existing case law (precedent) determines that police may use airplanes and helicopters that fly within federal aviation guidelines to look in on citizens’ curtilage — even if it’s fenced in or otherwise hidden from public view — without a warrant. It is not yet clear whether drones would fall into the same category as planes and ‘copters, according to Thompson.

7. Long-term tracking is different from short-term tracking

Invalid Link Removed

In the recent Supreme Court case United States vs Jones, the Court ruled that the tracking of an individual using GPS for a long period of time (say, a month) constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment due to how much information can be gathered about a person over an extended period, thus requiring a warrant to perform the tracking. But previous case law upheld law enforcement’s ability to track users outside their homes for a shorter period of time without the need for a warrant.

Now, because drones can stay in the sky for long periods of time — and, in the case of Lockheed Martin’s Stalker drone, Invalid Link Removed — they could be used to track people’s movements for extremely long periods of time. Because of this, the courts will have to decide whether the use of long-duration flight drones for surveillance purposes constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

8. U.S. borders are a search free-for-all

Invalid Link Removed

As you may have gathered, reasonable expectations of privacy have a lot to do with where a person is. But the one place you should have zero expectation of privacy is near a U.S. border. Border agents already have the ability to search things like your car, without a warrant, within 25 miles of a U.S. border.

Because of the looser restrictions near U.S. borders, the use of drones is, and will be, extremely prevalent. And since the surveillance using drones “may be considered more passive” than surveillance agents on the ground, or in planes and helicopters, by the courts, explains Thompson, drones “may be even less likely to run afoul of Fourth Amendment requirements.” (Emphasis mine.)

9. Technology sophistication matters

Invalid Link Removed

Under the Fourth Amendment, all technology is not created equal. The use of gadgets that anyone can get their hands on (like binoculars) for surveillance purposes are more permissible by the courts than technology that is extremely sophisticated (like radar that can see through walls).

With this in mind, the courts will likely have to decide what types of technology can be attached to drones for surveillance use. Is a low-powered camera allowed while a high-powered camera isn’t? Should drones be outfitted with face recognition systems? It’s not yet clear — and it’s something that the courts (or Congress) must establish.

10. The more common drones become, the less privacy protections you may have

Invalid Link Removed

As with the public definition of “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, the public’s expectations of privacy with regards to certain technology changes with time. The more a technology is used, the more acceptable (read: reasonable) it is. Thompson points out that as drones become increasingly commonplace, the more the public will accept the use of drones for surveillance purposes, potentially changing which types of surveillance practices are and are not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

11. Americans are worried about drones

Invalid Link Removed

According to a study released in June by Monmouth University (Invalid Link Removed), 80 percent of Americans approve of using drones for search and rescue missions, while 67 percent believe drones should be used to “track down runaway criminals.”

And yet, 42 percent of respondents said they would be “very concerned” about their own privacy if drones were used by law enforcement. Twenty two percent would be “somewhat concerned,” and 16 percent would be “just a little concerned.” A full 15 percent said they would not be concerned at all.

Oh, and only 23 percent said they would feel comfortable with using drones to catch speeding motorists.

12. There are ways to fight back against drone privacy invasion now

Invalid Link Removed
The courts are not the only government body that can decide what is and is not allowed by drones. Congress can also take action, and it’s already begun to do that. Rep Austin Scott (R-GA) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) recently introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed), which would require the federal government to gain a warrant based on probable cause before drones could be used for surveillance purposes. And Rep. Ted Poe’s (R-TX) Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (Invalid Link Removed) would also require law enforcement to obtain a warrant for drone surveillance, among other restrictions.

Thompson suggests that “Congress could also limit the admissibility of evidence in a criminal prosecution to situations where its acquisition was the purpose of the drone search.”

If you’re afraid of waiting to let the courts decide how drones can be used for surveillance — a decision that will come after the drones are already being used for that purpose — I suggest you look into vocally supporting some of these bills.

13. We’re just making this up as we go along

Invalid Link Removed
Valuable tidbits about the Fourth Amendment aside, the key takeaway from all this is that laws are nothing more than a man-made creation. In other words, they are made up. And as technology advances faster than our government can respond, those in charge of crafting the rules are forced to figure out all the implications on the fly — not just for drones, but for all emerging technologies. More important, our view of drone surveillance (or GPS tracking or Facebook data scraping) plays a major role in how the government will decide these issues for us. We would do well for ourselves to pay close attention.



Read more: Invalid Link Removed
 

Obama Appeals Against Court Ruling That Strikes Down Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

While claiming otherwise, White House has pushed for measure all along

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, September 14, 2012

Within 24 hours of a historic court ruling that struck down the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, the Obama administration has appealed the ruling, emphasizing once again how the White House – while claiming to be against the measure – has aggressively pushed for it at every turn.

​
Invalid Link Removed

On Wednesday, Invalid Link Removed which blocked provisions of the NDAA that could have seen American citizens kidnapped and held indefinitely without charge.

​
The suit was brought by activists and journalists, including former New York Times columnist Chris Hedges, who argued that the law was unconstitutional because it could see journalists abducted and detained merely for speaking their minds.

​
In “permanently” halting the enforcement of the law, Forrest noted how the plaintiffs presented “evidence that First Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be harmed by the prospect of (the law) being enforced. The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.”

​
However, the very next day the Obama administration reportedly moved to appeal the decision in an attempt to reinstate the indefinite detention provisions.

​
“This sent a chill down my spine,” Invalid Link Removed. “In the midst of my interview with Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions & coordinator of StopNDAA.org, she received an email from her lawyer to inform her that the Obama administration has already appealed yesterday’s historic court ruling.

“For a man who doesn’t want the ability to order the military to abduct and detain citizens – without charge or trial – it is quite odd that his administration is appealing yet again,” he adds.

​
Indeed, as we documented throughout the course of the NDAA controversy, Invalid Link Removed promising not to use the indefinite detention provisions against U.S. citizens, his administration specifically pushed for those provisions to be applied to U.S. citizens in the first place.

​
As the NDAA’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech on the floor in December, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have protected Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.

​
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

​
“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

​
In attempting to include the entire United States as a battleground under the NDAA, the Obama administration is merely extending its Invalid Link Removed for state-sponsored assassination with no legal process whatsoever.

​
Given that the White House is already executing this policy at the global level, it’s no surprise that they are also keen to enforce it domestically by appealing this week’s ruling.

[h=1](D) Carl Levin on NDAA 'Obama Admin insisted on the contents' [/h]


​
 
Bizarre TSA “Freeze” Security Drill Caught on Camera

Pointless policy little more than “obedience training”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 27, 2012

The TSA’s bizarre new policy where it orders travelers who have already passed security to “freeze” on command has been caught on camera, with the clip illustrating once more how the federal agency has implemented a series of ludicrous policies that seemingly have no other purpose than to act as an obedience test for the traveling public.

TSA Phoenix airport "freeze drill" scare tactic (22 September 2012)




The video shows the final 24 seconds of a 2 minute period during which travelers were ordered to “freeze” by TSA workers and were not allowed to move.

​
One TSA screener is heard to say, “stay right where you are,” at a man who is walking through the airport, as the other static travelers look on in bewilderment.

​
According to the You Tube user responsible for uploading the clip, “This video was shot within the “secure” area of the terminal, BEYOND the security gate.”

​
“Note that the TSA “guard” is offering no explanation, only giving harsh threats and orders to stay still. Note that there was NO event or threat taking place of any kind,” he adds.
Invalid Link Removed, the “freeze” policy, which has been experienced by numerous travelers across the country, is known as Code Bravo Sierra or simply Code Bravo by the TSA.

​
Invalid Link Removed how he was caught up in the policy on two separate occasions last year while traveling through airports in Atlanta and Los Angeles.

​
When Sharkey failed to obey a TSA screener who shouted “freeze,” he was assailed by another traveler who “growled” at him, “You’re supposed to freeze!” as other passengers complied with the bizarre demand. Sharkey later discovered that the TSA had no power to force travelers to comply with the command.

​
“Passengers are not required to ‘freeze’ in place like statues,” TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee admitted.

“It was clear to me that travelers believed they were required to stop and stand motionless — even those who had cleared security and were merely within shouting distance of the checkpoint. Officers seemed to reinforce that impression, too,” writes Sharkey.

As WeWontFly.com’s James Babb describes, this is nothing more than “obedience training.” The American people and travelers in general are being ‘broken in’ to accept their subservience in what represents the human equivalent of horse training.

“There is literally no other purpose to this “drill” than to reinforce the notion in travelers’ heads that this is a “security state”, and that you may be told to stop dead in your tracks by a TSA “voice of authority” at any time. Legally, TSA has NO RIGHT TO STOP YOU… but it’s hard to imagine that defending your rights by walking away would end well in a (phony) tense situation if there happens to be an armed police officer nearby,” concludes the You Tube user who uploaded the video.

​
This absurd policy has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security. Would a terrorist really be so dumb as to make himself stand out from the crowd by refusing to freeze and making himself look conspicuous?

​
It makes no sense whatsoever, until you realize that this is just another “layer” of pointless TSA security theater. It’s about reinforcing the notion that people are mandated to obey every order made by someone in uniform no matter how asinine.

​
The TSA has also provoked controversy by implementing other preposterous policies which have a tenuous security justification, most notably a new procedure where Invalid Link Removedafter they have already passed through security and purchased beverages inside the secure area of the airport.

​
Given that these bizarre policies are solely based around coercing obedience and have nothing to do with genuine security, we are encouraging Americans to show civil disobedience and reclaim their human dignity by opting out and filming TSA procedures during Thanksgiving week November 19-26. Invalid Link Removed for more details about the campaign or Invalid Link Removed for the Facebook page.

​
Remember, it is your right to opt out of radiation firing naked body scanners and the TSA’s website also admits that it is perfectly legal to film TSA procedures, whether that’s inside an airport, in a subway, at a political event, a music concert or wherever else TSA screeners have infested. The TSA also admits it has no power to force you to “freeze” as is depicted in the video above.​
 
Invalid Link Removed



Invalid Link Removed October 10, 2012 By Invalid Link Removed
Digital Trends


Invalid Link Removed

An in-depth look at automatic license plate readers, the modern law enforcement tool that has civil liberty advocates up in arms.
You’ve seen them strapped to the back of police cars, mounted on toll booths, and hanging anonymously on metal posts along the highway. They are automatic license plate readers (ALPRs or just LPRs), and they are quickly becoming a vital tool for fighting crime in the 21st century — one that critics say could potentially give law enforcement a map of all our travels. Let’s take a look at what LPRs are, what they do, and why they have privacy advocates worried.

What a LPR system is and how it works

Invalid Link Removed

Like something out of a dystopian cyberpunk novel, License plate readers are sophisticated cameras packed with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software that allows them to rapidly identify license plates, snap photos of the plates, then convert the numbers and letters in the image into text. Each time a plate number is “read” by an LPR, the numbers are uploaded into a database. These images are most often time-stamped, and include geolocation data, which allows users of the data to know where a particular vehicle was at a particular time.

License plate readers come in three types— but only two are widely used: fixed and mobile. Fixed LRPs, which are mounted to the tops of posts along highways, at city intersections, and at toll booths, gather the largest number of plate numbers, have a high degree of accuracy, and run nonstop. Mobile LPR systems are slapped to the trunks and hoods of police cars, and often include two to four cameras.

New LPR systems can capture a staggering number of license plate images — hundreds every minute — and fully process the license plates into machine-readable text at a rate of about one a second. These advanced LPRs often include infrared technology to capture license plates at night, and are able to accurately read the plates of vehicles traveling 150 mph or greater.

When used by law enforcement (as they usually are), LPR systems automatically compare license plate numbers against a so-called “hot list,” which are made up of multiple databases that include stolen vehicles, vehicles used in crimes, vehicles owned by citizens with outstanding warrants, vehicles with unpaid taxes or out-of-date registration, and you-name-it. Mobile LPR systems will intantly alert an officer anytime a license plate number that appears on a “hot list” is identified.

While 2012 figures about the use of LPRs in the U.S. are difficult to come by, a 2010 study found that roughly one-third of all police departments in the U.S. use LPRs. Invalid Link Removed, the Department of Homeland Security has dolled out more than $50 million to local and state law enforcement agencies, for the sole purpose of buying LPRs, over the past five years.

As of April of last year, New York City had a total of 238 LPRs in use throughout the five boroughs, Invalid Link Removed. That includes 130 mobile systems, and 108 fixed systems. Washington D.C. had more than 250 LPRs installed as of November 2011, which equals out to approximately one LPR per square mile, Invalid Link Removed. D.C.’s LPRs collectively capture roughly 1,800 images of license plates every minute.


Read more: Invalid Link Removed
 
TSA Agent arrested for raping boy

Posted: Oct 31, 2012 4:41 PM EDT Updated: Nov 01, 2012 6:30 AM EDT
Invalid Link Removed



CLEVELAND, OH (WOIO) -

We've learned a Invalid Link Removed has been arrested on a warrant for the rape of a northeast Ohio boy he had been mentoring as a big brother.

The man had been a volunteer with the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Greater Cleveland.

Cleveland Sex Crimes investigators built a case against him, and he was arrested at the airport in Newark, NJ.

He had gone to work for the TSA in Germany.

We're not naming the man until he gets brought back to Cleveland and charged.

Copyright 2012 Invalid Link Removed. All rights reserved.

Local News Video Clip: Invalid Link Removed
 
My (Ax1's) personal experience with TSA

Ax1
Anabolic Minds Member
11/17/2012

After over a year and a half of reporting and ranting about whats going on with TSA around the country, I finally had a chance to experience the situation myself...twice. I havent flown since the spring of 2009.

I took a transfer flight from a small international airport (which I wont name) to Detroit to and asian country which is where Im on vacation now.

I just want to say, I wasnt looking for trouble, and I wasnt looking to protest or make a statement of any kind. I just wanted to get to where I needed to get. I dont feel that causing any commotion to the TSA agents will solve anything, I view them as regular people who have a job (which I feel sorry for them) and each one of them should be judged individually.

1st TSA encounter....I went to the small airport security line, the line was very short and not busy. The first thing I noticed was that everybody was going through the naked body scanner, and there was only one line to it. I asked the first TSA agent politely if I can opt out for the pat down. He warned me that they will be all in my thighs and I said I accept. They pulled me to the side exit of the security line where I was greeted by another TSA agent wearing gloves (he didnt seem to have changed gloves or anything, considering they are in your private area that should be a medical concern).

He patted me down all over, went to my rear and said he is using the back of his hands. He rubbed all over my butt cheeks and it was quite a bit weird, nobody ever did that to me other than a masseuse. He went all inside my thighs from the rear almost all the way to the top.

He then went to the front where with the back of his hands he went so up my thigh he actually crushed my right testicle and it hurt. Id give pain factor a 6 out of 10, I didnt scream or anything but it was sore for more than 5 minutes until I was doing things and forgot about it.

Anyways that was it with that.

For the second TSA encounter, I had to transfer out of Detroit. I made the mistake of going for my luggage, I thought I was supposed to grab it and I ended up needing to get back to the security check line.

Again...there was only 1 naked body scanner line. I politely requested the pat down and the TSA agent politely threatened (shrugged his shoulders like, oh well good luck with that) my that I will be stuck waiting for an unknown amount of time due to a lack in TSA agents (actually they are workers, not agents).

Then he started preaching me about how there is no radiation, and that its backscatter and I really didnt want to get into it with him, I just nodded my head and said ok...really when I was watching him I just saw a regular guy doing what he was told to do so he can make a paycheck. My other side wanted to tell him I felt like they are controversial and radiation isnt the only cause of harm, and how scientists are questioning their safety...etc...I dont feel like that would have accomplished anything in this situation.

I just want to add that the last mentioned agent was nice and polite in general.

I was frustrated that I can be there for who knows long, and upset that a pat down wasnt readily available. I feel like they deceive the passengers to get them through the naked body scanner because they are being lazy, it really did look like they were very well equipped with workers and the line really wasnt bad, it was about a 10 minute wait on line.

So I went through the naked body scanner and carried on with my day.

Anyways...my final thoughts are that this system is pathetic, if a cop touched my in this way in a park he would get sued, and a cop is actually a fully trained and sworn officer unlike these McDonald's type workers who simply apply for a job, get some training and get on with their work. Its really demeaning that it is done this way imo, its not like my life is changed or anything Im a grown man, but Its as if we were living in Stalin's USSR or something. I will continue my work (outside of just the forum of course) getting information out and being an activist on the TSA scene.
 
ax1 said:
My (Ax1's) personal experience with TSA

Ax1
Anabolic Minds Member
11/17/2012

After over a year and a half of reporting and ranting about whats going on with TSA around the country, I finally had a chance to experience the situation myself...twice. I havent flown since the spring of 2009.

I took a transfer flight from a small international airport (which I wont name) to Detroit to and asian country which is where Im on vacation now.

I just want to say, I wasnt looking for trouble, and I wasnt looking to protest or make a statement of any kind. I just wanted to get to where I needed to get. I dont feel that causing any commotion to the TSA agents will solve anything, I view them as regular people who have a job (which I feel sorry for them) and each one of them should be judged individually.

1st TSA encounter....I went to the small airport security line, the line was very short and not busy. The first thing I noticed was that everybody was going through the naked body scanner, and there was only one line to it. I asked the first TSA agent politely if I can opt out for the pat down. He warned me that they will be all in my thighs and I said I accept. They pulled me to the side exit of the security line where I was greeted by another TSA agent wearing gloves (he didnt seem to have changed gloves or anything, considering they are in your private area that should be a medical concern).

He patted me down all over, went to my rear and said he is using the back of his hands. He rubbed all over my butt cheeks and it was quite a bit weird, nobody ever did that to me other than a masseuse. He went all inside my thighs from the rear almost all the way to the top.

He then went to the front where with the back of his hands he went so up my thigh he actually crushed my right testicle and it hurt. Id give pain factor a 6 out of 10, I didnt scream or anything but it was sore for more than 5 minutes until I was doing things and forgot about it.

Anyways that was it with that.

For the second TSA encounter, I had to transfer out of Detroit. I made the mistake of going for my luggage, I thought I was supposed to grab it and I ended up needing to get back to the security check line.

Again...there was only 1 naked body scanner line. I politely requested the pat down and the TSA agent politely threatened (shrugged his shoulders like, oh well good luck with that) my that I will be stuck waiting for an unknown amount of time due to a lack in TSA agents (actually they are workers, not agents).

Then he started preaching me about how there is no radiation, and that its backscatter and I really didnt want to get into it with him, I just nodded my head and said ok...really when I was watching him I just saw a regular guy doing what he was told to do so he can make a paycheck. My other side wanted to tell him I felt like they are controversial and radiation isnt the only cause of harm, and how scientists are questioning their safety...etc...I dont feel like that would have accomplished anything in this situation.

I just want to add that the last mentioned agent was nice and polite in general.

I was frustrated that I can be there for who knows long, and upset that a pat down wasnt readily available. I feel like they deceive the passengers to get them through the naked body scanner because they are being lazy, it really did look like they were very well equipped with workers and the line really wasnt bad, it was about a 10 minute wait on line.

So I went through the naked body scanner and carried on with my day.

Anyways...my final thoughts are that this system is pathetic, if a cop touched my in this way in a park he would get sued, and a cop is actually a fully trained and sworn officer unlike these McDonald's type workers who simply apply for a job, get some training and get on with their work. Its really demeaning that it is done this way imo, its not like my life is changed or anything Im a grown man, but Its as if we were living in Stalin's USSR or something. I will continue my work (outside of just the forum of course) getting information out and being an activist on the TSA scene.
Click to expand...

Personal Experience Part II

Return Trip from Red Communist China

1. Dropped off carry on on regular scanner

2. Went through basic metal detector

3. Was patted down with hand held device, probably a metal detector with advanced featured, dunno

4. Had my bags opened at final boarding in the hallway. It seemed like an unusual even and I was pissed they took my water even though I purchased after initial security screening but whatever.

5. It was a good experience in Red Communist China, nothing demeaning, just regular security that I would accept and encourage for flying.

Transfer Flight in Detroit

1. I was a bit surprised I had to go though screening again just to tranfer

2. I was so tired I decided to go through the naked body scanner I didnt want to deal with bull**** from TSA again

3. I noticed the sign that said pregnant women should opt out which is an alarming sign

4. I was so tired I forgot to empty my back pockets. They forced my to go through a patdown after getting zapped with the naked body scanner

5. I basically felt molested again as they went all over my butt and yet again, they touched my testicle from between my thighs. At least I did not experience pain as I did the first pat down I experienced.

In conclusion, and I hate to say this...Red Communist China respects human values more than America does.
 
Invalid Link Removed



Invalid Link Removed December 10, 2012 By Invalid Link Removed
Digital Trends



Invalid Link Removed

Definitely an interesting, if not controversial, invention for the field of law enforcement, a new set of handcuffs delivers electric shocks like a taser.

Covered in detail on Invalid Link Removed recently, a patent application for an advanced set of handcuffs was published by the U.S. Patent & Trademark office during late November 2012. Filed by a group called Scottsdale Inventions during late 2010, technology that could potentially go into the handcuff design includes an accelerometer, a location sensing device, a microphone; a camera and a biometric sensor to measure a detainee’s physical state. However, the group has also designed the handcuffs to house electrodes that would deliver an electric shock to a detainee.
Invalid Link Removed

Regarding data, the handcuffs would keep track of the date and time of each shock, the severity of each shock, the volume of shocks, the specific person that delivered the shock and the recorded reason for each instance.
The handcuffs have been designed to deliver a shock between between 20,000 and 150,000 volts and between 0.5 and 6 milliamps. The duration of the shock can last from 0.5 and 10 seconds. In addition, the shock can be delivered in a constant jolt or at an intermittent frequency.

In addition to the electrodes, the patent details a “substance delivery system” that’s designed to administer anything from medication to irritants. Delivery systems include a “moveable needle” for liquids or a “gas injection system” to deliver a paralytic or sedative. Similar to the data collected regarding incidents of electric shocks, it’s likely that the device will record instances where substances are delivered to detainees.

The handcuffs do include a warning system that would alert the detainee that the delivery of a shock or substance is imminent unless behavior was corrected. The patent outlines a red LED warning light on the device that would turn on in addition to a small speaker that would emit a loud tone before the device is activated.

Invalid Link Removed

The patent also details the possibility of using location data to keep the detainee in a specific area or away from another detainee.
Similar to the technology used within a shock collar fence for pets, the detainee would be issued a shock if they stepped inside a specific area. The handcuffs could also keep two unruly detainees away from each other by programming the handcuffs to activate based off the proximity between the two devices.

In another example, the patent details the use of RFID technology to make sure a detainee doesn’t interact with objects that are off limits. For instance, a RFID tag could be attached to a police officer’s weapon. If a detainee attempts to get their hands on the officer’s weapon, the handcuffs would deliver a shock immediately. That technology could also be applied to off-limit areas around a police station as well as the driver’s seat of a police officer’s car.

RFID technology is also mentioned when it comes to the security of the controller that activates shock or substance delivery. For instance, the controller could be programmed to be completely non-functional unless the device was in the proximity of a RFID tag on the badge of the police officer that assigned to the handcuffs. In addition, the controller could include a safety toggle switch to make sure the electrodes in the handcuffs couldn’t be activated manually on accident.

At this time, the Scottsdale Inventions group hasn’t announced any plans to manufacture the handcuffs. According to the Invalid Link Removed, they hope to license the technology to a manufacturer that already works with law enforcement agencies.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Senate votes to let the NSA keep spying on you without a warrant until 2017

By Invalid Link Removed on December 28, 2012
TheVerge.com

Invalid Link Removed

The US Senate has voted to approve the FAA Sunsets Extension Act of 2012, which will authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans for counter-terrorism purposes for another five years. The bill extends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008, which granted retroactive immunity for wiretaps and email monitoring under the Bush Administration and created a framework for future warrant-free surveillance as long as one party is located outside the US and terrorism is suspected.

Whistleblowers like former Invalid Link Removed have long since revealed that surveillance programs catch hundreds of thousands of American citizens in their dragnet. But attempts to criticize the law have been blocked by the fact that no one — including the Senate's intelligence committee — is allowed to know much of anything about how it actually works. That means this vote represented the last chance for Congress to enact meaningful review of surveillance activities for the next five years.

The final Senatorial vote was 73 in favor and 23 against. The bill already Invalid Link Removed in September, with 301 voting for and 118 against. Now, it will proceed to the desk of President Obama, who said earlier this year that his administration "strongly" supported the House bill and its ability to "ensure the continued availability of this critical intelligence capability." That means it's on track to be extended just before the original law expires on December 31st.

Amendments to require more disclosure or shorten the duration were shot down

Before the vote, the Invalid Link Removed a series of four amendments that would grant additional protections to citizens or make a certain level of transparency mandatory. Those included Senator Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) attempt to make the NSA estimate how many Americans it was watching, an amendment from Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to release court opinions on the Act, Rand Paul's (R-Ken.) proposal to spell out Fourth Amendment protections as applying to electronic communications, and the Leahy Sunset Amendment, which would have set the Act to expire in three years instead of five and require an independent review.

But all of these amendments were shot down on the Senate floor. Even Sen. Wyden's modest proposal asking intelligence agencies to reveal whether or not there has even been an estimate of how many Americans have had their communications intercepted was rejected in a 42-53 vote. During the proceedings, Wyden said that "without this information which is necessary to do our work, oversight is not robust, it's toothless."

The wrinkle in the FISA Amendments Act reauthorization is an ongoing lawsuit over whether warrantless wiretapping is constitutional. The EFF, ACLU, and other organizations are fighting to get the US Supreme Court to consider the issue — most recently, the Court Invalid Link Removed about whether or not a future case could be brought. The NSA, meanwhile, has argued against the suit and Invalid Link Removed about the scope of its program. For now, wiretapping provisions are well on track to be extended until 2017, with no challenges in the near future.

Josh Kopstein and TC Sottek contributed to this report.

Invalid Link Removed
 
President Obama signs off on bill that extends warrantless wiretapping until 2017

By Invalid Link Removed on December 31, 2012

Invalid Link Removed

​

President Obama signed an extension to the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 last night, a move that officially will Invalid Link Removed of Americans for counter-terrorism purposes until 2017. The president has long been expected to sign the bill — he said Invalid Link Removed that that his administration "strongly" supported the House bill and its ability to "ensure the continued availability of this critical intelligence capability." This comes after a Senate vote this past Thursday that saw Invalid Link Removed strongly back the extension — it passed by a vote of 73 to 23.

A number of proposed amendements that would have required greater government transparency and a quicker expiration of the program were shot down; it appears these wiretapping provisions will now be in place for the foreseeable future. While the bill does not allow the government to specifically target any individual American citizen, the longstanding problem of innocent individuals' communications being swept up and reviewed without a warrant continues to be a concern.

Invalid Link Removed
 
The TSA Is Not Eliminating X-Ray Body Scanners

Federal agency signed $245 million dollar contract with separate company that specializes in back-scatter machines

Paul Joseph Watson
January 23, 2013

Contrary to reports last week that the TSA is eliminating its expensive fleet of x-ray body scanners from airports, the federal agency signed a contract months ago with a separate company to provide the very same machines.

​
Invalid Link Removed
When Rapiscan, the company responsible for providing the TSA with the x-ray scanners, failed to adhere to a congressional demand to install software which disguised images of travelers’ naked bodies, Invalid Link Removed that the TSA was abandoning x-ray body scanners in airports altogether.

​
However, the TSA merely announced that it had ended its $5 million dollar contract with Rapiscan, not that the x-ray devices would be gone for good. In addition, the Rapiscan machines will merely be relocated to other government agencies.​
What press reports failed to mention was the fact that Invalid Link Removed with American Science and Engineering, Inc. back on October 9, 2012.

​
The press release concerning the contract outlines how AS&E will provide the TSA with “SmartCheck® Advanced Imaging Technology.” Invalid Link Removed that the technology is primarily used in “backscatter” x-ray body scanners for airports that emit “ionizing radiation.”

​
Invalid Link Removed also shows AS&E Vice President Joseph Reiss talking about how the company has perfected “back-scatter imaging” using x-rays and is also providing the Department of Homeland Security with backscatter vans that can roam highways and conduct drive-by scans, which was Invalid Link Removed in 2010.

​
The only difference between Rapiscan’s body scanners and those developed by American Science and Engineering, Inc. is that the latter company was able to develop “privacy friendly” software to comply with congressional demands. The scanners they will provide to the TSA are the same x-ray backscatter version that have been linked with cancer by numerous prestigious health bodies.

​
Although AS&E claims x-ray scanning technology is safe, Invalid Link Removed that the radiation-firing body scanners can cause cancer, including the Johns Hopkins school of medicine, Columbia University’s center for radiological research, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, and the University of California.

​
The TSA will also continue to use ‘millimeter wave’ scanners that pose a threat to health because they emit terahertz photons which can “unzip DNA,” “creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication,” Invalid Link Removed the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

​
The mainstream media has got it wrong once again – far from abandoning dangerous x-ray scanners, the TSA has signed a contract worth almost 50 times its previous deal with a company whose primary function is providing x-ray scanners for airport security.​
 
NYPD's new radiation scanners can identify concealed weapons from afar

Controversial technology is currently being tested, and could hit street corners in the near future



By Invalid Link Removed on January 24, 2013
TheVerge.com

Invalid Link Removed

4
inShare​

The New York Police Department this week unveiled new radiation scanners capable of identifying concealed weapons from a distance. As the Invalid Link Removed, the scanners are small enough to be installed in police vans or on notoriously violent street corners, thereby allowing police to identify carriers of illegal guns without going through the traditional pat-down procedure.

Developed in conjunction with the London Metropolitan Police, the devices are designed to pick up on the terahertz radiation naturally emitted by both humans and inanimate objects. Anything blocking that radiation — including a gun — will be prominently highlighted, as evidenced by the NYPD's demonstration, embedded below.
"We're talking to our legal staff about this."

Wednesday's announcement comes amid heightened debate over gun control, both on the national and state level. Earlier this month, the New York state legislature Invalid Link Removed that make it more difficult for people to purchase high capacity gun magazines. The laws also call for tighter, real-time background checks that will allow authorities to quickly identify high-volume buyers.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly says the NYPD has already begun testing its new scanners, which were first announced last year, and that it hopes to deploy them in the near future. Civil rights groups have raised concerns over the legality of so-called "virtual pat-downs," though Raymond insists that the NYPD will take every precaution to use them responsibly.

"We still have a number of trials to run before we can determine how best to deploy this technology," Kelly said. "We’re also talking to our legal staff about this. But we’re very pleased with the progress we’ve made over the past year."

Invalid Link Removed

  • Via Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
 
Mini Drones: Army Deploys Tiny Helicopters

A tiny 4ins remote-control helicopter is being used for surveillance on the front line to detect enemy threats to British troops.


Sky.com
2:41pm UK, Monday 04 February 2013


Invalid Link Removed T
he mini drones can see over walls and around corners


British troops are using a nano drone just 10cm long and weighing 16 grams on the front line in Afghanistan to provide vital information on the ground.

They are the first to use the state-of-the-art handheld tiny surveillance helicopters, which relay reliable full motion video and still images back to the devices' handlers in the battlefield.

The Black Hornet Nano Unmanned Air Vehicle is the size of a child's toy, measuring just 10cm (4 ins) by 2.5cm (1 inch), and is equipped with a tiny camera.

Invalid Link Removed
The 16g helicopters are used to assess enemy threat

Soldiers use the mini drone to peer around corners or over walls to identify any hidden threats and the images are relayed to a small screen on a handheld terminal.

Sergeant Christopher Petherbridge, of the Brigade Reconnaissance Force in Afghanistan, said: "Black Hornet is definitely adding value, especially considering the light weight nature of it.

"We used it to look for insurgent firing points and check out exposed areas of the ground before crossing, which is a real asset. It is very easy to operate and offers amazing capability to the guys on the ground."

The nano helicopter has been developed by Prox Dynamics AS of Norway as part of a £20m contract for 160 units with Marlborough Communications Ltd (MCL), Surrey.

Invalid Link Removed
The tiny drones send video and still images back to a handheld screen

Philip Dunne, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, said: "Black Hornet gives our troops the benefits of surveillance in the palm of their hands. It is extremely light and portable whilst out on patrol.

"Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems are a key component in our 10-year equipment plan and now that we have balanced the defence budget we are able to confidently invest in these kinds of cutting-edge technologies."

Soldiers use the mini drone to peer around corners or over walls to identify any hidden threats and the images are relayed to a small screen on a handheld terminal.
 
Homeland Security concludes laptop searches at borders don't violate civil rights

By Invalid Link Removed on February 8, 2013 0The Verge



Invalid Link Removed


Years after the Department of Homeland Security said it would consider the civil liberty implications of searching electronic devices of people crossing country lines, it's published a report — and determined that few changes are needed. Released on January 29th, a Invalid Link Removed (PDF) from the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concludes that electronic devices like computers can be searched even without "reasonable suspicion," a lower barrier than faced elsewhere in the country. While people can refuse to give up passwords to the DHS or take other action, they may be detained or have their devices confiscated for doing so.


The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and longstanding, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits."


​
The committee did conclude that while it wasn't required, having more information about why searches were performed would be beneficial, saying this had already been implemented. Overall, the decision isn't terribly unexpected. Suspicionless border searches of electronic devices were Invalid Link Removed, and they've continued more or less unabated since then.

"The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and longstanding."

Critics have argued that devices that can hold as much personal information as laptops or phones shouldn't be treated the same as physical objects, and Invalid Link Removed, with citizens alleging that they've been singled out because of their political actions or beliefs — something the DHS denies has happened. Though challenges are likely to continue, Homeland Security has signaled clearly that it doesn't expect anything to change in the future.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Man Sues TSA For $5 Million Following Peanut Butter Arrest

24 hours in a cell for joking about sandwich spread

Steve Watson
Feb 11, 2013

Invalid Link Removed

An Arizona man who was arrested at the behest of the TSA, following a wisecrack over a jar of peanut butter is suing the federal agency for $5 million.

Frank Hannibal, 50, was detained and dragged from LaGuardia Airport recently by police after a run-in with TSA agents over the jar of gourmet sandwich spread.

“The liquid oil that separated from the peanut butter had them baffled,” Hannibal told the Invalid Link Removed.

Hannibal then commented to his wife and children that “They’re looking to confiscate my explosives,” as TSA agents inspected the 16-ounce jar of “Crazy Richards” chunky peanut butter.

TSA screener Edwin Sanchez, overheard Hannibal’s remark, did not see the funny side, and immediately called the cops, according to the court complaint.

Hannibal spent the next 24 hours in a cell, during which time he was fed a peanut butter sandwich by cops who later charged him with the felony of “falsely reporting an incident”.

“It sounds laughable now but at the time to be led out of there like a terrorist was unbelievable,” Hannibal tells the Daily News. “My whole life was up in the air. It was a nightmare. My children were overwhelmed. It was crazy.”

Hannibal has brought a $5-million-dollar lawsuit against the TSA worker and the Port Authority officer who arrested him, all over a $7 confectionary which was returned to him upon his release from jail.

“It’s a sorry state of affairs in this country when sarcasm is considered a felony,” his attorney, Alan D. Levine of Queens, noted, adding that TSA agents need to act with common sense in such situations.

This is not an isolated incident. The TSA has a history of concentrating on looking out for Invalid Link Removed, as well as sauces, oils and vinegars.

The Homeland Security agency has also instituted a Invalid Link Removed.

At the same time, people are routinely waltzing through security lines with Invalid Link Removed Many agents are too busy groping women and searching old people’s diapers to Invalid Link Removed

Still, it’s good to know that the government is keeping Americans safe from sandwich wielding jokers.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
 
TSA Naked X-Ray Scanners To Be Used In Office Buildings

TSA employees won’t be the only ones worrying about “cancer clusters”

Steve Watson
Feb 12, 2013

Invalid Link Removed

Government employees are set to be bombarded with radiation on a daily basis if a plan to move x-ray firing TSA body scanners into office buildings goes ahead.

When the TSA announced last month that it was ending its contract with Rapiscan, makers of the controversial backscatter x-ray body scanners, the mainstream media uniformly announced that the federal agency was “removing” the scanners from use altogether.

However, it was blatantly clear that this would never be the case. The TSA is already under Invalid Link Removed from Congress over the mothballing of £14 million worth of body scanners. All in all, the 250 backscatter scanners the agency now has are worth a combined total of $40 million.

The real reason the machines are starting to be removed from airports is because of allegations that Rapiscan Invalid Link Removed, and the company was never able to develop the “stick man” software that masks naked images produced by the scanners.
While this is a problem in airports where the machines are used on the general public, it is not so much a problem in government offices manned by federal employees.

Invalid Link Removed that the TSA is attempting to sell off the scanners to other government agencies.

“We are working with other government agencies to find homes for them,” TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. “There is an interest clearly by DoD and the State Department to use them — and other agencies as well.”

“Hopefully we will be able to deploy them within other government agencies,” he said.

Rep. Bennie Thompson has objected to the plan, noting that if the machines cannot be upgraded to prevent “photographing of nude images,” then they should not be used in federal facilities at all.

“The American public must be assured that these machines will not be used in any other public federal facility,” Thompson said.

If the machines are moved to government offices, it could have a knock on effect and spur other offices and buildings, even privately owned ones, to install such devices.

In addition, this does not spell the end for backscatter scanners at airports. Indeed, the TSA already secured a contract months ago, worth almost 50 times its previous deal, for a separate company to provide the very same machines. Invalid Link Removed with American Science and Engineering, Inc. back on October 9, 2012.

The press release concerning the contract outlines how AS&E will provide the TSA with “SmartCheck® Advanced Imaging Technology.” Invalid Link Removed that the technology is primarily used in “backscatter” x-ray body scanners for airports that emit “ionizing radiation.”

Invalid Link Removed also shows AS&E Vice President Joseph Reiss talking about how the company has perfected “back-scatter imaging” using x-rays and is also providing the Department of Homeland Security with backscatter vans that can roam highways and conduct drive-by scans, which was Invalid Link Removed in 2010.

As we have exhaustively documented, numerous prestigious health bodies have indicated that the backscatter x-ray devices will statistically cause an increase in cancer, including Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, the Invalid Link Removed, and the Invalid Link Removed. To put that in perspective, the probability of dying in a terrorist attack is the same as the probability of getting cancer when passing through the x-ray scanner just one time.

Johns Hopkins’ biophysics expert Dr Michael Love warned that, “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” after conducting a study of the naked body scanners.

Scrutiny over radiation exposure was heightened recently following Invalid Link Removed a “cluster” of cancer cases amongst scanner operators at Boston-Logan airport. According to FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), when Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.

The documents indicated how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.” If the federal government shares out the scanners among agencies, TSA workers won’t be the only ones.

In addition, further Invalid Link Removed show how the TSA “publicly mischaracterized” findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in stating that the agency had positively confirmed the safety of full body scanners in tests.

It has also been proven that the scanner Invalid Link Removed, rendering the entire fleet of machines virtually useless.

A recently discovered Invalid Link Removedalso noted that federal investigators have “identified vulnerabilities in the screening process” involving the scanners.

Invalid Link Removed other Invalid Link Removed have Invalid Link Removed saying that the scanners are ineffective.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
 
Drones are taking to the skies in the U.S.

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance aircraft for law enforcement and other uses, amid growing privacy concerns.

Invalid Link Removed
NASA's Ikhana unmanned aircraft heads out to aid in fighting a wildfire at Lake Arrowhead. Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are making increasing use of such craft. (Jim Ross, NASA / April 23, 2009)

By Brian Bennett and Joel Rubin,
Los Angeles Times February 15, 2013, 5:20 p.m.

WASHINGTON — While a national debate has erupted over the Invalid Link Removed administration's lethal drone strikes overseas, federal authorities have stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other uses in U.S. airspace, spurring growing concern about violations of privacy.

The Invalid Link Removed said Friday it had issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were previously known. Some 327 permits are still listed as active.

Operators include police, universities, state transportation departments and at least seven federal agencies. The remotely controlled aircraft vary widely, from devices as small as model airplanes to large unarmed Predators.

The FAA, which has a September 2015 deadline from Invalid Link Removed to open the nation's airspace to drone traffic, has estimated 10,000 drones could be aloft five years later. The FAA this week solicited proposals to create six sites across the country to test drones, a crucial step before widespread government and commercial use is approved.

Local and state law enforcement agencies are expected to be among the largest customers.

Earlier this month, TV footage showed a midsized drone circling over the bunker in southeast Alabama where a 65-year-old gunman held a 5-year-old boy hostage. After a tense standoff, an Invalid Link Removed team stormed the bunker, rescued the boy and shot his captor. Authorities refused to say who was operating the AeroVironment drone, which has a 9-foot wingspan.

In Colorado, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office has used a fixed-wing drone to search for lost hikers in the mountains, and a helicopter drone to help crews battling fires. Flying manned planes or helicopters would cost at least $600 an hour, explained Ben Miller, who heads the program.

"We fly [drones] for less than $25 an hour," Miller said. "It's just a new way to put a camera up that's affordable."

Big-city police departments, including Los Angeles, have tested drones but are holding back on buying them until the FAA issues clear guidelines about operating in congested airspace, among other issues.

"You've got to take baby steps with this," said Michael Downing, the LAPD deputy chief for counter-terrorism and special operations.
Los Angeles Police Department officials went to Simi Valley in December, he said, to watch a demonstration of a helicopter-like device that measured about 18 inches on each side and was powered by four propellers. It could fly about 90 minutes on its battery.

Downing said the LAPD was "pursuing the idea of purchasing" drones, but wouldn't do so unless the FAA granted permission to fly them, and until the department could draw up policies on how to keep within privacy laws.

If the LAPD bought drones, Downing said, it initially would use them at major public events such as the Oscars or large protests. In time, drones could be flown to track fleeing suspects and assist in investigations. Tiny drones could even be used to fly inside buildings to shoot video if a suspect has barricaded himself within.

In theory, drones can offer unblinking eye-in-the-sky coverage. They can carry high-resolution video cameras, infrared sensors, license plate readers, listening devices and other high-tech gear. Companies have marketed drones disguised as sea gulls and other birds to mask their use.

That's the problem, according to civil liberties groups. The technology is evolving faster than the law. Congress and courts haven't determined whether drone surveillance would violate privacy laws more than manned planes or helicopters, or whether drone operators may be held liable for criminal trespassing, stalking or harassment.

"Americans have the right to know if and how the government is using drones to spy on them," said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the Invalid Link Removed, which has called for updating laws to protect privacy.
A backlash has already started.

In Congress, Reps. Invalid Link Removed (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) introduced privacy legislation Thursday that would require police to get a warrant or a court order before operating a drone to collect information on individuals.

"We need to protect against obtrusive search and surveillance by government and civilian use," Poe said in a telephone interview. A similar bill failed last year.

Legislatures in 15 states are considering proposals to limit drone use. The City Council in Invalid Link Removed, Va., passed a resolution on Feb. 4 barring local police from using drones — which they don't yet have — to collect evidence in criminal cases.

Copyright © 2013, Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Invalid Link Removed

UAV reported within 3 miles of LaGuardia Airport

Paul Joseph Watson
March 11, 2013


Invalid Link RemovedNew York City. Image: Wikimedia Commons



For the second time within a week, police are investigating reports of an unmanned drone spotted flying over New York within three miles of LaGuardia Airport.

​
Invalid Link Removed, police scanner audio revealed that the NYPD was called to look into an “unusual incident” concerning reports of a “drone flying” near exit 23 of the Long Island Expressway (LIE).

​
According to Robbins, the NYPD later reported a “negative result” after investigating the incident, although it is unclear whether this means they couldn’t identify the drone or had discounted the report altogether.

​
Last Monday, the crew of Alitalia Flight 608 Invalid Link Removed just 200 feet away from their aircraft as it approached John F. Kennedy airport. The drone was initially reported as having four engines, but the FBI later described the object as having four propellers and being only three feet wide.

​
The incident, which occurred at 1,750 feet and roughly three miles from runway 31R , prompted the FBI to ask the public for information on identifying the owner of the drone.

​
By law, remote controlled planes and drones can only fly to a maximum of 400 feet and operators must notify air traffic control if they are going to fly within three miles of an airport.

​
In May last year a military or police drone flying in controlled airspace over Denver Invalid Link Removed with a Cessna jet.

​
Last year, Congress passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA predicts will be around 30,000 operating in US skies by 2020.

​
Within months, the Invalid Link Removedto “bombard the American public with positive images and messages about drones in an effort to reverse the growing perception of the aircraft as a threat to privacy and safety.”

​
As we Invalid Link Removed, thousands of pages of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documents newly released under the Freedom Of Information Act have revealed that the military, as well as law enforcement agencies, are already extensively flying surveillance drones in non-restricted skies throughout the country.

​
Invalid Link Removed obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting last August revealed that the FAA gave the green light for surveillance drones to be used in U.S. skies despite the fact that during the FAA’s own tests the drones crashed numerous times even in areas of airspace where no other aircraft were flying.

​
Invalid Link Removedthat the FAA has not acted to establish any safeguards whatsoever, and that Congress is not holding the agency to account.
​
 
The fun is really going full steam ahead now guys...the entire country is changing into a complete and total police state ses pool.

Been reporting on these drones for years now, been called a conspiracy theorist for it and now the politicians finally cracked and say fuq off and "get used to it."

'We're going to have more visibility and less privacy': Mayor Bloomberg admits soon NYPD surveillance cameras will be on nearly every corner and in the air

'You wait, in five years, the technology is getting better, they’ll be cameras everyplace . . . whether you like it or not,' Bloomberg said Friday. 'The argument against using automation is just this craziness that 'Oh, it’s Big Brother.' Get used to it!'

By Invalid Link Removed / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Friday, March 22, 2013, 12:49 PM



Invalid Link Removed

Marcus Santos/for the New York Daily News

Police surveillance camera at 59th St. and Fifth Ave. Mayor Bloomberg said he envisions a day when it will be nearly impossible for New Yorkers to escape the eye of Big Brother in the Big Apple.

Big Brother is watching. Now get used to it!

Envisioning a future where privacy is a thing of the past, Invalid Link Removed said Friday it will soon be impossible to escape the watchful eyes of surveillance cameras and even drones in the city.


He acknowledged privacy concerns, but said “you can’t keep the tides from coming in.”

“You wait, in five years, the technology is getting better, they’ll be cameras everyplace . . . whether you like it or not,” Bloomberg said.
The security measures have drawn scorn from some civil libertarians — but Bloomberg scoffed at privacy concerns on his Friday morning program on WOR-AM.

“The argument against using automation is just this craziness that 'Oh, it’s Big Brother,’” Bloomberg said. “Get used to it!”

The New York Civil Liberties Union has documented nearly 2,400 surveillance cameras fixed on public spaces in Manhattan alone. Many are operated by the police, others by poroperty owners.

In Lower Manhattan, an initiative developed after 9/11 known as the “Ring of Steel” integrates the NYPD’s cameras with those of banks and other institutions.

But in the future, the cameras won't just be planted on buildings and utility poles. Some of them will be able to fly, the mayor pointed out.

“It’s scary,” Bloomberg said. “But what’s the difference whether the drone is up in the air or on the building? I mean intellectually I have trouble making a distinction. And you know you're gonna have face recognition software. People are working on that.”

Bloomberg warned that drones would be able to peep into private residences - but that Peeping Tom legislation could help maintain some privacy.

“It's just we’re going into a different world, unchartered,” he said.

“We're going to have more visibility and less privacy. I don't see how you stop that. And it's not a question of whether I think it's good or bad. I just don't see how you could stop that because we're going to have them.”

Read more: Invalid Link Removed
 
BATTLEFIELD USA: De Facto State of Martial Law Declared In Boston *Pics From the War Zone*

Mac Slavo
Invalid Link Removed
April 20, 2013

This is what America looks like under martial law:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
This article was posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 at 6:57 am
 
rugger48 said:
Ya right, so if someone actually got hurt by these same troops people would be bitching that they didn't take precautions like in LA.
Click to expand...

This was a little confusing, Im not getting it...what about LA?
 
The epitomy of martial law.

Video: SWAT police gunpoint raids in Boston Were Conducted “House After House”

Media says SWAT teams “rescued” families by ripping them out of their homes at gunpoint

Steve Watson
April 25, 2013

Further footage has emerged from last week in Watertown where armies of SWAT police went door to door ripping families out of their homes in the manhunt that ensued following the Boston bombings.

On Monday we postedInvalid Link Removed featuring footage of one raid on a house in Watertown, Massachusetts, where police can be seen screaming at a family to get out of their home and run down the street with their hands above their heads, all the time with automatic weapons trained on them.

We received hundreds of eyewitness photographs and accounts of this taking place, with militarized police pointing guns and treating citizens like terrorist criminals. While armies of police in armored vehicles roamed around the suburban streets, public transportation was shut down, businesses were forced to close, and a no-fly zone was enacted over the entire city of Boston in an unprecedented show of force.

We said that this was the epitomy of martial law.

Detractors simply could not accept that this could happen in America, and immediately claimed that we were overstating and exaggerating the situation and that what was witnessed in the video footage was an isolated incident.

This latest footage puts those erroneous claims to rest as it reveals that police instigated this course of action as a matter of routine for every home they searched in the twenty block zone around Watertown.



As the local 7News reporter states, and eyewitnesses testify, the pattern was repeated “house after house”, as SWAT police entered the homes of hundreds of residences, sometimes forcibly, without warrants or regard for the Fourth Amendment.

Note how the reporter states that the SWAT teams were “rescuing” residents who had been ordered to stay in their homes in a complete lockdown.

The new term for warrantless armed SWAT police raids on your property is “rescuing”.

As this video from RT reveals, police were actively trying to prevent the media from covering the raids by constantly telling them to move away:




A selection of photographs:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed


—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
 
Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston


Ron Paul
Texas Straight Talk
April 29, 2013


Invalid Link Removed

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door Invalid Link Removed without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney Invalid Link Removed last week:


“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”


​
Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that Invalid Link Removed persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

[h=1]Innocent Watertown family ripped from their home at gunpoint; Police storm the property [/h]
 
Video: Students Submit to ‘Obama Security Force’ Bag Searches

Activist Mark Dice illustrates absurdity of Americans eager to relinquish 4th amendment rights

Paul Joseph Watson
May 7, 2013

Activist Mark Dice illustrated the absurd ease with which some Americans are willing to relinquish their 4th amendment rights by performing mock ‘Obama National Civilian Security Force’ bag searches on students at San Diego State University.



Despite the fact that Dice is not even wearing a uniform of any kind, several of the individuals shown in the clip willingly consent to have their bag searched by a random stranger simply as a result of Dice mentioning the words “Boston bombings”.

​
The clip shows Dice rifling through people’s bags in order to make sure, “nobody is carrying any harmful or potentially hazardous materials,” while proclaiming himself to be part of the “Obama citizen security volunteer force.”

​
When one woman refuses to partake and asks Dice, “Are you serious?” he responds, “No we’re just showing what suckers people are and how they’ll obey and willingly let their 4th amendment be violated.”

​
“The 4th amendment is so last year,” remarks Dice as he subjects another student to a bag search.

​
Dice then tells another student he needs to perform a “real quick violation of your 4th amendment rights” before adding, “anybody carrying a black backpack, dark skin like yours is a potential terrorist these days.”

​
After one of the students makes a complaint, Dice and his cameraman are confronted by police who tell them to leave campus. However, a clip at the end of the video shows Dice being put in handcuffs after he tried to pull the same stunt on the streets of San Diego.

​
The video brings to mind the Invalid Link Removed, a series of social psychology tests conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram based around the willingness of people to submit to authority figures even in direct conflict with their conscience.

​
The majority of participants agreed to deliver the experiment’s final 450-volt shock to victims when ordered to do so despite them being under the false belief that doing so could easily result in the person’s death, illustrating how obedience to authority no matter how illogical is ingrained within the human psyche.

​
Dice’s previous videos made headlines after he was successful in getting numerous people to sign a petition to repeal both the Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed Amendments and throw gun owners in prison.​
 
Boston’s Top Cop Warns Against “Police State”


“I do not endorse surveillance cameras attached to every light pole in the city”

Paul Joseph Watson
May 9, 2013

Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis warned against creating a “police state” in the aftermath of the marathon bombings during testimony in front of a congressional hearing today.

​
Invalid Link Removed
Edward Davis. Image: YouTube

“We do not, and cannot, live in a protective enclosure because of the actions of extremists who seek to disrupt our way of life,” Invalid Link Removed, adding “I do not endorse actions that move Boston and our nation into a police state mentality, with surveillance cameras attached to every light pole in the city.”

​
The hearing is designed to examine circumstances leading up to the bombings and find ways of decreasing the likelihood of similar attacks in future.

​
Despite Davis’ call for the public’s privacy to be protected, he did call for more surveillance cameras as well as more undercover officers to increase security around big events.

​
In the aftermath of the Boston bombings, numerous political figures and talking heads seized upon the attacks to call for big brother measures.

​
Both Republican Congressman Peter King and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg cited the attack to justify increased surveillance.

​
“So, I do think we need more cameras. We have to stay ahead of the terrorists and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that,” said King. “So yes, I do favor more cameras. They’re a great law enforcement method and device. And again, it keeps us ahead of the terrorists, who are constantly trying to kill us.”

​
In reality, as Invalid Link Removed, the chance of an American being killed in a terrorist attack is virtually zero when compared to the most likely causes of death.

​
Bloomberg echoed King, stating, “The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we’ve made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved.”

​
However, figures from all over the world show that surveillance cameras are virtually useless in lowering crime, so to think they could prevent terrorist attacks is asinine. A British Home Office Invalid Link Removed from Britain and the US that found CCTV “had little or no effect on crime in public transport and city centre settings.”

​
In addition, as Invalid Link Removed, “According to the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen’s University in Ontario, urban surveillance systems have not been proven to have any effect on deterring criminals.”

​
Davis’ call for American cities not to turn into police states as a result of the Boston bombings will ring hollow for families who were subjected toInvalid Link Removed during the manhunt for the alleged suspects.
​
 
Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform


  • By Invalid Link Removed
  • 05.10.13
  • wired.com

Invalid Link Removed
Illustration: National Institutes of Health

The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system.

Buried in the more than Invalid Link Removed (.pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.

Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo.

This piece of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is aimed at curbing employment of undocumented immigrants. But privacy advocates fear the inevitable mission creep, ending with the proof of self being required at polling places, to rent a house, buy a gun, open a bank account, acquire credit, board a plane or even attend a sporting event or log on the internet. Think of it as a government version of Foursquare, with Big Brother cataloging every check-in.

“It starts to change the relationship between the citizen and state, you do have to get permission to do things,” said Chris Calabrese, a congressional lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union. “More fundamentally, it could be the start of keeping a record of all things.”

For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.
“The Social Security number itself, it’s pretty ubiquitous in your life,” Calabrese said.

David Bier, an analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agrees with the ACLU’s fears.

“The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,” he said. “It’s like a national ID system without the card.”

For the moment, the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on the parameters of legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a border fence and legal immigration in the future.

The committee is scheduled to resume debate on the package Tuesday.

Invalid Link Removed
 
CNN Calls for Real-time Police State Surveillance

Kurt Nimmo
May 13, 2013

The establishment media is calling for the implementation of Big Brother technology following the Boston bombing last month.

In order to prevent terrorist attacks, Invalid Link Removed, there must be real-time surveillance cameras planted everywhere. Panopticon technology is required if we are to expect government to protect us from terrorists and other miscreants, the corporate media network says.



In April, CNN dismissed privacy and civil liberty concerns and argued that “facial-recognition software and other technologies are making security-camera images more valuable to law enforcement. Now, software can automatically mine surveillance footage for information, such as a specific person’s face, and create a giant searchable database.”

CNN says video surveillance is “less intrusive” and “much more pleasant” than pat-downs and other in-your-face Gestapo tactics. “When combined with competent law enforcement, surveillance cameras are more effective, less intrusive, less psychologically draining, and much more pleasant than these alternatives,” writes Heather Kelly.

CNN insists the Tsarnaev brothers became suspects after they were identified on surveillance camera footage.

The government, however, has yet to convulsively prove that the brothers were anything but average spectators at a sporting event. Not one image of the brothers placing a backpack supposedly containing a pressure cooker bomb has been produced by the government. We are simply expected to believe the brothers placed the bomb despite a complete lack of evidence.

Before demanding we surrender what remains of our privacy to the state and its intrusive surveillance technology, CNN – itself a Invalid Link Removed – should insist the Invalid Link Removed and the government provide conclusive evidence that the Tsarnaev brothers actually placed the bombs in Boston.

The Invalid Link Removed because none actually exists. Teenager Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an obvious patsy who will be used like Timothy McVeigh for government propaganda designed to further diminish the Bill of Rights and provide an excuse to build the sort of pervasive Big Brother panopticon CNN eagerly argues for.
 
Shock Video: California Police Break Into Home, Taze Victims

Homeowner to cops: “Martial law has not been established in this country”

Paul Joseph Watson
May 15, 2013

In perhaps one of the most shocking police brutality videos of recent years, police in Cotati, California respond to a call about “domestic violence” by kicking down the door of a man’s home before tazing him and his wife as they scream in agony.



The video begins with the cops standing on the man’s front lawn looking in through the window having responded to a report of a noise disturbance called in by neighbors. Despite the fact that the couple are obviously not at loggerheads and no harm is coming to anybody, the police announce that they are going to break into the house without a warrant.

​
“Why are you guys not coming out?,” asks one of the officers, bemused at the fact that someone wouldn’t follow orders.​
“Because we don’t live in a police state, sir. Martial law has not been established in this country,” responds the homeowner.

​
The officer then orders the couple to get down on the ground and put their hands behind their backs, adding, “We’re gonna kick in the door.”

​
The cops kick down the door and enter the home with guns drawn as the homeowner exclaims, “You have no right to be in here!”

​
Despite the fact that the woman clearly has her hands in the air, a cop tazes her as she screams out in pain. The man is then also tazed.

​
The video clip has caused shockwaves across the Internet and has already gone viral along with an outpouring of support for the family.

​
However, Invalid Link Removed, claiming that the cops couldn’t see the children at the home and therefore didn’t know that they weren’t in danger. Under this scenario, the 4th amendment and probable cause are non-existent and the police can just break into your house and attack you in the name of “protecting the children” at any time.

​
“The police are allowed to kick in your door when they request you come outside to talk and you refuse and they were called to the residence because of domestic abuse,” wrote one respondent.

​
In reality, under Invalid Link Removed, “the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that anonymous tips are not sufficient grounds to constitute probable cause for a search. Judge Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, stated, “Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call.…”

​
“Who is the victim in this case? It’s not the children, who were peacefully playing in the front yard and in the home. And neither homeowner had raised a hand to the other,” Invalid Link Removed.

​
“In fact, the victims were the residents of the home, whose private property had been violated. The individual recording the video was reportedly tazed, detained and then arrested by police. For what?”​
 
Invalid Link Removed
NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily

Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama

• Invalid Link Removed


Invalid Link Removed
Thursday 6 June 2013 11.05 BST

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, Invalid Link Removed, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.

The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI's request for its customers' records, or the court order itself.

"We decline comment," said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of "all call detail records or 'telephony metadata' created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls".

The order directs Verizon to "continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order". It specifies that the records to be produced include "session identifying information", such as "originating and terminating number", the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and "comprehensive communication routing information".

The information is classed as "metadata", or transactional information, rather than communications, and so does not require individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such "metadata" is not limited to the aforementioned items. A 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.

While the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.

It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration's surveillance activities.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on "secret legal interpretations" to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be "stunned" to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

Because those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.

Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained: "We've certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of 'relevance' to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized suspicion." The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does precisely that.

The law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called "business records" provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration's extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.

Continue to read story from original source: Invalid Link Removed
 
Leaked documents show massive surveillance effort by NSA, FBI on consumer services


By Invalid Link Removed on June 6, 2013
TheVerge


Invalid Link Removed

Do you use services from Microsoft, Google, Apple, or many other major Silicon Valley companies? If so, a long-running government program called PRISM may have been harvesting your photos and other user data, The Washington Post has revealed. The news comes just a day after journalist Glenn Greenwald uncovered a secret court order requiring Verizon to collect records of both domestic and international phone calls and report them to the National Security Agency, giving it the ability to conduct widespread surveillance of US citizens.

The White House has defended its surveillance, and others say this is simply business as usual for the Bush and Obama administrations. But the document has made explicit what many feared: that laws like the FISA Amendments Act and the Patriot Act have allowed the US government to run roughshod over citizens' privacy.

Major Updates All Links go the The Verge website.


  • Invalid Link Removed
  • Invalid Link Removed
  • Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top