Police State Redux
- Thread starter DixieDestroyer
- Start date
Jimmy Chitwood
Hall of Famer
j41181 said:
as Jorge W. Boosh stated, these guys think the Constitution is just a "damn piece of paper." if they thought they could (and this day is fast approaching), they'd simply erase it and do what they want without the farcical charade we're witnessing.
the only thing stopping them, in my opinion, is that there are still too many armed Americans in the rural parts who'd finally take notice and do something about it. once the populous is dis-armed, then all bets are off.
'a declaration of a national cyberemergency' that's a new one. The US govt has done this kind of thing many times in the past. Lincoln closing papers down and jailing editors, Roosevelt in WWII, etc. The hope is that those type of things can be reversed when the emergency is over.
In the case of the internet it would seem that there are so many work arounds that a govt shut down of internet providers would be a joke. There are so many other ways to access the web other then big name internet providers, all you need is a phone modem. Even if the phone lines werent available there is wireless communication possible in better quality then ever before.
Basically just scare tactics from the MSM. If the fedgov ever has to shut down the internet then there are more serious problems then internet access facing the public.
In the case of the internet it would seem that there are so many work arounds that a govt shut down of internet providers would be a joke. There are so many other ways to access the web other then big name internet providers, all you need is a phone modem. Even if the phone lines werent available there is wireless communication possible in better quality then ever before.
Basically just scare tactics from the MSM. If the fedgov ever has to shut down the internet then there are more serious problems then internet access facing the public.
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
jaxvid said:
Franklin Roosevelt's actual surname, when his wealthy Jewish ancestors arrived from Holland, was "Rosevelt."Â
The true identity of FDR, as well as Dwight Eisenhower (his Jewish ancestors emigrated from Sweden) is almost completely unknown to the masses.
Thrashen said:
I think it was Archie Bunker who referred to Roosevelt as "Rosenfeld" which I thought was funny at the time. If FDR was in fact jewish it would really put a twist to the idea of him as an upper class WASP snob. I don't think Eisenhower was very much jewish, he was a great football player after all!
An article entitled "Black federal judge: police may not refuse orders to violate citizen's constitutional rights"
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2011/02/01/black-federal-judge-police-may-not-refuse-orders-to-violate-citizens-constitutional-rights/
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2011/02/01/black-federal-judge-police-may-not-refuse-orders-to-violate-citizens-constitutional-rights/
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Homeland Security Secretary Inspects Super Bowl Site, Says Fans Have ‘Shared Responsibility' for Security at Game and Across the Country
Friday, February 04, 2011
By Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) â€" Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to Dallas earlier this week to personally inspect the massive security operation surrounding the 45th Super Bowl game and to announce the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign.
"We are partnering this year with the NFL on our ‘If You See Something, Say Something' campaign and launching that NFL partnership right here at the Super Bowl," Napolitano said during a press conference on Monday at Cowboy Stadium in Arlington, Texas where Sunday's game will be played.
"The idea is simple,"Â Napolitano said. "We are simply asking the American people to be vigilant, recognizing that our security is a shared responsibility that all of us must participate in."Â
"If a fan at the Super Bowl or any other American at any other place sees something that is potentially dangerous, then say something about it to local law enforcement or someone in authority,"Â Napolitano said.
Napolitano announced that DHS has trained some 1,200 stadium staffers as "first observers"Â and that cargo going into the venue also will be screened using "non-intrusive inspection equipment."Â
Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, told CNN that millions of dollars were spent to make the stadium secure, including perches for snipers and surveillance cameras to cover every corner of the venue.
Fans both inside the stadium and those watching it outside on big-screen telecasts will be subject to security screenings similar to those at airports.
The NFL, which will pick up half the tab, estimates it cost $10 million to secure the game, according to CNN's report.
DHS announced in a press release posted on its Web site on Monday that the "If You See Something, Say Something"Â campaign will be rolled out nationally over the coming months "to help America's businesses, communities and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe."Â
Napolitano will watch the game at the White House, according to Matt Chandler, the DHS Deputy Press Secretary. Other guests invited to watch the game with President Barack Obama and his family include Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homeland-security-secretary-inspects-sup
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Friday, February 04, 2011
By Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) â€" Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to Dallas earlier this week to personally inspect the massive security operation surrounding the 45th Super Bowl game and to announce the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign.
"We are partnering this year with the NFL on our ‘If You See Something, Say Something' campaign and launching that NFL partnership right here at the Super Bowl," Napolitano said during a press conference on Monday at Cowboy Stadium in Arlington, Texas where Sunday's game will be played.
"The idea is simple,"Â Napolitano said. "We are simply asking the American people to be vigilant, recognizing that our security is a shared responsibility that all of us must participate in."Â
"If a fan at the Super Bowl or any other American at any other place sees something that is potentially dangerous, then say something about it to local law enforcement or someone in authority,"Â Napolitano said.
Napolitano announced that DHS has trained some 1,200 stadium staffers as "first observers"Â and that cargo going into the venue also will be screened using "non-intrusive inspection equipment."Â
Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, told CNN that millions of dollars were spent to make the stadium secure, including perches for snipers and surveillance cameras to cover every corner of the venue.
Fans both inside the stadium and those watching it outside on big-screen telecasts will be subject to security screenings similar to those at airports.
The NFL, which will pick up half the tab, estimates it cost $10 million to secure the game, according to CNN's report.
DHS announced in a press release posted on its Web site on Monday that the "If You See Something, Say Something"Â campaign will be rolled out nationally over the coming months "to help America's businesses, communities and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe."Â
Napolitano will watch the game at the White House, according to Matt Chandler, the DHS Deputy Press Secretary. Other guests invited to watch the game with President Barack Obama and his family include Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homeland-security-secretary-inspects-sup
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch"
Posted by Declan McCullagh 317 comments
Lieberman Collins
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., right, Republican Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine,
A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.
Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"We're not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone," said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.
Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those "crucial components that form our nation's critical infrastructure."
Portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on December 15. The full Senate did not act on the measure.
The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review." Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include "provider of information technology," and a third authorized the submission of "classified" reports on security vulnerabilities.
The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.
A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.
Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said.
Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.
But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. "Judicial review is our main concern," said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. "A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance."
In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a "good-faith disagreement" with the government's ruling and would want to seek court review. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he said. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."
Other industry representatives say it's not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security's 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.
"Declaration of National Cyber Emergency"
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will "establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure" and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term "kill switch" does not appear in the legislation.)
Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause "severe economic consequences" or worse. Second, that the system "is a component of the national information infrastructure." Third, that the "national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system."
At last week's event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that "the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list."
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
President Obama would then have the power to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency." What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if "specifically authorized by law," but a presidential decree may suffice.
"No amount of tightening of what constitutes 'critical infrastructure' will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review," says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. "Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs."
For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has "nearly unchecked authority" to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device."
In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses "presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act," he said, "as opposed to developing overlapping legislation."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.htmlEdited by: DixieDestroyer
Posted by Declan McCullagh 317 comments
Lieberman Collins
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., right, Republican Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine,
A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.
Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"We're not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone," said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.
Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those "crucial components that form our nation's critical infrastructure."
Portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on December 15. The full Senate did not act on the measure.
The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review." Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include "provider of information technology," and a third authorized the submission of "classified" reports on security vulnerabilities.
The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.
A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.
Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said.
Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.
But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. "Judicial review is our main concern," said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. "A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance."
In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a "good-faith disagreement" with the government's ruling and would want to seek court review. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he said. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."
Other industry representatives say it's not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security's 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.
"Declaration of National Cyber Emergency"
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will "establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure" and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term "kill switch" does not appear in the legislation.)
Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause "severe economic consequences" or worse. Second, that the system "is a component of the national information infrastructure." Third, that the "national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system."
At last week's event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that "the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list."
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
President Obama would then have the power to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency." What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if "specifically authorized by law," but a presidential decree may suffice.
"No amount of tightening of what constitutes 'critical infrastructure' will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review," says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. "Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs."
For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has "nearly unchecked authority" to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device."
In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses "presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act," he said, "as opposed to developing overlapping legislation."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.htmlEdited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
"Oceania" 2011 expandeth onwards...
Atlanta Leads the Way in "Southern Surveillance"
Police Arrest 11 y/o Over "Inappropriate" Stick Figure Drawing
GPS for Students
DHS Plans DNA Screening for the Sheeple
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Atlanta Leads the Way in "Southern Surveillance"
Police Arrest 11 y/o Over "Inappropriate" Stick Figure Drawing
GPS for Students
DHS Plans DNA Screening for the Sheeple
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
The DHS launches their police state tactics at the Final Four.
NCAA, Homeland Security partner in planning a safe Final Four
By Marta Lawrence
NCAA.org
Fans attending this year's March Madness games will be greeted by a video of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and NCAA President Mark Emmert encouraging them to "say something"Â if they see suspicious activities.
The video, which will also appear at most other winter championship events, is part of a national campaign sponsored by Homeland Security to raise citizen awareness in high-profile environments such as major events and public transit.
Security at the games has always been a priority for the NCAA, but the rapid growth of the Final Four in recent years has prompted the Association to assess security practices even more closely and to scale procedures to fit the constantly evolving environment.
Khalil Johnson.
"We're building on a base that was very, very stable,"Â said NCAA security expert Khalil Johnson of Common Sense Consultants.
Johnson and his team have worked closely with Houston's local organizing committee and the Division I men's basketball staff planning the logistics for the games, which include transportation, crowd control, operations and venue security. Integrating safety and security into all aspects of the event means a better fan experience and a more secure experience overall, Johnson said.
"We believe we're creating best practices that can act as a model for future events,"Â says NCAA Interim Executive Vice President for Championships and Alliances Greg Shaheen. "The lessons learned from Houston will help inform planning for the 2012 games at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans."Â
A public safety committee for the Men's Final Four included representatives from local emergency management agencies; the local organizing committee; and city, county and federal law enforcement. The committee's work culminated in several recent exercises led by the FBI that addressed various scenarios from the lights going out to a multiple-causality incident.
"We make sure that the experts who do it and do it every day are involved in the planning of the Final Four,"Â Johnson said.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and NCAA President Mark Emmert speak at a press conference. Photo by: DHS.
Team security was another major issue. "We will do some things this year to make sure we have a full awareness of where our student-athletes are, where their coaches are, how they're doing, what they're doing, everywhere they are from the time they hit Houston to the time they leave,"Â Johnson said.
A full site inspection and security assessment has been done on each potential team hotel. The NCAA has worked closely with those hotels to ensure they meet all safety and security expectations. Teams will also be accompanied by security professionals as they attend Final Four events.
When fans arrive at Reliant Park, they will be funneled through an expanded perimeter, increasing the distance between the entry point and the facility. Although Johnson would not comment on specific security screening practices, he said they will be similar to those used for NFL games.
In addition to retaining security professionals, the NCAA has hired crowd-management experts to make sure traffic in and around the stadium is effective and efficient. Those experts have worked closely with the staff at Reliant Park, which is accustomed to large events.
Reliant Park is not located near hotel complexes that allow fans to walk to and from the venue. To aid traffic flow, a tip-off party is planned in the parking lot before the games.
"We're excited by the opportunity to host a tip-off party for our fans and believe it will help set the tone for the games while reducing traffic congestion on the roads leading to Reliant Park,"Â Shaheen said.
The planning committee has worked closely with the public works offices, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, to address traffic flow in and around the facility. A traffic plan has been integrated into the overall security plan to "allow us to better manage the entire site,"Â Johnson said.
Communication among the various groups involved will be key, Johnson said. In addition to constant communication among the various stakeholders, there will be daily briefings for all staff working inside the building.
"The level of information about what's going on in and around Reliant Park will be staggering,"Â Johnson said.
In the end, said Johnson, "most of the things that relate to the fan's experience from a safety standpoint, they won't really be aware of."Â
And that's the way he wants it.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/march/ncaa,+homeland+security+partner+in+planning+a+safe+final+four
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
NCAA, Homeland Security partner in planning a safe Final Four
By Marta Lawrence
NCAA.org
Fans attending this year's March Madness games will be greeted by a video of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and NCAA President Mark Emmert encouraging them to "say something"Â if they see suspicious activities.
The video, which will also appear at most other winter championship events, is part of a national campaign sponsored by Homeland Security to raise citizen awareness in high-profile environments such as major events and public transit.
Security at the games has always been a priority for the NCAA, but the rapid growth of the Final Four in recent years has prompted the Association to assess security practices even more closely and to scale procedures to fit the constantly evolving environment.
Khalil Johnson.
"We're building on a base that was very, very stable,"Â said NCAA security expert Khalil Johnson of Common Sense Consultants.
Johnson and his team have worked closely with Houston's local organizing committee and the Division I men's basketball staff planning the logistics for the games, which include transportation, crowd control, operations and venue security. Integrating safety and security into all aspects of the event means a better fan experience and a more secure experience overall, Johnson said.
"We believe we're creating best practices that can act as a model for future events,"Â says NCAA Interim Executive Vice President for Championships and Alliances Greg Shaheen. "The lessons learned from Houston will help inform planning for the 2012 games at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans."Â
A public safety committee for the Men's Final Four included representatives from local emergency management agencies; the local organizing committee; and city, county and federal law enforcement. The committee's work culminated in several recent exercises led by the FBI that addressed various scenarios from the lights going out to a multiple-causality incident.
"We make sure that the experts who do it and do it every day are involved in the planning of the Final Four,"Â Johnson said.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and NCAA President Mark Emmert speak at a press conference. Photo by: DHS.
Team security was another major issue. "We will do some things this year to make sure we have a full awareness of where our student-athletes are, where their coaches are, how they're doing, what they're doing, everywhere they are from the time they hit Houston to the time they leave,"Â Johnson said.
A full site inspection and security assessment has been done on each potential team hotel. The NCAA has worked closely with those hotels to ensure they meet all safety and security expectations. Teams will also be accompanied by security professionals as they attend Final Four events.
When fans arrive at Reliant Park, they will be funneled through an expanded perimeter, increasing the distance between the entry point and the facility. Although Johnson would not comment on specific security screening practices, he said they will be similar to those used for NFL games.
In addition to retaining security professionals, the NCAA has hired crowd-management experts to make sure traffic in and around the stadium is effective and efficient. Those experts have worked closely with the staff at Reliant Park, which is accustomed to large events.
Reliant Park is not located near hotel complexes that allow fans to walk to and from the venue. To aid traffic flow, a tip-off party is planned in the parking lot before the games.
"We're excited by the opportunity to host a tip-off party for our fans and believe it will help set the tone for the games while reducing traffic congestion on the roads leading to Reliant Park,"Â Shaheen said.
The planning committee has worked closely with the public works offices, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, to address traffic flow in and around the facility. A traffic plan has been integrated into the overall security plan to "allow us to better manage the entire site,"Â Johnson said.
Communication among the various groups involved will be key, Johnson said. In addition to constant communication among the various stakeholders, there will be daily briefings for all staff working inside the building.
"The level of information about what's going on in and around Reliant Park will be staggering,"Â Johnson said.
In the end, said Johnson, "most of the things that relate to the fan's experience from a safety standpoint, they won't really be aware of."Â
And that's the way he wants it.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/march/ncaa,+homeland+security+partner+in+planning+a+safe+final+four
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
TSA security looks at people who complain about ... TSA security
By Mike M. Ahlers and Jeanne Meserve, CNN
April 15, 2011 12:57 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- Don't like the way airport screeners are doing their job? You might not want to complain too much while standing in line.
Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists, CNN has learned exclusively. And, when combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny.
CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 "behavioral indicators" that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially "high risk" passengers at the nation's airports.
Many of the indicators, as characterized in open government reports, are behaviors and appearances that may be indicative of stress, fear or deception. None of them, as the TSA has long said, refer to or suggest race, religion or ethnicity.
But one addresses passengers' attitudes towards security, and how they express those attitudes.
It reads: "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."
TSA officials declined to comment on the list of indicators, but said that no single indicator, taken by itself, is ever used to identify travelers as potentially high-risk passengers. Travelers must exhibit several indicators before behavior detection officers steer them to more thorough screening.
But a civil liberties organization said the list should not include behavior relating to the expression of opinions, even arrogant expressions of opinion.
"Expressing your contempt about airport procedures -- that's a First Amendment-protected right," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We all have the right to express our views, and particularly in a situation where the government is demanding the ability to search you."
"It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate," he said.
The TSA says its security programs are informed by real-world situations and intelligence. Indeed, the immigration agent who refused to let the alleged "20th hijacker" into the United States in 2001 later testified that the man's arrogant behavior contributed to his suspicions.
Agent Jose Melendez-Perez told the 9/11 commission that Mohammed al-Qahtani "became visibly upset" and arrogantly pointed his finger in the agent's face when asked why he did not have an airline ticket for a return flight.
But some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in.
"I think the idea that they would try to draw attention to themselves by being arrogant at airport security, it fails the common sense test," said CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen. "And it also fails what we know about their behaviors in the past."
The 9/11 commission's report says that "none of the checkpoint supervisors (on September 11th) recalled the (successful) hijackers or reported anything suspicious regarding their screening."
But, it says, an airline ticket agent that checked in hijacker Mohammed Atta says Atta "reacted negatively when informed in Portland (Maine) that he would have to check in again in Boston." Atta "clenched his jaw and said ... with some irritation, 'They told me one step check-in,'" he recalled. The ticket agent recommended the United States hire "behavior profilers ... the way they do overseas," the report says.
Rafi Ron, former director of security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, said an arrogant complaint about security is a legitimate factor to consider. But officials also should be suspicious of effusive praise, he said.
"The other end of the spectrum is almost as bad, although it is maybe less offensive," he said.
The TSA is expanding the behavior detection program, formally known as SPOT, for Screening Passengers by Observation Technique.
Currently, some 3,000 uniformed behavior detection officers are deployed at about 175 airports. President Obama is calling for an additional 175 such officers in his 2012 budget proposal, and the TSA is expected to spend a total of $1.2 billion on the program over the next five years.
In recent years, the TSA has also expanded the scope of the program. Originally intended to look only for suspected terrorists, the program now also seeks to ferret out possible criminals in airports.
Many details of the program are publicly available. According to a Government Accountability Office report, uniformed behavior detection officers typically work in two-person teams at airport checkpoint lines, looking for behaviors that are on the SPOT checklist, each of which is assigned a numerical value.
The officers sometimes initiate casual conversations with passengers, particularly if a passenger is exhibiting behaviors on the SPOT checklist.
In most instances, the Accountability Office said, the conversation resolves the suspicion.
But if both behavior detection officers agree that observed indicators exceed a predetermined numerical threshold, the person is referred to additional screening, which can involve more questioning and physical searches of a person or property.
If the person's behavior escalates, accumulating more points based on the SPOT checklist, the officers can refer the person to local law enforcement for investigation. After the law enforcement investigation, the TSA officials determine whether to allow the passenger to board the flight.
The Department of Homeland Security says the program is successful, telling Congress last week that, in a recent test comparing behavior detection officers to random screening procedures, the officers were 50 times more likely to refer people they checked to local law enforcement, and about 4.5 times as likely to identify people with prohibited items or fraudulent documents.
Taken together, such officers are nine times more likely to identify "high risk" passengers than random screening, the department said.
"SPOT identifies high-risk travelers at a significantly higher rate then random screening," Larry Willis of the department's Science and Technology Directorate testified.
But one member of the study's Technical Advisory Committee said the study did not establish the program's scientific validity.
"The advisory committee has not been asked to evaluate the overall SPOT program, nor has it been asked to evaluate the validity of indicators used in the program," Philip Rubin testified to Congress last week.
Advisory committee members were not shown the list of behavioral indicators, he said.
"My concern is that if I'm a member of the public and I hear (Willis') testimony, it sounds like the SPOT program has been validated," Rubin told CNN.
He said that while large numbers of people were screened, very little criminal activity was detected, and the numbers may not be statistically significant. "The hit rate is so low on this, it could turn out to be a random glitch," he said.
The Government Accountability Office also criticized the study, saying TSA's records are incomplete and the study is not designed to answer the big question people have about the program: Does it work?
The study "is not designed to fully validate whether behavior detection can be used to reliably identify individuals in an airport environment who pose a security risk," the agency said.
Members of Congress also expressed concern about the number of "false positives" -- people flagged for additional screening that resulted in nothing being found. For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified, Willis said. At random screening, for every person correctly identified, 794 were misidentified.
The TSA does not track the number of arrests, convictions or exonerations of people that are referred to law enforcement, he said.
The ACLU's German, who has not seen the behavioral indicators list, said he fears the indicators "are being used simply as a proxy for racial profiling or other inappropriate police activities." The number of people arrested at airport checkpoints for immigration violations suggests the behavior detection officers are profiling, he said.
Thirty-nine percent of the 1,083 people arrested during the first four and a half years of the program were arrested because they were illegal aliens, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Experts agree that the fact that there is an extremely small number of terrorists makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral observation programs. The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified. But it is not known if the behavior detection officers were working at the time, the agency said.
Stephen Lord of the Accountability Office is recommending the TSA study airport videos of those instances.
"We believe such recordings could help identify behaviors that may be common among terrorists, or could demonstrate that terrorists do not generally display any identifying behaviors," Lord said.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
By Mike M. Ahlers and Jeanne Meserve, CNN
April 15, 2011 12:57 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- Don't like the way airport screeners are doing their job? You might not want to complain too much while standing in line.
Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists, CNN has learned exclusively. And, when combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny.
CNN has obtained a list of roughly 70 "behavioral indicators" that TSA behavior detection officers use to identify potentially "high risk" passengers at the nation's airports.
Many of the indicators, as characterized in open government reports, are behaviors and appearances that may be indicative of stress, fear or deception. None of them, as the TSA has long said, refer to or suggest race, religion or ethnicity.
But one addresses passengers' attitudes towards security, and how they express those attitudes.
It reads: "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."
TSA officials declined to comment on the list of indicators, but said that no single indicator, taken by itself, is ever used to identify travelers as potentially high-risk passengers. Travelers must exhibit several indicators before behavior detection officers steer them to more thorough screening.
But a civil liberties organization said the list should not include behavior relating to the expression of opinions, even arrogant expressions of opinion.
"Expressing your contempt about airport procedures -- that's a First Amendment-protected right," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We all have the right to express our views, and particularly in a situation where the government is demanding the ability to search you."
"It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate," he said.
The TSA says its security programs are informed by real-world situations and intelligence. Indeed, the immigration agent who refused to let the alleged "20th hijacker" into the United States in 2001 later testified that the man's arrogant behavior contributed to his suspicions.
Agent Jose Melendez-Perez told the 9/11 commission that Mohammed al-Qahtani "became visibly upset" and arrogantly pointed his finger in the agent's face when asked why he did not have an airline ticket for a return flight.
But some experts say terrorists are much more likely to avoid confrontations with authorities, saying an al Qaeda training manual instructs members to blend in.
"I think the idea that they would try to draw attention to themselves by being arrogant at airport security, it fails the common sense test," said CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen. "And it also fails what we know about their behaviors in the past."
The 9/11 commission's report says that "none of the checkpoint supervisors (on September 11th) recalled the (successful) hijackers or reported anything suspicious regarding their screening."
But, it says, an airline ticket agent that checked in hijacker Mohammed Atta says Atta "reacted negatively when informed in Portland (Maine) that he would have to check in again in Boston." Atta "clenched his jaw and said ... with some irritation, 'They told me one step check-in,'" he recalled. The ticket agent recommended the United States hire "behavior profilers ... the way they do overseas," the report says.
Rafi Ron, former director of security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, said an arrogant complaint about security is a legitimate factor to consider. But officials also should be suspicious of effusive praise, he said.
"The other end of the spectrum is almost as bad, although it is maybe less offensive," he said.
The TSA is expanding the behavior detection program, formally known as SPOT, for Screening Passengers by Observation Technique.
Currently, some 3,000 uniformed behavior detection officers are deployed at about 175 airports. President Obama is calling for an additional 175 such officers in his 2012 budget proposal, and the TSA is expected to spend a total of $1.2 billion on the program over the next five years.
In recent years, the TSA has also expanded the scope of the program. Originally intended to look only for suspected terrorists, the program now also seeks to ferret out possible criminals in airports.
Many details of the program are publicly available. According to a Government Accountability Office report, uniformed behavior detection officers typically work in two-person teams at airport checkpoint lines, looking for behaviors that are on the SPOT checklist, each of which is assigned a numerical value.
The officers sometimes initiate casual conversations with passengers, particularly if a passenger is exhibiting behaviors on the SPOT checklist.
In most instances, the Accountability Office said, the conversation resolves the suspicion.
But if both behavior detection officers agree that observed indicators exceed a predetermined numerical threshold, the person is referred to additional screening, which can involve more questioning and physical searches of a person or property.
If the person's behavior escalates, accumulating more points based on the SPOT checklist, the officers can refer the person to local law enforcement for investigation. After the law enforcement investigation, the TSA officials determine whether to allow the passenger to board the flight.
The Department of Homeland Security says the program is successful, telling Congress last week that, in a recent test comparing behavior detection officers to random screening procedures, the officers were 50 times more likely to refer people they checked to local law enforcement, and about 4.5 times as likely to identify people with prohibited items or fraudulent documents.
Taken together, such officers are nine times more likely to identify "high risk" passengers than random screening, the department said.
"SPOT identifies high-risk travelers at a significantly higher rate then random screening," Larry Willis of the department's Science and Technology Directorate testified.
But one member of the study's Technical Advisory Committee said the study did not establish the program's scientific validity.
"The advisory committee has not been asked to evaluate the overall SPOT program, nor has it been asked to evaluate the validity of indicators used in the program," Philip Rubin testified to Congress last week.
Advisory committee members were not shown the list of behavioral indicators, he said.
"My concern is that if I'm a member of the public and I hear (Willis') testimony, it sounds like the SPOT program has been validated," Rubin told CNN.
He said that while large numbers of people were screened, very little criminal activity was detected, and the numbers may not be statistically significant. "The hit rate is so low on this, it could turn out to be a random glitch," he said.
The Government Accountability Office also criticized the study, saying TSA's records are incomplete and the study is not designed to answer the big question people have about the program: Does it work?
The study "is not designed to fully validate whether behavior detection can be used to reliably identify individuals in an airport environment who pose a security risk," the agency said.
Members of Congress also expressed concern about the number of "false positives" -- people flagged for additional screening that resulted in nothing being found. For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified, Willis said. At random screening, for every person correctly identified, 794 were misidentified.
The TSA does not track the number of arrests, convictions or exonerations of people that are referred to law enforcement, he said.
The ACLU's German, who has not seen the behavioral indicators list, said he fears the indicators "are being used simply as a proxy for racial profiling or other inappropriate police activities." The number of people arrested at airport checkpoints for immigration violations suggests the behavior detection officers are profiling, he said.
Thirty-nine percent of the 1,083 people arrested during the first four and a half years of the program were arrested because they were illegal aliens, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Experts agree that the fact that there is an extremely small number of terrorists makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral observation programs. The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified. But it is not known if the behavior detection officers were working at the time, the agency said.
Stephen Lord of the Accountability Office is recommending the TSA study airport videos of those instances.
"We believe such recordings could help identify behaviors that may be common among terrorists, or could demonstrate that terrorists do not generally display any identifying behaviors," Lord said.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
iPhone/iPad keeps a record of everywhere you go and syncs that info up with your computer when you connect it
Where it goes from there, who knows. Too long of an article to cut and paste...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears
</font></font>
Where it goes from there, who knows. Too long of an article to cut and paste...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears
</font></font>
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
I'm NO "fan" of the (communist hatched) ACLU, but I appreciate (some) of their efforts in defending privacy rights.
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.
CelleBriteThe Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.
ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.
"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."
The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."
The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.aspEdited by: DixieDestroyer
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.
CelleBriteThe Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.
ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.
"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."
The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."
The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.aspEdited by: DixieDestroyer
An article entitled "Pastor Terry Jones jailed at request of Muslim police chief."
http://cofcc.org/2011/04/pastor-terry-jones-jailed-at-request-of-muslim-police-cheif/
http://cofcc.org/2011/04/pastor-terry-jones-jailed-at-request-of-muslim-police-cheif/
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
It is interesting to see the double standard of Jones' treatment compared to that of the Westboro crowd.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
U.S. military patrols start in Columbus, GA...
http://www2.wrbl.com/news/2011/apr/22/military-patrols-start-friday-night-ar-1752061/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
http://www2.wrbl.com/news/2011/apr/22/military-patrols-start-friday-night-ar-1752061/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Fedgov conducts "sting" against Amish farmers....for selling milk.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
National Emergency Alert System Set To Launch In NYC
May 10, 2011 1:55 PM
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) â€" A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones.
It's called the Personal Localized Alert Network or PLAN. Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.
The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system would also warn about terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
1010 WINS' Stan Brooks reports: An Arsenal Of Readiness
"The lessons that were reinforced on 9/11 is the importance of getting clear and accurate information to the public during a crisis,"Â New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference on Tuesday.
Verizon and AT&T, the nation's largest cell phone carriers, are already on board. Consumers would be able to opt out of all but those presidential messages.
WCBS 880"²s Marla Diamond With Comment From Mayor Bloomberg
"We believe this new alert system is a welcome addition to our arsenal of readiness,"Â Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said. "It's like a police officer's gun: it's there for a good reason but we hope that we never have to pull the trigger."Â
The announcement of the new emergency alert system came in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death and an uptick in security and safety concerns around New York City.
WCBS 880"²s Paul Murnane In Lower Manhattan: Verizon And AT&T Are On Board
For now, the alerts are capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts.
By the end of the year, the new system will be in place in New York City and Washington and in cities around the country by the end of 2012.
Bloomberg made the announcement about the new system Tuesday morning with FCC chairman Julius Genashowski and other federal and local officials.
This new emergency alert system is part of the Warning Alert and Response Network Act that was approved by Congress in 2006.
New York City already has an emergency alert in place called Notify NYC. Bloomberg says it's the largest opt-in notification alert system in the country
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/10/national-emergency-alert-system-set-to-launch-in-nyc/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
May 10, 2011 1:55 PM
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) â€" A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones.
It's called the Personal Localized Alert Network or PLAN. Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.
The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system would also warn about terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
1010 WINS' Stan Brooks reports: An Arsenal Of Readiness
"The lessons that were reinforced on 9/11 is the importance of getting clear and accurate information to the public during a crisis,"Â New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference on Tuesday.
Verizon and AT&T, the nation's largest cell phone carriers, are already on board. Consumers would be able to opt out of all but those presidential messages.
WCBS 880"²s Marla Diamond With Comment From Mayor Bloomberg
"We believe this new alert system is a welcome addition to our arsenal of readiness,"Â Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said. "It's like a police officer's gun: it's there for a good reason but we hope that we never have to pull the trigger."Â
The announcement of the new emergency alert system came in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death and an uptick in security and safety concerns around New York City.
WCBS 880"²s Paul Murnane In Lower Manhattan: Verizon And AT&T Are On Board
For now, the alerts are capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts.
By the end of the year, the new system will be in place in New York City and Washington and in cities around the country by the end of 2012.
Bloomberg made the announcement about the new system Tuesday morning with FCC chairman Julius Genashowski and other federal and local officials.
This new emergency alert system is part of the Warning Alert and Response Network Act that was approved by Congress in 2006.
New York City already has an emergency alert in place called Notify NYC. Bloomberg says it's the largest opt-in notification alert system in the country
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/10/national-emergency-alert-system-set-to-launch-in-nyc/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
...The police state growth continues...
LAPD Squad Cars to Have Night Vision & Plates Scanners
U.S. Pushes Mandatory "Black Boxes"...in Cars
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
LAPD Squad Cars to Have Night Vision & Plates Scanners
U.S. Pushes Mandatory "Black Boxes"...in Cars
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
MTA Officers (Use "Patriot Act" to) Detain Man For Taking Pictures
June 1, 2011 6:38 PM
Christopher Fussell
BALTIMORE (WJZ) â€" The Maryland Transit Administration says more training may be called for after three MTA officers detained a man for taking pictures at a light rail station.
Pat Warren has more on the incident.
According to the ACLU, this isn't the first time MTA Police have overstepped their bounds.
In a YouTube posting, Christopher Fussell left the camera rolling when he was confronted by three MTA officers for taking pictures at the Baltimore Cultural Light Rail Station.
"It is my understanding that I am free to take pictures as long as it's not for commercial purposes but for personal use,"Â Fussell said in the video.
"Not on state property, not without proper authorization,"Â an officer said.
Fussell: "From who?"Â
Officer: "Nobody's allowed to take pictures."Â
The MTA admits the officers were in error.
"They can most certainly take photos of our system,"Â Ralign Wells, the MTA Administrator, said.
In addition to being wrong about MTA and state policy, the officer incorrectly cites the Patriot Act.
"Listen, listen to what I'm saying. The Patriot Act says that critical infrastructure, trains, train stations, all those things require certain oversight to take pictures, whether you say they are for personal use or whatever, that's your story,"Â the officer said.
"So why don't you have any signs posted to say I cannot take pictures?"Â Fussell said.
"Our officers have become very sensitive post 9/11 and we're trying to see that they understand our passengers and citizens also have a right to take pictures,"Â Wells said.
The officer eventually threatened to take Fussell into custody.
"Do you have Maryland state identification on you?"Â the officer asked.
"I am not committing a crime,"Â Fussell said.
"Sir, I'm going to ask you one last time, then I'm going to take you into custody. Do we understand each other?"Â the officer said.
The ACLU considers it harassment by the MTA.
"This is not South Africa under apartheid and in this country, police do not have the right to walk up to you and demand you produce identification to them,"Â said David Rocah, ACLU.
The MTA acknowledges that additional training is in order.
"We'll look at our training processes, we'll look at whether any administrative situations need to occur with those officers,"Â Wells said.
The ACLU says it's been working with the MTA on this very issue for five years, with no satisfactory result.
Fussell was detained for more than 40 minutes before MTA Police finally let him go on his way.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/mta-officers-detain-man-for-taking-pictures/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
June 1, 2011 6:38 PM
Christopher Fussell
BALTIMORE (WJZ) â€" The Maryland Transit Administration says more training may be called for after three MTA officers detained a man for taking pictures at a light rail station.
Pat Warren has more on the incident.
According to the ACLU, this isn't the first time MTA Police have overstepped their bounds.
In a YouTube posting, Christopher Fussell left the camera rolling when he was confronted by three MTA officers for taking pictures at the Baltimore Cultural Light Rail Station.
"It is my understanding that I am free to take pictures as long as it's not for commercial purposes but for personal use,"Â Fussell said in the video.
"Not on state property, not without proper authorization,"Â an officer said.
Fussell: "From who?"Â
Officer: "Nobody's allowed to take pictures."Â
The MTA admits the officers were in error.
"They can most certainly take photos of our system,"Â Ralign Wells, the MTA Administrator, said.
In addition to being wrong about MTA and state policy, the officer incorrectly cites the Patriot Act.
"Listen, listen to what I'm saying. The Patriot Act says that critical infrastructure, trains, train stations, all those things require certain oversight to take pictures, whether you say they are for personal use or whatever, that's your story,"Â the officer said.
"So why don't you have any signs posted to say I cannot take pictures?"Â Fussell said.
"Our officers have become very sensitive post 9/11 and we're trying to see that they understand our passengers and citizens also have a right to take pictures,"Â Wells said.
The officer eventually threatened to take Fussell into custody.
"Do you have Maryland state identification on you?"Â the officer asked.
"I am not committing a crime,"Â Fussell said.
"Sir, I'm going to ask you one last time, then I'm going to take you into custody. Do we understand each other?"Â the officer said.
The ACLU considers it harassment by the MTA.
"This is not South Africa under apartheid and in this country, police do not have the right to walk up to you and demand you produce identification to them,"Â said David Rocah, ACLU.
The MTA acknowledges that additional training is in order.
"We'll look at our training processes, we'll look at whether any administrative situations need to occur with those officers,"Â Wells said.
The ACLU says it's been working with the MTA on this very issue for five years, with no satisfactory result.
Fussell was detained for more than 40 minutes before MTA Police finally let him go on his way.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/mta-officers-detain-man-for-taking-pictures/
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
One in four US hackers 'is an FBI informer'
The FBI and US secret service have used the threat of prison to create an army of informers among online criminals
* Comments (110)
* Ed Pilkington in New York
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 June 2011 16.12 BST
A quarter of hackers in the US have been recruited by federal authorities, according to Eric Corley, publisher of the hacker quarterly, 2600. Photograph: Getty Images
The underground world of computer hackers has been so thoroughly infiltrated in the US by the FBI and secret service that it is now riddled with paranoia and mistrust, with an estimated one in four hackers secretly informing on their peers, a Guardian investigation has established.
Cyber policing units have had such success in forcing online criminals to co-operate with their investigations through the threat of long prison sentences that they have managed to create an army of informants deep inside the hacking community.
In some cases, popular illegal forums used by cyber criminals as marketplaces for stolen identities and credit card numbers have been run by hacker turncoats acting as FBI moles. In others, undercover FBI agents posing as "carders" â€" hackers specialising in ID theft â€" have themselves taken over the management of crime forums, using the intelligence gathered to put dozens of people behind bars.
So ubiquitous has the FBI informant network become that Eric Corley, who publishes the hacker quarterly, 2600, has estimated that 25% of hackers in the US may have been recruited by the federal authorities to be their eyes and ears. "Owing to the harsh penalties involved and the relative inexperience with the law that many hackers have, they are rather susceptible to intimidation," Corley told the Guardian.
"It makes for very tense relationships," said John Young, who runs Cryptome, a website depository for secret documents along the lines of WikiLeaks. "There are dozens and dozens of hackers who have been shopped by people they thought they trusted."
The best-known example of the phenomenon is Adrian Lamo, a convicted hacker who turned informant on Bradley Manning, who is suspected of passing secret documents to WikiLeaks. Manning had entered into a prolonged instant messaging conversation with Lamo, whom he trusted and asked for advice. Lamo repaid that trust by promptly handing over the 23-year-old intelligence specialist to the military authorities. Manning has now been in custody for more than a year.
For acting as he did, Lamo has earned himself the sobriquet of Judas and the "world's most hated hacker", though he has insisted that he acted out of concern for those he believed could be harmed or even killed by the WikiLeaks publication of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
"Obviously it's been much worse for him but it's certainly been no picnic for me," Lamo has said. "He followed his conscience, and I followed mine."
The latest challenge for the FBI in terms of domestic US breaches are the anarchistic co-operatives of "hacktivists" that have launched several high-profile cyber-attacks in recent months designed to make a statement. In the most recent case a group calling itself Lulz Security launched an audacious raid on the FBI's own linked organisation InfraGard. The raid, which was a blatant two fingers up at the agency, was said to have been a response to news that the Pentagon was poised to declare foreign cyber-attacks an act of war.
Lulz Security shares qualities with the hacktivist group Anonymous that has launched attacks against companies including Visa and MasterCard as a protest against their decision to block donations to WikiLeaks. While Lulz Security is so recent a phenomenon that the FBI has yet to get a handle on it, Anonymous is already under pressure from the agency. There were raids on 40 addresses in the US and five in the UK in January, and a grand jury has been hearing evidence against the group in California at the start of a possible federal prosecution.
Kevin Poulsen, senior editor at Wired magazine, believes the collective is classically vulnerable to infiltration and disruption. "We have already begun to see Anonymous members attack each other and out each other's IP addresses. That's the first step towards being susceptible to the FBI."
Barrett Brown, who has acted as a spokesman for the otherwise secretive Anonymous, says it is fully aware of the FBI's interest. "The FBI are always there. They are always watching, always in the chatrooms. You don't know who is an informant and who isn't, and to that extent you are vulnerable."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/06/us-hackers-fbi-informer
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
The FBI and US secret service have used the threat of prison to create an army of informers among online criminals
* Comments (110)
* Ed Pilkington in New York
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 June 2011 16.12 BST
A quarter of hackers in the US have been recruited by federal authorities, according to Eric Corley, publisher of the hacker quarterly, 2600. Photograph: Getty Images
The underground world of computer hackers has been so thoroughly infiltrated in the US by the FBI and secret service that it is now riddled with paranoia and mistrust, with an estimated one in four hackers secretly informing on their peers, a Guardian investigation has established.
Cyber policing units have had such success in forcing online criminals to co-operate with their investigations through the threat of long prison sentences that they have managed to create an army of informants deep inside the hacking community.
In some cases, popular illegal forums used by cyber criminals as marketplaces for stolen identities and credit card numbers have been run by hacker turncoats acting as FBI moles. In others, undercover FBI agents posing as "carders" â€" hackers specialising in ID theft â€" have themselves taken over the management of crime forums, using the intelligence gathered to put dozens of people behind bars.
So ubiquitous has the FBI informant network become that Eric Corley, who publishes the hacker quarterly, 2600, has estimated that 25% of hackers in the US may have been recruited by the federal authorities to be their eyes and ears. "Owing to the harsh penalties involved and the relative inexperience with the law that many hackers have, they are rather susceptible to intimidation," Corley told the Guardian.
"It makes for very tense relationships," said John Young, who runs Cryptome, a website depository for secret documents along the lines of WikiLeaks. "There are dozens and dozens of hackers who have been shopped by people they thought they trusted."
The best-known example of the phenomenon is Adrian Lamo, a convicted hacker who turned informant on Bradley Manning, who is suspected of passing secret documents to WikiLeaks. Manning had entered into a prolonged instant messaging conversation with Lamo, whom he trusted and asked for advice. Lamo repaid that trust by promptly handing over the 23-year-old intelligence specialist to the military authorities. Manning has now been in custody for more than a year.
For acting as he did, Lamo has earned himself the sobriquet of Judas and the "world's most hated hacker", though he has insisted that he acted out of concern for those he believed could be harmed or even killed by the WikiLeaks publication of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
"Obviously it's been much worse for him but it's certainly been no picnic for me," Lamo has said. "He followed his conscience, and I followed mine."
The latest challenge for the FBI in terms of domestic US breaches are the anarchistic co-operatives of "hacktivists" that have launched several high-profile cyber-attacks in recent months designed to make a statement. In the most recent case a group calling itself Lulz Security launched an audacious raid on the FBI's own linked organisation InfraGard. The raid, which was a blatant two fingers up at the agency, was said to have been a response to news that the Pentagon was poised to declare foreign cyber-attacks an act of war.
Lulz Security shares qualities with the hacktivist group Anonymous that has launched attacks against companies including Visa and MasterCard as a protest against their decision to block donations to WikiLeaks. While Lulz Security is so recent a phenomenon that the FBI has yet to get a handle on it, Anonymous is already under pressure from the agency. There were raids on 40 addresses in the US and five in the UK in January, and a grand jury has been hearing evidence against the group in California at the start of a possible federal prosecution.
Kevin Poulsen, senior editor at Wired magazine, believes the collective is classically vulnerable to infiltration and disruption. "We have already begun to see Anonymous members attack each other and out each other's IP addresses. That's the first step towards being susceptible to the FBI."
Barrett Brown, who has acted as a spokesman for the otherwise secretive Anonymous, says it is fully aware of the FBI's interest. "The FBI are always there. They are always watching, always in the chatrooms. You don't know who is an informant and who isn't, and to that extent you are vulnerable."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/06/us-hackers-fbi-informer
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
FootballDad
Hall of Famer
This particular article goes well with the one just posted above by Dixie. It's always nice when a police-state agency can just make up new unconstitutional powers just because it feels like it. One thing that I found to be interesting is thatI found this story on the frontpageat Yahoo.com, not on a blog like Infowars.
<DIV ="bd">
<H1>The New Powers the FBI Just Granted Itself</H1>
<DIV ="byline"><CITE ="vcard">Adam Martin Adam Martin </CITE><ABBR title=2011-06-13T07:15:36-0700 ="timedate">MonJun13, 10:15amET</ABBR>
The Federal Bureau of Investigations has rewritten its own operations manual, giving its agents more autonomy than ever to conduct low-level searches without a paper trail. As <EM style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The New York Times[/i] reported today, there's no court decision or change in privacy laws governing the bureau's search techniques. Rather, the 2011 update to the 2008 Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide changes the bureau's own guidelines. But some of the new powers trouble privacy activists even though they're perfectly legal. Here's what FBI agents will be allowed to do under the new guidelines:
Undocumented database searches:[/b] Right now, agents can search commercial and law enforcement databases for any individual or organization they want, even without real evidence of wrongdoing, but they must officially open a so-called assessment inquiry. "Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision," <EM style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The Times[/i] reports. ACLU lawyer and former FBI agentMichael German said that would make it "harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes," but Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, "said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks."
Lie-detector tests:[/b] Under the current rulebook, agents can't administer a lie-detector test until they open a "preliminary investigation," which requires a factual basis for suspected wrongdoing (unlike the assessment). The new rules will allow agents to use lie-detector tests not just on suspects, but on potential informants, in an investigation considered an assessment.
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Trash searches: [/b]Similar to the relaxed restriction on lie-detector tests, agents will be able to search the trash of a potential informant as part of an assessment. "Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject's trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents."
Surveillance squads:[/b] The current guidelines stipulate that these highly trained squads can only be used on a target once during an assessment. The new rules would allow them to be used multiple times, but keep in place limits on the duration of physical surveillance. Caproni told <EM style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The Times[/i] that overuse of the squads would be curbed because of tight resources at the Bureau.
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"Undisclosed participation" in organizations:[/b] The special rules governing agents' and informants' attendance of meetings and surreptitious participation in organizations on which they are gathering information haven't been made public. But the new rules clearly state that agents or informants can freely attend five meetings of an organization before those rules apply.
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Authorizing informants at religious ceremonies: [/b]In this case, the FBI tightened its restrictions: "Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally."
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Investigating public officials:[/b] Some investigations, including those into public officials, are considered sensitive and call for additional oversight. Under the new rules, investigations into public officials, if the official is a victim or a witness rather than the target of an investigation, the additional oversight won't be called for. "Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position â€" like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example."
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Investigating scholars and members of the news media:[/b]Investigations into members of the press and academic scholars are also considered sensitive, and call for extra supervisions. The new rules make a distinction between bloggers as members of the press: "Prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs,"but the details of that distinction are unclear. The new rules also "limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States."
<DIV ="bd">
<H1>The New Powers the FBI Just Granted Itself</H1>
<DIV ="byline"><CITE ="vcard">Adam Martin Adam Martin </CITE><ABBR title=2011-06-13T07:15:36-0700 ="timedate">MonJun13, 10:15amET</ABBR>
The Federal Bureau of Investigations has rewritten its own operations manual, giving its agents more autonomy than ever to conduct low-level searches without a paper trail. As <EM style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The New York Times[/i] reported today, there's no court decision or change in privacy laws governing the bureau's search techniques. Rather, the 2011 update to the 2008 Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide changes the bureau's own guidelines. But some of the new powers trouble privacy activists even though they're perfectly legal. Here's what FBI agents will be allowed to do under the new guidelines:
Undocumented database searches:[/b] Right now, agents can search commercial and law enforcement databases for any individual or organization they want, even without real evidence of wrongdoing, but they must officially open a so-called assessment inquiry. "Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision," <EM style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The Times[/i] reports. ACLU lawyer and former FBI agentMichael German said that would make it "harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes," but Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, "said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks."
Lie-detector tests:[/b] Under the current rulebook, agents can't administer a lie-detector test until they open a "preliminary investigation," which requires a factual basis for suspected wrongdoing (unlike the assessment). The new rules will allow agents to use lie-detector tests not just on suspects, but on potential informants, in an investigation considered an assessment.
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Trash searches: [/b]Similar to the relaxed restriction on lie-detector tests, agents will be able to search the trash of a potential informant as part of an assessment. "Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject's trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents."
Surveillance squads:[/b] The current guidelines stipulate that these highly trained squads can only be used on a target once during an assessment. The new rules would allow them to be used multiple times, but keep in place limits on the duration of physical surveillance. Caproni told <EM style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The Times[/i] that overuse of the squads would be curbed because of tight resources at the Bureau.
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">"Undisclosed participation" in organizations:[/b] The special rules governing agents' and informants' attendance of meetings and surreptitious participation in organizations on which they are gathering information haven't been made public. But the new rules clearly state that agents or informants can freely attend five meetings of an organization before those rules apply.
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Authorizing informants at religious ceremonies: [/b]In this case, the FBI tightened its restrictions: "Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally."
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Investigating public officials:[/b] Some investigations, including those into public officials, are considered sensitive and call for additional oversight. Under the new rules, investigations into public officials, if the official is a victim or a witness rather than the target of an investigation, the additional oversight won't be called for. "Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position â€" like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example."
<STRONG style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Investigating scholars and members of the news media:[/b]Investigations into members of the press and academic scholars are also considered sensitive, and call for extra supervisions. The new rules make a distinction between bloggers as members of the press: "Prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs,"but the details of that distinction are unclear. The new rules also "limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States."
SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen
<H2>By John W. Whitehead
6/13/2011</H2>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"He [a federal agent] had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there."Â--Anthony Wright, victim of a Dept. of Education SWAT team raid</BLOCKQUOTE>The militarization of American police--no doubt a blowback effect of the military empire--has become an unfortunate part of American life. In fact, it says something about our reliance on the military that federal agencies having nothing whatsoever to do with national defense now see the need for their own paramilitary units. Among those federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions are the State Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to name just a few. These agencies have secured the services of fully armed agents--often in SWAT team attire--through a typical bureaucratic sleight-of-hand provision allowing for the creation of Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). Each OIG office is supposedly charged with not only auditing their particular agency's actions but also uncovering possible misconduct, waste, fraud, theft, or certain types of criminal activity by individuals or groups related to the agency's operation. At present, there are 73 such OIG offices in the federal government that, at times, perpetuate a police state aura about them.
For example, it was heavily armed agents from one such OIG office, working under the auspices of the Department of Education, who forced their way into the home of a California man, handcuffed him, and placed his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a squad car while they conducted a search of his home. This federal SWAT team raid, which is essentially what it was, on the home of Anthony Wright on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, was allegedly intended to ferret out information on Wright's estranged wife, Michelle, who no longer lives with him and who was suspected of financial aid fraud (early news reports characterized the purpose of the raid as being over Michelle's delinquent student loans). According to Wright, he was awakened at 6 am by the sound of agents battering down his door and, upon descending the stairs, was immediately subdued by police. One neighbor actually witnessed the team of armed agents surround the house and, after forcing entry, they "dragged [Wright] out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him."Â
This is not the first time a SWAT team has been employed in non-violent scenarios. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling. In some instances, SWAT teams are even employed, in full armament, to perform routine patrols.
How did we allow ourselves to travel so far down the road to a police state? While we are now grappling with a power-hungry police state at the federal level, the militarization of domestic American law enforcement is largely the result of the militarization of local police forces, which are increasingly militaristic in their uniforms, weaponry, language, training, and tactics and have come to rely on SWAT teams in matters that once could have been satisfactorily performed by traditional civilian officers. Even so, this transformation of law enforcement at the local level could not have been possible without substantial assistance from on high.
Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams--which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s--have now become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance. For example, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Defense agreed to a memorandum of understanding that enabled the transfer of federal military technology to local police forces. Following the passage of the Defense Authorization Security Act of 1997, which was intended to accelerate the transfer of military equipment to domestic law enforcement departments, local police acquired military weaponry--gratuitously or at sharp discounts--at astonishing rates. Between 1997 and 1999, the agency created by the Defense Authorization Security Act conveyed 3.4 million orders of military equipment to over 11,000 local police agencies in all 50 states. Not only did this vast abundance of military weaponry contribute to a more militarized police force, but it also helped spur the creation of SWAT teams in jurisdictions across the country.
In one of the few quantitative studies on the subject, criminologist Peter Kraska found in 1997 that close to 90 percent of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 and at least 100 sworn officers had at least one paramilitary unit. In a separate study, Kraska determined that, as of 1996, 65 percent of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 had a paramilitary unit, with an additional 8 percent intending to establish one.
While the frequency of SWAT operations has increased dramatically in recent years, jumping from 1,000 to 40,000 raids per year by 2001, it appears to have less to do with increases in violent crime and more to do with law enforcement bureaucracy and a police state mentality. Indeed, according to Kraska's estimates, 75-80 percent of SWAT callouts are now for mere warrant service. In some jurisdictions, SWAT teams are responsible for servicing 100 percent of all drug warrants issued. A Maryland study, conducted in the wake of a botched raid in 2008 that resulted in the mistaken detainment of Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo and the shooting deaths of his two dogs, corroborates Kraska's findings. According to the study, SWAT teams are deployed 4.5 times per day in Maryland with 94 percent of those deployments being for something as minor as serving search or arrest warrants. In the county in which the Calvo raid occurred, more than 50 percent of SWAT operations carried out were for misdemeanors or non-serious felonies.
This overuse of paramilitary forces and increased reliance on military weaponry has inevitably resulted in a pervasive culture of militarism in domestic law enforcement. Police mimicry of the military is enhanced by the war-heavy imagery and metaphors associated with law enforcement activity: the war on drugs, the war on crime, etc. Moreover, it is estimated that 46 percent of paramilitary units were trained by "active-duty military experts in special operations."Â In turn, the military mindset adopted by many SWAT members encourages a tendency to employ lethal force. After all, soldiers are authorized to terminate enemy combatants. As Lawrence Korb, a former official in the Reagan Administration, put it, soldiers are "trained to vaporize, not Mirandize."Â
Ironically, despite the fact that SWAT team members are subject to greater legal restraints than their counterparts in the military, they are often less well-trained in the use of force than are the special ops soldiers on which they model themselves. Indeed, SWAT teams frequently fail to conform to the basic precautions required in military raids. For instance, after reading about a drug raid in Missouri, an army officer currently serving in Afghanistan commented:
<BLOCKQUOTE>My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan. For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they're after is present at the location, and that it's too dangerous to try less coercive methods.</BLOCKQUOTE>Remember, SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations. As the role of paramilitary forces has expanded, however, to include involvement in nondescript police work targeting nonviolent suspects, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers. In one drug raid, for instance, an unarmed pregnant woman was shot as she attempted to flee the police by climbing out a window. In another case, the girlfriend of a drug suspect and her young child crouched on the floor in obedience to police instructions during the execution of a search warrant. One officer proceeded to shoot the family dogs. His fellow officer, in another room, mistook the shots for hostile gunfire and fired blindly into the room where the defendant crouched, killing her and wounding her child.
What we are witnessing is an inversion of the police-civilian relationship. Rather than compelling police officers to remain within constitutional bounds as servants of the people, ordinary Americans are being placed at the mercy of law enforcement. This is what happens when paramilitary forces are used to conduct ordinary policing operations, such as executing warrants on nonviolent defendants. Yet studies indicate that paramilitary raids frequently result in misdemeanor convictions. An investigation by Denver's Rocky Mountain News revealed that of the 146 no-knock raids conducted in Denver in 2000, only 49 resulted in charges. And only two resulted in prison sentences for suspects targeted in the raids.
General incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and botched raids tend to go hand in hand with an overuse of paramilitary forces. In some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant. In others, they simply barge into the wrong house or even the wrong building. In another subset of cases (such as the Department of Education raid on Anthony Wright's home), police conduct a search of a building where the suspect no longer resides. SWAT teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed.
All too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one tragedy after another for the residents with little consequences for law enforcement. Judges tend to afford extreme levels of deference to police officers who have mistakenly killed innocent civilians but do not afford similar leniency to civilians who have injured police officers in acts of self-defense. Even homeowners who mistake officers for robbers can be sentenced for assault or murder if they take defensive actions resulting in harm to police.
And as journalist Radley Balko shows in his in-depth study of police militarization, the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. Drug warrants, for instance, are typically served by paramilitary units late at night or shortly before dawn. Unfortunately, to the unsuspecting homeowner--especially in cases involving mistaken identities or wrong addresses--a raid can appear to be nothing less than a violent home invasion, with armed intruders crashing through their door. The natural reaction would be to engage in self-defense. Yet such a defensive reaction on the part of a homeowner, particularly a gun owner, will spur officers to employ lethal force.
That's exactly what happened to Jose Guerena, the young ex-Marine who was killed after a SWAT team kicked open the door of his Arizona home during a drug raid and opened fire. According to news reports, Guerena, 26 years old and the father of two young children, grabbed a gun in response to the forced invasion but never fired. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. Police officers were not as restrained. The young Iraqi war veteran was allegedly fired upon 71 times. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.
The problems inherent in these situations are further compounded by the fact that SWAT teams are granted "no-knock"Â warrants at high rates such that the warrants themselves are rendered practically meaningless. This sorry state of affairs is made even worse by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have essentially done away with the need for a "no-knock"Â warrant altogether, giving the police authority to disregard the protections afforded American citizens by the Fourth Amendment.
In the process, Americans are rendered altogether helpless and terror-stricken as a result of these confrontations with the police. Indeed, "terrorizing"Â is a mild term to describe the effect on those who survive such vigilante tactics. "It was terrible. It was the most frightening experience of my life. I thought it was a terrorist attack,"Â said 84-year-old Leona Goldberg, a victim of such a raid. Yet this type of "terrorizing"Â activity is characteristic of the culture that we have created. As author Eugene V. Walker, a former Boston University professor, wrote some years ago, "A society in which people are already isolated and atomized, divided by suspicious and destructive rivalry, would support a system of terror better than a society without much chronic antagonism."Â
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=715
<H2>By John W. Whitehead
6/13/2011</H2>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"He [a federal agent] had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there."Â--Anthony Wright, victim of a Dept. of Education SWAT team raid</BLOCKQUOTE>The militarization of American police--no doubt a blowback effect of the military empire--has become an unfortunate part of American life. In fact, it says something about our reliance on the military that federal agencies having nothing whatsoever to do with national defense now see the need for their own paramilitary units. Among those federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions are the State Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to name just a few. These agencies have secured the services of fully armed agents--often in SWAT team attire--through a typical bureaucratic sleight-of-hand provision allowing for the creation of Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). Each OIG office is supposedly charged with not only auditing their particular agency's actions but also uncovering possible misconduct, waste, fraud, theft, or certain types of criminal activity by individuals or groups related to the agency's operation. At present, there are 73 such OIG offices in the federal government that, at times, perpetuate a police state aura about them.
For example, it was heavily armed agents from one such OIG office, working under the auspices of the Department of Education, who forced their way into the home of a California man, handcuffed him, and placed his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a squad car while they conducted a search of his home. This federal SWAT team raid, which is essentially what it was, on the home of Anthony Wright on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, was allegedly intended to ferret out information on Wright's estranged wife, Michelle, who no longer lives with him and who was suspected of financial aid fraud (early news reports characterized the purpose of the raid as being over Michelle's delinquent student loans). According to Wright, he was awakened at 6 am by the sound of agents battering down his door and, upon descending the stairs, was immediately subdued by police. One neighbor actually witnessed the team of armed agents surround the house and, after forcing entry, they "dragged [Wright] out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him."Â
This is not the first time a SWAT team has been employed in non-violent scenarios. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling. In some instances, SWAT teams are even employed, in full armament, to perform routine patrols.
How did we allow ourselves to travel so far down the road to a police state? While we are now grappling with a power-hungry police state at the federal level, the militarization of domestic American law enforcement is largely the result of the militarization of local police forces, which are increasingly militaristic in their uniforms, weaponry, language, training, and tactics and have come to rely on SWAT teams in matters that once could have been satisfactorily performed by traditional civilian officers. Even so, this transformation of law enforcement at the local level could not have been possible without substantial assistance from on high.
Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams--which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s--have now become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance. For example, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Defense agreed to a memorandum of understanding that enabled the transfer of federal military technology to local police forces. Following the passage of the Defense Authorization Security Act of 1997, which was intended to accelerate the transfer of military equipment to domestic law enforcement departments, local police acquired military weaponry--gratuitously or at sharp discounts--at astonishing rates. Between 1997 and 1999, the agency created by the Defense Authorization Security Act conveyed 3.4 million orders of military equipment to over 11,000 local police agencies in all 50 states. Not only did this vast abundance of military weaponry contribute to a more militarized police force, but it also helped spur the creation of SWAT teams in jurisdictions across the country.
In one of the few quantitative studies on the subject, criminologist Peter Kraska found in 1997 that close to 90 percent of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 and at least 100 sworn officers had at least one paramilitary unit. In a separate study, Kraska determined that, as of 1996, 65 percent of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 had a paramilitary unit, with an additional 8 percent intending to establish one.
While the frequency of SWAT operations has increased dramatically in recent years, jumping from 1,000 to 40,000 raids per year by 2001, it appears to have less to do with increases in violent crime and more to do with law enforcement bureaucracy and a police state mentality. Indeed, according to Kraska's estimates, 75-80 percent of SWAT callouts are now for mere warrant service. In some jurisdictions, SWAT teams are responsible for servicing 100 percent of all drug warrants issued. A Maryland study, conducted in the wake of a botched raid in 2008 that resulted in the mistaken detainment of Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo and the shooting deaths of his two dogs, corroborates Kraska's findings. According to the study, SWAT teams are deployed 4.5 times per day in Maryland with 94 percent of those deployments being for something as minor as serving search or arrest warrants. In the county in which the Calvo raid occurred, more than 50 percent of SWAT operations carried out were for misdemeanors or non-serious felonies.
This overuse of paramilitary forces and increased reliance on military weaponry has inevitably resulted in a pervasive culture of militarism in domestic law enforcement. Police mimicry of the military is enhanced by the war-heavy imagery and metaphors associated with law enforcement activity: the war on drugs, the war on crime, etc. Moreover, it is estimated that 46 percent of paramilitary units were trained by "active-duty military experts in special operations."Â In turn, the military mindset adopted by many SWAT members encourages a tendency to employ lethal force. After all, soldiers are authorized to terminate enemy combatants. As Lawrence Korb, a former official in the Reagan Administration, put it, soldiers are "trained to vaporize, not Mirandize."Â
Ironically, despite the fact that SWAT team members are subject to greater legal restraints than their counterparts in the military, they are often less well-trained in the use of force than are the special ops soldiers on which they model themselves. Indeed, SWAT teams frequently fail to conform to the basic precautions required in military raids. For instance, after reading about a drug raid in Missouri, an army officer currently serving in Afghanistan commented:
<BLOCKQUOTE>My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan. For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they're after is present at the location, and that it's too dangerous to try less coercive methods.</BLOCKQUOTE>Remember, SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations. As the role of paramilitary forces has expanded, however, to include involvement in nondescript police work targeting nonviolent suspects, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers. In one drug raid, for instance, an unarmed pregnant woman was shot as she attempted to flee the police by climbing out a window. In another case, the girlfriend of a drug suspect and her young child crouched on the floor in obedience to police instructions during the execution of a search warrant. One officer proceeded to shoot the family dogs. His fellow officer, in another room, mistook the shots for hostile gunfire and fired blindly into the room where the defendant crouched, killing her and wounding her child.
What we are witnessing is an inversion of the police-civilian relationship. Rather than compelling police officers to remain within constitutional bounds as servants of the people, ordinary Americans are being placed at the mercy of law enforcement. This is what happens when paramilitary forces are used to conduct ordinary policing operations, such as executing warrants on nonviolent defendants. Yet studies indicate that paramilitary raids frequently result in misdemeanor convictions. An investigation by Denver's Rocky Mountain News revealed that of the 146 no-knock raids conducted in Denver in 2000, only 49 resulted in charges. And only two resulted in prison sentences for suspects targeted in the raids.
General incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and botched raids tend to go hand in hand with an overuse of paramilitary forces. In some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant. In others, they simply barge into the wrong house or even the wrong building. In another subset of cases (such as the Department of Education raid on Anthony Wright's home), police conduct a search of a building where the suspect no longer resides. SWAT teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed.
All too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one tragedy after another for the residents with little consequences for law enforcement. Judges tend to afford extreme levels of deference to police officers who have mistakenly killed innocent civilians but do not afford similar leniency to civilians who have injured police officers in acts of self-defense. Even homeowners who mistake officers for robbers can be sentenced for assault or murder if they take defensive actions resulting in harm to police.
And as journalist Radley Balko shows in his in-depth study of police militarization, the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. Drug warrants, for instance, are typically served by paramilitary units late at night or shortly before dawn. Unfortunately, to the unsuspecting homeowner--especially in cases involving mistaken identities or wrong addresses--a raid can appear to be nothing less than a violent home invasion, with armed intruders crashing through their door. The natural reaction would be to engage in self-defense. Yet such a defensive reaction on the part of a homeowner, particularly a gun owner, will spur officers to employ lethal force.
That's exactly what happened to Jose Guerena, the young ex-Marine who was killed after a SWAT team kicked open the door of his Arizona home during a drug raid and opened fire. According to news reports, Guerena, 26 years old and the father of two young children, grabbed a gun in response to the forced invasion but never fired. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. Police officers were not as restrained. The young Iraqi war veteran was allegedly fired upon 71 times. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.
The problems inherent in these situations are further compounded by the fact that SWAT teams are granted "no-knock"Â warrants at high rates such that the warrants themselves are rendered practically meaningless. This sorry state of affairs is made even worse by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have essentially done away with the need for a "no-knock"Â warrant altogether, giving the police authority to disregard the protections afforded American citizens by the Fourth Amendment.
In the process, Americans are rendered altogether helpless and terror-stricken as a result of these confrontations with the police. Indeed, "terrorizing"Â is a mild term to describe the effect on those who survive such vigilante tactics. "It was terrible. It was the most frightening experience of my life. I thought it was a terrorist attack,"Â said 84-year-old Leona Goldberg, a victim of such a raid. Yet this type of "terrorizing"Â activity is characteristic of the culture that we have created. As author Eugene V. Walker, a former Boston University professor, wrote some years ago, "A society in which people are already isolated and atomized, divided by suspicious and destructive rivalry, would support a system of terror better than a society without much chronic antagonism."Â
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=715
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
TSA "Security Exercise" Covers 3 States, 5000 Miles</font>
...
The TSA, in alliance with a whole host of federal, state, local
agencies as well as military personnel, is currently conducting a
massive "security exercise"Â throughout Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.
(This particular area has one of the highest concentration of Whites in the country)
...
The exercise will utilize multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk
helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface
teams, reports the Marietta Times.
...
The details are nebulous to say the least and seems to revolve around
little else than testing out high-tech surveillance equipment
...
Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West
Virginia admitted...the event was about letting, "people know we're out here."
...
The TSA has also announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to
include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a
network of internal checkpoints and rolling out security procedures
already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads
and highways across the United States.
...
President 0bama's election campaign promise to create a domestic "security force," that is "just as powerful, just
as strong" as the US military is now coming to fruition as the TSA
expands to turn American into a checkpoint-festooned hellhole where
constant fearmongering about terror threats is the justification for
the construction of a Sovietized police state.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-security-exercise-covers-3-states-5000-miles/
...
The TSA, in alliance with a whole host of federal, state, local
agencies as well as military personnel, is currently conducting a
massive "security exercise"Â throughout Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.
(This particular area has one of the highest concentration of Whites in the country)
...
The exercise will utilize multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk
helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface
teams, reports the Marietta Times.
...
The details are nebulous to say the least and seems to revolve around
little else than testing out high-tech surveillance equipment
...
Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West
Virginia admitted...the event was about letting, "people know we're out here."
...
The TSA has also announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to
include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a
network of internal checkpoints and rolling out security procedures
already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads
and highways across the United States.
...
President 0bama's election campaign promise to create a domestic "security force," that is "just as powerful, just
as strong" as the US military is now coming to fruition as the TSA
expands to turn American into a checkpoint-festooned hellhole where
constant fearmongering about terror threats is the justification for
the construction of a Sovietized police state.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-security-exercise-covers-3-states-5000-miles/
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Just for "terrorists" & hackers...riiiiiight.
NSA allies with Internet carriers to thwart cyber attacks against defense firms
By Ellen Nakashima, Updated: Thursday, June 16, 7:37 PM
The National Security Agency is working with Internet service providers to deploy a new generation of tools to scan e-mail and other digital traffic with the goal of thwarting cyberattacks against defense firms by foreign adversaries, senior defense and industry officials say.
The novel program, which began last month on a voluntary, trial basis, relies on sophisticated NSA data sets to identify malicious programs slipped into the vast stream of Internet data flowing to the nation's largest defense firms. Such attacks, including one last month against Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, are nearly constant as rival nations and terrorist groups seek access to U.S. military secrets.
The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the Pentagon to determine the extent of the cyber attack on America's largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin. (May 31)
The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the Pentagon to determine the extent of the cyber attack on America's largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin. (May 31)
Video
A group of hackers is taking responsibility for taking down the CIA website. The CIA says no classified information was compromised. (June 16)
A group of hackers is taking responsibility for taking down the CIA website. The CIA says no classified information was compromised. (June 16)
"We hope the . . . cyber pilot can be the beginning of something bigger," Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said at a global security conference in Paris on Thursday. "It could serve as a model that can be transported to other critical infrastructure sectors, under the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security."Â
The prospect of a role for the NSA, the nation's largest spy agency and a part of the Defense Department, in helping Internet service providers filter domestic Web traffic already had sparked concerns among privacy activists. Lynn's suggestion that the program might be extended beyond the work of defense contractors threatened to raise the stakes.
James X. Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group, said that limiting the NSA's role to sharing data is "an elegant solution"Â to the long-standing problem of how to use the agency's expertise while avoiding domestic surveillance by the government. But, he said, any extension of the program must guarantee protections against government access to private Internet traffic.
"We wouldn't want this to become a backdoor form of surveillance,"Â Dempsey said.
Officials say the pilot program does not involve direct monitoring of the contractors' networks by the government. The program uses NSA-developed "signatures,"Â or fingerprints of malicious code, and sequences of suspicious network behavior to filter the Internet traffic flowing to major defense contractors. That allows the Internet providers to disable the threats before an attack can penetrate a contractor's servers. The trial is testing two particular sets of signatures and behavior patterns that the NSA has detected as threats.
The Internet carriers are AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink. Together they are seeking to filter the traffic of 15 defense contractors, including Lockheed, Falls Church-based CSC, McLean-based SAIC and Northrop Grumman, which is moving its headquarters to Falls Church. The contractors have the option, but not the obligation, to report the success rate to the NSA's Threat Operations Center.
All three of the Internet carriers declined to comment on the pilot program. Several of the defense contractors declined to comment as well.
Partnering with the major Internet providers "is probably the technically quickest way to go and the best way to go"Â to defend dot-com networks, said Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who heads the NSA and the affiliated U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, testifying before Congress in March.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/major-internet-service-providers-cooperating-with-nsa-on-monitoring-traffic/2011/06/07/AG2dukXH_story.html
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
NSA allies with Internet carriers to thwart cyber attacks against defense firms
By Ellen Nakashima, Updated: Thursday, June 16, 7:37 PM
The National Security Agency is working with Internet service providers to deploy a new generation of tools to scan e-mail and other digital traffic with the goal of thwarting cyberattacks against defense firms by foreign adversaries, senior defense and industry officials say.
The novel program, which began last month on a voluntary, trial basis, relies on sophisticated NSA data sets to identify malicious programs slipped into the vast stream of Internet data flowing to the nation's largest defense firms. Such attacks, including one last month against Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, are nearly constant as rival nations and terrorist groups seek access to U.S. military secrets.
The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the Pentagon to determine the extent of the cyber attack on America's largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin. (May 31)
The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the Pentagon to determine the extent of the cyber attack on America's largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin. (May 31)
Video
A group of hackers is taking responsibility for taking down the CIA website. The CIA says no classified information was compromised. (June 16)
A group of hackers is taking responsibility for taking down the CIA website. The CIA says no classified information was compromised. (June 16)
"We hope the . . . cyber pilot can be the beginning of something bigger," Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said at a global security conference in Paris on Thursday. "It could serve as a model that can be transported to other critical infrastructure sectors, under the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security."Â
The prospect of a role for the NSA, the nation's largest spy agency and a part of the Defense Department, in helping Internet service providers filter domestic Web traffic already had sparked concerns among privacy activists. Lynn's suggestion that the program might be extended beyond the work of defense contractors threatened to raise the stakes.
James X. Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group, said that limiting the NSA's role to sharing data is "an elegant solution"Â to the long-standing problem of how to use the agency's expertise while avoiding domestic surveillance by the government. But, he said, any extension of the program must guarantee protections against government access to private Internet traffic.
"We wouldn't want this to become a backdoor form of surveillance,"Â Dempsey said.
Officials say the pilot program does not involve direct monitoring of the contractors' networks by the government. The program uses NSA-developed "signatures,"Â or fingerprints of malicious code, and sequences of suspicious network behavior to filter the Internet traffic flowing to major defense contractors. That allows the Internet providers to disable the threats before an attack can penetrate a contractor's servers. The trial is testing two particular sets of signatures and behavior patterns that the NSA has detected as threats.
The Internet carriers are AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink. Together they are seeking to filter the traffic of 15 defense contractors, including Lockheed, Falls Church-based CSC, McLean-based SAIC and Northrop Grumman, which is moving its headquarters to Falls Church. The contractors have the option, but not the obligation, to report the success rate to the NSA's Threat Operations Center.
All three of the Internet carriers declined to comment on the pilot program. Several of the defense contractors declined to comment as well.
Partnering with the major Internet providers "is probably the technically quickest way to go and the best way to go"Â to defend dot-com networks, said Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who heads the NSA and the affiliated U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, testifying before Congress in March.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/major-internet-service-providers-cooperating-with-nsa-on-monitoring-traffic/2011/06/07/AG2dukXH_story.html
Edited by: DixieDestroyer