American Politics, Progressive News, Human Rights, Civil Disobedience, Foreign Policy, Current Events, Cultural Activism, and Social Justice.
http://www.dustcircle.com | http://www.facebook.com/dissentingheretic | http://www.twitter.com/dustcirclenews
Showing posts with label big brother. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big brother. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 25

@dustcirclenews - HEADLINES: Resisting the Big Brother State, New Thought Police, Syria's Revolution, US Surveillance Drones Acknowledged, Excuse for War, Supreme Court Rulings, Military Presence in Africa, Bible-Thumper Politics, Edward Snowden, more.


Join our mailing list, and watch free video news at: http://www.dustcircle.com

Bradley Manning: Truth on trial? Featuring Exclusive Interview with Julian Assange

VIDEO --> http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76482

Resisting the Big Brother state
http://socialistworker.org/2013/06/25/resisting-the-big-brother-state

American Government and Corporations Are at War With the American People
http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-nsa

The new thought police

http://machineslikeus.com/news/new-thought-police

Walmart Costs U.S. 1 Billion in Foodstamps for Workers Not to Starve to Death
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76448

Will the U.S. hijack Syria's revolution?http://socialistworker.org/2013/06/25/will-the-us-hijack-syrias-revolution

FBI Director Acknowledges Use Of Surveillance Drones In The US
http://www.countercurrents.org/london200613.htm

10 Problems With The Latest Excuse For War
http://www.countercurrents.org/swanson200613.htm

The National Security State and the Whistleblower
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-National-Security-Stat-by-Melvin-Goodman-130619-288.html

Google Challenges NSA Gag Order, Cites 1st Amendment
http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2013/06/google-challenges-nsa-gag-order-cites-1st-amendment.html

4 Recent Supreme Court Rulings Show Which Way the Wind Is Blowing: Corporations Are Getting Whatever They Want
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/us-supreme-court-furthers-corporate-assault-america

How the U.S. Military Presence in Africa Could Spawn a New Era of Radical Terrorism
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-military-and-unraveling-africa

The Evil Lies of Crazy Bankers: 6 Former Employees Expose Inhuman Greed of BofA
http://www.alternet.org/economy/bank-americas-former-employees-expose-inhuman-greed

The Fascist State of America
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Fascist-State-of-Ameri-by-Glen-Barry-130625-853.html

There's a New Fascism on the Rise, and the NSA Leaks Show Us What It Looks Like
http://www.alternet.org/media/understanding-latest-leaks-understanding-rise-new-fascism

Are the Bible Thumpers Losing Their Grip on Our Politics?
http://www.alternet.org/belief/christian-right-0

How American Society Unravelled After Greedy Elites Robbed the Country Blind
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-american-society-unravelled

United States of Surveillance

The TRUTH About Whistleblowers Edward Snowden And Bradley Manning

Friday, June 8

6 Government Surveillance Programs Designed to Watch What You Do Online


ALTERNET / By David Rosen 

If you are a user of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Craigslist or another popular site, the U.S. security state is watching you.


 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 
 
President Eisenhower was right on point about the military-industrial complex, but he could not have predicted the emergence of the massive surveillance state -- combining the government and private sector -- that bolsters it.
Sadly, neither President Obama nor his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has the desire or moral courage to fight the growing power and influence of the Corporate Security State. We are witnessing the integration of spying on two levels, the government level (federal, state and local) and the corporate level (via telecom providers, web services and credit card companies).
If you are a user of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Craigslist or another popular site, the U.S. security state is watching you. An increasing number of federal agencies are employing sophisticated means to monitor Americans' use of social networking sites. Federal entities from the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Department to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are involved in developing programs to track the American public online.
Here is a brief summary of some of the other programs.
1. Justice Department. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released a report from the DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property section, "Obtaining and Using Evidence from Social Networking Sites," that describes how evidence from social networking sites can reveal personal communications that might help "establish motives and personal relationships."
It reports that monitored data from such sites can provide location information and "prove and disprove alibis." Perhaps most illuminating, it advises agents that “going undercover” on social media sites can enable law enforcement to communicate with suspects and targets, gain access to nonpublic information and map social relationships. The DOJ document notes that Twitter retains the last login IP address, but does not preserve data unless legally required to do so. 
2. The IRS uses a variety of social media sites like Facebook, Google, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and Second Life to investigate taxpayers. It seems to have started this practice in 2009, providing agents with special training on social networking. The EFF posted the IRS’ 38-page training that offers detailed tips to agents on how to conduct searches, locate relevant taxpayer information, narrow down and refine results. 
3. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is seeking a tool that integrates all online information, including web searches, Wikipedia edits and traffic webcams.
4. The Defense Department has solicited proposals through DARPA for a $42 million “Social Media Strategic Communications” (SMISC) program, a tool that tracks social media and weeds out information. It has set four goals for the project: (i) to detect, classify and measure the development of ideas, concepts in hidden social media messages; (ii) specify the structure of the campaign and influence in social media sites and the community they create; (iii) identify the participants and intention in conducting a social media campaign of persuasion and measure its effect; and (iv) develop an effective counter-message to an identified campaign carried out against the enemy. 
5. The FBI is soliciting a bid for a program that seems very similar to the DHS social-network monitoring program. Dubbed the "FBI Social Media Application,” the program would have "[the ability] to rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence ... to quickly vet, identify and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats."
In the FBI’s 12-page solicitation, it requests a program that can quickly identify, display and locate alerts on geo-spatial maps and enable users to summarize the "who, what, when, where and why" of specific threats and incidents. Going further, it seeks to not simply detect “credible threats,” but to identify those organizing and taking part in gatherings and to predict upcoming events. According to the FBI, "Social media will be a valued source of information to the SIOC [i.e., Strategic Information and Operations Center] intelligence analyst in a crisis because it will be both eyewitness and first response to the crisis."
An FBI spokesperson insisted, "[We] will not focus on specific persons or protected groups, but on words that relate to 'events' and 'crisis' and activities constituting violations of federal criminal law or threats to national security. Examples of these words will include lockdown, bomb, suspicious package, white powder, active shoot, school lockdown, etc.” Rest assured, much like the assurances voiced by the DHS, the FBI insists that its monitoring won't be used to focus on specific individuals or groups.
6. Department of Homeland Security. A more aggressive monitoring program was recently revealed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) when it secured from the DHS a list of approximately 380 keywords that the agency tracks. The allegedly threatening terms were found in the DHS’ Analyst Desktop Binder, part of its 2011 Media Monitoring Capability (MMC) program. 
These terms are organized into nine categories:
Agencies – 26 terms, including “DHS,” “FBI”, “CIA,” “Air Marshal,” “United Nations” and “Red Cross”;
Domestic security – 52 terms, including "assassination," "dirty bomb," “crash,” “first responder,” “screening” and “death.”
Hazardous materials – 34 terms, including "hazmat," “nuclear," “leak,” “burn” and “cloud.”
Public health – 47 terms, including "ebola," "contamination," “wave,” “pork” and “agriculture.”
Infrastructure security – 35 terms, including “AMTRAK,” “airport," "subway," “port,” “electric” and “cancelled.”
Southwest border violence – 65 terms, including "drug cartel," "decapitated," “gunfight,” “marijuana,” “heroin,” “border” and “bust.”
Terrorism – 55 terms, including “Jihad,” “biological weapons,” “suicide attack,” “plot” and “pirates.”
Emergencies and weather – 41 terms, including “disaster,” "hurricane," "power outage," “ice,” “storm” and “help.”
Cyber security – 25 terms, including “cyber terror,” “malware,” “virus,” “hacker,” “worm,” “China” and “Trojan.”
The DHS has been engaged in monitoring social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube and LinkedIn as well as blogs since at least 2010. Its effort is run through the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS), National Operations Center (NOC), and is entitled “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness (Initiative).” Its ostensible purpose is to provide situational awareness and strengthen its common operating picture. 
The scope of DHS’ practice of social monitoring was unexpectedly revealed in a special congressional hearing, the House Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Intelligence, headed by Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA), in February. Two DHS officials, Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan and Director of Operations Coordination and Planning Richard Chavez, raised the representatives' ire by appearing to be deliberately stonewalling on the scope and practice of the agency's social media surveillance.
Most disturbing, the DHS reps appeared unsure about the monitoring program’s goals, how the gathered information would be used and whether it would be shared with other agencies. In an unusual show of bipartisan unity, Reps. Billy Long (R-MO), Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) joined Rep. Meehan in chastising the DHS officials.
Under intense congressional probing, DHS reps revealed that the keywords chosen for monitoring were drawn from commercially available, off-the-shelf database programs that were customized to meet its specifications. The agency was particularly interested in determining first witnesses to breaking events like the 2011 Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others and the January 2012 bomb threat at an Austin school.
The DHS reps insisted that data gathered was only used to confirm other news reports and that information on private citizens was not being collected. In addition, they claimed that that all personally identifying information was regularly scrubbed from the agency’s servers.
Few should feel comforted by the DHS assurances. At the House hearing, it was also revealed that the agency was involved in what appears to be an ongoing campaign to monitor the actions and beliefs of individual Americans engaged in community-based political activism. It compiled a report, “Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish MI,” that tracked community reactions to the proposed location of Guantánamo detainees in a local Michigan prison.
The DHS report is part of the EPIC documents acquired through a Freedom of Information request. It details that information was gathered from a variety of sources, including newspaper articles and responses, blogs by local activists, and Twitter and Facebook posts. 
The House hearing also shed light on the DHS practice of outsourcing keyword tracking of social media through a sole-source contract to the giant defense contractor, General Dynamics. In 2011, General Dynamics had revenues of $5.5 billion of which 84 percent ($4.6 bil) came from government contracts. Earlier this year, it’s Advanced Information Systems division was awarded a $14 million DHS contract to (in the words of a press release) “provide constant and continual watch operations for critical communications to the agency's National Coordinating Center.” In addition, it will “identify the possible impacts of potentially disruptive events. 
In keeping with the prevailing ethos of corporate unaccountability, it turns out if the General Dynamics employees are found to have misused the information garnered from a social network user, including a journalist or public figure, the employee must take a training course or, worst case, lose his/her job. No criminal penalties are specified.
A word to the wise, Big Brother is watching you.

submit to reddit

Monday, June 4

Illinois Law Makes It a Felony to Record Comments of Police in Public



MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

That's right.  There is a law in Illinois that can put a person in jail for up to 15 years for recording the remarks of a police officer in public.  That means if you are videotaping police beating up protesters with your cellphone, you can be arrested and charged with a serious crime.

Police forces in various parts of the US have been trying to keep the public from recording everything from traffic stops to brutality.

And until recently, the effort to provide law enforcement officials with immunity from having their public actions documented was gaining momentum.

In May, however, the precedent setting and ominous Illinois law was struck down by a federal appellate court.

According to the Chicago Tribune last month,
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from making audio recordings of police officers in public "likely violates" the First Amendment and ordered that Cook County prosecutors be prevented from enforcing it.
The ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is the strongest blow yet to the state's eavesdropping law.
Furthermore, the Tribune noted.
In its ruling, the appeals court said the law is "the broadest of its kind" in the country and "likely violates the First Amendment's free-speech and free-press guarantees."

The law "restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests," wrote Judge Diane S. Sykes, who was joined in the decision by Judge David F. Hamilton. Judge Richard A. Posner dissented.
And fortunately, efforts by the police to arrest and intimidate people for holding them accountable for their activities through recordings are being struck down elsewhere.  As the Tribune documents,
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled last year that people have a right to record police working in public after a man was arrested by Boston police for recording them while they arrested another person on the Boston Common. The city settled a lawsuit stemming from the case for $170,000 last month, according to the ACLU.

In January, the Department of Justice argued in a Maryland case that "the First Amendment protects the rights of private citizens to record police officers during the public discharge of their duties."
The federal appeals court ruling was a victory for First Amendment rights and holding police accountable.  It was also a testament to the courage of Chicago street artist Chris Drew, who was charged by the Cook County State's Attorney for recording the Chicago police arresting him in 2010 for selling his artwork on a downtown sidewalk without a permit.

Unfortunately, Drew, who was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, could not personally receive acclaim for being a First Amendment hero.  He died of lung cancer one day before the appellate court ruling.

Sunday, June 3

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Drones




Everyone is talking about drones. Also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, remote-piloted aircrafts have become a controversial centerpiece of the Obama administration's counter-terrorism strategy. Domestically, their surveillance power is being hyped for everything from fighting crime to monitoring hurricanesor spawning salmon. Meanwhile, concerns are cropping up about privacy, ethics and safety. We've rounded up some of the best coverage of drones to get you oriented. Did we miss anything? Let us know.
Article imageA Little History
The idea of unmanned flight had been around for decades, but it was in the 1990s, thanks to advances in GPS and computing, that the possibilities for drones really took off, as the New Yorker recently recounted. While hobbyists and researchers looked for uses for automated, airborne cameras, the military became the driving force behind drone developments. (This history from the Washington Post has more details) According to the Congressional Research Service, the military's cache of U.A.V.'s has grown from just a handful in 2001 to more than 7,000 today. This New York Times graphic shows the variety of drones currently employed by the military — from the famous missile-launching Predator to tiny prototypes shaped like hummingbirds.
This February, Congress cleared the way for far more widespread use of drones by businesses, scientists, police and still unknown others. The Federal Aviation Administration will release a comprehensive set of rules on drones by 2015.
The Shadow Drone War: Obama's Open Secret
As the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the Obama administration has escalated a mostly covert air war through clandestine bases in the U.S. and other countries. Just this week, the administration's drone-driven national security policy was documented in this book excerpt by Newsweek reporter Daniel Klaidman and a New York Times article.
Both the CIA and military use drones for "targeted killings" of terrorist leaders. The strikes have been an awkward open secret, remaining officially classified while government officials mentionthem repeatedly. Obama admitted the program's existence in an online chat in February, and his counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, gave a speech last month laying out the administration's legal and ethical case for drone strikes.
The crux of it is that they are a precise and efficient form of warfare. Piloted from thousands of miles away (here's an account from a base outside Las Vegas), they don't put U.S. troops at risk, and, by the government's count, harm few civilians.
How Many Civilians Do Drone Strikes Kill?
Updated 5/31
Statistics are hard to nail down. The Long War Journal and the New America Foundation track strikes and militant and civilian deaths, drawing mainly on media reports with the caveat that they can't always be verified. The Long War Journal tallied 30 civilian deathsin Pakistan in 2011. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which also tracks drone strikes, consistently documents higher numbers of civilian deaths — for Pakistan in 2011, at least 75. Obama administration officials, the New York Times reported this week, have said that such deaths are few or in the "single digits."
But the Times, citing "counterterrorism officials," also reported that the U.S. classifies all military-age men in a drone strike zone to be militants, unless their innocence is proven after the attack. If that's true, it raises questions about the government statistics on civilian casualties. One State Department official told the Times that the CIA might be overzealous in defining strike targets — he told them that "the joke was that when the C.I.A. sees 'three guys doing jumping jacks,' the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp.
What About the Political Fallout?
The U.S. has also used airstrikes to side-step legal arguments about the boundaries of the campaign against al Qaeda. Both Bush and Obama administration officials have argued that Congress' September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force extends to al Qaeda operatives in any country, with or without the consent of local governments.
Drone strikes are extremely unpopular in the countries where they're deployed. They've led to tense diplomatic maneuvers with Pakistan, and protests and radicalization in Yemen. Iraqis have also protested the State Department's use of surveillance drones in their country.
Domestic concerns about civil liberties and due process in the secret air war were inflamed last fall, when a drone strike in Yemen killed Anwar al Awlaki, an al Qaeda member and a U.S. citizen. Weeks later, Awlaki's 16-year-old American son was also killed by a drone.
Costs and Crashes
Drones are cheap relative to most military manned planes, and theywere a central feature of the Pentagon's scaled-back budget this year. But drones aren't immune from cost overruns. The latest version of the Global Hawk surveillance drone was put on the back-burner this January after years of expensive setbacks and questions about whether they were really better than the old U-2 spy planes they were slated to replace.
And while drones may not carry pilots, they can still crash. Wired has also reported on drones' susceptibility to viruses.
Another problem? The Air Force is playing catch-up trying to train people to fly drones and analyze the mountains of data they produce, forcing them to sometimes rely on civilian contractors for sensitive missions, according to the LA Times. The New York Times reported that in 2011, the Air Force processed 1,500 hours of video and 1,500 still images daily, much of it from surveillance drones. An Air Force commander admitted this spring that it would take "years" to catch up on the data they've collected.
Drones, Coming to America...
Updated 6/1
There are already a number of non-military entities that the FAA has authorized to fly drones, including a handful of local police departments. How drones might change police work is still to be determined (the Seattle police department, for example, showed off a 3.5-pound camera-equipped drone with a battery life of awhopping 10 minutes.)
Police drones may soon be more widespread, as the FAA releasedtemporary rules this month making it easier for police departments to get approval for UAVs weighing up to 25 pounds, and for emergency responders to use smaller drones. The Department of Homeland Security also announced a program to help local agencies integrate the technology — principally as cheaper and safer alternatives to helicopters for reconnaissance. The Border Patrol already has a small fleet of Predators for border surveillance. (The LA Times has more on the Customs and Border Protection's use of drones in the interior, during floods and fires, and on criticisms of drones' success in stopping illegal border activity.)
Law enforcement officials are staving off a backlash from privacy advocates. The ACLU and other civil rights groups have raised concerns about privacy and Fourth Amendment rights from unprecedented surveillance capability — not to mention the potential of police drones armed with tear gas and rubber bullets, which some departments have proposed. Congressmen Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, co-chairs of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, have asked the FAA to address privacy concerns in their new guidelines.
One of the first drone-assisted arrests by a local police department took place in North Dakota this year, with the help of a borrowed DHS Predator. It was deployed, as the New Yorker detailed, to catch a group of renegade ranchers in a conflict that originated over a bale of hay.
Scholarly drones
Universities actually have the most permits to fly drones at this point, for research on everything from pesticide distribution to disaster preparation. As Salon points out, the Pentagon and military contractors are also big funders of university drone research.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that has been outspoken about privacy concerns related to drones, put together the map below of entities authorized to fly drones by the FAA.
Get Your Own Drone!
Could you, too, become the proud owner of a drone? At the low-end, a drone can be a glorified model helicopter, and there's a dedicated community of DIY-drone builders. This fall, a group from Occupy Wall Street tried to use the "Occucopter" do their own surveillance of police movements.

Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
 

Friday, June 1

There Are More Government Secrets Than Ever


The number of official government secrets rose to its highest level last year, auditors reported Tuesday, even though President Obama promised that his administration would be the most open and transparent in history.
U.S. officials created more than 92 million classified documents in fiscal 2011, up from 76.5 million the year before, the Information Security Oversight Office said in its annual report. The agency oversees the U.S government’s classification system.
Critics said the numbers show that the classification system is out of control.
“It’s hard to imagine a situation where 92 million is the right number,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.
“We know, because congressional committees, blue-ribbon panels and experts of every political stripe have told us … that there is massive and routine overclassification,” Ms. Goitein said.
Upon taking office in 2009, Mr. Obama issued an executive order overhauling the classification system to make the government more accountable and end the scourge of overclassification. He also pledged more fundamental changes later in his term.
The results of a review of agency classification procedures and proposals for other reforms he ordered are due this summer.
“The jury is not fully back in yet, but we have some early indications that [the 2009 changes] didn’t go far enough,” Ms. Goitein said.
But officials cautioned against reading too much into their numbers. The 92 million figure might not accurately capture the real extent of government classification, said William A Cira, an associate director in the Information Security Oversight Office.
“It’s a broad estimate,” he said.
Since 2008, when the Information Security Oversight Office asked agencies to start trying to provide figures for classified email and other electronic communications and documents, the numbers for such “derivative classification decisions” have risen by as much as 30 million a year.
Part of that increase might just be agencies finding ways to count new kinds of classified communications, Mr. Cira said.
“It is very difficult to estimate the true extent of classification activity … [owing to] the rapid expansion of the use of electronic tools in the classified domain,” he said.
The 92 million figure includes classified emails, Web pages, blogs, bulletin boards and instant messaging systems that operate on classified computer networks, Mr. Cira said.
Nonetheless, “We think it’s probable that the overall trend line [for classification activity] is up,” he said.
He said this might result, in part, from increased information-sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
“If a secret document [such as a threat briefing or other terrorism warning] is now distributed to 200 people rather than 20, that’s counted as 180 extra derivative decisions,” Mr. Cira said.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Shaun Waterman


Shaun Waterman


Shaun Waterman is an award-winning reporter for the Washington Times, covering foreign affairs, defense and cybersecurity. He was a senior editor and correspondent for United Press International for nearly a decade, and has covered the Department of Homeland Security since 2003. His reporting on the Sept. 11 Commission and the tortuous process by which some of its recommendations finally became ...

Friday, March 16

Drone Attack: How We Might Willingly Embrace The Surveillance Society

by Glyn Moody
It's striking how drones have passed from a mysterious weapon used to wreak destruction in distant lands to something that could well become a familiar sight in the skies of the US and Europe. Meanwhile, the technology is progressing rapidly, allowing drones to fly in synchronized swarms and even to be printed out by the sheet. But what might some of the effects on our daily lives be -- for example in the sphere of privacy?

That's what an interesting post by David Eaves begins to explore. As he points out, some uses of drones seem so sensible that it would be almost irresponsible not to adopt them:

it is entirely conceivable that, in 5-7 years, there could be drones that would follow your child as he walks to school. You can of course, already choose to monitor your child by giving them a cell phone and tracking the GPS device within it, but a drone would have several advantages. It would be harder for someone to destroy or "disconnect" from your child. It could also record and save remotely everything that is going on - in order to prevent anyone from harassing or bullying them. It might even remind them to look both ways before crossing the street, in case they forget. Or, because of its high vantage point, it could pick out and warn your child of cyclists and cars they failed to observe. Once your kid is safely at school the drone could whiz home and recharge in time to walk them home at the end of the day. This may all seem creepy to you, but if such a drone cost $100 dollars, how many parents do you think would feel like it was "the responsible thing to do." I suspect a great deal.

There are plenty of other obvious applications:

Protestors might want a drone observing them, just so that any police brutality could be carefully recorded for later. Cautious adults may want one however over them, especially when going into an unfamiliar or unsafe neighborhoods. Or maybe you'll want one for your elderly parents... just in case something happens to them? It's be good to be able to pull them up on a live feed, from anywhere.

But as Eaves points out, something important is happening here on the privacy front:

My larger point is that the pressure to create the surveillance society isn't going to come exclusively from the state. Indeed, we may find ourselves in a surveillance society not because the state demands it, but because we want the tools for our own useful and/or selfish ends.

It's the Facebook effect: people know that by using the service they are giving up lots of personal information, but that's a price they seem willing to pay in order to gain the benefits of social networking. Similarly, as drones continue to fall in price and become smaller with longer ranges, people may be willing to start monitoring themselves, even though there is always the risk of information leaking to third parties -- or being demanded by the authorities, just as information is obtained from Internet service providers today.

Given the continuing success of Facebook despite the well-publicized issues around privacy, there's probably not much we can do to stop people adopting drones in these ways -- and why should we, when they obviously offer clear benefits in many situations? The best we can do is to encourage people to think through the consequences of taking this road before we set off down it, accompanied by our swarm of personal drones.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Thursday, December 22

What You Need to Know about the NDAA

‘Extraordinary Rendition’: Scott Horton | Common Dreams

Scott Horton, a contributing editor for Harper’s Magazine, explains a startling section within the National Defense Authorization Act. Although President Obama previously signed an executive order shutting down the Bush-era practice of “extraordinary rendition,” section 1031 of the NDAA – which already allows for permanent detention of American citizens — seems to provide Obama a loophole to revive the tactic.


[REPRINT]
© 2011 Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Sunday, December 18

Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law

While Americans shopped, the Constitution was shredded [Video Mirror] President Barack Obama faced a civil liberties backlash today after he signed a law that will allow terror suspects to be held indefinitely- even raising the prospects of U.S. citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

The controversial move, revealed last night, effectively extends the laws of the battlefield to American soil.

The move shows a clear hardening of Mr Obama’s anti-terror policies, and a major shift from the liberal stance that helped him sweep into power three years ago.

After campaigning heavily on the need to close the controversial terrorist detention base at Guantanamo Bay, he failed to deliver when met with legal obstacles.

Now, showing that he has truly moved to the opposite end of the spectrum, he is endorsing the tools and civil powers that he once rallied against.

'It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration,' said Human Rights Watch spokesman Tom Malinowski.

It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent,' Mr Malinowski continued.

Considering he is now in the midst of running for re-election, comparisons between Mr Obama and Mr Bush are certainly not something the President wants going into the 2012 race.

Civil rights groups are outraged after he dropped the threat of a veto Wednesday, meaning the bill will become a law and implement several controversial provisions, like the ability to keep all terror suspects imprisoned.

Read more here.

Saturday, October 29

How to Ditch Big Brother and Disappear Forever

How to Ditch Big Brother and Disappear Forever

So you've decided you want to drop off the map and leave Big Brother behind. It's harder than ever in our always-connected world, but if you're ready to plan your big vanishing act, here are a few tips to get you started.
If this looks familiar, you're not crazy. Our guide to dropping off the map is a perennial Evil Week favorite.
Who hasn't thought about how nice it would be to start fresh somewhere new, preferably with nicer weather and cheaper drinks? Whatever your reasons for wanting to disappear—maybe you just want to get The Man off your back—with enough diligence and planning you can vanish and start anew somewhere else.

For the low down on disappearing and starting your life over, we turned to the book How to Disappear: Erase Your Digital Footprint, Leave False Trails, and Vanish without a Trace by Frank M. Ahearn and Eileen C. Horan. Frank Ahearn is the grizzled grandfather of the vanishing act. After 20 odd years working as a skip tracer—an investigator who specializes in finding people who don't want to be found—he realized he could make just as much money and incur a lot less risk helping people avoid investigators like himself. We've culled a few of Ahearn's tips below, but if you're really serious, his book is a great pocket guide to getting lost.  

How Not to Disappear

The cardinal sin in any serious disappearance is drama. You don't successfully vanish by staging an elaborate disappearing act that ultimately involves a tri-state search, police dogs, and your home town believing that you were mauled by a bear and dragged off into the dark night. Ahearn stresses the importance of disappearing in a legal fashion.

You shouldn't, for example, try and secure false papers: It's a felony to use false identification, and you have no idea if the papers you secured are legitimate. (What if your new social security number belongs to a dead guy or a criminal? What if the passport you bought is bogus and now you're staring down a customs agent?). Instead, you want to obfuscate your identity in a way that it's so difficult for people to follow you that anything short of a government task force will lack for the patience or funding to keep doggedly trying to find you. Here's a little about how that might work.

Minimize Your Social Connections

People who hurriedly throw all their crap in a suitcase and run out the back door are the ones who fail at disappearing. Instead, one of your most important jobs, prior to your successful disappearance, is to slowly cut the fat from your social life. Stop using Facebook—ditch all social networks—maybe under the pretense that you're spending too much time online (or any other pretense that people around you will accept besides "I'm going to torch my crappy life and move to Belize").

You want to minimize the social footprint you occupy so that when suddenly you're not standing in it anymore, few people will notice or care. If you're the most prominent member of the local social scene and you vanish tomorrow, people will notice. Minimizing your virtual trail is more important than minimizing your real life trail. It takes mere minutes for an investigator to comb through social networks and search results, but hours and additional expenses to investigate on foot and by phone. 

The one social connection most people are unwilling to ditch is communication with their immediate family. Unless your immediate family is the reason you're pulling a vanishing act, chances are you'll still want to talk to your parents or siblings. This can the toughest communication to break, and it's where almost everyone fails. All the planning in the world is worthless if you call your relatives from your new location and a skip tracer gets her hands on the phone records. If you want to communicate with your family or best friend after you've vanished from the less desirable people in your life, then you need to figure out, well in advance, how you will do so. Never communicate with them directly from any account linked to your new life or new residence. Anonymous email accounts and prepaid phone cards and cellphones are the only way you're going to be finding out if Grandma's hip surgery went well.

Ditch the Plastic; Cash Is King

Get used to the idea of ditching the luxuries you had in your former life. Gone are the credit cards, the convenience cards and loyalty cards, even simple things like a video rental card. Pay cash for everything and don't use anything that could link your new life and your plans to your old life. Don't check out books about Chile from your local library or buy them with a credit card. Don't use a credit card or frequent flier miles to book a flight out of the country. Your goal in everything you do is to minimize the number of connections between your old life and your new life. Whenever you undertake an interaction with another person or business, ask yourself "Is this the least traceable method I could use?" Paying cash for a cup of coffee at an old coffee shop? Obscure. Paying with a credit card for a cup of coffee at an airport kiosk under the eye of four different security cameras? Not stealthy in the least. Cash is king. 

Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More

Ahearn goes into intense detail on the topic of disinformation and its importance in disappearing. He notes that the thing skip tracers hope for most is just enough information—too little and they'll never find their prey, too much and they'll waste all their time and funding looking in the wrong places. Your goal is to create disinformation.

As you prepare to disappear, slowly but surely start fudging the information companies have on you. "Correct" the spelling of your name on file with the local utility company, tell them they have the wrong social security number and offer a correction, change your mailing address for your bills to a fake mail drop you set up through a private mailing company. If people come looking for you, you want them to waste their time looking in the wrong places. Chapters 7, 8, and 9 of Ahearn's book are all devoted entirely to disinformation, creating false leads (with examples from his work that are so clever you'll want to hire him just to see him in action), and establishing yourself securely in a new locale.

Incorporation, The Binding Glue

At this point you might be nodding your head, thinking that the plan sounds great so far, save for the one glaring detail. If you can't use anything but cash how on earth are you going to establish a new identity in your new location? Since you don't want to lead the life of an illegal alien in your new locale, you're going to need some way to have a legal presence that isn't intimately tied back to your old identity.

Creating a corporation to manage your assets is one way many people handle their affairs once they have disappeared.

Your corporation, only vaguely linked to you and not in the way that is readily identifiable to skip tracers, will be the entity that leases your apartment, pays your utility bills, and otherwise delegates your money out while serving as a shield between you and those looking for you. The details of this are best discussed between you and a lawyer or after careful research into what kind of corporation (and where) would be the best fit for you.

Lastly: Don't Bother If You're Not Committed

Disappearing is not easy. You don't just fake your own death, buy some false papers in an alley from a guy with an indiscernible accent, and then retire to a life of leisure on a small island nation. Disappearing, and doing so legally and without incurring a bigger headache than the one you're running away from, takes careful planning. You need to be willing to cut contact with nearly everyone you know (if not everyone), change how you shop, and even ditch your hobbies. Disappearing means beginning a game of chase with people who want to find you and being willing and strong enough to outlive them at that game. If you can't do that, you'll waste a lot of time and money trying to disappear but failing.

Further Reading

The total planning and execution of your disappearance is well beyond the scope of this article. If you're seriously entertaining the idea of disappearing, we highly recommend checking out Ahearn's book How to Disappear: Erase Your Digital Footprint, Leave False Trails, and Vanish without a Trace. If you're serious about vanishing, it offers insights and tips you likely never even thought about. If, like most of us, you're not serious about vanishing, it's still packed with fascinating stories culled from the hundreds of clients Frank has helped vanish from their old life and start a fresh one more to their liking. Either way you'll end up a little more paranoid about your privacy and security and a lot more knowledgeable about the ways people abuse both.

 





Related Stories
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...