Mid July 2010 Newsletter

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books.  Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because
they have been handed down for many generations. But after
observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then
accept it and live up to it.”
- Budda

In this issue:

* Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
* Scary Stuff
* U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No
exceptions
* Breaking News! Home Office admits thousands have been illegally
stopped and searched under counter-terror laws (and could get compensation
* Federal Suit Attacks Constitutionality of N.J. Money-Laundering
Statute
* Good News – Original ‘Echelon’ secret UK-US spookery treaty published
* Tips for the TSA
* Bad News – Smart meters – the latest example of Britain leading the world in
invasive technology
* Crocodile Dundee Paul Hogan’s off-shore tax accounts to be
published Paul Hogan, the Australian actor, has lost a long-running
legal battle to keep the contents of his tax documents secret, paving
the way for details of his offshore accounts to be published.
* Food for thought – Is Someone Spying On Your Cell-Phone Calls?
* Police State – Toronto Transformed Into Locked Down Police State
* Horror Stories – Police Said to Taze Grandmother
* The District of Criminals – Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit
* The Coalition continues with 28 day detention
* Hot Tips – Funds Invest in Privacy Start-Ups Companies With Ideas on How to
Protect Personal Information Are a New Favorite of Venture Capitalists
* Advisory Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Advisory
* Dutch St. Maarten and the BES islands
* Dumbing Down – Tesco demands ID from 33 year old man – and refuses to sell him
alcohol when he hasn’t got any
* Dumb Laws – RateMyCop User Ensnared in ‘Dumbest Case Ever’
* Dumb signs – Are Cameras the New Guns?
* Dumb facts – Fined for the length of your dog lead A cash-strapped council has come
up with an ingenious way of raking in revenue from law-abiding people
* Dumb criminal acts – Fort Knox Nurseries
* Cannon Fodder – Remember, the internet is not a private place
* Oz/Nzed Corner
* Bug Bites: Chinese Supercomputer Is Ranked World’s Second-Fastest, Challenging
U.S. Dominance
* Wikileaks Was Launched With Documents Intercepted From Tor
* Shamrock’s Missive
* Quotes
* Tid Bits – ‘Mal-intent’ may be the future of security
* More Tid Bits – Bill would give DHS emergency cyber powers
* Bits and bobs – Surveillance cameras in Birmingham track Muslims’ every move
* More Bits n bobs – False economy
* Deflationary Depression and Purging To Come
* Brazilian banker’s crypto baffles FBI
* Hints & Tips – Biometric cash machine lands in Europe
* Letters to the Editor
* Quote of the month!
* PT Shamrock’s Exclusive Member’s Site!

*** Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
- Zero Hedge

With the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498,
also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with the Arar v. Ashcroft
denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the
U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges
to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a
civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is
the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously)
decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one
individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their
actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the
state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with
the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the
state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if
necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress:
If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to
the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro
forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the
ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or
bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason
consistently finds in favor of the state even in the most egregious
and obviously contradictory cases then that pro forma judiciary system
is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its
citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it
can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state
is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its
self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by it’s almost as tough
to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right,
“communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the
Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist
definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of
corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing
interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as
a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other
factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I
discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his
belonging to a particular faction or group individuals do not have
inherent worth, value or standing.

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was
advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently
with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech
constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the
Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the
Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from
speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied
“material support” to the terrorist organization.

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of
Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms
as well.

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about
limiting free speech it’s about the state expanding it power to
repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it
is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it
unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the
Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions
between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine
United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other
words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can
solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who
is not without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if
the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that
group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is
curtailed as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no
matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.

For example, if the Executive in the form of the Secretary of
State decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a
terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist
organization. It no longer has any right to free speech nor can
anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being
charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist
organization known as Amnesty International.

But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone
associating with WikiLeaks including, presumably, those who read it,
and most certainly those who give it information about government
abuses would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other
words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary
evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.

This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a
police-state. The state determines unilaterally who is detrimental to
its interests. The state then represses that person or group.

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that
Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine
who is a terrorist and who is not and therefore has the right to
silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to
speak to them, or hear them.

And let’s just say that, after jumping through years of judicial
hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now
a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even
if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a
terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a
terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a
designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the
terrorists and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion
of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one
definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way
to receive redress by the state.

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Scary Stuff

U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No
exceptions
- David Gutierrez

An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for
the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is
known to be unsafe.

“Now no one should say ‘Should I or shouldn’t I?’” said CDC flu
specialist Anthony Fiore.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one
abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for
children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not
yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg
allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu
vaccines hazardous. If accepted by the CDC, this recommendation will
then be publicized to doctors and other health workers.

The CDC nearly always accepts the advisory committee’s
recommendations.

Current CDC recommendations call for the yearly vaccination of all
children over the age of six months, all adults over the age of 49,
health care workers, people with chronic health problems and anyone
who cares for a person in one of these groups. These recommendations
cover 85 percent of the US population.

Excluded are adults between the ages of 19 and 49 who do not come into
close contact with people in high-risk groups. The new
recommendation, if adopted, would close that gap, bringing an end to a
10-year campaign by supporters of universal vaccination.  In the past,
the advisory committee has been reluctant to recommend universal
vaccination for fear that it might produce vaccine shortages that
place members of higher risk groups in danger. Yet even with current
recommendations, only 33 percent of the public gets vaccinated every
year, leaving millions of doses to be disposed of.

The H1N1 swine flu scare of the past year played a major role in the
committee’s about face, both because the disease killed many people
falling outside the current recommended vaccine demographic and
because it raised public awareness of and demand for vaccines.

Sources for this story include: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Breaking News!

Home Office admits thousands have been illegally stopped and searched
under counter-terror laws (and could get compensation
- Daily Mail

Thousands of people have been illegally stopped and searched under
counter-terrorism laws, the Home Office revealed today.

Officials are examining 40 cases where police forces across England
and Wales misapplied the Terrorism Act 2000.

The Home Office said paperwork blunders meant senior officers did not
get the correct authorisation to implement the law.

A series of errors have been identified in applications by forces,
including the Metropolitan Police and regional forces, between 2001
and 2008.

They include one in 2004 when the Metropolitan Police stopped 840
people even though they did not get authorisation from the Government
within 48 hours.

The mistakes centre on operations where stop and search powers under
section 44 of the Terrorism Act were used.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Federal Suit Attacks Constitutionality of N.J. Money-Laundering
Statute
- New Jersey Law Journal

Two criminal defense lawyers are asking a federal court to declare
unconstitutional New Jersey’s money-laundering law, which they say
uniquely criminalizes the mere possession of U.S. currency.

Glenn Cavanagh and Jon-Henry Barr seek to enjoin the start of a state
court criminal trial set for June 11 in Middlesex County, arguing the
New Jersey statutes, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a) and -26, are
unconstitutional and their clients face irreparable harm from the
20-year prison sentence they face if convicted.

The clients, Belarmino Amaya and Carlos Mejia, were charged with money
laundering and conspiracy to money launder after state police pulled
over their truck and found $1.24 million in two duffel bags. The
money and the vehicle were confiscated.

Money-laundering cases typically include a companion count charging
other criminal conduct, such as drug offenses, prostitution or fraud,
the lawyers say, but New Jersey’s statute is different. It
criminalizes transporting or possessing “property known or which a
reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity.”

It also provides that such knowledge “may be inferred where the
property is transported or possessed in a fashion inconsistent with
the ordinary or usual means of transportation or possession of such
property and where the property is discovered in the absence of any
documentation or other indicia of legitimate origin or right to such
property.”

Cavanagh says the law makes it a crime to carry large amounts of cash.
“It’s almost like requiring a license to possess currency,” he says.
“If it’s legitimate to own, why do I have to prove where I got it and
why I’m authorized to possess it?”

The federal money-laundering law has no comparable inference of
knowledge language. It makes transporting money illegal if the intent
is “to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity” or with
knowledge that the funds represent the proceeds of crime and that
their transport is designed to “conceal or disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity” or transaction-reporting requirements.
Nor does any other state infer such knowledge, Cavanagh says, based on
research by two law student interns into laws around the country, the
results of which are attached to the lawyers’ motion for a temporary
restraining order, which is set to be argued June 7.

In opposing papers, Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Hsia says the
relief should be denied because Amaya and Mejia have not shown a
likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. She also
argues it is against the public interest to interfere with the
prosecution of crime and urges the court to abstain under the doctrine
of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), so as not to interfere
with state court proceedings.

The complaint in Amaya v. State of New Jersey, 10-cv-915, filed in
Newark on Feb. 22, alleges that the money-laundering law violates the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments. It asks for a
declaration that the law is unconstitutional, injunctive relief,
return of the cash and truck, compensatory damages of at least $1
million, punitive damages, interest, costs and fees. An amended
complaint filed May 6 added a third plaintiff, identified only as
R.H.K., allegedly a businessman who transports currency for a fee
based on a handshake and without documentation, sometimes in or
through New Jersey, which puts him at risk of money-laundering
charges.

The defendants, Attorney General Paula Dow, Deputy Attorney General
Philip Mogavero, who is prosecuting Amaya and Mejia, and the three
state police officers involved in the motor vehicle stop, all
represented by Hsia, have not yet filed an answer.

On April 5, the plaintiffs obtained an entry of default but U.S.
District Judge Dickinson Debevoise vacated it on May 3 on Hsia’s
motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment.

In her motion, Hsia said the response to the complaint was delayed due
to confusion over whether which division of the attorney general’s
office should handle the matter. By the time it was assigned to Hsia
in the Division of Law, the time to answer had passed. Cavanaugh and
Barr would not consent to drop the default though they later withdrew
their opposition.

Cavanagh and Barr say the ACLU-NJ, Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers-New Jersey and the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based
property rights advocacy group, have expressed interest in coming in
as amici but have not committed to doing so.

Amaya was transporting the money from New Jersey to California for a
fee and was driving a truck owned by Mejia, who was with him, when
they were stopped by officers from the state police Drug Trafficking
North Unit, says Cavanagh, a Clark solo.

“I can’t get over that this statute says that unless you can explain
where and how you got this dough, that’s dirty money.”

Barr, of Barr & Canada in Clark, is the municipal prosecutor in that
town and in Kenilworth. He is also president of the municipal
prosecutors’ association.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Good News

Original ‘Echelon’ secret UK-US spookery treaty published
- Lewis Page

Old news in the world of surveillance and spookery today, as the
original 1946 secret treaty between the UK and US which set up the
famous “Echelon” listening system is finally published.

The UKUSA agreement, drafted to formalise intel-sharing arrangements
which had developed during World War II, formed the basis for the
US-British (and later, other nations) partnership against the Warsaw
Pact through the Cold War.

The treaty dealt primarily with communications intercept information,
known as signals intelligence or “sigint”. Back in the early days of
UKUSA cooperation, many long-distance or international phone calls
were carried by longhaul HF radio, and were comparatively easily
intercepted by a worldwide network of listening posts.

Later on, it is widely believed, the allied Echelon capabilities – by
now mostly being provided by the US, with useful access being supplied
by Britain and other nations – became able to monitor huge numbers of
calls automatically, with chosen key words or phrases flagging up a
given conversation for investigation by human operators.

Now released along with the Treaty itself are some intercept products
garnered up to the year 1949. The cooperative publication of British
files from GCHQ and other organisations has already occurred courtesy
of the National Archives, here. The American end of the publications
will go live on the NSA website at 3pm UK time today
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Tips for the TSA
- Campaign For Liberty

US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) both consider us nitwits who can’t pack a
suitcase or travel about the country, let alone the world, without
their supervision. And so after hopelessly mucking up travel with
such nonsense as the “Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative” and
“3-1-1,” they now “Provide Reminders and Travel Tips to Summer
Travelers.”  Yep, those are nouns you hear shrieking as bureaucrats
force them into adjectival stress positions.

Plenty more such screams rend the “reminders”: “Monitor border wait
times for various ports of entry.  .  .  .  During periods of heavy
travel, border crossers may wish to consider alternative, less heavily
traveled entry routes” and “Passengers can help speed up the screening
process [sic for 'warrantless search'] by packing their carry-ons in
an organized manner. This helps our officers [sic for 'busybodies']
efficiently see what’s inside to quickly process it through screening
[sic for 'warrantless search'].” Forget about making things easier on
yourself by choosing the “port of entry” closest to your destination
or by packing in the “manner” you prefer, however disorganized: a serf
labors to ease his masters’ burdens, not his own.

Indeed, “reminding” us to do so has become something of a semi-annual
tradition for the TSA.  You might think an agency this hated would
learn some humility and seek rather than give advice.  But no.

Nonetheless, I forge ahead and modestly offer my recommendations to
Our high-flying Rulers:

1) Disband. Really. It’s the only sensible move after screeners
advised the world that they lack cojones, and took the pictures to
prove it. I mean, guys, c’mon, we’re all laughing at you. Hard.

2) Disband. Immediately. Before every last one of you winds up in
prison. You can’t keep stealing $24,000 watches with impunity
forever. Even Al Capone eventually ran out of luck.

3) Disband. For the good of the country, sorry, “homeland.” Because
everyone knows you lack brains as well as that other b-word. Look,
there used to be “dumb blonde/stewardess” excuse me, “flight
attendant” jokes for a reason. But now you dingbats take those
dingbats seriously.

Case in point: when one of United’s stews smelled a “‘pungent chemical
odor’ coming from a bag on board” while taxiing for take-off at San
Francisco International, you morons overreacted as usual rather than
considering the source. She (NB: the article reporting this absurdity
doesn’t mention the stew’s sex, but when was the last time a real man
fussed that a carry-on was, like, way too big for the overhead bin?
“She” goes for most of what works the aisles these days) immediately
thought, “Terrorists!” instead of “Hmmm. I’m not real bright, or I’d
be doing something besides handing out pretzels for a living. It’s
likely that pungent odor emanates from a substance well beyond my
limited outlook and experience. Perhaps it’s just Chinese herbs, and
since the elderly couple to whom it belongs doesn’t speak much
English, I’m going to show some startlingly good sense in these goofy
times and silly ‘profession’ by keeping my mouth shut. Plus, if I
open said orifice, I’ll remove all doubt about my regrettable and
inherent foolishness.”

Yeah, I’m dreaming. And so this arrogant airhead tattled to the
pilot. He (also unspecified, but I’m going with “he” to distinguish
him from our tattler) “receiv[ed] the bag” [sic for "accepted stolen
property after the stew pilfered it from the couple"] and “notified
local authorities.”

No surprise at what happened next: “passengers deplaned and were taken
by bus back to the airport, where they were rescreened [sic for
"searched for the second time that day without a warrant"] by
Transportation Security Administration agents.”  Good job, there, TSA:
we all know how sneaky those elderly couples can be, handing out
Chinese herbs willy-nilly that improve our circulation, clear our
skin, and in general promote good health. “TSA dogs searched the
plane with the help of hazardous materials and explosives teams from
the San Francisco Fire Department.” This delayed a flight that had
been about to depart by six hours. Alas, “Police do not expect to
file charges against anyone” despite the criminal stupidity of the
stew, you buffoons at the TSA, and “local authorities.”

4) Disband. Now. Before your sour grapes ferment and explode in your
face.

Like most of your victims, Mrs. Hays is an exemplary person without
any criminal record or intent. Unlike many of them, she actually
deciphered your silly rules and packed a cooler with snacks you allow
for her 93-year-old, infirm mother, a “[Traveler] with Disabilities
and Medical Conditions”   when transporting her cross-country.

No matter: screeners tried to steal, sorry, confiscate her cooler.
With her mother’s welfare at stake, Mrs. Hays protested rather than
bow her head and murmur, “Yes, your majesties.” That landed her in
jail: the screeners’ version of events had her punching one of them.

Unfortunately for the screeners, the checkpoint’s surveillance camera
sided with Mrs. Hays, and the judge was less creative than others who
believe your goons over passengers regardless of the facts. He was
content to lecture and reprimand Mrs. Hays, not the screeners who
lied, rather than imprison her. He’ll also dismiss the charges if
she “stays out of trouble” for six months. And a good thing, too:
ladies in their 50’s who tenderly care for aging mothers start so many
crime-waves these days.

This episode doesn’t exactly show you wingdings in a favorable light.
The surveillance camera not only proves your employees lie, and that
you fully support their mendacity, it also records their brutality
as they laugh at Mrs. Hays’ distress. So we might suppose you’d slink
away from your defeat here, hoping we’d soon forget, fearful of more
adverse publicity.  Au contraire. The inmates of police states and
their opinions do not chasten the wardens. So now you’re suing Mrs.
Hays for $2500. Here’s hoping she counter-sues your missing cojones
right off you. But whatever the outcome, remember: nobody likes a
sore loser.

My fifth and final tip is for Congress: abolish the TSA. Then take a
recess yourselves, and don’t come back.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bad News

Smart meters – the latest example of Britain leading the world in
invasive technology
- Alex Deane

We’ve written before about the privacy implications of Smart Meters,
both here and abroad. This story over at the Washington Post begins:

Cambridge, England – Wary homeowners could scupper the rollout of
smart technologies meant to boost energy efficiency, without secure
controls over data and access to appliances, executives said this
week.

Great. yet another technological debate in which the rest of the
world looks to the UK as the pilot for the most intrusive equipment
around.

“Home meters” allow two-way wireless communication with utilities – to
forecast demand and charge more at peak times and even switch off
individual appliances remotely.

Rollout is at an early stage but speeding up, and Britain’s providers
plan a nationwide deployment. The data-gathering power of meters has
prompted comparisons with “spies” in people’s homes. And not just
from privacy advocates, but from the companies themselves:

“We, Siemens, have the technology to record it (energy consumption)
every minute, second, microsecond, more or less live,” said Martin
Pollock of Siemens Energy, an arm of the German engineering giant,
which provides metering services.

“From that we can infer how many people are in the house, what they
do, whether they’re upstairs, downstairs, do you have a dog, when do
you habitually get up, when did you get up this morning, when do you
have a shower: masses of private data.”

“We think the regulator needs to send a strong signal to say that the
data belongs to consumers and consumers alone. We believe that’s a
blocker to people adopting the technology,” he told the Smart Grids
and Cleanpower conference in Cambridge.

There are of course potential benefits for consumers, such as the
ability to program individual appliances to switch on when power is
cheaper. On the other hand, the technology allows utilities to bully
customers to turn on washing machines or charge electric cars at
night, for example, by charging more at peak times.

Energy companies’ new ability to switch off appliances remotely is
also open to abuse:

“There’ll be a lot of resistance to being told by your utility when
you can do your washing,” said Chris Wright, chief technology officer
at Moixa Technology. Consumer agreements may focus on utilities
controlling only particular appliances such as freezers, air
conditioners or luxury items such as swimming pools.

Why on earth should we allow a change in the status quo, from being
responsible for our own lives to having to negotiate with energy
companies about which bits of our households they can’t micromanage?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Crocodile Dundee Paul Hogan’s off-shore tax accounts to be
published Paul Hogan, the Australian actor, has lost a long-running
legal battle to keep the contents of his tax documents secret, paving
the way for details of his offshore accounts to be published.
- Daily Telegraph

Hogan, 70, has been engaged in a five year-long fight with the
Australian Crime Commission (ACC) to keep the dossier containing his
offshore financial dealings under wraps.

Hogan has argued that the documents are confidential, but the ACC
wants access to them so that it can finalise a case against Hogan,
film producer John Cornell and their accountant, whom it suspects of
channelling millions of dollars from the proceeds of Crocodile Dundee
and other films into offshore tax havens.

However, Hogan, once an embodiment of the laid-back Australian
“larrikin”, has not been charged with any crime and maintains he has
done nothing wrong.

In a 2008 interview with Network Ten, Hogan said he had “paid plenty
of tax”.

Mr Cornell and the accountant also deny any wrongdoing.

The legal action began in 2005, when the ACC ordered Hogan’s
accountants to hand over several documents relating to his tax
affairs, effectively alleging that he was involved in tax evasion
schemes. The commission argued that the documents were either “made
in the furtherance of a crime or fraud” or are “evidence of” a crime
or fraud.

At Hogan’s request, publication of the documents was restricted by the
federal court, but the ruling was challenged by the country’s largest
newspapers in 2008.

Hogan appealed again, arguing that the documents were confidential and
that publication could cause him harm or damage.

He took his objection all the way to Australia’s high court, which on
Wednesday dismissed the appeal.

Earlier this year, Australian media reported that ACC was in the final
stages of preparing to lay criminal charges of tax evasion against the
three men.

The release of the documents is expected to help finalise their case.

Hogan gained international fame through his role as Mick “Crocodile”
Dundee in the 1986 film. The production went on to become the most
successful Australian film of all time and earned Hogan a Golden Globe
for best actor.

He married his Dundee co-star Linda Kozlowski in 1990 and the couple
moved to California.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Food for thought

Is Someone Spying On Your Cell-Phone Calls?
- Newsweek

How suspicious spouses, protective parents, and concerned companies
are turning to cheap and hard-to-detect commercial spyware apps to
monitor your mobile communications.

Sometime in early 2007, Richard Mislan, an assistant professor of
cyberforensics at Purdue University, started getting phone calls and
e-mails from people around the world all looking for help with the
same problem. “They thought someone was listening in on their
cell-phone calls,” he says. “They wanted to know what they could do
to confirm it was happening.” Mislan, who has examined thousands of
phones at the Purdue Cyber Forensics Lab, politely disregarded some
callers as a little paranoid. Others, he thought, had reason to be
concerned. A decade ago the idea that anyone with little technical
skill could turn a cell phone into a snooping device was basically
unrealistic. But as the smart-phone market proliferates it grew 86
percent in the United States alone last year so do all the ethical
kinks that come with it. Among them is a growing sector of perfectly
legal smart-phone spyware apps that are peddled as tools for catching
a cheating spouse or monitoring the kids when they’re away from home.
But what they can effectively do, for as little as $15 or as much as
several hundred, is track a person with a precision once relegated to
federal authorities. “Not only can you look at a person’s e-mail or
listen to their calls, in some cases you can also just turn on the
microphone [on a smart phone] and listen to what the person is doing
any time you want,” says Chris Wysopal, cofounder and CTO of Veracode,
a software-security company.

Turning what is essentially cell-phone-bugging software into a
business model is not a bad idea, technically speaking. The
smart-phone market largely dominated by the Symbian, Research in
Motion, and iPhone operating systems has 47 million users in the
United States and is expected to exceed 1 billion worldwide by 2014,
according to Parks Associates, a market-research firm. In most cases,
people’s lives are tethered to these handsets. It’s how we e-mail,
text, search, and, on occasion, even call someone. And the dependence
just continues to grow. Last year consumers paid for and downloaded
more than 670 million apps that can turn a phone into everything from
a book reader to a compass. Smart-phone users effectively carry a
real-time snapshot of what happens in their daily lives. This is what
makes the smart phone the perfect way to track someone.

Among the top commercial spyware vendors who have ventured into this
space are FlexiSPY, MobiStealth, and Mobile Spy. While the services
vary, what they do is essentially the same. According to all three
spyware Web sites, a person must have legal access to a smart phone to
install a piece of spyware. For example, if you’re spying on a family
member, that means the phone is family property. If you’re an
employer monitoring your employee, the phone should be company-owned.
To install the spyware, you have to have the phone in your possession
for at least a few minutes to download the app. (There are apps that
can be downloaded remotely, but that’s less common and not legal.) In
Mobile Spy’s case, once the software is installed, you can log into
your Mobile Spy web account to view e-mails, text messages, pictures
taken, videos shot, calendar entries, incoming and outgoing calls, and
GPS coordinates. MobiStealth and FlexiSPY take it a step further and
allow a person to remotely record any conversations that take place
near the cell phone. “The most threatening [part] is that it’s pretty
impossible to tell if this is happening to you,” says Mislan. That’s
because once the spyware app is on the phone it is virtually
undetectable to the average user. There is no typical corresponding
app icon, nor is it listed on any menu.  At best, it may show up with
a generic name like “iPhone app” or “BlackBerry app,” so that it
appears to be a regular part of the system.

There is nothing illegal about making these apps, and almost all
makers have disclaimers on their Web sites warning people not to use
their products illegally.  ”Our software is for very specific uses,”
says Craig Thompson, support coordinator of Retina-X Studios, the
creator of Mobile Spy.  ”We do what we can to discourage
innappropriate use.”  Still, there is no way to know if someone is
using the app to monitor his or her child (legal) or stalk an ex (not
so much). Illegal use of spyware has already been reported in states
such as Washington, Oklahoma, and Texas. According to Wysopal of
Veracode, in addition to state and local laws, the federal Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act technically offer some
protection for consumers. But even if someone discovers spyware on
their phone, prosecuting the perpetrator can be difficult. “The
problem with this law is the crime has to rise to the level of a
felony for the FBI to investigate, [and] that typically involves
$5,000 or more in damages,” Wysopal says. “I don’t really know what
the damages are for someone installing [mobile spyware] and reading
your e-mails.”

Jeff Troy, acting deputy assistant director for the FBI’s Cyber
Division, says the issue is a growing concern for his organization
because of how fast the smart-phone market is evolving. “I do think
there is need for additional cyber laws to address this,” he says.

Until that happens, the best solution may well be preventive.
According to BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, “BlackBerry
smartphones include a firewall that can be set to prevent an app (like
spyware) from making external connections; and passwords can also be
required to authorize downloading an application to the device.”
Google’s Android gives apps limited access to phone resources by
default, but that can be changed manually, so the best bet is to lock
the phone and/or SIM card whenever you’re not using it. Google has
also recently activated a “kill switch” on its phone to remotely
disable apps “that violate the Android Market Developer Distribution
Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies.”
Of the trio, Apple probably has the most user-friendly safety net,
because all apps must be approved by its app store. To even get most
spyware apps on an Apple iPhone, a person would have to jailbreak it,
which voids the warranty.

If the software is already on a phone, Mislan says there is little
that consumers can do on their own to confirm this. Even if you’re
positive you are being spied on, doing something like replacing the
SIM card is not always enough to wipe a phone clean of the problem.
In some cases, Mislan advises consumers to reach out to companies like
SMobile Systems that offer security solutions for cell phones a
growing market in themselves.

Wysopal says that as with so much that’s technology-related, something
big has to break before things change in the smart phone spyware
space. “You’ll have to see someone important, like a politician, have
their phone compromised,” he says. “If that happened, it would be a
wake-up call.”

Shamrock’s comment: Time for an offshore anonymous mobile? Check out
our cacophony of anonymous mobiles and sim chips at
http://www.ptshamrock.com/auto/anon_phone.htm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Police State

Toronto Transformed Into Locked Down Police State

Sweeping police powers with no limits, military style checkpoints,
LRAD sound cannons, huge makeshift prisons and a taxpayer bill of $1
billion
- Steve Watson

The Toronto Star Reports

“The regulation was made under Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act
and was not debated in the Legislature. According to a provincial
spokesperson, the cabinet action came in response to an ‘extraordinary
request’ by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who wanted additional
policing powers shortly after learning the G20 was coming to Toronto.”

The regulation gives the police authority to question anybody entering
the restricted zone from June 14 until June 28, the day after the
summits are scheduled to end. As Adam Radwanski of The Globe and Mail
reports, there are no limits to police powers during the summit, and
no clear legal precedent specifying what they can and can’t do.

CTV.ca reports that there has been an increase in tension in the
security zone as police are stopping and searching hundreds of
protesters. “If you’re in that zone you’re going to be challenged,”
Const. Tim Garland, spokesperson for the Integrated Security Unit
told CTV.ca.

Some reports even detail incidents of police randomly stopping people
outside the security perimeters who are not even protesters and are
merely going about their business.

As our earlier report detailed, Charlie Veitch of the popular London
based activist group The Love Police was arrested yesterday in Toronto
under the new extraordinary powers for refusing to identify himself.

Police have been preparing for the lockdown for months now. An
unprecedented show of force will see up to 20,000 uniformed officers,
along with a 1,000 private security guards deployed, as well as
Canadian military forces. The security costs are expected to cost the
Canadian government (taxpayers) hundreds of millions of dollars, with
some estimating the bill will stretch beyond one billion dollars.

Security measures include two large perimeters, walled in with huge 3
meter high fences, with Toronto police in charge of the outer zone and
the RCMP in charge of the inner zone. Anyone entering the inner
perimeter, where the Metro Convention Centre is located, will be
processed through five levels of airport style security screening.

Various checkpoints throughout Toronto have been outfitted with
“Magnetometers,” “walk-through metal detectors,” “X-Ray belt driven
scanners” and “hand-held metal detectors.”

Residents and workers in the area have been made to register with the
authorities to get access to their homes and businesses during the
meeting.

The Canadian Forces plans are described as “large-scale operational
planning, land and air surveillance, underwater safety and security
for the venues and some logistic and ceremonial functions. Support
also includes drawing on the CF’s ongoing partnership in the North
American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD).”

Protesters will also be subject to designated free speech zones. If
they breach these zones they will be forced to move or be arrested.

Police will be using a massive movie studio as a temporary jail. The
building is roughly five kilometres from the Convention Centre,
outside the two security zones.  The plan echoes tactics employed in
the U.S.  at recent DNC and RNC Conventions, where thousands of
protesters were indiscriminately rounded up and kept for up to several
hours in temporary prisons.

Police have also been cleared to employ Long Range Acoustic Devices
otherwise known as sound cannons.

Civil liberties advocates and activists had requested that a court
impose an injunction to prevent police from using the ear-piercing
devices, which were used by police and the National Guard to break up
protests at last year’s meeting in Pittsburgh.

However, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the devices could be
used after police argued they were essential equipment.

In related news, Infowars reporter Luke Rudkowski and fellow activists
have been denied access into Canada altogether.

In a telephone interview with Infowars.com, Luke said he was detained
for nearly five hours by Homeland Security and Canadian Customs police
on the border in Buffalo, New York. Agents went through his car and
laptop looking for anything to arrest and detain the activists. After
the Canadians denied Luke, Kelly, and Matt entry into the country,
Homeland Security on the American side of the border questioned them
once again.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Horror Stories

Police Said to Taze Grandmother
- Tim Hull

CN – Police Tasered an 86-year-old disabled grandma in her bed and
stepped on her oxygen hose until she couldn’t breathe, after her
grandson called 911 seeking medical assistance, the woman and her
grandson claim in Oklahoma City Federal Court. Though the grandson
said, “Don’t Taze my granny!” an El Reno police officer told another
cop to “Taser her!” and wrote in his police report that he did so
because the old woman “took a more aggressive posture in her bed,”
according to the complaint.

Lonnie Tinsley claims that he called 911 after he went to check on his
grandmother, whom he found in her bed, “connected to a portable oxygen
concentrator with a long hose.” She is “in marginal health, [and]
takes several prescribed medications daily,” and “was unable to tell
him exactly when she had taken her meds,” so, Tinsley says, he called
911 “to ask for an emergency medical technician to come to her
apartment to evaluate her.”

In response, “as many as ten El Reno police” officers “pushed their
way through the door,” according to the complaint. The grandma, Lona
Varner, “told them to get out of her apartment.”

The remarkable complaint continues: “Instead, the apparent leader of
the police [defendant Thomas Duran] instructed another policeman to
‘Taser her!’ He stated in his report that the 86 year-old plaintiff
‘took a more aggressive posture in her bed,’ and that he was fearful
for his safety and the safety of others.

“Lonnie Tinsley told them, ‘Don’t taze my Granny!’ to which they
responded that they would Taser him; instead, they pulled him out of
her apartment, took him down to the floor, handcuffed him and placed
him in the back of a police car.

“The police then proceeded to approach Ms. Varner in her bed and
stepped on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen
deprivation.

“The police then fired a Taser at her and only one wire struck her, in
the left arm; the police then fired a second Taser, striking her to
the right and left of the midline of her upper chest and applied high
voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain and to pass out.

“The police then grabbed Ms. Varner by her forearms and jerked hands
together, causing her soft flesh to tear and bleed on her bed; they
then handcuffed her.

“The police freed Lonnie Tinsley from his incarceration in the back of
the police car and permitted him to accompany the ambulance with his
grandmother.”

Tinsley says the cops capped it all off by having his grandmother
“placed in the psychiatric ward at the direction of the El Reno
police; she was held there for six days and released.”

“As a result of the wrongful arrest and detention, the plaintiff Lona
M. Varner suffered the unlawful restraint of her freedom, bodily
injury, assault, battery, the trashing of her apartment, humiliation,
loss of personal dignity, infliction of emotional distress and medical
bills.”

They seek punitive damages for constitutional violations, from the
City of El Reno, Duran, Officers Frank Tinga and Joseph Sandberg, and
10 Officers Does.

They are represented by Brian Dell of Oklahoma City.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** The District of Criminals

Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit
- Daniel Tencer

Pentagon revives Rumsfeld era domestic spying unit]

The Pentagon’s spy unit has quietly begun to rebuild a database for
tracking potential terrorist threats that was shut down after it
emerged that it had been collecting information on American anti-war
activists.

The Defense Intelligence Agency filed notice this week that it plans
to create a new section called Foreign Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Operation Records, whose purpose will be to
“document intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and
counternarcotic operations relating to the protection of national
security.”

But while the unit’s name refers to “foreign intelligence,” civil
liberties advocates and the Pentagon’s own description of the program
suggest that Americans will likely be included in the new database.

FICOR replaces a program called Talon, which the DIA created in 2002
under then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as part of the
counterterrorism efforts following the 9/11 attacks. It was disbanded
in 2007 after it emerged that Talon had retained information on
anti-war protesters, including Quakers, even after it was determined
they posed no threat to national security.

DIA spokesman Donald Black told Newsweek that the new database would
not include the more controversial elements of the old Talon program.
But Jeff Stein at the Washington Post reports that the new program
will evidently inherit the old Talon database.

“Why the new depository would want such records while its parent
agency no longer has a law enforcement function could not be learned,”
Stein reports. “Nor could it be learned whether the repository will
include intelligence reports on protest groups gathered by its
predecessor.”

The Pentagon’s notice states that the database will collect
“identifying information such as name, Social Security Number (SSN),
address, citizenship documentation, biometric data, passport number,
vehicle identification number and vehicle/vessel license data.” As
only US residents have Social Security Numbers, it appears the program
is being designed at least partly to contain domestic information.

Newsweek cites two unnamed US officials as suggesting that the new
program essentially echoes the old one. When CIFA, the DIA division
running Talon, was disbanded in 2008, “many of its personnel and some
of its functions were transferred” to the new DIA unit running the new
database program. The new program will be housed “in the same office
space that CIFA once occupied, in a complex near suburban Washington’s
Reagan National Airport.”

Mike German, a former FBI agent now working with the ACLU, says
“Americans should be just as concerned” about the new database as the
previous one under the Bush administration.

“It’s a little hard to tell what this is exactly, but we do know that
DIA took over ‘offensive counterintelligence’ for the DoD once CIFA
was abandoned,” he told the Post’s Stein. “It therefore makes sense
that this new DIA database would be collecting the same types of
information that CIFA collected improperly.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** The Coalition continues with 28 day detention
- Big Brother Watch.org

We had our first bad news under the Coalition a little while ago.
Now, we’ve had some more.

Theresa May has announced that the rules which allow the police to
detain suspects for 28 days without charge are to remain in force for
at least another six months. Both parties in the Coalition have
indicated that they think that the limit, which is the longest in the
developed world, is too high. But still it’s going to continue.

Extending detention without charge went against the grain of our
country’s traditions of fairness under the law.  I am afraid that
continuing the policy suggests that the government’s promise to
safeguard rights and liberties is hollow.

I mean – wasn’t this government supposed to be different from the last
lot? And isn’t the civil liberties agenda supposed to be the rallying
cry of the Coalition, as it’s one of the things on which the
constituent parts agree?

The record of prosecutions shows that this power has done nothing to
advance the fight against terrorism. All it does is damage the very
values of democratic freedom that terrorists hate.

After all, Dominic Raab MP’s excellent book The Assault on Liberty
makes it clear that there have been but five people detained up to the
28 day mark since this draconian power was introduced. Three were
released without charge (which means that each of those cases was
obviously a disgrace). The last two were charged, but the
Metropolitan Police reported that the information needed to charge
them emerged at the four and twelve day mark respectively. So even on
the authoritarians’ terms, they can at least reduce the term in
question substantially based on the evidence, even without recourse to
the principled argument they don’t seem to want to have.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hot Tips

Funds Invest in Privacy Start-Ups Companies With Ideas on How to
Protect Personal Information Are a New Favorite of Venture Capitalists
- Pui-Wing Tam and Ben Worthen

As privacy snafus mount across companies such as Facebook Inc. and
AT&T Inc., venture capitalists have spotted a new market opening and
are pumping millions of dollars into privacy-related start-ups.

This month, online privacy start-up ReputationDefender Inc. plans to
disclose that it has raised $15 million in new venture funding even
though the company wasn’t actively looking for new cash. SafetyWeb
Inc., which helps parents monitor their kids’ online activities, said
Thursday it closed $8 million in funding. And Truste, which offers
seals of approval to websites that meet certain privacy standards,
raised $12 million earlier this month.

Many of the investors include top-tier venture-capital firms such as
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Accel Partners. Venture firms
such as Jafco Ventures, Atlas Venture and Battery Ventures also have
invested in online-privacy start-ups in the past few months.

As privacy snafus mount across companies such as Facebook and AT&T
venture capitalists have spotted a new market opening and are pumping
millions of dollars into privacy-related start-ups. Ben Worthen
explains.

“There are at least a dozen [online privacy companies] now in various
stages of making the rounds in the venture world,” said Theresia Gouw
Ranzetta, a venture capitalist at Accel, which backed Truste and is
also a major investor in Facebook. “We’re actively looking for more
[privacy] deals.”

The jump in privacy-related investments underscores how ways to
protect privacy on the Web and on mobile gadgets is increasingly
viewed as a real business. That’s a shift from a few years ago, when
companies struggled to sell such services, said Carsten Casper, an
analyst at researcher Gartner. Among those that crashed earlier this
decade was start-up Privacy Inc., which offered dummy email addresses
for online purchases.

But in the wake of recent privacy flaps involving AT&T, Facebook,
Apple Inc.  and others, consumer awareness has grown.  ”Privacy is a
big issue and it’s going to get bigger because people realize it can
be used against you,” said Ted Schlein, a venture capitalist at
Kleiner Perkins and a ReputationDefender board member. “That spells
market opportunity.”

Many venture capitalists liken today’s privacy market to the
technology-security market a decade ago, when companies such as
Barracuda Networks Inc.  were searching for solutions to deal with
viruses and hacking.  Security has since become one of tech’s hottest
markets, with businesses increasing their security spending by 10% to
$33.8 billion world-wide in 2009, even as total tech spending fell 9%
to $1.5 trillion for the year, according to Forrester Research.

Yet despite the surge of privacy investments, venture capitalists and
start-ups still face a challenge in getting people to pay for
confidentiality and discretion,, say analysts. A recent study by
think tank Ponemon Institute LLC found that identity theft victims
still don’t behave differently online from others on social networking
sites such as Facebook. Only 13% of the general public and 19% of
identity theft victims said they are responsible for protecting their
own privacy on social-media sites, according to the study.

Investors acknowledge the privacy market is nascent and will evolve as
regulations are introduced.  Still, the venture investments are an
early look at the solutions emerging to help combat privacy
incursions.

Some of the recently funded start-ups are aimed at giving consumers
tools to defend their privacy. ReputationDefender, which launched in
2006, provides a service that costs between $10 a month and $1,000
annually to monitor what is said about an individual online.  Its
tools can help remove private information from certain websites.

SafetyWeb, funded by Battery Ventures, and SocialShield Inc., funded
by Venrock Associates and others, have launched websites that parents
can use to help them track and analyze their children’s online
behavior. The services tell parents when others have posted and
tagged photos of their kids online, giving them a chance to have them
removed, among other thing.

Abine Inc., funded by Atlas Venture, this month launched a product
that can block online tracking and opt out of online ad networks.

Truste, which until 2008 was a nonprofit, works primarily with
corporations that want their websites certified as having met certain
privacy standards.

Executives involved in privacy start-ups say the interest by venture
capitalists has become intense. Michael Fertik, chief executive of
ReputationDefender, said more than 20 venture firms expressed interest
in investing even though the Redwood City, Calif., company wasn’t
intending to raise new cash until late this year, he said.

In the end, Mr. Fertik took $15 million from Jafco and existing
investors’ Kleiner Perkins and Bessemer. “It ended up being a
competitive situation,” he said.

He attributes the interest partly to “everyone’s being analyzed and
digitized online.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Advisory Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Advisory

Newly Released Mexican Regulations Imposing Restrictions on Mexican
Banks for Transactions in U.S. Currency

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is advising U.S.
financial institutions of a recent change in Mexican financial
regulations applying to Mexican banks that could affect the operations
of U.S. financial institutions. On June 15, 2010 the Mexican finance
ministry, Secretar a de Hacienda y Cr dito P blico de M xico (SHCP),
announced new anti-money laundering (AML) regulations that will
restrict the amounts of physical cash (banknotes and coins)
denominated in U.S. dollars that Mexican banks may receive.1 The
Mexican regulation will still allow certain transactions up to
relatively low value thresholds, as described in more detail below.
The regulations do not restrict non-cash transactions denominated in
U.S. currency (e.g., wire transfers, ACH payments, credit card
transactions, traveler’s checks, etc.). These new Mexican regulations
are intended to mitigate risks of laundering proceeds of crime tied to
narcotics trafficking and organized crime.  The regulations state that
the restrictions on U.S. currency transactions by banks with
individuals will go into effect four business days after official
publication on June 16, 2010. The restrictions on U.S. currency
transactions by banks with legal entities and trusts will go into
effect ninety (90) calendar days after official publication (on or
about September 14, 2010).2

This Advisory is issued to assist financial institutions in
understanding how the U.S financial system may be affected by the
changes in the Mexican regulations, to help U.S.  financial
institutions anticipate possible impacts on their businesses,
including the risk profiles of certain classes of transactions and
customers, and how various AML and counter-terrorist financing
safeguards consistent with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulations may be
utilized to mitigate possible changes or increases in risks.

Background The United States and Mexico maintain strong commercial and
cultural ties, particularly evident around our shared border. There
are many legitimate reasons that U.S.  currency enters the Mexican
economy, including in connection with border trade, tourism, and
remittances.3 Nonetheless, a significant portion of the U.S.  currency
in Mexico is derived from illegal activity, specifically the sale of
narcotics in the United States, some of the proceeds of which are
smuggled as bulk cash into Mexico.4 Within Mexico, much of the U.S.
currency, regardless of source, is intermediated through multiple
transactions and ultimately make its way into the global financial
system and repatriated back to the United States (in a process similar
to that in most countries with respect to the processing of non-local
currency).

FinCEN and U.S. financial regulators have previously taken steps
aimed at raising awareness of the risks involved in the bulk shipment
of cash between the United States and Mexico. In 2006, FinCEN issued
guidance on the potential misuse of relationships with U.S.  financial
institutions by certain Mexican financial institutions, including
Mexican casas de cambio, and the money laundering threat involving the
smuggling of bulk U.S. currency into Mexico.5 More recently, on April
29, 2010, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
(FFIEC) released the revised Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering
(BSA/AML) Examination Manual,6 which included a new section providing
guidance to banks on managing the risks associated with receiving bulk
shipments of currency and implementing effective monitoring and
reporting systems addressed to those risks. Although the FFIEC
BSA/AML Examination Manual is issued by the Federal banking regulators
regarding AML requirements applicable to banks, it contains guidance
that may be of interest to all financial institutions covered by the
BSA.

Summary of New Mexican Regulation The SHCP has issued the new
regulations, in consultation with the Mexican financial supervisor,
the Comisi n Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, pursuant to Article 1157
of the Mexican Law of Credit Institutions, to be included among other
AML requirements for banks issued pursuant to article 115. (See
Annexes for a copy of the new regulations as issued, and an unofficial
translation into English.) The regulations provide that Mexican banks
shall be prohibited from receiving U.S. currency for transactions
involving currency exchange, and for receipt of payment for services,
or transfers or remittances of funds, subject to the following
conditions: * For legal entities (in Spanish “personas morales”) and
trusts that are customers, U.S.  currency transactions will be
prohibited, unless such customer is based or conducts most of its
business within a tourist area (to be identified by SHCP at a later
date), within twenty miles of the U.S.  border, or within the States
of Baja California or South Baja California; in which cases the bank
may receive an aggregate limit of $7000 in U.S. currency from its
customer per calendar month. * For legal entities and trusts that are
non-customers, all U.S.  currency transactions will be prohibited.
* For individuals who are customers, the aggregate limit in U.S.
currency that the bank may receive from its customer per calendar
month shall be $4000. * For individuals who are non-customers, the
aggregate limits in U.S. currency that the bank may receive from the
individual shall be $300 per day, and $1500 per month. Only the
monthly threshold of $1500 per person will apply to non-Mexicans
(e.g., foreign tourists); the daily threshold will not apply. For all
transactions for individuals who are non-customers, the Bank will be
required to receive certain identification information from the
transacting person.

Guidance The change in Mexican regulations could have a significant
impact on the operations of U.S.  financial institutions, both
directly with respect to the nature of activity and relationships with
Mexican customers and financial institutions, and indirectly with
respect to possible changes in activity both within the United States
and through intermediary countries.  Financial institutions are
advised that some changes in transaction activity should be expected
in advance of the effective date of the Mexican regulations. In
addition, U.S. financial institutions should be aware that some
Mexican banks have already implemented restrictions on accepting
foreign currency. The end of this Advisory includes examples of
possible changes in activity. These examples are by no means certain
nor exclusive, but rather are illustrative and are being shared
through this Advisory for the purpose of aiding U.S. financial
institutions in developing assessments based upon their unique
customer and business profiles.

Financial institutions should consider the possible impact of the
restrictions when reviewing financial activity and monitoring
transactions. The changes to the Mexican regulations could lead some
customers to seek new relationships with U.S. financial institutions.
Financial institutions are reminded of their requirement to have a
Customer Identification Program, as applicable, as well as an AML
Program to detect suspicious activity. Financial institutions that
receive or offer services in connection with bulk cash shipments
should have policies and procedures that mitigate the risks of those
services.

While the transactional activity that U.S. financial institutions may
experience as a result of the new Mexican restrictions may not be
indicative of criminal activity, U.S. financial institutions should
consider this activity in conjunction with other information,
including transaction volumes and source of funds, when determining
whether to file a suspicious activity report (SAR).9 Financial
institutions’ requirements to report suspicious activity are
significant, because SARs continue to be one of the most valuable
sources of data for law enforcement and regulatory agencies in their
investigation and prosecution of criminal activity.

Suspicious Activity Reporting To assist FinCEN and law enforcement
with efforts to better assess the impact of the changes in the Mexican
regulations, particularly with respect to possible attempts by
criminals to divert or alter their methods of laundering the proceeds
of crime, we request that: (a) if a financial institution has
determined that a transaction is suspicious and thus has an obligation
to file a SAR with FinCEN; and (b) if the facts and circumstances of
the transaction lead the financial institution to suspect that the
transaction is being entered into as a result of the Mexican currency
restrictions, then the financial institution should include the
specific term “MX Restriction” within the narrative portion of the SAR
filing and highlight the exact dollar amount(s) associated with the
suspicious activity. We further request the Suspect/Subject
Information Section in the SAR filing include all information
available for each party suspected of engaging in this activity
(including the individual or company name, address, phone number, and
any other identifying information). With respect to currency
shipments from Mexico that are deemed suspicious, include information
on the common carrier, courier, or shipper of the currency, and
information on the point of exportation of the currency from Mexico
and the point of importation in the United States, if known.

FinCEN will continue to analyze U.S. currency flows between Mexico
and the United States to better understand legitimate, as distinct
from possible criminal, activity, and to aid in the detection,
deterrence, investigation and prosecution of criminal activity.
Future updates to this Advisory may be published as more specific
information as to the effects of the new Mexican regulations become
available.

Examples of Potential Activity The new restrictions implemented by
Mexico may have both direct and indirect effects on transactions
occurring in the United States. Financial institutions may find the
following examples of possible effects helpful in assessing risks and
in ongoing monitoring of financial transactions. * As the
restrictions on Mexican bank activity with respect to U.S. currency
is announced and goes into effect, it can be expected that the overall
amount of U.S.  currency repatriated by Mexican banks to the United
States will decline, with a possible further consolidation of the
Mexican entities seeking currency repatriation services. Prior to the
effective date of the restrictions, there could be an increase in
activity as pre-existing currency holdings of banks and their
customers are drawn down. * Individuals and businesses no longer able
to deposit U.S. currency into Mexican banks may instead look directly
to U.S.  financial institutions to deposit U.S. currency. * Within
the United States, financial institutions in the region of the Mexican
border or near frequently used ports of entry for travel to and from
Mexico by land, sea or air, should consider whether significant
changes in their U.S. currency activity might be related to the
changes in Mexico. * The limitations upon U.S. currency activity in
Mexico may lead to increased demand by Mexican persons, and
non-Mexican persons doing business with Mexico, for other types of
payment services or products to settle debts that might previously
have been paid in U.S. currency. This could include increased demand
for Mexican peso banknotes; debit cards, credit cards and pre-paid
products presented in Mexico to access funds in U.S. accounts;
increased use of wire transfers; ACH; money orders, checks or other
paper instruments; etc. * Moreover, to the extent that one source of
U.S. currency in Mexico has been proceeds of crime in the United
States that has been bulk shipped to Mexico, the restrictions upon the
ability to integrate bulk currency into the Mexican financial system
may cause criminals in the United States to attempt to launder more
U.S. currency within the United States. This may be accompanied by
attempts to transfer non-cash proceeds to Mexico, such as through
other types of payment services or products, transfer of goods or
commodities, or other means, such as trade-based money laundering.10 *
U.S. currency may be diverted from Mexico through intermediary
countries – in particular, currency that is not tied to legitimate
economic activity in Mexico, but rather related to narcotics
trafficking or other organized crime. Financial institutions should
thus consider, as part of their risk management related to bulk
currency activities generally, whether they understand the causes of
sudden significant increases in U.S.  currency activities involving
jurisdictions other than Mexico to avoid unknowingly facilitating the
processing of U.S.  currency diverted from past Mexican activity.

For questions regarding this Advisory, contact FinCEN’s Regulatory
Helpline at (800)949-2732.

Unofficial Translation
<http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/06-2010-0238-eng-final.pdf>
The original Mexican regulations referenced in this advisory may be
found at:
<http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5146921&fecha=16/06/2010>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Since 1954 the Netherlands Antilles has been a separate country
within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of Aruba, and
Curacao, Dutch St. Maarten and the BES islands (Bonaire, St.
Eustatius and Saba.) Aruba received Status Aprate in 1986 and now
Curacao and St. Maarteen are seeking similar status while the BES
islands want to become special municipalities with more control over
internal affairs.

The Netherlands Antilles is scheduled to be dissolved as a unified
political entity on October 10,2010.

October 10th, 2010 is the date that Curacao and St. Maarten become
separate countries within the Kingdom and that the Netherlands
Antilles will cease to exist.

From January 1, 2011 the US dollar will be used as legal tender within
the BES.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumbing Down

Tesco demands ID from 33 year old man – and refuses to sell him
alcohol when he hasn’t got any
- Alex Deane

I’m slow to pick up on this story but, as if by magic, I find that the
point I made elsewhere, that there is a growing, bureaucratic,
automatic authoritarian demand for identification (which would only be
fuelled by ID cards) demonstrated in a story to make one bleed from
the eyes in irritation:

Man aged 33 is refused a bottle of wine in Tesco… because he had no
ID

Headline says it all, you might think. Imposing their own unnecessary
rules above and beyond the law (”Think 25″) – driven in part by
absurdly harsh laws that punish shops for misselling goods, and also
by a total lack of common sense on the part of stupid, literalist,
jobsworth staff. Rules is rules. You can’t be too careful. Typical
demonstration of the ridiculous culture we’ve allowed ourselves to
fall into.

But wait, there’s more: his fianc e (aged 29) was there, and gave her
ID. The shop still wouldn’t sell it to them because “she might be
buying it for a minor” (i.e. the chappie, aged 33).

And there’s even MORE:

Earlier this year the same store was criticised for its ‘patronising’
attitude by a furious father who was refused entry because he was
carrying his daughter on his shoulders.

Martin Dunkley, 45, was about to enter the premises with daughter
Natalie, six, when a security guard stopped them for health and safety
reasons.

Let’s remember that whilst our bureaucrats excel at nannyism, they’re
not the only people at it – the private sector is perfectly capable of
crass, cotton-wool, cloying, soft authoritarianism, too.

Shamrock’s Comment: Stupidity knows no bounds!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb Laws

RateMyCop User Ensnared in ‘Dumbest Case Ever’
- David Kravets

A Florida man arrested and briefly jailed for posting a local police
officer’s home address on a cop-rating site said Wednesday his ordeal
was “completely crazy.”

“Just because I posted it, I got arrested.  It wasn’t like it was the
Pentagon Papers,” Robert Brayshaw, a 35-year-old Tallahassee man, said
in a telephone interview.

Brayshaw’s comments came hours after the deadline passed for Florida
to appeal a federal judge’s decision declaring the First Amendment
trumped Florida’s law meant to protect the privacy of police officers.
Brayshaw, who is now unemployed, said it has been difficult to get a
job because of his 2008 arrest.  He spent nearly three hours in jail
and was prosecuted under a 1972 statute making it unlawful to publish
personally identifying information of a police officer.

Florida and Tallahassee authorities agreed to pay $60,000 in damages
and legal fees to Brayshaw and his lawyers from the American Civil
Liberties Union.

Brayshaw said the officer “basically had her information listed
publicly in the phone book.”  He had a beef with the officer regarding
a trespassing flap in which he was not charged.

He posted to RateMyCop.com, a 2-year-old website that lets users rate
and comment on the uniformed police officers in their community.

RateMyCop uses public-records requests to gather the names and, in
some cases, badge numbers of thousands of uniformed cops at police
departments around the country, and allows users to post comments
about police they’ve interacted with. The site’s launch in 2008 drew
cries of outrage from police, who complained that they’d be put at
risk if their names were on the internet.

Brayshaw used the site to post anonymous comments about Tallahassee
Police Officer Annette Garrett, as well as her name and home address
information not normally cataloged by the site.  He wrote that Garrett
was rude to him when investigating a trespass call at an apartment
complex he was managing.

His case, he said, bounced through three judges, three prosecutors and
four public defenders, amid a year of local court proceedings.

“This is the dumbest case in America,” he said.

The authorities subpoenaed RateMyCop and Brayshaw’s internet service
provider to learn his identity, then booked him under the Florida law
a misdemeanor carrying up to a year in jail.  The case was later
dismissed against Brayshaw for procedural reasons, but he sued,
claiming the statute chills his speech.

U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak in Tallahassee ruled the First
Amendment does not protect “true threats, fighting words, incitements
to imminent lawless action, and classes of lewd and obscene speech.”
But publishing an officer’s phone number and address, he said, “is not
in itself a threat or serious expression of an intent to commit an
unlawful act of violence.”

The judge wrote he appreciated the intent of the 38-year-old law, but
noted that it went too far. “While the state interest of protecting
police officers from harm or death may be compelling,” the judge said
the law “was not narrowly tailored to serve this interest.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb signs -

Are Cameras the New Guns?
- Gizmodo

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict
police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity.
In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty
police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your
defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no
expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing
wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing
law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and
Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for
a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious
to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent,
the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states
also include an exception for recording in public places where “no
expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice
this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was
arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been
misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and
snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor
Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a
ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law
requiring all parties to consent to being taped.  I have written in
the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”

The courts, however, disagree.  A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge
rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against
Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar
artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges
of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area
were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class
I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the
state’s electronic surveillance law, aka recording a police encounter
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2.
In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, “Citizens have a
particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue
is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens
must fear criminal reprisals .” (Note: In some states it is the audio
alone that makes the recording illegal.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb facts

Fined for the length of your dog lead. A cash-strapped council has come
up with an ingenious way of raking in revenue from law-abiding people
- the Manchester Evening News

Dog owners are facing GBP1,000 fines if they take their pets to the
park on long leads.

The ban on leads longer than two metres (6ft5in) applies to dozens of
parks and open spaces.

Bosses at Tameside council say they have brought in the measure to
reduce dog fouling. The council says owners are more likely to clean
up after their pets if they are on a short lead.

Tameside is the first local authority in Greater Manchester to bring
in the rule and introduced it despite many retractable leads being
between five and eight metres in length.

I would love to see the council’s research that suggests the distance
between dog-on-lead and dog-owner is representative of the likelihood
of said dog-owner cleaning up dog mess. I would predict that no such
research exists (not even a council would be stupid enough to
commission something like that) – but even if it did, I would think
that the personality of the dog owner is a far stronger (if not the
strongest) indicator of whether dog mess is cleared-up.

Then there’s the question of how this policy would be policed.  Are we
going to see litter wardens and PCSOs in Tameside whipping out their
tape measures every time a person walks past with a dog on a lead?

Overall, it takes a sane person all of 10 seconds to realise this idea
is completely barking mad (if you’ll excuse the pun). Rather than
targeting the people that leave dog mess, it hits law-abiding dog
walkers in the pocket.  Fining someone for the length of their dog
lead is absurd; fining someone GBP1000 is outrageous.

Final word goes to Tameside Council who claim the idea is intended to
make parks ‘more enjoyable’ – Ministry of Love anyone?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Dumb criminal acts

Fort Knox Nurseries
- Dylan Sharpe

Fingerprint scanning and passwords for entry, mobile phones banned and
a network of impregnable fences and CCTV cameras.

What could I be describing?

A new prison?

A bank vault?

No – this is the latest security upgrade at…a Bolton nursery.

Visitors to Bolton Day Nursery will soon find themselves having to
undergo fingerprint scanning at the door, while all mobile phones will
be banned from the nursery, and no parent will be allowed in without a
child collection password.

Locks and fences will be upgraded, CCTV will be extended and no
supplier will be allowed access without identification.

The GBP60,000 “supersafe” initiative is in response to parents’
feedback at the Chorley Street Nursery, inside the David Lloyd Leisure
Club, about security being their top concern.

Over-the-top doesn’t even come close as a description for this scheme.
It takes the idea of responding to demand to a quite ridiculous level.

Of course parents want their children to be safe – but turning the
nursery into a pre-school Wormwood Scrubs, in which parents are
treated like criminals and children immunised to mass surveillance, is
an absurd response.

The cost is as excessive as the intrusion, not to mention wholly
unnecessary.  I can only hope the parents of Bolton Day Nursery are
equally opposed to this development and stop Asquith Nurseries rolling
it out to their other 83 establishments.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Cannon Fodder

Remember, the internet is not a private place
- Dylan Sharpe

It hasn’t escaped Big Brother Watch’s attention that we are
increasingly reporting on the dangers of social networking, the
security of our email and WiFi accounts and general concerns about
what happens to our online browsing history.

In fact, to catalogue this slew of stories, we have now added a new
category to our word cloud below called ‘Online privacy’.

This latest story is the perfect example of why this is an
increasingly problematic issue (from the Daily Mail):

Some of Britain’s most famous companies have been ’spying’ on their
customers, it was claimed yesterday.

BT is among firms that have been using specialist software to find out
who has been making complaints about them to friends on social
networking sites.

Other companies like easyJet and Carphone Warehouse are also tracking
conversations on websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. They
then contact the complainants and offer to solve their problems.

BT uses software called Debatescape, which hunts through social
networking websites for key words or phrases that suggest someone is
making critical comments.

There are several slightly sinister conclusions to draw from this; not
least that if these companies have this technology you can bet that
our central and local government – as well as any number of law
enforcement agencies and quangos – are also monitoring our online
communications.

Indeed, as I wrote recently, there are already plans afoot in the EU
Parliament to have every internet search in Europe recorded for
monitoring.

From our inception, Big Brother Watch has sought to keep the state out
of our private web activities – this latest story provides a reminder,
if it were needed, that the internet is never a private place.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Oz/Nzed Corner

Australia moves forward with internet censorship
- smh.com.au

What a horrible move in the wrong direction.

The government’s $128.8 million Cyber Safety policy includes forcing
internet service providers to block access to a secret blacklist of
website pages identified as ”refused classification” by Australian
government bureaucrats.

Web pages will be nominated for blacklisting by Australian internet
users who come across illegal or ”unacceptable” websites.

“This is a policy that will be going ahead,” Senator Conroy said. “We
are still consulting on the final details of the scheme. But this
policy has been approved by 85 per cent of Australian internet service
providers, who have said they would welcome the filter, including
Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iinet.”

***NZed***

New Zealand cities rate as cheapest in Asia-Pacific
- NZHerald

Auckland and Wellington are cheaper to live in than any other major
city in the Asia-Pacific region, according to a global survey.

Mercer’s 2010 Worldwide Cost of Living Survey ranked Wellington 163rd
out of 214 cities. Auckland had slightly greater living costs at
149th, equal with Aberdeen and just ahead of Johannesburg (150) and
Kuwait City (151).

The higher-ranked the city is, the more expensive it is to live in.

Mercer senior associate Anthony Shippard said New Zealand’s position
on the list was “very good news”.

“The cost of living within New Zealand is really one of the most
reasonable in the whole of the Asia-Pacific region, and of the
developed economies within the Asia-Pacific region, it really is the
best.”

Mr Shippard said New Zealand had an advantage in that its economy had
not been as strongly affected by the recession as others.  ”The
strength of the New Zealand economy and, really, the state of your
currency, has meant that the US dollar is still able to buy
significant international goods at reasonable costs within New
Zealand.”

The survey is aimed at international companies which transfer
employees to cities around the world.  Cities were ranked by comparing
the prices of more than 200 everyday items, including housing,
transport, food, clothing and entertainment.

Mr Shippard said New Zealand would be regarded as a favourable
destination for companies sending employees overseas. “At the moment,
New Zealand looks good from both the employee perspective, in that the
quality of life is very good, but also the employer perspective, in
that the cost of relocating someone there is so low.”

Both Auckland and Wellington ranked highly in Mercer’s 2010 Worldwide
Quality of Living Survey last month, with Auckland taking fourth place
and Wellington coming in 12th.

In the Cost of Living Survey, three African nations featured in the
top 10 most expensive cities, with European centres taking the other
spots. First place went to Luanda, capital of southwest African
nation Angola, while other costly destinations included Tokyo (2),
Moscow (4) and Geneva (5).

The cheapest Australian city was Adelaide (90), while Sydney ranked as
one of the world’s priciest (26).

The most budget-friendly city surveyed was Pakistan’s financial
capital, Karachi, ranked lowest at 214th.

The survey measured destinations against a base city, New York, while
currencies were compared with the US dollar.

Back to Oz

Advance Australian investigation Fair

Following in the footsteps of the national Data Protection Authorities
in Germany, France, Czech Republic, and Italy, Australia has announced
that there shall be a formal investigation into Google’s electronic
snooping via their Street View cars.

Australia’s communications minister, Stephen Conroy, said

Google was responsible for the single greatest breach in the history
of privacy.

Equally, American Congressmen are pushing for retention of the data
Google has stolen in the USA until a proper investigation has taken
place. As we said in our joint statement recently, the same should be
done here in the UK. If they destroy the evidence of what they’ve
done, how can it properly assist in policing e-snooping in the future?

The refusal of the UK’s Information Commissioner to investigate Google
here becomes ever-more difficult to justify. People in this country
face the prospect of never knowing what Google snatched from their
transmitted data, whilst those abroad have full investigations. How
can that be right?

More about Oz

First, China. Next: the Great Firewall of  Australia?
- Time Magazine

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra’s plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join
the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access
to the Internet is restricted by the state.

Plans for a mandatory Internet filter have been a long-term subject of
controversy since they were first announced by Stephen Conroy, the
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in May
2008 as part of an $106 million “cybersafety plan.” The plan’s stated
purpose is to protect children when they go online by preventing them
from stumbling on illegal material like child pornography.  To do
this, Conroy’s Ministry has recommended blacking out about 10,000
websites deemed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA) to be so offensive that they are categorized as ‘RC,’ or
Refused Classification.

The government won’t reveal an official list of the URLs on the
current blacklist, but Conroy’s office says it includes sites
containing child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence,
detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material
that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. “Under Australia’s
existing [laws] this material is not available in news agencies, it is
not on library shelves, you cannot watch it on a DVD or at the cinema
and it is not shown on television,” Conroy’s office e-mailed in a
statement. But in March 2009, when a 2,395-site blacklist was leaked
to Wikileaks, an online clearinghouse for anonymous submissions, it
seemed confusingly broad, containing, among others, the websites of a
dentist from Queensland, a pet-care facility in Queensland, and a site
belonging to a school cafeteria consultant.

At the time, Conroy told the Sydney Morning Herald that any
Australians involved in the leak could face criminal charges. “No one
interested in cyber safety would condone the leaking of this list,” he
said.

Since then, criticism of the proposed Internet filter has escalated.
“Nobody likes it,” says Scott Ludlam, a senator from the Australian
Greens Party. “Everyone from the communications industry to child
protection rights and online civil liberties groups think this idea is
deeply flawed.”  Throughout 2009 GetUp!, an internet-based political
activism organization, launched an advertising campaign to raise
public awareness about the government’s proposal. (That July, the
advertisement the group made was banned from screenings on Qantas
domestic flights into Canberra.) In February, Anonymous, a community
of Internet users, which include hackers, shut down the Australian
Parliament’s web site in their second attack against the filter, which
they called “Operation: Titstorm”  a reference to the sexual content
that the filter will be blocking. Save the Children has questioned
the efficacy of the filter in protecting children, and in March,
Paris-based Reporters Without Borders listed Australia as a country
that’s “under surveillance” in its annual “Internet Enemies” report,
which rounds up the “worst violators of freedom of expression on the
Net.”

Read full story at
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bug Bites:

Chinese Supercomputer Is Ranked World’s Second-Fastest, Challenging
U.S. Dominance
- NY Times

A Chinese supercomputer has been ranked as the world’s second-fastest
machine, surpassing European and Japanese systems and underscoring
China’s aggressive commitment to science and technology.

The Dawning Nebulae, based at the National Supercomputing Center in
Shenzhen, China, has achieved a sustained computing speed of 1.27
petaflops, the equivalent of one thousand trillion mathematical
operations a second, in the latest semiannual ranking of the world’s
fastest 500 computers.

The newest ranking was made public on Monday at the International
Supercomputer Conference in Hamburg, Germany.  Supercomputers are used
for scientific and engineering problems as diverse as climate
simulation and automotive design.

The Chinese machine is actually now ranked as the world’s fastest in
terms of theoretical peak performance, but that is considered a less
significant measure than the actual computing speed achieved on a
standardized computing test.  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=

*** Red Hot Product!

Aonymous Hong Kong mobile sim chip – Cheapest Roaming Time (Asian) Sim
Card with US$100 roaming time included. Just S$399 including
registered airmail dispatch!

Only a handful left, so it’s strictly first come, first served.

Order at https://www.ptshamrock.com/order_bwe.html Your ordering code
is “HKsim”.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Wikileaks Was Launched With Documents Intercepted From Tor
- Kim Zetter

Wikileaks, the controversial whistleblowing site that exposes secrets
of governments and corporations, bootstrapped itself with a cache of
documents obtained through an internet eavesdropping operation by one
of its activists, according to a new profile of the organization’s
founder.

The activist siphoned more than a million documents as they traveled
across the internet through Tor, also known as “The Onion Router,” a
sophisticated privacy tool that lets users navigate and send documents
through the internet anonymously.

The siphoned documents, supposedly stolen by Chinese hackers or spies
who were using the Tor network to transmit the data, were the basis
for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s assertion in 2006 that his
organization had already “received over one million documents from 13
countries” before his site was launched, according to the article in
The New Yorker.

Only a small portion of those intercepted documents were ever posted
on Wikileaks, but the new report indicates that some of the data and
documents on WikiLeaks did not come from sources who intended for the
documents to be seen or posted. It also explains an enduring mystery
of Wikileaks’ launch: how the organization was able to amass a
collection of secret documents before its website was open for
business.

Tor is a sophisticated privacy tool endorsed by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and other civil liberties groups as a method for
whistleblowers and human rights workers to communicate with
journalists, among other uses. In its search for government and
corporate secrets traveling through the Tor network, it’s conceivable
that WikiLeaks may have also vacuumed up sensitive information from
human rights workers who did not want their data seen by outsiders.

The interception may have legal implications, depending on what
country the activist was based in. In the United States, the
surreptitious interception of electronic communication is generally a
violation of federal law, but the statute includes a broad exception
for service providers who monitor their own networks for legitimate
maintenance or security reasons. “The statutory language is broad
enough that it might cover this and provide a defense,” says former
U.S. federal prosecutor Mark Rasch.

The New Yorker article did not indicate whether WikiLeaks continues to
intercept data from the Tor network. Assange did not immediately
return a call for comment from Threat Level.

WikiLeaks uses a modified version of the Tor network for its own
operations, moving document submissions through it to keep them
private. WikiLeaks computers also reportedly feed “hundreds of
thousands of fake submissions through these tunnels, obscuring the
real documents,” according to The New Yorker.

The intercepted data was gathered from Tor sometime before or around
December 2006, when Assange and fellow activists needed a substantial
number of documents in their repository in order to be taken seriously
as a viable tool for whistleblowers and others.

The solution came from one of the activists associated with the
organization who owned and operated a server that was being used in
the Tor anonymizing network.  Tor works by using servers donated by
volunteers around the world to bounce traffic around, en route to its
destination. Traffic is encrypted through most of that route, and
routed over a random path each time a person uses it.

Under Tor’s architecture, administrators at the entry point can
identify the user’s IP address, but can’t read the content of the
user’s correspondence or know its final destination. Each node in the
network thereafter only knows the node from which it received the
traffic, and it peels off a layer of encryption to reveal the next
node to which it must forward the connection.

By necessity, however, the last node through which traffic passes has
to decrypt the communication before delivering it to its final
destination. Someone operating that exit node can therefore read the
traffic passing through this server.

According to The New Yorker, “millions of secret transmissions passed
through” the node the WikiLeaks activist operated   believed to be an
exit node.  The data included sensitive information of foreign
governments.

The activist believed the data was being siphoned from computers
around the world by hackers who appeared to be in China and who were
using the Tor network to transmit the stolen data.  The activist began
recording the data as it passed through his node, and this became the
basis for the trove of data Wikileaks said it had “received.”

Read the rest of this article at
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-documents/#more-16575>

Shamrock comment: The above article clearly reveals why it is
essential to use encryption no matter how you communicate these days.
It is imperative that you send emails, attachments or other
information via the Internet always encrypted using pgp.

If you do not currently use pgp email encryption, email us and place
“PGP” in your subject heading.  We’ll be happy to email you an easy to
download and use guide on pgp for encrypted emails, etc.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Shamrock’s Missive:

The Quest for the ultimate bank account!

We receive more emails from readers and customers about getting a rock
solid bank account, an account where the bank isn’t a proctologist
asking you for an invoice for each and every wire in and out for as
little as US$1500, sometimes less, than any other subject matter.

Let face it readers, banking these days has become less than
enjoyable, no thanks to the US and Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) authorities and their never ending
list of compliance requirements. Long gone are the hassle free days
of banking.

I believe our leprechaun has indeed discovered the Ultimate offshore
bank account.

For more than 15 years PT Shamrock enjoyed hassle free banking in
Switzerland. Our account there was fast and reliable and we can’t
remember when we were asked about what this or that wire transfer was
for or about.

However last year all that changed. We never thought we could locate
a bank that was equal to or better than our former Swiss bank account.

We are pleased to report that we were wrong. In fact we were very
wrong indeed. Our company bank account in Hong Kong is superior, in
fact FAR superior, to our former Swiss account. Here’s why, what we
figured out and why;

First and most important, China owns Hong Kong and clearly isn’t going
to kowtow to OECD and or any other regulatory authority about filing
requirements, etc. including the US, UK and EU authorities.

Nearly every nationality is welcomed as customers, including our
American customers. There is no reporting to EU, UK or American tax
authorities. There are no W-9 filings of any sort, no social security
or other such nonsense numbers required. No bankers or professional
rferences are necessary and you aren’t required to have your passport
copy notarized; a simple photocopy will suffice along with a current
utility bill.

With a Hong Kong company and HK bank account you can achieve and
accomplish many things. You will receive or have the ability to
receive for example;
* Great easy to use internet banking, provided via a bank code device
(looks like a calculator).
* You receive an atm card for cash withdrawals around the world
* Our HK source creates you business plan for you in order to ensure
your bank account is opened and in good order
* The option for anyone of either a Premier MasterCard credit card,
Advance Visa Platinum Card, Visa Platinum card, Green credit card,
Gold card or a Classic credit card, any of which can be ordered
online direct once your account is opened.
* Your own company in your chosen name
* The option for nominee directors and or shareholders for greater
anonymity
* Online Securities Trading * Stocks monthly investment programs
* Enhance your foreign currency portfolio * Insurance services including;
Travel Insurance, Life Cover, Health Insurance, Accident Insurance, Home
Insurance, Fire Insurance and even golfer insurance!
* You can buy trade gold online as well * Multi currency account, in USD,
Euro, CHF, AUD, HKD, JYN, etc.
* You have the option to obtain a virtual office in Hong Kong as well
* Plus much more!

Please understand that due to contractual agreement, we are unable to
provide the name of this bank until we receive a paid order. That
legalize aside, this Hong Kong bank is with one of the safest and
strongest worldwide renowned banks, bar none. They have hundreds of
branches around the world and we’re confident you’ll be as pleased as
we are been once you make the move.

If you’re serious, email us and place “Hong Kong” as you subject
heading and PT Shamrock will be happy to act as your reference for
this exciting banking product as well as emailing you full particulars
on how to get started.

We aren’t sorry we moved our company banking and promise you won’t
either!

See you next issue

Shamrock

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1784
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Quote

“Law was, and remains, whatever the power holders say it is.”
– Dr. Walter Belford – conversations, December 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Even More Quotes

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving.”
– Adrian Rogers, 1931
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Another Quote

“History does not teach fatalism. There are moments when the will of
a handful of free men breaks through determinism and opens up new
roads.”
– Charles de Gaulle
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thought provoking quotes:

“Privacy is an insurance policy against oppression. Privacy allows a
tyrannized citizenry to think independently, freely, and clearly.”
– Michael Hampton
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Tid Bits

‘Mal-intent’ may be the future of security
– Los Angeles Times

If Bob Burns is correct, terrorists may betray themselves someday by
jiggling on a Nintendo Wii balance board, blinking too fast, curling a
lip like Elvis — or doing nothing at all. Burns and his team of
scientists are researching whether video game boards, biometric
sensors and other high-tech devices can be used to detect distinct
nonverbal cues from people who harbor “mal-intent,” or malicious
intent.

“We’re looking pre-event,” said Burns, the No. 2 at the Homeland
Security Advanced Research Project Agency, a counterpart of the fabled
Pentagon agency that developed Stealth aircraft and the Internet.

“We’re trying to detect a crime before it has occurred.”

OK, roll the sci-fi thriller “Minority Report,” in which Tom Cruise
and other “pre-crime” cops use psychic visions to arrest murderers
before they kill. Or maybe “The Men Who Stare at Goats,” a George
Clooney comedy inspired by real military experiments with supposedly
psychic soldiers.

The work on mal-intent, which has cost $20 million so far, represents
the future in screening: trying to find the bomber, not just the bomb.

“Sometimes people look at our projects and say, ‘This is crazy,’”
conceded Burns, a former submarine weapons officer. If Burns’ group
is delving into the mind of terrorists, another Homeland Security
agency is studying its face. The human factors division has spent
nearly $20 million to experiment with micro-expressions, or
super-quick flickers of facial muscles, that may — or may not –
indicate hostile intent.

Researchers are studying 275 videos of test interviews — frame by
painstaking frame, 30 frames a second, each video up to 10 minutes
long — so analysts can catalog “micro-facial emotional leakages.”

“We are breaking new ground here,” said Larry Willis, the project
director.

The need for improvement is clear. Security teams trained to spot
suspicious behavior have pulled 152,000 people out of airport lines in
recent years, according to a report this month from the Government
Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

That led to about 1,100 arrests, mostly for immigration violations and
outstanding warrants. No one was charged with terrorism.

But screeners failed to spot 16 travelers who later were linked to
failed terrorist plots in New York and Virginia, jihadist training in
Pakistan and lethal attacks in Somalia, Afghanistan and India.

The report didn’t include the Nigerian man accused of trying to light
a bomb in his underwear on a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, or
the Pakistani American who was pulled off a plane in New York on
charges of trying to explode a car bomb in Times Square.

According to the report, the Transportation Security Administration
failed to validate the underlying science before deploying 3,000
behavior detection officers to 161 commercial airports, about a third
of the nation’s total.

“A scientific consensus does not exist on whether behavior detection
principles can be reliably used for counter-terrorism purposes,” the
report said.

Paul Ekman, the nation’s foremost researcher into nonverbal cues that
indicate deceit, disputes that claim and argues more human observers
with better training are needed. He doubts high-tech tools can do the
job any better.

“I’m ambivalent (about mal-intent) because it’s a very high-risk
endeavor,” said Ekman, a professor emeritus at UC San Francisco. “The
odds are against it actually working in the field. But if you’re
going to try it, they’re doing the best job that can be done.”

Ekman dismissed Willis’ work, however. “The research already shows
that not every person intending harm shows micro-expression,” he said.
“So it’s a waste of time.”

Other senior researchers and academics say both research teams appear
to be on the right track.

“I was very skeptical at first,” said Gary Berntson, a professor of
psychology, psychiatry and pediatrics at Ohio State University. “But
it’s not voodoo science. It’s cutting-edge.”

Mark Frank, a psychologist who studies nonverbal behavior at the State
University of New York at Buffalo, called the work worthwhile.

“If the science helps us make better guesses, I think that is very
productive,” Frank said. “Or at least it’s the right approach.”

David Matsumoto, director of the Culture and Emotion Research
Laboratory at San Francisco State University, cautioned that people
“want a silver bullet, a 100 percent foolproof system.”

“That’s never going to happen,” he said. “But can they deploy
something that’s better than we have now? I think both programs are
well on their way to doing that.”

The mal-intent project began in 2007 and is based on the unproven
premise that technology can identify and interpret physiological,
behavioral and paralinguistic cues from someone with mayhem in mind.

Rather than using a Ouija board, researchers have linked
high-resolution cameras, low-level lasers and other devices to measure
fidgeting, pupil dilation, skin temperature, heart rate and other
supposed clues.

“Let’s be clear,” said Dan Martin, the project’s director of research.
“There is no terrorist cue, no Pinocchio growing of the nose to
indicate a plotting terrorist.”

At least in theory, the sensors would record key data as each traveler
moved down a security line. A computer algorithm then would analyze
any shifts triggered by a guard’s questions and raise an alert if
necessary.

The network is supposed to disregard travelers who simply are stressed
out from flight delays, screaming infants, indigestion or other
hassles.

“Whether or not your grandmother is afraid of flying doesn’t matter,”
Martin said. “The question is how your grandmother responds to
specific stimuli, and that indicates whether she should be pulled out
for secondary screening.”

John Verrico, a Homeland Security spokesman, said operators also will
watch for people who show no response “because you have to take into
account there are people who train themselves not to reveal
themselves.”

Age affects responses more than gender, race or ethnicity, the
research shows. Experiments have included only Americans so far, so
the system’s utility with visitors from other countries and cultures
is unclear.

Privacy advocates, civil libertarians and some social scientists are
incredulous.

“This is like eugenics 100 years ago when scientists said you could
tell criminals by the shape of their eyes or the slope of their head,”
said Lillie Coney, associate director of the nonprofit Electronic
Privacy Information Center. “It was bogus science then and it’s bogus
science now.”

Jay Stanley, a privacy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union,
called the work “absurd on its face.”

Bella DePaulo, visiting professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara,
said she doubted researchers could ever simulate what a terrorist
thinks or feels.

“Lots of people, myself included, have studied how you tell when
people are lying or telling the truth,” she said. “But they’re
telling little lies. They’re not trying to blow up a bomb or fly a
plane into a building. How do you test for that?”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** More Tid Bits

Bill would give DHS emergency cyber powers
– Federal News Radio

We’re learning more about the cybersecurity package forming in the
Senate. Wired.com reports Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I-Conn.) wants to
give the federal government the power to take over civilian networks’
security, if there’s an “imminent cyber threat.”s It’s part of a draft
bill, co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Susan Collins, that
provides DHS with the authority to ensure that critical infrastructure
stays up and running in the face of a looming hack attack.

The Senate version of the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization bill
scheduled to be released later this week is going to include funding
for pilot programs that will explore new ways for Defense Department
agencies and contractors to have greater access to cybersecurity tools
and services. NextGov cites sources from the Armed Services
Committee. Their completed markup of its version of the Defense bill
will include funding for projects that require the department to
partner with industry to track cyber threats, and speed up the
acquisition of cybersecurity products and services. The funding would
add to the $10 million in the fiscal 2010 supplemental appropriations
bill the Senate passed on May 27 for the Defense and Homeland Security
departments to conduct cybersecurity pilots.

Agencies looking to establish super-secure Internet hookups under the
Trusted Internet Connection program now have a vendor to turn to. The
General Services Administration has issued the first certification for
a TIC product to AT&T Government Solutions. The company’s Managed
Trusted Internet Protocol Services are available under GSA’s Networx
telecommunications contract. A spokesman says AT&T is the first
provider to receive authority to activate trusted connections.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Bits and bobs

Surveillance cameras in Birmingham track Muslims’ every move
– London Guardian

Counterterrorism police have targeted hundreds of surveillance cameras
on two Muslim areas of Birmingham, enabling them to track the precise
movements of people entering and leaving the neighbourhoods.

The project has principally been sold to locals as an attempt to
combat antisocial behaviour, vehicle crime and drug dealing in the
area. But the cameras have been paid for by a GBP3m grant from a
government fund, the Terrorism and Allied Matters Fund, which is
administered by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

About 150 automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras have been
installed in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook in recent months.
Birmingham’s two predominantly Muslim suburbs will be covered by three
times more ANPR cameras than are used to monitor the entire city
centre. They include about 40 cameras classed as “covert”, meaning
they have been concealed from public view.

The funding arrangement was not made clear to the handful of
councillors who were briefed that the cameras would appear in their
area. Instead, they were told only that the money had come from the
Home Office. “I raised my concern then: is this really about spying?”
said Salma Yaqoob, a member of the Respect party and councillor for
Sparkbrook.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** More Bits n bobs

False economy

Government Jobs Account for 95% of May Job Increases
– Bloomberg

Employers in the U.S. hired fewer workers in May than forecast and
Americans dropped out of the labor force, showing a lack of confidence
in the recovery that may lead to slower economic growth.

Payrolls rose by 431,000 last month, including a 411,000 jump in
government hiring of temporary workers for the 2010 census, Labor
Department figures in Washington showed today. Economists projected a
536,000 gain, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News
survey. Private payrolls rose a less-than-forecast 41,000. The
jobless rate fell to 9.7 percent.

Stocks declined and Treasuries surged on expectations a slowing in the
labor market will restrain consumer spending, the biggest part of the
economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday
that unemployment was exacting a heavy toll, showing why economists
forecast interest rates will remain low.

“Hiring looks soft,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at
JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. “It does raise some red flags that
businesses are still pretty cautious.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Deflationary Depression and Purging To Come

What now that stimulus packages are ending, money set to plunge,
market control by insiders has to end, Fed doesn’t need a monopoly,
bond sales down, still high expectations for gold.

Read the entire article at

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Brazilian banker’s crypto baffles FBI
– The Register

Cryptographic locks guarding the secret files of a Brazilian banker
suspected of financial crimes have defeated law enforcement officials.

Brazilian police seized five hard drives when they raided the Rio
apartment of banker Daniel Dantas as part of Operation Satyagraha in
July 2008. But subsequent efforts to decrypt files held on the
hardware using a variety of dictionary-based attacks failed even after
the South Americans called in the assistance of the FBI.

Full article at

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hints & Tips

Biometric cash machine lands in Europe
– John Leyden

A Polish bank has become the first in Europe to offer the use of
biometrics instead of PINs at cash machines.

Customers of BPS visiting one of its ATM in Warsaw have the option of
using placing their fingerprints on readers, instead inputting a four
digit code, to authorise withdrawals or other transactions following
the introduction of new technology this week.

The system is based on the recognition of the pattern of veins in an
enrolled customer’s finger, a form of biometric technology developed
by Hitachi. The technology is already widely used in Japan but new to
Europe.

Customers are still issued with the same debit or credit card and it’s
only the authorisation method that changes – a pre-registered
fingerprint is offered as alternative to a memorised four-digit PIN -
as illustrated by a picture of the technology in use at BPS here.

“Our bank is the first in Europe to provide its clients with a new
means to secure transactions to complement the secret code of their
banking card,” said BPS Bank vice-president Krzysztof Jagielski.

Jagielski said the technology would help guard against losses from
scams such as ATM skimming while making it easier for pensioners to
withdraw state payments, AFP reports.

Three or four ATMs outfitted with biometric-recognition technology are
to be installed in Warsaw by the end of the year, with plans to
install a further 200 across Poland over an unspecified time period.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Letters to the Editor:

Keep them postcards and letters coming’ folks, ’cause we
done mailed the rosebushes!!

Dear Shamrock:

As always, great info. Well done mate.

Cheers,

JCP

Dear Shamrock:

In your June letter you recommend:

“Finally how about starting a part time Internet business or a
business that travels with you anywhere in the world where there’s an
internet connection, which is just about everywhere these days.”

Do you have any suggestions for such a business? I receive many
solicitations but worry that most are scams, etc.

Thank you

J. M.

Hello J. M.;

Thanks for your query.

We agree with you, we certainly wouldn’t go for any of the spam
adverts received and neither should you.

We suggest, first off, thinking about what you really like to do.
Something that perhaps you haven’t had a chance to pursue previously
for whatever reasons. Then think about starting a part time Internet
business with that something you really love. If you have a passion
for something you like, that greatly increases your chances of success
in your new Internet business.

You can go to your local library and borrow books at no cost to you on
how to start a business, etc. Ask your librarian and they’ll be more
than helpful in guiding you in the right book direction.

For the PT like minded individual, take a look at the books on offer
at http://www.ptshamrock.com/reports/index.html and our friends at
Eden Press, www.edenpress.com

Eden Press offers books on all kinds of topics including how to make
money, etc. Tell them PT Shamrock sent you.

Finally, don’t stop your current job until you have an income from a
part time Internet business equal to 50% of your current ***take
home*** pay! Then try lowering your monthly outgo expenses, i.e.
overhead, and try to save more of your take home money. Before long
these small baby steps can really turn your financial matters around
dramatically and with a successful internet business, set you free!

Any questions just ask.

Kindest regards and the best of luck

PT Shamrock

Dear Shamrock:

Good morning and “Happy June”!

I have to tell you I love your newsletter. Just wish there were 48
hours in a day.

Thanks, PT Shamrock, and have a great week!

D

Dear Shamrock:

As you might recall, I’m from Ecuador and I want to thank you for your
nationality and passport program from XXX in Central America.

In the last few years, in order for an Ecuadorian as well as many
other South American nationals to travel to Panama, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica or Mexico, one MUST, read that as mandatory, obtain a visitor’s
visa to the United States! Go figure that one out!

I do not now, nor never had any desire of visiting the United States.
This insane visa requirement, which has nothing to do with travel to
the United States, has thousands being held hostage by America and
restricting our right to free travel. My business requires my
traveling to Europe, Mexico, and Panama and on occasion to Costa Rica.
When the United States forced these visa requirements on the above
mentioned countries, it cost me thousands of dollars in lost business
and an untold loss of potential future business. Heaven knows how
many tens of thousands of innocent people have been effected by this
severe visa requirment just to visit our Northern neighbors, NOT the
United States.

While I can understand America’s need to keep illegal aliens from
entering or trying to enter that country, placing severe travel
restrictions on tens of thousands of legitimate business people who
have no intention of entering the US is, well, plain unfair and in my
opinion discriminatory.

Now with thanks to you and my passport from XXX, there is no need for
any visa from the US to travel to and conduct business in Panama,
Mexico and Costa Rica. I also have the ability to travel visa free to
the United Kingdom and all of Western Europe.

The money invested in your nationality program is money well worth it
and in fact, has paid for the passport several times over already.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being there for people like
myself.

Raul from Ecuador

Dear Raul from Ecuador;

Many thanks for the kind words and positive feedback.

Shamrock

Shamrock’s comment: Any reader interested in our Central American
nationality and passport program just email us with “CA” as your
subject heading. The particulars for this program will be emailed to
you.

Dear Shamrock:

Congratulations for your first class job/newsletter…

K.S.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Quote of the month!

“Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any
kind of emolument from it, even though for but one year, can never
willingly abandon it.”
– Edmund Burke
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** “PT Shamrock’s Exclusive Member’s Site!”

Each month we offer exclusive information, free privacy programs,
access to our newsletter archives and other insider information
for members only.

Our member’s site is accessed by user name and password only. This
is available to our newsletter subscribers ONLY!

Each month the password will change and you will have to e-mail us
from your subscribers e-mail address to request the NEW password in
order to gain access.

As a subscriber to our newsletter you automatically qualify for this
exclusive service. Just send an e-mail to
and place “Members” in the subject
heading. We will forward to you full details for signing up and gaining
access to our Members Site, reserved for you.

Enjoy.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Friend:

If you like our newsletter please tell your friends and associates
about us. They can subscribe *FREE* by sending an e-mail to:
.

Our pledge!

We never spam our subscribers, never rent or give our
subscribers list to anyone, and unlike other newsletters do
not accept paid advertisements; And of course, our PT Buzz
Newsletter is absolutely free, just packed full of interesting
privacy news and information with a tad of humor thrown in for
good measure.

We’re probably the oldest privacy newsletter on the Internet!

Thank you for your patronage and help in spreading the word.

Shamrock

“The right to privacy is a part of our basic freedoms. Privacy is
fundamental to close family ties, competitive free enterprise, the
ownership of property, and the exchange of ideas.”

PT Shamrock – issue one; 1994
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Don’t forget to check out our Special Offers at

See you next issue!

“Mehr sein, als scheinen” (German Proverb)
Be more, seem less!

PT Shamrock
- – - – - – - – - – NOTICE – - – - – - – - – -
In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit
research and for educational purposes only.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

———————————————————————–
To subscribe, send a blank message to PTBuzz-on@mail-list.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to PTBuzz-off@mail-list.com
To change your email address, send a message to PTBuzz-change@mail-list.com
with your old address in the Subject: line
To contact the list owner, send your message to
PTBuzz-list-owner@mail-list.com

PT Shamrock Limited Suite #79, 184 Lower Rathmines Road, Rathmines, Dublin D6, Ireland