“As times get even tougher and people get even poorer, the
“authorities” will intensify their efforts to extract the funds needed
to meet fiscal obligations. While there will be variations on the
theme, the governments’ song will be the same: cut what you give,
raise what you take.”
- Trends Research Institute

In this issue:

* Part II Crackdown On Liberty
* America’s Total Surveillance Society
* Scary Stuff – DNA “Genetic Patdown” Introduced to Airports by DHS
* Breaking News! A National ID Card For American Citizens? Get Ready
The Real ID Act Goes Into Effect On May 11
* In DNA Privacy Argument, Sharp Divisions Emerge on 3rd Circuit
* Did You Know? Secure Flight
* Expats in Spain ‘sceptical’ that properties will not be demolished
* Bad News – Food prices to skyrocket, riots could follow, suggests USDA
* Food for thought
* Police State – Drivers detained for paying tolls with U.S. currency
* Horror Stories – Florida won’t pay for injustice
* The District of Criminals – Jury Nullifcation Advocate: Legal
Protester or Criminal?
* Infiltration and incitement
* Hot Tips “Revealed: Where And How To Legally Buy, Move And Store
Gold Abroad.”
* Advisory – Revealed: Air Force ordered software to manage army of
fake virtual people
* Mother of 3 Arrested for Taking Pictures of Tourist Attraction at
Airport
* Dumbing Down – What They Know, TV’s Next Wave: Tuning In to You
* Dumb signs – Freedom, compared
* Cannon Fodder – Neighbourhood watchersget speedguns
* Oz Corner – Australia takes a lead on internet privacy
* Bug Bites: New portable camera sees inside solid materials and
structures
* More Bugs – Census spies will track every home
* Red Hot Product!
* Could the UK Government shut down the web?
* Shamrock’s Missive
* Quotes
* Tid Bits – Making your own personal data pay
* More Tid Bits – New EU laws to mandate “explicit” user consent
for cookies
* Bits n bobs – Schools rush to fingerprint children before UK Freedom
Bill change
* Self-erasing flash drives destroy court evidence, Golden age’ of
forensics coming to close
* Hints & Tips – Obtain important and valuable instant privacy information
* Letters to the Editor
* Quote of the month!
* PT Shamrock’s Exclusive Member’s Site!

*** Part II Crackdown On Liberty
[continued from our Mid February 2011 issue.]

Assault On Civil Liberty
- By Paul Craig Roberts

The neoconservative Bush regime did not see democratic institutions as
our hope but as an obstacle. Throughout the Western world democracy
is out of favor with the ruling elites. In the UK and Europe, peoples
are being forced, despite their expressed opposition, into an EU
identity that they reject. Former British PM Tony Blair and his
European counterparts have decided on their own that the people do not
know best and that the people will be ignored. As former French prime
minister Valery Giscard d’Estaing told the French newspaper, Le Monde,
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the
proposals that we dare not present to them directly.”

When Western leaders cease to believe in democratic outcomes, freedom
is finished. We can see this in the Patriot Acts passed by Congress
and in the Military Commission Act passed in 2006.

On December 6, 2001, US Attorney General John Ashcroft gave short
shrift to constitutional concerns, telling the Senate Judiciary
Committee that “those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of
lost liberty… give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause
to America’s friends.” The only senator to vote against the Patriot
Act, Russell Feingold, said that the act “goes into a lot of areas
that have nothing to do with terrorism and a lot to do with the
government and the FBI having a list of things they want to do.” Once
again, an orchestrated crisis was used to expand the government’s
unaccountable police power.

On March 1, 2010, President Obama renewed Bush’s Patriot Act,
unconstitutional legislation that destroys civil liberties guaranteed
by the Constitution. The Christian Science Monitor reported that,
“Privacy advocates had called for greater oversight on aspects of the
Patriot Act that give the government broad powers. But the version
Obama signed Saturday moved through Congress unchanged.”

In today’s “free and democratic” America, surveillance of citizens
(who supposedly control the government via the ballot box), brings to
mind George Orwell’s 1984.

The ACLU, the last defender of US civil liberty, goes along in part
with the Patriot Act, but says that the legislation “gives the
government overly broad power to seize records in investigations not
connected to terrorism.” Fabricated terrorist cases keep alive the
fear of “terrorist attacks” that inspires draconian repeals of civil
liberties in the name of public safety. Examples include the Portland
“Christmas tree bomber,” who the FBI cultivated for six months and
provided a fake bomb; Faroque Ahmed, the Virginia man ensnared in an
FBI ruse to bomb the Washington Metro system; and the “Miami Seven”
recruited by the FBI to bomb the Sears Tower.

When so many of the “terrorist attacks” that are being used as a
pretext to destroy the US Constitution are orchestrated by the FBI,
one wonders what undeclared agendas are at work. Whatever these
agendas are, both the executive and legislative branches are united in
their determination to keep the public from finding out.

On December 10, 2010, the Senate passed the so-called “Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act” (S. 372) by unanimous consent. What the
act actually enhances is the government’s ability to nullify
whistleblower protection.

One provision provides sweeping new powers to dismiss whistleblowers’
reports without a hearing on the basis of affidavits filed by
executive agencies. We know what that means. While the Bush regime
was running torture centers, Bush declared that “the US does not
torture.”

Another provision of S. 372 permits executive agencies to fire
employees who report actual violations of law and overturns the US
Court of Appeals Drake v. AID decision in which a federal agency was
ordered by a federal court to take corrective action.

The extreme and unconstitutional attack on WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange by the US government, both executive and legislative branches,
and by the captive TV and print media, is a conclusive indication that
the US government cannot stand the light of day. A number of US
politicians and neoconservative “journalists” have called for
Assange’s assassination.

Normally, such calls would lead to arrests for “incitement to murder,”
but in America today few blink an eye, and certainly not the US
Department of Justice.

US Senator Joseph Lieberman not only wants WikiLeaks’ blood but also
that of the New York Times. Lieberman wants the First Amendment
nullified so that the US government can continue to hide its
deceptions and criminal actions under the cloak of secrecy.

A “free and democratic” government that cannot stand the light of day
has much to hide. Both the executive and legislative branches are
seeking refuge from truth in police state measures. Julian Assange is
demonized as an anti-American who is endangering American lives by
forwarding information leaked to him by US government sources to news
media.

Under existing law Assange has done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, the
Judiciary Committees of Congress and the Department of Justice under
Eric Holder are striving to bend existing law or to invent some law
that will give the US the “authority” to extradite Assange, an
Australian citizen, to the US for a show trial or for indefinite
detention in Guantanamo prison.

Americans, or about 78 percent of them, according to polls, prefer the
“safety” of a police state to a free society. Bruce Fein, a former
Reagan administration Justice Department official, and author of
“American Empire: Before The Fall,” observes:

“Prevailing legal doctrines and practices in the United States bear
the earmarks of tyranny deplored by the Founding Fathers and are
hauntingly evocative of The Soviet Union or The People’s Republic of
China.” As for the constitutional protection of the right to an
attorney, “Lawyers who defend alleged international terrorist
organizations are vulnerable to prosecution under the material
assistance law.”

Keep in mind that an “alleged terrorist organization” might, under
current interpretation, be a group like Doctors Without Borders or
anyone who innocently gifts to a charity that provides aid to
Palestinians that can be alleged to funnel through Hamas offices, the
elected government of Gaza.

Fein concludes his assessment of the destruction by the US government
of American liberty: “Government crimes, including torture, illegal
surveillance, obstruction of justice, and war crimes, go
un-prosecuted despite the President’s constitutional obligation to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

When the elected leaders of a democracy, allegedly accountable to law,
refuse without shame to obey the law, liberty is dead. The Bush
presidency succeeded in replacing the restraints that the Constitution
and statutory law place on government with unaccountable executive
power.

And it has continued under President Barack Obama. There is little,
if any, outcry from bar associations, law schools, and the print and
TV media. A few federal judges have ruled against unaccountable power
of the executive, but as of the end of 2010, the majority of American
citizenry has accepted the transition to rule by caesars.

Where Kafka Meets Orwell In an ironic twist of history, today it is
the communists of the Fourth International who are concerned about the
rise of the American Police State: “While authorized and funded in the
guise of a response to terrorism, the network of agencies at the
federal, state and local levels represents an enormous threat to the
democratic rights of the American people. It is the scaffolding for
the construction of a police state.”

On December 20, 2010, the Washington Post reported, “the United States
is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect
information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state
homeland security and military criminal investigators.” These
American citizens, the Post, says “have not been accused of any
wrongdoing.”

The question naturally arises: Who are these people for whom unlawful
dossiers are being collected? The most obvious answer is: war
protestors, lawyers who invoke the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and
international law against unlawful spying without wqarrants, torture,
detention without charges, rendition, curtailment of free speech and
war crimes, critics of the orchestrated “terrorist plots” organized by
the FBI “sting operations,” and critics of the government and its
favoritism of the megarich.

Environmentalists and animal rights advocates are included in the
“terrorist” surveillance.

A total of 4,058 federal, state and local organizations now have
counterterrorism functions and are equipped with military technology
capable of penetrating through cars, clothing, and the walls of homes
to determine if anyone in their home, car, or on their person is
armed.

The Pentagon already has, according to the Washington Post, 161,948
“suspicious activity files.”  Does anyone in their right mind actually
believe that there are this number of terrorists in the US? If there
were, the entire country would be going up in explosions.

In Thomas Jefferson’s state of Virginia, a “terrorism threat
assessment” in 2009 named historically black colleges as potential
hubs for terrorism. That “anti-terrorism” is taking a racist approach
is also evident from neoconservative propaganda. The eoconservative
Center for Security Policy has invented a “stealth jihad” and claims
that most mosques in the US are “radicalized” and must be dealt with
before they impose sharia law on the US.

There is every indication that the United States is lost in fantasy.
The United States has military operations underway against Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and, unconditionally supports
Israel’s policies in its conflicts with the Palestinians and
neighboring nations.

Yet Americans are told by the mainstream media and politicians that
they are under attack from Muslim terrorists, which Homeland Security
has merged with “domestic extremists.” And the next iteration will be
“critics of the government.”

The Police State is here. We are living in it. “Your papers,
please,” only in Amerika, there is no “please.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** America’s Total Surveillance Society
- Stephen Lendman, OpEd News

In 2003, an ACLU report warned that “Big Brother” no longer is
fiction, America having advanced to where total surveillance is now
possible. Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and
Liberty Program said:

“Given the capabilities of today’s technology, the only thing
protecting us from a full-fledged surveillance society are the legal
and political institutions we have inherited as Americans.
Unfortunately, the September 11 attacks have led some to embrace the
fallacy that weakening the Constitution will strengthen America.”

As a result, civil liberties fast eroded. In 2007, another ACLU
report warned about America being six minutes to midnight “as a
surveillance society draws near….” Powerful new technologies
potentially make total monitoring possible under a president, a
compliant Congress and courts that believe national security takes
precedence over constitutional freedoms.

As a result, “we confront the possibility of a dark future where our
every move,” transaction, and communication is “recorded, compiled,
and stored away” for ready access for whatever authorities may want.

One of several earlier articles on institutionalized spying.

It reviewed undiscussed police state tools used without congressional
authorization, oversight, or legal standing, state-of-the-art
technology, including satellite imagery, to spy on unsuspecting
Americans.

In his article titled, “Creating the Domestic Surveillance State,”
Alfred McCoy explained that Obama embraced the same executive powers
as Bush, including NSA surveillance, CIA renditions, drone
assassinations, indefinite military detentions, and more, virtual
lawlessness across the board. As a result, constitutional Law
Professor Jack Balkin believes bipartisan affirmation of unchecked
executive powers could “reverberate for generations,” subverting
constitutional freedoms.

As concerned, McCoy said Americans are largely unaware of the “war on
terror” toll on their rights. “Think of our counterinsurgency wars
abroad as so many living laboratories for the undermining of a
democratic society at home, a process historians (say) has been going
on for a long, long time.”

In his book titled, Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the
Philippines and the Rise of the Surveillance State, McCoy chronicled
over a century of US imperialism from the 1899 1902 Philippines
conquest to the present.

As a result, America developed a coercive policing, intelligence, and
surveillance apparatus to ensure absolute imperial domination, using
covert infiltration and violence to curb all remnants of resistance.
Repressive tactics now include a state-of-the-art coercive national
security/surveillance/counterintelligence apparatus. Established in
the Philippines, it was used:
* during the 1920s Red Scare;
* for mass WW II incarceration of Japanese Americans;
* during post-war McCarthy witch-hunts and secret blacklisting of
suspected communists; and
* for many decades against human rights, labor, anti-war and civil
liberties activists.

Other techniques include:
* psychological warfare;
* targeted or sweeping assassinations;
* death squads killing thousands from Korea to Southeast Asia,
Central America, Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other countries
covertly and overtly on the ground and overhead by drones and attack
aircraft;
* FBI subversion from red-baiting to COINTELPRO to later tactics to
disrupt, sabotage and neutralize dissent by surveillance, political
repression, infiltration, disinformation, assassinations, and denigration
of targeted individuals or groups; and * sophisticated forms of
intelligence, subversion and violence throughout the Cold War and
thereafter, especially post-9/11 in the war on terror.

McCoy’s book exposed imperial America’s dark side, a shadowy
public/private world of repressive policing, sophisticated
surveillance, active informers, counterintelligence, secret agents,
and state terror, undermining human rights, civil liberties, and
democratic freedoms at home and abroad.  It proved Mark Twain right
saying you can’t have an overseas empire and democracy at home.

From 1898, America developed an invasive internal security blueprint,
more sophisticated than ever today. Today’s global war on terror
developed a “technological template, (including) omnipresent cameras,
deep data-mining, nano-second biometric identification,” global drone
patrols, killer drones, satellite surveillance, and other forms of
sophisticated lawless spying, intelligence, subversion, disruption,
and destruction of constitutional freedoms.

McCoy said America’s war on terror involves a “massive expansion of
(FBI, NSA, Pentagon, and CIA) data-mining systems, (amassing billions
of) private documents (on) US citizens” kept in classified data banks.

“Abroad, after years of failing counterinsurgency efforts in the
Middle East, the Pentagon began applying biometrics, the science of
identification via facial shape, fingerprints, and retinal or iris
patterns, to the pacification of Iraqi cities, as well
as….electronic intercepts for instant intelligence and split-second”
satellite imagery use to aid drone assassinations from Africa to South
Asia to perhaps America after a future homeland attack.

Today, the combination of biometric identification, global
surveillance, and digital warfare makes counterinsurgency more
sophisticated than ever. With everyone in a database, authorities can
get instantaneous feedback from iris, retinal, or other data to
identify, target, arrest or kill.

In Iraq under General Stanley McChrystal, “every tool
available….from signal intercepts to human intelligence (was
employed for) lightening quick strikes.” The same technology is used
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, dozens of other countries, and perhaps soon,
if not already, in communities across America.

McCoy explained: “While those running US combat operations overseas
were experimenting with intercepts, satellites, drones, and
biometrics, inside Washington….FBI and NSA (operatives) began
expanding domestic surveillance through thoroughly conventional data
sweeps, legal and extra-legal, and, with White House help, several
abortive attempts to revive a tradition that dates back to World War I
of citizens spying on suspected subversives.”

In 2002, Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System)
was launched to have “millions of American truckers, letter carriers,
train conductors, ship captains, utility employees and others” snitch
on other Americans.

At the same time, the Pentagon developed a Total Information Awareness
program with “detailed electronic dossiers” on millions of
unsuspecting Americans.  Public outrage got Congress to ban it, but
the NSA, CIA and FBI continued it, monitoring Americans
electronically, including private email and phone communications as
well as access to financial, medical and other personal information.

In 2004, the FBI established an Investigative Data Warehouse
“centralized (counterterrorism) repository,” and in two years amassed
659 million individual records, now perhaps double that amount. It
includes social security data, drivers’ licenses, financial records,
and virtually any information considered important to monitor
potentially making everyone’s private life an open book to know about
and abuse, including by warrantless wiretaps and other lawless
methods.

Since taking office, Obama advanced the Bush agenda, endangering
Americans more than ever under surveillance.  For example, the FBI’s
“Terrorist Watchlist” adds 1,600 names daily to hundreds of thousands
already included. A new Lackland Air Base cyber-command is charged
with targeting enemy computers and repelling hostile cyber-attacks
against US networks. Official denials notwithstanding, no one escapes
surveillance.

The combined intelligence/Homeland Security/US Northern Command
(NORTHCOM)/local authorities apparatus constitutes a formidable force
against civil unrest, mass protests, designated terrorists,
dissidents, and other perceived homeland threats, their combined
might and sophisticated technology charged with containing them.
Already, constitutional freedoms have been seriously compromised on
their way toward total abolition.

Moreover, “presidential power has grown relentlessly” after Bush
claimed “unitary Executive” authority, what Chalmers Johnson called a
“ball-faced assertion of presidential supremacy dressed up in legal
mumbo jumbo,” but it persists under Obama to rule by Executive Orders
and other unilateral directives, unchecked by congressional approval.
McCoy said it “open(ed) the way to unchecked electronic (satellite,
drone, biometric, and other type) surveillance, the endless detention
of (uncharged) terror suspects (including US citizens), and a variety
of inhumane forms of interrogation” after Bush made torture official
US policy. It continues seamlessly, though quietly, under Obama more
than ever hardening America’s police state apparatus.

Big Brother now watches everyone, including with growing numbers of
digital cameras monitoring streets, commercial areas, airports,
highways, public and private transportation, government and office
buildings, and shopping malls, virtually everywhere people
congregate, work, reside, recreate, or inhabit for any reason.
Anti-terrorist SWAT teams are ready to react against any suspected
provocation or threat.

As a result, American democracy fundamentally changed. Always more
illusion than reality, total surveillance reveals a harshness too ugly
to hide, especially when sophisticated technologies target anyone for
any reason, what McCoy calls “the stuff of dystopian science fiction.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Scary Stuff

DNA “Genetic Patdown” Introduced to Airports by DHS
- Nicholas West, Activist Post

A new level of invasive screening is scheduled for airports this
summer: a portable DNA scanner to conduct on-site, real-time genetic
testing.

This technology is being implemented under the cover of combating
human trafficking, illegal immigration, and finding missing persons,
but Richard Seldon ofNetBio, creator of the scanners, clearly states
that “DNA information has the potential to become part of the fabric
of day-to-day life.” In an interview with Katie Drummond who broke
this story for The Daily, Seldon envisions additional applications in
emergency rooms, food safety tests, and law enforcement.

DNA collection is actually nothing new, as the Pentagon has admitted
that it currently has a DNA database with 80,000 suspected foreign
terrorists on it, and growing daily. However, this collection
apparatus has been secretly in place for Americans as well. Lawsuits
are pending from families who uncovered a secret program to collect
DNA from babies and store it in a military database. However, that
was a secret that had to be uncovered. The fact that DNA screening is
being rolled out openly marks a new level of blatant tyranny in
America.

To a certain extent, DNA collection already has become part of the
fabric of day-to-day life; police in America have had the authority to
conduct warrantless searches since 2009 by taking blood and saliva
during arrests, even from those not convicted of a crime. This has
quickly morphed into DNA being taken through mandatory blood tests at
DUI checkpoints in Florida.

It has been argued that DNA extraction is no different than taking
fingerprints. This argument is patently absurd, due to the simple
fact that fingerprints have no bearing on one’s genetic information
… or manipulation. It is the genetic information of individuals
that has been the holy grail of all tyrannies as the endgame[] for
their control grid.

The current focus on DNA extraction and databasing is a well-known
globalist initiative stated by the UN to register every newborn. This
initiative has the full support of globalist and population-control
advocate, Bill Gates, who would like to see a universal birth registry
which would presumably tie in to his universal vaccine program.
Additionally, globalist behemoths such as theRAND Corporation have
issued documents that identify an interest in biotechnology for the
purpose of population reduction, cloning, and to “identify,
understand, manipulate, improve, and control living organisms
(including ourselves).”

It is important to note that the technology of tracking, tracing, and
databasing innocent people right down to their blood is a top-down
directive from federal agencies, not a legitimate scientific endeavor.
Legitimate science researches ways to increase human potential and
freedom, not use it as a system for identification and control. With
the rise of nanotechnology as a federal initiative, we should strongly
resist the collection of our life force to be used in any way that
government-controlled science sees fit.

Shamrock’s comment:

Don’t say we didn’t warn you this was coming!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Breaking News!

Here we go again!

A National ID Card For American Citizens? Get Ready… The Real ID Act
Goes Into Effect On May 11
- The American Dream

For a moment, imagine a future where you are not able to drive a car,
get on a plane, get on a train, vote, enter a federal building, open a
bank account or get a job without a national ID card. You don’t think
that could ever happen in America? Well, you might want to brush up
on the Real ID Act because it is going to go into effect on May 11,
2011 unless something is done to stop it.

When I first learned this, I was absolutely stunned. After all,
wasn’t the Real ID Act supposed to be “dead”? A few years ago state
legislatures across the nation were in an uproar over this law. The
Department of Homeland Security was forced to delay implementation of
it several times. But now it is back. You see, this is what the
federal government often does. They will try to push something very
unpopular through, and if they meet resistance they will “play dead”
until the uproar has died down and then they will come right back and
implement it anyway. This is what is happening with the Real ID Act.

As of May 11, all driver’s licenses across the United States will be
required to conform to federal national security standards. In
essence, our licenses are now going to be federalized.

Yes, this is really happening. A Fox News article from a couple weeks
ago confirmed that these “national ID cards” will be required to board
airplanes and enter federal buildings…

States must be in compliance by May with the regulations laid out in
the 2005 REAL ID Act. The law, a recommendation of the Sept. 11
commission that investigated the 2001 terror attacks, creates a
national security standard for state-issued identification cards to be
used for purposes like boarding airplanes and entering federal
buildings.

Isn’t that great?

Now security goons will be able to ask us for our “papers” just like
they used to do in Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Back in 2008, former U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote the following
about how not having one of these new national ID cards will
automatically strip us of some of our most fundamental rights…

“A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card
could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her
congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies
that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the
government as guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Of course the Department of Homeland Security insists that the Real ID
Act is just here to “help” us and to make life “better” and “more
secure”. According to their website, some of the goals of the Real ID
Act are “to help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the
reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents.”

But is this really what we want America to become?

A nation where we are constantly passing through checkpoints and where
security goons are constantly checking our national ID card?

What kind of liberty and freedom is that?

Eventually these national ID cards will likely be required for
virtually every single interaction that we have with the federal
government.

Can you imagine the kind of power that the federal government will
have to watch us and track our activities if this thing gets fully
implemented?

The more you really think about the notion of a national ID card for
Americans the more repulsive it becomes.

Eventually, without a “Real ID” you will not be able to be hired by
most employers. So in essence, you will be required to get the
permission of the federal government before you can work.

Without a “Real ID”, your ability to travel will be greatly
restricted. Eventually there will be very few modes of public
transportation that you will be able to use without having a national
ID card.

And what if you lose your national ID card? Talk about a headache!

Hey, eventually they might just decide to solve that problem by
putting a microchip directly into our hands.

Wouldn’t that be convenient?

Can you see where all of this is headed? Many of the people that are
attempting to implement this thing may have “good intentions”, but we
all know what they say about “good intentions”.

We do not need a national ID card to have a nation that is safe and
secure.

Please contact your representatives in Washington D.C. and let them
know that you want the Real ID Act repealed once and for all.

If we put up with a national ID card, then the Obama administration
will be emboldened to try to implement the “universal Internet ID”
that they have been talking about.

The sad truth is that America is no longer “the land of the free”.
The government has decided that in order to keep us “safe”, everything
that we do must be watched, tracked, traced, recorded and controlled.

It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats are in power or if the
Republicans are in power, every year the United States becomes even
more like a prison camp.

Hopefully the American people will wake up and will realize that this
is not what our founding fathers intended.

So what do you all think about the coming implementation of the Real
ID Act?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** In DNA Privacy Argument, Sharp Divisions Emerge on 3rd Circuit
- The Legal Intelligencer

Sharp divisions emerged among the judges of the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals on Wednesday as a 14-judge en banc court considered
whether to strike down the DNA Act of 2005, a law that allows the
government to routinely collect DNA samples from arrestees for
inclusion in a national database.

In United States v. Mitchell, the government is appealing a November
2009 decision by U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone of the Western
District of Pennsylvania that held such DNA sampling, without a
warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment. While it was clear that some
of the judges seemed inclined to uphold Cercone’s ruling, others
expressed the view that the law may be justified by the government’s
legitimate interest in denying bail to arrestees who are found to be
implicated in other crimes.

But it was also clear that the judges were aware they were exploring
uncharted jurisprudential waters.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Schleich Irwin urged the 3rd Circuit to
reverse Cercone’s decision, arguing that “there is no principled legal
distinction between traditional fingerprinting and DNA
fingerprinting.”

But Judge Kent A. Jordan said, “We’re in a whole new area here when
we get inside your body and take your DNA than when we take your
fingerprints.”

Irwin quickly found herself fending off a barrage of questions from a
court that seemed intensely skeptical of the government’s argument
that DNA sampling is simply another, and surer, means of verifying the
identity of the suspect.

“There’s no identity issue here. It’s a red herring. You know who he
is,” Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee said. “You want to build a
database for future reference.”

“I’m not going to avoid that there’s a crime-solving purpose here,”
Irwin said. “It’s the only interest and it’s what you argue is your
compelling interest,” McKee said. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry said,
“You’re using that probable cause to look for other crimes where there
is no probable cause. … You’re searching for crimes where there’s
absolutely no reasonable suspicion, no nothing.”

Before Irwin had a chance to respond, Judge Thomas L. Ambro said,
“It’s an investigation technique,” and McKee chimed in to agree,
saying, “That’s what it is.”

Judge Marjorie O. Rendell said the courts have consistently held that
“intrusion into the body” is not permitted without a warrant.

“I can’t find a Supreme Court case that would support a warrantless,
suspicionless intrusion into the body,” Rendell said. “How do you get
around the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement?”

But when Irwin said arrestees have a reduced expectation of privacy
and that the DNA sampling was a minimal intrusion, she incurred a new
barrage of questions. “What is minimal? The physical trespass into
the body?” McKee asked. “It’s not minimal at all.”

Irwin insisted that the government is not trying to avoid its duty to
obtain warrants and assured the court that a warrant would be obtained
if a prosecutor wanted to obtain a more complete DNA sample for use in
a prosecution.

“But the Fourth Amendment doesn’t say in order to use something you
must get a warrant,” Rendell said. “It says in order to have a search
you need a warrant.”

As a “mere arrestee,” Rendell said, the defendant still has an
“expectation of privacy as to inside of his mouth.”

Irwin again said the law was designed to give prosecutors a way of
identifying suspects, but that answer, too, seemed to irk the judges.
“Let’s stop talking about identity. Let’s talk about the fact that
the government is searching,” Rendell said. Judge Dolores K.
Sloviter was more emphatic, saying, “The identity thing, obviously, is
a sham,” and pressed Irwin to explain how the government proposes to
use the DNA “in solving other crimes.” Sloviter’s questioning seemed
to provide a cue for a faction of judges who appeared to be more
inclined to rule in the government’s favor.

Judge Julio M. Fuentes asked if there is a “difference between
fingerprints and DNA,” to which Irwin replied: “Our position is that
really there is not.”

As the judges lodged a series of hypothetical questions about how DNA
samples could be used and what the future might hold as science
evolves, Irwin tried in vain to focus on the individual case in front
of the court and the consequences of Cercone’s ruling. “We’re here to
decide this case today, not hypotheticals about what may or may not
happen,” Irwin said.

But that remark elicited a chorus of “no” responses from the judges
and laughter from the packed courtroom.

Assistant Federal Defender Elisa S. Long also faced a hot court as
she argued that Cercone’s ruling should be upheld and that warrantless
DNA testing prior to any conviction is unconstitutional.

Sloviter wondered why the government wouldn’t have a compelling need
to know whether a drug arrestee might also be implicated in a series
of child kidnappings where he could be easily linked to those crimes
through immediate DNA sampling.

But Long insisted that “there has to be probable cause or some type of
suspicion to believe before you do a bodily cavity search that the
results of that search will reveal evidence of an unsolved crime.
Just because you’re arrested it doesn’t give the government unfettered
ability to search whatever it wants, whether to prove your identity or
to look for evidence of other crimes.”

Jordan asked if a judge in a bail hearing would have a compelling
interest in knowing that the person who is about to be released is a
serial sex offender.

Fuentes echoed that concern, asking, “Wouldn’t that information help
the judge decide whether to release the person?”

But Long said those hypothetical DNA matches would show only that the
suspect left DNA at those crime scenes.

Judge Thomas Hardiman asked why it wouldn’t make sense to incarcerate
that suspect until the other crimes were investigated.

“Isn’t that the sort of prudential decision judges make all the time?”
Hardiman asked.  Long said such an approach would be inappropriate
because courts ordinarily look only to evidence of prior convictions.

But Fuentes said judges have the power to deny bail on the basis of a
“string of arrests” that suggest the suspect poses a danger to the
community. Long disagreed, saying it would be unconstitutional to
deny bail in order to investigate other, uncharged crimes.  ”Probable
cause doesn’t transfer,” Long said, so the evidence that justified the
arrest cannot justify searching for connections to other crimes.

“Sure, this information would be useful,” Long said, “but the Fourth
Amendment doesn’t allow it.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Did You Know?

Secure Flight

Secure Flight is a government program whereby the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) matches the no-fly and selectee watch
lists against passenger data for domestic flights. It essentially requires
government permission as a precondition for Americans to travel in
their own country. Secure Flight is scheduled to be implemented in
January 2009 and brought online incrementally, airline by airline.

The Secure Flight program has been broadly criticized as an
unnecessary and unworkable grasping overreach of power by the
Department of Homeland Security. The most egregious result of this
program is our unacceptable loss of freedom and liberty in the flawed
attempt to further national security. Identification-based security
has substantial weaknesses and does little to actually protect
travelers or the country. Empowering our government to collect data
on our movements, and requiring that we first obtain permission from
it to travel domestically sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
Secure Flight disregards our constitutional protections against the
dangers of government tyranny.

Presently, the Airlines are given watchlists generated by the
Terrorist Screening Center and the Airlines check their domestic
flight manifests against it. If a passenger is on the watchlist, they
are denied access to the flight and the “authorities” are called.
Under Secure Flight, the flow of data reverses and the Airlines
themselves transmit information on their passengers (name, sex, date
of birth, etc.) directly to the government who then checks the data
against their watchlists internally. TSA claims that the data on
those not suspected of being a threat to aviation would be purged
within seven days after the flight. Given their track record, it
seems unlikely that we are being told the truth about what data the
government collects or how long they retain it. Government
recordation of the domestic travel data on all Americans is a scary
prospect.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Expats in Spain ‘sceptical’ that properties will not be demolished
- telegraph.co.uk

Around a thousand expat homeowners in the town of Zurgena, Spain, have
been assured that their properties are legal and will not be
demolished – but they are far from convinced.

The homes, the majority of which belong to British expats, were deemed
illegal after being built on non-urban land in 2004.

Despite assurances from the town’s mayor, Candido Trabalon, that the
homes will not be demolished, residents remain sceptical and fear that
regional government will override the decision made by the local
council.

The homes, the majority of which belong to British expats, were deemed
illegal in 2007 by the Andalucia regional government after being built
on non-urban land from 2004.

According to regional government, the local council’s proposed
urbanisation of 358 hectares of land, on which many new expat
developments had already been built, did not adhere to a planning
legislation that came into effect in 2003.

Flanked by his legal team and facing 12 separate criminal proceedings
for allegedly authorising the building of the illegal homes, the mayor
explained at a meeting with residents that Zurgena council would grant
provisional approval to its entire town plan in March with the
intention of submitting it to the regional government.

He stated that if the regional government did not respond within three
months the plan would be approved by “administrative silence”.

The meeting concluded with the mayor calling for the residents to be
calm and not waste money on lawyers, stating that the town hall was
paying for the defence of all the homes in the courts; that all houses
were legal, would not be demolished and should any infrastructure be
required, the town hall would pay for it.

Maura Hillen, president of the expat action group Abusos Urbanisticos
Almanzora No (AUAN) said: “This is nonsense because most town halls
are bankrupt or have no money so can’t afford to pay for everyone’s
legal costs or cover infrastructure costs and compensation payouts”.

“We recommend that you do seek legal advice because then you will at
least know where you stand instead of relying on others to tell you
what is happening.”

The Almanzora Valley in which the town of Zurgena sits has been
blighted as a consequence of arrangements between the then serving
town hall officials and builders to construct with licenses granted by
the town hall but without authority from the regional government.

Some developers were allowed to construct homes with no licence at
all.  During this period an estimated  100 million was paid to
developers by unsuspecting expat families and pensioners.

Mr Trabalon will face trial in the first of the criminal proceedings
brought against him next month together with the town planner, various
councillors and members of the business community. He denies all
charges.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bad News

Food prices to skyrocket, riots could follow, suggests USDA
- Natural News

When the upswing in commodity prices eventually makes its way
throughout the food system in mid-to-late 2011, food prices are sure
to spike with levels potentially reaching those of 2008, announced
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) economist Ephraim Leibtag at
the agency’s annual Outlook Forum. And if conditions escalate
rapidly, there is also the potential for food riots and other civil
unrest.

The USDA is predicting a 3.5 percent increase in food prices in 2011,
which is about twice the overall inflation rate but less than the 2008
increase, according to a recent Reuters report. In 2008, food prices
rose 5.5 percent, which represents the highest increase since 1990.
But the possibility of food prices dramatically rising in 2011 like
they did in 2008 is a definite possibility.

“Given that it’s still earlier in the year, I’m prone to be
conservative on the side of the forecast,” said Leibtag. “It’s a
possibility,” he added, concerning the likelihood of massive inflation
in food costs like was seen in 2008.

Leibtag also explained the agency’s expectation of a four percent rise
in costs for meats, poultry, and fish; a 3.5 percent increase for
fruits and vegetables; a four percent increase for cereals and bakery
products; and a three percent increase in sugar and sweets costs. All
increases represent anywhere from a 20 to 60 percent increase over
last year’s increases.

In 2008, food shortages and rapid price increases led to riots in 25
different countries around the world. And the same may happen again,
including even in the US, due to factors like the devaluation of the
dollar, crop losses, rising oil costs, and other economic factors
(http://www.naturalnews.com/031408_f ).

The warning serves as a wake-up call to Americans to take back their
land and begin growing more food on the local and regional scale.
According to statistics from Farm Aid, a family farming advocacy
group, roughly five million US farms have been lost since the 1930s,
and about 330 farmers every week leave their land. If this trend
continues, the situation will only worsen.

Factory farming operations have essentially replaced local farming
throughout the country. And government policies like subsidization of
genetically-modified (GM) crops only continues to drive small-scale
farmers off their land and exacerbate the problem.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Food for thought

*** Mother of 3 Arrested for Taking Pictures of Tourist Attraction at
Airport
- Long Island Lawyer Blog

This case is a frightening example of what can happen when a
photographer encounters ignorant bullies with badges. According to
the complaint filed in Federal Court, Nancy Genovese, a mother of
three, was driving home on County Road 31 past Gabreski Airport in
Suffolk County. Gabreski Airport displays a decorative helicopter
shell by the roadway to the public, which is visible to all who pass
by.

Nancy Genovese stopped her car on the side of the road across the
street from the airport in an area that is open and accessible to the
public, and crossed over the road to the airport entryway that is also
open and accessible to the public to take a picture of the helicopter
display. While still in her car, she took a picture of the decorative
helicopter shell with the intention of posting it on her personal
“Support Our Troops” web page.

As Nancy Genovese was preparing to drive away, she was stopped and
approached by Robert Iberger, a lieutenant with the Southampton Town
Police. Lieutenant Iberger demanded to know why she was taking
photographs.  Nancy showed the lieutenant her camera, but Lieutenant
Iberger grabbed her camera and handled it “without care”. In an
attempt to prevent the lieutenant from damaging the camera, Nancy
removed her memory card, which Lieutenant Iberger confiscated.  To
date, Nancy’s memory card still has not been returned to her.

Lieutenant Iberger demanded that Nancy remain where she is, and he
refused to allow her to leave. At this time, Lieutenant Iberger
notified the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office and the authorities at
Gabreski Airport of Nancy’s presence outside the airport, and falsely
and wrongfully informed them that she posed a terrorist threat.

Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff Robert Carlock responded to the scene,
along with various members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office.
When Deputy Carlock arrived, he placed cameras on the roof of his
vehicle, aimed at Nancy Genovese and her 18 and 20 year old sons who
had come to the scene at this point to help their mother. Deputy
Carlock ordered all three of them to stand directly in front of the
cameras, and not to move.

Officials from the airport, as well as other local and federal law
enforcement agencies also responded, including, without limitation,
the Southampton Police Department, the Westhampton Police Department,
the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Nancy was
questioned on the side of the road for approximately five to six
hours, from about 6pm until midnight, denied food or water, and denied
the opportunity to use a restroom, all without having received any
warnings as to her rights.

Nancy Genovese also had a left lower leg injury just above her ankle
that she had received earlier in the day and which, exacerbated by the
stress and length of her roadside detention, was causing her to limp.
When the officers saw this, they ordered her to expose her wound,
which was bleeding, for no legitimate purpose, and with no regard for
Nancy’s health or well-being.  Members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s
Office used Nancy’s leg wound as another object to taunt her with,
telling her that they were going to arrest her for an unreported knife
wound.

Here’s where the story takes an interesting twist, and why I believe
Nancy’s situation hasn’t received more press coverage. Before
arriving at the airport to take a picture, earlier that day Nancy had
been to the local shooting range with her rifle practicing her hobby,
target shooting. During the first hour of questioning, Lieutenant
Iberger searched Nancy’s vehicle, without her consent, and came across
her unloaded rifle, which Nancy was legally carrying, in a locked
case. Now some people throw up their arms (no pun intended) at this
point, and say, “what does she want, she brought a rifle to the
airport!”, but I would like to remind everyone that it is perfectly
legal to drive around with an unloaded rifle in your car. Yes.
Really. And Nancy did not enter the airport, she was parked alongside
a public roadway. It is important to remember that no matter how you
feel about firearms, nothing that Nancy did violated any laws.

Using force, Lieutenant Iberger pushed Nancy Genovese when she
objected to the seizure of her rifle. Deputy Carlock taunted Nancy,
asking in a disparaging tone, “You’re a real right winger, aren’t
you?”, and stating in words or substance that she was never going to
see her rifle again.

During the remainder of the six hours that Nancy Genovese was forcibly
detained on the side of the road, she was taunted, verbally harangued,
threatened, belittled, abused, humiliated and harassed by members of
the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office. For example, Deputy Carlock
repeatedly referred to Nancy as “a right winger” and “tea bagger”, and
threatened that they were going to arrest her for terrorism to make an
example of her to other “tea baggers” and “right wingers”.

Around midnight, officials from the airport and federal law
enforcement agencies determined that Nancy posed no terrorist or other
security threat. Once most of the other law enforcement officials
left the scene, Deputy Carlock ordered Nancy Genovese to be handcuffed
by another member of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office. Before
placed in handcuffs, Nancy attempted to give her purse containing her
wallet and cell phone to her sons. Her wallet contained approximately
$13,000 in cash, money she was holding to pay tuition that day for her
son’s college and her daughter’s Catholic school tuition. Deputy
Carlock refused to allow her sons to take her bag, and ordered her to
leave it on the front seat of her unlocked vehicle, even after being
informed of the value of its contents. When Nancy’s sons objected,
Deputy Carlock threatened to arrest them if they touched it, and
ordered them to leave the scene. Not knowing what to do, they left.

When Nancy’s sons responded to a call from the Suffolk County
Sheriff’s Office in the early morning hours to pick up their mother’s
vehicle from the roadside, they found $5,300 of the $13,000 missing.
The money was never returned. In addition, the contents of the glove
compartment box was missing, and there was damage to the body of the
car, particularly around the trunk.

Around midnight, after her sons were ordered to leave upon threat of
arrest, Nancy was transported, in handcuffs, to the Suffolk County
Jail. While in a holding cell, Deputy Carlock continued to verbally
harass Nancy, telling her “you will pay”, and admitting that they had
nothing to charge her with, but that he would “find something in order
to teach all right wingers and tea baggers a lesson.”

While in her holding cell, Nancy Genovese was interrogated by Suffolk
County Undersheriff Caracappa without receiving any warnings as to her
rights. Her requests to speak to a lawyer were ignored. Following
her “interrogation”, Undersheriff Caracappa informed her that she was
being arrested and charged with “terrorism.”

At this point, Nancy requested medial treatment for her bleeding and
painful left leg. After several requests, and several hours later,
she was taken to the Peconic Bay Medical Center by male members of the
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, and handcuffed to a bed. A sonogram
was performed on Nancy’s left leg from her ankle to her inner groin,
requiring her to disrobe. Despite her and the doctor’s request for
them to turn away, the two male Suffolk Deputies insisted on staring
at Nancy while she disrobed, further humiliating her.  She was
prescribed antibiotics, and discharged back to the Suffolk County
Jail, with instructions on proper care for her leg wound.

Once back at the jail, the Suffolk County Sheriffs denied her access
to her antibiotics, and denied her proper care of her leg wound. This
caused a serious and painful staph infection to develop.

The following morning, Nancy Genovese was briefly questioned at the
Suffolk County Jail by two FBI agents. No federal complaints or
charges were ever brought against Nancy.  That same day, Nancy was
transported in handcuffs and ankle shackles, with no regard for her
ankle wound, to the Southampton Justice Town Court. The driver drove
fast and recklessly, intentionally making abrupt turns and laughing.
This caused Nancy, who was not secured by a seatbelt, but was instead
restrained with her hands cuffed behind her and her ankles cuffed
together, to roll about in the back of the vehicle, further
exacerbating her leg injury. When she requested that the Deputy
Sheriffs secure her with a seatbelt, they laughed at her, and the
driver continued to recklessly swerve the vehicle.

Nancy Genovese was brought into the courthouse in handcuffs and leg
restraints, and was violently pushed through the door by the Deputy
Sheriffs. This added to Nancy’s humiliation, particularly since Nancy
knew some of the courthouse employees and other people who were
present. Both before and after arriving at the courthouse, Nancy
repeatedly requested to speak with an attorney. All of her requests
were ignored. Despite never stepping foot onto airport property,
Nancy Genovese was arraigned on a single misdemeanor charge of
Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree.  She was assigned a Legal Aid
Attorney by the Judge. Undersheriff Caracappa and Deputy Carlock
intentionally lied to the Judge about the circumstances surrounding
Nancy’s arrest, including that she was a terrorist and had
surveillance equipment in her car, and the judge set bail in the
amount of $50,000.

Due to the excessive amount of bail, Nancy’s children needed more time
to come up with the money, so Nancy was returned to the jail. The
Legal Aid Attorney assigned to Nancy spoke with the Deputy and
Undersheriff, and due to the conversation, directly afterwards
informed Nancy that he was no longer her attorney, and that he was
going to ask the court to place her on suicide watch.

Once back at the jail, Nancy Genovese was processed, including being
issued prison “greens” to wear, and was photographed, fingerprinted,
and eye scanned. Members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
continuously verbally harassed Nancy. A woman in civilian clothes
then interviewed Nancy. The woman told Nancy she was going to be
placed in “general population.” During the interview, two men wearing
“Suffolk County Emergency Response Team” jackets entered the room.
One of them removed Nancy from the room and held her in the hallway
outside of the interview room. From there, Nancy heard the woman who
had interviewed her arguing with the other man, saying that “She is
not suicidal.” Despite the woman’s protests, Nancy was physically
moved by the two men wearing “Suffolk County Emergency Response Team”
jackets to another room. There, another woman who identified herself
as a nurse administered, without Nancy’s consent, two injections into
Nancy’s arm. One of the men held Nancy’s head so that she could not
see what was being done, while the other man held Nancy’s arm down.
Despite her demands to know what they were doing, no one answered her.
Nancy experienced bruising and swelling in her neck and arm long after
she was released from custody.

Nancy was then escorted by the two men into a cell area, where she was
forced to disrobe and put on a “suicide gown”, consisting of a heavy,
jacket-type blanket that fastens around the body with Velcro. Nancy
was not permitted to wear undergarments under the blanket. Nancy was
required to wear this same “suicide gown” for the next several days.
After three days, Nancy was evaluated by a psychiatrist who determined
her to be of sound and stable mind, and immediately removed her from
suicide watch.

Later that day, bail was posted, and Nancy was able to go home.
Subsequently, all charges against Nancy were dismissed.

Upon Nancy’s release, Undersheriff Caracappa issued a press release in
response to media inquiries, titled “Armed Woman Arrested for
Trespassing at Suffolk County Gabreski Airport”, which falsely stated
that Nancy had been taking pictures of the airport and surrounding
security”, and that she became hysterical, and began “screaming and
flailing around” when confronted. Undersheriff Caracappa also falsely
reported that Nancy had surveillance equipment, 500 rounds of
ammunition, and “scary weapons” in her car, and that she was a
right-wing extremist and terrorist, and that she had been at the
airport trespassing several times and had been warned to stay away.
Upon further inquiry, it turns out that Nancy had never trespassed at
the airport before, had never been warned by anyone to “stay away”
before, had no “surveillance equipment” of any kind other than her
point and shoot camera, and certainly was not a terrorist.
Undersheriff Caracappa has refused to issue a retraction or
correction.

Nancy has filed a Federal Lawsuit seeking up to 70 million dollars
from the Town of Southampton, the County of Suffolk, Lieutenant
Iberger, Undersheriff Caracappa, Deputy Carlock, Lieutenant Leuete,
and various other employees of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s
Department. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

Editor’s Notes:
* All of the alleged facts discussed in this article have been taken
directly from the court documents filed in this case.
* Nancy Genovese was on public property the entire time. At no time
did she trespass onto airport property, which is why the trespassing
charge (the only charge against her) was dismissed.
* Here is the google maps view of the airport entrance, and the helicopter
on display,
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.836478,+-72.646027&num=1&t=h&sll=40.843982,-72.6378&sspn=0.006295,0.016447&ie=UTF8&ll=40.836783,-72.645821&spn=0.001149,0.002744&z=19&iwloc=A
* Although Undersheriff Caracappa released a statement saying that
Nancy was previously spotted around the airport in the past and had
previously been warned not to return, not a single person can verify
his claim. Nancy claims that she was never warned to “stay away” from
a public area outside a tourist attraction.
* Yes, to some, Nancy’s claims seem far fetched and outrageous.
But let’s look at the facts that both sides can agree on. Not a single crime
was actually committed by Nancy. Yet, she was held against her will, in
an isolated cell, in essentially a straight jacket, with no medical
attention, for several days.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Police State

Drivers detained for paying tolls with U.S. currency
Motorist uncovers state scheme to collect personal information
- Drew Zahn, WorldNetDaily

A man in Tampa, Fla., has uncovered what he calls an illegal scheme by
the state’s turnpike authority to detain motorists who pay tolls with
$20, $50 or $100 bills until they disclose personal information
recorded by the state.

Joel Chandler first became aware of the practice when he paid a $1
toll with a $100 bill, and the toll taker refused to let his car pass
until he filled out a personal information form. He then started
testing the system, taping his encounters as he went through toll
booths.

“This is a serious, serious criminal offense,” Chandler told Tampa’s
WTSP-TV, “to illegally detain somebody without legal authority.”

“Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own
Laws” Chandler’s brother joined the video investigation and not only
found the practice widespread, but also found one toll worker who
threatened to call the Florida Highway Patrol if he did not surrender
the information.

When Chandler complained about the detentions, however, he says state
officials denied the practice and engaged in “a very concerted effort
to cover it up.”

A news report from WTSP-TV, which includes Chandler’s video, can be
seen at http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=271737#ixzz1FwkSdvcY

The news station’s investigation discovered that while an official
with the Florida Department of Transportation told Chandler there
wasn’t “sufficient information” to investigate his complaints, that
same day there were a flurry of e-mails within the department calling
for the program to be “immediately” shut down, others suggesting it be
temporarily suspended and still another discussing who should call
Chandler and what to say.

Even further investigation revealed both records of the detentions and
a possible reason for the cover-up.

“In 87 percent of the times where they bothered to write down what
they thought was suspicious about the motorist, it was a racial
description,” Chandler told the station, “young black male, young
black male, young Hispanic male.”

Chandler concluded, “There was a lot of racial profiling going on.”

WTSP reports the Florida DOT has refused to comment, but the internal
e-mails justify the program as a way of enforcing counterfeiting laws.

Chandler also discovered, however, that the DOT failed to refer any of
the 885 times it claims to have received counterfeit money to law
enforcement agencies.

Chandler now says he intends to file a class action suit against the
state, based on an estimated 5 million toll-booth detentions, a
lawsuit that could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

“So it’s been crime upon crime upon crime upon crime, lie upon lie
upon lie,” he told the TV station. “What it comes down to is the
Department of Transportation has been engaged in what I think will
obviously be seen by the courts as the largest criminal conspiracy in
the history of the state.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Horror Stories

Florida won’t pay for injustice
- Fred Grimm, Miami Herald

All this talk about compensation for wrongful convictions. Not in
Florida. Not for the likes of Anthony Caravella.

Why, it’s Caravella who owes Florida $71.93 a day. Comes to
$682,615.70 for the 26 years Anthony mooched room and board off the
Florida penal system, taking up valuable prison space for a crime
someone else committed.

The lousy freeloader. He’s damn lucky the Florida Legislature doesn’t
send him a bill. Compensation? This is a Legislature bent on cutting
public school and state university budgets, pension costs, healthcare
for the poor and disabled, nursing-home services for the elderly.
Some pathetic case from Miramar, IQ of 67, busted at 15 and imprisoned
for the next 26 years for a crime he didn’t commit, released March 25
without job skills? Get real.

Let’s examine the only facts that matter: Anthony Caravella hasn’t
established a political action committee, hired a lobbyist or ponied
up crucial campaign contributions. He belongs to a politically
impotent constituency: Floridians whose lives were ruined by shoddy
police investigations, negligent prosecutors, oblivious judges. A
bunch of convenient stooges for a justice system in need of quick and
easy convictions. In 1983, Caravella, young and slow minded, was
easily bullied into confessing to a rape and murder that, 26 years
later, DNA testing proved he didn’t commit.

Florida did pass a Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act
three years ago, after an embarrassing slew of convictions were
reversed, most after DNA testing. The law authorized paying innocents
$50,000 for every year spent behind bars. It was an “illusory
impact,” said Seth Miller, director of the Florida Innocence Project.
Miller said the law included a “clean hands” provision that
disqualifies a wrongfully convicted prisoner with a prior felony
conviction.

“Clean hands” proved to be brilliant money saver for Florida (the only
state with such a proviso). Cops don’t find their patsies on the
membership rolls of the chamber of commerce. Miramar police knew
Caravella from a string of juvenile offenses, the same crimes that
now preclude him from compensation.

None of the dozen convicted men cleared by DNA testing in Florida have
received compensation. A Sun Sentinel reporter found several
afflicted with poverty, living off food stamps. Caravella had spent
time in a homeless shelter. Only one, James Bain, who did 35 years of
hard time, qualifies under “clean hands” and will likely get his
money. After all, William Dillon, who did 27 years on a trumped up
murder conviction, had been busted in 1979 for possession of a single
Quaalude. Of course, he’s out of the money. In a Kafka-like twist,
Orlando Boquete, who did 13 years for a murder and robbery he didn’t
commit, doesn’t qualify because he managed to escape prison while
serving his wrongful sentence.

Luis Diaz, the so-called Bird Road Rapist of Miami-Dade County who, as
it turned out, wasn’t, did 25 years. Sorry, Luis. No money. The
list goes on; ruined lives for whom wrongful incarceration
compensation remains an illusionary concept. Sorry guys but fairness
… that’s a budget buster.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** The District of Criminals

Jury Nullifcation Advocate: Legal Protester or Criminal?
- Ashby Jones

If someone stands outside a federal court, day after day, telling
would-be jurors to ignore the law if they don’t agree with it, might
that be considered a federal crime?

Apparently federal prosecutors in New York think so, according to this
story in a recent NYT article.

Federal prosecutors recently indicted a 78-year-old man named Julian
Heicklen, who had spent the better part of the last two years outside
the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan and other courthouses
telling jurors to “render verdicts based on conscience.”

The charge: jury tampering. According to the story, Heicklen is set
to appear in court on Friday for a conference in his case.

Heicklen told the NYT that he never tries to influence specific jurors
or cases, and instead gives his brochures to passers-by, hoping that
jurors are among them.

Prosecutors declined to comment on his case, as did a lawyer who was
assigned to assist Heicklen.

He said he has nothing against laws against violent crime, but is not
a fan of drug and gambling laws.

So how’s the case likely to unfold?

“This is classic political advocacy,” said Christopher T. Dunn,
associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, to the
NYT. “Unless the government can show that he’s singling out jurors to
influence a specific verdict, it’s squarely protected by the First
Amendment, and they should dismiss the case.”

On the other hand, Daniel C. Richman, a former prosecutor who teaches
criminal law at Columbia, said the government does indeed have a
compelling interest here, keeping intact the integrity of the jury
process. “The government has to walk a fine First Amendment line
bringing these charges,” he said, “but lawless jury behavior is
certainly of concern to it, too.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Infiltration and incitement
- Anonymous

Go on any protest or demonstration and you will be filmed by the
police. Those wielding the cameras are FIT (Forward Intelligence
Teams) http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/. FIT Watch do their best to
highlight what FIT are doing.

But they probably already know who you are, what you are doing, where
you live, how you think.

Go to any meeting and you will always find at least one individual who
does his or her best to disrupt, create negative vibes. People will
leave as a result of their behaviour. Then there are others who are
gung ho, suggest all sorts of ridiculous actions, which too many
people get carried away with, but a moment’s calm reflection shows to
be nonsense.

I used to to think these were simply nutters, dysfunctional people
lacking in any common sense or social skills. Well now we know they
are just as likely to be undercover police officers who are
infiltrating, informing on and disrupting green and other activists.

According to Mark Kennedy aka Mark Stone, who spent seven years
undercover infiltrating the climate change movement, there are at
least 15 police infiltrators.

Mark Kennedy aka Mark Stone was exposed on Indymedia UK last autumn.
He became known to the mainstream media who have since gone on a
feeding frenzy when the Ratcliffe-on-Soar conspiracy trial collapsed
through lack of evidence. We now know that Mark Kennedy had made
secret recordings which showed those charged were innocent.

Since then three more have been exposed bringing the list of known
police infiltrators to four, Lynn Watson, Mark Jacobs, Jim Boyling.

Lynn Watson posed as an environmental activist for five years,
claiming to be a care worker living in Bournemouth.

Mark Jacobs, not thought to be his real name, infiltrated anarchist
groups and had an affair with at least one woman. He did a huge
amount of damage within Cardiff Anarchist Network where he was known
as Marco. He claimed to be a landscape gardener and long-distance
lorry driver.

Jim Boyling aka Jim Suttonn married an activist and had two children
while working undercover with environmental group Reclaim the Streets!
He even persuaded his ex-wife to change her name by deed poll so as
not to raise the suspicions of senior officers. It is reported he has
been suspended.

Sex was used as a means of obtaining information. Mark Kennedy aka
Mark Stone in his interview with the Mail On Sunday last weekend
claimed female activists used sex to interest men in the movement.
This is something I have never observed or encountered.

A former undercover officer has said infiltrators were required to
have sex with activists as part of the job!

Post a report or make a comment on Indymedia UK and your IP address is
held in a temporary cache, then lost. This is to protect the ID of
those who are posting, in the same way Wikileaks protects its sources.
If you are leaking highly sensitive material, you would be advised to
do somewhere anonymous where you are not known such as a library or
net cafe and use a guest account .

Indymedia UK became suspicious of some posts and comments and so they
installed a filter to examine where these were coming from.  The
posting were found to come from government servers on a secure
network!

Police postings came to light following an internal investigation on
persistent disinformation being published to Indymedia UK.
Technically Indymedia is supposed to safeguard its posters by not
logging IP addresses. In actual fact there are IP filters. Although
IP addresses are only stored temporarily, those of persistent abusers
are kept in order to prevent the site from being overwhelmed.
Moderators of Indymedia UK identified the Gateway-303 server as being
the source of numerous such posts. A filter was set up to capture the
behaviour of the individual(s) who were hiding behind the server.

One IP address so identified was 62.25.109.196, which correlates with
the server gateway303.energis.gsi.gov.uk. There are similar servers,
gateway-301 & gateway-302 with IP addresses 62.25.109.194 and
62.25.109.195 respectively. Other servers identified are gateway-101,
gateway-202, gateway-201, etc

GSI stands for Government Secure Intranet. It is a network
established by the UK Government to allow secure transfer of files
across its computers. The Police National Network is separate from
it, but can connect to it. Currently GSI is operated by Energis, a UK
based internet company now owned by Cable & Wireless.

It is clear from the consistency of the usage of gateway-303 server
that the IPs are probably assigned to particular premises or else
specific units within the UK Government. One of the purposes of the
GSI network is to provide a secure proxy network behind which users
can maintain their anonymity. Hence the lack of solid information as
to exactly who is behind the postings. However, SchNEWS is gonna take
a stab in the dark (if only) as to who they are; in fact some actually
signed NETCU. Of course it could be the old double bluff, but given
the level of intelligence behind some of the postings even this level
of sophistication seems unlikely.

The messages posted were smears and misinformation, incitement to
break the law incitement to break up peaceful protests.

“No, stuff that, SHUT the place: Let’s not all stand around like
lemmings, lets shut the place! Bring ladders and wire cutters. If
there are enough of us we can shut it!”

Postings even included personal phone numbers of targets for animal
rights activists.

I personally have had direct experience of this when smears and
falsehoods were posted on Indymedia UK to discredit certain
individuals. What was posted was not true. How did I know? I was
with the individuals at the time, thus I knew it was not true. I at
the time said that what was being posted was not true, raising a big
question mark against those were making these smears and more
important what was their motive? They used to be regulars at the
Anarchist Book fair in London running a stall.

What is all very odd these operations are run by Acpo, the Association
of Chief Police Officers. Odder still is that it is a limited
company.

Even PR companies are jumping on the bandwagon, but it is going to
take a little more than a few splashes of greenwash to live their
clients a clean image.

A couple of years ago CAAT was infiltrated by Martin Hogbin, a guy
working for BAE-Systems. He was a nice guy, everyone not only liked
him, they trusted him. He made himself indispensable and was soon
running everything. I had direct experience of what he was up to. I
let him know of something going down.  Next thing I knew, there was
BAE-Systems heavies everywhere.

Over a decade ago London Greenpeace had more infiltrators than real
activists!

This all sounds like something out of Stalinist Russia, KGB
infiltration of dissidents. But no, this is England and Wales over
the last decade.

Practises that cannot and should not be tolerated in a free and
democratic society. If nothing else it puts Wikileaks in context.

There is an urgent need for a full Judicial Inquiry. A facebook group
has been formed.

I called for an independent Judicial Inquiry last week. Police State
infiltration of activists has no place in a democratic society. The
police should uphold the right to protest. It also undermines public
confidence in the police. The police should be dealing with crime,
not protesters who may at times carry out mild acts of civil
disobedience, which has a long and honourable tradition of forcing
peaceful democratic change. Infiltration should be of criminal gangs
and drug dealers, people traffickers, not activists.

Monday female activists are to protest outside Scotland Yard in what
they see as violation of their bodies by the state.

Tuesday the acting Met commissioner Tim Godwin and Commander Bob
Broadhurst who is responsible for public order in London will have to
appear before the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to explain
why they lied about undercover policing at the G20 protests in London
in 2009.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hot Tips

“Revealed: Where And How To Legally Buy, Move And Store Gold Abroad.”
By best selling author and second passport expert, Dr. Charles
Freeman

Highly recommended for our American, European, Asian, African and
South American friends and clients!

“This is a must read for every gold bug and novice.”
- Dr. Walter Belford, expatriate guru

Do you require a safe and secure place to store your gold for a
raining day? Frankly it looks like a mega storm is coming in the near
future. Perhaps more important is not everyone has a quarter of
million dollars to buy and move gold bullion overseas nor has the time
or ability to travel abroad at this time!

A long time colleague, Dr. Charles Freeman, best selling author of
“How To Legally Obtain a Second Passport,” has written a special
11,000 word report called, “Revealed: Where And How To Legally Buy,
Move And Store Gold Abroad.” This meticulously researched and well
written work is perhaps the best of its kind on legally moving and
storing gold outside the grasp of confiscating governments.

Unlike most articles on similar topics, the author is not selling
anything. Rather he’s presenting the information in a plain easy to
follow and thorough manner including contact details with valuable
little known information. This report is for both the beginner who
wants to send or obtain a few thousand dollars worth of gold overseas,
to the person wishing to place a quarter million or more worth of gold
abroad.

Our colleague has graciously given us permission to offer this report
“free” to those readers who are of a like mind and believe gold is one
of the best and safest ways to maintain your wealth.

Click here http://www.ptshamrock.com/gold_report.pdf to download your
FREE “Revealed: Where And How To Legally Buy, Move And Store Gold
Abroad.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Advisory

Revealed: Air Force ordered software to manage army of fake virtual
people
- Stephen C. Webster

February 19, 2011 “Raw Story” — These days, with Facebook and Twitter
and social media galore, it can be increasingly hard to tell who your
“friends” are.

But after this, Internet users would be well advised to ask another
question entirely: Are my “friends” even real people?

In the continuing saga of data security firm HBGary, a new caveat has
come to light: not only did they plot to help destroy secrets outlet
WikiLeaks and discredit progressive bloggers, they also crafted
detailed proposals for software that manages online “personas,”
allowing a single human to assume the identities of as many fake
people as they’d like.

The revelation was among those contained in the company’s emails,
which were dumped onto bittorrent networks after hackers with cyber
protest group “Anonymous” broke into their systems.

In another document unearthed by “Anonymous,” one of HBGary’s
employees also mentioned gaming geolocation services to make it appear
as though selected fake persons were at actual events.

“There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level
of realness to all fictitious personas,” it said.

Government involvement Eerie as that may be, more perplexing, however,
is a federal contract from the 6th Contracting Squadron at MacDill Air
Force Base, located south of Tampa, Florida, that solicits providers
of “persona management software.”

While there are certainly legitimate applications for such software,
such as managing multiple “official” social media accounts from a
single input, the more nefarious potential is clear.

Unfortunately, the Air Force’s contract description doesn’t help
dispel suspicions. As the text explains, the software would require
licenses for 50 users with 10 personas each, for a total of 500.
These personas would have to be “replete with background, history,
supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically,
culturally and geographacilly consistent.”

It continues, noting the need for secure virtual private networks that
randomize the operator’s Internet protocol (IP) address, making it
impossible to detect that it’s a single person orchestrating all these
posts. Another entry calls for static IP address management for each
persona, making it appear as though each fake person was consistently
accessing from the same computer each time.

The contract also sought methods to anonymously establish virtual
private servers with private hosting firms in specific geographic
locations. This would allow that server’s “geosite” to be integrated
with their social media profiles, effectively gaming geolocation
services.

The Air Force added that the “place of performance” for the contract
would be at MacDill Air Force Base, along with Kabul, Afghanistan and
Baghdad. The contract was offered on June 22, 2010.

It was not clear exactly what the Air Force was doing with this
software, or even if it had been procured.

Manufacturing consent Though many questions remain about how the
military would apply such technology, the reasonable fear should be
perfectly clear. “Persona management software” can be used to
manipulate public opinion on key information, such as news reports.
An unlimited number of virtual “people” could be marshaled by only a
few real individuals, empowering them to create the illusion of
consensus.

You could call it a virtual flash mob, or a digital “Brooks Brothers
Riot,” so to speak: compelling, but not nearly as spontaneous as it
appears.

That’s precisely what got DailyKos blogger Happy Rockefeller in a
snit: the potential for military-run armies of fake people
manipulating and, in some cases, even manufacturing the appearance of
public opinion.

“I don’t know about you, but it matters to me what fellow progressives
think,” the blogger wrote. “I consider all views. And if there
appears to be a consensus that some reporter isn’t credible, for
example, or some candidate for congress in another state can’t be
trusted, I won’t base my entire judgment on it, but it carries some
weight.

“That’s me. I believe there are many people though who will base
their judgment on rumors and mob attacks. And for those people, a
fake mob can be really effective.” It was Rockefeller who was first
to highlight the Air Force’s “persona” contract, which was available
on a public website.

A call to MacDill Air Force Base, requesting an explanation of the
contract and what this software might be used for, was answered by a
public affairs officer who promised a call-back. No reply was
received at time of this story’s publication.

Other e-mails circulated by HBGary’s CEO illuminate highly personal
data about critics of the US Chamber of Commerce, including detailed
information about their spouses and children, as well as their
locations and professional links. The firm, it was revealed, was just
one part of a group called “Team Themis,” tasked by the Chamber to
come up with strategies for responding to progressive bloggers and
others.

“Team Themis” also included a proposal to use malware hacks against
progressive organizations, and the submission of fake documents in an
effort to discredit established groups.

HBGary was also behind a plot by Bank of America to destroy WikiLeaks’
technology platform, other emails revealed. The company was
humiliated by members of “Anonymous” after CEO Aaron Barr bragged that
he’d “infiltrated” the group.

A request for comment emailed to HBGary did not receive a reply.

Update: HBGary Federal among bidders A list of interested vendors
responding to the Air Force contract for “persona management software”
included HBGary subsideary HBGary Federal, further analysis of a
government website has revealed.

Other companies that offered their services included Global Business
Solutions and Associates LLC, Uk Plus Logistics, Ltd., NevinTelecom,
Bunker Communications and Planmatrix LLC.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumbing Down

What They Know
TV’s Next Wave: Tuning In to You
- Jessica E. Vascellaro

The television is channeling you.

Data-gathering firms and technology companies are aggressively
matching people’s TV-viewing behavior with other personal data in some
cases, prescription-drug records obtained from insurers and using it
to help advertisers buy ads targeted to shows watched by certain kinds
of people.

At the same time, cable and satellite companies are testing and
deploying new systems designed to show households highly targeted ads.

The goal: emulate the sophisticated tracking widely used on people’s
personal computers with new technology that reaches the living room.

One of the most advanced companies, Cablevision Systems Corp., has
rolled out a system that can show entirely different commercials, in
real time, to different households tuned to the same program. It can
deliver targeted ads to all the company’s three million subscribers
concentrated in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey.

In an early test of Cablevision’s technology, the U.S. Army used it
to target four different recruitment ads to different categories of
viewers.

One group, dubbed “family influencers” by Cablevision, saw an ad
featuring a daughter discussing with her parents her decision to
enlist. Another group, “youth ethnic I,” saw an ad featuring
African-American men testing and repairing machinery. A third, “youth
ethnic II,” saw soldiers of various ethnicities doing team activities.
An Army spokesman declined to comment.

This new wave in monitoring Americans is driven, in part, by fear: The
TV industry is moving quickly lest it lose ground to Internet
advertising companies, which have found they can charge a premium for
online ads that target individual people based on their specific
interests.

In a rallying cry last month at a TV ad-targeting conference hosted by
Broadcasting & Cable, one keynote speaker cited the space race of a
half-century ago: “This is our Sputnik moment,” said Tracey Scheppach,
senior vice president at Starcom MediaVest Group, a unit of
advertising firm Publicis Groupe SA.

Targeted ads are getting in front of people a few ways. In one
method, TV providers such as Cablevision can beam different ads to
different set-top boxes, even when they’re tuned to the same channel.

This technology figures out which subscribers should see which ad by
anonymously matching the names and addresses of Cablevision’s
subscribers with data provided by advertisers and others, via a third
party.  Cablevision says it doesn’t share subscriber data with
advertisers, or use or share viewership information.

How to Opt Out of Having TV Data Put to Use for Advertising Purposes
Many but not all companies let people opt out of having their
anonymous TV-viewership information used for ad purposes.

DirecTV subscribers can opt out by contacting the company at (800)
531-5000, www.directv.com/email, or DirecTV Privacy Policy, P.O. Box
6550, Greenwood Village, CO, 80155-6550.

TiVo Inc. says users can opt out by contacting customer support.
Details at support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1279.

A Charter Communications official says customers can’t opt out of
collection of audience-measurement data.  The firm says it removes
personal details, including names, before sending data to outside
companies.

Cablevision Systems Corp., which can show different ads to different
households, lets users opt out of seeing targeted ads by calling (888)
425-2591 or by going to www.optimum.net/Privacy/Preferences and
selecting an option to not receive Addressable Third Party
Advertising. Cablevision says it doesn’t license viewership
information. Comcast Corp.  is gearing up for a test of ad-targeting
this year. A spokesman said the firm has yet to determine whether
there will be an opt-out option, but that “privacy and notification
will be key considerations.” – Jessica E. Vascellaro

A second method for targeting ads works differently. Companies
including TRA Inc., Rentrak Corp. and WPP PLC’s Kantar Media, along
with tech titan Microsoft Corp., are taking data on TV-viewing
behavior harvested from set-top boxes and matching it with a broad
array of household data. Then they, and other tech firms including
Google Inc., help advertisers buy ads targeted to shows watched by
certain types of people.

One newcomer with another tactic is Simulmedia Inc. of New York,
founded by Dave Morgan, a pioneer of Internet ad targeting. His
company works with databases detailing when channels are changed on
set-top boxes. “Some data is second-by-second,” he says.

His company divides set-top boxes into interest groups based on the
channels they tune to, such as “heartstringers” (romantic-comedy
watchers), and “fake news followers” (satire lovers). Using
sophisticated algorithms, Simulmedia says it can then deduce what
categories of viewers are swayed by a particular ad.

Some in the industry want “rifle-shot targeting,” Mr. Morgan says,
where people get “only those ads they care about.” That’s still well
in the future, Mr. Morgan says.

But companies including Cablevision are now deploying technologies
that let advertisers like the Army show different commercials to
different households based on demographic data.

The Army may try similar campaigns in the future, says Gary Barsky of
ad company Universal McCann, a unit of Interpublic Group of Cos.,
which worked on the campaign. Targeting technologies represent a
sweeping shift in the multibillion-dollar TV-ad business, one of
marketing’s most popular media. Since the dawn of television, viewers
watching the same shows almost always saw the same ads as other people
in their market. Advertisers bought commercials based on estimates of
what shows were generally popular with broad groups, such as
“18-to-49-year-olds.”

That’s now too blunt an instrument for some advertisers, whose
expectations have been raised by the Internet. Online ads can now
target people based on narrowly defined characteristics Chicago
residents shopping for plane tickets to Los Angeles, for instance.
Online ads can also follow specified Internet users, in real time, as
they surf from website to website. These ad services command premium
prices.

For years, the TV industry has been gushing about the potential to
deliver more targeted ads. There have been false starts.  In 2008,
cable companies formed a consortium to deploy targeted ads nationally,
among other things. Initial efforts were thwarted by issues such as
outdated infrastructure.

So, individual companies are proceeding on their own. Bank of America
estimates the market for “addressable ads” those targeted to specific
household segments could reach $11.6 billion by 2015.

Ms. Scheppach of Publicis, addressing the February TV-advertising
conference, had sober words: Adapt quickly, or go the way of other
media whose business has been eaten by the Internet, like newspapers.
“We have to shape our future before it shapes us,” she said,
predicting that, within six years, technology could be in place to
allow all TV ads to be targeted.

Some industry executives urge caution, saying they are reluctant to
make the investment when the benefits are unknown. Others warn
advertisers should proceed cautiously in light of the intensifying
regulatory scrutiny of Internet tracking.

“This could be marketing nirvana, or fraught with potential peril,”
says Tim Hanlon, chief executive of Velociter, the investment arm of
Mediabrands, a unit of Interpublic Group. For the first time, TV
tracking could combine viewership data, telemarketing data and online
data to examine people’s lifestyles. People might see a greater
volume of ads they find “personally intrusive,” he says, citing
political campaigns as examples.

Companies involved in TV targeting say the household-level matching is
done by outside companies that provide only aggregated data, stripped
of personally identifiable details such as names. Many say TV
targeting is less intrusive than online tracking, because TV
technologies don’t target individuals, but instead use the data to
draw inferences about aggregated groups of set-top boxes or
households.

The Internet and TV businesses face different regulatory regimes.
There is no specific law governing Internet tracking, but cable and
satellite companies are restricted from sharing names and addresses of
subscribers tied to viewing information without their permission under
the 1984 Cable Act and a related rule for satellite TV.

Phone companies that offer video services differ on whether the Cable
Act applies to them. Still, they say they don’t share personally
identifiable information about subscribers without consent. The law
doesn’t address activities like combining TV-viewing data with mobile
or Web browsing, practices barely imaginable when the Cable Act took
effect a quarter-century ago.

TiVo Inc., maker of TV recording devices, isn’t covered by the Cable
Act.  TiVo says it doesn’t disclose personally identifiable viewing
information to third parties without a customer’s consent.

TiVo categorizes some of its customers into “attitudinal”
segments including Republicans, Democrats or fans of a particular
celebrity chef by surveying 35,000 users about their habits and
combining the data with the shows they watch. It sells the data to
marketers via a service called PowerWatch.

TiVo users must opt in to be included, the company says.  It solicits
participants with offers such as the chance to win a $1,000 Amazon
shopping spree.

TiVo says it also licenses anonymous viewing data to TV-targeting
upstarts like New York-based TRA, which matches second-by-second data
from 1.7 million TiVo set-top boxes and a cable operator with other
data types including 57 million frequent-shopper cards. The matching
is done through Experian PLC, a major data company that knows which
set-top box and which frequent-shopper card belong to a particular
street address.  (Experian doesn’t share addresses with TRA, or gain
access to viewing or frequent-shopping data.)

The method can turn up surprising associations: TRA found that
watchers of “Jersey Shore” are regular buyers of yogurt.

“It really helps you drill down,” says David Shiffman of ad agency
MediaVest.

Rentrak, a TV-measurement and advertising-services firm, can in some
cases associate households’ video-on-demand viewing with their live-TV
viewing and DVR-television viewing. The company, in some cases,
measures videos watched on mobile devices, too. That kind of data
could make it possible for advertisers to target their campaigns at
different consumer groups, via different video media, at the time the
desired viewers are most likely to watch, says CEO Bill Livek. He
says the process is an “evolution” of the direct-marketing business.

Operating out of an old Brooks Brothers factory in downtown Manhattan,
Simulmedia is drawing upon the online model for targeting ads. Its
raw material is more than 75 terabytes of data from TiVo, DirecTV,
Charter Communications and others.

The companies give Simulmedia the times when channels are changed on
set-top boxes, along with a unique ID for each box. This lets the
company associate one day’s viewing with the next. Mr. Morgan says
Simulmedia can’t tie the data back to individuals.

After determining what programs and ads the set-tops have been tuned
to, Simulmedia bundles the boxes into more than two dozen groups based
on viewing patterns “wild n’ crazies” (young male-themed shows),
“hecklers” (stand-up comedy) and “animated grownups” (cartoon
sitcoms), among others.

Advertisers and stations have run more than 50 campaigns using the
data, Mr. Morgan says. He declined to name participants.

Given a year of viewing data, Simulmedia can almost perfectly predict
around 70% of what types of shows a given set-top box is likely to be
tuned to, and when, Mr. Morgan says. He likens the process to helping
advertisers “choke the shotgun blast and bring it in close,” rather
than scattering their ad messages widely. Not all companies that send
data to Simulmedia and others let people opt out. Mr. Morgan has
aspired to bring Web-like targeting to TV for years. He took his
first crack more than a decade ago in the U.K. and Switzerland. The
effort fizzled, he says, amid struggles to adapt online techniques to
cable-TV technologies.

“Most of the work that has been in online advertising over the past 20
years has really been preparation for the big screen,” he says,
referring to TV. “That’s where the money is.”

The plumbing is being put in place. Satellite-TV company DirecTV says
it will be able to deliver different ads during the same programming
to 10 million homes in the fourth quarter of this year. Comcast
Corp., the country’s largest cable system by subscribers, has run two
targeted-ad trials in recent years and is planning a third for later
this year.

Cablevision is the furthest ahead, having completed its rollout of
targeted ads across all its set-top boxes late last year. Its system
is powered by Visible World Inc., which makes technology that can
switch different commercials in and out of different set-top boxes
based on criteria that advertisers can specify. The company is also
powering the new Comcast test.

Today, the scope of the Cablevision effort is on display in a
monitoring room at Visible World in New York. There, large TVs along
one wall play the ads being inserted into Cablevision programming, in
real time.  Other monitors show grids indicating how many households
in a geographic zone are seeing a particular ad; the numbers flicker
from the single digits to a few thousand.

Visible World’s founder, Seth Haberman, says his company doesn’t know
the names or personally identifying information about the people
sitting in front of a given set-top box. “We don’t want to look in
the window,” he says. “It is a little spooky.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb signs

Freedom, compared
- Alex Deane

In an important article
<http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/libbypurves/article2927898.ece>
over at The Times, Libby Purves uses recent Antipodean events to
consider the diminution of individual responsibility (and thought) in
our society, in which the government ostensibly increasingly does
everything for us:

It seems equally clear that Queenslanders and Cantabrians felt free to
wade in and help without consulting anyone. This sense of freedom is
clearly habitual, but in the UK it has been well-meaningly chipped
away. Don’t offer lifts for insurance reasons. Don’t approach a lost
child lest you be accused of molesting it. Get repeatedly vetted,
even if you only arrange flowers in a cathedral. Never intervene in
street crime but “alert the police”, even if you haven’t seen a copper
in your locality for months.

Worth a read.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Cannon Fodder

Neighbourhood watchers in Reading get speedguns
- Jane Fae Ozimek

Police in Reading are today encouraging residents to join the Big
Society and zap speeding neighbours with personal issue speed
detection kit. The speedster who falls afoul of the personal
speedguns gets two written warnings from neighbourhood police. Police
may then take action on the third infraction.

Be good or we’ll zap you with laser guns… According to reports in
GetReading, the controversial scheme, known as SpeedWatch, was
trialled last year in Tilehurst East in co-ordination with the local
neighbourhood action group (NAG).

Volunteers work closely with local police to identify motorists who
are breaking the speed limit.

There is then a slow process of escalation, as the registered owner of
any such vehicle receives a first and then a second communication from
the neighbourhood police team, before police action follows in
response to a third offence.

The project is co-ordinated by Thames Valley Police and Reading
Borough Council. Those wishing to support the scheme need to get
together with at least three other residents, and register their
interest with Reading Borough Council. They will then receive their
very own speed detection equipment.

David Webber, chairman of the Tilehurst East NAG, said: “SpeedWatch
has empowered Tilehurst residents to help in the campaign against
speeding, by delivering educational letters to over 150 motorists and
providing a visible reminder to all motorists.”

He added: “The most impressive aspect was the number of motorists who
supported the campaign by stopping and thanking those taking part in
the initiative.”

Such schemes are neither new nor without controversy. Many police
forces operate a neighbourhood speed-monitoring programme, with Avon
and Somerset a good example of a model that has been tried and tested
over the years. Their own scheme, titled Speed Watch, has been
running since 2001, and won a police Problem Solving Award in 2010.
The scheme, which has recently clocked its millionth speeding
motorist, includes 37 Community Speed Watch teams throughout the
district supported by 250 volunteers.

And if you happen to live in Queen Camel, perhaps this could be a job
for you, as their volunteer in that area is stepping down this month:
standard issue equipment is likely to include a choice of laser or
radar guns, and your very own SID (speed indication display) for
deployment locally.

Elsewhere, however, there is evidence that the scheme is not quite so
welcome. A SpeedWatch site from Cambridge hints rather bitterly at
local controversy, stating: “The purpose of this website is to explain
the facts, rather than myths, about SpeedWatch, that is [SIC]
operating in the Ramsey area, Cambridgeshire.”

The site’s owner continues: “SpeedWatch is being run out across
England, but, counties seem to be operating differently. Complaints
about schemes operated elsewhere may be valid but are not an issue for
those in Cambridgeshire, which are run differently.

“In fact, SpeedWatch is a worldwide initiative!”

There are definitely differences from county to county:
Leicestershire’s speedwatch scheme, for instance relies far more
heavily on Community Support Officers.

Although proponents of these schemes believe they help lower speed on
roads where they operate, they mostly work by reminding drivers that
they are under observation. Anyone clocked by a neighbourhood
volunteer is in line for a letter and eventually a stern ticking off
by the police. But not points, unless they happen to live in Avon
and Somerset.

There, police officers occasionally accompany volunteers on their
rounds, and if you are clocked speeding when a police officer is
present, then points or prosecution could follow.

In the long run, this looks like an interesting experiment in
extending the “Big Society” into Big Brother territory.

Whether it will successfully reduce speed without creating lifetime
village feuds remains to be seen.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Oz Corner:

Australia takes a lead on internet privacy
- Nick Pickles

It seems bizarre that Governments would seek to legally mandate
private companies to invade the privacy of their customers, but for
ISPs to fulfill the role many envisage under copyright protection
legislation (including the UK’s own Digital Economy Act) that’s
exactly what they will have to do.

Government-sanctioned deep packet inspection of internet traffic is
one of the most contentious issues of the digital revolution, going to
the heart of the limitations of technology and the civil liberties of
users.

As both the Government and the Courts review the Digital Economy Act
at home, yesterday’s ruling by the Australian Federal Court offers a
judicial insight into the issues involved, one which should be heeded
by decision makers in the UK.

It may have cost iiNet A$6.5 million to achieve, but the Court’s
decision will echo internationally. Whatever the wishes of the
consortium of movie studios and the Australian Federation Against
Copyright theft, the court ruled ISPs cannot be held responsible for
the illegal downloading of copyrighted content by their customers.

This is a huge step forward to protecting the privacy of internet
communication, and another judicial nod in the direction of the door
for industries desperately trying to protect outdated business models
through punitive remedies. The ruling does highlight the need to
explore how to tackle ‘repeat infringers’ but this requires far more
study before legislation will adequately address them.

In the UK, this issue has ramifications for the Big Society. Many
providers of free wifi in communities (for example, schools, libraries
and pubs) feared they would be unable to offer the service if they
were held liable for the activity of unknown users by ISPs either
looking to shift liability to 3rd party providers. Equally, ISPs may
have simply refused to allow free wi-fi to be offered.

Equally, as an aspiring digital economy, Government needs to focus on
facilitating the business models of the future, not using the civil
liberties of its citizens as a trade-off against industries protecting
their own revenue streams.

The civil liberties argument has been made, the critical technological
flaws highlighted and now the role of ISPs has been reaffirmed by a
court of the commonwealth. The challenge is now to keep up the
pressure in the UK and ensure the Digital Economy Act goes the same
way as the Government that created it.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bug Bites:

New portable camera sees inside solid materials and structures
- Paul Ridden

A research team from the Missouri University of Science and Technology
(Missouri S&T) has succeeded in creating a portable scanning system
that’s capable of looking inside objects or structures and revealing
hidden secrets. Using technology similar to that used for full body
scans at airports, the new transmission mode camera system can detect,
collect, process and display millimeter-wave and microwave signal
information in real time and at adjustable focus points between the
transmitter and collector aperture. The whole setup is powered by a
single laptop-sized battery, with the results being displayed on a
notebook screen.

Research into using microwave and millimeter-wave signals to test,
inspect and evaluate objects or structures without affecting their
functionality has been going on for some time, and researchers have
been looking for high resolution, real-time, portable imaging systems
for many years. Now an Missouri S&T research team led by Dr. Reza
Zoughi has developed and patented a new portable system which is
capable of non-intrusively peeking inside objects and structures in
real time and at various focal points.

The system is made up of a grid array collector with 576 resonance
slots operating at a frequency of 24GHz, which are switched rapidly to
create a scattered magnitude and phase field over the 6 x 6-inch
aperture. Opposite the collector sits an open-ended transmitter that
sends a wave over the area of the aperture. When an object is placed
in the middle, the collector detects the scattered field over the
resonance slots and sends the relative magnitude and phase data to
specially developed software on a notebook computer for processing and
display at speeds of up to 30 frames per second.

The software displays the real-time relative magnitude in the top left
window and the phase is shown below. The system can also be focused
along the horizontal plane to examine different points inside an
object or structure, and this information is shown in a window to the
top right of the notebook display. A slider beneath the window is
used to move the focal point back and forward across the plane. Below
that is a window which shows the results from applying filters to the
process.

As you can see in the following system demonstration, a rubber disc
hidden inside some balsa wood is clearly revealed by the system: The
team has demonstrated similar results when a closed plastic box
containing a pair of scissors was placed in front of the collector.

“In the not-so-distant future, the technology may be customized to
address many critical inspection needs, including detecting defects in
thermal insulating materials that are found in spacecraft heat
insulating foam and tiles, space habitat structures, aircraft radomes
and composite-strengthened concrete bridge members,” said Dr. Zoughi.
Medical and security applications are also a possibility.

The first prototype was created in 2007 and the team has spent the
last three years reducing the size of the equipment and improving its
efficiency. Although the current system is portable and can run up to
five hours on the laptop-sized battery powering it, the researchers
are hoping to further refine the system so that the transmitter and
collector are made part of the same piece of equipment. They’re also
looking to develop a wide-band camera capable of producing 3D or
holographic images

Pictures of the technology can be seen at
<http://news.google.com/news?cf=all&ned=us&edchanged=1&ict=lbe_en_ph>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

More Bugs

Daily Express – Census spies will track every home (click below to
view).
<http://www.mailingm.co.uk/15/admin/temp/newsletters/341/census1.JPG>

Daily Mail – GBP1,000 fine if you refuse to answer census questions
<http://www.mailingm.co.uk/15/admin/temp/newsletters/341/census3.JPG>

Daniel Hamilton, campaign director of civil liberties group Big
Brother Watch said: ‘At 32 pages, the census includes intrusive
questions on your proficiency in English, your health, when you last
worked, the identities of your overnight guests and the type of
central heating you have.

‘This census is a monumental waste of time and money. A large number
of the questions duplicate data already held by the authorities on
databases such as the electoral register, school records, tax returns
and GP information.’

Filling out the census is compulsory, with the threat of a fine of up
to GBP1,000 if a questionnaire is not completed and returned.
However, only 38 people were convicted for not filling out the census
last time after the ONS reported a little over 100 people to the Crown
Prosecution Service.

Mr Hamilton said the threat was ‘entirely hollow’.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Red Hot Product!

During our recent sojourn we looked high and low for the best banking
opportunities one could locate. Well I believe our leprechaun has
found another good one! This account might be THE one for you!

Nest Egg Account Our leprechaun has discovered the pot of gold at the
end of the rainbow with this easy to open and hessle free opening
process. For one large (US$1,000) you can open either a personal account
or a company, using your exiting company, [subject to your company
papers being current and in order.]

Alternatively for a reasonable additional cost, we can have an
offshore company created for you in your chosen name.

Safety is the name of the game in today’s violate financial climate.
This is where your safety net account comes into play. We do
recommend that you open this multi currency account so you will have
the ability of securing your funds in a currency other than your home
countries currency if that is what you desire.

For example, if you’re a North American resident, instead of having
your funds held in USD or CD, place them in CHF, Eur, Yen, Singapore
or Hong Kong dollars. In fact you can hold your nest egg funds in 6
different currencies! Plus you have easy to use internet banking and
the ability to obtain a credit or debit card.

For full particulars, just send our leprechaun an email and place
“Nest Egg” in your subject heading. We’ll email you the low down with
the whole caboodle of information.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Could the UK Government shut down the web?

A huge cyber attack or mass civil unrest would give Culture Secretary
Jeremy Hunt powers to shut down the web. But how is it even possible?
Nick Harding finds out

According to David Eagleman, a respected scientist and the author of
Why the Net Matters, 21st-century technology obviates the causes that
led past civilisations to collapse and because of this, he argues,
that the web is crucial to our survival.

It has become such an intermeshed part of society that a world in
which the internet suddenly goes down or is switched off is hard to
imagine. The Hollywood-sized scenario reads like this: email,
telephone and television services would go dark, media organisations
become unable to gather and disseminate news, governments struggle to
communicate emergency information, commerce grinds to a halt, shops
run out of food, the transport system collapses and electricity
supplies are be severely disrupted. Within months gangs of feral
youths would take over the towns, cannibalising the weak and elderly,
while citizens trembled behind barricaded doors, weeping over their
useless copies of Call of Duty: Black Ops.

In Britain there are two pieces of legislation which give the
Government power to order the suspension of the internet and, in
theory, bring about web armageddon. The Civil Contingencies Act and
the 2003 Communications Act can both be used to suspend internet
services, either by ordering internet service providers (ISPs) to shut
down their operations or by closing internet exchanges. Under the
protocol of the Communications Act, the switch-flicking would be done
by the Culture Secretary. In the eyes of the legislature, Jeremy Hunt
is the man invested with the power to send us back to the dark ages.

The chances of this happening are extremely remote, partly because
these powers can be used only in times of emergency to protect the
public and safeguard national security and partly because consensus
governance would act as a check to any nefarious individual ambitions.
In theory, the mechanical process of shutting down the internet should
be simple. In addition to ordering the nation’s main ISPs to cease
operation, officials can also close main internet exchanges such as
Linx, the London Internet Exchange,which handles 80 per cent of our
internet traffic.

The ISP shutdown process was used recently by the Hosni Mubarak’s
government in Egypt, ostensibly to stifle the propagation of dissent.
On 27 January Egypt was effectively disconnected from the rest of the
web after its ISPs were ordered to shut down their services. Shorty
after going offline Vodafone Egypt issued a statement explaining:
“Under Egyptian legislation the authorities have the right to issue
such an order and we are obliged to comply with it.”

Egypt’s other three big ISPs, Link Egypt, Telecom Egypt and Etisalat
Misr, also stopped services. A few days later the final service
provider, Noor, went down, taking the country’s stock exchange with
it.

The pattern has since been repeated in other parts of the Middle East
where popular uprisings have occurred. On 19 February Libya went
completely offline. In Bahrain reduced web traffic flow was reported
between 14 and 16 February.

As the authorities in Egypt discovered, however, the net kill-switch
can be circumvented. During the shutdown there, telephone lines
remained active and tech-savvy protesters were able to set up
information networks using dial-up modems.

Telecomix New Agency, a global affiliation of internet activists,
reported: “We set up servers which could answer modem calls via
landline. Many of the Telecomix agents who were setting up these
systems were not even born when this technology was considered modern.
Some touched their first modem in those days. There were no
instructions how to set up a computer to make a modem call and connect
it to the internet. We had to learn how to do it. Outside Egypt, in
France, the Netherlands and Germany, some providers reactivated their
modem pools.”

Because modems work by dialling a number and swapping data through a
telephone line, lists of active dial-up ISP telephone numbers had to
be distributed by fax and by hand because email services had been
taken down along with domestic internet services. Numbers were also
read out over shortwave radio. Even normally apolitical companies
made efforts to maintain the flow of information. Twitter teamed up
with Google and its newly acquired SayNow company and offered an
internet-free way of Tweeting over the phone. Callers could leave
voice messages including #tags and their messages were posted online
for them.

That repressive governments have been able to use laws similar to
those in the UK to implement such draconian crackdowns on the freedom
of their citizens has rightly raised questions about whether our
politicians have too much power over the internet.

From a legal standpoint, there are safeguards. The section of the
Communications Act which allows internet provision to be suspended can
be enacted only “to protect the public from any threat to public
safety or public health, or in the interests of national security”.
And there are statutory avenues for recourse should these powers be
abused.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport explains: “It would have
to be a very serious threat for these powers to be used, something
like a major cyber attack. The powers are subject to review and if it
was used inappropriately there could be an appeal to the competitions
appeal tribunal. Any decision to use them would have to comply with
public law and the Human Rights Act.”

Experts such as Dr Peter Gradwell, managing director of business
internet provider Gradwell and trustee of the Nominet Trust, believe
the fail-safes are adequate.

He says: “The legislation also includes the requirement to make
compensatory payments for loss or damage. Would the Government want
to foot the bill for switching off a multi- billion-pound industry?
If a notice is served on an ISP and ignored, the penalty is only a
fine. If the public were massing on the streets of London, I believe
that many internet providers would be happy to argue the legitimacy of
such a penalty in court.”

As long as the balance between freedom of information and protection
of the public is maintained, few may argue against having what amounts
to a national firewall at a time when cyber warfare is arguably the
fastest growing threat to national security.

In the US lawmakers are drafting even more wide-ranging legislation
than that available to politicians in Britain. The Protecting
Cyberspace as a National Asset Act will give President Barack Obama
the ability to declare a state of cyber-security emergency, during
which he would have full control over internet networks and could
isolate the country and its critical national infrastructure from
attack for a period of 120 days.

However, if an eventuality ever arises in which Western governments
need to use these powers, they may ultimately prove useless, according
to many specialists.  While Egypt was relatively simple to switch off,
the UK, with its advanced digital infrastructure, would be much
harder. It has more than 3,000 independent ISPs, several national
mobile operators and at least 10 undersea high-speed fibre cables
linking it to all other parts of the world, mainland Europe, Africa
and the Americas. Each of these cables is capable of carrying huge
amounts of traffic.

If, for example, the Coalition invoked the Civil Contingencies Act and
shut down the main exchanges, some mobile broadband operators would
still be able to operate. T-Mobile could route traffic via Germany
and O2 through Spain. Some dial-up services such as SprintNet, which
is used for AOL facilities, could still operate, because its services
are routed through the United States.

As Claire Sellick, event director of Infosecurity Europe, explains:
“On a practical level, switching off the internet in the UK would be
very difficult. Most ISPs have diverse routing, with some, notably
mobile broadband operators, routing traffic overseas. It would only
be partially effective. Broadband local delivery may be curtailed but
dial-up modem, leased line and other access systems would still
operate.”

The problem comes down to the very nature of the internet in developed
countries. It is a mesh of networks. It transcends borders and has
no definable beginning or end. As a result of this structure it is
almost impossible to isolate all the connections. In the UK, many
providers have private interconnections with each other and with other
providers in other nations as well as connections to internet
exchanges.

In addition the UK also has a diverse alternative infrastructure which
could be utilised to carry data. Many cities have wireless and wimax
mesh networks in place, there are lots of radio enthusiasts and
privately owned optic fibre follows roads, railways, waterways and
underground networks.

As Dr Gladwell explains: “Any shutdown would be hugely problematic to
start with, but could be easily subverted. If you take down something
like Linx it would initially affect lots of people but you would end
up with a secondary network being built up quite quickly.”

It seems highly likely then, that as happened in Egypt, if the Jeremy
Hunt Doomsday scenario were ever come to pass, an alternative network
would quickly expand and provide access to the internet for all.
Which is a relief.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Shamrock’s Missive

Welcome back to Nazi Germany.

A mate of mine lent me his DVD series, The World at War, the award
winning 26-episode British television documentary series on World War
II and the events immediately before and after it.

It’s one of the best documentary series I’ve watched. You may
recall viewing The World at War on television during the 1970′s when
they first aired or possibly thereafter as they continue to be aired
around the world many times each year.

Although they are a marathon series of disks and viewing, it might be
worth your while to check them out, especially if you’re a history
buff.

The World at War brought to mind the famous quote by George Santayana,
i.e. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I couldn’t help thinking throughout viewing the series, how certain
incidences during the Nazi Germany dictatorship, circa 1933-45, how they
rose to power, their laws, lies and deceits and hyperbole are very similar
to events, incidences, laws and hyperbole today, especially in the US.

Bearing in mind this documentary was made thirty years ago, this
makes it even more remarkable.

Is this a coincidence?

Perhaps, but consider this:

Germany 1933 – Reichstag Building
United States 2001 – WorldTradeCenter / Pentagon / Flight 93

Germany 1933 – Scapegoat: Communists and Jews United States 2001 -
Scapegoat: vague “Terrorists” and “Islamic fascists”

Germany 1933 – Claim “Terrorism”
United States 2001 – Claim “Terrorism”

Germany 1933 – Enact “The Enabling Act”
United States 2001 – Enact “The Patriot Act”

Germany 1933 – Establish Department of Fatherland Security
United States 2001 – Establish Department of Homeland Security

Germany 1933 – Scare the Public via Ministry of Propaganda United
States 2001 – Scare the Public via controlled Main Stream Media

Germany 1933 – Require Dictatorial Powers
United States 2001 – Require “Enhanced” Executive Powers

Germany 1933 – Suspend individual rights United States 2001 -
Undermine Constitutional safeguards protecting individual rights

Germany 1933 – Demonize critics as “unpatriotic”
United States 2001 – Demonize critics as “unpatriotic”

Germany 1933 – Have Gestapo spy on citizens
United States 2001 – Have FBI & NSA spy on citizens

Germany 1933 – Arrest dissident citizens*
United States 2001 – Watch list dissident citizens*

Germany 1933 – Establish Concentration Camps*
United States 2001 – Establish FEMA Concentration Camps*

Germany 1933 – Compel citizens to fulfill agenda through brutality
(Brown Shirts) United States 2001 – Propagandize citizens to fulfill
agenda through Psyops

Germany 1933 – Suspend Constitution by decree*
United States 2001 – Weaken Constitution via Executive Orders*

Germany 1933 – Initiate preemptive warfare to provide cover: (Austria,
Poland) United States 2001 – Initiate preemptive warfare to provide
cover: (Iraq, Afghanistan)

*Only important difference in 1933 the citizens of Germany were
disarmed, in 2001 citizens of United States were ARMED and still are
in 2011, but don’t worry, Barack and company are doing their damndest
to find a way around that one to so they can fill those FEMA camps.

“We fight because we were forced to fight.  We are fighting for our
most valuable possession; Freedom.”  - Adolf Hitler – 1939

“Because we fight for one thing, that is the freedom of our people and
the freedom of people everywhere.” – George W. Bush 2001

Which brings us back to Santayana’s quote,
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Is history repeating itself? It appears so, especially if you take into
account the articles in this issue:
* Part II Crackdown On Liberty, Assault On Civil Liberty,
By Paul Craig Roberts
and
* America’s Total Surveillance Society.

Serious thought regarding this might cause serious consternation.

Our question for you is “What are you going to do about it!”

See you next issue

Shamrock

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

Quote

“…I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and
general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be
able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be
contradicted.”
- Alan Mathison Turing, 1912- 1954
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Even More Quotes

“The law is like a spider web where the little flies get caught and
the big flies fall through.”
- Aristarchus, Greek Philologist
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Another Quote

“Beware what you set your heart upon. For it shall surely be yours.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thought provoking quotes:

“Americans are the most lied-to people on Earth”
- Anonymous
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Tid Bits

Making your own personal data pay

In a very interesting article on the Wall Street Journal,
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160764037920274.html>,
the concept of selling your own personal data on your own terms to who
you want is becoming a big start up business. Start ups in this area
offer anything from a paid commission to blocking the third party sale
of your own data already housed by a third party. More established
companies are getting into the business as well, the article says.

Companies and investors both talk about the idea of a growing ‘privacy
market’. After a few false starts, companies like AOL or start ups
like Allow offer a variety of privacy services that can be tailored to
the individual. Even at Davos earlier this year, a round table
discussion was set up to discuss how to shift personal data from
something someone else owns to something that an individual can
control, manage, and sell.

What do you think about selling your own personal data? Would you
take advantage of an opportunity to do this?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** More Tid Bits

New EU laws to mandate “explicit” user consent for cookies

Over on the BBC Online Technology section, there’s an interesting
piece this morning regarding new EU laws which will, from May 25th,
demand that websites who use ‘cookies’ in order to track user
behaviour and target advertising to them will have to obtain “explicit
consent” before placing them on their computers.

The new approach has been mandated by the European e-Privacy Directive
which will come into force in May which “demands that users be fully
informed about the information being stored in cookies and told why
they see particular adverts”.

Big Brother Watch have long argued that such moves should be
voluntarily-adopted industry standards as opposed to
supranationally-imposed EU regulations, yet we nonetheless look
forward to seeing how websites will adapt to these regulations.

Click here to read the full story -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12668552

In the interim, before this Directive comes into force, you are able
to opt-out of having the cookies of many of the largest internet
advertising firms placed on your computer by clicking here -
<http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/10/opt-out-of-unwanted-online-advertising.html>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Bits n bobs

Schools rush to fingerprint children before UK Freedom Bill change
School governors mutter for hurry
- Techeye.net

Fingerprinting of children has got worse, with “more and more schools
falling over themselves” to get pupil biometrics, a rights group has
told TechEye.

Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) is wondering if the rush is
because of proposed changes in the Freedom bill.

Currently, schools don’t have to ask for parental consent to take
fingerprints from children – which can be used to access classrooms,
take books out of the library or as a way to provide cashless school
dinners.

However, if the bill goes ahead, it will mean schools will require
consent from both the parent and child to gain fingerprints.

Terri Dowty, director at ARCH, told TechEye: “Schools are falling over
themselves to get fingerprinting before the new rules come into place.
We’re pleased about the new proposals, which will mean that children’s
parents get a say.

“Not only does the current system mean that young children can be
coaxed into this but it also sets a dangerous president for privacy in
the future. If a child is taught that it’s ok to give their
fingerprints to anyone who asks – then later on we could see some
security breaches.”

She points out that headteachers could have take issue to amendments,
as parents unsurprisingly have qualms about letting their children get
fingerprinted.

She’s not alone in thinking this. A recent poll by the Guardian found
that 90 percent of parents were unhappy about the practice, while a
deputy head teacher also told us he had seen some resistance from
parents.

The deputy, who wishes to remain anonymous, tells us: “If the bill
goes ahead it will make life harder as parents aren’t always happy
about it, but we haven’t been increasing this because we’re worried.

“That said there has been mutterings from the governors that we should
speed up the process before we have to ask for consent.”

He also provided insight into the way some schools think.

“We’ve been fingerprinting children since the ICO gave us the go ahead
back in 2001. We usually don’t ask for parental consent because we
haven’t needed to, and with the younger ones we can turn it into a
little game.

“There’s nothing wrong with it. We only use them for access to the
library and as a quick way to order school dinners,” he added.

The Information Commissioner’s Office currently states: “There is
nothing explicit in the Data Protection Act to require schools to seek
consent from all parents before implementing a fingerprinting
application.

“However, unless schools can be certain that all children understand
the implications of giving their fingerprints, they must fully involve
parents in order to ensure that the information is obtained fairly.”

Ms Dowty said the ICO was “wrong” when it made the rules in 2001.

In an unpublished document, ARCH explains that the practice began when
a company called Microlibrarian systems (MLS) approached the ICO to
ask for comments on the company’s plans to incorporate biometric
fingerprint readers into school library systems, replacing the use of
cards.

The ICO raised no objections and in fact supplied MLS with a letter
endorsing the use of fingerprinting. MLS then approached the DfES (as
it then was) with this letter, and the use of biometrics was approved.

With the new rules in place, really it will be the companies selling
biometric systems – and that’s around 34 – that will suffer.

If there’s less demand there will be less need for their systems.

But a spokesperson for Microlibrarian Systems told TechEye that it
wasn’t fussed: “Personally I haven’t heard any concerns from the
company, it doesn’t seem like it’ll be a concern and if you have to
ask for consent then you have to ask for it.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Self-erasing flash drives destroy court evidence
Golden age’ of forensics coming to close
- Dan Goodin

The inner workings of solid state storage devices are so fundamentally
different from traditional hard drives that forensic investigators can
no longer rely on current preservation techniques when admitting
evidence stored on them in court cases, Australian scientists said in
a research paper.

Data stored on Flash drives is often subject to a process the
scientists called “self-corrosion,” in which evidence is permanently
erased or contaminated in ways that bits stored on magnetic-based hard
drives are not. The alterations happen in the absence of any
instructions from the user. The findings introduce a “grey area” into
the integrity of files that are forensically extracted from the
devices and threaten to end a “golden age” of digital evidence
gathering offered by older storage types.

“Given the pace of development in SSD memory and controller
technology, and the increasingly proliferation [sic] of manufacturers,
drives, and firmware versions, it will probably never be possible to
remove or narrow this new grey area within the forensic and legal
domain,” the scientists, from Australia’s Murdoch University, wrote.
“It seems possible that the golden age for forensic recovery and
analysis of deleted data and deleted metadata may now be ending.”

For decades, investigators have worked with tape, floppy drives and
hard drives that continue to store huge amounts of information even
when the files they’re contained in are marked for deletion. Even
wiping the disks isn’t always enough to permanently erase the
contents. SSDs, by contrast, store data in blocks or pages of
NAND-based transistor chips that must be electronically erased before
they can be reused.

As a result, most SSDs have firmware that automatically carries out
“self healing” or “garbage collection” procedures that can permanently
erase or alter files that have been marked for deletion. The process
often begins as soon as three minutes after the drive is powered on
and happens with no warning. The user need not initiate any commands,
and the drive emits no lights or makes any sounds to indicate the
purging is taking place.

What’s more, the use of so-called write blockers and other techniques
designed to isolate a drive during forensic imaging offered no
protection. That’s because the garbage collection is initiated by the
SSD firmware that’s independent from commands issued by the computer
it’s attached to.

“If garbage collection were to take place before or during forensic
extraction of the drive image, it would result in irreversible
deletion of potentially large amounts of valuable data that would
ordinarily be gathered as evidence during the forensic process, we
call this ‘corrosion of evidence,’” the scientists wrote.

The findings have serious consequences for criminal and civil court
cases that rely on digital evidence. If the disk from which the data
comes appears to have been tampered with after it was seized, an
opposing party frequently has grounds for having the evidence thrown
out of court. The paper comes as a growing number of computer makers
integrate SSDs into the machines they sell. The drives have many
benefits over their magnetic brethren, including speed, lower power
consumption and durability.

At first blush, the results appear to conflict with those of a recent
paper that found data fragments stored on flash drives can be
virtually indestructible. It may be the case that what both research
teams are saying is that data stored on the newfangled devices can’t
be reliably deleted or preserved the way it can on magnetic media.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hints & Tips

Obtain important and valuable instant privacy information.

Most reports and products are brand new and never before offered!

* Mail Drops!
* New Jurisdictions for Bearer Share Corporations
* Easy To Obtain & Use ATM & Credit Cards
* Dozens of Bank Accounts
* 2nd Passports from Euro 6,500
* Citizenship from numerous countries
* Free Banking Guide
* Confidential Bank Introductions
* Anonymous Credit and Debit Cards
* Secured Credit Cards
* Anonymous mobile phones & Sim Chips
* Drivers’ Licenses plus much, much more!

Check it out at http://www.ptshamrock.com/reports/index.html
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Letters to the Editor:

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

Dear Shamrock:

As President Obama has indicated his determination to attack and
eliminate all things “offshore,” it brings to mind that he might also
promote the confiscation of gold.

What can be done if one is holding gold coins (not rare or numismatic)
in the US? Frankly, there is no way I, and many others, will give up
our gold coins to the US government.

What can be done to safeguard our coins? Is there a secure location
outside of the US where gold coins can be stored?

I know that there is a rule/law that says any amount over US$10,000
must be declared before leaving the US, but is it actually possible to
leave with several coins on one’s person without being stopped by the
airport authorities (after declaring the coins of course)?

I’m sure it’s clear from this email that all trust in the US
government is down the drain. It’s an “every man for himself” climate
in the US now. It doesn’t really matter who is elected President.
Nothing really changes with politicians.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Concerned in the USA

Dear Concerned:

No need to lose sleep over this. A brand new report, “Revealed: Where
And How To Legally Buy, Move And Store Gold Abroad” by best selling
author and second passport expert, Dr.  Charles Freeman – covers this
topic to a tee, whilst answering your questions and concerns. Check
it out at http://www.ptshamrock.com/gold_report.html

It’s FREE!

Shamrock

Dear Shamrock:

I’d like to thank you for introducing me to your offshore consulting
expert, XXXXX. It was the best money I’ve ever invested. <snip>

Thanks to your consultant, I have expatriated from America and at 52
years young, I’m living a far happier, better and more carefree lifestyle
on a whole lot less money than in my former life!

I am happily married to a beautiful young woman, and we’re expecting
our first child in a few months, which we are very excited about.

My US$700 per month disability income goes a heck of a lot further here
than it did back in the USA!

An eternally grateful customer.

R.S.

Dear R.S.

Thank you for the kind words, and congratulations on your new life and
upcoming child.

Kindest regards

PT Shamrock
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Quote of the month!

“The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few
stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king
can bleed.”
- King Leonidas, King of Sparta, 300 Movie, 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** “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
<mailto:ptshamrock@ptshamrock.com> 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:
<mailto: ptbuzz-on@mail-list.com>.

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 <www.ptshamrock.com>

See you next issue!

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

PT Shamrock
- – - – - – - – - – NOTICE – - – - – - – - – -
In and with good faith publishing distribution, 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