Category Archives: Bill of Rights

Oklahoma Bill to Stop Unconstitutional NSA Actions!

SB 1252 nsa

Kaye Beach

Jan. 28, 2014

SB 1252 The Fourth Amendment Protection Act by Sen. Nathan Dahm has been assigned to the Rules Committee.  Read more about SB 1252 here and you can read the bill (SB 1252) here

The bill must receive a majority vote to pass and your support can make the difference.  Specific action items are provided below.

A nationwide coalition, Nullify NSA, has formed in an effort limit NSA surveillance abuses through state legislation.

Nullify NSA website http://nullifynsa.com/

Nullify NSA on Facebook

The most important part of SB 1252 would bring a halt to the practice of  NSA intelligence being used to investigate people on matters unrelated to national security and then cover up the source of the information as was revealed by Reuters a few months ago.

(Reuters) – A  secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation  to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.. . .documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin – not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from  prosecutors and judges.  Read more

That revelation was responsible for the outburst from one outraged Oklahoma Republican at a Town Hall meeting that went viral last August.

Apparently OK Congressman Lankford was less than fully informed about some of the NSA’s programs that were being reported on, along with documentation, by the news media.  His audience, however,  was informed and Rep. Lankford’s seeming denials of what was known produced some understandable consternation.

Shortly after being challenged about the NSA’s activities at the Town Hall meeting, Rep. Lankford issued this statement:

“As a Member of Congress, I expect to receive accurate and complete information from a federal agency when requested. It is absurd that the
intelligence community was not completely forthcoming in its answers about classified government programs misusing Americans’ private information.  An agency that cannot fully answer questions asked by a  co-equal branch of government can expect significant structural changes and stringent oversight in the future.”

SB 1252 would put a stop to the NSA secretively passing on information collected  about Oklahomans without a warrant.

With the Fourth Amendment Protection Act in place (SB 1252), defense attorneys will be able to challenge data gathered without a warrants and passed on to state or local law enforcement.  Such data would be excluded as evidence. Judges will be obligated to disallow data gathered without a warrant.

“We know the NSA is sharing unconstitutionally gathered information with state and local law enforcement agencies – and it has nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists. This should offend every American who cares about the Constitution,” Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey. “Oklahoma may not be able to stop the NSA from vacuuming up the data, but it can darn sure make it as useless as a three dollar bill to state and local cops.” Read more

Nullify NSA provides the following Oklahoma action items to support SB 1252 in Oklahoma:

Oklahoma Action Steps

On January 6, SB1252 was prefiled by Sen. Nathan Dahm. This bill would big steps forward to protect Oklahoma residents from unwarranted surveillance (learn about it here).

STATUS – SB1252 has been assigned to the Rules committee where it will need to pass by majority vote.

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW. It doesn’t matter where in Oklahoma you live, take these actions today.

1. Contact the Committee Chairman.  Be strong but respectful. Ask her to promptly move SB1252 forward to a hearing and vote in the committee. Ask her to vote YES on SB1252

AJ Griffin (405) 521-5628 griffin@oksenate.gov

2. Contact all the other members of the committee. Again, be strong but respectful. Ask them each for a YES vote on SB1849. If they say they’re opposed, ask them why. If they’re undecided or will not commit to a YES vote, let them know you will be following up in a few days after they have a chance to consider it.

Rob Johnson (405) 521-5592 johnsonr@oksenate.gov
Don Barrington 405.521.5563 barrington@oksenate.gov
Cliff Branan (405) 521-5543 branan@oksenate.gov
Kim David (405) 521-5590 david@oksenate.gov
Eddie Fields (405) 521-5581 efields@oksenate.gov
John Ford (405) 521-5634 fordj@oksenate.gov
Jim Hlligan 405.521.5572 halligan@oksenate.gov
Constance Johnson (405) 521-5531 johnsonc@oksenate.gov
Clark Jolley (405) 521-5622 jolley@oksenate.gov
Ron Justice (405) 521-5537 justice@oksenate.gov
Bryce Marlatt 405.521.5626 marlatt@oksenate.gov
Al McAffrey (405) 521-5610 mcaffrey@oksenate.gov
Jubar Shumate (405) 521-5598 shumate@oksenate.gov
Frank Simpson (405) 521-5607 simpson@oksenate.gov
John Sparks (405) 521-5553 sparks@oksenate.gov
Rob Standridge (405) 521-5535  standridge@oksenate.gov
Gary Stanislowski 405.521.5624 stanislawski@oksenate.gov
Charles Wyrick (405) 521-5561 wyrick@oksenate.gov

3. Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in 3-4 days. Ask if they’ve had a chance to review the legislation and what their opposition might be. Comment below or contact us at info@offnow.org with any information you get.

4.  on Twitter?  Retweet

5. Write a letter to the editor. Look up your local newspaper and submit a letter to the editor voicing your support for SB1252. Following strong legal principles, it’s essential that Oklahoma no longer help the federal government spy on all of us. Passing SB1252 will make that happen.

http://offnow.org/oklahoma/

Okla. Heads UP! Drone Surveillance Bill In Committee Tuesday 26th

Eye in the Sky Must Have a Warrant!

Eye in the Sky Must Have a Warrant!

Kaye Beach

Feb. 25, 2013

HB1556 will be heard in the House Aerospace and Energy Committee at 1:30 Tuesday Feb. 26th  Calls, emails needed today!

House Bill 1556-the Oklahoma Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Act

HB 1556 by Rep. Paul Wesselhoft requires law officers, absent an emergency, to obtain a warrant first before using drones for surveillance purposes and prohibits the state from outfitting drones with weapons.

The FAA estimates as many as 30,000 drones could be flying in US skies by 2020 and Oklahoma is poised to become a state leader in the drone industry.  In fact, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security launched one of its first test flights for civil use of drones over the skies of Oklahoma in December 2012.

FORT SILL — The small, winged drone quietly soared overhead as SWAT team members closed in on a building at Fort Sill.

When a suspect sprinted from the structure, the drone banked through a cloudless afternoon sky in an effort to track the person.

A few miles away, two Lockheed Martin technicians sat in a converted bedroom of a ranch-style house using a laptop computer to control the drone’s movements. They followed the action on a video relay.  NewsOK, Dec. 31, 2012 Read more

Drones are capable highly advanced surveillance. Law enforcement drones can carry various types of equipment including live-feed video cameras, facial recognition, automatic license plate readers, infrared cameras and more.  Drone manufacturers admit some are designed to carry “less lethal” weapons such as Tasers or rubber bullets and law enforcement has openly expressed interest in utilizing these weapons.

HB1556 will be heard in the House Aerospace and Energy Committee.(contact info below)  Call and tell them that you want them to support HB 1556 for these reasons:

  • Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.
  • Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.
  • Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.
  • Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.
  • Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.

Aerial, warrantless surveillance is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights and our right to privacy!

Oklahoma House Aerospace and Energy Committee Members

Email block bcc;

johntrebilcock@okhouse.gov,weldon.watson@okhouse.gov, donarmes@okhouse.gov, mikebrown@okhouse.gov, david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov, mariancooksey@okhouse.gov,  scott.inman@okhouse.gov, steve.kouplen@okhouse.gov, randy.mcdaniel@okhouse.gov, rcpruett@okhouse.gov, mike.sanders@okhouse.gov, bensherrer@okhouse.gov, garybanz@okhouse.gov, david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov,leedenney@okhouse.gov, charlie.joyner@okhouse.gov stevemartin@okhouse.gov jerrymcpeak@okhouse.gov, mikereynolds@okhouse.gov,  colby.schwartz@okhouse.gov, aaron.stiles@okhouse.gov, lisajbilly@okhouse.gov, josh.cockroft@okhouse.govjwhickman@okhouse.gov,  dan.kirby@okhouse.gov, mark.mcbride@okhouse.gov, eric.proctor@okhouse.gov, sean.roberts@okhouse.gov, seneca.scott@okhouse.gov

Chair Rep. John Trebilcock johntrebilcock@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7362

Rep. Weldon Watson  weldon.watson@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7330

Rep. Don Armes donarmes@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7307

Rep. Mike Brown mikebrown@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7408

Rep. David Brumbaugh david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7347

Rep. Marian Cooksey  mariancooksey@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7342

Rep. Scott Inman scott.inman@okhouse.gov   (405) 557-7370

Rep. Steve Kouplen steve.kouplen@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7306

Rep. Randy McDaniel  randy.mcdaniel@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7409

Rep. R.C. Pruett  rcpruett@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7382

Rep. Mike Sanders mike.sanders @okhouse.gov (405) 557-7407

Rep. Ben Sherrer bensherrer@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7364

Rep. Gary W. Banz  garybanz@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7395

Rep. David Brumbaugh david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7347

Rep. Lee Denney leedenney@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7304

Rep. Charlie Joyner charlie.joyner@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7314

Rep. Steve Martin  stevemartin@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7402

Rep. Jerry McPeak  jerrymcpeak@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7302

Rep. Mike Reynolds mikereynolds@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7337

Rep. Colby Schwartz colby.schwartz@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7352

Rep. Aaron Stiles aaron.stiles@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7386

Rep. Lisa J. Billy  lisajbilly@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7365

Rep. Josh Cockroft  josh.cockroft@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7349

Rep. Jeffrey W. Hickman  jwhickman@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7339

Rep. Dan Kirby  dan.kirby@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7356

Rep. Mark McBride  mark.mcbride@okhouse.gov

(405) 557-7346

Rep. Eric Proctor  eric.proctor@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7410

Rep. Sean Roberts  sean.roberts@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7322

Rep. Seneca Scott  seneca.scott@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7391

Oklahomans concerned about unmanned aircraft attend state Capitol rally

idp13 capitol 1

Photo by Dana Lawhon

Kaye Beach

Feb.24, 2013

From the Oklahoman, Michael McNutt, Feb. 23, 2013

Nearly 200 people attend a rally Saturday at the Oklahoma Capitol in Oklahoma City to support Oklahoma House Bill 1556 by Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Moore, that would place regulations on the use of drones in the state.

Joanne Francisco, one of several people who came to a state Capitol rally Saturday with a face mask, said the encroachment of government on
her 4th Amendment right to privacy, such as the possible use of drones to spy on individuals, is a growing concern.

“Government is getting too intrusive, nosy,”
said Francisco, of Tulsa. “How do we know when our rights have been infringed upon? We can see a peeping Tom outside our window, but we
can’t necessarily see when we’re being spied on by a drone.”

The article highlights statements by Ryan Kiesel, Director of the Oklahoma ACLU, Amie Stepanovich, legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center and an expert in government surveillance, and Amanda Teegarden, Exec. Director of OK-SAFE, Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise.

Read more

Oklahoma has three important privacy protecting bill active this session.  All of them need some grassroots support to help ensure that they become law.

Please see our action items on HB1556, HB1557 and HB1559 covering privacy protections regarding drones, phones and RFID chips;

Okla. Legislative Action: Three Important Privacy Protection Bills and What You Can Do to Help

IntelWire: FBI Releases Redacted Informant Manuals In Response To FOIA

Kaye Beach
Nov. 1,  2012
Salt Lake City attorney, Jesse Trentadue,  has become legendary for his dogged determination to find the truth about his brother, Kenneth Trentadue’s brutal murder while in custody at the Federal Transfer Center located in Oklahoma City in 1995.
On August 18, 1995, Kenneth Trentadue was confined in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Federal Transfer Center (“FTC”) in Oklahoma City, after being arrested for a parole violation.  Two days later he was dead. When the Bureau of Prisons ruled his death a suicide his family became alarmed, knowing Kenneth had no reason to end his life. Thus began a 17-year journey to find the truth. Read more
 Jesse Trentadue has yet to gain justice for his brother, Kenneth, but he has repeatedly shined the light on many facts about the inner workings of our government, particularly the FBI that is of great benefit to the public at large.
Here is the latest.
According to a federal lawsuit filed on Oct. 18, 2012 by Trentadue;
“FBI defendants’ disturbing practice of using private citizens as spies in the media, on defense teams, in religious organizations as well as state and federal government is designed to and does result in the circumvention of the protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.”
You can read these documents at INTELWIRE.
Sunday, October 28, 201

FBI Releases Redacted Informant Manuals In Response To FOIA

Documents obtained by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue reveal new details about the FBI’s rules of conduct for informants.

The FBI released 147 pages of heavily redacted manuals and policies related to the use of informants, in response to a FOIA request by Trentadue, who is engaged in a years-long lawsuit with the FBI over documents related to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Read the documents here

Read more from INTELWIRE

Jesse Trentadue exposes who the FBI uses for informants

Kaye Beach

Oct 31, 2012

Extremely interesting information uncovered by Jesse Trentadue published in the Oklahoma Gazette.

Jerry Bohnen October 31st, 2012

If Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue is right, there are journalists around the country who also happen to be informants for the FBI.

And the journalists might not be alone. FBI informants might also be found on the White House staff, in the offices of U.S. congressmen, in the courts and among the clergy

. . .

In Trentadue’s latest attempt to gather information on the bombing and its possible connection to his brother’s death, he filed a federal lawsuit Oct. 18 demanding the DOJ and the FBI surrender unredacted manuals that reveal the existence of a government program for recruiting and training informants.

Trentadue said he has proof that the manuals exist as well as government documentation on an ABC News executive identified by an FBI informant number. His lawsuit states: “FBI defendants’ disturbing practice of using private citizens as spies in the media, on defense teams, in religious organizations as well as state and federal government is designed to and does result in the circumvention of the protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.”

Read More

Examiner.com: No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Kaye Beach

Oct. 26, 2012, updated Oct. 29, 2012

I hate to be an absolutist but after years of studying the International Association of Chiefs of Police, it is my firm opinion that any Sheriff candidate associated with the organization is pretty much a no go.  There are a number of police associations to choose from and a choice to band together with this one is out of them all has to be the product of a pronounced ideology that for many Americans, especially pro Second Amendment Americans, is repulsive.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, was also critical of the IACP, which he told Cybercast News Service “represents a lot of appointed police chiefs from a lot of totalitarian and dictatorship countries where human rights are constantly violated and freedom of the press doesn’t even exist.”

“There isn’t a gun-control proposal that this organization hasn’t supported. . .” 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/international-police-chiefs-advocate-more-gun-control

I think that any officer of the law that does not trust law abiding citizens with a gun, doesn’t deserve our trust.

This excellent article posted today at the Examiner.com takes a look at the latest IACP anti-gun Resolutions and points out the fact that Sheriff John Whetsel was a past President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.  Whetsel, as IACP President, in 1995,  actively worked to suppress right to carry legislation in the states including Oklahoma.

No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Here is  1995 internal IACP strategic plan document to undermine or eliminate right to carry legislation.

The plan was to kill the bills if possible and if not to encumber the legislation with a number of burdensome requirements to deter lawful citizens from obtaining a permit.
For example, Item 5 on page 6 of the document suggests making it a criminal offense, a felony rather than a misdemeanor,  to carry with an expired permit.
Another example is item #14 on pg 7. Require a separate CCW permit for each individual weapon and limit permit holders to one gun purchase per month.

President Clinton thanked John Whetsel personally in 1994 for his help in passing the Brady and Crime Bills.  The “Crime Bill” that Clinton makes reference to is actually ‘The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act’  This was the Act that established a ban on “Assault Weapons” which lasted from 1994 to 2004.  Clinton Whetsel 1994

The Examiner.com looks into this a little deeper here

I have been barking about the International Association of Chiefs of Police for years.

The IACP is an international, non governmental organization accredited by the United Nations and is a ‘Member of the UN POLICE COMMUNITY’ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/sites/police/community.shtml

This organization has been instrumental in bringing about profound changes to our nation politically, technologically and culturally and not necessarily for the better.  They are the thought leaders, the change agents in American law enforcement.

You would be hard pressed to find even one of the Ten Amendments to the  US Constitution that the policies pushed by the IACP has not insulted but one of the most telling positions taken by the organization is their stance on the Second Amendment.

Steven Spingola, a well respected former homicide detective sums the IACP up very well as;

“a global organization that views the American Constitution as an obstructionist document.”

The IACP has a long history of anti-Second Amendment stances.

They have actively supported every piece of gun control legislation since the 1960′s. The organization is long time, bitter enemies with the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

IACP President, Quinn Tamm,  in 1971 actually said that a brick was a safer weapon for self defense that a handgun.

Nothing has changed since then. (See the 2012 Resolutions issued by the IACP)

For a litany of anti-gun antics from the IACP in recent times, read this.

The IACP opposes;

•expansion of concealed carry
•50-caliber rifles
•private sales of gun
•gun shows
•so-called “assault” weapons

The IACP Supports;

•Limiting the number of handguns law abiding citizens can purchase
•five-day “cooling off” or waiting periods
•Legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.
•State, local, and tribal governments mandating specific storage methods of guns
•Repealing  the Tiahrt Amendment, a federal law that protects sensitive federal gun trace data from general access.
•Gun surrender programs

This international organization is highly political.  Some of the activities of the IACP include lobbying and testifying before Congress, doing research and policy development, setting professional standards and providing accreditation for US police departments.  The IACP promotes and writes guidelines for police technology, trains and educates law enforcement as well as managing and administering numerous programs for the federal government.

But Whetsel asserts that law enforcement is not about politics.

If that is so, why choose to forge ties with an incredibly political organization like the IACP?

John Whetsel at the 2011 IACP Conference

Sheriff Whetsel has a deep and longstanding and continuing relationship with the IACP. He attends IACP yearly conferences and is a member of the IACP Executive Committee and an active member of at least one IACP subcommittee.

And it is all very convenient to say it is not about politics when he is under pressure to defend his ideology that as the Sheriff absolutely does matter!  I have spent many hours at the state capitol and have witnessed the Sheriff’s armed lobbyists working diligently on highly political matters and the Sheriff.  As you can imagine the Sheriff has quite a lot of pull up there, you know, where they make laws that impact the free exercise of your rights.  And Whetsel, like the IACP,  does not have a reputation of  being very concerned with protecting any of those Ten Amendments.

Oklahomans Get New ‘OverSite’ to Stop Terrorism at Sporting Events, Political Rallies

Kaye Beach

Oct. 23, 2012

An article published yesterday by Oklahoma’s News 6 introduces us to a new technology system designed to keep us safe from terrorism as large events such as sporting events, the State Fair and even at political rallies. It’s called “OverSite”

Given the fact that the OverSite system incorporates facial recognition, that ought to be a real hit given that we are governed by an administration that frequently confuses legitimate First Amendment protected activities as possible indicators of terrorism.

Crew Demonstrates Technology Aimed To Pinpoint Terrorists At Large Events

 Oct 22, 2012  News On 6

A sniper with a high-powered rifle was on top of the Case Center at the University of Tulsa on Monday.

He was demonstrating technology that can pinpoint a shooter’s location in a large crowd almost immediately.

The technology comes from Oklahoma company OverSite, and it can protect people from all kinds of terrorist attacks at big events like football games, political rallies, NASCAR races and state fairs.

Read more

Interestingly the article provides this boast about the OverSite technology;

“If we’re looking for somebody in a crowd, we have our cameras working, we can find the bad guy, put facial recognition on him, he’s identified, even if beard, mustache, glasses, hat, still gonna catch him,” Eller said. link

Really?  Color me skeptical on that claim.

We need to know, are they using facial recognition on event goers in general or only on legitimate suspects with probable cause?

OverSite’s Trick Camera-SkyCam SpyCam

Closed Facility Aerial Cameras (surveillance) – Few people watching sporting events have failed to see a camera gliding on cables high above the event and crowd providing exciting and unique angles of play and reaction.  SkyCam works with OverSite©  to develop a two-camera capability that appears normal in all ways except that one camera does what SkyCam normally does while the other is individually controlled to watch the audience and scan for faces and/or activities that might be suspect to the well-being of the people and facility. Link

Here is a little more information on OverSite from their official website;

OverSite

Protecting America’s Infrastructure

The OverSite© technology was created by Triarii Scientific, LLC (TriSci) in response to operational recognition that government agencies ranging from Homeland Security to the Department of Defense have been so overwhelmed protecting our military, training local and national emergency management personnel, finding common communications grounds, etc., that it has not been able to embrace the growing needs of a broad group defined as “Soft Targets.”

OverSite© can provide a broad selection of sensor technologies, timely analysis processes and response mechanisms such as

- Video

- Audio

- Chem-bio

- Radioactive

- Nuclear

- Retina scan

        – Facial recognition

- Weather, etc.

- On-site analysis

- Response coordination

- Centralized communications

The technology was tested before in Oklahoma on April 6, 2011;

The OSU University Multispectral Laboratories recently demonstrated the unique capabilities of an integrated mobile security vehicle called OverSite during the simulation of a terror attack at Boone Pickens Stadium on April 6, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSa6F5JIagg

OverSite also had another test run prior to April 6, 2011 and at the Super Bowl XLV, no less.

Prior to the April 6 test, OverSite was also deployed at Super Bowl XLV in Dallas, Texas, where core system integration was tested and improved.

Since the April 6 test, the Over­Site Rapid Deployment Module, developed and integrated on behalf of the Oklahoma Nation­al Guard’s 63rd Civil Support Team, has been readied for deployment to Maryland

http://arrc.ou.edu/pdf/Sensors_Review.pdf

The federal Department of Homeland Security provided the funding for the April 6, 2011 demonstration of OverSite;

The simulation involved members of the Oklahoma Army National Guard Civil Support Team and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who with the help of OverSite responded to ten different threat scenarios.  The proof of concept demonstration was funded by the Department of Homeland Security.

https://news.okstate.edu/press-releases/849-osu-uml-showcases-mobile-security-vehicle-during-simulated-terror-attack-at-boone-pickens-stadium-

Triarii Scientific LLC – Earmarks Received 2010

2010 WMD Multi-Sensor Response and Infrastructure Project System
(Defense)
$1,600,000 Rep. Mary Fallin (-OK) Tulsa, Oklahoma

Industry of Fear

On  Sept. 19,  2011, ESPN Magazine expressed concern about the proliferation of counter terrorism and homeland security projects, including OverSite aimed at sporting events.  ESPN descibes

Industry of fear

. . .As the bullets sped toward their target, a monitor in an RV lit up. The screen flashed a triangular wedge of purple within an image of the stadium’s architectural plan. Todd Lamb, the lieutenant governor of Oklahoma, was (inside the RV, surveying this mobile command post.

. . . Lamb watched as a second purple sliver flashed, and the point where the two slices intersected began to glow. Security cameras swerved their view to the precise spot where the sniper had launched his shot, identifying the section, row and nearest seat to rushing guards. The whole thing took a little more than 15 seconds.

It was just a drill. The sniper was an FBI agent. The crowd noise screamed through loudspeakers. The bullets were pinpointed, quickly and accurately, by an OSU-developed system called OverSite along with software and sensors made by Raytheon, a defense technology and security company. Oklahoma State scientists incubated OverSite at the University Multispectral Laboratories (UML), an unconventional-warfare outfit the school launched in 2006.  After years of research and millions in taxpayer and private money, OSU tested the project in April, demonstrating its impressive results to Lamb, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and other policymakers. (Emphasis mine)

. . . At today’s games, endless lines await you. Guards search you and, if it’s your unlucky day, grope you. Cameras spy on you. Traffic barriers, pat-downs and metal detectors all carry the same message: You are safer because your surroundings are bear-trapped.

. . . For the companies developing terror-fighting tools, the money and sex appeal are in sci-fi-level detection.

.  . .Since 9/11, these kinds of devices have filled airports, convention halls and corporate headquarters, and now their manufacturers hungrily eye sports arenas. “We see it as an emerging business,” says Mark Desmarais, the program director for Clear View at Raytheon. Security companies know just how to capture that market: scare the hell out of anyone who runs a stadium.

Read more of Industry of Fear

Oklahomans should be asking their elected officials some questions about this system.

Namely;

Will data will be collected on ordinary event attendees and what is being done with that data?

Computer World: Undercover cops secretly use smartphones, face recognition to spy on crowds

Kaye Beach

September 18, 2012

Darla Storm from Computer World hits the story that had me on fire last night, regarding the incredible admission by Florida law enforcement that they are using facial recognition on what, by all accounts, was peaceful protestors at the RNC 2012;

A Florida intelligence officer admitted that undercover police were mingling with the public, using their smartphones to take videos and photos to spy on “suspicious” citizens. Then the undetected cops could determine a person’s name by checking the image against a facial recognition database. That is precisely what happened at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, according to a report from the National Journal.

Storm reports;

The live video from smartphones fed into the 2012 RNC surveillance system which also included 94 “high-definition cameras connected via a wireless network. 31 are fixed-point and about 63 surveillance cameras have pan/tilt/zoom capabilities that can be remotely aimed and zoomed in to 20x optical,” Networkworld reported. Each CCTV included a geographic tag. All video captured from those cameras will be stored for four years. It’s also becoming more common for networked computers with artificial intelligence, behavioral recognition software, to monitor the public for abnormal behavior. Tampa local web developer Jon Gales was the watcher watching the watchers as the system was installed. Gales then mapped the high definition CCTV cameras and created a mobile app called RNCCTV.

The FCC granted special permission to test the “interoperable network that used technology from several private companies” in Tampa. The National Journal reported that this surveillance network “was part of an effort to eventually develop a similar $7 billion National Public Safety Broadband Network for everyday use across the country.” This “next-generation broadband network” can send “highly secure, encrypted voice, video, and data communications, as well as an evidence-quality, permanent recording of all data collected.” The ACLU questioned if this new National Public Safety Broadband Network  is actually a “tool for a domestic secret police?”

Storm writes; ‘Admitting to infiltrating the protesters and planning to run a smartphone photo against facial recognition is a big deal. The FBI started rolling out a $1 billion face recognition project. . . ‘

She is right.   It is a big deal!

Darla Storm goes on to do her readers a great service by providing the larger context of the issue explaining how innocent Americans are being enrolled into  databases suitable for this type of use of facial recognition.

The EFF warned us that many Americans are in face recognition databases right now even if they don’t know it. If you’ve never done anything “wrong,” don’t attend protests, don’t have a passport, and can’t imagine being in a face recognition database, then stop to think about your driver’s license. If you have one, then yes your face is most likely in a database. Or it soon will be.

. . .There are 18 REAL ID benchmarks, some which you might be aware, but DMVs ask people not to smile and show their teeth for the “facial image capture.” That is because the image must be compatible with facial recognition software. These photos are fed into facial recognition databases used by law enforcement agencies.

I am thrilled that major media is hitting this issue in such a complete and informative way!

Please read the entire article.

A First! Florida Intelligence Officer Admits Investigating People in Public using Facial Recognition

Kaye Beach

September 17, 2012

This is the first public admission, to my knowledge, by law enforcement that confirms that they are doing exactly what myself and others have been warning about-using facial recognition on people in public.

Just a few days ago I updated readers on Oklahoma’s steady progress toward compliance with the federal Real ID Act in spite of the fact that implementation of that act is prohibited by law in our state.

The most egregious part of the Real ID Act is the capture and retention of our facial biometrics.   As I explained;

. . .facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice.  Why?  It is not the most accurate biometric for identification purposes but it does allow us to be identified in public without our knowledge or consent. link

An intelligence officer from the St. Petersburg Police Dept. just let the cat completely put of the bag!

Here is a snippet of an explosive article just reported by the ACLU :

Police in Tampa used smartphones and tablets to spy on protesters at the Republican National Convention, according to a report today from the National Journal.

Smartphones have proven to be an excellent tool for empowering individuals faced with sometimes unprofessional or abusive law enforcement officers, thanks to their built-in cameras and the constitutional right to record the police. But they also allow the police, according to the article, to blend in and transmit live video of protesters:

“The specialized applications gave law enforcement an advantage, allowing police officers to use everyday devices in a strategic and tactical way,” said Sgt. Dale Moushon, with the Intelligence Unit of the St. Petersburg Police Department….

While undercover police in most protests are often easily identified by their earpieces or microphones in their sleeves, Moushon told National Journal that using cell phones allowed police to remain completely undetected. “Everyone has a phone, so officers blend in easier,” he said….

He also pointed to an instance in which an officer was preparing to take a picture of a suspicious person so staff could use facial-recognition software to identify the person. Instead, the person happened to pull out a document that included his identifying information that was then captured in real-time by the officer’s live video feed. “That saved us a lot of time,” Moushon said.

We shouldn’t just accept that undercover police will infiltrate peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, photograph them, and use face recognition or other techniques to identity them. We must not come to accept the existence of a secret police in our society.

. . . Mike German, who infiltrated numerous criminal groups as an undercover FBI operative, notes that there should be reasonable suspicion—an articulable basis in fact—that a crime has or will be committed before the police begin an investigation

Read More

This is an outrage!  Lawful dissent is supposed to be afforded the highest degree of First Amendment protection.  If you value  your right to chastise your wayward government without being investigated, harassed and intimidated-you should be very concerned about this development.

This is not just a matter of the local police.  Remember, Florida received 50 million dollars from the federal government to set up this system. They are connected with a variety of other intelligence centers including the Florida Fusion Center directly linking with federal agencies.

CTIC maintains an operational relationship with other state law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI and DHS. The role of CTIC continues to evolve as their participation in the Florida Fusion Center grows. Recently, CTIC began providing information for Department of Homeland Security Information Reports that are disseminated not only to other law enforcement elements, but to members of the United States Intelligence Community as well. Link

The absolute necessity of my lawsuit could not be any more apparent than it is right now.  If you are having difficulty in understanding the implications of this admission I suggest you simply mentally replace the RNC protestor with any unpopular group member you like; perhaps yourself.

A Truly MADD Campaign to Completely Eliminate Drunk Driving

Kaye Beach

August 12, 2012

MADD wants to completely eliminate drunk driving.  That sounds great doesn’t it?  I have seen the destruction wrought by drunk drivers, have cried with families over precious lives lost and have upbraided irresponsible friends and family members that might consider getting behind the wheel when they are not sober.  I bet you have done most if these things too.

The way MADD and some of their friends want to go about eliminating drunk driving though,  is absolutely stunning.

I am told by respected legal experts that driving is a privilege, not a right. If this is an unchallengeable fact then American motorists should be prepared to pay dearly for that privilege.

About a year ago, I was discussing with my husband, a reliable and reasonable skeptic in all things, a number of ridiculously intrusive technologies that are making us all more like slaves than free people.  The example I hit on in this particular conversation was technology being used to analyze blood alcohol levels on the spot. This technology is frequently  mandated to be installed on the vehicles of those convicted of DUI offenses.  Its called ignition interlock devices or IIDs and it prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver tests positive for alcohol.  I had heard the news report that this technology was being considered for some kind of alcohol vending machine.  The customer would have to submit to a blood alcohol level test and if the level was not acceptable,  the machine would not allow the purchase to be made.  I asked my husband how long did he think it would be before some kind of alcohol sensing device would become standard issue on all vehicles.  He thought the idea was insane but said not sooner than fifty years from now.  I said ten.

Not a week later an article popped up in the news suggesting exactly such a plan.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) has been waging war against the practice of driving while drunk for some time.  The organization has taken flak for some of their methods in doing so and I am about to be added to their growing list of detractors.

As a side note, a few months ago I challenged myself to prove a claim I have openly made again and again: Take nearly any proposal, initiative or policy in some way related to policing that  runs roughshod over our natural and legal rights, especially if it includes new technology, and you will invariable find the International Association of Chiefs of Police to be intimately involved in that plan. (Here is just one example)

The idea of forcing all drivers to submit to some kind of testing of their body chemistry in order to be able to start their own car in the absence of any sort of evidence that the driver might be inebriated is just beyond the pale in my mind. But if there is anyone thinking about doing such a thing, it would be the IACP.

In my research I discovered that MADD was working very diligently on a technology called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety or DADSS as part of their campaign to completely eliminate drunk driving.

More than 7,000 road traffic deaths could be prevented every year if alcohol detection devices were used in all vehicles. link

2011

This technology is being tested under the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (or DADSS) program. Under a $10 million cooperative research effort, NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (or ACTS), just recently completed a “proof of concept phase” and is planning to move forward to further explore the feasibility of developing technologies that potentially could be mass produced.--Brian McLaughlin Senior Associate Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Here are some of the technologies that MADD was considering for Phase I of their endeavor;

So where is the IACP?  I had no doubt that these UN affiliated tech tyrants were doing their part to promote this repulsive plan.  I was right.

GHSA supports the MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving.

Now lets see how this IACP backed, Mad Campaign to Eliminate the Presumption of Innocence and Completely Control Drivers  has progressed since 2011.

From the National Motorists Association’s E-Newsletter #187: The Frog in the Pot

Buried within the approximately 600 pages of legislation enacted in the recent federal transportation law are two provisions to encourage the installation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) into more vehicles.

. . .The first offers grants to states that implement mandatory interlock requirements for all DUI offenders. The second provides continued funding for the Driver Alcohol Detection System and Safety (DADSS) program.

The effort centers on two possible technologies—one that reads BAC through the driver’s skin and another that uses cabin sensors to measure alcohol concentrations in the driver’s exhaled breath. Note that neither technology operates like current interlock devices, which have been deemed as unreliable, too intrusive and “not acceptable for widespread use among the driving public…”

It’s no secret that the true aim of DADSS is to install interlock devices in all new vehicles. Under this regime, all drivers—not just those with DUI convictions—would have to pass a BAC test every time they wanted to start their car.

Interlock proponents, such as MADD and certain policymakers, downplay their support for mandatory, universal interlock use because of the public backlash it would cause. So, they work toward incremental gains, such as passing more interlock legislation at the state level and funding initiatives like DADSS, which are couched as “research” programs.
But the efforts of advocates and policymakers may not be enough. According to this recent article, the key to universal acceptance (read mandatory in all new vehicles) of interlock devices may lie elsewhere:

While some believe that the universal implementation of alcohol interlocks should be mandated by government, there is an argument that suggests that the paradigm shift towards universal acceptance will be driven by private industry.

The writer explains that as interlocks have become widespread in commercial and fleet vehicles, especially overseas, the companies that have adopted them are perceived by the public as more safety conscious and better corporate citizens. The logic goes that if a taxi passenger in Belgium observes the driver using an interlock before starting the cab, the passenger will feel more secure and have a more positive view of interlocks.

The writer concludes that the private sector, not government, can do a better job of changing public perception of interlocks, especially in North America. If consumers become more aware of alcohol testing in commercial driving settings, and the assumed accompanying safety benefits, they will more accepting of interlocks in their personal vehicles and may actually want them.

It’s an interesting point. Private sector companies are masterful at influencing public opinion. It’s called marketing, and the techniques to do it effectively have been honed over 150 years. But even if UPS or Walmart did require interlocks in its fleet vehicles, would the company really want to call attention to that fact? Likely not, for fear of even suggesting that its drivers might drive while impaired.

So, even if the private sector begins to adopt interlock technology on a large scale, the spillover effect on consumers will likely be subtle and incremental (like slowly turning up the heat on a frog in a pot of water). Given the modus operandi of the interlock proponents, they will probably be very content with that.

Ignition interlocks represent a flawed solution to the drunk-driving problem. Nonetheless, their supporters will continue to push for universal acceptance through obvious, and not so obvious, means. Their success is not guaranteed. We encourage you to ask your policymakers to consider alternative, thoughtful approaches to this serious public safety issue. ♦

**You can find a collection of DADSS documents here