Category Archives: Tyranny

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

Multiple States Get Pre-Crime Robot Cams to Detect Suspicious Behavior and Report to the Authorities

Kaye Beach

June 20, 2012

Throughout history there have been a couple of things that have limited tyrannical governments from implementing any truly pervasive system of surveillance and control upon the populace;  manpower and technology.

The Nazi’s took their  system of cataloging their population (which they used to efficiently slaughter millions of innocent people) to the limits of available manpower and technology.

Anyone who thinks this is a mere privacy issue needs to adjust their thinking cap.  When I contemplate the developing landscape of the public sphere I don’t lament my loss of privacy.  It is my loss of autonomy that I mourn.  Autonomy has been describes as “the desire to avoid being manipulated or dominated wholly by others”  Loss of autonomy means loss of control over one’s own life.

Now we have entered a time where the two greatest hurdles to effective control over the population has been all but eliminated.  As we have witnessed so far, the Bill of Rights, privacy laws or even simple ethics have provided little protection from the onward march of intrusive technology into our lives. We should expect that the forward march of technological tyranny will continue until it hits a wall.

Reported June 19, 2012 by GCN (Government Computer News)

Cities using AI for pre-crime monitoring of surveillance videos

In a real-life twist of the TV show “Person of Interest,” cities around the country are adopting technology to detect and prevent crime before it happens.

In the TV show, a mysterious billionaire and computer genius recruits a former CIA agent to prevent violent crimes in New York using a computer system he built to analyze video surveillance.

In reality, San Francisco; Houston; El Paso, Texas; Birmingham, Ala.; and reportedly the site of the World Trade Center in New York — among other entities — have purchased that kind of software to detect and report “suspicious or abnormal behavior.” The European Union and the Homeland Security Department are also developing their own pre-crime detection systems.

San Francisco’s Municipal Transit Authority (MUNI), the latest purchaser, is using AISight software to continuously monitor more than 150 “objects and activities” at 12 train stations via real-time video feeds.

The software uses artificial intelligence to learn which items and movements could indicate a potential threat. Video clips of suspicious activity and SMS text message alerts are automatically sent to MUNI employees upon detection.

The deal closed in early March, according to an unnamed source, reported Security Systems News. According a San Francisco Chronicle article earlier this month, the five-year deal is worth $3.6 million, although SSN reported it at just over $2 million. It includes support services as well as installation of the software. The system is intended to be forward-compatible with future surveillance technology.

Source: GCN (http://s.tt/1f6fg)

Source: GCN (http://s.tt/1f6fg)

Cops Want ARMED Drones!

Kaye Beach

May 23, 2012

Well, you’d have thought that they would wait until the things had been flying over us awhile before they would start talking about arming them but NO!  We have given them too many inches now and predictably, they are taking their miles.

Groups Concerned Over Arming Of Domestic Drones

May 23, 2012 1:18 PM

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft.

Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate.

The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras.

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.

“Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily.

Read more of this insanity HERE

IACP 2010: Airborne support for law enforcement that won’t break the bank

Vanguard Defense Industries’ ShadowHawk provides a serious strategic advantage for any agency that deploys it

“Yes, Virginia, We Can See — and Shoot — You From Up Here

Do you know who voted to release 30, 000 drones in US skies?

HR 658, the “Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act” was passed by both Houses and signed by the President on Feb 14, 2012

Oklahoma Senators
Yea   R Coburn, Thomas OK
Yea   R Inhofe, James “Jim” OK
Oklahoma House
Aye   R Sullivan, John OK 1st
No   D Boren, Dan OK 2nd
Aye   R Lucas, Frank OK 3rd
No Vote   R Cole, Tom OK 4th
Aye   R Lankford, James OK 5th

New Mexico: City Shuts Off Water, Sewer for Photo Ticket Nonpayment

Kaye Beach

April, 27, 2o12

Now how is this logical?  Answer:  It isn’t!  Since the circumstances neither warrant nor call for the cutting of vital services for non-payment of a traffic fine, it is bullying plain and simple.  I hope the people of Las Cruces gets a hold of their city government fast!

From TheNewspaper.com

New Mexico: City Shuts Off Water, Sewer for Photo Ticket Nonpayment

Las Cruces, New Mexico is threatening to cut off water, gas and sewer service over unpaid red light and speed camera tickets.

With more and more vehicle owners simply deciding refuse to pay red light camera and speed camera tickets, private, for-profit companies and municipalities are growing increasingly desperate. America’s second-largest city shut down its photo ticketing program last year largely because residents who could not afford the $500 citations did not pay them. On Monday, Las Cruces, New Mexico announced it would shut off the utilities of city residents who refused to pay Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company that owns and operates the cameras.

“The city is notifying offenders by mail that they have until the due date stated in the letter to pay the fines or make satisfactory payment arrangements,” a Las Cruces press release warned. “Failure to comply will result in termination of utilities services.”

Read more

Moo-Shine!

Kaye Beach
March 31, 2012
Many people of sound mind and sound body, I might add, swear by the health benefits of  cow juice in the raw.   The government says it is not good for us and wants to protect us from our selves.
I have, and I will wager you have too,  experienced the benefits of non conventional remedies when modern medicine has failed me too many times to feel comfortable in letting the  government be the final arbiters on what is and is not healthy for me.
Access to raw milk is under fire across the nation and the product is being unfairly demonized as unsafe.
This is a use it or lose it proposition for us.  Whether we choose to partake of raw milk or not, we should  vigorously defend our right to nourish our bodies as we see fit.
____________________________________________________________

Oklahoma Raw Milk Laws

In Oklahoma the retail sale of raw milk is not permitted.

The Oklahoma Milk and Milk Product s Act regulates the sale of Grade A milk and milk products.

As currently written the Oklahoma Milk and Milk Products Act O.S. 2011, Section 7-414, which relates to milk producers, exempts “incidental sales” of raw milk directly to consumers if sold at the farm where the milk is produced.  Such incidental sales of raw milk to consumers do not require a permit.

OK. Stat. T. 2 § 7-406 (Only Grade A pasteurized Milk and Grade A Raw Milk may be sold to final consumer, but only Grade A pasteurized milk may be sold through restaurants, grocery stores, etc.), OK Stat. T.2 § 7-414 (laws do not apply to incidental sales of raw milk direct to consumer from farm (including up to 100 gallons of raw goat milk/month); OK ADC 35:37-13-1 through 6

TITLE 2 AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 1 AGRICULTURAL CODE
ARTICLE 7. MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS AND MILK PRODUCTS PLANTS
D. OKLAHOMA MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS ACT

§ 2-7-406. Sale of Grade A milk and milk products.

A. Only Grade A pasteurized milk and milk products or Grade A raw milk shall be sold to the final consumer; provided, however:

1. Only Grade A pasteurized milk shall be sold through restaurants, soda fountains, grocery stores, or similar establishments, including school lunch rooms

§ 2-7-414. Construction of Act.

A. The provisions of the Oklahoma Milk and Milk Products Act shall not be construed to:

1. Include incidental sales of raw milk directly to consumers at the farm where the milk is produced;

Currently, raw milk is permitted to be sold at farmers markets through cow share lease agreements. Often lease holders pick up their milk at farmers markets.

  • Oklahoma Herd Share Laws/Title 4

How Cow or Goat-Share Programs Work

The consumer purchases a share in a milk cow, goat or dairy herd. The farmer and the consumer enter into a contract whereby the farmer feeds and boards the animal and provides the labor to milk the animal and store the consumer’s milk. Such contracts are legal and valid, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. The consumer does not buy milk from the farmer. Rather, they pay the farmer for the service of keeping the cow or goat and his labor for milking and processing the milk into value added products such as butter, cream, cheese, etc. However, they may directly purchase other products from the farm, such as eggs, vegetables and meat.

Cow and goat-share programs protect the farmer from liability since the animal belongs to the consumer and the consumer is drinking the milk from their own animal.

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/cow-shares.html

__________________________________________________

Mar. 16th, 201

RALEIGH — Picture a peaceful, Amish farmer, selling one of nature’s super foods — fresh, raw milk. Eager customers came from afar, even across state lines, to savor the taste and access a nutritious product. Who could oppose such harmonious commerce on Rainbow Acres Farm?

Government officials and their enforcers, that’s who. This Pennsylvania farmer has been the subject of a yearlong sting operation, which included stealth purchases and a 5 a.m. surprise inspection. In February, a federal judge imposed a permanent injunction that prohibited him from selling his milk across state lines. Given the strain of the confrontation, he has decided to call it quits entirely.

Could it get any worse? Actually, North Carolina has a far more draconian law, the topic of a House Committee hearing last week. In this state, raw milk cannot be sold for legal human consumption, period. Individuals are not even allowed to co-own a cow to gain access.

To defend this violation of freedom of choice, proponents claim to be protecting others from the purported dangers of raw milk. But this claim is laughable, since evidence to the contrary has been mounting for decades.

In fact, a myriad of developed nations allow raw milk sales without problems: Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Italy; the list goes on. Some of these nations are hardly known for their respect for liberty, and yet in this regard people living there are freer than North Carolinians.

Even Great Britain, that nation Americans fought against for independence, has legal, retail sales of raw milk. Supply in Europe is now so widespread — just part of everyday life — that many nations have vending machines with raw milk in supermarkets and shopping malls, and on street corners.

Back in the United States, a recent federal report (PDF) from the Centers for Disease Control did not find a single death from the product in a 14-year research period, while in 2007 alone, three individuals died on account of pasteurized milk. That is despite raw milk’s availability for legal, retail sale in nine states, including South Carolina; more than 9 million Americans consume it. The CDC acknowledged that pasteurization kills beneficial nutrients in milk, and they found state prohibition of raw milk gave no statistically significant advantage in terms of food-borne illness.

Read more

Supreme Court Rules Landowners May Challenge EPA on Weltlands Ruling

Kaye Beach

March 21, 2012

Remember this case?

In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a fully built-out portion of property along the shores of Priest Lake, in northern Idaho, with the ideas of building a modest 3-bedroom home. In 2007, they started work, but were forced to stop when the EPA claimed they were filling a wetland without a permit.

Today the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court opinion that prevented the Sackett’s from challenging the EPA in its order to stop preparing their land for building and to restore the property to its original condition.  The EPA claimed this power under the Clean Water Act and told the couple that the fine  for noncompliance could be as high as s 75,000 per day.

All the Sackett’s have won really is the right to take the EPA to court and challenge their claims but that is a start.

The Washington Post reports;

“There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for review–even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. read more

Reuters

Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and sharply curtails a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

Read more

 

Government Uses Anti-Terror Laws to Crush Dissent and Help the Too Big to Fail Businesses

Kaye Beach

 

Feb. 9, 2012

Very good article by George Washington at  Zero Hedge  on Feb. 9, 2012

For years, the government has been using anti-terror laws to crush dissent and to help the too big to fail businesses compete against smaller businesses (and see this).

This trend is getting worse by the day.

On January 31, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security’s Behavioral Science Division pointed to the following as indicators of potential terrorism (please note – as you review the list – that some indicators are conservative, some are liberal and some are bipartisan):

  • “Reverent of individual liberty”
  • “Anti-nuclear”
  • “Believe in conspiracy theories”
  • “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”
  • “Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
  • “Insert religion into the political sphere”
  • “Those who seek to politicize religion”
  • “Supported political movements for autonomy”
  • “Anti-abortion”
  • “Anti-Catholic”
  • “Anti-global”
  • “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”
  • “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
  • “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”

Given that most Americans fall into one or more of these categories, the powers-that-be can brand virtually anyone they dislike as being a terrorist.

ndeed,  judges and  prosecutors discuss conspiracies every day,  and federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and specifying punishment for people who commit conspiracies.  (But surely judges, prosecutors and legislators are not terrorists.)

And Public Intelligence notes:

A flyer from a series created by the FBI and Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting states that espousing conspiracy theories or anti-US rhetoric should be considered a potential indicator of terrorist activity. The document, part of a collection published yesterday by Public Intelligence, indicates that individuals who discuss “conspiracy theories about Westerners” or display “fury at the West for reasons ranging from personal problems to global policies of the U.S.” are to be considered as potentially engaging in terrorist activity. For an example of the kinds of conspiracy theories that are to be considered suspicious, the flyer specifically lists the belief that the “CIA arranged for 9/11 to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands.”

I have verified the authenticity of the flyer: here it is posted on the Columbus Police Department’s website. (Take screenshots; it might soon be moved from the public section of the website.)

Read more

Secretary Napolitano Meets with State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement on Countering Violent Extremism

Kaye Beach

Jan 18, 2011

Get ready for more top down imposition and pressure on our police forces in order to “prevent violent extremism”

As near as I can tell, an “extremist,” in the eyes of this government,  is anyone that takes issue with its policies, actions or aims which means that there is a whole lot of those extremists and more of them are being minted daily.

The best way to prevent “violent extremism” is to ensure that the ordinary, common garden variety  “extremists” are thoroughly monitored and intimidated. In this way they can be completely disabused of their unacceptable ideas, thoughts or philosophies.   This, my friends,  means nothing good for our rights.  Freedom of speech and association, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances, the right to freely travel and more will keep taking the hits under the guise of keeping us safe.

Congress has a 9% approval rating. 

Only Fidel Castro is more unpopular (at least by this chart) than Congress.  Don’t you think it is odd that in the face of this dismal fact they keep on plowing ahead with travesties like the NDAA?  Isn’t it weird that they keep forcing upon us laws that the majority of us are appalled at?  It’s not so weird really.  They can’t possibly hope to win us over with what they are doing.  I think they are banking on controlling us instead.  Mark my words.  Before long it will be a rare American that will be able to avoid the ugly side of Big Momma Gov. hell bent on rooting out thought criminals.

Happy Hunting Homeland Security and good luck in Oklahoma!  Even our cops will look like extremists to you.

 

Secretary Napolitano Meets with State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement on Countering Violent Extremism

Release Date: January 18, 2012

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today joined Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan at the White House to meet with senior state, local and tribal law enforcement officials to discuss the Obama administration’s Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States—released in December—and engage them on the critical task of preventing violent extremism in their communities. Attendees included sheriffs and chiefs of police from across the country, including representatives from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Sheriffs’ Association, National Native American Law Enforcement Association, Governors Homeland Security Advisors Council, and Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council.

“Engaging local communities is critical to our nation’s effort to counter violent extremism and violent crime, and this meeting brings together many of our partners,” said Secretary Napolitano. “The Department of Homeland Security will continue to collaborate with our state and local law enforcement partners and engage the public in our efforts to combat violent extremism, while protecting civil rights and civil liberties.”

During the meeting, Secretary Napolitano underscored DHS’ efforts to support local communities by enhancing existing partnerships to focus on information-driven community-based solutions, building government and law enforcement expertise, supporting community oriented policing practices and expanding grant prioritization to counter violent extremism and violent crime regardless of ideology. In addition, DHS is continuing to implement recommendations from the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, such as developing a curriculum for state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement focused on a community-oriented policing approach to countering violent extremism and violent crime. DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties also works to educate communities and state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement on cultural awareness across the nation.

Secretary Napolitano also reiterated President Obama’s call for Congress to take action to prevent layoffs of law enforcement and first responders, and keep our communities safe by passing legislation such as the American Jobs Act. The legislation would provide $5 billion in assistance to states and local communities to create or save thousands of law enforcement and first responder jobs across the country.

Over the past year, DHS has worked with the Department of Justice on the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (NSI)—an administration effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to terrorism, crime and other threats; standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed; and ensure the sharing of those reports with the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces for further investigation.

DHS has also collaborated with federal, state, local, and private sector partners, and the general public, to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign. Originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and now licensed to DHS for a nationwide campaign, the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign is a simple and effective program to engage the public to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.

DHS will continue to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign nationally to ensure America’s businesses, communities, and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe.

For more information, visit www.dhs.gov/cve.

Pre-Crime Detection Scanners Coming Soon…

Kaye Beach

Dec 7, 2011

Barring legal hurdles and adverse public response, this is what we have to look forward to.  I have little faith that legal hurdles will trip this program up.  It is up to us to provide a public response that will stop DHS and its spy machines that scrutinize us with cameras, sniff us, detect our heart rate, respiration and gender, and decide whether or not we are naughty or nice by algorithm.

From the SEO Law Firm Legal News Center;

Pre-Crime Detection Scanners Heighten Legal and Scientific Debates

By Krystina Steffen, staff writer – November 17, 2011

The Department of Homeland Security has already successfully tested a pre-crime detection scanner on humans. Barring the legal hurdles and public response once this is officially unveiled, these scanners will gauge facial expressions and other biometric data to detect if someone is giving cues for mal-intent. [1] The DHS’ algorithm also includes scanning a person’s gender, ethnicity, breathing, and heart rate in a non-intrusive way via video and audio scanning. The DHS would like to utilize this technology not only at airports, but in bigger settings such as sporting events, border checkpoints, and more.

As society gets acclimated to full body scanners at many U.S. airports, it begs the question of having scanning in more facets of our life. Remote sensors could become a reality to track our eye movement, thermal cameras could target our respiration, and high-resolution videos could detect a whisper or subtle movements of the eyebrow. Pheromone detection is also on the table. [2]

Read more

The Database: Why Criminal Governments Spy On Citizens

The Database: Why Criminal Governments Spy On Citizens

By Brandon Smith

Posted Oct 6, 2011

At the very foundation of perhaps every modern day conflict between the expansive powers of unchecked bureaucracy and the dwindling freedoms of the ordinary citizen dwells the vital issue of privacy. Privacy and the right to hold personal and political views without being singled out and scrutinized by government is absolutely essential to any society which dares to deem itself “fair and just”. Ultimately, without the presence of these two liberties, and without people to defend them, a nation is ill equipped to circumvent the growth of tyranny, and anyone claiming to be “free” in the midst of such a culture is living a delusion of the highest order.

Often, social engineers attempt to direct debate over the issue of privacy towards rationalizations of relative morality, or artificially delineated priorities. We quibble over the level of government intrusion that should be tolerated for the sake of the “greater good”. We struggle with questions of bureaucratic reach, wondering at which point we should consider government a threat to the safety and liberty of the people, rather than a servant and protector. The dialogue always turns towards “how much” room government should be given to lumber about our personal lives. Rarely do we actually confront the idea that, perhaps, government should not be welcomed at all into such places.

Really, what makes a governmental entity so special that it should be allowed free access to the activities of the average citizen? Why should ANY intrusion of privacy be tolerated, let alone the kind that goes on today? Our most important concern is not how much leeway our government should be given to snoop into our pocket books, our medical records, our education, our political leanings, or our child rearing philosophies, but rather, whether or not they fulfill any purpose whatsoever through these actions. Is the government, as it exists now, even necessary, or does it cause only harm?

Under tyranny, privacy is usually the first right to be trampled in the name of public safety. Its destruction is incremental and its loss a victim of attrition in the wake of more immediate crisis. Disturbingly, many people become so fixated upon the threats of the moment that they lose complete track of the long term derailment of their own free will in progress. Government, no matter how corrupt, is seen as an inevitability. Conditioned by fear, desperation, insecurity, and sometimes greed, we begin to forget what it was like to live without prying eyes constantly over our shoulders. In the past decade alone, Americans have witnessed a substantial invasion of our individual privacy as well as a destabilization of the legal protections once designed to maintain it. Not just America, but most of the modern world has undergone a quiet program of surveillance and citizen cataloging that goes far beyond any sincere desire for “safety” and into the realm of technocratic domination.

Spying on U.S. citizens by a host of alphabet agencies has been going on for decades, but the actual cataloging of the public by government became most direct during WWII, which saw the use of the Census Bureau as a tool for collecting the names and residencies of Japanese Americans, as well as the highly illegal and unconstitutional internment of these innocents and their families:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=confirmed-the-us-census-b

The creation of lists designed to brand dissenters, activists, and even average passive persons has only become more prevalent since. From the McCarthy witch hunts (based on some real threats but skewed by McCarthy’s ignorance of the bigger picture), to the Cointelpro antics of the Vietnam era, government spying and cataloging has been a way of life and an expected prerequisite part of the relationship between citizenry and leadership. Though consistently opposed, surveillance has become ingrained into our social framework.

Read more