Oklahomans concerned about unmanned aircraft attend state Capitol rally

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

Drones, Phones and RFID; PRIVACY Unites Left and Right in Oklahoma

Kaye Beach

Jan. 10, 2013

Despite the uncomfortable level of political division among Americans, there are still issues that bring us together.

This legislative session the left and right are pulling together for privacy.  I couldn’t be more excited about this development becuase when the battle between our right to privacy and big corporation’s desire to make money intersect, our numbers are everything.

On Sat. Feb. 23rd at the Oklahoma State Capitol, we will have an opportunity to assemble and to demonstrate those numbers and make it very clear to our elected representatives that Oklahomans expect their privacy rights to be respected!

Speakers:

Amie Stepanovich, EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, on drones and privacy

Ryan Kiesel, Director, OK ACLU

Amanda Teegarden, Exec. Director od OK-SAFE  – Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise will be our Master of Ceremonies-

Here is a copy of this flyer for you to download and share!

International Day For Privacy Oklahoma City

If you would like to connect with others online who are excited about and are attending this event, check out Oklahomans For Fourth Amendment Rights at State Capitol on Facebook.

KFOR reports Feb. 5th, 2013:

Unlikely groups join forces to support privacy bills

The Oklahoma Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union along with Rep. Paul Wesselhoft held a joint press conference at the State Capitol Tuesday to explain the three bills aimed at protecting the privacy rights of Oklahomans.

House Bill 1559: The first bill would prohibit the Department of Public Safety from installing RFID radio frequency identification in a driver’s license.

House Bill 1557: Another bill would require law enforcement, absent an emergency, to first obtain a warrant before they access the geo-location data stored by a cell phone.

House Bill 1556: Finally, the third bill would limit the ability of law enforcement to use drones for surveillance without a warrant. 

Read more from KFOR

http://kfor.com/2013/02/05/unlikely-groups-join-forces-to-support-privacy-bills/

Dept. of Homeland Security Releases 2012 Privacy Report

Kaye Beach

September 28, 2012

Th report touts small improvements but bigger problems are revealed.

EPIC the Electronic Privacy Information Center reports;

The Department of Homeland Security has released its 2012 Privacy
Office Annual Report to Congress. The report details the expansion of
the National Counterterrorism Center’s five-year retention policy for
records on US Persons, the agency’s social media-monitoring initiatives,
and privacy training for fusion centers personnel; however, it does not
discuss several new DHS-funded initiatives, including the Future
Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, a “Minority-Report”-like
proposal for “pre-crime” detection. Also, according to the report the
Transportation Security Administration has still failed to adopt
privacy safeguards for airport body scanners.

Two DHS Privacy Office investigations led to the finding of agency non-
compliance. One of those investigations involved DHS’s use of social
media monitoring. EPIC filed a FOIA request on DHS’ social media
monitoring program in April 2011, then filed suit against DHS in
December 2011 in order to force the disclosure of documents related
to the monitoring program, which searched for both suspicious
“keywords” and dissent against government programs. Earlier in 2012,
Congress held an oversight hearing on the DHS social media monitoring
program, and cited the documents obtained by EPIC.

While the report acknowledges agency shortcomings, it also touts DHS
privacy and transparency training as well public engagement through
speaker series, a redesigned FOIA site, and quarterly privacy advocacy
meetings. Significantly, the report fails to address the lack of timely
notice-and-comment rulemakings, particularly the TSA’s lack of
rulemaking on body scanners, ordered by a court in 2011 in response to
a suit brought by EPIC.

The report discusses DHS’ increased use of Privacy Compliance Reviews
(PCRs), which cover programs including cybersecurity, information
sharing, and the use of social media. The DHS Privacy Office used these
reviews to fail eight of its own agency programs for their lack of
privacy compliance documentation. None of the eight programs are
identified in the report, nor are any details of their lack of privacy
compliance.

The DHS Chief Privacy Office must present annual reports to Congress
and is also required by law to ensure that new agency programs do not
diminish privacy in the US.

DHS Privacy Office:  2012  Annual Report to Congress (Sept. 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/092812-dhs-2012-privacy-report.html

EPIC:  DHS Privacy Office
http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html

EPIC:  Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST)
http://epic.org/privacy/fastproject/

EPIC:  Fusion Centers
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS (Social Media Monitoring)
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
http://epic.org/redirect/092812-epicvdhs-scannersuspend.html

 

Volume 19.18                                       September 28, 2012
———————————————————————–

Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.

http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.18.html

“Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.”
http://epic.org/donate

Naked Body Scanners-TSA Thinks We Should Be Seen But NOT heard!

Kaye Beach

July 28, 2012

I rarely ask people to sign petitions but I am making an exception for this one-please sign it!

An online petition posted in “We the People” demands that the White House “Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!”

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd

Remember the naked body scanners that were forced upon us by the Department of Homeland Security through the TSA a couple years ago?

The Naked Truth about TSA’s Naked Body Scanners

I remember it well because when I attempted to provide some “public input” about the devices, this is the reaction I got from a TSA agent-

TSA: “I thought maybe you might be representing a terrorist organization”

Well, EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has been fighting DHS and the TSA tooth and nail on this issue ever since.  They have made an impact.

On July 15, 2011, in EPIC v. DHS, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the Transportation Security Administration violated federal law when it refused to conduct a public rulemaking over the use of whole body imaging scanners to screen airport passengers.

(Read more about EPIC’s battle against the naked body scanners http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ )

In brief, the TSA has been found in federal court to be in violation of federal law because they did not include any opportunity for public input in the rulemaking process  regarding the use of these devices.

The court noted that “few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public,” and then ordered the Department of Homeland Security to fix the problem.

Here we are over a year later and DHS has done nothing!  They have yet to publish their rules and they have not begun to accept public comments nor made any announcement to indicate that they intend to do so.

Please sign the public petition to help push the TSA to do what it was ordered to do and what it should have done in the first place.  The public deserves to have their voice heard. 

We are down to the wire on this petition and lack only 9,000 signatures. Yes, you have to register to sign this and that is a pain but please take the time to register so that you can sign.  We have just 2 weeks left to get the remaining signatures needed!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-transportation-security-administration-follow-law/tffCTwDd

Please share this information with your friends on Facebook, twitter and through email.

Thanks!

DHS Disregards Public Comments, OKs ‘Global Entry’ Program

Kaye Beach

Feb 16, 2012

From EPIC the Electronic Privacy Information Center;

http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.03.html

The US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a law enforcement

agency of the Department of Homeland Security, has issued a final rule

approving Global Entry, a traveler-screening program, despite the

substantial privacy and security risks brought to the agency’s

attention. Under the Global Entry program, the CBP would collect

detailed personal information about airline passengers, including Social

Security numbers and biometric information such as iris scans, which

normally would be subject to Privacy Act safeguards.

Global Entry allows travelers to expedite their entry into the United

States at US partner airports. To participate in the program, travelers

must meet specific requirements and undergo pre-screening by the CBP,

which will use biometrics “to validate identity.” The CBP claims to have

legal authority to share travelers’ personal information with US law

enforcement agencies.

In public comments submitted to the agency in 2010, EPIC stressed that

the Global Entry program should “(1) provide individuals judicially

enforceable rights of access and correction; (2) create suitable

retention and disposal standards; (3) limit the distribution of

information to only those necessary for the screening process; (4) and

respect individuals’ rights to their information that is collected and

maintained by the agency.”  EPIC also noted that implementing the

Global Entry program without first conducting a Privacy Impact

Assessment would violate federal law. Finally, EPIC underscored the

importance of a Privacy Impact Assessment, “particularly in light of

the fiasco encountered under Clear, a similar registered traveler

program.”

The CPB’s final rulemaking, however, rejected EPIC’s recommendation

that the agency comply with the Privacy Act by limiting the

distribution of passenger information to those who need it for

screening purposes.

Fed. Digital System:  Final Rule on Global Entry Program (Feb. 6, 2012)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-06/pdf/2012-2470.pdf

US Customs and Border Protection:  Global Entry

http://globalentry.gov/

EPIC:  Comments on Establishment of Global Entry (Jan. 19, 2010)

http://epic.org/redirect/021612-epic-global-entry-2010.html

EPIC:  Global Entry

http://epic.org/privacy/global_entry/default.html

  http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.03.html

FAA to Assess Safety of Drones in US Airspace

Kaye Beach

Feb. 16, 2012

From EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center)

http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.03.html

FAA to Assess Safety of Drones in US Airspace

In a 2012 re-authorization bill for the Federal Aviation

Administration, Congress has required the agency to develop rules

governing the operation of unmanned drones within US national airspace.

The FAA’s official duties include requirements to promulgate

regulations that will ensure a safe and efficient US airspace.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the FAA to

conduct a public rulemaking that will assess public safety concerns,

licensing requirements, flight standards, and air traffic requirements.

The FAA Secretary will also undertake safety studies and develop

standards for “safe operation” of drones in US airspace. However, the

legislation does not consider it necessary to assess the privacy risks

of drone deployment.

Currently, anyone can apply for a license to operate a drone; the only

barriers to operation of unmanned aircraft are procedural requirements

that oblige drone operators to obtain operation certificates. The FAA

is required to take safety into account when promulgating regulations,

and, in some limited circumstances, also must consider the public

interest. Additionally, the FAA may, but need not, choose to consider

other elements, such as privacy, when implementing regulations.

Drones may be equipped with high-resolution cameras and camcorders,

license plate readers, and infrared sensors. Many drones possess

weapons capabilities. Currently, technology is being developed to

outfit drones with facial recognition technology. Domestic drone use

has increased dramatically in recent years; the cities of Miami, FL,

and Conroe, TX, outside of Houston, have acquired drones for use by law

enforcement. The US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection operates

10 Predator drones along US borders. In late 2011, the Bureau found

itself embroiled in controversy when it was reported that a drone was

loaned to North Dakota law enforcement to locate missing livestock.

EPIC:  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones

     http://epic.org/privacy/drones/

FAA:  2012 Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.658:

US Customs and Border Protection:  Unmanned Aircraft Systems Overview

     http://epic.org/redirect/0216120-uscbp-uav-overview.html

FAA:  Fact Sheet on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

     http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287

In a 2012 re-authorization bill for the Federal Aviation

Administration, Congress has required the agency to develop rules

governing the operation of unmanned drones within US national airspace.

The FAA’s official duties include requirements to promulgate

regulations that will ensure a safe and efficient US airspace.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the FAA to

conduct a public rulemaking that will assess public safety concerns,

licensing requirements, flight standards, and air traffic requirements.

The FAA Secretary will also undertake safety studies and develop

standards for “safe operation” of drones in US airspace. However, the

legislation does not consider it necessary to assess the privacy risks

of drone deployment.

Currently, anyone can apply for a license to operate a drone; the only

barriers to operation of unmanned aircraft are procedural requirements

that oblige drone operators to obtain operation certificates. The FAA

is required to take safety into account when promulgating regulations,

and, in some limited circumstances, also must consider the public

interest. Additionally, the FAA may, but need not, choose to consider

other elements, such as privacy, when implementing regulations.

Drones may be equipped with high-resolution cameras and camcorders,

license plate readers, and infrared sensors. Many drones possess

weapons capabilities. Currently, technology is being developed to

outfit drones with facial recognition technology. Domestic drone use

has increased dramatically in recent years; the cities of Miami, FL,

and Conroe, TX, outside of Houston, have acquired drones for use by law

enforcement. The US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection operates

10 Predator drones along US borders. In late 2011, the Bureau found

itself embroiled in controversy when it was reported that a drone was

loaned to North Dakota law enforcement to locate missing livestock.

EPIC:  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones

     http://epic.org/privacy/drones/

FAA:  2012 Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.658:

US Customs and Border Protection:  Unmanned Aircraft Systems Overview

     http://epic.org/redirect/0216120-uscbp-uav-overview.html

FAA:  Fact Sheet on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

     http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287

http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.03.html

DHS Hires General Dyanamics to Track Criticism and Dissent Online

Kaye Beach

Jan. 19, 2012

From an EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) Alert issued on Jan. 18, 2012;

EPIC: FOIA Docs Reveal DHS Monitoring of Online Political Dissent

As the result of EPIC v. DHS, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained nearly 300 pages of documents detailing a Department of Homeland Security social media surveillance program. The documents include contracts and statements of work with General Dynamics for 24/7/365 media and social network monitoring and periodic reports to DHS. As part of this contract, General Dynamics was tasked with monitoring media and social networking sites and providing immediate, daily, and weekly summaries to Homeland Security.

The FOIA documents reveal that Homeland Security is tracking criticism and dissent, stating that the contractor should monitor and summarize media stories that “reflect adversely” on DHS or the US government.  (Emphasis mine) DHS also says that the agency is attempting to “capture public reaction to major government proposals.”

No one is surprised. The information gathered here will be combined with all of the other data points on us that the government has access to in order to flesh out the threat assessment being performed, on some level, of all of us.

If you are saying nasty or unflattering things about government agencies or their policies, DHS wants to know so that they will be able to offer effective pressure or counter-propaganda to ideas that they find at odds with their aims.

EPIC continues;

The agency instructs the contractor to generate “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies:  positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.”

One tracking report held up by the DHS as a example of what a report should include – “Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish, MI” – summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters on popular social networking sites and news media comment boards.

Jan 13, 2012, the New York Times Reports;

Ginger McCall, director of the group’s [EPIC] Open Government Program, said it was appropriate for the department to use the Internet to search for emerging threats to public safety. But, she said, monitoring what people are saying about government policies went too far and could chill free speech.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s monitoring of political dissent has no legal basis and is contrary to core First Amendment principles,” she said.

Read more

From a Reuters exclusive ‘Homeland Security watches Twitter, social media’ Jan 11, 2012;

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news and gossip sites including the Huffington Post and Drudge Report, according to a government document.

. . .News and gossip sites on the monitoring list include popular destinations such as the Drudge Report, Huffington Post and “NY Times Lede Blog”, as well as more focused techie fare such as the Wired blogs “Threat Level” and “Danger Room.” Numerous blogs related to terrorism and security are also on the list.

Some of the sites on the list are potentially controversial. WikiLeaks is listed for monitoring, even though officials in some other government agencies were warned against using their official computers to access WikiLeaks material because much of it is still legally classified under U.S. government rules.

Another blog on the list, Cryptome, also periodically posts leaked documents and was one of the first websites to post information related to the Homeland Security monitoring program.

Also on the list are JihadWatch and Informed Comment, blogs that cover issues related to Islam through sharp political prisms, which have sometimes led critics to accuse the sites of political bias

Read more

Sources from EPIC;

EPIC:  Freedom of Information Act Request to DHS (April 12, 2011)

http://epic.org/redirect/011812-epicvdhs-social-foia.html

EPIC:  FOIA Documents Received from DHS (Jan. 12, 2012)

http://epic.org/redirect/011812-epicvdhs-social-foia-docs.html

NY Times:  ’Federal Security Program Monitored Public Opinion’

(Jan. 13, 2012)

ComputerWorld: ‘DHS Media Monitoring Could Chill Public Dissent, EPIC 

Warns’ (Jan. 16, 2012)

EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Media Monitoring)

http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/

DHS Ordered to Obtain Public Input on Naked Body Scanners, Refuses to Comply

Kaye Beach

Dec 23, 2011

The Department of Homeland Security was court ordered to gain public comment on the body scanners five months ago but to date, has not complied.  EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Foundation filed papers today, for the second time, seeking compliance from the DHS.

The DHS in this matter as well as others, seems to think that the agency is above the  laws of this country.

 

From the Electronic Privacy Coalition newsletter;

=======================================================================
[1] EPIC to Court: Force DHS Compliance with Public Comment Mandate
=======================================================================

EPIC has filed papers [on Dec 32, 2011] in federal court, seeking, for the second time this year, to enforce an order that requires the Department of Homeland
Security to begin a rule making on the controversial airport body
scanner program.

As a result of EPIC’s ongoing lawsuit against DHS,

• the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated federal law by installing body scanners as primary screening devices without first soliciting public comment.
• The Court also held that travelers had a right to opt-out of the airport body scanners.

More than two years ago EPIC and a coalition of civil liberties and
civil rights organizations petitioned Secretary of Homeland Security
Janet Napolitano to provide the public the opportunity to comment on
the program.

Through Freedom of Information Act litigation, EPIC had already obtained
hundreds of traveler complaints, including instances when travelers
said that TSA officials retaliated against them for choosing not to go
through the body scanners. Privacy and traveler advocates, health
and security experts, as well as airline pilots have also raised questions
about the screening procedures.

In July 2011, the Court ordered Homeland Security to “promptly” seek
public comment, but the agency has failed to respond. The Court’s
decision held that “the TSA has not justified its failure to initiate
notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT
scanners for primary screening.”

The appeals court’s decision states that “None of the exceptions urged
by the TSA justifies its failure to give notice of and receive comment
upon such a rule, which is legislative and not merely interpretive,
procedural, or a general statement of policy”, adding that “Few, if any
regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so manymembers of the public.”

In the motion to enforce, EPIC highlighted a recent report by
ProPublica, which described the DHS’s failure to take account of
radiation risks posed by body scanners. EPIC also noted the European
Commission’s recent decision to limit body scanner use within the EU.
The European Commission specifically banned the use of backscatter
x-ray devices in the European airports because of public health
concerns. Meanwhile, DHS is lobbying Congress to increase the use of
these devices in the United States.

EPIC:  Motion to Enforce Order on DHS (Dec. 23, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/122311-epicvdhs-motion-to-enforce.html

EPIC v. DHS:  Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks
http://epic.org/redirect/110911-epicvdhs-radiation.html

DC Circuit Court:  Opinion on EPIC v. DHS (July 15, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/071911_circuit_opinion_epicvdhs.html

ProPublica:  Series on Body Scanner Radiation
http://www.propublica.org/series/body-scanners

European Commission:  Press Release on EU Scanners (Nov. 14, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/112911-eu-scanner-release.html

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanners)
http://www.epic.org/redirect/031111EPICvDHS.html

Oklahoma Joint Committee Meeting on Healthcare Reform OK-SAFE Covers IT, Security and Privacy Issues

Kaye Beach

Nov 3, 2011

I attended the fourth Joint committee meeting on the effect of the federal healthcare reform laws on the state of Oklahoma.

Of course the highlight of the day, for me, was Amanda Teegarden’s presentation,  Healthcare Reform –
IT, Security & Privacy Issues/Concerns , on behalf of OK-SAFE.

Amanda presented a clear, lucid and powerful 45 minute presentation of the research she has spent months working on.

The presentation laid bare the ugly guts of the federal health care reform by describing it by its most basic components.

}Health Care Reform – is really about the use of IT to implement a nationwide health information network (NHIN), that will enable the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and that allows a growing global surveillance system to function.

And that;

}Electronic Health Records  - Reform is predicated on the creation of a standardized, interoperable electronic health record (EHR) on every single individual

This system is;

}Cradle-to-Grave – EHRs are used for data collection, aggregation and reporting and are intended to track a person from birth to death. (Longitudinal)

And;

}EHRs are universal and to be shared globally – not only within our government, but with foreign governments, universities, and other third parties.

}Requires Standardization and Interoperability – to establish uniformity and compatibility in data collection, regardless of jurisdiction

It gets really personal;

}EHRs include each person’s genetic information – and will be used for research purposes without the knowledge or consent of the person

Not to mention;

}Rights killing – Health care reform, and other data collection networks, do an “end-run” around search warrants and nullify our inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The presentation was split into six sections

Part I The Federal Data Hub/IT/Digital Everything

Part II Health Care Reform Defined/National Standards/Global Adoption

Part III Office of the National Coordinator/                                             Government+Industry +Academia = PPPs /One “Fused” System

Part IV State Initiatives

Part V Privacy & Security

Part VI Conclusion

Your personal, medical information flows from you to the health IT data collection system to the prying eyes of the federal government and research universities to the private sector and even foreign organizations.

Especially noteworthy were the points made about the inclusion of health information into law enforcement and intelligence data fusion.

Fusion Center: A collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorism activity. Source: Recommended Fusion Center Law Enforcement Intelligence Standards March 2005

Purpose – the elimination of any barrier to information exchange and sharing, regardless of jurisdiction.  Information is to be shared nationally and internationally.

As noted in the notes section of slide 31;

The Fusion Center Guidelines have now been updated to incorporate public health and health care community information.

This is possible due to policy changes allowing the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and because all state systems, including the health care system use common sets of standards and are interoperable.  Both the Fusion Centers and the Health Care System are NIEM Compliant – both are part of the Nationwide Health Information Network.

The result – one fused system.

Read more about the integration of “public health and healthcare communities into the homeland security intelligence and information sharing process.” here

and here- Health Security: Public Health and Medical Integration for Fusion Centers

In short, when it comes to privacy, there is none.

Slide 41 touches up our medical and genetic information used for research purposes.

There are a few other surprises and outrages contained in the presentation, so be sure to take a look at it.

Amanda concludes;

The American People Are NOT Slaves – Nor simply ‘carbon-based life forms’[as one federal document refers to us]

Government, via health care reform and other federal initiatives, is establishing a globally networked and integrated  intelligence enterprise – one that includes an extraordinary amount of extremely personal, detailed information about the America people.

Government, in it’s attempt to be an all-knowing technocratic “god” and to satisfy the IT industry’s insatiable, ever-changing appetite, is doing an end-run around human dignity and nullifying our God-given rights to life, liberty and property.

And gives the joint committee seven recommendations;

1.Repent – not kidding here

2.Do not establish a state-based Health Insurance exchange – it will be the same as the Federal government’s version

3.Allow people to escape HIT/HIE system without penalty;  do not penalize providers who opt not to adopt EHRs or participate in this system

4.Repeal state laws that prohibit individuals from seeking alternative health care services,  i.e. homeopathic medicines or non-traditional treatments

5.Terminate the Oklahoma Health Information Exchange Trust

6.Audit the Oklahoma Health Care Authority – expenses outweigh benefits

7.Adhere to the OK Constitution – work to restore liberty

View OK-SAFE’s presentation here

Go to  www.okhealthcare.info for information on this and past joint committee meetings.

Real-life “Minority Report” program gets a try-out

Kaye Beach

Oct. 8 2011

Read more about FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology), or as it was formerly known as, Project Hostile Intent. link

Declan McCullagh  reports;

Real-life “Minority Report” program gets a try-out
October 07, 2011

An internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security document indicates that a controversial program designed to predict whether a person will commit a crime is already being tested on some members of the public, CNET has learned.

If this sounds a bit like the Tom Cruise movie called “Minority Report,” or the CBS drama “Person of Interest,” it is. But where “Minority Report” author Philip K. Dick enlisted psychics to predict crimes, DHS is betting on algorithms: it’s building a “prototype screening facility” that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to “detect cues indicative of mal-intent.”

The latest developments, which reveal efforts to “collect, process, or retain information on” members of “the public,” came to light through an internal DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. DHS calls its “pre-crime” system Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.
“If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic,” says Ginger McCall, open government counsel at EPIC, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.
It’s unclear why the June 2010 DHS document (PDF) specified that information is currently collected or retained on members of “the public” as part of FAST, and a department representative declined to answer questions that CNET posed two days ago.
Elsewhere in the document, FAST program manager Robert Middleton Jr. refers to a “limited” initial trial using DHS employees as test subjects. Middleton says that FAST “sensors will non-intrusively collect video images, audio recordings, and psychophysiological measurements from the employees,” with a subgroup of employees singled out, with their permission, for more rigorous evaluation.

Peter Boogaard, the deputy press secretaryfor the Department of Homeland Security, provided a statement to CNET that said:
The department’s Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm. The FAST program is only in the preliminary stages of research and there are no plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this time.

FAST is designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterationsin the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns. Occupation and age are also considered. A government source told CNET that blink rate and pupil variation are measured too.
A field test of FAST has been conducted in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast. “It is not an airport, but it is a large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting,” DHS spokesman John Verrico told Nature.com in May.

Read more;  Declan McCullagh, CBS News, Real-life “Minority Report” program gets a try-out