Tag Archives: suspicious activity reports

Photography is Suspicious Activity

Kaye Beach
Jan 20, 2012

The police tell a photographer;

“You know, I’ll just submit your name to TLO (the Terrorism Liaison Officer program). Every time your driver’s license gets scanned, every time you take a plane, any time you go on any type of public transit system where they look at your identification, you’re going to be stopped. You will be detained. You’ll be searched. You will be on the FBI’s hit list.”

If we allow the national security state to continue to grow, this threat, spoken or unspoken, will come to determine many of our actions in life.

A snapshot of our times

By , Published: January 18

LOS ANGELESShawn Nee, 35, works in television but hopes to publish a book of photographs. Shane Quentin, 31, repairs bicycles but enjoys photographing industrial scenes at night. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department probably wishes that both would find other hobbies. Herewith a story of today’s inevitable friction between people exercising, and others protecting, freedom.

When the Los Angeles Police Department developed a Suspicious Activity Report program, the federal government encouraged local law enforcement agencies to adopt its guidelines for gathering information “that could indicate activity or intentions related to” terrorism. From the fact that terrorists might take pictures of potential infrastructure targets (“pre-operational surveillance”), it is a short slide down a slippery slope to the judgment that photography is a potential indicator of terrorism and hence photographers are suspect when taking pictures “with no apparent aesthetic value” (words from the suspicious-activity guidelines).

One reason law enforcement is such a demanding, and admirable, profession is that it requires constant exercises of good judgment in the application of general rules to ambiguous situations. Such judgment is not evenly distributed among America’s 800,000 law enforcement officials and was lacking among the sheriff’s deputies who saw Nee photographing controversial new subway turnstiles. (Subway officials, sadder but wiser about our fallen world, installed turnstiles after operating largely on an honor system regarding ticket purchases.) Deputies detained and searched Nee, asking if he was planning to sell the photos to al-Qaeda. Nee was wearing, in plain view, a device police sometimes use to make video and audio records of interactions with people, and when he told a deputy he was going to exercise his right to remain silent, the deputy said:

“You know, I’ll just submit your name to TLO (the Terrorism Liaison Officer program). Every time your driver’s license gets scanned, every time you take a plane, any time you go on any type of public transit system where they look at your identification, you’re going to be stopped. You will be detained. You’ll be searched. You will be on the FBI’s hit list.”

Read more

 

FBI to launch nationwide facial recognition service

Kaye Beach

Oct 9, 2011

This is just the tip of the iceberg….

From NextGov.com

By Aliya Sternstein 10/07/2011

The FBI by mid-January will activate a nationwide facial recognition service in select states that will allow local police to identify unknown subjects in photos, bureau officials told Nextgov.

The federal government is embarking on a multiyear, $1 billion dollar overhaul of the FBI’s existing fingerprint database to more quickly and accurately identify suspects, partly through applying other biometric markers, such as iris scans and voice recordings.

Often law enforcement authorities will “have a photo of a person and for whatever reason they just don’t know who it is [but they know] this is clearly the missing link to our case,” said Nick Megna, a unit chief at the FBI’s criminal justice information services division. The new facial recognition service can help provide that missing link by retrieving a list of mug shots ranked in order of similarity to the features of the subject in the photo.

Read more

Looking Back-A Refresher

A compulsory global biometric identification system for law abiding people is not, will never be justifiable.

Our government seems to have backed off on their denials that Real ID and similar legislation is in fact, a national ID.  But what you should know is that any national ID system is also international.  It’s all about sharing these days and that means with our “international Partners’ too

The following is just a mere sampling of news articles, government documents and sources of information that clearly show the absolute intention to use our state driver’s licenses and the biometric data collected for them, as a an instrument of global identification,  tracking and control.

2003

Viisage receives $12 million award from Oklahoma

FEBRUARY 19, 2003–Viisage Technology Inc. (Littleton, MA; http://www.viisage.com) has been chosen to fulfill the new digital driver’s license contract by the state of Oklahoma’s Department of Public Safety. The contract will include the design, development, and implementation of the statewide secure license production program. The total value of this new multiyear contract is approximately $12 million. Oklahoma is the 19th state to utilize Viisage in the production of identity verification documents and the third state in recent months to give Viisage a major driver’s license contract. The three latest contracts total approximately $35 million. The solution will integrate multiple, advanced identification security features, including FaceEXPLORER facial-recognition software and SAGEM Morpho finger imaging technology

http://tinyurl.com/ViisageOKla

Oklahoma has collected Face, Fingerprint scans and signature biometrics since 2004

Biometric Drivers Licenses Make Debut in Oklahoma

April 20, 2004

SAGEM Morpho, Inc. a proven provider of mission-critical biometric systems and services, announced the successful deployment of biometric technology solutions for the Oklahoma Department Public Safety (DPS) in conjunction with Viisage, a provider of advanced technology identity solutions. SAGEM Morpho will combine its finger imaging recognition technology with Viisage’s facial recognition technology to create accurate biometric records of the state’s approximately four million licensed drivers.  http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/apr/1033349.htm

NLETS the International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing Network, links together every state, local, and federal and International law enforcement (INTERPOL), justice and public safety agency for the purpose of exchanging critical information http://www.nlets.org


2004

The NLETS Candle Project In a related NIJ-funded project, NLETS is working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to standardize critical information from departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) around the country.

The project, entitled Collaboration between AAMVA and NLETS for Driver’s License Exchange (Candle), seeks to develop and deploy standards and solutions to exchange standardized driver and motor vehicle records over the NLETS network.

Candle builds upon the existing NLETS infrastructure, as well as the Web services advancements made in the Aisle project, and seeks to deploy an international capability for driver and motor vehicle exchanges based upon XML standards, greatly increasing the efficiency. . .

The Candle project provides a first step in transitioning AAMVA to a new generation of technology. This effort will result in consolidating interstate DMV transactions into a single standardized service for both the DMV and law enforcement communities.

From The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 6, June 2004. 
Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.

AAMVA was directly involved in the crafting of the Real ID Act 2005. In the DHS-published final rules document for the Real ID Act, the AAMVA was referred to as its “hub” and “backbone.”’ UPDATE: Real ID

2006

Source-THE NEW PARADIGM—MERGING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGIES Secure Cities 2006 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21970726/IACP-Intelligence-Led-Policing-2006-New-Paradigm

2007

SB 474-Oklahoma prohibited participation in the REAL ID in 2007. (So far, 25 states either by law or resolution have done the same) Although Oklahoma lags behind other states in full implementation of Real ID, there is no reason to believe Oklahoma will not eventually come into full compliance with the act.

2007

FBI Seeks to Build Massive Identification System

 The Federal Bureau of Investigation awarded a $1B, 10-year contract to design, develop, document, integrate, test, and deploy the Next Generation Identification (NGI) System to Lockheed Martin. This new database will expand on the current fingerprint-based system; the FBI will increase its collection and storage not only fingerprints but also iris scans, palm prints and facial images.

The FBI is also in talks with the U.K. police to establish a unified database for the tracking of this biometric information.

The UK has said that the new NGI System could easily be integrated with the U.K.’s current Ident1 database

http://epic.org/privacy/biometrics/

2007 News article;

–The Homeland Security Department’s plans for sharing biometric information internationally designed to counter the threat of terrorism — face resistance from domestic privacy advocates and European governments that follow stricter privacy laws that protect personal data.

Senior DHS officials speaking at a recent conference on biometrics and privacy policy outlined the ethical imperative for technical standards that would foster unrestricted biometric data sharing.

Robert Mocny, acting program manager for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, sketched the outline of a Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with their personal data held by governments and corporations.

“information sharing is appropriate around the world,” and DHS plans to create a “Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations”

—-Robert Mocny

Read more… http://www.gcn.com/print/26_03/43061-1.html

2007 The National Information Sharing Initiative ;

The Bush Administration’s 2007 National Information Sharing Strategy established state and local fusion centers as the federal government’s primary mechanism for collecting and disseminating domestic intelligence. 

The federal government has fueled the growth of these state and local intelligence centers, and has organized them into a national network that feeds information gathered at the local level into the Director of National Intelligence’s Information Sharing Environment (ISE), where it becomes accessible to all participating law enforcement agencies as well as the larger intelligence community. Link

The Biometric Interoperability Program promotes biometric-based information sharing between the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other federal and international biometric systems.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/FBI_CJIS_0808_One%20Pager_8%205x11_BIOMETRICS_v3.pdf

2008 -Fusion Centers Tap Into Personal Databases

Many fusion centers have not shared with the public what databases they use. This was demonstrated in an April 2, 2008 article in The Washington Post titled “Centers Tap into Personal Databases.” It revealed that several fusion centers in the northeast have access to millions of people’s information including unlisted cell phone numbers, insurance claims, driver’s license photographs

–Rebecca Andino, PMP, CIPP/G, president and founder of Highlight Technologies

______________________________

Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. (Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario) and Alex Stoianov, Ph.D. point out that in the not too distant future a person’s unique biometric template could be used as an identifying key to link together all the different databases that contain entries for that person. It would enable someone to build up a complete picture of that individual without their knowledge or consent.

“When the use of biometrics grows, an ordinary person will be enrolled in various biometrically controlled databases, such as travel documents, driver licenses, health care, access control, banking, shopping, etc. Current biometric systems can use the same biometric template for all of them. The template becomes the ultimate unique identifier of the person. This is where biometric data mining comes into effect: the different databases, even if some of them are anonymous, may be linked together to create comprehensive personal profiles for all the users. To do this, no fresh biometric sample is even required. The linking of the databases can be done offline using template-to-template matching, in a very efficient one-to-many mode. The privacy implications explode at this point.”

 

2008

DHS Human Factors Division:  Social-Behavioral Threat Analysis

Mission:

To apply the social, behavioral and physical sciences to improve identification, analysis, and understanding of the threats posed by individuals, groups, and radical movements; to support community preparedness, response, and recovery to catastrophic events; and to advance national security by integrating the human element into homeland security science & technology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037194/Behave-Fast-Tsadhs

MONITORING EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR

In April 2008, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times both reported on a new Los Angeles Police Department order that compels LAPD officers to begin reporting “suspicious behaviors” in addition to their other duties—creating a stream of “intelligence” about a host of everyday activities that, according to documents, will be fed to the local fusion center.


LAPD Special Order #11, dated March 5, 2008, states that it is the policy of the LAPD to “gather, record, and analyze information of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism,” and includes a list of 65 behaviors LAPD officers “shall” report. The list includes such innocuous, clearly subjective, and First Amendment protected activities as:

- taking measurements

- using binoculars

- taking pictures or video footage “with no apparent esthetic value”

- abandoning vehicle

- drawing diagrams

- taking notes

- espousing extremist views

LAPD’s Program is now the Nationwide SAR Initiative (NSI)

Nationwide SAR Initiative Vision: By 2014, every Federal, State, local, tribal and law enforcement entity operating domestically will participate in a standardized integrated approach to gather, document, process, analyze, and share terrorism-related suspicious activity

28 C.F.R. part 23

28 CRF Part 23 is a US Federal Code that basically says you cannot be entered into a criminal data system unless you are a legitimate suspect.  Not so anymore.

The April 2003 GIWG meeting minutes record approval for the weakening of 28 CFR 23 and note that GIWG member Daniel J. Oates indicated he was excited about the proposed changes to 28 CFR Part 23, specifically the area dealing with changing the reasonable suspicion collection criteria to reasonable indication. If the rule is passed, officers on the street can gather small bits of information that can be entered into an intelligence database. Under the old standard, this could not be done. Read more

28 C.F.R. Part 23 was promulgated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3789(g)(c) which requires state and local law enforcement agencies receiving federal funding  to

“…collect, maintain, and disseminate criminal intelligence  information in conformance with policy standards which are  prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs and which are written to  assure that the funding and operation of these systems further the purpose of this chapter and to assure that some systems are not  utilized in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.

 

Why did we need 28 CFR 23?dep

The Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in 1993 explained;

“Because criminal intelligence information is both conjectural and subjective in nature, may be widely disseminated through the interagency exchange of information and cannot be accessed by criminal suspects to verify that the information is accurate and complete, the protections and limitations set forth in the regulation are necessary to protect the privacy interests of the subjects and potential suspects of a criminal intelligence system.”

They have decided that now-we are no longer due these legal protections.

It actually took them until 2008 before the desired weakening of federal code was officially achieved

In July  2008, the Department of Justice proposed a rule to amend the primary federal regulation governing criminal intelligence databases (28 CFR Part 23) to expand both what information can be collected by law enforcement agencies, and with whom it may be shared.  (see 73 Fed. Reg. 44673) read more

. . .the Department of Justice has relaxed restrictions on when the Federal Bureau of Investigation can begin investigations, and worked to increase intelligence-sharing among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies as well as with federal (intelligence) agencies in ways that will compromise civil liberties (through a change in federal regulation 28 C.F.R. part 23).

Read more FBI Guidelines 28 C.F.R. part 23

2008

Comments on proposed amendments to 28 Code of Federal

Regulations Part 23 –

. . .intelligence fusion centers universally claimed  compliance with 28 CFR Part 23 as the appropriate regulation governing the conduct of  their intelligence collection efforts.

The Congressional Research Service reported that “many state and local law enforcement and fusion center staff” expressed concerns regarding sharing law enforcement sensitive information with non-law enforcement personnel including analysts working under contract to the Department of Homeland Security.10

In January 2008 the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) published “functional standards” for suspicious activity reports (SAR) produced by state and local law enforcement.

The DNI standards actually encourage state and local law enforcement to report non-criminal suspicious activities to the intelligence community by defining the scope of suspicious activity as “observed behavior that may be indicative of intelligence gathering or pre-operational planning related to terrorism, criminal, or other illicit intention.”

READ MORE

Oklahoma Information Fusion Center Privacy Policy;

The OIFC may retain information that is based on mere suspicion, such as tips and leads. Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) information will be retained in the future once the SAR project is finalized and guidelines are issued to Fusion Centers.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732421/Oklahoma-Information-Fusion-center-Privacy-Policy

**Please Note-This is NOT a genuine OIFC Notice. If the OIFC files a suspicious activity report on you-You would never know it.

Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative IJIS (Fusion Centers)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41496999/Nationwide-Suspicious-Activity-Reporting-Initiative-IJIS-Fusion-Centers

NSI

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21970535/Nationwide-SAR-suspicious-activity-reports-Initiative

SAR and Amtrak

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44933611/Nationwide-SAR-Initiative-Partnership-With-Amtrak

Oct. 20, 2008

International Police Organization Proposes Worldwide Facial Recognition System.

An Interpol face-recognition database would permit Interpol member nations to search records containing travelers’ personal biometric information, and could be used in conjunction with travel watch lists.

“There will be such a large role in the future for fingerprints and facial recognition”

– Mark Branchflower, head of Interpol’s fingerprint unit

2009

BIOMETRICS TASK FORCE

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26083198/Army-War-College-Bio-Metrics-Task-Force-April-15-2009

Across All Government Biometric Information Coordination

Collaboration Data Sharing Biometrics Mission Sets Population Census Targeting / Tracking Base & Checkpoint Security Police, Military, & Govt. Official Vetting Border Control / Ports of Entry (POEs) Detainee Operations

2008-2009

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 24, signed in 2008 and revalidated in 2009 by the current administration, mandates that interoperability with respect to biometrics spans the military, civil, and criminal arenas.

http://www.biometrics.dod.mil/Newsletter/issues/2009/Sep/V5issue3.html

FBI delves into DMV photos in search for fugitives

October 12, 2009

RALEIGH, N.C. — In its search for fugitives, the FBI has begun using facial-recognition technology on millions of motorists, comparing driver’s license photos with pictures of convicts in a high-tech analysis of chin widths and nose sizes.

The project in North Carolina has already helped nab at least one suspect. Agents are eager to look for more criminals and possibly to expand the effort nationwide. But privacy advocates worry that the method allows authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.

http://www.publicintelligence.info/fbi-delves-into-dmv-photos-in-search-for-fugitives/

October 13, 2009

According to the AP’s report, the FBI has assembled a panel of experts tasked with standardizing drivers license photos and push use of biometric-mining nationwide. But the value of mining DMV records with the biometric software is limited for one simple reason, expressed perfectly by Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “We don’t have good photos of terrorists,” he explains.

 “Most of the facial-recognition systems today are built on state DMV records because that’s where the good photos are

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/fbi-mining-dmv-photos-for-fugitives

Fusion Centers “fuse” information shared between Military and Civilian forces, Public and Private Institutions, State Federal and International Governments.

September 15, 2009

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Monday that it was giving state and local fusion centers access to the classified military intelligence in Department of Defense (DOD) databases. The federal government has facilitated the growth of a network of fusion centers since 9/11 to expand information collection and sharing practices among law enforcement agencies, the private sector and the intelligence community.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/fusion-centers-obtain-access-classified-military-intelligen

2009 Biometric Consortium Conference

Biometric Enabled Intelligence has been a powerful tool in the law enforcement community, linking individuals to events, evidence and ultimately to solved crimes. That same concept can make biometrics a so what enabler of military operations, physical security, logical security, and forensic analysis by linking people, places, activities and events.

As we learn to link biometrics to biographic, geospatial, social networks and other forms of data, we can develop patterns of activities for both individuals and organizations

Mrs. Del Greco initiated two high profile, multi-million dollar  development efforts: “Next Generation Identification” (NGI), which will expand biometric and criminal history capabilities; and “Biometric Interoperability”, which will ensure information sharing between the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and other key biometric-based systems within the Federal Government and international partners

http://biometrics.org/bc2009/bios/delgreco_k.pdf

 

 Tag!  You’re It!

“Face recognition already exists through photo IDs, which can be used of individuals that are not enrolled”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44675297/Sensor-Nets-the-Business-of-Surveillance

2010

Stripping Away Anonymity-The Secretary of Defense Funding Doc

“Biometrics technologies can be used to both verify an individual’s claimed identity and, when combined with additional intelligence and/or forensic information, biometrics technologies can establish an unknown individual’s identity, thus stripping away his anonymity. “

“This program will develop the technology that will improve the quality of biometrics derived information provided to the operational forces for the purpose of identifying and classifying anonymous individuals. It will enable execution of a DoD and interagency coordinated biometrics science and technology plan that supports technology transition to acquisition programs in FY10 and the out-years.”

See the document; www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/OSD/0603665D8Z.pdf

 

2010

Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA)

Warfighter, Business, Intelligence, and Security & Law Enforcement

The Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) 2010-06, signed by the Secretary of the Army (SecArmy), redesignated BTF (biometrics task force) as the Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA) on 23 March 2010.

Sept 1, 2010

Get REAL . . .

But open rebellion against REAL ID, which was so heated two or three years ago, has calmed considerably. States are no longer lining up to add themselves to the list of those refusing to fund of implement the federal law’s requirements.

Instead, many state motor vehicle departments are quietly doing the work to meet the law’s initial 18 benchmarks. According to DHS, all but the 14 holdout states say they’ll be able to meet the law’s operational requirements by the end of this year.

Read more

June 22, 2011

Making REAL ID a Reality: Next Steps for Congress

At least 32 states are close to REAL ID material compliance, while a total of 44 states and territories have indicated that they fully intend to meet REAL ID compliance

State unveils new, secure driver’s license

Starting Monday, Alabama residents will be able to obtain a new, more secure form of identification.In compliance with REAL ID Act of 2005, the Alabama De­partment of Public Safety has developed a driver’s license and identification program called STAR I.D. Congress passed the REAL ID Act in re­sponse to acts of terrorism against the United States.

Connecticut to begin controversial Real ID program

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a drivers license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states

And Many. Many more!

“If You See Something, Say Something” Re-Branding the Brown Shirts



Kaye Beach

Feb 17, 2010

Think the comparison is extreme? It’s your call.

DHS expands ‘see something, say something’ campaign to fusion centers

Sept 15, 2010

Read More Here

DHS Expands If You See Something Say Something Campaign

Nov. 15, 2010

Read More Here

Secretary Napolitano Announces Expansion of “If You See Something, Say Something” Campaign to Walmart Stores Across the Nation

Release Date: December 6, 2010

Read More Here

If You See Something Say Something Expands To Federal Buildings

Dec 8, 2010

Read More Here

Secretary Napolitano Announces “If You See Something, Say Something™” Campaign Partnership with NBA

Release Date: February 15, 2011

Read more Here

When the snitching starts getting in your face at
Wal-Mart, you kind of have to start paying attention.  I’m so glad I quit that great American institution back when they started chipping under drawers. Before the next Homeland Security outrage turns our attention away from Ms. Napolitano’s wally-world endeavor, I’d like to take a little peek behind the curtain.

Where did “If You See Something, Say Something” come from?


See Something, Say Something is just a slogan for a much broader project- Suspicious Activity Reporting or SAR.

What is a SAR?

Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) is the process of documenting the observation of behavior that may be indicative of intelligence gathering or pre-operational planning related to terrorism, criminal, or other illicit intentions.

Nationwide SAR Initiative (NSI)

Integrates state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies’ SAR processes into a nationwide standardized and institutionalized effort

More

The program is tied into the Fusion Centers’ Nationwide SAR Initiative (NSI)


The Fusion Center Guidelines states that, “nontraditional collectors of intelligence, such as public safety entities and private sector organizations” will ‘fused’ with law enforcement data” (formerly known as “criminal justice information” which indicated correctly that “law enforcement data” should be concerned with  legitimate criminal investigations)

“The Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI) builds on what law enforcement and other agencies have been doing for years—gathering information regarding behaviors and incidents associated with criminal activity. . .” (Emphasis mine)

This is NOT what law enforcement has been doing for years! Remember “reasonable suspicion“? How about “probable cause”?

Many, many laws and policies have been changed. It used to be that only legitimate criminals and suspects were permitted to be entered into a system of criminal records. The reason for this is obvious.

The Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in 1993 explained the reason very well.

“Because criminal intelligence information is both conjectural and subjective in nature, may be widely disseminated through the interagency exchange of information and cannot be accessed by criminal suspects to verify that the information is accurate and complete, the protections and limitations set forth in the regulation are necessary to protect the privacy interests of the subjects and potential suspects of a criminal intelligence system.” (Emphasis mine)

Things have changed.

The goal is information sharing across all jurisdictions, inter agency, interstate, international, public-private.  This goal is not limited to Fusion Centers or policing, it is ALL information.

Welcome to the ISE!


ISE stands for “Information Sharing Environment”

“The mission of the ISE is to improve the management, discovery, fusing, sharing, delivery of, and collaboration around terrorism-related information to enhance national security. . .”

Partners in the ISE

“The ISE is a partnership of five primary communities—Defense, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, and Law Enforcement”. . .These communities, moreover, cut across all levels of government in our federal system, involving state, local, and tribal partners as well as the private sector and international partners. . .”

The Program Manager of the ISE says;

“The scope of the ISE is best described in terms of end-to-end counterterrorism and homeland security mission processes—such as watchlisting, screening, and suspicious activity reporting—along with supporting core capabilities and enablers.”

Of course a partnership like this is too good to limit to simply terrorism.

“Key to progress in building the ISE, has been a relentless focus on identifying, integrating, and sharing best practices. Broad adoption of best practices raises confidence, lowers risk, and accelerates adoption, use, and reuse resulting in a strong return on investment by mission partners. In particular, the adoption of best practices has utility beyond the terrorism information sharing mission, extending both across complementary missions and into new mission areas unrelated to terrorism.” (Emphasis mine) LINK

America, we are now operating under a New Paradigm.


Here is another peep into the “New Paradigm”


Vision 2015

The Vision is “A Globally Networked and Integrated Intelligence Enterprise”

Enterprise is a buzzword being used throughout government these days. I don’t know about you, but the word “enterprise” brings to mind business and profit for me, not government.

Now the UK got the jump on plastering creepy Orwellian eyes posters all over their public transit centers.  In 2002 UK travelers got treated to these uber-spooky ads


Our government has many new policies that few are aware of but campaigns like “If You See Something, Say Something” have many wondering just what the heck is going on.

SAR (Suspicious Activity Reporting) is a pervasive, nationwide snitching program modeled on LAPD’s Special Order #11.

LAPD Special Order #11 was a Los Angeles Police Department order that compels LAPD officers to begin reporting “suspicious behaviors” to create a stream of “intelligence” about a host of everyday activities that will be fed to the local fusion center.

LAPD Special Order #11, dated March 5, 2008, states that it is the policy of the LAPD to “gather, record, and analyze information of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism,” and includes a list of 65 behaviors LAPD officers “shall” report.

The list includes such innocuous, legal activities as:

- taking measurements

- using binoculars

taking pictures or video footage “with no apparent esthetic value”

- abandoning vehicle

- drawing diagrams

- taking notes

- espousing extremist views

Read More about the SARs initiative

But what is responsible for this upending of the presumption of innocence in our country?

There is a connection between the creepy “UK Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes” and the US’s new snitch mandates.

Intelligence Led Policing or ILP

The ILP strategy was first developed in the United Kingdom and then flourished in Australia. . .  (What do those two countries have in common?)

What or Who has been the driver behind COPS and Intelligence Led Policing?


WHEREAS, the IACP recognizes that in the aftermath of the September 11th atrocities, there is a need to address the deficiencies that exist in this country in the collection, analysis and dissemination of Criminal Intelligence; and

WHEREAS, the Executive Committee of the IACP recognized the need to address these deficiencies and to ensure that state and local law enforcement is involved in the Intelligence process; and

WHEREAS, at the direction of the IACP Executive Board, the Police Investigative Operations Committee convened the IACP Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit in March of 2002; and

WHEREAS, the findings of that Summit, issued in a report in August of 2002, led to the creation of the Global Intelligence Working Group, which is a Federal Advisory Committee as defined under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); and

WHEREAS, the Global Intelligence Working Group has created the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, a plan which is consistent with the IACP Summit Report; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the IACP will strongly support the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan as a valuable tool to remedy the deficiencies in the existing methods of collecting, analyzing and disseminating criminal intelligence, that the IACP encourages all law enforcement to utilize this tool in creating and/or bettering its efforts in the area of Criminal Intelligence, and that the Federal Government also support these efforts.
LINK

IACP Resolutions 2002 – 2010

Others have noted the conspicuous placing of new policy that is contrary to our American form of government that was charged with protecting our legal and natural rights first and foremost.

From 2003;

Big Brother Gets Bigger: Domestic Spying & the Global Intelligence Working Group

by Michelle J. Kinnucan

With virtually no media coverage or public scrutiny, a major reorganization of the US domestic law enforcement intelligence apparatus is well underway and, in fact, is partially completed.

. . . A month after September 11, 2001, the Investigative Operations Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that its leadership convene an Intelligence Sharing Summit in March 2002, described above. Summit participants examined closely the 2002 United Kingdom’s National Intelligence Model. (Intelligence Led Policing)
(Emphasis mine)

The primary outcome of the Summit was creation of the Global Intelligence Working Group, which comprised approximately 30 intelligence professionals. This group developed the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan.

. . .The Summit proceedings were compiled by the IACP in a report entitled, Criminal Intelligence Sharing: A National Plan for Intelligence-Led Policing at the Local, State and Federal Levels Recommendations from the IACP Intelligence Summit (IACP Report). The Summit and IACP Report were both partially funded by the DOJ.

. . .The GIWGs intelligence reorganization effort is linked to the Homeland Security Act, but extends far beyond concerns about terrorism. (Emphasis mine)

A main selling point for the greater use of local police in domestic intelligence is the omnivorous spying potential of the widely adopted Community Oriented Policing Services or COPS model. The IACP Report asserts, It is time to maximize the potential for community policing efforts to serve as a gateway of locally based information to prevent terrorism, and all other crimes, through the timely transfer of critical information from citizens to their local police agency and then across the intelligence continuum.

Read the entire article

The 2001 IACP Report states that;

“that the real need is to share all – not just terrorism-related – criminal intelligence”

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was established in 1994. You may remember the COPS program was supposed to hire 100,000 new police officers around the country. The COPS program has received incredible support and funding from the Obama administration.

Niki Raapana gives us this interesting bit of COPS history;

In the spring of 1999, the City of Seattle began working with COPS to write sustainable development visions for all 37 neighborhoods.

Planning groups followed the guidelines laid out in the WA State Growth Management Act of 1990 combined with suggestions recommended at the 1992 Earth Summit and advisors from COPS.

COMPASS was a COPS creation that expanded the GIS (Geographic Information System) database.

Niki Raapana writes;

One of the core elements of the COMPASS initiative is the creation of a data infrastructure which contains information from a variety of sources. These data will include extant social indicator data (e.g., employment statistics; housing information; land use data; school data; hospital records; asset mapping) and a host of safety information (e.g., incident-based crime data; arrest statistics; calls for service; court and corrections data; victimization surveys; and fear of crime data).”

Read More-“Join the Quiet Revolution” by Niki Raapana

In a 2008 interview then COPS director, Carl Peed talks about the expansion of Community Oriented Policing after 9-11;

“A few months after September 11, the COPS Office funded the International Association of Chiefs of Police to hold a Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit which led to the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan. Five years later, we held another summit to discuss the progress made and to set the course for the future.”

The International Association of Chiefs of Police with their distinctly utilitarian bent as detestable as it is should not be the focus of outrage though. (Utilitarianism embodies the “the ends justify the means” school of thought) There are an untold number of organizations operating all across our country and meeting with great success in their goals of subverting our Constitution. That they would try is no surprise to anyone. What is astounding is that we have permitted and even embraced their aims.

If we want to restore our country it will be up to us to demand that our representatives stop delegating the authority granted by us over to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats.

We will have to teach ourselves what is not being taught in our schools and universities-The US Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

We have to know both our legal
and natural rights so that we can demand the appropriate restraint.

OK-SAFE was right – the government is Monitoring America

*Please Note-This is NOT a genuine OIFC Notice. If the OIFC files a suspicious activity report on you-You would never know it! Only convicts are allowed to see the records that are kept on them according to the Oklahoma Information Fusion Center*

Kaye Beach

Dec. 21, 2010

The Washington Post’s in depth  investigation on “Top Secret America” and especially the latest installment “Monitoring America” has brought many of us who have been anxiously and  painstakingly documenting the rise of the surveillance state in our country over the last several years, a strange sense of relief.

Only a little over year ago concerned Oklahoman residents were raising the alarm over legislation to allow the DPS commissioner to grant direct electronic access to our biometric data and other personal information to law enforcement or other state entities.  Examples

The problem?

The “New Paradigm” and its offspring, including state fusion centers.

“Fusion Centers are federally funded and the very purpose for their existence, as evidenced by the documents that describe the core concept of Fusion Centers, is to promote “seamless “information sharing across the board.”

Now that the major media has called it,  I am hoping that the people and their state government will face the facts and get to work putting this genie back into its bottle.

OK-SAFE deserves a big “Thank You” for leading and continuing to lead the charge on this and other important issues.

Let me be the first to say- Thank you OK-SAFE!

___

OK-SAFE writes;

OK-SAFE was right – the government is Monitoring America

The case OK-SAFE has been building and advancing for three years has finally made it to the mainstream media – the government is monitoring the American people.

State and Federal Representatives have steadfastly scoffed at the idea.

A Washington Post article entitled Monitoring America offers a window into the deceptive nature of our government. 

Excerpt:

“Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.

The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation’s history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The government’s goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, which is in charge of terrorism investigations in the United States.”

Although the move toward integration of the entire justice system started years ago,  fusion centers - doing away with barriers to information-sharing between the federal, state, local, and tribal levels – are  greasing the wheels.  More than 72 of the data-hubs exist in the U.S. and countless others are in operation globally.  And they’re networked together.

Included in this global data collection network is SARS (Suspicious Activity Reporting System); the Eyes and Ears programs; and the “If You See Something, Say Something” effort advocated by the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

On the state level, one incident reporting (think snitch) system includes Oklahoma’s SIBRS, the Statewide Incident Based Reporting System, the state’s version of NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System.)

State incidents – both criminal and non-criminal – are instantly shared with the FBI, upon request.

Associations advancing the global integration of justice systems, law enforcement, and the private sector include the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police), IALEIA (International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts), and InfraGard, (partnership between the FBI and the private sector).

Read More

Database of suspicious activity going live with little attention

G.W. Schulz | Update: Elevated Risk | September 21, 2010

Federal officials are closer to establishing what amounts to a nationwide database of so-called “suspicious activity reports” that describe possible evidence of terrorist attack planning. Reports will be submitted not just by state and local police and agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, but also private corporations that control economic and infrastructure assets considered high-profile targets for terrorists.

A required public notice surfaced one day before the nine-year anniversary of Sept. 11 confirming that DHS would be finished implementing its own internal database of suspicious activity reports by mid-October. Contents will flow in from DHS personnel at the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Transportation Security Administration and other agencies within the department.

Read More

AxXiom for Liberty Show Guests Howard Houchen and GW Shultz

G.W. Schulz joined the Center for Investigative Reporting in 2008 and covers homeland security.
Prior to that time, he wrote extensively about politics, municipal corruption, workplace safety, criminal justice and the changing national landscape in news media for the San Francisco Bay Guardian and Urban Tulsa Weekly here in Oklahoma.

http://www.CenterforInvestigativeReporting.org

Howard Houchen is running for Congress in Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District

Howard W. Houchen is a proud Oklahoman, a Reagan Conservative, and a constitutionalist. In recent years Howard has discovered a deep disdain for current government and its direction. The lack of integrity and complete disregard for the “rule book”, The US Constitution, has motivated and inspired him to take on the immoralist of government and put America back on the level.
Raised in SE Oklahoma, there is a love for the land he calls home.

http://www.houchenforcongress.com/index.html