Tag Archives: UK

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

Facial recognition – Jokesville says UK’s “Great Bane”

Kaye Beach

Oct 10, 2011

Facial Recognition-”The technology doesn’t work”

David Moss, in response to my info dump on the FBI and their plan to unleash facial recognition on a national scale, provides us with some absolutely critical information and some invaluable advice as well.

In case you are wondering, David Moss is an IT Specialist, Researcher and longtime campaigner against the UK’s biometric ID scheme.  He was a guest on AxXiom For Liberty last April when he detailed for us some BIG problems with biometric identification that we often overlook in our outrage over the loss of our privacy and freedoms.  (Listen to that show here.)

He is the “Great Bane” of government waste and corruption, in my estimation and I have to confess that when I grow up(figuratively speaking, of course) I want to be just like David Moss.

David’s work proved that India’s plan to bio metrically identify and number 1.2 billion of India’s people is bound to fail.  India’s ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives

David says;

“Once your students have finished Facial Recognition 101, the better ones will have understood that the technology doesn’t work.”

And

“This roll-out is an opportunity. Not a threat. Grab it with both hands, embrace it and enjoy it”

This information was too important to leave parked in the comments section so I am re-posting his comments in their entirety.  Take note activists, this is a priceless lesson from a real pro!


Facial recognition – Jokesville 1

Kaye, thank you for the refresher course.

Please find herewith further material for the refresher course.

Once your students have finished Facial Recognition 101, the better ones will have understood that the technology doesn’t work.

Let’s be clear. Don’t let’s mix up our biometrics. They’re not all the same.

DNA, irisprints, traditional fingerprinting – they’re all biometrics worth worrying about from the point of view of privacy. But two-dimensional facial recognition? That’s what Aliya Sternstein’s article is about. That’s the new service being launched nationwide. Forget it. It doesn’t work. It’s jokesville.

At last the suppliers of 2-D facial recognition technology have been lured into a very public demonstration of the reliability or otherwise of their wares. They’ve never had to submit to this discipline before. They’ve never provided any warranties. Now they may find themselves twisting in the wind, hung out to dry, publicly humiliated and exposed as charlatans, mountebanks, snake oil salesmen, astrologers who convince only the simple-minded.

This roll-out is an opportunity. Not a threat. Grab it with both hands, embrace it and enjoy it.

continued …

Facial recognition – Jokesville 2

May I suggest a five-point plan to take advantage of the FBI’s proposed NGI trial?

The idea is to get the trial results widely published so that everyone can see whether they should share the vendors’ confidence in their own products. If not, the FBI can safely drop the technology, without impugning crime-fighting, and public money can be better invested elsewhere (or left with the public, who probably know better how to invest it).

1. Aliya Sternstein’s article says: “FBI officials would not disclose the name of the search product or the vendor”. Time for a freedom of information (FOI) request. This is public money being spent here. No doubt the FBI and the vendor have a mass of confidentiality agreements protecting intellectual property and future commercial interests. Fine. But the public have rights, too. Step #1. Get the names of the vendor and the product being used. There are a lot of people involved in this trial. The FBI, NIST, law enforcement in Michigan, Washington, Florida and North Carolina, Lockheed Martin and, no doubt, others. If FOI doesn’t succeed in getting the names, they’ll leak out from one of those sources.

2. Aliya Sternstein’s article says: “NGI’s incremental construction seems to align with the White House’s push to deploy new information technology in phases so features can be scrapped if they don’t meet expectations or run over budget”. Good. So this roll-out is in the nature of a technology trial. Technology trials can fail. That’s the whole point. That’s scientific method. And if the trial fails, the “features can be scrapped” – that’s what the White House wants. In line with that, step #2, pressure must be brought to bear on the FBI/NGI to run this like a proper trial. The protocol must be published. The trial will be run like this … these are the acceptance criteria … results will be collated like so … and if they don’t meet the criteria, the “features” have failed and will be dropped and no more public money will be wasted on them. This is the upright, responsible, businesslike way to assess the technology. You won’t be putting the FBI on the spot, they won’t have their back to the wall. Having met James A. Loudermilk II of the FBI, I have no doubt that this is exactly the way the FBI would expect to run this trial.

3. Aliya Sternstein’s article says the FBI “gained insights on the technique’s accuracy by studying research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology”. Good. Step #3 – get on to NIST. A long time ago, NIST produced a report on the Face Recognition Vendor Test 2006, NISTIR 7408. They must have more up to date reports, but you could start with this one.

3.1 NISTIR 7408 gets you a list of people to contact – P. Jonathon Phillips, W. Todd Scruggs, Alice J. O’Toole, Patrick J. Flynn, Kevin W.
Bowyer, Cathy L. Schott, Matthew Sharpe. These people are proper academics. They trade on their reputation. They protect their reputation. They speak the truth.

3.2 It gets you a list of vendors – Cognitec, Identix*, Neven Vision, Rafael, Sagem*, SAIT, Toshiba, Tsinghua U(niversity), Viisage* (p.9).

3.3 It gets you a list of the test databases used (p.35). There are five for 2-D facial recognition. Four of them have less than 350 people on them. Those samples are too small to tell anything.

3.4 So we’re only interested in the results of the database with 36,000 people on. The low-resolution images there were gathered under controlled conditions. You can do that with prisoners (which is who NIST and others tend to get their large volume data from). You can’t with mugshots of non-cooperative suspects. The results are in Figure 20 (p.46). Figure 20 measures reliability at three levels – 1 false accept in 100, 1 in a 1,000 and 1 in 10,000. Given that the word is “this is not something where we want to collect a bunch of surveillance film and enter it in the system … that would be useless to us. It would be useless to our users”, presumably the FBI will use 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 10,000. At those levels, false rejects vary between about 5 in 100 and 18 in 100. Jokers love quoting that bit on p.2 where it says “The FRVT 2006 results from controlled still images and 3D images document an order-of-magnitude improvement in recognition performance over the FRVT 2002″. Some technologies saw an improvement. But not 2-D low resolution facial recognition, that’s shown no improvement at all.

4. Back in 2009, NIST advised the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on the biometrics to use for their Aadhaar scheme. As a result, India has adopted flat print fingerprints and irisprints to identify their 1.2 billion people. Not facial recognition. That has been dropped. It isn’t good enough. And if it isn’t good enough for India, how can it be good enough for the US? Step #4 – get on to NIST again, and maybe the UIDAI.

5. The business schools of the world also tested facial recognition to try to stop “plants” taking exams on behalf of less gifted students. They dropped it. They tested flat print fingerprinting and dropped that. It doesn’t work well enough. Now they’re testing palm veinprints. If facial recognition isn’t good enough for the business schools, how can it be good enough for the FBI? Step #5 – get on to GMAC.

———-

* all now owned by Safran Group under the umbrella of Morpho.

Facial recognition – Jokesville 3

Some miscellaneous points:

1. The false accept rates mentioned above range from 1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000. What does that mean? It means that the mugshot submitted by Florida law enforcement, or whoever, will falsely match between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000 of the 10 million mugshots on the FBI’s database. That means the enquiry will return between 1,000 and 100,000 possible matches. The number can be reduced by excluding the dead people still on the FBI database. But Florida’s still going to have an awful lot of mugshots to look through. It may not be worth it.

2. The false reject rates mentioned above range between 5 in 100 and 18 in 100. So between 5% and 18% of the Florida mugshots submitted will be falsely rejected – i.e. there is a match on file but the software doesn’t find it. Again, it may just not be worth it. Especially as those figures (5%, 18%) were obtained in a lab test, doing just a computer run. In the live, operational environment, the false reject rate is likely to be much higher.

3. (A note for students on Facial recognition 102. When you’re doing a lab test, you should speak about “false match rates” and “false non-match rates”. When you’re doing a field trial, voluntary and co-operative subjects in a simulation of the real environment, you should talk about “false accept rates” and “false reject rates”. And when you’re in the live, operational environment, it’s “false positive identification rates” and “false negative identification rates”.)

4. Professor John Daugman, an American working at Cambridge University, England, and the man who invented irisprinting reckons that there’s no hope for facial recognition, not with big populations, and precious little for flat print fingerprinting. “Irises have about 249 degrees-of-freedom, … whereas faces have only about 20 degrees-of-freedom (independent dimensions of variation), and fingerprints have about 35″. There’s just not enough randomness in faces to make facial recognition useful. Don’t let the FBI spend too much money on this trial before calling it a day.

5. There will be objections to the points made in these three posts. Mr Moss doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Mr Moss confuses 1-to-1 matching with 1-to-many. Mr Moss knows perfectly well that the job the FBI hope to do with this trial is quite different to the UIDAI’s Aadhaar scheme. These objections sound good. But pursue them before accepting them. The objector may not know what he or she is talking about. Mr Moss, unsurprisingly, thinks he does know what he is talking about.

6. Some traps the FBI may like to avoid.

6.1 Back in 1998, the police in the London Borough of Newham had been testing Visionics face recognition technology, claimed by the vendors to have driven crime off the streets of Newham, yeah right!, and were quoted as follows in New Scientist magazine: “… in June this year, the police admitted to The Guardian newspaper that the Newham system had never even matched the face of a person on the street to a photo in its database of known offenders, let alone led to an arrest”. Why that word “admitted”? Because the police had been lured into promoting the success of the technology, they got themselves on the hook, and then – quite properly – they had to get themselves off. The FBI will not want to make the same, embarrassing mistake.

6.2 Here in the UK we use ePassport technology at 10 of our airports to try to get people through security quickly. If your face matches the biometric template in your passport, you’re through, otherwise not. Does this facial recognition technology work? Sometimes the UK Border Agency say it does, no qualifications. Other times they say it’s still under trial. In the end, we settled on the latter. Lin Homer, the Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency in February 2010 wrote to me saying: “We plan to evaluate all 10 sites. Evaluation of Manchester gave us enough confidence to proceed to expand the trial. We are aware that different environments may impact the use of facial recognition technology, we therefore wished to determine and compare results from more diverse airport environments to ensure the technology is robust and consistent”. The Independent Chief Inspector of UKBA inspected Manchester Airport in May 2010, three months after that letter, he described a number of problems with the ePassport technology and then said at para.5.29 “We could find no overall plan to evaluate the success or otherwise of the facial recognition gates at Manchester Airport and would urge the Agency to do so soon as possible”. Oops.

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!

India’s Biometric ID: Optimism beats evidence

Kaye Beach

July 23, 2011

Biometrics for identification is not working as advertised and the word is getting out.

A few months ago on AxXiom For Liberty Live,  we spoke with David Moss, IT Specialist, Researcher and longtime campaigner against the UK’s biometric ID scheme.

“Optimism beats evidence in the drive to fingerprint the worldaccording to David Moss.

David’s work proves that India’s plan to bio metrically identify and number 1.2 billion of India’s people is bound to fail.  India’s ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives by David Moss

This article, Aadhaar: on a platform of myths, published in The Hindu on July 17, 2011,  attacks “three big myths” about India’s biometric ID (called Aadhaar).

The author, R. Ramakumar writes;

It is said that the greatest enemy of truth is not the lie, but the myth. A democratic government should not undertake a project of the magnitude of Aadhaar from a platform of myths. The lesson from the U.K. experience is that myths perpetrated by governments can be exposed through consistent public campaigns. India direly needs a mass campaign that would expose the myths behind the Aadhaar project

Myth #3 deals with the enormous amount of errors that this system would produce.

There is no doubt that the system is unworkable and contrary to the governments expressed desire to use the ID system to help the people, this plan would actually cause hardship for many of the people enrolled.

Who really benefits from mass enrollment in India’s biometric identification system, Aadhaar?  It is NOT the people!

Please share this information and help India get the mass campaign they need to expose and stop this awful program from being forced upon them.

Aadhaar: on a platform of myths

The Aadhaar project, just as its failed counterpart in the U.K., stands on a platform of myths. India needs a mass campaign to expose these myths.

. . .The experience with identity cards in the United Kingdom tells us that Mr. Blair’s marketing of the scheme was from a platform of myths. First, he stated that enrolment for cards would be “voluntary”. Second, he argued that the card would reduce leakages from the National Health System and other entitlement programmes; David Blunkett even called it not an “identity card,” but an “entitlement card.” Third, Mr. Blair argued that the card would protect citizens from “terrorism” and “identity fraud.” For this, the biometric technology was projected as infallible.

Read more

‘Biometrics Skeptics’ AxXiom For Liberty Live Friday April 29 6-8pm CST

Listen Live to AxXiom for Liberty Radio Friday April 29 from 6-9 pm CST on Rule of Law Radio Network

(see show notes here)

The threats to our liberty and autonomy posed by biometric identification and national (even international!) identity cards have been amply covered by this blog and millions of other sources.  These concerns about the deleterious effects of biometric identity schemes on individual freedoms are justified but what has not received nearly enough coverage is the nuts and bolts of the technology itself.   Does biometric identification or verification of identity really work well enough to justify the investment that nations around the globe are making?  Biometrics for identification purposes have been promoted as a solution for just about every problem that vexes government today…Identity theft, fraud, illegal immigration and of course, terrorism, just to name a few.  Who are the corporations that are vested in selling this technology and can they back up their claims?

On Friday April 29th from 6-8 pm CST we are pleased to bring together two of possibly the most credentialed critics of the biometrics industry to be found.

David Moss has nearly 33 years experience in IT and has spent over eight years researching and campaigning against the UK Home Office’s biometric ID card scheme.

In 2009 David Moss posed this question to the public;

“If our last two prime ministers are to be believed, and our last five home secretaries, the solution to all the problems of crime detection, counter-terrorism and the delivery of efficient public services is … biometrics. They’re certainly labelling our money into biometrics. But no one ever asks, do biometrics work?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/01/biometrics-home-office

As of late David Moss has been focused on India’s Unique Identification (UID) project that endeavors to bio metrically identify and number 1.2 billion of India’s people. David Moss is a biometric skeptic and for good reason.

Mark Lerner, another well respected biometrics expert and critic of biometric ID in the US, joins the conversation. At one time Mark Lerner believed that biometric technology like fingerprinting, facial recognition, iris scanning, could valuable tool for protecting our nation and traveled the country promoting its use.  But he soon discovered that the Biometrics industry was engaged in many reprehensible acts.  Mark provided solid evidence of these misdeeds to the US government but the results of that investigation never made it to Congress or the public. For the past 6 years Mark has been speaking out about what he knows testifying before many state legislatures and assisting lawmakers in nearly two dozen states in writing legislation designed to protect citizens from ill-considered uses of biometric and similar technologies.

This is a must hear discussion that will deliver information and covers aspects of biometric identification rarely touched by the mainstream media.

David Moss

http://dematerialisedid.com

India’s ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives BY David Moss

http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Drown.html

Mark Lerner, the Constitutional Alliance

http://constitutionalalliance.org

Identity Cards A Global Perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF

Identity Cards A Global Perspective 2009

Miami-Dade police buy drones

Jan 8, 2010

I’ve been waiting for this one.

How did I know?

The IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) is my always-reliable crystal ball for predicting police state outrages upon America.

“There is an immediate need by state and local public safety personnel for unmanned aerial systems“– Donald Shinnamon, head of the aviation committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police

Source:CNET News August 9, 2007  Police agencies push for drone sky patrols

Intelligence-Led Policing in the United States
Biot Report #474:

November 02, 2007
United States domestic law enforcement authorities, like their counterparts in Great Britain, have moved to an ―intelligence-led policing paradigm, as described elsewhere. (1) The terrorist events of September 11, 2001 prompted a March 7-8, 2002, Summit in Alexandria, Virginia, of over 120 criminal intelligence experts from across the U.S., titled Criminal Intelligence Sharing: Overcoming Barriers to Enhance Domestic Security. Funded by the US government and organized by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Summit became a turning point in policing in the U.S. (2)

Read more or access document here; IACP Intelligence-Led-Policing-the-New-Paradigm 2007 111

Miami-Dade police buy drones

Miami New Times News

By Tim Elfrink Thursday, Dec 9 2010

In places such as Kabul, Gaza, and Baghdad, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) hovering over homes, following suspects, and tracking enemies of the state are a daily reality.

So where are the high-tech drones buzzing to next? Miami-Dade County, natch!

The Miami-Dade Police Department is poised to become the first large metro force using drones in its aerial missions. The department finalized a deal to buy a drone called T-Hawk from defense firm Honeywell and officially applied for permission from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last month to begin flying it around the county.

What’s not clear is how cops will sort out the raft of thorny privacy questions hovering around plans for using this powerful, new eye in the sky.

“At this point, it doesn’t really matter if you’re against this technology, because it’s coming,” says P. W. Singer, author of Wired for War and an expert on drones. “The precedent that is set in Miami could be huge.”

Read More

I guess the UK was getting ahead of us..

Police Drone “Air Robot” Leads to Arrest in UK

and this one…

Jan. 23, 2010 UK Police Will Use Spy Drones To Monitor Population

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the “routine” monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance. more

Our “New Paradigm” in policing was imported via the IACP from the  Kent police in the UK

If you do any looking into the Kent police, you might find a disturbing focus on “anti-social” behavior.

The IACP explains-

Intelligence-Led Policing

The Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP) mission is to gather, analyze, and disseminate intelligence data, in an effort to thwart the next terrorist attack or prevent the commission of a major felony. In applying a utilitarian philosophy to prevention efforts, the “greatest good for the greatest number,” is to detect preoperational terrorist acts and prevent another 9/11. Read more subversive tripe from the IACP

“In my college years, Utilitarianism was described as one of the most destructive philosophies ever constructed against the principles of Natural Law and the Rights of Man. Utilitarian followers believed all rights are granted by the government, since history shows governments have the power to take all rights away.”– Ronald Glenn  Source: Communitarianism, Anyone?  February 22, 2010 by Ronald Glenn

Fusion Centers, the IACP, Gun Control and HUBZones A4L Show Notes

OK-SAFE


Sign up for OK-Safe’s Action Alert Newsletter
_____________________________________________________

Listen to the show

audio



Governor Jesse Ventura Talks About The Police State. 3 Videos


OKOHS (Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security) is directed to continue their efforts in combating terrorism, and shall continue to oversee the implementation of any and all initiatives or efforts mandated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, including the development of a state information fusion center.

Background
In August 2002, the International Association of Chiefs of Police released the recommendations of its Criminal Intelligence Summit held March 7-8, 2002, with the final document coming from the DOJ’s office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The report acknowledged that the problems identified following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were found to be with “intelligence exchange between national agencies…” Then the report quickly endorsed the creation of a Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council to implement the National Intelligence Plan that would engage local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in a database sharing environment. The plan addressed the legal impediments to the effective transfer of criminal intelligence between authorized local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. This plan became the superstructure for the next domestic Fusion Center effort by advocating for the creation of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council and charged it with accomplishing a number of goals:

Read More

The Rise of the Fusion-Intelligence Complex: A critique of political surveillance after 9/11

Where did Fusion Centers Come From???

Immediately following the tragic events of 9/11, the IACP moved quickly to hold a national policy summit on terrorism and intelligence. The summit, sponsored by the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office and the IACP, was held in March of 2002. More than 120 law enforcement, justice, terrorism, and intelligence experts gathered in Alexandria, Virginia to create a national strategy to improve American law enforcement’s capacity to recognize, gather, analyze, share, and utilize criminal intelligence. Read More

Recent story on the IACP;

Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF


In March 2002, a year before DHS’ creation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police called for a national plan for sharing intelligence.

That recommendation led Justice’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) consortium to draft a National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan in October 2003.

The IACP also recommended against limiting intelligence sharing to terrorism-related data, suggesting instead that all “criminal intelligence” data be shared.  SOURCE EPIC

The IACP set 2 goals

#1 the establishment of “a coordinating council comprised of local, state, Tribal and Federal law enforcement executives … to oversee and implement the National Intelligence Plan.”

#2 is to “Address the legal impediments to the effective transfer of criminal intelligence between enforcement agencies.”

Those  “legal impediments” are the Bill of Rights and specifically the laws that were implemented in order to protect us from government spying as in COINTELPRO

The IACP and Intelligence Led Policing Post 911 Big Brother Gets Bigger

In the fall of 2001, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) held its annual conference in Toronto. Considering the events of September 11th, it was decided to organize an International Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit in Alexandria, VA, March 7-8, 2002; the topic was Criminal Intelligence Sharing: Overcoming Barriers to Enhance Domestic Security.


2004

“. . .unprecedented initiatives have been undertaken to reengineer the law enforcement intelligence function.”

The Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, 28 CFR 23  mandates that

“criminal intelligence systems … are utilized in conformance with the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.”

The IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center’s “Criminal Intelligence Model Policy,” in an appendix to the GIWG (Global Intelligence Working Group) Report, was revised in 2003 to incorporate the anticipated change to 28 CFR 23.

The anticipated change?  Replace “reasonable suspicion” with “reasonable indication” (From Big Brother Gets Bigger)

R.I.P.  28 C.F.R. part 23

2008. . .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

Fusion Center Document Collection

The IACP- Gun Grabbers


The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46


the Joyce Foundation, UN and the IACP disarming the world…

Brady President Praises Police Chiefs After Release of New Report

Sep 19, 2007

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called today’s report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities, a “clear road map from the nation’s police chiefs of steps we can take now to combat gun violence.”

“Our nation’s police are on the front lines in the fight for public safety. In this landmark report, police leaders are saying they are tired of the nation’s gun policies being held hostage by the special interest gun lobby,” Helmke said.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/929

International Association of Chiefs of Police and The Joyce Foundation Great Lakes Gun Summit 2007

America has accepted the communitarian premise of the “good of the community” over individual rights as evidenced throughout law and policy, especially since 9 11.  This is where that line of thinking leads us and it is antithetical to the philosophy of individual rights that this nation was founded upon.  If we do not insist on upholding this revolutionary precept of our nation, then we ought to not be surprised when we begin to resemble every other milksop so-called Democracy in the world.

**Special note to 2A people in Oklahoma.** Read “Janet Reno addresses the IACP”

1995-This is a internal International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) document that obtained by NRA.  It discusses in detail IACP plans to weaken or eliminate right-to-carry legislation in state legislatures.

Do Gun Shows Have Loopholes?

“The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.”

The study is called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” Waldron called it a “smoking gun” in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns. Anti-gun politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know as they campaign against the so-called “gun show loophole,” he said.

Read more

Gun Violence Reduction

I’m going to describe a group that recently demanded enactment of a sweeping federal gun control agenda.

Let’s see if you can guess who it is.

The group has 22,000 members in more than 100 countries. Membership categories include “city managers, highway safety specialists, psychologists, attorneys, coroners and management analysts,” among others. The group has offices in Europe and the Caribbean, and the group’s website describes its governing board in your choice of English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Is it a new United Nations disarmament agency? No, the group is the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), headquartered in the nation’s capital.

Chris Cox “Follow The Money”

WyGO says



IACP Document Collection

http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2332792

•Questions to Ask about Fusion Centers

New speed camera can catch drivers committing five offences at once

 

A speed camera designed to catch motorists committing up to five offences at the same time could be heading to Britain’s roads. As well as catching speeding motorists, the Asset camera should be able to pick out drivers who are not wearing seatbelts and accurately measure distances between moving cars to identify tailgating.

Asset (advanced safety and driver support for essential road transport) can also note number plates and recognise cars with out-of-date tax discs and no insurance.

Funded by the European commission, the camera system is being developed by a consortium that includes a number of European universities and research institutes and is being tested in Finland.

Read More

UK – Study: School Children Monitored ‘As Closely As Inmates’ by CCTV

Children are being monitored as closely as inmates in prisons as schools break the law to introduce scores of covert CCTV cameras, a ground-breaking new study has found. The vast majority of secondary schools use more than 20 CCTV cameras to capture children’s movements in corridors, playgrounds and even the toilets. But many are breaking the law by failing to make it clear to pupils where cameras are located and how the images might be used. At least one unnamed school has installed cameras with microphones in classrooms and corridors and given staff earpieces to listen in on conversations. The spread of CCTV in schools is documented in a study by a researcher based at Salford University. Dr Emmeline Taylor studied surveyed 24 comprehensives in the north west of England and discovered that 23 had installed more than 20 cameras. Out of three studied in-depth, two had gone as far as placing them in the toilets. Dr Taylor also found that schools are increasingly using biometric technology – such as fingerprint, iris or facial recognition systems – for ‘mundane’ reasons such as lending library books. Parents are often in the dark about the biometric data taken from their children or the extent of CCTV. ‘There has been very little attempt to inform the general public, including parents, about the extent that schools are using surveillance devices, including biometric surveillance,’ said Dr Taylor. ‘The level of surveillance that some pupils are subjected to on a daily basis rivals that of international airports and prisons.’ [Daily Mail]

Students weigh in;

We don’t need no CCTV in our classroom

“Our school’s installation of TV cameras to watch our lessons is an insult – a fact many adults failed to grasp when we protested”

Read editorial by  two UK  students