Category Archives: Oklahoma Fusion Center

Who Owns the Fusion Centers?

Kaye Beach

Jan 15, 2012

Part II

This is Part II of my ongoing dissertation on Fusion Centers and the work they do.  You can read Part I, Intelligence Led Policing and Fusion Centers: How the IACP Helped the USA to Cross the Rubicon, which dealt with the flawed and dangerous philosophy of preemptive or Intelligence Led Policing that makes the whole domestic terrorism apparatus, including fusion centers such a threat to the liberties of everyone.

In Part II I am going to explain what the centers really do and who is in control of them and how.

Fusion Centers-State of Federal?

It is all about collecting the data and getting it to the federal government.  The most important function of Fusions Centers is also the most invisible portion of their work; the computer networks and information sharing that takes place through those networks.

Despite claims that the Fusion Centers were created by the states, the truth is that the modern day fusion centers were born of policy established at the federal level and they are largely funded, staffed and  trained by representatives of federal agencies.  The federal government likes to claim that the states are partners with the federal government in this and other programs like it.

Question: If I set the rules and I pay the bills and I own the house that you are currently residing in, are you really my partner?

Answer: only to the degree that I am willing to pretend that you are.

When it comes to state fusion centers, the federal government has been paying the bills, they set the rules and they own the house.

Paying the Bills-Federal Funding

Since 2003 the Department of Homeland Security has given $31 billion dollars to the state and local governments.

3.8 billion was given to the states in 2010 alone.  The programs funded by the DHS, largely focus on countering terrorism but also on natural and man-made disasters are required to be tuned to DHS dictates.  According to the Government Accountability Office, Fusion centers have been received $426 million in general grant funding from fiscal 2004 through fiscal 2009.  Stating the obvious about money and control, “You take the king’s shilling, you become the king’s man”—Tom Cole

This  news article published Nov 27, 2011, Oklahoma’s fusion center has a broad role these daysmakes who is paying the bills pretty clear.

Oklahoma’s federally funded information fusion center has a broader role today than it did when it began operations four years ago.

. . .Oklahoma’s fusion center is housed inside the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation‘s headquarters, 6600 N Harvey Place, and includes a secured room where secret information from the federal government is received.
. . .A central office includes a small room filled with monitors and TV screens, relaying data to an analyst. Its operations are funded, for the most part, by grants from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Stenhouse said the federal agency provided Oklahoma’s fusion center with about $400,000, which he said was used to pay the salaries of four analysts and training purposes. (All emphasis mine) Read more:

Oklahoma has received hundreds of millions of dollars in Homeland Security funds since 911 and the state understands who is in charge even if the officials choose to dance around the truth with the public.

The following is from the Oklahoma Information Fusion Center’s “Privacy Policy.”  It is clearly stated that the Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security oversees the initiatives and mandates of the federal Department of Homeland Security-including our state’s fusion center.

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. (Emphasis mine)Read more


Federal Personnel Staff state fusion centers-.  According to the Government Accountability Office Report, as of July 2010, the DHS has deployed 58 personnel to fusion centers, and the FBI has deployed 74 personnel to fusion centers.

Setting the Rules

In 2008 we learned that the federal government has no qualms about yanking those strings attached hard and that includes subverting state law intended to protect the citizens of that state in the process.  The Fusion Centers have a job to do and that job requires some changes to be made to pesky state laws meant to provide residents with openness to,  and oversight of,  their government.

EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg said, “the FBI memorandum indicates that the federal government is attempting to shroud the Virginia Fusion Center in secrecy and prevent meaningful public oversight. Virginia citizens deserve an open and transparent state government that is not constrained by federal secrecy policies.”

Through the litigation, EPIC uncovered a secret contract between the State Police and the FBI that limits the rights of Virginia citizens to learn what information the State Police collect about them.

Fusion centers may be physically located in the states but their guts belong to Homeland Security! 

If you think of Fusion Centers as a place you will miss what the centers are really about.  Fusion Centers are part of a domestic intelligence system and the guts of the fusion centers are the data networks.

The federal government (guided all the way by the International Association of Chiefs of Police) defined the fusion centers and their processed from the start. They drew up the map.

“The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, developed by Global in partnership with the IACP, is the first of its kind in this country — and promises to bring us closer to achieving the goal, expressed at your 2002 Summit, of “intelligence-led policing.” . . . it serves as a “roadmap” for our national criminal intelligence sharing initiatives.” –THE HONORABLE DEBORAH J. DANIELS

The question of whether or not these institutions are state or federal entities is a moot point.  Though they physically reside in the states, the federal government aside from defining, funding and staffing the centers, also controls the data networks and they set the standards for how data is collected and shared.

Federal standards equal federal control

Standards are important if you want to:

  • SHARE DATA (speak the same language)

Standards Provide

  • On-demand real time data access

 Navigating the Standards Landscape

A Nationwide Network

You know what is worse for you privacy ant autonomy that a central database?  A distributed network of databases that are constantly updated that the central government can reach into at will.

The DHS intelligence analysis center or the DCI’s counterterrorist center do not need to accumulate and hold all relevant databases to which they may gain access. In other words, there is no need to build one big data warehouse. Instead, the centers should interface with such databases as needed.

—Markle Foundation Task Force Report 2002

Owning the House

In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and Global jointly published a supplement to the Fusion Center Guidelines called Baseline Capabilities Baseline Capabilities defines the capabilities needed to create a nationwide network of fusion centers and sets forth the minimum standards for a fusion center to be able to perform basic functions. 

The Department of Homeland Security set out an objective to create a network of fusions centers as a unique law enforcement and threat information resource that works across jurisdictions and is supported by multidisciplinary teams dispersed throughout a national network of information hives. Source EPIC

“. . .Fusion Centers will be the centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing for the future and that the Department of Homeland Security will be working and aiming its programs to underlie Fusion Centers.” –DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano March 13, 2009


The Fusion Center Guidelines states that, “nontraditional collectors of intelligence, such as public safety entities and private sector organizations” will be “fused’ with law enforcement data”   The goal is to break down traditional barriers to information sharing. 

These barriers are commonly referred to as “siloes” or “stovepipes”

Those “silos” or barriers can also be thought of as jurisdictions.

From the Legal Information Institute;

Jurisdiction-The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power” Jurisdiction is the territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power

It is not difficult to understand that when the the lines of authority are blended power will default to the higher level.

Agency protectiveness over jurisdiction and it is the authority an entity has over that jurisdiction that is the real barrier.  Simply stated, the problem with integrating data systems is not a physical or technical one; it’s political. Until recently, the barrier was both political and technological.  Now that the technological barrier has been removed, some think that the political barrier should follow suit.  But just because something is possible does it mean we should do it?

“National employment databases, national medical databases, national criminal databases, and others have already been created.

The dream is to blend all these separate resources into a single centralized one…the only real impediments to creating the database that now remain are political and cultural: the stubborn assumption of so many Americans that they have rights.”

The State’s Quest for Total Information Awareness by David M. Brown

In the past, the technological or physical barrier acted as sort of a firewall to siloes of data.  Data was shared on a legal right and need to know basis and  the entity wanting it had to ask.  While technology makes it possible to share lots of information in an instant with anyone in the world, there are still plenty of good reasons to protect sensitive  information.

If you really, really want to settle this whole argument about whether or not fusion centers are state of federal, just read about Homeland Security’s Federal Fusion Center initiative.

In 2010 The Department of Homeland Security announced its intention to;

“collect, plan, coordinate, report, analyze, and fuse infrastructure information related to all-threats and all-hazards, law enforcement activities, intelligence activities, man-made disasters and acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other information collected or received from federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and organizations; foreign governments and international organizations; domestic security and emergency management officials; and private sector entities or individuals into the Department.”

The DHS is creating a federal fusion center by ‘fusing’ information from the   centers.  DHS is laying claim to all of that data to use as they see fit.

The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly stated that Fusion Centers were  owned by the states, the creation of this new system of records action totally negates that dubious claim.   They didn’t ask anyone’s permission.  Why?  Because they paid the bills, they set the rules and they own the house.  The states are a  “partner” up until the federal government decided they weren’t.

Fusion Centers, for all practical intents and purposes, belongs to none other than Big Momma Gov. and if anyone tells you different,  grab a pitcher because their pants are on fire!


Intelligence Led Policing and Fusion Centers: How the IACP Helped the USA to Cross the Rubicon

Kaye Beach

Jan 12, 2011

Part I

This is part one of a long dissertation on fusion centers.   This segment mostly deals with the ideology of intelligence led policing and the beginnings of fusion centers which I think is critical to understanding the threats to our freedoms posed by them.

Fusion Centers and Intelligence Led Policing –A New Paradigm

Fusion Centers are DATA FUSION CENTERS.

Fusion centers are really data fusion centers. The physical centers aren’t much to see because the real work happens in the computer networks.  Since 9 11, the US government has enthusiastically embraced the idea that by collecting, collating and sharing massive amounts information about all of us, criminals and terrorists can be identified preemptively.

The principal role of the fusion center is to compile, analyze, and disseminate criminal/terrorist information and intelligence and other information (including, but not limited to, threat, public safety, law enforcement, public health, social services, and public works) to support efforts to anticipate, identify, prevent, and/or monitor criminal/terrorist activity.   Source

Would you be surprised to know that public schools are one of the data sources for fusion center? How about health and medical information?

This is what fusion centers do, they collect and share information.  This is supposed to help us to catch terrorists or criminals but it is also a darn good method to control the masses.  Think about it-large data sets are prerequisite for any effective social control.  That is true no matter whether it was 100 years ago or today.

Fusion centers were largely funded by the federal government and they took off beginning in the mid 2000’s.  As of 2011, there are officially 73 fusion centers in the US and each state has at least one.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police

The not-so-fabulous idea of fusion centers has been driven, hell-bent-for-leather by the International Association of Chiefs of Police or IACP for short. They can’t take all the credit for them but if you start poking around you will find the same thing I have, that the IACP gets lots of the credit.  Why is this important?  Number one, The IACP is a non-governmental organization.  Want to know more about them?  Try filing a Freedom of Information Act request.  You won’t get anything because as a non-governmental organization they aren’t accountable for squat.  Problem number two, the IACP is an international organization. And if there is not enough wrong with a non-governmental, international organization driving policy that represents a marked departure from long established American ideals (such as the presumption of innocence) this NGO was granted Consultative Status by the United Nations in 1974 (pg. 71). link  As I have said many times before, I am sure the UN is a swell organization but policy that is otherwise accepted internationally often run afoul of cherished precepts established by the US Constitution.

“. . .unprecedented initiatives have been undertaken to reengineer the law enforcement intelligence function.” 2004   link

And if you still don’t see a problem, wait till you see what the IACP thinks about the Second Amendment.

In March 2002, a year before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the International Association of Chiefs of Police called for a national plan for sharing intelligence.  The recommendations of the IACP led to the drafting of a National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan in October 2003. This policy institutionalized Intelligence Led Policing nationwide.

The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, developed by Global in partnership with the IACP, is the first of its kind in this country — and promises to bring us closer to achieving the goal, expressed at your 2002 Summit, of “intelligence-led policing.” From The Police Chief, vol. 74, no. 4, April 2007

According to the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, criminal intelligence is “information compiled, analyzed, and/or disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor criminal activity.”

I will be accused of being an incorrigible libertarian (as if this is a bad thing!) but I have to say it.  Here is where we really crossed the Rubicon. This national intelligence policy along with many others that have followed, have turned traditional policing on its head. If I didn’t feel so bad for us first, I’d really pity the cops. Civilian policing has necessarily been fairly tightly limited to reacting or responding to crimes.  The reason is that pesky constitution of ours and the presumption of innocence that is foundational to the sort of justice system the US claims to aspire to.

A quick rundown on the policy development of fusion centers from the Electronic Privacy Information Center–  In May 2004, the Department of Justice announced its progress in implementing the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan. The announcement made public the decision to create a Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) that would be managed by Global. By December 2004, the push for a national Fusion Center initiative received a boost when the Department of Justice sponsored Global Infrastructure/Standards Working Group published A Framework for Justice Information Sharing: Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). States using local, state, and federal funds created information Fusion Centers. In August 2005, Global published the Fusion Center Guidelines.

All of the above named organizations are seeded with IACP members or are heavily influenced by the IACP or both.   For example;  “Global represents the IACP . . .This influential group works to address the many policy, privacy, connectivity, and jurisdictional issues that hamper effective justice information sharing.” –THE HONORABLE DEBORAH J. DANIELS, 2007

Intelligence Led Policing: A Turning Point in Policing in the US

Intelligence Led Policing is based on the UK’s National Intelligence Model.  The US and UK, while similar in many respects, nonetheless have one major difference that makes the implementation of Intelligence Led Policing in the US fraught with difficulty.  The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to the citizens of this nation that are not recognized by government of the UK.  Americans have a justified expectation that the government instituted to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will always afford due respect for the autonomy and privacy  of law abiding individuals.

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)

The 2002 IACP sponsored Summit participants examined closely the United Kingdom’s National Intelligence Model.  Read more or access document here; IACP Intelligence-Led-Policing-the-New-Paradigm 2007 111

Criminal Intelligence Sharing: Overcoming Barriers to Enhance Domestic Security

Intelligence-led policing is part of a larger trend of blurring the distinction between national security and domestic policing, or the state’s military and police functions.  This ‘blurring” is purposeful and deliberate.  Many policy watchers have been tracking the fast disintegration of boundaries separating government functions since 9 11 with dismay.  Most recently the issue has gained some attention with the passage of the NDAA which would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens, without charge or trial.

Intelligence Led Policing is based on Utilitarian philosophy

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.  –Thomas J. Martinelli, International Association of Chiefs of Police LINK

We often remind ourselves that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent in jail.  The Utilitarian’s think it is the other way around and now we are all guilty until proven otherwise.

Utilitarianism-Natural rights?  Nonsense on stilts!

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking.  Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

In other words-The Ends Justifies the Means

Jeremy Bentham is one example of a famous Utilitarian philosopher.  Bentham lauded state power over citizens and referred to the idea of natural rights as “nonsense on stilts”

Bentham was  also the designer of the Panopticon which was an institutional total surveillance structure that was described by Bentham as “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example” Link The Panopticon was designed to induce a perception of permanent visibility in its subjects for the purpose of social control. “What matters” according the Jeremy Bentham, “is that he knows himself to be observed”

Intelligence Led Policing is based upon collecting, sharing and analysis of information.   High tech surveillance devices and information sharing across all levels of government without regard to jurisdiction are two key features of Intelligence Led Policing and this school of thought is central to the functioning of state fusion centers.

The Panopticon and Intelligence Led Policing have a lot in common;

Intelligence-led policing is future focus in Rochester, 2010

“You’re less likely to do something (wrong) if you think somebody’s watching,” McAleer said. Or even, maybe , foreseeing. Computerized analysis of crime data might give officers a lead on where to be to prevent crimes.. . . “This is the direction of policing in this country,” he said. Read more

Welcome to “The New Paradigm”

The IACP has been the tip of the spear in ushering in “The New Paradigm” (as Intelligence Led Policing is often referred to) in policing and national security.  Fusion Centers are part and parcel of this New Paradigm.

The New Paradigm according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police;

“. . . means that all the physical and conceptual walls associated with the modern, sovereign state—the walls that divide domestic from international, the police from the military, intelligence from law enforcement, war from peace, and crime from war—are coming down.” Source-THE NEW PARADIGM—MERGING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGIES Secure Cities 2006

Intelligence Led Policing represents a profound philosophical shift in American policing.  The United States police have operated under individual rights oriented and evidence based form of policing for 200 years.  The New Paradigm requires collecting and analyzing massive amounts of data, not limited to criminals or suspects but about all us.   It is preemptive rather than reactive.  The New Paradigm wants our police forces to be part of the ever expanding intelligence apparatus.

If some subversive organization wanted to eradicate those infernal, constitutional sticking points that make harmonizing the USA into an internationalized system so awkward, it couldn’t do better than to set into motion a standardized, nationalized domestic surveillance and control construct based on preemptive, preventive, risk based, rather than rights based,  policing.

Privacy Nightmare: Data Mine & Analyze all College Students’ Online Activities

Kaye Beach

Oct. 6, 2011

Ms. Smith,  The Privacy and Security Fanatic,  digs into the privacy nightmare that our schools are becoming and informs us about  “another particularly invasive security idea being pitched to universities as a “crystal ball” to stop future violence — to data mine and analyze all college students’ online activities.”

Read on…

It is not uncommon for schools to be equipped with metal detectors, cameras for video surveillance, motion detectors, RFID badge tracking, computer programs to check school visitors against sex offender lists, and infrared systems to track body heat after school hours and potentially hunt down intruders. No parent ever wants any possibility of a school tragedy, so other biometric systems in the name of security have been introduced. Iris recognition and fingerprint scans are being used to monitor students’ Internet usage. Now there is a particularly invasive idea being pitched to universities as a “crystal ball” to stop future violence by data mining and analyzing all college students’ online activities.

In K – 12 schools, “new military and corrections technologies are quietly moving into the classroom with little oversight.” It’s making our schools a “fertile ground for prison tech,” Mother Jones reported. “For millions of children, being scanned and monitored has become as much a part of their daily education as learning to read and write.” All of this surveillance is supposed to keep students safe, but there are some states that would like to dump public school surveillance data into federally-funded fusion centers.

Read more

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. 


“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

If you aren’t outraged about the new revenue enhancement system that our Governor decided to “gift” us with on his way out the door-then you aren’t paying attention.

. . .And you haven’t heard about the “New Paradigm”

Kaye Beach

May 26, 2010

I heard a fellow on the radio yesterday saying he wasn’t worried about the government sharing his information for no reason.  He was not concerned about the possibility of information collected by ALPR (Automatic License Plate Recognition) cameras with private companies.  I don’t think he even considered the possibility of how this information could be combined with other data to give even more intimate detail to the digital factoids collected, collated analyzed and shared about each of us.

This gentleman is under the widely shared impression that it is not legal to share such information without just cause.  This mis-perception combined with fact that he considers himself to be a law abiding person made him unconcerned about possible abuses of this system.

I think this man like many of us remember the adage repeated often by those in law enforcement that information is shared “on a need to know basis”

Unless you are paying close attention, the changes taking place in technology, policy and law are still largely imperceptible though you might have a sneaking suspicion that things just ain’t what they used to be.

Our government is fully on board with a new method of policing called “Intelligence Led Policing”.  The International Chiefs of Police like to call it “The New Paradigm” of policing. An import from the UK and based upon utilitarian thought, Intelligence Led Policing is focused on preventing or predicting who among us might be predisposed to committing a crime, an act of terrorism or in some manner be a “threat to public safety” well before the actual threat manifests.

Traditionally, police officers wait for intelligence. To be preventative, however, authorities must actively seek information and intelligence, and actively search for persons who may be suspicious—not simply respond to calls of suspicious persons or circumstances.

Police officers should seek to assess threats that may not rise to a level of suspicion that police would traditionally use to justify arrest or detention. link

Russell Porter who, in 1997 was the Special Agent in Charge of the Intelligence Bureau, Iowa Department of public Safety pitched ILP like this;

Why Do We Need Intelligence-Led Policing

Physicians are trained to diagnose a patient — before initiating a medical intervention. Good mechanics figure out what’s really wrong with a car’s motor —before they start replacing engine parts.Professional football teams utilize scouts — before the players take the field — to gather information that will improve the team’s chances of winning.

So with ILP, according to Russell Porter, widespread surveillance is a necessary part of the diagnostic process.

Where is Mr. Porter now?

  • Russell Porter, Director, Intelligence Fusion Center, Iowa Department of Public Safety
    Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)
  • Chairman of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council

He also serves as Chairman of the Global Intelligence Working Group (part of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, affiliated with the U.S. Department of Justice). The GIWG supported the development of the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) as a blueprint to assist law enforcement personnel in their crime-fighting, public safety, and anti-terrorism efforts.

Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder

October 07, 2004

As part of its continuing effort to enhance the safety and security of communities throughout the United States and the world, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and a broad-based group of private sector/law enforcement professionals, released a comprehensive report entitled: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder. The 38-page report outlines a national strategy to strengthen existing partnerships between private security and public law enforcement agencies and to assist in the creation of new ones.

The report is the outgrowth of a national policy summit on this issue that was held earlier this year by IACP, supported by its Private Sector Liaison Committee, and co-sponsored by the American Society of Industrial Security International (ASIS), the International Security Management Association (ISMA), the National Association of Security Companies (NASCO), and the
Security Industry Association (SIA). (remember these guys? They are the ones who went over our heads by writing a letter to Gov Henry asking him  to veto the anti -RFID bill which would have given us a measure of protection from being tracked through our ID cards and driver’s licenses.  What is our privacy compared to profit?  Say Mooooo….)

I understand why the notion of stopping a violent act before it happens is such an attractive idea but besides the fact that there is no evidence that we can discern intent through various means of surveillance, such a policy clashes mightily with the fundamentals of our form of government and philosophy of law.

As far as sharing personal information with private industry-Yes. They do and they will. I get my information from reading source documents-thousands of them. Partnering with private business for the purpose of two way sharing is a core tenant for every domestic security policy I know of since 9 11.

Commercial databases. A majority of state and local intelligence fusion centers subscribe to services from consumer database vendors such as LexisNexis, Lexis’s Accurint, and ChoicePoint, which house public-record data as well as personal data like credit applications or unlisted mobile telephone numbers. Read More Fusion Centers Forge Ahead

The Information Flow Model of ChoicePoint’s Operations. The rounded boxes below

the center ChoicePoint rectangle represent data leaving ChoicePoint, while the rectangles above ChoicePoint’s name reflect sources of data entering the company

What are Fusion Centers.

Information collected and shared about us has real consequences.

People in this country have been denied jobs, hauled into the police station, denied or overcharged on insurance, turned down for credit, been put onto a watch list or entered into a database or maybe even treated to the third degree at the airport, without ever knowing why or connecting these events to the new policies of broad information sharing that have been adopted since 9 11. Mistakes happen, right?

It is important when evaluating the merit of any of these new “security” features being heaped upon us to understand that things have changed quite drastically in the last decade and our assumptions need to be checked against new realities.

The development of Public Private Partnerships and seamless sharing of information that is cross jurisdictional and international is deemed essential to the “New Paradigm”.

We are under surveillance and it is profitable. This spells big trouble for freedom.

Call it Hypocrisy-Law Enforcement Agencies Join OPEA in Privacy Fight

The OPEA announces that they, along with Oklahoma’s finest are going to bat for privacy rights.

If that headline gave you a moment of hope that maybe we might get a bit of mercy from our state leaders in the privacy arena, I hate to break the news to you. It doesn’t.

All of you that are anxiously following such freedom busting legislation as;

HB 2331 that would use ALPR license plate scanning cameras to remotely check our tags against a new online insurance verification system and then confiscate the vehicles of those who are not verified in this database

Or HB 2751 which negates presumption of innocence by mandating the taking of DNA samples upon arrest

Or SB 483 which gives the Commissioner of Public Safety complete authority to share our biometric and other personally identifying information held in state DMV databases at will, without a warrant with the entities he chooses.

I hate to bust your bubble but the outrage emanating from the OPEA and law enforcement leaders over the publishing of state employees’ data does not apply when it comes to the ordinary Oklahoma residents.

They seem completely oblivious to how ridiculous it sound to wail about birthdates with all off the egregious, intrusive policy making they have been inflicting on this state.

Commissioner of Public Safety Kevin Ward, left, and Representative Randy Terrill speak in favor of SB 1753, keeping birth dates (of some) confidential.

Saying they face potentially life-threatening consequences, every major law enforcement entity today joined the OPEA in opposing the release of state employees’ birth dates.

Question: What is more personal that a birth date?

More unique to you that a social security number?

What personal information not only identifies you but does so with a number that ties you identity directly to your body?

Hint: Rep. Terrill has been actively championing for DPS Commissioner Kevin Ward to have open access and ultimate authority to share the personal information on over a million Oklahoma residents that is housed in the Department of Public Safety’s databases.

This unique identifier that I am referring to can also be gathered and accessed without your permission or knowledge which is actually one it’s most compelling selling points to our government. No griping, no whining from us about the Fourth Amendment or any other of our silly ideas about wanting to be free of government control. All they need is your picture, some software and a database to be able to keep track of you, your whereabouts and whatfors.

I am talking about our faces and the biometric data extracted from those faces by the gadgets our state has spent plenty on in recent years.

Since the US uses international standards for this technology, our state photos compatible with global biometric facial recognition standards. This means that there are no barriers such as language or incompatible technology that we can count on to keep this personally identifying data from being used to recognize us or to reference our other biographical information. It works no matter where in the world you are.

If your face is uncovered and there is a cctv camera that has access a database with your biometric on file-smile! They know you and depending on what your mugs universal number is attached to, they may know quite a lot about you.

A fingerprint, you might know, is also a biometric, which simply means a measurement of or about our bodies.

Remember when only suspects and criminals were fingerprinted? Now we all are and this biometric is collected and stored in a database by Oklahoma state DMV’s right alongside your digital photograph and every other scrap of data that you are forced to share if you care to drive a car or get a state ID card.

While this group is having a conniption over the birthdates of public employees, a recently filed “Request for Information” by the OK. Dept. of Public Safety informs that DPS collects or will be collecting the following information which will be included on the card;

information to be included on the DDLs or ID Card issued, including, a distinguishing alpha numeric identification, date of issuance, date of expiration, applicant’s full name, computerized signature, date of birth, residents address, sex, color photograph or computerized imaged and security features, and county of residence, and permission for DPS to promulgated rules for the inclusion of height and other brief descriptions of licensee;

pg 5 and 6

Oklahoma has been set up with equipment from Viisage, now L-1 Identity Solutions, to capture, collect and store our biometric images since 2004. L-1 has a fine reputation in enabling repressive regimes with high tech tools for the purpose of controlling and keeping their populations orderly and productive.

The Chinese city of Shenzhen is serving as the testing grounds for Golden Shield.

With more than 200,000 surveillance cameras already installed — and that number expected to rise to two million cameras in three years, Shenzhen’s citizens will likely be the most “watched” people in the world. Every camera in the city will be networked to one central location that will be armed with the latest facial recognition software from the American company L-1 Identity Solutions.

The system will be able to scan a face and match it to a picture from the central database in a matter of seconds. To supplement the cameras, Chinese citizens will be required to carry electronic national ID cards that are also linked to the central database, giving China an unprecedented ability to track its citizens

Read More

Bob Evans, on April 6, 2010, makes some very good points in this article posted at InformationWeek;

Noting that

‘The state of Oklahoma has raised more than $65 million by selling its citizens’ personal information including names, birth dates, driver’s-license numbers, and more [. . .] the state’s now trying to shield public-sector workers from those same privacy-trampling practices to which private-sector citizens are subject.

Mr. Evans explains that while the law permits our information to be routinely sold and shared, he wonders if that is the right thing to do. . .

‘Particularly when state employees try to persuade their bureaucrat buddies to tailor the policies so that public-sector employees are exempt from having their own information exposed to this data mining and personal-information marketplace.’

**See Rep. Randy Terrill in Trouble
posted March 29, 2010

Evans continues;

While the state earns money selling records that include birth dates, lawmakers and some labor groups are working to shut off access to birth dates of public employees to the public

[. . .]Senate Bill 1753, by Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City, and Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, would exempt government worker birth dates from the state’s Open Records Act. Leftwich, Terrill and supporters of the bill claim releasing birth dates could endanger the safety of employees and lead to identity theft.

[. . ]What I want to know is this: if this personal-data selloff is such a wonderful idea and is so good for the state, then why in the world would state employees be trying to keep their own names and info off-limits?
Read More

That is a very good question!

The OSBI was also represented, with Director DeWade Langley saying: “Over 100 of our employees have voiced concern because once you have a person’s full name and date of birth, you’re two-thirds of the way there if you want to steal someone’s identity.

I got a better one than that;


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.

International Police Organization Proposes Worldwide Facial Recognition System.

Oct. 20, 2008

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.

“We need to get our data to the border entry points. There will be such a large role in the future for fingerprints and facial recognition,”

— Mark Branchflower, head of Interpol’s fingerprint unit

This entire hullabaloo is very curious when you consider the responses of these same people to concerns about the collection and sharing of the highly intimate data belonging to the general public.

Many of these high ranking members of law enforcement and public safety have repeatedly downplayed the risk of the personal data they have been compiling and sharing on us. These very same public servants deny and ridicule the idea that their promiscuous information sharing plans will compromise our safety or privacy in any worrisome manner. Very curious indeed!

They fear, that their personal information could be used to identify and locate them. I understand how they feel. This is the very same concern I have about my information Mr. Ward, Director Langley, Randy Terrill!

Does this group of indignant public servants think that there should be two different sets of rules? Are some animals more equal than others as one reader of my blog so aptly questioned?

Rep.Terrill -The Oklahoman Breaks Its Pledge

Less than one week after the paper’s editor promised The Oklahoman would not publicize state employees’ personal identifying information, the paper did just that today, making public more than 100 employees’ names and birthdates, Rep. Randy Terrill said.

“This is a matter of trust”
Rep. Terrill proclaims.

It appears that Rep. Terrill has become a “born-again” defender of some Oklahomans right to keep their identity private.

Birth dates help reporters watch over public money


Published: Apr 4, 2010

Rep. Randy Terrill, who is pushing the Legislature to exempt the birth dates from the law, obtained a list of registered voters himself for his campaign in 2004. And Terrill also finagled a list of home addresses of state employees for the OPEA’s use, even though home addresses are exempted by law.

This is being done even though the Attorney General gave his opinion that

birth dates should be considered available to the public unless there are overriding reasons to shut them off. So the OPEA went to court to prevent the state from making the birth dates available upon request.

Read More;

I would assume that these same public employees are motorists and therefore have their information up for sale the same as the rest of us, unless they get a “special” protected database to house their personal information.

TULSA, Okla. (Legal Newsline)- Oklahoma is raking in millions of dollars by selling personal information about motorists, a report indicates.

From a 2009 article about SB 483;

The Battle In The States: Freedom Vs Protection

Fusion Centers are funded primarily by the federal government. Some believe them to be an effective tool to fight terrorism with little that one could find objectionable. The problem is, Fusion Centers have overstepped their intended purpose. This is typical when dealing with the issue of technology and invasive databases. Mission creep is just too easy.

Oklahoma’s SB 483

A prime example of such dangerous legislation that could lead to an international surveillance state is Oklahoma’s SB 483, which will authorize the Commissioner of Public Safety (DPS) the authority to enter into “agreements” with other state agencies and allow these other agencies “direct electronic access” to the DPS database of computerized photos.

Moreover, the Federal Department of Homeland Security is targeting such state databanks and clearly has stated it wants full access to them. It then intends to share them with international databanks.

Biometric data and Social Security numbers

The final piece of the puzzle is the third tier of legislation making rounds in several state legislatures that would prohibit state governments from collecting biometric samples/data and social security numbers of citizens who apply for driver’s licenses. In direct opposition to bills such as SB 483, Oklahoma is considering such legislation which calls for the removal of existing biometric information and social security numbers from the state motor vehicle database. Such legislation is intended to protect our personal privacy.

[. . .]Again, in Oklahoma, some lawmakers have figured out the only way to stop the federal government and international organizations from getting their hands on citizens personal information is to stop collecting the information and putting it in state databases.

Guys, you can’t be closing off access to open records while at the same time cracking the shower curtain open on all of us. This is the recipe for creating a terrible imbalance of power.

I think All the animals should be considered equal.

Court order halts Oklahoma birth date request
Injunction temporarily bars state from giving data

Read Orwell’s Animal Farm

Cop impersonator from Germany arrested in OKC, charged with two felonies

This odd story today reminded me of the many references to a program with OK law enforcement called STAR.(see below)  It is like an exchange program between Oklahoma police and Germany where they show each other how law enforcement works in their respective countries.  As I recall the program was quite an intensive exchange with German officers staying an extended amount of time in Oklahoma.  It also reminded me of the Memorandum of Understanding (an informal written agreement) uncovered last session when investigating our Fusion Center,  between DPS and Germany pertaining to Driver’s Licenses. (see below)

Red Dirt Reporter:

Cop impersonator from Germany arrested in OKC, charged with two felonies

By // Andrew W. Griffin – February 2, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY – A German national is currently in the Oklahoma County Jail held on two state felony counts after allegedly fooling an Oklahoma City Police Department captain into believing he was a member of the German federal police.

According to Oklahoma City P.D. Capt. Patrick Stewart, Maziar Golchehr, 27, of Cologne, Germany was arrested on Jan. 27 on felony charges, including possession of a sawed-off rifle and a charge of wearing body armor in the commission of a felony.

The impersonator, according to Stewart, came to Oklahoma City in March 2009 and befriended a captain on the Oklahoma City Police Department .

“He said he was an ex-German police officer and a current federal law officer back in Germany and was here on a visa,” Stewart told Red Dirt Report. “He came to the States seeking employment and the captain agreed to let him stay at his residence.”

Read More;

The STAR  Brochure

The memorandum;


Operation DEFUSE Getting to Know Big Brother

Thursday, December 3, 2009

A Message to the Freedom Movement:

With the establishment’s agenda for tyranny being accelerated at an alarming pace, the movement to restore liberty to these great united States is gaining much momentum.  As every day passes our numbers are growing exponentially and our victories are becoming more plentiful and of a greater magnitude.   While this is met with great elation and joy on behalf of the people, our adversaries are growing fearful and acting accordingly.  They see the cracks beginning to form in their foundation of corruption and are well aware that the people are beginning to see past their lies and understand their agenda for what it truly is.

As such, our enemies are hard at work attempting to turn law enforcement and the military against the people and the people against the military and law enforcement.  This escalation of tension must be stopped.  The people, along with the military and law enforcement, must co-exist in harmony if there is to be any hope of restoring liberty to these united States.

To that end, we are proud to present: OPERATION DEFUSE