Tag Archives: fusion center

DHS ‘fusion centers’ “pools of ineptitude, waste and civil liberties intrusions”

Kaye Beach

Oct. 3, 2012

Maybe the civil liberty violations alone weren’t enough to get the kind of attention on these hometown spy centers deserve but add to that the shocking lavish spending, waste and ineptitude. .  .well finally!

Thanks to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) Oklahoma’s own Senator Tom Coburn for their great work on this eye opening report on DHS’ Fusion Centers. (Read the report)

Close them down!

The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow reports;

Oct. 2, 2012An initiative aimed at improving intelligence sharing has done little to make the country more secure, despite as much as $1.4 billion in federal spending, according to a two-year examination by Senate investigators.The nationwide network of offices known as “fusion centers” was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to address concerns that local, state and federal authorities were not sharing information effectively about potential terrorist threats.But after nine years — and regular praise from officials at the Department of Homeland Security — the 77 fusion centers have become pools of ineptitude, waste and civil liberties intrusions, according to a scathing 141-page report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations.

Read More

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: http://newsok.com/oklahomas-fusion-center-has-a-broad-role-these-days./article/3626735#ixzz1i4z2ZOBQ

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.”

http://epic.org/press/041108.html

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.

http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/


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

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1236975404263.shtm


Jurisdiction

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!


The Department Of Homeland Security Continues the Quest for Total Information Awareness

Kaye Beach

Nov 30, 2011

Yesterday Forbes reports;

The Department Of Homeland Security Wants All The Information It Has On You Accessible From One Place

Well of course they do.  The government knows that information is power, we should remember that power is control.

“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

Forbes reports that the Dept. of Homeland security, not content with its creation of a national network of state Fusion Centers, it now wants its own internal fusion center so that it can take all of the information collected by its many agencies and bring it together and make it all searchable from one central location.  The Dept. of Homeland Security absorbed some 22 agencies when it was created including FEMA, the Secret Service,  TSA, Immigration and Naturalization, and much more.

The DHS wants to be able to do searches using specific personal information rather than general searches through all of this data for the purpose of identifying patterns to prevent terrorism attacks.  The data  includes work history collected from the e Verify program, travel records from the TSA, and personal information such as your Social Security number, date of birth, email address and other personal information acquired by DHS from a wide variety of sources including commercial databases making this prospect undeniably similar to the Total Information Awareness project that so outraged Congress and Americans that it was defunded in 2003.

Although a committee of policy and privacy experts were asked to provide feedback on this proposal, DHS signed at least one contract with Raytheon for services related to this proposal before the committee could even complete its draft of recommendations signalling that DHS intends to push this operation forward regardless of any of the legitimate concerns about constitutional, legal or privacy violations.

This system will enable DHS to create a comprehensive profile on American citizens at the push of a button,  an ability  that the government has edged closer and closer to in recent years and an ability that rightfully generates grave concerns in the minds of most Americans.

Dr. Tom Connor, Assoc Prof of Criminal Justice/Homeland Security Director, Institute for Global Security Studies writes;

“The National Strategy for Homeland Security called for connecting computer databases used in federal law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, public health surveillance, and emergency management . . .and further, DARPA’s ill-fated plan for Total Information Awareness(TIA) was to merge some of these interconnections into a data mining system of systems involving the private sector, the finance/credit system, the Internet, and other databases.

With plans such as these, the goal was to obtain the capability to track every human being on the planet at any given time.” (Emphasis mine)

The government’s goal of Total Information Awareness hasn’t changed even though path to get there has taken a few detours.

Privacy or Panopticon? AxXiom For Liberty Live 6-8 pm CST

Nov 4, 2011

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Live with Kaye Beach and Howard Houchen-

Privacy or Panopticon?

Listening info

Special Guest:

Amanda Teegarden, Executive Director of OK-SAFE will present to us the same information she revealed to lawmakers on Thursday at a joint committee hearing on the federal health care reform about what will happen to our personal health information under the federal health care reform law.

  • •}Health Care Reform – is really about the use of IT to implement a nationwide health information network (NHIN), that will enable the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and that allows a growing global surveillance system to function.
  • •}Electronic Health Records  - Reform is predicated on the creation of a standardized, interoperable electronic health record (EHR) on every single individual
  • •}Cradle-to-Grave – EHRs are used for data collection, aggregation and reporting and are intended to track a person from birth to death. (Longitudinal)
  • •}EHRs are universal and to be shared globally – not only within our government, but with foreign governments, universities, and other third parties.
  • •}Requires Standardization and Interoperability – to establish uniformity and compatibility in data collection, regardless of jurisdiction
  • •It gets really personal;
  • •}EHRs include each person’s genetic information – and will be used for research purposes without the knowledge or consent of the person
  • •}Rights killing – Health care reform, and other data collection networks, do an “end-run” around search warrants and nullify our inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

We will discuss this and other important facts about how health care reform has already impacted and changed  Oklahoma’s policies and governmental structure and take your calls tonight from 6-8 pm on Rule of Law Radio Network.

Listening info

Call In Number 512-646-1984

____________________________________________________________

Show Notes

The Panopticon-

If you are not familiar with the concept of a panopticon, it is an illuminating example of the powerful tool of control surveillance is.

Jeremy Bentham, an 18th century utopian philosopher conceived the idea of the Panopticon; or, the Inspection House in 1791.  He described it as “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.“ and held that if the inmates believed that they were under constant surveillance, they would act as if they were, even if surveillance was non-existent.

Its method was a circular grid of surveillance; the jailors housed in a central tower being provided a 360-degree view of the imprisoned from a central guard tower where the watchers were obscured from the prisoner’s sight.  By making the watcher both invisible and unverifiable, it also rendered him virtually unnecessary.  Because the inmates believed and acted as if they were being watched, the actual watching becomes less of a requirement.

The scrutiny of surveillance is psychologically internalized.  We learn to monitor ourselves and conform.   “What matters is that he knows himself to be observed stated Betham.  In view of this, he laid down the principle that “power should be visible and unverifiable” 

Michael Badnarik’s Constitution Class, OKC.  Jan14, 2012

Healthcare Reform –
IT, Security & Privacy Issues/Concerns
  by Amanda Teegarden for  OK-SAFE.

Lawmakers Told OK Faces April Health Care Reform Deadline

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20111104_16_A13_CUTLIN628316

Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records

By: Rep. Tim Huelskamp | 09/23/11

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has proposed that medical records of all Americans be turned over to the federal government by private health insurers.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

(See Proposed Rule:  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf)

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!

AxXiom for Liberty Show Notes Friday March 4, 2011

AxXiom for Liberty FRIDAY MARCH 3 2011

GUEST-pORTER dAVIS

The Open Government Project

OK House Fails First Test

SHOW AUDIO A4L_2011-03-04_64k.mp3

Mr. Davis’ blog Free Oklahoma

Topics:

REAL ID extension red herring, 18 benchmarks

Real ID Remerges on House Agenda

March 4, 2011

Despite the fact that twenty-four states have rejected the REAL ID Act of 2005, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) issued Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano a letter warning against any further extension of REAL ID. The letter stated that not implementing REAL ID “threatens the security of the United States.” The letter follows the arrest of Khalid Ali-M Adawsari on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. According to the House Judiciary Committee, DHS is planning to extend the deadline for implementation to January 15, 2013. The current deadline for states to be materially compliant is May 11, 2011. EPIC previously released a report, testified to Congress, and submitted comments stating that REAL ID included few protections for individual privacy and security in its massive national identification database. For related information see EPIC: National ID and the REAL ID Act, EPIC: Biometric Identifiers, and the Privacy Coalition’s Campaign Against REAL ID.

OK Republicans Implementing “Obama Care”

“O’FALLIN CARE”


This is another shell game being played on us  just like  what is being done with the The Real ID Act.

Listen to America In The Balance with Amanda Teegarden and James Parsons with guest Mark Croucher Date 2/27/11

Find” O’Fallincare” documents at http://www.ok-safe.com/

Oklahoma’s Anti-RFID bill

RFID in YOUR ID!

Tibbs/Martin Block RFID bill – guess they want a national ID card?

Will the Oklahoma Anti-RFID Bill Die? Our Loss is Their Gain

Meet the Chippers!

The IACP Report

The IACP Intelligence Led Policing SARS and Fusion Centers

The IACP-Big Brother Gets Bigger

DHS Reveals FEDERAL Fusion Center

Public Comments Sought on Federal “Fusion Centers”: The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) [1] [2] and the Office of Operations [1] [2] at the Department of Homeland Security are seeking comments on Fusion centers, intelligence databases that have raised substantial privacy concerns. Information in fusion centers comes from many sources, including government agencies, private sector firms and anonymous tipsters. EPIC has urged Congress to improve accountability and oversight of this program. An EPIC FOIA lawsuit also revealed that federal Fusion Centers undermine state privacy and open government laws. Comments are due December 15, 2010. For More Information, see EPIC: Information Fusion Centers and Privacy, EPIC: Total Information Awareness, and EPIC v. Virginia Department of State Police (Fusion Center Secrecy Bill). (Dec. 3, 2010)


Texting Ban

Legislative Lu Lu Alert! Texting Ban Bill goes to Committee Wed March 3rd

Fri, 2008-02-15

Representatives of nearly twenty toll agencies met in Dallas TX February 7 and decided to form an Alliance for Toll Interoperability (ATI).

. . .With the strong move towards cashless tolling camera reads of license plates – ‘video tolling’ – becomes the mode for collecting the tolls of those motorists without a transponder account.

Attending the formative Dallas meeting were senior operations people from toll authorities in the Carolinas, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas. 15 to 20 toll operators were informally represented.

. . . Video data exchange format priority

ATI people are also interested in how they can improve the readabillity of license plates. Eden says some of the members have been talking with 3M, the big Minneapolis based company that supplies much of the surfacing film used on license plates.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3399

Read More

Oklahoma Spy Cam-O-rama Chapter 2-ALPR and the License Plate Interoperability Hub

The Backstory (for those that really want to know)

Oklahoma Spy Cam Pop Quiz


latest news:

ATI formally issues RFP for Hub, May 2 deadline, smart new imaging technologies emerge

Posted on Wed, 2011-03-02 22:07
The Alliance for Toll Interoperability have formally filed their important Hub Request for Proposals. It has a May 2 deadline and the schedule provides for final selection by June 20, and Notice to Proceed by July 8, of an operator (or up to three operators) for three to six months of pilot operations.

Pilot program operations would formally go from August 1 for three months to November 1, with an option to extend to six months (end Jan 2012.)

Deadlines at the ATI have been known to slip.

In the Pilot Hub or Hubs the operators will be expected to handle the images and other data from up to nine ATI toll members and to collect and post tolls on their behalf 24/7.

In a second stage, if the pilot or pilots are deemed successful, participating hub operators would report their pilot results and recommendations and make offers to the ATI for a three year operations contract with two possible three year extensions.

Alliance Toll Interop’y has legal RFP, close to final RFP for license plate hub – meeting Mar 8

Posted on Thu, 2011-02-17 23:56
By summer as many as 40 toll agencies across the US could be having out of state tolls run through hubs in a six month pilot program for a permanent clearinghouse. Over 80 companies are vying for the hub contracts in a program  that should lead to seamless automatic toll collection at highway speeds across the country – potentially the biggest advance in toll collection since the first electronic toll transponders were introduced in the late 1980s.

A final RFP will be available within a week according to JR Fenske, the North Carolina Turnpike staffer most intensely working the project for the Alliance for Toll Interoperability, a cooperative representing over 40 toll authorities.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5158

What is a Fusion Center?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Audio Introduction (original 2007 )

”What Is a Fusion Center?
A fusion center is an effective and efficient mechanism to exchange information and intelligence, maximize resources, streamline operations, and improve the ability to fight crime and terrorism by merging data from a variety of sources. In addition, fusion centers are a conduit for implementing portions of the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP).”

Excerpt from
Fusion Center Guidelines: Executive Summary

DOJ links to foundational documents

Fusion Center Guidelines

”In developing our country’s response to the threat of terrorism, public safety leaders from all disciplines have recognized the need to improve the sharing of information and intelligence across agency borders. Every law enforcement, public safety, and private sector official involved in information and intelligence sharing has a stake in this initiative. Leaders must move forward with a new paradigm on the exchange of information and intelligence.”

Excerpt from
The Role of Leadership,
Fusion Center Guidelines

As part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative’s (Global) efforts to develop fusion center guidelines, the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC), in support of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), recommended the creation of the Fusion Center Focus Group. This focus group was tasked with recommending guidelines to aid in the development and operation of fusion centers.

Concurrently, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) Intelligence and Information Sharing Working Group focused on developing guidelines for local and state agencies in relation to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of terrorism-related intelligence in the context of fusion centers. The recommendations resulting from the HSAC’s efforts assisted in the development of the fusion center guidelines.

The development of guidelines for fusion centers was separated into three phases-law enforcement intelligence, public safety, and the private sector. The Fusion Center Guidelines: Law Enforcement Intelligence, Public Safety, and the Private Sector, covering all three phases, is now complete and available. These guidelines may be used for homeland security efforts, as well as all crimes. By integrating these guidelines, agencies can resolve and overcome many common obstacles. In addition, guidelines can help guide administrators in developing policies, managing resources, and evaluating services.

Audit identifies nearly $67,000 in improper spending in southwest Iowa “Fusion” Office

A state audit has identified nearly $67,000 worth of improper spending in an intelligence-sharing office that used to be run by four officers from the Atlantic Police Department.

Deputy State Auditor Tami Kusian says the “Fusion” Office in Atlantic was established after 9/11 as a regional collection center for criminal and intelligence information from a 14-county area that was then to be shared with other law enforcement agencies.

 

“We were requested to come in by the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Public Defense and they just identified some issues that they were concerned about and they requested that we come in and take a look at those,” Kusian says.

Read More

 

Declare Your Independence! (from Government Surveillance…)

I was a guest on Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock today. Topic; Government surveillance, Biometrics and the new documentary on the OKC bombing by Free Mind Films “A Noble Lie” (See links below for items discussed)

I’m on Hour 2 and into hour 3 (but the whole show is great!) http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/075291-2010-09-13-declare-your-independence-with-ernest-hancock-afternoon-september-13th-2010.htm

Envisioning the Future of the CODIS DNA Database

California Vision 2015

Jesse Trentadue, Salt Lake City Utah Attorney with a portrait of his slain brother, Kenneth Trentadue.

2009 Court Brief

“I didn’t start out to solve the bombing, I started out to find the men who killed my brother,” –Jesse Trentadue

This brief lays out what Jesse Trentadue has found to date as a result of his ongoing battle with the federal government to find out what happened to his brother Kenneth and why.

Fascination read!

More…

From OKC to Abu Ghraib: The Kenneth Trentadue Case

CIA Vaughan Index 2009

FBI surrenders documents that judge ordered
10-21-2005

J.D. Cash

More on Jesse Trentadue’s battle to find justice for his brother, Kenneth.


Terry Yeakey-Always a Hero

Maryland Gov. Bets that His Citizens Will Make Great Pets!

Kaye Beach

Aug. 7, 2010

Maybe “pets” is the wrong word.

Since most citizens will be permitted to roam freely (within certain, specified limits) aside from the occasional interruptions required by their minders to relieve them of a quantity of useful product, I guess “herd” or “livestock” might be a more accurate way of characterizing how Mr. O’Malley views the taxpayers that he plans to tend.

Editorial

With great fanfare, Gov. Martin O’Malley on Wednesday announced his use of your tax dollars to track every move made by Maryland motorists. The Democratic chief executive will spend $2 million in federal grants to double the number of roadside and mobile spy cameras, with the data centrally collected at a “fusion center” accessible to government bureaucrats.

Like speed cameras and red-light cameras, Mr. O’Malley‘s license-plate recognition cameras photograph the plates of passing motorists. Within a matter of seconds, a computer system looks up the vehicle owner’s identity and cross-references it against a “wanted” list after recording the time, date and GPS coordinates of the vehicle. All of this information will be stored at the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center located in Woodlawn, just outside Baltimore. Mr. O’Malley‘s plan is unique insofar as it allows tracking of persons of interest using cameras located in dozens of local jurisdictions. “We believe it’s the first,” Maryland State Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley told The Washington Times. “It’s certainly one of the first to network police [agencies] together like this.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/6/omalleys-spy-cameras/

If you have somehow managed to miss this video,  I highly recommend it.

The Battle at Kruger