Tag Archives: public safety

Targeted Interstate Photo Sharing (TIPS): Homeland Security, NLETS and the IACP Target Your Biometric Driver’s License Photo

target dl 1

Kaye Beach

Dec. 29, 2012

In the modern surveillance state it’s all about the biometrics, especially facial recognition which allows for at-a-distance identification and investigation of individuals without their knowledge or consent-no warrant required!

Very few realize that upon issuance of a state driver’s license, a state identification card, or any other form of government issued photo ID, we are having our facial biometrics captured by high resolution photography.  The analog cameras in every state have been replaced with high resolution digital cameras that capture, map, digitize, and database our facial features for use with facial recognition technology.

The federal REAL ID Act was passed in 2005.  The first (and most important!) benchmark of REAL ID is capture and retention of the driver’s license applicant’s facial image.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

The following is from an article published in Nov. of this year by the Police Chief, the official magazine of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP);

(“Image” means biometric image which is quite different than a simple photograph)

“In 2006, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate gave the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets) funds to implement driver’s license image sharing between the states. Nlets is a nonprofit organization owned by the 50 states that has connections to every federal, state, local, and military law enforcement agency in the United States. If an agency’s technical capabilities allow, officers can query state driver’s license databases from a mobile or a desktop device and obtain an image in a manner of seconds.”

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words, From The Police Chief, vol. LXXIX, no. , November 2012. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA

Your state department of public safety or DMV driver’s license database provides your biometric data which tethers your body to other unique biographical data such as your social security number, age, address and more.  As a tool for surveillance and control, your faceprint is invaluable.

 “Today, more than 25 states have implemented this technology and are providing law enforcement images. In the next year, at least 12 more states will implement this technology.” A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

Now,  law enforcement can, simply by taking your picture, identify and investigate you as you go about your business in public without you even being aware that this is happening.

“For some time now, officers have been able to retrieve images through a mobile device while on the street to help identify individuals.” A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

The truth is that they cannot do this everywhere, yet.  While the technology is in place there is still the issue of access to be dealt with.  This is a legal and not a technical matter.  As we know, if the government has the technical ability to do something, they believe that they should be able to do it.  In other words, the law must conform to the capability of the technology and not the other way around.  Policy, once (somewhat) grounded in principle is now rooted in practice so now if they can do it, they will do it and they are doing it.

Undercover cops secretly use smartphones, face recognition to spy on crowds

This kind of surveillance is damaging.   Psychologically, pervasive surveillance, or even the possibility of it, is universally understood to change the behavior of those subjected to it.  It induces conformity of behavior and of thought as well.  As the range of surveillance grows, our ability to simply be, to exercise our free will, shrinks.

“Nlets will not consider photo sharing a success until it is implemented in all 50 states” link

Targeted Interstate Photo Sharing (TIPS)

“Nlets and DHS S&T have been working to expand the use of images in public safety. A new DHS/Nlets project called Targeted Interstate Photo Sharing (TIPS)” A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

NLETS formerly the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications Service is now THE INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY 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/

As this law enforcement writer notes,

“when we engage in innovative law enforcement technology solutions, we need to take extra care to adequately address the security and privacy of personally identifiable information.”  

And who does the writer fear, is not adequately addressing the security and privacy of our personally identifiable information?  Good old NLETS.

Read; When the Cops are Worried About Your Privacy-You Should Worry Too!

NLETS role has always been to serve the state’s law enforcement needs, but that role, as noted by NLETS, is changing.

From Hot Trends and Innovations at Nlets 2012 Slide # 42

While Nlets is 45 years old this year, we have always taken the “child” role, with the States being the “parent”

–In recent years, the child is becoming the parent in many aspects.

Why? For one thing NLETS is now being funded and thus, directed by the federal government.

nlets grant funders Hot trends innovations ppt 2012Slide # 47

Slide # 17

From Hot Trends and Innovations at Nlets 2012


Department of Homeland Security

When lines of authority are blurred, power naturally defaults to the highest level.  The states are not ‘partners’ with the federal government in matters that require state authority over their jurisdiction.

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

State and local policing is a jurisdictional matter and the states and local governments have conceded their authority in this.  Informational jurisdiction is no exception and in fact leads physical control.

What is revealed in this IACP Nov. 2012 article is that the Department of Homeland Security has funded an international non-governmental organization, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), to manage the operational issues of the endeavor; Targeted Interstate Photo Sharing (TIPS).

“The DHS S&T has funded the IACP Technology Center to provide a practitioner group to advise Nlets on operational issues. These experienced practitioners will provide input on how this technology can be used in the field.”

What that means is that we are in trouble. 

The IACP is an international, non-governmental organization accredited by the United Nations and has been instrumental in bringing about profound changes to our nation politically, technologically and culturally.  There has been a great paradigm shift in our nation since 9-11 that spans all agencies of government.  This shift affects every aspect of our lives and has practically decimated the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  US citizens, regardless of their political persuasion, are united in astonishment as they witness the slash and burn abrogation of one cherished right after another.

There is no sector of our society left untouched by the new paradigm and each has its own specialists attending to the transformation in their particular realm.  In the realm of policing, it is the IACP who is in charge of nurturing and tending this transformation.

Here is just one example;

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

I hate to share information like this without providing you with any solutions.  I have been working diligently for years to find a way for us to protect our biometric data which is the key to our government’s efforts to create the most effective and efficient surveillance society ever experienced on this earth.

Although I have found no solution in legislation, no real willingness by enough of our elected representatives to do what they took an oath to do; to protect our liberty I do still recommend that you contact your state representative and tell them if you have concerns about open access to your data contained in the state Dept. of Public Safety database.  Tell them that you expect them to protect your personal information from being freely shared and used on a whim to track and spy on you.  They need to hear concerns from their constituents.

It is clear that we cannot stop the government from sharing this information in ways that will hurt our ability to control our own lives.   If we want to protect ourselves we must remove our biometrics from the system by either not giving it to them in the first place or taking legal action to remove it.

That is what I am trying to do, remove my biometric data from the system.  There is just no good reason for it being collected in the first place and no one ever informed me or you of what was being taken from us when we applied for our state driver’s license and they certainly never warned us about the repercussions of trusting them with our most personal information.

Read more about my lawsuit

My Real ID Reckoning

Latest update and request for support

Stop Biometric ID!  Kaye Beach needs your support for lawsuit


**UPDATE** Audrey vs Smart Water Meters

Kaye Beach

September 14, 2012

“It’s strange but a lot of people are afraid of the government”

Audrey says she will not be intimidated.

“The city of Baraboo, WI is trying to bully an 80-year old great grandmother into installing a smart water meter. She is objecting to the install on privacy and safety grounds.”

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/1000-Friends-of-Freedom/269335973184718


Oct 3, 2012

Baraboo Denies Audrey an Opt-Out

80 Yr-Old Great-Granmother Given Final Ultimatum: Submit to Smart Meter Install of Face Water Shut-Off

Despite safety, privacy, and health issues with smart meters, the City of Baraboo has refused to provide any opt-out plan for its citizens.

Delaware Pilots Mass Surveillance Devices for Revenue Enhancement

Kaye Beach

August 8, 2011

Delaware gets some fancy new mass surveillance tracking and revenue enhancement devices namely ALPR or Automatic License Plate Recognition.

One of the main concerns voiced  by Delawares pesky privacy pirates is ‘where will the data collected by these spy scameras go’?

It’s not just Delaware either.  Most of these these tracking, monitoring, and revenue enhancement schemes are either already in use in your community or look for them to be coming soon.  All a part of Intelligence Led Policing, the technology and data dependent form of policing/intelligence embraced shortly after 9 11.

We are all “share” like Barney now.


From DelawareOnline.com

State troopers used to park behind billboards or underpasses as they quickly typed the license-plate numbers of passing cars into computers to find scofflaws.They were lucky to record the plates of 50 passing motorists per shift.But that’s changing because of new technology that allows them to instantly check license plates to see if motorists owe everything from traffic fines to back taxes. And they can check up to 900 plates per minute.

“I can drive 55 mph on I-95 and I can pass a parked car on the shoulder and I can still read that tag,” said state police Cpl. Todd Duke, who has the device — known as a License Plate Recognition (LPR) system — mounted onto his patrol car. “With the new technology, as the machine is operating, I’m able to scan a license plate and immediately read the plate to determine if it is stolen and/or suspended.”LPR is one of the latest surveillance systems officials across the state have started using. They range from red-light cameras to facial-recognition software.

. . .Data collected by troopers will be stored and managed by the state department of technology and information for one year. After that, the data will be retained in an archive database for up to five years, depending on system storage capacity, to assess the validity and operational efficiency of LPRs, said Kimberly Holland Chandler of the state Department of Safety and Homeland Security.State police conducting active investigations will have access to the data, Chandler said. Other law-enforcement agencies also could be granted access.

. . .

Many uses for scans

The LPR system, which is still in the pilot stage, is a collaboration between the state Division of Motor Vehicles and Department of Safety & Homeland Security.

It began after officials noticed the number of uninsured motorists in Delaware reached about 10 percent, Schiliro said. The solution was to tie in the DMV’s uninsured database to a state police license-plate reader system. Once that was solved, they began seeing possibilities for other problems, including tracking people who have not paid tolls or are wanted for other crimes.

. . .You can use it for a lot of different things,” Schiliro said. “You can use it for parking violators, stolen vehicles.”State police began using the system at sobriety checkpoints because of the number of cars that pass through them.

Read more

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

Kaye Beach

Feb 28, 2011

Rep. Morgan’s bill, HB 1316, banning texting while driving will be heard in the Public Safety Committee on Wed. March 3 at 10:30 am at the Oklahoma State Capitol in Room 432A. (Located on the 4th floor of the OK. State Capitol)

Committee meetings are open to the public and present a very good opportunity to see lawmaking in action. (Be warned-the old adage about watching the sausage making does apply!)

We should not support this bill because it is simply poor lawmaking.  Read more about why in Oklahoma Legislative Lu Lu’s

The major problems with HB 1316:

Question? Do we need a law that would make it illegal NOT to read a newspaper while driving?  I’m sure you probably saw someone doing it, and I assure you, it is illegal.  You see, there are already laws against driving while distracted.

HB 1316 is not necessary.  There are already several laws on the books that already cover distracted driving.

  • Minors are already prohibited by law from using their cell phone while driving.
  • Oklahoma law mandates that every driver give full attention to the act of driving
  • Oklahoma law allows law enforcement officers to stop and cite (100 dollar fine) inattentive drivers not limited to the source of the distraction.

HB 1316 is not enforceable and will burden law enforcement

“The bottom line is, we had enough laws on the books to handle the results of bad driving from text messaging, eating a burger or changing the radio station anyway,” Cook said. “And to just keep enumerating new distractions to outlaw don’t really give us any new tools.” link

Law enforcement would be asked to enforce this law while being denied the legal and technological tools necessary to do so. According to law enforcement:

  • The only way to prove that a person was texting while driving is by accessing the data on the cell phone.
  • Without there being some crime committed, officers do not have probable cause to access that data.

30 states have passed laws specifically banning texting while driving and police are complaining that they have written few if any tickets because law is very hard to enforce.  What police say they are doing instead is issuing tickets for distracted driving, a law that was already in effect before the texting ban was issued. Link.

HB 1316 is incomplete.

  • It will require future additional measures to be implemented in order for law enforcement to have the ability to actually enforce HB 1316 should it become law.
  • The additional measures it will take to make HB 1316 a viable law open up a whole other legal can of worms relating to the Fourth Amendment which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.

In a nutshell, HB 1316 is a cure that is worse than the disease!

HB 1316 is a bad bill.  Please contact the members of the Public Safety Committee and let them know that they should vote NO on HB 1316.

The Members of the Public Safety Committee

Rep. Sue Tibbs, 405-557-7379     suetibbs@okhouse.gov
Rep. Steve Martin, 405-557-7402 stevemartin@okhouse.gov
Rep. John Bennet, 405-557-7315 john.bennett@okhouse.gov
Rep. Ed Cannaday, 405-557-7375 ed.cannaday@okhouse.gov
Rep. Josh Cockroft, 405-557-7349 josh.cockroft@okhouse.gov
Rep. Doug Cox, 405-557-7415      dougcox@okhouse.gov
Rep.Tommy Hardin, 405-557-7383 tommy.hardin@okhouse.gov
Rep. Chuck Hoskin 405-557-7319  chuck.hoskin@okhouse.gov
Rep. Fred Jordan 405-557-7331     fred.jordan@okhouse.gov
Rep. Charlie Joyner 405-557-7314 charlie.joyner@okhouse.gov
Rep. Al McAffrey 405-557-7396      al.mcaffrey@okhouse.gov
Rep. Pat Ownbey 405-557-7326     pat.ownbey@okhouse.gov
Rep. Pam Peterson 405-557-7341 pampeterson@okhouse.gov
Rep. Brian Renegar 405-557-7381 brian.renegar@okhouse.gov
Rep. Paul Roan 405-557-7308        paulroan@okhouse.gov
Rep.Todd Thomsen 405-557-7336 todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
Rep.Steve Vaughan 405-557-7355 steve.vaughan@okhouse.gov

(To send a group email copy and paste the group below:
suetibbs@okhouse.gov, stevemartin@okhouse.gov, john.bennett@okhouse.gov, ed.cannady@okhouse.gov, josh.cockroft@okhouse.gov, dougcox@okhouse.gov, tommy.hardin@okhouse.gov, chuck.hoskin@okhouse.gov, fred.jordan@okhouse.gov, charlie.joyner@okhouse.gov, al.mcaffrey@okhouse.gov, pat.ownbey@okhouse.gov, pampeterson@okhouse.gov, brian.renegar@okhouse.gov, paulroan@okhouse.gov, todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov, steve.vaughan@okhouse.gov )

Contact House members at 1-800-522-8502, or 405-521-2711

Here is the entire agenda for the Public Safety Committee meeting on Wed.

When: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:30 AM
Where: ROOM 432A
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. HB1061 – Motor vehicles; use of flashing red and blue lights – Sanders*
3. HB1229 – Motor vehicles; escort vehicle requirement – Ownbey*
4. HB1235 – Adding pseudoephedrine to Schedule III – Sherrer*
5. HB1255 – Authorizing United States Attorneys to carry firearm under certain circumstances – Rousselot*
6. HB1316 – Motor vehicles; using electronic communication devices while driving – Morgan, Tibbs, Brown, Cannaday, Condit, Denney, Glenn, Liebmann, McDaniel (Jeannie), Pittman, Shumate*
7. HB1352 – Death investigation; next of kin request cause of death – McAffrey*
8. HB1485 – Commissioner of Public Safety attempt to negotiate certain compacts – Roberts (Dustin), Blackwell*
9. HB1637 – Clarifying procedure for serving arrest warrant – Ortega*
10. HB1652 – Concealed handguns; deleting technology center schools from list of prohibited places – Enns*
11. HB1690 – Clarifying who may carry firearms – Russ*
12. HB1796 – Legislative referendum; open carry of firearms – Tibbs*
13. HB1797 – Motor vehicles; commercial driver licenses – Tibbs*
14. HB1849 – Prompt death investigations – Blackwell*
15. HB2087 – Crimes and punishments; concealed carry on college campuses – Terrill*
16. HB2120 – Modifying Corporation Commission duties – Hickman*
17. Other business and adjournment

Do You Want RFID on YOUR ID?? Anti-Chip Bill Needs Your Help!

Kaye Beach

Feb 28, 2011

Last week I reported that HB 1399 had been assigned to the Public Safety Committee.

On Wed. Feb 23rd we learned that Rep Tibbs and Rep. Steve Martin decided not to hear the bill.

To find out more about the risks of RFID tracking devices embedded in our ID documents read RFID ID Cards Documents Risks Flyer

For the 1 page version of how the people and their Representatives were sold out on the bill they passed last session to prohibit RFID see HB 2569 Chace’d off by the SIA

Here is an update from OK-SAFE:

HB 1399 Blocked by Rep. Sue Tibbs and Rep. Steve Martin

Characterizing HB 1399 as a “solution in search of a problem”, Rep. Steve Martin, Vice-Chair of the House Public Safety Committee, along with Chair Rep. Sue Tibbs, has decided to not allow this bill a hearing in their committee.

Rep. Steve Martin (R-HD10)

Apparently both Martin and Tibbs are unaware of the pending May 2011 deadline to implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, thereby creating a National/International ID card.  Or they are aware and approve such a card.

HB 1399 (by Wesselhoft/Russell) prohibits the use RFID or RFID-type ink in the Oklahoma dirvers’ licenses and state issued ID cards.  (This same bill passed, and was vetoed, in 2010 and was aimed at fighting the implementation of the Real ID Act in Oklahoma.)

By preventing a hearing and vote on this bill, Martin and Tibbs are preemptively vetoing HB 1399.

Please call/email Rep. Tibbs and Rep. Steve Martin and tell them to advance HB 1399.

Rep. Sue Tibbs, 405-557-7379     suetibbs@okhouse.gov
Rep. Steve Martin, 405-557-7402 stevemartin@okhouse.gov

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.

DHS Sec. Signs Declaration of Principles of Cooperation with Mexican Public Safety

Secretary Napolitano and Mexican Secretary of Public Safety Genaro García Luna Sign Declaration of Principles on Cooperative Efforts to Secure the U.S.-Mexico Border and Combat Transnational Threats

// share this page

Release Date: February 18, 2010

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

Mexico City—U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and Mexican Secretary of Public Safety (SSP) Genaro García Luna today signed a Declaration of Principles of Cooperation on joint efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and share information about transnational threats while streamlining legitimate travel and trade.

“The success of our efforts to crack down on criminal organizations and others who threaten the safety of our citizens requires close collaboration between the United States and Mexico ,” said Secretary Napolitano. “This declaration will allow us to better protect both nations against violent drug cartels and transnational smuggling of drugs, cash and firearms while facilitating legitimate travel and trade.”

“This agreement is an example of the cooperation and mutual understanding regarding security issues between both countries, and between DHS and SSP,” said Secretary García Luna. “The working visit of Secretary Napolitano is a consequence of the strong relationship between both institutions, and of their commitment with the rule of law, and the fight against organized crime and violence.”

The declaration signed today builds on, and expands, Mérida Initiative programs as well as current coordinated efforts between U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Mexican Federal Police and outlines principles to enhance border security, including:

  • Intelligence-driven operations with precise, targeted outcomes—improving public safety and security along the border through DHS-SSP coordinated operations and investigations and focusing additional Mexican resources to combat criminal activity along the border;
  • Cooperation focused on increasing bilateral situational awareness of threats—enhancing the production of reliable criminal activity reports to improve both nations’ ability to share real-time information about arrests, seizures, investigations and relevant trends and threats posed by criminal organizations along the border;
  • Operations designed to deny access by criminal organizations between ports of entry—enhancing coordinated surveillance capabilities; coordinating short- and long-term deployment of personnel, infrastructure and technology; coordinating efforts to identify illegal crossing points and targeting associates of criminal organizations;
  • Enforcement that effectively prevents criminals from exploiting border entry points—sharing intelligence information on criminal activities, structures and strategies, and collaborating to develop strategies that limit transnational mobility of criminal associates and their family members to the extent authorized by law; Ø
  • Sufficient personnel, infrastructure and technology needed to sustain bilateral efforts—coordinating operational plans and investigative efforts to facilitate enforcement goals and sustain bilateral cooperative efforts based on available intelligence.

Secretary Napolitano also met yesterday with Mexican Interior Secretary Fernando Gómez-Mont to sign a protocol to enhance and streamline coordination on public communication in the case of a national security situation or disaster, and improve day-to-day exchanges of public affairs information to enhance mutual awareness and prompt coordination.

In the past year, Secretary Napolitano has made several trips to the Southwest border and Mexico to survey operations, coordinate with state and local law enforcement, and meet with Mexican officials—and has signed several agreements with Mexican officials to bolster cross-border cooperation to crack down on transnational criminal activity.

For more information, visit www.dhs.gov.


This page was last reviewed/modified on February 18, 2010.

CRS Report 09 Terrorism Information Sharing and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Report Initiative

Nov 2009 Congressional Research Report

Terrorism Information Sharing and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Report Initiative

Well, if it just the TERRORISTS’ information that the Gov is  sharing worldwide, that’s not so bad.  I don’t mind if they spy on the TERRORISTS.  Terrorists are BAD!

after 9/11, states and major urban areas established intelligence fusion centers to coordinate
the gathering, analysis, and dissemination of law enforcement, homeland security, public safety,
and terrorism intelligence and analysis.
Fusion centers have been defined as a “collaborative effort of two or more Federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies that combines resources, expertise, or information with the goal of maximizing the ability of such agencies to detect, prevent, investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal or terrorist activity.... ”

Criminals too?  I guess that’s alright…. Criminals hurt people and do bad things. . .

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cites 72 centers currently operational within the United States and
its territories.10 DHS has supported these centers with grant funding and assigned intelligence
officers to them.
[. . .]Post-9/11 efforts to “connect the dots” have included various data mining programs. Data mining
is a type of database analysis that attempts to discover useful patterns or relationships in a group
of data—particularly the discovery of previously unknown relationships—especially when
derived from different databases

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Security Analysis Center (NSAC)
maintains a collection of data sets with more than 1.5 billion government and private sector
records about citizens and foreigners
, according to documents recently obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act.  A formerly secret 2008 funding justification among those released
documents reportedly states that the “NSAC will also pursue ‘pattern analysis’ as part of its
service to [the FBI National Security Branch].
Pattern analysis queries take a predictive model or
pattern of behavior and search for that pattern in data sets.

Wait a darn minute!  I thought you said TERRORISTS and CRIMINALS!  Now its CITIZENS and FORIEGNERS which means….That is EVERYBODY! Predictive,   Patterns in Data sets?  Does that mean that we are all suspects?

The effectiveness of data mining for counterterrorism and homeland security purposes has, however, been questioned by the scientific community, and privacy and civil liberties concerns have been raised.

A study funded by DHS and conducted by a committee of the National Research Council concluded that

[m]odern data collection and analysis techniques have had remarkable success in solving
information-related problems in the commercial sector; for example, they have been
successfully applied to detect consumer fraud. But such highly automated tools and
techniques cannot be easily applied to the much more difficult problem of detecting and
preempting a terrorist attack, and success in doing so may not be possible at all.

Certain government data mining programs—such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency’s Total Information Awareness (TIA)
program and the Transportation Security
Administration’s Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II(CAPPS II)
—have been
abandoned.  Not exactly abandonedDue to citizen and congressional outrage, they were CANNED!

And Congress, in the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007 (§804 of
P.L. 110-53), has mandated detailed reporting requirements and privacy and civil liberties impact
assessments for future data mining programs contemplated by federal agencies.
The FBI is seeking approval to expand the NSAC’s capabilities.

If the Department of Homeland Security funded study said it doesn’t work and to stop it and the American people said cut it out!  and Congress said knock it off-why is the FBI still doing it?  Why is the FBI trying to expand on it???

It does not consider the NSAC a data mining program, but rather an “analysis center.”

Oh.  I see.  name change. I’m not reading the rest-this is a re-run and I didn’t like it  so much the first time.  If you are just a glutton for punishment .. .

Read the Report;


Schwarzenegger signs ammo-regulation bill

SACRAMENTO — People buying ammunition in California will soon have to be thumbprinted and dealers will have to keep records of sales, under legislation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.

After vetoing similar bills three times since 2004, Schwarzenegger signed AB962 by Assemblyman Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on Sunday, saying he now believes it will promote public safety.

The measure is California’s first statewide regulation of ammunition sales. It survived close votes in both the Assembly and state Senate and strong opposition from gun-rights organizations, which succeeded in stripping a provision that would have required sellers of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month to be licensed by the state.

Starting in July, the law will require dealers to keep records of handgun ammunition sales for at least five years, and store the bullets securely out of customers’ reach.

Oklahoma gearing up to restrict cell phone usage

Yesterday the Public Safety Committee with Rep. Sue Tibbs as Chair met to discuss findings on Cell Phone/texting.

Here are the

Current state laws on cell phone use while driving

An attendee to today’s hearing reports;

Jennifer Smith tells her personal story about the loss of a loved one due to a driver that was distracted by their cell phone. http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11236355


  • Scott Watkins, OK HWY Safety Office gives a presentation on ‘Distracted Drivers in Oklahoma with Crash data from 2007 and 2008.  2.2% (2007) and 2.3% (2008) of all crashes in OK were due to distracted drivers.

    Points made;

  • Currently, cell-phone use is self-reported at the time of the accident.  Individual can admit or deny using the phone/texting.
  • Cell phone records require a subpoena or court order to acquire.
  • Enforceability – this seems to be the crux of the issue for law enforcement. How can they eliminate self-reporting and give Law Enforcement officials access to phone records, (without a court order?)

    -There was one Oklahoman who and gave a dissenting statement. Her concern is that this is one more way to grow government

    Representative Tibbs let it be known that if civil liberties and safety are at odds then civil liberties must be sacrificed.

    (Thank you Momma Tibbs. )

    Lawmakers Discuss Texting Ban


    The audio will be out soon, I will be interested to hear the dialog myself.

    Nearly everyone has had the experience of nearly being creamed by dimwits diddling with their cell phones. It’s infuriating to experience a near miss and an accident could be tragic so why would anyone take issue with passing a law to ban cell phone use and texting?

    Well, why would anyone in their right minds argue that speed humps are not the benign “traffic calming” device they are advertised to be and who would argue that they are actually harming more people than they help?

    When I was a student EMT I was surprised to find that emergency workers curse the things as a matter of course.

    I admit that I hate speed bumps but never considered that there might be some legitimate problems with them. I just took it on faith that they served a valid purpose even though they are annoying and seem unnecessary for the majority of drivers who actually try to avoid mowing down innocent pedestrians and crashing into other cars.

    As I listening to the perspective of emergency workers it became crystal clear that they had a very legitimate point, one that had never even occurred to me before.

    An example;

    Auburn Taxpayers and Parents for Safe Streets and Rapid Police, Fire & Paramedic Response, California, 1999

    • “Rapid response time during an emergency is our biggest asset. Speed bumps and grades are our biggest liabilities, and now Mikkelsen Drive has both! As your fire chief, my greatest concern is getting our equipment to your home as quickly as possible, and the speed bumps on Mikkelsen Drive will delay us! From a a safety standpoint, I would strongly recommend other means for speed control that do not affect your Fire Departments’ ability to reach you when you urgently need us.”

    Look at this chart done by the Roseville Fire Dept. showing the amount of delay caused by speed bumps;

    There are firefighters who have been injured and discharged from duty with paid disability due to speed bumps. The bums have caused spinal injuries and have even caused some to become paralyzed It is projected that for every one life saved by speed bumps, 85 are lost.

    Cell phones have certainly saved many lives on the road. There have been a couple of times when I have witnessed reckless or possibly drunk driving and called the police, prompt notification of injuries and accidents as well as victims of crime are the first examples of how cell phones have increased safety and saved lives.

    I think that the government should borrow the physician’s dictum “First, do no harm”

    If someone lacks the good judgment needed to safely navigate the roads, no matter what it is they are fiddling with, the fault lies with none other than the driver. It is not the object or activity that is responsible; it is the person that sits in the driver’s seat that is guilty when they fail to keep adequate attention to the task at hand and no legislation will compensate for that.

    It would be silly to try and ban everything that a driver could become distracted by while driving.

    Personally, I find a screaming child to be the most distracting situation I have encountered while driving to date. Because I knew that I could not possibly pay attention to my driving with my kiddo squalling I would simply pull over and put on my poker face and sit until she stopped. As soon as she was old enough to make the connection that crying made the car stop and possessing the impatience of her mom, she learned to keep her fits to a minimum.

    So, they cannot ban kids (I don’t think). What about makeup, radios and CD’s, cigarettes, passengers, food or drinks?

    I have been watching the campaign to pass laws banning cell phone use ramping up nationwide and, call me paranoid, but I think I know what is coming next.

    We often find choice words for our legislators but they are not stupid. If we can follow the logic to this dead end (some of us can!) you can bet they have too. You can also bet that they have a solution in mind and that solution likely entails new surveillance tech or new ways to monitor our habits when we drive.

    If the government is spending this much time and energy to convince us of a problem, bet your bottom dollar that they have a big government, public private partnership or nanny state solution already in the can.

    This pattern has been played out recently with Red Light Cameras, a scam that people are beginning to get wise to.

    A two minute google search produces these articles and therein lie the clues to where this “safety” campaign is heading.


    Wonder why the auto makers got the cold shoulder?

    Distracted Driving Summit Light on Auto Maker Participation

    By James M. Amend
    WardsAuto.com, Sep 16, 2009 2:18 PM

    U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will convene a 2-day summit beginning Sept. 30 in Washington aimed at reducing the risk of distracted driving, but auto maker representation among the roster of experts presenting at the event appears light.

    According to details of the conference released earlier today by the USDOT, Rob Strassburger, vice president-Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, stands as the sole individual among 29 scheduled speakers with direct ties to auto makers.

    . . . Auto maker participation at the event would seem important, given that LaHood intends to formulate a plan to combat distracted driving that includes regulatory and legislative action.


    Recently USDOT and RITA held a

    Distracted Driving Summit

    Here is the Agenda


    Article that popped up From August 4th

    Intelligent Vehicle Technology Needed Now, Says MDOT Official

    Industry officials want to see NHTSA mandate intelligent-vehicle technology as safety technology.(no article listed)


    A did a google search on the words “Intelligent Vehicle Technology” and clicked on the first match which takes me here;

    Intelligent Vehicle Technology


    This site is attributed to RITA- Research and Innovative Technology Administration the USDOT

    At the Intelligent Vehicle Technology site, I see this;

    Procurement Activities: Presolictation Information: Michigan IntelliDriveSM Test Bed and IntelliDriveSM Systems Engineering Update 8/12/09

    Alt link http://www.its.dot.gov/press/2009/intellidrive_michigan.htm

    Where I see this;

    Procurement Activities: Presolictation Information: Michigan IntelliDriveSM Test Bed and IntelliDriveSM Systems Engineering Update 8/12/09

    IntelliDrive is a registered service mark of the US Department of Transportation.

    Alt link

    Here is Michigan’s ITS Strategic Plan

    The Mission Staement;

    Develop and sustain a program at MDOT to improve transportation

    system safety and operational performance using existing and

    innovative Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies for

    economic benefit and improved quality of life.

    I wish I had time to suss all this out because it looks like a humdinger but I am out of time for now.