Author Topic: The Surveillance/Omnipotent State  (Read 7329 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile
Facial recognition in Russia
« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2023, 10:52:36 AM »

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-russia-detentions/?fbclid=IwAR03HfXQn0vK-7MOh3ZobbRg9oVXVK0E0H3vYiGNIa7vf1TRD51nfD_6SNI

Facial recognition is helping Putin curb dissent with the aid of U.S. tech
Anti-war activist Andrey Chernyshov (right) photographs the moment of his detention in Moscow last year.

A Reuters review of more than 2,000 court cases shows how Russia uses facial recognition to identify and sweep up the Kremlin's opponents.

By LENA MASRI Filed March 28, 2023, 10 a.m. GMT
Andrey Chernyshov had just entered a Moscow metro station on his way to an anti-war protest last May, when police officers stopped him, informed him he was on a wanted list and, without further explanation, escorted him to a police office inside the station.

There officers told the 51-year-old bank employee that the metro’s facial recognition system had flagged him for detention because of his political activism. A little over a week earlier Chernyshov stood alone by a fountain in central Moscow’s Pushkin Square and held up a home-made poster that said “Peace to Ukraine,” “No War” and “Freedom for Russia.”

Released without charge after a few hours, Chernyshov was detained again later the same day as he travelled home. This time he was questioned about his views on the war in Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin. A man in plain clothes identified himself as an official from Russia’s Centre for Combating Extremism, known by Russians as Centre E, and advised Chernyshov to refrain from joining future demonstrations because he had a young child to care for.

“I took his words as a threat,” said Chernyshov, who has a 5-year-old son.

Chernyshov spent seven hours with police that day.

And that wasn’t the end of it. Police detained Chernyshov again in the metro in June, August and September, and they twice visited his home to warn him against protesting. In June, he had defied authorities by handing out badges to passers-by that read “No to War” and “Russia will be free.”

Russian authorities did not respond to questions from Reuters about Chernyshov’s brushes with law enforcement.


Activist Andrey Chernyshov provided this photograph in which he is seen holding  up an anti-war poster in Moscow’s Pushkin Square on May 1, 2022.

Shortly afterwards, police are seen leading Chernyshov away.
​​It’s no secret that the Russian government uses facial recognition to keep an eye on citizens. In 2017, the city of Moscow announced the launch of one of the world’s largest facial recognition video surveillance networks. In a news release at the time, Moscow’s Department of Information Technologies said 160,000 cameras across the city - more than 3,000 of them connected to the facial recognition system - would help law enforcement.

Now a Reuters review of more than 2,000 court cases shows these cameras have played an important role in the arrests of hundreds of protesters. Most of these people were detained in 2021 after they joined anti-government demonstrations, court records show. But after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, authorities began using facial recognition to prevent people from protesting in the first place, according to interviews with more than two dozen detainees and information gathered by a Russian monitoring group. Facial recognition is now helping police to identify and sweep up the Kremlin’s opponents as a preventive measure, whenever they choose.

“It’s a new practice, which is being used to chilling effect, especially in Moscow where protests have been the largest and where people know that they are being watched by facial recognition cameras,” said Daria Korolenko, a lawyer with OVD-Info, an independent human rights group that monitors repression in Russia.

Western technology has aided the crackdown. The facial recognition system in Moscow is powered by algorithms produced by one Belarusian company and three Russian firms. At least three of the companies have used chips from U.S. firms Nvidia Corp or Intel Corp in conjunction with their algorithms, Reuters found. There is no suggestion that Nvidia or Intel have breached sanctions.

Video: Under surveillance
Reuters also found that the Russian and Belarusian companies participated in a U.S. facial-recognition test program, aimed at evaluating emerging technologies and run by an offshoot of the Department of Commerce. One of the firms received $40,000 in prize money awarded by an arm of U.S. intelligence.

Approached for comment, Nvidia and Intel said they halted all shipments to Russia in March 2022 after the United States tightened export restrictions. They added that they can’t always know how their products are used.

A spokesperson for Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology said participation in its assessments is not a seal of approval. The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, which awarded the prizes, said challenges are for “market analysis” and “IARPA has no access to or role in an organisation’s continued development of a technology after the close of a prize challenge.”

Surveillance cameras are just one piece of the Russian government’s campaign to suppress opposition to the war, according to OVD-Info and more than a dozen activists interviewed by Reuters. It is illegal to engage in "public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the armed forces of the Russian Federation" and to deliberately and publicly spread false information about the Russian armed forces. Such actions are punishable by fines and prison sentences ranging from three to 15 years.




Chernyshov is among at least 141 people who were detained preventively in 2022, according to data collected by OVD-Info. They were stopped in the metro on national holidays, when authorities were expecting protests, or at other times when anti-war sentiment was running high, for example after Russia announced a mass draft of men into the military in September.

Reuters interviewed 29 people who were stopped by police in Moscow metro stations. All but one said they understood from officers that they were flagged for detention by facial recognition. At least 14 said officials referred to a system called Sfera, or Sphere. Moscow’s department for transportation stated in a December 2022 news release that its Sfera video analytics system uses VisionLabs technology. Reuters couldn’t determine which other products underpin Sfera.

Those detained included students, pensioners, a scientist, an academic researcher and a courier. Some were commuting to or from work. One man was going to the theatre with his wife and children. A woman was taking her mother to a doctor’s appointment. All had one thing in common - they were critical of the Kremlin. Most had previously joined anti-government protests.

These people said they were held at a metro station or police station for periods ranging from 10 minutes to 18 hours. Seven told Reuters that police informed them they were picked up to stop them protesting. At least 12 said that before their release they signed a document: either promising not to protest or acknowledging they had received a warning against protesting. None was charged with any offence.

The Kremlin referred detailed questions for this article to the Moscow mayor’s office which did not respond. Russia’s Interior Ministry, which oversees law enforcement, also did not respond to questions sent via the Kremlin.

Lightning speed

The Moscow metro uses facial recognition as part of its fare payment system as well as for security. Passengers are photographed as they walk through the gates and a computer algorithm compares the face to a pictures database. If the system flags a passenger for detention, police respond within seconds or minutes, according to the 29 people who were detained in this way. Alexander Zharov, a 32-year-old civil rights activist, recorded the moment of his detention on his cellphone in August last year and shared the footage with Reuters.

Facial recognition technology uses artificial intelligence algorithms to analyse and identify faces. The Moscow metro has deployed algorithms from three Russian companies, according to a 2021 news release on the city of Moscow’s website. These firms are Tevian, an artificial intelligence company founded by staff at Moscow State University; NtechLab, which from 2018 was part-owned by Russian defence firm Rostec State Corp; and VisionLabs, owned by Russia’s largest mobile operator, MTS, and headquartered in the Netherlands.

A screen in a Moscow metro train broadcasts Russian President Vladimir Putin's New Year address on December 31, 2022. REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov
VisionLabs’ executive Anton Nazarkin told Reuters the company provides facial recognition to Moscow via a third party, which he declined to name. He said VisionLabs’ algorithm has been used in Moscow’s facial recognition system since it was rolled out across the capital during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, which Russia hosted, and is also used in the metro’s voluntary Face Pay payment system. Nazarkin said he was not aware of the company’s technology being used in other ways in the metro. MTS did not respond to a request for comment.

An NtechLab spokesperson said that as of 2022, the Moscow metro no longer uses the firm’s technology. He declined to go into detail about its wider deployment in the capital, citing a non-disclosure agreement. He noted, however, that software is independently managed by the customer.

Tevian did not respond to requests for comment.

Contracts published in 2022 on Russia’s state tender website provide further technical details about the capital’s facial recognition system. They show Moscow uses VisionLabs’ Luna Platform, NtechLab’s FindFace and Tevian’s FaceSDK, as well as facial recognition software called Kipod, made by Synesis, a Belarusian company. Synesis is under American, EU and British sanctions for its role in suppressing pro-democracy movements in Belarus and Russia. Synesis has rejected the sanctions as “unfounded.” It didn’t comment for this article.

To speed image-matching, NtechLab and VisionLabs have turned to U.S. technology. Both firms have used graphics processing units (GPUs) made by Santa Clara, California-based Nvidia, according to Nvidia’s website. GPUs are powerful chips originally designed to improve image rendering in video games.

RELATED CONTENT


A Russian graveyard reveals Wagner’s prisoner army


Abandoned Russian base holds secrets of retreat in Ukraine


How Russia spread a secret web of agents across Ukraine

Nazarkin, the VisionLabs executive, told Reuters that Nvidia GPUs are the “industry standard” for training a facial recognition system to accurately identify images. “Pretty much any company out there that is doing any kind of AI application is utilising Nvidia GPUs,” said Nazarkin in a phone interview from Moscow.

In a statement to Reuters, Nvidia said it halted sales to Russia in March 2022 after the U.S. imposed extensive export controls and sanctions but cannot track every downstream use of its products. A spokesperson said Nvidia had a brief engagement with VisionLabs and NtechLab that concluded before February 2022.

Russian customs records show that at least 129 shipments of Nvidia products reached Russia via third parties between April 1 and Oct. 31, 2022, however. Records for at least 57 of these shipments stated that they contained GPUs. In response to these findings, the spokesperson said, “We comply with all applicable laws, and insist our customers do the same. If we learn that any Nvidia customer has violated U.S. export laws and shipped our products to Russia, we will cease doing business with them.”

“I realised that I needed to leave Russia as quickly as I could”

Andrey Chernyshov
Facial recognition algorithms also run on high-speed central processing units (CPUs), the chips that provide the processing power a computer needs to complete its tasks.

A document that appeared on Intel’s website as recently as October last year said Synesis, the Belarusian firm, tested Intel technology in 2019 and was using Intel CPUs to improve the performance of its Kipod platform “for law enforcement.”

The European Union and Britain sanctioned Synesis in December 2020, saying Kipod was used to track and repress civil-society and pro-democracy activists in Belarus. Synesis has called the assertions “absurd.” After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced it too was sanctioning Synesis because Russian and Belarusian authorities were using the firm’s video surveillance system to persecute protesters.

Intel told Reuters that its sales in Russia for over a decade have been through distributors that are required to comply with U.S. export controls. It said it suspended all shipments to customers in Russia and Belarus after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Reuters has previously reported that at least $457 million worth of Intel products arrived in Russia between April 1 and Oct. 31, 2022, according to Russian customs records. “We take reports of continued availability of our products seriously and we are looking into the matter,” an Intel spokesperson said.


U.S. technology leads the field in image matching. Nvidia Corporation says it halted sales to Russia in March last year. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
Rights in peril

To be sure, the Russian and Belarusian companies began using Western technology before the latest export restrictions were imposed. But as far back as 2009, Intel joined the United Nations Global Compact that says companies should not be complicit in human rights violations. Nvidia joined the compact in 2022. In its human rights policy, Nvidia says it endorses the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which require companies to mitigate the risk that their products could be used for rights abuses. Intel’s human rights policy also says it embodies the U.N. principles.

In response to Reuters findings, seven lawyers said the use of facial recognition against protesters and activists in Moscow likely constitutes human rights violations.

Klara Polackova Van der Ploeg, head of the Business, Trade and Human Rights Unit at the University of Nottingham’s Human Rights Law Centre, said, “An appropriate process for those companies would be to know who their business partners are, learn how their products are used, and exercise leverage to prevent their technology from being utilised in violations of human rights.” Intel and Nvidia declined to comment on this point.

The Russian and Belarusian firms have previously had some contact with U.S. government agencies. All have taken part in facial recognition tests by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, documents show. In 2017, NtechLab received two prizes worth a total of $25,000 in a facial recognition contest organised and funded by Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), an arm of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community. Two years later, NtechLab won a $15,000 second-place prize in another IARPA technology challenge.


Activist Andrey Chernyshov said this photo, which he provided, was taken after an unidentified man sprayed paint on his face on Sept. 18, 2022.

Chernyshov also shared this photo of the anti-Putin T-shirt he was wearing when attacked.
“Participation in the assessment does not indicate NIST approval of the business or other practices of any participant,” NIST told Reuters in an email. An IARPA spokesperson said its work requires it to maintain awareness of the world’s leading innovations and that awards do not signal government endorsement.

The CEOs and founders of VisionLabs, NtechLab and Tevian are now on a list of people who jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation believes should be sanctioned. The foundation points to the companies’ involvement in Moscow’s video surveillance system, which it says is used to persecute political activists. The companies did not respond to questions about their inclusion on the list.

Under observation

The preventive detentions, coupled with other pressure from police, so upended the lives of some of its targets, they say they felt driven to leave Russia.

Luba Krutenko, a 32-year-old architect who was in police sights because of two prior arrests for protesting, said police showed up at her home seven or eight times in March and April last year. In early March, they came three times in two days.

“They were just giving me warnings, documents saying that I shouldn’t go to rallies and if I go, a criminal case could be opened,” she said.

She stopped answering the door to avoid the encounters. Then they began to call her.

Anti-war protesters clashed with police in September after Putin announced that reservists would be called up to fight in Ukraine. REUTERS
During a phone call in April, a police officer told her they knew she was home. “They told me they can check the footage from the cameras by the entrance to my building and know if I’m inside,” she said. She showed Reuters screenshots of several missed calls from police and of a text message informing her that they were standing outside her home.

She stopped answering the phone and went on vacation in the town of Onega in northern Russia. When she got back to Moscow, on May 6, police were waiting for her on the platform as she exited the train.

“They knew what carriage I was in because they waited right outside it,” she said. Krutenko showed Reuters a video of the encounter. Police asked her to sign a document warning her against protesting. Krutenko shared a copy of the signed document and said she signed six such documents during different encounters with the police last year.

The next encounter came three days later, just after she entered a Moscow metro station on Russia’s Victory Day. Two police officers approached, asked her to show her ID and informed her that the security camera by the metro’s payment gate had recognised her. They told her she was on a wanted list and escorted her to a police point in the metro station. After about 40 minutes, two more officers arrived and told her she was being detained and would be taken to the police station. One of the officers carried a machine gun, she said.




At the police station, she demanded an explanation for her detention. She told one officer they were violating her rights. “I was angry. I told her ‘you’re keeping me here. This is my weekend. I have plans with friends’.” Krutenko said the officer replied that people like her have no rights and called her a traitor. Another police officer told her that they were detaining her because an anti-war protest was planned in the city centre that day and that they had a list of would-be protesters – including her – whom they were trying to prevent from attending.

She was allowed to leave after about three hours, with another warning that she would risk jail if she was charged again with protesting.

“Because police are present in your life all the time, it makes it unpredictable,” she said, describing the repeated encounters. “You think you can be detained at any time.”

The surveillance and risk of detention made her decide to leave Russia in September. She now lives in Bonn, Germany, where she is in the process of completing an integration course.


Sergei Pinchuk, an opponent of Russia’s war in Ukraine, says he moved to Seattle in fear of arrest. He is now seeking asylum in the United States. REUTERS/Matt Mills McKnight
On May 9, the same day Krutenko was detained, a police officer approached Sergei Pinchuk, a 27-year-old courier, seconds after he entered the Moscow metro. Pinchuk, who wore blue and yellow, the colours of the Ukrainian flag, that day, said police had a handheld electronic device with about 10 photos of him, all seemingly taken by metro security cameras on different dates.

At a nearby police station, a detective pushed him into the wall, grabbed him by the neck and called him names, he said.

A month prior, Pinchuk had stood alone in front of the Kremlin building holding a sign with the words ‘353 Criminal Code of Russia. Stop Putin,’ referencing a Russian law that says waging an aggressive war is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The detective asked about this. “He said ‘why did you do that? It’s a hard time for our country’,” said Pinchuk, who had been arrested, charged and fined for the protest. The detective also threatened to jail him for years and create problems for his family, he said.

In mid-August, Pinchuk and his friend climbed a cell tower in his town Naro-Fominsk, southwest of Moscow, and placed a Ukrainian flag at the top. The next day, while Pinchuk was visiting his parents, his brother called and informed him that police had stopped by Pinchuk’s home and were looking for him. A few hours later, Pinchuk was at the airport, catching the first flight he could find to Tbilisi, Georgia. Later police called his mother and texted his friends asking where he was. He decided to relocate to the United States where he said he felt safer. He now lives in Seattle and is seeking asylum.


Sergei Pinchuk shared this photo of his one-man protest in Moscow in August 2021. The sign makes reference to jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny. It reads: “Putin fears Navalny, free elections and the people.”
Chernyshov, the protester detained twice on the same day, left Russia and is in Minneapolis with his wife and son. He decided to leave after police again detained him in the metro on Sept. 1 on his way to work. He said they kept him handcuffed in a cell overnight and tased him with a stun gun when he asked them to loosen or remove the cuffs. They didn’t allow him to drink or use the bathroom and kept the lights on all night, he said. The next morning, they released him without charge. Chernyshov provided Reuters with photos of several of his detentions and protests.

More than two weeks later, he said, as he was about to get into his car to return home from the gym, a hooded man sprayed paint on his face. The paint stung his eyes and left marks on his face. After the incident, he received an anonymous letter threatening to harm or jail him if he didn’t stop expressing his political views. The letter contained a photo of the attack.

“So I realised that I needed to leave Russia as quickly as I could,” he said.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18514
    • View Profile
end of AM radio
« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2023, 03:26:32 PM »
AM radio

of course the home of conservative talk shows

! how simply convenient!!! just a coincidence !!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/end-of-a-love-affair-am-radio-is-being-removed-from-many-cars/ar-AA1b8VO1

 :x

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18514
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance State
« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2023, 03:29:57 PM »
additionally
it may not be easy to switch to FM

the spectrum I thought is controlled and owned
and bid out by FCC

can FM spectrum even be available for those from AM?

 :x


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18514
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance State
« Reply #61 on: July 04, 2023, 02:51:52 PM »
of course this gets pointed out and will be highlighted:

The judge, a Trump appointee

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance State
« Reply #62 on: July 04, 2023, 03:31:41 PM »
Thus building support for Trump haha.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18514
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance State
« Reply #63 on: July 04, 2023, 03:50:48 PM »
not the point I intended

DeSantis could appoint right of center judges too
that are recommended to him just as easily

My point was how the LEFT tries to discredit any ruling they do not like by labelling it from a  Trump judge
or Conservative judge etc

Of course we do that here too for liberal decisions I suppose .

This is how the ruling gets headlines on Yahoo (DNC) news as of right now:

***Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden officials from contacting social media sites***

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance State
« Reply #64 on: July 04, 2023, 07:26:42 PM »
"not the point I intended"

I know  :-D




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile
Re: Kill Switches mandated on cars by 2026
« Reply #72 on: October 25, 2023, 09:58:15 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjXw56GuIZQ&t=36s

That is the path we are on. Don't they already have a kill switch on your air conditioner? Next on your furnace? Gas stove?

Even when we win any election or two, it is a mere pause on our path to totalitarianism.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2023, 10:00:03 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile
Geofence warrants
« Reply #73 on: October 29, 2023, 06:05:04 AM »
Just the Facts on ‘Geofencing’
The Intrusive, App-Baed ‘Dragnet’ That Sgt. Joe Friday Never Dreamed Of

By Maggie MacFarland Phillips
October 29, 2023
As worshippers gathered at the Calvary Chapel in 2020, they were being watched from above.

Satellites were locking in on cell phones owned by members of the nondenominational Protestant church in San Jose, Calif. Their location eventually worked its way to a private company, which then sold the information to the government of Santa Clara County. This data, along with observations from enforcement officers on the ground, was used to levy heavy fines against the church for violating COVID-19 restrictions regarding public gatherings.

“Every Sunday,” Calvary’s assistant pastor, Carson Atherly, would later testify, the officers “would serve me a notice of violation during or after church service.”

Calvary is suing the county for its use of location data, a controversial tool increasingly deployed by governments at all levels – notably in relation to the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. While enabling law enforcement to more easily identify potential offenders, the practice, called “geofencing,” has also emerged as a cutting-edge privacy issue, raising constitutional issues involving warrantless searches and, with Calvary Chapel, religious liberty.

“We are in the space between the emergence of this technological practice and courts having ruled on its constitutionality,” said Alex Marthews, national chair for Restore the 4th, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans’ rights against “unreasonable search and seizure.”

“Geofencing” often begins with an innocent click. Smartphone apps ask if they can access location to improve service. When users say they yes, they often don’t realize that the apps that help them drive, cook, or pray are likely reselling their information to far-flung for-profit entities. This and other information detailing people’s behaviors and preferences is valuable for businesses trying to target customers. The global location intelligence market was estimated at $16 billion last year, according to Grand View Research.

While it is legal for private companies to broker this information, constitutional questions arise when government accesses data from a third party that it would be prohibited from collecting on its own. The lawsuit filed by Calvary Chapel argues that Santa Clara County carried out a warrantless surveillance of the church when it acquired information in 2020 on the church’s foot-traffic patterns for analysis by a research team from Stanford University. Court documents show the researchers acquired the information, which originated with Google Maps, from the location data company SafeGraph, which Calvary is also suing.

Geofencing allows users to build a fence around certain areas or points-of-interest such as Calvary Chapel or the area near the Capitol on Jan. 6 and see when people entered that space.

It is becoming routine for law enforcement agencies to use warrants to require companies like Google to hand over location data that may be connected to criminal activity. Rep. Jim Jordan recently wrote a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland saying, “The use of geofence warrants raises serious Constitutional concerns.” Privacy advocates and a bipartisan group of legislators say that acquisition of such information without a warrant presents a troubling and relatively new constitutional dilemma.

Data brokers, including SafeGraph, insist that their information is anonymized. But it is precisely the lack of specificity that worries critics. “There’s no particular individual who the government is suspicious of,” Adam Schwartz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told RealClearInvestigations. “It’s a dragnet.”

Moreover, there is no guarantee that the data collected through geofencing stays anonymous. “It is often very easy to take supposedly de-identified data and re-identify a person,” said Schwartz, “And it’s very, very easy to do that with location data.”

At Calvary Chapel, for example, in-person surveillance conducted by the county, as well as numerous in-person depositions of Chapel members and employees during the previous legal contretemps between the county and the church that began in 2020, would have provided local officials with detailed knowledge of who was on the premises, and when.

In any event, critics say, law enforcement’s use of geofencing – even when it is backed by a warrant – violates the Fourth Amendment.

Geofencing proponents argue that it falls under the “administrative search” exception to the Fourth Amendment, which lets regulatory enforcement personnel conduct warrantless searches when the greater good is at issue (i.e., police sobriety checkpoints, airport TSA scans).

In their complaint, Calvary Chapel attorneys assert that the county is arguing in effect “that, as long as they call it research, any level of government can target and spy on any individual or group at any time for any duration and, if they so choose, they can wield the collected data against said individuals or groups who oppose their orders.”

Pushback is mounting against the sharing of location data. In a 2022 letter to Congress, numerous privacy and civil liberties groups petitioned for committee hearings on a bill called the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act. The bill, which has a companion in the Senate introduced in 2021, would prohibit warrantless government purchases of cell phone location data from third party brokers. It passed unanimously through the House Judiciary Committee, 30-0, this past July, and awaits full review by the House.

This article was adapted from a RealClearInvestigations article published Sept. 26.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18514
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance/Omnipotent State
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2024, 06:29:22 AM »
 :-o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile
What do Spooks Share with Other Nations & the Impact Thereof
« Reply #85 on: January 26, 2024, 09:57:16 PM »
I suspect the civilian death concern is something of a red herring—this source is very left leaning and hence embraces a zero collateral damage ethos meant to serve orgs like Hamas that embed themselves among non-combatants—but I am all sorts of down with monitoring outcomes in which US intelligence was used by other countries, particularly that which negatively impacts US citizens:

https://www.justsecurity.org/91451/congress-must-strengthen-oversight-on-intelligence-sharing-and-civilian-harm/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=congress-must-strengthen-oversight-on-intelligence-sharing-and-civilian-harm

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance/Omnipotent State
« Reply #86 on: January 27, 2024, 03:27:51 AM »
Ummm , , , not sure about that.

Congressional oversight means leaking, lots of leaking.   

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile
Get the Facts First, then Reform, FISA
« Reply #89 on: February 10, 2024, 08:58:53 PM »


Memo to Congress: Before Acting on FISA, Get the Full Facts

Cato @ Liberty / by Patrick G. Eddington / February 09, 2024 at 02:33PM

Patrick G. Eddington

If published reports are accurate, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R‑LA) intends to bring some sort of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform bill to the House floor. As it stands now, Section VII of FISA—of which the serially abused Section 702 program is a key part—is set to expire on April 19 unless Congress renews it. Given the multiple legislative meltdowns in the House since the start of the year—the failure to pass aid bills for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan that can clear the Senate, as well as the failed impeachment of DHS Secretary Mayorkas—it’s no surprise that the House GOP leadership is looking for any kind of legislative win.

But when Congressional leaders act out of political desperation is usually when bad law gets made, and that’s especially been true of giving executive branch agencies and departments radically expanded surveillance powers in the post‑9/​11 era.

It’s worth remembering that in the fear‐​filled aftermath of al Qaeda’s deadly terrorist attacks on our country, Congress passed the sweeping and also frequently abused PATRIOT Act less than two months after that terrible day—and before the Congressional Joint Inquiry to investigate the attacks had even been constituted, much less issued any report. And as became apparent in the years after its enactment, the Section 215 telephone metadata surveillance component of the PATRIOT Act was both repeatedly abused and ineffectual before it was finally terminated in 2019.

The same was true of the illegal STELLAR WIND mass electronic surveillance program started under George W. Bush’s administration in the days immediately after the September 11, 2011 attacks, as I’ve previously noted in Senate testimony.

Indeed, it was the exposure of that program in December 2005 by the New York Times that led to the creation of the FISA Section 702 program in July 2008. Because executive branch officials made false claims of legality and effectiveness about the PATRIOT Act Section 215 program and STELLAR WIND, Congress should be just as skeptical now about Biden administration claims that previous FISA Section 702 abuses have been curtailed.

Department of Justice (DoJ) officials tout internal FISA Section 702 database query audits as evidence that their reforms are working and that there’s no need for additional congressional legislative reform action on the program. These internal audits are designed to catch potential improper searches of the FISA Section 702 database by FBI personnel. But data related to those audits have only been released in summary form; the underlying audits themselves have never been made public.

Thus, there is at present no way for Congress or the public to judge whether the Administration’s summarized claims of Section 702 compliance and database query audit efficacy are in line with the actual audit findings themselves.

Last June, the Cato Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DoJ seeking the release of the underlying FISA Section 702 database query audits. This week, after waiting in vain for over eight months for the DoJ to comply, Cato filed a lawsuit in DC federal court to compel the release of the audits.

The fact of the matter is that in light of the past false executive branch claims of legal propriety and operational effectiveness of multiple post‑9/​11 surveillance programs, we’ve learned the hard way that those claims cannot, and should not, be taken at face value. Cato is doing what it can to help Congress do its job, but the House and Senate should themselves demand that those audits be made public before any vote to reauthorize the Section 702 program. Anything less would be a disservice to the voters whose rights they took an oath to protect.

https://www.cato.org/blog/memo-congress-acting-fisa-get-full-facts

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile
702, Citizen Surveillance, & the ACLU
« Reply #90 on: February 26, 2024, 11:54:21 AM »
One of the reasons high school and I parted ways prematurely is 'cause I sicced the ACLU on the school (an acquaintance flashed several hundred dollars that a security guard saw and confiscated, reasoning he was going to buy weed with it, which was exactly what he planned to do). Back in those days the ACLU reliably and consistently defended all manner of civil rights, something it seems to have strayed from of late in favor of focussing on rights that serve "Progressive" causes. I'm heartened to see them now joining a second amendment effort or two, and totally agree with their efforts to derail "702" surveillance renewal efforts:

Five Things to Know About NSA Mass Surveillance and the Coming Fight in Congress

Congress must take this opportunity rein in the pervasive government surveillance enabled by Section 702.

Sarah Taitz,
Former National Security Fellow, ACLU

One of the most sweeping surveillance statutes ever enacted by Congress is set to expire at the end of this year — creating an important opportunity to rein in America’s sprawling surveillance state.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the U.S. government to engage in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, including phone calls, texts, emails, social media messages, and web browsing. The government claims to be pursuing vaguely defined foreign intelligence “targets,” but its targets need not be spies, terrorists, or criminals. They can be virtually any foreigner abroad: journalists, academic researchers, scientists, or businesspeople. And in the course of this surveillance, the government casts a wide net that ensnares the communications of ordinary Americans on a massive scale — in violation of our constitutional rights.

Stop Mass Warrantless Surveillance: End Section 702

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows for blatant abuses of privacy. Tell your representative it must expire.

As Congress debates the reauthorization of Section 702, it’s vital that we tell our representatives in Congress that we want an end to warrantless mass surveillance. Here’s what you need to know to follow the debate and speak up for your right to privacy.

1. The NSA uses Section 702 to conduct at least two large-scale surveillance programs.

The government conducts at least two kinds of surveillance under Section 702:

PRISM: The NSA obtains communications — such as international messages, emails, and internet calls — directly from U.S. tech and social media companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft. The government identifies non-U.S. person accounts it wishes to monitor, and then orders the company to disclose all communications and data to and from those accounts, including communications with U.S. persons.

Upstream: Working with companies like AT&T and Verizon, the NSA intercepts and copies Americans’ international internet communications in bulk as they flow into and out of the United States. The NSA then searches for key terms, such as email addresses or phone numbers, that are associated with its hundreds of thousands of foreign targets. Communications determined to be to and from those targets — as well as those that happen to be bundled with them in transit — are retained in NSA databases for further use and analysis.

Critically, while Section 702 does not allow the NSA to target Americans at the outset, vast quantities of our communications are still searched and amassed in government databases simply because we are in touch with people abroad. And this is the bait-and-switch: Although the law allows surveillance of foreigners abroad for “foreign intelligence” purposes, the FBI routinely exploit this rich source of our information by searching those databases to find and examine the communications of individual Americans for use in domestic investigations.

2. Section 702 surveillance is expanding.

The scale of Section 702 has been growing significantly over time, meaning more and more Americans are caught in this net.

When the government first began releasing statistics, after the Snowden revelations in 2013, it reported having 89,138 targets. By 2021, the government was targeting the communications of a staggering 232,432 individuals, groups, and organizations. Although the government often seeks to portray the surveillance as “targeted” and narrow, the reality is that it takes place on a massive scale.

Indeed, the government reported that in 2011, Section 702 surveillance resulted in the retention of more than 250 million internet communications (a number that does not reflect the far larger quantity of communications whose contents the NSA searched before discarding them). Given the rate at which the number of Section 702 targets is growing, it’s likely that the government today collects over a billion communications under Section 702 each year. But these statistics tell only part of the story. The government has never provided data on the number of Americans who are surveilled under PRISM and Upstream, a number that is surely also increasing. That is a glaring gap in its transparency reports.

3. Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool.

Although Congress intended Section 702 to be used for counterterrorism purposes, it’s frequently used today to pursue domestic investigations of all kinds. Both the FBI and CIA have access to some of the raw data produced by this surveillance, and they increasingly use that access to examine the private communications of Americans they are investigating — all without a warrant.

FBI agents routinely run searches looking for information about Americans as part of criminal investigations, including those that have nothing to do with national security. Based on transparency reporting, agents have conducted millions of these U.S. person queries — also known as “backdoor searches” — in recent years. The only limitation on backdoor searches is that they must be “reasonably likely” to retrieve foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.

The standard for conducting backdoor searches is so low that, without any showing of suspicion, an FBI agent can type in an American’s name, email address, or phone number, and pull up whatever communications the FBI’s Section 702 collection has vacuumed into its databases over the past five years. These searches are a free pass for accessing constitutionally protected communications that would otherwise be off-limits to the FBI, unless it got a warrant.

Evidence that agents have refused to comply with this low bar for conducting searches has piled up. Agents have violated the FBI’s own rules over and over, accessing Americans’ private communications without any legitimate purpose. They have dipped into Section 702 data for information about relatives, potential witnesses and informants, journalists, political commentators, and government officials, including a member of Congress.

4. Section 702 violates our constitutional rights, but the courts have failed to intervene.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Government agents are required to obtain a warrant to access our emails, online messages, and chats. Large-scale, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private communications is at odds with this basic constitutional principle.

Section 702 also violates the Constitution by inhibiting freedom of speech and association. The reasonable fear that the U.S. government is spying on communications may deter journalists, lawyers, activists, and others from communicating freely on the Internet. We all have a right to exchange messages with our friends, family, colleagues, and clients abroad without worrying that the government is reading over our shoulder.

Because Section 702 is unconstitutional, the ACLU and others have attempted to challenge it in court. But the courts have failed to protect our constitutional rights. Instead, courts have repeatedly dismissed civil cases challenging Section 702 — citing government claims of secrecy — and have declined to rule on claims in criminal cases that the government’s backdoor searches violate the Fourth Amendment. This year, we brought one of these cases to the Supreme Court, but it refused to consider it.

5. Congress has the power to stop Section 702 surveillance.

Given the courts’ inaction, it is up to Congress to stand up for our rights. Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted Section 702. Members of Congress should not vote to renew this law without fundamental reforms to protect Americans’ privacy.
These reforms should include:

Putting an end to rampant backdoor searches of Americans by requiring agents to obtain a warrant before searching Section 702 databases for an American’s private information.

Narrowing the scope of Section 702 surveillance by imposing stricter rules on who the government can “target,” thereby limiting the number of Americans whose communications are swept up in the course of this spying.
Limiting how long the government can retain information collected under Section 702 and how the NSA shares that information with other agencies.

Ensuring that the government notifies individuals when Section 702 information is used against them in court and provides those individuals with sufficient information to obtain full and fair court review.
Increasing transparency about the number of Americans’ communications searched and collected through Section 702 surveillance.

Beyond reforming Section 702 itself, Congress should also adopt broader safeguards that protect Americans in the face of bulk surveillance and strengthen court oversight when the government engages in spying for intelligence purposes.
Over the next year, the ACLU will be seizing on this moment to press Congress to reclaim our privacy rights. We invite you to join us by sending a message to your representatives now.

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/five-things-to-know-about-nsa-mass-surveillance-and-the-coming-fight-in-congress


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile
Creating Samizdat in the Digital Gulag
« Reply #92 on: March 08, 2024, 10:35:18 AM »
Great overview of the evolution of internet info exchange:

America Enters the Samizdat Era
Thanking fellow honorees Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Miranda Devine, and explaining why an American Samizdat Prize is both great and scary
MATT TAIBBI
MAR 7, 2024

I began studying in Leningrad, in the waning days of the Soviet Union, beginning in the fall of 1989. I was 19 years old, more interested in girls than politics, and thought of life behind the Iron Curtain as more novelty than terror. There was little visible suffering or hardship. The once-mighty Soviet government was already a ghost ship and the closest thing to repression I saw was a farsovshik or black-market dealer shoved into a cop car near my school’s subway station.

Not until much later, after I’d heard years of stories from Russians who’d lived through harder times, did I start to understand the brutal system whose end I got to witness. Parents of friends talked about going on vacations and trying to guess who was the snitch on the “Intourist” bus (the ratio was one party snoop for every four or five travelers), or making sure to be out of earshot of the old lady sitting na lavochke (on the bench outside the apartment building) before sharing a dangerous opinion, or the stress of sharing a kommunalka, or communal apartment, with a politically orthodox family. The bloodiest period of Soviet totalitarianism ended in the fifties, but the habits remained long after, including the advanced system of alternative media that ultimately broke the state: samizdat.

Tonight, along with Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and New York Post reporter Miranda Devine, I’ll be accepting the inaugural Samizdat Prize, given by the RealClear Media Fund. Samizdat is a bit of a play on words, since like a lot of politically oppressive groups the Soviets had a mania for reducing beautiful language to state-acceptable ugly compound words (GosPlan, GULAG, etc.), so in place of GosIzdat (State-Publish, the official publisher) dissidents created Sam- or “Self” Izdat: “Self-Publish.”

Ten years ago PBS did a feature that quoted a Russian radio personality calling Samizdat the “precursor to the Internet.” Sadly this is no longer accurate. Even a decade ago Internet platforms were mechanical wonders brimming with anarchic energy whose ability to transport ideas to millions virally and across borders made episodes like the Arab Spring possible. Governments rightly trembled before the destabilizing potential of tools like Twitter, whose founders as recently as 2012 defiantly insisted they would remain “neutral” on content control, seeing themselves as the “free speech wing of the free speech party.”

As writers like former CIA analyst Martin Gurri began noticing long before the election of Donald Trump, the Internet gave ordinary people access to information in ways that before had never been allowed. The inevitable result was that populations all over the world began to see more clearly the warts of leaders and governments that had previously been covered up, thanks to tight control over the flow of information. It also made communication and organization of dissident movements much easier. We started to see this with Occupy and the Tea Party in the United States, and the aforementioned Arab Spring, but the election of Donald Trump was the Rubicon-crossing event for information overlords.

I had the privilege (misfortune?) of seeing how presidential campaign journalism worked before the Internet took over. Politicians needed the mainstream press to reach high office. Sitting among the traveling press on campaigns of people like John Kerry and Barack Obama, I heard how campaign reporters talked, how they thought of their jobs. They were fiercely protective of their gatekeeping role, which gave them enormous power. If reporters didn’t think a candidate was good enough for them — if he was too “kooky” like Ron Paul, too “elfin” like Dennis Kucinich, or too “lazy” as just a handful of influential reporters decided about Fred Thompson — the “Boys on the Bus” would snort and trade cutting remarks in riffing sessions before and after events. Campaigns would be elevated or die in these moments. I thought it was crazy, and said so in print, which made me a pariah, and I never thought it would end.

Then Trump came along and destroyed the whole system with one stroke, getting elected in spite of the blunt disapproval of media. His single Twitter account allowed him to bypass the press and speak to people directly. When that worked, and similar episodes like Brexit caused panic abroad, governments decided to take the anarchic potential of the Internet and turn it on its head. What was something like the “Self-publish” culture of the Soviet Union suddenly became, as we saw in the Twitter Files, an instrument of surveillance and social control.

Jay, Miranda, and I all share a connection to the same story. When Miranda published her blockbuster New York Post exposé of October 14, 2020, “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,” Internet platforms Twitter and Facebook experimented for the first time with disappearing a major political story in the middle of an election year. Not only did both platforms suppress the story, but as I later found in internal correspondence, Twitter used tools previously reserved for child pornography to prevent individuals from sharing the story in direct messages — the digital version of a Cheka agent intercepting that copy of a Solzhenitsyn or Voinovich story before one person could hand it to another.

Meanwhile, when Dr. Bhattacharya conducted an experiment on his own initiative proving that the WHO had massively overstated the infection mortality rate of Covid-19, and later organized against lockdown policies he and many others felt were both ineffective and dangerous, the result was digital suppression — not because he was incorrect, but because his message was politically undesirable. Along with Bari Weiss, one of the first things I saw when Elon Musk opened Twitter’s internal files was a page showing Jay had been placed on a “trends blacklist.” This was just before we discovered that the platforms were in regular contact about content with agents of the American versions of the KGB or NKVD in the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State, and Defense, among others.

The Internet, in other words, was being transformed from a system for exchanging forbidden or dissenting ideas, like Samizdat, to a system for imposing top-down control over information and narrative, a GozIzdat. Worse, while the Soviets had to rely on primitive surveillance technologies, like the mandatory registration of typewriters, the Internet offered breathtaking new surveillance capability, allowing authorities to detect thoughtcrime by algorithm and instantaneously disenfranchise those on the wrong side of the information paradigm, stripping them of the ability to raise money or conduct business or communicate at all.

Like Jay and Miranda I’m sure, I’m honored to be chosen for the Samizdat prize, but also a little horrified that such an award is now necessary. People with dissenting ideas will now have to find alternative ways to distribute. As was the case in the Soviet Union, official news will be unpopular in America because the public will know in advance that it is full of untruths and false narratives — but that won’t translate into instant popularity for true reporting or great satire or comedy, because the reach of these things can be artificially suppressed.

We’re going to need to find new ways of getting the truth to each other, and it’s not clear yet how those networks will work, if they will at all. It may come down to handing each other mimeographed papers in subway tunnels, as they did in Soviet times. We haven’t built that informational underground yet, but no matter what, the first steps will necessarily involve raising awareness that there’s a problem at all. That’s why prizes like this are important, and the agitation and resistance of people like Jay and Miranda and so many others right now are so crucial. We don’t want our speech freedoms to go gentle into that good night; we want them to go kicking and screaming, or better yet, not go at all.

The good news? As the Soviets proved, lies don’t have staying power, but even passed hand to hand, truth and good art do. The more the Soviets tried to clamp down, the more power they gave to books and stories like Master and Margarita or A Circle of Friends. As depressing as things sometimes look now, those who would suppress speech have the real problem. Imagine the problem of stopping the truth in the digital age? There will always be people who’ll try, but history shows — they never succeed for long.

https://www.racket.news/p/america-enters-the-samizdat-era?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR1R1B51EcGG8FfMSp7pGXDBbUFWGLJmvL7cG29Uuwf4FNfDCLkSc2rdgoE

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
    • View Profile
The WSJ Hearts 702
« Reply #96 on: March 28, 2024, 04:25:11 PM »
Oddly given their reputation the WSJ editorial board comes out in favor or renewing broad surveillance tools:

WSJ Ed Board Knifes Fourth Amendment, Betrays Journal's Reporters and Readers

Cato @ Liberty / by Patrick G. Eddington / Mar 27, 2024 at 12:19 PM

Patrick G. Eddington

Financial Surveillance
I’ve been in Washington over 30 years, but sometimes even I can be stunned by the short memories and shortsightedness of members of the Fourth Estate. Today’s example is the editorial board of the venerable (and usually pretty sane) Wall Street Journal.

The ostensible topic of their latest pronouncement (paywall) was the recent terrorist attack in Moscow, which appears to have been the work of violent Salafist terrorists. After offering some fairly standard pre‐​Trump era Establishment fare on the need for still more US military action in the Islamic world, the WSJ ed board ended its piece by stating,

The ISIS comeback also argues for the House to overcome its disagreements and reauthorize Section 702 authority to surveil foreign communications even if it accidentally catches some Americans in the sweep. The House Intelligence bill contains enough safeguards without adding bureaucratic and political obstacles to rapid surveillance of real threats. Americans don’t want another attack on U.S. soil like last week’s horror show in Moscow.

Item 1: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702 telecommunications intercept program does not “accidentally” sweep up the communications of US persons with no connection to criminal activity. The very structure and operational characteristics of both the 702 program and the global telecommunications system guarantee that the emails, text messages, and the like of innocent Americans are inevitably captured and stored in a vast database for years. It is a database that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have repeatedly been found to have used to conduct warrantless digital fishing expeditions on Americans not wanted for any crime.

That means that the communications of Journal reporters (especially those traveling to or reporting from overseas) are very likely getting swept up via the 702 program. The same thing is almost certainly happening to the digital letters to the editor or op‐​eds submitted to the Journal by Americans overseas or who visit the Journal’s website to read its news coverage, etc. All of that, and literally millions of communications of other Americans are available for perusal by FBI agents with access to the 702 database. To be a cheerleader for a surveillance program that’s likely collecting the communications of its reporters and readers is probably not what those reporters or readers view as a legitimate government function or use of their taxpayer dollars.

Item 2: Multiple bills have been introduced to impose an actual warrant requirement for any federal law enforcement access to that stored data, but the most recent one introduced is a bipartisan Senate bill that, while not going as far as many privacy and civil liberties advocates would like, would be a vast improvement over where we are now with the 702 program. The House Intelligence Committee bill championed by the WSJ ed board would, if enacted, largely be another classic example of the old Capitol Hill game of “Let’s not but say we did” when it comes to surveillance reform. The Journal ed board seems not to recognize that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have long been “organizationally captured” by the various intelligence and law enforcement entities they were created to oversee in 1978. Both committees are cheerleaders for mass surveillance, not our protectors from it.

Item 3: The Journal ed board is engaged in a form of magical thinking with respect to mass surveillance. No mass surveillance program has ever stopped a terrorist attack on America. That was the case with the 702 program’s progenitor, the infamous STELLAR WIND program. It was also the case with the PATRIOT Act’s Section 215 telephone metadata mass surveillance program. And while the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) continue to make incredible claims about the program’s effectiveness, the actual FBI internal audits of the 702 program have never been released. Cato is trying to remedy that information deficit via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit currently before D.C. Circuit Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The WSJ ed board could’ve enlightened its readers with all of these publicly available, sourced facts. Instead, it chose to fearmonger in favor of a program that is not and never has been Fourth Amendment compliant in the way the Founders intended, a program that almost certainly sweeps up the communications of its own reporters, editors, and readers. How the mighty have fallen.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69417
    • View Profile
CA
« Reply #97 on: March 30, 2024, 05:49:49 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18514
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance/Omnipotent State
« Reply #98 on: March 31, 2024, 07:27:25 AM »
" Can’t help but wonder if the plan was always to let crime become rampant so they could justify the implementation of a surveillance state. "

as a victim of having my car stolen twice I am not opposed to this.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18261
    • View Profile
Re: CA
« Reply #99 on: March 31, 2024, 08:03:16 AM »
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773738867126161838

The wildest conspiracy ideas don't look so crazy anymore.

All those cameras and witnesses and no one knows who burned 1600 buildings in the Twin Cities in the summer of 2000. We don't know who burned the police precinct headquarters down. We don't know who burned the U. S. Post Office. But we have a list of every parent in the country who went to a school board meeting to speak out against sexualizing second grade children.

Selective surveillance.

Criminal laws literally incentivize gangs to use juveniles to commit their worst crimes.

What could go wrong.