Author Topic: The Surveillance/Omnipotent State  (Read 5876 times)

G M

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

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • 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: 18066
    • 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: 18066
    • 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: 68566
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

G M

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


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • 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: 68566
    • 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: 18066
    • 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: 68566
    • 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: 68566
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • 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: 68566
    • 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: 68566
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: The Surveillance/Omnipotent State
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2024, 06:29:22 AM »
 :-o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1473
    • 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: 68566
    • 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: 1473
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1473
    • 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