posted 11-13-2002 07:06 PM            

Ottawa urged to drop plan for surveillance of Canadians
Last Updated Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:23:45

OTTAWA - Privacy commissioners in seven provinces and territories are urging the government to abandon its plans to use an anti-terrorism database to look for other crimes.

In a letter to Customs and Revenue Minister Elinor Caplan, the commissioners say the database will be used by the state to target innocent Canadians for surveillance.

Elinor Caplan
Civil rights groups across Canada are also speaking out about the collection of personal data that the government plans to store and use for six years.

Ottawa says it needs the information to track terrorists.

Caplan points to the headlines to defend the database her department is building: Osama bin Laden may be alive.

"Did you read the newspapers this morning or see the news? I mean, we have to do everything we can to ensure that Canadians are protected."

The government's advance passenger information database is supposed to protect Canadians by allowing authorities to track terrorists and their associates. Beginning last month, airlines were supposed to transmit to the government the basic passport information for every passenger entering or leaving Canada.

In January, airlines will have to provide government access to details in their reservation systems and reveal things like where passengers sit on an airplane, who is travelling, even what type of meal a passenger orders.

It isn't just terrorists that can be tracked. Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski says the data can be shared with any government department looking for lawbreakers.

"That has no place in a free society, and that has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or anti-terrorism. It has to do with using understandable public fears of terrorism as a Trojan horse to intrude on our lives and expand the powers of the state to invade privacy for completely unrelated purposes."

Radwanski wants the use of the database information limited to just searches for terrorists. But Caplan says restricting its use would restrict its usefulness.

"Money laundering, keeping out kiddy porn, identifying pedophiles ..." said the minister.

Radwanski sees a more sinister potential. "If you take a number of trips to Thailand - maybe you like the temples, maybe you like the food - but you may be flagged as a possible pedophile going to Thailand for the child sex trade. If you take a certain number of trips to the Bahamas - maybe you like the beaches - but you may be flagged as a money launderer."

And Radwanski says the suspicions could be built on faulty data. Collecting it falls to the airlines. An estimate by the Air Transport Association of Canada places the cost at about $7 million, to start.

And there could be hidden costs in the time it takes for personnel to collect the data at airports, enter it and transmit it. Not to mention the congestion that could result, all for information that's of no use to the airlines themselves.

Warren Everson, vice-president of policy for the Transport Association, says it's not what Canadians were told that database was for. "We woke up on Sept. 12, last year, determined to fight against terrorism, so if we're spending millions of dollars and tying up huge amounts of airline personnel on a program which does other things, there may be value in it, but that's not what taxpayers were told they were getting when this program was announced."

Caplan says the airlines have a responsibility to collect the data and use of the database will be audited.

But Radwanski says his concerns so far have been ignored and he sees no reason why any problems he found in an audit would be taken seriously.

"Quite frankly, building dossiers on law-abiding citizens is the kind of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in East Germany, and we were all appalled when the extent of the dossiers came to light after the fall of East Germany. I don't think that's a model the Canadian government should be moving to, using the pretext of Sept. 11."

The Canadian government is expanding the database to include anyone entering or leaving the country by train, bus or ship.

Although the airlines are only sending in about 30 per cent of the data they should be, Caplan says the information has already been responsible for major drug seizures at airports in Vancouver and Toronto.

But, SO FAR THE DATABASE HASN'T IDENTIFIED ANY TERRORISTS.

Written by CBC News Online staff

CBC 2002

posted 11-13-2002 08:26 PM            

EXPECT TO SEE MORE OF THIS.

Man arrested for cross-border fill-up pressured to plead guilty: lawyer
Last Updated Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:47:03

BANGOR, ME. - A Canadian man arrested for buying gas on the U.S. side of the border is being coerced into pleading guilty, his lawyer says.

Michel Jalbert embraces his wife

Michel Jalbert, of Pohenegamook, Que., is scheduled to appear in federal court in Maine on Wednesday to enter a plea on the charge. On Oct 11, he filled up his truck at a gas station just over the American border. It's cheaper than gas in Canada and many people in the area apparently do this.

They then drive back across the border without checking in with U.S. Customs which is further down the road from the gas station.

But this time, U.S. border guards stopped Jalbert. His lawyer said he was heading out hunting and had his rifle with him. As well as crossing the border illegally, he faces felony charges for carrying his hunting rifle across the border.

* FROM OCT. 30, 2002: Quebec man in U.S. jail for cross-border tank-up

Jalbert has been in custody since his arrest and his lawyer, Jon Haddow, says that could prompt him to plead guilty, serve his time and go home.

"The fact that he is being detained could coerce him into pleading guilty to a charge that he could have a chance at beating during a jury trial," said Haddow.

Haddow says he can win the case because his client was only doing what U.S. customs officials admit locals have been doing for years.

He says Jalbert is lonely and depressed and may not be willing to go through a trial.

"It sort of saddens me that he may make his decision based on pre-trial detention, and get an American felony on his record," he said.

Haddow says the man is being unfairly punished for a minor mistake.

The U.S. attorney's office denies the prosecution is trying to force a guilty plea. The senior lawyer on the case, Paula Silsby, says Jalbert was offered bail after he was arrested, but turned it down.

However, it's possible Jalbert didn't understand the charges against him. He doesn't speak English.

Written by CBC News Online staff

posted 11-13-2002 09:26 PM            

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted emphatically Wednesday to create a Homeland Security Department, propelling President Bush nearer his goal of answering last year's terrorist attacks with the biggest restructuring of government in half a century.

The 299-121 roll call — and a pair of favorable procedural votes in the Democratic-run Senate — signaled that lawmakers were ready to award a legislative triumph to a president whose hand was strengthened by Republican victories in last week's congressional elections. The huge new department will combine 22 agencies and was sought by Bush after initially coming to office seeking to supposedly diminish the role of government in Americans' lives.

"Times have changed and it's imperative to the security of our country and the security of our families that our government change as well," said Rep. Rob Portman, (R)-Ohio.

Opposition came mostly from Democrats arguing that the bill still lacked adequate job and civil liberty protections for the new agency's 170,000 workers.

The bill is "just another example of the Bush administration's union-busting policies," said Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., predicted the bill would pass by next week. Underlining the shift in momentum, he said he might vote for it despite his own objections to its labor provisions.

"It's a lame duck. The president has said he wanted the bill," Daschle said in explaining why a bill snagged in the Senate for two months was sailing toward enactment.

Among the agencies the bill would combine are the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service.

In Wednesday's initial roll calls, the Senate voted 89-8 to end procedural delays. Though opponents will have other chances to slow the bill, the one-sided vote signaled that senators realized it was now politically impossible to kill it.

The Senate then voted 50-47 to kill a Democratic version of the bill that gave additional protections to workers.

With hopes of wrapping up its business for the year, the House also voted 270-143 to keep federal agencies open through Jan. 11, a bill required by this year's budget deadlock between Congress and the White House. Senate passage was needed.

Only two of the 13 spending bills for the federal fiscal year that started Oct. 1 have become law. The remainder will have to be revisited by the new Congress next year.

The temporary bill would keep most spending at last year's levels. That meant domestic security and other programs for which Bush proposed big increases would not receive additional funding unless Congress votes for it later.

Democrats complained that Republicans stuffed provisions into the homeland security bill limiting liability for producers of the smallpox vaccine and makers of high technology airport screening equipment, as well as for many airport private security companies.

It also has vaguely worded language that would make Texas A&M University eligible for federal homeland security research — a provision inserted by Rep. Tom DeLay , (R)-Texas, whose district is nearby.

The measure would allow airline pilots to carry guns in cockpits, give airports a one-year delay in the Dec. 31 deadline for installing equipment to inspect all checked bags for explosives, and let the new agency sign contracts with U.S. companies that have relocated abroad to dodge taxes.

The idea of combining the government's far-flung domestic security functions into a single agency was originally proposed last year by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and other members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as a response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Bush administration initially opposed the plan, but offered its own proposal last summer when congressional support for the concept became overwhelming.

An earlier version passed the House easily in July. But the Senate deadlocked over Bush's insistence on national security grounds that he needed the power to hire, fire and deploy workers without the civil service protections most federal workers have.

The final bill requires a month of talks with unions and another month of federal mediation, but would let the agency do what it wants anyway. It would also let the president strip department workers of collective bargaining rights, though that decision would be revisited every four years.

Sensing that last week's election had turned the tide, three pivotal moderate senators accepted the new language and embraced the bill, ensuring it had the votes needed to break the stalemate. They are Sens. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.; John Breaux, D-La.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Republicans say the voters punished Democrats on Election Day for taking the side of public employee unions and blocking the earlier version of the bill.

Rep. Saxby Chambliss , R-Ga., who did not serve in the military, emphasized the issue in his successful campaign to oust Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a Vietnam War triple amputee. And some Democrats worried that if the bill was not approved, it could hurt Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., in the runoff election she faces next month.

Daschle said he believed Bush and the GOP played politics with the bill.

"In my view, he didn't want the bill before the election, with the expectation and hope they would use it for political purposes," Daschle said. "They have."

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 5710, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

Homeland security office: http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland

Select Committee on Homeland Security: http://hsc.house.gov

posted 11-14-2002 10:44 PM            

WASHINGTON — If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.

Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.

He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.

This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.

Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.

The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

ALMOST TIME TO GO UNDERGROUND......

posted 11-15-2002 01:59 AM            

Cyber Security Act slips into Homeland Security legislation

Hackers face life imprisonment, snoops gain sweeping powers

By Paul Hales: Thursday 14 November 2002, 12:44

BIG BROTHER IS COMING TO THE US. Indeed, the Orwellian nightmare figure is firmly established there already, but the Homeland Security legislation just approved by the House of Representatives is surely an attack on freedom in the country that laughably calls itself the home of the free.

And included in the Department of Homeland Security legistation is a push to punish malicious computer hackers with life in prison.

With the pretext of protecting citizens against terrorism, US legislators are happily throwing personal freedoms out the window.

A 16-page Cyber Security Enhancement Act (CSEA) slipped into into the Homeland Security bill at the last moment to allow police to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping willy-nilly with no requirement to ask a court's permission first.

In a statement, a sponsor of the Bill, republican Lamar Smith said: "We need a new government structure with a clear focus and clear mission to protect Americans and increase public safety. The new Department of Homeland Security will fulfill that vital role." This was the guy who said earlier in the year: "A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb."

The Cyber Security Enhancement Act demands life sentences for those hackers that "recklessly" endanger lives. The Act seeks to allow Net surveillance to gather telephone numbers, IP addresses, and URLs or e-mail information without recourse to a court, where an "immediate threat to a national security interest" is suspected. ISPs will also be permitted to hand users' records over to law enforcement authorities, overturning current legislation that outlaws such behaviour.

posted 11-15-2002 05:32 AM            

THE TIME TO BE ANONYMOUS IS SOON!!!

WASHINGTON — An advisory panel tasked with making recommendations for anti-terrorism efforts in the United States wants the government to create a new domestic spy agency that would engage in both foreign and domestic surveillance.

The new agency would also act as a clearinghouse of information coming in from the existing intelligence community — including the CIA and the FBI.

Former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, chairman of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, also known as the Gilmore Commission, testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Procurement on Thursday.

He said that despite fierce debate among panel members, and his own reservations about the impact of such an agency on civil liberties, "the commission doesn't see any other alternative," in the face of mounting terrorism threats and ongoing information-sharing obstacles between the intelligence agencies, local and state law enforcement and other federal agencies, like the military.

"We have raged over this in our commission for the last six months," he said. In a final vote over the recommendation, panel member Jim Greenleaf, a former administrator for the FBI, was the lone dissenter, saying that such an agency would step on the toes of the other intelligence agencies and would not necessarily be equipped to protect civil liberties.

The recommendation calls for the establishment of a national counterterrorism center, which would act as a "stand alone" independent agency of the Federal Executive Branch, but a full member of the intelligence community.

It would be responsible for the "fusion" of intelligence coming in from all sources, foreign and domestic, on potential terrorist attacks inside the United States. It would then disseminate that information to all appropriate "customers," including the intelligence community, Department of Defense, local and state entities and even the private sector.

Aside from that function, the new agency would engage in domestic and foreign surveillance related to terrorism threats. The agency would "operate under significant judicial policy and administrative constraints" and would not seek any expansion of authority under current federal surveillance laws, according to the report. Oversight would be conducted under the auspices of the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., chairman of the Military Procurement Subcommittee, said the establishment of a new agency was necessary to corralling all of the intelligence information floating in and out of the existing departments and was integral to protecting the country from another terrorist attack.

"It doesn't mean we have to create big brother," he said Thursday. "It does not violate the rights and freedoms of the American people."

But Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., a former CIA agent, said he was concerned that a new agency would merely create a new level of bureaucracy before working out all of the cultural, philosophical and jurisdictional impediments that exist between the intelligence agencies already.

"You're just creating another bureaucracy with the same restrictions," he said to Gilmore in the hearing. "It looks nice but would it address the current threat? What I'm suggesting is the focus and the debate should be on the current structures and whether they are adequate to address the current threat."

Sources say that the panel has discussed the comparison of a new agency with the model of the British MI5 security services, which works with the military, law enforcement and both foreign and domestic intelligence in the interest of protecting the country from terrorist threats and serious crime.

When asked how the other intelligence agencies feel about a potential new member in their community, and whether jurisdictional problems might arise among them, Gilmore said, "I think there is a legitimate concern being expressed by them."

Meanwhile, it looks like the military might be already engaging in some "fusion" activities of its own.

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon is already constructing a computer system that would provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement with direct access to both foreign and domestic personal data — from Internet e-mail to credit card transactions — without a search warrant.

The Times reported that Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, head of the Office of Information Awareness at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in recent speeches. Such a system would require changes in congressional legislation and an amendment to the 1974 Privacy Act.

posted 11-15-2002 06:00 AM            

FEMA, the federal agency charged with disaster preparedness, is engaged in a crash effort to prepare for multiple mass destruction attacks on U.S. cities - including the creation of sprawling temporary cities to handle millions of displaced persons, NewsMax has learned.

FEMA is readying for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against U.S. cities, including the possibility of multiple attacks with mass destruction weapons.

The agency has already notified vendors, contractors and consultants that it needs to be prepared to handle the logistics of aiding millions of displaced Americans who will flee from urban areas that may be attacked.

The agency plans to create emergency, makeshift cities that could house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who may have to flee their urban homes if their cities are attacked.

Ominously, FEMA has been given a deadline of having the cities ready to go by January 2003 – in about three months.

A source familiar with the deadline believes the effort is related to making the U.S. prepared for counterattacks if the U.S. invades Iraq sometime next year.

FEMA is currently seeking bids from major real estate management firms, and plans to name three firms in the near future to handle the logistics and planning for these temporary cities.

FEMA officials have told these firms they already have tents and trailers ordered. The tents and trailers would provide shelter for displaced populations.

The real estate firms are expected to provide engineers and architects to lay the plans for emergency infrastructure needs, such as sewage and electricity.

posted 11-15-2002 02:40 PM            

JFK Airport Using Eye-Scan Method
Thu Nov 14,10:35 PM ET

By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - John F. Kennedy International Airport has become the first airport in the nation to use iris scanning technology to prevent employee security breaches.

Photo
AP Photo

Kennedy has been testing the technology on about 300 employees working at Terminal 4 for two months, although the program is not mandatory for now.

John DeFelice, the international terminal's security director, said the technology prevents employees from giving their ID cards to someone else.

"I can give my card, but I can't give my eyes to anyone," he said.

DeFelice said he expects the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the nation's travel systems, to require some sort of biometric screening for the terminal's 1,500 employees within the year.

A TSA spokeswoman didn't immediately return a telephone call Thursday.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark (N.J.) Liberty airports, is testing different employee security systems but hasn't made a decision on iris scanning.

The $2,000 iris scanner and the $15,000 door barring entry into a secure area have been installed at the customs area leading to the tarmac.

The scanner stores 247 traits of a person's iris into a computer and on his or her ID card's magnetic strip. Terminal officials said they believe the technique is more specific than fingerprinting, which checks for 85 traits.

After swiping their cards, workers peer into the scanner for 10 to 15 seconds, until the door clicks open. The system works with contact lenses and eyeglasses, but not with sunglasses.

If the scanner fails to match an employee's eyes and card, an alarm sounds and security guards are dispatched, DeFelice said.

The Charlotte, N.C., airport used similar technology in 2000, but suspended the system last year.

posted 11-15-2002 09:01 PM            

Grounded

A federal agency confirms that it maintains an air-travel blacklist of 1,000 people. Peace activists and civil libertarians fear they're on it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff
Salon.com

Nov. 15, 2002 | Barbara Olshansky was in Newark International Airport at the JetBlue departure gate last March when an airline agent at the counter checking her boarding pass called airport security. Olshansky was subjected to a close search and then, though she was in view of other travelers, was ordered to pull her pants down. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may have created a new era in airport security, but even so, she was embarrassed and annoyed.

Perhaps one such incident might've been forgotten, but Olshansky, the assistant legal director for the left-leaning Center for Constitutional Rights, was pulled out of line for special attention the next time she flew. And the next time. And the next time. On one flight this past September from Newark to Washington, six members of the center's staff, including Olshansky, were stopped and subjected to intense scrutiny, even though they had purchased their tickets independently and had not checked in as a group. On that occasion, Olshansky got angry and demanded to know why she had been singled out.

"The computer spit you out," she recalls the agent saying. "I don't know why, and I don't have time to talk to you about it."

Olshansky and her colleagues are, apparently, not alone. For months, rumors and anecdotes have circulated among left-wing and other activist groups about people who have been barred from flying or delayed at security gates because they are "on a list."

But now, a spokesman for the new Transportation Security Administration has acknowledged for the first time that the government has a list of about 1,000 people who are deemed "threats to aviation" and not allowed on airplanes under any circumstances. And in an interview with Salon, the official suggested that Olshansky and other political activists may be on a separate list that subjects them to strict scrutiny but allows them to fly.

"We have a list of about 1,000 people," said David Steigman, the TSA spokesman. The agency was created a year ago by Congress to handle transportation safety during the war on terror. "This list is composed of names that are provided to us by various government organizations like the FBI, CIA and INS . We don't ask how they decide who to list. Each agency decides on its own who is a 'threat to aviation.'"

The agency has no guidelines to determine who gets on the list, Steigman says, and no procedures for getting off the list if someone is wrongfully on it.

Meanwhile, airport security personnel, citing lists that are provided by the agency and that appear to be on airline ticketing and check-in computers, seem to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups.

Virgine Lawinger, a nun in Milwaukee and an activist with Peace Action, a Catholic advocacy group, was stopped from boarding a flight last spring to Washington, where she and 20 young students were planning to lobby the Wisconsin congressional delegation against U.S. military aid to the Colombian government. "We were all prevented from boarding, and some of us were taken to another room and questioned by airport security personnel and local sheriff's deputies," says Lawinger.

In that incident, an airline employee with Midwest Air and a local sheriff's deputy who had been called in during the incident to help airport security personnel detain and question the group, told some of them that their names were "on a list," and that they were being kept off their plane on instructions from the Transportation Security Administration in Washington. Lawinger has filed a freedom-of-information request with the Transportation Security Administration seeking to learn if she is on a "threat to aviation" list.

Last month, Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, two journalists with a San Francisco-based antiwar magazine called War Times were stopped at the check-in counter of ATA Airlines, where an airline clerk told them that her computer showed they were on "the FBI No Fly list." The airline called the FBI, and local police held them for a while before telling them there had been a mistake and that they were free to go. The two made their plane, but not before the counter attendant placed a large S for "search" on their baggage, assuring that they got more close scrutiny at the boarding gate.

Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was barred last month from getting on a flight to Hamburg, Germany, where he was going on business, after he got engaged in a loud, though friendly, discussion with two other passengers in a security line. During the course of the debate, he shouted that "George Bush is as dumb as a rock," an unfortunate comment that provoked the Raleigh-Durham Airport security staff to call the local Secret Service bureau, which sent out two agents to interrogate Stuber.

"They took me into a room and questioned me all about my politics," Stuber recalls. "They were very up on Green Party politics, too." They fingerprinted him and took a digital eye scan. Particularly ominous, he says, was a loose-leaf binder held by the Secret Service agents. "It was open, and while they were questioning me, I discreetly looked at it," he says. "It had a long list of organizations, and I was able to recognize the Green Party, Greenpeace, EarthFirst and Amnesty International." Stuber was eventually released, but because he missed his flight, he had to pay almost $2,000 for a full-fare ticket to Hamburg so that he did not miss his business engagement.

A Secret Service agent at the agency's Washington headquarters confirmed that his agency had been called in to question Stuber. "We're not normally a part of the airport security operation," Agent Mark Connelly told Salon. "That's the FBI's job. But when one of our protection subjects gets threatened, we check it out." Asked about the list of organizations observed by Stuber, the Secret Service source speculated that those organizations might be on a list of organizations that the service, which is assigned the task of protecting the president, might need to monitor as part of its security responsibility.

Additional evidence suggests that Olshansky, Stuber and other left-leaning activists are also seen as a threat to aviation, though perhaps of a different grade. A top official for the Eagle Forum, an old-line conservative group led by anti-feminist icon Phyllis Schlafly, said several of the group's members have been delayed at security checkpoints for so long that they missed their flights. According to Pax Christi, a Catholic peace organization, an American member of the Falun Gong Chinese religious group was barred from getting back on a plane that had stopped in Iceland, reportedly based on information supplied to Icelandic customs by U.S. authorities. The person was reportedly permitted to fly onward on a later flight.

Hussein Ibish, communications director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says his group has documented over 80 cases -- involving 200 people -- in which fliers with Arabic names have been delayed at the airport, or barred altogether from flying. Some, he says, appear to involve people who have no political involvement at all, and he speculated that they suffered the misfortune of having the same name as someone "on the list" for legitimate security reasons.

Until Steigman's confirmation of the no-fly list, the government had never admitted its existence. While FBI spokesman Paul Bresson confirmed existence of the list, officials at the CIA and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service declined to comment and referred inquiries back to the TSA. Details of how it was assembled and how it is being used by the government, airports and airlines are largely kept secret.

A security officer at United Airlines, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the airlines receive no-fly lists from the Transportation Security Administration but declined further comment, saying it was a security matter. A USAir spokeswoman, however, declined to comment, saying that the airline's security relationship with the federal transit agency was a security matter and that discussing it could "jeopardize passenger safety."

Steigman declined to say who was on the no-fly list, but he conceded that people like Lawinger, Stuber, Gordon, Adams and Olshansky were not "threats to aviation," because they were being allowed to fly after being interrogated and searched. But then, in a Byzantine twist, he raised the possibility that the security agency might have more than one list. "I checked with our security people," he said, "and they said there is no [second] list," he said. "Of course, that could mean one of two things: Either there is no second list, or there is a list and they're not going to talk about it for security reasons."

In fact, most of those who have been stopped from boarding flights (like Lawinger, Stuber, Gordon and Adams) were able to fly later. Obviously, if the TSA thought someone was a genuine "threat to aviation" -- like those on the 1,000-name no-fly list, they would simply be barred from flying. So does the agency have more than one list perhaps -- one for people who are totally barred from flying and another for people who are simply harassed and delayed?

Asked why the TSA would be barring a 74-year-old nun from flying, Steigman said: "I don't know. You could get on the list if you were arrested for a federal felony."

Sister Lawinger says she was arrested only once, back in the 1980s, for sitting down and refusing to leave the district office of a local congressman. And even then, she says, she was never officially charged or fined. But another person who was in the Peace Action delegation that day, Judith Williams, says she was arrested and spent three days in jail for a protest at the White House back in 1991. In that protest, Williams and other Catholic peace activists had scaled the White House perimeter fence and scattered baby dolls around the lawn to protest the bombing of Iraq. She says that the charge from that incident was a misdemeanor, an infraction that would not seem enough to establish her as a threat to aviation.

Inevitably, such questions about how one gets on a federal transit list creates questions about how to get off it. It is a classic -- and unnerving -- catch-22: Because the Transportation Security Administration says it compiles the list from names provided by other agencies, it has no procedure for correcting a problem. Aggrieved parties would have to go to the agency that first reported their names, but for security reasons, the TSA won't disclose which agency put someone on the list.

Bresson, the FBI spokesperson, would not explain the criteria for classifying someone as a threat to aviation, but suggests that fliers who believe they're on the list improperly should "report to airport security and they should be able to contact the TSA or us and get it cleared up." He concedes that might mean missed flights or other inconveniences. His explanation: "Airline security has gotten very complicated."

Many critics of the security agency's methods accept the need for heightened air security, but remain troubled the more Kafka-esque traits of the system. Waters, at the Eagle Forum, worries that the government has offered no explanation for how a "threat to aviation" is determined. "Maybe the people being stopped are already being profiled," she says. "If they're profiling people, what kind of things are they looking for? Whether you fit in in your neighborhood?"

"I agree that the government should be keeping known 'threats to aviation' off of planes," Ibish says. "I certainly don't want those people on my plane! But there has to be a procedure for appealing this, and there isn't. There are no safeguards and there is no recourse."

Meanwhile, nobody in the federal government has explained why so many law-abiding but mostly left-leaning political activists and antiwar activists are being harassed at check-in time at airports. "This all raises serious concerns about whether the government has made a decision to target Americans based on their political beliefs," says Katie Corrigan, an ACLU official. The ACLU has set up a No Fly List Complaint Form on its Web site.

One particular concern about the government's threat to aviation list and any other possible lists of people to be subjected to extra security investigation at airports is that names are being made available to private companies -- the airlines and airport authorities -- charged with alerting security personnel. Unlike most other law-enforcement watch lists, these lists are not being closely held within the national security or law-enforcement files and computers, but are apparently being widely dispersed.

"It's bad enough when the federal government has lists like this with no guidelines on how they're compiled or how to use them," says Olshansky at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "But when these lists are then given to the private sector, there are even less controls over how they are used or misused." Noting that airlines have "a free hand" to decide whether someone can board a plane or not, she says the result is a "tremendous chilling of the First Amendment right to travel and speak freely."

But Olshansky, alarmed by her own experience and the number of others reporting apparent political harassment, is fighting back. She says now that the government has confirmed the existence of a blacklist, her center is planning a First Amendment lawsuit against the federal government. CCR and has already signed up Lawinger, Stuber, and several others from Milwaukee's Peace Action group.

posted 11-16-2002 10:16 PM            

Saturday, November 16, 2002; Page A20

ANYONE WHO deliberately set out to invent a government program with the specific aim of terrifying the Orwell-reading public could hardly have improved on the Information Awareness Office. Tucked away in the outer reaches of the Defense Department, brandishing an eerie and cryptic logo -- an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid and the slogan "Scientia Est Potentia" ("Knowledge Is Power") -- the office is headed by retired Rear Adm. John M. Poindexter, the Reagan administration official who was convicted in the wake of the Iran-contra scandal of five felony counts of lying to Congress, destroying official documents and obstructing the congressional inquiry into the affair. Not surprisingly, there have already been some fast-breathing reactions to recently published information about the office, including allegations that it is funded by the Homeland Security Bill (it isn't) and that Adm. Poindexter has compiled a computer dossier on every American (he hasn't, or not yet).

In fact, the program is still a research project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the high-tech innovators who helped create the Internet -- and who claim that this project is equally benign. Among other things, the Information Awareness Office is trying to find ways of better identifying potentially dangerous people by using video cameras and biometrics, and of processing large amounts of data from different sources so as to predict and prevent terrorist attacks (the "Total Information Awareness System"). Police tracking the Washington sniper suspects might, for example, have caught them more quickly with the help of a computer program that could simultaneously search their motel records, their immigration and police histories, and the traffic violations tied to their Chevrolet Caprice.

Yet, given both the context and the content of the program, DARPA should hardly have been surprised by the bad publicity. For however revolutionary and innovative it may be, this is not neutral technology, and the potential for abuse is enormous. If information that once took five people a week to find will now take one person 15 minutes to find, then instant -- and instantly updatable -- computer dossiers on everyone really do cease to be science fiction. If computers can learn to identify a person through a video camera, then constant surveillance of society becomes possible, too. Because the legal system designed to protect privacy has yet to catch up with this technology, Congress needs to take a direct interest in this project, and the defense secretary should appoint an outside committee to oversee it before it proceeds. Privacy concerns need to be built into the technology from the beginning -- if the public decides, after being fully acquainted with the possibilities, that it is to be built at all.

Finally, everyone involved might also want to consider whether Adm. Poindexter is the best person to direct this extremely sensitive project. Though his criminal convictions were overturned on appeal, his record of lying to Congress hardly makes him an ideal protector of the legal system, and his conduct of Iran-contra hardly makes him an advertisement for government competence. Even his choice of logo calls into question his tact and taste. Adm. Poindexter's presence on this project, the lack of clear public information about it and the absence of any real oversight already indicate a serious lapse of judgment.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

posted 11-17-2002 04:08 PM            

Department of Homeland Security officials who disclose "critical infrastructure information" obtained from private companies could be fined, dismissed or imprisoned for up to a year under the landmark bill setting up the new agency.

The provisions could win final approval next week when the Senate votes on the bill to establish the department. They sparked a volley of criticism yesterday from civil liberties and environmental groups, as well as from some leading Democrats.

Under the measure, government officials would be barred from disclosing to the public broad categories of information "not customarily in the public domain," once a company has requested in writing that it be kept confidential. Unauthorized leaks could be punished by jail terms of up to one year.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the disclosure rules represent "the most severe weakening of the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] in its 36-year history," adding they had been inserted in the bill "behind closed doors."

Some private groups said the language will create a loophole that could make government officials fearful of disclosing information about corporate activities that pose risks to the public.

But Republicans said the language, which was included in a version of the bill the House passed last summer, would merely safeguard sensitive information that private companies voluntarily provide to the government about pipelines, railroads, dams and buildings.

"It's in there to make companies and individuals feel comfortable about sharing information with the department to keep us safe," said Richard Diamond, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.). "It would be catastrophic if the information fell into the wrong hands."

The controversy over the language erupted as groups scrutinized the sprawling Homeland Security Department bill nearing passage in Congress. After last week's GOP election victories, Republicans drafted a new version of the measure, which was adopted by the House on Wednesday. It incorporates parts of the bill passed earlier by the House and adds some new provisions agreed to by the White House.

In the case of the FOIA rules, it largely ignores a bipartisan compromise worked out in the Senate this summer by Leahy, Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah).

Leahy's office said yesterday that, unlike the new version, the compromise had not included criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosures, and that it would have required the government to release portions of records even if other parts were privileged.

Sources said that Bennett argued for the inclusion of the compromise in the bill now before Congress, but that he was overruled by the White House.

Laura W. Murphy, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "We have big objections to this."

A major concern, she said, is that companies could ensure secrecy for a wide range of information provided to the government simply by declaring that it involves critical infrastructure and then demanding confidentiality.

Murphy said she fears that companies would use the law to block public knowledge of activities that threaten public safety or health. The ACLU contended that the proposed law could prevent the disclosure of potential health risks from uranium stored at private sites or of defects in railroad tracks.

Murphy added that the law might discourage whistle-blowers from coming forward with revelations about corporate wrongdoing.

"It would put it up to the private sector what information was released, and a government bureaucrat who released information that could protect the public [from corporate misdeeds] would be subject to criminal penalties," Murphy said.

posted 11-17-2002 09:23 PM            

Turn Yourself In and Get It Over With
By Diane Harvey
merak@sedona.net
8-13-2

Official Notice
From: The U.S. Department of Permanent Investigation
To: Selected U.S. Citizens

Our governmental vigilance against hidden sources of potential terrorism is, as you know, expanding rapidly. It quite naturally includes the deepest suspicion directed toward those of you so dangerously misguided as to foolishly disagree with any of our activities. The thought of the United States of America continuing to tolerate so-called normal citizens who insist on harboring hurtful, negative attitudes toward those holding the reins of power is clearly unacceptable. Such disagreement is shockingly counterproductive to a beleaguered government trying to rid itself of a few dangerous enemies while simultaneously taking over as much of the world's resources as possible. Because if you think this is easy to pull off without too many people noticing, you can think again.

Government policy encouraging citizen-on-citizen spying has been sadly misunderstood by those of you who have not yet willingly embraced the idea of reforming yourselves the easy way, before someone else does it for you. You have to understand: we can't be too careful about these things because we really, seriously, need to get our own way here. Uncritical, whole-hearted acceptance of authority, and support for our every little overt and covert aim, is not that much to ask. Furthermore, divisiveness among the populace on this issue of self-spying is turning out to be a pointlessly time-consuming drain on our dwindling national resources.

For instance: are you one of those who have been frivolously wasting time, waiting around for the dreaded midnight pounding on your door? Have you been experiencing nonproductive periods at work, fretting over job security due to a few too many carelessly expressed opinions at that last office party? Have you said anything at all, at any moment, which could possibly be construed as less than fully complimentary to those morally and intellectually superior individuals who were (possibly) elected to run your country in your behalf? If so, then you are shamelessly squandering your nation's human resources, since other people are going to have to be keeping an eye on you for the rest of your life. Do you really think that is being fair to them?

Or perhaps you have already had the good sense to be terrified, and have therefore swallowed your highly-unpopular opinions all along. Maybe you are idly wondering how long it will be before our technology can pick your real thoughts straight from your congenitally insubordinate brain. (It won't be long.) In any case, you know who you are. You are the ones who nag, nitpick and think you can find fault with the strategies of your worthy leaders in Washington. You loathe us and all our works, national difficulties notwithstanding, and you are wondering if we know it too. Well, we do.

You have not thought this problem through with sufficient thoroughness. Because human nature will very likely, sooner or later, turn against you in ways even your feverish imagination cannot predict. Remember, you once lodged an official complaint with animal control about that incessantly barking neighbor's dog. Or maybe you fired a crooked, inefficient, or superfluous employee. What about that romantic attachment that ended so acrimoniously? Perhaps you simply know something unpleasant about someone, who really would rather you didn't run around loose knowing what you know, just because. In any case, what with being a human being and all, you are certain to have mortally offended someone else's ego- sometime, somewhere, somehow. And now you have to wonder if there will be highly unpleasant consequences.

Well, yes, there will be. We realize that even ordinary decent government-loving folk occasionally must succumb to urges for petty revenge. We understand that even proper citizens, ferociously dedicated to our administration, will now and again swell with uncontrollable self-importance, when handed irresistibly juicy power over others. Therefore this business of your hanging around endlessly worrying about being fingered by the evil eye is utterly useless. Of course you must be carefully watched over by imperfect human beings: what did you think? You are recklessly wasting your country's time and energy by forcing your fellow citizens to try to assess exactly how serious those rude jokes you made about the current administration really were. Surely you can see that it is a terrible drain on the economy to be forced to have two thirds of the country awkwardly skulking around spying on the other third?

You ought to know by now if your inner thoughts meet the standards of our updated and expanded guidelines for possible enemies of the state. We've certainly planted enough hints out there. But you may well have been remiss in the necessarily stern and uncompromising requirements for self-examination along these lines. Therefore, in order to facilitate your efforts, we include here a brief but hopefully evocative excerpt from our larger work-in-progress, The Encyclopedia of Internal Enemies, Volume 23.

Please get your pencils, download this paper, and check the applicable choices. Be sure to return your answers promptly to our Department.

1. You are an enemy of the state if you have deliberately failed to applaud enthusiastically at the end of each and every official public utterance during these difficult times. And don't think no one noticed.

2. You are an enemy of the state if you persist in believing, contrary to all government issue press releases, that there are real live human beings out there in other countries. We have very firmly made it clear that that is hardly the point.

3. You are an enemy of the state if you have ever thought that the sudden disappearance of every last one of the powerful leaders and authorities on this planet would result in a giddy celebration lasting for centuries. Such fantasies are not only very cruel, but actionable under current slander laws, and constitute grounds for permanent incarceration in solitary confinement.

4. You are an enemy of the state if you ever try to stick your nose where it is not wanted, in relation to the very tricky matters regarding the United States Constitution versus Homeland Security, which are none of your business. And if you still don't believe it is none of your business, just ask your expensively elected representatives.

5. You are an enemy of the state if you resist in any way the dictates, stated or implied, of the official government, military and corporate establishments who know what's best for you. The fact that they have more money than you do is all the proof you need of their suitability for making your important decisions. The food you eat, the water you drink, the medical advice you take, the entertainment you consume, and the education of your children are by now completely handled and none of your concern. We know what we are doing here, and we have already told you that more than once.

6. You are an enemy of the state if you annoyingly question government and military secrecy when this is so clearly stated now to be a veritable cornerstone of the democratic process. Keep in mind that when it comes to matters of national security, you could be in a whole lot of trouble for practically anything whatsoever. And you probably are, so don't push it.

7. You are an enemy of the state if you question the idea that multinational corporations and the perfectly natural excesses of capitalism are somehow or other protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. This is so fundamental we don't really even need to say it. So don't make us say it again.

8. You are an enemy of the state if you have anywhere, at any time, so much as breathed the word "environmentalism"- even alone in a locked room. The use of the word "green" is permitted, if you happen to be working on a full-page advertisement for a large energy conglomerate.

The above list, as you can see for yourself, represents a woefully incomplete compendium of your innate potential for grievous offences against your country. Basically, what it all boils down to is that you are an enemy of the state if you don't freely and spontaneously agree with the thoughts of those of us in positions of authority, anywhere and everywhere. Any fool could see that, one would think. Frankly, we don't like being disagreed with. Why would we?

We welcome your individual contributions in response to this Official Notice, just as soon as you have examined your conscience and made a full and frank confession. You will then be free to shorten your sentence somewhat by offering additions we haven't thought of yet to this list. We hope, with your help, to compile the definitive version of all conceivable infractions of any local, state or federal rules, laws, customs, or sincere authoritarian whims, which you or anyone else might have been, are now, or may be guilty of in the future.

The main thing is not really even what you have specifically done, or will do. There's bound to be something, and you know it. The point is to shortcut all this uncomfortable uncertainty you are living in as an amateur or even, heaven help you, a certified professional troublemaker. Therefore we have instituted what we believe is a highly effective new plan for speeding up this entire process. We are asking each and every one of you who has ever had any sort of wicked thought whatsoever about The Establishment to give yourselves up and turn yourselves in to the authorities immediately. This will save everyone concerned a considerable amount of troublesome waiting, not to mention your tax dollars. What with one thing and another, present estimates of the number of in-house enemies-of-the-state run to the millions at the very least. For this reason we ask for your patience in regard to the expected long lines and waiting times.

Kindly observe the following steps for turning yourself in:

If you don't know the location or even the identity of your local authorities, just ask and we will forward you the names, and directions for finding them. They aren't always who you think they are.

Please do not try to turn yourselves in to the media, as they are not yet set up for handling crowds.

Consider bringing at least a box lunch, as this is going to take some time. Sanitary arrangements will be provided, but don't expect anything fancy. Outside food vendors will be permitted between the hours of 11am - 1 pm, and 4 pm - 6 pm, for the first week, in most states.

For your entertainment while you are waiting, we have arranged for continual closed-circuit preview presentations of the upcoming reality-based Fox television series, "The Noble, Highly Paid and Exciting Lives of Citizen-Spies."

No radios, cell phones, wrist watches, writing implements, or reading material will be allowed beyond the first stage of processing. And don't bother bringing your belts, extra clothing, or personal grooming materials.

We ask that you place all children under six with politically correct relatives before you leave the house. Be sure to fill out all necessary adoption papers.

Thank you. In conclusion, we wish to express our deepest appreciation ahead of time for your patience and cooperation. We want you all to know we are sincerely look forward to working with you and getting to know you much much better.

posted 11-18-2002 02:31 AM            

SATANIC HIGH TECH SLAVERY

666

Reuters 11/17/02: Laura MacInnis

Original Link: http://in.news.yahoo.com/021116/137/1xv2g.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Washington forum debated on Friday the benefits and hazards posed by a new way of identifying people with a microchip implanted under their skin to replace conventional paper identification.

The heated debate at the National Academies, a non-profit think-tank advising the government on matters of technology and science, focused on the threat to individual privacy versus the convenience of switching to a chip.

Implanted microchips have long been used in the animal kingdom, to track wildlife and to help pet owners recover their lost animals, but the idea of using them on humans has sparked fierce criticism from scientists and privacy advocates alike.

"We have absolutely no data about this particular product and about the implications over the long term if Americans are chipped," Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said.

Applied Digital Solutions Inc. says its glass capsule the size of a grain of rice, injected into forearms and other fleshy body parts, could help authorities find missing persons and speed up medical diagnosis treatment.

The VeriChip, a scannable device worn under the skin and encrypted with personal information like medical records and emergency contacts, was unveiled last year in Florida.

So far about 20 people have been "chipped", including an entire family in Florida.

"I can't feel them at all," said Richard Seeling, an Applied Digital executive who has implanted two microchips into his right forearm to test the product. "Most of the time I forget they're there until someone asks about it."

Seeling said the chips were both painless and safe but scientists at the National Academies said too little was known about the device and warned it could pose health risks like infections and immunity disorders for bearers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled in October it would not regulate the device so long as it was not used for medical purposes such as diagnosis.

This left Applied Digital free to market the chip for personal identification and security, for instance locating missing children or identifying car accident victims.

"I do think there could be beneficial uses, particularly for Alzheimer's patients, but on a large scale this is essentially a system of control," Rotenberg said.

Privacy advocates worry the microchip could spell the end of anonymity in the United States, particularly if authorities began requiring people to wear them to meet conditions of parole, employment or border crossings.

Seeling said each chip costs about $200, and that scanner devices needed to read the data would be targeted for sale to police, hospitals, schools and other agencies across the United States.

DO YOU WEAR THE MARK?

Coming to YOUR town soon......
http://www.adsx.com/prodservpart/verichip.html

Biblical Quote:

--"Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six."----"

REFUSE AND RESIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted 11-26-2002 04:10 PM            

"I'm the commander, I do not have to explain why I say things... maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

posted 12-13-2002 02:24 PM            

CAMERAS ON EVERY CORNER OF YOUR NEIGBORHOOD SOON.

ALL THOSE APPROVING THIS SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!

Cameras mulled for neighborhood watch
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The D.C. Council yesterday debated a bill to put District neighborhoods under video surveillance under a pilot program to test the effectiveness of cameras on street crime.

BULLLS#!+...THIS IS ABOUT BRINING IN A POLICE STATE....WAKE THE HELL UP NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!!!!

"It is almost out of necessity that I support them because we don't have meaningful police presence in our neighborhoods," said council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat.(SPINELESS TRAITOR)
Adrian Fenty, Ward 4 Democrat, and other council members said that they feared such a pilot program would lead to an unstoppable proliferation of the technology in the District.
"I am struggling to find support for these cameras, given the CONSTITUTIONAL issues being raised," Mr. Fenty said.
He added that not counting the cameras installed downtown by the Metropolitan Police Department, federal agencies have cameras — "possibly hundreds" — that Congress and the council are not aware of.
The Judiciary Committee hearing was sponsored by Kathy Patterson, Ward 3 Democrat, who introduced the legislation last month.
Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat, said the best police work comes from good investigative work and increased presence of officers, "not sitting in a chair staring at monitors."
The measure being considered would allow video surveillance for specified law-enforcement, security and traffic management. Tapes would have to be destroyed in 10 days, and a court order would be necessary to allow the cameras to zoom in on faces.
The bill would also prohibit the use of facial-recognition technology to match faces on videotape with photos of wanted people. If passed, the bill could also open the door for camera surveillance in neighborhoods that want it.
At least one neighborhood — Hillcrest in Southeast — has expressed interest in having the cameras watch over its streets.
"We propose that Hillcrest be part of that pilot project in preventing, deterring, or investigating crime," the Rev. Franklin Senger, president of the Hillcrest Community Civic Association, wrote in a letter to Mrs. Patterson.
Mr. Graham and Sharon Ambrose, Ward 6 Democrat,(SPINELESS TRAITOR) said that residents of their wards are "so fed up" with inadequate police protection that they, too, are looking at cameras as a viable option to deter crime.
The Washington Times reported last month that the council passed legislation to regulate the police department's use of surveillance cameras to monitor monuments, federal buildings and downtown public venues, but not without some heated debate and indecision.
The council members originally rejected the legislation 7-6, then passed it when Sandy Allen, Ward 8 Democrat, reversed her position. Several members then considered introducing legislation to eliminate the cameras altogether.
Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey told The Times earlier this week that the level of opposition was unexpected.
"I was surprised by their reaction last month," he said. "I understand the issues surrounding the cameras, but I don't think you need to throw out the baby with the bath water."
Chief Ramsey also said the cameras are "handy" because he cannot put an officer at every potential terrorist target in the District.
Privacy and security experts from across the country also are debating the issue with council members.
"The one proven effect these cameras have on crime is displacement, and if that is the only advantage then all you get is the illusion of security," said Barry Steinhardt, the American Civil Liberties Union's director for technology and liberty programs.
Grant Frederick, a forensic video expert, said most police departments are unqualified to thoroughly study the effect of such cameras on any society and lack skills to administer the technology effectively.
"Although I do believe state-monitored cameras infringe on privacy, closed-circuit cameras do bring some benefits," he said.
Mr. Frederick said studies show that cameras encourage witnesses to come forward out of fear that the camera caught them observing the crime.
Chief Ramsey said he hopes that's true because one of the main reasons detectives are closing fewer homicide cases is a lack of witness cooperation.
Mr. Frederick said, however, that adding cameras would require more officers, and staffing is a persistent problem with the D.C. police.
"The system fails without a steady stream of officers available to get to a crime scene picked up on camera," he said, "because the criminals will become aware that the surveillance doesn't necessarily mean they will be apprehended."

FASCIST PIGS....TO HELL WITH THESE NWO TYRANTS!!!!!

THEY ARE PISSING ON EVERYTHING U.S. VETERANS FOUGHT FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOUR RIGHTS....LOOK IT UP!!!!

MORE TO COME!!!

posted 12-13-2002 03:16 PM            

GETTING THEM READY FOR THE NWO CASHLESS SOCIETY...
http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10000&storeId=10000&langId=-1&productId=25804&categoryId=22562&interCategoryId=22514&parent_category_rn=1 107&p

posted 12-19-2002 03:07 AM            

Kommandat Poindexter loves Seeker...

"++Ominously, FEMA has been given a deadline of having the cities ready to go by January 2003 – in about three months.++++++++"

Isn't that near the SAME time BUSH wants to start his Iraqi invasion.

Who will end up in the FEMA camps first...SEEKER or MECH?

posted 12-19-2002 06:53 PM            

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fourth Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

posted 12-21-2002 03:01 AM            

singin' do-wa-ditty-ditty-dum-ditty-do !

------------------
T/S<