Birds of a Feather

Moderator: Super Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Birds of a Feather

Post by SquidInk » 02-24-2012 12:04 AM

Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... l-c30.html
To date, much of the commentary has focused on one aspect of this change: the fact that information identifying internet users must be disclosed to the government, upon demand and without a warrant, by internet service providers, or ISPs. Those facts include your name, address, phone number, email address and IP address — the latter being the unique code identifying your computer so that a webpage you click on is sent to you, not someone else.


Britain:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/i ... -plan.html
The databases would not record the contents of calls, texts or emails but the numbers or email addresses of who they are sent and received by.
For the first time, the security services will have widespread access to information about who has been communicating with each other on social networking sites such as Facebook.
Direct messages between subscribers to websites such as Twitter would also be stored, as well as communications between players in online video games.


USA

So many to choose from!

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/21
In the ruling, issued late Thursday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker held that the privacy harm to millions of Americans from the illegal spying dragnet was not a "particularized injury" but instead a "generalized grievance" because almost everyone in the United States has a phone and Internet service.

"The alarming upshot of the court's decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "With new revelations of illegal spying being reported practically every other week -- just this week, we learned that the FBI has been unlawfully obtaining Americans' phone records using Post-It notes rather than proper legal process -- the need for judicial oversight when it comes to government surveillance has never been clearer."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/0 ... ministr-2/
The Obama administration says the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers.

The position is being staked out in a little-noticed surveillance case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The case has wide-ranging implications for Americans, as most citizens have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan.

At issue is whether the government can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant. While judges have varied on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution.


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/1 ... vents-pro/
From the company that brought you the C programming language comes Hancock, a C variant developed by AT&T researchers to mine gigabytes of the company’s telephone and internet records for surveillance purposes.

An AT&T research paper published in 2001 and unearthed today by Andrew Appel at Freedom to Tinker shows how the phone company uses Hancock-coded software to crunch through tens of millions of long distance phone records a night to draw up what AT&T calls "communities of interest" — i.e., calling circles that show who is talking to whom.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00006.html
In an interview yesterday, he alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T . Contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he believes that the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns as well as for content.
Last edited by SquidInk on 02-24-2012 12:10 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 02-24-2012 08:41 AM

Don't you love the foggy lingo - illegal spying dragnet was not a "particularized injury" "generalized grievance".

With technology today and changing moment to moment it's no wonder the lines become blurred - it's just so much easier to do now.
A man's character is his fate

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 02-24-2012 10:37 AM

What you say is absolutely true. In my opinion, the Supreme Court should be disbanded - it's dense renderings are proof of it's ill-intent. The truth, especially pertaining to legitimate law, can normally be stated quite clearly.

Example: 'Thou shalt not kill'.

The secondary red flag in the OP in the fact that across the west, and indeed the world, many 'governments' appear to be acting in concert. This is a result of one of two things in my humble opinion (or maybe a combination of the two):

1) A vast, outright conspiracy by the 'Ownership class' to destroy liberty among the 'Working Class' & and the 'Poor'

2) The rise of all powerful, unaccountable, multinational corporations. A handful of these entities have vast R&D machines with which they perfect these technologies and market them very effectively to self interested government folks. The monopoly multi-nationals have a very pragmatic reason for wanting to eliminate liberty among the (consumer) masses, but they need legislators to change the rules across whole economic zones.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
Fan
Lady with a
Posts: 5307
Joined: 05-09-2011 02:18 PM
Contact:

Post by Fan » 02-24-2012 01:26 PM

This stuff is going to get real very quickly.

For the record, I don't believe in conspiracies. I love the government. I agree with the spying, we need it to protect us from terrorists.

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 02-24-2012 03:12 PM

The problem is -- some people in gov't call anyone a terrorist who disagrees with them... sad to say..

User avatar
Dale O Sea
Rogue Wingnut Pirate
Posts: 17339
Joined: 04-19-2003 10:10 PM
Contact:

Update -- Re: Birds of a Feather

Post by Dale O Sea » 06-09-2012 06:53 PM

Originally posted by SquidInk
Canada:
To date, much of the commentary has focused on one aspect of this change: the fact that information identifying internet users must be disclosed to the government, upon demand and without a warrant, by internet service providers, or ISPs. Those facts include your name, address, phone number, email address and IP address — the latter being the unique code identifying your computer so that a webpage you click on is sent to you, not someone else.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... l-c30.html
---------------------------------------

Update:

Canada's warrantless surveillance bill is back, and bigger than ever, with surveillance powers for US gov't, too
[size=0]By Cory Doctorow at 5:40 am Friday, Jun 8 [/size]


Bill C30, the sweeping Canadian warrantless Internet surveillance bill, is back from the dead. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (who declared that opposition to his bill was tantamount to support for pedophiles) has been working behind the scenes to resurrect his legislation, joining forces with the US government in the name of "perimeter security." This proposed deal would expand the warrantless surveillance to US authorities, who could also access Canadians' private information.

OpenMedia.ca has been rounding up the names of Canadian MPs who oppose C-30, compiling a master list of the politicians who'll stand with Canadians against this kind of wholesale, international surveillance of their data. They want Canadians to pressure their MPs into taking the pledge.

Vic Toews, far from backing down, is pushing for a renewed multi-faceted scheme to erode Canadians’ online privacy rights: Toews has been working on a deal with the U.S. known as “Perimeter Security”, which could lead to the U.S. government having access to your private data.2 Additionally, the Federal Budget for this year includes a plan to cut funding to the watchdog responsible for overseeing Canada's spy agency, CSIS.3

All in all, Toews’ actions could lead Canada to become a large, recklessly-governed surveillance society.

But we have momentum now, with nearly two-thirds of opposition MPs on our side. You got us this far, now take a moment to get your friends, family, co-workers—everyone you know—to speak out about the costly scheme to collect your private online information at any time, without a warrant
.


http://boingboing.net/2012/06/08/canada ... ill-2.html
===========================

They played the pedophile card? :rolleyes:

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 06-10-2012 11:03 AM

The pedophile 'card', indeed. That style of argumentation is really getting old. The mere fact that pedophilia is now a 'card' is evidence of our impending doom!
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
voguy
Pirate
Posts: 4175
Joined: 06-01-2011 05:47 PM
Location: Moving Target (soon SA)

Post by voguy » 06-10-2012 04:25 PM

Nice that they assume that we would not object based on the fact we have nothing to hide.

Would be nice if the top-10 hackers in the world would target these people looking to perform surveillance and post all their personal information. After all, if they don't have anything to hide, then why should they object?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Birds of a feather...

Post by SquidInk » 08-31-2012 09:17 AM

Canada:

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-canada-drones-police-777/
A spokesperson for CAE, Inc., which is located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has confirmed that a series of test flights have occurred in recent weeks as the country looks towards purchasing drones for domestic use. According to CAE’s vice president, Pietro D’Ulisse, the capabilities of the craft will be a great asset for law enforcement across Canada.

“Much like the use of simulation in training, the use of unmanned systems for a range of civil applications has the potential to enhance safety, increase efficiency, and save money. We look forward to continuing to work closely with Aeronautics, regulatory authorities, and potential customers as we demonstrate these capabilities,” D’Ulisse reports in a recent press release.

It has been revealed in recent months that the US Department of Homeland Security has been operating an arsenal of similar unmanned surveillance crafts to keep close watch on America’s border with Mexico. On the horizon, however, are plans to expand that program domestically from coast-to-coast, authorizing smaller jurisdictions to operate spy missions by themselves in their own airspace. As the US considers furthering plans that will put added fleets of surveillance drones under the command of local law enforcement departments, though, Canada is also embarking in endeavors that will essentially put all of North America under watch from above.


England:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19397816
The UK's airspace regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has told BBC Newsnight that large unmanned drones could be flying in British skies by the end of the decade.

The CAA has already handed out 120 permits to fly small, lightweight drones. By 2020 this may be extended to larger unmanned aircraft.

"In aviation terms you can probably equate where we are with unmanned technology now to manned flight in 1918 or the early 1920s," Gerry Corbett at the CAA said.

"We've found them useful in war fighting and we can see the way ahead for commercial use."



New Zealand:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19397816
New Zealand police are investigating whether to use unmanned aerial vehicles, which would act as spies in the sky.

The vehicles are often small and could be used to take video footage and photos from the air. They are discreet because of their size and have been labelled as "eyes in the sky".

Police in the United States have been given consent to use the airborne drones, while police in the United Kingdom say they see the unmanned cameras "as part of our future".

New Zealand police say they may also be part of ours.

National Crime Manager Detective Superintendent Rod Drew said police were currently evaluating the use of the vehicles.

A decision would be made in about six months.

New Zealand police have used the drones only once, to canvass the area where the body of Wellington woman Sofia Athanassiou was found in July.

Police used a drone from a commercial company to search Mt Victoria in that case, a spokesman said.

While the machines have been seen as a crime-fighting tool, there are concerns about their pervasive nature.

Drew told TV3 News that New Zealand police were too busy to be monitoring the general public from the sky.

"We don't have the time to go spy on people for no good reason," he said.

United States police chiefs adopted a code of conduct on the use of the drones earlier this month, the Washington Post reported.

They agreed to let any captured images be open to the public and not to store any images that weren't believed to be evidence of a crime or part of an ongoing investigation.
Related: showthread.php?threadid=46163
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-31-2012 09:22 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 08-31-2012 09:30 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... e-conduct/
The nation’s police chiefs have adopted a code of conduct for their use of drones, including letting any images captured by unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, be open to inspection by the public, and that the images not be stored unless they are evidence of a crime or part of an ongoing investigation.

[...]

Here are the eight operational rules the chiefs recommended:

1. UAV operations require a Certificate of Authorization (CAO) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A law enforcement agency contemplating the use of UAV should contact the FAA early in the planning process to determine the requirements for obtaining a COA.

2. UAVs will only be operated by personnel, both pilots and crew members, who have been trained and certified in the operation of the system. All agency personnel with UAV responsibilities, including command officers, will be provided training in the policies and procedures governing their use.

3. All flights will be approved by a supervisor and must be for a legitimate public safety mission, training, or demonstration purposes.

4. All flights will be documented on a form designed for that purpose and all flight time shall be accounted for on the form. The reason for the flight and name of the supervisor approving will also be documented.

5. An authorized supervisor/administrator will audit flight documentation at regular intervals. The results of the audit will be documented. Any changes to the flight time counter will be documented.

6. Unauthorized use of a UAV will result in strict accountability.

7. Except for those instances where officer safety could be jeopardized, the agency should consider using a “Reverse 911” telephone system to alert those living and working in the vicinity of aircraft operations (if such a system is available). If such a system is not available, the use of patrol car public address systems should be considered. This will not only provide a level of safety should the aircraft make an uncontrolled landing, but citizens may also be able to assist with the incident.

8. Where there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the UA will collect evidence of criminal wrongdoing and if the UAV will intrude upon reasonable expectations of privacy, the agency will secure a search warrant prior to conducting the flight.


Read more: Police chiefs adopt drone code of conduct - Washington Times
Huh. A national organization of Police Chiefs? A 'code of conduct', drafted by this 'organization' regarding the use of massively lethal weapons on the public, never put before the public, wherein the 'police' are only accountable to themselves?

Is this America or Bulgaria?

Related: showthread.php?threadid=31670
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-31-2012 09:37 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

Post Reply

Return to “Conspiracies/Black Ops”