Posts tagged surveilance

LAPD Officers Test On-Body Cameras - CBS Los Angeles

social-darwin-awards:

priceofliberty:

priceofliberty:

Police officers assigned to foot patrols of downtown Los Angeles began wearing on-body cameras on Wednesday as the city evaluates different models to include in its policing.

Police Commission President Steve Soboroff said 30 officers have volunteered for 90-day trials of devices provided by Arizona-based Taser International Inc. and Coban Technologies Inc. of Houston

We even have shitty 3D-printed guns.

Really? Did you ever learn about something like this in Rialto?

Maybe you didn’t get my flier to demand Border Patrol agents to do the same thing.

Sure, surveillance by law enforcement and governmental organizations is omnipresent. But let’s not fool ourselves that all applications of modern technology that we’d consider invasive is being implemented by law enforcement agencies alone: Consider what could be done when you walk in to a market or department store with your cellphone or when you carry around a security tag with an RFID chip in it; consider what tracking could be done by sundry agencies of law and commerce by looking at this post. Scrunitization of one’s use of technology without one’s consent is never ceases and is unavoidable — like it or not.

It might surprise you, but recording interactions with every contact a cop has might be a good thing that you’d want for cops to do to protect your rights.

Dianne Feinstein Accidentally Confirms That NSA Tapped The Internet Backbone | Techdirt

However, as Kevin Bankston notes, during Thursday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Dianne Feinstein more or less admitted that they get emails via “upstream” collection methods. As you can see in the following clip, Feinstein interrupts a discussion to read a prepared “rebuttal” to a point being made, and in doing so clearly says that the NSA can get emails via upstream collections:

Upstream collection… occurs when NSA obtains internet communications, such as e-mails, from certain US companies that operate the Internet background, i.e., the companies that own and operate the domestic telecommunications lines over which internet traffic flows.
She clearly means “backbone” rather than “background.” She’s discussing this in an attempt to defend the NSA’s “accidental” collection of information it shouldn’t have had. But that point is not that important. Instead, the important point is that she’s now admitted what most people suspected, but which the administration has totally avoided admitting for many, many years since the revelations made by Mark Klein.

So, despite years of trying to deny that the NSA can collect email and other communications directly from the backbone (rather than from the internet companies themselves), Feinstein appears to have finally let the cat out of the bag, perhaps without realizing it.
There is no significant difference between the NSA “monitoring Americans’ porn use” and the NSA “watching porn all day and night.”
Andy Borowitz
Congress now faces a stark choice on the NSA and civil liberties.
A bill sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein — the FISA Improvements Act — would make matters worse.
In sharp contrast, a bill sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative James Sensenbrenner — the USA FREEDOM Act – would take major strides toward ending NSA abuses.
Learn more and take action.

Congress now faces a stark choice on the NSA and civil liberties.

A bill sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein — the FISA Improvements Act — would make matters worse.

In sharp contrast, a bill sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative James Sensenbrenner — the USA FREEDOM Act – would take major strides toward ending NSA abuses.

Learn more and take action.

theatlantic:

Are the Feds Asking Tech Companies For User Passwords?

Over at CNET, Declan McCullagh reports on yet another way that the surveillance state is threatening our privacy. “The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users’ stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders,” he reports. He goes on to explain, “if the government is able to determine a person’s password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user.” His sources say that their employers respond to these law enforcement requests by vigorously challenging them. Do some Web companies just quietly cave instead?
Read more. [Image: Freddy the Boy/Flickr]

theatlantic:

Are the Feds Asking Tech Companies For User Passwords?

Over at CNET, Declan McCullagh reports on yet another way that the surveillance state is threatening our privacy. “The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users’ stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders,” he reports. He goes on to explain, “if the government is able to determine a person’s password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user.” His sources say that their employers respond to these law enforcement requests by vigorously challenging them.

Do some Web companies just quietly cave instead?

Read more. [Image: Freddy the Boy/Flickr]

The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. There is simply no precedent under the Constitution for the government’s seizing such vast amounts of revealing data on innocent Americans’ communications.

The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties.

This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.

We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.

Everyone is talking about the NSA. These people are doing something about it.

You may have heard in the news recently that the National Security Agency has been watching us via the PRISM program and by monitoring our phones records.

The revelations about the NSA’s surveillance apparatus, if true, are a stunning abuse of our basic rights to freedom and privacy.

I’m joining the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, and other 80 other public advocacy groups in asking Congress to reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying programs.

I really highly recommend that you all sign up, too.

The government will only authorize us to communicate about these numbers in aggregate and as a range,” Ullyot said. “This is progress, but we’re continuing to push for even more transparency.”

In a statement, a Google spokesman said the deal that Facebook struck with the government was not sufficient.

“We have always believed that it’s important to differentiate between different types of government requests. We already publish criminal requests separately from National Security Letters. Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,” he wrote. “Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.”

Google has gone to greater lengths than any other Web company to disclose the nature and number of government requests for information about its users through its semiannual “transparency report.”Facebook, Google, Microsoft and other technology giants have been pressing the Obama administration to allow them to publicly disclose more information about the national security requests they get under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA