Tag: mass surveillance

Fauci Admits to Arbitrary Rules That Boosted Mass Surveillance and Suppressed Opinions

Some people may have already forgotten – but not so long ago billions of law-abiding citizens around the world basically got put under house arrest.

When they were able to go outside, they had to wear masks, and keep 6-feet “social” distance (known as “2-meter rule” in Europe).

Not to put too fine a point on it – but, it turns out the “science” behind this was pretty much arbitrary.

And, we learned this from none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The distancing rule was just one of the Covid-era restrictions explained and enforced as coming from “authoritative” medical sources and therefore based on science.

To make matters worse, the dystopian measures included employing mass surveillance technology, enlisting tech companies big and small to enforce the rules, and relentlessly censoring not only critics, but also merely people asking questions, all over the internet.

Anthony Fauci was the face, albeit very controversial even in the “pandemic heyday” of this “medical authoritativeness” in the US – and now, his Covid legacy has just gotten even worse.

Fauci this week appeared before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic; while the sessions were held behind closed doors, an official statement posted by the House Oversight Committee cited him as making some fairly shocking statements.

Evidently asked to explain “the origin” of the 6-feet rule, euphemistically referred to as a recommendation, Fauci said that it was “likely not based on any data.”

Maybe it was based on – common sense? Also unlikely, since Fauci went on to say the guidance “sort of just appeared.”

Out of thin air? So just like the supposed origin of the virus? That was another major narrative which, if challenged, got people branded as conspiracy theorists.

“He (Fauci) testified that the lab leak hypothesis – which was often suppressed – was, in fact, not a conspiracy theory,” Subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup is quoted as saying.

Some of Fauci’s answers also saw this former high ranking federal official saying he “does not recall” the specifics of the very Covid policies he had been actively imposing on the population.

“Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority,” said Wenstrup, adding, “It is clear that dissenting opinions were often not considered or suppressed completely. Should a future pandemic arise, America’s response must be guided by scientific facts and conclusive data.”

Astounding as all of this may be, it could prove to be a teachable moment, particularly in terms of citizens thinking twice before again allowing mass surveillance to spread under cover of fear mongering.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines To Hear X’s Challenge to FBI Surveillance Gag Orders

The social network formerly known as Twitter has been undergoing more than just “superficial” branding transformations as of late, going from a reliable ally of state-driven censorship, to a platform that became the first major one to try to shed light on the mechanisms and practices of deep censorship.

The Twitter Files disclose more than just a private company exercising the right to be wrong in suppressing users’ free speech: they also implicated the US federal government with damning proof of serious transgressions, such as (explicitly unconstitutional) state collusion in censorship.

However, the US Supreme Court has now refused to consider X’s request to be able to publish some relevant numbers.

The original filing dates all the way back to 2014, in the wake of the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden, that sent shock waves both among citizens and politicians.

But those behind the company/platform, now called X, seem well-aware that this story by no means ended with some government concessions (regarding disclosure) made after the Snowden revelations, or with the Twitter Files.

And so, possibly as a defense tactic going forward, X tried to be granted the right to reveal the number of times federal law enforcement “gets in touch” to get information, framed as pertaining to national security.

The Supreme Court decision came after X appealed when a lower instance court said that the FBI had every right to constrain X in sharing the information about the “national security investigations requests” number with the public.

Keep reading

LAPD Plans To Include Private Cameras In 10K-Strong Surveillance Network

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) intends to develop a new surveillance center that will give police centralized access to live security feeds from cameras in public and private spaces, pending budget approval from Mayor Karen Bass. The department hopes to be able to access 10,000 cameras through the city through the program, which has been dubbed LAPD Live.

Real-time surveillance center to utilize life feeds from home security cameras

The real-time crime command center would give police access to security cameras in and on city buildings, stores, police body cams and the department’s helicopters. It would integrate other software such as the Compstat intelligence tool onto one single screen. Homeowners could also register their own security cameras with the department to share footage from their property and be notified if a crime is committed nearby.

LAPD argues the program will reduce time and money spent on investigating crimes, gathering evidence, and talking to witnesses while “eliminat[ing] the need for officer visits to private residents” which in turn “preserves individual privacy.” It would also help mitigate the effect of a recent decline in sworn officers.

The LAPD previously tried to do something similar with Neighbors, an app that shares Ring camera footage and alerts with public safety officials. Those who agreed to Neighbors’ terms of service shared their information with police that would normally require a warrant, even when a crime hasn’t occurred. Some may have unknowingly shared their data with police.

Ring also made the LAPD a brand ambassador through a program, giving out free cameras in exchange for sign-ups. The program ended in 2019, and shortly after the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the LAPD had sent requests to Ring users to obtain footage of Black Lives Matter protests.

Around the same time frame, at least 50 other local police throughout the U.S. also partnered with Ring, subsidizing doorbell purchases that would in turn expand surveillance capabilities for police while allowing them to circumvent traditional approval processes. Ring also filed a patent to add facial recognition to the devices but never announced plans to add the feature after public criticism.

Keep reading

Atlas of Surveillance…

Law enforcement surveillance isn’t always secret. These technologies can be discovered in news articles and government meeting agendas, in company press releases and social media posts. It just hasn’t been aggregated before.

That’s the starting point for the Atlas of Surveillance, a collaborative effort between the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the University of Nevada, Reno Reynolds School of Journalism. Through a combination of crowdsourcing and data journalism, we are creating the largest-ever repository of information on which law enforcement agencies are using what surveillance technologies. The aim is to generate a resource for journalists, academics, and, most importantly, members of the public to check what’s been purchased locally and how technologies are spreading across the country.

We specifically focused on the most pervasive technologies, including drones, body-worn cameras, face recognition, cell-site simulators, automated license plate readers, predictive policing, camera registries, and gunshot detection. Although we have amassed more than 12,100 datapoints in 5,500-plus jurisdictions, our research only reveals the tip of the iceberg and underlines the need for journalists and members of the public to continue demanding transparency from criminal justice agencies.

Visit it HERE

Break the Cycle: In 2024, Say No to the Government’s Cruelty, Brutality and Abuse

“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.”—Edmund Burke

Folks, it’s time to break the cycle of abuses—cruel, brutal, immoral, unconstitutional and unacceptable—that have been heaped upon us by the government for way too long.

Here’s just a small sampling of what we suffered through in 2023.

The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness. The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government didn’t listen to the citizenry, refused to abide by the Constitution, and treated the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers shot unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—were armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies were allowed to fleece taxpayers. Government technicians spied on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors made a killing by waging endless wars abroad.

The president became more imperial. Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents have claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill. The powers amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whoever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability. The presidency itself has become an imperial one with permanent powers.

The cost of endless wars drove the nation deeper into debt. Policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad hasn’t made America—or the rest of the world—any safer, but it has made the military industrial complex rich at taxpayer expense.

The courts failed to uphold justice. Time and time again, the Supreme Court failed to right the wrongs being meted out by the American police state. A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The Surveillance State rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. Thanks to the government’s ongoing efforts to build massive databases using emerging surveillance, DNA and biometrics technologies, Americans became sitting ducks for hackers and government spies alike. Billions of people have been affected by data breaches and cyberattacks. On a daily basis, Americans were made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world. The Department of Homeland Security, which has led the charge to create a Surveillance State, has continued to deploy mandatory facial recognition scans at airports and gather biometric data on American travelers. Police were gifted with new surveillance gadgets. The Corporate State tapped into our computer keyboards, cameras, cell phones and smart devices in order to better target us for advertising. Social media giants such as Facebook granted secret requests by the government and its agents for access to users’ accounts. And our private data—methodically collected and stored with or without our say-so—was repeatedly compromised and breached.

Keep reading

Recommended reading…

Get it HERE.

“EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC NATURE OF THE INTERNET IS A MARKETING PLOY.
As the Cambridge Analytica scandal has shown, private corporations consider it their right to use our data (and by extension, us) which ever way they see fit. Tempted by their appealing organisational and diagnostic tools, we have allowed private internet corporations access to the most intimate corners of our lives.
But the internet was developed, from the outset, as a weapon.
Looking at the hidden origins of many internet corporations and platforms, Levine shows that this is a function, not a bug of the online experience. 
Conceived as a surveillance tool by ARPA to control insurgents in the Vietnam War, the internet is now essential to our lives. This book investigates the troubling and unavoidable truth of its history and the unfathomable power of the corporations who now more or less own it.
Without this book, your picture of contemporary society will be missing an essential piece of the puzzle.”

Republican Majority Rewarded FBI-DOJ for Breaking the Law – Approved FISA Process Through Next Election Cycle

Former Defense Department Chief of Staff Kash Patel joined Maria Bartiromo this morning along with Attorney Alan Dershowitz to discuss political hitman Jack Smith and his political maneuvers to take down Donald Trump.

During their conversation Kash Patel reminded the FOX News audience that Republicans just voted to reauthorize the FISA Program through the 2024 election that was used to spy on President Trump by the FBI in 2016 and beyond.

It is well known today that the FBI knowingly and willfully lied to the FISA Court to spy on the Trump Campaign in 2016 and later on his administration and even family members.

Kash Patel: Yeah, it’s great to be with you, Maria. Look, the biggest concern I have going forward is the politicization and weaponization and creation of a two tier system of justice as a result. Back when Devin Nunes and I ran the Russia gate investigation and exposed the FISA corruption, we recommended a slew of fixes. So it never happened again. Unfortunately, Congress chose to allow 702 FISA to basically be reauthorized.

What does that mean? What is 702? It’s fancy for foreign intelligence surveillance. It means me, as a former national security prosecutor and intelligence operative, would go overseas and manhunt terrorists. That’s what it’s for. But the FISA court, in April of 2022, publicized an opinion that said the FBI used it illegally 275,000 times domestically against Americans, 16 different occasions against those affiliated with, January 6, 19,000 times domestically against donors to a congressional campaign, and, wait for it, 24,000 separate times against Americans and groups in and around January 6.

That FISA process has been turned on its head, redirected inwards. And anyone who says, oh, that’s just a Republican conspiracy speak, that’s the FISA court that rescinded Rod Rosenstein’s illegal surveillance of Donald Trump twice based on our investigation. And now they do it again, and they prove the FBI and DOJ have weaponized justice. And the Republican leadership in Congress allowed it to be reauthorized, essentially through the next election cycle…

Keep reading

The NDAA’s ‘Warrantless Backdoor Surveillance’ of Americans Gets Approved by the Senate

In a last-minute rush to sanction spending before the end of the year, the Senate enacted a $886 billion defense spending proposal Wednesday, sponsored by President Joe Biden, that includes financing for Ukraine, yearly pay hikes for personnel, and most controversially, a reauthorization of the the National Defense Authorization Act

The NDAA funds Pentagon objectives such as training and equipment. The Act was approved by a bipartisan majority of 87-13 in the Senate. For the last 61 years in a row, Congress has advanced the must-pass defense budget measure.

“At a time of huge trouble for global security, doing the defense authorization bill is more important than ever,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “Passing the NDAA enables us to hold the line against Russia, stand firm against the Chinese Communist Party and ensure America’s defense remain state of the art at all times.”

The package now moves to the House, where some conservative Republicans have vowed to derail it after legislators removed disputed elements that would have changed the Pentagon’s abortion policy and provide certain so-called “transgender” medical procedures.

The NDAA approved by the Senate is a compromise version of the budget package passed by the House earlier this year. The House version includes elements aimed at the Pentagon’s transgender health care regulations, as well as an amendment to repeal a Pentagon policy that reimburses out-of-state travel for service members who have abortions.

Keep reading

House Proposal Would Expand Federal Warrantless Spying Authority

The House of Representatives could vote this week on a bill to greatly expand federal digital surveillance powers—potentially broadening both the scope of electronic communications to be scooped up and giving law enforcement more opportunities to access that data.

Edward Snowden, who exposed parts of this same federal surveillance apparatus in 2013, called the new proposal “the biggest encroachment on your privacy rights since the Patriot Act” in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Civil libertarian groups have roundly criticized the bill and are encouraging lawmakers to vote against it.

That bill, the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2023, is one of two measures aiming to make changes to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that could be brought to the House floor on Tuesday. Section 702, created after 9/11, allows federal intelligence agencies to vacuum up communications between Americans and foreigners. Under some circumstances, law enforcement is allowed to query the Section 702 database, which includes an unknown amount of “incidental” data pulled from Americans’ online communications with foreigners.

Section 702 is set to expire at the end of the year, and recent revelations about how the FBI has misused the spying program have raised hopes that Congress might rein in the program.

Despite its name, however, the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act appears to expand, not reform, the program.

One portion of the bill “vastly expands the universe of U.S. businesses that can be conscripted to aid the government in conducting surveillance,” Elizabeth Goitein, director of the national security program at the Brennan Center, a liberal think tank, posted on X.

Currently, the federal government can compel only businesses that have direct access to digital communications—telecom providers, internet service providers, and the like—to turn over that data to the Section 702 database. Under the terms of the House proposal, however, any business or entity that has access to telecom or internet equipment could be forced to participate in the federal government’s digital spying regime.

“Hotels, libraries, coffee shops, and other places that offer wifi to their customers could be forced to serve as surrogate spies,” writes Goitein.

That change would “effectively overrule” a recent decision from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secret court that reviews America’s spying programs, write Steve Lane and Marc Zwillinger, two lawyers with experience arguing before the FISC.

“The new definition,” Lane and Zwillinger argued in a post on a legal blog connected to Zwillinger’s law firm, “could give the government warrantless access to any communication system in America through which any one-side-foreign communication could be found.”

The FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act would also expand how the government uses its Section 702 database.

Specifically, the bill would add a new provision to authorize Section 702 investigations as part of the process of “vetting of all non-United States persons who are being processed for travel to the United States.”

“This new authority proposes to give immigration services the ability to audit entire communication histories before deciding whether an immigrant can enter the country,” writes India McKinney, director of federal affairs for the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), which opposes the bill. “This is a particularly problematic situation that could cost someone entrance to the United States based on, for instance, their own or a friend’s political opinions—as happened to a Palestinian Harvard student when his social media account was reviewed when coming to the U.S. to start his semester.”

Again, that provision of the bill seems to directly overrule the FISC, which has repeatedly struck down attempts by federal officials to expand Section 702 surveillance to include greater scrutiny of immigrants, McKinney notes.

Keep reading

Living Everywhere in a Carceral Surveillance State

If you live in a Chinese city, or even in London, you are probably so used to surveillance cameras all around you – on lamp posts, the corners of buildings, and so on – that you would hardly bat an eyelid. Yet what contemporary city-denizens take for granted was not always the case, and most people would be surprised to know that surveillance has a long history, and was linked to modes of punishment from early on.

The thinker who brought us the history of punishment, linked with surveillance, was Michel Foucault, who died prematurely in 1984, and whose thesis of ‘panopticism’ I referred to in an earlier post. His work is an inexhaustible source of insight regarding the way in which one enters into a relationship with history – something that is not self-evident, but requires careful consideration of the contingent, usually unpredictable factors which have contributed to the present state of affairs. This insight also opens the way for a critique of current social practices, which may otherwise seem self-justifying and necessary. 

Foucault’s writings on enlightenment suggest that there is a fundamental difference between ‘enlightenment’ in the Kantian sense, which emphasised the universal moment of scientific and philosophical knowledge, and ‘enlightenment’ in the sense of a philosophy of the contemporary present, which would do justice to both the (Kantian) universal as well as what is contingent and particular, which is not subject to historical laws, deterministically conceived.

In his essay, What is enlightenment? (in The Foucault Reader, ed. Rabinow, P., New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 32-50), Foucault argues that Kant’s emphasis on the universal should be amplified by Baudelaire’s characterisation of the modern in terms of a tension between being and becoming (or the universal and the particular), in this way finding the ‘eternal’ (or enduringly valuable) in the transitory, historically contingent moment. For Baudelaire, this amounts to a species of self-invention.

Foucault, however, maintains that such self-invention would enable one to turn Kant’s critique into one that is pertinent for the present time, by inquiring what there is, in what we have been taught to accept as being necessary and universal, which we no longer are, or want to be, thus practising a kind of ‘transgressive’ enlightenment. This, I would like to show, is highly germane to the time in which we find ourselves, and by scrutinising the history that has brought us to our fraught present, we should be in a better position to identify what it is that we no longer want to be.

Keep reading