Tag: mass surveillance

The Greatest Trick Big Brother Ever Pulled

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist” is a quote generally attributed to Charles Baudelaire – or possibly Keyser Söze depending on who you ask on the internet. Something similar can be said about Big Brother.

When you think about what our emerging surveillance state will look like, you think 1984. You imagine East Germany powered by Google and Amazon. You recall your favorite dystopian sci-fi film – or maybe horror stories of China’s social credit system. Thoughts of a frustrated middle-aged police chief from a mid-sized Midwestern town attempting to procure security cameras with innovative new features probably don’t come to mind. You definitely don’t think of a guy in a lawn chair jotting down the license plate numbers of passing vehicles in a notebook. And that’s partly how the surveillance state is going to emerge as it creeps its way into one small town at a time.

Whether a surveillance state is the end goal is hard to say. The police chief of Pawnee, Indiana probably isn’t plotting the development of his own mini-Oceania. But, 18,000-plus mini-Oceanias operating across multiple platforms with varying degrees of integration, both locally and nationally, is undoubtedly the direction in which we are heading as salespeople peddle shiny new surveillance gadgets to cities big and small, making often unverified but intuitively appealing claims of how their devices will decrease crime or prove to be useful investigative tools.

Facial recognition tends to be the surveillance gadget that receives the most attention these days. You’ve seen it in movies and maybe feel some unease over visions of government agents sitting in a penumbrous room illuminated only by the faint glow of countless monitors with little boxes tracking the faces of every person walking down a busy city street. Likely, by now, you’ve also probably heard of facial recognition being used for relatively petty purposes or leading to incidents in which innocent people were harassed or arrested because a program made a mistake. Maybe you’ve even been following the efforts to ban the technology.

Yet, other surveillance gadgets that aren’t quite as sexy or as prevalent in pop culture manage to remain under the radar of even the most privacy-conscious as they are promoted through law enforcement peer referral programs organized by surveillance gadget companies seeking to have their devices in every town in America.

Keep reading

Bodycam Maker Axon Is on a Mission to Surveil America with AI

Axon, maker of Tasers and police body cameras, has acquired a surveillance company that allows police to tap into camera networks in schools, retail stores, and other locations in cities and towns across America and apply AI technology to the footage. The move comes as Axon is trying to expand its cameras into retail and healthcare settings.   

Axon acquired Fusus for an undisclosed sum, according to a news release posted on Thursday. The acquisition “expands and deepens” the companies’ so-called real time capabilities. Fusus operates what it calls “real time crime centers (RTCC)” which allow police and other public agencies to analyze a wide array of video sources at a single point and apply AI that detects objects and people. These centers are reminiscent of the Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Centers—where intelligence from a diverse number of sources is collected and shared among agencies—and have already expanded to over 250 cities and counties. 

“With Fusus, hospitals, schools, retail stores, houses of worship, event venues and residential communities—whole cities and towns—are better protected and, importantly, can contribute to greater safety for everyone,” an Axon blog on the Fusus acquisition states. 

Keep reading

Victory! Ring Announces It Will No Longer Facilitate Police Requests for Footage from Users

Amazon’s Ring has announced that it will no longer facilitate police’s warrantless requests for footage from Ring users. This is a victory in a long fight, not just against blanket police surveillance, but also against a culture in which private, for-profit companies build special tools to allow law enforcement to more easily access companies’ users and their data—all of which ultimately undermine their customers’ trust.

Years ago, after public outcry and a lot of criticism from EFF and other organizations, Ring ended its practice of allowing police to automatically send requests for footage to a user’s email inbox, opting instead for a system where police had to publicly post requests onto Ring’s Neighbors app. Now, Ring hopefully will altogether be out of the business of platforming casual and warrantless police requests for footage to its users. This is a step in the right direction, but has come after years of cozy relationships with police and irresponsible handling of data (for which they reached a settlement with the FTC). We also helped to push Ring to implement end-to-end encryption. Ring has been forced to make some important concessions—but we still believe the company must do more. Ring can enable their devices to be encrypted end-to-end by default and turn off default audio collection, which reports have shown collect audio from greater distances than initially assumed. We also remain deeply skeptical about law enforcement’s and Ring’s ability to determine what is, or is not, an emergency that requires the company to hand over footage without a warrant or user consent.

Keep reading

Advocates Outraged That Feds Asked Banks To Search Customers’ ‘Religious Texts’ Purchases

Faith leaders and religious liberty advocates are up in arms over news that the federal government encouraged banks and other financial institutions to search customers’ private accounts using the search term “religious texts.”

The “religious texts” search term was among those federal officials asked financial institutions to use following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, a congressional source with direct knowledge confirmed to The Epoch Times on Jan. 18.

Other terms that banks, credit card companies, and financial firms were asked to use in the searches included “MAGA” and “Trump,” according to the House Judiciary Committee. Federal officials at the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department sought the data from such searches as part of their investigation of the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Religious liberty advocates interviewed by The Epoch Times were unanimous in condemning the searches, which were conducted without judicially authorized search warrants.

“This is beyond alarming,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Epoch Times. “If we did a word search in history of the type of activities the Biden administration is engaged in, it would return words like ‘KGB,’ ’totalitarian,‘ ’repressive,’ ‘anti-democratic,’ and ‘grave threat to freedom.’”

Family Research Council is a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group that works on behalf of traditional values, including and especially defense of the family and religious freedom.

“The last place you would anticipate this kind of government intrusion into freedom of speech is America and yet it is rife with this administration and with the ‘deep state,’” Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver told The Epoch Times.

“It is a very serious concern and it should be a serious concern, no matter your political beliefs because if this is permitted, then it just depends on who is in power. This is what despotic governments do to suppress people that they don’t agree with,” he said.

Mr. Staver’s organization, Liberty Counsel, is an Orlando, Florida-based nonprofit religious liberty defense foundation.

Keep reading

WEF: Biometric Digital ID Cards Could Track Vaccination Status, Dutch Queen Máxima Says at Davos

The introduction of biometric digital identity cards could be used by governments to track “who actually got a vaccination or not,” Queen Máxima of the Netherlands said at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos this week.

Queen Máxima, a longtime social justice campaigner who has served as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development (UNSGSA) since 2009, urged for the wider adoption of biometric digital ID cards globally during a WEF panel discussion titled “Comparing Notes on Financial Inclusion” on Thursday.

“When I started this job, there were actually very little countries in Africa or Latin America that had one ubiquitous type of ID, and certainly that was digital and certainly that was biometric… We’ve really worked with all our partners to actually help grow this, and the interesting part of it is that yes, it is very necessary for financial services, but not only.”

Aside from financial services, the Argentinian-born Dutch Queen went on to argue that the use of digital IDs could be used to keep track of “school enrolment” and to help people to receive welfare from the government.

In addition, Queen Máxima argued that digital IDs are “good for health” in that governments could use the system to track “who actually got a vaccination or not”.

The Dutch Queen has also been one of the leading proponents of the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to increase “financial inclusion”. While CBDCs function similarly to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, they are not based on a decentralised network but rather controlled by a central bank, which critics argue could potentially give the government the ability to track all financial transactions made by the public.

Keep reading

CBDCs are steeped in human rights abuses and are a new way to track citizens

Many people regularly use multiple forms of digital money.  We make digital payments using credit, debit, and prepaid cards, as well as mobile payment apps like PayPal.

It’s not just payments that have gone digital. Nearly every financial institution offers services – from savings accounts to mortgages – via mobile applications.

So, money is already widely available in digital form. The current system works so well that few people ever take the time to worry about whether the digital money they are using is a liability of, for example, Visa or a liability of their bank.

So why are governments considering implementing CBDCs?

Unlike the current system of digital money, with CBDCs, digital money would be a liability of the central bank. In other words, governments have the direct responsibility to hold, transfer or otherwise remit those funds to the ostensible owner. This feature creates a direct link between citizens and the central bank. And it is this feature that opens the door to so many human rights concerns when it comes to the adoption of CBDCs.

These concerns cover issues of financial privacy, freedom, stability and cybersecurity.  The Human Rights Foundation’s (“HRF’s”) CBDC Tracker website notes the following as the concerns regarding CBDCs:

  • Sweeping financial surveillance. Around the world, governments routinely pressure banks and other financial institutions to supply customer information. From Canada to Russia, this practice has become all too common. The difference between what is experienced today and what would be experienced with a CBDC, however, is that the financial records would be on government databases by default. In other words, a CBDC could spell doom for what little protection remains because it would give governments complete visibility into every financial transaction.
  • Restricting financial activity.
  • Freezing funds.
  • Seizing funds.
  • Imposing negative interest rates.  Proposals for CBDCs often tout negative interest rates as a benefit because it would offer policymakers “greater control” over the economy. For citizens, however, a negative interest rate amounts to a fine or tax for saving money.
  • Disrupting financial stability.
  • Disrupting cryptocurrency.  Globally, governments have demonstrated that they want a CBDC specifically to hold on to their monopoly over national currencies. For instance, China banned cryptocurrencies just as its CBDC was launched; India announced its plans for a CBDC while simultaneously calling for a ban on cryptocurrency; and Nigeria prohibited banks from cryptocurrency transactions just as it launched its CBDC.
  • Putting the economy at risk of cyberattacks.
  • Creating a new tool for corruption.

For additional information on concerns regarding the risks of CBDCs, HRF recommends the Cato Institute’s webpage titled ‘The Risks of CBDCs: Why Central Bank Digital Currencies Shouldn’t Be Adopted’ and report titled ‘Central Bank Digital Currency: Assessing the Risks and Dispelling the Myths’.

Keep reading

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