Tag: police state

The Dangers of Biometrics: Beyond Fingerprints and Facial Recognition

Biometrics, the science of identifying individuals based on their unique physical and behavioral characteristics, has a rich history. However, it wasn’t until the late 19th century that Sir Francis Galton established the scientific basis for fingerprint identification.

Over the years, biometrics has evolved from manual methods to sophisticated electronic systems. In the 1960s, the FBI began using computers to store and match fingerprints. The 1970s saw the development of voice recognition systems, and the 1980s brought iris recognition technology. The advent of digital cameras in the 1990s paved the way for facial recognition systems.

Biometrics has become integral to various applications, from securing smartphones to controlling access to high-security facilities. Fingerprint scanners, for instance, are now standard on most smartphones, allowing users to unlock their devices with just a touch. Airports and border control increasingly adopt facial recognition technology to verify travelers’ identities. In other areas, such as India’s Aadhaar program, iris scanners are used for national identification. Meanwhile, wearables and smart home devices continuously collect data from their users’ daily activities. In some cases, individuals willingly hand over their sensitive data, as seen with 23&Me, a company facing financial difficulties and considering selling the DNA data of its 15 million users.

However, the widespread use of biometrics also raises significant privacy concerns. Unlike passwords or other credentials, biometric data such as DNA is immutable—you can’t change it once it’s compromised. This permanence fuels fears about the security of biometric databases. It is a growing concern, as they present attractive targets for threat actors seeking to gain access to sensitive personal data.

Keep reading

License Plate Readers Are Creating a US-Wide Database of More Than Just Cars

At 8:22 am on December 4 last year, a car traveling down a small residential road in Alabama used its license-plate-reading cameras to take photos of vehicles it passed. One image, which does not contain a vehicle or a license plate, shows a bright red “Trump” campaign sign placed in front of someone’s garage. In the background is a banner referencing Israel, a holly wreath, and a festive inflatable snowman.

Another image taken on a different day by a different vehicle shows a “Steelworkers for Harris-Walz” sign stuck in the lawn in front of someone’s home. A construction worker, with his face unblurred, is pictured near another Harris sign. Other photos show Trump and Biden (including “Fuck Biden”) bumper stickers on the back of trucks and cars across America. One photo, taken in November 2023, shows a partially torn bumper sticker supporting the Obama-Biden lineup.

These images were generated by AI-powered cameras mounted on cars and trucks, initially designed to capture license plates, but which are now photographing political lawn signs outside private homes, individuals wearing T-shirts with text, and vehicles displaying pro-abortion bumper stickers—all while recording the precise locations of these observations. Newly obtained data reviewed by WIRED shows how a tool originally intended for traffic enforcement has evolved into a system capable of monitoring speech protected by the US Constitution.

Keep reading

Mobile police officer arrested, terminated for stealing packages: MPD

A Mobile police officer was arrested and terminated Thursday after he was accused of stealing packages shipped and addressed to another individual at his apartment complex.

According to a Mobile Police Department news release, police officials learned Wednesday, Oct. 2, of an allegation made against a police officer at the Village at Midtown Apartments at 320 Stanton Road.

The allegation was that the officer and his wife had opened packages that had been shipped and addressed to another individual at their apartment complex.

Mobile police began investigating and ultimately terminated 23-year-old Patrick Dwayne Deas from the police department. He was later arrested and taken to Mobile Metro Jail.

Deas is charged with fourth-degree theft of property. He is scheduled for a bond hearing on Oct. 4.

Keep reading

DEA Seeks To Block Experts From Giving ‘Incompetent’ Testimony At Hearing On Proposed Psychedelics Ban

The Drug Enforcement Administration is seeking to block certain experts from testifying in an administrative hearing about the agency’s proposal to ban two psychedelic compounds that scientists say hold significant therapeutic potential.

Ahead of the 10-day hearing that a DEA administrative law judge (ALJ) scheduled for next month, the agency pushed back against the inclusion of multiple experts in the proceeding on the basis that the “proposed testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious.”

DEA further asserted that while the head of the agency can consider arguments on “barriers or hinderances to research” in the event that the psychedelics—2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—are placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), allowing scientific experts to testify about the potential research harm without qualifying evidence “would result in a waste of judicial time and resources.”

“The Government argues that research harm evidence is not relevant to the issues and factors discussed above,” DEA said. That’s in spite of the fact that federal officials have repeatedly discussed the barriers to research associated with a drug’s placement in Schedule I.

Following a public comment period, DEA ALJ Paul Soeffing in August set an administrative hearing on the issue from November 12-22, with a final meeting on November 25, according to a recent notice that was shared with Marijuana Moment by the advocacy group Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).

On Thursday, SSDP filed a motion responding to DEA’s brief, saying that agency is “purporting much of the testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious despite the less rigid evidentiary rules that exist for administrative hearings where courts have repeatedly established that the [ALJ] has great deference in deciding what evidence may be permitted.”

“What is the DEA so scared of that these leading scientists must be muzzled?” Robert Rush, a Denver-based attorney who is working with SSDP on the DOI and DOC case, said in a press release.

“By trying to silence the world’s leading experts in neuroscience and pharmacology, the DEA is attempting to prevent the tribunal—and the public—from understanding the true potential of these substances,” he said. “We vigorously oppose the DEA’s efforts to stop scientific research and call on the tribunal to reject the Government’s motion and ensure that all relevant evidence is heard.”

This all comes as DEA separately scheduled a December hearing to gain additional input on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal—a move that will delay that reform from potentially taking effect until after the presidential election.

Keep reading

FBI Whistleblower Alleges Plan to Deploy Plainclothes FBI Agents to Maricopa County Polling Stations to Monitor Trump Voters — FBI Responds

A bombshell report from a whistleblower has set off alarms among Arizona’s voters and political leaders, as new revelations have surfaced about an alleged plan by the FBI to deploy plainclothes agents to polling stations in Maricopa County.

According to a whistleblower who attended a recent security briefing, the FBI’s primary objective with this operation is to monitor Trump voters during the upcoming election—a disturbing indication of federal interference aimed at intimidating those who dare to support the 45th president.

Representative Alexander Kolodin (R-AZ) was quick to act, sending a forceful letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, warning that such actions would not be tolerated.

In the letter, Kolodin made it clear that the House is prepared to take immediate action against any attempts by federal agents to intimidate or censor voters in Arizona.

“I sincerely hope that this disturbing allegation is false. Rest assured, however, that if your agents are here for any other purpose than ensuring that every lawful voter is able to cast a ballot, the House is prepared to take immediate action to secure all Arizonans the equal protection of the laws,” Kolodin wrote.

The letter expresses deep concern over the alleged deployment of FBI agents in Maricopa County polling stations, with the intent to monitor and intimidate Trump voters specifically.

The whistleblower claims that the agents were tasked with making sure Trump voters “don’t get out of line,” a vague but menacing directive that could lead to widespread voter suppression.

Keep reading

Guantanamo: Deal or No Deal?

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
~ Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

The case of the Gitmo plea agreement keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

A few weeks ago, we learned that a plea agreement had been entered into by way of a signed contract between the retired general in the Pentagon who is supervising all Gitmo prosecutions, the Gitmo defendants and defense counsel, and the military prosecutors. The agreement, as we understand it from sources who have seen it, provides that in return for a guilty plea, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others will serve life terms at Gitmo, rather than be exposed at trial to the death penalty. The guilty plea is to include a public and detailed recitation of guilt.

Stated differently, Mohammed agreed to reveal under oath the nature and extent of the conspiracy that resulted in the crimes of 9/11.

So far, this is straightforward. While the trial judge may have given his nod of approval to the terms of the agreement, under the federal rules of criminal procedure, the agreement is not final until the judge hears the defendants actually admit guilt under oath in a public courtroom and then accepts the plea in a written order.

That admission has not yet taken place because the Secretary of Defense, who learned of the plea agreement while traveling in Europe, removed the authority of the retired general supervising the prosecution to enter into plea agreements without his express approval.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Governor Uses Emergency Powers To Fast-Track Sweeping Gun-Control Law

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has signed an emergency preamble to the state’s sweeping gun control bill, fast-tracking its implementation and halting an ongoing effort by gun rights activists to delay its effects.

The law, H.4885, was originally scheduled to take effect on Oct. 23, or 90 days after Healey signed the bill in July, but her decision to proceed with signing the emergency preamble means it goes into effect immediately.

Under Massachusetts law, governors have the authority to issue an emergency preamble to expedite legislation when “the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or convenience” is deemed necessary.

The law’s expedited enactment was praised by gun control groups but sharply criticized by gun rights advocates, who had hoped to gather enough signatures to delay its implementation until a potential 2026 referendum.

H.4885 expands Massachusetts’ already strict gun regulations, in part as a response to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed an individual’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

The expedited law includes provisions banning untraceable “ghost guns,” expanding restrictions on “assault-style” firearms and large-capacity magazines, and tightening the state’s “red flag” rules. It also mandates that firearm license applicants pass a standardized safety exam and complete live-fire training, while also providing mental health information to local licensing authorities.

“This gun safety law bans ghost guns, strengthens the Extreme Risk Protection Order statute to keep guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves or others, and invests in violence prevention programs. It is important that these measures go into effect without delay,” Healey said in an Oct. 2 statement to media outlets.

The governor’s decision to fast-track the law has drawn swift condemnation from gun rights organizations. Tody Leary, owner of Cape Cod Gun Works and a leader of the grassroots Civil Rights Coalition, sharply criticized the move, accusing Healey of bypassing the democratic process.

Keep reading

Jury Returns Mixed Verdict For 3 Former Memphis Officers Convicted in Fatal Beating of Black Motorist Tyre Nichols

A jury on Thursday returned a mixed verdict for three former Memphis police officers convicted in Tyre Nichols’ fatal beating.

Last September five ex-Memphis police officers were indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the fatal beating of black motorist Tyre Nichols.

Last year, the state charged the five police officers with second-degree murder and kidnapping in the death of Tyre Nichols.

The officers, Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr. and Justin Smith – were fired after Tyre Nichols died following a violent confrontation during a January 7 traffic stop.

Three of the officers, Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith, were convicted of witness tampering but acquitted of federal charges.

Officers Bean and Smith were acquitted of civil rights charges.

Two of the officers, Emmitt Martin III and Desmond Mills Jr., previously pleaded guilty to the same charges.

Keep reading

Minnesota ‘Acting as a Ministry of Truth’ With Anti-Deep Fake Law, Says Lawsuit

A new lawsuit takes aim at a Minnesota law banning the “use of deep fake technology to influence an election.” The measure—enacted in 2023 and amended this year—makes it a crime to share AI-generated content if a person “knows or acts with reckless disregard about whether the item being disseminated is a deep fake” and the sharing is done without the depicted individual’s consent, intended to “injure a candidate or influence the result of an election,” and either within 90 days before a political party nominating convention or after the start of the absentee voting period prior to a presidential nomination primary, any state or local primary, or a general election.

Christopher Kohls, a content creator who goes by Mr. Reagan, and by Minnesota state Rep. Mary Franson (R–District 12B) argue that the law is an “impermissible and unreasonable restriction of protected speech.”

Violating Minnesota’s deep fake law is punishable by up to 90 days imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000, with penalties increasing if the offender has a prior conviction within the past five years for the same thing or the deep fake is determined to have been shared with an “intent to cause violence or bodily harm.” The law also allows for the Minnesota attorney general, county or city attorneys, individuals depicted in the deep fake, or any candidate “who is injured or likely to be injured by dissemination” to sue for injunctive relief “against any person who is reasonably believed to be about to violate or who is in the course of violating” the law.

If a candidate for office is found guilty of violating this law, they must forfeit the nomination or office and are henceforth disqualified “from being appointed to that office or any other office for which the legislature may establish qualifications.”

There are obviously a host of constitutional problems with this measure, which defines “deep fake” very broadly: “any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof” that is realistic enough for a reasonable person to believe it depicts speech or conduct that did not occur and developed though “technical means” rather than “the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual.”

Keep reading

Held Hostage Overseas? The IRS Wants Your Back Taxes.

Many Americans who return home after being illegally detained overseas arrive to find they’ve been billed thousands of dollars by the IRS—including late fees for unpaid taxes.

That’s the bizarre situation in which hostages Evan Gerskovich, Paul Whelan, and Vladimir Kara-Murza found themselves after they were released from detention in Russia last month. All three men say they faced a battery of surprise financial issues after returning home, including tax charges and hits to the credit stemming from bills they were unable to pay while behind bars.

“I got one of those bills from the IRS saying, you owe this much on this year, you owe this much on this year because of failure to pay on time—here’s the interest that’s accrued,” Washington Post reporter and former hostage Jason Rezaian told NPR. He faced more than $6,000 in fees for unpaid taxes after his release, following 544 days of detention in Iran. “This is an oversight that nobody really thought about.”

And they’re not alone. Right now, between 40 and 60 American nationals are being illegally detained by other nations, according to NPR. Many of these Americans will return home to face startling financial penalties stemming from their unjust imprisonment.

Keep reading