Tag: police state

Is a Cyber 9/11 Coming?

Talk of a “Cyber 9/11” has been circulating for years.  With the next presidential election twelve months away now, some folks are predicting that a major cyber event will happen before then, throwing a monkey wrench into the 2024 election process.

What the heck is Cyber 9/11?

What does Cyber 9/11 mean?  Is there a real risk?  What should we be preparing for?

There are two aspects to the Cyber 9/11 concept.  The first is the disaster itself; 9/11 was a catastrophe that ended the lives of over 3000 people in one day.  There are fears that if power grids were hacked or enough damage was done to logistical centers, the ensuing chaos would cause deaths.

Quite memorably, back in 2000, a disgruntled public works employee in Australia hacked into the water treatment system and caused raw sewage to pour into public areas, flooding a Hyatt hotel.  One man acting alone caused a disgusting, expensive mess. Of course security experts are concerned with what a team of angry individuals could do.

The second aspect to a potential Cyber 9/11 is the change in the regulatory landscape that occurred after 9/11 in 2001.  I remember flying as a teenager in the 90s. So many things changed later.  The airport changes were most obvious to regular citizens, but the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001 was far more consequential.  It dramatically changed the way surveillance was conducted.

Under the Fourth Amendment, private citizens are supposed to be protected from warrantless search and seizures.  The Patriot Act really weakened that. Law enforcement is now allowed to delay the notice of search warrants.  They don’t need nearly as much oversight from judges to conduct phone and internet surveillance.

These Constitution-weakening changes occurred after 9/11 in 2001.

Keep reading

State-Licensed Pot Suppliers Say Federal Prohibition Is Unconstitutional As Applied to Them

A lawsuit filed late last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts argues that the federal marijuana ban is unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate operations of state-licensed cannabis suppliers. That claim is similar to one that the U.S. Supreme Court decisively rejected in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, which involved state-authorized medical use of marijuana. But the plaintiffs in Canna Provisions v. Garland—a pot shop chain and three other Massachusetts marijuana businesses—argue that several developments since then undermine the logic of that ruling.

In the 2005 case, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, two patients who used marijuana for symptom relief in compliance with California law, argued that Congress exceeded its authority “to regulate commerce…among the several states” when it purported to ban noncommercial production and possession of cannabis that never crossed state lines. Monson grew her own marijuana, while Raich relied on two caregivers who grew it for her.

It may seem obvious that the power to regulate interstate commerce does not cover conduct that is neither commercial nor interstate. But the Supreme Court had held otherwise in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, which involved an Ohio farmer who exceeded his wheat quota under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Although Roscoe Filburn planned to use the extra wheat “wholly for consumption on the farm,” the Court unanimously ruled that the collective impact of such decisions on interstate commerce was enough to justify the rule he violated.

When farmers grow wheat for their own consumption, the justices reasoned, that has “a substantial influence” on the interstate “price and market conditions” that Congress sought to regulate. “Even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce,” Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote for the Court, “it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”

Writing for the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice John Paul Stevens applied similar reasoning to the federal ban on marijuana. “Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce,” Stevens wrote. Wickard, he said, “establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself ‘commercial,’ in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”

Keep reading

He Was Strip-Searched and Jailed for Criticizing Cops. Now He’s Fighting Back in Court.

In July 2017, Louisiana woman Nanette Krentel was shot in the head and left in a burning house. More than two years passed before anyone was arrested. That person, however, wasn’t alleged to be the murderer. Rather, the sole arrest related to Krentel’s death was that of Jerry Rogers Jr. His crime: criticizing the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office (STPSO) for its slow investigation of the case, which remains unsolved.

Naturally, Rogers sued the department for violating his rights. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that his lawsuit against Sheriff Randy Smith, Chief Danny Culpeper, and Sgt. Keith Canizaro may proceed, confirming they violated clearly established law when they punished Rogers for his speech.

In 2019, the STPSO caught wind that Rogers had denounced the lead investigator, Detective Daniel Buckner, whom Rogers characterized in an email as “clueless.” To pore over his messages, the police obtained what was likely an illegal search warrant, as it listed the qualifying offense as “14:00000,” which does not exist.

Police then arrested, strip-searched, and detained Rogers. He was ultimately released on bond, and the Louisiana Department of Justice declined to prosecute the case. But the primary goal was likely retaliation by humiliation: Before Rogers was booked, the cops publicized a press release about his arrest. Canizaro testified that this was the only time he could remember the office following that order of operations. They also filed a formal complaint with Rogers’ employer, another action that Canizaro said the STPSO had never taken.

Lawyers with the district attorney’s office told police it would be unconstitutional to use Louisiana’s criminal defamation statute to arrest Rogers; the statutory language protecting public officials from criticism was rendered unconstitutional decades ago. Despite this warning from prosecutors, officers not only forged ahead with the arrest, they also sought qualified immunity when Rogers sued. This required them to attest that no reasonable officer could have known that what they were doing was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit rejected their argument, and its ruling buttresses the notion that victims are entitled to recourse when the government retaliates against their speech.

Keep reading

Civil Forfeiture Defendants Have the Right to a Jury Trial, Says the Indiana Supreme Court

Civil forfeiture defendants in Indiana have the right to a jury trial, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week, bolstering basic due process protections for those who have assets seized by law enforcement. 

Before the court was the case of Alucious Kizer, from whom police seized $2,435 in cash after a traffic stop where they found drugs in his vehicle. Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to take people’s assets if the government suspects them of criminal activity. Kizer moved to challenge his forfeiture at trial, which the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected, ruling that such defendants “are not entitled to trial by jury.” 

“The State insists that Kizer has no right to a jury trial because civil forfeitures pursuant to Indiana’s drug forfeiture laws are a special statutory procedure intended exclusively for trial by the court,” Justice Christopher M. Goff of the Indiana Supreme Court summarized in an opinion published October 31. “Kizer disagrees, arguing that the State’s theory would effectively deprive Hoosiers of a jury trial when filing suit under any modern statutory scheme.”

The state’s highest court ruled in favor of Kizer. “The historical record—consisting of statutes and judicial decisions reflecting contemporary practice—strongly suggests that Indiana continued the common-law tradition of trial by jury in actions for the forfeiture of property,” wrote Goff. The seizure of assets suspected to be used in the commission of a crime, he added, is “an essentially legal action that triggers the right” to a jury trial. 

That prosecutors in Indiana have successfully denied civil forfeiture defendants this due process, and were close to making it official in the courts, is a reflection of how abusive the practice can be. It’s also unsurprising and shows how governments across the U.S. can deter defendants from challenging such seizures, even when those people haven’t been charged with a crime.

Keep reading

Israeli Knesset Passes Draconian Amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Law Criminalizing “Consumption of Terrorist Publications”

“One of the most intrusive and draconian legislative measures ever passed by the Israeli Knesset which invades the realm of personal thoughts and beliefs and significantly amplifies state surveillance of social media use. Adalah will petition the Supreme Court to challenge this law.”

Today, 8 November 2023, the Israeli Knesset passed an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Law introducing a new criminal offense, namely the “consumption of terrorist materials”, with a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment. The amendment passed by a 13-4 majority.

The law amends Article 24 of Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Law to include a new offense, specified as the “systematic and continuous consumption of publications of a terrorist organization under circumstances that indicate identification with the terrorist organization”. This offense carries a penalty of up to one year’s imprisonment. The “specific publications” referred to in the law encompass expressions of praise, support, or encouragement of terrorist acts, direct calls to commit an act of terrorism, as well as documentation of an act of terrorism. Additionally, the bill designates Hamas and ISIS (the Islamic State) as the terrorist organizations to which this offense applies. The amendment also grants the Minister of Justice the authority to declare additional terrorist organizations for the purpose of this article, with the concurrence of the Minister of Defense and the approval of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee. The law was passed as a temporary order valid for two years.

Keep reading

Texas Journalist’s Home Repeatedly Visited by ‘Corrupt’ FBI for Exposing Possible Hamas Training Camp Near US-Mexico Border – FBI Demands In-Person Meeting to Disclose ‘Sources’ 

The sanctity of a free press and the protection of journalistic sources have come under direct fire in the Lone Star State, according to Sarah Fields, Director of Advocacy for the Texas Freedom Coalition and a reporter for The Publica, after exposing the possible existence of a Hamas training camp near the US-Mexico border.

Fields recently made public a harrowing account of ‘corrupt’ FBI agents arriving unannounced at her doorstep—not once, but twice—in a brazen attempt to intimidate and extract information about her confidential sources.

It began on October 17th when, according to Fields, FBI agents appeared at her doorstep while she was away. She recounts that the agents later contacted her, insisting on a private meeting at their local office to discuss her reporting—particularly stories related to war and the border. Fields, true to the ethos of journalistic integrity, refused.

“It became harassment after I didn’t show up to their private meeting,” said Fields.

Keep reading

Laughing gas becomes illegal from TODAY with repeat offenders facing up to two years in jail – but campaigners say ban is ‘completely disproportionate’ and will place more pressure on justice system

Nitrous oxide is illegal from today with repeat offenders risking prison – raising the ire of campaigners who call the ban ‘completely disproportionate’. 

The substance, also known as NOS or hippy crack, is now a controlled Class C drug, meaning that dealers could face up to 14 years in jail.

Users face an unlimited fine, community service, a caution – which would appear on their criminal record – or a possible two-year sentence for serious habitual users. 

Nitrous oxide is the second most commonly used drug among 16 to 24-year-olds in England after cannabis, and has been blamed for fuelling littering and anti-social behaviour. 

This summer it was reported that there were 13 tonnes canisters of the drug collected after the Notting Hill carnival. 

Inhaling the gas brings about short-term feelings of lightheadedness, fits of giggles and hallucinations.  

Heavy, regular abuse risks significant health risks including anaemia and in more severe cases, nerve damage or paralysis. 

It has been identified as having potentially fatal consequences on the UK’s roads from incidents of drug driving. 

Nitrous oxide has legitimate uses and it will remain lawful for catering purposes and in maternity wards when used as pain relief during labour.

Keep reading

Four L.A. Sheriff’s deputies killing themselves hours apart just a coincidence, says department

Four deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department killed themselves yesterday, and the department issued a press release: just a coincidence.

Department officials refused to answer questions Monday afternoon after news of the death of Cmdr. Darren Harris was posted to the coroner’s office website. Sheriff’s Information Bureau officials referred information requests to the Homicide Bureau, which did not respond to requests for comment regarding the status of the investigations. Sheriff Robert Luna issued a prepared statement via email through a spokesperson Tuesday afternoon. “Our LASD family has experienced a significant amount of loss and tragedies this year,” Luna’s statement said. “We are stunned to learn of these deaths, and it has sent shockwaves of emotions throughout the department as we try and cope with the loss of not just one, but four beloved active and retired members of our department family. During trying times like these it’s important for personnel regardless of rank or position to check on the well-being of other colleagues and friends. I have the deepest concern for our employees’ well-being, and we are urgently exploring avenues to reduce work stress factors to support our employees’ work and personal lives.” 

…

“The Sheriff’s Department is beyond saddened to learn of the deaths involving four LASD employees, one retired and three current members of the department. The Sheriff’s Homicide Bureau is investigating all four deaths. On (Monday) at approximately 10:30 a.m., Homicide Bureau responded to a death in Valencia. Later in the afternoon, detectives responded to a death at 12:53 p.m. in Lancaster and later in the evening at 5:40 p.m. in Stevenson Ranch,” read the statement shared Tuesday afternoon by Nicole Nishida, spokeswoman for the LASD.

One problem with so many LASD officers being in gangs or otherwise involved in criminal enterprises is that it invites a pervasive cynicism that extends far beyond the usual topics of misconduct, brutality and so on. Which is to say: sure.

Keep reading

Cops Sneak Onto Man’s Property, Confiscate Surveillance Camera Without a Warrant

In April, a Virginia conservation police officer (known as a “game warden”) walked into the yard of a man named Joshua Highlander, saw a surveillance camera he had set up in his backyard, confiscated it without a warrant, and saved the photos from it.

I heard about Highlander’s case soon after I wrote about a town in Michigan hiring a drone operator to surveil one of its resident’s property. I called Highlander’s lawyer, Joe Gay, and explained that I’d been writing about surveillance for a long time, but wasn’t aware of other cases where law enforcement walked onto private property and confiscated a camera without a warrant. To me, it seemed like such a blatant violation of the man’s Fourth Amendment rights. “Am I missing something here?” I asked.

“No, that’s exactly what happened,” Gay said. “He has a 30-acre property, the warden put on camouflage, they snuck onto the property, they saw he had a trail camera in a field, they took it, they scared his wife and his son, who saw them as they were exiting the property, and they basically rummaged through his camera looking at all the pictures looking for evidence of hunting violations. Game wardens do this thing all the time.”

Conservation police in Virginia are the law enforcement branch of the Department of Wildlife Resources. As Gay mentioned, they enforce hunting rules in the state. Highlander is a deer and turkey hunter who has a series of Tactacam brand cameras on his property that are used to monitor wildlife movements and are popular among hunters.

Highlander was not cited for any sort of violation, but told me that earlier in the day before his camera was seized, he, his brother, and his father each legally shot turkeys elsewhere in the state and logged them (as is required by law) with the Department of Wildlife Resources.

Keep reading