Rise of the US Surveillance State

I'm convinced that the "Elf on the Shelf" that you can buy is to get kids used to constant surveillance.

Nevin73 wrote:

I'm convinced that the "Elf on the Shelf" that you can buy is to get kids used to constant surveillance.

*cough*

I'm a genius

no really, I am

ok - the darn thing still creeps me out after 3 years. But my son likes the challenge of finding it.

Elf on the shelf is totally creepy but it keeps the little ankle biters in check. You see in this world there are shelves, and you need elves on those shelves.

Back to the topic, I just wanted to say in this thread that while a lot of people are scared of being fired by their bosses for an inappropriate Facebook post (or one taken out of context), I'm a lot more scared about reports from whistleblowers that the government has ready access to all our emails and online activities.

Is this the thread formerly known as "Is the US a Police State?"

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.

Arkansas just loves to poke at the ACLU, don't they?

Some fun stuff from the NYCLU

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-j...

It is the equivalent of busy work in data entry.

93_confirmed wrote:

Is this the thread formerly known as "Is the US a Police State?"

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.

There is no way they can be prepared for the inevitable lawsuits. I mean, this is marshal law without marshal law being declared. I hope someone has the testicular fortitude to tell them to bugger off.

Is this the thread formerly known as "Is the US a Police State?"

No.

Robear wrote:
Is this the thread formerly known as "Is the US a Police State?"

Yes.

Ok, good.

93_confirmed wrote:

Is this the thread formerly known as "Is the US a Police State?"

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.

"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . .

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . .

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . .

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . .

Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.

Holy sh*t. That's the city my sister lives in, where we get together every year for Thanksgiving.

Or should I say, where I will no longer be going for Thanksgiving.

[edit]I read the full article in the Paragould paper, and knowing that area as well as I do, the statements are pretty blatant code for "we're gonna round us up all them black criminals, don't you fine white folks worry!"

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show

According to internal documents newly released by the FBI, the agency spearheaded a nationwide law enforcement effort to investigate and monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. In certain documents, divisions of the FBI refer to the Occupy Wall Street protests as a "criminal activity" or even "domestic terrorism."

The internal papers were obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice fund via a Freedom of Information Act Request. The fund, a legal nonprofit that focuses on civil rights, says it believes the 112 pages of documents, available for public viewing on its website, are only "the tip of the iceberg."

"This production ... is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement," wrote Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, the fund's executive director, in a press release Saturday.

According to the documents, the FBI coordinated extensively with private companies, including banks, that feared they could be affected by Occupy protests. Occupy, which took root in New York City's Zuccotti Park in September 2011 and spread to cities across the country, targeted corporations and other forces it believed to perpetuate social inequality. The FBI's investigation included the movement's manifestations in New York; Milwaukee; Indianapolis; Anchorage, Alaska; Jacksonville, Fla.; Richmond, Va.; and Memphis, Tenn., among others.

The FBI did not immediately respond to The Huffington Post's requests for comment Sunday.

This type of 'terrorist' labeling is exactly why many are arguing to eliminate the indefinite detention language in the NDAA bill. Once a US citizen (or a group of US citizens) is labeled a terrorist or enemy combatant, they can be indefinitely held without access to legal counsel or a lawyer. It's an incredibly slippery slope and unbelievable that Congress even allowed this part of the bill to be passed.

It's not just surveillance:

This [blank] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [long blank] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.

What I'm not clear about is whether it was the FBI or someone else planning on opening fire.

In other news:

Police Dept. to Use Internet to Try to Stop Mass Shootings (NY Times)

Top intelligence officials in the New York Police Department met on Thursday to examine ways to search the Internet to identify potential “deranged” gunmen before they strike, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.

“The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement. “The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

Neither Lanza (CT shooter) or Holmes (CO shooter) had facebook or twitter accounts and as far as I'm aware, neither shooter made threatening comments or hints at their attack on the web.

The FBI has long engaged in surveillance of political and social movements, that's not a new type of surveillance. I'm really hoping this thread does not become the new "We're in a police state!" thread, because that's not the intent.

93_confirmed wrote:

In other news:

Police Dept. to Use Internet to Try to Stop Mass Shootings (NY Times)

Top intelligence officials in the New York Police Department met on Thursday to examine ways to search the Internet to identify potential “deranged” gunmen before they strike, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.

“The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement. “The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

Neither Lanza (CT shooter) or Holmes (CO shooter) had facebook or twitter accounts and as far as I'm aware, neither shooter made threatening comments or hints at their attack on the web.

Getting closer to a department of precrime!

I think actually that is a goal of at least some of the surveillance. For example, it has been claimed recently that the NSA has a program called "Perfect Citizen" which uses a monitoring system to detect patterns in attacks against US computer systems (public and private). That could be used to identify precursors to attacks as well as attacks in progress. I don't think that's a problem, particularly, but the claim that it uses monitors on various networks (a claim denied by the NSA; riiiiight...) strengthens the possibility that passive collection of routine network traffic is being done.

There has also been some successful work with big data techniques analyzing public source material to predict criminal activity. Not just monitoring gang members Facebook pages, but looking at historical patterns of activity and assigning officers to patrol areas at times when a particular group is likely to be active. This is interesting; communities that use it have been able to catch burglars and muggers with unusual success, which is certainly beneficial. It's different from the British method of just slapping cameras up everywhere, too, so it could be less intrusive overall.