Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

Glenn Greenwald is a partisan? He's been on the rights of citizens and overreach of the Executive branch for a long time now. Bush and Obama. He's very consistent and if you feel like every single article isn't a complete self-contained dissertation you're probably missing the fact that he's a blogger who has had a running stream of consciousness on this issue since long before the Patriot Act was passed.

DSGamer wrote:

Glenn Greenwald is a partisan? He's been on the rights of citizens and overreach of the Executive branch for a long time now. Bush and Obama.

Just because he's on both Bush and Obama doesn't mean he isn't a partisan. From what I've read of him--mostly from these police state threads--is he wants to pull a fast one on liberals and convince them that his brand of libertarianism is the only way to be a liberal.

He's very consistent and if you feel like every single article isn't a complete self-contained dissertation you're probably missing the fact that he's a blogger who has had a running stream of consciousness on this issue since long before the Patriot Act was passed.

It's not asking for a dissertation to ask someone not to fudge the facts. That didn't look stream of consciousness to me: that looked pretty well though out.

The CIA wants to spy on you through your TV: Agency director says it will 'transform' surveillance

-->Devices connected to internet leak information
-->CIA director says these gadgets will 'transform clandestine tradecraft'
-->Spies could watch thousands via supercomputers
-->People 'bug' their own homes with web-connected devices

Not to pimp myself too much, but on January 26th, 2011, I enthused regarding the singular genius of Patrick McGoohan's The Prisoner, first broadcast in 1967:

Me wrote:

They attempt to fool him with elaborate ploys, drug him, infect his dreams, manipulate his loyalties, reinforce his powerlessness, study his every move to anticipate his reactions, and make him question is identity—real fears for individuals in modern societies no matter the era. Is there really much difference between the uncontrollable radio boxes throughout No. 6’s apartment, and Kinect being able to send images of our homes back to Microsoft? Yes: the latter expects us to pay for the privilege.

Maybe a small, but I think important, example of the police state: The Absurdity of Raw Milk Prohibition

RALEIGH — Picture a peaceful, Amish farmer, selling one of nature’s super foods — fresh, raw milk. Eager customers came from afar, even across state lines, to savor the taste and access a nutritious product. Who could oppose such harmonious commerce on Rainbow Acres Farm?

Government officials and their enforcers, that’s who. This Pennsylvania farmer has been the subject of a yearlong sting operation, which included stealth purchases and a 5 a.m. surprise inspection. In February, a federal judge imposed a permanent injunction that prohibited him from selling his milk across state lines. Given the strain of the confrontation, he has decided to call it quits entirely.

Could it get any worse? Actually, North Carolina has a far more draconian law, the topic of a House Committee hearing last week. In this state, raw milk cannot be sold for legal human consumption, period. Individuals are not even allowed to co-own a cow to gain access.

To defend this violation of freedom of choice, proponents claim to be protecting others from the purported dangers of raw milk. But this claim is laughable, since evidence to the contrary has been mounting for decades.

In fact, a myriad of developed nations allow raw milk sales without problems: Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Italy; the list goes on. Some of these nations are hardly known for their respect for liberty, and yet in this regard people living there are freer than North Carolinians.

Even Great Britain, that nation Americans fought against for independence, has legal, retail sales of raw milk. Supply in Europe is now so widespread — just part of everyday life — that many nations have vending machines with raw milk in supermarkets and shopping malls, and on street corners.

Back in the United States, a recent federal report (PDF) from the Centers for Disease Control did not find a single death from the product in a 14-year research period, while three individuals died on account of pasteurized milk. That is despite raw milk’s availability for legal, retail sale in nine states, including South Carolina; more than 9 million Americans consume it. The CDC acknowledged that pasteurization kills beneficial nutrients in milk, and they found state prohibition of raw milk gave no statistically significant advantage in terms of food-borne illness.

That’s because raw milk is a safe product, and North Carolina’s General Assembly Research Division has noted that both pasteurized milk and raw milk products account for just 1 percent of food-borne illnesses (PowerPoint link). For raw milk alone, a nongovernmental estimate has come to a much lower assessment, less than one-hundredth of 1 percent.

...

NSA building new data center for surveillance data collection and codebreaking.

On the one hand, the claim that raw milk is safer or better than pasteurized milk is nonsense.

They try to imply that the CDC article they mention somehow shows raw milk in a favorable light, but it is very much the opposite (you can read it here: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/...).

CDC wrote:

Our analysis shows that legal intrastate sale of nonpasteurized dairy products is associated with a higher risk for dairy-related outbreaks and implies that restricting sale of nonpasteurized dairy products reduces the risk for dairy-related outbreaks within that state.

That being said, adults who want to risk drinking the stuff should be allowed to.

MacBrave wrote:

Maybe a small, but I think important, example of the police state: The Absurdity of Raw Milk Prohibition

RALEIGH — Picture a peaceful, Amish farmer, selling one of nature’s super foods — fresh, raw milk. Eager customers came from afar, even across state lines, to savor the taste and access a nutritious product. Who could oppose such harmonious commerce on Rainbow Acres Farm?

Government officials and their enforcers, that’s who. This Pennsylvania farmer has been the subject of a yearlong sting operation, which included stealth purchases and a 5 a.m. surprise inspection. In February, a federal judge imposed a permanent injunction that prohibited him from selling his milk across state lines. Given the strain of the confrontation, he has decided to call it quits entirely.

Could it get any worse? Actually, North Carolina has a far more draconian law, the topic of a House Committee hearing last week. In this state, raw milk cannot be sold for legal human consumption, period. Individuals are not even allowed to co-own a cow to gain access.

To defend this violation of freedom of choice, proponents claim to be protecting others from the purported dangers of raw milk. But this claim is laughable, since evidence to the contrary has been mounting for decades.

In fact, a myriad of developed nations allow raw milk sales without problems: Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Italy; the list goes on. Some of these nations are hardly known for their respect for liberty, and yet in this regard people living there are freer than North Carolinians.

Even Great Britain, that nation Americans fought against for independence, has legal, retail sales of raw milk. Supply in Europe is now so widespread — just part of everyday life — that many nations have vending machines with raw milk in supermarkets and shopping malls, and on street corners.

Back in the United States, a recent federal report (PDF) from the Centers for Disease Control did not find a single death from the product in a 14-year research period, while three individuals died on account of pasteurized milk. That is despite raw milk’s availability for legal, retail sale in nine states, including South Carolina; more than 9 million Americans consume it. The CDC acknowledged that pasteurization kills beneficial nutrients in milk, and they found state prohibition of raw milk gave no statistically significant advantage in terms of food-borne illness.

That’s because raw milk is a safe product, and North Carolina’s General Assembly Research Division has noted that both pasteurized milk and raw milk products account for just 1 percent of food-borne illnesses (PowerPoint link). For raw milk alone, a nongovernmental estimate has come to a much lower assessment, less than one-hundredth of 1 percent.

...

absurddoctor wrote:

On the one hand, the claim that raw milk is safer or better than pasteurized milk is nonsense.

They try to imply that the CDC article they mention somehow shows raw milk in a favorable light, but it is very much the opposite (you can read it here: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/...).

CDC wrote:

Our analysis shows that legal intrastate sale of nonpasteurized dairy products is associated with a higher risk for dairy-related outbreaks and implies that restricting sale of nonpasteurized dairy products reduces the risk for dairy-related outbreaks within that state.

That being said, adults who want to risk drinking the stuff should be allowed to.

You and I agree but the response from government on an issue like this is inevitability "But it's for the children".

DHS Terror Document Lists Yawning, Goose Bumps As Suspicious Behavior

The guide encourages participants to “look for signs of nervousness in the people you come in contact with.” “Signs will become particularly evident in a person’s eyes, face, next and body movements.”

The document then lists examples of suspicious behavior indicative of terrorism, which include, “Exaggerated yawning when engaged in conversation,” “glances,” “cold penetrating stare,” “rigid posture,” and “goose bumps”.

Does the DHS really believe this nonsense? What's the point of releasing this type of vague, useless information?

93_confirmed wrote:

What's the point of releasing this type of vague, useless information?

Bluntly, it is to establish a societal mindset that anyone can be a bad guy, and that the most trivial things can be all the proof of guilt that is necessary.

Right, that simple suspicion is enough, you don't need proof.

oops, wrong thread, sorry.

Does the DHS really believe this nonsense? What's the point of releasing this type of vague, useless information?

Wait, so a person about to blow himself up won't show signs of nervousness? Really?

Take anything out of context and it's silly. One sign of pneumonia is coughing... But I cough all the time. I have allergies. Doctors are lying to us!

Or, they don't know what the f*ck they're doing. But they're claiming otherwise, in loud terms.

DHS agents don't go to school for ten years for this sh*t. Comparing them with doctors is very telling about your belief in authority figures.

Robear wrote:

Doctors are lying to us!

Doctors also aren't tasked with finding and killing or incarcerating perceived threats to society.

Robear wrote:
Does the DHS really believe this nonsense? What's the point of releasing this type of vague, useless information?

Wait, so a person about to blow himself up won't show signs of nervousness? Really?

Take anything out of context and it's silly. One sign of pneumonia is coughing... But I cough all the time. I have allergies. Doctors are lying to us!

That's a gigantic straw man. Or apples and buffalo chips. Choose your metaphor.

A + B (nervousness) might = C (terrrorist)

however

D + B (nervousness) doesn't automatically = C (terrorist)

The other variables are why we have due process. In theory.

I don't think it's a strawman to ask how this is appreciably different from what any investigator has done since investigation became a thing. I sure as sh*t hope DHS agents are instructed to look for bog-standard universal displays of suspicious behavior when interviewing suspicious people. Or can someone produce a case where someone was arrested for goosebumps?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I don't think it's a strawman to ask how this is appreciably different from what any investigator has done since investigation became a thing. I sure as sh*t hope DHS agents are instructed to look for bog-standard universal displays of suspicious behavior when interviewing suspicious people. Or can someone produce a case where someone was arrested for goosebumps?

I would imagine most average street cops would skip right past "yawning" and "goosebumps", honestly. There are probably other tells that are more specific. I think that's why this is laughable.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I don't think it's a strawman to ask how this is appreciably different from what any investigator has done since investigation became a thing. I sure as sh*t hope DHS agents are instructed to look for bog-standard universal displays of suspicious behavior when interviewing suspicious people. Or can someone produce a case where someone was arrested for goosebumps?

This document isn't a training guide for DHS agents. It's meant for

article wrote:

“residents and workers of New Jersey,” along with employees of federal, state and local agencies, on how to “assist in combating terrorism” by identifying “unusual or suspicious activities and behaviors.”

ie, 'Joe Public'. There was a time period in our history where getting citizens to take on the ask of performing surveillance on each other on behalf of the government was the norm. We had (thankfully, in my opinion) moved away from that, and documents like this seem like a push back in that direction. I haven't quite moved into the camp that says we are doomed, as we've been far worse off surveillance and freedom wise in the past then we are now. I do think we are reaching the point where some citizen push-back against these kind of things is necessary if we want to avoid slipping back into that a situation like that again.

DSGamer wrote:

I would imagine most average street cops would skip right past "yawning" and "goosebumps", honestly. There are probably other tells that are more specific. I think that's why this is laughable.

Why? They're stress responses. Why is it laughable to advise someone to look for stress responses?

absurddoctor wrote:

ie, 'Joe Public'. There was a time period in our history where getting citizens to take on the ask of performing surveillance on each other on behalf of the government was the norm. We had (thankfully, in my opinion) moved away from that, and documents like this seem like a push back in that direction. I haven't quite moved into the camp that says we are doomed, as we've been far worse off surveillance and freedom wise in the past then we are now. I do think we are reaching the point where some citizen push-back against these kind of things is necessary if we want to avoid slipping back into that a situation like that again.

Kaaaay...

Wouldn't it be more effective to do the opposite, and encourage passivity, creating an easy "Look, you can't protect yourselves. Better leave it to us" narrative when something bad does happen?

And I guess generally, what sorts of tips would it be acceptable for law enforcement to put in a pamphlet?

Hey, I have an idea. How about not training citizens that other citizens are enemies, and to be feared?

IMAGE(http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1079cbCOMIC-drone-assassination1.jpg)

Yonder wrote:
Bear wrote:

Well I guess I could point to the Revolutionary War, Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement etc.

A LOT of people died horrible deaths and we're still here.

But you know who isn't still here? The British.

Beg all you want, we don't want you back.

Malor wrote:

Hey, I have an idea. How about not training citizens that other citizens are enemies, and to be feared?

So, if instead of addressing a fairly legitimate question, this is the level of response that's to be expected...well, ok.

I take it this means no tips are acceptable--any tip is training a citizen that other citizens are enemies to be feared. This seems horrifically dismissive of human agency and perception, even to a bitter misanthrope such as myself, but ok, fine, the brain is not a wondrous lattice of thought and reason, an organ perfected over millions of years so mighty even those who possess one do not understand its depths, no, its so pathetically weak that a reading stress responses is enough to render it a raging paranoia machine (oh the irony). So, bringing a police officer into a classroom to talk to students about avoiding sexual predators is off the table--we cannot be training our youngest citizens that other citizens are enemies to be feared. Young citizens will just have to fend for themselves when it comes to child molesters. Field day for the creeps, under this genius idea.

I'm sorry, DS, I hate to be That Guy, because I do think your heart is in the right place. As I've said before, I'm very skeptical of increased police powers lately, and would love to see that discussed in a mature, reasoned manner, but alas that clearly won't work for some people with very particular axes that need grinding, of which I am even more skeptical.

I think you know the difference between warning kids about strangers and telling adult citizens to be wary of every little thing their fellow citizen does.

And I know the difference between neighborhood watches, citizen policing initiatives, and guidelines given to employees at Federal buildings, and telling citizens to be wary of every little thing, too, but responses indicate that sort of nuance isn't welcome. So, sorry again.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

And I know the difference between neighborhood watches, citizen policing initiatives, and guidelines given to employees at Federal buildings, and telling citizens to be wary of every little thing, too, but responses indicate that sort of nuance isn't welcome. So, sorry again.

I understand nuance. I'm just not in love with bringing the war on terror to the US permanently. I take your point about policing and I understand. I just don't like the idea of America as a nation of people informing on each other over the slightest oddity.

There was a time period in our history where getting citizens to take on the ask of performing surveillance on each other on behalf of the government was the norm. We had (thankfully, in my opinion) moved away from that, and documents like this seem like a push back in that direction. I haven't quite moved into the camp that says we are doomed, as we've been far worse off surveillance and freedom wise in the past then we are now. I do think we are reaching the point where some citizen push-back against these kind of things is necessary if we want to avoid slipping back into that a situation like that again.

I agree, with the proviso that we *are* more surveilled and less free because of it than in the past. We're already there - did you see my post about the new NSA data center? We are in a surveillance state.

That said - pay attention, Malor, because I just bent your brain, I suspect - what I'm trying to point out is that even on an issue I agree with, there are people pushing propagandistic and alarmist interpretations of what's going on, for their own agendas. Taking context away from things to look for in suspicious situations is a classic one. Anyone who thinks that yawning, sweating, goosebumps, lack of eye contact and the like are *not* signs of nervousness *in the right context* is pretty unobservant.

I don't think we should make people frightened like this; I think this has more to do with DHS's ongoing effort to show it's effectiveness and keep it's massively inflated budget. Which is worthy of another conversation, but of course if I start that I'll be accused of being an authoritarian, which I'm tired of. (In actuality, I've already argued that DHS is poorly run and wastes money, which I feel will come out in a scandal sooner or later.)

Welcome to the American Spring

I saw dozens of peaceful protesters violently choked, stomped on, and beaten with night sticks. I saw police wantonly beat retreating protesters trying to escape. I saw a woman get sent to the hospital after police brutally beat her and left her seizing on the ground. I saw the first broken window of Occupy Wall Street; ironically, it came from police smashing it with a protester's head. Coming on the heels of recent reports of police infiltration and monitoring of the Occupy movement, it was a chilling vision of what democracy looks like in America.

(boldface mine)