You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

Pages

Catch all for news about the state state of civil liberties in the US and elsewhere.

I have my phone hacked to remove Carrier IQ, among other things.

gregrampage wrote:

I have my phone hacked to remove Carrier IQ, among other things.

Which phone and how? This was something that literally just popped up on my radar screen the day before yesterday.

DSGamer wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

I have my phone hacked to remove Carrier IQ, among other things.

Which phone and how? This was something that literally just popped up on my radar screen the day before yesterday.

Carrier IQ has actually been a known issue for a while, I'm not sure what triggered the recent media outbreak of info on it. I have a Samsung Epic 4G and I put the Frozen Syndicate ROM on it. When I was originally looking for ROMs for my phone I found that one and one of the changes mentioned was removing Carrier IQ. I'm not sure if the more popular ROMs like CyanogenMod remove it but I would think so.

That said, that list of features removed is the only time I heard about Carrier IQ until recently so maybe the mod community should have done a better job of raising awareness.

You could put your cell phone in a film bag until you're ready to use it.

I'm beginning to wonder if political equilibrium is indeed farther away from individual liberties than we might like to admit.

I think the inner-cynic in me has grown quite a bit in the past few years. Maybe we deserve a police state.

Edit: but only if Paleocon puts the "police" in police state.

One thing you probably shouldn't do is discuss your security arrangements in plaintext on public communications networks.

How to Be Invisible: The Essential Guide to Protecting Your Personal Privacy, Your Assets, and Your Life

The first edition is for free on the author's site. http://www.howtobeinvisible.com/

HTTPS everywhere. Not sure how effective this is anymore know that we know the government has tools to capture data even if it is via HTTPS.

The Surveillance Self Defense Guide

Know where the week link is in regards to your online communication. Free Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Link.

Know your rights when you talking online.

Protexting Civil Rights in the Digital Age

This story is somewhat relevant I think.

Dodd has taken heat for recent comments that Internet censorship by China showed that blocking rogue sites was possible.

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites," he told Variety.

To be fair Dodd elaborates later saying that he's against censorship of free speech, but it's funny that he thinks Google's self-censorship in China was somehow an example of censorship done successfully, or that China is somehow able to block legitimately dangerous sites (if such things exist) without blocking a whole bunch of "safe" sites as well.

The moment you start looking to China for guidance on just about anything related to the Internet, freedom of speech, or innovation of all things, it's safe to say you don't think a police state is such a bad idea.

Also, Chinese netizens have no trouble seeing great irony in SOPA

Regarding the topic, wouldn't the best approach be to bring people together to protest against any such changes and donate money to organizations fighting these kinds of laws before things get uncontrollably worse? Encrypting emails and removing tracking apps from your phone won't solve the underlying problem--it will only make you look suspicious to those doing the surveilling.

The syndicate frozen rom is a fantastic rom, but is pretty out of date. CleanGB rom build 18 or thunderhawk 3.2 both remove CIQ and are based on Gingerbread and work with ei22. I use CleanGB because it's the most stable one I've seen - at least as stable as SFR.

Malor wrote:

One thing you probably shouldn't do is discuss your security arrangements in plaintext on public communications networks.

Well, if I disappear, than you have confirmation that we are in fact in a police state.

You right about that and I'm going to edit my post to clean that up a bit.

I've taken several precautionary steps (arming myself, evacuation plan out of the country if things ever get crazy, etc.) in the past few months not just because of the increasing threat of a police state but also because I'm worried about the general state of the economy, our currency, and other domestic issues.

I have also been reading a lot more news and opinion pieces than I used on the topic of politics, legislation, government news, etc. and frequently share and discuss them with friends and coworkers. I have written my Congressman to inform them of my disappointment in how they voted on the NDAA bill and how they support SOPA.

I have a hard time taking people seriously when they talk about arming themselves in case the government decides to take away their guns. That is serious tinfoil hat territory.

Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion. In order for the 2nd amendment to be repealed - congress would have to be involved. Do you think there is a majority vote to repeal it? But I digress. Say our legally elected officials do away with gun ownership, are the people who are arming themselves now really willing to shoot and kill the police to maintain their ownership of firearms? I just don't get that, and I think that kind of talk does more damage to the 2nd amendment than it does defend it.

I am not saying that there aren't causes for concern - I think that the reaction to OWS indeed shows us that there are.

*Edit*
93, you seem like a good dude and I am not targeting you personally, but I hear that kind of talk all the time and I have a hard time taking it seriously.

Edwin wrote:

HTTPS everywhere. Not sure how effective this is anymore know that we know the government has tools to capture data even if it is via HTTPS.

Good practice regardless, but I agree that the capabilities outlined in the AT&T whistleblower case would put the government in a position to monitor any online traffic they deem sufficiently interesting.

There's always the standby of "move to Canada," but Canada's kind of been slipping into the US's security vacuum so I have no idea how much longer it'll make much of a difference.

If you're at all serious about doing ANYTHING, get a passport. They take time and money to get, and I've heard rumblings that the government wants to make them harder to get, too. Existing passports will likely be grandfathered in so now's the time. Then you'll at least have the option to leave if it comes to it.

And I think that's really all you can do. If you live in a police state and you can't take it anymore, don't live in a police state anymore. I hear Norway, Iceland and New Zealand are very nice.

Of course the problem becomes convincing another country to take you in on a long-term basis. They have their own immigration laws, after all.

Seth wrote:

The syndicate frozen rom is a fantastic rom, but is pretty out of date. CleanGB rom build 18 or thunderhawk 3.2 both remove CIQ and are based on Gingerbread and work with ei22. I use CleanGB because it's the most stable one I've seen - at least as stable as SFR.

They both work on the Epic 4G? When I first looked into ROMs it seemed like Frozen was the only way to go for my phone. It's been quite a while and I'm starting to have issues with it so I'm excited if I have other options.

Nothing to see here.

(Shameless tagging to read later. Very interesting.)

SallyNasty wrote:

Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion. In order for the 2nd amendment to be repealed - congress would have to be involved. Do you think there is a majority vote to repeal it? But I digress.

To temporarily humor your digression, I want to point out that the National Defense Authorization Act Bill effectively repealed Habeas Corpus (and that's right there in Article One of the Constitution), so it's not like we're talking the realm of fantasy here. Unfortunately.

SallyNasty wrote:

I have a hard time taking people seriously when they talk about arming themselves in case the government decides to take away their guns. That is serious tinfoil hat territory.

Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion. In order for the 2nd amendment to be repealed - congress would have to be involved. Do you think there is a majority vote to repeal it? But I digress. Say our legally elected officials do away with gun ownership, are the people who are arming themselves now really willing to shoot and kill the police to maintain their ownership of firearms? I just don't get that, and I think that kind of talk does more damage to the 2nd amendment than it does defend it.

Couple of things. My choice to acquire arms is for a number of reasons - many of which aren't related to this discussion so I won't derail. To answer your question I certainly do think that Congress could be manipulated into passing legislation that would make ownership illegal. Look at everything they've done since 9/11 as well as some of the bills that are in progress and tell me you really think these people care whether they are violating the Constitution? In this day and age, anything is possible under the umbrella of the War on Terror and just like with the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc., the majority of Americans either have their heads in the sand or blindly approve of these bills as long as they have their "safety".

*equips tinfoil hat*

One other scenario where the government might pass such a bill is well ahead of the anticipation of a major uprising/revolution. I'm talking about extreme economical and political circumstances that drive the majority of Americans to a Civil War of sorts. There may come a point in time where the 99% need to forcefully remove part of (or all) of an inept government and take back the country from individuals in power. It would certainly be an easier fight if the masses are virtually unarmed and have no legal protection or recourse.

*unequips tinfoil hat*

In regards to your edit, no offense taken. I realize some of my points drift into conspiracy theory territory but i need to function as the counter weight that balances out the more naive, "the government can do no wrong" Goodjers.

In the event of that sort of breakdown of civilization, a police state will be the least of your worries.

Paleocon wrote:

In the event of that sort of breakdown of civilization, a police state will be the least of your worries.

Indeed. That's when the safety offered by a police state will start to look really attractive.

necroyeti wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

In the event of that sort of breakdown of civilization, a police state will be the least of your worries.

Indeed. That's when the safety offered by a police state will start to look really attractive.

Yeah, my understanding of the Just In Time nature of the economy is that any significant sustained unrest would mean no food, no medicine, no society. I've never thought guns would do a person much good in that scenario. That's why I focus on other places a person could live, make a living, etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong to be worried about nightmare scenarios. I just think the fall from functioning society is very steep. I suppose that's the reason for the police state. Doesn't mean I've given up hope that this can somehow be reversed.

So now that the NDAA is close to passing I was curious about the wording of the Reichstag Fire Decree. Honestly not trying to Godwin the thread. It's just one of those things where I wanted to see what was left of our essential freedoms following the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and now the NDAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

Some of the wording seems eerily similar. National emergency, hand over powers to the executive branch that essentially suspend large parts of the Constitution.

1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

The NDAA doesn't touch freedom of the press or the right to assemble, nor the freedom of opinion. But if you run down the rest of that list they've essentially all been codified in various laws since 9/11. I was hoping to read something so over the top as to be completely incomparable to the current state of things in the US. Unfortunately it's closer than I thought it would be.

The NDAA doesn't touch freedom of the press

True, but the government's kinda done that already, with their sustained assault on Wikileaks, and other nastiness against journalists in the past. All the 'protected' outlets are owned by large corporations, beholden to the government, and the small independent journalists are left twisting in the wind, by defining them as not being journalists.

or the right to assemble

See: permit requirements for protests.

I repeat, because it is still true: this is a police state. A police state is when you can be declared guilty and punished without an adversarial proceeding or being able to confront and dispute the evidence against you. And it can be one if you still 'have' those rights, but they're rendered meaningless by corrupt or servile judges, but in our case, there's no need for that. We explicitly no longer have them. All the government has to do is point the Finger of Terrorism at you, and you are an unperson, with no rights, guilty by being accused.

Police states can be pretty comfortable if you're near the center. But it is comfort extracted from the agony of others.

You are only free until you're the least bit inconvenient or threatening to those in power, at which point you will find your chains very tight indeed. Ask the OWS protesters about their explicit right to peaceably assemble.

From here, it's just a series of definition expansions to being Syria or Iran... gradually, more and more people will be defined as enemies of the state. Within most of our lifetimes, probably within the next decade or two, America is very likely to become a Christian theocracy. All the groundwork has now been laid, and it's just a matter of time for people to get settled into the new customs, before the pressure ratchets up again.

I think the link tag is breaking because there are dashes in the URL --- try just listing it as a straight URL instead of using the tag.

Like this:

http://www.infowars.com/rex-84-–-your-internment-camp-awaits-you

Nope, that doesn't work, either. Oh, well.

DSGamer wrote:

Reichstag Fire Decree.

There is an Executive Order in place that gives similar authority to the government - Rex 84.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a secretive "scenario and drill" developed by the United States federal government to suspend the United States Constitution, declare martial law, place military commanders in charge of state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens who are deemed to be "national security threats", in the event that the President declares a "State of Domestic National Emergency". The plan states that events that might cause such a declaration would be widespread U.S. opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America. To combat what the government perceived as "subversive activities",the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels.

More reading from Info Wars

That's what I thought. I just fixed it - give that a try.

Okay, the NDAA has been passed. You can find it's text at Thomas. Section 1032 now says:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
[/quote]

Note section B. Hopefully that's clear enough to put the worries to rest.

And 93_Confirmed, I don't think we have anybody here who thinks the government can do no wrong, just as you probably don't think it can do no right. The discussion is easier if we don't have to keep restating obvious things when someone over-generalizes.

Actually section b doesn't clear it up for me. The word "requirement" makes it sound like it's not mandatory for the military to detain US Citizens. Only optional. Plus this is only part of the bill.

Pages