Tag Archives: ACLU

ACLU: Amazon Is Selling Facial Recognition System To Local Law Enforcement

(DCNF) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundations of California revealed communications and other documents Tuesday that seem to show Amazon is offering its facial recognition services and products to local law enforcement.

Along with a diverse set of other organizations, the ACLU sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos calling for the tech giant to stop supplying the government with its facial recognition tool called “Rekognition.”

“Rekognition marketing materials read like a user manual for authoritarian surveillance,” Nicole Ozer, technology and civil liberties director for the ACLU of California, said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Once a dangerous surveillance system like this is turned against the public, the harm can’t be undone. Particularly in the current political climate, we need to stop supercharged surveillance before it is used to track protesters, target immigrants and spy on entire neighborhoods. We’re blowing the whistle before it’s too late.” (RELATED: DHS Seeking Facial Recognition Tech To Scan People’s Faces In Moving Cars)

The documents obtained “through a six-month ACLU investigation” show that Amazon has been trying to assist government agencies in states like Florida and Oregon in deploying the artificially intelligent spying apparatus. The city of Orlando, Fla., for example, has already been using Rekognition to identify people featured in government-deployed surveillance camera recordings, according to the ACLU.

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office in Oregon has reportedly created a mobile application using Rekognition’s unique capabilities, allowing it to scan images through its vast database of personal faces and their measurements. Several other governments have expressed interest in Amazon’s advanced technology, the ACLU alleges.

Facial recognition technology can be used to help nab criminals and arguably make certain processes more convenient. However, many, like the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, have deep-seated concerns with it being utilized for the wrong purposes and by the wrong entities.

The letter is also yet another example that as Amazon grows in power, so too does the larger public’s consternation with the company. (RELATED: There’s A Newfound Hatred Of Silicon Valley)

Concerns of surveillance have now joined other worries relating to antitrustlow wages, and an ostensibly cozy relationship with the Department of Defense.

Written by Eric Lieberman: follow Eric on Twitter.

 

This article was republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Illinois Moves to Legalize Police Drone Surveillance of Public Gatherings

Chicago, IL – Although Illinois passed legislation in 2013 requiring police to attain a warrant before using drones for most surveillance purposes, legislation reportedly backed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel would eliminate that restriction and allow the government to monitor large gatherings, rallies and protests using drones.

The proposal— SB 2562— by state Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago) would allow Illinois police departments to use drones for any “legitimate law enforcement purpose.”

“I don’t want Chicago to be the next Las Vegas-style outdoor terrorist attack. But I also don’t want drones to be surveilling everyone’s every move,” Sandoval said Thursday. “This legislation clearly is limited to drone usage for providing safety.”

Sandoval claimed the proposal would limit police drone use to large public gatherings.

“An individual’s private event, on their own property, would not fall under the exception for law enforcement for the use of a drone,” Sandoval said. “The bill states that large scale events are events that take place at a sports or entertainment area, a stadium, a convention hall, a special event center, an amusement facility, or an event open to the public on government property.”

Despite Sandoval’s assertions, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois has come out against the legislation, claiming that the change in law could allow for police to take pictures, record video, and even use facial recognition technology against peaceful protesters.

“Given Chicago’s history of surveillance against protestors and social justice advocates … the Chicago police should not be able to use this new, powerful tool to monitor protestors near silently and from above,” said Karen Sheley, the director of the ACLU Police Practices Project. “The legislation also ignores sweeping surveillance tools currently available to the police.”

Chicago police have a long history of surveillance of activists. Gizmodo reported that Mayor Emanual’s office objected to several additions suggested by the ACLU, including banning face recognition and banning weaponized drones. Additionally, Gizmodo noted that “the amendment includes no language barring drones from biometric data collection, nor does it include guidelines on how long such data is stored or who it’s shared with. Most troublingly, Sheley says the amendment opens a loophole that weakens the restrictions on drones equipped with weapons like tear gas or rubber bullets.”

“If this bill is passed, as drafted, during the next large scale political rally, drones could identify and list people protesting the Trump administration,” Sheley said. “The sight of drones overhead, collecting information, may deter people from protesting in a time when so many want to exercise their First Amendment rights….This is too much unchecked power to give to the police—in Chicago or anywhere.”

Reason reported that “the bill requires regular reporting of when police use drones and says any data collected must be deleted after 30 days unless it’s connected to a ‘criminal matter.’ It also forbids arming the drones with any sort of weapon, but only for this particular addition to the surveillance rules. Sheley worries that this new bill therefore creates a loophole that would allow police to arm drones for use in other circumstances.”

While drones can be an invaluable resource for law enforcement, critics are wary of agencies using them to monitor political activism. “The way it stands under this bill, if it’s passed, there’s a cheap tool to monitor First Amendment activity,” Sheley said, “and to collect information about who’s in the crowd and make lists of the people [attending].”

The Illinois Senate approved Sandoval’s drone rules, 36-2; the measure will now move to the House for a vote.

Federal Judge May Release New Documents Related to Obama’s Targeted Assassination Program

NEW YORK— On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Obama Administration to hand over three documents related to the targeted assassination program for the court’s review and possible release to the public. The three documents relate to the law and policy that govern the controversial program.

Judge McMahon said she will give the government “time to vet opinions and orders for classification issues that might escape the notice of a reader of news media in which information that the Government considers to be classified routinely appears.”

The first document relates to the Presidential Policy Guidance, or PPG, “a classified record that sets out the law and policy that the government must follow when it carries out targeted killings,” according to the ACLU. President Obama issued the PPG in May 2013, but did not make the document public, instead only releasing some of its most general standards.

The ACLU writes:

“Those vague standards raise as many questions as they answer: When does an individual pose a “continuing and imminent threat” to the United States? How does the government decide when capture of a target is “feasible”? What informs the government’s determination that there is a “near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed”? As the government has described it, the PPG answers these questions. And as we’ve argued to the court, the government has no right to withhold this kind of document — one that regulates government officials by providing substantive and procedural rules that govern their actions — from the public.”

The other two documents are reports from the Department of Defense which were submitted to Congress in 2014. The two reports detail the legal and policy standards of the PPG, as well as an assessment of groups that the U.S. government is waging war against. The reports also explain the legal differences between “associated forces,” “affiliates,” and “adherents” of al-Qaeda.

The ACLU was provided these documents in the past, albeit heavily redacted versions, and is now seeking to learn more about what the Obama Administration is hiding.

Without being able to read the standards by which the U.S. government is running their lethal program the public will remain in the dark. The public also deserves to know under which legal authority the U.S. government believes it is operating.

The ACLU states that Judge McMahon indicated that “a final decision would likely arrive in the next several months.”

Interestingly, McMahon has previously called out the federal government for creating acts of terrorism. In the case of the “Newburgh Four” terrorists, Judge McMahon wrote that the FBI “created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true.”

The ACLU has also been fighting to uncover new information related to the Presidential Kill List, also known as the disposition matrix. The Washington Post first reported on the disposition matrix in 2012:

“Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix.’

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

“Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.”

For the last four years, New York Times journalist Charlie Savage has waged a legal battle against the Obama administration, seeking to reveal the government’s legal justifications for assassinating terror suspects without a trial. Specifically, Savage sued the Obama administration in an attempt to obtain details about the murder of al-Qaeda affiliated cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and eventually found himself on the U.S. government’s radar under suspicion of terrorism.

On September 30, 2011, drones sent by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command flew into Yemen and bombed al-Awlaki and al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan. The case drew public criticism not only because al-Awlaki was an American citizen, but because several weeks after his death, another American drone killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman. He was also a U.S. citizen living in Yemen.

A 2014 ruling by Second Circuit court forced the release of a memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel. The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the release of 11 other OLC memos, but the court protected 10 of them from release. The Times and the ACLU appealed the decision, but a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit recently denied the release of the documents.

What this means is that the public continues to live in ignorance when it comes to understanding how the U.S. government is waging its War on Terror. The average U.S. citizen is likely unaware that the President operates a targeted assassination program and maintains a kill list. This is because the corporate media is doing their best to keep you in the dark.

However, we must remember that all truth eventually comes to light and the targeted drone assassination program and disposition matrix are no different. While the U.S. government would like to maintain a veil of secrecy over the American people— it is simply no longer feasible. The American people are waking up and with that new awareness tyrants will find it difficult to continue their march towards secrecy and control.

Arizona Bill To Conceal Police Identities Involved In Use-Of-Force Incidents Meets Public Opposition

Senate Bill 1445, legislation that would delay releasing identities of police officers involved in serious use-of-force incidents, passed the Arizona House of Representatives last Wednesday with a 44-13 vote. The bill has been met with opposition from residents and civil rights advocates who seek transparency from police departments.

SB 1445 would limit “the release of the name of a peace officer who is involved in a use of deadly physical force incident for 60 days.” The bill would also require departments to redact identifiers in reports that contain information regarding disciplinary actions against involved officers. The 60-day delay would not apply when a criminal investigation is completed or if state criminal procedure requires the release of information. The delay is also voided if an involved officer is arrested, charged or indicted on charges related to the incident. An officer may bypass the delay by consenting to identification in writing.

An earlier version of the bill, which passed the Arizona Senate in February 23-6, had contained a longer delay of 90 days.

According to The Phoenix New Times, SB 1445 sponsor Arizona state Senator Steve Smith said that the bill was introduced to prevent a “whimsical mob” from “roaming the streets looking for blood.” Opponents of the bill have pointed out that no Arizona officers involved in deadly use-of-force incidents have recently been injured as a result of public identification.

Supporters of SB 1445 call the 60-day delay a “cooling-off period” for the public. Former Phoenix police officer and Arizona Police Association executive director Levi Bolton said the bill will protect the welfare of police officers who are not suspects. “You still get the ‘when,’ the ‘where’ and the ‘how’ if we know it — you just don’t get the ‘who,'” Bolton said.

ACLU of Arizona executive director Alessandra Soler said that providing the names of officers involved in serious or fatal use-of-force incidents helps public trust in police departments, and passing this legislation would be harmful to oversight. “Police officers have an extraordinary power because they can detain, search, arrest and have the ability to shoot to kill,” she said. “That is when the transparency and accountability needs to be the strongest.”

“We need to be building trust and confidence between a community and police who protect it,” said Jeremy Helfgot, commissioner for the city of Phoenix Commission on Human Relations. “This is the Arizona Legislature inserting itself into that process and widening the gap, rather than making an effort of closing it.”

The bill is also opposed by the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police because police chiefs would no longer have the ability to use discretion when releasing names.

The ACLU of Arizona is hosting a rally scheduled for Tuesday, March 24th at 4:00 p.m. outside of the Arizona Executive Tower. Members of the Maricopa County branch of the NAACP, the Greater Phoenix Urban League and the Puente Human Rights Movement will reportedly be present at the rally in an effort to encourage Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to veto the bill.

ACLU, Human Rights Watch Call for Criminal Investigation into CIA Torture Tactics

After the US Senate Intelligence Committee released its exhaustive report on the torture tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency under its post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program, Americans were shocked to discover that intelligence agents entrusted with protecting the nation brutalized detainees through harsh measures like rectal feeding, forced sleep deprivation, and death threats. Detainees suffered sexual abuse, and one died of hypothermia. Suspects were waterboarded repeatedly. After reading the long list of stomach-churning tactics, many Americans were left feeling like, in attempting to defeat the terrorists after 9/11, the nation lost its way and misplaced its rights-respecting, constitutional traditions.

In light of these and other revelations, Reuters is reporting that two civil rights groups, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, are calling for the United States Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal probe into the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. The civil rights advocates issued a letter to the DOJ, warning that failing to press criminal charges could set a dangerous precedent, which said, “We believe the failure to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation would contribute to the notion that torture remains a permissible policy option for future administrations; undermine the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights abroad; and compromise Americans’ faith in the rule of law at home.” Both groups believe that the new revelations exposed in the torture report justify a fresh look at the CIA’s tactics.

A BenSwann.com report by Rachel Blevins noted that the group Physicians for Human Rights said that medical professionals who assisted CIA agents with tactics like rectal feeding and hydration might have committed war crimes. Reuters notes that United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson said that US authorities responsible for the program should face criminal charges. “The US Attorney General is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges against those responsible,” said Emmerson in a statement on the issue. He continued, “It is now time to take action. The individuals responsible for the criminal conspiracy revealed in today’s report must be brought to justice, and must face criminal penalties commensurate with the gravity of their crimes.”

Officials with the Obama administration say that they have no intention of conducting further investigations into whether crimes were committed under the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Marc Raimondi, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said that government officials have already carried out two criminal investigations but have failed to find sufficient evidence justifying charges against any specific individuals. Raimondi claims that investigators already knew about the information from the Senate torture report when they conducted the prior investigations and that the revelation of those details to the public does not itself warrant reopening the criminal probe.

Truth in Media: The Root of Police Militarization

Activate: 10 Step Action Plan On Militarization

All of our episodes are crowdfunded, Contribute to the Truth in Media Project Here

In the latest episode of Truth in Media, Investigative Journalist Ben Swann looks at the root of America’s current problem with the militarization of police.

“The militarization of America’s police forces has captured the nation’s attention, largely because of Ferguson, Missouri,” said Swann. “But what media has not told you, is how police forces got militarized in the first place, and why militarization is about a lot more than just military equipment.”

Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager was shot and killed by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson during a confrontation in August. His death triggered protests, some of which led to rioting and looting.

Swann points out that what really “stunned the nation” was the way police responded to the protests. Rather than responding like a police force that intended to serve and protect, Ferguson police responded like a military unit, complete with armored vehicles and flash grenades. Swann said that for millions of Americans, “this was a stunning site on American streets.”

Swann said that while Benswann.com has been working to raise awareness about the militarization of police for over a year, “the rest of the media acted like they had no idea.”

The program ignored by the mainstream media is the 1033 program. Also called the Department of Defense Excess Property Program, this platform is used by police departments to obtain military equipment. Swann explains:

“It is a federal program that provides surplus DoD military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism operations, and to enhance officer safety.”

While the 1033 program does provide armored vehicles and flash grenades, it also provides police departments with other emergency supplies that go beyond weaponry.

Larry Kirk, the Police Chief in Old Monroe, Missouri, which is just a few miles from Ferguson, said that he is against banning the 1033 program altogether, due to the fact that it gives smaller departments certain supplies they would not have been able to afford.

However, while Kirk is in favor of keeping the program, he is also one of the few police chiefs in the country who is opposed to departments receiving military weapons. Kirk explained that he is skeptical about the level is militarized weapons that he has seen come through the program recently.
“Being realistic, there is no reason I would ever need an MRAP,” said Kirk. “Most departments would never need one.”

Swann further described the “MRAP,” which is one of two armored vehicles that police departments are given by grant, through the 1033 program. The vehicles, which were originally made to fight in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, were kept by the Department of Defense after the wars cooled down, and are now being granted to local police departments.

According to a report from the New York Times, “about 500 planes, helicopters, and mine-resistant armored vehicles have been obtained, alongside 94,000 machine guns.”

Swann said that following the protests in Ferguson, Americans began to realize the size and scale of the military equipment that was available to local police, and they “began calling for police departments to do away with military vehicles.”

Swann also pointed out that while the mainstream media has covered the protests, it hasn’t worked to provide Americans with the keys to the root of the problem.

“What media has not helped the public understand is that the real problem with militarization is not military equipment,” said Swann. “It’s the use by police of military tactics.”

Swann gave three examples of incidents in which police used military tactics to serve warrants on drugs:

The first example occurred in Detroit, Michigan, when 7-year-old girl Aiyana Jones was awakened in the middle of the night by a stun grenade developed for wartime raids, called a “flash bang,” which was thrown by a SWAT team, and immediately set fire to her blanket. Following the release of the grenade, the SWAT team stormed into the house, and mistakenly shot Jones through the neck, killing her.

A second incident occurred in Tucson, Arizona, when a SWAT team attempted to serve a search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown. Jose Guerena, an Iraq war veteran who lived in the house, instructed his family to hide while he got his gun, after his wife became alarmed at the sight of a shadowy figure standing in their front yard, holding a gun. Guerena retrieved his gun – leaving the safety on – and stepped into the living room. The SWAT team then entered the house and shot him 60 times.

Swann noted that the police “have still never said whether they found drugs” in Guerena’s home.

A third example occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, when a SWAT team visited a family’s home in search of a small amount of drugs they believed were in the possession of the family’s nephew. The parents, three daughters, and a 19-month-old baby boy were asleep in a converted garage when police opened the door and threw a stun grenade in. The grenade landed in the 19-month-old baby’s crib. It blew a hole in his chest, and resulted in such severe burns that the baby was placed in a medically induced coma.

Swann said that, according to author Radley Balkow, “The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.”

These raids have become increasingly frequent, with as many as 40,000 occurring every year. Swann pointed out that the raids are “needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.”

“Despite what the media spin-doctors will tell you, militarization has nothing to do with the war on terror, and it has everything to do with perpetuating the war on drugs,” Swann said.

Kirk said that he believed the United States has created so many different wars, from the war on crime to the war on drugs, that it has left police officers in the perpetual state of needing to be a “warrior.”

“If you continue to tell people they are in a war, you are going to create warriors,” said Kirk. “You are going to create soldiers that you are now putting on the street.”

Swann traveled to Washington DC to investigate the root of militarization. He noted that although DC has military gear and uses military tactics, “it does not participate in the 1033 program.”

Swann spoke with Seema Sadanandam, the ACLU Director of the Nation’s Capital. Sadanandam explained that while the picture of tanks in the streets was the “most visceral and extreme example” that came out of Ferguson, there is more to the concept of police militarization.

Sadanandam said that the fact that DC does not utilize the 1033 program would be surprising to members of the black communities who have been “subjected to law enforcement’s militarized war on drugs.”

While DC does not participate in the program, it does use military tactics on a daily basis. One of the tactics used, is referred to as the “jump out car.

Sadanandam explained that a “jump out car” is an unmarked car containing four to six officers, dressed in tactical vests, who jump out of the car to ambush their target. “They literally jump out of the car and surprise people,” said Sadanandam, who went on to say that the main objective is to convince people to submit to a so-called “consent search.”

According to Sadanandam, the tactic of using jump out cars is only acceptable in black, brown, and indigent communities, and is not seen in all-white communities.

“In Dupont circle, for example, which is a largely white community and where we know that there is regular cocaine use and cocaine possession, you would never see jump out cars jumping out on a group of white men in business suits, and police saying they fit the description of regular cocaine users,” said Sadanandam. “That would be considered completely unacceptable.”

Swann attended a meeting in southeastern DC, where black residents gathered to express their frustration with militarized police. He noted that people living in these neighborhoods say militarization for them is “not about the idea that so many of us have been confronted with” in the last few months. Instead, it is something they have been dealing with their entire lives.

Orlando Bego, the Pastor of Centerpoint Baptist Church, said that in the midst of the events in Ferguson, the nation was watching the wrong problem, and that getting rid of the 1033 program will not solve the real problem.

“Ferguson is not new,” said Bego. “It may be new for the mass of people who watch it on media outlets, but for people who live in inner city, urban neighborhoods, that is a common tactic that is used.”

Bego believes that even if the 1033 program were eliminated, the military mindset instilled in police officers would still be present. He said he dreads the day that his 10-year-old son, who currently wants to grow up to be a police officer because he views officers as heroes who serve and protect, is “pulled over for driving while black,” or “stopped and harassed for making eye contact.”

Ben Swann maintains that while Americans should be outraged at the idea of militarization, it should not be just because police show up in tanks to a protest. It should be because of the tactics that have been used by police for years, such as using battering rams to knock down people’s doors, and throwing stun grenades through windows, all for the sake of serving drug warrants.

“The militarized mindset isn’t about gear, it’s about tactics,” said Swann. “When we talk about things like ‘no hesitation targets,’ where police are taught to shoot a child holding a gun, or shoot a pregnant woman holding a gun, at what point do we as a public tell police, ‘Stop. We want you to hesitate.’”

Swann noted that while there are still many men and women who become police officers to serve and protect their communities, the problem occurs in the militarized way they are being trained. “They’re being taught to kill or be killed, that every suspect they encounter could be their last encounter, and that every person walking the streets of every community, is a threat, when in fact, it’s simply not true,” Swann said.

“Militarization takes good cops and teaches them to act like they’re in a warzone,” said Swann. “But the streets of the United States of America are not a warzone, and it’s up to us, the public, to keep it that way.”

Truth in Media Project Exposes The Root of Police Militarization

Cincinnati, OH- Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Ben Swann and the Truth in Media Project will release their latest crowdfunded investigation. This story will expose the root of police militarization and why even if the Department of Defense 1033 program comes to an end, militarization will not.

Sign up below to have the episode sent directly to your inbox on December 10th.

Is the internet protected by the First Amendment? The Supreme Court will decide

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case which could settle if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech extends to the internet and social media.

The case is Elonis vs. United States, where Anthony Elonis will argue posts he made on Facebook were made in jest and not meant to be taken seriously.  Elonis was previously convicted by a federal court for these posts, saying they were of a threatening nature and therefore not protected.

All of the posts in question were viewed by Elonis’ ex-wife who said she felt threatened by them and by Elonis.

One such post reads, according to the Huffington Post, “There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”

The LA Times also says other posts made by Elonis mentioned killing an FBI agent, as well as massacring a kindergarten class.  Elonis testified his posts were never meant to frighten anyone, and he also said his posts were a spontaneous form of expression similar to rap lyrics.

John Elwood, Elonis’ attorney, told CNN he agreed the posts were cathartic for Elonis.  “There’s a reason why all these graphic songs were written when Eminem wrote these things and he hasn’t been prosecuted for a felony for writing these songs which are virtually indistinguishable about his ex-wife,” said Elwood.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. is representing the government in the case and disagrees, saying, “A bomb threat that appears to be serious is equally harmful regardless of the speaker’s private state of mind.”

The Justice Department weighed in on the situation saying no matter what the speaker believes about his comments, if someone feels threatened by the comments, those comments are not protected speech.

Some civil liberties groups such as the ACLU, are siding with Elonis, saying “A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker’s intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed.”

Arguments from both sides will begin Monday.

Historic: Feds Notify 7 Americans of Their Removal from No-Fly List

Back in June of this year, Annabelle Bamforth at BenSwann.com reported on a case that the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of 13 Americans who found themselves on the federal government’s no-fly list. At that June hearing, US District Judge Anna Brown ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, the process through which Americans found to be on the no-fly list request their removal, violates due process rights and is unconstitutional. At issue were the facts that individuals who contacted DHS through the program almost never received a meaningful reply and that those who were removed from the list were not being notified, as officials claimed doing so would jeopardize national security.

Now, Ars Technica is reporting that the Department of Justice, for the first time in US history, just announced the names of seven Americans who were removed from the no-fly list in response to the ruling. In a letter dated October 10, the DOJ declared that Ayman Latif, Elias Mustafa Mohamed, Nagib Ali Ghaleb, Abdullatif Muthanna, Ibraheim Y Mashal, Salah Ali Ahmed, and Mashaal Rana, seven of the 13 plaintiffs on the ACLU’s lawsuit, have been cleared to board planes again in the land of the free. NPR notes that the six additional Americans listed on the ACLU’s lawsuit who have not yet been cleared will be told the rationale behind their inclusion on the list by January of 2015, at which time they will be allowed to defend themselves from those allegations.

One of the Americans who was cleared in Friday’s letter from the DOJ, Ibraheim Mashal, is a veteran who served his country in the US Marine Corps. In a statement cited by Ars Technica, Marshal said, “More than four years ago, I was denied boarding at an airport, surrounded by TSA agents, and questioned by the FBI… That day, many freedoms that I took for granted were robbed from me. I was never told why this happened, whether I was officially on the list, or what I could do to get my freedoms back. Now, I can resume working for clients who are beyond driving distance. I can attend weddings, graduations, and funerals that were too far away to reach by car or train. I can travel with my family to Hawaii, Jamaica, or anywhere else on vacation.”

Ars Technica notes that, according to a leaked federal “watchlisting guidance” manual, over a dozen federal agencies have the power to nominate people for terrorist watch lists and “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” for inclusion. Over the past five years, 1.5 million Americans have been nominated for inclusion on terrorist watch lists. 470,000 names were nominated in 2013, of which 4,915 were rejected. By August of 2013, 680,000 people had been listed on the government’s master terrorist list, of which 280,000 are not accused of having any ties to a terrorist organization. By that same date, 47,000 people and 800 Americans had been identified as being on the no-fly list.

The ACLU declared victory in an October 10 blog post about the case and released this quote by the director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, Hina Shamsi, “This is a victory for transparency and fairness over untenable government secrecy and stonewalling. After years of being blacklisted and denied due process, seven of our clients know they can fly again, and the rest will soon be able to fight back against their unjust flying ban… The opportunity that the plaintiffs in our case are finally getting to clear their names should be available to everyone on the No Fly List as soon as possible.” This landmark case may lead to a future in which additional Americans are able to challenge the merits of their inclusion on the no-fly list.

ACLU: West Springfield, MA Police Department Has Grenade Launchers

MassLive is reporting on an unusual finding that the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU published in its annual report on police militarization in the state. In the late ’90s, the West Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department acquired two M-79 grenade launchers and seven M-14 rifles through the Department of Defense’s 1033 surplus equipment transfer program. The West Springfield PD also received M651 military-grade tear gas canisters.

According to MassLive, West Springfield Police Chief Ronald Campurciani indicated that the grenade launchers had never seen action and added, “I cannot think of a scenario where we would employ those weapons.” Campurciani also noted that the grenade launchers were “so old and antiquated” that they were useless.

Originally, it was argued that the grenade launchers could be used by West Springfield police to fire the M651 tear gas canisters. However, as Chief Campurciani noted, “Those are the flammable ones, those things get very hot when they burn… They’re pretty much obsolete now.” Some have alleged that the FBI’s use of incendiary M651 tear gas canisters on people trapped in an enclosed space during the 1993 Waco siege started the fire that engulfed the Branch Davidian facility, leading to the deaths up to 76 people.

The rules of the DOD’s 1033 program state, “All equipment must be strictly accounted for. When no longer needed agencies must request permission for turn in, transfer, or disposal.”

With the US having been at war for over a decade, surplus weapons programs, through which old military weapons and equipment are transferred to domestic law enforcement agencies, have become a source of significant controversy, as many civil liberties activists have voiced concerns that local police departments are becoming over-militarized. Despite the fact that the United States is not a war zone filled with land mines, police departments across the country, including those representing small towns with little crime, have been given military equipment like Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles through federal grant programs.

SWAT raids, once rare and only employed to deal with known violent threats, now happen more and more often each year and are being carried out against people accused of lesser crimes like small-scale drug dealing. Contemporary police departments respond to peaceful protests in riot gear and armored vehicles, creating an environment of intimidation, rather than order and safety. Officers sometimes use military-style rules of engagement towards citizens, resulting in hostile confrontations that, too often, end in unnecessary violence. In fact, SWAT teams are used so readily that a new trend has emerged called “swatting” in which people call in prank bomb threats to trick police into raiding innocent people. As an example, just yesterday, Kotaku posted a video of a gamer getting raided mid-game by cops live on Twitch, a video streaming platform, after an opponent called in a fake threat.

American police ‘excessively militarized’ says new report

A new report from the ACLU states American police forces across the country have adopted tactics and weaponry commonly used by America’s military forces.

The report focuses on the use of SWAT teams and their subsequent expansion since their inception in the late 1960’s.

These “quasi-militaristic” units, the report says, were created to handle emergency situations such as hostage scenarios, active shooter incidents, and riots.  However, nearly 80% of all SWAT raids now focus on conducting search warrants for drug related offenses, while only 7% of SWAT operations were for dangerous situations.

The War on Drugs seems to be one of the major causes for the increase in militarization, claims the report, as police began stockpiling military-grade weapons to help combat drugs on the streets.

The Department of Defense Excessive Property Program has been the key component allowing police departments to obtain the military-grade weapons- most of which has been previously used in combat- for free.

Of the military-grade weaponry used by police across the nation, a New York Times report says about 500 planes, helicopters, and mine-resistant armored vehicles have been obtained, alongside 94,000 machine guns.

Kara Dansky, the ACLU Senior Counsel and author of the repoAmericrt, told Mashable in an interview, the increased militarization of the police in America might be “terrifying people, destroying communities and actually undermining public safety.”

Reckless and needless violence, as the report calls it, have also risen with the increase in firepower.

In 2011, Jose Guerena, a 26-year-old Marine who served in Iraq, was killed by a SWAT team in his home in Tucson, Arizona.

Guerena’s wife woke at night after hearing a noise and seeing a silhouette of a man outside their house.  Guerena grabbed his personal rifle from his closet to investigate the noise, telling his wife to stay put.

SWAT teams were carrying out raids in the neighborhood in search of drugs, and upon seeing Guerena with his rifle they opened fire, resulting in his death on his own kitchen floor.  No drugs were found in Guerena’s home and very little were found in the surrounding neighborhood.

The report claims the use of such impulsive tactics, such as these, results in not only a potential increase in distrust for officers everywhere, but also, “destroys property, and undermines individual liberty.”

EFF and ACLU Lawsuit Against LAPD, License Plate Readers Begins

This article was submitted by guest contributor Derrick Broze.

Last Friday the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California filed the opening brief  in their lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff Department. The lawsuit deals with how the law enforcement agencies are using Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR) to gather information. The two watchdog agencies argue that the two departments are illegally keeping quiet on how the information is used.

The EFF and the ACLU fear that the ALPR mounted on traffic light poles and patrol vehicles are gathering information such as license plate, time, date and location, that can be used to create a detailed map of what individuals are doing. Concerns for privacy and freedom of speech prompted the lawsuit. The scanners are seen as an expansion of an already growing arsenal of federally funded surveillance tools, including drone aircraft, surveillance camera, and “gunshot detector” audio recording devices. In 2012 the Wall Street Journal reported that the five previous years the Department of Homeland Security distributed over $50 million in grants to fund the acquisition of license plate readers.

The LAPD and LASD have been called “two of the biggest gatherers of automatic license plate recognition information,” by LA Weekly. The ALPR gather information and officers from the LASD or LAPD can access up to 26 other police agenices in the county as they search for a hit in the system. The two departments are the target of the EFF, ACLU lawsuit but they are not alone in their use of the technology.
A 2011 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum ( http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/Technology_web2.pdf) found that of the more than 70 police departments surveyed, 70 percent used ALPR technology and 85 percent expected to be using or increasing use of the technology within the next five years. Some believe that by 2016 as much as 25 percent of police vehicles will come equipped with the cameras.

It is not only the danger of creating a map of a persons wherabouts and habits, but also the fear of targeting individuals for various political or religious associations that has critics worried. There are also no standards on how long the information should be held, or who can hold it. Another issue deals with the so called “hot lists”.

The Danger of “Hot Lists”

Departments and officers can create lists of “vehicles of interest” and alert other ALPR users when the vehicle is spotted. Officers can search individuals plates numbers in the ALPR system to track during their shift. There seems to be no prerequisite of reasonable suspicion or a warrant needed to be added to such a list. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department manual on the ALPR offers more insight into the program.

As with many emerging technologies the future is still being written and opportunities for corruption and abuse are plenty. In 2009 the BBC reported on the case of John Cat. Catt is a regular attendee of anti-war protests in his home town, Brighton. His vehicle was tagged by police at one of the events and he was added to a “hotlist”. He said later while on a trip to London he was pulled over by anti-terror police. He was threatened with arrest if he did not cooperate and answer the questions of the police.

A recent investigation by Mudrock and the Boston Globe revealed that the Boston Police Department violated its own policies by failing to follow up on leads that were flagged by the ALPR scans. Public records requests by MudRock found that the BPD also collected information on its own officers. The BPD has reportedly stopped responding to email and phone calls seeking documents that they are required to disclose.
Push Back Against License Plate Readers

It seems that as awareness of the technology grows so does the opposition. In the age of Edward Snowden and the NSA many are wary of allowing more cameras to peer into their lives.

Recently the Santa Cruz City Council approved a $37,000 grant for the purchase of ALPRs for the Santa Cruz Police Department. There was a small, but vocal opposition at the council meeting. In Oregon Representative Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, recently testified in support of a state bill that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from keeping images and location data for more than 14 days unless being used in a criminal investigation. ACLU Oregon Executive Director David Fidanque asked the Senate Interim Committee On General Government, Consumer and Small Business Protection to create guidelines for the use of the technology that balance security with privacy.

In California Senator Jerry Hill has introduced a bill that would limit data retention and ban the sale of data gathered by ALPR technology. Hill’s Senate Bill 893 would prohibit the selling of information to any entity that is not a law enforcement agency or officer.

Preparing for the Technology to Expand

Without a doubt the ALPRs are going to adopted by more police departments in the same manner we are seeing the drone technology take off. What remains to be seen is how citizens respond to yet another encroachment on privacy and civil liberties. There will likely be a chilling factor for some if the technology expands into complete monitoring of daily driving and living habits. A 2009 study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police stated, “The risk is that individuals will become more cautious in the exercise of their protected rights of expression, protest, association, and political participation because they consider themselves under constant surveillance.”

Last summer the ACLU released a 34-page report called “You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used To Record Americans’ Movements.” (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/07/YouAreBeingTracked.pdf) covering the many angle of the emerging technologies uses and possible abuses. Since that report we have learned much about the breadth and scope of the National Security Agency’s domestic spying apparatus. In December we learned that local police are using tools such as “tower dumps”, and “The Stingray” to collect information. The Automatic License Plate Readers are just one more tool for local law enforcement agencies, funded by the federal government, to erode privacy and establish a network of panopticons.

The result of the ACLU and the EFF’s efforts could lead to more transparency and a view into how the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriffs Department use the ALPRs. There is still a great deal of time for opponents of invasive surveillance and supporters of privacy to fight on a local level. By staying informed and proactive we can help create solutions that will bring us closer to freedom and allow new technologies to flourish.

—-

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist, community activist, gardener and promoter from Houston, Texas. He is the co-founder of The Houston Free Thinkers, and co-host of Free Thinker Radio. Broze also hosts and produces a weekly
podcast under the name the Conscious Resistance Live. His writing can be found on TheConsciousResistance.com, The Liberty
Beat, the Anti-Media, Activist Post, and other independent media sources.

ACLU Tells Schools To Stop Praying, Or They May Sue

Tennessee is perhaps best know for country music. “Music City”, as it is known, plays home to the mountain distilled whiskey Jack Daniels (Ole Lady 7 as I like to call it), the Great Smoky Mountains, crazy night life, hot chicken and the buckle of the bible belt. Okay, perhaps not the buckle, but definitely one of the first couple holes.

As reported by the Tennessean,

The ACLU has sent a letter to 135 Tennessee school executives telling them to stop praying at football games. The ACLU of Tennessee reminded school executives that the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times against public prayer.

“Our experience is that many public school administrators and educators struggle with how the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom apply to prayer during their school-sponsored events,” said Hedy Weinberg, the ACLU’s executive director. “Our goal is to make sure that school systems statewide understand these First Amendment guarantees and commit to protecting religious freedom for all students, including athletes, and for their families who attend the games.”

The ACLU was promoted to compose the letter after an East Tennessee football coach publicly endorsed the idea of prayer before football games. However, Weinber hasn’t actually ever received a complaint about prayer before football games.

Weinberg says that the ACLU is prepared to go to court to support families who are “victimized”.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Twitter: @MichaelLotfi