skullaria wrote:
I'm always afraid that I might become a social suspect one day simply for NOT carrying my cell phone with me.

Very interesting! Not too long ago possession of a cellphone, at least by people in certain socioeconomic classes, was likely to arouse suspicion. I recall when I was young it was literally illegal to possess a cellphone or pager if you were under 18, as only drug dealers would need to do so (according to the authorities). I resented this as a technically inclined person who wanted to early adopt such toys. It seemed like more irrational, mindlessly overboard assertions of authority by adults. I legally possessed a radio that enabled me to (illegally) listen in to people's cell phone calls but I could not possess the phones that made those calls. Clearly only criminals communicate with each other!

Now it is becoming a social expectation that you carry a phone. All those old laws have met with resistance and have been repealed. Pay phones are being pulled off the street because no one needs them anymore. In the future perhaps it will be more so... only extremely poor, marginal people would fail to carry a cellphone. Most payment for goods might occur with the phone. Numerous public services might be operated under the assumption that users carried web browsers with them. Public transport maps and schedules, for example, might only be made available electronically. Restaurants might expect you to access electronic menus or request a reservation via SMS before you arrived. Communities seeking beautification might pass sign ordinances reducing outdoor advertisement in favor of location based messaging that would make it difficult to even identify businesses without an electronic device.

A middle class person without a phone would be viewed as garishly eccentric in a way that arouses suspicion. As people become more familiar with the idea that cellphones are used by the authorities to monitor them, failing to carry one might be taken not merely as extreme luddism, but as a sign that you have something to hide... Like a stranger who doesn't have a credit card or a driver's license; there was a time when most people carried neither.

RE: You have no 4th amendment right to privacy in regard to your physical movements.

This morning, you left the house tagged with a tracking device that the government can use to find out where you have been and where you are going.

I'm talking, of course, about your cell phone...

While most courts considering the issue have held that police need "probable cause" to track your movements, a new decision (.pdf) last week out of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts holds that law enforcement need show only "relevance to an ongoing investigation" to get a historical record of your past movement (something like the Jeffy trail in The Family Circus cartoon).

You have no 4th amendment right to privacy in regard to your physical movements.

Rev.Lennox Yearwood regarding being attacked, arrested, and hospitalized by Capitol Police

He also delivered this rant which is more theatric.

YouTube - Rev. Yearwood speaks re: Police Brutality against him.

While we're on the subject of using force as a legitimate part of your job vs. using force because you like hurting people and now you've got a job that gives you a passable explanation for having done so, the final public report on the UCLA taser incident from last November is available.

The conclusions of this report are that the officer's actions were completely outside of UCLA policy and that the policy is also too liberal. This is obviously unwelcome news to various commentators who supported this incident as model police behavior. However, for their benefit it there is also a second "internal" report that you and I are not allowed to read which concludes that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what happened. This enables UCLA management to change their policies without admitting that anyone has done anything wrong.

Which report is correct? Such questions completely miss the point. Its not about right or wrong. If you want to really understand all of this please refer to my previous post on how everything everywhere actually works.

At the behest of acting UCLA Chancellor Norman Abrams, the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) conducted a seven- month, independent investigation of a November 14, 2006 incident at UCLA’s Powell Library in which the UCLA Police Department (UCLAPD ) arrested UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad. This report sets forth our factual findings and conclusions.

This story has no heroes. The event triggering the repeated electrical shocking of Tabatabainejad was a declination by the UCLA student to produce a BruinCard identification in the Powell Library computer lab after hours. While the student should have simply obeyed the order to produce the card, and by not doing so brought trouble upon himself, the police response was substantially out of proportion to the provocation. There were many ways in which the UCLAPD officers involved could have handled this incident competently, professionally, and with minimal force. We find that one UCLAPD officer violated UCLA use of force policies in the incident. We further conclude that UCLAPD’s current policies are, in any event, unduly permissive, giving the police unnecessary latitude, and are inconsistent with the policies of other universities and leading police departments across the country, including other University of California campuses, the LAPD, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The UCLAPD policy stands alone in its legitimization of the Taser as a pain compliance device against passive resisters. The current UCLA policy is more permissive than the Sacramento Police Department policy on which it was based and the Taser policy recommended by its chosen outside expert on the question.

UCLA Taser Final Report [PDF]

For the next 4 1/2 hours I was interviewed about who exactly I am, why I am coming to the US, what the nature of my contract with Blackhat is, and why my trainings class is not performed by an American citizien. After 4 hours, it became clear that a decision had been reached that I was to be denied entry to the US, on the ground that since I am a private person conducting the trainings for Blackhat, I was essentially a Blackhat employee and would require an H1B visa to perform two days of trainings in the US.

U.S. Customs needs a 24/7 process where their agents can escallate a disagreement to someone who is not a complete fucking moron.

Halvar Flake tossed by U.S. Customs on way to BlackHat

In one case last September, a couple in Baltimore, Maryland, checked a plastic bag with a block of processed cheese taped to another plastic bag containing a cell phone charger.

Terrorists could be testing the system, or could be conducting repeated operations to desensitize security officials, the bulletin says.

While "initial investigations do not link them with criminal or terrorist organizations," the bulletin adds that "most passengers' explanations for carrying the suspicious items were questionable, and some investigations are still ongoing."

Cheese. They are on the lookout for Cheese. They have no evidence that the Cheese is connected with terrorism. But explanations for the cheese are "questionable." They are also on the lookout for devices that look like IEDs:

"The unusual nature and increase in number of these improvised items raise concern, and TSA personnel should continue vigilance for groupings of ordinary items that look like IED (Improvised Explosive Device) components," the bulletin says.

Like ipod chargers? I don't mean to make light of a serious situation, but the fact is that people who are professionally paranoid have a tendency to believe their own fantasies. When the TSA tells their employees to be on the lookout for blocks of cheese, they better have some credible reason. It doesn't sound like they do.

TSA to police: Look out for possible terrorist attack 'dry runs' - CNN.com

The UK's first police remote control helicopter has taken off.

Merseyside police are using the "spy drone", fitted with CCTV cameras, mainly for tackling anti-social behaviour and public disorder.

Fortunately, arguments about the impact of total surveillance on the health of a society based on conjecture, extrapolation, and references to decades old novels and historical precident will no longer be needed, as the U.K. will soon become a total surveillance society, in which every citizen is always watched while outdoors.

This is really ripe for research. What effects of this that are visible yet? Who is studying it? Are legal behaviors also deterred? Are the systems abused? Are people aware that they are being watched? What impact is all of this having on the quality of life in England?

I recall a frustrating moment in Canada recently where I was driving a car in an area where the speed limit was suddenly decreased by 20 klicks on the downhill slope of a divided, multi-lane highway monitored by speed cameras, and as I slowed down I met an intersection, monitored by red light cameras, and just as I reached it the light turned yellow. I was faced with the choice of:

1. Slamming the on the breaks, potentially causing a rear end collision.
2. Slamming on the gas, potentially tripping the speed camera.
3. Continuing at my given pace, potentially tripping the red light camera.

I was happy that the state was looking out for my interests. A certain kind of submission set in. I knew I was a criminal, and whatever fate befell me I certainly deserved. I slammed on the gas.

BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Pilotless police drone takes off

Comey never admits that its the NSA program he is talking about. This assumption is made by Specter. Comey never confirms it. Apparently, Gonzales previously testified that it was something else.

On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.

It might not be the NSA program...

k wrote:
I did, but I couldn't help commenting on this. It's people like this that are going to tear the country apart when the next terrorist attack happens.

I agree. Some of these perspectives are deeply authoritarian. There are a lot of people on the right who simply do not care about right/wrong or the rule of law or constitutional rights based on both a stupid misconception that they holding the reins and an ignorant, perhaps actually evil, beleif that the innocent people who'll be swept up in their security measures aren't like them and they have no reason to protect them. The idea of checks and balances is a joke to these people at best, at worst they think it undermines the "consequences" that they get to extract from winning an election. They have a different conception of what America is than I do. They don't see it as a system, a set of ideas about how to run a society. They see it as a place and a group of people and a pile of cash. They don't really care how its governed as long as their direct personal interests are satisfied. To them, the slightest risk is worth sacrificing the greatest ideal.

I don't deny that it probably will, mainly because Bush's DHS has fucked up priorities. But I'm equally sure it'll happen after a Dem is elected in the next election, because it'll do more damage then.

I'm not sure Bush will be "to blame." Its inevitable that these things happen because they are impossible to absolutely prevent no matter how competent you are. Its also inevitable that civil liberties will be torn down at the first opportunity, and inevitable that new found police powers will be used far outside the scope of anti-terrorism. This is because they still aren't really serious about this. They are still playing games. Thus far, however, the federal government has successfully prevented another attack on our soil, as they prevented many attacks prior to 9/11.

The testimony itself seems pretty damning of the white house and the president in particular and shows a side of Ashcroft i didn't know was there honestly. Not that i'm his biggest fan, but I appreciate that he had enough scruples to not be bullied into something by WH goons and the integrity to point at his acting AG and tell them to talk to the guy who's making the decisions now. Fairly surprising all in all.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems, perhaps, a bit more human than the perspective we usually get from reading externally facing statements. Organizations like the WhiteHouse are not monolithic. They have internal disagreements about decisions. While Ashcroft did the right thing here, it is interesting that he signed off on this program for years before his lawyers got around to reviewing it! Would you sign off on the legaltiy of an executive program without actually analyzing it's legality? Its not clear that Gonzales knew how creepy he was by showing up at the hospital with that paperwork. He may not have truely grasped Ashcroft's condition and they may have felt uncomfortable having such a policy reversal presented by an acting AG. Furthermore, I think the President comes off smelling like roses, in offering that Comey should do what he felt was right.

What is most interesting to me is the statement at the very end that the legal staffer was turned up for a promotion because he chose to take this stand... Retribution, but from whom? Its not clear!

What is clear is that prior to this event the NSA surveillance program had a different, and likely more invasive, character than the one with which we are familiar.

RE: The Volokh Conspiracy - Full Transcript of Comey Testimony on NSA Surveillance Program:

WOW. This is quite a dramatic moment. Its hard to imagine Ashcroft, who really was no friend to civil liberties, taking such a stand. It says a lot about this program.

If I'm reading the transcript correctly, it seems that most of the highest-level officials in DOJ were ready to resign over the NSA Surveillance program when the White House decided to continue it without DOJ approval. The Office of Legal Counsel under Jack Goldsmith had come up with parameters under which DOJ was willing to approve the program as legal — perhaps within the scope of the AUMF? who knows — and it sounds like the then-existing program was broader than what OLC thought was permitted. Comey agreed with OLC's legal analysis, so he wasn't willing to give DOJ's approval to the program. So Card and Gonzales (then WH Counsel) go to Ashcroft at the hospital to try to persuade Ashcroft to overrule Comey. Comey gets word of what is happening, and he gets to the hospital first and tries to get Ashcroft ready for Card and Gonzales. Comey explains:

And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the hospital bed, Mr. Ashcroft was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn’t clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off . . . I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn’t clear that I had succeeded.  Soon Goldmsith and the ADAG are there by Ashcroft's bedside, and a few minutes later Gonzales and Card arrive... They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval . . . .

And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me — drawn from the hour-long meeting we’d had a week earlier — and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. . . . There is the attorney general, and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left.

Feingold says: "Some of the most dramatic testimony that I've heard in 25 years that I've been a legislator."

The Volokh Conspiracy - Full Transcript of Comey Testimony on NSA Surveillance Program: