Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Cindy Sheehan soapbox DC July 4th 2010
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: POTA protest in DC July 2010
Topic: PROTEST!

Sunday, July 4, 2010

"We Pledge Resistance to the Empire" by Cindy Sheehan

 

 
 

“Ms. Sheehan, are you aware that you have a stay-away order from here?” The big, burly cop said to me as he crossed Pennsylvania Avenue to confront our small protest of intrepid peaceniks in Lafayette Park.

 

“Yes, and I am also aware that I am not violating it right now,” I answered.

 

That “stay-away” order was imposed on myself and five other people after we were arrested in front of the White House on the 7th anniversary of Shock and Awe this past March. I was just wondering if any of the law enforcement on duty even knew that I had a stay-away order--we were there only for about 5 minutes before I got my answer.

 

This nation is supposed to have been founded 234 years ago today on the principles of freedom. My son was supposedly killed in Iraq defending those freedoms, but if I crossed the imaginary line of oppression and suppression on the sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue, I would have to go to jail for a mandatory sentence of six-months—and the police were fully aware of that fact. At one point, we had at least a half a dozen cops facing us and we only had about twice as many protesters.

 

This is a strange holiday anyway. We are supposed to honor the “founding” of a nation that was inhabited by millions of people at the time it was “discovered.”

 

 

The theme for our protest today was “Declare Your Independence from Oil” day and we passed out fliers to the tourists outlining the problem of this country’s addiction to petroleum and using our bullhorn to do chants like: “Drill, baby, drill; spill, baby, spill; kill, baby, kill.” I realize that this is a “holiday” and most people were coming to Lafayette Park as tourists, but it’s obvious that war, environmental devastation and economic oppression do not take holidays. People died today in the Middle East and Asia and millions of gallons of oil gushed out of the Oil-cano into the Gulf of Mexico as families clad in their Old Navy flag t-shirts started at us with anything from confusion to outright hostility.

 

It is really pathetic that even in the midst of a cataclysm of such an enormous magnitude, so many people seemed to be so unconcerned and apathetic. Many of us traveled thousands of miles to be here in DC to try and throw some light on the violence of this Empire and just a couple of dozen also showed up to be with us.

 

At one point, I had the bullhorn and I made an observation that the last time I was on the sidewalk next to the White House merely exercising my right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, I spent 52 hours in jail and two gentleman yelled: “Go back there.” Wow, in contrast to the couple that brought their two young sons to protest with us and “witness free speech in action,” wasn’t that a great message to send your children on the 4th of July—that it is “okay” to criminalize dissent?

 

About five hours after we arrived at the Park, a man on the street in front of the White House yelled that he “had a bomb.” The cops had the man (who had no shirt on and clearly had no bomb) in rapid custody and then they cleared the park in a very harsh way—even pushing a few people who had the nerve to ask why they had to move. I thought it was interesting that many of the families there from near and far, were shocked—shocked, I say—that they could be treated like common criminals, even though they hadn’t committed any crimes. We were barred from the park for over an hour, and many people who were angry at us for having a protest just minutes before, joined us—and we blocked 15th Avenue by H with a few of our newcomers. Some of them even promised to return tomorrow for our protest called: “Don’t Attack Iran you Effing Psychos.” (9am to 3pm in Lafayette Park).

 

One of my bullhorn chants today was: “We pledge resistance to the Empire.” I know I will be resisting, even if the crowds (that were as high as hundreds of thousands of people in 2005, to 24 today) dwindle down to just me.

 

If you are reading this and if you can make it to DC, please join us. We do live in a psychotic empire and the only thing that matters to the leaders and corporations is the bottom-line and the top dollar.

 

We need you all to help us make humanity the bottom-line.

 

One last observation before I close—a highly fortified paddy wagon filled with heavily armed and armored robo-cops was parked across H St from our relocated protest.

 

One man went up to one of our comrades, pointed at the robo-cops and said: “those are REAL Americans.”

 

Now, doesn’t that just say a whole lot about our culture today? People who dissent from the status quo, like the “founders” of our country, are NOT real Americans, but those who are armed to the hilt and ready to crack some skulls open are Real Americans?


Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:21 PM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 8 July 2010 12:50 AM PDT
Friday, 2 July 2010
Robert Byrd "2003 Anti War Speech in the Senate"
Mood:  special
Now Playing: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
Topic: WAR
Published on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
 

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.


Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:45 AM PDT
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Blac Bloc Tactics and complicated motives
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: G20 - Black Bloc - WTO - Anarchist - "thinking Outside The Box"
Topic: PROTEST!

Black bloc protesters have complicated motives

Black bloc protesters participated in a G8 and G20 protest in Vancouver on June 26.

Stephen Hui

Neither thugs nor criminals lurk behind the masks of black bloc protesters, a renowned police psychologist suggests.

Rather, what Mike Webster sees are “very thoughtful people”, an assessment that former Vancouver police inspector Dave Jones strongly disagrees with, likening them instead to thrill seekers.

“The vast majority of people in that crowd are not bad people,” Webster told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview, referring to the black-clad activists who smashed windows and torched police cars in downtown Toronto on June 26 during a protest against the G8 and G20 summits. “They’ve got the same kind of values that most of the rest of us have. If they didn’t, they’d be in jail, locked up in jail for murder.”

A B.C.–based crisis-management expert who has consulted with the RCMP, the FBI, and many other police forces inside and outside of Canada, Webster went as far as arguing that black bloc activists aren’t much different from “well-socialized young individuals” who go off to fight a war believing it’s an honourable thing to do.

Webster’s more than 30 years of experience includes serving as a consultant with law-enforcement agencies during high-profile events like the Waco, Texas, showdown in 1993, the 1995 standoff with First Nations people at Gustafsen Lake, and the 2002 G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta.

Webster said that one of the most important things to remember about crowd psychology is that most human beings develop a set of values that is generally consistent with that of the larger society.

However, he maintained that these morals “don’t run automatically all the time”, and that “human beings have mechanisms of moral disengagement that they use to turn off their morals and their ethics in certain situations.”

The psychologist suggested this isn’t different from soldiers going into combat. “If I can find a moral justification for my behaviour now, I can turn something that was previously illegal into something that is honourable,” he said. “The military does this all the time. They take well-socialized young individuals, take them to war, and they can kill the enemy with very little compunction.”

Referring to the thinking of protesters who engage in black bloc tactics, Webster said, “What they’ve done is they’ve instilled a moral justification. ‘What I’m doing is no longer bad. It’s good and I do this under a moral imperative now.’ So there’s one thing that I’m sure was going on in some of those heads.”

Another thing that goes on in the minds of these activists is what Webster describes as “attribution”.

“I say you made me do it,” Webster explained. “I’ve got a legitimate complaint here. There’s a segment of our society that’s being shortchanged in such and such a manner. And nobody’s willing to pay attention to them. So you’re making me do this.”

The phenomenon of “behavioural contagion” also rises when people gather in crowds, he said. According to him, this increases the potential for people to engage in acts they wouldn’t normally carry out, such as breaking store windows in the case of the black bloc rioters or stealing during mass lootings.

“We de-individuate,” Webster said. “That is, we have a lowered self-awareness. We get lost in this crowd, all this noise, all this activity, all this yelling, all this smoke, all this adrenaline, all this danger. We kind of lose our self-identity.”

A retired 30-year veteran of the Vancouver Police Department, Jones has his share of crowd-control experience. In 1998, he was the commanding officer of the antiriot squad that clashed with activists protesting the actions of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien in what became known as the “Riot at the Hyatt”.

For Jones, Black Bloc protesters are people who do “dirty work” for fun on behalf of their “more sophisticated” leaders.

“I think what’s going on is that there’s a lot of people now that treat these events as destination adventure holidays,” Jones told the Straight in a phone interview.

But he noted that events like the June 26 Black Bloc rampage in Toronto, the 1999 Battle of Seattle during a World Trade Organization conference, and the 2001 protests at the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City raise a dilemma for governments.

“Do you simply say, ‘Okay, we surrender. We can’t have these things in major cities because of what are essentially a couple of hundred people’?” Jones asked. “Or do you say, ‘We’ll just go ahead.’?”

Jones said he has heard many people suggest holding conferences like that of the G20 leaders onboard aircraft carriers. He prefers out-of-the-way locations like Kananaskis. Regarding the latter location, Jones noted that security costs for the 2002 G8 summit were between $500 million and $1 billion, the larger figure being about the same amount spent on security in Toronto.

“It doesn’t matter where you do it or how,” Jones said. “There’s going to be security costs.”


Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:46 PM PDT
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
G20 - Cops - Balck Bloc
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: G20 - Black Bloc - And Police Provocation
Topic: POLICE
Posted by Tikkun Daily at 11:35 am
June 30, 2010

Police Provocation at the G20 Demo in Toronto

By Peter Marmorek.

Crossposted from Tikkun Daily.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/30/police-provocation-at-the-g20-demo-in-toronto/

 Your 'umble observer.Saturday June 26th, the anti-G20 demonstration in Toronto was planned to start at 1 pm. I had been uncertain as to whether to go; originally a group of Tikkun Toronto veterans had planned an alternative demonstration, focussed around the slogan, “Open your heart to what matters more.” But the unexpected death of the brother of one core member, and difficulties around getting permission, and the predictions of violence and anarchy that the media had been purveying had reduced our enthusiasm below the critical mass we needed to make it happen. Perhaps, I thought, I don’t need to go. But the MSM descriptions of protesters against the G20 as “thugs and anarchists”, the spending of $1.2 billion on the summit, the revelation of new powers to arrest and detain that the police had been secretly given all made me feel that my right to peacefully gather with my peers was worth coming out to defend. As governments try to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor, lowering taxes on corporations and offering billions to financial institutions that have become too big to fail, surely someone should speak up. And if not me, then who? I created a “My Canada WAS a free country” t-shirt, and went down to the rally, humming the Rolling Stones’ “I went down to the demonstration, to get my fair share of abuse”.The Black Bloc at the G20 demo in TorontoIn front of Queen’s Park, the Ontario provincial legislature, there were about 25,000 people gathered. While waiting for the speeches, they chanted,”The people united, will never be defeated.” After years of hearing this, I couldn’t help but think that I wasn’t sure I still believed this. But as I wandered around, looking for all the friends and fellow travellers I knew were also there, I realized that it wasn’t really relevant, because while these people may have been many things, they weren’t united. Among the groups were the Ontario Federation of Labour (the organizers), CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees), assorted teachers’ unions, the Black Bloc, the Iranian and Iraqi communist parties (marching together!) , independent Kashmir, independent Khalistan, independent Palestine, independent Quebec, the Animal Liberation Front, the American Tea Party, “9/11 Was An Inside Job”, a lot of Trotskyist-Socialist-Marxist groups all selling newspapers, Greenpeace, an anti child-abuse group (are the G20 pro child-abuse?), a person with a sign protesting the mind-rays she claimed the government was using to control what people think, and the Judean People’s Front. (OK, I’m lying about them). But whatever this crowd might have been called, it wasn’t united. I wandered over to the OSSTF (my old school union) and met some long-time friends and fellow travellers, and we waited for the march to start. The speeches were pleasingly short, and largely inaudible, and then we were off on the predefined route. As the crowd headed down University avenue, I passed two women wearing hijabs, one of whom looked at my shirt, grimaced, and said, “My Canada used to be free, too.” I answered, “Maybe together we can get it back again,” and we all smiled at each other. The heavy weaponry on displayAs we walked along, the rain stopped, the umbrellas got put away, and the energy was good. There were a few differences from the usual demonstrations: the range of different issues, the Black Bloc who covered themselves up in hoodies and balaclavas, and were very unhappy when anyone took their pictures (above–more of my pictures of the demo are here). But the biggest difference was the massive police presence, with phalanxes of heavy weaponry closing us into the approved route. I’ve never seen that in Toronto – no one has – and as we marched past closed and boarded stores on Queen Street, the city felt less and less like the friendly place I’ve lived for 40 years. On Queen Street, the serpentine line of protestors with whom I was walking suddenly stopped, and no one knew why. We were at the point in the march where the Black Bloc had announced they were planning to leave the main group and head down to the fences and barricades that separated the G20 convention from us, and I was thinking about that. When I passed someone lying on the street, bleeding from an injury to his face and surrounded by people calling for medics, my spider-sense started tingling, and I ducked up some side-streets, coming out on Spadina where the demonstrators ahead of me should have been. No one was there: I could see the tail about a half mile north of me, and a big chaotic group milling about south of me, and I suddenly thought it was time to leave.That was when I learned that the streetcars and subway had been closed down, so I walked until 40 minutes later I managed to board a rogue streetcar whose driver had been told to go out to High Park, way off in the West, and hide in the bushes till it was safe to come out. He was picking up people as he went, not charging anything, and telling people waiting on the other side of the very strange and meandering route he took that there was no point to waiting. His route passed a block away from where I live, so (by then we were good friends) I thanked him and got home in time to take my dog for a walk and watch Ghana end US world cup media hegemony.By the time that was over the media was telling a non-stop litany about the three burnt police cars, the smashed windows, and that became the story of what had happened, on the web, on the radio, and world wide. At first I was appalled at the 25,000 protesters having the rally hijacked by the – at most – one percent of the protesters who were in the Black Bloc. But I wondered what the Bloc would have done if the police hadn’t been there? How far would they have gone? It seemed curious; I went on the protest because I was appalled at the police build up, and after seeing the anarchists, I was hugely more sympathetic to the need for police.But now, three days later, another side of the story has emerged. It turns out that the police cars were specially left out as bait for the anarchists. Some people have questioned whether the leaders who smashed windows were in fact police in a false flag operation, as has happened before in Canada. Was the police decision not to do anything while their cars were burnt, and store windows were smashed partially influenced by a desire to show how necessary their increased laws and weaponry was? It seems strange that with well over 5000 police on duty, and fewer than 100 Black Bloc members, there was no attempt to intervene.Certainly some of the police actions the next day, Sunday, were clearly excessive, with over 1000 people arrested, many of whom had been protesting peacefully and were released the next day. And when the dust had settled, no one had been injured, there had been very little theft, and the total damage was largely to the front windows of international corporations, and to those three police cars. That’s far less than has happened in both Montreal and Vancouver in the past decade when their hockey teams won rounds in the playoffs. (And that never happens in Toronto, because our hockey team never even makes it into the playoffs. I’m not going to talk about that.)

Those who use violence to enforce their will on others are my enemies, whether the shiny boots they wear are police issue, Black Bloc mufti, or both. It was worth going to emphasize that when the police chief says, as he did today, that the police were the only ones obeying the laws he’s lying: there were thousands of us who were law-abiding protestors. I’ve joined the Canadian Civil Liberties Union call for an external investigation, to clarify what really happened, and who was really doing it. And I’m more convinced than ever that the rest of us need to speak out, need to protest, need to form alliances. A bit more unity, and we’ll have a bit more of a chance against the boot boys. Without it, nada.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/30/police-provocation-at-the-g20-demo-in-toronto/

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:13 PM PDT
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
An article about my cousin Ted Westhusing.
Mood:  down
Now Playing: Ted took his life in Iraq - The reason why is clear - So what are we going to do is the question?
Topic: WAR

 

Petraeus' Link to Troubling Suicide in Iraq:

The Ted Westhusing Story



Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:02 PM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 June 2010 7:08 PM PDT
Monday, 28 June 2010
Protecting Cyberspace - Can the president "Close Down the Internet?"
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: President could get power to turn off Internet
Topic: MEDIA

Obama 'Internet kill switch'

plan approved by US Senate panel

President could get power to turn off Internet

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.

"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."

Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.

One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.

"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."

Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."

On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.

Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.

"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added.


 


http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate-panel/


Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:17 PM PDT
Police Tracking Cell Phones with no warrants using Location Measurement Unit, or LMU.
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: Police push to continue warrantless cell tracking
Topic: TECHNOLOGY

Police push to continue warrantless cell tracking

 A llaw requiring police to obtain a search warrant before tracking Americans' cell phones may imperil criminal investigations and endanger children's lives, a law enforcement representative told Congress this week.

Obtaining a search warrant when monitoring the whereabouts of someone "who may be attempting to victimize a child over the Internet will have a significant slowing effect on the processing of child exploitation leads," said Richard Littlehale of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. "If that is acceptable, so be it, but it is a downstream effect that must be considered."

Littlehale's remarks to a House of Representatives subcommittee come as an industry group called the Digital Due Process coalition is prodding politicians to update a mid-1980s federal law by inserting more privacy protections. The group includes Google, Microsoft, eBay, AT&T, the ACLU, and Americans for Tax Reform.

Legislation has not yet been introduced, and coalition members have braced themselves for an extended period of negotiations among police, civil libertarians, and members of Congress that could take as long as a year or two. Meanwhile, no federal appeals court has ruled on the topic--a case is pending before one in Philadelphia--and lower courts have split over whether the U.S. Constitution requires a warrant or not.

But if law enforcement defends the idea of warrantless tracking, the coalition's task will become more complicated. It took the better part of a decade for an alliance of privacy advocates and industry representatives to surmount stiff opposition from the FBI and intelligence agencies that loathed the idea of readily available strong encryption software.

The Obama administration has argued that no search warrants are needed to track cell phone locations; it has told judges that a 2703(d) order, which requires law enforcement to show that the records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation," is sufficient. Because it's easier to obtain than a search warrant, a 2703(d) order is also less privacy-protective.

A U.S. Department of Justice representative told CNET on Friday afternoon that the legislative office would not be able to answer questions until next week.

Littlehale, an agent in the bureau's Technical Services Unit, told the House Judiciary subcommittee on civil liberties that a recent Tennessee case involving a kidnapped four-day-old infant would have turned out differently if police were required to request a warrant from a judge. "When you are talking about that volume of process," he said, "any change in the type of process required will have an impact on how rapidly law enforcement can process leads and resolve the case, and in a case of this type, every minute counts."

"The time required to generate a search warrant and have it signed, even in cases where probable cause exists, may in and of itself hamper law enforcement's efforts to move quickly in an investigation," Littlehale said.

Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat from rural Virginia, circulated draft legislation (PDF) last month that takes a small step toward preserving location privacy. It says that call location information can be shared with police under a limited set of circumstances--but does not explicitly require a search warrant signed by a judge.

CNET was the first to report on the controversy over location tracking in a 2005 news article. In a subsequent Arizona case, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration tracked a tractor trailer with a drug shipment through a GPS-equipped Nextel phone owned by the suspect. Texas DEA agents have used cell site information in real time to locate a car driving from Rio Grande City to a ranch about 50 miles away. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile logs showing the location of mobile phones at the time calls were made became evidence in a Los Angeles murder trial.

And a case currently being argued before a Connecticut federal judge shows that the FBI monitored the whereabouts of about 180 cell phones--without a warrant--while conducting surveillance of two men suspected of robbing local banks.

To locate customers, Sprint and other mobile providers that have built their networks on CDMA technology use a handset-based technique relying on GPS or assisted GPS. AT&T and other companies that have adopted GSM, on the other hand, use a network-based technique known as Uplink-Time-Difference of Arrival that estimates the device's location based on the exact moment that radio transmissions from cell towers arrive.

Such pinpoint accuracy requires special hardware called a Location Measurement Unit, or LMU. Michael Amarosa, vice president of wireless location firm TruePosition, told the House panel that his company has installed more than 100,000 of them.

A handset can communicate with dozens of LMUs, Amarosa said. "A minimum of three LMUs must receive the handset's signal to uniquely determine the location of it. Reception of the handset by more than three LMUs also enhances the accuracy of the location estimated," he said.

Probably the most interesting testimony, though, came from U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith from Texas, who ruled in 2005 that the Fourth Amendment requires that cell tracking orders be signed by a judge who has probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed.

It's unusual for a currently serving judge to show up before Congress, just as it was unusual, and perhaps even unprecedented, for five magistrate judges in Pennsylvania to jointly sign an opinion stressing a warrant was necessary for location tracking.

Some ways Congress could rewrite and improve the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act include clearer standards, and notification to anyone whose location was tracked, Smith said, adding that he was not taking a position on the broader concept of ECPA reform.

Declan McCullagh has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. E-mail Declan.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 8:37 AM PDT
Friday, 25 June 2010
Mapping the Gulf Oil Leak With Kites and Balloons (Made in Oregon)
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Help Map the Gulf from Portland
Topic: ENVIRONMENTAL

http://www.galleryhomeland.org/wordpress/

 

 


 

Saturday, June 26th
11 am – 4 pm
@ galleryHOMELAND

Portland Oregon

 

Grand Detour and Research Club presents Grassroots Mapping:

Help Map the Gulf

 from Portland

The Government is not creating high-res maps of the Deepwater horizon spill that truly show the ecological damage. Grassroots Mapping is. Help build aerial photography rigs to send to the Gulf! no expertise required.
Grassroots Mapping is a group empowering communities to map their own space. They're in the Gulf right now using simple and cheap balloon and kite aerial photography rigs to photograph the oil spill. It's a truly grassroots effort, and the number of mapping teams continues to grow as teams train new teams. This Saturday at Gallery Homeland (Map here) in inner SE we'll be building balloons, testing out homemade designs to reduce the cost of getting airborne, and assembling rigs to send to the Gulf. Come join us- no expertise required, all supplies provided.
If you can, bring food!
Portland Indy media Link posted on 6.25.10


 

Grassroots Mapping is a group empowering communities to map their own space. They're in the Gulf right now using simple and cheap balloon and kite aerial photography rigs to photograph the oil spill. It's a truly grassroots effort, and the number of mapping teams continues to grow as teams train new teams. This Saturday at Gallery Homeland (Map here) in inner SE we'll be building balloons, testing out homemade designs to reduce the cost of getting airborne, and assembling rigs to send to the Gulf. Come join us- no expertise required, all supplies provided. If you can, bring food!

Posted by Joe Anybody at 2:26 PM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 June 2010 7:10 PM PDT
Thursday, 24 June 2010
BMedia from Portland Oregon - Blogroll
Now Playing: Look What I found On Bmediacollective.org (their blogroll) wow
Topic: POLITICS
(wow Z3 Readers I dare you to click on any of these links)  Surprised

Blogroll from http://bmediacollective.org/?p=115

Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:12 PM PDT
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Corruption and Greed in Iraq - Did I mention Contractors
Mood:  smelly
Now Playing: U.S. Troops, Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan Suspected of Corruption
Topic: WAR

U.S. Troops, Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan Suspected of Corruption

 

Published on 06-20-2010  
 

Source: ABC News

The U.S. government, which is pressing Iraqi and Afghan leaders to get tough on internal corruption, is doing the same in its ranks.

Cases of suspected fraud and other wrongdoing by U.S. troops and contractors overseeing reconstruction and relief projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are up dramatically.

James Burch, the Defense Department's deputy inspector general for investigations, says his agency is investigating 223 cases -- 18 percent more than a year ago.

Investigators have charged an Army officer with pocketing cash meant to pay Iraqi civilian militiamen, contractors offering an Army officer $1 million for the inside track on a road project in Afghanistan, and three contractors for an alleged conspiracy to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fuel from a U.S. base in Baghdad.

Army Maj. John Cockerham was sentenced in December to 17½ years in prison for accepting $9 million in bribes for contracts to sell water and other supplies to the U.S. military.

In Afghanistan, where U.S. spending on reconstruction will soon surpass the $50 billion spent in Iraq, the U.S. government is bolstering its investigative presence. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has a staff of 15 and plans to expand to 32 by October. By September 2011, the agency plans to have 49 full-time employees, says Raymond DiNunzio, an assistant inspector general

In Iraq, investigators have opened 67 fraud cases this year, compared with 69 for all of 2009, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). In Afghanistan, it's 42 cases this year vs. four last year.

Stuart Bowen, who heads SIGIR, says more tipsters are coming forward. "Some of these people have come back to the States, so they're out of the threat zone," he says. "Perhaps what they saw is gnawing at their conscience."

The U.S. spent more than $1.2 billion last year on reconstruction and relief in Afghanistan and Iraq. The funds were paid to local contractors, often in cash, at the discretion of officers in the war zones.

"Given the lessons from Iraq," Bowen says, "ratcheting up the resources devoted to pursuing cases and effective prosecution in Afghanistan is paramount."

U.S. Troops, Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan Suspected of Corruption
     Print Version
 

 

 


Posted by Joe Anybody at 7:02 AM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 24 June 2010 6:29 PM PDT

Newer | Latest | Older

« July 2010 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Ben Waiting for it ? Well Look Here!
Robert Lindsay Blog
ZEBRA 3 RAG
Old Blogs Go to Joe's Home Web Site
joe-anybody.com
Underground
Media Underground
Joe's 911 Truth Report
911 TRUTH REPORT

OUTSIDE THE BOX
Alex Ansary