Feds: We can’t disclose FBI records because then public would know how FBI works
PrivacySOS | February 1, 2016
Granting the ACLU and the public access to staffing, budgetary, and statistical information about the Boston Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and FBI would mean “the public would know where the FBI was putting its resources,” warned an Assistant US Attorney in oral argument in a Boston federal court last week. The government apparently doesn’t want the public to know anything about how the FBI and JTTF spend public money, staff its offices, or conduct investigations.
Heaven forbid the public “know where the FBI [puts] its resources.”
In December 2013 the ACLU of Massachusetts sent a FOIA request to the FBI, which sought basic information about the structure and operations of the Boston JTTF and the Boston FBI field office. Amid the information the FBI redacted from its responsive disclosures were all budget figures, the number of FBI and state and local officials tasked to work on the Boston Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), and the number of assessments, preliminary investigations, and full investigations the Boston FBI conducted over two years ago. (It’s odd that the government is putting up a fight, resisting disclosure of these records, given that in 2011, it gave Charlie Savage of the New York Times similar information.)
According to the government, this information is exempt from public disclosure under FOIA law pursuant to Exemption 7e, the part of the federal statute that says agencies do not have to disclose records that would reveal law enforcement “techniques” or “procedures.” But as ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney Jessie Rossman argues, staffing, budgetary, and statistical information about caseloads do not reveal techniques or procedures.
The stakes for the public are high. If the court agrees with the government’s reasoning and denies the public access to this information, it would put the federal judiciary’s stamp of approval on what attorney Rossman rightfully argues the FBI is seeking in this case: “a categorical [FOIA] exemption for all law enforcement information.”
As Rossman said last week during oral argument, that’s not what congress intended when it wrote the Freedom of Information Act. If lawmakers intended to bar the public from accessing all law enforcement records, they would have written that into the FOIA statute—which they didn’t.
At issue in the ongoing litigation over FBI redactions is whether the public can hold law enforcement agencies accountable for how they spend our money and act in our names. If we don’t know anything about how law enforcement agencies operate, we can’t hold them accountable. Unaccountable law enforcement is not only bad for freedom; it also harms public safety. As history demonstrates, when the FBI is allowed to conduct its business in the dark, precious government resources are inevitably dedicated to spying on people who threaten the status quo, but who do not threaten their fellow Americans.
While antidemocratic in the extreme, it’s easy to understand why the FBI wants to keep budget, staffing, and investigations statistics secret from the public.
When the public learned about the FBI’s illegal and antidemocratic COINTELPRO operations in the 1970s, the attorney general imposed rules forbidding the FBI from spying on people unless agents could show the targets were likely violating the law. After 9/11, those rules were scrapped. The new guidelines allow FBI agents to open investigations (called “assessments”) against people absent any suspicion of wrongdoing. Since the 9/11 attacks the Bureau has been free to spy on people it doesn’t suspect of criminal activity, supposedly because suspicionless investigations are required during the permanent “war on terror.”
The ACLU is litigating for this information because we want to know what results from the FBI’s suspicionless investigations, known as assessments. If it’s true, as we suspect, that there are thousands of FBI assessments but comparatively few preliminary or full investigations—let alone arrests or successful prosecutions—it confirms what we and other civil libertarians have been saying for over a decade. Namely, allowing the FBI to spy on people absent criminal predicates isn’t just bad for civil liberties; it’s bad law enforcement. If agents are routinely chasing down leads that go nowhere, those agents are wasting their time spying on ordinary people on the public’s dime.
The FBI refuses to give us this information, which is part of the reason we sued. In essence, the government argues the information must remain secret because if disclosed, it will tip off terrorists to… the fact that the government wants to investigate crimes.
But hiding from the public records revealing how many assessments, preliminary investigations, and full investigations the Boston FBI office has conducted doesn’t protect public safety. Instead, it obstructs precisely the kind of public accountability that would make the FBI better at protecting the public from people who mean us harm. […]
Only when law enforcement agencies are subject to rigorous transparency can the public hold them accountable for their actions, thereby making them more effective at protecting public safety.
The FBI has a long and dirty history of spying on dissidents and activists, instead of investigating and building cases against people who do real harm to Americans, like the bankers who collapsed the US and world economy in 2008. So it’s easy to see why the government doesn’t want the public to learn any meaningful information about the inner workings of the Bureau. But government agencies can’t keep information secret from the public because it would reveal something embarrassing or unconstitutional. And the records at issue don’t reveal “techniques” or “procedures.”
Here’s to hoping the federal court agrees, and compels the FBI to release this basic information about how it spends our money and acts in our names. Only then will we have any meaningful access to judge how the Bureau is conducting itself, and so the opportunity to exert some democratic accountability over its operations.
Al-Alam says YouTube account blocked under Saudi pressure
Press TV – February 2, 2016
Video-sharing website YouTube has reportedly blocked an account belonging to Iranian Arabic-language news network Al-Alam under pressure from Saudi Arabia, the TV channel says.
Al-Alam reported Monday that YouTube had closed its account after the Broadcasting Services of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (BSKSA) lodged a complaint against the Iranian TV.
The report also slammed the move as “unprecedented and unprofessional,” saying Al-Alam’s YouTube account was blocked without any prior notice and based on “unfounded claims.”
The network denounced YouTube’s move in taking down Al-Alam’s page as a “breach of regulations and technical protocols.”
This is not the first time the Saudis have taken action against the Iranian news channel.
Earlier last year, Saudi hackers overtook Al-Alam Twitter account and its YouTube network, posting items in support of Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Yemen.
Al-Alam is one of the leading foreign-language news channels operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), which also runs the English-language Press TV and the Spanish-language HispanTV.
The network has a vast following in the Persian Gulf countries and elsewhere among the Arab audience.
Son of Argentine Indigenous Leader Charged for ‘Threats’
Activist Sergio Chorolque was hit with charges just days after his mother was ordered to remain behind bars

Human rights advocates that support Chorolque have alleged the charges are motivated by him and his mother’s activism. | Photo: Diario Veloz
teleSUR – January 31, 2016
The son of a prominent Argentine indigenous activist was charged Saturday on allegations his advocates say are politically motivated.
Sergio Chorolque is accused of issuing death threats to a municipal worker, and could face up to two years imprisonment.
Human rights advocates that support Chorolque have alleged the charges are motivated by his and his mother’s activism.
Chorolque’s mother Milagro Sala has already been described by some human rights activists as the first political prisoner of the new government of President Mauricio Macri.
The well-known indigenous leader, founder of the 70,000 member Tupac Amaru organization, was arrested on January 16 in the Jujuy on charges of inciting violence after protesting in a month-long sit in against Governor Gerardo Morales, who ordered her arrest.
A judge cleared Sala of those charges on Friday, but before she walked out of jail she was handed down a new set of accusations and ordered to stay behind bars while investigations into charges of “illicit association, fraud, and extortion” are launched at the request of the Jujuy government, local media reported.
As authorities peg various charges on the popular social leader, now one of Sala’s children has been charged with leveling death threats against a labor activist.
According to the conservative Argentine newspaper La Nacion, Morales has had a tense and “estranged” relationship with Sala for years. Morales has also had an antagonistic relationship with the social organizations and collectives with which Sala is aligned. Before her arrest, Sala was protesting in support of various organizations at risk of losing their legal status and social benefits after Morales threatened to suspend them via decree.
Israeli Soldiers Shoot International Activist In Nabi Saleh Protest
IMEMC News | January 28, 2016
Israeli soldiers attacked, Friday, the weekly nonviolent protest in Nabi Saleh village, near Ramallah, and shot an international activist with a live round, while many protesters suffered the effects of tear gas inhalation.
Morad Eshteiwy, coordinator of the Popular Committee in Nabi Saleh village, northwest of Ramallah, said the activist was shot in the leg, and was moved to a local hospital for treatment. He added that many protesters suffered severe effects of tear gas inhalation, after the soldiers used excessive force.
The army surrounded the village, fired many gas bombs, live rounds and rubber-coated steel bullets.
Eshteiwy added that, for the second time in one week, the soldiers sealed the main entrance of the village, forcing hundreds of Palestinians from nearby villages and towns, to take longer, unpaved roads.
Also on Friday, dozens of protesters suffered the effects of tear gas inhalation, after Israeli soldiers attacked the weekly nonviolent protest in Bil’in village, near Ramallah.
#Justice4Rasmea: Palestinian activist’s supporters light up social media
Palestinian activist Rasmea Odeh. @all_exclusive123 / Instagram
RT | January 29, 2016
Palestinian activist Rasmea Odeh was trending on social media after her supporters started a campaign calling for justice as she awaits a decision on her appeal.
Odeh was arrested in the US in 2014, where she worked as an attorney in Chicago, and faced trial for falsifying immigration documents.
In 2004, after living in the US for 20 years, Odeh failed disclose her 1969 imprisonment in Israel when filling out her naturalization papers. Odeh says she didn’t mention it as she thought the question referred to US arrests and did not think of her imprisonment in Israel due to PTSD.
Odeh was imprisoned in Israel for allegedly bombing a supermarket in 1969. She says she confessed to the crime under torture by Israeli soldiers, who she claims raped and threatened her.
The judge in the original immigration trial refused to hear evidence on the torture claims or her PTSD, but heard evidence by the Israeli military court who had convicted her.
According to Odeh, she was subjected to beatings, electric shocks and witnessing a male prisoner being tortured to death. She also claims the Israelis said they would force her father to rape her, which led to her agreeing to confess.
The current appeal challenges the decision to jail Odeh for 18 months and then to deport her to Jordan, arguing the trial was unfair.
The trial has been called a ‘witch hunt’ by those who believe Odeh’s case is part of an FBI clampdown on anti-war activists that began in 2010.
“Rasmea is under attack because she is Palestinian, Arab and Muslim, because U.S. law enforcement is going after our successful Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israeli apartheid, and because she embodies the proud and steadfast Palestinian struggle for self-determination, liberation, and the right of return,” Hatem Abudayyeh, a member of Odeh’s defense said in late 2014.
Some social media users used the campaign to share their views against Odeh.
Odeh was released from Israeli prison in 1979 as part of a prisoner swap. She spoke at the UN that year, detailing her treatment in Israel. She then lived in Jordan and Lebanon before moving to the US in 1995 to care for her father. She became involved in the Arab American Action Network and works with many Arab women who come to the US.
The Political Assassination of LaVoy Finicum?
By Anthony Hall | Veterans Today | January 27, 2016
According to a report on his own You Tube channel, LaVoy Finicum was killed on the evening of January 26, 2016 by a US special forces unit while the deceased Arizona rancher “was on his knees with his hands up.”
Finicum is said to have been shot “three times” in an episode that also included the arrest on Highway 395 in Oregon of some of the leadership of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. Nevada Assembly woman Michele Fiore also reported in a tweet that Finicum was shot by federal authorities with his hands up.
In a more recent report, North West Liberty News published an interview with Victoria Sharp who was in the “ambushed” car carrying the targeted entourage with LaVoy Finicum at the wheel. She said that Finicum was shot six extra times by special forces police after he was already downed by police gunfire.
Sharp confirmed that Finicum was initially shot outside the car with his hands in the air. She dismissed the story of three bullets being shot as bunk and indicated that at least 120 shots were fired at the car. She spoke of about 4o police vehicles being involved in the ambush with “FBI snipers” posted everywhere, including on perches in surrounding trees.
The group had left the camp of the armed protestors that took control of the federal building overseeing the Federal Malheur Wildlife Reservation. The entourage, including Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy who was wounded in the episode, was on their way to address a meeting in the Oregon community of John Day. Police reportedly apprehended a second group in an episode that at this moment remains ill defined.
Inevitably Finicum’s death will be viewed by many as a political assassination by a US federal government that has become accustomed to extrajudicial killing all over the world. A veteran of the controversial standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada in 2014, Finicum was emerging as a compelling voice of a movement that some see as a patriotic defense of the rule of law in the United States. Where some see freedom fighters, others see as drove of coddled terrorists cut way too much slack by the federal authorities.
A member of the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints who grew up on the Navajo Reservation in the Four Corners area of the American West, Finicum was fast acquiring prominence as a go-to person by journalists covering the evolving standoff. Again and again Finicum threw out sound bites addressing in an usually clear way major issues whose scope goes far beyond the immediate issues of federal regulation of ranchers on federal lands in the American West. Finicum made history, for instance, when he commented eloquently on his own filmed removal of a spy camera from a lamp post in the vicinity of the protest camp.
After coming down from the ladder with the spy camera in hand, Finicum fended off pressures from his fellow protesters to destroy the expensive spy device. He made a point of letting it be known the spy ware would be sent back to the appropriate authorities in Washington DC. The symbolic importance of this ritual on contested federal lands is obvious during an era when Edward Snowden must live in exile in Russia, ruthlessly criminalized for exposing the pervasive, permeating, privacy-obliterating illegality of the national security state’s quickly expanding apparatus for “Total Information Awareness.”
Confounding the “Progressive” Left’s Stereotypes of Militia Members as Ignorant Red Neck Bigots
Most interesting to me was Finicum’s success in confounding the “progressive” left’s stereotypes of of militia members as ignorant Red Neck bigots. Citing his experiences growing up on the Navajo Reservation, Finicum made it very clear he well understood that the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs applies to the America’s Indian reservations many of the same repressive indignities visited on many non-Indian citizens by the Interior Department’s deeply corrupt and politicized Bureau of Land Management. The image cannot be easily brushed aside of LaVoy Finicum declaring days before his death, “The Native American People Need to Be Free…. The Tribes Need to Be Free.”
The symbolic sinew of Finicum’s outreach to the First Nations was his inspection of the deplorable conditions of the First Nations “artifacts” being held in the dank basement in federal headquarters of the Malheur Wildlife Reservation. Finicum made it clear that the artifacts should be “returned to their rightful owners.” Why should this collection of First Nations material culture be “locked away” apart from the communities whose properties they most genuinely are.
From these comments Finicum demonstrated his familiarity with the “repatriation” discourse among First Nations people. As this discourse has unfolded, museums around the world have been returning to their true owners material items such as ceremonial pipes, implements and regalia. The giving back of these embodiments of distinct heritages and cultures of Indigenous peoples signifies respect for living societies trying to secure places in the future by claiming for their posterity the material evidence of their own histories.
Finicum repeatedly called for representatives of Native Americans to come forward to begin a dialogue transcending the Hollywoodized mythology of cowboys and Indians. Finicum’s apparent sensitivity to the need for dialogue with Native Americans was part of a plea to find common ground in order to host and support a rainbow confederacy of constituencies all imperiled by an out-of-control federal juggernaut menacing the entire global community in this era of never-ending 9/11 wars.
Finigan made a point of telling the cameras that he and those for whom he was speaking are not “anti-government.” Rather it has been the failure of the federal authority to adhere to even its own laws that has made it necessary for the creation of a mass movement of citizens opposed the imposition of various forms of tyranny from above. As Finicum declared in the hours before his death, “This is not just a little occupation. This is a mass movement involving tens of millions of people.”
In my estimation Finicum was way too conservative in assessing the true extent of those who have lost all confidence that the federal authority in the USA, or in my own country of Canada for that matter, has any chance of redemption under current conditions. Like some of the leading activists of the Occupy movement, Finicum seemed well aware of the reality that the federal government of the United States has been taken over by a tiny cabal perfectly prepared to advance its interests through fascism, genocide, eugenics, forced migrations, geoengineering and banking frauds.
This of list of federal malevolence and malfeasance is far from complete. Under our current conditions only a popular mobilization on a massive scale capable of transcending many different types of divide has even a chance of holding back the onslaught. This onslaught of debt enslavement, militarization and environmental holocaust is being forced upon us by an extremely elaborate, old and well organized criminal gang that has rendered the federal authority of the world’s ailing superpower as a blunt weapon exclusively available for its own disposal.
Assassination or Suicide?
Finicum’s death is already raising bitter controversies even before his body is buried. Senior Veterans Today Editor, Gordon Duff, has already suggested Finicum’s killing by federal bullets amounted to “suicide by cop.” This characterization of Finicum’s death introduces a meme that will probably reverberate across media venues of the controlled opposition. It is true that Finicum spoke openly about his unwillingness to be incarcerated in “a concrete box.” Going from there to making Finicum the author of his own death, however, is a huge leap for the veteran special forces expert to make. Such a judgement while the body is literally still warm raises the ante of interpretation concerning the death of a person who will almost certainly be regarded as a martyr taken down in defence of a higher ideal.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada-based patriarch of the US movement of which Finicum was a part, left no doubt of where he stands on the federal killing. The owner of the Nevada ranch at the eye of the conflict with the Bureau of Land Management in 2014 asserted, “It appears that America was fired upon by our government. One of liberties finest patriots is fallen… We’ve got one killed and I can say he was sacrificed for a good purpose.”
The killing is throwing up huge controversies for the USA’s Utah-headquartered Mormon Church that has many of its members involved in various capacities with the libertarian militia movement. How will this rich and successful religious denomination respond? In this election year, how will many right-wing politicians including Donald Trump respond to the death of such an iconographic family man, the natural and foster patriarch of a large extended Mormon clan? Is Mitt Romney or LaVoy Finicum a better embodiment of Mormon family values, of idealized patriotism growing out of love of country?
Mormon broadcaster Jake Morphonios has already disagreed with the Church establishment’s ruling that the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom are operating outside acceptable Mormon behaviour. For Morphonios, the CCF was engaged in the Nevada and Oregon standoffs in “a legitimate self-defence against and aggressive and abusive bureaucracy that is far outside the rule of law.”
Paul Craig Roberts versus Russia Today
Another emerging controversy over the meaning of Finicum’s death was foreshadowed in disagreement between conservative American pundit, Paul Craig Roberts, and Russia Today. Emphasizing, for instance, the huge implications of the 9/11 false flag event, Israeli domination of US foreign policy, and the undermining of America’s worldwide interests by a kleptocratic banking cabal based on Wall Street and the City of London, Roberts welcomed the militia stand in Oregon as a part of a necessary resistance to the grotesque neocon abuse of federal power.
Roberts criticized Russia Today for looking away from this larger picture and emphasizing instead the disparity of police treatment between the public demonstration by the protestors at the Black Lives Matter demonstration in Ferguson Missouri and the arms bearing “ranchers” who have gathered at the Malheur Wildlife Reservation. While the racism of the US police state was certainly a factor in the contrast, Roberts pointed out how this slant in coverage plays right into the divide-and-conquer agenda of the likes of American plutocrat George Soros.
It is well known that Soros funds the completely compromised and ineffective so-called peace movement. Multi-billionaire Soros also funded the so-called colour revolutions that laid the foundations for the Ukranian-Russian divisions presently pushed and exploited by NATO. It is less well known that Soros is also busily funding the Black Lives Matter movement. It seems that all is well with the dominant global cabal of organized crime as long as potential opponents of their bought-and-paid-for devices of pseudo-democratic government are sliced and diced into as many isolated fragments as possible.
Militia Fanatics or Average Americans Standing Up to Fascism?
Gordon Duff is utterly contemptuous of the “Bundy/Oregon militia,” alleging that its members’ are subject to a plague of “race hatred, religious extremism and tasteless ignorance.” No doubt the group Duff thus dismisses does have some factions and members that display some of these symptoms of extremism in varying degrees. How could it be otherwise in an American failed state permeated with racism, religious extremism, and forms of ignorance that are aggressively and insidiously promoted by a media culture that profits hugely from the dissemination of disinformation and round-the-clock PR bullshit.
But who of us is without sin? What religious extremist was it that said something like, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone?” Are we only qualified to work for revolutionary transformation of our present intolerable conditions when we follow Gordon Duff’s lead in rising above all the foibles and weaknesses inherent in the societies around us?
Part of Duff’s criticism is based on probably-true accusations that the group in and around the Wildlife Reservation protest camp is riddled with undercover federal agents. This observation itself, however, should speak to the covert thuggery of a federal authority that has removed from the vast majority of citizens the protections of social security and the rule of law including due process for the redress of grievances. The domestic and international versions of the national security state are all in place, at huge expense to us, so that no true movement for genuine redress can even get off the ground before the instruments of Full Spectrum Dominance kick in.
The name Pete Santilli seems to come up often when possible undercover agents are mentioned in this context. Santilli is the You Tube-making blogger of the protest camp who was apparently among those arrested. One could observe the great gulf between the positions of Santilli and of LaVoy Finicum. Shortly before his death Finicum vowed that the federal building on the Wildlife Reservation will never be returned to Washington. He spoke of it being handed over instead to the local Harney County government
This statement of intent contrasts dramatically with a You Tube of Santilli at the height of the crisis driving along somewhere in Oregon looking from time to time into the camera. He speaks into the recording device advising the FBI to hold back from attacking the protest camp said to be full of women and children. A female voice in the car echoes this caution. As justification for this advise, Santilli declares his intent to go to the camp and clear out its inhabitants.
Finicum himself described the build up of spy planes and spy drones over the camp in the hours before the mobilization of federal actions that led to his death. He anticipated “kinetic action” on the part of the feds stating, “I have no intention of spending my days in a concrete box. There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them.”
Update January 29, 2016
Video shows execution occurring at 9:25:
Thousands Demand Freedom for Argentine Leader Milagro Sala
teleSUR | January 27, 2016
Milagro Sala was jailed 11 days ago for speaking out against President Mauricio Macri, sparking a wave of protests against criminalization of dissent.
Thousands of Argentines gathered in Buenos Aires’ central Plaza de Mayo Wednesday to protest the criminalization of social protest and demand freedom for Milagro Sala, a dissident lawmaker and Indigenous leader jailed for speaking out against President Mauricio Macri.
The protests come as Sala has been in prison for 11 days after being arrested in Argentina’s Jujuy province at the orders of Governor Gerardo Morales for criticizing the policies of Macri’s government. Outraged social movements have slammed the arrest as illegitimate and have vowed to continue protesting until the prolific social leader is free.
“For me personally she is an example of struggle, of life, of continuity of the defence of territories, defense of the people, defense of those who have less, building social inclusion—that’s what Milagro Sala is to me,” a demonstrator told teleSUR at the rally. “I demand freedom for Milagro Sala now!”
According to teleSUR correspondent Leo Poblete Codutti in Buenos Aires, the protest was a show of rage over the increase in criminalization of social protest in Argentina in recent weeks since Macri came to power.
During the demonstration, a documentary telling the story of Sala’s life and social struggles was shown in a tent set up in the middle of the protest.
Sala founded the Tupac Amaru organization based on the ideology of three important historical figures in Argentina: South American Indigenous liberator Tupac Amaru, revolutionary Che Guevara, and former First Lady Eva Peron. The 70,000 member-strong organization works on a number of political issues and with Indigenous communities.
Prior to her arrest, Sala had been participating in a sit-in, camping outside local government offices for over a month in support of various social organizations at risk of losing their legal status and social benefits after Governor Morales threatened to suspend them via decree.
According to Carolina Gairard, Argentine lawmaker with the Front for Victory, Sala’s arrest was illegitimate and illegal.
“She is the first political prisoner of Mauricio Macri,” Gairard told teleSUR during the CELAC Summit in Quito, Ecuador, on Tuesday. “And we hope she will be the last.”
The silent increase in London’s mass surveillance network, one year on…

Image by No CCTV
NO CCTV – 27/1/2016
On 27th January 2015 the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, signed an order that increased the data collected by the police’s network of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras in the capital by 300% [1]. At the time no-one seems to have noticed. One year on the sound of silence is still deafening.
Johnson achieved this massive increase of blanket surveillance in London without erecting a single new camera. Instead he allowed the police to share Transport for London’s (TfL) network of around 1400 ANPR cameras used for the London Congestion Charge, the Low Emission Zone and other traffic monitoring. This was a policy tucked away in Johnson’s 2012 mayoral crime manifesto [2].
Since 2007 the Metropolitan Police Service has controversially been allowed limited access to TfL’s congestion charge cameras for “national security” purposes only. The new camera sharing arrangement allows the police “general access” to an expanded raft of number plate cameras.
The mayor used powers given to him by the Greater London Authority Act [3] whereby he can do anything that he considers will further one or more of the Authority’s principle purposes. In the case of expanding police use of automatic checkpoint cameras he decided that it will “further the promotion of social development in Greater London”. Quite how Johnson came to this conclusion is a mystery, as is the way in which he was so easily able to trade the freedoms of so many car drivers in London by simply issuing a mayoral decison.
In his 1929 book ‘The New Despotism’ [4] then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart coined the phrase “Administrative Lawlessness” to describe a worrying trend in English politics at that time – the exercise of arbitrary power, where decisions are made in the shadows, not based on evidence and without proper debate. Hewart wrote:
Arbitrary power is certain in the long run to become despotism, and there is danger, if the so-called method of administrative “law”, which is essentially lawlessness, is greatly extended, of the loss of those hardly won liberties which it has taken centuries to establish.
Johnson and the police claim that the people of London were consulted, via an 8 week “consultation”. However there were just 2,315 responses to the online survey out of an estimated population in Greater London of over 8 million people [5].
Meanwhile the Metropolitan police responded to what they described as “concerns about the level of surveillance in the capital, data security and misuse” by stating that they are convinced that [6]:
the majority of the public will remain satisfied that this does not represent undue or unnecessary surveillance.
The important thing to the police, then, is not whether the policy is an illiberal assault on individual freedoms and liberties, but rather that most people will not understand or know what is going on, .
No CCTV has repeatedly warned that the UK police’s ANPR camera network is the biggest mass surveillance network that no-one’s ever heard of. We have laid out many of our concerns in our report ‘What’s wrong with ANPR?’ [7]. Police store the details of all cars that pass ANPR cameras in a central database for a minimum of two years. There are currently discussions within the police to extend this to seven years [8].
Whilst the mainstream media have all but ignored this massive expansion of the surveillance state it is worth pointing out that writer and artist James Bridle made a series of Freedom of Information requests in 2013/14 that reveal much of the disturbing progression of this policy [9].
Endnotes:
- [ 1] Mayoral Decision MD1439 and supporting documents https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md1439-delegation-transport-london-tfl-grant-metropolitan-police-service-mps-direct-access
- [ 2] 2012 Crime Manifesto p14 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Boris-Johnson-2012-Crime-Manifesto.pdf
- [ 3] The Greater London Authority Act 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/contents
- [ 4] ‘The New Despotism’, Lord Hewart, 1929, page 52 https://archive.org/details/LordHewart-TheNewDespotism1929
- [ 5] 2001 census statistics for Greater London http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/census-2001-key-statistics/urban-areas-in-england-and-wales/urban-areas-in-england-and-wales-ks01-usual-resident-population.xls
- [ 6] Letter from Cressida Dick, Met Police https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Appendix%20C%20-%20Letter%20of%20Response%20from%20Cressida%20Dick.pdf
- [ 7] What’s Wrong With ANPR? http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/whats_wrong_with_anpr.asp
- [ 8] ANPR National User Group Minutes 3rd June 2015 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/289438/response/730763/attach/6/03%20ANPR%20NUG%20Minutes%2003062015.pdf
- [ 9] James Bridle’s Freedom of Information Requests – https://anon.to/5TtSr3
James Bridle also has an article about London and the congestion charge cameras, ‘ All Cameras Are Police Cameras’ at: http://shorttermmemoryloss.com/nor/2014/11/07/all-cameras-are-police-cameras/
Read more NO CCTV articles on our news/articles page
Documents Reveal Anaheim, CA Has Surprisingly Robust Surveillance Arsenal For Small City
By Matthew Cagle | ACLU | January 27, 2016
Anaheim Police have spent almost a decade secretly building an inventory of powerful cell phone surveillance devices and making them available to neighboring cities in Orange County, documents obtained by the ACLU of California reveal.
This cell phone spying program—which potentially affects the privacy of everyone from Orange County’s 3 million residents to the 16 million people who visit Disneyland every year—shows the dangers of allowing law enforcement to secretly acquire surveillance technology. The devices include the suitcase-sized “Stingray” equipment, another hand-held and easy-to-hide cell phone spy tool, and—most surprisingly—a military-grade piece of equipment known as a “dirtbox” that until now was only thought to be used by the federal government and two major cities.
If a city of only a few hundred thousand people like Anaheim has purchased this wide array of devices, it raises the question of how widespread these tools really are.
Additionally, Anaheim has claimed in its secretive funding requests that “every city in Orange County has benefited” from its cellular surveillance equipment, raising further concerns about transparency, democracy, and accountability. It’s bad enough that Anaheim’s secretive acquisition of this surveillance technology deprived the city’s residents of the opportunity to participate in critical decisions affecting their own community. But by loaning out this technology well outside Anaheim’s borders, the police department has subjected people all over Orange County to surveillance decisions made by unelected leaders from other communities.
A cell site simulator, often referred to as “Stingray,” mimics a cell tower and tricks nearby cell phones into communicating with it. In order to function, these devices interact with all cell phones in radio range, which means they potentially retain data about the communications and locations of innocent people.
Although federal, state and local governments widely use cell cite simulators, governments have gone to great lengths to hide information about how those simulators work and are used. Anaheim’s secrecy here is not an accident. The city and its departments bought these devices in secret and initially refused the ACLU’s request for public records. Only after we filed a public records lawsuit and engaged in extensive discussions did Anaheim produce any documents, which were heavily redacted—an on-going point of contention in our lawsuit.
What the documents show
Anaheim has possessed at least three different forms of cell phone surveillance technology since at least 2009, the documents show. The police department used a federal grant that year to purchase a dirtbox from a Maryland-based company named Digital Receiver Technology, Inc., or DRT. A dirtbox can collect information about thousands of phones at once, and a predecessor version of Anaheim’s device is capable of intercepting and recording digital voice data, according to a classified catalog recently leaked to the media. Other dirtbox models are capable of breaking the encryption of cellphone communications, according to media reports. One of the unique features of a dirtbox is that it can be airborne, and as a consequence scoop up information from not just a few hundred phones in its vicinity, but from thousands of phones. Until now, the only reported domestic use of these powerful devices was by the federal government and the cities of Los Angeles and Chicago.
In 2011, two years after buying the dirtbox, Anaheim appears to have bought a Stingray from Florida-based Harris Corp using a combination of federal grant dollars and local funds. And in 2013, Anaheim’s Chief of Police approved an upgrade to the department’s Stingray the ACLU believes enabled it to monitor modern LTE cellular networks.
Finally, in late 2013 Anaheim also purchased a controversial hand-held cell phone surveillance device manufactured by a company called KEYW and marketed as a tool for covertly locating phones and LTE signals in hard-to-reach places, including the interiors of buildings. The documents turned over to the ACLU, when compared with publicly available price quotes, strongly suggest that Anaheim bought a device called a Jugular. With a lightweight Jugular in hand, individual officers can easily conduct cell phone surveillance around and inside of buildings, including private homes, without alerting bystanders.
Potential warrantless use
The documents obtained in the public records suit do not confirm whether Anaheim police investigators obtain a warrant before using these devices. The records state that Anaheim obtains a “court order” or “court approval” for use of the DRT, KEYW, and Harris devices, but a court order is not necessarily based on probable cause, as is required for a warrant. This is important because devices like the KEYW Jugular can be used to find devices in hard-to-access spaces, such as the interiors of homes where people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.
The ACLU documents predate CalECPA, the new California law requiring a warrant for these devices. We do not know what legal process Anaheim seeks for cell phone surveillance today.
The ever-expanding use of these devices appears to go beyond Anaheim’s city limits. Anaheim represented in funding requests that it makes its cell surveillance arsenal available to other police departments in Orange County and had written procedures for sharing the dirtbox. The secretive use of this equipment outside of Anaheim means the police department not only deprived its own residents of the opportunity to debate or choose whether to be subjected to cell phone surveillance, it also did the same for the residents and elected leaders in neighboring jurisdictions, undermining the democratic process in those places as well.
It’s time for reform
Law enforcement entities should never acquire surveillance technology without telling the public, let alone multiple generations of devices capable of spying on private communications, as these Anaheim documents show has happened there.
Anaheim’s slide towards more and more surveillance illustrates the risks of secret surveillance outside of the democratic process. But communities are fighting back. As federal and state policymakers pass new restrictions on cell surveillance devices, local communities are moving forward with surveillance reforms that range from robust use policies for Stingrays to civilian oversight communities to an ordinance that requires transparency, accountability, and oversight for all surveillance technologies.
The ACLU is hopeful these reforms will take hold in places like Anaheim too so that when police seek the next generation of surveillance technologies, it won’t take the public seven years and a lawsuit to find out about it.
Read the Anaheim cell phone surveillance documents the ACLU received.
This is a condensed version of a post originally published by the ACLU of Northern California.
Online Thought Crimes: Cops Visit Critics of Dutch Migration Policy
Sputnik – 28.01.2016
Police in the Netherlands now prefer not to think twice before visiting homes of those who criticize a government policy on migrants, including via social networks, media reports said.
Critiquing the Dutch government’s policy on migrants via social networking websites and elsewhere is now considered a criminal offense in Holland. Dutch police have raided critics’ homes, media outlets reported, citing a recent mass protest in the town of Kaatsheuvel and how some citizens of the town of Sliedrecht had been targeted by the authorities for voicing their criticism of mass migration online.
Earlier this month, hundreds of residents of Kaatsheuvel took to the streets to protest the local authorities’ plans to house at least 1,200 migrants in their town. They carried placards with slogans reading “You do not belong here” and “No to the refugees.”
The government retaliated by sending local police to the addresses of those who had participated in the protest and inspecting their social media accounts.
A police spokesperson admitted that visits to the protesters and requests to delete anti-government posts on social networking websites are “unusual” practices, but maintained that police will continue to monitor the protesters’ accounts in order to uncover the further intentions of their authors.
In an interview with RT, one of the protesters said that police had arrived at his door and asked him if he wanted to remove his Facebook post criticizing the authorities’ migrant asylum policy.
“But my message has already disappeared, and I think it was [removed] earlier by police or Facebook itself. A police officer told me that apart from me, he was due to visit five more protesters. They want us to keep mum and refrain from discussing the topic,” he said.
Robin Tilbrook, leader of the English Democrats Party condemned the activity of the Dutch police as illegal.
“Trying to shut people’s mouths is a totally undemocratic and possibly illegal approach. This is nothing but an attempt to bully people who simply expressed concern about the situation [with migrants],” Tilbrook said.
Meanwhile, the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant has reported that in the past few months, more asylum seekers have voluntarily left the Netherlands, in what can be seen as a show of disappointment with the country’s system for granting refugees asylum.According to the newspaper, about 3,000 asylum seekers decided to leave the Netherlands in 2015. The newspaper said that the main reason for their disappointment was that obtaining refugee status had been too time consuming and left them with few guarantees that they would be reunited with their families.




