Using TRAPWIRE to Investigate Misconduct in the Police State? ELyssa Durant © 2012

Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy

Posted Mar 1, 2012 4:40 AM CDT
By David L. Hudson Jr. from ABA Law Journal

  •  
image

A plainclothes Maryland state trooper approaches speeding suspect Anthony Graber, who captured the encounter with a camera atop his motorcycle helmet and later posted the video on YouTube.
Walking past Boston Common, the city’s august park, in 2007, attorney Simon Glik noticed several police officers arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say he thought the police were using excessive force. So he pulled out his cellphone and began shooting video of the incident.

After arresting the young man, one of the officers turned to Glik, saying, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When the officer asked Glik whether his audio recorder was on, Glik acknowledged it was. Glik was then arrested for violating a state wiretap law and two other state offenses.
The charges were subsequently dropped, but for Glik that was just the beginning. He filed a constitutional tort suit alleging violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers filed a motion to dismiss, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity, enabling government officials to avoid liability if they don’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. But a federal district court denied the officers’ claim.
And last August, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that the officers violated Glik’s clearly established constitutional right to video-record the police performing their duties in public.
“Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts,” the panel wrote. The case went back to the federal district court and the parties are in discovery.
With the ubiquity of cellphones, the ease of video-recording and the availability of such websites as YouTube, people can respond quickly to police incidents and broadly circulate the recordings.

POINT AND SHOOT

“The prevalence of cellphone cameras with high enough resolutions for people to record the police and then be able to disseminate it over the Internet” is a major reason for the video-recording, says Boston attorney Jeffrey P. Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project.
But law officers are often uncomfortable. “Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”
Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”

“When you talk about citizen journalists, there is also a slightly different relationship between those individuals and the police and the relationship that many mainstream journalists have with the police,” Hermes says. “Those mainstream journalists who cover the police have developed an understanding with the police that many private individuals have not.”
The 1st Circuit found it irrelevant that Glik was a private citizen rather than a professional journalist. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cellphone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew,” the court said. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

CASES IN PLAY

Glik is far from the only case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois also has a case pending in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, as it applies to making video and audio recordings of police performing their public duties.

ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, filed in August 2010, claims the broad nature of the Illinois law may expose ACLU members to arrest. “The act makes audio-recording police officers in these circumstances a felony,” the complaint states. “Due to a reasonable fear of arrest and prosecution, the ACLU is restrained from engaging in this conduct.”
A federal district court dismissed the case as moot in October 2010 and the ACLU appealed. Oral argument took place in the 7th Circuit last September.
In May 2011, Emily Good was arrested in Rochester, N.Y., for taking video of police conducting a traffic stop on the street in front of her yard. According to published accounts, police told her they didn’t feel safe with her there. She was later taken into custody.

In April 2010, Anthony Graber faced an indictment in Abingdon, Md., after he recorded a state trooper giving him a ticket and then posted the video on YouTube. Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was riding his motorcycle down Interstate 95. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys.

The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off. A man wielding a gun emerged from the driver’s side, yelling at Graber and ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did the state trooper identify himself and holster his weapon. Graber was cited for doing 80 in a 65-mph zone.
Graber accepted his ticket, then posted his video. A few weeks later, he was awakened by six officers raiding his parents’ home, where he lived with his wife and two children. He learned later that a grand jury indictment alleged he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
“Police justifications come in a few different flavors,” Hermes says. There are security concerns and charges of violating wiretap laws, which vary by state. But police also claim they are covered by qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights—so long as the official’s actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.”
David Milton, a Boston-based attorney who represents Glik, points to the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. There the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia granted qualified immunity to a police officer who arrested a passenger in a vehicle he had pulled over for speeding. The officer discovered the passenger was video-recording him and claimed the passenger violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The appeals court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed he had the authority to arrest the passenger.
Part of the problem, Milton says, stems from a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Pearson v. Callahan, in which the justices said lower courts had the option of deciding cases based on whether the law was clearly established, without first determining whether there had been a violation of individual constitutional rights.
But Glik altered the balance, saying there is a clearly established right to monitor the police.
“On the First Amendment issue, the concept that there is a clearly established right seems consistent with prior case law in the 1st Circuit and the experience of media recording in public as long as there have been video cameras,” Hermes says. “For decades we have had television stations recording in public and not facing sanctions.”

 Adds Milton: “What is so good about the 1st Circuit decision in Glik is that the judges recognized that even though there may not be a prior case of a police officer in a park with a person on a cellphone, basic long-standing First Amendment principles clearly apply to the situation even though it involves new technology.”

Although there is no Supreme Court ruling that finds a right to record in public, Hermes says, many believe there is a clearly established constitutional right to monitor the police.
“Police serve a vital function and most law enforcement officers are very decent people who should be commended,” Krages says.

“However,” he adds, “the police are in a position to grossly abuse civil liberties, and the bad ones cause a lot of harm. In many situations, a determination of what actually happened comes down to deciding whether the officer is more credible than a suspect or citizen. Consumer-level imaging, particularly video, has captured images of officers acting very inappropriately in all sorts of situations.”

Learn more about Professor Hudson here… http://law.vanderbilt.edu/hudson or visit his website at http://www.davidlhudsonjrbooks.com/index.html

glad to know ya!

^ed

David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center where he writes for the Center’s website, speaks to the media and lectures on a variety of First Amendment issues. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 35 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008)(one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He also serves as a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Hudson teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt.

LEARN MORE ABOUT ME HERE. Powers That Beat
..

Using TRAPWIRE to investigate misconduct in the Police State? 

by Elyssa Durant, Ed.M. Policy Analyst and Citizen Journalist with a Camera Phone

I was trying to de-escalate the situation with the local Police
Department since I realize how much danger this city is in given recent
laws to persecute Muslims and people who were not born in the United
States 287(g)

However, after watching the violence erupting around me, knowing that I
am the primary target [thanks to COINTELPRO agent provocateurs] and
being questioned by the police about my twitter stream, I really don’t
give a fuck.

These people have no idea how they are being manipulated by
disinformation agents, toxic living conditions and a system that is far
more corrupt than even I imagined.

The “monitor” who controls the surveillance cameras clearly has some
special deal with Metro because despite all the violence that broke out,
he finds the time to threaten, harass and stalk me ignoring the fact
that several residents threatened me after spooks came in and told
people to stay away from me or they will “get in trouble”

WHAT THE FUCK? I have no history of violence and have never even been
in a fight,I weigh 124 pounds and all these people are afraid of me? Do I
“look dangerous” because I am quite certain it won’t be long before
someone makes another attempt on my life.

Much like Trayvon Martin, I was told police were on there way after a
man threw a brick through my window and then chased me down the street.

I was on the phone with 911 the whole time screaming “HELP, HELP, HELP”
yet the police claim they did not want to waste radio space to update
status of my call to a Code 3. Are you fucking kidding me?

911 told me to return to the scene of the crime where I was assaulted a
second time, and the cops didn’t even bother to arrest him or take
witness statements. In fact, the officer would not even step out of the
car to speak with me because he did not like the way I was dressed.

Because no action was taken against the man that assaulted me and vowed
to kill and my father (who just happens to be a former Fed) I constantly
carry my iPhone because the cops claim they did not have enough
evidence to arrest this man. They never bothered to check the
surveillance camera and did not take statements from additional
witnesses.

They did, however take issue with the fact that I placed a video on
YouTube and were even more upset that I contacted a former colleague in
the Mayor’s Office who then requested an investigation. They sent two
Lieutenants to my home; one was aggressive and disrespectful and was
more interested in what book I was reading and my website than the facts
of the case.

I was told that they would follow up with the other witnesses who would
corroborate my story, and that a Special Operations Unit and Gang Unit
would be contacted regarding the racial comments that became commonplace
every time I left the apartment.

One man hung up Nazi flags, another started praying in Muslim and all
hell broke loose in the neighborhood. I became a target because I was
white in a Black neighborhood, and apparently that alone was enough to
incite hatred among the other tenants and I feared for life each time I
left my apartment, so the police told me NOT to leave my home. THAT IS
OUTRAGEOUS.

The other tenants became more and more abusive and violent since they
now had a new sense of entitlement because they knew the police would
not take action.

It is worth noting that even after I left, the violence continued to
escalate and one women was stabbed and several other injured in fights
that broke out in the hallway. The cops still did not arrest the people
who continue to live in the neighborhood, and some of them have shown up
here at my new apartment to harass me and spread rumors.

The neighbors here have suddenly became abusive and overly concerned
with my religion and it seems the writing is on the wall. They think my
healthy paranoia is “suspicious” and I think their behavior is
outrageous.

They constantly stand outside my window and scream at me and the
“monitor” called the police on me after he threatened me and told me I
was not allowed to go near a “white car.” There were SIX white cars,
two of which have no tags, so how am I to know which white car is the
one who stopped me at the mailbox and told me that two men were knocking
at my door and were here to beat me up?

I may very well be the next Treyvan Martin and if so, so be it. I am old
enough and experienced enough to know that these people do not see the
bigger picture~ that they are being used to as examples to bring down
the police state and usher in the New World Order.

I leave these notes because I do not know if I will get shot at today,
tomorrow or next week, and I think it is important to let people know
that I have spent my entire life studying gang violence, and have fought
hard against police corruption and discrimination so regardless of what
happens to me, I do not want my work (or experience) to be in vain.

I am one of the good guys, and if you can’t see that by now… then take
some time to look through some of my publications which are
systematically being removed from the internet by groups like Anonymous,
Lulz, and AntiSec.

This breaks my heart, but I am fighting a losing battle. I am starting
to question my commitment and given the communities response~ I am not
sure if they are worth the sacrifice.

That’s all for today. This is the Daily Dose for March 29, 2012.

Just me,

e

@ELyssaD 

ANOTHER POST THE POLICE TOOK ISSUE WITH:

Metro Nashville Police Department continue to cover up crimes by failing
to follow established code of conduct in lower income neighborhoods.

Some power hungry police officer demands to search my iPhone after he
notices I am video taping the MNPD who took three hours to respond to
multiple neighbors call 911 after witnessing multiple violent assaults
against two women and one man on Monday evening.

I called 911 after two people approached my window threatening my life
for being a “cracker Jew bitch” and threw a brick through my window
where I was working on two projects about Cointelpro as a driving force
behind the Occupy movement that is being funded by The American Nazi
Party and the Lucis Trust.

I was interviewing someone who had been involved with Nazi medical
experiments and how it effected his four children who suffer with a
variety of neurological and psychological problems that are typical of
victims of Mengele’s subjects.

I had just received notification from the copyright office (USTPO) in
Virginia that my submission was approved and was thrilled to learn that
my publications and identity would be protected under trademark and copyright laws
since I received several take down notices from the police and google that my site was in danger of being seized due to the number of complaints received about the content: THE TRUTH.

Ironic when I noticed which posts were
being removed due to the sensitive nature (and my vast knowledge) about
the true purpose of organized, controlled opposition as a driving force
to escalate domestic unrest designed to incite violence justifying a
Police State ushering in the New World Order.

This is not the first, second, or even third time I have been stopped by undercover police or random uniforms knocking on my door to search my cell.

One cop came running after me, demanded to see my cell phone and after
running my license to check for warrants (which seemed extreme) and
finding none, he wrote up an incident report for “suspicious behavior”
for video taping a crime scene. 

He not only searched my cell phone without a warrant, but proceeded to DELETE crime scene photos.  

THAT IS A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE FOURTH AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT’S ABOUT AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS. 
RELEVANT HISTORY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC:

Despite being a “confidential” informant in an undercover sting operation that went bad [way bad] in 2009 at the request of the Mayor’s Office and several police officers not to be named at this time, I became an informant when I saw people selling prescription drugs to teenagers in DCS custody.  

I wanted it to stop, and at the police sergeant’s request, I agreed to work with the Crime Suppression Unit to keep these kids from inevitable path to lifelong addiction and criminal behavior.

 I was instructed to report on the illegal activities, which included taking down license plates and traffic patterns indicative of illegal drug sales.  

After lengthy discussions with my contact in the department,  the majority of all follow up communications were via e-mail on my cell phone so my neighbors would not hear me discussing the situation.

That fateful day my cell was jammed and hacked, I was unable to receive or send critical communications to alert me that shit went bad, and my cover was blown.

None of this ever made it though the network, and the e-mails reside on a microchip that is an UNDISCLOSED LOCATION with about 40 back ups at the ACLU, FBI, and Nightly News just in case something happens to me before I transfer out of here into a safer jurisdiction.

That was the first, but not the last time my cell was jammed and hacked.

I could not receive communications or directions from the crime suppression unit, and I wound up being assaulted and hospitalized after one of  the bullets hit my window. 

I was promised a police escort and advanced warning, but they never showed up, until they did with automatic assault rifles at my front door. 

It was too late.

I have never disclosed those emails, however they have since been accessed by hackers from Lulz, AntiSec and whoever accessed my computer when I was out of town this time last year. 

How do I know? Because the PC hadn’t been turned on in several years and the last ten documents opened were my detailed call records and an e-mail to a certain politician who also had his cell phone records searched and used against him in an ugly court battle and political campaign.

SO, they’re you have it folks The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me [aliens]

Now, an obvious target by the police department, I am constantly harassed, stopped, searched, interrogated or subjected to “unofficial complaints” of harassment that always seem to follow a pattern I know all too well.

SO, when the investigator tries to tell me that I would not make a good witness since I called 911 from my closet AFTER the brick came through my window, what they mean is, we will make sure your credibility is destroyed through false reports, and constant harassment should you ever decide to sue us for police misconduct.  

Well, fuck you!

After yet another incident where the police failed to respond to a life threatening situation in a timely manner, insult and intimidate me, three times in 24 hours, then ultimately release the suspect claiming there
is not enough evidence??

I CALL TRAPWIRE!!
When you refuse to take witness statements; reveal your name or badge
numbers, and another violent criminal continues to terrorize me for months on end, and the police refuse to review the live feed trapwire video that would show beyond any shadow of a doubt that this man assaulted me AND three other individuals within minutes of being released?

No evidence? Check the fucking surveillance cams just above the the scene of the crime.

Hell, check MY surveillance cam! I don’t leave home without it!

Just me,

e
@ELyssaD

ELyssa Durant © 2012 || All Rights Reserved || DailyDDoSe™ @ELyssaD™.

Advertisements

Using TRAPWIRE to Investigate Misconduct in the Police State? ELyssa Durant © 2012

Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy

Posted Mar 1, 2012 4:40 AM CDT
By David L. Hudson Jr. from ABA Law Journal

  •  
image

A plainclothes Maryland state trooper approaches speeding suspect Anthony Graber, who captured the encounter with a camera atop his motorcycle helmet and later posted the video on YouTube.
Walking past Boston Common, the city’s august park, in 2007, attorney Simon Glik noticed several police officers arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say he thought the police were using excessive force. So he pulled out his cellphone and began shooting video of the incident.

After arresting the young man, one of the officers turned to Glik, saying, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When the officer asked Glik whether his audio recorder was on, Glik acknowledged it was. Glik was then arrested for violating a state wiretap law and two other state offenses.
The charges were subsequently dropped, but for Glik that was just the beginning. He filed a constitutional tort suit alleging violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers filed a motion to dismiss, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity, enabling government officials to avoid liability if they don’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. But a federal district court denied the officers’ claim.
And last August, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that the officers violated Glik’s clearly established constitutional right to video-record the police performing their duties in public.
“Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts,” the panel wrote. The case went back to the federal district court and the parties are in discovery.
With the ubiquity of cellphones, the ease of video-recording and the availability of such websites as YouTube, people can respond quickly to police incidents and broadly circulate the recordings.

POINT AND SHOOT

“The prevalence of cellphone cameras with high enough resolutions for people to record the police and then be able to disseminate it over the Internet” is a major reason for the video-recording, says Boston attorney Jeffrey P. Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project.
But law officers are often uncomfortable. “Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”
Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”

“When you talk about citizen journalists, there is also a slightly different relationship between those individuals and the police and the relationship that many mainstream journalists have with the police,” Hermes says. “Those mainstream journalists who cover the police have developed an understanding with the police that many private individuals have not.”
The 1st Circuit found it irrelevant that Glik was a private citizen rather than a professional journalist. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cellphone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew,” the court said. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

CASES IN PLAY

Glik is far from the only case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois also has a case pending in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, as it applies to making video and audio recordings of police performing their public duties.

ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, filed in August 2010, claims the broad nature of the Illinois law may expose ACLU members to arrest. “The act makes audio-recording police officers in these circumstances a felony,” the complaint states. “Due to a reasonable fear of arrest and prosecution, the ACLU is restrained from engaging in this conduct.”
A federal district court dismissed the case as moot in October 2010 and the ACLU appealed. Oral argument took place in the 7th Circuit last September.
In May 2011, Emily Good was arrested in Rochester, N.Y., for taking video of police conducting a traffic stop on the street in front of her yard. According to published accounts, police told her they didn’t feel safe with her there. She was later taken into custody.

In April 2010, Anthony Graber faced an indictment in Abingdon, Md., after he recorded a state trooper giving him a ticket and then posted the video on YouTube. Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was riding his motorcycle down Interstate 95. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys.

The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off. A man wielding a gun emerged from the driver’s side, yelling at Graber and ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did the state trooper identify himself and holster his weapon. Graber was cited for doing 80 in a 65-mph zone.
Graber accepted his ticket, then posted his video. A few weeks later, he was awakened by six officers raiding his parents’ home, where he lived with his wife and two children. He learned later that a grand jury indictment alleged he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
“Police justifications come in a few different flavors,” Hermes says. There are security concerns and charges of violating wiretap laws, which vary by state. But police also claim they are covered by qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights—so long as the official’s actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.”
David Milton, a Boston-based attorney who represents Glik, points to the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. There the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia granted qualified immunity to a police officer who arrested a passenger in a vehicle he had pulled over for speeding. The officer discovered the passenger was video-recording him and claimed the passenger violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The appeals court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed he had the authority to arrest the passenger.
Part of the problem, Milton says, stems from a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Pearson v. Callahan, in which the justices said lower courts had the option of deciding cases based on whether the law was clearly established, without first determining whether there had been a violation of individual constitutional rights.
But Glik altered the balance, saying there is a clearly established right to monitor the police.
“On the First Amendment issue, the concept that there is a clearly established right seems consistent with prior case law in the 1st Circuit and the experience of media recording in public as long as there have been video cameras,” Hermes says. “For decades we have had television stations recording in public and not facing sanctions.”

 Adds Milton: “What is so good about the 1st Circuit decision in Glik is that the judges recognized that even though there may not be a prior case of a police officer in a park with a person on a cellphone, basic long-standing First Amendment principles clearly apply to the situation even though it involves new technology.”

Although there is no Supreme Court ruling that finds a right to record in public, Hermes says, many believe there is a clearly established constitutional right to monitor the police.
“Police serve a vital function and most law enforcement officers are very decent people who should be commended,” Krages says.

“However,” he adds, “the police are in a position to grossly abuse civil liberties, and the bad ones cause a lot of harm. In many situations, a determination of what actually happened comes down to deciding whether the officer is more credible than a suspect or citizen. Consumer-level imaging, particularly video, has captured images of officers acting very inappropriately in all sorts of situations.”

Learn more about Professor Hudson here… http://law.vanderbilt.edu/hudson or visit his website at http://www.davidlhudsonjrbooks.com/index.html

glad to know ya!

^ed

David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center where he writes for the Center’s website, speaks to the media and lectures on a variety of First Amendment issues. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 35 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008)(one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He also serves as a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Hudson teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt.

LEARN MORE ABOUT ME HERE. Powers That Beat
..

Using TRAPWIRE to investigate misconduct in the Police State? 

by Elyssa Durant, Ed.M. Policy Analyst and Citizen Journalist with a Camera Phone

I was trying to de-escalate the situation with the local Police
Department since I realize how much danger this city is in given recent
laws to persecute Muslims and people who were not born in the United
States 287(g)

However, after watching the violence erupting around me, knowing that I
am the primary target [thanks to COINTELPRO agent provocateurs] and
being questioned by the police about my twitter stream, I really don’t
give a fuck.

These people have no idea how they are being manipulated by
disinformation agents, toxic living conditions and a system that is far
more corrupt than even I imagined.

The “monitor” who controls the surveillance cameras clearly has some
special deal with Metro because despite all the violence that broke out,
he finds the time to threaten, harass and stalk me ignoring the fact
that several residents threatened me after spooks came in and told
people to stay away from me or they will “get in trouble”

WHAT THE FUCK? I have no history of violence and have never even been
in a fight,I weigh 124 pounds and all these people are afraid of me? Do I
“look dangerous” because I am quite certain it won’t be long before
someone makes another attempt on my life.

Much like Trayvon Martin, I was told police were on there way after a
man threw a brick through my window and then chased me down the street.

I was on the phone with 911 the whole time screaming “HELP, HELP, HELP”
yet the police claim they did not want to waste radio space to update
status of my call to a Code 3. Are you fucking kidding me?

911 told me to return to the scene of the crime where I was assaulted a
second time, and the cops didn’t even bother to arrest him or take
witness statements. In fact, the officer would not even step out of the
car to speak with me because he did not like the way I was dressed.

Because no action was taken against the man that assaulted me and vowed
to kill and my father (who just happens to be a former Fed) I constantly
carry my iPhone because the cops claim they did not have enough
evidence to arrest this man. They never bothered to check the
surveillance camera and did not take statements from additional
witnesses.

They did, however take issue with the fact that I placed a video on
YouTube and were even more upset that I contacted a former colleague in
the Mayor’s Office who then requested an investigation. They sent two
Lieutenants to my home; one was aggressive and disrespectful and was
more interested in what book I was reading and my website than the facts
of the case.

I was told that they would follow up with the other witnesses who would
corroborate my story, and that a Special Operations Unit and Gang Unit
would be contacted regarding the racial comments that became commonplace
every time I left the apartment.

One man hung up Nazi flags, another started praying in Muslim and all
hell broke loose in the neighborhood. I became a target because I was
white in a Black neighborhood, and apparently that alone was enough to
incite hatred among the other tenants and I feared for life each time I
left my apartment, so the police told me NOT to leave my home. THAT IS
OUTRAGEOUS.

The other tenants became more and more abusive and violent since they
now had a new sense of entitlement because they knew the police would
not take action.

It is worth noting that even after I left, the violence continued to
escalate and one women was stabbed and several other injured in fights
that broke out in the hallway. The cops still did not arrest the people
who continue to live in the neighborhood, and some of them have shown up
here at my new apartment to harass me and spread rumors.

The neighbors here have suddenly became abusive and overly concerned
with my religion and it seems the writing is on the wall. They think my
healthy paranoia is “suspicious” and I think their behavior is
outrageous.

They constantly stand outside my window and scream at me and the
“monitor” called the police on me after he threatened me and told me I
was not allowed to go near a “white car.” There were SIX white cars,
two of which have no tags, so how am I to know which white car is the
one who stopped me at the mailbox and told me that two men were knocking
at my door and were here to beat me up?

I may very well be the next Treyvan Martin and if so, so be it. I am old
enough and experienced enough to know that these people do not see the
bigger picture~ that they are being used to as examples to bring down
the police state and usher in the New World Order.

I leave these notes because I do not know if I will get shot at today,
tomorrow or next week, and I think it is important to let people know
that I have spent my entire life studying gang violence, and have fought
hard against police corruption and discrimination so regardless of what
happens to me, I do not want my work (or experience) to be in vain.

I am one of the good guys, and if you can’t see that by now… then take
some time to look through some of my publications which are
systematically being removed from the internet by groups like Anonymous,
Lulz, and AntiSec.

This breaks my heart, but I am fighting a losing battle. I am starting
to question my commitment and given the communities response~ I am not
sure if they are worth the sacrifice.

That’s all for today. This is the Daily Dose for March 29, 2012.

Just me,

e

@ELyssaD 

ANOTHER POST THE POLICE TOOK ISSUE WITH:

Metro Nashville Police Department continue to cover up crimes by failing
to follow established code of conduct in lower income neighborhoods.

Some power hungry police officer demands to search my iPhone after he
notices I am video taping the MNPD who took three hours to respond to
multiple neighbors call 911 after witnessing multiple violent assaults
against two women and one man on Monday evening.

I called 911 after two people approached my window threatening my life
for being a “cracker Jew bitch” and threw a brick through my window
where I was working on two projects about Cointelpro as a driving force
behind the Occupy movement that is being funded by The American Nazi
Party and the Lucis Trust.

I was interviewing someone who had been involved with Nazi medical
experiments and how it effected his four children who suffer with a
variety of neurological and psychological problems that are typical of
victims of Mengele’s subjects.

I had just received notification from the copyright office (USTPO) in
Virginia that my submission was approved and was thrilled to learn that
my publications and identity would be protected under trademark and copyright laws
since I received several take down notices from the police and google that my site was in danger of being seized due to the number of complaints received about the content: THE TRUTH.

Ironic when I noticed which posts were
being removed due to the sensitive nature (and my vast knowledge) about
the true purpose of organized, controlled opposition as a driving force
to escalate domestic unrest designed to incite violence justifying a
Police State ushering in the New World Order.

This is not the first, second, or even third time I have been stopped by undercover police or random uniforms knocking on my door to search my cell.

One cop came running after me, demanded to see my cell phone and after
running my license to check for warrants (which seemed extreme) and
finding none, he wrote up an incident report for “suspicious behavior”
for video taping a crime scene. 

He not only searched my cell phone without a warrant, but proceeded to DELETE crime scene photos.  

THAT IS A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE FOURTH AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT’S ABOUT AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS. 
RELEVANT HISTORY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC:

Despite being a “confidential” informant in an undercover sting operation that went bad [way bad] in 2009 at the request of the Mayor’s Office and several police officers not to be named at this time, I became an informant when I saw people selling prescription drugs to teenagers in DCS custody.  

I wanted it to stop, and at the police sergeant’s request, I agreed to work with the Crime Suppression Unit to keep these kids from inevitable path to lifelong addiction and criminal behavior.

 I was instructed to report on the illegal activities, which included taking down license plates and traffic patterns indicative of illegal drug sales.  

After lengthy discussions with my contact in the department,  the majority of all follow up communications were via e-mail on my cell phone so my neighbors would not hear me discussing the situation.

That fateful day my cell was jammed and hacked, I was unable to receive or send critical communications to alert me that shit went bad, and my cover was blown.

None of this ever made it though the network, and the e-mails reside on a microchip that is an UNDISCLOSED LOCATION with about 40 back ups at the ACLU, FBI, and Nightly News just in case something happens to me before I transfer out of here into a safer jurisdiction.

That was the first, but not the last time my cell was jammed and hacked.

I could not receive communications or directions from the crime suppression unit, and I wound up being assaulted and hospitalized after one of  the bullets hit my window. 

I was promised a police escort and advanced warning, but they never showed up, until they did with automatic assault rifles at my front door. 

It was too late.

I have never disclosed those emails, however they have since been accessed by hackers from Lulz, AntiSec and whoever accessed my computer when I was out of town this time last year. 

How do I know? Because the PC hadn’t been turned on in several years and the last ten documents opened were my detailed call records and an e-mail to a certain politician who also had his cell phone records searched and used against him in an ugly court battle and political campaign.

SO, they’re you have it folks The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me [aliens]

Now, an obvious target by the police department, I am constantly harassed, stopped, searched, interrogated or subjected to “unofficial complaints” of harassment that always seem to follow a pattern I know all too well.

SO, when the investigator tries to tell me that I would not make a good witness since I called 911 from my closet AFTER the brick came through my window, what they mean is, we will make sure your credibility is destroyed through false reports, and constant harassment should you ever decide to sue us for police misconduct.  

Well, fuck you!

After yet another incident where the police failed to respond to a life threatening situation in a timely manner, insult and intimidate me, three times in 24 hours, then ultimately release the suspect claiming there
is not enough evidence??

I CALL TRAPWIRE!!
When you refuse to take witness statements; reveal your name or badge
numbers, and another violent criminal continues to terrorize me for months on end, and the police refuse to review the live feed trapwire video that would show beyond any shadow of a doubt that this man assaulted me AND three other individuals within minutes of being released?

No evidence? Check the fucking surveillance cams just above the the scene of the crime.

Hell, check MY surveillance cam! I don’t leave home without it!

Just me,

e
@ELyssaD

ELyssa Durant © 2012 || All Rights Reserved || DailyDDoSe™ @ELyssaD™.

FBI gives police free tool to convert photos for facial recognition – Trapwire

FBI gives police free tool to convert photos for facial recognition



Thinkstock

Within weeks, police nationwide should be able to obtain free software for matching photos of unidentified suspects against the FBI’s biometric database of 12 million mug shots, according to an Office of the Director of National Intelligence agency.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department are experimenting with facial recognition to determine the real names of illegal immigrants, identify persons of interest in candid photos, and fulfill other law enforcement responsibilities. To make that happen, however, law enforcement agencies at every level of government must share images with compatible technology that they can afford, former FBI officials say.

So, the bureau is offering agencies some of the equipment at no cost.

“Later this summer the FBI will deploy the Universal Face Workstation software, a free-of-charge client application that will provide users with the tools for conducting and managing facial/photo searches with a minimal resource investment,” Kshemendra Paul, program manager for the Information Sharing Environment within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, wrote in his annual report to Congress.

The document notes the FBI database under development, the $1 billion Next-Generation Identification system, recently began testing facial recognition on images of alleged perpetrators uploaded by several state agencies. Currently, only governments with operational facial recognition technology can participate in the trial.

Those states now have access “to a national gallery of more than 12 million legally collected mug-shot photos to be searched in aid of investigations,” Paul wrote. Facial searches could one day be faster and more accurate than police lineups, advocates say.

This is not the first time the bureau has offered free biometric software to law enforcement partners.

“We provided universal latent workstations for palm prints,” Thomas E. Bush III, who helped develop NGI’s system requirements while assistant director of the FBI’s criminal justice information services division between 2005 and 2009, said earlier this summer. “And we’ll probably do the same thing for face and iris.”

The existing workstation software codes images in a standard format so that authorities can cross-check their photos against pictures in any biometric ID system “from around the neighborhood and around the state to around the nation,” note the software download Web page.

The application accepts scanned images, photos from digital cameras or pictures saved as digital files. The tool then translates each copy into a new file that can be matched against images in NGI, or deposited there for others to search.

Authorized users only need a computer and email connection to the FBI’s database, according to the product specifications.

Related Stories

  • ACLU sues for FBI GPS tracking guidelines
  • FBI is on track to book faces, scars, tattoos in 2014
  • What does your tattoo say about you? The FBI wants to know.
  • Eye on crime: The FBI is building a database of iris scans
  • FBI gives police free tool to convert photos for facial recognition – Trapwire

    FBI gives police free tool to convert photos for facial recognition



    Thinkstock

    Within weeks, police nationwide should be able to obtain free software for matching photos of unidentified suspects against the FBI’s biometric database of 12 million mug shots, according to an Office of the Director of National Intelligence agency.

    The FBI and Homeland Security Department are experimenting with facial recognition to determine the real names of illegal immigrants, identify persons of interest in candid photos, and fulfill other law enforcement responsibilities. To make that happen, however, law enforcement agencies at every level of government must share images with compatible technology that they can afford, former FBI officials say.

    So, the bureau is offering agencies some of the equipment at no cost.

    “Later this summer the FBI will deploy the Universal Face Workstation software, a free-of-charge client application that will provide users with the tools for conducting and managing facial/photo searches with a minimal resource investment,” Kshemendra Paul, program manager for the Information Sharing Environment within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, wrote in his annual report to Congress.

    The document notes the FBI database under development, the $1 billion Next-Generation Identification system, recently began testing facial recognition on images of alleged perpetrators uploaded by several state agencies. Currently, only governments with operational facial recognition technology can participate in the trial.

    Those states now have access “to a national gallery of more than 12 million legally collected mug-shot photos to be searched in aid of investigations,” Paul wrote. Facial searches could one day be faster and more accurate than police lineups, advocates say.

    This is not the first time the bureau has offered free biometric software to law enforcement partners.

    “We provided universal latent workstations for palm prints,” Thomas E. Bush III, who helped develop NGI’s system requirements while assistant director of the FBI’s criminal justice information services division between 2005 and 2009, said earlier this summer. “And we’ll probably do the same thing for face and iris.”

    The existing workstation software codes images in a standard format so that authorities can cross-check their photos against pictures in any biometric ID system “from around the neighborhood and around the state to around the nation,” note the software download Web page.

    The application accepts scanned images, photos from digital cameras or pictures saved as digital files. The tool then translates each copy into a new file that can be matched against images in NGI, or deposited there for others to search.

    Authorized users only need a computer and email connection to the FBI’s database, according to the product specifications.

    Related Stories

  • ACLU sues for FBI GPS tracking guidelines
  • FBI is on track to book faces, scars, tattoos in 2014
  • What does your tattoo say about you? The FBI wants to know.
  • Eye on crime: The FBI is building a database of iris scans
  • Tracking Big Foot: Why GPS Location Requires a Warrant | Center for Democracy & Technology

    In a case that raises as many questions as the average sighting of Big Foot, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that law enforcement officers didn’t need a warrant to obtain GPS location information generated by his cell phone.

    The court’s analysis has been roundly criticized as legally incorrect, lazy, shallow, and vague. I’d like to focus on one aspect of the case that the court missed:  the Department of Justice recommends that police obtain warrants in the scenario presented by this case, does so for good reason, and there were sufficient facts for the government to obtain the warrant that the Department of Justice recommends investigators obtain.

    In this case, U.S. v. Skinner law enforcement officers obtained an order that allowed them to monitor for 60 days the location of a pre-paid cell phone they had good cause to believe was being used by Big Foot, the nickname given trucker eventually identified as Melvin Skinner, who they alleged was transporting marijuana.  They obtained a court order under which the provider, Sprint/Nextel, acting at the behest of law enforcement, pinged the phone repeatedly so it would reveal its location over a three-day period and eventually activated the phone’s GPS functionality to locate the phone’s GPS coordinates.   (Sprint/Nextel recently developed a web portal through which law enforcement can do this automatically for the duration of the court authorization, without contacting the provider each time officers ping the phone.)

    The court found that there was “… no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured … cell phone.”  But, as Jennifer Grannick points out cell phones don’t normally “give off” the kind of GPS location data that law enforcement used to locate Skinner.  Unless the user is employing location services – and Skinner wasn’t – the GPS location data has to be created.  In this case, the provider, under court order, remotely activated the GPS function of Skinner’s phone so the police could track him.

    There’s a critical difference between GPS location information and cell tower location information a mobile phone creates during normal use.  The GPS data in this case is created at the request of law enforcement for tracking purposes and not through the normal use of the mobile phone. The GPS data doesn’t even exist until the provider prompts the device to deliver its GPS location to the provider so law enforcement can access it.  In contrast, providers maintain cell tower location information for business reasons.  Because providers do not normally maintain GPS location information and because it was not voluntarily conveyed to the provider, it is not a “business record” and does not fit into the third party records doctrine, which says that a person has no Fourth Amendment interest in information that is voluntarily revealed to, and held by, a third party.  While the third party doctrine should probably be re-examined, for now we have to live with it, but not for GPS data created by providers at the behest of law enforcement.  For that data, we retain our Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless GPS tracking.  

    Blind Eye to Justice

    Apparently recognizing that GPS is different, the Justice Department recommends that prosecutors obtain a warrant to get GPS location information from mobile communications service providers.  For example, in this power point presentation the Associate Director of the Justice Department Office of Enforcement Operations recommends that prosecutors use search warrants to get prospective GPS location information (referred to as “lat/long data” or latitudinal and longitudinal data) for constitutional, not statutory reasons, and because “anything less presents significant risks of suppression.”  In addition, the Justice Department Associate Deputy Attorney General, testified in April last year that when the government seeks to compel disclosure of prospective GPS coordinates generated by cell phones, it relies on a warrant.

    The Sixth Circuit missed this point entirely.  It blithely rejected Skinner’s Fourth Amendment claims and implicitly bought into the government’s argument that orders under the Stored Communications Act provision at 18 USC 2703(d) can be used to obtain prospective location information that has never been stored.  It did not consider whether the information sought was within the third party records doctrine and it cited no statutory authority for the proposition that the government can compel a provider to create the GPS information for the government to seize.  

    Perhaps most ironically, it seems pretty clear that the government had facts establishing probable cause and could have obtained a warrant if it had applied for one.  As the concurring opinion in Skinner noted, law enforcement officials were watching the drug operation for months, had recorded conversations about an upcoming drug run, learned that the courier was carrying a particular phone that they could track, and that a half ton of marijuana was in transit.  

    A warrant requirement for location information, as advocated by the Digital Due Process coalition, would still mean a drug courier like Skinner would get caught.  If followed, a statutory warrant requirement decreases the chances a criminal would elude jail because the seized evidence would not be at risk of suppression, as it is now for Big Foot if he appeals this decision. 

    For updates, follow us on Twitter at @CenDemTech.

    Related Posts

    Defending networks from malicious hacking exploits depends in large part on the voluntary, cooperative efforts of network operators, device makers, and Internet users.Today the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) — a group of technical experts dedicated to building consensus about broadband network management — has released a series of targeted, balanced recommendations to help stifle an emerging type of network attack. That attack has been used in recent years by the hacker…

    [Editors Note: This is one in a of series of blog posts from CDT on the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414, a bill co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins that is slated to be considered on the Senate floor soon.]Two amendments to the Senate cybersecurity bill now being debated would require government agents to get a warrant before reading a person’s email or secretly tracking someone through their mobile phone.  The amendments, if adopted, would be a huge privacy gain and address a long-…

    In a new book, CDT experts debate some of the most pressing issues in surveillance law today.Patriot Debates: Contemporary Issues in National Security Law features CDT’s Greg Nojeim in a debate on the third-party records doctrine and its application to criminal investigations in the digital age. The doctrine holds that law enforcement does not need a warrant to search and seize information lawfully held by third parties, such as online file hosting services like Dropbox or online email…

    [Editors Note: This is one in a of series of blog posts from CDT on the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414, a bill co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins that is slated to be considered on the Senate floor soon.]  

    Congress is about to decide whether it is a crime to violate terms of service governing your use of Gmail, Facebook, Hulu, or any other on-line service.

    One of the amendments to the Cybersecurity Act that the Senate is likely to take up this week would substantially increase…

    https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/1708tracking-big-foot-why-gps-location-…

    Tracking Big Foot: Why GPS Location Requires a Warrant | Center for Democracy & Technology

    In a case that raises as many questions as the average sighting of Big Foot, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that law enforcement officers didn’t need a warrant to obtain GPS location information generated by his cell phone.

    The court’s analysis has been roundly criticized as legally incorrect, lazy, shallow, and vague. I’d like to focus on one aspect of the case that the court missed:  the Department of Justice recommends that police obtain warrants in the scenario presented by this case, does so for good reason, and there were sufficient facts for the government to obtain the warrant that the Department of Justice recommends investigators obtain.

    In this case, U.S. v. Skinner law enforcement officers obtained an order that allowed them to monitor for 60 days the location of a pre-paid cell phone they had good cause to believe was being used by Big Foot, the nickname given trucker eventually identified as Melvin Skinner, who they alleged was transporting marijuana.  They obtained a court order under which the provider, Sprint/Nextel, acting at the behest of law enforcement, pinged the phone repeatedly so it would reveal its location over a three-day period and eventually activated the phone’s GPS functionality to locate the phone’s GPS coordinates.   (Sprint/Nextel recently developed a web portal through which law enforcement can do this automatically for the duration of the court authorization, without contacting the provider each time officers ping the phone.)

    The court found that there was “… no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured … cell phone.”  But, as Jennifer Grannick points out cell phones don’t normally “give off” the kind of GPS location data that law enforcement used to locate Skinner.  Unless the user is employing location services – and Skinner wasn’t – the GPS location data has to be created.  In this case, the provider, under court order, remotely activated the GPS function of Skinner’s phone so the police could track him.

    There’s a critical difference between GPS location information and cell tower location information a mobile phone creates during normal use.  The GPS data in this case is created at the request of law enforcement for tracking purposes and not through the normal use of the mobile phone. The GPS data doesn’t even exist until the provider prompts the device to deliver its GPS location to the provider so law enforcement can access it.  In contrast, providers maintain cell tower location information for business reasons.  Because providers do not normally maintain GPS location information and because it was not voluntarily conveyed to the provider, it is not a “business record” and does not fit into the third party records doctrine, which says that a person has no Fourth Amendment interest in information that is voluntarily revealed to, and held by, a third party.  While the third party doctrine should probably be re-examined, for now we have to live with it, but not for GPS data created by providers at the behest of law enforcement.  For that data, we retain our Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless GPS tracking.  

    Blind Eye to Justice

    Apparently recognizing that GPS is different, the Justice Department recommends that prosecutors obtain a warrant to get GPS location information from mobile communications service providers.  For example, in this power point presentation the Associate Director of the Justice Department Office of Enforcement Operations recommends that prosecutors use search warrants to get prospective GPS location information (referred to as “lat/long data” or latitudinal and longitudinal data) for constitutional, not statutory reasons, and because “anything less presents significant risks of suppression.”  In addition, the Justice Department Associate Deputy Attorney General, testified in April last year that when the government seeks to compel disclosure of prospective GPS coordinates generated by cell phones, it relies on a warrant.

    The Sixth Circuit missed this point entirely.  It blithely rejected Skinner’s Fourth Amendment claims and implicitly bought into the government’s argument that orders under the Stored Communications Act provision at 18 USC 2703(d) can be used to obtain prospective location information that has never been stored.  It did not consider whether the information sought was within the third party records doctrine and it cited no statutory authority for the proposition that the government can compel a provider to create the GPS information for the government to seize.  

    Perhaps most ironically, it seems pretty clear that the government had facts establishing probable cause and could have obtained a warrant if it had applied for one.  As the concurring opinion in Skinner noted, law enforcement officials were watching the drug operation for months, had recorded conversations about an upcoming drug run, learned that the courier was carrying a particular phone that they could track, and that a half ton of marijuana was in transit.  

    A warrant requirement for location information, as advocated by the Digital Due Process coalition, would still mean a drug courier like Skinner would get caught.  If followed, a statutory warrant requirement decreases the chances a criminal would elude jail because the seized evidence would not be at risk of suppression, as it is now for Big Foot if he appeals this decision. 

    For updates, follow us on Twitter at @CenDemTech.

    Related Posts

    Defending networks from malicious hacking exploits depends in large part on the voluntary, cooperative efforts of network operators, device makers, and Internet users.Today the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) — a group of technical experts dedicated to building consensus about broadband network management — has released a series of targeted, balanced recommendations to help stifle an emerging type of network attack. That attack has been used in recent years by the hacker…

    [Editors Note: This is one in a of series of blog posts from CDT on the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414, a bill co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins that is slated to be considered on the Senate floor soon.]Two amendments to the Senate cybersecurity bill now being debated would require government agents to get a warrant before reading a person’s email or secretly tracking someone through their mobile phone.  The amendments, if adopted, would be a huge privacy gain and address a long-…

    In a new book, CDT experts debate some of the most pressing issues in surveillance law today.Patriot Debates: Contemporary Issues in National Security Law features CDT’s Greg Nojeim in a debate on the third-party records doctrine and its application to criminal investigations in the digital age. The doctrine holds that law enforcement does not need a warrant to search and seize information lawfully held by third parties, such as online file hosting services like Dropbox or online email…

    [Editors Note: This is one in a of series of blog posts from CDT on the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414, a bill co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins that is slated to be considered on the Senate floor soon.]  

    Congress is about to decide whether it is a crime to violate terms of service governing your use of Gmail, Facebook, Hulu, or any other on-line service.

    One of the amendments to the Cybersecurity Act that the Senate is likely to take up this week would substantially increase…

    https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/1708tracking-big-foot-why-gps-location-…

    Tracking Big Foot: Why GPS Location Requires a Warrant

    Tracking Big Foot: Why GPS Location Requires a Warrant

    https://www.cdt.org/print/19546