Drone aircraft are patrolling U.S. Cities

<< < (3/5) > >>

LightCaster:
Las Vegas Police Request Removal of Document from Public Intelligence


Public Intelligence
25 April 2010


During the month of April 2010, we have received the same message twice from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department concerning a Law Enforcement Sensitive brief entitled “Silver Shield: Nevada’s Approach to Critical Infrastructure Protection” from November 2007.  The briefing discusses various aspects of Suspicious Activity Reporting, Fusion Center integration, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to patrol portions of the city for aerial photography during incident response.

Subject: FW: Silvershield Nevada document availible on-line
From: silvershield <silvershield@LVMPD.COM>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:46:31 -0700
To: “legal@publicintelligence.net” <legal@publicintelligence.net>
CC: “pwasheba@uerlv.com” <pwasheba@uerlv.com>, “scownay@uerlv.com” <scownay@uerlv.com>, Mike McClary <M1798M@LVMPD.COM>, Greg McCurdy <G2568M@LVMPD.COM>, Dennis Domansky <D3930D@LVMPD.COM>, Brett Primas <B3900P@LVMPD.COM>, Thomas Monahan <T2936M@LVMPD.COM>, Phil Roland <p3991r@LVMPD.COM>, “jmorrison@uerlv.com” <jmorrison@uerlv.com>, “ronc@uerlv.com” <ronc@uerlv.com>, “rskidmore@uerlv.com” <rskidmore@uerlv.com>, David Kelly <D7413K@LVMPD.COM>

It has come to our attention that you are currently hosting an official and proprietary Silver Shield document on your website. This is an official request to remove the following document from your site:

“Silver Shield Nevada’s Approach to Critical Infrastructure Protection – Dated November 26th, 2007″

Here is the direct link to the document on your server:

http://publicintelligence.net/silver-shield-nevada%E2%80%99s-approach-to-critical-infrastructure-protection/

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Subject: Silvershield Nevada document availible on-line
From: silvershield <silvershield@LVMPD.COM>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 15:48:47 -0700
To: “legal@publicintelligence.net” <legal@publicintelligence.net>
CC: “ronc@uerlv.com” <ronc@uerlv.com>, “jmorrison@uerlv.com” <jmorrison@uerlv.com>

It has come to our attention that you are currently hosting an official and proprietary Silver Shield document on your website. This is an official request to remove the following document from your site:

“Silver Shield Nevada’s Approach to Critical Infrastructure Protection – Dated November 26th, 2007″

Here is the direct link to the document on your server:

http://publicintelligence.net/silver-shield-nevada%E2%80%99s-approach-to-critical-infrastructure-protection/

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Despite the claims made in the requests, the document is not proprietary information.  The brief is authored and presented by Ernest Chambers Jr., Program Manager/Technical Lead for the Silver Shield program, who is apparently a member of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.  The message was also forwarded to a number of individuals at the following company:

Urban Environmental Research, LLC
1120 North Town Center Drive
Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144

p. 702.254.0306 / f. 702.254.0036

Among these individuals are Paul Washeba CEO; Rachel Skidmore, Project Manager; John Morrison, Project Manager; and Ron Cameron, Senior Project Manager.

Urban Environmental Research, LLC is a risk management and consulting company which evidently helps run the Silver Shield program.  This is most likely where the unusual claim of “proprietary information” comes from.  The records of Nevada’s Silver Shield program should not be proprietary or confidential, even if the program exists as a joint venture between public and private entities, as the public records disclosure laws in Nevada explicitly  ensure that public records “may be used to supply the general public with copies, abstracts or memoranda of the records or may be used in any other way to the advantage of the governmental entity or of the general public”.  Even if the document were proprietary, which it is not, the disclosure of the record would not be capable of being blocked by copyright, as per section 3 of NRS 239.010 which states that a “governmental entity may not reject a book or record which is copyrighted solely because it is copyrighted”.  To further emphasize this point, several quotations from Nevada public records law are cited below.  Mind you, this is only the local legal framework and an entire larger framework exists to protect the rights of freedom of speech and the press in terms of the fair use of copyrighted works, particularly when they contain information in the public interest, such as the surveillance of U.S. cities by unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Nevada Open Meetings Act states that:

“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that all public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.“

Furthermore, the Nevada Open Records Act states:

NRS 239.010  Public books and public records open to inspection; confidential information in public books and records; copyrighted books and records; copies to be provided in medium requested.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, all public books and public records of a governmental entity, the contents of which are not otherwise declared by law to be confidential, must be open at all times during office hours to inspection by any person, and may be fully copied or an abstract or memorandum may be prepared from those public books and public records. Any such copies, abstracts or memoranda may be used to supply the general public with copies, abstracts or memoranda of the records or may be used in any other way to the advantage of the governmental entity or of the general public. This section does not supersede or in any manner affect the federal laws governing copyrights or enlarge, diminish or affect in any other manner the rights of a person in any written book or record which is copyrighted pursuant to federal law.

2.  A governmental entity may not reject a book or record which is copyrighted solely because it is copyrighted.

3.  A governmental entity that has legal custody or control of a public book or record shall not deny a request made pursuant to subsection 1 to inspect or copy a public book or record on the basis that the requested public book or record contains information that is confidential if the governmental entity can redact, delete, conceal or separate the confidential information from the information included in the public book or record that is not otherwise confidential.

4.  A person may request a copy of a public record in any medium in which the public record is readily available. An officer, employee or agent of a governmental entity who has legal custody or control of a public record shall not refuse to provide a copy of that public record in a readily available medium because the officer, employee or agent has already prepared or would prefer to provide the copy in a different medium.

[1:149:1911; RL 3232; NCL 5620]—(NRS A 1963, 26; 1965, 69; 1993, 1230, 2307, 2623; 1995, 503, 716; 1997, 2386; 1999, 1210; 2007, 2062)

The exemptions to this disclosure law, that is, records which are confidential, is covered in the following sections:

NRS 239.0105  Confidentiality of certain records of local governmental entities.

1.  Records of a local governmental entity are confidential and not public books or records within the meaning of NRS 239.010 if:

(a) The records contain the name, address, telephone number or other identifying information of a natural person; and

(b) The natural person whose name, address, telephone number or other identifying information is contained in the records provided such information to the local governmental entity for the purpose of:

(1) Registering with or applying to the local governmental entity for the use of any recreational facility or portion thereof that the local governmental entity offers for use through the acceptance of reservations; or

(2) On his or her own behalf or on behalf of a minor child, registering or enrolling with or applying to the local governmental entity for participation in an instructional or recreational activity or event conducted, operated or sponsored by the local governmental entity.

2.  The records described in subsection 1 must be disclosed by a local governmental entity only pursuant to:

(a) A subpoena or court order, lawfully issued, requiring the disclosure of such records;

(b) An affidavit of an attorney setting forth that the disclosure of such records is relevant to an investigation in anticipation of litigation;

(c) A request by a reporter or editorial employee for the disclosure of such records, if the reporter or editorial employee is employed by or affiliated with a newspaper, press association or commercially operated, federally licensed radio or television station; or

(d) The provisions of NRS 239.0115.

3.  Except as otherwise provided by specific statute or federal law, a natural person shall not provide, and a local governmental entity shall not require, the social security number of any natural person for the purposes described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1.

4.  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “local governmental entity” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 239.121.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 1040; A 2007, 2063)

NRS 239.013  Confidentiality of records of library which identify user with property used.  Any records of a public library or other library which contain the identity of a user and the books, documents, films, recordings or other property of the library which were used are confidential and not public books or records within the meaning of NRS 239.010. Such records may be disclosed only in response to an order issued by a court upon a finding that the disclosure of such records is necessary to protect the public safety or to prosecute a crime.

(Added to NRS by 1981, 182)

LightCaster:
UK: Another unmanned drone takes to the skies...


Big Brother Watch
Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:21 EDT





We've been warned of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being planned to fly over Britain for monitoring antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers.

We've had remote-controlled, flying CCTV cameras used by the police that break privacy laws by flying without permission over residential areas.

Now the Mail on Sunday reports that MI5 and GCHQ are set to buy up a series of 23million Global Hawk drones to 'search for terror cells' in the UK:

A Top-secret US unmanned drone used to locate Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan and Afghanistan could soon be patrolling over British cities to search for hidden terror cells.

It is not known how many drones the UK wants from manufacturer Northrop Grumman, but earlier this year a senior Ministry of Defence procurement official visited the Pentagon to begin negotiations.

MI5 and GCHQ already use three Britten-Norman Islander aircraft fitted with sophisticated surveillance equipment. They have been used to track down terror cells and to locate former Afghan veterans who may have returned to Britain to plot terror attacks.

The aircraft are able to identify suspects using 'voice-prints' of insurgents with British accents that were picked up by spy planes monitoring Taliban radio signals in Afghanistan.
This is a very frightening use of technology: our voices being monitored from 30,000 ft. Sure, the Home Office is rolling-out these aircraft to target terrorists, but what else will they be picking up while they're monitoring our conversations?

Britain doesn't need any more surveillance. End of story.

LightCaster:
Quote from: Protean on April 26, 2010, 03:18:58 PM



(from John Carpenter's "They Live")

"I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble gum."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1vj2TAaH5c

(drone at 2:30 mark)


Flashback:Big Brother spy planes that track the Taliban may soon hover over your home

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 8:28 AM on 24th February 2009

Pilotless planes used to track the Taliban could soon be hovering over our streets, it has emerged.

Remote-controlled drones are already used widely by the military. Now ministers believe they are likely to become 'increasingly useful' for police work.

Armed with heat-seeking cameras, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles would hover hundreds of feet in the air, gathering intelligence and watching suspects.



The Microdrone has been trialled by Merseyside police. The white top features GPS technology, which allows officers to navigate it. It contains a memory card to store recordings from several flights

In theory, their advantages are clear. They are cheaper and quieter than conventional helicopters, can circle their target for hours without refuelling - and they don't get bored on long surveillance missions.

However, their use is likely to further fuel concerns about our march towards a Big Brother state. Britain already has more CCTV cameras than the rest of Europe put together.

More...
I fear a Big Brother state, reveals David Blunkett

More than four million closed-circuit TV cameras cover the streets; cars are monitored using cameras that check registration plates and a new law will see footage taken of shoppers buying alcohol.

The plan to deploy 'spy in the sky' planes is outlined in the Home Office's latest Science and Innovation Strategy. It says: 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are likely to be an increasingly useful tool for police in the future, potentially reducing the number of dangerous situations the police may have to enter and also providing evidence for prosecutions and support police operations in "real time".'

Two years ago, Tony McNulty, then a Home Office minister, acknowledged that scientists were exploring the use of UAV technology for a 'range of policing and security applications'.

They could be used by MI5 to watch a suspect's address for long periods or track a car for miles.

The drones could also help officers plan raids in locations that are hard to reach, to record and monitor accidents or to spot speeding offences or reckless or uninsured drivers.



Goggles enable officers to see exactly what the drone is filming

Ministers are liaising with the Civil Aviation Authority about the introduction of UAVs, some of which measure as little as 2ft across.

But the document cautions: 'We need to investigate how such vehicles could be used, and their ability to provide high-quality evidence for convictions.'

There are also safety concerns surrounding the planes. Those used by the military are prone to crashes on takeoff and landing. Many have been lost over battlefields.

A trial by Merseyside police, of 30,000 remote-controlled miniature helicopters with still, video or infra-red cameras, highlighted more mundane problems related to battery life and the effects of bad weather on flights.

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'I think a lot of people would be concerned at the Home Office looking to use technology more generally associated with the tribal borders of Pakistan and the fight against terror over British towns to watch the British public.

'It is not necessarily as glamorous or as high-tech, but a bobby snapping cuffs on a criminal is the most productive approach.'

____________________________________

Protean,

i love that movie "They Live"

Freeski:
Who pays for all of this?

Valerius:
It is a drudge flash right now!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhs.htm

(flash links will change later)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page