PrisonPlanet Forum

***THE MAIN BOARDS - Welcome to the Prison Planet Educational Forum and Library*** => General Discussion for the Prison Planet Educational Forum and Library => The People v. Elena Kagan...100% Proof that the Supreme Court is compromised and must be investigated => Topic started by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 06:15:18 am

Title: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 06:15:18 am
Look what the MSM is hiding...



SCOTUS OKs Secret Broad Based Search of All Employees Electric Transmissions by Employer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_electronic_privacy_4
Thu Jun 17, 11:45 am ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the search of a police officer's personal, sometimes sexually explicit, messages on a government-owned pager, saying it did not violate his constitutional rights.

The court was unanimous in reversing a federal appeals court ruling that sided with the Ontario, Calif., SWAT team officer.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court that the officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon, could not assume "that his messages were in all circumstances immune from scrutiny."

But Kennedy said the court purposely avoided a broader ruling about employees' expectations of privacy when using equipment provided by their employers because of rapid and unpredictable changes in technology.

The Ontario department discovered many personal messages, including some that were said to be sexually explicit, when it decided to audit text message usage to see whether SWAT team officers were using their pagers too often for personal reasons.

Many employers tell workers there is no guarantee of privacy in anything sent over their company- or government-provided computers, cell phones or pagers.

Ontario has a similar policy, but a police official also informally told officers that no one would audit their text messages if the officers personally paid for charges above a monthly allowance.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the informal policy was enough to give the officers a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their text messages and establish that their constitutional rights had been violated.

Kennedy said that it is true that many employers accept or tolerate personal communications on company time and equipment. But he suggested that employees who want to avoid the potential embarrassment of having those communications revealed might "want to purchase and pay for their own" cell phones and other devices.

Joshua Dressler, an Ohio State University law professor, said the court probably was wise to rule narrowly.

"With modern technology quickly moving in directions the justices could not have imagined even a decade ago, it is increasingly obvious that the Supreme Court will need to determine the limits of government surveillance of our cell phone conversations, text messages, and other non-wire transmissions," Dressler said.



This completely insane ruling is another example of the direction of SCOTUS...corporatistic tyranny over the constitution is the mandate from the banksters who sit above the occupied puppet anti-government.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: phosphene on June 18, 2010, 06:24:38 am
every phone call and text message has been screened by Echelon and satellites and supercomputers for decades. This looks like a message from the judicial branch that its business as usual. Didja really think SWAT was immune from big brother's viewscreens?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: larsonstdoc on June 18, 2010, 08:28:57 am



  Yes another insane ruling from these Anti-Bill of Rights judges.  It is a direct hit on the 4th.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: rawiron1 on June 18, 2010, 09:59:08 am
So I guess when they use their mouths on a public street to communicate there is no expectation of privacy either since when they are on the clock that mouth becomes a government mouth.

Jason
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 10:03:38 am
This will probably be an unpopular post, but I would have to agree with SCOTUS on this one.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's rights to monitor the use of government or company owned equipment in any way.

Companies and government agencies may set up rules for the manner, time and purpose for which company/agency equipment may be used.  Monitoring their equipment to ensure those rules are followed is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 10:22:00 am
This will probably be an unpopular post, but I would have to agree with SCOTUS on this one.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's rights to monitor the use of government or company owned equipment in any way.

Companies and government agencies may set up rules for the manner, time and purpose for which company/agency equipment may be used.  Monitoring their equipment to ensure those rules are followed is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.

The rules were not set up. He was tricked (as well as every other human) into thinking that these communications were similar to talking to a friend on a corner when they were really a wholly owned property of the corporation. There was no risk to the public to warrant a violation of the entire country's civil liberties. This speaks to an even larger issue which is...what is communication in general. Soon, all government employees will require bluetooth type earpieces. They are owned by the Employer. They can be turned on 24/7 to capture every single thing you ever say. All of those communications will be owned by the feudal corporatists.

And the plan is to have thought helmets to better interact with colleagues. Then of course these thought helmets will capture all thoughts that also will be owned by the feudalists. And we all know the final plan which is microchips in the brain. Basically at that point, the brain is not owned by you, it is owned by the feudalists. This is what everyone needs to know, the brain will be owned by the corporation because they have a nanoparticle in it. This is the same rational for justifying Monsanto's control over all food and all future food resources.

Anyone who thinks this 9-0 vote is justified should do very, very, very serious research into the future of communications for corporations, tools used for the sake of a person's job. See they give you a computer, laptop and tell you you must use it...then they can use the camera and microphone to record everything plus they own every keystroke, every image, etc. Then if you complain that they are using the camera to take videos of you at night in your bedroom they get to say it is a corporate owned product and you forgo your inalienable 4th amendment rights.

Most jobs will require a communication device that you cannot turn off and which records your location, your sounds, your smells, your image, video, etc.

This will be stored in Data Warehouses and indexed. This is the "final cut" owned by the fuedalists.

That is why SCOTUS voted this way, they had to, they were told to, this is part of a very sinister agenda and IMO must be exposed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: KI4BNC on June 18, 2010, 10:27:46 am
I have to agree with monkeypuppet and digler-for different reasons:
monkeypuppet is right-government property
also digler is right-it is the foot in the door-The precedent.

          baby steps.watch this hand, over here(while I slap you with the hand you are not looking at).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 10:48:57 am
I have to agree with monkeypuppet and digler-for different reasons:
monkeypuppet is right-government property
also digler is right-it is the foot in the door-The precedent.

          baby steps.watch this hand, over here(while I slap you with the hand you are not looking at).

Well i understand the idea about government property, but it is fraud if there is no education on all of the methods that the property is to be used against the individual and their god given civil liberties. The supreme court should know better, it is a complete violation and we are being fed disinformation that such rulings may occur because they are not tech savvy. well they are supreme court justices whose only purpose is to defend the individual from encroachments on the constitution. I also cannot believe that Sotomayor who has been a very dedicated watchdog of corporate power did not dissent.

Just because a corporation gives you a tool, does not mean that tool can in any way infringe on your god given rights. this is a very simple case and the decision should send shockwaves.

But this is to be expected for anyone who has been reading NWO publications like Brzezinski's Between Two Ages...

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=168647.0

This also will tie into behavioral modification and then the corporation will own your new behavior. I mean it really is absurd to say that because the corporation lends you a tool and tells you that tool is to be used for your job that they own everything else that the tool can steal from your very humanity. I am telling you right now that this decision is huge and based on what I have read so far...shocking. I will be reviewing the entire opinion, but so far the justification of: "because the corporation gave it to the employee" is absurd on its face.

That is the most troubling thing about this. We are being forced into a situation of increased dependency on the corporation and/or dependency on the state. What the SCOTUS is saying is that once you take anything by the state/corporation, you have accepted any infringement on your god given rights, even if you are not educated on what they are.

This really is a big deal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: KI4BNC on June 18, 2010, 10:58:00 am
I guess I am trying to look at it from both sides.
yes if I was gov. and I gave an employee a crackberry I would not want the employee looking at porn.
But I also think that if I was an employee ,once I hit the clock-I am a citizen and the 4th amendment should hold-but again it would be company property and the porn should not be looked at on company property.
My old lady has a company cell phone and my son got her in trouble using her phone to send text messages.Her boss pulls those records a few times a week.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 11:06:27 am
I guess I am trying to look at it from both sides.
yes if I was gov. and I gave an employee a crackberry I would not want the employee looking at porn.
But I also think that if I was an employee ,once I hit the clock-I am a citizen and the 4th amendment should hold-but again it would be company property and the porn should not be looked at on company property.
My old lady has a company cell phone and my son got her in trouble using her phone to send text messages.Her boss pulls those records a few times a week.

porn is different, he was not looking at porn.

But if he was...If an employee spends their time looking at porn on a device provided by the state or while being "on the clock" they can be terminated under various other means. This case was very specific as the employer was granted ownership of all communications, interactions, activity for use at the employer's discretion.

So I have no problem with an employer having a strict code of work ethics, but once that employer then seeks to "own" all information concerning a person's private communications, then this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: agentbluescreen on June 18, 2010, 11:08:54 am
The Freedom is wayyy better than the tyranny.

At least this way you can pretend you are free and know exactly which unelected criminals are trashing your constitution.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: KI4BNC on June 18, 2010, 11:13:12 am
"So I have no problem with an employer having a strict code of work ethics, but once that employer then seeks to "own" all information concerning a person's private communications, then this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment."

I agree.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 11:28:37 am
So I have no problem with an employer having a strict code of work ethics, but once that employer then seeks to "own" all information concerning a person's private communications, then this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment.

I completely agree with you one this point, BUT it wasn't about the communication itself, it was about on what device the communications were sent/received.  If this case involved a company/agency claiming dominion over the communications sent to/from an employee's personal device simply because they were on the clock, I would be outraged... but that isn't what this was about.

I do understand the potential implications, though.  Based on this case, telecom companies can now be more open about their disregard for the private nature of communications sent over their networks by subscribers... the potential for abuse in a lot of areas is apparent.

The only way this precedent can be used for good is if it is used to require all government entities and corporations to have policies regarding communications in place.  I must exclude non-incorporated business, though, since they are typically outside statutory jurisdiction.

Imagine the opposite, though.  If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?  The implications of that would have been just as potentially hazardous to civil liberties.   After all, incorporated entities are seen as "persons" under the law just like we are... a notion with which I am vehemently opposed, btw.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 12:00:56 pm
I completely agree with you one this point, BUT it wasn't about the communication itself, it was about on what device the communications were sent/received.  If this case involved a company/agency claiming dominion over the communications sent to/from an employee's personal device simply because they were on the clock, I would be outraged... but that isn't what this was about.

I do understand the potential implications, though.  Based on this case, telecom companies can now be more open about their disregard for the private nature of communications sent over their networks by subscribers... the potential for abuse in a lot of areas is apparent.

The only way this precedent can be used for good is if it is used to require all government entities and corporations to have policies regarding communications in place.  I must exclude non-incorporated business, though, since they are typically outside statutory jurisdiction.

Imagine the opposite, though.  If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?  The implications of that would have been just as potentially hazardous to civil liberties.   After all, incorporated entities are seen as "persons" under the law just like we are... a notion with which I am vehemently opposed, btw.

If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?



THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT WHEN IT CONFLICTS WITH THE 4TH AMENDMENT! WHERE DID THEY GET THIS RIGHT? IT DOES NOT EXIST, WHERE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS THIS EXISTED?

They have the right to protect their interests and if an employee is damaging the reputation of the emplyer, he/she should be properly investigated and if private communications records are required as evidence, they should be properly acquired through proper and legal methods. There is no risk whatsoever to public safety in this case which allows the end of the 4th amendment to 300+ million American citizens.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 12:12:29 pm
If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?



THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT WHEN IT CONFLICTS WITH THE 4TH AMENDMENT! WHERE DID THEY GET THIS RIGHT? IT DOES NOT EXIST, WHERE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS THIS EXISTED?

They have the right to protect their interests and if an employee is damaging the reputation of the emplyer, he/she should be properly investigated and if private communications records are required as evidence, they should be properly acquired through proper and legal methods. There is no risk whatsoever to public safety in this case which allows the end of the 4th amendment to 300+ million American citizens.

The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of restrictions on the federal government and its agencies only.

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."
Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall (http://www.monkeypuppet.net/truth/caselaw/barron_v_baltimore.pdf), Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 12:28:34 pm
The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of restrictions on the federal government and its agencies only.

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."
Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall (http://www.monkeypuppet.net/truth/caselaw/barron_v_baltimore.pdf), Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

There is no such thing as a federal government unto itself, WTF? The so called "federal government" is merely an agent manufactured on behalf of the states. No states, no federal representative. This is the very nature of the 9th and 10th amendment. the bill of rights is for the protection of the individual from infringement by government whether local, federal agent, or international body. the bill of rights were not even needed by the states when the states went to ratify the constitution. when the people found out about this bullshit, they required the bill of rights before they would allow the states to engage in the ratification of the constitution. It took 10 years for the people working with the states to finalize the bill of rights and they are part and parcel with the articles of the constitution.

to say that these protections of inalienable rights against government tyranny are not individual in nature is surreal.

BTW, when was the last time you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights?

Have you ever even heard of it?

They are rapidly removing one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights, its preamble... How many of you know that the Bill of Rights has a preamble...? It is the enabling clause of the document, which ties it directly to the Constitution... Here it is...

"Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

--Oldyoti

"One of the main purposes for the control and power of the
Establishment media is to keep the masses deceived and
ignorant about their rights and oppressions of their rights."
~Charles Weisman


Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 12:39:53 pm
There is no such thing as a federal government unto itself, WTF? The so called "federal government" is merely an agent manufactured on behalf of the states. No states, no federal representative. This is the very nature of the 9th and 10th amendment. the bill of rights is for the protection of the individual from infringement by government whether local, federal agent, or international body. the bill of rights were not even needed by the states when the states went to ratify the constitution. when the people found out about this bullshit, they required the bill of rights before they would allow the states to engage in the ratification of the constitution. It took 10 years for the people working with the states to finalize the bill of rights and they are part and parcel with the articles of the constitution.

to say that these protections of inalienable rights against government tyranny are not individual in nature is surreal.

BTW, when was the last time you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights?

Have you ever even heard of it?


Yes, I have.  I am quite familiar with it.  The Bill of Rights was put in to protect the rights of the People and the sovereign States from the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution when exercising its limited powers enumerated therein.

The "government tyranny" which the BoR protects against is that of federal usurpation, not that of the State or local governments.  The several States have their own Constitutions and accompanying restrictions on the abuse of power.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 12:53:30 pm
Yes, I have.  I am quite familiar with it.  The Bill of Rights was put in to protect the rights of the People and the sovereign States from the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution when exercising its limited powers enumerated therein.

The "government tyranny" which the BoR protects against is that of federal usurpation, not that of the State or local governments.  The several States have their own Constitutions and accompanying restrictions on the abuse of power.

And the Bill of Rights protects the individual from all government, state or otherwise. BTW, why would then the Supreme Court niot mention states rights as the issue? If your opinion is correct, which I do not believe since rights are given by god and not by a state/states' constitution, why is their no mention of it?

This had nothing to do with states' rights, even though you are interjecting this argument oddly enough. This has to do with civil liberties and protection of the individual from another human being, government, employer, school, etc.

NO ONE CAN VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITHOUT VIOALTING THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: s3d1t0r on June 18, 2010, 01:00:46 pm
THANKS to the SWAT officer for being stupid enough to send and/or receive sexually explicit messages using his employers equipment. You'd have to be pretty dense to do that in the first place, and now, because of this brilliant SWAT officer the argument was forced to go in front of the completely compromised Supreme Court and now here we are.

If that SWAT guy wasn't so reckless, than this issue could have been brought up in the future by somebody who had a chance of winning, with the emphasis on the word "CHANCE".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 01:06:25 pm
THANKS to the SWAT officer for being stupid enough to send and/or receive sexually explicit messages using his employers equipment. You'd have to be pretty dense to do that in the first place, and now, because of this brilliant SWAT officer the argument was forced to go in front of the completely compromised Supreme Court and now here we are.

If that SWAT guy wasn't so reckless, than this issue could have been brought up in the future by somebody who had a chance of winning, with the emphasis on the word "CHANCE".

CORRECT!

But that is the very nature of these rulings. They are now looking to bring up the issue of the crazy guy yelling "god hates fags" while soldiers funerals are going on to challenge free speech. The guy works for the CIA and is paid to provoke issues so insane that people will support SCOTUS to rule against the 1st amendment. If he was not a CIA agent, he would already be in jail for simple disturbing the peace violations and would most likely be in a psych ward. But because he is protected by the Bilderberg intelligence agencies, he will get to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will rule "for" the soldiers and "against" him. What that of course means is that the Tavistock project will be a full success in continuing the rape of the constitution. Notice the MSM is also HUSH HUSH about this case which is completely 100% staged at the expense of soldiers' families who are being used by this project as well as the rest of us who will have to deal with the obvious ruling to come: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/god-hates-fags-case-gets-supreme-court-review/blog-275221/ How is this not a government operation: http://americansfortruth.com/uploads/2007/10/fred_phelps_idiotic_911_message.bmp
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 01:13:36 pm
And the Bill of Rights protects the individual from all government, state or otherwise. BTW, why would then the Supreme Court niot mention states rights as the issue? If your opinion is correct, which I do not believe since rights are given by god and not by a state/states' constitution, why is their no mention of it?

This had nothing to do with states' rights, even though you are interjecting this argument oddly enough. This has to do with civil liberties and protection of the individual from another human being, government, employer, school, etc.

NO ONE CAN VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITHOUT VIOALTING THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.

I'm not saying that rights are granted by states or constitutions, but the protection of those rights, however, is a matter of jurisdiction.  The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a restriction upon the federal government.  Did you bother to read the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall that I linked?  You'll see that this is not my opinion.

And I'm not interjecting states' rights into this.  I'm merely pointing out the purpose of the Bill of Rights.  The U.S. Constitution did not create the State governments.  Therefore, no grants of power nor restrictive provisions relating to the State governments are enumerated therein.  The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of certain restrictions upon the government created by the Constitution.  The only reason the BoR exists is because the States did not believe the general government would be squarely restricted to its enumerated powers.

A State government agency, local government agency, or even a State-chartered corporation, is not capable of violating the 4th Amendment... or any other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  Those restrictions don't apply and one would have to look to the State's Constitution for such protection.

By the way, the "Government" mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not a broad all-encompassing term for all governments everywhere... it is a reference to the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: TBPauly on June 18, 2010, 01:16:13 pm
Not to mention....if a corporation, or members of said corporation, say something they later regret, and it is somehow captured on a mobile device with a video, pic, or audio file (not impossible vis a vis the new smartphones of the day)...they can take this ruling and suppress something that might be worth revealing.

Corporations not only own you 24/7, whether you are on the clock or not, but with this ruling, SCOTUS makes them the law.  If a BP incident were to occur years from now and the current rulings aren't overturned, you'd be lucky to hear about it or know about it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Anti_Illuminati on June 18, 2010, 01:25:04 pm
Monitoring their equipment to ensure those rules are followed is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.
Every public and private area where humans exist will be under surveillance by MIC owned monitoring equipment to make sure that the public "follows their rules" of bending over for fraudulent national security.  So yes it will be a total violation of everyones rights because there will not be anywhere where military industrial complex surveillance will not be.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 01:27:21 pm
I'm not saying that rights are granted by states or constitutions, but the protection of those rights, however, is a matter of jurisdiction.  The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a restriction upon the federal government.  Did you bother to read the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall that I linked?  You'll see that this is not my opinion.

And I'm not interjecting states' rights into this.  I'm merely pointing out the purpose of the Bill of Rights.  The U.S. Constitution did not create the State governments.  Therefore, no grants of power nor restrictive provisions relating to the State governments are enumerated therein.  The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of certain restrictions upon the government created by the Constitution.  The only reason the BoR exists is because the States did not believe the general government would be squarely restricted to its enumerated powers.

A State government agency, local government agency, or even a State-chartered corporation, is not capable of violating the 4th Amendment... or any other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  Those restrictions don't apply and one would have to look to the State's Constitution for such protection.

By the way, the "Government" mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not a broad all-encompassing term for all governments everywhere... it is a reference to the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution.


Chief Justice Marshall?

Marshall?

You want me to use Marshall as a basis of understanding the 4th Amendment? Here is the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not need Marshall to interpret that for me, the people who founded this country spent 10 years deciding on that wording. A chief justice ruling against that wording does not make the wording wrong, it makes him wrong. Although Marshall unconstitutionally ruled against the constitution, it was just more fun for the globalists as it allowed the insane 14th Amendment to be a "solution" to Marshall's planned problem (see how it works):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.



The 14th Amendment amendment was dona as part and parcel to the assassination of Lincoln and the covering up of the true 13th Amandment and 14th Amendment that Lincoln created to actually bestow freedom to all. Instead the international nuts made us all corporate slaves.




As far as the constitution...it is part and parcel with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights which are the "ENABLING DOCUMENTS" for the states' sovereignty and the states' representation abroad. I highly recommend this amazing research as far as what the heck is going on as it relates to the true nature of the constitution and liberty:

Hidden: The REAL 13th Amendment; Will Prosecute & Kill the NWO!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=113335.0
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 01:29:48 pm
Not to mention....if a corporation, or members of said corporation, say something they later regret, and it is somehow captured on a mobile device with a video, pic, or audio file (not impossible vis a vis the new smartphones of the day)...they can take this ruling and suppress something that might be worth revealing.

Corporations not only own you 24/7, whether you are on the clock or not, but with this ruling, SCOTUS makes them the law.  If a BP incident were to occur years from now and the current rulings aren't overturned, you'd be lucky to hear about it or know about it.

Yup, absolutely. They can sue the pants off of you because they own it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 03:29:00 pm
Chief Justice Marshall?

Marshall?

You want me to use Marshall as a basis of understanding the 4th Amendment? Here is the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not need Marshall to interpret that for me, the people who founded this country spent 10 years deciding on that wording. A chief justice ruling against that wording does not make the wording wrong, it makes him wrong. Although Marshall unconstitutionally ruled against the constitution, it was just more fun for the globalists as it allowed the insane 14th Amendment to be a "solution" to Marshall's planned problem (see how it works):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.



The 14th Amendment amendment was dona as part and parcel to the assassination of Lincoln and the covering up of the true 13th Amandment and 14th Amendment that Lincoln created to actually bestow freedom to all. Instead the international nuts made us all corporate slaves.




As far as the constitution...it is part and parcel with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights which are the "ENABLING DOCUMENTS" for the states' sovereignty and the states' representation abroad. I highly recommend this amazing research as far as what the heck is going on as it relates to the true nature of the constitution and liberty:

Hidden: The REAL 13th Amendment; Will Prosecute & Kill the NWO!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=113335.0

Your quote from Wiki is great, actually.  It basically proves my point.  Justice Marshall's OPINION, not ruling, was a reflection on the nature and intent of the Bill of Rights as it pertains rightfully to the General Government created by the document to which it was attached, and the noted distinction that the Bill of Rights was never intended to remove State sovereignty and the People of the States right to self-government.

To apply the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights to the States is no different than saying the U.S. Constitution created the States themselves!

Sorry, but the People formed the States by drafting their respecting Constitutions, and their representatives formed the General Government on their behalf... not the other way around.  Local trumps State... State trumps federal.  The back-asswards view as of the last 130 years due to the 14th Amendment has turned this country on its head as cities are now just soul-less entities incorporated into the State... they are FOR PROFIT businesses with shareholders and investments like any other company.

What part of this jurisdictional matter don't you get?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 03:32:08 pm
Your quote from Wiki is great, actually.  It basically proves my point.  Justice Marshall's OPINION, not ruling, was a reflection on the nature and intent of the Bill of Rights as it pertains rightfully to the General Government created by the document to which it was attached, and the noted distinction that the Bill of Rights was never intended to remove State sovereignty and the People of the States right to self-government.

To apply the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights to the States is no different than saying the U.S. Constitution created the States themselves!

Sorry, but the People formed the States by drafting their respecting Constitutions, and their representatives formed the General Government on their behalf... not the other way around.  Local trumps State... State trumps federal.  The back-asswards view as of the last 130 years due to the 14th Amendment has turned this country on its head as cities are now just soul-less entities incorporated into the State... they are FOR PROFIT businesses with shareholders and investments like any other company.

What part of this jurisdictional matter don't you get?

the fact that you think Marshall is to be quoted to understand states and individual rights is what I mostly do not get.

what about the declaration of independence don't you get? and what state constitution of the original 13 colonies was against the bill of rights to protect the individual? Are you saying that some of the states declared sovereignty before the declaration of independence?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 04:12:59 pm
the fact that you think Marshall is to be quoted to understand states and individual rights is what I mostly do not get.

what about the declaration of independence don't you get? and what state constitution of the original 13 colonies was against the bill of rights to protect the individual? Are you saying that some of the states declared sovereignty before the declaration of independence?

That's not what I'm saying at all.  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.  The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, are, and as such have specific purpose.  The Constitution creates a General Government with the limited powers enumerated therein ceded by the States.  The Bill of Rights was attached to ensure that when exercising its limited power, the General Government did not infringe upon the rights of the People or usurp the sovereign powers of the States (which is what you're advocating, btw).

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says anything about restricting the State governments, companies/corporations or individuals in any way.  Read the Preamble again and understand the context of the capitalized word "Government"... it is referring to the General Government created by the 4 page document it is there to attached.

Justice Marshall's opinion was noting the concern of the court's previous error in upholding that non-federal government agencies are bound to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.  If this were the case at all, then by creating the Constitution itself, the States had already completely handed over their autonomy in all matters, and the People would have then been considered federal citizens.  This wasn't the case then, and it shouldn't be treated as such now.

If your State does not afford similar protections in its State Constitution, I recommend making that happen.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 04:31:38 pm
That's not what I'm saying at all.  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.  The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, are, and as such have specific purpose.  The Constitution creates a General Government with the limited powers enumerated therein ceded by the States.  The Bill of Rights was attached to ensure that when exercising its limited power, the General Government did not infringe upon the rights of the People or usurp the sovereign powers of the States (which is what you're advocating, btw).

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says anything about restricting the State governments, companies/corporations or individuals in any way.  Read the Preamble again and understand the context of the capitalized word "Government"... it is referring to the General Government created by the 4 page document it is there to attached.

Justice Marshall's opinion was noting the concern of the court's previous error in upholding that non-federal government agencies are bound to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.  If this were the case at all, then by creating the Constitution itself, the States had already completely handed over their autonomy in all matters, and the People would have then been considered federal citizens.  This wasn't the case then, and it shouldn't be treated as such now.

If your State does not afford similar protections in its State Constitution, I recommend making that happen.

I am completely lost. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document? Do you know how many times it is used in SCOTUS rulings? Please read this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Declaration_of_Independence_a_legal_document_to_govern_the_US

Perhaps you are confusing federal legislation (US Codes) with the founding documents which relate to all men (even though it took scores of years to get there given the genocide of indians and the continued slavery of immigrants and blacks-an abomination against god if there ever was one). The state cannot inflict tyranny over an individual which violates the bill of rights. If a local cop violates your 4th amendment, what do you do? If you are in a state court and the judge asks you to incriminate yourself, what do you do?

states do not have the power to deny someone of his god given rights.

the state is not above god.

the ruling by marshalls is BS, it makes no sense and was used to provoke until lincolm was assassinated and the corporate slavery 14th amendment came into effect.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 04:42:48 pm
I am completely lost. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document? Do you know how many times it is used in SCOTUS rulings? Please read this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Declaration_of_Independence_a_legal_document_to_govern_the_US

Perhaps you are confusing federal legislation (US Codes) with the founding documents which relate to all men (even though it took scores of years to get there given the genocide of indians and the continued slavery of immigrants and blacks-an abomination against god if there ever was one). The state cannot inflict tyranny over an individual which violates the bill of rights. If a local cop violates your 4th amendment, what do you do? If you are in a state court and the judge asks you to incriminate yourself, what do you do?

states do not have the power to deny someone of his god given rights.

the state is not above god.

the ruling by marshalls is BS, it makes no sense and was used to provoke until lincolm was assassinated and the corporate slavery 14th amendment came into effect.

I didn't say the State has the power to deny someone their God given rights.  I merely stated that using the 4th Amendment in an argument against a local or state agency's actions isn't necessarily the right way to go.  Are you a "U.S. Citizen"?  Is that not a 14th Amendment "person"?  Would not more appropriate protection from local or State action be the State Constitution?  If the State is unwilling to uphold its own protection against such wrongful actions, then would be the time to get the Supreme Court involved to slap the State back in line since it is not upholding its own laws regarding such protection enacted by its citizens.

Unless you're comfortable with being a "U.S. Citizen" under the 14th Amendment.  Then by all means, I stand corrected in the context of your particular perspective... not for mine, though.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 04:44:43 pm
I didn't say the State has the power to deny someone their God given rights.  I merely stated that using the 4th Amendment in an argument against a local or state agency's actions isn't necessarily the right way to go.  Are you a "U.S. Citizen"?  Is that not a 14th Amendment "person"?  Would not more appropriate protection from local or State action be the State Constitution?  If the State is unwilling to uphold its own protection against such wrongful actions, then would be the time to get the Supreme Court involved to slap the State back in line since it is not upholding its own laws regarding such protection enacted by its citizens.

Unless you're comfortable with being a "U.S. Citizen" under the 14th Amendment.  Then by all means, I stand corrected in the context of your particular perspective... not for mine, though.

Well the SCOTUS got involved on behalf of the state to overrule the 4th amendment in ALL EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relations. He won his case in a lower court. So the SCOTUS was thrown upon him, he did not petition the SCOTUS. This is the nature of tyranny and the media are not allowed to talk about it.

As a side note, please read the original 13th Amendment which was ratified and Lincoln's 14th Amendment before he was assassinated by the Banksters. That is the reason for the 14th Amendment, it was a coup d'etat just like JFK was. Randomly blasting the 14th Amendment without understanding how it happened allows globalists to make us look like we want to go back to the pre-emancipation days and that is truly ridiculous. Once the original 13th Amedment and Lincoln's 14th Amendment is understood, then the globalist jerkoffs lose the debate each and every time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Optimus on June 18, 2010, 05:30:12 pm
It's simple, the Sovereign States are bound to follow the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. This simple fact is expressed with the words in Article VII (7) that the US Constitution was established between the States.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." - Article VII of the US Constitution

Since the Constitution was established between the States, the States must abide by it's content, as well as the Bill of Rights. Even being sovereign unto themselves, the States cannot violate the agreement they entered into to be a part of the Union. The States and local governments within them cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution or surpress the God-given rights of their citizens.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 06:15:43 pm
It's simple, the Sovereign States are bound to follow the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. This simple fact is expressed with the words in Article VII (7) that the US Constitution was established between the States.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." - Article VII of the US Constitution

Since the Constitution was established between the States, the States must abide by it's content, as well as the Bill of Rights. Even being sovereign unto themselves, the States cannot violate the agreement they entered into to be a part of the Union. The States and local governments within them cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution or surpress the God-given rights of their citizens.

I have absolutely no problem with these statements except that to extend the adherence to the Bill of Rights to the State and local governments doesn't even make sense since the term "Government" used in the Preamble is contextually in reference to the newly created General Government.

Article VII also includes the supremacy clause which is of import, but regardless, my point is being ignored completely so I'll abstain from any further discourse on the matter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 06:19:02 pm
I have absolutely no problem with these statements except that to extend the adherence to the Bill of Rights to the State and local governments doesn't even make sense since the term "Government" used in the Preamble is contextually in reference to the newly created General Government.

Article VII also includes the supremacy clause which is of import, but regardless, my point is being ignored completely so I'll abstain from any further discourse on the matter.

Your point was addressed every which way, yet you have not once addressed any of the documented and sources points of history. So far your only argument stems from an anti-constitutional decision by a willfully ignorant justice.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 18, 2010, 07:52:17 pm
Your point was addressed every which way, yet you have not once addressed any of the documented and sources points of history. So far your only argument stems from an anti-constitutional decision by a willfully ignorant justice.

You have made no points.

The property did not belong to him.

If someone invited you over to their house, and invite you to take a seat. Do you go over and shit on that seat, then claim you had the right to do so, because they offered to let you use it? When they call the cops demanding you to leave, do you fight back, saying that they are interfering with your liberties?

What about the flip side, wouldn't saying an employer does not have rights to his own property, just as much a violation of rights?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 08:04:49 pm
You have made no points.

The property did not belong to him.

If someone invited you over to their house, and invite you to take a seat. Do you go over and shit on that seat, then claim you had the right to do so, because they offered to let you use it? When they call the cops demanding you to leave, do you fight back, saying that they are interfering with your liberties?

What about the flip side, wouldn't saying an employer does not have rights to his own property, just as much a violation of rights?


again, that is the point. there is no question about the beeper, or the damaging of property. If he took a shit on the pager it may be similar to your freudean anal phase analogy. But unless I missed something, i do not believe he defacated on said property. And concerning the physical property, there is no dispute. The issue is communications. The property is simply a vhicle for communications. It would be similar to saying that your company laptop is not the only thing that the employer owns but also they own the digital images of everything you say within a dozen yards or more plus all noises, sounds, voices of others and all recorded images, video, etc. According to this back ass ruling, they own all the images and sounds taken for 24/7 during the last 5, 10, whatever years of employment even while you are on vacation, sleeping, etc. So this is a 4th amendment issue, not a property issue. I think that is pretty straight forward notwithstanding your eccentric response. BTW, many of these devices have scent sensors as well. So a catalog of defacation and flatulence (in keeping with your freudean controlled analogies) of you and your family will also be stored in the data warehouses for use by the pharaohs. Also, the foods you eat, when you ate them, the ingredients, soon your heart and internal organ rythms, etc.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 18, 2010, 08:11:41 pm
again, that is the point. there is no question about the beeper, or the damaging of property. If he took a shit on the pager it may be similar to your freudean anal phase analogy. But unless I missed something, i do not believe he defacated on said property. And concerning the physical property, there is no dispute. The issue is communications. The property is simply a vhicle for communications. It would be similar to saying that your company laptop is not the only thing that the employer owns but also they own the digital images of everything you say within a dozen yards or more plus all noises, sounds, voices of others and all recorded images, video, etc. According to this back ass ruling, they own all the images and sounds taken for 24/7 during the last 5, 10, whatever years of employment even while you are on vacation, sleeping, etc. So this is a 4th amendment issue, not a property issue. I think that is pretty straight forward notwithstanding your eccentric response. BTW, many of these devices have scent sensors as well. So a catalog of defacation and flatulence (in keeping with your freudean controlled analogies) of you and your family will also be stored in the data warehouses for use by the pharaohs. Also, the foods you eat, when you ate them, the ingredients, soon your heart and internal organ rythms, etc.

That is true, that is exactly why you should not accept company equipment at you home. And if you believe its not an option, you keep the battery removed and in the bag in he closet.

On the flip side, if companies cannot monitor communications. What would stop an employee from "stealing" intellectual property, and making a killing from selling it wholesale from the workplace to the competitor? How would the companies, avoid liabilities, when an employee does misconduct in the name of the company?

Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 08:14:52 pm
That is true, that is exactly why you should not accept company equipment at you home. And if you believe its not an option, you keep the battery removed and in the closet.

On the flip side, if companies cannot monitor communications. What would stop an employee from "stealing" intellectual property, and making a killing from selling it wholesale from the workplace to the competitor?

there is no flip side, the company has a right to intellectual property and has the right to file civil and criminal charges against any theft including intellectual property. That property is the company's. But, the personal communications are not. That is the issue. A company does not need to monitor (and even monitoring is not what the SCOTUS ruled. They ruled the compnay OWNS the communications to be used for datamining, give to media for money, whatever) personal communications to stop theft of intellectual property and if they say they do they are lying.

Quote
How would the employer prevent "time" theft of employees surfing the web randomly when they are on the clock?
FIRE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SLACKERS AND DO NOT WORK!

You do not need a slave dog collar on a worker to tell if they are doing a good job. Proper management and hiring/firing of workers does not require this level of monitoring. If the point of the company is to keep employees as drones then there is rational to monitor everything they do. But any company that actually sells decent products knows who is a slacker and who is not.


Quote
How would the companies, avoid liabilities, when an employee does misconduct in the name of the company?

They should run a good operation without these BS invasions of privacy which always leads to low morale, low work ethic, and barriers between classes of employees. Give the workers freedom and they will work twice as hard, they will stay longer hours and rack their brains to be more effective team members.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 18, 2010, 08:18:22 pm
there is no flip side, the company has a right to intellectual property and has the right to file civil and criminal charges against any theft including intellectual property. That property is the company's. But, the personal communications are not. That is the issue. A company does not need to monitor (and even monitoring is not what the SCOTUS ruled. They ruled the compnay OWNS the communications to be used for datamining, give to media for money, whatever) personal communications to stop theft of intellectual property and if they say they do they are lying.

They own they communication because they are paying for the services of it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 08:21:46 pm
They own they communication because they are paying for the services of it.

paying for a service does not allow a violation of the 4th amendment. i could pay the NRO for heat imagery inside an employees house, it does not make it legal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 08:26:40 pm
Your point was addressed every which way, yet you have not once addressed any of the documented and sources points of history. So far your only argument stems from an anti-constitutional decision by a willfully ignorant justice.

Sheesh...

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

A constitutive act may, certainly, be so formed as to need no declaration of rights. The act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes; and if it goes to all material points, nothing more is wanting... But in a constitutive act which leaves some precious articles unnoticed and raises implications against others, a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our new Federal Constitution. This instrument forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

Context, intent, logic.

Jefferson also noted that the Constitutions of the several States vary on particulars, but all agree on certain principles.  The idea that the previously established declarations of rights incorporated into those Constitutions are somehow rendered inoperative in light of one drafted for inclusion in the federal Constitution is repugnant to the principles upon which our Republic was founded.

My point, which has been ignored, is that the use of the 4th Article in Amendment to the United States Constitution as a defense against the imposition of rights by a State or local government agency is lacking for substance, calling upon a protection outside the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights.  Arguing that the rights there in enumerated were infringed upon, however, would certainly the correct course of action.  The instrument itself is inapplicable.  I am in full agreement that the sloppy nature of this ruling will certainly have consequences, whether intentional or unintentional.

Regardless, the use of someone else's property inherently makes such use a privilege and subject to the arbitrary rules and regulations of the property owner unless an explicit agreement has been drawn.  If you want your communications to be private, use your own property and clearly define the terms of use when that property must interface with another's.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 08:31:32 pm
paying for a service does not allow a violation of the 4th amendment. i could pay the NRO for heat imagery inside an employees house, it does not make it legal.

No, but paying for the service allows, unless otherwise guarded via a contract, the property owner and service payer to monitor, log, review, and use the communications as they wish.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using someone else's property unless an agreement is in place that states otherwise.

Besides, you do not "own" the words after they leave your mouth any more than you "own" a text message after you send it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 08:40:38 pm
Sheesh...

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

A constitutive act may, certainly, be so formed as to need no declaration of rights. The act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes; and if it goes to all material points, nothing more is wanting... But in a constitutive act which leaves some precious articles unnoticed and raises implications against others, a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our new Federal Constitution. This instrument forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

Context, intent, logic.

Jefferson also noted that the Constitutions of the several States vary on particulars, but all agree on certain principles.  The idea that the previously established declarations of rights incorporated into those Constitutions are somehow rendered inoperative in light of one drafted for inclusion in the federal Constitution is repugnant to the principles upon which our Republic was founded.

My point, which has been ignored, is that the use of the 4th Article in Amendment to the United States Constitution as a defense against the imposition of rights by a State or local government agency is lacking for substance, calling upon a protection outside the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights.  Arguing that the rights there in enumerated were infringed upon, however, would certainly the correct course of action.  The instrument itself is inapplicable.  I am in full agreement that the sloppy nature of this ruling will certainly have consequences, whether intentional or unintentional.

Regardless, the use of someone else's property inherently makes such use a privilege and subject to the arbitrary rules and regulations of the property owner unless an explicit agreement has been drawn.  If you want your communications to be private, use your own property and clearly define the terms of use when that property must interface with another's.

The quotes are very nice, but the bill of rights took 10 years to create and refine to ensure the individual protections from all infringements whether they be local, state, national, international, intergalactic, personal, corporate, etc. Please explain what you do when a cop eavesdrops on your home without a warrant. You are saying the 4th amendment does not apply?

As far as the use of someone else's propoerty and having an impression of privacy. Where was there a clear education that it was not private? If you use someone's phone while having dinner at their house, the communication is theirs? If you lease a vehicle, then all communications in that vehicle and near that vehicle are owned by the title holder? Same with a piece of property? What about when you are at your desk at work and you talk to your wife on the phone, is that communication owned by the employer? Again, there is a much larger issue with additional forms of monitoring using cameras, etc.

So what you are saying is that when a school gives laptops to 100 10-14 year olds...the school owns all conversations and all videos and all pictures, etc. 24/7 including if they are sleeping, changing, engaging in normal adolescent behaviour, etc? http://techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1118438253.shtml

This is truly what you are saying?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 08:43:25 pm
No, but paying for the service allows, unless otherwise guarded via a contract, the property owner and service payer to monitor, log, review, and use the communications as they wish.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using someone else's property unless an agreement is in place that states otherwise.

With the exponential growth of technology, there always is an expectation of privacy unless an agreement is made, this is the nature of the 4th amendment and right to privacy.

Quote
Besides, you do not "own" the words after they leave your mouth any more than you "own" a text message after you send it.

? I do not own the words coming out of my mouth? Who does?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 08:58:38 pm
My god, these people had the flames of liberty burning in their hearts and breathing hot ash down the necks of tyrants everywhere (just one simple example of thousands of papers)...


http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-letter-to-thomas-jefferson-october-17-1788.html

James Madison letter
to Thomas Jefferson

New York Ocr. 17. 1788

Dear Sir

I have written a number of letters to you since my return here, and shall add this by another casual opportunity just notified to me by Mr St. John.(1) Your favor of July 31 came to hand the day before yesterday. The pamphlets of the Marquis Condorcet & Mr. Dupont referred to in it have also been received. Your other letters inclosed to the Delegation have been and will be disposed of as you wish; particularly those to Mr. Eppes & Col. Lewis.

Nothing has been done on the subject of the [outfit]: there not having been a Congress of nine States for some time, nor even of seven for the last week. It is pretty certain that there will not again be a quorum of either number within the present year; and by no means certain that there will be one at all under the old Confederation. The Committee finding that nothing could be done have neglected to make a report as yet. I have spoken with a member of it in order to get one made, that the case may fall of course and in a favorable shape within the attention of the new Government. The fear of a precedent will probably lead to an allowance for a limited time, of the [salary as enjoyed originally] by [foreign ministers] in [preference to a separate allowance for outfit]. One of the [members of the treasury board](2) who ought, if certain facts have [not escaped his memory to witness the reasonableness of your] calculations, [takes occasion I find to impress a contrary idea]. Fortunately [his influence will] not [be a very formidable obstacle to right].

The States which have adopted the new Constitution are all proceeding to the arrangements for putting it into action in March next. Pennsylva. alone has as yet actually appointed deputies, & that only for the Senate. My last mentioned that these were Mr. R. Morris & a Mr. McClay. How the other elections there & elsewhere will run is matter of uncertainty. The Presidency alone unites the conjectures of the public. The vice president is not at all marked out by the general voice. As the President will be from a Southern State, it falls almost of course for the other part of the Continent to supply the next in rank. South Carolina may however think of Mr. Rutlidge unless it should be previously discovered that votes will be wasted on him. The only candidates in the Northern States brought forward with their known consent are [Hancock and Adams] and [between these it seems probable the question will lie]. Both of them [are objectionable and would I think be postponed] by the [general suffrage to several others] if they [would accept the place. Hancock] is [weak, ambitious, a courtier of popularity given to low intrigue] and [lately reunited by a factious friendship with S. Adams---;J. Adams] has made [himself obnoxious to many] particularly in the [Southern states by the political principles avowed in his book]. Others [recollecting his cabal during the war against General Washington], knowing [his extravagant self importance] and [considering his preference of an unprofitable dignity to] some [place of emolument] better [adapted to private fortune as a proof of his] having [an eye to the presidency conclude] that [he would not be a very cordial second to the general] and that [an impatient ambition] might [even intrigue for a premature advancement]. The [danger would be the greater if] particular [factious characters] as may be the case, [should get into the public councils. Adams] it appears, is [not unaware of] some [of the obstacles to his wish]: and [thro a letter to Smith] has [thrown out popular sentiments as to the proposed president].

The little pamphlet herewith inclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution. Various and numerous as they appear they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition. The articles relating to Treaties---;to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all the errors in the System positive & negative put together. It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light 1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson,(3) the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of Conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews, Turks & infidels. 3. because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other. 4. because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment wd. have taken place in that State, if the legislative majority had found as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure; and I am persuaded that if a majority of the people were now of one sect, the measure would still take place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created. Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former agst. oppression of more than the smaller part of the society, whereas in the former(4) it may be extended in a manner to the whole. The difference so far as it relates to the point in question---;the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power---;lies in this, that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights, must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not to be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community. What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution. 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho' it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side. It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expence of liberty. But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me well founded. Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power. With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only, is it in my opinion applicable to the Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy. Should a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Hab. corp. be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure. Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighbourhood by Britn. or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety. The best security agst. these evils is to remove the pretext for them. With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nusances in Government. But it is clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to require in all cases a reserved right to the Public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our Governments, than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

I inclose a paper containing the late proceedings in Kentucky.(5) I wish the ensuing Convention may take no step injurious to the character of the district, and favorable to the views of those who wish ill to the U. States. One of my late letters communicated some circumstances which will not fail to occur on perusing the objects of the proposed Convention in next month. Perhaps however there may be less connection between the two cases than at first one is ready to conjecture.

I am Dr Sir with the sincerest esteem & Affectn, Yours, Js. Madison Jr
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:04:37 pm

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_Nicholas_P._Trist

James Madison letter to Nicholas P. Trist

by James Madison 15 Feb. 1830

It has been too much the case in expounding the Constitution of the U. S. that its meaning has been sought not in its peculiar and unprecedented modifications of Power; but by viewing it, some through the medium of a simple Govt. others thro' that of a mere League of Govts. It is neither the one nor the other; but essentially different from both. It must consequently be its own interpreter. No other Government can furnish a key to its true character. Other Governments present an individual & indivisible sovereignty. The Constitution of the U. S. divides the sovereignty; the portions surrendered by the States, composing the Federal sovereignty over specified subjects; the portions retained forming the sovereignty of each over the residuary subjects within its sphere. If sovereignty cannot be thus divided, the Political System of the United States is a chimaera, mocking the vain pretensions of human wisdom. If it can be so divided, the system ought to have a fair opportunity of fulfilling the wishes & expectations which cling to the experiment.

Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions. The Federal Govt. has like the State govts. its Legislative, its Executive & its Judiciary Departments. It has, like them, acknowledged cases in which the powers of these departments are to operate. And the operation is to be directly on persons & things in the one Govt. as in the others. If in some cases, the jurisdiction is concurrent as it is in others exclusive, this is one of the features constituting the peculiarity of the system.

In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts. That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate.

That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain. The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts.

The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, under the collective authority.

The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.

If the Supreme Court of the U. S. be found or deemed not sufficiently independent and impartial for the trust committed to it, a better Tribunal is a desideratum: But whatever this may be, it must necessarily derive its authority from the whole not from the parts, from the States in some collective not individual capacity. And as some such Tribunal is a vital element, a sine qua non, in an efficient & permanent Govt. the Tribunal existing must be acquiesced in, until a better or more satisfactory one can be substituted.

Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.

The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but nowhere reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one society. The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their social state agree to a Govt. over them. These two compacts may be considered as blended in the Constitution of the U. S., which recognises a union or society of States, and makes it the basis of the Govt. formed by the parties to it.

It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.

Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations. It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved. And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it.

Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.

It is indeed inseparable from the nature of a compact, that there is as much right on one side to expound it & to insist on its fulfilment according to that exposition, as there is on the other so to expound it as to furnish a release from it; and that an attempt to annul it by one of the parties, may present to the other, an option of acquiescing in the annulment, or of preventing it as the one or the other course may be deemed the lesser evil. This is a consideration which ought deeply to impress itself on every patriotic mind, as the strongest dissuasion from unnecessary approaches to such a crisis. What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation? Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbours & fellow citizens. It could not be. The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder.

Without identifying the case of the U. S. with that of individual States, there is at least an instructive analogy between them. What would be the condition of the State of N. Y. of Massts. or of Pena. for example, if portions containing their great commercial cities, invoking original rights as paramount to social & constitutional compacts, should erect themselves into distinct & absolute sovereignties? In so doing they would do no more, unless justified by an intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual State as a portion of the Union, in separating itself, without a like cause, from the other portions. Nor would greater evils be inflicted by such a mutilation of a State of some of its parts, than might be felt by some of the States from a separation of its neighbours into absolute and alien sovereignties.

Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it. [See, in Mr. Jefferson's volumes, his letters to J. M. Mr. Monroe & Col. Carrington]

Having suffered my pen to take this ramble over a subject engaging so much of your attention, I will not withhold the notes made by it from your persual. But being aware that without more development & precision, they may in some instances be liable to misapprehension or misconstruction, I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye.

I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself. But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield. The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands. A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 09:09:22 pm
The quotes are very nice, but the bill of rights took 10 years to create and refiune to esure the individual protections from all infringements whether they be local, state, national, international, intergalactic, personal, corporate, etc. Please explain what you do when a cop eavesdrops on your home without a warrant. You are saying the 4th amendment does not apply?

As far as the use of someone else's propoerty and having an impression of privacy. Where was there a clear education that it was not private? If you use someone's phone while having dinner at their house, the communication is theirs? If you lease a vehicle, then all communications in that vehicle and near that vehicle are owned by the title holder? Same with a piece of property? What about when you are at your desk at work and you talk to your wife on the phone, is that communication owned by the employer? Again, there is a much larger issue with additional forms of monitoring using cameras, etc.

So what you are saying is that when a school gives laptops to 100 10-14 year olds...the school owns all conversations and all videos and all pictures, etc. 24/7 including if they are sleeping, changing, engaging in normal adolescent behaviour, etc?

This is truly what you are saying?

Not what I'm saying at all.  Most of the scenarios you posit have varying degrees of privacy applicability when it comes to the reasonable expectation thereof.  To single one out, though, a car is hardly a communication device.

The proper argument to made here is a matter of established wiretapping laws, not the imposition of a right.  Furthermore, my entire point regarding the inapplicability of the BoR in this instance is based upon the use of the instrument itself as a defense, not that I disagree that there may be indeed a violation of privacy... not my call, though (pun intended).

I could certainly claim a 4th Amendment protection in the face of potential search of my vehicle at a traffic stop.  However, to do so would be akin to stating I am indeed a "U.S. Citizen".  I am not comfortable with that as I am not a federal subject.  I would merely answer "no" to their asking to search my vehicle.  By doing so, I am not using an inappropriate legal instrument as a shield, but merely exercising a right antecedent to that instrument.  The protection of that right would come from the Texas State Supreme Court if ultimately necessary, as the State of Texas provides protection of that right in Article I Section 9 of the Texas State Constitution.

As to who "owns" your words when they leave your mouth... no one does.  You may choose to protect the use of those words by others all you want, but given the complexity of society, the use of copyright and trademark laws are more effective in that protection.  If no personally-enforced or assisted protection exists, they become public domain.  I think you would find it difficult to seek remedy for me repeating your words here as I see fit if they are not protected by some trademark or copyright.

Do you believe you "own" the words you have typed on this website?  Must I ask permission to use the quote of your text above?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:15:12 pm
Not what I'm saying at all.  Most of the scenarios you posit have varying degrees of privacy applicability when it comes to the reasonable expectation thereof.  To single one out, though, a car is hardly a communication device.

The proper argument to made here is a matter of established wiretapping laws, not the imposition of a right.  Furthermore, my entire point regarding the inapplicability of the BoR in this instance is based upon the use of the instrument itself as a defense, not that I disagree that there may be indeed a violation of privacy... not my call, though (pun intended).

I could certainly claim a 4th Amendment protection in the face of potential search of my vehicle at a traffic stop.  However, to do so would be akin to stating I am indeed a "U.S. Citizen".  I am not comfortable with that as I am not a federal subject.  I would merely answer "no" to their asking to search my vehicle.  By doing so, I am not using an inappropriate legal instrument as a shield, but merely exercising a right antecedent to that instrument.  The protection of that right would come from the Texas State Supreme Court if ultimately necessary, as the State of Texas provides protection of that right in Article I Section 9 of the Texas State Constitution.

As to who "owns" your words when they leave your mouth... no one does.  You may choose to protect the use of those words by others all you want, but given the complexity of society, the use of copyright and trademark laws are more effective in that protection.  If no personally-enforced or assisted protection exists, they become public domain.  I think you would find it difficult to seek remedy for me repeating your words here as I see fit if they are not protected by some trademark or copyright.

Do you believe you "own" the words you have typed on this website?  Must I ask permission to use the quote of your text above?

I cannot argue with any of that, but do request that you look deeper into the bill of rights and the argument that the intention was protecting individuals from every infringement. And Madison was one wild man when it came to liberty (like many of the others).

As far asything I have ever posted on this forum, use it, paraphrase, say it is your own. Most of it is plaigerized anyway from random information I recall. I try to source as much as possible, if you request any sources for any of my seemingly brazen points, reply with the request or pm it.

But yeah, if you find anything remotely useful, grab it, it is yours (pun intended).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:26:45 pm
Cool links:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_Robert_Walsh

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_William_Rives

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_Thomas_Ritchie

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/War_Message_to_Congress

Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 09:31:24 pm
I cannot argue with any of that, but do request that you look deeper into the bill of rights and the argument that the intention was protecting individuals from every infringement. And Madison was one wild man when it came to liberty (like many of the others).

As far asything I have ever posted on this forum, use it, paraphrase, say it is your own. Most of it is plaigerized anyway from random information I recall. I try to source as much as possible, if you request any sources for any of my seemingly brazen points, reply with the request or pm it.

But yeah, if you find anything remotely useful, grab it, it is yours (pun intended).

I hope I haven't come across as upset or any variety of defensive.  This topic has actually peaked my interest in digging deeper and I thank you for the insight into an alternate perspective from my own... to which I may find room for some modification, no doubt.

I appreciate your steadfast holding to principle, and from what I have read on this forum, I can confidently say we are on the same side when it comes to the fight for and defense of liberty... even if that side is surrounding the opposition as to make us facing each other with sabers drawn :P.  No hard feelings, and if not too much to ask, I'd hope my perspective has at least sparked a mild interest... perhaps we can meet in the middle at some point.


... and thanks for the links!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Tomslik on June 18, 2010, 09:34:07 pm
yeah too much fluoride. really dude, you butt in like a queen's tax collector onto a family that has discovered some lost rubies.

Jumping to conclusions again huh, sweetheart.  Just pointing out the obvious which you obviously aren't aware of.  Sometimes you are informative.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:45:01 pm
Jumping to conclusions again huh, sweetheart.  Just pointing out the obvious which you obviously aren't aware of.  Sometimes you are informative.

ditto
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: kushfiend on June 18, 2010, 09:49:08 pm
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:49:56 pm
I hope I haven't come across as upset or any variety of defensive.  This topic has actually peaked my interest in digging deeper and I thank you for the insight into an alternate perspective from my own... to which I may find room for some modification, no doubt.

I appreciate your steadfast holding to principle, and from what I have read on this forum, I can confidently say we are on the same side when it comes to the fight for and defense of liberty... even if that side is surrounding the opposition as to make us facing each other with sabers drawn :P.  No hard feelings, and if not too much to ask, I'd hope my perspective has at least sparked a mild interest... perhaps we can meet in the middle at some point.


... and thanks for the links!

any excuse i can find to research and expand upon the founding papers is completely welcome. you definitely had me have to understand deeper levels of what I feel are threats to the individual from the oppressors whoever they may be. perhaps this forum can act as a Hegelian dialectic where there are conflicting points of view but all the time supporting the same purpose of defense of liberty and exposing threats to her. now wouldn't that be cool.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:50:40 pm
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

but never the untouchables.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: kushfiend on June 18, 2010, 09:52:18 pm
but never the untouchables.

?  that reference went over my head
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 09:56:06 pm
?  that reference went over my head

those measures used to cull the heard of employees in large corporations never is used against senior vp's of large firms even if they engage in exactly the same activity.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 10:01:51 pm
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

I was "asked" to do this at a previous job.  My answer was "that's not my job".  They threatened to fire me and I furthered my answer with "it's not my job to police employees, but if you make it my job, I'll make it this evening's news".  I was there another year before leaving on good terms before they went bust.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 10:06:08 pm
I was "asked" to do this at a previous job.  My answer was "that's not my job".  They threatened to fire me and I furthered my answer with "it's not my job to police employees, but if you make it my job, I'll make it this evening's news".  I was there another year before leaving on good terms before they went bust.

you ever notice how you can see the trapped soul in their eyes begging to get out? at first they get pissed the f off and then all of their complaining just hides their quiet desperation to see a society where such integrity is promoted rather than squashed. liberty is an infectuous remedy to human suffering whether in the work place or elsewhere.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 18, 2010, 10:08:11 pm
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

You act like they do it because they have nothing better to do. More than a few companies have been sunk because of foolish employees.

What was frightening about 1984 was the pervasiveness of the tyranny. Being an employee is a choice.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: kushfiend on June 18, 2010, 10:10:30 pm
those measures used to cull the heard of employees in large corporations never is used against senior vp's of large firms even if they engage in exactly the same activity.

OH!  Right, of course I completely agree, all the attorneys at my lawfirm get away with so much shit it's ridiculous.  Our entire society is ass backwards, I mean what do I do?  I sit and type at a screen all day, how does that deserve any money at all?  I both love and hate the computer age
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 18, 2010, 10:22:21 pm
You act like they do it because they have nothing better to do. More than a few companies have been sunk because of foolish employees.

What was frightening about 1984 was the pervasiveness of the tyranny. Being an employee is a choice.

which companies were sunk by foolish employees? i think he is talking about the random emails that people sennd to each other which may take up less than 1% of the time/energy/focus. it is like a coffee break, but some companies use it to cull the heard. especially large companies and it is discretionary enforcement. justice turned into Just Us.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 10:24:45 pm
You act like they do it because they have nothing better to do. More than a few companies have been sunk because of foolish employees.

What was frightening about 1984 was the pervasiveness of the tyranny. Being an employee is a choice.

True, but zero tolerance policies are sh-t policies.  Idle hands and all that crap... give people worthwhile rewarding work to do and they won't have the time or desire to f--ck around.  If a company has such a high instance of those abusing privileges, I'd say it's time to address the underlying issue, not sack all "offenders".

I have plenty of users at my present job that f--ck around now and then.  When it gets out of hand, I find creative ways to stop or lessen it.  When the I.T. guy tells you to watch your ass, you somehow know you better heed the warning or else.  Unfortunately, most have short-term memories, so I have to remind them a couple times a year.  My favorite is a "site blocked" message that tells them the next time they visit the site in question, a notification will be sent to management.  My second favorite is having a filter that replaces certain explicit phrases in emails with alternates.  I don't have to read or monitor activity to enforce the very mild terms of use we have.

Granted, larger companies would be hard-pressed to grant such autonomy to I.T., but I doubt they've tried it and instead institute draconian policies... a sign of rigid and ineffective management, imo.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: kushfiend on June 18, 2010, 10:27:24 pm
True, but zero tolerance policies are sh-t policies.  Idle hands and all that crap... give people worthwhile rewarding work to do and they won't have the time or desire to f--ck around.  If a company has such a high instance of those abusing privileges, I'd say it's time to address the underlying issue, not sack all "offenders".

I have plenty of users at my present job that f--ck around now and then.  When it gets out of hand, I find creative ways to stop or lessen it.  When the I.T. guy tells you to watch your ass, you somehow know you better heed the warning or else.  Unfortunately, most have short-term memories, so I have to remind them a couple times a year.  My favorite is a "site blocked" message that tells them the next time they visit the site in question, a notification will be sent to management.  My second favorite is having a filter that replaces certain explicit phrases in emails with alternates.  I don't have to read or monitor activity to enforce the very mild terms of use we have.

Granted, larger companies would be hard-pressed to grant such autonomy to I.T., but I doubt they've tried it and instead institute draconian policies... a sign of rigid and ineffective management, imo.


well said monkey well said indeed.  In this economy, the employer has all the cards.  They just cull the herd to find the people who are desperate enough to work like a slave [me].
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 18, 2010, 10:29:39 pm
which companies were sunk by foolish employees? i think he is talking about the random emails that people sennd to each other which may take up less than 1% of the time/energy/focus. it is like a coffee break, but some companies use it to cull the heard. especially large companies and it is discretionary enforcement. justice turned into Just Us.

I was "guilty" of abusing company resources in my younger days.  The consequence could have been making the company party to a $1.5m civil suit.  They offered to keep me there if I signed a statement saying they were not aware of my activities, which was a lie.  I refused to sign and they fired me.  It was the right move on their part even though I had to face the music alone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 01:43:43 am
Here we go, what timing...



Napolitano Bombshell: "We track every single thing you do on the Internet"

Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/
Published June 18, 2010 | Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens [This is a lie, the CIA recruits American citizens. Terrorists do not recruit shit, anyone not an American who even sneazes "allah akbar" is tracked 24/7 (also illegally). And if they interact with any American citizen it is because the CIA wants that interaction to occur], the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. [THIS IS EXACTLY THE HITLER, BUSH, MAO, STALIN DOCTRINE!]

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training [This is a lie of the highest degree. The top 100 sites used for so called recruiting are run out of Langley, 10 Downing Street, or Tel Aviv. Everybody knows this, is she trying to completely discredit herself?]. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents. [Another lie, just because they initiated Project Northwoods which is so obvious with the Chistmas Underwear Intelligence Op and the Times Square Drill does not mean they can use their own false flag black ops to force us into burning the constitution]

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. [Has she completely lost her f**king mind? What? What the hell do they have to do with each other? And why has terrorism grown while we have spent over $5 Trillion on exterminating over 1 million so called terrorists while raping another million, maiming many millions, and causing massive exoduses. And all this time causing PTSD and radiation in over a million soldiers, causing over 20,000 dead soldiers through the battlefield or by damaging their minds so much that they end up committing suicide. After all the world gave to this massive undertaking we are supposed to believe that so calld terrorism by random nuts increased? How is this even possible? Do you think maybe there is some other hidden agenda going on? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2502830637471895940]

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists. [So the slave Napolitano was not enough for the banksters, Rothschild ordered AP to add that cherry of a comment. Hey Rothschild, we know that both Fort Hood and Times Square were protected patsies by the Terrorist Industrial Complex and that it is funded by Bilderberg and acts on behalf of Bilderberg. Bilderberg had the largest motive for the Fort Hood massacre and then ran the 24/7 psyops about so called Homegrown Terrorism and the evil Internet. Thanks for confirming this "kill the Internet" motive.]

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss -- such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
[THEY HAD THESE RAPE SCANNERS AT THE AIRPORT HE FLEW OUT OF! UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE KENNEDY EXPLAINED IN A LIVE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT HE WAS PUT ON THE PLANE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND HAD NO PASSPORT BY A US INTELLIGENCE OFFICER!!!! THESE RAPE SCANNERS CANNOT STOP THE CIA FROM CONDUCTING FALSE FLAGS!!!]


He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners' use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can't have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine. [These scanners are controlled by NRO, she has no power whatsoever on what they do. What a joke]



MORE FUN...



Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0619/pentagon-revives-domestic-spying-unit/
By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, June 19th, 2010 -- 7:13 pm



The Pentagon's spy unit has quietly begun to rebuild a database for tracking potential terrorist threats that was shut down after it emerged that it had been collecting information on American anti-war activists.

The Defense Intelligence Agency filed notice this week that it plans to create a new section called Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operation Records, whose purpose will be to "document intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and counternarcotic operations relating to the protection of national security."

But while the unit's name refers to "foreign intelligence," civil liberties advocates and the Pentagon's own description of the program suggest that Americans will likely be included in the new database.

FICOR replaces a program called Talon, which the DIA created in 2002 under then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as part of the counterterrorism efforts following the 9/11 attacks. It was disbanded in 2007 after it emerged that Talon had retained information on anti-war protesters, including Quakers, even after it was determined they posed no threat to national security.

DIA spokesman Donald Black told Newsweek that the new database would not include the more controversial elements of the old Talon program. But Jeff Stein at the Washington Post reports that the new program will evidently inherit the old Talon database.

"Why the new depository would want such records while its parent agency no longer has a law enforcement function could not be learned," Stein reports. "Nor could it be learned whether the repository will include intelligence reports on protest groups gathered by its predecessor."

The Pentagon's notice states that the database will collect "identifying information such as name, Social Security Number (SSN), address, citizenship documentation, biometric data, passport number, vehicle identification number and vehicle/vessel license data." As only US residents have Social Security Numbers, it appears the program is being designed at least partly to contain domestic information.

Newsweek cites two unnamed US officials as suggesting that the new program essentially echoes the old one. When CIFA, the DIA division running Talon, was disbanded in 2008, "many of its personnel and some of its functions were transferred" to the new DIA unit running the new database program. The new program will be housed "in the same office space that CIFA once occupied, in a complex near suburban Washington’s Reagan National Airport."

Mike German, a former FBI agent now working with the ACLU, says "Americans should be just as concerned" about the new database as the previous one under the Bush administration.

"It’s a little hard to tell what this is exactly, but we do know that DIA took over 'offensive counterintelligence' for the DoD once CIFA was abandoned," he told the Post's Stein. "It therefore makes sense that this new DIA database would be collecting the same types of information that CIFA collected improperly."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 10:28:48 am
This is the agenda and why the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the 4th Amendment with such callous disregard.

They are following the Bilderberg agenda, this is the plan.

The 4th Amendment is to be destroyed using both "terrorism" and "sex issues" as a way to justify complete nazification of this country via the corporatistic hijacked government.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 10:35:20 am
US Court of App says: "F**k the constitution!
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa107/lostdog2323/rapeofliberty2.jpg)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161220.0



'Welcome to the Fishbowl,' Kozinski Says in Dissent
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/19/24866.htm
By ELIZABETH BANICKI

     (CN) - "Plain view is killing the Fourth Amendment," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his forceful dissent from the 9th Circuit's refusal to reconsider its decision backing the warrantless search of a man's home after officers spotted a gun tucked in couch cushions. "Welcome to the fishbowl," the judge added.

     The decision not to take up the case irked Kozinski so profoundly that he wrote a nine-page dissent, calling the search "a fishing expedition by four officers" that was approved "based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes."

     "Our court approves, without blinking, a police sweep of a person's home without a warrant, without probable cause, without reasonable suspicion and without exigency-in other words with nothing at all," Kozinski wrote.

     Juan Lemus was in his yard one day when two officers pulled up to arrest him. Lemus was trying to walk into his living room when the officers handcuffed him in his doorway.

     A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled that the officers could enter and search the home without suspicion, because they claimed they could see a gun in plain view on Lemus' couch. The gun was found in couch cushions.

     "Did I mention that this was an entry into somebody's home, a place where the protections of the Fourth Amendment are supposedly at their zenith?" Kozinski wrote.

     He said the "evisceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what American's consider their castles is pretty much complete."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: chris jones on June 20, 2010, 10:52:44 am
In order To dominate they must attack the 4th. amendment.
Seriously , how many bills, Gov actions, have been contray to the constitution and bill of rights.

This incident, a cop uses a gov pager, he assumes, no big deal I'm paying for the Fker, so what.who gives a shiiiite.

Does anyone think the Gov was not aware of this usage, that it is a tactic to attack the 4th.Amnd.

Another step into their controll factor, this being a a excuse, .....as if they needed one.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Optimus on June 20, 2010, 04:44:41 pm
They own they communication because they are paying for the services of it.

That is like saying schools can spy on students and their families in the privacy of their own homes using the webcams on government issued laptops because the government paid for the laptops.

They may own the phone, but they do not own the employees private and personal communications. It is no more legal for a company to monitor private communications than it is for the NSA, DHS, FBI, CIA etc. etc. to monitor them.

Policies and rules do not trump the 4th Amendment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Optimus on June 20, 2010, 05:04:21 pm
You have made no points.

The property did not belong to him.

If someone invited you over to their house, and invite you to take a seat. Do you go over and shit on that seat, then claim you had the right to do so, because they offered to let you use it? When they call the cops demanding you to leave, do you fight back, saying that they are interfering with your liberties?

What about the flip side, wouldn't saying an employer does not have rights to his own property, just as much a violation of rights?


Here's another flip side:

If a landlord rents a furnished house to you, does that mean the landlord has the right to enter the home anytime they want to shit on the couch, wipe his ass on the drapes, rifle through the underwear drawer, eat your food out of the refrigerator, listen to the answering machine, read your email, etc, etc. simply because he owns the property, the house and the furnishings? I think not.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 20, 2010, 05:13:07 pm
That is like saying schools can spy on students and their families in the privacy of their own homes using the webcams on government issued laptops because the government paid for the laptops.

They may own the phone, but they do not own the employees private and personal communications. It is no more legal for a company to monitor private communications than it is for the NSA, DHS, FBI, CIA etc. etc. to monitor them.

Policies and rules do not trump the 4th Amendment.

No it isn't. The student's are not "employees". Many of them are not there by "choice" of them or their parents. The laptops are public property. The students were likely not aware that the cameras were monitored.

The case is an employee, of the government. Using a private (as in not public) equipment. Employers are supposed to give terms of use, to employees as a condition of employment, using company equipment, need to sign.

Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 05:17:26 pm
No it isn't. The student's are not "employees". Many of them are not there by "choice" of them or their parents. The laptops are public property. The students were likely not aware that the cameras were monitored.

The case is an employee, of the government. Using a private (as in not public) equipment. Employers are supposed to give terms of use, to employees as a condition of employment, using company equipment, need to sign.

Apples and oranges.

"Employers are supposed to give terms of use, to employees as a condition of employment, using company equipment, need to sign."

They also need to give details of what invasions of privacy can be expected. We are not sure either were done.

They are the same thing it is 4th amendment creep and it is going on everywhere., They are the same exact thing and it will get much much worse (already is).

New cars have cameras, scent monitoring, pressure monitoring, microphones, gps, rfid, etc. all of this information is connected to your bio-ID kept in a secret agency of the US government now publicly admitted. This is the same exact thing and the SCOTUS is in on the game to rape the 4th amendment for the Bilderberg bankers. They have been doing it for decades.

That is the point
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 20, 2010, 05:25:49 pm
New cars have cameras, scent monitoring, pressure monitoring, microphones, gps, rfid, etc. all of this information is connected to your bio-ID kept in a secret agency of the US government now publicly admitted. This is the same exact thing and the SCOTUS is in on the game to rape the 4th amendment for the Bilderberg bankers. They have been doing it for decades.

That is the point

Again, you are using a strawman attack. I agree that wiretapping of your home and your car, is a breach of the 4th. And don't use that "well if the lender holds the title" B.S. It only shows your ignorance of property right laws.

The issue here is the pager or the paging service was not his. Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. Arguing the opposite, is a much. Its saying, a property owner, has no rights to his own possessions.

You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by constantly and intentionally resorting to fallacious methods of argumentation.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 05:35:33 pm
Again, you are using a strawman attack. I agree that wiretapping of your home and your car, is a breach of the 4th. And don't use that "well if the lender holds the title" B.S. It only shows your ignorance of property right laws.

The issue here is the pager or the paging service was not his. Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. Arguing the opposite, is a much. Its saying, a property owner, has no rights to his own possessions.

You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by constantly and intentionally resorting to fallacious methods of argumentation.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The following argument:

"Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. "

Is actually the heart of the problem. They do not have the right when it conflicts of the forth amendment. That is one of the most essential purposes of the forth amendment. Companies, neighbors, government, employers, etc. cannot use their own property to invade your privacy. You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by intentially resorting to confusing property (a beeper) with privacy (communications). You can post links to thousands of classic Karl Rove type defenses (straw man, etc.) it does not stop the truth that physical property and private communications are as different as night and day. The communications are not the property of the employer, but SCOTUS said that because they could have been deemed a threat in some way, they granted that right (illegally) to the emplyer. They transfered ownership with this decision of a 4th Amendment protected right and instead called it a property to be given to the employer. This is such an invasion to civil liberties for anyone who knows that the plan is to have like 100 companies in total worldwide and no one will be able to get a job outside of those companies. And companies more and more are using fleets, laptops, cellphones, even housing to invade the 4th amendment privacy protected by the constitution. This is a much bigger issue and as said earlier, the cop's actions are being used to create polarization into what is a very clear cut case of 4th amendment violations.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 20, 2010, 05:43:50 pm
The following argument:

"Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. "

Is actually the heart of the problem. They do not have the right when it conflicts of the forth amendment. That is one of the most essential purposes of the forth amendment. Companies, neighbors, government, employers, etc. cannot use their own property to invade your privacy. You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by intentially resorting to confusing property (a beeper) with privacy (communications). You can post links to thousands of classic Karl Rove type defenses (straw man, etc.) it does not stop the truth that physical property and private communications are as different as night and day.


Do you have a reading problem.

"
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"

Since the pager or its service did not belong to the employee, and was not public property. The ruling actually upheld the fourth, because "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in this case is applying to the employer. You are arguing against the forth amendment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 05:48:01 pm
Do you have a reading problem.

"
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"

Since the pager or its service did not belong to the employee, and was not public property. The ruling actually upheld the fourth, because "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in this case is applying to the employer. You are arguing against the forth amendment.

Since the pager was used in his house and car and on his person outside the workplace, the ruling actually violates the 4th Amendment. You are now just being funny.

There is also an argument that personal communications in the workplace also should have protection under the 4th amendment. A person makes a phone call to his wife while at work, is that conversation owned by the employer? Is there proper notice to this possibility at the workplace?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: nustada on June 20, 2010, 05:55:45 pm
Since the pager was used in his house and car and on his person outside the workplace, the ruling actually violates the 4th Amendment. You are now just being funny.

There is also an argument that personal communications in the workplace also should have protection under the 4th amendment. A person makes a phone call to his wife while at work, is that conversation owned by the employer? Is there proper notice to this possibility at the workplace?

So if I stole your computer, used it at my house, it becomes mine. hmm. I am liking you logic more and more.

And to your second question, the answer is yes. That is why it is a bad idea to use company property for personal things. It is theft, generally tolerated theft, but still theft.

Again you failed to read the forth. The forth talks about being secure in person and property. The property, including the communication service, belongs to the company. Saying a company doesn't have the right to monitor its commutations would be a violation of the 4th, not a protection of it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 07:20:37 pm
So if I stole your computer, used it at my house, it becomes mine. hmm. I am liking you logic more and more.

Nope, that is theft and you again are confusing physical property with electronic communications. I am unsure why you keep doing this, is it the logic of repeating a fallicy over and over again or something? Also, why would you like this, that does not make any sense at all.

Quote
And to your second question, the answer is yes.

That is not true, private electronic communications are not owned by the company and even if they tell you that they snoop, once a personal conversation occurs, standing legal precedent dictates they are to stop snooping.

Quote
That is why it is a bad idea to use company property for personal things.

Absolutely, but bad ideas by one person does not warrant wholesale rape of the constitution for 300+ million and the next 10 generations. Soon you will be unable to not use a company device and it is important to understand the continued violations to privacy going on. What about company clothing if you work at Wal Mart or somewhere else. Does the employer own all of your body movements that are recorded by the clothing? Don't you feel that is a violation of civil rights?

Quote
It is theft, generally tolerated theft, but still theft.

Yes, that is the problem, they are stealing private communications and it is generally tolerated theft. It also is a violation of civil liberties.

Quote
Again you failed to read the forth. The forth talks about being secure in person and property. The property, including the communication service, belongs to the company. Saying a company doesn't have the right to monitor its commutations would be a violation of the 4th, not a protection of it.

Again, you continue to collapse things. Your communications are not their property. They are part of your persons to be protected by the 4th Amendment. That is the very definition of "personal communication". They are personal, they are not work related. They are not owned by the emploer, they are part of a civil liberty to have the god given right to privacy. Your argument about a company needing to be protected by the 4th Amendment is exactly another point that needs to be exposed. A corporation has no bill of rights whatsoever. The bill of rights are just a reinforcement of god given rights.

as explained in the Declaration of Independence, our rights are given to us by our creator. this is the heart of the matter. by you saying that the 4th (or any right in the bill of rights) applies to a man made fabricated entity denies the entire constitution's essense.

the essence of the constitution is to protect the individual from encroaching government tyranny.  the foundation of this country is we the people. the foundation is not to protect corporations (which are being consolidated to limited companies owned by the international elite) from the rights of man and individual freedom.

What this really speaks of as well is the collusion of large government with large corporatism. And everybody knows that is the definition of fascism.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 20, 2010, 10:46:40 pm
THIS IS THE GAMEPLAN!

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE 9-0 SUPREME COURT DECISION!

THEY ARE ALL RELATED!



Remember that school that was spying on kids? Well now it’s creepier
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/02/24/remember-that-school-that-was-spying-on-kids-well-now-its-creepier/
by John Biggs on February 24, 2010

The Lower Merion School District (motto: “We’re Building the Future Police State”), caught using a remote monitoring service on school-supplied laptops while the kids were at home, had some pretty creepy rules on the books to ensure compliance. To wit we find, thanks to strydehax, these gems:

   * Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes
    * Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated
    * Disabling the camera was impossible
    * Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion


Expulsion, eh? Pretty rough stuff. But shouldn’t the school district be able to protect their investment? Well, the reason this all came up was that a kid in the district was caught eating Mike-n-Ikes at home. The principal called him in for eating candy and, presumably, this school watching this kid in his own room.

This means, in an effort to prevent theft, there was some potential pedophilia happening here.

That’s not all. Here’s the PA tech guy, Mike Perbix, talking about the tracking program, LANDRev in a promotional video:

And then there are these testimonials by students at the school, including:

    ” had brought in my own personal computer to work on a project for school one day. I was doing a presentation involving programs not available on the regular computers, only in specific labs. I happened to have a copy of my own. My personal property was confiscated from me in a study hall when I was working on a school assignment because it was against the schools ‘code of conduct’.”

What we have here is a perfect example of why technology, thrown willy-nilly at children, is bad. These laptops gave school authorities the ability to spy on their charges in their own homes. You can see the board meeting now: “Let’s give the kids laptops.” “How do we make sure they don’t look at porn?” “We’ll watch them. I know these dudes with a great solution.” And so it begins. A great idea – giving kids technology – turns into reducing the learning opportunities by essentially making that technology useless. If I were in a flamewar kind of mood, I’d say this is what stymies the One Laptop Per Child project as well. It’s the assumption that kids will break your stuff and so they deserve hobbled hardware. Technology, when misused, does not augment teaching. Instead, it gets in the way of it. This is a dark day for education and will cast a pall over future laptop loaner programs. These administrators should be ashamed.

via BoingBoing

Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Optimus on June 20, 2010, 11:01:56 pm
Bosses are now spying on workers’ home lives-incluing beroom evesropping



Bosses in the Bedroom
http://exceptionmag.com/business/working-life/0001722/bosses-bedroom
Working Life By Lewis Maltby | April 15, 2010


Privacy is dead. Get over it. So says Scott McNealy, former president of Sun Microsystems.

He's right. Workplace privacy is dead and buried. Employers can and do read e-mail, eavesdrop on telephone calls, monitor Internet access and watch workers with hidden cameras (even in bathrooms and locker rooms). Virtually all of this is legal. Technically, employers aren’t supposed to listen to personal telephone calls, but it happens all the time and you have no way of knowing. Some judges have found bathroom cameras to be an invasion of privacy, but other judges allow it.

As bad as this is, it’s getting worse. Bosses are now spying on workers’ home lives. Millions of workers carry company-issued cell phones. Every one of these phones is equipped with GPS. The technology required to track cell phones is readily available and not very expensive. The cost of tracking an employee 24/7 is only $5 a month. Employers often keep GPS tracking a secret or tell the workers they can turn off the GPS when they go home and continue to track them. The National Workrights Institute (NWI) has already begun receiving complaints about GPS.

Even more serious are the problems created by company-issued laptops. Employers usually tell workers it’s OK to use them for personal purposes as well as business. It’s presented as a perk—now you don’t need to buy your own computer.

What employers don’t tell you is that the company’s computer technicians look at your private documents when the computer comes in for upgrading or repair. Not only are your personal e-mail, photographs and financial records revealed, but the techs tell your boss about anything they don’t like. If you say something negative about the company, tell risqué jokes or make controversial comments about politics or religion, it can cost you your job.

If you think your boss wouldn’t fire you for something like this, think again. Heidi Arace was fired by PNC Bank for telling an off-color joke by e-mail. Nate Fulmer lost his job because he criticized organized religion on his personal website.

The ultimate nightmare comes from webcams. If your company-issued laptop has a webcam, bosses can turn it on whenever they want. If they do it at night, they’ll probably see the inside of your house, maybe your bedroom. A suburban Philadelphia school district was recently caught turning on the webcams in laptops issued to students. Some were in the students' bedrooms.

Unionized workers have some protection against these abuses. While the law on GPS is still emerging, many labor lawyers believe GPS tracking is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Union members also are protected against arbitrary termination. It would be highly unlikely an arbitrator would uphold the termination of a worker who turned off the GPS when they went off duty. Nor would an arbitrator allow an employer to fire a union worker because they said something on their personal blog the boss didn’t like.

But for the rest of us, these practices are legal. Congress has been asleep at the switch when it comes to protecting privacy for the past 20 years. The last federal privacy law was enacted in 1986 and doesn’t even mention electronic communications other than telephone calls. Since then, advancing technology and employer abuse have eliminated any semblance of privacy at work. It’s time for Congress to wake up and take action before our private lives become an open book to employers as well.

Lewis Maltby is president and founder of the National Workrights Institute (NWI), a human rights organization committed to workplace issues, and author of the new book, Can They Do That?: Retaking Our Fundamental Rights in the Workplace.

Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 21, 2010, 03:32:20 pm
California License Plates May Go Digital

California drivers may soon come bumper to bumper with the latest product of the digital age: ad-blaring license plates.

State lawmakers are considering a bill allowing the state to begin researching the use of electronic license plates for vehicles.

The device would mimic a standard license plate when the vehicle is moving but would switch to digital messages when it is stopped for more than four seconds in traffic or at a red light.

In emergencies, the plates could be used to broadcast Amber Alerts or traffic information.

The author of SB1453 says California would be the first state to implement such technology if it decides to adopt the plates on a large scale.

Supporters say license-plate advertising could generate much-needed revenue in a state facing a $19 billion deficit.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/California-License-Plates-May-Go-Digital-96758099.html


It would also allow constant monitoring of the vehicle.

Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 05:20:19 am
(http://polytricks.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/brzezinskisplash.jpg)
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
https://www.mega.nu/ampp/privacy.html
-Zbigniew Brzezinski
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 05:23:23 am
Erosion of Individual Privacy - Echelon Subchapter
https://www.mega.nu/ampp/echelon.html#metatop

Here is the European Parliament's final report on Echelon: https://www.mega.nu/ampp/echelon_ep_final.html

by Jason Vest, The Village Voice, August 11, 1998, http://www.villagevoice.com/ink/news/33vest.shtml


Listening In

The U.S.-led echelon spy network is eavesdropping on the whole world

Suppose, this past weekend, you sent an e-mail to a friend overseas. There's a reasonable possibility your communication was intercepted by a global surveillance system--especially if you happened to discuss last week's bombings in East Africa.

Or suppose you're stuck in traffic and in your road rage you whip out a cell phone and angrily call your congressman's office in Washington. There's a chance the government is listening in on that conversation, too (but only for the purposes of "training" new eavesdroppers).

Or suppose you're on a foreign trip--vacation, business, relief work--and you send off a fax to some folks that Washington doesn't view too keenly. Your message could be taken down and analyzed by the very same system.

That system is called ECHELON and it is controlled by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). In America, it is the Intelligence Network That Dare Not Be Acknowledged. Questions about it at Defense Department briefings are deftly deflected. Requests for information about it under the Freedom of Information Act linger in bureaucratic limbo. Researchers who mention possible uses of it in the presence of intelligence officials are castigated. Members of Congress--theoretically, the people's representatives who provide oversight of the intelligence community--betray no interest in helping anyone find out anything about it. Media outlets (save the award-winning but low-circulation Covert Action Quarterly) ignore it. In the official view of the U.S. Government, it doesn't exist.

But according to current and former intelligence officials, espionage scholars, Australian and British investigative reporters, and a dogged New Zealand researcher, it is all too real. Indeed, a soon-to-be finalized European Parliament report on ECHELON has created quite a stir on the other side of the Atlantic. The report's revelations are so serious that it strongly recommends an intensive investigation of NSA operations.

The facts drawn out by these sources reveal ECHELON as a powerful electronic net--a net that snags from the millions of phone, fax, and modem signals traversing the globe at any moment selected communications of interest to a five-nation intelligence alliance. Once intercepted (based on the use of key words in exchanges), those communiqués are sent in real time to a central computer system run by the NSA; round-the-clock shifts of American, British, Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand analysts pour over them in search of . . . what?

Originally a Cold War tool aimed at the Soviets, ECHELON has been redirected at civilian targetsworldwide. In fact, as the European Parliament report noted, political advocacy groups like Amnesty International and Greenpeace were amongst ECHELON's targets. The system's awesome potential (and potential for abuse) has spurred some traditional watchdogs to delve deep in search of its secrets, and even prompted some of its minders within the intelligence community to come forward. "In some ways," says Reg Whittaker, a professor and intelligence scholar at Canada's York University, "it's probably the most useful means of getting at the Cold War intelligence-sharing relationship that still continues."

While the Central Intelligence Agency--responsible for covert operations and human-gathered intelligence, or HUMINT--is the spy agency most people think of, the NSA is, in many respects, the more powerful and important of the U.S. intelligence organizations. Though its most egregious excesses of 20 years ago are believed to have been curbed, in addition to monitoring all foreign communications, it still has the legal authority to intercept any communication that begins or ends in the U.S., as well as use American citizens' private communications as fodder for trainee spies. Charged with the gathering of signals intelligence, or SIGINT--which encompasses all electronic communications transmissions--the NSA is larger, better funded, and infinitely more secretive than the CIA. Indeed, the key document that articulates its international role has never seen the light of day.

That document, known as the UKUSA Agreement, forged an alliance in 1948 among five countries--the U.S., Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand--to geographically divvy up SIGINT-gathering responsibilities, with the U.S. as director and main underwriter. Like the NSA--hardly known until the Pike and Church congressional investigations of the '70s--the other four countries' SIGINT agencies remain largely unknown and practically free of public oversight. While other member nations conduct their own operations, there has "never been any misunderstanding that we're NSA subsidiaries," according to Mike Frost, an ex-officer in Canada's SIGINT service, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Moreover, all the signatory countries have NSA listening posts within their borders that operate with little or no input from the local agency.

Like nature, however, journalism abhors a vacuum, and the dearth of easily accessible data has inspired a cadre of researchers around the world to monitor the SIGINT community as zealously as possible. It is not, says David Banisar of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), an easy task. Getting raw data is difficult enough. Figuring out what it means even more so, he says, thanks in part to the otherwise conservative NSA's very liberal use of code names--many of which regularly change--for everything from devices to operations. One that appears to have remained constant, however, is ECHELON.

In 1988, Margaret Newsham, a contract employee from Lockheed posted at Menwith Hill, the NSA's enormous listening post in Yorkshire, England, filed a whistleblower suit against Lockheed, charging the company with waste and mismanagement (the case is currently being appealed after an initial dismissal). At the same time, Newsham told Congressional investigators that she had knowledge of illegal eavesdropping on American citizens by NSA personnel. While a committee began investigating, it never released a report. Nonetheless, British investigative reporter Duncan Campbell managed to get hold of some of the committee's findings, including a slew of Menwith Hill operations. Among them was a project described as the latest installment of a system code named ECHELON that would enable the five SIGINT agencies "to monitor and analyze civilian communications into the 21st century."

To SIGINT watchers, the concept wasn't unfamiliar. In the early '80s, while working on his celebrated study of the NSA, The Puzzle Palace, James Bamford discovered that the agency was developing a system called PLATFORM, which would integrate at least 52 separate SIGINT agency computer systems into one central network run out of Fort Meade, Maryland. Then in 1991, an anonymous British SIGINT officer told the TV media about an ongoing operation that intercepted civilian telexes and ran them through computers loaded with a program called "the Dictionary"--a description that jibed with both Bamford and Campbell's gleanings.

In 1996, however, intelligence watchdogs and scholars got an avalanche of answers about ECHELON, upon the publication of Secret Power: New Zealand's Role in the International Spy Network,written by Nicky Hager. A New Zealand activist turned investigative author, Hager spent 12 years digging into the ties between his country's SIGINT agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), and the NSA. Utilizing leaked material and scores of interviews with GCSB officers, Hager not only presented a revealing look at the previously unknown machinations of the GCSB (even New Zealand's Prime Minister was kept in the dark about its full scope) but also produced a highly detailed description of ECHELON.

According to Hager's information--which leading SIGINT scholar and National Security Archive analyst Jeffrey Richelson calls "excellent"--ECHELON functions as a real-time intercept and processing operation geared toward civilian communications. Its first component targets international phone company telecommunications satellites (or Intelsats) from a series of five ground intercept stations located at Yakima, Washington; Sugar Grove, West Virginia; Morwenstow in Cornwall, England; Waihopai, New Zealand; and Geraldton, Australia.

The next component targets other civilian communications satellites, from a similar array of bases, while the final group of facilities intercept international communications as they're relayed from undersea cables to microwave transmitters. According to Hager's sources, each country devises categories of intercept interest. Then a list of key words or phrases (anything from personal, business, and organization names to e-mail addresses to phone and fax numbers) is devised for each category. The categories and keywords are entered by each country into its "Dictionary" computer, which, after recognizing keywords, intercepts full transmissions, and sends them to the terminals of analysts in each of the UKUSA countries.

To the layperson, ECHELON may sound like something out of the X-Files. But the National Security Archives's Richelson and others maintain that not only is this not the stuff of science fiction, but is, in some respects, old hat. More than 20 years ago, then CIA director William Colby matter-of-factly told congressional investigators that the NSA monitored every overseas call made from the United States. Two years ago, British Telecom accidentally disclosed in a court case that it had provided the Menwith Hill station with equipment potentially allowing it access to hundreds of thousands of European calls a day. "Let me put it this way," says a former NSA officer. "Consider that anyone can type a keyword into a Net search engine and get back tens of thousands of hits in a few seconds." A pause. "Assume that people working on the outer edges have capabilities far in excess of what you do."

Since earlier this year, ECHELON has caused something of a panic in Europe, following the disclosure of an official European Parliament report entitled "In Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control." While the report did draw needed attention to ECHELON, it--and subsequent European press coverage--says Richelson, "built ECHELON up into some super-elaborate system that can listen in on everyone at any time, which goes beyond what Nicky Hager wrote." Richelson, along with other SIGINT experts, emphasizes that, despite ECHELON's apparent considerable capabilities, it isn't omniscient.

EPIC's David Banisar points out that despite the high volume of communications signals relayed by satellite and microwave, a great many fiber-optic communications--both local and domestic long distance--can't be intercepted without a direct wiretap. And, adds Canadian ex-spook Mike Frost, there's a real problem sorting and reading all the data; while ECHELON can potentially intercept millions of communications, there simply aren't enough analysts to sort through everything. "Personally, I'm not losing any sleep over this," says Richelson, "because most of the stuff probably sits stored and unused at [NSA headquarters in] Fort Meade."

Richelson's position is echoed by some in the intelligence business ("Sure, there's potential for abuse," says one insider, "but who would you rather have this--us or Saddam Hussein?"). But others don't take such a benign view. "ECHELON has a huge potential for violating privacy and for abuses of democracy," says Hager. "Because it's so powerful and its operations are so secret that there are no real constraints on agencies using it against any target the government chooses. The excessive secrecy built up in the Cold War removes any threat of accountability."

The only time the public gets anything resembling oversight, Hager contends, is when intelligence officials have a crisis of conscience, as several British spooks did in 1992. In a statement to the London Observer, the spies said they felt they could "no longer remain silent regarding that which we regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment we operate"--the establishment in question being the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Britain's version of the NSA. The operatives said that an intercept system based on keyword recognition (sound familiar?) was routinely targeting the communications of Amnesty International and Christian Aid.

Adds Hager, "The use of intelligence services in these cases had nothing to do with national security, but everything to do with keeping tabs on critics. The British government frequently finds itself in political conflict with Amnesty over countries it is supplying arms to or governments with bad human rights records. ECHELON provides the government with a way to gain advantage over Amnesty by eavesdropping on their operations."

Hager and others also argue that potential for abuse lies in the hierarchical and reciprocal nature of the UKUSA alliance. According to data gathered by congressional committees in the '70s, and accounts of former SIGINT officers like Frost, UKUSA partners have, from time to time, used each other to circumvent prohibitions on spying on their own citizens. Frost, for example, directed Canadian eavesdropping operations against both Americans and Britons--at the request of both countries' intelligence services, to whom the surveillance data was subsequently passed.

And British Members of Parliament have raised concerns for years about the lack of oversight at the NSA's Menwith Hill facility--a base on British soil with access to British communications yet run by the NSA, which works closely with the GCHQ. "Given that both the U.S. and Britain turn their electronic spying systems against many other friendly and allied nations," says Hager, "the British would be naive not to assume it is happening to them."

David Banisar, the electronic privacy advocate, says that apparently just asking about ECHELON, or mentioning anything like it, is considered unreasonable. Since earlier this year, Banisar has been trying to get information on ECHELON from the NSA under the Freedom of Information Act. "They're not exactly forthcoming," he says, explaining that he only recently got a response in which he was in effect told the European Parliament report "didn't provide enough information" for the NSA to locate the requested information. However, Wayne Madsen, co-author with Bamford of the most recent edition of The Puzzle Palace, was more directly discouraged from investigating ECHELON's possibly dubious applications, as the following story makes clear.

On April 21, 1996, Chechnyen rebel leader Dzokhar Dudayev was killed when a Russian fighter fired two missiles into his headquarters. At the time of the attack, Dudayev had been talking on his cellular phone to Russian officials in Moscow about possible peace negotiations. According to electronics experts, getting a lock on Dudayev's cell phone signal would not have been difficult, but as Martin Streetly, editor of Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems, noted at the time, the Russian military was so under-equipped and poorly maintained, it was doubtful a radar intercept plane could have honed in on the signal without help.

Speaking at a conference on Information Warfare a month later, Madsen, one of the world's leading SIGINT and computer security experts, explained that it was both politically and technically possible that the NSA helped the Russians kill Dudayev. Noting the West's interest in preserving the Yeltsin presidency and in ensuring the safety of an oil consortium's pipeline running through Chechnya, Madsen explained which NSA satellites could have been used to intercept Dudayev's call and directionally locate its signal.

This wasn't exactly a stunning revelation: Not only had reports recently been released in Australia and Switzerland about police tracking suspects by their cell phone signatures, but Reuters and Agence France-Press had written about the Dudayev scenario as technically plausible. Still, after his talk, Madsen was approached by an Air Force officer assigned to the NSA, who tore into him. "Don't you realize that we have people on the ground over there?" Madsen recalled the officer seething. "You're talking about things that could put them in harm's way." Asks Madsen, "If this was how Dudayev died, do you think it's unreasonable the American people know about the technical aspects behind this kind of diplomacy?"

Nicky Hager says that the New Zealand intelligence officers who talked to him did so out of a growing disillusionment with the importance to New Zealand of access to ECHELON information. In some cases, they said, they had been so busy listening in on targets of interest to other countries, they altogether missed opportunities to gather intelligence in New Zealand's national interest. Ross Coulthart, an investigative reporter with Australia's Nine Network, says intelligence sources of his have reported similar feelings. "In the UKUSA intelligence community, there appear, roughly, to be two camps: those who believe that it's best to fall in line behind the U.S., because the U.S. has acted as protector and funder and gives us resources and limited participation in a system we couldn't support ourselves, and those who think the whole thing is somewhat overrated and sometimes contrary to national interests."

In 1995, for example, Australian intelligence officials leaked a story to the Australian Broadcasting Company that was, at first blush, damaging to themselves: Australian intelligence had bugged the Chinese Embassy in Canberra. However, the Australians had no access to the actual transmissions; they had merely planted the bugs at the behest of the NSA, which was getting the raw feed. "Given that both Australian and American companies were bidding for Chinese wheat contracts at the time," says Coulthart, "it didn't seem like Australia was getting anything out of this arrangement, so they put the story out there."

Indeed, says York University's Whittaker, "there's a really important degree of [economic] tension that wasn't there during the Cold War. On the other hand, most of the threats perceived as common and borderless--terrorism, nuclear proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, and global crime--inspire more cooperation between the UKUSA partners." Hager thinks such cooperation is certainly merited, but what ECHELON to some extent reflects, he believes, is the continued erosion of civil liberties and the notion of sovereignty in the name of security. "Some people I interviewed told me repeatedly, 'It's a good thing for us to be part of this strong alliance,' " he says. "What it amounts to, in the end, is an argument for being a cog in a big intelligence machine."

The Community Open Source Program

Robert David Steele, the leading proponent of the open source intelligence paradigm and founder of Open Source Solutions, represents the extreme anti-privacy stance when he asks, rhetorically, "Would corporations and individuals cheat on their taxes if they were certain they would be caught?" (in his 1993 presentation, God, Man, & INFORMATION: Comments to INTERVAL In-House)

Sidebar from NameBase NewsLine, No. 6, July-September 1994, by Daniel Brandt:
Cyberspace Cowboy with CIA Credentials:
Robert Steele and his Open Source Solutions, Inc.

      Whenever history is stranded between two epochs, those few who recognize the shifting paradigms are usually voices in the wilderness. Robert David Steele spent the 80s fighting the Cold War for the CIA in Latin America, but now he writes for Whole Earth Review, invites Mitch Kapor and John Barlow to speak at the symposiums he organizes, and jets around the globe to swap impressions with unkempt hackers. Back at the ranch, he keeps up a steady diet of schmoozing with Washington intelligence professionals, testifying for Congressional committees, and consulting with corporate information experts. He's a man on a mission.

      Steele believes that U.S. intelligence, with its cumbersome classification system, is like a dinosaur in a tar pit. He likes to tell the story of his "$10 million mistake." In 1988 Steele was responsible for spending this amount to help the Marine Corps set up a new intelligence facility. He acquired a system of workstations to handle Top Secret information, which also meant that they could not be connected to any unclassified systems. Meanwhile, a little personal computer in the next room was the only station with external unclassified access. After the system was built, they discovered that virtually everything the Marine Corps needed -- from bridge loading capabilities to the depth of water in ports around the world -- was available on the little PC through the Internet. But none of it was found on the classified systems, which tended to be filled with data on Soviet strategic capabilities.

      U.S. intelligence was destined for major budget cuts and restructuring, even before the latest embarrassment of the Aldrich Ames case. The CIA's mole problems are merely the last nails in the coffin, and lead to cover stories such as the "U.S. News & World Report" of July 4, 1994, which declares that the CIA is "plagued by incompetence and fraud." But Robert Steele has a fix. All that's required is for U.S. intelligence to abandon its obsession with secrecy and find the nearest on-ramp to the information superhighway. He and his Open Source Solutions, Inc. will be happy to give directions (11005 Langton Arms Court, Oakton VA 22124-1807, Tel: 703-242-1700, Fax: 703-242-1711, Internet: [email protected]). Yes, they even have their own Internet node.

      Steele's articulation of the shortcomings of U.S. intelligence, along with other expert sources such as former Senate intelligence committee staffer Angelo Codevilla's "Informing Statecraft" (1992), make a powerful case that something has to change. The total intelligence budget is just over $37 billion, with the major portion going for technical collection -- mostly satellites and related processing systems. But these systems are narrowly focused, and encourage narrow policies designed to justify the expense. The CIA's portion of this budget is about $3.5 billion, and the NSA's is roughly $4 billion.

      Steele points out that the cost-benefit ratio of open source intelligence (OSCINT) is so productive that nothing else even comes close. But U.S. intelligence is steeped in its old ways. He hears stories of agencies that refuse to cite information in their reports unless it comes from classified sources, or of CIA analysts who wanted to travel to Moscow to take advantage of newly-opened resources but were threatened with loss of their clearances if they made the trip. In other words, U.S. intelligence is doing everything backwards. No one disputes the fact that 80 percent of all the information worth analyzing is publicly available, and of the remaining 20 percent, much of it is made useless by a classification system that delays delivery and frequently restricts access to those who are not inclined to use it. In a rational world, OSCINT would be the "source of first resort."

      Open Source Solutions, Inc., of which Steele is president, sponsors annual symposiums that draw a range of professionals: government intelligence analysts, corporate competitor intelligence departments, Beltway-Bandit think tanks that churn out classified studies for government clients, and various on-line ferrets, hackers, and futurists from around the world. They expected 200 for their 1992 symposium and got over 600. In 1993 they had over 800 from 32 countries, including some retired KGB colonels that made a few officials at CIA headquarters extremely nervous. The next symposium, scheduled for November 8-10 in Washington, will focus less on the U.S. intelligence community itself and more on the intelligence consumer in the global private and public sectors. These symposiums are financed by fees from those who attend ($500 unless you get an academic rate or "hacker scholarship"), and also from corporations and organizations that pay for exhibit space. OSS is nonprofit, but Steele also spun off a for-profit corporation that offers consulting services and "best of class" referrals for $750 a day or $200 an hour.

      Steele's voice is one that needs to be heard in Washington. He's strongest when he criticizes U.S. intelligence, and he's excellent for those who are trying to keep up with cyberspace trends and information resources. But when he presents open source intelligence as an elixir for America's problems, from intelligence to competitiveness to ecology, his reach exceeds his grasp. For example, Steele's assurances that competitiveness and OSCINT are mutually compatible are unconvincing: it seems reasonable that at some point, what I know becomes more valuable to me by virtue of the fact that you DON'T have the same information. Human nature being what it is, secrecy is not something that can be restricted only to executive action and diplomacy, as Steele maintains. It is here to stay, on every level of society. Steele's unreal optimism is a religious conviction that's not uncommon among cyberspace cadets.

      Ironically, the same technology that efficiently delivers Steel's open source intelligence has also given us the ability to keep digital data very secret. There is no guarantee that the mountains of public data won't someday become a Tower of Encrypted Babel. Steele's most glaring omission is his lack of comment on public encryption technology and the Clipper Chip -- the issue that has caused cypherpunks and some corporations to declare war on the U.S. intelligence community. It seems that if Steele took a strong position on this issue, he might lose half of his support in a cyberspace nanosecond.

Leaf through Open Source Solutions' web site at www.oss.net.

The Intelligence Community consists formally of (from the CIA's directory):Director of Central Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Community Management Staff
National Intelligence Council

Department of Defense
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
National Imagery & Mapping Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Marine Corps Intelligence
Navy Intelligence

Departmental Intelligence
Elements (non-DoD)
Department of State
Department of Energy
Department of the Treasury
Federal Bureau of Investigation


The actual Intelligence Community organization of the open source effort is collected under COSPO and the osis.gov domain.
-* whois -h whois.nic.gov osis.gov Community Open Source Program Office (OSIS-DOM) Community Management Staff Washington, DC 20505

"The Community Open Source Program Office (COSPO) and the Community Management Staff (CMS) have joined in developing a World Basic Information Library which will ultimately contain the basic open source information the IC needs to know about any country in the world - before it becomes a crisis area."

Domains within osis.gov (participants in the Open Source Program):
cospo.osis.gov - Central Intelligence Agency (also ic.gov), Community Open Source Program Office
fggm.osis.gov - National Security Agency, Fort George G. Meade
nro.osis.gov - Central Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office
"The NRO designs, builds and operates the nation's reconnaissance satellites. NRO products, provided to an expanding list of customers like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD), can warn of potential trouble spots around the world, help plan military operations, and monitor the environment."
doe.osis.gov - Department of Energy
nsc.osis.gov - National Security Council (nsc.eop.gov)
dia.osis.gov - Defense Intelligence Agency
nima.osis.gov - National Imagery and Mapping Agency
ngic.osis.gov - National Ground Intelligence Center (Fort Belvoir, Charlottesville VA)
"The NGIC's mission is to produce scientific, technical, and general military intelligence on foreign ground forces."
jc2wc.osis.gov - Joint Command and Control Warfare Center (Wright Patterson AFB)
pacom.osis.gov - Pacific Command, Wheeler AAF, HI (pac.disa.mil)

Closely related to OSIS activities is the CIA National Resources Division, covered in the following article.

from TPDL 1999-Apr-19, from the Washington Post, by the CIA and Vernon Loeb:
Gathering Intelligence Nuggets One by One

As they fathom the depths of Chinese nuclear weapons design, trying to figure out whether stolen U.S. secrets helped China test a miniaturized warhead, CIA analysts are finding espionage Beijing- style to be maddeningly diffuse--but not altogether foreign.

Beijing's spy masters are said to gather secrets brought home by thousands of traveling government officials, students and businessmen. Well, the Central Intelligence Agency has its own operation, the National Resources Division, for collecting nuggets of information and bits of insight from American tourists, scholars and executives returning from overseas.

"Even during the Cold War, by far the most useful source of information about the details of matters in the U.S.S.R. was the interagency emigre exploitation program coordinated by the CIA's Domestic Collection division, later called the National Resources Division," according to Allen Thomson, a retired CIA scientist. "Overhead photography was wonderful for some things, but there's a limit to what you can tell by looking down from several hundred miles up. . . . And classical espionage, despite its theoretical promise, came in a dead and distant last in terms of actual performance."

One irony, as a House select committee headed by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) prepares to release an unclassified version of its report on technology transfers to China and Chinese espionage, is that the NRD has been busy debriefing executives from U.S. satellite companies as they return from China about Beijing's missile capabilities and satellite needs.

During the Cold War, Thomson recalled, Soviet emigres rarely provided intelligence blockbusters. "But the little bits and pieces, patiently collected and collated," Thomson said, "were of enormous value in understanding the Soviet Union."
A New Wizard at Langley

Gary L. Smith, director of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, is the newest "wizard" of Langley, set to take over the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology this month. The DS&T is the agency's "Q branch," the place that dreams up, disguises and invents gadgets for far-flung spies. But it's hardly the empire it once was in the 1960s and early 1970s, when CIA scientists designed the agency's own spy satellites and CIA pilots flew U-2 reconnaissance missions.

"For a very significant period of time during the Cold War, it was really the most significant component of the intelligence community," said Jeffrey T. Richelson, an intelligence expert and author now hard at work on "The Wizards of Langley," a book about the DS&T.

But the directorate's mission has dwindled as other parts of the intelligence community more closely controlled by the Pentagon have grabbed pieces of the DS&T empire.

The U-2 program went to the Air Force in 1974 and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) got rid of "Program B," a CIA management component, in 1992. Four years later, the Pentagon created the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), taking control of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, the agency responsible for analyzing aerial imagery.

Richelson called the CIA's removal from imagery analysis "a very unfortunate move--the whole intelligence community, and country, is worse off because of that."
Keeping Budget Secrets Too

Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet, continuing to fight further disclosure of CIA budget information, asked a federal judge last week to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Federation of American Scientists seeking the fiscal 1999 budget request and Congress's appropriation for intelligence.

Having previously disclosed overall intelligence spending of $26.6 billion in fiscal 1997 and $26.7 billion in fiscal 1998, Tenet has refused further disclosure for the past year and now argues that releasing the 1999 total would damage national security by revealing spending trends of interest to foreign spies.

"Now is an especially critical and turbulent period for the intelligence budget," Tenet said, "and the continued secrecy of the fiscal year 1999 budget request and total appropriation is necessary for the protection of vulnerable intelligence capabilities."

Steven Aftergood, director of the federation's project on government secrecy, called Tenet's argument "silly and infuriating." He has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the fiscal 2000 budget request and, if denied, promises to make that part of the lawsuit.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 05:28:19 am
https://www.mega.nu/cm/cm0.html

            An Indictment of the U.S. Government and U.S. Politics


                           Cryptography Manifesto
                           ----------------------
                              By [email protected]
                              7/4/97-L version

 
          "The law does not allow me to testify on any aspect of the
           National Security Agency, even to the Senate Intelligence
           Committee" ---General Allen, Director of the NSA, 1975
 

          "You bastards!" ---guy


******************************************************************************
 
       This is about much more than just cryptography. It is also about
       everyone in the U.S.A. being fingerprinted for a defacto national
       ID card, about massive illegal domestic spying by the NSA, about
       the Military being in control of key politicians, about always
       being in a state of war, and about cybernetic control of society.

******************************************************************************


             Part 1: Massive Domestic Spying via NSA ECHELON
             ---- -  ------- -------- ------ --- --- -------

                     o The NSA Admits
                     o Secret Court
                     o Wild Conspiracy Theory
                     o Over the Top
                     o BAM-BAM-BAM
                     o Australian ECHELON Spotted
                     o New Zealand: Unhappy Campers


             Part 2: On Monitoring and Being Monitored
             ---- -  -- ---------- --- ----- ---------

                     o On Monitoring
                        - Driver's Seat
                        - Five Months Statistics
                        - The FBI Investigations
                        - I Can See What You Are Thinking
                        - Why I Monitor
                     o On Being Monitored


             Part 3: 1984 Means a Constant State of War
             ---- -  ---- ----- - -------- ----- -- ---

                     War #1  -  Drugs
                     War #2  -  Guns
                     War #3  -  Child Pornography
                     War #4  -  Terrorism
                     War #5  -  Hackers


             Part 4: Why unlimited cryptography must be legislated NOW
             ---- -  --- --------- ------------ ---- -- ---------- ---

                     o Key Recovery Means No Cryptography
                     o Key Recovery Isn't Even Feasible
                     o Government Steamroller
                     o Feds' Wacky Pro-GAK Logic
                       - Business Will Demand It
                       - To Safeguard Your Privacy


             Part 5: There is no part five
             ---- -  ----- -- -- ---- ----

             Part 6: Louis Freeh & The Creeping Police State
             ---- -  ----- -----   --- -------- ------ -----

                     o Louis Freeh
                     o National ID Card
                     o Worldwide Banking and Phone Monitoring
                     o Cybernetic Control of Society
                     o Conclusions


******************************************************************************


    ECHELON is NSA's world-wide surveillance network and associated software.

    DICTIONARY - Keyword searching with exclusion logic software.

    ORATORY - Speech recognition. Think of it as speech-to-text software.
              Subject to DICTIONARY searches.

    CALEA   - A 1994 law ("Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act")
              to force a massive reworking of the U.S. telephone infra-
              structure so that the government can intrinsically wiretap it.
              Also called the FBI Digital Telephony Act. It is a domestic
              extension of ECHELON.

    GAK     - Government Access [to cryptographic] Keys. Any cryptography
              product with GAK has been compromised so the government can
              read it.

    SIGINT  - Signals Intelligence = NSA = electronic snooping

    Key Recovery - See GAK.

    C-SPAN  - Two cable channels dedicated to broadcasting both houses of
              Congress and other U.S. governmental functions.

    DEA    -  U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
    DIA    -  U.S. Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency
    DIA    -  U.S. Drug Interdiction Agency (older)

    FBI    -  U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation

    BATF   -  U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

    UKUSA  -  pronounced 'you-koo-za' - a secret wartime treaty that says
              member nations can spy on each others population without
              warrants or limits, and that this can be shared with the
              spied-on country's SIGINT agency.

    PGP    -  Free and unbreakable encryption, available world-wide.

    CISPES -  Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador


    "Ultra-secret" agencies:

    NSA    - U.S. National Security Agency

    GCHQ   - British Government Communications Headquarters

    CSE    - Canada's Communications Security Establishment

    DSD    - Australian Defense Signals Directorate

    GCSB   - New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau



******************************************************************************

                                 Main()
                                 ----


Using mainly publicly available material, here is my documentation of:


    o Part 1: Massive Domestic Spying via NSA ECHELON

              This is highly detailed documentation of NSA spying.
              This spying is illegal, massive, and domestic.
              The documentation is comprehensive, especially since
              it is now brought together in this one section.
 
    o Part 2: On Monitoring and Being Monitored

              In this section, I describe the capabilities of ECHELON
              keyword monitoring. A detailed example --- how to use
              keywords to pick out conversations of interest --- is given.
              I also put forth a case of what it means to be monitored
              heavily by the government.

    o Part 3: 1984 Means a Constant State of War

              The politics of war, and the Orwellian tactics employed by
              by the U.S. Government to control its citizens.

    o Part 4: Why unlimited cryptography must be legislated NOW

              In additional to the reasons given in the previous sections,
              the 'debate' reasons constantly given by the government
              are reviewed and debunked. And our nation's experts say it
              will hurt security. The GAO says the same thing.

    o Part 5: There is no part five.
             
    o Part 6: Louis Freeh & The Creeping Police State

              Basically, Louis Freeh is the anti-Christ leading us to Hell.
              National ID cards are effectively being implemented without
              needing to issue cards. The U.S. Government is trying to
              monitor all phone calls and banking transactions, and have
              all equipment worldwide designed for their monitoring. They
              are bent on controlling the world to the point of there being
              no crime left on the planet. Of course, democracy destroyed
              is the direct result.


----


This publication advocates five major items:

    o Passage of ProCode/SAFE legislation, allowing U.S. companies to
      export unlimited strength cryptography, free from "Key Recovery".
      Key Recovery means messages are no longer a secret, because the
      Government has screwed around with it.

    o Killing the CALEA legislation, which orders all communications
      equipment be DESIGNED so the Government can spy on it.

    o Dismantling domestic ECHELON, the Government listening in on our
      domestic phone calls.

    o A Cabinet-level U.S. Privacy Commission, with teeth.


----


The "average" American has no idea why cryptography is important to them.

It is the only way to begin preventing massive illegal domestic spying.

Currently, there are no restrictions on domestic use of unlimited strength
cryptography. That is not because the Government hasn't complained about
child pornographers or terrorists or other criminals who might use it.

No, that's the reason they are giving for why U.S. companies can't EXPORT
products, such as web browsers, outside U.S. territory, without compromising
it with Government "Key Recovery"; i.e. made stupider and breakable.

Why such an indirect control on what they claim is a domestic problem?

Because that is how 'The Creeping Police State' works.

Slowly, bit-by-bit.

Slowly, State-by-State everyone in the U.S. is being fingerprinted.

The FBI is now advocating biometric capture of all newborns too.

This is an interesting manifesto, please take the time to read it.

Cryptography can be used to keep private: Internet traffic, such as email,
and telephone conversations (PGP phone). A version of PGP phone that looks
and works like a normal telephone --- but can't be spied upon --- would
eventually become wide-spread.

It begins to change the mind-set that the Police State is inevitable.


----

Major references...

In the last several years intelligence operatives, specifically including
SIGINT (signal intelligence) people, have started telling the story about
the massive domestic use of computer monitoring software in the U.S.

Including our domestic phone calls, Internet, fax, everything.

I'm going to quote a number of articles and books; they involved talking
to over 100 of these intelligence operatives.


Buy this book: "Secret Power" by Nicky Hager, ISBN 0-908802-35-8.

It describes in detail the ECHELON platform. It's one of the most important.
New Zealand people are quite unhappy at their place within ECHELON.


Buy this book: "Spyworld: Inside the Canadian and American Intelligence
Establishments" By Mike Frost [NSA trained sigint person] and Michel
Gratton, Toronto Doubleday 1994.

Mr. Frost describes missions in the U.S. where he was trained by the NSA
to handle domestic jobs that would be illegal for the NSA.

These books are quite damning, in a heavily documented way.


This is an AMAZINGLY COMPREHENSIVE BOOK: buy it!

    "Above the Law", by David Burnham, ISBN 0-684-80699-1, 1996


Buy this book: "The Secret War Against the Jews", Authors: John Loftus and
Mark Aarons, ISBN 0-312-11057-X, 1994. Don't let the title throw you: the
authors spoke with a great many intelligence people, and cleverly probed
NSA/CIA/FBI by submitting items for publication approval, and when they
censored something... Bingo.

Because of the Catch-22 situation, the NSA gave up trying to censor many
books, since it can be used to confirm questions they would otherwise have
refused to answer.


The other books referenced within are also suggested reading.
I have sometimes edited for brevity the excerpts, especially
my newspaper clippings of stories flying by.

If I have any news story specifics wrong or if you have more details,
please email me.

Later versions of this document can be searched for at dejanews.com.
Or, you can email me, Subject: Requesting Cryptography Manifesto.


----
---- Here comes a large 'reasoned polemic':
----


This is a U.S.-centric message, but keep reading even if you are not in the
U.S.; British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand citizens are also directly
affected.

This message is about ECHELON, which is an unbelievably huge world-wide
spying apparatus, including the domestic phone calls of many countries.

United States citizens' phone calls are being monitored in a dragnet
fashion not even George Orwell could have imagined.

This was all paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Built in secret. Not debated.

The CALEA legislation is a shameful takes-us-into-the-abyss domestic spy bill.
It is for the FBI to simultaneously monitor HUGE amounts of our phone calls.

And when the judiciary found out about NSA monitoring U.S. citizens'
overseas telephone calls without a warrant: they approved the loss
of our Fourth Amendment rights.

Giving Presidential Directives the same force of law as the Constitution.

Congress has lost it too.

*    The New York Times, undated
*   
*    The House is not expected to vote on the search-and-seizure bill until
*    at least Wednesday. But tonight the Republicans defeated a Democratic
*    amendment that SIMPLY REITERATED THE WORDS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF
*    THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
*   
*    The vote was 303 to 121.
*   
*    The Democrats were trying to portray the Republicans as wanting to
*    eliminate the constitutional protection against unlawful searches.
*   
*    Indeed, they cornered the Republicans into saying that the measure
*    containing the Fourth Amendment would gut the seizure bill.


Just what is it going to take to restore the U.S. Constitution?

Unlimited unregulated cryptography legislation is a beginning baby-step.

Otherwise it might take another civil war. The NSA will not let go quietly.

Sound over-the-top? Wait until you understand the massive surveillance system
that our government has put in place, just how powerful it is, and how they've
used it repeatedly to control lawful peaceful political protest.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 12:23:32 pm
Apple now collecting, sharing precise location of iPhone users
(http://www.mass.gov/courts/probation/pr011206pc.jpg)
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0622/apple-collecting-precise-location-iphone-ipad-users/
By John Byrne
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 -- 9:41 am


The world's largest technology company by market capitalization may soon rival the National Security Agency in its ability to track Americans using their cell phones.

Apple Inc. is now tracking the "precise," "real-time geographic location" of iPhones, iPads and Macintosh computers -- and has unwittingly gotten its customers to sign off on their being tracked by making a little-noticed modification to the language in its apps store.

The company's "partners and licensees" will now be able to collect and store data about your location.

Apple's new privacy policy comes in the wake of a new "Find my iPhone" app the company approved which allows users to recover their lost phones using AT&T's location services.

Tracking digital consumers by location is nothing new. Websites routinely receive information about their users' locations in order to serve relevant advertising. For example, Raw Story's ad providers use information provided by readers' Internet service providers to serve ads appropriate to the region in which they're being read -- for example, you might get an ad for a political campaign in your area. You can opt-out here.)

But Apple's new terms and conditions allow it to store information about users' exact locations, a level of privacy intrusion not heretofore seen. Websites can tell users' locations down to a zip code, generally speaking, but they neither store nor track exact locations -- which Apple and AT&T can do using triangulation down to about ten feet.

(AT&T, if you remember, was a participant in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which allows the US government to track the phone numbers called by its citizens abroad. A whistleblower said that AT&T in fact had its own spy room in San Francisco for the government.)

Adds The Los Angeles Times:

The company says the data is anonymous and does not personally identify users. Analysts have shown, however, that large, specific data sets can be used to identify people based on behavior patterns.

An increasing number of iPhone apps ask users for their location, which is then used by the application or even uploaded to the app's maker. Apps like the Twitter application Tweetie and Google Maps make frequent use of location data, either to help the user get oriented geographically or to associate the user's action with a specific location (as when a tweet is geotagged).

Apple says in its privacy policy that it uses personal information to "improve our services, content, and advertising."

On Monday, Apple also rolled out its new advertising platform, iAd, for the latest version of its iPhone operating system (iOS 4). The company may well be integrating the location information into its advertising system -- for instance, to help local shops sell coupons to users in the neighborhood.

The new passage in Apple's terms and conditions is:

To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.

Some location-based services offered by Apple, such as the MobileMe “Find My iPhone” feature, require your personal information for the feature to work.

Ironically, The Los Angeles Times' parent company released their own iPhone app just two hours after they did a writeup on Apple's new privacy policy.

Mac OS Hints offers this tip to turn off "Location Services" in iPhone OS 4:

As iOS 4 is being released for upgrading today (you'll need iTunes 9.2 to do so), a lot of new features will be introduced. Many are brand new, but some resemble features introduced with the iPad and iPhone OS 3.2, and are improved beyond that.

One of them is the Location Services Settings, especially with respect to privacy controls.

In iPad, a little NE pointing arrow appears in the top bar to alert you that the GPS is being accessed from an application, and that function is now in iOS 4 as well. [crarko adds: My mistake: it appears this wasn't in iPhone OS 3.2, and is new.]

What's new is the ability to toggle on or off the ability of apps to use Location Services on a per app basis, much like Notifications. If you look in Settings » General » Location Services, all the apps that make use of the GPS are listed, along with the NE arrow icon if they have used Location Services in the past 24 hours. There is also a toggle switch for each app, to enable/disable the services.

Note you will no longer be presented with the dialog box asking for permission to use your current location in apps, but will instead be warned by an app that you've turned off that it can't get current information. An app which is enabled will display the arrow icon.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 06:16:34 pm
Interrupting the Algorithmic Gaze? Urban Warfare and US Military Technology Chapter for MacDonald, F. at al (Ed.) Geopolitics and Visual Culture: Representation, Performance, Observant Practice (Tauris)
Download: http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/information/staff/p
by Stephen Graham http://www.dur.ac.uk/geography/staff/geogstaffhidden/?id=934

Abstract:
“For Western military forces, asymmetric warfare in urban areas will be the greatest challenge of this century […]. The city will be the strategic high ground – whoever controls it will dictate the course of future events in the world ” (Dickson, 2002a, 10)

The Colonial Present – Gregory - 2004
The Pentagon’s New Map – Barnett - 2004
Envisioning the Homefront: Militarization, tracking and security culture – Crandall - 2005
War as a Network Enterprise: The New Security Terrain and its Implications – DUFFIELD - 2002
Vertical geopolitics: Baghdad and after – Graham
How technology will defeat terrorism – Huber, Mills - 2002
Sun Tzu’s bad advice: Urban warfare in the information age – Leonhard - 2003
Feral Cities – Norton - 2003
The Urbanization of Insurgency – Taw, Hoffman - 2000
Persistent surveillance comes into view”, Signal Magazine, Available at www.afcea.org/signal – Ackerman - 2002
9-11: A strategic ontology: Pre-emptive strike and the production of (in)security”, InfoTechWarPeace, August 6, www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/ available – Barocas - 2002
If the cities do not fall to the Allies, there may be no alternative to siege warfare”, The Independent – Bellamy - 2003
Change and transformation in military affairs – Cohen - 2004
Combat Zones That See Program: Proper Information. Available at https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=507adc944c32f29724621a5ee4f1637c&_cview=0 – DARPA - 2003
Heterogeneous Urban RSTA Team, Briefing to Industry, Darpa: Washington D – DARPA
The Pentagon as global slum lord – Davis
The war on terror: Cities as the strategic high ground – Dickson
A revolution in military geopolitics – Ek - 2000
Corralling the Trojan Horse: A Proposal for Improving – Glenn, Steed, et al.
Cities and the ‘war on terror,’”p aper submitted – Graham
Switching cities off: Urban infrastructure and US air power – Graham - 2005 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/2120566451-50396594/content~db=all~content=a723844418
Cities and the ‘war on terror – Graham - 2006
Urban combat: confronting the spectre,” Military Review – Grau, Kipp - 1999
Posthuman soldiers and postmodern war – No - 1999
The death of the civilian,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space – Gregory - 2006
Compressing the kill chain.’ Air Force Magazine – Hebert
Facing urban inevitabilities: Military operations – Hewish, Pengelley - 2001
Future Wars in Cities – Hills - 2004
Urban warfare transforms the Corps – Houlgate - 2004
Empire and the Bush doctrine”, Environment and Planning D – Kirsch - 2003
Robotic concepts take shape”, Signal Magazine, Available at www.afcea.org/signal – Lawlor - 2004
Military operations as urban planning – Misselwitz, Weizman - 2003
Stealth, precision, and the making of American foreign policy”, Air and Space Power Chronicles, June, Available at www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/omara.html – Mara, R - 2003
Our soldiers, their cities – Peters - 1996
Neoliberal empire – Pieterse - 2004
Pentagon project could keep a close eye on cities”, Philly.Com, available – Sniffen - 2003
Politics, technology and the revolution in military affairs – Stone - 2004
Heavyweight contender”, Air Force Magazine, 85(7), available at http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2002 – unknown authors - 2001
Desert Screen : War at the – Virilio - 2002
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 06:18:32 pm
Working Paper No. 20 (http://www.crisisstates.com/download/wp/wpSeries2/WP20.2.pdf)
- Cities and Fragile States -  


ROBO-WAR DREAMS:
GLOBAL SOUTH URBANISATION AND
THE US MILITARY’S’ REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS’


Stephen Graham
Department of Geography
Durham University


November 2007

Copyright ©  S. Graham 2007

Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material published in this Working Paper, the Crisis States Research Centre and LSE accept no responsibility for the veracity of claims or accuracy of information provided by contributors.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing of the publisher nor be issued to the public or circulated in any form other than that in which it is published.  

Requests for permission to reproduce this Working Paper, of any part thereof, should be sent to:
The Editor, Crisis States Research Centre, DESTIN, LSE, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.
Crisis States Working Papers Series No.2
ISSN 1749-1797 (print)
ISSN 1749-1800 (online)

Crisis States Research Centre


RoboWar Dreams:
Global South Urbanisation and the US Military’s  
‘Revolution in Military Affairs’

Stephen Graham
Department of Geography
Durham University


Abstract

This article seeks to open up to critical scrutiny the attempts currently being made to re-engineer post-Cold War US military power to directly confront global south urbanisation.  Through analysing the discourses produced by US military commentators about ‘urban warfare,’ and the purported military and technological solutions that might allow US forces to dominate and control global south cities in the future, the paper demonstrates that such environments are being widely essentialised as spaces that necessarily work to undermine the United States’ military’s high-technology systems for surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting. The paper shows how, amid the on-going urban insurgency in Iraq, widescale efforts are being made to ‘urbanise’ these military systems so that US military forces can attempt to assert high-tech dominance over the fine-grained geographies of global south cities in the future. This includes an examination of how US and Israeli forces, by 2007, had already begun to implement ideas of robotised or automated urban warfare to counter the complex insurgencies in Iraq and Palestine/Israel, respectively.

Introduction
“War has entered the city again – the sphere of the everyday” (Misselwitz and Weizman, 2003, 272).

Cities, warfare and organised political violence have always been mutual constructions. “The city, the polis, is constitutive of the form of conflict calledwar, just as war is itself constitutive of the political form called thecity” (Virilio 2002: 5, original emphasis). War and the city have intimately shaped each other throughout urban and military history. “There is […] a direct reciprocity between war and cities”, writes the geographer Ken Hewitt. “The latter are the more thoroughgoing constructs of collective life, containing the definitive human places.  War is the most thorough-going or consciously prosecuted occasion of collective violence that destroys places” (Hewitt 1983: 258).  

The “Implosion of Global and National Politics into the Urban World”

In the ‘new’ wars of the post Cold War - which increasingly straddle the ‘technology gaps’ separating advanced industrial nations from informal fighters – cities, once again, are emerging as the key sites. Indeed, urban areas are now the ‘lightning conductors’ for the world’s political violence. Warfare, like everything else, is being urbanised. The great geopolitical contests of cultural or religious change, ethnic conflict and diasporic social mixing; of economic re-regulation and liberalisation; of militarisation, informatisation, resource exploitation, and ecological change are, to a growing extent, boiling down to often violent conflicts in the key strategic sites of our age: contemporary cities (Sassen 2002).

The world’s geopolitical struggles increasingly articulate around violent conflicts over very local, urban, strategic sites (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2003; Sassen 2002). The last two decades have seen a geopolitical and strategic reshaping of our world based heavily on a proliferation of organised, extremely violent acts against cities, those who live in them, and the support systems that make them work.  

The events of September 11th, 2001 are, of course, the most well-known and extensively reported case (see Calhoun et al 2002; Booth and Dunne 2002). But there are many, many others. Catastrophic urban terrorist attacks – fuelled by religious or political radicalism, anti-modernism, or resistance to brutal occupation, repression, or perceived biases of globalisation - have also targeted urban sites in Kitay (Bali), Moscow, Bombay and Karachi;  London and Madrid; Jakarta, Casablanca, Delhi and Islamabad; and Riyadh,  Mombassa, Kabul, Istanbul and Nairobi.  

Since 9/11, George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ – a purported response to those attacks – has inflicted massive onslaughts by US and British forces on Basra, Baghdad, Kandahar, Kabul and surrounding areas. In the case of Iraq, this happened despite not a shred of evidence emerging to link Saddam Hussein’s regime to Al-Qaeda. Far from being routes to simple ‘regime change’ and peaceful reconstruction, however, these attacks have been followed by complex, uneven, guerrilla-style resistance campaigns against occupying ground forces. In these, the fact that occupiers have to move down from GPS targeting from 40,000 ft, or out from behind armoured plate, to occupy urban sites, means that they have become immensely more vulnerable to political opponents and bitter local civilians alike.  

With a slightly longer time frame we should not forget, either, the levelling of Grozny by the Russians in 1996; the sieges of Sarajevo and Mostar in the Balkan wars of the early 1990s; the LA riots of 1992; the United States’ bloody incursion into Mogadishu in 1993; the 3 continuing suicide bombings in Israeli bars, buses and malls; Israel’s bulldozing of Jenin and Nablus in Spring 2002, and their continuing policies of strangulation, immiseration and demolition against Palestinian cities; or the resource or drug-fuelled guerrilla wars in Freetown, Bogotá or Monrovia.  

Finally, we must also not ignore the increasingly violent temporary urban sieges that now regularly occur around the planet  (Warren 2004; Cockburn and St Clair 2000; Thomas 2003; Negri 2003). In these, anti-globalisation or anti-state movements ‘swarm’ together around the fortified urban summits of the IMF, the G8, and the WTO, to protest against the inequities of neoliberal globalisation. In post-modern, high-tech replays of medieval sieges, temporary walls, battlements, and massive armed force work - often with extreme violence - to try and separate the ‘inside’ from the ‘outside’ on the other side of the street. This happens even though both sets of protagonists are global organisations temporary settled in local space for ritualised, bloody combat.

In such a context, anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has noted what he calls an “implosion of global and national politics into the urban world” (Appadurai 1996: 152).  ‘New’ urban wars, he argues, “take their energy from macro events and processes […] that link global politics to the micro politics of streets and neighbourhoods” (Appadurai 1996: 152-153).  To Appadurai, these new urban wars thus represent little less than:

“a new phase in the life of cities, where the concentration of ethnic populations, the availability of heavy weaponry, and the crowded conditions of civic life create futurist forms of warfare […] and where a general desolation of the national and global landscape has transposed many bizarre racial, religious, and linguistic enmities into scenarios of unrelieved urban terror”  (ibid.)


Global South Urbanisation as a Challenge to Western Military Doctrine

Fuelled by these transformations, Western military theorists and researchers are increasingly preoccupied with how the geographies of global south cities, and processes of global south urbanisation, are beginning to influence both the geopolitics and the techno-science of post Cold-war political violence. Indeed, almost unnoticed within ‘civil’ urban geography and social science, a large ‘shadow’ system of military urban research is quickly being established. Funded by Western military research budgets, this is quickly elaborating how the effects of rapid urbanisation are allegedly already becoming manifest, and how the global intensification of these processes will deepen them in the future (Graham, 2004a).  As Keith Dickson, a US military theorist of urban warfare puts it, the increasing perception within Western militaries is that:

For Western military forces, asymmetric warfare in urban areas will be the greatest challenge of this century […]. The city will be the strategic high ground -- whoever controls it will dictate the course of future events in the world.
(Dickson 2002a: 10)

Motivated by the growing realisation that the scale and significance of contemporary processes of urbanisation across the world might significantly reshape the geopolitics, doctrine and realities of post Cold War Western military strategy, such research fuels a crucial set of techno-military discourses. Within and through these, attempts are currently being made to reconstitute the structure, orientation and techno-science of western military power to directly reflect the alleged implications of such urbanisation.  

The central consensus amongst the wide variety of western military theorists pushing for such shifts is that “modern urban combat operations will become one of the primary challenges of the 21st century” (DIRC 1997: 11). Major Kelly Houlgate (2004), a US Marine Corps commentator, notes already that “of 26 conflicts fought [by US forces]” between 1984 and 2004, “21 have involved urban areas, and 10 have been exclusively urban”.

The widening adoption of ‘urban warfare’ doctrine follows centuries when Western military planners preached Sun Tzu’s mantra from 1500 BC that the “worst policy is to attack cities”.  It follows a post World War II Cold War period marked by an obsession with mass, superpower-led ‘Air-Land’ engagements centred on the North European plain within and above the spaces betweenbypassed European city-regions. Whilst numerous wars were fought by western forces in developing world cities during the Cold war, as part of wider struggles against independence and terrorist movements and the ‘hot’ proxy wars, such conflicts were very much seen by western military theorists as unusual side-shows to the imagined superpower ‘Air-Land’ and nuclear engagements (Davis 2004a).

Consequently, the doctrine of ‘urban warfare,’ already marginal, received very little attention during the Cold War and became even more marginalised within Western military rhetoric (Hills 2004). On the rare occasions when urban warfare was specifically addressed in Cold War military doctrine, United States’ forces, in the euphemistic language so typical of military forces, tended to “approach the urban area by rubbling or isolating the city” using tactics unchanged since World War II (Grubbs 2003: iii). That is, they either ignored, or sought to systematically annihilate, urban places (as at Hue during the Vietnam war).  In the place of this neglect by western military doctrine of the specific challenges of counter-insurgency warfare within cities, a highly contested, diverse and complex set of institutional and techno-scientific battles are now emerging through which attempts are being made to try and re-imagine and reshape Western military forces so that counterinsurgency operations within large urban areas become theirde facto operations (Hills 2004).

Prevailing conceptions of Western military engagement are thus being widely challenged to address the perceived perils of engaging in ‘military operations on urban terrain’ (or ‘MOUT’).  As the world’s pre-eminent military power, the military forces of the United States provide the most interesting and important example of how discursive constructions of ‘urban terrain’ are being used to justify attempts at the ‘transformation’ of the technologies, tactics and strategies of national military intervention more broadly (see Ek 2000).  US military research on ‘urban operations’ dwarfs that of all other nations combined (Hills 2004). The bloody experience of the Iraq urban insurgency is already looming large in these debates. A major review of the imperative of urban warfare ‘doctrine’ for US forces, prepared by Major Lee Grubbs in 2003, for example, stated baldly that “as the Iraq plan evolves, it is clear that the enemies of the United States military have learned a method to mitigate the Joint [US] Force’s dominance in long range surveillance and engagement. The enemy will seek the city and the advantages of mixing with non-combatants” (2003: 56).


The Aim and Structure of the Current Paper

One particularly important feature of US military discourses on urbanisation looms large in such debates. This is the way in which the sheer three-dimensional complexity and scale of global south cities allegedly undermine the United States’ expensively assembled and hegemonic advantages in surveillance, targeting and killing through ‘precise’ air and space-based weapons systems (Graham 2003; Davis 2004b).  

In such a context, this article seeks to analyse critically the ways in which processes of urbanisation are currently being imagined by US military theorists to significantly undermine the military and techno-scientific dominance of the US military in a rapidly urbanising world.  The article is motivated by the argument that the processes through which US military planners imagine, and discursively construct, global south cities as their predominant ‘battlespace’ for the early 21st century, demands critical social scientific scrutiny. The article falls in to three parts. In the first, discursive problematisation of global south cities produced by US military urban researchers and commentators are reviewed.

Emphasis is placed on how developing world cities are depicted as intrinsically labyrinthine, chaotic, structureless and deceptive environments which substantially frustrate the wider US geopolitical strategy based on the US military’s advantages in air and space-based surveillance, digital processing, and ‘network-centric’ warfare – transformations that, together, are sometimes labelled the ‘Revolution in Military affairs’ or ‘RMA’   (Gregory 2004).  

The second part of the paper goes on to analyse the way in which key actors within the US military-industrial complex are suggesting deeply technophiliac ‘solutions’ to this purported  erosion of US geo-strategic power through global south urbanisation. Here what I call the ‘urban turn’ of the of the RMA – the shift in deeply technophiliac discourses from discussions of planet-straddling weapons systems to technological innovations designed to allow the micro-spaces of developing world ‘megacities’ to be controlled - is analysed in detail.  Centred on the concept of ‘persistent area dominance’ within the so-called ‘Long War’, such strategies entail the saturation of ‘adversary’ cities with large numbers of miniature surveillance and targeting systems. These are being designed to support continuous targeting, and destruction, of detected ‘targets’.

An examination follows of how US and Israeli forces, by 2007, had already begun to implement ideas of robotised or automated urban warfare to counter the complex insurgencies in Iraq and Palestine/Israel, respectively. The final part of the paper draws brief theoretical and research conclusions of the preceding discussions.


Dreams Frustrated? Urbanisation and the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ (RMA)

Urban operations represent a black hole in the current Revolution in Military Affairs pantheon of technological advantage […]. The technologies traditionally ascribed to the current Revolution in Military Affairs phenomenon will have negligible impact on Military Operations in Urban Terrain. (Harris 2003: 38-41)

The military strategies to project, sustain and deepen US geopolitical power in the post Cold war period (see Roberts et al 2003; Kirsch 2003; Barnett 2004) rest on the exploitation of a ‘transformation’ of US military power through what has been termed a ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ (see Ek 2000, Pieterse 2004). Centring on the technologies of ‘stealth,’ ‘precision’ targeting, and satellite geo-positioning, the RMA has widely been hailed amongst US military planners as the means to sustain US dominance in the post Cold War world (Stone 2004).

Central to the RMA is the notion that “military operations are now aimed at defined effects rather than attrition of enemy forces or occupation of ground” (Cohen 2004: 395). Through the interlinkage of the ‘system of systems’ of U.S. military technologies, RMA theorists argue that a truly ‘network-centric warfare’ is now possible through which US forces can continually dominate societies deemed to be their adversaries through their increasingly omnipotent surveillance and ‘situational awareness’, devastating and precisely-targeted aerial firepower, and the suppression and degradation of the communications and fighting ability of 6 any opposing forces (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 2001; Graham 2005). Thus, RMA theorists imagine US military operations to be a giant, integrated, ‘network enterprise’ – a ‘just-in-time’ system of posthuman, cyborganised warriors that utilises many of the principles of logistics chain management and new-technology based tracking that are so dominant within contemporary management models (Gray 2003).  

Importantly, however, such technophiliac discourses depicting an RMA ushering new relatively reduced-risk, ‘clean’ and painless strategy of US military dominance assumed that the vast networks of sensors and weapons that needed to be integrated and connected to project US power would workuninterruptedly. Global scales of flow and connection have thus dominated RMA discourses; technological mastery, omnipotent surveillance, real-time ‘situational awareness’, and speed-of-light digital interactions have been widely portrayed as processes that, intrinsically, would usher in US military ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’, on a planetary scale, irrespective of the geographical terrain that was to be dominated.  

RMA discourses have, in this sense, been notably ageographical. Crucially, from the point of view of the current paper, little account was taken of the geographical specificities of the spaces or geographical terrains inhabited by the purported adversaries of the US in the post Cold War period (or how they are changing through processes of urbanisation and globalisation).  A key axiom of RMA rhetoric has been the idea that the US was now able to prosecute its global strategies for geopolitical dominance through a “radical non-territoriality” (Duffield 2002: 158).

In response to this neglect of global urbanisation within RMA discourses, and spurred on by the catastrophic and ongoing urban insurgency since the US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, an increasingly powerful range of counter-discourses have emerged within the US military.  Through these a second group of US military theorists have asserted that the technophiliac dreams of RMA will either fail, or be substantially undermined, by global processes of urbanisation, especially in the global south cities where they imagine US forces being most often engaged.  The pronouncements of those advocating an ‘urban turn’ in the RMA have had two main features.


Signal Failures: Urban Environments as Physical Interrupters to ‘Network-Centric Warfare’

“In simple terms walls tend to get in the way of today’s battlefield communications and sensor technologies” (Hewish and Pengelley 2001)

The first major feature these pronouncements been the strong suggestion that the urban terrain in poor, global south countries is a great leveller between high-tech US forces and their low-tech and usually informally organised and poorly equipped adversaries (Gregory 2004; Graham 2004b).  The complex and congested terrain below, within, and above cities is seen here as a set of physical spaces that limit the effectiveness of high-tech space-targeted bombs, surveillance systems, and automated, ‘network-centric’ and ‘precision’ weapons. The U.S.  defence research agency, DIRC, for example, argue that “the urban environment negates the abilities of present US military communications equipment” resulting in dead spots, noise, signal absorbtion, and propagation problems that severely undermine the principles and technologies of ‘network-centric warfare’.”  (DIRC 1997)  

The architects Misselwitz and Weizman are amongst the very small number of critical urban researchers who have addressed the ways in which urbanisation undermines the technologies produced by the RMA. They conclude that within contemporary cities:

high-tech military equipment is easily incapacitated. Buildings mask targets and create urban canyons, which diminish the capabilities of the air force. It is hard to see into the urban battlespace; it is very difficult to communicate in it, because radio waves are often disturbed. It is hard to use precision weapons because it is difficult to obtain accurate GPS satellite locations. And it becomes more and more difficult (but not impossible) for the military to shoot indiscriminately into the city. For all these reasons, cities continue to reduce the advantages of a technologically superior force. (Misselwitz and Weizman 2003: 8 )

The ‘urbanisation of battlespace’ is therefore seen by US urban warfare commentators to reduce the ability of U.S. forces to fight and kill at a distance (always the preferred way because of their ‘casualty dread’ and technological supremacy). Cities are therefore seen to produce rapidly escalated risks for US forces fighting pre-emptive, expeditionary wars. “From refugee flows to dense urban geography, cities create environments that increase uncertainty exponentially” (DIRC 1997). Military operations in cities are therefore seen as treacherous Trojan horse-style events, which might allow weak and poorly equipped insurgents to gain victory over the world’s remaining military superpower (Glenn et al 2001).  


The ‘Urbanisation of Insurgency’: Global South Cities as Refuges From US Vertical Power

Opposition forces will camouflage themselves in the background noise of the urban environment. Within the urban environment, it is not the weapon itself rather the city which maximises or mutes an arm’s effectiveness. (DIRC 1997: 11)

A second main feature of US urban warfare discourses is that the breaking down of high technology sensors and weapons, because of the physical morphology of cities, will directly and causally lead to an increasing tendency amongst the United States’ political adversaries to take refuge within cities.  “The long term trend in open-area combat”, writes the leading US ‘urban warfare’ commentator, Ralph Peters (1996: 6), “is toward overhead dominance by US forces.” As a result, he predicts that “Battlefield awareness [for US forces] may prove so complete, and ‘precision’ weapons so widely available and effective, that enemy ground-based combat systems will not be able to survive in the deserts, plains, and fields that have seen so many of history’s main battles.”
  
As a result, Peters argues that the United States’ “enemies will be forced into cities and other complex terrain, such as industrial developments and inter-city sprawl” (1997: 4). Grau and Kipp, (1999), concur, suggesting that:

“urban combat is increasingly likely, since high-precision weapons threaten operational and tactical manoeuvre in open terrain. Commanders who lack sufficient high-precision weapons will find cities appealing terrain […], provided they know the city better than their opponent does and can mobilize the city’s resources and population to their purposes.” (Grau and Kipp 1999: 4)

Central to this perception of the incentives underlying what RAND theorists, Taw and Hoffman (2000), have termed the ‘urbanisation of insurgency,’ is the notion that insurgents 8 exploiting the physical geographies of global south cities can force US military personnel to come into very close physical proximity and so expose US politicians to much higher casualty rates than stipulated within RMA doctrine. DIRC argue that:

The weapons [such insurgents] use may be 30 to 40 years old or built from hardware supplies, but at close range many of their inefficiencies are negated.  The most effective weapon only needs to exploit the vulnerabilities that the urban environment creates. Each new city will create a different pool of resources and thereby create different urban threats. (DIRC 1997: 8 )

Here, the obvious limits of attempting to understand the complex geographies of cities through the verticalised surveillance systems emphasised by the RMA are a major bone of contention amongst those promulgating the counter discourses emphasising the urbanisation of insurgency. A common tendency here is to naturalise and essentialise the complex physical and social geographies of global south cities as ‘jungle’-like environments, in which small insurgent groups gain political and financial support from the wider population, that necessitate new techniques to ensure the ‘cleansing’ of the city (Glenn 2001). As is very common in US military and political literature on the threats of future urban insurgencies (see Norton 2003), the DIRC report emphasises that informal andfavela districts in global south cities add great power to the strategies of insurgent and criminal groups utilising the classic techniques of guerrilla and ‘asymmetric’ warfare against potential US or western incursion. It argues that:

the shanty sprawl of the developing city frequently allows insurgents to adapt their rural strategy more effectively to an urban environment. Asymmetric forces have the same benefits and advantages that have traditionally been enjoyed in the jungle of forest base: control over territory, allegiance (whether voluntary or coerced) of much of a country’s population, inaccessibility to security forces.  The urban environment adds reasonably secure bases for operations around the heart of government and its administrative and commercial infrastructure […].  The urban geography of slums favors the tactics of an unconventional force. […] Guerrilla campaigns need not be overall military urban success, but rather need only to make the opposition’s campaigns appear unpalatable to its domestic support. Urban warfare favors the media age. (DIRC 1997: 6)


Dreams Reclaimed?  From Preemptive War to  ‘Persistent Area Dominance’?

“The time has come to change the perception that the high-tech US war machine fights at a disadvantage in urban areas.” (Houlgate 2004)

Urban areas should become our preferred medium for fighting. We should optimize our force structure for it, rather than relegating it to Appendix Q in our fighting doctrine, treating it as the exception rather than the norm […]. It is time to tell Sun Tzu to sit down […]. Instead of fearing it, we must own the city. (Lt. Col. Leonhard, US Army 2003[sic])

With the widespread perception that the intensifying urbanisation of the parts of the global south that the US military envisage being their dominant areas of operation is radically undermining their broader efforts at techno-scientific transformation, a wide range of projects and initiatives are emerging aimed at specifically tailoring the ‘RMA’ to the specific 9 geographies of urban areas in the global south.  With the urban insurgency in Iraq as an on-going fulcrum war, a ‘transformation’ based on the technophiliac celebrations of the death of geography through new technologies is, ironically, being transformed into a major techno-scientific effort to develop and experiment with surveillance, communications and targeting systems that are specifically tailored to the fine-grain physical and human geographies of global south cities.  

It is now widely argued within US military strategic organisations and think-tanks that the RMA needs to be reconfigured to address the challenges of tightly built global south cities; that new bodies of ‘urban’ research need to be built up to understand how to use military violence to deliver precise ‘effects’ in such cities; and that the doctrine, weaponry, training and equipment of US forces need to be comprehensively redesigned so that urban military operations are their de facto function. Major Lee Grubbs (2003: iii-5) of the US Army argues that US forces need to be redefined so that their main purpose is to “create operational shock in the urban environment.” This requires, he argues, a deep understanding of the battlespace “to identify causality between critical point, action, and effect achieved.” In turn, Grubbs suggests that “Operational design and a process for understanding the city becomes critical for the selection of critical points to destroy, control and influence […]. The challenge is the development of an executable operational concept for achieving systematic, across the entire system, effects within the urban environment through the selective use of force” (ibid.)

A large output of conceptual, techno-scientific and Research and Development material has been created by the ‘urban turn’ of the RMA, especially since the Iraq invasion (see Grubbs 2003; Houlgate 2004). The overwhelming rhetoric in such efforts emphasises that new military techno-science, specifically developed to address cities, will turn global south urban environments into areas that US forces can completely dominate, using their technological advantages, with minimum casualties to themselves. New weapons and sensor programmes, specifically designed to enhance the ability of future US forces to control and dominate global south cities through network-centric means, are already emerging from the wider efforts at physical and electronic simulation, wargaming, and the evaluation of the experience of the Iraq insurgency.  These centre first on unveiling global south cities through new sensor technologies, and second on developing automated and robotic weapon systems linked to such sensors.  


Technophiliac Unveilings of Global South Cities: Dreams of ‘Real-Time Situational Awareness’

The first key effort to redirect the RMA to the purported challenges of US forces attempting to dominate and control global south cities involve programmes designed to saturate such cities with myriads of networked surveillance systems. The dream of US military theorists is that this can be done to such an extent that any identified target can be automatically identified at any time and so exposed to high-technology tracking and killing powers of ‘network-centric’ weapons. Such visions imagine pervasive and interlinked arrays of ‘loitering’ and ‘embedded’ sensors as overcoming all the limits and interruptions that megacity environments place in the way of successfully implementing networks centric warfare.  Ackerman  (2002), for example, suggests that such sensor suites will be designed to automatically trace dynamic change rather than constantly soaking up data from unchanging environments: observing ‘change’ rather than observing ‘scenery’, as he puts it. In other words, algorithms will be designed to only function when definable changes occur. They will thus identify purported notions of ‘normality’ against the ‘abnormal’ behaviours and patterns that can then be assessed as targets.

One major example of such a development is the tellingly title ‘Combat Zones That See’  (CTS) project led by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).  Launched at the start of the Iraq insurgency in 2003, CTS “explores concepts, develops algorithms, and delivers systems for utilising large numbers (1000s) of algorithmic video cameras to provide the close-in sensing demanded for military operations in urban terrain.” Through installing computerised CCTV across whole occupied cities, the project organisers envisage that, when deployed, CTS will sustain “motion-pattern analysis across whole city scales”, linked to the tracking of massive populations of individualised cars and people through intelligent computer algorithms linked to the recognition of number plates and scanned in human facial photos. “Combat Zones that See”, the launch report, suggests:

will produce video understanding algorithms embedded in surveillance systems for automatically monitoring video feeds to generate, for the first time, the reconnaissance, surveillance, and targeting information needed to provide close-in, continuous, always-on support for military operations in urban terrain. (DARPA 2003a: 6)

A direct response to the interruptive effects of city environments on older notions of air and space-based network centric warfare, CTS, will be designed to specifically address the  “inherently three-dimensional nature of urban centres, with large buildings, extensive underground passageways, and concealment from above” (DARPA 2003a: 7).

The central challenge of CTS, according to DARPA, will be to build up fully representative data profiles on the ‘normal’ time-space movement patterns of entire subject cities so that algorithms could then use statistical modelling to  “determine what is normal and what is not” (quoted in Sniffen 2003). This will be a purported aid to identifying insurgents’ activities and real or potential attacks, as well as warning of the presence or movement of target or suspect vehicles or individuals. The report states that the CTS project will:

include [...] analysis of changes in normalcy modes; detection of variances in activity; anomaly detection based on statistical analyses; discovery of links between places, subjects and times of activities; and direct comparison and correlation of track data to other information available to operators. Predictive modelling, plan recognition, and behavior modeling should alert operators to potential force protection risks and hostile situations. Forensic information (where did a vehicle come from, how did it get here?) should be combined and contrasted to more powerful ‘forward-tracking’ capabilities (where could the vehicle go?, where is the vehicle going?) to allow operators to provide real-time capabilities to assess potential force threats. (DARPA 2003a: 13)

After a stream of protests from US civil liberties groups, DARPA stressed that, whilst the initial test of mass, urban tracking will take place at a US Army base within the United States (Fort Belvoir, Virginia), the deployment of CTS will only take place in “Foreign urban battlefields” (Defense Watch 2004).



Saturating occupied or target cities with micro-scale and even nano-scale sensors and cameras is also being investigated by the CTS Programme and an associated programme labelled HURT.


Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 22, 2010, 06:18:51 pm
Saturating occupied or target cities with micro-scale and even nano-scale sensors and cameras is also being investigated by the CTS Programme and an associated programme labelled HURT.

(http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/Majextor/Assassination_Grid.jpg?t=1277245207)
(http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/Majextor/Assassination_Grid1.jpg?t=1277245224)
Figure 1: DARPA urban ‘Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition’ (RSTA) platforms as envisaged
by its HURT Programme (Darpa, 2004).(LOS=Line of Sight)


‘Persistent Area Dominance’: Towards Robotic Killing Systems in Urban Warfare

Military leaders are developing a vision of the tactical operations future where adversaries will have to decide if they should send flesh and blood troops to fight nuts, bolts, circuits and sensors. (Lawlor 2003)

The second main area of defence research and development to help assert the dominance of US forces over global south cities focuses on a shift towards robotic air and ground weapons which, when linked to the persistent surveillance and target identification systems just discussed, will be deployed to continually and automatically destroy purported targets in potentially endless streams of automated killing. The dreams of linking sentient, automated and omnipotent surveillance – which bring God-like levels of ‘situational awareness’ to US forces attempting to control intrinsically devious global south megacities – to automated machines of killing, pervades the discourses of the urban turn in the RMA (see, for example, Huber and Mills 2001). A telling example comes from the discussion of a model near-future US ‘urban operation’, described by Defense Watch magazine during its discussions of DARPA’s CTS Programme just discussed (2004).  

In their scenario, swarms of micro-scale and nano-scale networked sensors pervade the target city, providing continuous streams of target information to arrays of automated weaponry.  Together, these systems produce continuous killing and ‘target’ destruction: a kind of robotised counter-insurgency operation with US commanders and soldiers doing little but overseeing the cyborganised, interlinked and increasingly automated killing systems from a safe distance.  Defense Watch (2004) thus speculate about “a battlefield in the near future” that is wired up with the systems resulting from the CTS programme and its followers.  Here 13 unbound technophiliac dreams of omnipotent urban control blur into long-standing fantasies of cyborganised and robotised warfare. “Several large fans are stationed outside the city limits of an urban target that our [sic] guys need to take”, they begin, and go on to explain that:  

Upon appropriate signal, what appears like a dust cloud emanates from each fan.  The cloud is blown into town where it quickly dissipates. After a few minutes of processing by laptop-size processors, a squadron of small, disposable aircraft ascends over the city. The little drones dive into selected areas determined by the initial analysis of data transmitted by the fan-propelled swarm. Where they disperse their nano-payloads.

“After this, the processors get even more busy”, continues the scenario:

Within minutes the mobile tactical center have a detailed visual and audio picture of every street and building in the entire city. Every hostile [person] has been identified and located. From this point on, nobody in the city moves without the full and complete knowledge of the mobile tactical center. As blind spots are discovered, they can quickly be covered by additional dispersal of more nano-devices. Unmanned air and ground vehicles can now be vectored directly to selected targets to take them out, one by one. Those enemy combatants clever enough to evade actually being taken out by the unmanned units can then be captured of killed by human elements who are guided directly to their locations, with full and complete knowledge of their individual fortifications and defenses  […]. When the dust settles on competitive bidding for BAA 03-15 [the code number for the ‘Combat Zones That See’ programme], and after the first prototypes are delivered several years from now, our guys are in for a mind-boggling treat at the expense of the bad guys.  (2004 [sic])

Such omnipotence fantasies extend even further to the automated surveillance, through emerging brain scanning techniques, of people’s inner mental attitudes to any U.S. invasion.  This way ‘targets’ deemed to be resistant can be automatically identified and destroyed:

Robotic systems push deeper into the urban area […]. Behind the fighters, military police and intelligence personnel process the inhabitants, electronically reading their attitudes toward the intervention and cataloguing them into a database immediately recoverable by every fire team in the city (even individual weapons might be able to read personal signatures, firing immediately upon cueing […]. Smart munitions track enemy systems and profiled individuals […] Satellites monitor the city for any air defense fires, curing immediate responses from near-space orbiting ‘guns’. Drones track  inhabitants who have been ‘read’ as potentially hostile and ‘tagged’. (Defense Watch 2004)

Such dreams of continuous, automated, and robotised urban targeting and killing are far from being limited to the realms of such futuristic speculation, however. Rather, as with the CTS programme, they are fuelling very real multimillion dollar research and weapons development programmes aimed at developing ground and aerial vehicles which not only navigate and move robotically but select and destroy targets without ‘humans in the loop’, based on algorithmically-driven ‘decisions’.  

Lawlor (2003), for example, discusses the development of ‘autonomous mechanized combatant’ air and ground vehicles or ‘tactical autonomous combatants’ for the US Air Force.  These are being designed, he notes, to use ‘pattern recognition’ software for what he calls ‘time-critical targeting’, i.e. linking sensors very quickly to automated weapons so that fleeting ‘targets’ both within and outside cities can be continually destroyed. Such doctrine is widely termed ‘compressing the kill chain’ or ‘sensor to shooter warfare’ in US military parlance (Hebert 2003).  Lawlor states that the ‘swarming of unmanned systems’ project team at US forces JOINT Command Experimentation Directorate, based in Suffolk, Virginia, are so advanced in such experimentation that “autonomous, networked and integrated robots may be the norm rather than the exception by 2025”.
 
By that date, Lawlor predicts that “technologies could be developed […] that would allow machines to sense a report of gunfire in an urban environment to within one meter, triangulating the position of the shooter and return fire within a fraction of a second” providing a completely automated weapon system devoid of human involvement. Such plans form part of a $200 billion project to massively robotise US ground forces known as ‘Future Combat System’. Under this program, it is planned that robotic vehicles will replace one third of US armoured vehicles and weapons by 2015.  

Lawlor quotes Gordon Johnson, the ‘Unmanned Effects’ team leader for the US Army’s ‘Project Alpha’, as saying of an automated anti-sniper system that:

if it can get within one meter, it’s killed the person who’s firing. So, essentially, what we’re saying is that anyone who would shoot at our forces would die. Before he can drop that weapon and run, he’s probably already dead. Well now, these cowards in Baghdad would have to play with blood and guts every time they shoot at one of our folks. The costs of poker went up significantly […]. The enemy, are they going to give up blood and guts to kill machines? I’m guessing not. (Hebert 2003: 3)

Lawlor (2003: 2) predicts that such robo-war systems will “help save lives by taking humans out of harm’s way”. Here, tellingly, only US forces are considered to fall within the category ‘human’.

In addition, unmanned aerial vehicles armed with ‘intelligent munitions’ are already being designed that will, eventually, be programmed to fire on, and kill, ‘targets’ detected by US Force’s real-time surveillance grids, in a completely autonomous way. Such munitions will loiter over targets for days at a time, linked into the data links, until ‘targets’ are detected for destruction (Kenyon 2004). A programme called TUDLS – or ‘Total Urban Dominance Layered System – for example, is currently underway to provide what Plenge (2004) describes as: “long hover and loiter propulsion systems, multidiscriminant sensors and seekers, mini- and micro-air vehicles, mini-lethal and non-lethal warheads, autonomous and man-in-the loop control algorithms, and a strong interface with the [urban] battlespace in formation network.”

Crucially, such munitions will be equipped with algorithms designed to separate ‘targets’ from ‘non-targets” automatically. The ultimate goals, according to Pinney, an engineer at Raytheon, is a “kill chain solution” based on “1st look, 1st feed, 1st kill” where each armed unmanned vehicle continuously “seeks out targets on its own” (2003 16). Tirpak (2001), a US air force specialist, envisages that humans will be required to make the decisions to launch weapons at targets only “until UCAVs establish a track record of reliability in finding the 15 right targets and employing weapons properly”.  Then the “machines will be trusted to do even that”.  


Nascent Robotisation in Iraq and Palestine/Israel

By 2007, such military discourses and technophiliac fantasies were quickly moving towards the first stages of implementation on the streets of Iraq’s cities. In June 2006 the first armed and remotely-controlled ground robots in the history of warfare – so-called ‘SWORDS’1 machines armed with M249 machine guns – were deployed in Baghdad (Blech 2007). These allow soldiers to fire the systems guns from up to a kilometre away by remote control.  “Many people are fearful that armed robots will run amok on the battlefield,” admits a press release describing trials of this system from the US Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (2007). In an attempt at reassurance, the piece states that the robots still “employ a ‘man in the loop’ where they are always under director control of a soldier.  The soldier issues commands to the robot and weapons through an operator control unit.  Commands to rocket and grenade launchers are communicated through a newly developed remote firing and control system.”

Col. Terry Griffin, head of joint US Army and Marine Corps robot program, and tasked with deploying the next armed machine known as ‘Gladiator’, argues that the machines first job will be to disband groups of ‘undesirables’. He cites three stages of escalation: “First the robot issues warnings through a loudspeaker. It fires rubber bullets. Finally, the robot starts firing its machine gun” (quoted in Blech 2007).

In Israel/Palestine, meanwhile, the Israeli military are already deploying robotic and remotely controlled machine gun turrets, part of the “See-Shoot” system developed by Rafael, to deploy lethal force along the 37 mile border with the Gaza strip. Such robotic turrets have also been sold to US forces. “Combined with a Rafael-developed acoustic sensor detection and direction-finding device, [they] essentially becomes a robotic anti-sniper weapon for wheeled or tracked vehicles.” (Opall-Rome 2004). According to Defence News’ Tel Aviv correspondent  “each machine gun-mounted station serves as a type of robotic sniper, capable of enforcing a nearly 1,500-meter-deep no-go zone” (Opall-Rome 2007). The guns and their long sensors are “tied in by optic fibre to a command network which will also be able to draw information from existing ground sensors, manned aircraft, and overhead drones.” (Page 2007).  

Whilst the longer term shift towards the true automation of firing is envisaged, Initially, at least, Israeli soldiers are required to approve ‘See-Shoot’s’ decisions to fire. “At least in the initial phases of deployment, we’re going to have to keep the man in the loop,” an unnamed IDF commander remarked recently. “We don’t want to risk making tragic and politically costly mistakes with such a lethal system.” (cited in Opall-Rome 2007).

Israel is also planning to deploy mobile armed robots to support military incursions into Palestinian towns and cities. The hope, according to the manufacturing company, Elbit Ground Systems, is that “such robotic vehicles will become “triggers” which could discriminate between innocent and peaceful activities along the [Gaza-Israel] perimeter, to hostile or suspicious actions, based on the target’s responses” (Defense Update 2007).
______________
1 The Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System

The Israeli military also now operates robotic 60-ton bulldozers to aid in house demolition and landscape clearance in areas that are deemed to hazardous for human-driven bulldozers.

Meanwhile, US investment in the field of armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) dwarfs that in armed ground robots. Initially, attention is centring on introducing more and more armed drones which are piloted, and fired, by remote human pilots – such as the ‘Predator’ and its more heavily armed successor – the ‘Reaper.’ In the case of the Predator, the many attack missions in the Middle East carried out by this drone have actually been ‘piloted’ by CIA personnel in a US Air Force base on the other side of the world on the edge of Las Vegas.  

As with armed ground robots, however, the shift towards autonomous aerial weapons systems is already underway. The US Air Force’s emerging Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS), for example – one output of the Future Combat Systems Program – is a jet powered ‘stand off’ munition which has been designed to “autonomously search for, detect, identify, attack and destroy theatre missile defence, surface to air missile systems, and interdiction/armour targets of military interest” (Sparrow 2007: 63). It will be equipped with a Laser Radar system as well as an Autonomous Target Recognition capability that will allow it to search for and identify targets within a 33 sq. mile area (Sparrow, 2007).

In both the air and ground domains, much effort is already going in to establishing the technologies and ethical protocols that would allow armed robots to use artificial intelligence technologies to autonomously ‘decide’ to launch their weapons at targets. Integrated within the Future Combat Systems Program within the US military (Sparrow, 2007), efforts here are focusing on the shift from piloted armed drones to ones that automatically fire at targets, at armed ground robots that operate independently, and at armed missiles, bombs and munitions that ‘loiter’ over a district or city ‘seeing’ out targets to attack over extended periods of time.

Armed autonomous ground vehicles, labelled ‘Tactical Autonomous Combatants’ (TACs), are being developed for missions deemed too dangerous, lengthy or simply long for humans. The previously cited Gordon Johnson, ‘unmanned effects team leader’ at the Project Alpha, cites the advantages of such a strategy for US forces addressing the challenges of future urban warfare:

At the tactical level, TACs aren’t going to get hungry, they’re not going to get tired, they’re not going to get ‘Dear John’ letters and have their minds concentrating on something other than what they are supposed to be thinking about. They have all the information they require that is available to blue forces at their disposal to help make decisions because they are all networked together. And if they need information that they don’t have in their local database, they’ll send out a request to ‘The Net’ and would get the information they need or collaborate with other machines and get the information they need (cited in Lawlor 2003).

A whole universe of ‘automated target recognition’ software is also evolving here, allowing robots’ computers to continuously compare the electronic signatures of ‘targets’ with those stored on electronic databases. “Before SWORDS fires its first salvo at terrorists in Iraq,” writes Jörg Blech (2007) inDer Spiegel,  “it needs the permission of two human operators.  […] However, it is only logical that decisions over life and death will increasingly be 17 transferred to the machine – just as soon as engineers have figured out how to overcome the problem of distinguishing between friends and foes.”  

This is where software development efforts in the field of automatic target recognition are now concentrating. Geared specifically towards the apparently impossible challenge of automatically picking out individual cars and individuals within the density and confusion of a major city, these techniques, informed closely by experience in Iraq, are now centring on whether spectral imaging, using 70 different wavelengths, can differentiate apparently identical vehicles in cities (McCarter 2005).  

Dr. John Kerekes, head of one such programme, labelled RASER, at MIT, explains that, rather than developing software that automatically identifies the signatures of military vehicles, the focus now is on tracking and identifying civilian cars and trucks in urban contexts. “Nowadays,” he argues, “the problems are in a more urban area or a smaller town, but typically not out in the open somewhere, and the nature of the threat is much more elusive in the sense that the enemy may not be driving military vehicles at all.” In such a context, he wonders: “Can you indeed distinguish between vehicles? These are just ordinary civilian vehicles, not of any particular distinguishing characteristics visually. But through this extra-spectral information and these additional channels, there may be features that we can use to identify them and tell them apart.” (Cited in McCarter 2005).

Once again, it is in the scenarios being proffered by the US military industrial complex that we see the possible future of the nascent architectures of robotised military power in Iraq and Israel/Palestine. Gary Graham (2004), of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, introduced a talk at the 2004 DARPAtech conference as follows:

I’d like you to imagine the battlefield of the future. Unmanned combat aircraft dominate the skies above the theater.  A swarm of unmanned ground vehicles prowls the forests and fields of our enemies.  These vehicles have sensors that can see, hear, and maybe even smell.  High above the theater, peering down from space, are spacecraft that are being refueled on-orbit.  Their on-board electronics and software are also being upgraded and replaced as easily as sliding a PCMCIA card in-and-out of a laptop.  A helicopter glides over the battlefield and drops a box of missiles.  This box is identical to dozens of missile boxes that are already in place on the battlefield, many sitting in the rear compartments of Humvees.  These boxes of missiles are very different, though.  They aren’t attended by human operators, and they already know where they are – each has GPS and a COMM [unications] link.  They sit, poised, waiting for command signals.

A corporal out in the field sees the enemy coming over the hill.  He radios, “I need fire support NOW!”  The box just dropped by the helo knows where the corporal is and it knows where the bad guys are.  It launches its first flight of missiles.  Some are loitering missiles that fly a little slower.  They are launched first.  They go up and post a highwatch over the battlefield.  Next, faster, precision attack missiles are launched and detonate on their targets, and we have lots of smoking holes...but we missed one or two.  One of the missiles loitering overhead surveys the scene, detects a surviving moving target, and says, “You missed one; I can take him.”  On command, he dives in and takes out his target.  The battle is over.  The enemy never even knew the corporal was there!  But now you have a lot of smoking holes where the bad guys used to be. (cited in Morrish 2004)


Conclusions

“The ultimate expression of sovereignty resides […] in the power and capacity to dictate who may live and who must die” (Mbembe 2003: 11)

A large-scale military research and development programme is currently underway in the United States to tailor the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ to the specific micro-geographies of the global south cities that many US military theorists envisage to be their main ‘battlespaces’ on the 21st century. Here the cutting-edge techno-scientific efforts and priorities of the world’s dominant military power are being shifted dramatically from an emphasis on globe-spanning control, networking and vertical targeting – treating planet Earth as some unitary, ageographical ‘battlespace’ – to one aimed at bringing maximum control, surveillance and killing power to the detailed micro-geographies of the burgeoning urban environments of the global south.

Such dreams of omnipotence must, of course, be treated with caution. The US military and its associated complex of R & D outfits have, after all, long held fantasies of superweapons that would deterministically realise their dreams of mastery and omnipotence (Franklin 1988). As now, such technophiliac dreams of mastery have usually evolved closely with the wider discourses of speculative fiction and popular geopolitical domains and entertainment industries (Gannon 2003). The ‘technological fanaticism’ of both has deep roots within US political, popular and military culture (Sherry 1987).  As Jeremy Black (2001: 97) suggests, we therefore need to be careful to interpret the RMA, and its latest ‘urban turn’, not as some quasi-rational response amongst US military and political elites to changing geopolitical conditions, but, rather, as “symptomatic of a set of cultural and political assumptions that tell us more about modern western society than they do about any objective assessment of military options”.

Moreover, we must also remember that the ‘U.S. military’ is far from being some single, unitary actor. All of the discourses, projects and programmes analysed in this paper remain extremely contested. Within the vast institutional complex that together constitutes the ‘US military’, and its associated security and military industries and lobby groups, major political battles are underway – fuelled by the ongoing nightmare in Iraq – over the degree to which technophiliac dreams of omnipotence, through some urbanised ‘RMA’ or ‘network centric warfare,’ are realistic, even in military terms. Many in the US Army, in particular, are deeply sceptical that the horrors and ‘fog of war’ in bloody ‘urban operations’ like the Iraqi insurgency can ever really be technologised, mediated, and saturated with sentient surveillance and targeting systems to anything like the degree that is common in the discursive imaginings driving the programmes discussed above.
 
Whilst what I have called here the urban turn in the RMA is, of course, being driven by often wild and fantastical discourses, its effects are likely to be very material and profound.  Massive techno-scientific efforts to equip the US military so that they can saturate global south cities with real-time surveillance, targeting and killing systems are undoubtedly underway, fuelled by the nascent experimentations on the streets of Iraq’s cities and in and above the West Bank and Gaza. The latest military-industrial-‘security’ research drive is focusing on using new algorithmic surveillance capabilities to try and overcome the ways in which the micro-geographies of global south cities are portrayed as environments that interrupt wider dreams of US military and technological omnipotence.

Above all, as the ‘war 19 on terror’ seeks to project notions of war that are unbound in time and space, so the sovereign power to kill is in the process of being delegated to computer code.  Whether such systems will ever function as imagined even in military terms is, then, beside the point. The very existence of a quasi-imperial project for launching the world’s dominant military power’s high-tech warfare systems into global south cities will – if implemented – seem very likely to lead to widespread civilian casualties.  This seems especially so as new algorithmic systems seem likely to emerge that are the actual agents of continuous, autonomous killing as ‘kill chains’ are ‘compressed’, ‘sensors’ are linked automatically to ‘shooters,’ and the dreams of ‘persistent area dominance’ achieve full expression through the favourable context of the Bush Administration’s large post-9-11 defence spending increases.

To put it mildly, dreams of clinically identifying and surgically killing only ‘fighters’ within cities, through the use of ‘autonomous’ computer algorithms and fantasies of ‘brain scans’, are both dangerously deluded and deeply disturbing. It seems very probable that deploying such systems would result in the death and injury of many civilians. Here we confront the added and deeply troubling development whereby software agency emerges as the ultimate ‘intelligence’ automatically stipulating who should die and who should live whilst at the same time attempts are made to remove US military personnel as far as possible from risk to death and injury.
 
In such a scenario, the philosopher Robert Sparrow (2007: 62) worries that it will become increasingly impossible to attribute war crimes to humans at all. “It is a necessary condition for fighting a just war, under the principle ofjus in bellum [or just war], that someone can be justly held responsible for deaths that occur in the course of the war,” he writes. However, “as this condition cannot be met in relation to deaths caused by an autonomous weapon system it would therefore be unethical to deploy such systems in warfare.”


References

Ackerman , R. 2002. ‘Persistent surveillance comes into view’, Signal Magazine, Available at www.afcea.org/signal/, February 2005.
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
ARDEC Provides Glimpse of Possible Future Warfare ,Press release available at www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/highlights/pdfs/robot.pdf (September 2007).
Arquilla, J. and Ronfeldt,  D. (ed). 2001.Networks and Netwars. RAND: Santa Monica:
Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center.  
Blech, J. 2007. ‘Attack of the killer robots’,Der Spiegel Online Edition, September, available at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,500140,00.html.
Barnett,  T. 2004. The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century New York:
Putnam.
Barocas, S. 2002. ‘9-11: A strategic ontology: Pre-emptive strike and the production of (in)security’, InfoTechWarPeace, August 6, www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/ accessed March 2005.
Black, J. 2001.War. London: Continuum.
Book, E. 2002. ‘Project metropolis brings urban wars to US Cities’,National Defense,April, available at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2148/is_200204/ai_n6918069, accessed February 2005.
Booth, B.  and  Dunne, T.  (eds). 2002. Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Calhoun, C., Price, P. and Timmer, A. (eds). 2002.Understanding September 11. New York:
New Press.
Cockburn, A. and St Clair, J. 2000.Five Days That Shook the World: The Battle for Seattle and Beyond. London: Verso.
Cohen, E. 2004. ‘Change and transformation in military affairs’,Journal of Strategic Studies, 27:3, pp. 395-407.
DARPA. 2003.Combat Zones That See Program: Proper Information. Available at  www.darpa.mil/baa/baa03-15.htm, accessed February 2005.
DARPA. 2004.HURT- Heterogeneous Urban RSTA Team,Briefing to Industry. Washington DC: Darpa.
Davis, M. 2004a. ‘The urbanization of Empire: Megacities and the laws of chaos’,Social Text, 22:4, pp. 9-15.  
21
Davis, M. 2004b. ‘The Pentagon as global slum lord’, TomDispatch, http://www.tomdispatch.com/, April 19th, accessed June 10th.
Defense Update. 2007. ‘Elbit Expands Range of Autonomous Ground Vehicles, Available at http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/elbit_UGV.htm, accessed September 2007.  Defense Watch. 2004. ‘Combat zones that ‘see’ everything’, available at http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Combat%20Zones%20that%20'See'%20Everything.htm, accessed March 2005.
Der Derian, J. 2001.Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Complex. Westview: Boulder, Co.  
Dickson, K. 2002a.The war on terror: Cities as the strategic high ground. Mimeo.
Dickson, K. 2002b. Future war as urban war: How asymmetric strategies will affects cities.
Mimeo.
Defense Intelligence Reference Document (DIRC). 1997. The Urban Century: Developing World Urban Trends and Possible Factors Affecting Military Operations, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, Quantico: VA.
Duffield, Mark. 2002. ‘War as a network enterprise: The new security terrain and its implications’, Cultural Values,6, pp. 153-165.
Ek, R. 2000. ‘A revolution in military geopolitics?’, Political Geography, 19, pp. 841-874.
Erwin, S. 2004. ‘Urban battles highlight shortfalls in soldier communication’,National Defense, September, available at www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ issues/2004/Sep/Urban_Battles.htm, accessed March 2005.
Franklin,  H. B.  1988.War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gannon, C. 2003.Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Technomilitary Agenda-Setting in American and British Speculative Fiction. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.  Glenn, R., Steed, R., and Matsumara, J.  (eds). 2001. Corralling the Trojan Horse: A Proposal for Improving U.S. Urban Operations Preparedness in the Period, 2000-2025, Santa Monica: CA. RAND Graham, S. 2003. ‘Lessons in urbicide’, New Left Review,19, Jan/Feb, pp. 63-78.  Graham, S. 2004a. ‘Vertical geopolitics: Baghdad and after’,Antipode, 36: 1, pp. 12-19.  Graham, S. 2004b. ‘Cities and the ‘war on terror,’’ paper submitted to International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.
22
Graham, S. 2005. ‘Switching cities off: Urban infrastructure and US air power’, City, 9:2.  
Grau, L. and Kipp, J. 1999. ‘Urban combat: confronting the spectre’, Military Review,. Vol.
LXXXIX No. 4, July-August, pp. 9-17
Gray, C. 2003. ‘Posthuman soldiers and postmodern war’,Body and Society, 9:4, pp. 215-226.
Gregory, D. 2004.The Colonial Present. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grubbs, L. 2003.In Search of a Joint Urban Operational Concept.Fort Leavenworth, Ka:
School of Advanced Military Studies.
Hardt, M.  and Negri, A. 2000.Empire. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M.  and Negri, A. 2004.Multitude, London: Hamish Hamilton.  Harris, A. 2003. ‘Can New Technologies Transform Military Operations in Urban Terrain?’,Small Wars Journal, available at: www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/harris.pdf Hebert, Adam. 2003. ‘Compressing the kill chain’,Air Force Magazine, March, pp.  34-42.
Hewish, M. and Pengelley. 2001. ‘Facing urban inevitabilities: Military operations in urban terrain’,Jane’s International Defence Review, August, pp. 13-18.
Hewitt K. 1983. ‘Place annihilation: Area bombing and the fate of urban places’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73:2, pp. 257-284.
Hills,  A. 2004.Future Wars in Cities. London: Frank Cass.
Houlgate  K. 2004. ‘Urban warfare transforms the Corps’,Naval Institute Procedings, November, Available at: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_1104_Urban-P1,00.html, accessed February 2005.
Huber, Peter  and Mills Mark. 2002. ‘How technology will defeat terrorism.’City Journal, 12, pp. 24-34.
Kenyon, H. 2004. ‘Connectivity, persistent surveillance model future combat’, Signal Magazine. Available atwww.afcea.org/signal/, accessed February 2005.  Kirsch, S. 2003.  ‘Empire and the Bush doctrine’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21, pp. 1-6.
Lawlor M. 2003. ‘Robotic concepts take shape’,Signal Magazine, Available at www.afcea.org/signal/, accessed February 2005.
Leonhard, R. 2003. ‘Sun Tzu’s bad advice: Urban warfare in the information age’,Army Magazine, April. Available at http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/0/AA1C74DA9302525585256CEF005EED3D?Ope nDocument, accessed February 2005.
23
Luft, K. 2005. ‘Urban terrain zone co-ordination project’. US Army Combat Support Team.  
Mbembe, A. 2003. ‘Necropolitics’,Public Culture.15:1, pp. 11-40.
McCarter, J. 2005. ‘Revolutionary Target Recognition’,Military Geospatial Technology, Online Edition, 3:4,  Nov 15, available at http://www.military-geospatial-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1227, accessed September 2007.  Misselwitz, P.  and Weizman, E. 2003. ‘Military operations as urban planning’, in Franke, A.
(ed)Territories. Berlin: KW Institute for Contemporary Art, pp. 272-275.  Morrish, M. 2004. ‘Introduction to the Tactical Technology Office’,  remarks made to the 2004 DARPATech Conference. Available at www.darpa.mil/DARPAtech2004/pdf/scripts/MorrishOverviewScript.pdf, accessed September 2007.
Negri, A. 2002. (ed)On Fire: The Battle of Genoa and the Anti-Capitalist Movement.
London: AK Press.
Norton, R. 2003. ‘Feral cities’, Naval War College Review, 56:4, pp. 97-106.  O’ Mara, R. 2003. ‘Stealth, precision, and the making of American foreign policy’,Air and Space Power Chronicles, June, Available at www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/omara.html, accessed February 2005.  Opall-Rome, B. 2004.  ‘Israeli arms, gear aid U.S. troops’, Defense News, Online Edition, 29th March, available at   http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2766350&C=America, accessed September 2007.
Page, L. 2007. ‘Israel deploys robo-snipers on Gaza border’, The Register, Online edition, available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/israel_robo_sniper_gaza/, accessed September 2007.
Peters, R.  1996. ‘Our soldiers, their cities’, Parameters, Spring, pp. 1-7.
Pieterse,  J. 2004. ‘Neoliberal empire’, Theory, Culture and Society, 21:3, pp. 118-140.
Pinney, C. 2003.UAV Weaponization. Washington DC: Raytheon.
Plenge, B. T. 2004. ‘Area Dominance’,  Air Force Research laboratory Technology Horizons, 5:2, accessed April 2004.
Project for the New American Century.2000. Rebuilding Americas Defenses, Washington.
Robert, M., Secor, A., and Sparke, M. 2004. ‘Neoliberal geopolitics’,Antipode, 35:5, pp. 886-897.
Sassen, S. 2002. ‘Governance  hotspots: Challenges we must confront in the post September 11th world’. In  K. Booth and T. Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order,  London: Macmillan Palgrave, pp. 313-324.
24
Scheper-Hughes, N. and Bourgois, S (eds). 2003.Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sherry,  M. 1987. The Rise of American Air Power : The Creation of Armageddon. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sniffen, M. 2003. ‘Pentagon project could keep a close eye on cities’, Philly.Com,accessed February 2005.
Sparrow, R. 2007. ‘Killer robots’,Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24:1, pp. 63-77.  Stone, J. 2004. ‘Politics, technology and the revolution in military affairs’,Journal of Strategic Studies, 27:3, pp. 408-427.
Taw, J.  and Hoffman, B. 2000.The Urbanization of Insurgency. Santa Monica, Ca: RAND.  Tirpak. J. 2001. ‘Heavyweight contender’,Air Force Magazine, 85:7, available at http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2002/ accessed August 15th 2005.  Tyson, A. 2004. ‘US tests new tactics in urban warfare’,Christian Science Monitor, Available at csmonitor.com, accessed February 2005.
Vickers, M. and Armitage, R. 2001. Future Warfare 20XX Wargame Series: Lessons Learned Report, US Government Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.  Warren, R. 2004. ‘City Streets – The War Zones of Globalisation: Democracy and Military Operations in Urban Terrain in the Early 21st Century’, in S. Graham (ed),Cities, War and Terrorism, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 214-230.
25
CSRC Series 2 Working Papers
WP1James Putzel, ‘War, State Collapse and Reconstruction: phase 2 of the Crisis States Programme’ (September 2005)
WP2Simonetta Rossi andAntonio Giustozzi, ‘Disarmament, Dembolisation and Reintegration of ex-comabatants (DDR) in Afghanistan: constraints and limited capabilities’, (June 2006) WP3Frederick Golooba-Mutebi, Gabi Hesselbein and James Putzel, ‘Political and Economic Foundations of State making in Africa: understanding state reconstruction’, (July 2006) WP4 Antonio Giustozzi, ‘Genesis of a Prince: the rise of Ismail Khan in western Afghanistan, 1979-1992’ (September 2006)
WP5Laurie Nathan, ‘No Ownership, No Peace: the Darfur Peace Agreement’,  (September 2006)
WP6Niamatullah Ibrahimi, ‘The Failure of a Clerical Proto-State: Hazarajat, 1979-1984’ (September 2006)
WP7 Antonio Giustozzi, “Tribes” and Warlords in Southern Afghanistan, 1980-2005’ (September 2006) WP8 Joe Hanlon, Sean Fox, ‘Identifying Fraud in Democratic Elections: a case study of the 2004 Presidential election in Mozambique’ WP9Jo Beall, ‘Cities, Terrorism and Urban Wars of the 21st Century’, (February 2007) WP10  Dennis Rodgers, ‘Slum Wars of the 21st Century: the new geography of conflict in Central America’, (February 2007)
WP11  Antonio Giustozzi, ‘The Missing Ingredient:non-ideological insurgency and state collapse in Western Afghanistan 1979-1992’, (February 2007)
WP12  Suzette Heald, ‘Making Law in Rural East Africa: SunguSungu in Kenya’, (March 2007)
WP13  Anna Matveeva, ‘The Regionalist Project in Central Asia: unwilling playmates’, (March 2007)
WP14  Sarah Lister, ‘Understanding State Building and Local Government in Afghanistan’, (June 2007) WP15 Pritha Venkatachalam, ‘Municipal Finance Systems in Conflict Cities: case studies on Ahmedabad and Srinagar, India’, (July 2007)
WP16  Jason Sumich, ‘The Illegitimacy of Democracy? democratisation and alienation in Maputo, Mozambique’, (September 2007)
WP17  Scott Bollens, ‘Comparative Research on Contested Cities: lenses and scaffoldings’, (October 2007) WP18  Debby Potts, ‘The State and the informal in sub-Saharan African economies: revisiting debates on dualism’, (October 2007)
WP19  Francisco Gutiérrez Sanín, Tatiana Acevedo and Juan Manuel Viatela, ‘Violent liberalism? State, conflict,  and political regime in Colombia, 1930-2006: an analytical narrative on state-making’, (November These can be downloaded from the Crisis States website (www.crisisstates.com), where an up-to-date list of all our publications including Discussion Papers, Occasional Papers and Series 1 Working Papers can be found.

The Crisis States Research Centre aims to examine and provide an understanding of processes of war, state collapse and reconstruction in fragile states and to assess the long-term impact of international interventions in these processes. Through rigorous comparative analysis of a carefully selected set of states and of cities, and sustained analysis of global and regional axes of conflict, we aim to understand why some fragile states collapse while others do not, and the ways in which war affects future possibilities of state building. The lessons learned from past experiences of state reconstruction will be distilled to inform current policy thinking and planning.

Crisis States Partners Colombia:  
Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Relaciones Internacionales (IEPRI), Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Bogotá)

India:
Developing Countries Research Centre  (DCRC), University of Delhi

South Africa:
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences,  
University of Cape Town

with collaborators in Uganda and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa

Research Components

Development as State-Making: Collapse, War and Reconstruction

Cities and Fragile States: Conflict, War and Reconstruction

Regional and Global Axes of Conflict

Crisis States Research Centre
Development Studies Institute (DESTIN)
LSE, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE
Tel: +44 (0)20 7849 4631  Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6844
Email: [email protected]  Web: www.crisisstates.com
www.crisisstates.com
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 24, 2010, 01:10:00 am
Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18815
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 23, 2010 10:37 AM


Recent studies have shown that piracy may actually help the U.S. economy and that virtually every citizen commits some form of IP infringement on a daily basis.  (Source: Learn Languages)

Despite this, the Obama administration is firmly on the side of groups like the RIAA and MPAA and plans to crack down on infringers at home and abroad.  (Source: CITV)

Among its plans is to assist copyright organizations in prosecutory efforts, such as sending out threat/collection notices. The government also looks to legislation imminent infringement (thought crime), criminalization of P2P development, and criminalization of DRM bypassing later this year.  (Source: Flickr)
 
"It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window." -- U.S. VP Joe Biden


While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement.  Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.

After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry and a brief "public review", the administration rolled out its vision to fight piracy yesterday afternoon.  U.S. Vice President Joe Biden -- whose blunt speech has sometime left him in trouble -- did not mince words.

He states, "This is theft, clear and simple.  It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

The sound-byte comparing downloads to stealing jewels from New York City's finest jeweler quickly lit up the web.  Bob Pisano, interim chief executive officer at the Motion Picture Association of America praised the VP, "It is especially critical that the United States has an effective framework for protecting creative content online and enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital environment."

According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad.  Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues.  Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.

The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details.  It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts.  It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."

The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas.  The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince piracy-loving nations like China to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement.

The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."

Such efforts have shown mild success.  After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty.  The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations.  The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year.  The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.  It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk").  This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government.  The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the current evidence is inconclusive of its effects.  One thing's for sure, though.  Top politicians on both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and money-collection efforts.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: Dig on June 24, 2010, 01:12:21 am

-------BEGIN SQUAREPUSHER QUOTE--------------------------

Important highlights from the articles Anti_Illuminati posted...

ROBO-WAR DREAMS: GLOBAL SOUTH URBANISATION AND
THE US MILITARY’S’ REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS’


Sensors

Quote
"In their scenario, swarms of micro-scale and nano-scale networked sensors pervade the target city, providing continuous streams of target information to arrays of automated weaponry. Together, these systems produce continuous killing and 'target' destruction: a kind of robotised counter-insurgency operation with US commanders and soldiers doing little but overseeing the organised, interlinked and increasingly automated killing systems from a safe distance."

My note: See, peer through all the candy-coated euphemisms and so on and realize what they mean when they say the sensor is an 'information producer' - it produces new target acquisition data for killing or 'engagement' purposes (and notice - 'engagement' could also be construed as meaning - you as a member of the crowd being targeted by a 'sense and respond' supply chain-based advertising system - such as the often-quoted Minority Report example)

Target Acquisition

Quote
""Such omnipotence fantasies extend even further to the automated surveillance, through emerging brain scanning techniques, of people’s inner mental attitudes to any U.S. invasion. This way ‘targets’ deemed to be resistant can be automatically identified and destroyed:"

Quote

Robotic systems push deeper into the urban area [...]. Behind the fighters, military police and intelligence personnel process the inhabitants, electronically reading their attitudes toward the intervention and cataloguing them into a database immediately recoverable by every fire team in the city (even individual weapons might be able to read personal signatures, firing immediately upon cueing [...]. Smart munitions track enemy systems and profiled individuals [...] Satellites monitor the city for any air defense fires, curing immediate responses from near-space orbiting 'guns'. Drones track inhabitants who have been 'read' as potentially hostile and btagged'. (Defense Watch 2004)"


And here is the article where they reference that:

Technologies of exception. Urban warfare and US military technoscience
Stephen Graham, 2005

http://www.publicspace.org/en/text-library/eng/b022-technologies-of-exception-urban-warfare-and-us-military-technoscience

Notice how social sciences, adversarial threat inference systems and the like are all converging to create a 'knowledge base' that will tell the automated/autonomous robots/drones what to do and who to kill. Command and control is being dehumanized - just like 'surveillance' and humanity before it.

Take Humans Out Of The Loop
Quote
"Such dreams of continuous, automated, and robotised urban targeting and killing are far from being limited to the realms of such futuristic speculation, however. Rather, as with the CTS programme, they are fuelling very real multimillion dollar research and weapons development programmes aimed at developing ground and aerial vehicles which not only navigate and move robotically but select and destroy targets without 'humans in the loop', based on algorithmically-driven 'decisions'


Read here another article where it states the Army War College's own thoughts on removing humans from the decision-making loops. Essentially, this will be cybernetics perfected as it was always intended to be - a self-organised, totally automated decision-making loop. (Also look up the OODA Loop)

Future Warfare and the Decline of Human Decisionmaking (by THOMAS K. ADAMS, Parameters, Winter 2001-02)
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/01winter/adams.htm

The kill/value chain

Quote
"Lawlor (2003), for example, discusses the development of 'autonomous mechanized combatant' air and ground vehicles or 'tactical autonomous combatants' for the US Air Force. These are being designed, he notes, to use 'pattern recognition' software for what he calls 'time-critical targeting', i.e. linking sensors very quickly to automated weapons so that fleeting 'targets' both within and outside cities can be continually destroyed. Such doctrine is widely termed ¿compressing the kill chain or 'sensor to shooter warfare' in US military parlance (Hebert 2003)."

The 'kill chain'.... lends a whole new definition to the 'value chain' talked about in Enterprise Architecture, doesn't it? This is like a very sick perverted version of Report From Iron Mountain - war being the governing structure of society at large, so killing would indeed create 'value' in a sense - and it would also be a check against this dreaded 'overpopulation' thing...

Quote
"In addition, unmanned aerial vehicles armed with ¿intelligent munitions¿ are already being designed that will, eventually, be programmed to fire on, and kill, 'targets' detected by US Force's real-time surveillance grids, in a completely autonomous way. Such munitions will loiter over targets for days at a time, linked into the data links, until 'targets' are detected for destruction (Kenyon 2004)."

Quote

The ultimate goals, according to Pinney, an engineer at Raytheon, is a 'kill chain solution' based on '1st look, 1st feed, 1st kill' where each armed unmanned vehicle continuously 'seeks out targets on its own' (2003 16)."


'Kill chain solution', this is indeed bordering on enterprise architecture terminology. Think 'supply chain management', 'supply chain solutions'...

ED-209

Quote

Col. Terry Griffin, head of joint US Army and Marine Corps robot program, and tasked with deploying the next armed machine known as ‘Gladiator’, argues that the machines first job will be to disband groups of ‘undesirables’. He cites three stages of escalation: “First the robot issues warnings through a loudspeaker. It fires rubber bullets. Finally, the robot starts firing its machine gun”

(http://digilander.libero.it/LeonardoColombi/images/Normal/ed_209.jpg)
Enforcement Droid 209: Please put down your weapons. You have twenty seconds to comply."

Quote

 “Before SWORDS fires its first salvo at terrorists in Iraq,” writes Jörg Blech (2007) in Der Spiegel, “it needs the permission of two human operators.[...] However, it is only logical that decisions over life and death will increasingly be transferred to the machine – just as soon as engineers have figured out how to overcome the problem of distinguishing between friends and foes.”


They have already overcome this problem a long time ago - Blue Force Tracking was tested back in 1997 as part of the Force XXI trails. In addition, they have manufactured the 'asymmetric threat' that can be applied onto anybody that the military has deemed a 'foe' for whatever reason.

Inspection/Tracking of cars/traffic on highways

Quote

"Dr. John Kerekes, head of one such programme, labelled RASER, at MIT, explains that, rather than developing software that automatically identifies the signatures of military vehicles, the focus now is on tracking and identifying civilian cars and trucks in urban contexts"

See - and this battlelab is now being moved to the domestic Western countries - beginning with Holland in 2012 when the Pentagon will be overseeing approximately 18 million Dutch people riding on the highways with mandatory GPS trackerboxes that will tax them by the mile/kilometer/whatever.

That will be the first real stress test for 'sense and respond' applied onto society at large.

Quote

"A large-scale military research and development programme is currently underway in the
United States to tailor the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ to the specific micro-geographies
of the global south cities that many US military theorists envisage to be their main
‘battlespaces’ on the 21st century"

Planet Earth a 'unitary, ageographical battlespace'

Quote

Here the cutting-edge techno-scientific efforts and priorities of the world’s dominant military power are being shifted dramatically from an emphasis on globe-spanning control, networking and vertical targeting – treating planet Earth as some unitary, ageographical ‘battlespace’ – to one aimed at bringing maximum control, surveillance and killing power to the detailed micro-geographies of the burgeoning urban environments of the global south."

Dehumanization of responsibility

Quote

In such a scenario, the philosopher Robert Sparrow (2007: 62) worries that it will become increasingly impossible to attribute war crimes to humans at all. “It is a necessary condition for fighting a just war, under the principle of jus in bellum [or just war], that someone can be justly held responsible for deaths that occur in the course of the war,” he writes. However, “as this condition cannot be met in relation to deaths caused by an autonomous weapon system it would therefore be unethical to deploy such systems in warfare.

A similar 'dehumanization' of responsibility is already occurring in the surveillance/dataveillance sector, also linked to by Anti_Illuminati in another thread (and actually brought to his attention by me in the first place):

Public Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=171979.10

A highlight from that specific article:

Quote

Third, data mining rationalizes surveillance by removing humans from the interpretation process. The dehumanization of the analyses is important: Because it removes the so-called human bias from the interpretation process. As such, when combined with the fact that contemporary data mining relies on quantification of information (a seemingly dispassionate and objective method of interpreting the social world), this dehumanization projects an aura of objectivity, consequently making it even more difficult to challenge its premise (and the findings it provides).

See what they did there?

This - combined with IT Governance - is the dehumanization of all checks and balances, period.

System Of Systems - Network-Centric Warfare

Quote
Central to the RMA is the notion that “military operations are now aimed at defined effects rather than attrition of enemy forces or occupation of ground” (Cohen 2004: 395). Through the interlinkage of the ‘system of systems’ of U.S. military technologies, RMA theorists argue that a truly ‘network-centric warfare’ is now possible through which US forces can continually dominate societies deemed to be their adversaries through their increasingly omnipotent surveillance and ‘situational awareness’, devastating and precisely-targeted aerial firepower, and the suppression and degradation of the communications and fighting ability of any opposing forces"

Civilian RMA as applied to Western urban environments - outsourced to Iraq battle lab first

Quote
"It is now widely argued within US military strategic organisations and think-tanks that the RMA needs to be reconfigured to address the challenges of tightly built global south cities; that new bodies of ‘urban’ research need to be built up to understand how to use military violence to deliver precise ‘effects’ in such cities; and that the doctrine, weaponry, training and equipment of US forces need to be comprehensively redesigned so that urban military operations are their de facto function"

This is why the War in Iraq did not end with the 2003 Iraq invasion and subsequent 'Mission Accomplished' declaration about 6 months into the war. That was done because the legislation of the War Powers Act enabled Bush legal authority to declare war in that fashion, get away with it, and then escalate/egg on the 'insurgency' so the Pentagon could get round to applying the second stress test for the RMA: counter-insurgency and this whole marriage of cognitive science and COINTEL ops.

The RMA Enables President To Start Wars Without Congress' Approval - RMA Exposed
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=172727.0

Quote
"A large output of conceptual, techno-scientific and Research and Development material has been created by the ‘urban turn’ of the RMA, especially since the Iraq invasion (see Grubbs 2003; Houlgate 2004)"

Also tying into that - Alexander H. Levis bringing his CAESAR/TEMPER/Pythia adversarial intent inference body of work to the Iraq battlelab.

Alexander Levis: Pentagon Asks Academics for Help in Understanding Its Enemies
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=158847.msg944258#msg944258

One way to tell if you're in an 'occupied city'
Quote

 "One major example of such a development is the tellingly title ‘Combat Zones That See’ (CTS) project led by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Launched at the start of the Iraq insurgency in 2003, CTS “explores concepts, develops algorithms, and delivers systems for utilising large numbers (1000s) of algorithmic video cameras to provide the close-in sensing demanded for military operations in urban terrain.”

Through installing computerised CCTV across whole occupied cities, the project organisers envisage that, when deployed, CTS will sustain “motion-pattern analysis across whole city scales”, linked to the tracking of massive populations of individualised cars and people through intelligent computer algorithms linked to the recognition of number plates and scanned in human facial photos"

See people - this is why they want your fingerprints - this is why they want your iris scan - this is why they want to give you a biometric RFID card that you will have to carry at all times - because you are living in an 'occupied city' - that's what those CCTV cameras were about - as if you needed this document to help you figure that out, huh?

What happened when civil libertarians (read: controlled opposition ACLU) got bitchy about it?

Quote

 "The central challenge of CTS, according to DARPA, will be to build up fully representative data profiles on the ‘normal’ time-space movement patterns of entire subject cities so that algorithms could then use statistical modelling to “determine what is normal and what is not” (quoted in Sniffen 2003). This will be a purported aid to identifying insurgents’ activities and real or potential attacks, as well as warning of the presence or movement of target or suspect vehicles or individuals"


Quote
After a stream of protests from US civil liberties groups, DARPA stressed that, whilst the initial test of mass, urban tracking will take place at a US Army base within the United States (Fort Belvoir, Virginia), the deployment of CTS will only take place in “Foreign urban battlefields” (Defense Watch 2004).

Ahahahaa - they transported all that tech to Iraq to serve as a BATTLELAB for this kind of cognitive science STRAITJACKET to be implemented at home.

------------------------------END SQUAREPUSHER QUOTE----------------------------
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision
Post by: MonkeyPuppet on June 24, 2010, 01:30:41 am
Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18815
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 23, 2010 10:37 AM


Recent studies have shown that piracy may actually help the U.S. economy and that virtually every citizen commits some form of IP infringement on a daily basis.  (Source: Learn Languages)

Despite this, the Obama administration is firmly on the side of groups like the RIAA and MPAA and plans to crack down on infringers at home and abroad.  (Source: CITV)

Among its plans is to assist copyright organizations in prosecutory efforts, such as sending out threat/collection notices. The government also looks to legislation imminent infringement (thought crime), criminalization of P2P development, and criminalization of DRM bypassing later this year.  (Source: Flickr)
 
"It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window." -- U.S. VP Joe Biden


While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement.  Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.

After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry and a brief "public review", the administration rolled out its vision to fight piracy yesterday afternoon.  U.S. Vice President Joe Biden -- whose blunt speech has sometime left him in trouble -- did not mince words.

He states, "This is theft, clear and simple.  It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

The sound-byte comparing downloads to stealing jewels from New York City's finest jeweler quickly lit up the web.  Bob Pisano, interim chief executive officer at the Motion Picture Association of America praised the VP, "It is especially critical that the United States has an effective framework for protecting creative content online and enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital environment."

According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad.  Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues.  Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.

The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details.  It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts.  It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."

The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas.  The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince piracy-loving nations like China to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement.

The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."

Such efforts have shown mild success.  After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty.  The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations.  The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year.  The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.  It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk").  This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government.  The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the current evidence is inconclusive of its effects.  One thing's for sure, though.  Top politicians on both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and money-collection efforts.

These retards need to be more specific with their over-generalized rhetoric.  A charge of infringement upon intellectual copyright ("piracy", as they call it) should inherently require that the offense was committed with the intent to engage in commerce with, or as a result of using, the intellectual property in question.