Laser Based Department Of Homeland Security Scanner Removes Any Hope Or Expectation Of Personal Privacy – Can Detect Anything, Including What You Had For Breakfast, From 160 Feet Away – Expect Your Local Police To Have The Same Thing Soon – Developed With Aid Of Our Tax Dollars And CIA

July 11, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – The Department of Homeland Security will soon be using a laser at airports that can detect everything about you from over 160-feet away.

Gizmodo reports a scanner that could read people at the molecular level has been invented. This laser-based scanner – which can be used 164-feet away — could read everything from a person’s adrenaline levels, to traces of gun powder on a person’s clothes, to illegal substances — and it can all be done without a physical search. It also could be used on multiple people at a time, eliminating random searches at airports.

The laser-based scanner is expected to be used in airports as soon as 2013, Gizmodo reports.

The scanner is called the Picosecond Programmable Laser. The device works by blasting its target with lasers which vibrate molecules that are then read by the machine that determine what substances a person has been exposed to. This could be Semtex explosives to the bacon and egg sandwich they had for breakfast that morning.

The inventor of this invasive technology is Genia Photonics. Active since 2009, they hold 30 patents on laser technology designed for scanning. In 2011, they formed a partnership with In-Q-Tel, a company chartered by the CIA and Congress to build “a bridge between the Agency and a new set of technology innovators.”

Genia Photonics wouldn’t be the only ones with similar technology as George Washington University developed something similar in 2008, according to Gizmodo. The Russians also developed something akin to the Picosecond Programmable laser. The creators of that scanner claim that “it is even able to detect traces of explosives left by fingerprints.”

But what makes Genia Photonics’ version so special is that the machine is more compact compared to the other devices and can still maintain its incredible range.

Although the technology could be used by “Big Brother,” Genia Photonics states that the device could be far more beneficial being used for medical purposes to check for cancer in real time, lipids detection, and patient monitoring.

Appeared Here

Advertisements

Pennsylvania Judge John Cleland Won’t Protect Identities Of Child Rape Victims During Pedophile Jerry Sandusky’s Trial

June 4, 2012

PENNSYLVANIA – Jury selection in the trial of Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant football coach charged with child rape, is scheduled to start Tuesday in Pennsylvania.

A judge last week denied his attorneys’ latest bid for a delay, allowing the case to move forward.

Sandusky, 68, has been under house arrest since being charged with sexually abusing 10 boys over 14 years. Prosecutors allege he met some of his accusers through Second Mile, a charity he created for underprivileged children.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. According to a source close to the Sandusky family, he is expected to attend court Tuesday.

The allegations against Sandusky led to the firing of iconic Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno only months before he died of complications from lung cancer.

Several of the people whom prosecutors accuse Sandusky of abusing asked a judge to protect their identities at trial.

However, Judge John Cleland on Monday ruled the alleged victims’ identities may not be concealed during the trial, although they will be protected through the jury selection process.

“Courts are not customarily in the business of withholding information,” Cleland’s ruling said. “Secrecy is thought to be inconsistent with the openness required to assure the public that the law is being administered fairly and applied faithfully.”

Prosecutors in Sandusky case present new, graphic details

But, the judge noted, “It is also to be hoped that various news organizations that will report on the trial will use what has become their professional custom to protect the privacy of alleged victims.”

CNN generally does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault.

Those asking for their identities to be concealed included one man known simply as Victim 4. His attorney, Ben Andreozzi, said he believes his client, now 28, is the strongest witness for the prosecution and will be called to testify first.

“In society, sometimes we question why rape victims are reluctant to come forward,” Andreozzi said Monday after the ruling. “So now we have our answer. … We are disappointed.”

“We are not asking to close the courtroom, only to use a pseudonym,” he said.

His client will still testify, he said, “but at what expense to his emotional well-being?”

He said he expects the defense to attack his client on the basis of a meeting he had with Sandusky in the years after the alleged abuse.

“My client couldn’t break free,” said the attorney, describing the relationship between Victim 4 and Sandusky as “complex.”

Mike McQueary, a former graduate student considered to be another key witness in the Sandusky case, has testified that he alerted Paterno in 2002 that he’d seen what appeared to be Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, an allegation authorities didn’t learn of until years later.

Psychologist flagged Sandusky as ‘likely pedophile’ in 1998 report

But prosecutors said later that the incident took place about a year earlier than what was originally alleged, causing defense attorneys for two former Penn State officials to argue that one of the charges should now be dropped.

Tim Curley, Penn State’s former athletic director, and Gary Schultz, a former university vice president who oversaw campus police, have been charged with perjury and failing to report the alleged sexual assault of a child. Both of them have pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys have said that prosecutors “charged this case before (they) knew the facts.”

After news of the scandal broke last year, The New York Times published an extensive interview in which Sandusky attempted to clarify his relationships with young people.

“If I say, ‘No, I’m not attracted to young boys,’ that’s not the truth,” he said, according to the story. “Because I’m attracted to young people — boys, girls — I …”

His lawyer, who was present at the interview, spoke up at that point to note that Sandusky is “not sexually” attracted to them.

“Right. I enjoy — that’s what I was trying to say — I enjoy spending time with young people. I enjoy spending time with people,” Sandusky continued. “I mean, my two favorite groups are the elderly and the young.”

Appeared Here


EPA Using Airborne Drones To Spy On Farmers In Nebraska And Iowa

June 4, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is using aerial drones to spy on farmers in Nebraska and Iowa. The surveillance came under scrutiny last week when Nebraska’s congressional delegation sent a joint letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

On Friday, EPA officialdom in “Region 7” responded to the letter.

“Courts, including the Supreme Court, have found similar types of flights to be legal (for example to take aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility) and EPA would use such flights in appropriate instances to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act,” the agency said in response to the letter.

“They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” said Mike Johanns, a Republican senator from Nebraska.

In fact, the EPA has absolutely zero authority and is an unconstitutional entity of an ever-expanding and rogue federal government. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of the environment. Under the Tenth Amendment, this authority is granted to the states and their legislatures, not the federal government.

The EPA has not addressed the constitutional question, including its wanton violation of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. It merely states that it has authority to surveil the private property of farmers and ranchers. It defends its encroaching behavior as “cost-efficient.”

Appeared Here


Concern About Domestic Drones, Besides Privacy, Includes That They Will Be Armed For Use Against US Citizens

May 23, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft.

Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate.

The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras.

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.

“Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily.

The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC.

Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from.

“When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there,” Crump explained to CBSDC. “An officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access.”

The ACLU is also worried about potential drones malfunctioning and falling from the sky, adding that they are keeping a close eye on the use of these unmanned aircraft by police departments.

“We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC.

Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, feels domestic drones should not be armed.

“I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city,” Foust told CBSDC. “In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.”

McDaniel says that his community should not be worried about the department using a drone.

“We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot,” McDaniel told The Daily. “Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.”

But the concern for the ACLU is just too great that an American’s constitutional rights will be trampled with the use of drones.

“The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene,” Crump says, “raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.”

Appeared Here


FAA To Ease Rules For Domestic Use Of Surveillance Aircraft To Spy On US Citizens In America

May 15, 2012

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA — Surveillance aircraft used by the U.S. military overseas could soon be coming to the skies above Los Angeles County.

KNX 1070′s Charles Feldman reports the Federal Aviation Administration is making it easier for local law enforcement agencies to fly unmanned drones.

The FAA has streamlined the process that would allow agencies to fly smaller, unarmed versions of the drones that hunt down terrorists in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has not yet applied for an application to fly drones over our skies, its Homeland Security chief Bob Osborne said drones could be in the department’s future — with some caveats.

“We have so much congestion in the skies that I would anticipate that there would be some pretty rigid safety standards,” said Osborne.

Drones are typically used over locations where helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are unable to fly, which Osborne said could have a myriad of applications here in the Southland.

“Mountain rescue, where you have a car over the side that’s a thousand feet down the cliff, oftentimes our aircraft can’t fly that low,” he said. “It would be wonderful to know what’s down there before we send a rescue crew.”

Federal officials already utilize drones to patrol a 1,200-mile wide swath of land east of San Diego near the southeast California border.

But the recent expansion of drones and other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) above American cities has raised privacy concerns among some who believe the technology could be used for surveillance on U.S. citizens without their knowledge.

President Obama set a deadline in February for the FAA to draft legislation by May 14 that would determine how it will regulate the use of lightweight drones by police and other public safety agencies.

Appeared Here


US Air Force Doesn’t Have A Problem With Spying On Americans With Unmanned Drones

May 13, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – A newly discovered Air Force intelligence brief states that should fleets of unmanned drones accidentally capture surveillance footage of Americans, the data can be stored and analyzed by the Pentagon for up to 90 days.

The instruction, dated April 23, admits that the Air Force cannot legally conduct “nonconsensual surveillance” on Americans, but also states that should the drones”incidentally” capture data while conducting other missions, military intelligence has the right to study it to determine whether the subjects are legitimate targets of domestic surveillance.

“Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent,” the instruction states.

The Air Force can take advantage of “a period not to exceed 90 days” to use the data to assess “whether that information may be collected under the provisions of Procedure 2, DoD 5240.1-R and permanently retained under the provisions of Procedure 3, DoD 5240.1-R.” it continues.

The Pentagon directives cited authorize limited domestic spying in certain scenarios such as natural disasters, environmental cases, and monitoring activity around military bases.

Should the drones capture data on Americans, the Air Force says that it should determine whether they are, among other things, “persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The instruction also states that the Pentagon can disseminate the data to other intelligence and government agencies, should it see fit.

“Even though information may not be collectible, it may be retained for the length of time necessary to transfer it to another DoD entity or government agency to whose function it pertains.” the document reads.

The document was discovered by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists.

As we reported in February, Over 30 prominent watchdog groups have banded together to petition the FAA on the proposed increase in the use of drones in US airspace.

The groups, including The American Civil Liberties Union, The Electronic Privacy Information Center and The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, are demanding that the FAA hold a rulemaking session to consider the privacy and safety threats.

Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA predicts will be somewhere in the region of 30,000 drones in operation in US skies by 2020.

The ACLU noted that the FAA’s legislation “would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.”

In addition to privacy concerns, the groups warned that the ability to link facial recognition technology to surveillance drones and patch the information through to active government databases would “increase the First Amendment risks for would be political dissidents.”

Appeared Here


Okaloosa County Florida Deputy Sheriff Harassed Walking Man Without Cause, Charged Him With BS Count After His Feelings Got Hurt

May 5, 2012

FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA — A 47-year-old man was charged April 23 with misdemeanor resisting officer without violence.

According to the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s report, a deputy spotted the man walking in the middle of Tilden Avenue, which is known to be a high-crime area.

When the deputy stopped the man and asked for his identification, the man replied, “(Expletive) you, that’s for you to figure out.”

Appeared Here