Quantcast
Channel: Subliminal Ridge
Viewing all 264 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Ntrepid: What is it?

September 9, 2012, 2:14 am
$
0
0
Ntrepid: What is it?
by Sue Basko

This is the 4th in a series of articles on spyware sold by private companies.

Ntrepid is a corporation that, as of mid-2011, owns Anonymizer, Inc.  Ntrepid has the following products.  I will do a separate, detailed post on some of these:

Anonymizer - Anonymizer is an online service that provides anonymous web surfing through SSL (secure sockets layer) to people at home, businesses, governments, and spy agencies.  Anonymizer, Inc. is the name of the company (subsidiary of Ntrepid) that holds Anonymizer and Nyms. See post on ANONYMIZER.

Nyms - Anonymous, disposable email accounts so people do not know who is really sending the email or who is really registering to comment.

Tartan - a crude modeling program that is used to map out who is connected to whom from among a set of data entered into the program.  Silly stuff.  We are all no more than 3 connections away from Kevin Bacon.

Ntrepid Timestream - software for mobile devices that is used to track events and evidence and links users belonging to the same organization so they can collaborate.

Nfusion - an online software service that masks the online identity of the user and protects against malware.  Sounds similar to Anonymizer, but marketed heavily to governments and spies using fear of terrorists as a selling point, and the subscription probably costs 1000 times as much per month.  Lots of scary-looking photos in the ads.  "Digital Armor for Online Missions," say the ads.   A full post will be done on this product.

Virtus - a software that translates the language of large amounts of data, such as that which is found in databases and spreadsheets.  

Elusiv - This is a device that works with the Sendum PT200, (Sendum PT200 company info) (more info on Sendum PT200 size, battery life, tracking capability, etc.) which is a gps tracking device that is put into packages, onto vehicles, etc., to track them.  The Elusiv is a remote switch that senses light, motion, or elapsed time and turns the Sendum gps tracker on.   These are sold to the FBI.  The PT200 is always on, but the battery life is 7 to 15 days.  I assume the Elusiv is used either to extend battery life or to warn if the PT200 gps tracker has been discovered and/or removed (light and motion sensor).  See the post on CAR SURVEILLANCE.

ION - Online software service marketed to the spy crowd. Data encryption, computer proxy service, anti-spyware (how ironic), anti-virus, anti-phishing.  Provides fake IP addresses and online identities.   It is called "Ion Secure Virtual Desktop" and gives a "clean, non-attributable, virtual work environment."  It helps organize files downloaded from "the enemy" and scans them for viruses and malware.   See post on NTREPID ION.
↧
Search

Car Surveillance

September 11, 2012, 2:17 am
$
0
0
Car Surveillance
by Sue Basko

This is the 5th in a series about spyware used against people.  

In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement agencies must have a warrant before they can attach a GPS unit to a person's car.   The main Court opinion stated that the intrusion onto the vehicle constituted a search under the 4th Amendment.  The decision hinted at, but did not specifically address, whether it is legal for law enforcement agencies to track people through their cell phones.

Before this ruling, law enforcement agencies were apparently making widespread use of GPS tracking devices.  This was a huge boon for manufacturers and sellers of these devices.  Now, a warrant based on probable cause is required -- but in reality, a warrant is not hard to get.  A warrant does mean there is a paper trail of overuse or abuse of car surveillance tracking. 

I may be cynical, but I think illegal tracking will be outsourced to quasi-law enforcement agencies: those private companies that work in tandem with law enforcement agencies and do not follow the law.    The information from warrantless tracking will not be admissible in court, but the person's movement will still be followed. 

Today, the most up-to-date GPS tracking devices are very small - the size of an ipod to the size of a slim cell phone.  They are placed into a black plastic box that holds the tracker and a battery.  The box is lined with foam to prevent jostling.  On the outside of the box, large flat round magnets are screwed into one side.  The box is stuck onto the car using the magnets.  The most likely location is on the outside of the car bottom, on the rear of the back bumper, or near the wheel well.  They may also be placed under a seat or in a glove compartment, but that requires repeat access to the car -- to first place the tracker box, then to replace it with one that has fresh batteries, and later to remove it.

The batteries on a GPS tracker today can last about 2 weeks. However, most of the newer models have a switch that turns on in response to light or motion.  So when the car moves, the tracker turns on.  That saves on battery power and can make a tracker last much longer without needing to be swapped out for a powered unit.  One device is supposed to last a year without a battery swap.  Another unit uses wireless charging, so at least in theory, the device could be indefinitely recharged without removal. 

Today's GPS trackers work by GPS and cell tower triangulation.  Some units can not only send information, but can also receive signals that change the settings, such as on/off and low/high motion sensors.  Some will respond to a "Where are you now?" query.  Some units have 2-way radio communication and a base unit can send over the air (OTA) instructions to the tracker.

Another feature some trackers have is that they report when a vehicle (or other thing being tracked) passes outside a boundary or passes a marker.  Those markers are sometimes called geo-fences.  Surveillance teams may place a geo marker in or on a street light pole or on some other sturdy, public thing.  

Some GPS surveillance systems work by alerting the surveillance person with an email or text.  Other systems have a full, constant tracking.  The surveillance team must buy a subscription to an online service and a cell phone service.  They then tune in to the service online and can watch the GPS tracker move around on a google map --  with the views that google maps has -- street view, map, satellite.  The systems also get a text readout of street locations.  Some systems work on a cell phone or hand-held unit.  Therefore, the person tracking you may be watching your moves on a small device that looks just like a cell phone.

Sendum PT200 GPS tracker


The Sendum PT200 was the first and smallest GPS tracker.  It is called a package tracker, because it was designed to be placed into packages to try to ensure their intact delivery.  The unit is very small and costs around $350.  For car surveillance, it is sold with a black plastic waterproof box with magnets on the outside.  The newer PT300 is slimmer, like a very slim small cell phone.  

FW Geo F3 Tracker in waterproof case.
It is placed on car with the large round magnets seen on left.
FreightWatch GPS trackers work with a QualComm subscription.  FreightWatch claims that its  Geo F3 Covert Tracker has a battery that can last a full year.  They say it works indoors, in elevators,  inside cargo containers, hidden under cars.  It weighs 3 ounces including the internal battery and is about 3.5 inches by 2.5 inches x 1 inch.

Ntrepid Corporation, which has been affiliated with Abraxas Corporation, jumped into the GPS tracker market by making a light and motion sensor switch for the Sendum PT200. These were sold to the FBI.  They were an inexpensive upgrade, costing about $120 each.  Since then, companies have come out with newer models that include the light and motion sensors.  Ntrepid sells direct to federal, state, and local law enforcement and government agencies.  Their products are meant to track packages, vehicles and people.  Ntrepid sells a line of sensors called Elusiv EL1501, 1502, 1503, 1505, 1506 and  1530, each of which does a different configuration of power level compatibility, time and motion triggering, and delayed time response.  One model is designed to fit into the Sendum PT200.

Ntrepid sells 2 tracker models,  which they call the Hawk and the Hummingbird.  The Hawk has GPS and GSM antennas, embedded SIM and 2 built-in geo-fences.  It works with their product called EVE (Elusiv Visualization Environment), which is the system for watching the tracker location on either an internet browser or on the mobile handset device that they sell.  The Hummingbird is small and slim and claims to have wireless battery charging.  If so, the Hummingbird could last indefinitely.  Wireless charging is also known as inductive charging and uses an electromagnetic field to charge the device.

Ntrepid also sells UHF RF beacon tags with a base unit.  The beacon tag is a very small device with an antenna.  It has a unique RFID (radio frequency identification) that it sends to the base unit when it is within about 300 feet of the base unit.  The RFID tag has very low power consumption and can last for years.

Ntrepid also sells an item they call TVis that looks like a cell phone, but is the graphic user interface for the tracker.

Some companies online sell GPS vehicle trackers to anyone.  Sendum even markets one as being a good way to track relatives with Alzheimers disease.  Employers are allowed to use GPS trackers on vehicles they provide for you to use while at work.  Rental cars often have built-in GPS monitors and some have cameras.  Some courts have ruled that cameras in rental cars are illegal invasions of privacy. Since anyone can buy a tracker, there is a great possibility of abuse.  There are many articles online about how to track the movements of  a spouse or boy/girlfriend using a GPS tracker.  Such stalking actions are illegal, but people still do them.

How to Check for a GPS tracker on your own car: Put on gloves to keep your hands clean. Use a small flashlight with strong light.  Use a small mirror to see under the car.  The best sort of mirror to use is a lit, magnifying handheld mirror, the kind that is used for tweezing eyebrows.  The Tweezermate mirror is excellent and costs $15.00.   Check the wheel wells and behind the rear bumper.  If someone has had access to your car, check the glove compartment , under the seats, in a trunk or cargo area.

 The unit is most likely on the exterior of the car, so that it can be easily swapped out and removed.  Keep in mind that the person placing it has likely done so while you were parked on a public street or in a parking lot and has placed it in under 20 seconds.  Therefore, look in obvious locations where a box slightly larger than a cell phone can be stuck with magnets.  Remember, the unit is likely to have light sensors on it, so shining the light onto it will turn it on and send out alerts.

***


↧
↧

Ntrepid ION: More Stuff for the Spy Crowd

September 14, 2012, 2:57 pm
$
0
0
Ntrepid ION: More Stuff for the Spy Crowd
by Sue Basko


Note: This is the 6th in a series about spyware used against people.   

Ntrepid is a Florida corporation based in Virginia that makes SaaS (software as a service) for the spy crowd.  (Ntrepid also sells car surveillance products.)  ION is the name of an Ntrepid series of software products.  This is not to be confused with ION software from India.  In fact, as of Sept. 12, 2012, Ntrepid's application for trademarks on the word "Ion" have been suspended by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because of the prior applications by the Indian company claiming the name.  Word to the wise: If you plan to use a name, do a good trademark search first and file your application to secure the name.  And better still -- don't pick a name likely to fail at trademark because it is a common word and already used in 894 trademarks.  Why spend millions on marketing materials for a product where you are most likely going to have to change the name?   But, I digress here.  The topic is:  What is ION?

ION is Ntrepid's Virtual Desktop for spies.   It sounds real similar in many ways to Anonymizer, which is marketed to hip young moms at home (who want to anonymously watch porn? or something?), except Ion is souped-up and sold to the spy crowd. This seems to include government spies, for-hire spy companies, corporate spies, and  wannabe spy busybodies.  What's it for?


Ntrepid says ION is for OSINT (open source intelligence) analysts to "monitor terrorist operations, criminal activities and hostile and nefarious networks."  Hmm, sounds like these folks are hanging out on Twitter all day.

So how does it work?  First, you buy a subscription. Then you log into ION, which is on a cloud (my, how secure..) and then you get a Virtual Desktop that is "non-attributable." That means other people on the internet cannot tell your real IP (internet protocol) address, because this gives you a fake one and also keeps rotating you to different fake ones.  Also, it fakes up your location and keeps swapping that out. You can pick CONUS (Contiguous U.S., which means the U.S. except not Alaska or Hawaii.  "Contiguous" means connected)  or OCONUS (outside the Contiguous U.S.)

This is the standard Ntrepid ION package: Custom VPN on a cloud, Daily IP address rotation (how sneaky, lol), innocuous IP addresses that look normal, blah blah blah. In other words, for the standard package, you get a new fake IP address each day.


For a bit more moolah, you get media that looks normal, but is not traceable.  By "media," they mean photos and videos.  So you can post psy-ops stuff.  You also get a clean slate with no history or cache.   And an IP address that operates in the local language, so you look like a local.  What's funny is I get such visitors to my blogs with frequency, and I can always tell they are there, and I suppose others worldwide can, too.  This is the internet equivalent of someone calling you on the phone using a funny voice.   It is not at all as secret as the users imagine it to be.


If you really want to soup it up, you can get ION with high-volume non-attribution -- meaning you can pretend to be a whole bunch of fake people all at once and be from different places.  You can get email non-attribution, so you can send emails from fake IP addresses. This is what is also done by Nyms, another Ntrepid/ Anonymizer product.  You can also get anonymous VOIP (voice over internet protocol, like Skype phone).  And "persistent managed e-identities."  That is in case you want to go back day after day as the same persona.

I include this graphic, because I think it is good art for 2012: "Harvesting Activity that Mimics Human-Like Behaviors."  There are other facets of ION, so expect future posts.






↧

Ntrepid Abraxas 4S: What is it?

September 15, 2012, 12:14 am
$
0
0
Ntrepid Abraxas 4S: What is it?
by Sue Basko

Ntrepid Abraxas 4S is a top-secret collaborative product of Ntrepid, Abraxas, Trapwire, and CIA Operatives.  Richard Hollis Helms initiated the task group, which was led by Lance Cottrell.  The design was honed over 6 years, with input from CIA Operatives who had worked on missions as far-ranging as the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the Balkans, and Oklahoma.


The 4S stands for "Slimstick Secret Spy Stylo."  The basic 4S is shown below:
Ntrepid Abraxas TrapWire 4S





The 4S Endtool is shown, with the description that it can be used for "data capture, lock-picking, or stabbing weapon." Such versatility must be why it took the team 6 years to design the 4S and why it costs an astronomical price.  

 More bragging.

This lists the key option, the Data Deletion End Tool, followed by a photo of it:

4S Data Deletion Endtool.


Then, there is the patented NtrepidNote Graphic User Interface designed by the team especially for use with the 4S:

NtrepidNote for Ntrepid Abraxas 4S
The advertising slogan is geared to appeal to clandestine operatives working on secret missions worldwide:



↧

Soveillance: Social Media Surveillance

September 16, 2012, 9:53 pm
$
0
0
Chatisfaction, Inc. ad for Soveillance, social media spying software

Soveillance: Social Media Surveillance
by Sue Basko

Soveillance, a product of Chatisfaction, Inc., a Nevada corporation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A., is used to automatically surveil the social media of others.  It is marketed to 3 target consumers: Families, Corporations, and Government entities.  Michael Pike is CEO of Chatisfaction, Inc.

For greater insight and to make your own assessment, please see the brochure pages below.

The Family product is used to spy on other family members.  It seems to require the social media account name and  password.  It searches for words in context, so apparently has more than just word recognition.  Of course, this is marketed as a way to know if one's child is being bullied or is suicidal, or is bullying.

Analysis and Commentary: Parents should not be spying on their kids, but rather, should maintain good communication.  Spying on children is disrespectful. Children are harmed by having a parent who does not respect personal boundaries.  If a child learns the parent is routinely spying on them,  trust will be forever lost.  Also, using such techniques sets up a child to accept a surveillance state.  If a parent needs to -- or even wants to -- use such spy software, that is a lousy parent indeed.  For $29.99 per child, you can spy on your kids.  Sad.  In the process of doing so, you lose whatever trust that child has placed in you.

Soveillance is also sold for use by corporations to spy on the social media of their employees.  I have heard of employees being asked or told to give their Facebook password to their employer.  First, it is against the Terms of Service of all social media that I have seen to give the password to anyone.  Breaking Terms of Service is illegal.  Never give your user name or password to anyone.

Second, should a corporation be allowed to surveil its employees outside of the workplace as a condition of employment?  There have been several widely-reported incidents of people being fired for things they posted on their Facebooks.  These are two distinct questions: Should it be possible to fire employees for what they post on their  personal social media pages?  And:  Should an employer be allowed to install a surveillance program on those pages?

Soveillance is also marketed to governments.  The first segment of this is surveilling the social media of government officials or employees.  Keep in mind, this is surveillance of their personal social media.  Does a government entity have a right to do that?

The other part is scanning for words or patterns in public postings. The example given is scanning for flash mob robbery planning.  Such flash mobs are planned mainly by text among a group of people who know each other.  What is planned in open online public space on Twitter and Facebook are First Amendment protests.  There is a grave danger that Soveillance could be used or is being used to thwart First Amendment rights.

Note: Mike Pike, CEO of Soveillance emailed me to say the software only scans public Social Media postings.   My questions: First, why does a worried parent allow a child to have Social Media accounts, when most Social Media sites allow only those age 13+ and up?  And if a child has a Social Media account, why would it be "fully public"?  And if a child has a fully public Social Media account, and the parent wants to know what it says, why doesn't the parent just read it?  

Second, what kind of Social Media is actually public, besides Twitter?   True, there are kooks, like Anthony Weiner, posting completely inappropriate things on Twitter, but their transgressions are so outlandish that it does not take specialized software for them to become known.  

 If Mr. Pike allows, I will post his email here.

Soveillance brochure page 1
Soveillance brochure page 2
Soveillance brochure page 3

↧
↧

Axxon Public Surveillance

September 17, 2012, 11:39 pm
$
0
0
Axxon Public Surveillance
by Sue Basko

A company called AXXONSOFT LIMITED, of Limassol, Cyprus, sells public surveillance software called Intellect and Smart.  The Intellect software has several variations for its place of use, including Intellect ATM, Intellect POS (point of sale), Intellect Railway, Intellect Auto and Intellect Face.  Axxon claims to have 60% of the Russian market and to be #1 in the European market.  Axxonsoft has offices in Moscow, Russia; Barcelona, Spain; Wiesbaden, Germany; in the Sofia region of Bulgaria;   Singapore;  India; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Mexico; and in Great Falls, Virginia, USA, with Joel Moss as principal at the U.S. location.

The Intellect software coordinates analog and digital cameras in public locations, scans the images, and sends out alerts for various activities.  It also recognizes faces and license plate numbers.

Axxon Intellect ad lists what the surveillance software detects.

Axxon claims the software detects such things as abandoned packages, loitering, and entering a restricted zone.  The software captures the images in a database and the user can search and match other similar objects/ people/ actions.  (Image is from Axxon product brochure.)

Ad for Axxon Intellect Auto software explains what it does.

Axxon has software that sees and records license plates.  There is also a traffic control module.  None of it sounds like it will speed up traffic that is in a jam or gridlock. (Image is from Axxon product brochure.)

Ad for Axxon Intellect Face software explains its facial recognition software.

Axxon software does facial recognition.  It captures facial images into a database and then matches that with other images in the database.  "People identified regardless of facial hair, hairstyle, eyewear, aging.."  (Image is from Axxon product brochure.)

Analysis and Commentary: Just one example of why such software is bad for the community: Recently, Chicago's public transit, called CTA, purchased many new train cars for its "el" system.  These cars were tested two years ago and I had the misfortune of riding on one. I immediately wrote a letter to the CTA, and this letter was published in the Chicago Tribune.  The train cars have seats facing the center aisle.  This is extremely uncomfortable and unfriendly, and seems to be done for the sole purpose of making the riders identifiable by the cameras mounted in the ceiling. These cameras are no doubt connected to this Axxon software or something just like it.

The CTA ordered hundreds of such train cars, which last for 40 years.  The cars are now being installed on the train lines and they are nearly universally loathed.  The people of Chicago are being  forced to be uncomfortable and unhappy each time they ride the CTA, so that their faces can be subjected to facial recognition.  The long line of seating is so unfriendly to families, anyone with a package, anyone wanting any sort of privacy/dignity.  The seats pose a health  hazard because they open people up to being sneezed on by all the others sitting and standing, nearly on top of one another.  In case of a train crash, all the people on the long seats are likely to be flung about the car, and/or to pile up and crush one another, as well as having all those standing falling on top of them.

All this misery to satisfy someone's fetish for surveilling people in public?  This must be the reason for ordering these train cars, because they are so unpleasant and so unfriendly to riders that there is no other reason possible.   At the same time, the CTA claims it wants to lure more riders.  That is what is right for our environment and cities.   Trains should be made more comfortable and satisfying, not less so.  Such train cars are chosen to help form a complete surveillance state -- and this should not be tolerated by citizens.
↧

Barrett Brown Indictment as jpg.

October 3, 2012, 10:19 am
$
0
0
Barrett Brown Indictment as jpg
pull each page off blog to enlarge to read.










↧

Barrett Brown Indictment: Thoughts

October 5, 2012, 1:50 am
$
0
0

Barrett Brown Indictment: Thoughts

OCTOBER/5/ 2012.  I just read the Federal Criminal indictment of Barrett Lancaster Brown, the writer who often speaks about Anonymous.  It's a 3-count indictment based on his tweets and youtube videos.  The first count says he made threats to injure and shoot FBI agents (It is really stretching it to say he made such threats, especially since he repeatedly states that he does not mean he will shoot or kill.).  The second count says he urged someone to dox FBI Agent Robert Smith.  The third count says he retaliated against FBI Agent Robert Smith, apparently by making threats/ doxing.

I want to be clear here, since there are criminal indictments going around:  I am totally against anyone threatening anyone's safety or endangering anyone.  And mentioning a child is reprehensible.  I am also totally against anyone doxing anyone.  Those are serious things.  And doxing is a crime, even against non-government people, where it is considered stalking, cyberstalking,  invasion of privacy, etc.

Having said that, let's look at what Barrett Brown actually did.  Barrett Brown openly admits he is an on and off heroin addict.  At the time he made the tweets and videos, he was apparently on and off suboxone and not eating.  And in the tinychat  during which he was arrested, he earlier stepped out to buy a "40," meaning 40 ounces of malt liquor, which has high alcohol content.  There is talk that he was also taking paxil and abruptly stopped using it.  He was obviously trying to get off heroin, but by his own methods, rather than being in a hospital under careful medical supervision.

 Barrett Brown's thinking was obviously not very clear.  In the videos,  he looks fried and senseless.   This is not a person taking drugs for recreation. This is a person trying to get off drugs and not having proper medical care.

As a nation, we also need to look at the FBI practice of raiding the homes of activists.  Barrett's home and his mother's house were raided in March 2012, and his computers and notebooks were taken. The FBI has been conducting many such raids across the nation, for several years.  These are not people who are wanted for any crimes.  Subsequent to the raids, I do not know of any who have then been charged with a crime.

The raids are a form of harassment and intimidation.  The FBI agents arrive en masse early in the morning.  They kick in the door and throw flash bangs.  They run in shouting, carrying huge guns. They force people to lie on the floor.  They tear the house apart and leave with trucks full of stuff.  They take the things the people need for their work and businesses and daily lives -- their computers, their notebooks, photographs, receipts.  This is happening all over our nation to people who have done such things as put on protests, attended demonstrations, spoken out.  Do you care? You should.

It is suprising that MORE victims of these FBI raids have not flipped out.   It is the FBI raids that NEED to be stopped -- not Barrett Brown who needs to be imprisoned.  He was rightfully damn angry and he should have been.  We should all be angry that these raids are taking place!  

The tweets quoted in the indictment are a mixture of Barrett's (and other peoples') ranting, dark humor,  silliness, insults, political speech, more ranting, manic boasting.  One is a retweet of a tweet by someone on Fox News about killing someone.  This retweet is somehow being attributed to Barrett Brown in a criminal indictment.  Is this not ludicrous?  Does the person who wrote this indictment even know how Twitter works?  If I underline a sentence in a book, does that mean I wrote the sentence?  Does a sentence I underline in a book get to be used as evidence in an indictment?  That's just ridiculous.

 If I were in charge, I would have had Barrett Brown taken into custody.  He was online, obviously nuts, and making threats.  I would then get him detoxed and get him mental health care.  And guess what?  That is just what is happening now.  He is in a minimum security prison that has an all-you-can-eat salad bar, handball courts, and music rooms.  He is there getting the poisons out of his system and hopefully getting his head straight.  It is reasonable to expect this process to take a good number of months.

When Barrett Brown is all cleaned up, I hope the Feds will see fit to drop the charges.  If not, we'll all get to watch a stupendously shameful situation where a man is put on trial for his dark humor jokes, exaggerations, insults, righteous anger, rants, manic paranoia, and the occasional semi-coherent political observation.  To be sure, there are sparks of brilliance in the mix, and that is what attracts people to him.

The indictment picks a tweet here and there.  If you look at Barrett's whole online presence in the September days in question, you'd see he was having simultaneous tweet conversations with different people, interspersed with the occasional tweet spat with his archnemeses,  @Asherahresearch and @TomRyanblog.  He was also playing video games, working on research, getting emails and direct messages, running out onto his balcony to make incoherent videos threatening the FBI, and making his manic behavior public on  IRCs and tinychats.

From the "facts" section of the indictment:


The indictment makes it sound like Project PM is some sort of terrorist undertaking, rather than a    group journalistic research project.  Project PM is some people on the internet looking at websites and gathering information about companies that conduct surveillance on the public.  These are amateur hobbyist researchers and some of the information is inaccurate.    Nevertheless, it is a group research project and totally legal.  A lot of it centers around a desire to know about Trapwire, a surveillance software product created by Abraxas Corporation.   Trapwire is of interest to many people, including me. Why is our government paying companies to spy on us in daily life?  And that's a damn good question.  It is our government that is at fault, not the people asking the questions.



This is one of Barrett's tweets quoted in the indictment. Barrett is a writer and the Guardian is a UK and now also a US news publication.  Barrett tweets that since the Guardian is not responding to him, he can spend his time on Project PM.  So what?  Whoever wrote this indictment must not get it that Project PM is the internet equivalent of a  knitting club.   Why does the government care that a writer not getting work spends his time on a group research project?  I don't get it.

  The tweet above is in the indictment. What does it mean?  It means that mainstream media was not covering the Trapwire story as much as Barrett thought they should, and he meant for Project PM to pick up the journalistic slack on that.  Why is this in an indictment?  Is journalism a crime?

The indictment says this is a quote from one of the videos.  Yes, the videos elicit a cringe response.  It is painful to watch a person in meltdown mode.  But do we really expect people to keep a stiff upper lip and not lose it when the FBI kicks in the door, takes their important stuff, threatens their mother, sends annoying troll people to harass them nonstop on the internet, and then won't give their stuff back?

Is Barrett Brown really a threat?  The indictment quotes this as a video threat:



What is Barrett threatening? That he will be "using the court system, using the media, " and using "Project PM," the research project.  Followed by more cryptic boasting.  And then what is his big demand?? That he wants his stuff that was taken by the FBI.  He wants his computer and his moleskin notebook.

Does this sound like a dangerous man? Or like a man who is railing against a government that allows storm troopers to burst into peoples' homes and terrorize them and take their things?  How can anyone agree with such horrifying acts of intrusion into our lives?  And I say "our" because anything that is done to one citizen can be done to any of us.  We all have something at stake here.  What is at stake is the U.S. Constitution, which is being routinely tromped upon.

↧
Search

Understanding Barrett Brown's Case

October 6, 2012, 3:08 pm
$
0
0


Understanding Barrett Brown’s Case
by Sue Basko

see also:Barrett Brown Indictment: Thoughts
see also:Barrett Brown indictment as jpgs.
see also:Doxing and the Barrett Brown Indictment

UPDATE OCTOBER 17, 2012.  On October 15, 2012, Barrett Brown waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty.  Court files also show the Competency hearing scheduled for October 18 has been terminated.   As of November 7, 2012, Barrett is still in medical care at the prison and his case has been delayed because of this.   see BARRETT BROWN NOT GUILTY PLEA 

---
October 6, 2012.  On October 3, 2012, a Federal indictment was issued against Barrett Brown, the writer who often talks about Anonymous.  Anonymous is a rubric under which many internet users classify themselves or their politically motivated activities, but there is no set organization or rules.  Barrett Brown is not the leader of Anonymous, nor its spokesperson.  He is a person who has voluntarily spoken to the media about Anonymous.  Barrett Brown is an extraordinarily talented journalistic writer with an acerbic wit.  

The indictment is based on Barrett Brown’s tweets of September 4 -12, as well as 3 youtube videos he made on September 11 – 12.  Over the course of those days, Barrett was very active on the internet. The indictment picks a few tweets here and there, which fail to give the whole picture or even to put the individual tweets in context. 

The indictment charges Barrett with three counts:

Count 1)  Knowingly and willfully making internet threats against FBI Agent Robert Smith in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 875( c).  Specifically the indictment says Barrett Brown made threats to shoot and injure FBI agents, particularly Agent Robert Smith.  This is about a hodgepodge of tweets and ramblings on the videos, none of which appears to me to be an actual threat.  Quite the opposite: Barrett states several times, even in the cherry-picked tweets included in the indictment, that he does not mean he would kill or shoot.  Nevertheless, voicing any such words against anyone is cause for alarm.   

Count 2)  Conspiracy to make publicly available restricted personal information of an employee of the United States, under 18 U.S.C. Sections 371 and 119.  What does this mean?  It means that allegedly, Barrett tweeted out asking people to look up and send him personal information on FBI Agent Robert Smith and his family.  According to the indictment, someone complied. 

See: Barrett Brown and the Doxing Charge for a more detailed explanation of the law under which Barrett was charged.   

This is what is known as “doxing.”  Doxing is always illegal, whether it is done against a federal employee, a state employee, or a regular person.  There are federal and state laws that specifically address doxing government employees.  With regular citizens, doxing falls under various state criminal laws, such as stalking, cyberstalking, harassment, threats, and other such laws, depending on the state.  Since these doxing threats and activities are made on the internet, the law of any state may be invoked, though most often an investigator  will look to the state in which the person making the threat is located, if this is known, or the state in which the victim is situated.  A state prosecutor can only prosecute violations of the laws of his or her own state, and of acts that extend into their state.  When acts are on the internet, they extend into all the states.

 Misinformation was spread that doxing is legal.  I am not sure how or why anyone fell for that misinformation.  Surely, people must understand instinctively, even if they were misled about the law, that if they are threatening someone or putting them at risk, or tormenting or harassing the other on the internet, that this must be illegal.  Common sense would tell you that bullying or jeopardizing another would be illegal in some way.  So yes, doxing is illegal, no matter who the target.
See Barrett Brown and the Doxing Charge.   

Count 3) Knowingly and willfully retaliated against an FBI agent, under 18 U.S.C. Sections 115 (a)(1)(B) and (b)(4).  The FBI raided Barrett’s home last March. The indictment charges that the threats and doxing in Counts 1 and 2 were in retaliation for the March raid.

WHY IT TOOK SO LONG FOR BARRETT TO BE CHARGED:  In Federal criminal law, all indictments must come from a Grand Jury.  Barrett was arrested suddenly in response to youtube videos.  It takes some time for a Grand Jury to be convened.  A Grand Jury is a secret session.  The people who are grand jurors are forbidden from speaking about it, or even telling that the session was called.  At a Grand Jury, the jurors look at evidence presented by federal prosecutors.  The defendant does not usually make a presentation.  At the end, the jurors decide if an indictment will be issued and if so, what the charges will be.  In doing so, the Grand Jury is stating there is enough evidence to bring the case forward. (A regular jury in a court case is called a petit jury, or jury.  Grand and petit are French terms meaning large and small.  A grand jury has many more people on it than does a regular jury, which usually has 12 or 6.)  

WHO IS BARRETT BROWN’S LAWYER? Barrett Brown’s lawyer is Doug Morris, one of 10 lawyers who work at the office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Texas.  Such jobs are highly coveted and competitive.  A federal public defender has the great advantage of working on a regular basis in the same set of courtrooms with the same sets of rules and the same judges.  They become expert at knowing their territory.  Federal defenders have many eyes watching their work: their clients, the Courts, their bosses at the Public Defenders office, and the media and public.  Doug Morris recently gave a presentation to other lawyers on preparing a defense for child pornography.  That says he is skilled at making defenses for criminal charges based on the internet. 

My opinion is that Doug Morris appears to be doing an excellent and appropriate job of defending Barrett Brown.  What has he done that I know about?  Barrett has been moved to an excellent minimum security facility.  He is getting needed medical care.  A competency hearing is scheduled.  These are all excellent, appropriate actions in Barrett’s best interest.

WHAT’S NEXT?  COMPETENCY HEARING. There is a competency hearing scheduled for mid-October.  This is conducted according to the rules set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 4241.  The hearing comes about as a motion from the defense, prosecutor, or the Court.  The Court may order such a hearing “if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.”  

Before the competency hearing takes place, the defendant is seen by a psychiatrist or psychologist, who prepares a report for the court.  The Attorney General sends the psychologist or psychiatrist a letter giving details of the alleged crime, together with background information on the defendant, including any history of criminal convictions and any prior history of mental illness.   If the defendant is found not competent, he is placed into the custody of the Attorney General, who places him in a hospital, either until he reaches competency or until the case is disposed of, whichever comes first.  Whether a defendant is found competent or incompetent, he may still raise an insanity defense at trial.

In making a competency determination, the standard is  "whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding -- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). 

Based on factors that are publicly known, Barrett Brown might be found incompetent to assist in his own defense.  He is known to be an on and off heroin addict, and has mentioned use of “Special K,” or ketamine, a highly potent hallucinogen.  He stated online that he was taking suboxone to try to get off heroin.  He was also said to be taking paxil and then abruptly stopped.  He was also apparently drinking strong alcohol.  In addition, there is the possibility of an underlying mental condition.  Such a condition will often cause a person to self-medicate, that is, use drugs or alcohol to try to treat the illness.  This often happens due to a lack of access to proper medical care or improper diagnoses, often occurring over years or decades. 

The doctor making the determination will meet with Barrett. Perhaps Barrett will be seen by whatever doctor is already treating him in the prison setting.  For those who have seen the youtube videos that are the subject of the indictment, it is reasonable to assume that trying to carry on a rational conversation with Barrett, as he is seen in the video, would be nearly impossible.  He seems manic, jumps from topic to topic, and seems to have very little grip on reality.  The videos display such a mental meltdown that they are hard to watch.  

It is a violation of Due Process to hold a trial for someone who does not have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.  If a defendant is found incompetent, the court then gets them medical help to try to make them competent.

It is my understanding that Barrett Brown is, at this time, in a prison medical treatment where he is undergoing detox and medical treatment.  It can take months for a patient to stabilize and become clear-thinking   Therefore, I think it is likely that, at the competency hearing, he will be found incompetent and placed into a hospital.  If that happens, the initial hospital term is up to 4 months, at which time it may be extended.  If, however,  the Court finds him competent at this time, the court case will proceed along.                                                
↧
↧

Understanding Apple Patent: Method Patents

October 9, 2012, 12:49 am
$
0
0
Understanding Apple's Patent to Remotely Control Cell Phone Functions: 
Method Patents
by Sue Basko

There's been a flurry of news recently about a patent granted to Apple for a method to remotely control cell phone functions.  I will write more about that patent and another similar patent by a different company in an upcoming essay. 

Today, the topic is method patents.  The Apple patent in question is a "method patent." That means they have patented the method of doing these things. They don't have the inventions or equipment or programs to do them.  All they have is a method.  This is like when you sit around and think, "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a way to -- ?" And if you have enough money or a friend who is a patent lawyer, you will patent it.    The Apple patent, which I have read in its boring entirety, simply lists ideas, such as the idea (or "method") of controlling a phone ringer, phone lights, phone camera, phone use, etc. via controls using gps or radio frequency.  I will tell more about it in a soon upcoming post.

The U.S. Patent Office is NOT very careful on what gets a method patent.  To illustrate this, I am including a REAL patent below. This is real, not satire.  Ever make a cat run around by shining a laser pointer flashlight on the floor?  The cat chases the little red dot and gets exercise.  Yes, you did this? You were violating someone's method patent.

The people with the patent below have not patented how a laser works, or how a cat works.  They have patented a method of making a cat chase a red dot.  This is a whole lot like what Apple has done.  

United States Patent5,443,036
Amiss ,   et al.August 22, 1995
Method of exercising a cat 

Abstract
A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.
Inventors:Amiss; Kevin T. (Alexandria, VA), Abbott; Martin H. (Fairfax, VA)
Appl. No.:08/144,473
Filed:November 2, 1993
Current U.S. Class:119/707
Current International Class:A01K 15/02 (20060101); A01K 15/00 (20060101); A01K 029/00 ()
Field of Search:119/702,707,174,905 446/485

References Cited [Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
3877171April 1975Sloop et al.
4208701June 1980Schock
4231077October 1980Joyce et al.
4757515July 1988Hughes
4761715August 1988Brooks
4926438May 1990Maes et al.
4985029January 1991Hoshino
5056097October 1991Meyers
5194007March 1993Marshall et al.

Other References

Carayan et al., "Effects of tianeptine on the Performance of a reaching movement in a cat", Psychopharmacology, vol. 104, Issue 3, Berlin, 1991, pp. 328-336. .
Levesque et al., "Visual `cortical-recipient` and tectal-recepient pontine zones play distinct roles in cat visuomotor performance", Behavioral Brain Research, vol. 39, Netherlands, 1990, pp. 157-166..

Primary Examiner: Manahan; Todd E.
Claims


What is claimed is:

1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:

(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and

(b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said bright pattern of light is small in area relative to a paw of the cat.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (b) includes sweeping said beam at an angular speed to cause said pattern to move along said opaque surface at a speed in the range of five to twenty-five feet per second.
Description


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Technical Field

The present invention relates to recreational and amusement devices for domestic animals and, more particularly, to a method for exercising and entertaining cats.

2. Discussion of the Prior Art

Cats are not characteristically disposed toward voluntary aerobic exercise. It becomes the burden of the cat owner to create situations of sufficient interest to the feline to induce even short-lived and modest exertion for the health and well-being of the pet. Cats are, however, fascinated by light and enthralled by unpredictable jumpy movements, as for instance, by the bobbing end of a piece of hand-held string or yarn, or a ball rolling and bouncing across a floor. Intense sunlight reflected from a mirror or focused through a prism, if the room is sufficiently dark, will, when moved irregularly, cause even the more sedentary of cats to scamper after the lighted image in an amusing and therapeutic game of "cat and mouse." The disruption of having to darken a room to stage a cat workout and the uncertainty of collecting a convenient sunbeam in a lens or mirror render these approaches to establishing a regular life-enhancing cat exercise routine inconvenient at best.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved method of exercising a cat in normal day and night lighting environments.

It is a further object of the present invention to provide a method of providing amusing, entertaining and healthy exercise for a cat.

It is yet another object of the present invention to teach a method of exercising a cat effortlessly at any time.

In accordance with the present invention, a light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (laser) device in a small hand-held configuration is used to project and move a bright pattern of light around a room to amuse and exercise a cat.

The method is effective, simple, convenient and inexpensive to practice and provides healthy exercise for the cat and amusement and entertainment for both the cat and the owner.

These and other objects, features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the following description and accompanying drawings of one specific embodiment thereof.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a cat owner exercising a cat in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a plan view of a hand-held laser exerciser.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Referring to the drawings, a light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (laser) apparatus 10 for exercising cats, in the hands of a cat owner 12, emits an invisible beam 14 of light from and along the longitudinal axis of the device barrel 16. Activation of the laser cat exerciser 10 is controlled by spring-loaded trigger 18 energizing the laser mechanism by completing a battery power circuit. A cat 20 reacts to the bright pattern of light 22 occurring at the intersection of the laser beam and an opaque surface, for example, the floor or wall of a room.

The involuntary and almost imperceptibly slight movements of the hand holding the laser device of the present invention creates a jittery animated effect in the light pattern at the opaque intersection appealing to cats even when the device is held essentially steady.

Intentional movements of the hand-held cat exerciser cause angular changes in the direction of the beam 14 and consequently the light pattern 22 moves unpredictably about the intersecting surfaces. The cat 20, intrigued by the jumpy movement of the light pattern, experiences a playful and healthy chase impulse and follows the irregularly moving light pattern around the room to the cardio-vascular, respiratory, weight control, and muscle tone benefit of the animal.

The coherent nature of a laser light beam results in a small intensely bright pattern of light clearly visible in normal day light or artificial night illumination, small enough relative to the paw of the cat to cause interest without posing a threat, and sharply defined over long enough distances (e.g., up to 150 feet) to provoke a full workout with long sprints for the pet. Ideally the bright pattern of light is directed along the floor, steps or wall at speeds sufficient to exert and entertain the cat but not so discouragingly fast as to dissuade against the chase, i.e., typically in the general range of 5 to 25 feet per second. In other words, the angular sweep speed of the laser beam is controlled by the cat owner 12 to effect an appropriate linear sweep speed of the pattern on the opaque surface within the stated general range. It is understood, of course, that the angular beam sweep speed required to effect a given linear pattern speed depends upon the distance between the laser and the surface on which the pattern impinges; specifically, as the distance between the laser and the surface increases, the same linear pattern speed is produced by a slower angular beam sweep speed. Release of trigger 18 interrupts the power circuit and extinguishes the laser beam, whereupon the cat can return to more traditionally feline time passing until cat owner 12 re-initiates the laser cat exerciser.

The light pattern projected by the laser cat exerciser is invisible until intersection with an opaque surface. Lasers emitting various colors of coherent light can be used and the laser apparatus can be distinctively shaped and colored for easy identification.

Although particularly suited to amusing and exercising cats, the method of the present invention can be applied to other domestic pets, for instance dogs, ferrets, and any other animals with the chase instinct.

Inasmuch as the present invention is subject to many variations, modifications and changes in detail, it is intended that the subject matter discussed above and shown in the accompanying drawings be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense.


↧

Doxing and the Barrett Brown Indictment

October 14, 2012, 2:18 am
$
0
0
Doxing and the Barrett Brown Indictment
by Sue Basko


 Count Two of Barrett Brown's indictment is the "doxing" count.  You can see page 8 of the indictment, which is Count Two, at the bottom of this page.  The indictment says:

COUNT TWO
Conspiracy to Make Publicly Available
Restricted Personal Information
of an Employee of the United States
18 U.S.C. Sec 371 (18 U.S.C. Sec 119)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? It means Barrett is being charged with Conspiracy (under 18 U.S.C Section 371) to commit a crime that is listed in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 7 Section 119.  The charge does not say Barrett made the restricted information public, it says he and someone else agreed to do so and some step was taken in furtherance of doing it.  If Barrett were to be found guilty, he could receive sentences under both laws.  Therefore, he faces a possible 10 years in prison on Count Two.
MORE INFO ON FEDERAL CONSPIRACY LAW HERE.
INFO FROM THE US MARSHALS SERVICE ON INTERNET THREATS HERE.

 WHAT DOES THE INDICTMENT COUNT TWO SAY BARRETT BROWN DID? The indictment (see below) on page 8, paragraph 2, alleges that Barrett "requested another person known to the grand jury to assist him find on the Internet restricted information about the Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent (RS) and (RS)'s family and that other person agreed to do so, and furthermore, the other person did conduct a search on the Internet for the restricted information."

IS COUNT TWO ABOUT "DOXING"?
YES.  Count Two alleges that Barrett Brown asked someone to find info on the internet about the FBI Agent, and someone searched on the internet for such information.  The indictment does not state that the information was ever found or ever posted; it does not need to be.  The Conspiracy allegedly exists because the two people, Barrett and someone else known to the grand jury, allegedly agreed to commit this crime.  If two people agree to commit a crime and some step is taken in furtherance of the crime, conspiracy exists. 

WHAT IS RESTRICTED INFORMATION?
In this law, the term “restricted personal information” means, "with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual."

I CAN FIND THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION USING GOOGLE SEARCH.  IS THAT STILL RESTRICTED?
YES.  It is illegal to announce or disseminate or post those listed pieces of information for the purposes listed in the law.  Those are purposes such as threatening or intimidating or making it so others can harass or harm the person. This law is about acts that endanger the safety of or encourage attacks against a federal employee or an employee's family.  It is not about where you found the information. Barrett Brown's indictment specifically states that the restricted information was searched for on the internet.  (Count Two of the indictment is below on this page.) The information may or may not even be on the internet; that is not a factor in the Conspiracy charge.  A criminal act does not need to be physically possible for a conspiracy charge to exist with regard to it.

CAN SOMETHING SOMEONE SAYS ON THE INTERNET BE CONSIDERED A CRIME AND NOT FREE SPEECH?
Michael Prout, Assistant Director for Judicial Security of the US Marshals Service, on page 2 in a written statement in 2009 explained the danger of internet threats:

"Most Internet threateners, when confronted or challenged on their statement, will
claim they are only exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. And in many
cases, an examination of their speech could lead us to concur. To guard against violating
a person’s First Amendment right to free speech, the USMS requires the occurrence of a
“triggering event” before a protective investigation is initiated. In the area of threat
management, a “triggering event” is the receipt of an inappropriate communication, or a
reasonable indication that a possible threat exists. However, one of the issues that make
Internet threats so insidious is that others who hear or read this “free speech” may
interpret it differently; they may interpret it as a threat of violence, or as a call to
violence, and be influenced to act out violently. If the threat on the Internet is also
accompanied by restricted personal information, it can assist in facilitating the act of
violence by locating the protectee."
see FULL STATEMENT BY MICHAEL PROUT 
   
WHAT IS A "CONSPIRACY"?
Conspiracy means an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime, if one or both of those do an act "in furtherance of" the crime. Some conspiracy laws do not require an "act in furtherance of," but 18 U.S.C. Section 371 does.  In this case, the U.S. alleges that Barrett Brown requested another person to find restricted information about the FBI Agent on the internet, and that the other person looked for such information on the internet.  That is a conspiracy to make the restricted information public.

CONSPIRACY LAW: 18 U.S.C. 371:
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor."   

CONSPIRACY LAW:  AMAZING FACTS ABOUT IT: Conspiracy may exist even if some seemingly logical factors are missing.    A conspiracy could exist even if Barrett did not know who the other person is, as long as they both agreed to work on the doxing plan.   FBI Agent Robert Smith's "restricted information" might not even be on the internet.  It would be hard to distinguish one Robert Smith from the thousands of others.  Spokeo shows a few hundreds entries on "Robert Smith" in the Dallas area alone.  For a conspiracy to exist, the act does not have to be completed, it does not need to be physically possible, it does not need to cause harm.  There simply must be some step taken in furtherance of it by one of the co-conspirators.  Not every Conspiracy law requires a step in furtherance of the act, but this one does.

IF YOU WANT TO READ MORE ABOUT CONSPIRACY LAW, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD A BOOKLET PUBLISHED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE HERE.

Challenging a Law: People may disagree with these or other laws.  The first step in disagreeing with them is knowing about them.  Federal laws are made by the U.S. Congress and Senate.  If you would like a law changed, you can contact them about it.  Laws are sometimes changed or made unenforceable by a Judge or appellate court ruling saying a law is Unconstitutional.  That happens when a court case involving the law comes up before the Judge or appellate panel of Justices, and the Judge or Justices think the law itself is illegal because it does not follow the Constitution.  The grounds for saying a law is Unconstitutional are usually that the law is too vague, or overbroad, or is not the least restrictive way to meet the government's legitimate need.

CONSPIRACY SENTENCING: When a person is charged with a conspiracy to commit an act and found guilty of the conspiracy, they may be sentenced for the crime of conspiracy as well as for the underlying crime.  In this instance, if Barrett were to be convicted, he would face a possible 5 year sentence for the conspiracy charge and another 5 year sentence for the underlying "doxing" charge.

WHO IS THE OTHER PERSON IN THE CONSPIRACY? As the indictment states, there may be persons known and unknown to the grand jury.  There must be a co-conspirator who is not an undercover agent.  The indictment does not name the person.  If this case goes to trial, the co-conspirator would probably be called as a witness.

 Read the underlying law in full:

18 USC § 119 - Protection of individuals performing certain official duties
   
(a) In General.— Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available—

(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person; or

(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Definitions.— In this section—

(1) the term “restricted personal information” means, with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual;

(2) the term “covered person” means—

(A) an individual designated in section 1114; *(see below)

(B) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may be, or was, serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate;

(C) an informant or witness in a Federal criminal investigation or prosecution; or

(D) a State or local officer or employee whose restricted personal information is made publicly available because of the participation in, or assistance provided to, a Federal criminal investigation by that officer or employee;

(3) the term “crime of violence” has the meaning given the term in section 16; ** (see below) and

(4) the term “immediate family” has the meaning given the term in section 115 (c)(2). *** (see below)


* Section 1114 "any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance"

** Section 16 The term “crime of violence” means—

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

*** Section 111(c)(2)  “immediate family member” of an individual means—

(A) his spouse, parent, brother or sister, child or person to whom he stands in loco parentis; or
(B) any other person living in his household and related to him by blood or marriage;

COUNT TWO - TO SEE THIS BETTER, PULL IT OFF THE PAGE ONTO YOUR COMPUTER AND click to enlarge.
SEE ALSO: THE FULL BARRETT BROWN INDICTMENT jpgs.



↧

Barrett Brown Not Guilty Plea

October 17, 2012, 10:18 am
$
0
0
Barrett Brown Not Guilty Plea 
to see more clearly, pull docs off page 



↧

Is Fawkes Security Bomb Threat Guy a Victim?

October 24, 2012, 6:51 pm
$
0
0
Is the Fawkes Security Bomb Threat Guy a Victim?
by Sue Basko 

Please look at these two videos.  The top video has been widely copied and distributed.  It is Anon message to the Zetas.  IS THE BOMB THREAT VIDEO THE SAME VIDEO BUT WITH BOMB THREAT WORDS DUBBED IN?   WATCH THE TWO BELOW AND SEE.

It appears that the bomb threat video is the same Anon video used in the message to Zetas, but with other words dubbed in.  (Note: The Anon Zeta video has been posted many times to Youtube under many accounts and in various languages.)



Youtube finally removed this video, so it can no longer be seen here. 

The person or people who run the @FawkesSecurity twitter have stated support for the video.  Therefore we can assume they are the ones that dubbed the threatening words onto the old video.

But what is Fawkes Security?   The Fawkes Security Closed Facebook group has 3,000+ members.  Do they all promote violence?  Do they all agree with the bomb threat video?  Or what is going on? (I doubt they all approve of this, that is so unlikely.)

And how is the prostitution Facebook linked? https://www.facebook.com/bacher.bivetto/photos_stream      The phone numbers given by the photos of the girls are listed in phone number complaint websites.  Click on each number to link to the complaint/ info pages:   (646 480 6908) (773 572 9143) (323 015 0582)

 Many say they have been tagged in the photos or friended by the prostitution Facebook.  One comment says the number belongs to a man who is  a registered pedophile.   Are the girls in the photos being held captive someplace?  Are any of them missing or kidnapped?  Some of them look very young.  And why are many Anons the "friends" of this page?

 Is the prostitution facebook connected to the Fawkes Security Facebook?   "Jodie Rushforth" is listed as the Administrator of the Fawkes Security Facebook.   Who is Jodie Rushforth and why is she fronting a group that has posted a bomb threat video?  Is she a real person?  Who is she and why is she running a group that is fronting violence and bomb threats?

AND is Fawkes Security a front for the Zetas Cartel? Or why did they steal the video where Anons complain about the Zetas and dub in a bomb threat?  

 WHO MADE THE BOMB THREAT VIDEO?  All they had to do was dub in a voice.  It was uploaded to the Fawkes Security Youtube account. WHO runs that account?

AND IS THERE A BOMB? If adults are so twisted as to make a bomb threat video in the name of Anonymous, it seems likely they are twisted enough to plant a bomb.

The video below shows a man saying Zetas Cartel has kidnapped Anons and forced them to hack money for them. This is the only video on his account. The video below was published May 1, 2012.  MY QUESTION:  Is Fawkes Security fronting for the Zetas? Or why are they posting bomb threats?  And why are they using an old Anon video to post a bomb threat?  And where is Angel Zumba? And where is the man who is in the video below?  He has not posted a follow-up video.


The video below, from April 2012, says Zetas are hunting Anons.
↧
↧

Update on Barrett Brown

October 27, 2012, 1:13 pm
$
0
0

Update on Barrett Brown
by Sue Basko

October 27, 2012. Barrett's mom visited with him and word is that he looks good and healthy.  She said Barrett is getting medical help from a very kind and caring person.  Barrett is busy working on his health.

The trial date is pushed back to 2013 because Barrett will be in health care until at least December.

Barrett has an excellent public defender, Douglas A. Morris, who has been attorney on over 800 criminal cases in the North Texas District Court in Dallas.  Additional legal help from the Dallas area is being considered.  The lawyer must be practicing in this particular court.  Pro bono would be nice.  
↧

What the Heck is TrapWire?

November 2, 2012, 12:10 am
$
0
0


 What the Heck is TrapWire?
by Sue Basko 

  Please link and quote, but don't steal my stuff.  I worked hard on this.  Thanks.

 If you are concerned about TrapWire, you should read about Axxon.

Also see: The Human Audit: What is it?

Lately, there has been much ado about TrapWire, which is said to be a giant network spying on all of us.  My research says this is much ado about nothing.  TrapWire, as far as I can tell, is the Emperors New Clothes.  It seems to be an extremely simple data-sorting computer program, marketed to the government sector using fear of terrorists as its selling point.

TrapWire is the name of a corporation, a computer program, and the consulting services that go with it. TrapWire, Inc., has Dan Botsch,  a University of Chicago MBA, as its current president.  Before him, Jack Reis held the post.  TrapWire, Inc., comes off an incestuous lineage of many mergers and acquisitions that involve the same players over and over again.  Richard Hollis Helms, a former CIA agent, shows up repeatedly as the CEO.  Lance Cottrell shows up repeatedly as the Lead Computer Scientist.  Margaret A. Lee repeatedly shows up as the Corporate Secretary.

The basic lineage is Abraxas Corporation > (offshoot corporation) Abraxas Applications (name change to) > TrapWire, Inc.  Abraxas Applications was spun off Abraxas Corporation, apparently as a holder for the TrapWire product, and then a name change was done, turning Abraxas Applications, Inc. into TrapWire, Inc.   There are many spin-offs and sideshows and earlier stepcousins, such as Anonymizer and Ntrepid, but those will be covered in later essays.  This whole corporate lineage is big on branding and trademarking its products, taking loans on its trademarks, splitting almost each product into a corporation, and marketing through fear.  My searching shows only one patent owned by Abraxas Corporation, for a software that translates language.  I also found one patent owned in part by Lance Cottrell, for an anonymizing software.  In contrast, Cubic Corporation, which recently acquired Abraxas Corporation, easily shows ownership of over 100 patents.

 (Please note: Abraxas Corporation is entirely different from Abraxas Software, Inc.  These are two totally different entities not in any way related.)

On June 22, 2007, Abraxas Corporation assigned the Trapwire trademark to Abraxas Applications Inc., for $1, with the document signed by "Richard  H. Helms CEO, Abraxas Corporation".  On June 27, 2011, Abraxas Applications Inc., registered with the trademark office that it had a new name, TrapWire, Inc., with Richard Hollis Helms having signed the corporate name change on January 12, 2011 as “CEO and Sole Director.”

Cubic Corporation issued a Press release dated 8/13/2012 titled, “Cubic Corporation Has No Affiliation with Trapwire, Inc.”  It then states: “Cubic Corporation (NYSE: CUB) acquired Abraxas Corporation on December 20, 2010.  Abraxas Corporation then and now has no affiliation with Abraxas Applications now known as Trapwire, Inc.”  This is a case of telling the truth, but not the whole truth.  The statement continues, “Erroneous reports have linked the company with Trapwire, Inc. Trapwire, Inc. is a risk mitigation technology and services company that builds and markets software products to prevent terrorist threats and criminal attacks.”  It depends what you consider “linked.”

What’s the reality here?  The reality is that Abraxas Corporation, led by Richard Hollis Helms, who is reportedly a former CIA agent,   “developed” a trademarked name for a product and service called “Trapwire.”  Abraxas Corporation then assigned the trademark to Abraxas Applications, Inc., also led by Richard Hollis Helms.  Then Abraxis Applications, Inc. changed its name to Trapwire, Inc.  Cubic Corp. bought Abraxas Corp., but it did not buy TrapWire, Inc.  Therefore, on December 20, 2010, Abraxas Corp had “no affiliation” with Trapwire.  But earlier, there was an affiliation between Abraxas Corporation and Abraxas Application, Inc./ Trapwire, Inc.   Cubic Corporation is not and never has been affiliated with TrapWire, Inc. or with the TrapWire product.   

What appears to have happened is that Abraxas Corp. separated off the golden egg before selling the goose to Cubic Corporation.  Trapwire WAS affiliated with Abraxas Corporation, but it was separated off before Cubic Corporation got involved.    

LET ME EXPLAIN IT MORE CLEARLY, since there seems to be such confusion.  Abraxas Corporation developed a product called Trapwire.  At some point, I believe in 2007 (the actual date is difficult to determine because the original incorporation documents have been purged from the records and replaced with the later "name change" records),  Abraxas Corporation split off a corporation called Abraxas Applications, Inc., mainly to hold the Trapwire product, as well as the Personprint and Vehicleprint products, which are part of TrapWire.  In 2010, Cubic Corporation bought Abraxas Corporation, but it did not purchase Abraxas Applications.  In 2011, Abraxas Applications, Inc., changed its name to Trapwire, Inc.  Cubic Corporation has never been involved in the TrapWire product or TrapWire, Inc. 

(Note:  People are asking about Abraxas Dauntless.  Dauntless was a Virginia-based software company started by Michael Martinka.  Abraxas Corporation bought Dauntless to build software for its products.  The company is now called Abraxas Dauntless and is now part of Abraxas Corporation, which is now owned by Cubic Corporation.) 

TrapWire, Inc.'s main product is TrapWire, which is software and consulting services on how to use the software.  The software seems to be a very simple program that works like this:  Security guards at government building or locations watch through security cameras to see if there are any notable people or vehicles.  If they see anything notable, they fill out a form on a computer.  The software checks to see if the same person or vehicle is visiting the same place multiple times.  Various locations are linked through the software.    If the same person or vehicle visits multiple locations, the system sends out an alert. This is all based on the idea that a terrorist will case a place several times before blowing it up.  That seems likely.  Other people who will also visit the same place multiple times include the UPS delivery person, the local pizza man, dog walkers, joggers, and many others.

When a security guard sees a notable person, the guard fills out this form, which TrapWire, Inc. calls PersonPrint.    

TrapWire PersonPrint Computer screen form field.

The information fields to be entered are Gender: Male/ Female/ Unknown, Height, Build, Age, Primary Hair Color, Secondary, Facial Hair Type, Facial Hair Color, Complexion, Glasses.  This is the sort of information that is gathered upon observation, without a show of identification or questioning.

If the guard sees a notable vehicle, this form, which TrapWire calls VehiclePrint,  is filled.   


The information fields on the TrapWire VehiclePrint page are: License, State, Country, Type, Make, Model/Name, Color, Doors, Appearance, Number of Occupants.  This is information that could be observed through a camera close-up or in person, without stopping the vehicle.

TrapWire's Safe Harbor provisions, state that Trapwire systems "in general, do not store Personal or Sensitive Personal Information." If they do gather such information, they promise not to share it with third parties.   CLICK to enlarge and read the Safe Harbor provisions.


ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY: Abraxas Corp./ TrapWire, Inc.  is providing a simple data coordination system.  This is not high tech.  It is not all -encompassing. This is a simple old-fashioned database program marketed to one idea - that terrorists visit a site many times before they attack.  If that were true, then alert human security guards are likely to catch that.  TrapWire coordinates the software between multiple sites.  Why would a terrorist visit sites other than the one that  he  or she plans to attack?  Perhaps as a first visit to check out vulnerable spots.

  There does seem to be significant potential for abuse with TrapWire.  Are people free to be in public spaces without being scrutinized on camera and having their descriptions recorded?  Apparently not.  Note on page 5, TrapWire explains that as a neighborhood changes, the criteria will change.  I suppose this means, as an imagined example,  that if the system regularly flags Arab-looking men, that if a neighborhood becomes one where many Arabs live, it won't flag them so readily.

On the Trapwire, Inc. website as of September 2012, TrapWire states that the company will provide a service that covers a wide geographic region, rather than a government site of interest, as was the original plan: "TW-LE (TrapWire Law Enforcement) provides the ability to gather, analyze and disseminate information about surveillance and logistical activities occurring across an entire geographic region . ." See last paragraph on:  https://trapwire.com/trapwire.html

Do we want our nation spending large amounts of money for such a system? It seems that recent terrorist type attacks have been one-off gun massacres by educated white males who appear to have done no significant prior surveillance of the site.

Also, TrapWire does not sound as if it offers anything of real value.  An alert, awake security guard is able to tell if there is a repeat visitor to a location or if a particular visitor seems out of the ordinary.

At the very least, we need to know what TrapWire is and have a public discussion about whether we want our tax dollars spent this way.

Robert Steele, in his thought-provoking review on Amazon. com for the book  "Spies for Hire, The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing," (a review you should read in full if you care about this topic)  writes:

"Here are three tid-bits that strongly support the author's general intent, and some links.

1) Secret intelligence scam #1 is that there is no penalty for failure. Lockheed can build a satellite system that does not work (for NASA as well as the secret world--two different failures--or get the metrics wrong so priceless outer space research does not deploy a parachute--}and get another contract. Similarly SAIC with Trailblazer, CACI in Iraq, Blackwater murdering civilians and ramming old men in old cars out of the way, this is all a total disgrace to America.

2) "Butts in seats" means that most of our money goes to US citizens with clearances who know nothing of the real world, *and* the contractor gets 150% of their salary as "overhead." That is scam #2.

3) Scam #3 is that the so-called policy world, when it exists, does not really care what the secret world has to say, unless it justifies elective wars, secret prisons in the US (Halliburton) and so on. Dick Cheney ended the policy process in this administration. But even without Cheney and his gang of proven liars, the dirty little secret of the secret world is that a) there is no one place where all information comes together to be made sense of; and b) less than 1% of what we collect gets looked at by a human; and c) most of the policy world could care less what Top Secret Codeword information is placed before them--as Colin Powell says so memorably in his autobiography, he preferred the Early Bird compilation of news clippings.

I have been saying since 1988 that the secret emperor is not just naked, but institutionalized lunacy. Books like this are helpful, eventually the public will hear our voice." 


 Note on Patent for TrapWire: Abraxas Corporation and Abraxas Applications posted "Patent Pending" on materials advertising the TrapWire product, as can be seen on the document above. However, the Patent Application number was not listed.  After several thorough searches of the U.S. Patent Office database, I cannot find a patent or patent application for this product or any product that sounds like it in the name  of TrapWire, Abraxas, Lance Cottrell, Ntrepid, Richard Helms, or other names that might be associated.  Lance Cottrell and Brian Bennett own a patent on an anonymizing software, and search on Brian Bennett shows one more application and one other patent, but neither relates to TrapWire.  It is possible a patent was or may be pending in the name of the inventor, with an agreement to sign it over to TrapWire if and when a patent is granted.  However, a significant number of years has passed since Abraxas Corporation began stating "Patent Pending"regarding Trapwire and it appears there has been no assignment of any patent to Abraxas Corporation.  THEREFORE, the conclusion I draw is that there is no patent on TrapWire.  

 Some software has copyright registered on it.  A search of the U.S. Copyright Office does not show any software with the title, keyword or name as TrapWire, Abraxas, Richard Helms, or Lance Cottrell.  If TrapWire, Inc., wants to let me know otherwise, I am happy to post about it.

The TrapWire website now refers to "unique predictive software" "utilizing a proprietary rules-based engine."  This does not state what makes the engine proprietary or who the owner of it is.  Again, it seems to be very simple sorting software hyped to appear as something more than that.


 ***


TO READ THESE DOCS, PULL THEM OFF PAGE AND CLICK TO ENLARGE
TrapWire Safe Harbor Provisions page 1.  

TrapWire Safe Harbor Provisions Page 2.


HOW TRAPWIRE EXPLAINS WHAT IT DOES:
click on images to read:
TrapWire Explains what it does. Page 1

     
                                                  
                                      
TrapWire Explains what it does. Page 3  

                              
TrapWire Explains what it does.



TrapWire Explains what it does Page 5  

↧
Search

Update on Barrett Brown - November 8

November 7, 2012, 6:14 pm
$
0
0

 Update on Barrett Brown - November 8, 2012
by Sue Basko

There was a court order stating that any motions in USA vs. Barrett Brown had to be filed by November 7, 2012.  However, that date has been pushed back, as Barrett is still receiving medical care.

It has been mentioned by others that Barrett is receiving high quality medical care from a very caring, good person.  It has also been mentioned that he is making friends, running a role-playing game with other inmates, practicing Tai Chi, reading a good book, and has said this prison is like being in a monastery.  And -- Barrett says he will write a book.

When the time comes to file the motions, such motions that could conceivably be filed might be a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.  Such a motion states that even if the facts stated in the indictment were true, that one or more counts in the indictment do not meet the elements of that crime that are listed in the federal criminal statute.  From an observing lawyer viewpoint, to me it looks as if all 3 counts could potentially be open to such motions.  This is because things such as "conspiracy," "threat," and "retaliation" are subject to much legal interpretation.  We shall see what is filed when that time comes. 
↧

OSCE Meetings in Vienna: Freedoms of Association, Assembly, and Use of Technology

November 15, 2012, 12:35 pm
$
0
0


OSCE Meetings in Vienna
Freedoms of Association, Assembly and Use of Technology
by Sue Basko

 contact (local U.S.) Sue Basko: OccupyPeace@gmail.com
 contact (serious inquiries only, please) Omer Fisher: Omer.Fisher@odihr.pl

Library:
Report on Peaceful Assemblies 2012
Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
 Handbook for Monitoring or Legal Observing 


November 15, 2012.  Last week, I was in Vienna, Austria, attending 3 days of meetings at OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  OSCE has 56 member nations in North America, Europe, and Asia and 12 nations that are partners in cooperation in the Mediterranean Region, Asia, and Australia.   OSCE has meeting headquarters at the Hofburg in Vienna.  The meetings I attended were of ODIHR, the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, a sub-office of OSCE, headquartered in Warsaw, Poland.  OSCE is funded by its member nations with an annual budget of about 150 million euros.  OSCE has a permanent meeting quarters in the Hofburg in Vienna.   

The ODIHR meeting was attended by representatives of the OSCE nations, and by people who are involved in the law and organizing of protests in those nations.  Most of the people I met were multi-faceted, being lawyers or law students as well as protest organizers or media activists.  It was incredible to be meeting with all of these smart, dynamic people.

At the meetings, we each had a translator headset with about 6 channels, one for each language. Translators sat behind glass windows listening and translating.  I kept my headset on the whole time, tuned to the English language channel.  That way, I could hear the translations from the various languages and could also easily hear those speaking English.   What a great listening tool this is in a crowded room!           

At the ODIHR meetings, we worked on 3 topics: Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, and Use of New Technologies in Freedoms of Assembly and Association.  On each topic, we made recommendations or interventions aimed at the nations, at ODIHR, or at NGOs (nongovernmental organizations).  ODIHR sets standards and then asks the member nations to live up to the standards.  It was stated that in the past five years, rather than improving in these areas of human rights, the nations had slid backwards. This was said to be particularly true in the past 2 years, which I think is because in the past 2 years there has been much activity of people forming associations and engaging in assemblies, or protests.  The nations have been put to the test recently. 

The U.S. Department of State sent a representative, who read off a short statement about the U.S. supporting the Freedom of Assembly.  His statement was in sharp contrast to the protest monitoring report that was presented by ODIHR; the group monitored the protests at NATO in Chicago, G8 in Maryland, and Occupy Wall Street in New York, Occupy Chicago, Occupy Los Angeles, and Occupy Oakland.  It is fairly easy for the U.S. representative to say “We support freedom of assembly,” and much more difficult to take action so freedom of assembly is actually allowed and facilitated in the cities and states.

A group was in attendance from NYU Law and Harvard Law.  During a side event, they presented their paper on Occupy Wall Street in New York.  Afterward, I saw they were meeting in the lobby with the State Department rep.  He looked as if it was somehow the first time he was hearing that protesters in New York had been beaten and randomly arrested.  He was taking notes.  I considered it a good sign this impromptu meeting was taking place.       

Over the past months, ODIHR has planned and prepared a report on their protest monitoring activities in 11 nations.  CLICK TO DOWNLOAD REPORT.   The monitoring and report were led by Omer Fisher, Deputy Head of the Human Rights Department of ODIHR.  Back a year ago, Omer asked for my help with the U.S. protest monitoring plans.  It was an honor to assist such an important endeavor.  I write a blog on protest planning and laws and was able to provide background information and legal cites.  I also was involved with the G8 and NATO plans, so had direct knowledge of the process, which I shared with the ODIHR teams as things happened.  I also readily had contact with people involved in organizing and indie media in Chicago, Maryland, New York, Los Angeles, and Oakland.

In each U.S. location, many key people gave generously of their time and shared their experiences with the ODIHR researchers.  This was quite remarkable, as people truly had to overcome their fears and doubts to open up and share.  Some had been left traumatized by their experiences with police or FBI.  Would-be saboteurs spread misinfo about OSCE and even about me.  In Chicago, this played out against a background of protesters being infiltrated and entrapped on terrorism charges, homes being raided, indie journalists being interrogated at gunpoint, and police using bikes and batons to hit protesters. Out of all this, there were plenty enough strong, smart people willing to tell and show what they had witnessed to make for a very well-researched report.       

The ODIHR team also met with City and police officials who agreed to meet with them.  The ODIHR report, therefore, has a breadth and depth unprecedented in such a report.  The ODIHR group had access to many hours of protest video from the live streamers who risk their own safety to give live internet views of the protests.  In addition to all the video and interviews, the team monitored the G8 and NATO protests in person.  In Chicago for NATO in May, they hired and trained a team of legal observers to witness several long, hot days of protests.  All the information from the monitoring in 11 nations was organized into the 100-page report. 

The ODIHR report covers such topics as the permitting process, requirements for insurance, facilitating unpermitted protests, being within sight and sound of the intended target of the protest, use of force, and kettling.  The report makes observations and recommendations. 

At the ODIHR meetings in Vienna, our first topic was Freedom of Association.  In many of the OSCE nations, associations of any sort are required to register with the government.  Sometimes, the governments make it complex or impossible for certain associations to register, thereby making it illegal or impossible for them to function.  Participants made several recommendations regarding this.  Among the recommendations was that online registration should be allowed; many places require individuals to show up in person during office hours.

The second topic was Freedom of Assembly.  This is mainly about the right to peaceful protest.  The recommendations that were stated were the mostly the same ones that have previously been stated in the ODIHR guidelines as well as in the 2012 report.  The general idea was that nations should abide by international law, which says freedom to assemble is a basic human right, that public space should be free for this use, and that city officials and police should facilitate this right. 

We also covered the topic of semi-permanent protests or encampments of structures or tents.  The general idea  is that these should be allowed and that any genuine state needs, such as health or safety, should be met in the least obtrusive way.  For example, if the government perceives a health issue with a camp kitchen, then it should work with the protesters to improve the kitchen, rather than evicting the camp.  At the Occupy sites in the U.S., health and safety concerns were used at the pretext for evicting many of the camps. 

The third topic we covered was New Technology in Freedoms of Association and Assembly.  These discussions were mainly about the internet, facebook, twitter, live streaming, cellphones, wifi.  Mark Zuckerberg should have been there to hear how Facebook has been used to organize revolutions and overthrow dictators.  (Maybe this would encourage him to find a way to support Facebook without the new system of charging for posts to reach many “friends.”)  I launched the recommendations that OSCE States prohibit the use in public spaces of any technology that interferes with use of cellphones or cellphone cameras, or with the internet.  I also recommended that States encourage standardization of cellphones so they can be used worldwide.  I also recommended that States make cellphone purchases and data packages available to short-term visitors without a local address, or in other ways make it possible for visitors to get high speed internet, mainly for the use by indie journalists who want to tweet and live stream from protest sites.  It was also recommended that all states allow the video and audio recording of police on active duty. 

During the three days, I heard some dismal reports from participants.  Spain has put forth legislation to ban protests.  Several places bar filming the police in action.  In some locations, protesters have been attacked by soccer/ football hooligans.  There were several officials who felt the balance between freedom of assembly and state security should fall clearly on the side of security.  There were numerous people who spoke of their governments as “they,” making it clear the government was not perceived to be of or by the people.   This, more than anything in the three days, made me realize that we in the U.S. had better get busy and get our government more in line with being of the people.  After a year of seeing overwhelming cordons of police in riot gear aggressively facing off against smart, vibrant people wanting such simple things as a place to live, food, education, and health care, it seems time to stop the overfunding of law enforcement agencies and start funding real needs.    


           
↧
↧

Barrett Brown Charged with Posting a Link

December 6, 2012, 3:07 pm
$
0
0
Barrett Brown Charged with Posting a Link
by Sue Basko

Barrett Brown has been charged with allegedly posting a link to some stuff that was allegedly hacked off the Sratfor website by someone else.  The items that were hacked incidentally included credit card information.  As I understand it, the hack was to get information about the private spy company, not to steal any money or identification.

Making the indictment even more absurd, the charges are stretched to twelve, all for posting the same link.  This is beyond bizarre.  This tends to show the Feds knew there was no case against Barrett in his earlier charges and want to scheme up something. But what they schemed up is inane.   Aiding and abetting by posting a link?   That link was already posted  other places.

This is (choose however many fit):  Orwellian. Kafkaesque. Dangerous to the US Constitution.

Please keep in mind that Barrett Brown is a journalist and writer, he is not a hacker or credit card thief.  He was collecting and linking information for research and writing purposes.    From my own viewpoint, I do massive amounts of advance research and information gathering for my writing, and I have never looked at  the whole document I am downloading and rarely, if ever, have read the whole thing I am linking.  If such a burden were actually placed upon writers and researchers, it would be such a great burden upon the First Amendment freedom of the press.

Many files are gigantic;  one could not possibly even scan all the material before downloading or linking.  And sections would not be labeled: "Attention: These are credit card numbers." The journalist or researcher would not even know what they are.

These are jpgs. You can pull them off the page to enlarge them.







  




↧

Aaron Socio Update December 15

December 15, 2012, 1:02 am
$
0
0
All Life is One, by Aaron Socio

Aaron Socio Update
by Sue Basko

December 15, 2012.

WHO IS AARON SOCIO/ COREY TURNER?   He's 32, from Ohio, Florida, and Georgia.  He has written a few books about his theories of life and ending war. He has also made a series of creative videos on the same topics.  The videos show not just his ideas, but his changing state of mind while creating the videos.  Back in September, Aaron/ Corey started contacting many people online to spread his ideas.   He got a lot of attention.  He contacted me many times, as he did with many others.  It's safe to say, most people were baffled by him.  And, he was noticeably in need of mental health care.

ARREST/ CHARGES: Aaron Socio/ Corey Turner was arrested in Missouri on Thanksgiving Day, while driving home after a short visit to Missouri.  He has four state charges lodged against him: 

Assault or Attempted Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer. What is this about?  A state trooper says that when he stopped  Corey for speeding, Corey tried to run him over with his car.  There is no indication that the trooper was hit or injured in this alleged incident.  Corey says he was slowing down, reducing speed, doing the opposite of trying to hit the state trooper. 

Making a Terrorist Threat.  This is probably related to alleged odd emails, tweets, phone calls, etc., in which Corey tried to get people to listen to his ideas for ending war.   

Unlawful Use of a Weapon.  This relates to either the car he was driving or a small pocket knife he was allegedly carrying.

Resisting / Interfering with Arrest.  Don't police always say this?

FEDERAL: There is a federal complaint that has not yet turned into any charges.  This is in the Eastern District of Virginia for allegedly sending odd emails to Northrup Grumman, a major defense contractor.

MEDICAL: Corey is waiting for mental health treatment at the jail.   

COURT CASE: Corey has a good lawyer, Jeff Nilson.  There is also an investigator working on the case. There is an upcoming arraignment. 

 SUPPORT OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS: Corey's parents, favorite Uncle, Corey's lovely and caring longtime girlfriend back home, and other friends and family are fully in support of him.  They are doing all they can to help him.  Their loved one is sick, in trouble, and far from home where they cannot visit.  Phone calls through the jail service are  shockingly expensive, at $30 for a short phone call.  The jail does not allow letters and makes no provision for inmates to have reasonable, meaningful contact with their families.    

LEGAL RIGHTS: When Corey was first arrested and taken to Lafayette County Jail in Missouri,  he was not given a public defender and was questioned by the trooper with no lawyer present.  I was told by the trooper  that Corey was not given a lawyer because he had not asked for one.  I pointed out that the jailers knew Corey was not well and therefore, I was asking on his behalf.  He was still not given a public defender.  Corey was not given a lawyer until I personally looked up the number for the Public Defender Office and called them to let them know he was there and needed a lawyer.  At that point, he had been in jail over a week, and the PD Office had no record of him.   He attended his first arraignment without a lawyer.   At that arraignment, he asked the Judge to be taken back to the hospital.  Rather than doing this, Corey was kept in a jail cell, though he was having disturbances.  Corey says jail guards smashed his face into the concrete floor and other abuses.  Then, he was taken to a new jail, where the FBI questioned him without his lawyer present.  The last I know, he still had not been given mental health or medical treatment, though in great need.         

Why I'm Involved:  Corey reached out to me in a very public way, as many people know.  I have been doing all I can to help him.   It's been challenging.  The goal is to get the Court to understand he needs mental health care, not prison.      

What is Going on Online?  A neo-Nazi cyber terrorist group called Rustle League created false documents to harm and defame Corey and his family, and me as a lawyer.   These cowards conduct their vicious activities using online alias names and false identities and fake pics.  They seem to be mostly white men in their 30s and 20s, with some in their later teens. They are not "kids," and their actions are criminal.  This same group issued credible horrifying, specific death threats against me. They have engaged in nonstop terrorizing and harassment, including harassing tweets, onslaughts of defamation,  email flooding, defamatory and bizarre videos, repeated invasions of privacy, terrorizing and threatening via Skype and phone, stalking online and in real life, and extortion.   The only explanation for this is that, as they have stated, they don't want me helping Corey, who they think of as an unworthy "psycho."  Also, since they are anti-Semitic, and they thought I am Jewish, that in itself fuels their hate. There is no logic or rationale, these are just bad people.  At least several of them seem to be notably deranged.






↧

Scott Olsen v Oakland Police

December 15, 2012, 9:55 pm
$
0
0
Scott Olsen v Oakland Police Department
by Sue Basko

Scott Olsen v Oakland Police Dept is a lawsuit arising out of police abuse occurring on October 25, 2012, in response to an Occupy Oakland protest.   Police shot a high velocity round of metal pellets (so-called "beanbag") directly at the head of Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran.  His skull was cracked and he was left severely wounded.  When people went to help Mr Olsen, they were also attacked.  There is video of the incident, and it shows the shocking intentional nature of the attacks.  

It was a horrifying night.  First Amendment rights to assemble were trampled upon in a way meant to squelch dissent.  The abuse was not merely against those present, but against all of us who rely on the U.S. Constitution to support our freedoms.

The images are jpgs and can be enlarged for reading by pulling them off the page. 















↧
Viewing all 264 articles
Browse latest View live
Search