NOVEMBER 23, 2011 i already knew...
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Monday, April 22, 2013
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Tampa's Warriors for Autism seeks to help parents of autistic children in the bay area, as Warriors for Autism does so nationally - Tampa Bay Times
ADVERTISEMENT
Story Tools Print this story Purchase reprints Contact the editor Email Newsletters [Photos by KATHLEEN FLYNN l Times]During an August Warriors for Autism camp at Horsepower for Kids, Zane Zigler, 8, rides Snowy, led by volunteer Christina Cruz.').attr('border', '1').attr('width', image.width).attr('height', image.height).attr('src', image.url).attr('alt', image.caption).attr('title', image.altText).appendTo('#article-slideshow-1244817'); totalImagesAdded++; } }); if (totalImagesAdded >= 2) { $('#article-slideshow-1244817').cycle({ fx: 'fade', speed: 500, next: '#slideshow-next-1244817', prev: '#slideshow-prev-1244817', timeout: 0, after: ssOnAfter_1244817 }); $('#slideshow-nav-1244817').show(); } else { // one image, so just statically fill in the credit and caption var _i = $('#article-slideshow-1244817').find('img:first'); $('#slideshow-caption-1244817').html(_i.attr('alt')); if (_i.attr('title') != '') $('#slideshow-photog-1244817').html('[' + _i.attr('title') + ']'); } }); }); function ssOnAfter_1244817() { $('#article-slideshow-1244817').css('height', this.height); $('#slideshow-photog-1244817').html( (this.title !== undefined && this.title != '') ? '[' + this.title + ']' : '' ).fadeIn(); $('#slideshow-caption-1244817').html(this.alt).fadeIn(); }
TOWN 'N COUNTRY
When Deena and Olando Rivera found out their son, Anthony, was autistic, they experienced the stress and grief that many parents in their position face.
But more than 10 years after their son's diagnosis, the couple has learned enough about dealing with the disorder to form a nonprofit organization to help support the local autism community.
"We had this lightbulb moment when we realized that after all the fundraising we did for other organizations, we still don't have the services that we needed for our family or the other families that were in the community," said Deena Rivera, founder and chief executive of Warriors for Autism. "We decided, 'well let's try to do this ourselves.' We know what we need better than anybody. We know from our friends what they need so let's give it a shot."
Warriors for Autism provides life-enhancing services for families. It provides a wide range of activities for autistic children and helps those in the autistic community integrate into society through group meetings, education, job placement, fundraising and community events.
The need for local autism support is great, said Kelley Prince, founder and president of Behavioral Consulting of Tampa Bay, pointing out that the area has the sixth-highest number of cases of autism in the nation.
"I feel that, several years ago, the general public was not very educated on autism as a disorder," Prince said. "Although there is more awareness today, it is still a foreign idea to many."
All that the Riveras knew about autism at the time Anthony was diagnosed in 2001 was from the Academy Award-winning movie, Rain Man.
"When you think about it, Rain Man was pretty high functioning," Rivera said of the movie's autistic main character, played by Dustin Hoffman. "He could speak, he could dress himself. He was somewhat self-sufficient . . . People would wish that their child was as highly functional as a Rain Man."
Anthony, now 13, also is high functioning. But autism symptoms and severity can vary from person to person, affecting their ability to interact and communicate with others.
The Riveras said they formed Warriors for Autism as a way to provide families the services and knowledge to help them cope, which is something that didn't come to them right away.
"The big organizations like Autism Speaks were among the first ones assembling meetings, so that's what we were drawn to," Deena Rivera said. "But it's always that reminder of how lonely and devastating it was back then that draws us to help other people."
During the summer, the group has hosted weekly camps for autistic children at a local farm called Horse Power for Kids. The camps educate children about exotic animals and allows them to interact. They enjoy a variety of activities, including swimming, arts and crafts, field trips and horseback riding.
Tammy Matson, of Clearwater, said the camp has given her son, Ryan, an opportunity to play with animals, which isn't something he would normally be able to do.
"Plus, the group of kids are kids who are like him," she said.
Matson said her son has attended camps that aren't specifically for children with autism, and he would sometimes get left out "because he may act a little different and might do things a little different than the rest of the kids."
Susan Gettys, the director of education at Warriors for Autism, attests to the attention to detail autistic children need.
"It's a matter of knowing children, each individual child," Gettys said. "Deena says if you met one autistic child, you only met one autistic child."
Warriors for Autism operates on private donations and fundraisers. Donations from the New York Yankees Foundation have helped with the annual summer camps, and the couple also uses Olando Rivera's connections as a five-time world kickboxing champion to get contributions from area martial arts businesses.
"We've gone in for 10 years with autism and it's been a ride through trial and error in a lot of what we've done," Olando Rivera said. "But all we do is out of the kindness of our heart, because we want nothing but the best for our children."
On the Web
For more information, go to warriorsforautism.org
On the Web
For more information on the program,
go to warriorsforautism.org.
via tampabay.com
Monday, October 1, 2012
Mama I'm Coming Home || B'bye Karen CON
via youtube.com
"Not Afraid"
[Chorus:]
I'm not afraid (I'm not afraid)
To take a stand (to take a stand)
Everybody (everybody)
Come take my hand (come take my hand)
We'll walk this road together, through the storm
Whatever weather, cold or warm
Just letting you know that, you're not alone
Holla if you feel like you've been down the same road (same road)
[Intro (during Chorus):]
Yeah, it's been a ride
I guess I had to, go to that place, to get to this one
Now some of you, might still be in that place
If you're trying to get out, just follow me
I'll get you there
You can try and read my lyrics off of this paper before I lay 'em
But you won't take the sting out these words before I say 'em
Cause ain't no way I'ma let you stop me from causing mayhem
When I say I'ma do something I do it,
I don't give a damn what you think,
I'm doing this for me, so fuck the world
Feed it beans, it's gassed up, if it thinks it's stopping me
I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt undoubtedly
And all those who look down on me I'm tearing down your balcony
No if ands or buts, don't try to ask him why or how can he
From "Infinite" down to the last "Relapse" album
He's still shitting, whether he's on salary paid hourly
Until he bows out or he shits his bowels out of him
Whichever comes first, for better or worse
He's married to the game, like a fuck you for Christmas
His gift is a curse, forget the Earth, he's got the urge
To pull his dick from the dirt, and fuck the whole universe
[Chorus]
Okay quit playing with the scissors and shit, and cut the crap
I shouldn't have to rhyme these words in the rhythm for you to know it's a rap
You said you was king, you lied through your teeth, for that
Fuck your feelings, instead of getting crowned you're getting capped
And to the fans, I'll never let you down again, I'm back
I promise to never go back on that promise, in fact
Let's be honest, that last "Relapse" CD was ehhh
Perhaps I ran them accents into the ground
Relax, I ain't going back to that now
All I'm trying to say is get back, click-clack, blow
Cause I ain't playing around
It's a game called circle and I don't know how, I'm way too up to back down
But I think I'm still trying to figure this crap out
Thought I had it mapped out but I guess I didn't, this fucking black cloud
Still follows, me around but it's time to exorcise these demons
These motherfuckers are doing jumping jacks now!
[Chorus]
And I just can't keep living this way
So starting today, I'm breaking out of this cage
I'm standing up, I'ma face my demons
I'm manning up, I'ma hold my ground
I've had enough, now I'm so fed up
Time to put my life back together right now! (now)
It was my decision to get clean, I did it for me
Admittedly, I probably did it subliminally
For you, so I could come back a brand new me you helped see me through
And don't even realize what you did, believe me you
I been through the ringer, but they could do little to the middle finger
I think I got a tear in my eye, I feel like the king of
My world, haters can make like bees with no stingers
And drop dead, no more beef flingers
No more drama from now on, I promise
To focus solely on handling my responsibilities as a father
So I solemnly swear to always treat this roof, like my daughters
And raise it, you couldn't lift a single shingle on it!
Cause the way I feel, I'm strong enough to go to the club
Or the corner pub, and lift the whole liquor counter up
Cause I'm raising the bar
I'd shoot for the moon but I'm too busy gazing at stars
I feel amazing and I'm
[Chorus]
Thanks to camila, Christopher Chiocca, Romi Ezzo, Kim, Katie Mueller for correcting these lyrics.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Using TRAPWIRE to investigate misconduct in the Police State?
Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy
Posted Mar 1, 2012 4:40 AM CDT
By David L. Hudson Jr. from ABA Law Journal
A plainclothes Maryland state trooper approaches speeding suspect Anthony Graber, who captured the encounter with a camera atop his motorcycle helmet and later posted the video on YouTube.
Walking past Boston Common, the city’s august park, in 2007, attorney Simon Glik noticed several police officers arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say he thought the police were using excessive force. So he pulled out his cellphone and began shooting video of the incident.
After arresting the young man, one of the officers turned to Glik, saying, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When the officer asked Glik whether his audio recorder was on, Glik acknowledged it was. Glik was then arrested for violating a state wiretap law and two other state offenses.
The charges were subsequently dropped, but for Glik that was just the beginning. He filed a constitutional tort suit alleging violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers filed a motion to dismiss, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity, enabling government officials to avoid liability if they don’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. But a federal district court denied the officers’ claim.
And last August, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that the officers violated Glik’s clearly established constitutional right to video-record the police performing their duties in public.
“Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts,” the panel wrote. The case went back to the federal district court and the parties are in discovery.With the ubiquity of cellphones, the ease of video-recording and the availability of such websites as YouTube, people can respond quickly to police incidents and broadly circulate the recordings.POINT AND SHOOT
“The prevalence of cellphone cameras with high enough resolutions for people to record the police and then be able to disseminate it over the Internet” is a major reason for the video-recording, says Boston attorney Jeffrey P. Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project.But law officers are often uncomfortable. “Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”
“When you talk about citizen journalists, there is also a slightly different relationship between those individuals and the police and the relationship that many mainstream journalists have with the police,” Hermes says. “Those mainstream journalists who cover the police have developed an understanding with the police that many private individuals have not.”
The 1st Circuit found it irrelevant that Glik was a private citizen rather than a professional journalist. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cellphone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew,” the court said. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”
CASES IN PLAY
Glik is far from the only case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois also has a case pending in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, as it applies to making video and audio recordings of police performing their public duties.
ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, filed in August 2010, claims the broad nature of the Illinois law may expose ACLU members to arrest. “The act makes audio-recording police officers in these circumstances a felony,” the complaint states. “Due to a reasonable fear of arrest and prosecution, the ACLU is restrained from engaging in this conduct.”
A federal district court dismissed the case as moot in October 2010 and the ACLU appealed. Oral argument took place in the 7th Circuit last September.
In May 2011, Emily Good was arrested in Rochester, N.Y., for taking video of police conducting a traffic stop on the street in front of her yard. According to published accounts, police told her they didn’t feel safe with her there. She was later taken into custody.
In April 2010, Anthony Graber faced an indictment in Abingdon, Md., after he recorded a state trooper giving him a ticket and then posted the video on YouTube. Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was riding his motorcycle down Interstate 95. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys.
The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off. A man wielding a gun emerged from the driver’s side, yelling at Graber and ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did the state trooper identify himself and holster his weapon. Graber was cited for doing 80 in a 65-mph zone.
Graber accepted his ticket, then posted his video. A few weeks later, he was awakened by six officers raiding his parents’ home, where he lived with his wife and two children. He learned later that a grand jury indictment alleged he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
“Police justifications come in a few different flavors,” Hermes says. There are security concerns and charges of violating wiretap laws, which vary by state. But police also claim they are covered by qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights—so long as the official’s actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.”
David Milton, a Boston-based attorney who represents Glik, points to the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. There the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia granted qualified immunity to a police officer who arrested a passenger in a vehicle he had pulled over for speeding. The officer discovered the passenger was video-recording him and claimed the passenger violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The appeals court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed he had the authority to arrest the passenger.
Part of the problem, Milton says, stems from a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Pearson v. Callahan, in which the justices said lower courts had the option of deciding cases based on whether the law was clearly established, without first determining whether there had been a violation of individual constitutional rights.
But Glik altered the balance, saying there is a clearly established right to monitor the police.
“On the First Amendment issue, the concept that there is a clearly established right seems consistent with prior case law in the 1st Circuit and the experience of media recording in public as long as there have been video cameras,” Hermes says. “For decades we have had television stations recording in public and not facing sanctions.”
Adds Milton: “What is so good about the 1st Circuit decision in Glik is that the judges recognized that even though there may not be a prior case of a police officer in a park with a person on a cellphone, basic long-standing First Amendment principles clearly apply to the situation even though it involves new technology.”
Although there is no Supreme Court ruling that finds a right to record in public, Hermes says, many believe there is a clearly established constitutional right to monitor the police.
“Police serve a vital function and most law enforcement officers are very decent people who should be commended,” Krages says.
“However,” he adds, “the police are in a position to grossly abuse civil liberties, and the bad ones cause a lot of harm. In many situations, a determination of what actually happened comes down to deciding whether the officer is more credible than a suspect or citizen. Consumer-level imaging, particularly video, has captured images of officers acting very inappropriately in all sorts of situations.”
via abajournal.com
Learn more about Professor Hudson here... http://law.vanderbilt.edu/hudson or visit his website at http://www.davidlhudsonjrbooks.com/index.htmlglad to know ya!
^ed
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center where he writes for the Center’s website, speaks to the media and lectures on a variety of First Amendment issues. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 35 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008)(one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He also serves as a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association's Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Hudson teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt.
LEARN MORE ABOUT ME HERE. Powers That Beat
..
Using TRAPWIRE to investigate misconduct in the Police State?
by Elyssa Durant, Ed.M. Policy Analyst and Citizen Journalist with a Camera Phone
I was trying to de-escalate the situation with the local Police
Department since I realize how much danger this city is in given recent
laws to persecute Muslims and people who were not born in the United
States 287(g)
However, after watching the violence erupting around me, knowing that I
am the primary target [thanks to COINTELPRO agent provocateurs] and
being questioned by the police about my twitter stream, I really don't
give a fuck.
These people have no idea how they are being manipulated by
disinformation agents, toxic living conditions and a system that is far
more corrupt than even I imagined.
The "monitor" who controls the surveillance cameras clearly has some
special deal with Metro because despite all the violence that broke out,
he finds the time to threaten, harass and stalk me ignoring the fact
that several residents threatened me after spooks came in and told
people to stay away from me or they will "get in trouble"
WHAT THE FUCK? I have no history of violence and have never even been
in a fight,I weigh 124 pounds and all these people are afraid of me? Do I
"look dangerous" because I am quite certain it won't be long before
someone makes another attempt on my life.
Much like Trayvon Martin, I was told police were on there way after a
man threw a brick through my window and then chased me down the street.
I was on the phone with 911 the whole time screaming "HELP, HELP, HELP"
yet the police claim they did not want to waste radio space to update
status of my call to a Code 3. Are you fucking kidding me?
911 told me to return to the scene of the crime where I was assaulted a
second time, and the cops didn't even bother to arrest him or take
witness statements. In fact, the officer would not even step out of the
car to speak with me because he did not like the way I was dressed.
Because no action was taken against the man that assaulted me and vowed
to kill and my father (who just happens to be a former Fed) I constantly
carry my iPhone because the cops claim they did not have enough
evidence to arrest this man. They never bothered to check the
surveillance camera and did not take statements from additional
witnesses.
They did, however take issue with the fact that I placed a video on
YouTube and were even more upset that I contacted a former colleague in
the Mayor's Office who then requested an investigation. They sent two
Lieutenants to my home; one was aggressive and disrespectful and was
more interested in what book I was reading and my website than the facts
of the case.
I was told that they would follow up with the other witnesses who would
corroborate my story, and that a Special Operations Unit and Gang Unit
would be contacted regarding the racial comments that became commonplace
every time I left the apartment.
One man hung up Nazi flags, another started praying in Muslim and all
hell broke loose in the neighborhood. I became a target because I was
white in a Black neighborhood, and apparently that alone was enough to
incite hatred among the other tenants and I feared for life each time I
left my apartment, so the police told me NOT to leave my home. THAT IS
OUTRAGEOUS.
The other tenants became more and more abusive and violent since they
now had a new sense of entitlement because they knew the police would
not take action.
It is worth noting that even after I left, the violence continued to
escalate and one women was stabbed and several other injured in fights
that broke out in the hallway. The cops still did not arrest the people
who continue to live in the neighborhood, and some of them have shown up
here at my new apartment to harass me and spread rumors.
The neighbors here have suddenly became abusive and overly concerned
with my religion and it seems the writing is on the wall. They think my
healthy paranoia is "suspicious" and I think their behavior is
outrageous.
They constantly stand outside my window and scream at me and the
"monitor" called the police on me after he threatened me and told me I
was not allowed to go near a "white car." There were SIX white cars,
two of which have no tags, so how am I to know which white car is the
one who stopped me at the mailbox and told me that two men were knocking
at my door and were here to beat me up?
I may very well be the next Treyvan Martin and if so, so be it. I am old
enough and experienced enough to know that these people do not see the
bigger picture~ that they are being used to as examples to bring down
the police state and usher in the New World Order.
I leave these notes because I do not know if I will get shot at today,
tomorrow or next week, and I think it is important to let people know
that I have spent my entire life studying gang violence, and have fought
hard against police corruption and discrimination so regardless of what
happens to me, I do not want my work (or experience) to be in vain.
I am one of the good guys, and if you can't see that by now... then take
some time to look through some of my publications which are
systematically being removed from the internet by groups like Anonymous,
Lulz, and AntiSec.
This breaks my heart, but I am fighting a losing battle. I am starting
to question my commitment and given the communities response~ I am not
sure if they are worth the sacrifice.
That's all for today. This is the Daily Dose for March 29, 2012.
Just me,
e
@ELyssaD
ANOTHER POST THE POLICE TOOK ISSUE WITH:
Metro Nashville Police Department continue to cover up crimes by failing
to follow established code of conduct in lower income neighborhoods.
Some power hungry police officer demands to search my iPhone after he notices I am video taping the MNPD who took three hours to respond to multiple neighbors call 911 after witnessing multiple violent assaults against two women and one man on Monday evening.
I called 911 after two people approached my window threatening my life for being a "cracker Jew bitch" and threw a brick through my window where I was working on two projects about Cointelpro as a driving force behind the Occupy movement that is being funded by The American Nazi Party and the Lucis Trust.
I was interviewing someone who had been involved with Nazi medical experiments and how it effected his four children who suffer with a variety of neurological and psychological problems that are typical of victims of Mengele's subjects.
I had just received notification from the copyright office (USTPO) in Virginia that my submission was approved and was thrilled to learn that my publications and identity would be protected under trademark and copyright laws since I received several take down notices from the police and google that my site was in danger of being seized due to the number of complaints received about the content: THE TRUTH.
Some power hungry police officer demands to search my iPhone after he notices I am video taping the MNPD who took three hours to respond to multiple neighbors call 911 after witnessing multiple violent assaults against two women and one man on Monday evening.
I called 911 after two people approached my window threatening my life for being a "cracker Jew bitch" and threw a brick through my window where I was working on two projects about Cointelpro as a driving force behind the Occupy movement that is being funded by The American Nazi Party and the Lucis Trust.
I was interviewing someone who had been involved with Nazi medical experiments and how it effected his four children who suffer with a variety of neurological and psychological problems that are typical of victims of Mengele's subjects.
I had just received notification from the copyright office (USTPO) in Virginia that my submission was approved and was thrilled to learn that my publications and identity would be protected under trademark and copyright laws since I received several take down notices from the police and google that my site was in danger of being seized due to the number of complaints received about the content: THE TRUTH.
Ironic when I noticed which posts were
being removed due to the sensitive nature (and my vast knowledge) about
the true purpose of organized, controlled opposition as a driving force
to escalate domestic unrest designed to incite violence justifying a
Police State ushering in the New World Order.
This is not the first, second, or even third time I have been stopped by undercover police or random uniforms knocking on my door to search my cell.
This is not the first, second, or even third time I have been stopped by undercover police or random uniforms knocking on my door to search my cell.
One cop came running after me, demanded to see my cell phone and after
running my license to check for warrants (which seemed extreme) and
finding none, he wrote up an incident report for "suspicious behavior"
for video taping a crime scene.
He not only searched my cell phone without a warrant, but proceeded to DELETE crime scene photos.
THAT IS A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE FOURTH AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT'S ABOUT AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS.
RELEVANT HISTORY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC:
Despite being a "confidential" informant in an undercover sting operation that went bad [way bad] in 2009 at the request of the Mayor's Office and several police officers not to be named at this time, I became an informant when I saw people selling prescription drugs to teenagers in DCS custody.
I wanted it to stop, and at the police sergeant's request, I agreed to work with the Crime Suppression Unit to keep these kids from inevitable path to lifelong addiction and criminal behavior.
I was instructed to report on the illegal activities, which included taking down license plates and traffic patterns indicative of illegal drug sales.
After lengthy discussions with my contact in the department, the majority of all follow up communications were via e-mail on my cell phone so my neighbors would not hear me discussing the situation.
That fateful day my cell was jammed and hacked, I was unable to receive or send critical communications to alert me that shit went bad, and my cover was blown.
None of this ever made it though the network, and the e-mails reside on a microchip that is an UNDISCLOSED LOCATION with about 40 back ups at the ACLU, FBI, and Nightly News just in case something happens to me before I transfer out of here into a safer jurisdiction.
That was the first, but not the last time my cell was jammed and hacked.
I could not receive communications or directions from the crime suppression unit, and I wound up being assaulted and hospitalized after one of the bullets hit my window.
I was promised a police escort and advanced warning, but they never showed up, until they did with automatic assault rifles at my front door.
It was too late.
I have never disclosed those emails, however they have since been accessed by hackers from Lulz, AntiSec and whoever accessed my computer when I was out of town this time last year.
How do I know? Because the PC hadn't been turned on in several years and the last ten documents opened were my detailed call records and an e-mail to a certain politician who also had his cell phone records searched and used against him in an ugly court battle and political campaign.
SO, they're you have it folks The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me [aliens]
Now, an obvious target by the police department, I am constantly harassed, stopped, searched, interrogated or subjected to "unofficial complaints" of harassment that always seem to follow a pattern I know all too well.
SO, when the investigator tries to tell me that I would not make a good witness since I called 911 from my closet AFTER the brick came through my window, what they mean is, we will make sure your credibility is destroyed through false reports, and constant harassment should you ever decide to sue us for police misconduct.
Well, fuck you!
After yet another incident where the police failed to respond to a life threatening situation in a timely manner, insult and intimidate me, three times in 24 hours, then ultimately release the suspect claiming there
is not enough evidence??
I CALL TRAPWIRE!!
When you refuse to take witness statements; reveal your name or badge
numbers, and another violent criminal continues to terrorize me for months on end, and the police refuse to review the live feed trapwire video that would show beyond any shadow of a doubt that this man assaulted me AND three other individuals within minutes of being released?
No evidence? Check the fucking surveillance cams just above the the scene of the crime.
Hell, check MY surveillance cam! I don't leave home without it!
e
@ELyssaD
http://ise.gov/sites/default/files/ISE_Annual_Report_to_Congress_2012.pdf
Obama faces delicate decisions as cyberattack fears rise
White House photo
At the height of the economic crisis in 2008, Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” comedy news show rolled out the character Oscar Rogers as a faux financial commentator. His advice on how to restore the economy? “Fix it! It needs to be fixed! Now!”
Four years later, lawmakers are grappling with a cybercrisis, and despite rising concerns, legislative debates over how to secure U.S. networks and infrastructure have often resembled nothing so much as Oscar Rogers yelling “Fix it!”
Now, with Congress looking unlikely to act anytime soon to fix vulnerabilities in the nation’s computer systems that leave them open to cyberattacks, President Obama is weighing the pros and cons of using anexecutive order to do what Congress hasn’t.
Experts in government and industry alike report a tide of attacks aimed at stealing information from individuals, companies, and government agencies, potentially making a strong case for presidential action.
Further bolstering the case are warnings from top national-security officials that a catastrophic attack on a critical system like those that run energy grids or chemical plants could cause damage to the economy or even loss of life.
But Obama needs to consider his options carefully, because any unilateral steps could invite accusations from his critics of overstepping his authority. As the acrimonious debate over antipiracy legislation illustrated earlier this year, simmering Internet issues can easily explode.
In the final days before the August recess, the Senate hit an impasse on broad cybersecurity legislation that the White House and national-security and defense leaders support. The bill stalled after businesses and Republicans said the legislation would create burdensome regulations for industry without doing enough to shore up defenses against cyberattacks.
Top White House counterterrorism aide John Brennan said earlier this month that Obama was looking at the possibility of an executive order but that there is no decision yet.
Lee Hamilton, a Democratic former House member who sits on a board that advises the Homeland Security Department and who examined government security failures as cochair of the 9/11 Commission, said that Obama is right to consider moving forward on his own. He said the stalemate in Congress is a “serious breakdown” reminiscent of failures before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
“The preference would be to work together with Congress, but the threat is serious enough that an executive order is in line,” he said. “There is certainly a lack of urgency in dealing with this, and it’s not a business-as-usual problem. Given the fact that Congress hasn’t acted, the president has the obligation to put together options to secure the country.”
While the debate in Congress largely broke down along party lines, some prominent Republicans support the cybersecurity standards backed by the White House.
Top national-security advisers for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, such as former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency chief Michal Hayden, differed with Republicans in Congress and publicly called for the Senate to pass provisions that have Obama’s support.
Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul declined to elaborate on the Republican candidate’s assertion that more needs to be done to secure American networks, or comment on whether he would favor using an executive order in the absence of legislation. But she reiterated Romney’s promise to make cybersecurity an early priority and didn’t rule out executive action. Romney's plan would require agencies to begin developing a new national cybersecurity strategy within the first 100 days of his administration. “Once the strategy is formulated he will determine how best it can be implemented,” Saul said in an e-mail.
Polls show that while Americans express concerns over cyberattacks, they, too, are divided over what should be done.
Separate surveys published by United Technologies/National Journal and The Washington Post over the summer found that a majority of Americans prefer that the government either not create standards for private companies, or keep any standards voluntary.
Backers of the White House’s proposals, however, say an executive order could add clarity to the debate and prove to skeptics that the government can play a greater role in protecting American networks without violating privacy or burdening private businesses.
“I think it’s hard to make things any messier than it was politically,” said James Lewis, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If done right, an executive order could help critics reconsider their arguments.”
That’s an analysis echoed by University of California (Berkeley) professor Steven Weber who said many people seem to be “sleepwalking” when it comes to the threat of cyberattacks. An executive order, he said, could reform cybersecurity policies before a catastrophic attack galvanizes public opinion.
An executive order could give Obama the chance to take a strong stand on a rising national-security concern while portraying Republicans in Congress as ditherers.
But an order is unlikely to accomplish all of the White House’s aims. It couldn’t hand DHS wider authority to ensure that certain private networks are secure. Nor could it entirely ease legal restrictions that prevent businesses from sharing threat information. Even policy changes for some federal network-security policies would likely need congressional action. Additionally, any action would need to avoid inciting privacy watchdogs who fear cybersecurity could be used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties.
And some analysts said the politics of an executive order could cut both ways for Obama. Presidents often win political debates that pit them against an unpopular Congress, especially one perceived as unable to do anything substantive, said Peter Feaver, a former National Security Council staffer during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. But if Obama were to take unilateral action, it would give his critics on the right an opening to paint him as an “imperial” president and to accuse him of saddling business with new regulations, Feaver said.
“In general, White Houses win in these fights with Congress, but this White House has played this card many times,” Feaver said. “This is an issue where there are bound to be unintended consequences and any cybersecurity measures will need a system to fix and update the provisions down the road. This administration has a hard sell assuring people to trust them to fix things later.”
Paul Rosenzweig, a consultant and visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said a cybersecurity executive order could play into both the “imperial presidency and do-nothing-Congress” narratives, but said he thinks there is a genuine possibility for a future compromise and unilateral action by Obama would do little to actually help secure private networks
via m.nextgov.com
http://m.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2012/08/obama-faces-delicate-decisions-cybe...
Tracking Big Foot: Why GPS Location Requires a Warrant | Center for Democracy & Technology
Tags:In a case that raises as many questions as the average sighting of Big Foot, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that law enforcement officers didn't need a warrant to obtain GPS location information generated by his cell phone.
The court’s analysis has been roundly criticized as legally incorrect, lazy, shallow, and vague. I’d like to focus on one aspect of the case that the court missed: the Department of Justice recommends that police obtain warrants in the scenario presented by this case, does so for good reason, and there were sufficient facts for the government to obtain the warrant that the Department of Justice recommends investigators obtain.
In this case, U.S. v. Skinner law enforcement officers obtained an order that allowed them to monitor for 60 days the location of a pre-paid cell phone they had good cause to believe was being used by Big Foot, the nickname given trucker eventually identified as Melvin Skinner, who they alleged was transporting marijuana. They obtained a court order under which the provider, Sprint/Nextel, acting at the behest of law enforcement, pinged the phone repeatedly so it would reveal its location over a three-day period and eventually activated the phone’s GPS functionality to locate the phone’s GPS coordinates. (Sprint/Nextel recently developed a web portal through which law enforcement can do this automatically for the duration of the court authorization, without contacting the provider each time officers ping the phone.)
The court found that there was "… no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured … cell phone." But, as Jennifer Grannick points out cell phones don’t normally "give off" the kind of GPS location data that law enforcement used to locate Skinner. Unless the user is employing location services – and Skinner wasn’t – the GPS location data has to be created. In this case, the provider, under court order, remotely activated the GPS function of Skinner's phone so the police could track him.
There's a critical difference between GPS location information and cell tower location information a mobile phone creates during normal use. The GPS data in this case is created at the request of law enforcement for tracking purposes and not through the normal use of the mobile phone. The GPS data doesn’t even exist until the provider prompts the device to deliver its GPS location to the provider so law enforcement can access it. In contrast, providers maintain cell tower location information for business reasons. Because providers do not normally maintain GPS location information and because it was not voluntarily conveyed to the provider, it is not a "business record" and does not fit into the third party records doctrine, which says that a person has no Fourth Amendment interest in information that is voluntarily revealed to, and held by, a third party. While the third party doctrine should probably be re-examined, for now we have to live with it, but not for GPS data created by providers at the behest of law enforcement. For that data, we retain our Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless GPS tracking.
Blind Eye to Justice
Apparently recognizing that GPS is different, the Justice Department recommends that prosecutors obtain a warrant to get GPS location information from mobile communications service providers. For example, in this power point presentation the Associate Director of the Justice Department Office of Enforcement Operations recommends that prosecutors use search warrants to get prospective GPS location information (referred to as “lat/long data” or latitudinal and longitudinal data) for constitutional, not statutory reasons, and because "anything less presents significant risks of suppression." In addition, the Justice Department Associate Deputy Attorney General, testified in April last year that when the government seeks to compel disclosure of prospective GPS coordinates generated by cell phones, it relies on a warrant.
The Sixth Circuit missed this point entirely. It blithely rejected Skinner's Fourth Amendment claims and implicitly bought into the government's argument that orders under the Stored Communications Act provision at 18 USC 2703(d) can be used to obtain prospective location information that has never been stored. It did not consider whether the information sought was within the third party records doctrine and it cited no statutory authority for the proposition that the government can compel a provider to create the GPS information for the government to seize.
Perhaps most ironically, it seems pretty clear that the government had facts establishing probable cause and could have obtained a warrant if it had applied for one. As the concurring opinion in Skinner noted, law enforcement officials were watching the drug operation for months, had recorded conversations about an upcoming drug run, learned that the courier was carrying a particular phone that they could track, and that a half ton of marijuana was in transit.
A warrant requirement for location information, as advocated by the Digital Due Process coalition, would still mean a drug courier like Skinner would get caught. If followed, a statutory warrant requirement decreases the chances a criminal would elude jail because the seized evidence would not be at risk of suppression, as it is now for Big Foot if he appeals this decision.
Related Posts
via cdt.org
https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/1708tracking-big-foot-why-gps-location-...
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy - by Daviid L. Hudson, Jr. - ABA Journal
Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy
Posted Mar 1, 2012 4:40 AM CDT
By David L. Hudson Jr.A plainclothes Maryland state trooper approaches speeding suspect Anthony Graber, who captured the encounter with a camera atop his motorcycle helmet and later posted the video on YouTube.
Walking past Boston Common, the city’s august park, in 2007, attorney Simon Glik noticed several police officers arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say he thought the police were using excessive force. So he pulled out his cellphone and began shooting video of the incident.
After arresting the young man, one of the officers turned to Glik, saying, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When the officer asked Glik whether his audio recorder was on, Glik acknowledged it was. Glik was then arrested for violating a state wiretap law and two other state offenses.
The charges were subsequently dropped, but for Glik that was just the beginning. He filed a constitutional tort suit alleging violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers filed a motion to dismiss, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity, enabling government officials to avoid liability if they don’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. But a federal district court denied the officers’ claim.
And last August, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that the officers violated Glik’s clearly established constitutional right to video-record the police performing their duties in public.
“Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts,” the panel wrote. The case went back to the federal district court and the parties are in discovery.
With the ubiquity of cellphones, the ease of video-recording and the availability of such websites as YouTube, people can respond quickly to police incidents and broadly circulate the recordings.
POINT AND SHOOT
“The prevalence of cellphone cameras with high enough resolutions for people to record the police and then be able to disseminate it over the Internet” is a major reason for the video-recording, says Boston attorney Jeffrey P. Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project.
But law officers are often uncomfortable. “Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”
Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”
“When you talk about citizen journalists, there is also a slightly different relationship between those individuals and the police and the relationship that many mainstream journalists have with the police,” Hermes says. “Those mainstream journalists who cover the police have developed an understanding with the police that many private individuals have not.”
The 1st Circuit found it irrelevant that Glik was a private citizen rather than a professional journalist. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cellphone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew,” the court said. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”
CASES IN PLAY
Glik is far from the only case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois also has a case pending in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, as it applies to making video and audio recordings of police performing their public duties.
ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, filed in August 2010, claims the broad nature of the Illinois law may expose ACLU members to arrest. “The act makes audio-recording police officers in these circumstances a felony,” the complaint states. “Due to a reasonable fear of arrest and prosecution, the ACLU is restrained from engaging in this conduct.”
A federal district court dismissed the case as moot in October 2010 and the ACLU appealed. Oral argument took place in the 7th Circuit last September.
In May 2011, Emily Good was arrested in Rochester, N.Y., for taking video of police conducting a traffic stop on the street in front of her yard. According to published accounts, police told her they didn’t feel safe with her there. She was later taken into custody.
In April 2010, Anthony Graber faced an indictment in Abingdon, Md., after he recorded a state trooper giving him a ticket and then posted the video on YouTube. Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was riding his motorcycle down Interstate 95. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys.
The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off. A man wielding a gun emerged from the driver’s side, yelling at Graber and ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did the state trooper identify himself and holster his weapon. Graber was cited for doing 80 in a 65-mph zone.
Graber accepted his ticket, then posted his video. A few weeks later, he was awakened by six officers raiding his parents’ home, where he lived with his wife and two children. He learned later that a grand jury indictment alleged he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
“Police justifications come in a few different flavors,” Hermes says. There are security concerns and charges of violating wiretap laws, which vary by state. But police also claim they are covered by qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights—so long as the official’s actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.”
David Milton, a Boston-based attorney who represents Glik, points to the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. There the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia granted qualified immunity to a police officer who arrested a passenger in a vehicle he had pulled over for speeding. The officer discovered the passenger was video-recording him and claimed the passenger violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The appeals court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed he had the authority to arrest the passenger.
Part of the problem, Milton says, stems from a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Pearson v. Callahan, in which the justices said lower courts had the option of deciding cases based on whether the law was clearly established, without first determining whether there had been a violation of individual constitutional rights.
But Glik altered the balance, saying there is a clearly established right to monitor the police. “On the First Amendment issue, the concept that there is a clearly established right seems consistent with prior case law in the 1st Circuit and the experience of media recording in public as long as there have been video cameras,” Hermes says. “For decades we have had television stations recording in public and not facing sanctions.”
Adds Milton: “What is so good about the 1st Circuit decision in Glik is that the judges recognized that even though there may not be a prior case of a police officer in a park with a person on a cellphone, basic long-standing First Amendment principles clearly apply to the situation even though it involves new technology.”
Although there is no Supreme Court ruling that finds a right to record in public, Hermes says, many believe there is a clearly established constitutional right to monitor the police.
“Police serve a vital function and most law enforcement officers are very decent people who should be commended,” Krages says.
“However,” he adds, “the police are in a position to grossly abuse civil liberties, and the bad ones cause a lot of harm. In many situations, a determination of what actually happened comes down to deciding whether the officer is more credible than a suspect or citizen. Consumer-level imaging, particularly video, has captured images of officers acting very inappropriately in all sorts of situations.”
via abajournal.com
Learn more about Professor Hudson here... http://law.vanderbilt.edu/hudson
glad to know ya!
^ed
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center where he writes for the Center’s website, speaks to the media and lectures on a variety of First Amendment issues. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 35 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008)(one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He also serves as a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association's Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Hudson teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt.
Gary McKinnon is no enemy of the state
Gary McKinnon outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Photograph: John D Mchugh/AFP/Getty ImagesA final decision on whether computer hacker Gary McKinnon is to be extradited to the United States is now imminent. Behind the scenes, a battle is apparently under way between politicians and officials over what the outcome should be. There may be much else to occupy the government at the moment, but it is vital that this matter of principle is not sidelined.
More than a decade has passed since a self-styled computer nerd, working out of a bedroom in north London, started trawling through the computer systems of Nasa and the US defence department in search of information about UFOs. He left behind some rude messages about the systems' sloppy security and was arrested by British police. In all that time, no evidence has been advanced by the US prosecuting authorities that any harm – beyond the cost of installing better computer security – has resulted from McKinnon's activities.
Had he been prosecuted in the UK, as he should have been at the time, the whole matter would have been forgotten. McKinnon, who has since been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, would have served a mild, possibly suspended, sentence. As it is, his case now presents the government with a test of ethics.
"Gary McKinnon has been hung out to dry by a British government desperate to appease its American counterparts" – the words of Nick Clegg, while still in opposition. "Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to stand trial. If he has questions to answer, there is a clear argument to be made that he should answer them in a British court," is what David Cameron said before he became prime minister. Fine words. They should both now make clear to home secretary Theresa May that she would have their full and public backing, despite what her officials may tell her, if she announces that McKinnon is not to be hauled off to the US.
The failure to deal with the case has already taken its toll on him, and the latest psychiatric assessment, made in April this year, places him at "extreme" risk of suicide if extradited. "Gary has lost 10 years of his youth," his mother, Janis, said on Monday. "A young man who cycled, swam, composed music and sang, now sits in the dark with his cats and never wants to see or speak to anyone."
Cameron, to his credit, has raised the case with President Obama on at least two occasions. The latter indicated that he would be content with whatever decision the British government were to make. It has long been clear that there is little real clamour in the US for McKinnon to be sent there for trial. Whether that relaxed attitude would change if Mitt Romney was to win the presidential election in November is another matter. For this reason, it is important that the British government acts now.
McKinnon's MP, David Burrowes, has hit on a novel way to resolve the issue by attaching it to the diamond jubilee celebrations. He wants the Queen to consider using her prerogative of mercy to ensure justice is served. The government should consider that doing the right thing will have only favourable consequences for them. A decision to allow the extradition would haunt them all the way, through trials and imprisonment, to the next election. The case of Gary McKinnon is a clear instance of a vulnerable individual being targeted by an overwhelmingly powerful force. With this in mind, it is time for Theresa May to reassert the rights of the citizen and to stand up to the bullying threats from the other side of the Atlantic.
via guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/04/gary-mckinnon-extradition...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)