The Minuteman » Tag » Tyranny

Tag Archives: Tyranny

Update on EPIC TSA Lawsuit

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

EPIC has submitted numerous Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the body scanners.  They have posted the information online for all to see.

These documents include:

Initially it was claimed that the TSA body scanners could not store or transmit images.  Then the US Marshal Service in August 2010 reported they had saved more than 35000 images.  The TSA responded by claiming that it has not done so and the machines do not have the ability.  Some still believe the TSA, the smart one’s have distrusted them from the start.

One WBI system,  identified by  the Government, shall (26) have the capability, which can be configurable at the superuser level. to record  images for training purposes. The superuser password shall(27) be managed by  the TSA. The capability to retain  images at the superuser level will be disabled on operational systems

Later in the same document(emphasis mine):

Incorporate a three  level user and password scheme allowing supervision and “superusers” access and override capabilities

While they claim for it to be possibly disabled the fact that the feature is there means that someone can re-enabled it.  Some would claim that no one would possibly want it.  However there have been rumors about a “new fetish”.  The thing is though, it’s already happened.  That could be your one of your loved ones.  We know the types of people the TSA employs.

While reading through the Operational Requirements, you can find the following:

image

Normally one would avoid conjecture, however what could be considered critical to national security regarding the privacy capability of the device?  NMAB-482-1 can be found here, the section we really care about is here.

It appears that the tactic being used for airport security is to rule this search as being administrative.

Airport security searches fit quite naturally into the administrative search exception to the Fourth Amendment. Administrative searches are justified on the basis that they serve a societal purpose other than standard criminal law enforcement (Vernonia School District 47J, 1995, citing Griffin, 1987). After all, the Fourth Amendment cannot be construed to prevent the government from fulfilling a variety of other necessary functions, such as maintaining school discipline, preventing drunk driving, detecting illegal aliens, or even ensuring air traffic safety (Vernonia, 1995; Michigan Dept. State Police, 1990; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 1976).

Each of those examples though require some sort reasonable suspicion.  Randomly stopping cars for drunk drivers and testing everyone, until recently has never happened.  In the instance Florida’s new checkpoints, there will probably be a strong legal challenge.  When attempting to maintain school discipline they must be disruptive to begin with.  As for illegal aliens, detecting them is extremely difficult. If it is as they claim above, why isn’t Arizona’s law legal unquestionably?  Especially since it requires contact of a lawful nature, they can’t just walk around carding people.

With regard to the TSA though, they claim the right to do this to any person for any reason.  No reasonable suspicion is required of a crime having been committed.

Against the special need of the government, the court must consider the passenger’s expectation of privacy. This consideration involves the same analysis used in the threshold issue of whether a search has occurred, with one important difference. Deciding whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of determining whether or not a search has taken place is a yes-or-no-question. Either one does or does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in this context. On the other hand, expectation of privacy as a factor in the balancing test becomes a matter of degree. Thus, the court in Vernonia (1995) held that schoolchildren, because of the supervisory role schools have over them, have a decreased expectation of privacy at school. As discussed in the first section, airline passengers most probably have a legitimate expectation of privacy against being searched in an intrusive manner. Nevertheless, this expectation could decrease if passengers perceive the threat level to be high.

Emphasis mine.  Their method to get around this problem is to convince the public that a statistically rare event (you’re actually more likely to be struck by lightning) is actually more common than it is.  The comparison to school children also shows the view they have of the public in general of being children and the government has the supervisory role.  We’re the children in school and they’re the principal.

Further the NMAB states:

Thus, measures should be taken to minimize the appearance of nakedness, the number of people having access to and identifying the image with the traveler, the time the image endures or is preserved, the uses to be made of the data, etc., to the extent consistent with safety objectives. The next section deals with the concept of less versus more intrusive means.

The assumption though that is enough for some people regarding their privacy is false.  If it wasn’t why would these have popped up overnight?  Also the ability to store the images as I talked about earlier has been proven to be false.  While they may claim it is not “normally” enabled.  The machines do have the capability and there is no way for the public to verify that it does not store the image.  We must take the governments word, which at this point should be worthless to everyone. If you opt out of the scanner the TSA humiliates anyone who refuses to go through the body scanner.  They are doing a procedure that is highly intimate and detrimental to victims of sexual abuse.  This scanner can also reveal however private medical information that may not want to be shared because it’s no one’s business but yours and your doctors.  This also ignores the health concerns regarding the radiation exposure.  What is disturbing is this is the only time I’ve ever heard of people working around equipment that uses radiation that do NOT wear dosimeters. 

These documents display a crafted, thought out, and planned destruction of our 4th Amendment rights.  Their justification to violate the 4th Amendment centers around creating the illusion of necessity.  A Security Theaters has yet to stop any terrorists.  Yet they claim that their infringements are necessary and merely administrative to stop this “common” threat.  They need to be rendered impotent to stop the spread of their idiocy and evil.

(Sorry about going all Kevin Baker(it’s a complement Kevin) on this post.)

1st Amendment Threatened…

By | | , , , , ,
1 Comment

In lieu of the event that occurred in Arizona on Saturday, January 8th, Rep. Robert Brady wants to introduce legislation to “protect” congress.

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Watch the video, you will notice that, just like any other politician, he avoids answering the questions directed to him.

He is one of the many dancing in the blood of the victims who died and were injured.

TMM would have added this to his post had he been able to find the link.

H/T to JayG

Brainwashing Our Youth…

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on Brainwashing Our Youth…

So while writing a blog earlier Stardock decided to throw up an ad. 

AwesomeGame1

Now we can train your kids that road blocks and searching your vehicles are normal.  This is definitely a game I would NOT buy.  Not only because it looks like the mechanics were crapped out by some high school coder, but the whole concept just bugs the crap out of me.  I understand the stopping smuggling, though legalization would help fix that problem wouldn’t it?  I understand preventing unlawful entry.  I’m fine with that, but the whole concept of making it a game just bugs me.  Not to mention this line from the description:

  • Outfit, arm and train your guards with top-of-the-line life-saving security.

    • That sentence just doesn’t make sense.  How do you outfit and arm someone with security?  What does bug me though is this game could easily be used to twist people into thinking that everything DHS comes up with is a good idea.  Such as making people think the TSA scanners will actually make us safer. 

    Though I must say this is probably better than say “Homeland Defense: TSA Agent”. Where you goals are to find out if little Tiffany is smuggling coke in her cooch. 

    Red Light Cameras

    By | | , , ,
    Comments Off on Red Light Cameras

    So reading through the blogosphere yesterday Uncle posted about someone getting 5 red light tickets, but they weren’t his.  I had meant at the time to do a blog post on the subject but never got around to it.  Uncle’s post gave me renewed vigor.

    Red light cameras strike a special nerve with me.  The arguments for their use are much like the arguments for gun control, it makes everyone safer.  The actual numbers from the field though show the complete opposite however, again, just like gun control.

    My mom got a red light ticket back home.  It was actually her vehicle in this instance.  A couple weeks later some friends of hers who live out of town called and asked about the same intersection.  The interesting thing though about these tickets is they were for turning right on red, which is legal at that intersection.

    As it is a sequence of still photographs as opposed to video, you can not defend yourself by showing you came to a complete stop.  You’re stuck paying the ticket.  Ahh, a ticket, maybe it is done for revenue.  Camera tickets are not reported to insurance companies or otherwise scored in your driving record.  It’s the equivalent of getting a parking ticket(California and Oregon excluded).  You are requested to pay this please for doing X, it’s a penance, except they’re charging people now a penance for something that is legal.  I voiced my displeasure by preaching to the choir and then it happened.  An article was posted in the town paper from where I grew up.  I read the article and damn near had an embolism from my blood pressure going through the roof.

    Those who question the program’s validity will admit that there does seem to be a relationship between the cameras and the safety of people. Unfortunately, some politicians and pundits are inserting a “but …” and making claims that just are not true.

    After my initial rage subsided I decided that I needed to bitch beyond the choir, to the no talent ass clowns politicians pushing this garbage.  After forwarding the article to “The Short Lady with the Grey Hair” she decided to send a letter as well.  Here is a copy of my letter for the internet to retain for all eternity.

    Mr. Lewis,
    There are some other issues you do not cover in your statement regarding photo enforcement at intersections.

    As the rates of people committing infractions drop, revenue decreases.  Revenue is needed to maintain and operate the cameras.  As that revenue drops either the cameras are no longer maintained, or things are done which produce false positives to create revenue.  In either case people are or can be falsely cited for infractions.  Examples of this are ticketing everyone who turns right on red even though it’s legal.  As it is only pictures, NOT video it is impossible to prove guilt using them, however in a court room the images are looked at as divine judgment of guilt.

    I will not argue that they can help decrease accidents, however accidents are caused by people blowing lights as through traffic.  Making a right hand turn on red is perfectly legal unless specific sings are in place to indicate otherwise.  However when I hear of different individuals getting a ticket for something perfectly legal at the same intersection is shows corruption and greed within the system.  It displays the real need for these cameras is to increase revenue.

    Mr. Lewis, the facts of how these cameras are used and operated, coupled with the difficulty in defending yourself from a ticket for a legal procedure indicates a gross abuse by the local government against it’s citizens as well as visitors.  I grew up in Auburn and remember it prior to it’s explosion to it’s current state.  There is a reason I now live in a town with not a single stop light.  However when I talk to friends and relatives who still remain in the area about getting a ticket for turning right on red, where there is no indication it is illegal to do so, it makes me disappointed to say I grew up in Auburn.  It makes it obvious that Auburn’s intention with the system is not to increase safety, but rather to increase revenue by false citations to the citizenry.  Eventually the locals will know not to turn right on red, but what about people from out of town visiting.  Couple that with the distance and you have a guaranteed payout.

    This is completely independent of the fact that the idea of red light and speeding cameras are grossly Orwellian in nature and indicate a subservience of the public to the state.  In our “free” republic, people are elected to represent the will of the public, not do as they wish.  When issues are brought up it is your duty as a public servant to address them.  That includes saying you made a mistake instead of continuing to push public policy to preserve your public image.  I would suggest finding a local scout organization and sitting through the “citizenship” merit badges.  The questions of efficacy in this instance I do not feel center around preventing accidents, but whether those who are ticketed have actually committed a crime.

    Sincerely,

    TMM

    I haven’t seen or heard a reply and I’m sure it was probably just tossed the garbage.  So instead it will be placed on the internet, for all to see and enjoy.  This will also provide another case for others who find themselves in the same predicament to use in support of their case when fighting a ticket ill gotten penance required by the force of government.

    TSA, Lost Fliers and EPIC Lawsuits

    By | | , , ,
    3 Comments

    Via Oleg: TSA behavior is causing more and more people to quit flying.  Not only that but it is causing people who are nude models to be uncomfortable.  The whole concept that one group of strangers is allowed to record intimate pictures of individuals without their consent while others can just don’t make sense.  Not to mention the fact that the TSA has been known to hire sexual deviants. Back in 2004 I swore I would never fly again until The Security Theater is abolished.  I know many others who will only fly commercially for business and tourism in the US has decreased due to the TSA.

    Via Alan: The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed lawsuit against the TSA for their security scanners.  The TSA has filed a brief in response, but what really got my attention about their brief:

    DHS explains why the Court should not stop TSA from using the naked body scanners until the legality of it all is decided.

    Translation: “So we’re breaking the law and we would like to be allowed to continue to do such until such time as you actually issue your ruling saying we’re breaking the law.”    The TSA Steals, Molests, and Abuses our American citizenry under color of law.  They should be destroyed.  If only there was a way.

    Quote Of the Day–John Adams, 01062011

    By | | , , ,
    4 Comments

    If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave. – John Adams

    Currently our leaders would like us to believe that terrorism shall annihilate us all.  This tactic of fear is then used as the necessity for the TSA to violate our rights and humiliate us.  They tell people that A Security Theater will stop the terrorists and make them safe again.  This has been proven anything but true.  When TSA fails, it is those abused by the TSA who do actually save the day.  The fact is, the TSA is a joke, they are ineffective, and the methods being used to trample our rights are fear and fraud.  Some have been willing to give up their rights but the thing is, it’s not theirs to give up.  Who has any right to walk up to someone else and say, “Sir you need to give up your rights so the rest of us can have the illusion of security.”  It is one thing if you want to give up the right yourself, fine that’s your business.  However no one has any right to infringe on someone else’s rights.  Furthermore, absolutely no one of this world has the right or ability to take it away.

    TSA and the Law

    By | | , , ,
    5 Comments

    Janet Napolitano played down the idea of migrating to an Israeli type security screening at airports here in the United States despite the back lash from the sexual assaults intrusive patdowns and screenings.

    “There are some differences in the laws and the legal constraints that we abide by,” she said. “There may be some things that can be shared (with Israel) and some things that would not … The practices and techniques that we use will differ and do differ.”

    What Janet really means by that statement is, “Currently we are actually violating the law, should we stop we might loose control over some of the sheep we have trained.”  By violating the 4th Amendment you have already shown the fact that you completely disregard the law, including the most important ones.

     

    No you do not have to violate anyone’s 4th Amendment rights because they want to fly.  This is absurd and beyond belief.  There is absolutely no justification for it.  They attempt to claim justification but the truth of the matter is that necessity is the plea of every infringement!  How many people has TSA actually saved?  On the other side of that equation though, how many people abused by the TSA has stopped a terrorist attack?

    This whole thing is a farce and a power grab.  This whole mess is worse than Russia in 1989.  What the hell is it going to take to wake these sheep up?

    This is extremely WRONG

    By | | , , ,
    2 Comments

    I came across something this morning saying that Census workers can enter your household in your absence with the permission of the landlord.

    What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.

    What I find interesting is there’s a couple problems here. In Washington at least the Landlord Tenant act says the landlord may not enter the premises without 48 hours advanced notification. Further the census website says the following:

    Note that the census taker will never ask to enter your home

    That is straight off the website verbatim. If you have had a landlord allow a census worker into your home I highly suggest you contact an attorney immediately as well as conduct an audit of all valuables and identity information. Census workers are NOT to be allowed in homes to conduct survey information. It is a violation of the 4th amendment as is constitutes a search by a government entity. Many states have similar laws to Washington’s Landlord Tenant Act. If you are a landlord and allowed someone claiming to be from the census into a property, contact your tenant and law enforcement immediately.

    The bottom line is that census takers are only allowed to question people. If you fail to respond they can ask your landlord how many people are residing in the residence. No entry is allowed or is necessary. All information can be acquired from neighbors that is necessary for the Census. Again, my suggestion to landlords or tenants that have been affected by this is to contact an attorney immediately. FYI for landlord, come clean and contact law enforcement and an attorney, your tenant can probably put you into oblivion in civil suits. You can probably make a case that is was due to duress of someone pretending to be acting from the government. If you fail to come clean after reading this, it’s on you. Census.gov even states they are not to enter the premises.

    Anyone desiring access to a residence should be assumed to NOT be a census worker but someone looking for stuff to steal. Your condition meter should transition to “Orange” immediately upon someone approaching and asking; claims to authority or not. As my dad always said, “Challenge Everything.”

    UPDATE:

    Had a question come through, landlords must provide access to non-living spaces where privacy is not expected. A prime example of this is a gated community or an apartment building where the front door is locked but there are common hallways. Basically a way to look at it is they are exempt from efforts to keep solicitors out. Access is to be allowed to the entrance of the residence. The full law is as follows:

    Whoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or
    agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house,
    tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when
    requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of
    the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting
    under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of
    the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and
    egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such
    Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the
    collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in
    subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey
    authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such
    survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are
    provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to
    the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct
    enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in
    such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.

    To surmise it, as I did above for landlords, provide the number of occupants or allow them to go door to door. Do not allow them into private living spaces.