WA - Arrested for a crime? Automatic alert would go to your employer

Original Article (Video Available)

So basically if someone accuses you of something, and you are arrested, an alert will be sent to your employer and you will probably be fired, even if you are not convicted. How is that justice? Welcome to 1984!

05/08/2013

By Hana Kim

SEATTLE - The Washington State Patrol performed 800,000 background checks just last year.

It’s a system in place to promote safety. But many say the state needs to do more.

A state audit is now recommending fingerprint background checks so that employers can get an automatic alert anytime an employee is arrested for a crime.
- So much for being innocent until proven guilty!

Linda Gleason’s job everyday is to keep other people’s kids safe as the owner of Agape Child Care in Ballard.

“It’s important you know who works for you,” said Gleason.

The state requires a background check with a follow up every 3 years for child care employees but Gleason says that’s not enough.
- If you don't think that's enough, then why not do it more often?  You don't need another law to force you to do that.

“We need to be proactive that’s the problem we are dragging our feet,” said Gleason.

The State Auditor’s Office agrees now backing what’s called a “rap back” service which would automatically in real time notify an employer if someone is arrested. Fingerprints would have to be stored in a database for that to happen.

“That is how the system is supposed to work can I guarantee that it will work that way in every case, no, but again that is what we are trying to do here we are trying to close loopholes,” said Washington State Auditor Troy Kelley.

For example in 2012 parents at Garfield High School found out the janitor was a sex offender. He had been working at the school for nearly a decade unnoticed because he was convicted of voyeurism after his initial background check.
- So in that decade of him working there, did he commit another sex crime?  Doesn't sound like it.

The state also looked into the criminal history data of 800,000 applicants from 2005 to 2012.

They determined 500 people would have triggered a notification for offenses such as child molestation, assault and drug crimes after they would have been hired.

“I think it will weed out the people you don’t want taking care of our children,” said Gleason.

Department of Social and Health Services pays for background checks on foster parents every 3 years.

“We support any concrete steps to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children and vulnerable adults, including background checks that are as comprehensive and up to date as possible,” said spokesperson Thomas Shapley.

DSHS however said they had some lingering questions about how much the rap back service could cost. Meanwhile others worry about those stored fingerprints.

“If they look at it as an invasion of privacy well they are not looking at the welfare of our children,” said Gleason.

Right now 29 other states already have automatic background checks in place.

Washington state lawmakers would have to change the rules first before all fingerprints can be stored in a national database.

The rap back service would cost about $300,000 to start up and $350,000 annually to keep it going.

---

Encrypt your files using True Crypt

Download TrueCrypt (Free)


Download Acronis True Image

---

How to Commit Internet Suicide and Disappear from the Web Forever

Sick of horribly embarrassing things showing up when potential employers Google your name? Tired of everyone knowing you live in a garden level dungeon apartment? Perhaps you just don't like the fact the internet makes you easy to find. Thankfully, it's not that hard to delete yourself entirely. Here's how to do it.

For mildly famous (or infamous) individuals, disappearing is essentially impossible, but for the average person it's surprisingly easy. It just depends on much info is already out there.

Click the image to read the article

---

MA - Quincy lawmaker files bill to require sex offenders to register social media names

Original Article

02/28/2013

By Mike Trinh

BOSTON - Is that new Facebook friend or Twitter follower a sex offender? How would you know?

For the third time since 2007, a Quincy lawmaker is leading an effort to change the state’s Sex Offender Registry law to require sex offenders to register their online social media handles and email addresses with the state.

It’s an effort first championed by former state Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, back in 2007, three years after Facebook was launched and quickly became the social media choice among college students, then high school kids and adults.

That year, the bill never made it out of the Judiciary Committee. In 2011, state Rep. Tackey Chan, D-Quincy, a former aide to Morrissey, refiled the bill with the same results.

This year, Chan has filed the bill again, along with 19 co-sponsors, and said he hopes it will have a better chance this time.

“So much of our world is not about physical presences anymore. There are many online presences now,” Chan said.

The bill would update the 2004 Sex Offender Registry Statute to adapt to changing technology and social media, Chan said, adding that sex offender registry laws have to evolve along with society.

Morrissey, now the Norfolk County district attorney, said his office has seen cases of sex offenders meeting young victims on the Internet. The current registry is not designed to stop or bring attention to online predators.

“At the time the sex offender registry went into effect, no one was paying attention to the computer and what it would mean in the future,” he said.

The bill would require all levels of sex offenders to register social media names and email addresses, but the registry’s website would only display the Internet identities of Level 3 offenders – the ones considered most likely to re-offend. People would have to contact their local police department for information on others.

Quincy Detective Lt. Patrick Glynn said having more in-depth information on sex offenders would give the police more avenues to check on them.

“It would be extremely helpful with the way social media has taken off,” he said.

The penalty for not registering online identities would be 6 months to 2 1/2 years in jail or a fine of not more than $1,000 – the same penalty sex offenders face for failing to register addresses and phone numbers.

John Reinstein, senior legal counsel at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a written statement that forcing sex offenders to list their online identities is an invasion of personal privacy that would not likely improve public safety. Instead, he said, it would just make the people in the registry more vulnerable to harassment and isolation.

“If the goal of the statute is to reintegrate sex offenders into the community and to prevent re-offense, this is not the way to do it,” he said.

However, Reinstein also said that it may be appropriate for offenders caught conducting their crimes on the Internet to register online identities as part of their probation.

“To the extent that an individual sex offender’s offense involves the use of the Internet for unlawful purposes, such regulation may be appropriate as a condition of probation,” he wrote.

---

Canada kills controversial internet surveillance bill, US should follow suit

Original Article

Now the USA needs to follow suit, and stop trampling on peoples privacy, freedom of speech, and other constitutional issues, but, the US government doesn't care what the American people think.

02/12/2013

The Conservative Canadian government is abandoning its much-criticized internet surveillance bill, which would have allowed the government to keep tabs on its citizens and was disguised under the cloak of fighting child pornographers.
- Any time the government wants to pass a bill to "protect the children," you'd better read the bill, because you can almost always guarantee that it will affect you.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that Bill C-30, which caused public ire over privacy, is dead.

“We’ve listened to the concerns of Canadians,” Nicholson told reporters. “We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 … including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information, or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capabilities within their systems”.

Bill C-30 or otherwise known as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act was introduced in Parliament less than a year ago, and it was presented as a choice that Canadians must make: to either support the bill or be on the side of child pornographers.
- It's called "For the children politics," and has been used by America and others for many years, and needs to stop, things are not always black or white!

"He can either stand with us or stand with the child pornographers," argued Public Safety Minister Vic Toews in Parliament while attacking the opposition last February.

This comment led to public outrage, raising privacy concerns across the nation.

What made the legislation dangerous was that it forced Internet service providers to have systems that allowed police to intercept and track online communications.

Also, it would have permitted authorities to have warrantless access to Internet subscriber information, including name, address, telephone number, email address and Internet protocol address.

But, activists viewed the proposed bill as a huge infringement on privacy.

“This is a great day,” critic of the bill, Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Couvukian told The Globe and Mail, “This is a victory for privacy and for freedom.”

International hacktivist movement Anonymous also hailed the killing of the bill.

The killing of the bill in Canada is a major win for Canadians supporting privacy and internet freedom.

But, the battle over internet surveillance and wiretapping continues inside the country, with Bill C-12 still remaining before Parliament and if passed it would allow Internet service providers, email hosts and social media sites to voluntarily share personal information about their clients with the police.

Also, as was announced on Monday, Canadian authorities will be permitted to tap people’s phones without warrants in emergency circumstances or imminent harm such as in bombings or kidnappings.

Nicholson said that under the new guidelines, people whose phones were tapped in emergency situations would be notified within 90 days.

US’ similar privacy concerns still stand

The US is facing similar privacy debacle with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The bill is supposed to help the US government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyber attack.

Opponents say it would allow companies to hand over a user’s private browsing information to the government, allowing authorities to spy on American citizens rather than simply track down cyber threats.

Unable to reach a deal with Congress, President Obama plans to use his power to exert executive actions against the will of lawmakers.
- Of course he will, that is what dictators do.

The order is a direct response to Congress’ refusal to pass CISPA last year, as members of Congress who opposed the legislation cited serious privacy concerns over giving the government greater access to Americans’ personal information that only private companies and servers might have access to.

---

Now you can encrypt your calls, texts to protect them from being spied on

Original Article

02/06/2013

By Liz Klimas

There are those who might be concerned about spying — by the government, hackers or someone else — on their phone calls and text messages. Well, now there’s an app for that.

According to Slate, the firm Silent Circle has released a smartphone app that encrypts data. As Ryan Gallagher for Slate puts it, “that means photographs, videos, spreadsheets, you name it—sent scrambled from one person to another in a matter of seconds.”

The company’s press release stated the Silent Phone app is available for both Apple and Android devices. It is described as the first peer-to-peer encryption tool for smartphones and tablets, which means information doesn’t pass through a third-party.

“Senior corporate executives and government officials are using work-issued smartphones and their own personal devices under BYOD for sensitive discussions, despite their increasing susceptibility to eavesdropping and other surveillance threats across all communication mediums,” Silent Circle CTO, co-founder and former PGP Corporation co-founder Jon Callas said in a statement . “Silent Phone is an easy to use, yet powerful smart phone application that leverages state of the art technology and is now available for iOS and Android, the two most popular smart phone platforms.”

Read the entire article here

---

MaskMe - Tired of giving out your email address to a website and getting tons of email spam? (Google Chrome)

I sure hope they come out with a Firefox add-on soon. I mainly use Chrome (lately), but I've been using Firefox for years.

Description:
Use MaskMe to stay private when websites ask you for your personal information.

Tired of giving out your email address to a website and getting tons of email spam?

When an online form demands your email or phone number, MaskMe will spring into action - allowing you to choose between giving out your real contact information or creating “masked information."

MaskMe Features:

• Turns off unwanted spam or phone calls with one click
• Generates strong, unique passwords and remembers them so you don't have to
• Encrypts and stores passwords and online accounts in one safe place, for your eyes only

See Also:

• To be (anonymous) or not to be: should you use your real name on the Internet?

---

NY - How ironic! Gun owners have their names and addresses posted online and they scream about privacy?

Original Article

12/24/2012

New York’s “Journal News” ignited a fierce debate Sunday after publishing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. They are actively working on acquiring data for a third county.

The article, titled “Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?,” reads:

The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

Data for all permit categories, unrestricted carry, premises, business, employment, target and hunting, is included, but permit information is not available on an individual basis.

To create the map, The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record.

Putnam is still putting together its records and could not immediately provide any data. The map will be updated when that data is released. [Emphasis added]

Here is what the map for Rockland County looks like (note: the image below is a screen shot, so clicking on the dots will not reveal the personal information like in the original):

A map for Westchester county is also visible on the site.

Unlike with the above map, however, on the Journal News website, you can click on any one of the dots and get the full name and exact address of the permit holder.

AMI Global Security, which published an article condemning the “massive privacy breach” that is “meant to intimidate the lawful” and “abrogate the Bill of Rights,” collected a few of the first comments:

“If the homeowner is killed or injured, will LOHUD be charged as an accomplice to the crime?”

“It is as if they put out an ad to jewel thieves listing the names and addresses of where to find diamonds and cash.”

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should I hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun?”

“Now everyone knows where the LEGAL GUNS are kept, a valuable piece of information for criminals. Why don’t you do something helpful, like trying to find out where the ILLEGAL GUNS are kept? That would be helpful to the non-criminal population”

AMI Global Security also added recent “threats from local government” with regard to guns.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said last week, as the nation still shook from the tragedy at Sandy Hook, that he was considering new gun control measures when it came to “assault” weapons in the state:

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

This is not the first time the journal news has published the private information of gun holders. They pulled a similar stunt back in 2006, but that time, they only published names and municipalities– not exact street addresses.

---

Which Websites Are Sharing Your Personal Details?

Original Article

To identify what personal information gets passed to other companies when you log in to popular websites, The Wall Street Journal tested 50 of the top sites (by U.S. traffic) that offer registration, excluding sites that required a real-world account, such as banking sites. The Journal also tested 20 selected other sites that focus on sensitive subjects such as dating, politics, health, or children’s issues, and our own site, WSJ.com. Click here to read more about the methodology. Results for each site are below. Sites are ranked by popularity, based on comScore's numbers. Sites not in comScore's top 1,000 are marked with a "*".

---

CA - Prop 35: Sex Offender Act Could Have Unforeseen Privacy Consequences

Original Article

12/08/2012

By Cristina Maza

In March of 2013, a new law will be implemented in the state of California that ensures that every time a sex offender creates an online profile he or she has to disclose this information to local law enforcement within 24 hours. While some may cheer that Proposition 35 (PDF), also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act Initiative, is a step forward to curb the impunity of sex offenders on the web, many have failed to consider the implications that a law like this could have for non-sex offenders.

As an article on this new law rightly pointed out, Proposition 35 will create a situation in which a select group of people will have their online anonymity prohibited and will be forced to publicly connect their online identity with their real life one. Given the uproar recently about Facebook’s privacy laws, people are obviously concerned about the fact that they are being forced to reveal their identities whenever they engage in any kind of online activity and that their personal details could be exposed without their knowledge.

While many may support the idea of online freedoms being revoked for those who have committed a heinous crime, it leaves one wondering whether it is only a matter of time before other social groups that law enforcement deem “threatening” are also forced to do the same. Where do we draw the line?

Recently, I wrote an article for PolicyMic about the important role the internet is playing in political mobilization and civic participation around the world. One of the main reasons that the internet has the heavy flow of traffic that it does, is because it is theoretically an anonymous medium through which people can engage in discussion about a variety of topics without having to reveal their identities.

Many times people avoid discussing politically charged issues face-to-face for fear of conflict. Removing the right to remain anonymous could adversely affect the way people use the internet for political or other forms of civic engagement.

A law like Proposition 35 not only highlights the ambiguity of online privacy laws, but puts a striking emphasis on the fact that our actual identities are increasingly connected to our online ones, whether we like it or not. While theoretically the viewing of child-porn may be curbed if online profiles are disclosed, isn’t it far more important to monitor the real life behaviour of sex offenders after they are released from prison than to ensure that they are buying the right type of online products from the right suppliers?

Somehow, I fail to understand how being aware of the Amazon user name of a sex-offender is making me, as a woman, any safer. Perhaps more energy should be put into therapy and rehabilitation than into enforcing a law that could create a precedent for violating the privacy of other citizens.

See Also:

• California Proposition 35, Sex Trafficking Initiative, Blocked By Judge
• Proposition 35 And Why Anonymity Is Good For You

Video Link


Video Link

---

CA - ACLU, EFF Sue to Block Parts of New Sex-Offender Law

againstthecaseact.com

Original Article

I am glad they temporarily suspended this, but I also find it ironic that if it was just pertaining to ex-sex offenders, then nobody would care, but since ex-prostitutes and others could be labeled sex offenders, it now, all of a sudden, matters? When you trample one person/groups rights, it tramples all rights. The video below comes to mind.

11/07/2012

By Karen Gullo

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued to block portions of a California law to combat human trafficking that creates new requirements for sex offenders, alleging parts of the measure violate free speech rights.

California’s Proposition 35 (PDF), which includes increased prison terms for human trafficking, requires anyone who is a registered sex offender to turn over a list of all their Internet identifiers and service providers to law enforcement, the groups said in an e-mail today.

The measure’s online speech regulations are overly broad and violate the First Amendment, both because they prohibit anonymous speech and because the reporting requirements burden all sorts of online speech, even when the speaker is using his own real name as a screen name, they said.

The suit, which seeks a judge’s order blocking the allegedly unconstitutional portions of the law, was filed today in federal court in San Francisco by two registered sex offenders and the non-profit group California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

The case is Roe v. Harris (PDF) (More Info), 12-5713, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Update:

• Proposition 35 blocked (PDF)

See Also:

• Critics raise specter of police state in challenge to new Calif. law
• All related articles

Video Link

---

A Mouse Click Away: Porn's Insidious Business Model

Original Article

It will find you only if you visit porn or other sites, which are probably infested with viruses, scams, spyware, etc, or if you install an application that is not from a trusted source.  Don't forget, there are also criminals out there stealing your private information as well, so don't post any of your personal information online, period! You should have a program that protects you from all this.  We recommend Zone Alarm, but there are many others as well.

10/02/2012

By Mark Martin

The United States is the number one producer and distributor of illegal pornography. It's a multi-billion dollar industry, and you may be surprised by what's behind the hard core business boom.

While innocently surfing the net, your child can come face to face with a sexually explicit pop-up ad.

"Even if you're not looking for it, you could be innocent," 15-year-old Zach said. "If you go on the computer, on the Internet, and you're looking for something good, it will find you."

"It is deviant," Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said. "It's aberrant. Kids are seeing content that no 12 or 13 year old is mentally, psychologically, or emotionally prepared to deal with."
- Well parents should install software to block those types of sites.  It can be done, if you take the time to do it, or get a professional to do it.  And that is also why porn sites, in our opinion, should be behind an .XXX domain, so it can easily be blocked.

A Mouse Click Away

If parents don't know what to look for or how to protect their kids online, a click of the mouse can usher in a nightmare.

Take for instance, "Rene," whose 11-year-old son is victim of Internet pornography.

"Through a minimized porn site and our computer's history button, we discovered that our precious 11-year-old son had been to hundreds of Internet pornography sites in the middle of the previous few nights," Rene told CBN News.

Rene's son became hooked.

"We have spent the last 10 years trying to keep our son away from this "drug," with little success, seeking counselors who could help him and being frustrated and angry that we were unable to protect our child," she said.
- So did you get a professional to install software to block all this?  Apparently not!

Immoral Cash Flow

Morality in Media President Patrick Trueman told CBN News the $120 billion porn industry blankets the Internet with millions of websites.

The young aren't the only victims. Adults also become intensely addicted while porn executives become incredibly wealthy.

"The bulk of the commercial pornography industry is a relative handful, 60 to 80 companies that control most of those commercial sites," Trueman said.

"So they're looking for revenue, and you don't just get revenue when someone buys your video or buys time on your website for either a live performance or to view a video," he said.

Simply clicking on a pop-up ad fills the pockets of the porn industry without the Internet user even buying anything.

"What you in fact get money for is the clicks," Trueman said. "It's the business model that Google has, and so the more you click the more money they make."

"Some people think, 'Well, I just look at it a little bit,' he continued. "Yes, every time you do, the porn industry makes money."

"Then you multiply that individual by millions of people in the United States that do the same thing; the porn industry's getting rich off you," Trueman said.

Safeguarding Your Family

Internet safety experts say a strong defense at home is the only way to stop this immoral cash flow.

Families need to block content and establish safety rules for kids and adults. This can be done through filtering and monitoring software and through accountability partners.
- Yes, families need to do this, or get a professional, or else "Big Brother" will step in and start regulating the Internet for you.

"So that every website that that individual goes to, you get an email giving you an update of where they've been," Trueman explained. "That's accountability, and you need that."

"Know what your kids are doing online, and stay engaged with them, and recognize that you can't do it alone," Donna Rice Hughes, executive producer of Internet Safety 101, told CBN News. "You need some help."

It's timely advice, especially with research showing porn's effect on the family.

Four out of five 16-year-olds now regularly access the illicit material online, and more than half of divorces name Internet pornography as a primary reason for the breakup of the marriage.

---

Did you know you can request your home address be removed from online mapping services?

Did you know you can request your home address be removed from Google, Yahoo, Bing and other mapping services?

Well you can, and we recommend you do it for your own safety, especially if you are wearing the "sex offender" label.

Many online registries use these mapping services, and if you request yours be removed, then it will also be unmappable from the many registries as well.

Below is a link for Google Maps, but other mapping services have a similar process:

http://tinyurl.com/9tsedws

01) Enter your home address, then enter street view. Once you do, you will see a REPORT A PROBLEM link, click that.

02) You will then need to click the PRIVACY CONCERN link and follow the instructions.

---

NJ - New Jersey Bill Limits Social Networking for Registered Sex Offenders

Senator Bateman

Original Article

09/06/2012

MORRISTOWN - For those involved in social networking, a day can hardly go by without logging in to keep track of current events -- whether they use Facebook, Google+ or even Twitter. Even for those not involved with social networking, references to the most recent outrageous celebrity "tweet" or updated "status" can be heard almost daily in the media. Since it seems almost impossible to avoid social networking in today's day and age, some lawmakers in New Jersey want to make it a requirement for New Jersey Megan's Law registrants to identify themselves as sex offenders on social networking sites.

Social Networking & Megan's Law Registration

New Jersey lawmakers have been discussing various proposed restrictions on social networking by registered sex offenders for some time, but now a bill has been introduced in New Jersey's legislature by Senator Christopher "Kip" Bateman.

The New Jersey bill -- SB No. 2142 (PDF) -- was modeled after a recently enacted Louisiana law and requires those registered as sex offenders to provide some type of notification of their registration on the social networking websites they use. This requirement essentially mirrors New Jersey's current Megan's Law, which requires sex offenders to register their whereabouts so that the local authorities can notify neighbors of their presence -- except, of course, that the proposed bill applies in cyberspace and not the real world.

Specifically, the bill would require all Megan's Law registrants to include the following on their social network profiles, and visible to all users:

• Notice that they are sex offenders
• Notice of the sex crime for which they were convicted
• Jurisdiction of their sex crime conviction
• Physical description of themselves
• Their residential address
• A link to the Internet Registry of sex offenders if the person's information is included on the registry

Moreover, the bill, if passed, would require all Megan's Law registrants to give law enforcement a list of all of their e-mail addresses, identities and screen names that may be used in chat-rooms or instant messaging, in addition to a list of all social networking sites with which they may be a member.

Even though some social networking sites already have restrictions in their terms of service prohibiting sex offenders from using their sites -- such as Match.com and Facebook -- this bill would add to the ever-expanding list of restrictions for those convicted of sex crimes. As indicated by this most recent bill, the ramifications of a sex crime conviction are quite severe, thus illustrating the dire need to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney if you are facing criminal allegations of a sexual nature.

---

How Facebook catches would-be child molesters by analyzing relationships and chat content (i.e. Spying without a warrant!)

Original Article

If they have this technology and they are using it, it's basically like entering your home and searching without a warrant! If it was found constitutional by the SCOTUS, then use it, stop deny ex-offenders from using your site because of some perceived danger? Stop discriminating against people! If someone is doing something they should not be, report them!

07/16/2012

By Lisa Vaas

Law enforcement is hailing Facebook for using its little-known data monitoring technology to spot a suspicious conversation about sex between a man in his early thirties and a 13-year-old girl from Florida.

According to Reuters, Facebook software on March 9 raised the red flag when it picked up on a conversation about sex between the man and the girl.

The two had only a loose relationship on the network.

The man was chatting about sex with the girl and planned to meet her after middle-school classes the next day, according to Reuters.

The conversation was automatically flagged for Facebook employees, who read it and quickly notified the police.

Police took over the girl's computer and arrested the man the following day, Special Agent Supervisor Jeffrey Duncan of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told Reuters.

The alleged predator has pleaded not guilty to charges of soliciting a minor.

Facebook doesn't talk much about this technology, which scans postings and chats for criminal activity.
- Imagine if, while on the streets, you had someone following you around monitoring everything you do and say.  This is no different, it's just being done in cyberspace where no warrant is needed!  Maybe we should bring the laws up to date and require someone to have a warrant before entering someone's online home?

In what Reuters called the company's "most expansive comments on the subject to date", Facebook Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan said that the monitoring software analyzes relationships to find suspicious conversations between unlikely pairings, i.e., between people of widely varying ages who only have loose and/or newly formed relationships, for example.

The technology also relies on archives of real-life chats that preceded sexual assaults, Sullivan told Reuters.

It's easy to see why Facebook doesn't talk about it much: the last thing the company wants is for its users to feel like they're being eavesdropped on, Sullivan said:
- Well, they are, and all without a warrant!

We've never wanted to set up an environment where we have employees looking at private communications, so it's really important that we use technology that has a very low false-positive rate.

- Then why did you set it up?

To avoid coming off as eavesdroppers, Facebook also avoids probing what it interprets as pre-existing relationships, Sullivan said.
- You expect us to believe anything they say?

Reining in its monitoring technology is understandable in light of not wanting to be perceived as Big Brother, but as Reuters pointed out, a low false-positive rate has the serious downside of letting many dangerous communications go through unflagged.

Duncan estimates that for every predator the police intercept due to tips from Facebook and other companies, another ten get through the system undetected.

And while Facebook limits how visible children are to its adult users - minors don't show up in public searches, only friends can chat with them, and only friends' friends can send them messages - children are all too capable of lying about their age and pretending to be adults.

The converse is true: adults can lie about their birth dates and pretend to be minors.

One example can be found in Skout, a location-based social networking mobile app and website that in June barred minors from using its service, following three separate incidents in which children were allegedly sexually assaulted by adults posing as teenagers.

At the time, the New York Times reported that Skout was fully aware that minors were using its site.

Skout had, in fact, put safeguards in place to protect those minors. Last year, after noticing minors using its service, Skout put together a separate service for 13- to 17-year-olds with safety features such as parental controls.

In addition, Skout devoted a quarter of its staff to monitoring activity to flag nudity, and to check chats for inappropriate sexual messages, profanity, spamming, copyright infringement and violent behavior. The service also banned tens of thousands of infringing devices every month.

In spite of Skout's efforts, three children were allegedly targeted, raped or molested.
- No amount of spying or passing of draconian laws will prevent someone from committing a crime.

There's no lack of security to protect against the type of age falsification that creates problems on Facebook and sites such as Skout.

Reuters pointed to one such provider, Aristotle International Inc., which offers methods such as having a parent vouch for a child with a token credit card payment.

The problem is, nobody's buying.

The downsides of such technology: it bleeds away sites' profits because it costs money, and it drives away children who crave unfettered freedom of communication.

Children's natural development includes the need to break away from their families as they seek independence.

Tragically, there are no end of online venues that have the look and feel of sanctuaries where it's safe to do that in the presence of peers.

It's crucial to somehow get through to them that those sanctuaries can be smoke and mirrors, and that those supposed peers can all too easily be dangerous predators.

Parents, law enforcement, you have my sympathy. The task seems overwhelmingly daunting.

---

FBI Hopes To Launch Iris-Scan Database To Track Criminals

Original Article

07/05/2012

By Ryan Gallagher

First it was fingerprints, then DNA. Now databases of iris scans are next on the biometrics list for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to track criminals.

As part of a $1 billion upgrade, the FBI is implementing a Next-Generation Identification System that will expand its old fingerprint database to allow for “rapid matching” of physical identifiers including iris scans, facial images, and palm prints, Mashable reported today.

The FBI, which is reportedly working with Massachusetts-based BI2 Technologies, aims to launch a pilot nationwide database of iris scans by 2014. The FBI has already been provided with more than 12,000 iris images from “current law enforcement agency clients” for analysis and testing, according to BI2’s president, Sean G. Mullin.

This isn’t a wholly new development. BI2 says agencies in 47 states have been gathering iris data in prisons as part of an inmate identification scheme for six years. The company is also rolling out a biometric device—built into an iPhone app—that can be used remotely to recognize and identify people based on iris, face, or fingerprint.

There are obvious civil liberties concerns around collecting ever more kinds of biometric data on a nationwide scale, even if only of convicts. BI2 says that its iris technology addresses privacy issues because subjects have to “agree to enroll and participate” in order to have their eyes photographed. But because currently all of BI2’s iris scans from across the United States are stored centrally on a server located in Texas, the ultimate safety and security of the technology is questionable. Though the iris scans are encrypted, there is always the possibility hackers could gain access.
- Oh come on, you expect us to believe the highlighted?  I'm sure someone in jail/prison won't have a choice.  So what happens if someone decides to not participate?  I'm sure they'd go to jail/prison and then be forced to comply!

In addition to what the FBI is calling an “iris repository,” it is also further embracing facial recognition technology. Last year the agency revealed that it wants to allow local police to identify unknown subjects in photos. Meanwhile, not to be outdone, biometrics are also on the Department of Homeland Security’s agenda. The DHS is building a program called Future Attribute Screening Technology that it hopes will "detect cues indicative of mal-intent" based on factors including ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate.

Video Link


Video Link

---

PETITION - Celebrate freedom. Support a free and open Internet

Original Article

More than any time in history, more people in more places have the ability to make their voices heard.

Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom.

Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet.

Video Link

---

AL - Tougher surveillance law could put Peeping Toms on sex offender list

Original Article

06/12/2012

By Paul Gattis

HUNTSVILLE - [name withheld] of Decatur has already been convicted seven times for criminal surveillance. He's currently in jail in Morgan County for three more charges of surveillance, as well as three burglary counts. Warrants for surveillance are also outstanding in Huntsville and Michigan.

Yet, because [name withheld] kept slipping through the criminal justice system to commit the same crimes again, Decatur city prosecutor Emily Baggett took action.

After Baggett pushed for tougher penalties, Sen. Arthur Orr sponsored a bill that was signed into law by Gov. Robert Bentley in April.

Now a conviction of criminal surveillance for the purpose of sexual gratification could, at the discretion of the prosecutor, result in placement on the sex offender registry.

"This one case brought the issue to the forefront," Baggett said Monday.

According to Baggett, [name withheld] is 50 years old with ties to Michigan but he is listed in court records with a Spring Avenue address in Decatur. He would spy on women in bathroom stalls in restaurants and department stores, said Baggett.

A pattern developed in Alabama, where [name withheld] was arrested for surveillance in Decatur and Athens, as well as the case pending in Huntsville.

There were similar incidents in Michigan, where a felony extradition order has been filed.

"If you really think about it, if somebody does this a lot, and some people do, you want to be aware," Baggett said. "It's kind of scary that somebody can continue to watch somebody in the bathroom and nothing really ever happens."

Senate Bill 148 changed that. It's now aggravated criminal surveillance to spy on someone with a reasonable expectation of privacy - such as a bathroom stall in a restaurant - "for the purpose of sexual gratification."

The crime has been upgraded to a Class A misdemeanor - which meets the level of requiring to register as a sexual offender, Baggett said. A second conviction on aggravated criminal surveillance is a Class C felony.

Previously, each conviction was a Class B misdemeanor.

Orr, who sponsored the bill, said the issue resonated with the Legislature because neighboring states have tougher criminal surveillance laws. And Alabama's previous law "was not enhanced for repeat offenders," Orr said.

"It's not something that will hopefully be used a lot," Baggett said. "But with technology, there is a concern about sexual voyeurism. Our laws don't really, in comparisons to other states, don't have the protection."

---

UK - Digital Surveillance / Big Brother Plans to be announced by Queen Elizabeth Speech

Video Link

---

VA - Virginia Supreme Court hears appeal in case over police use of GPS tracking

Original Article

06/07/2012

RICHMOND — A lawyer for a sex offender asked the Virginia Supreme Court on Thursday to reverse his client’s conviction, arguing police failed to obtain a search warrant before using an electronic tracking device to monitor his whereabouts.

Amid a series of sexual assaults in northern Virginia, Fairfax County police put a tracking device on a van [name withheld] drove for work because they suspected him in the attacks. He was a suspect in part because of his past sexual assault conviction.

GPS data indicated the van was at the scene of a sexual assault in February 2008, so police deployed officers to follow him. Later that month, they saw [name withheld] knock a woman to the ground and try to unbutton her pants. The officers intervened and arrested [name withheld], who was convicted of abduction with intent to defile and sentenced to life in prison.

In arguing Thursday to overturn the conviction, [name withheld]’s attorney Christopher Leibig cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in January that police cannot install GPS technology to track suspects without a warrant.

Virginia Theisen, a lawyer with the state attorney general’s office, argued that there was a gap in time between the GPS monitoring and the attempted assault, which makes the officers’ testimony admissible.

Police gathered evidence by “old-fashioned” surveillance that helped them identify [name withheld] and ultimately stop his attempted assault, she said.

“He was already a suspect,” she said. “This was why they used GPS.”

Leibig, however, argued police relied on the three hours of GPS surveillance to help build the case against [name withheld].

Theisen acknowledged the police acted illegally when using the tracking device, but argued that officers’ eyewitness evidence was admissible.

Judges asked whether it mattered that [name withheld]’s employer, and not [name withheld] himself, was the owner of the van being tracked.

Leibig said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said there’s no distinction based on vehicle ownership, because it’s the person inside the vehicle, not the vehicle itself, being tracked.

Courts in several states are addressing the GPS tracking issue in light of the high court’s ruling.

The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled in March that police must get a warrant from a judge before using GPS technology to track a suspect over an extended period. The ruling overturned the drug convictions of [name withheld], who was charged after GPS tracking led to drugs and other evidence in a storage locker.

In Kentucky, a federal judge last month ruled that police illegally used a GPS device on a suspect and barred prosecutors from using the discovery of 150 pounds of marijuana as evidence.

While the Supreme Court ruled police need warrants to employ GPS tracking devices, it didn’t specify whether law enforcement agencies need warrants to track suspects by their cell phone signals, which also transmit geolocation information.

Federal lawmakers are considering legislation that would require law enforcement officials to obtain court warrants to collect cell phone data.

---