This is pretty creepy stuff. I know it isn’t directly related to federal power or the laws of the national (in)security state, but the implementation of the technology itself gives serious pause, especially considering the symbiotic and arguably overly-cooperative role communications corporations have with the government (and their willingness to serve as unofficial organs of the national surveillance apparatus). Total information awareness, indeed…

If you have some tinfoil handy, now might be a good time to fashion a hat. At the Digital Living Room conference today, Gerard Kunkel, Comcast’s senior VP of user experience, told me the cable company is experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who’s in your living room.

The idea being that if you turn on your cable box, it recognizes you and pulls up shows already in your profile or makes recommendations. If parents are watching TV with their children, for example, parental controls could appear to block certain content from appearing on the screen. Kunkel also said this type of monitoring is the “holy grail” because it could help serve up specifically tailored ads. Yikes.

Read The Full Article

Stephen Colbert provides this spot on send up regarding the sell out of American rights to corporate power.

Watch The Video

Boy, I feel safer already…

The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as “blackmail” and “troublesome”, and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington’s requirements.

According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.

And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.

————

While armed American guards would be entitled to sit on the European flights to the US, the Americans also want the PNR data transfers extended from travellers from Europe to the US to include the details of those whose flights are not to America, but which overfly US territory, say to central America or the Caribbean.

Brussels has told Washington that its demands raise legal problems in Europe over data protection, over guarantees on how the information is handled, over which US agencies have access to it or with whom it might be shared, and over issues of redress if the data is misused.

What, don’t those wussy Europeans trust the U.S. Government to handle all these secretive details with full efficiency and propriety? Of course, those in charge of this program will be fully accountable to transparent legislative oversight. (Note for the facetiously deprived, yes, this is meant as a joke).

Read the Full Article from The Guardian U.K.

The so-called “progressive” organization “Third Way” are revealed to be, once again, little more than shilling water carriers for the corporations.

A think tank with close ties to the telecommunication industry has been working with a key Democrat in the Senate on a domestic surveillance bill that would provide telecommunications companies with retroactive immunity for possibly violating federal law by spying on American citizens at the behest of the Bush administration.

Third Way, a non-profit “progressive” think tank that is funded and controlled by hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and business executives has advised Sen. Jay Rockefeller on a domestic surveillance bill that includes immunity for telecommunications companies with which Third Way board members have close ties.

Rockefeller is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and has been the leading Democratic proponent of granting immunity to telecommunication companies that allegedly gave spy agencies access to their communication networks and databases without a warrant.

Read The Full Report

Your Loss of Privacy Is a Package Deal
By David Lazarus
Newsday

The all-you-can-eat packages of voice, video and Internet services offered by phone and cable companies may be convenient, but they represent a potentially significant threat to people’s privacy. Take, for example, Time Warner Cable, which has about 2 million customers in Southern California. The company offers a voice-video-Net package called “All the Best” for $89.85 for the first 12 months.

But for anyone who has the wherewithal to read Time Warner’s 3,000-word California privacy policy, you discover that not only does the company have the ability to know what you watch on TV and whom you call, but also that it can track your online activities, including sites you visit and stuff you buy.

Remember all the fuss when it was revealed last year that Google Inc. kept voluminous records of people’s Web searches, and that federal authorities were demanding a peek under the hood? Multiply that privacy threat by three. Internet, TV, phone — it’s hard to imagine a more revealing glimpse of your private life. “All your eggs are in one communications basket,” said Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego. “If a company wants to, it can learn a great deal about you — and it probably wants to.”

More often than not, it’ll also want to turn a fast buck by selling at least a portion of that info to marketers. Find the privacy policies of three providers:

AT&T U-Verse: https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do
Time Warner Cable: http://help.twcable.com/html/twc_privacy_notice_CA.html
Verizon FiOS TV: http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/fiosprivacy/

Read the rest of the Newsday report Here

Welcome to the USSA.

From the Association of Corporate Travel Executives (http://www.acte.org/)

I believe this is from an ACTE Quarterly Business Journal (from last winter).

Company executives and employees traveling across the American border may be subject to random searches of files and information stored on their laptop computers, computer discs, and other electronic media.

These searches affect both American citizens and non-citizens, and customs agents do not need to suspect any criminal activity before performing a search. In a typical search, customs agents seize a laptop computer and inform the owner that the laptop will be returned by mail at a later date. Agents then create a “mirror image” of the laptop’s hard drive, copying every document, photograph, email, and other file on the computer. Agents may perform forensic searches of the files and may store the copied files indefinitely. Usually, the government their laptops have never been returned.

Sometimes a search may be less intrusive. For example, an agent may ask a traveler to turn on the laptop computer at a customs checkpoint. Agents then scan various files for suspicious information without actually copying the files or seizing the computer.

Either type of search poses risks for executives whose computers contain privileged legal communications, trade secrets, or other confidential and proprietary information. These searches also threaten to inhibit the travelerХs ability to conduct business during the trip.

Companies and executives need to prepare for the possibility of a seizure and search of laptop computers at U.S. points of entry. Go to (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissability/authority_
to_search.xml). Below are some specific issues to consider.

HELPFUL HINTS FOR COMPANIES

1. Minimize the Risk.
In light of the possibility that the government could take possession of all the information stored on a laptop computer, international travelers should minimize the amount of proprietary, privileged, or otherwise confidential information they store on the laptop during their trip. Laptops carried internationally should contain no more sensitive information than is necessary for that trip. Some companies are choosing to designate “travel computers” that do not contain large volumes of stored information and can be erased between trips.

2. Be Prepared.
These searches can happen to anyone and when the U.S. government seizes a computer, it may take time for the computer or other hardware to be returned. If a computer contains information (documents, presentations, contact information, etc.) that the traveler will need, the company should maintain a backup to replace the materials in the event of a border seizure. For example, a company could maintain a backup version on system servers that can be emailed or express delivered by disc.

3. Be Insured.
Many companies have insurance policies that cover the loss of computers and electronically stored information. Border seizures of laptop computers represent another way in which a company can suffer such losses. By negotiating to have a policy cover these seizures, companies can protect themselves against the cost of replacing computers that are not returned and against the possible disclosure of confidential information.

WHAT COMPANIES SHOULD TELL THEIR EXECUTIVES AND EMPLOYEES

1. Cooperate but don’t consent.
If agents confiscate an employee’s computer, the employee should be cooperative and respectful. These seizures are legal, and customs agents are just doing their jobs. But if an agent asks the employee for permission to search the contents of the computer, the employee should respectfully decline to consent either verbally or in writing. Although the agents may still take the computer and perform the search, the company will retain more legal rights if employees decline to consent.

2. Get a receipt and as much information as possible.
Customs agents usually provide receipts for computers they confiscate - make sure your employees get one. Employees should also try to get as much information as possible about who to contact if they do not receive the computer back, if the computer is damaged, etc.

3. Inform the Company as Soon as Possible.
Employees should immediately inform the company’s legal department or a designated supervisor if their computer is seized.

A FINAL LEGAL NOTE

The law governing these searches is currently in flux. A federal court in Los Angeles recently ruled that these laptop searches violate the Constitution. Other federal courts, however, have allowed these searches, and customs agents likely will continue this practice until the federal courts or Congress resolve the issue. A clear resolution is unlikely to come soon, so for the foreseeable future, international travelers should prepare for the possibility that their laptops, computer discs, and other electronic media can be searched and seized at the border.

Freedom on the march.

The symbiotic merging of our society into full-fledged Corporate State continues….

The Bush administration wants the power to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that are slapped with privacy suits for cooperating with the White House’s controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.

The authority would effectively shut down dozens of lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies accused of helping set up the program.

Here is a money shot (literally) line from this piece from The New York Times…

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell considers the issue a key element of any legislation that Congress considers this fall to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

Trying to make his point, McConnell recently confirmed that the private sector assisted with the surveillance work — and faces lawsuits. ‘’If you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,'’ McConnell told the El Paso (Texas) Times in an interview posted online last week.

Is it a legitimate question to ask why in regards to this important issue the pre-eminent concern of the National Intelligence Director, a so-called ‘public servant’, is not whether the future protection of the personal freedoms and liberties of Americans is at risk of invasive and unaccountable power challenging the very fabric of our understanding of the republic, but is rather instead the protection of the financial status of global telecommunications corporations, the same corporations which are being charged with serious transgressions against those very freedoms?

Another interesting comment….

Conventional wisdom has long been that the bulk of the surveillance operations — groundbreaking because they lacked judicial oversight — involved primarily telephone calls. However, officials say the Bush administration’s program frequently went after e-mail and other Internet traffic, which al-Qaida has embraced as a key means of communication.

So THAT is why the internet needs to be controlled by these same corporations! Its a tool of al-Qaida and we need to make sure we let AT&T control the flow of content in order to keep us all safe from the terrorists. It won’t be long before they’ll use this as the political sales pitch against net neutrality. Its supporters are actually enabling the ‘Terrorists’ and hate America and ‘Freedom’.

I like the term ‘groundbreaking’. There is nothing ‘groundbreaking’ about this. The KGB, the Stasi, the Mukhabarat and countless others have been using these techniques since the technology was invented.

For black comic (un)relief, there is this line about the Democrats, many of which still can’t seem to call balls and strikes, even when the pitch is right down the middle (or when they are getting beaned by them)…

There is a divide among Capitol Hill’s majority Democrats about whether the companies deserve any protection. Some believe they were operating in good faith, on orders that appeared to be lawful. Others believe lawyers at the companies had a responsibility to ensure the requests weren’t an abuse of presidential power.

This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Read The Complete Article from The New York Times

This story is truly disturbing, though unfortunately, no longer surprising. Clearly, any act of resistance or criticism terrifies these people, which will then by definition result in your being labelled as a ‘terrorist’.

From Walter F. Murphy, professor of constitutional theory and the Court…

“When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.”

“I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said. ”

Read The Full Post

Nice to see some light being shown upon our police state at work. Particularly considering claims that this was happening were either ignored or derided as conspiracy fantasies of ‘leftists’.

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police departments in other cities. A police report on an organization of artists called Bands Against Bush noted that the group was planning concerts on Oct. 11, 2003, in New York, Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Boston. Between musical sets, the report said, there would be political speeches and videos.

“Activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda,” said the report, dated Oct. 9, 2003. “Police departments in above listed areas have been contacted regarding this event.”

Back in the USSA.

This cuts to the very core of American values and principles, how whole swaths of people are pursued, tracked and spied on for no other reason than their public disagreements with state policy. Then political elements use state organs to keep track of, and to control the activities of these people, not for criminal activity, but for political activity. The Banana Republicans of the American GOP show their true colors, once again. Red, white and black

Read The Full Report

The Busheviks know how to pick ‘em….

As the next Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates will be in charge of a new star-chamber legal system that can lock up indefinitely “unlawful enemy combatants” and “any person” accused of aiding them. Yet, despite these extraordinary new powers, his confirmation is being treated more like a coronation than a time for tough questions.

—————-

But there are serious unresolved questions about Gates’s past that the American people might want resolved before he is entrusted with the awesome new powers that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 puts in the hands of the Defense Secretary.

In 1991, for reasons mostly of political expediency and personal friendship, Gates’s last confirmation process for CIA director never got to the bottom of allegations linking Gates to some of the most serious national security scandals of the 1980s, including illegal involvement in arms deals with Iran and Iraq.

In his memoir, From the Shadows, Gates revealed why the inquiries were cut short when he thanked his friend, Sen. David Boren, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for shepherding him through the confirmation process.

“David took it as a personal challenge to get me confirmed,” Gates wrote.

Boren’s chief of staff who helped limit the investigation of Gates in 1991 was George Tenet, whose actions earned him the gratitude of then-President George H.W. Bush, who a decade later urged his son, President George W. Bush, to keep Tenet on as CIA director.

Amid all this cozy back-scratching, Gates’s alleged involvement in illicit contacts between senior Republicans and Iranian representatives during the 1980 hostage crisis was never seriously vetted. Neither was Gates’s alleged participation in arranging secret arms shipments to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s.

This guy should not be in front of Congress to receive an appointment. He should be there to receive an indictment. Another retread from the Bush Crime Family.

As USTV reader AM notes…

We really aren’t trading up with this new Sec. of Defense at all; the step-down of Rummy was just a timely post-election farce of a concession by the Administration.

Read The Full Article from Consortium News