This is a little scary.


Senate blocks mandatory ID implants in employees

The bill would prevent employers in the state from requiring workers to have the devices.
By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 31, 2007

Tackling a dilemma right out of a science fiction novel, the state Senate passed legislation Thursday that would bar employers from requiring workers to have identification devices implanted under their skin.

State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) proposed the measure after at least one company began marketing radio frequency identification devices for use in humans.

The devices, as small as a grain of rice, can be used by employers to identify workers. A scanner passing over a body part implanted with one can instantly identify the person.

"RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," Simitian said. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy."

Simitian said he fears that the devices could be compromised by persons with unauthorized scanners, facilitating identity theft and improper tracking and surveillance.

The bill has been approved by the state Assembly and now goes to the governor.

Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem. "It sounded like it was a solution looking for a problem," Margett said. "It didn't seem like it was necessary."

Hey bob, you have stock in the company or what? Where are the anti-big brother Republicans when we really need them?

One company, VeriChip, has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration to sell implanted identification devices, and about 2,000 people have had them implanted, Simitian said. A representative of the firm did not return calls seeking comment Thursday.

CityWatcher.com, a Cincinnati video surveillance company, has required employees who work in its secure data center to have a microchip implanted in an arm.

Similar technology has been used for years to help identify lost pets.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sc...=la-home-center

ONLY if everyone has to have one . . .

No thanks.

In fact, no way.

I thought so.

Hell No!

just try one for a while... the government is your friend

I'm against the soon to be implemented proposals for a nation electronic medical records system. Not that we will be able to stop it.

I see it as the backbone of a cradle to grave tracking system.

Salon: Warrantless surveillance and the new Coretta Scott King disclosures



KHOU 11 News: Inside the FBI's secret files on Coretta Scott King

KHOU 11 News Video

C&R: Spying on Coretta Scott King and Spineless Dems Won’t Stop Future Abuses

If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you have to worry about government surveillance? Because it doesn't matter if you are doing anything wrong.

Eye in the sky and an ear at the door.

Who is my friend?

And a drug test in the toilet.

Scientists Drug-Test Whole Cities



Sewage tells tales about community-wide drug abuse



Tracking drug use collectively so we don't have to target people individually, or, tracking drug use collectively so we can choose where to target people individually.

Am I to conclude that you don't think it is a good idea to test the sewage water for the presence of drug-of-abuse metabolites so as to know which communities to 'target' in terms of e.g. harm-reduction efforts, alternatives-to-getting-high programs, etc.?

Tracking drug use so the dealers know where to set up shop.

Now, there's the market research, private enterprise angle that I've been looking for.

I concerned about how the information may be used, certainly. It would certainly be nice if the info was used for harm-reduction efforts, etc., but it's most likely to be used for law enforcement purposes, IMHO.






That's an angle I hadn't considered... Clever.

So, would you be willing to support a banning or at least banning of federal and other government (i.e. taxpayer) funds being used to develop and deploy such technology period on account of the potentially negative (from your point of view) uses to which it can be put?

All knowledge and all consequent technology can be put to pernicious use. Something to think about.

Could they tell the diff between legitimate morphine use and heroin?

As with all new technological developments, I would support an effort to define the limits of its usage. What can be used on a whole community can be used on an apartment complex or a house, for instance. Would that give law enforcement probable cause to issue a search warrant? That's not currently addressed. It reminds me of the infrared surveillance that used to be used to find people using grow lights - which I believe the Supreme Court struck down as an invasion of privacy - or the ability to read the contents of your computer monitor from the street based on the electromagnetic signals they give out. If limits aren’t placed on technological violations of privacy, then privacy will disappear.





It's been about 10 years since I worked in a clinical lab, so I wouldn't quote me, but if I remember correctly they test for metabolites to a substance, and there are situations where one substance can mimic another. For instance the AIDS drug Sustiva will give a false positive for marijuana. In terms of differentiating between legitimate and illegal use, naturally a drug test won't met that criteria. They'd have to investigate your medical records. It may be testing positive for a substance would give them probable cause to investigate your medical history. Hard to tell. I’m just disturbed by our increasing erosion of privacy generally.

I doubt they will learn much new, but they may learn it easier.

If they are worried about public health they ought to make sure the pipples are getting enough fiber.

While they're in there anyway....

Give it time...

Time for a fiber pill bill.

I think that someone must have surveillance equipment set up in my living room, because every once in a while, someone on the TV will tell me what channel I'm watching. That really freaks me out, you know? - Pam Stewart

That's why I keep changing channels.

Opiates iz opiates.

Short answer is no. I have a friend with a legitimate morphine perscription, and of course, opiates showed up in a drug test he had to take for a job. He explained to the employer, and still got the job, but I'm sure there's zero tolerance employers out there.

Just one of many roadblocks and hassels thrown up to keep the chronically ill from getting a break.

A legitimate morphine prescription is one thing but I would never want an employee who was addicted to the stuff just because he likes it.

Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Tuesday December 16, 2008




Print This Email This

ACLU victorious as federal court declares Patriot Act provision a violation of the First Amendment

A federal appeals court ruling late Monday is the cause célèbre of the American Civil Liberties Union, as another provision of the Bush administration's Patriot Act falls to the judicial system.

Until the ruling, recipients of so-called "national security letters" were legally forbidden from speaking out. The letters, usually a demand for documents, or a notice that private records had been searched by government authorities, were criticized as a cover-all for FBI abuses.

"The appeals court invalidated parts of the statute that wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to initiate judicial review of gag orders, holding that the government has the burden to go to court and justify silencing NSL recipients," said the ACLU in a release. "The appeals court also invalidated parts of the statute that narrowly limited judicial review of the gag orders – provisions that required the courts to treat the government's claims about the need for secrecy as conclusive and required the courts to defer entirely to the executive branch."

Because of the ruling, the government will now be forced to justify individual gag orders before a court, instead of casually wielding the power of a blanket gag as the Bush administration has done since the blindingly fast passage of the Patriot Act in Oct. 2001.

In Sept. 2007, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional provisions within the Patriot Act which allowed the government to obtain search warrants without probable cause.

The ACLU's complete press release follows.

####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2008

NEW YORK – A federal appeals court today upheld, in part, a decision striking down provisions of the Patriot Act that prevent national security letter (NSL) recipients from speaking out about the secret records demands. The decision comes in an American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging the FBI's authority to use NSLs to demand sensitive and private customer records from Internet Service Providers and then forbid them from discussing the requests. Siding with the ACLU, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the statute's gag provisions violate the First Amendment.

"We are gratified that the appeals court found that the FBI cannot silence people with complete disregard for the First Amendment simply by saying the words 'national security,'" said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "This is a major victory for the rule of law. The court recognized the need for judicial oversight of the government's dangerous gag power and rejected the Bush administration's position that the courts should just rubber-stamp these gag orders. By upholding the critical check of judicial review, the FBI can no longer use this incredible power to hide abuse of its intrusive Patriot Act surveillance powers and silence critics."

The appeals court invalidated parts of the statute that wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to initiate judicial review of gag orders, holding that the government has the burden to go to court and justify silencing NSL recipients. The appeals court also invalidated parts of the statute that narrowly limited judicial review of the gag orders – provisions that required the courts to treat the government's claims about the need for secrecy as conclusive and required the courts to defer entirely to the executive branch.

"The appellate panel correctly observed that the imposition of such a conclusive presumption ignored well-settled First Amendment standards and deprived the judiciary of its important function as a protector of fundamental rights," said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director for the New York Civil Liberties Union.

In this regard, the opinion stated: "The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements."

The court, therefore, also ruled that the government must now justify the gag on the John Doe NSL recipient in the case, a gag that has been in place for more than four years.

The ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed this lawsuit in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that received an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal, and even today the ACLU is prohibited from disclosing its client's identity. The FBI continues to maintain the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than four years old (and may well have ended), and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP over a year and a half ago.

In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL statute, ruling that the FBI could not constitutionally demand sensitive records without judicial review and that permanent gag orders violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The government appealed the ruling, but Congress amended the NSL provision before the court issued a decision.

The ACLU brought a new challenge to the amended provision, and in September 2007, Judge Marrero again found the statute unconstitutional.

Bills aimed at bringing the NSL authority back in line with the Constitution were introduced last year in both the House and Senate after reports had confirmed and detailed the widespread abuse of the authority by federal law enforcement. Since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, relaxing restrictions on the FBI's use of the power, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase, to nearly 200,000 between 2003 and 2006. A March 2008 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report revealed that, among other abuses, the FBI misused NSLs to sidestep the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). In one instance, the FBI issued NSLs to obtain information after the FISC twice refused its requests on First Amendment grounds. The OIG also found that the FBI continues to impose gag orders on about 97 percent of NSL recipients and that, in some cases, the FBI failed to sufficiently justify why the gag orders were imposed in the first place.

In addition to this case, the ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute multiple times. One case was brought on behalf of a group of Connecticut librarians and another case, called Internet Archive v. Mukasey, involved an NSL served on a digital library in California. In the latter case, the FBI withdrew the NSL and the gag as part of the settlement of a legal challenge brought by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Attorneys in Doe v. Mukasey are Jameel Jaffer, Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Eisenberg of the NYCLU.

Today's decision can be found online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/38110lgl20081215.html

More information on Doe v. Mukasey and NSLs is available online at: www.aclu.org/nsl

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_sides_..._down_1216.html

but will Brian Lamb speak up?

For the life of me I can't remember the Brian Lamb thing.

because it isn't known what happened to cspan community around "election" 04

for sure they lied to us

and we know who got the medal of freedumb

2+2 still equals 4

My guess is they didn't wanna deal with the hassle. I was appalled at how much they paid for webcrossing software and a paid CM. Especially because they really didn't promote the community. Add to that they really didn't want free running discussion as much as a very dry form of monitored news posting and "serious" commentary.

They killed us that's for sure. But I doubt it was either the Patriot Act or even Lambs political leanings that killed it. I believe they couldn't control the forum so they said screw it. They thought it was a bit much even for a full timer. We had all kinds of strange people dropping in. Stranger than here.

We had the anti-Semite guy, the anti-Palestinian guy, Thoron the moron you econ illiterates!, fast eddie, the goatman and others. It was a bigger freak show than here.

yep. Thank god fast eddie didn't make the crossing. ..........................Or did he?

They wanted to have it open just daytime and maybe have a post limit from what I heard.



Yet about 30 people did most of the posting. Here it's more like 20. Could never see how many lurkers there. Here there are almost always a few. Like talk radio some people just never get the courage to jump in. (and get bitten perhaps)

they lied to us and lambie got the medal

ok inyer. It was about us. Have I ever told you that I think you're weird?

but true

which part?

Court allows police to track vehicles with GPS

A Wisconsin appeals court ruled Thursday that police were within their constitutional authority when they placed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle belonging to a man accused of stalking.

The decision was rendered following the denial of an appeal by Michael Sveum, who was convicted of aggravated stalking. Sveum petitioned the court to overturn his conviction, but the court ruled that police — who had obtained a warrant to track Sveum’s vehicle — did not in fact need a warrant so long as the device was on the outside of the vehicle.

“The State responds that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle when it is in a place accessible to the public and then use the device to track the vehicle while it is in public view,” wrote the judges. “We agree with the state.”

They added: “At the same time, we urge the legislature to consider regulating both police and private use of GPS tracking technology.”

“”New technology can provide new ways for law enforcement officers to investigate possible crimes,” said state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in a media advisory. “Here, the use of the GPS tracker didn’t violate the Fourth Amend­ment because police never searched or seized Sveum’s car, its occupants or its contents.”

“We also agree with the State that the police action of attaching the GPS device to Sveum’s car, either by itself or in combination with subsequent tracking, does not constitute a search or seizure,” the court continued. “… we discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant.”

Sveum’s conviction was based largely on evidence obtained via GPS. He is currently imprisoned at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution.

The case is State of Wisconsin v. Michael A. Sveum. [PDF link]

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/09/cou...icles-with-gps/

Then I think we ought to change the law to require a warrant for GPS tracking.

Should we require a warrant for any vehicle tracking including someone in another vehicle using the MK1 eyeball?Not sure that technology really changes the equation.

Incidental eyeballing or following by the police would be ok, I think. Sustained surveilence probably should require a warrant, but I don't know that it does.

I would think a GPS device on the car should.





What are we coming to? I heard Obama's DOJ is suggesting cell phone gps shouldn't need a warrant either.


Just read a stat today... more than half of the houses in the country now have a cell phone and no landline. I think the cell rules should be laid out too. Too many people have them. You can't just... er, you shouldn't be able to just look at people and track their movement without reasonable cause.

I think that is another area where a Republican judge might be a bit activist for the good of the state.

I think the technology that we have developed to track insurgents by cell phone overseas will be widely used here if we don't regulate it.

Hmmm. That's probably a good point.

Better get Obama on it. We can't have any wiretapping goin' on.

Well either it's OK to follow someone using any method without a warrant or it's not, the method used shouldn't be the issue.

Expectations of privacy are different with differing methods. The security of your land line isn't the same as that of a cell phone you buy for $10 at Walmart.

In this case the observed person is doing exactly the same thing, it is the observer that is changed...