When The S*** Hits the Fan

Apparently Wearing an #Anonymous #Mask in America Can Get You Arrested

by

AnonWatcher
April 8, 2016

(ANONHQ) A man in an Anonymous mask, who was sitting peacefully, was harangued by police and arrested. All caught on camera, bystanders recorded the event while a multitude of witnesses yelled out that he did nothing wrong or illegal. The incident took place in the House Gallery, during the Maricopa County hearing over the suspected election fraud.

Two officers attended the arrest of the man. Although the man in question didn’t have his face concealed by the mask—the mask had been resting on the top of his head—the first arresting officer approached from behind and kicked at him lightly until he left his chair.

Bystanders went to the man’s defense, with several phones filming the event. One bystander even said the arrest was made because the man was sporting an Anonymous mask.

In the video, another bystander accuses the police of choking the man as the officers unduly restrained him while he was quietly sitting between the chairs. Chants of “shame” and “the whole world is watching” were cried as the man was forced to his feet and escorted away.

After the removal of the man, one of the bystanders states: “you promised us if we were silent you wouldn’t remove us.” Officials then began to plead with the crowd. At the end of the video, one official agreed that the man with the mask did nothing wrong.

Janet Higgens, who uploaded one of the videos, stated: “We were at the point of chaos. All brought on by the police. For a man sitting quietly. With dreadlocks. His name is Jonathan S. McRae. He is currently in jail, charged with trespassing and resisting arrest. I disagree. He was harassed, held to the floor for over 5 minutes, and kidnapped. I don’t know if he was injured in the attack.”

truth-cancer-ad

“We the people of the United States are tired of this stuff,” another witness yelled as a bystander warned that this would all end up on YouTube.

Arrested for wearing an Anonymous mask…

You can view the long version of the video here.

This Article (Apparently Wearing an Anonymous Mask in America Can Get You Arrested) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Erik Christensen. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org

From theantimedia.org Team

Yes, the #PanamaPapers Could Really End Hillary #Clinton’s Campaign

by

Op-Ed by Jake Anderson
April 6, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) With Senator Bernie Sanders winning seven of the last eight delegate battles — the most recent was Tuesday night’s Wisconsin victory — there’s a feeling in the air that most progressives haven’t felt since the Iowa caucus. It speaks to a hard truth Hillary Clinton and her choleric campaign staffers will encounter when they wake up in the morning: Bernie really could still beat Clinton and become the Democratic nominee for president.

No way, some of you are saying. The television faces said the delegate math was too hard. The superdelegates make it impossible. Hillary wins the primaries, Bernie only wins caucuses; America won’t elect a socialist; the nation won’t rally behind free healthcare and college tuition.

Despite the supposedly ineluctable logic of Sanders’ unelectability, many pundits now believe there has been a seismic shift in the 2016 presidential race. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Americans are sick to death of the two corporatist political establishments and will do anything to send them a message. The evidence of this is that the two most popular candidates in the 2016 election are a Jewish democratic socialist and a reality TV star who referred to his penis during a nationally televised debate.

Then there’s the matter of the Panama Papers. In case you haven’t heard about them over the roar of mainstream media’s ‘round-the-clock anti-Trump coverage, it’s being referred to as the biggest data leak in history. For the last year, 400 journalists have been secretly decoding 11.5 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 2.6 terabytes of data show billions of dollars worth of transactions dating back 40 years.

Acquired from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and then shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the documents present a jaw-dropping paper trail of how the upper echelon of the 1 percent has used shell companies and offshore tax havens to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes. In less than a week of exposure, the Panama Papers have already implicated 140 world leaders from 50 different countries. Top executives and celebrities who appear in the leaked emails, PDFs, and other documents may also be indicted in money laundering, tax evasion, and sanctions-busting activities.

Though the source of the leak opted not to do a Wikileaks-style data dump and is instead allowing media outlets to curate the information, international tax reform could be imminent.

truth-cancer-ad

The revelations are relevant to the 2016 presidential election because they once again illustrate the stark contrast in judgement between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The transgressions documented in the Panama Papers were directly facilitated by the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, which Congress ratified in 2012. In 2011, Sanders took to the floor of the senate to strongly denounce the trade deal:

“Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries.”

Clinton, on the other hand, completely ignored the tax haven issue, and instead, regurgitated the same job-creation platitude she used to peddle NAFTA, which has decimated American manufacturing jobs and led to an economic refugee crisis in Mexico.

Beyond just exposing her unwillingness to understand how modern free trade agreements benefit the rich and punish impoverished countries, Clinton may have a more nefarious connection to the Panama Papers.

In lobbying for the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, Clinton paved the way for major banks and corporations, most notably the Deutsche Bank, to skirt national laws and regulations. After she resigned as Secretary of State, the Deutsche Bank paid her $445,000 for a speech. While criminality can’t yet be definitively established, this may change when the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” publishes its comprehensive list at the end of the month. In addition to the aforementioned connection, Clinton’s name has already surfaced in connection to a billionaire and a Russian-controlled bank named in the files.

The fallout from the Panama Papers is being felt around the world. On Tuesday, Iceland’s Prime Minister resigned after it was revealed his family had used a shell company to hold millions of dollars worth of bonds in a collapsed bank. After an interview in which Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson had a meltdown when asked about the company’s assets, over 20,000 citizens of Iceland protested. For context, that’s approximately 10% of the country’s population.

How does this lead to Bernie Sanders defeating Hillary Clinton? The Sanders campaign has been run on the premise that Clinton is inextricably linked to political corruption, disastrous military interventions, and collusion with Wall Street. If it can be shown that Clinton was involved in criminal improprieties exposed by the Panama Papers, this will constitute yet another major line of attack for Sanders headed into the April 14th debate in New York. If Sanders wins the New York primary a few days later and scoops up its 95 delegates, the narrative of the election will dramatically shift.

When added to the myriad other Clinton scandals and political vulnerabilities, the Democratic party’s gatekeeper superdelegates could decide that Clinton is too big of a liability going into the general election. It all comes down to New York, though — Sanders must win New York. If he does, you will see historic chaos unleashed upon the American electorate. And if the Panama Papers leak sets off an unstoppable domino effect, the DNC may soon find its fractured party looking just as ghoulish as the clown’s autopsy being conducted on the Republican Party.

This article (Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

The #TSA Spent $1.4 Million on an #App That Only Cost This Guy $10 to Reproduce

by

 

Clarice Palmer
April 5, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) The International Business Machines Corporation, commonly known as IBM, has been named in a series of reports tied to the TSA’s “randomizer” app. Though many news sources have focused on the cost of the app, few have looked deeper into the relationship between Washington D.C. and IBM’s powerful lobbyists.

Geek.com reported the Department of Homeland Security’s TSA awarded IBM with a $336,413.59 contract for the production of an app that randomly chooses a left or a right arrow. The function is used in U.S. airports, and its goal is to make lines more efficient by randomly choosing which travelers get to skip the extensive security checks.

The information was made available promptly after web developer Kevin Burke filed a Freedom of Information Act request. As a result of the query, Burke received a copy of the contract between IBM and the TSA, which shows the app cost taxpayers at least $336,000 (in a Twitter reply to Burke, Time Magazine’s Partheek Rebala advised that a summary of the total cost tied to the app could be also found online.)

That summary shows that between September of 2014 and August of 2015, IBM was awarded at least seven contracts, all of which were tied to software development. All services and products add up to $1,444,315. According to Geek.com, “It could be IBM supplied all the iPads and training as well as the app itself.” But even then, “the cost of the project is crazy.” After all, the product is just “an app that is [sic] just randomly selects left or right.”

To Chris Pacia, a Bitcoin expert and lead backend developer for OpenBazaar, the cost the TSA paid for the app made no sense. After all, how expensive could an app that acts like a digital a coin flip actually be?

To demonstrate how easy — and cheap — it is for anybody to come up with an app just like TSA’s randomizer, Pacia posted a video on YouTube demonstrating the entire process. Pacia’s app took him less than 10 minutes to develop, according to his video’s description. It cost about $10 worth of labor to build.

truth-cancer-ad

Though Pacia demonstrated the TSA’s inefficient budgeting, the underlying cause of these indulgent expenditures can be understood through the agency’s relationship with IBM.

While important details regarding the contracts between the Department of Homeland Security and the company are not listed on the government’s accounting website, the tech giant is no stranger to the establishment’s favoritism game.

According to the Center for Responsible Politics, IBM Corp. spent over $9 million on lobbying efforts between 2014 and 2015 alone. Defense and information technology, the group claims, are some of IBM’s top issues. In many cases, IBM also lobbied for anti-privacy measures.

One of the bills IBM lobbied to pass was H.R. 1731, also known as the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015. The law places the information gathered via both the federal government and the private sector in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. IBM also lobbied for the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2015, a bill turned into law that “trump[s] possibly forthcoming federal regulatory efforts and state privacy laws” and that broadens “powers of network operators to monitor and disclose” online information.

Considering IBM’s apparent lack of respect for privacy — and its efforts to influence government policy, it is unsurprising the multinational corporation is working so closely with the Department of Homeland Security.

This article (The TSA Spent $1.4 Million on an App That Only Cost This Guy $10 to Reproduce) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Clarice Palmer and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#PanamaPapers: #British Elite Linked to #Corruption, yet Media Only Focuses on Putin

by

Michaela Whitton
April 04, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — Believed to be the largest leak of secret documents in history, the Panama Papers are the latest revelations exposing global corruption. The worldwide investigation supposedly exposes the secretive offshore industry the world’s elites use to hide assets and swerve rules. Based on a library of more than 11 million leaked files, it claims to have exposed a host of characters using offshore companies to facilitate bribery, arms deals, tax evasion, financial fraud, and drug trafficking.

Few will be surprised that the global rich and famous hide their money offshore, regardless of their country of origin. While the Panama Papers are set to identify a cast of characters, from the stars of pitch and screen to political establishments, it’s worth pointing out that the 2.6 terabytes of data hail from just one law firm in one tax haven. They are the tip of the iceberg in spotlighting the shadowy corners where elites stash their cash.

Though much of the public reveres whistleblowers, as author and human rights activist Craig Murray points out, this particular leaker has made the mistake of turning to the Western corporate media to publicise the results. The crucial part of this story, according to Murray, is who is managing the leaked information: the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.” He explains they are funded and organised by the U.S.A’s Center for Public Integrity, which includes sponsors such as the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Rockefeller Family Fund, W. K., the Kellogg Foundation, and the Open Society Foundation,  which is owned by George Soros.

All roads lead to Putin

Considering those guarding the information, it is unsurprising that here in the U.K., corporate press coverage has shown an overarching focus on official enemies like Putin and Assad. With the media dominated by glaring close-ups of Putin and misleading headlines, it seems the British public are only privy to information about official establishment foes while the misdemeanours of tax dodgers are practically ignored. From what Murray says, the identities of those behind managing the leak could also explain the deafening silence on the hundreds of Israeli companies and shareholders implicated.

With the enemies of the West paraded by British news outlets, by mid-morning only the Mirror and the Metro had given brief mention to the fact that David Cameron’s father and a host of senior Tory figures had reportedly used tax havens for the rich and powerful. David Cameron’s late father, Ian, is allegedly named as a client of Mossack Fonseca, the firm at the centre of the scandal. Using it it to protect his investment fund from U.K. taxes, he is said to have built up a significant legacy, part of which was inherited by the Prime Minister. The irony is not lost on many, especially in view of Cameron’s previous pledges to clamp down on tax dodgers and havens. He has described them as “morally wrong.”

Few will hold their breath for any of the rich and powerful named in the files to be held to account for the details released the latest data splurge. Undoubtedly, it will soon become clear whether there will be any real consequences of a leak of this size, particularly when most of the information will remain private. While tumbleweeds blow through the corporate media on the fact that the Tories were up to their necks in global corruption, Twitter users didn’t hold back.

This article (Panama Papers: British Elite Linked to Corruption, yet Media Only Focuses on Putin) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

Police Forced to Apologize after Blood-Thirsty Officer Accidentally Records Himself

by

Michaela Whitton
March 30, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom —The Metropolitan Police have finally apologized and paid out damages for the false arrest and assault of a 20-year-old man at the 2010 student demonstrations — over five years after his tooth was knocked out by a police officer.

As an evidence gatherer, PC Andrew Ott was supposed to look for troublemakers during the student protests in central London. What he didn’t realize in his excessive enthusiasm for the task was that his police radio was on record, capturing every word of his violent boasting.

“I wanna kill these f****** little lot here,” Ott said. “Mate, if that fence goes I’m gonna f****** batter them.”

The accidental recording continued: “Guys, if you happen to move forward and he’s still there, stamp all over his little f****** head,” he said of one protester.

As he bragged that he was more covert than other cops because he wasn’t wearing a jacket, Ott’s menacing threats escalated: “So I’ll go stick in play now and I’ll f****** let some people have it as well.”

William Horner, a student situated near Westminster Abbey, eventually caught the fired-up copper’s attention — and became the target of his aggression. Shortly after Ott hollered to other officers to stop the man, camera footage captured William Horner on the ground, seconds after his front tooth was knocked out by Ott’s riot shield.

Horner had jumped a fence to get away from the increasingly chaotic demonstration in an attempt to get home. Another officer explained to Ott that the man had done nothing to warrant the violence. Rather than being remorseful, the PC continued his tirade: “I f****** knocked his tooth out the c***.”

Not content with hunting down an innocent person, the aggressive cop then grappled with how to frame him. “Well he’s going to have to have done something at the moment because I just put his tooth out,” he said.

Ott was eventually convicted of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and sentenced to eight months in prison. This week, the Metropolitan police apologized for the incident and paid an undisclosed sum in damages to William Horner, who said, “I am of course pleased with the apology and damages but if it wasn’t for the accidental recording by PC Ott I could instead be living with a criminal record now.”

It’s unclear why it took the Met nearly six years to apologize. What is clear is that Horner isn’t the first person to be hospitalized by the British police, and he surely won’t be the last. While there is a least a glimmer of accountability for police misconduct in the U.K., this is not an isolated incident; it simply shows PC Andrew Ott was unlucky to be caught.

This article (Police Forced to Apologize after Blood-Thirsty Officer Accidentally Records Himself) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

#Wikileaks Drops #Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

by

Michaela Whitton
March 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — On Wednesday, a major archive containing over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails were released. Though the State Department began releasing the emails in May last year — after a Freedom of Information Act request — it is the first time the messages have been made easily available in a searchable format, courtesy of WikiLeaks. Before the launch, the FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate’s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The archive contains over 7,000 emails written by Clinton herself.

The scary, albeit fascinating exposé on who’s in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The organization has accused the social networking site of censorship, saying Facebook is blocking users’ access to the latest Clinton dispatch.

wikileaks-hillary

As a result of the outing, Twitter users are calling Clinton wicked, a thug, and a hypocrite. The released emails uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.

wikileaks-hillary-2

For those who are fascinated but don’t have the time or inclination to sift through more than 30,000 documents, here is a snapshot of what Clinton’s emails revealed:

This article (Facebook, WikiLeaks and Clinton’s Warmongering Emails) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

California Legislature Votes to Ban Some Adults From Buying Cigarettes

by

Josh Mur
March 11, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) At the age of 18, young American adults are granted the legal right to sign a contract, purchase a firearm, marry, enlist in the military, sit on a jury, and vote. These rights bear a fresh batch of life-changing choices to youth that the law views them capable of making.

California lawmakers, on the other hand, appear to perceive 18-year-olds capable of no such thing. A list of new anti-tobacco bills was passed by the state Assembly on Thursday, among it, a bill that pushes the legal age to purchase cigarettes and other tobacco products from 18 to 21 throughout California. The motion passed with a 46 to 26 vote. Governor Jerry Brown has yet to sign off on them.

In addition to raising the smoking age, the new bills seek to put further restrictions on e-cigarettes and vaporizers. If these new laws are put into effect, California will become the second state after Hawaii  to raise the smoking age. However, a handful of cities ─ San Francisco and New York being the largest ─ have adopted the same new regulation.

As stated earlier, 18-year-olds in America are granted a set of rights, as they are perceived to be ─ or at least capable of being ─ responsible adults worthy of making very serious and/or life-changing decisions. So let’s ask the obvious question here:

How is one seen as competent and responsible enough to join the ranks of the military to risk their lives for the agenda of corrupt power elites, sign a legal contract that could bind them to harmful terms and conditions, choose the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, have a voice in what laws are passed, and who our political leaders are, and sit on a jury with the fate of a peer in the hands of their judgement, but somehow not seen as sufficiently “adult” enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or enjoy a cold beer?

Having gained the support of nearly all of the Democratic party, the bill was largely opposed by Republican lawmakers.

“I don’t smoke. I don’t encourage my children to,” said Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. “But they’re adults, and it’s our job to treat our citizens as adults, not to nanny them.”

Those in support of the bill argue that raising the smoking age to 21 will significantly reduce smoking, as an approximate 95% of  smokers pick up the habit before age 21. In addition, an analysis published in March 2015 suggests raising the smoking age to 21 could possibly reduce smoking by about 12% within a decade, along with saving around 273,000 lives from lung cancer and premature deaths.

While good intentions may be found underneath these bills, it does not change the fact that they directly stifle the freedom of the American adult. One should not have a say in a presidential election if they cannot be seen as capable of choosing whether or not to smoke cigarettes. One should not have the option to carry an assault rifle and risk their life for government policy if one is not considered responsible enough to have a drink.

It would appear such basic principles are much more difficult to grasp than they seem.

This article (California Legislature Votes to Ban Some Adults From Buying Cigarettes) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Josh Mur and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

The iPhone Is Just the Beginning: FBI Already Accessing Your DNA

by

Jake Anderson
March 9, 2016 

(ANTIMEDIA) Private genetic databases like 23andMe and Ancestry.com are increasingly used by people for genealogy tracing and medical diagnostic tests. With a million customers each, the two companies receive a great deal of attention from privacy advocates, who for years warned the government would eventually seek access to citizens’ DNA in order to assist with law enforcement.

They were right, and yet another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact…

It turns out both the FBI and local law enforcement departments routinely seek DNA samples from these companies for familial DNA searches. In fact, according to Ancestry.com’s recently released transparency report, the company received 14 law enforcement requests in 2015. They provided customers’ genetic information in 13 of those cases.

A similar, recently released report by 23andMe discloses there were four law enforcement requests to the company in 2015.

The issue has received increased attention in part because of a frightening article by Wired. The story recounted the legal imbroglio filmmaker Michael Usry endured after Idaho Falls police “matched 34 of 35 alleles” from a crime scene to Usry’s father’s DNA.

Years earlier, his father had donated some DNA to a genealogy project funded by his Mormon church. Ancestry.com purchased the project and made the database of samples publicly available. Though Idaho Falls police ultimately concluded Usry was not involved in the murder of Angie Dodge, they had been able to obtain a search warrant for Michael’s cheek cells based on the sample they found online.

Ancestry.com didn’t realize police would be able to use their information to conduct genetic searches, but as they would soon learn, law enforcement authorities around the country are looking to expand their ability to conduct DNA searches beyond the FBI’s current national genetic database.

Anti-Media reached out to Ancestry.com for more information regarding how the company responds to national security requests. They referred to their transparency report, which states:

“As of December 31, 2015, Ancestry has never received a classified request pursuant to the national security laws of the United States or any other country. In other words, Ancestry has not received a National Security Letter or a request under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

Could this change in the wake of a terrorist attack? In the midst of the increasingly rancorous debate over civil liberties and national defense — epitomized by the FBI’s court case against Apple — it doesn’t seem like too big of a stretch, given the right political climate, to imagine private DNA databases being turned over to Homeland Security.

In Kuwait, citizens must submit their DNA to a government database to assist with criminal cases. Some actually argue the United States should have a similar mandatory DNA database, though this seems unlikely to gain widespread support given the backlash over electronic privacy violations in the aftermath of controversial NSA surveillance programs.

For now, the debate revolves around whether the United States government and local law enforcement should have the legal authority to access private DNA databases while investigating crimes. There hasn’t been a major Supreme Court ruling on this issue, so for the time being, companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com will have to deal with police requests on a case-by-case basis.

As 23andMe’s first privacy officer Kate Black has stated:

“In the event we are required by law to make a disclosure, we will notify the affected customer through the contact information provided to us, unless doing so would violate the law or a court order.”

This article (The iPhone Is Just the Beginning: FBI Already Accessing Your DNA) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: thierry ehrmann. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

We Just Found out the Real Reason the FBI Wants a Backdoor into the iPhone

by

Jake Anderson
February 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) The FBI versus Apple Inc. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object — the feverish momentum of American technocracy accelerating into the cavernous Orwellian entrenchment of the surveillance state. You thought the patent wars were intense? The ‘Battle of the Backdoor’ pits one of America’s most monolithic tech conglomerates against the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the interests of the national security state. And this case is likely only the opening salvo in what will be a decades-long ideological war between tech privacy advocates and the federal government.

On its face, the case boils down to a single locked and encrypted iPhone 5S, used by radical jihadist Syed Rizwan Farook before he and his wide Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on December 2nd. The DOJ wants Apple to build a backdoor into the device so that it can bypass the company’s state of the art encryption apparatus and access information and evidence related to the case.

[Read more…]

From theantimedia.org Team

Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply for Filming the Police

by

Derrick Broze
February 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Philadelphia, PA — A federal appeals court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that filming the police without a specific challenge or criticism is not constitutionally protected.

The cases of Fields v. City of Philadelphia, and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia involve two different incidents where individuals were arrested for filming the police. Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was arrested after stopping to take a picture of a large group of police outside a house party. Amanda Geraci, a legal observer with CopWatch Berkeley, attended a large protest against fracking in September 2012 and was arrested while filming the arrest of another protester. [Read more…]

From theantimedia.org Team

These Cops Are so Fed Up with Corruption They’re Suing Their Own Department

by

Derrick Broze
February 23, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Maricopa County, Arizona — On February 17, 20-year law enforcement veteran Charles Cornfield, as well as five other police officers, filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Court against the the Arizona Board of Regents, former ASU Police Chief John Pickens, current Police Chief Michael Thompson, and 10 other ASU employees. Cornfield is supported by fellow officers Benjamin R. Flynn, Bernard Linser, Patrick Murphy, William J. O’Hayer, and Matthew V. Parker.

The officers claim ASU Police attempt to make the university seem more safe by misreporting crime statistics. Courthouse News reports:

“The officers claim they were ordered ‘to change crime statistics or otherwise falsify the crime statistics to make ASU appear safer, and supervisors directed employees to change crime classification to avoid the community from seeing the crime that occurred on or around the campus.’

“This ‘culture of corruption’ violates the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990, (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), and 34 C.F.R. 668.46), the officers say.”

The court filing also states that after the officers reported the corruption, they were investigated by internal affairs. They also allege they were harassed. The plaintiffs claim that former Police Chief Pickens suspected the officers were contributing to a local blog that details corruption in the ASU police department. In response, Pickens “singled them out for interrogations and demoted them, denied them promotions, defamed them with false reports, and/or fired them.”

Cornfield also filed a separate claim alleging he was targeted because he was older than 40. Cornfield says the department forced him into retirement “based on the harassment he felt with this incredibly dysfunctional group of people that are supposed to ‘serve and protect.’“
The officers claim the ASU Police Department is run by a clique of cronies that “discriminates against those who were felt to be threats.” The officers are seeking punitive damages for civil rights violations, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, falsification of records, and age discrimination (on behalf of plaintiff Cornfield only).

Unfortunately, the law enforcement’s practices of altering crime statistics is likely fairly common. Police officers often want to make their police departments look strong and their cities safe, so they may under-report certain crimes and statistics that make the department look bad. On the flip side, a department’s officers might attempt to paint themselves as vulnerable — and therefore in need of funding — to properly handle crimes that might not even exist. This situation becomes even more problematic in light of the fact that the FBI relies upon “self-reporting” from police departments to compile its annual report on national crime statistics.

How can the federal government accurately analyze crime statistics if the departments are improperly reporting them in the first place? It cannot. This should make every member of the public weary of official government data regarding police abuse, corruption, and violent crimes. The people are no longer able to trust the “authorities” to be transparent and accountable, so it is up to each of us to educate ourselves about the corruption that surrounds us, and then take action against in whatever ways are most appropriate to our lifestyles and needs. Together we can turn the tide of police corruption and put the power back in the hands of the people.

This article (These Cops Are so Fed Up with Corruption They’re Suing Their Own Department) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team