New Invasive Measures Are Coming to Your Local Airport


Source: ActivistPost.com
Derrick Broze
June 28, 2017

The federal government will soon begin searching through travelers’ books at the airport as airlines test out fingerprint scans.

Next time you choose to take a flight in the United States, you will not only be given the option of a free walk through the full body scanner or a complimentary rub down courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration. Your next flight might include a search of your laptop, books, and possibly a fingerprint scan. Since the launch of the Trump administration travelers have been subject to increasingly invasive measures in the form of laptop searches and discrimination against those traveling from majority Muslim countries.

Now the TSA is testing out new measures that require passengers to remove books and paper goods from their carry-on luggage. According to new reports from The Wall Street Journal and Sacramento Beethe TSA had already begun to roll out these new invasive policies.

“While I expect going through airline security to be time-consuming and mildly annoying, my attitude changed recently as I prepared to board a flight out of Sacramento International Airport in the days after Memorial Day weekend,” the Sacramento Bee wrote. “As I stood in line, Transportation Security Administration officials announced at SMF that everyone was to take books, magazines and food out of their bags and put them into a separate bin for inspection. That was it. A line was crossed for me.”

As the Bee notes, reading material is extremely personal and revealing about a person. If individuals know that their reading habits – whether they relate to philosophy, politics, sexuality, or religion – will be scrutinized they may began a process of self-censorship. It also presents the question, what type of reading material could be questionable or even, banned? At this point the TSA is claiming that bombs could be hidden within books and are not focusing their efforts on content specifically. However, this is likely the beginning of an incremental strategy to remove as much freedom as possible for travelers. As the Sac Bee wrote, “We need to resist the creep of authoritarianism. During the Cold War, spying on neighbors was common in the Soviet Bloc. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, people reported others for listening to Western Classical Music.”

The American Civil  Liberties Union noted that there have already been multiple cases of passengers singled out for their First Amendment-protected expressions. “For example, in 2010 the ACLU sued on behalf of a man who was abusively interrogated, handcuffed, and detained for nearly five hours because he was carrying a set of Arabic-language flash cards and a book critical of U.S. foreign policy,” the ACLU writes. We also know that the DHS database known as the “Automated Targeting System,” which tracks information on international travelers, has included notations in travelers’ permanent files about controversial books in their possession.”

In a recent interview with Fox News, John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, seemed to confirm the goal of implementing the strategy on a nationwide scale. Kelly was asked whether or not the new policy of unpacking carry on luggage and separating food and electronics into separate bins will indeed go nationwide.

“Yes, I mean, the reason we’ve done, TSA, of course, works for me,” Kelly stated. He then blamed the need for these programs on travelers who are “trying to avoid the $25 or $50 or whatever it is to check a bag” by stuffing their bags too full and TSA monitors can not see what’s inside. When pushed further about the program going nationwide, Kelly states, “We might, and likely will.”

These plans were confirmed once again on Wednesday, as Secretary Kelly announced plans for new strategies to be implemented by the TSA. “We cannot play international whack-a-mole with each new threat,” Kelly said. “Instead, we must put in place new measures across the board to keep the traveling public safe and make it harder for terrorists to succeed.”

Although DHS officials declined to comment on specifics, ABC News reports that passengers may notice more swabbing of passengers’ hands and luggage to test for explosives. It is highly likely that the agencies book policy will be a part of these new strategies.

Another change making its way to your local airport includes the implementation of biometrics. A writer with Yahoo Finance discusses the new policies on display during a recent demonstration at Washington’s National Airport.

“Instead of handing your boarding pass and ID to a Transportation Security Administration agent, you could soon simply place two fingerprints on a scanner to be recognized and ushered through security — and then you could repeat the process to board the plane,” Yahoo writes.

These changes are part of an initiative started by Delta Air Lines. Delta has started the practice at Delta’s SkyClub lounge at National airport. Sandy Gordon, Delta’s vice president of airport operations, says the airline aims to have the strategy added to the check-in experience. Yahoo notes that the process saves minimal to no time since the process is still a part of the routine admittance policies for boarding a flight. Sandy Gordon said Delta is working with the TSA to get full approval for the program.

Yahoo’s writer said they also had to scan their driver’s license and enter Social Security number to participate in the fingerprint scan. The fingerprint and iris scans will be stored with the private company Clear. The company is promising not to sell the information to third parties, but Jeramie Scott, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Domestic Surveillance Project, says that Clear’s privacy policy doesn’t require it to delete your data if you cancel your membership.

This is a test. This an important moment in time where passengers and travelers will have to decide if they are willing to put up with anything for the right to travel. The DHS has already begun implementing biometric entry and exit requirements for international travelers arriving and leaving the United States. This is part of the larger strategy of dividing Americans over illegitimate fears of terrorism and foreigners so they willingly give up what little civil liberties they have left.

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
____________________________________________________________________

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Advertisements

CONFIRMED: Obama illegally spied on Americans… no one in the media calls for any investigation at all

Image: CONFIRMED: Obama illegally spied on Americans… no one in the media calls for any investigation at all
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jayson Veley
May 31, 2017

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the people have a right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It was originally included in the Bill of Rights because at the time of the amendment’s ratification, the Founding Fathers were extremely fearful of the rise of tyranny in the new world. Warrantless searches and seizures were common under the rule of the king, and the framers included language about privacy protection in the Constitution to ensure that the same practice didn’t continue. Sadly, over two centuries of progressivism and corruption within the federal government has made the Fourth Amendment all but irrelevant.

Earlier this week, Circa.com reported that the Obama administration violated its own surveillance guidelines by expanding Internet searches and essentially spying on millions of Americans for the past several years.

Since 2011, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act has prohibited the practice of querying the results of upstream Internet collections. According to Circa, the Obama administration self-disclosed the NSA rule violations during a closed-door hearing on October 26, 2016, just days before Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. The court, which was usually supportive of the Obama administration, declared that the Obama administration’s failure to disclose the massive amount of personal information previously collected amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and was a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a court document from April 26 of this year.

Some officials that served in the Obama administration, such as National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have argued that the data collection was legal under the minimization rule changes that Barack Obama made in 2011. However, even the NSA’s own watchdog group says that this argument is simply not true. “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the court ruling said. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, or the ACLU, has recently expressed concern that the U.S. intelligence community may not have the ability to properly restrain itself and operate within the confines of their own laws. If this is true, then the further abuse of power is inevitable.

The Obama-era bombshell raises two legitimate concerns. First, it is abundantly obvious that the former administration had very little respect for the Constitution and the privacy rights of the American people. Once again, the Bill of Rights proved to be nothing more to the Obama administration than a bunch of words on a really old piece of paper; words that can be followed when its politically expedient and ignored when its not. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed that we have elected leaders today who put their hand on a bible, swear to uphold the Constitution, and then do the exact opposite upon stepping into a position of power.

Second, where is the mainstream media? Why aren’t television networks like CNN, MSNBC and NBC and publications like The Washington Post and Politico reporting on this? Furthermore, since liberals like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren seem to believe so strongly in the use of special prosecutors to get to the bottom of scandals that occur within the federal government, where are the calls for a special prosecutor to investigate Barack Obama and his National Security Agency?

James Madison, considered by most to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, once said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” And today, it’s clear that abuse is exactly what we the people are experiencing.

Read more at: NaturalNews.com

Police State Warning: The Chilling Reason Why the ACLU is Warning Against Travelling to Texas

PoliceState
Source: TheAntiMedia.org
Josie Wales
May 11, 2017

The ACLU issued a “travel alert” in the state of Texas Wednesday, warning “anyone planning to travel to Texas in the near future to anticipate the possible violation of their constitutional rights when stopped by law enforcement.”

We’re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

The “papers please” law encourages police to demand proof of citizenship during routine traffic stops and “requires Texas law enforcement to comply with the federal government’s constitutionally flawed use of detainer requests, which ask local law enforcement to hold people for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even when they lack the legal authority to do so,” the ACLU notes.

The executive director of Texas’ ACLU made it clear the organization will be challenging the new legislature, saying:

“We plan to fight this racist and wrongheaded law in the courts and in the streets. Until we defeat it, everyone traveling in or to Texas needs to be aware of what’s in store for them. The Lone Star State will become a ‘show me your papers’ state, where every interaction with law enforcement can become a citizenship interrogation and potentially an illegal arrest.”

According to a press release from the governor’s office, any elected official who does not comply with the draconian measures faces heavy penalties, including jail time, removal from office, and a fine of up to $25,500 for each day of the violation. “Elected officials and law enforcement agencies, they don’t get to pick and choose with laws they obey,” Gov. Abbott claims. Conversely, a competitive grant program will be established by the Governor’s Criminal Justice Division to reward counties and municipalities with financial assistance “to offset the costs” of enforcing immigration laws and honoring or fulfilling immigration detainer requests. In other words, the state of Texas is incentivizing local law enforcement agencies to hunt immigrants.

However, Texas’ top police chiefs have railed against the bill for months, saying the new legislation will endanger public safety. The police chiefs of Austin, Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and the Texas Police Chiefs Association voiced their opposition in an open letter to the House of Representatives in April, calling SB4 “political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous.”

The letter explains how the law will further damage relations between law enforcement and their communities and leave more violent criminals on the street:

“Legal immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime. It should not be forgotten that by not arresting criminals that victimize our immigrant communities, we are also allowing them to remain free to victimize every one of us. When it comes to criminals, we are in this together, regardless of race, sex, religion or nation of origin.

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus expressed his displeasure in a press conference Monday, stating “There’s nothing positive that this bill does in the community or in law enforcement. Austin didn’t seem to want to listen to its law enforcement leaders across the state. And that, to me, is troubling.”

McManus, just one of many law enforcement officials ardently opposed to S.B.4, has been very straightforward about exactly what this new law requires him and his officers to do — and who to target:

“We’re talking about folks south of the border. We’re not talking about people we think might be here from Russia or from somewhere else. We’re talking about out people south of the border,” he said.  “In order for me to identify someone who I don’t think is from here, it’s either skin color, language or accent. And in order to do, that I’m profiling. So that’s another part of the bill that’s distasteful, to say the least.”

However, none of the police chiefs were staunchly opposed to the bill enough to give any indication they would refuse to comply with the “papers please” provision, despite the fact that they believe it to be dangerous. Sheriff Hernandez clearly stated she will comply with the sanctuaries ban if it becomes law— and she believes it will. Well, it has become law, and it officially goes into effect on September 1st, 2017, giving Texas law enforcement some time to remember the Oath of Honor they took, review their code of ethics, and decide whether to follow their consciences or their marching orders.

To review your rights when stopped by police, immigration agents, or the FBI, go to ACLU.org.

Read More At: TheAntiMedia.Org

Orwellian CA Bill: Reporters Can’t Post Undercover Videos

FactsTruthLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
August 15, 2016

This one is big. It adds to California’s growing reputation as Police State Central.

First we had SB 277, which forced vaccinations on school children. Now we have Assembly Bill 1671, which would make it a crime for journalists to post and report on certain undercover videos, even though they didn’t make the videos.

That’s right. In California, such videos are already illegal, because they don’t have permission of all parties to be recorded. But if Bill 1671 passes, reporters who are sent those videos, or find them, couldn’t post them and write stories about them. Mainstream, alternative, freelance reporters—it wouldn’t matter.

Even more bizarre, Bill 1671 specifies undercover videos that secretly record “healthcare providers.” These are the videos targeted by the Bill.

Nick Cahill, at the Courthouse News Service, has the story (“Abortion Clinic Sting Videos Sprout Free-Speech Battle”, Thursday, August 11, 2016). Here are key quotes. Buckle up:

“Controversy surrounding secretly recorded videos showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue sales has morphed into a California proposal that would punish media companies for reporting on certain undercover videos. But media groups say the bill, which is on the verge of clearing the Legislature, could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and set the state up for First Amendment court battles.”

“Born from the 2015 hidden-camera footage released by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood is pushing Assembly Bill 1671 which it claims will protect abortion clinics and other health care providers from similar malicious sting operations.”

“The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of ‘health care providers’ and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage.” [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not just reporters.]

“Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.”

“The opponents take issue with how the bill specifically criminalizes the distribution of communication with a health care provider. Targeting a specific area of speech amounts to content-based regulation of speech and is unconstitutional, the ACLU claims.”

“’The same rationale for punishing communications of some preferred professions or industries could as easily be applied to other communications [such as] law enforcement, animal testing labs, gun makers, lethal injection drug producers, the petroleum industry and religious sects,’ ACLU legislative director Kevin Baker wrote in an opposition letter…”

If you feel you’ve just entered the Twilight Zone, gone down the rabbit hole, you have.

How about this? Some enterprising citizen-reporter in California secretly records a conversation with a doctor, in which the doctor admits that he vaccinates all children-patients, but would never vaccinate his own kids.

The video link is sent to a journalist in Los Angeles, who then posts it on his website. Suddenly, that LA journalist is hauled into court and the video is taken down.

What about this? Somebody makes a secret recording of a conversation between a well-known oncologist and his colleague about the massive dangers of chemotherapy—including remarks about several of the doctors’ cancer patients who actually died from chemo. A freelance reporter, who obtains the video, posts it on his site. The video is taken down, the reporter is arrested, prosecuted—and sued.

And couldn’t a California-based pharmaceutical company claim status as a “health provider?” Supposed an employee secretly recorded a conversation between two executives, during which they admitted the company buried studies of a new drug because “too many volunteers died” during testing. The employee sends the recording to a reporter at the LA Times. The reporter shows it to his editor. Is that in itself a crime?

Yes.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
__________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Thanks to John McCain, the FBI Almost Just Got Access to Your Browser History

FBI
Source: UndergroundReporter.org
James Holbrooks
June 23, 2016

On Wednesday, a bill that would’ve broadly expanded the FBI’s ability to capture an individual’s internet records — by bypassing the need for a warrant altogether — was narrowly defeated.

Falling just two votes short of the 60 required for it to advance, the bill — sponsored by Senator John McCain and attached to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Act of 2016 — sought to allow the federal government to use “national security letters” (NSLs) to track suspected terrorists’ browsing history and email metadata, among other things.

“We aren’t asking for content, we’re asking for usage,” McCain stated in defense of the failed amendment. “This is an important tool.”

But others saw the bill — civil liberty and Fourth Amendment issues aside — as completely unnecessary on its face, given that the USA Freedom Act, passed last year, already grants agencies the ability to conduct warrantless surveillance in urgent situations.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, for instance, argued Wednesday that the USA Freedom Act already “allows the FBI to demand all of these records in an emergency and then go get court approval after the fact. So unless you’re opposed to court oversight, even after the fact, there’s no need to support this amendment.”

Wednesday’s vote was part of an ongoing attempt by senators to greatly expand the use of NSLs, which bypass courts and often involve gag orders. Such instruments, if utilized in the capacity many long for, would compel private companies to supply government agencies with individuals’ personal internet data.

But McCain’s bill would’ve also made permanent a “lone wolf” provision of the USA Freedom Act that, according to the ACLU, already“improperly allows the government to obtain secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders for individuals who are not connected to an international terrorist group or foreign nation.”

To that end, McCain himself invoked the “lone wolf” aspect of the proposed amendment — as well as the recent mass shooting in Orlando — in promotion of the legislation on Monday.

“In the wake of the tragic massacre in Orlando,” the senator stated in a press release, “it is important our law enforcement have the tools they need to conduct counterterrorism investigations and track ‘lone wolves,’ or ISIL-inspired terrorists who do not have direct connections to foreign terrorist organizations but who seek to harm Americans.”

But Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the ACLU, sees through that argument. Speaking to AlterNet, she said:

“We shouldn’t have a kneejerk reaction to say that there needs to be more surveillance and less oversight. Gutting civil liberties is not an appropriate response. This amendment runs counter to the conversation over the last several years where we talked about how do we rein in surveillance abuses. This says, ‘let’s expand the types of information the FBI can get without ever seeing a judge.”

In contrast to Wednesday’s vote in the Senate, last week the House voted down a measure — attached to a spending bill just days after the Orlando shooting — that would’ve prohibited the government from searching the online communications of American citizens without a warrant.

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org