It's been almost 2 years since posted. I've been... busy. And it's not like the majority of you don't know what's going on; that "the ultra-rich megalomaniacs bent on world empire" do what they do, and that their "assets" placed "in office" will find a way to justify anything they can, and basically ignore the rest.
But I was prompted to post today by this article, which relates (more directly, I think, than you might) to my next-to-last post from November, '13.
That's all for now. If you've read this far (or at all), and choose to maintain your willful blindness, I won't be surprised. I just wanted you to know:
I'm back.
01 August, 2014
To My Fellow Inmates:
“[T]here is no constitutional right not to become an informant.”
That's what "Simple Justice" (subtitled, "A Criminal Defense Blog") quoted the federal government as saying.
I like "Simple Justice". Most often, I agree with what Scott Greenfield has to say about the current (in)judicial system. And that's why I'm disappointed with his July 31 post "Snitch or Suffer".
The backstory, that FBI agents put individuals on the "No Fly List" for refusing to become snitches, can be read in detail on http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/07/31/snitch-or-suffer/, and it should be. And, for clarity, the full sentence to which I refer is "The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss [PDF] plainly argues 'there is no constitutional right not to become an informant.'”
Although that particular language is found in the government's Memorandum Of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss ("...courts have found, in other contexts, that there is no constitutional right not to be an informant"), it is the argument that follows that disturbs me, and should disturb you.
On pages 53 and 54 of the "gee whiz, they didn't know" Memorandum, the United States' attorney supported the argument that the FBI defendants "are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that submitting an individual's name [for inclusion on the "No Fly List" because they refused to snitch] violated any constitutional right"***, followed the language Greenfiled quoted on "Simple Justice" with numerous case citations that "[n]either the Supreme Court nor (any Circuit Court) has ever held that a prisoner enjoys a constitutional right not to become an informant...".
But - and I'm surprised Greenfield didn't make this connection - these men were not prisoners. They were never charged. They were "free".
The government's argument clearly demonstrates that, regardless of our accomodations, in the government's opinion, we're ALL prisoners.
***BTW, a large percentage of Fibbers are law school grads,if not members of "The Bar".
That's what "Simple Justice" (subtitled, "A Criminal Defense Blog") quoted the federal government as saying.
I like "Simple Justice". Most often, I agree with what Scott Greenfield has to say about the current (in)judicial system. And that's why I'm disappointed with his July 31 post "Snitch or Suffer".
The backstory, that FBI agents put individuals on the "No Fly List" for refusing to become snitches, can be read in detail on http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/07/31/snitch-or-suffer/, and it should be. And, for clarity, the full sentence to which I refer is "The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss [PDF] plainly argues 'there is no constitutional right not to become an informant.'”
Although that particular language is found in the government's Memorandum Of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss ("...courts have found, in other contexts, that there is no constitutional right not to be an informant"), it is the argument that follows that disturbs me, and should disturb you.
On pages 53 and 54 of the "gee whiz, they didn't know" Memorandum, the United States' attorney supported the argument that the FBI defendants "are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that submitting an individual's name [for inclusion on the "No Fly List" because they refused to snitch] violated any constitutional right"***, followed the language Greenfiled quoted on "Simple Justice" with numerous case citations that "[n]either the Supreme Court nor (any Circuit Court) has ever held that a prisoner enjoys a constitutional right not to become an informant...".
But - and I'm surprised Greenfield didn't make this connection - these men were not prisoners. They were never charged. They were "free".
The government's argument clearly demonstrates that, regardless of our accomodations, in the government's opinion, we're ALL prisoners.
***BTW, a large percentage of Fibbers are law school grads,if not members of "The Bar".
05 November, 2013
The Creepy Line
Poor baby. Go ogle’s executive chairman isn’t
happy. Seems the criminal organization
with which Go ogle has been “sharing” ogled information got him drunk and tool
advantage of him.
Let’s recap: Goldfinger (consisting of ultra-rich
megalomaniacs bent on world empire, from whence organizations including ), fronted by the Bush Crime Family, “began” collecting
“metadata” on everyone’s phone calls, etc., as early as ’02 (“Echelon”, the
cooperative program collecting phone calls, faxes, telexes, etc., well before Y2K, and complained of by the
European Parliament as early as ’98, is not addressed in this post), and set up data-collection "at the source" in '06.*
Go ogle began its
“wi-fi sniffing” in ’07, and claims it
only “discovered” that it was stealing private information (that’s the proper
description) in 2010, when Germany’s Data Protection Authority expressed a
desire to examine wifi network data collected in Germany.
Right. Because Go
ogle wasn’t smart enough to review its code before it launched the project. Go ogle said as much. It seems that in ’06:
“an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project wrote a piece of code
that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data,” the company
wrote. “A year later, when our mobile team started a project to collect basic
WiFi network data like SSID information and MAC addresses using Google’s Street
View cars, they included that code in their software—although the project
leaders did not want, and had no intention of using, payload data.”
Go ogle was stealing
private information (again, that’s the proper description) for approximately
three years. We are expected to believe
that Go ogle didn’t know it. For 3
years. 36 (or so) months. 1, 095 days,
each consisting of 24 hours. Not to
belabor the point, but how many gigabits can Go ogle transmit in a second?
Now, Eric
Schmidt, one of the originators of Go ogle, says "It's really outrageous
that the National Security Agency was looking between the Google data centers,
if that's true," http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/04/eric-schmidt-nsa-spying-data-centres-outrageous,
citing a Wall Street Journal article. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/04/googles-schmidt-on-nsa-china-and-north-korea/.
As stated in a
Guardian article, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/04/eric-schmidt-nsa-spying-data-centres-outrageous,
Go ogle “itself has faced repeated accusations of privacy violations, including
illicitly tracking web browsing”, and “Schmidt has made no secret that the
company tests boundaries of what is acceptable. ‘[Company] policy is to get
right up to the creepy line and not cross it,’ he said in 2010”; the year Go
ogle “discovered” it was stealing private information (again, that’s the proper
description) obliterating a line so it needn’t “cross it”.
I now do my best
to avoid Go ogle. Even to the point of
replacing my “Android” phone with a BlackBerry (and no, I don’t expect that BB
will be “much” better, but minimal improvement is more than none).
The only reason,
in fact, that I post this here, on a property of Go ogle (indeed, the only
reason I maintain this blogspot blog at all) is because I want Go ogle to know
just how disgusted I am. I want Eric
Schmidt to know that businesses I contemplated starting, websites and other
internet-related projects, likely won’t be started now, because of Go ogle.
And for all of
those who believe “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”, I
suggest you look into your ancestry. You
might be related to Goebbels.
* I laugh when I see "smart house" commercials in which the parent locks/unlocks doors, turns lights and appliances on/off, and generally "enjoys the security" provided by AT&T. That's a special kind of stupid.
27 October, 2013
“Miss Direction! Paging Miss Direction!”
“The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic,
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for
the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest
enemy of the State.”
– Dr. Josef M. Goebbels
Finding itself (themselves?) unable
to put the issue of NSA’s blanket surveillance of all Americans phone calls,
emails, internet activity – even photographing U.S. Mail envelopes – completely out of the electorate’s mind (perhaps because so many Americans so
distrust “the media” (sic) that even planned distractions like a “government shutdown”
didn’t keep the issue in the background), the “media divisions” of all six multinational
corporations that own “the media” (from now on, well just call them “THE multinationals”)
changed tactics last week, as the news “broke” of ongoing revelations that NSA,
on behalf of “the” United States (grammatically
correct in certain circumstances; politically important with respect to “these
United States”) has “dragnetted”, “vacuumed”, and otherwise consumed the phone
calls, emails, and internet activity of, for all intents and purposes, the
world.
Breathlessly (with relief?), we’re
told that the leaders of Brazil, France, and now, Germany, are very upset, but
we’re simultaneously reassured (by a Senator, no less (gasp!)) that such “upset” is “for the domestic
consumption of their own public”; “code” for “‘s OK. They’re not really mad.” It’s a great setup for the message to follow,
delivered by an “assistant to the president for homeland security” in an *editorial*
published Friday:
“[N]o one disputes
the need for careful, thorough intelligence gathering. Nor is it a secret that
we collect information about what is happening around the world to help protect
our citizens, our allies and our homeland. So does every intelligence service
in the world."
We’re supposed to be relieved, ourselves. Somebody else is outraged! And they’re
governments! Surely they’ll put a
stop to this!
We’re also to be resigned. After all, didn’t Senator Rubio (no friend of
the party in power!) just tell us on a multinational media division “ ...
Everyone spies on everybody. That's just a fact.”? We should just understand that it's no BFD. As he said, striving for a Texas metaphor, “at
the end of the day, everyone knew there was gambling going on in Casablanca.”
Right. Here’s a thought! Why would the leaders of Brazil, France, and
now, Germany, or any (every?) other country want – no, need – to “respond[] to domestic pressures in
their own country”; why would Brazil, France, and Germany, or any (every?) other country want
– no, need – to provide for “domestic
consumption of their own public”?
On the face of it, the “domestic pressures”
to which Senator Rubio off-handedly refers are the anger of Brazilians, Frenchmen,
Germans, and people of any (every?) other country, at “the” United States’ outright theft of their
privacy, too! And they want to know how
and why their own governments let it happen.
Of course, that’s not what this story, the new story, is
supposed to be about. Because even “angry
allies” hasn’t been working the way it should.
The new story is how “documents obtained by former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden…might expose [Brazil’s, France’s, and now, Germany’s] own
intelligence operations…and their level of co-operation with the U.S.”
I find it hard to believe that Brazilians,
Frenchmen, Germans, or any other people, would impose “domestic pressures” over
their governments’ “intelligence gathering” about “the” United States. That makes the blackmail hard to understand.
Could it be that Brazil, France, and
Germany, or any (every?) other country, are doing blanket surveillance of all their own countrymen’s phone calls,
emails, internet activity – perhaps even photographing mail envelopes – too?
We could ask Senator Rubio. But we don’t have to. He already told us.
“ ... Everyone spies on everybody.
That's just a fact.”
There is a subtler, but equally
important fact lying in the background. In
Senator Rubio’s reassurances that the leaders of Brazil, France, and Germany are
merely “responding to domestic pressures”, providing for the “domestic consumption
of their own public”, there are two stark truths:
1. The government “ ... spies on everybody." Everybody. Everybody. Even you; and your kids.
2. The “leaders” of governments manufacture
news.
That second one is good for “the media”,
giving “Goebbles’ Gerbils” a product to bring to market,
It's good for the “multinationals”
that own “Goebbles’ Gerbils”.
But it’s not good for America.
20 August, 2013
You've Got To Give Them This: They're Trying
Oh, how they're trying. The problem is that *they* simply can't stay in front of all the revelations, scandals, and exposés. And John Kerry (you remember him: the Vietnam vet turned war protestor who married into the Heinz fortune) has actually admitted (though not in this country...inbreeding makes *them* a little slow sometimes): “[T]his little thing called the Internet...makes it much harder to govern...much harder to organize people...”. http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213088.htm (Heads up, Johnny! Saying it in Brazil no longer means we don't hear it!)
It's come to the point where even those who usually look askance when I walk into the room are now commenting on how ironically transparent things have become. (Somehow, I don't think this was what he meant when he promised "the most transparent administration in history".) Al quaida (queda? qaida? qaeda? Jeez, people, figure out a spelling and stick with it!) plans to attack "our" embassies? Really?
And this "new danger" has nothing to do with the ongoing alphabet soup scandals? Nothing to do with NSA/IRS/NSA (again)/DEA/NSA (again)/CIA/DOJ//NSA (will it ever stop?)/IRS (again)/NSA, ad infinitum? This is nothing like "bad news"/threat level orange? Completely different from "seal your house with duct tape and (suffocate, but) you'll be "safe"?
So, let's look at "recent events": The government contends that there is a "Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone" that stretches 100 miles inland from the borders. And coastlines. A map of where YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to be free from an unwarranted search looks like this:
That's not so bad, though, is it? After all most of the "geography" is outside that "Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone"; in "the heartland" (where "real" Americans live!).
But *they* consider airports to be "borders", too. Live within 100 miles of an airport?
But, like the NSA/IRS/NSA (again)/DEA/NSA (again)/CIA/DOJ//NSA (will it ever stop?)/IRS (again)/NSA invasions of privacy, you "got nuttin' to worry 'bout if y'ain't doin' nuttin' wrong", right?
Because you know ALL of the tens-of-thousands of federal laws and regulations, right? You know that a famous guitar manufacturer was raided, and fined, for using rosewood of "unauthorized" origin, and you're OK with that, right?
You're OK with "your" government claiming FIVE TIMES the number of criminal mortgage fraud prosecutions it actually filed, right?
You're OK with JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley running the Treasury Department, the State Department, the S.E.C., the C.T.F.C., and the entire financial system of the country, right?
You're OK with them running - owning - Congress?
Do you not wonder why every "good person" elected to office becomes "one of them"?
Look what happened to Eliot Spitzer. HE was going to take the bankers to task. HE was going to make them comply with law, and regulation, and what most of us would consider simple decency.
And you KNOW what happened to him. And you wouldn't want that - or anything like that - to happen to you. But HE's fighting back. HE's running for New York City Comptroller. READ THIS
We've come a long way. In the wrong direction.
Most don't know, and they don't want to know. To know would impart responsibility to do something about what they know. And no one wants that.
After all, we won't be around that much longer, in the scheme of things. And who cares that our grandchildren will never know a world where they didn't have to "submit" to every uniformed cretin who wanted to cop a feel?
It's come to the point where even those who usually look askance when I walk into the room are now commenting on how ironically transparent things have become. (Somehow, I don't think this was what he meant when he promised "the most transparent administration in history".) Al quaida (queda? qaida? qaeda? Jeez, people, figure out a spelling and stick with it!) plans to attack "our" embassies? Really?
And this "new danger" has nothing to do with the ongoing alphabet soup scandals? Nothing to do with NSA/IRS/NSA (again)/DEA/NSA (again)/CIA/DOJ//NSA (will it ever stop?)/IRS (again)/NSA, ad infinitum? This is nothing like "bad news"/threat level orange? Completely different from "seal your house with duct tape and (suffocate, but) you'll be "safe"?
So, let's look at "recent events": The government contends that there is a "Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone" that stretches 100 miles inland from the borders. And coastlines. A map of where YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to be free from an unwarranted search looks like this:
That's not so bad, though, is it? After all most of the "geography" is outside that "Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone"; in "the heartland" (where "real" Americans live!).
But *they* consider airports to be "borders", too. Live within 100 miles of an airport?
But, like the NSA/IRS/NSA (again)/DEA/NSA (again)/CIA/DOJ//NSA (will it ever stop?)/IRS (again)/NSA invasions of privacy, you "got nuttin' to worry 'bout if y'ain't doin' nuttin' wrong", right?
Because you know ALL of the tens-of-thousands of federal laws and regulations, right? You know that a famous guitar manufacturer was raided, and fined, for using rosewood of "unauthorized" origin, and you're OK with that, right?
You're OK with "your" government claiming FIVE TIMES the number of criminal mortgage fraud prosecutions it actually filed, right?
You're OK with JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley running the Treasury Department, the State Department, the S.E.C., the C.T.F.C., and the entire financial system of the country, right?
You're OK with them running - owning - Congress?
Do you not wonder why every "good person" elected to office becomes "one of them"?
Look what happened to Eliot Spitzer. HE was going to take the bankers to task. HE was going to make them comply with law, and regulation, and what most of us would consider simple decency.
And you KNOW what happened to him. And you wouldn't want that - or anything like that - to happen to you. But HE's fighting back. HE's running for New York City Comptroller. READ THIS
We've come a long way. In the wrong direction.
Most don't know, and they don't want to know. To know would impart responsibility to do something about what they know. And no one wants that.
After all, we won't be around that much longer, in the scheme of things. And who cares that our grandchildren will never know a world where they didn't have to "submit" to every uniformed cretin who wanted to cop a feel?
23 July, 2013
It's A Sight To Behold
The headline is catchy: "A Legal Bane of Wall Street Switches Sides". Makes it seem almost as if - after a lifetime of "public service" - the noble champion is ready to partake in the benefits of the "frontier" that he (single-handedly, don'tcha know) "tamed".
It's also bullshit.
If you read the article http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/a-legal-bane-of-wall-street-switches-sides/ (I suggest that, like swimming, you should wait awhile after eating), you'll grasp that the headline isn't exactly false. It's just that "the hero" in this particular story, like pretty much everything about the cartel that is "Wall Street", isn't quite what you might think.
About a third of the way through, you'll read that "[his] name has circulated around Wall Street for decades. After putting himself through [school], this truck driver / overnight dockworker went to law school and ultimately became a junior lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York, where he handled securities cases and commercial disputes."
"Ultimately". Gotta love the irony. Not that being "a junior lawyer" at a law firm that began during George Washington's first term isn't a big deal ("Paging Mr. Alger, Horation Alger..."). It is.
And the facts that 1) the Cadwalader in Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft had to "wait" to join the partnership " due to his appointment as assistant secretary of state; and, 2) the Wickersham (of...) was appointed United States Attorney General by President William Howard Taft, brother of 3) the Taft (see a pattern, here?) explains how a "junior lawyer" job "paved the way" to the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan; which led to becoming general counsel for Deutsche Bank (which, as you might remember, GOT SUED by the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan for fraud), where he "steer[ed] the bank through the financial crisis and an investigation into its tax shelters"; which, remarkably, resulted in the S.E.C., "reeling from the crisis..." turning to him (Deutsche Bank's general counsel) "to revamp its enforcement unit".
I'm reminded of how, a little over a century ago, another "BIG MONEY" lawyer, Philander C. Knox, "gave up" private practice to become Teddy Roosevelt's A.G., and later, Secretary of State (which is another story altogether).
His boss at both Deutsche Bank and Cadwalader, and a former S.E.C. enforcement official himself (did I mention patterns?) praised him for joining S.E.C. "at a time when some lawmakers wanted to abolish" it. (Hmm. I wonder if any of those lawmakers were Wall Street investors...?)
While he was at its head, "the enforcement division logged a record number of actions, including a case against Goldman Sachs.
At his new job, he'll head up S.E.C. enforcement cases (gasp!), white-collar criminal matters (daily operations) and crisis management (getting caught) with a former federal judge and United States deputy attorney general; a former senior lawyer in the Clinton White House and a former United States attorney.
But he expects no "favors". “You don’t undertake a historic restructuring of the enforcement division and bring a record number of cases if you’re trying to curry favor with the industry,” this bastion of rectitude said. Apparently, a job that pays more than $5 million a year is standard practice for "creating units to track complex corners of Wall Street and applying prosecutorial tactics to civil cases".
Like "our hero" Robert S. Khuzami, TR's A.G. Philander Knox took most of his former clients (Morgan; Harriman, et al) to court during The Great Reformer's) administration.
That worked out well, didn't it?
It's also bullshit.
If you read the article http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/a-legal-bane-of-wall-street-switches-sides/ (I suggest that, like swimming, you should wait awhile after eating), you'll grasp that the headline isn't exactly false. It's just that "the hero" in this particular story, like pretty much everything about the cartel that is "Wall Street", isn't quite what you might think.
About a third of the way through, you'll read that "[his] name has circulated around Wall Street for decades. After putting himself through [school], this truck driver / overnight dockworker went to law school and ultimately became a junior lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York, where he handled securities cases and commercial disputes."
"Ultimately". Gotta love the irony. Not that being "a junior lawyer" at a law firm that began during George Washington's first term isn't a big deal ("Paging Mr. Alger, Horation Alger..."). It is.
And the facts that 1) the Cadwalader in Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft had to "wait" to join the partnership " due to his appointment as assistant secretary of state; and, 2) the Wickersham (of...) was appointed United States Attorney General by President William Howard Taft, brother of 3) the Taft (see a pattern, here?) explains how a "junior lawyer" job "paved the way" to the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan; which led to becoming general counsel for Deutsche Bank (which, as you might remember, GOT SUED by the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan for fraud), where he "steer[ed] the bank through the financial crisis and an investigation into its tax shelters"; which, remarkably, resulted in the S.E.C., "reeling from the crisis..." turning to him (Deutsche Bank's general counsel) "to revamp its enforcement unit".
I'm reminded of how, a little over a century ago, another "BIG MONEY" lawyer, Philander C. Knox, "gave up" private practice to become Teddy Roosevelt's A.G., and later, Secretary of State (which is another story altogether).
His boss at both Deutsche Bank and Cadwalader, and a former S.E.C. enforcement official himself (did I mention patterns?) praised him for joining S.E.C. "at a time when some lawmakers wanted to abolish" it. (Hmm. I wonder if any of those lawmakers were Wall Street investors...?)
While he was at its head, "the enforcement division logged a record number of actions, including a case against Goldman Sachs.
At his new job, he'll head up S.E.C. enforcement cases (gasp!), white-collar criminal matters (daily operations) and crisis management (getting caught) with a former federal judge and United States deputy attorney general; a former senior lawyer in the Clinton White House and a former United States attorney.
But he expects no "favors". “You don’t undertake a historic restructuring of the enforcement division and bring a record number of cases if you’re trying to curry favor with the industry,” this bastion of rectitude said. Apparently, a job that pays more than $5 million a year is standard practice for "creating units to track complex corners of Wall Street and applying prosecutorial tactics to civil cases".
Like "our hero" Robert S. Khuzami, TR's A.G. Philander Knox took most of his former clients (Morgan; Harriman, et al) to court during The Great Reformer's) administration.
That worked out well, didn't it?
25 March, 2013
You WILL Be "Safe", If They Have To Kill You
You knew it would come to this. It always does. It always will.
It's in their nature. In their DNA. Like bacteria, adapting to antibiotics (more like viri/antivirals, given the way they reproduce), "they" (liberals; progressives, etc., and their "bearded" fellows, "law and order" types) just keep coming.
On CameraFraud's blog, at http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/tag/american-traffic-solutions/, one can see what can be accomplished by undaunted, unyielding Freedom activists. In a period of 18 months, "approximately 1,700 volunteers" took on the "red light cameras"; and won. The network of Redflex spy cameras installed by Janet Napolitano (yes, that Janet Napolitano) on Arizona interstates and highways came down. Jan Brewer canceled the state’s contract with Redflex, one of the two biggest surveillance - sorry, "safety" companies in the business.
But "Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar" wasn't able to get an initiative on the ballot, to ban the rest of Redflex and American Traffic Solutions’ (the other pickpocket - oops) automated ticketing machines. In fact, an Arizona "lawmaker" has teamed up with an ATS lobbyist to stage a Transportation Committee hearing "so ridiculous that audible laughing could be heard ".
Whatever must "they" do tokeep
ATS in business keep us safe in Arizona?
Cue: "The National Coalition for Safer Roads". Thwarted in their "stated mission ... to 'save lives and protect communities by demonstrating how red light safety cameras can improve driver behavior'", NACSAR (no, they're not calling National Coalition for Safer Roads that, yet, but it's probably too good to pass up) "announced ... a new study that contends the cameras can catch criminals guilty of infractions far greater than rolling through a red light.”
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/03/red-light-cameras-stop-crime/
As wired.com introduced the story, "One way to catch criminals is by giving police departments access to red-light camera footage even when a traffic violation isn’t involved".
According to the (what'd they call it? OH YEAH!) "study" FUNDED BY AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS!!!, 46 percent of red-light camera footage requested by 172 local police departments between 2011 and 2012 was "used in collision investigations" (guess how many "rear-enders" from people tryng to avoid a red-light ticket; c'mon), while "5 percent were used in homicide investigations and 10 percent were used in burglary cases."
(OK, a "homicide" can occur anywhere, buy "burglaries"? Where the hell are they pointing these cameras?)
Quoting one paragraph direcly from Wired (and claiming fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107):
It's in their nature. In their DNA. Like bacteria, adapting to antibiotics (more like viri/antivirals, given the way they reproduce), "they" (liberals; progressives, etc., and their "bearded" fellows, "law and order" types) just keep coming.
On CameraFraud's blog, at http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/tag/american-traffic-solutions/, one can see what can be accomplished by undaunted, unyielding Freedom activists. In a period of 18 months, "approximately 1,700 volunteers" took on the "red light cameras"; and won. The network of Redflex spy cameras installed by Janet Napolitano (yes, that Janet Napolitano) on Arizona interstates and highways came down. Jan Brewer canceled the state’s contract with Redflex, one of the two biggest surveillance - sorry, "safety" companies in the business.
But "Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar" wasn't able to get an initiative on the ballot, to ban the rest of Redflex and American Traffic Solutions’ (the other pickpocket - oops) automated ticketing machines. In fact, an Arizona "lawmaker" has teamed up with an ATS lobbyist to stage a Transportation Committee hearing "so ridiculous that audible laughing could be heard ".
Whatever must "they" do to
Cue: "The National Coalition for Safer Roads". Thwarted in their "stated mission ... to 'save lives and protect communities by demonstrating how red light safety cameras can improve driver behavior'", NACSAR (no, they're not calling National Coalition for Safer Roads that, yet, but it's probably too good to pass up) "announced ... a new study that contends the cameras can catch criminals guilty of infractions far greater than rolling through a red light.”
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/03/red-light-cameras-stop-crime/
As wired.com introduced the story, "One way to catch criminals is by giving police departments access to red-light camera footage even when a traffic violation isn’t involved".
According to the (what'd they call it? OH YEAH!) "study" FUNDED BY AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS!!!, 46 percent of red-light camera footage requested by 172 local police departments between 2011 and 2012 was "used in collision investigations" (guess how many "rear-enders" from people tryng to avoid a red-light ticket; c'mon), while "5 percent were used in homicide investigations and 10 percent were used in burglary cases."
(OK, a "homicide" can occur anywhere, buy "burglaries"? Where the hell are they pointing these cameras?)
Quoting one paragraph direcly from Wired (and claiming fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107):
“Red-light safety cameras bring many benefits to communities —
on and off the road,” said National Coalition for Safer Roads executive director
David Kelly, a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acting
administrator under President George W. Bush. “These cameras are proving to be a
useful tool in helping police solve crimes and often times putting guilty
criminals behind bars.”
So, there you have it! All of those who just won't stop until they "protect" us to death (liberals; progressives, etc.), or throw us in jail for refusing their "protection" ("their" "bearded" fellows, "law and order" types), like the common cold, will just keep on. keeping us "safe".
For a price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
