cnbc--2019-05-08--House Judiciary Committee votes to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt over Mueller report

"We did not relish doing this, but we had no choice," committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said after the hearing. Nadler accused Barr of misleading Congress in his testimony and of "turning the entire Department of Justice into an instrument of Trump personally."  Nadler added: "We've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it."  Lawmakers fought over whether the assertion of executive privilege was valid, and traded barbs throughout the lengthy hearing about the legality and the alleged political motives behind the contempt proceedings.  Democrats stressed that they were holding Barr in contempt as they pushed for the full report — and the "millions" of pages of underlying evidence that have so far been withheld by the DOJ — in the name of transparency, accountability and oversight.  "Our fight is not just about the Mueller report — although we must have access to the Mueller report," Nadler said. "Our fight is about defending the rights of Congress, as an independent branch, to hold the president accountable."  Republicans, however, accused Democrats of using Barr as a "whipping boy" and a stepping stone on the path toward impeaching Trump.  "Bill Barr is following the law, and what's his reward? Democrats are going to hold him in contempt," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.  "This is all about impeaching the president," said Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., after Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson mentioned in his remarks the prospect of impeaching Trump following further investigation.  Barr, who oversaw the final phase of the special counsel's 22-month investigation after taking the reins from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, made redactions to the report in four categories. Those included information related to ongoing investigations and testimony from a grand jury that is included in the report. Barr and the DOJ, citing federal rules, say they are bound not to reveal grand jury testimony to Congress or the public.  Nadler's subpoena requested "the complete and unredacted version of the report" submitted by Mueller to the Justice Department on March 22. But at the hearing Wednesday, the chairman said that "the subpoena was never intended to cover" the rule barring the release of grand jury information. Instead, Nadler said that he wanted the Justice Department to ask a court for permission to release that material, as has been done in the past.


cnbc--2019-05-24--House Judiciary Chairman and Trump foe Jerry Nadler nearly faints at press event with Bill de Blasio

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler appeared weak while attending a Bill de Blasio press event on Friday May 24th, 2019.  House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler appeared to nearly pass out at a press event Friday while sitting next to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.  Nadler, 71, appeared pallid and sick at the event in New York City promoting traffic safety measures. Video footage of the incident shows Nadler slumped in his seat, facing down at the table and having some difficulty responding to de Blasio, who had asked if he was okay. Nadler was immediately attended to by people in the room.  Nadler spokesman Daniel Schwarz told CNBC that the Democratic lawmaker from New York is "okay," and that he "seems to have been dehydrated," adding that "it was very warm in the room."  The event was reportedly held in a gymnasium at a public school on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.  "He is now responsive and receiving a check-up," Schwarz said.  In a tweet after the event, Nadler said that he "felt a bit ill" but was "glad to receive fluids and am feeling much better."  Local reporters watching the event unfold said that de Blasio was helping Nadler drink from the mayor's own water bottle and that Nadler was given an orange to eat.  Nadler has emerged as one of President Donald Trump's top foes in the Democrat-led House, as his committee pursues a broad investigation of corruption and alleged abuses of power by Trump and others in his orbit.  Nadler and other House committee leaders, arguing they are conducting legitimate oversight into the Trump administration, have issued subpoenas and made dozens of requests for documents or testimony from Trump-related entities and associates. The president, meanwhile, has attacked their efforts as an attempt at a "Do-Over" of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.  The mayor's office did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for a statement on Nadler's health scare.  This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.


cnbc--2019-06-03--House Judiciary Committee sets hearing on Mueller report with Nixon White House counsel John Dean

John Dean, White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon, is sworn in to testify on the fourth day of Brett Kavanaugh's hearing before members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building Friday Sept. 7, 2018.  The House Judiciary Committee on Monday announced a "series of hearings" related to special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report, beginning with a June 10 hearing featuring President Richard Nixon's former White House counsel, John Dean.  The Democrat-led committee revealed its new schedule as calls to impeach President Donald Trump grew louder from a growing list of Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates.  The hearing with Dean, titled "Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes," was announced less than a week after Mueller, in his first public remarks since becoming special counsel in May 2017, said that he would not go beyond the details in his 448-page report if he is forced to testify before Congress.  Dean, who was a central player in the Watergate scandal, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 1973. He also cooperated with the Watergate special prosecutor and testified against other Watergate figures.  The upcoming hearing will focus on Trump's "most overt acts of obstruction," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. in a press release. It will also feature other former U.S. Attorneys and legal experts, according to the House Judiciary Committee.  Dean's selection shows that House Democrats are "taking a long-term view" as they broach the question of whether to impeach Trump, said Ken Hughes, an expert on Watergate at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "They're not trying to rush to any conclusion, they want to put this into historical perspective for the vast majority of the American people."  House Democrats have had trouble getting key Trump administration figures, including Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn, to appear before their committees. Barr, who oversaw the tail end of the special counsel's probe and whom Democrats accused of politicizing its release, skipped a House Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for May 2. McGahn, the most-cited witness in Mueller's report, did not show up for a May 21 hearing before the same committee, after the White House instructed him not to comply with the panel's subpoena.  "No one is above the law," Nadler said in the press release Monday afternoon. "While the White House continues to cover up and stonewall, and to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, we will continue to move forward with our investigation."  Nadler added: "Given the threat posed by the President's alleged misconduct, our first hearing will focus on President Trump's most overt acts of obstruction. In the coming weeks, other hearings will focus on other important aspects of the Mueller report."  It was not immediately clear when those subsequent hearings would take place and who would be asked to appear at them.


cnbc--2019-11-26--House Judiciary Committee invites Trump to its first impeachment hearing on Dec. 4

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) waits to speak during a media briefing after a House vote approving rules for an impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 31, 2019.  The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday announced it will hold a Dec. 4 hearing on the constitutional basis for impeachment, bringing the Democrat-led chamber one step closer to its final vote on whether to impeach the president.  The new schedule in the impeachment inquiry shows the Intelligence Committee, which spent weeks interviewing witnesses in public and behind closed doors, passing the torch to the Judiciary panel, which in the past has been responsible for recommending articles of impeachment to the full House.  "The impeachment inquiry is entering into a new phase," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.  "Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct like those against President Trump," Nadler said.  In a letter to the president, Nadler asked if Trump or his counsel "plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel" and gave them a deadline of Dec. 1 at 6 p.m. to respond.  "I remain committed to ensuring a fair and informative process," Nadler said. "While we invite you to this hearing, we remind you that if you continue to refuse to make witnesses and documents available to the committees of jurisdiction, under H. Res. 660, 'the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies.'"  As part of that resolution — which passed in the House last month on mostly partisan lines — the Intelligence Committee must write up a report of its findings and recommendations and pass it on to the Judiciary Committee. It was unclear whether that report would be produced before the Dec. 4 hearing.  Trump and his allies have railed against the proceedings in the Intelligence panel, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as biased and unfair, in part because Trump was not permitted to participate in them, either directly or through his counsel.  "At base, the president has a choice to make," Nadler's statement said. "He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process."


cnbc--2019-11-29--Judiciary Committee gives Trump deadline to call witnesses, present evidence in impeachment hearings

President Donald Trump has until Dec. 6 to call witnesses and present evidence in impeachment hearings led by the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, the committee's chair Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, wrote in a letter on Friday.  The Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on Dec. 4 on the constitutional basis of impeachment. The hearing comes following the House Intelligence Committee's weeks-long inquiry into allegations the Trump administration withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President and current Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-CA, will present a report on its findings to be used by Judiciary Committee.  The House Judiciary Committee is also investigating whether President Trump obstructed justice during special counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry into Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election.  It is the Judiciary Committee's ultimate responsibility to draft the specific articles of impeachment that will then be voted on by the House and sent to the Senate.  Earlier this month, President Trump said that he will "strongly consider" testifying in the House's impeachment probe. During Mueller's inquiry into the Trump campaign, the president and his legal counsel initially signaled openness to be interviewed under oath, though backed down over concerns of a "perjury trap."  In a separate letter, Nadler also gave Rep. Doug Collins, R-GA, the ranking member of the committee, the same Dec. 6 deadline to propose witnesses to question and subpoena for the upcoming hearings. Under the house impeachment rules, Nadler has the power to confirm those requests, though the Judiciary Committee can also vote to override Nadler. The chair also scheduled a committee meeting on Dec. 9 to sort out such conflicts.


cnbc--2019-12-13--Judiciary Committee votes to advance articles of impeachment against Trump to the full House

Following two days of heated debate, the House Judiciary Committee on Friday approved two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, sending them to the House floor for a final vote.  Both articles were passed by a 23-17 margin along party lines.  The articles charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for a monthslong campaign to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations into his political opponents and his subsequent refusal to allow senior White House aides to testify before Congress as it investigated the matter.  Trump campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said in a tweet immediately after the vote that the move "will backfire and on November 3, 2020, voters will re-elect" Trump.  The full House vote on the articles is expected next week, before Congress goes on recess for the Christmas holiday.  The White House on Friday dismissed the inquiry as a "desperate charade."  "The President looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House," White House spokesman Judd Deere said.  Trump in a meeting with the president of Paraguay Friday called the impeachment a sham and accused Democrats of trivializing the process.  In a press conference after the vote, the committee chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, gave a short statement, calling today a "solemn and sad day" and promising to "act expeditiously." He took no questions.  Friday's vote followed two days of public debate during which members of the Judiciary Committee proposed various amendments to the legislation. None of the amendments was accepted by the Democratic-controlled committee. Nadler postponed the vote late Thursday, following 14 grueling hours of debate.  The amendments were primarily introduced by Republicans who oppose the impeachment and who sought to amend the articles either to weaken their language or insert language that boosted the president's defense.  Early in the daylong proceedings Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch Trump ally, proposed an amendment that would have removed the first article accusing Trump of abuse of power.  Jordan argued that "Article One in this resolution ignores the truth, it ignores the facts, it ignores what happened, and what has been laid out for the American people over the last three weeks" of public hearings in the Intelligence and Judiciary committees.  Democrats, who have a 24-17 seat majority in the Judiciary Committee, struck down the amendment.  The articles themselves represent the culmination of months of investigation by the House into Trump's dealings with Ukraine. The probe, which the White House refused to cooperate with in any way, included testimony from current and former diplomats and national security officials, documentary evidence and public statements from the president himself.  Despite being warned not to testify, several administration officials told Congress that Trump and his private attorney Rudy Giuliani led a sweeping effort to pressure newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce two investigations Trump wanted: one into former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, and the other into a debunked conspiracy theory about supposed Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on behalf of Democrat Hillary Clinton.  The officials described how Trump, Giuliani, and a small circle of political appointees conditioned a high-profile White House meeting for Zelenskiy, as well as nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine, on Zelenskiy's willingness to announce the investigations.  The pressure campaign included the notorious July 25 phone conversation between Trump and Zelenskiy in which Trump asked his counterpart to "do us a favor," by looking into Hunter Biden and into the alleged 2016 election conspiracy.  The congressional impeachment inquiry was triggered by a whistleblower's complaint that stemmed from the phone call.  Trump appears to have watched parts of the House debate on Thursday, taking aim at two Texas Democrats, Reps. Veronica Escobar and Sheila Jackson Lee.  "Dems Veronica Escobar and Jackson Lee purposely misquoted my call. I said I want you to do us (our Country!) a favor, not me a favor," Trump wrote in a tweet during the hearing. "They know that but decided to LIE in order to make a fraudulent point! Very sad."  Republicans have criticized the investigation every step of the way, calling it "a sham" and "a witch hunt." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the impeachment inquiry in September.  Throughout the impeachment process, Trump has been highly critical of the Democrats, repeatedly accusing them of treating him unfairly and impeaching him over "nothing."  If articles of impeachment pass the House next week, the Republican-controlled Senate will conduct a formal trial of the president, likely in January. It is unclear whether the Senate plans to call witnesses to defend the president or merely mount a legal defense without the added drama of live witnesses. The trial will be presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court.


cnbc--2019-12-23--House Judiciary Committee says it could draft 'new articles of impeachment' against Trump

Democrats have been fighting in court for months to enforce a subpoena for McGahn to testify as part of the impeachment proceedings in Congress. They argue that McGahn's testimony is "central" to parts of the House committee's investigation into Trump, which is not yet complete even though the Democratic-led chamber passed two articles of impeachment against him last week .  Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee said Monday that the panel could draft and recommend "new articles of impeachment" against President Donald Trump if additional evidence is revealed by former White House counsel Don McGahn.  And McGahn's testimony is "also relevant to the Committee's ongoing investigations into Presidential misconduct and consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment," lawyers for the Judiciary Committee wrote in a submission to the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals.  Click here or scroll down to read the House Judiciary Committee's court filing  "If McGahn's testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment," the lawyers wrote.  Trump was impeached on two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — related to his efforts to have Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announce investigations involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, and a debunked conspiracy that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  Trump allegedly withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine while he was pushing for the probes into his political rivals. His administration refused to comply with congressional Democrats' impeachment inquiry and has pressured numerous government witnesses not to cooperate.  The Judiciary Committee's court filing Monday followed an entry from attorneys for the Justice Department, who argued that the House's vote to impeach Trump undermines the push from Democrats to have McGahn's subpoena enforced quickly.  The DOJ lawyers wrote that there is no longer "any justification for otherwise expediting the Court's decision in this case," outside of an already scheduled Jan. 3 hearing, where both sides will argue their cases.  But the Judiciary Committee's attorneys countered that Trump's impeachment in the House has "reinforced," rather than undercut, the need for an "expeditious resolution of this appeal."


cnn--2019-01-03--Incoming House Judiciary chairman plans to re-introduce Mueller protection bill Thursday

Incoming House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York plans to re-introduce legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller on Thursday, the first day of the new Congress, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.  The bill, which Nadler also introduced in this Congress as a companion measure to Senate legislation, is likely to be one of the early priorities for Democrats as they retake control of the House on Thursday. The legislation would provide recourse for Mueller and future special counsels to challenge any firings in the court system.  As Judiciary chairman, Nadler is one of the key Democrats poised to investigate President Donald Trump , and his committee would be in charge of any impeachment proceedings. But he and other Democratic leaders have talked up their desire to focus on legislation in the new Congress, including bills like the special counsel legislation.  Democrats are likely to push Senate Republicans take up the bill, though that appears unlikely at this point. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation to protect Mueller last year under a deal struck by outgoing Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and the bill's bipartisan Senate authors. But the bill never moved to the Senate floor, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said it was unnecessary.  Questions about interference with Mueller's investigation have been lingering for more than a year, but they spiked after Trump fired Jeff Sessions as his attorney general in November, replacing him with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, who has publicly criticized the special counsel probe. Senate Democrats are sure to press Trump's attorney general nominee William Barr about allowing Mueller to finish his investigation unimpeded during Barr's confirmation hearing scheduled for January 15-16.


cnn--2019-01-04--House Judiciary chair says Democrats are not going to wait for the Mueller report to investigate T

House Judiciary chair says Democrats are 'not going to wait for the Mueller report' to investigate Trump

Nadler told CNN that once the House Judiciary Committee receives Mueller's final report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election that "we will make sure it is public."  However, "we are not going to wait for the Mueller report. There is plenty for the Judiciary Committee to look into right now," the New York congressman said in an interview Friday with CNN's John Berman on "New Day."  "Specifically the attempt to have a massive fraud on the American people in terms of rigging an American presidential election and undermining the integrity of the election," he said. "And we have to look into that, whether it's by hush payments or by collusion with Russians or by any other means."  In a case Mueller's team referred to the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in August to two campaign-finance violations tied to payments he made or orchestrated to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal to stay silent about alleged sexual encounters with Trump.  Prosecutors have said that in executing the payments, Cohen "acted in coordination with and at the direction of" Trump, who has denied having the affairs with the two women. But, Nadler's eagerness to investigate Trump doesn't mean he wants to rush toward impeaching the President as some other House Democrats do. After being sworn into Congress on Thursday, Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib said of Trump , "we're going to impeach the motherf****r." Nadler disagreed with Tlaib's use of profanity and her push for impeachment, saying, "it's much too early to talk about that intelligently." "That's why it is important to protect the Mueller investigation and important to do our own inquiry," he told CNN Friday. "We have to get the facts. We will see where the facts lead. Maybe that will lead to impeachment. Maybe it won't. It is much too early." He argued that impeachment should not be pursued "unless you believe that you have such great evidence of such terrible deeds that when that evidence is laid out to the American people, you will probably get an appreciable fraction of the voters who supported the president to agree that you had to do it." "Impeachment can't be partisan," he added. Asked if he has evidence to push for impeachment, Nadler said, "No, we do not yet. That's why I said we are far from finishing the inquiry." "We have to see what the Mueller report says," he reiterated. "That has to come to the Judiciary Committee so that we can relay to the American people and we can look into it. And we have to do our own investigations. There's a lot of smoke, how much fire has yet to be determined."


cnn--2019-02-12--House Judiciary Committee hires lawyers who have written case for Trump impeachment

The House Judiciary Committee announced Tuesday it was hiring former Obama administration lawyer and ethics watchdog Norm Eisen and high-powered criminal defense attorney Barry Berke as special oversight counsels for the committee, where they will help craft the panel's plans to investigate the President and his administration.  The pair will be tasked with helping the Democratic-led committee with oversight of the Justice Department — including the review of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — as well as other oversight matters in the committee's jurisdiction.  The new hires are the latest sign of House Democrats ramping up to probe every part of Trump's life, from his personal finances to his businesses to his 2016 presidential campaign. They also signal that Nadler is thinking about the possibility his committee could pursue impeachment proceedings against the President, even if he hasn't decided to take that step yet.  "Congress has a constitutional duty to be a check and balance against abuses of power when necessary. Before anything else, however, we have to follow the facts and conduct the sort of oversight that has been completely absent over the last two years," Nadler said in a statement announcing the hires.  Nadler has been careful around the question of impeachment, saying it's still too early to talk about the prospect. But Eisen and Berke will help lay the investigative groundwork that the committee will have to undertake — with or without details from Mueller's investigation — ahead of any potential formal impeachment process, and could help advise the committee if issues like access to Mueller's report or Executive Branch documents end up in court fights. A committee source said Eisen and Berke were not being hired as impeachment counsel or to lead a possible impeachment process. Rather, they will help the committee with document requests and other steps that will lay the groundwork for the committee's investigative agenda. There's little question where the committee's new lawyers stand on the impeachment question, as Berke and Eisen have teamed up in recent months to criticize Trump and outline the steps for his possible impeachment by Congress. Eisen, Berke and lawyer Noah Bookbinder published think tank treatises in 2017 and 2018 outlining what they see as a case for impeaching or indicting Trump for obstruction of justice. The legal assessment included a roadmap for what they believe Congress can do once Mueller reveals his legal findings, and given Trump's negative reactions to Mueller's work. Even without Mueller's final report, the attorneys wrote their research led them to believe "the president likely obstructed justice, a conclusion even more strongly supported by the evidence now." They cite Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey, his actions toward former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other senior Justice Department officials and his threats to fire Mueller, among other actions. The pair brings serious legal chops, especially regarding ethics and financial matters, to support what Democrats are planning. Berke, a well-known trial lawyer who's based in New York, has co-led one of the top white-collar litigation practices in the city for years. He previously represented New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio in a corruption probe related to the 2013 mayoral campaign. He's also handled high-profile defenses involving bankers, insider trading and other complicated financial matters — like the case of former Deutsche Bank broker David Parse, who was accused of participating in one of the biggest tax fraud cases in history. In that matter, Berke notched a win by cutting a settlement for Parse after a judge threw out jury convictions for the fraud because a juror was not truthful. Berke represented a Las Vegas sports gambler caught on insider trading charges in a case that was connected to pro golfer Phil Mickelson, who was never charged. And Berke succeeded in getting a court to force the US government to return 10 extremely rare 1933 "double eagle" gold coins to a family from whom they were seized. Eisen, the former US ambassador to the Czech Republic, is already working on a case related to the core of what Congress may investigate. He's among the team assisting the state attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia as they challenge Trump's connection to his Trump International Hotel in Washington. In that case, the state attorneys general contest the President has received illegal payments from foreign governments and other states because his ties with his company were never completely severed. The case is currently paused for an appeal. It's running alongside a different case, brought by Democratic members of Congress, that similarly attacks Trump's ties to his businesses and the Constitutionality of payments governments make to the Trump Organization. Eisen is board chairman for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which he co-founded. He served in the Obama White House as special counsel for ethics and government reform. Eisen also worked for CNN as a political commentator. He is no longer a contributor.


abcnews--2019-12-20--Hawaii law enforcement to stand-down from telescope site

HONOLULU -- Hawaii officials are having police leave a mountain where protesters are blocking construction of a giant telescope because the project isn't moving forward for now.  An international consortium wants to build the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii's tallest peak. But some Native Hawaiians believe the telescope will desecrate sacred land. Protesters have stopped construction from going forward since mid-July.  Telescope builders informed the state it is not prepared to move forward with construction at this time, according to a memo Thursday from Gov. David Ige's office.  But that doesn't mean the embattled Thirty Meter Telescope will move to an alternate site in Spain's Canary Islands.  Protesters aren't leaving. “The protectors are still committed to holding their position, protecting Mauna Kea," said Kealoha Pisciotta, a protest leader.  Ige “expressed his severe disappointment that TMT will not move forward for now, despite months of often intense behind-the-scenes discussions among protesters, telescope owners and state and county officials,” the memo by the governor's chief of staff, Linda Chu Takayama, said. “Those efforts will continue, and the Governor anticipates that activity on the project will resume in the future.”  State and county officials haven't demonstrated they can provide safe access to the Big Island mountain for everyone, TMT vice president for external relations Gordon Squires said in statement. “We don’t want to put our workers, the people of Hawaii, and the protesters at risk,” he said.  Big Island police will withdraw from the mountain by 3:30 p.m. Friday, Mayor Harry Kim said.  There's no time-table for removing state personnel from the mountain and re-opening the access road, Ige said.  “As you all know we're in the holidays and so we have made decisions that we will be withdrawing our personnel so they can enjoy the holidays with everyone else," Ige said.  Some protesters who say they're protecting the mountain had been bracing for colder weather at the mountain.  “Construction during winter is definitely more difficult, but not impossible,” Squires said.  The Spanish island of La Palma, which already hosts several powerful telescopes at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, was chosen as a back-up site for the telescope in 2016.  Scientists consider Hawaii a more desirable location. Mauna Kea's summit was selected because the weather and air conditions there are among the best in the world for viewing the skies. The telescope would give researchers a view back to the deepest reaches of our universe and allow them to examine the time immediately following the Big Bang.


activistpost--2019-03-21--Law Enforcement Uses Facial Recognition To Identify Shoplifters

For those of you who still hold onto to the idea that America will never follow in China’s Big Brother footsteps, I give you this disturbing story.  A recent CNET article revealed how the Washington County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) in Oregon uses Amazon’s Rekognition software to identify shoplifters.  An unnamed WCSO Deputy allegedly used Amazon’s Rekognition to search a 300,000-person mugshot database looking for a potential match.  What makes this so disturbing, is number one: a cop is using a private corporation’s software to identify people which has never been independently vetted for accuracy because “it is too sophisticated.’ And, secondly, each time a police officer investigates a petty crime; 300,000 people will have their faces scanned without a warrant.  Using facial recognition to identify people accused of petty crimes is a mirror image of what is happening in China.  China uses facial recognition to identify citizens accused of jaywalking and bans “discredited” citizens from taking buses and trains for unspecified behavioral crimes.  Law enforcement and retailers are creating a nationwide facial recognition database of everyone.  Yesterday, CNET warned that retail stores are secretly using facial recognition to identify shoppers and how the potential for abuse affects everyone.  With facial recognition, getting caught in one store could mean a digital record of your face is shared across the country. Stores are already using the technology for security purposes and can share that data — meaning that if one store considers you a threat, every business in that network could come to the same conclusion.  Creating secret watchlists of Americans is major concern that even CNET is acknowledging.  Retailers are also using things like Iris tracking cameras, thermal imaging cameras and loyalty rewards to secretly identify shoppers.


activistpost--2019-07-23--Does Facial Recognition Technology Make You Grimace New Website Offers Map of Where Its Being Use

Does Facial Recognition Technology Make You Grimace?  New Website Offers Map of Where It’s Being Used by Law Enforcement and How to Get It Banned.

Think law enforcement using facial recognition technology to catch criminals isn’t a big deal?  You may want to review new website  – Ban Facial Recognition – and reevaluate your position.  According to it:  Facial recognition surveillance programs identify the wrong person up to 98% of the time. These errors have real-world impacts, including harassment, wrongful imprisonment, and deportation. Facial recognition software programmatically misidentifies people of color, women, and children —supercharging discrimination and putting vulnerable people at greater risk of systemic abuse. Once our biometric information is collected and stored in government databases, it’s an easy target for identity thieves or state-sponsored hackers. Successful attacks have already happened, and will only grow more commonplace as government surveillance expands.  More unsettling information is provided at the website as well as a U.S. map of where this technology is being used by law enforcement.  Kudos to San Francisco, CA, Oakland, CA, and Somerville, MA for already passing local ordinances banning it.  Facial recognition technology is also being used in some stores including Kroger and Walgreens for what is referred to as “Surveillance Capitalism.” That could be why it seems like more shoppers are wearing sunglasses now.  Then again the sunglasses could be for the blinding LED light bulbs.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-08-20--Law Enforcement To Flag and Spy On Future Criminals

America’s fear of mass shootings is about to take a truly bizarre turn. That’s because our law enforcement will soon be used as fortune tellers to spy on future criminals.  How will law enforcement be used as fortune tellers?  A recent Albuquerque Journal article revealed that law enforcement will flag people who they think might pose a potential risk.  What types of things could Americans do that law enforcement would consider threatening?  Inside Sources revealed that police would be looking for “certain indicators.”  I think it’s obviously important for all of the citizens of New Mexico to be on the lookout for certain indicators of these types of folks that would do this.  And part of our job as government officials is to ensure that the citizens of the community understand what those indicators are so they can report them.  The Tampa Bay Times reports that police are looking for “certain critical threat indicators” on students’ social media posts, and has even created their own FortifyFL app that allows anyone to secretly report suspicious behavior.  What these “indicators” are is anyone’s guess.  Johnson also said that it was “important for law enforcement and other social services to follow up” on reports of possibly dangerous citizens “in the hopes of preventing” acts of domestic terrorism.  Law enforcement and other agencies are being encouraged to report on and flag anyone who they deem a “potential risk.”  What could possibly go wrong?  It was only a couple of months ago, when I warned people about the “Threat Assessment, Prevention and Safety Act” that basically allows law enforcement to label anyone a potential threat.  Police across the country are already using “red flag” laws to take weapons away from people they deem a potential threat. So why is Homeland Security creating a whole new class of suspicious people?  Because the War on Terror constantly needs new enemies if it is to keep Americans living in fear.  The Albuquerque Journal revealed how law enforcement plans to use the red flag bill to allow law enforcement and other agencies to give people secret threat ratings.  “Sheriffs had been working with the Democratic sponsor of a proposed red flag bill toward a possible compromise. In its original form, the bill would have allowed courts to order the temporary taking of guns from someone deemed an immediate threat,” San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari said.  From Homeland Security spying on everyone’s social media posts to the FBI, it seems like no one is safe from Big Brother’s prying eyes.  Reason.com warned that the FBI’s “red flag” social media spying tool is “a meme-illiterate Facebook-stalking precog from the Minority Report.”  Reason also warned that spying on everyone’s social media posts could spiral out of control.  Placing people on a secret risk chart is a disaster waiting to happen; just ask those people on the no-fly list or terror watch list.


msnbc--2019-02-18--Targeting federal law enforcement Trump

Targeting federal law enforcement, Trump...

Apropos of nothing, Donald Trump published a tweet yesterday about Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of federal investigators.  For the record, I have no idea if Limbaugh actually said this. The president occasionally misquotes people – even his allies – to advance his own purposes, and it would probably be a mistake to assume this reflects the far-right radio host’s exact words.  What matters, however, is the underlying sentiment that Trump was eager to endorse: the president believes federal law enforcement officials, examining a foreign adversary’s attack on our elections, aren’t just part of some elaborate, partisan conspiracy, he apparently also believes they “ought to be in jail.”  That strikes me as a notable rhetorical escalation for the embattled president.  Trump went on to reiterate his belief that the special counsel’s investigation is “illegal,” before publishing a couple of additional missives about former FBI Deputy Director and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein targeting him with “a very illegal act,” which the president believes may be “treasonous.”  Given the context, I’m assuming Trump is referring to the alleged 2017 conversation about the 25th Amendment.  Regardless of the context, let’s not forget that, as of right now, Rod Rosenstein remains one of the nation’s top law enforcement officials. He’s also, evidently, someone Trump considers a criminal.  Occasionally, the Republican president likes to assure the public that he’s a champion of law enforcement, which is what makes outbursts like these so bizarre. Indeed, as regular readers know, Trump’s attacks on federal law enforcement are strikingly common.  This is, after all, the same president who said last fall that he sees his conflict with the FBI as one of his “crowning achievements.” Trump added at the time that he sees some leaders who’ve served in federal law enforcement as “a cancer in our country.”  The president has also referred to the “Department of ‘Justice’ ” – as if he believes the DOJ’s commitment to justice is in doubt – as “an embarrassment to our country!”  Last year, the president also insisted that the FBI’s reputation was “in tatters” and is now the “worst in history.” Soon after, he added, “The top Leadership and Investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process.”  A month later, Trump went after the bureau again, calling it “disgraceful” that then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions hadn’t done more to investigate the FBI.  It’s the same president who fired dozens of U.S. attorneys under unusual circumstances. And then fired an FBI director. And a deputy FBI director. And an acting attorney general. And an attorney general. And dozens of federal prosecutors.  Trump has attacked federal law enforcement with conspiracy theories. He’s attacked common law-enforcement tools. He’s even urged law enforcement to enforce his political vendettas and help Republicans win elections.  And yet, despite all of this, suggesting federal investigators “ought to be in jail” still seems like a new one.


msnbc--2019-05-03--Should law enforcement be able to search phones at the border

Should law enforcement be able to search phones at the border?

'Knock Down the House' looks at AOC, 2018 midterms


occupydemocrats--2019-06-19--Four law enforcement agencies just opened a money laundering investigation of Deutsche Bank

Four federal agencies just opened a major money laundering investigation into hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transactions between the most important bank lender to the President and his family.  Deutsche Bank has been at the heart of major Russian money laundering scandals for years. During that time, President Trump has borrowed billions of dollars from the bank, and his plenipotentiary minister, son-in-law Jared Kushner is an even bigger client of the bank, whose transactions set off money laundering alerts that got shelved.  Now, three different groups of prosecutors and one federal law enforcement agency chose to look into a brave whistleblower’s recent, public allegations about Deutsche Bank’s cover-up of their relationship with the Trumps. The Times reports:  The investigation includes a review of Deutsche Bank’s handling of so-called suspicious activity reports that its employees prepared about possibly problematic transactions, including some linked to President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, according to people close to the bank and others familiar with the matter. In addition to the F.B.I., the Justice Department’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section in Washington, and the United States attorney’s offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations. Representatives for the agencies declined to comment.  Amazingly, investigators told the Times that they believe their results could shed light on any role that the German lender has in yet another massive multi-billion-dollar banking scandal unfolding in Denmark.  Three bank employees recently confirmed that Jared Kushner’s transactions triggered money laundering alerts that should have resulted in a suspicious activity report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network known as FinCEN.  The President still owed Deutsche Bank over three hundred million dollars through his family real estate business when he was sworn into office. Early in Trump’s term, the Post revealed that Jared Kushner got a loan from the bank for $285 million just before the 2017 inauguration ceremony.  House Democrats are fighting doggedly – in court – to force Deutsche Bank to release a treasure trove of records documenting all of the billions of dollars worth of transactions as part of its oversight function.  Last week, Trump’s personal lawyers in DC filed an appeal in the case against Mazars, the president’s accounting firm, whom the House Oversight committee is investigating. Then yesterday, his attornies in New York filed an appellate court brief in their frivolous fight to keep his personal financial records out of Congress’ hands.  It was already plainly obvious that whatever is inside of President Trump and Jared Kushner’s financial records must be explosive information, or they wouldn’t be fighting to keep it out of Congress’ hands.  But today’s news that not one, but three different groups of prosecutors across the country and the FBI’s financial crimes enforcers are looking into the high-level cover-up Deutsche Bank appears to have engaged in, there can be little doubt that these records could provide damning evidence of either Trump, Kushner or Deutsche Bank’s illegal financial activities.


osce--2019-09-23--Law enforcement agencies should embrace Artificial Intelligence to enhance their efficiency and effe

Law enforcement agencies should embrace Artificial Intelligence to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness, say police experts at OSCE meeting

VIENNA, 23 September 2019 - Law enforcement authorities and agencies should embrace Artificial Intelligence (AI) in their work to increase their efficiency and effectiveness, and to keep up with technological innovations, said opening speakers at the 2019 OSCE Annual Police Experts Meeting in Vienna today. This technology must be used in strict compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms, they added.  The meeting, this year entitled Artificial Intelligence and law enforcement – an ally or adversary?, brings together some 130 law enforcement experts and other criminal justice practitioners, representatives of OSCE delegations, regional and international organizations, technical specialists, and researchers, as well as civil society representatives from OSCE participating States and Partners for Co-operation.  Over the course of two days, discussions will focus on how AI impacts the work and structure of police services and what challenges and opportunities the future could bring.  Opening the meeting on behalf of Slovakia’s 2019 OSCE Chair, General Jana Maškarová, First Vice-President of Slovakia’s Police Force, said: “As the title of this year’s meeting indicates, we will devote our attention to the issue of artificial intelligence and try to answer the elementary question: Is artificial intelligence our ally or our adversary. When is it our ally and when does it become our adversary? For a long time we have been aware that modern technologies are not only used by us – police officers – in detecting and investigating crimes, but especially by our adversaries – in order to facilitate their illegal activity.”  It was noted that although AI in the work of law enforcement is relatively new, it is commonly agreed that AI techniques have considerable potential. Some AI-based tools have already been tested and are used by police services worldwide. These include video and image analysis software, facial recognition systems, biometric identification, drones and robots, and predictive analysis tools to forecast future crime.  Addressing the meeting participants through a video message, OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger said: “Many have already started to positively apply AI in their work. Just think about AI-enabled algorithms that automatically recognize missing persons or stolen cars. Or advanced crime forecasting tools, such as predictive policing. However, criminal organizations are also quick to adopt new technologies. We have seen it in the past, and AI will be no exception.”  He added that irresponsible or unethical uses of AI can pose unforeseen risks to liberties and privacy rights. Therefore, the correct balance between effective policing and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms must always be an essential element in both the discussions on AI and its use.  The first session will introduce the concept of AI and the use of AI-related technologies in the work of law enforcement authorities and agencies. Participants will later explore how AI technologies can be misused for committing crime in the future, including cybercrime or human trafficking. The final session will be dedicated to key legal, ethical, human rights and gender-related concerns linked to the application of AI-based technologies in the work of law enforcement authorities and agencies.  The main findings and outcome of the meeting will be compiled in a report, which will serve as a basis for further discussions on AI at the national, regional and international level, and as guidance for the OSCE when developing and providing capacity building and technical assistance to the participating States and Partners for Co-operation.


powerlineblog--2019-02-14--Law Enforcement Usually Great But Sometimes Awful

Law Enforcement: Usually Great, But Sometimes Awful

As regular readers know, I am a fan of law enforcement. I think “systemic racism” is bullshit, and police officers’ conduct is admirable, or at least defensible, in an overwhelming majority of cases. See, for example, this post and this one. I am unequivocally on the side of law enforcement.  But a few cops, unfortunately, are rotten. We saw that here in Minnesota with Mohammed Noor, who shot an obviously harmless woman who dialed 911, for no apparent reason. Something even worse–but for the fact that no one died–happened in Glendale, Arizona in 2017 when police officers accosted a car full of people who were parked in a hotel lot and, perhaps, not up to much good. But we never learned anything about that, because one of the cops went straight to the authoritarian shtick, and then to the taser. In the end, a guy who never did anything wrong was tased 11 times, including on his private parts after having his pants pulled down.  He was charged with a crime or two, as was his wife, who allegedly struck a police officer over the head with a water bottle. If she did it, good for her. It was the least she should have done, under the circumstances. Here is the video, compiled by a local TV news station from body and dash cam cameras:  Was that sickening to watch, or what? Happily, most people who go into law enforcement are altruistic and want to serve their communities. Unfortunately, some aren’t and don’t. People like the officers involved here should be viewed with contempt and subjected to legal penalties–like Mohammed Noor, if he lives long enough to come to trial, which seems a long way off.  Today, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a solid conservative, urged re-opening the investigation into the tasing fiasco. He is right. Let’s investigate and punish where punishment is due. Watching the video, it seems blindingly obvious where that is.


renegadetribune--2019-08-22--Law Enforcement To Flag and Spy On Future Criminals

America’s fear of mass shootings is about to take a truly bizarre turn. That’s because our law enforcement will soon be used as fortune tellers to spy on future criminals.  How will law enforcement be used as fortune tellers?  A recent Albuquerque Journal article revealed that law enforcement will flag people who they think might pose a potential risk.  What types of things could Americans do that law enforcement would consider threatening?  Inside Sources revealed that police would be looking for “certain indicators.”  I think it’s obviously important for all of the citizens of New Mexico to be on the lookout for certain indicators of these types of folks that would do this.  And part of our job as government officials is to ensure that the citizens of the community understand what those indicators are so they can report them.  The Tampa Bay Times reports that police are looking for “certain critical threat indicators” on students’ social media posts, and has even created their own FortifyFL app that allows anyone to secretly report suspicious behavior.  What these “indicators” are is anyone’s guess.  Johnson also said that it was “important for law enforcement and other social services to follow up” on reports of possibly dangerous citizens “in the hopes of preventing” acts of domestic terrorism.  Law enforcement and other agencies are being encouraged to report on and flag anyone who they deem a “potential risk.”  What could possibly go wrong?  It was only a couple of months ago, when I warned people about the “Threat Assessment, Prevention and Safety Act” that basically allows law enforcement to label anyone a potential threat.  Police across the country are already using “red flag” laws to take weapons away from people they deem a potential threat. So why is Homeland Security creating a whole new class of suspicious people?  Because the War on Terror constantly needs new enemies if it is to keep Americans living in fear.  The Albuquerque Journal revealed how law enforcement plans to use the red flag bill to allow law enforcement and other agencies to give people secret threat ratings.  “Sheriffs had been working with the Democratic sponsor of a proposed red flag bill toward a possible compromise. In its original form, the bill would have allowed courts to order the temporary taking of guns from someone deemed an immediate threat,” San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari said.  From Homeland Security spying on everyone’s social media posts to the FBI, it seems like no one is safe from Big Brother’s prying eyes.  Reason.com warned that the FBI’s “red flag” social media spying tool is “a meme-illiterate Facebook-stalking precog from the Minority Report.”  Reason also warned that spying on everyone’s social media posts could spiral out of control.  Placing people on a secret risk chart is a disaster waiting to happen; just ask those people on the no-fly list or terror watch list.


slate--2019-08-21--Law Enforcements Use of Ancestry Websites Is a Huge Privacy Conundrum

Law Enforcement’s Use of Ancestry Websites Is a Huge Privacy Conundrum

In this episode, Aaron Mak learns about how law enforcement is using public genealogy websites to crack cold cases. His guest is Nila Bala, associate director of criminal justice policy at the R Street Institute, a think tank whose mission is to find solutions to complex policy problems. Bala is also a former public defender. She says that while it’s great that criminals are being brought to justice, there should be more rules in place to limit false positives and prevent privacy violations.  After the interview, Shannon Palus joins the show for this week’s edition of Don’t Close My Tabs.  • “Criminal Suspects Deserve Genetic Privacy, Too” in Slate  • Shannon’s tab: “The App That Has Gen Z Hooked on Thrifting” in the Cut  • Aaron’s tab: Every Spongebob Frame In Order on Facebook  If you have a question or comment, you can email us at ifthen@slate.com.  If Then is presented by Slate and Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.


slate--2019-12-19--We’re Entering a New Phase in Law Enforcement’s Use of Consumer Genetic Data

On Dec. 9, Verogen, a California-based forensic genomics company, acquired GEDmatch, a user-sourced DNA genealogy site. The acquisition suggests that GEDmatch’s transformation from a popular genealogy site to a crime-fighting tool is almost complete. The privacy implications will be enormous, even for those who have never considered taking a consumer genetic test.  GEDmatch launched in 2010 as an open-source database where individuals who have tested their DNA with private companies, like 23andme and AncestryDNA, could upload their results and find family members. More recently, GEDmatch has acquired a second use—solving crimes. Most Americans first learned about GEDmatch in 2018, after law enforcement announced that they had used it to identify the suspected Golden State Killer.  While not the first time the technique was used, the Golden State Killer investigation was certainly the highest-profile, and it opened the floodgates to solving crimes with genetic genealogy. Law enforcement simply input DNA from unsolved cases into GEDmatch (as well as some other databases, like FamilyTreeDNA and Othram). When crime scene DNA demonstrates even a partial match, forensic genealogists can use that information to construct a family tree and determine who a suspect might be. The final step is to acquire the suspect’s DNA (often through something discarded, like a tissue) and confirm the match. Genetic genealogy was used in an estimated 200 cases in 2018 alone.  To date, more than 1.3 million users have uploaded their DNA to GEDmatch. When they uploaded their information, they might reasonably have expected that it would be kept safe and secure, shared only with those users authorized and in ways they intended. Unfortunately, this has rarely been the case. Instead, the past few months have revealed that GEDmatch lacks security, has altered its terms of use without predictability, and has been used by law enforcement in unexpected ways.  Genetic genealogy has ushered in a new era devoid of rules and regulations concerning genetic privacy. And for a long time, GEDmatch co-founder Curtis Rogers tried his best to create order out of the chaos. Without guidance from the government on the matter, he navigated difficult decisions—such as which types of crimes law enforcement could use the site to try to solve and whether users should have to opt in to or opt out of sharing their data with the police.  Each decision created controversy. At first, Rogers’ policy was that GEDmatch would only be used to help solve the most egregious violent crimes—like murder and sexual assault. But he changed his mind after Utah law enforcement contacted Rogers for assistance in a 2018 assault case they were investigating. First, he made an exception. Then, a few months later, he codified the change and expanded the definition of “violent crime” to include “murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, aggravated rape, robbery, or aggravated assault.”  Another policy change occurred when GEDmatch was criticized for sharing information with law enforcement without users’ explicit consent. So in May 2019, GEDmatch changed its policy to an opt-in version, asking users when they logged in whether they wanted to share their profiles with law enforcement. Many thought this would be the end of GEDmatch as an effective mechanism for police to solve cold cases—though competitor site FamilyTreeDNA still made most of its more than 1 million profiles available through an opt-out approach. Still, by November 2019, 185,000 individuals on GEDmatch had opted into allowing law enforcement to access their profiles.  While reasonable parties may differ on where to draw the line regarding the use of genetic genealogy, the troubling reality here is that one individual—in this case, Rogers—had the power both to draw that line and to change it unilaterally. With no legal regulations providing clarity on how and when genetic genealogy should be used to fight crime, we have left private entities in charge of the decision-making. And with Verogen taking over GEDmatch, we have new reasons to be concerned.  GEDmatch was a nonprofit company free for users who hoped to explore their family histories. In contrast, Verogen is a next-generation sequencing business in the forensic genomics market. It has been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to create DNA profiles for the National DNA Index System, the database that combines contributions from federal, state, and local forensic laboratories. Verogen CEO Brett Williams has made clear he sees GEDmatch as a crime-fighting tool—a “molecular eyewitness” that will enable law enforcement to solve violent crimes.  There may be some benefits to Verogen taking over GEDmatch. For instance, Williams has promised he will improve the system’s security, which is important, given that in November, computer scientists revealed serious vulnerabilities. This is significant: If DNA gets into the wrong hands, experts say we can expect a parade of horribles, including having our genes held ransom, people pretending to be our relatives asking for our help, and our data being sold to insurance companies and drug manufacturers. Williams has also said that he will keep the same opt-in standard that GEDmatch adopted in June 2019.  But as Rogers’ tenure demonstrated, GEDmatch’s terms and conditions are subject to change—and that was before a profit motive was introduced. While time will tell exactly how Verogen’s takeover will affect users, the company’s business model explicitly includes selling its services to crime labs, suggesting that future partnerships with law enforcement agencies would not be a surprise.  With no legal regulations, we have left private entities in charge of the decision-making.  After Verogen acquired GEDmatch, users were quietly informed when they logged in that the purchase had taken place, and those who were uncomfortable with the new for-profit management could delete their accounts. But many thousands of users uploaded their data to GEDmatch, forgot about it, and have never logged back in, leaving a treasure trove of genetic data for Verogen to potentially use at its discretion. While the current terms and conditions protect individuals who haven’t opted in from being subjected to law enforcement searches, Verogen could always change those policies.  With a for-profit entity that is interested in sharing genetic data at the helm, GEDmatch might well become more like Facebook, Twitter, and other for-profit social networking sites, but with access to much more vital data. We ask these sites to be responsible stewards of our information, but they are nevertheless subject to incentives to make millions by selling our data to others. Thus far, only our pictures, clicks, likes, and preferences have been monetized. Now, we’re talking about our DNA, and the potential buyer is the government.  With an ally like Verogen in control of GEDmatch, law enforcement will be able to more easily conduct dragnet searches—the genetic equivalent of stop-and-frisk. Police often do not have an individual suspect in mind when they start their search; user-sourced DNA sites give them thousands of genetic profiles to wade through to attempt to find a match.  And unfortunately, DNA searches are not foolproof. For example, police did not immediately conclude that Joseph DeAngelo was the Golden State killer—initially, two other suspects were identified. Police issued a warrant for one man in an Oregon nursing home and had him supply his DNA. In another case, police identified the wrong individual in a DNA search of a cold case. It took several anxiety-filled days before the man was exonerated by a swab of his cheek. This is all to say that the government’s power to invade genetic privacy is immense, and mistakes made in the criminal justice system can be costly.  Genetic privacy is vital: Unlike an ATM or credit card number, DNA cannot be changed. It can reveal information about us that we don’t even know ourselves—about paternity and siblings, our ethnic ancestors, and our propensity to get certain diseases. What’s more, DNA can reveal information about individuals who have not shared anything at all: A study last year found that 60 percent of white Americans can be identified through GEDmatch searches, with that number expected to rise as more people share their DNA with the system.  Verogen’s acquisition of GEDmatch should thus concern us all—even those of us who haven’t shared anything with GEDmatch. It is vital that there are clear policies about when and how genetic genealogy is used, and that those policies are created by publicly accountable institutions, not by a private for-profit entity on an ad hoc basis. The onus is on legislative bodies to draft laws to govern law enforcement searches for familial DNA matches. Potential regulations could require that law enforcement use this technique only for the most serious crimes, lower false positive identifications, and ensure that the data is stored and managed appropriately.  Additionally, a warrant should be required to search databases like GEDmatch, which would ensure a third-party judicial officer would review each case. Legislation could specify that only those who have opted-in to assist law enforcement should be subjected to a search (avoiding what occurred in November in Florida, when a judge authorized a search of the entire GEDmatch database). In addition, the law can put punitive measures in place to remedy situations when data is misused or the rules are not followed.  Without such limits, and with Verogen’s takeover, the use of genetic genealogy by police will only increase. But by articulating guidelines now, lawmakers can create boundaries that apply no matter who is in charge of genetic platforms like GEDmatch.  Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.


tass--2019-08-13--Kremlin defends law enforcement for taking tough action to curb riots

"We believe that it is absolutely unacceptable when there is disproportionate use of force by the representatives of authorities and believe it is absolutely justified when law enforcement agencies take tough actions in order to curb civil disorder," Peskov said.  MOSCOW, August 13. /TASS/. The Kremlin believes that the disproportionate use of force by police is unacceptable, but justifies tough actions of law enforcement agencies for curbing riots, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday.  The Kremlin spokesman emphasized that any lawsuits filed should be investigated and later considered by the court. However, he called for drawing a distinction between legitimate and authorized events and steps, which are the attempts of staging riots and involving people in them.  "These are absolutely different things. You know that both of them have taken place," Peskov stressed. "I mean an authorized rally and the attempts of organizing civil disorders."  According to Peskov, Russia’s law enforcement agencies are fulfilling their duties and are making every effort for curbing these illegitimate attempts as well as for ensuring security during legitimate and authorized events. In case an illegal rally spirals into mass riots, it can be described as "organized disorders."  The Kremlin takes note of cases involving police brutality and disobedience to police, Peskov said, adding that probes were conducted into all such incidents.  "We take note of all reports about such incidents, internal probes are conducted into all of them," he said. "We also take note of incidents when law enforcement officers have to face disobedience and violence, which is unacceptable," Peskov added.  "We have seen various videos," he went on to say. "Law enforcement officers indeed had to face violence. Investigations are underway aimed at confirming or denying that there were attempts to disobey police orders and resist police officers," the Kremlin spokesman noted.  At the same time, he emphasized that the presidential administration "cannot and should not issue verdicts on the matter." "Only courts have the right to make decisions," Peskov stressed.  Peskov has cautioned against being guided by emotions when evaluating the situation around the election to the Moscow parliament and the steps of law enforcement personnel at the rallies, while advising to wait for the results of internal checks and the courts’ rulings.  "We cannot and should not be guided by emotions. That’s why the phases like ‘unlawful use of force,’ ‘unlawful exclusion from elections,’ ‘unlawful arrests’ and so on can be only used by agencies after an internal review or the courts. You and I cannot do this and have no right to do this," Peskov said.  Peskov said first the lawsuits should be filed and the rulings should be passed in order to describe the events.  Russian President Vladimir Putin is paying attention to the rallies in Moscow but does not consider them to be anything striking, Peskov said.  He underlined that "the president naturally is paying attention to what’s happening." At the same time, Peskov stressed that he is talking about "certain rallies of different nature" that are taking place in the capital. "Russia sees an enormous amount of events happening daily, which the president is paying attention to and he should not deliver his opinion on each of them," he said.  The spokesman also said that Kremlin is not undertaking coordination of various agencies’ actions regarding rallies in Moscow.


tass--2019-12-19--Putin against purges in law enforcement, but for improvement in their work

MOSCOW, December 19. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin has told a news conference that he is against "purges" in the law enforcement agencies, but believes that their operation needs improvement and public control.  "As far as purges are concerned, we’ve been through this in our not very long distant past. And it looks like we should better have no more of them again," Putin said. At the same time he believes that the operation of the law enforcement must be improved and controlled by the public.  "This is quite obvious," he said.  All law enforcement agencies have their own internal security divisions. Putin believes that all of them are rather effective. He disagreed with claims the law enforcement organizations were adamant not to lose face under any circumstance.  "It is totally incorrect. True, there may be situations in which bosses try to cover up somebody, but let me say once again that internal security units are rather effective and a considerable number of criminal cases - there are many of them - which are opened against law enforcement personnel, are based on checks carried out by internal security units," Putin said.


thedenverpost--2019-02-22--Law enforcement planning to search Fountain landfill for Kelsey Berreths remains

Law enforcement planning to search Fountain landfill for Kelsey Berreth’s remains

Law enforcement investigators will soon search a Fountain landfill for the remains of Kelsey Berreth after a witness in a murder case said the accused killer may have thrown her body in the dump, police said.  The search at Midway Landfill for Berreth’s remains or evidence linked to the case will begin Tuesday and could last between 16 and 80 days, Woodland Park Police Department Cmdr. Christopher Adams said.  Equipment needed to search the landfill will begin assembling at the landfill on Monday, a news release stated.  “I want to express my gratitude to Waste Management for working so closely with our investigators as we continue our efforts to locate Kelsey,” Woodland Park Police chief Miles De Young said in a statement.  According to the news release, Woodland Park police continue to receive tips about locating Berreth’s remains.  Patrick Frazee, 32, has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of solicitation to commit murder, and tampering with a dead body.  Berreth’s body has not been found.  Idaho nurse Krystal Kenney Lee, 32, told a Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent that Frazee confessed to beating Berreth to death with a bat in her Woodland Park home.  Lee said she watched Frazee place a black bag he said contained Berreth’s remains and the bat in an animal watering trough and light it on fire at his ranch.  When flames melted the plastic bag, Lee saw a lump she believed was Berreth’s body, she told authorities.  Lee also said she cleaned Berreth’s home after the killing and threw blood-covered items, including toys, into the flames. Some of those things may not have been completely consumed by the blaze.


abcnews--2019-12-03--AP source: Los Angeles police officer fondled dead woman

A Los Angeles police officer is under investigation after a random review of body camera footage showed him fondling a dead woman’s breasts, according to a person briefed on the incident.  The Los Angeles Police Department officer and a partner had responded to a report of a body at a residence, the person said. The officer fondled the corpse’s breasts when his partner was not in the room.  The person, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the case and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said officials conducted a random inspection of the officer’s body camera videos and found the incriminating footage.  The officer had disabled the body camera but the act was caught on video when he turned it back on, the person said, because the devices have two-minute buffering periods to capture what happens right before they are activated.  Josh Rubenstein, an LAPD spokesman, would not comment on the allegation but said the unidentified officer has been removed from active duty while the incident is investigated.  “If this allegation is true, then the behavior exhibited by this officer is not only wrong, but extremely disturbing, and does not align with the values we, as police officers, hold dear and these values include respect and reverence for the deceased,” the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers, said in a statement. “This behavior has no place in law enforcement."  The person did not know when the incident occurred or when it was discovered. It is not clear how long the officer fondled the corpse or what prompted him to turn the camera back on.  The Los Angeles Times first reported the incident.


abcnews--2019-12-06--Detroit police officer suspended after cop's death retires

A Detroit police officer responding to a home invasion was fatally shot by a man hiding in the basement, while a senior officer stayed at his patrol car a block away, investigators said.  Sgt. Ronald Kidd, a 21-year veteran, suddenly retired this week after Chief James Craig suspended and publicly shamed him, saying it was the second time that he had ignored critical duties by refusing to get involved. Police from across the country attended a funeral Friday for the officer who was killed.  The fatal shooting came a few weeks after two off-duty Georgia officers were fired for running from gunfire at a party. Elsewhere, a deputy is facing charges for not trying to stop a gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  Experts said it’s hard to know how common it is for officers to look the other way in the face of risk because there are no statistics. But danger, they add, is part of the job.  “You don’t just get a bulletproof vest and a gun because they make you look like a real man. You get them because they’re unfortunately part of the tools of the trade,” said Seth Stoughton, a former police officer who trained officers and now teaches at University of South Carolina law school.  Detroit officer Rasheen McClain, 46, was killed and another officer was injured when they entered a house on Nov. 20. An ex-convict, JuJuan Parks, was ultimately arrested and charged with murder.  Before entering, McClain sought help from a supervisor but didn’t get any and decided to make his own decisions, Craig said.  Kidd, meanwhile, was a block away, telling a younger officer that “we should get cover,” according to video reviewed by the chief.  “I know of no time where I’ve seen this kind of neglect,” Craig said of Kidd. “And, some could infer from my statements, maybe some cowardice.”  Steve Dolunt, who retired as assistant chief in 2017, said the sergeant’s job would be to set up a perimeter and decide how to proceed against a suspected gunman inside a house.  “I’m blown away by this,” Dolunt said.  Kidd’s attorney, Odey Meroueh, said the sergeant's actions were clouded that night by post-traumatic stress disorder. He said PTSD was only recently diagnosed and led to Kidd’s retirement this week.  “He couldn’t have done anything to save the officer,” Meroueh said Friday. “There was an immediate and substantial response to the scene by his fellow officers such that his direct involvement could not have possibly altered the tragic events. That’s my understanding of the situation.”  It wasn’t the first time that Kidd was accused of neglecting his job. A discipline board wanted to fire him in 2014 after he stood by while a mentally ill man attacked a female officer, Craig said. But Kidd survived with a suspension and was subsequently promoted to sergeant, under union rules.  “Someone signed my name and it was not my signature. ... I was stunned,” Craig said of the suspension agreement.  Kidd remains under investigation in the incident that led to McClain’s death.  “As to whether or not his inaction amounts to criminal misconduct will ultimately be the decision of the prosecutor when our investigation is finished,” Craig told The Detroit News.  In suburban Atlanta, Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill recently fired two officers who were accused of running from gunfire while working off-duty at a private party. A teenager was killed.  “You do not want officers who approach too aggressively and officers who refuse to approach at all,” he said. “If you end up on either side of those extremes it’s a problem.”  Meanwhile, law enforcement officers filled Greater Grace Temple for McClain’s funeral Friday. Craig promoted him to sergeant posthumously, describing McLain as an “American hero who will never be forgotten.”


abcnews--2019-12-07--Alabama police officer killed in drug-related shooting

An Alabama police officer was killed Friday during a drug-related shooting, authorities said, making him the sixth law enforcement officer in the state slain in the line of duty this year.  The officer died at a hospital after being shot in the heart, Huntsville Police Chief Mark McMurray said during a news conference Friday evening. Authorities did not release the name of the slain officer, but said he was a 20-year veteran of the department.  Police said the suspect was captured after a short foot chase.  McMurray said the shooting occurred during a task force operation after investigators learned of a large amount of drugs being delivered. He said the suspect “drew a gun and immediately fired on the officer.”  The officer was wearing a bulletproof vest, but the bullet still managed to strike the officer in the heart, the police chief said. He said the officer’s name would be released Saturday.  Lt. Michael Johnson, a spokesman for the department, said the shooting is a stark reminder of the danger faced by police officers.  Six Alabama law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in 2019, according to numbers released by the Alabama attorney general's office following last month's fatal shooting of Lowndes County Sheriff John Williams.  “I am grieved to hear of the Huntsville Police Officer killed in the line of duty and extend my deepest sympathies and prayers to his family for their unimaginable loss. It has been an exceptionally tough year for our law enforcement community, and this will be felt across our state," Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said in a statement.  Although the officer was not publicly named, U.S. Attorney Jay Town said the officer was known for his dedication and professionalism.  “We must now direct our prayers to his grieving family and pull together in full support of the Huntsville Police Department and law enforcement everywhere who lost another brother of the badge tonight. I am beyond grief.”


abcnews--2019-12-08--Police: Slain Arkansas officer 'ambushed' in patrol vehicle

A man who “was looking for an officer to kill” drove into a police parking lot in northwestern Arkansas, approached an officer who was sitting in a patrol car and shot him point-blank in the head, police said Sunday.  Officer Stephen Carr, 27, was “ambushed and executed" late Saturday outside Fayetteville Police Department headquarters, Chief Mike Reynolds said.  Reynolds said two officers ran outside after hearing gunshots behind the police department at about 9:42 p.m. Saturday and confronted an armed suspect, who they shot and killed. Reynolds identified the suspect as London Phillips, 35, of Fayetteville.  Police said they don't know why he did it but that they believe Phillips set out to kill a police officer.  “All I know is that this was a cowardly act. I have no information that leads me to believe that he targeted this officer specifically. He was looking for an officer to kill," Reynolds said during a news conference Sunday.  Reynolds said Phillips used a 9 mm Taurus pistol and had two boxes of ammunition with him.  Fayetteville police had a “brief history” with Phillips, Reynolds said. Police received a call in December 2018 about Phillips impersonating a police officer, he said. In April, Phillips pawned a gun at a local pawn shop. Reynolds said the owner of the shop would not return the gun because Phillips had a medical marijuana card, which disqualifies someone from possessing a gun in Arkansas.  Reynolds became choked up and appeared to fight back tears during the news conference. He said Carr was from Texas and had joined the Fayetteville police department about 2 1/2 years ago. He was a patrol officer who was assigned to the entertainment district.  “He was an all-American boy," he said. “He came from a law enforcement family. He knew what the job was about and he just wanted to serve his community.”  Reynolds said there has been an outpouring of shock, disbelief and support from people in Fayetteville and the surrounding area.  “”I think it just proves that we’re not immune and that officers are being targeted every day throughout our country. It’s just unfortunate," he said.  Fayetteville police have asked the Washington County Sheriff's Office and the FBI to investigate. A spokeswoman for the sheriff's office declined to release details of the investigation Sunday.  Police did not immediately release the names of the two officers who shot Phillips. Under city and police department policy, both officers have been placed on administrative leave until Reynolds can review the results of the investigation.  The fatal Arkansas shooting followed the shooting death of a Houston police officer Saturday night.


activistpost--2019-02-07--Alabama Police Will Not Allow Poor Drivers To Leave The State

If you are too poor to pay a traffic ticket or a fine in Alabama the police will not let you leave the state.  You read that right, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency will issue poor people “hardship drivers  licenses” but you cannot leave.  The mass media is falling all over themselves praising the new law, saying “this rule could help tens of thousands of people, over 20,000 alone had their licenses suspended just an for inability to pay for fines and fees that were assets to them,” said Dev Wakeley.  “They will be able to drive to work to school to medical appointments, to civic appointments or civic organization events as well as you know to go out and vote or if they need to do household chores or things of that nature,” says Captain Jon Archer of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency. (Source)  Captain Archer confirms that poor people will not be allowed to leave Alabama.  Hardship drivers licenses exist in every state and are mostly used for minors and DUI offenders; they are not used to punish the poor.  An article in Alabama Today claims police have begun accepting applications to restore limited driving privileges to thousands of motorists who simply are too poor to pay their ticket.  According to Senate Bill 55 the police will only give poor people a hardship drivers license if they do not pose a risk to public safety.  Welcome to American policing where one’s inability to pay a ticket or a fine is now a risk to “public safety.”  Before Alabamians are allowed to drive again, Big Brother wants to know things like where you work and go to church. They also want to know the EXACT routes you will take to get there.


activistpost--2019-04-15--Four Steps Facebook Should Take to Counter Police Sock Puppets

Despite Facebook’s repeated warnings that law enforcement is required to use “authentic identities” on the social media platform, cops continue to create fake and impersonator accounts to secretly spy on users. By pretending to be someone else, cops are able to sneak past the privacy walls users put up and bypass legal requirements that might require a warrant to obtain that same information.  The most recent examples—and one of the most egregious—was revealed by The Guardian this week. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security executed a complex network of dummy Facebook profiles and pages to trick immigrants into registering with a fake college, The University of Farmington. The operation netted more than 170 arrests. Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection issued a privacy impact assessment that encourages investigators to conceal their social media accounts.  Last fall, after the Memphis Police Department was caught using fake profiles to monitor Black Lives Matter activists, Facebook added new language to its law enforcement guidelines emphasizing that this practice was not permitted. Facebook also removed the offending accounts and sent Memphis a stern warning not to do it again. However, Facebook has proven resistant to sending warning letters to every agency caught red-handed; recently it turned down a request by EFF that it confront the San Francisco Police Department after court records revealed its use of fake accounts in criminal investigations.  This latest DHS investigation uncovered by The Guardian, as well as The Root’s report revealing other agencies that authorize undercover cops to friend people on Facebook, indicates that much more needs to be done.  EFF is now calling on Facebook to escalate the matter with law enforcement in the United States. Facebook should take the following actions to address the proliferation of fake/impersonator Facebook accounts operated by law enforcement, in addition to suspending the fake accounts.  Facebook’s practice of taking down these individual accounts when they learn about them from the press (or from EFF) is insufficient to deter what we believe is a much larger iceberg beneath the surface. We often only discover the existence of law enforcement fake profiles months, if not years, after an investigation has concluded. These four changes are relatively light lifts that would enhance transparency and establish real consequences for agencies that deliberately violate the rules.  As EFF’s senior investigative researcher, Dave Maass is a muckraker/noisemaker, covering issues related to police surveillance, free speech, transparency, and government accountability. In addition to leading deep-dive investigations, Dave coordinates large-scale public records campaigns, advocates on state legislation, and compiles The Foilies, EFF’s annual tongue-in-cheek awards for outrageous responses to FOIA requests. He sometimes represents EFF in digital rights-themed cosplay at Dragon Con, and he edited EFF’s first science fiction collection, Pwning Tomorrow.  He also researches virtual reality as part of the team that developed Spot the Surveillance, EFF’s first VR experience. Contact him with questions or information on police technology (e.g. automated license plate readers, biometric identification), prisoner rights, or public records laws. Dave is currently Visiting Professor of Media Technology at the University of Nevada, Reno Reynolds School of Journalism. This article was sourced from EFF.org.


activistpost--2019-04-16--Police Use Drones To Spy On Suspicious People At Potential Crime Scenes

Police Use Drones To Spy On Suspicious People At “Potential Crime Scenes”

For years, law enforcement has been claiming that drones will only be used for natural disasters, crime scene investigations, car accidents and rescue operations.  That is the bill of goods being sold to the public, but it is all a lie.  A perfect example of how law enforcement promises the public one thing and, after time passes, uses it for something else is taking place in Texas at the Memorial Villages Police Department (MVPD).  Two years ago, Click2Houston reported how the MVPD claimed that they would only use drones for “better emergency response during disasters.” They also used police officer and UAV pilot Larry Boggus to solidify their claim that drones would only be used for natural disasters saying, “drones are a huge asset for us because very quickly we were able to see the amount of houses that were damaged” during a 2018 storm.  I love it when police departments provide comic relief to prove my point.  It only took one year for the MVPD to prove their “Boggus” claim that drones would only be used during emergencies was a lie. (Pun intended.)  Last week, Click2Houston revealed that the MVPD is using drones to respond to home alarms and to identify suspicious people.  When police use drones to respond to home alarms, don’t think for one second that they will only use them to fly over that particular home. When police respond to a possible break-in using a patrol car, they will typically drive around the neighborhood looking for suspicious people and possible signs of forced entry.  So what do you think police will use drones for?  All across the country their are numerous examples of police using drones to spy on crowds, but a Harvard Law School article titled “Drones as Crime-Fighting Tools in 2020: Legal and Normative Considerations” warned that the Boston Police Department’s plan to use “observation warrants” to justify spying on the public is a harbinger of what is to come.  As the video above explains, sending police drones to investigate “potential crimes” means that everyone is a potential suspect. Police will use drones to spy on people’s homes, backyards and streets, looking for suspicious people, essentially turning our Bill of Rights into a paper tiger.  A perfect example of our Bill of Rights being turned into a paper tiger is the use of Stingrays. Law enforcement has been using Stingrays to intercept millions of innocent phone conversations and texts without a warrant.  Which is exactly how law enforcement plans to use drones.  Police Stingrays and drones are designed for mass surveillance and do not care if they spy on innocent people.  As Andrew Ferguson, a David A. Clarke School of Law professor warned, “once you have flying cameras available, they will likely be used beyond the pilot project,” Ferguson said. “They will fly more and capture more data. This is a perfect example of how big data surveillance will change the power balance between citizens and police and erode community trust.” How often do police respond to false alarms? A 2014 study by the Statesman found that 90% percent or 9 out of 10 home alarms are false alarms.  False alarms are so common that some police departments charge homeowners $300.00 to as much as $500.00 for responding to them. To put it another way, a Google search of “police respond to false alarms” returned 9.4 million hits. So there is no question that launching a police drone to investigate millions of false alarms is a bad idea. Allowing law enforcement to use drones to investigate potential crimes, suspicious people or conduct observation warrants will have a negative effect on Americans’ freedoms. You can read more at the MassPrivateI blog, where this article first appeared.


activistpost--2019-04-22--US Police Refuse to Stop Creating Fake Profiles on Facebook

Local, state, and federal law enforcement are refusing to comply with Facebook’s policy against law enforcement creating fake social media accounts.  A new report by The Guardian details how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has violated Facebook policy by creating fake social media accounts connected to a fake university created to identify illegal immigrants. ICE agents created profiles of individuals alleged to have attended the fictional University of Farmington as part of their attempt to ensnare students in an immigration scam. More than 600 students, most of whom were Indian citizens, were indicted in the federal government’s operation.  Starting in 2015, undercover agents built the Michigan school’s facade, with a fake website, government documents that confirmed it was eligible to enroll foreign students and fake Facebook accounts, including supposed staff members. In a January indictment, the government accused students of enrolling in the school to stay in the country illegally, knowing that the institution was a sham. In a network of suspicious Facebook accounts linked to the University of Farmington, the college’s alleged president, Ali “AJ” Milani, liked the Michigan Jaguars sports club and had a 51-person friend list that was mostly people from south Asia, despite Milani ostensibly living in Detroit. Carey Ferrante, who did not list any link to the school but had interactions with persons interested in it, posted three photos of herself that were actually stock photos, including one of a faceless woman in a bikini, and sent Facebook messages to at least one person.  Edward Bajoka, an attorney representing eight of the individuals indicted, told The Guardian that it has been confirmed the U.S. government own the profiles of Ali “AJ” Milani and Carey Ferrante. Khaalid Walls, ICE’s North-East Regional Communications Director, declined to comment on the accounts but confirmed that 172 students had been arrested for civil immigration violations.  Meanwhile, a Facebook representative told The Guardian that law enforcement are subject to the same policies that require users to use their real name on Facebook. “Operating fake accounts is not allowed, and we will act on any violating accounts,” the representative said.  ICE has previously been exposed for creating another fake university, University of Northern New Jersey, in order to make arrests. This is also not the first time that law enforcement has been caught in the act of creating fake social media profiles in an attempt to catch potential criminals. Law enforcement in Ohio, New York, Georgia, and Nebraska have admitted to allowing investigators to use aliases and undercover profiles. In addition, the Memphis Police Department was previously caught using fake profiles to monitor Black Lives Matter activists.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has called on Facebook to improve their standards for dealing with U.S. law enforcement. “Facebook’s practice of taking down these individual accounts when they learn about them from the press (or from EFF) is insufficient to deter what we believe is a much larger iceberg beneath the surface,” EFF writes. “We often only discover the existence of law enforcement fake profiles months, if not years, after an investigation has concluded.”  EFF is calling for four specific changes to “enhance transparency and establish real consequences for agencies that deliberately violate the rules.” These changes include publishing data on the number of fake law enforcement accounts, including the agency they belong to and any action taken. EFF is also calling for Facebook to alert users and groups that have interacted with said fake accounts. Facebook should also amend its “Amended Terms for Federal, State and Local Governments in the United States” to make it clear that law enforcement are agreeing not to operate fake profiles on the platform. Whether or not Facebook chooses to enact the EFF’s suggestions remains to be seen. However, it is already clear that law enforcement has no qualms about lying, breaking policies—or even the law—to achieve their goals. The American people should not depend on law enforcement to be an example of moral and ethical behavior. The only way these types of situations will end is for the people to stand up and push back against platforms like Facebook. Until that time social media users need to practice better security culture and be discerning when accepting new social media friends and accounts. This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed. Provide, protect and profit from what is coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.