Posts Tagged ‘government overreach’

h/t Brittius
The FBI says this program is not secret, but the planes are registered to fictitious companies. The planes also can capture information from cell phones in the area.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.

The planes’ surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge’s approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, an AP review found.

Aerial surveillance represents a changing frontier for law enforcement, providing what the government maintains is an important tool in criminal, terrorism or intelligence probes. But the program raises questions about whether there should be updated policies protecting civil liberties as new technologies pose intrusive opportunities for government spying.

U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department’s inspector general.

“The FBI’s aviation program is not secret,” spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. “Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes.” Allen added that the FBI’s planes “are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance.”

But the planes can capture video of unrelated criminal activity on the ground that could be handed over for prosecutions.

Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they’re not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare.

Details confirmed by the FBI track closely with published reports since at least 2003 that a government surveillance program might be behind suspicious-looking planes slowly circling neighborhoods. The AP traced at least 50 aircraft back to the FBI, and identified more than 100 flights since late April orbiting both major cities and rural areas.

One of the planes, photographed in flight last week by the AP in northern Virginia, bristled with unusual antennas under its fuselage and a camera on its left side. A federal budget document from 2010 mentioned at least 115 planes, including 90 Cessna aircraft, in the FBI’s surveillance fleet.

The FBI also occasionally helps local police with aerial support, such as during the recent disturbance in Baltimore that followed the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who sustained grievous injuries while in police custody. Those types of requests are reviewed by senior FBI officials.

The surveillance flights comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said. Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance.

Details about the flights come as the Justice Department seeks to navigate privacy concerns arising from aerial surveillance by unmanned aircrafts, or drones. President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance, and has called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified programs.

“These are not your grandparents’ surveillance aircraft,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, calling the flights significant “if the federal government is maintaining a fleet of aircraft whose purpose is to circle over American cities, especially with the technology we know can be attached to those aircraft.”

During the past few weeks, the AP tracked planes from the FBI’s fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus the District of Columbia, most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft. These included parts of Houston, Phoenix, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and Southern California.

Evolving technology can record higher-quality video from long distances, even at night, and can capture certain identifying information from cellphones using a device known as a “cell-site simulator” — or Stingray, to use one of the product’s brand names. These can trick pinpointed cellphones into revealing identification numbers of subscribers, including those not suspected of a crime.

Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare, although the AP found in recent weeks FBI flights orbiting large, enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection. Those included above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota.

After The Washington Post revealed flights by two planes circling over Baltimore in early May, the AP began analyzing detailed flight data and aircraft-ownership registrations that shared similar addresses and flight patterns. That review found some FBI missions circled above at least 40,000 residents during a single flight over Anaheim, California, in late May, according to Census data and records provided by the website FlightRadar24.com.

Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc., which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns.

“Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams,” the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $5.1 million for the program.

Recently, independent journalists and websites have cited companies traced to post office boxes in Virginia, including one shared with the Justice Department. The AP analyzed similar data since early May, while also drawing upon aircraft registration documents, business records and interviews with U.S. officials to understand the scope of the operations.

The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names — as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department — are listed on public documents and in government databases.

At least 13 front companies that AP identified being actively used by the FBI are registered to post office boxes in Bristow, Virginia, which is near a regional airport used for private and charter flights. Only one of them appears in state business records.

Included on most aircraft registrations is a mysterious name, Robert Lindley. He is listed as chief executive and has at least three distinct signatures among the companies. Two documents include a signature for Robert Taylor, which is strikingly similar to one of Lindley’s three handwriting patterns.

The FBI would not say whether Lindley is a U.S. government employee. The AP unsuccessfully tried to reach Lindley at phone numbers registered to people of the same name in the Washington area since Monday.

Law enforcement officials said Justice Department lawyers approved the decision to create fictitious companies to protect the flights’ operational security and that the Federal Aviation Administration was aware of the practice. One of the Lindley-headed companies shares a post office box openly used by the Justice Department.

Such elusive practices have endured for decades. A 1990 report by the then-General Accounting Office noted that, in July 1988, the FBI had moved its “headquarters-operated” aircraft into a company thathttps://wordpress.com/post/71052805/new/ wasn’t publicly linked to the bureau.

The FBI does not generally obtain warrants to record video from its planes of people moving outside in the open, but it also said that under a new policy it has recently begun obtaining court orders to use cell-site simulators. The Obama administration had until recently been directing local authorities through secret agreements not to reveal their own use of the devices, even encouraging prosecutors to drop cases rather than disclose the technology’s use in open court.

A Justice Department memo last month also expressly barred its component law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones “solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment” and said they are to be used only in connection with authorized investigations and activities. A department spokeswoman said the policy applied only to unmanned aircraft systems rather than piloted airplanes.

Our children live in a world where they pass through a military-style checkpoint every morning and afternoon for school. Every time their parents take them to Tucson shopping. Every time they go to a friends house in Amado, or to Karate in Sahuarita. Men carry guns, dogs bark, lights flash.

dozens-shutdown-us-border-checkpoint

Amado, AZ — In one of the most uplifting acts of civil disobedience this year, the residents of Arivaca, Arizona showed an astonishing level of dedication to freedom. Approximately 100 residents turned out for the public hearing in which citizens demanded the unconstitutional and heavily militarized checkpoint, more than 25 miles inland on Arivaca road be shut down.

According to BorderCommunityAction.org:

Community members called on US Congressman Grijalva to deliver on his promise to hold a federal hearing on the issue before Department of Homeland Security officials.Arivaca residents and supporters gathered at 10am and peacefully proceeded to the checkpoint to hold the hearing. Upon entering the checkpoint, they were met with a blockade of armed Border Patrol agents who used physical force, attempting to move the residents back. Despite this intimidation, protesters held their ground and sat-in while community members held a public hearing calling for the removal of the checkpoint.

From elderly men and women to the children, the attendees remained unfazed in the face of this tyranny. Many of the residents voiced their concern over the entirely unnecessary and despotic checkpoint.

Local business owner Maggie Milinovich said, “our reverse-gated community is a barrier to tourists…this checkpoint is choking our community.”

Carlotta Wray spoke about her experiences being racially profiled by Border Patrol, saying, “because of our brown skin, me and most of my family have to reach into our pockets for ID at the checkpoint to prove that we’re legal citizens in our own town, I’m sick of it.”

Patty Miller said of the ongoing military-style presence of Border Patrol in the Arivaca community, “it’s like a war zone all the time.”

The event was organized by the Community Organization to End Border Patrol Checkpoints. Their mission is described on their Facebook Page.

Arivaca, AZ is a small rural community located in the militarized zone of the border region between the United States and Mexico. With a population of about 700, Arivaca is also a vibrant loving community that cares for each other. As with many border communities, residential life in Arivaca has been deeply impacted by mass migration and the subsequent arrival of thousands of border patrol agents and expansive enforcement infrastructure to the area. Locals routinely encounter federal agents on their property, in town, on the road, or in the many helicopters flying overhead. All residents and visitors to the area must pass through an immigration checkpoint to confirm their citizenship status.And yet while living under this sizable presence of immigration enforcement for years, Arivacans routinely provide critical care and humanitarian aid to migrants in distress. This beautiful community of diverse people care about human dignity and helping others. Arivaca will not turn a blind eye to the death and suffering that occurs in our backyard by the hands of Homeland Security and the US government.

The militarization and its subsequent effect on the lives of the children in the town is well documented by the group.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dozens-turn-epic-border-checkpoint-refusal-ever/#ubYT1fkGPDuHSDWd.99

Via NC Renegade

The Kentucky 10 - The Nauglers

If the government does not like the way that you are raising your kids, they will come in and grab them at any time without giving any warning whatsoever.  Of course this is completely and totally unlawful, but it has been happening all over America.  The most recent example of this that has made national headlines is particularly egregious.  Joe and Nicole Naugler of Breckinridge County, Kentucky just had their 10 children brutally ripped away from them just because the government does not approve of how they are living their lives and how they are educating their young ones.  Let’s be very clear about this – Joe and Nicole had done nothing to violate the law whatsoever.  All of their kids were happy, healthy and very intelligent.  But because the control freaks running things in Kentucky got wind of their “off the grid lifestyle”, they have now had all of their children unlawfully abducted from them.

Read the rest @ http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/police-abduct-10-children-from-a-family-in-kentucky-because-of-their-off-the-grid-lifestyle/

According to a Federal Business Opportunities report posted today, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is planning to solicit proposals for a “license place commercial data reader service” later this month.

An official DHS statement says that the Department is not attempting to set up its own database, but to instead query existing data held in commercially available license plate reader databases.

That statement continues, saying:  https://readfomag.com/2015/04/runaround-dhs-to-purchases-access-to-license-plate-databases/

If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that state’s high court. The Court’s short but unanimous opinions helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government.

“It doesn’t matter what the context is, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search,” said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).

In this case, that context was punishment. Grady was twice convicted as a sex offender. In 2013, North Carolina ordered that, as a recidivist, he had to wear a GPS monitor at all times so that his location could be monitored. He challenged the court, saying that the tracking device qualified as an unreasonable search.

North Carolina’s highest court at first ruled that the tracker was no search at all. It’s that decision that the Supreme Court took aim at today, quoting the state’s rationale and snarking:

The only theory we discern […] is that the State’s system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court’s precedents.

Then it lists a series of Supreme Court precedents.

And there are a few, as the Court has considered the Fourth Amendment quite a bit recently. In 2012, it ruled that placing a GPS tracker on a suspect’s car, without a warrant, counted as an unreasonable search. The following year, it said that using drug-sniffing dogs around a suspect’s front porch—without a warrant and without their consent—was also unreasonable, as it trespassed onto a person’s property to gain information about them.

Both of those cases involved suspects, but the ruling Monday made clear that it extends to those convicted of crimes, too.

But much remains unclear about how the Fourth Amendment interacts with digital technology. The Court so far has only ruled on cases where location information was collected by a GPS tracker. But countless devices today collect geographic information. Smartphones often contain their own GPS monitors and can triangulate their location from nearby cell towers; electronic toll-collection systems like E-ZPass register, by default, a car’s location and when it passed through a toll road.

Lynch, the EFF attorney, said that the justices seem to know that they’ll soon to rule on whether this kind of geo-locational information is protected.

She also said that those questions are more fraught for the Court than ones just involving GPS tracker data. Some members of the Court, including Justice Antonin Scalia, argue the Fourth Amendment turns on whether the government has trespassed on someone’s private property. Other members—represented in arguments by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito—say that people have a reasonable expectation to the privacy of their location data.

For now, Monday’s ruling will force lower courts to consider whether attaching a GPS tracker to someone or something is a reasonable search, Lynch said. “It makes very clear to state courts and lower courts considering this issue that at least they have to get to that point,” she told me.

North Carolina isn’t alone in requiring past sex offenders to wear a GPS tracking device. Wisconsin also forces convicted sex offenders to wear location monitors for the rest of their lives, and Lynch said the EFF is looking at similar cases in other states. In her opinion, lifelong GPS tracking does constitute an unreasonable search. Her thinking: By the time they’re monitored, convicts have served their time and have theoretically repaid society for their crimes.

“They should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives and not be under a state of government surveillance for the rest of their lives, and that’s what a GPS tracker constitutes,” Lynch said. “Sex offenders—it’s the easiest class of people to place these kinds of punishments on, but I worry that we start with sex offenders and then we go down the line to people who’ve committed misdemeanors.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-youre-being-220522445.html

In the last few months, the citizens of Washington State have come under fire from both state and federal officials.  They have been subject to everything from surveillance to being viewed through the scope of a sniper’s rifle—manned by a fellow citizen.  The people have appealed to the governor to no avail.  According to Governor Inslee’s office, he has no jurisdiction over the federal authorities who seek to subvert liberty and control the populace.  He is incorrect, but the People accept that he is complicit in the criminal enslavement of the citizens.

The governor was served a list of grievances by We the People on 7 February 2015.  Each of those grievances constitutes a crime against the People, and against the founding documents of the state and our nation.  He ignored those grievances and did nothing.  On 25 February 2015 a citizen of Washington State was illegally arrested, detained, and interrogated as a domestic terrorist by federal officials who ignored his rights secured by the rule of law.  The governor refused to stand and serve the citizens of his state as he swore to do, instead submitting himself and the people of this state as subjects to an overreaching federal government.  On 9 March 2015, he was again called to task and the People demanded that he uphold his oath to protect and maintain the rights of the People as secured by the Constitution.  Again, the governor chose to ignore this letter and in doing so, ignored the will of the People, and their unalienable rights.

It is for this reason that the people of Washington State now appeal to the sheriffs, as the senior law enforcement official in each county.  When the system fails, it becomes their utmost duty to stand and uphold the law.  It is obvious that the system of  Constitutional law has failed; at every turn we see the blatant and gross violation of the most basic of the People’s rights.  The government is bound by the Constitution to be accountable to the People; they derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  We, the people of Washington State, reiterate our withdrawal of this consent in light of the government’s refusal to honor the limits to their power and the unlimited rights of the People.

Washington State law lays out the general duties of the county sheriff:

The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of his office, he and his deputies:

(1) Shall arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses;

Federal officials broke the peace by illegally and publicly arresting and detaining a citizen who had not committed a crime.

(2) Shall defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety;

Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson deprived the citizens of their ability to defend themselves by imposing her personal will through an illegal rule that violated their unalienable right.  In doing so, she endangered the public and safety of the people.

(3) Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law;

The sheriffs are duty-bound to stand and deliver the judge, the Homeland Security agent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, and the United States Marshal involved in this illegal arrest to justice.

(4) Shall execute all warrants delivered for that purpose by other public officers, according to the provisions of particular statutes;

Since the Judiciary of the State of Washington is complicit in these crimes and refuses to prosecute or hold accountable the persons responsible, We the People demand that the sheriffs put forth warrants for their arrest.

(5) Shall attend the sessions of the courts of record held within the county, and obey their lawful orders or directions;

Because the orders and directions of the courts are unlawful and criminal in nature, it is the duty of the sheriffs to act on behalf of the Constitution and the citizens of Washington State.

(6) Shall keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties, and quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, unlawful assemblies and insurrections, for which purpose, and for the service of process in civil or criminal cases, and in apprehending or securing any person for felony or breach of the peace, they may call to their aid such persons, or power of their county as they may deem necessary.

United States Code 18 § 242 speaks very plainly about the crime of depriving the people of their rights.  The marshal, agents, and the judge used the color of law to deprive the People; this is punishable by a year in prison.  They also, together with the snipers on the rooftops in Spokane on 6 March, used deadly force to attempt to impose their will on the People and deprive them of their rights; this is punishable by ten years in prison.  By illegally arresting and detaining citizens they have engaged in kidnapping; this is a crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

It is the duty of the sheriffs to apprehend and secure these people for the felony crime of depriving the People of their rights under the Constitution.  As the state law makes clear, the sheriff can call upon the people and the power of their respective counties for assistance in performing their duties.  If called upon, We the People will support them…in any way necessary.

We the People will no longer allow our government to treat us as subjects.  We are free men, we will act as such, and we will be treated as such.  We will hold accountable those criminals and tyrants in our government who seek to subjugate and control us. We demand that you, the sheriffs of Washington State, stand and perform your duties in accordance with the state law, the state constitution, and the Constitution of the United States of America.  If you do not, it will show that you, too, are complicit in the destruction of liberty, and therefore are its enemy.

We remain non-violent, we remain principled and peaceful, but make no mistake:

These abuses of our liberties will end now.

We will not comply.

Signed,

Liberty for All:
Kit Lange
Anthony Bosworth
Maria Bosworth
and the Patriots of Washington

http://www.patrickhenrysociety.com/open-letter-to-the-sheriffs-of-washington-state/

Photo by:  Jonathan McIntosh

Around Thanksgiving of 2014, a US Postal Service customer noticed something odd: surveillance cameras outside a local Golden, Colorado post office that were aimed to capture vehicle license plates and the faces of customers exiting the building.

Just recently, a Denver Fox TV affiliate confirmed the presence of these surveillance cameras in an investigative report. Although the US Postal Inspection Service claimed that they were for law enforcement and security, there were no surveillance cameras that captured activities at the employee entrance or loading dock at the building.

Pamela Durkee, a U.S. Postal Inspector explained in an email to FOX31, “(We) do not engage in routine or random surveillance. Cameras are deployed for law enforcement or security purposes, which may include the security of our facilities, the safety of our customers and employees, or for criminal investigations. Employees of the Postal Inspection Service are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, including protecting the privacy of the American public.”

But according to Lee Tian, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, these cameras violate the spirit of the Constitution.  “Part of being a responsible, constitutional government is explaining why it is doing surveillance on its citizens,” Tian said. “The government should not be collecting this kind of sensitive information. And it is sensitive! It’s about your relationships, your associations with other people, which can be friendship or political or religious. The idea that we give up that privacy simply because we use the U.S. mail is, I think, a silly idea.”

Tian continues: “The idea that they [law enforcement] would be able to keep that information forever and search through it whenever they want to – that seems very, very wrong to us because it means you’ll be able to accumulate over time a lot of innocent peoples’ information and then use it in the kinds of ways that would not be overseen by any kind of court or independent third party.”

ACTION ALERT! —————————–

Want to help a Forward Observer project?  Then we need photos and locations of these types of surveillance cameras at post offices around you.  Help us create a map of known locations where surveillance cameras capture the license plates and/or faces of innocent post office customers.  Send in your information to: USPS (at) readfomag (dot) com!

Las Cruces Air

The Justice Department’s newest electronic dragnet–plane-mounted “dirtboxes” that can slurp thousands of cellular phone ID’s from the air — was originally developed by the CIA to hunt terrorists in the Middle East, The Wall Street Journal reports. Now however, it’s being used domestically to track American citizens. That’s not good.

According to a new report from the WSJ, the US Marshals Service, with assistance from both the CIA and Boeing, developed these Cessna-mounted devices. They are electronic sniffers that mimic cellular tower signals to incite any cellular telephone within range to broadcast its identifying registration information. It’s essentially an aerial man-in-the-middle attack and one that has cost US taxpayers more than $100 million to create. With this information, US Marshals can effectively locate, identify, and lock on to specific cell phones — out of a sample population of thousands or even tens of thousands of devices — to within an accuracy of just three yards. What’s more, once the suspect phone is found, Marshals can then listen in on any calls originating from it. According to the WSJ, these devices have been in operation since 2007, mounted on Cessna aircraft flying out of five metropolitan airfields throughout the US and can access a majority of the US population.

This isn’t the first time that this technology has been put to use by US officials, mind you. Dirtbox technology first debuted in the Middle East where it was utilized in the hunt for terrorists in both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, this new program marks a troubling collaboration between domestic law enforcement and the nation spy agency that blurs a very important operational distinction between the two agencies.

That is, the CIA is an outward-looking agency; its purpose is to gather information from abroad regarding external threats to national security. The US Marshals (and the DOJ in general), instead is tasked with enforcing federal law here in the States. To provide the DOJ with more than a million dollars worth of equipment designed specifically to hunt people that aren’t protected by the Constitution and then allow federal officials to listen in on calls may conform to the letter of the law — as both the CIA and DOJ have asserted to the WSJ — but it certainly doesn’t conform to the spirit. And it could very well lead to further and more aggressive domestic surveillance efforts in the future.

Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have already filed FOIA requests regarding the program and have requested “additional information about the Department of Justice’s and Department of Homeland Security’s acquisition, possession, and use of cell site simulators deployed on aircraft” ahead of any further legal action.

We’ve already seen that the Feds have very few qualms about utilizing digital dragnets like PRISM. This Dirtbox technology appears to signal a newfound readiness to apply these overreaching information gathering practices to not just our online lives but to our mobile devices as well.

Source  http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/10/the-cia-is-giving-its-surveillance-tech-to-us-law-enforcement/

 

Orwell’s Big Brother on ‘roids

Moreover, despite the insistence by government agents that DNA is infallible, New York Times reporter Andrew Pollack makes a clear and convincing case that DNA evidence can, in fact, be fabricated. Israeli scientists “fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva,” stated Pollack. “They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.” The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish. But for those who know their history, the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”

Robert Gore's avatarSTRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

Big Brother is collecting your DNA. From John Whitehead, at theburningplatform.com:

“The year is 2025. The population is 325 million, and the FBI has the DNA profiles of all of them. Unlike fingerprints, these profiles reveal vital medical information. The universal database arrived surreptitiously. First, the Department of Defense’s repository of DNA samples from all military personnel, established to identify remains of soldiers missing from action, was given to the FBI. Then local police across the country shadowed individuals, collecting shed DNA for the databank. On the way, thousands of innocent people were imprisoned because they had the misfortune to have race-based crime genes in their DNA samples. Sadly, it did not have to be this way. If only we had passed laws against collecting and using shed DNA….”—Professor David H. Kaye

Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta…

View original post 377 more words