Pre- crime surveillance cameras & the secret surveillance of Americans.

A new generation of computerized 'Big Brother’ cameras are able to spot if you are a terrorist or a criminal - before you even commit a crime.

The devices are installed in places like train stations or public buildings where they scan passers by to see if they are acting suspiciously.

Using a range of in-built parameters of what is ‘normal’ the cameras then send a text message to a human guard to issue an alert - or call them. 

Manufacturers BRS Labs said it has installed the cameras at tourist attractions, government buildings and military bases in the U.S.

In its latest project BRS Labs is to install its devices on the transport system in San Francisco, which includes buses, trams and subways.

The company says will put them in 12 stations with up to 22 cameras in each, bringing the total number to 288.

The cameras will be able to track up to 150 people at a time in real time and will gradually build up a ‘memory’ of suspicious behaviour to work out what is suspicious.

BRS Labs said the cameras effective have ‘the capability to learn from what they observe’.

Its advanced features also mean it can compensate for poor light or a shaky image, further reducing the need for human supervision.

Each camera has a series of virtual ‘trip wires’ and if any activated then an alert is sent out to a human supervisor.

The relevant clip of footage is then sent over the Internet to human employees, along with a text message informing them of more details.

Speaking to Fast Company, BRS Labs President John Frazzini said its technology involves 11 patents which deal with helping the machines to learn.

He added that in the case of the San Francisco cameras, the footage will actually be turned into code before being analyzed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2154861/U-S-surveillance-cameras-use-eyes-pre-crimes-detecting-suspicious-behaviour-alerting-guards.html

30,000 secret surveillance orders demanded annually to spy on Americans.

A federal judge estimates that his fellow federal judges issue a total of 30,000 secret electronic surveillance orders each year—and the number is probably growing. Though such orders have judicial oversight, few emerge from any sort of adversarial proceeding and many are never unsealed at all. Those innocent of any crime are unlikely to know they have ever been the target of an electronic search.

In a new paper, called "Gagged, Sealed & Delivered" (PDF), US Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith bashes this culture of continuing secrecy. (Magistrate judges are important members of the federal judiciary; they handle many of the more routine judicial matters, such as warrant applications and initial case management.) In his work as a judge, Smith has become dismayed by the huge number of electronic surveillance orders he sees and by the secrecy that accompanies them.

When police execute a traditional search warrant, they generally bring with them a copy of that warrant and show it to the homeowner or target of the search. That's not always the case, of course; sometimes warrants remain sealed while a case is in progress so as not to tip off a suspect.

Digital "warrant-like" requests to access stored e-mail in an online account, or to wiretap an Internet connection, or to obtain "pen register" information, or to track a cell phone, are obtained from magistrate judges, many times in secret dockets that don't even appear in the federal government's official PACER document system. They come after one-sided ("ex parte") proceedings in which only the government is heard. And they are generally sealed, only to be unsealed once a criminal case is filed. If no such charges are ever brought, the search warrants and the affidavits defending them can remain buried in the murkiest bits of the federal court system; even knowing that they exist can be a challenge. ISPs, which are often targets of such orders, may also be forbidden from disclosing them.
 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/30000-secret-surveillance-orders-approved-each-year-judge-estimates/

 "Where is the right to privacy? It doesn't exist if you're a muslim." 
A lawsuit alleging that the NYPD violated the constitutional rights of New Jersey's Muslim community through a massive CIA-assisted surveillance program, which was first revealed by the Associated Press. Documents released by the AP show that beginning in 2002 the NYPD covertly monitored Muslim neighborhoods, mosques, and businesses. The case is the first to challenge the NYPD's sweeping surveillance program.

The case was brought by California-based Muslim Advocates, a group led by Farhana Khera, a former aide to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.). The suit represents a growing conflict over the legality of post-9/11 security tactics that critics allege amount to racial profiling of Muslim Americans. And the NYPD's sweeping program provides an appropriate test case of law enforcement authority in this arena. While New York City officials like Mayor Michael Bloomberg have said the program was legal and that the NYPD was "following leads" and not profiling on the basis of religion, the AP notes that there is "no indication that criminal leads prompted any of the [NYPD surveillance] reports." The documents themselves contain maps showing the locations of mosques and dossiers on Muslim-owned businesses.
 
The NYPD documents show that the department scrutinized Muslim student organizations all over the region, including at local universities. "It was shocking to everyone, especially on the Rutgers campus," says Moiz Mohammed, a Rutgers student who is a plaintiff in the suit. "After that point onwards, I was more conscious of my religious practices, I made sure no one was around when I was praying."

The NYPD monitoring effort has sparked fears among New Jersey Muslims that they could be targeted in sting operations, which have become a staple of post-9/11 terrorism cases involving the FBI. "Now we're concerned about, will someone come into the masjid and intentionally try and incite something? Will there be someone intentionally hired by law enforcement to try and bait someone into doing something they wouldn't normally do?" says Imam Deen Shareef, another plaintiff, who heads the Council of Imams of New Jersey. Two mosques represented by the council were named in NYPD documents.

The limits on the powers of law enforcement post-9/11 are anything but clear. Technically, the NYPD's authorities are governed by the so-called Handschu Guidelines, which arose from a 1971 court case involving activists who were spied on by the New York police. The guidelines specify that the NYPD is not allowed to monitor individuals without evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But subsequent legal fights over the rules have been resolved in the NYPD's favor. Avoiding the murky Handschu rules is at least part of the reason why the lawsuit was filed in New Jersey, instead of New York.

The plaintiffs are hoping for a result that prevents the kind of blanket surveillance engaged in by the NYPD from happening again.
 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/muslims-nypd-spying-lawsuit

NSA wants to continue intercepting 1.7 billion messages daily.