1st November 2014                                                                                                                                                        
Home / Breaking News / Partnership between Facebook and police could make planning protests impossible
Thumbnail for 86772

Partnership between Facebook and police could make planning protests impossible

A partnership between police departments and social media sites discussed at a convention in Philadelphia this week could allow law enforcement to keep anything deemed criminal off the Internet—and even stop people from organizing protests.

A high-ranking official from the Chicago Police Department told attendees at a law enforcement conference on Monday that his agency has been working with a security chief at Facebook to block certain users from the site “if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content,” reports Kenneth Lipp, an independent journalist who attended the lecture.

Lipp reported throughout the week from the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference, and now says that a speaker during one of the presentations suggested that a relationship exists between law enforcement and social media that that could be considered a form of censorship.

According to Lipp, the unnamed CPD officer said specifically that his agency was working with Facebook to block users’ by their individual account, IP address or device, such as a cell phone or computer.

Elsewhere at the conference, Lipp said law enforcement agencies discussed new social media tools that could be implemented to aid in crime-fighting, but at the price of potentially costing citizens their freedom.

Increasingly in discussion in workshops held by and for top police executives from throughout the world (mostly US, Canada and the United Kingdom, with others like Nigeria among a total of 13,000 representatives of the law enforcement community in town for the event), and widely available from vendors, were technologies and department policies that allow agencies to block content, users and even devices – for example, ‘Geofencing’ software that allows departments to block service to a specified device when the device leaves an established virtual geographic perimeter,” Lipp wrote. “The capability is a basic function of advanced mobile technologies like smartphones, ‘OnStar’ type features that link drivers through GIS to central assistance centers, and automated infrastructure and other hardware including unmanned aerial systems that must ‘sense and respond.’”

Apple, the maker of the highly popular iPhone, applied for a patent last year which allows a third-party to compromise a wireless device and change its functionality, “such as upon the occurrence of a certain event.”

Bloggers at the website PrivacySOS.org acknowledged that former federal prosecutor-turned-Facebook security chief Joe Sullivan was scheduled to speak during the conference at a panel entitled “Helping Law Enforcement Respond to Mass Gatherings Spurred by Social Media,” and suggested that agencies could be partnering with tech companies to keep users of certain services for communicating and planning protests and other types of demonstrations. A 2011 Bloomberg report revealed that Creativity Software, a UK based company with international clients, had sold geofencing programs to law enforcement in Iran which was then used to track political dissidents. US Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) told Bloomberg that those companies should be condemned for being complicit in human rights abuses. And while this week’s convention in Philadelphia was for law enforcement agencies around the globe, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see American companies adopt similar systems.

Is Facebook really working with the police to create a kill switch to stop activists from using the website to mobilize support for political demonstrations?” the PrivacySOS blog asked. “How would such a switch function? Would Facebook, which reportedly hands over our data to government agencies at no cost, block users from posting on its website simply because the police ask them to? The company has been criticized before for blocking environmentalist and anti-GMO activists from posting, but Facebook said those were mistakes. Let’s hope this is a misunderstanding, too.”

Lipp has since pointed to a recent article in Governing magazine in which it was reported that the Chicago Police Department is using “network analysis” tools to identify persons of interest on social media.

95.9 percent of law enforcement agencies use social media, 86.1 percent for investigative purposes,” Lipp quoted from the head of the social media group for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Source: RT

  • desertspeaks

    all in violation of
    18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights; FELONY
    18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law; FELONY
    42 USC § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights; FELONY
    18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally: FELONY and a Constitutional Tort
    18 USC § 4 – Misprision of felony; FELONY and a Constitutional Tort
    18 USC § 1622 – Subornation of perjury: FELONY and a Constitutional Tort
    28 USC § 1746 – Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury: FELONY and a Constitutional Tort
    15 USC § 1122 – Liability of United States and States, and instrumentalities and officials thereof; Constitutional Tort

    For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
    “A fact which constitutes an essential element of a cause of action cannot be left to inference.”
    Roberts v. Roberts, 81 C.A.2d 871, 185 P.2d 381
    “Matters of substance must be presented by direct averment and not by way of recital.”
    Stefani v. Southern Pacific Co. (1932), 119 C.A. 69, 5 P.2d 946
    U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431 a statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and lowers courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades.

    A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d 41, 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (1998) (citing Bracy, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793). “Fairness at trial requires not only the absence of actual bias but also the absence of the probability of bias.” **971 *1001 Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955)). “To this end, no person is permitted to judge cases in which he or she has an interest in the outcome.” Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999. “ ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law.’ ” Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 51, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (quotingTumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749

    Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.”

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

    “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void;” and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425.

    “When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void.” 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.

    “[p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936)

    “Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby.” (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256)

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

    “State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

    “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

    “Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority.” The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947)

    Black’s Law 4th edition; High Crime

    High crimes
    High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral
    and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and
    equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical
    circumstance, do not fall within the definition
    of “felony.” State v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16
    Am.Dec. 68. They are the more serious or aggravated
    misdemeanors; those more nearly allied
    and equal in guilt to felony, but which do not fall
    within its definition. Firmara v. Gardner, 86
    Conn. 434, 85 A. 670, 672.

    MISDEMEANOR. Offenses lower than felonies
    and generally those punishable by fine or imprisonment
    otherwise than in penitentiary. People
    v. Harshbarger, 296 Ill.App. 397, 16 N.E.2d 247,
    248.
    An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
    either forbidding or commanding it. State v. Magee Pub.
    Co., 29 N.M. 455, 224 P. 1028, 1031, 38 A.L.R. 142; State v.
    Jackson, 142 La. 540, 77 So. 196, 197, L.R.A.1918B, 1178.
    In the English law, “misdemeanor” is generally used in
    contradistinction to “felony ;” and misdemeanors comprehend
    all indictable offenses which do not amount to felony,
    as libels, conspiracies, attempts, and solicitations to corn
    mit felonies, etc. Brown. People v. Upson, 79 Hun 87, 29
    N.Y.Supp. 615; In re Bergin, 31 Wis. 386; Walsh v. People,
    65 Ill. 65, 16 Am. Rep. 569.
    Under modern statutes the distinction between felonies
    and misdemeanors is not whether the offense is infamous,
    but whether it is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary
    or capitally, in which case it is a “felony” ; otherwise
    a “misdemeanor.” Jones v. Brinkley, 174 N.C. 23, 93
    S.E. 372, 373; Lee Lewis, Inc., v. Dosch, 193 Ky. 163, 235
    S.W. 355, 356.

    MALFEASANCE. Evil doing; ill conduct; the
    commission of some act which is positively unlawful;
    the doing of an act which is wholly wrongful
    and unlawful; the doing of an act which person
    ought not to do at all or the unjust performance of
    some act which the party had no right or which
    he had contracted not to do. Comprehensive term
    including any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts
    or interferes with the performance of official
    duties. State ex rel. Knabb v. Frater, 198
    Wash. 675, 89 P.2d 1046, 1048.
    It differs from “misfeasance” and “non-feasance,”
    (which titles see.) See 1 Chit.Pr. 9; 1 Chit.
    Pl. 134; Dudley v. Flemingsburg, 72 S.W. 327, 115
    Ky. 5, 60 L.R.A. 575, 103 Am.St.Rep. 253.

    MISFEASANCE. A misdeed or trespass. The
    improper performance of some act which a man
    may lawfully do. 3 Steph.Comm. 460. Bell v.
    Josselyn, 3 Gray, Mass. 309, 63 Am.Dec. 741.
    “Nonfeasance” means the omission of an act which a
    person ought to do; “misfeasance” is the improper doing
    of an act which a person might lawfully do; and “malfeasance”
    is the doing of an act which a person ought not
    to do at all. Proksch v. Bettendorf, 218 Iowa 1376, 257
    N.W. 383. But “misfeasance” is often used in the sense of
    “malfeasance.” Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 109; Brooks v.
    Hornbeck, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W. 162, 163.

  • desucca

    who’s the idiot who wrote this headline? like there’s never been protests before facebook? lol

Why RINF is different... And why you need to watch this...

RINF not only delivers the info you're not supposed to know, but also provides 100% free solution based videos and articles designed to help you to :

  • Improve your overall health
  • Get more financial independence
  • Stay informed & ahead of the curve
  • Become less dependent on corporations