tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29361741.post9057104944626520280..comments2023-12-30T05:22:27.108-05:00Comments on The New York Crank: YES, BIG BROTHER IS READING YOUR E-MAIL – AND PRETTY SOON HE'LL BE WATCHING YOUR EYEBALLS AND BODY LANGUAGE, THANKS TO MICROSOFTThe New York Crankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04489472134701718697noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29361741.post-5972554191888386572014-08-06T02:58:47.759-04:002014-08-06T02:58:47.759-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29361741.post-1804561918295329002012-06-16T16:22:37.896-04:002012-06-16T16:22:37.896-04:00Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In You...Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?<br /><br />Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.<br /> <br />It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow—the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities) and Elements that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe (might) relate to a cyber threat or crime (circumventing the Fourth Amendment) with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith.<br /> <br />CISPA does not clearly define what is an Element; or Self-protected Cyber Entity—that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.<br /><br />Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset Forfeiture Sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses) expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to initiate arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate a home/business and other assets. <br /><br />Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to a Federal Government Agency that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com