Skip to content

03-Dec-09

Defuseheader

OPERATION DEFUSE

Mission: Empower the public so they may better understand the police/surveillance state by educating them about fusion centers and the role they play in both militarizing and federalizing our police forces.

Vision: A harmonious relationship between law enforcement and the people that promotes peace while respecting liberty.

Methodology: Throughout the year 2010 representatives from TAG and LRP will travel across the United States visiting America’s fusion centers, holding public forums and activist trainings, and meeting with representatives and local law enforcement.  The southern leg of the tour (MO, TX, NM, AZ, OK, LA, MI, AL, and GA.) was completed in January.

ning youtube twitter

Baltimore, MD Fusion Center Public Forum! Don’t miss this!!!!!

09-Mar-10

Operation Defuse

03/11/10 6:00 PM – 03/11/10 8:00 PM
Location:

Pikesville Branch, Baltimore County Public Library
1301 Reisterstown Road
Baltimore, MD 21208

Description:

On September 17, 2001, the U.S. Attorney General directed each U.S. Attorney to establish an Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council. By 2006, over 225 agencies had joined the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council of Maryland. They include federal, State and local agencies working in law enforcement, public health, and emergency planning and response, as well as the military, intelligence, and private sectors. The council consists of four components: intelligence and information sharing;aggressive investigation and prosecution; emergency preparedness and response; and training.

This is a forum to help the public better understand the police/surveillance state by educating them about Fusion Centers and the role they play in both militarizing and federalizing our police forces.

Individual Liberty is one of the foremost American principles and is a one of the planks of the Campaign for Liberty mission statement. Aside from the general relevance of the topic to our organization, the Campaign for Liberty was listed as a terrorist organization by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which is Missouri’s Fusion Center. With this in mind, we find the topic especially relevant.

The following speakers will be in attendance:

Catherine Bleish – Catherine has been an active member in many parts of the Liberty Movement, taking part in events ranging from Ron Paul’s Kansas City Campaign to the revolution March. She is speaking on behalf of the Liberty Restoration Project of which she is the Executive Director.

John Bush – John has been an ardent advocate of civil rights in his home state of Texas, fighting social issues like “No Refusal Weekends” where citizens were faced with mandatory blood sampling. He is speaking on behalf of Texans for Accountable Government of which he is the Executive Director.

Max Obuszewski – Max is an activist from Baltimore who has played a large part in various civil rights and anti-war efforts around Baltimore. Max is speaking on the behalf of the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, which listed as a terrorist on a fusion center database.

Harvey Eisenberg – Harvey is an Assistant U.S Attorney and is speaking on behalf of the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council of Maryland of which he is the coordinator. This group falls under the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, which is Maryland’s fusion center.

You can RSVP here:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ca….php?rsvp=7281

__________________
Will the Liberty Movement win this battle? – http://battleofneworleans2010.com/

http://libertymage.com/

Trey Grayson

American Police State, Operation Defuse 8, Fusion Centers & Information Sharing, Catherine Bleish

09-Mar-10

American Police State, Operation Defuse 4, Fusion Centers & Information Sharing (Chanda Panda!!!!)

05-Mar-10

American Police State, Operation Defuse 7, Fusion Centers & Information Sharing

05-Mar-10

American Police State, Operation Defuse 5, Fusion Centers & Information Sharing

05-Mar-10

Operation Defuse Team does New Orleans (teaser)

02-Mar-10

Pentagon Discloses Hundreds of Reports of Possibly Illegal Intelligence Activities

01-Mar-10

From The EFF

The Department of Defense has released more than 800 heavily-redacted pages of intelligence oversight reports, detailing activities that its Inspector General has “reason to believe are unlawful.” The reports are the latest in an ongoing document release by more than a half-dozen intelligence agencies in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by EFF in July 2009.

The reports, submitted to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) by various Department of Defense components, cover the period from 2001 through 2008. The IOB’s role within the Executive Office of the President is to ensure that each component of the intelligence community works within the Constitution and all applicable laws. As such, the Inspector General of each intelligence agency is required to submit periodic reports to the IOB, which in turn is required to forward to the Attorney General any report identifying an intelligence activity that violates the law. Intelligence oversight reporting is rarely disclosed to the public.

This new release, from various Defense components including the Army and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comes in four parts, see here. Much of the reported improper activity consisted of intelligence gathering on so-called “U.S. Persons,” including citizens, permanent residents and U.S.-based organizations. Although Defense agencies are generally prohibited from collecting such information (except as part of foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence activity), it is apparent from the unredacted reports released to EFF that some DoD components have had chronic difficulty complying with that prohibition.

Some specific items of interest include:

Part 1

  • Pg 98: A report that the Joint Forces Command, working with the FBI, improperly collected and disseminated intelligence on Planned Parenthood and a white supremacist group called the National Alliance, as part of preparations for the 2002 Olympics.
  • Pg 122-137″ A NORAD intelligence briefing improperly included intelligence on an anti-war group called Alaskans for Peace and Justice in 2005.
  • Pg 257-258: A 2006 report that NORAD had procedural problems relating to collecting information on U.S. Persons.

Part 3

  • Pg 53-54: A report from 2003 of a closed investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other sites in Iraq.
  • Pg 60: A report from 2006 of improper intelligence (in the TALON program) on an anti-recruiting group.
  • Pg 112: A report from 2007 of an Army Reserve officer routinely collecting data on U.S. Persons exercising their free speech rights.

Part 4

  • Pg 19: A 2008 report that Army Signals Intelligence in Louisiana intercepted civilian cell phone conversations.
  • Pg 65: A 2008 report that Army Cyber Counterintelligence officers attended the Black Hat hacker conference without disclosing their Army affiliation and without prior authorization to do so.
  • Pg 173: A report that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) set up a “honey pot” computer system to identify foreign threats in May 2006. In October 2007, AFOSI realized that the honey pot system might have been in violation of a sealed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order that required a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant for such activity. AFOSI was not privy to the FISC order and only knew of it from public media reporting. The operation was suspended. Amazingly, when the Air Force asked the Justice Department to see the FISC order at issue, DOJ’s National Security Division denied the Air Force’s request.

According to the release schedule ordered by a federal judge last December, we expect to receive additional IOB reports from the CIA, National Security Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense later this month. We will post the documents to our website as we receive them.

Related Issues: FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government

Related Cases: FOIA: Intelligence Agencies’ Misconduct Reports

“Poorly Worded” Oklahoma Fusion Center Bulletin Stirs Panic and Shuts Down College

28-Feb-10

From NewsOK

A vague nationwide bulletin meant for local schools as a warning to be vigilant caused hysteria Friday at Oklahoma City Community College, and a security guard who thought there could be a shooter on campus accidentally fired his gun in the library.

Students locked classroom doors, turned out the lights and lay behind their overturned desks to try to hide from a gunman they believed to be on campus.

After police said there was never a shooter and the scare was caused by a student employee using a “poor choice of words,” some students found the situation somewhat comical. Freshman Nick Donnell was not one of those students.

Donnell said he was outside as he watched some people run to their cars shouting about a shooter on campus while others argued it was a false alarm.

While he and two friends were trying to figure out what was going on, Donnell said he heard a loud bang and then a high-pitched whine as a bullet whizzed past his head and struck the building behind him.

“I don’t know how close it was, but it was close enough to hear the bullet,” Donnell said. “I’ve never heard anything like that in all my life. I can’t really describe it.”

Moments later as he and his friends sought cover behind a concrete wall, Donnell said he saw Oklahoma City police officers running toward them from the library area.

“They said it was a security guard who had an accidental discharge,” Donnell said. “They told us to go back in the library because it was clear, but the people in the library told us not to go in there, so we didn’t know what to do.”

According to the Oklahoma City police incident report, officers about 10:15 a.m. went to the fourth floor of the library in reference to an active shooter on campus. While they were sweeping the building, a campus security guard accidentally fired his unholstered weapon.

Details as to how the weapon fired were not immediately available. Oklahoma City police Capt. Patrick Stewart said a report would be made to the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, and OCCC would handle the personnel matters resulting from the accidental discharge.

Cordell Jordan, OCCC spokesman, said the guard is assigned to desk duty pending the outcome of the investigation.

Jordan said school was canceled for the day, but the Mountain West Conference swimming and diving championships continued in the campus aquatic center.

‘Poor choice of words’

Shortly before noon, police released information about the miscommunication that led to the chaos.The breakdown started with a bulletin sent to schools and college campuses by the Oklahoma Fusion Center, a state intelligence-sharing group that had forwarded a vague report from a cybertip submitted Thursday to the National Missing and Exploited Children’s Web site, Stewart said.

Oklahoma City Fusion Center Director Bryan Rizzi said the bulletin included a nonspecific threat that a school shooting might be possible but made no mention of Oklahoma.

“It didn’t indicate where or who, and it really wasn’t even a direct threat,” Rizzi said. “This person just made statements of concern and part of what we do is make people aware of threats like these.”

After OCCC received the bulletin, Stewart said, a student and part-time campus employee who was told of the subject matter began going to classrooms and notifying faculty members.

“She used the words there was a possible active shooter,” Stewart said. “That was misinterpreted, and therefore people thought there was an active shooter on campus. So it was a miscommunication of information and a poor choice of words by a student.”

A faculty member who asked not to be identified said she heard a fire alarm Friday morning but never received an intruder alarm.

She said students told her they were being evacuated. Even when they were outside, students weren’t taking the situation seriously because they didn’t know what was going on, the faculty member said.

When there is a report of a shooter on campus, Jordan said, the procedure is to send out alerts via the school phone system and through text messaging. Jordan admitted there was a problem Friday.

The errant fire alarm message left at least one group of high school students who were taking college classes unsupervised, student Sarah Geeslin said.

“We were in class, and our teacher thought it was over so she ran out, and these security guards pushed her into another room. And so me and my class were in there by ourselves, and we’re in high school,” Geeslin said. “And so we just turned off the lights and pushed down the tables … and we just stayed as quiet as we could for about 30 minutes.”

In another class, Dion Hill said he and a friend were preparing to try to save as many lives as they could.

“The PA system went off saying there was some sort of a gunman or something, so we shut off all the lights and turned off all the monitors and everything. We got under the tables,” Hill said.

Hill said he was watching both classroom doors and knew that if someone came in he was going to have to try to get the gun away from them however he could. He said he didn’t remember what everyone was doing.

“Honestly, there may have been some people praying, but I was just trying to figure out how to get us out of there,” he said.

2003 Demo of COPLINK

24-Feb-10

This is part of the i2 solution. It’s pretty scary how it spiders the web looking for usage patterns to determine who MIGHT be a criminal.

Authorship Analysis: Authorship Analysis Authorship analysis attempts to determine the likelihood of a particular author having written a piece of work based on some characteristics of the author [2]. The essence of this technique, is the formation of a set of metrics, or forensics, that remain relatively constant for a large number of writings created by the same person [3]. In cyber crime research context, this technique can help determine whether a set of illegal Internet messages belong to the same user based on the person’s writing style. [2] A. Gray, P. Sallis, and S. MacDonell, “Software forensics: Extending authorship analysis techniques to computer programs,” in Proc. 3rd Biannual Conf. Int. Assoc. of Forensic Linguists (IAFL’97), pages 1–8, 1997. [3] O. de Vel, “Mining e-mail authorship,” in Proc. Workshop on Text Mining, ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) 2000.

Experiment – Data Collection: Experiment – Data Collection An experiment was conducted to test the prediction accuracy of authorship analysis algorithm. 2 types of data were used: 70 email messages 3 students provided 20-30 email messages each. Messages were randomly chosen by their authors and covered a variety of topics. 153 newsgroup messages 3 popular USENET newsgroups related to software trading were selected. misc.forsale.computers.other.software misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.software misc.forsale.computers.mac-specific.software 9 users who frequently posted messages in the 3 newsgroups were chosen. Messages posted by these users were manually checked, with the help from domain experts, to determine whether they were illegal (i.e. involving sales of pirate software). 10-30 messages per user were manually downloaded that contained illegal content.

Experiment – Feature Extraction: Experiment – Feature Extraction Previous research suggested that style markers and structural features are good indicators of an author’s style [3]. Three types of message text features were used in this experiment to determine the authorship: Style Markers (205 features) average sentence length, total number of characters, total number of punctuations, etc. Structural Features (11 features) has a greeting, has a salutation, position of reply text, number of attachments, etc. Content-specific Features (9 features, for newsgroup messages only) has a list of products, position of price (in subject, in body, in list), etc. Style markers were extracted automatically using programs. Structural and content-specific features were extracted manually. [3] O. de Vel, “Mining e-mail authorship,” in Proc. Workshop on Text Mining, ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) 2000.

Experiment – Classification Results: Experiment – Classification Results A Support Vector Machine classifier [4] was used to predict the authorship of the messages based on the extracted features. 10-fold cross validation method was used. Improvement in accuracy was observed with different combinations of message features. [4] C.-W. Hsu and C.-J. Lin. “A comparison on methods for multi-class support vector machines,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13, pages 415-425, 2002.

i2 Fusion Center Solution Video

24-Feb-10

This is directly from i2’s website.   Got Orwell?