The Anonymous Guide to Hiding From Facial Recognition_ or the Long Arm of the Law

Document Sample
The Anonymous Guide to Hiding From Facial Recognition_ or the Long Arm of the Law Powered By Docstoc

The Anonymous Guide to Hiding From Facial
Recognition, or the Long Arm of the Law

Tom Pritchard -

Those rapscallions at Anonymous definitely like to live their lives with outward privacy; their less than
subtle ways of masking their identity have become totally ingrained in the public consciousness. Their
new educational video aims to help the paranoid hide away from facial recognition software in various
ways, from being devilishly subtle to downright insane.

1. Wear a clear plastic mask
One step down from the Guy Fawkes mask now associated with the infamous group, this allows people
around you to see who you are but cameras can’t detect your facial features. Not a bad way to go, as
long as you don’t mind looking like a serial killer from a low budget slasher flick.

2. Tilt your head at a 15 degree angle
For some reason, keeping your head at this angle stops cameras from realising that you have a face —
handy if you don’t mind the associated neck problems. On the downside people, will probably treat you
like some sort of mental patient on the street.

3. Make up
Camouflage your face with makeup preventing cameras from realising you’re human. Possible, but time
consuming I’ll bet. It does come with the added bonus of making you look like an anime fanatic, though.

4. Laser pointers
As anyone who paid attention during the opening scenes of TRON:Legacy will know, security cameras
don’t function too well with lasers blasting at them and temporarily shut down to save burnt out optics.
This is probably the most ineffective method in the video, if you’re on the move having to find and blind
every camera that is. Still, it could be rather handy if you’re opting to break into ENCOM and leak its OS
onto the internet any time soon*.

5. Infra-Red LED hat
The most subtle way Anonymous suggests, involving a small circuit of Infra-red LED lights that are
invisible to the naked eye, but on camera it covers up the face with a nice white blur. Not a bad way to go,
but can I do it without having to wear a silly hat — maybe an LED tiara, or even a pair of bulbous

Those are the officially Anonymous-approved ways to beat facial recognition, extreme as always, but
could be useful if you’re ever on the lamb or just want to live off the grid — no using Google then, OK? Or
maybe you just want to mess around with the many facial recognition apps out there. [Russia Today
Via Gizmodo AU]
* Gizmodo UK does not condone or support breaking into fictional corporations with the aid of a laser
pointer. Though kudos if you do. Pics or it didn’t happen, okay?

anonymous, facial recognition, giz uk, paranoia, watch this

Anonymous releases how-to instructions on fooling facial recognition

Anonymous releases how-to instructions on fooling facial recognition (VIDEO) — RT.


Aug 23, 2012

Here’s a predicament: you don’t want the government using high-tech face scanning
technology to track every inch of your walk to the post office, but you also don’t want to
take a sledgehammer to your neighborhood surveillance camera. What do you do?

Don’t worry, concerned citizen! Big Brother may indeed be watching, but that doesn’t
mean you have to make his unwarranted surveillance mission easy to operate.

Although little news has developed as of late in regards to TrapWire, a global surveillance
operation that RT blew the cover off of nearly two weeks ago, opposition waged at the
world-wide intelligence network is still rampant. Now in one of the newest videos uploaded
to the Web to make people aware of TrapWire, a person claiming to be involved with
Anonymous is trying to spread a YouTube clip that offers helpful suggestions on how to
rage against the machine, properly and peacefully.

Last week, hacktivists proposed several campaigns aimed at eliminating TrapWire feeds by
rendering the equipment thought to be linked to the intelligence system completely useless.
In lieu of smashing camera lenses and spraying surveillance gear in sudsy liquid, though, a
new video, “Anonymous – Fighting TrapWire,” offers instructions on how to prevent the
acceleration of the surveillance state by means of passive resistant.

“Many of you have heard the recent stories about TrapWire,” the video begins. “Constant
video surveillance is an issue we presently face. However, there are a number of ways that you
can combat this surveillance.”

From there, the clip’s narrator offers a few suggestions and helping the average American
avoid getting caught in TrapWire without resorting to the destruction of property.

“Wearing a mask is a common way to keep your identity hidden,” the voice explains,
“However, a mask does not protect against biometric authentication. In addition, this can also
cause problems depending where you want to go.”

“Another way to avoid facial recognition is to tilt your head more than 15 degrees to the side,”
the clip continues. “Due to limits in their programming, they will not be able to detect that a
face is present, though there are very obvious cons to doing this. Using a similar method, you
can distort your face through elaborate makeup. This method also takes advantage of software
limits as the computer will not be able to detect a face. But these are tiresome ways that tend to
draw attention to yourself. Surely there are better solutions to avoid being added to a

The narrator also explains that laser pointers have been documented to disrupt the powers
of surveillance cameras and that, “With nothing more than a hat, some infrared LEDs, some
wiring and a 9 Volt battery,” it’s a piece of cake to render oneself completely invisible. By
rigging a DIY system of small lights affixed to a baseball cap, the video claims you can
create a device that “guarantees complete anonymity to cameras while appearing perfectly
normal to the rest of the world.”

“While the government may be hell bent on watching us at every moment of every day, we are
not helpless. There are always ways of fighting back. Let’s remind them that 1984 was not an
instruction manual,” the video concludes.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the academic journal of statistics in biology, see Biometrics (journal). For the application of statistics
to topics in biology, see Biostatistics.

          This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

                      This article is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the
                      issue on the talk page. (July 2010)

                      This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the
                      claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original
                      research may be removed. (August 2010)

                      This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You
                      can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is
                      available. (August 2010)

At Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, biometric measurements are taken from the fingers
of guests to ensure that a ticket is used by the same person from day to day

Biometrics (or biometric authentication)[note 1] refers to the identification of humans by their
characteristics or traits. Biometrics is used in computer science as a form of identification and
access control.[1] It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under
surveillance.[citation needed]
Biometric identifiers are the distinctive, measurable characteristics used to label and describe
individuals.[2] Biometric identifiers are often categorized as physiological versus behavioral
characteristics.[3] A physiological biometric would identify by one's voice, DNA, hand print or
behavior. Behavioral biometrics are related to the behavior of a person, including but not limited
to: typing rhythm, gait, and voice.[note 2] Some researchers have coined the term behaviometrics
to describe the latter class of biometrics.[4]

More traditional means of access control include token-based identification systems, such as a
driver's license or passport, and knowledge-based identification systems, such as a password
or personal identification number.[2] Since biometric identifiers are unique to individuals, they
are more reliable in verifying identity than token and knowledge-based methods; however, the
collection of biometric identifiers raises privacy concerns about the ultimate use of this


        1 Biometric functionality
        2 Multi-biometric system
        3 Performance
        4 History of Biometrics
        5 Adaptive biometric Systems
        6 Current, emerging and future applications of biometrics
        7 Recent advances in emerging biometrics
              o 7.1 Proposal calls for biometric authentication to access certain public networks
        8 Issues and concerns
              o 8.1 Privacy and discrimination
              o 8.2 Danger to owners of secured items
              o 8.3 Cancelable biometrics
              o 8.4 Soft biometrics
              o 8.5 International sharing of biometric data
              o 8.6 Governments are unlikely to disclose full capabilities of biometric deployments
        9 Countries applying biometrics
        10 In popular culture
        11 See also
        12 Notes
        13 References
        14 Further reading
        15 External links

[edit] Biometric functionality

Many different aspects of human physiology, chemistry or behavior can be used for biometric
authentication. The selection of a particular biometric for use in a specific application involves a
weighting of several factors. Jain et al. (1999)[6] identified seven such factors to be used when
assessing the suitability of any trait for use in biometric authentication. Universality means that
every person using a system should possess the trait. Uniqueness means the trait should be
sufficiently different for individuals in the relevant population such that they can be
distinguished from one another. Permanence relates to the manner in which a trait varies over
time. More specifically, a trait with 'good' permanence will be reasonably invariant over time
with respect to the specific matching algorithm. Measurability (collectability) relates to the ease
of acquisition or measurement of the trait. In addition, acquired data should be in a form that
permits subsequent processing and extraction of the relevant feature sets. Performance relates to
the accuracy, speed, and robustness of technology used (see performance section for more
details). Acceptability relates to how well individuals in the relevant population accept the
technology such that they are willing to have their biometric trait captured and assessed.
Circumvention relates to the ease with which a trait might be imitated using an artifact or

No single biometric will meet all the requirements of every possible application.[6]

The basic block diagram of a biometric system

A biometric system can operate in the following two modes.[3] In verification mode the system
performs a one-to-one comparison of a captured biometric with a specific template stored in a
biometric database in order to verify the individual is the person they claim to be. Three steps
involved in person verification.[7] In the first step, reference models for all the users are
generated and stored in the model database. In the second step, some samples are matched with
reference models to generate the genuine and impostor scores and calculate the threshold. Third
step is the testing step. This process may use a smart card, username or ID number (e.g. PIN) to
indicate which template should be used for comparison.[note 3] 'Positive recognition' is a common
use of verification mode, "where the aim is to prevent multiple people from using same

In Identification mode the system performs a one-to-many comparison against a biometric
database in attempt to establish the identity of an unknown individual. The system will succeed
in identifying the individual if the comparison of the biometric sample to a template in the
database falls within a previously set threshold. Identification mode can be used either for
'positive recognition' (so that the user does not have to provide any information about the
template to be used) or for 'negative recognition' of the person "where the system establishes
whether the person is who she (implicitly or explicitly) denies to be".[3] The latter function can
only be achieved through biometrics since other methods of personal recognition such as
passwords, PINs or keys are ineffective.

The first time an individual uses a biometric system is called enrollment. During the enrollment,
biometric information from an individual is captured and stored. In subsequent uses, biometric
information is detected and compared with the information stored at the time of enrollment. Note
that it is crucial that storage and retrieval of such systems themselves be secure if the biometric
system is to be robust. The first block (sensor) is the interface between the real world and the
system; it has to acquire all the necessary data. Most of the times it is an image acquisition
system, but it can change according to the characteristics desired. The second block performs all
the necessary pre-processing: it has to remove artifacts from the sensor, to enhance the input
(e.g. removing background noise), to use some kind of normalization, etc. In the third block
necessary features are extracted. This step is an important step as the correct features need to be
extracted in the optimal way. A vector of numbers or an image with particular properties is used
to create a template. A template is a synthesis of the relevant characteristics extracted from the
source. Elements of the biometric measurement that are not used in the comparison algorithm are
discarded in the template to reduce the filesize and to protect the identity of the enrollee[citation

If enrollment is being performed, the template is simply stored somewhere (on a card or within a
database or both). If a matching phase is being performed, the obtained template is passed to a
matcher that compares it with other existing templates, estimating the distance between them
using any algorithm (e.g. Hamming distance). The matching program will analyze the template
with the input. This will then be output for any specified use or purpose (e.g. entrance in a
restricted area)[citation needed]. Selection of biometrics in any practical application depending upon
the characteristic measurements and user requirements.[7] We should consider Performance,
Acceptability, Circumvention, Robustness, Population coverage, Size, Identity theft deterrence in
selecting a particular biometric.Selection of biometric based on user requirement considers
Sensor availability, Device availability, Computational time and reliability, Cost, Sensor area
and power consumption

[edit] Multi-biometric system

Multi-biometric systems use multiple sensors or biometrics to overcome the limitations of
unimodal biometric systems. For instance iris recognition systems can be compromised by aging
irides [8] and finger scanning systems by worn-out or cut fingerprints. While unimodal biometric
systems are limited by the integrity of their identifier, it is unlikely that several unimodal systems
will suffer from identical limitations. Multi-biometric obtain sets of information from the same
marker (ie, multiple images of an iris, or scans of the same finger)[7] or information from
different biometrics (requiring fingerprint scans and, using voice recognition, a spoken pass-
code).[9] Multi-biometric systems can integrate these unimodal systems sequentially,
simultaneously, a combination thereof, or in series, which refer to sequential, parallel,
hierarchical and serial integration modes, respectively. The interested reader is pointed to
Choubisa [7] for detailed tradeoffs of response time, accuracy, and costs between integration

Broadly, the information fusion is divided into three parts, pre-mapping fusion, midst-mapping
fusion, and post-mapping fusion/late fusion.In pre-mapping fusion information can be combined
at sensor level or feature level. Sensor-level fusion can be mainly organized in three classes: (1)
single sensor-multiple instances, (2) intra-class multiple sensors, and (3) inter-class multiple
sensors.[7] Feature-level fusion can be mainly organized in two categories: (1) intra-class and (2)
inter-class.[7] Intra-class is again classified into four subcategories: (a) Same sensor-same
features, (b) Same sensor-different features, (c) Different sensors-same features, and (d)
Different sensors-different features.

[edit] Performance

The following are used as performance metrics for biometric systems:[10]

      false accept rate or false match rate (FAR or FMR): the probability that the system incorrectly
       matches the input pattern to a non-matching template in the database. It measures the percent
       of invalid inputs which are incorrectly accepted. In case of similarity scale, if the person is
       imposter in real, but the matching score is higher than the threshold, then he is treated as
       genuine that increase the FAR and hence performance also depends upon the selection of
       threshold value.[7]
      false reject rate or false non-match rate (FRR or FNMR): the probability that the system fails to
       detect a match between the input pattern and a matching template in the database. It measures
       the percent of valid inputs which are incorrectly rejected.
      receiver operating characteristic or relative operating characteristic (ROC): The ROC plot is a
       visual characterization of the trade-off between the FAR and the FRR. In general, the matching
       algorithm performs a decision based on a threshold which determines how close to a template
       the input needs to be for it to be considered a match. If the threshold is reduced, there will be
       fewer false non-matches but more false accepts. Correspondingly, a higher threshold will reduce
       the FAR but increase the FRR. A common variation is the Detection error trade-off (DET), which
       is obtained using normal deviate scales on both axes. This more linear graph illuminates the
       differences for higher performances (rarer errors).
      equal error rate or crossover error rate (EER or CER): the rate at which both accept and reject
       errors are equal. The value of the EER can be easily obtained from the ROC curve. The EER is a
       quick way to compare the accuracy of devices with different ROC curves. In general, the device
       with the lowest EER is most accurate.
      failure to enroll rate (FTE or FER): the rate at which attempts to create a template from an input
       is unsuccessful. This is most commonly caused by low quality inputs.
      failure to capture rate (FTC): Within automatic systems, the probability that the system fails to
       detect a biometric input when presented correctly.
      template capacity: the maximum number of sets of data which can be stored in the system.
[edit] History of Biometrics

Biometrics has been around since about 29,000 BC when cavemen would sign their drawings
with handprints.[citation needed] In 500 BC, Babylonian business transactions were signed in clay
tablets with fingerprints.[citation needed] The earliest cataloging of fingerprints dates back to 1881
when Juan Vucetich started a collection of fingerprints of criminals in Argentina. The History of

[edit] Adaptive biometric Systems

Adaptive biometric Systems aim to auto-update the templates or model to the intra-class
variation of the operational data.[11] The two-fold advantages of these systems are solving the
problem of limited training data and tracking the temporal variations of the input data through
adaptation. Recently, adaptive biometrics have received a significant attention from the research
community. This research direction is expected to gain momentum because of their key
promulgated advantages. First, with an adaptive biometric system, one no longer needs to collect
a large number of biometric samples during the enrollment process. Second, it is no longer
necessary to re-enrol or retrain the system from the scratch in order to cope up with the changing
environment. This convenience can significantly reduce the cost of maintaining a biometric
system. Despite these advantages, there are several open issues involved with these systems. For
mis-classification error (false acceptance) by the biometric system, cause adaptation using
impostor sample. However, continuous research efforts are directed to resolve the open issues
associated to the field of adaptive biometrics. More information about adaptive biometric
systems can be found in the critical review by Rattani et al.[12]

[edit] Current, emerging and future applications of biometrics

Among the different interests, the recent ones include adaptive Multimodal Biometric System,
complementary vs supplementary information, physiological biometrics, spoofing, and so on.[7]

[edit] Recent advances in emerging biometrics

In recent times, biometrics based on brain (electroencephalogram) and heart (electrocardiogram)
signals have emerged [13] [14]. The research group at University of Wolverhampton lead by
Ramaswamy Palaniappan has shown that people have certain distinct brain and heart patterns
that are specific for each individual. The advantage of such 'futuristic' technology is that it is
more fraud resistant compared to conventional biometrics like fingerprints. However, such
technology is generally more cumbersome and still has issues such as lower accuracy and poor
reproducibility over time.
[edit] Proposal calls for biometric authentication to access certain public networks

John Michael (Mike) McConnell, a former vice admiral in the United States Navy, a former
Director of US National Intelligence, and Senior Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton
promoted the development of a future capability to require biometric authentication to access
certain public networks in his Keynote Speech[15] at the 2009 Biometric Consortium

A basic premise in the above proposal is that the person that has uniquely authenticated
themselves using biometrics with the computer is in fact also the agent performing potentially
malicious actions from that computer. However, if control of the computer has been subverted,
for example in which the computer is part of a botnet controlled by a hacker, then knowledge of
the identity of the user at the terminal does not materially improve network security or aid law
enforcement activities.[16]

Recently, another approach to biometric security was developed, this method scans the entire
body of prospects to guarantee a better identification of this prospect. This method is not globally
accepted because it is very complex and prospects are concerned about their privacy. Very few
technologists apply it globally.

[edit] Issues and concerns
[edit] Privacy and discrimination

It is possible that data obtained during biometric enrollment may be used in ways for which the
enrolled individual has not consented. For example, biometric security that utilizes an
employee's DNA profile could also be used to screen for various genetic diseases or other
'undesirable' traits.[according to whom?]

There are three categories of privacy concerns:[17]

   1. Unintended functional scope: The authentication goes further than authentication, such as
      finding a tumor.
   2. Unintended application scope: The authentication process correctly identifies the subject when
      the subject did not wish to be identified.
   3. Covert identification: The subject is identified without seeking identification or authentication,
      i.e. a subject's face is identified in a crowd.

[edit] Danger to owners of secured items

When thieves cannot get access to secure properties, there is a chance that the thieves will stalk
and assault the property owner to gain access. If the item is secured with a biometric device, the
damage to the owner could be irreversible, and potentially cost more than the secured property.
For example, in 2005, Malaysian car thieves cut off the finger of a Mercedes-Benz S-Class
owner when attempting to steal the car.[18]
[edit] Cancelable biometrics

One advantage of passwords over biometrics is that they can be re-issued. If a token or a
password is lost or stolen, it can be cancelled and replaced by a newer version. This is not
naturally available in biometrics. If someone's face is compromised from a database, they cannot
cancel or reissue it. Cancelable biometrics is a way in which to incorporate protection and the
replacement features into biometrics. It was first proposed by Ratha et al.[19]

Several methods for generating new exclusive biometrics have been proposed. The first
fingerprint based cancelable biometric system was designed and developed by Tulyakov et al.[20]
Essentially, cancelable biometrics perform a distortion of the biometric image or features before
matching. The variability in the distortion parameters provides the cancelable nature of the
scheme. Some of the proposed techniques operate using their own recognition engines, such as
Teoh et al.[21] and Savvides et al.,[22] whereas other methods, such as Dabbah et al.,[23] take the
advantage of the advancement of the well-established biometric research for their recognition
front-end to conduct recognition. Although this increases the restrictions on the protection
system, it makes the cancellable templates more accessible for available biometric technologies

[edit] Soft biometrics

Soft biometrics traits are physical, behavioural or adhered human characteristics, which have
been derived from the way human beings normally distinguish their peers (e.g. height, gender,
hair color). Those attributes have a low discriminating power, thus not capable of identification
performance, additionally they are fully available to everyone which makes them privacy-safe.

[edit] International sharing of biometric data

Many countries, including the United States, are planning to share biometric data with other

In testimony before the US House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland
Security on "biometric identification" in 2009, Kathleen Kraninger and Robert A Mocny [24]
commented on international cooperation and collaboration with respect to biometric data, as

     To ensure we can shut down terrorist networks before they ever get to the United States, we
“    must also take the lead in driving international biometric standards. By developing
     compatible systems, we will be able to securely share terrorist information internationally to
     bolster our defenses. Just as we are improving the way we collaborate within the U.S.
     Government to identify and weed out terrorists and other dangerous people, we have the
     same obligation to work with our partners abroad to prevent terrorists from making any
     move undetected. Biometrics provide a new way to bring terrorists’ true identities to light,
     stripping them of their greatest advantage—remaining unknown.
According to an article written in 2009 by S. Magnuson in the National Defense Magazine
entitled "Defense Department Under Pressure to Share Biometric Data" the United States has bi-
lateral agreements with other nations aimed at sharing biometric data.[25] To quote that article:

        Miller [a consultant to the Office of Homeland Defense and America's security affairs] said
“       the United States has bi-lateral agreements to share biometric data with about 25 countries.
        Every time a foreign leader has visited Washington during the last few years, the State
        Department has made sure they sign such an agreement.
[edit] Governments are unlikely to disclose full capabilities of biometric deployments

Certain members of the civilian community are worried about how biometric data is used.
Unfortunately, full disclosure may not be forthcoming to the civilian community.[26] In
particular, the Unclassified Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense
Biometrics states in Chapter 17, Recommendation 45 that it is wise to protect, and sometimes
even to disguise, the true and total extent of national capabilities in areas related directly to the
conduct of security-related activities. This also potentially applies to Biometrics. It goes on to
say that this is a classic feature of intelligence and military operations. In short, the goal is to
preserve the security of what the intelligence community calls `sources and methods'.

[edit] Countries applying biometrics
Main article: Countries applying biometrics

Countries using biometrics include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Gambia, Germany, India, Iraq,
Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, and United States.

[edit] In popular culture

         The 2002 film Minority Report features extensive use of casual Iris/Retina scanning techniques
          for both personal Identification and Point Of Sale transaction purposes. The main character
          changes his official Identity by having his eyes transplanted, and later accesses a security system
          using one of the removed eyes.
         The movie Gattaca portrays a society in which there are two classes of people: those genetically
          engineered to be superior (termed "Valid") and the inferior natural humans ("Invalid"). People
          considered "Valid" have greater privileges, and access to areas restricted to such persons is
          controlled by automated biometric scanners similar in appearance to fingerprint scanners, but
          which prick the finger and sample DNA from the resulting blood droplet
         The Disney, Pixar 2004 film The Incredibles shows a scene where Mr Incredible visits Edna Mode
          at the mansion, a fashion designer for superhero costumes. Edna Mode enters the lab by
          identifying herself, she then takes off her glasses and having her eyes scanned and using her
          voice in order to get into the lab.
         The television program MythBusters attempted to break into a commercial security door[specify]
          equipped with fingerprint authentication as well as a personal laptop so equipped.[27] While the
          laptop's system proved more difficult to bypass, the advanced commercial security door with
       "live" sensing was fooled with a printed scan of a fingerprint after it had been licked, as well as
       by a photocopy of a fingerprint.[28]
      In Demolition Man the character Simon Phoenix cuts out a living victim's eye in order to open a
       locked door which is fitted with iris scanning. A similar plot element was used in Angels &
       Demons (2009) when an assassin gains access to a top secret CERN facility using a physicist's
       eye. However, both of these examples are misleading to the audience since the methods
       depicted for enucleation (removal of an eye) from a corpse would not be a viable way to defeat
       such a system.[29]

[edit] See also

      Access control
      AssureSign
      AFIS
      BioAPI
      Biometric Identification
      Biometric passport
      Biometrics in schools
      BioSlimDisk
      British biometric national identity card
      Facial recognition system
      Fingerprint recognition
      Fuzzy extractor
      Government databases
      Handwritten biometric recognition
      International Identity Federation
      Iris recognition
      Keystroke dynamics
      Private biometrics
      Retinal scan
      Signature recognition
      Speaker recognition
      Surveillance
      Vein matching
      Voice analysis
      Scan Brainwaves
      Ubiquitous city

[edit] Notes

   1. ^ As Jain & Ross (2008, footnote 4 on page 1) point out, "the term biometric authentication is
      perhaps more appropriate than biometrics since the latter has been historically used in the field
      of statistics to refer to the analysis of biological (particularly medical) data [36]" (wikilink
      added to original quote).
   2. ^ Strictly speaking, voice is also a physiological trait because every person has a different vocal
      tract, but voice recognition is mainly based on the study of the way a person speaks, commonly
      classified as behavioral. Biometric voice recognition is separate and distinct from speech
      recognition with the latter being concerned with accurate understanding of speech content
      rather than identification or recognition of the person speaking.
   3. ^ Systems can be designed to use a template stored on media like an e-Passport or smart card,
      rather than a remote database.

[edit] References

   1.    ^ "Biometrics: Overview". 2007-09-06. Retrieved 2012-06-10.
   2.    ^      Jain, A., Hong, L., & Pankanti, S. (2000). "Biometric Identification". Communications of the ACM,
         43(2), p. 91-98. DOI 10.1145/328236.328110
   3.    ^        Jain, Anil K.; Ross, Arun (2008). "Introduction to Biometrics". In Jain, AK; Flynn, P; Ross, A.
         Handbook of Biometrics. Springer. pp. 1–22. ISBN 978-0-387-71040-2.
   4.    ^ "Biometrics for Secure Authentication" (PDF).
         Retrieved 2012-07-29.
   5.    ^ Weaver, A.C. (2006). "Biometric Authentication". Computer, 39 (2), p. 96-97. DOI 10.1109/MC.2006.47
   6.    ^ Jain, A.K.; Bolle, R.; Pankanti, S., eds. (1999). Biometrics: Personal Identification in Networked Society.
         Kluwer Academic Publications. ISBN 978-0-7923-8345-1.
   7.    ^              Sahoo, SoyujKumar; Mahadeva Prasanna, SR, Choubisa, Tarun (1 January 2012). "Multimodal
         Biometric Person Authentication : A Review". IETE Technical Review 29 (1): 54. doi:10.4103/0256-
         4602.93139. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
   8.    ^ "Questions Raised About Iris Recognition Systems". Science Daily. 2012-7-12.
   9.    ^ Saylor, Michael (2012). The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything. Perseus
         Books/Vanguard Press. p. 99.
   11.   ^ A. Rattani, "Adaptive Biometric System based on Template Update Procedures," PhD thesis, University
         of Cagliari, Italy, 2010
   12.   ^ A. Rattani, B. Freni, G. L. Marcialis and F. Roli,"Template update methods in adaptive biometric systems:
         a critical review," 3rd International Conference on Biometrics, Alghero, Italy, pp. 847-856, 2009
   13.   ^ [R. Palaniappan, “Electroencephalogram signals from imagined activities: A novel biometric identifier for
         a small population,” published in E. Corchado et al. (eds): “Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated
         Learning – IDEAL 2006”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4224, pp. 604-611, Springer-Verlag,
         Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. DOI:10.1007/11875581_73]
   14.   ^ [R. Palaniappan, and S. M. Krishnan, “Identifying individuals using ECG signals,” Proceedings of
         International Conference on Signal Processing and Communications, Bangalore, India, pp.569-572, 11-14
         December, 2004. DOI:10.1109/SPCOM.2004.1458524]
   15.   ^ McConnell, Mike (January 2009). "KeyNote Address.". Biometric Consortium Conference. Tampa
         Convention Center, Tampa, Florida,.
         services/services_article/42861927. Retrieved 20 February 2010
   16.   ^ Schneier, Bruce. "The Internet: Anonymous Forever".
         Retrieved 1 October 2011.
   17.   ^ Pfleeger, Charles; Pfleeger, Shari (2007). Security in Computing (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. p.
         220. ISBN 978-0-13-239077-4.
   18.   ^ Kent, Jonathan (31 March 2005). "Malaysia car thieves steal finger". BBC Online (Kuala Lumpur). Retrieved 11 December 2010.
   19.   ^ N. K. Ratha, J. H. Connell, and R. M. Bolle, "Enhancing security and privacy in biometrics-based
         authentication systems," IBM systems Journal, vol. 40, pp. 614–634, 2001.
   20. ^ S. Tulyakov, F. Farooq, and V. Govindaraju, "Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae," Proc.
       Int'l Workshop Pattern Recognition for Crime Prevention, Security, and Surveillance, pp. 30–38, 2005
   21. ^ A. B. J. Teoh, A. Goh, and D. C. L. Ngo, "Random Multispace Quantization as an Analytic Mechanism for
       BioHashing of Biometric and Random Identity Inputs," Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE
       Transactions on, vol. 28, pp. 1892–1901, 2006.
   22. ^ M. Savvides, B. V. K. V. Kumar, and P. K. Khosla, ""Corefaces" – Robust Shift-Invariant PCA based
       Correlation Filter for Illumination Tolerant Face Recognition," presented at IEEE Computer Society
       Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'04), 2004.
   23. ^ M. A. Dabbah, W. L. Woo, and S. S. Dlay, "Secure Authentication for Face Recognition," presented at
       Computational Intelligence in Image and Signal Processing, 2007. CIISP 2007. IEEE Symposium on, 2007.
   24. ^ Kraniger, K; Mocny, R. A. (March 2009). "Testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Kathleen
       Kraninger, Screening Coordination, and Director Robert A. Mocny, US-VISIT, National Protection and
       Programs Directorate, before the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland
       Security, "Biometric Identification"". US Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 20 February 2010
   25. ^ Magnuson, S (January 2009). "Defense department under pressure to share biometric data.".
       PressuretoShareBiometricData.aspx. Retrieved 20 February 2010
   26. ^ Defense Science Board (DSB) (September 2006). "Chapter 17, Recommendation 45". Unclassified
       Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force. Washington, D.C. 20301-3140: Office of the Under
       Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. p. 84. Retrieved 20 February 2010
                                                                                      [dead link]
   27. ^ Video of the Mythbusters episode on how to hack fingerprint scanners
   28. ^ "Crimes and Myth-Demeanors 1". Mythbusters. episode 16. season 4. Yes. July 12, 2006. The Discovery
   29. ^ Carlisle, James; Carlisle, Jennifer (2009). "Eyeball to Eyeball: the Use of Biometrics in ANGELS &
       DEMONS". In Burstein, Dan; de Keijzer, Arne. Inside Angels & Demons: The Story Behind the International
       Bestseller. Vanguard Press. pp. 374–383. ISBN 978-1-59315-489-9.

[edit] Further reading

      White Paper – Overview of 2011 Changes to ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011: Data Format for the
       Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial & Other Biometric Information. Published by Aware, Inc.,
       May 2012.
      White Paper – Hardware Obsolescence Management in the Biometrics Industry; Reducing
       Costs by Enhancing the Flexibility of Biometric Solutions. Published by Aware, Inc., May 2010.
      Biomtrics Institute Privacy Code, September 2006
      Biometric Vulnerability Assessment Framework, Published by the Biometrics Institute, 2007–
      White Paper – Identification Flats: A Revolution in Fingerprint Biometrics. Published by Aware,
       Inc., March 2009.
      TechCast Article Series, Vivian Chu and Gayathri Rajendran, GWU, Use of Biometrics.
      Delac, K., Grgic, M. (2004). A Survey of Biometric Recognition Methods.
      Biometric Technology Application Manual. Published by the National Biometric Security Project
       (NBSP), the BTAM is a comprehensive reference manual on biometric technology applications.
      "Fingerprints Pay For School Lunch." (2001). Retrieved 2008-03-02. [1]
      "Germany to phase-in biometric passports from November 2005". (2005). E-Government News.
       Retrieved 2006-06-11. [2]
         Oezcan, V. (2003). "Germany Weighs Biometric Registration Options for Visa Applicants",
          Humboldt University Berlin. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
         Ulrich Hottelet: Hidden champion – Biometrics between boom and big brother, German
          Times, January 2007

[edit] External links

              The dictionary definition of biometrics at Wiktionary

Stratfor emails reveal secret, widespread TrapWire surveillance system
Get short URL

email story to a friendprint version

Published: 10 August, 2012, 11:23
Edited: 11 August, 2012, 01:35

SciTech, Terrorism, Internet, Information Technology, USA, WikiLeaks, Anonymous, Security,


AFP Photo / Valery Hache
Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial
recognition technology — and have installed it across the US under the radar of most Americans, according to emails
hacked by Anonymous.

Every few seconds, data picked up at surveillance points in major cities and landmarks across the United States are
recorded digitally on the spot, then encrypted and instantaneously delivered to a fortified central database center at
an undisclosed location to be aggregated with other intelligence. It’s part of a program called TrapWire and it's the
brainchild of the Abraxas, a Northern Virginia company staffed with elite from America’s intelligence community. The
employee roster at Arbaxas reads like a who’s who of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government
entities according to their public LinkedIn profiles, and the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even

The details on Abraxas and, to an even greater extent TrapWire, are scarce, however, and not without reason. For a
program touted as a tool to thwart terrorism and monitor activity meant to be under wraps, its understandable that
Abraxas would want the program’s public presence to be relatively limited. But thanks to last year’s hack of the
Strategic Forecasting intelligence agency, or Stratfor, all of that is quickly changing.

Hacktivists aligned with the loose-knit Anonymous collective took credit for hacking Stratfor on Christmas Eve, 2011,
in turn collecting what they claimed to be more than five million emails from within the company. WikiLeaks began
releasing those emails as the Global Intelligence Files (GIF) earlier this year and, of those, several discussing the
implementing of TrapWire in public spaces across the country were circulated on the Web this week after security
researcher Justin Ferguson brought attention to the matter. At the same time, however, WikiLeaks was relentlessly
assaulted by a barrage of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, crippling the whistleblower site and its
mirrors, significantly cutting short the number of people who would otherwise have unfettered access to the emails.

On Wednesday, an administrator for the WikiLeaks Twitter account wrote that the site suspected that the motivation
for the attacks could be that particularly sensitive Stratfor emails were about to be exposed. A hacker group called
AntiLeaks soon after took credit for the assaults on WikiLeaks and mirrors of their content, equating the offensive as
a protest against editor Julian Assange, “the head of a new breed of terrorist.” As those Stratfor files on TrapWire
make their rounds online, though, talk of terrorism is only just beginning.

Mr. Ferguson and others have mirrored what are believed to be most recently-released Global Intelligence Files on
external sites, but the original documents uploaded to WikiLeaks have been at times unavailable this week due to the
continuing DDoS attacks. Late Thursday and early Friday this week, the GIF mirrors continues to go offline due to
what is presumably more DDoS assaults. Australian activist Asher Wolf wrote on Twitter that the DDoS attacks
flooding the servers of WikiLeaks supporter sites were reported to be dropping upwards of 40 gigabits of traffic per
second. On Friday, WikiLeaks tweeted that their own site was sustaining attacks of 10 Gb/second, adding,
"Whoever is running it controls thousands of machines or is able to simulate them."

According to a press release (pdf) dated June 6, 2012, TrapWire is “designed to provide a simple yet powerful means
of collecting and recording suspicious activity reports.” A system of interconnected nodes spot anything considered
suspect and then input it into the system to be "analyzed and compared with data entered from other areas within a
network for the purpose of identifying patterns of behavior that are indicative of pre-attack planning.”

In a 2009 email included in the Anonymous leak, Stratfor Vice President for Intelligence Fred Burton is alleged to
write, “TrapWire is a technology solution predicated upon behavior patterns in red zones to identify surveillance. It
helps you connect the dots over time and distance.” Burton formerly served with the US Diplomatic Security Service,
and Abraxas’ staff includes other security experts with experience in and out of the Armed Forces.

What is believed to be a partnering agreement included in the Stratfor files from August 13, 2009 indicates that they
signed a contract with Abraxas to provide them with analysis and reports of their TrapWire system (pdf).

“Suspicious activity reports from all facilities on the TrapWire network are aggregated in a central database and run
through a rules engine that searches for patterns indicative of terrorist surveillance operations and other attack
preparations,” Crime and Justice International magazine explains in a 2006 article on the program, one of the few
publically circulated on the Abraxas product (pdf). “Any patterns detected – links among individuals, vehicles or
activities – will be reported back to each affected facility. This information can also be shared with law enforcement
organizations, enabling them to begin investigations into the suspected surveillance cell.”

In a 2005 interview with The Entrepreneur Center, Abraxas founder Richard “Hollis” Helms said his signature
product “can collect information about people and vehicles that is more accurate than facial recognition, draw
patterns, and do threat assessments of areas that may be under observation from terrorists.” He calls it “a proprietary
technology designed to protect critical national infrastructure from a terrorist attack by detecting the pre-attack
activities of the terrorist and enabling law enforcement to investigate and engage the terrorist long before an attack is
executed,” and that, “The beauty of it is that we can protect an infinite number of facilities just as efficiently as we can
one and we push information out to local law authorities automatically.”

An internal email from early 2011 included in the Global Intelligence Files has Stratfor’s Burton allegedly saying the
program can be used to “[walk] back and track the suspects from the get go w/facial recognition software.”

Since its inception, TrapWire has been implemented in most major American cities at selected high value targets
(HVTs) and has appeared abroad as well. The iWatch monitoring system adopted by the Los Angeles Police
Department (pdf) works in conjunction with TrapWire, as does the District of Columbia and the "See Something,
Say Something" program conducted by law enforcement in New York City, which had 500 surveillance cameras
linked to the system in 2010. Private properties including Las Vegas, Nevada casinos have subscribed to the
system. The State of Texas reportedly spent half a million dollars with an additional annual licensing fee of $150,000
to employ TrapWire, and the Pentagon and other military facilities have allegedly signed on as well.

In one email from 2010 leaked by Anonymous, Stratfor’s Fred Burton allegedly writes, “God Bless America. Now
they have EVERY major HVT in CONUS, the UK, Canada, Vegas, Los Angeles, NYC as clients.” Files on reveal that the US Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense together
awarded Abraxas and TrapWire more than one million dollars in only the past eleven months.

News of the widespread and largely secretive installation of TrapWire comes amidst a federal witch-hunt to crack
down on leaks escaping Washington and at attempt to prosecute whistleblowers. Thomas Drake, a former agent with
the NSA, has recently spoken openly about the government’s Trailblazer Project that was used to monitor private
communication, and was charged under the Espionage Act for coming forth. Separately, former NSA tech director
William Binney and others once with the agency have made claims in recent weeks that the feds have dossiers on
every American, an allegation NSA Chief Keith Alexander dismissed during a speech at Def-Con last month in
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Surveillance (disambiguation).

A 'nest' of surveillance cameras at the Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts

Surveillance ( /sərˈveɪ.əns/ or /sərˈveɪləns/)[1] is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or
other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing,
directing, or protecting.[2] Surveillance is therefore an ambiguous practice, sometimes creating
positive effects, at other times negative. It is sometimes done in a surreptitious manner. It most
usually refers to observation of individuals or groups by government organizations, but disease
surveillance, for example, is monitoring the progress of a disease in a community.

The word surveillance is the French word for "watching over"; "sur" means "from above" and
"veiller" means "to watch". The inverse (reciprocal) of surveillance is sousveillance ("to watch
from below").[3] The word surveillance may be applied to observation from a distance by means
of electronic equipment (such as CCTV cameras), or interception of electronically transmitted
information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls). It may also refer to simple, relatively no-
or low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception.

Surveillance is very useful to governments and law enforcement to maintain social control,
recognize and monitor threats, and prevent/investigate criminal activity. With the advent of
programs such as the Total Information Awareness program and ADVISE, technologies such
as high speed surveillance computers and biometrics software, and laws such as the
Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act, governments now possess an
unprecedented ability to monitor the activities of their subjects.[4]

However, many civil rights and privacy groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation
and American Civil Liberties Union, have expressed concern that by allowing continual
increases in government surveillance of citizens we will end up in a mass surveillance society,
with extremely limited, or non-existent political and/or personal freedoms. Fears such as this
have led to numerous lawsuits such as Hepting v. AT&T.[4][5]

        1 Types of surveillance
              o 1.1 Computer surveillance
              o 1.2 Telephones
              o 1.3 Surveillance cameras
              o 1.4 Social network analysis
              o 1.5 Biometric surveillance
              o 1.6 Aerial surveillance
              o 1.7 Data mining and profiling
              o 1.8 Corporate surveillance
              o 1.9 Human operatives
              o 1.10 Satellite imagery
              o 1.11 Identification and credentials
              o 1.12 RFID and geolocation devices
                       1.12.1 RFID tagging
                       1.12.2 Global Positioning System
                       1.12.3 Mobile phones
              o 1.13 Surveillance devices
              o 1.14 Postal services
        2 Controversy surrounding surveillance
              o 2.1 Support
              o 2.2 Opposition
                       2.2.1 Totalitarianism
                       2.2.2 Psychological/social effects
                       2.2.3 Privacy
        3 Countersurveillance, inverse surveillance, sousveillance
        4 In popular culture
              o 4.1 In literature
              o 4.2 In music
              o 4.3 Onscreen
        5 See also
        6 References
        7 Further reading
        8 External links
              o 8.1 General information
              o 8.2 Historical information
              o 8.3 Legal resources

[edit] Types of surveillance
[edit] Computer surveillance
Official seal of the Information Awareness Office -- a U.S. agency which developed technologies for
mass surveillance

The vast majority of computer surveillance involves the monitoring of data and traffic on the
Internet.[6] In the United States for example, under the Communications Assistance For Law
Enforcement Act, all phone calls and broadband Internet traffic (emails, web traffic, instant
messaging, etc.) are required to be available for unimpeded real-time monitoring by Federal law
enforcement agencies.[7][8][9]

There is far too much data on the Internet for human investigators to manually search through all
of it. So automated Internet surveillance computers sift through the vast amount of intercepted
Internet traffic and identify and report to human investigators traffic considered interesting by
using certain "trigger" words or phrases, visiting certain types of web sites, or communicating
via email or chat with suspicious individuals or groups.[10] Billions of dollars per year are spent,
by agencies such as the Information Awareness Office, NSA, and the FBI, to develop,
purchase, implement, and operate systems such as Carnivore, NarusInsight, and ECHELON
to intercept and analyze all of this data, and extract only the information which is useful to law
enforcement and intelligence agencies.[11]

Computers can be a surveillance target because of the personal data stored on them. If someone
is able to install software, such as the FBI's Magic Lantern and CIPAV, on a computer system,
they can easily gain unauthorized access to this data. Such software could be installed physically
or remotely.[12] Another form of computer surveillance, known as TEMPEST, involves reading
electromagnetic emanations from computing devices in order to extract data from them at
distances of hundreds of meters.[13][14][15] The NSA runs a database known as "Pinwale", which
stores and indexes large numbers of emails of both American citizens and foreigners.[16][17]

[edit] Telephones
Main article: Lawful interception

The official and unofficial tapping of telephone lines is widespread. In the United States for
instance, the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that
all telephone and VoIP communications be available for real-time wiretapping by Federal law
enforcement and intelligence agencies.[7][8][9] Two major telecommunications companies in the
U.S. -- A AT&T and Verizon—have contracts with the FBI, requiring them to keep their phone
call records easily searchable and accessible for Federal agencies, in return for $1.8 million
dollars per year.[18] Between 2003 and 2005, the FBI sent out more than 140,000 "National
Security Letters" ordering phone companies to hand over information about their customers'
calling and Internet histories. About half of these letters requested information on U.S.

Human agents are not required to monitor most calls. Speech-to-text software creates machine-
readable text from intercepted audio, which is then processed by automated call-analysis
programs, such as those developed by agencies such as the Information Awareness Office, or
companies such as Verint, and Narus, which search for certain words or phrases, to decide
whether to dedicate a human agent to the call.[20]

Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United Kingdom and the United States possess
technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones, by accessing phones' diagnostic
or maintenance features in order to listen to conversations that take place near the person who
holds the phone.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

Mobile phones are also commonly used to collect location data. The geographical location of a
mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily even when the phone is
not being used, using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for
a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the
phone.[27][28] The legality of such techniques controversy has been questioned in the United
States, in particular whether a court warrant is required.[29] Records for one carrier alone (Sprint),
showed that in a given year federal law enforcement agencies requested customer location data 8
million times.[30]

[edit] Surveillance cameras
Main article: Closed-circuit television

Citizens under surveillance in Cairns, Queensland
Surveillance cameras such as these are installed by the millions in many countries, and are nowadays
monitored by automated computer programs instead of humans.

Surveillance cameras are video cameras used for the purpose of observing an area. They are
often connected to a recording device or IP network, and may be watched by a security guard
or law enforcement officer. Cameras and recording equipment used to be relatively expensive
and required human personnel to monitor camera footage, but analysis of footage has been made
easier by automated software that organizes digital video footage into a searchable database, and
by video analysis software (such as VIRAT and HumanID). The amount of footage is also
drastically reduced by motion sensors which only record when motion is detected. With cheaper
production techniques, surveillance cameras are simple and inexpensive enough to be used in
home security systems, and for everyday surveillance.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security awards billions of dollars per year
in Homeland Security grants for local, state, and federal agencies to install modern video
surveillance equipment. For example, the city of Chicago, IL recently used a $5.1 million
Homeland Security grant to install an additional 250 surveillance cameras, and connect them to a
centralized monitoring center, along with its preexisting network of over 2000 cameras, in a
program known as Operation Virtual Shield. Speaking in 2009, Chicago Mayor Richard
Daley announced that Chicago would have a surveillance camera on every street corner by the
year 2016.[31][32]

As part of China's Golden Shield Project, several U.S. corporations such as IBM, General
Electric, and Honeywell have been working closely with the Chinese government to install
millions of surveillance cameras throughout China, along with advanced video analytics and
facial recognition software, which will identify and track individuals everywhere they go. They
will be connected to a centralized database and monitoring station, which will, upon completion
of the project, contain a picture of the face of every person in China: over 1.3 billion people.[33]
Lin Jiang Huai, the head of China's "Information Security Technology" office (which is in
charge of the project), credits the surveillance systems in the United States and the U.K. as the
inspiration for what he is doing with the Golden Shield project.[33]
Payload surveillance camera manufactured by Controp and distributed to the U.S. Government by ADI

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding a research project
called Combat Zones That See that will link up cameras across a city to a centralized
monitoring station, identify and track individuals and vehicles as they move through the city, and
report "suspicious" activity (such as waving arms, looking side-to-side, standing in a group,

At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, police in Tampa Bay, Florida, used Identix’s facial
recognition software, FaceIt, to scan the crowd for potential criminals and terrorists in attendance
at the event.[35] (it found 19 people with pending arrest warrants)[36]

Governments often initially claim that cameras are meant to be used for traffic control, but
many of them end up using them for general surveillance. For example, Washington, D.C. had
5,000 "traffic" cameras installed under this premise, and then after they were all in place,
networked them all together and then granted access to the Metropolitan Police Department, so
they could perform "day-to-day monitoring".[37]

The development of centralized networks of CCTV cameras watching public areas—linked to
computer databases of people's pictures and identity (biometric data), able to track peoples'
movements throughout the city, and identify who they have been with—has been argued by
some to present a risk to civil liberties.[38] Trapwire is an example of such a thing.

[edit] Social network analysis

One common form of surveillance is to create maps of social networks based on data from
social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter as well as from traffic analysis
information from phone call records such as those in the NSA call database,[39] and others.
These social network "maps" are then data mined to extract useful information such as personal
interests, friendships & affiliations, wants, beliefs, thoughts, and activities.[40][41][42][43]

Many U.S. government agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) are investing heavily in research involving social network analysis.[44][45] The intelligence
community believes that the biggest threat to U.S. power comes from decentralized, leaderless,
geographically dispersed groups of terrorists, subversives, extremists, and dissidents. These
types of threats are most easily countered by finding important nodes in the network, and
removing them. To do this requires a detailed map of the network.[42][43][46][47]

Jason Ethier of Northeastern University, in his study of modern social network analysis, said the
following of the Scalable Social Network Analysis Program developed by the Information
Awareness Office:

The purpose of the SSNA algorithms program is to extend techniques of social network analysis to assist
with distinguishing potential terrorist cells from legitimate groups of people.... In order to be successful
SSNA will require information on the social interactions of the majority of people around the globe.
Since the Defense Department cannot easily distinguish between peaceful citizens and terrorists, it will
be necessary for them to gather data on innocent civilians as well as on potential terrorists.

—Jason Ethier[42]

AT&T developed a programming language called "Hancock", which is able to sift through
enormous databases of phone call and Internet traffic records, such as the NSA call database,
and extract "communities of interest"—groups of people who call each other regularly, or groups
that regularly visit certain sites on the Internet. AT&T originally built the system to develop
"marketing leads",[48] but the FBI has regularly requested such information from phone
companies such as AT&T without a warrant,[48] and after using the data stores all information
received in its own databases, regardless of whether or not the information was ever useful in an

Some people believe that the use of social networking sites is a form of "participatory
surveillance", where users of these sites are essentially performing surveillance on themselves,
putting detailed personal information on public websites where it can be viewed by corporations
and governments.[40] About 20% of employers have reported using social networking sites to
collect personal data on prospective or current employees.[50]

[edit] Biometric surveillance

Fingerprints being scanned as part of the US-VISIT program
Main article: Biometrics

Biometric surveillance refers to technologies that measure and analyze human physical and/or
behavioral characteristics for authentication, identification, or screening purposes.[51] Examples
of physical characteristics include fingerprints, DNA, and facial patterns. Examples of mostly
behavioral characteristics include gait (a person's manner of walking) or voice.

Facial recognition is the use of the unique configuration of a person's facial features to
accurately identify them, usually from surveillance video. Both the Department of Homeland
Security and DARPA are heavily funding research into facial recognition systems.[52] The
Information Processing Technology Office, ran a program known as Human Identification at
a Distance which developed technologies that are capable of identifying a person at up to 500 ft
by their facial features.

Another form of behavioral biometrics, based on affective computing, involves computers
recognizing a person's emotional state based on an analysis of their facial expressions, how fast
they are talking, the tone and pitch of their voice, their posture, and other behavioral traits. This
might be used for instance to see if a person is acting "suspicious" (looking around furtively,
"tense" or "angry" facial expressions, waving arms, etc.).[53]

A more recent development is DNA fingerprinting, which looks at some of the major markers in
the body's DNA to produce a match. The FBI is spending $1 billion to build a new biometric
database, which will store DNA, facial recognition data, iris/retina (eye) data, fingerprints, palm
prints, and other biometric data of people living in the United States. The computers running the
database are contained in an underground facility about the size of two American football

The Los Angeles Police Department is installing automated facial recognition and license plate
recognition devices in its squad cars, and providing handheld face scanners, which officers will
use to identify people while on patrol.[57][58][59]

Facial thermographs are in development, which allow machines to identify certain emotions in
people such as fear or stress, by measuring the temperature generated by blood flow to different
parts of their face.[60] Law enforcement officers believe that this has potential for them to identify
when a suspect is nervous, which might indicate that they are hiding something, lying, or worried
about something.[60]
[edit] Aerial surveillance

Micro Air Vehicle with attached surveillance camera

Aerial surveillance is the gathering of surveillance, usually visual imagery or video, from an
airborne vehicle—such as a unmanned aerial vehicle, helicopter, or spy plane. Military
surveillance aircraft use a range of sensors (e.g. radar) to monitor the battlefield.

Digital imaging technology, miniaturized computers, and numerous other technological advances
over the past decade have contributed to rapid advances in aerial surveillance hardware such as
micro-aerial vehicles, forward-looking infrared, and high-resolution imagery capable of
identifying objects at extremely long distances. For instance, the MQ-9 Reaper,[61] a U.S. drone
plane used for domestic operations by the Department of Homeland Security, carries cameras
that are capable of identifying an object the size of a milk carton from altitudes of 60,000 feet,
and has forward-looking infrared devices that can detect the heat from a human body at
distances of up to 60 kilometers.[62]

HART program concept drawing from official IPTO (DARPA) official website

The United States Department of Homeland Security is in the process of testing UAVs to
patrol the skies over the United States for the purposes of critical infrastructure protection,
border patrol, "transit monitoring", and general surveillance of the U.S. population.[63] Miami-
Dade police department ran tests with a vertical take-off and landing UAV from Honeywell,
which is planned to be used in SWAT operations.[64] Houston's police department has been
testing fixed-wing UAVs for use in "traffic control".[64]

The United Kingdom, as well, is working on plans to build up a fleet of surveillance UAVs
ranging from micro-aerial vehicles to full-size drones, to be used by police forces throughout
the U.K.[65]

In addition to their surveillance capabilities, MAVs are capable of carrying tasers for "crowd
control", or weapons for killing enemy combatants.[66]

Programs such as the Heterogenous Aerial Reconnaissance Team program developed by
DARPA have automated much of the aerial surveillance process. They have developed systems
consisting of large teams drone planes that pilot themselves, automatically decide who is
"suspicious" and how to go about monitoring them, coordinate their activities with other drones
nearby, and notify human operators if something suspicious is occurring. This greatly increases
the amount of area that can be continuously monitored, while reducing the number of human
operators required. Thus a swarm of automated, self-directing drones can automatically patrol a
city and track suspicious individuals, reporting their activities back to a centralized monitoring

[edit] Data mining and profiling

Data mining is the application of statistical techniques and programmatic algorithms to discover
previously unnoticed relationships within the data.. Data profiling in this context is the process
of assembling information about a particular individual or group in order to generate a profile —
that is, a picture of their patterns and behavior. Data profiling can be an extremely powerful tool
for psychological and social network analysis. A skilled analyst can discover facts about a
person that they might not even be consciously aware of themselves.[70]

Economic (such as credit card purchases) and social (such as telephone calls and emails)
transactions in modern society create large amounts of stored data and records. In the past, this
data was documented in paper records, leaving a "paper trail", or was simply not documented at
all. Correlation of paper-based records was a laborious process—it required human intelligence
operators to manually dig through documents, which was time-consuming and incomplete, at

But today many of these records are electronic, resulting in an "electronic trail". Every use of a
bank machine, payment by credit card, use of a phone card, call from home, checked out library
book, rented video, or otherwise complete recorded transaction generates an electronic record.
Public records—such as birth, court, tax and other records—are increasily being digitized and
made available online. In addition, due to laws like CALEA, web traffic and online purchases
are also available for profiling. Electronic record-keeping makes data easily collectable, storable,
and accessible—so that high-volume, efficient aggregation and analysis is possible at
significantly lower costs.
Information relating to many of these individual transactions is often easily available because it
is generally not guarded in isolation, since the information, such as the title of a movie a person
has rented, might not seem sensitive. However, when many such transactions are aggregated
they can be used to assemble a detailed profile revealing the actions, habits, beliefs, locations
frequented, social connections, and preferences of the individual. This profile is then used, by
programs such as ADVISE [71] and TALON, to determine whether the person is a military,
criminal, or political threat.

In addition to its own aggregation and profiling tools, the government is able to access
information from third parties — for example, banks, credit companies or employers, etc. — by
requesting access informally, by compelling access through the use of subpoenas or other
procedures,[72] or by purchasing data from commercial data aggregators or data brokers. The
United States has spent $370 million on its 43 planned fusion centers, which are national
network of surveillance centers that are located in over 30 states. The centers will collect and
analyze vast amounts of data on U.S. citizens. It will get this data by consolidating personal
information from sources such as state driver's licensing agencies, hospital records, criminal
records, school records, credit bureaus, banks, etc. -- and placing this information in a centralized
database that can be accessed from all of the centers, as well as other federal law enforcement
and intelligence agencies.[73]

Under United States v. Miller (1976), data held by third parties is generally not subject to
Fourth Amendment warrant requirements.

[edit] Corporate surveillance

Corporate surveillance is the monitoring of a person or group's behavior by a corporation. The
data collected is most often used for marketing purposes or sold to other corporations, but is also
regularly shared with government agencies. It can be used as a form of business intelligence,
which enables the corporation to better tailor their products and/or services to be desirable by
their customers. Or the data can be sold to other corporations, so that they can use it for the
aforementioned purpose. Or it can be used for direct marketing purposes, such as the targeted
advertisements on Google and Yahoo, where ads are targeted to the user of the search engine by
analyzing their search history and emails[74] (if they use free webmail services), which is kept in
a database.[75]

For instance, Google, the world's most popular search engine, stores identifying information for
each web search. An IP address and the search phrase used are stored in a database for up to 18
months.[76] Google also scans the content of emails of users of its Gmail webmail service, in
order to create targeted advertising based on what people are talking about in their personal
email correspondences.[77] Google is, by far, the largest Internet advertising agency—millions of
sites place Google's advertising banners and links on their websites, in order to earn money from
visitors who click on the ads. Each page containing Google advertisements adds, reads, and
modifies "cookies" on each visitor's computer.[78] These cookies track the user across all of
these sites, and gather information about their web surfing habits, keeping track of which sites
they visit, and what they do when they are on these sites. This information, along with the
information from their email accounts, and search engine histories, is stored by Google to use for
building a profile of the user to deliver better-targeted advertising.[77]

According to the American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute that undertake
an annual quantitative survey about electronic monitoring and surveillance with approximately
300 U.S. companies, “more than one fourth of employers have fired workers for misusing e-mail
and nearly one third have fired employees for misusing the Internet“.[79] More than 40% of the
companies monitor e-mail traffic of their workers, and 66% of corporations monitor Internet
connections. In addition, most companies use software to block non-work related websites such
as sexual or pornographic sites, game sites, social networking sites, entertainment sites, shopping
sites, and sport sites. The American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute also stress
that companies “tracking content, keystrokes, and time spent at the keyboard ... store and review
computer files ... monitor the blogosphere to see what is being written about the company, and ...
monitor social networking sites“.[79] Furthermore, about 30% of the companies had also fired
employees for non-work related email and Internet usage such as “inappropriate or offensive
language“ and ”viewing, downloading, or uploading inappropriate/offensive content“.[79][80]

The United States government often gains access to these databases, either by producing a
warrant for it, or by simply asking. The Department of Homeland Security has openly stated
that it uses data collected from consumer credit and direct marketing agencies—such as
Google—for augmenting the profiles of individuals whom it is monitoring.[75] The FBI,
Department of Homeland Security, and other intelligence agencies have formed an "information-
sharing" partnership with over 34,000 corporations as part of their Infragard program.

The U.S. Federal government has gathered information from grocery store "discount card"
programs, which track customers' shopping patterns and store them in databases, in order to look
for "terrorists" by analyzing shoppers' buying patterns.[81]

[edit] Human operatives

Organizations that have enemies who wish to gather information about the groups' members or
activities face the issue of infiltration.[82][83]

In addition to operatives' infiltrating an organization, the surveilling party may exert pressure on
certain members of the target organization to act as informants (i.e., to disclose the information
they hold on the organization and its members).[84][85]

Fielding operatives is very expensive, and for governments with wide-reaching electronic
surveillance tools at their disposal the information recovered from operatives can often be
obtained from less problematic forms of surveillance such as those mentioned above.
Nevertheless, human infiltrators are still common today. For instance, in 2007 documents
surfaced showing that the FBI was planning to field a total of 15,000 undercover agents and
informants in response to an anti-terrorism directive sent out by George W. Bush in 2004 that
ordered intelligence and law enforcement agencies to increase their HUMINT capabilities.[86]
[edit] Satellite imagery

On May 25, 2007 the U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell authorized
the National Applications Office (NAO) of the Department of Homeland Security to allow
local, state, and domestic Federal agencies to access imagery from military intelligence
satellites and aircraft sensors which can now be used to observe the activities of U.S. citizens.
The satellites and aircraft sensors will be able to penetrate cloud cover, detect chemical traces,
and identify objects in buildings and "underground bunkers", and will provide real-time video at
much higher resolutions than the still-images produced by programs such as Google

[edit] Identification and credentials

A card containing an identification number

One of the simplest forms of identification is the carrying of credentials. Some nations have an
identity card system to aid identification, whilst many, such as Britain, are considering it but
face public opposition. Other documents, such as passports, driver's licenses, library cards,
banking or credit cards are also used to verify identity.

If the form of the identity card is "machine-readable", usually using an encoded magnetic stripe
or identification number (such as a Social Security number), it corroborates the subject's
identifying data. In this case it may create an electronic trail when it is checked and scanned,
which can be used in profiling, as mentioned above.

[edit] RFID and geolocation devices
Hand with planned insertion point for Verichip device

[edit] RFID tagging

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tagging is the use of very small electronic devices
(called "RFID tags") which are applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for
the purpose of identification and tracking using radio waves. The tags can be read from several
meters away. They are extremely inexpensive, costing a few cents per piece, so they can be
inserted into many types of everyday products without significantly increasing the price, and can
be used to track and identify these objects for a variety of purposes.

Many companies are already "tagging" their workers, who are monitored while on the job.
Workers in U.K. went on general strike in protest of having themselves tagged. They felt that it
was dehumanizing to have all of their movements tracked with RFID chips.[93][vague] Some
critics have expressed fears that people will soon be tracked and scanned everywhere they go.[94]

RFID chip pulled from new credit card

Verichip is an RFID device produced by a company called Applied Digital Solutions (ADS).
Verichip is slightly larger than a grain of rice, and is injected under the skin. The injection
reportedly feels similar to receiving a shot. The chip is encased in glass, and stores a "VeriChip
Subscriber Number" which the scanner uses to access their personal information, via the Internet,
from Verichip Inc.'s database, the "Global VeriChip Subscriber Registry". Thousands of people
have already had them inserted.[94] In Mexico, for example, 160 workers at the Attorney
General's office were required to have the chip injected for identity verification and access
control purposes.[95][96]

In a 2003 editorial, CNET's chief political correspondent, Declan McCullagh,
speculated that, soon, every object that is purchased, and perhaps ID cards, will have RFID
devices in them, which would respond with information about people as they walk past scanners
(what type of phone they have, what type of shoes they have on, which books they are carrying,
what credit cards or membership cards they have, etc.). This information could be used for
identification, tracking, or targeted marketing. As of 2012, this has largely not come to pass.[97]
[edit] Global Positioning System

Diagram of GPS satellites orbiting Earth

See also: GPS tracking

In the U.S., police have planted hidden GPS tracking devices in people's vehicles to monitor
their movements, without a warrant. In early 2009, they were arguing in court that they have the
right to do this.[98]

Several cities are running pilot projects to require parolees to wear GPS devices to track their
movements when they get out of prison.[99]

[edit] Mobile phones

Mobile phones are also commonly used to collect geolocation data. The geographical location of
a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being
used or not), using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a
signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the

[edit] Surveillance devices
See also: United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.

Surveillance devices, or "bugs", are hidden electronic devices which are used to capture, record,
and/or transmit data to a receiving party such as a law enforcement agency.

The U.S. has run numerous domestic intelligence, such as COINTELPRO, which have bugged
the homes, offices, and vehicles of thousands of U.S. citizens, usually political activists,
subversives, and criminals.[100]

Law enforcement and intelligence services in the U.K. and the United States possess technology
to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones, by accessing the phone's
diagnostic/maintenance features, in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the
person who holds the phone.[22][23][24]

[edit] Postal services

As more people use faxes and e-mail the significance of surveilling the postal system is
decreasing, in favor of Internet and telephone surveillance. But interception of post is still an
available option for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, in certain circumstances.

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation have performed
twelve separate mail-opening campaigns targeted towards U.S. citizens. In one of these
programs, more than 215,000 communications were intercepted, opened, and

[edit] Controversy surrounding surveillance

Graffiti expressing concern about proliferation of video surveillance

[edit] Support

Some supporters of surveillance systems believe that these tools protect society from terrorists
and criminals. Other supporters simply believe that there is nothing that can be done about it,
and that people must become accustomed to having no privacy. As Sun Microsystems CEO
Scott McNealy said: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."[103][104]

Another common argument is: "If you aren't doing something wrong then you don't have
anything to fear." Which follows that if you are engaging in unlawful activities, in which case
you do not have a legitimate justification for your privacy. However, if you are following the law
the surveillance would not affect you.[105]

[edit] Opposition

Some critics state that the claim made by supporters should be modified to read: "As long as we
do what we're told, we have nothing to fear.". For instance, a person who is part of a political
group which opposes the policies of the national government, might not want the government to
know their names and what they have been reading, so that the government cannot easily subvert
their organization, arrest, or kill them. Other critics state that while a person might not have
anything to hide right now, the government might later implement policies that they do wish to
oppose, and that opposition might then be impossible due to mass surveillance enabling the
government to identify and remove political threats. Further, other critics point to the fact that
most people do have things to hide. For example, if a person is looking for a new job, they might
not want their current employer to know this.

[edit] Totalitarianism

A traffic camera atop a high pole oversees a road in the Canadian city of Toronto.

Programs such as the Total Information Awareness program, and laws such as the
Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act have led many groups to fear that
society is moving towards a state of mass surveillance with severely limited personal, social,
political freedoms, where dissenting individuals or groups will be strategically removed in
COINTELPRO-like purges.[4][5][106]

Kate Martin, of the Center For National Security Studies said of the use of military spy satellites
being used to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens: "They are laying the bricks one at a time for
a police state."[91]

Some point to the blurring of lines between public and private places, and the privatization of
places traditionally seen as public (such as shopping malls and industrial parks) as illustrating the
increasing legality of collecting personal information.[107] Traveling through many public places
such as government offices is hardly optional for most people, yet consumers have little choice
but to submit to companies' surveillance practices.[108] Surveillance techniques are not created
equal; among the many biometric identification technologies, for instance, face recognition
requires the least cooperation. Unlike automatic fingerprint reading, which requires an individual
to press a finger against a machine, this technique is subtle and requires little to no consent.[108]

[edit] Psychological/social effects

Some critics, such as Michel Foucault, believe that in addition to its obvious function of
identifying and capturing individuals who are committing undesirable acts, surveillance also
functions to create in everyone a feeling of always being watched, so that they become self-
policing. This allows the State to control the populace without having to resort to physical force,
which is expensive and otherwise problematic.[109]

[edit] Privacy

Numerous civil rights groups and privacy groups oppose surveillance as a violation of people's
right to privacy. Such groups include: Electronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic
Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union

There have been several lawsuits such as Hepting v. AT&T and EPIC v. Department of
Justice by groups or individuals, opposing certain surveillance activities.

Legislative proceedings such as those that took place during the Church Committee, which
investigated domestic intelligence programs such as COINTELPRO, have also weighed the
pros and cons of surveillance.

[edit] Countersurveillance, inverse surveillance, sousveillance

Countersurveillance is the practice of avoiding surveillance or making surveillance difficult.
Developments in the late twentieth century have caused counter surveillance to dramatically
grow in both scope and complexity, such as the Internet, increasing prevalence of electronic
security systems, high-altitude (and possibly armed) UAVs, and large corporate and government
computer databases.
          The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.
          Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2012)


Inverse surveillance is the practice of reversalism on surveillance (e.g., citizens photographing
police). Well-known examples are George Holliday's recording of the Rodney King beating
and the organization Copwatch, which attempts to surveil police officers to prevent police

Sousveillance is a term coined by Steve Mann, a professor at the University of Toronto, refers to
inverse surveillance and includes the recording of an activity by a participant in the activity.[110]

[edit] In popular culture
[edit] In literature

       George Orwell's novel, 1984, portrays a fictional totalitarian surveillance society which has a
        very simple (by today's standards) mass surveillance system consisting of human operatives,
        informants, and two-way "telescreens" in people's homes. Because of the impact of this book,
        "Orwellian" is a common term used to describe mass surveillance technologies.
       The novel - mistrust highlights the negative effects from the overuse of surveillance at Reflection
        House. The central character Kerryn installs secret cameras to monitor her housemates - see
        also Paranoia
       The book, The Handmaid's Tale as well as a film based on it, portray a totalitarian Christian
        theocracy where all citizens are kept under constant surveillance.

[edit] In music

       The Dead Kennedys' song, "I Am The Owl", is about government surveillance and social
        engineering of political groups.

[edit] Onscreen

       The movie, Gattaca, portrays a society that uses biometric surveillance to distinguish between
        people who are genetically engineered "superior" humans and genetically natural "inferior"
       In the movie Minority Report, the police and government intelligence agencies use micro aerial
        vehicles in SWAT operations and for surveillance purposes.
       HBO's crime-drama series, The Sopranos, regularly portrays the FBI's surveillance of the DiMeo
        Crime Family. Audio devices they use include "bugs" placed in strategic locations (e.g., in "I
        Dream of Jeannie Cusamano" and "Mr. Ruggerio's Neighborhood") and hidden microphones
        worn by operatives (e.g., in "Rat Pack") and informants (e.g., in "Funhouse", "Proshai,
        Livushka", and "Members Only"). Visual devices include hidden still cameras (e.g., in "Pax
        Soprana") and video cameras (e.g., in "Long Term Parking").
        The movie, THX-1138, portrays a society wherein people are drugged with sedatives and
         antidepressants, and have surveillance cameras watching them everywhere they go.

[edit] See also

        Big Brother Watch
        Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act
        Hepting v. AT&T
        Heterogeneous Aerial Reconnaissance Team
        Informational self-determination
        NSA warrantless surveillance
        Panopticon
        Privacy law
        Signals intelligence
        Sousveillance (inverse surveillance)
        Surveillance art
        Surveillance system monitor
        Trapwire

[edit] References

   1.    ^ OED
   2.    ^ Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   3.    ^ "Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices...", by Steve Mann, Jason Nolan and
         Barry Wellman, in Surveillance & Society 1(3), 2003
   4.    ^      "Is the U.S. Turning Into a Surveillance Society?". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
   5.    ^ "Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society". American Civil
         Liberties Union. January 15, 2003. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
   6.    ^ Diffie, Whitfield; Susan Landau (August, 2008). "Internet Eavesdropping: A Brave New World of
         Wiretapping". Scientific American.
         Retrieved 2009-03-13.
   7.    ^ "CALEA Archive -- Electronic Frontier Foundation". Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved 2009-03-14.
   8.    ^ "CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet". Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved 2009-03-14.
   9.    ^ "CALEA: Frequently Asked Questions". Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved 2009-03-14.
   10.   ^ Hill, Michael (October 11, 2004). "Government funds chat room surveillance research". Associated
         Press. USA Today.
         Retrieved 2009-03-19.
   11.   ^ McCullagh, Declan (January 30, 2007). "FBI turns to broad new wiretap method". ZDNet News. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
   12.   ^ "FBI's Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats". Wired Magazine. 2007-07-18.
   13.   ^ McNamara, Joel. "Complete, Unofficial Tempest Page".
         Retrieved 2009-03-12.
14. ^ Van Eck, Wim (1985). "Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk?".
    Computers & Security 4 (4): 269–286. doi:10.1016/0167-4048(85)90046-X.
15. ^ Kuhn, M.G. (2004). "Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays". 4th Workshop on
    Privacy Enhancing Technologies: 23–25.
16. ^ Risen, James; Lichtblau, Eric (June 16, 2009). "E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress". New
    York Times: pp. A1.
    Retrieved 2009-06-30.
17. ^ Ambinder, Marc (June 16, 2009). "Pinwale And The New NSA Revelations". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2009-06-
18. ^ Singel, Ryan (September 10, 2007). "Rogue FBI Letters Hint at Phone Companies' Own Data Mining
    Programs - Updated". Threat Level (Wired).
    lette.html#previouspost. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
19. ^ Roland, Neil (March 20, 2007). "Mueller Orders Audit of 56 FBI Offices for Secret Subpoenas".
    Bloomberg News. Retrieved
20. ^ Piller, Charles; Eric Lichtblau (July 29, 2002). "FBI Plans to Fight Terror With High-Tech Arsenal". LA
    Times. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
21. ^ Schneier, Bruce (December 5, 2006). "Remotely Eavesdropping on Cell Phone Microphones". Schneier
    On Security. Retrieved 13
    December 2009.
22. ^ McCullagh, Declan; Anne Broache (December 1, 2006). "FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping
    tool". CNet News.
    6140191.html. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
23. ^ Odell, Mark (August 1, 2005). "Use of mobile helped police keep tabs on suspect". Financial Times. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
24. ^ "Telephones". Western Regional Security Office (NOAA official site). 2001. Retrieved 2009-03-22.
25. ^ "Can You Hear Me Now?". ABC News: The Blotter. Retrieved 13 December 2009.
26. ^ Coughlin, Kevin (December 13, 2006). "Even if they're off, cellphones allow FBI to listen in". The Seattle
    Times. Retrieved 14
    December 2009.
27. ^ "Tracking a suspect by mobile phone". BBC News. August 3, 2005. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
28. ^ Miller, Joshua (March 14, 2009). "Cell Phone Tracking Can Locate Terrorists - But Only Where It's
    Legal". FOX News.,2933,509211,00.html. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
29. ^ "Warrantless Location Tracking". N.Y.U. Law Review. 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-24.
30. ^ Zetter, Kim (December 1, 2009). "Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online Feds ‘Pinged’ Sprint
    GPS Data 8 Million Times Over a Year". Wired Magazine: Threat Level. Retrieved 5 December 2009.
31. ^ Spielman, Fran (February 19, 2009). "Surveillance cams help fight crime, city says". Chicago Sun Times.,mayor-daley-emergency-surveillance-cameras.article.
    Retrieved 2009-03-13.
32. ^ Schorn, Daniel (September 6, 2006). "We're Watching: How Chicago Authorities Keep An Eye On The
    City". CBS News.
    Retrieved 2009-03-13.
33. ^ Klein, Naomi (May 29, 2008). "China's All-Seeing Eye". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2009-03-20.
34. ^ "Another Tool for Big Brother?". Associated Press. Wired News. July 2, 2003. Retrieved 2009-03-20.
35. ^ Bonsor, K.. "How Facial Recognition Systems Work".
    recognition.htm. Retrieved 2006-06-18.
36. ^ McNealy, Scott. "Privacy is (Virtually) Dead". Retrieved
37. ^ "Mayor Fenty Launches VIPS Program; New System Will Consolidate City’s Closed-Circuit TV
    Monitoring". April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
38. ^ "EPIC Video Surveillance Information Page". EPIC. Retrieved 2009-
39. ^ Keefe, Patrick (March 12, 2006). ", Can Network Theory Thwart Terrorists?". New York Times.
40. ^ Albrechtslund, Anders (March 3, 2008). "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance". First
    Monday 13 (3).
    Retrieved March 14, 2009.
41. ^ Fuchs, Christian (2009). Social Networking Sites and the Surveillance Society. A Critical Case Study of the
    Usage of studiVZ, Facebook, and MySpace by Students in Salzburg in the Context of Electronic Surveillance.
    Salzburg and Vienna: Forschungsgruppe Unified Theory of Information. ISBN 978-3-200-01428-2. Retrieved July 28, 2012.
42. ^     Ethier, Jason. "Current Research in Social Network Theory". Northeastern University College of
    Computer and Information Science.
                                                  [dead link]
    SocialNetworks.html. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
43. ^ "DyDAn Research Programs". Homeland Security Center for Dynamic Data Analysis. Retrieved 20 December 2009.
44. ^ Marks, Paul (June 9, 2006). "Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites". New Scientist.
    Retrieved 2009-03-16.
45. ^ Kawamoto, Dawn (June 9, 2006). "Is the NSA reading your MySpace profile?". CNET News. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
46. ^ Ressler, Steve (July 2006). "Social Network Analysis as an Approach to Combat Terrorism: Past, Present,
    and Future Research". Homeland Security Affairs II (2). Retrieved
    March 14, 2009.
47. ^ "DyDAn Research Blog". DyDAn Research Blog (official blog of DyDAn). http://dydan- Retrieved 20 December 2009.
48. ^ Singel, Ryan (October 29, 2007). "AT&T Invents Programming Language for Mass Surveillance".
    Threat Level (Wired). Retrieved 2009-
49. ^ Singel, Ryan (October 16, 2007). "Legally Questionable FBI Requests for Calling Circle Info More
    Widespread than Previously Known". Threat Level (Wired). Retrieved 2009-03-19.
50. ^ Havenstein, Heather (September 12, 2008). "One in five employers uses social networks in hiring
    process". Computer World.
    Retrieved 2009-03-14.
51. ^ Woodward, John; Christopher Horn, Julius Gatune, and Aryn Thomas (2003). Biometrics: A Look at Facial
    Recognition. RAND Corporation. ISBN 0-8330-3302-6.
52. ^ Frank, Thomas (May 10, 2007). "Face recognition next in terror fight". USA Today. Retrieved
53. ^ Vlahos, James (January 2008). "Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You".
    Popular Mechanics.
    Retrieved 2009-03-14.
54. ^ Nakashima, Ellen (December 22, 2007). "FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics: $1 Billion Project to
    Include Images of Irises and Faces". Washington Post: pp. A01.
    dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102544.html. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
55. ^ Arena, Kelly; Carol Cratty (February 4, 2008). "FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping". CNN. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
56. ^ Gross, Grant (February 13, 2008). "Lockheed wins $1 billion FBI biometric contract". IDG News Service
    contract_1.html. Retrieved 2009-03-18.
57. ^ "LAPD: We Know That Mug". Associated Press. Wired Magazine. December 26, 2004. Retrieved 2009-03-18.
58. ^ Mack, Kelly. "LAPD Uses Face Recognition Technology To Fight Crime". NBC4 TV (transcript from
    Technology-To-Fight-Crime/1$31230. Retrieved 20 December 2009.
59. ^ Willon, Phil (September 17, 2009). "LAPD opens new high-tech crime analysis center". LA Times. Retrieved 20 December 2009.
60. ^ Dotinga, Randy (October 14, 2004). "Can't Hide Your Lying ... Face?". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2009-03-18.
61. ^ Gasparre, Richard (January 25, 2008). "The U.S. and Unmanned Flight: Part 1". Retrieved 2009-03-13.
62. ^ Fickes, Michael (October 1, 2004). "Automated Eye In The Sky". Retrieved 2009-03-13.
63. ^ McCullagh, Declan (March 29, 2006). "Drone aircraft may prowl U.S. skies". CNet News. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
64. ^ Warwick, Graham (June 12, 2007). "US police experiment with Insitu, Honeywell UAVs".
    insitu-honeywell-uavs.html. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
65. ^ La Franchi, Peter (July 17, 2007). "UK Home Office plans national police UAV fleet". Flight International.
    fleet.html. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
66. ^ "No Longer Science Fiction: Less Than Lethal & Directed Energy Weapons". International Online Defense
    Magazine. February 22, 2005.
    Longer-Science-Fiction-Less-Than-Lethal-Directed-Energy-Weapons/. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
67. ^ "HART Overview". IPTO (DARPA) -- Official website. August 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
68. ^ "BAA 04-05-PIP: Heterogeneous Airborne Reconnaissance Team (HART)". Information Processing
    Technology Office (DARPA) -- Official Website. December 5, 2003.
                                                                                         [dead link] Retrieved 2009-03-16.
69. ^ Sirak, Michael (Nov 29, 2007). "DARPA, Northrop Grumman Move Into Next Phase of UAV Control
    Architecture". Defense Daily.
    Retrieved 2009-03-16.
70. ^ Hildebrandt, Mireille; Serge Gutwirth (2008). Profiling the European Citizen: Cross Disciplinary
    Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-6913-0.
71. ^ Clayton, Mark (February 9, 2006). "US Plans Massive Data Sweep". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
72. ^ Flint, Lara (September 24, 2003). "Administrative Subpoenas for the FBI: A Grab for Unchecked
    Executive Power". The Center For Democracy & Technology (official site).
                                                                                        [dead link] Retrieved 2009-03-20.
73. ^ ""National Network" of Fusion Centers Raises Specter of COINTELPRO". EPIC Spotlight on Surveillance.
    June 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
74. ^ Story, Louise (November 1, 2007). "F.T.C. to Review Online Ads and Privacy". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
75. ^ Butler, Don (February 24, 2009). "Surveillance in society". The Star Phoenix (CanWest). Retrieved 2009-
           [dead link]
76. ^ Soghoian, Chris (September 11, 2008). "Debunking Google's log anonymization propaganda". CNET
    News. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
77. ^ Joshi, Priyanki (March 21, 2009). "Every move you make, Google will be watching you". Business
    watching-you/57071/on. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
78. ^ "Advertising and Privacy". Google (company page). 2009.
    Retrieved 2009-03-21.
79. ^     American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute (2008). Electronic Monitoring and
    Surveillance 2007 Survey. Retrieved July 27, 2012.
80. ^ Allmer, Thomas (2012). Towards a Critical Theory of Surveillance in Informational Capitalism. Frankfurt
    am Main: Peter Lang.
81. ^ Vlahos, Kelley (August 1, 2002). "Store Customer Cards a Source for FBI?". FOX News.,2933,59262,00.html. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
82. ^ anonymous (26 Jan, 2006). "Information on the Confidential Source in the Auburn Arrests". Portland
    Indymedia. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
83. ^ Myers, Lisa (December 14, 2005). "Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?". NBC Nightly News
    ( Retrieved 2009-03-13.
84. ^ "Senate Hearing: The Use Of Informants In FBI Domestic Intelligence Investigations". SUPPLEMENTARY
    April 23, 1976. Retrieved 2009-03-
85. ^ Ranalli, Ralph (2003-11-21). "FBI informant system called a failure". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
86. ^ Ross, Brian (July 25, 2007). "FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants". Blotter. ABC News. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
87. ^ "U.S. Reconnaissance Satellites: Domestic Targets". National Security Archive. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
88. ^ Block, Robert (August 15, 2007). "U.S. to Expand Domestic Use Of Spy Satellites". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
89. ^ Gorman, Siobhan (October 1, 2008). "Satellite-Surveillance Program to Begin Despite Privacy Concerns".
    The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-03-
90. ^ "Fact Sheet: National Applications Office". Department of Homeland Security (official website). August
    15, 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
91. ^ Warrick, Joby (August 16, 2007). "Domestic Use of Spy Satellites To Widen". Washington Post: pp.
    Retrieved 2009-03-17.
92. ^ Shrader, Katherine (2004-09-26). "Spy imagery agency watching inside U.S.". Associated Press. USA
    Today. Retrieved
93. ^ "Two Stories Highlight the RFID Debate". RFID Journal. July 19, 2005. Retrieved 2012-03-23.
94. ^ Lewan, Todd (July 21, 2007). "Microchips in humans spark privacy debate". Associated Press. USA
    Today. Retrieved 2009-03-
95. ^ Gardener, W. David (July 15, 2004). "RFID Chips Implanted In Mexican Law-Enforcement Workers".
    Information Week.
    cio/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=23901004. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
96. ^ Campbell, Monica (August 4, 2004). "Law enforcement in Mexico goes a bit bionic". Christian Science
    Monitor. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
97. ^ McCullagh, Declan (January 13, 2003). "RFID Tags: Big Brother in small packages". CNET News. Retrieved 2012-07-24.
98. ^ Claburn, Thomas (March 4, 2009). "Court Asked To Disallow Warrantless GPS Tracking". Information
        Retrieved 2009-03-18.
   99. ^ Hilden, Julie (2002-04-16). "What legal questions are the new chip implants for humans likely to raise?". (FindLaw). Retrieved
   100. ^ Wolf, Paul. "COINTELPRO". (online collection of historical documents). Retrieved 2009-03-14.
        23, 1976. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
   102. ^ Goldstein, Robert (April 23, 2001). Political repression in modern America from 1870 to 1976. University
        of Illinois Press. p. 466. ISBN 978-0-252-06964-2.
   103. ^ Sprenger, Polly (January 26, 1999). "Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It'". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2009-03-20.
   104. ^ Baig, Edward; Marcia Stepanek, Neil Gross (April 5, 1999). "Privacy". Business Week. Retrieved 2009-03-20.
   105. ^ Solove, Daniel (2007). "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy". San Diego
        Law Review 44: 745.
   106. ^ "Britain is 'surveillance society'". BBC News. November 2, 2006. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
   107. ^ Marx, G. T., & Muschert, G. W. (2007). Personal information, borders, and the new surveillance studies.
        Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 375-395.
   108. ^ Agre, P. (2003). Your Face is not a bar code: arguments against automatic face recognition in public
        places. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from
   109. ^ Foucault, Michel (1979). Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books. pp. 201–202.
   110. ^ Birch, Dave (2005-07-14). "The age of sousveillance". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2007-08-06.

[edit] Further reading

      Garfinkel, Simson, Database Nation; The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century. O'Reilly &
       Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-596-00105-3
      Gilliom, John Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy, University
       Of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-29361-5
      Jenkins, Peter Advanced Surveillance Training Manual, Intel Publishing, UK ISBN 0-9535378-1-1
      Jensen, Derrick and Draffan, George (2004) Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and
       the Culture of Control Chelsea Green Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-931498-52-4
      Lyon, David (2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring in Everyday Life. Philadelphia: Open
       University Press. ISBN 978-0-335-20546-2
      Lyon, David (2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-
      Fuchs, Christian, Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund, and Marisol Sandoval, eds. (2012).
       "Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media". New York: Routledge.
       ISBN 978-0-415-89160-8
      Parenti, Christian The Soft Cage: Surveillance in America From Slavery to the War on Terror, Basic
       Books, ISBN 978-0-465-05485-5
      Harris, Shane. (2011). The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State. London, UK:
       Penguin Books Ltd. ISBN 0-14-311890-0
      Matteralt, Armand. (2010). The Globalization of Surveillance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN
      Feldman, Jay. (2011). Manufacturing Hysteria: A History of Scapegoating, Surveillance, and
       Secrecy in Modern America. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-375-42534-9
      Hier, Sean P., & Greenberg, Joshua (Eds.). (2009). Surveillance: Power, Problems, and Politics.
       Vancouver, CA: UBC Press. ISBN 0-7748-1611-2
      Lyon, David (Ed.). (2006). Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Cullompton, UK:
       Willan Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84392-191-2
      Laidler, Keith. (2008). Surveillance Unlimited: How We've Become the Most Watched People on
       Earth. Cambridge, AU: Icon Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84046-877-9
      Staples, William G. (2000). Everyday Surveillance: Vigilance and Visibility in Post-Modern Life.
       Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-7425-0077-2
      Allmer, Thomas (2012). "Towards a Critical Theory of Surveillance in Informational Capitalism".
       Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-631-63220-8

[edit] External links
[edit] General information

      ACLU, "The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting
       Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society"
      Balkin, Jack M. (2008). "The Constitution in the National Surveillance State", Yale Law School
      Bibo, Didier and Delmas-Marty, "The State and Surveillance: Fear and Control"
      Controp - One of the Biggest Surveillance Equipment Manufacturers
      EFF Privacy Resources
      EPIC Privacy Resources
      ICO. (2006, September). "A Report on the Surveillance Society for the Information Commissioner
       by the Surveillance Studies Network".
      Privacy Information Center

[edit] Historical information

      COINTELPRO—FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents

[edit] Legal resources

      EFF Legal Cases
      Guide to lawful intercept legislation around the world


                                                      v
                                                      t
                                                      e






                                                 v
                                                 t
                                                 e

                            Intelligence cycle management

                    Clandestine HUMINT (recruiting ·operational techniques ·Covert action
                    ·Direct action ·Clandestine cell system)
                    Special reconnaissance (organizations)
                    Espionage (Agent handling ·Asset ·Black operation ·Black bag operation
                    ·Concealment device ·Cryptography ·Cut-out ·Dead drop ·Eavesdropping
                    ·False flag ·Industrial espionage ·Intelligence assessment ·Interrogation
                    ·Numbers station ·One-way voice link ·Official cover ·Non-official cover
                    ·Resident spy ·Steganography ·Surveillance)

                    SIGINT by alliances, nations and industries ·SIGINT operational platforms by
                    nation ·SIGINT in modern history ·TEMPEST ·Direction finding ·Traffic analysis

and Signature       Electro-optical ·Nuclear ·Geophysical ·Radar ·Radiofrequency ·Materials
  Intelligence      ·Casualty estimation

                    Open source intelligence (OSINT) ·Imagery intelligence (IMINT) ·Geospatial
         Others     intelligence (GEOINT) ·Financial intelligence (FININT) ·Technical intelligence
                    (TECHINT) ·Market Intelligence (MARKINT)
Retrieved from ""

      Surveillance
      Espionage techniques
      French words and phrases
      Law enforcement
      Law enforcement techniques
      Crime prevention
      Security
      National security
      Privacy
      French loanwords

TrapWire: Wikileaks reveals ex-CIA agents running a face-
recognition profiling company that surveils NYC subways,
London stock exchange, Vegas casinos and more
Newly released WikiLeaks publications from the Stratfor leak reveal much about Trapwire, a multi-
country surveillance network run by a private US company, Abraxas, led by ex-CIA operatives. The
network operates in NYC subways, the London Stock Exchange, Las Vegas casinos, and more. It uses
real-time video facial profiling and is linked to red-flag databases.

Here is a US GOV pdf diagramming its workings. Here is an RT article on the subject.

The WikiLeaks publications related to Trapwire are difficult to access now because
and many of its mirrors are under heavy DDOS attack. (Good time to donate!) However you can see
the publications here via Tor.

Australian activist @Asher_Wolf is organizing a nonviolent campaign against Trapwire, including
an effort to spam the network with creative false positives.

TrapWire: International Surveillance Coordination Network(Thanks, Douglas!)

Cory Doctorow

Oct 2-27: Pirate Cinema Tour: St Louis, Menlo Park;               Rapture of the Nerds (adult novel)
    San Francisco; Berkeley; Pasadena, Redondo Beach,                                          Context (essays)
    Lansing (more)...                                                           With a Little Help (short stories)
                                                                                        For the Win (YA novel)


    Showing 18 comments



    Noctilucent Studios, Maker of fantastical Cabinets of Curiosity.

    "ex-CIA operatives".

    No such thing.

o   Like
o   08/11/2012 09:32 AM
o   27 Likes
o   F



    Someone should probably also link to the Tor software so that people can use the Tor link:

    (Edited by a moderator)
o   Like
o   08/11/2012 10:03 AM
o   8 Likes
o   F



            Also, instructions:

            1) Download and install TorBrowser bundle via JenniferS' link above.
            2) Launch the TorBrowser app.
            3) Paste this into the url field in the Torbrowser after it launches:

       o    Like
       o    08/11/2012 10:14 PM
       o    in reply to JenniferS
       o    3 Likes
       o    F



    From the RT article, possible prize sentence in the easy-to-overlook-because-its-buried-at-the-end...

    Separately, former NSA tech director William Binney and others once with the agency have made
    claims in recent weeks that the feds have dossiers on every American, an allegation NSA Chief Keith
    Alexander dismissed during a speech at Def-Con last month in Vegas

    (Edited by a moderator)
o   Like
o   08/11/2012 11:07 AM
o   12 Likes
o   F


        Well of course he dismissed it. Why would the NSA have dossiers on all Americans? Wouldn't it
        suffice to have only those that are in the US?

        Mere wordplay, but remember, even people in Brazil are technically American, and I think he's
        dismissing that statement since it can be said to use the broad term "American," which is generally
        assumed to be synonymous with someone that lives in the United States of America even though it
        could very well also be used in the same way "European" is used.

        I wouldn't put it past them to use that kind of reasoning to deny something such as that statement.

    o   Like
    o   08/11/2012 01:14 PM
    o   in reply to PaulDavisTheFirst
    o   4 Likes
    o   F



        No need for the Feds to assemble a dossier on you when public records (not to mention your Google
        search history) already contain all that information and more.

    o   Like
    o   08/11/2012 08:34 PM
    o   in reply to PaulDavisTheFirst
    o   F

    Genre Slur

    Waldorf: "The CIA are tracking people, this is news?"
    Stadler: "If the rest of the audience has been asleep as much as I have, then YES!!!"
    In unison: "HO-HO-HO-HO-HO-HO-HO-HO!"

o   Like
o   08/11/2012 03:30 PM
o   7 Likes
o   F


    Noctilucent Studios, Maker of fantastical Cabinets of Curiosity.

    Pretty awesome hack to make your face invisible to cameras.


o   Like
o   08/11/2012 06:57 PM
o   2 Likes
o   F


    Charles Edward Frith
    NSA, CIA, ONI, CIA, TSA, DHS, DIA... all a bunch of psycho paranoiacs with greasy snouts in the security
    complex pork barrel.

o   Like
o   08/11/2012 07:44 PM
o   4 Likes
o   F



    If we all started wearing masks of terrorist suspects, would that constitute a DDoS attack on their facial-
    recognition network? Not advocating, just asking.

o   Like
o   08/11/2012 08:36 PM
o   4 Likes
o   F



             We don't even need to go that far. All we need to 'DDoS' them is to find a way of making this


             (Edited by a moderator)
        o    Like
        o    08/12/2012 11:48 AM
        o    in reply to kmoser
        o    F

    sumsco vanpat

    I want to know, who watches those that watch us?

o   Like
o   08/12/2012 03:39 AM
o   3 Likes
o   F



    Can anyone explain to me why these guys tend to name their corporations after things like gnostic archons,
    ancient gods, or random demons? Do they get a kick out of the "demonic symbology" that their names are
    invoking or are they getting their names from some "random evil corporation name generator" that I can't find
    on the web?

    'cause I got to tell you - if I'm building a company that's going to do automatic face recognition/tracking of
    everyone who goes through all of my systems, I'm naming it "HappyFace" or "SmileTracker" or if I want to be
    less playful/cuddly and more severe "police" sounding I might go with "GlobalGuardian" or something
    vaguely superhero-sounding. Hell I can even see grabbing the name of an Olympian or Egyptian god
    (Something based around Nemesis or Horus would be fitting). But I don't see naming my company after one of
    the Gnostic Lords of Creation.

    Really, the Abraxas Corporation sounds like a front company for a cult of Nyarlathotep or Yog-Sothoth from a
    Lovecraft homage.

o   Like
o   08/12/2012 11:30 AM
o   6 Likes
o   F


        Antinous / Moderator

        You equate gnosticism with demons?

    o   Like
    o   08/12/2012 02:14 PM
    o   in reply to Jer_00
    o   F


        Noctilucent Studios, Maker of fantastical Cabinets of Curiosity.

        "" Really, the Abraxas Corporation sounds like a front company for a cult of Nyarlathotep or Yog-
        Sothoth from a Lovecraft homage.""

        what makes you think that's not the case here?

        Also really surprised to see that this post hasn't gotten all that much attention from the boingers. Seems
        to be tailor made for us.

    o   Like
    o   08/12/2012 02:20 PM
    o   in reply to Jer_00
    o   1 Like
    o   F

    Adam Parfrey

    The Abaraxas Corp seems to be some sort of homage to Boyd Rice, who began an organization in the '80s
    called "The Abraxas Foundation" ...

o   Like
o   08/12/2012 04:38 PM
o   F


            William James

            Adam, Abraxas was in use long before Boyd used it.

            BTW, I love your work.

       o    Like
       o    08/12/2012 09:37 PM
       o    in reply to Adam Parfrey
       o    F



    Does this company include Jesse Ventura?
o   Like
o   08/14/2012 09:45 PM
o   F

    Telephone Company Is Arm of
    Government, Feds Admit in Spy Suit
           By Ryan SingelEmail Author
           10.08.09
           8:24 PM

                                                         <img class="size-medium wp-image-5849" title="att1"
src="" alt="AT&T was the first of many
telcos sued for helping the NSA spy on Americans without warrants" width="300" height="216" />

AT&T was the first of many telcos sued for helping the NSA spy on Americans without warrants

The Department of Justice has finally admitted it in court papers: The nation’s telecom companies are an arm of the government — at least
when it comes to secret spying.

Fortunately, a judge says that relationship isn’t enough to quash a rights group’s open records request for communications between the
nation’s telecoms and the feds.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to see what role telecom lobbying of the Justice Department played when the government began
its year-long, and ultimately successful, push to win retroactive immunity for AT&T and others being sued for unlawfully spying on American

The feds argued that the documents showing consultation over the controversial telecom immunity proposal weren’t subject to the Freedom
of Information Act since they were protected as “intra-agency” records:

“The communications between the agencies and telecommunications companies regarding the immunity provisions of the proposed
legislation have been regarded as intra-agency because the government and the companies have a common interest in the defense of the
pending litigation and the communications regarding the immunity provisions concerned that common interest.”

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffery White disagreed and ruled on September 24 that the feds had to release the names of the telecom employees
that contacted the Justice Department and the White House to lobby for a get-out-of-court-free card.

“Here, the telecommunications companies communicated with the government to ensure that Congress would pass legislation to grant them
immunity from legal liability for their participation in the surveillance,” White wrote. “Those documents are not protected from disclosure
because the companies communicated with the government agencies “with their own … interests in mind,” rather than the agency’s

The feds were supposed to make the documents available Friday, but in a motion late Thursday, the Obama administration is asking for a 30-
day emergency stay (.pdf) so it can file a further appeal.

Read more at the EFF’s blog.

Photo: MrBill

See Also:

           Secret Phone Slip Shows Telco Called for Spy Help
           Is Retroactive Telecom Immunity Unconstitutional?
           Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case
           Obama to Defend Telco Spy Immunity
    Ryan Singel is the editor and co-founder of the Threat Level blog. He keeps his eye on privacy, tech policy and online liberties.

    Read more by Ryan Singel

    Follow @rsingel and @ThreatLevel on Twitter.

    Tags: NSA, tpc

             Post Comment |
             Permalink

    Back to top


             Reddit
             Digg
             Stumble Upon
             Email

   Disqus
o   LoginAbout DisqusGlad               you liked it. Would you like to share?



   Share
   No thanks

    Sharing this page …

    Thanks! Close

    Comments for this page are closed.

       Sort by popular now

    Showing 44 comments


    Dubai Electronics

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to see what role telecom lobbying of Justice Department played when the government began its

    year-long, and ultimately successful, push to win retroactive immunity for AT&T and others being sued for unlawfully spying on American


    Industrial Electronic

o   Like
o   1 year ago
o   F



    I think all of the woman must ed hardy,but not all of them can buy it for it's high price,even the top brand like polo and gucci,but ,now,you

    can buy it from our website for lower price,come on.Links of London Chains

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    The Department of Justice has finally admitted it in court papers: The nation’s telecom companies are an arm of the government.

    Fine, now since they are government organizations, all of the profits they have obtained over the last 100 years or so, belong to the American


    Here is proof positive, that the so called smart people running our country, haven't a clue. They have just let the American People know of

    most likely the biggest fraud ever committed against the American People.

    As well as provided written proof of the offense.
o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    @mreid2005 If you don't believe this is the government of your youth, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might like. Nothing has

    changed but the names my friend.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    @Clarpet "Besides, as I’ve said in Wired comments MANY times, if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about."

    I'll let Bruce Schneier speak for himself:

    "Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises

    under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without

    intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion

    privacy even when we have nothing to hide.


    Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an

    Uncertain World. He is additionally a frequent contributor to Wired News.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    whoa, so many comments. But anyone who works in telecoms can tell you that the capability to 'listen in' is a leagal requirement on all

    neworks. honestly, do yo think government run telco's would build networks that could not be used to 'listen in' on populations?

    This is hadly news folks.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Also not surprised about this. And to everyone hating on Obama about the 'change' we've been seeing- he works for the government, they do

    NOT work for him. There are many people involved with the decisions that are made, he simply has to accept public responsibility for them.

    He is a figure-head. It has only been 10 months! If you think he is able to just do whatever he wants, that is not the case at all.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    "The President's Analyst" - movie, 1967 starring James Coburn- watch it. Funny and yet oh so sadly true. The phone company is big brother.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    @ShaJ: Damn right! Hoo-rah!

    @MidnightShift: your logic is correct, but a couple of things to keep in mind: 1). National defense takes priority over *everything* (legally) 2).

    AT&T was actually built by the government as part of the (Ma'Bell) national communications infrastructure long before you had a choice in

    who your comm's provider was and 3). Amendments to existing laws do not constitute new laws, therefore the "grandfathering" of something

    illegal being made legal doesn't apply; they can say "well NOW its only illegal if YOU do it, but its okay NOW if this guy does it". Its bull, but

    that's how the legal system works.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    If you guys are sick of this, and just want the best for the country, you should all check out campaignforliberty.c0m. It's headed by Ron Paul,

    the only living constitutionalist in congress. Very truthful, very humble. Great cause.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    If Obama, a FREAKIN Constitutional Attorney goes for this, we need a mass recall on his Presidency. This isn't Bush Part III.

    Someone get some balls in this Country!
o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    @Clarpet, You are correct Sir! The National Guard is the finest fighting force on the face of the earth, better then the SEALs, Germans,

    English, Russians, Gurkas or even the Israelis. Thanks for the reminder. "Army, Navy, Air force, Marines, We don't ask for experience, we

    give it, you won't read it in a book, you will live it."

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    See Public Law 85-804. Companies working for the 'national defense' are exempt from some lawsuits and don't have to concern themselves

    with other laws. This started with the nuclear power industry.

    It "grants to the President the authority to authorize any agency which exercises functions in connection with the national defense to enter

    into contracts or into amendments or modifications of contracts, and to make advance payments, without regard to other applicable legal

    provisions whenever such action would facilitate the national defense."

    The same law was used in 2008 to funnel $1 billion into the manufacture of flu vaccine.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    Something I've always been curious about is the ex post facto law rule. The government can't make something illegal after the fact and

    prosecute people for something that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed. Does it not make sense for the inverse to be true? i.e. the

    government can not make laws that make a crime not a crime after the fact and then excuse people from violating the law. Retroactive

    immunity just seems inconsistent.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    @technophile and @danielius

    Good bye civil rights? The HUAC?

    Get real.

    They aren't looking for Anarchist Cookbook, backyard, rebel wannabes.

    They aren't looking for people who don't like their government or resent America.

    They ARE looking for people who have a direct, malicious intent to bring harm and destruction to our country and our way of life.

    And yes, if you DON'T have anything to hide, and are a law abiding, upstanding citizen, then you don't have anything to worry about.

    If you are, however, a criminal, a terrorist, a violent wacko activist, some hacker who thinks he is going to make a political statement via

    violating our personal data or bringing down a security system, or some conspiracy theorist who thinks they "get it" and "big brother" is going

    to go a Gustapo on us is planning on doing something extreme, then as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad they're listening.

    And WAKE UP: We have always had a military presence that can be used "against Americans". Its called the National Guard, and its just

    there to keep the peace when people resort to rioting to solve their issues.

    Again, the biggest problem here is ignorance.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    The Good Doctor, Life is a constant battle versus my own entropy

    i'm just not so sure why people should be able to sue the telecoms for doing what the government is telling them to do. if people feel their

    privacy is being violated, then sue the government.

    maybe i'm missing something and someone could explain it to me.

    i think the real disturbing part here is the obama administrations decision to block the request for information. this is exactly the opposite of

    what obama promised while campaigning. this is not open government.



o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    still turns my stomach, this isn't the government of my youth.. or so I was led to believe

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    So, are the Phone Companies, now part of the new Fusion Centers? The new Fusion Centers around the Country protecting US and our way

    of life. All of these centers are for US and should be viewed by all and we should all feel safe and secure as we view them protecting each and

    every one of US. God bless them and God bless America.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    And let me add a little more to my previous comment:

    When I think of ultimate privacy, I think of that Charlie Pride country music song "Behind Closed Doors". I think someone just published a

    new book on this subject written from the female perspective (although some of it's tell all I understand), but it's meant to be opening only a

    small window into those closed doors that allow other women and men to see that what they do in the bedroom isn't weird or unusual. But I'll

    be damned if I want some government bureaucrat to be able to turn on the microphone on the phone and listen in on us. I'd probably

    strangle the bastard if I caught him doing that and thought I could get away with it. Or otherwise make his life miserable.

    Now I'll bother you with some of the lyrics to make the point even further:

    My baby makes me proud, Lord don't she make me proud

    She never makes a scene by hanging all over me in a crowd

    'Cause people like to talk, Lord, how they love to talk

    But when they turn out the lights, I know she'll be leaving with me


    And when we get behind closed doors

    [ Charlie Rich Lyrics are found on ]

    Then she lets her hair hang down

    And she makes me glad I'm a man

    Oh no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

    My, behind closed doors.
    My baby makes me smile, Lord don't she make me smile

    She's never too far away or too tired to say "I want you"

    She's always a lady, just like a lady should be

    But when they turn out the lights, she's still a baby to me.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    >clarpet said:

    >Besides, as I’ve said in Wired comments MANY times, if you don’t have >anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about.


    John Dean refuted this idea beyond reproach in an argument that appeared on alternet. Clarpet, I suggest you also read some of Dean's

    articles on right wing authoritarianism as well to get an idea of the extent of this problem as it relates to our country as what we have known it

    to be and what it has become and is becoming moreso. If the situation is not reversed, corporate/government-fascism will be enshrined in

    our common law as seems to be happening now. The courts are loaded with authoritarians as it the government, even under Obama, not so

    much as under Bush but still it is there.

    Here's the link to Dean's article. Use Google to find more on right wing authoritarism, which also affects many who claim to be on the left.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    @boybunny - lol. Great call, hit them where it counts the most and watch actual results unfold.
    @ everyone blaming obama - while he may be complicit in extending the situation through almost a year of his administration, the history of

    this entire situation is DECADES old. Scapegoats don't make good eating, no calories and you'll be hungry again soon. So, instead of spewing

    your blatant partisan hatreds as poorly camouflaged issues such as this, actually THINK a little. I'm not happy with Obama's stand on the

    telcos so far, but only a blind fool would blame him for the mess.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    EFF is the only group not blinded by Obama's rhetoric and still attempting to keep the DOJ honest. If anyone out there still doubts that the

    Government/Telcom Cabal isn't the 21st Century's version of Big Brother, check out my add on Craigslist under "Bridges For Sale".

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    Todd Baier

    AT&T union workers have been working without a contract since March... because AT&T, with a profit of over $13billion a year claims it can't

    afford to sustain our health insurance. Can we now sue the government for our insurance?

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    Convenient my prior comments were deleted. Must have struck a cord. And for you bozo's that keeping saying, "if you have nothing to hide,

    then..." blah blah, are so ignorant to understanding your rights, you should just pack for Venezuela now.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    I blame Obama because he is just continuing the destruction of our constitution that his predessesors began. When will we have an American

    elected instead of these bank slaves?

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    @danielius,"Does the US army training a military force for use IN America for use against Americans bother anyone?" No; PTSDs, Burn

    Outs, Dent heads, Psychos, Dopers, Drunks, Racists and Gang members and some very Good People (Warriors) who are loyal to the US

    Constitution, do not scare me, they reassure me. In the words of our old leader, I say "Bring it on."

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    Everyone refers to Obama when mentioning surveillance over the countries citizens. Did you think it was him that started this program? It's

    been running since AOL was the primary internet service provider back in the day of dialups. His administration has to find a reason to tell

    the people why this is rightious. But don't blame the guy for a program thats been running since the beginning.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Well looking at the words thrown about by the author, I think he missed the point: Does the US government in time of national emergency

    have the right to compel telecoms to divulge call records, and/or "eavesdrop" on cell conversations (by "sampling")?

    My feeling is that in abstract, no. But in the real world, why not? Who are the people who are harmed? You? Me?

    No, the people who are harmed are those who made calls to and from overseas from certain countries. Do we want to stop this? If we want the

    give the criminals a fair shake, we should since we might listen in on a innocent person and that trumps an attack on a city.

    And "big brother is watching"? Watching what? Your letters to your mistress? As long as the word "nuclear" isn't in it in various languages,

    you're fine.

    We should not allow the government to have an advantage over our enemies. It just isn't fair.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Goodbye civil rights. Obama is a much taller puppet than Bush, don't you think? Does the US army training a military force for use IN

    America for use against Americans bother anyone? Get with the times. Turn off your TV. The internet will be controlled soon enough. I

    wonder what would get WIRED to change their "threat level " meter..... Stay calm and entertained, citizens.
o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    This may actually be a bonus for American taxpayers. If the money you pay for phone service is going to a branch of the US Government, then

    it is effectively a tax.

    You could then take this to court demanding to be able to have any money paid to your phone carrier be treated the same way as tax is,

    allowing you to demand more in tax refunds at the end of the tax year.

    If a clever lawyer can make this stick, you will see a terrified government backtracking on calling phone companies an arm of the government.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    The Electronic Frontier Foundation is really irked at Obumma! A CHANGE from Bush???? GET REAL!

    The real reason is that they don't want to expose Amdocs and Comverse InfoSystems, both Israeli companies who spy through the back doors

    of the AT&T telephone switches (and others) while doing the long-distance billing under contract.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    Re: "if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about"

    Question: Are you simple?

    Tell that to, oh... anyone who had to go before the HUAC, for instance...

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Too bad its rather hard to sue the feds themselves.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Uhm. He's helping them defend their position. So he's an accessory to whatever crimes you just alleged bush committed, instead of the direct

    actor. SO WHAT. He can CHANGE the way things are done, but he's not. Business as usual. Stop making this a bush v obama situation.

    Comparing people to bush in order to claim righteousness just spits in the face of righteousness. Compared to Adolf, everyone's a friggen

    Angel, but that doesn't mean they're RIGHT.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    @AJ, @Tactical_Grace and @sailorflat:

    What you ignorant morons seem to completely miss is that the Freedom of Information Act policies that ALLOWED this situation to occur

    and put these rights in the hands of the feds (the rights to blatantly invade your privacy and monitor ALL electronic communications) WAS


    Don't sit here and make ignorant comments about "blah blah this is Obama's fault" when the issue was inherited from something CREATED

    by the previous administration.

    The Obama Admin may be guilty of not changing the FoI Act, but it has chosen to do so under the stipulation that we are involved in multiple

    conflicts, the success of which may depend on what the FoI allows. That doesn't make it right, but they must have a good reason for keeping


    Besides, as I've said in Wired comments MANY times, if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about.

    Rather than making misdirected, uneducated, snide remarks about things you don't understand, why don't you stand up and "change" things

    yourself? Comments on Wired hardly qualify as being politically active.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Clearly the DoJ are foilhat wearing lunatics. Everyone knows conspiracies never happen in the United States of America. That's just common

    sense, people.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    Awesome! It's like that movie Eagle Eye, except real and probably more scary. Not surprising though.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    I always wondered what Obama meant by "Change". It appears that he is more interested in catering to the wishes of the military industrial

    complex. Health care was such a big deal that he made a deal with the pharmaceutical corporations that their prices would not be affected.

    And he calls this change? I'm sorry, but I'm not intertested in a president that speaks so eloquently that nothing ever actually changes.

    Obama got elected because we the people were sick of the hands of government feeding the war machine and the corporations stealing from

    us. But it's been long enough that he should put some muscle in a single payer health care option and go after the crimes of the Bush

    administration. ATT is just one more example of how democracy in this nation is a joke. All this garbage of keeping the for-profit health

    insurance corporations in business simply means that there will be no change, just a lot of wasted money. George W. Bush is a war criminal

    and he and his Unka Dicky should both be turned over to the Haugue for their war crimes. Sorry, but Obama isn't who he said he was and the

    corporation push will never be any change.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    "Change you can believe in." Ya right!

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Obama's campaign slogan for 2012: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. Get used to it, or do something about it.

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    dredeyedick, no demonstrable presence

    Here is a collection of widely scattered pdf documents related to warrantless domestic surveillance, including this Bush / Cheney NSA

    surveillance, converted to html files between December 2005 and August 2006.

    It includes both EFF and ACLU complaints, congressional testimony, and many other items.

    It is downloadable. Share it widely.


    - David C. Manchester


o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F


    that doesn't even make sense... how could they claim that??

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    this stuff doesn't even surprise me that the point?

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F



    Well Ma Bell runs deep along side Uncle Sam, The interwebs will be next, "big brother is watching"...

o   Like
o   2 years ago
o   F
   M Subscribe by email
   S RSS


      form-zWpzjZ2V1         search_block_for

   HOME
   SHOP

    NSA Spying
    The U.S. government with assistance from major
    telecommunications carriers including AT&T has
    engaged in a massive program of illegal dragnet
    surveillance of domestic communications and
    communications records of millions of ordinary
    Americans since at least 2001.

    News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the
    National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting
    Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications.
    Those news reports plus a USA Today story in May
    2006 and the statements of several members of
    Congress revealed that the NSA is also receiving
    wholesale copies of their telephone and other
    communications records. All of these surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy
    safeguards established by Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

    The evidence also shows that the government did not act alone. EFF has obtained
    whistleblower evidence [PDF] from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T
    is cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T
    installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes
    copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers
    and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and
    international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed “this isn’t a
    wiretap it’s a country-tap.”

    EFF is fighting these illegal activities on multiple fronts. In Hepting v. AT&T EFF filed the
    first case against a telecom for violating its customers' privacy. In addition EFF is
    representing victims of the illegal surveillance program in Jewel v. NSA a lawsuit filed in
    September 2008 against the government seeking to stop the warrantless wiretapping and
    hold the government officials behind the program accountable.
        EFF is not alone in this fight. There are multiple cases challenging various parts of the
        illegal surveillance against both the telecoms and the government. This page collects
        information on EFF's cases as well as cases brought by individuals the American Civil
        Liberties Union of Northern California and of Illinois the Center for Constitutional Rights
        and others.

        BLOG POSTS
        IN THE NEWS
        CASES
        OTHER

       September 13, 2012

        Fight over FISA Amendments Act Moves to the Senate, as the House Passes the Broad,
        Warrantless Spying Bill

       August 27, 2012

        The New York Times Reminds Us the NSA Still Warrantlessly Wiretaps Americans, and
        Congress Has the Power to Stop It

       July 30, 2012

        Why The NSA Can’t Be Trusted to Run U.S. Cybersecurity Programs

       July 24, 2012

        Congress Must Act After US Government Admits To Unconstitutional Warrantless
        Wiretapping For the First Time

       June 29, 2012

        Why won’t the Obama administration reveal how many Americans’ emails the NSA has
        collected and reviewed without a warrant?
   June 18, 2012

    UK Mass Surveillance Bill: The Return of a Bad Idea

   June 7, 2012

    US Government Still Insisting It Can’t Be Sued Over Warrantless Wiretapping

   May 31, 2012

    A Review of Today's Important House Hearing on Warrantless Wiretapping and the FISA
    Amendments Act

   April 25, 2012

    CISPA, “National Security,” and the NSA’s Ability to Read Your Emails

   March 21, 2012

    NSA Chief Appears to Deny Ability to Warrantlessly Wiretap Despite Evidence

   March 7, 2012

    No Checks or Balances in Warrantless Wiretapping Despite Holder's Assurances

   March 1, 2012

    HTTPS and Tor: Working Together to Protect Your Privacy and Security Online

   February 29, 2012

    EFF Tells Supreme Court that No Means No in Wiretap Act

   October 21, 2011

    An EFF Guide to the Silicon Valley Human Rights Summit

   October 18, 2011

    The Dangers in Classifying the News
   October 6, 2011

    EU Parliament Takes the First Step to Prevent Sales of Surveillance Equipment Used to
    Violate Human Rights

   September 1, 2011

    Listen to EFF's Courtroom Arguments Against Warrantless Wiretapping

   August 24, 2011

    EFF’s Warrantless Wiretapping Cases Back in Court on August 31

   August 23, 2011

    Members-Only Speakeasy: Seattle

   December 22, 2010

    Case Closed? Court Issues Final Judgment in NSA Spying Case, Al-Haramain v. Obama

   November 23, 2010

    EFF Urges Supreme Court to Block Government Overreach in State Secret Contract Dispute

   October 18, 2010

    In Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Appeal, Government Still Singing Same Old State
    Secrecy Tune

   September 27, 2010

    Government Seeks Back Door Into All Our Communications

   September 13, 2010

    9th Circuit's Troubling New State Secrets Decision Demonstrates Need for Reform

   August 13, 2010
    EFF Files Appeal of Warrantless Wiretapping Case Jewel v. NSA

   July 2, 2010

    Fight Against Telco Immunity Continues in Court of Appeals

   March 31, 2010

    Court Rejects Government's Executive Power Claims and Rules That Warrantless
    Wiretapping Violated Law

   March 19, 2010

    EFF Appeals Dismissal of Warrantless Wiretapping Case

   March 17, 2010

    Wiring Up The Big Brother Machine... And Fighting It

   December 7, 2009

    EFF Submits Brief in Key State Secrets Privilege Case

   November 9, 2009

    Big Win in Telecom Lobbying Documents Battle - Government to Turn Over Some Records
    This Week

   November 5, 2009

    Two Battles Won: PATRIOT Reform AND State Secrets Reform Bills Pass House Committee

   October 21, 2009

    Ninth Circuit Grants Stay in EFF Case Seeking Telecom Lobbying Documents

   October 20, 2009

    Breaking News: House of Representatives Enters PATRIOT Fray With Two New Surveillance
    Reform Bills
   October 9, 2009

    UPDATE: Appeals Court Denies Government Motion to Delay Release of Telecom Lobbying

   October 8, 2009

    UPDATE: Government Files Emergency Motion to Delay Release of FOIA Documents

   October 2, 2009

    Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: PATRIOT Edition

   September 29, 2009

    NYT: New Obama Policy on State Secrets isn't Enough; Reform by Congress is Needed

   September 29, 2009

    EFF Supports New Bill to Repeal Telco Immunity

   September 24, 2009

    PATRIOT Debate Round-Up: Dems Press Obama for Reforms; Leahy Bill a Good Start But
    Doesn't Stack Up to Last Week's JUSTICE Bill

   September 17, 2009

    EFF Supports JUSTICE Bill to Reform the USA PATRIOT Act and Repeal Telecom Immunity

   August 24, 2009

    Op-Ed on Lawless Surveillance by Cindy Cohn

   July 22, 2009

    SF Chronicle: Obama Position on Wiretapping is "Mind-Boggling"

   July 16, 2009
    News Round-Up: Jewel v. NSA Hearing

   July 10, 2009

    Inspectors General Report on Warrantless Wiretapping

   July 10, 2009

    Unclassified Version of Report to Congress on NSA Program is Available Now

   June 17, 2009

    More from the NYT on NSA's Domestic Spying: "Pinwale" Has Your Emails

   May 22, 2009

    Judge Takes Government to Task in Al-Haramain Spying Case

   April 21, 2009

    Rep. Jane Harman Changes Her Tune On Wiretapping

   April 20, 2009

    Senator Specter: "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs"

   April 16, 2009

    New Wiretapping Revelations Should Prompt New Action from Congress and the White

   April 15, 2009

    NY Times Reports New Revelations About Wiretapping Program

   April 15, 2009

    Jewel v. NSA Roundup: The Media on Obama's Position on State Secrecy and Warrantless
   April 8, 2009

    EFF's Kevin Bankston on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann"

   April 8, 2009

    Keith Olbermann on Obama and Wiretapping

   April 7, 2009

    In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

   March 2, 2009

    Bush Administration Claimed Fourth Amendment Did Not Apply to NSA Spying

   March 2, 2009

    DOJ Releases Secret Bush Era OLC Memos

   February 27, 2009

    Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Denies Government Appeal in Al-Haramain Warrantless
    Wiretapping Case

   February 13, 2009

    Poll: Majority Want Investigations on Warrantless Wiretapping

   February 11, 2009

    Judge Seeks Further Briefing on Constitutionality of Telecom Immunity

   January 22, 2009

    Whistleblower Reveals New Abuses of Wiretapping Power

   January 5, 2009

    Al-Haramain Warrantless Spying Case Can Proceed
   December 17, 2008

    First Interview with the NSA Whistleblower

   December 15, 2008

    The Whistleblower Who Kick-Started Domestic Spying Revelations

   November 19, 2008

    What Obama Can and Should Do to Stop Telecom Immunity

   October 23, 2008

    EFF's New NSA Spying Shirts

   October 16, 2008

    Colbert on NSA Spying

   October 10, 2008

    New NSA Whistleblowers Say NSA Spied on US Service Members and Aid Workers

   September 20, 2008

    Government Files to Dismiss NSA Telecom Surveillance Cases

   September 16, 2008

    New Details of Official Dissent in Spying Scandal

   August 22, 2008

    The Secret Room: EFF Designer's Cartoon on Illegal Spying

   August 21, 2008

    Appeals Court Remands Gov't Appeal in Hepting v. AT&T

   July 23, 2008
    Three Ways to Fight Immunity

   July 11, 2008

    The ‘Repeal Immunity’ Movement Begins Today

   July 10, 2008

    Looking Back, Moving Forward: The Continuing Fight Against Telecom Immunity

   July 10, 2008

    Help EFF Continue the Fight Against Warrantless Wiretapping

   July 8, 2008

    Senate Begins Final Debate on Retroactive Immunity

   July 7, 2008

    Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg on FISA

   July 3, 2008

    Cartoon: The Return of Snuggly, the Security Bear

   July 3, 2008

    What The New NSA Spying Decision Means for the Immunity Debate

   July 3, 2008

    Senator Hatch and Tinfoil Hats

   July 2, 2008

    Breaking News: Court Holds That FISA Preempts State Secret Privilege

   June 27, 2008

    A Brief Reprieve on FISA: What Now?
   June 27, 2008

    EFF Supports Senator Bingaman's Immunity Amendment: Congress Should Know What It is

   June 26, 2008

    Senate Delays Vote on Immunity

   June 25, 2008

    Vote On Immunity Appears Imminent, But Anything Could Happen

   June 25, 2008

    Senators Dodd and Feingold Stand Strong Against Immunity

   June 20, 2008

    House Falls Down on the Job

   June 19, 2008

    EFF Obtains New FISA Bill Containing Telecom Immunity, Vote in House Tomorrow!

   June 18, 2008

    Immunity in the News

   June 17, 2008

    HOWTO: Analyze Immunity Provisions in FISA Legislation

   June 13, 2008

    Report: Deal to Stop Courts From Ruling on Illegal Warrantless Wiretaps Imminent

   June 10, 2008

    What Will Happen to Surveillance in August 2008
   June 10, 2008

    Debunking Republican Spin on Fake Telecom Immunity "Compromise" in Today's NYT

   June 10, 2008

    Three Media Mistakes on Warrantless Wiretapping

   June 7, 2008

    McCain Revises Stance on Warrantless Wiretapping Again

   June 6, 2008

    McCain Adopts Bush Administration's Flawed Legal Analysis of Warrantless Wiretaps

   June 5, 2008

    McCain Campaign Staffed By Telecom Immunity Lobbyists

   June 2, 2008

    Spying Telecoms Receive Billions in Government Contracts

   May 23, 2008

    McCain Not Giving Straight Talk on Warrantless Wiretapping

   May 21, 2008

    John McCain Wouldn't Give the Telcos Immunity if He Were President

   May 20, 2008

    Boehner Wants Protection From Illegal Wiretapping - But Only For Himself

   May 7, 2008

    A New Look at the Hub of AT&T's Spying Program

   April 23, 2008
    Stopping Abuse of the State Secrets Privilege

   April 15, 2008

    More Questions Swirl Around Mukasey's Emotional Plea for Warrantless Wiretapping

   March 27, 2008

    Letters To The Editor: People Speak Out On Surveillance

   March 20, 2008

    Talk Back to the House

   March 18, 2008

    AT&T Whistleblower on Immunity for Telecoms

   March 18, 2008

    How Surveillance Hurts Free Speech

   March 14, 2008

    House Passes Bill with No Immunity for Phone Companies

   March 12, 2008

    House Judiciary Committee Slams Immunity and Calls for Deeper Investigation of
    Warrantless Surveillance

   March 12, 2008

    Advocacy Groups Urge Congress to Hold Fast Against Immunity

   March 10, 2008

    Law-Checking WSJ Article on Domestic Spying

   March 10, 2008
    BoingBoing TV interview with Cindy Cohn and Mark Klein

   March 10, 2008

    Wall Street Journal Confirms Key Elements of Hepting v. AT&T

   March 7, 2008

    Colbert Word of the Day: AT & Treason

   March 7, 2008

    EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn's Introduction for Mark Klein at the 2008 Pioneer Awards

   March 6, 2008

    Tash Hepting: "It's not about the money."

   March 5, 2008

    Plaintiffs Speak Out Against Telecom Immunity

   March 3, 2008

    Top Ten Questions for Journalists to Ask the White House

   March 3, 2008

    Washington Post Columnist Explains "Why Immunity Matters"

   February 29, 2008

    Anonymous GOP Operatives Surprised that Fearmongering Isn't Working

   February 26, 2008

    Four Former Intelligence Professionals Write DNI McConnell

   February 25, 2008

    Myth/Facts about Retroactive Immunity and Attorneys
   February 22, 2008

    Republicans Block FISA Talks

   February 15, 2008

    Surveillance Editorial Roundup

   February 14, 2008

    House Democrats Preparing To Call Bush's Bluff

   February 13, 2008

    House Votes Against PAA Extension

   February 12, 2008

    FISA Amendments Act News Roundup

   February 12, 2008

    White House Admits that Defendants in Telecom Cases Assisted in Wiretapping Program

   February 11, 2008

    RNC Reruns Failed Attack Ad

   February 6, 2008

    FISA News Roundup

   February 3, 2008

    Senate Votes on Surveillance Law This Week

   January 30, 2008

    Illegal Government Surveillance: It's Not Just For Foreigners

   January 29, 2008
    EFF Testifies Before House Committee in Support of State Secrets Privilege Reform

   January 28, 2008

    Critical Senate Vote on Surveillance Imminent

   January 25, 2008

    Don't Just Tell Congress - Show Them: Your Photos and Videos Needed at

   January 24, 2008

    Congress Stand Firm: Surveillance Continues Even If PAA Expires

   January 23, 2008

    Bloggers and Others Push Presidential Candidates on Immunity

   December 17, 2007

    Update: Harry Reid Bows to Pressure, Postpones Immunity

   December 17, 2007

    Senate Showdown over Telecom Surveillance

   November 8, 2007

    Mark Klein Interviewed on MSNBC, C-SPAN and NPR. The Senate Reconsiders Immunity.

   November 7, 2007

    Senator Dodd Posts Video of Interview with AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein

   October 25, 2007

    Bloggers and Civil Libertarians Petition Congress

   October 22, 2007
    Newspaper Editorial Boards Oppose Telecom Immunity

   October 20, 2007

    Senate Committee Caves in to Telecom Amnesty

   October 19, 2007

    Salon Blogger Interviews EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn

   October 18, 2007

    Citizens' Video Clip Questions GOP Candidates on Warrantless Wiretapping — Vote For It!

   October 17, 2007

    Qwest CEO: NSA Punished Qwest for Refusing to Participate in Illegal Surveillance--Pre-

   October 10, 2007

    Congress Stand Firm: America Deserves A Legal Decision on Warrantless Wiretapping

   October 4, 2007

    "No Good Lawyer" Would Buy Warrantless Surveillance Justification

   October 2, 2007

    Goldsmith Testimony on the Secret Warrantless Surveillance Program

   September 29, 2007

    Telecoms Want Immunity for Lawbreaking: A Roundup of Coverage from Around the

   September 26, 2007

    Parts of FISA Held Unconstitutional
   September 20, 2007

    Newsweek: The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to know

   September 19, 2007

    Outrage at the Possibility of Democratic Concessions on Wiretapping

   September 19, 2007

    EFF Joins Representative Markey in Urging FCC to Investigate Telcos, Offers Help

   September 18, 2007

    Tap Dancing Around Wiretaps

   September 18, 2007

    DOJ Testimony Alludes to Massive Scope of Wiretapping

   September 13, 2007

    German Plot Uncovered By Old Fashioned Police Work

   September 7, 2007

    Visit and Fight for Your Freedom Now!

   September 4, 2007

    Ex-DOJ Official Pens Tell-All Book on "Flimsy" Legal Basis for Executive Power

   September 2, 2007

    Administration Leaks Confirm AT&T and Verizon's Role in Warrantless Wiretapping

   August 23, 2007

    Spy Chief Admits Telcos Collaborated With NSA Spying
   August 21, 2007

    White House Flouts NSA Subpoena Deadline, But Will Congress Fight Back?

   August 16, 2007

    Judges Grill Government at NSA Surveillance Hearing

   August 15, 2007

    EFF Needs You Now -- Support Our Case Against AT&T

   August 14, 2007

    Appeals Court Battle Over NSA Surveillance on Tomorrow

   August 9, 2007

    D.C. Court's "State Secrets" Ruling May Have Broader Consequences

   August 9, 2007

    How Ma Bell Fought for Your Privacy - 80 Years Ago

   August 7, 2007

    Op-Eds in the Aftermath of Warrantless Spying Legislation

   August 7, 2007

    Congress Caves on Warrantless Snooping -- What Happened, and How To Fix It

   August 2, 2007

    Congress Rushing Administration Spying Bill Forward Despite Secret Court Disapproval

   July 31, 2007

    Administration Concedes Open Secret: NSA Spying Broader Than Previously Admitted

   July 17, 2007
    NSA Subpoena Deadline Looms -- What Happens Next?

   July 6, 2007

    Split Decision Appeals Court Rules Against ACLU on NSA Wiretapping

    October 17, 2007 | By Hugh D'Andrade

    Qwest CEO: NSA Punished Qwest for Refusing to Participate in Illegal
    When Qwest refused the NSA’s illegal request that it hand over its customers’ data without
    a warrant, the NSA wasn’t happy. According to former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, the
    government hit back for the telecom’s refusal by denying them lucrative contracts (log-in
    required) worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    That claim, backed up by documents, was made during Nacchio’s appeal of his conviction
    for insider trading. Whether or not Nacchio’s appeal goes through, his case has brought
    forward some interesting facts that deserve to be highlighted.

    First, the most fascinating detail to emerge is that it appears the NSA was talking to the
    giant telecoms about handing over customer data a full seven months before 9/11.
    Documents show that Nacchio met with the NSA on February 27, 2001, at which time
    Nacchio refused a request that he deemed illegal. If true, this would seem to contradict the
    Bush administration claim that any laws broken by the telecoms were hasty mistakes made
    in the confusion following the terrorist attacks.

    Equally disturbing is the picture that is emerging of what goes on in the backrooms of the
    nation’s telecoms. It appears that the NSA’s requests for cooperation came with an implied
    quid pro quo — give us your customer’s calling records and we will reward you with
    generous contracts worth millions. It is beginning to look like the telecoms were motivated
    by something other than “patriotism” after all.

    As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald puts it, the telecoms and the government “meet and plan and
    agree so frequently, and at such high levels, that they practically form a consortium.”

    The Federal Government has its hands dug deeply into the entire ostensibly "private"
    telecommunications infrastructure and, in return, the nation's telecoms are recipients of
enormous amounts of revenues by virtue of turning themselves into branches of the
Federal Government.

The details emerging from the backrooms where telecoms and the government conspire
together make it increasingly clear that now is the time for Congress to act. Investigations
into what the telecoms knew and when they knew it should be continued, and no
wiretapping legislation should be passed until Congress and the public have the full story
of what has happened in the last six years.

this vid goes in detail into describing what trapwire is . gives you a good basic
understanding on trapwire .
links :

DC Chief of Police Cites Role of TrapWire During Senate Committee Hearing

12:43pm (ET) 10/13/2011

 "The MPD receives SARs through many different methods, including 911
 calls, text messages, email, our iWatchDC public web portal, from trained
 terrorism liaison officers, TrapWire reports from critical infrastructure
 sites, and observations made by patrol officers during the course of their
 duties. All of these SAR reports are forwarded to the fusion center and
 reviewed by trained analysts to ensure that the reports meet the
 established standards for suspicious activity reporting. If they do, the
 reports are entered into software programs where they are plotted for
 pattern analysis and proximity to critical infrastructure and other sensitive

Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, members of the Committee, staff and guests - thank
you for the opportunity to present this statement on the status of information sharing among federal
and local partners. I am the Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia, the primary police force in the nation's capital. As the Chief of a major city police
department, I am very pleased to be able to brief you on the significant progress made in federal--
local information sharing, and how that has improved our ability to safeguard the public.

In my testimony, I will elaborate on why it is even more important now, ten years later, to recognize
the vital role of local law enforcement in our homeland security efforts. With threats to the nation
constantly evolving, local law enforcement officers who are on the street every day are uniquely
positioned to detect and prevent terrorist incidents. There are more than 700,000 law enforcement
members across the nation that know and are connected to the communities they serve, placing
them in the best position to detect and investigate criminal activity that might be connected to
terrorism or violent extremism. Clearly, information sharing with local police is essential to
countering the threats we face going forward.

Important groundwork for the anniversary preparations was established in 2010. With a significant
increase in American citizens or residents aligned with violent Islamic extremists arrested or
convicted in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a broad working group on
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). From the outset, this working group included local law
enforcement. Following that effort, DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) committed to
a partnership with MPD to engage and educate our partners in the private sector and the community.
Beginning in 2010, we jointly briefed thousands of government and private sector partners around
the National Capital Region on recognizing and reporting suspicious activity; as well as responding to
potential terrorist threats. Those briefings certainly paid off, as you will see, when we entered the
high threat period of the 9/11 10-year anniversary.

Fast forwarding to last month, early on the morning of September 8, 2011, I received virtually
simultaneous calls from my own official in the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and my counterpart
at the Department of Homeland Security urging me to attend a classified briefing on an emerging
threat to Washington, DC, and New York. Within an hour, both the FBI and DHS provided me with
unfettered access to the actual cable outlining the threat. This shows that not only have we built
strong relationships in the region, but more importantly the institutional structures that we have
created are ensuring the flow of information. What was perhaps even more important was the quality
of the information made available to me. The details in the briefings were far greater than law
enforcement had received in the past and enabled our officers to focus on the specifics of the threat.
Equally important, within 24 hours, the intelligence community collectively decided that the public
needed to be informed of this credible threat, a significant departure from previous experiences. This
decision helped law enforcement in several ways. For one, many of the actions of local law
enforcement are much more visible than those of our federal partners, and in many cases are
intended to be. In other words, our community members notice when we takes steps in relation to a
heightened threat - they see us on the street, around critical infrastructure, and they know that
something unusual is happening. Although this may only be a local concern, announcing the threat
helps local authorities explain - and sometimes justify - our actions to the public. Local partners
appreciate this support. More importantly, making this potential threat public helped us focus our
community on reporting suspicious activity that may help us detect and deter those who may be
interested in carrying out this threat. Obviously, when we can effectively harness and direct the
attentions of the public, we can get more - and more useful - information to help us counter a threat.
In this case, after the announcement our calls for suspicious activity jumped significantly.

Most importantly, this announcement caused many of our private sector partners that had been
involved in the joint briefings months earlier to report specific suspicious activity that warranted
further investigation. For example, on September 10th, MPD was contacted by the general manager
of a local hotel who advised that six males from various Middle Eastern countries had checked into
the hotel between the 8th and the 10th. The last to arrive paid cash for his room, and asked for a
specific view of a notable landmark. All six individuals placed "Do Not Disturb" placards on their
doors. A manager at another hotel contacted MPD on September 11th to report that cleaning
personnel had found suspicious items left in a hotel room. The occupant had departed early without
checking out, and leaving cash for the room. In this instance, the activity was linked to suspicious
financial transactions reported earlier in the week. MPD and the FBI determined that the case did not
have a nexus to terrorism, but was linked to criminal activity. Although neither instance was related
to the 9/11 threat or to terrorism, the hotel managers took the right step in calling to report these

As you can see, providing some information to the public helps our efforts in the long run. It is a
recognized principle in policing that sometimes you need to give a little information in order to get
information. With the information about the threat on the anniversary of 9/11, and the visible
government mobilization to it, the public is reminded of the importance of sharing information about
suspicious activities with authorities. It reinforces the significance of the "See Something, Say
Something" campaign, which is strongly supported by federal and local partners.

Fortunately, our experience here in the District of Columbia during the threats around the 9/11
anniversary highlighted several areas in which information sharing has improved. However,
recognizing that my experience as the Chief of Police of the nation's capital may differ from other
chiefs around the country, I reached out to colleagues around the country, including Charles Ramsey,
current Police Commissioner in Philadelphia and President of the Major City Chiefs, and of course
former chief of MPD, and Raymond Kelly, the Police Commissioner of the New York Police
Department. Across the board, local law enforcement chiefs agreed that the progress since 9/11 has
been tremendous.

One person simply and aptly described the fusion centers and the FBI's Field Intelligence Group and
Directorate of Intelligence as "game changers" for local police departments. We would not be able to
prepare for and work together to prevent the significant threats facing our communities without this
sea change in governmental cooperation. In addition to these cornerstones of federal--local
information sharing, we continue to work on new links between the levels of government and with
the private sector.

The Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center, the District's fusion center, serves a critical
role in receiving, vetting and sharing suspicious activity reports (SARs). The MPD receives SARs
through many different methods, including 911 calls, text messages, email, our iWatchDC, public
web portal from trained terrorism liaison officers, TrapWire reports from critical infrastructure sites,
and observations made by patrol officers during the course of their duties. All of these SAR reports
are forwarded to the fusion center and reviewed by trained analysts to ensure that the reports meet
the established standards for suspicious activity reporting. If they do, the reports are entered into
software programs where they are plotted for pattern analysis and proximity to critical infrastructure
and other sensitive locations. The vetted reports are then entered into the National SAR Shared
Space where they are available for review by the national network of fusion centers, and are
forwarded to the FBI's eGuardian system for investigation by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).

While the high tech support may be more interesting, low tech support is just as important. Our DHS
partnership here in the District has been critical in educating the private sector about detecting and
protecting business and customers from risks and threats. Even before the launch of the CVE
working group, DHS has been a constant partner in trainings for the District's hospitals, hospitality
industry, Business Improvement Districts, and others. They provide materials such as CDs and
booklets that my Department would not be able to fund. Most importantly, they lend credibility to
our public education efforts.

As we continue this forward progress, there are several areas that we should focus on. The most
critical need continues to be effective and interoperable communications. Although the 9/11
anniversary highlighted the advances we have made in the past ten years, the earthquake that
struck the region a few weeks earlier highlighted a problem we have not solved: instant
communications. When the earthquake struck, I was in a Drug Enforcement Administration briefing
with two other police chiefs. For at least 15 minutes after it struck, we were not able to use our cell
phones to communicate with anyone. Rest assured, we do have other options. We can use the
Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS), the decades-old failsafe
communication procedure. We can, of course, also use police radios. But neither of these methods is
efficient. Using the GETS card takes time, and, during emergencies, police radios will already be
subject to increased traffic from the public calls for service. Neither of these is the answer for a
secure and reliable communication network. From my perspective, the federal government must
move forward with D-Block, a broadband spectrum for first responders. It is past time for this
recommendation from the 9/11 Commission to be implemented.

Beyond that critical step, the overarching imperative is that we must continue to institutionalize this
information sharing. If this process is just built on relationships and personalities, there will be gaps
and it will ultimately fail. Most people in the federal community are excellent partners, but my
colleagues around the country report that, to put it bluntly, some people and organizations still don't
get it. More specifically, although progress has been made on over-classification, we must remain
vigilant. It is particularly frustrating to local officials when major media outlets share more
information than we have. It can't be an effective security strategy to have law enforcement learning
of threats or other intelligence at the same time that the public and potential terrorists learn of it.
Local law enforcement recognizes and respects that intelligence agencies are reluctant to reveal their
sources or techniques. However we continue to believe the intelligence interests can be readily
balanced with the need to share actionable intelligence. Although we share the same ultimate goal of
safeguarding the country, both the law enforcement and intelligence community still need to work to
understand the varying intermediate interests and operations of the other, in order to help each
other more effectively and efficiently work to attain our organizational goals.

Maintaining robust fusion centers and co-locating analysts helps to counter any natural tendencies in
the intelligence and law enforcement communities to operate in silos. This familiarity also helps the
intelligence community to better target the information they share. There has certainly been
progress in this area, but local law enforcement is still given more information than we can sift
through. This brings us to one of the most critical issues facing local partnerships in homeland
security - funding. Nationwide, local law enforcement faces significant budget pressures, and police
departments need federal support and resources to continue their vital work. This includes funding
for fusion centers and analysts to work with law enforcement.

Although the technology to support homeland security efforts has advanced in areas many could not
have foreseen a decade ago, we now eagerly look to future improvements. For instance, classified
information is currently only available in specific locations, which requires that all organizations have
representation at the right places. But public safety and homeland security is not a stationary effort.
When there is a public safety threat facing a city, chiefs of police do not sit in a command center; we
are out on the street, assessing conditions on the ground, directing our officers, and reassuring the
public. Therefore, we must find ways to share classified information on the move.

This would also help us with another gap: involving smaller jurisdictions in this effort. Although
smaller jurisdictions have even fewer resources to devote to homeland security efforts than our
major cities, our small cities and towns are just as likely to be the setting for suspicious and criminal
activities. Larger police departments and the federal government bear equal responsibility for
reaching out to and involving smaller law enforcement agencies. Regional fusion centers can fulfill a
critical role by increasing outreach and technical assistance to smaller local law enforcement
agencies. Every agency should have a trained Terrorism Liaison Officer able to connect their agency
with regional and national efforts to detect and deter terrorist threats.
In closing, federal and local coordination in countering terrorism has advanced significantly over the
past ten years. I know that the District, the National Capital Region, and the country are safer
because of this work. However, we cannot rest as we still have work to do. I look forward to
continuing to work with all of you on this vital effort.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today.

      TrapWire         ®

      TrapWire is a unique, predictive software system designed to detect patterns indicative of
      terrorist attacks or criminal operations. Utilizing a proprietary, rules-based engine, TrapWire
      detects, analyzes and alerts on suspicious events as they are collected over periods of time and
      across multiple locations. Through the systematic capture of these pre-attack indicators,
      terrorist or criminal surveillance and pre-attack planning operations can be identified -- and
      appropriate law enforcement counter measures employed ahead of the attack. As such, our
      clients are provided with the ability to prevent the terrorist or criminal event, rather than simply
      mitigate damage or loss of life.

      The TrapWire system includes a variety of features and components that are configured and
      delivered based on the specific needs of the customer organization and its end users. There are
      currently three different TrapWire systems available for public and private sector clients:

             TW-CI (TrapWire Critical Infrastructure) focuses on the identification of pre-operational
              surveillance activities occurring around specific sites within the TrapWire Network

             TW-CM (TrapWire Community Member) supports the online reporting of suspicious
              behavior by community members, such as the iWatch programs in Los Angeles and
              Washington DC, andSee Something Say Something in Las Vegas and New York

             TW-LE (TrapWire Law Enforcement) provides the ability to gather, analyze and
              disseminate information about surveillance and logistical activities occurring across an
              entire geographic region, including information gathered via TW CI and TW CM

WikiLeaks Stirs Global Fears on Antiterrorist Software

Published: August 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — A new release of stolen corporate e-mails by WikiLeaks has set off a
flurry of concern and speculation around the world about a counterterrorist software
program called TrapWire, which analyzes images from surveillance cameras and other data
to try to identify terrorists planning attacks.

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

“U.S. government is secretly spying on EVERYONE using civilian security cameras, say
WikiLeaks,” read a headline on Monday at the British newspaper Web site Mail Online. The
article included a photograph from the movie “The Bourne Identity.” PC Magazine
described TrapWire as “a secret, comprehensive U.S. surveillance effort.”

Though TrapWire Inc., the Virginia company that sells the software, would not comment on
Monday, the reports appear to be wildly exaggerated. TrapWire was tried out on 15
surveillance cameras in Washington and Seattle by the Homeland Security Department, but
officials said it ended the trial last year because it did not seem promising.

A claim in the leaked e-mails that 500 cameras in the New York subway were linked to
TrapWire is false, said Paul J. Browne, the New York Police Department’s chief spokesman.
“We don’t use TrapWire.”

TrapWire is discussed in dozens of e-mails from Stratfor Global Intelligence, a private
security firm in Austin, Tex., that were posted online last week by WikiLeaks. The e-mails
were part of a large cache captured late last year and early this year by hackers associated
with the loose-knit international collective called Anonymous, which gave the e-mails to

The WikiLeaks Web site has been shut down by unidentified hackers in recent days, leading
to speculation that it might be retaliation for the e-mail leaks.

TrapWire was originally developed in 2004 by the Abraxas Corporation, which was founded
by several former C.I.A. employees. It later spun off TrapWire, but the C.I.A. connection,
along with the company’s vague but impressive descriptions of the program’s capabilities,
appears to have fueled the furor on the Web that it was a sort of automated Big Brother.
TrapWire’s marketing materials say it uses video cameras and observations by security
guards to develop a 10-point description of people near a potential terrorist target and an
eight-point description of vehicles. It also records “potential surveillance activity, such as
photographing, measuring and signaling,” combining in a TrapWire database “this human-
entered data with information collected by sensors.”

If the same person or car is picked up in multiple locations engaging in suspicious behavior,
the software is supposed to make the connection. But a privacy statement on the TrapWire
Web site says the software does not capture “personal information.”

Jay Stanley, who studies threats to privacy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said many
companies had tried to use technology “to find terrorist plots in an ocean of information
about everyday activities.”

“But it’s extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to distinguish the one-in-a-billion
terrorist from innocent people doing ordinary things like taking pictures,” Mr. Stanley said,
adding that the current fears demonstrate why the government should publicly address
concerns about surveillance before adopting new technologies.

“We live in a democracy,” he said, “and that’s what security agencies are here to protect.”

computer security, intelligence, protests, Wikileaks

Abraxas and Trapwire: the technology and
personnel revealed
Posted by anonymous ⋅ August 11, 2012⋅ 6 Comments

Filed Under Abraxas, Assange, Trapwire
TrapWire is a secret global surveillance system, founded in 2004 and run by ex-CIA chiefs,
with clients all over the world. It’s significance is that it is being used for all sorts of
surveillance, including everyday protests. The existence of TrapWire was only made known
a few days ago, thanks to documents published by Wikileaks (and hacking of Stratfor docs
by Anonymous). It is now believed that the recent cyber attacks on the Wikileaks sites were
in retaliation for the exposure of Trapwire, which is both a product and a company
(previously a subsidiary of Abraxas Corporation). Here, Darker Net provides a) an
introduction to the TrapWire technology, b) details of how that technology works and c)
the people who run TrapWire AND Abraxas. Oh, and then there’s the mysterious green
and blue badgers (!!!) – see below…

For hackers, here is the TrapWire operating console.

A. Introduction

According to Richard Hollis Helms, ex-CIA and founder of Abraxas in 2001, TrapWire was
designed to share threat information and establish patterns of data that could be used to predict
attacks. “It can collect information about people and vehicles that is more accurate than facial
recognition, draw patterns, and do threat assessments of areas that may be under observation
from terrorists,” he said. “The application can do things like ‘type’ individuals so if people say
‘medium build,’ you know exactly what that means from that observer.”

A leaked email from Fred Burton, Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, states that the
TrapWire network is now covering most North American and British high-value targets (HVT.)
“I knew these hacks when they were GS-12′s at the CIA. God Bless America. Now they have
EVERY major HVT in CONUS, the UK, Canada, Vegas, Los Angeles, NYC as clients,” he

“….tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) — the heart,
brains and soul of the CIA – has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas , Booz Allen
Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. “These firms recruit spies, create non-official cover
identities and control the movements of CIA case officers. They also provide case officers and
watch officers at crisis centers and regional desk officers who control clandestine operations
worldwide. As the Los Angeles Times first reported, more than half the workforce in two key
CIA stations in the fight against terrorism – Baghdad and Islamabad, Pakistan – is made up of
industrial contractors, or ‘green badgers,’ in CIA parlance. “Intelligence insiders say that entire
branches of the NCS have been outsourced to private industry. These branches are still managed
by U.S. government employees (‘blue badgers’) who are accountable to the agency’s chain of
command. But beneath them, insiders say, is a supervisory structure that’s controlled entirely by
contractors; in some cases, green badgers are managing green badgers from other corporations.”
R.J. Hillhouse, July 8, 2007, Washington Post.

TrapWire is also linked to the National Suspicious Activity Reporting (NSI) Initiative, a
program designed to help aggregate reports of suspicious activity around the USA. One email
from TrapWire states “TrapWire SAR reports are fed directly/automatically into the National
SAR Initiative” as well as “the FBI’s eGuardian system if/when there’s confirmed nexus to
terrorism or major crimes (which is happening frequently).” The email goes on “our networks in
LA, Vegas and DC all support See Something Say Something (S4 as I call it).” Further, Over the
past few years, several cities around the U.S. have implemented websites allowing the public to
report suspicious activity, including Washington D.C., Houston and even the U.S. Army. These
activities are part of a larger program called iWatch, which also feeds into TrapWire according to
a leaked email.
A copy of the TrapWire brochure can be downloaded here. A white paper on TrapWire can be
downloaded here.

B. The TrapWire technology

The prevention of terrorist attacks on critical infrastructure requires the ability to detect various
discreet but identifiable indicators of pre-attack preparations. Only by uncovering such attack
preparations can we take actions designed to deter or intercept a terrorist strike before it begins.
While international terrorist organizations are using increasingly sophisticated methods, their
modus operandi does contain a critical vulnerability: meticulous pre-attack preparations require
the terrorists to approach a target facility on multiple occasions to identify physical and
procedural vulnerabilities, probe for weaknesses and conduct practice missions. For example, the
terrorists planning the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia reportedly surveilled the facility on
40 occasions. Terrorists will typically surveil multiple facilities prior to selecting an
appropriately vulnerable target. Therefore, as the number of facilities on the Trap Wire network
increases, so does the probability of detecting pre-attack preparations. Trap Wire is specifically
designed to exploit this vulnerability by combining deep counterterrorism experience, proven
counter-surveillance techniques, unique sensor systems, and data mining capabilities to detect
attack preparations and allow security personnel to deter or intercept terrorist operations.

TrapWire dramatically increases the ability to detect pre-attack preparations and to take
appropriate action to detect, deter and intercept terrorist attacks. A visual monitor of the entire
system-a map with dynamic status indicators for each entity connected to the Trap Wire
network- facilitates the ability of decision makers to absorb vast quantities of information
quickly and efficiently. The dynamic status indicators show the threat level at each facility and
highlight those that have moved to a higher threat level over the preceding 24 hours. Security
officials can thus focus on the highest priorities first, taking a proactive and collaborative
approach to defense against attacks. The information collected by Trap Wire can also be shared
with law enforcement agencies to assist in their counterterrorism efforts.

The basic premise behind the TrapWire system is as follows: Through the systematic reporting
of suspicious events and the correlation of those events with other event reports for that facility
and for related facilities across the network, terrorist surveillance operations can be identified,
appropriate countermeasures can be employed to deter attacks, and steps can be taken to
apprehend the perpetrators. The TrapWire system provides the following capabilities:

• A mechanism for a facility’s personnel to record suspicious activity data in a structured format;
• A mechanism to identify and link related events following human review;
• The ability for a facility’s Chief Security Officer (CSO) to identify threat trends at his/her
facility (increasing or decreasing) and to drill down into the specific event reports that generated
those threats;
• Alerts to the CSO of events that do not affect the threat score but may nevertheless be of
• The ability to notify a facility of a changing threat level within its industry or geographical
• A mechanism to correlate external events such as watch list events for suspected terrorists or
stolen vehicles with other observed event data already within the system;
• The ability to correlate events occurring at different facilities by related individuals, and to
notify all affected facilities of the increased threat to their facility based on this related activity;
• A mechanism to reduce the system-calculated threat level at a facility, based upon the time
since the last threatening event; and
• Notifications, alerts, and possible action recommendations based on a particular site’s security
plan, implemented via a set of rules that act upon event information.

For more see

C. Current Abraxas and Trapwire management

1. Trapwire

Dan Botsch is one of the founders of the project. He was with the CIA for more than a decade,
working on Russian and Eastern European affairs.
Michael Maness is Trapwire’s business development director. He was with the CIA for two
decades, working on counterterrorism and security operations in the Middle-East, the Balkans
and Europe.
Michael K. Chang, is TrapWire’s director of operations. He was with the CIA for around 12
years, also on counterterrorism and a close friend of Helms.

2. Abraxas Corporation

Rodney G. Smith, President
Smith leads the sales and business development activities of Abraxas. Drawing on a
distinguished career leading highly specialized organizations to remarkable success, Smith has
for more than four years brought that same success and mission focus to Abraxas where he
drives revenue and earnings opportunities across each of the Abraxas products and services. A
former local and federal prosecutor and criminal justice policy advisor during the Reagan
Administration, Smith capped a remarkable career in the National Security community where he
last led two operational divisions. Smith holds a Bachelor’s degree cum laude from Dartmouth
College and a Juris Doctor from Boston University. He is a combat veteran of the United States
Marine Corps.

Katherine M. Green, Senior Vice President
Green brings more than 27 years of operational and leadership experience in the National
Security community to Abraxas Corporation. Her experience ranges from niche operational
efforts to service as the Executive Director for one of the National Security community’s largest
issue-based Centers. With extensive experience in operations and resource management, Green
brings in-depth understanding of how to effectively leverage and mesh the two disciplines. Green
holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.

Basil “Bill” Trikas, Vice President Technical Services
Trikas has 34 years intelligence community experience and knowledge of technical systems,
operational tradecraft, deployment methodologies, and integrated learning solutions. He brings to
Abraxas extensive experience leading technical, operational, and analytical organizations in
support of the global intelligence community. Trikas served in critical roles shaping the strategic
intelligence workforce directing recruiting and diversity outreach, learning and employee
development, leadership development, language training, and historical studies. Trikas holds a
degree in Electronic Engineering Technology. He is also a graduate of the Intelligence
Community Senior Leadership Program, the Intelligence Community Senior Intelligence Fellows
Program, and the Harvard Senior Managers in Government program.

Matthew Broderick, Vice President Defense and Homeland Security
Broderick brings extensive operational and leadership experience to Abraxas leveraging three
years as the DHS Director of Operations, a career in the US Marine Corps at every level of troop
command, earning the rank of Brigadier General, and significant private sector experience
responsible for 1100 employees generating in excess of $100M net sales and marketing revenue.
Mr. Broderick is a graduate of Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, the Armed Forces
Staff College, the Naval War College and Worcester State College.

John Etgen, Vice President Maryland Operations
Etgen has over 25 years of national security service in the industry, government, and the military.
He is an accomplished leader in business execution and astutely skilled in strategic planning,
opportunity identification, capture management, and program execution. Prior to joining Abraxas
Corporation, Etgen was a Department Manager at Applied Signal Technology and Director for
Business Development for the Titan Corporation. Prior to entering private industry, Mr. Etgen
served in a number of technical and management positions at the National Security Agency.
Etgen began his career in 1982 enlisting in the United States Air Force as a Morse Systems
technician and proudly serving until 1989. He has a Bachelors of Science degree from University
Maryland and is a certified Program Manager.

Barry McManus, Vice President Training and Education
McManus served 26 years in the intelligence community as a leading expert in deception
detection, behavioral assessment, interviewing, and interrogations. He served for more than 10
years as a CIA Chief Polygraph examiner and interrogator, working against terrorists, hostile
intelligence services, and other high threat targets. He has conducted extensive research on the
uses of the polygraph and developed sophisticated interview and interrogation techniques.
McManus has developed and implemented training programs within the FBI, DHS, and the
commercial financial arena in behavioral assessment, interviewing and elicitation in diverse
cultures for law enforcement and intelligence organizations to include computer web-based
training. McManus earned a BA in Sociology at Loyola University, Baltimore, MD; an MA in
Organizational and Security Management at Webster University, St. Louis, MO; and will
complete his Doctorate of Arts in Higher Education from George Mason University in Fairfax,
VA in spring 2011. McManus was also recognized as an Oxford scholar and attended the
prestigious Christ Church College at Oxford University.

John F. Weiland, Director Abraxas Engineering
John Weiland is a leading designer of Applications Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), joining
Abraxas from Intrinsix Federal Systems and previously Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Weiland is a recognized leader on ASIC design tools and methodologies and has spent his career
     designing cutting edge chips and assemblies. A Westinghouse Lamme Scholarship recipient,
     Weiland pursued advanced studies in project management and artificial intelligence at the MIT
     Center for Advanced Engineering Studies before directing his skills to design of trusted solutions
     for the National Security community. Weiland holds a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and a
     BA in Mathematics from Swarthmore College, a MS in Electrical Engineering from the
     University of Maryland.

     See also:

     Posted from the darker net via Android.


     TrapWire: The Truth Behind The Hype
     New emails released by WikiLeaks indicate that TrapWire, a defense contractor owned and operated by ex-CIA

     operatives, plays a key and troubling role in coordinating government and corporate surveillance . Many activists

     have gotten carried away, however, vastly overstating the scope of TrapWire.

o    Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by


     2 months ago




     I. The Bottom Line: TrapWire's Role In International Intelligence Too Important To Stay
     II. Introduction
     III. What Does TrapWire Do?
     IV. Cutting Through The Hype: TrapWire Myths
     V. Who Uses TrapWire?
     VI. Who/What Is TrapWire?
     VII. Stratfor and TrapWire's Troubling Revolving Doors
3. I. The Bottom Line: TrapWire's Role In International Intelligence Too Important To
     Stay Cloaked
4. After 9/11, when agencies failed to "connect the dots" to prevent the World Trade Center attacks, it
   was common knowledge that coordination between law enforcement agencies became a priority.
   What has not been clear until now is that a private company run by ex-CIA operatives is at the heart
   of it.

   According to newly released WikiLeaks documents, private security company TrapWire has made
   itself an under-the-radar player in information sharing between federal agencies, local law
   enforcement, the military, and corporations. TrapWire's software is designed to help CCTV cameras
   identify suspicious patterns of behavior and standardize and cross-reference reports of suspicious
   activity from different locations and different time periods.
5. Many cities encourage citizens to call and report suspicious persons and activity; what callers may
   not know is that if they live in Las Vegas, DC, Los Angeles, or New York City (poster below), their
   report is processed by a private company (TrapWire), and then forwarded to a national database
   accessed by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security if analysts believe it to be necessary.
   The same goes for "suspicious activity reports" generated by surveillance cameras integrated with
   TrapWire's threat detection software, such as in 500 locations in the New York Subway system.
     [UPDATE/CORRECTION: NYPD spokesman Paul Browne told the New York Times, "we don't use

o    Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by


     2 months ago



7. TrapWire is also noteworthy because it maintains a centralized database of all these reports
   submitted by citizens or TrapWire-enabled CCTV cameras. TrapWire not only collects these reports
   but cross references them across geographic and territorial boundaries; for instance, a report from
   the London Stock Exchange might be cross referenced with a report from the LAPD, or a citizen's
   phone call in Washington, DC. That an intelligence network connecting private businesses, military
   bases, civilian police, and federal agencies has managed to escape attention for so long is
   surprising, to say the least.
8. Finally, TrapWire is raising concerns because of its close ties to the CIA. Its CEO, President, and
   two of its top three managers are all ex-CIA, with more than 10 years experience each. The CIA is
   generally "prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the domestic activities of U.S. citizens."
   While the emails released by WikiLeaks do not indicate that information obtained by TrapWire has
   been shared with the CIA, TrapWire's former parent company (also run by TrapWire's CEO) was
   involved with a number of CIA contracting operations, and there are concerns that information on
   American citizens could wind up reaching members of the agency.
9. In any case, it seems clear that TrapWire's role in the US and international intelligence community
   bears scrutiny, scrutiny it has largely avoided until WikiLeaks' latest release.
10.         II. Introduction
11. According to internal emails from global intelligence firm Stratfor newly released by WikiLeaks,
    TrapWire's surveillance analysis system seems to be near the center of the intelligence world.
    "Designed to provide a simple yet powerful means of collecting and recording suspicious activity
    reports," it collects information from and shares information with local police departments, the
    Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and in some cases private businesses such as Las
    Vegas casinos.
12. TrapWire, run by ex-CIA operatives, is a software program that seeks to prevent terrorist attacks by
    recognizing patterns in activity. The hope, according to Stratfor Vice President of Intelligence Fred
    Burton, is that, "a suspect conducting surveillance of the NYC subway can also be spotted by
    TrapWire conducting similar activity at the DC subway." There are at least 500 TrapWire-connected
    surveillance cameras in the New York subway system, according to this email from Mr. Burton.
    [UPDATE/CORRECTION: NYPD spokesman Paul Browne has denied that the NYPD uses
o     Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by


14. It's in place at the White House and the London Stock Exchange. If you "see something, say
    something" in a New York subway, your "suspicious activity report" (SAR) goes through TrapWire.
    TrapWire is used by the DC Police, the LAPD, and the Las Vegas Police Department. It's in place at
    Fort Meade, and at over 60 Las Vegas casinos.
15. Suspicious activity reports (SAR's) generated by TrapWire systems are distributed to local law
    enforcement agencies, local partner corporations (in some circumstances), and to the local
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fusion center, as well as to a national database used by
    DHS fusion centers nationwide as well as the FBI.
16. According to a leaked email from TrapWire's Director of Business Development, all of the
    information provided by its corporate, national, and international clients "feed a centralized
    database", and TrapWire attempts to make connections between events in different locations. This
    means that while TrapWire's clients only have access to relevant and nearby reports, the company
    has access to everything submitted by its partner law enforcement entities and reported by citizens.
17. TrapWire's goal: when a casino camera spots something suspicious, or a Las Vegas resident
    'sees something' and 'says something', that information is quickly in the hands of nearby
    resorts, the Las Vegas Police Department, DHS, and the FBI. The TrapWire company itself also
    has access to all suspicious activity reports, whether they come from a New York City citizen's
    phone call or directly from the White House.
18. In a 2007 white paper, TrapWire says, "it does not capture, store, or share any sensitive or
    personally identifiable information." It is unclear how TrapWire defines sensitive information, as the
    company is unquestionably in control of an enormous amount of valuable intelligence data from
    around the world.
19.          III. What Does TrapWire Do?
20. TrapWire has three distinct components:

   1. TrapWire Critical Infrastructure is installed at sensitive locations, such as the White House and
   the London Stock Exchange, to analyze security footage to "detect patterns of behavior indicative of
   pre-operational planning." The software integrates with surveillance cameras "to capture
   photographs or video evidence of suspicious activity."

   2. TrapWire Community Member operates New York's and Las Vegas' "See Something Say
   Something" campaigns, as well as the iWatch citizen reporting programs in DC and Los Angeles
   (promotional video below). Information obtained from citizen reports is compared to reports from
   other cities and analyzed, then forwarded to law enforcement and the local DHS fusion center.
                                        21. Mayor iwatchla (English) PSA
    o    Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email

      3. TrapWire Law Enforcement provides coordination and information sharing for law enforcement
      agencies, including the sharing of information obtained through TrapWire's other two services. For
        instance, according to Emergency Management Magazine, in Las Vegas TrapWire operates "a
              citywide database linking surveillance systems of most resorts and the fusion center

22. When a suspicious activity report (SAR) is made by a TrapWire system, for instance when a security
    camera spots something or a citizen makes a report on, that information is meant to
    spread quickly. According to congressional testimony (below, p. 5) from DCPD chief Cathy Lanier, a
    DC TrapWire SAR is automatically forwarded to Washington's local Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS) fusion center, where it is analyzed. When DHS analysts verify that incidents "meet
    the established standards for suspicious activity reporting," they are added to a network accessible
    to all DHS fusion centers nationwide, and "are forwarded to the FBI's eGaurdian system."

1. IV. Cutting Through The Hype: TrapWire Myths


      Think about this: Even in totalitarian thriller 'V For Vendetta,' their govt didn't have a program as wide-reaching as

    o    Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email

                                                         David Seaman

                                                            2 months ago




3. As news of TrapWire began to spread through Twitter and other social networks, its role and
   capabilities were quickly exaggerated. Here is a guide to the most frequently shared misconceptions
   about TrapWire.
4. Myth 1: TrapWire Tracks Activists


    Just seen a piece referring to emails being fed into "TrapWire, the surveillance system that monitors activists" This is
                                                      getting out of hand

    o   Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email

                                                           James Ball

                                                           2 months ago





6. The idea that TrapWire is designed to track activists is probably based on a misunderstanding of the
   Stratfor email below. While Stratfor's Anya Alfano wrote that San Francisco should use a TrapWire-
  like technology to track activists, there is no evidence that TrapWire has been used to do so.
  TrapWire would most likely only identify activists who are doing surveillance in preparation for a
  demonstration at a location with security cameras that are connected to TrapWire.
                                                      7.     Thought
            o    Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email





8. Myth 2: TrapWire Is Has Access To Public Transit Fare Card Records


       #Cubic owns #trapwire and provides smart card tickets/computer systems for public transit. Use old style tickets
                                               where you can, like BART.

   o     Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email


                                                           2 months ago




10. Many other misconceptions about TrapWire are based on the incorrect belief that it is owned by
    defense conglomerate Cubic Corporation. Cubic Corporation is involved in many businesses,
    including managing public transportation SmartCard systems for outfits like Bay Area Rapid Transit
11. Cubic did indeed purchase Abraxas Corporation, TrapWire's former parent company. Prior to the
    acquisition, however, TrapWire was spun out as a separate company, Abraxas Applications. One of
    the terms of Cubic's acquisition of the Abraxas Corporation was to "cause the corporate name of
    Abraxas Applications, Inc. to be changed to a name that does not include “Abraxas” or any variation
12. Bottom line, there is no evidence that any of Cubic's businesses are in any way related to TrapWire
    at the present time.

         13.             Abraxas spins out firm to focus on TrapWire sales - Washington Business Journal
           o   Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email





14.        V. Who Uses TrapWire?
15. TrapWire does not make public a list of its clients. According to previously available information,
    clients include:
    Transportation: (Source): Amtrak, Connecticut DOT, New Jersey Transit, MTA (New York City)
    Military/Government: Fort Meade, US Marine Corps, Department of Energy
    Law Enforcement: DC Police, Las Vegas Police Department, NYPD, LAPD [The NYPD says it does
    not use TrapWire, see above]
    iWatch/See Something, Say Something Programs: US Army, Los Angeles, DC, New York City, Las
    Private Corporations: 14 hotels and casinos
16. According to the Stratfor emails released by WikiLeaks, other clients include:
    The White House, #10 Downing Street (the UK Prime Minister's residence), Scotland Yard, The
    London Stock Exchange, and the Texas Department of Public Safety.
                                                  17. weekly
           o   Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email




18.        VI. Who/What Is TrapWire?
19. The founder of TrapWire is Richard (Hollis) Helms, former head of the CIA's European and National
    Resources Divisions (not the Richard Helms who served as Director of Central Intelligence from
    1966-1973). Helms is on the left in the picture below:
o   Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by


    2 months ago




21. Three of TrapWire's four top managers are ex-CIA operatives. President Dan Botsch spent 11 years
    as an intelligence officer, focusing on Russia and Eastern Europe. Director of Business
    Development Michael Maness was in the CIA for 20 years, where he did counterterrorism in the
    Middle East, Balkans, and Europe. Director of Operations Michael Chang "served as an Assistant
    Team Leader and Special Agent on the personal security detail of the Director and Deputy Director
    of Central Intelligence."
22. TrapWire was originally founded as part of the Abraxas Corporation, a security company which has
    since been sold to publicly traded defense company Cubic Corporation for $124 million. According to
    the LA Times, Abraxas was "tapped for unusual assignments", such as creating fake identities for
    CIA agents, "one of the most sensitive and carefully guarded operations in the CIA."
23. TrapWire was spun out as an independent company, Abraxas Applications, in 2007 (it changed its
    name to TrapWire, Inc. after the sale of the Abraxas Corporation).
24.         VII. Stratfor and TrapWire's Troubling Revolving Doors
25. The leaked Stratfor emails also appear to detail a number of instances in which the lines between
    public service and private profit are blurred.
      1. Stratfor Vice President for Intelligence Fred Burton

o     Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by


27. According to an August, 2009 email written by Stratfor President Don R. Kuykendall to CEO George
    Friedman, Stratfor had an arrangement to recommend TrapWire to its clients in exchange for 8% of
    any contract signed as a result as a finder's fee. The partnership agreement is below:
                                                  28. undefined
             o    Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by email
29. Mr. Kuykendall referred to TrapWire as, "one of Fred's pet companies." Nine days before Mr. Burton
    began his term as Assistant-Director for Intelligence & Counter-Terrorism for the Texas Department
    of Public Safety, Mr. Kuykendall wrote:
30. "Fred has said that, once he is #2 dude in the Texas DPS (September oneth) that he is going
    use the appropriated $1,500,000 to install TrapWires product on the Texas border. George,
    8% X $1,500,000 = $120,000 for the good guys."
31. It certainly appears that Stratfor's President believed that Mr. Burton planned to conduct his duties
    as a law enforcement officer for the financial benefit of the company. In a 2010 email, after Mr.
    Burton had left the Texas DPS and returned to Stratfor, Mr. Burton wrote:
32. "As many of you old-timers know, we arranged to get a cut. I think the first dump is $250,000
    to Abraxas, with an annual renewal of $150,000 per year for the TrapWire license. The point
    man for the project worked directly for me at DPS."
33. It appears the point person he is referring to is Blake Sawyer, a former Marines Captain and Deputy
    Assistant Director at DPS. In a 2010 email chain, after Mr. Burton has already left the Texas DPS,
    Mr. Burton and Mr. Sawyer discuss Mr. Sawyer's recommendations to senior DPS officials, including
    Chief of Staff Robert Bodisch. Mr. Burton also stated that he "pushed the matter behind-the-scenes
    w/the Director and the DPS Commissioners."
o     Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by



35.          2. TrapWire Senior Vice-President Joan McNamara, formerly LAPD
      Assistant Commanding Officer of the Counter-Terrorism and Criminal
      Intelligence Bureau
36. In a 2010 email from Blake Sawyer, Commander McNamara is referred to as "a client and advocate
    of the system...the driving force behind the SAR initiative being run with all the major city
    police chiefs and TRAPWIRE's role therein." According to a Department of Justice report,
    Commander McNamara is identified as one of four commanders nationwide to have "volunteered to
    have their suspicious activity reporting processes assessed and used as the basis for developing the
    findings and recommendations." According to this LAPD news release, TrapWire's iWatch "was
    developed under the direction of LAPD Commander Joan T. McNamara."
37. In other words, it appears that Commander McNamara was instrumental in securing the LAPD as a
    client for TrapWire, pushing other law enforcement agencies to adopt the LAPD's SAR reporting
    approach which included TrapWire, and then went to work for TrapWire (it is not clear if McNamara
    is still with the company).

o     Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedinShare by


Wikileaks uncovers TrapWire surveillance:
Summary: Wikileaks' latest trove of leaked Stratfor emails details the breadth and potential impact of
the TrapWire surveillance system. What is it, and are you affected?

By Zack Whittaker for Zero Day | August 14, 2012 -- 17:59 GMT (10:59 PDT)


0 Votes


more +

Wikileaks has released as part of its The Global Intelligence Files series another vast cache of
leaked emails from private intelligence firm Stratfor. Brought to the public eye is a system called
TrapWire. This previously little known technology may have the ability to impact our everyday lives in
the U.S. and abroad.

This serves as an FAQ to what we know so far.
It's worth noting -- as described below -- Wikileaks has been under a sustained denial-of-service
attack, which has left the site unable to load for days, so some links below may not be available at the
time of publication.

Here's what you need to know.

What is TrapWire?

In short, TrapWire is surveillance software used by both private industry and the U.S. government and
its allies oversees, allowing both public and private sector users to help in counter-terrorism and anti-
crime efforts. The software uses algorithms and data from a variety of surveillance sources --
including CCTV and human-input from spotted 'suspicious' behavior -- to, in essence, 'predict'
potentially criminal activity.

One leaked Stratfor-owned document, describes it as follows:

There are a variety of new tools, such as TrapWire, a software system designed to work with camera
systems to help detect patterns of pre-operational surveillance, that can be focused on critical areas to
help cut through the fog of noise and activity and draw attention to potential threats.

While ordinary CCTV cameras are often 'passive' and monitored by humans, TrapWire-connected
cameras, such as 'pan-tilt-zoom' cameras, are able to track people, along with license plate readers,
called Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) from place to place.

A U.S. Patents and Trademark Office filing says the system is "centralized" and information flows
in and out of its global office to 'regional' distribution centers. Despite being owned by a private
company, the information collected by the system "can also be shared with law enforcement
As with any data mining software, the more data that is plugged into the system the greater its

Why such a recent controversy?

Wikileaks' latest release on August 10 of emails from private intelligence group Stratfor suggests the
system is global, rather than limited to just the United States.

Simply put: it became increasingly clear how wide and far the extensive use of this software is. If one
person is deemed to be acting suspiciously in one TrapWire covered area of the U.S., for example, the
software may pick them up elsewhere by a different TrapWire network.

It also means that the surveillance once thought to be relatively passive is instead pre-emptive and
sophisticated in its methods. It uses a "10-characteristic description of individuals," human
activity, or "8-characteristic description" of vehicle information -- such as license plates and other
identifiable marks -- which is then correlated with other information collected elsewhere.

The 'TrapWire Threat Meter' means threats can be passed on through the network while vulnerabilities
are not, though nevertheless remains a far more extensive breach of citizen privacy than first
considered or understood.

The system appears to be 'for hire' in that it can be bought and used by private industry. For example,
in a 2005 interview with former CIA employee (since removed from his corporate profile) and
Abraxas founder and chief executive Richard Helms, he says:

...the nuclear industry has 104 civilian owned and operated nuclear power plants, and yet they don’t
collect or share pre-attack information. TrapWire can help do that without infringing anyone’s civil

In a 2007 whitepaper, Abraxas describes TrapWire's ability to determine "suspicious activity in
less than 60 seconds."

Who owns TrapWire, and how does it connect with governments?

The TrapWire software is now owned by TrapWire Inc., a Reston, VA company. But it wasn't always.

(Comment was sought from TrapWire Inc. regarding this story, but no reply had been received at the
time of writing.)

Abraxas Corp. created TrapWire under its subsidiary firm Abraxas Applications Inc., according to
Public Intelligence, a respected research site. Abraxas Corp. trademarked the TrapWire software in
a filing with the U.S. PTO in 2006.

But Abraxas Corp. is now owned by Cubic Corporation, which bought the firm in November 2010
for $124 million in cash.

According to one report, Cubic acquired Abraxas Corp., TrapWire's former parent company, after
TrapWire was spun out as a separate entity. One of the terms of the acquisition was to "cause the
corporate name of Abraxas Applications, Inc. to be changed to a name that does not include 'Abraxas'
or any variation thereof."
Abraxas, in a statement released on Monday, said: "Abraxas Corporation then and now has no
affiliation with Abraxas Applications now known as TrapWire, Inc."

Abraxas is based in Northern Virginia, according to the trademark filing. Many of its employees --
there are around 60 listed on LinkedIn, but thought to be in the low hundreds -- come from the
U.S. military or other public sector organizations, including the U.S. intelligence community.

The U.S. government has given both TrapWire and Abraxas more than $1.6 million in the past 12
months from the Dept. of Homeland Security, Dept. of Defense, and the General Services

In one leaked email, former Stratfor chief executive and current vice president Fred Burton claims:

Do you know how much a Lockheed Martin [defense contractor] would pay to have their logo/feed into

This suggests that the NYPD and LAPD counter-terrorism divisions, the U.S. Secret Service, Canada's
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the U.K.'s domestic intelligence agency MI5 are all clientele of the
TrapWire service.

Next: Where is TrapWire installed?

Wikileaks uncovers TrapWire surveillance:
Summary: Wikileaks' latest trove of leaked Stratfor emails details the breadth and potential impact of
the TrapWire surveillance system. What is it, and are you affected?

By Zack Whittaker for Zero Day | August 14, 2012 -- 17:59 GMT (10:59 PDT)


0 Votes


more +

Where is TrapWire installed?

The leaks suggest the TrapWire system is installed in major cities on both sides of the Atlantic,
such as public places in Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and privately owned
casinos in Las Vegas.

TrapWire is also implemented in London, U.K., and cities in Canada.
Downing Street, the home and office of the British Prime Minister, would neither confirm nor deny
the use of TrapWire despite a leaked email claiming otherwise. However, Scotland Yard, home of
London's Metropolitan Police, said it had "no knowledge of any contract or discussion."

London Stock Exchange (LSX) is said to be protected by "heavy surveillance coverages [sic]
(TrapWire)" and other "predictive software" according to one leaked email.

The LSX did not respond for comment at the time of publication. The White House, also understood to
be a TrapWire customer, also did not respond to comment more than a day later.

In another email, claims were made by one British publication that the New York City system was
under surveillance by TrapWire. This may have been an exaggeration.

In one leaked email, although the New York subway is mentioned, it suggests a surveillance officer
could acquire human intelligence from the subway -- not from technological means, as the system is
not used, according to the NYPD -- which can be transformed into structured data in TrapWire to
assist in other subway systems, for example, where the system is implemented.

...a suspect conducting surveillance of the NYC subway can also be spotted by TrapWire conducting
similar activity at the DC subway, connecting the infamous dots. An additional benefit of TrapWire is
that the system can also be used to help "walk back the cat" after an attack to identify terrorist
suspects and modus operandi.

However, The New York Times poured cold water on the suggestions. Speaking to Paul J. Browne,
the NYPD chief's spokesperson: "We don't use TrapWire."

Also in the report, the Times said:

TrapWire was tried out on 15 surveillance cameras in Washington and Seattle by the Homeland
Security Department, but officials said it ended the trial last year because it did not seem promising.

The report suggests the leaked emails 'boasted' about capabilities and claims some of the links
connected by the media are "false."

Do reports collected by TrapWire go to the government?

Yes. Suspicious reports that may indicate a crime or act of terrorism could be committed are passed to
'the government.'

In one example, reports are passed to the FBI but it is not clear outside of the United States whether
these are handed to domestic police and intelligence services, or directly back to the U.S. authorities
as per Safe Harbor agreements (see below) for distribution through back-channel intelligence

In another leaked email, TrapWire "suspicious activity reports" (SAR) are fed "directly" and
"automatically" to the National SAR Initiative, dubbed NSI. They are also passed to the FBI's
eGuardian system when a threat to commit crime is identified.
For example, it may be that if a person is identified in two high-target places in a certain time period,
this may indicate a terrorist could be planning reconnaissance, but equally a tourist visiting the
attractive city sights.

What sort of data can be collected from TrapWire?

The exact details of the data collected by TrapWire are not clear. Video and facial recognition, and
human-sourced intelligence, along with automatic license plate reading and other 'points' are
collected, but it's safe to assume that vehicle color and a person's ethnicity may be recorded.

In one leaked email, it says:

[Surveillance] footage can be walked back and track the suspects from the get go with facial
recognition software (or TrapWire) technology.

Some news publications suggest there is "no evidence" to suggest facial recognition technology is in
use. The email suggests "or TrapWire technology" indicating the possibility -- though not confirmation
-- that the software can recognize faces.

Back to The New York Times' article, it says a "a privacy statement on the TrapWire Web site says
the software does not capture 'personal information'."

However, in a Safe Harbor privacy policy notice, TrapWire may collect:

"Sensitive Personal Information" means personal information that confirms race, ethnic origin, political
opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union memberships, or that concerns health or sex

It also says:

Once a suspicious activity in entered into the system it is analyzed and compared with data entered
from other areas within a network for the purpose of identifying patterns of behavior that are
indicative of pre-attack planning. Generally, no Personal Information or Sensitive Personal Information
is recorded by the TrapWire system, and no such information is used by the system to perform its
various functions.

"Generally" does not mean "always," however. This often-broad scope definition allows for a wide
range of sensitive personal information to be collected, but does not guarantee that it will be. While a
person's ethnicity may be collected, a person's sexuality or nationality -- for example -- might be
difficult to determine, even by humans.

Does TrapWire scour social networks, such as Twitter or Facebook?

No evidence suggests TrapWire is able to access social media services. There does not appear to be
any evidence to suggest TrapWire collects credit or debit card information, cell phone, or Internet-
related data.

Next: Who enables or powers TrapWire?
           United Kingdom
           United States
           ZDNet around the globe:
           ZDNet Benelux
           ZDNet China
           ZDNet France
           ZDNet Germany
           ZDNet Korea
           ZDNet Japan
           ZDNet Netherlands

        Topics
           iPhone 5
           Cloud
           Networking
           Techlines
           Smartphones
           Tablets
           Windows
           Security
           All Writers
        Log In
         Log In
         Join ZDNet

                     MUST READ: HP touts 'true' business tablet: HP ElitePad 900

    Topic: Government US
    Follow via:
    RSS
    Email Alert

               Wikileaks uncovers TrapWire

    surveillance: FAQ
    Summary: Wikileaks' latest trove of leaked Stratfor emails details the breadth and potential impact of
    the TrapWire surveillance system. What is it, and are you affected?

    By Zack Whittaker for Zero Day | August 14, 2012 -- 17:59 GMT (10:59 PDT)


    0 Votes


    more +
Who in the technology world enables or powers TrapWire?

Despite the recent news that Microsoft and New York City were partners in a new system that on the
face of it appears similar to TrapWire, the two systems are not connected or related.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this month the Domain Awareness System, a system
developed with Microsoft, which performs " data aggregation and analysis," according to sister-site

CNET's Elinor Mills wrote:

"We're finding new ways to leverage already existing cameras, crime data, and other tools to support
the work of our investigators, making it easier for them to determine whether a crime is part of an
ongoing pattern," Bloomberg said. For example, the system can alert analysts to the presence of
suspicious packages and cars while police search for suspects using smart cameras and license plate

Microsoft was not mentioned any of the The Global Intelligence Files leaks as far as we can tell.

Another leaked email suggested Salesforce may have been interested in TrapWire, and Google had
some "relationship" with the firm.

Salesforce Hqs in San Fran is interested in TrapWire after I briefed them on their wonderful

Salesforce said it does not comment on "rumors".

Regarding Google's connection to TrapWire, claims were made that Google had some connection with
the company following the search giant's pulling out of China in 2010 over the government's
alleged hacking.

I think the timing is right to revisit our relationship w/GOOGLE and sense growing frustration (and
chaos) on their part in light of the Chinese penetrations and intellectual property theft. I've been
playing constant phone tag w/their security director, who I believe is traveling.

Google did not comment on the claims.

PC maker chief executive Michael Dell is also mentioned in a number of emails, but the connection is
not clear from the context.

If TrapWire is 'centralized,' does it breach EU data protection laws?

The Safe Harbor framework allows for U.S. companies to comply with strict European Union data
protection laws. Companies must be certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Because TrapWire Inc. is a U.S.-based company, to operate within the EU, it must comply with the
EU's laws. While a Safe Harbor agreement does not prove that TrapWire is used within the 27 member
states of Europe, but it does strongly suggest that it is.
From TrapWire's Safe Harbor privacy policy:

This Policy outlines our general policy and practices regarding personal information entered into our
United States based systems by European Economic Area (“EEA”) subscribing customers, and personal
information entered into our EEA based systems which may be accessed from the United States.

Having said that, under the Patriot Act, it is technically possible for the U.S. government or judiciary
to force a wholly owned EU subsidiary of a U.S. parent company to hand over data across the Atlantic,
Safe Harbor notwithstanding, without the data subject from being informed, such as the person
whose data is collected.

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Safe Harbor certification pages says TrapWire was verified
"in-house" -- a valid form of compliance under the rules -- in 2008, and is scheduled for its next
certification in 2013.

The certification page says that the United Kingdom comprises the only named "relevant countries
from which personal information is received." This suggests a U.K. headquarters or a primary client in
the U.K., such as Downing Street, as previously mentioned.

ZDNet's Michael Lee reports that on Wednesday, Sen. Scott Ludlam will ask the Australian Senate to
force the Australian government to confirm or deny whether or not it uses TrapWire, and what it
knows about the surveillance system.

If TrapWire networks are decentralized, can they communicate with each other?

In one leaked email from Abraxas employee, R. Daniel Botsch explains that:

If a network has 25 sites, those 25 sites match against each other's reports. They can also send
reports to any other site on the network and they can post reports to a network-wide bulletin board.

He notes: "Sites cannot share information across networks." However, there was suggestion back in
2010 that some networks, such as the Las Vegas and the LAPD networks, could eventually merge:

However, we do cross-network matching here at the office. If we see cross-network matches, we will
contact each affected site, explain that the individual(s) or vehicle they reported has been seen on
another network, and then offer to put the affected sites into direct contact. We have not yet had a
cross-network match. I think over time the different networks will begin to unite."

How did Wikileaks end up with this information?

In late 2011, it was revealed that 'hacktivist' collective Anonymous had stolen a vast cache of emails
from Stratfor. These were handed to Wikileaks for analysis and ultimately distribution. Anonymous
claimed to have accessed more than 200 gigabytes of data.

In February 2012, Wikileaks said it would begin publishing the 5 million emails. Stratfor founder and
chief executive George Friedman described the release as 'deplorable," but warned, "some of the
emails may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies."

In similar vain to the Wikileaks' "Spy Files" and "Syria Files," the leaks were published
incrementally. Anonymous is thought to have also been behind the theft of the Syria Files.
Wikileaks down: Was it under attack?

It's possible, and highly likely. Sister-site CBS News reported that Wikileaks said it had suffered a
denial-of-service attack that saw the whistleblower's website swamped with visitors that pushed the
servers over capacity. The attacks "intensified" earlier this month and expanded to include sites
affiliated with Wikileaks.

A group dubbed 'Anti Leaks' said the attacks will "continue and widen," but noted the assault does
not relate to the latest TrapWire leaks. Despite the tight timing, the supposed 'leader' of the
group claims they are not part of the U.S. intelligence community, such as the CIA, FBI, or NSA, or
even Wikileaks themselves.

Wikileaks' Twitter account said: "The attack is well over 10Gbps/second," adding: "the rage of IPs
used is huge. Whoever is running it controls thousands of machines or is able to simulate them."

The site was back online late Monday after CloudFare, a private cloud provider, stepped in to assist
the whistleblowing organization to mitigate the week-long downtime.

Unravelling TrapWire: The CIA-Connected Global Suspicious Activity Surveillance

August 11, 2012 in Featured
A screenshot from the front page of, which is believed to be a web-based portal
affiliated with the TrapWire system.

Public Intelligence

Hacked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor shed light on a global suspicious
activity surveillance system called TrapWire that is reportedly in use in locations around the
world from the London Stock Exchange to the White House. The emails, which were released
yesterday by WikiLeaks, provide information on the extent and operations of a system designed
to correlate suspicious activity reports and other evidence that may indicate surveillance
connected with a potential terrorist attack.

A proprietary white paper produced by TrapWire, formerly called Abraxas Applications,
describes the product as “a unique, predictive software system designed to detect patterns of pre-
attack surveillance.” In an interview from 2005 with the Northern Virginia Technology Council,
the CEO of Abraxas Corporation Richard “Hollis” Helms says the goal of TrapWire is to
“collect information about people and vehicles that is more accurate than facial recognition, draw
patterns, and do threat assessments of areas that may be under observation from terrorists.” Fred
Burton, the former CEO of Stratfor and current vice president, describes TrapWire in an email
from November 2009 as “a technology solution predicated upon behavior patterns in red zones
to identify surveillance. It helps you connect the dots over time and distance.”

Documents submitted with Abraxas’ initial trademarking of TrapWire, describe the system
as utilizing “a facility’s existing technologies (such as pan-tilt-zoom [PTZ] cameras) and humans
(security personnel, employees, and neighbors)” to collect data which is then “recorded and
stored in a standardized format to facilitate data mining, information comparison and information
sharing across the network.” TrapWire “standardizes descriptions of potential surveillance
activity, such as photographing, measuring and signaling” and then shares “threat information”
across the network to track potential correlations across other locations on the network.

One thing that makes TrapWire a particularly interesting company is that its president, chief of
operations and director of business development are all former employees of the Central
Intelligence Agency. According to a management page on TrapWire’s website, which has
recently been removed for an undisclosed reason, the president and one of the founders of the
company, Dan Botsch, “served 11 years as an Intelligence Officer with the Central Intelligence
Agency, focusing on Russian and Eastern European affairs.” Michael Maness, the company’s
business development director, served over 20 years with the CIA, “where he directed
counterterrorism and security operations in the Middle-East, the Balkans and Europe. As a senior
operations officer and field operations manager, he was instrumental in combating Al-Qaeda’s
operational units in the immediate wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.” Michael K.
Chang, the company’s director of operations, served for “12 years with the Central Intelligence
Agency as a counterterrorism operations officer and security officer” and even acted as personal
security for the Director and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

Abraxas Corporation, the company that originally created TrapWire under its subsidiary Abraxas
Applications, also has significant ties to the CIA. The company was founded by Richard “Hollis”
Helms in 2001, two years after he left the CIA where he had worked for nearly 30 years. Many
of the company’s past employees and management have worked at the CIA or other
intelligence agencies. In fact, Tim Shorrock notes in his 2008 book Spies for Hire that so many
employees of the CIA were thought to be going to work for private companies like Abraxas that
in 2005 CIA Director Porter Goss had to ask the company to stop recruiting in the CIA Cafeteria
at Langley. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2006 that Abraxas had a contract from the CIA
for developing front companies and false identities for the Agency’s nonofficial cover (NOC)
program. The company and its work are so secretive that Shorrock reportedly called the
company for comment and was told, “Sir, we don’t talk to the media.”

High-Profile Clients Around the World

The Stratfor emails on TrapWire detail the extent to which the software system is being utilized
around the world, describing deals with clients representing domestic agencies, foreign
governments and multinational corporations. An email from Don Kuykendall, the chairman of
Stratfor, in May 2009 describes how TrapWire’s clients “include Scotland Yard, #10 Downing,
the White House, and many [multinational corporations].” The email goes on to say how Stratfor
is working to help introduce TrapWire to people at “Wal Mart, Dell and other Fred cronies.”
Another email from Fred Burton to Kuykendall in July 2011 describes how the Nigerian
government is interested in opening a fusion center and may want to deploy TrapWire in the
Nigerian Presidential Palace.

In another email Burton brags about Stratfor’s role in authoring situation reports that feed
into the TrapWire system, saying that this is the Stratfor’s number one way of impressing
potential clients in government positions. “Do you know how much a Lockheed Martin would
pay to have their logo/feed into the USSS CP? MI5? RCMP? LAPD CT? NYPD CT?” Burton
asks, implying that TrapWire is in use by the U.S. Secret Service, the British security service
MI5, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as counterterrorism divisions in both the Los
Angeles and New York Police Department. In a 2009 thesis from the Naval Postgraduate
School, the Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center (LA-JRIC), one of more than
seventy fusion centers around the country, is listed as utilizing TrapWire.

The emails also suggest that TrapWire is in use at military bases around the country. A July
2011 email from Burton to others at Stratfor describes how the U.S. Army, Marine Corps and
Pentagon have all begun using TrapWire and are “on the system now.” Burton described the
Navy as the “next on the list.”

The Information Sharing Environment – Suspicious Activity Reporting Evaluation
Environment Report from 2010 describes how the Las Vegas Police Department is providing
TrapWire software to at least fourteen different hotels and casinos in the area. Several emails
make reference to the network running in Las Vegas and one discusses contacting a security
officer at the MGM Grand to discuss the system’s practical implementation.

According to one particularly unusual email from Burton, TrapWire is reportedly in use to
protect the homes of some former Presidents of the United States.

Burton also describes TrapWire as possibly “the most successful invention on the [global war
on terror] since 9-11.” Describing his connections with the company’s management, he adds “I
knew these hacks when they were GS-12′s at the CIA. God Bless America. Now they have
EVERY major [high-value target] in [the continental U.S.], the UK, Canada, Vegas, Los
Angeles, NYC as clients.”

Links to Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative

TrapWire is also linked to the National Suspicious Activity Reporting (NSI) Initiative, a
program designed to help aggregate reports of suspicious activity around the country. One email
from an executive at TrapWire states that “TrapWire SAR reports are fed
directly/automatically into the National SAR Initiative” as well as “the FBI’s eGuardian system
if/when there’s confirmed nexus to terrorism or major crimes (which is happening frequently).”
The email goes on to say that “our networks in LA, Vegas and DC all support See Something
Say Something (S4 as I call it).”

Over the past few years, several cities around the U.S. have implemented websites allowing the
public to report suspicious activity, including Washington D.C., Houston and even the U.S.
Army. These activities are part of a larger program called iWatch, which also feeds into
TrapWire according to a leaked email:

iWatch pulls community member reporting into the TrapWire search engine and compares SARs across
the country…with potential matches being fed back to the local LE agency. An amazing amount of good
quality reporting is coming in from alert citizens (and police officers) in the DC area in particular.

TrapWire reportedly operates separate regional networks around the country, each with a number
of different interconnected sites. However, the president of the company Dan Botsch explains in
an email to Fred Burton that the TrapWire system operators do “cross-network” some
information from separate networks and that he believes one day the networks will begin to

We have regional networks in which information sharing is limited to that network. If a network has 25
sites, those 25 sites match against each other’s reports. They can also send reports to any other site on
the network and they can post reports to a network-wide bulletin board. Sites cannot share information
across networks.

However, we do cross-network matching here at the office. If we see cross-network matches, we
will contact each affected site, explain that the individual(s) or vehicle they reported has been
seen on another network, and then offer to put the affected sites into direct contact. We have not
yet had a cross-network match. I think over time the different networks will begin to unite. I’m
not exactly being prescient here, as there is already talk in Vegas and LA of combining their two
networks. Same here in DC.

The use of TrapWire could eventually extend to fusion centers all around the country as
congressional testimony from June 2011 indicates that the Washington D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department is part of a trial project of the Department of Homeland Security to test the
use of TrapWire. The Texas Department of Public Safety, which operates the Texas Fusion
Center, also purchased TrapWire software in 2010.

Editor’s Note: WikiLeaks has been inaccessible for some time now due to a sustained distributed denial
of service attack. All links to emails released by WikiLeaks are currently pointing to sites mirroring the
content. If WikiLeaks should come back online sometime soon, all emails associated with TrapWire
should be accessible at the following URL:

Thanks to Justin Ferguson and others for helping to spread the information in these emails in
the face of vigorous attempts to suppress them.

Tags: Abraxas Corporation, Central Intelligence Agency, Critical Infrastructure, Domestic
Surveillance, Government Surveillance, Suspicious Activity Reporting, TrapWire

Related Material From the Archive:

    1. Abraxas Corporation TrapWire Pre-Attack Terrorist Detection System Trademark Document
   2.   Nebraska Fusion Center Launches Suspicious Activity Reporting Website
   3.   West Virginia Unveils App for Suspicious Activity Reporting
   4.   (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Aviation Flyovers
   5.   DHS Retail Sector Suspicious Activity Reporting Video
   6.   Garbage Collectors Around the U.S. Trained to Report Suspicious Activity
   7.   DHS Suspicious Activity Reporting Selection Standards
   8.   (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Suspicious Activity Reporting Bulletin: Terrorists Eliciting Information

15 Responses to Unravelling TrapWire: The CIA-Connected Global Suspicious Activity
Surveillance System


        Anon said: On August 11, 2012

        This is the best story so far on TrapWire. I’m sharing it across my entire contact list.

        Thank you.



        PamelaDrew said: On August 11, 2012

        Phenomenal reporting on a very disturbing Big Brother reality that should highlight the
        fact that WikiLeaks is one of the few things standing between individual rights & cost
        plus Police State.

        If government is to serve the public we need more Justin Fergusons, FOWL fact finders
        & WikiLeaks information to watch the watchers! Thanks from the bottom of my freedom
        lovin’ heart!



        wikileaks-press said: On August 11, 2012

        You can still visit the material here: http://mirror2.wikileaks-


     disclosure said: On August 11, 2012

     #gifiles mirror with search function:



     sam said: On August 11, 2012

     Big Brother might as well go ahead and arrest everyone now and save the money they
     steal from us to kill us or torture us. Much more of this crap and we will be living in
     “Minority Report.” Unfortunatley, MOST people have lost the ability to logically reason
     and have no common sense – so look out… here comes hell on earth!



     #Anonymous said: On August 12, 2012

     The TRUTH is ALWAYS out there. #TrapWire is the beginning of global unlawful
     surveilance of humanity.



     nitinjsatpute, vashi, navi mumbai, india said: On August 12, 2012

     I am very much sure they can’t stop wikileaks revealing the truths, no matter they attack
     wikileaks hiding behind antileaks and power groups their time has come…….my full
     heart support to wikileaks and julian assange


             stacy said: On August 14, 2012

             Protect which people if corporations are people? LOL



     Scotty said: On August 14, 2012

     Unless you are up to no good, planning on hurting/killing or other criminal activities. I
     don’t see how this is going to affect me.

     Surely this system is designed to protect people?



     GreatScott said: On August 14, 2012

     That’s where you are wrong. The 4th amendment of our Constitution states that we have
     the right to be comfortable wherever we are, in our home, at work and have the right to
     privacy including being snooped upon by Uncle Sam. Whenever you voluntarily or
     involuntarily give up that right, you will never, ever get it back.



             73shark said: On August 14, 2012

             One of the founding fathers (might have been Franklin) said those who give up
             some freedom to gain security deserve neither.


      videobruce said: On August 14, 2012

      Protect who against just what?



      bob said: On August 14, 2012

      geez, i hope you guys sort this problem out, the scale mass survallence is getting out of
      control, those c & c servers av just gotta go!



      jimcognition said: On August 18, 2012

      Excellent report. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for putting the time into this!
      We appreciate



      Smart Target said: On August 20, 2012

      I do believe that this is what people like myself have been until now referring to as
      gangstalking. I was told I was put on this system by another jealous artist to have my time
      and energy taken up with bullshit and psyops. Anyone who went along with this and put
      hits on people for selfish reasons should be charged with attempted murder. God bless
      Mr. Assange! and Anonymous!!! May our freedoms be restored soon.

Leave a Reply

Name *

Email *



 Submit     28609           0

Unravelling TrapWire: The CIA-Connected Global Suspicious Activity Surveillance System

48 Trackbacks

         Abraxas and Trapwire: the technology and personnel revealed « Darker Net

          on August 11, 2012

         Unravelling TrapWire: The CIA-Connected Global Suspicious Activity Surveillance System | Public
          Intelligence | Elv Studio

          on August 11, 2012

         Freedoms Almanac » Blog Archive » News Pile

          on August 11, 2012
   Abraxas and Trapwire: the technology and personnel revealed | Wikileaks Australian Citizens

    on August 11, 2012

   Unravelling TrapWire: The CIA-Connected Global Suspicious Activity Surveillance System

    on August 11, 2012

   Life again imitating fiction | Kris Becker's Future Perfect

    on August 11, 2012

   Supersurveillance System ‘TrapWire’ Exposed | Kleptofuturist

    on August 12, 2012

   Anonymous Operation TrapWire – Press Release | RemainAnon

    on August 12, 2012

   #Trapwire | chaoticnutroll

    on August 12, 2012

   WikiLeaks dumps Stratfor email dirt on TrapWire, a CIA-connected global spying system « Expose
    The Corruption

    on August 12, 2012

   Anonymous Announces Operation TrapWire and Smash A Cam Saturday

    on August 13, 2012

   Trapwire: What Are You Going To Do? | Occupy Franklin County

    on August 13, 2012

   TrapWire: A Government Spy System Running Off Ordinary Surveillance Cameras

    on August 13, 2012

   Anonymous Operation TrapWire «

    on August 13, 2012
   Cubic Sets the Trap: Acquiring Abraxas and Trapwire was Evil Genius | John Stanton « The Grey

    on August 13, 2012

   #TrapWire: a map of the secretive intelligence industry is emerging | WHISTLE newsroom

    on August 13, 2012

   Wikileaks uncovers TrapWire surveillance: FAQ | ZDNet « ΝΕΑ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΦΙΛΤΡΟ ΦΕΛΛΟΥ

    on August 14, 2012

   Real Liberty Media News Blog - 2012-08-13 | Real Liberty Media

    on August 14, 2012

   Trapwire: It’s Not the Surveillance, It’s the Sleaze | File Managers Blog

    on August 14, 2012

   Wikileaks uncovers TrapWire surveillance: FAQ » HD Network Technology Blog

    on August 14, 2012

   Wikileaks uncovers TrapWire surveillance: FAQ |

    on August 14, 2012

   TrapWire and Stratfor are business partners – documentary evidence « Darker Net

    on August 15, 2012

   Stratfor et TrapWire sont partenaires commerciaux – les preuves par l’écrit « Wikileaks Actu

    on August 15, 2012

   Stratfor et TrapWire sont partenaires commerciaux – les preuves par l’écrit « Actualités
    Alternatives « Je veux de l'info

    on August 15, 2012

   Trapwire: It’s Not the Surveillance, It’s the Sleaze | Pakalert Press

    on August 16, 2012

   The Absurd Times trapwire « Czar Donic's Blog
    on August 16, 2012

   TrapWire’s Global Size and Support Reported; Unfavorable Stories Scrubbed | Real News Reporter

    on August 17, 2012

   Cool Web Design Ideas images

    on August 18, 2012

   This Is How We Know That The Shocking Revelations About TrapWire Spying Are True – Business
    Insider « mawillits

    on August 18, 2012

   This Is How We Know The Shocking Facts About Spy Campaign ‘TrapWire’ Are True – We Know
    the Secrets of the Federal Reserve

    on August 20, 2012

   CheapDream Pinball 3D [Download] | PC Game Blog

    on August 20, 2012

   News Roundup: TrapWire, Expert Shams, Body Slams, & End of Summer Reading « Catfish for

    on August 20, 2012

   blog - vps web hosting

    on August 21, 2012

   You are here: HomeUS NewsConstitutionTrapWire’s Global Size and Support … «

    on August 22, 2012

   Prison » Former FBI Agent: Surveillance State Trashing Constitutional Protections «

    on August 26, 2012

   TrapWire Scandal Spreads: New Social Media Spy Network ‘Tartan’ Uncovered | Conscious Life

    on August 30, 2012
   The New American – TrapWire’s Alleged Corporate and Government Connections Grow – 30
    August 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

    on August 30, 2012

   TrapWire and Stratfor are business partners – documentary evidence | Darker Net

    on August 31, 2012

   Abraxas and Trapwire: the technology and personnel revealed | Darker Net

    on August 31, 2012

   TrapWire: If You SEE Something SMASH Something! | Free Articles

    on September 1, 2012

   Beijing SHOTS » Public Intelligence

    on September 2, 2012

   RT: Stratforgate: ‘NYPD’s felonious activities worse than Hoover’s’ | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?

    on September 5, 2012

   TheNewAmerican – Joe Wolverton II – Pointing Out The Peaks Of The Massive Surveillance
    Iceberg – 6 September 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

    on September 6, 2012

   TrapWire: If You SEE Something SMASH Something! | Traffic Generation Systems

    on September 8, 2012

   TrapWire’s Global Size and Support Reported; Unfavorable Stories Scrubbed «

    on September 9, 2012

   TrapWire: If You Notice Something SMASH Something! | Traffic Generation Systems

    on September 16, 2012

   New NGI Program Will Further Strip You of Your Liberties | Sovereign Investor

    on September 20, 2012
            Cleansing the Internet of Terrorism | Disinformation

             on October 1, 2012

    Topic: Security
    Follow via:
    RSS
    Email Alert

        Google, Salesforce were allegedly offered

    'TrapWire' spy tool
    Summary: Stratfor emails placed in the wild by WikiLeaks have revealed that a video-surveillance
    program developed by ex-CIA members may be in place in US government organisations and
    multinational corporations.

    By Michael Lee | August 13, 2012 -- 07:11 GMT (00:11 PDT)


    1 Vote


    more +

    Now approaching its 10th day of a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, WikiLeaks has
    released information about a video-surveillance program that is possibly being used by the US
    government and large organisations, such as Salesforce and Google.

    The program, called TrapWire, was developed by US-based Abraxas Corporation, which is alleged to
    be staffed by many former US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents. TrapWire is meant to identify
    terrorists who approach a facility multiple times as they conduct their surveillance. According to
    Abraxas' documentation on TrapWire, it is able to correlate video surveillance with other data,
    such as watch lists. It can, for example, identify suspected terrorists using facial recognition or stolen
    vehicles by reading number plates, and then correlate this information with other event data that it
    already has.

    In internal Stratfor emails leaked by WikiLeaks, it was revealed that TrapWire may have already been
    implemented in several locations around the world. The leak indicates that Stratfor is in the process of
    setting up an agreement with Abraxas in order to gain intelligence that it could provide to its own

    In an email, Stratfor president Don Kuykendall wrote: "Their clients include Scotland Yard, #10
    Downing, the White House and many [multinational corporations]".
"Our consideration is introducing them to companies like Walmart, Dell and other[s]," he wrote.

In a separate email, vice president Fred Burton wrote: "Salesforce HQs in San Fran is interested in
TrapWire after I briefed them on their wonderful capabilities". He also wrote that "the timing is right to
revisit our relationship with Google and sense growing frustration (and chaos) on their part in light of
the Chinese penetrations and intellectual property theft".

"I've been playing constant phone tag with their security director."

Google declined to comment on whether it has been contacted by Stratfor, and whether it has
implemented TrapWire. Salesforce has been unable to respond to ZDNet's inquiries at the time of

Burton also wrote that TrapWire is "in place at every [high-value target] in NYC, DC, Vegas, London,
Ottawa and LA".

The system may be working for its intended purpose. In leaked emails, Burton revealed that the
system may have foiled a terrorist attack on three Los Angeles buildings.

"According to a very good source responsible for domestic surveillance operations, an extremely
serious al Qaeda terror plot has been uncovered targeting a financial institution, an entertainment
centre and a government office building in Los Angeles. The same terrorist-surveillance team
conducted pre-operational surveillance of all three sites. The group is currently under watch," he

Topics: Security, Google,

Tuesday, 28 August 2012 10:20

TrapWire's Alleged Corporate and Government Connections Grow
Written by Joe Wolverton, II

                                                       font size
                                                         Print

As TrapWire searches out and scrubs all references in the mainstream media to its global surveillance system, new
connections between it and other tracking technologies are being uncovered.
Tartan is software designed by Ntrepid Corporation that “exposes and quantifies key influencers and hidden
connections in social networks using mathematical algorithms for objective, un-biased output. Our analysts,
mathematicians and computer scientists are continually exploring new quantification, mining and visualization
techniques in order to better analyze social networks.” According to RT, Tartan “aims to track down alleged
anarchists by specifically singling out Occupy Wall Street protesters and the publicly funded media — all with the aid
of federal agents.”

The Tartan website proudly admits this use of its technology. “Tartan was used to reveal a hidden network of
relationships among anarchist leaders of seemingly unrelated movements,” the website reads. “The study exposed
the affiliations within this network that facilitate the viral spread of violent and illegal tactics to the broader protest
movement in the United States.”

As The New American recently reported, TrapWire is a massive and technologically advanced surveillance system
that has the capacity to keep nearly the entire population of this country under the watchful eye of government 24
hours a day. Using this network of cameras and other surveillance tools, the federal government is rapidly
constructing an impenetrable, inescapable theater of surveillance, most of which is going unnoticed by Americans
and unreported by the mainstream media.

Unlike other elements of the central government’s cybersurveillance program, word about TrapWire was not leaked
by Obama administration insiders. The details of this nearly unbelievable surveillance scheme were made public by
WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group founded by Julian Assange. The TrapWire story percolated from the millions of
e-mails from the Austin, Texas-based private intelligence-gathering firm Stratfor, published this year by
WikiLeaks. Covering correspondence from mid-2004 to 2011, these documents expose Stratfor’s “web of informers,
pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods.”

This coterie of Stratfor co-conspirators are apparently angry about the leaks, considering that the WikiLeaks servers
have been under near-constant Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks since the TrapWire revelations
began attracting notice of alternative journalists. Some outlets report that the cyberattacks are being carried out by
agents of the American intelligence community determined to prevent the full depth of this scandal from being
explored by reporters.

Exactly what is TrapWire? According to one description of the program, from Russia Today:

Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial
recognition technology — and have installed it across the US under the radar of most Americans, according to emails
hacked by Anonymous.

Every few seconds, data picked up at surveillance points in major cities and landmarks across the United States are
recorded digitally on the spot, then encrypted and instantaneously delivered to a fortified central database center at
an undisclosed location to be aggregated with other intelligence.
Although many of the details remain undisclosed, it is known that the infrastructure of TrapWire was designed and
deployed by Abraxas, an intelligence contractor based in Northern Virginia headed and run by dozens of former
American surveillance officers. As one article described it: “The employee roster at Abraxas reads like a who’s who
of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government entities according to their public LinkedIn profiles, and
the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented."

Just how expansive is the TrapWire network believed to be? An article published by transparency advocacy
group Public Intelligence claims that Stratfor e-mails suggest that TrapWire is in use by the U.S. Secret Service,
the British security service MI5, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as counterterrorism divisions in both the
Los Angeles and New York Police Department and the LA fusion center. The e-mails also suggest that TrapWire is in
use at military bases around the country. A July 2011 email from a "Burton" to others at Stratfor describes how the
U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and Pentagon have all begun using TrapWire and are "on the system now." Burton
described the Navy as the "next on the list."

One e-mail in a set stolen from global intelligence firm Stratfor by hactivists Anonymous and leaked via WikiLeaks

We have an agreement in principle with Abraxas [TrapWire] to provide "streaming sitreps" to their clients via their
desktop/homepage by the end of July. Their clients include Scotland Yard, #10 Downing, the White House, and many
MNC's [multinational corporations].

In what is likely an uncomfortable discovery for the company behind TrapWire, several common board members link
TrapWire to Tartan. First, Margaret A. Lee is listed as secretary of the board of directors of Ntrepid. Also on the board
are Director Richard Helms, CFO Wesley R, Husted, and President Michael Martinka.

Compare this information with the Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Corporation Commission website where
Margaret A. Lee registered a company named TrapWire Inc. on March 7, 2009. Other business databases
available on the Web reveal that in the past, Wesley Husted served as the CFO of TrapWire, Inc. and a Richard H.
Helms was the CEO.

RT reports that Helms is a former CIA agent “that once ran the agency’s European division.” The same article claims
that Helms has since “severed ties with TrapWire,” but the other significant links between TrapWire and Tartan
developer Ntrepid are unchanged. All three of these individuals are also named in documents filed by Ntrepid with the
Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations.

Recently, however, in a comment to Project PM’s Barrett Brown, Cubic Corp. Communication Director Tim Hall
repeats his company’s denial of the relationship. “There is no connection at all with Abraxas Applications and
Trapwire and or Ntrepid,” Hall reportedly said in an audio file posted to YouTube. Project PM counters by claiming
to have a copy of Cubic’s 2010 tax returns where Ntrepid and Abraxas are listed as being companies “wholly owned”
by Cubic.
For its part, Cubic Corporation denies being involved in anything related to TrapWire. In a press release Cubic
stated, “Abraxas Corporation then and now has no affiliation with Abraxas Applications now known as Trapwire, Inc.”

That claim doesn’t square with the information revealed in a story covering the latest in the ongoing TrapWire

According to a 2007 report in the Washington Business Journal, though, that as well is a full-on fib.

"Abraxas Corp., a risk-mitigation technology company, has spun out a software business to focus on selling a new
product," the article reads. "The spinoff — called Abraxas Applications — will sell TrapWire, which predicts attacks on
critical infrastructure by analyzing security reports and video surveillance."

It is unclear how or if Cubic Corporation will explain this apparent discrepancy.

While all this corporate intermingling is certainly suspicious, especially in light of the adamant denials of such on the
part of the companies allegedly involved, an important question remains: What ties these two surveillance schemes
to the government of the United States?

Several organizations and individuals are digging deeper into the corporate connection between TrapWire and Tartan
and how these twin terrors might be implemented by U.S. intelligence.

The British newspaper Guardian reported last year that Ntrepid was working on an “online personal management”
tool useful in the influence of “regional and international audiences to achieve U.S. Central Command strategic

Additionally, the Guardian’s research uncovered a $2.76-million contract awarded by U.S. Central Command to
Ntrepid Corporation. The money was earmarked, the Guardian reports, for the creation of “false online personalities”
that would drum up support for the American foreign policy overseas. The Guardian writes that Centcom would
accomplish this goal by enabling:

US service personnel, working around the clock in one location, to respond to emerging online conversations with
any number of co-ordinated messages, blogposts, chatroom posts and other interventions. Details of the contract
suggest this location would be MacDill air force base near Tampa, Florida, home of US Special Operations

All this should be done, the story continues, without revealing the wizards behind the cyber curtain. Interestingly, RT
claims that this identity-guarding gambit was supported by a timely software purchase by Cubic Corporation — the
company that created TrapWire. The article alleges that through a corporate buyout, Cubic Corporation gained
control of “an online identity masking tool called Anonymyzer.”

Despite the apparent similarities between Centcom’s project and Anonymyzer, there is nothing proving a connection
between them.

    Print
    Email
    RSS
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Share
     Bookmark & ShareX

    Google
    Delicious
    Digg
    Reddit
    StumbleUpon
    Technorati
    Current
    Permalink
     Civil Liberties in the Digital Age

     What to Make of the TrapWire Story
     By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 4:34pm

     Some of the Wikileaks-fueled swirl of stories about the TrapWire program appear to have been overhyped, as my colleague Kade Crockford
     of the ACLU of Massachusetts noted in her excellent roundup of the story yesterday. Others writing about the program have followed suit.

     But let’s not overcompensate for the hype and get too world-weary and cynical here; while many questions remain about this program, it
     does raise some very significant issues. And it does deserve a high level of attention and concern.

     We do know the program combines several elements that are each deeply problematic:

• Suspicious activity reports (SARs). The rage for SARs, as we have long noted, is a misguided and dangerous attempt to spot terrorist plots by
     gathering and sifting through an ocean of data on ordinary everyday behavior. A George Washington University study recently concluded
     that the suspicious activity reporting system “has flooded fusion centers, law enforcement, and other security entities with white noise” that
     “complicates the intelligence process” and prevents fusion centers from being “true homeland security assets.” Given that, increasing the
     flood of SARs is not going to make anyone safer, but only increase the level of white noise and further hobble anti-terrorism efforts.

• Data mining. Big data certainly has its uses but spotting terrorists is not one of them, as experts have repeatedly explained.
• The surveillance-industrial complex. Revolving doors, private-sector takeovers of public functions, and corporate-government cooperation
     against dissenters: when you marry the furious energy of capitalism with the security establishment’s bottomless appetite for tracking, it’s a
     recipe for trouble.

     But I think the most novel issue raised by TrapWire is the program’s video surveillance component. It’s not entirely clear how the program is
     using video. A 2010 Stratfor email leaked by Wikileaks states the following:

     This week, 500 surveillance cameras were activated on the NYC subway system to focus on pre-operational terrorist surveillance. The
     surveillance technology is also operational on high-value targets (HVTs) in DC, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and London and is called TrapWire.
     . . . Operationally, the ability to identify hostile surveillance at one target set -- in multiple cities -- can be used to neutralize terror threats by
     interrupting the attack cycle. Meaning, a suspect conducting surveillance of the NYC subway can also be spotted by TrapWire conducting
     similar activity at the DC subway, connecting the infamous dots. An additional benefit of TrapWire is that the system can also be used to help
     "walk back the cat" after an attack to identify terrorist suspects and modus operandi. I can also see the tool being very effective in identifying
     general street crime.

     That certainly makes it sound that video feeds from a wide variety of locations are being centrally scrutinized for “hostile” behavior, cross-
     referenced, and stored (to allow the post-attack investigation). If it’s claimed that the system can recognize that the same individual has
     appeared in different cities, it is a rational assumption that face recognition is employed, despite that technology’s generally abysmal
     performance in uncontrolled situations such as public spaces.

     In addition, a TrapWire trademark document says the system provides a visual monitor that shows “the threat level at each facility” and
     highlights those where the threat level has risen “over the preceding 24 hours.” What kind of data would be used to indicate a higher threat at
     a given facility on an hour-by-hour basis? Such up-to-date evaluations seem like the kind of thing that would be based on video feeds.

     But it is still not clear what is going on. The Stratfor descriptions aren’t necessarily accurate. As this piece by independent journalist Ben
     Doernberg points out, TrapWire’s CEO denied using face recognition in 2006. Also, the New York Times quotes a police spokesperson as
     denying that the NYPD uses TrapWire. (Which is strange, as Kade points out today, because Trapwire explicitly states on its web site that it
     services New York’s SARs. Overall the company itself has been strangely quiet during the uproar; if so many of the stories about this
     program are false, and it is not something we should worry about, it’s natural to wonder why the company hasn’t put out a statement
     explaining why that is so.)

     What seems most likely is that “behavioral recognition” software monitors customers’ video feeds (such as subway cameras) and when it
     detects suspicious activity, it alerts human operators who then create a suspicious activity report.

     Ultimately, we need to look beyond the details of what TrapWire does and does not do at this moment. We know that the following is true:

• Video surveillance is expanding rapidly, as cameras become cheaper and easier to install, and as local police departments increasingly begin
     installing their own networks of cameras.

• New IP video camera feeds are easy to network, centralize, and store.

• Behavioral recognition technology will increasingly be employed to try to manage the ever-growing volume of video data.

• Portions of our security establishment are fixated on mass surveillance as an approach to stopping terrorism (as we’ve written about often, but
     with special focus in this 2007 report).

• The private sector is bursting with entrepreneurs looking to sell new surveillance solutions to the government, TrapWire being just one of many
     in that regard. If something can be done, someone somewhere will make a pitch to do it.

• Government agencies frequently launch new surveillance efforts with minimal public notice or debate—and often (though not in this case),
    cloaked in official secrecy. (It’s always surprising when security agencies feel they can activate far-reaching surveillance tools without any
    public knowledge or debate. We’re supposed to be living in a democracy; that’s what these security agencies are supposed to be
    protecting—they shouldn’t be helping themselves to dramatic new powers over citizens whenever the latest technology makes that possible.)

     Together, these elements are a recipe for a new kind of total surveillance that people are rightly worried about. Beyond the details, all the
     "hype" online over the TrapWire story is a reflection and implicit recognition that such a system is now technologically possible, and we are
     barreling full speed toward a surveillance society. Whatever the details of TrapWire’s current operation are, we need to grapple with that fact.
     That’s the biggest takeaway from the TrapWire story.
dentity Profiling: Covert Biometrics
Editor's Note: It is my opinion, based on the fact that Anonymous is heavily reported in the
corporate owned media and the apparent disinformation promoted, that Anonymous is a false flag
operation. Consequently, it is necessary for researchers, such as Julie Beal, to set the record

Julie Beal, Contributor

Anonymous recently put out a video below advising people how to avoid being scanned by facial recognition
technology; the advice boils down to ‘tilt your head at an angle’ or ‘wear a specially made cap’. They did not go
so far as to tell people how to actually make such a cap, nor did they point out that the technology has been
developed to capture faces even when they are at an angle.

The powers that be are highly aware that not all subjects are compliant, or even aware, that their facial features
are being ‘captured’, so they have developed the capacity to identify people even when their faces are not in
the ‘perfect’ position.

A recent report notes that there have been rapid advances in the accuracy of face trackers, such that they have
become highly tolerant to different angles and poses, to the time that has elapsed between photos (e.g. ageing
differences), and to lower resolution photos. In other words, the technology has vastly improved, and it just
keeps getting better because there are far fewer false alarms. People can even be identified from a 4 x 4 pixel
array of their face, although the analysis of just one iris in the eye has been shown to be even more effective
than face recognition.
Apparently, the iris has more unique information than any other single organ in the body, providing robust
identification potential, second only to DNA. Iris recognition technology can be used to determine ethnicity, is
considered to be ideal for situations involving uncooperative individuals, and has been successfully deployed
at London’s Gatwick Airport.

BIMA (Biometrics Identity Management Agency) is funding research at Carnegie-Mellon University to develop a
method of capturing iris biometrics from uncooperative subjects; they can now identify people up to 12 metres
away. No special equipment is needed either; the researchers used commercial, off-the-shelf, photographic
equipment to capture iris biometrics, which was successful with both stationary and moving subjects. Cameras
can then be mounted on roving vehicles, scanning and recording irises for what the military call 'tactical non-
cooperative biometrics'.

In addition to this huge increase in capabilities, those in the Identity Management (IdM) industry are advising
the implementation of multi-modal biometrics; in other words, to make up for the fact that no method is
always 100% accurate, the plan is to capture several types of biometric data for citizen IdM. The type required
will depend on the nature of the transaction, and the context in which it is taking place – virtual authentication
may require stronger credentials than when a person is physically present, for instance.
                                   Yet while identity management calls for the use of biometrics to protect against
    identity theft, the trouble is that many biometrical applications can be ‘spoofed’, meaning that ID theft becomes
    a whole new problem, left unsolved by the current range of biometrical applications. So fingerprints and voice
    prints, etc. can all be ‘stolen’ and used by an impersonator. Just think how you leave your fingerprints all over
    the place, and the photos of yourself on the Internet. Research shows how easy it is for almost anyone to be
    identified from a photo, using simple Internet data mining techniques, and easily available facial recognition

    In other words, our faces have become our identities, and there little hope of remaining anonymous in a
    world where billions of photographs are taken and posted online every month.

    Proving you’re not a dog is fast becoming simply not enough. You’re going to have to prove you’re alive and
    present at the time of authentication. So you have to prove you’re a human being, and that you are who you
    say you are, and that you are indeed alive and well. There are a number of applications which are able to do
    this, and embody the most recent, and still developing, field of cognitive biometrics. This refers to testing and
    measuring your affective state; i.e. emotions and behaviour, psychological profile, and ‘vital signs’. The way
    you respond to certain stimuli says a lot about who you are. It can be read as a unique biological signature,
    which is measurable and universal in application, unlike other biometrics which do not account for human
    differences: not everyone can walk, not everyone has fingers, etc. The most advances in the field of cognitive
    biometrics have been made in the pursuit of covert biometrics, which are being developed to identify
    ‘uncooperative’ individuals. The same information was acquired by DARPA in the Future Attribute Screening
    Technology (FAST) program which was said to be looking for cues of ‘mal-intent’, pre-crime detection styley.

    These techniques are more insidious when they can be done at a distance, without the need for contact with
    the individual, so the biometric data can be taken without the subject’s knowledge. This also makes them all the
    more terrifying for the largely compliant and innocent, would-be private, global population.

    It also turns out we are scattering our biological signatures all over the place, from finger prints and palm prints,
    voice recordings, and digital photos, videos showing our ears, irises, tattoos, mannerisms and the way we walk
    and move about.

    Even the way we smell can be used to identify us. And of course, there’s our DNA.

    I don’t want someone to have a record of me. (I know they cannot steal my soul but they are trying to steal my
    sovereignty!) So the ones that bother me most, the ones that Anonymous strangely fail to mention, are the
    ones that can be done at a distance. Whilst identification from DNA involves contact, and takes around 90
    minutes to get results, the following features can be tracked from a distance, covertly:

   Face
   Iris and retina
   Eye movements
   Veins
   Ears
   Outline of hand patterns
   Body odor
   Finger prints
   Finger image
   Keystroke
   Voice
   Sweat pores
   Vital signs: heart signature, brain wave patterns – these are unique to each individual because of our DNA
    (the heart and brain are composed of protein tissues)
   Behavioural/cognitive biometrics e.g. gait, breathing, emotional responses to targeted stimuli, galvanic skin
   Gait
    A European Union Working Party on data protection recently released an official Opinion on developments in
    biometric technologies, in which it was stated,
    Biometric technologies that once needed significant financial or computational resources have become
    dramatically cheaper and faster. The use of fingerprint readers is now commonplace. For example, some
    laptops include a fingerprint reader for biometric access control. Advances in DNA analysis mean that results
    are now available within a few minutes. Some of the newly developed technologies such as vein pattern
    recognition or facial recognition are already developed to maturity. Their use in various places of our everyday
    life is just around the corner…. Every individual is likely to be enrolled in one or several biometric systems. (my

    It turns out that people are even supplying personal information on the way they move via the accelerometer
    which is now a common feature of many smartphones and games consoles; a profile of your gait can then be
    used to identify you in video sequences. A recent study monitored subjects with an Android smartphone in
    their pocket, and found,
With a reasonably sized dataset (36 subjects), we show preliminary results indicating that not only can
smartphones be used to identify a person based on their normal gait but also that there is potential to match
gait patterns across different speeds.

Freaky huh? Well, that’s not all … your smartphone and games equipment and stuff you put on the Internet can
all be used to build profiles which log the metrics for your unique physiological and emotional characteristics,
which can be used to build your identity profile, and serve as ‘scientifically acceptable’ means of biometric
authentication. Just like Pavlov’s dogs, we are to be assessed according to the behaviourist’s favourite
‘stimulus-response paradigm’, and virtual reality is the vehicle. Data that was once collected with wired devices
in psychologists’ offices can now be supplied with games equipment which employ ‘haptic' technology; this
adds to the sense of reality in the game, as it allows the user to experience the sense of touch, with feedback
in the game, such as ‘feeling’ the recoil of a gun as it is fired.

Biometrics experts are looking for ways to make this data a valid form of identity authentication. A recent study

Haptics can be seen as a mechanism to extract behavioral features that characterize a biometric profile for an
identity authentication process. Generally, the haptic data captured during an individual interaction are very
large (measured every few milliseconds) and with a high number of attributes (position, velocity, force, angular
orientation of the end-effector and torque data, among others). Therefore, the behavioral haptic data that
describe users are defined in terms of a large number of features, which adds complexity to the analysis.

‘Affective’ haptic technology can also be used to feedback information regarding the player’s emotional
reactions. This enriches the identity profile considerably, as well as providing statistical data on the user’s
unique characteristics which can also be used for authentication in IdM. As more and more games incorporate
‘readings’ from the player, the more private data (about our physical and mental health) we give away, thus

contributing to a future where IdM could become a whole new ballgame:

… the wealth of stimuli suitable for cognitive biometrics provides a wealth of authentication schemes – game
playing, listening to music, short video clips, as well as more traditional behavioural biometric approaches
provide virtually an infinite amount of input stimuli for use as an authentication scheme. This holds for both
static and continuous authentication modes – though the later provides many more opportunities to validate the
user under a wide variety of stimulus challenges. This is one of the major advantages of the cognitive approach
compared to anatomical biometrics such as finger prints and retinal scans. Further, this approach may suit
more closely future person–computer interaction schema that may attempt to minimise traditional input devices
such as keyboards and mice. As Julia Thorpe and colleagues proposed in 2005 – authenticating with our minds
might be a reality in the near future – and certainly emotion based interactive gaming is already here (Thorpe et
al., 2005).

In light of these capabilities, the readings which could be acquired from Guardian Angels take on a whole new
meaning. In fact, they would embody the ideal version of what is being dubbed ‘continuous and unobtrusive
authentication’ – by remotely monitoring brain and heart signatures from electroencephalogram (EEG) and
electrocardiogram (ECG) readings, taken, for instance, from sensors in a cap, and a shirt. The European
Council have helped fund research in this area, with the result that a company called Starlab has developed a
product called ENOBIO which takes recordings ofEEG and ECG from an individual wearing one sensor on the
wrist, and one on the earlobe. This means the individual is constantly sending out a signal of who they are,
something said to be important in high security areas, which are “safety critical”, such as transportation,
laboratories, airports, etc.

DARPA has begun a four year research program called ‘Active Authentication’, which will focus on methods
to validate identity online using cognitive biometrics, such as computers which ‘recognise’ the operator by
assessing their habitual movements, and comparing it to their stored profile to validate identity in real time.

Late last year, DARPA announced another research project called ‘Human Identification at a Distance’, which
includes developing techniques which can covertly collect reliable heart biometrics to verify identify without any
contact with the person being tracked. announced,

"In 2006, Darpa developed Radar Scope,which used radar waves to sense through walls and detect the
movements associated with respiration. A year later, the Army invested in LifeReader, a system using Doppler
radar to find heartbeats. More recently, the military’s been using devices like the AN/PPS-26 STTW ("Sense
Through the Wall") and TiaLinx’s Eagle scanner, which can sense the presence of humans and animals
through walls.

Handy though these gadgets may be, Darpa wants to one-up them with some new and better capabilities.

First off, Darpa wants its biometric device to be able to work from farther away. Right now, it says the accuracy
of most systems taps out at around eight meters. And while some see-through devices can see through up to
eight inches of concrete, they don’t do as well in locations with more or thicker walls. So Darpa’s looking for
the next system to push that range past 10 meters, particularly in cluttered urban areas.”

However, whilst the technology exists to detect the heartbeat, the ability to take reliable biometric readings
without contact is still being worked on. Although readings taken from sensors placed on the body are
successful at proving identity, no research has fully overcome the problems brought about by distance. What’s
really getting in the way is environmental ‘noise’ creating interference with the signal being received, meaning
that detection of heartbeat biometrics is highly context-dependent.

The best results are achieved by using sensors in contact with the body, with willing subjects. These include
ECG, pulseoximetry, and blood pressure. The pursuit of non-contact biometric acquisition continues,
however, since it represents the ultimate aim of criminal detection. Heart sounds can be acquired acoustically
with success, but methods utilising radar and laser dopler vibrometry are less efficient if the subject is
moving. Motion imagery, looking at skin colour fluctuations, is an experimental technology. A recent study
revealed just how long-range the technology is for reading vital signs:

Researchers at Georgia Technology Research Institute (GTRI) used an active radar to note the changes
(in)heart volume over time (Greneker, 1997; Geisheimer and Greneker III, 1999). The physical deformation
provides extensive information about the individual and the relative health of the heart itself along with
respiration and other body movements and muscle flexor noises. This work for human identification is
impressive because the potential standoff ranges are in excess of 1 km. The GTRI work formed the basis for
Mazlouman et al. (2009) to characterise cardiac performance using microwave Doppler radar. Instead of
attempting to provide surrogate ECG information, these researchers looked in the infrasonic range, i.e. < 20 Hz
through ultra-wide band radar > 2 MHz. The researchers continually were able to collect reliable data between
2 and 10 metres …… Another measure of standoff cardiac measure was provided by (Parra and Da Costa,
2001). Interferometric data were collected from the pulsing of the carotid artery over time. The measurements
were collected with an eye-safe laser…

                                     With AISight’s ability to monitor your gait and habitual movements, all of
which can be used to identify you, combined with an abundance of other data collected without your consent,
the gaze of big brother, imbued with ‘intelligence’, seems inescapable. The very idea that this could be
happening is often enough to cause changes in people’s behaviour; when they know they’re being watched,
people adapt to fit in and have an easy life. This is known as ‘anticipatory conformity’, and is effectively self-
surveillance leading to self-censorship . It means learning to think before you speak, trying to control the
look on your face, being careful to always do ‘the right thing’.

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a
very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which
the metal plate commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing
whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the
time. but at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You have to live - did live, from
habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in
darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Guardian Angels hover over us ominously – threatening to tangle us tightly in the hugely complex global web. A
sea of contextual data in a world full of sensors, each of us mirrored in the virtual world as the controllers feast
on their wireless feedback, the increasingly intimate personal data they are stealing from us. Every piece of
data they have from us becomes a valuable asset. Even without an implant, we can be identified and tracked
from RFID tags in the things we buy, together with the biometric scanners and device detectors.

A robotic future looks set to challenge our notions of identity even further, as life-size avatars begin to take
their place in society, and augmented reality destroys anonymity altogether.

The confluence of IdM, surveillance, and complexity modelling are what Big Brother is made of. You will only
be understood and acknowledged by the system based on your recorded metrics.

The technology has been developed to achieve all of these things, but as yet they are patchwork projects just
getting the feel of things. What we must fear is ‘global interoperability’ – all systems interacting together:
Watson with AISight and smart dust omniscience, able to learn and remember, analyse, predict and decide, the
Grand Master of Complexity.

So, yes, watch out for Anonymous, indeed. Just as their iconic facemasks symbolise anonymity, the very thing
business and governments are seeking to end, in this era of accountability, so too are their numerous claims to
successful hacks of top-level domains. Anonymous are helping to bring in the new era of identity control; their
appearance heralds the end of privacy and anonymity. Nowhere left to hide; the last of the days of the drifter.

Read other articles by Julie Beal HERE

This article first appeared at Get Mind Smart

Julie Beal is a UK-based independent researcher who has been studying the globalist agenda for more than 20
years. Please visit her website, Get Mind Smart, for a wide range of information about Agenda 21,
Communitarianism, Ethics, Bioscience, and much more.

Anonymous releases how to instructions on fooling facial
recognition 360p

72 videos

Published on Aug 22, 2012 by GLOBALPOLITICALAWAKE

For more information, please read

Here's a predicament: you don't want the government using high-tech face scanning technology
to track every inch of your walk to the post office, but you also don't want to take a
sledgehammer to your neighborhood surveillance camera. What do you do?

Don't worry, concerned citizen! Big Brother may indeed be watching, but that doesn't mean you
have to make his unwarranted surveillance mission easy to operate.

Although little news has developed as of late in regards to TrapWire, a global surveillance
operation that RT blew the cover off of nearly two weeks ago, opposition waged at the world-
wide intelligence network is still rampant. Now in one of the newest videos uploaded to the Web
to make people aware of TrapWire, a person claiming to be involved with Anonymous is trying
to spread a YouTube clip that offers helpful suggestions on how to rage against the machine,
properly and peacefully.

Last week, hacktivists proposed several campaigns aimed at eliminating TrapWire feeds by
rendering the equipment thought to be linked to the intelligence system completely useless. In
lieu of smashing camera lenses and spraying surveillance gear in sudsy liquid, though, a new
video, "Anonymous -- Fighting TrapWire," offers instructions on how to prevent the acceleration
of the surveillance state by means of passive resistant.

"Many of you have heard the recent stories about TrapWire," the video begins. "Constant video
surveillance is an issue we presently face. However, there are a number of ways that you can
combat this surveillance."

From there, the clip's narrator offers a few suggestions and helping the average American avoid
getting caught in TrapWire without resorting to the destruction of property.

"Wearing a mask is a common way to keep your identity hidden," the voice explains, "However,
a mask does not protect against biometric authentication. In addition, this can also cause
problems depending where you want to go."

"Another way to avoid facial recognition is to tilt your head more than 15 degrees to the side,"
the clip continues. "Due to limits in their programming, they will not be able to detect that a face
is present, though there are very obvious cons to doing this. Using a similar method, you can
distort your face through elaborate makeup. This method also takes advantage of software limits
as the computer will not be able to detect a face. But these are tiresome ways that tend to draw
attention to yourself. Surely there are better solutions to avoid being added to a database."

The narrator also explains that laser pointers have been documented to disrupt the powers of
surveillance cameras and that, "With nothing more than a hat, some infrared LEDs, some wiring
and a 9 Volt battery," it's a piece of cake to render oneself completely invisible. By rigging a
DIY system of small lights affixed to a baseball cap, the video claims you can create a device
that "guarantees complete anonymity to cameras while appearing perfectly normal to the rest of
the world."

"While the government may be hell bent on watching us at every moment of every day, we are
not helpless. There are always ways of fighting back. Let's remind them that 1984 was not an
instruction manual," the video concludes.

Here's a predicament: you don't want the government using high-tech face scanning
technology to track every inch of your walk to the post office, but you also don't want to take a
sledgehammer to your neighborhood surveillance camera. What do you do?

Don't worry, concerned citizen! Big Brother may indeed be watching, but that doesn't mean
you have to make his unwarranted surveillance mission easy to operate.

Although little news has developed as of late in regards to TrapWire, a global surveillance
operation that RT blew the cover off of nearly two weeks ago, opposition waged at the world-
wide intelligence network is still rampant. Now in one of the newest videos uploaded to the
Web to make people aware of TrapWire, a person claiming to be involved with Anonymous is
trying to spread a YouTube clip that offers helpful suggestions on how to rage against the
machine, properly and peacefully.

Last week, hacktivists proposed several campaigns aimed at eliminating TrapWire feeds by
rendering the equipment thought to be linked to the intelligence system completely useless. In
lieu of smashing camera lenses and spraying surveillance gear in sudsy liquid, though, a new
video, "Anonymous -- Fighting TrapWire," offers instructions on how to prevent the
acceleration of the surveillance state by means of passive resistant.

"Many of you have heard the recent stories about TrapWire," the video begins. "Constant video
surveillance is an issue we presently face. However, there are a number of ways that you can
combat this surveillance."

From there, the clip's narrator offers a few suggestions and helping the average American avoid
getting caught in TrapWire without resorting to the destruction of property.

"Wearing a mask is a common way to keep your identity hidden," the voice explains, "However,
a mask does not protect against biometric authentication. In addition, this can also cause
problems depending where you want to go."

"Another way to avoid facial recognition is to tilt your head more than 15 degrees to the side,"
the clip continues. "Due to limits in their programming, they will not be able to detect that a
face is present, though there are very obvious cons to doing this. Using a similar method, you
can distort your face through elaborate makeup. This method also takes advantage of software
limits as the computer will not be able to detect a face. But these are tiresome ways that tend
to draw attention to yourself. Surely there are better solutions to avoid being added to a

The narrator also explains that laser pointers have been documented to disrupt the powers of
surveillance cameras and that, "With nothing more than a hat, some infrared LEDs, some wiring
and a 9 Volt battery," it's a piece of cake to render oneself completely invisible. By rigging a DIY
system of small lights affixed to a baseball cap, the video claims you can create a device that
"guarantees complete anonymity to cameras while appearing perfectly normal to the rest of
the world."

"While the government may be hell bent on watching us at every moment of every day, we are
not helpless. There are always ways of fighting back. Let's remind them that 1984 was not an
instruction manual," the video concludes.