Poulsen explained that this software "was sent to the owner of an anonymous MySpace profile linked to bomb threats against Timberline High School near Seattle. The code led the FBI to 15-year-old Josh Glazebrook, a student at the school, who...pleaded guilty to making bomb threats, identity theft and felony harassment."
In July 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supported the Washington court's decision that this type of computer monitoring without a wiretap warrant is legally permissible because Internet users have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when using the Internet.
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are hard at work developi ng other types of technology that are purportedly necessary to fight terrorism. For example, the CIA is developing a program called "Fluent," which searches foreign websites for terrorist activities and displays an English translation back to Langley. Fluent may be used in conjunction with "Oasis," a technology that transcribes into English worldwide radio and TV broadcasts. The FBI and some police departments are now using a software program called "dTective" to record financial transactions with dramatically improved surveillance video feeds from banks and ATMs. The feds are even working on techniques for restoring videotapes and computer disks that have been destroyed, cut up, or tossed in water. One software program called "Encase" can recover deleted computer files and search for incriminating documents on any computer. This was used by the FBI to examine computers seized in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
In 2010, testing was being done on a device that emits an electromagnetic pulse capable of disabling the engine of any vehicle. The developers hoped to have a portable model ready in the near future for use by police. They said it would signal the end of dangerous car chases.
All this surveillance technology could hypothetically lead to scary scenarios such as the one envisioned by Village Voice editor Russ Kick: "You just got a call that your sister is in critical condition in the hospital. So you jump in your car and hit the gas. Trouble is, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour and your car won't let you drive any faster. Or maybe you're lucky enough to have a vehicle that still lets you drive at the speed you choose. A cop pulls you over and demands a saliva sample, so he can instantly match your DNA to a data bank of criminals' genes. You refuse and are arrested. After booking you, the authorities force you to submit to 'brain fingerprinting,' a technology that can tell if memories of illegal events are in your mind.
"By this point, you're thinking this is a worst-case scenario, a science-fiction dysphoria. Well, wake up and smell the police state, because all this technology—and more—is already being implemented."
NATIONAL ID ACT
For years, pundits have consistently brought up the idea of a national identification card while civil libertarians have consistently cooled the public's receptivity to such a concept—until now.
Even as the terror following 9/11 began to subside in 2002, Representative Jim Moran of Virginia cited increased concern over terrorism and introduced legislation in Congress titled the Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4633). The bill was styled as a law, which would set uniform standards for driver's licenses in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. But what was most disturbing was that it also included provisions to establish a national database and identification system. Moran's bill codified a plan developed by Congress that urged the Department of Transportation to develop electronic "smart" driver's licenses. The licenses would contain embedded programmable computer chips that could be read by law enforcement authorities across the nation.
"It's more of a national ID system [original emphasis], a linking of Department of Motor Vehicles—and the records they keep on you—across state lines, with some extra on- card security measures thrown in," wrote Frank Pellegrini of Time.com. "The plan, Congress hopes, will be cheaper and easier to implement, and less likely to incur the talk-show ire of civil libertarians and states' rights purists (the same type who squawked in 1908 when the FBI was born). But the approach is mere stealth—50 different state ID cards all linked together is pretty much the same as one national ID card, just as all those new quarters are still worth 25 cents each, no matter which state is on the back."
The House bill also stated the new ID card must "conform to any other standards issued by the Secretary [of Transportation]," an open invitation for bureaucrat tinkering.
The Rearing and Empowering America for Longevity against acts of International Destruction (REAL ID) Act of 2005 was passed in an effort to set standards for all driver's licenses, making them acceptable for "official purposes" as defined by the secretary of Homeland Security. These purposes included entering any federal building and boarding any commercial airliner. But the states balked at the plan, not due to privacy and control concerns but because of the cost of implementing it, and by 2008, an extension was given to all states. As concerns over REAL ID grew, by October 2009 at least twenty-five states had passed resolutions or legislation withdrawing from REAL ID.
In April 2009, without acknowledging the rebellion of the states over the REAL ID Act, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced she was working with governors to repeal the REAL ID Act. Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona, said she wanted to substitute the federal law with "something else that pivots off of the driver's license but accomplishes some of the same goals." She added, "And we hope to be able to announce something on that fairly soon."
A CHIP IN YOUR SHOULDER
Lovers of liberty rejoiced when Moran's bill failed to become law and the ensuing REAL ID Act bombed in the state houses. However, most states now issue driver's licenses with a magnetic strip capable of carrying computer-coded information.
Driver's licenses are not the only ID cards to contain computer-coded information. New York City became one of the first major cities to announce plans to try out microchipped identification cards for the city's 250,000 employees. Some 50,000 officers and workers for the NYPD were scheduled to receive ID cards. The state-of- the-art plastic cards contain microchips, holograms, and other security devices to prevent theft. On the front of this picture ID is the Statue of Liberty and two chips, one containing fingerprints and handprints and the other filled with personal information, including blood type and emergency telephone numbers. Police officials said that eventually the ID cards will be used in conjunction with "biometric" hand scanners to ensure the person bearing the card is the correct one. They also hoped to save money in computing paychecks by using the cards to keep track of employee hours.
Time's Frank Pellegrini has warned that the real fight for privacy will be over when and where citizens will have to show such IDs. "The average American's driver's license gets a pretty good workout these days," he said, "certainly far more than traffic laws themselves would seem to warrant—but you can only get arrested for driving without one. If the US domestic response starts to resemble Zimbabwe's, which passed a law in November  making it compulsory to carry ID on pain of fine or imprisonment, well, that's something to worry about."
In 2002, author Steven Yates, a teaching fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, warned, "The long and the short of it is, the Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002 would bring us closer than ever before to establishing a comprehensive national ID system. The present excuse is that extreme measures are necessary to 'protect us against terrorism.'
"It is a testimony to how much this country has changed since 9/11 that no one has visibly challenged H.R. 4633 as unconstitutional and incompatible with the principles of a free society. The 1990s gave us the obviously corrupt Clinton Regime and a significant opposition to federal power grabs. Now it's Bush the Younger, beloved of neocons [neoconservatives] who see him as one of their own and believe he can do no wrong.... Clearly, the slow encirclement of law-abiding US citizens with national ID technology would advance such a cause [globalism or the New World Order] while doing little if anything to safeguard us against terrorism."
Yates predicted a chilling future where the feds could stifle dissent by "freezing" a dissident's assets by reprogramming his or her database information. Scanners would not recognize the dissenter and he or she would become officially invisible, unable to drive or work legally, have a bank account, buy anything on credit, or even see a doctor. "Do we want to trust anyone [original emphasis] with that kind of power?" he asked.
Already the practice of marking people for identification through computer systems is being played out in private industry. In late October 2002, Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., a high-tech development company headquartered in Palm Beach, Florida, announced a national promotion named "Get Chipped" for its new subdermal personal verification micro-chip. Applied Digital Solutions company literature states that its "VeriChip" is "an implantable, 12mm by2.1mm radio frequency device...about the size of the point of a typical ballpoint pen. It contains a unique verification number. Utilizing an external scanner, radio frequency energy passes through the skin energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal containing the verification number. The number is displayed by the scanner and transmitted to a secure data storage site by authorized personnel via telephone or Internet."
The chip can be used to access nonpublic facilities such as government buildings and installations, nuclear power plants, national research laboratories, correctional institutions, and transportation hubs, either by itself or in conjunction with existing security technologies such as retinal scanners, thumbprint scanners, orface recognition devices. Applied Digital Solutions officials believe the chip will eventually be used in a wide range of consumer products, including PC and laptop computers, personal vehicles, cell phones, and homes and apartments. They said the implanted chip will help stop identity theft and aid in the war against terrorists.
In addition to "VeriChip Centers" in Arizona, Texas, and Florida, the firm also fields the "ChipMobile," a motorized marketing and "chipping" vehicle. The firm's Get Chipped campaign was launched just days after the Food and Drug Administration ruled that the chip is not a regulated medical device.
Tommy Thompson, a former Wisconsin governor and secretary of health and human services in the George W. Bush administration, subsequently joined the board of directors of VeriChip. He pledged to get chipped and encouraged Americans to do the same so their electronic medical records would be available in emergencies.
Byearly2006, fears of mandatory chipping became reality when a Cincinnati video surveillance firm, CityWatcher.com, began to require employees who worked in its secure data center to implant the VeriChip device into their arm.
Many also feared that the microchips were being included in the swine flu vaccine. In September 2009, VeriChip Corp. announced that its stock shares had tripled after the company was granted an exclusive license to patents for "implantable virus detection systems in humans." The system used biosensors that can detect swine flu and other viruses and was intended to combine with VeriChip's implantable radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) to develop virus triage detection systems, microchips in one's bloodstream broadcasting the body's information to whoever has a reader device.
The use of GPS devices is reminiscent of the 1987 film The Running Man, in which Arnold Schwarzenegger is equipped with a collar that will blow his head off if he leaves a certain area. So, if microchipping the population sounds like something from a science fiction movie, consider that the giant drug corporation Novartis has already tested a microchip that reminds a person to take his or her medicine by transmitting a signal to a receiver chip implanted in the patient's shoulder. The pill itself contains a tiny "harmless" microchip that signals the receiver chip each time a pill is taken. If the patient fails to take a pill within a prescribed time period, the receiver chip signals the patient or a caretaker to remind the person. Novartis's head of pharmaceuticals, Joe Jiminez, said testing of the "chip in the pill" to a shoulder receiver chip had been carried out on twenty patients by the close of 2009.
One shouldn't count on government watchdog organizations to always maintain privacy rights. In late 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union gave its stamp of approval to an electronic tracking system that uses GPS satellites to track suspects and criminals. Created by the Veridan company of Arlington, Virginia, this "VeriTracks" system not only keeps tabs on convicted criminals but also on suspects. It can even match a person's position to high- crime areas or crime scenes and suggest that the person may be involved in law breaking. Law enforcement agencies can create "electronic fences" around areas they deem off-limits to those wearing a cell-phone-size GPS receiver. The person who wears the module must tie it around his or herwaist while an electronic bracelet worn on the ankle acts as an electronic tether to the GPS receiver that records the person's exact position. Should the wearer move outside the proscribed area, the authorities are signaled and a police unit is dispatched. At night, the wearer must place the module in a docking system to recharge batteries and upload its data to a central headquarters, which checks to see if the wearer has been at any crime scenes.
How do you get someone to agree to this monitoring system? Sheriff Don Eslinger of Seminole County, Florida, answered, "It's either wear the GPS device or go to jail. Most of them find this much more advantageous than sitting in a cold jail cell, and it also saves us between $45 and $55 a day." Eslinger said his county had equipped ten pretrial suspects with the GPS device as a condition of making bond. According to Eslinger, county officials hoped to expand the program to include nonviolent probationers and parolees.
For many, using GPS tracking devices to track criminals makes sense. Yet, disturbingly, surveillance technology has not been limited to felons and probationers. In Texas, some one thousand teenage drivers allowed an unnamed insurance company to place a transponder in their vehicles to keep track of their speed on the road.
Texas representative Larry Phillips introduced a bill in 2005 that would have required all state automobile inspection stickers to carry a built-in electronic transponder. The device would transmit information like the car's vehicle identification number (VIN), insurance policy number, and license plate number, and should the owner's insurance expire, the person would be mailed a $250 ticket. This bill was not passed.
The firm Digital Angel has developed a wristband that allows parents to log on to the Internet and instantly locate their children, who must wear the bracelet. Another company, eWorldtrack, is working on a child-tracking device that will fit inside athletic shoes. The German firm Siemens has tested a seven-ounce tracking device that allows constant communication between parents and their children.
Author and political critic Joe Queenan quipped, "Fusing digital mobile phone technology, a satellite-based global positioning system and good old-fashioned insanity, the device can pinpoint a child within several yards in a matter of seconds."
Support has grown in the American legal system for GPS surveillance technology. In spring 2002, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled it was okay for police to hide electronic monitoring devices on people's vehicles without a warrant for as long as they want. The court ruled that there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" on the outside of one's vehicle and that attaching an electronic device to a man's car bumper did not constitute unreasonable search or seizure. In early 2004, a Louisiana court ruled it was permissible for police there to make warrantless searches of homes and businesses even without probable cause.
In September 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution allows police to break into a suspect's car to secretly install a GPS tracking device, provided that authorities have a warrant before they do so. The unanimous ruling upheld the drug trafficking conviction of Everett H. Connolly, a Cape Cod man who was tracked by state police in 2004 after they installed a GPS device in his minivan. The court declared the GPS device an "investigative tool" and said it did not violate the ban on unreasonable search and seizure in the state's Declaration of Rights.
"We hold that warrants for GPS monitoring ofa vehicle may be issued," Justice Judith Cowin stated in the court's opinion. "The Commonwealth must establish, before a magistrate...that GPS monitoring of the vehicle will produce evidence that a crime has been committed or will be committed in the near future." Generally, search warrants expire after seven days, yet the court said GPS devices can be installed for up to fifteen days before police must prove that the devices need to remain in place.
In an attempt to provide protection against the widespread use of GPS devices by law enforcement, William Leahy, chief counsel for the Committee on Public Counsel Service, said the court's ruling means that police must persuade a judge they have probable cause before the GPS devices can be installed.
ECHELON AND TEMPEST
Though GPSand surveillance systems are reasons for serious concern, the two greatest electronic threats to American privacy and individual freedom are Echelon and TEMPEST.
"The secret is out," wrote Jim Wilson in Popular Mechanics. "Two powerful intelligence gathering tools that the United States created to eavesdrop on Soviet leaders and to track KGB spies are now being used to monitor Americans." Echelon is a global eavesdropping satellite network and massive supercomputer system that operates from the National Security Agency's headquarters in Maryland. It intercepts and analyzes phone calls, faxes, and e-mail sent to and from the United States, both with or without encryption. Encrypted messages are first decrypted and then joined with clear messages. The NSA then checks all messages for "trigger words" with software known as "Dictionary." Terms like "nuclear bomb," "al Qaeda," "Hamas," "anthrax," and so on are then shuttled to appropriate agencies for analysis.
Although speculation and warnings about Echelon were circulating on the Internet fora number of years, it was not until 2001 that the U.S. government finally admitted the program's existence. This admission came after high- profile investigations in Europe discovered that Echelon had been used to spy on the two European companies Airbus Industries and Thomson-CSF.
Though the U.S. government revealed Echelon's use in 2001, the government had been using an early version of Echelon in the late 1960s and 1970s. During that time, Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used NSA technology to gather files on thousands of American citizens and more than a thousand organizations opposed to the Vietnam War. In a program called Operation Shamrock, the NSA collected and monitored nearly every international telegram sent from NewYork.
Although paid for primarily by U.S. taxpayers, Echelon is now multinational and involves nations like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Italy and Turkey. Most of the information that comes from Echelon goes to the CIA. According to Popular Mechanics's Wilson, "Based on what is known about the location of Echelon bases and satellites, it is estimated that there is a ninety percent chance that NSA is listening when you pick up the phone to place or answer an overseas call. In theory, but obviously not in practice, Echelon's supercomputers are so fast, they could identify Saddam Hussein by the sound of his voice the moment he begins speaking on the phone."
Amazing as all this technology may sound, because the government now acknowledges its existence may mean that it is phasing the program out for another technology. The next system that the government uses may be a ground-based technology known as TEMPEST. To prevent your computerfrom causing static on your neighbor's TV, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) certifies all electronic and electrical equipment. TEMPEST, or Telecommunications Electronics Material Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions, technology stemmed from simply shielding electronic equipment to prevent interference with nearby devices. But in the process of preventing unwanted electronic signals, researchers learned how to pick up signals at a distance. Advances in TEMPEST technology mean that somewhere out there, someone may be able to secretly read the displays on machines like personal computers, cash registers, television sets, and automated teller machines (ATMs) without the person using those machines knowing it.
Jim Wilson wrote that documents now available from foreign governments and older sources clearly show how these systems are used to invade our right to privacy. "We think you will agree it also creates a real and present threat to our freedom."
In September 2002, the Associated Press obtained U.S. government documents that showed that the Bush administration would create a fund that would combine tax dollars with funds from the technology industry to pay for "Internet security enhancements." Under the title "Executive Summary forthe National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," the documents discussed "sweeping new obligations on companies, universities, federal agencies and home users" to make the Internet more secure, presumably from terrorists.
This new Internet strategy was headed up by Richard Clarke, formerly a top counterterrorism expert in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, and Howard Schmidt, a former senior executive at Microsoft Corp. When released in 2003, the plan offered more than eighty recommendations for tightening Internet security.
THE CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2009
One reason the globalists want to shut down the free flow of information is that it interferes with their fearmongering and sociopolitical manipulation. With the introduction of Senate Bills No. 773 and 778, by Democratic senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, legislators continued to put the power to shutter free speech into the hands of the executive branch. These bills are part of what is called the CybersecurityActof 2009, and they essentially give the president of the United States the power to shut down Internet sites he feels might compromise national security.
The bills put forth the idea of creating a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor to protect the nation from cybercrime, espionage, and attack. The new cybersecurity adviser would report directly to the president. In the event of cyberattack, which is ill defined in the proposed laws, the president, through this national cybersecurity adviser, would have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" from the Internet, which would include citizens' banking and health records. According to an early draft of the bill, the secretary of commerce would have access to all privately owned information networks deemed critical to the nation "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."