When did Trump develop fealty to Russia, & why does it persist after their cyber attack?

By Editorial Board December 30 at 7:01 PM

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT Obama’s sanctions against Russia for interfering with the U.S. presidential election came late, his action on Thursday reflected a bipartisan consensus that penalties must be imposed for Moscow’s audacious hacking and meddling. 

But one prominent voice in the United States reacted differently. President-elect Donald Trump said “it’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.” Earlier in the week, he asserted that the “whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on.”

No, Mr. Trump, it is not time to move on. U.S. intelligence agencies are in agreement about “what is going on”: a brazen and unprecedented attempt by a hostile power to covertly sway the outcome of a U.S. presidential election through the theft and release of material damaging to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The president-elect’s dismissive response only deepens unanswered questions about his ties to Russia in the past and his plans for cooperation with Vladi­mir Putin.

For his part, Mr. Putin seems to be eagerly anticipating the Trump presidency. On Friday, he promised to withhold retaliatory sanctions, clearly hoping the new Trump administration will nullify Mr. Obama’s acts. Then Mr. Trump cheered on Twitter: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) — I always knew he was very smart!”

For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable — even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a “cyber-Pearl Harbor,” and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated. Mr. Obama has pledged a thorough investigation and disclosure; the information released on Thursday does not go far enough. Congress should not shrink from establishing a select committee for a full-scale probe.

Mr. Obama also hinted at additional retaliation, possibly unannounced, and we believe it would be justified to deter future mischief. How about shedding a little sunshine on Mr. Putin’s hidden wealth and that of his coterie?

Mr. Trump has been frank about his desire to improve relations with Russia, but he seems blissfully untroubled by the reasons for the deterioration in relations, including Russia’s instigation of an armed uprising in Ukraine, its seizure of Crimea, its efforts to divide Europe and the crushing of democracy and human rights at home.

Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia’s dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of experience in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian intentions. But darker suspicions persist. Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to be transparent about his multibillion-dollar business empire. Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed during the campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives? We would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump’s odd behavior in the face of a clear threat from Russia, matched by Mr. Putin’s evident enthusiasm for the president-elect, cannot be easily explained.

Read more on this topic:
 
Greg Sargent: The Trump camp’s spin on Russian interference is falling apart
Ruth Marcus: On Russia, Trump is incapable of looking past politics
Jennifer Rubin: A moment of truth on Russia

How To Rig An Election

By Paul Krugman

It’s almost over. Will we heave a sigh of relief, or shriek in horror? Nobody knows for sure, although early indications clearly lean Clinton. Whatever happens, however, let’s be clear: this was, in fact, a rigged election.

The election was rigged by state governments that did all they could to prevent nonwhite Americans from voting: The spirit of Jim Crow is very much alive — or maybe translate that to Diego Cuervo, now that Latinos have joined African-Americans as targets. Voter ID laws, rationalized by demonstrably fake concerns about election fraud, were used to disenfranchise thousands; others were discouraged by a systematic effort to make voting hard, by closing polling places in areas with large minority populations.

The election was rigged by Russian intelligence, which was almost surely behind the hacking of Democratic emails, which WikiLeaks then released with great fanfare. Nothing truly scandalous emerged, but the Russians judged, correctly, that the news media would hype the revelation that major party figures are human beings, and that politicians engage in politics, as somehow damning.

The election was rigged by James Comey, the director of the F.B.I. His job is to police crime — but instead he used his position to spread innuendo and influence the election. Was he deliberately putting a thumb on the electoral scales, or was he simply bullied by Republican operatives? It doesn’t matter: He abused his office, shamefully.

The election was also rigged by people within the F.B.I. — people who clearly felt that under Mr. Comey they had a free hand to indulge their political preferences. In the final days of the campaign, pro-Trump agents have clearly been talking nonstop to Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and right-wing media, putting claims and allegations that may or may not have anything to do with reality into the air. The agency clearly needs a major housecleaning: Having an important part of our national security apparatus trying to subvert an election is deeply scary. Unfortunately, Mr. Comey is just the man not to do it.

The election was rigged by partisan media, especially Fox News, which trumpeted falsehoods, then retracted them, if at all, so quietly that almost nobody heard. For days Fox blared the supposed news that the F.B.I. was preparing an indictment of the Clinton Foundation. When it finally admitted that the story was false, Donald Trump’s campaign manager smugly remarked, “The damage is done to Hillary Clinton.”

The election was rigged by mainstream news organizations, many of which simply refused to report on policy issues, a refusal that clearly favored the candidate who lies about these issues all the time, and has no coherent proposals to offer. Take the nightly network news broadcasts: In 2016 all three combined devoted a total of 32 minutes to coverage of issues — all issues. Climate change, the most important issue we face, received no coverage at all.

The election was rigged by the media obsession with Hillary Clinton’s emails. She shouldn’t have used her own server, but there is no evidence at all that she did anything unethical, let alone illegal. The whole thing is orders of magnitude less important than multiple scandals involving her opponent — remember, Donald Trump never released his tax returns. Yet those networks that found only 32 minutes for all policy issues combined found 100 minutes to talk about Clinton emails.

It’s a disgraceful record. Yet Mrs. Clinton still seems likely to win.

If she does, you know what will happen. Republicans will, of course, deny her legitimacy from day one, just as they did for the last two Democratic presidents. But there will also — you can count on it — be a lot of deprecation and sneering from mainstream pundits and many in the media, lots of denial that she has a “mandate” (whatever that means), because some other Republican would supposedly have beaten her, she should have won by more, or something.

So in the days ahead it will be important to remember two things. First, Mrs. Clinton has actually run a remarkable campaign, demonstrating her tenacity in the face of unfair treatment and remaining cool under pressure that would have broken most of us. Second, and much more important, if she wins it will be thanks to Americans who stood up for our nation’s principles — who waited for hours on voting lines contrived to discourage them, who paid attention to the true stakes in this election rather than letting themselves be distracted by fake scandals and media noise.

Those citizens deserve to be honored, not disparaged, for doing their best to save the nation from the effects of badly broken institutions. Many people have behaved shamefully this year — but tens of millions of voters kept their faith in the values that truly make America great.

Read my blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow me on Twitter, @PaulKrugman. 

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on November 7, 2016, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: How to Rig an Election. Today's Paper|Subscribe

A Veteran Spy Has Given The FBI Information Alleging A Russian Operation To Cultivate Donald Trump

Has the bureau investigated this material?

By David Corn

On Friday, FBI Director James Comey set off a political blast when he informed congressional leaders that the bureau had stumbled across emails that might be pertinent to its completed inquiry into Hillary Clinton's handling of emails when she was secretary of state. The Clinton campaign and others criticized Comey for intervening in a presidential campaign by breaking with Justice Department tradition and revealing information about an investigation—information that was vague and perhaps ultimately irrelevant—so close to Election Day. 

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."

Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow.

Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him "garbage.") On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer says. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."

 

Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project's financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.)

"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."

This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."

The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.

"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer comments. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, "I have nothing to do with Russia."

The FBI is certainly investigating the hacks attributed to Russia that have hit American political targets, including the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign. But there have been few public signs of whether that probe extends to examining possible contacts between the Russian government and Trump. (In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous online reports that a computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, "We don't yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further explanation." In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, "The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.")

According to several national security experts, there is widespread concern in the US intelligence community that Russian intelligence, via hacks, is aiming to undermine the presidential election—to embarrass the United States and delegitimize its democratic elections. And the hacks appear to have been designed to benefit Trump. In August, Democratic members of the House committee on oversight wrote Comey to ask the FBI to investigate "whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests may have contributed to these [cyber] attacks in order to interfere with the US. presidential election."

In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrats on, respectively, the Senate and House intelligence committees, issued a joint statement accusing Russia of underhanded meddling: "Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election. At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election." The Obama White House has declared Russia the culprit in the hacking capers, expressed outrage, and promised a "proportional" response.

There's no way to tell whether the FBI has confirmed or debunked any of the allegations contained in the former spy's memos. But a Russian intelligence attempt to co-opt or cultivate a presidential candidate would mark an even more serious operation than the hacking.

In the letter Reid sent to Comey on Sunday, he pointed out that months ago he had asked the FBI director to release information on Trump's possible Russia ties. Since then, according to a Reid spokesman, Reid has been briefed several times. The spokesman adds, "He is confident that he knows enough to be extremely alarmed."

FBI is now pushing for warrantless access to Internet browsing history

The amendment would apply in terrorism and national security cases, but critics warn against the expansion of powers.

By Zack Whittaker

The Obama administration is pushing to amend existing privacy law in a way that critics argue would allow the government access to internet browsing histories and other metadata -- without needing a warrant.

An amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), set to be considered by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, will allow the FBI to subpoena records associated with Americans' online communications -- so called electronic communications transactional records - with the use of national security letters, which don't require court approval.

That would allow federal agents to access phone logs, email records, cell-site data used to pinpoint locations, as well as accessing a list of visited websites.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who introduced the amendment, said the change was necessary to prevent "needlessly hamstringing our counterintelligence and counter-terrorism efforts."

Under existing law, national security letters can get access to all kinds of metadata -- but not contents of calls, emails, and other messages. But they don't permit the collection of website addresses, or internet search queries. (That said, the FBI is said to have secret legal interpretations allowing it to collect web histories in some cases.)

That's a problem for FBI director James Comey, who called the omission of the provision in the original law a "typo," arguing that it "affects our work in a very big and practical way," he told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee in February.

Or as the EFF staff attorney Andrew Crocker explained in a blog post, "the FBI thinks it was already entitled to get these records using [national security letters], and Congress simply messed up when it drafted the law."

But the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel found in 2008 that the FBI was wrong. That's why the FBI is making the push for a change in the law -- making it the second second such push in a decade.

Those privacy advocates are also back, and they brought with them key allies from the tech industry - including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, -- which were among dozens of signatures on an open letter to the Obama administration asking the government to drop the attempt.

"We would oppose any version of these bills that included such a proposal expanding the government's ability to access private data without a court order," says the open letter, dated Monday.
"The civil liberties and human rights concerns associated with such an expansion are compounded by the government's history of abusing NSL authorities," it adds.

But national security letters will still face some level of scrutiny, thanks to a provision in the Freedom Act, which replaced parts of the controversial Patriot Act, which allow secret demands for customer data to be periodically reviewed.

Leading senior senators have rejected the amendment, and will instead push for ECPA reforms, dubbed the Email Privacy Act, which was passed by the House earlier this year.

We reached out to the FBI for comment. 

Look at this goverment spy truck disguised as a Google Streetview car

By Mark Frauenfelder



Security researcher Matt Blaze noticed this vehicle in Philadelphia. It had a large Google Streetview sticker on the window, but Matt noticed a Philadelphia Office of Fleet Management placard on the windshield. He took a photo of the vehicle and tweeted it, along with the comment, "WTF? Pennsylvania State Police license plate reader SUV camouflaged as Google Street View vehicle."

The PA State Police read Matt's tweet and replied via Twitter, "Matt, this is not a PSP vehicle. If this is LPR [license plate reader] technology, other agencies and companies might make use of it."

The placard showing the vehicle is owned by the City of Philadelphia. Image: Dustin Slaughter

So, who is driving around in a vehicle disguised as both a Google Streetview car and is equipped with a license plate reader? Motherboard asked the office of Fleet Management, and got some more information:

A placard on the dashboard indicates that the SUV is registered with the Philadelphia Office of Fleet Management, which maintains city government’s 6,316 vehicles, indicating that the vehicle is being used by a local agency.

Christopher Cocci, who serves as the city’s fleet manager, and whose signature is on the document, says that the vehicle does not belong to the Pennsylvania State Police, which is known to use automated license plate recognition (ALPR), or the Philadelphia Parking Authority, a local agency that also utilizes ALPR.

So whose surveillance truck is it?

“All city vehicles such as police, fire, streets etc.…are registered to the city. Quasi [public] agencies like PPA, Housing Authority, PGW and School District are registered to their respective agencies,” fleet manager Christopher Cocci wrote in an email to Motherboard after reviewing photos of the vehicle. He also believes it to be connected to law enforcement activity.

Motherboard concludes that it is probably the city’s police department, not the state's. They've reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department but have not heard back from them.

The Blacklist - The Artax Network S3 E20

Reeling with grief, the task force hunts the organization behind Liz's failed abduction - who is Solomon working for and why was Liz the target? Meanwhile, Red confronts a man from his past. Brian Dennehy guest stars.

US Cops Leveraging Consumer DNA Databases Ancestry.com, 23andMe

By Jay

 

Fusion – When companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe first invited people to send in their DNA for genealogy tracing and medical diagnostic tests, privacy advocates warned about the creation of giant genetic databases that might one day be used against participants by law enforcement. DNA, after all, can be a key to solving crimes. It “has serious information about you and your family,” genetic privacy advocate Jeremy Gruber told me back in 2010 when such services were just getting popular.

Now, five years later, when 23andMe and Ancestry both have over a million customers, those warnings are looking prescient. “Your relative’s DNA could turn you into a suspect,” warns Wired, writing about a case from earlier this year, in which New Orleans filmmaker Michael Usry became a suspect in an unsolved murder case after cops did a familial genetic search using semen collected in 1996. The cops searched an Ancestry.com database and got a familial match to a saliva sample Usry’s father had given years earlier. Usry was ultimately determined to be innocent and the Electronic Frontier Foundation called it a “wild goose chase” that demonstrated “the very real threats to privacy and civil liberties posed by law enforcement access to private genetic databases.”

If the idea of investigators poking through your DNA freaks you out, both Ancestry.com and 23andMe have options to delete your information with the sites. 23andMe says it will delete information within 30 days upon request.

Why The Apple VS Govt Storyline Is A Fake Designed To Distract The Public

By Bill Blunden

 

The backdoor is already in the IPhone.

 

The media is erupting over the FBI’s demand that Apple help it decrypt an iPhone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the attackers involved in the assault in San Bernardino this past December.

Originally Apple wanted the FBI to keep things on the down low, asking the Feds to present their application for access under seal. But for whatever reason the FBI decided to go public. Apple then put on a big show of resistance and now there are legislators threatening to change the law in favor of the FBI. Yet concealed amid this unfolding drama is a vital fact that very few outlets are paying attention to.

Tim Cook protests that Apple is being asked to create “a new version of the iPhone operating system.” This glib talking point distracts attention from the reality that there’s essentially a backdoor on every new iPhone that ships around the world: the ability to load and execute modified firmware without user intervention.

Ostensibly software patches were intended to fix bugs. But they can just as easily install code that compromises sensitive data. I repeat: without user intervention. Apple isn’t alone in this regard. Has anyone noticed that the auto-update feature deployed with certain versions of Windows 10 is impossible to turn off using existing user controls?

Update features, it would seem, are a bullseye for spies. And rightly so because they represent a novel way to quietly execute malicious software. This past September the Washington Post published a leaked memo from the White House which proposed that intelligence agencies leverage “provider-enabled remote access to encrypted devices through current update procedures.” Yep, the same update procedures that are marketed as helping to keep users safe. And it would appear that the spies are making progress. There’s news from Bloomberg of a secret memo that tasked spymasters with estimating the budgetary requirements needed to develop “encryption workarounds.”

And, finally, please notice throughout this whole ordeal how the Director of the NSA, unlike the vociferous FBI director, has been relatively silent. With a budget on the order of $10 billion at its disposal the NSA almost certainly has something equivalent to what the courts have asked Apple to create. The NSA probably doesn’t want to give its bypass tool to the FBI and blow its operational advantage. After all, the NSA is well versed in the art of firmware-level manipulation. Experts have opined that for a few million (a drop in the bucket for a spy outfit like the NSA or CIA) this capability could be implemented. NSA whistleblower William Binney tends to agree. When asked what users could do to protect themselves from the Deep State’s prying eyes Binney replied:

“Use smoke signals! With NSA’s budget of over $10 bill a year, they have more resources to acquire your data than you can ever hope to defend against.
This has to be addressed in law and legislation. Call your local governmental representative and complain, otherwise, if you sit and do nothing… you are fucked!!!”

So while Apple manufactures the perception that it’s fighting for user privacy, keep in mind that the media’s Manichean narrative of “good vs. evil” doesn’t necessarily explain what’s transpiring.

Despite cheerleading by Ed Snowden and others Apple is not the company that it would have us believe it is. Apple has a long history of helping the government crack iPhones and security researchers have already unearthed any number of hidden services lurking below the iPhones surface.

The public record over the past several decades informs that ersatz public opposition often conceals private collusion. And Apple, dear reader, is no stranger when it comes to clandestine government programs. The sad truth is that government spies and corporate data hoarders assemble in the corridors of the American Deep State protected by a veil of official secrecy and sophisticated propaganda.

Related Stories

• WATCH: Apple CEO Tim Cook Refuses to Help FBI Hack Into iPhone, Citing Global Threat to Data Security
• Are We Really Supposed to Believe That Apple's Spat Against the Govt Is a Fight to Protect the Freedom of American Citizens?
• Banking While Muslim: Hijab-Wearing Woman Forced to Remove Scarf, Gets Kicked out of Omaha Bank

Stop stores and airports from tracking your movements

By Kim Komando

Did you know that for several months Wal-Mart tested a facial recognition system that can pick an individual out of a crowd and track them automatically through a store? It's true. Wal-Mart was mainly using the system to spot known shoplifters, but I'm sure you can think of more worrying purposes.

Facial recognition is one of many technologies that brick-and-mortar retailers are testing to get real-time data on their customers. Online stores can see exactly what products and ads a user looks at, but offline retailers traditionally only know what people buy. They want to change that so they can maximize their marketing and profits.

How retailers track you

While facial recognition is still in limited use, many retailers, and other locations with a lot of traffic like airports, are using Mobile Location Analytics to track your exact location. For example, authorities at an airport know how much time you spent in a shop, moving through security or at the baggage claim. A store knows when you move from one department to another, or even linger in a certain aisle. How do they do this?

MLA uses the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in your smartphone or tablet. Every mobile gadget has a unique 12-digit hardware identifier called a MAC address that it broadcasts via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. As your gadget comes in range of the various Wi-Fi routers and Bluetooth hubs scattered around a store or airport, the MLA system picks up your MAC address.

Companies collect this information over time and use it to track traffic flow, line wait times, popular products or aisles, tweak employee work schedule and more. But could they use the information to do something more?

The good news is that on its own, your gadget's MAC address tells the store nothing about you. Your name, email and phone number aren't transmitted. At most, it might be able to figure out what manufacturer made your phone.

Most of the companies that handle this tracking have also signed agreements that they won't try to tie your MAC address to any other information they might have about you. Of course, those agreements are voluntary and there are ways a company could identify you.

How a company could learn your identity

One way is by using in-store beacons. These beacons use Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or Near-Field Communication to connect with your phone and send you deals on products you're walking past. To receive these deals, however, you have to be running the store's app, or have signed up to receive them. So, there's no real privacy concern.

However, imagine if a store were to combine your MAC address location with a beacon pushing a deal to your phone. You likely signed up to receive the deals with your name and email address. It's a simple matter to link that information up with the company's records of your purchase history from your credit card or loyalty card. The store could have a full profile on you in seconds.

Then there's facial recognition, as we talked about earlier. If a company knows your gadget's location, it's a simple matter to point a camera at you. Granted, most facial recognition systems require a photo on file to make a match. However, if a company has your name and email address, it's a short leap to get your profile picture from Facebook and spot you as you walk into the store. Of course, that's unlikely for the foreseeable future because of the backlash it would cause.

However, it doesn't have to be the store that's tracking you. If law enforcement was doing an investigation and got your gadget, they could technically subpoena records from MLA companies for the gadget's MAC address and learn about your movements. Or if the MAC address records were lost in a data breach, I'm sure hackers could find some use for them.

How to stop the tracking

The Future of Privacy Forum has set up a site called Smart Store Privacy. If you go there, you can put in your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses and it will tell participating tracking companies (there are 12 signed on at the moment) not to track those addresses. You don't have to give any other information.

Finding your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth MAC addresses is a little tricky depending on your gadget. Here are some general instructions.

APPLE

For Apple gadgets, go to Settings>General>About and look under Wi-Fi Address and Bluetooth. You're looking for a 12-digit number like 91:17:7B:82:C2:A5 or 91-17-7B-82-C2-A5. It should be clearly labeled. If you don't see an address, you should turn on Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and then check again.

Note: If you're using an Apple gadget running iOS 8 or higher, it changes its MAC address every time it connects to a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth hotspot. So, a store won't be able to track you because it will look like a new gadget every time.

ANDROID

For Android gadgets, every phone manufacturer has things set up a little differently. First, make sure Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are turned on. Then go to Settings>About Phone, or Settings>About Tablet. It might be under Hardware Information or Status. If you can't find it, check your gadget's manual for the precise location.

WINDOWS PHONE

For Wi-Fi, go to Start>Settings>Connections>Wireless LAN>Advanced. Look in the MAC field. Wi-Fi needs to be on for this to work.

For Bluetooth, go to
Start>Settings>Connections>Bluetooth>Accessibility and look under Address. Bluetooth needs to be on for the address to show up.

BLACKBERRY

For Wi-Fi, go to Setup>Options>Device>Device and Status Information, and look under the WLAN MAC heading.

On Blackberry gadgets running OS 5 or earlier, go to Options>Status and look under WLAN MAC.

For getting the Bluetooth address, go to Connections>Bluetooth>Properties to find the MAC address.

Of course, there are tracking companies out there not signed up with Smart Store Privacy. To totally avoid tracking, you'll have to turn off your Wi-Fi and Bluetooth before entering a store. That keeps your MAC address from broadcasting.

Don't forget that stores are also tracking you online. Learn how advertisers track where you go online and how to put a stop to it. They're also tracking where you browse on your smartphone or tablet. Find out how to keep that from happening.

On the Kim Komando Show, the nation's largest weekend radio talk show, Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today's digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, free newsletters and more, visit her website at Komando.com. Kim also posts breaking tech news 24/7 at News.Komando.com.

Police Tracking of 'Pre-crime' Activities - Robocop on Steroids? - Scary Stuff Coming

By tomm2thumbs

From a bit earlier in the year - figured it was worth a post.

Discussions of technology being marketed to seek out apparent 'pre-crime' activity, including drones, facial recognition, motion-tracking and other 1984 style police techniques.

Given that much of this is publicly sold and available to companies, you can imagine the behind-the-scenes military technology that is even more powerful than what you see here...no doubt already under widespread use.

Never Mind The Civilian Casualties

The secret surveillance of ‘suspicious’ blacks in one of the nation’s poshest neighborhoods

Pedestrians cross the street near the PNC Bank building in D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood. (iStockphoto)

 

By Terrence McCoy 

It was nearing closing time in March last year when a manager at Boffi Georgetown dispatched a series of alarmed messages. Observing two men yelling outside the luxury kitchen and bath showroom, Julia Walter reached for her phone and accessed a private messaging application that hundreds of residents, retailers and police in this overwhelmingly white, wealthy neighborhood use to discuss people they deem suspicious.

“2 black males screaming at each other in alley,” Walter wrote. “. . . Help needed.”

One minute later, a District police officer posted he would check it out, and Walter felt relieved. But as weeks gave way to months and the private group spawned hundreds of messages, Walter’s relief turned to unease. The overwhelming majority of the people the app’s users cited were black. Was the chatroom reducing crime along the high-end retail strip? Was it making people feel safer? Or was it racial profiling?

These are questions being asked across the country as people experiment with services that bill themselves as a way to prevent crime, but also expose latent biases. The application “SketchFactor,” which invited users to report “sketchy” people, faced allegations of racism in both the District and New York. Another social network roiled Oakland, Calif., when white residents used Nextdoor.com to cite “suspicious activity” about black neighbors. Taking it even further was GhettoTracker.com, which asked users to rate neighborhoods based on whether they thought they were “safe” or a “ghetto.”

Now “Operation GroupMe” is stirring controversy in Georgetown. In February of last year, the Georgetown Business Improvement District partnered with District police to launch the effort, which they call a “real-time mobile-based group-messaging app that connects Georgetown businesses, police officers and community members.” Since then, the app has attracted nearly 380 users who surreptitiously report on — and photograph — shoppers in an attempt to deter crime.

The correspondence has provided an unvarnished glimpse into Georgetown retailers’ latest effort to stop their oldest scourge: shoplifting. But while the goal is admirable, the result, critics say, has been less so, laying bare the racial fault lines that still define this cobblestoned enclave of tony boutiques and historic rowhouses that is home to many of Washington’s elite.

Since March of last year, Georgetown retailers have dispatched more than 6,000 messages that warn of suspicious shoppers. A review by the Business Improvement District of all the messages since January — more than 3,000 — revealed that nearly 70 percent of those patrons were black. The employees often allege shoplifting. But other times, retailers don’t accuse these shoppers of anything beyond seeming suspicious.

“Suspicious shoppers in store,” an American Apparel retailer said in April last year. “3 female. 1 male strong smell of weed. All African American. Help please.”

“What did they look like?” a True Religion employee in May last year asked an American Apparel retailer who had reported a theft. “Ratchet,” the American Apparel worker replied, using a slang term for trashy that often has a racial connotation. “Lol.”

“Suspicious tranny in store at Wear,” reported one worker at Hu’s Wear in May. “AA male as female. 6ft 2. Broad shoulders.” Tranny means transsexual in the app-users’ jargon.

The retailers have also uploaded hundreds of pictures to the chatroom, many of which they took clandestinely. Since March last year, the images have shown more than 230 shoppers, more than 90 percent of whom are African American. “Known thieves,” one retailer wrote beside pictures of three African American women, without specifying any evidence. “Look out.”

It’s unclear what effect, if any, such correspondence has had on crime in the area. Some retailers say the community feels safer and more connected. But it has precipitated “relatively few arrests,” said Joe Sternlieb, chief executive of the Georgetown Business Improvement District, which organized the group. He added: “It’s impossible to know what’s working and what’s not to deter crime.”

People who know about the group are nervous to talk about it. District police declined numerous requests for comment. Some retailers wouldn’t discuss the group. Others would, but only on the condition of anonymity.

“It’s such a volatile issue that it’s not a good idea to be on the record,” explained one man who requested that he only be identified as a Georgetown retailer. “Every headline in the country is about officers and the race issue, and it’s a terrible issue and [this] is a delicate balance. . . . Shoplifting has always been an issue and as long as there’s stores, lower-income people are going to have a higher tendency to steal.”

The price of security

 

On any given weekend, the shops and restaurants of Georgetown hum with a sense of commerce.

Established as a port town, Georgetown once marked an important stop in Mid-Atlantic shipping routes for transporting slaves. Eventually, those freed slaves founded a thriving community of 4,000 black Georgetown residents — before economic, social and legislative forces ushered their exodus.

By 1972, only around 250 black people lived in Georgetown. According to 2010 Census data, 3.7 percent — or roughly 800 — of the 20,464 residents of the Georgetown, Burleigh and Hillandale neighborhoods are African American. Whites account for 81 percent.

When Georgetown University senior Liv Holmes first moved to the neighborhood, the racial disparity made her feel especially conspicuous.

Other students, she said, would sometimes ask her if she went to Howard University, a historically black university. Or, she said, M Street retailers would suggest she couldn’t afford their merchandise.

“We are racially profiled, for sure,” said Holmes, who grew up in Upper Marlboro, Md., where blacks outnumber whites 2 to 1. “As I walk into a store, the assumption is to follow me around. . . . When you feel that person is over the top of your shoulder, you do feel like you’re being racially profiled, and you will leave the store and say, ‘I won’t give you any of my sales.’ ”

But then, in 2012, she took a job at one of those M Street stores. Within months of working at Sunglass Hut, she saw her first shoplifter. It happened so fast, Holmes said, there was little she could do. And in those moments, she said, she would have liked to have had some way to tell the other stores what had happened. “Sometimes, letting others know, ‘Hey, we just got jacked’ is a good thing,” Holmes said.

The Georgetown business community has long tried to broaden communication among stores and enable what Holmes had wanted. But nothing ever seemed to work. Phone trees. E-mail lists. Block captains. All failures. Every store fended for itself.

“We were looking for ways to share information as quickly as possible,” said John Wiebenson, a Georgetown Business Improvement District official. And nothing was quicker than the GroupMe application, which he calls a “valuable tool” in preventing shoplifting.

But 18 months in, some residents wonder: Is the price this new tool exacts too high?

 

Self-policing the postings

That was a question Leslie Hinkson, a Georgetown sociology professor who studies race and inequality, tried to answer on a recent afternoon. She had known about the group for months and had scrolled through most of the messages. It’s almost like an sociology experiment, she said.

The group has codified its own language and operating culture. African Americans are referred to as “aa.” Hundreds of images of unaware African Americans circulate in the group.

“We should be honest here,” Hinkson said. “Crime does occur in Georgetown. And quite often when people describe the perpetrators of those crimes, they’re usually young men of color. But that doesn’t mean every person of color is an automatic suspect.”

To be fair, police officers and others frequently press each other for more details, or correct users who veer into stereotyping. One person in July reported that “3 aa males currently in zara smelling of weed.” One officer advised him to “call 911.” But then another replied, “That’s not a crime.”

Or initial assumptions would turn out wrong. In February, an employee at Hu’s Wear surreptitiously snapped a photograph of a tall, elegantly dressed African American man wearing distressed jeans, a gray scarf and a long brown coat. “AA male,” the retailer said. “He just left. Headed towards 29th St. About 6 foot. Tats on neck and hand. Very suspicious, looking everywhere.”

An employee at Suitsupply saw the message. He recognized the man. But he was no shoplifter. “He was just in Suitsupply,” the employee wrote. “Made a purchase of several suits and some gloves.”

Another time, a black American Apparel employee wearing orange took a selfie in which she smiled, framing a shopper in the background. “Look out for these girls,” she said in an accompanying message. “Known thefts.”

“Good job on the pics!” said a Benetton employee. “Only known thieves would smile for the camera.”

“Yea,” an American Apparel manager said. “Not to be confused, girl in orange is our employee.”

Officials with the Georgetown Business Improvement District said they’re aware of what they call “questionable postings.” So they have passed out brochures establishing guidelines on how to use the application to communicate concern without offending. Retailers may panic when they see suspicious behavior and dispatch messages bereft of details, Wiebenson said.

The group ultimately got to be too much for Julia Walter, the showroom manager at Boffi. She was one of the first people to post that March evening last year, but has since turned off the application.

Too many messages, she said, too much “racial profiling.”

“Not every African American person who comes to the showroom is suspicious,” she said. “And it made me super uncomfortable that [the messages] made me sometimes look differently at African Americans when they come here — and I don’t want to do that. I hate profiling just because they’re a certain ethnicity, but unfortunately, it’s the reality of what’s happened."

Terrence McCoy covers poverty, inequality and social justice. He also writes about solutions to social problems.

5 Chinese ships seen off Alaska coast, Pentagon says

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34131429

N.S.A. Eavesdropped On Last 3 French Presidents, WikiLeaks Says

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

PARIS — French President Francois Hollande is holding an emergency meeting with the country's top security officials to respond to WikiLeaks documents saying that the U.S. National Security Agency eavesdropped on the last three French presidents.

A French presidential aide said Wednesday's meeting was convened to evaluate the information released and draw relevant conclusions. The aide was not authorized to be publicly named.

The documents published in French daily newspaper Liberation and investigative website Mediapart late Tuesday include material that appeared to capture officials in Paris talking candidly about Greece's economy and relations with Germany.

Ironically, they also include discussions about American espionage of its allies.

There was no instant confirmation of the accuracy of the documents, though WikiLeaks has a track record of publishing intelligence and diplomatic material.

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told The Associated Press he was confident the documents were authentic, noting that WikiLeaks' previous mass disclosures — including a large cache of Saudi diplomatic memos released last week — have proven to be accurate.

The release appeared to be timed to coincide with a vote in the French Parliament on a bill allowing broad new surveillance powers, in particular to counter terrorist threats. The Senate approved it Tuesday and the lower house of parliament is expected to give it final approval Wednesday.

The release prompted uproar among French politicians, although it didn't reveal any huge surprises or secrets. France is among several U.S. allies that rely heavily on American spying powers when trying to prevent terrorist and other threats.

Hollande's office didn't comment beyond announcing Wednesday's security meeting, though his Socialist Party issued an angry statement saying the reports suggest "a truly stupefying state paranoia." Even if the government was aware of such intercepts, the party said, that doesn't mean "that this massive, systematic, uncontrolled eavesdropping is tolerable."

An aide to Hollande's predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy told The AP that the former president considers these methods unacceptable, especially from an ally. The aide was not authorized to be publicly named.

There was no immediate comment from former President Jacques Chirac, also reportedly targeted by the eavesdropping.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price released a statement Tuesday evening saying the U.S. is "not targeting and will not target the communications of President Hollande."

"We do not conduct any foreign intelligence surveillance activities unless there is a specific and validated national security purpose," Price added. "This applies to ordinary citizens and world leaders alike. We work closely with France on all matters of international concern, and the French are indispensable partners."

Price did not address claims that the U.S. had previously eavesdropped on Hollande or his predecessors.

Ever since documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden showed in 2013 that the NSA had been eavesdropping on the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, it had been understood that the U.S. had been using the digital spying agency to intercept the conversations of allied politicians.

All The Ways Your Smartphone Is Spying On You 24/7

"Have you ever wondered how Google tracks where you are? How about what those terms and conditions mean when you access free Wi-Fi?

As scary as it sounds, your smartphone’s apps share a lot of the private information on your device with marketing agencies, phone operators and other private companies. But where does all that data go? And what happens to it?

AJ+ and the interactive documentary series “Do Not Track” investigate.” *

The full interactive experience from Do Not Track: http://www.donottrack-doc.com

Skynet is real, and it could flag you as a terrorist

Summary:If you visit airports or swap SIM cards often, you might be flagged by "Skynet."

By Zack Whittaker for Zero Day | May 11, 2015 -- 16:41 GMT (09:41 PDT)

A scene from "Terminator." (Screenshot: Warner Bros. via CNET/CBS Interactive)

It may not be quite the self-aware computer network that takes over millions of computers and machines, but "Skynet" is real.

Documents published by The Intercept, leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, confirm that the Skynet program exists -- at least in name only. Its name comes from the intelligent computer defense system in the "Terminator" films, which later destroys most of humanity in a nuclear apocalypse.

As the Snowden leaks began, there was "fear and panic" in Congress
Just a few minutes after the first NSA leak was published, the phones of US lawmakers began to buzz, hours before most of America would find out over their morning coffee.

• Read More

The National Security Agency program analyzes location and metadata from phone records to detect potentially suspicious patterns, according to the publication. In one example, it was used to identify people that act as couriers between al-Qaeda leadership. (This may have been the program that helped identify Osama bin Laden's courier, leading to his targeted killing in Pakistan by US forces in 2011.)

According to one of the documents, it uses "behavior-based analytics," such as low-use phones that only take incoming calls, SIM card or handset swapping, or frequent disconnections from the phone network (such as powering down cellphones). Also, repeated trips mapped out by location data, including visits to other countries or airports, can flag a person as being suspicious -- or a potential terrorist.

More than 55 million cell records collected from major Pakistani telecom companies were fed into the Skynet system to determine targets of interest, the document said.

But questions remain around why the program flagged a prominent Al Jazeera journalist as a "member" of al-Qaeda. It's probably not a surprise that the system alerted on Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan, a Syrian national, based on his frequent travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the fact that it identified him as a member of a terrorist group is a mystery, as well as a great concern.

Zaidan "absolutely" denied that he is a member of al-Qaeda, and criticized the US government's "attempt at using questionable techniques to target our journalists."

We reached out to the NSA to see why it used the name, but didn't hear back at the time of writing.

How To Avoid Online Surveillance

Ancestry.com Caught Sharing Customer DNA Data With Police With No Warrant

By Jay Syrmopoulos

Idaho Falls, Idaho – Would you find it frightening— perhaps even downright Orwellian — to know that a DNA swab that you sent to a company for recreational purposes would surface years later in the hands of police? What if it caused your child to end up in a police interrogation room as the primary suspect in a murder investigation?

In an extremely troubling case out of Idaho Falls, that’s exactly what happened.

Police investigating the 1996 murder of Angie Dodge targeted the wrong man as the suspect, after looking to Ancestry.com owned Sorensen Database labs for help. The labs look for familial matches between the murderers DNA and DNA submitted for genealogical testing after failing to find a match using traditional methods.

According to The Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The cops chose to use a lab linked to a private collection of genetic genealogical data called the Sorenson Database (now owned by Ancestry.com), which claims it’s “the foremost collection of genetic genealogy data in the world.” The reason the Sorenson Database can make such an audacious claim is because it has obtained its more than 100,000 DNA samples and documented multi-generational family histories from “volunteers in more than 100 countries around the world.” Some of these volunteers were encouraged by the Mormon Church—well-known for its interest in genealogy—to provide their genetic material to the database. Sorenson promised volunteers their genetic data would only be used for “genealogical services, including the determination of family migration patterns and geographic origins” and would not be shared outside Sorenson.

Its consent form states:

The only individuals who will have access to the codes and genealogy information will be the principal investigator and the others specifically authorized by the Principal Investigator, including the SMGF research staff.

Despite this promise, Sorenson shared its vast collection of data with the Idaho police.

Without a warrant or court order, investigators asked the lab to run the crime scene DNA against Sorenson’s private genealogical DNA database. Sorenson found 41 potential familial matches, one of which matched on 34 out of 35 alleles—a very close match that would generally indicate a close familial relationship. The cops then asked, not only for the “protected” name associated with that profile, but also for all “all information including full names, date of births, date and other information pertaining to the original donor to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy project.”

Ancestry.com failed to respond to questions about how frequently it receives court orders in criminal investigations or if the company attempts to resist law enforcement requests for peoples’ private genetic information, according to The New Orleans Advocate.

This is when things become even more convoluted. The DNA from the Ancestry.com database linked a man, Michael Usry, to the case that didn’t fit the police profile, as he was born in 1952.

The cops then used the genetic information and traced his line of male descendants, ultimately finding his son Michael Usry Jr., born in 1979, which much more closely fit the police profile of the killer.

Once they had targeted Ursy Jr. as the suspect, they began to scour his Facebook page looking for connections to Idaho, finding a couple of Facebook friends that lived in the area of Idaho Falls.

Police then, by Google searching, realized that Usry Jr. was a filmmaker and had done some short films containing murder scenes. Law enforcement subsequently got a warrant for Usry Jr.’s DNA based upon the completely circumstantial evidence presented by Idaho investigators.

The cops then called Usry Jr. and asked him to meet them, under the guise that they were investigating a hit-and-run accident. Thinking he “had nothing to hide,” he agreed to meet with the investigators, without an attorney present. He was subsequently taken to an interrogation room where he eventually allowed them to collect his DNA.

Despite the flimsy circumstantial evidence used to get the warrant, ultimately the test showed that although there were a number of familial alleles shared with the murderers sample, Usry Jr.’s DNA did not conclusively match the killers.

This case is particularly troubling as it seems to decimate an individual’s right to privacy in the name of “public safety,” while allowing the police to run roughshod over people’s civil rights.

“It’s not very common to see this sort of thing, and I frankly hope it doesn’t become very common because an awful lot of people won’t bother testing” their DNA, Judy G. Russell, a genealogist and attorney who writes The Legal Genealogist blog, told The New Orleans Advocate.

There is one key difference between traditional DNA testing and familial testing. The traditional method consists of taking a sample and looking for a specific match with a given database, such as the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, while familial searching looks for common alleles, or gene variants.

According to Voices of Liberty:

Proponents argue familial searching is a harmless way for police to crack otherwise unsolvable cases. The closest partial matches can steer investigators toward a criminal’s family members, whose DNA profiles closely resemble those of a convicted or incarcerated relative.

Skeptics like Murphy, the NYU law professor, warn that the technique drastically expands DNA testing beyond the function envisioned by states that compel criminal defendants to submit DNA samples upon arrest. Many states lack formal legal rules governing the use of familial searching by law enforcement, while Maryland has explicitly outlawed the practice.

This case exposes the very real danger posed to privacy and civil liberties by familial DNA searches and by private, unregulated DNA databases.This case only serves as a glimpse into the dystopian reality we will soon find ourselves living in, according to The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“This risk will increase further as state and local law enforcement agencies begin to use Rapid DNA analyzers—portable machines that can process DNA in less than an hour. These machines will make it much easier for police to collect and analyze DNA on their own outside a lab. Currently, because forensic DNA analysis in a lab takes so long, we generally see its use limited to high-level felonies like rape and murder. However, Rapid DNA manufacturers are now encouraging local police agencies to analyze DNA found at the scene of low-level property crimes. This means much more DNA will be collected and stored, often in under-regulated local DNA databases. And, because most of the forensic DNA found at property crime scenes is likely to be touch DNA—this only increases the risk that people will be implicated in crimes they didn’t commit.”

Is this really the kind of future we want to create for our children? Shouldn’t we be able to research and learn about our family’s genealogical ancestry without fear that police will be reviewing our genetic information without our consent?

This case makes it clear that even when a private business states in writing that your data will be held as private and safe from prying eyes, that may very well not be what transpires.

Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, freethinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org.

You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.

Guide to recording the police

By Alessandra Ram

It’s Your Right to Film the Police. These Apps Can Help

Police in riot gear push back on media and a crowd gathering in the street after a 10 p.m. curfew went into effect Thursday, April 30, 2015, in Baltimore. David Goldman/AP

On April 12 police in West Baltimore took 25-year-old Freddie Gray into custody, where he sustained a fatal spinal injury that led to his death. On Friday, the Maryland DA charged the six police officers involved with manslaughter, false imprisonment, and in the case of one officer, homicide. Since Gray’s death, the city of Baltimore has been at the center of renewed public outrage over the role of racial discrimination and violence in the criminal justice system, and specifically, fatal interactions between black residents and police officers.

And like the shooting death of Michael Brown by a policeman before this, and the choking death of Eric Garner before this, and most recently the murder of Walter Scott in South Carolina, justice in the case of Freddie Gray seems to hinge upon camera evidence from bystanders.

With smartphones, we the citizens have in our pockets the power to hold our government responsible.
Apps are cropping up to make it easier to videotape incidents like this. And organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and National Lawyers Guild are working to make sure we, the people with cameras in our hands, know our rights under the law.

First of all, it’s important to state up front that it is completely within a US citizen’s constitutional rights to record interactions with police officers, according to the ACLU. The EFF has created a guide for knowing your legal rights to digital property. Unless you are on private property, you have the right to photograph, film, or record anything in plain sight. Officers are not allowed to confiscate this material—or even search your cell phone—without a warrant.

Yet, law enforcement frequently confiscates these recordings, while harassing, detaining, and arresting those who fail to comply.

It is also true that if you film a crime, you may inadvertently become part of the investigation, and may become subject to attention from police yourself.

Take, for instance, the individual who filmed the choking of Eric Garner, Ramsey Orta. Orta has been in and out of Rikers since that tragic day. Speaking with VICE, Orta, who was friendly with Garner, decided to start documenting police misconduct in the summer of 2014 around his heavily-policed neighborhood of Staten Island. But since Garner’s death, Orta and his family allege that police have zeroed in on him, following close family members as well as his girlfriend. Police charged Orta with gun and drug possession as well as armed robbery. On April 6, the Free Thought Project wrote about Orta’s imprisonment. His case went viral, and soon a GoFundMe campaign had collected over $54,000 to free him. Orta was released on April 10.

If an individual is already marginalized in society, or lacks resources, the implications are huge: On Thursday, for instance, Mashable reported that police had arrested a transgender woman who was filming the Baltimore protests, and then forced her to stay in a male holding cell, remove her bra, and wear men’s clothing. Her bail is currently set at $100,000.

Apps for Witnesses

In 2012, the ACLU created an app that allowed anyone to film interactions between police and citizens and upload footage to the ACLU’s website. Similar apps have cropped up since then, with new features allowing for quick and automatic upload to the Cloud or to YouTube, in case of confiscation or destruction of your device.

Duncan Kirkwood’s app, “Hands Up 4 Justice,” allows people to discreetly record interactions with police officers during traffic stops, etc. The app integrates emergency contacts and GPS, uploads to YouTube or a Dropbox account, and is available for download in the iTunes store. Inspired by his own experience at a traffic stop, Kirkwood wanted to make it easier for people of color (who are disproportionately stopped by police on US highways) to record their interactions without fear of intimidation.

Inspired by Occupy Wall Street, “I’m Getting Arrested,” is a free Android app that instantly sends texts to emergency contacts that you’ve pre-programmed into your phone.

Other apps like “Swat,” “Five-O,” and “Stop and Frisk Watch” allow you to report police misconduct as well as educate yourself about your rights and connect with other users via community feeds. All of these were modeled after social justice movements like Occupy and Ferguson, but their founders developed them as a result of personal experience with police brutality.

Reports and recordings via apps like these, or stand-alone camera footage, might be the only piece of evidence to stand against an officer’s account of events. If it were not for that video of the fatal shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina, the officer might never have been charged with murder.