As the result of EPIC v. DHS, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained nearly thee hundred pages of documents detailing a Department of Homeland Security's surveillance program. The documents include contracts and statements of work with General Dynamics for 24/7 media and social network monitoring and periodic reports to DHS. The documents reveal that the agency is tracking media stories that "reflect adversely" on DHS or the U.S. government. One tracking report -- "Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish MI" -- summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters. EPIC sent a request for these documents in April 2004 and filed suit against the agency in December.
QIK.com & socialcam.com allows smart phone users the ability to store videos while they're being recorded.
"Before you finish recording, your Qik videos are already saved to your online Video Gallery, ready for safe-keeping or sharing. Save up to 25 videos! What could be easier than that?"
You don't have to be a former veteran, police offier etc. anyone can join.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not ?just follow orders.?
Our motto is ?Not on our watch!?
If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.
The Boston Police Department has at last concluded that two of its officers made a mistake when they arrested a Boston man for recording the arrest of another man with his cell phone. In a letter to cell phone cinematographer Simon Glik, superintendent Kenneth Fong of the Boston PD's Bureau of Professional Standards said that the officers had shown "unreasonable judgment" by taking Glik into custody.
Glik's battle with the Boston PD began in 2007, when he saw another man being arrested on Boston Common. After hearing a witness say, "You are hurting him, stop," Glik pulled out his cell phone to document the encounter. The police then arrested Glik for allegedly violating the state's wiretapping statute.
As Glik now describes the event on his own website (he's a lawyer), "This arrest was a vindictive attempt by some unscrupulous cops to suppress citizens? right to record, observe and comment on police actions."
Glik was quickly released, and the charges against him were eventually dropped. Glik requested that the Boston PD then investigate the officers' actions, but the department concluded in 2008 that the officers had done nothing wrong.
That may have inspired the Boston PD to re-open Glik's original complaint, and this time they reached a different conclusion. A department spokeswoman told the Boston Globe that the officers, John Cunniffee and Peter Savalis, now "face discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension."
"As far as I knew, my complaint was summarily dismissed," Glik told the Globe regarding his original complaint in 2008. "I was basically laughed out of the building. From what I understand, it takes filing a federal lawsuit in order for internal affairs to review a complaint."
Glik's attorney, David Milton, says the fact that it took the department four years to admit its mistake "shows a lack of genuine concern for investigating misconduct by the Police Department."
Milton told the Globe that Glik plans to press forward with his lawsuit against the officers, seeking financial compensation and "a public recognition that what he was doing was perfectly legal."
The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has urged a federal court to side with a Howard County man in a lawsuit over his cellphone being seized by Baltimore police at the Preakness Stakes after he filmed officers making an arrest.
The federal attorneys say the lawsuit "presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age." They asked U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg to rule that citizens have a right to record police officers and that officers who seize and destroy recordings without a warrant or due process are violating the Fourth and 14th amendments.
In a November motion to dismiss the suit, the Police Department said the claims made by Sharp and his attorneys were moot because the department had voluntarily developed training protocols for officers and sergeants and emailed instructions to officers. It said there was "no reasonable expectation that the violations alleged by the plaintiff will reoccur."
But the Justice Department said those measures were not sufficient.
"At minimum, defendants should develop a comprehensive policy that specifically addresses individual's First Amendment right to observe and record officer conduct," attorneys wrote. "Morever, BPD should track allegations that an officer has interfered with a citizen's First Amendment right to observe and/or record the public performance of public duties."
The Maryland attorney general's office later issued an opinion advising police agencies that people have a right to record officers and that most interactions between police and the public cannot be considered private.
Peabody, MA- The owner of The Golden Banana isn?t singing the blues after the Peabody strip club was slapped with a lawsuit that alleges the pole palace failed to pay royalties on the tunes that play while the dancers bump and grind.
?We pay our ASCAP and BMI dues, and we?ve been doing so for 17 years,? Banana boss Peter DePesa told the Track. ?I just found out about this, and I know nothing about it.?
A consortium of music companies filed suit against DePesa and his partners, brother Robert DePesa and Mark Filtranti, earlier this week, claiming copyright infringement because the strip club allegedly did not pay licensing fees for the tunes they spun, including Robin?s ?Show Me Love,? Fuel?s ?Shimmer,? B Stevie?s ?Spring Love? and Company B?s ?Fascinated.?
DHS is using the private company General Dynamics to monitor political dissent in the U. S.
As the result of EPIC v. DHS, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained nearly thee hundred pages of documents detailing a Department of Homeland Security's surveillance program. The documents include contracts and statements of work with General Dynamics for 24/7 media and social network monitoring and periodic reports to DHS. The documents reveal that the agency is tracking media stories that "reflect adversely" on DHS or the U.S. government. One tracking report -- "Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish MI" -- summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters. EPIC sent a request for these documents in April 2004 and filed suit against the agency in December.
DHS documents:
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/EPIC-FOIA-DHS-Media-Monitoring-12-2012.pdf
Infographic: Why the movie industry is so wrong about SOPA
http://matadornetwork.com/change/infographic-why-the-movie-industry-is-so-wrong-about-sopa/
Two Apps. allow smart phone users the ability to store videos as they record them.
QIK.com & socialcam.com allows smart phone users the ability to store videos while they're being recorded.
"Before you finish recording, your Qik videos are already saved to your online Video Gallery, ready for safe-keeping or sharing. Save up to 25 videos! What could be easier than that?"
http://socialcam.com/
http://qik.com/
Re: Check out the Oathkeepers
You don't have to be a former veteran, police offier etc. anyone can join.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not ?just follow orders.?
Our motto is ?Not on our watch!?
If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Boston police department admits arresting people for recording them with a cell phone was a mistake.
The Boston Police Department has at last concluded that two of its officers made a mistake when they arrested a Boston man for recording the arrest of another man with his cell phone. In a letter to cell phone cinematographer Simon Glik, superintendent Kenneth Fong of the Boston PD's Bureau of Professional Standards said that the officers had shown "unreasonable judgment" by taking Glik into custody.
Glik's battle with the Boston PD began in 2007, when he saw another man being arrested on Boston Common. After hearing a witness say, "You are hurting him, stop," Glik pulled out his cell phone to document the encounter. The police then arrested Glik for allegedly violating the state's wiretapping statute.
As Glik now describes the event on his own website (he's a lawyer), "This arrest was a vindictive attempt by some unscrupulous cops to suppress citizens? right to record, observe and comment on police actions."
Glik was quickly released, and the charges against him were eventually dropped. Glik requested that the Boston PD then investigate the officers' actions, but the department concluded in 2008 that the officers had done nothing wrong.
That may have inspired the Boston PD to re-open Glik's original complaint, and this time they reached a different conclusion. A department spokeswoman told the Boston Globe that the officers, John Cunniffee and Peter Savalis, now "face discipline ranging from an oral reprimand to suspension."
"As far as I knew, my complaint was summarily dismissed," Glik told the Globe regarding his original complaint in 2008. "I was basically laughed out of the building. From what I understand, it takes filing a federal lawsuit in order for internal affairs to review a complaint."
Glik's attorney, David Milton, says the fact that it took the department four years to admit its mistake "shows a lack of genuine concern for investigating misconduct by the Police Department."
Milton told the Globe that Glik plans to press forward with his lawsuit against the officers, seeking financial compensation and "a public recognition that what he was doing was perfectly legal."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/boston-pd-admits-arrest-for-cell-phone-recording-was-a-mistake.ars
The DOJ has urged a Federal Court judge to side with the plaintiff in Baltimore police taping case.
The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has urged a federal court to side with a Howard County man in a lawsuit over his cellphone being seized by Baltimore police at the Preakness Stakes after he filmed officers making an arrest.
The federal attorneys say the lawsuit "presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age." They asked U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg to rule that citizens have a right to record police officers and that officers who seize and destroy recordings without a warrant or due process are violating the Fourth and 14th amendments.
In a November motion to dismiss the suit, the Police Department said the claims made by Sharp and his attorneys were moot because the department had voluntarily developed training protocols for officers and sergeants and emailed instructions to officers. It said there was "no reasonable expectation that the violations alleged by the plaintiff will reoccur."
But the Justice Department said those measures were not sufficient.
"At minimum, defendants should develop a comprehensive policy that specifically addresses individual's First Amendment right to observe and record officer conduct," attorneys wrote. "Morever, BPD should track allegations that an officer has interfered with a citizen's First Amendment right to observe and/or record the public performance of public duties."
The Maryland attorney general's office later issued an opinion advising police agencies that people have a right to record officers and that most interactions between police and the public cannot be considered private.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-ci-aclu-doj-videotaping-20120111,0,7691935.story
Strip club being sued for not paying royalites for playing 4 songs!
Peabody, MA- The owner of The Golden Banana isn?t singing the blues after the Peabody strip club was slapped with a lawsuit that alleges the pole palace failed to pay royalties on the tunes that play while the dancers bump and grind.
?We pay our ASCAP and BMI dues, and we?ve been doing so for 17 years,? Banana boss Peter DePesa told the Track. ?I just found out about this, and I know nothing about it.?
A consortium of music companies filed suit against DePesa and his partners, brother Robert DePesa and Mark Filtranti, earlier this week, claiming copyright infringement because the strip club allegedly did not pay licensing fees for the tunes they spun, including Robin?s ?Show Me Love,? Fuel?s ?Shimmer,? B Stevie?s ?Spring Love? and Company B?s ?Fascinated.?
http://www.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2011_1103banana_big_we_didnt_slip_up_on_music_co_dues/srvc=home&position=2