Thursday, April 24, 2008

US Supreme Court Affirms American Police State


US Supreme Court Affirms American Police State(Apr. 23, 2008)The crypto-fascist US Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling affirmed the power of police to search vehicles without probable cause and to use drug evidence gathered after an illegal arrest, effectively eviscerating the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in America.

"David Lee Moore was stopped by Portsmouth, Virginia, officers five years ago for driving his vehicle on a suspended license," reported CNN. (

"Under state law in such incidents, only a summons is to be issued and the motorist is to be allowed to go. Instead, detectives detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him and found cocaine.

"At trial, Moore's lawyers tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it, even though the court noted the arrest violated state law. A police detective, asked why the man was arrested, replied, 'Just our prerogative.'"

"Prerogative"? It's also the "prerogative" of the police to subject US citizens to abuse, fraud, malfeasance, and police brutality.

What does this mean? The rationale or justification for police search and seizure due to so-called "probable cause" is dead -- and another step to a US Federal Police State has been made.

"The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone," Justice Scalia,the notorious Bush Cabal Lapdog wrote. "It is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law."

Like the Roman Judiciary which rubber-stamped the Roman Emperor's decrees, the US Supreme Court has once again exposed itself as a lackey of the Feds.

In other words, by ruling that police have the power to search and seize evidence, even when the arrest turns out to have violated state law, the US Supreme Court has voided its authority not to mention its moral and legal high ground.


Chertoff Says Fingerprints Aren't 'Personal Data'

Chertoff Says Fingerprints Aren't 'Personal Data' (EDITOR'S NOTE: Lenin look-alike Michael Chertoff, whose last name literally means "Of the Devil" in Russian, is clearly following his master's orders. And we don't mean Bush either...)

(Apr. 23, 2008) Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has badly stumbled in discussing the Bush administration's push to create stricter identity systems.

Chertoff was recently in Canada discussing, among other topics, the so-called "Server in the Sky" program to share fingerprint databases among the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia.

In a recent briefing with Canadian press (which has yet to be picked up in the U.S.), Chertoff made the startling statement that fingerprints are "not particularly private":

QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints.

They're not particularly private.

Many of us should rightfully be surprised that our fingerprints aren't considered "personal data" by the head of DHS.

Even more importantly, DHS itself disagrees. In its definition of "personally identifiable information" — the information that triggers a Privacy Impact Assessment when used by government — the Department specifically lists: "biometric identifiers (e.g., fingerprints)."

Chertoff's comments have drawn sharp criticism from Jennifer Stoddart, the Canadian official in charge of privacy issues. "Fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy," Stoddart said.

There are compelling reasons to treat fingerprints as "extremely personal information." The strongest reason is that fingerprints, if not used carefully, will become the biggest source of identity theft. Fingerprints shared in databases all over the world won’t stay secret for long, and identity thieves will take advantage.

A quick web search on "fake fingerprints" turns up cheap and easy methods for do-it-at-home fake fingerprints. As discussed by noted security expert Bruce Schneier, one technique is available for under $10.

It was tried "against eleven commercially available fingerprint biometric systems, and was able to reliably fool all of them.” Secretary Chertof either doesn’t know about these clear results or chooses to ignore them. He said in Canada: “It’s very difficult to fake a fingerprint."

Chertoff's argument about leaving fingerprints lying around on "glasses and silverware" is also beside the point. Today, we leave our Social Security numbers lying around with every employer and numerous others. Yet the fact that SSNs (or fingerprints) are widely known exposes us to risk.

There have been numerous questions raised about how this Administration is treating our personal information. Secretary Chertoff's comments show a new reason to worry — they don't think it's "personal" at all.


No comments:

Post a Comment