Stop Helping The Police State

Before starting this post I had half a mind to title it “What You Can Do Part 3″ but decided against it even though this is a very important step which if it gained traction would bring about change.

This has to do with google’s “recaptcha” which under the guise of reducing spam (which is debatable) is now unequivocally helping the police state clamp down on you and your neighbors. recaptcha has always helped ZOG, either translating books for the google or digitizing past issues of the NYT it has never served the public good but used slave labor to get things done. Helping translate books or articles for ZOG is bad enough, certainly on principle it’s bad but ultimately this has never excited me enough to do a post about it. Since 2012 though google has been using it to decypher street view addresses. Perhaps their computers that they use can’t quite make out the numbers and why spend the money to have them decyphered when people will do it for free?

This is a big deal, it’s orwellian, you’re literally accurately reporting to ZOG your neighbors address and most people never stop to think about it. If they FBI called you and said “hey we’d like to confirm your neighbors address is 555 12th Avenue” you would likely tell them to shove it and do their own homework and that being involved in your neighbors business isn’t your concern. Certainly you would hope your neighbors aren’t discussing your wherabouts to the feds behind your back. But every day millions of people do it and ZOGs reach grows.

So if this has been around since 2012 why 2 years later am I writing about it? For one thing now when I got to 4chan it seems like every captcha that comes up is someones house number so I refuse to post. There are other ways to fight spam without simultaneously helping the police state grow. I refuse to do it. To alleviate some of the sinister nature of it you can usually fool the system for example if the address show is 7317 you can often times right 7877 and have it be accepted because while the computer knows that a 1 is not an 8 it can’t tell between an 8 and a 3 or a 1 and a 7. This doesn’t always work but a good number of times it does. If you must use captcha do this and throw some sand in the gears of the machine, give them bad intel, who knows how long before it’s discovered or how it will manifest itself.

But there is another thing you can do if it’s possible, do not use websites which implement recaptcha. But don’t just stop using them email them and tell them why, email them this article and tell them until they remove recaptcha you refuse to use their service. The biggest one for me is 4chan, 4chan has some good content and lively discussions but none worth typing recaptchas for. So tell [email protected] how you feel about it. Nothing will change at first so don’t expect it to but while you’re waiting for your favorite websites to change their policies seek out alternatives. One alternative to 4chan is the new it is an imageboard like 4chan with the same features and many added benefits such as being able to browse the entire site with a proxy or VPN, no registrations of any kind and as anonymous posting as you can get on the internet.

TioTchan has great potential but it requires people to make a change and a short term sacrifice for long term benefits.  So share it on social media and tell your friends and we can build something exciting while giving ZOG the finger.

Predictive Policing: Authorities Prevent Crime Using Algorithms

Precrime, thoughtcrime it’s all happening now.


It may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but authorities are starting to adopt computer programs running algorithms to establish crime maps, and even determine where crimes could happen, before they happen. PredPol, a computer program developed to predict crime in real time, is currently deployed across parts of metropolitan London, and has reduced crime rates.

The tool aims to create crime heat maps and predict when and where crime will happen using algorithms so that law enforcement can increase its presence at the right moment to apprehend criminals, or hopefully even prevent crime from happening altogether.

Cops Use Facebook For Precrime, Thoughtcrime


Just seconds after the trigger of a gun is squeezed, police officers in cities and towns across America are alerted thanks to the latest and greatest state-of-the-art technology. Up-to-the-moment accuracy isn’t always enough, though.

Programs like the ShotSpotter system were already in place in 44 US cities by 2009, and in recent years the company has only added more names to its list of customers that can learn about gun activity the second shots are fired. ShotSpotter’s developers describe it as “a gunfire alert and analysis solution” that uses specialized sensors and software to triangulate and pinpoint the precise location of each spent round within seconds, and dozens of law enforcement agencies across the United States have signed-on.

When it’s a matter of life or death, though, seconds can mean all the difference. That’s the reasoning, at least, for why a number of police departments across America are relying not just on systems like ShotSpotter but other, more Orwellian surveillance techniques to spy on citizens and predict problems before they even occur. The result, depending on who you ask, means a drop in crime. It also, however, could mean no one is safe from the ever watching eye of Big Brother.

Predictive policing programs that rely on algorithms and historic data to hypothesize the location and nature of future crimes are already being deployed New York City and other towns. Last month, in fact, Seattle, Washington Mayor Mike McGinn announced that two precincts there were starting to use predictive policing programs, promising “This technology will allow us to be proactive rather than reactive in responding to crime.”

“The Predictive Policing software is estimated to be twice as effective as a human data analyst working from the same information” Seattle Police Chief John Diaz told reporters. “It’s all part of our effort to build an agile, flexible and innovative police department that provides the best service possible to the public.”

But specialized software and sensors aren’t the only tools law enforcement officers are using to look into suspicious activity. In Los Angeles, one police department has at least one officer on the clock 24 hours a day patrolling social media sites for unusual activity.

Tweets, Facebook posts and even Instagram photos are all subject to surveillance, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Capt. Mike Parker admits to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Parker works with the eight-member Electronic Communications Triage, or eComm Unit that monitor public social media posts at all hours of the day in order to see if advertised parties and other get-togethers could benefit from a surprise visit by the police.

“They’re watching social media and Internet comments that pertain to this geographic area, watching what would pertain to our agencies so we can prevent crime, help the public,” Parker says. “And now they’re going to be ramping up more and more with more sharing and interacting, especially during crises, whether it’s local or regional.”

Tribute writer Brenda Gazzar cites unspecified incidents in LA where teenagers attend parties, drink heavily and engage in illegal activity. “The partygoers usually get high, get a girl drugged up and then sexually assault her,” Gazzar quotes Capt. Parker. “Often gang members will show up, start fighting over a girl and end up shooting or stabbing someone.”

“We are absolutely and completely convinced that we are preventing wild assaults from our efforts with these illegal social media advertised parties,” Capt. Parker says, adding that the eComm unit has already thwarter around 250 “illegal parties” in Los Angeles County.

So-called “illegal parties” aren’t the only thing being searched for, though. The Tribune goes on to say that “unsanctioned protests” are also put under the magnifying glass by officers with the eComm unit who actively scour to Web to see what demonstrations are being planned and by whom.

Capt. Parker says the eComm unit doesn’t search for specific people, just certain activity, and stands by the system so far. With a number of other law enforcement agencies using state-of-the-art technologies to try and stop crime, though, it’s forcing more and more Americans to submit to a society where the police become privy to their personal activity, whether they like it or not.

Karen North, director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Program on Online Communities, tells the Tribune that scouring social media sites for suspicious activity is “a smart move” on behalf of law enforcement, and that “All people should know that anything you put up on social media is public.”

“Even if you put it up on your private Facebook feed, you should still assume it’s public” she tells the Tribune. When social media analysts have access to other implements, however, it raises all sorts of questions about what activity is fair game for the fuzz.

Evgeny Morozov, a Bulgarian writer and researcher, reports for the UK’s Observer this week that police agencies are starting to combine more and more of the data that enters eComm divisions and other units in agencies across the United States. In New York City, for example, Morozov acknowledges that the NYPD’s recently rolled-out Domain Awareness System doesn’t start and end with real-time gunshot alerts. That system, he says, “syncs the city’s 3,000 closed-circuit camera feeds with arrest records, 911 calls, licence plate recognition technology and radiation detectors.”

“It can monitor a situation in real time and draw on a lot of data to understand what’s happening. The leap from here to predicting what might happen is not so great,” he says.

The thousands of surveillance cameras on the island of Manhattan alone have existed for years, and the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have led relentless campaigns against the NYPD’s all-watching spy system and other constitutional-questionable behavior that brings every step in the City that Never Sleeps subject to police scrutiny. On the other side of the country, though, Seattle, Washington is soon becoming the surveillance capital of America. Earlier this year it was revealed that the major Pacific Northwest hub is in the midst of installing 30 surveillance cameras that will create a “wireless mesh network security system” on the city’s harbor that can be monitored by law enforcement agencies across the region. Coupled with other activity, though, Seattle’s eye-in-the-sky programs might be more serious than once suspected.

When Seattle recently signed onto the ShotSpotter system at a cost of $950,000 over two years for installation and operation, the city agreed to install 52 mobile gunshot locators that can collect intelligence up to 600 feet away using high-tech microphones and cameras.

“Having a private corporation control more than fifty audio/video surveillance stations in Seattle is likely to attract external interest,” security researcher Jacob Appelbaum tweeted over the weekend. A resident of Seattle, Appelbaum wrote on Twitter that he was looking for more information about the on-the-rise spy program being constructed in his city. “I find it rather depressing that surveillance/dataveillance programs are created and are used without so much as a public discussion,” he tweeted. “It would be interesting to learn how much money it costs to spin up the system and to FOIA the real data as input into the system.”

With public discourse on the subject sparse in many cities, though, obtaining, processing and sharing information with other concerned residents isn’t as commonplace as Appelbaum and others might want it to be. When many cities sign contracts with ShotSpotter, press write-ups are few and far between. In other locales, cameras that monitor car traffic are accepted as a necessity to curb red-light runners and other haphazard drivers. Rarely, however, is it discussed what other intelligence these cameras collect, and with whom it’s being shared with.

Predictive policing “may very well end up reducing crime to a certain degree,” Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman told National Public Radio in a 2011 interview. “The question is at what cost, at what price?”

According to a CBS report, a predictive policing program in an area of Los Angeles drove burglaries down by one-third in a matter of only five months. And when ShotSpotter was first installed in Saginaw, Michigan, crime soon dropped by 30 percent. As for the price, however, consider this: if each of the 52 ShotSpotter sensors in Seattle can collect data within a radius of 600 feet, then roughly 58,780,800 square feet of the city under surveillance — or over 2 square miles where privacy ceases to exist. That, of course, isn’t even taking into account the other surveillance systems in place, including the one on the city’s harbor.

And don’t even think about sharing this story on Facebook.

Government Can Listen To You Even If Your Phone Is Off

Stay cognizant of this, if you are around your cell phone, realize that they could be recording you even if your phone is off!  Don’t take chances if you need to discuss things in private.



Cell phone users, beware.  The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off. A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a “roving bug.”  Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery. “The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them,” James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News.  “Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone’s location to within just a few feet,” he added. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You’re Calling FBI Secret Probes: 3,501 Targets in the U.S. Click Here to Check Out the Latest Brian Ross Investigates Webcast on CIA Secret Prisons According to the recent court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, “The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be.”    The court ruling denied motions by 10 defendants to suppress the conversations obtained by “roving bugs” on the phones of John Ardito, a high-ranking member of the family, and Peter Peluso, an attorney and close associate of Ardito, who later cooperated with the government.  The “roving bugs” were approved by a judge after the more conventional bugs planted at specified locations were discovered by members of the crime family, who then started to conduct their business dealings in several additional locations, including more restaurants, cars, a doctor’s office and public streets. “The courts have given law enforcement a blank check for surveillance,” Richard Rehbock, attorney for defendant John Ardito, told ABC News. Judge Kaplan’s ruling said otherwise. “While a mobile device makes interception easier and less costly to accomplish than a stationary one, this does not mean that it implicated new or different privacy concerns.” He continued, “It simply dispenses with the need for repeated installations and surreptitious entries into buildings.  It does not invade zones of privacy that the government could not reach by more conventional means.” But Rehbock disagrees.  “Big Brother is upon us…1984 happened a long time ago,” he said, referring to the George Orwell futuristic novel “1984,” which described a society whose members were closely watched by those in power and was published in 1949. The FBI maintains the methods used in its investigation of the Genovese family are within the law.  “The FBI does not discuss sensitive surveillance techniques other than to emphasize that any electronic surveillance is done pursuant to a court order and ongoing judicial scrutiny,”  Agent Jim Margolin told ABC News.

Man Arrested For Paying With $2 Bills

A man trying to pay a fee using $2 bills was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail after clerks at a Best Buy store questioned the currency’s legitimacy and called police.

According to an account in the Baltimore Sun, 57-year-old Mike Bolesta was shocked to find himself taken to the Baltimore County lockup in Cockeysville, Md., where he was handcuffed to a pole for three hours while the U.S. Secret Service was called to weigh in on the case.

Bolesta told the Sun: “I am 6 feet 5 inches tall, and I felt like 8 inches high. To be handcuffed, to have all those people looking on, to be cuffed to a pole – and to know you haven’t done anything wrong. And me, with a brother, Joe, who spent 33 years on the city police force. It was humiliating.”

After Best Buy personnel reportedly told Bolesta he would not be charged for the installation of a stereo in his son’s car, he received a call from the store saying it was in fact charging him the fee. As a means of protest, Bolesta decided to pay the $114 bill using 57 crisp, new $2 bills.

As the owner of Capital City Student Tours, the Baltimore resident has a hearty supply of the uncommon currency. He often gives the bills to students who take his tours for meal money.

“The kids don’t see that many $2 bills, so they think this is the greatest thing in the world,” Bolesta says. “They don’t want to spend ‘em. They want to save ‘em. I’ve been doing this since I started the company. So I’m thinking, ‘I’ll stage my little comic protest. I’ll pay the $114 with $2 bills.’”

Bolesta explained what happened when he presented the bills to the cashier at Best Buy Feb. 20.

“She looked at the $2 bills and told me, ‘I don’t have to take these if I don’t want to.’ I said, ‘If you don’t, I’m leaving. I’ve tried to pay my bill twice. You don’t want these bills, you can sue me.’ So she took the money – like she’s doing me a favor.”

Bolesta says the cashier marked each bill with a pen. Other store employees began to gather, a few of them asking, “Are these real?”

“Of course they are,” Bolesta said. “They’re legal tender.”

According to the Sun report, the police arrest report noted one employee noticed some smearing of ink on the bills. That’s when the cops were called. One officer reportedly noticed the bills ran in sequential order.

Said Bolesta: “I told them, ‘I’m a tour operator. I’ve got thousands of these bills. I get them from my bank. You got a problem, call the bank.’ I’m sitting there in a chair. The store’s full of people watching this. All of a sudden, he’s standing me up and handcuffing me behind my back, telling me, ‘We have to do this until we get it straightened out.’

“Meanwhile, everybody’s looking at me. I’ve lived here 18 years. I’m hoping my kids don’t walk in and see this. And I’m saying, ‘I can’t believe you’re doing this. I’m paying with legal American money.’”

Bolesta was taken to the lockup, where he sat handcuffed to a pole and in leg irons while the Secret Service was called.

“At this point,” he says, “I’m a mass murderer.”

Secret Service agent Leigh Turner eventually arrived and declared the bills legitimate, adding, according to the police report, “Sometimes ink on money can smear.”

Commenting on the incident, Baltimore County police spokesman Bill Toohey told the Sun: “It’s a sign that we’re all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world.”

The Sacred Cause of “Officer Safety”


“It’s just about being safe.”
Thus spoke Deputy Corry Bassett of the Lincoln County, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office as he struggled to justify handcuffing Robert Pierson during an August 11, 2011 traffic stop
Pierson, a Marine combat veteran, had been riding his motorcycle near Alpine when another motorist called to complain about a biker passing a number of slow-moving motor homes. Pierson was not charged with a traffic violation or a criminal offense — but he was arrested and detained in handcuffs for 45 minutes because the sight of a Mundane carrying a firearm caused Bassett to irrigate his underwear.
“I know you have a gun,” Bassett said a few seconds into the stop, which was recordedon Pierson’s cell phone. “Are you a cop?”
When Pierson indicated that he was not part of the armed revenue-extracting caste, Bassett muttered: “OK, what I’m going to do is – put your hands behind your back right now.”
As he handcuffed the compliant motorist, Bassett explained, “I don’t like someone with a gun,” while insisting, “You’re not under arrest.”
The second statement is an unalloyed lie: Whenever a police officer restrains someone, that person is under arrest. The first statement is a lie by omission: If Pierson had been a police officer, Bassett would not have complained about him carrying a gun. The category of “someone” thus applies only to Mundanes, whose very existence is seen as a threat to the unimaginably precious personages who wear state-issued costumes.
“It’s the first thing you should have told me, [that] you’ve got a gun,” simpered Bassett, whose panic-tinged voice was thrown into sharp relief by Pierson’s composure.
“Well, actually I’m not required to tell you in either Idaho or Wyoming,” Pierson correctly pointed out.
“Yes, you are,” insisted Bassett. “If you’re packing a gun, I want to know about it.”
“Well, I’m open-carrying,” Pierson observed, stating the obvious. As Bassett began a rote speech describing the sacred imperative of “officer safety,” Pierson pointed out that he had done nothing wrong or illegal, that the deputy’s safety “is not in any way in jeopardy,” and that actually “it’s not my concern.”
“It is!” yelped Bassett. “It’s my concern!”
“My only concern is my personal rights and individual liberties, which you are violating right now,” noted Pierson.
“No, I am not,” Bassett lied.
“You have me handcuffed,” Pierson reminded the increasingly petulant officer.
“I handcuffed you for [sic] number one, you did not tell me you had a gun on you, ‘kay?” Bassett groused. “You do not get off your bike and face me, and I see a weapon on you! I don’t like that!”
“You asked me if I could get off my bike, and you said `yes,’” recounted Pierson.
“I understand your concerns about search and seizure, but you have to understand one thing about where we’re at in law enforcement,” stated Bassett. “I’m asking you for my safety. I don’t know you. I don’t know your intentions.”
The same could have been said by Pierson about Bassett, who was, after all, just another armed stranger. One critical difference, of course, is that Pierson knew that Bassett’s intentions were malign: After all, the deputy had detained him, which is an act of aggression by any definition.
Recall that when Bassett noted that Pierson had a gun, his first question was: “Are you a cop?” If Pierson had been a fellow member of the Brotherhood of Official Plunder, this would have allayed Bassett’s concerns.
In fact, after noticing that Pierson carried a military ID, Bassett suggested that the detainee should see the encounter in terms of “force security” in a battle zone.
“You’re in the military,” Bassett began. “You ever been shot at? Would you like, if you roll up on somebody you have no idea who they are … wouldn’t it be a question in your mind if this person’s got weapons on them?”
Bassett, who never served in the military, clearly saw himself as part of an army of occupation – and insisted on unqualified submission to his supposed authority.
“Your safety does not trump my right and my liberty,” Pierson tutored the deputy.
“When I stop you, yes it does,” asserted Bassett.
“Your personal safety is more important than all the laws, the Constitution, and every one of my personal rights and liberties,” summarized Pierson, his voice heavy with disgusted incredulity.
“When I’m in a traffic stop, yes,” declared Bassett. “I’m in control of this situation.”
“The Constitution is in control of this situation,” Pierson rejoined.
“No – I am… and if I feel that I’m going to be threatened by the fact that you have a gun on your side, by hell I’m gonna do it,” concluded Bassett.
Forty-five minutes later, Deputy Rob Andazola arrived to provide “backup.” At that point, as Bassett has admitted in a sworn deposition, the deputies offered to unshackle Pierson if he allowed Andazola to draw his weapon and shoot the motorcyclist in the event he made any gesture perceived as a “threat.”

Pierson didn’t agree to those terms. Eventually a patrol supervisor reached the scene and acknowledged that the motorcyclist had done nothing wrong. Until that happened, however, Pierson was handcuffed, disarmed, and entirely at the mercy of two armed strangers who considered it their right – if not their duty – to kill him if he displayed any behavior that made them uneasy. 
“I didn’t know whether kicking my leg over the bike, or walking away, or what they could possibly constitute as a hostile act,” Pierson told the Associated Press. “And I was a little unnerved by the fact that they were threatening lethal force with a deadly weapon against a man who was compliant, in handcuffs, who had been screened.”

In the sacred cause of “officer safety,” no precaution is excessive, no imposition unjustified – and no constitutional “guarantee” of individual rights is binding.
Pierson’s legitimate concern for citizen safety in the presence of police is underscored by an incident that occurred near Canton, Ohio just weeks before the traffic stop in Wyoming. 

On June 8, 2011, Patrolman Daniel Harless of the Canton, Ohio Police Department, repeatedly threatened to murder the driver, William E. Bartlett, for carrying a concealed handgun for which he had obtained the appropriate permit. 

At all times, Bartlett was composed and cooperative. He made every effort to comply with the Ohio concealed carry ordinance by notifying Harless that he was carrying a weapon, and displaying his concealed carry license. He was rewarded with a profane outburst in which Harless made it clear that he was eager for a chance to kill somebody.

“As soon as I felt your gun I should have took [sic] two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and just put 10 bullets in your ass and let you drop,” ranted Harless. “And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep.”
After threatening to “put lumps on” a witness to the incident, Harless told Bartlett, “I’m so close to caving in your f*****g head…. You’re just a stupid human being…. F*****g talking to me with a f*****g gun. You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head?”
Unlike Harless, who was obviously deranged, Bassett and Andazola did not dissolve into puddles of psychotic rage. But lurking behind their veneer of “professionalism” was a willingness to commit homicide simply because the sight of a Mundane with a firearm made them feel kind of funny. 
When contacted by Pro Libertate to comment on the case, Captain John Steztenbach of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office explained that “Our lawyer has told us that we are to say absolutely nothing about this case. I would love nothing more that for the other side of the story to be told, and we’re very frustrated that we can’t tell it, but it’s been made clear that until this goes to court, we’re not to comment on any aspect of this case.”
Stetzenbach, a courteous and well-spoken Connecticut native, explained that the gag order applies not only to the details of Pierson’s arrest, but also to any discussion of the department’s instructions and guidelines dealing with matters of “officer safety.” After describing how he had come to the Rocky Mountain West to study at a gunsmith trade school in Colorado, Stetzenbach proclaimed that both he and the department he serves are “very pro-Second Amendment,” and promised that when the legal issues are settled he will be very eager to “tell the whole story.”
“It always amazes me how in situations like this, one side gets out very quickly, and it’s not ours; that’s really frustrating,” Stetzenbach complained.

In this case – as in other “situations” of its kind – the officers have themselves to blame for the fact that the public hasn’t seen “their side” of the story, since the dashcam recordings of the encounter have mysteriously disappeared. 
The victim documented the incident, and the chief assailant has confirmed all of the victim’s key assertions. Res ipsa loquitir.
In his sworn deposition (as paraphrased by the AP), Bassett admitted that he had been “trained to put his personal safety above the rights of a citizen openly carrying a handgun.”
 “We’re told every day, our safety is first,” Bassett pointed out. “We’re here to come home every night.”

Remember that admission next time you’re told that the police are here to protect and serve the public.