During the meeting — which was not a hearing in which the public was allowed to comment — protesters shouted down council President Chris Nevitt, who pounded the gavel and screamed, “I need order, goddamn it,” after threatening to clear audience members from the chamber.

“Tonight was not about winners or losers. It was about beginning a long process of providing smart services to individuals that need it the most,” said the bill’s sponsor, Councilman Albus Brooks. “Time and patient application, not rhetoric, will reveal the true nature of this ordinance.”

Police Chief Robert White said he expects officers to have a “light touch” and arrests would occur only as a last resort.

Brooks read the standard operating procedures that police officers will have to follow, saying that no one will be arrested or cited if they say they want services and none are available.

It is completely understandable that citizens are getting angry when they are not allowed to voice their concerns. It is also confusing to vote for a ban, but then say there are not enough beds, but then add beds. Further, there won’t be arrests if no beds are available, but homeless people can still be arrested as a last resort. What, exactly, constitutes a last resort? No one is saying.

supporters said the ordinance will help people who are homeless find services. And it will give police the tools to move out homeless people, who over the past few years have irritated downtown merchants and tourists.

Supporters of the bill are looking at money and not people. The homeless drive away business and tourists, so the idea is moving the homeless elsewhere will bring dollars back to downtown Denver.

Councilman Chris Herndon, who voted for the bill, said that Colorado Springs has had a ban in place for several years and has seen its homeless population decline.

Of course the homeless population declined. It merely moved elsewhere. Given Denver’s close proximity to Colorado springs, it isn’t a stretch to conclude where some of Denver’s increase in homeless came from.

The city of Denver should have never passed this ban without first providing an adequate number of shelters and beds. It then should have installed adequate counseling and other services before making homelessness illegal. As usual, the poor continue to be punished for having the audacity to be poor. The city voted for money and image, ignoring compassion.

Surveillance footage, played in a loop Sunday on one of Quebec’s all-news stations, shows several people sprayed by riot police at close range. Customers are seen scrambling to get inside the bar as a police officer knocks over tables and chairs.

Another video from a local TV station shows the officers took action after one was hit by a flying chair. The chair was then flung back toward the patio.

May 21, 2012: Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) spoke on the Senate floor about cyber-security and legislation being debated by Congress wherein he called for Congress to “write a cyber-security bill that protects American’s security and their fundamental right to privacy.”

The 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill would increase one-way fees for passengers from $2.50 to $5 in order to close a budget shortfall at the Transportation Security Administration.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said the $315 million in funding would otherwise come from taxpayers and argued it is better to stick passengers who rely on TSA with the bill.

Apparently, the committee didn’t seek to find other ways to cut the TSA budget. Some things they could have done are:

1) Eliminate all aspects of security theater
2) Eliminate warehouses full of unused equipment and stop buying more
3) Privatization of security at the airports

Police will not specify what roles drones would have in the force, but it is believed they could be used in surveillance and during car chases.

But the idea has alarmed civil libertarians who say drones could be used to track individuals who may not have committed any crime.

“They will be armed with technology that will enable them to identify individuals. So, for example, if the police wish to track a political demonstration, drones will not only be able to track where that demonstration is going but also to begin identifying the people who are members of that demonstration,” he said.

“Drones will be able to trace every movement of a person from the time they leave home in the morning to the time they get back home in the evening,” he said.

“They’re technologically sophisticated and carry great potential for tracking people who may not be involved in any sort of criminal activity.”

If Victoria police decide to go ahead and use this technology, it could have alarming consequences for everyday Australians. As citizens, they have a right to protest and demonstrate against their government as well as speak out against injustices. With the use of drones tracking their every move, many people will be too afraid to appear at a protest. While citizens most likely would not have to worry about “disappearing,” there are other ways the Australian government can convince a person not to protest.

If the drones follow a protestor home, it is trivial to then continue to track that person’s every move. In little time, the police will know the individual’s routine and can step up harassment. Under the guise of “we just have a few questions” the police can repeatedly visit the person’s place of employment. They can show up again and again at the grocery store or constantly have the drone show up at his/her home. Regular citizens will assume some sort of guilt because of the constant police and/or drone presence.

An unmanned drone regularly tracking an individual makes an effective weapon in forcing compliance by the state. The vast majority of the people will only go so far in protesting. Once the fear for life and livelihood are threatened, the government can and will control the population.

Theoretically, this advertising would “be served on the basis of a sensor that detects temperature, humidity, sound, light, or air composition near a device,” says Loek Essers at PC World. That technology could be applied to laptops, digital billboards, kiosks, vending machines, and even smartphones. For example, if it’s 80 degrees and sunny out, a billboard might automatically flash an ad for an icy-cold beverage. Or if you’re placing a call during a concert, Google could automatically feed the background noise into an algorithm, spurring your phone to deliver an offer for album downloads or concert tickets based on your music tastes.

Whether or not Google ever uses the patent is still up for debate, but it is worrisome given Google’s history of targeted advertising in searches, search results based on location, and obtaining wifi data while gathering data for Google maps.

While Google says that if they ever use the patent they will allow users to opt out, how much information will be gathered by that point? Also, even if a user opts out, Google will, most likely, require that a user be logged in to an account owned by Google in order to do so. Thus, even though the individual has opted out, other tracking methods utilized by Google will still ensnare them.

No one can predict what Google will or will not do with this new patent. Understanding Google as a marketing company, however, should lead everyone to worry about the potential privacy implications in the use of such technology.

Source.

Several years ago, the United Kingdom used CCTV that could talk to people.  It didn’t go well and some were shut off.  Now, lamp posts that can listen to conversations, watch what people are doing, display ads, and can speak will be trialed in Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. At $3000+ each, it’s a very expensive investment in spying on innocent citizens.

America welcomes a new brand of smart street lightning systems: energy-efficient, long-lasting, complete with LED screens to show ads. They can also spy on citizens in a way George Orwell would not have imagined in his worst nightmare.

Part of the Intellistreets systems made by the company Illuminating Concepts, they have a number of “homeland security applications” attached.

Each has a microprocessor “essentially similar to an iPhone,” capable of wireless communication. Each can capture images and count people for the police through a digital camera, record conversations of passers-by and even give voice commands thanks to a built-in speaker.

If these lamp posts are eventually deployed across the country, any sort of privacy and anonymity will disappear. It’s already happening in the United Kingdom. Systems such as CCTV, NPR, and talking, spying lamp posts leave little room for any sort of private conversation to occur outside an individual’s home.

Ron Harwood, president and founder of Illuminating Concepts, says he eyed the creation of such a system after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He is “working with Homeland Security” to deliver his dream of making people “more informed and safer.”

These systems do no make anyone safer or more informed. They have been and always will be the tools of control and compliance to keep the general public in line. The fact that the lamp posts can display ads means that the government intends to make money off them as well as spy on people who are doing nothing more than simply going about their daily routines.

The lamp posts, as we are being told, is to help citizens, but they are simply cash cows for the government and tools of oppression. If the good citizens of Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh revolt and protest there is still a chance that the big brother lamp posts will be rejected and won’t become a ubiquitous eyesore across the county.