Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Police State /Private Police Forces / Militarisation of US Police
[Image: 50358750996_38033928f2_z.jpg]warrior cops by apprentice 01, on Flickr

We are going to limit some weapons of mass destruction to local police department, for now that is.

However! Later.
How Police Fund Surveillance Technology is Part of the Problem

Law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local level are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on surveillance technology in order to track, locate, watch, and listen to people in the United States, often targeting dissidents, immigrants, and people of color. EFF has written tirelessly about the harm surveillance causes communities and its effect is well documented. What is less talked about, but no less disturbing, are the myriad ways agencies fund the hoarding of these technologies.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice reported on the irresponsible and unregulated use and deployment of police surveillance measures in the town of Calexico, California. One of the most notable examples of the frivolous spending culture includes spending roughly $100,000 in seized assets on surveillance equipment (such as James Bond-style spy glasses) to dig up dirt on city council members and complaint-filing citizens with the aim of blackmail and extortion. Another example: a report from the Government Accountability Office showed that U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers used money intended to buy food and medical equipment for detainees to instead buy tactical gear and equipment.

Drawing attention to how police fund surveillance technology is a necessary step, not just to exposing the harm it does, but also to recognize how untransparent and unregulated the industry is. Massive amounts of funding for surveillance have allowed police to pay for dozens of technologies that residents have no control over, or even knowledge about. When police pay for use of predictive policing software, do town residents get an inside look at how it works before it deploys police to arrest someone? No, often because that technology is “proprietary” and the company will claim that doing so would give away trade secrets. Some vendors even tell police not to talk to the press about it without the company’s permission or instruct cops to leave use of the technology out of arrest reports. When law enforcement pays private companies to use automated license plate readers, what oversight do the surveilled have to make sure that data is safe? None—and it often isn’t safe. In 2019, an ALPR vendor that was hacked allowed 50,000 Customs and Border Patrol license plate scans to leak onto the web.
Law enforcement will often frame surveillance technology as being solely a solution to crime–but when viewed as a thriving industry made up of vendors and buyers, we can see that police surveillance has a whole lot more to do with dollars and cents. And often it’s that money that’s driving surveillance decisions, and not the community’s interests.
How Police Fund Surveillance:
Asset Forfeiture
Civil asset forfeiture is a process that allows law enforcement to seize money and property from individuals suspected of being involved in a crime before they have been convicted or sometimes before they’ve even been charged. When a local law enforcement agency partners with a federal agency it can apply for a share of the resources seized through a process called “equitable sharing.” Law enforcement often spends these funds on electronic surveillance, such as wiretaps, but also on other forms of surveillance technology, such as automated license plate readers.
Private Benefactors
Wealthy individuals can have an immense impact on public safety, and are often the sources behind large scale surveillance systems. Baltimore’s “Aerial Investigation Research,” which would place a spy plane over the city, was funded in part by billionaires Laura and John Arnold, who put up $3.7 million to fund the program. Another billionaire, Ripple’s Chris Larson, has donated millions to neighborhood business districts throughout the San Francisco Bay Area to install sophisticated camera networks to deter property crime. The San Francisco Police Department was given live access to these cameras for over a week in order to spy on BLM protestors, which invaded their privacy and violated a local surveillance ordinance.
In Atlanta, businessman Charlie Loudermilk gave the city $1 million in order to create the Loudermilk Video Integration Center where police receive live feeds from public and private cameras.
These grants, gifts, and donations illustrate the imbalance of power when it comes to decisions about surveillance technology.
Federal Grants
The federal government often pursues its nationwide surveillance goals by providing money to local law enforcement agencies. The U.S. Department of Justice has an entire office devoted to these efforts: the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJS). Through BJS, local agencies can apply for sums ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars for police equipment, including surveillance technology. Through Justice Assistance Grants (JAGs), agencies have acquired license plate readers and mobile surveillance units, along with other surveillance technologies. BJA even has a special grant program for body-worn cameras.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has paid local agencies to acquire surveillance technology along the U.S.-Mexico border through the Urban Area Security Initiative and Operation Stonegarden, a program that encourages local police to collaborate on border security missions.
Private Foundations
Many foundations provide technology, or funds to purchase technology, to local law enforcement. This process is similar to the “dark money” phenomenon in election politics: anonymous donors can provide money to a non-profit, which then can pass it on to law enforcement.
Police foundations receive millions of dollars a year from large corporations and individual donors. Companies like Starbucks, Target, Facebook, and Google all provide money to police foundations which go on to buy equipment ranging from long guns to full surveillance networks.

According to ProPublica, in 2007, Target single-handedly paid for the software at LAPD’s new state-of-the-art surveillance center.
Kickbacks Between Surveillance Vendors and Police Departments
Because selling police surveillance tech is such a lucrative industry, it is no surprise that an economy has cropped up of shady and unregulated kick back schemes. Under these arrangements, police receive economic incentives to promote the adoption of certain surveillance equipment–in their own jurisdiction, to the people they should be protecting, and even to other towns, states, and countries.
Microsoft developed the sweeping city-wide surveillance system, Domain Awareness Systems, for the New York City Police Department, which was built gradually over years and cost $30 million. Its formal unveiling in 2012 led Microsoft to receive a slew of requests to buy the technology from other cities. Now, according to the New York Times, the NYPD receives 30% of “gross revenues from the sale of the system and access to any innovations developed for new customers.”
This leads to a disturbing question that undergirds many of these public-private surveillance partnerships in which police get kickbacks: Does our society actually need that much surveillance, or are the police just profiting off its proliferation? The NYPD and Microsoft make money when a city believes it needs to invest in a large-scale surveillance system. That undermines our ability to know if the system actually works at reducing crime, because its users have an economic interest in touting its effectiveness. It also means that there are commercial enterprises that profit when you feel afraid of crime.
Ring, Amazon’s surveillance doorbells, now has over 1,300 partnerships with police departments across the United States. As part of this arrangement, police are offered free equipment giveaways in exchange for a number of residents downloading their Neighbors app or using a town’s discount code to purchase a Ring camera. These purchases are often subsidized by the town itself.
This raises the very troubling question: do police think you need a camera on your front door because your property is in danger, or are they hustling for a commission from Amazon when they make a sale?
This arrangement is sure to deepen the public’s distrust of police officers and their public safety advice. How would people know if safety tips are motivated by an attempt to sow fear, and by extension, sell cameras and build an accessible surveillance network?

They Don’t Buy Surveillance Equipment, They Use Yours 
Throughout the country, police have been increasingly relying on private surveillance measures to do the spying they legally or economically cannot do themselves. This includes Ring surveillance doorbells people put on their front door, license plate readers homeowner’s associations mount at the entrance to their community, and full camera networks used by business improvement districts. No matter who controls surveillance equipment, police will ask to use it.
Thus, any movement toward scrutinizing how police fund surveillance must also include scrutiny of our own decisions as private consumers. The choice of individuals to install their own invasive technology ultimately enables police abuse of the technology. It also allows police to circumvent measures of transparency and accountability that apply to government-owned surveillance technology.
Community Control of Police Surveillance (CCOPS) measures around the country are starting to bring public awareness and transparency to the purchase and use of surveillance tech. But there are still too few of these laws ensuring democratic control over acquisition and application of police technology.
With police departments increasingly spending more and more money for access to face recognition, video surveillance, automated license plate readers, and dozens of other specific pieces of surveillance tech, it’s time to scrutinize the many dubious and opaque funding streams that bankroll them. But oversight alone will likely never be enough, because funding is in the billions and comes from various hard-to-trace sources, new technologies are always on the rise, and their uses mostly go unregulated and undisclosed.
So we must push for huge cuts in spending on police surveillance technology across the nation. This is a necessary step to protect privacy, freedom, and racial justice.
Holding brutal London police officers to account who attacked protesters in Trafalgar Square – please record your experiences here


We will hold @metpoliceuk to account

Please submit victim& witness statements& footage to

SHARE far and wide it is IMPERATIVE that we make contact with the victims

— Save Our Rights UK – A Real Democracy (@saveourrightsuk) September 29, 2020
Click here –
A story the mainstream media won’t touch – proper journalist Jacqui Deevoy: Why were the police targeting women and the elderly at Saturday’s London protest? [Because we are dealing with the Jackboot Johnson SS]

As a journalist, truth-seeker and long-time advocate for freedom of speech and expression, I feel it’s my duty to speak out and make a stand wherever I can. I’ve been to two London protests in Trafalgar Square but, as I couldn’t make it to the one on Saturday (November 28th2020), I decided to cover it remotely. What I observed on social media and from information sent directly to me by friends and citizen journalists shocked me to the core.
Watching live videos made by individual protesters and reporters, and on behalf of RT and various YouTube channels such as Not On The Beeb, it was clear to see that the police, who are paid by the taxpayer to protect and serve the public, were initially targeting female protesters. 
The first arrest I witnessed was of a long-haired young woman, possibly teenaged, being marched down the road by police, hands tethered behind her back. 
The second arrest I saw on video was of a woman, probably in her 50s, who was surrounded by police and handcuffed. Her crime? Laughing. Yes, that’s right. She admitted to laughing at the police as they headed her way, marching like a regiment of goose-stepping Nazis. Then they pounced. As they proceeded to intimidate her, she explained to them that she had a frozen shoulder and to go easy. They ignored her pleas. As they continued to abuse and threaten her, her face went into a series of spasms, the sort a person might experience just before suffering a seizure. If I’d been one of the offending police officers at that point I’d have made sure to back off and even call an ambulance. The police who were making the illegal arrest did neither: they turned her to face some railings, handcuffed her, then carted her off towards a police van. I hope she’s OK. 
On Oxford Street, a series of women were targeted and arrested. One young woman was standing holding a placard, which referred to Qantas Airlines recent announcement of not allowing anyone to travel with them unless they are vaccinated, a decision which caused uproar amongst supporters of human rights. (Surely that’s everyone, no?) This woman wasn’t running or shouting … she wasn’t even holding her placard up high or waving it about; she wasn’t causing any kind of disturbance. So what was her crime? Holding a board with some words on? Seems so. 
I then saw a blonde woman in her forties in a khaki green anorak with a black rucksack on her back, near to tears as she was ‘escorted’ by four police officers towards one of their modern-day Black Mariahs. The assault and kidnapping was executed to chants from standers-by directed towards the police of “shame on you, shame on you!”
Around 3:30pm, Louise May Creffield from freedom-fighting group Save Our Rights UK was arrested. The police had been looking for an excuse to arrest the 34-year-old mum-of-four for some time and have already visited her late one night at her home a few weeks ago in an attempt to intimidate her. As everyone can see now, it’s obvious that the UK government aren’t happy about anyone speaking out and telling the truth about the ‘pandemic’, let alone trying to educate people about their rights and how to use them, something which Miss Creffield, as a professional political campaigner, does regularly and well via regular Facebook live broadcasts. The Save Our Rights UK group currently has over 40,000 members and the numbers are rising daily (unlike the numbers of those dying of a hoax virus). Miss Creffield was taken to Plumstead police station and released on Sunday. She was charged with Criminal Damage, Obstructing a Highway and has been banned from going within the boundaries of the M25.
Sky News Australia showed footage of two young women being manhandled and pushed around by a gang of male and female officers, commenting that the policing system has been politicized and that it seems to be two-tiered.  
There are also numerous videos of grey-haired folk getting arrested. I don’t think they’re targeting people of a certain hair colour – it would appear they’ve been told to grab anyone who looks like they might not cause too much damage if they fight back: small people, females and the elderly. 
In once piece of footage, taken by British TV presenter and author Tonia Buxton and shared on journalist Anna Brees’s FB page, a silver-haired gent was surrounded by no less than eight police officers and tackled to the ground by two who were probably twice his weight. He was shouting “what are you doing, what the fuck are you doing?” but went suddenly silent as they wrestled him to the pavement and knelt on him. 
Sky New Australia commented: “There were about a dozen officers jumping on the one bloke and there were even more coming in. Heavy-handed… Is that really a proportionate response?” 
The officers suddenly appeared to be concerned. Sirens wailed: I hoped they were the sirens of an ambulance.
Then there was the coach siege. (I’ll be writing about that in a separate in detail, as passenger Mike James John recorded over an hour and a half of footage, showing the illegal actions of the police and the distress this caused to the people on the coach.) A bus full of peaceful protesters, who were travelling from Hampshire to London to attend the rally, was flagged down by police in Hillingdon, just outside London. Seventeen police officers boarded the bus, making illegal demands, intimidating the passengers and, ultimately making 10 arrests, including a couple in their 70s. As far as I know, the charges were for refusing to give details when asked for them by police, which all of us are perfectly within our rights to do unless we have been suspected of a crime. 
‘Father Christmas’ was also dragged off by the police and probably arrested: the police obviously mistook the young bloke dressed up as Santa for an old geezer. (Must have been the white beard that did it. These police officers aren’t very bright.)
Oh, and of course stalwart protester Piers Corbyn was arrested – again. A protest wouldn’t be a protest without Piers being targeted, assaulted and handcuffed – although, this time, it looked as if they didn’t bother with the handcuffs. (Why they ever handcuff the elderly is beyond most people.) 
The 74-year-old brother of ex-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was accosted at Piccadilly Circus tube and taken away to chants of “freedom!” and “to talk is not a crime.” 
As he was led away, Piers chanted: “They do not like freedom of speech; they do not like freedom of assembly!” 
Piers’ friend Ellie Green, who filmed the proceedings, can be heard shouting to the police “you should be ASHAMED of yourselves – all of you!”
Mr. Corbyn was taken to Wembley police station and was released in the early hours of Sunday morning.
So why are the police targeting certain groups of people? What do the government and police perceive these groups to have in common? Women and the elderly… think about it. Of the 150 arrests made on Saturday, a large proportion was of people who police may have deemed to be easier to arrest. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that women and the elderly are generally physically weaker than men. Is that why they went for them first? 
Another idea is that perhaps attacking the females and old people would rile the men and incite them to react, step in to protect, thus causing more mayhem, violence even. Most protesters, contrary to what the mainstream media tells us, are peaceful and from all the video footage and photos I’ve seen, it’s obvious that it’s the police, not the public, being violent: pouncing like hyenas on an antelope, ganging up, abusing, brutalising innocent demonstrators and bystanders. 
Another thought I had was perhaps the police had a quota – perhaps they were told they had to make a certain number of arrests by a certain time and the best way to achieve this is to attack those who are easier to subdue.
Whatever the reason, many arrests were made and many of those in brutal and inhumane ways. But how many of those arrests were illegal. From where I’m sitting, I’d say most of them were. Don’t you have to be suspected of breaking a law to be arrested? The ‘laws’ the police were telling people they’d broken aren’t laws at all – the Covid restrictions are no more than guidelines, government advice. (Even the government know better than to try and pretend the guidelines are laws: they know they can’t call them laws because to make certain actions – speaking publicly, gathering in groups, travelling and protesting – illegal would be in direct violation of human rights. Old Boris isn’t as green as he’s cabbage-looking.)
For what it’s worth, here’s my theory: it would appear that the police are being given instructions from ‘above’ (not God – a bit lower down than that!) to carry out illegal actions. They will then be taken to court over this. The police force will then be defunded. Then what? Oh yes, the military will be brought in, as per the plan. (Look up Operation Lockstep). Et voilà! Martial law. Just how they want it. All ready for the next stage. 
To stop that happening, we ALL have to stand up and be counted. Do what you can: speak out, share information, write, sing. Use your talent to share the truth. Stop the ‘new normal’. Save our children. And stop women and the elderly from being targeted and abused by the conscience-less robo-cops we used to call police officers.
Peter Wilson and Charlie Ward Talk Common Law (fines and profits)
Hampshire Police – a private corporation like all the others – wants to recruit horse-riding volunteers to patrol rural areas and report back to them. ‘Hey, Mr policeman, sir, I wuz ridin’ me horse and I saw someone walking in the countryside’ – ‘Gee thanks for ratting we’ll get a squad car out there’

[Image: POLICE-HORSES-IMAGE-561x1024.jpg]
‘I’m Done’ Police Officer With 20 Years Service Shares Sentiment Of Many Cops -

I’m done with the duplicitous liars and twisters of truth in Parliament, who have destroyed policing in order to further their own careers. I’m done with those charlatans and snake oil salesmen and women who spread their bile, whose acid eats away at society and it’s values and future. I’m done with the utter lack of consequences for their corruption.
This Is Massively Worrying Me ... Please Save & Share ...
A Message To The Chief Constable Of Nottingham Police From Alex Belfield - PLEASE SHARE

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)