Stapuff's blog: "Goverment Bull Shit"

Web Site Kicks Sand in Faces of GIs in Iraq Asking for Mats to Ease Hardship of Sleeping on Ground Tuesday, January 23, 2007 An American GI assigned to one of the harshest posts in Iraq had a simple request last week for a Wisconsin mattress company: send some floor mats to help ease the hardship of sleeping on the cold, bug-infested ground. What he got, instead, was a swift kick from the company's Web site, which not only refused the request but added insult to injury with the admonition, "If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq." Army Sgt. Jason Hess, stationed in Taji, Iraq, with the 1st Cavalry Division, said he emailed his request to Discount-mats.com because he and his fellow soldiers sleep on the cold ground, which contains sand mites, sand flies and other disease carriers. In his email, dated Jan. 16, 2007, he asked the Web-based company, registered to Faisal Khetani, an American Muslim of Pakistani descent: "Do you ship to APO (military) addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for ships to APO first." On the same day, Hess received this reply: "SGT Hess, We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq. Bargain Suppliers Discount-Mats.com" Khetani on Monday told FOX News that the person responsible for the email reply had been fired. The Web site, meanwhile, has been temporarily taken down. Hess emailed that he has since found two mat suppliers willing to ship to an APO address in Iraq. FOX News' Douglas Kennedy contributed to this story

Subject: Call it what it is. . . Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:11:37 -0700 From: kelly kelly@chiefsez.com One of the things that I think could help in the battle of lid laws is using proper words. For example head injury or traumatic brain injury (TBI). The two are entirely different. A head injury is *external* to the skull. A TBI is *internal* to the skull. So what. What is the big deal? The big deal is this: a helmet, any helmet, cannot in anyway protect the brain from a TBI. It is utterly impossible for lid to do that. Pertaining to a cervical spinal injury the British medical journal 'The Lancet' produced a report back in the days of the twentieth century titled (as I remember) "The Ideal Lesion Produced By A Judicial Hanging." Due to the positioning of a helmet and chin strap -- the effects of a helmet or a noose on the cervical spinal column are identical. This concept has been around for many centuries and was irrefutably proven in 1687 by Sir Isaac Newton. It is called the law of universal gravity. It is also immutable. -- krp

Subject: Social Burden or Corporate Greed? Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:37:59 -0500 From: Rudy rudy@gardenstateabate.org Issue 2-1 - The real story behind the "social burden" theory One of the main arguments that non riders use to justify mandatory helmet laws for all motorcyclists, is that if they are not wearing helmets they become a „social burden‰ and therefore the majority is justified in taking away a freedom from a much smaller minority. In this issue I will explore a key source for this disinformation and shed some light on their less than altruistic reasons for limiting our freedom to choose. It appears that there is another player you may not have been aware of when it comes to our battle to be able make our own informed adult decision as to whether to wear a helmet or not. This organization is known as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. (http://www.saferoads.org). This organization recently released „report cards‰ to all states on auto and highway safety. This organization has „graded‰ every state for things such as not having a primary enforcement of seatbelt laws, lack of mandatory helmet laws for all motorcyclists regardless of their driving experience, and not having red light cameras at intersections among other things. The media has also dutifully reported on these grades so that the general public and politicians accept them as "truth". While on the surface this may sound like these are people who are unselfishly looking to protect the general population from itself, let‚s examine this organization and its possible motives a little more closely. To view the entire article, please visit: http://www.gardenstateabate.org Rudy Avizius ABATE of the Garden State

Statement May Allow Gov't to Open Mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1023181 Statement May Allow Gov't to Open Mail Jan 5th - 7:43am By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A signing statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant. The White House denies any change in policy. The law requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters. But when he signed the postal reform act, Bush added a statement saying that his administration would construe that provision "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances." "The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress," said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?" Beeson said the group is planning to file a request for information on how this exception will be used and to ask whether it has already been used to open mail. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was nothing new in the signing statement. In his daily briefing Snow said: "All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for _ in exigent circumstances _ for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new." Postal Vice President Tom Day added: "As has been the long-standing practice, first-class mail is protected from unreasonable search and seizure when in postal custody. Nothing in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act changes this protection. The president is not exerting any new authority." Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who guided the measure through the Senate, called on Bush to clarify his intent. The bill, Collins said, "does nothing to alter the protections of privacy and civil liberties provided by the Constitution and other federal laws." "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and our federal criminal rules require prior judicial approval before domestic sealed mail can be searched," she said. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized Bush's action. "Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution. This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November," Schumer said. The ACLU's Beeson noted that there has been an exception allowing postal inspectors to open items they believe might contain a bomb. "His signing statement uses language that's broader than that exception," she said, and noted that Bush used the phrase "exigent circumstances." "The question is what does that mean and why has he suddenly put this in writing if this isn't a change in policy," she said. In addition to suspecting a bomb or getting a warrant, postal officials are allowed by law to open letters that can't be delivered as addressed _ but only to determine if they can find a correct address or a return address. Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association. Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws. Bush's statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds. "That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," ABA President Michael Greco has said. The practice, he has added, "is harming the separation of powers." The president's action was first reported by the New York Daily News. The full signing statement said: "The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

The Eternal Value of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html The Eternal Value of Privacy By Bruce Schneier| Also by this reporter 02:00 AM May, 18, 2006 The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect. Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time. Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need. A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty. For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable. How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered. This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide. - - - Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. You can contact him through his website.

Some state officials give national ID system a cool reception ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/+/2006121926/Some+state+officials+give+national+ID+system+a+cool+reception Some state officials give national ID system a cool reception by Jake Stump Daily Mail Staff Some West Virginians, including officials at the state Division of Motor Vehicles, hope Congress will reassess -- and perhaps repeal -- legislation it passed that establishes a national ID system by 2008. The Real ID Act of 2005 is intended to deter terrorism and illegal immigration, but many deem the program unnecessary, costly and annoying. Some have gone as far to correlate it with the mark of the beast. The legislation would establish national standards for state-issued driver's licenses and non-driver's identification cards. Here's the dilemma for residents: You'll need one of these new cards to board an airplane, open a bank account or enter a federal building. "It sounds like Big Brother," said Kerry Causworth, outside the DMV office in Kanawha City. "The government should be able to crack down on terrorists without idiotic measures like these." Causworth had taken a friend to the DMV office to get a license renewal. One of the perks of the current DMV is getting your license right there after a 10-minute wait. That would change with Real ID, as it could take weeks to produce a single identification card. They would likely be mailed to the cardholder or picked up at a particular DMV office. "People like getting their licenses whenever they come in," said Patricia Walton of Charleston. "They don't like waiting for things. I really hope they don't do this. What an inconvenience it would be." Real ID would also put a major dent in states' coffers. The West Virginia DMV estimates it would cost at least $60 million to implement the new system. And it looks like each state will be responsible for footing its own bill. "We hope it doesn't cost that much," said Steve Dale, assistant to the DMV commissioner. "Seriously, we hope we're wrong. That is a tremendous expense and the need for highway construction is tremendous as well. "We have a new Congress coming on board in January and hopefully they'll revisit this." The Real ID Act originated as a standalone House bill in January 2005. It passed 261 to 161, but became inactive. It was then tacked onto a military spending bill by its author, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and passed unanimously. It became a law in May 2005. Some controversial bills are attached to military spending measures to bolster their chances of passing. In the initial vote, Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall, both D-W.Va., opposed the Real ID Act. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., voted in favor of it from the beginning. Mollohan believes the next Congress will offer relief to states and residents up in arms over the initiative. "The fact that the Real ID measure had to be tucked into a supplemental appropriations bill for tsunami relief and the war on terror in order to secure passage offers some insight into its popularity as a stand-alone measure," Mollohan told the Daily Mail on Monday. "I voted against it when it was brought up for a vote on its own because of its excessive cost to states and privacy issues." Mollohan said the Department of Homeland Security needs to negotiate more reasonable and cost-effective guidelines for the legislation. Advocacy groups from all sides of the political spectrum have opposed Real ID. The American Civil Liberties Union and various religious and gun rights groups have spoken out against the measure. Earlier this year, a group of Christian conservatives met with DMV officials and aides of Gov. Joe Manchin to protest the ID program. The new ID cards will contain the same information as current driver's licenses -- a person's name, date of birth, sex, ID number, address and signature. But the cards might come in black-and-white, instead of color, and be printed on polycarbonate material. "It's an expensive material," said Dale, of the DMV. "Everything is entirely digital right now. But we're looking at a different kind of machine than we have now to do the new cards. We have two new machines at the Kanawha City office that produce the driver's licenses, but they'd be obsolete once the new system goes into effect." Dale said the state's current driver's licenses contain three layers of security -- overt, covert and confidential. Some of those features include the holograms and barcode on the license, which prevent duplication. Dale hopes states receive some sort of indication soon from the Department of Homeland Security so they can better prepare for what's coming in 2008. The federal agency is responsible for issuing the criteria for the licenses. State Sen. John Unger, D-Berkeley, who heads the state Senate Transportation Committee, said legislators will likely take it up as a policy issue. "We have 1.8 million people here and that's going to be a monumental task," Unger said. "We'll be working with the DMV to find a way to roll this out so it's not disruptive." Right now, no one's sure how long residents will have before they must convert to the new ID system or what types of documentation they must present. Contact writer Jake Stump at jakestump@dailymail.com or 348-4842.

Military considers recruiting foreigners ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Military considers recruiting foreigners Expedited citizenship would be an incentive By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 26, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials. Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform. The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year. The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military. And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics. With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst. "It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point." Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters. Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.Continued... "With today's demands placing such a high strain on our service members, it becomes more crucial than ever that we work to alleviate their burden," said Representative Ike Skelton , a Missouri Democrat who is set to chair the House Armed Services Committee, and who has been calling for a larger Army for more than a decade. But it would take years and billions of dollars to recruit, train, and equip the 30,000 troops and 5,000 Marines the Pentagon says it needs. And military recruiters, fighting the perception that signing up means a ticket to Baghdad, have had to rely on financial incentives and lower standards to meet their quotas. That has led Pentagon officials to consider casting a wider net for noncitizens who are already here, said Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty , an Army spokesman. Already, the Army and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security have "made it easier for green-card holders who do enlist to get their citizenship," Hilferty said. Other Army officials, who asked not to be identified, said personnel officials are working with Congress and other parts of the government to test the feasibility of going beyond US borders to recruit soldiers and Marines. Currently, Pentagon policy stipulates that only immigrants legally residing in the United States are eligible to enlist. There are currently about 30,000 noncitizens who serve in the US armed forces, making up about 2 percent of the active-duty force, according to statistics from the military and the Council on Foreign Relations. About 100 noncitizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. A recent change in US law, however, gave the Pentagon authority to bring immigrants to the United States if it determines it is vital to national security. So far, the Pentagon has not taken advantage of it, but the calls are growing to take use the new authority. Indeed, some top military thinkers believe the United States should go as far as targeting foreigners in their native countries. "It's a little dramatic," said Michael O'Hanlon , a military specialist at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and another supporter of the proposal. "But if you don't get some new idea how to do this, we will not be able to achieve an increase" in the size of the armed forces. "We have already done the standard things to recruit new soldiers, including using more recruiters and new advertising campaigns," O'Hanlon added. O'Hanlon and others noted that the country has relied before on sizable numbers of noncitizens to serve in the military -- in the Revolutionary War, for example, German and French soldiers served alongside the colonists, and locals were recruited into US ranks to fight insurgents in the Philippines. Other nations have recruited foreign citizens: In France, the famed Foreign Legion relies on about 8,000 noncitizens; Nepalese soldiers called Gurkhas have fought and died with British Army forces for two centuries; and the Swiss Guard, which protects the Vatican, consists of troops who hail from many nations. "It is not without historical precedent," said Donnelly, author of a recent book titled "The Army We Need," which advocates for a larger military. Still, to some military officials and civil rights groups, relying on large number of foreigners to serve in the military is offensive. The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as "cannon fodder" in any conflict. Some within the Army privately express concern that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," as one Army official who asked not to be identified put it. Officially, the military remains confident that it can meet recruiting goals -- no matter how large the military is increased -- without having to rely on foreigners. "The Army can grow to whatever size the nation wants us to grow to," Hilferty said. "National defense is a national challenge, not the Army's challenge." He pointed out that just 15 years ago, during the Gulf War, the Army had a total of about 730,000 active-duty soldiers, amounting to about one American in 350 who were serving in the active-duty Army. "Today, with 300 million Americans and about 500,000 active-duty soldiers, only about one American in 600 is an active-duty soldier," he said. "America did then, and we do now, have an all-volunteer force, and I see no reason why America couldn't increase the number of Americans serving." But Max Boot, a national security specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the number of noncitizens the armed forces have now is relatively small by historical standards. "In the 19th century, when the foreign-born population of the United States was much higher, so was the percentage of foreigners serving in the military," Boot wrote in 2005. "During the Civil War, at least 20 percent of Union soldiers were immigrants, and many of them had just stepped off the boat before donning a blue uniform. There were even entire units, like the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry [the Scandinavian Regiment] and General Louis Blenker's German Division, where English was hardly spoken." "The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants but also to illegal ones and, as important, to untold numbers of young men and women who are not here now but would like to come," Boot added. "No doubt many would be willing to serve for some set period, in return for one of the world's most precious commodities -- US citizenship. Some might deride those who sign up as mercenaries, but these troops would have significantly different motives than the usual soldier of fortune." Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com. SB/Web Master: My thought's on this is "BullShit" We don't need them, raise the age to let some of us older vet's that still want to be in,and to let the one's that never had the chance to be in enlist, along with that QUIT sending all these asshole's to jail, and give them the chose to enlist or go to jail, like they did in "VIET NAM" It don't take a high school ed. to use an M-16. My Opp. Stapuff

Profiling petulance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/wwilliams.htm Profiling petulance WALTER WILLIAMS By Walter E. Williams December 20, 2006 Charges of racial, religious and ethnic profiling swirl in the wake of US Airways' removal of six imams. According to police reports, the men made anti-American statements, were praying and chanting "Allah," refused the pilot's requests to disembark for additional screening and asked for seat-belt extensions for no obvious reason. Three of the men had no checked baggage and only one-way tickets. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), five of the men have retained lawyers and will probably bring a discrimination lawsuit against the airline. Racial profiling controversy is nothing new. For a number of years, black Americans have made charges of racial profiling by police and store personnel who might give them extra scrutiny. Clever phrases have emerged, such as "driving while black" and now "flying while Muslim," but they don't aid understanding much. Let's apply some economic analysis. God, or some other omniscient being, would never racially profile. Why? Since He is all-knowing, He would know who is and is not a terrorist or a criminal. We humans are not all-knowing. While a god would have perfect and complete information about everything, we humans have less than perfect and incomplete information. We must use substitutes such as guesses and hunches for certain kinds of information. It turns out some physical attributes correlate highly with other attributes less easily, or more costly, observed. Let's look at a few, and the associated "profiling," that cause little or no controversy. Mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases were about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. The Pima Indians of Arizona have the world's highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Would anyone bring racial profiling charges against a doctor who routinely ordered more frequent blood tests and prostate screening among his black patients and more glucose tolerance tests for his Pima Indian patients? Of course, God wouldn't have to do that because He'd know for sure which patient was more prone to cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer and diabetes. It is clear, whether we like it or not, or want to say it or not, that there is a strong correlation between committing terrorist acts and being a Muslim, and being black and high rates of crime. That means if one is trying to deter terrorism and in some cases capture a criminal, he would expend greater investigatory resources on Muslims and blacks. A law-abiding Muslim who is given extra airport screening or a black who is stopped by the police is justifiably angry, but with whom should he be angry? I think a Muslim should be angry with those who've made terrorism and Muslim synonymous and blacks angry with those who've made blacks and crime synonymous. The latter is my response to the insulting sounds of car doors locking sometimes when I'm crossing a street in downtown Washington, D.C., or when taxi drivers pass me by. It would be a serious misallocation of resources if airport security intensively screened everyone. After all, intensively screening someone who had a near zero probability of being a terrorist, such as an 80-year-old woman using a walker, would not only be a waste but it would take resources away from screening a person with a much higher probability. You say, "Williams, are you justifying religious and racial profiling?" No. I'm not justifying anything any more than I would try to justify Einstein's special law of relativity. I'm trying to explain a phenomenon. By the way, I think some of the airport screening is grossly stupid, but I'm at peace with the Transportation Security Administration. They have their rules, and I have mine. One of mine is to minimize my association with idiocy. Thus, I no longer fly commercial. Walter E. Williams is nationally syndicated columnist and an economics professor at George Mason University.

4. Court Says FBI Can Use Your Cell Phone To Spy... On You ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=5777429&nav=2FH5 12/06/06 Court Says FBI Can Use Your Cell Phone To Spy... On You by Vic Walter and Krista Kjellman, ABC News 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. 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 isdone pursuant to a court order and ongoing judicial scrutiny," Agent Jim Margolin told ABC News.