Accuracy of FBI's Facial Recognition System Questioned

Television shows Law and Order, and Person of Interest make extensive use of facial recognition technology and more.

[From article]
The FBI's facial recognition database has more than 400 million pictures to help its criminal investigations, but lacks adequate safeguards for accuracy and privacy protection, a congressional audit has revealed.
Totalling 411.9 million images, privacy campaigners have slammed the 'unprecedented number of photographs, most of which are of Americans and foreigners who have committed no crimes.'
The huge database - which enables investigators to automatically search images for criminal suspects - 'is far greater than had previously been understood' and raises concerns 'about the risk of innocent Americans being inadvertently swept up in criminal investigations,' said Senator Al Franken, who requested the study.
[. . .]



The FBI's database includes some 30 million criminal mugshots and 140 million images from visa applications by foreign nationals, the GAO found.
It also contains drivers' license pictures from 16 US states and 6.7 million photos from the Defense Department's biometric identification system of individuals detained by US forces abroad, among others.
The FBI's database includes some 30 million criminal mugshots and 140 million images from visa applications by foreign nationals, the GAO found.
[. . .]
The FBI's database includes some 30 million criminal mugshots and 140 million images from visa applications by foreign nationals, the GAO found.
It also contains drivers' license pictures from 16 US states and 6.7 million photos from the Defense Department's biometric identification system of individuals detained by US forces abroad, among others.
The FBI's database includes some 30 million criminal mugshots and 140 million images from visa applications by foreign nationals, the GAO found.
[. . .]



'The accuracy of a system can have a significant impact on individual privacy and civil liberties,' it added, saying that the false positive rate should be analyzed 'prior to the deployment of the system.'
'The report shows that the FBI hasn't done enough to audit its own use of facial recognition technology or that of other law enforcement agencies that partner with the FBI, nor has it taken adequate steps to ensure the technology's accuracy,' Franken said.
Civil liberties advocates said the report was worrisome.
Jennifer Lynch of the EFF, a digital rights campaigner, said 'The FBI has done little to make sure that its search results (which the Bureau calls 'investigative leads') do not include photos of innocent people, according to the report.
[. . .]
'The FBI has conducted only very limited testing to ensure the accuracy of NGI's face recognition capabilities.
'And it has not taken any steps to determine whether the face recognition systems of its external partners—states and other federal agencies—are sufficiently accurate to prevent innocent people from being identified as criminal suspects''
The EFF also says the technology in not accurate.
'As we know from previous research, face recognition is notoriously inaccurate across the board and may also misidentify African Americans and ethnic minorities, young people, and women at higher rates than whites, older people, and men, respectively.'
'Face recognition is a relatively new technology and it's important that not only the FBI but the public be aware of its limitations,' Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union said.
'Errors mean random people could be falsely identified as potential criminals and find themselves coming under the FBI's powerful investigatory microscope.
'That could be not only invading people's privacy, but also exposing them to accusations of wrongdoing.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3645102/Huge-US-facial-recognition-database-flawed-audit.html

Is YOUR picture on the FBI's facial recognition database? Audit of controversial database finds it has over 400 MILLION pictures including driving license and visa applicant images
FBI's database includes some 30 million criminal mugshots, 140 million images from visa applications and drivers' license pictures from 16 states
Senators warned scope of the database far larger than had been thought
Privacy campaigners say scale of the system is 'worrisome'
By AFP and MARK PRIGG FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:58 EST, 16 June 2016 | UPDATED: 12:10 EST, 16 June 2016

Homeland Security Secretary Prioritizes Fear Of CAIR Over Safety Of Americans

[From article]
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.
"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.
[. . .]
Jeh Johnson, in other words, put the safety of Americans below fear of criticism from CAIR and the ACLU. As a result, a slaughter in San Bernardino took place at the hands of a jihadi bride let into the country thanks to Jeh Johnson.
And by the way, what is it about Johnson’s career as a lawyer (first black partner at white-shoe NY law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where he handled large commercial litigation) that qualified him as protector of our national security?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/fire_jeh_johnson.html

December 15, 2015
Fire Jeh Johnson!
By Thomas Lifson

DEA Seizes Cash From Amtrak Passenger, Without Charge of Crime

Henry Louis Mencken's observed, "First they pass laws against the SOBs. Then they use them against the rest of us." In Harvey Silverglate's book, "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent," he argues that Congress passed so many laws, ordinary citizens usually violate three felonies a day without knowing it. Making the victim "whole" is a curious legal notion. In this case the government thugs simply seized property. 

In 1973 government psychiatrists drugged me using hallucinogens for 80 consecutive days contrary to law. I was not under the care of any psychiatrist. There was no court order to permit the criminal abuse. I never volunteered as a human subject for any medical research project. Some of the elite political geniuses thought I was a spy. They asked, "How did he know that?" If they did not reveal secrets no one is capable of figuring out what they do, was their thinking. 

Compassionate FBI agents and police scared me, then used me for 15 years to fight organized crime. They did not pay me one cent. They stole my personal journals and culled all of the women I mentioned and married them off to FBI informants. They told everyone I knew, know and met, "He's homosexual." adding, "He's a retired drug dealer." "He's a racist." "He's crazy." He's homeless." He's a high school dropout." and more. This continues in 2015. 

They coordinated teams of crime family associates who retaliated for the next 23 years. For 42 years crime families, FBI informants, local police, Harvard University campus police, building superintendents, and graduate students in psychology at Harvard Medical School, Communists and assorted psychopaths, took turns harassing me. At no time has the government ever admitted what they did. At no time has the government ever tried to make me half or three quarters whole. They continue stirring up more and more animosity to cover up what they did and continue to do. Democratic politicians want more of this kind of government. 



[From article]
Carly Fiorina told a packed audience that a huge, complex and sometimes corrupt government was "crushing the potential" of Americans.
"That is not hyperbole," she said. "That is fact."
When democracy becomes so big and powerful, and so costly and complex, Fiorina said, only the big, powerful, wealthy and well-connected can handle it.
"The small and the powerless get crushed," she said.

https://accountsolution.gcion.com/redirect/?returnSessionKey=true&returnAutoLogin=true&redirectURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.delawareonline.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%2F2015%2F05%2F30%2Fcarly-fiorina-big-government-crushing-americans%2F28207125%2F%3Ffrom%3Dglobal

Carly Fiorina: Big government is crushing Americans

Jon Offredo

The News Journal
1:59 p.m. EDT May 30, 2015

* * *

[From article]
McLellan owns L&M Convenience Mart in Fairmont, N.C., a restaurant and store that opened in 2001. Last year, the Internal Revenue Service seized all of the money in the store’s bank account—$107,702.66—after accusing McLellan of committing structuring violations.
McLellan, though, was never charged with a crime.[. . .]
Structuring involves making consistent cash deposits of less than $10,000 into a bank account for the purpose of avoiding reporting requirements. The procedure began as a way to combat money laundering and drug trafficking. However, more and more instances have come to light where innocent Americans have committed structuring violations without knowing it.
[. . .]
Though the government will return all of the money it seized from McLellan, it dismissed the case without covering the store owner’s legal fees and expenses, as well as interest on the money.
In 2000, Congress passed a law that entitles McLellan to those fees and expenses, which total more than $20,000.
Additionally, government policies require the $107,702 seized is kept in an interest-bearing account. Though McLellan will receive the money, the government wants to keep the interest earned.
[. . .]
“But at the same time, the government needs to make Lyndon whole.” “They came into his store and turned his life upside down, caused him all kinds of heartache and expense, and now they’re just trying to walk away as if nothing happened and forcing Lyndon to bear all those costs,”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/14/federal-government-to-return-107702-irs-seized-from-north-carolina-convenience-store-owner/

Federal Government to Return $107,702 Seized From North Carolina Convenience Store Owner
Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97

May 14, 2015

* * *

[From article]
DEA agents approached Rivers, the only black passenger in the train car, and asked to search his bag. Inside the bag, agents found $16,000 in cash—money Rivers said he had saved up and received from family members to pursue his music video aspirations.
The agents detained Rivers and asked him about the cash. According to Rivers and his lawyer, Michael Pancer, a San Diego-based attorney, Rivers had the agents call his mother to confirm his story, but the DEA nevertheless seized his money, believing it was somehow connected with drugs.
The DEA agents then released Rivers, leaving him penniless in Albuquerque. He was never charged with a crime. The incident, first reported by the Albuquerque Journal, is the latest case to highlight the practice of civil asset forfeiture.
Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police and federal agents can seize property on the mere suspicion that it is connected to criminal activity. The property owner does not even have to be charged with a crime, since asset forfeiture is technically an action against the property itself.
“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Sean Waite, the head of the DEA’s Albuquerque office, told the Albuquerque Journal. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/dea-seizes-amtrak-passengers-life-savings-without-charging-him-with-crime/

DEA Seizes Amtrak Passenger’s Life Savings Without Charging Him with Crime
Latest case to highlight practice of civil asset forfeiture
BY: CJ Ciaramella Follow @cjciaramella
May 12, 2015 4:59 am

FBI Abusing Authority

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/civil-liberties-group-accuses-fbi-misusing-authorities-010102970.html
       
Civil liberties group accuses FBI of misusing new authorities
Reuters
September 16, 2013

Hijacked Format

Hijacked Format


It sounds as if Patricia Wild has never been to a town meeting. (Wild: "Stand up, speak out (but maybe not for so long?)" Cambridge Chronicle/Somerville Journal, April 6, 2006) Arlington and Lexington still use the town meeting format for their legislative governmental division. Contrary to the misuse of that notion by the ACLU, politicians, and Wild's observations, Town Meeting is run according to Robert's Rules of Order. John Worden is the Arlington Town Moderator who is elected to run the Town Meetings.
Democracy is anything but chaotic in Cambridge. The current third-term Mayor, a liberal Democrat, enforces only one rule, the three minute public comment rule. People can comment only on items on the agenda. Mayor Reeves cuts off public comment of protected speech by persons whose speech he dislikes.
Wild, a cheerleader for the former Somerville Mayor, reports that U.S. Rep. Capuano fights for constitutional rights. Huh? Democrats attack Bush for every abuse. But Capuano remains silent about the greatest abuses -- 19 known and 20 more suspected homicides by FBI agents in his district.
Appearing on CCTV Capuano stated his goal as U.S. Rep. was to get seniority. That requires doing as little as possible so as not to offend anyone.
If spying is an issue there is more surveillance by city and state police than by the FBI or Homeland Security. In Massachusetts the police are run by liberal Democrats. Jarrett Barrios is the Chairman of the State Public Safety Committee. What bill has he introduced to curb abuses by police? He boasts of his Homeland Security experience. Does Bush control what the state legislature does?
Would Democrats abuse the right to privacy? Did Robert Kennedy authorize placing a bug under the bed of Martin Luther King so that J. Edgar Hoover would not reveal John Kennedy's sexual exploits in the White House? Is the Pope Catholic?
Limousine liberal columnists and the ACLU present selective facts. They ignore all of the abuses by Democrats and talk only about the evil the Republicans do. Is it any wonder why so few people read newspapers and why fewer vote? Why not get real or start paying attention?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Wild: Stand up, speak out (but maybe not for so long?)
Cambridge Chronicle/Somerville Journal
By Patricia Wild
Thursday, April 6, 2006

One of the unexpected joys of being a library trustee is attending statewide
events and spending time with my counterparts from all over Massachusetts, most
of whom hail from the Bay State's smaller communities. Often, when talking to
small town trustees, the subject of town meetings comes up. As in "At our
PowerPoint presentation about the library at town meeting last year ..." Hearing
about these town meetings, especially when library trustees convinced their
communities to change something, do something new and exciting, to spend more
money on library services, I must admit to a certain envy: How authentically New
England. What a great way for a community to collectively make decisions.
So when I received an e-mail inviting me to an "Emergency Town Meeting,"
even though it was to be held in Cambridge, I decided to go. After all, the
featured speaker for this gathering, sponsored by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Massachusetts, was none other than Somerville's very own Congressman,
Mike Capuano. Held at the First Church (Congregational) on Garden Street, the
March 27 town meeting was attended by more than 250 gray-haired, sensible-shoed,
outspoken, activist types. They'd come to this emergency town meeting to talk
about domestic spying, torture, Bush's presidential powers, real and perceived;
restoration of the rule of law. Most of the crowd was old enough to remember the
McCarthy Witch Hunt, Watergate and the Iran/Contra Scandal; they were "mad as
hell and not taking it any more."
Just like a real town meeting (or so I imagine), the March 27 affair was
sweetly chaotic: The microphones didn't work. Technica l dif ficulties meant that
a planned video couldn't be shown; the ACLU organizers had to revamp the program
at the last minute. People kept interrupting or shouted out criticisms: "This is
boring!" one silver-haired woman yelled during the panel discussion. During the
question-and-answer period, a long line formed behind a functional mike; anyone
could speak for as long as he or she wanted. So the crowd was occasionally
subjected to long-winded harangues or off-the-wall comments or rambling
speeches. [...]
Patricia Wild lives in Somerville and is a regular columnist for the
Chronicle's sister paper the Somerville Journal.

Ageism is No More?

Ageism is No More?

Letter to editor
Richard Griffin's research suggests he is a child of the upper class, and lives among the academic elite. ("Is age bias as age-old as it seems?" Cambridge Chronicle, April 6, 2006, page 35) He says, "how older people are treated depends on their social standing." His lack of awareness of second-class treatment by doctors may have something to do with his column. Professionals fear public criticism.
Ageism may be exaggerated but not as much as racism. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton made racism into million dollar businesses. Ageism is not as popular.
Elder abuse is a crime. Mr. Griffin doesn't travel among young black racist males in Cambridge or among young women at non-university public events. On campus older white males are perceived as faculty members. Ambitious students get close to further their careers.
Feminists attack older white males as sexist and accuse them of sexual harassment if they speak to them. Mr. Griffin is more sensitive to women's bias than to ageism. He appears to be a feminist ally. He never experienced white male bashing?
His observations fit liberal priorities. His lack of awareness of strong bias against older white males is troubling.
Studies show that Americans exhibit little respect for their parents. Nursing homes thrive. The number of assisted living facilities is growing. Unlike the early years of the country three and four generations no longer live together under one roof. Griffin's view on this issue is unique.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Bigotry by Homosexuals

Bigotry by Homosexuals

Bigotry by homosexuals toward heterosexuals is no surprise in Cambridge.
The City government encourages retaliation for historical wrongs and permits
overt unlawful discrimination -- based on gender, race and sexual preference.
The local cable access station (CCTV) funded with $850,000 in city funds
annually, refuses to hire white heterosexuals for many years. The staff
regularly harasses heterosexuals and chases them from the station facilities.
The homosexual lobby is like the pigs after the revolution in "Animal Farm." So
much for equality under law, demanded by homosexuals.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Provincetown straights complain of intolerance among gays
Wednesday July 26, 2006
By LING LIU
Associated Press Writer

PROVINCETOWN, Mass. (AP) Heterosexuals in this overwhelmingly gay resort town on
the tip of Cape Cod are complaining that the oppressed have become the
oppressors.

Straight people say they have been taunted as ``breeders.'' One woman who signed
a petition against gay marriage says she was berated as a bigot by a gay man,
and another complained that dog feces were left next to her car.

``The gay community is not immune to having potential prejudices. We're all
human, including gay people,'' said Tom Lang, director of knowthyneighbor.org, a
nonprofit group that supports gay marriage.
[...]

The Right to Travel, Persons with Disabilities

The Right to Travel, Persons with Disabilities

The group with the most compelling interest in removing cobblestones
remains silent. (JENNIFER FERMINO, "BLOCK ON THE 'ROCKS,'" New York Post, July 25, 2006, Page 21) Persons with mobility impairments have a constitutional right to travel.
Cobblestone streets are a barrier to the enjoyment of that right.
Roger Byrom's comment, "If you don't like cobblestones in TriBeCa, live on
the Upper West Side," shows he is unaware of the requirement of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which applies to public sidewalks in New York City.
The city gets U.S. taxpayer funds. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
makes it a civil rights issue. Would Byrom as easily deny to persons of color or
homosexuals the right to use the TriBeCa sidewalks?
Why did the New York Post omit persons with disabilities from commenting on
this issue? Why do the rights of persons with disabilities seldom enter the
minds of journalists? This is a shameful display of ignorance and bigotry by
city activists and journalists.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

BLOCK ON THE 'ROCKS'
New York Post
By JENNIFER FERMINO

July 25, 2006 -- A downtown fight over the landmarked streets of TriBeCa has
pitted stroller-pushing moms against hardened preservationists.

Residents of 44 Laight St. - a converted factory where condo lofts go for $5
million a pop - say they're tired of traipsing along the jagged cobblestones
outside their building.
[...]

Listen Up Or Get Zapped!

Listen Up Or Get Zapped!

[This was originally published in the February 2007 edition of The Bridge
http://www.bridgenews.org
their web site was not up and working as of March 18, 2007.]

Cambridge Police Commissioner Ron Watson wants to acquire Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology -- called stun guns or TASERs. There is a large family of less-lethal weapons. The report of the December 12, 2006 meeting of the Public Safety Committee was unavailable as of the deadline for publication.
The Cambridge City Council remains silent about three recent police abuses: (1) 19 murders and other crimes by FBI informants in Boston; (2) the murder by Cambridge police of Daniel Furtado in his own home contrary to law. He was an elderly man with a disability. (3) The FBI frame-up of four Boston men for murder, whose trial is going on now.
The police want to use high tech electrical weapons to control civilians. The City Council shows no indication that it will hold the police accountable for any abuses. The City Manager defers to the Police Commissioner. The City Council is either in a coma when it comes to police abuses or they accept the false assurances of the Healy-Rossi autocracy.
The Council is clueless about electrical weapons. The Council ignored my complaints for 16 years about high tech electrical weapons being used in Cambridge. The City tolerates harassment using such weapons for provocations for punishment and to intentionally inflict emotional and psychological stress on vulnerable citizens.
“The Arizona Republic, [...] identified 167 cases in the United States and Canada of death following a police Taser strike since September 1999.” (Robert Anglen, “167 cases of death following stun-gun use,” The Arizona Republic, January 5, 2006) Tasers “are used by almost 10,000 police departments in the United States, and internationally.” A study showed that shocks from the guns cause the hearts of healthy pigs to stop beating.”
Tasers fire barbs up to 35 feet, “delivering a 50,000 volt shock. [...] Tasers are not regulated by the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms or any other federal agency.” “Nationally, more than 100,000 police officers carry Tasers. [...] human rights groups and scientists have questioned their safety. [...] The company’s primary safety studies [...] consist of shocks administered to one pig and five dogs.” (Monica Davey and Alex Berenson, “Chicago Rethinks Its Use of Stun Guns,” New York Times, February 12, 2005, page 9)
“Britain has not approved Tasers for general police use. [...] A Canadian study found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions.” Police “volunteers usually receive a single shock of a half-second or less. In the field Tasers automatically fire for five seconds. [...] And suspects are often hit repeatedly.” “Taser has significantly overstated the weapon’s safety, say biomedical engineers [...] Its name stands for ‘Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle.’ [...] its current can jump through two inches of clothing.” “In June [2004] alone, six people died.” (Alex Berenson, “As Police Use of Tasers Soars, Questions Over Safety Emerge,” New York Times, July 18, 2004, page one)
“Recently, police officers in Miami shocked a 6-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl in separate incidents. One man “died after [...] an officer stunned him nine times with a TASER, and he wasn’t on drugs or alcohol [...] by the count of CBS News 10 [people died after being TASERed] in August [2004].” (“TASER Danger?” CBS NEWS, October 12, 2004)
“Gan Golan of Los Angeles, a protest veteran and recent MIT grad who did his thesis on the increasing use of such devices [...] contends ‘The fact that these weapons are called “Less Lethal” only makes them more likely to be used.’ And they can still be lethal. A Boston Red Sox fan [Emerson College student Victoria Snelgrove] celebrating a 2004 playoff victory died after a pepper spray projectile hit her in the eye. She wasn't even protesting anything.” (Marty Levine, “Amongst Their Weaponry ... are fear, but no surprise, when it comes to policing protestors,” Pittsburgh City Paper, MARCH 30, 2006) URL for this story: http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19277
The Omega Foundation and the Centre for Conflict Resolution at the University at Bradford in the UK [in 2004] have both released studies that highlight the dangers and deaths associated with all less than lethal weapons. These studies have emphasized the dangers associated with these weapons and made recommendations for their safe use that have so far been ignored by the US media and US law enforcement. Other less than lethal weapons are being used and newer products are coming on to the market all the time. When these weapons are used for crowd control, and as the technology improves, their effect becomes more political and less safety oriented. A line needs to be drawn between their use against criminals and their indiscriminate use against crowds.” (Pete Stidman, “Less-Than-Lethal?” INDYMEDIA.BOSTON, 23 Oct 2004)
The Hawthorne, CA police department uses less-lethal weapons that emit high-power electrical pulses with no wires attached. They can knock a person down at 15 feet. Pulsed microwave weapons are used for harassment purposes. Like ultra–sound they are difficult to perceive. Used persistently over a period of time they can cause lethal harms. Lasers can blind a person.
The International Committee of the Red Cross banned these devices. Extreme Low Frequency sound devices can affect thoughts and emotions. The U.S. Air Force has a heat generation device, which makes a person’s skin feel hot when they enter an area. Others cause digestive discomfort for crowd control.
The Cambridge police request should be denied until they are studied carefully and in depth. Police need training and strict procedures for their use. Criminals obtained these weapons and use them for political, personal and economic purposes. Few officers are trained in how to stop the criminal use of such non-lethal devices.
Massachusetts has a firearms statute, which prohibits possession of electrical devices. Chapter 140, Section 131 J states No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill. [There are exceptions.]
In 2001 I wrote a bill for the MA legislature, to increase penalties for possession. In 2003 the legislature rewrote the law. The statute does not require proof of use. Possession or sale is the crime. Rep. William R. Keating wrote the bill, which became law in 1986. Keating is now District Attorney for Norfolk County in Massachusetts. My several attempts to contact him to learn why he wrote the bill were not answered. This seems to verify that police use these devices for extra-legal punishment without due process.
There are numerous web sites devoted to stopping abuses of the testing and illegal use of non-lethal weapons. Some of these include: http://www.icomw.org/
International Committee on Offensive Microwave

http://www.mindjustice.org
Cheryl Welsh is a UN Representative for less lethal technology.

http://www.shoestringradio.net
http://www.raven1.net
Eleanor White’s two sites includes archived radio files, and many links to larger and alternative views of the abuses in the U.S. and Canada.
Some observers believe that psychiatrists use of these high tech weapons for psychological testing and abusive treatment. Academic and military researchers use unsuspecting civilians as human subjects. They want to test the limits of human tolerance by provoking violence and trying to drive people insane. Relatively few people know of their existence and do not believe that they are used on civilians without their consent.
But even when medical researchers are exposed experimenting on vulnerable populations there is no outrage from civilized citizens of this country. No lawyer comes forward until after the researchers admit their abuse 40 or 50 years after the fact. Then the lawyers appear to take 30 to 40 percent of the damages awarded to the victims.
Those who speak up about the abuses are often regarded as having a psychiatric disability with all of the negative biases that accompany such perceptions.
Until there is a thorough investigation of all of the electrical devices being developed and used of civilians the City Council should prohibit the use of Tasers or any other electrical devices, which can be used for hidden harms.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

The Skinny Heterosexual

The Skinny Heterosexual

John DePetro said, "I didn't violate any laws [...] There was no obscene language. I know it's mean," (Andrea Estes and Suzanne Ryan, "WRKO firing sets off debate on speech issue," Boston Globe, November 4, 2006) So what was the reason for firing him and his engineer who said nothing?
Inappropriate, mean-spirited speech? Yes, but is that a reason to censor or to punish the speaker?
US Judge Nancy Gertner found that calling a person a homosexual is not slanderous. So what's the problem saying a person is a lesbian? In Massachusetts intimidating a person in the free exercise of a constitutionally protected right (even by a private corporation) is a crime.
Mean-spiritedness is now being used to censor and to silence criticism of government. Grace Ross is a Harvard graduate surely no vulnerable member of society. Because she represents a minor political party the ruling elitists consider her to be weak. That indicates the lack of awareness of reality by the people who have wealth and power.
They do not support the constitution, only their bottom line. Personal attacks undermine the argument of the speaker. So what DePetro did made him look silly. Ad hominem attacks are used by those with no rational arguments. But that never entered the discussion. Does the enormous power of the homosexual lobby have anything do with WRKO moves? Would calling Kerry Healey a skinny heterosexual have the same result? Ahem!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

WRKO firing sets off debate on speech issue
By Andrea Estes and Suzanne Ryan,
Boston Globe Staff
November 4, 2006

WRKO fired radio talk show host John DePetro and his engineer yesterday after DePetro called Green-Rainbow Party gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross a "fat lesbian" on the air. The firing set off a debate among radio talk show hosts, listeners, and academics about the ever-changing boundaries of appropriate speech on air.
Two weeks ago, nationally syndicated host Rush Limbaugh, whose show is also on WRKO, sparked outrage, but kept his job, when he accused actor Michael J. Fox of exaggerating his symptoms of Parkinson's disease in a public appearance.
DePetro, who said in an interview that he was "stunned" by his firing, apologized on air shortly after making the remark on his show Thursday morning, and then called Ross that night to apologize. But in an interview yesterday, DePetro defended himself and slammed management for firing his engineer, an act he compared to "clubbing a baby seal."
"He had nothing to do with it," said DePetro, referring to his engineer, James Kiesling. "He should not have been terminated. I take full responsibility. If you want to fire me, OK. I know what I signed up for. But taking it out on him?" Kiesling could not be reached for comment. According to a tape of his Thursday show, DePetro was venting about the previous night's gubernatorial debate.
"I could go now a lifetime without Grace Ross," he said. "She has nerve. This whole business of 'well since we're being ignored,' " he said, mocking Ross's effort to get equal time in the debate. "No, you're irrelevant. Get off the stage!" he continued, directing his remarks to Ross. "I couldn't stand her at the end. At one point I was about to yell: "Will somebody tell that fat lesbian to shut up. . . . "Shut up. Go home," DePetro said. "Burger King is looking for another third-shift person to work the grill. Enough."
"I was traumatized by you being on the stage," he said of Ross. WRKO station management announced its decision to fire DePetro yesterday.
"I have no doubt that terminating John's employment was the right action to take," said Jason Wolfe, executive vice president of Entercom Boston, which owns WRKO. "In the context of what he said and the tone with which he said it, the comments were completely inappropriate, derogatory, and will not be tolerated," Wolfe said in a statement.
DePetro served a two-day suspension in July after he used a homosexual slur to describe Matthew J. Amorello, a former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority chairman. "I had told John after his suspension in July . . . that any further comments of this kind would be dealt with in a severe way," Wolfe said.
DePetro told the Globe that he was expressing his frustration that Ross and independent candidate Christy Mihos had eaten up so much time during the debate and that Ross was complaining that she was being ignored.
"I didn't violate any laws," he said. "There was no obscene language. I know it's mean, but she is technically obese and lives an alternative lifestyle." DePetro sought to make a comparison between his remark and other potential characterizations. "What if someone yelled about Kerry Healey being a spoiled, white [expletive] or Mihos being an arrogant, wealthy egomaniac," he said.
Of his remark about Ross, he said: "It's amazing. I was sharing my thoughts." The firing triggered a debate about whether radio has gone too far and whether people have grown weary of radio shock-jocks, whose bad taste may draw listeners, but can also backfire.
In 2003, two WEEI radio talk show hosts, John Dennis and Gerry Callahan, were suspended for two weeks after comparing an escaped gorilla to a Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity student. After Dennis said Little Joe, a gorilla that had escaped from Franklin Park Zoo, was "probably a Metco gorilla waiting for a bus to take him to Lexington," outraged minority leaders called for the hosts' termination.
Entercom, which also owns WEEI, pledged to fund scholarships for Metco students and provide time for public service announcements for Metco and affiliated groups. Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and a WRKO personality, has referred to US Senator Edward M. Kennedy as "fat boy" and coined "fat Matt" in reference to Amorello.
Jay Severin, a host on rival WTKK-FM, has called Al Gore "Al Whore" and Hillary Clinton "a lying [expletive]." "I think people have had enough of the mean-spirited nastiness," said Janet Kolodzy, chairman of the journalism department at Emerson College. "This political season, there's been a lot of feedback from people about the political process. They're upset about negative ads. They're upset about attacks that have nothing to do with issues."
But some talk radio analysts say they don't think the termination of DePetro signals a new era of civility. "I think stations are constantly changing and constantly reeling their hosts in and reeling them out," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers Magazine, a talk-media trade publication based in Springfield. Some specialists said they were surprised DePetro was fired.
"That seems like well within what has come to be acceptable language on talk radio. Certainly it's uncivil and rude, but when was that not what they were looking for?" said Alex Jones, director of Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Added Harrison: "You never know what's going on behind the scenes. Sometimes a host is on thin ice with management and they use any infraction as an excuse to sever ties."
DePetro's ratings have been modest, but a station spokesman said the ratings didn't lead to his dismissal. According to a summer 2006 survey by Arbitron Inc., his show ranked 10th in the market in his time slot, out of 30 stations. The show averaged about 112,500 listeners per week, compared with top rated WMJX-FM, which averaged 209,400 listeners per week.
Meanwhile, Ross, who is openly gay, yesterday called DePetro's comments "rude and insulting," not only to her, but to "a whole segment of our population. I'm running for governor and I have bigger issues to worry about than whether one talk show host says something offensive and acts like a kid in the schoolyard." She applauded WRKO management, "not necessarily for the action, but for setting standards."
"I thought that what he said was inappropriate, and I'm very sorry that he said it," added Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. Mihos said he was listening to DePetro's show when he made the comment. "That was just a crass remark," he said. Deval L. Patrick declined to comment.
Matt Viser of the Globe staff contributed to this report

Who's Watching the ACLU Watchdogs?

The ACLU has an ongoing dispute within its ranks for a few years. I learned about it in February, 2007. Others told me that they were unaware of it as well, including one member of the ACLU.
Here is a link to a story from The Nation February 5, 2007, followed by a link to a story in New York Magazine dated February 19, 2007.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/sherman
ACLU v. ACLU
The Nation
by SCOTT SHERMAN
February 5, 2007

Last September a group of civil libertarians launched a website, savetheaclu.org, on which they declared: "We come together now, reluctantly but resolutely, not to injure the ACLU but to restore its integrity." Only a "change in leadership," they insisted, "will preserve the ACLU." That website, and those words, marked a new phase in a lengthy campaign to unseat Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. The website contained a surprise: a pithy and combative declaration from Romero's retired predecessor, Ira Glasser, who recruited Romero for the top job six years earlier.

Tension at the upper echelons of the ACLU has been evident for some time. On April 22 of last year, the ACLU national board converged on the Princeton Club in Manhattan for its quarterly meeting. A few weeks earlier, in an interview with the conservative New York Sun, board member Wendy Kaminer had criticized a statement by the ACLU's Washington legislative director. What Kaminer did was hardly unusual: For more than two years she has been an indefatigable critic of the ACLU leadership.

* * *


Anthony Romero

http://www.nymag.com/news/features/27839/index.html

Freedom to Backstab
Anthony Romero, head of the ACLU, America’s most important free-speech organization, has been accused of lying, among other transgressions—by his own mentor. Who said liberties had to be civil?
New York Magazine
February 19, 2007
By David France

Anthony Romero is weary of scrutiny. In dozens of lawsuits, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union inveighs against the Bush administration for peering into Americans’ letters, e-mails, and phone calls without court orders. Last month, he denounced the Pentagon for monitoring 186 antiwar protests and keeping files on pacifist groups, from Veterans for Peace to the Catholic Worker Movement. If Romero has learned one thing after five years at the ACLU’s helm, it is the cleansing power of shining a light into an institution’s darkest corners.