Thursday, February 2, 2006

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently investigating if a possible civil rights violation was committed by a sheriff’s deputy of the San Bernardino County after the shooting of an unarmed U.S. Air Force Security Force officer.

The military policeman, Senior Airman Elio Carrion, 21, was shot while on leave after serving a six month deployment in Iraq. The incident took place on Sunday, in Chino, California, after a short police chase. Carrion was the passenger of Luis Fernando Escobedo, 21, when police began chasing Escobedo’s blue Chevrolet Corvette for speeding. The car reached over speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h) during the short five minute chase.

After the chase ended in a crash near his house, Jose Luis Valdez began taping the accident aftermath. The grainy, low-quality videotape shows Carrion laying on the ground with the officer standing over him. The deputy appears to say, “Stay on the ground.” The deputy then seems to say “Get up” several times. Carrion then said, “I’m going to get up.” As Carrion begins to rise, the deputy fires three shots which hit Carrion in the chest, leg and side. After Carrion is hit he said, “I mean you no harm.” The deputy responded by shouting “Shut the fuck up” twice, and then “You don’t get up!” A neighbor is heard saying, “You told him to get up.” The video shot by Valdez was given to police, with a copy sold by him to television station KTLA.

Carrion is now in the hospital and in good condition.

Cindy Beavers, a spokesperson for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department stated the deputy has been put on paid leave. Beavers also mentioned that Sheriff Gary Penrod had invited the FBI to join the investigation. The FBI released a statement confirming this.

Penrod issued a statement on Monday saying, “As with all investigations, the circumstances involved in this shooting will be reviewed, it would be inappropriate for me to make any additional comments until the investigation is completed.”

Experts say the video is open to interpretation.

Last week, in a similar but unrelated incident, a news helicopter caught footage of St. Louis, Missouri police officers using what appears to be excessive force on a suspect in detaining him.

[edit]

Monday, January 11, 2010

United Airlines Flight 634 made an emergency landing yesterday morning when only two of the three landing wheels on the Airbus A319 deployed as the plane was making its final approach into Newark, New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport. After multiple attempts to fix the problem failed, the pilot decided that an emergency landing was the only remaining choice.

Only the plane’s nose gear and left landing gear had descended. The right landing gear would not release. The airliner made a go-around as the crew attempted to fix the problem. Passenger Jim Falk knew something was wrong saying, “Normally a big plane like that doesn’t do a bypass, so we knew something was wrong.”

However, the pilot decided that nothing could be done to bring the gear down, and an emergency landing was declared. “We are going to have an unusual landing,” the pilot calmly announced to the 53 passengers seated on the plane, according to passenger Moritz Loew. Another passenger, Paul Lasiuk said he was more shocked than scared, telling himself, “You have no choice. You’re going to go through this.”

“Brace! Brace! Brace!”, the pilot announced over the plane’s public address system, calling for passengers to enter the brace position as the plane made a touchdown on the runway at Newark. The plane touched down on the nose wheel and left rear wheel before lurching to the right causing sparks to fly as the right engine skidded along the runway. Eventually, the plane came to stop at 9:27 A.M. EDT.

Afterward, passengers and crew evacuated the plane by sliding down the evacuation slides and moving quickly away from the plane. They were then taken by bus to the airline’s lounge where they told their stories to investigators and waited for their luggage. Three passengers reported minor injuries but refused treatment.

The emergency landing caused the airport to shut down for 20 minutes, but service quickly resumed on two of the airports three runways. The plane remained on the runway throughout the afternoon as investigators determined the cause of the landing gear failure.

This is in contrast to last week, when the airport was shutdown for six hours after a young man named Haisong Jiang breached security by passing through an exit to kiss his girlfriend goodbye.

According to passengers, the crew remained calm during the ordeal. Jim Falk said, “They did a great job. There was no yelling, screaming, panicking or anything.” Falk said he wanted to buy a bottle of champagne for the currently unnamed pilot. Falk added, “The pilot did a beautiful job. He didn’t put it in the water like the other pilot did, but he should be commended.”

Martin Trebino, a spokesperson for United Airlines said they would not release the pilot’s name on Sunday, but did not indicate when his name would be made available either.

Paul Lasiuk said, “I’ve had a lot of worse landings at Newark before. It was unbelievably smooth.”

Moritz Loew joked with himself afterward saying, “What’s a great landing? One that you walk away from.”

The flight, which left Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport early Sunday morning around 6 A.M. reported no other problems during the flight up until the incident. According to United Airlines spokesperson Robin Urbanski, it remains unclear why the landing gear failed to deploy. Urbanski added that passengers’ tickets would be refunded and that they would receive vouchers and credit towards any future flight.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Today, the satellite radio providers XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio submitted a joint application to transfer control of their ground and space-based transmitters to the new, merged company. This is a major step for the XM/Sirius merger deal, as FCC approval represents a major hurdle for the merger. This document also answers some questions that have plagued subscribers of both services.

While there is not much information for the casual listener, two of the most frequently asked questions have been addressed, at least in part:

Pricing has been clarified, to some exeent. From the FCC filing: “After the merger, customers may elect to receive fewer channels at a monthly price lower than $12.95;substantially similar programming at the existing $12.95 price; or more channels, including someof the ‘best of both’ networks, at a modest premium to the cost of one service, and considerablyless than the cost of subscribing to both services.” The document goes on to explain that channel blocking will be available, and that credit will be given for blocked channels.

The filing also addresses the potential need for new receivers. “Subscribers could continue to use their existing radios or eventually purchase new radios capable of receiving all of the content of both services when they become available.” Apparently, some programming will be available on both networks, but this will be limited. To get the full range of programming, subscribers will need new equipment.

Another major stumbling block for the merger deal is the potential for monopoly. To counter the arguments that the merged company will become a monopoly, the document goes on to describe the nature of satellite radio’s competition: HD radio, Internet radio, AM and FM radio, portable media players, mobile phones, and even CD players. “It is clear that all of the above providers view themselves as being in direct competitionwith each other,” the document alleges, and then goes on to quote statements by the National Association of Broadcasters in support of this assertion. “local radio stations compete for listeners with other forms of audio delivery offering an almost unlimited array of content. IPods and other MP3 players, music [subscription] services, podcasting and the Internet streaming of U.S. and foreign radio stations literally provide content from around the world to listeners in each local radio market in America.”

As this is only the first step in the FCC process, and the FCC is only one of three major steps in the merger process, the deal is far from over. However, convincing the FCC that the merger should happen will remove a major barrier in the companies’ efforts.

Monday, October 19, 2009

A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction. The €14.68 million project began in January, 2009, and is scheduled to continue for five years under its current mandate.

INDECT produced the accidentally published report as part of their “Extraction of Information for Crime Prevention by Combining Web Derived Knowledge and Unstructured Data” project, but do not enumerate all potential applications of the search and surveillance technology. Police are discussed as a prime example of users, with Polish and British forces detailed as active project participants. INDECT is funded under the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), and includes participation from Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Indicated in the initial trial’s report, the scope of data collected is particularly broad; days of television news, radio, newspapers, and recorded telephone conversations are included. Several weeks of content from online sources were agglomerated, including mining Wikipedia for users’ and article subjects’ relations with others, organisations, and in-project movements.

Watermarking of published digital works such as film, audio, or other documents is discussed in the Project INDECT remit; its purpose is to integrate and track this information, its movement within the system and across the Internet. An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube is shown to the right. The simplified example of the system in operation shows a file of documents with a visible INDECT-titled cover taken from an office and exchanged in a car park. How the police are alerted to the document theft is unclear in the video; as a “threat”, it would be the INDECT system’s job to predict it.

Throughout the video use of CCTV equipment, facial recognition, number plate reading, and aerial surveillance give friend-or-foe information with an overlaid map to authorities. The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursuing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.

Technology research performed as part of Project INDECT has clear use in countering industrial and international espionage, although the potential use in maintaining any security and predicting leaks is much broader. Quoted in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, Liberty’s director, Shami Chakrabarti, described a possible future implementation of INDECT as a “sinister step” with “positively chilling” repercussions Europe-wide.

“It is inevitable that the project has a sensitive dimension due to the security focussed goals of the project,” Suresh Manandhar, leader of the University of York researchers involved in the “Work Package 4” INDECT component, responded to Wikinews. “However, it is important to bear in mind that the scientific methods are much more general and has wider applications. The project will most likely have lot of commercial potential. The project has an Ethics board to oversee the project activities. As a responsible scientists [sic] it is of utmost importance to us that we conform to ethical guidelines.”

Although Wikinews attempted to contact Professor Helen Petrie of York University, the local member of Project INDECT’s Ethics board, no response was forthcoming. The professor’s area of expertise is universal access, and she has authored a variety of papers on web-accessibility for blind and disabled users. A full list of the Ethics board members is unavailable, making their suitability unassessable and distancing them from public accountability.

One potential application of Project INDECT would be implementation and enforcement of the U.K.’s “MoD Manual of Security“. The 2,389-page 2001 version passed to Wikileaks this month — commonly known as JSP-440, and marked “RESTRICTED” — goes into considerable detail on how, as a serious threat, investigative journalists should be monitored, and effectively thwarted; just the scenario the Project INDECT video could be portraying.

When approached by Wikinews about the implications of using INDECT, a representative of the U.K.’s Attorney General declined to comment on legal checks and balances such a system might require. Further U.K. enquiries were eventually referred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have not yet responded.

Wikinews’ Brian McNeil contacted Eddan Katz, the International Affairs Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (E.F.F.). Katz last spoke to Wikinews in early 2008 on copyright, not long after taking his current position with the E.F.F. He was back in Brussels to speak to EU officials, Project INDECT was on his agenda too — having learned of it only two weeks earlier. Katz linked Project INDECT with a September report, NeoConopticon — The EU Security-Industrial Complex, authored by Ben Hayes for the Transnational Institute. The report raises serious questions about the heavy involvement of defence and IT companies in “security research”.

On the record, Katz answered a few questions for Wikinews.

((WN)) Is this illegal? Is this an invasion of privacy? Spying on citizens?

Eddan Katz When the European Parliament issued the September 5, 2001 report on the American ECHELON system they knew such an infrastructure is in violation of data protection law, undermines the values of privacy and is the first step towards a totalitarian surveillance information society.

((WN)) Who is making the decisions based on this information, about what?

E.K. What’s concerning to such a large extent is the fact that the projects seem to be agnostic to that question. These are the searching systems and those people that are working on it in these research labs do search technology anyway. […] but its inclusion in a database and its availability to law enforcement and its simultaneity of application that’s so concerning, […] because the people who built it aren’t thinking about those questions, and the social questions, and the political questions, and all this kind of stuff. [… It] seems like it’s intransparent, unaccountable.

The E.U. report Katz refers to was ratified just six days before the September 11 attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center. In their analysis of the never-officially-recognised U.S. Echelon spy system it states, “[i]n principle, activities and measures undertaken for the purposes of state security or law enforcement do not fall within the scope of the EC Treaty.” On privacy and data-protection legislation enacted at E.U. level it comments, “[such does] not apply to ‘the processing of data/activities concerning public security, defence, state security (including the economic well-being of the state when the activities relate to state security matters) and the activities of the state in areas of criminal law'”.

Part of the remit in their analysis of Echelon was rumours of ‘commercial abuse’ of intelligence; “[i]f a Member State were to promote the use of an interception system, which was also used for industrial espionage, by allowing its own intelligence service to operate such a system or by giving foreign intelligence services access to its territory for this purpose, it would undoubtedly constitute a breach of EC law […] activities of this kind would be fundamentally at odds with the concept of a common market underpinning the EC Treaty, as it would amount to a distortion of competition”.

Ben Hayes’ NeoConoptiocon report, in a concluding section, “Following the money“, states, “[w]hat is happening in practice is that multinational corporations are using the ESRP [European Seventh Research Programme] to promote their own profit-driven agendas, while the EU is using the programme to further its own security and defence policy objectives. As suggested from the outset of this report, the kind of security described above represents a marriage of unchecked police powers and unbridled capitalism, at the expense of the democratic system.”