Obama Promises $3.5 Billion for Mass Transit in Urban Cities to Support Agenda 21 Policies

Agenda 21, High-Speed Rails & Obama’s $302 Billion Transportation Bill

February 27, 2014

Occupy Corporatism - Speaking in St. Paul, Minnesota, President Obama explained his 4 year scheme to create jobs and repair American infrastructure by building bridges, roads and high-speed rail systems (HSR) throughout the nation.

This plan, costing $302 billion to taxpayers, would facilitate projects for transportation and planning directives that will alter the US landscape.

By executive power of Congressional approval, Obama vows to get this agenda through and implemented.

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program has invested $3.5 billion of taxpayer money into 270 projects across the ntion thus far.

The Obama administration would like to see funding moved to transit schemes as priority to ensure “projects that make it easier for Americans to get to jobs, school, and other opportunities, promote neighborhood revitalization and business expansion, and reconnect neighborhoods that are unnaturally divided by physical barriers such as highways and railroads.”

Last month Obama revealed a project with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to revamp bus lines and create more access for residents of urban cities to mass transit.

Along with Vice President Joe Biden, Obama made his 3 year plan to invest private corporate investments into American infrastructure.

Under the Rebuild America Partnership (RAP) the corporate infiltration coincides with employment creation who also handing over traditionally governmental roles to private sector members of local communities.

Two years ago, Ray LaHood, then secretary of the DOT, revealed a stated last week that $470 million in unspent funds are still available to states for such projects.

In 2011, Obama called for these HSRs to be built in America within the next 25 years.

HRS is the brainchild of America 2050, a non-governmental organization that supports Agenda 21 policies in the US.

America 2050 claims that the railway will provide more trains to the growing population in California and that this endeavor is necessary to “close the gap” between Northern and Southern California.

Conveniently enough, in 2013 Elton Musk, founder of Tesla Motors and SpaceX, announced his plans to development faster and more efficient high-speed bullet trains that move Americans from San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles at speeds unheard of before.

The Hyperloop, as described by Musk, is the fifth mode of transportation.

Beyond the four modes of current transportation (boats, planes, cars and trains), the Hyperloop would move 3 to 4 times faster than the bullet trains built across the globe; meaning it would travel at twice the speed of an average commercial airliner.

THE NEW AMERICA: Agenda 21 and the U.N. One World Government plan

February 19, 2013

Renew America - I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I investigate conspiracy theories and I gather evidence before I believe anything anyone purports to be true. 8-10 years ago this New World Order topic came to my attention, and along with it, the One World Government plans. At the time, I remember reading that the American mainstream media was calling the New World Order a "conspiracy theory" and denied that any such thing existed. They pooh-poohed the idea of a One World Government, as well.

In 1992, however, in their Venezuela conference, the United Nations passed something called "Agenda 21," which the elder President George Bush of the United States of America publicly gave it his support. It referred to something called "Sustainable Development" and seemed to be concerned with protecting the planet by limiting and controlling the development of corporate and personal structures. As I perused this effort, I saw that rural development was going to start being restricted and that the Train to Nowhere, that we have been struggling with here in Sonoma County (called that because it starts in a little hamlet devoid of much corporate activity and ended at a location in San Rafael which did not connect with the existing train – BART – and required a taxi ride across town in one wished to take this train into San Francisco).

Why would anyone be so intent on building a high-speed train from a little town called "Cloverdale" with a population of 8,634 that sits out in the middle of nowhere, nearly 2 hours north of San Francisco, to another destination which isn't connected to BART, and is still another 30 minutes outside of SF? Millions of dollars have been poured into a campaign to get public approval over the past ten years. By their own estimation, only 1,400 trips are estimated, which would be 700 round trips. Estimating a cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to transport barely 700 people? Were they serious? Yes, they were. But why?

UN Agenda 21 was passed in 1992 without any particular fanfare. The media was almost completely silent about it, and continues to relegate Agenda 21 to page 9, if any mention is made at all. But included in Agenda 21 is a plan for high-speed trains nationwide. Ooo, how exciting! Another interesting part of the plan is that it includes building six-story apartment complexes along these train lines, intended to relocate civilians away from their farms and ranches, which will no longer be approved for residential development. If you want to know what researchers have discovered about this effort, a simple google will lead you to all you ever wanted to know. Personally, I prefer the facts, Ma'am, nothing but the facts.

Further investigation reveals that the Clintons and the Bushes approved of Agenda 21 and also approve of this development of a One World Government system. Barack Obama is also supportive of this Agenda 21 effort and this OWG plan, with approval and funding coming from our own federal government as well as local governments, is being implemented nationwide today. Locally, the little towns of Cotati (population 7,333 not counting the chickens or the snakes) and Cloverdale have been putting elements of Agenda 21 in place for years already. Why would our government choose these little unknown towns to begin implementing this thing?

More importantly, if our own presidents are willing to give the United States of America over to a one world government system, then who is looking out for America's best interests now? That is, on the world stage, who has America's best interests at heart? Certainly not someone who supports a plan to eliminate the USA's independent nation status. Am I right? My point – and this is an awful realization to me – is that no one is looking out for America's best interests anymore. Our own presidents and leaders in Congress have already given their blessings to turn our nation over to an undetermined, unelected world government organization. That only leaves We, the People and God to look out for America's best interest. That said, we may have troubled times ahead, but when God is with us, who can be against us? That is, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. We can do this.

Agenda 21 is being implemented across America, and many Americans have never heard of it. There is a list of mayors who have signed on to support it on the ICLEI website. It is actually a list of Progressive politicians, and the list includes mayors of nearly every major American city. (See diagram, above.) What this means, interestingly, is that when polled, while Progressives make up less than 20% of the political landscape in America, they've made a particularly impressive nationalized effort to put themselves into leadership in so many of America's largest cities! Bravo to the Progressives, but aren't you curious how they managed that?



So the media has been almost silent about this, but nearly every large city in America has signed on to support Agenda 21? Should you or I be concerned about this? I am concerned, and I'll tell you why: The only civilized nation who hasn't officially signed onto the One World Government plan is the good ole' USA. Well, actually, President George H. Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush and even President Obama has signed on now, in 2011, but there has been no formal public announcement of this plan to hand America over to the OWG folks, virtually no media attention and most importantly, there has been no buy-in from We, the People! Can a U.S. president legally commit to handing governing authority of The United States of America over to the United Nations? Not according to our Constitution.

But as we've seen, our current president has been making hundreds of questionable appointments and actions in the four short years he's been in office. Clearly, the presidents before him engaged in and signed some similar somewhat secret agreements. I am in no way trying to paint Barack Obama as a bad person, because I'm certain that he is not spearheading this One World Government effort. Apparently it's been going on long before Obama was even born. As America's leader, however, Mr. Obama must do whatever those who put him in power tell him to do. Yes, I just said "those who put him in power," and I am not referring to you and me. I'm referring to those people who have put together and who are implementing this One World Government plan.

There is a One World Government planned, and that is a fact. Google it. It's not a "conspiracy theory" or even a secret anymore. Granted, the U.S. government isn't talking about it. The media, who called it a "conspiracy theory" just ten years ago, now acknowledges it, although you don't see any media outlet making a big deal out of it. Why on Earth wouldn't something as huge as a transition of all the independent nations on the planet into a new worldwide governing organization be big news, splashed all over the television and newspapers of America? That's BIG NEWS, right?

And who do you think is planning this One World Government? Do you know? I don't have any idea. The media hasn't disclosed that information yet. Our own government hasn't revealed that information to us yet, either. Obviously, if the United Nations has spent decades planning such a government, someone surely knows who the planners are, but We, the People don't know yet.

Do you think an effort of this magnitude would ever be left to chance, or would the reigns of this nation be left for a bunch of yahoos like We, the People to determine who is going to run this country? Really? Do you believe that? What if we were to elect someone who doesn't support this One World Government plan? That would certainly be a possibility if our elections were truly left up to Americans' votes. So what is the likelihood that these 'secret people' would leave something like leadership of the most important, prosperous and powerful nation on Earth to chance? It's not really likely, is it? I doubt it.

So if electing our president isn't being left to chance, then how is the president being selected? That's a great question, isn't it? I know many Americans will be bothered by this question, and by the disturbing things my questions might indirectly suggest. I am bothered too. That's' why I'm writing this article. I've become increasingly bothered by recent events here in America.



This effort to convince Americans that giving up our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms disturbs me most, I think. There is only one reason a government would want to disarm its citizens, and that is if that government planned on doing something that would so enrage the citizenry that people might be prone to become violent toward that government. That's the only reason any nation has ever disarmed it's citizens. Gun regulation has commonly been followed by gun confiscation and then tyranny and bloodshed as the government turned on its people. We, the People know this, and we see the media making an effort to convince people that giving up our guns is a good idea.

Considering that Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide right now, and that this United Nations plan for a One World Government is also in the works, are we Americans willing to give up American sovereignty in order to become a part of a worldwide governing organization? When we don't even know who our 'new rulers' might be? Clearly, taking away our guns would be mandatory if our government planned on handing America's sovereignty over to some unelected world governing body. There would be angry Americans marching on Washington DC and marching on every state capital in America if our government agreed to give up our autonomy and become part of a "North American Union," which is what the UN is planning for us. I suspect that this effort to demonize guns is directly connected to the OWG plan to give up America's sovereignty.

What really prompted me to write this article doesn't have anything to do with Agenda 21 or with the One World Government being planned for our planet. What drove me to write this afternoon was when it occurred to me that (a) the reason they are trying to convince us to give up our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and give up our guns is because whoever is really leading this nation – our president, Congress, whoever gets them elected – knows that they are planning on doing something that will likely incite us to violence, and when that violence starts, they would like us to be rock-throwers like the Arab citizenry. They don't want to be looking down the barrels of our guns when the stuff hits the fan. And (b) when I considered the magnanimity of this planned One World Government, it hit me that whoever is planning this new worldwide governing body would never allow hicks and rednecks like We, the People to choose our own leaders. They would want to make sure that everyone with any power was on board with this plan, and that no one would spill the beans too soon and piss off We, the People while we are still heavily armed.

Well guess what... it wasn't too hard to connect the dots, and once I saw even a glimpse of the likely big picture, I had to put pen to paper. Some facts I would ask you to consider are these:

Fact: The UN has been planning a transition to a One World Government for decades, and for decades world leaders have been busy preparing for it.

Fact: The American mainstream media hasn't been reporting all of this responsibly. In fact, I don't hesitate to say that our media has been irresponsible in investigating and informing the American public about these plans to hand America over to an unknown World governing organization.

Fact: Agenda 21 is being implemented locally in my own Sonoma County. It is possibly being implemented in every state in the union today.

Fact: America's leaders support this planned transition to a One World Government. If they did not support this plan, there would have been much said about it by our Senators and Representatives in the House. No one is raising so much as an eyebrow over this plan to sacrifice America's sovereignty and our right to exist as a sovereign nation in order to be part of this proposed, planned world governing organization.

Fact: Who the people are behind the planning and implementation of this OWG is still completely unknown to myself and to every American I questioned about this. This is the biggest story in the history of Mankind, and none of us knows (a) who has planned it or (b) who is overseeing the implementation of this plan.

Fact: Suddenly the Democrat Party is making a concerted effort to convince Americans that owning guns is bad for America. While every other nation who has been disarmed is warning us not to give up our guns, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, Diane Feinstein and some of her cohorts are leading the charge to demonize guns, pretending that giving up our guns will somehow make us safer. The Republican Party is doing little to counter that absurd contention. Despite the opposite being true, in every nation in which guns have been banned, Feinstein and other Democrats are still going through the motions to convince us that giving up our guns is in our own best interest. It's not. Gun-related crime invariable rises dramatically when gun bans are put into effect.That is a fact, too.

So why is this all-too-common American husband, father, Cancer survivor, worship pastor, author and licensed addiction counselor concerning myself with plans for a world government by the world's leaders of today? The answer is simple. I love America, and I don't love that America's leaders are planning on sacrificing our sovereign nation status so that a group of heretofore unidentified rich and powerful global elitists can play "King of the World." I want America to be here for my daughters, so that they can have the same kind of freedom and liberty that I've had in my lifetime. I want my girls to enjoy the security of living in the most prosperous and powerful nation on Earth, not some "North American Union" in which self-appointed Communists are ruling everyone and dictating everything as law. Of all the plans for this One World Government that I have read thus far, there has been no mention whatsoever of (a) who the rulers might be or (b) how they might go about becoming "world rulers." There is no mention whatsoever in any UN documents I've seen which discuss worldwide elections for this new, not-only-proposed but planned, world government.

And I do not want my daughters to have to depend on an average of 11 minute response time to their 911 calls if/when they are being assaulted or worse. I want them to be able to pull out their AK 47 Bullpup's and protect themselves and their families, like Americans all over our nation can do today.

That's why.

If you didn't know all of the facts that I've presented here, then perhaps you might want to start doing a little investigating of your own. While We, the People weren't paying attention, a whole lot of bad people started planning a whole lot of bad things for America. We don't have to sit back and let them carry out their plans, however. We are American patriots. Our ancestors fought and died for our freedom and our rights and I will not sit back and do nothing while some elitist foreigners take over our nation and force us into some North American Union, ruled by other rich, foreign or domestic elitists.

If you've ever wondered why John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer – and even our President much of the time – all seem so incredibly smug and arrogant, perhaps it's because they don't consider themselves 'one of us.' Perhaps, too, it's because of what they're planning on doing with America, that we are not privy to know...just yet. You know, that thing about throwing the USA on the dung heap of nations chartered for One World Government rule? Australia was thrown on that pile last year. All of America's ally nations are already doomed for inclusion. We are the last hope...the world's last hope for freedom. Just like we've always been.

And why is it that you're getting these facts from me, instead of from the mainstream media, whose job it is to report newsworthy events such as, oh, I don't know... converting all of the world's autonomous nations into a one world government? Great question, isn't it?

The truth is that I don't want any of this to be true. I would love it if this was nothing more than a "conspiracy theory"...but it's not. Agenda 21 is out in the open now. The United Nation's plan for a One World Government is public knowledge now. And frankly, I am very, very disturbed by all of it, particularly becoming aware that our own leaders aren't looking out for America's best interests any longer. If that sounds unfair, or like a reckless conclusion, answer this for me:

1. Why would our leaders be concerned with America's best interests when America won't even exist soon if/when these UN OWG plans come to fruition?
   
   
2. How could people who are planning on abandoning America's autonomy and our precious independent nation sovereignty in order to hand America over to the United Nations' One World Government plan be serious about watching out for America's best interests?
   

The answers to those two questions, of course, is "They aren't" and "They can't." If America is going to remain a sovereign nation, it is going to be because God and We, the People stood our ground and refused to turn our nation over to any foreign governing body. Our own government has already been active in planning on throwing America on the dung heap of nations earmarked for the One World Government. This, I'm afraid, is what all this saber rattling about gun control is really about. They must take our weapons before they take that final step of sacrificing our sovereign nation status in order to include the USA in this UN OWG plan. Again, they would rather deal with angry rock-throwers than angry gun owners. And it's likely to get much worse before it gets better, I suspect. Get ready to be the patriot you and I have always bragged about being. The proverbial rubber is about to hit the proverbial road...hard, in fact.

Flashback: New Governors Could Derail Obama's High-Speed Trains

October 5, 2010

Governing.com - One of the biggest initiatives announced in President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this year was his plan for a network of high-speed rail lines throughout the nation. His administration even directed $8 billion in stimulus funds to states to begin work on the lines.

But many of the current Republican candidates for governor across the country have said that, if elected,they'll delay or halt implementation of the rail system, according to the New York Times:

In Ohio, the Republican candidate for governor, John Kasich, is vowing to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail. Florida, Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has questioned whether the state should invest in the planned rail line from Orlando to Tampa. The state got $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money for the project, but it will cost at least twice that much to complete.

And the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project, California’s $45 billion plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles per hour, could be delayed if Meg Whitman, a Republican, is elected governor. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman.

In some places, GOP opposition to the plan is even stronger. Fighting high-speed rail has become a central campaign issue for Scott Walker, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin.

Mr. Walker, who worries that the state could be required to spend $7 million to $10 million a year to operate the trains once the line is built, started a Web site, NoTrain.com, and has run a television advertisement in which he calls the rail project a boondoggle. “I’m Scott Walker,” he says in the advertisement, “and if I’m elected as your next governor, we’ll stop this train.”

 

Related:

• Agenda 21: Osborne unveils plan for Northern super city and new high speed rail link between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds
• Agenda 21: Social Engineering for a New World Order
• The Purpose of the Economic Meltdown
• Global Education, Land Use, and Population Control
• Sustainable Development: The Communist Agenda for the 21st Century
• The UN's Agenda for 2010
• Freedom Is Being Replaced By Servitude, Capitalism By Socialism, and Property Rights By 'Sustainable Development'
• Transportation System of the New World Order Excludes Private Auto Mobility
• Agenda 21: 'Walkable Urbanism' Rather Than 'Drivable Suburbanism'
• Social Engineering is Forcing People into Cities Because It is Easier to Track and Control an Urban Population
• U.S. Population by Major City and State
• Non-Human-Use Zones in America
• Vehicle Tracking and Disabling Systems
• Vehicle Mileage Tax
• Intelligent Transportation Systems: Big Brother Tracking Our Every Move By Vehicle and Public Transit

The Feds Want to Replace Your Driver’s License with a National ID Card

The federal secure driver's license law, known as the REAL ID Act, became law in 2005 but few states have fully implemented it. This is America, land of the free. It's not the land of "Your papers, please." The purpose of RFID technology is to destroy our way of life.

• REAL ID assumes you are a foreign terrorist or illegal immigrant, and that you must "prove" my innocence.
• You are punished with higher fees, more red tape, and longer DMV lines.
• And your private information will be centralized, making you more susceptible to identity theft and other dangers.

According to Nick Sandberg ("Blueprint for Total Control," 2001) and Serge Monast ("NASA's" Project Blue Beam," 1994):

By first removing cash and then by introducing problems into electronic money systems while simultaneously promoting microchip implants as a safe and acceptable alternative, the global elite will lead us slowly into accepting personal implant technology.

The phasing out of cash most likely will begin with some kind of worldwide economic disaster—not a complete crash, but enough to allow the New World Order to introduce some kind of in-between currency before they introduce their electronic cash to replace all paper money. The in-between currency will be used to force anyone with savings to spend or turn in their cash, because the global elite understand that people who have money are not dependent upon them and might be the very ones who will mount an insurrection against them. If everyone is broke, no one can fund a war of any kind; paper currency will cease to exist; this will be one of the first signs.

Proof RFID Microchip Is In Obama Health Care

The Feds Want to Replace Your Driver’s License with a National ID Card

January 2015 Issue

Car and Driver - If you live in Arizona, Louisiana, New York, or one of more than a dozen other states, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has bad news for you. Come January 19, your driver’s license will no longer allow you access to certain federal facilities. Unless DHS changes its mind. Again.

In 2005, Congress passed a bill called the Real ID Act, based upon recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. Whether or not you’ve heard of the law depends largely upon how in tune you are with conspiracy theories. Where you live matters, too, because nearly a decade after the law’s passage, only 19 states actually comply with its standards.

Real ID’s stated intent is to ensure that all jurisdictions issuing driver’s licenses and other identification meet federal stand­ards, “which should inhibit terrorists’ ability to evade detection by using fraudulent identification.” Basically, the government is upping the ante on what it will accept as valid forms of ID at federal facilities, nuclear power plants, and—here’s the biggie—federally regulated airline flights (i.e., most of them).

Opponents fear that Real ID will lead to a national identity card like those issued by “totalitarian” governments and that its requirement that states share data from their department of motor vehicle databases is an invasion of privacy. Others object because Congress didn’t offer financial backing to help states implement Real ID. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends that the program wastes state resources while doing little to combat terrorism, calling it a “bureaucratic nightmare.”

For its part, Homeland Security promises that Real ID will leave states with control over the look and administration of driver’s licenses, and, more important, over the information they collect to issue them. “There is no federal database of driver information,” the agency says on its website, although the ACLU contends that the law says otherwise. What does non-compliance mean for residents of those states? Most states have been granted extensions, although many have passed legislation that amounts to a promise not to comply.

For most Americans, that flight restriction is the big worry. But DHS says that any state driver’s license will be accepted as a valid ID at airports until at least 2016. And after that, passports and other federal IDs will work. The ACLU doesn’t put much stock in DHS deadlines either way, including the latest one. 

“We know how it’s going to play out because it’s played out three times already,” says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU. “They give a deadline, the deadline goes, and then they give an extension. The states know that DHS isn’t going to keep all the residents from non–Real ID states from boarding airplanes.” 

Which means that those refusing to play along might just achieve the goal of dooming Real ID to failure.

Why is the Federal Government Involved in Local Law Enforcement? To Build a Massive Army Against the Citizens of the United States

How to Fund an American Police State

The government is spending real money to build a massive army against U.S. citizens. Local, county and state police forces are being armed by the feds with military weapons and equipment. In addition, government employees are also being armed to fight a war on U.S. soil, including employees of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commerce Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense. Law enforcement agencies, federal agenices, the National Guard, the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines are preparing for Martial Law.

March 5, 2012  

Stephan Salisbury, Toms Dispatch - At the height of the Occupy Wall Street evictions, it seemed as though some diminutive version of “shock and awe” had stumbled from Baghdad, Iraq, to Oakland, California. American police forces had been “militarized,” many commentators worried, as though the firepower and callous tactics on display were anomalies, surprises bursting upon us from nowhere.

There should have been no surprise. Those flash grenades exploding in Oakland and the sound cannons on New York’s streets simply opened small windows onto a national policing landscape long in the process of militarization—a bleak domestic no man’s land marked by tanks and drones, robot bomb detectors, grenade launchers, tasers and most of all, interlinked video surveillance cameras and information databases growing quietly on unobtrusive server farms everywhere.

The ubiquitous fantasy of “homeland security,” pushed hard by the federal government in the wake of 9/11, has been widely embraced by the public. It has also excited intense weapons- and techno-envy among police departments and municipalities vying for the latest in armor and spy equipment.

In such a world, deadly gadgetry is just a grant request away, so why shouldn’t the 14,000 at-risk souls in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, have a closed-circuit-digital-camera-and-monitor system (cost: $180,000, courtesy of the Homeland Security Department) identical to the one up and running in New York’s Times Square?

So much money has gone into armoring and arming local law-enforcement since 9/11 that the federal government could have rebuilt post-Katrina New Orleans five times over and had enough money left in the kitty to provide job training and housing for every one of the record 41,000-plus homeless people in New York City. It could have added in the growing population of 15,000 homeless in Philadelphia, my hometown, and still have had money to spare. Add disintegrating Detroit, Newark and Camden to the list. Throw in some crumbling bridges and roads, too.

But why drone on? We all know that addressing acute social and economic issues here in the homeland was the road not taken. Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security alone has doled out somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion in direct grants to state and local law enforcement, as well as other first responders. At the same time, defense contractors have proven endlessly inventive in adapting sales pitches originally honed for the military on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to the desires of police on the streets of San Francisco and Lower Manhattan. Oakland may not be Basra but (as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld liked to say) there are always the unknown unknowns: best be prepared.

All told, the federal government has appropriated about $635 billion, accounting for inflation, for homeland security–related activities and equipment since the 9/11 attacks. To conclude, though, that “the police” have become increasingly militarized casts too narrow a net. The truth is that virtually the entire apparatus of government has been mobilized and militarized right down to the university campus.

Perhaps the pepper spray used on Occupy demonstrators last November at University of California–Davis wasn’t directly paid for by the federal government. But those who used it work closely with Homeland Security and the FBI “in developing prevention strategies that threaten campus life, property, and environments,” as UC Davis’s Comprehensive Emergency and Continuity Management Plan puts it.

Government budgets at every level now include allocations aimed at fighting an ephemeral “War on Terror” in the United States. A vast surveillance and military buildup has taken place nationwide to conduct a pseudo-war against what can be imagined, not what we actually face. The costs of this effort, started by the Bush administration and promoted faithfully by the Obama administration, have been, and continue to be, virtually incalculable. In the process, public service and the public imagination have been weaponized. 

Farewell to Peaceful Private Life

We’re not just talking money eagerly squandered. That may prove the least of it. More importantly, the fundamental values of American democracy—particularly the right to lead an autonomous private life—have been compromised with grim efficiency. The weaponry and tactics now routinely employed by police are visible evidence of this.

Yes, it’s true that Montgomery County, Texas, has purchased a weapons-capable drone. (They say they’ll only arm it with tasers, if necessary.) Yes, it’s true that the Tampa police have beefed up the force with an eight-ton armored personnel carrier, augmenting two older tanks the department already owns. Yes, the Fargo police are ready with bomb detection robots and Chicago boasts a network of at least 15,000 interlinked surveillance cameras.

New York City’s 34,000-member police force is now the ground zero of a growing outcry over rampant secret spying on Muslim students and communities up and down the East Coast. It has been a big beneficiary of federal security largesse. Between 2003 and 2010, the city received more than $1.1 billion through Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program. And that’s only one of the grant programs funneling such money to New York.

The Obama White House itself has directly funded part of the New York Police Department’s anti-Muslim surveillance program. Top officials of New York’s finest have, however, repeatedly refused to disclose just how much anti-terrorism money it has been spending, citing, of course, security.

Can New York City ever be “secure”? Mayor Michael Bloomberg boasted recently with obvious satisfaction: “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-largest army in the world.” That would be the Vietnamese army actually, but accuracy isn’t the point. The smugness of the boast is. And meanwhile the money keeps pouring in and the “security” activities only multiply.

Why, for instance, are New York cops traveling to Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Newark, New Jersey, to spy on ordinary Muslim citizens,  who have nothing to do with New York and are not suspected of doing anything? For what conceivable purpose does Tampa want an eight-ton armored vehicle? Why do Texas sheriffs north of Houston believe one drone—or a dozen, for that matter—will make Montgomery County a better place? What manner of thinking conjures up a future that requires such hardware? We have entered a dark world that demands an inescapable battery of closed-circuit, networked video cameras trained on ordinary citizens strolling Michigan Avenue.

This is not simply a police issue. Law enforcement agencies may acquire the equipment and deploy it, but city legislators and executives must approve the expenditures and the uses. State legislators and bureaucrats refine the local grant requests. Federal officials, with endless input from national security and defense vendors and lobbyists, appropriate the funds.

Doubters are simply swept aside (while legions of security and terrorism pundits spin dread-inducing fantasies), and ultimately, the American people accept and live with the results. We get what we pay for—Mayor Bloomberg’s “army,” replicated coast to coast. 

Budgets Tell the Story

Militarized thinking is made manifest through budgets, which daily reshape political and bureaucratic life in large and small ways. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, then–Attorney General John Ashcroft, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, used this formula to define the new American environment and so the thinking that went with it: “Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities—plotting, planning, and waiting to kill again.” To counter that, the government had urgently embarked on “a wartime reorganization,” he said, and was “forging new relationships of cooperation with state and local law enforcement.”

While such visionary Ashcroftian rhetoric has cooled in recent years, the relationships and funding he touted a decade ago have been institutionalized throughout government—federal, state, and local—as well as civil society. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, with a total 2012 budget of about $57 billion, is the most obvious example of this.

That budget only hints at what’s being doled out for homeland security at the federal level. Such moneys flow not just from Homeland Security, but from the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commerce Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense.

In 2010, the Office of Management and Budget reckoned that thirty-one separate federal agencies were involved in homeland security-related funding that year to the tune of more than $65 billion. The Census Bureau, which has itself been compromised by War on Terror activities—mapping Middle Eastern and Muslim communities for counter-terrorism officials—estimated that federal homeland security funding topped $70 billion in 2010. But government officials acknowledge that much funding is not included in that compilation. (Grants made through the $5.6 billion Project BioShield, to offer but one example, an exotic vaccination and medical program launched in 2004, are absent from the total.)

Even the estimate of more than $635 billion in such expenditures does not tell the full spending story. That figure does not include the national intelligence or military intelligence budgets for which the Obama administration is seeking $52.6 billion and $19.6 billion respectively in 2013, or secret parts of the national security budget, the so-called black budget.

Local funding is also unaccounted for. New York’s Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly claims total national homeland security spending could easily be near a trillion dollars. Money well spent, he says—New York needs that anti-terror army, the thousands of surveillance cameras, those sophisticated new weapons and, naturally, a navy that now includes six drone submarines (thanks to $540,000 in Homeland Security cash) to keep an eye on the terrorist threat beneath the waves.

And even that’s not enough.

“We have a new boat on order,” Kelly said recently, alluding to a bullet-proof vessel paid for by, yes, Homeland Security (cost unspecified). “We envision a situation where we may have to get to an island or across water quickly, so we’re able to transport our heavy weapons officers rapidly. We have to do things differently. We know that this is where terrorists want to come.”

With submarines available to those who protect and serve (and grab the grant money), a simple armored SWAT carrier should hardly raise an eyebrow. The Tampa police will get one as part of their security buildup before the city hosts the Republican convention this summer. Tampa and Charlotte, which will host the Democratic convention, each received special $50 million security allocations from Congress to “harden” the cities.

Marc Hamlin, Tampa’s assistant police chief, told the Tampa city council that two old tanks, already owned and operated by the police, were simply not enough. They were just too unreliable. “Thank God we have two, because one seems to break down every week,” he lamented.

Not everyone on the council seemed convinced Tampa needed a truck sheathed in 1.5-inch high-grade steel, and featuring ballistic glass panels, blast shields and powered turrets. City Council Vice Chairwoman Mary Mulhern claimed she found the purchase “kind of troubling,” a sign that Tampa is becoming “militarized.” Then she voted to approve it anyway, along with the other council members. Hamlin was pleased. “It’s one of those things where you prepare for the worst, and you hope for the best,” he explained.

When Mulhern suggested that some of the windfall $50 million might be used to help the city’s growing homeless population, Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn set her straight. “We can’t be diverted from what the appropriate use of that money is, and that is to provide a safe environment for the convention. It’s not to be used for pet projects or things totally unrelated to security.”

Tampa will also be spending more than $1 million for state of the art digital video uplinks to surveillance helicopters. (“Analog technology is almost Stone Age,” commented one approving council member.) Another $2 million will go to install sixty surveillance cameras on city streets. That represents an uncharacteristic pullback from the city’s initial plan to acquire more than 230 cameras as well as two drones at a cost of about $5 million. Even the police deemed that too expensive—for the moment.

All of this hardware will remain in Tampa after the Republicans and any protestors are long gone. What use will it serve then? In the Tampa area, the armored truck will join the armored fleet, police officials said, ferrying SWAT teams on calls and protecting police serving search warrants. In the past, Hamlin claimed, Tampa’s tanks have been shot at. He did not mention that crime rates in Tampa and across Florida are at four-decade lows.

The video surveillance cameras will, of course, also stay in place, streaming digitized images to an ever-growing database, where they will be stored waiting for the day when facial recognition software is employed to mix and match. This strategy is being followed all over the country, including in Chicago, with its huge video surveillance network, and New York City, where all of Lower Manhattan is now on camera.

Tampa has already been down this road once in the post-9/11 era. The city was home to a much-watched experiment in using such software. Images taken by cameras installed on the street were to be matched with photographs in a database of suspects. The system failed completely and was scrapped in 2003. On the other hand, sheriffs in the Tampa Bay area are currently using facial recognition software to match photographs snapped by police on the street with a database of suspects with outstanding warrants. Police are excited by that program and look forward to its future expansion. 

The Rise of the Fusion Centers

Homeland Security has played a big role in creating one particularly potent element in the nation’s expanding database network. Working with the Department of Justice in the wake of 9/11, it launched what has grown into seventy-two interlinked state “fusion centers”—repositories for everything from Immigration Customs Enforcement data and photographs to local police reports and even gossip. “Suspicious Activity Reports” gathered from public tipsters—thanks to Homeland Security’s “if you see something, say something” program—are now flowing into state centers. Those fusion centers are possibly the greatest facilitators of dish in history and have vast potential for disseminating dubious information and stigmatizing purely political activity. And most Americans have never even heard of them.

Yet fusion centers now operate in every state, centralizing intelligence gathering and facilitating dissemination of material of every sort across the country. Here is where information gathered by cops and citizens, FBI agents and immigration officers goes to fester. It is a staggering load of data, unevenly and sometimes questionably vetted, and it is ultimately available to any state or local law-enforcement officer, any immigration agent or official, any intelligence or security bureaucrat with a computer and network access.

The idea for these centers grew from the notion that agencies needed to share what they knew in an “unfettered” environment. How comforting to know that the walls between intelligence and law enforcement are breached in an essentially unregulated fashion.

Many other states have monitored antiwar activists, gathering and storing names and information. Texas and other states have stored “intelligence” on Muslims. Pennsylvania gathered reports on opponents of natural gas drilling. Florida has scrutinized supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul. The list of such questionable activities is very long. We have no idea how much dubious data has been squirreled away by authorities and remains within the networked system. But we do know that information pours into it with relative ease and spreads like an oil slick. Cleaning up and removing the mess is another story entirely.

Anyone who wants to learn something about fusion center funding will also find it maddeningly difficult to track. Not even the Homeland Security Department can say with certainty how much of its own money has gone into these data nests over the last decade. The amounts are staggering, however. From 2004 to 2009 alone, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that states used about $426 million in Homeland Security Department grants to fund fusion-related activities nationally. The centers also receive state and local funds, as well as funds from other federal agencies. How much? We don’t know, although GAO data suggest state and local funding at least equals the Homeland Security share.

Yet, as Tampa, New York City and other urban areas bulk up with high-tech anti-terrorism equipment and fusion centers have proliferated, the number of even remotely “terror-related” incidents has declined. The equipment acquired and projects inaugurated to fend off largely imaginary threats is instead increasingly deployed to address ordinary criminal activity, perceived political disruptions and the tracking and surveillance of American Muslims. The Transportation Safety Administration is now even patrolling highways. It could be called a case of mission creep, but the more accurate description might be bait-and-switch.

The chances of an American dying in a terrorist incident in a given year are one in 3.5 million. To reduce that risk, to make something minuscule even more minuscule, what has the nation spent? What has it cost us? Instead of rebuilding a ravaged American city in a timely fashion or making Americans more secure in their “underwater” homes and their disappearing jobs, we have created militarized police forces, visible evidence of police-state-style funding.

[Note on Sources and Further Reading: The following documents can all be found in pdf format by clicking on “here”: the UC Davis Comprehensive Emergency Management plan here, Census Bureau figures on Homeland Security spending here, a report on questionable fusion center actions here, the GAO report on fusion centers here, a report on the decline in the terrorist threat here and Congressional testimony favoring counterterrorism “mission creep” here.]

Students Encouraged to Use Smart Cards for Public Transit

Taiwan's Smart Ticketing Transit System Set for 2010 Launch

August 23, 2010

sQuid - The new integrated transit card system in Taiwan could be fully operational by the end of the year, it has been reported.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) confirmed that the residents may be able to use the contactless smart cards shortly if there are no technical issues, reports focustaiwan.tw.

Passengers will be able to seamlessly travel across the country's bus and rail network using a single card.

The MOTC will provide NT$550 million (£11 million) in grants to subsidise the cost of installing card readers.

Transport operators will receive between 30 and 49 per cent of the cost of the devices, depending on the number of readers which are required and the amount of time it takes to install them.

Around 22 million smart cards have been issued in Taiwan, including 18 million Easycards, a contactless transit card, in the city of Tapei.

South African Bus Operator Rolls Out Contactless Ticketing System

August 20, 2010

Engineering News - Bus operator Buscor says that its new ticketing system, developed by business process and information technology services company Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), aims to improve passenger and operational efficiency.

ACS has been commissioned by Buscor to install its Atlas contactless ticketing system on about 400 buses in Mpumalanga province, which services almost 160 000 passengers daily. Contactless ticketing is convenient for passengers, who can board buses with the wave of a fare card, and it is efficient for Buscor, which receives fare transaction information from buses in real time. Further, ACS will deploy South Africa’s first touch-screen driver consoles in Buscor’s buses.

The 14-month project includes system design, customisation, training and the installation of the system. ACS will work closely with Buscor to ensure a seamless transition to the new technology.

Buscor information technology manager Johann Bester says that the ACS contactless ticketing system has proven to be successful and the hardware and software are well supported.

“The technology will assist us in decreasing costs and the improved tracking of activities on the system will also help to control fraud,” he adds.

The implementation makes it possible for the growth of the ACS system, including interoperability with other local bus operators.

ACS transportation solutions key account manager Mathias Serre says that this state-of-the-art solution was designed to improve secure cash collections and better reporting, and create future opportunities.

Jamaican Students Travel Smart with Cashless Bus Fare

The Jamaica Urban Transit Company (JUTC) is pushing for more student commuters to use its smart card system for paying fares on buses, according to the Jamaica Information Service. The system enables parents to deposit an allowance on the card to cover bus fares, and reports back the child’s usage. An official from the JUTC notes, the card allows parents to better manage their children’s finances and monitor their location, as they are able to receive details from the JUTC.

August 23, 2010

Jamaica Information Service - With the start of the new academic year less than three weeks away, the Jamaica Urban Transit Company (JUTC) is encouraging commuters, especially students, to use the Smart Card to make their travel easier.

In an interview with JIS News, Corporate Communications Manager at the JUTC, Mr. Reginald Allen, says that the card provides a safe way of paying fares on the buses.

"It offers security and convenience both for the parents and students," he says.

He notes that the card also allows parents to better manage their children's finances and monitor their whereabouts, as they are able to receive a report from the JUTC, indicating usage of the card by the child.

"Essentially, a parent can put a monthly amount on a card to cover transportation and be reassured that the child will not only be going where they should be going but also, you have a means of monitoring that," he says.

He notes further that parents "can be assured that the level of service that the JUTC offers would be in sync with what you consider to be appropriate for your children so that you will not be there wondering which bus they are in and under what condition and what kind of environment."

Parent and user of the Smart Card, Ms. Althea Plummer, says that the card makes it easier to pay fares.

"Sometimes, you give them (bus conductor) like a $500 or so and they don't have any change, so if you have the card, you just take it out and give (it to) them," she says.

Ms. Plummer tells JIS News that she also allows her daughter, Marsha, to use the JUTC Smart Card.

Marsha says that one of the most important aspects of the card is that it serves as an anti-theft device, as, instead of persons having to go into purses or wallets on a crowed bus to retrieve cash, which makes them vulnerable to criminals, they can simply use the card.

"You can just put on money that you know will last for like the whole month and you don't have to think of bus fare or anything cause it's on the smart card," she notes further.

Since December 2002, passengers of the state-run bus company have had the option of paying their fares with the electronic Smart Card, which is economical and makes travel efficient, and more convenient.

JUTC Marketing and Sales Manager, JUTC, Lenworth Simms, tells JIS News that upon purchasing a Smart Card, it will be personalised, so that it can be easily replaced in the event that it gets lost or is damaged.

"We personalise the card free of charge to each card holder, which means that we link the name and telephone number of the cardholder to the card. If the card is damaged or gets lost, what will happen is that we can replace the card with the balance that was on the card at the point that the card was lost," he explains.

Persons wishing to obtain cards for the new school year can do so at any of the more than 40 Smart Card dealers located in Corporate Area, and St. Catherine. Among the locations are Portmore Mall and the Spanish Town Lay-By in St. Catherine; and the Half-Way-Tree-Transport Centre, in Kingston.

The bus company offers a 10 per cent bonus to persons, who top up their cards with $500 or more, at any of the centres controlled by the bus company.

"If you put on $500, we give you $550 worth of travel time, if you put on $1,000 we give you $1,100.so that is something that we are pushing for students," Mr. Simms says.

Mobile Technology is Tracking You (Healthcare, Automotive, Transportation, Electricity Usage)

Beyond mobile: Telcos hook up hospitals, cars and coffeemakers

December 9, 2012

Reuters - In Barcelona's Hospital Del Mar, Telefonica is doing more than connecting phone lines - it is also developing a lucrative new business keeping patients' hearts in good shape.

A heart-monitoring program put in place by Telefonica is just one kind of machine-to-machine (M2M) technology that telecom operators are racing to develop for sectors including healthcare, automotive, transportation and energy.

Carriers such as Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom, AT&T, Verizon, China Mobile, and France Telecom are betting that M2M will be a significant source of growth as the number of connected devices climbs to 12 billion or more by 2020.

In cars, for example, mobile technology can be used to automatically call emergency services after a road accident. In offices, France Telecom uses it to tell companies when their coffee machines need re-stocking, while energy companies are equipping homes with 'smart meters' to track consumption and permit differential pricing.

The potential prize is billions of dollars in new business for telecom groups, many of which are otherwise faced with declining sales, and the promise of big cost savings for their customers.

Yet turning the 'Internet of Things' into a real business will not be easy for big telcos, since the market is far more complicated than their traditional sales of mobile and Internet contracts to consumers and companies.

To succeed, they have to develop an understanding of a range of industries, their specific needs and regulatory constraints. They also have to outfox a phalanx of new competitors such as start-ups in Silicon Valley, app developers, and corporate giants like IBM, General Electric and Philips.

Analysts' forecasts vary widely on the size of the M2M market and how much of it telcos can win, since the biggest opportunity comes not from putting a mobile SIM card in devices but from providing the software and services to make them work.

Machina Research predicts revenue of 714 billion euros ($933 billion) by 2020 for M2M overall. Informa Telecoms & Media's Jamie Moss says the market is growing slowly and will reach 217 million connections and $9.3 billion for telcos by end 2014. They earned $5.7 billion from M2M this year, dwarfed by the roughly $1.14 trillion from mobile services in the same period.

"I am very convinced that M2M will be a profit driver," said Matthew Key, who heads Telefonica's digital unit, which aims to earn 500-800 million euros in annual M2M revenue by 2015.

"But we need to sell more than just basic connectivity by adding know-how and a complete service, and build the business locally step by step."

NEW TERRITORY

The opportunity and the challenges for telcos in M2M are on display at the Hospital Del March. Every morning, patients recovering from heart attacks use equipment installed in their homes by Telefonica to weigh themselves, take their blood pressure and answer a few questions on their symptoms via a touch screen. The information is transmitted to nurses at the seaside hospital's cardiac unit who follow up by phone if they have any concerns.

The program has had a positive effect on mortality rates, reduced hospital visits and saved 9,000 euros per cardiac patient since it began two years ago, according to doctors. Nurse Ana Linas said the system was so simple to use that an illiterate elderly woman was among the patients able to use it.Yet the hospital, which experienced some video connectivity problems that were quickly resolved by Telefonica, has no plans to expand the project because of the costs involved.

"You have to hire trained people so that it all works. Although costs fall a lot later on, the initial investment is high in staff and equipment," said doctor Cristina Enjuanes.

With budgets under pressure and doctors often reluctant, getting the investment needed to roll out telehealth schemes can be an uphill struggle.

Telefonica wants to roll out the heart-monitoring program elsewhere in Spain and is also investing heavily in projects in Britain with the National Health Service.

"I cannot tell you when it will ramp up. What I can feel is that we are getting closer to it ... We will know soon the speed at which demand will move, and whether there is finally an opportunity to create a totally new (business) category," said Jose Perdomo, head of Telefonica's e-Health division.

Telefonica has had more success rolling out e-health in Latin American markets such as Brazil and Chile, where more medical care is provided via the private sector than in Europe.

CARS AND HOMES

The M2M gold rush has sent some telcos on the acquisition trail to get technology and expertise. AT&T bought U.S. start-up Xanboo and has used its technology to develop security services for the home, as well as tools for homeowners to control their heating, lighting and appliances from a mobile phone.

Verizon paid $612 million in June for Hughes Telematics and plans to build on the company's expertise in M2M software for tracking truck fleets, as well as crash detection, emergency calling, and maintenance needs for cars. Hughes has a worldwide contract with Volkswagen and a U.S. contract with Mercedes.

John Stratton, Verizon's vice-president for enterprise, said the Hughes deal would allow it to gain know-how in the software needed to boost the profitability of M2M contracts beyond the few dollars earned from the connection itself.

"If we only transport the bits of data in M2M projects, that has relatively modest value, less than 10 percent of the market opportunity overall," he said in an interview.

"The next big piece is the solutions on top, which is what motivated us to buy Hughes."

Korea Telecom's experience launching a taxi fleet management service powered by M2M technology demonstrates the point. Initially it earned about $5 a month per taxi for tracking taxi locations with mobile technology. It boosted that to $50 per month and signed five-year instead of two-year contracts by selling a software platform and call center as a package with the taxi tracking.

Telefonica invested 2 million euros in a Spanish start-up called addFleet that makes a free taxi-calling app for consumers, and a paid version for taxi owners to track cars.

"There is no global market for taxi cabs, so you need to go local first," said Telefonica Digital chief Key.

Martin Garner, an analyst at consultancy CCS Insight, said telecom operators would have to adapt if they are to succeed in making M2M a mass technology, adding that for now the market was growing slower than they would have hoped.

"We do think there is a big world in M2M for the telcos," said Garner. "But they have to go and take it: it will not come to them."

($1 = 0.7652 euros)

White House OKs Mandate for Vehicle ‘Black Boxes’

NHTSA gets White House OK to mandate vehicle 'black boxes'

December 6, 2012

Detroit News - The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to finalize a long-awaited proposal to make event data recorders standard on all new vehicles.

In a notice posted Thursday, the White House Office of Management Budget said it has completed a review of the proposal to make so-called vehicle "black boxes" mandatory in all cars and trucks, clearing the way for NHTSA to publish its final regulation.

Nearly all vehicles currently have the devices.

NHTSA's proposed rule, which would raise the percentage of vehicles required to have an EDR from 91.6 percent today to 100 percent of light-duty autos, would have an incremental cost of nearly $24.4 million, assuming the sale of 15.5 million light vehicles per year.

In 2010, Congress considered requiring EDRs in all vehicles by legislation.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — the trade group representing Detroit's Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Corp, and Volkswagen AG — said the government needs to take into account driver privacy.

"Event data recorders help our engineers understand how cars perform in the real world but looking forward, we need to make sure we preserve privacy. Automakers do not access EDR data without consumer permission, and any government requirements to install EDRs on all vehicles must include steps to protect consumer privacy," said spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist.

In February 2011, NHTSA said in a White House report that it would make a proposal by the end of 2011 making EDRs mandatory.

That proposal was delayed at the White House Office of Management Budget for more than a year without comment.

NHTSA said in August the agency was still working on making EDRs mandatory.

"The agency has made it a priority to work toward a proposed standard that would mandate these devices on all passenger vehicles on the nation's roadways," spokeswoman Lynda Tran said.

"NHTSA remains committed to proposing a standard in the coming months that will help save lives by ensuring both automakers and the agency have the necessary data to make continued improvements in vehicle safety." NHTSA says the "rulemaking to mandate EDRs across the entire light-vehicle fleet could contribute to advancements in vehicle designs, and advanced restraint and other safety countermeasures."

Many automakers already include them in all vehicles, including General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Toyota and Mazda Motor Co.

Different automakers collect different data. In 2009, not all Toyota EDRs recorded both pre- and post-crash data. By the end of last year, all Toyota and Lexus vehicles included EDRs that can record both.

In May 2010, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers endorsed making EDRs mandatory in all vehicles, but expressed concerns that some in Congress wanted more elaborate and expensive ones than are available.

The devices have been in use for about 20 years.

GM began widely installing the predecessor version of today's event data recorders in vehicles in the 1990 model year, and they became standard equipment in light-duty vehicles in the 1995 model year.

NHTSA previously issued a new regulation standardizing data collection for event data recorders.

The rule, issued in August 2006, took effect for the 2013 model year that started Sept. 1, standardizes the information EDRs collect and makes retrieving the data easier. Devices must record 15 data elements, including vehicle deceleration, in specific formats.

The recorders collect data for the seconds of a crash, including whether the driver is wearing a seatbelt, speed and whether the brakes were applied.

Flashback: ‘Big Brother’ Is Watching Malaysia

‘Big Brother’ Is Watching Malaysia

September 26, 2009

thestar.com.my - Malaysian motorists generally follow traffic rules only when they see policemen around, but with the proposed Automated Enforcement System (AES), the enforcement officers will be watching, even if they are not on the scene. Hundreds of cameras will become the “eyes” of these policemen.

The system will transmit to a control centre photographs and videos of motorists committing traffic offences.

The centre will then issue the summonses. The unmanned cameras will be located at 831 spots around the country.

Road Transport Department director-general Datuk Solah Mat Hassan said the proposed system would help the Government lower the number of deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles to two from 3.7 in 2007. There are currently 17.971 million vehicles on the road.

Once the Cabinet gives its green light on the AES, the system could be set up in a month, although full implementation could take about two years, said a source.

“Realistically, after taking into account some government bureaucracy, it should take about four months for AES to issue its first summons,” the source said, adding that the AES was estimated to cost more than RM300mil.

JPJ and other agencies had conducted a demonstration of the system in 2007 at the Guthrie Corridor and Putrajaya.

Solah told a media briefing that the AES was a “foolproof system” which used very high resolution cameras which were linked to sensors on the road.

Besides speeding, the system can detect offenders who beat the traffic lights, overtake on the left or across double lines, tailgate, drive on the emergency lane and even overload.

Presently, the police use 140 laser digital cameras, which are portable and manually operated.

“They cannot be used when it rains and they are not automatic. If three vehicles are speeding at the same time, the device can only snap one as the policeman has to aim the camera at the car.

“The AES can shoot (images) of all three, it can also take photos of motorcycles. The system can also differentiate between a commercial vehicle and a private vehicle,” he said.

“We will put up signs. The AES is not to collect revenue (from summonses), but to make road users behave,” Solah said.

Related:

Implementing automated enforcement systems (AES) -- red light cameras and speeding cameras -- under the guise of traffic safety and saving lives

Automated enforcement is the use of image capture technology to monitor and/or to enforce traffic control laws. It can be used to combat aggressive driving behaviors such as speeding or running red lights. Testimony by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administrator (Martinez, 1997) several years ago pointed out that about one-third of all crashes and two-thirds of the resulting fatalities in the United States are attributed to aggressive driving behaviors. Aggressive driving is often manifest in irresponsible driving behaviors such as speeding, running red lights, and tailgating. Increased enforcement of traffic laws is viewed as a potential solution for aggressive driving, but in reality, conventional law enforcement has not been able to keep pace with increased traffic volumes and vehicle mileage. This concern has prompted the traffic safety community and public entities in the United States and around the world to promote and use automated enforcement to improve general deterrence of aggressive driving and compliance with traffic laws; to reduce resource-intensive traditional enforcement; and to decrease high-risk enforcement methods associated with high-speed pursuits of traffic control law violators.

While there are many issues surrounding the use of automated enforcement systems (AES), including: legal (e.g., privacy, distribution of ticket revenue, ticketing procedures, legislative enactment of laws, etc.); public education and community support; and technology performance and efficiencies, the purpose of this study is to validate the effectiveness (and impact) of AES deployments which have been scientifically evaluated and documented in the research literature.

Excessive speeding, red light running, and other aggressive and high-risk driving behaviors are leading causes of crash fatalities and injuries in the United States (Retting, 1999). Traditional law enforcement alone is not enough to deter violators. The use of AES is a potentially effective way to deter high-risk driving behaviors. The goal of AES is to significantly increase the objective and perceived chances of being caught, thus creating a change in behavior that will translate into a crash reduction, whether it applies to running red lights, speeding, or other aggressive driving behaviors. While AES technology has been used in many applications, the two most common AES applications are fixed and mobile cameras for speeding, and fixed cameras at intersections for red light running violations.

Location of Intervention:

New South Wales, Australia
Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Friesland Province, the Netherlands
Nationwide, United Kingdom
Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Great Britain, United Kingdom
South Wales, United Kingdom
Queensland, Australia
British Columbia, Canada
Christchurch, New Zealand
Norway
Victoria, Australia

United States:

Greensboro, North Carolina
High Point, North Carolina
Howard County, Maryland
Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Talking Surveillance Cameras Coming to U.S. Streets

Talking Surveillance Cameras Coming to U.S. Streets

‘Intellistreets’ system now being installed with DHS backing

May 14, 2012

Infowars.com - Talking surveillance cameras that bark orders at passers-by and can also record conversations are heading for U.S. streets, with manufacturer Illuminating Concepts announcing the progress of its ‘Intellistreets’ system.

As we first reported last year, high tech street lights with “homeland security applications” are now being installed in major U.S. cities.

The street lights also have loudspeakers that can give audible warnings to individuals, mimicking the talking surveillance cameras in the UK that shout out orders through microphones telling people to pick up litter or leave the area.

A recent press release put out by Amerlux announces the company’s partnership with Illuminating Concepts to further advance the rollout of ‘Intellistreets’. The announcement confirms that the street lights will have a number of “homeland security features” including a loudspeaker system that will be used to “engage captive audiences”.

“The built-in speaker can broadcast emergency information,” states the press release, adding, “SmartSite luminaires can be equipped with a variety of cameras and sensors to ensure real-time 24/7-security coverage. The sensors detect a variety of threats that enable rapid response from emergency personnel or help prevent crime and gain control of the streets.”

The press release adds that the SmartSite system developed to operate the ‘Intellistreets’ surveillance hubs is intended not only for street lighting but also for “retail malls, sports venues, on college campuses, and in new construction,” and “might well become commonplace” in the near future.

Not only can the street lights, now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and Pittsburgh with Department of Energy backing, act as surveillance cameras, Minority Report-style advertising hubs, and Homeland Security alert systems, they are “also capable of recording conversations,” according to a report by ABC 7.

The ABC video clip, featured at the end of this article, includes creepy footage of the street lights being used to transmit Orwellian security alerts, including “pay attention please….please stand by for a public safety announcement,” and “this is a security alert”.

Illuminating Concepts responded to the controversy over ‘Intellistreets’ last year by ludicrously claiming the system did not represent a “big brother” intrusion, as if talking surveillance cameras that also record private conversations are a perfectly normal concept.

The company also denied that it had received funding from the Department of Homeland Security yet subsequent reports confirmed that owner Ron Harwood is now “working with Homeland Security” to implement the high tech network, which is connected via a ubiquitous wi-fi system.

In reality, the system represents Big Brother on steroids – George Orwell’s worst nightmare come to life with interconnected wireless ‘telescreens’ blanketing America, all in the name of safety and security.

Related:

Orwellian ‘Intellistreets’ Being Rolled Out in Major U.S. Cities with the Dept. of Energy Backing (Promoting the Concept as a Green Initiative Rather Than Its True Purpose of Electronic Surveillance -- We are Funding Our Own Enslavement)

Police are Using Mobile and Stationary Surveillance Cameras to Collect and Store License Plates

License Plate Tracking Spreads beyond Criminal Suspects

May 8, 2012

All Gov - From Tennessee to the District of Columbia, police are using mobile and stationary surveillance cameras to collect and store license plates of residents who have committed no crime—so that they can be found if they ever do.

In Tennessee, police utilize cameras mounted atop patrol cars that can capture thousands of license numbers each day. The information is then loaded into an ever-expanding database, which can help officers locate a vehicle in the event its owner is suspected of criminal behavior. The program is now expanding to include stationary cameras mounted next to busy roads.

“I’m sure that there’s going to be people out there that say this is an invasion of privacy,” Detective James Kemp of Gallatin County told The Tennessean. But “the possibilities are endless there for solving crimes. It’s just a multitude of information out there—to not tap into it to better protect your citizens, that’s ludicrous.”

In Washington D.C., local police make use of 250 cameras set up around the city that can capture license plates. Last year they claimed that the cameras led to an average of one arrest a day. DC reportedly has the highest concentration of cameras per square mile in the United States for spotting criminals on the move or just ordinary citizens going about their lives.

Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union’s technology and liberty program, expressed concern over D.C.’s “large database of innocent people’s comings and goings.” He told The Washington Post:

“The government has no business collecting that kind of information on people without a warrant.”

Others predict that the technology will be declared constitutional because license plates are displayed in public, so there is no invasion of privacy.