Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ted I Lewis on August 23, 2012 at 7:22am

Where is the backup for this story? Or is it another red flag bull#hit post? What was the saying? Facts Dan-o. Just the facts!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on August 23, 2012 at 1:21pm

Hiya Thread the needle.

I think what Ted is looking for is more than the story found on Mike Adams website which links to an original story from infowars of 2009 prior to the 2010 census.

http://www.infowars.com/infowars-reader-receives-threatening-letter...

A census every 10 years IS very much a part of American culture and a requirement very clearly spelled out in OUR constitution.

We should be always aware of any abuse that could come from some bureucrats with too much information. If you find any specific abuse taking place that we can use to charge someone with a crime, please let me for one know.

Thanks and respectful regards,
Chancy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ted I Lewis on August 28, 2012 at 8:13am

Thank you Chancy! At least you understand! So much crap-red flags-hearsay or the best " I was told!!! " gets on sites like this. But like you pointed out, they NEVER HAVE THE BACKUP!!!!! Thanks again Chancy. Take care. Cover your ass. As Always. " I live my life. That when my feet hit the floor in the morning, the devil and muslims say " OH CRAP!!! HE IS AWAKE!!! " P.S.---- infowars is one site I WILL NOT GO TO!!!!! Jones could give a rats ass about our country!!! All he cares about? MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! Just look at his site! BUY THIS BUY THAT! WANT THE WHOLE STORY? BUY IT!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Sowle on August 24, 2012 at 3:31am

There is no basis under tthe law for the census to list race. Myself and many others I know answered the illegal question with one word "American".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by big bird on August 24, 2012 at 3:52am

Under any form asking for my race always put " This is violation of my Civil Rights to classify or segregate me into a group based on the color of my skin". Shuts them up everytime. I am an American citizen, thats all you need to know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chancy Yardbird on August 24, 2012 at 1:00pm

I agree that there is no law of nature nor of nature's God that requires such nonsense. But here's what the bureucrats think about man's law in America regarding the 10 year census and the inbetweeners.

In Article 1, Section 2, the Constitution includes the phrase:

[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Congress first met in 1789, and the first national census was held in 1790.

There was actually some debate about whether, how, and on what timetable a census should have been held. In early 1790, several members of Congress argued against a census prior to the next election. Some in the Congress, who advocated an immediate census, noted that those who did not want one were the people from states which were generally regarded as being over-represented in the Congress based on the initial figures provided for in the Constitution. Others were concerned about the questions to be asked in the census, while others felt that more questions should be asked to get a better picture of the citizenry.

For example, on February 2, 1790, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire lamented that the proposed question about profession would be hard for his constituents to answer, since some had three or four professions, depending on the season. Connecticut Representative Theodore Sedgwick, on the same day, wondered why the questions were not extended further — "The state of society could be ascertained, perhaps, in some degree, by observing [the] proportions."

The final bill, Statute 2 of March 1, 1790, provided that census marshals and assistants be appointed. The marshals were directed to:

cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age.

The act directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves. Failure of an assistant marshal to make a return, or to make a false return, was punishable by a $200 fine. Failure of a marshal to do the same was punishable by a fine of up to $800. The questions about profession, and other information Representative Sedgwick spoke of, were not made part of the final census. Census day was set at the first Monday in August, 1790. Failure to cooperate with a marshal or assistant was punishable by a $20 fine.

Today, the controlling law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code That law requires that the census be conducted on or about April 1, 1980, and every ten years after that. The returns must be made available within nine months in order to apportion members of the House of Representatives to each of the states. In the intervening years the law requires the Census Bureau to gather statistics about the residents of the United States for use by Congress. The decennial census is provided for at 13 USC 141.

The law states that the count done in 1980 and every ten years thereafter shall be an actual headcount. The count done in the intervening years need not be an actual headcount, but may use statistical sampling methods to get a reasonable approximations of a head count.

There are fines for non-response and for false response as well, though the amount has risen from the 1790's $20. Today failure to respond can result in a $100 fine; providing false answers is a more severe offense, and carries a $500 fine. Recent news reports, however, indicate that punishment for failure to respond is not usually enforced. The controlling section of the Code is 13 USC 221.

Today, all persons are counted as whole persons — the original census counted "other persons" (slaves) as three-fifths persons for the purposes of apportionment. This fractionalization was removed by the 14th Amendment. The Attorney General ruled, in 1940, that there were no longer any Indians in the United States who could be classified as "not taxed." In the Constitution, non-taxed Indians are not counted.

The number of questions in the decennial census has varied widely since the first in 1790, where census takers logged the name, gender, and race or each member of a household, to 2000, where a multi-page form with dozens of questions was sent to one out of every six households. In 2010, the Census Bureau trimmed the questionnaire to just the basics: name, gender, race, and ethnicity or each person, and whether the dwelling was owned, rented, or "occupied without payment of rent." A more detailed list of questions, called the American Community Survey (ACS), is sent to selected households in addition to the shorter headcount forms and in non-decennial years to allow the Bureau to do statistical sampling. According to the Census Bureau, about 3 million households are selected to receive the ACS each year.

The law requires, in the case of both the decennial census and the ACS, that all households that get a form must fill it out in its entirety, under penalty. Generally speaking, the Census Bureau is not interested in levying the fine, and prefers to gather the data. If a survey is not returned, the Census can follow up by phone or with a personal visit. There is, however, the threat of a penalty for non-response. The current penalty is $100 for failure to fill out the census forms.

The authority of the Congress to conduct the census in whatever way it wishes, and thus to require that the forms be filled out is found in the Constitution itself, which notes:

[The Census] shall be made ... in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.

The Congress is also authorized to ask various questions in the census aside from the basic headcount by virtue of this clause and by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Advice to leave the form blank or to fail to fill it in may actually bring more of the government into your life than you want — as noted above, unfiled and incomplete forms will be followed-up upon by actual census workers, either in person or by telephone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RIPLEY on August 24, 2012 at 9:39am

Everyone, look around and smell the coffee....
FBI quietly forms secretive Net-surveillance unit http://t.co/uEOIaqTC

Its much worse than most folks can imagine....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RIPLEY on August 24, 2012 at 9:43am

Before they're made to delete it, read it here. Wonderful government, huh?

FBI quietly forms secretive Net-surveillance unit

CNET has learned that the FBI has formed a Domestic Communications Assistance Center, which is tasked with developing new electronic surveillance technologies, including intercepting Internet, wireless, and VoIP communications.
Declan McCullagh
by Declan McCullagh
May 22, 2012 11:44 PM PDT

98 comments
Facebook10.9K
Twitter2.1K
Linked In256
Google +
More

The FBI has recently formed a secretive surveillance unit with an ambitious goal: to invent technology that will let police more readily eavesdrop on Internet and wireless communications.

The establishment of the Quantico, Va.-based unit, which is also staffed by agents from the U.S. Marshals Service and the Drug Enforcement Agency, is a response to technological developments that FBI officials believe outpace law enforcement's ability to listen in on private communications.

While the FBI has been tight-lipped about the creation of its Domestic Communications Assistance Center, or DCAC -- it declined to respond to requests made two days ago about who's running it, for instance -- CNET has pieced together information about its operations through interviews and a review of internal government documents.

DCAC's mandate is broad, covering everything from trying to intercept and decode Skype conversations to building custom wiretap hardware or analyzing the gigabytes of data that a wireless provider or social network might turn over in response to a court order. It's also designed to serve as a kind of surveillance help desk for state, local, and other federal police.

The center represents the technological component of the bureau's "Going Dark" Internet wiretapping push, which was allocated $54 million by a Senate committee last month. The legal component is no less important: as CNET reported on May 4, the FBI wants Internet companies not to oppose a proposed law that would require social-networks and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail to build in backdoors for government surveillance.

During an appearance last year on Capitol Hill, then-FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni referred in passing, without elaboration, to "individually tailored" surveillance solutions and "very sophisticated criminals." Caproni said that new laws targeting social networks and voice over Internet Protocol conversations were required because "individually tailored solutions have to be the exception and not the rule."

Caproni was referring to the DCAC's charge of creating customized surveillance technologies aimed at a specific individual or company, according to a person familiar with the FBI's efforts in this area.

An FBI job announcement for the DCAC that had an application deadline of May 2 provides additional details. It asks applicants to list their experience with "electronic surveillance standards" including PacketCable (used in cable modems); QChat (used in push-to-talk mobile phones); and T1.678 (VoIP communications). One required skill for the position, which pays up to $136,771 a year, is evaluating "electronic surveillance solutions" for "emerging" technologies.

"We would expect that capabilities like CIPAV would be an example" of what the DCAC will create, says Steve Bock, president of Colorado-based Subsentio, referring to the FBI's remotely-installed spyware that it has used to identify extortionists, database-deleting hackers, child molesters, and hitmen.

Bock, whose company helps companies comply with the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and has consulted for the Justice Department, says he anticipates "that Internet and wireless will be two key focus areas" for the DCAC. VoIP will be a third, he says.

For its part, the FBI responded to queries this week with a statement about the center, which it also refers to as the National Domestic Communications Assistance Center (even Caproni has used both names interchangeably), saying:

The NDCAC will have the functionality to leverage the research and development efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement with respect to electronic surveillance capabilities and facilitate the sharing of technology among law enforcement agencies. Technical personnel from other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies will be able to obtain advice and guidance if they have difficulty in attempting to implement lawful electronic surveillance court orders.

It is important to point out that the NDCAC will not be responsible for the actual execution of any electronic surveillance court orders and will not have any direct operational or investigative role in investigations. It will provide the technical knowledge and referrals in response to law enforcement's requests for technical assistance.

Here's the full text of the FBI's statement in a Google+ post.

One person familiar with the FBI's procedures told CNET that the DCAC is in the process of being launched but is not yet operational. A public Justice Department document, however, refers to the DCAC as "recently established."

"They're doing the best they can to avoid being transparent"

The FBI has disclosed little information about the DCAC, and what has been previously made public about the center was primarily through budget requests sent to congressional committees. The DCAC doesn't even have a Web page.

"The big question for me is why there isn't more transparency about what's going on?" asks Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group in San Francisco. "We should know more about the program and what the FBI is doing. Which carriers they're working with -- which carriers they're having problems with. They're doing the best they can to avoid being transparent."

The DCAC concept dates back at least four years. FBI director Robert Mueller was briefed on it in early 2008, internal FBI documents show. In January 2008, Charles Smith, a supervisory special agent and section chief in the FBI's Operational Technology Division, sent e-mail to other division officials asking for proposals for the DCAC's budget.

When it comes to developing new surveillance technologies, Quantico is the U.S. government's equivalent of a Silicon Valley incubator. In addition to housing the FBI's Operational Technological Division, which boasts of developing the "latest and greatest investigative technologies to catch terrorists and criminals" and took the lead in creating the DCAC, it's also home to the FBI's Engineering Research Facility, the DEA's Office of Investigative Technology, and the U.S. Marshals' Technical Operations Group. In 2008, Wired.com reported that the FBI has "direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier's systems" through a high-speed DS-3 link to Quantico.

The Senate appropriations committee said in a report last month that, for electronic surveillance capabilities, it authorizes "$54,178,000, which is equal to both the request and the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. These funds will support the Domestic Communications Assistance Center, providing for increased coordination regarding lawful electronic surveillance amongst the law enforcement community and with the communications industry." (It's unclear whether all of those funds will go to the DCAC.)

In trying to convince Congress to spend taxpayers' dollars on the DCAC, the FBI has received help from local law enforcement agencies that like the idea of electronic surveillance aid. A Justice Department funding request for the 2013 fiscal year predicts DCAC will "facilitate the sharing of solutions and know-how among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies" and will be welcomed by telecommunications companies who "prefer to standardize and centralize electronic surveillance."

A 2010 resolution from the International Association of Chiefs of Police -- a reliable FBI ally on these topics -- requests that "Congress and the White House support the National Domestic Communications Assistance Center Business Plan."

The FBI has also had help from the Drug Enforcement Administration, which last year requested $1.5 million to fund eight additional DCAC positions. DEA administrator Michele Leonhart has said (PDF) the funds will go to "develop these new electronic surveillance capabilities." The DEA did not respond to CNET's request for comment.

An intriguing hint of where the DCAC might collaborate with the National Security Agency appeared in author James Bamford's article in the April issue of Wired magazine. Bamford said, citing an unidentified senior NSA official, that the agency has "made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems" -- an obstacle that law enforcement has encountered in investigations.

Eventually, the FBI may be forced to lift the cloak of secrecy that has surrounded the DCAC's creation. On May 2, a House of Representatives committee directed the bureau to disclose "participation by other agencies and the accomplishments of the center to date" three months after the legislation is enacted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Andrew Kerr on August 29, 2012 at 2:06pm

While this is not a "scientific poll" approximatly 70+% reply NO when I ask them if they trust our government. I wonder why that is? I am 56 years old and I have watched the degeneration of our country and government from Viet Nam on to today. I have witnessed the changes happen bit by bit and it all adds up over time till now, the government intrusion into our daily life has increased by a large percentage. So what do we do? Our voting system seems very much out of whack, no matter who we vote in it never seems to work out as promissed. Could we even take control by force, are we organized enough to present a unified front that would have the necessary power to confront those in power. We have some very serious questions to ask ourselves in the comming days, I hope we can all come up with the right answers.

Rich

• ▶ Reply