Chad Dixon, polygraph: The Obama administration doesn't want you to know how to beat a lie detector test.

I think this situation is absolutely outrageous!  It is a clear miscarriage of justice and something I never thought would happen in the United States.

I've been through quite a few polygraphs, about every 5 years from the early 1980s.  Each time I thought that the whole process was rather "shady."  If you have been through the process a few times, you'll realize that the polygraph is very unreliable.  I was told several times that I had lied, when I knew I had told the truth, for example.  It is clear that they depend upon the "mystique" around their system to try to enhance the responses of a person's body to try to determine truth or lie. Polygraphers are very polite, they dress professionally, and have a relatively standard way they do things.  Not much changed in the polygraphs I went through over my 25 year span of experience.  Yes their electronics got smaller, and their recording system went from pens on paper to electronics and digital video recording.  Polygraphers always seem to do something during the polygraph to try and get your body to respond --typically with some sort of anger.  For the tests I experienced they always treated them sort of secret.  They sent us to plain unmarked rooms and instructed us to not tell anyone what went on.  I'm suspicious that that is to try and get our bodies & minds sensitized for the test.   The whole process was typically recorded on video, or monitored by one way mirror.  There is always a mysterious "back room" of other people who have to go over the results and "get back" to you--but only if there is a problem.  You never get to meet any of the "back room" people --part of the secret!

I''m very skeptical about the value of polygraphs. I was surprised to learn that there are organizations who are not just skeptical, but are "anti-polygraph."  I've often thought that the best that a polygraph program could hope for was the deterrent effect.  People might not do something wrong, if they thought that maybe it could be uncovered in the future through a polygraph. I think it is really stretching to say that it is capable of predicting when someone will do something wrong.   When national security issues are at stake and billions of dollars of investment or lives are at stake, it is extremely important to make sure that our Government employees and contractors are honest and will not steal or reveal secrets.Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning Wikileaks have caused immeasurable harm to our country.  They didn't just embarrass our country, they did permanent damage to our intelligence system, which will seriously reduce or capability to catch terrorists, or defend against them.   It certainly would have been good to been able to prevent that from happening by determining if one of them were possibly going to expose our nation's secrets.  Examples like this, I'm sure, are very frustrating to Government security.  No mater what they do, all it takes is one person, out of hundreds of thousands, and we've blown it!  Use of polygraphs is one way of possibly protecting us from that problem -- added on top of normal background investigations and training.  However it isn't enough --and now, it is clear that we're compromising another of our freedoms by using polygraphs. Yes it is a tough trade-off!

Apparently this guy described as a normal dad and little league coach, Chad Dixon was charged with instructing people on how to beat polygraph tests.  I suspect that the so-called professional polygraph associations have rapidly pushed for this prosecution because they realize they have a "house of cards" and that this sort of situation could destroy what little believability that polygraph testing still has.   The results of polygraph aren't admissible in court already, and there is a HUGE industry of people involved in giving these tests.

Chad Dixon, polygraph: The Obama administration doesn't want you to know how to beat a lie detector test.:  I must admit, I am surprised that this prosecution is attributed to the Obama administration!  The Bush administration believed in torture, rendition, warehousing people in Guantanamo etc --but this seems to be out of character for what Obama and his administration believe in.

Clearly there is no "crime" committed if someone lies during a polygraph.  When undergoing a test we aren't "sworn to tell the truth" of course, and there are no laws requiring us to be truthful.  So now this Chad Dixon, is going to go to jail for teaching people how to lie on a polygraph! http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/30/4276087/feds-want-prison-time-in-unprecedented.html#.UjYk48Ym2So

  This seems to go against every understanding I have of what our Nation's Bill of Rights stands for.  Where do these prosecutors come from?  It is clear that first amendment rights are violated by this prosecution: http://rt.com/usa/feds-prosecuting-polygraph-teachers-599/
Clearly this person was singled out, since there are many web sites and other people who sell similar training: See this article: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/technology/gadgets/chad-dixon-gets-8-months-jail-teaching-how-beat-lie-detector-test#

I certainly hope that Chad Dixon will be defended by some organization like the ACLU who will help them take this case to the Supreme Court.  It is a shame that he "admitted" to doing it --but it would be hard to not do so  The question: is what he did a crime?  If someone can go to jail for teaching something, could we now see people go to prison for teaching how to grow marijuana?  how to refine cocaine?  How to practice yoga (that might relax someone so they could beat a polygraph test?).

JUDGE RULES IN NO-FLY LIST SUIT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO

I saw this article in today's Union Tribune, where a judge in Oregon has ruled that people do have a right to fly on an airplane.
JUDGE RULES IN NO-FLY LIST SUIT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO FLY | UTSanDiego.com  I'm totally in favor of maintaining a good security system for our US transportation system(s).  A no-fly list seems to be a reasonable approach to singling out suspicious individuals for special inspections of their bodies, carry-ons and luggage.  I'd assume that the no-fly list also includes criminals that probably are to be held or arrested if they are caught trying to pass through a security checkpoint.  However with millions of travelers, and possibly billions of records, it is likely that mistakes can be made with identity.

Over the past 12 years there have been a lot of situations where people have been stopped from flying on a plane due to mistaken identity with someone who is on the "no fly list" kept by Homeland Security.  There are many other people who are on the no fly list, who don't know they are on the list, and if they do find out they are on the list they have no way of finding out why they are on the list, or have any easy, quick way of "clearing their name."  They say that a form can be filled out on line, but there are no time limits.  Citizens can appeal to a Judicial Review" but are not permitted a hearing where evidence can be presented.

Apparently, when this type of situation has come to courts previously, the courts have determined that the citizens didn't have a "right" to fly, and could, instead, drive, take a bus, or ride a train.  So the Government was under no obligation to explain why a person is on the list, nor does the government have to provide a process to clear their name (expeditiously) This latest court ruling implies that we do have a right to fly, and maybe the Government should help provide a process for clearing names.  In this case, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown of Portland has asked for more information about the "redress" process.

I've often thought that with the internet, there must be a clear, simple process for verifying  identities and for helping people clear their name if they are on the "list" due to an error.  Photos, fingerprints, face recognition and other biometrics can be sent and verified within seconds.  You would think that Homeland Security officers at the airport could use that info to validate identity etc.  I'm sure that the Government's argument is that if they had to provide more people to perform a redress process efficiently and quickly, it would increase the cost of their operation.  That is probably true.  However, to be fair to everyone, we should agree to pay that cost as part of the necessary costs for our security.

It will be interesting to see what happens based upon this ruling.  Will it go up to the US Supreme Court?

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board --Exists, but no teeth!

I just read in the Wall Street Journal about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).  I doubt if most citizens even knew it existed.  However it is in the "hot seat" now!  Here's info from Wikipedia: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:.  It is pretty clear that the PCLOB is pretty much overwhelmed with their responsibility and limited resources available to them.  See this blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/a_problem_with.html  Yeah, terrorism is one of the worse invasions of privacy and civil liberties -- however we shouldn't just give "carte blanch" to our defense & police agencies. It is important to strike a balance.

Yes, all of the agencies should be required to publish a plan for how they handle privacy and civil liberties.  The plan should be updated every 4 or 5 years --that is eternity in compared to our technology revolution.   The "top level" plans should be unclassified.  However the agencies can have classified plans that are "consistent" with the top level plan.  Those top and second level plans should be reviewed by the PCLOB, and at least one committee from Congress and the Senate as well as being approved by the Attorney General.

Then, the agencies should be held to following their plans.  They should be audited by their own inspector general, and have sample inspections done by the Attorney General and the GAO.

The PCLOB should have it's staff beefed up to be able to handle this responsibility.  It should also be required to publish a report to Congress, at least every two years, that describes the status of the agencies in writing their plans, getting them approved and how well they are actually following their own plans

Poll: NSA Oversight Is Inadequate, Most Americans Say

Snowden has sparked a lively discussion about the complex trade-offs between American's right to privacy and protection from terrorists. This article in Huffington Post now points out that most people are upset that NSA is spying on us.  Poll: NSA Oversight Is Inadequate, Most Americans Say:  Andrew Bracevich wrote an editorial  that asks the question: Are Snowden and Manning heroes or criminals?

However, I believe the problem could be much larger than just NSA.  The current "flap" is about NSA listening in on international communications and accidentally picking up American citizens communications and metadata. However, FBI, DEA, Treasury Dept, IRS, Border Patrol, etc all have opportunities to gather similar data and make similar "mistakes."  State and local agencies also have huge databases of metadata and opportunities to use it inappropriately.  Sandag in San Diego has a database of all car license plates and their locations over the past two years.  Freeway and bridge tolling companies know every vehicle that passed by. Telephone companies have all billing records.  Credit card companies have records of everything we ever purchased.  All of this information could be very valuable in catching or prosecuting bad guys.  But it could also be abused.

I also believe that we won't be protected from abuse as long as oversight is only performed by a secret court, by secret judges, with secret results.  I'm sure that if the Government intentionally or accidentally listened in on my telephone conversation, or read my e-mail, they would want that fact to be kept secret "forever."  The agency would argue that it would not want it's espionage methods and procedures to be made public, because it could tip the hands of people with something to hide.  However unless judges know that at some time in the future their decisions will be made public, they will not make balanced decisions.

The databases of metadata, and the new technologies are a treasure trove for law enforcement.  It would be crazy to not be able to take advantage of them when fighting crime, whether it is terrorism or income tax evasion.  On the other hand, we need to implement adequate checks & balances in the system to protect citizens from inappropriate violations of privacy.

The only way of doing that is to:
1. Establish a system that is clearly open, with accountable judges and staff who rotate frequently
2. Document public guidelines for use of these new technologies, and allow for "secret" guidelines that implement those public guidelines
3. Require declassification of collection and use of these data within reasonable timelines and allow FOIA requests for those data.  For example, I should be able to find out if NSA intentionally or inadvertently listened to my phone call 5 years ago.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse

Asset Forfeiture has been part of the fun of being in the police department or being a prosecutor.  It was first touted as a "tool" for law enforcement to use to try to penalize the "bad guys" --however law enforcement and prosecutors have found it to be rewarding to them, because they can "keep" some of the funds they are able to obtain through forfeiture.  Not only does the agency get to keep some funds, but the governmental entity also gets a share.  This provides a feedback loop where the government can "praise" the law enforcement unit for raising badly needed funds.  What has happened is that the police and prosecutors have continued to abuse this "tool" and are now infringing on American's freedoms.

Last August Steve Greenhut wrote a ccolumnolumn on why it was still on the rise.
Why Asset Forfeiture Abuse Is on the Rise - Reason.com:
Today, he wrote another, very good column that explains why public officials become profiteers: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/12/greenhut-forfeiture-law-abuse/  Brad Reid had a recent wrap up of recent forfeitures' in a Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/civil-asset-forfeiture-ch_b_3745209.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews.  Steve Lopez wrote a piece on the injustice of the Anaheim forfeiture: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0825-lopez-busted-20130825,0,5226624.column

I think most Americans would agree that a criminal should not get to keep "ill gotten gains" -- however I believe that everyone would also agree that the determination of "ill gotten" should be left to courts. Before assets are given to an agency of some level of Government, it should be determined that an individual is guilty.  Then, if a court determined that assets were gained by the criminal, then the court should also determine if any of those assets should be returned to victims, or given to some level or agency of the Government.  It may make sense, for example for assets to be used to reimburse a prosecutorial or police agency for expenses involved in arresting and prosecuting an individual found to be guilty.

The problem is that if the assets aren't "captured" or "frozen" in some way, between the time the suspect is arrested and charged and subsequently found guilty, the suspect could liquidate those assets.  The suspect might even be able to use those assets to help defend against the charges.  Therefore, it appears that there needs to be some other form of "trustee" to hold assets that have been seized until the guilt or innocence of the suspect/owner of the assets has been determined by the court.  While those assets are being held by a trustee, the trustee must be able to maintain those assets in such a way as to protect the owner/suspect from losing value.  For instance, if a building has been seized, the trustee must be empowered to be able to collect rent, make repairs, pay bills etc.  If the Government then wins a guilty verdict, and the right to keep the assets, the Government can then liquidate the assets, and pay the trustee for services rendered.  If, however, the Government loses the case, and the suspect/owner is found innocent, then the Government should be forced to pay the trustee for services rendered, pay "interest" or "rent" for the use of that property while it has been seized by the Government, and/or compensate the owner/suspect for any loss in value of the seized property.

I think this would be a fair process, and not too difficult to set up within our Government.  To do it probably will require some US Supreme Court decisions to make it happen.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report

This is a good example of how allowing a small infringement on American's rights becomes a huge violation of many American's rights.  Police agencies and Prosecutors will try to use new tools to their best ability to make their job easier.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:

I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15.  It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.  However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division.  Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.

I believe there are many other situations like this.  The process does seem effective.  However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight.  I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes.  If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report

This is a good example of how allowing a small infringement on American's rights becomes a huge violation of many American's rights.  Police agencies and Prosecutors will try to use new tools to their best ability to make their job easier.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:

I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15.  It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.  However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division.  Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.

I believe there are many other situations like this.  The process does seem effective.  However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight.  I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes.  If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border | Threat Level | Wired.com

Here is another example of where our police have gone too far.  It isn't clear to me what our leaders are thinking.

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border | Threat Level | Wired.com:

Last year I wrote to our Congressman about a similar situation, and asked him to sponsor legislation that would establish a "Digital Bill of Rights"
See below:
Sent to Darrel Issa in Apr 2012

PC World editor, Mark Sullivan has written several editorials in PC World.  He has also posted a video: http://www.pcworld.com/article/250251/a_digital_consumer_bill_of_rights.html

His editorial in February 2012 hit the nail on the head!  However is editorial in the “Consumer Watch” section of the May 2012 issue focused down on the critical issues:
1. We have the right to know what any internet company plans to do with our data
2. The data we store or post “in the cloud” is our property. The internet company does not gain rights to it by posting it on their web site
3. We have the right to expect reasonable protection of our data
4. If the Government wants to monitor our digital transmissions, they should get a search warrant first

Prior to computers, when a person was suspected of committing a crime, law enforcement could obtain a search warrant.  With that warrant, usually police would grab the suspects files and notebooks, bank records, photos etc.  After everyone started getting computers, the police would focus on hard drives of the suspect’s computers.  Generally that contained most of the critical evidence, since data was moving from paper to computers.  Now everything is moving to the “cloud” or smartphone.  Because of this, we now need the same protections for our digital data that we have always had for our other personal property and information.  I believe the intent of our Bill of Rights was to protect this information.  

Law and order: Q&A with U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy Page 1 of 3 | UTSanDiego.com

The Union Tribune has continually praised Laura Duffy for her tactics against Marijuana Dispensaries.  Here's another example.
Law and order: Q&A with U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy Page 1 of 3 | UTSanDiego.com:

The bottom line is that she has a choice: Go after serious criminals, or go after the easy dispensaries that get her lots of press.  She takes the easy route, and the Union Tribune praises it!

The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone - Derek Khanna - The Atlantic

The digital millennium copyright act was a disaster to American's freedom.  This is just one more example.
The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone - Derek Khanna - The Atlantic:

Aaron Swartz and Motel Caswell: Book ends to prosecutorial reform? - CSMonitor.com

I've followed this Motel Caswell case for quite a while, and have always thought that it was a huge stretch for a prosecutor to think they could take a hotel, if a guest at a hotel was busted for drugs.

Aaron Swartz and Motel Caswell: Book ends to prosecutorial reform? - CSMonitor.com: