Truth Frequency Radio

Jan 22, 2013

Smartphone Filters Are Censoring “Political Satire” And Other “Mature Content”

JG Vibes
January 21, 2013

As smartphones become more advanced and more like actual home computers, more people are going to do their internet browsing from their phones.

In fact this is already starting to happen, and as this trend continues there is going to be more of a push to censor political information that is transmitted through these mediums. Unfortunately, that has already began to happen as well.

Just this week The Telegraph reported that:

“Now, a sinister new trend has started, whereby phone providers are automatically blocking access to certain websites for “mature content”, rather than “adult content”.

Mobile provider 3UK is blocking access to political satire as “mature content”; Orange is preventing access to feminist articles as “mature content” through its automatically applied Orange Safeguard service; several providers are blocking perfectly legitimate sites like Pink News because they deal with gay issues, or Channel 4′s excellent Embarrassing Bodies website, because of the graphic discussion of body parts and sexuality.

This was bad enough when these services were blocking porn (I for one wholeheartedly support the right of teenagers to watch smut on their iPhones), but now it seems overzealous providers are blocking access to anything a Catholic Bishop might consider for adults only. This carries not only the problem of “overblocking” caused by lazy filter design – notably, it’s hard to get your website read if it refers to Middlesex or Scunthorpe – but also as these filters are automatically applied, most people don’t even realise they are losing access to certain parts of the web.”

Regardless of what the content is and how different people feel about it politically, there is no content that should be blocked. If they can block this content there, then they can push the envelope wherever they want.

FSN: FBI Documents Shine Light on Clandestine Cellphone Tracking Tool

Posted by on January 20, 2013


by Ryan Gallagher

The FBI calls it a “sensitive investigative technique” that it wants to keep secret. But newly released documents that shed light on the bureau’s use of a controversial cellphone tracking technology called the “Stingray” have prompted fresh questions over the legality of the spy tool.

Functioning as a so-called “cell-site simulator,” the Stingray is a sophisticated portable surveillance device. The equipment is designed to send out a powerful signal that covertly dupes phones within a specific area into hopping onto a fake network. The feds say they use them to target specific groups or individuals and help track the movements of suspects in real time, not to intercept communications. But by design Stingrays, sometimes called “IMSI catchers,” collaterally gather data from innocent bystanders’ phones and can interrupt phone users’ service—which critics say violates a federal communications law.

Continue Reading at…

Surveillance Strategy Is ‘Privileged and Confidential,’ FBI Says

The President Barack Obama administration’s surveillance strategy in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision that the installation of a GPS tracker on a vehicle amounted to a search under the Fourth Amendment remains “privileged and confidential,” the Justice Department claims in newly released memos.

What has been made public is that, following the high court’s Jan. 23 decision, the Federal Bureau of Investigation pulled the plug on some 3,000 GPS trackers. The bureau’s general counsel, Andrew Weissmann, acknowledged that fact while speaking at a legal symposium at the University of San Francisco last year.

He also said the government issued two memos on how to proceed following the so-called “Jones” decision — memos the government now claims are not for public consumption. What that boils down to is this: If the government told you how it was spying on you, it would have to kill you.


A July 5, a 54-page memo the government just turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union via a Freedom of Information Act request, is completely redacted. The memo to Justice Department criminal chiefs and appellate chiefs is entitled “Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), to Additional Investigative Techniques.” (.pdf)

Another 57-page memo, dated February 27 and sent to federal prosecutors, is entitled “Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones, 132 Ct. 945 (2012), to GPS Tracking Devices.” Most of that briefing is redacted other than a short review of the Supreme Court’s decision.

According to the ACLU, the withholding of the documents’ contents is “an unfortunate decision” that “leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking — possibly for months at a time.”

Catherine Crump, the ACLU’s lawyer on the topic, added that “Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?

To be sure, the government has shown some of its cards in the followup litigation in the Jones case — a strategy judges appear willing to accept. In short, the government is shifting its focus to warrantless cell-tower locational tracking of suspects.

The Obama administration told a federal court in September that the public has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person’s movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

The administration, citing a 1976 Supreme Court precedent, said such data, like banking records, are “third-party records,” meaning customers have no right to keep it private. The government made the argument (.pdf) as it prepares for a re-trial of Antoine Jones, the previously convicted drug dealer whose life sentence and conviction was reversed last January by the Supreme Court. The high court found unanimously that the government’s use of a GPS tracker on his vehicle was an illegal search.

With the 28 days of vehicle tracking data thrown out of court, a federal judge in December agreed with the administration’s argument that it was legally in the clear to instead use Jones’ phone location records without a warrant.

The government wants those records to chronicle where Jones was when he made and received mobile phone calls in 2005. The records show each call the defendant made or received, the date and time of calls, the telephone numbers involved, the cell tower to which the phone users connected at the beginning and/or end of the call, and the duration of the call.

The authorities only had to show that such information was “relevant” to an investigation to get a judge to authorize Cingular to turn them over. No probable cause was needed.

That data was not introduced at trial, as the authorities used the now-thrown-out GPS data instead.

What’s more, the Obama administration claimed that the high court’s GPS decision was “wholly inapplicable” when it comes to cell-site data.

The administration noted that the high court said the physical act of affixing a GPS device to a vehicle amounts to a search and generally requires a warrant. “But when the government merely compels a third-party service provider to produce routine business records in its custody,” the government wrote, “no physical intrusion occurs, and the rule in Jones is therefore wholly inapplicable.”

No retrial date in the Jones case has been scheduled.