Anonymous also posted the following message to the firm’s site at Puckettfaraj.com (hat tip to Mashable):

A film called Battle For Haditha was released in 2007, based on the the Haditha incident.

Here’s more of what Anonymous have been up to as of late.

Marianne Oleson has been charged with 33 felony charges in the Winnebago County Court. The prosecutors say the woman claimed to own shares of Facebook stock and swindled at least 4 people in to buying the fake stock. One complaint states that one man gave Oleson 28,000 dollars in cash money in exchange for “legitimate looking” documents.

Officials say Oleson acquired the documents from a Florida company that owns private stock of the social network giant by telling the company she was interested in buying 1 million dollars worth of shares.

Oleson has many aliases including the last names of Jansen, Milock and Maloney. Randy Stafford, the aforementioned man that was swindled says he was indeed “swindled”. Stafford performed construction on Oleson’s home and after she couldn’t afford to pay him, she offered him the stock in exchange; Stafford said:

“I think it’s a great opportunity, it’s a growing business so on and so forth.”

Reportedly, 18,00 dollars was in payment for work he did on the home and stafford payed an additional 10,000 dollars for the stocks themselves. Stafford went on to say:

“I’m interested in my options and investments so you don’t have to work as hard and make it a lot easier money for my kids and family.”

Stafford went on to say that “something didn’t feel right”; seems his instincts were correct; according to the victim, Oleson had bought up to 1 million dollars worth of the faux stock.

Police officials say that stafford wasn’t the only one duped. Jeff Bellin of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s office says:

“There were other victims initially identified and from there, it just grew.”

A criminal complaint lists 5 victims including Stafford that purchased or had the fake stock given to them as a gift. Bellin feels that there may be more victims out there too. To add insult to injury, Oleson is facing marijuana possession charges on top of her previous charges.

The officer, Sergeant Pat Shearer, posted the photo to his personal facebook profile. Shearer was quoted as to saying it “was used for target practice”. A spokesperson from the secret service recently said that the matter was being taken very seriously. The spokesperson, Max Milien had this to say according to POLITICO.

“Any time information is brought to our attention where an individual or a group of individuals expresses unusual direction of interest in one of our protectees, we conduct appropriate follow-up”

Sergeant Shearer had this to say:

“I don’t think the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal, it’s not like they were going to go out and shoot the president.”

If the Presidential secret service finds the picture posing a real threat, serious repercussions may follow. The officer, who has not been placed on leave as of yet, does face several violations of the departments policies on electronic media.

Online safety has been an issue for some time, whether you use online dating or other social media, but for so long most issues have not been taken seriously. There have been several cases where individuals have met via a dating site, only to find out that the person they’re meeting is only doing so to swindle them out of their fortune ,whatever that may be.

When considering online dating, always weigh the pros and cons. Not all dating websites can be 100% safe. The above video details several tips you can use when either using or considering online dating. What are your opinions about online dating and the the safety risks? Would you ever try online dating for yourself? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Some have expressed concern that such ubiquitous tracking of license plates is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution., which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure and outlines the necessity of warrants in searches.

However, the counter-argument is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections only apply when there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. License plates are issued by the state, and technically remain property of the state. Police are certainly permitted to read and run your plates. Supporters of the scanning technology say that this only allows them to do that faster. Beyond that, the rules of probable cause and searches still apply.

The great concern that some have now is that data from these scans is now being compiled. They fear that profiles can be built to construct a data “picture” of a person’s movements. Over time, that kind of tracking, can yield quite a profile on a person in terms of personal habits and proclivities. And, if your cameras are concentrated thickly enough in an area (Washington, DC has one reader per square mile, so far) that picture gains definition quickly. With enough info, it is almost as unbroken a stream of info as a GPS tracking device would provide.

And now, there is a new wrinkle. This data is not held by the police, but by a private company.

California-based Vigilant Video sells license plate scanners. It has competitors. But, what Vigilant does is unique. They compile a database of the scans – hundreds of millions of them – and have built the National Vehicle Location Service. The service is available to use for free by law enforcement.

What sort of result could come from identifying and tracking capability held by private companies?

Of course, we already have that, to some degree. For example, on a Facebook post I made recently about reading Stephen King’s newest book, this appeared:

We’re used to those. But, could we get to the level of Minority Report ads? Is it a matter of “if”? Or of “when”?

I’m glad you asked.

Have a look at one of Vigilant Video’s other databases. This one is called LineUp. It stores facial and full-body recognition profiles into a database. Profiles, not just of someone committing a crime, but of anyone who walked into the surveillance area.

Of course, Vigilant Video company reps are quick to point out that only authorized law enforcement agencies can use their databases. But, privacy advocates are always quick to add: “For now…”

The Buffalo News is reporting that Paul Ceglia has been ordered by a judge to pay a $5,000 as he has been found in contempt. U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio ruled that Ceglia had to pay the fee and part of Facebook’s attorney fees and expenses because he didn’t provide Facebook information about his personal email accounts.

“The circumstances under which [Ceglia] attempted to avoid complying establishes a plain lack of respect for the court’s order which cannot be countenanced,” Foschio said in his ruling.

The court order was issued in August and it makes me wonder why Ceglia wasn’t held in contempt sooner for obstructing the long, drawn out case of the man who claims to own half of the company.

Ceglia’s lawyers, who have dropped the case, documented his refusal to comply with the simple court order. In the document, the lawyers said they did everything they could to get Ceglia to comply with the order.

“For whatever reasons, [Ceglia], fully advised by his attorneys not to do so, chose to knowingly ignore the unambiguous orders of the court,” Foschio said in his ruling.

As part of the ruling, the judge also rejected Ceglia’s request for sanctions against Facebook.

Ceglia only agreed to turn over the email account information after he was ordered to by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara.

The legal fight between Facebook and Ceglia has been going on for a few years now. Hopefully the case will be resolved when Facebook motions to have the suit dismissed soon.

“Many die, why should not Sheikh Hasina Die?”.

Sheikh Hasina pictured above with Wen Jiabao

This move by Khandaker may cost him his life.

The Facebook status update has lead Bangladesh’s High Court to seek extradition of the professor from Australia back to Bangladesh where he will face punishment. Bangladesh views this comment as a death wish on their prime minister – not something to be taken lightly.

The comment was made by Ruhul Khandaker who has been living in Australia since 2009, conducting PhD research and lecturing at Jahangirnagar University.

Khandaker does not wish to return to his native country any time soon, and he tells AFP, “If I’m forced to go back to Bangladesh now, my life could be threatened and possibly even get killed”.

So what did Khandaker have in mind by this post? Khandaker was allegedly expressing his grief over the death of a famous Bangladeshi filmmaker, Tareq Masud, who was killed in a road accident.

Khandaker seems to think that the accident is the prime minister’s fault, who is irresponsible about issuing driver’s licenses to unqualified people.

Luckily for Khandaker, Bangladesh does not have an extradition treaty with Australia. Khandaker wishes to remain in Australia where he can continue to do research and not have his, “…life…threatened by a political incident…[when he has]…no involvement in any type of politics”.

Now, British news site ChannelWeb is reporting that eBizcuss is not the only European APR to have problems with Apple’s business practices. After the story broke in Europe, two other APRs – one continental and one in Britain – approached ChannelWeb to offer their agreement with eBizcuss’s accusations. The continental retailer even sent ChannelWeb a 4,400 word letter enumerating its concerns with Apple’s business practices.

The letter listed a number of ways in which Apple has treated its APRs unfairly. The letter says that APRs have often received major Apple products later and in fewer numbers than Apple’s own stores, that many have not been allowed to sell the iPhone at all, that Apple has cut some APRs’ credit lines, leading to cash flow problems, and that Apple’s requirement for in-store reorganization reduces the number of third party accessories APRs can sell, stifling a lucrative aspect of their business.

These two retailers’ support for eBizcuss stopped does not appear to go further than their communication with ChannelWeb, however. Both spoke on condition of anonymity, out of fear that Apple could retaliate if their support of eBizcuss were known.

It will be interesting to watch how this case pans out. If eBizcuss gains even a small measure of victory now, it could have significant repercussions for Apple’s dealings with its retail partners later, especially if other retailers are emboldened to take similar action in other countries.

[Source: ChannelWeb]

The Arkansas state Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s decision that the juror’s tweets in question do not constitute grounds for a new trial. The Supreme Court is suggesting that Erickson Dimas-Martinez be given a brand new trial because Juror #2 decided to post Christian metalcore lyrics on Twitter.

The allegation of juror misconduct related to the juror tweeting during the trial was also raised in a motion for new trial but denied by the circuit court. The State counters that Appellant did not preserve an objection to the sleeping juror and cannot demonstrate prejudice with regard to the twittering juror as the juror never tweeted specifics about the case. Because we conclude that the one juror sleeping and a second juror tweeting constituted juror misconduct, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

As you can see above, the tweeting juror was not the only problem with the trial. There was also allegations that one juror was sleeping through jury deliberations. While this is an obvious no-no, the Twitter activity raises interesting new questions for our legal system.

Mainly, what does social media mean for “public discussion?” What are those involved in a trial allowed to express via social media? According to this Supreme Court, pretty much next to nothing.

According to the Supreme Court decision, Juror #2 tweeted this during the noon recess on the day evidence was submitted in the sentencing phase:

Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken. We each define the great line.

When asked about the nature of the tweet, Juror #2 explained that it was part of an album title from the Christian metalcore band Underoath.

Other tweets made during the trial process included “the coffee here sucks,” and “Court. Day 5. here we go again.” During the actual jury deliberations in the sentencing phase, he also tweeted “It’s over,” nearly an hour before the jury had officially announced their sentence recommendations.

Although the lower court found that the tweets were not a “material breach of the instruction or of his oath,” (the jury was instructed to refrain from electronic communications about the trial) the Supreme Court decided that the tweets were far from innocuous.

Because of the very nature of Twitter as an on online social media site, Juror 2’s tweets about the trial were very much public discussions. Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts, or other information about a case in such a public fashion.

And so Erickson Dimas-Martinez, who was convicted of murdering a teenager after a party in 2010, is off death row and awaiting a new trial – mostly because one guy couldn’t stay off Twitter for a few days.

Do you agree that tweeting and posting to Facebook amounts to public discussions of court proceedings, and should therefore be grounds for a mistrial? Let us know in the comments.

Arkansas

On that note, let’s say that you are having a Sunday afternoon picnic with your child. The weather’s good, you’ve been running around and playing – but now it’s time for lunch. You open up the cooler, only to discover that you’ve left a couple of the sandwiches in the car. The car’s just a few yards away, so you quickly run to grab the sandwiches.

And in a split second, you look back to see that your child is gone. You catch a black sedan speeding away and you are barely able to catch the license plate. Because you caught that license plate, police are able to search a giant database of plate captures and track the movements of the kidnapper.

A classic question: What is more important, public safety or personal freedom? What are you willing to sacrifice? Let us know in the comments.

Ok, I know this whole scenario seems a little bit Without A Trace or Lifetime movie-esque, but the point is that police were able to use an ever-expanding database of data culled from license plate snapshots in order to generate real-time location information. That’s a reality, and it’s happening in our nation’s capital, among other places.

The Washington Post is reporting that police in D.C. are beefing up the area covered by license plate cameras. More than 250 cameras in D.C. and its suburbs are constantly hard at work, grabbing license plate numbers and sticking them into databases. The police aren’t exactly doing this quietly, but it’s being done with “virtually no public debate.”

The highest concentration of these plate readers in the entire nation exists in D.C. (one reader per square mile), so that means that District police are building the biggest location database based on license plates in the whole country.

Let’s take a brief look at these license plate readers.

First, these are apparently different types of cameras than the cameras cities have been affixing near stoplights and other places to catch people running red lights or speeding – the “here’s a ticket 2 weeks later in the mail” cameras.

These plate readers cost about $20,000 each and can snatch images of numbers and letters on cars traveling nearly 150 mph and across four lanes of traffic. These plate readers in D.C. take 1,800 images per minute, every one of which is stored in a database.

Basically, these plate readers have made it possible for police to track everyone’s movements as they move across the city.

These plate readers and the subsequent database of image captures has tipped the privacy concerns of some – notably the American Civil Liberties Union. One of their main concerns is naturally the privacy implications.

In the District, laws are in place that limit the amount of time that surveillance camera footage can be kept. The images must be dumped after 10 days, unless there is an actual investigatory reason to keep them. But right now, there is nothing keeping data from the plate readers from being stored for years.

The ACLU says that this database is storing the location data of innocent people. And they are right. The plate readers are casting an all-inclusive net, grabbing license plate numbers indiscriminately.

Clearly this technology is rapidly approaching the point where it could be used to reconstruct the entire movements of any individual vehicle. As we have argued in the context of GPS tracking that level of intrusion on private life is something that the police should not be able to engage in without a warrant.

Let’s think back to the slightly-stylized child abduction scene from the beginning of this article. Maybe that seems a bit far-fetched, but the reality of the situation is that the plate reader database has helped police. According to the D.C. police department, they make an arrest a day with the help of the plate readers. In a four month period this year, they also found 51 stolen cars.

And although our child abduction story above might seem unrealistic, the possibilities are there for the plate readers to help in truly significant ways. Police could track cars to and from murder scenes or use it to identify players in organized crime circles like sex trafficking – by logging which cars travel between certain locations.

But the fact that the technology is beneficial or could be beneficial in terms of law enforcement does not assuage concerns of a “surveillance society” becoming the norm in the U.S. It’s a classic argument that pits personal liberties against security and safety. Just how much of your freedom are you able to give up to feel safer? This is a crucial debate that we’ve seen play out most recently after 9/11 with the Patriot Act.

The ACLU channels Minority Report to discuss preemptive law enforcement:

Of course, if the police track all of us all the time, there is no doubt that will help to solve some crimes — just as it would no doubt help solve some crimes if they could read everybody’s e-mail and install cameras in everybody’s homes. But in a free society, we don’t let the police watch over us just because we might do something wrong. That is not the balance struck by our Constitution and is not the balance we should strike in our policymaking.

Obviously, the plate readers are a valuable tool for the police, and there are an abundance of situations where one could imagine the searchable database of plate captures to be extremely useful. But are those plate readers building up a database that’s just a little too full of innocent people’s location information for your liking?

If this kind of thing is to proliferate (both in D.C. and across the country), it is argued that it needs to see the light of day. Basically, society should have time to debate its merits and discuss their concerns. “The police should not be able to run out and buy a new technology and put it in place before anybody realizes what’s going on,” says Jay Stanley of the ACLU’s Privacy and Technology Program.

What do you think about the expansion of the plate reader technology? Do the benefits outweigh the privacy and personal freedom concerns? Or is this an example of big brother yielding too much power with the ability to catalog this data without warrants? Let us know in the comments.