Category Archives: Police State

Germany Reinstates Passport Checks At Border

Posted on by

Germany, as part of the Schengen regime of Europe, did not have passport checks at its borders, making it easy for EU residents and nationals to move freely among Schengen members.

With the influx of Syrian refugees, Merkel has now found the unassailable pretext to reintroduce checks at the Austrian border to prevent “chaos,” chaos that could entirely have been predicted…and probably was:

 Germany is to reinstate controls at the border with Austria as Europe’s top economy struggles to cope with a record influx of refugees, according to media reports Sunday.”

The prospect of European demographic decline coupled with an influx of  high-fertility Muslims from the surrounding regions has been the staple of European nationalist nightmares, from which the notion of Eurabia emerged – a Europe created by Franco-Islamic conspiracy that is hostile equally to the United States and to Israel, or rather, in some views, to Christianity and Judaism.

What is omitted from “Eurabian” style analysis is the rather obvious point that the version of “Christianity” that holds political center-stage in America today is one so thoroughly Judaized as to be a heresy that traditionalist Christians might consider worth opposing.

The same could be said of the liberal Judaism of American Jews, let alone the thoroughly anti-Christian secular spirit of  most cultural Jews and cultural Christians.

On the other side of the equation, “France” and  “Islam” too can be deconstructed:

They  too are golems of the Zionist entity.

As for Islamicization, the chances are much greater that enforced proximity of  Islamic immigrants to European native will give rise to further restraints on speech and thought.

Those restraints, combined with the dissolution of traditional mores, will create nihilism and moral ennui.

In the end, neither Muslim nor Christian will be profited…. nor even the ordinary religious Jew.

This deracinated Europe will only benefit the ruling Sanhedrin.

Eurabia?

If we had one hundredth of the frankness that we devote to sexual matters to give to politics, we would call it Eunuch-rabia.

 

Privacy Expert Questions Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Posted on by

Privacy Surgeon.com:

I’m starting to believe the so-called “migration crisis” facing Europe is little more than a tragic confidence trick. Worryingly, however, it involves dangerous consequences for the rights of every EU resident.

I’m not being heartless. Yes, thousands of refugees have lost their lives in the struggle to reach EU borders. Many more are living in a desperate plight, often at the mercy of human traffickers. That’s not my point.

Relatively few of us have genuinely got to grips with the realities of this situation. It’s a massively complex issue that goes to the heart of geopolitics and national dynamics, but intelligent people should not be sucked into the orchestrated rhetoric that is being peddled. This isn’t the first time we’ve faced such circumstances – and it certainly won’t be the last.

The migration issue is trending across the political landscape of nearly all EU countries. Emerging from the hysteria over rising numbers of asylum seekers is a mix of innovative and humane solutions. Sadly, the “crisis” is also spotlighting the very worst of Europe, spewing out a raft of reactions that defy the very basis of the values that Europe is supposed to uphold.

Instead of making an effort to find a rational way through the difficult issues, some governments have cheered on a contagion mentality which has genuinely terrified entire populations that the barbarians are at the gate. It feels like Donald Trump’s shadow has fallen across Europe.

At one level (though certainly not for the migrants themselves) the situation is nowhere near as dramatic as some media outlets are portraying. At another level, the crisis is far worse for Europe than anyone could imagine. This situation could trigger a backlash for civil liberties across the EU.

Let’s deal first with the raw figures.

At the risk of simplification, here is the top level statistic. The EU’s external border force, Frontex, which monitors the flow of people arriving at Europe’s borders, says some 340,000 migrants have been detected at EU borders since the beginning of 2015. That compares with 123,500 in the same period last year.

My response is “what’s the big deal?”

[Lila: Exactly my reaction. Anyone who has actually been in populous, poor, or war-torn countries, would find the numbers nothing so extraordinary.]

…….

During World War II, refugees flooded from Germany to Switzerland, as any Sound of Music fan will remember. Between 1933 and 1939, about 200,000 Jews fleeing Nazism were able to find refuge in France. At around that time several hundred thousand Spanish Republicans fled to France after their loss to the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. Unlike the EU of today, nations coped with such circumstances.

It’s true that the current headline figures can look dramatic. More than 300,000 migrants have risked their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe so far this year, according to the UN. This compares with 219,000 for the whole of 2014.

Nearly 200,000 people have landed in Greece since January this year, while another 110,000 made it to Italy.

To put the current situation into a statistical perspective, imagine a town of 10,000 people calling emergency meetings and getting into a froth of paranoia because ten migrants show up at the town hall office. 

Having said that, the total population of the EU member states is just over half a billion. Is anyone seriously arguing on any basis of rationality that a region of five hundred million people can’t find a way to absorb a peak of an extra half million migrants? In the view of many observers, this isn’t so much a migrant crisis as it is a crisis of political fragility over Europe’s teetering economy and employment.

To put the current situation into a statistical perspective, imagine a town of 10,000 people calling emergency meetings and getting into a froth of paranoia because ten migrants show up at the town hall office. Most of us would condemn such a response.

In line with this reasoning, let’s try to put the situation is a historical context.

Some people might like to forget that the decade leading up to 2001 saw the one of the bloodiest conflicts of modern times – and right on Europe’s doorstep. The Bosnian and Yugoslav wars saw genocide that murdered between 100,000 and 200,000 people (depending on whose figures you accept). States that are now happily part of the European family of nations were obliterating entire communities at the time your fifteen year old child was born. Now, all is forgiven – and almost forgotten.

But at the time, there was misery and human displacement at a scale that people these days can barely understand. Vast waves of refugees poured out of the carnage and tried for a new life in Europe and elsewhere.

Europe whines about a “crisis” of having to deal with an overflow that’s equivalent to less than one tenth of one percent of its population. Compare this to what Croatia agreed to burden at the time of the conflict.

The U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, tried to put the number of refugees in Croatia into perspective during an interview in 1993. He said the situation would be the equivalent of the United States taking in 30,000,000 refugees. The number of Bosnian refugees in Croatia stood at 588,000. Serbia took in 252,130 refugees from Bosnia, while other former Yugoslav republics received a total of 148,657 people.”

Angela Merkel: Stasi Informant

Posted on by

Dialog International.com reproduces the thesis of a recent biography alleging that Angela Merkel’s father used his church as the terrain on which he spied for the East German government:

I have always been curious about Angela Merkel’s background in the former GDR.  Did she always have pro-American, Christian democratic beliefs?  If so, did she suffer any consequences for these beliefs in the repressive GDR system?  Was she spied on by the Stasi?  Was she close to democratic dissidents like Wolf Biermann or Robert Havemann?  Some of these questions are answered in Gerd Langguth’s biography: Angela Merkel.

The key to unlocking the mystery of Angela Merkel is her father, the Protestant Minister Horst Kasner, who emigrated from West Germany to the East Zone in 1954, where he began an effort to “rehabilitate” the church – making it acceptable to the Stalinist SED ruling party.  The church under Kasner thus became another instrument of state domination, and Kasner benefitted greatly from his elite status within the political apparatus.  Kasner’s family also reaped the benefits: luxury home, two cars (most GDR citizens had to wait years for just one Trabant), trips to Italy and other countries outside the socialist bloc.  Angela was able to attend the elite school (Erweiterte Oberschule) along with the sons and daughters of important party functionaries.  Langguth describes how Horst Kassner worked closely together with Stasi informant Clemens de Maiziere on forming the SED church policy. De Maiziere’s son Lothar would later play a decisive role in Angela’s life during his brief stint as DDR-Premier (before he too was exposed as a Stasi informant).

What is interesting about Angela’s formative years is the utter banality and conformity of her life.  While the Perestroika movement was shaking the foundation of the GDR and led to a creative renaissance with novels (Jurek Becker), films and theater(Plenzdorf) , Angela was blithely studying physics at the Karl Marx University in Leipzig, where she was active in the SED youth organization.  Fellow students recall that Angela was Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda and procured theater tickets for her comrades, but her files from that period have mysteriously vanished. 

Her one act of rebellion against her father occured after Die Wende when she joined the new party Demokratischer Aufbruch (DA), started by another Stasi informant Wofgang Schnur.  As Langguth points out, this was a shrewd move on her part, since she could hedge her bets by not joining one of the West parties should the DDR have remained a separate country.  After Lothar de Maiziere made her his deputy spokesperson and the DA became subsumed in the Christian Democrats, Angela caught the attention of Helmut Kohl and the rest is history.  Angela Merkel – a daughter of Stalinist privilege, now the leader of the conservative CDU and quite possibly Germany’s next chancellor. ”

[Lila: This was written before Merkel became German Chancellor]

More in this piece at the World Socialist Web on the nexus between the evangelical church and the East German government that allowed members to spy on the congregation, exert pressure in political circles, and groom Merkel for her own career.

Dystopiaearth.com has more incriminating details, this time from her academic career:

What most Germans don’t know, however, is that Hans-Jörg Osten was her Professor and close confidante at the Academy of Sciences where she was a student. And what they only found out yesterday is that Osten was a paid agent of the Stasi – with documentary evidence from the files to prove it.

ostenStasidoc

In the files (extracted left) her physics professor and fellow FDJ bigwig is unmasked as a spy using the cover name ‘Einstein’.

Today, Hans-Jörg Osten is 56 years old, and a professor at the Leibniz University of Hanover.

The documents go on to say that he was recruited ‘on the basis of the political-ideological cooperation…in his operating activities, he is mainly useful on defence issues, and for the development of people working files. He was always a very reliable worker.’ The ‘defence issues’ thing is a reference to time spent by Osten working in the US. During this period, he was a Stasi spy.

Contemporaries suggest that Merkel had “an unusually close” relationship with her married Professor. Indeed, this tendency of unsere geliebte Geli to stick like a limpet to the big mines before disarming them has been recorded several times before at The Slog.”

Merkel was to go on to spy for the KGB, even on other agents, one of whom was her first husband, and then to parlay her espionage contacts and technical knowledge (a PHD in quantum chemistry) into a political career.

The further suspicion is that her  Stasi/KGB past is behind her suspected blackmail by Mossad into supporting strongly pro-Israeli positions.

Dangers Of Ancestral DNA Data Banks

Posted on by

From GeneticsAndSociety.org:

The New Orleans Advocate recently published a shocking story that details the very real threats to privacy and civil liberties posed by law enforcement access to private genetic databases and familial DNA searching.

In 1996, a young woman named Angie Dodge was murdered in her apartment in a small town in Idaho. Although the police collected DNA from semen left at the crime scene, they haven’t been able to match the DNA to existing profiles in any criminal database, and the murder has never been solved.

Fast forward to 2014. The Idaho police sent the semen sample to a private lab to extract a DNA profile that included YSTR and mtDNA—the two genetic markers used to determine patrilineal and matrilineal relationships (it’s unclear why they reopened the case after nearly 20 years). These markers would allow investigators to search some existing databases to try to find a match between the sample and genetic relatives.

The cops chose to use a lab linked to a private collection of genetic genealogical data called the Sorenson Database (now owned by Ancestry.com), which claims it’s “the foremost collection of genetic genealogy data in the world.” The reason the Sorenson Database can make such an audacious claim is because it has obtained its more than 100,000 DNA samples and documented multi-generational family histories from “volunteers in more than 100 countries around the world.” Some of these volunteers were encouraged by the Mormon Church—well-known for its interest in genealogy—to provide their genetic material to the database. Sorenson promised volunteers their genetic data would only be used for “genealogical services, including the determination of family migration patterns and geographic origins” and would not be shared outside Sorenson. Its consent form states:

The only individuals who will have access to the codes and genealogy information will be the principal investigator and the others specifically authorized by the Principal Investigator, including the SMGF research staff.

Despite this promise, Sorenson shared its vast collection of data with the Idaho police. Without a warrant or court order, investigators asked the lab to run the crime scene DNA against Sorenson’s private genealogical DNA database. Sorenson found 41 potential familial matches, one of which matched on 34 out of 35 alleles—a very close match that would generally indicate a close familial relationship. The cops then asked, not only for the “protected” name associated with that profile, but also for all “all information including full names, date of births, date and other information pertaining to the original donor to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy project.”

This is when the case starts to sound like something out of the TV show “CSI.” Sorenson linked the crime scene DNA to DNA from a man born in 1952. That man didn’t fit the age profile of the murderer, so the cops used Sorenson’s genealogical information to trace his male descendant line and find his son, Michael Usry Jr., born in 1979. Then the cops searched Usry’s Facebook page and found he had some Facebook friends who lived somewhat near Idaho Falls. And then through Google searches, the cops learned Usry was a filmmaker who had been involved in making a few short films that had homicide or killings in the story line. (The cop noted in a warrant affidavit “these short films have won awards in several film festivals.”) Based on this completely circumstantial evidence, the Idaho investigators got a warrant to collect a swab of Usry’s DNA.

They called up Usry, told him they were investigating a hit-and-run, and asked him to meet with them. Usry thought he “had nothing to hide” and agreed to the meeting. They took him to an interrogation room, questioned him without a lawyer present, and eventually collected a DNA sample. Then Usry sat on pins & needles for a month waiting for the results.

When the results came in, it turned out Usry’s DNA didn’t match the crime scene sample—despite the close familial markers and other circumstantial evidence, he wasn’t the murderer.

Usry was lucky. The forensic crime scene DNA sample came from semen and likely was single source (meaning it contained DNA from only one person). This means that it was relatively easy for the cops to compare Usry’s DNA against the forensic sample and determine conclusively the two didn’t match. In many cases today, however, forensic samples come instead from “touch” DNA—miniscule samples of DNA deposited on physical surfaces that people have touched. Touch DNA is less reliable and harder to match both because it may not include enough DNA for meaningful interpretation and because it often contains DNA from multiple persons—some of whom may have had no connection to the crime at all. With touch DNA, lab analysts may see a match where none exists. Just this year in San Francisco, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed a crime lab analyst had been making assumptions about poor-quality, incomplete genetic evidence and testified at trial that one of the profiles she generated matched the defendant, which was false. This analyst’s misconduct could affect as many as 1,400 cases. When touch DNA analysis expands to include familial markers, the risk of misidentification only increases.

This risk will increase further as state and local law enforcement agencies begin to use Rapid DNA analyzers—portable machines that can process DNA in less than an hour. These machines will make it much easier for police to collect and analyze DNA on their own outside a lab. Currently, because forensic DNA analysis in a lab takes so long, we generally see its use limited to high-level felonies like rape and murder. However, Rapid DNA manufacturers are now encouraging local police agencies to analyze DNA found at the scene of low-level property crimes. This means much more DNA will be collected and stored, often in under-regulated local DNA databases. And, because most of the forensic DNA found at property crime scenes is likely to be touch DNA—this only increases the risk that people will be implicated in crimes they didn’t commit.”

 

Citizen Statement Against Indian DNA Profiling

Posted on by

An excerpt from a Petition against Biometric profiling through Aadhar and Human DNA Profiling:

Notably, Human DNA Profiling Bill has been prepared and which when enacted could require the citizen to give one’s DNA to the state. What ambitions does this reveal? This would complete the journey of subjugation which started with fingerprints and is possibly ending in DNA profiling.
The profiling, and the intrusion of privacy, that is a central aspect of these projects are, among other things, contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 4th July, 2011 [Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 176 of 2009] where it reiterated that the Right to Privacy is a part of the constitutional Right to Life. The central government has shown disdain towards this judgment by launching aadhaar related projects on the basis of biometrics which is untested and untried, and which have surveillance, tracking, profiling, tagging and convergence at its core.

UIDAI had set up a Biometrics Standards Committee which revealed that ’the biometrics will be captured for authentication by government departments and commercial organisations at the time of service delivery.’ The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not defined. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the ’UID number will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements’. It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would only provide ’aid’ in identification. In fact it makes right to having rights conditional on having biometric aadhaar.
Notably, Biometrics Standards Committee had categorically stated that UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian application” but the order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has been extended to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first adopted by USA’s Department of Defence, later by NATO. It has subsequently been pushed through World Bank’s eTransform Initiative in partnership with France, South Korea, Gemalto, IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and Pfizer.

Some of them have signed agreements with UIDAI. This constitutes breach of national security.


Across the globe very stringent data privacy law has been framed wherein one’s personal data cannot be used by anyone including the government without your specific consent. But in India there is no data protection law. Aadhaar is akin to a piece of collar which the transnational powers want to tie on the neck of Indian citizens. Government has allowed itself to be misled and it has failed to protect personal sensitive information which has already gone to foreign companies.

It must be recalled that Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister had distributed Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar numbers among the villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on 29th September 2010. “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number”.

It has now come to light as per a RTI reply of April 2015 that out of 83.5 crore aadhaar numbers issued so far, only 2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 % comprised of them who did not have a pre-existing ID proof.

It shows how Indians were taken for a ride.

It must also be noticed that even the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, of colonial vintage, reads: “The object of this bill is to provide legal authority for taking measurements, finger impressions, footprints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in connection with, certain offences.” According to the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, at the time of the acquittal of the prisoner, his biometric data is required to be destroyed. Since 1857, fingerprint identification methods have been used by police agencies in India and around the world to identify suspected rebels, political dissidents and criminals. The method is unfolding to indiscriminately profile citizens in general to identify them. The UID/aadhaar project, however, stores the biometric data forever.

It should be noted that in its report to Parliament, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has taken on board studies done in the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later withdrawn in May 2010, where the problems were identified to include”(a) huge cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex; (c)untested, unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures, which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs.” Countries like China, Australia, UK and France have also rejected it.

This open declaration of war against citizens’ sensitive personal information like biometric data by transnational entities and governments captured by them paves way for the enslavement of present and future generations through aadhaar database that lies on cloud beyond Indian jurisdiction. Such initiatives must be stopped and boycotted else it will spread its tentacles in every sphere of life and mobility in the country.

Notably, central government itself has filed several written affidavits in the Hon’ble Court contending that right to privacy is a fundamental right. It is remarkable that one former Union Law Minister has complained to the Prime Minister informing him about the blunders being committed by the law officer in question.

There is a compelling logic for rejection of those parties which implicitly or explicitly support tracking, profiling, databasing and mortgaging of citizens’ rights and their sovereignty under the dictates of their donors and non-state actors. The biometric idea is aimed at making citizens transparent before the all mighty Governments so that Government, their servant can remain opaque to safeguard the interests of undemocratic and ungovernable social control technology companies.

In a case of breach of trust central government has proposed to make aadhaar mandatory although the very first promise which legally questionable UIDAI made in its aadhaar enrolment form is/was that it is “voluntary”.

This Public Statement is a follow up of the Statement of Concern against UID/aadhaar issued by 17 eminent citizens at a Press Conference at Press Club of India in New Delhi on 28th September 2010. These citizens included Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian, K.G.Kannabiran, Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan, S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of India, Upendra Baxi, Jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Uma Chakravarthi, Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar, Film Maker, Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB, and Association for Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and Association for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD, Justice A.P.Shah, Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant.

A Dalit activist who was one of these eminent citizens said, “This project wants to fix our identities through time. Even after that we are dead. The information held about us will be fixed to us by the UID number. Changing an identity will become impossible. We are working for the eradication of the practice of manual scavenging, for rehabilitation of those who have been engaged in manual scavenging, and then leaving behind that tag of manual scavenger. How can we accept a system that does not allow us to shed that identity and move on? How can a number that links up databases be good for us?”

We reiterate our demand that Bills like Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 and projects like biometric aadhaar “should be halted before it goes any further”.

Signatories

1. Prof. Anil Sadgopal, Scientist, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE), Bhopal, Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
2. Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran, Director, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad, Email: kalpana.kannabiran@gmail.com
3. Prof (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH), Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, Email: mohanrao2008@gmail.com
4. Dr Meher Engineer, Scientist, former President, Indian Academy of Social Science, Kolkata Email: mengineer2003@gmail.com
5. Ram Bahadur Rai, noted senior journalist, Email: rbrai118@gmail.com
6. Dr Babu Rao Kalapala, Scientist, formerly with National Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Email: baburaokalapala@gmail.com
7. Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA), Email: kavitakrish73@gmail.com
8. Prof D M Diwakar, Professor of Economics, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, , Email: dmdiwakar@yahoo.co.in
9. Arun Kumar, former Member, Press Council of India, Indian Journalists Union, General Secretary, Bihar Working Journalists Union & President, The Times of India Newspaper Employees Union, Patna, Email: karunpatna@gmail.com
10. Sankar Ray, veteran journalist, Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com
11. N D Jayaprakash, Disarmament Researcher & veteran activist seeking justice for victims of Bhopal disaster, Email: jaypdsf@gmail.com
12. Qaneez Sukhrani, urban affairs analyst, Pune, Email: qaneez.sukhrani@gmail.com
13. Kshetrimayum Onil, Lead Coordinator, REACHOUT, Manipur Email:onilrights@gmail.com
14. Shabnam Hashmi, social activist, Anhad, Email: shabnamhashmi@gmail.com
15. Irfan Ahmed, General Secretary, All India Tanjin-e-Insaf, Bihar, Email: irfan.tree@gmail.com
16. Guman Singh, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh, Email:guman107@yahoo.co.in
17. Dr Umakant, Human rights advocate & independent scholar, New Delhi, Email: uk4in@yahoo.co.in
18. PT George, Intercultural Resources, Delhi, Email: ihpindia@gmail.com
19. Wilfred D’ Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi, Email: willyindia@gmail.com
20. Prakash K Ray, Editor, bargad.org, Email: pkray11@gmail.com
21. Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Email: 1715krishna@gmail.com

Sudanese Women Stripped Naked For Crime Against Modesty

Posted on by

Police harassment of Christian women in Muslim-majority Sudan:

A Sudanese court has fined three Christian girls on charges of “immoral dress” for wearing slacks and skirts on their way home from a Baptist church function in June, while it found four other girls who were wearing similar clothing innocent of the charges, the advocacy group Christian Solidarity Worldwide has reported. During their apprehension, 10 girls from the church were forced to strip naked in front of police who inspected their clothing for compliance with Shariah law.

All seven girls were among a group of 12 Christian females who were arrested on June 25 while on their way home from a service at El Izba Baptist Church in Khartoum simply because they were wearing trousers and skirts, which police deemed to be immoral dress.

Two of the girls were released from police custody without charges, while the remaining 10 were forced by authorities to strip out of their clothes and later charged with indecent dress under Article 152 of the Sudanese Criminal Code. Advocates for the girls said they range in age from teens younger than 18 to early 20s.”

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/3-sudanese-christian-girls-found-guilty-of-immoral-dress-after-being-forced-to-strip-naked-in-front-of-police-142835/#qZlQ5UbqKTUojfCu.99

Hong-Kong Introduces “DNA Shaming”

Posted on by

To get an inkling of the abuse possible with DNA profiling of the kind being considered in India, take a look at a public health initiative called “Hong-Kong Clean Up.”

The South China Morning Post has this:

The Face of Litter campaign was launched on Global Earth Day last month for the Hong Kong Cleanup Initiative, organised by online magazine Ecozine and the Nature Conservancy. It was aimed at raising awareness of the extent of littering in the city by pinpointing those responsible and encouraging people to change their behaviour.”

That should ring a bell just there.

“Earth Day” is a holiday central to the ecological movement and, not coincidentally, it is celebrated on April 22, which is the  birthday of Vladimir Lenin, the blood-drenched architect of the communist revolution in Russia in 1917.

A number of people have spotted this coincidence as further proof of the underlying communistic agenda of environmentalism.

Population control,if not depopulation, is its real goal.

Virginia-based Nature Conservancy is a corporate “do-gooder” that I’ve dealt with before.

You can read about its shenanigans in this excellent series published in the Washington Post.

Nature Conservancy has a long history with Goldman Sachs, which just supplied this “non-profit” with a CEO for a mere $700,000.

Nature Conservancy is in the business of monetizing (i.e. putting a financial figure on) environmental efforts, through such mechanisms as “cap and trade” and the “carbon exchange,” both regarded as useless rackets by grass-roots activists.

So what did “Hong-Kong Clean Up” do with the litter it picked up?

It used DNA from the litter to reconstruct the faces of the litterbugs and then posted the faces publicly to shame them.

The firm behind this DNA scheme is PR giant Ogilvy & Mather and the lab tests were done in the US by Parabon Labs.

Ogilvy & Mather has a history of complicity in the US Government’s propaganda efforts, including the War on Terror, the Drug War, and so-called “Greenwashing” – repackaging companies with bad environmental practices as good guys.

Why people resident in Hong-Kong should have their DNA fingered by Americans is anybody’s guess.

Reed Collins, the Ogilvy chief creative officer who led the campaign, says 27 facial composites were created from a combination of 24 DNA samples taken from litter and three controlled samples donated by volunteers.

The faces were used to create “wanted posters” and digital banners, which were displayed in high-traffic areas, including 10 MTR stations and at “the scene of the crime”.

“Because age is impossible to determine through DNA alone, but still integral in creating an accurate portrait, DNA data has been combined with other factors, such as demographics based on the type of litter and where it was collected to determine the approximate age of the litterer,” Collins says.”

Christensen says that although DNA alone can only produce a high probability of what someone looks like, the purpose of the campaign was not to point fingers at specific individuals.”

Despite Ogilvy & Mather’s disingenuous disclaimers, this is on so many levels outrageous.

It breaches privacy in the grossest fashion.

It has endless potential for abuse –

Identity theft

Falsification of evidence

Framing innocents

Blackmail

Refusal of insurance, housing, or other services

Racial and genetic profiling

Targeting for abortion/contraception advertising

Targeting for drug-testing

Targeting for drugs and porn advertising

Targeting for bio-weapons and depopulation programs.

If you think that’s over-reaction, consider the centrality of population control and eugenics in the thinking of every major thinker in the modern leftist pantheon.

Margaret Sanger, Bertrand Russell, Havelock Ellis, and dozens of other influential leftist thinkers, were all enamored of eugenics, population control, and the elimination of undesirables.

The question is not IF DNA profiling will be abused. The question is only WHEN.

 

Indian DNA Profile Usable For “Any Purpose”

Posted on by

In the Hindustan Times, Menaka Guruswamy, a Supreme Court lawyer, points out the dystopian nightmare hidden in India’s 2015 DNA profiling bill:

Most troubling is that the bill provides that the DNA profiles will be made available for identification in criminal cases during judicial proceedings to enable decisions in criminal prosecution for the defence of the accused and, rather strangely, ‘for the creation and maintenance of a population statistics Data Bank that is to be used … in identification research, protocol development or quality control…’.

As if this were not enough, the DNA information can also be used for ‘any other purposes’ as may be prescribed.

The idea that the State can assemble a population data base, not simply a census but a blood history of its citizens, so as to enable identification research or even quality control, is anathema to a constitutional, democratic India.

This bill, when worked in tandem with the Aadhar regime, has the potential to profile, rather intimately, every Indian.

In fact, this bill reads like very bad science fiction, one in which the State runs amok and bad science leads to little truth, many lies and an abuse of our DNA.”

Draconian Kuwaiti DNA Law Sets Ominous Precedent

Posted on by

From July 2015 onward, all Kuwait residents (citizens and foreigners) must submit their DNA or risk up to seven years of jail. This draconian law casts a fearful shadow on the DNA bill now being considered by the Indian government.

From DailyO.in:

Earlier this month, Kuwait enacted a law that makes DNA profiling of its citizens and foreign nationals living in the country mandatory. Anybody refusing to furnish their DNA for this database is liable to be jailed for up to seven years. This means all residents of Kuwait, including Indian workers living there, will have to give samples so that their DNA can be extracted and kept in government custody. To say the least, it is draconian.

Even before the news of Kuwait’s DNA profiling law sank, news has emerged about such a law in India. No, the Indian government is not emulating the Kuwaiti model, but only wants to make DNA profiles of criminals and suspects. The Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 is slated for introduction in the Indian Parliament during the current session. The full draft of the Bill is not currently in the public domain, but going by the details trickling from various sources (and information based on its earlier versions), it appears that the bill has clauses that violate privacy and leave room for potential misuse.”

Modi Seeks Direct Govt. Interception Of Phones, Net

Posted on by

Saikat Datta at Scroll.in:

Milind Deora, a former minister in the United Progressive Alliance government, has cautioned against the possible misuse of  a new and more sophisticated system of surveillance conceptualised by his government and now reportedly put on the fast track by the Narendra Modi government. Called the Central Monitoring System, it allows government agencies to bypass phone and internet service providers to directly intercept communications. In an interview to Scroll.in, Deora said that he realised the system could lead to “technically lawful but malicious” interception in the absence of a privacy law.

Currently, in India, the sanction of the union home secretary is required before an agency can tap phones or intercept communications. According to an official reply under a query under the Right to Information Act, the home secretary clears nearly 300 phone tap applications every day. This information led to a seminal study by the New Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Centre which found there was very little transparency about what the government is doing with so much of data that it collects through these 100,000 phone taps every year.

Ideally, any phone tap can lead to only one of two results. It can ether lead to conclusively establish that the person whose communications are being intercepted is guilty, as was suspected. Or, it can reveal that the suspicions were not founded and the person is not indulging in any criminal activity.

If the interception shows that the person is indeed guilty as suspected, then the person should be charged under the relevant laws and prosecuted in the courts. If the person is proved to be innocent after the lawful interception has been conducted, there is no guarantee that the material collected during the period when their phones were being tapped has been destroyed. None of the 10 authorised agencies under law has published a transparency report and even when asked for metadata about whether the law is being followed, they have withheld information.”