Public Relations

Welcome to the Skinner Box: Corporate industrial psychology, consent-free operant conditioning of Hennepin County residents, "mystery shoppers" & mental illness

Hennepin Skinner.jpg

"Now you never know… the owner sends people to buy things here and see how you act…."

Oone-dimensional-man.jpgne pernicious pattern in our modern age is the application of Industrial & Organizational Psychology to control the masses. Arguably the I/O Psych modern trend started in the 1920s, with strategies like Ed Bernays' Propaganda approach. Gradually this converted a nation of independent & frequently militant people into pacified corporate consumers through "massification" (PDF) of egos & identity, as left-wing scholar & intelligence specialist Herbert Marcuse put it. (see One-Dimensional Man text)

Let's look at abusive industrial psychological practices in Hennepin County for a moment. Some people are trying to take action, and it appears a pervasive but latent social control conflict is spilling into the open. [Photo illustration courtesy Ulya Aviral]

Local examples of abusive psychological programs run by government and corporations abound, but they lack broader context and scrutiny. A recent one: In April-May 2012 a number of Minneapolis activists discovered a program called Drug Recognition Evaluator training (DRE) was enticing people to take drugs and possibly receive drugs from law enforcement, without any Institutional Review Board or informed consent paperwork involved. This was documented by us in 'MK Occupy Minnesota'. It continues to be unraveled in a federal lawsuit handled by my friend, attorney Nathan Hansen (more info here). [And don't forget pro sports as mass mind control & the illegally financed Vikings stadium…]

Today's case is but a small example of the total social control system, an unexpected window into how corporations manipulate individual employees. While activist circles fear & loathe government and corporate informants, everyday employees, including independent contractors and those working on sales commissions, are conditioned by trained corporate managers to fear another type of encounter: the "Mystery Shopper" or secret shopper. Mystery shoppers are people hired to pose as regular customers, and then they test the behavior of the employee or contractor without their explicit consent. This provides an opportunity for the corporate managers to punish the employees for supposedly failing on some point of behavior.

Arguably, one desired effect of the mystery shopper system is to trigger mental illness. It exists to cause anxiety & create more uncertainty: after all, if one cannot be sure if a fake persona is going to try and manipulate you at work while you are selling Comcast cable boxes or lawnmowers on commission, you will certainly become more anxious. In a higher state of anxiety, is it easier to control all the employees and keep them subjugated, as well as create new levers to demote and punish them. Weirdly, it feels like a commercialized version of the FBI's anxiety-inducing informant system.

Hennepin County will soon be releasing a new plan for handling mental health, and the conflict here is between those who want psychologically abusive corporate tactics to be regulated, vs those who do not want this issue formally acknowledged by the county.

In Hennepin County, this system is currently a free-for-all, which enables corporations to develop large programs to psychologically traumatize and control their employees through generating more stress and mental illness. Another point: whenever a mystery shopper eats up the time of an employee or contractor working on sales commissions, it prevents them from earning commissions from legitimate customers.

A few members of an obscure citizen volunteer board in Hennepin County have been looking into this, conducting extensive research on the industrial psychology of secret shoppers with an eye to compelling these organizations to be regulated, since there are certain statutes and county rules that in theory could subject the corporations to some kind accountability. [Notes below - in Nevada mystery shoppers have to be licensed under private investigators!]

The Adult Mental Health Local Advisory Council (LAC) meets on the third Thursday of each month from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. at the Hosmer Library, 347 E. 36th St., Minneapolis. [more official info PDF] On August 21st it seems the issue will actually get addressed, though this has been in question.

Here is a message from volunteer Hennepin County Local Advisory Council Adult Mental Illness consumer member Neil Elavsky earlier today about pushing for licensure for industrial and organizational psychologists.
Below the fold...

Terrible proposed shield law spells doom for journalists, in particular me :[

mediashieldlawdifi.jpg

Here is some horrible news. I am inquiring further since of course it's people like me that this is intended to chill and/or enable grand juries to throw in prison without charges…. I have put in inquiries with MN Sens. Klobuchar and Franken offices to determine if they believe reporters should be divided into classes, and what is the deal with grand juries here and etc.

Full report by Kevin Gosztola, another non-journalist: Media Shield Law, Which Aims to Protect Only ‘Real Reporters,’ Moves Onward to the Senate | The Dissenter

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation that would establish a federal shield law for reporters or journalists in the United States. The legislation was amended, before passing out of committee, to define who would be a “covered journalist” under the proposed shield legislation.

The proposed shield legislation, the Free of Flow of Information Act of 2013, was introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer as news of the Justice Department seizing an overly broad set of the Associated Press’ phone records for a leak investigation and of an FBI agent labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen an “aider, abettor and co-conspirator” in a leak investigation were making headlines. However, there is nothing immediately obvious in the proposed media shield that would protect the press from an agency in government committing those kind of abuses. It would not protect someone like New York Times reporter James Risen, who the administration of President Barack Obama has tried to force to testify against his source in a leak case despite protest from media organizations.[….]

MOAR: Why Sen. Feinstein Is Wrong About Who’s a “Real Reporter” | Electronic Frontier Foundation && Why “Members of the News Media” Should Welcome a Shield for the Act of Journalism | emptywheel

PASSED SENATE JUDICIARY: Text of S. 987: Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us

S 987 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 987

To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 16, 2013

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Free Flow of Information Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED PERSONS.

(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure- In any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to comply with a subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process seeking to compel the disclosure of protected information, unless a Federal court in the jurisdiction where the subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process has been or would be issued determines, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person--

(1) that the party seeking to compel disclosure of the protected information has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources (other than a covered person) of the protected information; and

(2) that--

(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution--

(i) if the party seeking to compel disclosure is the Federal Government, based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered person, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred;

(ii) based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered person, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the protected information sought is essential to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution;

(iii) the Attorney General certifies that the decision to request compelled disclosure was made in a manner consistent with section 50.10 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, if compelled disclosure is sought by a member of the Department of Justice in circumstances governed by section 50.10 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(iv) the covered person has not established by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure of the protected information would be contrary to the public interest, taking into account both the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information and the public interest in compelling disclosure (including the extent of any harm to national security); or

(B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered person--

(i) the protected information sought is essential to the resolution of the matter; and

(ii) the party seeking to compel disclosure of the protected information has established that the interest in compelling disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information.

(b) Limitations on Content of Information- A subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process seeking to compel the disclosure of protected information under subsection (a) shall, to the extent possible, be narrowly tailored in purpose, subject matter, and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information.

SEC. 3. EXCEPTION RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

(a) In General- Section 2 shall not apply to any information, record, document, or item obtained as the result of the eyewitness observations of, or obtained during the course of, alleged criminal conduct by the covered person, including any physical evidence or visual or audio recording of the conduct.

(b) Exception- This section shall not apply, and, subject to sections 4 and 5, section 2 shall apply, if the alleged criminal conduct is the act of communicating the documents or information at issue.

SEC. 4. EXCEPTION TO PREVENT DEATH, KIDNAPPING, SUBSTANTIAL BODILY INJURY, SEX OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, OR INCAPACITATION OR DESTRUCTION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

Section 2 shall not apply to any protected information that is reasonably necessary to stop, prevent, or mitigate a specific case of--

(1) death;

(2) kidnapping;

(3) substantial bodily harm;

(4) conduct that constitutes a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor (as those terms are defined in section 111 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911)), or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a criminal offense; or

(5) incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure (as defined in section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e))).

SEC. 5. EXCEPTION TO PREVENT TERRORIST ACTIVITY OR HARM TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

(a) In General- Section 2 shall not apply to any protected information if--

(1) the party seeking to compel disclosure is the Federal Government; and

(2)(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution of the allegedly unlawful disclosure of properly classified information, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected information for which compelled disclosure is sought would materially assist the Federal Government in preventing or mitigating--

(i) an act of terrorism; or

(ii) other acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security; or

(B) in any other criminal investigation or prosecution, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected information for which compelled disclosure is sought would materially assist the Federal Government in preventing, mitigating, or identifying the perpetrator of--

(i) an act of terrorism; or

(ii) other acts that have caused or are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.

(b) Deference- In assessing the existence or extent of the harm described in subsection (a), a Federal court shall give appropriate deference to a specific factual showing submitted to the court by the head of any executive branch agency or department concerned.

(c) Relationship to Section 2- Subsection (a) shall not apply, and, subject to sections 3 and 4, section 2 shall apply, to any criminal investigation or prosecution of the allegedly unlawful disclosure of properly classified information other than one in which the protected information is sought by the Federal Government to prevent or mitigate the harm specified in subsection (a)(2)(A). In considering the extent of any harm to national security when applying section 2 to such cases, a Federal court shall give appropriate deference to any specific factual showing submitted to the court by the head of any executive branch agency or department concerned.

(d) Subsequent Unlawful Disclosure- The potential for a subsequent unlawful disclosure of information by the source sought to be identified shall not, by itself and without any showing of additional facts beyond such potential disclosure, be sufficient to establish that compelled disclosure of the protected information would materially assist the Federal Government in preventing or mitigating--

(1) an act of terrorism; or

(2) other acts that are reasonably likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security.

SEC. 6. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), if any document or other information from the account of a person who is known to be, or reasonably likely to be, a covered person is sought from a communications service provider, sections 2 through 5 shall apply in the same manner that such sections apply to any document or other information sought from a covered person.

(2) EXCEPTION- If any document or other information from the account of a person who is known to be, or reasonably likely to be, a covered person is sought from a communications service provider under section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, the provisions of sections 2 through 5 governing criminal investigations and prosecutions shall apply in the same manner that such sections apply to any document or other information sought from a covered person in the course of a criminal investigation or prosecution, except that clauses (i) and (iii) of section 2(a)(2)(A) and the phrase ‘particularly with reference to directly establishing guilt or innocence’ in section 2(a)(2)(A)(ii) shall not apply.

(b) Notice and Opportunity Provided to Covered Persons- A Federal court may compel the disclosure of a document or other information described in this section only after the covered person from whose account the document or other information is sought has been given--

(1) notice from the party seeking the document or other information through a subpoena or other compulsory request, not later than the time at which such subpoena or request is issued to the communications service provider; and

(2) an opportunity to be heard before the court before compelling testimony or the disclosure of a document.

(c) Exception to Notice Requirement- Notice under subsection (b)(1) may be delayed for not more than 45 days if the Federal court involved determines by clear and convincing evidence that such notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation, a national security investigation, or intelligence gathering, or that exigent circumstances exist. This period may be extended by the court for an additional period of not more than 45 days each time the court makes such a determination.

(d) Notice to Communications Service Provider- In all cases in which notice is required to be provided to the covered person under this section, a copy of such notice shall be provided simultaneously to the communications service provider from whom disclosure is sought. Once it has received such notice, the communications service provider shall not comply with the request for disclosure unless and until disclosure is either ordered by the court or authorized in writing by the covered person.

SEC. 7. SOURCES AND WORK PRODUCT PRODUCED WITHOUT PROMISE OR AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY.

Nothing in this Act shall supersede, dilute, or preclude any law or court decision compelling or not compelling disclosure by a covered person or communications service provider of--

(1) information identifying a source who provided information without a promise or agreement of confidentiality made by the covered person as part of engaging in journalism; or

(2) records, other information, or contents of a communication obtained without a promise or agreement that such records, other information, or contents of a communication would be confidential.

SEC. 8. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPEAL.

(a) Conditions for Ex Parte Review or Submissions Under Seal- With regard to any determination made by a Federal court under this Act, upon a showing of good cause, that Federal court may receive and consider submissions from the parties in camera or under seal, and if the court determines it is necessary, ex parte.

(b) Contempt of Court- With regard to any determination made by a Federal court under this Act, a Federal court may find a covered person to be in civil or criminal contempt if the covered person fails to comply with an order of a Federal court compelling disclosure of protected information.

(c) To Provide for Timely Determination- With regard to any determination to be made by a Federal court under this Act, that Federal court, to the extent practicable, shall make that determination not later than 30 days after the date of receiving a motion requesting the court make that determination.

(d) Expedited Appeal Process-

(1) IN GENERAL- The courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction--

(A) of appeals by a Federal entity or covered person of an interlocutory order of a Federal court under this Act; and

(B) in an appeal of a final decision of a Federal court by a Federal entity or covered person, to review any determination of a Federal court under this Act.

(2) EXPEDITION OF APPEALS- It shall be the duty of a Federal court to which an appeal is made under this subsection to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of that appeal.

SEC. 9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to--

(1) preempt any law or claim relating to defamation, slander, or libel;

(2) modify the requirements of section 552a of title 5, United States Code, or Federal laws or rules relating to grand jury secrecy (except that this Act shall apply in any proceeding and in connection with any issue arising under that section or the Federal laws or rules relating to grand jury secrecy);

(3) create new obligations, or affect or modify the authorities or obligations of a Federal entity with respect to the acquisition or dissemination of information pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); or

(4) preclude voluntary disclosure of information to a Federal entity in a situation that is not governed by this Act.

SEC. 10. AUDIT.

(a) In General- The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall perform a comprehensive audit of the use of this Act during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2016. The audit shall include an examination of each instance in which a court failed to compel the disclosure of protected information under this Act, and whether this Act has created any procedural impediments that have had a detrimental operational impact on the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(b) Report- Not later than June 30, 2017, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report containing the results of the audit conducted under subsection (a).

(c) Review- Not later than 30 days before the submission of the report under subsection (b), the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall provide the report to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. The Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may provide such comments to be included in the report submitted under subsection (b) as the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may consider necessary.

(d) Form- The report submitted under subsection (b) and any comments included under subsection (c) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER- The term ‘communications service provider’--

(A) means any person that transmits information of the customer’s choosing by electronic means; and

(B) includes a telecommunications carrier, an information service provider, an interactive computer service provider, and an information content provider (as such terms are defined in section 3 or 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153 and 230)).

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term ‘covered person’--

(A) means a person who--

(i) with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest, regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes on such matters by--

(I) conducting interviews;

(II) making direct observation of events; or

(III) collecting, reviewing, or analyzing original writings, statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, materials, data, or other information whether in paper, electronic, or other form;

(ii) has such intent at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought; and

(iii) obtains the news or information sought in order to disseminate the news or information by means of print (including newspapers, books, wire services, news agencies, or magazines), broadcasting (including dissemination through networks, cable, satellite carriers, broadcast stations, or a channel or programming service for any such media), mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means;

(B) includes a supervisor, employer, parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of a person described in subparagraph (A); and

(C) does not include any person who is or is reasonably likely to be--

(i) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as those terms are defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);

(ii) a member or affiliate of a foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a));

(iii) designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the Department of the Treasury under Executive Order No. 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701);

(iv) a specially designated terrorist, as that term is defined in section 595.311 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto);

(v) a terrorist organization, as that term is defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II));

(vi) committing or attempting to commit the crime of terrorism, as that offense is defined in section 2331(5) or 2332b(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code;

(vii) committing or attempting the crime of providing material support, as that term is defined in section 2339A(b)(1) of title 18, United States Code, to a terrorist organization; or

(viii) aiding, abetting, or conspiring in illegal activity with a person or organization defined in clauses (i) through (vii).

(3) DOCUMENT- The term ‘document’ means writings, recordings, and photographs, as those terms are defined by rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (28 U.S.C. App.).

(4) FEDERAL ENTITY- The term ‘Federal entity’ means an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the Federal Government with the power to issue a subpoena or issue other compulsory process.

(5) PROPERLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term ‘properly classified information’ means information that is classified in accordance with any applicable Executive orders, statutes, or regulations regarding classification of information.

(6) PROTECTED INFORMATION- The term ‘protected information’ means--

(A) information identifying a source who provided information under a promise or agreement of confidentiality made by a covered person as part of engaging in journalism; or

(B) any records, contents of a communication, documents, or information that a covered person obtained or created--

(i) as part of engaging in journalism; and

(ii) upon a promise or agreement that such records, contents of a communication, documents, or information would be confidential.

////

This is Washington-Speak for "SILENCE PEONS - CHILLING EFFECTS ARE THE NEW FREEDOM". Ughhhh terrible. More to follow.

Make Great Hack Cartel: CyberWar Afloat!! DIB to 2511 Wiretap All Da Networks! SAIC signs deal with Homeland Security, to get Feds' classified hoarded zero-day exploits

"10 providers serve 80 percent of the market. We have classified relationships with a good number of them." -- US Rep Mike Rogers, reminding us how the government creates cartel structures [source Reuters]

One of the more interesting news elements concerns how the federal goverment is going to hand out teh very tastiest candy to contractors - specifically SAIC it now appears - in the form of classified undisclosed hacker attack goodies.

Interestingly AT&T would get get very very important info about vulnerabilities on Apple and other major corporate rivals, providing them with a colossal competitive edge in the so-called "marketplace".

Basically you have the introduction of a cartel system for hacking, reminiscent perhaps of the cartel system for distributing drugs so profitably for the powers-that-be. And of course Homeland Security in the middle, the keystone.

The government/contractor class is entering a more demented, less sound phase of the information age by hoarding important software bugs instead of getting them fixed.

Foreign spooks will surely get their hands on tons of hacks and way more systems will end up getting seriously assaulted. Putting up large cash bounties for responsible disclosure (i.e. telling people who can issue security patches to the public, then telling the public) is almost certainly a better way to approach the problem.

This current policy direction will probably cause far more havoc on the Internet than it will prevent, shocking an outcome as that may be.

Executive Order -- Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity | The White House

[...] Sec. 2. Critical Infrastructure. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.[......]

Sec. 4. Cybersecurity Information Sharing. (a) It is the policy of the United States Government to increase the volume, timeliness, and quality of cyber threat information shared with U.S. private sector entities so that these entities may better protect and defend themselves against cyber threats. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the "Secretary"), and the Director of National Intelligence shall each issue instructions consistent with their authorities and with the requirements of section 12(c) of this order to ensure the timely production of unclassified reports of cyber threats to the U.S. homeland that identify a specific targeted entity. The instructions shall address the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, operations, and investigations.

(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a process that rapidly disseminates the reports produced pursuant to section 4(a) of this order to the targeted entity. Such process shall also, consistent with the need to protect national security information, include the dissemination of classified reports to critical infrastructure entities authorized to receive them. The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a system for tracking the production, dissemination, and disposition of these reports.

(c) To assist the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in protecting their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or harm, the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 143 and in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, establish procedures to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program to all critical infrastructure sectors. This voluntary information sharing program will provide classified cyber threat and technical information from the Government to eligible critical infrastructure companies or commercial service providers that offer security services to critical infrastructure.

(d) The Secretary, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program created under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), shall expedite the processing of security clearances to appropriate personnel employed by critical infrastructure owners and operators, prioritizing the critical infrastructure identified in section 9 of this order.

/////

So "critical infrastructure" includes plenty of big corporate interests and anything that would affect their economic well-being is a threat. As always, regulations which make institutions more permanent, as opposition to the "critical" elements of society becomes blended with "terrorism".

U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance | Politics and Law - CNET News - April 24, Declan McCullaugh (who probably doesn't talk to sources on the f&!!ing telephone that much these days)

Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

Those documents show the National Security Agency and the Defense Department were deeply involved in pressing for the secret legal authorization, with NSA director Keith Alexander participating in some of the discussions personally. Despite initial reservations, including from industry participants, Justice Department attorneys eventually signed off on the project.

The Justice Department agreed to grant legal immunity to the participating network providers in the form of what participants in the confidential discussions refer to as "2511 letters," a reference to the Wiretap Act codified at 18 USC 2511 in the federal statute books.

The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent." An industry representative told CNET the 2511 letters provided legal immunity to the providers by agreeing not to prosecute for criminal violations of the Wiretap Act. It's not clear how many 2511 letters were issued by the Justice Department.

In 2011, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn publicly disclosed the existence of the original project, called the DIB Cyber Pilot, which used login banners to inform network users that monitoring was taking place. In May 2012, the pilot was turned into an ongoing program -- broader but still voluntary -- by the name of Joint Cybersecurity Services Pilot, with the Department of Homeland Security becoming involved for the first time. It was renamed again to Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program in January, and is currently being expanded to all types of companies operating critical infrastructure.

//////

So you have a pilot program that covered the "Defense Industrial Base" or DIB. The security measures used to keep tabs on contractor computers are now rolled out across the interwebs. More on DIB below.

But military-style wiretapping America with fancy 2511 loopholes isn't enough! Let's hand out hacks too! Not surprisingly the NSA's main digital plumbing people, specifically SAIC, are jumping aboard the classified Goodie Gravy train.

//////

SAIC, Inc. : SAIC Signs Agreement With Department of Homeland Security To Be A Commercial Service Provider

05/15/2013| 04:10pm US/Eastern

MCLEAN, Va., May 15, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) (NYSE: SAI) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program to become a Commercial Service Provider (CSP) of approved ECS services that will strengthen protection of U.S. critical infrastructure against imminent cyber attacks. In accordance with the MOA, SAIC is developing the capability and security certifications to utilize threat indicators for securing critical infrastructure customers against cyber threats.

Securing the Future is a guiding mission for SAIC. For decades, SAIC professionals have served the U.S. government and corporate America with expertise and technology to better protect our citizens, our military and our networks. SAIC is currently collaborating with community leaders and building key technologies and architectures that enable trusted sharing of threat information in real-time to protect against both the known and unknown threat landscape.

ECS is a voluntary information sharing program that assists critical infrastructure owners and operators as they improve the protection of their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or data exfiltration. DHS works with cybersecurity organizations from across the federal government to gain access to a broad range of sensitive and classified cyber threat information. DHS develops indicators based on this information and shares them with qualified CSPs, thus enabling them to better protect their customers who are critical infrastructure entities.

Key Quotes:

John Thomas, National Security Sector Acting President
"We must work together to protect our infrastructure, our economy, and our security from cyber attacks. If we don't work together, we won't succeed. This is why SAIC is proud to be a part of this endeavor to share valuable threat information between government and critical infrastructure providers."

Julie Taylor, Cybersecurity Operation Manager for National Security Services
"This collaboration between SAIC and DHS puts in place a new approach to threat sharing across public and private sectors that offers a positive shift in the threat landscape. Each step we take to cultivate our cyber ecosystem with trusted information sharing relationships will have a direct return on stabilizing our national security and our economy. Now that the doors of communication are open, we can further the cyber mission with valuable action as a team. "

David Lacquement, Cybersecurity Program Director
"As a former government executive in cyber threat management, I have seen firsthand the immense value that threat information sharing at network speed can offer to sustaining trusted channels for online transactions and communications. This public-private collaboration is strategically vital to significantly raising the level of cyber awareness, vigilance, and protection across our nation's critical infrastructure."

About SAIC
SAIC is a FORTUNE 500(®) scientific, engineering, and technology applications company that uses its deep domain knowledge to solve problems of vital importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy and the environment, critical infrastructure, and health. The Company's approximately 40,000 employees serve customers in the U.S. Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, other U.S. Government civil agencies and selected commercial markets. Headquartered in McLean, Va., SAIC had annual revenues of approximately $11.2 billion for its fiscal year ended January 31, 2013. For more information, visit www.SAIC.com. SAIC: From Science to Solutions®

Statements in this announcement, other than historical data and information, constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause our actual results, performance, achievements, or industry results to be very different from the results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to, the risk factors set forth in SAIC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2013, and other such filings that SAIC makes with the SEC from time to time. Due to such uncertainties and risks, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof.

Contact: Melissa Koskovich Jennifer Gephart

(703) 676-6762 (703) 676-6389

Melissa.l.koskovich@saic.com Jennifer.a.gephart@saic.com

SOURCE SAIC

/////

Here is the Department of Homeland Security page on it: Enhanced Cybersecurity Services | Homeland Security. See also Office of Cybersecurity and Communications and Stakeholder Engagement and Cyber Infrastructure Resilience. I wonder if someone gets applause for these titles, whew...

Enhanced Cybersecurity Services

Protecting critical infrastructure against growing and evolving cyber threats requires a layered approach. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) actively collaborates with public and private sector partners every day to respond to and coordinate mitigation efforts against attempted disruptions and adverse impacts to the nation’s critical cyber and communications networks and infrastructure.

As the federal government’s lead agency for coordinating the protection, prevention, mitigation, and recovery from cyber incidents, DHS works regularly with business owners and operators to strengthen their facilities and communities. To accomplish this, the DHS Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program was expanded in February 2013 by Executive Order - Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.

ECS is a voluntary information sharing program that assists critical infrastructure owners and operators as they improve the protection of their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or data exfiltration. DHS works with cybersecurity organizations from across the federal government to gain access to a broad range of sensitive and classified cyber threat information. DHS develops indicators based on this information and shares them with qualified Commercial Service Providers (CSPs), thus enabling them to better protect their customers who are critical infrastructure entities. ECS augments, but does not replace, an entities’ existing cybersecurity capabilities.

The ECS program does not involve government monitoring of private networks or communications. Under the ECS program, information relating to threats and malware activities detected by the CSPs is not directly shared between the critical infrastructure CSP customers and the government. However, when a CSP customer voluntarily agrees, the CSP may share limited and anonymized information with ECS. See the Privacy Impact Assessment below for more details.

Critical Infrastructure Entities

Most critical infrastructure entities already utilize cybersecurity providers to protect their networks. The ECS program offers an enhanced approach to protecting these entities by supplementing existing services and commercial capabilities with U.S. Government cyber threat information. This approach supports the delivery of enhanced capabilities to eligible participants from all sectors.

Participation in the program is voluntary and is designed to protect government intelligence, corporate information security, and the privacy of participants, while enhancing the security of critical infrastructure. Validated entities from all critical infrastructure sectors are eligible to participate in the ECS program and receive ECS services from qualified CSPs.

To learn more about becoming a validated critical infrastructure entity, please contact the ECS Program Management Office at ECS_Program@HQ.DHS.gov.

Commercial Service Providers

CSPs receive threat information from DHS and use it to offer specified services to their critical infrastructure customers in a secure environment in order to ensure the security of government furnished information.

CSPs deliver services to eligible customers through commercial relationships. The ECS program is not involved in establishing the commercial relationships between CSPs and validated critical infrastructure entities. As of February 2013, the following CSPs are approved to provide ECS services to critical infrastructure entities:

DHS is working with several additional providers who seek to offer enhanced cybersecurity services to entities. To learn about becoming a CSP, please contactECS_Program@HQ.DHS.gov.

Sector Specific Agencies

Sector Specific Agencies (SSAs) and DHS form a critical partnership within the ECS program. The role of the SSA is to leverage existing relationships with critical infrastructure entities to expand and improve ECS. The SSA is also responsible for helping to characterize risks and threats unique to critical infrastructure entities in their respective sectors. This characterization will enable the federal government to deliver the most effective indicators relevant to ECS protected entities based upon the unique threat environment of their sector. SSAs also serve as a vital conduit to DHS for data leading to requirements that will drive the development of ECS program capabilities.

Privacy and Civil Liberties

DHS embeds and enforces privacy protections and transparency in all its activities and uses the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) to assess and mitigate any impact on an individual’s privacy.   DHS has conducted and published a Privacy Impact Assessment for the ECS program. DHS also ensures that ECS and all of its cybersecurity activities are structured in a way that ensures individual rights are protected.

Contact Information

For more information, contact ECS_Program@HQ.DHS.gov.

//////

Once you poke around on FedBizOpps.gov a little bit it's easier to see how they blow so much money in DC.

Fun FEMA Pork tangent: Here are some FEMA satellite phone sole source contract. On the one hand, it's good someone has a satellite phone in emergencies, but someone is profiting off this sale...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4a1af0e4e2942226816...

FEMA seeks to acquire on an other than full and open competition basis MSAT satellite terminals. These terminals are primarily utilized in Disaster Operations for mission critical communications within FEMA, as well as for communicating with strategic partners to support disasters. There is currently only one commercial satellite operator in North America offering two-way radio, push-to-talk (PTT) capability integrated with telephone. This feature makes it possible to communicate with another terminal in a specific talk group anywhere in CONUS. Authority is FAR 6.302-1 The anticipated period of performance is for one year. THIS NOTICE OF INTENT IS NOT A REQUEST FOR COMPETITIVE QUOTES. NO TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL BE ACCEPTED. A determination by the Government not to compete this acquisition based upon responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government.

Contracting Office Address:

500 C Street SW

Patriots Plaza -- 5th Floor

Washington, District of Columbia 20472

United States

Primary Point of Contact.:

Christine Thomas

christine.thomas@associates.fema.dhs.gov

/////

Anyway here is the Reuters story central to this whole turn of narrative, a new system "Outside of the Military Industrial Complex" indeed.

REUTERS: Government to Share Cyber Security Information with Private Sector - By Joseph Menn | May 15, 2013

SOURCE http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/05/15/292065.htm

The U.S. government will use classified information about software vulnerabilities for the first time to protect companies outside of the military industrial complex, top officials told Reuters this week.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that a system being developed to scan Internet traffic headed toward critical businesses would block attacks on software programs that the general population does not realize are possible.

“It is a way to share information about known vulnerabilities that may not be commonly available,” Napolitano said at the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit in Washington, D.C.

The information would come from “a variety of sources” including intelligence agencies, she said on Tuesday.

The National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies develop and acquire knowledge about software flaws in order to penetrate overseas networks. Until now, there has been no straightforward way for these agencies to share that classified data with U.S. companies outside the defense sector, even though those companies could become victims of cyber attacks.

The plan is to discreetly share the data through what the government calls Enhanced Cybersecurity Services. Under a February presidential order, those services will be offered by telecommunications and defense companies to utilities, banks and other critical infrastructure companies that choose to pay for them.

Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security will take the information from the NSA and other sources, and relay it to service providers with security clearances. The service providers would then use these “attack signatures” – such as Internet routing data and content associated with known adversary groups – to screen out malicious traffic.

Napolitano’s comments were the first disclosure that the screening would also cover attacks on software using methods known to the government that have not been disclosed to the software manufacturers or buyers.

While U.S. intelligence agencies have at times warned software manufacturers, such as Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc., or Homeland Security officials of specific, declassified problems, the new system will be machine-to-machine and far more rapid.

It reflects the realization that many espionage attacks from overseas are aimed at the private sector and that future destructive attacks may arrive the same way. (Classified attack signatures have been used to protect defense manufacturers under a Pentagon program.)

House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said he was glad about the plan to share more broadly information about vulnerabilities, while maintaining control of the process to avoid tipping off rival countries or criminals.

“This can’t happen if you post it on a website,” Rogers, a Republican and lead author of a cybersecurity information-sharing bill that has passed the House, told the Summit. “We have to find a forum in which we can share it, and 10 providers serve 80 percent of the market. We have classified relationships with a good number of them.”

Among those that have agreed to provide the classified security services are AT&T Inc. and Raytheon Co. Northrop Grumman Corp. said this week it had also joined the program.

The secret but widespread U.S. practice of buying up tools leveraging unknown or “zero-day” software flaws for spying or attacks was the subject of a Reuters Special Report last week, in which former White House cybersecurity advisors said more flaws should be disclosed for defensive reasons.

Michael Daniel, the White House cybersecurity policy coordinator, told the Summit the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program was still evolving and the type of information shared would change as threats do.

“We want to use the full capabilities that we have to protect as much of the critical infrastructure as we can with that program,” he said.

(Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Tiffany Wu and Leslie Gevirtz)

/////////

Here is the earlier Zero Day story: Booming 'zero-day' trade has Washington cyber experts worried | Reuters

(Reuters) - The proliferation of hacking tools known as zero-day exploits is raising concerns at the highest levels in Washington, even as U.S. agencies and defense contractors have become the biggest buyers of such products.

White House cybersecurity policy coordinator Michael Daniel said the trend was "very worrisome to us."

Asked if U.S. government buying in the offensive market was adding to the problem, Daniel said more study was needed. "There is a lot more work to be done in that space to look at the economic questions...so we can do a better job on the cost-benefit analysis," he said.

Some security experts say the government's purchasing power could help instead of hurt. They argue the U.S. government should bring the market into the open by announcing it will pay top dollar for zero-days and then disclosing all vulnerabilities to the companies concerned and their customers.

"Given that people are now buying vulnerabilities, the U.S. should simply announce that it is cornering the market, that they will pay 10 times anyone else," said Dan Geer, chief information security officer at In-Q-Tel, the U.S. intelligence community's venture capital firm. He said he was speaking outside of his official capacity.

IN-Q-TEL TROLLING. FACK... This story is going all over the place. In-Q-Tel is the CIA's venture capital wing, worth noting for those unfamiliar. They use government money to make private venture capitalists tons of profits - for example building up Keyhole into Google Earth, which, when installed on your computer phones home constantly.

See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/additional-publications/in-q-tel/

In-Q-Tel - Wikipedia. Among other things: "In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google, worth over $2.2 million, on Nov 15, 2005.[6] The stocks were a result of Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, the CIA funded satellite mapping software now known asGoogle Earth."

Exclusive: Google, CIA Invest in 'Future' of Web Monitoring | Danger Room | Wired.com: "The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future."

In-Q-Tel: The CIA's Tax-Funded Player In Silicon Valley : All Tech Considered : NPR && 25 Cutting Edge Companies Funded By The Central Intelligence Agency - Business Insider

/////

Batchez of linx follow when diving into this newest gravy train. Here is a plain setup showing a bunch of classified stuff about to go out the door to shady contractors, I'm sure none of them sketchballs with foreign intelligence angles who will sell out and use the good stuff to attack for massive profit.

DIBS ON YOUR INTERNETS: This is probably the original DIB thing now foisted on America at large, or closer to it:

www.dc3.mil/dcise/DIB Enhanced Cybersecurity Services Procedures.pdf
DIB Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (DECS)

The Department of Defense (DoD) in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively engaged in multiple efforts to foster mutually beneficial partnerships with the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) to protect DoD information residing on or passing though DIB company systems. One such effort is the DIB Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Program, including its optional DIB Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (DECS) component.

Under the optional DECS component of the DIB CS/IA Program, the Government will furnish classified cyber threat and technical information either to a DIB company or to the DIB company’s Commercial Service Provider (CSP). This sensitive, Government-furnished information enables these DIB companies, or the CSPs on behalf of their DIB customers, to counter additional types of known malicious cyber activity, to further protect DoD program information.

///////

This is also nuts: www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg544/docs/ECS_Fact_Sheet.pdf

And: Raytheon, Lockheed Get U.S. Secrets as Cybersecurity Go-Betweens

Cyber Security, Critical Infrastructure, and Obama’s Executive Order - Deloitte CIO - WSJ

Northrop, US DHS team up to support enhanced cybersecurity services :: Strategic Defence Intelligence

U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance | Politics and Law - CNET News

///////

Other Major Moves of Note right now: Of course the Bitcoin ecosystem got a major swipe at it from Department of Homeland Security's new uber-agency, Homeland Security Investigations. Warrant Reveals Homeland Security Seized Mt. Gox’s Dwolla Account for ‘Unlicensed Money Transmitting’ | Betabeat. I covered some key notes on the ever-spreading DHS-HSI organization in April 2012.

Associated Press situation is a big deal too. via @johnknefel: What's at Stake When the Department of Justice Seizes AP Phone Records | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Anyway I will leave it there for now. The Hack Cartel rides high today, but as with all these corrupt authoritarian bubbles they tumble sooner or later.

The Cyberwar fleet of fools will sink of its own accord, but how many innocent fishing boats will get capsized in the wake of their fooling about?

Pentagon domestic operations switches from "pull" to "push" on 24-48hr timelines: "Defense Support of Civil Authorites" expands

This is an incredibly short period of time, he said, and it forces a change in the relationship between DOD and other agencies. The old paradigm was to have civil partners “pull assistance” from DOD, while now DOD will actually push assistance where it is needed.

Defense.gov News Article: Official Explains New Homeland Defense/Civil Support Strategy

There is also a video here: http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/Video.aspx?videoid=285596

Mirrored: Domestic Pentagon ops expands Defense Support of Civil Authorities vs domestic extremists - YouTube

//// UPDATE 4.22.13: I forgot! Here is one version of USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3501. Thanx to YAN, reddit, & Cryptogon for taking note of this post! This video from the Boston metro area shows what domestic militarization of police is all about:

Also please follow PublicIntelligence.net and Cryptome.org for more handy docs. PI in particular has been pretty well on top of this.////

Mission drift into the US continues as the Pentagon contemplates dealing with "domestic extremists" under the rubric of Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) - one aspect of which is the US Northern Command's "USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3501".

CONPLAN 3501, This generic emergency plan is relatively easy to obtain (most of the text), but it is the "friendly" hand of the DOD compared to the more mysterious and riot-control-oriented "USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3502" entitled "Civil Disturbance Operations" (CDO). This surfaced in researching the role of Northcom at the 2008 Republican National Convention, which was a very 3502 CDO style operation with National Guard controlling space on Kellogg Blvd. CONPLAN 3502 is the post-2002 version of GARDEN PLOT, the 1960s-1990s template plan for domestic military deployments, like for example in the LA Riots.

This extends the story from late 2010: Secret 'Trigger' & blueprint for emergency domestic military crackdown plan revealed | HongPong.com and reconfirms various aspects.

/////////////

Here is the new front-piece document. Also bonus weird stuff about the ever popular integration of North America.

An interesting Snippet:

Loosely-networked or individually motivated violent extremists will continue to exhort followers and encourage violent extremism in the homeland.

o HVEs will operate alone or organize in small groups and will be largely autonomous in their operations; they will have access to web-based resources to assist them in their operational planning.

o Military members and facilities will remain prominent targets of terrorists, and particularly by HVEs.

ł DoD will be called upon to provide significant resources and capabilities during a catastrophic event in the homeland.

o The National Response Framework will remain the primary instrument for applying Federal capabilities during disaster response.

And

Rapid and actionable intelligence on terrorist threats

DoD will maintain and enhance the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism (JITF-CT) as its key node for sharing intelligence with interagency partners on terrorist threats. DoD will improve and refine intelligence and information-sharing relationships that have developed since 9/11 and as a result of the Fort Hood shootings.

DoD maintains a robust array of foreign intelligence capabilities, and sharing relevant counterterrorism-related information with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and other key parties is vital to the prevention of potential terrorist threats to the homeland. JITF-CT will remain the focal point for DoD’s outreach and sharing of intelligence and information with the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Additionally, DoD will expand its participation within the various FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs),9 as well as other similar entities to maximize “top-down” and “bottom-up” sharing of key pieces of intelligence and information, consistent with applicable law and policy.

And of course, Unity of Effort and the ever popular Council of Governors:

Promote Federal-State Unity of Effort

Unity of effort between the Federal Government and States must be one of DoD’s guiding principles in the homeland, since unifying DoD’s efforts with those of its external partners improves collaboration and shortens response times for meeting life-saving needs during emergencies. Unity of effort also means greater national preparedness at less overall cost, while preserving both Federal and State constitutional requirements and responsibilities. DoD and its Federal partners must continue to strengthen unity of effort with States to define common goals regarding capabilities, structures, and processes for responses to disaster and emergencies in the homeland. The Council of Governors – established by Executive Order in 2010 – will be an essential forum for enhanced, senior-level dialogue among Federal and State civilian and military officials for this purpose.

[.....] DoD will regard dual-status commanders as the usual and customary command and control arrangement in cases where Federal military and State National Guard forces are employed simultaneously in support of civil authorities within the United States.

DoD will continue to refine processes for dual-status commanders and their associated command structures. By leveraging the use of such commanders, DoD will improve Federal-State communication, economy of force, and force employment for planned events and no-notice or imminent incidents. Historic examples of the employment of dual status commanders include national special security events such as the Democratic and Republican national conventions and responses to disasters like Hurricane Sandy and wildfires in the western United States...

Vague talk of militarized domestic databases always good:

Since Federal and State military components have varying requirements for relevant information and level of detail, development of a COP solution need not specify systems, hardware, or software. Instead, it must be based on common data from authoritative military or civilian databases that flow to various systems in a common format.....

The DCE/DCO structure is reconfirmed to be key to domestic military operations:

DoD will use the planning capacity of Defense Coordinating Elements (DCEs) to expand planning cooperation at the regional level so that Departmental capabilities are considered in FEMA-led regional planning efforts. DoD will also build an integrated organizational architecture for its liaison and coordinating officers at various headquarters.

The ten FEMA regional offices are key nodes for integrating Federal plans with State and local plans, and DCEs within these regional offices are essential for operational and tactical unity of effort in an adaptive environment. This regional planning relationship bridges the gap between State-level planning conducted at a National Guard’s Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ)-State and DoD and DHS national-level planning. The JFHQs in each of the 54 States and Territoriesprovide vital ties to State emergency officials and the National Guard Bureau. This enduring synergy positions the JFHQ as the key State-level organization for integrating the emergency plans of local DoD installations with State plans and FEMA regional plans.

DoD will deepen and facilitate rigorous Federal, regional, and State-level planning, training, and exercises through coordination and liaison arrangements that support civil authorities at all levels. These arrangements include DoD liaison officers at DHS and FEMA, Defense Coordinating Officers (DCOs), and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers from each Service.....

FULL DOCUMENT: Pentagon domestic ops Homeland Defense Strategy 2.2013

/////////////

Defense.gov News Article: Official Explains New Homeland Defense/Civil Support Strategy

By Jim Garamone - American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 1, 2013 – The Defense Department incorporated hard lessons learned when it codified its new homeland defense and civil support strategy, said Todd M. Rosenblum, DOD’s top homeland defense official.

In an interview with American Forces Press Service and the Pentagon Channel, Rosenblum, the acting assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and Americas’ security affairs, said the new strategy is a recognition that the operating environment has changed.

“We face new threats, we have new vulnerabilities, we have new dependencies, most importantly we have a new way to do business,” Rosenblum said during a Pentagon interview. “We have to capture that and make sure the department is prepared and directed toward being more effective and efficient as we can be.”

The Defense Department is charged with defending the homeland from attack. U.S. Northern Command is further charged with working with state and local entities and other federal agencies to provide support in times of natural or man-made disasters. In the first instance, DOD has the lead. In the second, another federal agency -- such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- has the lead.

The strategy, released in February, looks at the lessons learned from past experiences -- from Hurricane Katrina through Hurricane Sandy.

They also looked at changes including the growth of communications networks, dependence on private-sector capabilities and “the rising expectations from the president and from the secretary, and certainly from the American people, that we will be prepared to provide support to civil authorities within a 24- to 48-hour window,” Rosenblum said.

This is an incredibly short period of time, he said, and it forces a change in the relationship between DOD and other agencies. The old paradigm was to have civil partners “pull assistance” from DOD, while now DOD will actually push assistance where it is needed.

“So we are postured to provide assistance as fast and rapidly as possible,” Rosenblum said.

The vast difference between the response to Katrina in 2005 and to Sandy in 2012 shows the effectiveness of the new strategy, he said.

“We were more efficient, timely and effective in our support to Hurricane Sandy,” Rosenblum said. “This is because we did integrated planning within DOD, with our federal partners, and with our state partners. We recognized the need to not wait to be called upon, but to pre-position our support capabilities knowing there’s going to be audibles and ad hoc requests.”

Planning is at the heart of the strategy, he said. Integrated planning -- with state and local officials, with other federal agencies and with non-governmental entities -- has increased visibility and prominence. The National Guard -- an organization that bridges state and federal efforts -- continues to play a crucial role. But, Rosenblum noted, the strategy recognizes that response to disasters requires an all-of-government approach.

Cyberattacks, he said, also could produce the type of man-made disaster that would require DOD assistance. The homeland defense mission codifies requirements to provide cyberdefense, he added.

“The threats to networks and critical infrastructure increase when we are engaged in operations overseas,” he said. “The physical effects of cyberattacks can impact our military operation capabilities and response capabilities.”

The fiscal environment impacts this -- and all other -- strategies.

“The sequester is real and effecting DOD through readiness, training,” Rosenblum said. “It is difficult for the department to plan and budget intelligently, when we don’t have budget certainty.”

Officials devised the strategy when the department had already committed to $487 billion in reductions over 10 years.

“Sequester has changed the calculus tremendously,” Rosenblum said. “But this strategy is not about buying new capabilities: It’s about our planning, our processes and our integration.”

////////////

Defense.gov News Release: DOD Releases Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support for Civil Authorities

U.S. Department of Defense

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

News Release

On the Web:

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=15878

Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact:

http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx

or +1 (703) 571-3343

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 172-13

March 22, 2013

DOD Releases Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support for Civil Authorities

The Department of Defense announced today the release of the Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities. This policyestablishes DoD’s priorities in the areas of homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities through 2020, consistent with the president’s National Security Strategy and the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. It links with other DoD and national strategic documents related to missile defense, space, cyberspace, counterterrorism, and the Western Hemisphere. The strategy identifies two priority missions for the department in the homeland: defend U.S. territory from direct attack by state and non-state actors; and provide assistance to domestic civil authorities in the event of natural or manmade disasters, potentially in response to a very significant or catastrophic event.

The strategy emphasizes cost-effective policy mechanisms and innovative approaches to defend the homeland against direct attacks and to provide timely responses to routine and catastrophic events on U.S. territory. It stresses the continuation of DoD capabilities to defend against conventional and emerging threats in the air and maritime domains, while expanding cooperation with federal, state, and local partners to defeat asymmetric threats – including, for example, homegrown violent extremists who may seek to use improvised explosive devices. Additionally, it addresses DoD preparations for responding to man-made and natural disasters.

“The Department of Defense’s contributions to the defense of our nation have evolved over the past decade and account for new threats and challenges. Lessons learned from events like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and collaboration with our interagency partners and State Governors have framed our current approach to DoD civil support activities,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs Todd Rosenblum. “This strategy emphasizes strengthening our partnerships with federal agencies like the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, with state and local governments, with the private sector, and with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors – not only for more comprehensive approaches to complex security challenges in the homeland, but also to create efficiencies through collaboration and joint action,”

For further information about this strategy, please access http://www.defense.gov/news/Homelanddefensestrategy.pdf

//////////

Never heard of this guy, he is the one doing the news release above. Career includes being Evan Bayh's national security staff & CIA Near East 1988-1993hires_061611094311_Rosenblum_Todd.JPG

Defense.gov Biography: Todd M. Rosenblum

Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs [Acting?]

Todd M. Rosenblum is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs. In this position, he advises the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on the homeland defense activities of the Department and regional security matters for the countries of the Western Hemisphere. He is also responsible for advising the Secretary of Defense on all matters pertaining to defense support to civil and law enforcement authorities in the homeland. Mr. Rosenblum has nearly 25 years of political, policy, and legislative experience in national security affairs.

Prior to his appointment at the Department of Defense in May 2011, Mr. Rosenblum was the Deputy Under Secretary of Intelligence for Plans, Policy, and Performance Management, Department of Homeland Security, from February 2009 to May 2011. He directed strategic and policy planning for the Department’s intelligence program, oversaw budget development and resource allocation priorities for the synchronization of intelligence programs and priorities, provided stewardship and direction for the Information Sharing Enterprise, and ensured that the intelligence program was aligned with national, departmental, and intelligence strategy and requirements.

Mr. Rosenblum was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee from March 2005 to November 2008, leading Committee oversight of Department of Defense human intelligence collection programs and Intelligence Community-wide intelligence collection programs and operations in the Middle East. Concurrently and prior to joining the Committee, he served as the Military Legislative Assistant and National Security Advisor to Senator Evan Bayh from January 2001 to November 2008, where he acted as senior counsel and represented the Senator on defense issues and foreign policy, national security legislative actions, and public affairs. He was a member of the Senior Personnel Staff, National Security Cluster, on the Obama Presidential Transition Team from November 2008 to February 2009.   

Mr. Rosenblum held several management and advisory positions at the Department of State and the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from August 1994 to January 2001. From April 1999 to January 2001, he was the Executive Assistant/Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation where he provided executive management and policy liaison on the full range of nonproliferation issues. He was the Senior Foreign Affairs Advisor for Northeast Asia at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from August 1994 to April 1999, where he represented the Agency in numerous nonproliferation negotiations and regional security dialogues.

From January 1993 to August 1994, he was the Deputy Political-Military Advisor for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State. Mr. Rosenblum chaired an interagency export control working group, providing departmental recommendations on proposed arms sales to the region, and was responsible for ensuring consistency between national policy and regional security assistance activities. He was an Intelligence Officer in the Central Intelligence Agency’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs, Directorate of Intelligence, from September 1988 to January 1993.

Mr. Rosenblum has received numerous individual and group awards from the Department of State, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency. He received his Masters in International Affairs in 1988 from the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, and his Bachelor of Arts in 1986 from Columbian College, The George Washington University.

//////////////

Anyway that should give everyone a little more to work with, given the heightened domestic military operations surrounding the Boston aftermath, it is important to get a sense of where the Pentagon sees itself going in these reactions and ongoing operations -- what happens next is another question.

A great move would be publishing the entire text of USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations on the Internets immediately!

Kurt Johnson & Corporate NAFTA farm politics, Pork Producers Council 1990s spy ops: HogSpy DFL Primary MN-19A Special Election?

"[T]he activists we are concerned about here are the ones who want to change the way your industry does business--either for good or bad reasons: environmentalists, churches, Public Interest Research Groups, campus organizations, civic groups, teachers unions, and 'Naderites'." (quoted in Montague 1993) -- Ronald Duchin, from the PR firm Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin, categorises activists as either radicals, opportunists, idealists or realists.... Duchin's formula is therefore to isolate the radicals, turn the idealists into realists, co-opt the realists to support industry solutions and the opportunists will go along with the final agreement. The radicals, he says, need the support of the idealists and realists to have credibility. Without them they are marginalised and "seen to be shallow and self-serving." (Montague 1993) Greenwash - Categorising Environmentalists

Interesting tidbit surfaces! A filed Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate for Minnesota House District 19A, Kurt Johnson, has just been passed over for endorsement today by DFL, though he came in second in four rounds of balloting. Confusingly, someone named Clark Johnson won DFL endorsement on the fourth ballot in North Mankato today, as reported at Clark Johnson wins DFL endorsement for House 19A » The Free Press, Mankato, MN. The primary is Jan. 29th and the general election is Feb. 12th.

Due to the compressed schedule, all the candidates will appear on the primary ballot. For the general election, eccentric lolcat & famed undercover investigator of pornography Allen Quist will be repping for the Republican Party, fresh off an unsuccessful, but name ID-boosting, congressional campaign vs Tim Walz.

Anyway Kurt Johnson was the president of the primary corporate hog farmer lobby, the National Pork Producers Council, in part of the 1990s. The following bio says 1994 only, though another says 1993. In 1997, NPPC was exposed for hiring corporate spying specialists, Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin Inc., in 1996. Therefore we could say there is a pretty close overlap between corporate spying and Johnson's tenure, though very little information surfaces online about this. NPPC is also considered by PRWatch as a pro-factory farming ALEC supporter.

Summary point: Not being familiar with the pork industry or MBC's spying, this is not a blockbuster post with sekrit sources but there seem to be interesting patterns. One finds very little documented connection between Johnson & MBC, however it seems reasonable to say there appears 2nd or 3rd degree links connecting Johnson & the MBC operation through NPPC and the pro-checkoff campaign he was co-chairing around 2000.

Johnson has been a player within and a supporter of global trade agreement deals, putting him firmly in the 'globalist' camp if you prefer that label. See this: 1997: Connect Business Magazine » Cover Story » Karl Johnson

Besides co-owning Equity Supply, North Mankato’s Karl Johnson also raises hogs – and lots of them: this year 20,000 and next year about 35,000. Hogs are the means through which he’s earned a national reputation. He’s also worked on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and GATT, testified before Congress, been interviewed by most major news organizations, and currently he sits on a special task force for Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. And all because of hogs.

You could say he “brings home the bacon” for the region’s hog producers.

Karl Johnson is in full command of his facts and can communicate those facts well. He leans back in his chair and makes you feel good about hogs. For once he has the chance to tell you pork’s story from pork’s perspective. And he seems to enjoy that.

CONNECT: When you were president of the National Pork Producers Council, how do you feel you were treated by the media, by politicians and by special interest groups?

Johnson: It’s a mixed reaction, quite frankly, but by-and-large rather well. I wouldn’t say that we had tremendous problems. Obviously I’ve testified before Congress several times and was usually well-received. I worked very hard on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the GATT agreement. In Washington I was by-and-large rather well-received. We would go in with Congressmen who were concerned about what was happening in their area and we talked about the pork industry – I’ve had that (experience). We go through some negatives, there’s no question about that. There’s some tough interviews.

I was interviewed by the ABC news program probably three years ago now; talking about the swine industry and how it relates to the world. Anyway, I remember we did an hour and a-half interview like this, with TV, so they’re doing the whole thing, and I was in a chair and an office for an hour and a-half. I was put through the wringer, if you will. And I thought I must have done fairly well because they only used ten seconds of it. (laughter) So sometimes you’re beat up a little bit. Mostly we’ve found that, or I’ve found, that interviewers from the Washington Post to the L.A. Times, to the Wall Street Journal, once they’ve started visiting with you and found out some of the facts – at first they were on a mission – but when they found out the facts they would back off. We were treated, I think, fairly decently.

I think, now in the last couple of years, some things have come about where that is not quite as true. I think that we are being viewed as corporate agriculture, which scares everyone. We’re not. I mean, there’s still an awful lot of independent producers that are forming alliances. But it’s being perceived differently. We’ve got some groups within agriculture, there are some offshoot groups, that are fighting this consolidation, if you will, of agriculture. They’re getting some tough times. Sometimes, I think, as well, that in the press it’s not a story unless it’s a negative story. Sometimes that happens. A good friend of mine is a reporter with the Minneapolis Tribune and I know that he has that same opinion – he will agree with me on that. It doesn’t sell papers if you don’t make it a bit interesting.

Occupation: Co-owner of Equity Supply in Mankato. Pork producer, rural North Mankato (currently produces 20,000 market hogs).

Born: December 24, 1945.

Education: Mankato High School Class of ’63. Attended Mankato State University.

National Experience: Past President, National Pork Producers Council (1994). Current Chairman, National Pork Producers Council Foreign Trade Committee. Officer, U.S. Meat Export Federation. Member, Special Task Force, for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, on concentration of U.S. packing industry.

Regional and Local Experience: Past President, MN Pork Producers Association (’84-’85). Former Chairman, Mankato Chamber of Commerce Agriculture Committee. Former Member, South Central Technical College Foundation. Chairman of the Board, Frost-BENCO-Wells Electric. Community Board Member, Norwest Bank, Mankato.

Mongroven, Biscoe & Duchin Inc. were hired to spy on opponents of the NPPC partly using revenue from something I'd never heard of before, the "Pork Checkoff", a researcher discovered. See About Pork Checkoff and the National Pork Board. "U.S. pork producers and importers pay $0.40 per $100 of value when pigs are sold and when pigs or pork products are brought into the United States." I'm kind of confused about the status of the checkoff today (large sums collected in Minnesota in 2012), but it seems pretty clear that checkoff money was used to spy on NPPC opponents during an era where Johnson played a key role in defending the checkoff for NPPC. [Nov 2012 MN pork Checkoff report, March 2012 National Pork Checkoff Nominating Committee ]

MBD has a storied history of working as henchmen & specialists on spying on activists for the tobacco industry, the chlorine industry, and they started with Nestlé in 1981 when people fought their nasty baby formula marketing in the developing world. They don't even seem to have a website. Be sure to see Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin: destroying tobacco control activism from the inside -- Carter 11 (2): 112 -- Tobacco Control including "monitoring and co-opting NGOs" and "character assassination research":

A particularly nasty specialty of MBD is preparing backgrounders on individuals who lead tobacco control efforts, presumably to enable the industry to discredit them in the eyes of the public or decision makers. PM specifically requested that MBD investigate Dr Sydney Wolfe of the Health Research Group (HRG), Cliff Douglas of the American Lung Association, and Scott Ballin of the American Heart Association in 1992. MBD sent information they already had on file and advised “If we had a day or so we could expand on this information significantly.”31 As well as general career path and network information, Mongoven's somewhat desperate attempts to identify a character flaw involve an association with prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader and a very tenuous suggestion that this may have influenced the awarding of a grant.31 Far more vicious is MBD's work on Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland in relation to her appointment as Director General of the WHO. Brundtland moved tobacco control to the top of the WHO priority list on her appointment, thus posed a significant threat to the industry. In 1998 Mongoven provided intelligence both on the appointment process and Brundtland's loyalties, predicting that she was certain to be elected to the position.32

We are really talking about the dirty black-bag job types, the undertakers of the technocratic 'expertise' driven world dominated by professional Public Relations - as covered by PRWatch writers Rampton & Stauber in Trust Us, We're Experts | PR Watch.

They are still listed here at 1100 Connecticut Ave NW #300 Washington DC 20036, at phone 202-429-1800. (lol same spot as the Anti-Defamation League according to the map!)

via Through tobacco industry eyes: civil society and the FCTC process from Philip Morris and British American Tobacco’s perspectives | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education  - a little hard to read but interesting - http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/tc.2010.041657.full_.pdf

mbd-notes.png

Here's the Big Kit & Kaboodle: The Land Stewardship Project reported the spying involving the NPPC and the Pork Checkoff in 1997: Pork Checkoff 'Spy' Funds Questioned - 1/17/1997 (also posted almost same version at Pork Producers Council uses checkoff to investigate farm groups by Brian DeVore - Rural America / In Motion Magazine)

Pork Checkoff 'Spy' Funds Questioned

NPPC paid PR firm to keep tabs on unknowing sustainable ag and family farm groups, according to Council documents leaked to the media.

1/17/97: The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has paid $50,000 to investigate the activities of six family farm and sustainable agriculture groups, according to NPPC documents leaked to the media last week. Part of that money, which was paid to a Washington, D.C., public relations firm, came from the federal pork checkoff, says Alan Guebert, an Illinois-based journalist who wrote about the NPPC's surveillance work in this week's edition of his syndicated column.

The PR firm, Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin, Inc., was hired by the NPPC in 1996, and its investigation of grassroots groups continues as part of a $100,000, checkoff-sponsored program called Strategic Communication Initiatives, according to NPPC officials.

"The NPPC is run by the big producers and corporate factory farms for their own benefit, and they use our money to do it," said Rodney Skalbeck, a Renville County, Minn., hog farmer and a member of the Land Stewardship Project. "Now they're trying to defuse some of the organizations that represent the average family farmer and rural citizens. It's got to stop. Let's end the mandatory checkoff."

The checkoff is a mandatory system for collecting money from every hog farmer in the country for promotion, research and education purposes. In 1996, the NPPC received approximately $45 million in pork checkoff funds from tens of thousands of producers. Approximately $24 million of that total came from the largest 40 producers in the country, who own more than 1.7 million sows collectively.

Three of the groups being watched by the firm without their knowledge -- Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, the Missouri Rural Crisis Center and the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project -- are members of the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment (CFFE). The Campaign has confronted NPPC officials on several occasions for promoting industrialized hog factories at the expense of independent family farmers. CFFE groups have also questioned the truthfulness of information provided to state and federal legislators by NPPC and its state affiliates.

In response to the news of NPPC using producers' money for surveillance, the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment has called for a congressional investigation into the use of NPPC checkoff funds, an end to the mandatory checkoff, and the resignation of NPPC president Bob Ruggles.

"I should be shocked by NPPC's paranoid tactics but I'm not," said Iowa CCI member and Marshall County, Iowa, hog producer Larry Ginter. "Why should my money go to support spying on farm organizations that are trying to help me and other independent family hog producers? It's time to end the mandatory pork checkoff."

Ron Perry, a Livingston County, Mo., hog farmer and a member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center was also outraged: "It's obvious the NPPC has lost touch with the concerns of average hog farmers. They see us as a threat because we've successfully exposed their corporate agenda. We're having a big impact."

Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin is regarded as the number one "spies for hire" public relations firm in the country, according to John Stauber, editor of PR Watch, a publication that covers the public relations industry. John Mongoven, president of the firm, was a public relations consultant for Nestle Foods when the company was attempting to counter an international church-led boycott protesting the food company's deadly practice of selling infant formula to women in third world countries.

The Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment is a coalition of eight groups in six states that are fighting against hog factories and concentration in the livestock industry. Other members of the coalition include Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Citizens of Lincoln Township, North Carolina Land Loss Prevention Project, Animal Welfare Institute and the Oklahoma Toxics Campaign.

Release from Brian DeVore, communications coordinator, The Land Stewardship Project.

While he has been involved with this pork checkoff thing, he may have only been president in 1993 if this profile is accurate: Minnesotan Inducted Into Hall of Fame | National Hog Farmer:

North Mankato, MN, pork producer Karl Johnson has been inducted into the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) Hall of Fame for his outstanding contributions to the pork industry.

Johnson, a 40-year veteran of the pork industry, runs a farrow-to-finish operation with his brother, Paul.

Johnson served as president of NPPC in 1993, during which he represented producer interests on various trade issues including the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. [GATT]

Karl Johnson also served as president of the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, chairman of the U.S. Meat Export Federation and was on the Secretary of Agriculture’s Technical Advisory Committee, which addressed trade issues.

Perhaps more interesting is Johnson's staunch advocacy in farm world for NAFTA and GATT, and his particular role writing these trade deal which benefitted big agri-biz corporations at the expense of the family farm both domestically and internationally.

See quote in AP story in Kentucky New Era: Farmers' split on NAFA leaves lawmakers confused - Oct 25 1993.

In 1991 Johnson was named as Vice President of NPPC according to Nevada Daily Mail March 19 1991. The Nevada Daily Mail - Google News Archive.

According to New Ulm Journal there were ad buys planned by Karl, unclear if will happen now.

Karl Johnson

Karl Johnson, a hog farmer and former president of several pork producer organizations on the state and national level, feels his strength in the endorsement and in a 19A race against Quist is his ability to reach rural voters. He said he has strong name recognition in the district, making him able to peel away voters from Quist's demographics, as well as being able to run without needing to spend money on introducing himself to voters.

All the DFL candidates previously said they would abide by the endorsement, and party leadership indicated they expected unity in the process.

However, Karl Johnson declined to comment Thursday when asked if he would abide by the endorsement. He acknowledge purchasing ads for his candidacy that started Thursday and will air through the weekend in the Mankato area. He also has ads planned for the middle of next week in a wider area, including KNUJ in New Ulm.

It In the late 1990s, the National Pork Producers Council was discovered to have employed notorious low-profile corporate spying specialists via the 'pork checkoff' money. By 2000, a fully confusing situation had resulted:

NPPC Accuses Anti-Checkoff Forces of Misleading Actions - source http://www.agriculturelaw.com/headlines/aug00/aug24c.htm

August 24, 2000

The National Pork Producers Council says opponents of the pork research and promotion program, also known as the checkoff program used "blatant efforts to mislead ... and misrepresent information" about two checkoff programs. The information was in a Wednesday news release distributed by the Campaign for Family Farms along with the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center and the Land Stewardship Project, NPPC said.

"As pork producers, we should not tolerate the blatant efforts to mislead producers and misrepresent information about the pork checkoff, being told by anti-checkoff activists," said Karl Johnson, Mankato, Minnesota pork producer and co-chair of the Vote Yes Task Force. "It is time to set the record straight."

Johnson said, "The anti-checkoff activists are targeting a study being conducted by Louisiana State University (LSU). The study was designed to assess producer needs. Results will be used to help determine direction of producer education programs to assure producers have access to the types of programs and information they need-- like modern record keeping, production practices, educational seminars and risk management."

Jeffery Gillespie, LSU agriculture economics associate professor, who was quoted in the news release, said they misrepresented the facts, according to NPPC. In reality, NPPC added, Gillespie said, "This is an economic research study designed to look at a cross-section of pork producers. LSU developed this study with the intent of identifying producer needs. NPPC had no input or changes into the construction of the survey. Checkoff funding was provided to support the printing and mailing costs."

The results of the LSU study will not be complete or available until August 2001, therefore having no impact on the outcome of this referendum, NPPC noted.

"Unfortunately, the anti-checkoff activists did not stop there in their misinformation," said Johnson. "They also alleged the National Pork Producers Council was using checkoff funds in Colorado. In reality, the Colorado Pork Producers Council used state checkoff funds to air consumer radio commercials in Colorado, the content of which USDA had approved," according to Johnson.

By law, pork checkoff dollars can not be used to persuade a producer to vote for or against the checkoff. They can only be used to encourage producers to vote.

Donna Reifschneider, co-chair of the Vote Yes Task Force said pork producers should be "wary of the plethora of misinformation and half-truths being touted by anti-checkoff activists." She added, "This is only the latest in a string of attacks against the checkoff and the producer programs it funds. We are not going to stand still and let the anti-checkoff activists attack the highly successful pork checkoff any longer. It is time they get their facts straight. We stand by the truth, it must also be required of the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Missouri Rural Crisis Center and the Land Stewardship Project."

In their news release, the activist groups said two examples of NPPC "misuse of checkoff funds to influence the vote" had been found by "hog farmer members of the Campaign for Family Farms." They said NPPC's "repeated misuse of checkoff funds to influence the checkoff vote demonstrates the lack of accountability of the checkoff" and called on USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA to suspend checkoff spending until the final results of the referendum are posted.

"Hog farmers," the groups claimed, "found out the Colorado Pork Producers Association is proposing to use $12,000 in checkoff funds to air 30 second radio ads promoting the checkoff and emphasizing the benefits of the checkoff program. The commercials will run in the major pork producing areas of Colorado during the absentee voting period (August and September)."

That, they added, is "unconscionable (in) that at the same time producers' share of the retail dollar has dropped from 46 cents to less than 30 cents, NPPC attempts to spend checkoff dollars to influence the upcoming checkoff vote." Rhonda Perry, Missouri hog farmer and Missouri Rural Crisis Center member, said, "They can't play by the rules because they'll lose, they know that independent hog farmers will vote to end their mandatory, multi_million dollar tax."

They also claimed NPPC has used checkoff dollars to fund a recent study by Louisiana State University (LSU) that was supposedly intended to find out which type of producer (independent, contract or corporate) will likely be left in hog production in the future.

"The head of research for the study, LSU Associate Professor Jefferey M. Gillespie, confirmed that checkoff dollars were being used," the news release said. "According to Gillespie, the study contains two questions about how producers are planning to vote in the pork checkoff referendum. Gillespie said the NPPC will use this information to help them identify different types of producers that will vote to continue the mandatory pork checkoff."

NPPC is violating federal rules by using checkoff dollars to influence the vote, the groups said. "The USDA clearly explained to the NPPC that they could not use checkoff dollars to sway the vote, yet that's exactly what they're doing," said Wayne Demmer, a Dubuque county independent hog producer and Iowa CCI member. "They will attempt to use the radio ads to promote the benefits of the checkoff and the information from the LSU study to develop referendum strategies to try to figure out how to win votes."

////////

Here is kind of a key article from the High Plains / Midwest AG Journal in 2000:

Co-chair of the Vote Yes Task Force, Karl Johnson, said, "The pork checkoff has been a phenomenal success at what it was designed to do, build demand and address issues that individual producers couldn't do on their own. The pork checkoff is producer-driven and has evolved to meet the needs of pork producers."

According to Johnson, a Mankato, MN, pork producer, "The checkoff-funded Pork. The Other White Meat advertising campaign, originally undertaken to reposition pork to U. S. consumers, has done so. Today, the campaign has increased U.S. pork demand, reversing a dramatic decline from 1979 to 1985."

Johnson continued that U.S. pork is making its mark worldwide. Through checkoff-funded foreign market development, the U. S. now is a net exporter of pork, instead of a net importer. In 1990, the U.S. exported only 244 million pounds of pork. In 2000, the U.S. will export about 1.275 billion pounds of pork.

Johnson also cited a 17% increase in pork's usage at restaurants, as a direct result of checkoff-funded efforts. He said that increase is important, because 54% of all U.S. pork is eaten by people away from home.

& similar: NPPC Counters Anti-Checkoff Claims | from National Hog Farmer.

Chicago Tribune November 29 1993: Nafta Likely To Boost Export Opportunities For U.s. Pork Producers - Chicago Tribune

Buoyed by congressional passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, pork industry leaders are predicting rising export opportunities into Mexico, already our country's second-largest market.

"Congress has sent a strong signal to America's pork producers . . . that our trade policy is going to back U.S. pork producers' efforts to compete in the global marketplace," said Karl Johnson, a pork producer from Mankato, Minn., and president of the Des Moines-based National Pork Producers Council.

"Approval of NAFTA is a landmark decision that will greatly enhance our opportunity to export pork and pork products as well as live hogs to Mexico," Johnson asserted. "It also shows that the United States is not going to concede important markets to our subsidized competitors, such as the European Community. This is especially critical during these final days of the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade."

Johnson said U.S. pork producers are in a position to provide the 400,000 metric tons of additional pork demand that Mexico probably will need by the year 2000. He pointed out that 1992 U.S. pork exports to 62 countries totaled far less: 140,180 metric tons.

At present, Mexico cannot export fresh, chilled or frozen pork or live hogs to the U.S. because of hog cholera in Mexico. The prohibition continues under NAFTA. Meanwhile, the trade accord requires Mexico to eliminate over the next 10 years its tariffs of 20 percent of the value of U.S. pork and live hog shipments.

Comments from the pork producers came as leaders of farm and commodity groups for the most part hailed the passage of the controversial trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada as good for American agriculture, especially Midwest agriculture. The agreement phases out tariffs and other trade barriers. [...........]

/////////

AP July 26 1993: Farm Groups Lobby Congress For Trade Agreement: ''If we don't open trade with Mexico, someone else will,'' said Karl Johnson, president of the National Pork Producers Council.

March 2001: AgriMarketing.com - Pork Checkoff Vote Raises Questions and Concerns: "Pork Producer "Vote Yes" Task Force Co-chair Karl Johnson, a producer from Mankato, Minn., adds that discontinuation of the pork checkoff would be detrimental to the work the checkoff already has accomplished. "The progress made with the image, acceptance and demand for pork will slip away, the pork industry could experience accelerated consolidation, and coordinated efforts of research, education and information will be lost," Johnson says. "

/////////

From 1996: MBD: Mission Despicable | PR Watch

by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

Have you ever wondered what it's like to talk to a spy? The experience is quite a bit less dramatic than the scenarios you see in Mission Impossible, according to activists who have recently been targeted by phone calls and other information-gathering efforts.

The field operatives who gather information for Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin are typically polite, low-key and do their best to sound sympathetic to the people they are interrogating. They have misrepresented themselves, claiming falsely to be journalists, friends of friends, or supporters of social change. Most of the time, however, they simply give very limited information, identifying their company only by its initials and describing MBD euphemistically as a "research group" which helps "corporate decision makers . . . develop a better appreciation of the public interest movement" in order to "resolve contentious public policy issues in a balanced and socially responsible manner."

MBD performs its services by pumping members of activist groups for information about their philosophical beliefs, funding sources, organizational structure and affiliations, and names of key personnel. Information only gets shared in one direction, however. "Our relations with our clients are confidential," stated MBD President Jack Mongoven in a June 7, 1995 memo refusing PR Watch's request for a list of MBD's corporate clients.

MBD says it is "grateful" when activists "cooperate" by answering its information requests, but don't expect the company to show its gratitude in any meaningful way, such as sending you a copy of the reports it writes about you. Those reports will be stamped confidential and delivered only to MBD's clients, who pay as much as $9,000 per month for the privilege of seeing them. Otherwise, MBD's "research" only sees the light of day on the rare occasions when a conscience-stricken corporate employee decides to turn whistleblower.

Raw material: Letter and Survey from MBD to the Wilderness Society | PR Watch

Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin - SourceWatch

Sourcewatch also identifies NPPC as an ALEC supporter: National Pork Producers Council - SourceWatch

Here is a full report on NPPC using pork checkoff funds for the MBD spying: Summary of AMS Audit of NPPC - Prepared by Hugh Espy / Rural America - In Motion Magazine

Summary of AMS Audit of NPPC


Prepared by Hugh Espy,
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Des Moines, Iowa

Compliance staff from the Unites States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketting Service (AMS) conducted a limited review of a complaint that the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) had used checkoff funds collected by the National Pork Board to pay Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin (MBD), Washingson D.C. public relaltions firm, for information on the activities of certain activist (family farms) groups and individuals.

The reviewers were able to determine that NPPC used non-checkoff funds to pay for the report in question, but that the NPPC did not pay for thc report until after the media and the USDA began questioning the funding subject matter of the report.

The review also disclosed that the NPPC had an existing agreement with MBD to routinely monitor groups and individuals, A total of $51,300 was paid by checkoff funds for these services.

The AMS review focused on four main questions:

  1. Did NPPC use checkoff funds to pay for thc MBD report entitled "Overview of Farm Groups"?
  2. Was the material produced by MBD consistent with the project description (provided by NPPC to the USDA) that USDA had approved?
  3. Was the material produced by MBD under the "contract" allowed under the Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Order?
  4. Was the "contract" between NPPC and MBD entered into properly?

Question #1:

Did NPPC use checkoff funds to pay for the $3.449 MBD report entitled "Overview of Farm Goups?

Conclusion from AMS compliance staff:

NPPC ultimately paid $3,449 for the MDB report from unrestricted funds (noncheckoff funds). However, the check to pay for this report was issued on February 6, 1996. alnost a week after the report began to generate interest from the media. In addition, the check was backdated about three weeks. Coincidentally, the check was issued shortly after the media and AMS questioned the principal people involved (Charles Harness, Mike Simpson, etc.).

Other findings related to Question #1

In early December l996, Charles Harness at NPPC asked Ron Duchin at MBD to prepare a report on .several organizations that had taken positions critical of the large-scale hog operations and chages in the pork industry. The request was; made by telephone and there was no evidence that it was ever confirmed in a written contract or letter.

MBD prepared a report entitled "Overview of Various Organizations Concerned with Rur~al/Hog Industry Issues." The report contained "ovenviews of organizations concerned with rural issues that we (Mongoven) have determined will be the leaders of continuing anti-hog, anti-corporate livestock production in the coming year." The organizations named in the report were: Iowa Citizens for Community Inprovement, the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, the Land Stewardship Project, the Center for rural Affairs, the National Farmers Union, and the Corporate Agribusiness Research Project. the report was sent to about 30 state pork producer groups.

NPPC officials claim that they received MDB's invoice for the report shortly after they received the report on December 17, 1996. They also claim that the invoice was not paid within several weeks (as was NPPC's usual practise) because it was "misplaced" on a "manager's desk" for more than 45 days. Harness claimed he backdated the check for accounting purposes, but NPPC's Chief Financial Officer (Jim Stavneak) said the backdating was irrelevant from an accounting standpoint.

Duchin claimed the MDB invoiced NPPC on December 16 following the completion of its report. But MBD's invoice for the report is out of sequence with other MBD invoices. Four other invoices sent by MBD to NPPC are sequentially ordered in chronological order. Only the MBD invoice for the $3,449 report is out of order.

Member groups of the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment (which inludes Iowa CCI, LSP and MRCC) think that NPPC was planning to use checkoff funds to pay for the $3,449 rport. NPPC was forced to use non-checkoff funds when the report became public.

Question #2:

Was the material produced by MBD consistent with the project description (provided by NPPC to the USDA) that USDA had approved?

Conclusion from AMS compliance staff:

No. The information provided by MBD to NPPC through the checkoff-funded agreement was not consistent with the objectives and methods of the project description (Strategic Communications Inititative) approved by the USDA. NPPC told USDA that the objective of its 1996 Strategic Communications Inititative was to encourage positive reporting by "targetting" certain writers in order to encourage positive reporting. NPPC led USDA to believe that it was going to launch a positive promotion campaign.

However many of the reports submitted by MBD provided information on organizations and people with critical views of the pork industry. NPPC's project describes "targetting" writers, but the reports rarely (if ever) identified writers. Instead they focused on the activities of organizations.

Question #3:

Was the material produced by MBD under the "contract" allowed under the Act and the Order?

Conclusion from AMS compliance staff:

No. The subject matter of MBD's report fell outside the generally-recognized limits on the use of checkoff funds. Areview of the subject matter contained in MBD's checkoff funded reports for November 1996 through January 1997 reveals that the reports were primarily concerned with groups opposed large-scale agricultural operations. These reports were separate from the $3,349 report completed in December 1996.

The AMS told National Pork Board executive director Mike simpson in a May 1990 letter that checkoff funds could not be used to monitor or discredit activist organizations. Despite this, NPPC used checkoff funds to pay MBD for monitoring groups or individuals that were largely critical of large scale hog operations, including groups that have members who are hog farmers.

Other findings related to Question #3

NPPC's relationship with MBD's began in 1995 when NPPC entered into an agreement with MBD to provide information on a particular ogranization. On or about May 1, 1996, Harness (NPPC) and Duchin (MBD) entered into an oral agreement whereby NPPC would pay MDB for gathering information, during a 3-month trial period, on individuals and groups that might be critical of pork industry practises and/or large scale hog operations. NPPC sent MBD a check for $14,4000 on May 17, 1996 for the 3-month contract. This money came from checkoff funds.

After the 3-month trial period, Harness requested that MDB continue to monitor and report as it had during the trial period. MDB agreed, and Duchin wrote Harness on July 12, 1996, confirming their oral agreement to continue MDB's monitoring and reporting services. The monthly fee was $4,100, which would be paid for with checkoff funds.Between mid-May 1996 and late January 1997, NPPC paid MDB a total of $51,300 from checkoff funds for monitoring activist groups and individuals.

MBD produced checkoff-funded reports for NPPC on the following organizations: Pew Charitable Trusts, National Wildlife Federation, Wilderness Society, National Audobon Society, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, World Wide Fund for Nature Gulf and Caribbean Campaign, and activist senior citizen and student groups that may be active on local environmental issues.

The AMS findings directly contradict earlier statements made by Harness and AL Tank, NPPC's CEO. Both Harness and Tank had said that NPPC monitored issues, not organizations.

Question #4:

Was the "contract" between NPPC and MBD entered into properly?

Conclusion from AMS compliance staff:

Probably not. In December 1995, NPPC contracted with the National Pork Board to perform the Pork Board's administrative functions. Therefore, when NPPC enters into contracts using checkoff funds, NPPC is acting either as a de facto Board, or, at the very least, as the Board's agent. As such, NPPC and those it contracts with are required to comply with the same law and regulations as the Pork Board.

The unwritten agreement between NPPC and MBD was a contract. It contains the general terms for the service and products to be provided, and the consideration to be paid for them. On the other hand, it lacks specificity, and omits many of the normal business terms found in written contracts, including provisions for governing law, waivers, indemnity, termination, and the like.

The Order requires that every contract the Pork Board enters into must contain certain specific provisions. Because the contract in this case is oral, it cannot fulfill the Order's requirements. The NPPC-MBD agreement is also at aodds with the agreements between the Pork Board and NPPC. For example, Pork Board-NPPC agreement states that all contracts the NPPC enters into that are for more than $10,000 must contain certain provisions relating to affirmative action and civil rights. The Order requires that all Pork Board contracts specify that the contractor's records are to be made available to the Secretary (of Agriculture Glickman)'s representatives for inspection (MBD refused to give AMS compliance staff access to its billing and collection records). The NPPC-MBD agreement does not contain many of these required terms.

Published in In Motion Magazine April 12, 1999.

//////

Circa Nov 25, 2000: Pork Checkoff Vote Completed; Results Pending » Market to Market » Iowa Public Television

Karl Johnson and his brother, run a 1,300 sow farrow-to-finish operation near Mankato, Minnesota.

Rhonda Perry raises hogs too, but other than that, the two have little in common.

Johnson's hogs are raised in confinement buildings and about half of them are marketed through contracts with packers.

Karl Johnson: "pork production has changed like the world has changed. It's become more consolidated. how many hardware stores are there left? Not very many small hardware stores, not very many car dealers, implement dealers, that type of things. Farms are getting larger. and pork producers have gotten larger. i don't know that i'm necessarily in favor of that, but something that happens if you're going to stay economically viable, you have to get larger and that's kind of the name of the game in the world today. "

Perry's pasture farrowed hogs are raised outdoors near Armstrong, Missouri and marketed directly to consumers through a producer-owned co-op called patchwork family farms.

Rhonda Perry: "unfortunately these projects come about because we don't have fair and open markets and that's not a good thing. And the environment in which this project took place and others will take place you know is a very negative environment for farmers and rural communities. and its not good that we have to have these types of projects in order to survive but it is good that we have figured out how to do it and we've been creative and we've been able to provide a quality product to consumers."

In addition to philosophical differences in husbandry and marketing, Perry and Johnson are diametrically opposed on a referendum determining the future of the pork checkoff.

This past September, pork producers voted on whether to continue the mandatory program.

Currently, a farmer marketing 1,000 hogs annually, pays about $450.00 into the checkoff fund, which is administered by the national pork board.

Most of the money is earmarked for promotion and research conducted by the national pork producers council, or N.P.P.C.

Larry Ginter: "today is a great day for agriculture because hog farmers across the u.s. are taking a big step towards reclaiming our industry."

In April of 1999, a handful of rural activists, armed with piles of petitions, announced they had more than enough signatures to force a vote on whether the checkoff should be continued.

The campaign for family farms, a coalition of seven grassroots rural groups, gathered signatures for about a year to force the vote.

Larry Ginter: "i want my checkoff dollars back!"

It wasn't the first time the group aired their dissatisfaction with the checkoff or the national pork producers council.

In 1997, the campaign for family farms marched to N.P.P.C. headquarters, where they posted a sign reading "national factory farms council."

Johnson, a past president of the national pork producers council, says promotion is a key reason why producers should vote to continue the checkoff.

Karl Johnson: "I think people need to remember, go back before we had the mandatory check off, back to the mid '80's when we were losing demand quite rapidly, pork was not considered the meat at all to eat and after the check off came in place, we came up with "pork the other white meat" campaign. Through that efforts, we really changed the public's perception of pork. these things have just contributed to the survival, if you will, of us as independent pork producers."

There's little doubt "the other white meat" has been a successful promotional campaign for the pork industry.

a recent study conducted by northwestern university revealed the "other white meat" to be the fifth most recognizable slogan in contemporary advertising history.

Meanwhile, a Texas A study, commissioned by the national pork board, estimated producers reap a 5-to-1 net return ratio on their checkoff dollars.

Rhonda Perry: "what we're here today to say is that this gravy train to the NPPC is coming to a halt..."

Those opposed to the checkoff, cite different numbers. According to the campaign for family farms, pork producers have paid more than half-a-billion dollars into the fund since the program became mandatory in 1986.

During that time the campaign claims 250,000 pork producers, or 2 out of every 3, have gone out of business.

And the hog farmers share of the retail dollar plummeted from 46-cents at the checkoff?s inception to about 21-cents today.

Perry, who favors a voluntary checkoff, claims independent pork producers are paying into a system that yields little if any benefit.

Perry: "we're paying for that. We're paying for their lobbying activities and you know through corporate control of our markets and we?re just saying we're not going to pay anymore, we're not going to pay the checkoff anymore for commodity groups to say they represent us and we're not going to continue to pay into and participate in a system that doesn't work for us at our expense. and you know, by doing that, it actually changes the playing field a little bit."

The pork checkoff was turned down as noted in this press release Jan 11 2001 (I think that's the year)National Pork Producers Council Comments on USDA Announcement of Pork Checkoff... -- re> DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ --

DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- "We are deeply disappointed and very concerned by USDA's announcement regarding the pork checkoff referendum," said Craig Jarolimek, National Pork Producers Council president. "Instead of a sincere attempt to capture the will of the majority of legitimate pork producers about their checkoff, USDA let political motivation decide the fate of one the most successful commodity programs in American agriculture. USDA unequivocally understands the negative impact termination of the pork checkoff will have on every pork producer in this country," said Jarolimek, a Forest River, N.D., pork producer.

"Again and again producers are citing to us examples of flaws in the referendum voting process," said Karl Johnson, co-chair of the Vote Yes Task Force. "These situations include giving out the wrong voting materials; failing to posts lists of producers who had requested absentee ballots; and failing to post lists of producers who had voted in person, all of which resulted in the disqualification of the voter without their knowledge. Equally as disturbing, other producers were allowed to cast both absentee and in-person ballots or were allowed to cast ballots in violation of referendum rules.

"The checkoff was designed by pork producers, for pork producers, so that all pork producers would pay their fair share and reap the benefits from the checkoff-funded programs," said Johnson, a Mankato, Minn., pork producer. "The progress made with the image, acceptance and demand for pork will slip away, the pork industry could experience accelerated consolidation and coordinated efforts of research, education and information will be lost. In a time when even larger slaughter numbers are expected, as forecasted by USDA's own Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report, programs providing those tools to producers become even more critical."

At the request of pork producers, the Pork Promotion Research and Consumer Information Act became law in 1985. The pork checkoff funded research, promotion and education programs designed to build a future and create opportunities for pork producers. In September, pork producers had the opportunity to vote on the future of the 14-year pork checkoff program. Approximately $54 million was collected through the pork checkoff in 2000. As required by the Pork Act and Order, 20% of money is returned to state pork associations for investment in state-directed promotion, consumer education and research programs.

SOURCE National Pork Producers Council

PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1yGSy)

A really confusing settlement is here: http://www.pork.org/filelibrary/Checkoff%20Settlement%20Seperation%20Agreement/MOA-govt4.pdf

//////

More cites for MBD: footnote 100 at The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product ... - Brandt - Google Books

Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin/Women and Children First: On the Front Line of the Chlorine War - SourceWatch

Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin/Behind Enemy Lines - SourceWatch

This partially available book about the struggle against corporate agriculture (including carbon markets as privatization of the atmosphere) seemed relevant - there was a Google hit but I can't find the quote: … and the echo follows. (2010)

//////

Anyway I thought this was an interesting bit of loose research on agricultural globalism, rural farm politics, professional corporate spies and of course the mysterious Politics of Bacon.

MPD Tracking OccupyMN Facebook BBQs: Minneapolis "secret" Strategic Information Center / Emergency Operations and Training Facility 25 37th Ave NE in Fridley

Dateline: Pseudo-Secret Minneapolis (aka Fridley): What WCCO called the "secret" "City of Eyes" Strategic Information Center has been located on the Google! Your Federal Stimulus Money & FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations At Work - A Facility for Spying on Facebook Occupy Barbecues

strategic-center-mpls.png

It's nice when data releases tie together a larger system, and we've sure got that here. It's not really "secret" but it's quite shiny & new, not well-known at all, and it is certainly has been used as a site for spying on Occupy activists without criminal predicates by the Minneapolis Police Department. [emails a bit farther down]

///// UPDATE Nov 14 2014: See #Pointergate Pieces: Hodges merged out politically powerful police pensions; KSTP Quadruples Down; Minneapolis gang intel plugs away ///// UPDATE Jan 10 2013: See How to check cops checking your driver's license, Rassmusson lawsuit settlement docs /////

The Minneapolis Police Department files about Occupy Minnesota released by a data request on Monday afternoon are turning up interesting wastes of taxpayer money -- and even the so-called "secret" Strategic Information Center & Emergency Operations and Training Facility at 25 37th Ave Northeast in Fridley, north of the city line by the river & railroad tracks.

Also known as the EOTF/SIC, let's wrangle up everything we can find. Start with architects, via Wold Architects/Engineers: City of Minneapolis EOTF | Wold Architects and Engineers

Wold Architects and Engineers designed a site and facility for the City of Minneapolis Fire Department Training Campus to include a Fire Department’s Training Division; training classrooms multi-used as an Emergency Operations Center for the City’s Emergency Preparedness; a Strategic Information Sensor Monitoring Center for the Minneapolis Police Department; and vehicle storage garages for the Fire Department’s regional asset equipment.

The design exceeds the City of Minneapolis requirement for design to meet LEED Silver.

strategic-4.png

strategic-5.pngThis state-of-the-art federally funded facility allows police to determine... the location of barbecues on Facebook, including even the number of "YES" and "MAYBE" invitees.

This facility also encompasses "Shotspotter" directional microphones all over the city - I wonder if those are ever activated besides the gunshot decibel threshold "trigger" - they are in fact pretty high-fidelity microphones, it has been disclosed (May 28 2012 NYT article) but the manufacturer denies the mics are triggered by conversations.

I for one, am glad that we spent both municipal and borrowed federal tax dollars on training the Minneapolis police to believe a Facebook "YES" invite is real. The simulacrum of today's clicks has become the strategic information of tomorrow!

The old EOC center, used in the 2007 35W bridge collapse, can be seen here via MPR and clearly lacks expensive-enough videoconferencing gear.

Here is the press release from Nov 4 2010: Minneapolis opens Emergency Operations Training Facility - City of Minneapolis

Minneapolis opens Emergency Operations Training Facility

The City of Minneapolis has opened its new Emergency Operations Training Facility, which will help emergency responders and other City staff better prepare for and respond to emergencies. The multi-purpose building helps meet the training and response needs of the Minneapolis Fire Department, the Minneapolis Police Department, and the City's Emergency Management Division, along with other regional partners.

The Emergency Operations Training Facility is a multi-purpose building that includes training classrooms for Minneapolis firefighters and metro emergency managers, a strategic information center for the Minneapolis police, the main training site for the State of Minnesota Structural Collapse Team, and an emergency operations center that will be used during significant emergencies or disasters.

The new facility is built on a 12-acre site in Fridley that the City purchased in 1990, and since that time, the site has been built out as a training facility for Minneapolis Firefighters. Over the years, a fire training tower and propane burn building have been constructed, and special equipment has been purchased to help train emergency responders for incidents involving hazardous materials and collapsed structures. The construction of the new Emergency Operations Training Facility on the site is a major step toward completing this training and response site.

The Emergency Operations Training Facility is built to a LEED Silver Quality Standard for sustainability, and it includes facilities for a wide range of emergency responders from Minneapolis and the region:

Emergency Operations Center

One of the lessons learned from the City's response to the Interstate 35W Bridge collapse in 2007 was that the City's Emergency Operations Center, located in the basement of City Hall, was too small to serve as a center for large-scale emergencies. The new facility fixes that, with 2,800 more square feet of floor space. It will also be used as a back-up Emergency Operations Center for the State, Hennepin County and the City of St. Paul.

Strategic Information Center

The Strategic Information Center is a new space where the Minneapolis Police Department will analyze data to determine long-range trends that pose potential risks to the city. It can provide emergency managers with important information during a major event, incident or disaster.

State of Minnesota Structural Collapse Team

This team serves the entire state with specialized equipment and trained personnel for urban search and rescue and structural collapse incidents. This facility will include apparatus bays for storage of emergency response vehicles and specialty equipment for the Coast Guard, State, City and Metro West region of Homeland Security. In addition, this facility will house training and classroom space, staff offices, support spaces and common spaces.

Coast Guard monitoring.

The U.S. Coast Guard will also use the facility as a monitoring location for cameras placed along the Mississippi River from St. Louis to the metro area.

Published Nov. 4, 2010

Moar casual Google Mapping:

google-streetview-mpls.png

Apparently they dropped a cool $50K on the fence in early 2012. here is the bid page "To furnish all labor, materials, equipment and incidentals necessary to accomplish the complete construction of Emergency Operations Training Facility Perimeter Fence Project, located at 25 37th Ave NE, Fridley, MN." SRC: Minneapolis, City of - Projects. [A little more on the fence industrial complex below]

google-streetview-mpls2.png

Of course, once Erin Brockovich samples those weird adjacent holding pond things, I'm sure the infamous Fridley Cancer Cluster case will be solved. Perhaps Sgt. Garcia can go out and take some samples!

google-map-mpls1.png google-map-mpls2.png

I believe at least two of structures are firefighter training buildings - later pics below seem to bear this out.

eoc-marketing-swag1.pngHere is some marketing swag about the video conferencing gear. AVI-SPL Integrates Government Emergency Operation Centers. See the PDF and video too.

eoc-marketing-swag2.pngLet's check out the $330,704 in electronically-created yet borrowed-at-interest-from-private-Fed-cartel recently invested in this barbecue monitoring center. Official less-than-informative stimulus info page: Minneapolis Recovery - City of Minneapolis Minneapolis Police Strategic Information Center.

[Naturally it is funded by the electronically created debt-digits from the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the same endless police pork hub that brought us all those "you might be a terrorist if you pay in cash" type intel flyers for everything from hotels to hobby stores - many of those flyers were financed by Grant Number 2007-MU-BX-K002, which I included ironically on my own site's banner art. Google it for lulz!] Here's that official page:

The City of Minneapolis is not a primary recipient on this project. No Federal Report XML is submitted for this project.

Dollars Awarded

$330,704

Project Status

Fully completed

Project Description

To establish integrated crime analysis in cooperation with the St. Paul Police Department. Staff will be located in a joint Strategic Information Center (SIC).

Funding Program

MN Department of Public Safety: Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

Responsibility for Implementation

Police Department

Funding Agency

US Department of Justice [BJA/Recovery Act]

Dollars Leveraged

Data not yet available.

Dollars Leveraged Description

Data not yet available.

Dollars Requested

$330,704

Projected Jobs Created

2

Award Type

Grant

Sub-recipient Names

Minneapolis, City of

Vendor Names

No vendors have been contracted to date.

Recovery Funds Spent to Date

$330,704

Perhaps this is even the 'secret' location Tippy spycams are constructed: a while ago prankster MPD Spokester & PIO Jesse Garcia shared pics of a camera construction room & with all the other video rigs this seems a likely spot.

Anyway finally here is the email chain which prompted this line of research. There are surely other gems, we are just barely getting started. Circa page 109 of Part 1:

strategic-center-targets-barbecue.png

The public servant on some of these emails is one Minneapolis Police Department officer Steven Otteson, who has a decidedly low Internet profile.

Poking for traces of intrepid Strategic Facebooker Otteson turns up very little - even though the email is dated June 2012, he has no listed salary on this MPD salary list: My Docstoc. Crossposted the index here: 2011 Minneapolis Police Dept Gross Salary index for Web.

A news story indicated the supervisor of the Strategic Information Center is MPD Lt. Jeff Rugel at 612-673-3428. Page 112:

rugel-bbq.png

"Why are we not getting this stuff from the SIC?" Here is stuff about why they should not have to "spend time looking it up" and it should be run through the SIC... This could kind of be the crux of the whole issue here on Page 114:

sic-track-occupy

Alright, that covers some of the new data on this SIC thing vis-a-vis obsessing on Occupy events, so let's turn to the news coverage of this facility.

Carefully shaped news coverage: Mid-2012 saw a series of mainstream media items intended to shape public perceptions this center is designed to neutralize the threats from the surveilled populace. WCCO went so far as to call it a "secret location". That is some quality Fourth Estate right there.

Coverage for this "City of Eyes" facility on WCCO March 19 2012 (video) City Of Eyes: Your Camera May Help Mpls Police Fight Crime « CBS:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Minneapolis police are the first in the country to merge two technologies to help officers fight crime.

The Minneapolis Police Department has combined shot spotter technology and a system of cameras to help catch criminals in the act.

Authorities allowed WCCO-TV’s Reg Chapman into a secret location in Minneapolis, where a strategic information center is housed.

Minneapolis Police Deputy Chief Rob Allen said the room is where police gather intelligence.

“This is the room where we try and fuse the technology we have to monitor video cameras, to monitor the sounds of possible gunshots, and it’s where we have our officers who are trained in intelligence gathering,” he said.

The system in the room is like CBS’ Thursday night show “Person of Interest,” in which cameras are used to help save people from becoming victims of crime.

“If you can anticipate where crimes might happen, you got a far better chance of preventing them from occurring,” Allen said.

According to Allen, when a gunshot goes off, a camera turns toward the source of the sound. Strategic Information Center Commander Lt. Jeff Rugel said the technology helped solve a case where a man was shot, killed and pushed out of a moving car. The sound of the gunfire activated the cameras, which gave police their first clue.

[......]City Of Eyes

The number of cameras connected to the intelligence system is growing and helping police catch more criminals. But not all the cameras are owed by the city.

“The city owns roughly 250 cameras,” Allen said. “We can access right now … an infinite number of cameras.”

According to Allen, any camera that has an IP address, is connected to the Internet, and that police have permission to use can give information to authorities.

So whenever you are in a public space, know that you’re likely on camera. Police are using portable cameras more now than ever. They can put them where they are needed and have one up and running within an hour of the order.

Invasion Of Privacy?

But what about your right to privacy? Police say they are careful not to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“Every time we installed a camera system, we went to the neighborhood and said, ‘You know, this is what we’ve thought about doing? Do you want it or not,’” Allen said.

He says police can’t look into a place where someone has the expectation of privacy. [magic filters eh?] But police still have a wide reach, which gives criminals a greater chance of getting caught on camera.

Crime patterns are currently moving and Minneapolis police hope to add more portable cameras. Police believe if criminals know they are being watched they are more likely not to commit crimes.

Star Tribune writes about this center using Facebook to watch what the state defines as "gang members" (mysteriously, shady rich Caucasian financial operatives never seem to meet this race/age/wealth-biased deviance category schema).

Of course, this week's data release shows this has bloated out to canvassing political movements without even the semblance of illegal activity... there is no "barbecue predicate" but there are of course hourly wages to be paid by Minneapolis taxpayers for monitoring the barbecue Facebook Event. Perhaps even overtime!

Gangs sometimes fire first shots online | StarTribune by Matt McKinney July 14 2012:

Facebook has become a virtual street corner where members trade threats, mourn the dead.

"It's probably no different than any other kids, right?" said Minneapolis police Lt. Jeff Rugel. "They're sharing stuff that they used to do face-to-face or over the phone. But there's criminal stuff." [.....]

Rugel runs the police department's Strategic Information Center, where officers use technology to track crime. One of the jobs in his office amounts to monitoring Facebook full-time. They understand the teen slang and filter through thousands of innocuous and inane comments to look for the few that could solve a crime or stop one before it happens. They try to draw connections out of the Facebook networks to help document the shifting alliances on the street.

Police were aware of Facebook threats between rival gangs weeks before the shooting that killed Nizzel, but the threats weren't specific. When Rugel and his staff sees something that looks like trouble -- a known gang member says he's going to hurt someone -- they pass the information along to officers on the street.

It's a poorly kept secret that the police watch Facebook, said Rugel.

"You see comments every once in a while. 'Don't put that on Facebook. You know who's looking at it,' " he said.

Despite some users' occasional concern, many of the Facebook users monitored by police flaunt their illegal behavior online, showing themselves smoking marijuana, posing with stolen merchandise, the security tags still attached, and making gang signs. [.....]

There was also some bidding information online about the estimated $50,000 fence around the facility. Emergency Operations Training Facility Perimeter Fence Project (eBidDoc #1810882) contact: David Schlueter phone: 612-673-2834 e-mail: david.schlueter@ci.minneapolis.mn.us bid date: 01/25/2012 10:00:00 AM

Try http://io.questcdn.com/questio/projects/planholder/planholder_list.html?jobPK=1810882&userPK=&modifiable=FALSE&isQCPI=TRUE

strategic-center-fence-bidding.png

//////

garcia-yatedo.pngSome other stuff: for what it's worth, this lists PIO Jesse Garcia as being based at the Strategic Information Center.Minneapolis Police Department Employees - Professional Experience,Email,Phone numbers..Everything!: Digging deeper to: Jesse Garcia III - Strategic Information Center, Minneapolis Police Department:

It was scraped off his LinkedIn - no surprise there. But no one put it together... Jesse Garcia III | LinkedIn. I think it would be great if state law were changed so that Garcia could be cross-examined by taxpayers about the flow of drug money through the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and its member banks, let's say once a month on live community access TV. Looks like he ought to be tapped into that gigaflow of data on bankster crime intel!

Strategic Information Center

Minneapolis Police Department

September 2010 – Present (2 years 5 months)

I am a supervisor in our new intel center that focuses on:

-gang intel

-crime intel

-real time officer assist

-safety camera analysis

-Emergency Operations Center readiness

jesse.garcia@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Public Information Officer / Media Relations

Minneapolis Police Department

October 2007 – September 2010 (3 years)

More media: Vehicle data, email access among Minneapolis legislative issues | MinnPost - Karen Boros, Nov 2, 2012. Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) including of course the "secret" camera on nearby Plymouth Ave. N. bridge is controlled from this "Strategic Information unit" according to the article - I would assume this is the same spot it's based, unless it is somehow split:

Currently, the Minneapolis Police Department uses cameras to record the license plates, time and location of vehicles. That data is now public information that can be obtained by anyone requesting the information.

“Our concern is that if it stays public data that people can use it for inappropriate purposes,” said Deputy Chief Robert Allen. The system now doesn’t allow police to inquire how it might be used. “We’re not allowed to make a judgment,” he said.

Access to the data is controlled by about a dozen people working in the department’s Strategic Information unit.

Alright this is taking more than long enough. This thing says it is 22,178 sq ft and it is on parcel 34-30-24-43-0009.

Minneapolis, City of - Projects: An estimated $1.5 million were bid on this beast for just a small chunk of the building, closed Feb 2012.

directions to site: 25 37th Ave NE Fridley, MN 55421

bids close: 02/23/2012, 10:00:00 AM

bids received by: City of Minneapolis Purchasing Department CONSTRUCTION OF THE EOTF APPARAUS BAY ADDITION 330 Second Avenue South Suite 552 Minneapolis, MN 55401

estimated value: $1,500,000.00

project completion date: 08/15/2011

pre-bid meeting information: A Pre-Bid Meeting and site tour will be held on February 15th, at 11:00 AM, Local Time in Room 128 at the Emergency Operations Training Facility located at 25 37th Ave NE, Fridley MN. All interested bidders should attend this meeting.

addenda: 1

project description: Scope of Work Includes: Complete construction of the Apparatus Bay Addition at the City of Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility. This work shall include all labor, equipment, materials, installation, handling, delivery at site, necessary insurance and permits, erection and other required items for general, civil, landscaping, demolition, structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical construction and stability as shown on the plans and specifications.

additional description: This Contract contemplates the complete construction of the Emergency Operations Training Facility Apparatus Bay Addition for the Minneapolis Fire Department located at 25 37th Avenue NE., in Fridley, all in accordance with the Contract Documents. This Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the State of Minnesota Sustainability Building Guidelines B3 (MSBG B3) Version 2.1 and also the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Design ( USGBC LEED®) Rating System. It is the intent of this Contract that the Project shall become MSBG B3 Version 2.1 Certified and LEED® SILVER level of quality building under the LEED®-NC Rating System. Work to be performed consists of the furnishing of all materials, machinery, equipment, labor, supplies, tools, transportation, and other incidentals necessary or convenient to complete the work as shown in the Contract Documents on file in the Minneapolis Finance Department, Property Services Division and with the Purchasing Agent of the City of Minneapolis.

owner: City of Minneapolis

350 South 5th Street, Room 223

Minneapolis , MN 55415

ph: 612-673-3774

contact: Chris Backes e-mail: chris.backes@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Soliciting Agent: Soliciting agent

Minneapolis, City of

330 2nd Ave. S. Suite 552

Minneapolis, MN 55415

ph: 612-673-2834

fax: 612-673-3565

contact: David Schlueter e-mail: david.schlueter@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

It was used to host a session of the 10,000 Lakes Chapter of the International Code Council. [pdf]

The site's address is place on things like preparedness for your pet: Emergency Preparedness - City of Minneapolis && stuff about exercises (again on the sidebar) City Preparation - City of Minneapolis - the 'meh' front page: Emergency Preparedness - City of Minneapolis. Really need to improve page titles at the city. Perhaps after the election?

Awards - City of Minneapolis:

Minneapolis wins its second Tekne Award

Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility

November 2011: The Minnesota High Tech Association recognized the City of Minneapolis and its Emergency Operations Training Facility with an award at the 2011 Tekne Awards, held Nov. 3 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The Tekne Awards recognize Minnesota companies and individuals who have shown superior technology innovation and leadership.

The City of Minneapolis took home the award in the “Technology Excellence in a Nonprofit Organization” category that recognized the City’s Emergency Operations Training Facility/Strategic Information Center (EOTF/SIC) for bringing technology and information together to make Minneapolis a safer place. At the facility, technology, digital data, streaming video and highly interactive interfaces come together in one highly efficient communication center for the city.

The Minneapolis Fire Department, Police Department, and Emergency Management division opened the EOTF/SIC in August 2010 as a place where they and other emergency responders could coordinate more closely than had ever been possible before. The facility recently demonstrated its effectiveness during the response to the May 22 tornado that struck north Minneapolis.The multi-purpose building also provides training space for emergency responders.

Here it was, the first one: Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility wins Tekne award - City of Minneapolis: The City of Minneapolis took home the award in the “Technology Excellence in a Nonprofit Organization” category that recognized the City’s Emergency Operations Training Facility/Strategic Information Center (EOTF/SIC) for bringing technology and information together to make Minneapolis a safer place. At the facility, technology, digital data, streaming video and highly interactive interfaces come together in one highly efficient communication center for the city.... and earlier: Oct 18, 2011: Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility a finalist for Tekne award - City of Minneapolis

Mpls. Unveils New Emergency Operations Center | Crime | Downtown News - Nov 4 2010, KSTP Gail Brown: Congressman Keith Ellison secured $750,000 for the project in a 2010 appropriations bill, and he will be attending a ribbon cutting ceremony at 2:30 p.m. along with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, City Council President Barb Johnson and other city leaders.

Ellison Secures $750,000 for Minneapolis Emergency Operations Center - Ellison.House.gov Oct 15 2009:

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) secured a $750,000 appropriation for the City of Minneapolis to build a new Emergency Operations Center in a bill approved by the House today. The funds were included in H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for FY 2010.

Roughly the same stuff in this Council Prez Barb Johnson doc.

It's on Pinterest - see Government & Military for tons of funny stuff including everything from the avispl swag people above. And also: AV Products We Love / Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility

There is a blog post about training there on the Mpls Dept of Civil Rights by Anthony Johnson - Civil Rights Urban Scholars with a helpful slideshow. Tony’s Voice: Our Day As Fire Fighters! | Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights.

strategic-center-3.png strategic-center-2.png strategic-center-1.png

I think you can see this fire training structure (or maybe a similar one) on Google Maps though I have not swung by to check out the Facility myself. Another one:

Minneapolis Emergency Services Employ projectiondesign - AVNetwork.com (undated? A couple pix included)

Fredrikstad, Norway--The City of Minneapolis has deployed 12 projectiondesign F32 DLP projectors as the main display source in the Analyst Room and F22 series projectors in the Incident Command Room of its Emergency Operations Training Facility (EOTF).

Located just outside Minneapolis, the EOTF boasts an extensive surveillance, audiovisual and network infrastructure specified and installed by systems integrator AVI-SPL.

“In a facility like this, even the slightest compromise in performance can result in tragic consequences,” said Fred Primoli, regional VP Sales for AVI-SPL. Primoli and his colleagues worked with the city for nearly two years on the concept, planning and final implementation of the EOTF, with the primary challenge being an interesting one: the creation of a state-of-the-art communications facility that may get activated no more than once in a decade.

“We needed systems that were capable of totally robust operation 24 hours per day, seven days per week – but which also were capable of performing at their best after extended periods of inactivity.

“From the outset we were delighted with the performance of the F32 projectors. The Analyst Room has three rear-projection screens, each measuring 160 inches wide by 120 inches tall, with four projectors driving each screen so that four separate windows can be shown on each one.

“The projectors have been superbly colour-matched to ensure consistency across each screen, while their excellent resolution, contrast and brightness mean they are equally at home showing video or data sources – which is important in an installation such as this where the staff need to a view a combination of both.”

Deputy Chief Robert Allen, a veteran of the Minneapolis Police Department, said: “The new display system allows us to look at a video feed and understand a situation almost instantly. Through video, we can get information to our officers much faster – especially when time is critical. We can zoom in with our cameras and really examine a situation and relay it back to our officers, allowing them to be prepared even before they get there. With this new technology, we can see something happen faster than a police offer 50 feet away.”

F22 series projectors from projectiondesign can also be found in the EOTF’s Incident Command Room that’s used for emergency training and an actual declared emergency.

“There is a large number of emergency monitoring projects in the U.S., and we are delighted that our technology has been used to display high-resolution security-camera images in so many of them," said Anders Løkke, marketing director, projectiondesign. "The Minneapolis EOTF already demonstrated its effectiveness during the tornado that swept through the area last May and, although we would prefer it if our systems never had to be used in similar situations again, the reality is that the city is better-protected now that its providers of emergency services have such easy, immediate and accurate access to security-camera imaging from so many locations.”

“The EOTF was conceived as a place where the various Departments responsible for emergency response and management in Minneapolis could co-ordinate their efforts more closely than had previous been possible,” said Primroli.

Same stuff as May 11, 2012: Minneapolis Emergency Services Goes with Projectiondesign - Fire Apparatus

On May 20 2011 CItyPages reported on Rocco Forte, former Minneapolis fire chief, departing, and Forte talked about being pleased to help finish the complex: "After the 35W bridge collapse, the Republican National Convention, and the tornado that went through South Minneapolis, it is clear that we have one of the finest emergency management teams in the country. It was also a long time goal of mine to complete the Emergency Operations Training Facility that includes an Emergency Operations Center, Strategic Information Center as well as a training facility which seats up to 250 people per day."

Reed Construction Data estimates its cost at $3,988,400 (a more accurate cost estimate is available from RSMeans Online), they say.

There are a couple autogenerated links at Facility Management Minneapolis Product From Industrial Manufacturers, Distributers, Suppliers And OEMs.

There is some PR speak about AVI-SPL getting an award. Press Release/ InfoComm, Sound & Video Contractor Honor AVI-SPL with Two PRO AV Spotlight Awards - Audio/Video Equip./Surveillance - AVI-SPL, Inc. | PRZOOM

On March 11, 2009, the overall cost of the project was pegged by House Research as $27,403,000. SRC: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/86/hf0554.pdf

This bill would grant $8,000,000 in bond proceeds to the City of Minneapolis to design, construct, furnish, and equip an emergency operations center housed in the City’s current training center and to make other improvements to the training center.

According to the 2008 budget request, the overall cost of the project is $27,403,000 with the City and Hennepin County funding the non-state funded portions of the project. The Joint Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis will be located at the Minneapolis Fire Training Campus on city owned land. The City contends the current facility is inadequate and limits the effectiveness of the command structure. The City further contends that the Minneapolis Fire Training Campus is an ideal location for the EOC as it would provide a secure operations center with enough room to respond to a major incident affecting the county. Finally, the City believes this request would provide much needed training classrooms at the Minneapolis Training Facility which is the main site for training the State Structural Collapse Team.

HF 554 Status in the House for the 86th Legislature (2009 - 2010) - this is the bill number - I suspect it probably got rolled into the omnibus bill but I will leave that to a Deep Wonk to suss out. // H.F. No. 554, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010).

With a pretty severe shortage of funds for both state and municipal operations, is an open-ended SIC mandate to track protest activity on Facebook really the most prudent use of funds? And doesn't this operational configuration create a chilling effect on political expression in Minneapolis? The research continues....

EXCLUSIVE MnDOT info cake: 2.97gb emails/docs on the Mileage Based User Fee (MBUF)- Minnesota's GPS vehicle taxing regime in the works

After a long wait, on Nov 28 2012, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released ~2.97 gigabytes of data from inside the development of a GPS-based vehicle tracking system intended to introduce a vehicle tax - which would entail a great deal of data constantly collected by the government on the whereabouts and everyday patterns of the taxed vehicles. The source URL posted yesterday is ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/ .

My friend Nathan Hansen made the request, pursuing a long-running story of the buildout of these taxation-tracking highway techs. (Disclosure: I did some design work for Hansen previously) The 2008 story I did: Now Searchable: The MnDOT NASCO NAFTA Superhighway Document Stash && Index of /June 2008 MN DOT Request/NASCO - Hansen Request && Index of /June 2008 MN DOT Request/June 2008 Request && Index of /DOT. A lot of these plans fell by the wayside - and a special Minnesota Intellidrive project and MBUF is the new plan. Related: Melissa Hill's new blog allows you to "Track the Police" using public data && Private company hoarding license-plate data on US drivers. In May 2011 I did this story: Contracts for IntelliDrive MnDOT Military-Industrial/U of M plan to GPS-track all cars. This data dump continues the story.

There are a few important angles: comprehensive vehicle tracking data would be great for law enforcement, lawyers and big corporations to investigate everything in one's life, including 'retroactive surveillance' of previous activities. However, the "fees" that would be imposed on rural Minnesotans who have to drive around a lot would be quite burdensome.

From a quick look at the PDFs we find internal discussion points about such impending scams as 'carbon credit' trading (a greenwashing Goldman Sachs sponsored futures bubble, as Matt Taibbi reported). Additionally Raytheon and SAIC have both been involved in this "Intellidrive" national-scale super-project. Also, just because the user data is processed behind Battelle's firewall in no way signifies any level of security of personal information.

The main block of data posted is in huge Acrobat Reader X sized PDF files (1.1 and 1.6GB) . We have mirrored around the files and checked with md5hash in case the govt pulls any later. Acrobat Reader X is kinda bogging on these giant files -- it loads all the emails in a slow email reader-like interface). Plenty of items like "concept of operations" or "MBUF CONOPS" is in there, a lot of stuff about consultants. We are just starting to peer at it, but Adobe is difficult to work with (a svelte 400MB app yay).

To get this batch of files yourself, if you have UNIX wget for mirroring:

$ wget -mb ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/

I definitely recommend installing wget for things like this, where the files are listed in a directory for quick scraping.

//////////////

DATA EXTRACTION BONUS CHALLENGE: To open the attachments on these emails, for OSX you have to use a program such as the free MailRaider: Download MailRaider for Mac - Read Outlook .msg files on your Mac. This is what you gotta do - in Acrobat, hit the paperclip on the side:

acrobatreader.png

After first picking out the individual PDF attachments in Acrobat (the paperclip icon) you can get it to open in MailRaider. Hit the 'Open' button in that side panel. Hopefully this will launch MailRaider. In MailRaider, flip open the sidebar you can get it to work like so:

mailraider.png

Here is the first PDF I was able to extract - Intell~1.pdf (2MB) - it is a "business sensitive" presentation by military-industrial contractor Battelle to MnDOT. Let's have some choice excerpts including particularly how they use taxing people driving around rural-ish places like Wright County as a target for the mileage tax.

mndotcake000.png mndotcake001.png mndotcake002.png mndotcake003.png mndotcake004.png mndotcake005.png mndotcake006.png mndotcake007.png mndotcake008.png mndotcake009.png mndotcake010.png mndotcake011.png mndotcake012.png mndotcake013.png mndotcake014.png mndotcake015.png mndotcake016.png mndotcake017.png mndotcake018.png mndotcake019.png mndotcake020.png

What could possibly go wrong?!

mndotcake021.png

It is always sad to see fine open source techs like GnuPG used to encrypt tracking data. Damn you Technocratic Capitalism!

mndotcake022.png mndotcake023.png

This is pretty alarming. Sterns, Wright, etc are counties full of peopl that can't afford to pay more.

mndotcake025.png mndotcake026.png

LOOKS LEGIT:

mndotcake027.png mndotcake028.png

So this is just one extracted PDF from a single email. If Battelle was actually a front for malicious space aliens who want all the inhabitants of this planet tagged and tracked, I would not be surprised!

///////////////

MIRROR ADDRESSES: Here is the first mirror of it. These files are big enough to crash your browser - maybe rightclick & Save As link so the PDF plugin doesn't keel over... I don't think we'll need tons of mirrors for this, but it's good to have a couple around.

the big ones are at:

http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun... & also:

http://hongpong.com/files/mndotcake/Public%20QAM.pdf
http://hongpong.com/files/mndotcake/Public%20CommVault.pdf

dfc0fd1d4d6bdbcaf0498a50ee0f5fec Public CommVault.pdf 1.22 GB on disk (1,216,990,533 bytes)

cec386cc20000b7fe10297fc3ca0cdab Public QAM.pdf 1.7 GB on disk (1,698,431,132 bytes)

If you find gems tweet em with hashtag #mndotcake. If you find an open source way to work with files this big let us know. It will take some people to work on this. We invite people to occupythecomms.cc group infocake for looking at PDFs - this has group writing pads available (very easy, much like googledocs). Info on occupythecomms: https://occupythecomms.cc/pages/view/90009/activism-and-collaborative-media-methods

On the indymedia mirror the directoryIndex isn't cooperating yet (no folders list) but the files are here. The big ones are in bold, not too much in the others so far found.

You can generate a list of your wget mirror like this with:

$ find -name \*

http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/Public%20QAM.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/Public%20CommVault.pdf

http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes16.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes27.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes26.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes3.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes9.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes13.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes8.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes29.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes10.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes5.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes11.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes12.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes19.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_phone%20for%2027th%20and%2028th....and%20a%20TIP!%20_).pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes17.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes22.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes6.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/6_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/RE_%20Dieringer%20Pre-Award---IMPORTANT!!!!.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes15.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/RE_%20Dieringer%20Pre-Award---IMPORTANT!!!!3.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Ray's%20requests.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_RE_%20Dieringer%20Pre-Award---IMPORTANT!!!!2.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes30.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes28.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_Re_%20MNDOT_MBUF%20Discussion%20guide%20v2.DOC%20(Lucy's%20out%20of%20the%20office%20).pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes18.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Attachments/r_6%205%2007%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes2.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes20.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_This%20should%20do%20it!.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20No%20major%20issues%20FYI.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes25.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes7.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_This%20should%20do%20it!2.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_RE_%20Help_!_.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes14.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_headin'%20home%20with%20MBUF%20as%20my%20bedmate....pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes24.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/r_Selection%20Committee%20%20(Just%20In%20Case)%20.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...).pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes21.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes4.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes23.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/6_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes2.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/QAM%20Redactions/Fwd_%206_5_07%20Commissioner's%20Staff%20Meeting%20Minutes31.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RECEIVED!!%20%20_)%20%20%20%20MBUF%20Presentation%20Draft_11_16_2009_415pm.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20Temp%20classification%20is%20here!_02_09_2011_128pm.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20Temp%20classification%20is%20here!_02_09_2011_136pm.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20Temp%20classification%20is%20here!_02_09_2011_133pm.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20Temp%20classification%20is%20here!_02_08_2011_1141am.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20CONSULTANT%20CONTRACTs_last%20night!_12_02_2009_1127am.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20Temp%20classification%20is%20here!_02_08_2011_1130am.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20CONSULTANT%20CONTRACTs_last%20night!_12_02_2009_1132am.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/chiefcounsel/Nate%20Hansen%20Email/CommVault%20Redactions/RE_%20News%20from%20Mileage%20Based%20User%20Fee%20Alliance%20(MBUFA)_04_11_2011_309pm.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/mndotcake/ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outboun...

/////////////////

Here is the MD5 hashes for all these files. (for fingerprinting/verification of file uniqueness, accept no substitutes). There are a bunch of apparently empty emails in "redactions" directories - or going to try another PDF reader to see if something is hiding.

a1541603442a1f0a6c2c7487c947e35b Hansen, Nathan 4_20_2011.xlsx

dfc0fd1d4d6bdbcaf0498a50ee0f5fec Public CommVault.pdf 1.22 GB on disk (1,216,990,533 bytes)

cec386cc20000b7fe10297fc3ca0cdab Public QAM.pdf 1.7 GB on disk (1,698,431,132 bytes)

$ cd QAM\ Redactions/

$ md5sum *

2bd53b4d4cfdf5735c6acb3d78dcac68 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes.pdf

ac02fb8d2d000af38df63e9d6804a5bd 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes2.pdf

bb562e176106b9436968ec57312fd74c Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes - No major issues FYI.pdf

cbbb2e9d9d81892a865d6539216d768c Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes.pdf

5294e1ef211a8a2de42749ab525b53ff Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes10.pdf

dba29ffb9fc67b3a389dbfc7e67ea8f7 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes11.pdf

e77272f7a0b33506dbf7e284f553bc58 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes12.pdf

8b0f53991f8b62fc2d1c92407839a4cc Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes13.pdf

a6b449f524250717b8fcdbac45abe537 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes14.pdf

c0b806598d33db35b25a167558e61dca Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes15.pdf

3243ea3f27b71c5da5d8aa146033fd45 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes16.pdf

091a17b9fd52dcb52f8ee9f2e1087426 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes17.pdf

61f4122e7d61e84099bcd39479c389a0 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes18.pdf

f8537cda72dc63a7dd3e6fd5bdf96f80 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes19.pdf

1dc010c5ff89962ae132c242d99cdd4e Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes2.pdf

d005b7b9edf6acf4046e57f0f157b098 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes20.pdf

0b9c231b2a572b29bc0b26e533b49416 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes21.pdf

9234a884059b1667134a3a60438da49d Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes22.pdf

16095da57ce2c90ab73ea3acb470231a Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes23.pdf

e834fc715abed962a5926db379b7d47b Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes24.pdf

44bc416f5ed69a62dbc3284bddf45be4 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes25.pdf

93db674814645af1a9b2e3b86e0cedbb Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes26.pdf

7dfb0294d4e9916117d48f87399396b4 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes27.pdf

0d1e549ec6911fb272c273cc9cdb85d2 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes28.pdf

af0b4c77b40a92f007f6de0937689666 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes29.pdf

14ad0e9eaf2a1ec784a7f64a4677d1fd Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes3.pdf

eb3c3a2ab081cd011cb8dc3cc4220c17 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes30.pdf

babb6166d521b7bd5e3da38e549101b9 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes31.pdf

faa33837481a7ea9ce5389301005d276 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes4.pdf

ec283884cf4eb57c1902f554c6daf88a Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes5.pdf

fd3955363a06c5e4f073b9a0eb685dce Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes6.pdf

9bb8bb439de8ebd31245d9e5c8039ba1 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes7.pdf

7e8d8bf30cb1979c98d26b68f74b4354 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes8.pdf

5e691539c7ab6721cd39e1739a63c977 Fwd_ 6_5_07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes9.pdf

eaf5422b97c8ada9bc1a2e2eebfef0bf Fwd_ MNDOT_DOCS-#573688-v3-MBUF_EXEC_SUMM.DOC.pdf

17f5832daf02053ece137906874516a2 Fwd_ Re_ CANCELED TONIGHT.pdf

4324e83ef735d5e77d99dfd22044224f Fwd_ Re_ Contract 90815 with The Dieringer Research Group; Mileage Based User Fee et al.pdf

3b7488cce7ecd2166663f08279cfc3dd Fwd_ Russian exchange program.pdf

fdd5552a9a0a29ea87998d4836e80e96 RE_ Dieringer Pre-Award---IMPORTANT!!!!.pdf

d0658a06b65516fca4053fc9b36ecb8c RE_ Dieringer Pre-Award---IMPORTANT!!!!3.pdf

0dbcad4857d9b6403a2e853cd78c6972 RE_ Dieringer Pre-Award.pdf

a1d456e7e7b594fe400f3848aa11e98c RE_ Dieringer Pre-Award3.pdf

6fd5adfd694451487ccdf26373eeab55 Ray's requests.pdf

39468301435c56e3ec93fc588c92819a Re_ Fwd_ Fox 9 follow up.pdf

58e487d24be75a7d253941dde63b08fc Re_ Fwd_ UPA.pdf

f01b3471912eedfdba901c0c593de83a Re_ Fwd_ UPA2.pdf

d3b3a8c4347947539ca68b1e9c1d6e51 Re_ MBUF_ Invoice Questions.pdf

b063347fb895a472d4dbfd830646ddad r_Final payment on MBUF.pdf

d215cb89c3fd54140daf25b9ef8284ce r_MBUF Session at Research Conference.pdf

5b355449e4377a26817cd4c6811596bf r_MBUF_EXEC_SUMM.DOC.pdf

62531bda63cf387a9af54c603c485f05 r_MNDOT_DOCS-#573688-v3-MBUF_EXEC_SUMM.DOC.pdf

9d58ff05a42d717ab21fb16b025ae57a r_One-pager on MBUF.pdf

00498befc398512b83fd12a504885117 r_RE_ Couple quick thoughts for the morning....pdf

f7f56814799552a8c7623a05651abf6a r_RE_ Dieringer Pre-Award---IMPORTANT!!!!2.pdf

21f3cd6184330313fd4c968a7f028cbd r_RE_ Dieringer Pre-Award2.pdf

44b00634488d6c0a4047f001d0458fe0 r_RE_ EGADS___.pdf

ab4a3171454d293faf05282fd2d83eec r_RE_ Help_!_.pdf

0fd3fb1e29875e32749ea7c14c04c3f4 r_RE_ RE_ MBUF 3 Informational Materials.doc.pdf

326fc5ab634d7bfedb4c1bb5f301f2c0 r_RE_ Revised Proposal.pdf

4653657972f849fd9a1c7054079d000c r_RE_ Weighting issue_ new thought_.pdf

c61c3d6a1ef1be417f9d00c7be8b77cb r_RE_ dang, did it again.....pdf

91179ab7d3629f5762bd8e18ab4afca5 r_RE_ tomorrow_ or... in the meantime....pdf

08d3bea45066ef0c5d509828947797d8 r_RFI Responses.pdf

e507c028247157bf0860a7ed793f429a r_RFI Responses2.pdf

9cb9fe08acb375b3ddfbedfb27c640fe r_RFI Responses3.pdf

3d9ee0668e57b78f837885a77e7afe80 r_Re_ WANT INPUT FROM RW_KM- Re_ Notes from the second pretest.pdf

477daab48437d06bbc3d48763f849c09 r_Re_ Any MBUF updates_.pdf

5db8f9421c5edf2810be6964febc0d4c r_Re_ Budget review.pdf

4606fdd159fd22f59b610edfddd6e8ca r_Re_ Checking in.....pdf

51f6f0c7e5b327a6378b96dc2d0ba936 r_Re_ Contract 90815 with The Dieringer Research Group; Mileage Based User Fee et al.pdf

4ab4226505ba43336ca2ddfb864de016 r_Re_ Contract 90815 with The Dieringer Research Group; Mileage Based User Fee et al2.pdf

c980c15aa1358178a1766ce97f04f090 r_Re_ Contract 90815 with The Dieringer Research Group; Mileage Based User Fee et al3.pdf

37258df0b414af50f8c64d51e0bcf500 r_Re_ Contract 93707.pdf

63c77560c995c1f95af81637e25a0cbf r_Re_ Div. Directors.pdf

fb76beed27f4086fc713c6d6bc59159c r_Re_ Final payment on MBUF.pdf

0c045b993642661cfc57e47d2998f539 r_Re_ Focus Groups_ MBUF.pdf

13369f6c2c7d1f15947be9f5451ecf3e r_Re_ MBUF FAQ.pdf

c0f66f0d95a6bb505dfe5a152f4a6d04 r_Re_ MBUF FAQ2.pdf

6768b6bb46892736ca405151827dc3e1 r_Re_ MBUF FAQ3.pdf

5548eb744fdefe5edc438d777aee0e7b r_Re_ MBUF Posting.pdf

f452cc41fb449ac5a532fe69e36f9aae r_Re_ MBUF TRB Paper.pdf

fdc671465cca77c1ac28c624c66eec60 r_Re_ MBUF TRB Paper2.pdf

15fdbfc26e9c1d7d1d75bebf19bd3d4b r_Re_ MBUF TRB Paper3.pdf

f9064a7d54b55dbdfee12201f5a6d6fb r_Re_ MBUF TRB Paper4.pdf

1ea6c324c4810a187fbb466f090e9dc8 r_Re_ MBUF TRB Paper5.pdf

ee2bf6d95d1dde47efad543d7fcd72f7 r_Re_ MNDOT_MBUF Discussion guide v2.DOC (Lucy's out of the office ).pdf

908d43977c57905893b1876c3743680b r_Re_ MNDOT_MBUF Discussion guide v2.DOC.pdf

c953af1a4399e1c7186b760163d22cf4 r_Re_ PAYD Market Research.pdf

2c3ff87a050058633837b932e27ffdf3 r_Re_ Presentation of MBUF Public Perceptions Study.pdf

ab603f4bed9c05693a38a2fbbbfab8dd r_Re_ RFP Questions - 3.pdf

971fa164a5f7b261c89828bf7abc9396 r_Re_ What time do you think you will go to lunch__.pdf

1322615f623d2ad114f056d96ac22800 r_Re_ What time do you think you will go to lunch__2.pdf

2e4cac2496e0ae647c75c03336ea1365 r_Re_ What time do you think you will go to lunch__3.pdf

d1cc38d07c46de1d9603c9d0e34c9e46 r_Re_ checking on your status.pdf

b0ee689930c73f8f899ef89dc65996b0 r_Re_ project status.pdf

d98803d63a7121d7475fa402037bde55 r_Re_ project status2.pdf

75339d3c33fa450cde6aeb9f61d4cf46 r_Revised Proposal.pdf

2b719b5df5c7e94cb4c254a923a77029 r_Selection Committee (Just In Case) .pdf

9b858373c2c295719101426381877004 r_This should do it!.pdf

3e0a41234df919fc5748fb0f3733f5a0 r_This should do it!2.pdf

3c0202bf34f06fca292a363ded23d808 r_Travel Authorization Signatures.pdf

4ff5b016ecab1a8194ba82d1f3166166 r_What time do you think you will go to lunch__4.pdf

f9b137390f0e4be87d0eacc412e55cbf r_headin' home with MBUF as my bedmate....pdf

74da3639cfd3c5cad57a802cfb571df6 r_last Friday....pdf

8a720e445fbd86bae91c273b7ee94bec r_meeting today.pdf

01517f469063f9f88b231abbf3c60fe0 r_phone for 27th and 28th....and a TIP! _).pdf

1893859cb7ef79f3e8edeaa57e6d40bc r_to hear the second pretest interviews_.pdf

ec21dda39b263e35e15ffa1a7106e3d7 r_up and taking nourishment _).pdf

$ cd ../CommVault\ Redactions/

$ md5sum *

4526805e569ac612e8b47e0baa0f18c5 Bernie Lieder Update_04_12_2011_316pm.pdf

965a35632c7ee3c5b4a77953c819b6e7 Email address_04_19_2011_152pm.pdf

ea00a30ddde74758dfb632444ee17554 FW_ MBUF Online Community_02_14_2011_122pm.pdf

c30785e48c44ab468535c835ea8808ca FW_ MBUF Symposium & PAYD Insurance_03_23_2010_1002am.pdf

ae3f69040f670c509ed143bf937abeb6 FW_ MBUF_12_10_2010_1006am.pdf

1f217b45f730ab22fa987aec48ec1797 FW_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_1143am.pdf

6c04c8b976f6c6615aaf1f3e553eef4a FW_ Mn_DOT MBUF RFP_08_10_2010_1032pm.pdf

be0486bbafba485cf73e797cf57cce1d FW_ TRB_01_06_2011_1148am.pdf

5dd29c7fdc005ea0d1872b7b50db4f9c FW_ Temp classification Ready for your review_11_17_2010_330pm.pdf

da1c6529e24b3aeb622e465810d2493d FW_ Terminology for legislation_12_02_2010_832am.pdf

60526ffba0b83ed3ca2de4b1d0ee4d93 FW_ US-2 Alternative Risk Analysis_12_02_2009_126pm.pdf

356efd4378b9f723631510c6da3ab9ec FW_ my schedule_06_02_2010_339pm.pdf

8134913b6cb4291df781450444fad923 Fw_ MBUF project name_03_18_2011_405pm.pdf

4806c46d5527908e4f5d6d69ecc3fb9e Fw_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_358pm.pdf

03a2a1ca03c16fb5b1cbec671111a729 Fw_ TRB_01_06_2011_937am.pdf

14db70ba2b1af71c30c850b9a6470dd5 Hansen, Nathan 4_20_2011.xlsx

abb315692a9475591a3f3ebebb2ca0df I-394_05_20_2010_848am.pdf

484c3fad46b8460e8cc8e024d44b2eda Letter to Administration and IPAD_02_21_2011_221PM.pdf

30f936b3baf79c8a3f4adf0c37b9cd17 MBUF Exec Summ in one pager template.docx_02_24_2010_139pm.pdf

54447e231cc5e7d1d12d52cfcb2cb51e MBUF Online Community_02_11_2011_1223pm.pdf

8144d33f994c47817ec2ea44e06ec98a MBUF Project_02_08_2011_143pm.pdf

b27c2fdf06cd476d21c4e66b772d3fb1 MBUF_10_22_2010_839am.pdf

be348e1362ac6ccece5756bcf754d3f1 MBUF_11_30_2009_1013am.pdf

c4b6a0285baa57dfd06cc49e19228773 Mbuf name_02_23_2011_1141am.pdf

274c29d8c6e94608478aa42efaad281e MnDOT & Communispace weekly call agenda_02_25_2011_919am1.pdf

71d3478d4d6332dc22e6c575ef2e0512 MnDOT & Communispace weekly call agenda_02_25_2011_919am2.pdf

39d76453ecd31324635d95e3891e9d13 MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_22_2011_943am.pdf

671fe8c19a2f81667a52fe78075655b1 MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_22_2011_944am.pdf

b135755acaa77b327ddd2f8339179b0c RECEIVED!! _) MBUF Presentation Draft_11_16_2009_415pm.pdf

886befdaa2332b043dc63e9800f8f6f6 RE_ CONSULTANT CONTRACT EXPIRATION ALERT_12_01_2009_1035am.pdf

d63301b6ab7408fd335ecd01c22bfba9 RE_ CONSULTANT CONTRACT EXPIRATION ALERT_12_01_2009_1059am.pdf

c3c35a0da620de7e9fabf3e281b33cd1 RE_ CONSULTANT CONTRACTs_last night!_12_02_2009_1127am.pdf

66c4c8e5721a887186ef32c29e24ff93 RE_ CONSULTANT CONTRACTs_last night!_12_02_2009_1132am.pdf

78d6d6ef56ecfc67fcaf61e5a332127a RE_ I-394_05_20_2010_902am.pdf

05df7eaf8b317c80f13820f1e1cee14b RE_ IntelliDrive MBUF Project_12_16_2009_333pm.pdf

2b7f16e797a7a0c6ad62c7ed1333b8f5 RE_ IntelliDrive MBUF Project_12_16_2009_810am.pdf

9a0cec08313abcf1c9ca70c658f80e14 RE_ Letter to Administration and IPAD_02_22_2011_927AM.pdf

e30e6e048ba92ef1a599a2600bd6498f RE_ MBUF Exec Summ in one pager template.docx_02_24_2010_154pm.pdf

70c7b32debe5a55e2f8f2d67bebb76b8 RE_ MBUF Focus Group_01_17_2011_511pm.pdf

50e47e4450bab89d5500f5eb35a036a4 RE_ MBUF Online Community_02_11_2011_1225pm.pdf

92fcfc9630992a333dc3b46bd48732c4 RE_ MBUF Online Community_02_11_2011_1231pm.pdf

f027c45acab6e57b1d36e24d0ee93772 RE_ MBUF Online Community_02_15_2011_1100am.pdf

a1b6ce5cde68ea77a9c23c95ea8dcb9a RE_ MBUF Online Community_02_15_2011_1129am.pdf

deb5838863a641688c6e7c85ece7b5db RE_ MBUF Policy Kick-Off Meeting_12_01_2010_1236pm.pdf

7899b2e46e7bbc1d7d3dab6b67204ef8 RE_ MBUF Policy Study Draft Online Survey Approach_02_03_2011_1206pm.pdf

04a3bd71953c8a3116c6d5302d71b583 RE_ MBUF news release going out today_04_18_2011_419pm.pdf

0f97d747bd627273951ae52d9f47af52 RE_ MBUF news release going out today_04_18_2011_506pm.pdf

5d7c9d7b938d012327ad74e8adc1c6ef RE_ MBUF news release going out today_04_18_2011_603pm.pdf

1108a01bc5647242129db848b1968ad0 RE_ MBUF project name_03_18_2011_424pm.pdf

9d04bdc4f3d47bd9aa6a42cc86e8111c RE_ MBUF project name_03_18_2011_425pm.pdf

e1b29a363a67381a2bf62b520b81c54b RE_ MBUFF meeting today; cancelling_04_15_2011_215pm.pdf

2b62cff8e2356af2367a533757fecd3c RE_ MBUFF meeting today; cancelling_04_18_2011_830am.pdf

8c6f28f8bfad5e6269be821d90a38ef3 RE_ MBUF_11_30_2009_1149am.pdf

e44110f22e541bd4e66165e507305409 RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_1103am.pdf

999925ec95ed3a13e110e798bf1555c1 RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_1111am.pdf

27a82743582cefc14bb61353f8551a06 RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_950am.pdf

27956fe15cf55ca0c7f0287b03148ea6 RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_953am.pdf

81af256a23a3809ff8bb8d622b70d4a0 RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_954am.pdf

3e13a81758d56493a83f5c7428ed370b RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_955am.pdf

19d4fb79563af9ee4d8fdd44b9ee2508 RE_ MBUF_12_10_2010_957am.pdf

f9f6f496419b156db9f74f4f7683f83b RE_ MNDOT & Communispace weekly call - 2_15_02_17_2011_236pm.pdf

5b8361f64e68eab5c8a8342fbcfda50d RE_ Mbuf name_02_23_2011_1144am.pdf

006f09322d12e50fb6f0f819bea23fbe RE_ Media contact-mileage based user fee_04_19_2011_319pm.pdf

f1ee5606964818951a6c908260505a4a RE_ MnDOT & Communispace weekly call agenda - NOTES_02_28_2011_957am1.pdf

cb9614632da4c99f2b63cab39767a502 RE_ MnDOT & Communispace weekly call agenda - NOTES_02_28_2011_957am2.pdf

dc0c94c5bda4f38f9b50e5bbee1adeb1 RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_22_2011_504pm.pdf

4700a7736adc778ff83d49f14c6ab184 RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_1153am.pdf

7ab57aca29541ad59aa8cb4aa735396d RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_12483.pdf

e8021d8f7e3afdd8629541fd1a9b0cc3 RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_1248pm.pdf

fa54ec8e94bf5fb5cdbe3fa6e1c4db9f RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_1248pm2.pdf

3218af37335c0e06c3f3b9a011b19e39 RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_328pm.pdf

eb696b4ffeee4e306e2eb7e484bba2d6 RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_331pm.pdf

2dd4f45c1331c9db6bc6ad13cad669e7 RE_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_331pm2.pdf

6dcab9c1d50ee4793d1c2f50ac5c1aac RE_ Mn_DOT MBUF RFP_08_11_2010_1031am.pdf

8d4ac4b9986a2dee1ebdf640cc241aa4 RE_ News from Mileage Based User Fee Alliance (MBUFA)_04_11_2011_309pm.pdf

e210a430bee280107a58c426d63a4bdd RE_ Next steps_Action Planning_12_03_2009_124pm.pdf

dd51eb0f42aea93f113ff5753b23f7f5 RE_ TRB Presentation_01_28_2011_125pm.pdf

4dc9010d0d7df27e8d5dd8689beebd0b RE_ TRB Presentation_01_28_2011_133pm.pdf

f910d3770ae1253cb5a096f9fc89be26 RE_ TRB_01_05_2011_543pm.pdf

3559e8bf7034bd767690c270c54aa1d8 RE_ TRB_01_06_2011_1111am.pdf

be8de9d4e1d3f82ab1a7567cbbbd0db2 RE_ TRB_01_06_2011_1116am.pdf

276086ae4495d14e7cbb077238747743 RE_ TRB_01_06_2011_1136am.pdf

de5827e592a282eea1853abaf717bc0d RE_ TRB_01_07_2011_840am.pdf

1e20ee8d269538d3c51f1e4a394813a9 RE_ TRB_01_07_2011_848am.pdf

29bbb01ead3b247be765ae31ccc4af0b RE_ TRB_01_24_2011_450pm.pdf

b44878a8ba14e90d657e411ad8d6f3f8 RE_ TRB_01_26_2011_620am.pdf

0c08f27a10d2e6df4d0562d7a6f1c0ff RE_ TRB_01_26_2011_801am.pdf

76495b1ee7bf01d8cd82d00f844a3df4 RE_ Temp class_02_17_2011_412pm.pdf

2f0318acfd3b1dcb960d5ea3a58a3264 RE_ Temp classification Ready for your review_11_17_2010_636pm.pdf

920a5c9704de481feb63d517712c1bbc RE_ Temp classification Ready for your review_11_18_2010_1105am.pdf

91d9a6e0ecaccd8038d737fb9e018548 RE_ Temp classification is here!_02_08_2011_1130am.pdf

f00a78733245cdb151b70161e8b0c6c6 RE_ Temp classification is here!_02_08_2011_1141am.pdf

88084dd4767ce27fb1c98cab13fe86c8 RE_ Temp classification is here!_02_09_2011_128pm.pdf

325966f645ec703d7da2d357249d6678 RE_ Temp classification is here!_02_09_2011_133pm.pdf

5c900f9cadf4e5037c0cd14da33e283c RE_ Temp classification is here!_02_09_2011_136pm.pdf

eb559b717547c18aa1ce5de7f4a334fb RE_ This AM_06_11_2010_934am.pdf

1d52160c492897b3bca16ee9df7ffa8b RE_ VM yesterday_12_05_2009_1131am.pdf

6be20bbfc07fe87eaecab816bc64e9dc RE_ another version of the policy study overview_01_07_2011_835am.pdf

3eebed34ca6fdfd6224366da55a0364e RE_ another version of the policy study overview_01_07_2011_932am.pdf

221e425208d0c9dea2da17e21cedaf78 Re_ 2010 MBUF Symposium Call March 12, 3 p.m. Central time_02_27_2010_1006am.pdf

4a7ad39b42e8063a51090e4dfc4c9ac3 Re_ Jon H.2_01_05_2011_759am.pdf

bf84169642681c0393244cbdb2661a3e Re_ Jon H._01_05_2011_838am.pdfbf84169642681c0393244cbdb2661a3e Re_ Jon H._01_05_2011_838am.pdf

ec3787db74d4c1110113c0b45f0a355e Re_ Letter to Administration and IPAD_02_22_2011_155PM.pdf

7cb7973b2280ba2688b13512ebcb7625 Re_ MBUF Policy Meeting_03_02_2011_215pm.pdf

739ed2f8cadb31733edb0fdfd97f04e7 Re_ MBUF_03_31_2011_714pm.pdf

5cabfd708b4c7a48068bcb609c853d79 Re_ MBUF_03_31_2011_824pm.pdf

4ee94529b2e9ec85f9f64693e0dff2cf Re_ MBUF_12_09_2010_911pm.pdf

2ea238fe33918e7b7eebc5ac7ec96c1e Re_ MBUF_12_10_2010_1047am.pdf

5baa528dfaecef9cd4ed408f2d94a650 Re_ MBUF_12_13_2010_746am.pdf

f7adb768801ba9af6150f1cbc9053a97 Re_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_155pm.pdf

8bc02ad9e7444b670486bc1fc4f1fb2c Re_ MnDOT Snapshot - Reaching Older Generations_02_23_2011_323pm.pdf

36fdd9e21207b2267c0d13fbb8baad70 Re_ TRB_01_25_2011_148pm.pdf

7c3a94657f2afb64691f52ede7db19cb Shortened Presentation draft_11_18_2009_104pm.pdf

e82b4a99ead5133167d892c292950a64 Temp classification citations and final Attachment _11_18_2010_146pm.pdf

e3a1eb76c041f03400532d26a93c01b7 Temp classification_11_09_2010_420pm.pdf

f35b892dcd07cae5ef763765ec8e8989 VM yesterday_12_05_2009_718am.pdf

ad284dd91760b55caa43d94947bcb309 my notes from focus group_07_15_2010_1042pm.pdf

5ec009dc1d2b30fd7180043d71e431d2 my schedule_06_01_2010_306pm.pdf

df2c566cec38e930b2fc0b89c5467048 note changes per my vm on your cell...._07_22_2010_1142am.pdf

adcbf8b475c7158e8800c223e06b1783 r_VPPP Grant Apps_02_03_2011_905am.pdf

2bc792828e021379bd6508c0a8e5e808 your 3905 and 3924_ classifying data_12_21_2010_403pm.pdf

$ cd ../QAM\ Redactions/Attachments/

$ md5sum *

3fd8f0f9226e7b23383fb4e9820800ef r_0584_001.pdf

5fe5e205e8c9673a577d2acb389fbbd7 r_09xxx Dieringer 2009 FHR Cost Detail.pdf

8b56f9fb39fa8b7a6d58e2b2da23776c r_09xxx Dieringer 2009 FHR Cost Detail_for revi.pdf

e22812037eada83aecf6311eb08a7b4a r_1.30.07 Commissioners Staff Meeting Minutes.pdf

f713229f7f300f227589bd89aaad2002 r_2.06.07 Commissioners Staff Meeting Minutes.pdf

f3375414fc619ee175b5dc224a5e07a1 r_2.13.07 Commissioners Staff Meeting Minutes.pdf

22f6f34e84981638ffa263c1f5a434fd r_6 5 07 Commissioner's Staff Meeting Minutes.pdf

52a28aea5fffa90a906a41dd04d6ea5c r_Addresses_2009.pdf

8c31824d4de7622ffcffaf8d4a44fcd4 r_Fwd_ Re_ CANCELED TONIGHT.pdf

d52b1e9786833b3d758a0e642afd0507 r_Grants-dot-gov-20070522131848652_1.pdf

cf02b8b051229580d130fadce52e7a67 r_MNDOT_DOCS-#573688-v3-MBUF_EXEC_SUMM.DOC.pdf

0298e9beac45b9d02e9c3c5f3e4fae96 r_Re_ Contract 90815 with The Dieringer Research Group; Mileage Based User Fee et al.pdf

///////////////////

More on this as stuff develops. Happy tracker hunting!

Security culture danger as closed Occupy Homes sessions proceed without 2/3rds internal support in MN; two networks for price of one?

Troublesome assumptions about security culture arrangements for closed Occupy Homes national gathering sessions starting tomorrow at the Neighborhoods Organizing for Change MN (NOC Office) around noon put participants at risk. I feel everyone involved means well, but a bunch of particularly 'toxic' situations have materialized. Since these developments reflect larger trends, they need to be fixed if possible, and certainly discussed. [See August 4th story on conflict around meeting closure at NOC Office 911 Broadway Ave on Tuesday] At issue: the desire of the organizers of the Occupy Homes national convening to close the gathering.

The Occupy Homes MN last Saturday, which ran around four hours, reached a vote of 22 in favor of the closure of sessions at the national Occupy Homes convening, 18 against, and 8 standasides. 22/18/8 fails to reach a 2/3rds level of consensus (even ignoring standasides, only 55%). Unfortunately a kind of reverse fait accompli has evidently been imposed on the consensus-based group -- the inability to prevent the meeting closure decision from having been taken earlier by the two delegates means that now the group is [purportedly] imposed upon with a 55% decision. [I have not been able to get comment about when this closure happened exactly]

//// UPDATE Aug 7th: Getting complaints not for attribution from one of the people that arranged the lockout. They say they had a vote of 23, not 22, to proceed with the session lockout. Two initial reports said 22, but even if it is 23, that fails to meet 2/3rds consensus. Let's show exactly how this works, using 23 as the affirmative number lacking 66% consensus. The third chart & data set shows the consensus actually required.

occupy homes vote chartoccupy homes pie chart

If this doesn't make it obvious there's no 66% support, I don't know what will - no matter whether you factor in the stand-asides.END UPDATE ////

For coverage on what happens [if/when] the gesture of locking out the conference is made by its supporters Tuesday, I will try to post summaries on twitter at http://twitter.com/hongpong and possibly live video will be available at http://bambuser.com/channel/hongpong .

@TshirtToby sent along the following writeup of the Saturday meeting. Thanks Toby - follow him!

/// This is a report about the Occupy Homes MN meeting held on Saturday April 4th.

Once other business was able to be taken care of, the meeting moved on to the contentious issue over the openness of the upcoming conference. The people involved with organizing the conference admitted that they made mistakes and move forward from here.

It was proposed that the conference should be open to everyone. Arguments for and against were made. For openness arguments were made for transparency, spirit of the Occupy movement, worries over the groups involved and their influence. Against, it was brought up with the people outside of Minnesota organizing it on a conference call and it didn't pass a vote among them; didn't want media/informants/undercover government agents at meeting; Talking about sensitive tactics and people personal homes and financials. A vote was taken and it didn't pass.

It had been agreed that it 6 "Participants" and 5 "Observers" to the various panels. This was decided fairly quickly and somewhat sloppily due to time crunch and tensions. This meeting had the second highest tensions I have ever felt during an Occupy meeting.

In my opinion the meeting went as well as it could considering the lack of time to solve an emotional debate. The problem I see is that some of the people invited to this meeting are not from Occupy affiliated groups. These groups don't abide by Occupy traditions of openness and transparency. This could hurt Occupy Homes reputation.

It is my hope that this group will be able to recover from this incident and continue to do its good work. ///

Veteran activists in Minneapolis know full well after many incidents in recent years (see 2008 Republican National Convention, 2009 Grand Jury & beyond), any large gathering can easily be surveilled, yet security culture assertions by those who have promulgated the plan to lock the sessions are simply faulty. It is totally implausible that closing the meeting sessions will spare it the effects of informants or government operatives. This is extremely dangerous -- the faith that security culture can 'work' with this many people around -- and needs to be set aside immediately.

[Protip: In the future, the dangerous power of delegation has to be carefully bounded for nonhierarchical groups, such as instructing delegates under no circumstances may they agree to close meetings to their members. You'd think it was an assumption of everyone, but unfortunately it's not.]

The Movement Resource Group, (Movementresourcegroup.org started by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerrys, and others) provided a large grant to support this Occupy Homes gathering, grant info attached below. Simply put, if MRG provides more grants sponsoring closed "Occupy" meetings, the critical network topology of openness upon which the entire idea depends will be killed off, sprayed into oblivion by the Roundup of good intentions expressed through grants.

Additionally, as Anthony Newby discussed on the video taken last Wednesday, members from several of the groups flying in to Minneapolis have had their airfare paid by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), although Newby said he wasn't sure if it was the local or national organization.

Alongside the partially closed Occupy Homes series of events, a second specific effort is taking place, and one source said that this affair is at least partially put on by Minnesotans for a Fair Economy (MFE), an organization set up for electoral purposes by the Fight for a Fair Economy network.

According to: http://occupybernal.org/wordpress/?p=1976 : [bold added]

/// Occupy Bernal Participates in National Home Defenders LeaguePosted on July 30, 2012 by

At our Saturday, July 28, 2012 joint general assembly, Occupy Bernal/SF ACCE/Occupy Noe agreed to generate support for Wells Fargo Bank (WFB) foreclosure fighter Steve Boudreaux of Atlanta, GA.

He is in foreclosure, and fighting, with the support of his community, to keep his home.

Two of us are attending the first convening of the new National Home Defenders League in Minneapolis, MN on August 7-8, 2012. Our fellow organizations from around the country are all fighting foreclosures. Let’s show them that our organizations believe in solidarity. Hopefully, after that national meeting, we will have a nationwide organization capable or fighting the banks county-wide.

Here’s where to sign the petition, and Steve’s story, Steve’s story continued and more info on Steve’s campaign. ///

One source stated that members of at least five of the groups involved in the Occupy Homes summit are also attending the MFE-supported event. It seems likely, though unconfirmed, that the MFE-supported event is the National Home Defenders League convening.

Several of the staffers involved with Home Defenders League [HDL] (also those in MN involved with MFE & SEIU in recent years) share a pretty common background: they were ACORN network staffers & relatively tight-knit. More recently, within the last few weeks, HDL has been staffing up, and HDL opened at the same address as ACCE (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment), which itself opened less than two weeks after California's ACORN chapter dissolved, at that same address, with much of the same ACORN staff.

HDL was announced as early as 2010 as a descendant org of ACCE:

/// October 8, 2010 Friday - Home Edition - HOUSING; Freeze sought on U.S. home seizures;

As questions mount about how banks have handled foreclosures, consumer and civil rights groups call for a national moratorium. By Alejandro Lazo and E. Scott Reckard

SECTION: BUSINESS; Business Desk; Part B; Pg. 1

Two advocacy groups -- the Los Angeles-based Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and the Greenlining Institute of Berkeley -- this week called for a foreclosure moratorium. The L.A. group said it was forming a separate organization, the Home Defenders League, to help homeowners fight foreclosures. Both groups called on Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to support a moratorium. ///

This summer has seen an expanded relaunch of HDL in different states. June 6 2012 NY Daily News:

/// About a dozen New York Communities for Change volunteers canvassed Jamaica recently, talking to homeowners facing foreclosure and looking for abandoned homes that have become neighborhood eyesores. Members of the Queens chapter of the grassroots advocacy group knocked on about 300 doors on Saturday to mark the launch of the Home Defenders League. ///

It's really no problem for representatives of HDL-friendly & ACORN network related chapter organizations to join an Occupy Homes meeting like they will tomorrow. With large parts of the gathering put off limits to general participation (there aren't open 'political' events, only socially-oriented gatherings), that presents a major issue with power flows and openness in an ostensibly "Occupy" related gathering.

When many of those orgs are also apparently having a parallel unadvertised gathering supported by an electoral organization [though I do not have further evidence on paper of the arrangement], that looks like two networks tangled in one situation. It's much better in the long run for all of us to openly work on untangling this issue.

******

Having known quite a few staff working in the milieu of paid political organizations including ACORN, MFE & SEIU, by and large these are good people who have good intentions. Occupy has always supported unions, but is wary of co-option by managerial union leadership.

Many of the homeowners involved in these campaigns are gritty, very well-intentioned union members. This doesn't mean they necessarily support this kind of organizing - with quite a few I've talked to, this sort of thing strikes them as a bad move.

The troubling thing is that quite frequently, people in the paid milieu don't realize their tactical approaches are harmful to the very forces they're trying to bolster. The gradients of structural politics, grants, co-option, working in cooperation and trying to build bridges to turn large projects into movements are certainly not pretty, and makes people uneasy.

This is why the open nature of Occupy as a network has been such a sturdy foundation - it works not as a closed door cabal but rather an open network. Security culture, properly applied, involved small temporary affinity groups working on individual projects, far away from any venues with dozens of people. No more ambitious OPSEC (operational security) approach is really plausible. The closing of information and lines of contact damages the ability of the networks to maintain a 'common operating picture' and the broad, heterogeneous 'weak tie networks' needed to keep projects thriving over the long run.

Occupy Homes MN has most effectively functioned not as one organization, but as another network performing direct actions, in which activists who primarily identify with other organizations kept the projects alive.

The overall principle of openness, not informationally constricted, leaky boxes of withheld information & pseudo 'security culture', is essentially what brings these types of movements oxygen, preventing rot, political ossification, and hierarchical decision-making.

******

One individual reported to be an attendee at this week's meeting, Jonathan Matthew Smucker, advocated Occupy embracing "Co-Optation". I think this line of analysis runs pretty deeply with the people pushing in this direction.

It's worthy of debate, but debate in open meetings, whether this approach sacrifices goals of more radical, deeper social change for much smaller tactical victories, working with electorally oriented organizations. Without open meetings, the pros & cons of this approach will never get worked out properly.

Memorably describing OWS as a "harvest moment": Occupy The Progressive Movement: Why Occupy Should Embrace "Co-Optation" | Alternet (April 26 2012)

/// ..... But angst about an over-generalized sense of co-option may be an even bigger problem. We cannot build a large-scale social movement capable of achieving big changes without the involvement of long-standing broad-based institutions. OWS should actively and strategically forge relationships with many of these institutions, while preserving the role of OWS as an "outsider" force.

.........The worst thing we could do right now is make Occupy Wall Street into a small "radicals only" space. We cannot build a large-scale social movement capable of achieving big changes without the involvement of long-standing large membership institutions, including labor unions, national advocacy organizations, community organizations, and faith communities. Radicals never have and never will have sufficient numbers to go it alone. We have to muster the courage and smarts to be able to help forge and maintain alliances that we can influence but cannot fully control. That's the nature of a broad populist alignment.

Social movement theorists have a term for the sort of co-option that Occupy Wall Street should prize: infrastructure co-option. Nascent movements become mass movements not by building their own infrastructure entirely from scratch or recruiting new volunteers one at a time, but by "co-opting" existing institutions and social infrastructure into the service of the movement and its goals. The Civil Rights movement went big when existing institutions—especially black churches and schools—came to identify strongly as part of the movement. Organizers provided opportunities for members of those pre-existing institutions to make this new identification actionable and visible. This was cultivated to such an extent that, eventually, to be a member of certain institutions implied active involvement in the Civil Rights movement. When this happens with enough institutions, the movement gets a huge boost in capacity. And capacity means power.

Over the past few months many organizations and constituencies have been watching Occupy Wall Street, trying to figure out whether and how to relate to it. These organizations—including faith communities, the NAACP, MoveOn.org, labor unions, community organizations, and many other groups—understand how they and their members are affected by the crises that Occupy Wall Street has named and confronted. Some of them are already engaging in important ways, explicitly as part of—or in support of—Occupy Wall Street. And many more have long been engaged in work that clearly aligns with the movement's core values—and probably even deserve some credit for helping to lay the long-term organizing groundwork that helped create OWS.

But there are still significant barriers standing in the way of broader constituencies conceptualizing themselves as part of a 99% movement and getting actively involved. The first and most obvious barrier is that many groups haven't really been asked to get involved. During the first couple months of OWS, if a group wanted to get involved, it was typically a matter of them taking the initiative to approach us and ask what kind of support they might provide. Usually the answer was some variety of "Come down to Zuccotti Park" or "Stand up against Bloomberg for our right to occupy the park." Often the groups that wanted to support OWS simply showed up. While this kind of involvement made perfect sense when we held the park, it's clear that we now have to come up with other ways for more people and groups to take action as part of the 99% movement.

This is a critical transition for Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement. Remember that Occupy Wall Street kicked off with a well timed call-to-action, a ripe target, some planning, and a lot of crazy luck. As a result, OWS has understandably had more of a culture of mobilizing than of organizing. It's been a little like a group of folks who don't know anything about farming who arrive at a farm at harvest time. There's delicious food everywhere, and all they have to do is pick, pluck, and gather it. And eat it! "Wow," one of them exclaims, "farming is awesome! Why would we waste our time cultivating the soil? This food is delicious! I want to eat it all the time! This is working very well. We should just keep doing this — all the time!"

Occupy Wall Street has been something of a harvest moment. It pulled thousands of people out of the woodwork who'd been waiting for something just like this to come along, and who were in a place where we could carve out time from our lives to engage it. But movements need hundreds of thousands if not millions of active participants to become mass movements. It's difficult if not impossible to activate those kinds of numbers by just taking public action with the hope that other like-minded individuals will decide to join you. We need more on-ramps and more ways to be involved — for folks who might not yet feel comfortable camping out at a public park.

.....And this is why it is now critical that we meet with folks who are movers and shakers in other social networks and institutions. That's how the 99% movement can grow at the rate we all know it needs to; byactivating whole swaths of society at a time.....

.....All of the above gets so much more complicated in an election year. Occupy Wall Street is an outsider force. It should remain an outsider force this year. If it were to endorse candidates or a particular political party, it would immediately lose all of its value and leverage. Our job is to push from the outside.

But that's not at all to say that we shouldn't have a strategy for engaging with the energy and media attention of the election season. We should. And how we do it will seriously affect our ability to continue to grow this movement, to be seen as relevant, to cultivate alliances, and to leverage power to effect real change......

.......Once someone starts running on your rhetoric, you then have more leverage over them. You are better positioned to expose them if they're just giving lip service to your ideas without any intention of delivering. And for all the horrendous limits of the two-party system, still a slate of candidates who get elected pledging to take on the big banks gives us a lot more to work with—as an outsider social movement—than a slate of candidates elected on a pledge to cut social spending. And more importantly, it keeps the momentum on our side.

Another important question has to do with how we engage allies who do endorse candidates. Many labor unions, for example, are likely at some point to endorse President Obama's reelection bid. Some already have. And some will surely endorse specific state and local candidates. We're an outsider force. We should never endorse candidates. But is it possible to ally around specific actions with organizations that also endorse candidates?

It has to be. We join up with others where we can, and we depart where we depart. If we call for an end to corporate personhood, for example, we should welcome as many co-endorsers as possible, including organizations that endorse politicians — and even politicians themselves. Welcoming politicians' endorsements of our goals doesn't mean endorsing those politicians. This is an important detail, and it requires a precise threading of the needle. As an outside force, we have to take all politicians to task, regardless of party. But the details of how we do this matter. We need to pressure politicians and candidates, and the best way to do this is to ask them hard questions and provide pressure that pulls them in our direction (or put them on the defensive). If we ask good questions that resonate with the people who hear them, then we're doing our job well. If, on the other hand, we make general statements like, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all the same," then we're being needlessly belligerent to our allies and potential allies (without even putting politicians on the defensive). An organization focused primarily on reproductive rights, for example, will understandably be very concerned about whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney occupies the White House. We can take candidates from both parties to task on an array of other issues without spurning their reasons for deciding to endorse a candidate. ........

........Someone who had felt constrained within her institution before the shake-up may now see and seize openings to move the institution in a bolder direction. And this is more likely to happen if organizers from Occupy Wall Street—the visible catalyst of the earthquake—approach longstanding institutions to strategize together about how they might engage with this moment.

An earthquake moment is a time to invite people to engage. It's not a moment to keep people in boxes, or to draw rigid lines. It's a moment to hammer Wall Street, the big banks, and the political system that has been fixed to serve only the very wealthy and powerful. Our task now is to activate as many people as possible into action. And this has to include people we wouldn't necessarily choose to have as our best friends. ///

Unfortunately at the sessions Smucker is participating in in Minneapolis this week, such an open debate is not an option because of restricted access. The big question: Does that mean that the position and debate frames adopted as "Occupy approved" will shift in a less radical, more institutionalized direction?

Located from deeper areas of the internet, Home Defenders League PR structure in a press release:

/// EVENT: CONFERENCE CALL BRIEFING - THE HOME DEFENDERS LEAGUE;

LOCATION: None given -- May 31, 2012 As seen in text

SECTION: GENERAL NEWS EVENTS - LENGTH: 98 words

SUBJECT: The Home Defenders League holds a conference call briefing, beginning at noon, with an overview of the Home Defenders League campaign, a "new alliance of homeowners and renters across the country who are joining together to make their voices heard in the 2012 election and beyond."

CONTACT: Moria Herbst, 646-452-5637, 917-743-6350, moira@berlinrosen.com [Note: Media should RSVP to Moira Herbst at moira@berlinrosen.com or 646-452-5637. Call-in, 800-434-1335; password, 995583#. A Q&A follows the news conference. Information on the launch of the alliance is embargoed until 9 a.m. May 31.] ///

Located near Wall Street at 15 Maiden Lane, Suite 1600, New York, NY, Berlin Rosen is interesting, reminiscent of other liberal communications consultancies. See http://www.berlinrosen.com/section/our-team/ for some familiar names.

In conclusion, I hope that broad networks can evolve, especially on all housing issues including fraud, homelessness, financialization, fractional reserve, and foreclosures, but that will not work out when narrow networks with bowtie chokepoints, rather than broad, open and loose networks evolve.

DISCLAIMER: I have performed videography services for MFE in the last year, contributed to videos & trained supporters in mobile video software (ustream/bambuser). Also, Movement Resource Group or one of its founders, Ben Cohen, (not sure which) provided funding for GlobalRevolution.tv (which I am a member) to supply Occupy and related movements with media gear, via GlobalRev's fiscal sponsor . We need to have good spirited disclosure of paid political organizing, in the long run this is essential. As so many people are well-intentioned, to avoid conflicts and jumbles, clear, plain information is the best goal we should share.

Previous stories on mainstream politics & the Occupy movement on HongPong.com : Feb 19 2012: BuStEd: I sense Astroturfing in the Occupy! UAW social media plan posted for "99% Spring" electioneering schema // Aug 4 2012: Plans for closed door Occupy Homes national meeting spurs opposition [VIDEO]

CREATIVE COMMONS WITH ATTRIBUTION - hongpong.com - hongpong@hongpong.com

The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies - for decoding astroturfing & malicious forum & Internet operations, trolls, sockpuppets, crapflooding & disinfo specialists

Reposting this as it's a much more handy summary than I could give. Neato! I think we're seeing this get more and more privatized as well -- I have a couple flagrant sockpuppets I know and love, they are like a handy little COINTELPRO weathervane. When talking Information Operations (not to mention spinstorms) this is stuff that should be right on hand.

******

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies - Via Cryptome.org - read cryptome every day if you're not already :)

****

A sends:

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

______________________________________________________________________________________

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're dividing the movement."

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

"Warning shot will not be fired" by MPs trained in Martial Law in America: Military Police training: heavily patrolled domestic detention facilities, dissident/sniper warrantless searches - CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations training @ Ft McClellan

b. Use of Deadly and Non-deadly Force (4) (b) Warning shot will not be fired.

or better yet:

(3) In an occupied building, when the dissident's/sniper's location is unknown, all suspected rooms must be searched. The action element should try to have occupants submit voluntarily to the search of their rooms. At the same time, occupants should be questioned in an attempt to pinpoint the sniper's location. If occupants will not submit voluntarily and there is probable cause to believe that the dissident/ sniper is located in the room, a complete physical search of the room or rooms should be conducted. Use of the patrol dog will help in conducting such searches.

Another planning layer for emergency domestic military operations has been published: The 2006 US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations does not concern itself with warrants in the 'search' section, indicating a certain level of Constitutional disregard in the military's planning for emergencies in what the document calls CONUS, or Continental United States.

The excellent PublicIntelligence is where this just popped up (first I saw of it anyway): U.S. Army Military Police School Civil Disturbance Operations Course | Public Intelligence - Direct PDF link (115 pages).

martial-law-mp-training-front.png

///////UPDATE JULY 11: Just talked with Alex Jones for an hour on this stuff. Here's the crib notes & PDFs you'll want to see.
/////// UPDATE July 7 AM: My interview with Darren McBreen on Infowars Nightly News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNw_m7gfqXM // Prisonplanet stories by Kurt Nimmo and "Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America" by Paul Watson.. Also I put it on Reddit One & Two

///////

I've only had time to read a bit of it so far, but it ties in very closely with another level of this planning framework, USNORTHCOM (Northern Command) CONPLAN 3502 Civil Disturbance Operations, which is the 21st century replacement for GARDEN PLOT, the Pentagon's plan used between the 1960s and 2002 for domestic riot control & emergency operations in such settings as the LA Riots.

In 2010 I found presentation files on a US Army Corps of Engineer server - for full story please see TC Indymedia Exclusive: Secret 'Trigger' & blueprint for emergency domestic military crackdown plan revealed. Having seen first hand domestic military operations at the 2008 Republican National Convention & 2009 G20 Pittsburgh, the growth and use of domestic military capacity for crowd control is a more-than-hypothetical situation -- and the subsequent obfuscation of those operations by political officeholders and appointees is quite terrifying in its implications.

This Civil Disturbance Operations Subcourse training manual ties right into material cited in the CONPLAN and supporting documents, including many of the same riot control weapons. An earlier version of a very similar manual can be found via that link.

martial-law-crowd-army-weapons-mp.png

Plus this one has quizzes!!

Billeting - I swear I heard something about revolutionaries complaining about billeting earlier... Something everyone makes a big deal out of this time of year....

There is a lot of stuff about formations -

P 62: Handy tip that rioter-impressing safe-port position is a PSYOP and tiring!

(a) The safe-port position is extremely useful in making a show of force before rioters. The above mentioned carrying position is the primary method of carrying weapons in the control force formation. It allows the Soldier to control both ends of the weapon while moving in and out of the formation and advancing the crowd.

All the stuff about gathering intel against rioting/unlawful Americans is nice and creepy and they definitely aren't saying anything about the Defense Intelligence Agency or National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.

[.............]

b. Collection.

(1) Military information elements having counterintelligence resources will maintain the ability to collect civil disturbance threat data during the period in which there is a distinct threat of actual civil disorder requiring the use of federal military forces.

(2) On activation by the Department of the Army, military intelligence elements having counterintelligence capability will:

(a) Establish and maintain contact with suitable local, state, and federal authorities.

(b) Collect civil disturbance data concerning incidents, and estimate the capability of civil authorities to control the situation. This can be achieved through direct contact with civil authorities.

(c) Report collection results to the Department of the Army in accordance with current plans.

(d) Keep appropriate commanders informed. (e) Provide intelligence support to the Personal Liaison Officer Chief of Staff of the Army.

(f) Recommend methods of overt collection, other than liaison, if required, to the Department of the Army for approval.

(3) Military intelligence elements may employ methods of collection other than liaison only on order of the Department of the Army.

(4) Covert agent operations are not used to obtain civil disturbance data on persons or organizations without specific advance approval of each operation by the Under Secretary of the Army.

(5) Basically, the following vital elements of data will be required for sound planning and operations once approval has been received:

(a) Objectives of elements which are a distinct threat to cause or are causing civil disturbances.

(b) Times and locations of disturbances.

(c) Cause of disturbances.

(d) Existence of persons, groups, or organizations which have distinctively threatened or are creating disturbances.

(e) Estimated number of persons who will be or are involved in civil disturbances. (f) Assembly areas for crowds.

(g) Presence and location of known leaders and persons who are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbances.

(h) Organization and activities planned by the leaders who are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbance.

(i) Source, types and locations of arms, equipment, and supplies available to the leaders who are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbance.

(j) Use of sewers, storm drains, and other underground systems by the elements who are a distinct threat to cause or are causing civil disturbances.

(k) Identification of new techniques and equipment not previously used by elements that are a distinct threat to cause civil disturbances.

(l) Attitude of general masses towards: (a) Groups causing civil disturbances. (b) Civil law enforcement authorities. (c) Federal intervention to control the disturbance.

(m) Possible threat to public property including private utilities. (n) Communications and control methods employed by elements referred to in paragraph 1 above.

PART C - Request for Federal Support/Training 1. Request for Federal Support.

a. Providing military support to state and local governments to assist them in quelling a civil disturbance or riot requires close coordination through a host of state and federal agencies. It requires a though briefing of Soldiers at all levels on what they can and cannot do with respect to law enforcement. Civil authorities must be briefed on the restrictions placed on federal forces by the Constitution of the United States, federal statutes and laws.

b. Under the Constitution of the United States and United State Codes the President is empowered to direct federal intervention in civil disturbances to:

(1) Respond to state request for aid in restoring order (2) Enforce the laws of the United States. (3) Protect the civil rights of citizens (4) Protect federal property and functions.

c. The Secretary of Defense retains approval for federal support to civil authorities involving the use of DOD forces, personnel, and equipment. The Secretary of the Army is the Department of Defense executive agent is the approval authority for federal emergency support in response to natural or man-made disasters (except weapons of mass destruction [WMD]). The Directorate of Military Support (DOMS) plans and executes the DOD domestic support mission to civil authorities. The DOMS is the DOD primary contact for all federal departments and agencies during DOD involvement in most domestic support operations. DOMS is also the staff agency responsible to the Chief of Staff, Army and Secretary of the Army for recommending to them appropriate measures necessary to cope with civil disturbances and terrorism and to transmit the approved recommendations to Department of Defense agencies for execution and to supervise the execution. The missions and functions of DOMS are outlined in AR 500-50. Additional roles of responsibilities of various agencies can be found in FM 3-19.15

Prior to activating federal military forces there is a sequence of steps that must occur. When data begins to show that a disturbance may develop into a situation that will require the help of federal forces, several actions are introduced at the federal level while state and local law enforcement agencies attempt to contain the disorder. Such actions may include increasing the readiness posture of forces named to help the jurisdiction concerned.

d. As the situation worsens and the state employs its National Guard, the U.S. Attorney General would send his personal agent to the scene of the disorder. This agent is named as the Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG) and is the organizer of all federal activities in the area of the disorder, including contact with local civil authorities. At the same time, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army would send his personal liaison officer (PLOCSA) to the scene along with members of the Department of the Army Liaison Team (DALT) that serves as his planning staff.

[.........] CROWD CONTROL PAGE 35+

c. Techniques for Crowd Control. There are numerous techniques designed to provide the commander with flexibility of action in accomplishing crowd control. He must select a combination which will produce the desired results within the framework of the selected crowd control option. The most common techniques appropriate for military usage are discussed below.

(1) Observation. This consists of deployment of persons or teams to the periphery of a crowd for the purpose of monitoring its activity. It includes gathering data on crowd size, location, mood, and reporting on the developing situation. This technique includes posting persons on strategic rooftops and other high terrain overlooking the crowd. This latter measure provides additional security to control force personnel should they become committed to other crowd control operations. Such a team may be composed of an expert marksman, a radio operator, and an observer equipped with binoculars. Care must be taken to assure that committed control forces are aware of the locations of such teams to prevent their being mistaken for sniper elements.

(2) Communication of Interest and Intent. In certain situations, effective communication with crowd and mob leaders and participants may enable the commander to control the situation without resorting to more severe actions. When planned and organized demonstrations, marches, or rallies within the disturbed area are announced, the control force commander in coordination with local authorities should meet with organizers of the activity in order to communicate the interest of the control forces. The following matters, as appropriate, should be discussed.

(a) Parade or demonstration permits. (b) Location of demonstration and routes of march. (c) Time limits for the activity. (d) Provision of marshals by activity organizers. (e) Prevention of violence. (f) Safety of all concerned.

(3) The task force commander and local authorities should also communicate to the activity organizers

their intent to cope with violence, unlawful actions, and violations of restrictions imposed on the activity. It is intended that, by this communication between activity organizers and control force personnel, the demonstration, rally, or parade will occur without incident through the mutual cooperation of all concerned. The intentions of control forces will not be effective if delivered as an ultimatum. A limited, begrudging dialogue with activity organizers reduces the opportunity for authorities to learn the plans of the demonstrators. It must be remembered that if this communication is not effected, the activity organizers might well hold the demonstration in defiance of local authorities, thereby creating a potential for violence that might not have existed if this technique had been employed.

d. Channelization. Pressure can be brought to bear on the dissident leadership to channel the crowd into an area which will minimize the disruption when the following requirements are met:

(1) When communications have been established with the dissident leadership.

(2) When the intent and nature of the crowd activity is known.

e. Diversion. When communication exists with the dissident leadership, consideration may be given to efforts to divert the leadership of the crowd itself from its stated or obvious objective. The diversion should support the objectives of the control force either by reducing the strength of the crowd situation or motivating the crowd to seek an area more easily controlled by the control force.

f. Cooperation. Decreasing the potential disruption of the crowd activity may be accomplished by an active attempt on the part of the control force to obtain cooperation of the dissident leadership. Whenever there is an attempt by the crowd leadership to seek permission and cooperation of the local government, every effort should be made to maximize this cooperation by demonstrating an attitude of facilitation. This may be accomplished by helping the leadership to organize a peaceful demonstration while establishing guidelines which will minimize the impact of the demonstration on the community.

g. Selection of Force Options.

(1) The commitment of federal military forces must be viewed as a drastic last resort. Their role, therefore, should never be greater than is absolutely necessary under the particular circumstances which exist. This does not mean, however, that the number of Soldiers used should be minimized. The degree of force required to control a disorder is often inversely proportionate to the number of available personnel. Doubts concerning the number of Soldiers required should normally be resolved in favor of large numbers since the presence of such large numbers may prevent the development of situations in which the use of deadly force is necessary. A large reserve of Soldiers should be maintained during civil disturbance operations. The knowledge that a large reserve force is available builds morale among military and law enforcement personnel and helps to prevent overreaction to annoying acts by unruly persons.

(2) In selecting an operational approach to a civil disturbance situation, the commander and his staff must follow the "minimum necessary force" principle; for example, crowd control formations or crowd control agents should not be used if the area filled with manpower would be sufficient.

(3) Every effort should be made to avoid appearing as an alien invading force and to present the image of a restrained and well-disciplined force whose sole purpose is to help to restore law and order with a minimum loss of life and property and due respect for those citizens whose involvement may be purely accidental. Further, while crowd control personnel should be visible, tactical, or force concentrations which might tend to excite rather than to calm should be avoided where possible.

(4) The normal reflex action of the well-trained combat Soldier to sniper fire is to respond with all firepower available. In a civil disturbance, this tactic endangers innocent people more than snipers. The preferred tactic is to allow a special reaction team (SRT) who is trained for this type of mission, to enter the building from which sniper fire starts. Keeping with the controlling principle that the team must use only the minimum force necessary to fulfill the mission, the commander may select any one of the following options for arming his Soldiers:

(a) Riot Shield. In the hands of a well trained soldier, the riot shield can be utilized as both a defensive and offensive weapon when contact is made with an aggressive crowd. The primary use of the riot shield is for defense of the line. However, each riot shield holder must be proficient in its retention. The Soldier holding the shield must be trained to react when a demonstrator grabs the top of the shield by slapping with his strong hand and gives the following command" Get back", "Get away" "Stop". If a rioter grabs the bottom of the shield the Soldier should be trained in forcefully dropping to one knee and pinning the rioters' fingers to the ground.

(b) Baton. The baton is most effective in a crowd control operation and is considered the primary weapon for crowd control operations. The baton is considered to be an offensive weapon with reduced lethality and unlike the rifle, the loss of a baton to the crowd does not create a serious threat. Soldier must be trained with the riot baton to the point its various techniques are automatic to them. This training must also include the vulnerable points on the body so they can avoid areas that may cause permanent injury or death when struck.

Currently there are two types of riot batons, wooden and expandable. The most common one is the 36 inch hickory riot baton with thong. There is also the 24-inch to 36 inch expandable riot baton, which has been added to the nonlethal capabilities set. Each Solder within the control force need to be proficiently trained in all techniques for blocking and striking. Improper use of the riot baton by an untrained Soldier has the potential for creating a greater problem than what already exist.

(c) Shotgun. The 12 gage shotgun is a pump action shotgun currently in the nonlethal capabilities set (NLCS) inventory. The pump action shotgun is chambered to take up to 3-inch shells. The 3- inch chamber allows for the use of M1012 and M1013 NL munitions. This shotgun also provides a visually distinct alternative to the standard military issues weapon.

(d) Rifle. The rifle, if capable of automatic fire, must be modified to prevent automatic operation. Keeping with the controlling principle of using only the minimum force necessary to fulfill the mission. If the Soldier are equipped with their long weapons and are in the front lines of the formation, the weapon should be carried across their back from left to right with the muzzle of the weapon pointed down and the butt of the weapon pointed up. The weapon should be cleared and the magazine in the proper ammunition pouch.

(e) Non lethal weapons and munitions. Nonlethal weapons and munitions are an additional asset afforded to the commander in civil disturbance and are preferred over lethal force. The showing of force with nonlethal weapons and munitions may assist in crowd dispersing, separate, or leave the area with minimal causalities. This nonlethal capability set (NLCS) is a well-rounded, versatile package of both equipment and munitions. NLCS are dived into four distinct categories: personnel protection, personnel effectors, mission enhancers and training devices

(f) While each of the above options represents an escalation in the level of force, they are not sequential in the sense that a commander must initially select the first option, or proceed from one to another in any particular order. So long as the option selected is appropriate, considering the

existing threat, the minimum necessary force principle is not violated.

1. The rifle and rifle with bayonet attached have extremely limited offensive use as both may constitute deadly force. The primary value of the rifle or the rifle with bayonet attached is the psychological impact on the crowd. While the use of fixed bayonets can add considerably to this effect, the danger of intentional or accidental injury to demonstrators or fellow control force personnel prevents such use except with extremely violent crowds.

2. Fire by selected marksmen. Fire by selected marksmen may be necessary under certain circumstances. Marksmen should be pre-selected, trained, and thoroughly instructed. They may be placed on vehicles, in buildings, or elsewhere as required.

3. Full firepower. The most severe measure of force that can be applied by Soldiers is that of available unit firepower with the intent of producing extensive casualties. This extreme measure would be used as a last resort only after all other measures have failed or obviously would be impractical, and the consequence of failure to completely subdue the crowd would be an imminent overthrow of the government, continued mass casualties, or similar grievous conditions.

4. Shotgun. The riot shotgun is an extremely versatile weapon; its appearance and capability also produce a strong psychological effect on rioters. It is particularly suited to certain applications in civil disturbance operations. When used with No. 00 buckshot ammunition, it is an excellent point target weapon extremely effective at limited range. By varying the nonlethal munitions' M1012 and M1013 the weapon can be employed with considerably less possibility of serious injury or death. This provides the commander with a desirable flexibility in selecting the ammunition most appropriate under the existing conditions

(g) The measures described in paragraphs 1 through 5 below, may be applied in any order as deemed suitable by the responsible commander as long as his application is consonant with prescribed confrontation management techniques outlined earlier.

(1) Proclamation. A public announcement is considered an excellent medium to make known to a crowd the intentions of the control force commander. In some cases, such an announcement makes further action unnecessary. An announcement puts the population on notice that the situation demands extraordinary military measures, prepares the people to accept military presence, tends to inspire respect from lawless elements and supports law-abiding elements, gives psychological aid to the military forces trying to restore order, and shows to all concerned the gravity with which the situation is viewed. In making a proclamation, a commander may consider imposing a time limit. However, the situation may change, and not imposing a time limit may leave the commander other options as he sees fit, as long as the proclamation is specific in its instruction.

(2) Show of Force. A show of force is effective in various situations in civil disorder control operations. A show of force may as simple as Soldier dismounting from buses or trucks in plan sight of the demonstrators, but must be far enough away to prevent a provoked attack of thrown objects. When a crowd has gathered in a large area, show of force can take the form of marching a well-equipped, highly disciplined control force into their midst. When persons are scattered throughout the disturbance area in small groups, a show of force may take the form of motor marches of Soldiers throughout the area, saturation patrolling, and the manning of static posts or similar measures.

(3) Employment of Crowd Control Formations. Crowd control formations are used to contain,

disperse, block or break up a non conforming crowd; these crowd control formations are more effective in urban areas than they are in open fields or parks. When this method is utilized in urban areas, it is easy to disperse or split the crowd into small groups, isolate instigators, or funnel a crowd into a desired area. The use of such formations is part of the show of force and has a strong psychological effect on any crowd.

(4) Employment of Water. Water from a high pressure hose may be effective in moving small groups on a narrow front such as a street or in defending a barricade or roadblock. Personnel applying water should be protected by riflemen and in some cases by shields. In the use of water, the factors discuss below should be considered.

(a) Water may be used as a flat trajectory weapon utilizing pressure, or as a high trajectory weapon using water as a rainfall. The latter is highly effective during cold weather.

(b) The use of a large water tank (750 to 1,000 gallons) and a power water pump mounted on a truck with a high pressure hose and nozzle capable of searching and traversing will enable Soldiers to use water as they advance. By having at least two such water trucks, one can be held in reserve for use when required.

(c) In using water, as with other measures of force, certain restraints must be applied. Using water on innocent bystanders, such as women and children, should be avoided; ways to escape must be provided; and the more severe use, flat trajectory application, should be used only when absolutely necessary.

(d) Fire departments are normally associated with lifesaving practices rather than maintenance of law and order. In order to maintain this image, fire department equipment will not be used for riot control and crowd dispersal.

(e) Use of Crowd Control Agents. Crowd control agents are extremely useful in civil disorder control operations because they offer a humane and effective method of reducing resistance and lessen requirements for the application of more severe measures of force. Task force commanders are authorized to delegate the authority to use crowd control agents and other forms of non lethal force at their discretion.

2. Establish Area Control.

a. General. Acts of violence, such as looting, arson, and vandalism, are greatly reduced when the physical and psychological influence of lawlessness is defeated. In establishing effective area control, commanders must recognize the problem of widespread looting and arson that has accompanied most large urban disorders. Performance of this task consists of reducing or eliminating those conditions which contribute to the outbreak or continuation of lawlessness in the disturbed area.

(1) Looting. When dealing with persons involved in looting, extreme care and adherence to the principle of minimum force must be observed. Looting may start at any time or place as an isolated incident and spread quickly throughout the affected areas. Looting is not limited to any particular sex or age group; it includes the very old, the very young, women, and children. For example, many children may be looting without any idea of how serious their actions are. In the control of looting, unit leaders must recognize that deadly force is not authorized.

(2) Anti-looting. Unit commanders must be familiar with anti-looting measures which can be taken by civil authorities, such as boarding up broken or unbroken windows, covering windows with photo-

luminescent particles, and by the prompt posting of looting penalty proclamations. Anti-looting actions that can be taken by military forces include the establishment of foot and motor patrols, the posting of fixed guard posts, and the lighting of likely areas for looting. Guards at fixed posts will be briefed not to leave their posts to pursue individual looters on foot, but to remain on post and prevent looters from approaching their areas of responsibility. All guards must be briefed that looters will not be fired upon nor will deadly force be used to catch looters.

(3) Protected or Sensitive Commercial Establishments. A main consideration in the conduct of civil disturbance operations is to prevent liquor, drugs, weapons, and ammunition from falling into the hands of rioters. Therefore, liquor stores, drug stores, sporting good shops, pawn shops, and hardware stores are main targets for looters and must be kept under close observation by means of foot and motorized patrols. Normally, businesses of this type must be identified in advance and included in emergency plans.

(4) Arson. Arson is generally defined as a crime of purposely setting fire to a building or property. Acts of setting fire to buildings, property, etc., often follow disturbances. Certain situations may arise in controlling arson where the use of deadly force is authorized and necessary.

[.........] PAGE 40

(2) Imposed Restrictions. Except in the unlikely event of martial law, federal military forces will not have the authority to impose restrictions such as a curfew on the civilian population. Certain restrictions, however, may be imposed by civilian authorities to help in the control of lawlessness. Military leaders should be prepared to recommend which restrictions are of substantial value in comparison with the burden of enforcement. The most commonly used restrictions include:

Curfew. The curfew is a control measure which has proved highly effective in many civil disturbances. Its purpose is to restrict the unauthorized movement of personnel on streets and public places during specified periods of time, especially during the hours of darkness. Joint planning with civil authorities regarding the imposition of a curfew should provide for:

(a) Coordination of the initiation, enforcement, and termination of a curfew.

(b) Public announcements of the beginning and ending of curfews. Civilian authorities make these announcements through local mass media, pamphlets, and public address systems to ensure maximum exposure.

(c) Curfew exemptions and guidance on who should receive them, including written authorization or passes.

(d) Provision for the apprehension and disposition of curfew violators.

(3) Sales Restrictions. Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of violence. Limiting the availability of weapons to the potential sniper or terrorist may reduce the likelihood of such violence. The effective enforcement of these restrictions, however, requires extensive planning and the commitment of adequate manpower to this effort.

So much for the Second Amendment SUCKAZ....

[.........] PAGE 22+

f. Army Detention Facilities.

(1) The Army will not operate facilities for confinement, custody, or detention of civilian personnel apprehended for violation of local or state laws as long as civil confinement facilities, operated by the Department of Justice, state, or local agencies are sufficient to accommodate the number of persons apprehended.

(2) When it appears that available local facilities are insufficient, due to the large number of persons apprehended or detained, and this fact can be verified by the person or agency responsible for the facilities, temporary confinement/detention facilities may be operated with prior approval from DA, specifically, the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army. These facilities will be operated only until custody of the persons detained can be transferred to and assumed by civil authorities. They will not be used for the confinement of persons charged or convicted under civil jurisdiction.

(3) Temporary confinement/detention facilities can be developed from local federal facilities provided they are adaptable to the requirements of custody and control. Such facilities should be established, if possible, within the affected area; this will conserve time, transportation, and escort personnel.

However, if no suitable federal property is available within the affected area, they can be located elsewhere on any property under federal control as long as the persons to be detained are apprehended in the affected area. Whenever such temporary facilities are established during civil disturbance control operations, the Army is responsible for providing those personnel, facilities, and supplies necessary for the custody, control, health, comfort, and sustenance of persons detained.

(4) Officers and key NCOs specifically trained and experienced in confinement operations are required to operate such facilities. Guards and support function personnel operating under the direct control of such officers and NCOs need not be specifically trained or experienced in confinement operations as long as they are under close and continuing supervision of trained responsible personnel. Whenever females are detained, they must be held in physically separate detention facilities and under the control of selected female guards operating under the supervision of trained and experienced confinement personnel.

(5) Temporary detention facilities should be constructed and arranged to provide for adequate custody, control, and safety of detainees. It is advisable to use existing permanent-type buildings. Where sufficient permanent structures are not available, only that amount of new construction required for temporary custody, control, and administration of prisoners should be accomplished. Temporary field- type facilities provide compartments to assure effective control.

(6) The same operational procedures that apply to the operation of installation confinement facilities and treatment of detainees apply to these temporary facilities except that those policies and procedures establishing training, employment, mail and correspondence, and administrative discipline requirements will not apply. Detailed guidance in procedures for confinement of detainees is contained in EPW Operations, FM 3-19.40.

g. Special Equipment. Certain items of equipment available to military and civil police forces can do much to limit injuries to civilian and military personnel and destruction of property. These items increase the psychological effects of a show of force and offer additional protection and versatility to civil disturbance forces during the operations.

(1) The 12 gage shotgun is a pup action shotgun currently in the non lethal capabilities set (NLCS) inventory. The pump action shotgun is chambered to take up to 3-inch shells. The 3-inchchamber allows for the use of M1012 and M1013 NL munitions. This shotgun also provides a visually distinct alternative to standard military weapons that may be desired based on mission considerations.

(2) The shotgun, as in the case of other firearms used in civil disturbance operations, is fired only on the orders of a qualified superior officer when lesser measures of force are not effective, or when the individual Soldier has no other means of protecting his life.

(3) The M7 is a 66-millimeter vehicle-mounted NL grenade-launching device that is mounted on a HMMWV. It is a indirect fire support system that can deliver the M99 blunt trauma grenade that creates a sting-ball effect. The M315 installation kit is used to install an M7 discharger on the turret ring of appropriate HMMWV variants. An adjustable bracket allows the launch angle to be depressed for engaging targets at ranges of 50, 75 and 100 meters. The system enforces standoff distances and deters potential threats.

(4) The M1012 is a single projectile round made of hard rubber that is shaped like a bomblet and designed to be fired at a single target. With the muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second, the M1012 as the effective range of no closer that 5 meters and no further that 30 meters. Engagement inside of 5 meters could result in serious bodily injury or death. Beyond 30 meters the kinetic dissipates to the point where the round becomes ineffective.

(5) The M1013 is a multiple projectile round with .23 caliber hard rubber pellets that is designed to be fired at and employed with the purpose of affecting multiple targets. With a muzzle velocity of 900 feet per second, the M1013 has an effective range of no closer than 5 meters and no further that 30 meters. Engagements of less than 5 meter can result in seriously bodily injury or death. Beyond 30 meters the kinetic dissipates to the point where the round becomes ineffective

(6) The midsize riot control disperser (M37) is the size of a standard fire extinguisher that uses compressed air to force the RCA out to a range of 30 feet. It has the capacity to employ 18 burst of RCA into a hostile crowd while maintaining excellent standoff capabilities. The M37 can be refilled and is rechargeable. It can be refilled with CR solution (liquid agent) or CS (dry agent). For the purport of training the M37 can be filled with water and CS can be substituted with talcum power.

(7) The Squad riot control agent disperser (M33A1) is designed to provide crowd control and protection at the squad level. It is capable of projecting a ballistic stream of RCA's beyond 25 feet in up to 25 half- seconds burst. It consists of a frame and harness assembly, compressed-gas cylinder (agent container assembly) air pressure assembly, gun and hose assembly, multi-jet spray unit, and check valve assembly. The M33A1 can be refilled and is rechargeable. For training purposes, CR can be substituted with water and CS and be substituted with talcum power.

(8) The above mention items are but just a few of the non lethal weapons and munitions available to the commander and unit to utilize during a response to the civil disturbance, and can be utilized to train and prepare Soldiers. Additional non lethal weapons and munitions as well as protective gear can be found in FM 3-19.15.

3. Vehicles. Armored vehicles and transport vehicles add to the readiness of the crowd control force. The use of these vehicles increases flexibility, reduces troop commitments, and provides protection for personnel. In considering the use of vehicles, however, it must be remembered that they should be secured by foot elements.

a. Armored Security Vehicles (ASV) can be used in several ways to keep the effects of civil disturbances at a minimum.

(1) Their use adds a considerable psychological effect to riot control formations while providing added protection for Soldiers. They provide a readily accessible barrier for Soldiers to crouch behind if necessary, and excellent protection for those inside.

(2) Their use as mobile command posts offers the added advantages of security, communication, and mobility.

(3) They are well adaptable to roadblock operations providing the advantages listed above, while at the same time providing an excellent barrier.

(4) Their use for patrolling an area of violence adds to the psychological effect, and allows Soldiers to maneuver in close to snipers in order to make an apprehension.

b. Standard military transport vehicles can be modified with sandbags, armor plating, wire screening, or similar materials to give some protection against sniper fire and thrown objects. They provide mobility and communication capability for area coverage. Soldiers should be deployed with ample vehicles to provide sufficient flexibility to handle all situations in an area of civil disturbance. TOE allowances should probably be increased for this purpose.

3. Other Equipment. In addition to the special equipment discussed above, certain other items should be available for use in operations within the disturbance area.

a. Armored vests and protective masks are required for anti-sniping operations and at other times when violence is expected. Flexibility is an important consideration. For example, the limitation on visibility must be considered when requiring the use of protective masks, and the limitation on mobility when wearing the armored vests.

b. Successful conduct of the overall operation may depend on other items. Auxiliary lighting should be available to include hand-portable lights, vehicular-mounted searchlights, spotlights, flood-lights, flashlights, flares (with caution toward fires), and vehicle headlights. Prefabricated wood or metal barriers, or suitable materials, such as wire or ropes, may be used to block off an area; signs should be provided to supplement these barriers. Evidence equipment, including movie and still cameras with telescopic lenses, and recording devices should be obtained and placed into position.

c. Other items of equipment should also be provided. Helicopters should be used for observation, communication relay, illumination, resupply, reserve displacement, and numerous other tasks. Adequate firefighting and fire protection equipment are vital in civil disturbance.

d. Provisions should be made for appropriate communications equipment for use at the scene and between the scene and the operations headquarters. Every available means of communications to include public address systems--both hand-portable and vehicle-mounted--should be used.

PART E - Operational Tasks

1. General. In any civil disturbance operation, certain tasks must be accomplished to reach the ultimate objective of restoring and maintaining law and order. To do this, action must be taken to gain control of the situation. Control forces must perform certain tasks that will develop a physical and psychological environment which will permit law enforcement personnel to enforce the law and maintain order. The importance of having a high degree of flexibility and selectively in the response cannot be overemphasized. It is just as important that the tasks selected be completed only after a careful evaluation of the situation. This evaluation must consider the particular uniqueness of the situation. In this respect, the commander selects those tasks that are most likely to reduce the intensity of the given situation. Therefore, not all tasks will apply in all situations, but control force commanders and unit leaders must identify those tasks which must be performed and then develop plans and procedures for their accomplishment. The operational and integrated tasks listed below are discussed in detail in the paragraphs and lessons to follow.

a. Operational Tasks. (1) Isolate the area. (2) Secure likely targets. (3) Control crowds or mobs. (4) Establish area control. (5) Neutralize special threats.

b. Integrated Tasks.

(1) Gather, record, and report information. (2) Apprehend violators. (3) Maintain communications. (4) Maintain mobile reserves.

(5) Inform the public. (6) Protect the fire service operations. (7) Process detained personnel.

2. Isolate the Area.

a. This task includes the restriction and sealing off of the disturbed area. The objectives of sealing off the disturbed area are to prevent the disorder from spreading to unaffected areas, to prevent escape of persons bent on expanding the disturbance, to speed up the exit of the uninvolved, and to exclude unauthorized personnel from entering the affected area. In order to prevent the disturbance from expanding in size and strength, it is critical to prevent the inflow of extra demonstrators or curious onlookers into the disturbed area.

b. When military forces are committed to helping the civil authorities in controlling civil disturbances, the situation will be beyond the capability of local law enforcement agencies and a scene of major disorder should be expected. This disorder may be characterized by small, dispersed groups which are looting, burning, and generally causing havoc in the area, or it may be characterized by large groups participating in varying degrees of illegal conduct. The initial action taken by military forces to control the disorder is critical and should include the immediate isolation of the disturbed area.

c. The initial commitment of control force personnel may be required to clear a building or an area in order to isolate the persons creating the disturbance from those not yet motivated or actively involved. The primary emphasis should be on identifying what area and who has to be isolated.

3. Isolated Techniques. There are several techniques to use when isolating a disturbed area.

a. Barricades and Roadblocks. Barricades and roadblocks are physical barriers which deny or limit entry into and exit from the disturbed area. They can be used to totally deny passage of people and vehicles or to permit certain designated categories of persons and vehicles to pass. They must be positioned so as to prevent their being bypassed, surrounded, or cut off from support. In many cases, it may be impractical to physically seal an area due to the physical and geographical considerations, such as in the case of a college campus or a suburban area.

b. Barricades Against Personnel. Civil disturbance operations contingency planning should provide for the availability of portable barricades which slow down the passage of personnel. Concertina wire is a suitable material for rapid construction and effectiveness, although wooden sawhorses, ropes, and other field expedient devices may suffice. Concertina wire should be used sparingly and only under serious circumstances as it is indicative of violent disorders.

c. Roadblocks Against Vehicles. The erection of effective roadblocks which cannot be easily breached by vehicles requires large, heavy construction materials. One item that can be stockpiled in advance is 55- gallon drums to be filled with water or earth on site. Other materials include sandbags, earthworks, trees, or heavy vehicles. Several roadblocks placed at intervals of 25 to 50 feet provide sufficient depth to prevent breaches by heavy or high-speed vehicles.

d. Construction Considerations. The construction of barricades and roadblocks should provide cover from small arms fire where this threat is likely. Provisions should be for night illumination of approaches to the position; however, care must be taken not to silhouette the personnel manning it. Construction materials which would chip or shatter upon impact by thrown objects should be covered with canvas or sandbags to prevent injuries from flying fragments. Warning signs should be placed in front of the position directing authorized personnel not to approach the position. One technique of providing a quickly erected barrier is the use of vehicles parked bumper to bumper; however, this procedure may subject the vehicles to damage by a hostile crowd. Another device which may be effectively used both as a barricade and a part of a formation is the use of a locally built frame of wood or metal with wire covering.

e. Perimeter Patrols. Perimeter patrols should be established to prevent entry or exit from the disturbed area, particularly by persons or groups trying to bypass barricades and roadblocks. These patrols operate along the outer operational boundary of the disturbed area. Perimeter patrols can be integrated with area patrol routes within the disturbed area.

f. Pass and Identification Systems. Unit, installation, or municipal contingency planning should include a pass and identification system providing for the entry and exit of authorized personnel to and from the isolated area. Procedures should be established for press personnel, emergency medical personnel, public utility work crews, and for any other personnel who have a legitimate purpose for entering and exiting the isolated area. Consideration must be given to those persons residing within the disturbed area who must travel to and from work. An effective pass and identification system requires careful and detailed planning as a contingency measure.

g. Public Utility Control. Ensure that civil authorities have established a means for controlling public utilities to include street lights, gas, electric, water, and telephone services so that they may be turned on or off to support the tactics employed by the control forces.

4. Secure Likely Targets.

a. General. Certain buildings, utilities, and services are critical to the economic and physical well-being of a community and require security to prevent disruption of essential functions. In addition, certain facilities and buildings have become symbolic targets to radical or extremist elements and should be identified and afforded protection with the priorities established. Among the likely targets to be attacked are control force command posts, billeting areas, and motor parks. Another potential problem in civil disturbance operations is the threat posed by dissident elements intent on doing bodily harm to control force personnel and civilian dignitaries in the disturbed area. When such threats exist, military personnel may have to be committed to security operations. In particular, security must be placed on armories, arsenals, hardware, and sporting good stores, pawnshops, and gunsmith establishments, or other places where weapons or ammunition are stored. To conserve manpower, consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores and storing them in a central facility. Priorities for physical security must be established to prevent waste of available forces on less important facilities or those which have their own physical security forces. The degree of security necessary to protect various buildings and utilities is determined by considering the following: [..............]

It goes on.... Again the page is here. I'll leave it here to get this posted now. Check it out and be sure to get a handle on CONPLAN 3502 and other aspects of domestic military operations planning frameworks -- when similar emergency/disaster scenarios happen (i.e. Katrina) you see military personnel acting like this...

REX-84 under Iran Contra was 'then', and 'now' a literal US Army war to save the criminal banks from angry mobs is basically what's planned. Under this plan a nation ripped off & crippled by LIBOR peta-scale financial scams leaves forces like the military on the hook for defending the organized ring of criminals operating banks, i.e. "services ... critical to the economic... well-being of a community". What is the Pentagon supposed to do about the fact that the critical infrastructure is often operated by the criminally insane -- the very people who have pushed the US most of the way to the point where terrifying emergency plans like those above spring to life? X-(

Syndicate content