The Fountain of Youth
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The face of the sun is peppered with spots. One of them in particular merits attention. AR1991 is rapidly growing, almost doubling its number of dark cores since yesterday. AR1991 has a 'beta-gamma' magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares. The rapid evolution of the sunspot could destabilize the field, making an eruption more likely. NOAA forecasters estimate a 70% chance of M-class flares and a 30% chance of X-flares on March 2nd. Twice every year, around the time of the equinoxes, Earth can pass directly between the Sun and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), producing a series of beautiful eclipses. SDO's vernal eclipse season began on Feb. 27th, producing a near-total blackout of the sun: For the next three weeks these eclipses will repeat once a day around 07:30 Universal Time. At the beginning of the season, the eclipses are short, only a few minutes long. Their duration increases to 72 minutes, mid-season, before tapering off to minutes again as the season winds down. The Observatory will gather more data than all the solar eclipses in history seen from Earth. We are anxious to see the results compared to last year’s data.
The Fountain of Youth A pill which could ward off ageing has come a step closer after tests of a rejuvenating drug that prolongs healthy life. Scientists found that activating a protein called sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) extended the lives of mice and delayed the onset of age-related diseases. They believe their experiments could lead to drugs that help to keep people younger and healthier. SIRT1 and its sister protein SIRT2 are known to play a important roles in metabolism across a wide range of species. They are involved in DNA repair and gene regulation, and may help to prevent diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Researchers led by Rafael de Cabo, from the US National Institutes of Health, tested the effects of a SIRT1- activating molecule called SRT1720 on the health and lifespan of mice. Animals were fed a standard diet supplemented with 100 milligrams per kilogram of body weight of SRT1720 from the age of six months. The researchers found that SRT1720 significantly extended the average lifespan of mice by 8.8%. Mice fed the molecule were also lighter and slimmer, with better muscle function and co-ordination throughout their lives. Further studies showed that SRT1720 supplementation led to a heart-protective lowering of harmful cholesterol and improved insulin sensitivity, which could help prevent diabetes. Anti-inflammatory effects were also seen in various tissues. This is important because chronic low-level inflammation is believed to contribute to ageing and age-related diseases. "Here, we show for the first time that a synthetic SIRT1 activator extends lifespan and improves healthspan of mice fed a standard diet," said Dr de Cabo. "It illustrates that we can develop molecules that ameliorate the burden of metabolic and chronic diseases associated with ageing." The research is published in the journal Cell Reports. Previous research has found that eating barbecued, grilled or fried meat could increase the risk of being struck down by dementia. At first I thought that the elite had known about this for decades and were taking it to extend their own lives and keep themselves healthy. But then I realized that the rich elite are liberals, and exhibit almost universal dementia, so then I knew they could not possibly be taking this supplement. US experts found that compounds called Advanced Glycation End products, or Ages, suppress the anti-ageing enzyme known as Sirt1. Protein-rich foods that are cooked at very high temperatures raise the level of these harmful Ages in blood. This means that consuming raw foods does not suppress the Sirt1 protein. We believe that very soon, this supplement may be made available to the select few. Don’t look for it in your health food stores, as it will most assuredly be blocked from release by the major drug companies.
'Death test' predicts chance of healthy person dying within five years Scientists were astonished to find they could predict which healthy people are at most risk of death by studying four key biomarkers in the body. A ‘Death Test’ which predicts the chance of a healthy person dying from any medical condition in the next five years has been developed by scientists. Researchers said they were ‘astonished’ to discover that a simple blood test could predict if a person was likely to die – even if they were not ill. They found that the levels of four ‘biomarkers’ in the body, when taken together, indicated a general level of ‘frailty’. People whose biomarkers were out of kilter were five times more likely to die with five years of the blood test. “What is especially interesting is that these biomarkers reflect the risk for dying from very different types of diseases such as heart disease or cancer. They seem to be signs of a general frailty in the body,” said Dr. Johannes Kettunen of the Institute for Molecular Medicine in Finland. “We believe that in the future these measures can be used to identify people who appear healthy but in fact have serious underlying illnesses and guide them to proper treatment.” A biomarker is a biological molecule found in blood, body fluids, or tissues that may signal an abnormal process, a condition, or a disease. The level of a particular biomarker may indicate a patient’s risk of disease, or likely response to a treatment. For example, cholesterol levels are measured to assess the risk of heart disease. Most current biomarkers are used to test an individual’s risk of developing a specific condition. There are none that accurately assess whether a person is at risk of ill health generally, or likely to die soon from a disease. Blood samples from over 17,000 generally healthy people were screened for more than a hundred different biomarkers and those people monitored over five years In that time 684 people died of a range of illnesses and diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Scientists discovered that those people all had similar levels of four biomarkers. Those were albumin, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, citrate and the size of very-low-density lipoprotein particles which are linked to liver and kidney function, inflammation and infection, energy metabolism and vascular health. One in five participants with the highest biomarker scores died within the first year of the study. Estonian researchers made the initial link in a cohort of 9,842 people but were so sceptical about the results that they asked Finnish scientists to repeat the experiment on a further 7,503. Research professor Markus Perola of the Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland said they were not expecting to be able to replicate the findings and were amazed when they were identical. Prof Perola said: “It was a pretty amazing result. First of all we didn’t really believe it. It was astonishing that these biomarkers appeared to actually predict mortality independent of disease. “These were all apparently healthy people but to our surprise it appears these biomarkers show an undetected frailty which people did not know they had.” Researchers claim that in the future a test could flag up high-risk individuals in need of medical intervention who show no symptoms of any disease. “If the findings are replicated then this test is surely something we will see becoming widespread,” added Prof Perola. “But at moment there is ethical question. Would someone want to know their risk of dying if there is nothing we can do about it?” Dr Kettunen added: “Next we aim to study whether some kind of connecting factor between these biomarkers can be identified. Pilot Shortage is Coming Soon The nation’s airline industry could be hitting some turbulence, according to a government report that found pilots might be in short supply. “Recent industry forecasts indicate that the global aviation industry is poised for growth,” said a report Friday from the Government Accountability Office, Congress‘ watchdog arm. “However, stakeholders have voiced concerns that imminent retirements, fewer pilots exiting the military, and new rules increasing the number of flight hours required to become a first officer for an airline could result in a shortage of qualified airline pilots.” Airline pilots enjoy a relatively low unemployment rate , but that may mean demand for pilots is starting to outstrip supply, the GAO said. Plus, their wages have fallen since a high in 2000, while flight school is becoming more expensive. “Such costs deter individuals from pursuing a pilot career,” investigators said. “Pilot schools that GAO interviewed reported fewer students entering their programs resulting from concerns over the high costs of education and low entry-level pay at regional airlines.” The largest problems are at those regional airlines, the GAO said. While larger companies hire more experienced pilots, regional airlines often must hire people who recently graduated from flight school. “Nearly all of the regional airlines that GAO interviewed reported difficulties finding sufficient numbers of qualified entry-level first officers,” the report said. Estimates place the current number of civilian pilots in the U.S. at about 70,000. Both the airline industry and the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics expect a need of between 1,900 and 4,500 new pilots per year over the next decade. Some studies the GAO reviewed suggested there is an adequate supply of pilots, including those currently working overseas or in the military, or who might be in a non- flight-related job. “However, whether these pilots choose to seek employment with U.S. airlines depends on the extent to which pilot job opportunities arise, and on the wages and benefits airlines offer,” investigators said. The airline industry has been trying to improve recruiting and offer pilots greater incentives, but the GAO said many experts suggested that the Federal Aviation Administration could take action as well, including providing more financial aid or expanding the path to become a pilot. The GAO said some groups have suggested that FAA allow hours spent in simulators to count for flight training, or more heavily weight the time pilots spend practicing flying large commercial carriers as opposed to small single-propeller planes. “Such competency-based training for pilots is not new and focuses on the training outcome in terms of how well students perform rather than simply meeting specified numbers of training hours,” the GAO said. “Thus, training hours are replaced by sets of defined, measurable performance criteria.” Investigators noted that the FAA is currently reviewing the requirements to earn a pilot’s license and whether they should be changed Liberty is Important for all People AUDIO LINK Liberty and Justice for all day. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. But, it is violated every day by law enforcement. Worse, we willingly give up our legal protection even more often than this. Many times, we are duped into it by filling out forms, information requests by online stores, and even applications for jobs, loans, and for education or filing our taxes. We waive our rights by doing this. When you are approached by police for any reason, you may identify yourself, if they ask you directly for your name. You may not lie to a police officer. Anything and everything else you say will be used against you. It will never be used by police to vindicate you. Police will deliberately lie to a judge about you. Do not speak to police. Period. Unless you have an attorney, or an officer of the court, with you. One threshold question in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights— that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as Olmstead v. United States (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps).[35] In Silverman v. United States (1961), the Court stated of the amendment that "at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."[36] Fourth Amendment protections expanded significantly with Katz v. United States (1967). [35][37] In Katz, the Supreme Court expanded that focus to embrace an individual's right to privacy, and ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth using a microphone attached to the outside of the glass. While there was no physical intrusion into the booth, the Court reasoned that: 1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world"; and 2) society believes that his expectation was reasonable. The same thing applies to your home. When you close the door and lock it behind you, there is an expectation of privacy. It can easily be violated, but the evidence gained by those means, without your permission and without a warrant, cannot be used against you. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places". A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, and thus necessitated a warrant. The Court said that it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment, and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed. This decision in Katz was later developed into the now commonly used two-prong test, adopted in Smith v. Maryland (1979), for determining whether the Fourth Amendment is applicable in a given circumstance: 1. a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"; and 2. society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable. An individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties. In Smith, the Supreme Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number. Following Katz, the vast majority of Fourth Amendment search cases have turned on the right to privacy, but in United States v. Jones (2012), the Court ruled that the Katz standard did not replace earlier case law, but rather, has supplemented it.[47] In Jones, law enforcement officers had attached a GPS device on a car's exterior without Jones' knowledge or consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a bailee to the car, and so had a property interest in the car.[48] Therefore, since the intrusion on the vehicle—a common law trespass—was for the purpose of obtaining information, the Court ruled that it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court used similar "trespass" reasoning in Florida v. Jardines (2013), to rule that bringing a drug detection dog to sniff at the front door of a home was a search.[49] In certain situations, law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest. Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.[50] This detention and search is known as a Terry stop. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions.[51] As established in Florida v. Royer (1983), such a search must be temporary, and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[52][53] Seizure The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property",[54] such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence, or when they participate in an eviction.[55] The amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of persons, including a brief detention.[56] A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained.[52][57] The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.[56] Per United States v. Mendenhall (1980), a person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when, by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained and, in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave. You should always ask if you are free to go your way. After every sentence ask if you are free to go your way. Leave only when you have been given permission to leave. In Florida v. Bostick (1991), the Court ruled that as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the police contact is a "citizen encounter" that falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no seizure and therefore no intrusion upon the person's privacy under the Fourth Amendment. You do not have to answer any questions from police without an attorney. You cannot be arrested for not answering questions. You cannot be seized or detained unless the police can charge you with a crime. When a person is arrested and taken into police custody, he has been seized (i.e., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized or detained, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a Terry stop than to a formal arrest. If a person is not under suspicion of illegal behavior, a law enforcement official is not allowed to place an individual under arrest simply because this person does not wish to state his identity, provided specific state regulations do not specify this to be the case. A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, so long as the arresting officer has probable cause. In Maryland v. King (2013), the Court upheld the constitutionality of police swabbing for DNA upon arrests for serious crimes, along the same reasoning that allows police to take fingerprints or photographs of those they arrest and detain. You cannot be forced to give DNA evidence, unless you have been arrested. Never agree to a search without a warrant. Never agree to speak to police. Never agree to provide evidence to police. Never lie to police. Exceptions The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions. In Delaware v. Prouse (1979), the Court ruled an officer has made an illegal seizure when he stops an automobile and detains the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile, unless the officer has articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law. Where society's need is great, no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, certain discretionless checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints.[67] In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints.[68] In Illinois v. Lidster (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints.[69] However, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[70] Liberty and justice all day. Ukrainian States Divided over Russian Support President Barack Obama on Saturday called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to de- escalate the tense atmosphere in Ukraine by pulling his forces back to bases in the country's Crimean region and to refrain from interfering elsewhere in the former Soviet republic. Obama delivered the message to Putin during a 90-minute telephone conversation, the White House said. But Obama's request appeared likely to go unheeded as the Kremlin said Putin, in turn, emphasized to Obama the existence of real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens living in Ukraine and that Russia has the right to protect its interests there. Rarely has a threat from a U.S. president been dismissed as quickly — and comprehensively — as Obama’s warning Friday night to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The former community organizer and the former Cold Warrior share the barest of common interests, and their relationship has been defined far more by the vastly different ways they see everything from gay rights to history’s legacy. Mr. Obama is not only not feared as commander in chief, he is globally and domestically considered an illegitimate occupant of the office of president. Within hours, Putin asked the Russian parliament for approval to send forces into Ukraine. The vote endorsing his request was unanimous, Obama’s warning drowned out by lawmakers’ rousing rendition of Russia’s national anthem at the end of the session. Ukraine's newly installed government was powerless to react to the swarm of Russian troops. "President Obama expressed his deep concern over Russia's clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity," the White House said in a statement that called the action "a breach of international law." Nobody cared. Nothing was said about the US CIA agent injured and identified two weeks ago as the police worked to evict protestors from the city Centers.
You are aware that all the wars fought in the past four centuries were initiated and financed by the world banks. This conflict was organized by banks associated with the European Community as they slowly and carefully sought to convince the former president Yanukovich to sign loan documents with them. This would have provided a paltry $1 billion to the president, who would have squandered it on himself and his enormous palace, while his country continues to struggle since independence in 1991.
You are aware that Crimea has a porous border with Russia, and the two countries built spacecraft together in years past. No passport is needed to move back and forth between the Crimea region of Ukraine, and Russia. On the other side is the EC, that has refused passage of Ukrainians over the border without a passport. Of course, the female are world renowned for their stunning beauty and are highly sought after as prostitutes in the EC and Asia. They are recruited and extracted from the country’s squalor and lavished by the world’s most discriminating dealers in human flesh.
You are also aware that although Yanukovych was turned down initially for support from president Putin, who has served as president for more than 14 years. The recent offer of support with nearly $15 billion in loans and a direct supply of cheap natural gas, convinced Yanukovych to back away from the EC bank’s cheap deal. The banks responded within hours by bussing thousands of protestors in from all over the Ukraine to the capitol city to seize it in an Occupy Wall Street fashion.
The police did not respond at first except to request that they vacate the premises. Interviews with protestors by news reporters revealed that they wanted the president to sign the deal with the EC or get out. They did not want to have Russia entering the country. Within days, the vandalism began, drawing the police in closer for direct conflict. The police killed more than 77 protestors and lost many men themselves, until Yanukovich fled the city. The protestors claim they have deposed him, and Yanukovich claims he has not left the country and is still the president.
In the mean time, the people in Crimea are fearful that the EC banks will begin foreclosing, and the CIA will continue its assassinations. So, they asked for Russian troops to come in and protect them. Russian troops have been picked off by snipers, most likely CIA, urging Putin into a fight, but Putin is resisting violence.
The major media is playing the banker game by saying that the US is going to war with Russia. Obama is doing exactly what his communist handlers are telling him to do. Stay focused on being unfocused. Talk and say nothing. Draw lines in the sand box, but stay out of this movement by Russia to stop the IMF and the CIA from securing Ukraine.
Why do they want it, you ask? The border between the Crimean region of the Ukraine is porous with Russia. There are no tariffs. There are no duties on goods moving back and forth. The EC wants that access. They want to move goods from European sellers straight through to Russian customers, which they cannot do now. This is worth hundreds of billions in sales to them.
And this is not all. One of the biggest exports of any country is cash and credit. Being able to offer banking services through the Ukraine into the now booming Russina economy would allow the economic hit men to move seamlessly through to areas of Russia hungry for infrastructures like electricity, dams, roads, and development of natural resources. Once this opening has been provided, Russia would lose its control of its economy.
The same thing is being done right now in America. Chinese money is flowing to American manufacturers in the form of EB5 investments. The money is promised in exchange for allowing them to send Chinese nationals to the US for two years with the promise of a visa and possible green card or citizenship. Like the EB1 Visa, often called the genius visa, the EB5 program would allow skilled Chinese engineers to come to America to acquire our designs and networks of suppliers and R&D sources to return to China. Without money being made available for manufacturers in America, they have no choice but to accept the outside investment.
Putin knows how this works and will not let it occur in his country. Obama knows how this works, because Hillary Rodham’s brother is the biggest US broker in the EB5 program. In fact, his company Gulf States Capital, took $5 million from the State of Mississippi and financed Terry McCauliff’s successful gubernatorial election in Virginia. Mr. McCauliff was the main fundraiser for Bill Clinton’s presidency. The criminal activity in this program is epic, but the Justice department works for Obama and will not investigate, let alone prosecute. What you are witnessing in the Ukraine right now is the tip of the sword for breaking the IMF’s control over that country. European banks are being blocked from accessing the Russian economy. You know and I know that this will not stand without a fight. The banks will martial their forces, pay for the weapons, and will make more money than ever before by financing the weapon builders on both sides.
President Obama was interrupted during a speech to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Friday by a protester who accused him having a plan for a "nuclear war with Russia." The president's remarks came less than an hour after Obama warned Russia about military intervention in Ukraine in a statement from the White House briefing room. ADVERTISEMENT "I'm sorry, who is that back there? What the heck are you talking about?" Obama said to the shouting. "I don't know anything about that plan. I don't know what you've been reading."
At the top of his DNC remarks, Obama quipped that since it was after 5 p.m. on Friday, he was using his executive authorities to declare it "officially happy hour with the Democratic Party." After the interruption, Obama quipped that the heckler "thought happy hour started earlier."
What the disrespected patron in the audience, who was not arrested and taken away I might add, was talking about was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is an international treaty signed on 5 December 1994 in the Hungarian capital Budapest by Ukraine, the United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom concerning the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and its security relationship with the signatory countries. China and France joined the treaty through separate individual letters. The terms of the memorandum were seen by the Bankers as broken by what they are calling Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea.
Now, according to the memorandum, Russia, the USA, and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would: 1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders. 2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine. 3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. 4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine. 5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine. 6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments I am informing you that the EC was not part of this treaty on purpose. They have been using economic pressure for more than a decade to bring the Ukraine into their fold. The US violated the treaty by sending economic hit men into the country to facilitate that financial entrapment. When Yanukovich backed out, they sent in the Jackals, otherwise known as the CIA, to stir the pot with violence from within.
Armed men of uncertain allegiance took up positions at two airports in Ukraine’s Crimean region Friday, fueling concerns about possible Russian military intervention or a separatist rebellion in a region with stronger historical ties to Russia than to Ukraine’s central government in Kiev. Although there were no confrontations or bloodshed by evening, the appearance of a large number of masked men with assault rifles unnerved residents and travelers, who were buffeted by warnings from Kiev of military meddling by Moscow and statements from the deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, that the country had been taken over by fascists and “bandits.” Within hours, Authorities in Switzerland announced they have launched a corruption probe against Ukraine’s fugitive president Viktor Yanukovych and his son Aleksander, and blocked all the potential assets that might be hidden in the Alpine nation. The Geneva prosecutors’ office said in a statement that the criminal investigation concerned ‘‘aggravated money laundering.’’ "Chief prosecutor Yves Bertossa and members of the financial police conducted a search in the morning of Feb. 27 at the premises of a company owned by Aleksander Yanukovych," prosecutors said. Documents were seized, but the prosecutor said no further details of the investigation would be provided. Separately, the nation’s governing Federal Council, which includes the president and six other ministers, said Friday it has decided to block all assets Yanukovych and his entourage might have in Switzerland, effective immediately. Through the action, the Council said in a statement that it "wishes to avoid any risk of misappropriation of Ukrainian state assets." Switzerland has been at pains to prevent foreign leaders from using the country’s secretive banks as places to hide and launder ill-gotten funds. In recent years the Alpine nation has frozen accounts linked to former members of the deposed governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. We have seen presidents of those countries ousted or killed as soon as the banks determine that their countries will be invaded and all military assets seized for redistribution. The Jackals Show up In Simferopol, the regional capital of Crimea, men dressed in camouflage and carrying assault rifles moved into position at the international airport and a second airfield nearby. Their military uniforms bore no insignia and it was not clear who they were or who was commanding them. They declined to answer questions, although they spoke English. Ukrainian International, Ukraine’s biggest airline, said Friday that it had canceled flights into and out of the Crimea region because the airspace had been closed, although this could not be immediately verified. Reuters reported that about 20 armed men wearing the uniform of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet surrounded a Ukrainian border guard post near the port city of Sevastopol, 50 miles southwest of Simferopol. Moscow denied that its forces had moved into Crimea and attributed the presence of troops there to “internal political processes in Ukraine,” according to a statement from the foreign ministry. It said it had not violated agreements not to intervene in Ukrainian affairs. Armored personnel carriers with Russian markings appeared on roads Friday outside Simferopol, sometimes alone but at other times in long columns of military vehicles. It was unclear whether the movements signaled a Russian push to occupy the city, a show of strength aimed at cowing far less numerous Ukrainian forces in the region, or simply a routine rotation of Russian hardware. Russia has numerous military facilities in Crimea, the most important of which is the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, in Sevastopol. Its military vehicles regularly move around the peninsula, but Friday’s activity was more intense than usual, according to local residents. There were no immediate signs of panic in Simferopol, which has a large ethnic Russian population and has generally supported Moscow’s line that Kiev, 400 miles to the north, has been overrun by fascists who pose a grave threat to the interests of Ukraine’s Russian speakers. The only visible military presence in the center of the city were unidentified gunmen who seized the regional parliament building and a government office complex this week. But Simferopol swirled with rumors, all unconfirmed, that Russian troops had seized Crimea’s main television station, the central post office and other strategic locations. Residents also exchanged information, apparently more grounded in reality, about sightings of Russian military transport planes landing at airports. “This is an open but unannounced aggression by the Russian Federation against the territory of Ukraine,” said Refat Chubarov, the leader of Crimea’s indigenous population of Tatars, a Muslim Turkic people, and a strong advocate of the region’s remaining part of Ukrainian territory. He said Russian military helicopters had flouted Ukrainian sovereignty by flying into Crimea without permission. In Kiev, the speaker of parliament, Oleksandr V. Turchynov, who is now the acting president of Ukraine, convened a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council to discuss the situation in Crimea. Announcing the meeting in parliament, Turchynov said, “Terrorists with automatic weapons, judged by our special services to be professional soldiers, tried to take control of the airport in Crimea.” Yanukovych, in a news conference Friday in Rostov-on-Don, in southern Russia not far from Crimea, said the region should remain part of Ukraine, despite its historic, linguistic and cultural ties to Russia. “I think that everything that has happened in Crimea is a natural reaction to the gangster coup that happened in Kiev,” he said. He added, “People of Crimea don’t want to submit and they will not submit to Bandera thugs,” referring to a World War II-era nationalist leader, Stepan Bandera, who was vilified by the Soviet Union. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke Friday with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, about the appearance of the armed men at the airports. “We raised the issue of the airports, raised the issue of armored vehicles, raised the issue of personnel in various places,” Kerry told reporters in Washington. Lavrov asserted that Russia would respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, Kerry said. But Kerry said that he had told his Russia counterpart that “it is important for everybody to be extremely careful not to inflame the situation.” At the Simferopol airport, the armed men set up positions around a central administrative building, but they did not appear to enter the terminals. There were no roadblocks or checkpoints on the roads leading to the airport or on the grounds of the airport. After nightfall, Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire member of parliament, said outside the airport building that he had come to Crimea to negotiate with the regional parliament on behalf of the national government in Kiev. He said his mission was “to do everything not to allow an escalation of violence” and to stress to the Crimeans that they were fellow Ukrainians and that Ukraine must not be divided. He referred to the soldiers standing behind him as “foreign” and more than once gestured toward them with distaste. “What I cannot accept is the presence here of foreign troops,” he said. “We cannot accept the danger for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Meanwhile, another confrontation was underway at a second airport, called Belbek, that is used for military and some civilian flights. In a post on his Facebook page, the interior minister, Arsen Avakov, said that units believed to be affiliated with the Russian military had blocked access to the airport overnight, with some Ukrainian military personnel and border guards inside. Avakov wrote that the men blocking the airport were also wearing camouflage uniforms with no identifying insignia, but he added, “They do not hide their affiliation.” Avakov said the airport was not functioning and that “there is no armed conflict yet.” At the international airport, Avakov said, Ukrainian authorities confronted the armed men and told them, “You soldiers have no right to be located here.” The uniformed men responded curtly, “We do not have instructions to negotiate with you,” he said. “Tension is building,” Avakov wrote, adding: “I regard what is happening as an armed invasion and occupation in violation of all international treaties and norms. This is a direct provoking of armed bloodshed on the territory of a sovereign state.” Igor K. Tresilaty, who identified himself as assistant to the general director at the international airport, said Friday that the soldiers were remaining in common areas outside the airport, in the restaurant and in parking lots. He said he did not know who they were and expressed no curiosity about them, saying only that they looked professional. “They’re walking around, but not we, nor the police, can have any complaint against them because they’re not violating anything, they’re not touching anyone,” Tresilaty said. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet denied that its forces were involved in the deployment at one of the airports. But the national parliament in Kiev appealed to for Russia to “stop moves that show signs of undermining national sovereignty” in Ukraine, Reuters reported, and it urged the United States and Britain to honor commitments made in the early 1990s to protect the country’s territorial integrity. Parliament also called on the U.N. Security Council to debate the issue, apparently seeking to broaden the dispute. The debate is useless, because right now the purpose of troops and “professionals” is not being made clear. What is perfectly clear, is that not one single Ukrainian person or building has been scratched at this time. The Verkhovna Rada will demand that the signatories to the Budapest Memorandum guarantee that no weapons will be used against Ukraine, the Ukrainian parliament said in a statement passed on Friday. The Rada has urged the parties who signed the Budapest Memorandum to hold immediate consultations with Ukraine to ease tensions. The Budapest Memorandum signatories must take "practical steps to reaffirm their obligations, enshrined in the Memorandum, according to the principles of the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) Final Act, to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and existing borders," the parliamentarians said. The Rada is expecting "confirmation of the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territorial integrity or political independence." The Rada also demanded that Russia "discontinue steps aimed at encroaching on Ukraine's territorial integrity and not to support separatism," it said. In the event of an escalation of the situation Rada will ask the guarantors to seek immediate aid for Ukraine from the United Nations Security Council. Earlier this week, between 4,000 and 5,000 Crimean Tatars and supporters of the Euromaidan-Crimea movement have gathered in front of the Crimean Supreme Council to protest the Crimean parliament's reluctance to recognize the new Ukrainian authorities. The crowds are holding numerous Ukrainian and Crimean-Tatar national flags, an Interfax correspondent said. From time to time they chant "Ukraine!", "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes!", "Crimea is not Russia!" Meanwhile, 600-700 supporters of pro-Russian organizations and the Russian Unity Party have gathered near the parliament building to support the Crimean parliament. The opposite sides are separated by two police cordons. However, the cordons were broken through several times, and minor scuffles have been periodically erupting. The supporters of Russian Unity are holding the Russian flag. Meanwhile, Crimean Tatars are gradually pushing the pro-Russian parties' supporters away from the Crimean parliament. Flags. Patriotism. Zealots chanting and singing anthems. No sleep, cold weather, and alcohol. The World Bank, CIA, and IMF want Russia out. Russia is very careful, very disciplined, very powerful, and very serious about protecting their interests. Most people think Mr. Obama cannot wait for happy hour himself. But think again. The setup for armed conflict that could spill into Europe and perhaps ignite an American Spring is exactly the formula for setting aside the 22nd Amendment and allowing Mr. Obama to seek a third term. 54% of the country would elect him again today. He is young, and his only successor is the oldest and most divisive presidential candidate in history. The stage is perfect. The lighting and music have been planned for decades. “President Obama only faces opposition in the House,” a White House insider told WWN. ”Barack plans to divide the Republicans in the House and so weaken them that in 2014, the Democrats will once again be the majority. After that he will introduce an amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment, which limits the President’s term in office.” Many in Washington feel that if President Obama can get the amendment on the docket, he can successfully get two-thirds of the states to ratify it. ”The President is extremely confident that he can get the necessary states to ratify the amendment and then he can run for office in 2016 and 20120.” Sources say that President Obama believes that his plan is already working. The Republicans in Congress are having a Civil War over the Fiscal Cliff. “President Obama’s master plan is working,” reportedly said top adviser, David Axelrod. President Obama has long felt that the 22nd Amendment was put in place in a hasty manner and only in response to FDR’s death. ”The amendment is ridiculous. There are no Congressional term limits, why should there be a Presidential term limit?” said Axelrod. Overturning the amendment would require a two-thirds vote by both chambers of Congress, followed by ratification of the proposal by 38 states. The White House predicts this will happen in 2015, but with the prospect of losing control of the Senate in 2014, strategists feel they must hedge their bets and set the stage for the appearance of the first organized military conflict since World War II, the process could be accelerated. The world could not take its eyes off the 24-hour coverage of the first Iraq War, and in superbowl fashion, they will do the very same if Obama can play his role like a good soldier. The New Fed Chairperson I rise today in opposition to secrecy, in opposition to the veil of secrecy that clothes the money changing that takes place in the temple of the Federal Reserve. While the money changes hands the moneyed class gets richer and the middle class gets shortchanged. It is more than time to part the curtain that hides the trillions of dollars that change hands. There is a revolving door from Wall Street to the Treasury to the Fed and back again. We have former Secretaries of Treasury who go from government to Wall Street pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars. I’ve called repeatedly for transparency at the Federal Reserve, so Americans can see what is being done with their money supply. Every time I call for transparency people from both sides have said “transparency would undermine Fed independence.”
This is, in a sense, laundering money from the American people to bail out big banks and Wall Street. Yellen was asked by Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman directly if she would facilitate an audit of the Federal Reserve. “The Federal Reserve should be audited,” Ms. Yellen said. “It should be open. It should be transparent.” “We are audited,” she added, noting that the Fed’s books are independently reviewed and that it publishes its balance sheet weekly. But she said she strongly objected to anything “interfering with the independence of monetary policy, by bringing political pressures to bear on the committee’s judgment.” Ms. Yellen added that Congress exempted monetary-policy decision-making from Government Accountability Office audits, and that she would oppose an effort to change that. Representative Ruben Hinojosa, a Texas Democrat, said he was concerned that the “ability of the U.S. economy to create wealth is now outstripping its ability to create jobs.” Ms. Yellen provided a qualified defense of the labor-market recovery in response: “While we still have a ways to go with the job market – it is not by any means back to full strength, we’re not back to maximum employment – there has been substantial job creation.” Mr. Hinojosa added that he was concerned that inequality was eroding growth. Ms. Yellen replied that she was “very concerned” about rising inequality. “I think it’s one of the most important issues, and one of the most disturbing trends facing the nation at the present time,” she said. But she said the ultimate effect of rising inequality on the speed of the recovery remained unclear. “The gains have been so unequally distributed,” Ms. Yellen said. “Certainly, rising inequality is partly a matter of a weak job market that we’re trying to address. But there are deep and disturbing longer-term structural trends. Drone Update The skies over America are about to get a lot more crowded. As the Federal Aviation Administration prepares new guidelines for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, an entire industry-in-the-making is champing at the bit to start using drones for commercial ventures, from selling real estate to dusting crops to baby-sitting oil rigs. "This market's going to be huge," said Ken Loo, a Sunnyvale mechanical engineer who used a 3-D printer to create his own UAV and hopes to one day become a drone consultant. "The possibilities are endless; I know so many people getting into this field now so that they can pounce once the FAA comes up with its rules."
SkyCatch CEO Christian Sanz, photographed at company offices in San Francisco, Calif., Thursday morning, Feb. 27, 2014, sees growth for the commercial and recreational use of drones. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group) And there's the rub. With laws essentially banning the commercial use of drones in this country, the FAA is negotiating a political and technical minefield to figure out how to regulate this booming and controversial technology, with a resolution expected as early as this year. Until then, UAV businesses in the United States either must sell their services to clients in foreign countries -- such as Australia, where the rules are more lax -- or spin their wheels, fine-tuning their products until this great tech land rush finally gets underway. "Aerial robotics will be a significant market, assuming the FAA doesn't put huge restrictions on it," said analyst Michael Blades, who covers the commercial drone market for global consultants Frost & Sullivan. "But the FAA's in a tough spot. For starters, the airspaces in places like Australia and Brazil aren't nearly as crowded as ours. And the first time one of these unmanned vehicles accidentally takes down a jet plane, the FAA will be torn apart. So the rule-making process going on right now is tricky, because in a way the sky is a political battleground." Drones come with other baggage: Many Americans are outraged by the military's use of UAVs to take out targets in foreign countries. In addition, privacy groups have raised alarms about government agencies and police departments using UAVs in ways that could violate civil rights. While UAV supporters say such abuses would be outweighed by the benefits, some worry that anyone with an inexpensive drone and camera could fly it over the backyard fence and spy on their neighbor. Free from many of the legal restrictions on commercial use, recreational use has taken off, and much of the action is here in the Bay Area. With the advent of more affordable multirotor devices, such as the DJI Phantom Quadcopter that can be purchased for as little as $400, the Bay Area is abuzz with unmanned aircraft -- literally, with enthusiasts gathering en masse to fly drones at places such as Sunnyvale's Baylands Park. While the FAA allows personal use of drones under certain altitudes and subject to other restrictions, much of the activity remains outside the law. However, the rules are unenforceable by an agency set up to regulate manned aircraft operating out of airports, say experts such as former FAA official Doug Davis. So the drones keep on coming. Just a few months ago, San Jose UAV aficionado Roy Dumlao noticed the DJI Facebook page had 1,000 followers; it now has 68,000. Dumlao, a systems analyst who hopes to someday offer his drone-videography services to building inspectors looking for easier access to roofs, said there is now "this whole underground drone community that's mushroomed as the technology became cheaper and easier to use." At the same time, commercial-drone startups are proliferating all over the Bay Area, including small shops that build the vehicles as well as software firms that are creating electronic systems that allow an entire fleet of UAVs to "talk" to each other. In addition, big-data companies see tremendous potential in unmanned and even automatically programmed aircraft for gathering information from the air, whether it's counting plants in an Iowa cornfield or using sensors to detect pipeline gas leaks. As the technology improves, the money backing it keeps flowing. Last year was a record year for venture investment in drones, with a reported $79 million in 15 deals, including some by marquee investors such as Google Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz. "We're looking at a U.S. market that's going to explode in the next couple of years," said Amish Shah, founding partner of Sierra Maya Ventures, which has invested in a San Francisco-based aerial robotics startup called Skycatch. "It's already happening in places like Australia, Germany and France, which has 100 licensed UAV pilots. But ever since Amazon's Jeff Bezos announced they were testing delivering merchandise by drones, this technology is now on everyone's radar." Skycatch CEO Christian Sanz could be the face of the drone boom. A year ago, while looking for viable uses of the technology, he ended up at a Palo Alto construction site, capturing images and video with his UAV. Before long, he started receiving more and more requests for drone-borne visual data that might help cut costs, such as moving tall cranes around in a more efficient manner. "I was able to prove that it was less about the drone and more about the data," said Sanz, whose team then created a robot that essentially takes the place of the human remote-controller. "The robot swaps out and charges the drone's batteries, and sends the data to the cloud, so it's completely autonomous, which is what my clients wanted." Skycatch signed orders last year with six clients around the world, including "some of the largest construction companies on the planet." Once the FAA clears up the regulatory confusion, advocates say there's no end to the commercial tasks drones could be assigned, from looking for leaks above oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to washing a skyscraper's windows in Manhattan to monitoring solar farms in the Arizona desert. For now, though, the skies are decidedly hazy. As UAV advocate and consultant Patrick Egan puts it, "Just because it's illegal to make money with drones doesn't mean there aren't tens of thousands of people around the country right now doing it." While large U.S. companies bide their time by working with clients in countries with less restrictive laws, smaller operators bob and weave around the law to do things like photograph weddings and real-estate offerings. However, Egan sees a breakthrough coming. "There's a real convergence going on right in Silicon Valley with robotics, UAV and commercial spaceflights," he said. "Things are starting to jell, and this could be another huge economic engine for the valley. And while people would have laughed at this stuff a few years ago, they're not laughing now." U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas. Read the ACLU’s full report on domestic drones here.
Numerous states are considering (and some have passed) legislation regulating the use of drones. You can see a chart summarizing the developments around the country here. Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections. The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:
USAGE LIMITS: Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.
DATA RETENTION: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.
POLICY: Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.
ABUSE PREVENTION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.
WEAPONS: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons. We already know that drones with weapons and highly effective surveillance capabilities exist, because the military, and most likely police inside America, have been utilizing these types of drones already. If you have ever been pulled over in the middle of nowhere for speeding when you haven’t seen a car for miles and miles. That is because a drone, or a plane, was watching you and recording you. So, if you own a piece of property, let’s assume you actually owe nothing on it, and you see an unmanned drone hovering above you about 400 feet. It is just sitting there, watching you. Can you shoot it down? Well, here is what the Federal Law States: “Whoever willfully…sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.” If it’s being operated as a public or civil aircraft, shooting it down is a crime, it’s unsafe, and despite what the residents of Deer Trail, Colorado may think, their town can’t preempt federal law. You’ll recall that Deer Lake, Colorado passed an ordinance approving a bounty on all drones over their town. They even issued hunting licenses and offered bounties for parts with government markings on them. Proponents of the measure believe that drones flying over their yard are somehow violating their right to privacy and as a consequence they think they have the right to shoot down those aircraft. That belief is just as nonsensical as if they believed they could pass an ordinance allowing them to shoot down manned aircraft (after all, people might be looking down on them from a plane or helicopter flying above their property). This is a completely ignorant comparison, unless they have little tiny people four inches tall that are professional drone pilots. Drones are mindless machines and feel no pain. They splatter when hit with a 12-gage magnum like a daisy smacked with a nine-iron. You could say that my back yard is the second to the last thing that a drone would see before its lights went out. You could say, if you value your little toy, don’t fly it over my property, because if it shadows my land it belongs to me. You could say, I was just out on my farm hunting birds and I obliterated your drone by mistake. The reality is, that while you were sleeping (yes you were so asleep you didn’t even know this happened right in your living room) your privacy became unsupported in the law. While individual’s may believe they have an expectation of privacy in their backyard and that the government or other persons should not be allowed to operate an aircraft to peer down onto private property, that belief is now fundamentally flawed. The Supreme Court in Florida v. Riley addressed the question as to whether it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the police to observe from the air a greenhouse on a person’s property that was obscured from ground observation by trees, shrubs, and a home. To conduct their observation the police circled twice over the property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet and made naked-eye observations through openings in the greenhouse roof and its open sides. The Supreme Court held: the Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways at an altitude of 400 feet to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye. [In California v. Ciraolo, the court] held that a naked-eye police inspection of the backyard of a house from a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet was not a “search”… Thus, respondent could not reasonably have expected that the contents of his greenhouse were protected from public or official inspection from the air, since he left the greenhouse’s sides and roof partially open. The fact that the inspection was made from a helicopter is irrelevant, since, as in the case of fixed-wing planes, private and commercial flight by helicopter is routine. Nor, on the facts of this case, does it make a difference for Fourth Amendment purposes that the helicopter was flying below 500 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration’s lower limit upon the navigable airspace for fixed-wing craft. Since the FAA permits helicopters to fly below that limit, the helicopter here was not violating the law, and any member of the public or the police could legally have observed respondent’s greenhouse from that altitude. Although an aerial inspection of a house’s curtilage may not always pass muster under the Fourth Amendment simply because the aircraft is within the navigable airspace specified by law, there is nothing in the record here to suggest that helicopters flying at 400 feet are sufficiently rare that respondent could have reasonably anticipated that his greenhouse would not be observed from that altitude. Moreover, there is no evidence that the helicopter interfered with respondent’s normal use of his greenhouse or other parts of the curtilage, that intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage, were observed, or that there was undue noise, wind, dust, or threat of injury. The issue was not argued correctly, nor was it a proper test case for privacy. The comparison of police illegally searching your property in deliberate low-altitude circling in a helicopter to a naked eye observation holds the same validity as someone using a ladder to gain access to a second story window to watch someone sitting on their couch with a jar of moonshine. This was a wonton act of home invasion by law enforcement without a warrant. They had no legal right to trespass on that property without a warrant, because they did not ask permission to fly over the man’s property. They could not get a warrant, because they did not have enough evidence to get one. They invaded the man’s home, in this case the cracks and windows of his greenhouse, to get the evidence to then get the warrant to then make the arrest. The evidence was ill-gotten by a clear violation of that property owner’s fourth amendment rights. A remote controlled drone cannot be granted the same naked eye status as someone walking across your unfenced property on an afternoon hike. A remote controlled drone is a flying wiretap without a warrant, and it must be removed from the air immediately with prejudice so that the owner knows that it is an unwelcome invasion. Or, are we going to be Americans like Deer Trail and place signs at the boundaries of our property pointing toward the sky clearly indicating in multiple languages, “Caution: Trespassing unmanned drones will be removed from the sky without notice and at the owner’s expense.” AUDIO LINK But Whitehead’s letter said the beneficial uses for drones easily could be overshadowed by the possibility that “law enforcement agencies will find a whole host of clever and innovative ways to use drones to invade our daily lives and wreak havoc on our freedoms, not the least of which will be traffic enforcement and crowd control.” He said while drones can help spot forest fires, aid in searches and other specific chores, “without robust safeguards for the privacy and security of citizens … Americans will find themselves operating under a new paradigm marked by round-the-clock surveillance and with little hope of real privacy.” He said not only can drones spy on people, many of them now are armed. “Vanguard Defense Industries has confirmed that its Shadowhawk drone, which is already being sold to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, will be outfitted with lethal weapons, including a grenade launcher or a shotgun, and weapons of compliance, such as tear gas and rubber buckshot. “Such aerial police weapons send a clear and chilling message to those attempting to exercise their First Amendment rights by taking to the streets and protesting government policies – the message: stay home or you will be punished.” Further are the dangers by a terrorist hacker with WIFI close-proximity router tapping capabilities. That drone could hover yards above your roof and access your router, your computer, and your satellite TV programming. What if the drone pilot is really bad, and putting your life or property at risk by his reckless operations? “A rush to adopt this technology before it is properly vetted for safety and privacy concerns will invite the wrath of many Virginians,” he said. Also raising concerns is the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has told the FAA there needs to be transparency and accountability in drone operations. The organization has recommended the development of privacy protections before drones are used widely in the nation’s air spaces. EPIC said it was part of a coalition of more than 100 organizations, experts and others who petitioned the FAA to conduct a formal rule-making procedure on the privacy implications of domestic drone use. Several members of Congress also have expressed to the FAA their concerns about the privacy implications of drone use. In a letter to the FAA, the congressmen said, “There is … potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections.” EPIC noted that because of the design and technology, drone surveillance “often occurs without the knowledge of the individual being monitored.” “These vehicles can gather detailed information on individuals,” the organization said. The federal government already has issued 78 certificates for commercial drone operations, along with 273 active government licenses. Among the specifics, EPIC reported: “The Miami-Dade Police Department in Florida used federal grant money to purchase a small drone vehicle. Reports dating back to 2008 explain that Miami was seeking to use a small drone … ‘to gather real time information in situations which may be too dangerous for officers.’ However, police have admitted that the drone can be used to look into houses.” EPIC said that “the increased use of drones poses an ongoing threat to every person residing within the United States.” “Companies are developing ‘paparazzi drones’ in order to follow and photograph celebrities,” the group said. “Private detectives are starting to use drones to track their targets. Google, Inc., has deployed street-level drones in other countries to supplement the images of Street View. Criminals and others may use drones for purposes of stalking and harassment.” I personally would film the drone making drunken and unsafe movements, immediately after which I would empty my magazine of goose shot alternating with 7 ½” lead shot, until it was unable to fly. I would give it an ignominious burial after mercifully cremating it. You would think that a new anti-drone tech company would respond to the demand. Well, Domestic Drone Countermeasures, LLC, announced in March of last year they were going to sell commercial anti-drone equipment aimed at protecting private citizens from prying eyes. Founded in February of 2013, DDC was created by the same people behind defense contractor Aplus Mobile, which makes ruggedized computers for other defense contractors. Using knowledge gained from its military contracting work, DDC says it has developed countermeasures that are "highly effective and undefeatable by most current domestic drone technologies." How does the technology work? The press release was maddeningly vague ("Multiple layer systems ensure success by impeding typical drone sensors, infrared and camera capability and their effectiveness"). Here's what DDC's Amy Ciesielka had to say about their products: "We simply do not allow the [drone] cameras to observe with any clarity." More to the point, DDC's system has some sort of software that's programmed to conspire against camera- and infrared-equipped drones. One report described the products as "land-based boxes." The company insists that its system thwarts drones in a way that is "non-offensive, non- combative, and not destructive." But how does the technology distinguish between a drone and a commercial plane? Or a drone and seagull? Says Ciesielka: The system software is required to make decisions based on multiple inputs to determine if the object in question is indeed a drone or not. It would be silly to waste countermeasures on a seagull, or impede any human piloted aircraft. Fortunately FAA rules set boundaries as far as the flight envelope of drone operation and does not intermix drones with commercial or private aircraft at this time. Our systems have a high level of discrimination sophistication and are geared to detect, identify, neutralize and alert of their presence. As for how a user would be notified of a drone's presence: The countermeasure portion of the system's operation will not be subtle when a drone is detected. It will alert the owner of a drone's presence and will create active countermeasures that will be obvious to the user BY the way, six days after DDC made their marketing announcement, with national news coverage, they disappeared. DDC’s website has been removed from the web. There is no available contact information for the Company. There is nothing more than a few old You Tube videos that even mention the technology. There is no software, so publicly available product, and no proof that it ever existed.