Protests in a democracy do not need to turn into bloody battles - The example of "Occupy Frankfurt"

By Patrick

The Occupy-movement has moved out of the headlines these days, which they "occupied" several month ago in the wake of their extensive protests, mainly in the USA. At these protests, we witnessed a lot of vicious police actions which predominantly happened in several US-cities, as well as in other countries. We saw clip after clip of shockingly brutal, unnecessary, unwarranted police actions at OWS-protests (see for example this shocking compilation of incidents here), and it was incredibly depressing to realize that this is apparently what "democracy now looks like" in parts of the Western world. It was simply unbelievable what we saw during these OWS-protests.

If peaceful protests are being violently crushed in such a way on a routine basis, then there is not much which distinguishes the Western world from autocratic regimes. The disregard that members of the police showed for free speech in particular is still hard to believe. It is a sad state of affairs if for example the police actions against demonstraters in Russia are quite hard to distinguish from the police actions against the Occupy movement, with Russia being a country which currently could be called at least "partly-autocratic."

So this is a hot, controversial topic, and while it's not my goal to "lecture" anyone, I also don't want to miss the opportunity to show that it "doesn't necessarily have to be like that." I am very concerned about the state of democracy in the Western world, and in the US in particular, and as far as brutal police actions are concerned, I believe that a general agressive attitude, most likely combined with massive prejudices against protesters and a growing militarization of the police are to blame. In addition it is apparent to me, from what I have seen in countless video clips, that the level of training of the police forces seems to be very poor. "Beat them, crush them, punish them" appears far too often to be the preferred method of "problem solving" by cops when they are being put into difficult situations, like (left-wing) mass protests. This is not the type of behaviour which should be acceptable in modern democracies.

I am not saying that everything is perfect over here in Europe. Over the years, we have had a fair share of violent police actions on numerous occasions, in many countries. Just recently, in September 2010, a disastrous police action took place in Stuttgart, Germany, when foolish conservative politicians ordered the police to forcefully clear a piece of land full of protesters, many of them teenagers, with one pensioner getting permantly blinded after he got hit in the face by a stream from a police water cannon. The protests were directed against the construcation of a new main train station in Stuttgart, as the project is hideously "over-engineered", far too expensive and also very damaging to the environment.

Back to Occupy: My point is that, right now, there are profound differences of how the Occupy-movement is being treated in Germany by the authorities, compared to what we have seen for example in the USA. This, I believe, is noteworthy. Granted, the Occupy-movement in Germany is rather small, which is not surprising as the economic pressures in Germany are not very significant right now. Unemployment is on a 20-year low, and in contrast to some of the Southern European countries, Germany's economic growth is going strong.

However, that doesn't mean that German Occupy-movement has been invisible. After protests in October 2011, a large permanent OWS-camp developed right in front of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the center of Frankfurt, the city which is the German "banking capital", with the headquarters of many of the largest German banks in walking distance from the ECB.

There the camp still remains, and right from the start the behaviour of the occupants of this camp has been described as "examplary" by the local authorities, who in turn quickly legalized the camp, with no final "end date" determined yet. So far, it has been a very peaceful "co-existence" between the protesters and the surrounding banks and businesses.

But Occupy-Frankfurt came into the headlines today: A larger coalition of mainly far left-wing groups had the idea to stage a "four-day event" in the center of Frankfurt, where the headquarters of Germany's biggest banks as well as the ECB are located, effectively trying to shut down business in the city center from today till Saturday, May 19 - called "Blockupy", the "European days of action". Interestingly, Occupy Frankfurt, the camp itself, does not seem to play a significant part in all this, despite the "Occupy" label, as established far left-wing groups seem to be the main organizers.

The local authorities did not agree with a chaotic shutdown of the city which was supposed to last for several days, and therefore partially banned the planned proceedings, in a very controversial decision which nevertheless has now mainly been confirmed by the courts. It also did not help the organizers that just several weeks ago, on March 31 this year, an anti-capitalist demonstration which included a larger militant "black block" group in Frankfurt got violent and gave the authorities reason to believe that there could be even more violence during the "Blockupy" events (see also the slideshow on this page). In order to learn more about the mindset of the militants, watch this video in which the "black block" people explain how they view themselves and how they justify their actions. They basically regard their militant actions as "theatre" in order to get larger exposure for their cause - but completely ignore that fact that mindless violence only helps to discredit any legitimate cause, as it gives the "other side" the chance to lump the peaceful protesters together with the idiotic actions of the militants (see here for a particularly nasty example of the actions of the "black block" during the OWS-protest in Oakland).

Some pictures from March 31, 2012 in Frankfurt:

 

 

From news reports, we know that the occupant of the Frankfurt camp were deeply unhappy with the violence during the protests on March 31, and strongly condemned it. This is interesting, as the people in the camp were apparently irritated that their peaceful cause was somehow "co-opted" by militant protesters. They stressed afterwards that peacefulness is the main element of their political philosophy.

Part of this (partial) ban concerning the "Blockupy" protests from May 16 to May 19 is the provision that the occupants of the Frankfurt camp are obliged to leave the camp for the next days and can only return after "Blockupy", due to security reasons. So the police went into action today and removed the occupants - temporarily. The occupants of the camp were not happy, of course, but I still found it interesting to see that even such a hostile police action did not result in ugly scenes, as both sides showed a large amount of respect, civility and tolerance towards each other - virtues which sadly have been missing in so many OWS-police actions we have seen in the past. Today, the police in Frankfurt could have used a heavy-handed approach, but they chose a different path and promised the occupants right from the start that there will be no charges if they let themselves get carried away by the police peacefully. As it turns out, there were only relatively minor disturbances, for example when quite a lot of paint was used by the protesters, but the policemen and policewomen were rather unfazed and consequently started to wear protective "white overalls."

Below is an excellent clip from an Italian website which shows precisely what went on today during this police action in Frankfurt:

Here are some pictures from the Occupy Frankfurt facebook page regarding the events from today - click on pictures to enlarge:

More very good pictures of the police action against Occupy Frankfurt from yesterday can be found at this website from Seattle.


Here are some of my own pictures I took today (I wasn't there when the occupants were removed, but I was there before and afterwards) - click to enlarge:

Some shopowners as well as some banks are boarding up their windows, as violence is expected to take place during the next days:

Some of the streets surrounding the ECB have already been closed by the police:

During the next days, about 30.000 people are expected to turn up for the protests in Frankfurt, and the police expect about 2.000 militant protesters to take part. Let's hope that ugly scenes can be avoided. In any case, it's refreshing to see that the occupants of the Frankfurt OWS-camp as well as the police today displayed civility and reason. Bloody battles help nobody - and intelligent police forces and intelligent politicians will try to avoid them, whenever possible. Let's hope that wisdom will prevail.

+++

UPDATE:

I would like to point out that the Occupy-movement in the USA and the militant anarchist were also at odds with each other - as shown in the following clips during the Occupy Oakland protests, and there were certainly many more examples:

Will President Obama speak out against police violence directed at OWS protesters, like he did against police violence in the Middle East?

By Patrick

During recent weeks, we have seen many instances of excessive police brutality against OWS protesters, against a movement which many politicians surely just want to make "go away." But it's unlikely that OWS will just fade into obscurity, as the movement gains more and more traction around the world - partially also because more and more people are appalled by the growing wave of violent police actions, including acts of pure sadism, which included the pepper spray incident on Friday at the campus of UC Davis, which received nationwide mainstream coverage. The action at the campus of UC Davis was preceded by another notable incident on Wednesday at the campus of UC Berkeley, when aggressive University policemen beat peaceful students with batons (view from closer HERE). Police at UC Berkeley even brutally pulled a female professor out of the crowd at her hair for no reason whatsoever - shocking video HERE (also read the video description).

The question is: Will politicians be able to ignore the violence against student and citizens, or will they start to address it? Will especially President Barack Obama, a man who in 2008 inspired many progressives with his message of hope and change, feel compelled to address the issue?

This question is justified, because when it came to violent police actions in the Middle East for example during the recent uprisings in Egypt, President Obama as well as Hillary Clinton had no hesitation to repeatedly condemn the actions of the Egyptian police. So should very similar actions be justified in the USA and elsewhere, just because they were done in the name of "democracy?" The same applies of course for violent police actions against the OWS movement in other countries, for example in Australia and the UK.

A very powerful, must-see video was posted on youtube already one months ago, addressing the contradictory behaviour of the American government - condemnation regarding actions abroad, silence regarding actions at home:

(h/t sunnyjane)

Jesse Kornbluth yesterday asked this question directly to President Obama at Huffington Post:

"Dear Mr. President: Will You Please Speak Up About Police Assaulting Protesters On College Campuses?"

Kornbluth writes:

Let me set aside the distressing irony that protesters in, say, Tahrir Square in Cairo last spring were, in the main, better treated by repressive authorities than protesters on a California campus.

Let me just talk politics.

Specifically, this: What would I do if I were president and running for re-election?

Let me go a bit further...

What would I do if I were running for re-election and I knew the Republicans were mounting a nationwide campaign to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible?

What would I do if I were running for re-election and knew that many of my core supporters in 2008 felt disrespected and ignored by my Administration?

And, finally, what would I do if I were running for re-election and I had even the vaguest idea how many kids go to college and how many families back home were worrying about them -- and how many of those kids and parents considered themselves Democrats?

In that situation, I think -- again, I'm just making a political calculation here --- I'd take the opportunity to speak out about what happened at UC Davis.

(...)

Mr. President, making a short speech like this should not be a tough call.

Consider: Forbes magazine -- Forbes! -- has condemned the police.

Do you really want to be the last to speak up?

Or is it your intent to say nothing?

There comes a time, sir, when we must stand up and be counted --- or have our silence counted as its own kind of speech.

I'm sure there are many Americans --- not just college kids, their parents and their professors --- who would be grateful if you would remind us all of the right to assemble peacefully.

Some, perhaps, might even see that as a reason to vote for you.

Sincerely,

Jesse Kornbluth

So what should the answer be? Does "democracy" provide a permit for police brutality, for violent actions which are such so excessive that even conservative reporters complain about being assaulted by the police without any reason?

If police forces are being excessively violent, it's because they feel that they have political backing - and comments directed at OWS-protesters for example by Newt Gingrich like "Take a bath, get a job" or by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said that the protets were "just an opportunity for a bunch of unions to complain or to protest, or whatever they want to do" just reaffirms a common belief that the protesters are not to be taken seriously, that they are outside the mainstream - and that they can or should be "beaten", if necessary.

Such an attitude is dangerous, and in the days of the internet where the brutality of the police is available for everyone to see, also unsustainable. A democracy is different from an authoritarian regime because it respects dissenting voices, and citizens in a democracy can expect from their political leaders that they acknowledge this fact and step in when excessive behaviour takes place.

Just a few days ago, Mayor Bloomberg said that "Make no mistake about it, if anyone's actions cross the line...we will respond accordingly", but he failed to address the fact that there are legions of video clips available on the internet which prove that it was the NYPD in the first place which repeatedly crossed the line.

We expect more from President Obama, and he should be the one to address the real issue -that there is a movement which exists for good reasons, and that these people have a right to protest with the full protection of the US constitution and the law.

+++

UPDATE:

Deborah Newell Tornello (litbrit) posted at her blog this quote by Barack Obama:

"I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protesters. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere." —President Barack Obama

Yes, "everywhere."

+++

UPDATE 2:

From the comments I can see that this is a controversial topic. While it is certainly correct that the police in the USA is governed on the state and local levels, there seems to be one misunderstanding. We don't believe that President Obama is to blame or that he should be held accountable - we just think that he should make a statement, as a representative of the people, and I believe that he could very well demand from state and local authorities in a speech that the right to a peaceful protest and the freedom of assembly should be recognized and should be protected. After all, it is a constitutional right.

I would like to address another point. In my post yesterday about the pepper spray incident at UC Davis I voiced my astonishment that the police was apparently carrying paintball guns. Visible for example on this picture on the right from the UC Davis incident which can be found on flickr:

Well, it turns out that I have to brush up my knowledge about the type of weapons the police usually carry these days. The twitter-user "lawscribe" explained to me what some of the policemen at UC Davis were really carrying on Friday:

Some research showed that "lawscribe" was correct.

From a report about a mock training prison riot:

Students are apparently on one level with a prison population these days, and the parents of the students from UC Davis might be interested to know that these pepperball guns can inflict very serious injuries, especially when they are being used at close range, and especially when the victim is being shot in the face.

From a report about a victim who was shot in the face, a student - and this incident happened already in 2005:

Stephen Lippenholz spent Sunday and Monday in a hospital bed in Prince George’s Hospital Center, the right side of his face scarred and swollen.

He needed dime-sized plastic shell fragments removed from his cheek, surgery to restructure his broken nose, and 40 stitches to close a cheek wound after police shot him in the face with a pepper pellet gun.

Lippenholz is just one of many who ran from Route 1 Saturday night with welts from pepper ball gun wounds, crying as pepper spray burnt their eyes or wheezing from the tear gas polluting the air. A significant number are coming forward, saying they were severely injured or violently arrested while acting as bystanders in the melee.

“They gave no warning, they just started shooting,” said Lippenholz, a sophomore letters and sciences major. “I think it’s pretty ridiculous they were using those guns to control the fans. There are so many other kinds they could use.”

His father, Richard Lippenholz, expressed similar emotions.

“My understanding is that the police shouldn’t be shooting into the crowd blindly,” he said. “I don’t think anyone deserves to be blinded or killed because a sign was torn down.”

Picture from this article:

I might sound very old fashioned, but for me, the permission to the University police to carry such type of guns should be reason alone for Chancellor Linda Katehi to resign. Students easily could have been severely wounded and could have even lost their eyes. I am appalled about what is happening in parts of the western world and do hope that this trend to turn police forces into paramilitary organizations will stop.

+++

PLEASE RE-TWEET:

https://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/138292676037591040

https://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/138293113960673280

https://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/138294047180722177

University police at UC Davis brutally pepper-spray peaceful protesters, and a look into the future - UPDATE: "Walk of Shame" for UC Davis Chancellor

+++READ FOLLOW-UP POST:

Will President Obama speak out against the violence?+++

By Patrick

During recent weeks, we have seen horribly violent attacks on OWS-protesters, often by "Robocop-Style" policemen, including sadistic scenes like deliberately throwing a flash gas-grenade into a group of protesters who want to help an injured person and a brutal "out-of-nowhere" pepper-spray attack on a group of women who were "boxed-in" on a sidewalk. Excessive police actions didn't only occur in the USA during the OWS-protests, but also in other countries, for example during the protests in Australia with very similar, brutal scenes. If you search on youtube for "occupy police brutality", you will find many more examples. Rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas and other brutal measures have been used against protesters in excessive ways. Photos of police violence in New York City can be seen HERE.

But it still gets worse. It was not known to me up until now that American Universities employ their own riot police, but they do, and after watching the clip of the following scene from Friday afternoon at the UC Davis, it should be clear to everyone that such a police force needs far better training and leadership. This clip of how one the UC Davis University policemen pepper-sprayed peaceful protesters "like cockroaches" has already gone viral, and it's important to watch the full clip, in order to see the effects of peaceful resistance against the brutality of the police:

Screenshots in chronological order:

Another video with more scenes from the incident:

New different clip:

It's can also be seen in the clip that several policemen are carrying paint-ball guns, which is the first time I have seen policemen carrying them at a protest. As everybody knows, paintball shots can cause serious wounds, comparable to rubber-bullet wounds - which is why the participants in a paint-ball game have to wear good protection for the face. Using such guns at close range could have caused a disaster.

More links to pictures and additional information the events at UC Davis on Friday can be found here.

Looking at court decisions about the use of pepper-spray, the actions by the UC Davis campus police may have very well been illegal.

In an open letter, Nathan Brown, Assistant Professor at UC Davis, today demanded the resignation of the Chancellor of the University. Excerpt:

On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.”

I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”

I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.

Tweet the letter HERE.

Interestingly, the chief of Police at UC Berkeley already addressed his "concern" in a public message on the website of the police on November 16 about previous police actions which happened last Wednesday:

He wrote:

There are many opinions on the merits of allowing or not allowing the OccupyCal encampment. However, UCPD was tasked by the Administration with enforcing the campus policy, and as a result, unfortunate and regrettable confrontations occurred. These confrontations were captured on video, and consequently have engendered concern in the wider community regarding use of force by officers.

I have personally seen many, but not all, of the videos posted, and I too am concerned about the clashes depicted between police and Occupy protesters. I very much understand the concern and anger that these images have created. I also understand that, though the videos are snapshots in time as to what was going on in the moment, they are not capturing all activity and do not capture what occurred prior to the snippets of video. In order to accurately and factually respond to the questions and anger, UCPD has initiated an Operational Review to be conducted by the Police Review Board (PRB), which will encompass all aspects of the incidents, from the approach to enforcement and general response to the OccupyCal encampment, to the specific causes of the use of force aspects of the clashes between the police and the OccupyCal protesters.

I will look to the Operational Review to provide a summary of lessons learned and a thorough review of our applicable policies, and to point to other approaches that will minimize confrontations in future protest activities. Each protest is unique but best practices can be identified and applied to future protest activity. We are currently gathering all generated reports, copies of radio transmissions, police video, news video, YouTube video, etc. and will be reaching out to percipient witnesses to obtain a comprehensive overview so the questions and issues raised can be adequately addressed.

Due to the volume of information and contacts that will need to be made this will take some time. I will also reach out to the Police Review Board Chair to share our progress, findings, and recommendations, as well provide assistance to any review the PRB deems necessary to pursue.

So it's safe to say that there are serious problems going on with the training and the attitude of the police at the University of California. Apparently they have never heard of the concept of "proportionality", however, it seems that this is an alien concept to many other police forces in the USA as well.

It's not just excessive police brutality which is currently being used to squelch the OWS-movement. Rather than just counting on policemen who might not hesitate to use brutal measures against "hippie-left-wing" OWS-protesters, MSNBC today revealed that the prominent Washington PR-firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford has proposed an "opposition research" strategy to weaken the movement (download the memo here):

A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”

The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.

CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

(...)

Part of the plan CLGC proposes is to do “statewide surveys in at least eight states that are shaping up to be the most important of the 2012 cycle.”

Specific races listed in the memo are U.S. Senate races in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada as well as the gubernatorial race in North Carolina.

The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, “Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others.”

"It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.”

Watch the MSNBC-report by Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So don't be surprised if you see a surge of "anti-OWS" comments in the comment sections on websites. Such strategies already seem to be "standard-practice" with PR-firms, and especially sites like Huffington Post seem to be infested with such obvious PR-comments. The PR-firm in the case against OWS uses phrases like "targeted social media monitoring" which certainly relate to such common practises:

Interestingly, it doesn't even appear that PR-agencies would have to push very hard in order to "discredit" OWS-protesters. It appears that a significant portion of the population is quite happy with the excessive police actions - following the notion that "lawless" behaviour automatically justifies the most drastic police actions. It apparently doesn't occur to these people that with such an attitude, every dictatorship could easily justify all of actions, excessive or non-excessive, and that it is an identifying component of a free society that police power is not unlimited, but strictly regulated and supervised, and actually needs to respect the rights of citizens to protest and exercise their constitutional rights.

So it comes as no surprise that several people for example had no hesitation to support and defend the pepper-spray action at UC Davis on Friday, for example in the comments at this website.

+++

In the title of the post, I also promised a look into the future. There is one topic I have been planning to write a post about for quite a while now, but never found the time so far. So let me give you an outline: If you think that the USA, as well as some other countries in the western world, increasingly shows signs of being a "police-state", the bad news is that it's likely to get even worse. Why is that? Because detailed plans are currently being developed by US-authorities of how to use new identification technologies and databases more effectively against criminals - but which can also easily used against protesters and potential "dissidents", to use this word from the days of communism.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports:

NextGov.com is reporting that the FBI will begin rolling out its Next Generation Identification (NGI) facial recognition service as early as this January. Once NGI is fully deployed and once each of its approximately 100 million records also includes photographs, it will become trivially easy to find and track Americans.

As we detailed in an earlier post, NGI expands the FBI’s IAFIS criminal and civil fingerprint database to include multimodal biometric identifiers such as iris scans, palm prints, photos, and voice data. The Bureau is planning to introduce each of these capabilities in phases (pdf, p.4) over the next two and a half years, starting with facial recognition in four states—Michigan, Washington, Florida, and North Carolina—this winter.

Why Should We Be Worried?

Despite the FBI’s claims to the contrary, NGI will result in a massive expansion of government data collection for both criminal and noncriminal purposes. IAFIS is already the largest biometric database in the world—it includes 70 million subjects in the criminal master file and more than 31 million civil fingerprints. Even if there are duplicate entries or some overlap between civil and criminal records, the combined number of records covers close to 1/3 the population of the United States. When NGI allows photographs and other biometric identifiers to be linked to each of those records, all easily searchable through sophisticated search tools, it will have an unprecedented impact on Americans' privacy interests.

Although IAFIS currently includes some photos, they have so far been limited specifically to mug shots linked to individual criminal records. However, according to a 2008 Privacy Impact Assessment for NGI’s Interstate Photo System, NGI will allow unlimited submission of photos and types of photos. Photos won’t be limited to frontal mug shots but may be taken from other angles and may include close-ups of scars, marks and tattoos. NGI will allow all levels of law enforcement, correctional facilities, and criminal justice agencies at the local, state, federal and even international level to submit and access photos, and will allow them to submit photos in bulk. Once the photos are in the database, they can be found easily using facial recognition and text-based searches for distinguishing characteristics.

The new NGI database will also allow law enforcement to submit public and private security camera photos that may or may not be linked to a specific person’s record. This means that anyone could end up in the database—even if they’re not involved in a crime— by just happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or by, for example, engaging in political protest activities in areas like Lower Manhattan that are rife with security cameras.

The EFF also provided three very recent presentations by federal US-agencies (two by the FBI, one by the National Institute of Justice) about this subject (download HERE, HERE and HERE).

Screenshots from the presentations:

FBI PRESENTATION NO 1:

FBI PRESENTATION NO 2:

PRESENTATION BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE:

The USA may have a debt problem, but it doesn't appear that the FBI has a problem in receiving funding for such programs which would create a huge database of citizens who just might have been at the wrong time at the wrong place - or who might have just exercised their constitutional right to protest, and have ended up in a "Big Brother" database which might work to deny them the opportunity to get government jobs, or other jobs as well.

Big Brother will be watching, but the internet community won't stop to "watch Big Brother" as well. Knowing that the internet community is ever vigilent the "clampdown" on "the internet" by politicians in the USA is already under way. More, very detailed information on this newly proposed "SOPA"-legislation which could effectively end internet freedom in the USA can be found here.

After so many rather depressing new facts, lets end on a humorous note with George Carlin. Have a good weekend, everybody!

+++

BONUS - By our reader Linda1961:

First they came for the hippies,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a hippy.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Iraq War veterans,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an Iraq War Veteran.

Then they came for the 84 year old ladies,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't 84 years old.

Then they came for the pregnant ladies,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't pregnant.

Then they came for the college students,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in college.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

+++

UPDATE:

If you believe that the FBI-plans for the "New Identification Generation" are talk of the future, think again. Clark Stoeckley, who runs the "Wikileaks Truck" (a satirical/art project) and who was arrested in New York on Thursday, twittered today:

They are serious. Welcome to the surveillance society.

Here is a video, showing his arrest.

+++

UPDATE 2:

The San Francisco Bay Guardian has a very good article about Chuck Wexler, the "cop who coordinated the Occupy crackdowns." Wexler is the Executive Director of "The Police Executive Research Forum" (PERF), an international non-governmental organization with ties to law enforcement and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In this article, a publication by PERF called "Managing Major Events: Best Practices from the Field" is being mentioned. The publication can be downloaded HERE. While reading it, I found out that there are still intelligent police chiefs out there, if I may be so cynical. The police forces in cities all over the USA would have saved themselves a lot of trouble during the OWS protests if they had followed the advice given by San Antonio Police Chief William McManus:

+++

UPDATE 3:

I just found this chilling new photo from the UC Davis pepper spray incident.

Notice how incredibly threatened the police appears to be. They are clearly "surrounded" by youngsters with mobile phones! It's a miracle that they didn't call in the paratroopers.

From the "Sacramento Bee":

The protest initially involved about 50 students, Spicuzza said, but swelled to about 200 as the confrontation with police escalated.

She said officers were forced to use pepper spray when students surrounded them. They used a sweeping motion on the group, per procedure, to avoid injury, she said.

The students were informed repeatedly ahead of time that if they didn't move, force would be used, she said.

"There was no way out of that circle," Spicuzza said. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."

+++

UPDATE 4 - BREAKING NEWS:

+++New protests at UC Davis+++

LIVE VIDEO: Students at UC Davis are protesting the aftermath of a press conference by Chancellor Katehi

See tweets HERE and HERE.

"NOW: Hundreds of students form human barrier at UC Davis preventing university chancellor and police chief from leaving campus building."

+++

UPDATE 5:

THE VIDEO WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR - The "Walk of Shame" for UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. Several hundred students watched silently about half an hour ago when Katehi walked to her car.

(updated with higher quality version of exactly the same video - first clip here)