How many people with video cameras could we round up to enter the federal building simultaneously before Kat's "trial"? We could all just stand in the entryway and video the guards. We could ask questions about freedom of the press. If someone wanted to guarantee arrest, they could attempt to enter without surrendering their camera. Ideally we should have more people with video devices than they have guards...
Your thoughts on this idea?
What about sneaking it in...recording it and broadcasting it as a violation of federal 'law'?
Could someone describe the entry procedure? With enough people thinking about the problem there might be a way to use their own procedure against them, just like how some hackers use a vulnerability to gain access in to a protected system.
Sounds like a good idea.
What's wrong with recording an important event like a trial?
What do the Feds have to hide? ::)
im gonna be honest - im too chicken about my camera being stolen.
Quote from: Jared on September 25, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
im gonna be honest - im too chicken about my camera being stolen.
Even with a group of cameramen?
With the ever shrinking footprint of electronics finding every camera and audio recording device will be impossible very very soon. Puke on another thread posted a link to Amazon that had "spy cameras" and some of those look like they could get past the all seeing eyes of the thugs. Even if they can spot the camera's that are manufactured to create your own personal hidden camera is possible and they could be hidden in almost any item.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 25, 2008, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jared on September 25, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
im gonna be honest - im too chicken about my camera being stolen.
Even with a group of cameramen?
do you think that makes it less likely? i dont know, i dont have experience with this stuff. im planning on hopefully being able to go to kat's trial on the 30th, and i was already anxious enough about bringing my (new) camera.
Quote from: Jared on September 25, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
im gonna be honest - im too chicken about my camera being stolen.
I would suggest that if you don't want your camera stolen then get one that you don't mind is taken. For the civil dis you could even find a camera that is broken pay a couple bucks and if the Feds take it, oh well it is not like they will be able to use it for their own personal use.
If someone knew a person in the electronics recycling business they could watch for camera's that come in and get them for the civil dis. 30 people with camera's I think could overwhelm the door nazi's and have a few people with working cams scattered through the crowd. The broken camera's could be the cover for the people with working cameras.
Every battle is going to have casualties the best strategy is to use the worst resources to take the damage while the best resources can get in to a better position. In the movie Brave heart one of the battles the Scottish horsemen looked like they were fleeing the battlefield but they were riding around to the unprotected rear of the English and once that happened the English were fighting on 2 fronts and lost.
There are disposable video cameras. They're a little too pricey to use consistantly, but I imagine ideal for these situations.
i've got mixed feelings on this idea. i had toyed with it in the past but set it aside for stuff that seems to have been more productive.
PRO:
- It would send a message that every time they crack down on harmless free staters, they trigger some quick new disobedience, by completely new people.
- It takes a stand on a really important issue, no one is going to mistake the right to videotape for a petty thing
CON:
- We don't have the technology yet to *broadcast* a video signal from the metal detector area. It is possible that none of the video clips would survive, save those shot from off-property. It's a battle on ground where they have the advantage.
- There isn't much time to get news releases ready and distributed. It's too late for letters to the editor announcing it in advance.
- In Fedminds, this is not a crack down...more of a compromise or a robotic dispensation of law.
Probably what I would do is try and videotape "within the rules" whatever I can from the sidewalk, if others try to break their rules at the detector.
I will be tied up for the next two days on other civil dis and news releases... and all this lauren/kat video i still need to process. but I do expect to be there on the 30th.
I would urge russell NOT to risk arrest...and don't plan to myself unless they back me into a corner again. That's right Commander if you're reading...you felt like I was backing you into a corner but that's how I felt too.
the only arrests if any that we trigger, should be people they've never had to arrest before. That sends the message of the hydra...cut one head off and a new one appears in its place. Of course, heads can appear that don't get arrested.
Quote from: slim on September 25, 2008, 05:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jared on September 25, 2008, 04:22 PM NHFT
im gonna be honest - im too chicken about my camera being stolen.
I would suggest that if you don't want your camera stolen then get one that you don't mind is taken. For the civil dis you could even find a camera that is broken pay a couple bucks and if the Feds take it, oh well it is not like they will be able to use it for their own personal use.
If someone knew a person in the electronics recycling business they could watch for camera's that come in and get them for the civil dis. 30 people with camera's I think could overwhelm the door nazi's and have a few people with working cams scattered through the crowd. The broken camera's could be the cover for the people with working cameras.
Every battle is going to have casualties the best strategy is to use the worst resources to take the damage while the best resources can get in to a better position. In the movie Brave heart one of the battles the Scottish horsemen looked like they were fleeing the battlefield but they were riding around to the unprotected rear of the English and once that happened the English were fighting on 2 fronts and lost.
wow i cant even believe i didnt think of this before, but i have a broken digital camera that i let me daughter play with as a toy...
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT
- We don't have the technology yet to *broadcast* a video signal from the metal detector area. It is possible that none of the video clips would survive, save those shot from off-property. It's a battle on ground where they have the advantage.
The technology does exist. There is software and a service called Qik (http://qik.com/) that allows your video-cam-equipped phone to stream video
live to the web. This means that if your phone/video camera is confiscated byt he police (which would indeed suck), and even if the police erased the contents, the evidence is already on the web; you can download it to your computer later and forward it to YouTube, etc. It does not work on my phone yet, so I cannot volunteer to do this. There are other companies offering similar services, too.
Quote from: exCA Mike on September 25, 2008, 07:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT
- We don't have the technology yet to *broadcast* a video signal from the metal detector area. It is possible that none of the video clips would survive, save those shot from off-property. It's a battle on ground where they have the advantage.
The technology does exist. There is software and a service called Qik (http://qik.com/) that allows your video-cam-equipped phone to stream video live to the web. This means that if your phone/video camera is confiscated byt he police (which would indeed suck), and even if the police erased the contents, the evidence is already on the web; you can download it to your computer later and forward it to YouTube, etc. It does not work on my phone yet, so I cannot volunteer to do this. There are other companies offering similar services, too.
yes but do *we* have the technology?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 07:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: exCA Mike on September 25, 2008, 07:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT
- We don't have the technology yet to *broadcast* a video signal from the metal detector area. It is possible that none of the video clips would survive, save those shot from off-property. It's a battle on ground where they have the advantage.
The technology does exist. There is software and a service called Qik (http://qik.com/) that allows your video-cam-equipped phone to stream video live to the web. This means that if your phone/video camera is confiscated byt he police (which would indeed suck), and even if the police erased the contents, the evidence is already on the web; you can download it to your computer later and forward it to YouTube, etc. It does not work on my phone yet, so I cannot volunteer to do this. There are other companies offering similar services, too.
yes but do *we* have the technology?
Ah. I doubt it, but don't know. I thought you meant is it possible (and within our grasp, affordable, obtainable by Sept. 30, etc.).
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 07:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: exCA Mike on September 25, 2008, 07:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT
- We don't have the technology yet to *broadcast* a video signal from the metal detector area. It is possible that none of the video clips would survive, save those shot from off-property. It's a battle on ground where they have the advantage.
The technology does exist. There is software and a service called Qik (http://qik.com/) that allows your video-cam-equipped phone to stream video live to the web. This means that if your phone/video camera is confiscated byt he police (which would indeed suck), and even if the police erased the contents, the evidence is already on the web; you can download it to your computer later and forward it to YouTube, etc. It does not work on my phone yet, so I cannot volunteer to do this. There are other companies offering similar services, too.
yes but do *we* have the technology?
We do have the technology.
http://qik.com/video/310401
Streamed from Taproom Tuesday on 9/17.
-Nat
Quote from: Nat F on September 25, 2008, 07:31 PM NHFT
We do have the technology.
http://qik.com/video/310401
Streamed from Taproom Tuesday on 9/17.
-Nat
Excellent! As you can see, the video quality is poor, but not so poor that you can't identify a person or understand what is happening. And the audio is fine. Thanks for the demo, Nat.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT
the only arrests if any that we trigger, should be people they've never had to arrest before. That sends the message of the hydra...cut one head off and a new one appears in its place. Of course, heads can appear that don't get arrested.
At least half of the people at the demonstration on Wednesday were
not at the demo outside the Valley St. Jail for Lauren, which took place just about a year ago (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11106.0). I'm sure the feds are noticing stuff like this, too. >:D
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 25, 2008, 06:58 PM NHFT
CON:
- We don't have the technology yet to *broadcast* a video signal from the metal detector area. It is possible that none of the video clips would survive, save those shot from off-property. It's a battle on ground where they have the advantage.
Not if we have more people than they do. Someone could easily pocket a tape during all the confusion, or escape through the front doors. They'd have to confiscate a LOT of cameras.
Quote- There isn't much time to get news releases ready and distributed. It's too late for letters to the editor announcing it in advance.
True. Certainly this would work anytime we feel like doing it, so the future is fine.
Quote- In Fedminds, this is not a crack down...more of a compromise or a robotic dispensation of law.
Probably what I would do is try and videotape "within the rules" whatever I can from the sidewalk, if others try to break their rules at the detector.
In case I wasn't clear, I was intending people enter the "foyer" prior to the detector, and just film and ask questions. I'm sure they'd make up some rule about no cameras anywhere, but the protest would be intended for just outside their security zone.
When going into the courthouse, they have a metal detector, much like an airport, they hold your cell, and presumably anything electronic. Any hidden recorders would have to be disguised as something nonelectronic.
Quote from: David on September 25, 2008, 09:47 PM NHFT
When going into the courthouse, they have a metal detector, much like an airport, they hold your cell, and presumably anything electronic. Any hidden recorders would have to be disguised as something nonelectronic.
Not true. Metal detectors aren't that sensitive. A small voice recorder would not set it off.
The detector wands on the other hand likely will.
But if you show up dressed in a suit and looking like you are not affiliated with the main group I doubt that much scrutiny will be paid to you.
Posting on the forum ideas on how to evade detection is a good way to make sure they know exactly what to look for, no?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 26, 2008, 08:36 AM NHFT
Posting on the forum ideas on how to evade detection is a good way to make sure they know exactly what to look for, no?
I guess. The feds would have to look for the guy in the suit going in to the fed courthouse just like all the other guys in suits going in to the fed courthouse. That is like having someone look for a needle in a haystack of needles.
Also by putting your ideas out there others can look at the idea and point out flaws or use them as a building block for another idea.
If there was 100 ideas about how to get around the security do you think the feds could modify their procedures to stop the 100 ideas from being effective? And even if they could modify their procedures the new procedures would inevitably have new holes to be exploited.
There is no such thing as perfect security. Every lock, code, and procedure can and will be broken.
Quote from: Puke on September 26, 2008, 05:11 AM NHFT
Not true. Metal detectors aren't that sensitive. A small voice recorder would not set it off.
That depends on how they're programmed. Some are extremely sensitive, especially when set to alarm on "all metals" and not just ferrous metals. The miniscule amount of aluminum in a gum wrapper or cigarette package will set them off. So will the spring in an ordinary retractable plastic ballpoint pen. Or a USB memory stick. Or the various magnetic strips on cards in your wallet.
I deal with these hassles every day when I go to work.
Quote from: KBCraig on September 26, 2008, 10:38 AM NHFT
That depends on how they're programmed. Some are extremely sensitive, especially when set to alarm on "all metals" and not just ferrous metals. The miniscule amount of aluminum in a gum wrapper or cigarette package will set them off. So will the spring in an ordinary retractable plastic ballpoint pen. Or a USB memory stick. Or the various magnetic strips on cards in your wallet.
I deal with these hassles every day when I go to work.
I doubt the ones at a courthouse are that sensitive. But I don't really know.
As for whether or not stuff like this should be discussed; I don't believe them to be that competent.
Quote from: Giggan on September 25, 2008, 06:51 PM NHFT
There are disposable video cameras. They're a little too pricey to use consistantly, but I imagine ideal for these situations.
I hope you aren't purchasing a new one every time...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/419684/single_use_video_camera_hack_use_it_over_and_over/
Quote from: slim on September 26, 2008, 09:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 26, 2008, 08:36 AM NHFT
Posting on the forum ideas on how to evade detection is a good way to make sure they know exactly what to look for, no?
I guess. The feds would have to look for the guy in the suit going in to the fed courthouse just like all the other guys in suits going in to the fed courthouse. That is like having someone look for a needle in a haystack of needles.
Also by putting your ideas out there others can look at the idea and point out flaws or use them as a building block for another idea.
We were doing just that after the trial, talking about various methods of concealment—but in person, where there wasn't anyone around listening to us. Needless to say, the few ideas I thought were good and which I might try out I'm not going to post to a forum that the Feds
do read.
Anyone ever thought of using a hidden camera?
Is anyone interested in this? I'd consider doing it with only 2-3 cameramen.
I like the idea ... you could just leave with the tape when you are rejected and upload it later.
I will not be participating .... other than being filmed by you hooligans ;)
Quote from: miamiballoonguy on September 26, 2008, 04:47 PM NHFT
Anyone ever thought of using a hidden camera?
Don't be surprised if sometime, somewhere, someone may step up to you and say, "Oyez, oyez, you're on candid camera!"
i still think doing it today would be too half-cocked
you need a week to properly prepare a civil dis event like this and we only had a few days notice.
I am now proposing this idea be modified to Keene "district court" on 11/14 at 1:30p:
http://freekeene.com/2008/10/24/justice-burke-finds-cameras-disruptive/
Today i've been making some calls to the marshals, district court and the u.s. attny's office trying to get interviews about cases. they've mostly been pretty helpful, though we'll know more when I get answers from decision-makers.
This got me thinking maybe it would be good to try and go through their process for getting a camera in, if there is such a process. That seemed to work well with judge burke. I have no idea whether cameras are sometimes allowed in federal court with permission, maybe they are. if there is a process to go through , I usually think it's better to try and go through it before making it a civil dis issue. that way you can say you tried to follow their rules and are only fighting on the issue of "shining the light" rather than the issue of whether you accept their authority.
the former always gets more support than the latter.
I'm not super interested in playing court videographer usually , so this may be an endeavor others would wish to pursue.
anyway one battle at a time...i am not planning civil dis at the fedcourt unless they back me into a corner again or i successfully complete my little state/local civ dis campaign first. then we'll see where things stand.
The feds will not allow recording devices, period. I have asked.
It might be interesting to see which party (in any particular case) would appose a recording device in the court room if it were allowed.
Would the defence care for a fully public trial?
Who is the trial really for?
Maybe a question (to all parties) for the record: Would you be apposed to a fully public trial, as in recorded so that the public may see and hear what went on in the court room that day - while they had to be at work?