Bitcoin Roundup: Buy More With It, ATMs Spreading, Better than Credit Cards, China Has Reason to Fear It, Krugman Thinks It's Evil, Cowen Thinks It's Overpriced

Some stories and speculations from the Bitcoin beat:

•Attempts on the part of the Chinese government and banking
system to restrict free trade in Bitcoin is happening for a very
good reason, if you are the Chinese government,
Daily Reckoning points out
–for all the same reasons a
normal human being would love the cryptocurrency:

China tightly regulates all the money flowing in and out of the
country. You can’t just bring a bunch of cash into the country, in
part to prevent people from buying up the local currency (which is
generally believed to be deliberately suppressed). And China makes
it hard to get money out of the country as well….

Bitcoin offered/offers an even quicker way to get your money out
of the border. Buy 10,000 yuan work of bitcoins on a site like BTC
China, transfer those bitcoins to a wallet outside of the country,
and then sell those bitcoins in some new currency in a different
country. Voilà, your money is liberated!

•Supposedly great economist Paul Krugman thinks that Bitcoin,
because it has such rich opportunities for liberating money holders
from government control, is private, non-inflationary, has the
potential to damage the interest of government central banks, and
not backed by violence and force, is for all those reasons
obviously evil.

Bloomberg News reports that
merchants accepting Bitcoin
have tripled in number in the past
month.

Entrepreneur magazine on the spread to dozens of
countries, and competition in the market to make,
Bitcoin ATMs
.

• Timothy Lee in the Washington Post explains how use
of Bitcoin and Bitcoin like protocols
can solve the frustrating problems
of credit card companies
preventing you from making international transactions you want to
make because they suspect fraud. Like with anyone in the Internet
age still trying to make a living being a middleman, conventional
credit card companies should be a little nervous.

• Economist Tyler Cowen thinks that market competition in alt
currencies means the price of Bitcoin in dollars must plummet,

and plummet a lot
, down to approximately the marketing costs of
alt-coin competitors. Bob Murphy thinks his logic is similar to
saying that quarters
will outcompete dollars
in the market since you can get more of
them for less.


Reason on Bitcoin
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/31/bitcoin-roundup-buy-more-with-it-atms-sp
via IFTTT

Reason Staffers Point Out Good News For Freedom in 2013

happy new yorkFrom the backlash against zero tolerance to
advances in 3D printing, in many ways 2013 was a good year for
freedom and the libertarian moment. Ed Krayewski and other Reason
staffers highlight some of the good news for freedom that came out
of the year that was 2013.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/31/good-news-for-freedom-in-2013
via IFTTT

A.M. Links: NYC’s Mayor-Elect Planning To Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages, Russians Round Up Dozens After Bombings, Many Latvians Don’t Want To Adopt the Euro

  • New York City’s Mayor-Elect Bill
    de Blasio
     is planning to ban horse-drawn carriages, which
    he believes are inhumane.
  • Secretary of State
    John Kerry
    will present a “framework proposal” relating to
    peace talks to Israeli and Palestinian leaders later this
    week.
  • The journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has reported on Edward
    Snowden’s leaks, says that the
    NSA does not
    have access to in-flight communications.
  • Nearly
    half of Latvians
    oppose their country adopting the Euro, which
    it will do tomorrow.
  • U.S. population growth is at its
    slowest rate in over 70 years
    , with an increase of only 2.26
    million in the twelve months before July 1, 2013.
  • Russian authorities have
    rounded up dozens of people
    in the wake of the recent suicide
    bombings in the city of Volgograd.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7
content 
widgets for your
websites.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter,
and don’t forget to
 sign
up
 for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.


from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/31/am-links-nycs-mayor-elect-planning-to-ba
via IFTTT

Brian Doherty on Rehabilitating an Unusual Libertarian Heroine

Peter Bagge,
who has drawn comics in reason for over
a decade, is best known for his comic
books Hate and Neat Stuff. More
recently, he has taken a turn toward “graphic biography”
with Woman Rebel: The Margaret Sanger
Story
 (Drawn and Quarterly). Senior Editor Brian Doherty
interviewed Bagge by phone in October.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/31/brian-doherty-on-rehabilitating-an-unusu
via IFTTT

Brickbat: What Are You Laughing At?

A court in the
United Arab Emirates has sentenced Shezanne Cassim to one year in
prison and a fine of $2,700 for posting
a parody video
 to the Internet. Cassim’s video poked fun
at local youth who have adopted American hip hop style. Authorities
have refused to say exactly what law the video broke, but Cassim’s
family say he was charged with endangering national security.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/31/brickbat-what-are-you-laughing-at
via IFTTT

Tonight on The Independents: Penn Jillette! Benghazi! NSA! Nick Gillespie!

So big he couldn't fit in the picture. |||Tonight’s live episode of Fox Business
Network’s The
Independents
, which airs at 9 pm ET and then repeats again
at midnight, should be a doozy. First up will be famed entertainer,
bullshit-detector,
and all-around
awesome libertarian
Penn Jillette, who will talk about whether
the latest
New York Times reporting on Benghazi
changes the

free-speech ramifications of the case
. He’ll also riff on
retail recreational weed going legal this week, and whatever else
the hell Penn Jillette wants to talk about.

The noted illusionist. |||Next there’ll be talk about France’s
constitutional court approving President Francois Hollande’s bright
idea about taxing millionaires 75 percent, then a left-right panel
of Democratic Party strategist Julie Roginsky Mediaite
lacerator Noah
Rothman
duke it out over
dueling NSA court rulings
and the cutoff of
long-term federal unemployment benefits
. Somewhere in there
will be a discussion of Russia’s
pre-Olympics suicide bomb attacks
, and then wrapping it all up
a neat bow will be none other than Nick
Gillespie
.

Sounds like fun, right? Send your Twitter reviews to @IndependentsFBN
(#independents) and the best ones will be used on air.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/tonight-on-the-independents-penn-jillett
via IFTTT

Denver Airport Attempts to Fight Back Tide by Banning Marijuana Possession

It's also an ingenious way to guarantee return business!Marijuana tourism in
Colorado will see another complication before it kicks off
Wednesday:
Denver International Airport
doesn’t want to see any of your
bud or weed or whatever you kids are calling it these days. From
the Denver Post:

Denver International Airport will be the first city facility to
prohibit marijuana possession on all of its property as it attempts
to combat illegal interstate trafficking in the face of federal
law.

Airport officials plan to begin enforcing the new policy, which
is the furthest-reaching among the city’s marijuana limitations, in
early January.

Recently adopted city ordinances ban the display and transfer —
but not mere possession — of marijuana on city-owned property
including parks, the 16th Street Mall, streets and sidewalks near
schools.

“We talked to all of (the federal agencies involved), and
they’ve expressed concern for good reason, but it was our decision
based on the way the airport operates,” said Stacey Stegman, DIA
spokeswoman. “We didn’t want to impact other airports and other
agencies, and we didn’t want to facilitate transporting marijuana
across state lines.”

But apparently tokers shouldn’t worry too much:

And while the airport has decided to implement a zero-tolerance
marijuana policy, it doesn’t plan to actively enforce the
policy.

“It’s not like we are going to do checkpoints. We just want
people to comply,” Stegman said, noting that a violator would have
to be discovered by other means, such as committing a different
crime and having pot found in the perpetrator’s possession.

Well, then! But an important reminder: The airport’s rules have
absolutely no bearing on what the Transportation Security Agency
does if their agents discovery you with marijuana.

Read the full story
here
. Jacob Sullum explains what to expect in Colorado come
Wednesday here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7
.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the
widgets
here
. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at 
@reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/denver-airport-attempts-to-fight-back-ti
via IFTTT

Slate Wonders Why Libertarian Party Insists on Being Libertarian on Gay Rights Issues, Reveals Utter Ignorance of Party's History

Weird little piece up at Slate today, about an issue
certainly none of their readers or pretty much anyone else cares
about, but feeds a generic endless desire to scratch at the
persistently annoying itch of libertarianism in these here
times.

It is called “How
Libertarians Failed Gay Rights
” and its URL contains the phrase
“the party failed to take a stand” on gay rights. Its evidence for
this is that on the LP’s current website, author Tyler Lopez
couldn’t find a dedicated page about gay rights.

The Party’s platform
does,
though Lopez doesn’t mention this, contain this:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity
should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals,
such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration
or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to
define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting
adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
personal relationships.

Lopez’ very non-deep knowledge of his subject misses some other
things, like the long history of LP candidates speaking out about
gay rights as a pretty big deal, from Ed Clark’s 1978 California
governor’s race in which he ran hard against
the anti-gay Briggs Initiative
to Gary
Johnson in 2012
to
Andre Marrou in 1992
, and the interesting identity politics
fact that the Party’s first presidential candidate, John Hospers,
was gay, though not openly so in a modern sense. 

At the very convention where he got the Party’s
nomination, former Republican congressman and Defense of Marriage
Act author Bob Barr

had to denounce his own law
and insist he’d repeal it as
president.

Lopez also
misses the Party’s record
from the mid-’70s on of being way
ahead of the national curve in talking sense and laissez-faire when
it came to homosexuality.

This is summed up well in
Ralph Raico’s document
used by the LP during the 1976 Roger
MacBride campaign, “Gay
Rights: A Libertarian Approach
.” Some excerpts. Again, this was
used in the mid-’70s. Worth a longish look:

Since they partially share the heritage of Classical Liberalism,
democratic socialists and left-liberals have been much more helpful
to the cause of gay liberation. Much of the progress in recent
years in repealing laws in this area has been due to them. But too
often, even when they are more or less rational on the subject,
they are, either for reasons of temperament or politics, much too
timid….so many of them are generally in favor
of gay rights, but nearly all shy away from the right of homosexual
couples to adopt children, or even to have their unions legally
recognized. Moreover, their attitudes are often tainted by an
offensive, psychiatrically-rooted condescension: basically, a
these-people-are-sick-and-need-help-not-punishment approach….

And as for the run-of-the-mill liberal politicians, we have a
right to suspect the extent of their genuine tolerance. Consider,
for example, one of the more “liberal” of these men, Sergeant
Shriver (who was McGovern’s Vice Presidential candidate in 1972).
In a speech in Chicago to Mayor Daley’s precinct workers, on
October 24, 1972, Shriver whiningly complained of the unfair
attacks on McGovern in these terms: “And then they say that George
McGovern wants to give blanket amnesty to everybody—draft dodgers,
deserters, queers, kooks …” (New Your Times, November 12,
1972. Sec. 4—notice that, in his frenzy, Shriver does not even take
the trouble to make sense: “blanket amnesty to queers?”) I think
you and I have a good idea of the real feelings on homosexuals of
anyone likely to become the candidate for President of the
Democratic Party…..

With the Libertarian Party, unlike other political groups, there
was never any need laboriously to raise its consciousness on the
issue of gay liberation, nor to compel it, after long, drawn-out
battles, finally to concede the humanity and first class
citizenship of gay men and women. Instead, the Libertarian Party
was born believing in gay rights. The need to promote full freedom
of individual development for all persons is what led to the
formation of our Party; and the very first mention of us
in The New York Times (“New Party Makes a Debut
in Denver,” February 6, 1972) lists as
our first objective (even ahead of abolition of
the draft, amnesty for draft-evaders and deserters, private
ownership of gold, etc.): “Repeal of all criminal laws in which
there is no victim.”

Gay rights have been an issue in practically every major
Libertarian campaign since then, including John Hospers’ try for
the Presidency in 1972 (he did get one electoral vote, thus coming
in a close third to McGovern); Fran Youngstein’s campaign for Mayor
of New York; Jerry Tuccille’s try for Governor of New York in 1974;
and the 1975 bids of Ray Cunningham for Mayor of San Francisco, and
Dave Long for Mayor of Boston. It is also an integral part of the
campaign of Roger MacBride and David Bergland, our candidates for
President and Vice-President in 1976. At the Libertarian National
Convention in New York City, in August, 1975, at which MacBride and
Bergland were nominated, the following Platform planks were adopted
unanimously.

“We hold that only actions which infringe the rights of others
can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all federal,
state and local laws creating “crimes” without victims. In
particular, we advocate: … . (b) the repeal of all laws regarding
consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and
solicitation, and the immediate cessation of state oppression of
homosexual men and women, that at last they be accorded their full
rights as individuals … (e) the use of executive pardon to free all
those presently incarcerated for the commission of these
“crimes.”

We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging
armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct
does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for
the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously
assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from
military personnel files.”

Better than “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and in 1975. Dare
I suggest Lopez has no idea what he’s talking about?

More on how radical and how early the LP was on gay rights, a
long long time ago, from Raico:

During the Tuccille campaign in 1974, a position paper was
issued on the subject, composed by Mike James, Western New York
Libertarian and gay liberationist. It provide s the basis for the
position of the MacBride-Bergland ticket on the issue. Here is what
our national candidates in 1976 specifically favor and will promote
to the extent they can:

  • Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between
    adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would
    include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and
    solicitation, whether gay or straight.
  • Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the
    same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and
    privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual
    marriages.
  • An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment
    procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
  • An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the
    sexual preferences of individuals.
  • Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a
    justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors,
    lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
  • Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
  • Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be
    considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the
    child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
  • Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for
    denying the right of adoption.
  • Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government
    service, including particularly membership in the armed
    forces.
  • Release of all individuals presently detained or imprisoned for
    any victimless crime.

Even Lopez’s substantive critique amounts to a complaint
that the LP treats gay issues in a distinctly libertarian
way–worrying about how government power effects gays, not worrying
about private attitudes or treatment, which remain the business of
those who hold the attitudes or give the treatment.

To complain about that is not to complain that the LP isn’t
sufficiently pro-gay (and compared to who? The Democratic Party who

just last year got around
to getting gay marriage rights in its
platform, and which some research by colleague Ronald Bailey
indicates didn’t even mention eliminating sexual orientation
discrimination in the platform until 1984?) but that it is overly
libertarian.

Slate‘s piece combines confused thinking with near
utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and
carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people
think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/slate-wonders-why-libertarian-party-insi
via IFTTT

Slate Wonders Why Libertarian Party Insists on Being Libertarian on Gay Rights Issues, Reveals Utter Ignorance of Party’s History

Weird little piece up at Slate today, about an issue
certainly none of their readers or pretty much anyone else cares
about, but feeds a generic endless desire to scratch at the
persistently annoying itch of libertarianism in these here
times.

It is called “How
Libertarians Failed Gay Rights
” and its URL contains the phrase
“the party failed to take a stand” on gay rights. Its evidence for
this is that on the LP’s current website, author Tyler Lopez
couldn’t find a dedicated page about gay rights.

The Party’s platform
does,
though Lopez doesn’t mention this, contain this:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity
should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals,
such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration
or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to
define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting
adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
personal relationships.

Lopez’ very non-deep knowledge of his subject misses some other
things, like the long history of LP candidates speaking out about
gay rights as a pretty big deal, from Ed Clark’s 1978 California
governor’s race in which he ran hard against
the anti-gay Briggs Initiative
to Gary
Johnson in 2012
to
Andre Marrou in 1992
, and the interesting identity politics
fact that the Party’s first presidential candidate, John Hospers,
was gay, though not openly so in a modern sense. 

At the very convention where he got the Party’s
nomination, former Republican congressman and Defense of Marriage
Act author Bob Barr

had to denounce his own law
and insist he’d repeal it as
president.

Lopez also
misses the Party’s record
from the mid-’70s on of being way
ahead of the national curve in talking sense and laissez-faire when
it came to homosexuality.

This is summed up well in
Ralph Raico’s document
used by the LP during the 1976 Roger
MacBride campaign, “Gay
Rights: A Libertarian Approach
.” Some excerpts. Again, this was
used in the mid-’70s. Worth a longish look:

Since they partially share the heritage of Classical Liberalism,
democratic socialists and left-liberals have been much more helpful
to the cause of gay liberation. Much of the progress in recent
years in repealing laws in this area has been due to them. But too
often, even when they are more or less rational on the subject,
they are, either for reasons of temperament or politics, much too
timid….so many of them are generally in favor
of gay rights, but nearly all shy away from the right of homosexual
couples to adopt children, or even to have their unions legally
recognized. Moreover, their attitudes are often tainted by an
offensive, psychiatrically-rooted condescension: basically, a
these-people-are-sick-and-need-help-not-punishment approach….

And as for the run-of-the-mill liberal politicians, we have a
right to suspect the extent of their genuine tolerance. Consider,
for example, one of the more “liberal” of these men, Sergeant
Shriver (who was McGovern’s Vice Presidential candidate in 1972).
In a speech in Chicago to Mayor Daley’s precinct workers, on
October 24, 1972, Shriver whiningly complained of the unfair
attacks on McGovern in these terms: “And then they say that George
McGovern wants to give blanket amnesty to everybody—draft dodgers,
deserters, queers, kooks …” (New Your Times, November 12,
1972. Sec. 4—notice that, in his frenzy, Shriver does not even take
the trouble to make sense: “blanket amnesty to queers?”) I think
you and I have a good idea of the real feelings on homosexuals of
anyone likely to become the candidate for President of the
Democratic Party…..

With the Libertarian Party, unlike other political groups, there
was never any need laboriously to raise its consciousness on the
issue of gay liberation, nor to compel it, after long, drawn-out
battles, finally to concede the humanity and first class
citizenship of gay men and women. Instead, the Libertarian Party
was born believing in gay rights. The need to promote full freedom
of individual development for all persons is what led to the
formation of our Party; and the very first mention of us
in The New York Times (“New Party Makes a Debut
in Denver,” February 6, 1972) lists as
our first objective (even ahead of abolition of
the draft, amnesty for draft-evaders and deserters, private
ownership of gold, etc.): “Repeal of all criminal laws in which
there is no victim.”

Gay rights have been an issue in practically every major
Libertarian campaign since then, including John Hospers’ try for
the Presidency in 1972 (he did get one electoral vote, thus coming
in a close third to McGovern); Fran Youngstein’s campaign for Mayor
of New York; Jerry Tuccille’s try for Governor of New York in 1974;
and the 1975 bids of Ray Cunningham for Mayor of San Francisco, and
Dave Long for Mayor of Boston. It is also an integral part of the
campaign of Roger MacBride and David Bergland, our candidates for
President and Vice-President in 1976. At the Libertarian National
Convention in New York City, in August, 1975, at which MacBride and
Bergland were nominated, the following Platform planks were adopted
unanimously.

“We hold that only actions which infringe the rights of others
can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all federal,
state and local laws creating “crimes” without victims. In
particular, we advocate: … . (b) the repeal of all laws regarding
consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and
solicitation, and the immediate cessation of state oppression of
homosexual men and women, that at last they be accorded their full
rights as individuals … (e) the use of executive pardon to free all
those presently incarcerated for the commission of these
“crimes.”

We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging
armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct
does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for
the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously
assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from
military personnel files.”

Better than “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and in 1975. Dare
I suggest Lopez has no idea what he’s talking about?

More on how radical and how early the LP was on gay rights, a
long long time ago, from Raico:

During the Tuccille campaign in 1974, a position paper was
issued on the subject, composed by Mike James, Western New York
Libertarian and gay liberationist. It provide s the basis for the
position of the MacBride-Bergland ticket on the issue. Here is what
our national candidates in 1976 specifically favor and will promote
to the extent they can:

  • Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between
    adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would
    include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and
    solicitation, whether gay or straight.
  • Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the
    same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and
    privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual
    marriages.
  • An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment
    procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
  • An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the
    sexual preferences of individuals.
  • Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a
    justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors,
    lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
  • Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
  • Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be
    considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the
    child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
  • Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for
    denying the right of adoption.
  • Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government
    service, including particularly membership in the armed
    forces.
  • Release of all individuals presently detained or imprisoned for
    any victimless crime.

Even Lopez’s substantive critique amounts to a complaint
that the LP treats gay issues in a distinctly libertarian
way–worrying about how government power effects gays, not worrying
about private attitudes or treatment, which remain the business of
those who hold the attitudes or give the treatment.

To complain about that is not to complain that the LP isn’t
sufficiently pro-gay (and compared to who? The Democratic Party who

just last year got around
to getting gay marriage rights in its
platform, and which some research by colleague Ronald Bailey
indicates didn’t even mention eliminating sexual orientation
discrimination in the platform until 1984?) but that it is overly
libertarian.

Slate‘s piece combines confused thinking with near
utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and
carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people
think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/slate-wonders-why-libertarian-party-insi
via IFTTT

Oakland, CA Police Will Build City-Wide "Spy Center" With Surveillance Cameras, Maybe Drones

By the middle of next year, Oakland, California will likely have
a city-wide central surveillance center to monitor citizens at all
times. 

In a
6-1 vote
last month, the Oakland City Council agreed to
move forward with the creation of the Domain
Awareness Center
: a central surveillance hub for law
enforcement in one of the country’s
most dangerous cities
. The “spy center” will pull data from a
web of interconnected monitoring devices strewn throughout the city
and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

According to the Center
for Investigative Reporting
, the Domain Awareness Center
started as a federal anti-terrorism project for the Port of
Oakland, but is now expanding into a city-wide program.

The Domain Awareness Center, a joint project between the Port of
Oakland and city, started as a nationwide initiative to secure
ports by networking sensors and cameras in and around the
facilities. The busy port is one of seven U.S. maritime facilities
that the Department of Homeland Security considers at highest
risk of a terrorist attack
.

Since its inception in 2009, the project has ballooned into a
surveillance program for the entire city. Some officials already
have proposed linking the center to a regional Department of
Homeland Security intelligence-gathering operation or adding feeds
from surveillance cameras around the Oakland stadium and arena
complex.

The center will aggregate information from an array of existing
surveillance methods, including thousands
of security cameras
owned by the city and private businesses,
license plate readers, gun shot detectors, crime-mapping software,
and Twitter feeds. 

Oakland residents vigorously protested the Domain Awareness
Center, citing privacy concerns and a lack of trust in
police. 

Joshua Daniels, one of the speakers during a July city council
meeting,
said
the surveillance center would give significantly more
power to the police department, which he believes “doesn’t respect
the rights” of Oakland residents. 

“This city has a huge trust issue,” Daniels said, “and it’s not
going to be solved by spying on your citizens.”

West Oakland resident Magdalena Kazmierczak
agreed
, “I don’t want to live in a city that is testing
this giant surveillance system, because I believe it is going to be
used to criminalize normal existence.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and
the Electronic Frontier Foundation have also stated their
opposition to the center, on the grounds that there are no privacy
guidelines in place or limits on how much collected data the city
will retain. 

This is all happening in the same city where, earlier this year,
the county sheriff
proposed purchasing a drone
 that can virtually
see through walls
with infrared technology. The drone plan was

tabled
 following a series of complaints over privacy
concerns by groups like the ACLU and Alameda County Against Drones,
but it may be brought up again.

The Domain Awareness Center however, will almost certainly still
be constructed. Oakland will allocate
$10.9 million
in federal grant money to create the new center.
The city also plans to apply for an additional $2.6 million to
create several new law enforcement positions.  

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/oakland-ca-police-will-build-city-wide-s
via IFTTT