'Cinderella' files to trap crooks by their shoes

Criminals who leave footprints behind when committing crimes will be more likely to get caught from next month when a national database of footwear evidence is launched.

Police officers will be able to compare marks left by shoes and boots at crime scenes with records taken from those arrested on suspicion of previous offences.

The Footwear Intelligence Technology system - the first of its kind - will speed up the traditional linking of footprint evidence to individuals through a centralised computer base.

As well as using shoe types and sizes to identify suspects, it will also record information on the angle of footfall and weight distribution – solving the problem of suspects claiming to have lent their footwear to others.

Experts at the Forensic Science Service who are developing the database have called it "Cinderella analysis".

Partial or full footprints are thought to be left behind at close to 40 per cent of crime scenes and the markings are behind only DNA and blood as the most frequently collected evidence type.

~ read on... ~

 

Protecting Yourself From Suspicionless Searches While Traveling

From: Electronic Frontier Foundation

 

The Ninth Circuit's recent ruling (pdf) in United States v. Arnold allows border patrol agents to search your laptop or other digital device without limitation when you are entering the country. EFF and many civil liberties, travelers' rights, immigration advocacy and professional organizations are concerned that unfettered laptop searches endanger trade secrets, attorney-client communications, and other private information. These groups have signed a letter asking Congress to hold hearings to find out what protocol, if any, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) follows in searching digital devices and copying, storing and using travelers' data. The letter also asks Congress to pass legislation protecting travelers' laptops and smart phones from unlimited government scrutiny.

If privacy at the border is important to you, contact Congress now and ask them to take action!

In the meantime, how can international travelers protect themselves at the U.S. border, short of leaving their laptops and iPhones at home?

Many travelers practice security through obscurity. They simply hope that no border agent will rummage through their private data. Too many people enter the country each day for agents to thoroughly search every device that crosses the border, and there is too much information stored on most devices for agents to find the most revealing and confidential tidbits. But for travelers who may be targeted based on their celebrity, race or other distinguishing factor, obscurity is not an option. As last week's news that Microsoft is giving away forensic tools that can quickly search an entire hard drive on a USB "thumb drive" shows, it won't be long before customs agents can efficiently perform a thorough search on every machine. So long as there are no protocols or oversight for these searches, every traveler's personal information is at risk...

 

US arms to Pakistan both ‘big ticket’, terror related

From Pakistan Link :

 

Pentagon says military sales to Pakistan worth $4.55bn during 2002-07

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Major government-to-government arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included items useful for counter-terrorism operations, along with a number of "big ticket" platforms more suited to conventional warfare, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Not a great deal has changed since November 2007 except for the increased value of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for maritime patrol aircraft and the increased value of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) for F-16 armaments. Negotiations on Hawkeye AEW remain inconclusive. Military sales: In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases is made with Pakistani national funds. The Pentagon reports total FMS agreements with Pakistan worth $4.55 billion for finance years 2002-2007. In-process sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for about three-quarters of this figure. The United States also has provided Pakistan with nearly $1.6 billion in FMF since 2001, including scheduled FY2008 funds, with a "base programme" of $300 million per year beginning in FY2005. These funds are used to purchase US military equipment. The CRS said that Pakistan also had been granted US defence supplies as Excess Defence Articles (EDA). Major post-2001 defence supplies paid for with FMF include: eight P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and their refurbishment (valued at $474 million); about 5,250 TOW anti-armour missiles ($186 million); more than 5,600 military radio sets ($163 million); six AN/TPS-77 surveillance radars ($100 million, all delivered and in operation); six C-130E transport aircraft and their refurbishment ($76 million, all delivered and in operation); and 20 AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters granted under EDA, then refurbished ($48 million, 12 delivered, 8 pending refurbishment). The CRS said supplies paid for with a mix of Pakistani national funds and FMF include: up to 60 mid-life update kits for F-16A/B combat aircraft (valued at $891 million, with $108 million of this in FMF - Pakistan's current plans are to purchase 46 of these); and 115 M-109 self-propelled howitzers ($87 million, with $53 million in FMF). Notable items paid for entirely with Pakistani national funds include: 18 new F-16C/D Block 50/52 combat aircraft, with an option for 18 more (valued at $1.43 billion); F-16 armaments including 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; 1,450 2,000-pound bombs; 500 JDAM bomb tail kits; and 1,600 Enhanced Paveway laser-guided bomb kits ($667 million); 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles ($298 million, 70 delivered); 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles ($95 million, 300 delivered); and six Phalanx close-in naval guns ($80 million). The CRS said while the Pentagon has notified Congress to the possible transfer to Pakistan of three P-3B aircraft as EDA grants that would be modified to carry the E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning suite in a deal worth up to $855 million, negotiations have not progressed beyond the notification stage. If implemented, FMF could be used towards this purchase. Major EDA grants since 2001 include four F-16A/B combat aircraft (10 more such aircraft will be transferred to Pakistan as they become excess to the US Air Force) and 16 T-37 military trainer jets (20 more are pending). Under Coalition Support Funds (part of the Pentagon budget), Pakistan received 26 Bell 412 helicopters, along with related parts and maintenance, valued at $235 million.
Courtesy Daily Times

 

Harvard study shows positive impacts of Muslim hajj

From Middle East Online :

 

Study finds that Muslim pilgrimage experience promotes peace, harmony, women's rights.

HARVARD, Massachusetts – A study on the longer-term effect of participating in the Islamic pilgrimage found that Muslims communities have become more open in many ways after the Hajj experience.

The study, published by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, says that hajj – Muslim pilgrimage - urges equality and harmony.

"It increases belief in equality and harmony among ethnic groups and Islamic sects and leads to more favorable attitudes toward women, including greater acceptance of female education and employment," the study found.

Entitled 'Estimating the Impact of the Haj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam's Global Gathering', the study also found that the hajj experience promotes peaceful coexistence.

"Increased unity within the Islamic world is not accompanied by antipathy toward non-Muslims," stressed the Harvard study, adding that "Hajjis show increased belief in peace, and in equality and harmony among adherents of different religions."

The study, which was based on data from over 1,600 applicants to Pakistan's hajj visa allocation lottery in 2006, can be downloaded here.

The hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam that Muslims are expected to perform at least once in their lives if they have the means to do so.

Freedom to Protest: What Does the Proposed Repeal of Sections 132-38 of SOCPA Really Mean?

It seems another consultation on our freedom to assemble and protest is on its way. The House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights has just launched a 'Call for Evidence' in order 'to enquire into the human rights issues arising from policing and protest'. These are some of the questions asked:

• What limits, if any, should be placed on the right to protest and why?

• Should specific limitations be placed on the ability of certain groups to protest? If so, who and why?

• Should the right to protest be more strictly curtailed in relation to certain geographical areas? If yes, where, why and what limits would be acceptable?

• The Government proposes to repeal sections 132-8 SOCPA dealing with protest around Parliament and invites Parliament to consider whether additional provision is needed to ensure that Parliament's work is not disrupted by protests in Parliament Square. What, if any, additional provision is required?

• In what circumstances would it be permissible for the State to take pre-emptive action, which curtailed protests?

• Are existing police powers necessary? Are more or fewer required?

• Are counter-terrorism powers appropriately used in the policing of protests?

• In what circumstances may actions during protests be justifiably criminalised?

• How should the balance be struck between the rights of protesters and other competing interests (such as the rights of others or the prevention of disorder or crime)? Would legislative changes be desirable to strike a better balance between competing rights, or is the current legislative framework about right?

This talk of 'legislative changes' might be the first step for new policies that will allow for a further criminalisation of certain groups who are now protesting against the State and its criminal actions inside and abroad [1]. The introduction of a new set of restrictive laws regarding protest will send a clear message to protesters: "Stay at home and shut up or you might end up in prison". This remains to be seen.

Whether the intention of this consultation is to introduce more draconian legislation or not, the consultation itself should not be conducted in the first place. Our freedoms should never be put to consultation or to a vote, regardless whether a majority votes for or against them. Consultations of this type are just an attempt to give a democratic look to a very undemocratic practice: the removal of individuals' freedoms and rights by the State. It perpetuates the misleading assumption that democracy is based on the rule of the majority. The Italian and German experiences from the 1930s tell us that that is definitely not the case.

 

~ read on... ~