A dress rehearsal for clamping down

As Chicago prepares for the NATO summit this weekend I'm left with one little nagging question - why does NATO still exist?

The meeting is an exercise in just what the police and law enforcement can get away with before the people stand up and say that enough is enough. Police are seeking to place as much of the city in "lock down" as possible in order to shut down planned protests. No one will be allowed on a city bus or train with a backpack, bike, food or drink. Passengers will not be able to carry a bag more than 15 inches by 15 inches. Anyone on a bus or train will be subjected to warrantless searches.

Of course the state security apparatus places the blame for the security crackdown on protesters - nevermind that the city decided to allow this meeting to occur in the Windy City. The very last thing we can have is a bunch of long haired-types marching around with signs making folks think about what's going on. And, given the current state of the War on the Constitution Terrorism, we must bring up the specter of terrorism in order to   justify this attack on the Bill of Rights. After all, most of the lemmings will gladly sign over their freedoms if the state tells them that's the price of security.

But, back to the main point...

NATO was created during the height of the Cold War as a military tool for the capitalist nations of the West to counter the Soviet Union. NATO was used to suppress uprisings by leftist forces around the world. In 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed and the "threat" that NATO was created to counter vanished. But the military body continues to exist and is now used to provide political cover for the U.S. and its allies when Western countries intervene in the affairs of Third World countries such as Afghanistan.

Much as their are way too many law enforcement agencies operating in Harris County, there are too many armies operating around the world. NATO is an example of the enduring power of bureaucracy. There is no need for NATO, but still it exists without a mission.

And now this obsolete organization is being used as the excuse for clamping down on the Constitutional rights of protesters and citizens in Chicago.

Talk back to METRO about the TSA

Once again it's time to voice your displeasure toward METRO's decision to ask TSA to send agents down to harass bus and rail passengers. During their time here last month, TSA agents kept their agency's perfect record in the War on the Constitution Terrorism. To date TSA has yet to detect one terrorist at any airport, bus station or train station in these United States.

The meeting will be held at 9am in the 2nd floor boardroom at METRO headquarters located at 1900 Main Street in downtown Houston.

A convenient leak

Bad economic news.

Race for Republican nomination down to one.

Growing discontent over the security state.

Must be time for another terrorist plot to be uncovered and leaked to the media.

Oh, but am I being too cynical about the timing of this story about how a plot was uncovered to use an advanced underwear bomb to blow up an airliner? A bomb that could not be detected at an airport security check. According to American intelligence sources there was never any danger of the bomb being used on a plane. The would-be bomber was a Saudi double agent who had infiltrated al Qaeda.

So let's get this straight. TSA has effectively made airports a 4th Amendment-free zone. Would-be passengers are forced to choose between a full-body scan that may or may not expose folks to potentially dangerous levels of radiation or a friendly pat-down from the government's own hired pervert. And yet, despite these measures that have seen Americans acting like lemmings, a person could have walked right onto the plane with Underwear Bomb 2.0?

The story was leaked to convince Americans that we must continue to cede our privacy and our liberty to agents of the state for our own protection. The story was leaked to convince Americans that the war on everything terror is being won. The story was leaked to convince Americans how important it is to have the TSA intruding upon our private lives. The story was leaked to convince Americans that it's more important to trade our freedom for security than it is to provide jobs for the unemployed.

All of the security measures at the airports are fighting yesterday's attack. Unless we're going to have people traveling naked, there will never be a way to make the airlines perfectly safe. We can sacrifice all the freedom in the world but it will never buy us complete security.

And who is left to question any of this? The mainstream media is too busy falling over itself to sell the government's story. There are no critical voices left except for those deemed on the fringe. Our liberty is being taken away piece by piece and no one questions the actions of the state. The media, who used to be our watchdog, is now a lapdog controlled by corporate interests who are more interested in jacking up advertising rates than in acting as a check on the power of the state.

We get what we deserve.

We'd never sacrifice freedom for security, would we?

Was Mohammed Merah part of a global al-Qaeda conspiracy to subvert the west or was he a nut job with a firearm? Since he was shot dead by French police last week in Toulouse we will never know the real answer to that question.

However, being that there's an election brewing in France, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has wasted no time proclaiming that Mr. Merah was but the first wave of Islamic terrorists coming to bring down the Republic. And, as is par for the course when confronting such a dangerous threat, the first thing the state must do is clamp down on the civil liberties and freedoms of the citizenry. I mean, let's be real, we mustn't allow the public to say and do things that might be disagreeable to the "right-thinking" citizens of France.

Mr. Sarkozy has proposed that the government make it a crime for an individual to consult a website that promotes terrorism or racism or hatred. Such restrictions are nothing new in France. It is against the law in France to promote racial hatred or to deny the Holocaust (and don't forget speech denying that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians).

Who defines what promoting terrorism is? It may be trite, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Must one consult with the French Foreign Ministry before surfing the web to make certain you aren't clicking through to a website promoting rebellion against some French-supported government on the other side of the world?

What would this restriction mean for students and scholars? Will the French police compile a list of websites that are off-limits to the citizenry? And how would anyone know who visited the website? You might be able to narrow it down to a computer or a small wireless network, but without a confession how would you prove that Jacques clicked through to the al-Qaeda website or took a look at the al-Qaeda Twitter feed (what, you mean the SEO folks haven't gotten through to Osama bin Laden's successor about getting them on the first page)?

Mr. Sarkozy would also make it illegal for people to travel abroad for "terrorist indoctrination." And just what the hell does that even mean? The only difference between a peaceful protester and a terrorist, after all, is someone with a little more firepower than a rock. Again, would Mr. Sarkozy only throw those folks in jail who didn't consult with the government about whom it's alright to protest against? And how would that work for French soldiers training under a foreign flag in another country battling an internal rebellion (or whatever the hell is going on in Afghanistan)?

He also proposes banning "militant Muslim preachers" from entering the country. I guess that means it's okay for militant Christian and Jewish religious leaders to spout their right-wing theories across the French countryside. And what makes a preacher "militant?" Would that be someone who is uncompromising, who raises his voice or someone whose view of the world differs from the government's "official" version?

Mr. Sarkozy, I don't know how to break this to you, but you just can't stop the flow of information anymore. The internet, satellite television and radio and cell phones have pretty much made that the modern-day equivalent of tilting at windmills. I get the fact you're losing at the polls and that you need something, anything, to get people's minds off of how little you've accomplished. Sowing the seeds of hate and fear is a time-honored political tactic. Hell, George W. Bush practically wrote the 4th Amendment out of existence in the post-9/11 hysteria.

Working in a data mine

So you think there's such a thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy anymore? If you do, James Bamford has some news for you.

In the current issue of Wired magazine, Mr. Bamford explores the new data mining facility being constructed by the NSA in a Utah desert and the world's fastest supercomputer housed in the Smokey Mountains in Tennessee. He also paints a haunting picture of just how much information our own government is collecting on its own citizens.

But “this is more than just a data center,” says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the program. The mammoth Bluffdale center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed. It is also critical, he says, for breaking codes. And code-breaking is crucial, because much of the data that the center will handle—financial information, stock transactions, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, legal documents, confidential personal communications—will be heavily encrypted. According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.” 

In its never-ending quest to keep us safe from some unnamed enemy, the government has instituted a program by which the NSA is intercepting every telephone call, email, internet search, e-purchase and toll tag receipt in an attempt to data map the entire United States.


The facility being built in the Utah desert will be five times the size of the US Capitol. Its warehouses will store an ungodly amount of raw data that its supercomputers will sift through for patterns that will allow the NSA to decrypt encrypted messages and attempt to predict what the supposed terrorists will be up to next.

Of course the NSA's track record has been pretty abysmal. Despite their budget and high tech goodies, the NSA failed to predict either of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole or the bombings of embassies in East Africa. But, what the hell, let's give them a few more billion dollars and lift the ban on domestic spying and see what they can do.

Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy. 

Through agreements with AT&T and Verizon, the NSA collects data at switches across the United States. A special thanks should be due to all the iPhone and iPad users for their contribution to domestic spying.

The data mining raises questions about the fate of the Fourth Amendment as such an operation will render the reasonable expectation of privacy test all but moot. Los federales will be recording your phone calls, text messages and e-mails. The only safe avenues of communication will be face-to-face and by the old fashioned letter. If you know your communications are being captured, you can't say with a straight face that your expectation of privacy was reasonable.

More disturbing is the effect on lawyer-client confidentiality. Your phone calls with your client will be sitting in a database somewhere in Utah along with your email correspondence. And don't forget that supposedly secure remote teleconferencing you've been using. The all-knowing eye in the sky knows all.

You wanted the government to keep you safe from any potential danger anywhere in the world, no matter how remote or unlikely. Now you've got it. You traded your freedom for security. How does it feel? Somewhere along the line we've forgotten that the government is supposed to work for us. Instead, we have a government that's spying on us.

As Billy Joel once sang "This is what you wanted ain't you proud? / 'Cause everybody loves you now."

Just another excuse to profile

The New York City Police have taken racial profiling to a higher level, courtesy of our tax dollars.

And now that the truth has come to light, los federales are scrambling for cover. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the Justice Department will investigate the activities of the NYPD - after giving lawmakers the impression that such an investigation was already underway.

According to an exhaustive investigation by the Associated Press, the NYPD carried out a years-long surveillance program targeting Muslims, with funding provided by the CIA. The police compiled a database of where Muslims lived, where they shopped, where they prayed and where they watched sports. The police even compiled information on Muslims living outside the city in New Jersey and on Long Island.

"I don't know even if the program as it has been described in the news media was an appropriate way to proceed, was consistent with the way in which the federal government would have done these things," said Holder, who was born in the Bronx and described New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly as a personal friend. "I simply just don't know the answers to those questions at the beginning stages of this matter."

Because, Mr. Holder, the fact that someone prays to a god named Allah means that they must immediately come under suspicion by the state. Los federales have used 9/11 as the excuse for a campaign to deny Muslims of their civil liberties for way too long.

At the NYPD, however, such monitoring was common, former police officials said. Federal law enforcement officials told the AP that the mosque itself was never under federal investigation and they were unaware the NYPD was monitoring it so closely. According to secret police files obtained by the AP, the NYPD instructed its officers to watch the mosque and, as people came and went from the Friday prayer service, investigators were to record license plates and photograph and videotape those attending. The file offered no evidence of criminal activity. 

The FBI also would be prohibited from keeping police files on innocuous statements that imams made during sermons, which the NYPD did. In addition, the FBI would not be allowed to keep police files on Muslim students for discussing academic conferences online and would not be allowed to build databases of Americans who changed their names to ones sounding Arabic, which the NYPD did.

Funny, but I don't recall white Christians coming under suspicion after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Most of our home-grown terrorists happen to be white folks who go to Protestant churches.

Are the police tracking down where they live, work, shop and pray?

But,.wait, you say. How can we figure out who the violent white Christians are and who the "normal" ones are? We can't possibly follow them all around and track where they go and who they see. But those Muslims, you see, they look different. We can figure out who they are.

H/T Democracy Now!

First they came for the (alleged) terrorists...

On Tuesday the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to put the rule of law ahead of fear-mongering and politics -- and failed spectacularly.

By a vote of 61-37 the Senate defeated an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would remove three troubling provisions that have raised the spectre of a presidential veto. The bill, if passed, would allow the U.S. to hold those suspected of involvement with terrorism - including US citizens - indefinitely without charge. In other words, forget about that American concept of innocent unless proven guilty; if los federales suspect you're involved in terrorism, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

The bill would also require civilian law enforcement to turn over anyone suspected of terrorist activities into military custody. The bill would also place further restrictions on the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo who were cleared of all charges.

Holding a suspect indefinitely without bringing charges makes a complete mockery out of our criminal (in)justice  system. Without being informed of the specific charges against him, an inmate can't muster a legal defense and his right to a speedy trial is taken away. The very notion of indefinite detention should make us all shudder - but it won't. After all, who's going to raise a stink about someone accused of plotting to blow up a building? He's not a person, he's a terrorist. He has no rights.

But once you've demonized one group of defendants, it makes it easier to demonize the next group. And who will that be? And who will stand up to challenge the state then?

Liberty is a funny creature. We all have the right to be left alone by our government. But, at the same time, that means we can't be protected from every possible threat out there. It's a trade-off we make. The more freedom and liberty you have, the less security you get. And vice versa.

What's more important to you?

When we allow the government to take away our rights - no matter how tangentially - we are allowing the fox into the hen house. There will always be a rationale. C'mon, these are really, really bad people.

It's happened to the Fourth Amendment. Where once we were protected against unreasonable search and seizure, today it's little more than a piece of paper. In the name of security and efficiency we have allowed one of our most important freedoms to be whittled away to nothing.

Today it's suspected terrorists. Who will it be tomorrow?

I'll take a little cheese with my whine, please

Now, if I might be permitted the indulgence of a little whine...

I coach youth soccer. This is the fifth year I've coached a team of kids six years old or under. I am also the soccer commissioner at the church my daughters attend. I volunteer my time to get the fields ready to play, to run registration and to organize teams (14 this season).

The past few weeks I have been attempting to run a law practice, be a good husband to a wife who watched her father die and get things ready for the upcoming soccer season.

Along the way I have to deal with parents who want their little angels on the same team with their BFF's. I have to deal with coaches who aren't willing to split teams up in order to field enough teams to ensure kids have adequate playing time. I have to recruit parents to volunteer a couple of hours a week so we have enough coaches for the teams. And I have to arrange practice times so that we don't end up with two teams on the same field at the same time.

When I was a kid playing soccer we didn't request whose team we wanted to be on. We signed up and were assigned to a team. You might know some of the kids on the team and you might not know others. In the end you made some new friends.

The first year my oldest daughter played she knew one other kid on her team. She made friends with the other kids and has been playing soccer with some of them for the past three years. She did fine. She never complained that so-and-so wasn't on her team. She just went out and played.

But apparently the notion that kids can play with other kids they don't know and, not only survive, but make new friends, is a bit out there for some parents today. They get upset if their child isn't on the same team as their best friend or their classmates. They get upset if the guy down the street isn't the coach. It would be one thing if it were just a couple of parents - that I could handle with ease. But no. It seems that everyone walks around thinking the entire program needs to revolve around them and their kid's need to play only with their friends or classmates.

How does such behavior do any of the kids any good? When they go to school they will be placed in classes at random. They won't get to sit next to their best friend. Heaven forbid they have to sit next to someone who's different than they are.

Athletics, like school, is as much about socialization as it is anything else. Sure, by the end of the year the kids will have developed just a little bit more as soccer players. But they will also have developed a better sense of sportsmanship and what it means to be on a team. And, at this early age, that's far more important that whether their team wins or not.

Everyone wants their kids to live in an antiseptic bubble. Well, guess what. The world ain't like that. Kids scrape their knees, they fall off their bike, they get dirty, they get scared. And, through it all, they mature and learn how to cope with adversity and disappointment. They learn to rely on their own intuition and skill.

I guess we could baby them all and let them grow up to become little lemmings that just accept it when the government decides it's time to take away another freedom in the name of greater security. And you wondered what ever happened to the Fourth Amendment.

Smile! You're on Big Brother TV!

The City of Houston is installing 250 to 300 video cameras throughout downtown to (pause) fight terrorism. Apparently those mean-spirited terrorists like to conduct dry runs of their dastardly acts, and the presence of cameras at downtown intersections will deter them from doing so. Of course I'm not thinking the baddies were planning on walking up and down the streets carrying signs or wearing shirts that say "I'm a Terrorist!"

The cameras have helped the police nab a few folks breaking into cars parked downtown -- which, I will readily admit, is a bigger risk for those of us living in Houston than baddies with bombs.

The problem, as I see it, is the further expansion of governmental power. Now I understand that many Republicans and Tea Partiers and the like all say they're for limited government - and I'm fairly certain that they mean limited government when it comes to los federales telling people or businesses how to spend their money. They certainly aren't for limited government when it comes to funding the war machine, increasing the numbers of Americans behind bars or under court supervision or civil liberties.

The same folks who claim the government cannot be trusted to be in charge of health care (can't say I disagree too much with that) have no qualms about giving the government carte blanche to do what it thinks is best to combat terrorism.

How much intrusion is enough?

How paranoid do we have to be?

The world was a dangerous place long before 9/11. It just so happened that terrorism was something that happened to "those folks" over there. Well, except for the Oklahoma City bombing. Of course that didn't occur on live television in the glitz and glam of New York City.

Those who are fighting the war on terrorism are fighting the last war. Every new "security" measure is designed to prevent something that has already happened. Unfortunately, those who wish to do harm will find a way to do it. Tougher laws and longer sentences certainly haven't stopped folks from breaking the law.

Focusing on symbols

A Lee County (MS) judge jailed Oxford (MS) attorney Danny Lampley when Mr. Lampley declined to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevermind that Mr. Lampley stood during the pledge and made no effort to draw attention to himself.

What's next in northern Mississippi, loyalty oaths?

As attorneys we have pledged to uphold the laws of the land and to defend the Constitutions of our states and our country. To jail anyone because they don't recite the Pledge of Allegiance is absurd.

I don't pledge my allegiance to a flag. In the courtroom I will fight tooth and nail for what few protections remain for the accused. A flag is merely a symbol. When we start to venerate symbols instead of what's behind the symbol, then we lose perspective. When we lose sight of what the flag stands for then it's that much easier to take away our protections against the mighty power of the state.

You can burn or otherwise destroy a symbol, but that doesn't affect what stands behind that symbol. Through our neglect and nonchalance, however, we can allow the Constitution to erode and become nothing more than words on paper.

Violations of the Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not mere technicalities that allow criminals to go free - they are assaults on our civil liberties and should not be tolerated. If we just sit on our hands and do nothing then one day we will wake up and wonder where our freedoms went. Our reasonable expectation of privacy is vanishing rapidly because we have allowed the government to poke its head into our private business in the name of national security. Next up for los federales - back doors to encrypted data sent via cell phone or internet.

To all my brothers and sisters who fight for the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights no matter the odds and no matter how hard the fight, I thank you. What we do on a daily basis is so much more important than reciting a pledge.

Be careful what you write, the feds may be watching

We all know that whatever we post out there in the aether of cyberspace will be around forever. But now we have an even bigger reason to be careful when we hit the "send" button. The Obama administration is looking to make it that much easier for the FBI to force ISP's to hand over records of your internet activity - all without the requirement of that pesky little warrant.

As it is, the FBI can force an ISP to turn over records of an individual's internet use through the use of a national security letter. An ISP receiving a NSL must provide the FBI with name and address of the account holder, length of service and toll billing records. The letter also requires the ISP to keep the government's request secret. Now los federales are seeking to add electronic communication transactional records to the list of items covered by the NSL.

Proponents of the bill claim that the addition only clarifies the information the FBI is entitled to through use of a national security letter. Only one problem, there is no definition for what an electronic communication transactional record is.

Los federales portray this as akin to the government obtaining the phone records of an individual; but without a definition for what these records are, it seems to me closer to wiretapping. Of course we hear the standard line that the government must have this power because the world is a dangerous place and law enforcement must be able to act quickly to quash terrorist plots on American soil. The only problem is sacrificing liberty in the name of security is a one-way street. Once you've given up your freedom -- you never get it back.

See also:

"The giving ISP: White House wants to ensure quick and easy warrantless FBI snooping" Citizen Media Law Project (Aug. 2, 2010)

Interview with a vampire

Early warning radar indicates that vampires may be descending on New Orleans this Memorial Day Weekend. These vampires are thought to be driving patrol cars and wearing uniforms with shiny badges. Motorists are warned to be on the lookout for vampires while driving the streets of Jefferson Parish.

Jefferson Parish prosecutors aren't even making an attempt to pretend their plan is anything less than another assault on civil liberties.

When suspected DWI offenders are brought into the lockup over Memorial Day weekend, if they refuse to take the breath test, a judge will be ready to review evidence and sign off on a search warrant, giving officials the authority to draw blood from the suspect regardless of whether they agree.

Although no one is credited with making that statement, it is pretty clear from the article that Norma Broussard of the DA's Office is the source. Note that the judge isn't there to review the evidence to determine if there was reasonable suspicion to stop or probable cause to arrest, the judge is there to sign off on a warrant so that police can draw blood forcibly from motorists accused of committing a misdemeanor one step up from a traffic ticket.

And why do Jefferson Parish prosecutors want blood? Because they want to make it easier to infringe upon the freedom and liberty of their fellow citizens. If judges and juries want blood or breath tests, then by golly, we're going to give it to them -- civil liberties be damned.

Welcome to the jungle

This is your war on drugs. This is your war on civil liberties. This is your war on the Constitution. This is your war on your fellow citizens.

What you see on this video isn't an aberration. It's what goes on, in one form or another, every day in this country.

I'm fairly certain that if you read the offense report it won't leave quite the same image in your mind as this video will.

This should be required viewing for every judge who sits and decides whether the police acted reasonably or not in a given situation. This is what happens when you say it's okay to infringe upon our civil liberties in the name of security.

See also:

"Video of SWAT raid on Missouri family," The Agitator.com (May 5, 2010)
"SWAT team endangers child, parents charged with child endangerment," Reason.com (February 27, 2010)

Let's go and round up a posse

There's a new tool out there to help you protect your children against nefarious types in your neighborhood and its called FelonSpy.

According to the website, FelonSpy is:

a small group of dedicated community activists who are committed to making sure that you do not fall victim to any crime, not rape, murder, robbery or even petty theft. We help because we can and we care because we have all been victims of crimes ourselves, and by all that is holy by the grace of God, we’ll do everything we can to keep you safe.

We are former law enforcement officers, information technologists land developers and community leaders, all of whom have given up our posts in pursuit of this noble, sometimes misunderstood quest to label the underbelly of society by their actions.

This merry band of do-gooders has set about to track down everyone in the US with a criminal record.

We track virtually everyone with a criminal record including sex offenders, ex-cons (felony and misdemeanor), and those guilty of some of the more serious traffic infractions. You have the right to know who your neighbors are. We hope to track persons accused of crimes but acquitted in the future, but at this time we do not have sufficient funding to expand our database that far.

Ask too many questions and who knows, we might be tracking you next.

Apparently someone over at FelonSpy doesn't understand that a person is innocent unless proven guilty. Just because a person has been arrested doesn't mean they did anything wrong and this cavalier attitude that being accused is tantamount to being convicted does a disservice to everyone.

And what's up with that little threat at the end? Does it mean that anyone who questions FelonSpy's motives is a criminal?

And then there's this gem about the "obstacles" they face in updating the information on the website:

We hope to continue rolling out coverage city by city, state by state and nation by nation, but there are many places where we run in to obstacles. Some of these obstacles are “legal challenges” from the likes of attorneys, courthouses, law enforcement, those A-Holes at the ACLU and “the law” in general.

The website claims it doesn't encourage vigilantism, but how about this blurb from the main page?

You deserve to know where felons are and should have access to free public criminal background check systems. Remember, safety starts with good information, even if it ends with a loaded .44 caliber pistol. While FelonSpy.com can’t help you get a gun, we can certainly help you figure out which direction to point it in.

But then they issue the following disclaimer on another page:

Our data is not guaranteed, nor “official”, nor legally binding. Still, I think you know it’s pretty good, because it is. You can see how much work we dedicated to making it right, so we’re pretty solid, but not “guaranteed”.

You should never use this site as cause to be a vigilante, even if you have been a victim and have a good 30-oz bat or unregistered firearm handy. Everyone loves a hero, there is no denying that, but if you rely on government records to put your hit-list together, it’s going to come back around to bite you in the butt every time, no thanks to “the man”. Use the database collection from this site instead as a general guideline and nothing more, and that’s our “disclaimer” (wink, wink).

Who runs FelonSpy? According to Whois Source, the registrant for that domain is something called USCCFF out of Atlanta, Georgia.

Registrant:
USCSFF
4519 Country Trails Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30309
US
(404) 812 3345

Domain Name: FELONSPY.COM

Administrative Contact:
Petterson, Frank
4519 Country Trails Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30309
US
(404) 812 3345

Technical Contact:
Petterson, Frank
4519 Country Trails Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30309
US
(404) 812 3345

Interestingly enough, our intrepid Mr. Petterson is also the registrant for the pit bull fighting site, puppyprofits.com (I won't provide a link to the site due to its subject matter).