Aftermath News

Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

Obama ended up voting for the final bill

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California civil rights organization, intends to challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provision.

Associated Press | Jul 9, 2008

By PAMELA HESS

WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Opponents assailed the eavesdropping program, asserting that it imperiled citizens’ rights of privacy from government intrusion. But Bush said the legislation protects those rights as well as Americans’ security.

“This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they’re saying and what they’re planing,” he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote.

The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to protect from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed, and all are pending before a single U.S. District court.

Numerous lawmakers had spoken out strongly against the no-warrants eavesdropping on Americans, but the Senate voted its approval after rejecting amendments that would have watered down, delayed or stripped away the immunity provision.

The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

“This president broke the law,” declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court’s authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the secret program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter compared the Senate vote to buying a “pig in a poke.”

But Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., one of the bill’s most vocal champions, said, “This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters.”

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote.

Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The bill tries to address concerns about the legality of warrantless wiretapping by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

The measure effectively dismisses about 40 lawsuits that have been bundled together. But at least three other lawsuits against government officials will go forward.

In one of those cases last week, a judge decided that surveillance laws trumped the government’s claim that state secrets were imperiled by the lawsuit. However, the judge said the plaintiff could not use classified government documents it had accidentally received to prove it was subjected to illegal eavesdropping. It must instead use unclassified information to show it was wiretapped without court approval. FISA makes provisions for the use of secret evidence once a case is accepted.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California civil rights organization, intends to challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provision.

Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was “a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy.”

Scotsman | Jul 6, 2008

By Murdo MacLeod

KILLER robots which can change their shape to squeeze under doors and through cracks in walls to track their prey are moving from the realms of science fiction to the front line in the fight against terrorism.

The US military has signed a £1.6m deal with a technology firm to design robots which are intelligent enough to work out how to wiggle through small spaces to reach their target.

The action film, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, featured a seemingly un-stoppable killer robot played by Robert Patrick. The machine was made from liquid metal and could change its form to slide under doors and walk through iron bars.

America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) and the Army Research Office has awarded the contract to iRobot, which has developed other robots for the military.

They want scientists to come up with a design for a tiny robot able to move under its own power and change shape so it can get through gaps less than half an inch wide.

The US administration has not said what it wants the robot to do but
its specification says: “Often the only available points of entry are small openings in buildings, walls, under doors, etc. In these cases, a robot must be soft enough to squeeze or traverse through small openings, yet large enough to carry an operationally meaningful payload.”

In an effort to inspire creative ideas, the US military has pointed to examples in nature of creatures which are able to squeeze through narrow gaps and change their form.

Helen Greiner, co-founder and chairwoman of iRobot, said: “Through this programme, robots that reconstitute size, shape and functionality after traversal through complex environments will transcend the pages of science fiction to become real tools for soldiers in theatre.”

But Scottish-based experts believe the challenge may be too much even for the US military’s budgets and technology.

Mike Cates, professor of physics at Edinburgh University, said: “There are materials which can change their shapes and then regain them. There are alloys, known as memory metals, which are used in glasses and which can regain their shape. The difficulty in this case is all the other elements which need to be added to a device such as this, such as the circuitry and some form of system to propel it.”

Brian Baglow, of technology firm Indoctrimat, said: “As well as designing the materials for this, the sensor systems will be a problem. It’s not easy for them to work out where the gaps are which they can get through.”

Under western eyes: US authorities are leaning on European governments for personal information about their citizens

Daily Mail | Jul 5, 2008

By  David Rose

Dutch Liberal MEP Sophie In’t Veld was becoming irritated. Whenever she tried to board a flight in America – something she does several times each year  – she was delayed by special security checks, subjected to questioning, additional searches of her bags and screening for explosives.

‘No one has ever accused me of involvement with terrorism or organised crime,’ In’t Veld said. ‘So I tried to discover why I was being singled out.’

Security expert In’t Veld, 41, wrote to three US government departments – State, Justice and Homeland Security – asking what they had on her in their files.

She especially wanted to know whether she had unjustly been deemed ‘high-risk’ under a scheme known as ATS, the Automated Targeting System.

It is a secret computer database whose conclusions can, under American law, be shared with a wide range of US and foreign government agencies and in some cases, employers.

Despite invoking America’s Freedom of Information Act, In‘t Veld got nowhere. Last week, she filed a US lawsuit, the first of its kind, demanding access to her records.

‘They say there are means of redress if US agencies hold damaging but inaccurate information about you,’ she said. ‘They don’t seem to work.’

Her case comes at a critical juncture. Since the start of this year, operating almost entirely beneath the public radar, the US Government has been making a concerted, multi-faceted push for unrestricted access to vast volumes of personal data held by governments on this side of the Atlantic.

What the US is after goes far beyond the ability to make requests case by case. They seek the ability to go on electronic fishing expeditions among British and other European databases held by law enforcement, immigration, financial and other official bodies – without even having to inform the databases’ custodians, let alone their subjects.

Some of this information – misleading police intelligence reports based on malicious hearsay, for example – might well turn out to have much more serious consequences than whatever titbit is responsible for inconveniencing Ms In’t Veld at airports.

Theoretically, it could lead to the extradition of British subjects to face criminal trial in America on the basis of unverified information derived from UK files, even in cases where authorities in Britain do not consider prosecution justified.

The 2003 Extradition Act has already made American extradition requests effectively immune to legal challenge, by removing any need for a prima facie case.

Last week Statewatch, the civil liberties monitoring group, obtained a copy of the final report of a group of senior US and European Union officials – the ‘High Level Contact Group on information sharing and privacy and personal data protection’.

Supposedly, its job was to agree some international standards to ensure the rights of EU citizens will remain protected under agreements to make European data available to America. In practice, these safeguards look alarmingly weak.

The report says the Americans want instant information from EU members’ databases for ‘the prevention, detection, suppression, investigation or prosecution of any criminal offence’, as well as ‘non-criminal judicial or administrative proceedings’ – in other words, pretty much anything.

It is difficult to read the report’s final section without feeling chilled. There is, for example, no prohibition on supplying details of someone’s ethnic origins, political, religious or philosophical beliefs, or personal information about health or sexual life.

Confidential data transferred to America under the terms of the document could also include details of personal investments, bank and credit-card spending.

All information could be disseminated to US agencies, and in some circumstances, to third countries.

There must, the report promises, be ‘independent oversight’. Yet it accepts that, sometimes, decisions could be taken by machines.

For example, a computerised warning making it impossible to board an aircraft  might be issued because a piece of American software determined a person posed a threat.

The report says such ‘automated decisions’ can be taken ‘without human involvement’, as long as there are ‘appropriate safeguards in place, including the possibility to obtain human intervention’.

‘In the real world, such protection is meaningless,’ said Tony Bunyan, Statewatch’s director. ‘If there’s no right to be informed what a database says about you, the first you’re going to know is when you’re wrongly arrested, when you don’t get that job, or when you can’t get on that plane.’

While the High Level Contact Group has been busily diluting future data protection, the Americans have spent the past several months making some sweeping, more immediate demands.

Their chosen vehicle is the Visa Waiver Programme – the system that allows British and most EU citizens to visit America without passport visas. Henceforth, under the 9/11 Commission Act, passed in the US last year, visa waiver countries will be obliged to agree to stringent new security standards – including access to data.

In the words of the Act, decisions on whether to allow nations visa-free travel will depend on whether America decides they are ‘actively co-operating with the US to prevent terrorist travel, including sharing counter-terrorism and law enforcement information’.

America’s demands – set out in May by Richard Barth, assistant secretary for Homeland Security – in recent secret negotiations with the EU and individual states have been extraordinarily broad.

What the US sought, Barth said, was ‘requirements to provide certain information on air passengers, serious crimes, known or suspected terrorists, asylum and migration matters, and timely reporting of lost and stolen passport data, as well as co-operation on airport and aviation security.’

Of course, sharing information internationally can play a key role in combating terrorism and serious crime. But it is vital there must be rigorous methods of quality control and means to correct inaccurate records.

Neither Barth nor his officials have made any mention of this.

Yet another secret EU document leaked to Statewatch suggests Europe has already conceded America’s requests without putting up resistance on these key issues.

Dated April 11, it is the EU ‘mandate’ setting out the terms of Europe’s negotiating position – and accepts as its starting point that the EU should ‘explore the scope for agreement’ to the provisions of the 9/11 Act.

The document does say that any US-EU deal must ‘comply with fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals including the rights to privacy and data protection’.  But as to how this lofty objective might be achieved, it is silent.

‘The safeguards are so minimal they might as well not exist,’ Bunyan said. ‘I’ve yet to see an occasion where Europe has refused American demands. They are in effect the 28th member of the EU.’

Civil libertarians like former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis have, rightly, become concerned at British Government measures such as 42-day detention for terrorist suspects.

But for most ordinary citizens, the pressure to share data from across the Atlantic is a far greater threat.

davidicke.com | Jul 4,  2008

David Davis doesn’t want a real debate on the Orwellian State – he wants a controlled one that’s only on his terms with safe people like Tony Benn and Bob Geldof.

The basis on which this by-election was called – to have an open debate on the Big Brother State – is a blatant misrepresentation of what is actually happening.

Today, David Icke attended the Hull Guildhall with a resident from the Haltemprice and Howden constituency, with tickets booked through the local Conservative Party in her name, to see the presentation of David Davis and Bob Geldof on ‘civil liberties’.

The resident was told, as was everyone else, that this was a public debate open to anyone so long as they had a ticket booked. The event was advertised as such on the David Davis website.

But as soon as the David Davis minders saw David Icke everything changed. Suddenly it was a ‘private’ event that only invited people could attend. This was an outrageous untruth.

David Icke, as someone who was warning about the coming Big Brother State before either of today’s speakers had even heard of it, simply wanted to listen to what they had to say, but was not allowed even though he had a ticket.

Davis said he called this by-election to have a public debate on these issues, yet won’t even allow the world’s most prolific writer on the subject to -sit in an audience and listen to him. So Big Brother steps in to stop David Icke attending a meeting called to ‘challenge Big Brother’.

You couldn’t make it up.

This Sunday, at the Willerby Manor Hotel, Willerby, near Hull, anyone can come to David Icke’s public meeting. See the details on this page.

Related

David Icke - ‘Big Brother’ By-Election (audio)
We are joined by David Icke who will stand under the title ‘Big Brother - The Big Picture’ with David Davis in the upcoming parliamentary by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. We have David on the program to discuss the background story and what issues he wants to highlight with the press conference that is to be held July 2nd. We discuss Big Brother, the mainstream media, How to Organize, Surveillance, Centralized Government Structure, EU, International Law and much more.

Prison Planet |  Jul 2, 2008

By Paul Joseph Watson

Hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for “suspicious activity” which is later fed into a secret government database.

According to a Denver Post report, “It’s a tactic intended to feed better data into terrorism early-warning systems and uncover intelligence that could help fight anti-U.S. forces. But the vague nature of the TLOs’ mission, and their focus on reporting both legal and illegal activity, has generated objections from privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

“Suspicious activity” is broadly defined in TLO training as behavior that could lead to terrorism: taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements or notes, espousing extremist beliefs or conversing in code, according to a draft Department of Justice/Major Cities Chiefs Association document.”

“We don’t snoop into private citizens’ lives. We aren’t living in a communist state,” claims Lt. Tony Lopez, commander of Denver’s intelligence unit - but the program bears close parallels to the East German Stasi system, which at its height employed one informant for every seven citizens.

Democracy Now interviewed the Denver Post writer and an ACLU representative about the program.

It is also reminiscent of the supposedly canned 2002 Operation TIPS program, which would have turned 4 per cent of Americans into informants under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.

TIPS lived on in other guises, such as the Highway Watch program, a $19 billion dollar Homeland Security-run project which trains truckers to watch for suspicious activity on America’s highways.

More recently, ABC News reported that “The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort…..to aid with criminal investigations.”

Since authorities now define mundane activities like buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children or mentioning the U.S. constitution as the behavior of potential terrorists, the bounty for the American Stasi to turn in political dissidents is sure to be too tempting to resist.

Indeed, last month Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers and the New York Times heartily celebrated the fact that an increasing number of Americans are becoming informants and turning in their neighbors and family members to the authorities in return for cash rewards.

Citing gas prices, foreclosure rates and runaway food price inflation, The Times lauded the fact that citizens are reporting on each other, ensuring “a substantial increase in Crime Stopper-related arrests and recovered property, as callers turn in neighbors, grandchildren or former boyfriends in exchange for a little cash.”

As any budding dictator will tell you, the creation of an informant society where individuals self-regulate their behavior in fear of being turned in by a citizen spy is one of the key stepping stones to tyranny. To have the media celebrate the fact that people are reporting on their neighbors and grandchildren puts the icing on the cake.

Davidicke.com | Jul 4, 2008

The UK Conservative Party Home Affairs Spokesman, David Davis, has resigned his parliamentary seat in the constituency of Haltemprice and Howden, which includes Hull in the east to the outskirts of Goole in the west and northwards to Holme-on-Spalding-Moor.

Davis resigned in protest at the fast-emerging Big Brother State (which I have warned was coming for the last nearly 20 years). The final straw for Davis was the passing recently of a law that allows the authorities to hold ‘terrorist suspects’ for 42 days without charge. He resigned and will seek to return to Parliament in this by-election on July 10th on the issue of the Big Brother society.

Britain’s other major political parties, the Liberal Democrats and the governing Labour Party of Tony Blair and current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, have announced that they won’t be standing against him. The Liberals say they are doing this because they support his stand and the Labour Party say they won’t put up a candidate because the election is ‘a farce’.

For ‘a farce’ read: ‘We know we would get slaughtered because of the massive scale of public opinion against the gathering Big Brother state.’

David Davis

I am not standing to oppose David Davis as such because I have no wish to be elected to Parliament and get stuck in that irrelevant web of deceit and corruption. I couldn’t take my seat anyway because I would never go through the pathetic ritual of pledging my ‘allegiance’ to the Queen.

I would be supporting the stand of Davis against the Orwellian State and I would want him to win the seat and let him be a voice against the Big Brother society in Parliament.

There is an enormous amount of what David Davis stands for on other issues that I fundamentally disagree with, but this is a time for all colours, creeds, backgrounds and views to unite on something that affects ALL of us - the tearing down of the most basic freedoms.

And if people think they live in a Big Brother Police State now, they have seen nothing yet.

So why am I standing in the election with Davis?

Because this election, with its mainstream media coverage, can be a platform to gain publicity for the big picture behind the Big Brother State - which I have been highlighting and warning about in my books and public talks for nearly 20 years.

David Davis has seen one level of it and blames the Labour government for destroying civil liberties in Britain. But it is bigger than that, much bigger. The same is happening in countries worldwide at the same time because it is centrally and globally coordinated, as I have been exposing and detailing for these last two decades.

The UK Labour government is just the vehicle for introducing it in the UK, that’s all.

Please contact Justin Walker at Jrgwalker@aol.com if you are prepared to offer physical help.

Yes, of course, the mainstream media will ridicule me, but so what’s new? I am not doing it for them, nor to win a popularity contest, nor even an election.

I am doing it for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see and children and grandchildren to protect from the nightmare world that is unfolding unless we make a stand now.

best wishes,

David

…………………………………………

Making it clear

I want to make it clear one more time because a few people have still got the wrong impression. I have not put my name forward in the upcoming by-election because I want to win and nor do I have any chance of winning. I will get a few votes at most in the time we have. Personally I am not in the least bothered if I get zero.

It is not about that. It is about taking an opportunity in a by-election called by the sitting MP on the subject of ‘Big Brother’ to make the point that this is far, far bigger than even he realises and unless we see the BIG picture of what is going on nothing effective can be done to stop it.

We can sit on our bums and moan, or we can do what we don’t want to do (as with me in this case) to communicate what people need to know as effectively as we can.

best wishes,

David

…………………………………………

COME AND SUPPORT DAVID AT A FREE PUBLIC MEETING ON SUNDAY, JULY 6TH

David will be speaking for an hour and a half and taking questions at a public meeting in the Haltemprice and Howden Constituency between 1.30pm and 4pm on Sunday, July 6th at the following venue:

Willerby Manor Hotel,
Well Lane
Willerby East
Yorkshire HU10 6ER

There are no tickets to secure, just turn up, it’s a large room. We have timed the meeting and day so people can come from distance.

NaturalNews | Jun 21, 2008

by David Gutierrez

The British government is developing a plan to track current and former prisoners by means of microchips implanted under the skin, drawing intense criticism from probation officers and civil rights groups.

As a way to reduce prison crowding, many British prisoners are currently released under electronic monitoring, carried out by means of an ankle bracelet that transmits signals like those used by mobile phones.

Now the Ministry of Justice is exploring the possibility of injecting prisoners in the back of the arm with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip that contains information about their name, address and criminal record. Such chips, which contain a built-in antenna, could be scanned by special readers. The implantation of RFID chips in luggage, pets and livestock has become increasingly popular in recent years.

In addition to monitoring incarcerated prisoners, the ministry hopes to use the chips on those who are on probation or other conditional release. By including a satellite uplink system in the chip, police would be able to use global positioning system (GPS) technology to track subjects’ exact locations at all times. According to advocates of such a measure, this could help keep sex offenders away from “forbidden” zones like schools.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, blasted the measure as degrading to the people chipped and of no benefit to probation officers.

“Knowing where offenders like pedophiles are does not mean you know what they are doing,” Fletcher said. “Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me.”

Shami Chakrabarti of the civil rights group Liberty had even stronger words:

“If the Home Office doesn’t understand why implanting a chip in someone is worse than an ankle bracelet, they don’t need a human-rights lawyer; they need a common-sense bypass.”

How a bionic, chembot caterpillar would morph to get through a small shape, then grow.

Futuristic ‘Chembots’ Could Squeeze Through Small Spaces

Fox | Jul 1, 2008

By  David Kaplan, Barry Trimmer

Soft and squishy chemical robots will one day squeeze through tight spots, then expand to 10 times larger, offering an advantage over rigid robots.

The chembots could get into a building through a crack, for example. They could explore a cave or crevice and dismantle an explosive. Or they might climb ropes, wires or trees.

Another tiny idea: One chembot could pack a smaller chembot into a situation, then release it for even more minute explorations.

Researchers at Tufts University have received a $3.3 million contract from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to build the soft automatons.

ChemBots represent “the convergence of soft materials chemistry and robotics. It is an entirely new way of looking at robots and could someday yield great technological advantage for our armed forces,” said Mitchell Zakin, who oversees the program for DARPA.

Tufts neurobiologist Barry Trimmer studies the nervous systems of caterpillars, which grow 10,000-fold in mass after hatching from the larval stage. He studies how they move so flexibly without joints and control movement so precisely with a simple brain.

Using biomaterials and bioengineered polymers, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, Trimmer and colleagues in other fields hope to duplicate some of the caterpillars’ traits and behaviors. His lab has already built some prototypes.

“Use of all-biodegradable biopolymer systems will allow use of the robots in a broad range of environmental applications, as well as medical scenarios, without requiring retrieval after completion of the designated tasks,” said co-principal investigator David Kaplan biomedical engineer at Tufts. “We expect that these devices will literally be able to disappear after completing their mission.”

The chembot would have hair-like sensors for temperature, pressure, chemical and audio/video and to use wireless communication.

Trimmer’s long-running caterpillar investigations have been sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the Air Force and other organizations.

Xinhuanet  | Jul 1, 2008

BEIJING, July 1 (Xinhuanet) — Squeezable chemical robots designed to mimic caterpillars may one day be used to sneak through tight spots before expanding to 10 times their size, then biodegrade once a task is finished.

The chembots could get into a building through a crack, explore a cave or crevice and dismantle an explosive. Or they might climb ropes, wires or trees. A chembot could pack a smaller chembot into a situation, then release it for even more minute explorations.

Researchers at Tufts University have received a 3.3 million U.S. dollar contract from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to build the soft automatons.

ChemBots represent “the convergence of soft materials chemistry and robotics. It is an entirely new way of looking at robots and could someday yield great technological advantage for our armed forces,” said Mitchell Zakin, who oversees the program for DARPA.

Tufts neurobiologist Barry Trimmer studies the nervous systems of caterpillars, which grow 10,000-fold in mass after hatching from the larval stage. He studies how they move so flexibly without joints and control movement so precisely with a simple brain.

Using biomaterials and bioengineered polymers, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, Trimmer and colleagues in other fields hope to duplicate some of the caterpillars’ traits and behaviors. His lab has already built some prototypes.

“Use of all-biodegradable biopolymer systems will allow use of the robots in a broad range of environmental applications, as well as medical scenarios, without requiring retrieval after completion of the designated tasks,” said co-principal investigator David Kaplan biomedical engineer at Tufts. “We expect that these devices will literally be able to disappear after completing their mission.”

The chembot would have hair-like sensors for temperature, pressure, chemical and audio/video and to use wireless communication.

A message on the speedometer says “engine power is reduced.”

Tampa Tribune | Jun 11, 2008

By RICH SHOPES

TAMPA - General Motors says it has developed a technology to put the brakes on car thieves and came to Tampa on Tuesday to prove it.

Representatives from the automaker demonstrated their Stolen Vehicle Slowdown technology before the media, police and fire department officials. The system is designed to let an operator with the company’s OnStar service send a signal to a stolen vehicle to restrict the fuel flow and slow the car, truck or SUV to 3 to 5 mph.

Police and fire-rescue personnel took turns behind the wheel of two Chevrolet Tahoes equipped with the technology. When activated, the system sent a message to a screen that said, “Engine power is reduced,” then the vehicle coasted to a near standstill.

“Anything that will help us respond better is worth it,” said Hillsborough Fire Rescue spokesman Capt. Bruce Delk. “I’ve seen what can happen” at accidents.

Three hundred people are killed in 30,000 police chases each year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

GM officials said the company came up with the technology after surveying OnStar subscribers and finding most wanted the theft-prevention technology. OnStar already offers GPS navigation to allow police to track stolen vehicles. The company gets about 700 stolen vehicle reports monthly.

“No system is bulletproof … but this is a huge stride,” said George Baker, manager for public policy at OnStar.

The automaker has talked about stolen-vehicle technology since late last year. Now, it’s going on the road to 25 U.S. cities to demonstrate to police and fire-rescue personnel how it works.

After receiving a stolen vehicle report, an OnStar operator can communicate with police about the vehicle’s location. To help identify the stolen vehicle to police on the street, OnStar can activate the flashers for 30 seconds.

In the case of a fleeing vehicle, when police say it’s safe, OnStar sends an electronic command to restrict the fuel flow. The brakes and steering will still work.

“It just seems like the car lost power,” OnStar spokeswoman Kameya Shows said.

The demonstration at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa came after stops in Miami and Orlando.