REgarding Maryland business development:
Don't you love all that public financing of corporate R and D! Public universities as arms of corporations providing free research and development in exchange for professors with salaries equal to CEOs and a direct line into jobs created by these partnerships of students chosen to work with these professors! WHAT A WAY TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT!
It is this same corporate subsidy that gave us all these new surveillance and big brother businesses that make up most of the new job creation in Maryland. Remember, your Social Security and Medicare Trusts sent to the Treasury paid for all these NSA business spinoffs!
As you see on all advertizing on TV and on billboards.....UMUC (University of Maryland University College) the state has actually created public financing for these businesses.....it is the job training arm of the security industry. You see these adds primarily on free TV watched by largely working class/poor and in those neighbors as well. You never hear of University of Maryland College Park advertized that way ( their advertizing is overseas to wealthy foreign students). Remember that Snowden of NSA whistle blower fame came from Maryland and followed this track. With no college education he was paid $200,000 a year and the hedge funds were SHOCKED that this young man with little prospects would not have his silence bought! THAT'S MARYLAND FOR YOU!
If you look below you will see how Hopkins took a billion dollars a year of taxpayer money to develop these corporations and their structure. Look how happy Oakland, California is having SAIC piloted in their city-----OH WAIT----CHIEF OF POLICE BATTS IN BALTIMORE WAS CHIEF AT OAKLAND, CALIF---- what a small high-security world it is. This must be why he was sent to Harvard for training before he came to Baltimore!
SAIC is of course Johns Hopkins and is what they do at the Applied Physics Lab on campus. You notice that with massive corporate fraud and movement of tens of trillions of dollars of public wealth to the people building this surveillance....none of the surveillance is about catching corporations stealing from the public....it is all geared to suppress the people being made increasingly impoverished by this move towards third world autocracy.
This is what is unrolling in Baltimore and throughout Maryland and as you see below Maryland is exporting this surveillance across the country. It incorporates in Virginia....
SAIC is one of the largest science and technology companies in Maryland with over 6,500 employees providing mission critical support to government and non-government ...
This is where your Social Security and Medicare Trusts have gone these few decades......building these security businesses.
Securing The Future For Generations to Come in Maryland
SAIC is one of the largest science and technology companies in Maryland with more than 6,500 of its approximately 38,000 employees providing mission-critical support to government and non-government customers in the state.
A Focus on Maryland Growth
Maryland plays a significant role in our nation's defense and economic growth, and The Baltimore Business Journal ranks SAIC as the third largest defense and federal contractor in the state.
Over the next several years, Maryland will take on even greater responsibilities in securing our future. To better serve the dynamic changes taking place along the Maryland/I-95 corridor, SAIC launched an SAIC MD/I-95 corridor initiative.
Aligned with Maryland's five-year strategic plan, this initiative demonstrates SAIC's commitment to helping Maryland achieve economic growth through:
Investing in state-of-the-art facilities and capabilities to help sustain state growth
Funding local investments in innovation, community programs and scholarships that help build a better equipped workforce
Leveraging SAIC thought leaders to spearhead committees, key projects and events that accelerate regional growth
A Collaborator in Local Community and Education Outreach Programs
Here are some of the local community and education outreach programs where we are actively engaged:
SAIC chairs, co-chairs, sponsors and volunteers with vital associations and committees throughout the state, such as: Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association (AFCEA) Central Maryland and Aberdeen, Fort Meade Alliance, Tech Council of Maryland, Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore, Army Alliance, and the Northeastern Tech Council of Maryland.
SAIC contributes thought leadership in the Maryland chambers of commerce as well as numerous county chambers of commerce across the region.
SAIC sponsors important outreach programs such as FIRST® and Project Lead the Way®.
SAIC regularly teams with local leaders to hold valuable small business conferences to drive teaming within Maryland.
SAIC is committed to educating our work force and our children through programs like:
University of Maryland's Cybersecurity Center (MC2), which promotes education, research, and technology development in cybersecurity
University of Maryland, Baltimore County's College of Natural and Mathematical Sciences (CNMS) Active Science Teaching and Learning Environment (CASTLE) facility which aims to increase the number of students majoring in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
SAIC is actively engaged in spearheading numerous science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities within the elementary schools across Maryland as well. We are proud to be a founding member of Maryland's Maryland Cyber Challenge and Competition (MDC3) competition, powered by CyberNEXS, which includes high school, collegiate and professionals from both the industry and government.
We heard that Chief Batts only stayed in Oakland for a few years and the timing of this Domain Awareness Center fits with his tenure. Before coming to Baltimore Batts went to Harvard for debriefing.
Oakland surveillance center threatens more than just privacy
Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 10:00 am by Matthew Kellegrew
Outrage came to the city of Oakland at the news of the city’s intention to open the Domain Awareness Center. The facility is an integrated data and information collection, aggregation and processing facility that draws from a network of hundreds of cameras and sources placed throughout Alameda County.
The original design called for over 700 CCTV cameras to be placed in Oakland public schools, but this was dropped after a challenge from the ACLU. The primary data collection components have remained intact though.
From the NY Times:
“The new system, scheduled to begin next summer, is the latest example of how cities are compiling and processing large amounts of information, known as big data, for routine law enforcement. And the system underscores how technology has enabled the tracking of people in many aspects of life.
The police can monitor a fire hose of social media posts to look for evidence of criminal activities; transportation agencies can track commuters’ toll payments when drivers use an electronic pass; and the National Security Agency, as news reports this summer revealed, scooped up telephone records of millions of cellphone customers in the United States.”
Public outcry around the program doesn’t end with a concern for the preservation of privacy rights. Also at issue is the lack of corporate responsibility in the selection of city business partners. The companies hired to perform the surveillance are viewing Oakland, already financially troubled, as a potential cash resource. More disturbing is the extent to which these firms have demonstrated a total lack of accountability:
“For the companies that make big data tools, projects like Oakland’s are a big business opportunity. Microsoft built the technology for the New York City program. I.B.M. has sold data-mining tools for Las Vegas and Memphis.
Oakland has a contract with the Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, to build its system. That company has earned the bulk of its $12 billion in annual revenue from military contracts. As the federal military budget has fallen, though, SAIC has diversified to other government agency projects, though not without problems.
The company’s contract to help modernize the New York City payroll system, using new technology like biometric readers, resulted in reports of kickbacks. Last year, the company paid the city $500 million to avoid a federal prosecution. The amount was believed to be the largest ever paid to settle accusations of government contract fraud. SAIC declined to comment.”
In July when the city counsel first accepted the federal grant to fund the center, the proceedings were disrupted with protest:
“The decision to accept a $2.2 million federal grant to help pay for the surveillance center infuriated protesters who crowded into the council’s chambers for an hours-long meeting. Chants of “Shame! Shame! Shame!” rattled the chambers for nearly two minutes after the vote.”
Since approval of the center by the counsel, details regarding the scope of the planned data collection have been either obscured or outright omitted from public review.
The true danger of facilities like the Domain Awareness Center is the ability to deploy a massive, integrated state-to-federal data-sharing program against anyone, for any reason. As the city of Oakland has already shown, it is willing to go to extreme lengths to repress political activity. Not only has the trustworthiness of the City of Oakland itself been called into question before, but the very police force this sensitive information will be provided to have been placed under federal receivership for mismanagement.
The Oakland Domain Awareness Center is a triangle of danger for privacy rights and responsible government. The City, the Federal Government and the police are all the worst possible parties to be conducting this level of surveillance and given access to this level of sensitive information.
The residents of Oakland have only themselves to rely on for support in opposing this assault on their civil liberties. The lack of responsiveness at the political level locally is nothing new for the city however, and the struggle will undoubtedly continue against state repression in the same place it has historically: in the streets.
We are seeing not only the connection with consolidation of surveillance data in a city like Oakland and we can imagine Baltimore/Maryland is next or already there.....we have illegal actions by drone warfare included in this classified data collection. Drones are here in America and we know that we are now being watched all the time. We are told that once you leave your home you can expect no privacy. With heat detection instruments they can track you inside your home as well.
These are not benevolent dictators.....Hopkins has captured all that is public and does not allow for public comment. It sees itself as knowing better and has no qualm with mis-information. Fraud and corruption is rampant in Baltimore and it is reflected by a win at all cost motto at Hopkins.
WE NEED TO BE AWARE THAT A CORPORATION WITH LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL IS AMASSING A LOT OF AUTOCRATIC POWER.
Panel explores APL, combat drones connection
By IAN YU
Published: May 3rd, 2012
Is the use of drones in warfare ethical, and should the Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL) be involved in such kinds of weapons research? These and other questions were the focus of a panel presentation and discussion held last Friday in Mergenthaler Hall by the Hopkins Human Rights Working Group and the Graduate Student Organization.
Addressing an audience of approximately 60 graduate students and members of the general public were retired Colonel Ann Wright and political science graduate student Derek Denem. Wright served in the U.S. Military and as a diplomat, resigning in 2003 in protest of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and has since been giving lectures and speaking engagements as an anti-war activist.
As the first of the two to speak, Wright framed the larger picture and controversy of aerial combat drones for bombardment of targets singled out by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
“Right now we have nearly seven thousand drones that are in the U.S. military and CIA network, drones that are used by our military and CIA for surveillance purposes and combat areas and noncombat areas,” she said. While the U.S. military uses combat drones in its operations, the CIA’s use has been far more trouble according to Wright.
“Then there’s the CIA, an un-uniformed government agency conducting military operations, offensive operations in Pakistan,” she said. “If we were talking about any other group that’s doing stuff in another country, we would call them unlawful combatants.”
Wright went on to describe how the drone program had shed a negative light on the U.S., especially as civilians have often been killed when the CIA went after targets in the Pakistani countryside. According to Wright, these attacks had, in part, motivated Faisal Shazad in his attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.
“In the interrogation of this young man… he said ‘I’m outraged, I’m outraged about the United States killing people in Pakistan using drones,’” she said.
She closed by reiterating her disagreement with President Obama’s current policy on the expanded use of aerial drones to dispatch targets.
“It is harming our national security rather than helping it,” she said.
Denem’s portion of the discussion focused on the history of the APL and its involvement in the development of drone technology. According to Denem, many of the research contracts awarded to APL are classified, requiring a security clearance for access and oversight. Very little information about the projects is available to the public. Denem added that, due to President Daniel’s lack of security clearance, the university and APL had to make special arrangements to continue conducting sensitive research.
“Classified research at APL was reorganized into a limited liability corporation, and is now run by the director of the lab and is overseen by members of the Hopkins board of trustees,” he explained.
“Furthermore the culture of classified civilian research has left a distinct imprint on a contemporary national security state in which military research at universities remains restricted, in opposition to the ideal image of the university as a place of open knowledge,” he said.
Hopkins’ involvement with drones goes back to the early development of automated robots, continuing on to a 1972 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contract to work on aerial drones with automated stability. Since then, Hopkins has decided to shift its primary efforts towards developing smaller drones that can be carried in the backpacks of ground soldiers.
Despite this change, Denam explained that APL still has involvement in the creation of larger combat drones. “The predator and reaper drones, used in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, are designed and built by General Atomics, which has its main facilities in San Diego, but APL has contributed key systems to these drones,” he said.
During the lengthy question and answer session, a member of the audience raised the possibility of other countries gaining drone technology and asked if efforts are better geared towards changing America’s foreign policy. Wright explained that a policy shift imposed by the Carter administration on the CIA had scaled back state-directed assassinations through the decades that led up until 2002, when the CIA once again stepped up assassinations.
“If you don’t think we need to do that to raise foreign policy, then you need to raise your voice,” she said.
Other questions addressed issues including the emotional disconnect of drone operators who are not aware of their targets and the use of public pressure to bring about policy changes at research institutions. During the event a petition was circulated calling on the university leadership to examine more closely and reconsider Hopkins’ involvement in drone research.
In a follow-up after the session, Denem reiterated that the lack of a complete picture of APL’s work stems from a need for greater openness.
“The first step to figuring out exactly what is going on with research at APL is for it to be open like university knowledge production and exchange is,” he said. “That’s sort of the prerequisite for it.”
We are hearing that the APL wants to move from its location just off-campus into offices on the main campus and establish networks with other departments. We already have a brand new building housing a huge super-computer we know will be receiving all of this personal data that SAIC is collecting here and around the country.
What this article shows is that the level of discomfort at APL's intrusion into academics at the campus is palpable. This is a Hopkins business that works with the NSA in what may be considered the very programs outed by Snowden. Hedge funds running these programs that will have access to data and selling it to data-mining corporations is expected not matter the denial of Maryland officials!
NSA controversy sparks dialogue at open forum
By NICOLE ZIEGLER
Published: October 10th, 2013
Last Thursday, the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) at Hopkins led an open forum to discuss the ethics of classified research in response to the recent NSA-related blog controversy involving Matthew Green, an assistant research professor in the computer science department.
Green, an expert on cryptographic engineering, recently wrote a blog post revealing previously encrypted information that originated at the National Security Agency (NSA).
After hearing about the linked information from the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), Dean of the Whiting School of Engineering Andrew Douglas forced Green to remove his post. Douglas later realized that all of the information Green referenced had actually been previously published online and issued an apology for his actions.
The open forum hosted both undergraduate and graduate students from multiple University campuses. The forum also included Hopkins professors from several different fields. The discussion was led by graduate student William Miller.
The fact that spurred Douglas to action was the amount of classified research conducted at Hopkins. This, in turn, was the a main topic of discussion at the forum.
“The HRWG simply wanted to follow-up on the Matthew Green incident,” Miller wrote in an email to The News-Letter. “We wanted to know how others feel about it and what others think we should do next. Given the strong turnout and the evident excitement of those present, I think the event was a success. But it was just a start.”
Dissatisfaction with the response to the Matthew Green controversy defined the tone of the forum. Professors and students alike expressed concerns about the incident at APL.
“I think the Matt Green incident shows what Pentagon and NSA contracts — especially for classified research — can do to a university,” Professor Joel Andreas wrote in an email to The News-Letter. “They can put a chill on free speech and open inquiry and discussion. Why did Dean Andrews jump when the School of Engineering got a call from someone at APL about Matt Green’s blog that was critical of the NSA? Because Hopkins and APL get over a billion dollars a year in contracts from the Pentagon and the NSA.”
Furthermore, Andreas expressed worries about what this incident might mean for the Homewood Campus.
“I imagine the environment at APL is extremely intolerant of the kind of criticism of NSA spying that was in Matt Green’s blog,” Andreas wrote. “I’m worried — now that APL is moving part of its operations to the new Malone Hall on the Homewood campus, with the express purpose of collaborating more closely with the School of Engineering and other Hopkins units to win military contracts, can we expect that our campus will go in this direction?”
Another key point that the open forum highlighted was the general lack of awareness of the Matthew Green incident on the Homewood Campus. What was clear was that students on campus are generally uninformed about how important APL is to Hopkins as an institution, how the United States Navy is a key sponsor of APL and how APL is known for its role in drone research. Much of the government-related research at APL is kept classified.
“It is important that someone in power address concerns raised by this incident. It’s one thing to say that it was a mistake — it clearly was that. But it was a telling mistake, and one worth probing,” Miller said.