#nonsuspect

[smulie]

misc photo dump to pass the time

[thefallenposts]

just. be careful, okay? burnout really sucks. ensure you give yourself enough leisure time to stay sustainably productive.

Chara had been asked about their life on the surface quite a bit.

In truth, they didn’t remember much of anything.

Though, sometimes, in the dead of the night, their mind would illustrate a picture of stone pavement leading to a bed of flowers.

A mailbox with the numbers one four one three imprinted on the side.

The unending drip of water hitting cold metal; a woman berating a man for leaving it unattended.

The harsh smell of bleach a child used to erase blood from brown carpets.

A man as tall as the ceiling fan. (A woman with a missing face twitches at the sight of him.)

Pants hidden away in a child’s closet — it hid their food reserve. (Snacks they snatched from street vendors to quell angry stomachs.)

Old and new bruises left untreated. (The woman never complained of that as she did the water tap.)

The clenching of a child’s chest.

Stained brown carpet; the extra crimson blended well.

Sirens in the distance

never for the child.

Hiding in a closet, muffling breathing with a hand.

[zeninsama-moved]

love of my life….if it is not too much to ask.. i would like a kiss on the lips please

well,,,,, come here then,,,

[thought--bubble]

Kitty -Cat Part 4 (Revised)

Ettore X (Neuro-Divergent Reader)

Warnings Below

Word Count: 1,683

Kitty Cat Master List

Ettore Master List

Full Master List

Banners by @arcielee

Warnings:: Ettore, swearing, male masturbation, heavy petting, violence (imagined)

"You bastard! Let her go!" A shrill voice breaks through his reverie, but he doesn't move. Not until he feels cold hands literally peeling him off.

Ettore wore a face of indifference. On the outside, he looked aloof, uncaring as he simply stated, "she rubbed up against me," making his way out of the laundry room.

On the inside, though, was the monster he was forced to hide. His rage made him feel almost light-headed as he made his way back to his room.

"You bastard!" Ringing through his head on an endless loop. He can still smell the soap from your hair feel your hair slipping through his fingers.

So. fucking. close.

He lays down in his bunk. Arms lay beside him fingers, tapping on the mattress. His entire body pumped with adrenaline. His plan had gone perfectly. Better than perfectly. Until Boyse, if she didn't already irritate him to no end now, now he feels the want to crush her. Stomp her. Anything. To keep her out of his way. He felt like a lion after a hyena stole his meal following a successful hunt.

His need to stalk his prey is heightened by the unfulfilling conclusion of their first encounter.

I will get what's mine

And hunt he does. He hovers like a vulture just outside your existence flittering around the edges. But he can't get close. Kitty like a nonsuspecting kitten just continuing about while Boyse acts like an overly alert mother cat. Sensing danger and protecting her young. The internal struggle not to lash out, coming close to overwhelming him.

Bide your time. Find an opening.

The following weeks drive him closer to madness, pushing him to the end of his patience. He tries moves he believes will be slight as to not arouse suspicion.

Get behind you at meal times. Nope. Boyse positions herself between you, and he fights the urge to take her and throw her from his path.

He stands behind you during exercises. Nope. Boyse moves you and stands in front of him.

He imagines himself punching her in the back of her head until she stops moving. Crawling over her dead body to you and finally claiming his prize.

It's coming. It can't be stopped now

He lays in his bunk, unable to get sleep. He has been running scenarios in his head, each one ending the same. With Boyse standing and laughing at him as his pretty kitty oblivious behind her purrs about.

No. I will take what is mine. I'll take it now

He slowly pulls himself out of his bunk. His feet lightly touch the ground, hardly making a sound. His eyes flit around the room to make sure his bunkmates are all still asleep. Luckily, they are. He moves quickly and silently out of the room and into the hallway of the ship. The hallway is dark lit by only the blue light they have all become accustomed to.

He moves straight across the hallway, moving stealthily and keeping close to the wall as he makes his way over to the women's quarters. The door is open, and as he moves into the doorway, he stops. He sees you. Head moving just slightly, no doubt rubbing that cute little face into your shoulder. His body starts to tingle, and his breath hastens as he imagines himself crawling atop you and shoving himself into your welcoming warmth.

Do it.

He sees an arm hanging down from the bunk above.

Boyse.

Even in her sleep, she puts herself between you. She isn't strapped down, and she didn't get her pills tonight. She will be easily woken. He starts to feel the anger building back up in his chest.

This bitch is always in the way

But you turn your head ever so slowly and look directly at him he feels his anger start to disappate leaving room only for that deep hunger he longs to satiate. You bring your hand up to your face and start petting your cheek.

He mimics the action, running his hand on his stomach. Up down, up down. Imagining that the skins he feels is not his own, but yours. He then slides his hand into his sleep shorts and grips himself tight. The need for release becomes ever present in his mind.

Eyes on me kitty

He starts to stroke himself languidly. Up down, up down. That familiar sensation and heat start building in his stomach as his speed slowly increases. Up down, up down. You haven't taken your eyes off of him. You simply move that pretty hand on your cheek. Up down, up down.

Ettore increases his speed, a fire blooming in his lower stomach and his breath coming out in pants. Watching that little hand and those sparkling eyes. Up down, up down. He can feel the band in his lower stomach is about to snap as his eyelids lower while he keeps his gaze locked on you. He grips the door frame with his other hand and bites his lower lip in an effort to stifle any sound. Finally, the band snaps, and a wave of euphoria rushes through him as he releases himself into his sleep shorts. He grunts and closes his eyes for a second, riding out the sensation.

He loosens his grip on the doorframe. As he comes down from his high and returns to his senses, he immediately turns and heads back to his room. Skating down the hallway in silence tight to the wall. He slips back into his room back into his bed undetected. Grabbing his second pair of sleep shorts to swap them out. After changing and cleaning himself up, he lays back on the bed, ready to fall asleep.

No more waiting

He awakes the next day determined to make a plan. He is smarter than Boyse. He has no doubts about that. So, how does she keep outsmarting him?

He late night escapade, coupled with the hours he laid awake plotting, made him a late riser today, He is late to morning meal, and the only other person remaining is Monte.

The high and mighty Monte. The pervayer of all that is honorable. Ettore rolls his eyes, grabbing his tray and sitting at one of the empty tables.

Ettore again tries to work out different scenarios in his head. Mapping out the layout of the ship, thinking he could use that to his advantage.

He hears your whine. He loves that whine. Sounds so..... pliable. He looks up to see you, his little kitty rubbing your face into your shoulder, looking between him and Monte.

Ettore's eyes scan the room.

No boyse. Boyse. is. not. fucking. here.

A smile spreads across his face. Here is kitty all vulnerable and alone. Desperately in need of a handler. He gets up, trying to mask the excitement he feels. He discards his tray, making sure to run the front of his body along the backside of yours. The contact caused his mouth to water, and when you let out another whimper, he knows. He knows he's got you. He goes to the doorway and looks out into the hallway, which is empty right now, so he needs to move quickly.

"Come Kitty," he motions you to follow him, and he knows you will. You're a good little pet. Well trained.

There has been a change in ownership

He leads you down the hallway to the metal ladder that leads down to the box. "Go down the ladder." he waves his hand towards the ladder while looking down both sides of the hallway, confirming that no one saw you.

He starts down the ladder. As his feet hit each wrung, he feels his anticipation building. That familiar fire burning in his gut. His feet hit the floor, and he looks at you. In an instant, he lunges for you, pushing you up against the wall. He shoves his hands in your scrub bottoms. You whine and try to move away from him.

He's confused for a second. He expected you would let him do as he pleased. That type of noise will surely draw attention.

"Shhh kitty shhh," he runs his fingers down your face in an attempt to sooth you, and as if all his prayers have been answered It works. Your body relaxes, and you lean into his touch. You put up no more resistance.

Curious

He kicks your feet apart and cups your heat while continuing to rub your face, and you let him. He runs a finger through her folds, and again, you let him. He can't help the noise that escapes his throat, a mix of a sigh and a growl

"This is perfect," he whispers. He knows how you operate. He knows how to make you bend to his will, and it's all too easy.

He yanks down your scrub bottoms, making sure to keep his other hand caressing your face. He gets them down enough goes to grab your hip.

Tap

His shoulders tense and that fire in his lower stomach travels up to his chest

Tap

He yanks your scrub bottoms up and looks towards the ladder

Tap

Tap

You take a step towards him and he glares.

Stay.

Tap

Tchemy jumps off the bottom of the ladder, eyes flicking back and forth between Ettore and you. Ettore is so filled with rage at this point that he is sure Tchemy can either see it on his face or sense it in the air.

Say it. Come on. Say it

Ettore's jaw clenched, and his biceps grew taught. He is trying with all his will to keep himself in check. Luckily for him, Tchemy just slightly lowers his head and bypasses you both, making his way to the box.

Ettore springs toward the ladder, shuffling up quickly. Interrupted again.

Almost had it. Almost had it!

He wants to punch walls. He wants to throw things. He wants to hurt someone. He wants someone to hurt him. He smiles. Yes. He wants someone to hurt him.

This will work.

A/N: I already wrote the next part because I got carried away writing this. Excited to edit and post it cause it's wild. 🤣🤣

Part 5

To be added to taglist click here

[cyancherub]

kissing u on the mouth in a nonsuspect way bc i love u verymuch

kabedons and kisses u with tongue but no homo..love u 2

[pseudophan]

nora sldhsh the cruelty of mentioning the Video to a nonsuspecting anon and then not elaborating ..... love you but why do u need to Cause Things ....

[dollwritesarchive]

I don’t think he’d hit me but it’s the emotional abuse. He has lots of videos of me in (you know, nsfw scenes), knows all my friends and family, has a lot of my belongings at his home, and is so manipulative sometimes. I’m afraid of how he’d react.. when I found out he cheated on me one of the first things he said was “how do I know you’re not cheating on me too”, who does that? (I wasn’t, even tho I’m the one who prefers an open relationship and he doesn’t)

Babbby no :( okay here’s what I would do: start getting your things one by one from his place in a nonsuspect way, and make sure you don’t make it a huge deal either, and then as for the nsfw videos, I don’t know if you have access to his phone but delete them if you can, if you can’t then it’s not a big deal

My love, I know the thought of him sending these things to your friends and family seems really scary, but if he DOES do that, then it won’t be nearly as bad as staying in that relationship, and that’s what you should tell anyone if that does happen and they see them.

I really think you should work towards an escape, even though you don’t think he’d physically hurt you, emotional abuse and manipulation is the beginning of that, please take it from someone who’s lived it.

[manicallydieting]

i never have ed blogs on my dash bc it’s so cluttered by the fandom blogs i follow on my other acc so i find one ed blog that’s recc’d to me by tumblr and scroll thru it 🤷🏼 @ nonsuspecting ed blogs sorry fam

[un-enfant-immature]

In a court filing, Edward Snowden says a report critical to an NSA lawsuit is authentic

An unexpected declaration by whistleblower Edward Snowden filed in court this week adds a new twist in a long-running lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

The case, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation a decade ago, seeks to challenge the government’s alleged illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of Americans, who are largely covered under the Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless searches and seizures.

It’s a big step forward for the case, which had stalled largely because the government refused to confirm that a leaked document was authentic or accurate.

News of the surveillance broke in 2006 when an AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed that the NSA was tapping into AT&T’s network backbone. He alleged that a secret, locked room — dubbed Room 641A — in an AT&T facility in San Francisco where he worked was one of many around the U.S. used by the government to monitor communications — domestic and overseas. President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans’ communications shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Much of the EFF’s complaint relied on Klein’s testimony until 2013, when Snowden, a former NSA contractor, came forward with new revelations that described and detailed the vast scope of the U.S. government’s surveillance capabilities, which included participation from other phone giants — including Verizon (TechCrunch’s parent company).

Though the courts dismissed some of the EFF’s complaint, a key claim that the surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment continues.

Snowden’s signed declaration, filed on October 31, confirms that one of the documents he leaked, which the EFF relied heavily on for its case, is an authentic draft document written by the then-NSA inspector general in 2009, which exposed concerns about the legality of the Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Stellar Wind — particularly the collection of bulk email records on Americans.

The draft top-secret document was never published, and the NSA had refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of the 2009 inspector general report, ST-09-0002 — despite that it’s been public for many years.

Snowden, as one of the few former NSA staffers who can speak more freely than former government employees about the agency’s surveillance, confirmed that the document is “authentic.”

“I read its contents carefully during my employment,” he said in his declaration. “I have a specific and strong recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the government had been conducting illegal surveillance.”

Snowden left his home in Hawaii for Hong Kong in 2013 when he gave tens of thousand of documents to reporters. His passport was cancelled as he travelled to Moscow to take another onward flight. He later claimed political asylum in Russia, where he currently lives with his partner.

U.S. prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage.

EFF executive director Cindy Cohn said that the NSA’s refusal to authenticate the leaked documents “is just another step in its practice of falling back on weak technicalities to prevent the public courts from ruling on whether our Constitution allows this kind of mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of nonsuspect people.”

The EFF said in another filing that the draft report “further confirms” the participation of phone companies in the government’s surveillance programs.

The case continues — though, a court hearing has not been set.

AT&T collaborates on NSA spying through a web of secretive buildings in the US

[theinvinciblenoob]

An unexpected declaration by whistleblower Edward Snowden filed in court this week adds a new twist in a long-running lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

The case, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation a decade ago, seeks to challenge the government’s alleged illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of Americans, who are largely covered under the Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless searches and seizures.

It’s a big step forward for the case, which had stalled largely because the government refused to confirm that a leaked document was authentic or accurate.

News of the surveillance broke in 2006 when an AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed that the NSA was tapping into AT&T’s network backbone. He alleged that a secret, locked room — dubbed Room 641A — in an AT&T facility in San Francisco where he worked was one of many around the U.S. used by the government to monitor communications — domestic and overseas. President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans’ communications shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Much of the EFF’s complaint relied on Klein’s testimony until 2013, when Snowden, a former NSA contractor, came forward with new revelations that described and detailed the vast scope of the U.S. government’s surveillance capabilities, which included participation from other phone giants — including Verizon (TechCrunch’s parent company).

Though the courts dismissed some of the EFF’s complaint, a key claim that the surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment continues.

Snowden’s signed declaration, filed on October 31, confirms that one of the documents he leaked, which the EFF relied heavily on for its case, is an authentic draft document written by the then-NSA inspector general in 2009, which exposed concerns about the legality of the Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Stellar Wind — particularly the collection of bulk email records on Americans.

The draft top-secret document was never published, and the NSA had refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of the 2009 inspector general report, ST-09-0002 — despite that it’s been public for many years.

Snowden, as one of the few former NSA staffers who can speak more freely than former government employees about the agency’s surveillance, confirmed that the document is “authentic.”

“I read its contents carefully during my employment,” he said in his declaration. “I have a specific and strong recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the government had been conducting illegal surveillance.”

Snowden left his home in Hawaii for Hong Kong in 2013 when he gave tens of thousand of documents to reporters. His passport was cancelled as he travelled to Moscow to take another onward flight. He later claimed political asylum in Russia, where he currently lives with his partner.

U.S. prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage.

EFF executive director Cindy Cohn said that the NSA’s refusal to authenticate the leaked documents “is just another step in its practice of falling back on weak technicalities to prevent the public courts from ruling on whether our Constitution allows this kind of mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of nonsuspect people.”

The EFF said in another filing that the draft report “further confirms” the participation of phone companies in the government’s surveillance programs.

The case continues — though, a court hearing has not been set.

AT&T collaborates on NSA spying through a web of secretive buildings in the US

via TechCrunch

[zeninsama-moved]

love of my life i am standing at your doorstep with great big tears in my eyes asking for a kiss

i give u kiss,, my most special guy,, muak muak

[fmservers]

In a court filing, Edward Snowden says a report critical to an NSA lawsuit is authentic

An unexpected declaration by whistleblower Edward Snowden filed in court this week adds a new twist in a long-running lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

The case, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation a decade ago, seeks to challenge the government’s alleged illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of Americans, who are largely covered under the Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless searches and seizures.

It’s a big step forward for the case, which had stalled largely because the government refused to confirm that a leaked document was authentic or accurate.

News of the surveillance broke in 2006 when an AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed that the NSA was tapping into AT&T’s network backbone. He alleged that a secret, locked room — dubbed Room 641A — in an AT&T facility in San Francisco where he worked was one of many around the U.S. used by the government to monitor communications — domestic and overseas. President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans’ communications shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Much of the EFF’s complaint relied on Klein’s testimony until 2013, when Snowden, a former NSA contractor, came forward with new revelations that described and detailed the vast scope of the U.S. government’s surveillance capabilities, which included participation from other phone giants — including Verizon (TechCrunch’s parent company).

Though the courts dismissed some of the EFF’s complaint, a key claim that the surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment continues.

Snowden’s signed declaration, filed on October 31, confirms that one of the documents he leaked, which the EFF relied heavily on for its case, is an authentic draft document written by the then-NSA inspector general in 2009, which exposed concerns about the legality of the Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Stellar Wind — particularly the collection of bulk email records on Americans.

The draft top-secret document was never published, and the NSA had refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of the 2009 inspector general report, ST-09-0002 — despite that it’s been public for many years.

Snowden, as one of the few former NSA staffers who can speak more freely than former government employees about the agency’s surveillance, confirmed that the document is “authentic.”

“I read its contents carefully during my employment,” he said in his declaration. “I have a specific and strong recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the government had been conducting illegal surveillance.”

Snowden left his home in Hawaii for Hong Kong in 2013 when he gave tens of thousand of documents to reporters. His passport was cancelled as he travelled to Moscow to take another onward flight. He later claimed political asylum in Russia, where he currently lives with his partner.

U.S. prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage.

EFF executive director Cindy Cohn said that the NSA’s refusal to authenticate the leaked documents “is just another step in its practice of falling back on weak technicalities to prevent the public courts from ruling on whether our Constitution allows this kind of mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of nonsuspect people.”

The EFF said in another filing that the draft report “further confirms” the participation of phone companies in the government’s surveillance programs.

The case continues — though, a court hearing has not been set.

AT&T collaborates on NSA spying through a web of secretive buildings in the US

Via Zack Whittaker https://techcrunch.com

[lado-direito-da-equidade]

— Dr. Gary Wells, Depto de Psicologia, U. Estadual de Iowa, EUA, 2012.

Uma noite, em 1984, um estranho invadiu o apartamento de Jennifer Thompson-Cannino e a estuprou. Após o assalto, Thompson-Cannino, em seguida, um estudante universitário de 22 anos de idade, ajudou a polícia artistas esboço criar uma imagem composta de seu atacante. Mais tarde, em uma linha foto, ela identificou Ronald algodão �� um homem de 22 anos que parecia notavelmente como seu esboço e teve desentendimentos anteriores com a lei. Em seguida, ela pegou de algodão a partir de uma programação ao vivo. Algodão foi condenado por estupro e condenado à prisão perpétua.

Uma década depois, o teste de DNA revelou que o algodão não era um jogo de amostras de sêmen de um assaltante de Thompson-Cannino. Mas as amostras fez coincidir com o DNA de outro condenado, Bobby Poole – que, descobriu-se, havia dito a um colega de cela que ele havia cometido o crime.

Nos anos desde Cotton foi exonerado, ele e Thompson-Cannino co-autor do best-seller livro de 2010 “Escolhendo Cotton” sobre a sua experiência, e fizeram campanha juntos para reformar os procedimentos de identificação de testemunhas oculares.

Sua história tornou-se um outro exemplo clássico da natureza frágil do testemunho ocular. Começando na década de 1990, testes de DNA forense revelou centenas de casos de condenações injustas. Na verdade, testemunha ocular misidentification tem desempenhado um papel em mais de 70% dos indivíduos injustamente condenados, de acordo com o Innocence Project, uma organização que trabalha para exonerar as pessoas injustamente condenados.

Seguindo essa onda de exonerações movidos a DNA, as agências de aplicação da lei começou a prestar mais atenção à ciência da memória e identificação, diz Gary Wells, PhD, um psicólogo da Universidade Estadual de Iowa, que estudou a identificação de testemunha ocular desde os anos 1970. Os departamentos de polícia em todo o país começou a fazer alterações aos procedimentos na formação, como apresentação de possíveis suspeitos, um de cada vez ao invés de uma só vez. Em 2011, a Suprema Corte de Nova Jersey emitiu uma decisão histórica que requer juízes para instruir os jurados sobre os limites de identificação testemunha ocular. Outros estados estão discutindo instruções semelhantes, diz Wells.

“Eu honestamente acredito que não há nenhuma área da psicologia experimental, que teve um efeito maior sobre o sistema legal”, diz Wells.

Agora, no entanto, dizem alguns psicólogos algumas dessas mudanças pode ter sido prematura. “O que tem sido descrito como uma história de sucesso da pesquisa psicológica não está olhando como ele é mais tão simples”, diz Steven E. Clark, PhD, um psicólogo da Universidade da Califórnia, em Riverside. “A identificação de testemunha ocular pode ser mais confiável do que pensamos.”

Alinhamentos em julgamento

Grande parte do debate recente envolve lineups – ou, mais comumente, matrizes fotográficas. Em uma linha tradicional, uma testemunha vê seis a nove suspeitos em potencial (ou suas fotografias) simultaneamente. Mas na década de 1980, Wells começou a testar um novo método: lineups sequenciais, em que possíveis suspeitos são vistos um de cada vez, em vez de tudo de uma vez. Descobriu que Alinhamentos sequenciais resultou numa diminuição significativa da taxa de identificação falsa, com apenas uma pequena queda na taxa de identificação correcto.

Nos anos seguintes, numerosos estudos têm apoiado esta conclusão. Um 2011 meta-análise de 72 estudos de Wells e colegas descobriram que testemunhas cometeram menos identificações equivocadas quando os suspeitos foram apresentados em seqüencial, em vez de em simultâneo, lineups ( Psicologia, Política Pública, e da Lei de 2011). À luz de tais provas, o Projeto Inocência, aprovou o método, e muitos departamentos de polícia mudou seus procedimentos lineup.

Por algumas estimativas, cerca de um terço das agências de aplicação da lei nos Estados Unidos agora usar o formato sequencial, diz John Wixted, PhD, psicólogo da Universidade da Califórnia, San Diego. Mas, diz ele, que o interruptor pode ter sido um erro.

Wixted é um dos vários cientistas, juntamente com Clark e Scott Gronlund, PhD, um psicólogo da Universidade de Oklahoma, que têm defendido um método chamado receptor estatística operando análise característica (ROC), um método amplamente utilizado em outros campos para medir a precisão sistemas de diagnóstico.

Usando esta análise, lineups sequenciais não parecem ser benéfico – e pode levar a um pouco mais do que erros de identificação lineups simultâneas, Gronlund e Wixted têm relatado ( Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2014). O problema, dizem, é que os métodos analíticos anteriores confundidos precisão com a disposição de um testemunho de escolher um suspeito. Em outras palavras, lineups sequenciais parecem tornar as pessoas menos propensos a fazer uma escolha. Mas quando o fazem pegar um suspeito, eles podem estar em maior risco de fazer a escolha errada. “Acontece lineups sequenciais são inferiores”, diz Wixted.

Ao contrário dos métodos analíticos anteriores, a análise ROC leva em conta quão confiante uma testemunha é no momento em que ele ou ela pega um suspeito de um lineup. E confiança, ao que parece, vale a pena pagar a atenção.

Por muitos anos, os investigadores não acho que a confiança de uma testemunha ocular revelou muito sobre a sua precisão na identificação de um suspeito, diz Wixted. Uma testemunha ocular confiável poderia ser a mesma probabilidade de obter o direito de ID – ou errado – como uma testemunha menos confiante. Mas, nas últimas duas décadas, numerosas análises convergiram para o fato de que a confiança testemunha ocular é, na verdade, um forte indicador de precisão.

“Em questões de ambos formato de confiança e programação, o campo durante anos estava cometendo um erro na forma como eles analisaram os dados, e em ambos os casos chegou à conclusão errada”, diz Wixted. “E em ambos os casos, a conclusão incorreta foi transmitido em todo o mundo, incluindo através de departamentos de polícia em todo o país – e isso é onde estamos hoje.”

Wells permanece cético do método ROC. “Ele funciona em certos contextos, mas não em uma linha”, diz ele. No entanto, depois de ter defendido para lineups sequenciais nos últimos anos, ele agora diz que suspeita que, no final, os dois métodos na formação não diferem muito em suas taxas de identificações falsas. De todas as variáveis que influenciam a precisão da identificação de testemunhas oculares, diz ele, o fator seqüencial versus simultânea é uma das menos importantes ( Law and Human Behavior, 2015).

Muito mais crítico, Wells diz, é a escolha de “fillers”, os indivíduos nonsuspect em um lineup. Enchimentos geralmente deve caber conta física da testemunha do suspeito. “Se você usar enchimentos pobres, um suspeito inocente que se encaixa na descrição está em alto risco de ser identificado”, diz ele.

Wells diz que uma das situações mais arriscadas para identificações equivocadas ocorre quando o suspeito real não está presente. “As pessoas têm dificuldade incrível reconhecendo a ausência do autor”, diz ele. “Se ele está lá, eles podem fazer um bom trabalho de pegá-lo. Mas se ele não está lá, eles tendem a escolher outra pessoa.”

No entanto, os agentes policiais podem incluir qualquer um em um lineup. Para minimizar esse risco, Wells recomenda a criação de regras administrativas que exigem alguma suspeita razoável antes de apresentar o rosto de alguém para a testemunha. “Toda vez que você colocar uma pessoa inocente em uma programação, não há risco inerente de que eles possam ser identificados. Mas acontece que não há regras para detetives para passar.”

Uma testemunha confiante

Quando Thompson-Cannino identificados Cotton no tribunal, ela estava certa de que ela estava apontando para o homem que a estuprou. E ainda assim ela estava errada.

Como as estatísticas Inocência Projeto deixar claro, muitas testemunhas oculares estão errados, mesmo aqueles confiantes.Então, como é que a confiança pode prever a identificação precisa?

O problema, dizem os especialistas, está em considerar o que testemunhas dizem sobre o suporte. “Nós não deve mesmo pedir testemunhas para fazer um ID no tribunal, porque isso é realmente uma espécie de inútil”, diz Gronlund. “O que eles dizem, há dois meses, quando vi pela primeira vez o cara?”

Quando Thompson-Cannino foi exibido pela primeira vez fotos de possíveis suspeitos, ela passou vários minutos deliberativos entre dois candidatos. Quando ela finalmente escolheu Cotton, ela disse, “Eu acho que é ele.” Mas ao longo do tempo, a sua certeza cresceu.

Muitas pessoas pensam de memória como uma espécie de YouTube mental; quando você quer lembrar um evento, basta encontrar o link certo e peça bateu. Na realidade, as memórias não são apenas jogado para trás, mas são recém remontado toda vez que eles estão recordou. Isso os torna extremamente suscetíveis à modificação.

Imagine uma testemunha que hesita ao identificar um suspeito de um lineup. O policial sorri e diz “bom trabalho”, e a confiança do testemunho cresce. Mais tarde, a testemunha vê a fotografia do suspeito no jornal. Um advogado pergunta: “Você se lembra se o suspeito tinha as orelhas furadas?”

O que surge é uma memória imprecisa que é rica em detalhes que se sentem muito real, diz Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, psicólogo da Universidade da Califórnia, Irvine, conhecido por seu trabalho sobre a memória humana. “A memória original está desaparecendo, você está reconstruindo o evento com novas informações disponíveis para você, ou novas fontes de sugestão. Você imagina alguma coisa, e ela se sente como uma memória.”

Por essa razão, a única identificação de testemunhas oculares que realmente importa é o primeiro, diz Wixted. “Você não consegue voltar seis meses mais tarde e examinar a cena do crime novamente porque foi contaminado pelo então. Memória funciona da mesma maneira”, diz ele. “Você ganha um teste de memória, e apenas um teste.”

Wells concorda que é crucial para os agentes da lei a prestar atenção a confiança inicial. Em uma recente meta-análise de estudos de todo o mundo, ele e seus colegas descobriram que a confirmação de feedback (como “Bom, você escolheu o suspeito”) inflados fortemente a confiança de uma testemunha ocular em seus julgamentos ( psicologia, política pública e lei de 2014).

“Você tem que tratar provas testemunha ocular como uma forma de prova de rastreio,” Wells diz, e não ao contrário das fibras e cabelos e resíduos de pólvora que os investigadores recolhem a partir de uma cena de crime. “É facilmente contaminados, e pode desaparecer com o tempo.”

recomendações da Academia Nacional

Em 2014, uma comissão da Academia Nacional de Ciências emitiu um relatório recomendando as melhores práticas para os procedimentos de identificação testemunha ocular. O relatório da comissão ressaltou a importância da cluing em confiança inicial de uma testemunha.

Entre os achados do comitê foi uma recomendação para que os agentes policiais videotape o processo testemunha-identificação inicial e documentar julgamento confiança da testemunha no momento em que ele ou ela primeiro identifica um suspeito.

A comissão também recomendou que lineups e matrizes de fotografias ser duplo-cego, de modo que qualquer funcionário que administra o teste não sabe quem é o verdadeiro suspeito é. Tal movimento poderia percorrer um longo caminho para evitar oficiais de influenciar identificações de testemunhas oculares – inadvertidamente ou não – e inflar a confiança testemunha, diz Loftus.

Uma área a comissão Academia Nacional não tomar partido em foi o debate sobre sequencial contra lineups simultâneos. Os autores do relatório concluíram que os métodos analíticos anteriores conflated precisão com vontade de fazer uma identificação.No entanto, apesar de concluir que a análise ROC tem vantagens em relação aos métodos anteriores, os autores também observaram algumas preocupações que ROC poderiam ser influenciados por certos erros de medição e preconceitos.

Em última análise, o comité designado para o uso de uma gama mais ampla de ferramentas estatísticas para resolver a questão e recomendou que as agências de aplicação da lei ficar com seus protocolos existentes até que a ciência é clara.

Wixted concorda com a recomendação da Academia de mais pesquisas. “Eu acho que é essencial que a comunidade maior de psicólogos experimentais básicas volta sua atenção para estas questões”, diz ele.

A ciência saudável

Embora haja persistentes discordâncias entre os pesquisadores de identificação de testemunhas, aqueles que no campo em geral concordam com as recomendações da Academia Nacional, e dão boas-vindas o foco que a pesquisa testemunha ocular está sendo dada.

“Apesar do fato de que existem algumas questões e controvérsias, ainda temos um monte de coisas que concordar,” diz Loftus.”Nos últimos tempos temos visto alguns grandes sucessos, em termos do sistema jurídico acordar e prestar atenção ao corpo de trabalho científico. Como os cientistas continuam a refinar os seus métodos, espero que estes pontos de controvérsia, não vai tirar o resto da história”.

Na opinião de Clark, debates no campo são uma coisa boa. “A ciência é realmente saudável quando nós fazer um balanço do que não sabemos, e fazer novas perguntas ou pedir velhas perguntas de maneiras diferentes”, diz ele. “A ciência vai ser muito melhor como resultado.”

Ainda assim, Clark adverte que não pode ser possível reduzir significativamente o número de identificações equivocadas, sem deixar que mais criminosos em liberdade. “Uma das reivindicações que o campo testemunha ocular tem feito há anos é que podemos implementar novos procedimentos que irão reduzir substancialmente a taxa de falsa identificação com pouca ou nenhuma perda de identificações corretas”, diz ele. “Se você olhar para a literatura, este não é apenas verdadeiro.”

Para ter certeza, há uma visão amplamente aceita na lei que é melhor deixar que os culpados vão livre do que para punir uma pessoa inocente. Mas, para tomar as decisões mais informadas sobre os procedimentos de testemunhas oculares, Clark diz, policiais e políticos precisam estar cientes dos trade-offs.

Wells, no entanto, é a esperança de que a ciência vai continuar a desbastar o problema, encontrar novos e melhores métodos para reduzir identificações equivocadas, sem reduzir os precisos. “O sistema legal não seria capaz de funcionar sem identificação de testemunha ocular”, diz ele. “Temos que encontrar maneiras de torná-lo melhor.”

Outras leituras

Gronlund, SD, Mickes, L., Wixted, JT, & Clark, SE (2015) Realização de uma programação testemunha:. Como a pesquisa tem errado.Psicologia da Aprendizagem e Motivação, 63, 1-43.

Gronlund, SD, Wixted, JT, e Mickes, L. (2014). Avaliar os procedimentos de identificação de testemunhas oculares usando receiver operating análise característica.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (1), 3-10.

Academia Nacional de Ciências (2014) Identificar o culpado:. Avaliar identificação testemunha ocular.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Steblay, NK, Wells, GL, e Douglass, AB (2014).A identificação pós efeito de feedback testemunha ocular 15 anos depois:. Implicações teóricas e políticasPsicologia, Política Pública, e Direito, 20 (1), 1-18.

Wixted, JT, Mickes, L., Clark, SE, Gronlund, SD, e Roediger, III, HL (2015).Confiança testemunha ocular inicial prevê confiantemente a precisão de identificação testemunha ocular. American Psychologist, 70 (6), 515-526.

— Kirsten Weir, “Mistaken identity: Is eyewitness identification more reliable than we think?”, Monitor on Psychology, Vol 47, No. 2, p. 40, 2016. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/02/mistaken-identity.aspx

Olha essas também:

• Vítima de estupro acusa suspeito errado com 100% de certeza, e ele fica preso por 11 anos « EUA ocontraditorio.com/ladodireitodaequidade/?p=28107

• das condenações erradas são por estupro « EUA ocontraditorio.com/ladodireitodaequidade/?p=22521

• Universitária faz sexo oral em colega desmaiado, acusa-o de estupro 2 anos depois, ele é expulso sem provas « EUA ocontraditorio.com/ladodireitodaequidade/?p=7806

[herosxshade-blog]

[[NonSuspect]] - Closed for Dio

@mudawryx

It normally wasn’t all that bad. Living alone could be lonely sure, and it was hardly easy, but it was better than the foster homes he’d been shoved into over and over... And nothing really lived up to how life had been with Mr Deku.

But there were times when a warm house and a solid roof were missed, regardless of the circumstances. With the evening starting, the blond had just finished spending the majority of his day washing dishes at a local pub in exchange for a hot meal. Having spent most of the day in the back of the kitchen, it was a surprise as he stepped out into the street to find rain pounding the sidewalk around him.

Sighing he glanced up at the darkening sky, noting that it didn’t seem like it had any intention of stopping soon. Slipping Navi from his shoulder to nestle in the dry front pocket of his backpack, he headed down the street not quite sure where he was heading.

Wandering what felt like an aimlessly long time he paused, glancing up at the rather large awning that stood out from the building he’d been passing. Seeing that it was a law office he hesitated, after all he was a minor that had escaped the system and was likely ‘wanted’ by some authority somewhere but he didn’t think much longer on it and settled down to sit on the dry concrete wanting to rest from the rain while he contemplated where to spend his evening.

Lifting the small blue instrument he carried with him to his lips, he dug an old cap from his bag, tossing it in front of himself. Playing familiar old tunes he lost himself to his own music, able to forget where he was for a moment as he closed his eyes, hearing nothing above the notes except the occasional clink of coins in the hat as the crowds leaving work passed him.

Though his rest was short lived when the sound of a foot on metal caught his attention. Opening his eyes, the boy lowered the Ocarina, staring down at where a foot had landed directly on his hat. Raising his gaze it didn’t take long before he connected this man had just left the law office and he frowned a little, glancing up at the stranger with a look of nervous confusion.

[neptunecreek]

Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Court Rubber Stamps Mass Surveillance Under Section 702 - Again

As someone once said, “the Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols.”  Well it was not just someone, it was Chief Justice John Roberts. He flatly rejected the government’s claim that agency protocols could solve the Fourth Amendment violations created by police searches of our communications stored in the cloud and accessible through our phones.  

Apparently, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) didn’t get the memo. That’s because, under a recently declassified decision from November 2020, the FISC again found that a series of overly complex but still ultimately swiss cheese agency protocols -- that are admittedly not even being followed -- resolve the Fourth Amendment problems caused by the massive governmental seizures and searches of our communications currently occurring under FISA Section 702. The annual review by the FISC is required by law -- it’s supposed to ensure that both the policies and the practices of the mass surveillance under 702 are sufficient. It failed on both counts.  

The protocols themselves are inherently problematic. The law only requires that intelligence officials “reasonably believe” the “target” of an investigation to be a foreigner abroad -- it is immaterial to the initial collection that there is an American, with full constitutional rights, on the other side of a communication

Justice Roberts was concerned with a single phone seized pursuant to a lawful arrest.  The FISC is apparently unconcerned when it rubber stamps mass surveillance impacting, by the government’s own admission, hundreds of thousand of nonsuspect Americans.

What’s going on here?  

From where we sit, it seems clear that the FISC continues to suffer from a massive case of national security constitutional-itis. That is the affliction (not really, we made it up) where ordinarily careful judges sworn to defend the Constitution effectively ignore the flagrant Fourth Amendment violations that occur when the NSA, FBI, (and to a lesser extent, the CIA, and NCTC) misuse the justification of national security to spy on Americans en mass. And this malady means that even when the agencies completely fail to follow the court's previous orders, they still get a pass to keep spying.  

The FISC decision is disappointing on at least two levels. First, the protocols themselves are not sufficient to protect Americans’ privacy. They allow the government to tap into the Internet backbone and seize our international (and lots of domestic) communications as they flow by -- ostensibly to see if they have been targeted. This is itself a constitutional violation, as we have long argued in our Jewel v. NSA case. We await the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jewel on the government’s claim that this spying that everyone knows about is too secret to be submitted for real constitutional review by a public adversarial court (as opposed to the one-sided review by the rubber-stamping FISC).  

But even after that, the protocols themselves are swiss cheese when it comes to protecting Americans. At the outset, unlike traditional foreign intelligence surveillance, under Section 702, FISC judges do not authorize individualized warrants for specific targets. Rather, the role of a FISC judge under Section 702 is to approve abstract protocols that govern the Executive Branch’s mass surveillance and then review whether they have been followed.  

The protocols themselves are inherently problematic. The law only requires that intelligence officials “reasonably believe” the “target” of an investigation to be a foreigner abroad -- it is immaterial to the initial collection that there is an American, with full constitutional rights, on the other side of a conversation whose communications are both seized and searched without a warrant. It is also immaterial that the individuals targeted turn out to be U.S. persons.  This was one of the many problems which ultimately ended with the decommissioning of the Call Detail Records program, which despite being Congress' attempt to rein in the program which started under section 215 of the Patriot Act, still mass surveilled communications metadata, including inadvertently collecting millions of call detail records from American persons illegally. 

Next, the protocols allow collection for any “foreign intelligence,” purpose, which is a much broader scope than merely searching for terrorists. The term encompasses information that, for instance, could give the U.S. an advantage in trade negotiations. Once these communications are collected, the protocols allow the FBI to use the information for domestic criminal prosecutions if related to national security.  This is what Senator Wyden and others in Congress have rightly pointed out is a “backdoor” warrantless search. And those are just a few of the problems.  

While the protocols are complex and confusing, the end result is that nearly all Americans have their international communications seized initially and a huge number of them are seized and searched by the FBI, NSA, CIA and NCTC, often multiple times for various reasons, all without individual suspicion, much less a warrant.

Second, the government agencies -- especially the FBI -- apparently cannot be bothered to follow even these weak protocols.  This means that in practice, we users don’t even get that minimal protection.  The FISC decision reports that the FBI has never limited its searches to just those related to national security. Instead agents query the 702 system for investigations relating to health care fraud, transnational organized crime, violent gangs, domestic terrorism, public corruption and bribery. And that’s in just 7 FBI field offices reviewed. This is not a new problem, as the FISC notes. Although it once again seems to think that the FBI just needs to be told again to do it and to do proper training (which it has failed to do for years). The court notes that it is likely that other field offices also did searches for ordinary crimes, but that the FBI also failed to do proper oversight so we just don’t know how.  

A federal court would accept no such tomfoolery.....Yet the FISC is perfectly willing to sign off on the FBI’s failures and the Bureau’s flagrant disregard of its own rulings for year upon year.

Next, the querying system for this sensitive information had been designed to make it hard not to search the 702-collected data, including by requiring agents to opt out (not in) to searching the 702 data and then timing out that opt-out after only thirty minutes. And even then, the agents could just toggle “yes” to search 702 collected data, with no secondary checking prior to those searches. This happened multiple times (that we know of) to allow for searches without any national security justification. The FBI also continued to improperly conduct bulk searches, which are large batch queries using multiple search terms without written justifications as required by the protocols. Even the FISC calls these searches “indiscriminate,” yet it reauthorized the program.  

In her excellent analysis of the decision, Marcy Wheeler lists out the agency excuses that the Court accepted:

It took time for them to make the changes in their systems

It took time to train everyone

Once everyone got trained they all got sent home for COVID 

Given mandatory training, personnel “should be aware” of the requirements, even if actual practice demonstrates they’re not

FBI doesn’t do that many field reviews

Evidence of violations is not sufficient evidence to find that the program inadequately protects privacy

The opt-out system for FISA material — which is very similar to one governing the phone and Internet dragnet at NSA until 2011 that also failed to do its job — failed to do its job

The FBI has always provided national security justifications for a series of violations involving their tracking system where an Agent didn’t originally claim one

Bulk queries have operated like that since November 2019

He’s concerned but will require more reporting

And the dog also ate their homework.  While more reporting sounds nice, that’s the same thing ordered the last time, and the time before that.  Reporting of problems should lead to something actually being done to stop the problems.  

At this point, it’s just embarrassing. A federal court would accept no such tomfoolery from an impoverished criminal defendant facing years in prison. Yet the FISC is perfectly willing to sign off on the FBI and NSA failures and the agencies' flagrant disregard of its own rulings for year upon year.  Not all FISC decisions are disappointing.  In 2017, we were heartened that another FISC judge had been so fed up that it issued requirements that led to the end of the “about” searching of collected upstream data and even its partial destruction. And the extra reporting requirements do give us at least a glimpse into how bad it is that we wouldn’t otherwise have.  

But this time the FISC has let us all down again. It’s time for the judiciary, whether a part of the FISC or not, to inoculate themselves against the problem of throwing out the Fourth Amendment whenever the Executive Branch invokes national security, particularly when the constitutional violations are so flagrant, long-standing and pervasive. The judiciary needs to recognize mass spying as unconstitutional and stop what remains of it. Americans deserve better than this charade of oversight. 

Related Cases: 

Jewel v. NSA

from Deeplinks https://ift.tt/3tpobcQ

[neptunecreek]

Snowden Files Declaration in NSA Spying Case Confirming Authenticity of Draft Inspector General Report Discussing Unprecedented Surveillance of Americans, Which He Helped Expose

EFF filed papers with the court in its long-running Jewel v. NSA  mass spying case today that included a surprising witness: Edward Snowden. Mr. Snowden’s short declaration confirms that a document relied upon in the case, a draft NSA Inspector General Report from 2009 discussing the mass surveillance program known as Stellar Wind, is actually the same document that he came upon during the course of his employment at NSA contractor. Mr. Snowden confirms that he remembers the document because it helped convince him that the NSA had been engaged in illegal surveillance. 

Mr. Snowden’s declaration was presented to the court because the NSA has tried to use a legal technicality to convince the court to disregard the document. The NSA has refused to authenticate the document itself. This is important because documents gathered as evidence in court cases generally must be authenticated by whoever created them or has personal knowledge of their creation in order for a court to allow them to be used. The NSA is claiming that national security prevents it from saying to the court what everyone in the world now knows: that in 2009 the Inspector General of the NSA drafted a report discussing the Stellar Wind program. The document has been public now for many years, has never been claimed to be fraudulent, and was the subject of global headlines at the time it was first revealed. Instead of acknowledging these obvious facts, the NSA has asserted that the plaintiffs may not rely upon it unless it is confirmed to be authentic by someone with personal knowledge that it is.

 Enter Mr. Snowden. The key part of his five paragraph declaration states:

During the course of my employment by Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, I worked at NSA facilities.  I had access to NSA files and I became familiar with various NSA documents.  One of the NSA documents I became familiar with is entitled ST-09-0002 Working Draft, Office of The Inspector General, National Security Agency, dated March 24, 2009.  I read its contents carefully during my employment.  I have a specific and strong recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the government had been  conducting illegal surveillance.

The government took a similar unfounded position with regard to another document – an Audit Report by the NSA in response to a secret FISA Court Order – that it produced to the New York Times in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of the New York Times David McCraw, provided a simple declaration to authenticate that document. “Everyone knows that the government engages in these surveillance techniques, since they now freely admit it. The NSA’s refusals to formally ‘authenticate’ these long-public documents is just another step in its practice of falling back on weak technicalities to prevent the public courts from ruling on whether our Constitution allows this kind of mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of nonsuspect people,”  said Cindy Cohn, EFF’s Executive Director. 

Mr. Snowden and Mr. McCraw’s Declarations are part of EFF’s final submission to the court to establish that its clients have “standing” to challenge the mass spying because it is more likely than not that their communications were swept up in the NSA’s mass surveillance mechanisms. These include telephone records collection, Internet metadata collection, and the upstream surveillance conducted, in part, at the AT&T Folsom Street Facility in San Francisco.  Mr. Snowden’s declaration joins those of three additional technical experts and another whistleblower whose declarations were filed in September. The court has not set a hearing date for the matter.

  Related Cases: 

Jewel v. NSA

from Deeplinks https://ift.tt/2RwuQ2p