Sunday, August 12, 2012


SURWe did not say much other talking about Dean John Maynard lecture presentation on 19th C. American Irish Victorian Literature @ DAE JEON UNIVERSITY, S. KOREA*** and his visit to ancient burial tombs of Paekche-Silla tomb@NYU of the burial shroud of Kings, & Maynard said joyfully & delightfully-"I do what I do and say, and teach@ in English, because***I am an ENGLish Professor at NYU" The over simplicities of reading of Foucault's DISCIPLINE & PUNISH-, and his latest work on "peripheries of the Empire" which is Bruce Cummings muse for Ancient Yalu River ] bridge of ancient China & Korea alliance & relationS, though Korea in the late 18th C. turned into a tributary system against Japan. Against Raymond William-on Materialism AND TO AND FOR-AND NEITHER BOTH AND OR-SAID ABOUT "MATERIALIST DISCOURSE[S]" AS CRITICAL HISTORICAL TEXUALIS INTERPRETATIO-- - The scholastic INTEGRAL-HOLISTIC ecological spiritualism, LOGOI-DHARMA-DAO OF St. Bonaventure, the Francisan brown robed friar and philosopher, mystagogU, and monastic theologian. Rinpoche Lama Choygam Trumpa--"Contra spiritual materialis of philosphy & discourse"**** Great landmark hermetic Indo-Tibetan, mind spirit body one mind heart stream consciounsess. To be awakened and resurrect, for truly LAZARUS, SHALL NEVER DIE, BUT IS NOT DEAD, BUT EVER ALIVE********* VEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE

Tuesday, August 7, 2012


SURVE Viaticum Deacon Steward addressed her as a crack whore flower planted in the primrose path by the garden of memory and delight. Almost bled to death, had he not pulled the stolen syringe out from muscular skeletal veins and rushed her to the hospital during Mass. She wanted to be rescued by a homicidal male with patriarchal sensibilities, when he referred to her as what she knew herself to be in her delirium. your dagger pierced my cold quivering entrails. Ora pro nobis, in youth my ruptured aorta and spleen the sacrifice. Father. The desert is pressed between the enflamed loins of your sulking brother. She desired to confess, but was enamored with the idea of the viaticum and the tomb of St. Peter in the Basilica. She dreamed more about the relics and ruins of the Holy Roman Empire and burning votive candle offerings than of heaven,. ILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE

Monday, August 6, 2012

"CYBER-SURVEILLANCE: A CASE STUDY IN DEVELOPMENT & POLICY"-REFERENCES-REV. PROPOSAL-Richard S.Y. Kim, Ph.D. City Unversity of New York, All Rights Reserved, 2008

SUR References Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969) Alberti, A. (2002). Wiretaps: a complete guide for law and criminal justice professionals. Ft. Lauderdale: Austin & Winfield Publishers. Ballard, J.D., Hornik, J.G., Mckenzie, D. (2002). Technological facilitation of terrorism: definitional, legal and policy issues. American Behavioral Scientist, 45,958-989. Barker, J. (2004). “Comment: Society’s carnivore, both good and bad, why we need it, and how to regulate it.” 74 UMKC L. Rev. 945. Benn, S. (1971). Privacy, freedom, and respect for persons. In J. Pennock and J. Chapman. (Eds.) Privacy. (pp.1-27). New York: Atherton. Bereano, P. (1999). Technology and human freedom. In M.D. Ermann, M.B. Williams, C. Gutierrez. (Eds.). Computer, ethics, society. (pp.278-84). New York: Oxford University Press. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S.41 (1967) Borsook, P. (2000). Cyberselfish: A critical romp through a terribly libertarian culture of high tech. New York: Public Affairs. Center for Strategic & International Studies. (1998, November). Cybercrime……cyberterrorism……cyberwarfare: Averting an electronic waterloo. Retrieved June 1, 2001, from Carol, G. (1997). “Federal agencies open unified hard drive to control mafia.” New York Times, February 22. DeCew , J. (1986) The scope of privacy in law and ethics. Law and Philosophy, 5,145-173. DeCew, J. (1997). In pursuit of privacy: Law, ethics and the rise of technology. New York: Cornell University Press. Denning, D. (2000). Statement of Dorothy E. Denning. Retrieved June 4,2001, from Denning, D. (2001). Information warfare and security. Boston: Addison and Wesley. Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.) (1994). Handbook of qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.) (1998b). The Landmark of qualitative Research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, Norman K. Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.) (1998c). Strategies of qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ditzion, R. (2003). “Electronic surveillance in the internet age: a strange case of pen registers.” 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1321. Dowley, M. (2002). Government surveillance under the U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT: Is it possible to protect national security and privacy at the same time? A constitutional tug of war. 36 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 165,182. Douglas, J.D. (Ed.). (1971). The technological threat. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Drozdova, E.A. (2001). Civil liberties and security in cyberspace. In. A. Sofaer & S.E. Goodman (Eds.). Transnational dimensions of cybercrime and terrorism (pp.265-286). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. Dunham, G. (2002), Carnivore, the FBI e-mail surveillance system: devouring criminals, not privacy. 54 Fed. Comm. L.J. 543, 566. Erbschloe, M. (2000). Business on the web is not worldwide. Retrieved July 7, 2002, from index.html Electronic Frontier Foundation, NSA spying FAQ, Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage. Etzioni, A. (2002). Implications of select new technologies for individual rights and public safety. 15 Harv. J. Law & Tech 257. 290/ Etzioni, A. (1999). The Limits of privacy. New York: Basic Books. Fowler, G. (1977).Unmailable. Athens: University of Georgia Press. I Freedman vs. America On Line, Inc. 412 F. Supp.2nd (D. Conn, .2005). Freeh, L. (1997, June 4). Excerpts from testimony to the senate judiciary Committee. Retreived June 5, 2003, from Center for Democracy and Technology Web site: Grabosky, P. (2001). Computer crime: A criminological overview. Forum on Crime and Society, 1, 2-53. Grabosky, P., Smith, R.G., Dempsey, G. (2001). Electronic theft: crimes of acquisition in cyperspace. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Gross, H. (1971). Privacy and autonomy. In J. Pennock and J. Chapman. (Eds.). Privacy. pp. 169-182. New York: Atherton. Gruber, A. (2007-2008). “Garbage pails and puppy dog tails: is that what Katz is made of?” 72 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 781. Gubin, T. (2008). “Note: Warshak v. United States: the Katz for electronic communication.” 23 Berkely Tech. L.J. 723. Haas. T.C. (2001). Carnivore and the fourth amendment. 34 Conn. L. Rev. 261, 290. Henderson, S. (2003-2004). “Nothing new under the sun: a technologically rational doctrine of fourth amendment search.” 72 Geo. Wash. L.J. 805. Hartzog, N. (2002). The “magic lantern” revealed: a report on the FBI’s new “key logging” Trojan analysis of possible treament in dynamic legal landscape. 20 J. Marshall J. Computer and Info. L. 287. Horn, K.A. (2002). Privacy versus protection: Exploring the boundaries of electronic surveillance in the internet age. 29 Fordham. Urb. L.J. 2223, 2274. Huberman, Michael A and Mathew B. Miles (1994) “Data management and analysis Methods” in Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Kleinig, J. “Ethical perils of knowledge acquisition.” Kerr, O. (2002-2003). “Lifting the fog of internet surveillance: how a suppression remedy would change computer crime law.” 54 Hasting L.J. 805. Kerr, O. (2007) .http// 02 04=2007 10/shtml#1170708253. Kerr, D.M. (2000). Statement for the record on internet and data interception capabilities developed by FBI before the United States House of Representatives. Retrieved December 8, 2002, from htm Krenn, P., Bem,D., Weissmann, A., (2008). “Mail Covers” (personal communications) USPIS. Washington DC, and New York City. Kubic, T. (2001). Statement for the record before the house committee on the judiciary subcommittee on crime. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from Information Warfare Web sites: http://wwww. Kushner, H. (Ed.). (2002). Cyberterrorism in the 21st Century. Amer.ican Behavioral Scientist, 45. Lukas.S (2001). “Current and future capabilities.” Eds. A.Sofaer & S. Goodman, The tranational dimension of cyber crime and terrorism. Stanford University Press: Hoover Insitute. Merl, S. R. (2001). Internet communication standards for the 21st century: International terrorism must force the U.S. to adopt “carnivore” and new electronic surveillance standard. 27 Brooklyn. J. Int’l. 245, 278. Markoff, J. (2009). Worms infects millions of computers worldwide. New York Times, January 22. http// Markoff.J. (2009). Vast Spy System loots computers in 103 countries. New York Times, March 28. Marx, G. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance. Berkeley: University California Press. Marx, G.( 1996). Privacy and technology. Teletronik, 1996. Marx, G. (1998). An ethics for the new surveillance. Information society, 3, pp. 77-54. Marx, G. (2001). Murky conceptual waters: public and the private Ethics and information technology, 3, 272-286. Mulgan, T. (2001). The demand of consequentialism. New York: Oxford University Press. Nance, A. (2002). Taking the fear out of electronic surveillance in the new age of terror. 70 UMKC. L. Rev. 751, 779. Nardone v. United States, 308, U.S. 338 (1939). Nisbet, R. (1971). The impact of technology on ethical decision making.” In J.A. Douglas (Ed.). The technological threat. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Nissenbaum, H. (1998). Protecting privacy in the information age. Law and Philosophy. 17, 559-56. O’Connell, Paul. (2002). Intellectual history of COMPSTAT. Ph.D. Dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, Department of Criminal Justice Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) Oyama, K. (2006) “Note: E-mail privacy after United States v. Councilman: legislative options for amending ECPA.” 21 Berkely Tech. L.J. 499. Peterson, M. (1994). Sources in crime analysis. Westport: Greenwood Press. Pikowsky, R.A. (2002). An overview of the law of electronic surveillance post September 11, 2001. 94 Law Libr. J. 601, 619. Pipkin, D. (2000). Information Security. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Pollitt, M. (2001). Cyberterrorism---fact or fancy? Retrieved May 30, 2001from, Power, R. (2000). The tangled web. Indianapolis: Que. Power, R. (2002). CSI/FBI computer crime and security survey. Computer Security: Issues and Trends, 7,1-17. Redina, P. (2008). Personal communication. USPIS. Washington D.C. Regan, P. (1995). Legistlating privacy. Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press. Rein, M.,& Schon, D, (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In C. Weiss (Ed.) Using Social Policy Research in Public Policy. Lexington, MA: DC, Heath. Rosen, J. (2001). The unwanted gaze: The destruction of privacy in america.Vintage: New York, 2001. Sager, I., Hamm, S., Gross, N., Carey, J. (2001, February 12). Cybercrime. Business Week Online. Retrieved June 7, 2003, from Web site: Salkever, A. (2001). A dark side to the FBI’s Magic Lantern: 5011.htm Sofaer, A., Goodman, S. (Eds.). (2001). The transnational dimension of cybercrime and terrorism. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) Solove, D. (2002). Conceptualizing privacy. 90 Calif. L. Rev. 1087,1155. Solove, D. (2003-2004). “Reconstructing electronic surveillance law.” 72 Geo. Wash. L.J. 1264. Source Watch, RESTORE Act (2007). http.// Streeman, M. (2001). Cybercrime: liberty for security. Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 36 Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Sunstein, C. (2000). Princeton: Princeton U P. Sutton, J.R. (2001). Law/society. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Thomson, J. (1974). The right to privacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4, 295- 313. United States v. Choate, 567, F.2nd, 177 (9th Circ., 1978). United States v, Councilman, 418 F. 3rd 67 (1st Circ. 2005) ( en banc). United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). United States v. Herenandez, 313 F.3rd 1209 (9th Circ. 2002). United States v, Leon Van Leewen, 387 U.S, U.S. 249 (1970). United States v. Mark Stephen Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Circ. 2007) United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). United States Department of State. (1996). The pattern of global terrorism. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Justice. (2002). Searching and seizing and obtaining electronic evidence in criminal investigation. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review In Re Directives Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Act (2008). National Criminal Justice Reference Services. Federal wiretap manual. Van Den Haag, E. (1971). On privacy. In J. Pennock and J. Chapman.(Eds.). Privacy. (pp.149-169). New York: Atherton. Wall, D. (Ed.). (2002). Crime and the internet. London: Routledge. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum. Weinstein, W. (1971). The private and free: A conceptual inquiry. J. Chapman and J. Pennock. (Eds.). Privacy. (pp.27-56). New York: Atherton. Winner, Langdon. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics as a theme in political thought. Cambridge: MIT Press. Williams, P. (2001). Organized crime, cybercrime: synergies, trends,Responses. Office of International Programs, U.S. Department of State. Retrieved June 7, 2003, from Information Warfare Website: Wilson. C. (2008) CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS; botnets, cybercrime, and cyberterrorism: vulnerabilities and policy issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Yeats, J. (2002). “CALEA and RIPA: the U.S. and U.K. technologies in the wireless world.” 12 Albany L.J. Sci and Technology Rev. Yin, Robert K. (1984). Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, Robert K.(2003). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Young, M. (2001). What big eyes and ears you have!: a new regime for covert governmental surveillance. 70 Fordham. L. Rev. 1017, 1109 VEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE


SURRichard S. Kim Prof. Schwartz Reading List Oct. 12, 2000 DiCristina, Bruce. Method in Criminology: A Philosophical Primer. (Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston, 1995). Durkheim, E. The Rules of Sociological Method. Glencoe: (New York: Free Press, 1964) Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for the Behavioral Science. (San Francisco: Chandler, 1964) Kincaid, Harold. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Science: Analyzing Controversies in Social Research. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Lakatos, Imre, and Musgrave, Alan. Criticism and Growth of Knowledge. (New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press). Popper, Karl. Logic of Scientific Discovery. (New York: Routledge, 1992). Hempel, Carl. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. (New York: Free Press, 1965). Martin, M. and McIntyre, C. Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. (MIT Press, 1994) Mills, C. Sociological Imagination. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959) Nagel, E. Structure of Science. (Harcourt, Brace: 1961) Putnam, Hilary. Mathematics, Matter and Method. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979) Weber, Max. Methodology of the Social Sciences. (Glencoe: Free Press, 1992). Richard S. Kim Prof. Kenney Reading List Blalock, H. and Blalock, A. eds. Methodology in Social Research. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968). Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for the Behavioral Science. (San Francisco: Chandler, 1964 Lazarsfield, P. and Reitz, J. An Introduction to Applied Sociology. (New York: Elvesier, 1975). Ch.4. Translating a Practical Problem into Research” Maxfield, M. and Babbie, E. Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1995). Miller, D. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. (Newbury Park: Sage, 5th ed. 1991) Roesch, R., Corrado, R. Evaluation and Criminal Justice Policy. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN, FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS; E. NAGEL, GODEL & PHILOSOPHY; RUSSELL, B & WHITEHEAD, A., PRINCIPIA MATHEMETICA; EINSTEIN, ALBERT, THEORY OF RELATIIVITY; SCIENTIST**-PHILOSOPHER*******; "TAO OF POOH"************************** . VEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Il-ae Han-Maeum eae Peie Noon Meuel Heyuem kghyua s=jubg shin kyg do

IL. GYI-DO 1/11/04 Vala delya-onaysatay-vyel--dmytr-velya. Fala, teralvtxa—sem--daya-crevn-elya-quintembril!. Ut-gretya-letsim-hra-ysel-dnaye--ensal--a, Gen-ratdysttya—utne-veli-kyad--emtri_metismyattvya. Itte-lan-smydr-vallen-skyl-di-tya-nayal-re-fi-xquintr! O HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN! Herein lies their GRAVE! By the Waters…… By the waters By the River of…… SHILOI.. Wept and slept; Slept and wept. That which lies between the fast: And the grapes of wrath, Of the feast in Cannan, Blood, wine and bread. Of the Phat Body, neither Hollow, nor made of straw: Man, Woman, and Child. The Beloved, Lady in White, Regina Caeli, pray for your Children of the Promise, Hear all supplicants, Steadfast in joyful and sorrowful prayer, crush___of time so thin…. Vituperous snares. For Thine is the Power & Glory! For Thy Throne! Greater the sin and defilement , The greater Mercy, Santa Faustina pray--- Uleashing Terror, hence, Unyielding---- Lord, Have Mercy…….. Say the Word, and so shall I be healed….. Oh! On Moriah, Sinai, Carmel, Olive, Golgatha, the road to Emmaus! Travels toward Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Kyong-ju and Shaolin. P_X! 48374938743874837506-4-5949458-5=604850 274639059388593475849573-5-=6=5496789285 347839473847387495038483748596-6=79=5968 19567409384938475647586960-594859485904. Ki-no-ta-ryu-no-shin-han-no-kyo. Mu-no-ka-ryu-no-shin-han-mu-do! Saecula saeculorum! P__N___A_M ! R.S.C. Kim SURVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE
SURVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE 2.2. Law of Telephonic Surveillance Communication Privacy According to LaFave(1993), though the Supreme Court never authorized Title III, since it was passed by Congress in 1968, U.S.C.A. 2510-2520, Osborn v. U.S. by (1966) upheld a judicial authorized use of a secret agent using a tape recorder; and Berger v. N.Y. (1967) holding the eavesdropping law unconstitutional-as well as-- Katz v. U.S.(1967) stating that it was unconstitutional if a warrant is not obtained for the wiretapping. Under Title III, as long there is probable cause, and issuance of a warrant is authorized by Attorney General designated down to Assistant Attorney General of the criminal division, the destination and privacy to which a telephonic message and content is to be monitored must follow certain rules that of Title III---which Pikowsky (2003: 13) refers to as the “Modern Federal Statutory Limitations on Wiretaps.” As LaFave, Israel and King summarizes the statutory limitation (1999, Pikowsky, 2003:14): 1) There must be probable cause, contingent on the premises that all means of investigations have been exhausted. 2) Identification of the suspect, and telephonic communication between persons, groups or parties must be enumerated and made cognizant. 3) The period of time (“minimization”) must be recorded, and limits must be set according to how the telephonic interception must be proceed according Title III, and the up-dated form of it-Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA). 3) Extensions of an order may be granted for like Periods, but only by resort to procedures required required in the initial order.

"law of international & domestic APP. of Telephonic Surveillance--NOUS-NOMOS-IUS Y Legis---" Richard S.Y. Kim, Mentor & Supervisor-F. Warren Ned Benton, PhD, Chair, DIrector-Public Management Dept. John Jay College of Criminal Justice/ CUNY GUC, MPA-I-G Program-CF-FBI Law Bulletin-Supra Op. Cit. ?????2000-2009

SURVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE 2.2.1. International v. Domestic Application Telephonic Surveillance Law As stated in the previous section the statutory Limitations, rules and law of Title III, and ECPCA poses restrictions on how telephonic wiretapping is conducted. Such regulatory laws are limited to U.S. and Federal and State jurisdiction. The only exception is FISA rules of wiretaps. It must first observed that (Rasch, 2006) that FISA wiretaps were intended to be applied to foreign political subversives, namely terrorist, and U.S. citizens committing treason. Wiretaps must be conducted under classified intelligence, investigation reports under a warrant with a Secret Foreign Intelligence Court. It is all secret, and classified information. But according to Rasch, FISA wiretap must immunize innocent U.S. citizen from wiretaps. But that has not been the case in Hepting v. U.S.(2007). Other that that, all facts and intelligence gathering to prosecute terrorists, the treasonous, and foreign political subversives in terms of how the wiretaps are conducted are not known and accessible to public scrutingy.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

PHILOSOPHICAL & ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF INFORMATION-CYBER-WARFARE:Richard S.Y. Kim PhD, 1st Doctoral Thesis Proposal--Mentor: John Ian Kleinig, BDiV, PHD, F.Warren Ned Benton, PhD, Adina Schwartz, JD. PhD

SURVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE Richard S. Kim Prof. John Kleinig Preliminary Introduction (Part 1) March 11, 2002 Socio-Political and Ethical Aspects of Information Warfare and Policy Computers, information systems and telecommunications have globally structured and digitized how technology has been used for the maintenance of national defense, infrastructure, and financial institutions. These are the three primary sectors where security issues are of considerable importance because of the interactive and global nature of information warfare (cyberterrorism, cyberwarfare and financial crimes committed through the use of computers) which policy analysts and scholars believe poses a threat in the near future in the U.S and abroad. Information Warfare (IW) “involves action taken to achieve information superiority by affecting adversary information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks while defending one’s own information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks.” Cyberwarfare involves defending information and computer networks, deterring information attacks, as well as denying an adversary ability to do the same. It can include offense information operations mounted against an adversary, or even dominating information on the battlefield. Cyberwar often refers to information-military oriented warfare involving high intensity conflicts. Information warfare on lesser scale is classified as Netwar. Netwar is referred to as low intensity conflict involving operations other than war (as in terrorist activities), and non-military modes of conflict and crime. These threats may pose a significant harm to various institutions that heavily rely on informational technology. A global theory of “informationalism” and a “network society,” which analyzed the changing of the global socio-political economy due to informational technology, was advanced by Manuel Castells. Castells argues that there was a growing shift towards the electronic use of information, which had a revolutionary affect on how society and nation states conducts it economic and political affairs, tantamount to the momentous changes brought about the Industrial Revolution. Informationalism grew with the emergence of a new economy, “because of the productivity and competitiveness of units or agents in this economy (be it firms, regions or nations) fundamentally depend upon the capacity to generate, produce and apply efficiently knowledge based information.” Castells defines “networks” as the productivity that is generated through a network of linkages between competing economic agents. This mode of analysis extends to a political landscape, where competing or conflicting political agents or institutions may engage in war for the purposes of military and political dominance. The information revolution has made an impact on terrorists, and non-state agent group, and organized crime syndicates conduct their military campaigns and criminal enterprises. The use of networks in such organizations organize themselves into sprawling multi-organizational networks, sectioning themselves off into nodes , as for example the Al-Qaeda network, who communicate to each other in cells and public internet cafes across the world. Terrorists suppose that information operations may be useful as a traditional military operative for achieving their goal for achieving their goals, systematic disruption as much as destruction. Terrorist activity employing network strategies reap the advantages of utilizing such resources to facilitate its campaigns and use cyber technology as made evident in the 9/11 attack of World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Electronic financial information was destroyed prior to the attack on the World Trade Center. Michael Vatis, former director of the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) writes: American and allied military strikes are likely to lead to further terrorist strikes against Americans and allied citizens and interests, both in the U.S. and abroad. This aggression will likely take a variety of forms and may include cyber attacks by terrorist groups themselves or targeted by nation-states. Even more likely are cyber attacks by sympathizers of terrorists, hackers with general anti-U.S. or allied sentiments………During the past five years, the world has witnessed a clear escalation in the number of politically motivated cyber attacks, often embroiling hackers from around the world in regional disputes. One instance of cyberwarfare between two nation-states reveals a terrifying example of how cyber technology can be used to increase military and political conflict. The affects of mid air collision between an American surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter aircraft in April 1, 2001 shows the potential for international conflict between nation states. The resulting political conflict between the two major powers was accompanied by an online campaign of mutual cyber attacks and web defacement, with both sides receiving support from hackers around the globe. Chinese hacker groups, such as the Honker Union of China and the Chinese Red Guest Network Security Technology Alliance, organized a massive and sustained week-long campaign of cyber attacks against American targets, which led NIPC in the U.S. to issue an advisory on April 26, 2001, warning the “potential for increased hacker activity directed at the U.S. systems in the April and May of 2001. After approximately 1,200 U.S. sites including those belonging to the White House, U.S. Air force and the Department of Energy had been subjected to denial of service attacks, the attacks stopped. Analysts and experts report that cyber attacks will precede a military use of force as perceived in the conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Muslims Indian and the Indian government, and the conflict in Kosovo directed against NATO. It is important to note that the “U.S. does not expect to detect much hard evidence when these cyber threats exists; indeed the more serious the less likely there is to be a priori evidence.” Such a threat would be logically unseen, as the secrecy and the undetectable nature of a cyber attack would preclude an assessment of the immediate harm. Moreover, there have been few studies of the ethics in justifying the use of cyber technology in support policies implementing security measures in respect to information warfare. Is the ethical and policy question: can a ethical framework be applied to uses of cyber weaponry used by the state and criminal justice agencies to certain scenarios and events when security and interests are involved? And if an ethical framework can be applied, what would be the justifications and conditions for engaging in war, where cyber technology plays a key role in policy formulations? In addition, what would be the rules governing how such a war is to be conducted, where military or police action is involved? What actions would be classified as “acts of war” in cyber attack situations? James Moor, a leading figure in computer ethics, argues for the application of computer ethics in need to justify how computer are used in supporting social, legal and governmental policies. Moor believes that there is currently “a policy and a conceptual vacuum.” Often either no policies for conduct in these situations exist or existing one are inadequate. Moor argues for the “formulation and justification of policies for the ethical use of technology.” Some scholars have argued that a state is justified in using cyber weapons in a state of political conflict, when a state is attacked by terrorists or other states, where the use of such technology is necessary to protect, defend, prevent and deter hostile agents from making further attack. Other scholars have applied the traditional just war theory to the use of cyber technology as a moral category in framing a policy response to how nations and organizations would engage in cyber attacks when in midst of military conflict or when victimized through the use of computer technology by hackers , organized criminal groups, terrorists, and other nation states. The concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are primarily confined to definitional concepts of when a war is defensive/offensive, and what type of technological weaponry, when used, constitutes an “act of war” when there is political conflict between hostile nations…………... (IN PROGRESS)

Sone Fundamentals of Criminological Theory: An Introductory Notes: Lectcure-CRIMINAL JUSTICE-101--John Jay College of Criminal Justice-CUNY, North Hall, NY, New York

SURVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE Criminological Theory Lecture, Part II p.94 Theory/Hypothesis process. Review the theory—Poverty causes crime. (questions, how does the process work?) Criminological Schools 1. Classical—review. (Enlightenment) Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Free wil, Hedonistic calculus, deterrence, retributivism. Neo—classical criminology---Rational Choice, Routine Activity, 2. Biological 3. Psychobiological 4. Psycological 5. Sociological 6. Conflict 7. Phenomenological 8. Emergent Theory. Interdisciplinary Theory? –the integration of mutiple disciplines in explaining crime causation and criminal behavior. Postivistic theory---free will vs. determinism. (philosophical question). Causal theory. No agency---criminal behavior is not a result of free will or choice, but caused by external factors like, i.e, physiology, social environment, genetics, economic-class structure, biological, sociological, economic—use of scientific methods or treatments to prevent or cure or rehabilitate criminal behavior. (educational--vocational, psychological, psychopharmocalogical treatment, social service and etc,)---- 1)Biological Theory---criminal behavior has physiological and a genetic basis. (causal theory) Historical origins. Franz Joseph Gall(1776-1535)--Phrenology----study of shape to determine correlates of human behavior, mainly, the study of the cranium, the bumps in one’s head, the facial, and anatomical characteristic is determinative of criminal behavior. “One looks like a criminal”. A criminal type---a difference between criminal and non-criminal according to physiological and anatomical characteristic. Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909). Father of Modern Criminology. Biological Positivism. A psychiatrist and criminal anthropologist. He studied the anatomy of criminals and correlates his physiological foundings with a criminal type, and found physical anomalies, and found these physical deviations from the non-criminal type, and theorized these physical development were due to not evolving from earlier period of human evolution (were devolved). Primitive characteristics---savage and primitive physical characteristic-----Atavism---Atavistic Anomolies. Long arm, large lips, crooked noses, lot of body hair, lobeless ears, high cheek bones--- Political-Cultural Critique----Orientalist critique-(Edward Said)--the criminals were Southern Italians----were isolated from main currents of Western Europe, and were considered primitive, dark skinned, tribal people, and hence, (non-Western European) and were not civilized, or cultivated and were subhuman……lesser people than Western Europeans, who were to controlled and dominated politically and culturally. Theory of the “Born Criminal” or “moral lunatic” late 19th and early Twentieth C. Western European and American theory of criminality--intellectual inferior, feeble minded, physiologically anomalous, who passed down heredity trait of criminality-----the legal and social control response was sterilization of the born criminal and the moral lunatic----Eugenics movement. The methodological critique of Lombroso---English Charles Goring, medical doctor, Karl Pearson (1914), a statistician. Compared 3000 the physiological characteristics of criminals with soldiers in British army and found that there was little physical differences. Importantly, Lombroso did not have a control group (a comparison group). Earest Hooten (1939)---created a anthropometric data base of criminals and compared them with non-criminals. He found out that criminal suffered from various physical inferiority; however, he reason that they were the sub-group of criminal population, who were captured by the authority, while the remainders of the criminals, who were not captured, may have been measured with conformist population. Criminal Families---the Jukes study, the Richard Dugdale, traced the family tree of Jukes family that traced 75 years of criminality and social degeneracy within the Jukes geneology, of which 1200 people within the family were considered social degenerates and non-conformist. Kallikak Families---Henry Goddard, compared the descendents from the offspring of Martin Kallikak who had an affair with a barmaid, and a marriage to a virtuous Quaker women. The affair with bairmaid produced produced more than half of social degenerate offspings. Where as out of 496 off springs from the marriage with the Quaker woman, only three were non-conformist. Somatyping---the body type was cause of criminality. Ectomporph, endomorph, mesmomorph. William Sheldon. 2. PsychoBiological Theory. Highlights the role of genetics, environmental contaminants, nutrition, hormones, biochemistry as variable in the causation of crime and criminal behavior. a)Chromozone theory---the chromozonal structure determines behavior in favor of criminal offending. Xyy—supermale theory. The extra male chromozone leads to high level of aggression and violence which leads males to commit crime. (The klinefeld syndrome)/. Another characteristic of the Klinefeld syndrome is low intelligence and feeble mindedness. Brain dysfunction, cognitive deficits, low level of serotonins, high level of testerone, low levels of certain transmitters, low level of thyroid hormones, brain damage/injury. High level of sugars---Twinkie defense. Richard Hernstein and James Q. Wilson, “Crime and Human Nature”—certain psychological characteristics as aggressiveness, impulsivity, and aggression, and certain physiological attributes interact with environmental factors as family, schooling, media which causes crime. Social Policy: What type of policy would be implemented if the biological-psycho-biological theory was the cause of the crime? (Class question) 3.Psychological Theory. Personality and mental faculties of the offender is the cause of crime or criminal behavior. a.)Behavioral Conditioning. Pavlov experiment. Salivating dog when the bell rings. Rewards and punishment motivates individual from offending or not. b)Freudian Psychoanalysis. The theory of consciousness---ego, id, superego. Ego---the source of the conscious self, id—source of sexual drive and gratification, superego---the moral conscience---source of right and wrong. Weak super ego---as explanation of law violating. Conscience is discounted in violating norma.---Pleasure principle---or the id----gratification, perhaps, sex crimes or sexual harassment---or lust murders.. Thanatos principles---death principle (death wish)---engaging self-destructive behavior. Smoking, taking drugs, prostitution, violating the law---- Psychopathology—the study of mental illness. Psycho-mind, pathology-disease. Psychopathy---A person with a personality disorder related to anti-social behavior due to poorly developed superego. Charles Manson. Psychosis---the psychotic offender. A mental illness in which the person is out of touch with reality or is delusional. Schizophrenia….a type of psychosis. (A person thinks he is being chased by vampires, and kills the person under the delusion.) Psychological Profiling----profiling the psychological and cognitive, motivational characteristic of offenders to investigate crime, an investigative tool. As it were, going into the mind of offender to calculate how he or she may act or do. Dangerousness: the likelihood that a given individual will harm society measured in terms of recidivism. Anti-social personality, psychopathic disorder---“incureable” hence, not released from custodial environment. Social Policy: what kind of policy will be implemented if such a theory are proven to be true. 4. Sociological Theory.


SURThe primary design of constitutions is to control future events of legal and governmental decision making as to how constitutional doctrines and provisions are interpreted and adjudicated within a polity. Such events, according to Vincent Blasi, are political, where in the past restrictive and closed interpretations of the first amendment have scandalously made permissible the repression and uprooting of unorthodox ideas in pathological periods of American legal and political history. The fundamental question of interpreting the first amendment is how courts should adjudicate first amendment disputes and fashion first amendment doctrines. The courts should adopt a “pathological perspective,” considers Blasi, a view that holds that first amendment protection should not be compromised in the advent of social and political intolerance and judicial conservatism during the worst of times. The overriding objective of the pathological perspective is to equip the first amendment to maximum service in those historical periods when intolerance of unorthodox ideas is most prevalent and when governments are most able and most likely to stifle dissent systematically. Interestingly, the prophylactic qualities of this perspective, which aims to resolve and deter first amendment abuses extend beyond the preservative function of the basic governmental structures to normative, political commitment and constitutional ideals. As an analytic distinction, the pathological perspective distinguishes the provisions of the Constitution that establish the basic structure of government and the most significant relationship to the political regime, from provisions that embody more discrete, and less essential often no less important normative commitments or aspirations. Moreover, the conceptual underpinning of the perspective is situated in a right’s discourse that holds fundamental civil liberties such against and tantamount with constitutional provisions that establishes the basic structures of government and political regimes. The core proposition of rights cannot be violated without a system of adjudicatory interpretation and decision making degenerating into a state of governmental and social pathology. What, hence, allows for the legal and governmental pathology is the egregious abuse of fundamental procedural rights, which through a transgression of normative and constitutional requirements makes diseased the juridical and political body. However, it seems doubtful that the pathological perspective makes a claim of unlimited rights of speech and expression, but can be understood as a diagnosis of the extent to which the repression and control of unorthodox ideas through adjudicatory decision making vis-à-vis courts and political regimes have significantly contributed to such a pathology. Such a perspective of the first amendment can be applied to other amendments (fourth, fifth and the sixth) where procedural rights of persons must be afforded protection within constitutional provisions and fashioned doctrines during abnormal periods in criminal justice history. Importantly, one must consider that the defining feature of a pathological period is a shift in basic attitudes, among certain influential actors if not the public at large, concerning the desirability of the central norms of the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. I Criminal procedure founded on the fourth, fifth and sixth amendment affords protection to the accused so that governmental interests in seeking truth and proof of culpability remain within the limits of preserving bodily integrity and without obtaining confessions through coercion. Since the Wickersham report during the 1920’s, which repudiated the excessive use of force and coercion, a pathological shift towards more deceptive strategies and methods of obtaining criminal evidence and information followed decades later. Thus, over the last fifty to sixty years the investigative operations and police interrogations have adopted more subtle and clandestine tactics and stratagems which have transformed how evidence and information is gained and produced. Unlike the abuses of fourth amendment protection deceptive practices such as electronic surveillance, undercover agents and psychologically coercive methods of confessions have superseded a pathological period towards a more technologically sophisticated and powerful mode of crime control. It will be argued here that the overriding objective of the pathological perspective is to equip the fourth, fifth and sixth amendment to full service so that privacy and liberty interests do not become threatened by governmental abuses of due process and concomitant normative standards. II The question of the fourth amendment protection from electronic surveillance has remained problematic since Katz as to whether evidence obtained through such means is constitutional. Prior to Katz, the rationale of the Olmstead and Goldman Court authorizing police use of wiretapping and bugging were justified by two reasons: (1) the police did not trespass upon the defendant’s premise, and hence did not constitute a “search”; and (2) only conversations were obtained, and so no “things” were seized. It was not until the Katz decision that the physical trespass doctrine had been rejected on grounds that privacy interests of the defendant within the meaning of the fourth amendment had been violated. A new rationale was provided: an unauthorized wiretap violates the fourth amendment if the subject places justifiable reliance on the privacy of a particular place. Katz thus made it clear, that with the possible exception of the case in which a conversation is overheard or recorded with the consent of a party to conversation, wiretapping and electronic surveillance are subject to the limitations of the fourth amendment. However, such constitutional limitations on electronic surveillance were no longer applicable when it involved under cover agents. In United States v. White, the Court held that government’s use of agent who may themselves reveal the content of the conversation does not violate the Fourth Amendment; and that Katz did not disturb the rationale of On Lee because agents used electronic surveillance to transmit the conversation to other agents. In a plurality opinion by Justice White, it was concluded that (1) one may not have a justifiable expectation that a defendant’s associates neither are nor will become police agents, and (2) that a different result is not called for when the agent has recorded or transmitted the conversation. The White decision rejected the criteria for the protection of privacy interests vis-à-vis electronic surveillance established in Katz, and furthermore failed to overrule On Lee and Lopez on such grounds. It appears that the conflation between electronic surveillance and undercover agency problematizes the way in which privacy claims are adjudicated. The conclusions reached by White holds that one cannot reasonably expect that a defendant’s associate may betray confidence and may be informant to the policy seems to be independent claim from one that justifies electronic surveillance as a legally permissible and constitutionally valid practice. Moreover, the logic of wagering an argument in favor of fourth amendment protections of privacy interests hinges on a disjunctive propositon: electronic surveillance should be rejected because it violates the justifiable reliance standard established in Katz or because the physical trespass standard violates fifth and sixth amendment protection of self-incrimination and right to counsel where surveillance is conducted without a warrant, wherein secret agents are involved. Such procedural protection should not be situated within an aim of suppressing illicit activity that is construed within the aegis of the criminal law, but within teleological means which ascribe the right of the accused to standards of equity and fairness. If such practices are deemed a necessary evil, our normative commitments to the right of privacy may have disturbing aftereffects as to how personal communications and social exchanges entail misplaced trust and countless betrayals by individuals and the state. III Confession and interrogation pose an epistemological presumption of ascertaining truth, which underscore how fifth and sixth amendment protection have been undermined by the police and the courts. It seems the internal contradiction of criminal procedure lies between the policy dilemma between the need to protect the individual against coercive law enforcement tactics, and to have effective means of crime control. Justice Goldberg in Escobedo v. Illinois comments that “no system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on `confession’ will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence secured through skill investigation.” Moreover, an important question in analyzing the rationale of police investigation and interrogation (custodial and post-indictment) may be understanding to what extent psychological tactics are employed that may induce confession. The problem of mapping out the legal and ethical boundaries in which police deception violate Miranda rights and due process protection have been documented. Interrogatory deception may stand as the functional equivalent of coercion since both strategies may induce involuntary behavior. In the absence of definitive guidelines and per se rules from the Supreme Court, the police officer may naturally adopt strategies advocated in a standard manual such as Criminal Interrogation and Confession. The Court in Miranda commenting on the pressures of such police tactics pointed to the deleterious effects of psychological coercion inherent in the process: We stress that the modern practice of in custody interrogation is psychologically oriented rather than physically oriented . . .This court has recognized that coercion can be mental as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of unconstitutional inquisition. Interrogations utilizing psychological tactics with the threat of criminal sanction seems to make it less plausible that a suspect may voluntarily confess where fifth and sixth amendment protection is systematically denied. The voluntariness doctrine falls short of weighing the likelihood that miscarriage of justice may follow when fundamental protections are overlooked. However, such a doctrine appears problematic on epistemological and normative grounds: (1) the veracity of a confession cannot be ascertained when extrinsic evidence is lacking, (2) there is no causal relationship that demonstrates that an act of confession presupposes a free and rational choice on the part of the accused to incriminate him or herself, and (3) the capacity to discern the mental capacity to which psychologically coercive and deceptive interrogation induces a innocent person to make a false confession remains empirically unverified and inconclusive. IV A pathological perspective applied to certain elements of criminal procedure presents a novel manner of analyzing fourth, fifth and sixth amendment protections. The fundamental and rather dramatic shift in criminal law enforcement practices in modern criminal justice history have established a new paradigm that have called constitutional provisions and doctrines into epistemological skepticism and ideological conflict. To some it is apparent that such larger issues must refer back to the interpretation of the Constitution as a foundationalist and living text. However, the pervasive doubt that subverts such legal and judicial inquiry would be a rejection of criminal procedure as external to the preservative function and governance of the state and its embedded political ideology and concomitant social structures. A pathological perspective in ideologically polarized times call to attention the violation of due process protections as a corrective, perhaps, to reconfigure and renegotiate the claims of constitutional protections within a more holistic and axiological framework of criminal law and social policy. A Pathological Perspective: Police Tactics, Surveillance & Coercion Richard S. Kim Conceptual Foundations of Criminal Procedure Professor Heffernan January 5, 1998 VEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE



Friday, August 3, 2012


SU Eternal Consolation: “My Peace I Give You.” 7/1/2003 A prayer for Grace, my beloved sister The wounds that last forever Move toward the heart of eternity. Inexorable love, Burning house of love Burnt like the ashes of a barn fire, A rising Phoenix. If I have died many times over, It was your voice that guided Me to the house of your holy dwelling, His sanctuary and refuge. Where I found peace In torment, duress and confusion, I abandoned myself to look for Thee. But how can I find something That which I knew the moment I conceived the thought. It was you, Holy Lord, Jesu, So I remain holding a supreme Faith and confidence in your love For me, that I may do your will, And to ask for forgiveness, and Forgive the sins of others… Holy and Awesome is the Power of Almighty God, Who created the Heavens and the Earth, And He reigns and governs the world And universe. Holy, Holy, Holy is He. Let me adore and worship you in the silence and tranquil bliss of Truth, that only you will be Glorified forever in my frail mind And body. Hosanna, Hosanna in the Highest! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord! Blessed is my sister who comes In the Name of the Lord, who Is girded with buckler and shield Under the sign of the warring Lamb. Truth, faith, purity, hope, love, silence, chastity, piety, prudence, modesty, endurance and courage Towards that road which we Traverse so far to follow Thee. Protect her and guide evermore In the ever deep pastures And hills to which you guide Her with the staff Of Thy Cross------ Against all harm, all darkness, misfortune, And sickness, and doubt, spiritual and mortal. That Thy Divine Light shall grant her peace And comfort in all care, anxiety, And affliction. Holy Mother of God, pray for Us, and lead us to the blessed Fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Send, O Good Lord, Thy Spirit of Healing, that we May endure and be grateful For all Thy bounties, for thy Boundless Mercy, all your gifts That our quick lives may reflect And radiate with joy in Thy eternal love and glory! --Richard S.C. Kim RVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE

Thursday, August 2, 2012

In Tempore CHAIROS, For Paul Tillich, Romano Gaurdini, S.J,. Gabriel Marcel, S.J. Vatican II Spiritualist RC Theologians

to Ben X. Liu “Chronos” To discourse On the fallings stars, Chaos of stellar spheres. The captive dragonfly, With their wings plucked At the center of gravity. The harvest was late, Elements melt And burn away. Sleep of death. The wounded eagle Descends from a pale murdered sky. Torrential winds and And the tumultuous seas discipline the peregrine soul in despair: Beyond transitory Nodes of bones, flesh and ashes, desiring only good. URVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE

Koryeo(Executive) Senior Editor, Robert Turly--Asian Art & Humanities

R.S.Y Kim, Ph.D., Order & Society of SS. Thomas and Bartholomew, who studied Law,_LIT, Math @ NYU; John Jay College of Criminal Justice/CUNY Graduate Center Research Foundation Fellow (Dept.Management, Law, Criminal Justice; CO-Editor-BEN LIU, BROWN U< West/East PSYCH: Senior Math/Stats Editor, Editor. S. VAN BEVERHAUT; Assoc. Communications Ed. Michael Reyes, Hamilton College: Hon. Supreme THEORETICAL MATHEMATICS ED. ALGIRDAS.T. University at LITHUANIA-POLAND;Film Editor-"Voltaire," SUNY-BINGHAMTON U. SR Assoc. Math.Ed. Arsen Yakubov, U of Israel-Princeton U----Advisory Board--Gautam Ramakrishna, MD,(EMERITUS) Executive Secretary, Nada Pues Nada (Mayo Clinic Research Group)- C. Lieberman, PhD, NYPD, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism, Investigation and Policing Philosophy, John Jay College-University of New Haven(EMERITUS) *AFFIL=DULLES/BENTON/KLEINIG/SCHWARTZ/LEVINE/KIM/WANG PAN AMERICAN-ASIAN INSTITUTE FOR PEACE, WAR, ECONOMICS & JUSTICE-Legal and Political Advisor: Barry Latzer, JD, PhD (EMERITUS); ; ;Nicholas Birns PhD GPBNEW SCH0OL U=Executive V. President, B.Liu. Senior Ed. Glen Slaby--