The DHS Snoop Balloon

It's not often that a balloon makes people feel uncomfortable.

But the inflatable aircraft that has been floating above the St. Clair River in recent weeks, across the border from Sarnia, Ont., is no ordinary balloon.

Officially, the "balloon" is called an Aerostat. It's a Helium-inflated aircraft that looks like a flying wing, and had been floating between 150 and 300 metres above the ground in Port Huron, Mich., since the end of last month, until a storm damaged its fabric and it was taken down for repairs.

The company that owns it, Sierra Nevada Corporation, reportedly wants to test out the new technology to see if it can sell it to U.S. Homeland Security for use as a patrolling device.

But Bradley M. Lott, a retired U.S. Marine Corps major general who is running the Aerostat testing in Port Huron, said the company's plan is to see what the aircraft can do and how it can be used in a variety of situations -- including for use in rescue operations after natural disasters or airline accidents.

Lott said the Aerostat was designed by the Colorado-based Global Near Space Systems, and built by Delaware's ILC Dover -- the company that built and designed the space suits that NASA astronauts used when walking on the Moon in 1969.

The Aerostat has to follow Federal Aviation Administration flight rules and must be pulled down out of the sky each night at 11:30 p.m. It is permitted to go back up at 6:30 a.m.

The device carries a "technologically-advanced payload," Lott said, which could be configured to carry a camera, communications equipment or other materials.

But that payload -- and the powerful camera that has been training its eye on the St. Clair River while the Aerostat has being tested -- is exactly the problem issue for Sarnia residents who already put with surveillance from helicopters, boats, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other patrols along the Ontario-Michigan border. Not to mention the flying drones that will start patrolling the border next year.

"It's unbelievable that they think they need this on a friendly nation's border," said Adam Bush, a 24-year-old Sarnia resident who opposes the Aerostat's presence on the other side of the river.

But it goes beyond the issue of U.S. defence concerns for many Sarnia residents, who say they simply do not want to be spied upon -- or potentially be spied upon -- by cameras from across the border.

Having a camera peering into Sarnia is "a clear violation of our privacy and our sovereignty," said Mayor Mike Bradley, when explaining the issue over the phone to CTV.ca.

"It's extremely creepy," said Bush, who has helped organize a cheeky protest against the Aerostat, aptly named "Moon the Balloon."

Lott said the Aerostat is, in fact, not spying on anybody and is simply tracking the river, while it is being tested.

Bradley, however, is additionally upset that no one in Sarnia was consulted as to whether the city wanted the Aerostat flying over its horizon.

He's even written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, though Bradley said he has not yet received a response about the Aerostat issue.

Lott said he has tried to reach out to Bradley about his concerns -- a gesture which the Sarnia mayor acknowledges, though he does not believe that the Aerostat is keeping its camera trained solely on the St. Clair River.

"No one here is buying the argument that they are not looking at buildings," Bradley said.

Lott insists that the Aerostat is being governed by the "ethical behaviour of an ethical company" and he said Sierra Nevada Corp. is trying to "be as open as we can be" about their operations, inviting TV crews to check out the aircraft and its payload up-close.

But the controversy has shown no signs of deflating in Sarnia.

On Saturday evening, Bush will head down to the Sarnia waterfront to help lead Moon the Balloon, knowing full well that the Aerostat will not be in the sky.

More than 1,400 people have signed up for the protest on a Facebook page, though Bush acknowledges he is not sure how many of them will actually show up.

Around 5 p.m., they will form a line, turn their backs to the U.S. border, drop their drawers, and point their rear ends at Michigan.

Bradley said he will not be attending, though he knows how upset Sarnia residents are about the issue.

"I would say it has engaged the public here," he said.


Thanks to ctv.ca
Please subscribe and comment. Thank you for reading.

New reports of massive spying, criminality by US government

Reports in the American press on Friday and Saturday reveal massive illegality in the US government and intelligence apparatus. They demonstrate not only routine violations of democratic rights through illegal spying and wiretapping both at home and abroad, but also disregard for legally required reports to Congress.

According to a report Sunday in the New York Times, the CIA kept the House and Senate intelligence committees in the dark for eight years about a “secret counterterrorism program,” on the instructions of then Vice President Richard Cheney. The Times account said that the current CIA Director Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman, recently told both the House and Senate intelligence committees about the existence of the program and Cheney’s role in concealing it.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, citing an internal study by five intelligence agency officials, that the electronic surveillance under the Bush administration “went beyond the widely publicized warrantless wiretapping program … encompassing additional secretive activities that created ‘unprecedented’ spying powers.”

This program, conducted by the National Security Agency and separate from the CIA program, “came to be known in the Bush administration as the ‘President’s Surveillance Program’,” the newspaper said. The study was conducted jointly by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, Pentagon, CIA, Directorate of National Intelligence and National Security Agency. The unclassified version of the study, released Friday night, blacked out all details of the expanded surveillance program.

As in the case of the CIA program, the office of the vice president played a central role in enforcing secrecy and cover-up of the NSA operation. Cheney’s legal adviser and later chief of staff, David Addington, had to personally approve every government official who was to be “read in” to the program by the NSA. Addington refused to be interviewed by the Inspectors General, as did former CIA director George Tenet, former attorney general John Ashcroft, and John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer tasked with drafting legal guidelines for the secret surveillance.

The secret CIA counterterrorism program was first made public last Wednesday night, when the House Intelligence Committee released a letter to Panetta. The letter noted Panetta’s appearance before a closed-door session of the committee on June 24, where he announced that he had just discovered the existence of the secret counterterrorism program and was shutting it down, as well as notifying Congress as required by law.

The letter demanded that Panetta retract a statement he issued May 15, in response to criticism of the CIA by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, denying that the CIA had a policy of misleading Congress. This was contradicted, they wrote, by his admission that “top CIA officials have concealed significant actions … and misled” members of Congress since 2001.

The ranking Republican member of the intelligence panel, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, made light of the program, saying, “It was on-again, off-again and never happened.” One committee Democrat, Anna G. Eshoo of California, responded, “The whole committee was stunned” by Panetta’s disclosure. “I think this is as serious as it gets.”

What was the CIA doing?

The blizzard of press reports and commentaries that have followed Panetta’s revelation—including the front-page “exposé” in Sunday’s New York Times—seem to be at least in part an exercise in damage control, if not outright disinformation, since they conceal the exact nature of the secret CIA program and downplay its actual significance.

The Times report asserts, “Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the CIA interrogation program [i.e., torture] and did not involve domestic intelligence activities.” It adds that the program, “never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.”

The Washington Post cited “two former agency officials who were familiar with the program” claiming that it “did not involve interrogations of detainees or surveillance of U.S.-based communications.” An earlier Post article (July 10) cited other unnamed “officials” declaring that the program “was an intelligence-collection activity run by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center … It was not a covert action, which by law would have required a presidential finding and a report to Congress.”

The Associated Press, in an interview with former CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden, quoted another “former official” declaring that CIA leaders were “‘very cautious’ in their handling of the program and that they made decisions to narrow its focus. The official said that the program fell on a continuum between foreign intelligence collection and covert action.”

It is not possible, on the basis of reports so far, to determine the exact nature of either the CIA or the NSA programs. But the close involvement of top officials of the Bush administration, including, in the case of the CIA program, Cheney’s personal role, suggests that these activities were significant and extensive.

A remark by Representative Hoekstra of Michigan, former chairman of the House intelligence committee and currently the ranking Republican, is suggestive, even chilling. He told the New York Times that Congress might have approved the secret CIA program immediately following the 9/11 attacks—“Maybe on September 12”—but not later on.

It takes some effort to imagine a counterterrorism program so invasive or extreme that the US Congress would balk. Congress approved a sweeping war powers resolution in October 2001, which effectively authorized the US invasion of Afghanistan in advance—a resolution employed by the Bush and Obama administrations as the legal justification for the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. In November 2001, Congress approved the USA Patriot Act, with only a single senator voting “no.”

In subsequent years, Congress has passed laws ratifying the Bush administration’s rejection of habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo prisoners, authorizing a system of kangaroo-court military tribunals, legalizing Bush’s illegal spying operations and immunizing telecommunications companies that helped the US intelligence agencies spy on American citizens, and most recently, barring the release of photos of US torture victims. (Obama voted in the Senate for the telecom immunity provision and has pledged to issue an executive order if needed to keep the torture photos secret.)

Congressional Democrats and Republicans have rubber-stamped all manner of police-state measures in the name of the “war on terror.” It is therefore worth asking what kind of a program was so atrocious or politically dangerous that it had to be kept secret even from the House and Senate intelligence committees.

A “state within a state”

A remarkable aspect of the revelation of the secret CIA program, passed over virtually without comment in the media coverage, is that CIA Director Panetta was not informed of the program for more than four months after he assumed nominal control of the spy agency. He was sworn in as director on February 19, but his “subordinates” did not bother to tell him of the existence of the program that had been kept secret from Congress until June 23.

This means that throughout the so-called “debate” between President Obama and former Vice President Cheney over the release of Justice Department memos justifying torture, which took place in April, Cheney was in possession of information about secret CIA operations of which the new “commander-in-chief” was ignorant.

The military/intelligence apparatus operates according to its own rules, disclosing or withholding information from its supposed civilian superiors only when it is felt politically necessary. What is being revealed—or rather only hinted at, since the key details are still shrouded in secrecy—is the existence of a “state within the state,” a secret government that continues to function regardless of the individual who inhabits the White House.

The congressional Democrats and the Obama administration are active participants in the attack on democratic rights of both the American people and the people of the world. As political representatives of big business, they rely on this state apparatus to defend their class interests no less than the Republicans and Bush before them.

It has become a truism that there is more similarity than difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration in relation to the defense of the US intelligence apparatus and its ongoing attacks on democratic rights.

On Wednesday, Obama threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if it requires expanded briefings of Congress, beyond the so-called Gang of Eight, the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses and both intelligence committees. A White House statement said the veto would be necessary to prevent “restricting an important established means by which the president protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the national security interests.”

The congressional Democrats claims of concern are largely play-acting, however. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, deplored the concealment of the program but claimed that it represented no threat to civil liberties.

The struggle to defend democratic rights and to defeat the reactionary conspiracies of the US intelligence agencies must be taken up by the working class. Working people must raise the demand for the full exposure of all the covert operations of the CIA, NSA and other US intelligence agencies, and for the prosecution of all those officials responsible for authorizing and directing them.

This includes bringing to justice officials like Cheney, Bush and other top government officials who have been directly linked to crimes of spying, torture, kidnapping, secret detention without trial and mass murder.

Thanks to infowars.com

Please subscribe and comment, thank you for reading.

A land of liberty destroyed by stealth

The following is from dailymail.co.uk:

Returning to Britain from a summer holiday abroad, you begin to notice things that perhaps escaped your attention before - the huge number of CCTV cameras that infest our public spaces and, much less obviously, the atmosphere of watchfulness and control that has now become a way of life.
This is the regime that 12 years of New Labour have imposed on Britain, a place of unwavering suspicion, paranoia - and obsessive surveillance.
We have become the sort of society that we would unhesitatingly have railed against a few years ago. But, because the change has been brought about with such stealth, we are the very last to see it.
The latest figures, in a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, are truly terrifying. They reveal that a request is made every minute to snoop on someone's phone records or email accounts.
Last year alone, there were 504,073 new cases of state-sanctioned surveillance, the equivalent of one adult in 78 being watched - and a rise of 44 per cent over two years. Whatever happened to our centuries- old traditions of freedom?
Voltaire called England 'the land of liberty'. Until New Labour materialised, with its intrusive and 'character improving' agenda, that description rang true. The English preferred freedom and tolerance to ideological and religious fanaticism. The currency of our society was common sense.
No longer. Common sense has been replaced by officially sanctioned mistrust, mistrust that allows anyone invested with the tiniest bit of authority - often in the form of a high-visibility jacket - to throw their weight around.
Britain is now a place where terror laws have been used by councils to spy on people breaching smoking bans, making a fraudulent application for a
Police routinely stop anyone who photographs a public building, in one instance deleting the pictures taken by a 69-year-old Austrian tourist who admired the architecture of Vauxhall bus station.

And if the authorities are behaving like this today, what will they subject us to in the run-up to the 2012 London Olympics?
Wardens in Brighton already habitually seize drink from people on the mere suspicion that they plan to consume it in a public place. And in Edinburgh, a swimming pool attendant stopped the 85-year-old mother of TV presenter Nicky Campbell from taking pictures of her grandchildren.

These stories have become part of our national life - and there are thousands of them each year. I know this because my researcher trawls local and national newspapers for examples every morning. What they add up to is a depressing account of a nation infantilised by micro-management and fear.

We are losing something essential to our national identity. Foreigners who know what is going on here cannot believe that the British show such little regard for their freedoms. Even Americans, the most jumpy people in the world, are unsettled by Britain's paranoia.
Government policy is largely to blame. Labour has instilled an endemic culture of suspicion in Britain, which is manifest in the 3,500 new criminal offences brought in over its 12 years in office.
Labour is also behind a flurry of new databases that either leech personal information from each one of us or require innocent members of the public to go through an endless rigmarole of proving themselves to the state.

The scale of this project is vast. 'The state and its agencies are amassing increasing quantities of data about its citizens,' writes Jill Kirby, the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, in a recent pamphlet.
She lists them as including the DNA database, centralised medical records and the children's database Contact-Point. This data, she says, has 'proliferated to levels previously unseen in peacetime Britain'.
An institutionalised pessimism has taken over. The clear message of Government is that we are incapable of managing our lives and must be watched and regulated by ministers and civil servants from dawn to dusk.
More sinister is the assumption that we are all in some way guilty of harbouring the worst intentions. Up to 11 million people who work with children - music tutors, babysitters, football coaches and even parents who have exchange students to stay - will now have to join a new database at the cost of £64 and undergo criminal checks.
Writers such as Philip Pullman and Anthony Horowitz, who regularly visit schools, are among those who have roundly condemned the scheme.
You can see why - the other day I heard of a retired canon who was told that he could only baptise his grandson in his local cathedral if the church authorities first saw proof of his criminal records check. But it is the Government's obsession with surveillance that poses the greatest threat to our liberty.
Earlier this year, I calculated from published figures that Britain's expenditure on databases and surveillance systems would amount to a staggering £32 billion.
Thanks to the economic crisis, some projects have been scaled back. But plans still include a £1 billion system that will give the Government access to data from all emails, text messages, phone calls and internet usage - a proposal that has even been savaged by companies expected to collect the information.
Additionally, the e-Borders scheme, which will take 53 pieces of personal information from anyone travelling abroad - including phone and credit card numbers, details of an onward journey and history of cancelled journeys - will cost over £1.2 billion.
But the absurd amounts spent on these schemes are not the only concern. The threat they pose to our privacy - and the incompetent way in which the Government handles our personal data - are even more worrying.
We know, for example, that more than 30 million separate personal files have been lost by government agencies. Recently, a Freedom of Information request by Computer Weekly magazine revealed that nine local authority staff have been sacked for accessing the personal records of celebrities and acquaintances.
This largely unpublicised breach should warn us that a government obsessed with hoarding our information and watching us cannot be trusted to keep our details safely.
A similar security lapse in ContactPoint could be disastrous. But even this doesn't compare to the real possibility of the systems that watch our movements, monitor our behaviour and tap into the communications data linking up into one great apparatus of surveillance.
This would allow the authorities more or less to monitor our every movement and transaction in real time. Nothing would remain private.
If this happens, we can kiss goodbye to a functioning free society in the United Kingdom. We are not there yet - but we can see the seeds everywhere, from the spread of CCTV, and the flood of government regulations to the expropriation of our personal information.
We have to consider the distinct possibility that the obituary for the 'land of liberty' is being composed at this very moment.

Thanks for reading, please subscribe.

Hidden Spy Camera & Mic Found Inside Digital TV Box

At first I was a bit skeptical weather or not this was true, however, after reading the articles and watching the video, I thought this was something that belonged on Uncensored News, this is very real. Don't just take our word? Read the article from propagandamatrix.com below:

A popular video circulating on You Tube shows the discovery of a spy camera and a microphone hidden inside a digital TV converter box. Such devices are part of a government and industry surveillance program that is undoubtedly connected to the forced digital TV switchover being rolled out in the UK and US.

"I could not believe my eyes," states the blurb accompanying the video clip, "I have a friend who is kind of a conspiracy theorist. He was trying to convince me that many of the digital TV convert boxes that are coming out have microphones and cameras built into them. Knowing a bit about electronics I bought one of these devices opened it up fully intending on proving him wrong. To my surprise he was right. This device has both a miniature camera lens and what looks like a microphone. I was so shocked I took pictures and video. Please send this out to everyone you know who is using one of these devices."

The camera and microphone were hidden inside a MAGNAVOX TB110MW9 Digital to Analog Converter box. We are not suggesting that every digital cable box has a spy camera and microphone inside, so ripping open your cable box is not a good way to prove this one way or another - but the fact remains that companies like Google and Comcast have openly announced that they plan to use hidden cameras and microphones inside their products to spy on consumers.

Watch the clip below.


The need to mandate a mass roll out of such hidden surveillance devices is undoubtedly one of the reasons that governments in both the UK and the US, as well as eventually the entire planet, are overseeing a forced switchover to digital TV and killing traditional analogue broadcasts. The vast majority of TV's require a digital decoder box to receive digital TV transmissions.

By installing covert spy devices and hidden microphones inside our all but mandatory digital boxes, the government and whatever corporate entities get a slice of the pie, have direct access to our living rooms. This is the ultimate Big Brother scenario whereby the majority of Americans and Europeans will have Orwellian telescreens watching their every move.

Many will dismiss such claims as conspiracy fodder, but the fact is that Americans have been spied on for decades, previously under the Echelon program and more recently as part of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

As former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice recently revealed, "The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," Tice claimed. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."

As we highlighted three years ago, private industry and eventually government is planning to use microphones in the computers of an estimated 150 million-plus Internet active Americans, as well as similar devices installed inside digital TV boxes, to spy on their lifestyle choices and build psychological profiles which will be used for surveillance and minority report style invasive advertising and data mining.
Digital cable TV boxes, such as Scientific Atlanta, have had secret in-built microphones inside them since their inception in the late 1990's and these originally dormant devices were planned to be activated when the invasive advertising revolution was being rolled out, a watershed that is quickly becoming a reality.

The advent of digital video recording devices such as TiVo (Sky Plus in the UK) introduced the creation of psychological algorithm profiles - databases on what programs you watched, how long you watched them for, and which adverts you liked or didn't like. This information was retained by TiVo and sold to the highest bidders - an example being Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the 2003 Super Bowl half-time show; TiVo were able to compile lists of how many people had rewound the clip and how many times they had replayed it.

In 2006, Google announced that they would use in-built computer microphones to listen in on user's background noise, be it television, music or radio - and then direct advertising at them based on their preferences.

In March last year, Comcast announced that they were "experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who’s in your living room."

The cameras would use body-form recognition to confirm who was in the room and then tailor program recommendations, as well as commercials, to target that member of the family.

The video below covers the issue of secret cameras installed inside digital TV boxes and their relation to the forced digital switchover. A further video explores other motives behind the digital switchover.

Digital cable TV boxes, such as Scientific Atlanta, have had secret in-built microphones inside them since their inception in the late 1990's and these originally dormant devices were planned to be activated when the invasive advertising revolution was being rolled out, a watershed that is quickly becoming a reality.

The advent of digital video recording devices such as TiVo (Sky Plus in the UK) introduced the creation of psychological algorithm profiles - databases on what programs you watched, how long you watched them for, and which adverts you liked or didn't like. This information was retained by TiVo and sold to the highest bidders - an example being Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the 2003 Super Bowl half-time show; TiVo were able to compile lists of how many people had rewound the clip and how many times they had replayed it.

In 2006, Google announced that they would use in-built computer microphones to listen in on user's background noise, be it television, music or radio - and then direct advertising at them based on their preferences.

In March last year, Comcast announced that they were "experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who’s in your living room."

The cameras would use body-form recognition to confirm who was in the room and then tailor program recommendations, as well as commercials, to target that member of the family.

The video below covers the issue of secret cameras installed inside digital TV boxes and their relation to the forced digital switchover. A further video explores other motives behind the digital switchover.

Digital cable TV boxes, such as Scientific Atlanta, have had secret in-built microphones inside them since their inception in the late 1990's and these originally dormant devices were planned to be activated when the invasive advertising revolution was being rolled out, a watershed that is quickly becoming a reality.

The advent of digital video recording devices such as TiVo (Sky Plus in the UK) introduced the creation of psychological algorithm profiles - databases on what programs you watched, how long you watched them for, and which adverts you liked or didn't like. This information was retained by TiVo and sold to the highest bidders - an example being Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the 2003 Super Bowl half-time show; TiVo were able to compile lists of how many people had rewound the clip and how many times they had replayed it.

In 2006, Google announced that they would use in-built computer microphones to listen in on user's background noise, be it television, music or radio - and then direct advertising at them based on their preferences.

In March last year, Comcast announced that they were "experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who’s in your living room."

The cameras would use body-form recognition to confirm who was in the room and then tailor program recommendations, as well as commercials, to target that member of the family.

The video below covers the issue of secret cameras installed inside digital TV boxes and their relation to the forced digital switchover. A further video explores other motives behind the digital switchover.

Thank you for reading and please subscribe so you can keep up with all the latest Uncensored News.

Are You Being Spied On? The Truth About Cell Phones

For my first post of the Uncensored News I will list a few ways your government (USG) spies on you and your family and some ways to protect yourself from them.
Now, unless you are a terrorist or a fan of Rage Against The Machine, The USG has no reason to spy on you, however they probably will anyway. The goal of the rich and powerful is to get richer and more powerful. But what if one of the sheeple - I mean people of the U.S were to step out of line? Are they a threat to the rich? It has been proven throughout history one man can change the world, Ghandi and Martin Luther King are just two quick examples that came to mind, and without Che Guevara the 26J Movement would have never been a success. So if one person decides to stop the poor from getting poorer and the rich from getting richer, the rich would need to stop him/her before s/he gains to much power and stops their plan, thus the reason we are all spied on. If someone knows to much information they are also put on the list of Potential Terrorists.
Some other reasons we are spied on is possibly for them to see how their experiments are going.
They can see how the subliminal messages and GWEN Towers affect our minds, how the Chem Trails and Genetically Modified food affects our health and how we respond to the lies they spoon-feed us on a daily bases.
The truth is that even right now you are being monitored, listened to and watched. Continue reading to find out how to make it stop.

1. Cell Phones.
First we will begin with Cellular phones. Not only the USG listens to your conversations, but anyone can listen perfectly clear.
While The USG can listen to your phone with much higher quality than a normal person could, anyone could listen to your cell phone with the proper program. FlexiSpy is one of them. It lets you listen to conversations, read email, SMS and their call history log, use GPS tracking to know were they are and more. It doesn't come free though. FlexiSpy pro is up at $349!
Anyone can track you (as long as you carry your phone wherever you go,) and have an exact idea as to were you are, they can listen through your phone even when it is off (so stop saying bush is an asshole and start paying taxes!) they can even recover any deleted info.
But before you go download this wonderful product to eavesdrop on your grandma, non of the above is actually legal. If you already downloaded this you should probably get a lawyer... a Jewish one considering you could get a few years in jail for this.
The website, FlexiSpy, states that this product can only be used on your own phone for recovering lost data or to protect your child.
But then how does The USG get away with spieing on us? Same way they always do, they are rich and powerful and thus above the law... way above the law.

So how do you know if someone is listening?

1. You seem to have trouble shutting it off, or it stays lit up after you’ve powered down.

2. The phone sometimes lights up when you aren’t making or receiving a call, or using any other function.

3. You regularly hear odd background noises or clicks when you’re on the phone.

4. The battery dies quicker than normal.

So, how can you protect yourself from the watchful eye of Big Brother? (or your even your big sister if she buys FlexiSpy.)
I know of three options to protect yourself from being spied on.
1. Remove the battery
2. Take your phone back to the provider and have them format it completely, thus getting rid of any spyware, as well as everything else, making it a factory default again.
3. Put your cell phone near a loudspeaker and play Brittney Spears until whoever may be listening can't take it anymore and uninstalls all spy programs.

I will keep you informed on all the ways the USG is spying on us, and what their other plans are, but until then, always remember; YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE.