End Times and Current Events
August 16, 2017, 09:58:49 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Shadow Government

Shoutbox
July 24, 2017, 11:47:30 am Exodus 3:14-15 says: Yeah, just saw Dr. Johnson talking about it in his last audio study. Haven't listened to it yet, but looking forward to hearing that.
July 23, 2017, 03:58:47 am Christian40 says: i learnt that magnesium is one of the best things for the body and should be like a number one for good health
July 18, 2017, 04:09:19 am Christian40 says: BBC International on youtube has some good videos by Dr Gene Kim
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Exodus 3:14-15 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
February 19, 2017, 07:55:44 am Exodus 3:14-15 says: The month of February just FLIES BY, doesn't it? It being a < 30 day month helps too! (Unusually warm this month too!)
View Shout History
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Shadow Government  (Read 6500 times)
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: December 03, 2013, 12:34:29 am »

Decided to take a long walk down a local Farm Road here in my area - at the very end of it, went to a small park with a nice creek to read my bible. While I was entering into it, 2 dogs came out of their owner's big property home and followed me there, and stayed with me(they were very friendly). And then when I was walking back, they continued to follow me all the way down the long street where it lead to this park, and then continued when I turned into the other street.

Then out of the blue, their owner drove up behind me in his truck calling for them. I don't know this for sure, but it looked like maybe, just maybe the dogs' owners may have put an RFID tracking device in/on them(like said, he just came out of the blue in his truck - didn't see him driving down behind me on that long street).

When I looked at their tags when I was on that creek - it listed the owner's telephone number, and the first 3 of the last 4 digits of that number were 666(No kidding!) - which was also another reason why I thought there were RFID tracking devices on them.(the guy had a big piece of property with a bit of security at the front, so obviously he's wealthy)
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: December 08, 2013, 06:40:53 am »

IRS Using GOOGLE Maps to Spy on Taxpayers...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/07/irs-using-google-maps-to-spy-on-taxpayers/#ixzz2mo5AfjFA


FBI Can Secretly Activate Individual's Webcam...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/07/the-fbi-can-secretly-activate-an-individuals-webcam-without-the-indicator-light-turning-on/?utm
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2013, 01:08:51 pm »

This picture should really scare America and wake every one up in this country.



Department of Homeland Security sits vehicle behind Annenberg Hall at Harvard University
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: December 16, 2013, 01:12:54 pm »

"Scared" isn't the word, per se(at least with Christians like us here), but yes - as Christians we need to use some discernment when we see these things.

You walk into these modern-day church buildings, and they say how America is so blessed and everything is goody-goody(including this very DHS). It's as if they've bought into the mark of the beast already.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: December 16, 2013, 02:52:16 pm »

Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely unconstitutional.
 
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the information had helped to head off terrorist attacks.

Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting so-called metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.

“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html#ixzz2nfo3wgvW

this is all bluster with the Patriot Act still law
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #95 on: December 16, 2013, 03:15:00 pm »

Quote
“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

But that is exactly what the Patriot Act and a couple other acts allow, by law, passed under the Bush administration.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2013, 11:10:27 am »

Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely unconstitutional.
 
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the information had helped to head off terrorist attacks.

Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting so-called metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.

“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html#ixzz2nfo3wgvW

this is all bluster with the Patriot Act still law

The Liberal Media Obamuppets comes out with character assassination guns o' blazin...

Larry Klayman in huge CNN smackdown

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman got into an argument on CNN with host Don Lemon and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin when he was brought on to discuss his victory this week in a lawsuit challenging NSA surveillance, resulting in Lemon cutting him off the screen and Klayman comparing Lemon to disgraced former MSNBC host Martin Bashir.
 
Klayman’s appearance Tuesday night on CNN was preceded by a profile of him that included a quotation from a former George W. Bush staffer saying his lawsuits were about “fighting for himself and his own, in my opinion, delusions of grandeur.”

When Klayman was brought into the conversation, he came out firing.
 
“I think it is important to note that you’re a big supporter of Obama,” Klayman said to Lemon. “That you have favored him in every respect. You have to try to do a hit piece to diminish a very important decision.”

Lemon interjected to clarify that Klayman was speaking about him personally, saying, “None of that is true, but go on.”
 
“Well, it is true. I’ve watched you for many years. You’re an ultra-leftist and you’re a big supporter of Obama,” Klayman said. “Let’s talk about the NSA, let’s not talk about Larry Klayman. This victory is for the American people. It wasn’t for me. And you, as somebody from the left … should appreciate that you don’t have a police state in this country that’s going to be able to intimidate Americans to chill their free speech rights.”
 
Lemon again protested the characterization, saying that only he knows his political affiliation, over interruptions from Klayman, prompting the host to threaten to cut Klayman’s mic. He then brought on Toobin, CNN’s legal analyst, who slammed Klayman as a “lunatic.”
 
(PHOTOS: NSA spying: 15 great quotes)
 
“This case is based on Larry Klayman’s tin-foil hat paranoia about the NSA being after him. He had some fantasy that the NSA was after him. This case is not about Larry Klayman, it’s about the metadata program that affects everybody, but the idea that Larry Klayman is the representative is simply outrageous,” Toobin said. “He is a professional litigant and lunatic who should not be a representative of the very important issues of this case.”
 
Klayman responded that Toobin should read the opinion and what the judge wrote.
 
(Also on POLITICO: NSA ruling fallout hits White House)
 
“It’s not about me, Jeffrey, and the fact that you want to try to do a hit on me shows me that you’re not a serious person and, frankly, should not be doing legal commentary for CNN,” Klayman said. “I think you should read the complaint rather than shooting your mouth off. … This is a disgrace.”
 
“Oh, my gosh. Are you OK?” Lemon asked Klayman. The pair began to argue, and Lemon asked his producers to remove Klayman from the screen.
 
After allowing Toobin to speak about the case, Lemon brought Klayman in for the last word “to show you we’re going to be the bigger person.”
 
“The last word is you’re not the bigger people. Don’t kid anybody,” Klayman said. “Let anybody watch this and see that CNN removes you from the screen when it doesn’t like what you think. You know what, you’re not CNN, Don, and Toobin, you’re not CNN. CNN is a reputable organization, but you have not acted in a respectful way, and it’s in fact disgraceful. You’re more like Martin Bashir.”
 
Klayman was the plaintiff in a lawsuit decided Monday in which a judge ruled the NSA’s surveillance program is likely to be unconstitutional. The decision is arguably the biggest victory of a long career as a gadfly for Klayman, who has been a character in Washington since the 1990s.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/larry-klayman-don-lemon-jeffrey-toobin-cnn-national-security-agency-101271.html#ixzz2nqbLjBCa
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2013, 11:17:00 am »

Why do these "conservatives" even bother to come out to these liberal media networks to begin with? Funny how all these years these so-called conservatives/evangelicals like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich, Bush White House official, whatever Heritage Foundation/conservative think tank spokesman out there have wined and complained how the MSM has too much liberal bias, but en yet they continue to make appearance after appearance on these networks?

As for the whole NSA stuff - the Police State has really been implemented since the days of Ronald Reagan, and under whose watch was the Patriot Act?
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2014, 12:34:43 pm »

Computer chips in food packaging could 'text people when food is going off'
Scientists have developed the gadget for packets of perishable foods, which can tell when the contents are nearing their use-by date


 Computer chips in futuristic food packaging could warn consumers when their food is about to go off, it has been reported.

Scientists have developed the gadget that can be inserted into packets of perishable foods, which will be able to assess when the contents are nearing their use-by date, an EU committee of peers has heard.

The Daily Mail said the chips could potentially alert the owner by sending them a text message telling them they need to eat the food.

According to the newspaper, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, the committee chair told environment minister Dan Rogerson that one witness giving evidence to the committee in the Netherlands said: “We’re quite close to commercial production of a small chip which would go into packaging which would measure the actual deterioration of the rate of food.”

She said the current convention of the best before date “assumes that everything’s equal. It just assumes that you all keep your food at the same temperature whereas this would actually respond to what the real conditions are”.

Mr Rogerson said: “I should be intrigued to know the range and amount of resource that would have to go into producing it.”

Lady Scott added: “I’m having enough trouble with my text messages without the fridge texting me. Realistic or not, it’s interesting to see where innovation can lead.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10589386/Computer-chips-in-food-packaging-could-text-people-when-food-is-going-off.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #99 on: February 05, 2014, 07:41:55 am »

Wisconsin School Gets Kids to Snitch on Parents

The game is called “Cross the Line” and many outraged parents believe that it does just that.

A middle school in Marinette, Wisconsin got a group of 5th-8th graders together and organized a really fun game that asked students to step forward to answer “yes” to a series of highly personal questions.

Questions like…

Do your parents drink?
Do you cut yourself?
Has anyone in your family been to jail?
Have you ever wanted to commit suicide?
Do you or your parents do drugs?

Unbelievably, school administrators believed that this “game” would help the kids to be better and kinder friends.  “The intent of this activity was to build stronger, more respectful relationships among students,” said Principal Shawn Limberg.  The “game” was part of an anti-bullying program.

Of course, Limberg also said the “game” was completely voluntary, an assertion that was disputed by one young girl who told her mother she’d have to go to in-school suspension if she didn’t participate.

Several parents voiced their concerns and had them brushed off.  Amanda Fifarek, mother of a 7th grade student, told FOX 11, “They basically told us that all the students were lying…all the students got together and planned it out and if they weren’t lying, it was all misperceptions. They didn’t specifically say do your parents do drugs.”

Of course.  We all know those silly children must have just misunderstood the whole thing.

Here’s the report from the local Fox station:

REST: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/wisconsin-school-gets-kids-to-snitch-on.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #100 on: February 05, 2014, 10:02:17 am »

Quote
Unbelievably, school administrators believed claim that this “game” would help the kids to be better and kinder friends.  “The intent of this activity was to build stronger, more respectful relationships among students,” said Principal Shawn Limberg.  The “game” was part of really not an anti-bullying program, but an intentional spying of parents by the school socialists.

Parents keep complaining about this kind of stuff that keeps happening all over the country, and yet they still send their children to those wicked institutions. If the ignorant parents were the only ones harmed, I'd say they deserve what tribulation they get, but they are putting their kids at risk, and for that they will pay dearly.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 10:05:31 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #101 on: February 17, 2014, 07:03:49 pm »

New Technology Allows For TV Ads to Target Specific Individuals, Families

The days when political campaigns would try to make inroads with demographic groups such as soccer moms or white working-class voters are gone. Now, the operatives are targeting specific individuals.

And, in some places, they can reach those individuals directly through their televisions.

Welcome to Addressable TV, an emerging technology that allows advertisers — Senate hopefuls and insurance companies alike — to pay some broadcasters to pinpoint specific homes.

Advertisers have long bought ads knowing that only a fraction of the audience was likely to respond to them. Allowing campaigns — political or not — to finely hone their TV pitches to individuals could let them more efficiently spend their advertising dollars.

“With a traditional TV buy you can end up paying for a lot of eyeballs you don’t care about,” said Chauncey McLean, chief operating officer of the Analytics Media Group, an ad and data firm. “Addressable TV is a powerful tool for those that are equipped to use it. If you know who you want to talk to and what you want to say, you can be much more precise.”

Data geeks look at everything from voting histories to demographics, magazine subscriptions to credit scores, all in the hopes of identifying their target audience. The advertiser then hands over a list of targets and, without the viewer necessarily realizing it, the ads pop on when viewers sit down to watch a program if their broadcaster has the technology.

“This is the power of a 30-second television commercial with the precision of a piece of direct mail targeted to the individual household level,” said Paul Guyardo, chief revenue officer at DirecTV. “Never before have advertisers had that level of precision when it came to a 30-second commercial.”

The level of precision on televisions has long been a dream for political campaigns, which are decided by relatively small groups of voters. President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2012 experimented with it on a small scale, but too few homes were in broadcasting systems equipped to handle house-by-house decisions.

But earlier this year, DirecTV and Dish Network announced a partnership that would allow political clients to reach into about 20 million households by matching up customers’ identities with their satellite receiver, much like a telephone number rings at a specific handset.

At the same time, NBC and parent company Comcast are opening the door for advertisers to target specific households using video-on-demand services in 20 million more households. The communications giant is not yet ready to implement the targeting during live broadcasts, though.

And GroupM, which handles about one-third of the world’s ad buys, recently formed a division to handle such addressable advertising.

"We can send different commercials to different households based on what we know about these people. Instead of one message per state, it could be 12 messages per state,” said Michael Bologna, GroupM’s director of emerging communications and president of the newly formed Modi Media.

The broadcast companies are expected to be able to charge more per viewer than for other ad orders, but in exchange advertisers get a greater confidence that their message is finding its target. For instance, Allstate has used such an approach to weed out homeowners when it is pitching rental insurance on some broadcast systems.

Such specific political outreach has been possible for years as strategists buy, build and scour detailed data on each home to determine whether it is worth the time to knock on a door, to register a voter or to phone them to remind them to cast a ballot.

In recent years, Democrats have built an advantage on that data front.

The Republican National Committee has made catching up a priority, saying it would focus on data this year and leave advertising to outside groups. The RNC has announced one effort, branded Para Bellum Labs, to help the party build its list of likely supporters for races up and down the ballot.

The RNC has a lot of catching up to do. Obama’s two presidential campaigns had a better grasp of the data.

Last year, Democrats built on those abilities in Virginia’s gubernatorial contest. Strategists there used technology that pointed to specific individuals for a knock on the door, a call on the phone or an ad on their social networks.

It wasn’t immediately clear to those Virginia voters that they were getting more attention than their neighbors. But behind the scenes, Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe’s advisers were going after just a few thousand voters. For instance, his strategists pinpointed 494,000 voters and flooded them with Facebook messages criticizing McAuliffe’s rival, Ken Cuccinelli.

“It’s a shift from identifying groups to identifying people,” said Andrew Bleeker, president and CEO of Bully Pulpit Interactive, the main firm advising McAuliffe on digital strategy.

But there are limits. Fewer than half of all households have a cable box or satellite receiver that allows the broadcasters to splice in ads on some televisions and not others.

The providers are limited to selling about two minutes of addressable advertising per hour. An hourlong show on a broadcast network has about 14 minutes of commercials. Cable varies, but they generally have about 17 minutes of commercials in a 60-minute slot.

Building the list of targeted voters is tough and sometimes costly.

And there’s no way of telling that the targeted viewer is the one who sees the ad. All that can be known is that it made its way into the households; federal laws prohibit the provider from telling the campaigns any details about specific viewers or their individual habits.

Yet this option, reaching maturity in time for November’s elections, could help campaigns and candidates more efficiently spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that are already being raised.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/02/17/new-technology-allows-for-tv-ads-targeting-specific-individuals-families/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #102 on: February 18, 2014, 03:47:36 am »

Quote
“This is the power of a 30-second television commercial with the precision of a piece of direct mail targeted to the individual household level,” said Paul Guyardo, chief revenue officer at DirecTV. “Never before have advertisers had that level of precision when it came to a 30-second commercial.”

The level of precision on televisions has long been a dream for political campaigns, which are decided by relatively small groups of voters. President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2012 experimented with it on a small scale, but too few homes were in broadcasting systems equipped to handle house-by-house decisions.

But earlier this year, DirecTV and Dish Network announced a partnership that would allow political clients to reach into about 20 million households by matching up customers’ identities with their satellite receiver, much like a telephone number rings at a specific handset.

At the same time, NBC and parent company Comcast are opening the door for advertisers to target specific households using video-on-demand services in 20 million more households. The communications giant is not yet ready to implement the targeting during live broadcasts, though.

For the record, I have Direct TV, and I'm not happy with it at all.

The reason I'm not happy with it is Direct TV acts as if the viewing customer is secondary to their mission. And their efforts seem to be geared towards making advertisers money, regardless of what the viewers want.

The DTV thugs claim the "rising costs" are the fault of broadcasters, not DTV. Anybody with a half reasonable brain knows that is a stone cold lie. The truth is that DTV and the cable companies all do the same thing and make the same excuses for price increases. They've been doing it for years. But what they don't talk about in the same conversation is all those price increases have gone to make their bottom line better, not to offer better service to customers. In fact, I can make the case their service has gotten worse, with most channels now showing mostly reruns, and DTV moving channels to upper tier channel packages that cost more, while loading up the lower less expensive tiers with junk channels that nobody wants.

On our channel package, we have at least a third of available channels blocked, not listed on our channel guide. We have zero interest in those channels, which are mostly religious babble and children's channels, along with several Spanish language channels. All junk, yet we have to pay for those channels regardless.

And DTV has risen their rates every years since I've had their service, and in a nasty email I sent them they replied admitting to it, but claimed it is the channels that forces them to raise rates! About 5 years ago, my bill was around $45-50/month. We still have the same package, that DTV doesn't even offer any more, and the price has risen to nearly $80/month, with less channels, some of them having done HD only, while other channels have simply been moved and not replaced.

And the HD thing really gets me fired up! DTV charges extra for HD service, and if you don't pay, no HD, at all, even if a channel like a sports event is broadcast in HD, you won't get HD if you don't have the HD package DTV charges an extra $10/month for. That would mean nearly $90/month for a channel package that is one level above basic, no extra movie or sports channels. THAT to me is outright theft.

And now DTV is selling out their viewers to advertisers with targeted commercials based on viewer data? Did DTV ever ask it's customer base if they weren't interested in being targeted? NOPE. They don't care, and claim it's what customers want. No, it's what board members want.

Cable and satellite services are out of control, and the public is the loser as a result. Same with your ISP. Those thugs are doing the same basic things to internet customers.

It's a fact that the US has on average the slowest internet speeds on the planet, with the highest prices on the planet. It doesn't take an expert to see what they are doing, and being allowed to do, to the public.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: March 16, 2014, 05:54:41 am »

Big Brother Surveillance – It Is Not Just For Governments Anymore

Traditionally, when we have thought of “Big Brother technology” we have thought of government oppression.  But these days, it isn’t just governments that are using creepy new technologies to spy on all of us.  As you will see below, “Big Brother surveillance” has become very big business.  In the information age, knowledge is power, and big corporations seem to have an endless thirst for even more of it.  So it isn’t just governments that are completely obsessed with watching, tracking, monitoring and recording virtually everything that we do.  Corporations have discovered that they can use Orwellian technologies to make lots of money, and this is likely only going to get worse in the years ahead.  Below, I have shared a few examples of this phenomenon…

Private Companies Are Using Automated License Plate Readers To Spy On You

Did you know that people that work for private companies are driving around scanning our license plates?

I never knew this until I came across an article about it the other day.  The following is an excerpt from that article…

    Few notice the “spotter car” from Manny Sousa’s repo company as it scours Massachusetts parking lots, looking for vehicles whose owners have defaulted on their loans. Sousa’s unmarked car is part of a technological revolution that goes well beyond the repossession business, transforming any ­industry that wants to check on the whereabouts of ordinary people.

    An automated reader attached to the spotter car takes a picture of every ­license plate it passes and sends it to a company in Texas that already has more than 1.8 billion plate scans from vehicles across the country.

    These scans mean big money for Sousa — typically $200 to $400 every time the spotter finds a vehicle that’s stolen or in default — so he runs his spotter around the clock, typically adding 8,000 plate scans to the database in Texas each day.

Your Cell Phone Is Spying On You

If you carry a cell phone around with you, then you are willingly offering up a whole host of information about yourself.  This is something that I have written about previously, but I never realized that some private companies are now setting up sensors in businesses to purposely capture information from the cell phones of anyone that walks in.  Yes, this is actually happening according to the Wall Street Journal…

    Fan Zhang, the owner of Happy Child, a trendy Asian restaurant in downtown Toronto, knows that 170 of his customers went clubbing in November. He knows that 250 went to the gym that month, and that 216 came in from Yorkville, an upscale neighborhood.

    And he gleans this information without his customers’ knowledge, or ever asking them a single question.

    Mr. Zhang is a client of Turnstyle Solutions Inc., a year-old local company that has placed sensors in about 200 businesses within a 0.7 mile radius in downtown Toronto to track shoppers as they move in the city.

Entire “Big Brother Housing Developments” Are Now Being Designed

Would you live in a housing development with a sophisticated “video surveillance program” and that uses automated license plate scanners to monitor everyone who comes and goes from the community?

In a country that is becoming increasingly obsessed with “security”, these new kinds of housing developments are surely going to be quite popular.  The following is an excerpt from an article about one of these communities that is being built in California…

    A new, scenic development surrounded by winding waterways is billed as a safe haven.

    Only four bridges lead in and out of the area with security checkpoints and a fiberoptic video surveillance program. Every license plate scanned on those roads will be cross-checked with a DMV database for stolen cars.

    The first homes are already going up at River Islands, and the people who move in can expect to be part of a new era in policing.

Disney Implements The “MagicBand” Tracking Device

Would you wear an RFID tracking device that allows you to buy stuff and that monitors you wherever you go?

Well, Disney actually wants their customers to willingly use this technology.

They are calling it the “MagicBand”, and perhaps you have already watched one of the new Disney commercials about it.  You can see what Disney has to say about “MagicBand” right here.

In the video posted below, activist Mark Dice discusses this troubling move by Disney…



Our “Smart Televisions” Are Spying On Us

How would you feel if I told you that your expensive new television is actually spying on you?

You probably would not be too excited to hear that.

Well, depending on the actual brand, this is really happening.  In fact, one brand of television actually sends information about every button that press on your remote back to corporate headquarters…

    An IT consultant called Jason Huntley, who lives in a village near Hull, uncovered evidence that a flat-screen television, which had been sitting in his living room since the summer, was secretly invading his family’s privacy.

    He began investigating the £400 LG device after noticing that its home screen appeared to be showing him ‘targeted’ adverts — for cars, and Knorr stock cubes — based on programmes he’d just been watching.

    Huntley decided to monitor information that the so-called smart TV — which connects to the internet — was sending and receiving. He did this by using his laptop effectively as a bridge between his television and the internet receiver, so the laptop was able to show all the data being sucked out of his set.

    He soon discovered that details of not just every show he watched but every button he pressed on his remote control were being sent back to LG’s corporate headquarters in South Korea.

Data Mining – Your Personal Information Is Big Business

There are huge companies that most people have never even heard of that do nothing but buy and sell our personal information.  The collection of this personal information is called “data mining”, and it is extremely profitable.

In fact, there is one company called Acxiom that made a profit of more than 77 million dollars in one recent year by collecting and selling info about all of us.

In case you were wondering, yes, Acxiom almost certainly has a profile on you too…

    The company fits into a category called database marketing. It started in 1969 as an outfit called Demographics Inc., using phone books and other notably low-tech tools, as well as one computer, to amass information on voters and consumers for direct marketing. Almost 40 years later, Acxiom has detailed entries for more than 190 million people and 126 million households in the U.S., and about 500 million active consumers worldwide. More than 23,000 servers in Conway, just north of Little Rock, collect and analyze more than 50 trillion data ‘transactions’ a year.

As long as these technologies are legal and businesses can make money this way, they are going to keep doing it.

So even if we stopped the rapid expansion of “Big Brother surveillance” by the governments of the world, the reality is that private corporations are going to keep pushing the envelope.

We live in a world that is rapidly changing, and unless a miracle happens we soon will not have very much privacy left at all.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/big-brother-surveillance-it-is-not-just-for-governments-anymore
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: March 22, 2014, 04:06:53 pm »

Report: NSA targeted Chinese tech giant Huawei
http://news.yahoo.com/report-nsa-targeted-chinese-tech-giant-huawei-170950504--finance.html
3/22/14

BERLIN (AP) — U.S. intelligence agencies hacked into the email servers of Chinese tech giant Huawei five years ago, around the time concerns were growing in Washington that the telecommunications equipment manufacturer was a threat to U.S. national security, two newspapers reported Saturday.

The National Security Agency began targeting Huawei in early 2009 and quickly succeeded in gaining access to the company's client lists and email archive, German weekly Der Spiegel reported, citing secret U.S. intelligence documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The New York Times also published a report Saturday about the documents.

Huawei objects to activities that threaten network security, said William B. Plummer, the company's vice president of external affairs.

"Huawei has declared its willingness to work with governments, industry stakeholders and customers in an open and transparent manner, to jointly address the global challenges of network security and data integrity," Plummer said in an email. "The information presented in Der Spiegel and the New York Times article reaffirms the need for all companies to be vigilant at all times."

Among the people whose emails the NSA was able to read were Huawei president Ren Zhengfei, Der Spiegel said.

The operation, which Der Spiegel claims was coordinated with the CIA, FBI and White House officials, also netted source codes for Huawei products. One aim was to exploit the fact that Huawei equipment is widely used to route voice and data traffic around the world, according to the report. But the NSA was also concerned that the Chinese government itself might use Huawei's presence in foreign networks for espionage purposes, it said.

In 2012, the House Intelligence Committee recommended that Huawei be barred from doing business in the U.S., citing the threat that its equipment could enable Chinese intelligence services to tamper with American communications networks.

In January, the company rejected a previous Der Spiegel report claiming that its equipment was vulnerable to hacking. The magazine had reported that the NSA was able to install secret "back doors" in telecoms equipment made by Huawei and other companies.

Der Spiegel's latest report claims the NSA also targeted top Chinese officials, such as former President Hu Jintao, as well as ministries and banks.
Report Spam   Logged
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: March 23, 2014, 12:26:10 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/police-keep-quiet-cell-tracking-technology-070618821--finance.html
3/22/14
Police keep quiet about cell-tracking technology

WASHINGTON (AP) — Police across the country may be intercepting phone calls or text messages to find suspects using a technology tool known as Stingray. But they're refusing to turn over details about its use or heavily censoring files when they do.

Police say Stingray, a suitcase-size device that pretends it's a cell tower, is useful for catching criminals, but that's about all they'll say.

For example, they won't disclose details about contracts with the device's manufacturer, Harris Corp., insisting they are protecting both police tactics and commercial secrets. The secrecy — at times imposed by nondisclosure agreements signed by police — is pitting obligations under private contracts against government transparency laws.

Even in states with strong open records laws, including Florida and Arizona, little is known about police use of Stingray and any rules governing it.

A Stingray device tricks all cellphones in an area into electronically identifying themselves and transmitting data to police rather than the nearest phone company's tower. Because documents about Stingrays are regularly censored, it's not immediately clear what information the devices could capture, such as the contents of phone conversations and text messages, what they routinely do capture based on how they're configured or how often they might be used.

In one of the rare court cases involving the device, the FBI acknowledged in 2011 that so-called cell site simulator technology affects innocent users in the area where it's operated, not just a suspect police are seeking.

Earlier this month, journalist Beau Hodai and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona sued the Tucson Police Department, alleging in court documents that police didn't comply with the state's public-records law because they did not fully disclose Stingray-related records and allowed Harris Corp. to dictate what information could be made public.

Revelations about surveillance programs run by the federal National Security Agency have driven a sustained debate since last summer on the balance between privacy and government intrusion. Classified NSA documents, leaked to news organizations, showed the NSA was collecting telephone records, emails and video chats of millions of Americans who were not suspected of crimes.

That debate has extended to state and local governments. News organizations in Palm Springs, Calif.; Tallahassee, Fla.; Sacramento, Calif., and Pittsburgh are among those that have been denied records about Stingrays or Stingray-like devices, including details of contracts that Harris has with government agencies.

In a response to a records request from the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper about Florida's use of cell-tracking technology, the state's top police agency provided a four-page, heavily censored document signed by a police investigator. The newspaper reported that the document referred to guidelines concerning the purchase of items and sought the department's agreement to the "provisions/content of the Non-Disclosure Agreement."

The Desert Sun of Palm Springs made a similar request to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, which said it had to maintain secrecy even though the newspaper found information online about cell site simulators.

And in Sacramento, the local sheriff's office told a TV station it would "be inappropriate for us to comment about any agency that may be using the technology" in light of a Harris nondisclosure agreement.

Many of the requests were part of an effort to investigate the devices by Gannett Co. Inc., which publishes USA Today and owns other newspapers and television stations around the country.

"I don't see how public agencies can make up an agreement with a private company that breaks state law," said David Cuillier, the director of the University of Arizona's journalism school and a national expert on public-records laws. "We can't have the commercial sector running our governments for us. These public agencies need to be forthright and transparent."

A representative for Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris Corp. declined to comment or elaborate on how the company's agreements comport with open records laws. Court documents in Hodai's case show Harris' agreement required the Tucson city government not to "discuss, publish, release or disclose any information" about its products without the company's written consent.

The agreement also required the city to contact Harris when it receives public-records requests about a "protected product," like a Stingray, so that the company can "challenge any such request in court." The police department declined to comment on Hodai's lawsuit.

He had sought Harris contracts and police emails about how the technology is used. Email records show a Harris contract manager advised a Tucson police sergeant on what records couldn't be released to the public; the manager relied on the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, which governs records of the executive branch of the federal government.

Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU, said there's often a distinction in public-records laws to protect bona fide trade secrets — such as circuit board diagrams — as opposed to broader information like agency policies governing a Stingray's use or purchase agreements. He said police in Florida have declined to tell judges about the use of Stingrays because of nondisclosure agreements.

A December 2013 investigation by USA Today found roughly 1 in 4 law enforcement agencies it surveyed had performed tower dumps, and slightly fewer owned a Stingray. But the report also said 36 additional agencies refused to provide details on their use, with most denying the newspaper's public-records requests.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #106 on: March 24, 2014, 02:39:44 am »

When government refuses to talk about how they are treating their own population, that's a problem!

What we have here is a two-fold problem. Not only are they refusing to talk about this technology, they are using this technology to most likely violate the public's right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, all without a warrant.

This kind of technology is created for one reason, to get information in a way that sidesteps the law concerning warrants.

Law enforcement thinks it can use this stuff without a warrant. I say bull hockey! NO way, no how can police "investigate" a person and not have to get a warrant to obtain information without the person being targeted knowing about it.

Police aren't talking about it because they know it's basically breaking the law, and as you see in the article, the FBI is right there backing police departments and the use of these devices.

Most likely we will find out it is the federal government that has been pushing the use of these type devices, by giving them to local police departments under some kind of "grants" or some "state and federal joint mission".

In almost every case, it is the federal government that is arming the states against their citizens, and state officials have become nothing more than state level federal officers.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574

Quote
'Stingray' Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash

By
Jennifer Valentino-DeVries
September 22,2011

For more than a year, federal authorities pursued a man they called simply "the Hacker." Only after using a little known cellphone-tracking device—a stingray—were they able to zero in on a California home and make the arrest.

Stingrays are designed to locate a mobile phone even when it's not being used to make a call. The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers the devices to be so critical that it has a policy of deleting the data gathered in their use, mainly to keep suspects in the dark about their capabilities, an FBI official told The Wall Street Journal in response to inquiries.

A stingray's role in nabbing the alleged "Hacker"— Daniel David Rigmaiden —is shaping up as a possible test of the legal standards for using these devices in investigations. The FBI says it obtains appropriate court approval to use the device.

Stingrays are one of several new technologies used by law enforcement to track people's locations, often without a search warrant. These techniques are driving a constitutional debate about whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but which was written before the digital age, is keeping pace with the times.

On Nov. 8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether or not police need a warrant before secretly installing a GPS device on a suspect's car and tracking him for an extended period. In both the Senate and House, new bills would require a warrant before tracking a cellphone's location.

And on Thursday in U.S. District Court of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell is set to hear a request by Mr. Rigmaiden, who is facing fraud charges, to have information about the government's secret techniques disclosed to him so he can use it in his defense. Mr. Rigmaiden maintains his innocence and says that using stingrays to locate devices in homes without a valid warrant "disregards the United States Constitution" and is illegal.

His argument has caught the judge's attention. In a February hearing, according to a transcript, Judge Campbell asked the prosecutor, "Were there warrants obtained in connection with the use of this device?"

The prosecutor, Frederick A. Battista, said the government obtained a "court order that satisfied [the] language" in the federal law on warrants. The judge then asked how an order or warrant could have been obtained without telling the judge what technology was being used. Mr. Battista said: "It was a standard practice, your honor."

Judge Campbell responded that it "can be litigated whether those orders were appropriate."

On Thursday the government will argue it should be able to withhold details about the tool used to locate Mr. Rigmaiden, according to documents filed by the prosecution. In a statement to the Journal, Sherry Sabol, Chief of the Science & Technology Office for the FBI's Office of General Counsel, says that information about stingrays and related technology is "considered Law Enforcement Sensitive, since its public release could harm law enforcement efforts by compromising future use of the equipment."

The prosecutor, Mr. Battista, told the judge that the government worries that disclosure would make the gear "subject to being defeated or avoided or detected."

A stingray works by mimicking a cellphone tower, getting a phone to connect to it and measuring signals from the phone. It lets the stingray operator "ping," or send a signal to, a phone and locate it as long as it is powered on, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The device has various uses, including helping police locate suspects and aiding search-and-rescue teams in finding people lost in remote areas or buried in rubble after an accident.

The government says "stingray" is a generic term. In Mr. Rigmaiden's case it remains unclear which device or devices were actually used.



Generic term? So why does the device have it stamped right on the device? Looks like a device name to me! Bunch of liars.

The best known stingray maker is Florida-based defense contractor Harris Corp. A spokesman for Harris declined to comment.

Harris holds trademarks registered between 2002 and 2008 on several devices, including the StingRay, StingRay II, AmberJack, KingFish, TriggerFish and LoggerHead. Similar devices are available from other manufacturers. According to a Harris document, its devices are sold only to law-enforcement and government agencies.

Some of the gadgets look surprisingly old-fashioned, with a smattering of switches and lights scattered across a panel roughly the size of a shoebox, according to photos of a Harris-made StingRay reviewed by the Journal. The devices can be carried by hand or mounted in cars, allowing investigators to move around quickly.

A rare public reference to this type of technology appeared this summer in the television crime drama "The Closer." In the episode, law-enforcement officers use a gadget they called a "catfish" to track cellphones without a court order.

The U.S. armed forces also use stingrays or similar devices, according to public contract notices. Local law enforcement in Minnesota, Arizona, Miami and Durham, N.C., also either possess the devices or have considered buying them, according to interviews and published requests for funding.

The sheriff's department in Maricopa County, Ariz., uses the equipment "about on a monthly basis," says Sgt. Jesse Spurgin. "This is for location only. We can't listen in on conversations," he says.

Sgt. Spurgin says officers often obtain court orders, but not necessarily search warrants, when using the device. To obtain a search warrant from a court, officers as a rule need to show "probable cause," which is generally defined as a reasonable belief, based on factual evidence, that a crime was committed. Lesser standards apply to other court orders.

A spokeswoman with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in Minnesota says officers don't need to seek search warrants in that state to use a mobile tracking device because it "does not intercept communication, so no wiretap laws would apply."

FBI and Department of Justice officials have also said that investigators don't need search warrants. Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker and FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni both said at a panel at the Brookings Institution in May that devices like these fall into a category of tools called "pen registers," which require a lesser order than a warrant. Pen registers gather signals from phones, such as phone numbers dialed, but don't receive the content of the communications.

To get a pen-register order, investigators don't have to show probable cause. The Supreme Court has ruled that use of a pen register doesn't require a search warrant because it doesn't involve interception of conversations.

But with cellphones, data sent includes location information, making the situation more complicated because some judges have found that location information is more intrusive than details about phone numbers dialed. Some courts have required a slightly higher standard for location information, but not a warrant, while others have held that a search warrant is necessary.

The prosecution in the Rigmaiden case says in court documents that the "decisions are made on a case-by-case basis" by magistrate and district judges. Court records in other cases indicate that decisions are mixed, and cases are only now moving through appellate courts.

The FBI advises agents to work with federal prosecutors locally to meet the requirements of their particular district or judge, the FBI's Ms. Sabol says. She also says it is FBI policy to obtain a search warrant if the FBI believes the technology "may provide information on an individual while that person is in a location where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Experts say lawmakers and the courts haven't yet settled under what circumstances locating a person or device constitutes a search requiring a warrant. Tracking people when they are home is particularly sensitive because the Fourth Amendment specifies that people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches in their "houses."

"The law is uncertain," says Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former computer-crime attorney at the Department of Justice. Mr. Kerr, who has argued that warrants should be required for some, but not all, types of location data, says that the legality "should depend on the technology."

In the case of Mr. Rigmaiden, the government alleges that as early as 2005, he began filing fraudulent tax returns online. Overall, investigators say, Mr. Rigmaiden electronically filed more than 1,900 fraudulent tax returns as part of a $4 million plot.

Federal investigators say they pursued Mr. Rigmaiden "through a virtual labyrinth of twists and turns." Eventually, they say they linked Mr. Rigmaiden to use of a mobile-broadband card, a device that lets a computer connect to the Internet through a cellphone network.

Investigators obtained court orders to track the broadband card. Both orders remain sealed, but portions of them have been quoted by the defense and the prosecution.

These two documents are central to the clash in the Arizona courtroom. One authorizes a "pen register" and clearly isn't a search warrant. The other document is more complex. The prosecution says it is a type of search warrant and that a finding of probable cause was made.

But the defense argues that it can't be a proper search warrant, because among other things it allowed investigators to delete all the tracking data collected, rather than reporting back to the judge.

Legal experts who spoke with the Journal say it is difficult to evaluate the order, since it remains sealed. In general, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the finding of probable cause is most important in determining whether a search is reasonable because that requirement is specified in the Constitution itself, rather than in legal statutes, says Mr. Kerr.

But it is "odd" for a search warrant to allow deletion of evidence before a case goes to trial, says Paul Ohm, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and a former computer-crime attorney at the Department of Justice. The law governing search warrants specifies how the warrants are to be executed and generally requires information to be returned to the judge.

Exactly! THAT is intentional destruction of evidence in order to hide information about the case. How is that not a crime? I say it's a stone-cold, slam dunk crime.

Even if the court finds the government's actions acceptable under the Fourth Amendment, deleting the data is "still something we might not want the FBI doing," Mr. Ohm says.

The government says the data from the use of the stingray has been deleted and isn't available to the defendant. In a statement, the FBI told the Journal that "our policy since the 1990s has been to purge or 'expunge' all information obtained during a location operation" when using stingray-type gear.

So the FBI openly admits they have been using these type devices since the 90's! And have been destroying evidence all along. THAT is your law enforcement America!

As a general matter, Ms. Sabol says, court orders related to stingray technology "will include a directive to expunge information at the end of the location operation."

Ms. Sabol says the FBI follows this policy because its intent isn't to use the data as evidence in court, but rather to simply find the "general location of their subject" in order to start collecting other information that can be used to justify a physical search of the premises.

See that? Now why would they collect information during a criminal investigation and not keep that info as part of the case? Because they know full well the information was obtained most likely illegally, so they don't try to push it with the info they do get. Better to use it as needed, then toss it, so they don't have to answer any more questions about HOW they got info to the courts than they have to.

In the Rigmaiden example, investigators used the stingray to narrow down the location of the broadband card. Then they went to the apartment complex's office and learned that one resident had used a false ID and a fake tax return on the renter's application, according to court documents.

Based on that evidence, they obtained a search warrant for the apartment. They found the broadband card connected to a computer.

Mr. Rigmaiden, who doesn't confirm or deny ownership of the broadband card, is arguing he should be given information about the device and about other aspects of the mission that located him.

In the February hearing, Judge Campbell said he might need to weigh the government's claim of privilege against the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and asked the prosecution, "How can we litigate in this case whether this technology that was used in this case violates the Fourth Amendment without knowing precisely what it can do?"

Write to Jennifer Valentino-DeVries at Jennifer.Valentino-DeVries@wsj.com
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 02:52:12 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #107 on: April 19, 2014, 06:25:35 am »

LA Sheriff's Dept. On New Surveillance Program: We Knew The Public Wouldn't Like It, So We Kept It A Secret
from the because-screw-those-whiners-and-their-'rights' dept


As we've noted several times before, law enforcement and investigative agencies tend to roll out expanded surveillance systems without bothering to run it by the citizens they're planning to surveil. The systems and programs are deployed, FOIA battles are waged and, finally, at some point, the information makes its way to the public. It is only then that most agencies start considering the privacy implications of their surveillance systems, and these are usually addressed by begrudging, minimal protections being belatedly applied.

Now, it's obvious why these agencies don't inform the public of their plans. They may uses terms like "security" and "officer safety" and theorize that making any details public would just allow criminals to find ways to avoid the persistent gaze of multiple surveillance options, but underneath it all, they know the public isn't going to just sit there and allow them to deploy intrusive surveillance programs.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is using a new surveillance program utilizing the technology of a private contractor doing business under the not-scary-at-all name of "Persistent Surveillance Systems." This gives the LASD a literal eye in the sky that provides coverage it can't achieve with systems already in place. But it does more than just give the LASD yet another camera. It provides the agency with some impressive tools to manipulate the recordings.

    The system, known as wide-area surveillance, is something of a time machine – the entire city is filmed and recorded in real time. Imagine Google Earth with a rewind button and the ability to play back the movement of cars and people as they scurry about the city.

    “We literally watched all of Compton during the time that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,” [Ross] McNutt [owner of Persistent Surveillance Systems] said. “Our goal was to basically jump to where reported crimes occurred and see what information we could generate that would help investigators solve the crimes.”

As with nearly everything making its way into law enforcement hands these days, this technology was developed and deployed first in battlefields. Persistent Surveillance Systems' first proving grounds were Afghanistan and Iraq, tracking down bombing suspects. All it takes is a cluster of high-powered cameras and a single civilian plane to watch over Compton with warzone-quality surveillance. According to McNutt, the camera system covers "10,000 times" the area a single police helicopter can. McNutt also believes the system can be expanded to cover an area as large as the entire city of San Francisco.

While the cameras aren't quite powerful enough to allow the LASD to make use of another, increasingly popular technological tool -- facial recognition -- this still gives the LASD an unprecedented coverage area. Camera technology continues to improve, so there's no reason to believe a few of McNutt's planes won't someday (possibly very soon) have the power to assist the LASD with adding new mugshots to its databases.

But, as pointed out earlier, where does the public fit into all of this? Were privacy concerns addressed before moving forward with Persistent Surveillance Systems? I'm not even going to try to set up this astounding response from an LASD officer. Just read it:

    “The system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public,” (LASD Sgt.) Iketani said. “A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky, the Big Brother, so in order to mitigate any of those kinds of complaints, we basically kept it pretty hush-hush.”

You know, it's one thing to think this. We know from experience that many law enforcement officials (as well as the rank-and-file) absolutely resent being publicly accountable and having to make the occasional token effort to respect civil liberties, so it's not surprising that the LASD knew the easiest way to avoid a negative public was to lock the public out.

It is, however, quite another thing to come out on record and say this. This shows just how little the LASD actually cares about the public's concerns. The agency knew the public wouldn't be happy and an official comes right out and tells the public that his agency and others don't really care. What they don't know won't hurt them... until it's too late to do anything about it.

This was followed up by another statement from an LAPD official, who noted that frogs generally come around to the idea of being boiled to death.

    The center’s commanding officer, Capt. John Romero, recognizes the concerns but equates them with public resistance to street lights in America’s earliest days.

    “People thought that this is the government trying to see what we’re doing at night, to spy on us,” Romero said. “And so over time, things shifted, and now if you try to take down street lights in Los Angeles or Boston or anywhere else, people will say no.”

There's no honesty or accountability in these statements. There's only an admission that Los Angeles law enforcement feels the public is there to serve them and not the other way around. Hiding your plans from the public doesn't instill confidence that their rights will be respected. Neither does telling them they'll "get used to it." Instead, it creates an even more antagonistic environment, one where the public is viewed as a nuisance at best by people whose power is derived from the same citizens they so obviously have no respect for.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140415/07371926919/la-sheriffs-dept-new-surveillance-program-we-knew-public-wouldnt-like-it-so-we-kept-it-secret.shtml
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #108 on: April 19, 2014, 06:29:00 am »

Surveillance States of America: Silicon Valley Creates Robocop that will Start Patrolling Streets this Year

 Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

t sounds like a bad sci-fi movie or an Orwellian Novel about a government gone mad with power; unfortunately, it could be our very near future: Robocops and drones keeping tabs on everyone.

A Silicon Valley company called Knightscope is currently testing a prototype robot that they say will help patrol the streets of America – monitoring the public and using analytical data to “predict future crimes.” The Knightscope K5 is a five-foot-tall autonomous robot that looks closer to R2-D2 than it does Robocop, but this robot is no Hollywood creation, it’s the real deal.

lots of vids must read http://offgridsurvival.com/surveillance-state-robots/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #109 on: April 30, 2014, 07:21:38 am »

Supreme Court green lights detention of Americans

A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.

The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.

They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.

The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York's Zuccotti Park.

The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.

Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.

Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.

It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”

Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.

The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.

“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.

“According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.

It’s not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasn’t already happened.

In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.

The newest authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.

The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”

The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.

“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford officials reported.

At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.

Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.

Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/print/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #110 on: May 16, 2014, 07:10:26 am »

U.S. Agents to Legally Hack Computers Everywhere

It seems that the American thirst for citizens’ private information literally knows no bounds. The U.S. is promoting laws that will make it much easier for the FBI to legally hack into suspects’ computers. U.S. judges, under the new regulations, will have the authority to approve the investigation of computers that aren’t even located on American soil.   

rest: http://i-hls.com/2014/05/u-s-agents-legally-hack-computers-everywhere/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=u-s-agents-legally-hack-computers-everywhere
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: June 02, 2014, 02:17:42 pm »

Make no mistake - Oliver Stone is controlled-oppostion - I saw his "JFK" over 20 years ago, and his message was just that...that the current Constitution is no good, and therefore it needs to be torn up and a New World Order needs to be brought in.

And to boot - while he correctly exposed the CIA, FBI(and these other corrupt Caesar agencies), he didn't say a word about these secret societies like the Jesuits, Freemasons, and Federal Reserve who were really behind JFK's assassination.(ie-JFK exposed these secret societies like a year before his death)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/oliver-stone-direct-edward-snowden-biopic-article-1.1814253
Oliver Stone signs on to direct Edward Snowden biopic: ‘It is one of the greatest stories of our time’

The Oscar-winning director will make a film about the NSA whistleblower based on the book, ‘The Snowden Files.’

6/2/14

 Oliver Stone doesn’t shy away from controversial topics and his latest movie project is no exception.

The Oscar-winning director announced Monday that he will tackle a film based on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the Guardian reports. Stone’s film was based on an adaptation of Guardian journalist Luke Harding’s book, “The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Wanted Man.” Harding and other Guardian journalists will serve as consultants to the film.

“This is one of the greatest stories of our time," the 67-year-old director said in a statement. "A real challenge.”

The film will chronicle Snowden’s saga as a National Security Agency whistleblower and what happened after he leaked classified documents to Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald. The project is set to begin filming at the end of the year.

Stone’s film about Snowden will just be the latest biopic in his filmography. Other movie biopics from the director include “Nixon” and “W,” about Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, respectively.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #112 on: June 03, 2014, 06:21:52 pm »

U.S. reconstitutes group to fight homegrown extremists

The United States is reviving a law enforcement group to investigate those it designates as domestic terrorists, the Department of Justice announced Tuesday.

Following hate-motivated shootings such as the one at a Jewish Community Center in Kansas City, Missouri in April, federal prosecutors have pressed the need to coordinate intelligence about such criminals on a national level, Justice Department officials said.

The Department of Justice will reconstitute a task force that was originally formed after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing but dissolved after the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked plane attacks as law enforcement agencies focused on threats from militants abroad.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that the United States remains concerned about threats from Islamic extremists, but the group will focus on other motives for attacks within U.S. borders.

Events like the April 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon, in which the attackers appeared to be influenced by extremists abroad, would not fall under the jurisdiction of the group, named the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee.

"We must also concern ourselves with the continued danger we face from individuals within our own borders who may be motivated by a variety of other causes from anti-government animus to racial prejudice," Holder said.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it plans to engage with the Justice Department to ensure the effort does not lead to racial profiling or other bias targeting of individuals who may be wrongfully suspected of having violent intentions, said Naureen Shah, legislative counsel for the ACLU.

"Attorney General Holder’s announcement that the new task force will focus on evidence of anti-government animus and racial intolerance raises concerns that it could be a sweeping mandate to monitor and collect controversial speech,” said Lee Rowland, a staff attorney at the ACLU.

The committee's members will come from the FBI, the National Security Division of the Justice Department and the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of federal prosecutors.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-revives-group-fight-homegrown-extremists-officials-155621629.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: June 06, 2014, 06:11:17 pm »

CIA outwits impersonators by embracing Twitter, Facebook
http://news.yahoo.com/cia-launches-twitter-and-facebook-accounts-210535915.html
6/6/14

Apparently the good folks at the Central Intelligence Agency have decided that YOLO. On Friday, the CIA announced it was launching Twitter and Facebook accounts.

And the public seems eager to associate with the nation’s best-known intelligence-gathering entity — the CIA Twitter account had nearly 150,000 followers less than three hours after launching.

The agency’s first tweet:

 CIA        ✔ @CIA
Follow

We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.
10:49 AM - 6 Jun 2014

So, why did the CIA decide it needed a presence on Twitter and Facebook? Well, apparently the impetus was an individual or organization that was attempting to impersonate the agency on social media.

“Earlier this year we filed an impersonation complaint with Twitter,” Dean Boyd, of the agency’s office of public affairs, told Yahoo News. “Someone appeared to be using this handle to violate both CIA and Twitter rules by spreading false information.”

And now that the CIA owns the @CIA handle, Boyd says the agency plans to be active in social media.

“We’ll be able to more directly engage the public and provide information,” he said. “It’s important to share insights, historical artifacts and even unclassified information with the public.”

Boyd said the agency plans to primarily use the accounts to share speeches from CIA Director John Brennan and press releases.

But perhaps of most interest to people online is that Boyd said the agency will also share some of its wealth of declassified data from around the world, seeing the social media outlets as an “educational tool” for the public.

“We want to make sure that unclassified information about the Agency is more accessible to the American public that we serve, consistent with our national security mission,” Brennan said in a statement.

“There will be an incredible amount of artifacts made available that most people wouldn’t otherwise be able to access,” Boyd added.

When asked if the agency expects to be spammed by people, even those with the best of intentions, who want to offer their own information to the CIA, Boyd paused for several seconds before responding. “It’s a valuable tool to provide information to the public and to hear what the public is thinking,” he said.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #114 on: July 23, 2014, 07:06:31 am »

The Worst Trolls On The Internet Are The Government Trolls

We have all run into them.  All over the Internet, there are horrible trolls that seem to delight in making life miserable for other people.  But the worst trolls of all are the government trolls.  And thanks to Edward Snowden, we now have some startling new evidence of what really goes on behind the scenes.  According to newly revealed documents, British spy agency GCHQ is manipulating online discussions, infiltrating the computers of specific targets, purposely destroying reputations, altering the results of online polls, and using Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for propaganda and espionage purposes.  If people don’t start getting outraged about this now, the governments of the western world are going to see it as a green light to do even more.  Eventually, it might get so bad that we won’t be able to trust much of anything that we see on the Internet.

There is a lot about the Internet that is really awful, but one great thing about it is the fact that it has allowed average individuals to communicate on a mass scale unlike ever before.  As the general population has become aware of how powerful of a tool the Internet can be, the elite have become extremely alarmed.  Unlike so many other things in our society, it has not been something that they have been able to easily control.

But the elite have been starting to catch up to all of this new technology and are learning how to use it for their own purposes.  Thanks to Snowden, we now have a list of specific tools that GCHQ has been using to manipulate the Internet.  The following is a short excerpt from a recent ZDNet article about these new revelations…

*****

A number of interesting tools and their short descriptions are below:

    ASTRAL PROJECTION: Remote GSM secure covert Internet proxy using TOR hidden service
    POISON ARROW: Safe malware download capability
    AIRWOLF: YouTube profile, comment and video collection
    BIRDSTRIKE: Twitter monitoring and profile collection
    GLASSBACK: Technique of getting a target’s IP address by pretending to be a spammer and ringing them. Target does not need to answer.
    MINIATURE HERO: Active skype capability. Provision of realtime call records (SkypeOut and SkypetoSkype) and bidirectional instant messaging. Also contact lists.
    PHOTON TORPEDO: A technique to actively grab the IP address of MSN messenger user
    SPRING-BISHOP: Finding private photos of targets on Facebook
    BOMB BAY: The capacity to increase website hits, rankings
    BURLESQUE: The capacity to send spoofed SMS messages
    GESTATOR: Amplification of a given message, normally video, on popular multimedia websites (YouTube)
    SCRAPHEAP CHALLENGE: Perfect spoofing of emails from Blackberry targets
    SUNBLOCK: Ability to deny functionality to send/receive email or view material online
    SWAMP DONKEY: A tool that will silently locate all predefined types of file and encrypt them on a targets machine
    UNDERPASS: Change outcome of online polls (previously known as NUBILO).
    WARPATH: Mass delivery of SMS messages to support an Information Operations campaign.
    HUSK: Secure one-on-one web based dead-drop messaging platform.

The list, dated from 2012, says that most of the tools are “fully operational, tested and reliable,” and adds: “Don’t treat this like a catalogue. If you don’t see it here, it doesn’t mean we can’t build it.”

*****

If we are going to have a free and open society, then we simply cannot have the governments of the western world running around systematically manipulating the Internet for their own purposes.

And of course it is not just the British that are doing this kind of thing.

Just recently, for example, the U.S. was caught manipulating discourse on Reddit and editing Wikipedia.

The rest of the world is watching all of this and they are absolutely disgusted with us.  The more that we act like Nazis, the more they are going to regard us as such.

At this point, even our closest friends are loudly denouncing us.  Germany just caught one U.S. spy, and a German newspaper claims that there are “dozens” of other CIA-recruited spies working in German ministries.

And the Germans have become so paranoid about the NSA spying on them that the German government is actually considering going back to using typewriters…

    Germany may go old school to guard against spying.

    The German government will continue to use encrypted e-mails and phones, but it could also expand its use of typewriters, said Patrick Sensburg, the head of the German parliament’s investigation into U.S. spying, in an interview with German TV station ARD Monday, Reuters reports.

    The Germans are even considering using non-electronic typewriters, Sensburg said.

Why we would spy on our closest friends is something that I will never understand.  And if we keep this up, soon we will not have any friends left at all.

Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans are becoming fed up with the growing tyranny all around us.  I love how John W. Whitehead expressed his frustrations in his recent article about the emerging police state in America…

    I don’t like being subjected to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA. I don’t like VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes. I don’t like fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement.

    I don’t like laws that criminalize Americans for otherwise lawful activities such as holding religious studies at home, growing vegetables in their yard, and collecting rainwater. I don’t like the NDAA, which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely. I don’t like the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

    I don’t like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has become America’s standing army. I don’t like military weapons such as armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like being used against the American citizens. I don’t like government agencies such as the DHS, Post Office, Social Security Administration and Wildlife stocking up on hollow-point bullets. And I definitely don’t like the implications of detention centers being built that could house American citizens.

The people of the western world need to stand up and say enough is enough.

Are we going to stay silent as the integrity of the Internet is destroyed?

Are we going to stay silent while the Internet is transformed into a government propaganda tool?

Are we going to stay silent while the liberties and freedoms that we have left are systematically shredded?

If you do not like the direction that all of this is going, now is the time to let your voice be heard.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-worst-trolls-on-the-internet-are-the-government-trolls
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3828


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: August 18, 2014, 05:05:01 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #116 on: August 18, 2014, 05:40:03 am »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #117 on: September 18, 2014, 05:53:50 am »

Apple will no longer unlock most iPhones, iPads for police, even with search warrants

Apple said Wednesday night that it is making it impossible for the company to turn over data from most iPhones or iPads to police — even when they have a search warrant... Rather than comply with binding court orders, Apple has reworked its latest encryption in a way that prevents the company — or anyone but the device’s owner — from gaining access to the vast troves of user data typically stored on smartphones or tablet computers.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apple-will-no-longer-unlock-most-iphones-ipads-for-police-even-with-search-warrants/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html

 Roll Eyes RIGHT...  Cheesy
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Exodus 3:14-15
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27576


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: October 02, 2014, 11:49:04 pm »

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-passes-security-law-raising-fears-for-press-freedom/ar-BB6IpCr
Australia passes security law, raising fears for press freedom
9/30/14

SYDNEY - The first of a series of security powers requested by Australia's government to combat Islamist militants passed through parliament on Wednesday, despite criticism that they could land journalists in jail for reporting on national security.

Australia is increasingly concerned over the number of its citizens heading to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside radical Islamists, and police said they foiled a plot by the Islamic State group last month to behead a random Australian citizen.

Conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned that the balance between freedom and security "may have to shift" in the wake of a series of raids targeting what authorities say are the group's members and supporters.

Under the legislation, which passed the lower house with support from the main opposition Labor Party, anyone disclosing information about "special intelligence operations" could face a decade in prison.

It also outlaws copying, transcribing, retaining, or recording intelligence materials, which critics say is a direct response to former damaging leaks by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, and vastly expands the government's power to monitor computers.

The reforms were needed to update legislation written in the 1970s, Attorney General George Brandis said, and were in the same spirit as emergency legislation passed in Britain forcing telecoms firms to retain customer data.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said the government made "no apologies" for trying to protect the secrecy of covert intelligence operations.

"This is not, as has been wrongly suggested, about preventing the release of information that might simply embarrass the government of the day or expose it to criticism," he said.

But the Committee to Protect Journalists said it was concerned that the legislation did not contain an exemption for journalists, which could mean they could be imprisoned for up to ten years simply for reporting on national security matters.

"This national security bill and other draft legislation raise grave concerns about the direction in which Australia is heading," spokesman Bob Dietz said in a statement.

"These bills would seriously hamper reporting in the public interest and we urge lawmakers to add the necessary safeguards to protect journalists and whistleblowers."

The legislation is the first of a series of laws aimed at beefing up the government's security powers, including a controversial proposal to make it a crime for an Australian citizen to travel to any area overseas once the government has declared it off limits.

Legislation requiring telecommunications providers to keep metadata and to make it available to police and security agencies will soon be introduced as well, granting the government broader access to its citizens' communications.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20872



View Profile
« Reply #119 on: November 07, 2014, 07:47:25 am »

I’m terrified of my new TV: Why I’m scared to turn this thing on — and you’d be, too
From facial recognition to personal data collection, this thing is downright scary -- and so are the implications




I just bought a new TV. The old one had a good run, but after the volume got stuck on 63, I decided it was time to replace it. I am now the owner of a new “smart” TV, which promises to deliver streaming multimedia content, games, apps, social media and Internet browsing. Oh, and TV too.

The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.

The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect “when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.” It records “the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.” It ignores “do-not-track” requests as a considered matter of policy.

It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition. The purpose is to provide “gesture control” for the TV and enable you to log in to a personalized account using your face. On the upside, the images are saved on the TV instead of uploaded to a corporate server. On the downside, the Internet connection makes the whole TV vulnerable to hackers who have demonstrated the ability to take complete control of the machine.

More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a “voice recognition” feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV.

You may not be watching, but the telescreen is listening.

I do not doubt that this data is important to providing customized content and convenience, but it is also incredibly personal, constitutionally protected information that should not be for sale to advertisers and should require a warrant for law enforcement to access.

Unfortunately, current law affords little privacy protection to so-called “third party records,” including email, telephone records, and data stored in “the cloud.” Much of the data captured and transmitted by my new TV would likely fall into this category. Although one federal court of appeals has found this rule unconstitutional with respect to email, the principle remains a bedrock of modern electronic surveillance.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/im_terrified_of_my_new_tv_why_im_scared_to_turn_this_thing_on_and_youd_be_too/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines