America Is Being Systematically Transformed Into A Totalitarian Society

[Kilika]

the two leading companies in the field say that each month their databases collect tens of millions of pieces of geo-located information from thousands of license plate readers, mounted on tow trucks, mall security vehicles, police cars, at the entrances to store parking lots, on toll booths or along city streets and highways.

And they are getting info from police how? Let me guess, the state is selling that info to private companies.

Another question is how is it that private companies are allowed to use such devices? While government has it's own laws, they differ from what private companies have to follow. They don't need a warrant for starters, and that I think is the big hitch in the system. Hand it over to private companies, and no more warrant issues.

[Psalm 51:17]

House votes to continue NSA surveillance program
7/24/13
http://www.10news.com/news/u-s-world/house-votes-to-continue-nsa-surveillance-program-07242013

WASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to continue the collection of hundreds of millions of Americans' phone records in the fight against terrorism.

The chamber rejected a measure to end the program's authority. The vote was 217-205 on Wednesday.

Republican Rep. Justin Amash had challenged the program as an indiscriminate collection of phone records. His measure, if approved by the full House and Senate and signed by the president, would have ended the program's statutory authority.

The White House, national security experts in Congress and the Republican establishment had lobbied hard against Amash's effort.

Libertarian-leaning conservatives and some liberal Democrats had supported Amash's effort.

The vote was unlikely to settle the debate over privacy rights and government efforts to thwart terrorism.

[Kilika]

Republican Rep. Justin Amash had challenged the program as an indiscriminate collection of phone records.

But it isn't "indiscriminate". They are doing a very specific task, following guidelines. They know exactly what they are doing, and have a very specific purpose. I see this junk as just Washington placating the public, so they can say "see, we tried!".

[Psalm 51:17]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/feds-demand-user-passwords-as-congress-sells-us-out/
Feds Demand User Passwords As Congress Sells Us Out

It’s been a rough couple of days for any freedom loving American. Two big stories broke in relation to the NSA scandal and neither bodes well for the future of privacy in this country. Yesterday’s big story came from CNET. That is significant in and of itself because CNET is not exactly what you would call a site for political news junkies. CNET is more for the computer savvy techies.

They are reporting that the feds are applying intense pressure to gather passwords. CNET reports:

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users’ stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.

If the government is able to determine a person’s password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.

“I’ve certainly seen them ask for passwords,” said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We push back.”

A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies “really heavily scrutinize” these requests, the person said. “There’s a lot of ‘over my dead body.’”

Some of the government orders demand not only a user’s password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.

A Microsoft spokesperson would not say whether the company has received such requests from the government. But when asked whether Microsoft would divulge passwords, salts, or algorithms, the spokesperson replied: “No, we don’t, and we can’t see a circumstance in which we would provide it.”

Of course no one is going to admit to providing such info. It’s bad for business. The CNET article is enough to raise serious questions. And even if some of the big providers are saying “no way,” you can bet that they aren’t all saying that. There is no such thing as internet privacy. Keep that in mind going forward.

This story was not shocking but it certainly shows how serious our government is about obtaining data when they want it. They can say what they want about Snowden but it appears he was onto something much bigger than what we already know.

As if this was not bad enough, on Wednesday the Republican House members sold us out.  As if you don’t already have enough proof that we no longer have two distinct political parties, try to make any conservative swallow this pill. As reported by Freedom Outpost:

On Wednesday, The House of Representatives voted down an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) that would have slashed funding for the National Security Agency’s counterterrorism efforts, which have recently come under attack due to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s exposing what the agency is doing in spying on American citizens’ records without a warrant. The amendment, which would have been useful to rein in NSA’s spying program on innocent Americans, was narrowly defeated 217-205.

It is not the fact that the amendment was defeated that was as alarming as to how it was defeated. Check out the final vote totals.
Democrats 111 for and 83 against.
Republicans 94 for and 134 against.

Translation… The Republicans squashed this, not the Democrats. The Democrats wanted it. I immediately checked my own group of All Stars to see how they voted. Gowdy and Stockman are still good in my book but Issa voted against it. What? Come on Darrell.

Yes, we all heard the passionate plea from Michele Bachman, who seemed to be the only one with the guts to explain a “Nay” vote, but do those arguments wash?

Do we need to defeat Al Qaeda and keep our citizens safe? Absolutely.

Do I think that this budget is being used for that? Not really.

A slash in the budget might keep them from worrying about who Weiner is sexting and keep them more focused on finding idiots like the Tsarnaev Brothers who want us all dead.  That is just my opinion but I think it is shared by many.

One thing is for certain. Americans have few allies on the other side and Big Brother is watching.

I don’t think it’s quite fair that the federal government should have my passwords when I can’t even remember some of them. Maybe I can send the NSA a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain my lost passwords.

I don’t think it’s consistent to vote against budget cuts for a government agency that has a strangle hold on our freedom. Certainly not when our country is in such dire economic straits. It doesn’t make sense. They found a place to curb government waste and they ignored it.

What do you think?

[Kilika]

Do we need to defeat Al Qaeda and keep our citizens safe? Absolutely

Al Qaeda doesn't exist. It's a CIA creation. 

[Mark]

Gun March Organizer Now Calling for Citywide Civil Disobedience

The July 4 armed march on Washington just got a little more interesting. A day after telling City Desk that he would still try to enter Washington with a loaded gun, rally organizer Adam Kokesh changed tactics. Now, he wants citywide civil disobedience over whatever law participants consider unconstitutional.
 
"This is now a call for mass civil disobedience on July 4th anywhere in Washington, DC," Kokesh writes on his march's Facebook event page. "Break whatever unconstitutional law you choose."
 
Kokesh declined to comment on the move, promising a full announcement next year. But the shift to a citywide strategy seems to be a response to D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier making it clear that marchers would be stopped at the bridge. Instead, Kokesh promises, "we will shut them down by overwhelming them."
 
Meanwhile, another group of libertarians has promised to march downtown the day before Kokesh's rally with toy guns.
 
Readers: What unconstitutional law will you choose to break for Washington's version of Devil's Night?

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2013/05/08/gun-march-organizer-now-calling-for-citywide-civil-disobedience/

Activist Adam Kokesh ordered held without bond in D.C.

A D.C. Superior Court judge has ordered a veteran and activist accused of openly carrying a shotgun in D.C.'s Freedom Plaza held without bond.
 
During a preliminary hearing Monday, an attorney representing Adam Kokesh argued that the stunt -- filmed and posted on YouTube -- was nothing more than political theater.
 
The judge disagreed, ordering that Kokesh be held until his next court appearance.
 
"I consider your client to be a very dangerous man," the judge said. "This is not a political statement."
 
Kokesh had been arrested and charged with drug-related offenses in Fairfax County, Va., earlier in July.
 
He is expected back in a D.C. courtroom Aug. 13.

http://wtop.com/109/3404250/Activist-Adam-Kokesh-ordered-held-without-bond-in-DC

[Kilika]

The judge disagreed, ordering that Kokesh be held until his next court appearance.
 
"I consider your client to be a very dangerous man," the judge said. "This is not a political statement."
 
Kokesh had been arrested and charged with drug-related offenses in Fairfax County, Va., earlier in July.

Talk about "political theater"!

Well, judge, of course it's a political statement, otherwise, what danger does he present to society? What is "very dangerous" about him? He was in possession of drugs? Since when do "drug-related offenses" warrant no bond?

It's VERY political judge and you know it.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/31/19794519-tsa-employees-caught-sleeping-on-the-job-skipping-work-report?lite
7/31/13
TSA employees caught sleeping on the job, skipping work: report

The Transportation Security Administration investigated and closed 9,622 cases of employee misconduct between the years 2010 and 2012, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office.

The figure marked a 26 percent increase in misconduct cases in a three-year period.

Thirty-two percent of the cases involved problems with workers showing up for their jobs, according to the report, and 20 percent had to do with security and screening.

In one case mentioned in the GAO report, an employee left an assigned checkpoint to help a family member get a bag -- later found to contain "numerous prohibited items" -- past screening. The employee was suspended for seven days, according to the report.

In another case from January 2012, two former employees of the TSA were sentenced to six months in jail after they admitted to have stolen $40,000 from a bag at John F. Kennedy Airport, NBC New York reported.

The report was released ahead of a hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning that included representatives from the TSA and GAO.

Of the more than 9,000 misconduct cases closed by the TSA over the three-year period, nearly half resulted in a letter of reprimand, while employees were suspended in 31 percent of cases, according to the report. Only 17 percent of the employees found to have engaged in misconduct were removed from their jobs.

TSA Deputy Administrator John Halinski said that in cases where it can be immediately proved that an employee committed a form of misconduct, “I’m going to walk him out the door.” Most cases of alleged wrongdoing require an investigation, he said.

The agency is nearly 12 years old, and has 55,000 employees and a budget of more than $7.5 billion.

The need for strict guidelines on how to discipline employee infractions had led to inconsistencies, said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

“The bulk of employee misconduct cases are handled at the airport level, meaning that what happens at one airport may differ from what happens at another,” Thompson said in an opening statement.

The variety of workplaces involved “underscores the need to have clearly defined and consistently applied procedures” regarding employee discipline, Stephen Lord, GAO director of forensic audits and investigative services, said at the hearing on Wednesday.

The GAO report included four recommendations for executive action, all of which have been endorsed by the TSA, Lord said on Wednesday. The recommendations include developing guidelines to record and report misconduct for TSA officials at all airports and establish a review process for all allegations of misbehavior.

Some lawmakers had harsh words for the TSA ahead of Wednesday’s hearing.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and management efficiency, said in a statement that he looked forward to “hearing from TSA on its plans to regain the confidence of the American people.”

“The report’s findings show that TSA plays fast and loose with its use of recommended penalties for misconduct. When it comes to sleeping on duty, TSA is more likely to give a slap on the wrist through a reprimand letter than the standard penalty of suspensions or termination,” Duncan said in the prepared statement.

“TSA has already been publicly scrutinized for its behavior and treatment of the American public, and when Americans hear about ethical misconduct from TSA employees, whether it be theft, neglect of duty, or even abusive language, it makes the problem even worse.”

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
7/31/13
XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

• XKeyscore gives 'widest-reaching' collection of online data
• NSA analysts require no prior authorization for searches
• Sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history
• NSA's XKeyscore program – read one of the presentations

more

[Psalm 51:17]

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19781508-government-can-grab-cell-phone-location-records-without-warrant-appeals-court-says?lite
7/30/13
Government can grab cell phone location records without warrant, appeals court says

In a major victory for the Justice Department over privacy advocates, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that government agencies can collect records showing the location of an individual's cell phone without obtaining a warrant.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the Justice Department's argument that "historical" records showing the location of cell phones, gleaned from cell site location towers, are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clement in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

The issue of cell phone location data has become a major and increasingly contentious battleground in the privacy wars. Privacy advocates argue that the proliferation of cell phone towers in the U.S. – 285,561, according to the latest industry records, more than double the number 10 years ago – and new technologies, such as smartphones, permit law enforcement agents to track highly sensitive information about where individuals have been – their homes or trips to see doctors, friends or lovers – without making a showing to a judge that there is "probable cause" that a person has committed a crime.

Instead, police and law enforcement agents have been obtaining such records under a law called the Stored Communications Act by asserting that there are "specific and articulable facts" showing the records are needed for a criminal investigation – a lower standard.

The debate has even touched on the National Security Agency's surveillance program: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last week wrote a letter to Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden stating that the agency has "no current plans" to collect cell phone location data as part of its bulk collection of phone records.

But Wyden, a Democrat, has repeatedly asserted that the agency has the legal authority to do so, noting in a recent speech that "most of us have a computer in our pocket that potentially can be used to track and monitor us 24/7."

Tuesday’s ruling involved three cases in which unknown federal agencies applied for 60 days of cell site location data in three criminal investigations. But it is hardly the last word on the subject. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that federal judges may require warrants for such data, and the ACLU and other privacy groups this month filed a brief to the 4th Circuit urging that warrants be required for all such government requests.

[Kilika]

A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

EXACTLY!

No one is being forced to use a cell phone, particularly a smart phone, that has GPS in it. But, in the end, they are being pushed that direction as the government has mandated that all cellphones have GPS, for the 911 and emergency alert system they recently digitized, which by the way the federal government can now access your phone and spam it with their "alerts" at their choosing.

The breakthrough though is the smart phone. That is the deal-changer, because of it's internet access, and really, the technological fact it's no longer a cell phone, but a mini pc that has cellular service. And it's wireless, which I admit has some handy advantages in normal use, but it's a feature that has serious downsides, because wireless means that anybody who can intercept that signal can potentially access your device. After all, it's just a pc with wireless internet connection. And now we are getting reports that sim cards have been hacked.

I suspect most people don't really know why their cell phones "apps" are called that, simply because it's computer geek slang for "application", which is another name for computer "code" that has been assembled into a computer program that has a specified use.

But Wyden, a Democrat, has repeatedly asserted that the agency has the legal authority to do so, noting in a recent speech that "most of us have a computer in our pocket that potentially can be used to track and monitor us 24/7."

THEY know the deal. It's the public's own fault if the public doesn't know.

[Psalm 51:17]

John McCain Is Furious About Edward Snowden
http://news.yahoo.com/john-mccain-furious-edward-snowden-121643229.html
8/1/13

On Thursday, Edward Snowden was finally allowed to leave a Moscow airport and enter Russia after being granted a temporary, one-year asylum in the country. It was, presumably, a big relief for the National Security Agency leaker. But it's got Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., fuming.

In a statement released Thursday morning, the senator called Russia's actions "a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States." He continued:

It is a slap in the face of all Americans. Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with [President Vladimir] Putin's Russia. We need to deal with the Russia that is, not the Russia we might wish for. We cannot allow today's action by Putin to stand without serious repercussions.

What would those repercussions be? McCain suggests "significantly" expanding the Magnitsky Act list, "to hold accountable the many human violators [sic] who are still enjoying a culture of impunity in Russia." He also suggests pushing U.S. missile-defense programs in Europe and challenging "political convictions and detentions of Russian dissidents," as well as other human-rights measures.

McCain is not alone in his anger. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., tweeted earlier Thursday that the reset in U.S.-Russia relations is more like the "U.S. being run over." In a statement, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said that "Edward Snowden is a fugitive who belongs in a United States courtroom, not a free man deserving of asylum in Russia." The senator also calls the asylum decision a "setback to U.S.-Russia relations."

All of this puts Putin in a tough spot. He had earlier said that Snowden would only be allowed to stay in his country if he stops "his work aimed at damaging our U.S. partners, no matter how strange this sounds coming from me." More recently, Putin has said he won't let Snowden harm U.S.-Russia relations. The statements from McCain and Menendez seem show that harm actually has been done--even if, particularly in the case of McCain, it may not've been toodifficultto push him over the edge.

[Kilika]

McCain was already over the edge, has been for years! That guy is a mentally questionable war hawk.

But you got to give the guy credit for towing the line to it's full length with this little brain dead statement...

the senator called Russia's actions "a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States."

While he's saying that, down the hall there are hearings going on over the NSA spying on not just US citizens, but other countries. A now proven fact, and he's worried this will embarrass the US?

In the spirit of disclosing injustice and crimes in government and watching out for the well-being of US citizens, Snowden should be given a medal, and certain politicians should be in handcuffs answering to a judge.

[Kilika]

An interesting read from FOX News Judge Napolitano...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/01/libertys-backlash-why-should-be-grateful-to-edward-snowden/

Liberty’s backlash -- why we should be grateful to Edward Snowden

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published August 01, 2013
FoxNews.com

Last week, Justin Amash, the two-term libertarian Republican congressman from Michigan, joined with John Conyers, the 25-term liberal Democratic congressman from the same state, to offer an amendment to legislation funding the National Security Agency (NSA). If enacted, the Amash-Conyers amendment would have forced the government’s domestic spies when seeking search warrants to capture Americans’ phone calls, texts and emails first to identify their targets and produce evidence of their terror-related activities before a judge may issue a warrant. The support they garnered had a surprising result that stunned the Washington establishment.

It almost passed.

The final vote, in which the Amash-Conyers amendment was defeated by 205 to 217, was delayed for a few hours by the House Republican leadership, which opposed the measure. The Republican leadership team, in conjunction with President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, needed more time for arm-twisting so as to avoid a humiliating loss.

But the House rank-and-file did succeed in sending a message to the big-government types in both parties: Nearly half of the House of Representatives has had enough of government spying and then lying about it, and understands that spying on every American simply cannot withstand minimal legal scrutiny or basic constitutional analysis.

The president is deeply into this and no doubt wishes he wasn’t. He now says he welcomed the debate in the House on whether his spies can have all they want from us or whether they are subject to constitutional requirements for their warrants. Surely he knows that the Supreme Court has ruled consistently since the time of the Civil War that the government is always subject to the Constitution, wherever it goes and whatever it does.

As basic as that sounds, it is not a universally held belief among the power elites. Gen. James Clapper, the current boss of all domestic spies, obviously lied when he testified under oath to a Senate committee recently that the government was not accumulating massive amounts of data about tens or hundreds of millions of Americans.

Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA, materially misled a House committee when he was asked under oath whether the NSA has the “ability” to listen to phone calls and he stated it lacks the “authority” to do so. Right off the bat, we can see that these senior spies do not feel bound by the laws prohibiting perjury and the misleading of Congress.

Congress itself has legislatively attempted to amend the Constitution, knowing that the supreme law of the land can only be amended by three-quarters of the states. The Constitution requires probable cause of criminal activity to be presented to a judge as a precondition of the judge issuing a search warrant. It also requires that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

Yet, Congress told the secret FISA court that it can avoid the Constitution and issue a warrant to any spy looking for the phone calls and electronic communications of anyone in America, without probable cause, without naming the persons whose records are sought and without describing the place to be searched. Secrecy-smitten judges, whose clerks are NSA agents and who are not permitted to keep copies of their own rulings, have gone along with this.

Obama, who did not want a national debate on all this before Edward Snowden blew the whistle on it, has backed off of his earlier claims that the feds are not reading emails or listening to phone calls.

He has done this, no doubt, in light of unrefuted statements by Snowden and other NSA whistleblowers to the effect that federal spies can, with the press of a computer key, read emails and hear phone calls.

Only after the Snowden revelations did Obama welcome the "debate" in the House. That debate, in which more than half of his own party rejected his spying, lasted precisely 24 minutes.

How can a deliberative body of 434 current members debate an issue as monumental as whether the government is bound by the Constitution when it seeks out terrorists in just 24 minutes?

Apparently, the House Republican leadership that established the absurd 24-minute rule feared a serious and meaningful public discussion in which its authoritarian impulses would need to confront the Constitution its members swore to uphold. In that 24-minute time span, millions -- millions -- of Americans’ phone calls and emails were swept into the NSA’s supercomputers in defiance of the Constitution.

There is a political wildfire burning in the land, and we should all be grateful to Snowden for igniting it. The fire eventually will consume the political derelictions of those who have abandoned their oaths to uphold the Constitution so they can sound tough back home.

The Amash-Conyers amendment would have required the feds to tell the court the name of the person whose communications they seek and the evidence they have against that person -- just as the Constitution requires. And it would have prohibited the NSA dragnets the Constitution obviously was written to prevent.

Instead we have the almost unimaginable prospect and the nearly unthinkable reality of the feds claiming that they can legally put every person in America under their privacy-invading scrutiny in order to catch a few dozen evil ones -- most of whom were entrapped by the FBI in the first place and never posed a serious danger to the public or the nation.

Would we all be safer if the feds could knock down any door they wished and arrest any person they chose? Who would want to live in such a society? What value is the Constitution if those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping are afraid to do so?

I expect that the Amash-Conyers amendment will be back on the floor of the House soon. When it is, who will have the courage to preserve, protect and defend personal liberty in a free society?

[Psalm 51:17]

^^

Col 2:13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15  And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

[Mark]

White House creates 'nudge squad' to shape behavior

The federal government is hiring what it calls a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will look for ways to subtly influence people's behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.
 
While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.
 
"Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals," reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team.
 
The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the team would "experiment" with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more in energy costs.
 
The document praises subtle policies to change behavior that have already been implemented in England, which already has a "Behavioral Insights Team." One British policy concerns how to get late tax filers to pay up.
 
"Sending letters to late taxpayers that indicated a social norm -- i.e., that '9 out of 10 people in Britain paid their taxes on time' -- resulted in a 15 percent increase in response rates over a three-month period, rolling out to £30 million of extra annual revenue," the document reads.
 
Another policy aimed to convince people to install attic insulation to conserve energy. 
 
"Offering an attic-clearance service (at full cost) to people led to a five-fold increase in their subsequent adoption of attic-insulation."
 
[Read the full document here]
 
Such policies -- which encourage behavior subtly rather than outright require it -- have come to be known as "nudges," after an influential 2008 book titled "Nudge" by former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and Chicago Booth School of Business professor Richard Thaler popularized the term.
 
The term "nudge" has already been associated with the new program, as one professor who received Shankar's email forwarded it to others with the note: "Anyone interested in working for the White House in a 'nudge' squad? The UK has one and it's been extraordinarily successful."
 
Richard Thaler told FoxNews.com that the new program sounds good.
 
"I don't know who those people are who would not want such a program, but they must either be misinformed or misguided," he said.
 
"The goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government by using scientifically collected evidence to inform policy designs. What is the alternative? The only alternatives I know are hunches, tradition, and ideology (either left or right.)"
 
But some economists urge caution.
 
"I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies," Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, told FoxNews.com.
 
"Ultimately, nudging ... assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them."
 
And sometimes, he added, government actually promotes the wrong thing.
 
"Trans-fats were considered better than saturated and unsaturated fats in the past. Now we know this is an error."
 
Every intervention would need to be tested to make sure it works well, said Harvard economics professor David Laibson, who studies behavioral economics and is in touch with the people in government setting up the program. He added that the exact way the team will function is currently unknown.
                                       
 "We have to see the details to be sure, but this could work out very well," he said.
 
Asked about details, Dan Cruz, spokesman for the U.S. General Services Administration (the department which the team will be a part of) told FoxNews.com: "As part of the Administration's ongoing efforts to promote efficiency and savings, GSA is considering adding some expertise from academia in the area of program efficiency and evaluation under its Performance Improvement Council."
 
Maya Shankar did not respond to questions.
 
Laibson added that he hoped the U.S. program would stay away from overly controversial subjects.
 
"Let's say we want people to engage in some healthy behavior like a weight loss program, and then start automatically enrolling overweight people in weight loss programs -- even though they could opt out, I'm guessing that would be viewed as offensive ... a lot of people would say, 'I didn't ask for this, this is judging who I am and who I should be."
 
But Laibson added that there are very real benefits to some "nudge" policies -- such as one that increases the number of people registered as organ donors by making people decide when they apply for a drivers' license.
 
Thaler, who is also an adviser to the British Behavioral Insights Team, said that his research also supports automatically enrolling people in retirement savings plans. 
               
 "Many people have struggled to save enough to provide for an adequate retirement. ... Two simple design changes can dramatically improve the situation ... automatic enrollment (default people into the plan with the option to easily opt out) and automatic escalation, where workers can sign up to have their contributions increased annually," he said.
 
Jerry Ellig, an economist at the Mercatus Center, said that some "nudges" are reasonable, but warned about a slippery slope.
 
"If you can keep it to a 'nudge' maybe it can be beneficial," he added, "but nudges can turn into shoves pretty quickly."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/#ixzz2ao9NvE6k

[Psalm 51:17]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/22/20131077-secret-court-scolded-nsa-over-surveillance-in-2011-declassified-documents-reveal?lite
8/22/13
Secret court scolded NSA over surveillance in 2011, declassified documents reveal

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has given up more of its surveillance secrets, acknowledging that it was ordered to stop scooping up thousands of Internet communications from Americans with no connection to terrorism — a practice it says was an unintended consequence when it gathered bundles of Internet traffic connected to terror suspects.

One of the documents that intelligence officials released Wednesday came because a court ordered the National Security Agency to do so. But it's also part of the administration's response to the leaks by analyst-turned-fugitive Edward Snowden, who revealed that the NSA's spying programs went further and gathered millions more communications than most Americans realized.

The NSA declassified three secret court opinions showing how it revealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that one of its surveillance programs may have collected and stored as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by ordinary Americans annually over three years. The court ruled the NSA actions unconstitutional and ordered the agency to fix the problem, which it did by creating new technology to filter out buckets of data most likely to contain U.S. emails, and then limit the access to that data.

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, released the information Wednesday "in the interest of increased transparency," and as directed by President Barack Obama in June, according to a statement accompanying the online documents.

But it wasn't until the Electronic Freedom Foundation, an Internet civil liberties group that sued for the release of one of the documents, disclosed the court order that Obama administration officials also acknowledged that the release was prodded by the group's 2012 lawsuit.

The court opinions show that when the NSA reported its inadvertent gathering of American-based Internet traffic in September 2011, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ordered the agency to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps the material.

In an 85-page declassified FISA court ruling from October 2011, U.S. District Judge James D. Bates rebuked government lawyers for repeatedly misrepresenting the operations of the NSA's surveillance programs.

Bates wrote that the NSA had advised the court that "the volume and nature of the information it had been collecting is fundamentally different than what the court had been led to believe," and went on to say the court must consider "whether targeting and minimization procedures comport with the Fourth Amendment" prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

"This court is troubled that the government's revelations regarding NSA's acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program," Bates added in a footnoted passage that had portions heavily blacked out.

Bates also complained that the government's submissions make clear that the NSA was gathering Internet data years before it was authorized by the USA Patriot Act's Section 702 in 2008.

The NSA had moved to revise its Internet surveillance in an effort to separate out domestic data from its foreign targeted metadata — which includes email addresses and subject lines. But in his October 2011 ruling, Bates said the government's "upstream" collection of data — taken from internal U.S. data sources — was unconstitutional.

Three senior U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday that national security officials realized the extent of the NSA's inadvertent collection of Americans' data from fiber optic cables in September 2011. One of the officials said the problem became apparent during internal discussions between the NSA and Justice Department officials about the program's technical operation.

The problem, according to the officials, was that the top secret Internet-sweeping operation, which was targeting metadata contained in the emails of foreign users, was also amassing thousands of emails that were bundled up with the targeted materials. Because many Web mail services use such bundled transmissions, the official said, it was impossible to collect the targeted materials without also sweeping up data from innocent domestic U.S. users.

Officials said that when they realized they had an American communication, the communication was destroyed. But it was not clear how they determined to whom an email belonged and whether any NSA analyst had actually read the content of the email. The officials said the bulk of the information was never accessed or analyzed.

As soon as the extent of the problem became clear, the officials said, the Obama administration provided classified briefings to both Senate and House intelligence committees within days. At the same time, officials also informed the FISA court, which later issued the three 2011 rulings released Wednesday — with sections blacked out — as part of the government's latest disclosure of documents.

The officials briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so by name.

The documents were declassified to help the Obama administration explain some of the most recent disclosures made by The Washington Post after it published classified documents provided by Snowden, the former NSA systems analyst.

But the FISA court's classified rulings have also been at issue in a year-old lawsuit filed against the government by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The release Wednesday of the FISA opinion, two other 2011 rulings and a secret "white paper" on the NSA's surveillance came less than two weeks after a federal judge in Washington gave government lawyers a time extension in order to decide which materials to declassify. The EFF had been pressing for a summary judgment that would have compelled the government to release the secret FISA rulings, and the government's most recent extension expired Wednesday, the day it released the once-secret FISA court rulings.

"This was all released in response to the court's orders," said Mark Rumold, an EFF attorney involved in the litigation.

A senior administration official acknowledged Wednesday that some of the documents released were in response to the lawsuit, while others were released voluntarily. The official insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the release with a reporter by name.

The documents were posted later in the day on a new website that went live Wednesday afternoon. The front page of the site said it was "created at the direction of the president of the United States (and) provides immediate, ongoing and direct access to factual information related to the lawful foreign surveillance activities carried out by the U.S. intelligence community."

These interceptions of innocent Americans' communications were happening when the NSA accessed Internet information "upstream," meaning off fiber optic cables or other channels where Internet traffic traverses the U.S. telecommunications system.

The NSA disclosed that it gathers some 250 million Internet communications each year, with some 9 percent from these "upstream" channels, amounting to 20 million to 25 million emails a year. The agency used statistical analysis to estimate that of those, possibly as many as 56,000 Internet communications collected were sent by Americans or people in the U.S. with no connection to terrorism.

Under court order, the NSA resolved the problem by creating new ways to detect when emails by people within the U.S. were being intercepted and separated those batches of communications. It also developed new ways to limit how that data could be accessed or used. The agency also agreed to only keep these bundled communications for possible later analysis for a two-year period, instead of the usual five-year retention period.

The agency also, under court order, destroyed all the bundled data gathered between 2008, when the FISA court first authorized the collection under Section 702 of the Patriot Act, and 2011, when the new procedures were put in place.

The court signed off on the new procedures.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the program is specifically to gather foreign intelligence, not spy on Americans.

"The reason that we're talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards in place at the NSA that monitor for compliance issues, that tabulate them, that document them and that put in place measures to correct them when they occur," Earnest said.

[McChristian]

U.S. Department of Defense education materials obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, warn of “extremists” that will “talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” Judicial Watch and other conservative media outlets claim the disclosure indicates the department is teaching that conservative views are “extremist” in nature.

The guide is reportedly authored by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, a Defense Department-funded diversity training center. Further, the documents cite the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when identifying “hate groups.”

Judicial Watch proves the “highlights” from the documents:

• The document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”

• A statement that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

• “[W]hile not all extremist groups are hate groups, all hate groups are extremist groups.”

• Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

• In this same section, the document lists the 9/11 attack under a category of “Historical events.”

• “[A]ctive participation…with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited.” [Emphasis in original]

• The document details the “seven stages of hate” and sixteen “extremists’ traits.”

• The SPLC is listed as a resource for information on hate groups and referenced several times throughout the guide.

• Of the five organizations besides the SPLC listed as resources, one is an SPLC project (Teaching Tolerance) and one considers any politically or socially conservative movement to be a potential hate group (Political Research Associates).

• Other than a mention of 9/11 and the Sudan, there is no discussion of Islamic extremism.

Judicial Watch obtained 133 pages of lesson plans and PowerPoint slides in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filed on April 8, 2013. The group asked for “any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.”

However, the document says it is “for training purposes only” and “do not use on the job.” The document released was provided by the Air Force, but Judicial Watch claims it originated in a Defense Department office and is “thought likely to be used in other agency components.”

In coordination with the document release, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the “Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”

“And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” he added. “And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations.  After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”

Link to said document: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2161-docs.pdf?V=1

Link to article itself: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/23/department-of-defense-education-materials-warn-of-extremists-that-speak-of-individual-liberties-states-rights-and-how-to-make-the-world-a-better-place/

[McChristian]

The colonists who came to the New World and built the foundations of what now is the United States were “extremists,” and discussions that include mention of “individual liberties” are a dangerous sign, according to the U.S. government.

The education materials that originate with the Department of Defense depict conservative organizations as “hate groups” and cite the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was named in a federal court case for having identified the Family Research Council as a “hate group” simply for adhering to a biblical perspective on homosexuality.

That identification, by his own account, led Floyd Lee Corkins II to arm himself and enter the FRC offices in Washington with the intention of killing as many people as he could.

The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch, the government corruption monitor.

JW said it obtained the records under a Freedom of Information Act request that was launched months ago. The request asked for records “concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.”

The 133 pages make up a January “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute” “student guide” called “extremism.”

For example, it warns: “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically (sic) espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

And it adds: “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

The 9/11 attacks by Muslims who killed nearly 3,000 people are called a “historical event.”

Traits of extremists include attacking an opponent’s character, name-calling, sweeping generalizations, no proof of arguments, viewing the opposition as evil, arguing through intimidation, using slogans or buzzwords, assuming moral superiority and doomsday thinking.

“[A]ctive participation…with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited,” the educational materials read.

According to Judicial Watch: “In April 2013, following a terrorist shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters that occurred in August 2012, Judicial Watch filed multiple FOIA requests to determine what, if any, influence SPLC’s branding of hate groups had on government agencies. On its website, the SPLC has depicted FRC as a ‘hate group,’ along with other such mainstream conservative organizations as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Coral Ridge Ministries. At the time of the shooting, FRC president Tony Perkins accused the SPLC of sparking the shooting, saying the shooter ‘was given a license to shoot … by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.’”

The report said the document was obtained from the Air Force, but it originated in a Department of Defense office and is “therefore thought likely to be used in other agency components.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”

“And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” he said. “And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and tea party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”

The lesson includes: “All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism. When extremists take their ideology to the next level and believe that it is the only right ideology to follow, it becomes supremism.”

The report repeatedly quotes from the SPLC, including using its definitions verbatim.

WND reported earlier, however, that Corkins had used SPLC’s list of “hate groups,” including the Family Research Council, to identify those he wanted to kill.

Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, now an executive for FRC, said the problem continues.

“Nothing has been done regarding the dangerous and potentially deadly actions of SPLC,” he said recently as the anniversary of the shooting attack approached. “SPLC is now connected to terrorism in federal court. Yet no one in the mainstream media seems to care. When will the media hold groups like SPLC accountable?”

Corkins was subdued after shooting building manager Leo Johnson in the arm and injuring him. A video of the attack shows Corkins entering the building and approaching Johnson, then leaning over to place his backpack on the floor. When he straightens up, Corkins points a semi-automatic handgun directly at Johnson and fires.

Despite being wounded in the arm, Johnson was able to subdue Corkins after a brief struggle.

It was in an interview with FBI officers later when Corkins fingered SPLC as his inspiration.

Asked by the FBI how he picked FRC to attack, Corkins stated, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

FRC said that when Corkins later pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic terrorism, SPLC “was connected in federal court in this first domestic terrorism conviction in Washington, D.C., under the post 9/11 law.”

“Floyd Corkins admitted his intention to ‘kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face,’” FRC explained. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has thus far refused to remove Family Research Council as a ‘hate group’ from its target map.”

Boykin has suggested he would like the U.S. government and its agencies to discontinue using, citing or working with the Southern Poverty Law Center. And he said the media should stop citing SPLC.

According to the government’s sentencing memorandum in the case against Corkins, the “mass killing of innocent civilians” was averted narrowly by “the heroic intervening actions of Leonardo Johnson, a building manager/security guard who was seriously injured as a result.”

See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which exposes the threat to Americans that is hidden in plain sight.

Among the counts to which Corkins has pleaded guilty is an Act of [Domestic] Terrorism while Armed.

In an FBI interview of Corkins after he was taken into custody, an agent asked Corkins, “What was your intention. … You’re … a political activist you said?”

Corkins responded: “Yeah, I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chicken-fil-A sandwich on their face.”

FBI: “And you, what was your intention when you went in there with the gun?”

Corkins: “Uh, it was to kill as many people as I could.”

Key to the case, according to the government’s document, was that, “He had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.”

FRC officials repeatedly have explained they adhere to a biblical perspective on homosexuality, but are not “anti-gay.”

WND also has reported that under Obama, the federal government repeatedly has portrayed conservatives and other critics of the progressive agenda coming from the White House as extremists.

WND previously reported DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano made terrorists portrayed in a public service announcement look Caucasian.

The PSA depicted a typical woman terrorist as Caucasian, in her late 20s or early 30s, with brunette hair, stylish clothing, high heels and a shoulder bag. A man? About the same age, short hair, wearing a shirt and slacks and familiar with technology, as he’s wearing an earpiece cellphone. And Caucasian.

The PSA asks that people watch out for those types of individuals and report them to authorities.

As WND reported, a West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center linked those with “fundamental” positions, such as opposing abortion, to terror.

The study, “Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” says the major far-right threats are from “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

Author Arie Perliger cites “anti-abortionists” as an active threat for terrorist activity.

“The anti-abortionists have been extremely productive during the last two decades, amassing 227 attacks, many of them perpetrated without the responsible perpetrators identified or caught,” Perliger wrote. “And while, in both cases, the 1990s were more violent than the last decade, in the case of anti-abortion, the trend is much more extreme, as 90 percent of attacks were perpetrated before 2001.”

Herb Titus, a constitutional law professor, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and distinguished fellow with the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, says it’s an attempt to link conservative thought with violence.

“Professor Perliger has adopted the strategy of many left-wing members of the professoriate, concentrating on the behavior of a few in order to discredit many who hold similar views but who do not engage in any form of violence,” Titus said.

“His theory is that of the iceberg, that which as seen may be small, but it hides what is a much larger threat just below the surface. Obviously, the professor disagrees with those who favor small government, cutting back of federal government encroachments upon the powers of the state and to discredit this movement focuses on a few gun-toting militia,” Titus said.

The federal government also has issued reports under Obama describing returning veterans, those who support third-party candidates for president and oppose abortion and support the Constitution as potential terrorists.


Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/military-teaches-colonists-were-extremists/#FqlisrEey1rjhuKA.99

[Mark]

Church Group Members Threatened With Arrest for Handing Out Biscuits, Coffee to the Homeless

A North Carolina church group said they were prevented from handing out food to the homeless after police threatened them with arrest, according to their website.
 
For the past six years, volunteers from Love Wins Ministries frequented Moore Square in Raleigh, N.C., on Saturdays and Sundays to give out hot coffee and a breakfast sandwich to those in need, according to the church group's website.
 
But when volunteers went down to their usual weekend spot to dole out the 100 sausage biscuits and the gallons of coffee they had brought to feed the crowds who had gathered Saturday morning, they were also greeted by officers with the Raleigh Police Department, according to a statement on the church group's website.
 
"An officer said, quite bluntly, that if we attempted to distribute food, we would be arrested," the Rev. Hugh Hollowell wrote on the group's website. "We asked the officers for permission to disperse the biscuits to the over 70 people who had lined up, waiting to eat. They said no. I had to face those who were waiting and tell them that I could not feed them, or I would be arrested."
 
The Raleigh police were there to enforce a city ordinance that bans the distribution of food in any of the city's parks, ABC Raleigh, N.C., station WTVD-TV reported.
 
While the group said it was aware they could not use the park itself, they had set up on the sidewalk for the past six years without issue, their website said.
 
"No representative from the Raleigh Police Department was willing to tell us which ordinance we were breaking, or why, after six years and countless friendly and cooperative encounters with the Department, they are now preventing us from feeding hungry people," Hollowell wrote.
 
In addition, the group learned it would need to apply for a permit to use the park, which costs $800 a day, their website said.
 
No arrests were made in connection with the food distribution, Raleigh Police Department spokesman Jim Sughrue told WTVD-TV.
 
"People were simply informed the ordinance prohibits the kinds of actions some groups have been engaged in at the park," he said.
 
Despite the off-putting encounter, Hollowell wrote that the group plans to find a venue in downtown Raleigh to carry out their mission.
 
In the meantime, they are seeking out owners of private buildings or parking lots to allow them to continue to bring biscuits to the hungry, the website said.
 
Love Wins Ministries did not immediately return ABC News' requests for comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nc-police-threaten-arrest-church-group-feeding-homeless/story?id=20062760&utm

The people MUST rely on Big Brother for their needs, there will be NO competition!!!!

[Kilika]

This I think is a case of somebody got the idea that they'd basically force these people and others to get a permit, which is income to the city.

As for "feeding the homeless"? Cities are making it more and more tough because they don't want that image in their city. If you have groups that keep setting out food in public view, then you have people who show up JUST for the food and drink. You can't preach in a baited field!

[Psalm 51:17]

This I think is a case of somebody got the idea that they'd basically force these people and others to get a permit, which is income to the city.

As for "feeding the homeless"? Cities are making it more and more tough because they don't want that image in their city. If you have groups that keep setting out food in public view, then you have people who show up JUST for the food and drink. You can't preach in a baited field!

I saw Love Wins Ministries web site(the ministry this article talked about) - there's NO gospel message on it, much less much mention of Jesus Christ on there. Pretty much a social justice organization, more or less.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/virus-using-facebook-steal-passwords-173004256.html
A New Virus Is Using Facebook To Steal Passwords: It's Already Affected 800,000 People
8/27/13

Facebook has been the target of a malware attack that poses as a video from one of your Facebook friends.
The New York Times reports that this new threat hijacks your Facebook accounts and Web browsers, according to Italian security researchers who have been investigating the issue.

The virus appears as a link in an email or Facebook message that tells you someone has tagged you in a Facebook post. When you go to Facebook and click the link you're sent to a different website and told to download a browser extension or plug in, in order to watch the video.

After the plug-in is downloaded the attack can gain access to everything you have stored in your browser, including accounts with saved passwords.

This is a threat because many people store their passwords to various social networks within their browsers.

The researchers say that the virus has been spreading at a rate of about 40,000 attacks an hour and has infected more than 800,000 people via Google's Chrome browser.

Google is aware of the attack and has already disabled the extensions that allowed it. Facebook also detected the virus and is working to clear the links.

A Facebook spokesperson says it is currently blocking people from clicking through the links.

[Kilika]

The virus appears as a link in an email or Facebook message that tells you someone has tagged you in a Facebook post. When you go to Facebook and click the link you're sent to a different website and told to download a browser extension or plug in, in order to watch the video.

Same 'ole story. If you want to avoid this stuff, simply don't click it or download it. In almost all cases, the trap is that you must either click a link to some other site, or download something like an attachment. It's simple, just don't do it.

The other kicker is it's done via Google Chrome, which is basically required to use Facebook. Have I mentioned I have hated Chrome ever since it came out several years ago? Avoid Chrome if at all possible.

Bottom line though, regarding social media stuff AND anything in your emails, just assume a link leads to bad things and don't do it.

[Christian40]

The other kicker is it's done via Google Chrome, which is basically required to use Facebook. Have I mentioned I have hated Chrome ever since it came out several years ago? Avoid Chrome if at all possible.

Yeah the 666 design and the way Google controls everything with it means i'm not using it.

[Mark]

'Environmental Crimes': EPA sends SWAT team to Alaskan mine to check water quality...

'Wearing body armor and jackets emblazoned with POLICE'...

Gold miners near Chicken cry foul over 'heavy-handed' EPA raids

When agents with the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force surged out of the wilderness around the remote community of Chicken wearing body armor and jackets emblazoned with POLICE in big, bold letters, local placer miners didn’t quite know what to think.

Did it really take eight armed men and a squad-size display of paramilitary force to check for dirty water? Some of the miners, who run small businesses, say they felt intimidated.

Others wonder if the actions of the agents put everyone at risk. When your family business involves collecting gold far from nowhere, unusual behavior can be taken as a sign someone might be trying to stage a robbery. How is a remote placer miner to know the people in the jackets saying POLICE really are police?

Miners suggest it might have been better all around if officials had just shown up at the door -- as they used to do -- and said they wanted to check the water.

rest: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130903/gold-miners-near-chicken-cry-foul-over-heavy-handed-epa-raids

[Kilika]

How is a remote placer miner to know the people in the jackets saying POLICE really are police?

Exactly!

[Mark]

Somers Man Fights Back After Pro-Gun Sign Removed From Lawn

A Somers man claims the town’s police department violated his right to free speech when they removed a pro-gun sign from his property.
 
Jon Gibson said he set up a hidden camera at his home after other signs had disappeared from his front lawn and caught an officer removing the placard.
 
“My client’s rights have been severely damaged, his federal civil rights have been violated,” attorney Richard Bombardo told 1010 WINS.
 
Town officials and police said the sign violated a zoning ordinance prohibiting signs within the town’s right of way and has nothing to do with free speech or gun rights.
 
Bombardo said the town is trying to cover their tracks.

“It is our position that the town is just trying to come up with an excuse to cover their deliberate action to take down the sign,” Bombardo said. “What they did was decided they didn’t like his sign for whatever reason, we believe because it was the content of the message which makes this a very troubling situation, and rather than give him a formal court citation they just ripped it down.”
 
Officials said Gibson had been warned to take down the signs before it was done for him.
 
A town supervisor told the Journal News that Gibson’s signs are in good condition and he can come pick them up.
 
Bombardo has yet to file a complaint with the police department, but said he is planning on filing a lawsuit “challenging this as serious misconduct and to try to get an order to prohibit this from happening in the future.”
 
The police department claims they have received numerous threats and vulgar comments from people all across the country after Gibson posted the video of the officer removing the sign on the Internet, the Journal News reported.
gee, i wonder why... 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/26/somers-man-fights-back-after-pro-gun-sign-removed-from-lawn/

[Kilika]

Ya know, while the internet is clearly the basis for the beast system, it sure does seem to serve at times in revealing some of the truth out there. You cannot deny what a video shows, usually, and that can be a rather handy thing!

[Christian40]