Satans Mark/Cashless
See other Satans Mark/Cashless Articles
Title: With Facebook and GPS “they” know everything about you
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/june2011/stevens611-2.htm
Published: Sep 1, 2011
Author: IVAR
Post Date: 2011-09-02 00:03:15 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 51492
Comments: 67
Someone took your photo on the street. In a minute they will know everything about you. Also where you will sleep in the night.
Facebook is a perfect tool for all totalitarian regime builders. - Facebook has 600 million members. - Each day, Facebook’s members upload over 200 million photos, and Facebook currently hosts over 90 billion photos. The new facial recognition technology, which was announced in December but only introduced to a small test group, is basically Facebook’s way of creating a huge, photo-searchable database of its users. And yes, it’s terrifying. Facial recognition technology will ultimately culminate in the ability to search for people using just a picture. And that will be the end of privacy as we know it–imagine, a world in which someone can simply take a photo of you on the street, in a crowd, or with a telephoto lens, and discover everything about you on the internet. Obviously, we can’t stop the world of technology from moving toward the development of accurate facial recognition software. But so far, no facial recognition software has really been a threat to our privacy, because nobody has that huge database of people and photos required. Oh wait, except Facebook totally does. Source: PCworld. My comment: You can not ban technology. After the nuclear bomb was invented, we had to live with it. We also have to live with Facebook. When this social media have 90 billion pictures in its databases, they have more knowledge about the human race than any other totalitarian leader could ever dream of. The last anti-Christ will find you with the help of GPS and Facebook. There is nothing worth mentioned about you, that He will not be able to use. Written by Ivar
Steven Jesus is coming soon!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
. It's actually WORSE than that. MOST of the photos that are uploaded to Facebook et. al. come from cameras where "geo tracking" is automatic. Yep. The "geo location" is embedded in the image header, even if you didn't put it there. Yep. The photo tells EXACTLY where it was taken. NICE huh? MOST digital cameras that have "geo location" require you to turn it OFF. The default is ON. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! If you are a tyrant.
Not to mention your friend lists and things you are interested in.
I simply don't care who knows those things Stone. In fact, those in this forum and others that are friends of mine in the real world see I've never misrepresented anything about my life via 'Badeye'. Further, I just don't believe I'm important enough to warrant 'black helicopter' type scrutiny from anyone, beyond my anti groupies, of course (laughing). It must really suck to be them, realizing I never lied about my life over the past 12 years doing this. That is satisfying, gotta admit.
You may not care. But that information in the wrong hands will lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.
Ah, they already have the information on hand, Stone. On all of us. And while under the current, and yep, the previous administration, we've moved in that direction, we aren't there yet, and it can in fact be reversed. JMHO
Correct. While certain individuals may not find that bothersome. As a whole society we should understand its dangers. How do you think "it" can be reversed?
First, repeal the Patriot Act. I was originally a supporter. But the fact is almost a decade after its passage, its never been responsible for catching a terrorist, which was the point...or so we were led to believe. Next, revise the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It contains a specific provision that allows the FBI to review anyone's credit report without notifying you, or getting a court order. Basically, anyone working their can review yours on a whim. And there is no available notification via the private sector if they do this. Next, repeal the Frank/Dodd legislation. Its as intrusive and as unwarranted as both of the previous, as it relates to business owners. Not to mention its keeping business's from hiring, expanding, or getting small business loans. Thats just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many other measures that could be taken.
Good to see that you have come around on that one. I for one never supported the Patriot act. It is unconstitutional on its face. Glaringly so.
I don't agree with that, Stone. There are a lot of misconceptions about who and what it applies to. In my view, it doesn't violate the Constitution at all. I just know it doesn't work as advertised.
I don't agree with that, Stone. There are a lot of misconceptions about who and what it applies to. In my view, it doesn't violate the Constitution at all. I just know it doesn't work as advertised. Doesn't the patriot act let the government do stuff bypassing the normal procedures used to obtain a warrant? Doesn't it violate habeus corups? Just off the top of my head. I bet chan can add much more to this discussion then I can if he willing.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act Copyright 2010 American Civil Liberties Union December 10, 2010 What is the USA PATRIOT Act? Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court. Why Congress passed the Patriot Act Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack. The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily. Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism. The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas: 1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers. Unchecked power Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional 2. More secret searches For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later. Notice is a crucial check on the government's power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights. Finally, this new "sneak and peek" power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence. 3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires. A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution's probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement. The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the "FISA Court"). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal. 4. Expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received. Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as "Pen register/trap and trace" searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways: "Nationwide" pen register warrants Pen register searches applied to the Internet The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways: Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.
#37. To: nolu chan (#36)
Nancy Pelosi's infamous quote from 2010 about 0bama's HealthKare comes to mind: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". And just think for a moment, that same thinking started GWBush's War on Terror. And today, are we any better off?
Emmm, you need to go back and review those 'frightening weeks after the September 11 attack' nolu chan. The Bush administration WAS AGAINST THIS initially, just as it was against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. This is the problem quoting the ACLU on any topic. The Bush administration in fact was 'bullied' not the other way around.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Mad Dog, mininggold, badeye, cz82, Brian S, Murron, Lucysmom, Godwinson, Mcgowinjim (#2)
The photo tells EXACTLY where it was taken.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#14. To: Badeye (#8)
I simply don't care who knows those things Stone
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
You may not care. But that information in the wrong hands will lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.
#17. To: Badeye (#16)
Ah, they already have the information on hand, Stone. On all of us.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
How do you think "it" can be reversed?
#21. To: Badeye (#19)
First, repeal the Patriot Act. I was originally a supporter. But the fact is almost a decade after its passage, its never been responsible for catching a terrorist, which was the point...or so we were led to believe.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I for one never supported the Patriot act. It is unconstitutional on its face. Glaringly so.
#30. To: Badeye, nolu chan (#23)
I for one never supported the Patriot act. It is unconstitutional on its face. Glaringly so.
#36. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
Reprinted with permission of the
American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.
Replies to Comment # 36. Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
#47. To: nolu chan (#36)
Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]