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: 54732
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 # 34.
#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.
Here's an old article from 2005 by Judge Napolitano. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html by Andrew P. Napolitano The compromise version of the Patriot Act to which House and Senate conferees agreed last week and for which the House voted yesterday is an unforgivable assault on basic American values and core constitutional liberties. Unless amended in response to the courageous efforts of a few dozen senators from both parties, the new Patriot Act will continue to give federal agents the power to write their own search warrants – the statute’s newspeak terminology calls them "national security letters" – and serve them on a host of persons and entities that regularly gather and store sensitive, private information on virtually every American. Congress once respected the Fourth Amendment until it began cutting holes in it. Before Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1977, Americans and even non-citizens physically present here enjoyed the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. That Amendment, which was written out of a revulsion to warrants that let British soldiers look for any tangible thing anywhere they chose, specifically requires that the government demonstrate to a judge and the judge specifically find the existence of probable cause of criminal activity on the part of the person whose property the government wishes to search. The Fourth Amendment commands that only a judge can authorize a search warrant. FISA unconstitutionally changed the probable cause of criminality requirement to probable cause of employment by a foreign government, hostile or friendly. Under FISA, if the government can demonstrate the foreign agency or employment status of the person whose things it wishes to search, the secret FISA court will issue the search warrant. But even FISA respects constitutional liberty, since it prohibits prosecutions based on evidence obtained from these warrants. Thus, if a FISA warrant reveals that the embassy janitor is really a spy who beats his wife, he would not and could not be prosecuted for either crime because the evidence of his crimes was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a judicial finding of probable cause of criminal activity. Instead of being prosecuted, he would be deported. A year later in 1978, cutting yet another hole in the Fourth Amendment, Congress revealed its distaste for fidelity to the Constitution and its ignorance of the British government’s abuse of the colonists by enacting the Orwellian–named, Right to Financial Privacy Act. This statute, for the first time in American history, let federal agents write their own search warrants, but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions. Just like FISA, it recognized the unconstitutional nature of evidence obtained by a self-written search warrant, and banned the use of such evidence in criminal prosecutions. In 1986, Congress continued to cut. It disregarded yet again the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy when it enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which allowed federal agents to serve self-written search warrants on collectors of digital financial data, but continued to recognize that evidence thus obtained was constitutionally incompetent for criminal prosecution purposes. The deepest cut came on October 15, 2001 when Congress enacted the Patriot Act. With minimal floor debate in the Senate and no floor debate in the House (House members were given only 30 minutes to read the 315 page bill), Congress enacted this most unpatriotic rejection of privacy and constitutional guarantees. Together with its offspring the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 2004 and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, the Patriot Act not only permits the execution of self-written search warrants on a host of new subjects, it rejects the no-criminal-prosecution protections of its predecessors by requiring evidence obtained contrary to the Fourth Amendment to be turned over to prosecutors and mandating that such evidence is constitutionally competent in criminal prosecutions. The new version of the Patriot Act which the Senate will debate this weekend purports to make all of this congressional rejection of our history, our values, and our Constitution the law of the land. So, if your representative in the House has voted, or your Senators do vote, for the House/Senate conference approved version, they will be authorizing federal agents on their own, in violation of the Constitution, and without you knowing it, to obtain records about you from your accountant, bank, boat dealer, bodega, book store, car dealer, casino, computer server, credit union, dentist, HMO, hospital, hotel manager, insurance company, jewelry store, lawyer, library, pawn broker, pharmacist, physician, postman, real estate agent, supermarket, tax collectors, telephone company, travel agency, and trust company, and use the evidence thus obtained in any criminal prosecution against you. Why would Congress, whose members swore to uphold the Constitution, authorize such a massive evasion of it by the federal agents we have come to rely upon to protect our freedoms? Why would Congress nullify the Fourth Amendment–guaranteed right to privacy for which we and our forbearers have fought and paid dearly? How could the men and women we elect to fortify our freedoms and write our laws so naïvely embrace the less-freedom-equals-more-security canard? Why have we fought for 230 years to keep foreign governments from eviscerating our freedoms if we will voluntarily let our own government do so? The unfortunate answer to these questions is the inescapable historical truth that those in government – from both parties and with a few courageous exceptions – do not feel constrained by the Constitution. They think they can do whatever they want. They have hired vast teams of government lawyers to twist and torture the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment to justify their aggrandizement of power to themselves. They vote for legislation they have not read and do not understand. Their only fear is being overruled by judges. In the case of the Patriot Act, they should be afraid. The federal judges who have published opinions on the challenges to it have all found it constitutionally flawed. The Fourth Amendment worked for 200 years to facilitate law enforcement and protect constitutional freedoms before Congress began to cut holes in it. Judges sit in every state in the Union 24/7 to hear probable cause applications for search warrants. There is simply no real demonstrable evidence that our American-value-driven-constitutional-privacy-protection-system is in need of such a radical change. A self-written search warrant, even one called a national security letter, is the ultimate constitutional farce. What federal agents would not authorize themselves to seize whatever they wished? Why even bother with such a meaningless requirement? We might as well let the feds rummage through any office, basement, computer, or bedroom they choose. Who would trust government agents with this unfettered unreviewable power? The Framers did not. Why would government agents bother going to a judge with probable cause seeking a search warrant if they can simply write their own? Big Brother must have caught on because federal agents have written and executed self-written search warrants on over 120,000 unsuspecting Americans since October 2001. Is this the society we want? Have we ultimately elected a government to spy on all of us? The Fourth Amendment is the lynchpin of our personal privacy and individual dignity. Without the Fourth Amendment’s protections, we will become another East Germany. The Congress must recognize this before it is too late. December 16, 2005 Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel, and the author of Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.
This seems like a big problem constitutinally speaking Badeye. Wouldn't you agree on further reflection?
There are no replies to Comment # 34. End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
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.
#33. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
How Congress Has Assaulted Our Freedoms in the Patriot Act
December 16, 2005
#34. To: nolu chan, Badeys (#33)
the new Patriot Act will continue to give federal agents the power to write their own search warrants – the statute’s newspeak terminology calls them "national security letters" – and serve them on a host of persons and entities that regularly gather and store sensitive, private information on virtually every American.
Replies to Comment # 34.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]