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: 53782
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 # 61.
#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.
It does not bypass procedures but the Constitution. The search cannot be authorized without a warrant, and a warrant requires probable cause. It directly contravenes the 4th Amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria.
Where the wiretapping is performed seems relevant, moreso than where a phone call originated. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentiv The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I can't find the provision that exempted American citizens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, from the constitutional protection against wiretapping of their phone calls within the United States. I see where there is a necessity for a warrant and that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.
I see where there is a necessity for a warrant and that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. If you give it an honest reading you'd have to admit that nolu chan gave an honest no spin interpretation of the fourth amendment.
No denying he did. The problem is its not 'wiretapping'. And thats what the entire legal debate/argument is based upon. As such, its not being struck down by any court, as we all know. And its been pretty clearly showns the intercepts - not wiretaps, are occuring OUTSIDE of our borders, which makes the case to strike it down virtually impossible without the USSC going absolutely totally 'activist', expanding the definitions and court precedents so far as to be frightening on a whole other level, which I think you both would agree about. All of this has been tried. All of it failed. I don't have to produce links for THAT, do I? (laughing). Nope, we all know thats 100% fact. Anyway, I've said my view, stated why I view it this way. As I noted, I would allow the PA to sunset just because it simply doesn't work as advertised.
The constitution doesn't mention wiretapping. It mentions being secure in your person and effects and requires a search warrant to get that information. I would argue that having them require you to fill out a tax form is unconstitutional unless they have a warrant.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#61)
Interecepting private communications where there is an expectation of privacy is considered a search.
The problem is its not 'wiretapping'. The constitution doesn't mention wiretapping. lmao. You don't want me to list everything the Constitution doesn't mention, but is in place none the less do you, bro? Everything I mentioned on this specific point remains unchallenged, and is why the PA hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, Stone. Don't blame the messenger here.
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.
#32. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
Amendment IV
#45. To: nolu chan (#32)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
#55. To: Badeye (#45)
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria.
Amendment IV
#57. To: nolu chan, Badeye (#55)
I can't find the provision that exempted American citizens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, from the constitutional protection against wiretapping of their phone calls within the United States.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)
If you give it an honest reading you'd have to admit that nolu chan gave an honest no spin interpretation of the fourth amendment.
#61. To: Badeye, nolu chan (#60)
The problem is its not 'wiretapping'.
Replies to Comment # 61. The constitution doesn't mention wiretapping. It mentions being secure in your person and effects and requires a search warrant to get that information.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#61)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 61.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]