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: 53804
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 # 63.
#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.
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria. Where the wiretapping is performed seems relevant, moreso than where a phone call originated. From what I understand, most of it is 'intercepted' at the communication satellites. As such, we agree, 'where' is in fact 'relevant'. Given its not within our borders as defined....where's the 'beef' as it relates to a constitutional argument? Furthermore...its not 'wiretapping'. And that causes further ambiguity on the topic, in a legal debate. Signal intercept is actually whats happening. And there is no definitive court ruling I'm aware of regarding it that applies to this specific argument.
From what I understand, most of it is 'intercepted' at the communication satellites. As such, we agree, 'where' is in fact 'relevant'. Given its not within our borders as defined....where's the 'beef' as it relates to a constitutional argument? Furthermore...its not 'wiretapping'. And that causes further ambiguity on the topic, in a legal debate. Signal intercept is actually whats happening. And there is no definitive court ruling I'm aware of regarding it that applies to this specific argument. I recommended that you read the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, or a court document to see where and how the intercepts have taken place. While various sections authorize intercept wire, oral or electronic communications, the method of performing the intercept of phone communications is a wiretap, whether it is performed by an electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person, including any officer, employee or agent thereof. Landlords and custodians are unlikely to be performing intercepts at a satellite. The primarily relevant interception of communications took place at a routing station of the service provider. If it were not unlawful, a grant of immunity would not be sought or required. If it be unlawful in violation of the Constitution, Congress cannot make it lawful with legal pixie dust. What they can do is remove the appellate authority of the Federal courts to hear an action — any action they choose to remove from the court's jurisdiction. USA PATRIOT Act of October 26, 2001, § 225. Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following: USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Text), HR 3162, 107 Cong, October 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews. Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional. [snip] In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation, CAND 3-07-cv-00109-VRW, Doc 57, 05jan2009, ORDER, at pp. 7-8. In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation, CAND 3-07-cv-00109-VRW Doc 57, 05jan2009, ORDER
There are no replies to Comment # 63. End Trace Mode for Comment # 63.
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
#59. To: nolu chan (#55)
#63. To: Badeye (#59)
SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRE TAP.
‘‘(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information, facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order or request for emergency assistance under this Act.’’.
Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law
Published: April 15, 2009 To allege that the above-referenced telecommunications between al-Buthi and plaintiffs Belew and Ghafoor were wire communications and were intercepted by defendants within the United States, plaintiffs cite in their FAC several public statements by government officials, including: July 26, 2006 testimony by defendant Alexander and CIA Director Michael Hayden that telecommunications between the United States and abroad pass through routing stations located within the United States from which the NSA intercepts such telecommunications; May 1, 2007 testimony by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that interception of surveilled electronic communications between the United States and abroad occurs within the United States and thus requires a warrant under FISA; September 20, 2007 testimony by McConnell testified before the House Select Intelligence Committee that “[t]oday * * * [m]ost international communications are on a wire, fiber optical cable,” and “on a wire, in the United States, equals a warrant requirement [under FISA] even if it was against a foreign person located overseas.” ¶ 48a-c.
Replies to Comment # 63.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]