Most important info ANYWHERE explaining the true agenda with surveillance

Author Topic: Most important info ANYWHERE explaining the true agenda with surveillance  (Read 29762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Excerpt of 2,409 page document:  http://www.gigawarez.com/e-book/28020-social-computing-concepts-methodologies-tools-and-application.html

Chapter 8.3

Public Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance:


The Role of Social Media in Shaping

Contemporary Dataveillance


Lemi Baruh
Kadir Has University, Turkey

Levent Soysal
Kadir Has University, Turkey


Abstract


In recent years, social media have become an important avenue for self-expression. At the same time, the ease with which individuals disclose their private information has added to an already heated debate about the privacy implications of interactive media.

This chapter investigates the relationship between disclosure of personal information in social media and two related trends: the increasing value of subjective or private experience as a social currency and the evolving nature of automated dataveillance. The authors argue that the results of the extended ability of individuals to negotiate their identity through social media are contradictory. The information revealed to communicate the complexity of one’s identity becomes an extensive source of data about individuals, thereby contributing to the functioning of a new regime of surveillance.

Introduction

Since their first inception in 1997 (with Six Degrees.com), social network sites - such as Facebook, Friendster, Orkut, and MySpace - allowed users to create online profiles about themselves and connect with other users. Starting with MySpace, user profiles on social network sites were no longer limited by preset categories determined by the network owners (Boyd&Ellison,2007).  Today, the types of information that users can post on their social network accounts are virtually limitless. A few examples include: age, educational status, favorite music bands, movies or books, current mood, a detailed list of daily activities performed, relationship status, likes and dislikes, and hobbies.

According to Liu (2007), an important consequence of this characteristic of social media is that social network sites have become very suitable venues for self-expression and identity formation. By enabling users to list their own interests, hobbies, social preferences, among other forms of information, social network sites empower individuals to go beyond the traditional tokens of identity, such as profession and social class, to engage in what he calls “taste statements” (p. 253) and more freely communicate oneself to others. And according to Evans, Gosling, and Carroll (2008), what individuals have to say about themselves in social media does not fall on deaf ears: a person who views the online profile of another person usually forms impressions that are congruent with the profile owners.

However, the same feature that enables individuals to freely communicate their identity to their social networks also leaves traces of data in unprecedented detail. As such, the main purpose of this chapter is to discuss these two related trends and their implications for intimacy, social relations, privacy and identity in contemporary societies. Following a brief overview of social media, the chapter begins by arguing that increased transparency is one of the defining characteristic of the new individual in contemporary societies.

Next, the chapter focuses on how social media, in a world of transparency, enable individuals to communicate their multiple identities to others.  In the final sections, the chapter focuses on the privacy implications of this heightened transparency by discussing the characteristics of a regime of surveillance that increasingly relies on an automated collection, collation and interpretation of the data individuals reveal and by summarizing the role that social media play in this regime of surveillance.

Background

According to Barnes (2006), social media is an all-encompassing  term  that  describes loosely organized online applications through which individuals can create personas and communicate with each other. Especially since 2003, social network sites (such as MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, and LinkedIn) have become extremely popular.  For example, in 2007, Facebook had close to 100 million and MySpace had more than 100 million unique visitors (Comscore.com, 2007). Weblogs or blogs are another form of widely used social media. By the end of 2007, there were an estimated 67 million blogs worldwide (Rappaport, 2007).

This rising popularity of social media, within which individuals reveal minute details of their lives, is closely related to the transformation of society’s  expectations  about  what  constitutes an acceptable form of information. Noting this transformation in individuals’ expectations about the type of truth that the media should make available, several commentators suggest that an important characteristic of current culture is the elevation of individualism around mid-1960s and the subsequent rise of the subjective and intimate experience of individuals as the guarantor of truth (Cavender, 2004; Corner, 2002).  Commenting on this transformation, social theorist Beck (1994) points out that there has been a shift in individuals’  relationship with institutions. Accordingly, whereas in early modernity, meaning and identity were grounded on somewhat loyal reliance on institutions and structures, starting with late 20th century, the locus of meaning shifted to the individual. The self became the primary agent of meaning.

Within this context, by aiding the circulation of the intimate, social media are quickly becoming a platform for self-expression and creation of meaning. However, the audiences for these attempts at self-expression via intimate disclosure are usually not limited to a few friends or potential friends.

As such, the ease with which users reveal their personal information, while using social media, has triggered a heated debate over the privacy implications of social media in general and social network sites in particular (Solove, 2007; Viegas, 2005). Researchers have focused on a number of issues including: social media users’ ability to limit who has access to identification information (Lange 2007); corporate snooping and intrusion (for marketing and employee recruitment)(Maher, 2007; Solove, 2007); data security and use of publicly accessible personal information for fraud(Gross&Acquisti,2005; Jagatic, Johnson, Jakobsson, &Menezer.2007); and protection of underage users’ privacy (Barnes 2006; George2006).

Despite their invaluable contribution to current debates regarding privacy in social media, most of the current studies in this area adopt a piecemeal approach. Within this approach, different privacy threats are considered in isolation from each other and from the greater framework of surveillance as an increasingly data-intensive risk management tool for institutions (government and private).

Gary Marx (2004) argues that this newer form of surveillance has several important characteristics such as being continuous, automated, more intensive and extensive (because every individual is subjected to his/her data being collected in a data collection phase), invisible (as is the case when data about individuals is collected and subsequently disseminated to dispersed databases) and involuntary (partly as a result of this invisible nature of data intensive surveillance). The typical end-result that institutions seek from this process is to utilize the data to draw inferences about their identities and sort them into common types of so-called “unique” categories (Gandy, 1993;Lyon,2001).  Then,what could be ahead for individuals is a conflict between the personas and identities that they communicate in social media and the identity that they have been ascribed to as a result of this automated surveillance (also called datavaillence).  The remainder of this chapter explores the relationship between disclosure of personal information in social media and two related trends: the increasing value of subjective/private experience as a social currency and the evolving nature of automated dataveillance.


Public Intimacies AND the NEW surveillance Formations of the New Individual

Since the 1980s, the imaginary timeline of change, which can also be traced back to the anti-conservative upheavals of the 1960s in almost every facet of life, the individual has increasingly come to the center stage of social, economic, and technological order. Her rights have been significantly expanded, in particular with impetus generated by the hegemonic discourses of human rights (Benhabib,2002;Turner,1986;SoysalY., 1994). The new individual, so to speak: (a) has rights to her identity and culture (in other words, she possesses identities as a member of a categorically cultured collectivity that is differentiated by gender, sexual preference, disability, ethnicity, religion or spirituality); (b)is extensively involved in financial and security markets as a rational actor (she is entrusted with security of her own self, family, and future under terms dictated by the market); and, © achieves intimacy in public (she lives her sociality and establishes her intimate relations primarily in public stages, enabled by institutionalized public discourses). She is at the center of multiple, and ever increasing, lifespaces that enact synthetically modular lives.

In the globalizing world the new individual asserts herself, the lines that so preciously divide the time renowned cultural, social, and political categories into inside and outside, private and public are rapidly fading away under the duress of massive economies of circulation, imitation, and sociability. As sociability is amplified and externalized,  and  public  and  private  become indistinguishable, intimacy (social, cultural, or personal) becomes displaced and public (Soysal L., 2007).

While intimacy as conventionally understood requires an inward movement toward the private sites of self, family, home, marriage, culture, and nation(Berlant,1997,1998;Herzfeld1997),public intimacy suggests an outward move to locate the formations of intimacy. In public intimacy, the emphasis is on the shared discursive spaces of public engagement, rather than the shared, inviting spaces of the cultural or personal kind (SoysalL.,1999;Berlant,1997,1998;Wilson, 2004). Public discourses and expressions, even in their most formalized discursive modes, constitute and conjure intimate connections. They provide a vocabulary to engage and question prescribed techniques and “institutions of intimacy” (Berlant, 1997, 1998) as in romance, dating, and marriage, while suggestively constructing intimate attachments between persons.

Furthermore, in today’s world, the “close association, privileged knowledge, deep knowing and understanding” (Jamieson, 1998) anticipated by proper definitions of intimacy are incomplete and temporary. When the engagement ends, the setting and conditions for organized intimacy simply cease to exist. Individuals leave behind their provisional partners in intimacy with whom they shared stories and sociality.  A corresponding transformation can be observed in how individuals live and enact sociality—in that  sociality  today is increasingly exogenous.

Contemporary metropolitan spaces have become locations for year-round festivity. What’s true for mega cities such as London, Paris, New York is true for most metropolitan centers.  Festivals of all sorts and sizes mark the topography of culture in cities.  City becomes unthinkable without its festivals—its impressive and expressive façade.

Even cities not so famous for its carnivals, such as Istanbul and Berlin, are now year-round stages for spectacles—film, music, theater festivals, street parades,international sports meets, as well as commercial fairs, IGO and NGO meetings, state summits, and professional conferences.  The moment one of them ends, another is given start (Soysal L.,2005). Add to this the fact that individuals spend more time and money on extra-home entertainment as epitomized by the proliferation of eating-out, fitness activities, shopping, and travel.

Said differently, as the sociality of the spectacular and extra-home entertainment—or the hold of what is anthropologically known as expressive culture—amplifies, the exogenous encircles the individual and the interior dissolves in the lives lived, enacted outside. Under circumstances of globalization, not only social lives increasingly happen outside the privacy of homes, offices, and selves. Gradually, but surely, sociality takes place in virtual worlds. In other words, intimacies are being carried into virtual worlds where privacy proper is not operational.

The new individual now lives, works, and shops in transparent interiors of buildings with glass facades (for example, Berlin’s parliament with its transparent dome, Richard Meier apartments in New York). In fact, as Sternberg (2001) notes, the new individual now is occupied in a phantasmagoric workplace and is responsible to create a suitable persona to present her “iconographic capabilities” (p. 11). In other words, the labor of the new individual is a labor of self-presentation.

Strangely enough, this labor of self-presentation, which used to be the domain of celebrities such as movie or rock stars, is now a full-time labor for many individuals, who, for example, wear their emotions on their t-shirts or sweatpants that read Milf in Training, Jerk Magnet, Your Boyfriend Wants Me, or Juicy.

In the digital realm, live webcam feeds through which individuals broadcast what transpired in their bedroom can be considered as an example to the trickling down of the act of self-presentation.  And nowadays, the new individual has Facebooks, MySpaces, YouTube—the  proliferated virtual worlds of sociality—where she not only displays but also actualizes intimacies in public.

First, thanks to the modular structure of social media sites, e.g., Facebook or MySpace, the new individual can now determine what components of her own modular identity to display and prioritize (Donath&Boyd,2004;Liu,2007, Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfeld, 2007; Marwick, 2005).

For example, she can choose to display information about her music taste at the top of the page whereas another might choose to share her travel experiences and the places she visited. Second, specialized social network sites allow the individuals to compartmentalize their personas by displaying information they see fit for different contexts. For social shopping, she can use VogueShop TV and go to StyleHive, FashionWalker.

From the convenience of her cell phone, she can announce the course of her new love affair by minute to anyone who listens—actually to anyone who has Twitter, the “quick blogging” tool. If she is interested in networking to find new employment opportunities, she creates an account in LinkedIn to share her professional background. And let us not forget second lives and socialities she may enact in Second Life and its clones. Friends can even be determined via DNA matching by a visit to a social networking website (https://www.23andme.com) to be unveiled by a new personal genomics start-up in Silicon Valley (Soysal L., 2007).

In this respect, what users of social media do by creating their online personas is to engage in what can be called “introversive publicity.” In social psychology, individuals with introversive personality are characterized as retiring people who value introspective thinking and intimate relationships(Eysenck&Eysenck,1975).  The act of subjective expression on social media (introversive publicity), despite its public nature, is introspective. It requires careful consideration of how each modular component of one’s identity works in coherence with each other. As such, the resulting persona is as intimate as it is public.

It is as coherent as it is modular. However, the public presentation of the virtual modular self is not solely a self-publicity project. Rather, it is a crucial component of how individuals develop and negotiate their own identity.  As Simmel (1922/1964) pointed out with respect to rational group memberships, each component added to this modular identity helps establish a unique identity.

This is the world of amplified sociality, virtual intimacy, and actual simulacra we inhabit.  And in this brave new world, as Google prophesizes in its newest slogan, “Social Will Be Everywhere” and intimacies that matter will be public (Soysal L., 2007).  social Media: reclaiming the right to Privacy What are the privacy implications of public intimacies on social media? Being able to create online profiles and communicate one’s own identity in a manner that one prefers may be considered as exercising one’s privacy rights. This perspective reflects a long-standing socio-legal understanding that defines privacy as one’s ability to have control over when, how and to what extent information about them is known by others(Bing,1972;Fried, 1984;Wacks,1989;Weintraub,1997).

As such, by publicizing information about their subjective experiences and everyday lives, users may be exercising their privacy right to disseminate information about themselves.  Recently, several commentators suggested that individuals’ voluntary submission to the gaze of other people (as is the case when Internet, users leave their Web cam turned on throughout the day) is not only an exercise of privacy rights but also an act of counter-surveillance (Dholakia&Zwick, 2001;Koskela,2004).  Accordingly, in an environment of extensive surveillance, self-disclosure is seen as the only viable way for individuals to actively participate in the creation of images about themselves (Groombridge, 2002).

The real situation of Hasan Elahi is a perfect illustration of this perspective.  After being mistakenly put on the U.S. government terrorist watch list, Mr. Elahi decided that the best way to be free from government intrusion would be to document and publish online every single detail of his daily affairs. Today, Mr. Elahi’s blog, sometimes visited by U.S. law enforcement officers, contains a slew of details including scanned images of the receipts of every transaction he enters and regularly updated GPS location images of his whereabouts.
 
The key to being left alone, Mr. Elahi says, is to give away one’s privacy (Thompson, 2007).  Regarding such a conceptualization of privacy, Gavison (1980) argues that although knowing disclosure of information can be construed as an exercise of privacy rights, it is nevertheless a loss of control over information because after the act of disclosure, individuals will have little control in the subsequent dissemination of the information. The popular media frequently covers such mishaps. For example, recently Kansas University decided to penalize students after finding out that the photographs they uploaded on Facebook contained evidence that they violated an alcohol policy of the University (Acquisti&Gross, 2006). 

Similarly, Microsoft officials admit that they frequently peruse Facebook profiles of job candidates (Solove, 2007). However, as the remainder of this chapter will discuss, these incidents of corporate/institutional snooping may be the tip of the iceberg with respect to the problematic of privacy as control over personal information.


Uncertainty and risk Externalization in the New surveillance

Since Foucault’s Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1977), Bentham’s panopticon—an architectural design that would allow the constant monitoring of prisoners from a central tower—has captured the imagination of many scholars studying contemporary surveillance. In perhaps one of the most influential studies of surveillance in the information age, Gandy (1993) used the panopticon metaphor to characterize the continuous surveillance of everyday transactions and sorting of populations into “consuming types” as a form of rationalization (in the Weberian sense) of inequality—through computers, which are for all practical purposes rationality incarnate.

An important characteristic of the new surveillance is that it relies on a machine based, automated collection of personal information. Even the most innocuous transactions leave data trail that can be stored for later analysis(Gandy,2002; Marx, 2004). To some extent, the development of interactive media (e.g., the Internet, digital cable), which allow for a two-way flow of information between the content provider and the consumer, has added to the impetus for continuous tracking of individuals’ behavior and creating profiles that can be used to categorize them into homogenous segments(Baruh,2004;Turow,2005b).

Within this context, social media and social network sites add to what is already a very large pool of data about individuals. Private information that individuals voluntarily reveal in social media about their hobbies, favorite pastimes, music preferences, close friends and even changes in their mood can be used further to refine their profiles and categorize them into groups.

An important problem concerning the vast amount of information that institutions collect about individuals is to interpret the ensuing data.  Just as with the collection phase, a process known as “data mining” increasingly allows the use of algorithms for automatic detection of patterns that can be used to predict future behavior and risk (Gandy,2002;Zarsky,2002,2004).  That the data collection and interpretation process is automated has important consequences in terms the uncertainty that surround individuals’ interaction with contemporary surveillance. Clearly, uncertainty was an important component of the disciplining function of the panopticon. Whereas guards can observe prisoners at any time, prisoners have no way of knowing when they are being observed.

The  concept  “chilling  effect  of  surveillance” underlines an important consequence of this uncertainty regarding when one is being monitored.  Accordingly, an individual will be less likely to express her controversial opinions in public if she suspected that any behavior she engages in can be recorded (Marx, 1988), or vice versa, individuals may reveal opinions, at times abundantly, as if it should matter to their listeners.  The prospect of fully automated analyses of data about individuals may introduce additional uncertainties. As Gary Marx (2004) argues, the new surveillance does not target suspected individuals.

It is carried out superficially, with an intention to closely investigate later. As such, surveillance systems that rely on automated data mining are akin to a fishing expedition that starts by comparing each data-point to the population base.  This  comparison,  done  without  human interpretation or prior hypotheses about what constitutes risk, has the potential to signal any deviation as risk, which could then invite further
scrutiny (Andrejevic, 2007).

A  related  component  of  such  uncertainty regarding what constitutes the automated risk categorization is the violation of the contextual integrity of information. As noted by several theorists, an important function of privacy in a world where information about us is abundant is to protect individuals from being (mis)identified out of context (Nissenbaum,1998;Rosen,2000).

As we suggested before, the self is a modular and perennially evolving entity. This notion is perhaps best reflected in Erving Goffman’s (1959) conceptualization of selfhood, which is comprised of multiple roles we play and masks we wear. Each snapshot of the multi-modular self in a different context will provide factually correct information  about  that  context.  However, in automated data mining, rather than interpreting each  photograph as an independent unit, the analysis is based on creating a collage without paying attention to the contextual background.  A collage created from hundreds of independent snapshots of the same person will probably not contain factually incorrect information. Each bit
of data is actually about the subject.

However, depending on how the independent photographs are rearranged, the person may look overweight, underweight or right on scale.  The point that we seek to make with this discussion is not that the inferences made through automated data mining will always be factually inaccurate. Rather, this process largely diminishes individuals’ ability to determine (and find ways to challenge) inferences that are made about them.

This is partly due to an informational asymmetry between individuals and surveillant institutions.  The concept of privacy, which supposedly protects individuals from undue attention, when combined with intellectual property rights, provides institutions with a high level of protection from external oversight regarding the accuracy of data, how the data are used, and whether the data are properly protected (either from individuals or from agencies representing individuals). Noting this trend, Andrejevic (2007) argues that privacy is now the keyword for increased surveillance with “diminished oversight and accountability” (p. 7).

Future Trends

Considered from the perspective provided above, the new surveillance (if fully utilized) will be more Kafkaesque than Orwellian(Lyon,2001; Solove, 2001). In Kafka’s The Trial (1937) the main character, Joseph K. is subjected to a long judicial process without ever knowing what he was accused of.

In The Trial Joseph K.’s circumstances are particularly illustrative of two characteristics of the new surveillance this chapter discusses.  First, the subject will not know when she is being surveilled, who uses the data, who wants the information, and what or who distinguishes acceptable behavior from risky behavior (Baruh, 2007; Solove,2007).Second,the digital revolution (along with enhanced storage capacity) makes it increasingly difficult for our society to forget and move on, making it almost impossible for individuals to have a second chance (Solove, 2007):

“We are losing control…because if what we do is represented digitally, it can appear anywhere, and at any time in the future. We no longer control access to anything we disclose” (Grudin, 2001, p. 11).  Third, data mining rationalizes surveillance by removing humans from the interpretation process.  The dehumanization of the analyses is important because it removes the so-called human bias from the interpretation process. As such, when combined with the fact that contemporary data mining relies on quantification of information (a seemingly dispassionate and objective method of interpreting the social world), this dehumanization projects an aura of objectivity, consequently making it even more difficult to challenge its premise (and the findings it provides).

In the end, data targets lose whatever control they used to have over the management of their multiple identities. Many scholars would argue that rather than being a loss of control over one’s identity, what happens is increased accountability, which in turn reduces social costs associated with individuals’ tendency to misrepresent themselves to others (Posner, 1978). However, it is very difficult to argue that just because individuals may occasionally misrepresent themselves, the inferences that institutions make about individuals should gain such an absolute credence over individuals’ self-representations (Baruh, 2007).

Conclusion

The rise of social media coincides with shifting norms about what constitutes an acceptable form  of  private  information  in  contemporary societies. Namely, an important characteristic of contemporary popular culture is the elevation of individualism (especially since the 1960’s) and the subsequent rise of the subjective experience of the individual as an acceptable form of truth. Within this context, social media have become the loci of virtual public intimacies within which individuals communicate their multifaceted identities through their virtual personas.  Perhaps, then, virtual public intimacies can even be considered as enabling individuals to actively practice their privacy rights by giving them an opportunity to communicate the complexity of their identity.

However, the paradoxical consequence of this ability to make active decisions regarding one’s own immediate privacy through public intimacy is that the subjective information revealed in social media becomes the most extensive source of data about individuals, thereby contributing to the functioning of a new regime of surveillance. This new regime of surveillance is characterized by an expansion in the uncertainty that surrounds the criteria surveillance systems utilize to distinguish between prospects and threats. Each component of our modular online identity can be a potential factor that leads to discrimination. And in the end, the individual is left assigned to a category that may not only ignore the complexity of her modular identity but also is virtually (and practically) impossible to challenge because of its automated nature and consequent aura of objectivity.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583

DAARPA..do they have one on you?
FK A they do, push a button and they have every FK aspect of you life on screen.

The McCarthy days were a walk in the park, this is one step  beyond.

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,480
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  ~Patrick Henry
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  ~Patrick Henry
Hi donnay, Nice find++++++++++++++++bumped

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
Let's highlight and underscore the most important bits from that article posted above -

Done by machines
Quote
An important characteristic of the new surveillance is that it relies on a machine based, automated collection of personal information. Even the most innocuous transactions leave data trail that can be stored for later analysis(Gandy,2002; Marx, 2004). To some extent, the development of interactive media (e.g., the Internet, digital cable), which allow for a two-way flow of information between the content provider and the consumer, has added to the impetus for continuous tracking of individuals’ behavior and creating profiles that can be used to categorize them into homogenous segments(Baruh,2004;Turow,2005b).

Dehumanization of the 'intelligence'/'data'
Quote
As Gary Marx (2004) argues, the new surveillance does not target suspected individuals. It is carried out superficially, with an intention to closely investigate later. As such, surveillance systems that rely on automated data mining are akin to a fishing expedition that starts by comparing each data-point to the population base. This comparison, done without human interpretation or prior hypotheses about what constitutes risk, has the potential to signal any deviation as risk, which could then invite further scrutiny (Andrejevic, 2007)."

Quote
Third, data mining rationalizes surveillance by removing humans from the interpretation process. The dehumanization of the analyses is important:

My note: Dehumanization of the analysis - let's just pause for a minute and realize the full extent of the 'dehumanization' that we are talking about here. Not only the 'people' are dehumanized because they are nothing more than little ants - little numbers - little IDs/entries in this system, but the data ITSELF is dehumanized because all of this information / intelligence gathering is done on behalf of machines - and it's basically stored and archived forever because storage space is now so goddamn cheap - I mean - 40/50 bucks will get you a 1.5 Terabyte harddrive in stores - imagine what government agencies and defense department agencies can buy themselves to serve as storage. So, what enables all of this total information gathering is the fact that storage is cheap. Now, John P. Stenbit already let it be known that the next paradigm shift will be when 'bandwidth' becomes cheap - when bandwidth becomes cheap, then they will become 'asymmetric' in time - meaning total control over time, who said what, when he said this or that, what we can infer from such and such event having occurred in the past, unlimited bandwidth to send whatever data you want to transmit - and so on

Quote
Because it removes the so-called human bias from the interpretation process. As such, when combined with the fact that contemporary data mining relies on quantification of information (a seemingly dispassionate and objective method of interpreting the social world), this dehumanization projects an aura of objectivity, consequently making it even more difficult to challenge its premise (and the findings it provides).

(My note: What they argue here is - who will argue with 'intelligent/smart cameras' watching where you go and keeping tabs on your daily activities? It's just a camera - it's not a real private inspector spying on you - this is just data that we will MAYBE look at if we feel like it or when we need to single you out because for whatever reason you are now a conceivable 'threat.

It's all (purportedly) part of scientific inquiry. So the gist of it is that they're instantly 'dehumanizing' you by surveilling you and they have 'dehumanized' the surveillance itself because it's not a private guy with a camera snooping on you - no - it's an 'intelligent camera' - an 'intelligent sensor' - that 'senses' certain things -  such as movement (motion sensors) - the excuse would be that it isn't actively looking for the person itself - it just keeps tabs on you IN CASE they might need that data/video feed/capture of your movements/actions in the future.

And what this is all leading to - is that this entire 'system of systems' is going to govern and rule itself without human intervention at all being necessary. Machines will tell people what to do - hence even more perfect 'dehumanization'. This is the completion of the Enlightenment philosophy - or rather, insanity) - it's perfectly 'rational' from a scientific perspective, but all the same it doesn't take into account that this way of surveillance is ultimately even less reliable in terms of really estimating (or rather, guesstimating) threats - but I would say that is not even the intent in the first place.


'Chilling effect' of the panopticon'


Quote

That the data collection and interpretation process is automated has important consequences in terms the uncertainty that surround individuals' interaction with contemporary surveillance. Clearly, uncertainty was an important component of the disciplining function of the panopticon. Whereas guards can observe prisoners at any time, prisoners have no way of knowing when they are being observed.

The concept 'chilling effect of surveillance' underlines an important consequence of this uncertainty regarding when one is being monitored. Accordingly, an individual will be less likely to express her controversial opinions in public if she suspected that any behavior she engages in can be recorded (Marx, 1988), or vice versa, individuals may reveal opinions, at times abundantly, as if it should matter to their listeners."

My note: They evidently are fully aware of the psychological effect this kind of surveillance has on the public. But also note how this extends to expressing certain 'controversial opinions' in public - such as '9/11 was an inside job', or 'the H1N1 swine flu was a hoax'. That's why they are lumping everybody in under this broad stigmatizing label 'conspiracy theorist' - that is why the US government has an official page dedicated to 'conspiracy theories' - they basically give you a couple of conversational topics on that site, and they basically tell you - 'if you utter this in public, you deserve to be stigmatized/ridiculed/abused, and so on - because you are spreading MISINFORMATION'. See, there where we go - total control over the 'information flow' - that's what these guys want - so they even want to insert themselves into this debate.

Self-presentation - How people THEMSELVES are being readjusted to the 'panopticon' through social engineering
Quote
The new individual now lives, works, and shops in transparent interiors of buildings with glass facades (for example, Berlin’s parliament with its transparent dome, Richard Meier apartments in New York). In fact, as Sternberg (2001) notes, the new individual now is occupied in a phantasmagoric workplace and is responsible to create a suitable persona to present her “iconographic capabilities” (p. 11). In other words, the labor of the new individual is a labor of self-presentation.

You see folks, this is so far-ranging I don't think many people can wrap their heads around it. Even ARCHITECTURE is in on the agenda -  notice indeed all these 'glass domes', where workers have to be perfectly identifiable at all times by anyone and everyone - everyone has the right to 'know' what this or that person is doing - in the name of cutting down 'slacking off time'.

This has also been tried in schools - these glass domes where teachers and other government bureaucrats/wards of the state had to be perfectly visible by everyone inside the school. When teachers complained about it or pasted something on the windows so that they were no longer visible, all of a sudden the architects went into a frenzy and demanded they remove whatever it was they pasted on their windows, because it was interfering with their 'artists' conception' of how the building ought to look like.

So just remember -when you're at work, sitting in one of these new glass domes where you can be perfectly spied upon by other people, notice YOU are being dehumanized and reshaped to fit inside this panopticon society - without the manager even purposefully being aware of it himself.


Quote
Strangely enough, this labor of self-presentation, which used to be the domain of celebrities such as movie or rock stars, is now a full-time labor for many individuals, who, for example, wear their emotions on their t-shirts or sweatpants that read Milf in Training, Jerk Magnet, Your Boyfriend Wants Me, or Juicy.





Sense and respond supply chain applied to 'mating' - 'partying' - 'women' - 'objects' - 'dating' - whatever you want to term it - wearing emoticons and 'statements of intent and readiness' on your clothing

Quote
In the digital realm, live webcam feeds through which individuals broadcast what transpired in their bedroom can be considered as an example to the trickling down of the act of self-presentation.  And nowadays, the new individual has Facebooks, MySpaces, YouTube—the  proliferated virtual worlds of sociality—where she not only displays but also actualizes intimacies in public.

Why are women soliciting for sex - or indicating on their shirts that they are really itching to get it on with a  random member of the opposite sex (for example - wearing a T-shirt with the text 'MILF in training', or 'Your boyfriend wants me', or 'Juicy')? Why are girls voluntarily putting up webcams in their bedrooms? Why do women advertise their latest breakup or their new boyfriend vis-a-vis Twitter? Because these are all paradigms instilled by social engineers, and because these women are 'trend followers' - they follow the 'trend' - but that does not mean they know what the 'trend' was meant to achieve in the first place - this they are never conscious of. 'Emotions' and 'inner states of mind' are now broadly 'advertised' on one's personal gear, such as their clothes - they are basically applying the 'self-advertising' and 'self-whoring' as practiced by successful actors and applying that to themselves.

And here's even more food for thought - you know, what they are doing here - is applying 'sense and respond' to 'partying' / 'mating' / 'promiscuity'. Really, a girl enters into a club with the sign 'Hey there - I'm such a hot mom that everybody wants to f**k' - and hey - this 'sense' / this 'broadcast' is then sent to the entire 'club' - and then all the 'men' come engage this 'girl' in the engagement grid which is the club - and she gets to choose her pick. SENSE - AND RESPOND.

You know, people, you think this stuff is 'kinky' or 'sexy' - women wearing 'MILF in training' and the like - it gives you a hard-on or whatever when women are advertising their 'readiness' - like some sick 'sense and respond' supply chain loop applied to mating/promiscuity. But notice - this not only further removes 'privacy', it utterly destroys any semblance of keeping 'thoughts to yourself' - because your 'T-shirt' becomes your 'emoticon board' - it becomes some kind of advertising space on which you can express your emotional/sexual state of mind.

BTW, know who first helped bring this meme into existence - 'MILF in training'? Britney Spears. You see - the 'culture industry' 'instigates' these trends - and Britney herself being 'handled' by umpteen managers and so on - I'm not even sure she was even in charge of what she was going to wear that day.

It's a pretty sick state of affairs - everywhere you look, all of this stuff - all of this new 'normalcy' - IT'S ALL PART OF THE GODDAMN PLAN TO PUT EVERYONE INSIDE THE PANOPTICON. And it's going to get worse.


Needless to say, this document/essay is pretty important. To all women out there who are currently walking around with T-shirts such as 'I am horny' or 'MILF in training' or 'Come here rude boy - can you get it up?'  - regain your womanhood - don't fall for the social engineers' purposefully engineered trends so they can acclimatize you even more into giving up all your personal information, your sense of being, your sense of pride, your desires - because this by itself is not the endgame. They want a totally regimented society consisting of 'transhumanist' hordes - with SOA services feeding them whatever it is they need to be thinking of now, at this particular time, based upon his or her's value to society and social status.
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
And here is where the 'psychological operation' behind the catchword 'privacy' comes into play:

Quote
The concept of privacy, which supposedly protects individuals from undue attention, when combined with intellectual property rights, provides institutions with a high level of protection from external oversight regarding the accuracy of data, how the data are used, and whether the data are properly protected (either from individuals or from agencies representing individuals). Noting this trend, Andrejevic (2007) argues that privacy is now the keyword for increased surveillance with “diminished oversight and accountability” (p. 7).

Has it occurred to any of you that, as part of the national debate surrounding 'body scanners', 'surveillance' or whatever kind of subject you can imagine that involves sensors/cameras/spying, the keyword 'privacy' is always brought up, and immediately following that, there is some plug to the ACLU? That is not by coincidence. Allaying your 'privacy concerns', and even the very mention of 'privacy' itself, is a PSY-OP. As is suggested here, it is a code-word for 'increased surveillance with "diminished oversight and accountability".
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
has everyone read this f**king shit yet?

this explains every single segment on the BS MSM and the entire fake war on terror, the entire Rockefeller education system, and a whole bunch of other shit.

This is in direct violation of the constitution, the rights of man, nature's law, god's law and humanity in general.

THIS IS ENEMY TO HUMANITY, HOW CAN IT BE DEBUNKED?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
MAY 21, 2010

Facebook, MySpace Confront Privacy Loophole
http://online.wsj.com/
By EMILY STEEL And JESSICA E. VASCELLARO

Facebook, MySpace and several other social-networking sites have been sending data to advertising companies that could be used to find consumers' names and other personal details, despite promises they don't share such information without consent.

The practice, which most of the companies defended, sends user names or ID numbers tied to personal profiles being viewed when users click on ads. After questions were raised by The Wall Street Journal, Facebook and MySpace moved to make changes. By Thursday morning Facebook had rewritten some of the offending computer code.

Advertising companies are receiving information that could be used to look up individual profiles, which, depending on the site and the information a user has made public, include such things as a person's real name, age, hometown and occupation.

Several large advertising companies identified by the Journal as receiving the data, including Google Inc.'s DoubleClick and Yahoo Inc.'s Right Media, said they were unaware of the data being sent to them from the social-networking sites, and said they haven't made use of it.

Across the Web, it's common for advertisers to receive the address of the page from which a user clicked on an ad. Usually, they receive nothing more about the user than an unintelligible string of letters and numbers that can't be traced back to an individual. With social networking sites, however, those addresses typically include user names that could direct advertisers back to a profile page full of personal information. In some cases, user names are people's real names.

Most social networks haven't bothered to obscure user names or ID numbers from their Web addresses, said Craig Wills, a professor of computer science at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who has studied the issue.

The sites may have been breaching their own privacy policies as well as industry standards, which say sites shouldn't share and advertisers shouldn't collect personally identifiable information without users' permission. Those policies have been put forward by advertising and Internet companies in arguments against the need for government regulation.

Facebook, MySpace and several other social-networking sites gave advertising companies information that could be used to look up individual profiles, which, depending on the site and the information a user has made public, include such things as a person's real name, age, hometown and occupation. Above, Facebook's headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif.

The problem comes as social networking sites—and in particular Facebook—face increasing scrutiny over their privacy practices from consumers, privacy advocates and lawmakers.

At the same time, lawmakers are preparing legislation to govern websites' tactics for collecting information about consumers, and the way that information is used to target ads.

In addition to Facebook and MySpace, LiveJournal, Hi5, Xanga and Digg also sent advertising companies the user name or ID number of the page being visited. (MySpace is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.) Twitter—which doesn't have ads on profile pages—also was found to pass Web addresses including user names of profiles being visited on Twitter.com when users clicked other links on the profiles.

For most social-networking sites, the data identified the profile being viewed but not necessarily the person who clicked on the ad or link. But Facebook went further than other sites, in some cases signaling which user name or ID was clicking on the ad as well as the user name or ID of the page being viewed. By seeing what ads a user clicked on, an advertiser could tell something about a user's interests.

Ben Edelman, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School who studies Internet advertising, reviewed the computer code on the seven sites at the request of the Journal.

"If you are looking at your profile page and you click on an ad, you are telling that advertiser who you are," he said of how Facebook operated, if a user had clicked through a specific path, before the fix. Mr. Edelman said he had sent a letter on Thursday to the Federal Trade Commission asking them to investigate Facebook's practices specifically.

The sharing of users' personally identifiable data was first flagged in a paper by researchers at AT&T Labs and Worcester Polytechnic Institute last August. The paper, which drew little attention at the time, evaluated practices at 12 social networking sites including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace and found multiple ways that outside companies could access user data.

The researchers said in an interview they had contacted the sites, which some sites confirmed. But nine months later, the issue still exists.

The issue is particularly significant for Facebook on two fronts: the company has been pushing users to make more of their personal information public and the site requires users to use their actual names when registering on the site.

A Facebook spokesman acknowledged it has been passing data to ad companies that could allow them to tell if a particular user was clicking an ad. After being contacted by the Journal, Facebook said it changed its software to eliminate the identifying code tied to the user from being transmitted.

"We were recently made aware of one case where if a user takes a specific route on the site, advertisers may see that they clicked on their own profile and then clicked on an ad," the Facebook spokesman said. "We fixed this case as soon as we heard about it."

Facebook said its practices are now consistent with how advertising works across the Web. The company passes the "user ID of the page but not the person who clicked on the ad," the company spokesman said. "We don't consider this personally identifiable information and our policy does not allow advertisers to collect user information without the user's consent."

The company said it also has been testing changing the formatting for the text it shares with advertisers so that it doesn't pass through any user names or IDs.
Privacy Problem

Internet sites that share information that could be tied to individual profiles. See graphic




MySpace, Hi5, Digg, Xanga and Live Journal said they don't consider their user names or ID numbers to be personally identifiable, because unlike Facebook, consumers are not required to submit their real names when signing up for an account. They also said since they are passing along the user name of the page the ad is on, not for the person clicking on the ad, there is nothing advertisers can do with the data beyond seeing on what page their ad appeared.

MySpace said in a statement it is only sharing the ID name users create for the site, which permits access only to the information that a user makes publicly available on the site.

Nevertheless, a MySpace spokeswoman said the site is "currently implementing a methodology that will obfuscate the 'FriendID' in any URL that is passed along to advertisers."

A Twitter spokeswoman said passing along the Web address happens when people click a link from any Web page. "This is just how the Internet and browsers work," she said.

Although Digg said it masks a user's name when they click on an ad and scrambles data before sharing with outside advertising companies, the site does pass along user names to ad companies when a user visits a profile page. "It's the information about the page that you are visiting, not you as a visitor," said Chas Edwards, Digg's chief revenue officer.

The advertising companies say they don't control the information a website chooses to send them. "Google doesn't seek in any way to make any use of any user names or IDs that their URLs may contain," a Google spokesman said in a statement.

"We prohibit clients from sending personally identifiably information to us," said Anne Toth, Yahoo's head of privacy. "We have told them. 'We don't want it. You shouldn't be sending it to us. If it happens to be there, we are not looking for it."
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline InfoArsenal

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
Yeah, they had 13 year old girls wearing shirts that say 'Porn Star', now a quarter of the teens in High School are already covered in tats.

I wonder when the shirts that say "I'm a stupid c#nt!" will become popular.  :D

These people are literally lost.

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
Yeah, they had 13 year old girls wearing shirts that say 'Porn Star', now a quarter of the teens in High School are already covered in tats.

I wonder when the shirts that say "I'm a stupid c#nt!" will become popular.  :D

These people are literally lost.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
And now for a word from one of the information gleaners: Mark Zuckerberg of FaceBook. Ask youself how a 25-year-old kid winds up with a massive database information mining company out of nowhere? He doesn't. Not without some serious backing from Alphabet agencies of the US Government. Period.

Facebook, suffering some PR issues because of the fact that people still expect privacy (DUH... it is beyond me how anyone can expect privacy when they're willing to upload their personal information, personal family photographs, and use FaceBook to link with all of their friends and relations!) But for the record, here's the latest from the FaceBook Office of Propaganda and Spin Control (and, I can't help it, a few of my own comments):

From Facebook,
answering privacy concerns
with new settings


By Mark Zuckerberg
Monday, May 24, 2010; A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052303828_pf.html

Six years ago, we built Facebook around a few simple ideas. People want to share and stay connected with their friends and the people around them. If we give people control over what they share, they will want to share more. If people share more, the world will become more open and connected. And a world that's more open and connected is a better world. ( For whom is it a better world? Certainly not 'people' who are now all upset about Facebook's lack of privacy) These are still our core principles today.

Facebook has been growing quickly. It has become a community of more than 400 million people in just a few years. It's a challenge to keep that many people satisfied over time, so we move quickly to serve that community with new ways to connect with the social Web and each other. Sometimes we move too fast -- and after listening to recent concerns, we're responding.
(Translation: We f*cked up; we need to be better about incremental destruction of your privacy... dang.)

The challenge is how a network like ours facilitates sharing and innovation, offers control and choice, and makes this experience easy for everyone. These are issues we think about all the time. Whenever we make a change, we try to apply the lessons we've learned along the way. The biggest message we have heard recently is that people want easier control over their information. Simply put, many of you thought our controls were too complex. Our intention was to give you lots of granular controls; but that may not have been what many of you wanted. We just missed the mark.

(Notice how Zuckerberg describes the problem as tools that were 'too complex'. He's playing to a dumbed-down gullible audience. In fact, his real message might have read, "Many of you were pissed off because we 'exposed' your personal information to the other 399 million users.  Our intention was to completely strip you of any privacy - to DEHUMANIZE you - as you are, after all, just a number - and we thought we could get away with it. As I said earlier, we f*cked up.")

We have heard the feedback. There needs to be a simpler way to control your information. In the coming weeks, we will add privacy controls that are much simpler to use. We will also give you an easy way to turn off all third-party services. We are working hard to make these changes available as soon as possible. We hope you'll be pleased with the result of our work and, as always, we'll be eager to get your feedback.

(The psyop here is they want you to believe that your privacy will be protected.  And indeed, they may protect your privacy with regard to other facebook users. But they are lying about privacy -- they still have your personal information logged into their database; they will continue to datamine you for information, and they will continue to deliver this information to their masters at the NSA/CIA/Interpol/etc. Face it - if you voluntarily gave information to Facebook, you submitted yourself for entry into the database. The best thing you can do at this point is to detach, delete your account, and stay away.

We have also heard that some people don't understand how their personal information is used and worry that it is shared in ways they don't want. I'd like to clear that up now. Many people choose to make some of their information visible to everyone so people they know can find them on Facebook. We already offer controls to limit the visibility of that information and we intend to make them even stronger.

Here are the principles under which Facebook operates:

-- You have control over how your information is shared.
-- We do not share your personal information with people or services you don't want.
-- We do not give advertisers access to your personal information.
-- We do not and never will sell any of your information to anyone.

(And if you believe the above, then you're truly drinking kool-aid).

-- We will always keep Facebook a free service for everyone.

(Ok, that last one is probably true. They don't want to 'charge' and potentially lose a significant number of database entries.).


Facebook has evolved from a simple dorm-room project to a global social network connecting millions of people. We will keep building, we will keep listening and we will continue to have a dialogue with everyone who cares enough about Facebook to share their ideas. And we will keep focused on achieving our mission of giving people the power to share and making the world more open and connected.

The writer is founder and chief executive of Facebook. Washington Post Chairman Donald E. Graham is a member of Facebook's board of directors.



In fact: The original concept for Facebook was borrowed from a product produced by Zuckerberg's prep school Phillips Exeter Academy which for decades published and distributed a printed manual of all students and faculty, unofficially called the "face book".

Notable Phillips Exeter graduates include:


   * John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (1954) - Democratic Senator from West Virginia,
    * John Negroponte (1956) - The first Director of National Intelligence
    * Tim Wirth (1957) - U.S. Representative and Senator from Colorado, current head of the United Nations Foundation
    * David Rockefeller, Jr. (1959) - Philanthropist and businessman, descendant of John D. Rockefeller
    * Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. (1959) - Educator, former President, Yale University.
    * Greg Daniels (1981) - Producer, including (The Simpsons), adapted U.S. version of The Office from the BBC version
    * Peter Orszag (1987) - Director of U.S. Office of Management & Budget (OMB) under President Barack Obama[14]
    * Mark Zuckerberg (2002) - Founder of Facebook



Yes, I think this was way more than a little "dorm room" project. They found a good 'representative' of 'the digital generation', and they used him to set up a 'hip, fun, friendly, social networking site that is, in fact, a deadly serious datamining enterprise.

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
In fact: The original concept for Facebook was borrowed from a product produced by Zuckerberg's prep school Phillips Exeter Academy which for decades published and distributed a printed manual of all students and faculty, unofficially called the "face book".

Notable Phillips Exeter graduates include:


     * John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (1954) - Democratic Senator from West Virginia,
    * John Negroponte (1956) - The first Director of National Intelligence
    * Tim Wirth (1957) - U.S. Representative and Senator from Colorado, current head of the United Nations Foundation
    * David Rockefeller, Jr. (1959) - Philanthropist and businessman, descendant of John D. Rockefeller
    * Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. (1959) - Educator, former President, Yale University.
    * Greg Daniels (1981) - Producer, including (The Simpsons), adapted U.S. version of The Office from the BBC version
    * Peter Orszag (1987) - Director of U.S. Office of Management & Budget (OMB) under President Barack Obama[14]
    * Mark Zuckerberg (2002) - Founder of Facebook



YOU GOTTA BE SHITTING ME!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
And here is where the 'psychological operation' behind the catchword 'privacy' comes into play:

Has it occurred to any of you that, as part of the national debate surrounding 'body scanners', 'surveillance' or whatever kind of subject you can imagine that involves sensors/cameras/spying, the keyword 'privacy' is always brought up, and immediately following that, there is some plug to the ACLU? That is not by coincidence. Allaying your 'privacy concerns', and even the very mention of 'privacy' itself, is a PSY-OP. As is suggested here, it is a code-word for 'increased surveillance with "diminished oversight and accountability".

Wow, that's a good point. They have changed the very meaning of the word privacy, or hijacked it. They did the same thing with "freedom and democracy" and others. Newspeak.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Google Teams Up With CIA to Fund "Recorded Future" Startup Monitoring Public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_L_MoQxTuA

Investors at the CIA and Google are backing a company called "Recorded Future" that monitors tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts in real time in order to find patterns, events, and relationships that may predict the future. The news comes on amidst Google's so-called "Wi-Spy" scandal, that refers to revelations that Google's Street View cars operating in some 30 countries snooped on private WiFi networks over the last three years.

ALEX ON RT
Google and CIA working together to spy on you!! The New World Order is watching you!! PT. 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LreeawqyOlc


Welcome To Recorded Future
http://www.youtube.com/recordedfuture

Welcome to Recorded Future. This is a brief introduction that highlights our new interface and latest features. To learn more about Recorded Future's media analysis, temporal analytics and predictive tools check out https://www.recordedfuture.com/

"Be as cautious as you can, of course, for you know that as soon as you have anything like a kingdom, enchanters and conjurers will always drop in from all over Creation to take it away from you, naturally enough."
-Brion Gysin

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/mind-control-and-eugenics-redressing-natures-randomness-intolerant-of-uncertainty-in-human-behavior.html

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2008/06/mind-control-and-the-secret-state.html

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/mkultra_articho.html

MUST-READ: Hardcore Mind Control article from 1990 Playboy Magazine
-squarepusher
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155533.0

MUST-READ: Hardcore Police State Article from 1974 - And How Vietnam Enabled It
-squarepusher
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155130.0
That would be relevant if it was not used to justify more draconian control methods.

They want us to curcumvent their BS so they can then say "see the terrorists have found a way around our system so we need to plug it up". What needs to be exposed is the multiple levels of insanity inherent in this mind control grid. The situation we are currently in is that those who cannot be mind controlled are considered ENEMIES OF THE STATE.


Make anti-social behaviour 'abnormal'
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181665.0

HOLY HELL !!! MINORITY REPORT TECH NOW REAL !!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181192.0

The ENTIRE PLANET is being turned into an AUTONOMOUS ASSASSINATION GRID
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=176293.0

Creating a smart grid: GE Plan for total enslavement
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=28244.0

IBM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ARE ARCHITECTED TO COVER UP CONSPIRATORS IN FALSE FLAGS
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=175748.0

IBM: Transforming the military through Sense & Respond
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=176777.0

One Mainframe To Rule Them All - IBM & Verichip - The Human Microchipping Agenda
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=140642.0




Almost every single issue can now be traced to the cybernetics agenda!

Brzezinski is scared to death that you now know Cybernetics is the real agenda

Extremely Important--Also see:  Global Warming/Climate Change Agenda Is Geo-Cybernetics In Disguise



"(1) In an industrial society the mode of production shifts from agriculture to industry, with the use of human and animal muscle supplanted by machine operation. In the technetronic society industrial employment yields to services, with automation and cybernetics replacing the operation of machines by individuals."
_______________________________________________
"The national community is the obvious one to turn to, and a definition of what a national community is may well become more restrictive as broader transnational cooperation develops. For many peoples the nationstate was a compromise dictated by economics, by security, and by other factors. An optimum balance was eventually struck, often after centuries of conflict. Today the balance is becoming unsettled, because newer and larger frameworks of cooperation are emerging, and the effective integration of much smaller, more cohesive units into much larger wholes is becoming increasingly possible because of computers, cybernetics, communications, and so on."
_______________________________________________
"Solid work has been done by Soviet scholars, primarily in the area of technologicaleconomic forecasting. For example, in 1964 the Soviet philosophical journal, Voprosy Filosofii, began publishing a series of articles on the theme of "The ScientificTechnical Revolution and Its Social Consequences." On the whole, these articles have been serious and frequently very informative treatments of such subjects as the methodology of forecasting, the organizational problems of science in the context of the scientific explosion, the role of cybernetics, comparative analyses of scientific development and projections for the United States and the Soviet Union, to say nothing of more specifically Sovietoriented economic and technological prognoses." 23
_______________________________________________
"Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucraticdogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline. As has already happened in Ulbricht's East Germany, the party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control, and looking to scientific innovation for the preservation of Soviet security and industrial growth.  Nationalism would replace ideological dogmas as the basic integrative principle linking society and the state. The younger, more technologically oriented leaders of the military establishment would, in all probability, favour this pattern. Political leadership, as in the first variant, could remain collective, though it would probably involve a wider coalition of partystate militaryeconomic leaders."
_______________________________________________
"The example of Ulbricht's East Germany may become particularly relevant. Though in Rumania explorations of the scientific revolution's significance have led some communists to suggest that this revolution requires a new theoretical framework based on the principle of universality, 34 Ulbricht has attempted to combine scientific innovation with strict adherence to the LeninistStalinist ideological tradition. Political leadership has remained highly centralized, and ideological dissent has been firmly suppressed. At the same time, Ulbricht, perhaps more than any other communist leader, has emphasized that "the development of the socialist system, above all the implementation of the economic system as a whole, is to a growing extent a matter of scientific leadership. . . . We orient ourselves on the conscious scientific control of complex processes and systems by the people and for the people. We make use of cybernetics in this sense." 35

During the second half of the 1960s, East German leadership made an intense effort to rationalize economic management in order to combine lowerlevel initiative with an effective system of controls and coordination. The Seventh Party Congress (April 1967) set itself the task of developing a general conception of the relations between the various partsystems with the economic system as a whole;more than any other communist country, East Germany utilized cybernetics, operational research, and electronic data processing.  Two years later, at the April 1969 Central Committee Plenum, Politburo member Kurt Hager proudly reported—and he repeatedly used this formula—that East Germany was not only ideologically sound but "correctly programmed."

In line with this "correct programming," the party has emphasized the importance of expertise among its members, 36 and the educational system has been reformed in order to link science closely with industry. † By the late 1960s, East Germany had transformed itself from one of the most warravaged societies into the most economically and ideologically advanced scienceoriented communist state. After a fiftyyear lapse, the combination of Prussian discipline, German scientific efficiency, and LeninistStalinist ideology has thus again made German communism a model for its eastern neighbors.

In the Soviet Union, however, other considerations will in all likelihood impede the pace of a similar "technologization" of the Soviet political system. For one thing, the Soviet Union is a much bigger country, is more difficult to integrate, and has many more areas of socioeconomic backwardness to overcome. In addition, over the last fifty years the ruling party has developed its own traditions and ideological style, and though it favors the acquisition of technical skills by its officials, it is likely to continue to resist the development of an essentially technical orientation among its members, since that would dilute the importance attached to ideology. 37 Moreover, perhaps intensified in the years to come by the SinoSoviet dispute, the role of the security factor in policymaking and of the military in the political process might tend to increase."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942369,00.html

By HP-TIME.COM;EDWIN WARNER
Monday, Oct. 12, 1970

"Contemporary America is often described—especially by the young—as a reactionary country. But in the opinion of Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of government at Columbia University, the only revolution worth talking about these days is an American one—and it has not been run by the New Left. Brzezinski calls it the technetronic revolution. In Between Two Ages he discusses the repercussions of rapid change from an industrial era—with its emphasis on sheer productivity—to a period that stresses services, automation and cybernetics. Being that rarity among futurists, a cautious man, Brzezinski is not sure if utopia or bedlam will result. Meanwhile, between two ages is a time of uncertainty and some guarded hope.

Whatever military and political reverses it may have suffered, the U.S. is plunging ahead in the realm of technology and dragging the rest of the world with it. Such progress—if that is what it is—largely results from the fact that the U.S. spends more on scientific education and research than any other nation; it has indeed drained the world of the brains needed for its technical endeavors. "What makes America unique in our time," Brzezinski writes, "is that confrontation with the new is part of the daily American experience. For better or for worse, the rest of the world learns what is in store for it by observing what happens in the United States: whether it be the latest scientific discoveries in space and medicine or the electric toothbrush in the bathroom; pop art or LSD; air conditioning or air pollution; old-age problems or juvenile delinquency."

Polish-born Brzezinski has something of the pride of an adopted son in such achievements, though he recognizes that in some ways the U.S. is its own worst enemy. For the technetronic revolution it exports causes profound disturbances in the less developed nations. Suddenly aware of material progress, they conspicuously and maddeningly lack the means to achieve it. Their acute frustration causes not a revolution in rising expectations, says Brzezinski, but a "specter of insatiable aspirations."

Just as the technetronic revolution has further divided rich from poor nations, so is it beginning to fracture the nation-state. But the result of the breakup is not likely to lead to One World. Brzezinski amends Marshall Mc-Luhan's thesis that the world is shrinking into a "global village." A village implies shared tradition and intimacy. Today's technetronic world resembles rather a "global city—a nervous, agitated, tense, and fragmented web of interdependent relations." To recover some sense of identity, people are desperately turning back to their origins in race or region.

Flood of Technocrats. The New American Revolution, according to Brzezinski, is also fragmenting the mind of man. More than ever before, society is rigidly divided between those who think and those who feel. On the one side are the quiet, methodical technocrats who run the new machines pretty much without questioning their aims.On the other are the emotionalists, who have rebelled against the dehumanization of computer society.

Brzezinski harbors a good deal of contempt for what he calls the "new class" of alienated students and those intellectuals of the "Violent Left" who feel superfluous to society and for that reason want to bring the whole thing down. Paradoxically, he fears fellow technocrats even more than the New Left. Goaded mercilessly from the left, often deficient in traditional humanitarian values, a New Right of technocrats might eventually seize power. Unlike the left, they would know how to use it. To forestall such a disaster, Brzezinski strives for a formula that will fuse together the divided halves of the American soul. Lacking confidence in liberalism—partly because it lacks confidence in itself—Brzezinski proposes a kind of participatory democracy in which government, private business and the academic world join hands to solve the nation's social problems.

This limited solution, not so very different from a number of New Left panaceas, scarcely bears the weight of Brzezinski's earlier complaint. Like so many analysts, he is better at stating the problem thin supplying an answer. But, as he sees it, the problem may just turn out to be the answer. For if the miracles of technology have fragmented the world, they have made man more humble in the face of his own awesome creations. As Brzezinski suggests, man can no longer subscribe to one all-encompassing ideology; he must tolerate the existence of several world views. Between Two Ages is rich in respect for variety. Proposing neither to predict nor control the future, Brzezinski brilliantly explores some of its options and suggests that they can perhaps be lived with. These days that is a comforting view.

Edwin Warner



Napolitano Bombshell:

"We track every single thing you do on the Internet"


Napolitano:
Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Fake Homegrown Terrorism

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/
Published June 18, 2010 | Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens [This is a lie, the CIA recruits American citizens. Terrorists do not recruit shit, anyone not an American who even sneazes "allah akbar" is tracked 24/7 (also illegally). And if they interact with any American citizen it is because the CIA wants that interaction to occur], the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. [THIS IS EXACTLY THE HITLER, BUSH, MAO, STALIN DOCTRINE!]

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training [This is a lie of the highest degree. The top 100 sites used for so called recruiting are run out of Langley, 10 Downing Street, or Tel Aviv. Everybody knows this, is she trying to completely discredit herself?]. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents. [Another lie, just because they initiated Project Northwoods which is so obvious with the Chistmas Underwear Intelligence Op and the Times Square Drill does not mean they can use their own false flag black ops to force us into burning the constitution]

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. [Has she completely lost her f**king mind? What? What the hell do they have to do with each other? And why has terrorism grown while we have spent over $5 Trillion on exterminating over 1 million so called terrorists while raping another million, maiming many millions, and causing massive exoduses. And all this time causing PTSD and radiation in over a million soldiers, causing over 20,000 dead soldiers through the battlefield or by damaging their minds so much that they end up committing suicide. After all the world gave to this massive undertaking we are supposed to believe that so calld terrorism by random nuts increased? How is this even possible? Do you think maybe there is some other hidden agenda going on? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2502830637471895940]

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists. [So the slave Napolitano was not enough for the banksters, Rothschild ordered AP to add that cherry of a comment. Hey Rothschild, we know that both Fort Hood and Times Square were protected patsies by the Terrorist Industrial Complex and that it is funded by Bilderberg and acts on behalf of Bilderberg. Bilderberg had the largest motive for the Fort Hood massacre and then ran the 24/7 psyops about so called Homegrown Terrorism and the evil Internet. Thanks for confirming this "kill the Internet" motive.]

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss -- such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
[THEY HAD THESE RAPE SCANNERS AT THE AIRPORT HE FLEW OUT OF! UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE KENNEDY EXPLAINED IN A LIVE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT HE WAS PUT ON THE PLANE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND HAD NO PASSPORT BY A US INTELLIGENCE OFFICER!!!! THESE RAPE SCANNERS CANNOT STOP THE CIA FROM CONDUCTING FALSE FLAGS!!!]


He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners' use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can't have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine. [These scanners are controlled by NRO, she has no power whatsoever on what they do. What a joke]



NSA Must Examine
All Internet Traffic
to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/feds-must-exami/
By Ryan Singel   January 15, 2008  |  9:55 am


Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/feds-must-exami/#ixzz0rUmRfZgY

The nation’s top spy, Michael McConnell, thinks the threat of cyberarmageddon! is so great that the U.S. government should have unfettered and warrantless access to U.S. citizens’ Google search histories, private e-mails and file transfers, in order to spot the cyberterrorists in our midst.

That’s according to a sprawling 18-page story on the Director of
National Intelligence by Lawrence Wright in the January 21 edition of the New Yorker. (The story is not online).

In the piece, McConnell returns, in flamboyant style, to his exaggerating ways, hyping threats and statistics to further his bureaucratic aims. For example, McConnell regurgitates the hoary myth that computer crime costs America $100 billion a year. THREAT LEVEL traced down the source of that fake-factoid in September to a former privacy officer for the state of Colorado.

Presumably using unsupported stats like that, in May 2007 McConnell convinced President Bush that a massive cyber-attack on a single U.S. bank would be worse for the economy than than the deadly terrorist attacks of September 11, the article reports. In response, the NSA developed a mind-boggling, but still incomplete, plan to eavesdrop on the internet in order to protect it.

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’"

It says something ominous about McConnell’s priorities if he believes a DDOS attack on Bank of America, or even a computer intrusion that wiped out its database (and magically purged its backup tapes), would be worse than an attack that killed 3,000 Americans.

Still, it’s hardly a surprising plan — given that McConnell was one of the main backers of the Clipper Chip, the government’s failed, early 1990’s proposal to put a backdoor in every encryption product.

McConnell also makes an astounding assertion that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently crippled the NSA’s overseas signals intelligence collection with a string of soft-on-terror rulings.

McConnell said that federal judges had recently decided, in a series of secret rulings, that any telephone transmission or e-mail that incidentally flowed into U.S. computer systems was potentially subject to judicial oversight. According to McConnell the capacity of the NSA to monitor foreign-based communications had consequently been reduced by seventy per cent.

In other words, McConnell claims the NSA couldn’t intercept a terrorist’s e-mail by tapping a fiber optic cable in Pakistan, if there was a chance the message would pass through a U.S. router or end up in a Hotmail account.

I’m no rich man, but I’ll bet any reader $1,000 that, when and if those rulings are ever released, we’ll see they say no such thing. Send me an e-mail to take me up this bet. U.S. government officials are welcome to participate.

The FISA law that created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court only applies to intercepts that physically happen within the borders of the United States. The NSA has always been free to intercept foreign communications overseas — the mission for which they were created and funded — even if the call passes through a U.S. switch.

So in the case of the now debunked Iraqi kidnappers anecdote that leads off the New Yorker story, the NSA would only have needed to get a court order if its Iraqi targets initiated communications that flowed through U.S. servers or switches and the NSA decided to tap them physically at a United States internet or telecom facility, by burglarizing it, digging up its cables or getting the company to cooperate. (As for why that happens and how common it is, check my story: NSA’s Lucky Break: How the U.S. Became the Switchboard to the World.)

Simply put, the FISA law is intended to prevent the NSA from operating inside the United States.

In any event, that restriction collapsed this summer with the fear-induced, strong-armed passage of the so-called Protect America Act. That law radically re-architected the nation’s surveillance apparatus.
Now the NSA can turn Gmail’s servers and AT&T’s switches into de facto arms of the surveillance industrial complex without any court oversight.

And though the law ostensibly sunsets in February, any orders in effect at that time will have power for another 12 months. Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is reportedly planning to discard legislative attempts to rein in these new powers and will instead simply push to extend the current scheme another 12 months.

In short, McConnell’s politically convenient exaggerations have already worked well for him in winning domestic spying powers, despite their flimsiness under any real scrutiny.

That track record bodes ill for anyone concerned about his new plans to push for sweeping and unnecessary powers to put the NSA in the wires of the internet in order to prevent a computer attacks.

The Wall Street Journal’s intelligence guru Siobhan Gorman’s take is here. Gorman wrote a groundbreaking story on the cyberspace initiative last September while at The Baltimore Sun.

UPDATE: Ex-spook Michael Tanji guest-posting over at Danger Room writes:

It’s bad enough that the Director of National Intelligence is trotting out a bogus threat so the government can snoop on all Internet traffic.  What’s worse is that this kind of mass surveillance is a pretty lame way to catch the honest-to-God bad guys.

Of more interest to observers of intelligence activities is the issue of quality vs. quantity and the slow creep towards doom that these efforts foretell. The fact that we are essentially attempting to gill-net bad guys is a fairly strong indicator that the intelligence community has yet to come up with an effective strategy against information-age threats.

[...] Its not a question of listening in to you whispering sweet nothings into the ear to your significant other, it is simply a case of – as the late Sam Kinison joked – going where the food is. That our intelligence agencies can intercept adversary communications is largely a given, they just want to do it from the convenience of the homeland, not some remote switch in the darkest hinterlands.

(Photo: AP/ Cook)



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/feds-must-exami/#ixzz0rUmbXKjz
_________________________________
Cyberwar Doomsayer Lands $34 Million in Government Cyberwar Contracts
By Ryan Singel   April 13, 2010  |  6:04 pm

Read More http://webmonkey.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/booz-allen/#ixzz0rUmmg9io



Last month, the former Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell boldly took to the Senate floor and the Washington Post’s editorial page to declare “The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing.”

Thankfully for the American people, his company — the giant defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton — has now landed the contract to build the Pentagon’s cyberwar control center. For a measly $14.4 million in taxpayer money, the outfit will help build a new cyberwar bunker for the U.S. Cyber Command.

Read More http://webmonkey.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/booz-allen/#ixzz0rUmxlFpw



Additionally, Booz Allen Hamilton won another contract for $20 million to “foster collaboration among telecommunications researchers, University of Maryland faculty members and other academic institutions to improve secure networking and telecommunications and boost information assurance,” Washington Technology reports. While that might sound like a lot of money to set up a mailing list and a wiki, please don’t be cynical. Undoubtedly, McConnell’s crack team of consultants are providing the researchers with around-the-clock bodyguards and state-of-the-art bullet-proof monitors.

Meanwhile, we urge U.S. netizens to refrain from un-patriotic musings that McConnell intentionally uses fear and exaggerated rhetoric to land these kinds of contracts for his company and instead, be vigilant and keep their eyes out for signs of Chinese hackers (one telltale sign is a “Made in China” label on the bottom of your laptop).

Otherwise you might soon find yourself facing a Red Screen of Death (RSOD), making you just one more casualty in this tragic cyberwar we Americans are all bravely enduring as one nation united.

Photo: USAF

Read More http://webmonkey.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/booz-allen/#ixzz0rUn8lKi8


Quotes from the movie....

Spook: ...I know you don't smoke. I saw your DARPA file, and that's my way of telling you - you've got a DARPA file.

MG: You gonna tell me what that is?

Spook: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Their slogan is "scientia est potentia", and I know you know latin.

DARPA's slogan is "Knowledge is POWER".

Scientia Est Potentia (Knowledge Is Power)
http://www.bdragon.com/lair/2002/11/14_scientia_est_potentia_knowl/

    I'm sorry... but aren't you WORRIED yet...???!!! You should be:

    If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:
    Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

    To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

    This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

    This is not fiction, and it is no longer something you can afford to disregard - the freedoms that we've cherished for so long in this country are being ripped out from under your feet.

    Don't think it doesn't matter to you, that it won't affect you - because by the time it does, it will be too late to do a thing about it.

Thread about DARPA's recent news: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=174241.msg1035568#msg1035568


All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/08/tech/main6374956.shtml



In this April 7, 2010 photo, Wendy March demonstrates Sens, a concept mobile experience which shares context information on phones in the form of animated avatars during an Intel open house in New York.  (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

NEW YORK, April 8, 2010

"Mind-Reading" Technology Showcased in NYC
Intel Software Uses Brain Scans to Determine What Items People are Thinking About


 (AP)  Mind reading may no longer be the domain of psychics and fortune tellers - now some computers can do it, too.

Software that uses brain scans to determine what items people are thinking about was among the technological innovations showcased Wednesday by Intel Corp., which drew back the curtain on a number of projects that are still under development.

The software analyzes functional MRI scans to determine what parts of a person's brain is being activated as he or she thinks. In tests, it guessed with 90 percent accuracy which of two words a person was thinking about, said Intel Labs researcher Dean Pomerleau.

Eventually, the technology could help the severely physically disabled to communicate. And Pomerleau sees it as an early step toward one day being able to control technology with our minds.

"The vision is being able to interface to information, to your devices and to other people without having an intermediary device," he said.

For now, the project's accomplishments are far more modest - it can only be used with prohibitively expensive and bulky fMRI equipment and hasn't yet been adapted to analyze abstract thoughts.

The system works best when a person is first scanned while thinking of dozens of different concrete nouns - words like "bear" or "hammer." When test subjects are then asked to pick one of two new terms and think about it, the software uses the earlier results as a baseline to determine what the person is thinking.

The software works by analyzing the shared attributes of different words. For example, a person who is thinking of a bear uses the same parts of the brain that light up when he or she thinks of a puppy or something else furry. A person thinking of a bear also shows activity in the amygdala - home of the fight-or-flight response.

While Intel primarily makes computer processors and other hardware, it often works to develop and demonstrate new technologies in an effort to stimulate the market and advance its reputation. Other innovations on display at Wednesday's Intel event in Manhattan included:

Cell phone technology that would use motion, GPS and audio data gathered through users' cell phones to track what they're doing and who they're with. The technology can distinguish activities such as walking, giving a business presentation and driving. It also compares audio readings from different cell phones to determine who is in the same room.

This would allow users to share their activity information with their close friends and watch avatar versions of their friends throughout the day. It would also let users track and analyze data about how they spend their time.

"Dispute Finder" technology that monitors users' conversations and Internet browsing to warn them when they encounter contested or inaccurate information. The software mines the Internet to find instances in which writers have claimed something is untrue. It then uses speech recognition technology to monitor conversations.

A transparent holographic shopping display that could be used in department stores to point consumers to featured items. Shoppers could also use the giant screen to search the store's inventory, call up maps, and send item information to their cell phones.

A TV set-top box that connects wirelessly to your laptop and monitors your Internet search history, as well as your TV viewing, to offer relevant video.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"Dispute Finder" technology that monitors users' conversations and Internet browsing to warn them when they encounter contested or inaccurate information. The software mines the Internet to find instances in which writers have claimed something is untrue. It then uses speech recognition technology to monitor conversations.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Chemical Hallucinations, Mind Control, and Dr. Jose Delgado
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/delgado.htm
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Updated on October, 1999

   
"Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."
-Dr. Jose Delgado in front of Congress

"Free Will is the most important law in all of Creation."
-Cassiopaeans

The above quote by Dr. Jose Delgado is quite frightening, isn't it?

[...]

Clearly, "Dr. Delgado" must think that he is somewhere near the top of this foodchain, judging by his published remarks. Well, it seems that, by saying that he is desperately yearning to revert back to the primordial soup, Dr. Delgado DOES have some awareness of his path...

[...]

And here we have the problem. Such individuals not only desperately long to revert to the primordial soup, they want to take everyone else with them! And, in their mode of wishful thinking, they convince themselves that everyone else, in their "heart of hearts," wants the same thing!

But "Dr. Delgado" DOES comprehend. He is CONSCIOUS.

And, apparently, one of the prophets of the Gospel of Devolution is "Dr. Jose Delgado," wishfully thinking that he, and the rest of humanity are merely...

"gobs and gobs of living humanoidal tissue cultures in search of a little bedtime story."





Side note: Dr. Delgado progression of experiments are depicted in the remake of Island of Dr. Moreau w/ Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer.

1896...HG Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau...
http://www.bartleby.com/1001/14.html




  “The stores were landed and the house was built. The Kanakas founded some huts near the ravine. I went to work here upon what I had brought with me. There were some disagreeable things happened at first. I began with a sheep, and killed it after a day and a half by a slip of the scalpel. I took another sheep, and made a thing of pain and fear and left it bound up to heal. It looked quite human to me when I had finished it; but when I went to it I was discontented with it. It remembered me, and was terrified beyond imagination; and it had no more than the wits of a sheep. The more I looked at it the clumsier it seemed, until at last I put the monster out of its misery. These animals without courage, these fear-haunted, pain-driven things, without a spark of pugnacious energy to face torment,—they are no good for man-making.     30

  “Then I took a gorilla I had; and upon that, working with infinite care and mastering difficulty after difficulty, I made my first man. All the week, night and day, I moulded him. With him it was chiefly the brain that needed moulding; much had to be added, much changed. I thought him a fair specimen of the negroid type when I had finished him, and he lay bandaged, bound, and motionless before me. It was only when his life was assured that I left him and came into this room again, and found Montgomery much as you are. He had heard some of the cries as the thing grew human,—cries like those that disturbed you so. I didn’t take him completely into my confidence at first. And the Kanakas too, had realised something of it. They were scared out of their wits by the sight of me. I got Montgomery over to me—in a way; but I and he had the hardest job to prevent the Kanakas deserting. Finally they did; and so we lost the yacht. I spent many days educating the brute,—altogether I had him for three or four months. I taught him the rudiments of English; gave him ideas of counting; even made the thing read the alphabet. But at that he was slow, though I’ve met with idiots slower. He began with a clean sheet, mentally; had no memories left in his mind of what he had been. When his scars were quite healed, and he was no longer anything but painful and stiff, and able to converse a little, I took him yonder and introduced him to the Kanakas as an interesting stowaway.     31

  “They were horribly afraid of him at first, somehow,—which offended me rather, for I was conceited about him; but his ways seemed so mild, and he was so abject, that after a time they received him and took his education in hand. He was quick to learn, very imitative and adaptive, and built himself a hovel rather better, it seemed to me, than their own shanties. There was one among the boys a bit of a missionary, and he taught the thing to read, or at least to pick out letters, and gave him some rudimentary ideas of morality; but it seems the beast’s habits were not all that is desirable.

[...]

  “So for twenty years altogether—counting nine years in England—I have been going on; and there is still something in everything I do that defeats me, makes me dissatisfied, challenges me to further effort. Sometimes I rise above my level, sometimes I fall below it; but always I fall short of the things I dream. The human shape I can get now, almost with ease, so that it is lithe and graceful, or thick and strong; but often there is trouble with the hands and the claws,—painful things, that I dare not shape too freely. But it is in the subtle grafting and reshaping one must needs do to the brain that my trouble lies. The intelligence is often oddly low, with unaccountable blank ends, unexpected gaps. And least satisfactory of all is something that I cannot touch, somewhere—I cannot determine where—in the seat of the emotions. Cravings, instincts, desires that harm humanity, a strange hidden reservoir to burst forth suddenly and inundate the whole being of the creature with anger, hate, or fear. These creatures of mine seemed strange and uncanny to you so soon as you began to observe them; but to me, just after I make them, they seem to be indisputably human beings. It’s afterwards, as I observe them, that the persuasion fades. First one animal trait, then another, creeps to the surface and stares out at me. But I will conquer yet! Each time I dip a living creature into the bath of burning pain, I say, ‘This time I will burn out all the animal; this time I will make a rational creature of my own!’ After all, what is ten years? Men have been a hundred thousand in the making.” He thought darkly. “But I am drawing near the fastness. This puma of mine—” After a silence,

“And they revert. As soon as my hand is taken from them the beast begins to creep back, begins to assert itself again.”

Another long silence.     41

  “Then you take the things you make into those dens?” said I.     42

  “They go. I turn them out when I begin to feel the beast in them, and presently they wander there. They all dread this house and me. There is a kind of travesty of humanity over there. Montgomery knows about it, for he interferes in their affairs. He has trained one or two of them to our service. He’s ashamed of it, but I believe he half likes some of those beasts. It’s his business, not mine. They only sicken me with a sense of failure. I take no interest in them. I fancy they follow in the lines the Kanaka missionary marked out, and have a kind of mockery of a rational life, poor beasts! There’s something they call the Law. Sing hymns about ‘all thine.’ They build themselves their dens, gather fruit, and pull herbs—marry even. But I can see through it all, see into their very souls, and see there nothing but the souls of beasts, beasts that perish, anger and the lusts to live and gratify themselves.—Yet they’re odd; complex, like everything else alive. There is a kind of upward striving in them, part vanity, part waste sexual emotion, part waste curiosity. It only mocks me. I have some hope of this puma. I have worked hard at her head and brain—“And now,” said he, standing up after a long gap of silence, during which we had each pursued our own thoughts, “what do you think? Are you in fear of me still?”     43



Nothing has stopped their plan to eradicate the "animal" in humans.

He is describing a sheep or guerilla, but could this really be a way of hiding a practice by the elites that was exposed 40 years later? The exact type of experiments were done on humans by Dr. Mengele and then the same paperclipped Nazi scientists did it in the US with MK Ultra. Dr. Mengele's patients react to Dr. Mengele just as the animals did to Dr. Moreau with the pain, the fright, the obedience and even the twisted and conditioned sense of "slave love" based on trauma based mind control. Cathy O'Brien and many others have described this precise method of perfecting the super human slave to the elites. The documented project was called "MONARCH" for goodness sake.

Was Mengele just following a secret method of eugenic mind control practiced for over 50 years that Wells was allowed to observe and then begin the conditioning for? No matter if it was 110 years ago, 80 years ago, 50 years ago, or now... These actions are blatant crimes against humanity on its face and these "Dr. Moreau's" that saturate our ramp up to a scientific technocracy must be exposed for the sadistic psychopaths they readily admit they are.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/08/mind-reading-systems-change-air-security/

Mind-Reading Systems Could Change Air Security

Published January 08, 2010
AP


AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari

Security experts have floated several new ideas to enhance airport security in the weeks since authorities say a Nigerian man on a Detroit-bound jetliner tried to ignite explosives hidden in his crotch. Some ideas are being tested, others are far from proven, some aren't being seriously considered. Many raise questions about civil liberties and all are costly.

CHICAGO — A would-be terrorist tries to board a plane, bent on mass murder. As he walks through a security checkpoint, fidgeting and glancing around, a network of high-tech machines analyzes his body language and reads his mind.  Screeners pull him aside.  Tragedy is averted.  As far-fetched as that sounds, systems that aim to get inside an evildoer's head are among the proposals floated by security experts thinking beyond the X-ray machines and metal detectors used on millions of passengers and bags each year.

On Thursday, in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit, President Barack Obama called on Homeland Security and the Energy Department to develop better screening technology, warning: "In the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary."  The ideas that have been offered by security experts for staying one step ahead include highly sophisticated sensors, more intensive interrogations of travelers by screeners trained in human behavior, and a lifting of the U.S. prohibitions against profiling.  Some of the more unusual ideas are already being tested. Some aren't being given any serious consideration. Many raise troubling questions about civil liberties. All are costly.

"Regulators need to accept that the current approach is outdated," said Philip Baum, editor of the London-based magazine Aviation Security International. "It may have responded to the threats of the 1960s, but it doesn't respond to the threats of the 21st century."  Here's a look at some of the ideas that could shape the future of airline security:

MIND READERS

The aim of one company that blends high technology and behavioral psychology is hinted at in its name, WeCU -- as in "We See You."  The system that Israeli-based WeCU Technologies has devised and is testing in Israel projects images onto airport screens, such as symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image only a would-be terrorist would recognize, company CEO Ehud Givon said.  The logic is that people can't help reacting, even if only subtly, to familiar images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places. If you strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your mother, Givon explained, you couldn't help but respond.

The reaction could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a nervous twitch or faster breathing, he said.  The WeCU system would use humans to do some of the observing but would rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise in body temperature and heart rate. Far more sensitive devices under development that can take such measurements from a distance would be incorporated later.  If the sensors picked up a suspicious reaction, the traveler could be pulled out of line for further screening.  "One by one, you can screen out from the flow of people those with specific malicious intent," Givon said.

Some critics have expressed horror at the approach, calling it Orwellian and akin to "brain fingerprinting."  For civil libertarians, attempting to read a person's thoughts comes uncomfortably close to the future world depicted in the movie "Minority Report," where a policeman played by Tom Cruise targets people for "pre-crimes," or merely thinking about breaking the law.

LIE DETECTORS

One system being studied by Homeland Security is called the Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, and works like a souped-up polygraph.  It would subject people pulled aside for additional screening to a battery of tests, including scans of facial movements and pupil dilation, for signs of deception. Small platforms similar to the balancing boards used in the Nintendo Wii would help detect fidgeting.  At a public demonstration of the system in Boston last year, project manager Robert Burns explained that people who harbor ill will display involuntary physiological reactions that others -- such as those who are stressed out for ordinary reasons, such as being late for a plane -- don't.

The system could be made to work passively, scanning people as they walk through a security line, according to Burns.  Field testing of the system, which will cost around $20 million to develop, could begin in 2011, The Boston Globe said in a story about the demonstration. Addressing one concern of civil libertarians, Burns said the technology would delete data after each screening.

THE ISRAELI MODEL

Some say the U.S. should take a page from Israel's book on security.  At Israeli airports, widely considered the most secure in the world, travelers are subjected to probing personal questions as screeners look them straight in the eye for signs of deception. Searches are meticulous, with screeners often scrutinizing every item in a bag, unfolding socks, squeezing toothpaste and flipping through books.  "All must look to Israel and learn from them. This is not a post-911 thing for them. They've been doing this since 1956," said Michael Goldberg, president of New York-based IDO Security Inc., which developed a device that can scan shoes for hidden weapons while they are still on people's feet.

Israel also employs profiling: At Ben-Gurion Airport, Jewish Israelis typically pass through smoothly, while others may be taken aside for closer interrogation or even strip searches. Another distinquishing feature of Israeli airports is that they rely on concentric security rings that start miles from terminal buildings.  Rafi Ron, the former security director at Israel's famously tight Ben Gurion International Airport who now is a consultant for Boston's Logan International Airport, says U.S. airports also need to be careful not to overcommit to securing passenger entry points at airports, forgetting about the rest of the field.

"Don't invest all your efforts on the front door and leave the back door open," Ron said.  While many experts agree the United States could adopt some Israeli methods, few believe the overall model would work here, in part because of the sheer number of large U.S. airports -- around 400, versus half a dozen in Israel.  Also, the painstaking searches and interrogations would create delays that could bring U.S. air traffic to a standstill. And many Americans would find the often intrusive and intimidating Israeli approach repugnant.

PROFILING

Some argue that policies against profiling undermine security.  Baum, who is also managing director of Green Light Limited, a London-based aviation security company, agrees profiling based on race and religion is counterproductive and should be avoided. But he argues that a reluctance to distinguish travelers on other grounds -- such as their general appearance or their mannerisms -- is not only foolhardy but dangerous.

"When you see a typical family -- dressed like a family, acts like a family, interacts with each other like a family ... when their passport details match -- then let's get them through," he said. "Stop wasting time that would be much better spent screening the people that we've got more concerns about."  U.S. authorities prohibit profiling of passengers based on ethnicity, religion or national origin. Current procedures call for travelers to be randomly pulled out of line for further screening.

Scrutinizing 80-year-old grandmothers or students because they might be carrying school scissors can defy common sense, Baum said.  "We need to use the human brain -- which is the best technology of them all," he said.  But any move to relax prohibitions against profiling in the U.S. would surely trigger fierce resistance, including legal challenges by privacy advocates.

PRIVATIZATION

What if security were left to somebody other than the federal government?  Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Washington-based Cato Institute, a free-market-oriented think tank, says airlines should be allowed take charge of security at airports.  Especially since 9/11, the trend has been toward standardizing security procedures to ensure all airports follow the best practices. But Harper argues that decentralizing the responsibility would result in a mix of approaches -- thereby making it harder for terrorists to use a single template in planning attacks.

"Passengers, too, prefer a uniform experience," he said. "But that's not necessarily the best security. It's better if sometimes we take your laptop out, sometimes we'll pat you down. Those are things that will really drive a terrorist batty -- as if they're not batty already."  Harper concedes that privatizing airport security is probably wishful thinking, and the idea has not gotten any traction. He acknowledges it would be difficult to allay fears of gaping security holes if it were left to each airline or airport owner to decide its own approach.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
You cannot make this up.  Just as all the pathetic slave sheep are cheer-leading the 21st century version of Caligula attacking papyrus to "prove" that he had conquered Britain with the Bin Laden psyop, the military industrial complex is using this massive distraction and mass cognitive mesermerization that we finally "got the guy who hated and attacked us for our freedoms"--the real terrorists, like Committee of 300 organization, DARPA--are steamrolling out technology that 1.5 million Iraqi's were murdered for to advance.  THis IS the Revolution in Military Affairs--now evolving into what you could call The Revolution in Civilian Affairs.  This IS Brzezinski's "Between Two Ages" modern cybernetic dictatorship that is literally going to have the effect of building a prison camp around the entire US, and the world.

A dictatorship not managed by humans ultimately, but one in which the technological implements of the most vicious tyranny the US will have ever seen, to be enforced by artificial intelligence, autonomous systems which will mete out punishment to anyone who violates the slave camp rules of the Committee of 300.  DARPA has hereby declared the 4th amendment 100% null and void, and the Constitution be damned to hell.


http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2384968,00.asp



May 5, 2011  -By Evan Dashevsky
DARPA's Automated Video Surveillance Will End Public Anonymity


To be in public is to be on camera, but most video footage is discarded, as only so much can be sorted and analyzed -- until now. DARPA has created a technology that can index and analyze video in real-time, marking the end of anonymity in public places.

In 2008, DARPA, the US military's elite group of pocket protector warriors, began soliciting the tech industry to develop technologies that would allow computers to sort through and index surveillance footage from the military's fleet of drones, satellites, and miscellaneous other super secret spy cameras. This was all part of the Agency's proposed Video Image Retrieval and Analysis Tool (VIRAT) that would be able to describe specific human activities in real-time. This automated index would allow for searchable queries (i.e. "how often did an adult male taller than six-foot get in a car in the early morning between November 1st and December 22nd in this compound in Abbottabad?") or flag behavior such as when someone carries a large package towards a car on the side of a road in Basra, but walked away empty handed.

And it appears that DARPA has had some success to this end. Earlier this week, the military released a mandated contract announcement describing how the VIRAT system will be deployed into various military-intelligence video archives and systems. The contract will be fulfilled by Lockheed Martin for an unspecified amount. We haven't been given any detailed information on how this new technology works or how accurate it is, only that a belt-tightening defense industry is willing to invest in it.

The military has an inherent interest in transferring surveillance duties from human eyeballs to an algorithm that can't be swayed by political pressure. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, human analysts famously misread surveillance footage as proof of Iraqi WMDs. (The problem with relying on flawed human analysis in order to support policy was described in depth in Malcolm Gladwell's essay collection What The Dog Saw). The military already has the tools to capture a torrent of information (and as the truism goes the wars of the future will be won and lost with intelligence) but now it is developing the means to sort through it.

As with many DARPA projects, the technology will eventually filter down into commercial industry and then finally to consumers. If the tech works as promised, we could start to see it implemented in domestic surveillance programs. Much of the Western world has willingly traded privacy for the security of ubiquitous surveillance. Most riders on public transportation feel safer knowing that they are surrounded by cameras that are plugged in directly to some control room. Of course, a dedicated team of human observers could never effectively monitor all those screens covering an entire system, but with this new automated tech, authorities might be alerted to, say, someone walking into the subway wearing a bulky coat in early July. Additional facial-recognition software might compare this individual's face to specific watch lists. Whether this Big Brotherly oversight makes you feel more or less safe is entirely up to you.

Beyond surveillance, this automatic video tech could make all uploaded video searchable, regardless of tags or descriptors. As pocket-sized cell phones surpass the video technology of the camcorders of previous decades, we will all be captured on video and placed on the web on a regular basis. In the not-so-distant future, it may be possible for someone (your friends, potential employers, whatever) to Google your name and find -- in addition to your Tumblr page and that photo of you in your Halloween costume your girlfriend posted on Facebook -- some incidental footage of you at that political protest from last summer that some stranger uploaded to YouTube.

Anything that happens in public will be public record.



Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
bump

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: DARPAS's Video Image Retrieval and Analysis Tool (VIRAT) = Nazi Genocide
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2011, 02:42:21 AM »
Smart Mob Bump!

Every Smart Mob has 5,000 levels of surveillance on it, they are actually manufactured by these Jason Study Group risidual excrement!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
has everyone read this f**king shit yet?

this explains every single segment on the BS MSM and the entire fake war on terror, the entire Rockefeller education system, and a whole bunch of other shit.

This is in direct violation of the constitution, the rights of man, nature's law, god's law and humanity in general.


THIS IS ENEMY TO HUMANITY, HOW CAN IT BE DEBUNKED?

BUMP

(Squarepusher's deep analysis on this is of paramount importance to read and learn in this thread.)

Offline kamkaran

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
I've read it all and it was something very interesting.well done. :) :) :)
Graduated from Soran   University with First Class Degree with Honours in Computer Science.