Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline…

When I was young, we heard over and over again that America was on its way to going down the path of all great empires, like Rome, and the degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline.   Star Parker and Rush Limbaugh addressed two aspects of our journey down that road and a look at what needs to be done to turn America around.

Reprogramming our destructive culture

Star Parker, author of Uncle Sam's Plantation touts pregnancy centers that actually give women a 'choice'

With the convictions in in the case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell – three counts of murdering live babies and one count of involuntary manslaughter – abortion is back in the national discussion.

It’s pretty clear from the Grand Jury report that, during Gosnell’s 30-plus-year career, he likely murdered hundreds if not thousands of babies. But because of the difficulty in documenting it all, he was just convicted of three.

Reports now are coming in from around the nation indicating that more Gosnells are out there.

The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or over-regulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.

We also hear that we get Gosnells when government refuses to pay for the abortions of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, they say, which prohibits Medicaid compensation for abortion, makes unsafe abortion inevitable.

Poor women, according to this reasoning, desperate because of an unwanted pregnancy, pressed because regulations and costs make abortion difficult to get, turn to sleazebag doctors, who will do it cheaply, with no regard for the woman, the law, or safety.

But it is ironic that those who call themselves “pro-choice” argue that the only alternatives facing low-income women are unsafe abortions done by sleazebags or government-subsidized abortions.

There is another choice, but those who call themselves “pro-choice” don’t want women, particularly poor women, to consider this option.

This option is called birth.

When conservatives talk about a culture of responsibility, we’re not just talking about the personal responsibility of the individual in trouble. We’re talking about the personal responsibility of the rest of us toward that individual.

There are now thousands of crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide. Over 2,000 are affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. I maintain a regular active speaking schedule for and consult with these centers.

They work with pregnant women in trouble and provide them the services they need to have their child. They provide ultrasound, parental counseling, life management counseling, help with the physical needs of the mother and child, and, if need be, help with adoption services.

Unwanted pregnancies often are the result of loneliness, fear and lack of information. Crisis pregnancy centers deal with all this.

The left, so called “pro-choice” activists, have an interesting concept of a culture of responsibility. That is to promote a culture that detaches sex from love and responsibility, that minimizes the central importance of family, that justifies youth sex, promiscuity and the “hook-up” culture. In short, a culture that encourages people to relate to each other in the same callous way as it encourages women to relate to the unborn children that often result from it all.

Then they want taxpayers, other people, to foot the bill.

Is it any wonder we live in a country in which we are drowning in debt that’s the direct result of this culture of entitlement?

Planned Parenthood, which rakes in hundreds of millions in the abortion business, actively discourages women from going to crisis pregnancy centers.

On the Planned Parenthood website, they call these centers “fake clinics … that have a history of giving women wrong and biased information.”

These crisis pregnancy centers are financed and run by committed Christian Americans where often women, for the first time in their lives, experience love and meaning.

The information they get, that Planned Parenthood calls “wrong and biased,” is that life should be chosen over death and that responsibility is a community affair.

It is not a given that we must live in a country of promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies and abortion. We do have choice.

We can reprogram the destructive culture we have created and in which we now live.

Rush Limbaugh ran the following segment on his radio show this week: Social Media, the Hookup Culture -- and the Insidious Quest for Fame

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: As you know, ladies and gentlemen, I constantly use the phrase "on the cutting edge of societal evolution." One of the things I mean by that is that if you are a regular listener to this program, in many cases, you will hear things discussed long before they reach the mainstream, long before they reach the popular culture. One of those areas that I have been -- I don't know if "warning" is correct, but at least I've been -- highlighting, is the phenomenon of social media.

One of the things that always bothered me about it was the pop culture's temptations. People, young kids are desperately wanting fame, doing anything they can to get noticed or to become famous, thinking that it's glamorous, that it's fun, that it will make them rich. It has, in fact, given rise to all kinds of gossip networks, television newspaper columns, you name it. Even though gossip's been around for a long time, it's now become mainstream.

Entertainment programs, starting actually with Entertainment Tonight and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, were programs that created an impression that if you became famous, that the world was your oyster. Everybody wants to be noticed and everybody wants their life to matter, and everybody wants to be cool, and everybody wants to be hip. So with the advent of social networks on computers and mobile devices, it became possible for young people to start connecting in any which way they wanted to.

It was a phenomenon I noticed many years ago. Young people were just giving up every bit of information about themselves they could. They were violating their own privacy, seeking fame, wanting everybody to know everything about them, publishing nude photos of themselves, lewd photos, you name it. As one that's concerned about the overall culture, I happen to believe that a society's culture is a harbinger of what kind of country you're going to be.

Now, I've always had to avoid and be cognizant of the fact that as people grow older and then look at other generations, they think, "Oh, my God, this is horrible! It has never been this bad, this raunchy, this debauched. The country's finished." You have to avoid that because every generation looking at young people thinks that. So you have to be constantly vigilant that you don't become an old fuddy-duddy when looking at these things. At the same time, you have to be honest about it.

I really am governed here by love as I do this show each and every day. When I say these things, I mean them. I want a great country. I want people happy. This has got to be a great country if we are to continue to provide the opportunity, both economic and spiritual, for freedom that this country has always provided, more so than any other country ever. A great country is only as great as its people, and at some point people have to get serious.

At some point when they grow older and mature, they have to get serious, and certain things have to be revered, including certain cultural things. There have to be "guardrails," to borrow a term that I once saw on a Wall Street Journal editorial about just out-of-control pop culture. Morality, the sense of right and wrong, personal responsibility, all of those things are fundamental. Who teaches that? The schools are not.

Social media is, of course, obliterating those concepts. It's just exact opposite. The role is more important now than ever, and it's really up to parents. If you happen to believe, for example, that the culture is out of control, and if you would phrase it in a way to say, "The genie is out of the bottle," how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You don't. You never can put the genie back in the bottle.

But what you can do is start anew with a certain generation and try to raise them/educate them in ways that send them in different directions than the temptations that exist now. And they're always there. I don't want to be misunderstood. This kind of thing has gone on as long as the country has. But, however, there are factors now that exist that didn't. I've always been... Without being able to put my finger on it, I've been worried about what is going to happen to people who just dive head first into this anything-goes, no-judgment culture where there is no more privacy.

There is no concern for it, and people just want everybody to know everything about them every minute of the day -- what they're doing, what they're thinking, where they're going, when they got there, how long they're gonna be there, when they're leaving. There are apps for such things for people's mobile devices, and one of the things that has been around for a while (I first heard of it way back in the nineties) was the notion of "hooking up," something that scared particularly mothers like crazy.

It's just the notion of having meaningless sex -- and not even for the sex, not even for the enjoyment. It's just to say you've done it, just to be able to brag about it and so forth and taking meaning out of it. These kinds of things take place when you're young, and as you get older and grow up, everybody looks back on things when they were younger. Some people get embarrassed. Some say, "Gee, I wish that didn't happen. I wish nobody knew that." That's gonna be tougher and tougher for people to pull off. Because as young kids get exposed to all the social media, they're telling everybody everything they're doing.

I mean, we're getting to the point now where I think it's gonna be common that candidates for political office will have posted nude photos of themselves (or worse) on social websites. The first known example of that that I can recall is a woman that's now a cohostette on MSNBC. Her Name Is Krystal Ball. She may not be the first but she's the one that comes to mind. She ran for office. She lost, but there are nude photos (sic) of her that she had posted. Her opponent decided to use them and she was outraged that such things would be used.

Anthony Weiner --- who, by the way, is gonna run for office again. He's gonna run for mayor of New York, and you ought to see the New York Post. Their Web app, if you have an iPad and you get the New York Post... This is not on their website, and I don't know that it's in the newspaper. I don't read newspapers. It may be in the printed edition, but I know it's in the iPad version. There's a column by Andrea Peyser on Weiner, who is the husband of Huma Weiner. Hillary's Huma.

She just rakes him over the coals as most everybody's doing, and then there's a sidebar called "the Twitterati Response," and it's people on Twitter issuing comments about the potential reemergence of Weiner. It's hilarious, some of these comments. I didn't print it out. I'll do it; I'll share some of it with you. Well, the reception is all across the gamut. He's getting a warm reception in some places. Everybody's happy. "Weiner's rising again!" All the typical things.

But the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, is lamenting, "Oh, my God! Woe is us if this guy wins. Oh, it's our bad if this guy wins." Why is he saying that? Anthony Weiner is a perfect liberal. Anthony Weiner is an ideal liberal. He's a combative liberal. He will take conservatives to the back alley and beat 'em up every day. If he hadn't posted the nude photos of himself and his member to the babes, he'd be right in there. He'd be on the ladder cruising to the top of liberalism.

But why do they care? This is the kind of thing that normally launches liberals to great heights. This kind of embarrassment or failure is a resume enhancement for these people. But it isn't, you see? This is my point. Even for liberals it isn't. He's gonna have his problem here. Krystal Ball had hers. It's gonna become more and more frequent. Folks, look, I'm not an old fuddy-duddy. It just concerns me, only from the standpoint that you want serious people.

You want at least 5% of the population being serious. That five, 6% of the population carries the rest of the people. You've heard that old axiom: 5% of the people pull the wagon; 95% are in it. You need five or 6% of the population serious about things: Their jobs, their careers, the country, understanding it. You need that. I'm just all for anything that continues to teach that, and cause people to respect it and to revere it. I cringe... I mean, I laugh, too, but I cringe when I see videos of these man-on-the-street interviews that Leno does. People are clueless. They don't know diddly-squat about things.

Anyway, I've gotta take a break here.  I have a couple of sound bites I want to play because this is finally now reached mainstream media.  My point about being on the cutting edge of societal evolution.  I've been warning, talking about this for at least 20 of the 25 years that I've been doing this program here at the EIB Network.  I bring to it a certain experience.  I have lost my anonymity.  I know what it's like to lose your anonymity and I know what it's like to have no privacy.

I know what it's like to not be able to go anywhere and do anything anonymously.  And I'm telling you, when you lose that and you can't get it back, that's a huge regret, and there are a lot of people that want that.  And I don't think it's healthy, and I think it leads to distorted values and distorted decisions that people make about their lives and a number of other things that are not healthy for them and the country the large.  Now, again, do not confuse me with an old fuddy-duddy like my parents who thought the world was coming to an end because the Beatles had long hair.  That's not where I'm coming from here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A minor correction.  And this, by the way, feeds into my point.  I got it wrong about Krystal Ball.  She did not pose nude.  The Krystal Ball photos were not nude.  The photos depicted her doing sexually suggestive things at a party.  Well, my memory was that the controversy was over nude photos.  This is how things get wrong or made wrong, and then amplified as wrong and then, "No, no, it wasn't a nude photo, gosh, can't anybody get it right?" You people that want all this fame, get used to everybody being wrong about you.

At any rate, just a correction here.  They were not nude photos of Krystal Ball on her website, for her blog, whatever it was.  They were just photos of her doing sexually suggestive things.  I have no idea if they're still online.  Literally no idea.  You know what?  I'm not interested.  This is my point.  What, are you sitting in there all excited now to find the pictures?  Well, I'm not the least bit inspired to go try find them.

At any rate, this morning on Fox Martha MacCallum had a guest who has written a book about this phenomenon called hooking up, and the guest was Donna Freitas.  And I think that's how she pronounces the name.  Her book is: "The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy." And Martha MacCallum said, "Where do we go from here?  How does this affect, or does it affect these kids' relationships as they go through life?"

FREITAS:  One of the things that I think we really need to talk about as a culture is what is the meaning of sex, given hookup culture.  You showed those words that students will use, "regretful" and "empty" and "ashamed," you know, that 41% of students, you know, and how they respond to hooking up.  But there's another middle group, about 30% of students, who are really ambivalent.  And I think that group is getting bigger because I think students are getting much better at hooking up, which means they're getting better at having ambivalent sex.  The sex isn't about fun or even really about pleasure.  It's about getting it done and being able to say that you did it.

RUSH:  That's right.  And that last part is the key.  What are you frowning at?  Snerdley said, "So what? What's wrong with this, people having sex, who in the world could be upset with that?"  Is that what you're saying?  Well, she went out there and she did surveys of these students.  She talked to the students, I guess. (interruption) Well, I don't know, she did a book on it, Snerdley. She talked to the students and the students told her, and that's what she based her book on.  Any, here's what Martha MacCallum said in response it.

MACCALLUM:  That's the whole thing, just documenting, 'cause we live in this media culture where it's like, you know, the numbers and just doing something just to say you did it or to take pictures of the event and then put it out there online so you can prove to everybody that you're having a great time.

FREITAS:  They're getting better at hooking up.  You know, when they're better at being able to walk away and say, "You know what, I don't feel a thing. I don't want to see that person again. It didn't really mean anything to me."

RUSH:  Now, this has been going on, this hookup business, for years, folks.  And it is meaningless, and it is just a belt notch.  But you know one of the most dangerous things about all this social media is?  And I think it's gonna be a big challenge for anybody that has to deal with kids and young adults.  It's not just this quest for fame and giving up all the privacy.  Most kids are insecure, it's safe to say.  And when they read all of this social media, what they are really seeing is all the stuff they are not doing.  They see all the stuff other people are doing and they say, "I'm not doing all that," and they're gonna get inferiority complexes over this, which creates its own set of problems.  They're gonna set out trying to fix this.  It's a snowball effect.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I tell you, all this stuff is not good, folks.  Look at what feminism has done for women.  Look what feminism's done for everybody.  It's just confused everybody and made most people miserable.  We got more.  We'll be back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I want to close the loop here on the hooking-up business, but for me it's much more than that. The hooking up is just one characteristic of the phenomenon that's happening. The hooking up business has been going on a long time. Tom Wolfe wrote a nonfiction book called Hooking Up in 2000. He said a lot of kids that are hooking up don't know each other's names. So it's not just this babe that talked to the students, Snerdley. It's Tom Wolfe. Are you gonna tell me Tom Wolfe doesn't know what he's talking about?

I do think that it's a phenomenon. I don't question that it's happening. Look, Bill Clinton didn't ask Monica her name 'til the sixth date. This hooking up can happen. It's happened throughout. I know. The sixties, the free love and the free sex. But look what that begot us. That's my whole point. I mean, we are living some of the trash that happened in the 1960s, and some of those people -- many of them -- assumed office, political office, high power in the Clinton years. It's demonstrably problematic. There's no question that it is.

The disintegrating values? The idea that the IRS, all these institutions can be used to intimidate political foes? That stuff has roots in the sixties. That's actually a very good point about this. But I want to bring it down even more locally than that, and not just tie it to what happens when people end up into politics from this. I'm actually more concerned just about their lives in general. I'm telling you, this willingness that these kids have to just vomit everything about themselves to everybody and give up their privacy, and give up their anonymity...

It's not so much just that; it's why they're doing it. This quest for fame, I'm telling you, it is insidious to me. It's copycats. You know, fame by itself is how you get Kardashian. Now, people who become famous after having done something -- a major achievement, major accomplishment -- that's one thing. But fame for its sake is a pursuit that is empty, and it's endless, and it's never satisfying. But the big problem with all of this social media in addition to the obvious, and I think one of the most dangerous things about it...

Look, I don't have kids, but I've got nephews and nieces. More than that, I really do care. All of this concern for me is about country. When I tell you that I want a great country, I mean I want self-reliant, rugged individuals taking care of themselves and their families. That's how you get Norman Rockwell communities and neighborhoods and towns. That's how you get decency and respect and a common, valuable culture. I think that you have that crucially important.

Yeah, it may sound old-fashioned and it may sound like I want to go back to the fifties and the Donna Reed shows. No, no. That's not what I'm talking about. The stuff I'm talking about is timeless, and these characteristics are the things that used to be commonly taught. Honor, valor, honesty, integrity. That's all I'm talking about. It's things like this that people laugh at today, but people are just willingly abandoning any hope, any chance of having those characteristics about themselves.

The debasement of the language is part of that; you see that now in prime time TV. The debasement of the language is happening really quickly. Taken in isolated chunks it isn't any big deal. But the cumulative, year-after-year impact of this is not good for the country. That's always been my concern. It's my concern with politics: Its effect on the country and the people. The people of the country are what matter to me. Having the continued opportunity to do what they want, to fulfill their dreams.

Have the desires and dreams be things of importance and substance, rather than fleeting, fly-by-night things that really don't offer any substantive satisfaction. It's a real change for parents today, I would think. I'd think it would be a real challenge, especially for parents of young girls. I just think it would be an absolute nightmare out there today, constant concern, worry. You start talking about hooking up stuff, just one thing. But the biggest danger, I think -- or one of the most dangerous things -- about all this is not just this quest for fame and the giving up of all privacy.

Add to this that most kids are insecure, and then add another human characteristic, and it is this: The grass always looks greener. Everybody. I don't care who you are, you always think everybody else is happier. Everybody else is more normal. Everybody else doesn't have the problems you do. It's just a natural thing to think. A lot of people think this way. And when you start reading social media or watching television shows and you see depictions of people in certain ways, and you know that that doesn't in any way depict you?

Then what does that make you feel like if you're not emotionally secure? I think that all the social media just adds to this. You add up this natural insecurity that everybody has, particularly amplified in kids, and this idea that the grass is always greener and that somebody else's life -- everybody else's life -- is more fulfilling and better than yours or whatever. It's just a fact of life for most people. When young kids read all of this social media... There's tons and oodles of it out there.

When they read all this stuff and they see all the stuff they're not doing... My dad used to tell it to me this way. He said, "Son, all your friends bragging to you about all the things they're doing are lying to you. All they're doing is telling you the things they wish they were doing, and they're just trying to impress you," and that's social media. How many people are lying about where they are every night going to these clubs or whatever it is they're doing that they think is fun.

You've got these kids sitting at home not do all this stuff, reading about it -- and, man, all they're seeing is things that they're not doing. Compared to everybody else who seems to be really having a ball out there. "Gosh, my life is boring at hell! Look what all these people are doing!" What's it gonna make 'em want to do? Kids lie about their social achievements like everybody else lies about their social achievements: To impress everybody.

You've got this wild collection of insecurity and kids reading all this. In addition to the complex they could develop, because they think they're missing out on all this cool stuff, that creates its own set of problems. Either depression or a madcap desire to catch up and experience all these things that they think are cool, that people really aren't doing but they think they are. Now, none of this is new in a psychological sense. I'm not saying any of this is new and hasn't been the case before, but the sheer volume of all this stuff that they can expose themselves to could be overwhelming.

I've always had a bad feeling about it.

I don't even have any kids, but I've always had a bad feeling about it, knowing in my own limited way what losing your anonymity means, what it really means, and whole business of fame. Nothing is ever what you really think it is. When you're young -- when you're any age -- and you're imagining a promotion at the job or you're imagining new place to live or whatever? When you finally get there, it's never really entirely what you think it is. There are always things about it you didn't consider. It's just... I don't know. It's a problem for parents, and I think it just becoming more and more intensified.

In fact, I have call. Let me grab a call on this. This is Jeff in Goshen, New York. Hi, Jeff. I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks so much for having me on.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I heard your comments on social media, and I had to call in. You hit the nail on the head. These kids have no idea what they're giving up in way of their privacy when you put this stuff out there. I'm actually the director of the IT department for a manufacturing group. So I've done a... I thought I did a good job at educating my kids. I have four kids: Two girls, two boys. The girls being the oldest. One's a teenager, and she dabbled in social media.

She kinda went around my back a little bit to dabble in it, and when I found out, I showed her with just her e-mail address all the information I can pull up -- on her Vines account, her Instagram, her Ask.fm -- and I said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it." These days kids don't know what they're giving up, and I think what's worse is the parents don't know what their kids are doing or what their kids are giving up. And we're doing a terrible job in the schools. They're not educating kids.

RUSH:  Well, that's another aspect because the kids are so far ahead of parents on what you can do online.  Parents have no concept.

CALLER:  No.  And Facebook, I know a lot of the teenage kids today, they don't want Facebook 'cause mom and dad are on it.  So they're finding other things, and my only advice to parents is, "Know what your kids are doing. Talk to them about it."  You know, I use the stuff.  I like social media for its positive aspects.  But Rush, you and I know, you can take the best tool in the world that's made for good purposes, and turn it for evil things.  And that's what happens with the social media sites.

RUSH:  That's a good point.  I'm not preaching.  I don't want anybody to think I'm preaching, and I don't want anybody inferring that I think this stuff should be shut down.  Far from it.  That's not at all a possible solution, not even something I contemplate.  It's a reality that has to be dealt with.  You're right, it's a challenge for parents in raising kids.  It just gets harder and harder to do.  There are just more and more distractions. More temptations, and do what you can to provide a solid moral foundation.  And after a certain point, you're done. There's not much you can do, and then, it's true, people have to live. They have to live their lives. They have to make mistakes to learn from 'em, and you hope that the foundation you gave 'em is sufficient that when they do screw up, have embarrassing things happen or whatever, that there is a foundation from which they can learn from it and not repeat it.  Anyway, Jeff, I appreciate the call.  I really do.

When we come back, folks, I just wanted to get into this because it's finally reached the pinnacle here of the pop culture, the mainstream culture, talking about this, and you've been on the cutting edge. We've been talking about this for many, many moons now.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related:

You Cannot Honor What You Don’t Know Or Miss

Americans 'snapping' by the millions

FOXNews: 'Shame on Us': New York Gov. Cuomo Rips Anthony Weiner Comeback Bid

FOXNews: The "Hook-Up Culture": Dates Are Dead, Sex Is Alive?

Weekly Standard: Weiner: More Lewd Photos Might Come Out

New York Post: Anthony Weiner Hides from the Tough Questions and Serves Up Pizza for Reporters

Impeachment: Rush is wrong this time

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

The Internet is a Surveillance State

Brandontward - h/t to Joe Miller

I'm going to start with three data points.

One: Some of the Chinese military hackers who were implicated in a broad set of attacks against the U.S. government and corporations were identified because they accessed Facebook from the same network infrastructure they used to carry out their attacks.

Two: Hector Monsegur, one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement, was identified and arrested last year by the FBI. Although he practiced good computer security and used an anonymous relay service to protect his identity, he slipped up.

And three: Paula Broadwell,who had an affair with CIA director David Petraeus, similarly took extensive precautions to hide her identity. She never logged in to her anonymous e-mail service from her home network. Instead, she used hotel and other public networks when she e-mailed him. The FBI correlated hotel registration data from several different hotels -- and hers was the common name.

The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period.

Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us. Unmasking Broadwell's identity involved correlating her Internet activity with her hotel stays. Everything we do now involves computers, and computers produce data as a natural by-product. Everything is now being saved and correlated, and many big-data companies make money by building up intimate profiles of our lives from a variety of sources.

Facebook, for example, correlates your online behavior with your purchasing habits offline. And there's more. There's location data from your cell phone, there's a record of your movements from closed-circuit TVs.

This is ubiquitous surveillance: All of us being watched, all the time, and that data being stored forever. This is what a surveillance state looks like, and it's efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell.

Sure, we can take measures to prevent this. We can limit what we search on Google from our iPhones, and instead use computer web browsers that allow us to delete cookies. We can use an alias on Facebook. We can turn our cell phones off and spend cash. But increasingly, none of it matters.

There are simply too many ways to be tracked. The Internet, e-mail, cell phones, web browsers, social networking sites, search engines: these have become necessities, and it's fanciful to expect people to simply refuse to use them just because they don't like the spying, especially since the full extent of such spying is deliberately hidden from us and there are few alternatives being marketed by companies that don't spy.

This isn't something the free market can fix. We consumers have no choice in the matter. All the major companies that provide us with Internet services are interested in tracking us. Visit a website and it will almost certainly know who you are; there are lots of ways to be tracked without cookies.

Cellphone companies routinely undo the web's privacy protection. One experiment at Carnegie Mellon took real-time videos of students on campus and was able to identify one-third of them by comparing their photos with publicly available tagged Facebook photos.

Maintaining privacy on the Internet is nearly impossible. If you forget even once to enable your protections, or click on the wrong link, or type the wrong thing, and you've permanently attached your name to whatever anonymous service you're using. Monsegur slipped up once, and the FBI got him. If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope.

In today's world, governments and corporations are working together to keep things that way.

Governments are happy to use the data corporations collect -- occasionally demanding that they collect more and save it longer -- to spy on us. And corporations are happy to buy data from governments. Together the powerful spy on the powerless, and they're not going to give up their positions of power, despite what the people want.

Fixing this requires strong government will, but they're just as punch-drunk on data as the corporations. Slap-on-the-wrist fines notwithstanding, no one is agitating for better privacy laws.

So, we're done. Welcome to a world where Google knows exactly what sort of porn you all like, and more about your interests than your spouse does. Welcome to a world where your cell phone company knows exactly where you are all the time. Welcome to the end of private conversations, because increasingly your conversations are conducted by e-mail, text, or social networking sites.

And welcome to a world where all of this, and everything else that you do or is done on a computer, is saved, correlated, studied, passed around from company to company without your knowledge or consent; and where the government accesses it at will without a warrant.

Welcome to an Internet without privacy, and we've ended up here with hardly a fight. - CNN

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Here’s How You Can Browse the Web Without Being Tracked

How to Search the Web in Private Mode Without Being Tracked

The Blaze:

Most everyone already knows when you search for things on the Web, advertisers are picking up on that and quickly turning data around into marketing to attract you. As soon you search “sterling silver necklace” for mom’s birthday, lo and behold, the next website you go to — completely unrelated to the necklace — has ads from Overstock.com featuring none other than potential necklaces you may be interested in.

This may or may not bother you, but as CNET points out, there are times when you may not want more, shall we say, sensitive searches resulting in ads. The tech blog was recently asked ”How does one browse sensitive subjects without being tracked via cookies?”

It is possible. CNET describes this as “private mode,” which is available on most Web browsers:

But even this won’t completely stop ads. According to CNET, there are further “do not track” measures that can be used, including Abine’s Do Not Track browser add-on and AVG’s Do Not Track, which lets you customize what you’re blocking.

Hot Spot Shield hides IP addresses, which can be used to associate data with other information a particular website may already know about you, even if cookies have been disabled. IP addresses are often what Internet service providers are asked for by law enforcement for investigations.

For those who are what CNET calls “hard core,” there is Tor Project, which offers completely anonymous browsing over encrypted channels. This, CNET acknowledges, could be a little “overkill” for the average user but you won’t see any ads corresponding with your recent searches here.

Update: A Blaze reader called up another search engine that doesn’t record IP addresses: StartPage. There are many options out there and we can’t name them all, but this is a good start.

StartPage Search Engine Offers Anonymous Web Browsing

Geoff DuncanJanuary 28, 2010 By Geoff Duncan

StartPage is search engine that doesn't record your IP address, your searches, or anything about you. And now you can surf to linked pages anonymously.

StartPage isn’t exactly a new contender in the Internet search field—it launched all the way back in early 2005—but it is unique among Internet search engines in that it does not record information about its users. Back in 2006 the company began deleting all personal search details from its own log files, and in January 2009 the company stopped recording the IP addresses of its users. Where search engines like Bing are patting themselves on their backs for deleting users’ information after six months, StartPage hasn’t been recording that information at all.

Now, StartPage has added a new feature to its search service: the ability to search anonymously to found sites using its Ixquick proxy server, so users can connect to Web sites without passing any identifiable information along to them, including their IP address and information stored in cookies. Users can connect to a site directly, or click a “proxy” link below search results to connect anonymously.

“People are more concerned about online data retention policies than ever before,” said StartPage CEO Robert Beens. “We wanted to offer them a useful tool and this proxy is a logical extension of our services. A search engine is a starting point for people to visit other pages. Now our users can take the privacy they get with Startpage to the next step, and go privately to the sites they have found as well. This proxy completes the total search privacy picture.”

Well, it does and it doesn’t: while StartPage’s proxy service does prevent remote sites from setting browser cookies and recording a user’s IP address (instead, sites see the IP address of StartPage’s proxy service) plug-ins and other technologies can still get to users through the Ixquick proxy. For instance, Adobe’s Flash offers Local Shared Objects that can be used in manners similar to browser cookies; in fact, some online metrics firms, advertisers, and content companies use them as way to profile users and even as backups for browser cookies in the event a user is savvy enough to delete them to protect their privacy. Nonetheless, StartPage’s proxy service does offer users protections that simply aren’t available with any other search service: combined with appropriate client-side technologies (like advertising and flash blockers), users can take significant steps towards maintaining their online privacy.

Users may also find that sites visited via the Ixquick proxy don’t render the same as they do via a direct connection. There are many possible reasons for discrepancies, most of which have to do with how the site has been developed. The Ixquick proxy strips Javascript code from visited sites; it also won’t load frames hosted on another domain or enable users to fill out text-based forms. Users may also notice sites loading more slowly, since StartPage has to mediate all the requests.

StartPage says it has been profitable for the last five years, and earns its money through online advertising, just like any other search engine. However, the advertising is presented on the basis of Web site content compared to searches, not on the basis of users’ activity, search history, or compiled online profiles.

(Related: FTC privacy report calls for ‘do not track’ and data broker disclosure)

Friday, May 4, 2012

Proponents of One World Socialism

Remember these photos below?  Well nothing has changed much except a few of the elites have changed seats and many more of the little people have woken up…

NEW WORLD ORDER PROPONENTS
"One World Socialist" Organizations - U.S. Democratic Party - Federal Reserve - Goldman Sachs - CRIME, INC. - Bilderberg - Council on Foreign Relations - United Nations - Trilateral Commission - Microsoft - Google - Apple – Facebook - More

Obama - New World Order - Bilderberg

HERE'S ONE FOR THE PHOTO ALBUM: Obama seems extremely pleased to be photographed surrounded by socialists, communists and terrorists... so much so, he gave the "thumbs up". Communist Obama and Communist Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, celebrate after agreeing on how to transform the world into a one big socialist planet via G20 financial reforms. Hugging them both is Socialist Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who has an extensive record of and criminal allegations, including mafia collusion, false accounting, tax fraud, corruption, sex with a minor, and bribery of police officers and judges. Summit host and socialist UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said the deal heralded a “New World Order”.

Also shown: Communist China's President, Hu Jintao; Socialists International member and South Africa's President, Kgalema Motlanthe; Prince Saud Al Faisal of Saudi Arabia (country source of fifteen 9/11 terrorists); Ethipoian socialist, terrorist and NEPAD head, Meles Zenawi; Turkey's domineering, anti-secularist and Islamic Extremist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and Thailand's Prime Minister and Democrat, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who ascended to power during the 2009 global economic crisis and may be forced from office due to dual citizenship (like Obama).

WHY IS THE U.S. LINKING ITS ECONOMY TO G20 COUNTRIES?

socialist communist marxist maoist G20

Video: Brzezinski (Obama Adviser) "its easier to kill a million people than it is to control them"

Who Are We?… And Is America Done?

John Bolton – Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and author of: Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and How Barack Obama is Endangering our National Sovereignty (Encounter Broadsides) said, “We need to have a serious conversation in the United States about how we feel about global government, global governance, the NWO or whatever they call it and seriously consider if that is what we want… and if not what we must do want and what we plan to do to save America!”

REUTERS:

Kissinger in 2008: There will be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President - Why? Because both Obama and McCain we Progressives. The Democratic party has been virtually taken over and transformed by the Progressives, but there are Progressives with the Republican ranks as well. Americans must educate themselves and then vote accordingly. Remember what Jefferson said… in order for our Republic to survive… the populace must be educated and involved~

Rothschild and CIA Publications Attack “Constitution-worshipers”… think about it: Rothchild and the CIA on the same side against Constitutionalists and tea party people… really?

Daniel Hannan - Member of European Parliament and Author of The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America, an important read!

Hannan says people make it sound like global governance is a conspiracy theory… it is not! It is real! European and American leaders are now already talking about it out in the open everywhere (like it is a done deal)… and like with Obama’s rhetoric, too many Americans are not really listening or are too distracted to pay attention!

Hannan also says that you can’t have global governance and democratic votes and freedoms at the same time!  He added that European press is showing the tea party as toothless yokels supporting unelectable candidates. And Hannan said that Chris Christy is exactly the kind of Politian we need to do what needs to be done and to win in these times, so if Christy is not going to run, the he is willing to support certainly seems like a better bet than what we have!

This is Global Governance 2025 by US & EU Intelligence Agencies

Video:  The men behind Barack Obama part 1

Video: The men behind Barack Obama part 2

Obama’s Dead Pool List

6-Jihad in Obama’s Connections

Video/Audio of the moment: Bachmann Calls ‘Rumors of War III’ Documentary Frighteningly Accurate, ‘Absolutely Profound’

Video: RON PAUL CONFIRMS NEW WORLD ORDER!!!

Elite Eugenicists Call For Mass Depopulation, Drastic Reduction In Energy Consumption

There are 78 - 81 Communist Party Members in Congress!

US President and Democratic Party Actively Supporting Communists Get Elected Abroad

“George Soros met with Hillary and Obama.
Soros said his agenda was to tear this economy down to the ground.
Obama said, ‘no problem.’ Hillary said, ‘no way.’”

--> Did Obama Assassinate Clinton Delegates?  <--

OBAMA-THREATEN CLINTONS DAUGHTER? - WHAT HAPPENED TO BREITBART?

6a00d8341c630a53ef00e553176fb88833-800wi

Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.

In an exclusive interview by WND, Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.

During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.

She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.

Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof.

This is a powerful video from a lady that has nothing to gain and probably everything to lose by coming forward with her information. It could well ruin her career in Hollywood as so many of the film industry are flaming liberals. It could also cost her her life.

I took note of how she described the Obama campaign’s reign of terror and intimidation and how well coordinated it was. I thought to myself that if they were bold enough to threaten the life of the Clinton’s daughter then have they made similar threats to all of the leading Republicans in both the House and Senate? Is this why Congress has remained so silent ever since Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1st news conference where he provided the American people with the evidence that Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Cards are forgeries?

When you see how blatantly Obama has defied the US Constitution and federal law without any apology or excuses, it’s not hard to believe that he, like every other dictator in history, obtained his position by intimidation, threats and outright violence. Knowing he is capable of this has to make every single American extremely fearful if Obama gets re-elected.

And if the voter fraud will be as prevalent in November as it was in 2008, it seems a sure thing that he will be re-elected. Obama has had the DOJ strike down every voter ID law and any other measure taken, to reduce the chance of voter fraud. They have set the stage for an old fashioned Chicago style election with padded and illegal votes. Wait a minute, he is a Chicago politician, so guess he’s just following local history at a national level.

If he does get re-elected, I’m positive it will mean the end of free elections and free America. We will become another Soviet Union: a land run by an elite group of Marxists who will exploit all of the people for their own personal gain. America, for all intent and purpose will be dead if Obama is re-elected

Just released on WND: GOP lawmaker: Eligibility too scary to take on

AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO BREITBART?

According the the Los Angeles Chief Medical Examiner Lakshmanan Sathyavaglswaran, 43 year-old Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure and “hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with focal coronary atheroscerosis”, which is thickening of the heart muscle and hardening of the arteries for those who don’t speak Sathyavaglswaran-ish. 

But you ask anyone who knew Breitbart, follows politics and media closely and especially anyone who has followed the Clintons and the Obama and they say… not so fast. I think many conservatives suspect foul play in Breitbart's death.

After all Breitbart conveniently died the day before he was launching his new website and just as he was going to launch a new campaign to vet Obama that he had announced at CPAC.  Coincidental?

Then on April 27th… Michael Cormier, forensic technician for L.A. County Coroner, who worked on the Breitbart case,  dies under 'suspicious circumstances, possible arsenic poisoning'.  Another coincidence?

North American Union Isn't Going Away – Obama took over where Bush left off

Conspiracy to some… A frightening reality to more and more… 

You be the judge…

And even if something is a conspiracy… It does not mean it is merely a theory nor does it mean that it it not true~

Monday, March 19, 2012

NO PLACE TO HIDE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION

This video series presents where we were just five short years ago.

No Place To Hide part 1

http://youtu.be/fIOc2YpxhxI

No Place To Hide part 2

http://youtu.be/WAA59LPuVfE

No Place To Hide part 3

http://youtu.be/qvkr9RxSot4

No Place To Hide part 4

http://youtu.be/LF8_hrpGQpI

The Obama regime and DHS have come a long way since then...

“We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/%E2%80%9Cwe-are-far-turnkey-totalitarian-state-big-brother-goes-live-september-2013

"George Orwell was right. He was just 30 years early.

In its April cover story, Wired has an exclusive report on the NSA's Utah Data Center, which is a must read for anyone who believes any privacy is still a possibility in the United States: "A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.... Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”... The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013." In other words, in just over 1 year, virtually anything one communicates through any traceable medium, or any record of one's existence in the electronic medium, which these days is everything, will unofficially be property of the US government to deal with as it sees fit.

The codename of the project: Stellar Wind"... Read more on Stellar Wind Here

Wired: NSAs New Data Collection Center and Details on Its Public Eavesdropping Capabilites

An interesting look at Derek Smith; he was the CEO of Choicepoint (as shown in the video). Guess what this globalist is up to these days... global pre-science...

Derek V. Smith

http://geek.net/index.php/about/directors/derek-smith/

Chairman and CEO, Institute of Global Prescience

"Derek Smith is Chairman and CEO of the Institute of Global Prescience, an interdisciplinary non-profit research, education and service organization dedicated to the pursuit of prescience – foreknowledge that anticipates global events and trends that are yet unseen. The Institute seeks to harness the passion of individuals to anticipate issues through clue detection engines that identify inflection points in technological, financial and social systems"...

Smith goes from CEO to futurist

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/04/20/story3.html

"At the institute, students are using computer models to study such topics as whether bandwidth will be able to keep up with the growth of data flow and when the United States might elect its first atheist president.

Other topics include the future of cell phones, obesity, how attitudes will affect climate change and when the world will run out of oil"...

Take a look at the Institute of Global Prescience Board of Directors HERE. (http://www.prescienceintl.com/cti_ab.html) Notice the Federal and state government connections:

à Amy Zimpfer, Regional Deputy Director, EPA

à Anthony Eggert, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Chair California Air Resources Board

à Jeffrey Byron, Commissioner, CEC

à Paul Douglas, Supervisor, Renewable Procurement and Resource Planning, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

à Trina Martynowicz, Clean Air Emerging Technologies and West Coast Collaborative, Clean Energy and Climate Change Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Google and PG&E (think ‘SMART Meters’) are also represented.

The Institute of Global Prescience is but one of many, many non-profits, NGO’s and individuals seeking to destroy our country from within.

Is it the intention of American tax-payers to have their hard earned dollars spent on the development of a turnkey Totalitarian State? Do we support massive government spending on programs that are in direct violation of our right to privacy under the 4th Amendment? Do Americans understand that current elected officials are facilitating and funding these endeavors with our tax dollars? Will enough Americans wake up, organize and vote the career politicians out of office in November?

The real revolution must take place at the ballot box. Until enough of us can vote against the career politicians who are aiding and abetting the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic, we will have no place to hide once they turn that key. What you do for the 2012 election will determine our fate and that of future generations.

By AJ - h/t to MJ

**We all know that Big Brother is watching us 24/7 with cameras almost everywhere and through our TV cable box and the GPS system in your car, but today on Fox, Shep Smith pointed out and discussed with Judge Napolitano that Panetta and the CIA verified that they can also monitor us through our refrigerator, microwaves and other appliances.  (Have not been able to find the video yet, but check back later).

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Google’s New Privacy Policy Rolls Out Today Despite Opposition

Googles New Privacy Policy Launches Despite Criticism

Google's privacy policy launched on Thursday.

SAN FRANCISCO (The Blaze/AP) – Today, Google downsizes its more than 60 privacy policies for its various platforms and products into one that is “shorter and easier to read.” It is a move that a French regulator has said violates the European Union’s requirements for data protection and that a group of 50 consumer groups in the United States and Europe have called “unfair and unwise,” according to the Daily Mail.

Google’s new streamlined policy will enable the Internet’s most powerful company to dig even deeper into the lives of its more than 1 billion users.

Google says the changes will make it easier for consumers to understand how it collects personal information, and allow the company to create more helpful and compelling services. Critics argue that Google is trampling on people’s privacy rights in its relentless drive to sell more ads.

The Daily Mail reports Google saying that to delay implementation, as many have called for, “would cause confusion.” Google said in a blog post:

If you’re signed in to Google, you expect our products to work really beautifully together. For example, if you’re working on Google Docs and you want to share it with someone on Gmail, you want their email right there ready to use. Our privacy policies have always allowed us to combine information from different products with your account — effectively using your data to provide you with a better service. However, we’ve been restricted in our ability to combine your YouTube and Search histories with other information in your account. Our new Privacy Policy gets rid of those inconsistencies so we can make more of your information available to you when using Google.

The new policy doesn’t change any existing privacy settings or how any personal information is shared outside of Google. We aren’t collecting any new or additional information about users. We won’t be selling your personal data. And we will continue to employ industry-leading security to keep your information safe.

If you don’t think information sharing will improve your experience, you can use our privacy tools to do things like edit or turn off your search history and YouTube history, control the way Google tailors ads to your interests and browse the web “incognito” using Chrome. You can use services like Search, Maps and YouTube if you are not signed in. You can even separate your information into different accounts, since we don’t combine personal information across them. And we’re committed to data liberation, so if you want to take your information elsewhere you can.

Video:  Google Privacy Policy Update

Here’s a look at some of the key issues to consider as Google tries to learn about you.

Q: How will Google’s privacy changes affect users?

A: Google Inc. is combining more than 60 different privacy policies so it will be able to throw all the data it gathers about each of its logged-in users into personal dossiers. The information Google learns about you while you enter requests into its search engine can be culled to suggest videos to watch when you visit the company’s YouTube site.

Users who write a memo on Google’s online word processing program, Docs, might be alerted to the misspelling of the name of a friend or co-worker a user has communicated with on Google’s Gmail. The new policy pools information from all Google-operated services, empowering the company to connect the dots from one service to the next.

Q: Why is Google making these changes?

A: The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., says it is striving for a “beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google.” What Google hasn’t spent much time talking about is how being able to draw more revealing profiles about its users will help sell advertising – the main source of its $38 billion in annual revenue.

One reason Google has become such a big advertising network: Its search engine analyzes requests to figure out which people are more likely to be interested in marketing pitches about specific products and services. Targeting the ads to the right audience is crucial because in many cases, Google only gets paid when someone clicks on an ad link. And, of course, advertisers tend to spend more money if Google is bringing them more customers.

Q: Is there a way to prevent Google from combining the personal data it collects from all its services?

A: No, not if you’re a registered user of Gmail, Google Plus, YouTube, or other Google products. But you can minimize the data Google gathers. For starters, make sure you aren‘t logged into one of Google’s services when you‘re using Google’s search engine, watching a YouTube video or perusing pictures on Picasa. You can get a broad overview of what Google knows about you at http://www.google.com/dashboard , where a Google account login is required. Google also offers the option to delete users’ history of search activity.

It‘s important to keep in mind that Google can still track you even when you’re not logged in to one of its services. But the information isn‘t quite as revealing because Google doesn’t track you by name, only through a numeric Internet address attached to your computer or an alphanumeric string attached to your Web browser.

Q: Are all Google services covered by the privacy policy?

A: No, a few products, such as Google’s Chrome Web browser and mobile payment processor Wallet, will still be governed by separate privacy policies.

Q: Is Google’s new privacy policy legal?

A: The company has no doubt about it. That‘s why it’s repeatedly rebuffed pleas to delay the changes since announcing the planned revisions five weeks ago. But privacy activists and even some legal authorities have several concerns.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group, sued the FTC in a federal court in an effort to force the FTC to exercise its powers and block Google’s privacy changes. A federal judge ruled the courts didn’t have the authority to tell the FTC how to regulate Google. The FTC says it is always looking for evidence that one of its consent orders has been violated.

Earlier this week, the French regulatory agency CNIL warned Google CEO Larry Page that the new policy appears to violate the European Union’s strict data-protection rules. Last week, 36 attorneys general in the U.S. and its territories derided the new policy as an “invasion of privacy” in a letter to Page.

One of the major gripes is that registered Google users aren’t being given an option to consent to, or reject, the changes, given that they developed their dependence on the services under different rules. In particular, people who bought smartphones running on Google’s Android software, and signed two-year contracts to use the devices, may have a tough time avoiding the new privacy policy. They could switch to non-Google services, but those typically don’t work as well on Android software. Or they could buy a different smartphone and pay an early-termination penalty.

Q: What regulatory power do government agencies have to change or amend the privacy changes?

A: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission gained greater oversight over Google’s handling of personal information as part of a settlement reached last year. Google submitted to the agreement after exposing its users email contacts when it launched a now-defunct social networking service called Buzz in 2010. The consent order requires Google’s handling of personal information to be audited every other year and forbids misleading or deceptive privacy changes.

Google met with the FTC before announcing the privacy changes. Neither the company nor the FTC has disclosed whether Google satisfied regulators that the revisions comply with the consent order.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Say good-bye to the Internet? … And, Last Days to Remove Yourself from Google’s Tentacles

--> The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom  <--

It is hard to believe that twenty years ago, the Internet as we as we know it today did not exist. Yes, there was an Internet, but the World Wide Web did not exist. Imagine life today without the web? We do business over the Internet. We get our news from the Internet. The Internet has been the greatest innovation for free speech since the printing press.

Now this great innovation of free speech is under threat. What is the threat and where is it coming from?

It is coming from the United Nations.

All this year, through December, the World Conference on International Telecommunications is meeting with the purpose of negotiating a new treaty to govern international telecommunications.

Russia and China are using this as an excuse to demand a lesser role for the United States in governing the Internet. They would like the United Nations to control the Internet. Other states, such as Brazil and South Africa have demanded the creation of a new global body to control the Internet.

At the same time, China, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have called for a code of conduct for the Internet that would govern activities on the Internet. Some of them are no brainers. Some of them include no criminal activities and not using the Internet as a tool of war.

Section C of the “Code of Conduct” should set off all of the alarm bells. It reads:

(c) To cooperate in combating criminal and terrorist activities that use

information and communications technologies, including networks, and in curbing the dissemination of information that incites terrorism, secessionism or extremism or that undermines other countries’ political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environment;

Let’s see, this is coming from four of the most repressive nations in the world and they think the Internet should be controlled so that it does not undermine “political” or “social” stability. Aren’t those the code words they use to persecute those who dissent from their regimes?

The Russians, Chinese and the third world object that the United States has so much control over the Internet.

Too damn bad. We created it.

The good news here is that this is a treaty. Under the Constitution, the Senate must ratify a treaty and that takes a 2/3 vote. That is unlikely to happen.

Unfortunately Obama has the same respect for free speech as does the leadership of Russia or China and that is alarming. If an agreement or treaty is bad for America, Obama is for it. If you doubt that, look at some of the other treaties he has signed, such as the START treaty.

The Internet is an invaluable tool for freedom. Without the Internet, we would have been hard pressed to get the Tea Party movement started. This is one instance where we cannot play catch up after the Obama regime has already signed a bad treaty.

We must stay in touch with our Senators and Congressmen to make certain they stay on the Obama regime and keep them from agreeing to a deal that would destroy the freedom we have on the Internet.

by Judson PhillipsTPN

Last chance to tell Google to forget you

Article below

Getting Google to forget you:

First, log in to your Google account.

Then go to https://google.com/history.

Click the button marked "Delete all history."

Click OK.

Last chance to tell Google to forget you

http://www.itworld.com/security/252290/last-day-tell-google-forget-you

Even if you're one of those luddites who uses Google only for Search – not the increasingly random assemblage of first-generation SaaS apps that make up its unintentionally eclectic portfolio – you're sure to already be sick of the sticky pop-ups Google has been using to warn customers it is unifying all the services under one comprehensive lack-of-privacy policy.

Google announced in January it would unify most of its services under a single privacy policy and a single set of data-gathering tools that will arrange all Google's useful data on each of its customers in an efficient database, from which it is much simpler to sell that customer as a commodity to advertisers looking for specific patterns of behavior.

The change actually goes into effect March 1.

Before it does, if you're cautious at all about the amount of information Google has about you, uncertain at all how little evil Google will do with all the consolidated information or just a little woogy about anyone having big chunks of surveillance on you with a yen to sell it: go erase your Google history now.

Thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for pointing out that having decent security and using it are not the same thing.

Tomorrow, after all your odd searches, secret obsessions and kinky lunch reading is ensconced inside a special database, you won't be able to get to the data any more.

You can delete much of the data Google has on you, though. At least as long as you remember to clear your browser history.

Not the one you always clear before leaving your desk and risking having prying co-workers come look at your cache to figure out what the audio-streamed screams coming from your computer earlier in the day were all about.

The history you have to delete is on Google.com. When you're signed in, Google keeps track of where you're going and what you're looking at, and stores that history on its server files.

Today only you can still delete that data, by following the instructions provided by EFF.

Getting Google to forget you:

First, log in to your Google account.

Then go to https://google.com/history.

Click the button marked "Delete all history."

Click OK.

That's it. History is a toggle, so once you turn it off it should stay that way until you reactivate it.

It's not a big procedure, or a complex one. It is one chance more than any other online vendor has offered you lately to restrict your private data a little.

But you have to actually take the trouble.

Do it now, before you forget.

From Twitter:

RT @ASE: How to Remove Your #Google Web History Before The New Privacy Policy Change (on March 1) http://lifehac.kr/wXjsR9 #Privacy

Google Caught Violating Browser Privacy Settings to Track Users - http://www.infowars.com/google-caught-violating-browser-privacy-settings-to-track-users/  -  This might be what you sent earlier Jean

Search engine has been killed

· Scroogle unplugged for good this time.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:51:13 AM · by Rabin · 6 replies

The Register ^ | 21st February 2012 | Kelly Fiveash

Scroogle - a not-for-profit search engine that offered users something of a pro-privacy antidote to Google - has been killed... Daniel Brandt (its creator), called it quits after his servers were repeatedly targeted by DDoS attacks on Scroogle. (NOT) Google to once again attempt to banish the site from the interwebs, but.... a number of DDoS attacks that hit Scroogle, rendering the site utterly useless. “Scroogle.org is gone forever,” Brandt told BetaBeat. “Even if all my DDoS problems had never started in December, Scroogle was already getting squeezed from Google’s throttling, (DATE SORT) and was already dying. It might have...

Also…

Earlier today I saw a headline about a search engine that was deleted. Maybe this is how we will all be tracked – delete the other search engines or as in the text below, you can search, but you can’t open the links from the search.

Happening Now!!!! >> Complete Internet Censorship in New Zealand! Only Able to Access Google Services!!!!

NZ really is the TESTING GROUNDS for the NWO....
At this time, I have used an international SIM modem to access GLP, as ALL NON-GOOGLE WEBSITES HAVE BEEN BLOCKED IN NEW ZEALAND!!!!!!!
I called my ISP, who stated that they are having the same issue, although they are on a different provider in the office. (Ironic that my ISP doesnt use its own services...)

This is what's up>

You ARE able to access ALL GOOGLE services!!!
-Gmail
-Youtube
-Search
-+
-ETC

You are completely UNABLE to access ANY NON-GOOGLE SITES.
****YOU CAN SEARCH FOR INFO NO PROBLEM, BUT CANNOT OPEN THE PAGES FROM THE SEARCH!!!!****
"Internet explorer cannot open the web page"
Same thing on al my PC's and my Mac, all my mates have reported the same thing, they are all in Auckland though, so this may just be citywide.
---This is affecting ALL ISPs!!!!

SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO GO DOWN IN NZ!!!!