Showing posts with label social networking sites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social networking sites. 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

Friday, January 27, 2012

To Google, Facebook, Twitter…. Or Not? - Perhaps Time to Assess Your Use and Membership? - Updated

googile_irish_hq_thumb[2]

Google

Many of you may have received the email below…

Dear Google user,

We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

One policy, one Google experience

Easy to work across Google

Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.

Tailored for you

If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster.

Easy to share and collaborate

When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.

Protecting your privacy hasn't changed

Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).

Understand how Google uses your data

If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow

Got questions?
We got answers.

Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.)

Notice of Change

March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information.

Many people are thinking of leaving Google and its tentacle services because this is just another consolidated grouping of information for Big Brother to monitor us and Google, like facebook, and others turn all their (your) information to the government.

Remaining with them or changing is something everyone should consider!

Here some really helpful links.  If you want to close your account, from what I read, they will delete everything… at least that is what they claim… guess we will see if they really do or if if you information ends up in digital space forever:


How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

Rea lMan's Computer Room_thumb[3]

The continuing onslaught against individual freedoms and the intrusion of government into our lives has inspired computer room like this one…

Additional Information:

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can't opt out

Global Search - Cuil!
http://www.cuil.pt/
Search
Is not powered by google, and not hosted in USA.
Every .com is.
http://www.cuil.pt/
Use Scroogle - very cool.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Read about it here:
www.scroogle.org
https://ixquick.com/
USE https://ixquick.com/ FOR PRIVACY
www.startpage.com
I've been using duckduckgo.com recently instead of Google and I like it.
www.duckduckgo.com
and their privacy policy[link to donttrack.us]
http://freenetproject.org/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288017

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But I work in a web agency and EVERY single one of the sites we produce uses google hosted code. Its mainly for analytic data for our customers. If you've ever seen google analytic data and understand that 100% of our sites (and I'm sure its almost 100% of any other agency's sites) use this code... that means the scope of this is so huge I can't think straight! Google can very easily track people's web usage through this analytic code.

It doesn't matter if you are on a google made site or not, if the use google hosted code then they know!

Heck even GLP uses it. If you know how to view source look at the bottom of this site.
https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/

Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html

Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday it is planning to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But, say consumer advocates, the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user, for instance, may not want Google to use your social network to alert estranged friends — or your boss — that you are around the corner at a bar.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in interviews that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that was encouraged by regulators.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Center for Digital Democracy. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass): “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad Federal Trade Commission investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online search to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman at the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

More on this story:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search

Google updates social-networking name policy

European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’

A couple of comments that I thought were interesting.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288156

Google has been doing this all along as does Apple, MS and so on. Limit or don't use their services in your first line of defense. If not possible then learn all you can about your device and take FULL control of it, flash it, root it, kernel secure it and spank those apps and daemons who are like little children leaking sensitive info about you to these data collectors without your knowledge.

Don't forget to learn to really disable gps, mic and your cam when necessary cause they are bugged. At this point you will be half way secure and well on your way to freedom. However there is a whole another world of hidden service, exploit and leak potentials within your device that are publically unspoken of and that you will need to discover over time.

Last piece of advice, learn to game the algorithm that is at all times trying to predict who you are and what your next move is.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29289587   (Did you know could block a website this way?)
I just went to my internet options and blocked www.google.com signed out of you tube and tried signing back in, got a notice, you have disabled your cookies please turn them back on..But it is not March 1, yet is it?

Facebook

Look at timing with Google’s announcement—perhaps time to flee them both!

Facebook Timeline Mandatory For All Users - With Just 7 Days To 'Clean Up'

Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.

The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.

From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.

As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.

Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'

'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.

'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'

Timeline has been criticized for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.

The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.

'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.

'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'

Mark Zuckerberg described timeline as letting you 'tell the whole story of your life on a single page'.

The redesigned pages have a more magazine-like photo-heavy feel, with a large 'cover photo' at the top of the page.

On the right of the page there will be a timeline that breaks down all posts from a person's time on Facebook and allows viewers to jump back to people's earliest posts with a break down month-by-month.

Some were puzzled by the abrupt roll-out of the change, which is one of the biggest changes to Facebook - all the more so when paired with the new Timeline apps, such as Spotify, which posts a continuous stream of all songs listened to to your Timeline.

A user listening to Spotify on a smartphone, for instance, will default to posting every song to their Timeline for all to see. As with all Timeline features, there are various opt-outs, but they can be fiddly to find and use.

Likewise, e-book readers such as Kobo and video services such as Netflix can post every book and film people consume to Timeline.

Many sites published guides to how to 'hide' controversial content. Twitter users had mixed reactions.

Reactions included, 'I don’t want a timeline on my facebook - why do you force me to have one?' and 'I hate Facebook timeline design with a vengeance. More frippery and less function. Why are they forcing it on us?'

Many were shocked by how rapidly timeline had become compulsory.

Tech site Mashable said, 'Facebook must know that putting a ticking clock in front of users is bound to make very few of them happy, yet here it is, stop watch in hand. Here’s my theory.'
'Timeline apps aren't very effective without it. Conducting most of your day-to-day activities, like watching movies, sharing content, reading news, eating out, and more — that’s new. None of this has quite the same impact without Timeline.'

So far, Facebook has announced a few dozen Timeline apps.

Many sites recommend vetting apps carefully to see what they will post, and creating lists of friends to 'share' certain updates with, rather than bombarding your whole friends list.
Tech site CNET warns, 'Once you install an app and authorize it to post stories on your profile and News Feed, it'll never ask for your permission again.'

'If you love to cook, you can add the Foodily app to your timeline and share your latest dishes. If your friends have added the Foodily app, you can discover new recipes with each other, as you'll see their updates in the ticker and their timeline, and possibly News Feed.'
Facebook says that more Timeline apps, covering more interests will launch soon.

'Our vision for Timeline and our vision for the application platform is whatever you love and whatever story you want to tell, you can add that to your Timeline,' said Carl Sjogreen, Facebook's product management director.

Facebook Timeline with Apps and Ticker:
'Our message to developers is 'start your engines',' said Sjogreen.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb0jJtmF

SIDEBAR

PROTECTING YOUR PROFILE FROM PRYING EYES - WHAT TO DO IN THE SEVEN DAYS FACEBOOK ALLOWS YOU

Once timeline is activated on your profile, you have seven days to 'clean up' - and you will probably want to.

Things from your past that may have been previously hidden deep within your photos or timeline can be much more visible.

If there is anything particularly you don’t want shown, such as your relationship status from five years ago - which will be public by default - you’re best to click on the right hand side to the year it occurred, such as 2006, find the post and choose to either delete or hide it.

It all has to be done manually.

You can now choose directly from the right-hand side of nearly every section on profile who sees what for individual sections (such as photos, posts, likes etc). When you click on the item, you can choose whether it is seen publicly, by friends or by a customized list.

If you enable any timeline apps, be sure to read their privacy policies thoroughly - many will not ask again before posting information to your profile. Spotify, for instance, will default to filling your timeline with what you listen to, unless you tell it not to.

Facebook now has the ‘View profile as’ feature on the main page, rather than in privacy settings. This lets you check how different people can see your profile so you can then customize it as you wish.

For those looking to DELETE their facebook accounts permanently not just deactivate remove the spaces and copy paste this into your browser

If your doing it too replace your existing facebook account make sure your change your email address and password to something else first so you can use your original email. Funny how they hide this form.... HAH found youuuu!


https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb125TKI

· Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country

Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42:33 AM · by EnglishCon · 4 replies

BBC News ^ | 01/27/12 | BBC News

Twitter has announced that it now has the technology to selectively block tweets on a country by country basis. In its blog, Twitter said it could "reactively withhold content from users in a specific country". But it said the removed content would be available to the rest of the world. Previously when Twitter deleted a tweet, it would disappear worldwide. --- In its blog post, Twitter explained that its international growth meant entering countries "that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression", citing France or Germany which ban pro-Nazi content as examples.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Important Alert… Especially for Parents and Grandparents! - Frightening!

 

Video:  Smartphone pictures pose privacy risks

You may be perfectly safe after changing the settings… but who really knows?

How to protect your mobile phone and computer from illegal police searches

http://www.naturalnews.com/032985_illegal_searches_mobile_phones.html

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long defenders of electronic rights, has  written a legal guide

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Constitution is clear about the issue of privacy. In fact, the Fourth Amendment states, in part, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

With that in mind, it's safe to say it's more than just a little disturbing to know that, in certain circumstances, police can search your cell phone and computer(s), even if you don't want them to and even if they don't yet have a warrant to do so.

The good news is, someone out there has recognized the problem and has taken steps to help you protect that vast amount of data you have stored on your smart phone or laptop.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long defenders of electronic rights, has written a legal guide designed to help you better understand your rights and, more importantly, when police can - and cannot - legally confiscate and search your personal electronic devices.

"In the heat of the moment, it can be hard to remember what your rights are and how to exercise them," says EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Sometimes police can search your computer whether you like it or not, but sometimes they can't. We wrote this guide to help you tell the difference and to empower you to assert your rights when the police come knocking."

Adds EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury, "With smart phones, tablet computers, and laptops, we carry around with us an unprecedented amount of sensitive personal information.

"That smart phone in your pocket right now could contain email from your doctor or your kid's teacher, not to mention detailed contact information for all of your friends and family members," Fakhoury continued. "Your laptop probably holds even more data -- your Internet browsing history, family photo albums, and maybe even things like an electronic copy of your taxes or your employment agreement. This is sensitive data that's worth protecting from prying eyes."

According to a summary of full EFF legal guide:

· Always say "no" when police ask if they can search your server, personal computer or cell phone because if you give them permission to search, they don't need a warrant - even to enter your home;
· If police tell you they have a search warrant, ask to see it because you have a right to;
· Make sure police are only searching the areas outlined in the warrant;
· Be silent - you don't have to help the police or answer their questions, and that means you don't have to give them your encryption keys or passwords;
· If you do decide to talk, don't lie because lying to the police is a crime;
· Finally, if you can consult with a lawyer before police conduct a search or even just talk to you, that's ideal.
This guide is extremely helpful in this digital age when being secure in our "papers" and effects now includes our data-filled electronic devices. Know your rights; that is your best protection.

Consistently watch the other hand my friends… we are living in scary times.  Technology may make things easier for you… but it also makes it easier for Big Brother and the other bad guys (pedophiles, robbers, etc) to keep an eye on you and your loved ones… and they are!

By Ask Marion

Related:

Cops to Use Facial Recognition iPhone

Cyber Command and Internet Dangers

Microsoft Files Patent for Software that Allows the Government to Spy on All Personal Digital Communications

Thursday, May 5, 2011

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange rails against Facebook, says it's a spy tool for US government… Plus Other Steve Quayle Alerts

The founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange said that Facebook is the most 'appaling spying machine ever invented'.

Video on the page:  WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Rails Against Facebook, Says It's A Spy Tool For US Government  (See other alerts below)

Maybe he's a MySpace guy.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called Facebook "the most appalling spying machine ever invented" in an interview with Russia Today, pointing to the popular social networking site as one of the top tools for the U.S. to spy on its citizens.

"Here we have the world's most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence," he said. "Facebook, Google, Yahoo, all these major U.S. organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence.

"Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook they are doing free work for the United States intelligence agencies," he added.

The comments were a bit strange, coming from the founder of a website best known for pushing spilling secret information.

In an email to the Daily News, a Facebook spokesman denied the company was doing anything that they weren't legally obligated to do, saying that "the legal standards for compelling a company to turn over data are determined by the laws of the country, and we respect that standard."

"We don't respond to pressure, we respond to compulsory legal process," the spokesperson wrote. "There has never been a time we have been pressured to turn over data -- we fight every time we believe the legal process is insufficient."

In any event, many Facebook users have been increasingly concerned about the sharing of their information.

In 2010, three Democratic senators asked the FTC to look at the social networking site's information-sharing policies.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that popular Facebook apps like Farmville and Causes also shared users' information with advertising and tracking companies.

Concerns about information-sharing has seemingly done little to dissuade the more than 250 million people who use Facebook - including someone who created an official WikiLeaks page on the site.

More than 1.72 million people clicked that they like it.

Assange is currently in England, awaiting extradition to Sweden to face sexual assault charges.

Get your kids and grandkids off facebook… better yet off all the electronic gadgets.  Did you know that everything you have put on facebook remains there, including photos, even if you close your account?!?

Alerts:  Steve Quayle. - http://stevequayle.com/index1.html (5.4.11)

Paper Silver War Intensifies: Today we witnessed another raid orchestrated by the bankers. They generally wait until the physical markets, in London are put to bed before they strike. Last night,I told you that the Comex initiated a 3rd margin increase as the bankers were scared out of their minds as to the huge demand for silver metal. The on top of that, the bankers called on additional support by the brokerage firms as it was necessary for the bankers to try and force as many longs as possible to pitch their positions so the bankers could cover their short position. Please pay special attention to the following announcement: more

Foreign Military Troops Train in California Desert: I was listening to Hawk's Friday evening broadcast and I wanted to tell you what American soldiers have talked about regarding foreign troops. I live near Fort Irwin here in California. I have been told that Iraqi troops, German troops and other Nato troops train out in the desert. They have mock cities and practice searches and road blocks. These troops are allowed to shop in the PX however, I do not know if they can leave the base. more

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Rails Against Facebook, Says It's A Spy Tool For US Government: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called Facebook "the most appalling spying machine ever invented" in an interview with Russia Today, pointing to the popular social networking site as one of the top tools for the U.S. to spy on its citizens. "Here we have the world's most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence," he said. "Facebook, Google, Yahoo, all these major U.S. organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence. more

Occult Timing Associated With Osamas Hollywood Scripted Assassination From Rob Skiba: Are you kidding me?? Seal Team 6 killed OBL on the 66th anniversary of Hitler's death on the same day the Illuminati was created at 3:30 EST (33) as the result of putting a bullet through his LEFT EYE!! Come on guys! Wake up. They're just mocking your total ignorance if you can't see through this scam. go to archives

Top Secret Stealth Helicopter Program Revealed in Osama Bin Laden Raid: Experts: Before an elite team of U.S. Navy SEALs executed a daring raid that took down Osama bin Laden, the commandos were able to silently sneak up on their elusive target thanks to what aviation analysts said were top secret, never-before-seen stealth-modified helicopters. In the course of the operation that cost the al Qaeda leader his life, one of the two Blackhawk helicopters that carried the SEALs into bin Laden's Pakistani compound grazed one of the compound's wall and was forced to make a hard landing. With the chopper inoperable, at the end of the mission the SEALs destroyed it with explosives. more go to archives

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Big Brother Is Watching You!!!

"The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters."
So ominously began an editorial in Sunday's New York Times.

Those with accounts at such websites should pay attention, for according to the Times, and other sources, Big Brother is watching you:

The Wall Street Journal reported this summer that state revenue agents have been searching for tax scofflaws by mining information on MySpace and Facebook. In October, the F.B.I. searched the New York home of a man suspected of helping coordinate protests at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh by sending out messages over Twitter.

The Boston Globe reported on this matter in January:
In an informal survey of 14 departments in this area, officials in half of them said they use social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace in detective work - particularly in investigations involving young people.

Wired magazine reported in October: America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon.

In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ”open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the flood of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports generated every day.

The Times continued:
This month the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law sued the Department of Defense, the C.I.A. and other federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act to learn more about their use of social networking sites.

The suit seeks to uncover what guidelines these agencies have about this activity, including information about whether agents are permitted to use fake identities or to engage in subterfuge, such as tricking people into accepting Facebook friend requests.

Privacy law was largely created in the pre-Internet age, and new rules are needed to keep up with the ways people communicate today. Much of what occurs online, like blog posting, is intended to be an open declaration to the world, and law enforcement is within its rights to read and act on what is written. Other kinds of communication, particularly in a closed network, may come with an expectation of privacy. If government agents are joining social networks under false pretenses to spy without a court order, for example, that might be crossing a line.

Scary stuff indeed.

So be careful with your next Tweet or Facebook status, for you never know who's watching.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how Obama-loving media follow this story.

After all, the press were constantly bashing the Bush White House concerning electronic surveillance designed to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The Times might be pleased with itself by publishing an editorial on this subject in its opinion section, but under the previous administration, this would have resulted in a front page story with thousands of words.

The Times published a piece in its Business section last November that touched on this very subject:

Propelled by new technologies and the Internet’s steady incursion into every nook and cranny of life, collective intelligence offers powerful capabilities, from improving the efficiency of advertising to giving community groups new ways to organize.

But even its practitioners acknowledge that, if misused, collective intelligence tools could create an Orwellian future on a level Big Brother could only dream of.

Collective intelligence could make it possible for insurance companies, for example, to use behavioral data to covertly identify people suffering from a particular disease and deny them insurance coverage. Similarly, the government or law enforcement agencies could identify members of a protest group by tracking social networks revealed by the new technology. “There are so many uses for this technology — from marketing to war fighting — that I can’t imagine it not pervading our lives in just the next few years,” says Steve Steinberg, a computer scientist who works for an investment firm in New York.
In a widely read Web posting, he argued that there were significant chances that it would be misused, “This is one of the most significant technology trends I have seen in years; it may also be one of the most pernicious.”

Twelve months later, and under a new supposedly more open administration, such fears are being realized.
Will the monitoring of social networking sites by government agencies produce similar outrage with a Democrat in the White House?

Stay tuned.

t is primarily for political protesters... you can bet they monitor this site and the AARP Blog and all the conservative websites and we are all on their lists!! And if we don't stand up and stop them and demand that the 2010 candidates run on recalling the Dems' damaging bills they will eventually shut all those sites down or go after the participants who speak out:

HR 1388 Prohibits Organizations From Influencing… Legislation, Protesting or Petitioning

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.