I’m terrified of my new TV: Why I’m scared to turn this thing on — and you’d be, too
by Michael Price
Salon.com
Oct 30, 2014
(Credit: cobalt88 via Shutterstock)
From facial recognition to personal data collection, this thing is downright scary — and so are the implications
I just bought a new TV. The old one had a good run, but after the volume got stuck on 63, I decided it was time to replace it. I am now the owner of a new “smart” TV, which promises to deliver streaming multimedia content, games, apps, social media and Internet browsing. Oh, and TV too.
The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.
The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect “when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.” It records “the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.” It ignores “do-not-track” requests as a considered matter of policy.
It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition. The purpose is to provide “gesture control” for the TV and enable you to log in to a personalized account using your face. On the upside, the images are saved on the TV instead of uploaded to a corporate server. On the downside, the Internet connection makes the whole TV vulnerable to hackers who have demonstrated the ability to take complete control of the machine.
More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a “voice recognition” feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV.
You may not be watching, but the telescreen is listening.
I do not doubt that this data is important to providing customized content and convenience, but it is also incredibly personal, constitutionally protected information that should not be for sale to advertisers and should require a warrant for law enforcement to access.
Unfortunately, current law affords little privacy protection to so-called “third party records,” including email, telephone records, and data stored in “the cloud.” Much of the data captured and transmitted by my new TV would likely fall into this category. Although one federal court of appeals has found this rule unconstitutional with respect to email, the principle remains a bedrock of modern electronic surveillance.
According to retired Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the CIA, Internet-enabled “smart” devices can be exploited to reveal a wealth of personal data. “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvester,” he reportedly told a venture capital firm in 2012. “We’ll spy on you through your dishwasher,” read one headline. Indeed, as the “Internet of Things” matures, household appliances and physical objects will become more networked. Your ceiling lights, thermostat and washing machine — even your socks — may be wired to interact online. The FBI will not have to bug your living room; you will do it yourself.
FBI pretended to be Seattle newspaper in order to hack suspect’s computer
End the Lie
Oct 28, 2014
Screenshot from http://seattletimes.com
The editor of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Seattle Times newspaper says she’s “outraged” to learn only this week that the FBI made a mock-up of the publication’s website in 2007 in order to spread spyware onto the computer of a suspect.
When agents with the Seattle division of the FBI swarmed the home of a 15-year-old high school student that year and charged him with making bomb threats, media reports noted that the arrest was made possible with the use of a so-called “Computer & Internet Protocol Address Verifier” program, or CIPAV, that had been remotely installed on the individual’s machine to collect and then communicate to the authorities the user-specific information that eventually identified the suspect. The student later pleaded guilty to emailing repeated bomb threats to Timberline High School and was sentenced to 90 days in juvenile detention.
Until this week, how the FBI actually went about sneaking the CIPAV program onto the student’s computer was a matter that went unreported. After digging through a trove of emails previously obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, however, American Civil Liberties Union technologist Chris Soghoian stumbled upon details this week showing that authorities accomplished the installation by sending a malicious link disguised as a Seattle Times news article to a social media account used by their suspect.
FALSE FLAG: Ottawa Shooting Attack Reveals Evidence of ‘October Drill’
21st Century Wire asks…
[by Shawn Helton | Oct 25, 2014]
Was the Ottawa shooting staged?
IMAGE: ‘ When drills go live’ – Police squads gather in front of Centre Block at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. (Photo o.canada.com)
In Ottawa, on Wednesday, October 22nd, we were told that there was a shooting attack on the National War Memorial resulting in the death of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, followed by multiple shots at Centre Block in the government complex at Parliament Hill – but is that really the entire story?
A number of evidence planks have emerged which we will cover – one of which is that there was, in fact, a security services and law enforcement drill (see ‘When Live Drills Go Dark’, below), taking place around the time of this bizarre shooting event in Canada.
IMAGE: ‘Canada Shooter’ – Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (Photo link md1.libe.com)
According to news reports, the shooter’s photograph (above) was obtained from an ‘unknown source’ but is considered authentic according to police. Oddly, the photograph appears to have a strange light reflection that looks as though it was taken through glass or perhaps from a screen.
The Artificial Jihad
As pointed out in a recent 21WIRE special report, the suspected Parliament Hill and National War Memorial shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, has the perfect ‘modus operandi’ and résumé to be an informant for either a law enforcement or intelligence agency. Historically, government operators have often made use of low-life criminals, and mentally disturbed individuals as part of a larger agenda – domestically and abroad:
“According to the Globe and Mail, Zehaf-Bibeau was already designated as a “high risk traveller”by the Canadian government’s security services – who had also seized his passport. Could this be the reason why the shooter had snapped? Was he being targeted or being pressured into becoming an informant?”
While much has been made of Zehaf-Bibeau’s “recent conversion to Islam,” especially from the reactionary neoconservative tribe on Fox News, we should make note of the formulaic scripting often involved in these kinds of events:
– Alleged connections to terror or terror networks.
– Suspect has radicalized views on religion used to polarize the public.
– Sensational media projections to bring in additional storylines for dramatic effect.
– An unknown motive for the crime said to be committed – followed quickly by a ‘presumed’ motive without evidence.
– Politicians, law enforcement and media call the incident a ‘terror attack’ before all evidence is reviewed.
Time and time again, we’ve seen this same choreographed narrative pushed by mass media and authorities – only to be exposed at a later date.
PODCAST — Akaida & Friends 015 – Jan Irvin – Psychedelic Intelligence
AKAIDA
Aug 25, 2014
http://soundcloud.com/akaider/sets/akaida-friends-015-jan-irvin
Today we interview JAN IRVIN from GNOSTIC MEDIA. An independent researcher in the field of ethno-mycology and the history of psychedelics, Jan has presented some of the most ground breaking research in alternative sphere in years, particularly in the field of psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, and DMT the active ingredient in ayuhuasca.
In becoming the publisher of John Allegro’s seminal book ‘The Sacred Mushroom & The Cross’ Jan found connections between the LSD gurus of the 60’s counter culture and a myriad of government and intelligence groups. Prominent among them R. Gordon Wasson, a JP Morgan Banker who led Jan into a whole new area of research in the psychedelic arena.
Jan presents a new understanding of our present drug culture, especially with the resurgence of psychedelia and new age sentiment. For more on Jan Irvin check his podcast and website Gnostic Media http://gnosticmedia.com
LINKS:
A Conversation on LSD – Timothy Leary (LA was the center of the psychedelic movement)
http://youtu.be/gRfYqxellF8?t=10m4s
Psychedelic Intelligence: The CIA and the Counterculture:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/psychedelic-intelligence-c-counterculture/
Manufacturing the Deadhead: A product of social engineering… by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/manufacturing-the-deadhead-a-product-of-social-engineering-by-joe-atwill-and-jan-irvin/
An Interview with Dave McGowan – “The CIA and the “Magic” of Laurel Canyon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8UK2qBWVGA
Professor Neil Whitehead interview: Dark Shamanism
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/006-dark-shamans-an-interview-with-prof-neil-whitehead/
The Gnostic Media Brain Database
http://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA
AUDIO — Antony Sutton – 1976 Lecture (Full Length)
ConspiracyScope
Jul 1, 2011
A rare 1976 lecture from Professor Antony C. Sutton.
http://conspiracyscope.blogspot.com/
[hat tip: Alex Hunter]
VIDEO — Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed, “The Bitcoin Community Has Sold Out”
The Conscious Resistance
Oct 28, 2014
On Saturday October 25 Derrick Broze caught up with Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed. Cody produced the controversial 3D printed gun, The Liberator. Cody discusses the failures of the bitcoin community, the optimism of libertarians, and Dark Wallet.
Find more videos like this at: http://www.theconsciousresistance.com
A ‘No Social Media List’ For Extremists And Potential Terrorists?
by Michael Snyder
End Of The American Dream
Sept 30, 2014
You have heard of the “No Fly List”, right? Well, now the Tories are pledging that if they win the next election in the UK they will establish a list of “extremists” that will have to have their social media posts “approved in advance by the police” before they post them. There are also plans to ban “extremists” from broadcasting and speaking at public events. The stated goal of these proposals is to crack down on terrorism, but in the process the civil liberties of the British people are going to be flushed down the toilet. And the American people need to pay close attention to what is going on in the UK, because whatever police state measures are implemented over there usually also get implemented over here eventually. For those that believe that we need to do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism, there is a very important question that you need to ask yourself. What if the government decides that you are an “extremist” because of what you believe? What will you do then?
When I saw a report in the Telegraph today entitled “Extremists to have Facebook and Twitter vetted by anti-terror police“, I could hardly believe it.
Do the British people actually want a “no social media list” that will essentially ban people from using Facebook and Twitter even though they haven’t actually been convicted of doing anything wrong?
The following is a brief excerpt from that article…
Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.
They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will lay out plans to allow judges to ban people from broadcasting or protesting in certain places, as well as associating with specific people.
The plans — to be brought in if the Conservatives win the election in May — are part of a wide-ranging set of rules to strengthen the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy.
This sounds like an Orwellian nightmare for the British people.
And who is an “extremist” anyway?
We are being told that those that belong to ISIS are extremists, and nobody would argue that.
But the article in the Telegraph makes it sound like any group “that spreads or promotes hatred” would be considered extremist. And under these new proposals, even belonging to such a group could get you thrown into prison for up to 10 years…
The Home Secretary will also introduce “banning orders” for extremist groups, which would make it a criminal offence to be a member of or raise funds for a group that spreads or promotes hatred. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison.
So what does all of that exactly mean?
Would anti-abortion groups be considered “extremist”?
Would groups promoting traditional values be considered “extremist”?
Would groups protesting against the abuses of the British government be considered “extremist”?
Would Christian churches ultimately be considered “extremist” because they don’t agree with the radical liberal agenda of the central government?
Essentially what the Tories propose to do is to tightly regulate all speech. And there is no way to do that without turning the entire United Kingdom into a totalitarian hellhole.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to march down a similar road.
PN 