Introducing Siri: DARPA’s Ghost in Apple’s Machine

by THEUNHIVEDMIND, theunhivedmind.com
October 5th 2011

http://cryptogon.com/?p=25289

So their eyes are growing hazy
cos they want to turn it on
so their minds are soft and lazy, well…
give em what they want

—10,000 Maniacs – Candy Everybody Wants

One of the stocks that I used to kick around in the 1990s was that of a now long dead company called General Magic. Back then, I looked into the company and learned that it was, in essence, divested from Apple in 1990. It was made up of former Apple employees and Apple held 10% of the company.

Apple has been thinking about the post PC era (that we’re actually entering now, according to them) since the 1980s. Here’s Apple’s Knowledge Navigator concept from 1987:

See Video:

This wasn’t going to happen anytime soon, so they spun it off into General Magic.

If you’ve seen Apple’s Siri in action, that’s the type of thing that General Magic wanted to do back in the 1990s. With the old Portico system, users called into the service, rather than the service running on the phone, as is the case with Siri. Here’s an almost unwatchable promo for General Magic’s Portico product (circa 1997):

See Video:

If you’re interested in Siri, definitely read Wired’s, Bill and Andy’s Excellent Adventure II from 1994. The point is that Apple and Apple alumni have been beating around this bush for a very long time.

Flash forward to what Apple unveiled yesterday:

See Video:

Now, what’s in a name?

Look closely at the name: Siri. What letters stand out?

See it yet?

S i R I.

SRI = Stanford Research Institute.

It turns out that Apple’s Siri used to be SRI’s Siri, and SRI’s Siri is… Are you ready? A spinoff of DARPA’s PAL (Perceptive Assistant that Learns) program, which SRI called CALO (Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes).

See Video:

This is SRI’s CALO information page:

SRI International is leading the development of new software that could revolutionize how computers support decision-makers.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), under its Perceptive Assistant that Learns (PAL) program, has awarded SRI the first two phases of a five-year contract to develop an enduring personalized cognitive assistant. DARPA expects the PAL program to generate innovative ideas that result in new science, new and fundamental approaches to current problems, and new algorithms and tools, and to yield new technology of significant value to the military.

SRI has dubbed its new project CALO, for Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes. The name was inspired by the Latin word “calonis”, which means “soldier’s servant”. The goal of the project is to create cognitive software systems, that is, systems that can reason, learn from experience, be told what to do, explain what they are doing, reflect on their experience, and respond robustly to surprise.

The software, which will learn by interacting with and being advised by its users, will handle a broad range of interrelated decision-making tasks that have in the past been resistant to automation. It will have the capability to engage in and lead routine tasks, and to assist when the unexpected happens. To focus the research on real problems and to ensure the software meets requirements such as privacy, security, and trust, the CALO project researchers will themselves use the technology during its development.

SRI is leading the multidisciplinary CALO project team, and, beyond participating in the research program, is also responsible for overall project direction and management and the development of prototypes.

Here’s more from Venture Beat, Shadowy Government Project Spins Off Siri to Help Direct Your Affairs:

Conspiracy theorists will love this one: A computerized assistant that can help you manage your day to day life, built atop an artificial intelligence platform developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the United States’ internal military research group. Siri, the startup building the assistant, is today announcing $8.5 million in venture funding.

As befits its spookish origins, Siri isn’t saying a great deal yet about what it will do. Co-founder Dag Kittlaus, who licensed technology from DARPA’s CALO (Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes) project, calls it “a smarter, more personal interaction paradigm for the Internet.” Unfortunately, that’s about as specific as calling Google “a thing that finds stuff.” Those who want a sneak peek at Siri will instead have to look to CALO.

So here’s what we know about CALO: It’s a concerted effort to take the first real step toward artificial intelligence, with five years of work and $200 million in funding to date. Rather than being immediately useful, it learns about the user over time, much like a real personal assistant would. As it learns, it becomes capable of making logical associations and initiating its own actions.

Siri, Apple’s Implementation of DARPA Sponsored Artificial Intelligence Technology

People are going to pay a lot of money to have their asses tracked to within a couple of meters by a device running a civilian version of DARPA’s soldier’s servant software.

The most disturbing aspect of this is not what the iPhone 4s is going to be phoning home to Apple (which is unknown), or the invasion of The Complex into most aspects of our lives, but the fact that, in general, people would think that you were nuts for having these reservations at all. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with re-purposed DoD AI software running on a mass market consumer device that persistently reveals the user’s location to the state?

Ah well, give em what they want.

Original Page: http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/?p=4550

Shared from Read It Later

 אל

» False Flags and Conspiracy Theories Soaring Above London Olympic Stadium

m.guardian.co.uk | Nov 13th 2011 

The US has raised repeated concerns about security at the London Olympics and is preparing to send up to 1,000 of its agents, including 500 from the FBI, to provide protection for America's contestants and diplomats, the Guardian has learned. American officials have expressed deep unease that the UK has had to restrict the scope of anti-terrorism "stop and search" powers, and have sought a breakdown of the number of British police and other security personnel that will be available next summer. The prime minister and other senior members of the cabinet, including home secretary Theresa May and culture and sport secretary Jeremy Hunt, are taking turns to chair security meetings about the Olympics, which are often dominated by the latest questions from the US, sources said. But Washington's need for reassurance is exasperating British officials and anti-terrorism officials, who have privately raised concerns about the meddling, as well as the size of the US "footprint" in the UK during the games next year. "We are not equal partners in this," said one security official. "They are being very demanding." The friction is adding to the pressures on the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog), which is responsible for preparing and staging the event. The Guardian has learned the committee is attempting to resolve a potential crisis over venue security, after conceding it had underestimated the number of security guards needed at the 32 sites across the country. Originally it had thought 10,000 guards would be enough, but after a review over the summer it now believes it will need up to 21,000. Venue safety is not the responsibility of the police, so the firm G4S was awarded the contract to find and train the initial group. The company will this week begin an advertising campaign to meet that target. But the organising committee does not have the money to pay G4S to make up the shortfall, and does not believe the firm has enough time to do so, forcing ministers to turn to the Ministry of Defence for help. The MoD has offered 3,000 soldiers, and another 2,000 in reserve – half the total required. The ministry is working within its own tight budget, and the late request for help has irritated some officials. "What have they been doing for the last five years?" asked one. "There is less than a year to go and they've only just realised they need twice the number of security guards they first thought. Where is the money to pay for this coming from? It is an extra burden on the defence budget that we could well do without." Another source said: "Everyone has now realised 10,000 was an underestimate. This is one of the biggest problems facing the Olympic authorities because there is an absolute dearth of vetted and qualified private security guards. Senior police had advised ministers and the committee that 10,000 was too few, but nobody wanted to listen because of the cost involved. "The military will have to stand up some people. Otherwise G4S have got the Olympic committee over a barrel." The problem will do little to reassure Washington, which will be supplementing its FBI personnel with an equal number of diplomatic security officials, some of whom will be armed. Though the UK's Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has lowered the threat of attack to "substantial" – the third level on the scale – western intelligence agencies remain wary. They know it is possible that al-Qaida, or one of its affiliates, may attempt to disrupt the Olympics, with members of the US team being obvious targets. The Home Office and Scotland Yard believe the UK has a robust security strategy, but this has not stopped American officials voicing their concerns. The police response to the London riots, the arrest of a security guard at the London Olympics site earlier this year, and the arrests made shortly before the visit of the Pope last year have provoked anxiety among US officials. The repeal of section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allowed police to stop and search suspects with near impunity, also raised alarm. One well-placed Whitehall source said the entire Olympic security operation was being prepared "with the US in mind", adding: "The US will have no qualms in saying it is unsafe. If something happens and we say we did not have enough people, we are finished." Another official said: "The Americans are risk-averse, with a capital A and underlined. They want to see everything. We are not equal partners in this. They want to be on top of everything – building protection, counter-terrorism strategy and VIP security – everything." Asked about the size of the US contingent heading to London next year, the official said: "They don't do things by halves." In addition to the official American security entourage, the sponsors of the Games, including Coca-Cola, will have their own private security details, adding to the complexity of the policing operation. The Ministry of Defence and the Home Office said no final decisions had been taken on the number of soldiers that might be needed to beef up security at some of the Olympic sites.An official said the need for an increase at the venues had become apparent when the Olympic committee began to role-play scenarios at some of the completed sites over the summer. "The focus of the government and everyone involved is to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games that London, the UK and the world can enjoy," a government spokesman said. "Ministers and officials from across government are working closely with the police and Locog to ensure we have a robust safety and security strategy." Officials said ministers, the Olympic committee and G4S were working together "to finalise the requirements for Olympic venue security". "As with all significant national events, we will make the best and most appropriate use of available resources," a statement said. "The Ministry of Defence have been fully involved in supporting Olympic security planning work." G4S said it was confident of recruiting 10,000 security guards, and could recruit more, as long as the Olympic authorities gave the company enough time. "We need to know as soon as possible," said a spokesman. The US state department declined to comment. Locog said detailed security plans were being drawn up in collaboration with the government and security agencies.

Original Page: http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/13/us-worried-london-olympics-security-2012?cat=sport&type=article

Shared from Read It Later

 אל

Al Qaeda magazine encourages forest fire arson in the US

Posted on May 2, 2012 by Bill Gabbert

A magazine published by members of al Qaeda has called for Western Muslims to wage war within the United States, urging them to engage in lone wolf attacks, including setting forest fires. According to ABC News, a recent issue of Inspire magazine has surfaced on jihadi forums with one article titled ”It Is of Your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb”, which gives detailed instructions on how to build an “ember bomb” in a forest in the United States, and suggested Montana as a choice location due to the rapid population growth in forested areas.

In America, there are more houses built in the [countryside] than in the cities. It is difficult to choose a better place [than] in the valleys of Montana.

A previous issue of the magazine contained information on how to construct remote-controlled explosives, and helpfully listed the needed parts along with instructions and photos.

ABC News has been calling around today to find a wildfire expert who can be interviewed on camera for a piece they expect to be on Wednesday’s Good Morning America. One person they called was Dick Mangan, a past President of the International Association of Wildland Fire (IAWF), but ABC was not able to work out the logistics of quickly getting a camera crew to his house in Montana. The last we heard they found someone in the Sacramento area who works for CAL FIRE.

It’s odd, or maybe that is why ABC contacted Dick, because he wrote an article for the March/April 2005 issue of Wildfire, a magazine published by the IAWF, titled Terrorists in the Woods, about the potential for terrorists to set vegetation fires in wildland areas. In the article he mentioned that police and structural fire departments receive funding for the possibility of terror-related incidents, but the land management agencies receive little or nothing to plan for or prevent threats such as these.

Below is an excerpt from Dick’s 2005 article.

…The massive increases in the federal budget for protection from terrorism mostly have been sent to police and structural fire departments. But what about the threat of terrorist-caused wildland fires in our forests, community watersheds and wildland-urban interface? Who’s worried about that threat, what are they doing about it, and how much is being spent to fund the efforts to prevent it?

The history of fire as a tool of warfare is well-documented: Native Americans used fire against their enemies, both other tribes and the expanding Europeans; the Aboriginal people of Australia used fire to discourage the incursion of the British settlers onto their island. In World War II, the ]apanese launched “fire balloons” against the western United States. While largely unsuccessful, they started a few fires and killed six people in Oregon. The Palestinians in ihe latter half of the 20th century used fire to try to destroy Israel’s carefully planted pine plantations.

Now, as more and more folks are moving into the wildland-urban interface, the danger of fire as a weapon is even greater. Even under the best of circumstances – when a single ignition occurs under critical fire conditions – hundreds and thousands of citizens are threatened with entrapment, injury or death from rapidly spreading fires. Imagine if a small band of determined terrorists, with only some basic fire weather knowledge and fire behavior training decided to set multiple ignitions in some of our most vulnerable areas like heavily populated valley bottoms with limited egress/acceass and a heavy, dry fuel loading at the peak of the burning period?

There are many such areas around the world: in the foothills of Andalusia in Spain; outside of Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and in numerous areas of the United States from Florida to the Pine Barrens of New York to the foothills surrounding Los Angeles. Even my own hometown of Missoula, Montana has areas that fit all the above criteria, and is surely at risk under the wrong combination of weather conditions and a committed terrorist with fire on the brain.

We contacted a spokesperson for the IAWF, Paula Nelson, about the reported threat of terrorist-arson, and she responded:

Wildfire threats and terrorist threats cross borders and require us all to be prepared and vigilant. Training and communicating with fellow firefighters, regardless of agency or country, is always worthwhile in improving our capabilities in both arenas. This is a cornerstone for the work IAWF does.

via wildfiretoday.com

FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE! These fires are scaring the shit out of people, and as everyone is busy evacuating, my little brother is going in to fight the fires. When he told me, I wanted to say, "don't be a hero" but I understand "the calling" and he is doing exactly what I would have done... I hope he doesn't get burned like I did.

Internet firms co-opted for surveillance: experts

by Georgina Prodh, theunhivedmind.com
September 30th 2011 10:12 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-internet-security-idUSTRE78T2GY20110930

(Reuters) – Internet companies such as Google, Twitter and Facebook are increasingly co-opted for surveillance work as the information they gather proves irresistible to law enforcement agencies, Web experts said this week.

Although such companies try to keep their users’ information private, their business models depend on exploiting it to sell targeted advertising, and when governments demand they hand it over, they have little choice but to comply.

Suggestions that BlackBerry maker RIM might give user data to British police after its messenger service was used to coordinate riots this summer caused outrage — as has the spying on social media users by more oppressive governments.

But the vast amount of personal information that companies like Google collect to run their businesses has become simply too valuable for police and governments to ignore, delegates to the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi said.

“When the possibility exists for information to be obtained that wasn’t possible before, it’s entirely understandable that law enforcement is interested,” Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf told Reuters in an interview.

“Then the issue would be, what’s the right policy? And that, or course, engenders a lot of debate,” said Cerf, who is recognized as one of the “fathers of the Internet” for his early work in areas including communications protocols and email.

Demands from governments for Internet companies to hand over user information have become routine, according to online privacy researcher and activist Christopher Soghoian, who makes extensive use of freedom-of-information requests in his work.

“Every decent-sized U.S. telecoms and Internet company has a team that does nothing but respond to requests for information,” Soghoian told Reuters in an interview.

Soghoian estimates that U.S. Internet and telecoms companies may receive about 300,000 such requests in connection with law enforcement each year — but public information is scarce.

While U.S. courts are obliged to publish reports on wire-tapping of telephone lines, no similar information is required to be made public with respect to the Internet — which grew up after the laws on electronic communications were passed.

Google does voluntarily publish a transparency report every six months in which it details the number of requests it receives from governments around the world to remove content from its services or hand over user data.

But the numbers do not reveal how many users are affected by each request — only trends country by country (www.google.com/transparencyreport).

Some governments are requiring Internet companies to collect more data and keep it for longer, said Katarzyna Szymielewicz, executive director of Poland’s Panoptykon Foundation, which campaigns for human rights in light of modern surveillance.

“Government agencies throughout the world are pushing companies to collect even more data than is needed for their business purposes,” she told the conference.

“For example, we have a very controversial data retention regime which is currently under review. This requires people to store data for a period up to two years so it can easily be accessed by law enforcement agencies.”

The ease and cost of surveillance are at an all-time low, Soghoian said, with Google charging an administrative fee of $25 to hand over data, Yahoo charging $20, and Microsoft and Facebook providing data for free.

“Now, one police officer from the comfort of their desk can track 20, 30, 50 people all through Web interfaces provided by mobile companies and cloud computing companies,” he said.

“The marginal cost of surveilling one more person is now essentially approaching zero.”

Original Page: http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/?p=3831

Shared from Read It Later

 אל

The Database: Why Criminal Governments Spy On Citizens

by THEUNHIVEDMIND, theunhivedmind.com
November 30th -0001

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/293-the-database-why-criminal-governments-spy-on-citizen

At the very foundation of perhaps every modern day conflict between the expansive powers of unchecked bureaucracy and the dwindling freedoms of the ordinary citizen dwells the vital issue of privacy. Privacy and the right to hold personal and political views without being singled out and scrutinized by government is absolutely essential to any society which dares to deem itself “fair and just”. Ultimately, without the presence of these two liberties, and without people to defend them, a nation is ill equipped to circumvent the growth of tyranny, and anyone claiming to be “free” in the midst of such a culture is living a delusion of the highest order.

Often, social engineers attempt to direct debate over the issue of privacy towards rationalizations of relative morality, or artificially delineated priorities. We quibble over the level of government intrusion that should be tolerated for the sake of the “greater good”. We struggle with questions of bureaucratic reach, wondering at which point we should consider government a threat to the safety and liberty of the people, rather than a servant and protector. The dialogue always turns towards “how much” room government should be given to lumber about our personal lives. Rarely do we actually confront the idea that, perhaps, government should not be welcomed at all into such places.

Really, what makes a governmental entity so special that it should be allowed free access to the activities of the average citizen? Why should ANY intrusion of privacy be tolerated, let alone the kind that goes on today? Our most important concern is not how much leeway our government should be given to snoop into our pocket books, our medical records, our education, our political leanings, or our child rearing philosophies, but rather, whether or not they fulfill any purpose whatsoever through these actions. Is the government, as it exists now, even necessary, or does it cause only harm?

Under tyranny, privacy is usually the first right to be trampled in the name of public safety. Its destruction is incremental and its loss a victim of attrition in the wake of more immediate crisis. Disturbingly, many people become so fixated upon the threats of the moment that they lose complete track of the long term derailment of their own free will in progress. Government, no matter how corrupt, is seen as an inevitability. Conditioned by fear, desperation, insecurity, and sometimes greed, we begin to forget what it was like to live without prying eyes constantly over our shoulders. In the past decade alone, Americans have witnessed a substantial invasion of our individual privacy as well as a destabilization of the legal protections once designed to maintain it. Not just America, but most of the modern world has undergone a quiet program of surveillance and citizen cataloging that goes far beyond any sincere desire for “safety” and into the realm of technocratic domination.

Spying on U.S. citizens by a host of alphabet agencies has been going on for decades, but the actual cataloging of the public by government became most direct during WWII, which saw the use of the Census Bureau as a tool for collecting the names and residencies of Japanese Americans, as well as the highly illegal and unconstitutional internment of these innocents and their families:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=confirmed-the-us-census-b

The creation of lists designed to brand dissenters, activists, and even average passive persons has only become more prevalent since. From the McCarthy witch hunts (based on some real threats but skewed by McCarthy’s ignorance of the bigger picture), to the Cointelpro antics of the Vietnam era, government spying and cataloging has been a way of life and an expected prerequisite part of the relationship between citizenry and leadership. Though consistently opposed, surveillance has become ingrained into our social framework.

In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Information Act (FISA) was signed by Jimmy Carter into law. The claimed purpose of this act was to confront the extensive abuses of power initiated by the Nixon administration, and to ensure that intelligence agencies were never used again as tools for suppressing political opposition or activist groups. Instead, the act merely became a cover for even more surveillance of American citizens. FISA’s use was expanded far beyond the realm of “foreign intelligence” by both the Bush and Obama Administrations to include vast warrantless wire tapping programs and internet monitoring against U.S. citizens in tandem with telecom companies who are now immune from civil litigation should their intrusions ever be discovered. In 2010, orders for FISA surveillance were up 19%, and not a single request was turned down. This included over 24,287 national security information requests by the FBI pertaining to over 14,000 U.S. persons:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2010rept.pdf

In 2002, the Bush Administration established the Information Awareness Office (IAO) under the supervision of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Using what they call “Total Information Awareness”, and stemming from the usurping authority of the Patriot Act, this project’s purpose is to monitor vast swaths of domestic communication, as well as collect a massive database of the personal information of every U.S. citizen, including phone calls, emails, social networking records, medical records, and financial records without search warrant authorization:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/18/september11.usa

In the UK, a national database including biometrics has been ordered for completion by 2017, including the issuance of a microchipped ID card:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580895/All-UK-citizens-in-ID-database-by-2017.html

A similar action has been taken by the government of India for citizens “below the poverty line”, supposedly, to make welfare programs easier to administer. Of course, nearly half of India’s population is under the international poverty line:

http://www.mit.gov.in/content/national-citizen-database

In 2009, the Russian government gave itself sweeping powers to spy on citizens, including unlimited access to all private mail without a warrant:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5878430/Kremlin-gives-itself-powers-to-spy-on-all-Russian-mail.html

Last month, the Obama Administration launched a website called ‘Attack Watch’. Its purpose? To monitor and catalog all internet based opponents of the Obama presidency. Obama supporters can “report” attacks on the White House using the website by sending an email or twitter:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-attack-watch-website-to-help-supporters-fight-back/

And most recently, the Federal Reserve itself launched a new strategy called the “Social Listening Platform”, which is designed to compile and monitor lists of Fed opponents and critics in a vast database, while at the same time watching billions of web conversations and blogs for negative influence against the central bank:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44701381/The_Fed_Wants_to_Be_Your_Facebook_Friend

Obviously, the current levels of surveillance against citizens has gone way beyond the old excuse of “defense against terrorism”, and jaunted into the realm of Orwellian thought police. The Fed, for instance, has always claimed that its privately controlled banking structure is valuable to the U.S. government and the economy because it allows them a level of political independence that is useful in applying “objective” solutions to economic problems. Yet, they now insist on tracking the political views and opinions of their opponents in the general populace! This hardly sounds “objective” to me…

If the Fed wants to know what we think of them, they certainly don’t need to covertly monitor our communications or writings. All they have to do is ask us! Of course, this kind of tactic has less to do with knowing our opinions, and more to do with silencing our opinions.

To understand the concept of the subversion of dissent through surveillance, we must examine two factors. First, is the reality of the spying itself, which we just outlined clearly above. Second, are the common arguments and talking points used by the champions of Big Brother culture, and how nonsensical they can be. Let’s take a look some of these arguments now…

1) If You Have Nothing To Hide, Then You Have Nothing To Fear From Government Surveillance

At bottom, whether we have “something to hide” or not is none of the government’s concern unless they can provide probable cause. This issue is directly dealt with in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It is NOT subject to wild interpretations or matters of stipulation. No national emergencies, wars, terrorist enemies, nor little green men from outer space take precedence over the rights of the individual to be secure from constant and unwarranted scrutiny. In a free country, all men are innocent until proven guilty, but in a surveillance slave culture, everyone is treated as a potential criminal.

2) Surveillance Makes Our Country Safer

Regardless of the society at risk, or the government involved, history has shown that the act of government spying is rarely if ever about citizen safety. Rather, it is invariably about protecting the establishment power structure itself, especially when that structure has committed heinous transgressions and criminal behavior that inspire the citizenry to overthrow it. The more offensive and corrupt the government, the more surveillance that government thrusts upon the public. Guaranteed. The safety provided by the state is, in general, an illusion, and the prevention of danger is hardly successful enough to warrant the faith that the populace places in the establishment. Citizens ultimately provide their own safety, or none at all. Governments cannot save you from danger, they can only give you a superficial sense of comfort. A social placebo to ease the constant paranoia they simultaneously strive to perpetuate.

3) The Authorities Already Know Everything About Us Anyway, So A Little More Surveillance Won’t Matter

The magic of faulty logic is apparent in its circular nature. One lie feeds into another until a complete, but erroneous, idea is born. Again, the question needs to be raised; what makes the inhabitants of government so trustworthy or upright that they deserve to expect full knowledge of our personal lives? What they know or do not know already is utterly irrelevant to this question. Being privy to public information databases does not qualify an individual to walk into your home, track your phone calls and emails, or place you on a list of undesirables. So, why should it be any different for a government?

4) Our Government Is Elected By The People, So If You Don’t Like Surveillance, Vote Them Out

The ignorance of this response is hopefully apparent to most readers. In an election dynamic controlled by a two party system in which both parties represent the top 1% or less of global elitists, and not the people, voting on the national level is hardly meaningful or effective. There is only one Ron Paul, and few others in government with similar convictions or principles. Therefore, regardless of how we vote, the system is designed to continue forward in the construction of a surveillance society. Our government today is NOT elected by the people. Not as long as the false left/right paradigm remains.

5) All Individuals Should Make Sacrifices For The Greater Good

The “greater good” is a matter of perspective. My definition is certainly much different from that of an elitist or a collectivist. Ideally, any widely applied view of this elusive greater good should be built upon the foundation of inherent conscience, and be driven by true sincerity and empathy for the future of humanity. This future, if it is to be any future worth living in, must include those liberties and desires for self determination that exist in every one of us. There is no group (an abstract concept) that is worth the sacrifice of these principles. There is no group that is worth more that the individuals which make its existence possible. The greater good then, logically, should revolve around the nurturing of strong individuals, without which, the group crumbles into chaos and dust. Supplanting individualism for the sake of a surveillance society always leads to such an end.

As stated above, government spying and cataloging of citizens is a means to several ends. It is meant to create fear, doubt, and self censorship. It is meant to divert attention away from the legitimate criminal behaviors of authorities and towards the inevitable and justifiable reactions of those in opposition. It is meant to create efficiency in subversion. Meaning, when smaller forces (corrupt governments) seek to destabilize and diminish larger forces (populations), efficiency of action is the key. By identifying, then targeting and defaming specific and prominent critics of the Fed, for example, rather than making broad based attacks on all of us, the central bank is more likely to dissuade the growth of dissent, and chill the air for leadership figures in the movement. That is, if they are successful…

The great anxiety here is one of “what if”? What if they target you? Or me? What happens then? My personal response; who cares! The more people who effectively endure as obstacles to centralization of control, the more people they have to add to their ridiculous lists. Eventually, with catalogs of millions cluttering the war room, the very tactic of government spying becomes futile. The key is to cast off the dread of the machine and realize that none of us is alone in the fight. The juggernaut is hollow. Its terrible roar is choked with smoke. It rolls forward only because we have not yet dared to stand in its path. It is weak, and indeed, we may find, its doubts are far heavier than ours.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:

http://www.alt-market.com/donate

Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse? Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren’t stocked, then you aren’t prepared. To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10

Original Page: http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/?p=5168

Shared from Read It Later

 אל

Debka: Whoever hacked the drone, hacked the CIA — RT

Debka: Whoever hacked the drone, hacked the CIA

rt.com | Nov 30th -0001

New reports investigating Iran’s interception of a top-secret drone craft belonging to the CIA allege that the hijacking of the stealth airship could have roots not just overseas but in Washington as well.

Ongoing reports from RT have revealed that Iranian intelligence officer claimed in recent days that the recovery of America’s RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone on December 4 was not due to an equipment malfunction, as US authorities say happened with another craft last days later, but rather the handiwork of Iranian engineers.

As RT reported yesterday, overseas officials speaking on condition of anonymity say that they were able to crack the computers of the drone to hijack the craft and lead it to a safe landing after it caught the drone creeping over from a mission in Afghanistan. Now military sources speaking to Israel-based news outlet Debka insist that Iranian officials made their way into the drone commander centers at CIA headquarters outside of Washington in Langley, Virginia. Debka has close connections with the Israel intelligence community and in the past has been known for correctly reporting on issues of importance to the American intelligence community before US outlets.

According to the report, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s insisting to Fox News this week that the Pentagon will “absolutely” continue drone missions over Iran was a falsity, as those inside the DoD have actually suspended those stealth missions out of Afghanistan as American authorities fear that a second craft will be apprehended as well by Iran.

Less than two weeks after Tehran intercepted the Sentinel, another US-manned drone crash-landed at an American base in the Indian Ocean island nation of Seychelles.

Debka’s report, published Friday, makes note of how during similar episodes in the past, the US upped their military operations after such accidents in order to ensure America that security is not threatened. In this instance, however, America responded by first denying the disappearance and then pleading with Iran to return the craft with no known drone operations being conducted over Iran since.

The Israel-based outlet adds that in addition to hacking the GPS network of the craft, as Iranian engineers admitted earlier this week, the command center in Langley must have been infiltrated as to keep those controlling the robotic plane from noticing that the craft had been guided onto an enemy base. Had the CIA been aware of the hacking of the GPS network only, adds Debka, they would have surely triggered the craft’s self-destruct mechanism, rendering any wreckage unmanageable for Iranian authorities recovering the debris. Instead, Tehran officials were left with a pristine drone craft and have since thanked America for the gift and claim that they have decoded the technology of the craft.

Debka’s analysis of the hijacking also raises a last point worth bringing up — with the Sentinel’s mission over Iran being the first such flight there for the craft, whoever intercepted it was well aware of the precise day and hour of the mission. With Washington doubting their technology out of Tehran, going as far as to call it an “ox-cart culture” in recent weeks, the possibility that the attack was infiltrated from within the United States or with the cooperation of American officials seems more than likely now.

The topic of a war with Iran was debated by contenders for the Republican Party’s nomination for president last night, though Congressman Ron Paul insisted that continued American missions like the one in question are only creating hostilities between nations.

"You're trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq," Paul said. "You cannot solve these problems with war,” said the candidate.

NYPD involved in online scandal again New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended the NYPD for their actions on Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, even if they did beat peaceful protesters and arrest accredited journalists. Occupy Wall Street

TSA lets rapper keep his weed When he’s not recording tunes like “Personal OG” and “National Anthem (Fuck the World),” rapper Freddie Gibbs likes to travel. He also likes to smoke weed. A real lot.

Original Page: http://rt.com/usa/news/hacked-cia-drone-iran-029/

Shared from Read It Later

 אל

Penn State officials' emails may show Sandusky coverup

by Yamiche Alcindor, content.usatoday.com
November 30th -0001

Emails from 2001 between Penn State University's former president, vice president and athletic director discussing what to do about Jerry Sandusky's alleged encounter with a boy in the shower are raising new questions, CNN reports.

The messages from February 26-28, 2001 may illustrate a cover-up by former Penn State president Graham Spanier, then vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley.

University officials "knew they had a problem with Sandusky after a 2001 shower incident, but apparently first decided to handle it using a 'humane' approach before contacting outside authorities whose job it is to investigate suspected abuse," CNN reports.

On June 22, Sandusky was convicted of abusing 10 boys over 15 years.

CNN said it does not have the e-mails but that the alleged contents were made available to them.

In one email, Spanier allegedly acknowledges Penn State could be "vulnerable" for not reporting the incident. "The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier allegedly writes.

On February 26, 2001, Schultz allegedly writes to Curley that he assumes Curley's "got the ball" about a three-part plan to "talk with the subject asap regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility," ... "contacting the chair of the charitable organization" and "contacting the Department of Welfare."

However, Curley apparently changed his mind and refers to a conversation he had with head football coach Joe Paterno. It's not known what the two discussed.

Curley writes later that he rather just meet with Sandusky, tell him there's "a problem," and that "we want to assist the individual to get professional help," according to CNN.

Schultz and Curley are currently charged with perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse. They have pleaded not guilty.

The new emails could lead to further charges, CNN reports.

Original Page: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/penn-state-officials-emails-may-show-sandusky-coverup/1

Shared from Read It Later

 אל