GoOgLe/NsAholes/FaCiAeBoOk' PrIvAcY IlLuSiOn - PrIvAcY aNd CoNtRoL

April, 17, 2010 - Authors Comment: It's interesting to note that once the 'truth' is exposed concerning DOD's hacking of 'our' electronic communications that the 'damage control' mechanism is obvious for all to see.

By Bruce Schneier - Privacy and Control

In January, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg declared the age of privacy to be over. A month earlier, Google Chief Eric Schmidt expressed a similar sentiment. Add Scott McNealy'sand Larry Ellison's comments from a few years earlier, and you've got a whole lot of tech CEOs proclaiming the death of privacy -- especially when it comes to young people.

It's just not true. People, including the younger generation, still care about privacy. Yes, they're far more public on the Internet than their parents: writing personal details on Facebook, posting embarrassing photos on Flickr and having intimate conversations on Twitter. But they take steps to protect their privacy and vociferously complain when they feel it violated. They're not technically sophisticated about privacy and make mistakes all the time, but that's mostly the fault of companies and Web sites that try to manipulate them for financial gain.

To the older generation, privacy is about secrecy. And, as the Supreme Court said, once something is no longer secret, it's no longer private. But that's not how privacy works, and it's not how the younger generation thinks about it. Privacy is about control. When your health records are sold to a pharmaceutical company without your permission; when a social-networking site changes your privacy settings to make what used to be visible only to your friends visible to everyone; when the NSA eavesdrops on everyone's e-mail conversations -- your loss of control over that information is the issue. We may not mind sharing our personal lives and thoughts, but we want to control how, where and with whom. A privacy failure is a control failure.

People's relationship with privacy is socially complicated. Salience matters: People are more likely to protect their privacy if they're thinking about it, and less likely to if they're thinking about something else. Social-networking sites know this, constantly reminding people about how much fun it is to share photos and comments and conversations while downplaying the privacy risks. Some sites go even further, deliberately hiding information about how little control -- and privacy -- users have over their data. We all give up our privacy when we're not thinking about it.

Group behavior matters; we're more likely to expose personal information when our peers are doing it. We object more to losing privacy than we value its return once it's gone. Even if we don't have control over our data, an illusion of control reassures us. And we are poor judges of risk. All sorts of academic research backs up these findings.

Here's the problem: The very companies whose CEOs eulogize privacy make their money by controlling vast amounts of their users' information. Whether through targeted advertising, cross-selling or simply convincing their users to spend more time on their site and sign up their friends, more information shared in more ways, more publicly means more profits. This means these companies are motivated to continually ratchet down the privacy of their services, while at the same time pronouncing privacy erosions as inevitable and giving users the illusion of control.

You can see these forces in play with Google's (GOOG -News-People) launch of Buzz. Buzz is a Twitter-like chatting service, and when Google launched it in February, the defaults were set so people would follow the people they corresponded with frequently in Gmail, with the list publicly available. Yes, users could change these options, but -- and Google knew this -- changing options is hard and most people accept the defaults, especially when they're trying out something new. People were upset that their previously private e-mail contacts list was suddenly public. A Federal Trade Commission commissioner even threatened penalties. And though Google changed its defaults, resentment remained.

Facebook tried a similar control grab when it changed people's default privacy settings last December to make them more public. While users could, in theory, keep their previous settings, it took an effort. Many people just wanted to chat with their friends and clicked through the new defaults without realizing it.

Facebook has a history of this sort of thing. In 2006 it introduced News Feeds, which changed the way people viewed information about their friends. There was no true privacy change in that users could not see more information than before; the change was in control -- or arguably, just in the illusion of control. Still, there was a large uproar. And Facebook is doing it again; last month, the company announced new privacy changes that will make it easier for it to collect location data on users and sell that data to third parties.

With all this privacy erosion, those CEOs may actually be right -- but only because they're working to kill privacy. On the Internet, our privacy options are limited to the options those companies give us and how easy they are to find. We have Gmail and Facebook accounts because that's where we socialize these days, and it's hard -- especially for the younger generation -- to opt out. As long as privacy isn't salient, and as long as these companies are allowed to forcibly change social norms by limiting options, people will increasingly get used to less and less privacy.
There's no malice on anyone's part here [BULLSHIT!]; it's just market forces in action. If we believe privacy is a social good, something necessary for democracy, liberty and human dignity, then we can't rely on market forces to maintain it. Broad legislation protecting personal privacy by giving people control over their personal data is the only solution.

Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and the Chief Security Technology Officer of BT. You can read more of his writing at www.schneier.com

[Link Add: 06.03.10 Google’s DNA ‘Bio-Piracy’ & Federal DNA Databanks]

Latest Damage Control Using False U.S. vs. Them Scenario

[Google backs Yahoo in privacy fight with DOJ] [Microsoft vs. DOJ]....OPSEC Ops...Shhhhhhhh

[DOJ abandons warrantless attempt to read Yahoo e-mail] Yeah Right! LOL LOL LOL

[Word War III: Google vs. Governments] ...Like I said....S H I T is getting D E E P!

[Open Letter Signed by 10 Countries Slams Google’s Privacy Policies] E.X.C.E.L.L.E.N.T.

Now if we can just get rid the the NSA/SAIC cancer!

[BTY: Cryptome Online Spying Guide(s)] :)))

[BTY: EFFs Six Tips To Protect Your Search Privacy] Go EFF ;)

The use of third party advocates or front groups for the dissemination of US government propaganda is well documented: JSOU: Covert Blogs & Military Information Strategy

LOOOOOOOOOOOL [Google cleared of wi-fi snooping] LOOOOOOOOOOOL

NO|O|O SHIT [Google and CIA Fund Political Precrime Technology] NO|O|O SHIT

LOL :O [07.21.10 Google WiFi Privacy Breach Challenged by 38 States] LOL :O

[07.19.10 Group Calls for Hearings Into Google’s Ties to CIA/NSA] ? More Damage Control

[06.28.10 Watch Out: NSATube Exposes Your NSAGmail Contacts] WOW!

[06.20.10 EPIC Investigations of Google Street View] C.Y.A.

[06.08.10 GoogleNSAholes New Euro MP Plan To Log/Save Serches Three Years]:O|O:

[06.08.10 LOL GoogleNSAholes Assures Customers On Cloud Security Practices LOL]OO:

[06.08.10 Aussie police probe GoogleNSAholes] Yesssssssssssss! :O|O:

[06.03.10 Lawyers Claim Google Wi-Fi Sniffing ‘Is Not an Accident’] :O

[06.03.10 SSL Gmail Not As Safe As You Thought — UPDATED] :O

[06.03.10 More Google Side Jacking] Rated Top Hack 2007 :O

[06.03.10 Technical details of the Street View WiFi payload controversy] :O

[06.03.10 Google tries to patent tech that snoops Wi-Fi networks] :O

[06.02.10 Facebook 'Like' Button Draws Privacy Scrutiny] More DoD R&D Backdoors!

[06.01.10 Researchers Beat Clickjacking Defenses of Top Websites] Ya don't say! :O

[06.01.10 Clickjacking Worm Hits Facebook] More DoD R&D Backdoors!

[05.26.10 EU says Google and Microhoo still violate data protection law] E.X.C.E.L.L.E.N.T

[05.26.10 Google backpedals on IP 'anonymization' claim] :O

LOL LOL LOL [05.21.10 Congress Urges FTC to Investigate Google] LOL LOL LOL

[05.21.10 EPIC Urges FCC to Open Investigation Into Google Street View] Go EPIC :)

[05.21.10 Germany to Google: Respect data privacy] E.X.C.E.L.L.E.N.T.

[05.20.10 Facebook Bug Exposes Users to Dangerous CSRF Attacks] :O

[05.19.10 Pakistani court orders gov't to block Facebook] E.X.C.E.L.L.E.N.T.

[05.16.10 Consumer Groups Try to Block Google/NSA Purchase of AdMob] :O

[05.16.10 Germany Lashes Out at Google for Privacy Breach] E.X.C.E.L.L.E.N.T.

[05.13.10 Google Private Data Collection: ADMITS Snooping Via WiFi Networks] :O

[05.10.10 Scroogle Has Been Blocked By Google] NSA We Can Spy Over SSL Connections :(

[05.09.10 Facebook's Gone Rogue] No Kidding!!!

[05.08.10 Californian university drops Gmail over privacy concerns] High Five ! ! !

[05.08.10 Heads Up! Plague in (Security) Software] Intel back-doors

[05.08.10 New attack bypasses virtually all AV protection] More DuDs R&D

[05.07.10: Stealth installs and adware come to Facebook] Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[05.04.20: Six Things You Need to Know About Facebook Connections] :)))

[05.03.10: Google personal suggest bug exposed user web history] LOL LOL LOL

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth and The Truth Will Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA.....IT(s) OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: [GoOgLe: We DiDn'T hElP tHe NSA (Or dId wE?) - "TeMpUs OmNiA ReVeLaT"]

[How To Fight The New Cyberspies]
[What Your iPhone Apps Know About You]
[ID Theft: Don't Take It Personally]
[No Hacker Left Behind]
[Cybercrime Checks Into Hotels]
[Oracle Hacker Gets The Last Word]
[Zuckerberg on privacy]
[Schmidt on privacy]
[McNealy on privacy]
[Ellison on privacy]
[Danah Boyd on privacy and younger people]
[The Supreme Court on privacy and secrecy]
[Privacy and Salience]
[Social networking sites downplaying privacy concerns]
[Sites that make misleading privacy claims]
[Humans are a poor judge of risk]
[Academic research on how people make privacy decisions]

Google's Buzz:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-10451428-256.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-google-buzz-has-a-huge-privacy-flaw-2010-2
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=GOOG
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2010/02/12/whats-the-buzz-about-studying-user-reactions/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9172079/FTC_member_rips_privacy_efforts_by_Google_Facebook

Facebook's privacy problems:
Facebook's New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Facebook's "Evil Interfaces"
Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline
[Time For Google to Grow Up: Open Wi-Fi Privacy Mistake Must Be The Last] :O

Facebook News Feeds:
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2207967130
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208288769

Facebook's latest privacy changes:
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=376904492130

The value of privacy:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html

Privacy legislation:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/02/a_model_regime.html

Google responds: LOL
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/12/privacy-facebook-gmail-technology-security-google.html

Another essay on the topic:
http://www.secureconsulting.net/2009/05/the_new_school_of_privacy.html

CaLiFoRnIa JuSt-U$ On BrInK oF CoLlAp$e

Friday, April 16, 2010

Internet exclusive Full Disclosure® Video News Preview

Los Angeles, CA Having filed a Federal Lawsuit against L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca and the Sheriff’s Department the Full Disclosure Network® was finally allowed access to an “on camera” interview with one of L. A.’s Political Prisoners, Richard I. Fine. Having never been convicted of a crime, he has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Central Men’s Jail for more than a year, as punishment inflicted by L. A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for exposing the corrupt practices of the Judges, the Sheriff and the County.

In a four minute video preview Full Disclosure Network® presents excerpts from the one-hour jail-house interview with Richard Fine where he succinctly describes how the judges and government officials in California have brought the entire justice system to the brink of collapse.

Fine, who holds a PhD in international law and who served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. offers a simple solution to rid the state of the corruption perpetrators. He points to those who have participated in the massive judicial bribery scheme that has prevent the people from getting justice. He cites the tremendous cost to the California taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last two decades where judges have been paid under the table, while standing for election to their offices every six years. And he warns that America who fought for independence from the King of England has now returned to a country without a functioning justice system and how it has undermined the essence of the democratic process.

The one hour interview is being featured on community cable stations throughout California, and in major cities throughout the country, on the Internet and copies on DVD are available for purchase at the top of this web page.

Watch all six segments and preview below

Preview (4:07 min)

Segment #1 (8 min)Richard Fine Describes the first days of confinement that denied his "due process" rights and his ability to file legal actions on his own behalf.

Segment #2 (8 min) Systematic Judicial bribery scheme for past 20 years is described here along with the 2009 California Senate Bill SBX2 11 provides all government/judicial officials retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for the bribery scheme.

Segment #3 (8 min) Penal Codes vs "Coercive Confinement" presents conflict for LA County and 70 year old inmate Richard Fine who develops health problems during the year of incarceration. As a "political prisoner" in Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail it takes it toll on him and his family.

Segment #4 (8 min) Inmate Richard Fine describes how the judicial bribery scheme undermines the Democratic election process and how County officials use the budget process to transfer illegal money to the judges who do their bidding.

Segment #5 (8 min) Richard Fine describes his background as a Federal anti-trust prosecutor and the threats and dangers encountered while serving at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. [District of Corruption]

Segment #6 (8 min) Fine describes sources and motivation for judicial bribery along with the resulting destructive impact on American Democracy.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth and The Truth Will Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA.....IT(s) OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: [Systemic Injustice Against Two Longtime Political Prisoners]

[Free Richard I. Fine]

[Free Richard I. Fine Petition]

[Supreme Court Orders Disbarment of Attorney Richard I. Fine]

WaLl $tReEt BaIlOuT ToTaL $4.6 TrIlLiOn In FeD Di$bUr$eMeNt

April 1, 2010

Contact: Conor Kenny 202-277-6427 or Mary Bottari 608-345-6806

Today, the Real Economy Project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) released an assessment of the total cost to taxpayers of the Wall Street bailout. CMD concludes that multiple federal agencies have disbursed $4.6 trillion dollars in supporting the financial sector since the meltdown in 2007-2008. Of that, $2 trillion is still outstanding.

CMD's assessment demonstrates that the Federal Reserve has provided by far the bulk of the funding for the bailout in the form of loans amounting to $3.8 trillion. Little information has been disclosed about what collateral taxpayers have received in return for these loans. CMD also concludes that the bailout is far from over as the government has active programs authorized to cost up to $2.9 trillion and still has $2 trillion in outstanding investments and loans.

Learn more about the 35 programs included in our tally by visiting our Total Wall Street Bailout Cost Table, which contains links to pages on each bailout program with details including the current balance sheet for each program. 

"While the Treasury Department is patting itself on the back for recouping Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds and allegedly making money off of its aid to Citigroup, our accounting shows that these programs were a relatively small portion of the federal funds that have gone out the door in support of the financial sector. Far more has been done to aid Wall Street through the back door of the Federal Reserve than through the front door of Congressional appropriations," said Mary Bottari, Director of CMD's Real Economy Project.

"The tally shows that more scrutiny needs to be given by policymakers and the media to the role of the Federal Reserve especially as the Fed has accounted for the vast majority of the bailout funds, yet provides far less disclosure and is far less directly accountable than the Treasury," said Conor Kenny, the researcher who collected the data on the bailout.

CMD has presented its work in a table that shows: funds disbursed, maximum funds that were at-risk at the height of the bailout, and actual funds still outstanding for each program. CMD is also making available a Financial Crisis Tracker, a widget for the table that can be downloaded to websites to get up-to-date numbers on the financial crisis and the bailout. The Wall Street Bailout table will be updated monthly and will be a tremendous resource for reporters and the public alike. 

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth and The Truth Will Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA.....IT(s) OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References:

[Congressional Insider Trading Bill Stalls]

[Bill Threatens Congress’ Shield From Insider Trading Laws]

[WALL STREET BAILOUT COST TABLE can be accessed here]

[KEY FINDINGS can be accessed here] PDF Format

[FINANCIAL CRISIS TRACKER can be accessed here]

ACLU Documents Reveal Details Of Civilian Casualty Claims In Afghanistan And Iraq

April 1, 2010

ACLU Releases 13,000 Pages Of Government Files That Underscore Flaws In Compensating Victims' Families

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today made public more than 13,000 pages of documents regarding reports of civilians killed or injured by Coalition Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The documents include more than 800 claims for damages by the family members of those killed, including many that were denied, and reveal new details about the flaws in the system for compensating victims' families. The ACLU received the records in response to its September 2007 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, which is part of an effort to make more details about the ongoing wars available to the public.

"With more U.S. forces being sent into civilian areas in Afghanistan, it is critical that the American public be informed about what is at stake," said Nasrina Bargzie, cooperating counsel with the ACLU and an attorney at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP in Oakland, CA. "These newly released records illustrate that innocent civilian victims and their families are still not being appropriately compensated for their losses. Now that this problem has been brought to light, we hope the Obama administration will be compelled to reform the broken civilian compensation program."

The files made public today comprise over 800 claims for compensation or condolence payments submitted to the U.S. Foreign Claims Commissions and the Commander's Emergency Response Program by surviving family members of Afghan and Iraqi civilians said to have been killed or injured or to have suffered property damages due to actions by Coalition Forces. Many of the claims were denied under the so-called "combat exemption" to the Foreign Claims Act (FCA), which provides that harm inflicted on residents of foreign countries by U.S. soldiers during combat cannot be compensated under the FCA, even if the victims had no involvement whatsoever in the combat. The documents reveal that, due to the claim denials, many innocent civilians were not compensated for their harm or were referred to the Commander's Emergency Response Program for a discretionary condolence payment that is subject to an automatic $2,500 limit per death.

In related litigation, the ACLU is seeking records relating to the government's expanded use of predator drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. That FOIA lawsuit asks for information about the legal basis for drone strikes, as well as the number and rate of civilian casualties caused by the attacks.

"These records will help the American people comprehend the impact of war on innocent civilians and will allow the public to participate meaningfully in the ongoing debate about these wars," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "An informed public is a critical part of any democracy. Releasing the civilian casualty records is a good step towards increasing government transparency. The Obama administration should continue releasing documents that could inform the public about the critical issues of war."

Attorneys on the civilian casualty FOIA litigation are Bargzie; Wizner and Alexander Abdo of the ACLU National Security Project; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital.

===snipped===>"And Ye Shall Know The Truth and The Truth Will Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA.....IT(s) OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References:

[Predator Drone FOIA Request]

[OLC Documents Released 3/15/2010]

[CIA Documents Released 3/15/2010]

[The Conclusion of Chapter 4, "A Ponzi Scheme of Torture"]

[DOJ OIG Documents Released 3/15/2010, Batch [3]

[Letter to ACLU Regarding 2008 Torture FOIA Documents Released 3/15/2010]