Leftists Hound Mastercard To Put Conservatives ‘Out Of Business’

Anti-conservative forces of many different stripes are waging asymmetric warfare against all conservative elements of society to completely silence them. Mastercard has already crippled several conservative groups by withdrawing their ability to receive donations. ⁃ TN Editor

On Tuesday, leftist activists targeted Mastercard’s shareholder meeting, demanding the Board of Directors adopt a “human rights committee” dedicated to blacklisting organizations unfairly accused of being “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Activists with the group SumOfUs pestered the board with spurious questions about “doing business with criminals” in pursuit of its “blood money” campaign.

Nandini Jammi, a representative of the leftist group SumOfUs, demanded the shareholders and board members support proposal five, “which asks the board of directors to create a human rights committee at the board level. At least 2,300 people have written to their pensions and mutual funds in support of this proposal, and 127,000 people have signed a petition calling on Mastercard to stop processing payments for far-right hate groups.”

“I’m here to inform you that you have lost control of your financial network. Thanks to your financial partners, you are open for business with criminals,” Jammi declared.

“Charlottesville. Pittsburgh. New Zealand. There have been deadly consequences more than once. The white nationalist movement has gone global and it’s time for you to investigate who has been let into Mastercard’s network,” the leftist argued.

While Jammi did mention one legitimate concern — Mastercard allegedly processing accounts for a Neo-Nazi group in Germany, where Neo-Nazi organizations are illegal — her activism clearly aims at getting all the so-called conservative “hate groups” cut off from bank transactions.

The activist also parked a van outside the Mastercard shareholders’ meeting, plastered with the message, “Putting hate groups out of business? Priceless.” SumOfUs tweeted the image with the hashtag “NoMoreBloodmoney,” a reference to their “blood money” campaign.

That campaign pressures U.S. financial companies to blacklist various “hate groups,” heavily relying on the discredited accusations of the SPLC. The SPLC targeted the Ku Klux Klan and featured its battles with the KKK in fundraising literature. Eventually, it expanded this fundraising ploy by monitoring “hate groups.” The ever-expanding “hate group” accusation “is a financial and repetitional death sentence, effectively equating organizations to the KKK,” Meghan Meier, a lawyer who defended a victim of the SPLC’s “hate” accusations, told PJ Media.

“No right-thinking person wants to be associated with the KKK, so the SPLC’s ‘hate group’ accusation is incredibly effective at shaming organizations and causing them to be shunned by donors, fundraising platforms, service providers, the media, and others. Shaming and shunning are hallmarks of what makes a statement ‘defamatory’ under the common law,” she said, suggesting the accusations make the SPLC vulnerable to defamation lawsuits.

Yet the “hate group” accusations also suffer from more serious revelations. This March, the SPLC was roiled with a racism and sexism scandal, and amid the scandal, former employees admitted that the “hate group” accusations were an elaborate fundraising scheme.

Mastercard, in particular, seems to have been responsible for Patreon booting Jihad Watch and its founder Robert Spencer (not to be confused with the white nationalist Richard Spencer) off its platform. Jihad Watch monitors radical Islam and radical Islamic terror. These actions are far from illegal or “hateful.”

Similarly, ACT for America and the Center for Security Policy promote America’s national security. Many conservative Christian organizations on the SPLC’s “anti-LGBT hate group” list follow the Bible’s definition of marriage and reject gender identity.

Read full story here…




Big Tech Revenge: Project Veritas Banned Over Expose Of Google

After releasing a damning expose of Google’s dark agenda of social engineering and censorship, all of Big Tech are extracting blatant revenge on Project Veritas, including Google, Pinterest, Twitter, Youtube, Vimeo and Reddit.

The battle is heating up and it is going to get really ugly before it’s over. Many lawsuits have already been lodged against such companies and legislators at all levels are examining what is going on.

What few recognize yet is that these self-proclaimed Big Tech social engineering saviors of the world are TECHNOCRATS. ⁃ TN Editor

Investigative journalism group Project Veritas has dropped multiple major stories this month on Big tech — here are 5 times Big Tech tried to censor them as a result.

Recently, investigative journalism group Project Veritas has published multiple stories that have hit Silicon Valley tech giants such as Google hard, revealing the company’s lack of respect for Congress and attempts to censor conservative opinions. As a result, Project Veritas has faced multiple attempts at censoring their stories off the Internet. Following a tweet from Project Veritas, Breitbart News has compiled a list of the various ways that Project Veritas has been censored in just the month of June alone.

1: YouTube Bans Videos About Veritas Investigation Into Pinterest

A recent investigation by Project Veritas revealed that Pinterest added Bible verses to a “sensitive terms” list and censored a major pro-life website as “pornography.” Shortly after this, the Project Veritas’ video featuring testimony from a Pinterest insider was removed from YouTube.

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said in a statement: “The established media and technology are so afraid of investigative journalism they need to censor it. YouTube calls REPORTING on someone by showing their face and name, and how they added a pro-life group to a porn blacklist, a ‘privacy complaint.’ Would they do this to NYT?”

2: Twitter Suspends Project Veritas Account Over Pinterest Story

Twitter also didn’t seem to take kindly to Project Veritas revealing information leaked to them by an insider at Pinterest. Following the posting of the Pinterest story to Twitter, Project Veritas saw its account temporarily suspended from the platform.

This took place shortly after the removal of the Pinterest story from YouTube, adding further credence to claims that tech firms are colluding to shut down conservatives on their platforms.

3: Reddit Bans Project Veritas

Social media site and self-proclaimed “Front page of the Internet,” Reddit also recently banned Project Veritas’ account after the organization tried to post a link to their Google insider story.

A few days later, Reddit “quarantined” the Trump-supporting subreddit The_Donald which had over 750,000 subscribers at the time of its quarantining. Users attempting to visit the subreddit are met with a warning page, deterring them from accessing the community. Reddit described its reasoning for censoring the subreddit stating:

There will sometimes be communities that, while not prohibited, average redditors may nevertheless find highly offensive or upsetting. In other cases, communities may be dedicated to promoting hoaxes (yes we used that word) that warrant additional scrutiny, as there are some things that are either verifiable or falsifiable and not seriously up for debate (eg, the Holocaust did happen and the number of people who died is well documented). In these circumstances, Reddit Administrators may apply a quarantine.

4: YouTube Bans Video of Undercover Google Investigation
Some commenters found it unsurprising that Google-owned video hosting platform YouTube would take action to censor the most recent Google investigation by Project Veritas as it could prove very damaging to the company going forward. In the video, Google executive Jen Gennai made multiple damaging comments about the company to undercover Project Veritas investigators.

5: Vimeo Follows YouTube’s Lead, Removes Video

And shortly after YouTube’s removal of the video, another hosting platform called Vimeo removed the same video. Vimeo stated that the video was not allowed on its platform as: “You cannot upload videos that are hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory.”

Read full story here…




Unique Heartbeat Signature Detected From 250 Yards Away

Heartbeats are entirely unique to each person and can now be ‘read’ remotely by infrared laser up to 220 yards away. The biggest problem? Building a database large enough to cross-reference. ⁃ TN Editor

U.S. special forces are taking a more ‘intimate’ approach to remotely identifying targets, using lasers to sense their heartbeat.

According to MIT Technology Review, the Pentagon has developed a prototype of the technology, code-named ‘Jetson,’ that uses infrared lasers to read a person’s cardiac signature.

Though far less obvious than fingerprints or faces, people’s heartbeats have a distinct profile, making them among the most useful biometrics for uniquely identifying a person.

What separates the signature from others like it, however, is the fact that unlike a face, which may bear many similar features to another, heartbeats are entirely distinct.

As noted by MIT, companies like Nymi are already using cardiac signatures — taken via a wrist-mounted pulse sensor — to identify people for security purposes.

Another advantage that has made the type of detection particularly desirable for the U.S. military is the use of lasers, which allows for a relatively long-range.

Current prototypes work from about 200 meters (219 yards) and with further modifications that range could be extended.

‘I don’t want to say you could do it from space,’ Steward Remaly, of the Pentagon’s Combatting Terrorism Technical Support Office told MIT. ‘But longer ranges should be possible.’

Heartbeat patterns which are gleaned by detecting the changes in infrared light cause by a person’s blood flow, are not only highly accurate — about 95 to 98 percent — but also versatile.

Unlike facial recognition, which may require a clear view of someone’s face or be obfuscated by facial hair or other conditions, laser-detected heartbeats can be captured through normal clothing and at a number of angles.

The method does require an invisible laser to be pointed at a subject for about 30 seconds to get a sufficient read, meaning the technology can only be viably used on someone who is standing still.

Read full story here…




google

Google: None Dare Call It Sedition

Google has now flatly stated its intent to influence and control public perception so as to manipulate and determine national political election outcomes. It does this by using AI algorithms to skew search results, presenting only their political views, and suppressing dissenting or alternative views.

However, this is not a free speech issue. Google is not a news organization. It does not hire journalists nor does it create original content. Rather, Google is an information utility that simply indexes existing and new journalistic content.

Google’s all-powerful and pervasive Internet crawler is able to discover virtually 100% of everything published in the world, on an hour-by-hour or minute-by-minute basis. In other words, Google knows everything there is to know. The question is, will it tell all that it knows or only part of it?

Google is very much a public utility that resembles a telephone company. When your local telephone company publishes a phone book, it simply indexes people by last name and puts their number next to it. It is easy for one person to find another and then pick up the phone and make a call.

What would happen if the phone company started making decisions about who could have a listing in their master directory? What if they simply dropped out people who were discovered to be Republicans or Democrats? What if they deleted people because they had a certain skin color? Or national origin? Or religion?

While on one hand, the phone company was willing to connect and charge for service in everybody’s home, those suppressed individuals would only be able to make outbound calls and they would seldom receive any inbound calls.

Would America ever tolerate this? Of course not. In fact, it would spark a national uproar of epic proportions.

So, can anyone explain why Google is getting a free pass on hiding the particulars of its indexing algorithms from public consumers of information?

It would be bad enough if Google simply dropped out certain pieces of information, but they have gone way beyond this by rearranging the results it chooses to release and presenting them in such a manner to show an alternate reality that purposely misleads the public.

This is what is called “weaponizing data” to actively and intentionally lead people to false conclusions in order to modify their behavior. To say this is wrong is an understatement. To say it is illegal is complicated, but it is certainly possible.

Has Google unleashed Project Dragonfly?

On August 1, 2018, the left-leaning journal called The Intercept originally broke the story that Google was creating a censored version of its search engine for China. The secret project was named Dragonfly.

The U.K. journalist, Ryan Gallagher, created an international uproar with the first report, but has since written 23 additional investigative articles that fully expose Google’s activities in China.

Gallagher wrote,

Documents seen by The Intercept, marked “Google confidential,” say that Google’s Chinese search app will automatically identify and filter websites blocked by the Great Firewall. When a person carries out a search, banned websites will be removed from the first page of results… The search app will also “blacklist sensitive queries” so that “no results will be shown” at all when people enter certain words or phrases, the documents state. The censorship will apply across the platform: Google’s image search, automatic spell check and suggested search features will incorporate the blacklists, meaning that they will not recommend people information or photographs the government has banned.

This is exactly what Google is now doing to the United States, except that it is acting on its own accord and not under the orders of a national government.

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, a member of the elitist Trilateral Commission, was recently interviewed by BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis and stated,

“The world is a very interconnected place. There are many, many benefits interacting, among other things, with China… I believed they would be better to stay in China, and help change China to be more open.”

Apparently, what is good for China’s censorship is good for the U.S. as well.

Will The Intercept call out Google for doing to the U.S. what it intended to do for China? Will the American public be as outraged over domestic censorship as they were about the possibility of China’s censorship?

Google’s clear agenda

When Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai stated,

Again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?

What does Google want to prevent from happening again? According to Gennai, it is “preventing the next Trump situation.”

Social justice warriors like Gennai have obviously discovered the power of Google’s Internet machine to practice social engineering according to their exclusive world view, while excluding all other views.

While some lawmakers are already investigating anti-trust measures against Google, they might be missing the more pertinent issue: Sedition.

According to one legal source,

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

Whether they realize it or not, Google is deep into the process of meddling with the election process to create insurrection in order to cause the overthrow of our lawful national government established according to the U.S. Constitution. In short, it is the citizens of our nation who decide national, state and local leadership and not Google!

Virtually every public servant in the United States is required to take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. It’s time to hold some feet to the fire.




Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 120 Others Blast Vaccinations At Statehouse

Yes, it’s that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., son of the late Robert “Bobby” Kennedy, who is leading the national anti-vaccine movement. Big Tech routinely censors him, his followers and anyone who writes critically of vaccines. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Cara Hathaway left her job as a speech therapist because she said she couldn’t work in a hospital and speak out against the vaccine manufacturers she believes are doing more harm than good.

A bad reaction to the vaccine for human papilomavirus and a miscarriage after she was vaccinated for the flu motivated Hathaway to learn more about what has become a heated national debate over whether vaccinations should be required for school children and adults in some work places.

Public health experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are clear: vaccines are safe and effective. Still, fears of side effects and chronic illness have stoked a vocal anti-vaccination movement that came to the Ohio Statehouse on Wednesday.

About 120 activists, many of them wearing red, listened in the atrium as a panel of speakers described the ways they believe regulators and pharmaceutical companies are hiding the truth about the damage vaccines cause.

The anti-vaccine event’s headliner was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense, who has become the celebrity face of the national anti-vaccine movement.

“We have the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world and we have the sickest children in the developed world,” Kennedy said at the event, chastising pharmaceutical companies, regulators and lawmakers.

Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, is sponsoring a bill that would prevent employers from taking adverse action against workers who refuse to be vaccinated for medical reasons or “reasons of conscience,” including religious beliefs.

Similar proposals targeting flu shots have fizzled in committee in previous sessions of the General Assembly.

Listen to the latest Buckeye Forum politics podcast:

The Ohio Hospital Association is “concerned that this legislation threatens the health and safety of patients, employees and the community,” said John Palmer, the organization’s spokesman, in an email.

The American Medical Association earlier this month adopted a policy to expand its policy to advocate for regulation and policies to incentivize states to eliminate non-medical exemptions from mandated pediatric immunizations.

Supporters lauded Hood’s bill and spoke out against an amendment in the Senate version of the state budget that would remove a religious and philosophical exemption for vaccinations of children at private schools.

Senate President Larry Obhof, R-Medina, said has not delved deeply into vaccination policy, but is willing to discuss it with House leadership and Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.

“If you are a private institution, you also have rights to decide what the rules are for attending those institutions,” Obhof said of the budget provision affecting private schools.

Read full story here…




Economist: Modest Carbon Tax Would Hurt Future Generations

Famed economist, Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, concludes that even a small carbon tax today will cause economic loss to at least two future generations, and possibly more. In short, carbon tax will do just the opposite of what climate alarmists claim. ⁃ TN Editor
 

One of the main themes of my writings on climate change at IER has been warning the public that the “consensus science” they are hearing from the media, pundits, and certain political figures is utterly divorced from the actual published literature, especially when it comes to the economic analysis of government policy. A new, cutting edge working paper from some big-name economists — including Laurence Kotlikoff and Jeffrey Sachs — confirms my point.

In this case, here is the shocking fact that their paper tries to grapple with: Even with a relatively modest carbon tax, the rise in energy prices is so painful that it swamps the benefits of slower climate change, and this is true for our kids and grandkids. It is only when we get to our great-grandchildren that humanity on net would start to actually benefit from even a modest carbon tax introduced today. So the next time you hear someone say, “We need to take vigorous action on the climate for future generations!” you can clarify, “Actually, your proposals would hurt the next two future generations. You want to hurt us, our kids, and our grandkids, in order to help our great-grandkids and beyond — who will all be fantastically rich compared to us, by the way.”

The Kotlikoff et al. paper is quite technical, so I’ll just summarize the take-away points for a lay audience. I will also spend time at the end of the article explaining what their proposed solution is, for this thorny problem. To avoid confusion, I want to be clear: The authors of this new paper are for a (modest) carbon tax. But they are warning that the current discussion, even among economists, tends to look at “what’s best for humanity from now until the end of time,” rather than checking to make sure each generation gains from a new climate policy. As we’ll see, Kotlikoff et al. suggest a massive fiscal transfer that allows present generations to run up a huge (additional) government debt that our descendants must then effectively pay back with higher taxes, in order to compensate their forebears for suffering through higher energy prices due to a carbon tax.

The point of my article isn’t to endorse the overall recommendation of Kotlikoff et al.; along with climate scientists at Cato, I’ve published a comprehensive critique of the usual economist’s case for a carbon tax. Rather, by shining a spotlight on the cutting edge in the development of the literature on carbon taxation, I want readers to see just how detached the actual discussion among experts is from the breezy claims about “we have 12 years left to save our children” that we hear from pundits and political officials.

How An “Optimal” Carbon Tax Can Punish Into the Third Generation

To set the stage for my interpretation, let’s first quote from the authors’ own description of their results. (Note, readers who don’t have access through the NBER link above can also see a version of the paper posted at Kotlikoff’s website.) The title of the paper is, “MAKING CARBON TAXATION A GENERATIONAL WIN WIN.” Here’s an excerpt from the Abstract:

Carbon taxation has been studied primarily in social planner or infinitely lived agent models, which trade off the welfare of future and current generations.Such frameworks obscure the potential for carbon taxation to produce a generational win-win. This paper develops a large-scale, dynamic 55-period, OLG [Overlapping Generations — rpm] model to calculate the carbon tax policy delivering the highest uniform welfare gain to all generations. The OLG framework, with its selfish generations, seems far more natural for studying climate damage. Our model features coal, oil, and gas, each extracted subject to increasing costs, a clean energy sector, technical and demographic change, and Nordhaus (2017)’s temperature/damage functions. Our model’s optimal uniform welfare increasing (UWI) carbon tax starts at $30 tax, rises annually at 1.5 percent and raises the welfare of all current and future generations by 0.73 percent on a consumption-equivalent basis. Sharing efficiency gains evenly requires, however, taxing future generations by as much as 8.1 percent and subsidizing early generations by as much as 1.2 percent of lifetime consumption. Without such redistribution (the Nordhaus “optimum”), the carbon tax constitutes a win-lose policy with current generations experiencing an up to 0.84 percent welfare loss and future generations experiencing an up to 7.54 percent welfare gain. [Kotlikoff et al., bold added.]

Although I realize this is difficult technical language for the layperson to parse, here’s what the authors are saying: If we take the “gold standard” (their term later on) in this literature and use Nordhaus’s 2017 model calibration, it will recommend an “optimal carbon tax” that correctly — according to standard economic theory and the best estimates from the climate science research — balances the tradeoff between reducing emissions and harming economic growth.

However — and this is a huge caveat — Nordhaus’s approach assumes there is a benevolent, overarching “social planner” who lumps all of humanity together, and only makes a technical allowance for a (modest) discount on the happiness of future generations in accordance with standard economic theory.

In practice, the authors point out, Nordhaus’s “optimal carbon tax” would actually mean that people living or born today and in the near future will be harmed on net by the policy, because they will suffer worse economic harm from higher energy prices, than they will be spared in climate change damages from reduced emissions. It’s only when we get several generations into the future, that Nordhaus’s “optimal carbon tax” actually starts making human beings better off, compared to the status quo.

This is a critical point for Americans to realize. They are constantly being hectored that if they “cared for their children” they would support a large carbon tax and other aggressive interventions. But we see that this isn’t true: If we even adopt a modest carbon tax — one that still allows 4 degrees Celsius warming (over twice the 1.5 degree currently touted by climate activists as the necessary target), according to the authors (p. 22)1 — then we are harming ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren, relative to the “do nothing” baseline. It’s only our great-grandchildren, who (on average) are going to be fantastically wealthy compared to us, who will actually start reaping net benefits from even this modest reduction in the path of emissions.

Read full story here…




google

Google Has Become Orwell’s “Ministry Of Truth”

Forget ‘fake news’. Google IS fake news. It is re-writing history, the present and the future. It is using its enormous control over the ‘news feed’ to control how people think, react and act. Worse, it is working beyond their wildest imagination.

We can thank Project Veritas for breaking this story, and I expect there will be additional Google insiders who come out as whistleblowers to reveal more sordid details.

In short, Google is weaponizing its AI programs to decimate all conservative voice in America, and to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected in 2020.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had the opportunity to grill Maggie Stanphill, Director of Google User Experience, on the undercover video of another Google executive and leaked internal documents. Here is a partial transcript:

CRUZ: Are you familiar with the report that was released yesterday from Veritas, that included a whistleblower from within Google that included videos from a senior executive at Google, and it included documents that are reportedly internal powerpoint documents from google.

GOOGLE: Yes I heard about that report in news.

CRUZ: Have you seen the report?

GOOGLE: No I did not.

CRUZ: So you didn’t review the report to prepare fr this meeting?

GOOGLE: It’s been a busy day and I have a day job which is Digital Well-being at Google so I’m trying to make sure…

CRUZ: Well I’m sorry that this meeting is impinging on your day job.

GOOGLE: It’s a great opportunity thank you.

CRUZ: One of the things in that report and I would recommend people interested in political bias at Google watch the entire report and judge for themselves, there’s a video from a woman Jen Gennai, it’s a secret video that was recorded, Jen Gennai as I understand is the head of responsible innovation for google. Are you familiar with Miss Gennai?

GOOGLE:  I work in user experience and I believe that AI group is somebody is somebody that works on AI principles. But it’s a big company and I don’t work directly with Jen.

CRUZ: Do you know her or no?

GOOGLE: I do not know Jen.

CRUZ: As I understand that she is shown in the video saying, and this is a quote, “Elizabeth warren is saying that we should break up google. And like I love her, but she is very misguided. Like that will not make it better. It  will make it worse. Because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.” Do you think its Google’s job to quote, “prevent the next trump situation?”

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I don’t agree with that. No sir.

CRUZ: So a different individual, a whistleblower identified simply as an insider at Google with knowledge of the algorithm, was quoted on the same report as saying, google is quote “bent on never letting someone like Donald Trump come to power again.” You think its google’s job to make sure quote “somebody like Donald Trump never comes to power again?”

GOOGLE: No sir I don’t think that is Google’s job and we build for everyone including every single religious belief, every single demographic, every single region, and certain every single political affiliation.

CRUZ: Well I have to say that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. Of the senior executives at Google, do you know a single one that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I’m a user experience director and I work on google digital well-being, I can tell you we have diverse use…

CRUZ: Did you know of anyone that voted for Trump.

GOOGLE: I definitely know of people that voted for Trump.

CRUZ: Of the senior executives at Google.

GOOGLE: I don’t talk politics with my workmates.

CRUZ: Is that a no?

GOOGLE: Sorry is that a no to what?

CRUZ: DO you know any senior executives, even a single senior executive at the company that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: as the digital well-being expert I don’t think this is in my purview to comment… I definitely don’t know…

CRUZ: Let’s talk about one of the PowerPoints that was leaked. The Veritas report has Google internally saying “I propose we make machine learning intentionally human centered and intervene for fairness.” Is this document accurate?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I don’t know about this document so I don’t know.

CRUZ: Okay I’m going to ask you to respond to the committee in writing afterwards as to whether this PowerPoint and the other documents are included in the veritas report, whether  those are  accurate. And I recognize that your lawyers may want to write explanation, you’re welcome to write all the explanation that you want but I also want a simple clear answer is this an accurate document that was generated by google. Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in this document?

GOOGLE: No sir I do not.

CRUZ: Going to read you another, also in this report, it indicates that Google according this whistleblower, deliberately makes recommendations if someone is searching for conservative commentators, deliberately shifts the recommendations so instead of recommending other conservative commentators it recommends organizations like CNN or MSNBC or left leaning political outlets. Is that occurring?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I can’t comment I can’t comment on search algorithms or recommendations given my purview as Digital Well-being lead. I can take that back to my team though.

CRUZ: So is it part of Digital Well-being for search recommendations to reflect the where user wants to go than deliberately shifting where they want to go?

GOOGLE: As a user experience professional, we focus on delivering on user goals. So we try to get out of the way and on the task at hand.

CRUZ: So a final question, one of these documents that was leaked explains what Google is doing and it has a series of stamps, training data, collected and classified, algorithms are programmed, media are filtered ranked and aggregated, and that ends with, people, parenthesis, like us, are programmed. Does Google view its job as programming people with search results?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I can’t speak for the whole entire company, but I can tell you that we make sure that we put our users first in design.

CRUZ: Well I think these questions, these documents raise very serious questions about political bias.

As Google scrambles to perform damage control, you can expect it to issue unending, inane public statements that contradict the clear evidence before the world. This is how things are done at the “Ministry of Truth.”

The Technocrat coup is in full swing now, and we should have no illusions that there are “good people” somewhere in the midst of this. The battle lines have been drawn, but the war has barely begun.

If you are hot to conquer censorship, go immediately to Citizens For Free Speech (CFFS) and join the battle. CFFS defends and promotes the First Amendment that gives us the right to speak up. If we lose this right, it’s “game over.”




europe

Experts: European Nations Should Ban Social Credit Scoring

Technocrats in the EU are bent on total surveillance and controlling people, but a high-level, independent advisory group has warned against using AI for mass surveillance and social credit scoring. ⁃ TN Editor

An independent expert group tasked with advising the European Commission to inform its regulatory response to artificial intelligence — to underpin EU lawmakers’ stated aim of ensuring AI developments are “human centric” — has published its policy and investment recommendations.

This follows earlier ethics guidelines for “trustworthy AI”, put out by the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) for AI back in April, when the Commission also called for participants to test the draft rules.

The AI HLEG’s full policy recommendations comprise a highly detailed 50-page document — which can be downloaded from this web page. The group, which was set up in June 2018, is made up of a mix of industry AI experts, civic society representatives, political advisers and policy wonks, academics and legal experts.

The document includes warnings on the use of AI for mass surveillance and scoring of EU citizens, such as China’s social credit system, with the group calling for an outright ban on “AI-enabled mass scale scoring of individuals”. It also urges governments to commit to not engage in blanket surveillance of populations for national security purposes. (So perhaps it’s just as well the UK has voted to leave the EU, given the swingeing state surveillance powers it passed into law at the end of 2016.)

“While there may be a strong temptation for governments to ‘secure society’ by building a pervasive surveillance system based on AI systems, this would be extremely dangerous if pushed to extreme levels,” the HLEG writes. “Governments should commit not to engage in mass surveillance of individuals and to deploy and procure only Trustworthy AI systems, designed to be respectful of the law and fundamental rights, aligned with ethical principles and socio-technically robust.”

The group also calls for commercial surveillance of individuals and societies to be “countered” — suggesting the EU’s response to the potency and potential for misuse of AI technologies should include ensuring that online people-tracking is “strictly in line with fundamental rights such as privacy”, including (the group specifies) when it concerns ‘free’ services (albeit with a slight caveat on the need to consider how business models are impacted).

Last week the UK’s data protection watchdog fired an even more specific shot across the bows of the online behavioral ad industry — warning that adtech’s mass-scale processing of web users’ personal data for targeting ads does not comply with EU privacy standards. The industry was told its rights-infringing practices must change, even if the Information Commissioner’s Office isn’t about to bring down the hammer just yet. But the reform warning was clear.

As EU policymakers work on fashioning a rights-respecting regulatory framework for AI, seeking to steer  the next ten years+ of cutting-edge tech developments in the region, the wider attention and scrutiny that will draw to digital practices and business models looks set to drive a clean up of problematic digital practices that have been able to proliferate under no or very light touch regulation, prior to now.

The HLEG also calls for support for developing mechanisms for the protection of personal data, and for individuals to “control and be empowered by their data” — which they argue would address “some aspects of the requirements of trustworthy AI”.

“Tools should be developed to provide a technological implementation of the GDPR and develop privacy preserving/privacy by design technical methods to explain criteria, causality in personal data processing of AI systems (such as federated machine learning),” they write.

“Support technological development of anonymisation and encryption techniques and develop standards for secure data exchange based on personal data control. Promote the education of the general public in personal data management, including individuals’ awareness of and empowerment in AI personal data-based decision-making processes. Create technology solutions to provide individuals with information and control over how their data is being used, for example for research, on consent management and transparency across European borders, as well as any improvements and outcomes that have come from this, and develop standards for secure data exchange based on personal data control.”

Read full story here…




NSA Busted Again For Collecting U.S. Phone Records

The NSA is run by Technocrats for the benefit of Technocrats to build a total surveillance society. The agency, which reports to the Director of National Intelligence, has been rogue for many years, unwilling to be controlled by courts or Congress. ⁃ TN Editor

The National Security Agency collected records about U.S. calls and text messages that it wasn’t authorized to obtain last year, in a second such incident, renewing privacy concerns surrounding the agency’s maligned phone-surveillance program, according to government documents and people familiar with the matter.

The previously undisclosed error, which took place last October, occurred several months after the NSA said it had purged hundreds of millions of metadata records it had amassed since 2015 due to a separate overcollection episode. Metadata include the numbers and time stamps of a call or text message but not the contents of the conversation.

The American Civil Liberties Union obtained the documents, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit involving the surveillance program. They are heavily redacted internal NSA memos that discuss oversight of intelligence-collection activities.

These documents only confirm that this surveillance program is beyond redemption and should be shut down for good,” Patrick Toomey, an ACLU staff attorney, said in a statement. “The NSA’s collection of Americans’ call records is too sweeping, the compliance problems too many, and evidence of the program’s value all but nonexistent. There is no justification for leaving this surveillance power in the NSA’s hands.”

It wasn’t clear from the documents how many records the NSA improperly collected in October. The NSA’s media relations chief, Greg Julian, declined to comment specifically on the episode, but referred to the previously acknowledged incident of overcollection, disclosed last summer, in which telecommunications firms supplied information the NSA hadn’t been authorized to obtain.

“While NSA lawfully sought data pertaining to a foreign power engaged in international terrorism, the provider produced inaccurate data and data beyond which NSA sought,” Mr. Julian said.

The documents obtained by the ACLU suggest a similar situation, where a telecommunications firm, whose name is redacted, furnished call-data records the NSA hadn’t requested and weren’t approved by orders of the secretive U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The company told the NSA it began delivering those records on Oct. 3, 2018, until that Oct. 12, when the agency asked it investigate the “anomaly.”

The ACLU said the documents also suggest an individual may have been targeted for surveillance as a result of the first overcollection episode, which led to the deletion of the program’s entire database in June 2018. The documents reveal that violation involved “targeting requests” that were approved by the surveillance court.

The revelation of another compliance issue is the latest hurdle for the once-secret surveillance program that began under the George W. Bush administration following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. As initially designed, the program sought to collect the metadata of all domestic calls in the U.S. to hunt for links among potential associates of terrorism suspects.

Edward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor, leaked the existence of the program—along with a trove of documents exposing other surveillance operations carried out by the NSA—to journalists six years ago. The disclosures ignited an international uproar over the scope of the U.S.’s electronic-spying capabilities.

Read full story here…




Elon Musk

Elon Musk: “Starship Development To Build The Martian Technocracy”

Elon Musk fully understands Technocracy and is a Technocrat of the highest order: after all, his Canadian grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was the head of Canada’s Technocracy, Inc. party in the 1930s. Now, Musk intends to build a Martian Technocracy.

See – Shock: Elon Musk’s Grandfather Was Head Of Canada’s Technocracy Movement  ⁃ TN Editor

While Buzz Lightyear goes to infinity and beyond, Elon Musk will have to settle for Mars for now.

The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla posted a series of cryptic tweets hinting at his plans to someday colonize the red planet.

“Accelerating Starship development to build the Martian Technocracy,” Musk tweeted on Sunday.

Shortly after, he followed up with a meme with the text, “OCCUPY MARS” and an image of the planet.

For anyone else, the tweets would be seemingly nonsensical.

But for Musk, there’s some applicable context. After all, his SpaceX is set to conduct its first nighttime launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket from Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral Monday night.

The 230-foot-tall rocket will carry 24 satellites for key customers, including the Department of Defense and NASA.

Musk has long described the Falcon Heavy as a critical step in his long-running bid to send rockets and people to Mars someday.

He has even famously said that he wants to die on Mars after establishing a self-sustaining colony of humans and changing the planet’s climate.

Read full story here…