Britain Exits EU Technocracy For Own Brand

Nigel Farage did a masterful job of exiting the EU while bashing it one last time. Note that The Daily Telegraph openly calls the EU a Technocracy but Americans have no idea of what that means.

However, as Farage rode the populist party wave to victory, Britain will almost certainly fall into the techno-populist mentality that establishes their own brand of Technocracy. In other words, same outcome in the end: Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

As Britain prepares to leave the European Union tonight, it continues to emote division and debate.

Far from being the end of the story, some commentators believe it is just the start. Brexit day has dominated yesterday’s media opinion pages.

The Daily Telegraph

Allister Heath writes “we must hope that over time, more countries choose – and are allowed – to leave, that there will one day be a Frexit and a Danexit, that the euro will be dissolved in an orderly fashion and that the entire project will wither away, replaced instead by looser, liberal co-operation. Euroscepticism was never a selfish ideology. It was never just about returning self-government to Britain.

House Sneaks Green New Deal Spending Into Infrastructure Framework

The carrot-on-a-string is fixing the things that everyone knows desperately need fixing. The real payload is zero carbon, environmental justice, green transportation, alternative energy. ⁃ TN Editor

Today, the Chairs of three U.S. House Committees released a framework for a five-year, $760 billion investment in infrastructure that would address some of the country’s most urgent infrastructure needs, from addressing the massive maintenance backlog, to designing safer streets, to putting the U.S. on a path toward zero emissions from the transportation sector and increasing resiliency. The framework put forth by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-MA) would bolster the Federal role in order to help communities around the country undertake transformative projects that are smarter, safer, and made to last.

Among other things, the framework outlines major investments, including those in highways, rail, and transit systems, airports, ports and harbors, wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, brownfields, and broadband.

It’s infrastructure investment that is smarter, safer, and made to last – with a framework that:

  • Brings existing infrastructure into a state of good repair and enables the completion of critical projects through long-term, sustainable funding.
  • Sets a path toward zero carbon pollution from the transportation sector, creating jobs, protecting our natural resources, promoting environmental justice, and increasing resiliency to climate change.
  • Ensures a transportation system that is green, affordable, reliable, efficient and provides access to jobs
  • Provides safe, clean, and affordable water and wastewater services.
  • Prioritizes the safety of the traveling public.
  • Helps combat climate change by creating good-paying jobs in clean energy, investing in energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
  • Expands broadband internet access, adoption for unserved and underserved rural, suburban, and urban communities.
  • Modernizes 9-1-1 public safety networks.
  • Creates family-wage jobs with Davis-Bacon and other strong worker protections.
  • Supports U.S. industries, including steel and manufacturing, through strong Buy America protections

“Our country has changed dramatically since the 1950s, yet people and goods are now literally stuck trying to move on transportation networks first developed nearly 70 years ago. It’s past time for transformational investments to make our infrastructure smarter, safer, and resilient to climate change, or else we will keep throwing money at an antiquated system that is only holding us and our economy back,” Chair DeFazio said. “The framework we released today is the launchpad we need to move forward on those transformational investments and curb carbon pollution. In the coming months, I look forward to continuing our work to make this framework a reality. The cost of inaction is too great.”

“There is no better way to strengthen our economy for the future than to modernize our badly aging infrastructure.  This bold framework not only helps us rebuild our nation, it also combats climate change by reducing carbon emissions and moving us towards a clean energy future,” Chairman Pallone said.  “It will also create good paying jobs, ensure that no community is left behind in the digital economy and help protect Americans’ drinking water.  These are investments that we must make for the American people, and I look forward to moving this proposal forward.”

“Due to decades of underfunding and neglect, America’s infrastructure system is falling apart and we’re falling behind our global competitors. The deficiencies of our roads, bridges, transit, water systems, broadband, and electrical grids hold our nation’s economy back,” Chairman Neal said. “When we invest in infrastructure, it results in a significant economic multiplier – with each dollar spent, our nation becomes more competitive and prosperous. Democrats’ new infrastructure framework creates jobs, bolsters American industry, and builds the smart, safe connections between communities that our country needs to advance.”

Read full story here…

Bicycle Era Fail: Fatalities Hit 25 Year High

This is ‘sustainability’? First, tell everyone to dump cars and ride bicycles. Second, build bike lanes everywhere so they can. Third, watch the death toll go up. Did planners ever consider this obvious consequence? ⁃ TN Editor

Alongside the surging popularity of bike shares and fitness cycling in California comes a sobering statistic: From 2016 through 2018, more cyclists died in traffic accidents across the state than during any three-year period in the past 25 years.

Traffic accidents killed 455 cyclists in California from 2016 through 2018, according to new data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The figures translate to about 3.9 bike accident fatalities per million people, the highest rate over any three-year period since the mid-1990s, before many cities built extensive bike networks.

Nationwide, the fatal accident rate was lower, but also on the rise. From 2016 through 2018, 2,516 cyclists died in traffic accidents, a rate of about 2.6 per million people. That was the highest three-year death rate since the mid-2000s.

Experts point to a convergence of factors for the upsurge: a sustained rise in how much Americans are driving, the prevalence of distracted driving and a pronounced consumer shift toward big trucks and sport utility vehicles. Some analysts also said there are simply more bikes on the road.

“There’s definitely been an increase in popularity of cycling,” said Julia Griswold, a researcher at the University of California-Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research and Education Center. “And then also since the economy has recovered from the 2008 crash, there’s been an increase in driving.”

With the unemployment rate near historic lows, more people are commuting to work, intensifying the mix of cars and bikes on city roadways. Bike-share programs are now common in many cities. At the same time, the advent of car ride-hailing services has led to more drivers cruising around waiting for their next pickup.

“The more people are driving, the higher the probability of an incident,” said Jennifer Boldry, director of research at PeopleForBikes, a national nonprofit that advocates for greater bike access and safety.

Exacerbating the risks: Smartphones are ubiquitous in much of America, and thousands of people die each year in accidents caused by distracted driving. Boldry cited a recent study by the National Transportation Safety Board showing that “midblock” collisions — wrecks in areas between intersections, where speeds are higher — tend to cause greater injury to cyclists. Often, drivers involved in those sorts of wrecks say they didn’t see the cyclist they hit.

“My conclusion from that is: It’s really tough to see someone if you’re looking at your phone,” Boldry said.

In addition, bigger autos like SUVs often have larger blind spots than those of smaller cars, making it more difficult to see a cyclist. They also sit higher, which can affect the area of impact. “Think about where an SUV hits you on a bike versus where a very low-riding sedan might hit you,” Boldry said. “You get hit in the leg, the injury is way less severe than if you’re hit in the chest.”

As with other types of fatal accidents involving cars, male cyclists in America die in crashes much more often than women. From 2016 through 2018 in California, almost eight men died in cycling crashes for every woman who died. In the state, men are about twice as likely as women to commute to work by bike, the latest census figures show.

Experts cited several ways to cut the number of bike fatalities, starting with a relatively simple fix: reducing speed limits. “Most people are going to survive a crash if they’re hit at 20 miles an hour,” Griswold said. “But the survival rate drops considerably with each increase in speed above that.”

Investing in appropriate infrastructure — set up to support a mix of autos, transit, bikes and pedestrians — is another key. The recent NTSB study calls for increasing the number of separated bike lanes and well-marked intersections. Boldry noted that increased bike ridership, especially when combined with good infrastructure, can actually enhance safety. The reasons for that are unclear, Boldry said, but it could be, in part, because drivers get used to seeing bikes and adopt safer driving behaviors.

Dave Snyder, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, or CalBike, said many California cities have made significant progress in improving infrastructure in recent years, resulting in safer roads for cyclists. Still, he said, more needs to be done in more places.

Some people “see 2,000-pound or larger vehicles going 40 to 60 miles per hour within a few feet of them, and they think, ‘No way. That’s not safe, and it’s not fun,’” Snyder said. “There’s no reason why that has to be. There’s no reason why we can’t create networks of bikeways, even on the main streets, that are protected from that high-speed traffic.”

Another way to lower fatalities is through technology. The NTSB report recommends that cyclists use reflective gear and bike helmets. Automobile sensors that can detect objects in a driver’s blind spot are also a boon, though that technology is sometimes better at seeing cars than at seeing bikes and people.

Boldry said relying extensively on those systems getting better instead of improving infrastructure would be a mistake.

“We’re optimistic that will help, but we want to make sure we’re doing everything we can on the design front to eliminate those conflicts from happening in the first place while we’re waiting on the technology to get good enough to have a positive impact,” she said.

Read full story here…

Debbie Dingell

Democrats Push National Climate Bank To Further ‘Green New Deal’

A National Climate Bank would aggregate $1 trillion to invest into transformative green infrastructure and ‘clean energy’ projects. This promotes pure Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, but paid for by taxpayers.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), who was formerly a very active Republican until she met and married the late Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) in 1981. ⁃ TN Editor

The idea of a National Climate Bank is catching on in Congress, and it could infuse billions of dollars into efforts to eliminate the US’s planet-heating carbon emissions. A handful of Congressional proposals have been made over the past year calling for the government to start investing in technology upgrades and inventions that would cut down on greenhouse gases. Funds from the National Climate Bank would ideally lower the financial risks associated with green innovation — encouraging private investors to throw more money into the pot, without shifting costs to consumers. The hope is that the bank can tackle everything from building up the infrastructure for electric vehicles and solar power storage, to making communities more resilient to the effects of climate change.

A National Climate Bank is at the center of a broad set of policies proposed this month by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The effort, called the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act, is aimed at bringing greenhouse gas emissions down to essentially zero by 2050. The National Climate Bank would pull together the public and private investment needed to transition to an economy with pretty much no carbon footprint. It builds on bills introduced in both the House and Senate that would create an independent nonprofit bank capitalized with $35 billion in federal funds. That bank could mobilize up to $1 trillion in total public and private investment over three decades, advocates estimate.

It’s a business-friendly environmental strategy with bipartisan appeal and a proven track record thanks to the success of state and local green banks, advocates of the national bank say.

“I think this should be one of the less controversial provisions that people talk about, because I don’t care who you are, we need to be investing in innovation and technology,” Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI) tells The Verge. Dingell introduced the National Climate Bank Act bill in the House in December. Senator Ed Markey (D-NY) introduced a similar bill in the Senate in July. The bank they’re proposing would be able to fund projects directly and funnel cash into existing regional green banks.

Over the past decade, state and city green banks have popped up across the US. These aren’t banks you deposit money into. They bring together public, private, and philanthropic capital to push clean energy projects forward that otherwise might not get off the ground. Since the the concept first got rolling in 2009, 14 green banks across the nation have generated $3.67 billion in clean energy investment, according to an annual report from the American Green Bank Consortium, a membership organization for green banks and financing groups.

Read full story here…

How Germany Wrecks Environment With Alternative Energy

To ‘save the planet’, Germany has 30,000 wind turbines while the U.S. has over 54,000, but actual output is only around 17% of capacity. Meanwhile, environmental degradation and wildlife kill are swept under the carpet. ⁃ TN Editor

Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources. Over 30 000 wind turbines have been built, with a total installed capacity of nearly 60 GW. Germany now has approximately 1.7 million solar power (photovoltaic) installations, with an installed capacity of 46 GW. This looks very impressive.

Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17% of the installed capacity.

The obvious lesson is: if you want  a stable, secure electricity supply, then you will need reserve, or backup sources of electricity which can be activated on more or less short notice to fill the gaps between electricity demand and the fluctuating output from wind and solar sources.

The more wind and solar energy a nation decides to generate, the more backup capacity it will require. On “bad days” these backup sources must be able to supply up to 100% of the nation’s electricity demand. On “good days” (or during “good hours”) the backup sources will be used less, or even turned off, so that their capacity utilization will also be poor. Not very good economics.

Much better would be to limit wind and solar to a relative minimum, and rely instead upon controllable, non-fluctuating power sources operating with a high capacity factor, to meet the nation’s base load electricity requirements and to adjust total output in accordance with varying demand. This corresponds to world-wide practice prior to the recent huge buildup with renewable energy.

In theory the ideal backup for wind and solar energy would be to store excess electricity produced when the Sun is shining and strong winds are blowing, and inject it back into the grid when needed. Unfortunately, electricity is a difficult and expensive commodity to store.

By far the most efficient presently available solution for storing excess electric power is to use it to pump water against gravity into a reservoir. When electricity is needed again, it is produced by letting water flow down again via a turbine generator. In this process about 25% of the energy is lost.

Naturally, the costs of construction and operation of such pump storage plants will add to the real costs of providing electricity. Plus, these installations use up a large amount of land area.

Here, too, Germany provides an instructive example. A 2014 study by the Bavarian Ministry of Energy came to the conclusion that pump storage plants were not an economically viable solution. Much better would be to exploit already existing water reservoir resources in Norway and Sweden, where the capacity of pump storage plants can be greatly expanded and new ones built at much lower cost.

This “solution,” however, would require transporting large amounts of electricity over long distances back and forth between Germany and those countries – which in turn would require additional high-voltage lines and cables that have not been built and that no one wants to pay for.

Given the high costs and other obstacles to creating large electricity storage systems, it is not surprising that Germany’s electricity storage capacity amounts today to less than 2% of total electricity output.

There has been much discussion and research concerning alternative ways to store electricity. Theoretically one could be to use excess power to produce hydrogen, store it somehow and then use fuel cells to generate electricity back from the hydrogen. This would be vastly more expensive than pump storage, however, and with much greater losses.

Overdose of renewables?

Today, in order to guarantee stable baseline power and fill the gaps left by its fluctuating wind and solar generators, Germany is forced to rely on (1) CO2-spouting coal and natural gas power plants; (2) its remaining handful of nuclear plants, which it plans to shut down by 2022; and most notably (3) importing electricity from other European nations.

Read full story here…

Kathy Castor

House Climate Chair Calls For Google To Censor ‘Climate Deniers’

Shame on Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), who is chairperson of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. She demands that Google censor videos that promote “climate denial and climate misinformation.” What happened to the First Amendment, Kathy? ⁃ TN Editor

The chair of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis was accused Wednesday of censorship after calling on Google to take action against YouTube videos that promote “climate denial and climate misinformation.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, Florida Democrat, asked Google in a Monday letter to remove “climate disinformation videos” from YouTube’s “recommendation algorithm,” demonetize videos that promote “harmful misinformation,” and correct the record for those exposed to such “misinformation.”

“YouTube has been driving millions of viewers to climate misinformation videos every day, a shocking revelation that runs contrary to Google’s important missions of fighting misinformation and promoting climate action,” said Ms. Castor, who requested a response by Feb. 7.

Google, which owns YouTube, has yet to comment publicly, but climate skeptics were outraged, charging the congresswoman with attempting to shut down debate on climate policy by silencing dissenting voices, no matter how knowledgeable about climate science.

“Rep. Castor’s demand that Google pull down climate skeptic YouTube videos because she doesn’t approve of their content says a lot about the totalitarian instincts of the climate movement,” said JunkScience’s Steve Milloy.

Read full story here…

Wuhan virus

Globalization Faces Disaster With Supply Chain Leaving China

The finely-tuned global supply chain built by corporate Technocrats is being disrupted by the Black Swan event of the deadly Wuhan virus in China. The shock of economic standstill, lack of travel, missed deadlines, etc., could provide a “Lehman moment” and domino effect. ⁃ TN Editor

Everyone expecting a quick resolution to the epidemic and a rapid return to pre-epidemic conditions would be well-served by looking beyond first-order effects.

While the media naturally focuses on the immediate effects of the coronavirus epidemic, the possible second-order effects receive little attention: first order, every action has a consequence. Second order, every consequence has its own consequence.

So the media’s focus is the first-order consequences: the number of infected people and fatalities, government responses such as quarantines, and so on. The general expectation is these first-order consequences will dissipate shortly and life will return to its pre-epidemic status with virtually no significant changes.

Second-order effects caution: not so fast. Second-order consequences may play out for months or even years even if the epidemic ends as quickly as the consensus expects.

The under-appreciated dynamic here is the tipping point, the imprecise point at which a decision to make fundamental changes tips from “maybe” to “yes.”

These tipping points are often influenced by exhaustion or frustration. Take a small business that’s been hit with tax increases, additional fees, more regulatory compliance requirements, etc. When the next fee increase arrives, the onlooker might declare that the sum is relatively modest and the business owner can afford to pay it, but the onlooker is only considering first-order effects: the size of the fee and and the owner’s ability to pay it.

To the surprise of the onlooker focusing only on first-order effects, the second-order effect is the owner closes the business and moves away. Invisible to everyone focusing solely on first-order effects, the owner’s sense of powerlessness and weakening resolve to continue despite soaring costs and declining profits has slowly been moving up to a tipping point.

Beneath the surface, every new fee, every tax increase and every new regulation has pushed the owner closer to “I’ve had it, I’m out.”

When the owner shuts the business, onlookers can’t understand how one little extra fee could trigger such a fundamental change. The observer is only looking at the new fee as a single cause with a single consequence. In the real world, each new fee, tax increase and regulation was another link in a causal chain of consequences generating consequences.

Turning to the possible second-order effects of the epidemic in China, let’s start with the decision to keep supply chains in China. The reasons to keep supply chains in China have been dwindling for years: wages and other costs have been rising, the central government has increased demands for technology sharing, the general sense that foreigners and foreign companies are no longer needed or wanted, and the trade war, which is more or less in a truce phase rather than over.

One common belief is that it’s “impossible” to move supply chains out of China. This is a classic first-order effect analysis. When the supply chain gets disrupted for one reason or another and alternatives must be found, alternatives are found. What becomes “impossible” isn’t moving the supply chain from China but keeping it in China.

The mistake made by those only considering first-order effects is that a modest effect “should” only generate modest consequences. For the observer focused solely on first-order effects, if the coronavirus epidemic blows over as expected, then supply chains “should” be unaffected because the effect is quantitatively modest.

But once we start considering cumulative second-order effects and potential tipping points, then the disruption of supply chains caused by the epidemic, no matter how modest, could be “the last straw” to those who had beneath the surface already shifted from “never leave China” to “maybe leave China.” The epidemic could tip the decision process into “must leave China.”

Consider two executives, one who looked at the longer term consequences of being dependent on production in China and began establishing alternative suppliers at the start of the trade war 18 months ago, and another exec who looked at the first-order hassles and expenses of moving out of China and stayed put to minimize short-term expenses.

Read full story here…

Elon Musk

Space Junk? Elon Musk Seeks 30,000 5G Satellites In Space

Elon Musk’s grandfather was the head of Technocracy, Inc. in Canada during the 1930s and ’40s. As a Technocrat himself, Musk builds because he can, not because there is a moral imperative to do so.

Flooding the earth with 5G radiation and satellites is fraught with major consequences, including health issues. However, 30k satellites will effectively destroy Earth-based astronomy because of the diffusion of reflected light. And don’t forget space junk that will eventually be falling to earth. ⁃ TN Editor

Elon Musk is preparing to launch 60 Starlink ‘internet satellites’ into space tomorrow – despite ongoing fury over the project.

The tech billionaire’s rocket firm SpaceX will launch the satellites in defiance of critics who say Musk is flooding Earth’s orbit with “space junk”.


Credit: Elon Musk/ Twitter

Starlink is Musk’s bid to create a network of satellites in space that will beam internet back down to Earth.

Dozens of satellites have already been launched – and Musk has approval to send tens of thousands more into orbit.

Later today, a 229-foot-tall Falcon 9 rocket will take 60 satellites into space, where they will orbit 341 miles above Earth.

The launch was scheduled to take place on Monday, January 27, but has been delayed until January 28 due to strong winds.

But despite his good intentions, Musk is facing growing criticism from the astronomy community.

There have been concerns that humanity could be trapped on Earth by too much space junk in Earth’s orbit.

That’s according to one space scientist, who says Musk’s plan could create an impenetrable wall of space junk around our planet.

A catastrophic clutter of space debris left behind by the satellites could block rockets from leaving Earth, an effect known as “Kessler syndrome”.

“The worst case is: You launch all your satellites, you go bankrupt, and they all stay there,” European Space Agency scientist Dr Stijn Lemmens told Scientific American.

“Then you have thousands of new satellites without a plan of getting them out of there. And you would have a Kessler-type of syndrome.”

It will take thousands of years for any SpaceX satellites left in our orbit to descend to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere.

The firm says it’s already taken steps to avoid cluttering up the region. It’s launching the satellites into a lower orbital plane than most space tech to avoid collisions.

Even with such precautions, mega-constellations like Starlink will results in 67,000 potential collisions per year, another space scientist warned.

“This is something we need to pay attention to,” aerospace engineer Glenn Peterson told MIT Technology Review. “We have to be proactive.”

The Starlink satellites are tightly packed into the nose of one of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets, which is currently poised on a launchpad at Florida’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Musk has previously said he plans to send up nearly 12,000 satellites by the mid-2020s.

Read full story here…

Bernie Sanders rally in Portland

Global Dissatisfaction With Democracy Prepares The Way For Technocracy

Pollsters discover that 57.5% of people everywhere are discontent with democracy. The winds of social change closely follow the anti-capitalist promoted by the UN.

Historically, Socialism and Communism have only succeeded in raising human suffering, misery and poverty on planet Earth. However, these wrecking balls are very proficient at tearing down the societal structures, which is necessary to pave the way for Technocracy to sweep in.  ⁃ TN Editor

The world is unhappier with democracy than ever, new research has claimed.

In a report published Wednesday, researchers from Cambridge University analyzed the political sentiment of more than 4 million people, using data from survey projects that covered 154 countries between 1995 and 2020.

The proportion of people who said they were dissatisfied with democracy over the last year hit 57.5%, according to the report, with researchers saying 2019 marked “the highest level of democratic discontent” on record.

Authors noted that over the last 25 years, the number of individuals dissatisfied with democratic politics around the world rose from a third to more than half.

Shifts in satisfaction levels were often a response to “objective circumstances and events” such as economic shocks and corruption scandals, the report said.

Following the financial crisis in 2008, for example, global dissatisfaction with the functioning of democracy jumped by around 6.5%.

Many large democracies, including the U.S., Australia, U.K. and Brazil, were now at their highest-ever level of dissatisfaction with democracy.

According to the report, the U.S. in particular had seen a “dramatic and unexpected” decline in satisfaction with democracy.

When the surveys began in 1995, more than 75% of U.S. citizens were satisfied with American democracy. The first big knock came with the financial crisis, the report showed, and satisfaction has continued to deteriorate year-on-year ever since.

Fewer than 50% of Americans are now content with democracy in their country, marking the first time on record that a majority of U.S. citizens were dissatisfied with their system of government.

“Such levels of democratic dissatisfaction would not be unusual elsewhere,” the report said. “But for the United States, it marks an ‘end of exceptionalism’ — a profound shift in America’s view of itself, and therefore, of its place in the world.”

Read full story here…

Anti-Virus Software Harvests ‘Every Search, Every Click, Every Buy, On Every Site’

Data is the new oil of the 21st century and Technocrats are the new roughnecks. In this case, the software is free but your data is priceless and wantonly harvested without your consent or knowledge. ⁃ TN Editor

An antivirus program used by hundreds of millions of people around the world is selling highly sensitive web browsing data to many of the world’s biggest companies, a joint investigation by Motherboard and PCMag has found. Our report relies on leaked user data, contracts, and other company documents that show the sale of this data is both highly sensitive and is in many cases supposed to remain confidential between the company selling the data and the clients purchasing it.

The documents, from a subsidiary of the antivirus giant Avast called Jumpshot, shine new light on the secretive sale and supply chain of peoples’ internet browsing histories. They show that the Avast antivirus program installed on a person’s computer collects data, and that Jumpshot repackages it into various different products that are then sold to many of the largest companies in the world. Some past, present, and potential clients include Google, Yelp, Microsoft, McKinsey, Pepsi, Sephora, Home Depot, Condé Nast, Intuit, and many others. Some clients paid millions of dollars for products that include a so-called “All Clicks Feed,” which can track user behavior, clicks, and movement across websites in highly precise detail.

Avast claims to have more than 435 million active users per month, and Jumpshot says it has data from 100 million devices. Avast collects data from users that opt-in and then provides that to Jumpshot, but multiple Avast users told Motherboard they were not aware Avast sold browsing data, raising questions about how informed that consent is.

The data obtained by Motherboard and PCMag includes Google searches, lookups of locations and GPS coordinates on Google Maps, people visiting companies’ LinkedIn pages, particular YouTube videos, and people visiting porn websites. It is possible to determine from the collected data what date and time the anonymized user visited YouPorn and PornHub, and in some cases what search term they entered into the porn site and which specific video they watched.

Although the data does not include personal information such as users’ names, it still contains a wealth of specific browsing data, and experts say it could be possible to deanonymize certain users.

In a press release from July, Jumpshot claims to be “the only company that unlocks walled garden data” and seeks to “provide marketers with deeper visibility into the entire online customer journey.” Jumpshot has previously discussed some of its clients publicly. But other companies mentioned in Jumpshot documents include Expedia, IBM, Intuit, which makes TurboTax, Loreal, and Home Depot. Employees are instructed not to talk publicly about Jumpshot’s relationships with these companies.

“It’s very granular, and it’s great data for these companies, because it’s down to the device level with a timestamp,” the source said, referring to the specificity and sensitivity of the data being sold. Motherboard granted the source anonymity to speak more candidly about Jumpshot’s processes.

Read full story here…