Your Daily Privacy Theft! Who Hacks You? "Data-Rape": Bulk harvesting your personal data property!
---------------------------------------------------------------- 60 Minutes blows "data-rape" & "privacy-rape" wide open! The Data brokers: Easily stealing & selling your sexual, mental, medical and life data every day. See the video below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_iLgpnjBI See the entire 60 Minutes story here: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-data-brokers-selling-your-personal-information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YffwdsnKXo ------------------------------------------------------ SEE ALSO: WHY YOU MUST CARE, HOW IT PERSONALLY AFFECTS YOU >>> SEE ALSO: HOW TECH COMPANIES BRAINWASH YOU >>> LINK TO THIS PAGE: http://wp.me/P4e1uX-xl Class Action Lawsuits in preparation, and now being filed, against Dot.Com companies that bulk harvest your personal "private data property" without paying you. You own your personal marketing data like you own your house. Companies can't rent your house without your permission. It is not legal for them to "look like" they are asking for your permission, if they do so in a manner meant to confuse you. You own your personal private use data like you own your own hair. Nobody can come and cut off your hair while you are sleeping and sell it for wigs. It is not legal for them to "look like" they are asking for your permission, if they do so in a manner meant to confuse you. "Data-rape" should not be ok with you. You get pulled into the big party known as "the internet" like a Frat House rumble because "everybody is doing it". You are slipped some movies and MP3's and fake dating profiles to get you "loosened up". Then, when your defenses are down, in this unfamiliar place called the internet, your most private thing is taken from you: Your privacy itself. A precedent exists for the compensation of individuals for the selling of any part of their body (Blood banks, semen banks, kidney exchanges, etc.) , time (W2 Employment), expertise (1099 Consulting), brand (Celebrity endorsement), persona (Online Vlog subscriber promotions) and a host of other past examples proving the value precedent of personal humanity. The concept of ownership of your private data is the basis of multiple class-action lawsuits in development against privacy-violation and data exploitation efforts akin to the home mortgage issues. Disclosures that are hidden or written in language that is incomprehensible to the average person, don't count! In tests: 20, unexpectedly picked, people are asked to read the website disclosures for a dot.com company in the few seconds they are allowed to read it (the average time that web metrics says the average user is exposed to the disclosure) and scroll through the massive amount of legalese and comprehend it. Not one of them could answer 10 follow-up questions about what it said. Try it yourself with 20 friends. This sort of test will be a key evidence point in the trials. Why did the privacy heads at top big internet companies like Google and Twitter quit just before the Snowden disclosures? Companies like Facebook and Google make billions of dollars, almost entirely, off of the selling of your personal information, why shouldn't you share in the money they make off of you without your fully informed consent? Send Twitter a bill for using you, if they don't pay you, you have a legal right to collect. At least one, of the many cases underway, will prevail. Then, every time you use anything on Google, you get a check, from Google, for that part of yourself that was used by them. Interesting concept! Watch what comes next... Weston L.- NY T Facebook Sued Over Alleged Scanning of Private Messages Facebook Inc. (FB) was sued over allegations it systematically intercepts its users private messages on the social network and profits by sharing the data with advertisers and marketers. When users compose messages that include links to a third-party website, Facebook scans the content of the message, follows the link and searches for information to profile the message-sender’s Web activity, violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California privacy and unfair competition laws, according to the suit. The practice compromises privacy and undermines Facebook’s promise of “unprecedented” security options for its messaging function, two Facebook users said in the complaint filed in federal court in San Jose, California. Lawsuits against Internet companies and social networks are multiplying as use of the Web balloons and users become more aware of how much personal information they’re revealing, often without their knowledge. Google Inc. (GOOG), Yahoo! Inc. and LinkedIn Corp. (LNKD) also are facing accusations of intercepting communications for their profit at the expense of users or non-users.
The scanning “is a mechanism for Facebook to surreptitiously gather data in an effort to improve its marketing algorithms and increase its ability to profit from data about Facebook users,” Michael Sobol, an attorney for the plaintiffs, wrote in the Dec. 30 complaint.
Jackie Rooney, a spokeswoman for Facebook, said the company regards the allegations as “without merit.” The plaintiffs are seeking a court order certifying the case as a group, or class action, lawsuit on behalf of all Facebook users who have sent or received a private message in the past two years that included a Web links. They are also asking to bar Facebook from continuing to intercept messages and seek as much as $10,000 in damages for each user. The case is Matthew Campbell v. Facebook Inc., 13-5996, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in federal court in San Francisco at email@example.com To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at firstname.lastname@example.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Reporters- For follow-up information on privacy data lawsuits: Chris Hansen, Senior National Staff Counsel- ACLU- 212-549-2500 Eric Gibbs, Founding Partner- Girard Gibbs LLP - 1-866-981-4800 Elizabeth Fegan- Partner- Hagens Berman- 1-206-623-7292 Ryan D. Andrews- Edelson, LLC- (312) 589-6370 Seanna R. Brown- Baker Hostetler - 212-589-4230 More coming... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Internet Privacy Warrant Association Campaign The IPWA is an independent association of writers, publishers, reporters, citizens and families. Signatories are allowed to post the trust, icon, above, on their websites. Signatories must link the icon, above, to an exclusively dedicated page on their website with a color scan of the original CEO-signed warrant (in blue text, below) on their letterhead. Disclosure: IPWA is not a front organization for a billionaire. IPWA does not accept funds. IPWA is just people with families. IPWA does not support any candidate. HERE IS THE BEST AND EASIEST PART FOR THESE BIG COMPANIES: Just do it! You don't need to send anything in to IPWA or apply or, anything. Just do it and make sure it is the truth. Everybody is watching. If you don't do it, everybody will know. If you do do it, everybody will know. If you do it and lie, everybody will know. IWPA has written all of the companies, on the list below, asking them to do it. There are no membership fees to pay. There is no ongoing "certification service cost". It is totally free. Just do it and make sure it is the truth! Everybody is watching! Don't change the wording in blue, not even one letter, or everyone will know you are using "sneaky-talk". We ask each company selling services online, or services related to online use, to sign the following warrant and guarantee. If you are a consumer, or a consumer support group, cut-and-paste a copy of this article and email it to any email address you have, for people at the companies on the list below to help keep them motivated. You might want to not shop at, or cancel your subscription to, those companies below, until they sign up. It is not a "promise". A "promise has no bearing under law. This is a legally binding agreement and statement of trust: WARRANT AND GUARANTEE OF ________ (COMPANY___________ "As CEO, and as the legally bound representative for ____________ (COMPANY) I, and my company, warrant and guarantee that our company is not providing access to hackers, bulk privacy harvesting groups or any similar third parties who may abuse your privacy data rights." NAME: CEO, _______________________(COMPANY)_______________ Signature: Date: Company: Address: Phone: Fax: Email: ######## The Following Companies either have not signed the warrant, or have not responded to requests to sign the warrant, and thus, may be intentionally, or negligently, delivering your data to hackers and bulk privacy harvesting companies: Amazon.com Match.com Okcupid.com Google.com Twitter.com Facebook.com Linkedin.com Level 3 AT&T Sprint Verizon Radio Shack Adobe Comcast Apple Ebay Priceline.com Rakuten Macy's Yahoo.com Baidu.com Salesforce.com Microsoft Intel NVIDIA Target Walmart Costco Safeway Walgreens CVS Additional names to be added... Peter Lesting- Associate- IPWA Dean Unsen- Associate- IPWA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reports from Der Spiegel and ABC now reveal that: 1. If you ever expressed any negative thoughts or words about a Senator, political group or business monopoly it was documented on Amazon's Cloud servers and you get "flagged". 2. Amazon hosts the servers for bulk data privacy harvesting groups where the log of your name being "flagged" for mouthing off ends up. 3. If you order anything from Amazon that is electronic, it gets stopped, on its way to you, bugs and spyware are inserted in the cord, chips or hard-drive and it is sent along to you. Amazon hosts Netflix and grabs some of Netflix viewers watching habits and profiling data for "marketing purposes", as well. Currently there are no interstitial latent images dropped into Netflix streams but the technology to do so has been tested repeatedly. Sooooooooo... don't "mouth off". SD-ABC ----------------------------------------- [caption id="attachment_8591" align="aligncenter" width="529"] Read about how you get "DATA-RAPED" here...[/caption]
Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence
In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum billed as a “vibrant discussion” about Internet search competition. Many of the major players in the field were there — regulators from the Federal Trade Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional staffers.
What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic conference was in large part the work of Google, which maneuvered behind the scenes with GMU’s Law & Economics Center to put on the event. At the time, the company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the dominance of its famed search engine, a case that threatened Google’s core business.
In the weeks leading up to the GMU event, Google executives suggested potential speakers and guests, sending the center’s staff a detailed spreadsheet listing members of Congress, FTC commissioners, and senior officials with the Justice Department and state attorney general’s offices.
“If you haven’t sent out the invites yet, please use the attached spreadsheet, which contains updated info,” Google legal assistant Yang Zhang wrote to Henry Butler, executive director of the law center, according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. “If you’ve sent out the invites, would it be possible to add a few more?”
Butler replied, “We’re on it!”
On the day of the conference, leading technology and legal experts forcefully rejected the need for the government to take action against Google, making their arguments before some of the very regulators who would help determine its fate.
The company helped put on two similar conferences at GMU around the time of the 18-month investigation, part of a broad strategy to shape the external debate around the probe, which found that Google’s search practices did not merit legal action.
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
Nine years ago, the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital’s pay-to-play culture.
The company gives money to nearly 140 business trade groups, advocacy organizations and think tanks, according to a Post analysis of voluntary disclosures by the company, which, like many corporations, does not reveal the size of its donations. That’s double the number of groups Google funded four years ago.
This summer, Google will move to a new Capitol Hill office, doubling its Washington space to 55,000 square feet — roughly the size of the White House.
Google’s increasingly muscular Washington presence matches its expanded needs and ambitions as it has fended off a series of executive- and legislative-branch threats to regulate its activities and well-funded challenges by its corporate rivals.
Today, Google is working to preserve its rights to collect consumer data — and shield it from the government — amid a backlash over revelations that the National Security Agency tapped Internet companies as part of its surveillance programs. And it markets cloud storage and other services to federal departments, including intelligence agencies and the Pentagon.
“Technology issues are a big — and growing — part of policy debates in Washington, and it is important for us to be part of that discussion,” said Susan Molinari, a Republican former congresswoman from New York who works as Google’s top lobbyist. “We aim to help policymakers understand Google’s business and the work we do to keep the Internet open and spur economic opportunity.”
Molinari added, “We support associations and third parties across the political spectrum who help us get the word out — even if we don’t agree with them on 100 percent of issues.”
As Google’s lobbying efforts have matured, the company has worked to broaden its appeal on both sides of the aisle. Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is a well-known backer of President Obama and advises the White House. Google’s lobbying corps — now numbering more than 100 — is split equally, like its campaign donations, among Democrats and Republicans.
Google executives have fostered a new dialogue between Republicans and Silicon Valley, giving money to conservative groups such as Heritage Action for America and the Federalist Society. While also supporting groups on the left, Google has flown conservative activists to California for visits to its Mountain View campus and a stay at the Four Seasons Hotel.
The company has also pioneered new and unexpected ways to influence decision-makers, harnessing its vast reach. It has befriended key lawmakers in both parties by offering free training sessions to Capitol Hill staffers and campaign operatives on how to use Google products that can help targetvoters.
Through a program for charities, Google donates in-kind advertising, customized YouTube channels and Web site analytics to think tanks that are allied with the company’s policy goals.
Google “fellows” — young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company — populate elite think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation.
To critics, Google’s investments have effectively shifted the national discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the company’s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those critics say.
“Google’s influence in Washington has chilled a necessary and overdue policy discussion about the impact of the Internet’s largest firm on the future of the Internet,” said Marc Rotenberg, a Georgetown University law professor who runs the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog and research organization.
Some with deep ties to the company say that Google’s embrace of aggressive lobbying was a necessary concession to the realities of Washington.
“I don’t fault Google for playing that game, in which big companies use their money to buy advocates and allies,” said Andrew McLaughlin, who served as Google’s first director of global public policy in Washington. “Given where the company is today, the fiduciary duty it has to shareholders and the way Washington works, it’s a rational judgment.”
Google goes to lunch
An early sign of Google’s new Washington attitude came in September 2011, when executives paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation, the stalwart conservative think tank that has long served as an intellectual hub on the right, to attend a weekly lunch for conservative bloggers.
The session took place at a critical juncture for the company.
Days earlier, Schmidt had endured a rare and unnerving appearance on Capitol Hill, where he was lectured by a Republican senator who accused the company of skewing search results to benefit its own products and hurt competitors. The FTC antitrust inquiry was underway. And, in what Google saw as a direct threat to the open Internet, major lobbies such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America were mounting a legislative campaign to place restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies. The effort was getting bipartisan traction in the House and the Senate.
Inside Google’s Washington headquarters, a handful of lobbyists were crafting what they called the “Republican strategy” to defeat the legislation. Their approach: build conservative opposition based on the right’s distaste for regulation. They also seized on an obscure provision that they told Republicans would be a boon for trial lawyers, a Democratic constituency.
As the campaign took shape, there was a building sense within the company that it needed to beef up its firepower on the Hill. That fall, Google’s first Washington lobbyist, a computer scientist and lawyer named Alan Davidson, a Democrat, would announce his resignation, replaced a few months later by the former GOP lawmaker, Molinari.
In their visit to Heritage that day, Google officials were eager to make new friends. Their challenge was instantly clear.
“In 2008, your CEO campaigned for Barack Obama,” said Mike Gonzalez, Heritage’s vice president for communications, according to a video of the event. “. . . As a company, you’re really identified with this administration from the beginning. And you come here and you’re like a mix of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.”
Adam Kovacevich, then a member of Google’s policy team, responded by stressing the company’s interest in building new alliances.
“One of the things we’ve recognized is that no company can get anything done in Washington without partnerships on both sides of the aisle,” he said.
He noted the recent hiring of Lee Carosi Dunn, one of several former top aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) brought on by the company.
Dunn, addressing the audience, promised “a lot of reach-out to Republicans.”
“I think it’s another lesson young companies that come to Washington learn — you can’t put all your marbles in one basket,” Dunn said. Referring to the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, Dunn added: “Look, even Bill Kristol was walking around wearing Google glasses. We’re making strides!”
The Google-Heritage relationship soon blossomed — with benefits for both.
A few weeks after the blogger session, Heritage researcher James L. Gattuso penned a critique of the antitrust investigation into Google, praising the company as “an American success story.”
That winter, Heritage joined the chorus of groups weighing in against the anti-piracy legislation. As the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, appeared to gain steam in the GOP-led House, Gattuso wrote a piece warning of “unintended negative consequences for the operation of the Internet and free speech.” The legislation, he said, could disrupt the growth of technology. Gattuso said he came to his position independently and was not lobbied by Google.
After Gattuso’s piece went live, Heritage Action, the think tank’s sister advocacy organization, quickly turned the argument into a political rallying cry. In terms aimed at tea party conservatives, the group cast the bill as “another government power grab.”
In mid-January 2012, Heritage Action designated the legislation a “key vote” it would factor into its congressional race endorsement decisions — heightening the pressure on Republicans.
The next day, leading Internet sites, including Wikipedia, went dark as part of an online blackout protesting the bills.
Google turned its iconic home page into a political platform for the first time, urging users to sign a petition against the legislation. Seven million people added their names, and many of them added their e-mails, creating a valuable activist list for Google to mobilize then and in later fights.
As congressional offices were flooded with phone calls and e-mail protests, support for the legislation crumbled. Within days, both the House and Senate versions of the bill were shelved and Hill veterans were left marveling at the ability of Google and its allies to muster such a massive retail response.
For Google and Heritage, the legislative victory was the beginning of a close relationship. A few months later, Google Ideas and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event focused on the role the Internet could play in modernizing Cuba, featuring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Google Ideas director Jared Cohen.
The following year, a new name popped up on Google’s list of groups it supports financially: Heritage Action.
Facing a broad and potentially damaging FTC probe, Google found an eager and willing ally in George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center.
The center is among the academic programs at universities such as Harvard and Stanford that have benefited from Google’s largesse. For the past several years, the free-market-oriented law center has received an annual donation from the company, a grant that totaled $350,000 last year, according to the school.
Google’s relationship with the law center proved helpful in the summer of 2011 as speculation mounted that the FTC was going to launch an antitrust investigation of the tech giant. The company’s rivals, including Microsoft and Yelp, were aggressively pressing arguments that Google was exploiting its dominance in the search business.
On June 16, 2011, Google and the law center put on the first of three academic conferences at the GMU law school’s Arlington County campus, all focusing on Internet search competition. It was eight days before the company announced it had received formal notification it was under FTC investigation.
Google was listed as a co-sponsor of the day-long forum, but some participants were still struck by the number of speakers who took a skeptical view of the need for antitrust enforcement against the company, according to people in attendance.
The keynote address was by Google engineer Mark Paskin, who delivered a lunchtime speech titled “Engineering Search.”
A few days later, Christopher Adams, an economist in the FTC’s antitrust division who later worked on the Google investigation, e-mailed Butler, the law center’s director, to thank him for putting on the conference. “I think it was one of the best policy conferences that I’ve been too [sic],” Adams wrote, praising Paskin’s talk as “excellent.”
Adams declined to comment for this article, referring questions to the FTC press office.
FTC spokesman Justin Cole said the agency’s staffers “are required to adhere to established federal government ethics rules and guidelines. Attendance and participation in the 2011 and 2012 GMU conferences by our staff adhered to these guidelines.”
As the agency’s investigation stretched into its second year, the staff and professors at GMU’s law center were in regular contact with Google executives, who supplied them with the company’s arguments against antitrust action and helped them get favorable op-ed pieces published, according to the documents obtained by The Post.
The school and Google staffers worked to organize a second academic conference focused on search. This time, however, Google’s involvement was not publicly disclosed.
Months before the event, Zhang, the Google legal assistant, e-mailed Chrysanthos Dellarocas, a professor in the Information Systems Department at Boston University’s School of Management, to suggest he participate. Dellarocas had received $60,000 in 2011 from Google to study the impact of social networks on search.
“We’d love for you . . . to submit and present this paper, if you are interested and willing,” she wrote.
When GMU officials later told Dellarocas they were planning to have him participate from the audience, he responded that he was under the impression from “the folks at Google who have funded our research” that they wanted him to showcase his work at the event. He said he wanted “to be in compliance with our sponsor’s expectations.”
Dellarocas, who had a schedule conflict and ultimately did not attend, told The Post that while Google occasionally checked on his progress, the company did not have any sway over his research.
“At no point did they have any interference with the substance of my work,” he said.
Even as Google executives peppered the GMU staff with suggestions of speakers and guests to invite to the event, the company asked the school not to broadcast its involvement.
“It may seem like Google is overwhelming the conference,” Zhang fretted in an e-mail to the center’s administrative coordinator, Jeffrey Smith, after reviewing the confirmed list of attendees a few weeks before the event. She asked Smith to mention “only a few Googlers.”
Smith was reassuring. “We will certainly limit who we announce publicly from Google,” he replied.
A strong contingent of FTC economists and lawyers were on hand for the May 16, 2012, session, whose largely pro-Google tone took some participants aback. “By my count, out of about 20 panelists and speakers, there were 31 / 2 of us who thought the FTC might have a case,” said Allen Grunes, a former government antitrust lawyer who served on a panel and described the conference as “Google boot camp.” Grunes said he was not aware of Google’s role organizing the event until informed of it by a Post reporter.
Daniel D. Polsby, dean of GMU’s School of Law, which houses the center, said that while Google provided suggestions, the agenda and speakers were determined by university staffers. “I think it would misrepresent this conference to suggest that it was a Google event,” he said, adding that the law center discloses on its Web site the support it gets from Google and other corporations.
Google declined to comment about the conferences.
In January 2013, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half, the FTC settled the case with Google, which agreed to give its rivals more access to patents and make it easier for advertisers to use other ad platforms.
But when it came to the charges that Google biased its search results to promote its own products, the five FTC commissioners all voted to close the investigation, saying there was no evidence the company’s practices were harming consumers.
Jon Leibowitz, then the chairman of the agency, said in an interview that the FTC was not affected by Google’s campaign, noting that the company’s rivals were waging a parallel effort on the other side.
“It didn’t bother me that a lot of people were building events around the possibility of the FTC investigation,” said Leibowitz, who has since left the FTC. “That’s sort of life in the big city, and both sides were doing it.”
On a February night this year, Schmidt sat down with a Washington audience far friendlier than the panel of senators who had grilled him nearly three years earlier. Addressing a dinner of journalists and scholars at the libertarian Cato Institute, Schmidt received applause and lots of head-nodding as he declared, “We will not collaborate with the NSA.”
Cato was not always in sync with Google’s policy agenda. In previous years, the think tank’s bloggers and scholars had been sharply critical of the company’s support for government rules limiting the ways providers such as Comcast and Verizon could charge for Internet services.
But, like manyinstitutions in Washington, Cato has since found common ground with Google.
And the think tank has benefited from the company’s investments, receiving $480,000 worth of in-kind “ad words” from Google last year, according to people familiar with the donation.
Schmidt’s message to Cato that night in February reflected the current focus of Google’s energy — containing the fallout from revelations by NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
As the public’s outrage has grown, the tech giant has tried to keep the focus on limiting government surveillance, not on the data collection done by private companies. A White House review of those issues is expected to be released this coming week.
A campaign against government spying, meanwhile, is in high gear, drawing together some unexpected bedfellows. The American Civil Liberties Union, Heritage Action, Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Democracy & Technology have formed a coalition calling for the government to obtain a probable-cause warrant before getting access to e-mails and other electronic data.
The coalition, Digital 4th, is funded by Google.
Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Tens of thousands of Fake profiles on big dating sites are there to suck in your marketing data, MORE HERE>>> ------------------------------------------ Big "Famous" Search Engines exist to tell you what THEIR backers want you to know, NOT what you want to find! All of the big well-known search engines (google, Ask, Bing, etc.) are now operated by special interest groups and bulk data harvesting conglomerates who have modified the algorithms to steer the perspectives they want you to have at you, and not the information you want to find. They cut our candidates, policy issues and competitors that they are against and emphasize those that they support in the search results. The creation of digital sheep is a subtle process of steering their points of view to the first bunch of response pages and burying perspectives, that they don't want you to get, to 20 pages back. Spy agencies say that any average person can be brainwashed in 5 days with "effective techniques". Compromised search engines are VERY "effective techniques". If you must use a "main stream" search engine, click on pages 15, or later first, for any hope of getting fair research. A number of start-ups and university groups are working on 100% unbiased search engines that will agree to warrant and guarantee zero-manipuation but they are not fully online yet. When you you type in the manipulated search engines, you are just asking them to:
- Archive your interests and personality type.
- Sell you stuff based on their privacy harvesting of your personal information.
- Come up with search results that slowly start to get you think like their financial backers also think.
- Avoid showing you search results that conflict with the interests of their financial backers.
It is virtually impossible to now find a database that has not been hacked into multiple times, mostly by bored 14 year olds. Current network hardware is full of archaic "back-doors" and current software for networks is as secure as your cookie jar. Isn't the internet wonderful? JK-LAT, GH- NYT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two great hacker protection articles: http://m.nbcnews.com/technology/how-protect-your-internet-privacy-2014-2D11762947 https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/encryption-works#pgp --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cisco's Last Hope! The NSA disclosures have put Cisco at risk of extreme, or total, failure. Cisco's marketing, branding and market analytics experts will not have accurate reports completed on this, for Cisco for months. BY then it will be too late. In order for Cisco to recover from the damage it needs to, this week, announce that all hardware will be "open source certified" by the open source community and that a new serial number series will begin the verification process. Existing hardware, which the open source community finds to be back-door-free will receive upgraded serial number designations. Problem solved! TDG- LAT --------------------------------------------------- Personal Privacy Security 2014: (What a drag...)
- Get rid of your credit cards. Only use cash.
- Tape over every digital camera lens. Don't buy devices with built-in cameras.
- Unplug both the power cord and network cord of any device that network connects, when not in use. Routers, gamebox, appliances, Smart TV's, etc. They all watch you.
- Never leave your wifi unit in the "on" position.
- Keep your cell phone in "flight" mode or "airplane" mode until you are ready to use it and then turn it off after use.
- Always remove the battery from your phone when you go into a meeting or drive between locations.
- Try to buy devices that do not have a GPS chip in them.
- Don't "sync" any device.
- Phone, computer and other wall charger/adapters often have bugs built into them.
- Delete your contact list, calendar, tasks & memos from any mobile device. Carry them on paper or on a device with no modem, wifi or bluetooth.
- Never use a "social network" site. Delete all data and cancel all existing sites.
- Remember: "If it has a plug, it has a bug".
- Use TOR and peer to peer hardware and software certified by the open source community.
- Never post your picture online. If you do, make sure it is only used once per site and has your own steganography ID in it but your data meta tags stripped out.
- Don't own anything with an RFID chip. Even your car tires have them in them.
- Cover your mouth when saying something important. Surveillance cameras read lips.
- Don't keep anything of value on a network-connected hard drive or server. Use only external drives, encrypt them and unplug them when not in use.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is fixing the hacking crisis? Russian mobster hackers, Chinese corporate espionage teams, Mexican cartel technologists, teenage competitive break-in coders and a host of others are after your stuff. They are coming all day and all night. How do we sleep at night now that we know that our business plans, our engineering CAD for our new products, our publishers book manuscripts, our trade secret formula's, our marketing plans and, essentially, our every thought and business idea is up for grabs on every phone and device we own? Have hope. The next generation of solutions are on their way. A wave of innovators are bringing the solutions to market soon. The open source community is coming to save you. Part of the effort has delivered Peer-to-peer self creating, self-erasing mobile and desktop networks. These cell phone networks bypass cell phone towers, are untraceable and move so mercurially that once they are found, they dissolve into nothing. They run entirely off of software and need no special chips. They cannot be tracked or spied on. (Tor, Onion, Mega, Serval, McAfee, T5, Torrents, Gnutellas, Freewire, Darkmail, Roofnet, and hundreds more) New operating systems that are created and monitored by the open source community ensure that the creators of spying and the suppliers of hackers tools are no longer the same people. One phone company has been forced out of the market for having spy chips and others are sure to follow. New, independent handset projects will deliver cell phones that can use a variety of Operating Systems (OS) and that have all of their chips and circuit diagrams publicly logged for any open source participant to validate and confirm that no hidden spy chips exist within. Hundreds of start-ups, programming teams, public projects, kickstarter/IndieGoGo, efforts, individual coders and large commercial efforts are engaged in delivering these solutions to solve the current crisis of confidence in the tech sector. While Nokia and old school players promote their party line: "none of these technologies will work", they see the writing in the wind, they know that they DO work, and they know that they must play or go away. TD- IT Wire ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVELOPING STORY: Consumer groups demand assurances that Microsoft Outlook and Apple iCal Calendars are not sending your schedule, contacts, tasks and memos off your machine, or device, to third parties. FG-, GH, PP-NYT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Amazing Gift of the Public Spying Scandal: There are some great things coming out of it - A. Transparency B. Free diary management service C. Validation that online voting CAN now work because we now know that nobody can actually cheat it. In fact, you may have already voted because they already know what you are thinking! Cool right? D. Free lifetime personal autobiography services and archiving provided by your tax dollars. E. Inability to actually get defrauded by online sales because we now know they can track down ANY bad guy! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymkA1N3oFwg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can You Hack It?
Wherever you’re sitting right now, take a moment to note the connected devices around you. In your pocket or handbag, you probably have an electronic key fob and perhaps a rechargeable subway card embedded with RFID. You likely have a smartphone, which is connected to a Wi-Fi network and also has voice-mail service. You might be wearing a Nike FuelBand, or a Fitbit, or possibly even a new pair of Google Glass. Maybe you can spot a traffic light or an orange highway sign out of your window. A power strip is likely not too far away. All of these devices share one thing in common: They can be hacked. As we herald the coming Internet of Things, it’s easy to forget that our ever expanding tech playground is mostly unsupervised. There is no playground teacher to blow a whistle when another kid takes control of your Bluetooth headset. There is no Norton antivirus software for your garage door opener. If you can plug it in or connect it to a network, your device—no matter what it is —can be harnessed by someone else. And that someone doesn’t have to be a Chinese superhacker to do some serious damage with it, either on purpose or by accident. It can be your Uncle Roger, who doesn’t have his new iPhone figured out and is cluelessly turning your lights on and off via your Belkin WeMo.I’m a hobbyist. Because I study emerging technlogy and the future of media, I’m often tinkering, breaking things, and putting them back together. Once, I wanted to see if I could break into the protected Wi-Fi network we set up for my daughter at home. Less than an hour later, I’d failed to penetrate her network but managed to shut down the main network for our house. Which I knew, because of my husband’s sudden yelling upstairs: “Why is the IRS website redirecting to Sesame Street?!”Part of what makes new technology so exciting is that, unlike the old days, it works right out of the box. You no longer need to know how to build a computer, connect a modem, run a terminal emulator, and install bulletin board system, or BBS, software in order to send a racy message to a co-worker. Now any tech idiot can download Snapchat and accidentally send a racy photo to his sister-in-law. The tech playground is more accessible and, as a result, increasingly problematic.Just after the annual Black Hat Internet security convention a few months ago in Las Vegas, I asked a group of my friends—a Navy engineer, a professional hacker, and a hobbyist—to help me come up with a quick list of devices that will be vulnerable during the next few years as the Internet of Things becomes widespread. Here’s our (incomplete) list. (Entries with a * are those we’ve tried hacking at home, for fun.):Obvious- smartwatches*; smartphones*; computers*; tablets and phablets*; home computer locks*; the cloud (services, storage, software); ATMs at banks; printers; GPS devices*; Wi-Fi routers*; webcams*; thumb and portable USB drives; hotel and gym safes (they tend to use a single default passcode); cable box or DVR; voice mail (especially those with a global call-in number that doesn’t lock outafter successive failed attempts—we saw this with the News of the World scandal); Less Obvious- power strips (can be infected with malware); power cords for your devices (code can be implanted); luggage trackers (such as the Trakdot); connected glasses (Google Glass, Oculus Rift. As of now, Google’s QR barcodes for Wi-Fi store the full access point name and password as plain text); gaming consoles: PS3, Kinect, Nintendo*; refrigerators (such as Samsung); cars with computer operating systems; smart pens (like the Livescribe); gesture control devices (such as the Leap)*; SD cards; cameras; smart alarm clocks*; coffee makers; key fobs; light switches*; moisture sensors*; kitchen and pantry trackers (such as Egg Minder); insurance driving monitors, such as Progressive’s Snapshot device'; traffic lights (MIRT transmitters can change lights to green in two to three seconds); highway signs that spell out text; ...And we didn’t even get into medical devices, which are frighteningly exposed to mischief.The proliferation of all this technology creates a constant need to keep devices updated and secure. Perhaps the most vulnerable object in any American house is the cable box, because it is so rarely updated. If what I’m saying makes you uneasy, you’re not alone. There are plenty of new products exploiting the fears of techno-theft, promising to keep you locked down and safe, such as this neck security wallet from REI, which says it’ll block criminals from scanning the RFID chip in your passport. I travel to a lot of different countries every year for work. I’ve had zero attacks on my passport. On the other hand, I’ve had two laptops and an iPhone compromised.So how should we think about our constant vulnerability? I make a daily assumption that everything I do is hackable, but almost nothing I do is worth hacking. I have an awareness of potential vulnerabilities, and I’m trying to develop an evolving set of street smarts. You should, too.For example, since I do a lot of work on the road while I travel, I now carry my own Wi-Fi hotspot. I can use a secure virtual private network to send and receive email and to access content that I have stored in the cloud. (To be sure, that network can be hacked, too, but at least I can watch the logs of what’s coming and going and attempt to fight off intruders.)I also keep this network cloaked, meaning that I haven’t named it “Amy Webb’s Hotspot.” I routinely look at networks, just for fun, and I’m astonished at how many people use their own names or the names of their companies. Instead, I’ve changed the names of all of my devices to my mobile phone number. That way, if my laptop is lost or stolen, someone will see a phone number rather than my name, which I hope means there will be less of an incentive to poke around my machine to see what’s there. My passwords are easy to remember but difficult to crack. According to my hacker friend, you’re best off with a long phrase that also includes numbers and at least one capital letter. Something like "Iwant99pizzasand12beersfordinnertonight” is actually more secure than “Gx1U2y,” because the algorithms that are used to crack passwords have to process many more computations the longer a password is, and as of now they’re mostly not using natural language processing. Speaking of passwords, I change them weekly. It should go without saying that each one of your networks and devices should have a different password. When was the last time you changed yours? Because I know you’re wondering: There is no workaround for this and no way to game the management of your own passwords.Another good rule is to turn off your peripherals when they’re not in use. Don’t leave your nanny cam on all day long. Same goes for non essentials on your network, such as additional computers, game consoles, and the like. The more things you have plugged in, the more opportunities there are for penetration. Be cognizant of who’s plugging what into your network and connected devices. An innocent-looking thumb drive can destroy your computer within seconds. I’m not preaching abstinence here, but I am saying that computer viruses can be as menacing as sexually transmitted diseases: invisible to the naked eye, but most of the time totally preventable with the right precautions taken in advance.More importantly, I’d argue that all this hacking isn’t necessarily a bad thing. A lack of rules is actually helpful for our burgeoning Internet of Things. I’d much rather that we all come to a good understanding of how our machines work than to start imposing regulations and restricting access. Sometimes, a collaborative hacking effort yields beneficial results for all. For example, the city of Philadelphia launched a contest and invited hackers to create apps and widgets to help citizens receive updates on emergencies and city news and to contact city administration. During Superstorm Sandy, Philly311 was the 33rd most-downloaded app in the country. The city since partnered with Random Hacks of Kindness and Code for America to bring local hackers together with residents, share knowledge, and build more resources.The tech playground is open to all, offering a fantastic opportunity to teach kids how to use and control the many devices that are inextricably tied to their futures. The more they break, the more they’ll learn how to collaborate, fix, and innovate. Organizations like SparkFun Electronics are using next-generation open- source code to show everyone how to build and hack our Internet of Things. Open networks are vital to innovation, even if they aren’t totally secure. Personally, I’m looking forward to 50 years from now when I think the wrong sequence while looking at the light fixture in my grandchild’s house and accidentally cause a blackout. China will offer to sell any journalist a whole set of transcripts from this, and other scandals.
- Everything you buy on Amazon.com; your locations, addresses, credit cards, sizes, preferences. (Amazon provides the servers for the spy agencies, per 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes says Amazon is even planning to "drone you".)
- Everything you buy from any online retailer including your locations, addresses, credit cards, sizes, preferences.
- Any porn you download or watch off any server.
- Everything you watch on Netflix, Hulu, VuDu, and any online media service including the times you watched, your preferences and every title you ever ordered.
- Anything that you log into with a single user name and a single password. Criminals throw high-speed computers at it and they eventually try every combo until they get in.
- Cisco Products. Security Backdoors were built into them that criminals have now accessed.
- Netgear Products. Security Backdoors were built into them that criminals have now accessed.
- Tablets and phablets
- Utility SmartMeters report when you are home, or not, by when you turn things on and off and they may be hackable by programmers to provide other feeds about you.
- Home computer locks
- The cloud (services, storage, software) Amazon Cloud, SkyDrive, Box, Drop Box
- ATMs at banks
- WiFi printers
- Baby monitors
- Twitter accounts
- T-Mobile accounts
- Adobe accounts
- AT&T accounts
- Google accounts
- Facebook accounts
- GPS devices
- Wi-Fi routers
- Any of your locations, buying habits, preferences, use periods or related data captured by any device on this list
- Thumb and portable USB drives
- Hotel and gym safes (they tend to use a single default passcode)
- Cable box or DVR
- Voice mail
- Target, Costco, Walmart credit card readers
- In car bluetooth hands-free microphones
- Any bluetooth connections
- Google Cookies or ANY cookies that your browser accepts
- Any infra-red port on a device
- Power strips (can be infected with malware)
- Power cords for your devices (code can be implanted)
- Luggage trackers (such as the Trakdot)
- Keyfinders or electronic finder tags
- Grocery store discount cards: Safeway, Albertsons, Walgreens, CVS, etc.
- Connected glasses (Google Glass, Oculus Rift. As of now, Google’s QR barcodes for Wi-Fi store the full access point name and password as plain text)
- Gaming consoles: Playstation, Kinect, Nintendo
- Smart refrigerators (such as Samsung)
- Cars with computer operating systems- Siri, MS Sync, Tesla, ONStar, and every GPS circuit in any car
- Smart pens (like the Livescribe)
- Gesture control devices (such as the Leap)
- SD cards
- Worlds of Warcraft and all online gaming networks like Sony Network, Playstation Network, Nintendo Network, etc.
- ANY "Social Media".
- ANY online dating site.
- Anything online that collects "BIG DATA" or any website that sends it's user information to a "Big data" service.
- Any website which asks you to photograph your location, particularly if it uses JPEG, or similar images, as JPEG has your location and personal data embedded in it.
- Any website which asks you to write about yourself, or your activities at any given moment, thus creating a psychological profile of you.
- Smart alarm clocks
- Anything that goes across Amazon.com's cloud servers as Amazon hosts the servers for spy agencies and hackers can easily get into Amazon cloud.
- Smart coffee makers
- Key fobs
- Light switches
- Moisture sensors
- Any RSA Company security technology. (NSA paid RSA $10M to put a "back-door" in everything they make.
- Toll Plaza Fast Pass, Fastrak, etc.
- Kitchen and pantry trackers (such as Egg Minder)
- Wearable health devices: health wristwatches, health headbands, health shoes, etc.
- Insurance driving monitors, such as Progressive’s Snapshot device
- Traffic lights (MIRT transmitters can change lights to green in two to three seconds) highway signs that spell out text
- Anything with a power cord
- Anything you do on Netflix with your mouse or keyboard
- Anything with batteries
- Google Maps- Anything you look at, type in or zoom into.
- Any previous website you subscribe to can be "spoofed" by hackers. You think you are Twitter or Facebook or Salon.com but you are actually on a clone-site on the hackers servers and the hacker is watching everything you do.
- Any window that can vibrate from the voices nearby
- Any ceramic item that can vibrate from the voices nearby
- Any metal item that can vibrate from the voices nearby
- Heart pacemakers
- Any bills you pay, the addresses you pay them at, and the trends of the things you use, ie: cable tvm utilities including all credit card usage, amounts and locations where you purchased
- Most auto tires because tires have RFID chips embedded in the rubber
- Security cameras on buses
- Match.com and OKCupid
- Security cameras in stores & restaurants
- Security cameras on city vehicles
- Walmart hidden biometric shopper data acquisition devices
- "Big Data" output you generate when you use any device on a network
- Any implanted medical device
- Aircraft instruments
- Anything the hackers from the Defcon Conference decide they want to try to get into
- Any filling in your mouth with a special kind of ceramic vibration area
- More coming...
If you are worried about whether something can be hacked, or not, just type: "can XXX be hacked" into the top 5 search engines (You will get a different set of answers with each one) The top safety tips: Unplug, remove batteries, change passwords weekly, use the longest password length allowed, tape over any camera lens on your PC/phone/tablet, be security conscious. Don't worry, thousands of companies have been launched, and funded, in the last few months to fix these problems. Just be careful until the new products, and standards, arrive in late 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDZwicIxdNA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlc9-v143tg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kztvCH8ud8A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MATCH.com/OKCUPID.com CRISIS The creepiest Honey Trap system is the one we heard about at ProPublica where the owners of Match.com/OKCupid.com are closely connected to certain political "interests". A source claimed that they allow those interests to scan their database with photo-comparison software. If the dating profile picture you posted on Match.com or OkCupid is a match for a person the "interests" want to run a Honey Trap on, the "interests" send in a fake date person to try to get info from you, or get you in a compromising situation. Very often the hot blonde you think you are writing to is some hairy fat male political operative in New Jersey. Both sites already have a number of legal actions for fake profiles. If true, and you are controversial, I suppose you can't date anymore... bummer! Ed- PP (PS- GHT:) To see what kind of people work at match.com and okcupid.com, here is a tweet from THE PR DIRECTOR for MATCH.COM and OKCUPID.COM: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 Minutes busts Amazon.com as front for spying. That means Amazon may already be targeted by cyber criminals. Be careful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8s7NMTQj_s --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movies about how spies use hacking: ‘THE CONVERSATION,’ 1974 It used to take a lot more effort for the government, or private eyes, to eavesdrop on private conversations. Fortunately cellphones have made it all much easier. ‘NORTH BY NORTHWEST,’ 1959 The ultimate Alfred Hitchcock spy drama, this Cold War classic races from New York to Chicago to Rapid City, S.D. And, suitably enough, the moment when Cary Grant is finally told by the mysterious government operative what is really going on is drowned out by an airplane engine. Eva Marie Saint remains one of the best-dressed supersecret agents ever. ‘SALT,’ 2010 Evelyn Salt, respected CIA agent, is suddenly accused of being a rogue agent planning to kill the president of Russia. It’s impossible to know who’s trustworthy in this action-packed spy thriller, which poses the question: Who is this Evelyn Salt, and whom is she working for? ‘THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE,’ 1962 One of Frank Sinatra’s best performances, as an officer investigating the ultimate political mole. The film was withdrawn for years after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. It remains intriguing and chilling. The film was remade in 2004, but the original remains one of the standout spy movies of all time. ‘NO WAY OUT,’ 1987 Another Hackman vehicle, “No Way Out” tells the story of a deep-cover Soviet agent working at the Pentagon and the chase to unmask him. A combination whodunit and spy-action film, the story builds to a surprising conclusion that’s sure to boost your paranoia about who’s who. ‘THE BOURNE IDENTITY,’ 2002 Based on the best-selling book and starring Matt Damon as the confused, amnesia-stricken Jason Bourne, the movie takes viewers on an action-packed ride. Great chases, surprising plot twists and double-crosses abound in the film and its two sequels. ‘THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR,’ 1975 Robert Redford plays Joe Turner, a bookish CIA researcher and analyst who comes back from lunch one day to find all his co-workers murdered. Turner must use all his research and tradecraft to evade those who killed his comrades while trying to figure out who is responsible. Also starring Faye Dunaway, the movie delves into the moral gray areas and questionable ethics of the spy business. THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST,’ 1967 Satirical comedy is the genre of this movie about government using the telephone company to pry into the lives of private citizens. James Coburn stars as the psychoanalyst chosen by a government spy agency to act as the U.S. president’s analyst. Coburn’s character finds himself caught in a global web of intrigue as spy agencies around the world try to capture him and glean the secrets he’s learned as the president’s psychiatrist. ‘MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE — GHOST PROTOCOL,’ 2011 The fourth in the “Mission: Impossible” series sees Tom Cruise reprising his role as a secret agent working for the IMF — no, not that IMF, the other one: the Impossible Missions Force). The usual thrill ride of action sequences and double-crosses fills the screen throughout. ‘EAGLE EYE,’ 2008 Shia LaBeouf stars in this movie about Stanford dropout Jerry Shaw, who goes on the run after his identical twin brother is killed and a mysterious voice on the telephone advises him that the FBI is about to arrest him. Networked devices controlled remotely by the mysterious voice on the phone are sure to get your fears of Big Brother going. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kztvCH8ud8A http://avaxho.me/video/Format/documentary/discovery_channel_track_me_if_you_can.html http://12160.info/video/track-me-if-you-can (C) ACLU: