Used to work with a subsidiary of FEMA , I can categorically state that we have no current plans to put Americans into camps.
http://www.fema-online.eu/
http://www.fema-online.eu/
Used to work with a subsidiary of FEMA , I can categorically state that we have no current plans to put Americans into camps.
http://www.fema-online.eu/
careful what truths you tell bro, in this thread I was accused by a crackpot of a member of trolling the site and neg repping his posts (I PROVED that I did not neg rep him), and also of being leo which he announced TWICE in here, TWICE!!! All the while said offensive/offending member had his hand held through all his boohoo, cry baby drama & trauma by a mod and yet he never even suffered a ban for the things he said about me.
The thread had to be cleaned of all the bullshit posts so that it could continue in all its glory.
and btw, I never ONCE said anything bad about Snowden in this thread, my opinion since day one has been this: "Snowden did a great thing in exposing the NSA tactics, but he went about it in the worst way." Otherwise an American hero wouldn't be exiled to Russia.
So watch what you say here foomar, and which mods you might piss off. idk why I was accused of being a neg repping troll & a cop but if you post here long enough you'll likely suffer much of the same.
As soon as you're making sense so irrefutable it can't be denied they'll change the point of the issue to something completely different, they'll quickly & angrily challenge you to answer some new bullshit because they have NO VALID response to the way you'd just shot down the point they'd made; next comes the insults to your intelligence, then accusations that you're one of the sheeple and finally that you get your news/info from mainstream media (MSM).
Enjoy your say and then leave these kiddies to play in their very own icmag sandbox amongst themselves.......
EDIT:
btw, this would be the same MSM that exposed racism, segregation, KKK activities (ALL w/govt knowledge & involvement), war atrocities and unseated Nixon. And so much more over the decades, they sound inept & corrupt to me.
wtf? there is no drama no fights nothing, why are you bringing all the old conflicts up here? as for your insinuations about mods holding people hands, it's just a bunch of bs, posts were reported and said posts got deleted when it was called for, like i said then, i don't just ban people for getting heated in an argument. some mods might, but i try and respect free speech as much as i can inside the tos, people get a warning or 2 before they are banned in my book if poss. so like i told you back then, if you want some one banned for an opinion they hold or calling you a name, go report them to someone else. if that means i'm holding said members hand then so be it. have held your hand too before now in that case. i really thought we were past that episode, have no idea what brought it all up again, but in my humble opinion it's totally off topic and not posted in the friendly way this thread has been running in.
not just in ordinary computer software, but also in industrial controllers
If you thought that the NSA wanted too much personal information, just wait a few months. The EFF is reporting that the FBI's new facial recognition database, containing data for almost a third of the US population, will be ready to launch this summer. Codenamed NGI, the system combines the bureau's 100 million-strong fingerprint database with palm prints, iris scans and mugshots. Naturally, this has alarmed privacy advocates, since it's not just felons whose images are added, but anyone who has supplied a photo ID for a government job or background check. According to the EFF's documents, the system will be capable of adding 55,000 images per day, and could have the facial data for anything up to 52 million people by next year. Let's just hope that no-one tells the Feds about Facebook, or we're all in serious trouble.
It appears the status quo may be finally making its moves to getting control over the heretofore free and open internet. As I and many others have noted previously, the internet is one of the most powerful tools humanity has ever devised. It frees information in a way that was simply unimaginable decades ago and empowers each of us to be as informed or uninformed as we desire.
Just last week in my post, Say Goodbye to “Net Neutrality” – New FCC Proposal Will Permit Discrimination of Web Content, I mused that in so-called “first world” countries like the U.S. the illusion of freedom must be maintained even as civil liberties are eroded. Thus censorship must be administered surreptitiously and slowly. The following plan to implement an “Internet ID” will initially only be rolled out as a pilot program in two states (Michigan and Pennsylvania), and will only deal with government services. That said, we can see where all of this is ultimately headed, and the program, called the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, should be monitored closely going forward.
Vice reported on this a few days ago:
A few years back, the White House had a brilliant idea: Why not create a single, secure online ID that Americans could use to verify their identity across multiple websites, starting with local government services. The New York Times described it at the time as a “driver’s license for the internet.”
Sound convenient? It is. Sound scary? It is.
The vision is to use a system that works similarly to how we conduct the most sensitive forms of online transactions, like applying for a mortgage. It will utilize two-step authentication, say, some combination of an encrypted chip in your phone, a biometric ID, and question about the name of your first cat.
But instead of going through a different combination of steps for each agency website, the same process and ID token would work across all government services: from food stamps and welfare to registering for a fishing license.
The original proposal was quick to point out that this isn’t a federally mandated national ID. But if successful, it could pave the way for an interoperable authentication protocol that works for any website, from your Facebook account to your health insurance company.
To start, there’s the privacy issue. Unsurprisingly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately pointed out the red flags, arguing that the right to anonymous speech in the digital realm is protected under the First Amendment. It called the program “radical,” “concerning,” and pointed out that the plan “makes scant mention of the unprecedented threat such a scheme would pose to privacy and free speech online.”
And the keepers of the identity credentials wouldn’t be the government itself, but a third party organization. When the program was introduced in 2011, banks, technology companies or cellphone service providers were suggested for the role, so theoretically Google or Verizon could have access to a comprehensive profile of who you are that’s shared with every site you visit, as mandated by the government.
Then there’s the problem of putting all your security eggs in one vulnerable basket. If a hacker gets their hands on your cyber ID, they have the keys to everything.
For now, this is all just speculation. The program is just entering a test phase with select state government agencies only (there are currently plans to expand the trial out to 10 more organizations.)
But it’s not far-fetched to think we’re moving toward a standardized way to prove our identity in cyberspace the same way we do offline.
Keep a close eye on this.
Full article here.