fuck em. they cant get us all
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
U.S. Government spying on entire U.S., to nobody's surprise
- Thread starter frito bandito
- Start date
- Status
Completely agree mate! Yet so many wonder why he ran...
anyone who wonders why he ran makes me wonder WTF they could be wondering about! i wonder if they ever heard of a guy named Leonard Peltier and wonder if they wonder what the lesson in that guy's story is. unfortunately that would also just about force those same people to wonder when our leaders stopped wondering what we think and just stopped giving a shit about us and this wonder-full world that seems to be falling apart around us
get to vocal or get to obvious about giving the government the finger and they make a point of making an example of you
get to vocal or get to obvious about giving the government the finger and they make a point of making an example of you
well since everyone is a terrorist I guess everything revolving around the the government is also a emergency, or they will make it one.
Vinnie Paz & Block McCloud - True Lies / End of Days (Full Version)
[YOUTUBEIF]GoHUZ4I_xTQ[/YOUTUBEIF]
Fascism
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations.[9]
DHS emergency power extended, including control of private telecom systems
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...extended-including-control-of-/#ixzz2YqN2UvrR
The Obama administration has given the Department of Homeland Security powers to prioritize government communications over privately owned telephone and Internet systems in emergencies.
An executive order signed June 6 “gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,” said Amie Stephanovich, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The White House says Executive Order 13618, published Wednesday in the Federal Register, is designed to ensure that the government can communicate during major disasters and other emergencies and contains no new authority.
“The [order] recognizes the creation of DHS and provides the Secretary the flexibility to organize the communications systems and functions that reside within the department as [she] believes will be most effective,” White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in an email. “The [order] does not transfer authorities between or among departments.”
She said the order replaced one originally signed in 1984 by President Reagan and amended in 2003 by President George W. Bush after DHS was set up and took responsibility for emergency response and communications.
When the original order “was written during the Cold War, the motivating national security concern was maintaining communications capability following a devastating nuclear strike,” Ms. Hayden said.
The new order “address[es] a world in which our economy and government are far more reliant on communications technologies to maintain essential functions than we were then,” she wrote.
At issue is a provision of the four-page order that says Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano “shall … satisfy [federal] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, government, and privately owned communications resources.”
“The previous orders did not give DHS those authorities over private and commercial networks,” Ms. Stepanovich said. “That’s a new authority.”
“This should have been done by Congress, so there could have been proper debate about it,” she added. “This is not authority that should be granted by executive order.”
Ms. Hayden said the legal basis for the order is Section 706 of the 1934 Communications Act. The section authorizes the president to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and gives him “control of any such facility or station” if a state of war, or the threat of one, exists.
The new order “extends Section 706 powers to the Internet,” said James Harper, an electronic-privacy advocate at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
The authorities “might have made sense in the 1930s,” but now the communication networks are too complex and interdependent, he said. “If you try to seize control of the Internet that way, you will break it.”
Under the previous executive orders, communications providers have long established priority access programs for federal users. In the telephone system, a special code the user inputs before dialing a number automatically tells the phone companies’ equipment to give the call priority.
“Mobile phones, the Internet, and social media are all now integral to the communications landscape,” Ms. Hayden said
Vinnie Paz & Block McCloud - True Lies / End of Days (Full Version)
[YOUTUBEIF]GoHUZ4I_xTQ[/YOUTUBEIF]
Fascism
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations.[9]
DHS emergency power extended, including control of private telecom systems
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...extended-including-control-of-/#ixzz2YqN2UvrR
The Obama administration has given the Department of Homeland Security powers to prioritize government communications over privately owned telephone and Internet systems in emergencies.
An executive order signed June 6 “gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,” said Amie Stephanovich, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The White House says Executive Order 13618, published Wednesday in the Federal Register, is designed to ensure that the government can communicate during major disasters and other emergencies and contains no new authority.
“The [order] recognizes the creation of DHS and provides the Secretary the flexibility to organize the communications systems and functions that reside within the department as [she] believes will be most effective,” White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in an email. “The [order] does not transfer authorities between or among departments.”
She said the order replaced one originally signed in 1984 by President Reagan and amended in 2003 by President George W. Bush after DHS was set up and took responsibility for emergency response and communications.
When the original order “was written during the Cold War, the motivating national security concern was maintaining communications capability following a devastating nuclear strike,” Ms. Hayden said.
The new order “address[es] a world in which our economy and government are far more reliant on communications technologies to maintain essential functions than we were then,” she wrote.
At issue is a provision of the four-page order that says Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano “shall … satisfy [federal] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, government, and privately owned communications resources.”
“The previous orders did not give DHS those authorities over private and commercial networks,” Ms. Stepanovich said. “That’s a new authority.”
“This should have been done by Congress, so there could have been proper debate about it,” she added. “This is not authority that should be granted by executive order.”
Ms. Hayden said the legal basis for the order is Section 706 of the 1934 Communications Act. The section authorizes the president to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and gives him “control of any such facility or station” if a state of war, or the threat of one, exists.
The new order “extends Section 706 powers to the Internet,” said James Harper, an electronic-privacy advocate at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
The authorities “might have made sense in the 1930s,” but now the communication networks are too complex and interdependent, he said. “If you try to seize control of the Internet that way, you will break it.”
Under the previous executive orders, communications providers have long established priority access programs for federal users. In the telephone system, a special code the user inputs before dialing a number automatically tells the phone companies’ equipment to give the call priority.
“Mobile phones, the Internet, and social media are all now integral to the communications landscape,” Ms. Hayden said
he's alive !
Эдвард Сноуден Edward Snowden
[YOUTUBEIF]9RsZJSuhIts[/YOUTUBEIF]
awesome ......
I hope no ne minds but spreading the info via the mainstream outlets is important,so we can avoid disaster and chaos the elite wish to impose.i will delete it if the mods want.
Ben Swann - Gray State SUPPORTS Independent Journalism!
[YOUTUBEIF]SzjzKQ6U4Pw[/YOUTUBEIF]
we don't have to donate ,just follow on social media,but since I don't have that i'll be donating myself.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BenSwannRealityCheck
https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck
https://twitter.com/benswann_
and the grey state movie
http://www.graystatemovie.com/ - https://www.facebook.com/graystatemovie
GRAY STATE Official Concept Trailer #1
[YOUTUBEIF]Gy7FVXERKFE[/YOUTUBEIF]
Эдвард Сноуден Edward Snowden
[YOUTUBEIF]9RsZJSuhIts[/YOUTUBEIF]
awesome ......
I hope no ne minds but spreading the info via the mainstream outlets is important,so we can avoid disaster and chaos the elite wish to impose.i will delete it if the mods want.
Ben Swann - Gray State SUPPORTS Independent Journalism!
[YOUTUBEIF]SzjzKQ6U4Pw[/YOUTUBEIF]
we don't have to donate ,just follow on social media,but since I don't have that i'll be donating myself.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BenSwannRealityCheck
https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck
https://twitter.com/benswann_
and the grey state movie
http://www.graystatemovie.com/ - https://www.facebook.com/graystatemovie
GRAY STATE Official Concept Trailer #1
[YOUTUBEIF]Gy7FVXERKFE[/YOUTUBEIF]
Last edited:
"ill be nominated as the next President of the University of California to play a role in educating our nation’s next generation of leaders."
Guess they have no qualms about indoctrinating future students into the wonderful world of brainwashed fascist compliance.
Guess they have no qualms about indoctrinating future students into the wonderful world of brainwashed fascist compliance.
Above the law -- Obama's radical rejection of the rule of law has fatal consequences
Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.
Everyone who works for the government in the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it.
In our system of government, we expect that Congress will write the laws, the courts will interpret them and the president will enforce them.
Indeed, the Constitution states that it is the president’s affirmative duty to enforce the law. That duty is not an abstract formulation. Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees or whose enforcement might cause him or his political allies to lose popularity.
It also means the president cannot make up his own version of the law as a substitute for what the Constitution commands or Congress has written.
In the modern era, presidents have rejected the value of the rule of law and instead followed their own political interests. President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law -- and we know that he famously did not enforce it.
But no modern president has picked and chosen which laws to enforce and which to ignore and which to rewrite to the extremes of President Obama. His radical rejection of the rule of law, which presents a clear and present danger to the freedom of us all, has had fatal consequences.
The law requires that if American tax dollars are being given to the government of another country, and that government is toppled by its military -- the common phrase is a coup d’état -- the flow of cash shall stop immediately, lest we support financially those who have betrayed our values.
In Egypt, the military arrested the president, suspended the Constitution and installed a puppet regime. But Obama, embarrassed at the fall of the popularly elected but religiously fanatical government he supported, refuses to consider that military takeover a coup. Instead he has called it a popular uprising supported by the military, and he has continued the flow of your dollars into the hands of a military that has been murdering scores of peaceful demonstrators daily in the streets of Cairo.
The president’s signature domestic legislation -- ObamaCare -- is scheduled to become effective in stages. One of its provisions, requiring employers of more than 50 persons to offer health insurance acceptable to the feds to all of their employees, becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2014.
In anticipation of its becoming law, insurance carriers and employers have calculated that instead of costs going down, as the president promised, they will certainly go up, resulting in the loss of jobs. So the president, mindful of the midterm congressional elections in November 2014 and fearful that Democrats who supported this law might suffer at the polls at the hands of deceived and thus angry voters, announced on the Fourth of July weekend that he planned not to enforce that provision until Jan. 1, 2015.
When he wanted to use military force in Libya and Pakistan -- two allies -- without congressional approval, out of fear, no doubt, that Congress might turn him down, he dispatched the CIA to do his killing.
Why? Because federal law requires that he report all offensive use of the military to Congress and eventually obtain its approval for continued use. Because the CIA largely operates in secrecy, the president needn’t report its behavior publicly or even acknowledge that it took place.
In the same vein, he recently moved all records of the Usama bin Laden killing from the military -- which carried it out -- to the CIA.
Why? Because the military is largely susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act, which commands transparency, and the CIA is largely not. He probably fears that the truthful version of bin Laden’s demise will become known. If so, it would be the fourth version of those events his administration has given.
When he wanted to kill an American and his 16-year-old son in Yemen because the American, though uncharged with any crime and unasked to come home, might be difficult to arrest while advocating war in a foreign country, he wrote his own rules for governing his own killings. He did so in secret and notwithstanding clear language in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.
And when he wanted to keep us safe from terrorists but servile to him by spying on all of us, he established an enormous network of domestic spies who have access to all of our phone calls, emails and text messages. And he did this despite unambiguous language in the Constitution requiring a search warrant based on particularized probable cause of crime about the records he wanted to seize or the venues he wanted to search.
What’s going on?
What we have is a runaway government, dismissive of the Constitution it has sworn to uphold, contemptuous of the law it is required to enforce and driven by its own values of maximum control and minimum personal freedom. And we have a Congress supine enough to let this happen, as well as a judiciary so tangled in its own arcane procedures that immeasurable human freedom will be destroyed and Obama out of office before any meaningful judicial review can be had.
Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?
These are the words from a true American...
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.
Everyone who works for the government in the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it.
In our system of government, we expect that Congress will write the laws, the courts will interpret them and the president will enforce them.
Indeed, the Constitution states that it is the president’s affirmative duty to enforce the law. That duty is not an abstract formulation. Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees or whose enforcement might cause him or his political allies to lose popularity.
It also means the president cannot make up his own version of the law as a substitute for what the Constitution commands or Congress has written.
In the modern era, presidents have rejected the value of the rule of law and instead followed their own political interests. President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law -- and we know that he famously did not enforce it.
But no modern president has picked and chosen which laws to enforce and which to ignore and which to rewrite to the extremes of President Obama. His radical rejection of the rule of law, which presents a clear and present danger to the freedom of us all, has had fatal consequences.
The law requires that if American tax dollars are being given to the government of another country, and that government is toppled by its military -- the common phrase is a coup d’état -- the flow of cash shall stop immediately, lest we support financially those who have betrayed our values.
In Egypt, the military arrested the president, suspended the Constitution and installed a puppet regime. But Obama, embarrassed at the fall of the popularly elected but religiously fanatical government he supported, refuses to consider that military takeover a coup. Instead he has called it a popular uprising supported by the military, and he has continued the flow of your dollars into the hands of a military that has been murdering scores of peaceful demonstrators daily in the streets of Cairo.
The president’s signature domestic legislation -- ObamaCare -- is scheduled to become effective in stages. One of its provisions, requiring employers of more than 50 persons to offer health insurance acceptable to the feds to all of their employees, becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2014.
In anticipation of its becoming law, insurance carriers and employers have calculated that instead of costs going down, as the president promised, they will certainly go up, resulting in the loss of jobs. So the president, mindful of the midterm congressional elections in November 2014 and fearful that Democrats who supported this law might suffer at the polls at the hands of deceived and thus angry voters, announced on the Fourth of July weekend that he planned not to enforce that provision until Jan. 1, 2015.
When he wanted to use military force in Libya and Pakistan -- two allies -- without congressional approval, out of fear, no doubt, that Congress might turn him down, he dispatched the CIA to do his killing.
Why? Because federal law requires that he report all offensive use of the military to Congress and eventually obtain its approval for continued use. Because the CIA largely operates in secrecy, the president needn’t report its behavior publicly or even acknowledge that it took place.
In the same vein, he recently moved all records of the Usama bin Laden killing from the military -- which carried it out -- to the CIA.
Why? Because the military is largely susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act, which commands transparency, and the CIA is largely not. He probably fears that the truthful version of bin Laden’s demise will become known. If so, it would be the fourth version of those events his administration has given.
When he wanted to kill an American and his 16-year-old son in Yemen because the American, though uncharged with any crime and unasked to come home, might be difficult to arrest while advocating war in a foreign country, he wrote his own rules for governing his own killings. He did so in secret and notwithstanding clear language in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.
And when he wanted to keep us safe from terrorists but servile to him by spying on all of us, he established an enormous network of domestic spies who have access to all of our phone calls, emails and text messages. And he did this despite unambiguous language in the Constitution requiring a search warrant based on particularized probable cause of crime about the records he wanted to seize or the venues he wanted to search.
What’s going on?
What we have is a runaway government, dismissive of the Constitution it has sworn to uphold, contemptuous of the law it is required to enforce and driven by its own values of maximum control and minimum personal freedom. And we have a Congress supine enough to let this happen, as well as a judiciary so tangled in its own arcane procedures that immeasurable human freedom will be destroyed and Obama out of office before any meaningful judicial review can be had.
Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?
These are the words from a true American...
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Apache Kush
Member
Nasa is full of Free Mason and masonic symbols, Buzz Aldrige was 33 degree mason..
The NWO/ Globalist have turned the space program into shit on the surface
However, they posses technology 100 years ahead of are stuff
The buying of bullets freaks me out, you can't even go into Bass Pro and get ammo, smart meters, control of the banks, feds runiing the cops, martial law drills, chemtrails posioning us, monsanto, one world goverment will soon have us by the balls. Sick santanic fucks run the world! Whos the number one enemy now, veterans, conservatives, gun owners, whistle blowers, even are own General and Admirals...who will train the ressitance against all enemys foreing and domestic! Its all drones and WMDs now so will lose bad
the NWO- Globalist will probally just nuke it from orbit and use EMPS and sit it out on the moon, while we go into chaos.
I just hope I get a few good grows in before shit hits the fan :0
The NWO/ Globalist have turned the space program into shit on the surface
However, they posses technology 100 years ahead of are stuff
The buying of bullets freaks me out, you can't even go into Bass Pro and get ammo, smart meters, control of the banks, feds runiing the cops, martial law drills, chemtrails posioning us, monsanto, one world goverment will soon have us by the balls. Sick santanic fucks run the world! Whos the number one enemy now, veterans, conservatives, gun owners, whistle blowers, even are own General and Admirals...who will train the ressitance against all enemys foreing and domestic! Its all drones and WMDs now so will lose bad
the NWO- Globalist will probally just nuke it from orbit and use EMPS and sit it out on the moon, while we go into chaos.
I just hope I get a few good grows in before shit hits the fan :0
I am not saying obama is not a tool! but a am an absolute cynic when i read anything that comes out of any pundits pie hole these days, so i have a question .......
WTF is he talking about? Bush signed a law stopping the government from reading mail? and he signed the patriot act?
help me out! how the hell does/did that work? am i the only one getting dizzy from this bullshit?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-to-meet-amnesty-and-human-rights-watch-at-moscow-airport-live-coverag
Edward Snowden appears at Moscow airport and renews asylum claim – as it happened
• NSA whistleblower meets human rights groups
• US accuses Russia of providing 'propaganda platform'
• Snowden renews asylum claim but says he prefers to leave
• Calls on international groups to offer protection
• Media scrum at Sheremetyevo airport for meeting
Edward Snowden appears at Moscow airport and renews asylum claim – as it happened
• NSA whistleblower meets human rights groups
• US accuses Russia of providing 'propaganda platform'
• Snowden renews asylum claim but says he prefers to leave
• Calls on international groups to offer protection
• Media scrum at Sheremetyevo airport for meeting
A
Alone
Quotes by 3 past Presidents of the U.S.A ~
Quotes by 3 past Presidents of the U.S.A ~
"When a Government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to excercise the original rights of self defence - to fight the Government." - ALEXANDER HAMILTON
"The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the Federal Government got too powerfull and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms."
- JAMES MADISON
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of amending it or their REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT to dismember or overthrow it." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Is Edward Snowden gonna be the first person to be martyred in public view for all to see what we have done and allowed to happen in this country? We are a militarized, policed country that is in fear of its own police because the threat of money loss for speeding, but also of just plain out being harassed and profiled, with prejudice. Will peacefull protesters get maced in the face by high output pepperspray?
See the riot tank that Sons of Guns built for the New Orleans police dept?
See all the plastic coffins Jessie Ventura seen and the tent cities just waiting for us people to fill them all?
All Fema and Homeland Security. I think the 1%'ers plan of global domination through the "diplomatic system" of the U.S.A called "Democracy" has to collapse on itself for their plan to work. Thats all their waiting for.
Quotes by 3 past Presidents of the U.S.A ~
"When a Government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to excercise the original rights of self defence - to fight the Government." - ALEXANDER HAMILTON
"The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the Federal Government got too powerfull and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms."
- JAMES MADISON
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of amending it or their REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT to dismember or overthrow it." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Is Edward Snowden gonna be the first person to be martyred in public view for all to see what we have done and allowed to happen in this country? We are a militarized, policed country that is in fear of its own police because the threat of money loss for speeding, but also of just plain out being harassed and profiled, with prejudice. Will peacefull protesters get maced in the face by high output pepperspray?
See the riot tank that Sons of Guns built for the New Orleans police dept?
See all the plastic coffins Jessie Ventura seen and the tent cities just waiting for us people to fill them all?
All Fema and Homeland Security. I think the 1%'ers plan of global domination through the "diplomatic system" of the U.S.A called "Democracy" has to collapse on itself for their plan to work. Thats all their waiting for.
Last edited:
Yeah and our Gov are doing all of it... Spying is just the beginning isn't it? If this was just spying then they wouldn't be chasing after Snowden they way they are. I have never seen such an uncertain future then the one these asshole are laying before us. I really think these guys need to be tried and convicted of all the laws they have all broken and throw away the key! headband 707
hey no door to door warrantless raids? come on, this should have shut down at least half of the state.i mean why isn't there calls for people to have sensitivity training to aid the needs of police officers in there times of marital troubles. thats who's to blame, society,us.
if he didn't have such a stressful job protecting and serving the hell out of us, and making sure we are protected from ourselves, he wouldn't have these troubles at home.
and it's not like anyone else in that state would be in GITMO for even being suspected of having those things. /sarc
Boston police officer arrested after bombs and explosives found inside home
http://rt.com/usa/boston-police-officer-explosives-arrested-031/
if he didn't have such a stressful job protecting and serving the hell out of us, and making sure we are protected from ourselves, he wouldn't have these troubles at home.
and it's not like anyone else in that state would be in GITMO for even being suspected of having those things. /sarc
Boston police officer arrested after bombs and explosives found inside home
http://rt.com/usa/boston-police-officer-explosives-arrested-031/
yup things are getting weird.
THE TRUMAN SHOW
[YOUTUBEIF]NkZM2oWcleM[/YOUTUBEIF]
Intel’s television set top box will include a built-in camera that watches you in your living room
http://bgr.com/2013/02/12/intel-television-service-confirmed-325717/
2:52 PM
The rumors were true — Intel (INTC) really is working to shake up the television industry by offering its own set top box that delivers live television broadcasts over the Internet. But there’s a catch — as AllThingsD reports, the box will include a built-in camera that’s designed to watch users in their living rooms to collect data on their viewing habits to better help marketers target their ads. Erik Huggers, Intel Media’s corporate vice president, told the D: Dive Into Media conference on Tuesday that users should think of the camera as a way to personalize their experience with their television, much in the same way that Google (GOOG) users allow the company to collect data on them and deliver personalized ads based on their search histories, email contents and Google+ posts.
“My kids may watch programming geared towards them, and I’ll watch programming geared towards me,” Huggers said. “If there’s a way to distinguish who is watching what, advertisers can then target ads at the proper parties.”
AllThingsD’s Mike Isaac expressed skepticism that Intel would be successful in getting users to accept such potentially privacy-threatening practices, especially since the Intel service “won’t necessarily be cheaper than any of the existing offerings in the field.” In other words, then, it sounds as though Intel is planning to launch a service that’s even more invasive than Google without even giving users the benefit of cheaper service. Unless something changes, it seems such skepticism is well warranted
THE TRUMAN SHOW
[YOUTUBEIF]NkZM2oWcleM[/YOUTUBEIF]
Intel’s television set top box will include a built-in camera that watches you in your living room
http://bgr.com/2013/02/12/intel-television-service-confirmed-325717/
2:52 PM
The rumors were true — Intel (INTC) really is working to shake up the television industry by offering its own set top box that delivers live television broadcasts over the Internet. But there’s a catch — as AllThingsD reports, the box will include a built-in camera that’s designed to watch users in their living rooms to collect data on their viewing habits to better help marketers target their ads. Erik Huggers, Intel Media’s corporate vice president, told the D: Dive Into Media conference on Tuesday that users should think of the camera as a way to personalize their experience with their television, much in the same way that Google (GOOG) users allow the company to collect data on them and deliver personalized ads based on their search histories, email contents and Google+ posts.
“My kids may watch programming geared towards them, and I’ll watch programming geared towards me,” Huggers said. “If there’s a way to distinguish who is watching what, advertisers can then target ads at the proper parties.”
AllThingsD’s Mike Isaac expressed skepticism that Intel would be successful in getting users to accept such potentially privacy-threatening practices, especially since the Intel service “won’t necessarily be cheaper than any of the existing offerings in the field.” In other words, then, it sounds as though Intel is planning to launch a service that’s even more invasive than Google without even giving users the benefit of cheaper service. Unless something changes, it seems such skepticism is well warranted
The sum and total of what vta is talking about is that Obama is not accepting that what is going on in Egypt is a true military coup d'état. Once he acknowledges it is then by constitional law he must stop the 1.5 billion in aid we give to Egypt with the goal of them being a stabilizing force friendly to US interests in that region. What muddies the waters is that in a true military coup d'état the military takes over and is clearly in control or takes power. In this instance the military has ousted the government but have yet to clearly take power. It's definitely a fine line Obama is walking right now but the fact that he's not really being forced yet does suggest he's still on safe ground...for the moment. Just like the line of no chemical weapons in Syria though, things may force his hand very soon. Still our support for Egypt is mostly about bolstering support for peace between Israel and Palestine and since many of the powers that be seem to have strong ties to Israel I don't see too much pressure coming to Obama if it remains in a grey area like it is now.
The bit about Bush I think, was just to say the practice of Presidents doing questionable things that bend laws is nothing new. Perhaps to not appear as being one sided on the blame?
Obama is in no position to be saying anything about the situation in Egypt being a coup, considering his support for the coup in honduras.
But I guess it's not a coup when a left leaning leader is taken down/knocked off and replaced with a nice big business friendly Neo-Lib stooge..
This week, we had the Washington Post singing the praises of Augusto Pinochet, claiming he brought democracy back to chile(funny how they had to get rid of a democratically elected leader to do it-strange how that works) and saying that what Egypt needs, is a Pinochet of their own. Excuse me, but didn't they just get rid of their Pinochet (Pinochet meaning western backed dictator) within the last couple of years?
Well again it's all right there in the language, if the Military took the government down and seized power Obama would have to call it a military coup d'état but since they didn't he can get away with not calling it that but I doubt it's just a coincidence they didn't take power. The people moving the pieces in this chess game we call International relations are well aware of the laws and how to use them to best advantage. They're not going to so easily give up 1.5 billion of other people's money to play with.
- Status
