Showing posts with label Privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Privacy. Show all posts

Friday, January 3, 2014

Reasons To Quit Facebook In 2014, Wall Street Journal This Morning. Podcast

Facebook logo EspaƱol: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Radio podcast from the Wall Street Journal This Morning.  Sound reasons to just leave Facebook and stop using that network altogether.  The main issue in debate for no longer using the service?  Very serious privacy issue and violations.  Yes, Facebook is now invading your privacy without your knowledge or approval.

  Who needs to support a company that has no respect for others?  Time to just say goodby.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Litecoin vs Bitcoin - Interview With IBM Architect Richard G Brown




As we continue to state, Bitcoin is the largest news story of the century to date.  Now of course Bitcoin is not the only game in town or in the world.  Litecoin is also a new contender on the market and there are others already popping up.  Crptocurrency as it is now being called is here to stay.  Based on all present research, what our own opinion is at this time, paper currency will not be going away in any country anytime soon.  Debit cards may disappear, however, credit cards will continue to flourish.

  What we are also looking at will be an entire new series of laws and regulations that will come up around these new currencies that will also invade privacy as well as change the way services are rendered which will mean price increases on many services.  Trying to protect your privacy in the future will become a crime.  This is a given.  What you presently take for granted will be going away.  It's based on the technology.  (Not really, that's just the excuse that will be used).

  There are many areas of the technology that we like, however, there are now many areas of the technology that are really starting to concern us.  The invasion of privacy that will follow is our biggest concern.  How will this new technology invade privacy?  It could and will be used to prevent anyone from remaining anonymous.  Only criminals have something to hide.  Are you a criminal?  Now of course you will be allowed to conduct certain transactions in an anonymous fashion, however, you will go through a great deal of scrutiny, questioning and audits.  You may or may not be found guilty of some form of conspiracy however.  This is how privacy will be invaded then taken away.

  Now it's not to say that it will be fully taken away, it will at first be made a major risk to anyone who wishes to try and remain anonymous for whatever reason.  Cash will become a rare commodity in the next 10 to 15 years if not sooner.  It still has uses, but they will become more and more limited.  Why cash currencies will not go away.  Imagine a major power grid goes out for days on end.  Cryptocurrencies depend on the ability to conduct transactions electronically.  How does anyone continue to conduct any form of trade without some form of payment in exchange?  Battery backups?  That is simply to limited.  Some form of alternative payment systems will always be needed.  Cash is the only means for that.

  Other issues of cryptocurrencies, they devalue cash.  When transaction and conversion fees apply one of the forms of payment must be devalued in order to value another.  If cryptocurrencies become the main form of transacting business, then it's the cash that gets devalued.  Now the cryptocurrency may be tied to the cash, one still has to take a hit.  So a question now comes up.  Is Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies now starting to impact the value of other currencies?  It has to.  All of the cryptocurrencies have transaction and conversion fees.  Those need to be paid for in cash.  Add to it the country where you are conducting business and then take into account that they too want monetary conversion fees.  To reverse the cryptocurrency back to cash?  Yup, more fees.

  So who is going to lose with the new age of cryptocurrencies?  White collar workers as they get phased out of the offices as they will no longer be needed.  That in itself is yet another full post for a later story.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

The Right To Privacy? Double Talk Violations Exist Everywhere






IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We are told that Facebook and cloud computing and storage are not areas where expectations of privacy are found.  Yet, these sites all have privacy policies and you have to set up accounts to use them.  We are told that we are moving to a paperless society.  If electronic editions are the new paper, then why is it that the fourth amendment is not covering these new areas?  

  Are our leaders double talking us?  We are told that if we are in public, we need to have some form of identification.  According to the fourth amendment we do not.  It does not state that we need to be insecure in our persons, nor papers nor effects.  What constitutes a reasonable search of anyone on the streets?

  If privacy is not to be expected on the Internet, then why is hacking considered illegal?  All hackers are doing is gaining access to information that we are told is not private.  Or is it?  Is it that privacy only exists for governments and corporations?  People however are open to inspection at any time?

  How are we expected to understand what is expected of us unless we are no longer allowed to think and must be told what to think?  Or is this where we presently are and with a future that is much darker and grimmer for the mass population?

  If the government has the right to track you through your cell phone, then why don't you have the right to hack your cell phone for free usage?  

  Isn't a cell phone a personal effect or is it public property if it's a tracking device?  

  Why do websites have privacy policies yet put tracking cookies on your computer without your knowledge?

  Are copyrights and trademarks privacy policies?  

  If you can not enter a house without a search warrant, then how can you search a person without a search warrant on the streets or in their vehicles?

  The questions can forever be put out.  The main point is the double talk we are hit with daily.  One must watch with a careful eye all the double talking going on that violates our rights everyday and fight back against it.


Right To Privacy Harvard Law Review" target="_blank">Right To Privacy Harvard Law Review from Chuck Thompson


Here is an historical view on the right to privacy from the Harvard Law Review dated 1891.  So this document is over 100 years old and looks at this American right.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, June 28, 2013

911 dispatcher suspended after controversial post - Opinions Not Allowed

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...
Image via CrunchBase
Updated: Friday, 28 Jun 2013, 5:59 AM EDT
Published : Thursday, 27 Jun 2013, 4:52 PM EDT
      
Camarillo is suspended pending the outcome of an internal investigation. The City would not say if she is still getting paid.


NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - A 911 dispatcher who made a controversial post on Facebook has been suspended from her job.

On June 18, WAVY.com reported Jessica Camarillo posted a comment on Facebook concerning the police-involved shooting of Joshua Omar Johnson, who was gunned down at a Wells Fargo after allegedly trying to pass a bad check and then reportedly hitting an officer with his car.

Camarillo’s Facebook post read as follows:
"I think the officers should sue the [Johnson] family for putting the officers' lives in danger, making detectives work past the time they were suppose to get off, the gas it took for them to get to the scene, the bullets used, the hospital bills, the equipment needed for forensics, and making me work the channel instead of reading my hot sexy book..lol" 


Once again we see that opinions are a clear violation to a totalitarian government. Facebook is a violation to the freedom of speech and the concept of privacy does not exist when it comes to Facebook.  One does not have to agree with her opinions, but one should still respect her right to her opinions as well as her right to privacy.  It's a violation to both democracy as well as the Bill of Rights to use this information against her.  

  Beware, you will be censored in a totalitarian government.  Norfolk officials should be ashamed of themselves for such elitist ideals. 

Enhanced by Zemanta