Cameras to Detect ‘Abnormal’ Behavior

ConsortiumNews.com
By Sander Venema

watching eye camera

A few days ago I read an article about how TNO (the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, the largest research institute in the Netherlands) developed technology for smart cameras for use at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. These cameras — installed at Schiphol airport by the Qubit Visual Intelligence, a company from The Hague — are designed to recognize certain “suspicious behavior,” such as running, waving your arms, or sweating.

Curiously enough, these are all things that are commonly found in the stressful environment that an international airport is to many people. People need to get to the gate on time, which may require running (especially if you arrived at Schiphol by train, which in the Netherlands is notoriously unreliable); they may be afraid of flying and trying to get their nerves under control; and airports are also places where friends and family meet after long times abroad, which (if you want to hug each other) requires arm waving.

I suspect that a lot of false positives are going to occur with this technology due to this. It’s the wrong technology at the wrong place. I fully understand the need for airport security, and we all want a safe environment for both passengers and crew. Flights need to operate under safe conditions. What I don’t understand is the mentality that every single risk in life needs to be minimized away by government agencies and combated with technology. More technology does not equal safer airports.

Security Theatre

A lot of the measures taken at airports constitute security theatre. This means that the measures are mostly ineffective against real threats, and serve mostly for show. The problem with automatic profiling, which is what this program tries to do as well, is that it doesn’t work.Security expert Bruce Schneier has written extensively about this, and I encourage you to read his 2010 essay “Profiling Makes Us Less Safe” about the specific case of air travel security.

The first problem is that terrorists don’t fit a specific profile or they can carefully avoid “suspicious” actions. Thus, these profiling systems can be circumvented once people figure out how, and because of the over-reliance on technology instead of common sense this can actually cause more insecurity.

In the novel Little Brother, Cory Doctorow wrote about how Marcus Yallow put gravel in his shoes to fool the gait-recognizing cameras at his high school so he and his friends could sneak out to play a game outside. Similar things will be done to try and fool these “smart” cameras, but the consequences can be much greater.

We are actually more secure when we randomly select people instead of relying on a specific threat profile or behavioral profile to select who to screen and who gets through security without secondary screening. The whole point of random screening is that it’s random. Therefore, a potential terrorist cannot in advance know what the criteria are that will make the system pick him out. If a system does use specific criteria, and the security of the system depends on the criteria themselves being secret, that would mean that someone would just have to observe the system for long enough to find out what the criteria are.

Technology may fail, which is something people don’t always realize. Another TNO report entitled: “Afwijkend Gedrag” (Abnormal Behavior) states under the (admittedly tiny) section that deals with privacy concerns that collecting data about abnormal behavior of people is ethically just because the society as a whole can be made safer with this data and associated technology. It also states (and this is an argument I’ve read elsewhere as well), that “society has chosen that safety and security trumps privacy.”

Now, let’s say for the sake of the argument that this might be true in a general sense (although it can be debated whether this is always the case, personally I don’t think so, as sometimes the costs are just too high and we need to keep a free and democratic society after all). The problem here is that the way technology and security systems are implemented is usually not something we as a society get to first have a vote on before the (no doubt highly lucrative) contracts get signed.

In the Dutch airport case, Qubit probably saw a way to make a quick buck by talking the Schiphol leadership and/or the government (as the Dutch state holds 69.77 percent of the Schiphol shares) into buying their technology. It’s not something the people had a conscious debate on, and then subsequently made a well-informed decision.

Major Privacy Issues

We have established that these systems are ineffective and can be circumvented (like any system can), and won’t improve overall security. But much more importantly, there are major privacy issues with this technology. What Schiphol and Qubit are doing here is analyzing and storing data on millions of passengers, the overwhelmingly vast majority of whom are completely innocent. This is like shooting a mosquito with a bazooka.

What happens with this data? We don’t know, and we have to believe Qubit and Schiphol on their word that data about non-suspect members of the public gets deleted. However, in light of recent events where it seems convenient to collect and store as much data about people as possible, I highly doubt any deletions will actually happen.

And the sad thing is: in the Netherlands the Ministry of Security and Justice is now talking about implementing the above-mentioned behavioral analysis system at another (secret) location in the Netherlands. Are we all human guinea pigs ready to be tested and played around with?

What Is Abnormal?

There are also problems with the definitions. This is something I see again and again with privacy-infringing projects like this. What constitutes “abnormal behavior”? Who gets to decide on that and who controls what is abnormal behavior and what isn’t?

Maybe, in the not-too-distant future, the meaning of the word “abnormal” begins to shift, and begins to mean “not like us,” for some definition of “us.” George Orwell mentioned this effect in his book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, where ubiquitous telescreens watch and analyze your every move and one can never be sure what are criminal thoughts and what aren’t.

In 2009, when the European research project INDECT got funded by the European Union, there were critical questions asked to the European Commission by the European Parliament. More precisely, this was asked:

Question from EP: How does the Commission define the term abnormal behavior used in the program?

Answer from EC: As to the precise questions, the Commission would like to clarify that the term behavior or abnormal behavior is not defined by the Commission. It is up to applying consortia to do so when submitting a proposal, where each of the different projects aims at improving the operational efficiency of law enforcement services, by providing novel technical assistance. [Source: Europarl (Written questions by Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) to the Commission)]

In other words: according to the European Commission it depends on the individual projects, which all happen to be vague about their exact definitions. And when you don’t pin down definitions like this (and anchor them in law so that powerful governments and corporations that oversee these systems can be held to account!), these can be changed over time when a new leadership comes to power, either within the corporation in control over the technology, or within government.

This is a danger that is often overlooked. There is no guarantee that we will always live in a democratic and free society, and the best defense against abuse of power is to make sure that those in power have as little data about you as possible.

Keeping these definitions vague is a major tactic in scaring people into submission. This has the inherent danger of legislative mission creep. A measure that once was implemented for one specific purpose soon gets used for another if the opportunity presents itself.

Once it is observed that people are getting arrested for seemingly innocent things, many people (sub)consciously adjust their own behavior. It works similarly with free speech: once certain opinions and utterances are deemed against the law, and are acted upon by law enforcement, many people start thinking twice about what they say and write. They start to self-censor, and this erodes people’s freedom to the point where we slowly shift into a technocratic Orwellian nightmare. And when we wake up it will already be too late to turn the tide.

ConsortiumNews.com

Tech Firm: More Than 15 Stingray Phone Trackers Operating In D.C.

InfoWars
by MIKAEL THALEN

“I think there’s even more here. That was just us driving around for a day and a half”

stingray

Mobile security experts discovered what appears to be more than 15 IMSI catchers, commonly referred to as Stingrays, throughout the Washington D.C. area this week.

Les Goldsmith and Buzz Burner of ESD America joined IntegriCell President Aaron Turner Tuesday to travel around the nation’s capitol in an attempt to find evidence of “rogue cell towers” with a CryptoPhone, a mobile device which measures three indicators associated with active IMSI catchers.

These surveillance devices, which are often the size of a suitcase, can trick thousands of user’s phones into divulging private information by mimicking a cell tower. During their test, the group detected more than 40 alerts from 15 seperate interceptors around several of D.C.’s most historic landmarks including the White House, the Capitol and multiple foreign embassies.

“I think there’s even more here,” Goldsmith told the Washington Post. “That was just us driving around for a day and a half.”

Most often used by law enforcement, cell phone interceptors have received increased attention as of late, causing the federal government to distance themselves from the illegal practice of mass surveillance.

Speaking with CBS Chicago earlier this month, former FBI agent and security analyst Ross Rice attempted to deny law enforcement’s active involvement.

“I doubt that they are installed by law enforcement as they require a warrant to intercept conversations or data and since the cell providers are ordered by the court to cooperate with the intercept, there really would be no need for this,” Rice said. “Most likely, they are installed and operated by hackers, trying to steal personal identification and passwords.”

While Rice very well may be uninformed on the subject, countless investigations have found law enforcement to be regularly deceiving the public regarding the use of IMSI catchers.

Documents uncovered by Seattle Privacy Coalition’s Phil Mocek last month revealed that the Tacoma, Wash. police department has been secretly using a Stringray for more than 6 years.

“These devices are often used to spy on innocent people’s words, locations and associations,” Mocek told Infowars.

Later reports indicated that the department used a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI to keep the transaction secret. Police in turn told Tacoma City Council members, who approved the purchase, that the device was designed to locate “IEDs.”

A report last March from Wired Magazine revealed how one Florida police department used a Stingray more than 200 times without ever acquiring a warrant. Similarly, the department pointed to a non-disclosure agreement with the device’s manufacturer as reasoning for their unconstitutional activity.

Emails uncovered earlier this year even showed how the U.S. Marshals Service secretly taught police how to lie to judges when trying to obtain a Stingray. U.S. Marshals even went as far as raiding a Florida police department in order to keep Stingray documents from reaching the public.

The barrage of news has even prompted people across the country to begin their own investigations, with one resident of Charlotte, North Carolina recently finding a mysterious tower not operated by one of the major telecommunications companies.

Late last year, Infowars received exclusive documents revealing a seperate cell phone interception system blanketing the city of Seattle. The DHS-funded “mesh network” allows law enforcement groups to communicate through “mesh network nodes,” which also have the ability to track cell users throughout the city.

InfoWars

New Device In The Works To Catch Texting Drivers

PilotOnline.com
By Dave Forster

A Virginia company is developing a radar-gunlike device that would help police catch drivers as they text. (video)

The technology works by detecting the telltale radio frequencies that emit from a vehicle when someone inside is using a cellphone, said Malcolm McIntyre of ComSonics. Cable repairmen use similar means to find where a cable is damaged – from a rodent, for instance – by looking for frequencies leaking in a transmission, McIntyre said.

A text message, phone call and data transfer emit different frequencies that can be distinguished by the device ComSonics is working on, according to McIntyre. That would prove particularly useful for law enforcement in states such as Virginia, where texting behind the wheel is banned but talking on the phone is legal for adult drivers.

ComSonics, based in Harrisonburg, got its start in the cable TV industry and provides calibration services for speed enforcement equipment. McIntyre discussed the company’s move into texting detection Monday at the second annual Virginia Distracted Driving Summit.

He said the device is “close to production” but still has several hurdles to clear, including legislative approval and adoption by law enforcement. There are also privacy concerns, though McIntyre said the equipment could not decrypt the information that is transmitted by drivers.

PilotOnline.com

Nowhere To Hide As Minority Report-Style Facial Recognition Technology Spreads Across America

The Economic Collapse
by Michael Snyder

Eye Black And White - Public DomainWhat is our society going to look like when our faces are being tracked literally everywhere that we go?  As part of the FBI’s new Next Generation Identification System, a facial recognition database known as the Interstate Photo System will have collected 52 million of our faces by the end of 2015.  But that is only a small part of the story.  According to Edward Snowden, the NSA has been using advanced facial recognition technology for years.  In addition, as you will see below, advertising companies are starting to use Minority Report-style face scanners in their billboards and many large corporations see facial recognition technology as a tool that they can use to serve their customers better.  Someday soon it may become virtually impossible to go out in public in a major U.S. city without having your face recorded.  Is that the kind of society that we want?

To the FBI, this technology does not represent an invasion of privacy.  Rather, they are very proud of the fact that they are not going to be so dependent on fingerprinting any longer.  The FBI has been developing the Next Generation Identification System for years, and this month it was announced that it is finally fully operational

The federal government’s Next Generation Identification System — a biometric database that relies largely on facial-recognition technology — is now fully operational, the FBI announced Monday.

“This effort is a significant step forward for the criminal justice community in utilizing biometrics as an investigative enabler,” the FBI said in a statement.

The latest advance in the technology gives users the ability to receive “ongoing status notifications” about individuals’ criminal histories, the FBI said. That means if, for instance, a teacher commits an offense, law enforcement can be immediately informed — and then pass that information on to administrators.

It’s to monitor criminal histories of those “in positions of trust,” the FBI said.

As part of this new system, every American will eventually be assigned a “Universal Control Number”.

Does that sound creepy to you?

Even mainstream news reports are admitting that it sounds like something out of a science fiction movie

It aims to eventually replace fingerprinting with a complex array of biometrics, assigning everyone with a “Universal Control Number”, in what sounds like a plotline from a sci-fi movie.

And it won’t just be the FBI using this database.

According to Fox News, more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies will have access to this information…

More than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and other authorized criminal justice partners across the country will have access to the system 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

So if your face is scanned somewhere or you do something noteworthy that is registered by the system, virtually every law enforcement agency in the country will instantly know about it.

Pretty scary stuff, eh?

But the FBI is actually lagging far behind the NSA.

According to Edward Snowden, the NSA has been using “sophisticated facial recognition programs” for many years

The National Security Agency is harvesting huge numbers of images of people from communications that it intercepts through its global surveillance operations for use in sophisticated facial recognition programs, according to top-secret documents.

The spy agency’s reliance on facial recognition technology has grown significantly over the last four years as the agency has turned to new software to exploit the flood of images included in emails, text messages, social media, videoconferences and other communications, the N.S.A. documents reveal. Agency officials believe that technological advances could revolutionize the way that the N.S.A. finds intelligence targets around the world, the documents show.

Do you remember that stuff you saw in the Jason Bourne movies about how the NSA can track people?

Well, most of that stuff is real.

If you don’t like it, that is just too bad.  At this point not even Congress has much control over what the NSA does.

And there are police departments around the nation that are also way ahead of the FBI.

For example, just check out what has been going on in southern California

In a single second, law enforcement agents can match a suspect against millions upon millions of profiles in vast detailed databases stored on the cloud. It’s all done using facial recognition, and in Southern California it’s already occurring.

Imagine the police taking a picture: any picture of a person, anywhere, and matching it on the spot in less than a second to a personalized profile, scanning millions upon millions of entries from within vast, intricate databases stored on the cloud.

It’s done with state of the art facial recognition technology, and in Southern California it’s already happening.

At least one law enforcement agency in San Diego is currently using software developed by FaceFirst, a division of nearby Camarillo, California’s Airborne Biometrics Group. It can positively identify anyone, as long as physical data about a person’s facial features is stored somewhere the police can access. Though that pool of potential matches could include millions, the company says that by using the “best available facial recognition algorithms” they can scour that data set in a fraction of a second in order to send authorities all known intelligence about anyone who enters a camera’s field of vision.

Widespread use of facial recognition technology by our law enforcement authorities is becoming a way of life.

If the American people don’t like this, they need to stand up and say something.

But instead, in an era of widespread Internet hacking and identity theft, many Americans are actually clamoring for the implementation of more biometric identification.

For instance, the following is a brief excerpt from a Fox News article entitled “Biometric security can’t come soon enough for some people“…

In a world where nearly every ATM now uses an operating system without any technical support, where a bug can force every user of the Internet to change the password to every account they’ve ever owned overnight, where cyber-attacks and identity theft grow more menacing every day, the ability to use your voice, your finger, your face or some combination of the three to log into your e-mail, your social media feed or your checking account allows you to ensure it’s very difficult for someone else to pretend they’re you.

As financial institutions adopt this kind of technology, a day may come when virtually all of us are required to have our faces scanned at the checkout counter.

That may sound crazy to you, but according to the Daily Mail a company in Finland has already launched this technology…

Bank cards are already being replaced by phones and wristbands that have payment technology built-in but the latest threat to the lowly plastic in your pocket could be your face.

A Finnish startup called Uniqul has launched what it calls the first ever payment platform based on facial recognition.

The system doesn’t require a wallet, bank card or phone – instead a camera is positioned at the checkout and takes a photo of a shopper’s face when they are ready to pay.

It then scans a database for the face and matches it to stored payment details in order to complete the transaction.

And advertisers are even more eager to adopt facial recognition technology.  In fact, the kind of face scanning billboards that we saw in “Minority Report” are already a reality.  For example, a company called Amscreen says that it already has more than 6,000 face scanning digital screens that are being viewed by approximately 50 million people each week…

Advertising network Amscreen recently launched a unique face-detection technology, originally developed by automated audience measurement firm Quividi.

Cameras have been installed in Amscreen’s digital advertising displays that can scan a person’s face and determine their gender, age, date, time and volume of the viewers.

This is so adverts are served to the most appropriate audience.

Amscreen already has over 6,000 digital screens seen by a weekly audience of over 50 million people.

Even dating websites are starting to use facial recognition technology at this point.

Just check out what Match.com has been doing…

Popular dating site Match.com will use photos of users’ exes to determine which type of look they’re attracted to in order to find them a dating match.

The dating site has partnered with Three Day Rule, a Los Angeles-based matchmaking service, which has dating experts that act as personal dating concierges who hand-select and personally meet every potential match before making a formal introduction to clients, Mashable reports.

Members of Match.com will be able to upgrade to Three Day Rule’s premium service which will ask users to send pictures of exes to determine the type of look they’re attracted to. Three Day Rule will then use facial-recognition technology in an effort to help users find dates.

Our world is changing at a faster pace than ever before.

Powerful new technologies are literally being introduced every single day now, and the future is probably going to look far different than any of us are imagining.

But with all of this new technology, will we end up losing what little personal privacy that we have left?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

The Economic Collapse

Google Maps Has Been Tracking Your Every Move, And There’s A Website To Prove It

Natural Cures Not Medicine

google-tracking-map

Remember that scene in Minority Report, where Tom Cruise is on the run from the law, but is unable to avoid detection because everywhere he goes there are constant retina scans feeding his location back to a central database? That’s tomorrow. Today, Google is tracking wherever your smartphone goes, and putting a neat red dot on a map to mark the occasion.

You can find that map here. All you need to do is log in with the same account you use on your phone, and the record of everywhere you’ve been for the last day to month will erupt across your screen like chicken pox.

We all know that no matter what ‘privacy’ settings you may try and implement, our information is all being collected and stored somewhere. That knowledge sits in the back of our minds, and is easy to drown out by shoving in some headphones and watching Adventure Time on repeat until everything stops being 1984. But it’s a sharp jolt back to reality when you see a two dimensional image marking your daily commute with occasional detours to the cinema or a friend’s house.

tracking-map

Looking at mine, I realised that a) I live my life in a very small radius, and b) there are places on my map that I don’t remember going. One of them I’ve apparently visited three times on different days. Once whilst “Biking” and twice while “Stationary”. All at times I wouldn’t usually be awake. I’m not sure what’s happening on Wood Street in North Melbourne, or why my phone apparently travels there without me, but I’m not going to rule out secret alien conspiracies.

google-conspiracy

This never happened. UNLESS IT DID.

Apparently this record only happens if you have ‘location services’ switched on in your phone; if you do and you’re finding you have no data, then it means that either you don’t exist or you’ve beaten the system. If it’s the latter, please teach me your ways; I know for a fact that I switched my phone’s location detection off, but apparently it somehow got switched back on.

Oh well. Perhaps this month I’ll take some inspiration from the runner who used Nike+ to draw this – except this time when the dots are joined, they’ll just form a huge, unblinking eye. With occasional side trips to Wood Street.

Get creeped out by logging in here.

via junkee

But! Before you worry too much, we can tell you this: There is a way to disable it now and even erase your past history map. So all is not lost. We are all about solutions here at natural cures, we weren’t about to let you walk away upset without a solution! Nope. That’s why we found you this:

To see if you have location history enabled, head to the Google Maps Location history page. Click the gear-icon button to access History settings. Here, you can choose to disable or enable the service.

Disabling location history, however, does not remove your past history. If you’d like to erase the locations Google has stored for the past 30 days, head back to the Location history page. The default time period shows location history for the current day, so you may not see any plots on the map.

Use the pull-down menu below the calendar on the left to show your history, up to 30 days. If you choose a time period in which Google has tracked your location, you’ll see the points where you’ve been on the map. And below the calendar, you’ll see options to delete your history from the time period you have chosen or to delete all history.

We urge you to share this information with people you care about.

Natural Cures Not Medicine

The Era Of Widespread Biometric Indentification And Microchip Implants Is Here

The Economic Collapse
by Michael Snyder

Identification Biometric - Public DomainAre you ready to have your veins scanned every time you use your bank account?  Are you ready to use a “digital tattoo” or a microchip implant to unlock your telephone?  Once upon a time we read about such technologies in science fiction novels, but now they are here.  The era of widespread biometric identification and microchip implants is upon us, and it is going to change the way that we live.  Proponents of these new technologies say that they will make our private information and our bank accounts much more secure.  But there are others that warn that these kinds of “Big Brother technologies” will set the stage for even more government intrusion into our lives.  In the wrong hands, such technologies could prove to be an absolute nightmare.

Barclays has just announced that it is going to become the first major bank in the western world to use vein scanning technology to control access to bank accounts.  There will even be a biometric reader that customers plug into their computers at home

Barclays is launching a vein scanner for customers as it steps up use of biometric recognition technology to combat banking fraud.

The bank has teamed up with Japanese technology firm Hitachi to develop a biometric reader that scans a customer’s finger to access accounts, instead of using a password or PIN.

The biometric reader, which plugs into a customer’s computer at home, uses infrared lights to scan blood flow in a person’s finger. The user must then scan the same finger a second time to confirm a transaction. Each “vein profile” will be stored on a SIM card inside the device.

Vein recognition technology is used by some banks in Japan and elsewhere at ATM machines, but Barclays said it is the first bank globally to use it for significant account transactions.

But Barclays is not the only one that is making a big move into biometric identification.

Online retailing behemoth Alibaba is going to start using fingerprint scanning in an attempt to make their transactions more secure…

Alibaba, the giant Chinese online retailer, is integrating fingerprint scanning into its Alipay Wallet app. Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer of the iPhone and iPad, threw nearly $5 million at Norway’s NEXT Biometrics, which develops fingerprint scanning technology, back in May. And earlier this month it took a 10% stake for $2 million in AirSig, a Taiwanese company that uses smartphones’ built-in gyroscopes to track air handwriting. The company says AirSig provides three-factor authentication: your signature, your phone, and the way you sign with a flourish in mid-air.

It is only a matter of time before more banks, online retailers and major websites start using this kind of technology.  We live at a time when theft on the Internet threatens to spiral out of control, and big corporations are going to be continually looking for answers.

Cell phone security is another area of great concern these days.  If someone can get a hold of your phone and unlock it, that person can potentially do all sorts of damage.

So Motorola has developed a “digital tattoo” that will be used to ensure that only the owner of a phone is able to unlock it.  The following is how  Motorola described these new digital tattoos…

Made of super thin, flexible materials, based on VivaLnk’s eSkinTM technology, each digital tattoo is designed to unlock your phone with just a touch of your Moto X to the tattoo, no passwords required. The nickel-sized tattoo is adhesive, lasts for five days, and is made to stay on through showering, swimming, and vigorous activities like jogging. And it’s beautiful—with a shimmering, intricate design.

It’s another step in making it easier to unlock your phone on the go and keep your personal information safe. An average user takes 2.3 seconds to unlock their phone and does this about 39 times a day—a process that some people find so inconvenient that they do not lock their phones at all. Using NFC technology, digital tattoos make it faster to safely unlock your phone anywhere without having to enter a password.

And below I have posted the video that Motorola shared on YouTube about these tattoos…

Pretty bizarre stuff, eh?

But others are taking cell phone security to even greater extremes.

For example, some people were actually implanting themselves with microchips in anticipation of the release of the iPhone 6 on September 9th…

With a wave of his left hand, Ben Slater can open his front door, turn on the lights and will soon be able to start his car. Without even a touch he can link to databases containing limitless information, including personal details such as names, addresses and health records.

The digital advertising director has joined a small number of Australians who have inserted microchips into their skin to be at the cutting edge of the next stage of the evolution of technology.

Slater was prompted to be implanted in anticipation of the iPhone 6 release on September 9.

The conjecture among pundits and fans worldwide over what chief executive Tim Cook will reveal is building.

At present the iPhone cannot read microchip implants. However, Mr Slater believes the new version will have that capability. His confidence is now lodged between his thumb and forefinger.

Of course this kind of thing is not new.  People have been getting implanted with microchips for years.  If you doubt this, just do an Internet search for “biohackers” and see what you find.

But it is starting to become more mainstream, and there are already some thinkers that are quite eager to use such technology for very authoritarian purposes.

For example, one prominent philosopher recently suggested that we should use implantable microchips to prevent anyone that is “deemed unworthy” from becoming a parent…

Although he admits it “sounds blatantly authoritarian” and “violates just about every core value we possess in a free society,” a noted transhumanist author has said a world government body should forcibly sterilize anyone “deemed unworthy” of parenthood by using implanted microchips.

Constitutional attorney and civil liberties expert John W. Whitehead, founder of The Rutherford Institute, warned LifeSiteNews earlier this year that political officials would long to use this seminal technology.

In an article for Wired.com today, philosopher Zoltan Istvan wrote that the notion first crossed his mind when he heard a blonde nurse say, “with 10,000 kids dying everyday around the world from starvation, you’d think we’d put birth control in the water.”

After careful thought, in an effort to “give hundreds of millions of future kids a better life, I cautiously endorse the idea of licensing parents,” Istvan wrote today.

You might be tempted to think that this is crazy talk.

But the truth is that this kind of technology is already being developed.

In a previous article, I quoted a news article which discussed how billionaire Bill Gates is funding the development of a birth control microchip that “acts as a contraceptive for 16 years”

Helped along by one of the world’s most notable billionaires, a U.S. firm is developing a tiny implant that acts as a contraceptive for 16 years — and can be turned on or off using a remote control.

The birth control microchip, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would hold nearly two decades worth of a hormone commonly used in contraceptives and dispense 30 micrograms a day, according to a report from the MIT Technology Review.

The new birth control, which is set to begin preclinical testing next year with hopes of putting it on shelves in 2018, can be implanted in the buttocks, upper arm or abdomen.

Yes, I know that a lot of the things that I have talked about in this article sound really weird.

But the reality of the matter is that technology is changing at an exponential rate, and our world is going to get crazier and crazier as time goes by.

Are you ready for what comes next?

The Economic Collapse

At Least 17 Fake Cellphone Towers Capable Of Invasive Spying Have Been Discovered Across America

Liberty Blitzkrieg
by Michael Krieger

When Lee Goldsmith drives by one of the many fake cellphone towers being discovered throughout the U.S., his $3,500 CryptoPhone 500 will immediately display the warning message in the image below.

When you drive by the same fake towers, known as “interceptors,” your run of the mill iPhone or Samsung Galaxy won’t alert you to any potential security breach. And that’s exactly how those people who installed these interceptors, whoever they are, like it.

I’ve seen headlines about these fake cell towers over the past several days, but didn’t investigate the matter until today. It appears Popular Science broke the story in late August with the piece: Mysterious Phony Cell Towers Could Be Intercepting Your Calls. The article focuses on the revelations of Lee Goldsmith, CEO of ESD America, which makes ultra-expensive and ultra-secure cellphones (another player in this market is Silent Circle with its Blackphone) . What Lee Goldsmith and other users of the CryptoPhone 500 have discovered while driving across part of America will shock and disturb you.

We learn from Computer World that:

Through notifications such as that, CryptoPhone users found and mapped 17 fake “cell towers” in the U.S. during the month of July. While most phones can’t find those interceptors, a $3,500 CryptoPhone 500 can. The phone has a Samsung Galaxy SIII body, but unlike the Android OS that comes standard on the Galaxy SIII and “leaks data to parts unknown 80-90 times every hour,” ESD America hardened the Android OS by removing 468 vulnerabilities.

 

“Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated,” said Les Goldsmith, the CEO of ESD America. He told Popular Science, “One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found eight different interceptors on that trip.  We even found one at South Point Casino in Las Vegas.” He added, “What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases. Whose interceptor is it?  Who are they, that’s listening to calls around military bases?  The point is: we don’t really know whose they are.

 

Privacy groups have been fighting unconstitutional stingray surveillance for several years, yet there’s still a great deal citizens don’t know about the portable devices known as IMSI catchers, also known by the generic term “stingray.” It acts like a fake cell tower and tricks your mobile device into connecting to it even if you are not on a call. It is used for real time location tracking; some can pinpoint you within two meters as well as eavesdrop and capture the contents of your communications.

They can do even more than that, including pushing spyware to devices and sending spoof texts.

Goldsmith conducts testing on his company’s “baseband firewall” while driving by an unnamed government facility in the Nevada desert that runs an interceptor. “As we drove by, the iPhone showed no difference whatsoever. The Samsung Galaxy S4, the call went from 4G to 3G and back to 4G. The CryptoPhone lit up like a Christmas tree.”

 

You might know your phone is being intercepted if it shows 2G, instead of 3G or 4G, but some interceptors claim to be “undetectable.” The VME Dominator, for example, is marketed only to government agencies. It promises that it allows “you to intercept, block, follow, track, record and listen to communications using unique triangulation and other advanced technology,” but “cannot be detected. It allows interception of voice and text. It also allows voice manipulation, up or down channel blocking, text intercept and modification, calling and sending text on behalf of the user, and directional finding of a user during random monitoring of calls.”

Now here’s the incredible part. Although the phase out of 2G is several years away, those who wish to spy are so concerned about it, they are already making plans to ensure that surveillance isn’t impacted.

Although it will be a long time before cell phones no longer support 2G, Johnny Law is working on upgrading Harris Corporation “Stingray” systems, with “Hailstorm,” to support 4G LTE interception. The News Tribune in Tacoma reported on a March 2014 purchase order from the DEA, which stated, “The Hailstorm upgrade is necessary for the Stingray system to track 4G LTE phones.”

 

According to Ars Technica, the Oakland Police Department, Fremont Police Department, and the Alameda County District Attorney joined forces by applying for a DHS grant to pay for the Hailstorm upgrade. “The entire upgrade will cost $460,000—including $205,000 in total Homeland Security grant money, and $50,000 from the Oakland Police Department (OPD).” In theory, more documents are being gathered and will be released this month by the Alameda County DA’s office.

No surprise that one of the most insidious agencies ever created is set to fund the upgrade to spying technologies for law enforcement. I covered this threat in my recent post: Department of Homeland Security – A 240,000 Person Cancer on the American Soul.

Now more from Computer World...

While the FCC seems to have known about cellular network vulnerabilities that stingrays exploit, last month it established a “task force” to investigate the “illicit and unauthorized use” use of stingrays. Instead of investigating law enforcement’s use of such interceptors, the FCC “plans to study the extent to which criminal gangs and foreign intelligence services are using the devices against Americans.” The FCC also refused the ACLU’s FOIA request for stingray documents.

Meanwhile, the FCC is the agency about to destroy the internet on behalf of telecom companies. Do you really have any doubt as to who these agencies really work for?

Liberty Blitzkrieg

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,017 other followers

%d bloggers like this: