Court Case Reveals What Google Does to You

Posted on May 2, 2015May 2, 2015 by Denise Simon

There are countless companies across America that are harvesting your online data without your knowledge or permission. Once the data is collected, it is analyzed and it is sold. Institutions know more about you than you know about you as even predictions are made about your life and family. Hide the kids, well you cant do that either. Can you opt out? Kinda. Can you find alternatives for a search engine? Kinda. Is this legal? Kinda.

Courts docs show how Google slices users into “millions of buckets

Jeff Gould

Jeff Gould, CEO Peerstone Research

The online giant probably knows more about you than the NSA — including things you might not even tell your mother

The first law of selling is to know your customer. This simple maxim has made Google into the world’s largest purveyor of advertisements, bringing in more ad revenue this year than all the world’s newspapers combined. What makes Google so valuable to advertisers is that it knows more about their customers — that is to say, about you — than anyone else.

Where does Google get this knowledge? Simple. It watches most everything you do and say online — reads your email (paying special attention to purchase confirmations), peers over your shoulder while you browse, knows what you watch on YouTube, and — by tracking your devices — even knows where you are at this very moment. Then it assembles all these bits of information into a constantly updated profile that tells advertisers when, where and what you may hanker to buy.

Your Google profile contains far more than basic facts such as age, gender and product categories you might be interested in. It also makes statistically plausible guesses about things you didn’t voluntarily disclose. It estimates how much you earn by looking up IRS income data for your zip code. It knows if you have children at home — a trick it performs by surveying hundreds of thousands of parents, observing their online behavior, then extrapolating to millions of other users. Google also offers advertisers over 1,000 “interest-based advertising” categories to target users by their web browsing habits. When advertisers are ready to buy ads they can review all these attributes in a convenient browser interface and select exactly the users they want to target.

But these explicit attributes only scratch the surface. The online ad giant knows much more about you than it can put into a form easily understandable by humans. Just how much it knows came to light last year, when a Federal judge ordered the publication of some remarkable internal Google emails discussing how Gmail data mining works. Google’s lawyers fought the disclosure tooth and nail, but they were ultimately overruled. The emails reveal that Gmail can sort users not just into a few thousand demographic and interest categories, but into literally millions of distinct “buckets”. A “bucket” is just a cluster of users, however small, who share some feature in common that might interest advertisers.

Gmail profiling is performed by a mysterious device known as the Content OneBox, or COB for short. The COB’s inner workings are shrouded in mystery — the court documents describing it are heavily redacted. But we know that it deploys many distinct data mining methods to place users into these “buckets”. In addition to exploiting demographic or interest-based observables, the COB tries to understand the actual meaning of email messages with advanced “machine learning” algorithms.

The COB lets Google peer into the most intimate aspects of your life. To see why, think about the math. Gmail has a billion users who collectively receive several trillion messages per year (not counting spam). The COB analyzes every one of those messages, even the ones it classifies as spam and the ones you delete before opening. With such a vast sea of data pouring into its algorithms every day, Google can make incredibly fine-grained distinctions among users. Inevitably some of these distinctions will correspond to sensitive personal attributes that few of us would voluntarily disclose. Most “buckets” that Google creates have no names — they are just nodes in a vast network of associations. But Google can also sort advertising messages into the same buckets and then match them to similar users, without the need for overt labels. All it takes to connect an advertiser to the right customer is a fleeting pattern of affinity between some group of users and a particular sales pitch.

Google doesn’t allow advertisers to target explicitly on sensitive categories such as race, religion, health status or sexual preference. But nothing prevents the COB’s matching algorithms from performing such targeting implicitly. When you have millions of target buckets and can perform thousands of statistical experiments every day, you can achieve the same result. Want to attract young gay men of color in certain tough urban neighborhoods to your new line of expensive athletic shoes? Google won’t let you target those keywords directly, but millions of buckets can do it for you — implicitly. Want to offer fast food discount coupons to overweight single women with children, heart surgery to middle-aged men with chest pain and high incomes, or steroid pills to teenage body builders? Millions of buckets can do that too.

In the ten years since it was launched Gmail has morphed from a simple email service into a gigantic user profiling machine. The power of its profiling algorithms increases each year as new ideas from machine learning research are made operational. At the same time, the amount of data the algorithms have to work on swells constantly. Google execs say that Gmail will soon reach one billion users.

Today the market for such data-mined personal profiles is essentially unregulated. Neither Congress nor the FTC know what to do about it. A few state legislatures, notably California, have put stakes in the ground trying to protect consumers and especially vulnerable populations such as school children. The European Union is also debating new, stricter regulations. At the same time, surveys shows that consumers care about privacy but are easily lured into giving it up for free services.

This wild west of unrestrained online profiling can’t go on indefinitely. It is particularly ironic that the National Security Agency — despite all the recent controversy — is subject to far tighter legal oversight than online advertisers like Google or Facebook. Sooner or later regulation must come to online profiling. Europe is likely to lead the way, though not necessarily in a manner that meshes well with American views on innovation and freedom of expression. In the United States, considering Congressional gridlock and the risk of inconsistency among state legislatures, the best near-term hope for regulation that is both reasonable and effective may lie with the FTC or perhaps even the White House. Time will tell, but time is growing short in a world where machines grow more intelligent every day.

Hey Congressman Cummings, Proud of This?

Posted on May 1, 2015May 1, 2015 by Denise Simon

Congressman Elijah Cummings who represents the very district of Baltimore that saw the destruction says he is proud of the protests, actually he said they HAD to protest. His beloved Baltimore was full of militant agitators that damaged buildings, cars and businesses, but yet this civil servant remains proud. He marched in full cadence and in solidarity. But going deeper, just who are those people he stood with and are they haters?

Amid Violence, Factions and Messages Converge in a Weary and Unsettled Baltimore
In part:

A couple of the young men wore bandannas to hide their identity. The young men identified themselves as members of the Crips, Bloods and Black Guerrilla Family street gangs. One of the Crips members, who called himself Charles, wearing a red Chicago Bulls Derrick Rose T-shirt, said the gang members had taken to the street because “there is only so far that you can push people into a corner.”

“We’re frustrated,” he continued, “and that’s why we’re out there in the streets.”

Then he described how he and some Bloods had stood in front of black-owned stores to protect them from looting or vandalism. He said they had made sure no black children, or reporters, were hit by rioters. They pointed them toward Chinese- and Arab-owned stores. Charles said Mr. Gray had brought gangs together.

“I rolled over here on a truck, and I was the only Crip and everybody else was Bloods. And they didn’t do anything to me. We’re together in this.”

Read the full article here.

From the DailyMail: One Bloods member told WBAL: ‘Although our cause is righteous, we cannot control every person, every gang in the city.’

It had emerged on Monday morning, that three of the city’s most violent gangs – Black Guerrilla Family, Crips and Bloods – were apparently forming an alliance to ‘take out’ police officers.

According to Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, the department received intelligence that the rivals held a meeting in which they planned to kill one police officer each.

Black Guerrilla Family breeds some of the city’s most violent convicts. The man who killed two NYPD cops in December last year, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, was believed to have ties to the deadly group.

Obama/Kerry Omit Iran Violations

Posted on May 1, 2015May 1, 2015 by Denise Simon

No single country is a more destabilizing force globally than Iran. Iran is a proven funder of terrorism, has militant armies deployed in several corners of the globe and is building a nuclear weapons program unfettered.

The Obama administration declared they will have full access to all military locations in Iran for inspections when that has never before been the case. Simply put, Iran lies and obstructs. All parties involved in the talks have the historical evidence on Iran’s program(s) while there is no real reason to be in the talks at all.

Per an SME that has tracked funding and transactions:

“Iran is the lead sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism throughout the world today. At the same time, President Obama and his administration are in the process of negotiating an agreement with Iran that would end current economic sanctions, allowing an estimated $50 billion to enter their economy. “These funds will be nearly impossible to keep out of the hands of terrorist groups. This administration must not strike a deal with Iran that allows them to contribute more financial resources to radical Islamic terrorists across the globe.”

Iran’s foreign minister Zarif declared that nothing was sacrosanct with regard to the deal, the sanctions or the timelines.

UN Report: Iran Trying To Buy Nuclear Technology Through Blacklisted Firms

ran is actively trying to buy nuclear technology through blacklisted companies, according to a confidential UN report that surfaced April 30.

The allegations were reported to the UN by Britain. If confirmed, they would violate UN sanctions and add to concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to any negotiated agreement to restrict sensitive nuclear work.

The report comes just weeks after world powers reached a framework deal with Iran on curbing its nuclear program.

Britain informed the UN sanctions panel on April 20 that it “is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company and Kalay Electric Company,” according to the report, which was shown to AFP and Reuters on April 30.

Both Iranian companies have been blacklisted because of their nuclear activities. The UN panel said it has not as yet investigated the allegations, which it received on April 21.

“The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,” the panel said in the report. Both TESA and KEC have been hit with international sanctions because they are believed to have ties with Iran’s nuclear program. In order to evade tight international trade sanctions, Iran typically uses businesses as fronts in order to procure needed materials on the sly.

Iran Steps Up Covert Action in Latin America

U.S., Latin American leaders meet to discuss threat

The Iranian government is significantly boosting its presence and resources in Latin America, posing a national security threat to the region, according to a group of U.S. and Latin American officials who met earlier this week in Florida to discuss Iran’s covert actions.While Iran has long had a foothold in the Western hemisphere, these officials warned that the Islamic Republic has invested significant resources into its Latin American operations in a bid to increase its sway in the region.

Iran’s growing influence in the region—and its effort to exert influence over governments there—has fostered pressing security concerns as the Iranians inch closer to the United States’ southern border, according to these U.S. officials and Latin American leaders, who met for several days this week at a summit organized by the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF).

“It is troubling in some of the briefings we get, particularly on the classified side, to see Iranian influence in Latin America,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview. “A lot of these [Latin American officials] share the concern.”

“It’s a security risk for all of us,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis was one of several members of Congress and 20 Latin American lawmakers from 14 different countries who met during the IAF summit, which began on Sunday and ran until Tuesday morning.

Iran is becoming increasingly open about its presence in Latin America and providing its officials with passports from Venezuela and other countries, giving them free rein to travel throughout South America.

Iran has forged close ties with countries such as Argentina, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, among others.

Luis Heber, a member of the Uruguayan senate, said that Iranian agents—who some suspect are members of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—have been spotted in his country holding Venezuelan passports.

Officials have determined that there is “a clear penetration of Iran in our country,” Heber said during remarks Sunday before U.S. lawmakers and other Latin American officials.

“We’ve also seen Venezuelan passports in the hands of Iranians,” he revealed. “The penetration of Venezuela by Iran is clear. There is overwhelming information on this.”

Heber said Uruguayan officials have spotted at least 10 Iranians carrying Venezuelan passports.

They “can enter anywhere in Latin America because the passports are legal,” he explained.

Iran’s goal, in part, is to establish deep ties in these countries in order to influence their policies toward America, Israel, and other Western allies, officials said.

“The threat level has increased, it’s more open,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), vice-chair of the House’s Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

“The Iranian threat comes not from espionage as much, but from influencing the ideology of their host country,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “That’s what they’re aiming for and penetrating [these countries] so they have a presence in Latin America right at the foothold of the U.S.”

Iran establishes consulates in these countries and then uses them as a base to conduct espionage and other covert activities, Ros-Lehtinen said.

“How is it they have Iranian consulates in Latin America?” she asked. “It’s ridiculous to think all of sudden Latin Americans want to travel to Iran. They’re not using it to issue their visas. Something is happening that Iran is penetrating the Western Hemisphere and it’s not for cultural exchanges or approval of travel docs.”

“This makes no sense … other than espionage, subterfuge, and illicit activities,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

This activity has intensified of late, several officials said.

“There’s no question we’re seeing an uptick in Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.), a House Foreign Affairs Committee member, said during a meeting with the Latin American leaders in attendance.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. administration, our administration, seems to be willing to turn a blind eye towards what’s happening,” he said.

“There have been instances where Iranian agents have crossed the U.S. border,” Salmon claimed, referring to past reports by members of Hezbollah being arrested attempting to cross the Mexican border.

Iran currently hosts at least 80 so-called cultural centers in the region and has doubled the number of embassies in the region since 2005.

Ros-Lehtinen warned that this activity has become “more pronounced and open” in the past few years.

“Now they’re in the open, above board, advertising and letting the world know, ‘We’re right in your front and back yard,’” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Federalize Policing with Soviet Style Tactics

Posted on May 1, 2015May 1, 2015 by Denise Simon

Soviet style tactics:

‘Another fundamental change is underway but not such that you would notice unless you understand the conduits of people and activists groups. Law enforcement across the country is subservient to mayors and mayors manage the money flows and rules of engagement in all communities. One must look closely at mayors and their operational playbooks as noted in the case of Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, mayor of Baltimore. She is walking in cadence with Al Sharpton at National Action Network who himself has unfettered access to the White House as he is calling for officially federalizing police.

Then it must be noted that the ACLU is part of the conduit as this week that organization paid for and developed a smart phone app called ‘MOBILE JUSTICE’. “We want to multiply the number of cameras that can be trained on police officers at any time,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. “They need to know that anything they do could be seen by the entire world.” Users will have to open the app on their Android or Apple devices before filming, ACLU officials said. When the recording stops, it automatically sends a copy to the ACLU’s server and keeps the video on the phone. A text report will then pop up, allowing users to explain in writing what they saw but allowing them to remain anonymous if desired. ACLU officials said their legal team would screen the reports and review any videos they believed might show problematic activity.

So who would use this smart phone app? Easy answer to the question. Those already part of yet another organization are part of the conduit, ‘WeCopWatch‘, maybe you have seen the t-shirts. It is even more curious that members of this group are also part of yet many others that include those that support the ‘FreePalestine‘ movement and that of Black Intifada.

Blair Anderson
Project Coordinator for Michigan, Ohio, Illinois
Blair is a Black Panther who lived through COINTELPRO era of the Black Power movement of the sixties. Blair is also the head of the WeCopwatch elder council which helps provide guidance for WeCopwatch in matters of organizing, tactics and strategies.

David Whitt
Project Coordinator for St Louis County
Whitt formed the Canfield Watchmen in the neighborhood where Mike Brown was killed. They have been actively copwatching, as well as training and distributing cameras to the public.

Jacob Crawford
Project Coordinator Support.
Crawford is a long time Copwatcher. He is assisting on the back end in supporting Copwatch expansion projects. Do the posters below look familiar? Same ones the Islamists in America use as well. They also have a tip sheet that explains what to do if the FBI comes to their door.

253497_176424112415369_4847694_n

They are using GoFundMe to raise money to purchase go-pro cameras, but one should wonder if GoFundMe will take down that account as they often do for patriot requests.

The sad question now is just how will police forces across the country react? They are under siege.

If Obama’s Legal Team Wins, Your Church May Lose

Posted on April 30, 2015April 30, 2015 by Denise Simon

If you have never been to the Supreme Court to hear cases argued, they are fascinating. This week, there is an case regarding marriage of gays. The oral presentations and responses by the U.S. Solicitor General and his staff would have you shaking your head. So, if you would like to read the transcripts which is for sure suggested, here is the document.

But when it comes to the SCOTUS decision on fundamentally redefining the institution of marriage, it could trickle down to your personal church losing. That fundamental transformation of America is underway, without so much as a whimper for you.

Obama Admin: Religious Organizations Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status If Supreme Court Creates Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

When arguing before the Supreme Court, a lawyer normally takes pains to convince the Justices that ruling in his or her favor in that particular case would not have dramatic consequences elsewhere. In Hobby Lobby, for example, Paul Clement urged that exempting his clients from part of HHS’s contraceptive mandate would not open the doors to a flood of other exemptions. Or in DC v. Heller, Alan Gura argued that the Court’s recognition of the Second Amendment’s personal right to own ordinary firearms would not entitle people to own “machine guns” or “plastic, undetectable handguns.”

A similar dynamic was seen, sometimes, at yesterday’s oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases, Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawyers arguing that same-sex couples should have a federal constitutional right to state marriage licenses suggested that establishing such a right would not result in ministers being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. “No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mary Bonauto told Justice Scalia. “We have those protections” under the First Amendment.

But given that such concerns surround this case — say, for wedding photographers or cake bakers — it was rather stunning to see Solicitor General Verrilli leave open the door to what could be the most significant consequences to eventually flow from the creation of a constitutional right to same sex marriage: namely, that religious organizations could eventually lose their tax-exempt status if they do not embrace the new constitutional right.

Such concerns are based on the Supreme Court’s approach in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), where the Court held that the IRS could strip two private religious schools of their tax-exempt status because the schools maintained racially discriminatory policies abhorrent under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bob Jones University, for example, prohibited its students from inter-racial dating.

“Entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity,” wrote the Court; “namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” To receive a tax exemption, the institution must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest.” And because, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education thirty years earlier, America had adopted “a firm national policy to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in public education,” neither the Tax Code nor the First Amendment allowed the schools to receive tax benefits while maintaining their repugnant racist policies. The Court’s analysis was correct in that case, given how well-established and widely respected the constitutional right against racial discrimination was. But how would the IRS and courts apply such themes in other cases, involving other constitutional rights?

To that end, in recent years some have asked whether the Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right could have similar impacts on religious organizations that refuse to participate in or otherwise support same-sex marriage.

Liberal proponents of same-sex marriage rights have tried to downplay those concerns. Writing in Slate two years ago, Emily Bazelon argued that States’ recognition of same-sex marriages would not affect religious organizations’ tax-exempt status, at least not until “we’re as united about the pernicious nature of anti-gay discrimination as we are about racial discrimination.” (“Maybe we should be there,” she added, “But I don’t need to tell you we’re not.” Not yet.)

But that is, of course, the core theme in favor of same-sex marriage rights: that a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is no less fundamental than a right to inter-racial marriage. It has been at the heart of same-sex marriage litigation for years.

Surely the question of IRS tax exemptions came up at the “moot court” practice sessions preparing the Solicitor General for yesterday’s oral argument. If the Administration wanted to assure the Justices that the IRS — either its current leadership, or under a future Administration — would not strip, say, Catholic charities of their tax-exempt status, then the Solicitor General would have a well-rehearsed answer. Especially in light of the Obama administration’s treatment of conservative groups seeking tax exemptions, not to mention the Administration’s efforts — rejected unanimously by the Court — to use federal regulations to trump religious’ schools doctrinal authority.

But when Justice Alito posed this obvious question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Verrilli offered no reassurances:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.

Wait, the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations is “certainly going to be an issue?”

One would have preferred that the administration could have sorted this “issue” out ahead of time. If the scenario really were as far-fetched as Bazelon and others suggest, then it would have been easy for the Obama administration to simply say so.

And so it will fall to the Justices to grapple with the issue before announcing any broad new constitutional right. They took such pains in Hobby Lobby, in Heller, and in other such cases. We can only hope they’ll do it again here.