PBT Consulting

"DON'T BE EVIL" IS GOOGLE'S UNOFFICIAL CORP MOTTO, BUT CAN WE TRUST IT AFTER ITS NEW ALL-INCLUSIVE PRIVACY POLICY?

Google's contentious new privacy policy officially takes effect today, despite some objections from Canada's privacy commissioner and others around the world.

Google insists it had users in mind when it consolidated the privacy policies for most of its more than 70 products and streamlined the text.

The main concern being raised by most critics is how Google will now start saving user information collected from all its services in one place. For example, users who log into several different services — such as Google.ca, Gmail and YouTube — will have data about all their searches and clicks stored together.

Alma Whitten, Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, in a blog post to users said.

"Our new privacy policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience."

Users can stop this data consolidation from happening by staying logged out when using the search engine or YouTube, or by having separate logins for each different site.

In a letter to Google, Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said the search giant's efforts to created a more user-friendly privacy policy was "a step in the right direction." But she raised several concerns. For one, she said users aren't being told enough about how to effectively opt out of Google's new plan.

She wrote.  

"We would strongly encourage you to make it clearer to users that if they are uncomfortable with these new uses of information, they can create separate accounts. This is not clearly stated in your new policy." 

"As we understand it, the policy changes do not mean that Google is collecting more information about its users than it currently does. They do, however, mean that you are going to be using the information in new ways — ways that may make some users uncomfortable."

She also said the new privacy policy isn't clear about how long it will take for personal information to be deleted when requested by a user.

Google is also facing heat in Europe over the new privacy policy, which France's privacy regulator said is a violation of the European Union's data protection rules.

A letter to Google from the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertes (CNIL) reads.

"Our preliminary analysis shows that Google's new policy does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data Protection.  The CNIL and the EU data protection authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of data across services and have strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing."

CBC's Ron Charles looks at the upcoming changes to Google's privacy policy. Some users are concerned about their internet use being tracked by the tech giant.

  

"Don't Be Evil," Google's unofficial corporate motto was originally adopted as a company-wide belief as well as a jab to its competitors.  However, Google has come a long way since it was incorporated in 1998, and that has some users wondering if the company's philosophy has changed. BackgroundCheck.org asks, "Mother Can I Trust Google?" in the following infographic:  

 Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY:  Google, Twitter and Facebook have been the subject of investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for numerous privacy violations.  

In a blog post dated March 31, 2012, I reported that Google and Twitter had both been placed on 20-year probation, and must undergo annual privacy audits.  

In the press release about the FTC settlements with both Google and Twitter, it states:

"A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000".

If the FTC had imposed that $16,000 per violation penalty, it would've been sufficient to put both Google and Twitter out-of-business.  However, the feds would never impose a penalty that serious because it is not in their best interests.  The Feds depend on and carefully monitor the activities of users on social networks and other sites to compile and track down criminals and terrorists. Attorney's also use social sites to gather evidence they can use in lawsuits and divorce cases.  What a racket.     

In a blog post dated November 30, 2011, I reported that Facebook had settled with the FTC for numerous privacy violations going back into 2010.   Like Google and Twitter, the FTC placed Facebook on 20-year probation, and must undergo annual privacy audits. 

Co-founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a lengthy post on the company's official blog on Tuesday.

"I'm the first to admit that we've made a bunch of mistakes." 

He said a few "high-profile" mistakes, such as changes to the service's privacy policy two years ago, "have often overshadowed much of the good work we've done."

To ensure that Facebook did a better job, Zuckerberg said the company had created two new corporate privacy officer positions to oversee Facebook products and policy.

In its complaint, the FTC said that Facebook had repeatedly violated laws against deceptive and unfair practices. For example, it said Facebook promised users that it would not share personal information with advertisers, but it did.

Also, the company had failed to warn users that it was changing its website in December 2009 so that certain information that users had designated as private, such as their "Friends List," would be made public, the FTC said.

Facebook's Timeline feature, which it rolled out for all users on February 29, 2012, has been a subject of much controversy because of the huge potential for even more privacy violations.  Also, only about 10% of Facebook users actually like Timeline.   

The new Timeline feature makes everything a person has ever done on Facebook appear on a single screen that scrolls down year by year right back to when the person was born.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg described Timeline as letting you "tell the whole story of your life on a single page".

However, as Timeline makes all of a user's photographs and wall posts visible to friends, critics have warned the mandatory change could erode users' privacy.

There are also concerns that this will instantly make it easier for identity thieves and stalkers to profile individuals.

However, a spokeswoman for the site said the change would not alter existing privacy settings. 

As you can readily see, user privacy is a huge concern, and the FTC has come down hard on both Google, Twitter and Facebook.   LinkedIn maybe the subject of sanctions as well over ads using pictures of users without their permission.   

It should be obvious by now that Google broke from its motto of "Don't Be Evil," and  that controversy over privacy continues to haunt it like flies over a picnic table.  If we are to hold Google accountable, then we must do the same for all the major social networks, who have violated our privacy and continue to do so to this date. 

Courtesy of an article dated April 18, 2012 appearing in BackgroundCheck.org and an article dated March 15, 2012 appearing in Socialphy

TECH EMPLOYERS ASKING JOB HUNTERS FOR THEIR FACEBOOK PASSWORDS, AND 1 IN 5 ARE REJECTING JOB APPLICANTS OVER THEIR SM POSTS

Social media profiles are a great way to network and promote yourself, both personally and professionally, but they are also a great way to sabotage yourself with stupid, incriminating content.

And indeed, it turns out that one out of five technology firms has rejected a job applicant because of something they included on their social media profile, according to the 2012 annual technology market survey conducted by Eurocom Worldwide and its associated agencies.

This finding is especially remarkable because a previous wave of the study found that only around 40% of the tech executives surveyed were even looking at profiles of job applicants at all. While that number has probably increased, the fact remains that a large proportion of executives who look at social media profiles are finding something they don’t like.

Mads Christensen, Network Director at Eurocom Worldwide, offered a summary of the findings which makes me want to climb in bed, turn the lights out, and pull the covers over my head forever:

“The 21st century human is learning that every action leaves an indelible digital trail. In the years ahead many of us will be challenged by what we are making public in various social forums today.”

More positively for social media, the Eurocom survey also found that 49% of tech executives said they plan to increase spending on social media in the next year. Of course, social media is still haunted by the unresolved question of ROI, as 57% of surveys said they are still unable to measure the impact of social media spending.

COMMENTARY:  For quite a while I have been warning my readers about professional social media snooping firms like Social Intelligence Corporation, a firm that makes a living investigating what job applicatioins say and post online, especially on social networks like Facebook and Twitter and reporting their findings to employers who hire them.  Social Intelligence Corporation does this legally and there is not much you can do about it.  

Besides verifying prior employment, many employer's are now conducting background checks, credit checks, drug tests, and now social media investigations.  Many will require job applications to sign an authorization giving them this authority.  If you haven't already done so, I urge you to read my previous blog posts dated October 3, 2010, February 3, 2012 and March 8, 2012.   

Now we find that employers have been asking their employees and new job applications to provide them with the password to their social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter and others.  This is the straw that broke the camels back, because it is going far overboard in violating our privacy.   Non-profit organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU.org), PrivacyRights.org and BackgroundCheck.org believe that employers have gone too far so have collaborated in designing the following Social Networking Bill of Rights.

 Click Image To Enlarge

Due to The Great Recession and a slow recovering U.S. economy, jobs in some part of America are very hard to comeby, and employers have become very selective, are using selective and discriminatory hiring practices like requiring that you already be gainfully employed to even apply for a job, others are discriminating on the basis of age and getting away with it, and now they believe that they can legally violate our privacy by asking for our social network passwords.  Well, I am here to tell you that they can't.  So no matter how great that new company is, how great the new job is, or how much money they throw at you, if they ask you to give up the passwords to your social networks watchout.  You tell them from me:  "No!!"  In fact, you tell them "Fuck No!!"  It's none of their business and an invasion of your privacy.  I would also report the incident to the ACLU and PrivacyRights.org.

Facebook agrees with me on the subject of  releasing your social network password to employers. On March 23, 2012, here's what Erin Egan, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer said about the new practice by some employers to ask employees and new job applications for their social network account passwords:

"In recent months, we’ve seen a distressing increase in reports of employers or others seeking to gain inappropriate access to people’s Facebook profiles or private information. This practice undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user’s friends. It also potentially exposes the employer who seeks this access to unanticipated legal liability."

"The most alarming of these practices is the reported incidents of employers asking prospective or actual employees to reveal their passwords.  If you are a Facebook user, you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends.  We have worked really hard at Facebook to give you the tools to control who sees your information."

"As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private information and communications just to get a job.  And as the friend of a user, you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications will be revealed to someone you don’t know and didn’t intend to share with just because that user is looking for a job.  That’s why we’ve made it a violation of Facebook’s  Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook password."

"We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don’t think it’s the right thing to do.  But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating.  For example, if an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age, etc.) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don’t hire that person." 

"Employers also may not have the proper policies and training for reviewers to handle private information.  If they don’t—and actually, even if they do—the employer may assume liability for the protection of the information they have seen or for knowing what responsibilities may arise based on different types of information (e.g. if the information suggests the commission of a crime)."

"Facebook takes your privacy seriously.  We’ll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges."

"While we will continue to do our part, it is important that everyone on Facebook understands they have a right to keep their password to themselves, and we will do our best to protect that right."

-- Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer, Policy

While I am on the subject of privacy.  I highly recommend that you NOT use company computers to access your personal email or social network accounts or do any web surfing (unless the latter is required in your job performance).  IT departments have been known to track your online behaviors while at work.  Many employees have been fired over this.  About 40% of employers now ban social networking from the workplace even if you are using your smartphone, and if you post something derogatory about them on your social network, you are just asking for problems. Remember, unless you have an employment contract, in most states you are an at-will employee, and can be fired for any reason.   

Courtesy of an article dated March 19, 2012 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf    and an article dated March 20, 2012 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf

STUDY: FACEBOOK BEING USED BY EMPLOYERS TO SELECT WORKERS AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SNOOPING FIRMS THEY USE

Employers already know it’s a good idea to check job candidates’ Facebook pages to make sure there aren’t any horrible red flags there. The reddest flags for most employers seem to be drugs, drinking, badmouthing former employers, and lying about one’s qualifications. But there’s another good reason for checking out a candidate’s Facebook page before inviting them in for an interview: it may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good they’ll be at the job.

That’s the conclusion in a study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology last month. The researchers hired HR types to rate hundreds of college students’ Facebook pages according to how employable they seemed.

One of the study author’s, Don Kluemper, of Northern Illinois University says. 

“We asked them to form impressions of a candidate based solely on their Facebook page.”

This involved looking at what was publicly available on those pages (photos, status updates, and conversations with friends) and then assigning each person a score for a number of qualities important to being a good employee, such as their degree of emotionally stability, conscientiousness, extroversion, intellectual curiosity and agreeableness. (In other words, will they flip out on you, care about completing tasks, be fun to work with, be creative in problem solving, and be willing to kiss up when necessary?) The review took about five to ten minutes per profile.

Six months later, the researchers got in touch with their guinea pigs’ employers to ask about their job performances. Unfortunately, of the over 500 guinea pigs, just 56 of the employers responded. So the sample is small, but the researchers found a strong correlation between those employers’ reviews and the employability predictions they had made based on folks’ profile pages.

I asked Kluemper about the “personality red flags” that their reviewers looked for. He was a little vague but said that a person with obvious mood swings, who is overly emotional in their postings would not be an attractive candidate. Meanwhile, a person with a lot of Facebook friends who takes a lot of crazy photos would be rated as extroverted and friendly — which are attractive qualities in a candidate.

Key takeaway for hiring employers: The Facebook page is the first interview; if you don’t like a person there, you probably won’t like working with them. The bad news for employers, though, who are hoping to take the Facebook shortcut Kluemper said.

“So many more profiles are restricted in what the public can access.” 

Given the small sample size for that first study, I was more impressed by the second. In the second study, the researchers did a similar assessment of students’ Facebook selves and also had the students take personality and IQ tests. Then, instead of following up with employers, they turned to students’ transcripts.  Kluemper says.  

“We were able to better predict a student’s academic success based on their Facebook page than on the cognitive tests.” 

(Most universities claim they don’t stalk applicants on social networking sites during the admissions process. Maybe they should?)

Of course, there are some legal questions to think about before jumping into someone’s Facebook page. Employers can discriminate against potential employees who seem like bummers based on their Wall postings and interests, but will get into trouble if what the Facebook user has said about their religious views affects the hiring process.

COMMENTARY:  For quite a while I have been warning my readers about the dangers of posting or saying offensive things on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks.   Unless you make your Facebook or Twitter page private, you are an open book, and whatever you post on your social network page, could come back to haunt you, no matter how qualified you may be for the job.  

The addition of Facebook's Timeline is going to be a goldmine for employers because it makes it much easier for an employer to dig up dirt you may have long forgotten about.  If you've said some derogatory things about an opposing political party or candidate, a former employer or co-worker, or even an ex-girlfriend or spouse, even the boss' favorite sports team, this can be viewed very negatively by employers.

Law enforcement organizations and government agencies like the FBI, NSA and the CIA are actively involved and working closely with many of the major social networks to conduct investigations, gather evidence and track down criminals and terrorists.  Much of this investigation and data gathering is done under the auspices of the Patriot Act in the interest of national security, so in special circumstances they may not be required to obtain a subpoena to access your private Facebook or Twitter account. The former Director of the CIA testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee about the billions Facebook had saved the agency. The director said with a smile on his face,

"After years of secretly monitoring the public, we were astounded that so many people would willingly publicize where they lived, their religious and political views, alphabetize a list of all their friends' personal email addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates of what they were doing moment-to-moment.  It is truly a dream come true for the CIA."

Here, checkout the YouTube video yourself.

   

To assist employers in their hiring decisions, many employers are now using what I call "professional social media snooping" firms to scour the internet to find out what you say and post online, particularly on social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and others.  In a blog post dated October 3, 2010, I profiled Social Intelligence Corporation, one of these social media snoopers, and at that time called it a "creepy startup" and "truly scary" company.  

Apparently consumers hurt by this companies activities filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claiming they were in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of 1996, 2004 with amendments there to.

On May 9, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission ruled on behalf of Social Intelligence Corp claiming that they were not in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act.  This effectively gave Social Intellignece Corporation the legality to provide social media consumer reports to employers conducting background checks on prospective employees.

On February 3, 2012, I told you about the growing trend by employers to use social media snooping firms to help employers screen employees through their social media behaviors. It's not just a U.S. trend, employers all over the world are now using social media snooping firms.  More than half of my readers are from countries outside the U.S., so you should be aware of this.  

 

According to Social Intelligence Corp. CEO Max Drucker, the company focuses on screening social media profiles for the usual suspects -- racist remarks, sexually explicit content, pictures with guns, knives, or other weapons, and other illegal behavior (think bongs).

There are some limits on how employers may use archived social media content, however. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, companies are required to tell prospective employees (or, say, credit applicants) that they are going to perform background check and obtain their permission to do so. Employers are also required by law to tell the applicant about any damaging information they find online.

The majority of my readers probably have nothing to worry about, but if you have a previous felony conviction, been fired for cause, previously lost your job due to a layoff, and you voiced your anger online, you have a lot to risk.  By some estimates, as many as 40% of longterm unemployed may be in limbo and simply unemployable because of their online social media behaviors.   Social media snooping firms have already expanded into the insurance industry.   Their reports could cause you to lose your health or life insurance coverage or prevent you from obtaining insurance coverage.  If you have any experience or information about the activities of these snoopers, post it on my blog, or shoot me an email.   I have a feeling we have just scratched the surface.                            

Courtesy of an article dated March 5, 2012 appearing in Forbes 

 

LONDON'S SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGES FACEBOOK READS THE TEXT MESSAGES OF THOSE USING FACEBOOK'S SMS APP

Let's take a healthy sodium-dose here, but London's Sunday Times is alleging that Facebook has admitted to reading users' text messages. People at Facebook supposedly read the private SMS messages of users who downloaded the Facebook app on their smartphones.

This was allegedly in preparation for Facebook launching their own messaging service, but it is not known if it still continues today. Or, really, if it happened at all. The Sunday Times article is very scant in the way of evidence, quoting only unnamed sources, and then devolving into a rehashing of every other known privacy concern to pad the article.

While it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it happened—we've come to expect this sort of thing as of late—let's hold off on the torches and pitchforks until we have some more substancial proof. We are reaching out to Facebook for a comment, and will update if we hear back. Then we can light our pitchforks and sharpen our torches. Or something like that. [Sunday Times viaTechCrunch]

UPDATE: Facebook has responded to Business Insider's request for a statement, and boy is it a mouthful.

"There is no reading of user text messages."

"On the Android App store, the Facebook app permissions include SMS read/write."

"The reason it is on there is because we have done some testing (not with the general public) of products that require the SMS part of the phone to talk to the Facebook App. That's what the read&write refers to – the line of communication needed to integrate the two things."

"Lots of communications apps use these permissions. Think of all those apps that act as replacements to the build-in sms software."

"That's not necessarily what we're working on. SMS can be used for carrier billing (where users opt to pay for things like apps through their phone bill). Again – that's not to say we're launching this. It's just an example of why an app might use these permissions. The Sunday Times leap to the conclusion that is was a messaging feature."

"Anyway – we have yet to make any such features available to the public. (so the Sunday Times is completely wrong when it says Facebook is reading people's SMS. Wrong on the terminology, and wrong on the suggestion that it has been implemented)."

"But Facebook is right to insert this into the Android app permissions – because yes, the app technically has the capability to integrate with the phone's SMS system – even if that is just for our own testing."

So, there you have it. As we suspect, sounds like a lot of getting excited about what isn't much, or at least isn't much yet. It looks like they're working on a new feature, so we've probably got some time before that rolls out, and then we can freak out when we realize that it's sold all of our precious love-letters (or love-texts) for drug money. Or something. Until them, BOOOOOOto the Sunday Times for trying to trick people into paying to read their sensationalized article.

COMMENTARY:    That Facebook response is all PHOOOEYYY!! if you ask me.  I didn't actually understand much of it.  It was just too lengthy, and a bit too technical.  Anytime I have to read something two or three times, it's probably mumbo jumbo, or something that the writer has problems explaining.  

Our locations and reading our messages is one of the last frontier of privacy violations that are now occuring.  Facebook would love to hear what people say outside their social network like in their text messages about brands and their products, or what they say about Facebook, for that matter.  

They would love to know where we are all the time so they can feed us a mobile ad or two, or a text message reminder that McD's has a two-for-1 sale on their hamburgers.

I just turned off the GPS function on my smartphone through my settings because any app I run on it could be tracking me right now.  GPS also wears down your battery.   Unless you absolutely need to turn on GPS, because an app needs your location, I would be very careful about turning it on.  

Finally, I don't trust most social networks, especially Facebook, because Facebook has committed the most privacy violations of any of the big five social networks.   I have warned you that Facebook is under the grip of the CIA, FBI, NSA and numerous law enforcement organizations. They just love it that you post everything about yourself on those sites.  Everytime I post a blog post, it ends up on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and now Google+.  I need the traffic, but when it comes to providing personal information about myself, watch out.   

This latest allegation about Facebook reading our SMS text messages would not be too farfetched. Take the above denial with a grain of salt.  It's probably happening under our noses.  The more they deny, the more it seems they are nice guys, but don't think about it that way.  When a company doesn't make anything, then YOU are the product. 

Courteshy of an article dated February 26, 2012 appearing in Gizmodo

GOOGLE TO SELL CONTROVERSIAL AR HEADS-UP-DISPLAY (HUD) GLASSES BY YEAR-END, RAISES HUGE PRIVACY CONCERNS

People who constantly reach into a pocket to check a smartphone for bits of information will soon have another option: a pair of Google-made glasses that will be able to stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.

According to several Google employees familiar with the project who asked not to be named, the glasses will go on sale to the public by the end of the year. These people said they are expected “to cost around the price of current smartphones,” or $250 to $600.

The people familiar with the Google glasses said they would be Android-based, and will include a small screen that will sit a few inches from someone’s eye. They will also have a 3G or 4G data connection and a number of sensors including motion and GPS.

A Google spokesman declined to comment on the project.

Seth Weintraub, a blogger for 9 to 5 Google, who first wrote about the glasses project in December, and then discovered more information about them this month, also said the glasses would be Android-based and cited a source that described their look as that of a pair of Oakley Thumps.

Click Image To Enlarge

They will also have a unique navigation system. Mr. Weintraub wrote this month. 

“The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click.  We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”

The glasses will have a low-resolution built-in camera that will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby, according to the Google employees. The glasses are not designed to be worn constantly — although Google expects some of the nerdiest users will wear them a lot — but will be more like smartphones, used when needed.

Internally, the Google X team has been actively discussing the privacy implications of the glasses and the company wants to ensure that people know if they are being recorded by someone wearing a pair of glasses with a built-in camera.

The project is currently being built in the Google X offices, a secretive laboratory near Google’s main campus that is charged with working on robots, space elevators and dozens of other futuristic projects.

One of the key people involved with the glasses is Steve Lee, a Google engineer and creator of the Google mapping software, Latitude. As a result of Mr. Lee’s involvement, location information will be paramount in the first version released to the public, several people who have seen the glasses said. The other key leader on the glasses project is Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, who is currently spending most of his time in the Google X labs.

One Google employee said the glasses would tap into a number of Google software products that are currently available and in use today, but will display the information in an augmented reality view, rather than as a Web browser page like those that people see on smartphones.

The glasses will send data to the cloud and then use things like Google Latitude to share location, Google Goggles to search images and figure out what is being looked at, and Google Maps to show other things nearby, the Google employee said.   They said.  

“You will be able to check in to locations with your friends through the glasses.”

Everyone I spoke with who was familiar with the project repeatedly said that Google was not thinking about potential business models with the new glasses. Instead, they said, Google sees the project as an experiment that anyone will be able to join. If consumers take to the glasses when they are released later this year, then Google will explore possible revenue streams.

As I noted in a Disruptions column last year, Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist.

Last week The San Jose Mercury News discovered plans by Google to build a $120 million electronics testing facility that will be involved in testing “precision optical technology.”

COMMENTARY:    In a blog post dated February 8, 2012, I commented on the article by Seth Weintraub of 9to5Google.com, that revealed Google's development of "Terminator" style, Android-based head-up-display (HUD) glasses.   That was just a rumor, but it now appears that Google is rapidly moving towards launching their new HUD glasses by year-end.

I hate to say it, but these augmented reality HUD glasses are going to be very controversial and create many privacy concerns and liability issues.  Information about you is now readily available on the internet, especially from social networks, and Google will be able to tap into that information to display your name and possibly your contact information, and anything else you may have posted online.  

In an article February 22, 2012 by Thomas Claburn appearing in InformationWeek, there were 7 potential problems Google may encounter with their new augmented reality HUD glasses:

"Here are a few potential pitfalls:

"Privacy - The outcry over people beaming images back to Google's data centers will be deafening, far worse than complaints about Google's monitoring of Web browsing habits. Google engineers are said to be actively discussing the privacy implications of the glasses. But the company's history of repeated privacy blunders suggests controversy is inevitable."

"Google has the technology to enable facial recognition with its Google Goggles app, but has avoided doing so for fear of privacy problems. And that's the real shame here, because augmented reality glasses should be able to do things like present the name of the person you're looking at. That kind of technology will be available eventually, at least to police departments. But as a society, we're not ready for it."

"Redundancy - Augmented reality is cool. But putting the technology into a pair of glasses isn't strictly necessary. Everything your Google glasses might be able to do, your Android phone will do better, particularly given the assumption that the glasses will be intended for periodic rather than constant use."

"Cost - For several hundred dollars, you'll get what? Services already available on your smartphone. Augmented reality makes a lot of sense if you're, say, a NASA astronaut who needs to see Space Shuttle schematics in your visor while you're on a space walk to make repairs. Augmented reality makes less sense for consumers. A more cost-effective solution might be a smartphone scaffold for mounting your phone on your baseball cap."

"Health - There's already enough FUD about mobile phones and brain cancer. But even the most scientifically-minded are likely to balk if Google's glasses rely on anything more powerful than Bluetooth to transmit and receive data. And that's to say nothing of the potential health effects of visual distraction and impairment. No one wants their last thought to be, 'Hey, Google Maps says I'm walking across Highway 101...'"

"Liability - And if there are health risks, there will be liability problems. People will wear Google's glasses while driving, despite explicit warnings not to do so. They will collide with elderly pedestrians and someone will get hurt. Someone will end up going cross-eyed. There will be lawsuits. And some politician will hold a hearing. Add the cost of an insurance policy to your Google Glasses bill."

"Battery Life - Battery life continues to hinder the utility of smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers. And in these devices, you can generally feel the weight of the battery. Glasses need to be light to be comfortable, so the battery will necessarily be small. As a consequence, the glasses are unlikely to be useful for very long, unless they require a separate tethered battery ... and that would ruin the experience. The ideal augmented reality glasses will be able to run perpetually on sunlight. We're probably several decades away from that kind of photovoltaic and processor efficiency."

"Control - Head-tiling will not be enough if the glasses are to offer services beyond navigation. The glasses will either have to convert hand gestures to commands or accept voice commands. So add a microphone, which adds another layer of privacy problems and engineering requirements."

"The glasses will also have to be extraordinarily responsive--when you turn your head you won't be happy with information related to where you were looking three seconds ago. That will mean either a very fast network connection--something many mobile carriers can't manage consistently--or displaying as little data as possible for the sake of speed and to appease mobile carriers, which already consider you a data hog."

Wow, it looks like Thomas Claburn covered all the possible pitfalls that Google could experience. Notice that privacy was No 1 on his list.  I wonder if Google's X-Labs team asked themselves, "What would Steve do?"   Better yet, did Google confer with their attorney's about liability and privacy issues and did they conduct field studies and get feedback from consumers?

This is a great time to mention that the Obama administration is working hard to legislate an online "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" bill, and if the proposed bill passes in its present form without Congressional infighting, it could change the entire internet landscape with regard to privacy concerns.  Checkout my blog post dated February 23, 2012 about Obama's proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights bill.   

I also envision a lot of ads appearing to the HUD whenever you look at a restaurant, movie theater, product whether a book or consumer electronics device, and a message telling you what it is, where you can get it, the price and if there is a deal on that item.  So unless you don't mind receiving these invasive ads appearing on your HUD, then its going to open up a whole new world for those individuals willing to forkup $250 to $650 and the software to use these new HUD glasses.    

I have always felt that technology would be heading this way, and it looks like it will be happening sooner, rather than later.   You can expect Microsoft, Apple and others to introduce similar devices, but they will probably wait to see just how much traction Google is making with their new HUD augmented reality glasses before launching their own.

Courtesy of an article dated February 21, 2012 appearing in The New York Times Bits

TWITTER COMMITS PRIVACY VIOLATION: USERS USING ITS IPHONE APP HAD THEIR ADDRESS BOOK INFO DOWNLOADED WITHOUT PERMISSION

Twitter Inc. has acknowledged that after mobile users tap the "Find friends" feature on its smartphone app, the company downloads users' entire address book, including email addresses and phone numbers, and keeps the data on its servers for 18 months. The company also said it plans to update its apps to clarify that user contacts are being transmitted and stored.

The company's current privacy policy does not explicitly disclose that Twitter downloads and stores user address books.

It does say that

"Twitter users may customize your account with information such as a cellphone number for the delivery of SMS messages or your address book so that we can help you find Twitter users you know." 

As with many online social services, Twitter allows users to look for friends that are also registered users.  In the case of Twitter's iPhone app, users see a screen noting that the service will "Scan your Contacts for people you already know on Twitter."  The short description of the feature does not mention that it also downloads every entry in the address book and stores it.

Twitter's current privacy policy notes that some categories of "Log Data" are stored for up to 18 months.

The policy says.

"Log Data may include information such as your IP address, browser type, the referring domain, pages visited, your mobile carrier, device and application IDs, and search terms. Other actions, such as interactions with our website, applications and advertisements, may also be included in Log Data."

In response to questions about the process, Twitter spokeswoman Carolyn Penner said the company is planning an update to the language they use in the mobile app.

Penner wrote in an email. 

"We want to be clear and transparent in our communications with users.  Along those lines, in our next app updates, which are coming soon, we are updating the language associated with Find Friends -- to be more explicit. In place of 'Scan your contacts,' we will use 'Upload your contacts.' and 'Import your contacts' (in Twitter for iPhone and Twitter for Android, respectively)."\

Penner also noted that Twitter users can have the service remove their contact databases using the "remove" link on this Twitter webpage (see below).

Click Image To Enlarge

The disclosure from Twitter comes after another online social service, Path, came under fire last week for automatically downloading iPhone users' address books without permission. The chief executive of Path, Dave Morin, apologized for the automatic download and said Path would correct it, but also mentioned that such processes were "industry best practice."

Updated February 15th, 12:51 p.m. Twitter has clarified that it does not store names from address books, only email addresses and phone numbers.  The company initially told the Times that names were among the types of data it gathered from users'mobile contacts lists.

When users activate the service's "Find friends" feature, "the email addresses and phone numbers in your address book will be shared with Twitter," wrote Carolyn Penner, Twitter's spokesperson.  "Later, if one of your contacts signs up for Twitter with one of those email addresses and chooses to be discoverable by the address, we can connect you two."

COMMENTARY:   I used Twitter's app for several years, so this privacy violation by Twitter is like a kick to my groin.   In a blog post dated March 31, 2011,  I reported on Twitter and Google both placed on 20-year probation with privacy audits by the FTC for privacy violations.  In a blog post dated November 30, 2011, I reported on Facebook being put on a 20-year probation with annual privacy audits.   You would think that during all this time, Twitter would've come clean, and admitted that it was downloading our entire address book.  Now Twitter clarified that it "does not store names from address books, only email addresses and phone numbers."  Thanks for making me feel a bit better about this privacy violation.  cough, cough.

What is really eye-opening is Path's CEO Dave Morin mentioning that such processes (downloading address book data) were "industry best practice."  I think it is time that Twitter and Path users report these gross privacy violations to the Federal Trade Commission for further investigation.  Makes you wonder, what other tidbits of information about their users social networks are helping themselves to, without our permission.   

Protecting your online privacy is of the utmost importance. In today’s connected world, it is far too easy to lose your privacy to the hands of many unscrupulous individuals. What can you do if you have discovered that your privacy has been violated by your favorite social network?

Your privacy rights are addressed with two acts: the 1974 Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. There are also many agencies that handle the enforcement of Internet privacy laws, including the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

Protect yourself from privacy violations by thoroughly reading any and all privacy policies for any website entities you want to do business with. Do not, in any case provide private information, if you think that website may use your information fraudulently. Make sure you feel secure prior to any financial transactions.

You have 180 days to report these violations under a general statute of limitations. Your individual state may also have other rules and regulations for reporting these violations .

Use the FTC’s online form to file a complaint located HERE. You can report cases of unwanted spyware installations, online shopping fraud and internet auction complaints using this process.

You can try to contact the disputed company directly to try resolving the issue prior to filing a formal complaint. If this fails, file the FTC report and be sure to attach any and all documentation, including prior attempts at resolution.

Courtesy of an article dated February 14, 2012 appearing in the Los Angeles Times

FBI TO DEVELOP A SOCIAL NETWORK MONITORING SYST TO TRACK SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILES, GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP NEXT?

The country’s premiere law enforcement organization is looking to develop an early warning system for domestic and global threats drawing on information from social networks. The Federal Bureau of Investigation released details of the planned system in a request for information from private contractors who are qualified to help build it.

Your typical FBI Special Agents (Click Image To Enlarge)

The FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Center said the RFI was intended to determine the capability of industry to provide an “Open Source and social media alert, mapping, and analysis application solution.” As indicated here, the system would be able to scrape material from social networks about emerging threats and then superimpose the information graphically on maps, giving FBI analysts a spatial sense of the threat landscape.

Among other capabilities, the proposed system should:

• Be able to provide an automated search and scrape capability of both social networks and open source news sites; 
• Allow users to create, define, and select new keyword search parameters; 
• Display different threats on maps, color coded to distinguish the threat level, preferably including Google Maps, Google 3D maps, Yahoo Maps, and ESRI; 
• View and plot historic and current foreign and domestic terror data “mashed with geo coordinates”; 
• Instantly translate foreign language tweets into English; 
• Display video feeds from traffic cameras.  

The RFI emphasizes that

"Flexibility is critical because the users must have the ability to select and display to a common operating picture or dashboard both unclassified open source feeds, and social media vetting and analytical tools in support of a breaking event or crisis."

The platform must also be able to "view terrorist activities by location, terrorist group, and type of attack," and “change search parameters and geo-locate the search based on breaking events or emerging threats."

As far as privacy concerns go, the RFI notes that

"Information posted to social media websites is publicly accessible and voluntarily generated.  Thus the opportunity not to provide information exists prior to the informational post by the user."

Of course, U.S. government agencies like the CIA and NSA are probably also engaged in surveillance of ostensibly private social media content in at least some cases where a serious terrorist threat is felt to exist.

The FBI certainly isn’t alone and is monitoring social media for security threats. The Department of Homeland Security has admitted in a public statement that it creates profiles to monitor “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards,” including social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, in what is known as the “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative.” The aim is to “to provide situational awareness” for the federal, state, and local governments; the DHS “may also share this de- identified information with international partners and the private sector where necessary and appropriate for coordination.” Crucially, the DHS statement also reveals that participating agencies may reveal personally identifying information about Internet users in emergency, life-and-death situations.

The DHS is also using social networks to ferret out fake “green card” marriages between U.S. citizens and immigrants for the purpose of obtaining residency or citizenship for the latter.

COMMENTARY:   The Patriot Act is really the force driving the FBI's strategy to developan “Open Source and social media alert, mapping, and analysis application solution.”

The original Patriot Act was signed into law during the Bush administration October 26, 2001 following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.  The title of the act is a ten letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.   

Click Image To Enlarge

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:  roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.

Opponents of the Patriot Act have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of  National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional

It does not surprise me that the FBI now wants to directly tap into social network profiles and databases in order to gather information in their criminal investigation and counter-terrorist activities. 

What concerns me the most is whether this is a first step towards government censorship.  We know that the Patriot Act has pretty much destroyed the Bill of Rights as we know it.  We really don't have any rights, because the Patriot Act gives the government the authority to spy on us at will, arrest us, hold us indefinitely without the rights of Habeaus Corpus.   

Of course I see a need for criminal surveillance, including wire taps, but this must all be done under court order, but the FBI doesn't need such authority to carry out the mission of the Patriot Act.

If China, Iran, Syria, North Korea and other countries can censor what its citizens say and do online, this new move by the FBI gets us one step closer to censorship and an even deeper violation of our privacy.  

I know some of you believe in a strong America, believe there is a terrorist hiding in every closet, a scheme our government concocted to pass the Patriot Act.  The theory goes like this:  If we can be made to fear terrorism, are reminded of it constantly, we will be less reluctant to give up our individual, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.  I am really sick and tired of my government constantly using the fear card.  And, low and behold, that's exactly what we did under Bush, and now under Obama.  

This is the sort of thing I have been warning everybody about for years now, so be careful what you post on Facebook, Twitter or Google+ for that matter.  Government spying and censorship is sure to follow.  Shit, the FBI will probably read what I say on my blog, and label me a "person of interest."     

In an earlier blog entry dated January 26, 2012, I told you about how Washington insider Erskin Bowles was added to Facebook's board of directors recently.    

Big Brother Is Watching......YOU!! 

Courtesy of an article dated January 26, 2012 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf

CIA TIGHTENS ITS GRIP OVER FACEBOOK, WASHINGTON INSIDER ERSKINE BOWLES BECOMES NEWEST FACEBOOK BOARD MEMBER

Facebook Inc. is continuing its rapid pace of growth, with the social network doubling its revenue to $1.6 billion in the first half of 2011 from about $800 million a year earlier, said a person familiar with the matter.

Facebook's improving financial performance comes as speculation has swirled over its plans for an initial public offering. The company hasn't made any formal announcements around an IPO but has said it will begin disclosing financial information next April. Facebook's valuation has soared this year in the secondary market.

Erskine Bowles, at a Senate hearing this year, has joined Facebook's board. Bowles will serve as the CIA's "inside man" at Facebook, making sure Zuck does as he is told.

Separately, the company said Wednesday that it appointed Erskine Bowles, president emeritus of the University of North Carolina and a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, to its board of directors. Mr. Bowles is Facebook's second recent addition to its board, having brought on Netflix Inc. Chief Executive Reed Hastings in June. In total, Facebook now has seven board members, including Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg.

The revenue figures for privately held Facebook were earlier reported by Reuters.

Facebook's revenue has been driven by its online-advertising business, as big brands rush to the site to interact with consumers through display ads and fan pages. Facebook brand campaigns, or fan pages created by big companies to interact with their consumers, are up 104% from last year, according to a recent report by TBG Digital.

Facebook's world-wide ad revenue increased from $40 million in 2006 to close to $2 billion in 2010, and an estimated $4 billion in 2011 according to data compiled by eMarketer. Facebook's share of display-ad revenue in the U.S. is projected to grow to 17.7% in 2011, up from 12.2% share last year, according to eMarketer. The research firm projects that Facebook's ad revenue will be close to $6 billion by 2012.

Social gaming and the sale of virtual goods within games has also become an important part of Facebook's business. EMarketer estimates that social-gaming companies generated more than $500 million in revenue from selling virtual goods last year. As of July 1, Facebook requires game developers to accept payments through its virtual payment system, called Facebook Credits. Through credits, the company takes a 30% cut of all game-developer revenue.

COMMENTARY:   This blog post was supposed to be about Facebook's mid-year 2011 revenues, but when I saw that Erskine Bowles had been appointed a new Facebook board member, it all came together for me.  Here's why.

It is not surprising that Facebook would add a Washington insider to its board of directors.  Bowles has served under two U.S. Presidents, Bill Clinton (Chief of Staff) and Barack Obama (co-chair National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform).  He also happens to be a member of the board for Morgan Stanley, who will probably figure prominently in any future Facebook IPO.  

Facebook is getting too big, too influential, too intrusive, so Bowles fits in quite nicely with the federal governments future plans.  Here's how it works:  Bowles became President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff in Janury 1997, taking over from former CIA director Leon Paneta who was Clinton's COS at the time.  Do you see the connection now?  Bowles will be the CIA's "inside man" at Facebook, covering the CIA's "back" so to speak, insuring the CIA's clandestine and information gathering activities proceed unimpeded.  

Facebook doesn't sell or make anything that I know of.   YOU are the product.  Facebook is, quite simply, in the information gathering business.  Essentially, they gather the most intimate details of information about YOU.  In Mark Zuckerberg's own words, "privacy is no longer a social norm". He once said,

"It's incredible what members will reveal about themselves on Facebook, that they wouldn't anywhere else."  

I view Facebook as the perfect spy disguised as a social network, that has secretly become an arm of the CIA, NSA and FBI, who have funded the social networking giant directly or indirectly through several venture capital firms who are just conduits for money.   Mark Zuckerberg maybe the major stockholder, but he has very little to say about it now.   Here's Zuck hobnobbing with President Obie and other Silicon Valley CEO's:  

Click Image To Enlarge

That guy in the foreground (tongue sticking out) who is just behind Zuck is CIA spy Eric Schmidt who used to be Google's CEO.  Eric is Google's Washington D.C. go-between guy now, and makes regular visits to Langley, VA.    

To insure that the information about YOU flows to the CIA, the CIA secretly spent nearly $300 million of taxpayer dollars for a new 150,000 square data center for Facebook.  Everytime you click that LIKE button, the CIA knows about it.  Everytime you post a Wall post, the CIA knows about it. If you play Mafia Wars, the CIA knows about it. They know everything about you punkasses. Be careful who you friend on Facebook, he's probably a CIA spy.

Click Image To Enlarge

Here's a list of Facebook's Board of Directors:

• Mark Zuckerberg
• Marc Andreessen
• David Sze 
• Jim Breyer
• Peter Thiel 
• Erskine Bowles 
• Hadi Partovi 

Courtesy of an article dated September 8, 2011 appearing in The Wall Street Journal Technology

 

'OBJECT' FOUND BURIED UNDER ANTARCTIC ICE CAP, COULD BE OF ALIEN ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF TIME VORTEX, FEDS DENY EVERYTHING

 

Disturbing news has been leaking out from the giant continent at the bottom of the world. Some scientists manning lonely outposts under the drifting and shifting aurora are nearly paralyzed with fear. Their clipped reports are being reviewed by astonished superiors back in the home countries.

Russian researchers posted near the giant South Pole sub-glacial Lake Vostok have reported eerie anomalies and incidents over the past few years that sometimes seem to border on the frayed edge of creeping madness. 

Sector of erupting anomalies

Artificial structure found under two miles of ice

During April 2001 one of the world's great secrets was revealed:  an ancient structure or apparatus that lay encased miles under the hard Antarctic ice was detected by a roving spy satellite. The US military immediately moved to quash the reports and the mainstream news media dutifully complied.

Despite the news blackout, reports still surfaced that a secretive excavation project had commenced on the heels of the discovery. Some European countries formally protested the excavation by the US military.

Excavation deep into the ice...What's down there?

Nicole Fontaine, at the time he was the European Parliament's French president said,

"If it's something the US military has constructed down there, then they're violating the international Antarctic Treaty.  If not, then it's something that's at least 12,000 years old, which is how long ice has covered Antarctica. That would make it the oldest man-made structure on the planet. The Pentagon should heed the calls of Congress and release whatever it's hiding."

The federal government and the Pentagon ignored the calls.

High technology and strange events

US Air Force's incredible Subterrene giant earth borer.

Soon after, some military observers noted that robotic devices were being shipped to the South Pole and speculation erupted about the belief by some that the US Air Force had transported their mammoth nuclear-powered tunel boring machine, the Subterrene, on a C5-A to a secret Antarctic base.

The Subterrene--a cylindrical vessel that is said manned with a crew of four to six--is capable of subterranean travel and has undergone tests in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Designed to bore through hard rock strata, drilling into the ice would be like a laser cutting through a marshmallow.

Earth borer: like a laser cutting through a marshmallow.

Following the frenzied events, of early 2001, the news broke of a mysterious medical emergency that forced an evacuation of unnamed personnel during the depths of the Antarctic winter--the first event of its kind during the dangerous South Pole winter season.  

Shortly after that the region was shaken by an unusual earthquake. Seismologists located the temblor at the epicenter of the buried structure in East Antarctica.

Yet still the military resisted making any comment.

A magnetic anomaly formed, intensified, and spread to the vicinity of the Russian Vostok base. Russian researchers were shocked and puzzled.

Meanwhile, the American military airfield buzzed with activity as flights came and went at a dizzying pace. Heavy machinery--some pretty exotic--appeared on the bleak Antarctic ice sheet. Unverified reports claimed that the nuclear-powered earth borer Subterrene arrived.

Subterrene sent to explore prehistoric machine?

 

Finally, the American and European media were pressing hard for some believable answers when 9-11 occured and the US was suddenly under terrorist attack. Domestic and international focus immediately shifted from the Antarctic to New York City and Washington, D.C.

The mysterious events in Antarctica were forgotten.

2002: TV crew disappears

A California TV crew filming in the Antarctic went missing in November 2002.

Supposedly, a video discovered among the crews' personal effects by a special U.S. Navy SEAL rescue team tasked to find the filmmakers confirmed earlier reports of a huge artifact buried under the ice--a prehistoric machine that may be of alien origin.

"The U.S. government said it will seek to block the airing of a video found by Navy rescuers in Antarctica that purportedly reveals that a massive archaeological dig is underway two miles beneath the ice," stated a press release that appeared briefly on the studio production's website.

Time vortex erupts

As one bizarre event followed another, a research team of US and UK scientists accidentally came across a mind-numbing discovery. While working on a joint weather research project, the team witnessed the creation of a spinning vortex of time.

US physicist Mariann McLein allegedly testified that she and her colleagues became aware of a "spinning gray fog" in the sky over their heads. They initially dismissed the phenomenon as merely part of a random polar storm.

The spiraling vortex, however, did not disperse. Stranger still, despite gusts of wind and briskly moving clouds overhead, the weird spinning gray fog remained stationary.

Intense magnetic anomaly.

Deciding to explore the odd phenomenon, the group took one of its weather balloons and attached a meteorological instrument to it that calibrated temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, windspeed and a scientific chronometer to record the times of the readings.

After attaching a cable to the balloon, and securing the other end to a winch, they released it. The balloon and instrument package soared upwards and were immediately sucked into the gaping maw of the swirling vortex.

The balloon and instruments disappeared.

Tunnel to the past

After a several minutes, they decided to retrieve the balloon. Despite some difficulty with the winch they succeeded in bringing the balloon back to earth and checked the instruments. McLein stated that everyone was stunned by the readout on the chronometer. It displayed a date decades in the past: January 27, 1965.

McLein claimed the experiment was repeated several times with the same result.

Later, she said, the entire episode was reported to military intelligence and passed on to the White House. Presumably the strange vortex phenomenon--a highly magnetic tunnel to the past--was code named The Time Gate by military intelligence.  

Magnetic time tunnel to the past?

As the phenomenon was generated in the same general vicinity as the discovery of the giant apparatus deep under the ice, it's thought the two may be related.

If indeed a magnetic time vortex is appearing and disappearing over Antarctica--and if the phenomena is not natural, but generated by some unknown technology deep under the icecap--it may reveal the physics of time and could potentially allow control of the past, and by implication the future.

If true, it's no wonder the military is so intensely interested and so closed-mouthed about it.

COMMENTARY:   The part that opened my eyes is the Freedom of Information Act release titled "Use Of The Subterrene For Military Drilling Applications" dated October 1974.

According to the release, the idea for the Subterrene earth boring machine, originated as part of the U.S. Army Engineer Wasterways Experiment Station (USAEWES) Explosive Excavation Research Laboratory (EERL) government program which evolved from the organization originally known as USAE Nuclear Cratering Grouop (NCG), which was established in 1962.   It's a rather lengthy document, but if you want to reach it in its entirety, here's the link.      

I just hope that the U.S. government will level with us.  If there is an "object" buried under the Antaractice ice cap, and the object is of alien origin, and a time vortex has opened over Antarctica, we should all know about it.   I want to go back into time when things were simpler, rock n roll was just starting, and there wasn't any internet or fucking iPads.   It is very disturbing why the government always clamps down and denies everyting.  Even the media has been put on notice. This discovery is just too big to hide forever.  WikiLeaks, where are you when we need you.  

If our discovery of the object is the cause of all those UFO sighings, the aliens must be really pissed off we found their condo under the Antarctice ice cap.  Just the same, I hope that these aliens are benevolent creatures and will help us get rid of all those mean Tea Partyers.   

Courtesy of an article dated April 12, 2011 appearing in Before It's News

By TwitterButtons.com  

STEVE JOBS USED ALIEN TECHNOLOGY DISCOVERED ON THE MOON BY APOLLO 20 ASTRONUTS IN 1972 FOR THE APPLE IPAD AND IPHONE

I have often wondered whether Steve Jobs, the former founder and CEO of Apple is as brilliant as many technology experts say.  Compared to other company founders and CEO's, Steve's record of innovation and achievement is quite simply: ASTOUNDING and his record is unmatched.  Name another CEO who racked up so many new product successes one after another, and has been doing it consistently for decades.   You can't, can you?

Steve's incredible success got me to thinking:  What if Steve Jobs had some REAL help along the way?  By REAL help I am not talking about assistance from his great team of new product designers and engineers who are reveered throughout the world for their creative genius and spirit of innovation.  What I am really getting to is help from the beyond, help that no other company founder or CEO would ever have access to.  I am talking about dark forces of the unknown, the kind of help that is so unreal and unimaginable that it would be earth shaking if the public ever became aware of it.  Got you thinking, don't I?   

During the course of my extensive research and countless inquiries about Steve Jobs, I received a mysterious email.   At first, I discounted the cryptic words of the writer.  "Naw, it couldn't possibly be", I thought to myself, while sipping on 50 year-old brandy.  But, upon reflection, I became convinced, that yes, this could be the REAL help that Steve Jobs got.  The sender's name was UNIDENTIFIED, but what really got me was the subject line of the email which read:  

"Is this what you have been looking for?"

NASA - 5 May 1972  - Need To Know - Top Secret Level 10 (Official NASA photo)

In 1972, Apollo 2o astronauts discovered a mysterious device of alien origin laying on the surface of the Moon near the Sea of Tranquility, the landing site of several previous Apollo Moon missions.  In 1978, Apple's Steve Jobs was contacted by NASA scientists to determine what it was, and the rest is history. 

The EMAIL contained the above attached image and following lengthy message.  At the top it was labeled Everything Below This Line is Above Top Secret. Since I live dangerously and am something of an outlaw, I will let you read it, and do with it as you may.  Just remember one thing, don't tell anybody else, or you will be erased out of existence.  

EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE IS ABOVE TOP SECRET

- Simon Apocryphal, November 12, 2007

"I am a former Apple employee. I do not wish to get my name out in the public because of the serious and obvious danger to my life if my identity became known. I am posting this under a false name, Simon Apocryphal. I was one of the original Apple employees. It was 1977 and Apple had just introduced the Apple II. I was a hardware engineer by trade, but in Apple's early days, it wasn't too uncommon for hardware engineers to work primarily with software. The industry was very young and there were relatively few people with a formal education in computer science.

In early 1978, Jobs requested I attend a meeting with himself, Mike Markkula, and another engineer that shall remain unnamed.  For the last few months, I had been working directly with Steve Wozniak testing and refining the Disk II. The project was coming to a close as we were refining our plans for mass production, so I assumed the meeting related to my next assignment at Apple.  

I remember our first meeting on a rainy Friday in January 1978. It was held in a small meeting room on our old campus. The other three participants were there, Steve, Mike, and the unnamed engineer.  Jobs asked me if I wanted a Coke or juice before we started, I declined, and Mark stood up and closed the door behind me. Jobs looked at me and my engineering colleague and informed us that what we were going to talk about in the meeting was a corporate secret. He pulled out two pieces of paper from a folder in front of him and handed each of us a copy. The papers were legal documents. At the top, it read "Nondisclosure Agreement."

We were asked to sign the document before we proceeded with the meeting. We signed the documents and Markula started explaining this new project to us. He told us that we were going to meet with a company called Affiliated Xanatech in Palo Alto, California. Markula explained that Affiliated was a government subcontractor and that the government was looking for high tech companies with experience commercializing bleeding edge technology to assist them in converting secret military hardware to private consumer applications.

We were told that the government was looking into ways to fund black projects by licensing patents to companies like Apple in exchange for complete secrecy as to the true source of the technology. Private industry in Silicon Valley was responsible for some of the most incredible technological leaps in history and this fact did not go unnoticed by the U.S. government and military. We were told to not speak of this with anyone in the company, not even Steve Wozniak. Furthermore, we were told that the military would perform a thorough background check on us and brief us as to our responsibilities in regards to secrecy. Of course, we were going to need Top Secret security clearance from the government, a process that took a few months and involved the government thoroughly looking into our histories. I remember several of my colleagues being called and questioned about my background. We also filled out a book load of documents basically covering everything from our credit histories to where we went to primary school. It was an invasive process.

Markkula had set up a meeting with Affiliated Xanatech in February 1979. Jobs, Markkula, the unnamed engineer, and myself arrived at Affiliated around 9:00 am on a Tuesday morning. The building was unassuming. It was a one-story structure with a very normal parking lot and one security guard standing in a small house at the entrance. We showed the guard the special passes sent to us by Affiliated and walked into the front lobby. At that point, we were greeted by five men in black uniforms carrying very imposing M-16s. They escorted us to the elevator and we went down some three floors or more. I would later discover that the facility had at least 8 sub-levels, but I was never able to confirm that.

We met with two men in military uniforms in a large conference room. There are very few moments in life in which your entire world view is turned forever upside down, and for me, this was one of them. I still remember that turning point during the briefing when I realized what we'd just been told, and that I hadn't heard the speaker wrong, and that it wasn't some kind of joke. In retrospect the whole thing felt like it was in slow motion. When the term "extra-terrestrial" came up for the first time, the room itself seemed to go off kilter as we collectively tried to grasp what was being said. My mind kept jumping back and forth between trying to look at the speaker, to understand him better, and looking at everyone else around me, to make sure I wasn't the only one that was hearing this. But I don't want this story to be about me, so I will spare you any more insights into my emotional state at the time.

Steve Jobs listened intently and for the first time I can recall, he didn't have anything to say. He simply nodded and peered intently at the speaker as he went over Project CARMA:

Commercialization of
Alien
Resources for
Market
Assimilation

Our job was to examine recovered alien artifacts and come up with a commercial application for them related to the computer industry. The unnamed engineer and myself spent the next four months being briefed about security and the true nature of the project. I was told that if I ever went public with this information, I would be erased from existence. Furthermore, the agents threatened to erase all my family and friends. We worked under the barrel of a gun. Need to know was the order of the day. We were only given a very narrow description of the origins of the artifacts. We knew that they were of extra-terrestrial origin, but our government partners would not reveal anymore. In fact, they discouraged us from talking about the alien connections and they never brought the subject up unless we asked questions. Getting information about the artifacts was like pulling teeth. Answers were slow to come, if they came at all.

We weren't the only team working on the artifacts, however, Apple was the only team from Silicon Valley. Apple was chosen because we were small and hungry. The government disliked monopolies and IBM was considered too much of a security threat. Other companies that we had contact with during project CARMA included Boeing, General Electric, GM, and Union Carbide Corporation. Some were examining the same artifacts we were given access to, others had access to areas of Affiliated off-limits to the Apple team.

What we saw:

We had access to an advanced computer system called the LAAC (Luminous Autonomous Agnition Computer). The LAAC was approximately the size of a soda can. Its interface is hard to explain. It didn't have a screen or projection of any kind. It projected itself into the user's mind. The object was activated by passing your hand over its top. It was deactivated in the same manner. Upon activation, a projection, an almost dream-like image in vivid color appeared in your head. We were told that the first person to use the device died of a brain embolism within seconds of activation. Apparently, the machine was a learning device that automatically adjusted itself to the human anatomy. The next person to try the device suffered from severe migraines after a few minutes of use. Over time, the machine fully adjusted to the human anatomy and was completely safe to use.

For lack of a better term, we referred to its capabilities as magic. The government wasn't interesting in having us understand exactly how the device worked. They were interested in what we could take from it for commercial purposes. At first we were baffled. We knew that computers at the time could not possibly mimic the interface technology, nor could we come close to the device's capacity, which was not measured in bytes as far as we could ascertain and was unlimited in terms of storage and speed. We were interesting in its file structure. Information was stored in terms of "objects". The user selected the objects by moving an imaginary mental pointing instrument. The objects could be organized in a structured manner. It was really up to the user to determine the structure data was stored in the system.

If the user wanted to draw an image, the LAAC created a sophisticated pallet with a set of advanced primitives. I guess you could say that the program was analogous to the modern Abobe Photoshop program, but with several profound differences. First, there were no user manuals or help functions. While hooked up the computer, the user instantly knew how to use every aspect of it and the user was free to modify the program in any way the user could imagine. We used the LAAC to define a whole new way to use a personal computer. In short, we used the LAAC to design, develop and test the operating system that would first appear on the Lisa and later on the Macintosh.

You might have heard that Apple got many of its ideas for our first graphical operating systems from the Xerox PARC. This is only partially true. We used the PARC to help us determine ways to translate the advanced alien technology into contemporary computer technology. Obviously, we were constrained in terms of interface, storage, and speed. About the only thing we really took away from the PARC was the mouse, a device that allowed the user to move a cursor on the screen and manipulate computer-generated objects.

What does Steve Jobs know about the aliens and when did he know it?

We worked with the LAAC until early 1985. Our experiments were pumped into Apple's two competing system teams, the Lisa Team and the Macintosh Team. Steve Jobs worked with both teams and acted as a facilitator. His famous "reality distortion field," the seemingling magical influence Steve had over people, was partially due to his inside knowledge of the LAAC and partially due to another secret project he was working on at Affiliated. I can't give you more information on this and don't want to speculate on its meaning because I was only allowed to work with the LAAC.

As many are aware, Steve Jobs left Apple in 1985 to start NeXT. The official story was that he had a disagreement with John Sculley, Apple's CEO, over the direction of the company. Here is what I know about what actually happened.

Sculley was never informed about our dealings with the government. Jobs could have easily made Sculley do anything he wanted because of his access to the reality distortion technology, but he purposefully picked a fight with Sculley in order to create a plausible explanation for his departure from Apple.

As I stated earlier, the government does not like monopolies that threaten its power. Jobs was given an ultimatum by his handlers at Affiliated. He was told that if he wanted ongoing access to the alien artifacts, he would have to create a start up company competing against Apple. Many of the revolutionary aspects of NeXT and later Mac OS X, come from his ongoing association with the government.

Apple's association with CARMA ended shortly after Steve Jobs left the company. We were officially debriefed by government officials. We were told that we were not to ever disclose the program and that we were to continue working at Apple in order to keep tabs on Apple's use of the alien technology. I worked at Apple until 1992 and have since retired from the computer industry. I currently teach technology at a school that shall remain unnamed.

Why am I coming out now? Well, I am at that age where it no longer matters what happens to me. I have recently been diagnosed with a terminal illness and before my time comes, I want to get this off my conscience. Apple is a great company, but it is shameful that we helped the government conceal the greatest secret of all time. The public must be told the truth."

COMMENTARY: I knew it all along.  I have been giving Steve Jobs and his Apple munchkins a.k.a. Apple's new product development engineers, too much credit.   It now appears that every product Apple has ever produced probably had its origins from alien technology.  

Now it all makes sense to me why there are so many Apple mobile products--and it scares me. Aliens are always moving from one galaxy to another.   If you are using an app, iPod, iMac, iPhone or iPad, it wasn't Steve Job's vision and talent for innovation that created it. It was those evil "Greys" with the dark black almond shaped eyes, and frail bodies.  Come to think of it, Jobs looks a bit frail too, don't you think?  

Steve Jobs' mind empowers him to control yours and influence your very being.  No wonder those Apple evangelists are such zealots, with a lemming-like behaviors, and crazy over Apple products. They would buy a toilet, if the Apple brand was emblossomed on it.   Jobs burned the Apple brand into their feeble-minded brains.  They will buy only Apple products for the rest of their tormented lives.  Now Jobs is doing the same thing with PC Windows users.  Very slowly and with stealth, he is converting Microsoft and Windows PC users to Apple products.  But, no Flash.        

I dugged deep into the internet, and could not find a damn thing about a company named Affiliated Xanatech.  For security reasons, probably erased forever by men in black suits and sunglasses.  I have a dark feeling that the company was secretly assimilated into Apple, where it now operates on black government projects to create the mobile products of tomorrow.

I got to get me an LAAC computer.   Screw the mouse and pointer.  It's all in my mind.  I can move objects.  This blog resides in my head.  No more "clickity-clickity" sounds of me typing on a computer keyboard.  If anyone knows where I can get one, please leave a comment.  I promise not to disclose your identity.

Courtesy of an alien artifact dated November 12, 2007 from an unidentified individual code named Simon Apocryphal

By TwitterButtons.com