Apple CEO Tim Cook visits the Foxconn plant in China as part of the review process to insure working conditions have improved and Apple vendor requirements are being adhered to (Click Image To Enlarge)
When Apple makes headlines for its manufacturing practices, it’s rarely a headline that makes Cupertino look good. The company has come under fire in the past year for its reliance on the manufacturing giant Foxconn, which had a string of suicides at one of its plants, and where there have occasionally been reports of unsafe working conditions. The New York Times, for instance, wrote an investigative report into the “human costs” of the iPad back in January; iPhone manufacture even became the unlikely subject of a controversial, and ultimately discredited, work of quasi-reported theater (see “Mike Daisey, Storyteller,” and “An (Actual!) Look Inside Foxconn”). But for those who thought Apple would continue to exclusively rely on manufacturing abroad, Apple CEO made a surprising announcement on “Rock Center with Brian Williams” today. Starting in 2013, said Cook, a line of Macs would be manufactured in the US. Cook did not elaborate or specify just which line.
The announcement followed recent reports that some of the new iMacs that went on sale last Friday bore the unusual words, “Assembled in USA.” In the past, it has been more typical to see “Assembled in China”–though not uncommon for certain products, like made-to-order Macs.
In a way, Cook’s announcement is not totally surprising; at the All Things D conference in May, he had announced that he wanted a product to be made in the U.S. It would seem like the recent “assembled in USA” lines are a step in that direction, and that Cook is planning to deepen that commitment.
A good deal more information about Cook’s thinking in this regard can be found in Bloomberg Businessweek, which published alengthy interview with Cook this week. Cook pointed out (as he did to Brian Williams) that both the processor and the glass on iPhones and iPads are made in the U.S. (See “Your iPhone’s Brain Might Be from Texas.”) And he clarified that when he says he’d like to “make” Macs in the US, he’s talking about more than assembly:
“It will happen in 2013. We’re really proud of it. We could have quickly maybe done just assembly, but it’s broader because we wanted to do something more substantial. So we’ll literally invest over $100 million. This doesn’t mean that Apple will do it ourselves, but we’ll be working with people, and we’ll be investing our money.”
A follow-up question on whether Apple had a duty to be patriotic elicited a thoughtful response: Cook said that he felt Apple did have a “responsibility to create jobs.” He appeared to outline a philosophy that suggested that Apple had that responsibility, indeed, wherever it sold its products:
“Over 60 percent of our sales are outside the United States. So we have a responsibility to others as well.”
He chooses a more hollistic way of measuring job creation, which means that he considers a person who makes a living as an iOS developer to have had a job created by Apple, even if that person is working for herself. (Again in its iEconomy series, the Times has shown how making that living is sometimes easier said than done.) The Businessweek interview is required reading in full for anyone interested in Tim Cook, Apple, and the future of American manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg alsoreportsthat Foxconn itself will be expanding some of its manufacturing operations into North America, due to demand among customers that more products be made domestically.
COMMENTARY: It will be a very long time before I trust anything that Apple says concerning its manufacturing vendors in China. For over a decade, under the steady iron hand of then Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, Apple did everythig to keep the identity of its overseas vendors in China absolutely secret. Nobody knew who they were until word got out of the numerous plant worker suicides at Foxconn International, the sweatshop conditions endured by its plant workers, and unsafe working environment that hundreds of thousands of Foxconn plant workers were exposed to. Foxconn is Apple's largest outsourced manufacturer in China, and is responsible for assembling the iPhone, iPod and iPad. In 2010,when the late Steve Jobs was questioned by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisherabout from All Things Digital about Foxconn in front of a live audence at a D8 conference in San Francisco, he said,
"Oh, sure, yeah. We're pretty on top of that. Foxconn is not a sweatshop. When you go to this place, um. It's a factory, but my gosh, they got restuarants, and movie theaters and swimming pools. For a factory, it's a pretty nice factory."
What pissed me off about the Steve Jobs interview is how Jobs discounted the Foxconn suicides, comparing them on a percentage basis to the suicide rates in the U.S. Jesus, what a heartless punkass. I didn't hear a single comment of remorse or condolesences to the loved ones and families of those who committed suicide. His comments were without any emotion, almost unremorseless. That interview is below:
In a blog post dated November 16, 2012, I reported that Foxconn International had plans to replace 1.2 million plant workers in China with production robots. This process has already begun, with 30,000 robots expected to be installed by the end of 2012, and another 200,000 robots to be installed in 2013. Having said this, it would not surprise me if Apple automates the prouction of an iMac using robots in order to keep costs down. If Tim Cook is serious about proucting an iMac in the U.S., I wonder if Apple will be a job creator, or job destroyer.
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
Of all of the Steve Jobs interviews, and believe me, there are not many videos of the King of Magical Devices being interviewed and put under the hot seat. Steve Jobs would never subject himself to that, or admit any wrong doing. However, Steve agreed to be interviewed by All Things Digital at the D8 Conference in 2010, about accusations of horrible sweatshop working conditions, unsafe working conditions, and 13 plant worker suicides at Foxconn International's plant in China, the company that manufacturer's Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod.
I would've loved to have had Steve Jobs "wired" at the time of the interview. And just to prove that I have balls, I would've wired the other end to myself. Everytime Steve lied, it would send a fiew volts of electricity that would give me a nice jolt. It would've been like the 4th of July. I would've litup like a candle, and I am sure Apple Evangelists would enjoy the spectacle. I wonder what other wonderful tidbits of information we could've learned about Time's "Person of the Year for 2010?"
Here's the video. Please, no more hateful mail or nasty comments.
Don't get me wrong. I love Apple products, I think they are beautifully designed and engineered products that people absolutely lust for. Steve Jobs is without any doubt the greatest entrepreneur and technology innovator of the modern era even though he did get some help from alien technology along the way.
In a blog post dated March 29, 2012, I reported that Apple CEO Tim Cook had visited Foxconn International's plant in China, and he looked dapper in that yellow rubberized plant worker outfit, don't you think? I love it when the CEO of a major company "grabs the bull by the horns," and personally takes the time to visit the site of all the carnage and widespread pollution. If anybody knew what was going on over in China it was Tim, the architect of Apple's outsourced manufacturing model.
Apple Inc's Tim Cook, on his first trip to China as the chief executive officer, has visited an iPhone production plant run by the Foxconn Technology Group, which is being accused of improper labor practices.
China is the world's largest mobile market and already Apple's second-biggest market overall, but its growth there is clouded by issues ranging from a contested iPad trademark to treatment of local labor.
Picture handouts dated March 28 and e-mailed to Reuters show Cook seen smiling and meeting workers in the newly built Foxconn ZhengzhouTechnology Park in the north central province of Hebei. The facility employs 120,000 people, the handouts said.
Foxconn is a major part of Apple's global supply chain, assembling most of its iPhones and iPads, but has been hit by a string of worker suicides in recent years that activist groups blame on tough working conditions.
The group is the Taiwan parent of Hong Kong-listed Foxconn International Holdings and Taiwan-listed Hon Hai Precision.
Cook took the reins at Apple in August after the death of the firm's visionary founder, Steve Jobs. His closely guarded itinerary has included talks with Vice Premier Li Keqiang, Beijing's mayor and a visit to one of Apple's two stores in the capital.
On Wednesday, state media reported that China's vice premier promised Cook the country would boost intellectual property protection.
the official Xinhua news agency cited Vice Premier Li Keqiang as saying.
"To be more open to the outside is a condition for China to transform its economic development, expand domestic demands and conduct technological innovation."
Apple has tie-ups with China Telecom and China Unicom to sell its iPhone, with the only other Chinese carrier, China Mobile, the country's biggest mobile operator, also looking to clinch a deal.
Apple is embroiled in a long-running dispute with Proview - a financially weak technology company that claims to have registered the iPad trademark - that is making its way through Chinese courts and threatens to disrupt iPad sales.
COMMENTARY: I would gladly give up one case of Chateauneuf du Pape '04 to find out what Apple CEO Tim Cook told Foxconn management during his visit to the plant concerning their sweat shop conditions, progress on Apple inspections of their plant, and plan to improve worker relations and pay.
Cook's visit to Foxconn makes good public relations--images of the powerful new Apple CEO visiting Foxconn, gives one confidence that finally those sweat shop conditions will end, Foxconn will comply with Apple's Code of Suppliers and everything will be hunky-dorey. As I said in my post prior to this one, Apple is not a socially conscience company. They are all about increasing shareholder value and profitability.
If Apple CEO Tim Cook really wanted to impress me, he would give Foxconn an ultimatum, and if they failed to comply after regular inspections, he would promise to move the manufacturing all Apple products to the U.S. This would create an estimated 250,000 jobs, many of them right here in Silicon Valley, where we need them the most.
I would be very interested in hearing from Apple evangelists--owners of Apple magical devices whether the iPhone, iPad or iPod. Foxconn makes all of them, so you can enjoy that magical experience.
Courtesy of an article dated March 29, 2012 appearing in Reuters and an article dated March 28, 2012 appearing in Brian Fontenot Blog
The Obama administration just rolled out something it’s calling a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.” It’s a first draft at this point — think of it as a blueprint for legislation down the road, a statement of principles companies can voluntarily sign onto — but given what it’s meant to do, and how it could impact future law, it’s definitely worth canvassing the key points.
CNN has a copy of the full text of the bill, if you want to read the preamble. I’ll summarize: It applies to personal data, which the bill defines as
“any data…that is linkable to a specific individual.”
That’s an over-broad definition, of course — it’s semantically linkable to pretty much every kind of data — but given the sensitivity of the subject matter, better to err on the side of breadth at the outset. And as the White House notes,
“Even without legislation, [it] will convene multistakeholder processes that use these rights as a template for codes of conduct that are enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission.”
Here's a summary of the major provisions of the Obama Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights:
“Individual Control: Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from them and how they use it.” This is the bill’s first point and arguably its most important. The White House says companies “should provide consumers appropriate control over the personal data that consumers share with others and over how companies collect, use, or disclose personal data.” The bill says the choices should be easy to use and access, as should our ability “to withdraw or limit consent.” While that sounds like a no-brainer, think about how byzantine or cryptic today’s company privacy strictures tend to be, whether it’s your bank, your credit card company, or the “this today, that tomorrow” mercurialness of social networks like Facebook. Many companies require you opt-out instead of opt-in, as well — I’d like to see a requirement that all forms of personal data sharing be opt-in and never opt-out, and that we place the onus on companies to sell us on the benefits of opting-in instead of hoping we never bother to check. What’s more, personal data collection practices should be front and center, not buried in the fine print or tacked on like those laughable motormouth disclosures at the end of ebullient drug company TV ads.
“Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices.” This is the “clear and accessible” clause. The White House says “companies should provide clear descriptions of what personal data they collect, why they need the data, how they will use it, when they will delete the data or de-identify it from consumers, and whether and for what purposes they may share personal data with third parties.” And they need to do it “[at] times and in places that are most useful to enabling consumers to gain a meaningful understanding of privacy risks and the ability to exercise Individual Control.”
“Respect for Context: Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.” Translation: A company like Ticketmaster shouldn’t (without explicit permission, anyway) use those Bruce Springsteen tickets I just bought as license to share my information with a merchandizer like Amazon, such that the latter starts emailing me every time one of Springsteen’s albums is on sale. If companies want to use personal data for inconsistent purposes, the bill, in so many words, say they have a right to ask, but “must provide heightened measures of Transparency and Individual Choice.” And there’s a rudimentary age clause in this one that definitely needs to be fleshed out, but crucially states that “Companies should fulfill the obligations under this principle in ways that are appropriate for the age and sophistication of consumers.”
“Security: Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.” Simple and straightforward: Companies need to secure your data using “reasonable safeguards.” The question that’s not answered, of course, is what’s “reasonable.” For instance: Were Sony’s safeguards to the PlayStation Network “reasonable” before hacker group Anonymous broke in and absconded with millions of users’ personal information? What about the new ones Sony’s put in place since the breach? And how will this be decided legally speaking, say a data breach occurs and lawsuits ensue?
“Access and Accuracy: Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate.” This is the “how do we make sure what companies think they know about us is correct?” clause. It states that companies “should provide consumers with reasonable access to personal data that they collect or maintain about them, as well as the appropriate means and opportunity to correct inaccurate data or request its deletion or use limitation,” and that the principle should be construed “in a manner consistent with freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”
“Focused Collection: Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.” Again, simple and obvious: Companies need to be able to justify why they’re collecting your personal data (and securely dispose of what they don’t or no longer use). The White House says that justification should be contingent on the “Respect for Context” clause (see above).
“Accountability: Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.” Last but not least, this is the “we should expect companies to adhere to these principles” clause. It also says companies should “hold employees responsible for adhering to these principles” and take measures to ensure the company as a whole is in compliance.
The takeaway in two words: transparency and consistency. I’m cautiously optimistic at this stage, given the bill’s language and scope. Granted some of the points seem over-broad and could do with clarification, but as a first step, with an eye toward FTC enforcement off the block, this is a significant document, and it’s already earning subscribers: AOL, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have already signed up.
But it won’t be just about getting companies onboard (the bill is voluntary), it’ll be about those companies figuring out how to comply. That’s not as straightforward as it sounds. There’s no standard Internet template for privacy mechanics (nor does the bill argue for one). One of the biggest implicit challenges here will thus be how companies structure their consumer privacy mechanics to meet the bill’s imperatives — call it the “feng shui of consumer privacy transparency.”
COMMENTARY: Right off the top I don't like the fact that Obama's Online Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is not mandatory across the board, but only VOLUNTARY. That's a fucking joke. Excuse my French. Do we honestly believe that companies who make their living off of our data, like credit bureaus, banks, credit card companies, direct marketing companies, employment and recruting firms, market research firms, social networks, and so forth, will actually volunteer to adhere to the provisions of the Online Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? Very doubtful. That's the only reason social networks exist. Like I have told you before, WE are the product.
As far as I am concerned, my privacy should never, under any circumstances be compromised. All information about me should be strictly on a "need to know basis." If you don't need to know, you don't get to know. My private information should go into an impenetrable blackbox, where only a court subpoena could get access to it. That's the only exception.
Unfortunately, the genie got out of the magic bottle years ago, and the data about us is already out there "in the wild." Information about us is everywhere, so the laws would only apply to new data. It gets rather complicated as you can see.
I knew that since early 2011, members of Congress had proposed a number of different bills on online privacy. Unfortunately not a single one of those bills has been voted on. Most have been stalled or stuck in respective subcommittees on consumer privacy. In the meantime, Google, Twitter, Facebook, lower tier social networks, game sites and mobile app makers continue to invade our privacy with reckless abandon. It is only because some individuals have filed private or class action lawsuits that Congress has taken notice and began to act.
To give you an idea just how many bills have been stuck or not acted upon by our elected representatives, you will find a complete list courtesy of PrivacyWonk.net. Warning, the list is unbelievably long. Our Senators and Congressmen/women all have different ideas about online privacy. Apparently tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, anti-marijuana, anti-gay marriage, Obamacare and foreign wars are more important. Screw our privacy.
Courtesy of an article dated February 23, 2011 appearing in Time's Techland and an article dated August 7, 2011 (with updates through February 7, 2012 appearing in PrivacyWonk.net
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
The notorious character "Humongous" from the "The Road Warrior" film. Visions of the future economy. All he wanted was some gas for his chopper, so he took matters into his own hands.
The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting a revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions - all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012.
Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, is publisher of the Trends Journal which forecasts and analyzes business, socioeconomic, political, and other trends, and is renowned for his accuracy in predicting future world and economic events which can send a chill down your spine.
Celente says that by 2012 America will become an underdeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.
Celente, adding that the situation would be "worse than the greatdepression" said.
"We're going to see the end of the retail Christmas... we're going to see a fundamental shift take place... putting food on the table is going to be more important than putting gifts under the Christmas tree."
Celente also said.
"America's going to go through a transition the likes of which no one is prepared for."
He notes that people's refusal to acknowledge that America was even in a recession highlights how big a problem denial is in being ready for the true scale of the crisis.
Celente, who successfully predicted the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, the sub-prime mortgage collapse and the massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar, told UPI in November last year that the following year would be known as "The Panic of 2008," adding that "giants (would) tumble to their deaths," which is exactly what we have witnessed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and others.
He also said that the dollar would eventually be devalued by as much as 90 per cent. The consequence of what we have seen unfold this year would lead to a lowering in living standards, Celente predicted a year ago, which is also being borne out by plummeting retail sales figures.
The prospect of revolution was a concept echoed by a British Ministry of Defence report last year, which predicted that within 30 years, the growing gap between the super-rich and the middle class, along with an urban underclass threatening social order would mean,
"The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest. The middle classes could become a revolutionary class."
In a separate recent interview, Celente went further on the subject of revolution in America. He said.
"There will be a revolution in this country. It ' s not going to come yet, but it's going to come down the line and we 're going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for i t: the takeover of Washington, D.C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen."
He goes on to give us a horrid look into the future of America.
"The first thing to do is organise with tax revolts. That's going to be the big one because people can't afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You're going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop."
"It's going to be very bleak. Very sad. And there is going to be a lot of homeless, the likes of which we have never seen before. Tent cities are already sprouting up around the country and we're going to see many more."
"We're going to start seeing huge areas of vacant real estate and squatters living in them as well. It's going to be a picture the likes of which Americans are not going to be used to."
"It's going to come as a shock and with it, there's going to be a lot of crime. And the crime is going to be a lot worse than it was before because in the last 1929 Depression, people's minds weren't wrecked on all these modern drugs, over-the-counter drugs, or crystal meth or whatever it might be."
"So, you have a huge underclass of very desperate people with their minds chemically blown beyond anybody's comprehension."
The George Washington blog has compiled a list of quotes attesting to Celente's accuracy as a trend forecaster.
CNN Headline News:"When CNN wants to know about the Top Trends, we ask Gerald Celente."
USA Today:"Gerald Celente has a knack for getting the zeitgeist right."
CNBC:"There's not a better trend forecaster than Gerald Celente. The man knows what he's talking about."
The Wall Street Journal: "Those who take their predictions seriously ...consider. Gerald Celente and the Trends Research Institute."
The Atlantic Journal-Constitution:"Gerald Celente is always ahead of the curve on trends and uncannily on the mark ... he's one of the most accurate forecasters around."
The New York Times:"Mr. Celente tracks the world's social, economic and business trends for corporate clients."
48 Hours, CBS News:"Mr. Celente is a very intelligent guy. We are able to learn about trends from an authority."
The Detroit News:"Gerald Celente has a solid track record. He has predicted everything from the 1987 stock market crash and the demise of the Soviet Union to green marketing and corporate downsizing."
Chicago Tribune: "Gerald Celente forecast the 1987 stock market crash, 'green marketing,' and the boom in gourmet coffees."
The Los Angeles Times:"The Trends Research Institute is the Standard and Poor’s of Popular Culture."
New York Post: "If Nostradamus were alive today, he'd have a hard time keeping up with Gerald Celente."
So there you have it - hardly a nut job conspiracy theorist blowhard now is he? The price of not heeding his warnings will be far greater than the cost of preparing for the future now.
Storable food and gold are two good places to make a start.
COMMENTARY: Gerald Celente reminds me of a fast talking Atlantic City bookie, laying odds on the Super Bowl, than a professional trends expert and visionary, but you cannot deny the accuracy of many of his predictionssince he started in 1980.
You don't have to be a noted economist to make these predictions. The evidence of a U.S. financial collapse are all around us. I have written extensively on different aspects of the U.S. and world economies, including:
In a blog post dated July 6, 2011, titled "The Root Causes Behind Today's High Unemployment Situation, And Why This May Not Change Anytime Soon," I showed in great detail why unemployment will continue to remain high. This is a must read for any pessimists who believe we are out of the woods.
The symptoms are everywhere around you. In February 2011, I wrote about the impending Peak-Oil Crisis, a catastrophe we will all face because the demand for oil will exceed production (peak-oil). If you have noticed a rapid rise in the price of gas, that's what I am talking about.
The Arab Spring Revolutions which erupted in North Africa and Middle East saw the overthrow of long standing dictators in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, a bloddy revolution in Syria which continues to this day, and unrest and demonstrations in Jordan. All of these events have created further instability in the oil rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa.
Adding fuel to the fire is the refusal of Iran to end its illegal nuclear weapons program in defiance of the U.N. and AEIA inspectors and boycott resolutions, and threats to destroy Israel and further threats to the West that it could close the Straits of Hormuz, adds further tensions and instability to the free flow of oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
This is not just a U.S. problem, but it is global in scale. We all know about the financial collapse of several European countries, namely Greece, Spain, Portugal and now Italy, but major developed nations like Japanare on the brink of financial collapse. Standard & Poors recently reduced the credit ratings of France, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. This will make it doubly difficult for these countries to raise funds and pay their longterm sovereign debt when it comes due.
In a blog post dated January 7, 2012, I told you about passage and signing by President Obama, of the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA (H.R. bill 1540), which effectively gives the President the power to use our military in purely civilian matters. Though the wording in the NDAA is itself torturous -- and there is a provision for a waiver from the Defense Secretary regarding mandatory military detentions -- the elasticity of words like "associated forces" and "supported" have left some civil libertarians worried that the U.S. military could be deployed domestically against people opposing future American wars against alleged "terrorists" or "terrorist states." In effect, this new NDAA law could lead to a police state, in which you could be detained as a "person of interest" or labeled as a "traitor" simply for demonstrating against future wars. You could be held for an indefinite period of time, denied rights of habeaus corpus and you would disappear into some detention camp never to be seen again. Does the U.S. government believe that civil law and order will collapse during a revolution? Why would the politicians pass such a devisive law and destroy your civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution unless they are planning for something?
Finally, in a blog post dated January 9, 2012 (reposted), I told you about the booming demand for underground "Apocalypse" bunkers by the rich and powerful. They are the so-called 1 percenters with the financial means to protect themselves in the event of a natural catastrophe, or maybe a revolution, perhaps? These wealthy individuals are well connected and are the largest doners and supporters to both major political parties. Why would they be willing to pay many thousands of dollars unless they knew something truly bad was about to happen? While the 99 percenters experience an all-out revolution, these rich and powerful individuals will live in absolute luxury and comfort in plush deep underground bunkers protected from the chaos above ground.
It does not surprise me then why Mr. Celente predicts a "violent revolution" and that "food will become more important than Christmas". There is a lot of anger out there. The roots for the emergence of a third party are already here. The Tea Party could emerge as that Third Party. The Tea Partyreflects a lot of that anger, although I don't agree with much of their radical politics, including their racism reflected in their personal hate for President Obama. The Occupy Wall Street movement has expanded across the country. Major demonstrations are planned in 2012 in many major cities.
Courtesy of an article dated January 30, 2011 appearing in Before It's News
Though the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a decade ago, Congress continues to exploit them to pass evermore draconian laws on "terrorism," with the Senate now empowering the military to arrest people on U.S. soil and hold them without trial, a serious threat to American liberties, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the "extraordinary measures" introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.
And the relative lack of reaction so far calls to mind the oddly calm indifference with which most Germans watched the erosion of the rights that had been guaranteed by their own Constitution. As one German writer observed, "With sheepish submissiveness we watched it unfold, as if from a box at the theater."
The writer was Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimond Pretzel), a young German lawyer worried at what he saw in 1933 in Berlin, but helpless to stop it since, as he put it,
"The German people collectively and limply collapsed, yielded and capitulated."
Wrote Haffner at the time.
"The result of this millionfold nervous breakdown is the unified nation, ready for anything, that is today the nightmare of the rest of the world."
Not a happy analogy.
The Senate bill, in effect, revokes an 1878 law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which banned the Army from domestic law enforcement after the military had been used —and often abused — in that role during Reconstruction. Ever since then, that law has been taken very seriously — until now. Military officers have had their careers brought to an abrupt halt by involving federal military assets in purely civilian criminal matters.
But that was before 9/11 and the mantra, "9/11 changed everything." In this case of the Senate-passed NDAA -- more than a decade after the terror attacks and even as U.S. intelligence agencies say al-Qaeda is on the brink of defeat -- Congress continues to carve away constitutional and legal protections in the name of fighting "terrorism."
The Senate approved the expanded military authority despite opposition from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- and a veto threat from President Barack Obama.
The Senate voted to authorize -- and generally to require -- "the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons" indefinitely. And such "covered persons" are defined not just as someone implicated in the 9/11 attacks but anyone who "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
Though the wording is itself torturous -- and there is a provision for a waiver from the Defense Secretary regarding mandatory military detentions -- the elasticity of words like "associated forces" and "supported" have left some civil libertarians worried that the U.S. military could be deployed domestically against people opposing future American wars against alleged "terrorists" or "terrorist states."
The Senate clearly wished for the military's "law and order" powers to extend beyond the territory of military bases on the theory that there may be "terrorsymps" (short for "terrorist sympathizers") lurking everywhere.
Is the all-consuming ten-year-old struggle against terrorism rushing headlong to consume what's left of our constitutional rights? Do I need to worry that the Army in which I was proud to serve during the 1960s may now kick down my front door and lead me off to indefinite detention — or worse?
Worse still, a few of my neighbors overheard me telling my grandchildren that President Obama should be ashamed to be bragging about having Awlaki, an American citizen, and later his 16 year-old son murdered without a whiff of due process.
"If you hear something, say something!"
COMMENTARY: The $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 1540 provides funding for 2012 at $27 billion less than Obama's request and $43 billion less than Congress authorized in 2011.
The bill also contains several detainee provisions that civil liberties groups and human rights advocates have strongly opposed, arguing that they would allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution.
Here's the final voting tallies in the House of Representatives and Senate:
U.S. House of Representatives - 322 FOR, 96 AGANST, and 13 OBSTAINING. The state that came down best for civil liberties was Massachusetts with Niki Tsongas(D) being the only FOR. Here's a small sprinkling of Congressional leaders who voted for NDAA: Nancy Pelosi(D), John Boehner(R), Eric Cantor(weasal), Darrell Issa(R), John Carney(D), Debbie Wasserman Shultz(D), Paul Braun(R), Joe Walsh(R), Mike Pence(R), Andre' Carson(D), Michele Bachmann(R), Tom Cole(R), Tim Scott(R), Virginia Foxx(R), Heath Shuler(D).
U.S. Senate - 93 FOR, 7 AGAINST. Here's a small sprinkling of Senatorial leaders who voted for NDAA: Jeff Sessions (R), Lisa Murkowski(R), Barbara Boxer(D), Dian Fienstein(D), Mark Udall (D), Joe Liberman (DINO), Marco Rubio(R), Richard Lugar (R), Mitch McConnell (R), Olympia Snowe (R), Scott Brown (R), John Kerry (D), Claire McCaskil (D), Harry Reid(D), Lindsey Graham(R), Jim Webb(D), Mark Warner(D), John McCain(R), Carl Levin(D).
It's an election year, and all these punkasses are covering their puckered asses. These punkasses are afraid of their own shadows. If you vote for anything that may be viewed as protecting the rights of a terrorist, or a U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist, even if there is no evidence, you could be in trouble with the voters. The "terrorist fear factor" has polluted their thinking process, where they are willing to throw away the U.S. Constitution.
According to the Washington Post, Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.
Here's what the media and many influential individuals within and outside the government are saying about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):
"The NDAA would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists. So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for limited government. What Americans are now facing is quite literally the end of the line. We will either uphold the freedoms baked into our Constitutional Republic, or we will scrap the entire project in the name of security as we wage, endlessly, this futile, costly, and ultimately self-defeating War on Terror."
"The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism. So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional."
Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:
"Section 1022's use of the word 'requirement' also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022's purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to 'military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.' The term "requirement" does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision."
NDAA has raised such a hornets nest of controversy, prompting President Barack Obama to release the following statement regarding the H.R. 1540 (NDAA):
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
The Huffington Post countered the President with this reponse.
"President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts."
"It doesn't matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren't. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit."
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said after Congress approved the bill said.
“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution and civil rights, lamblasted the NDAA by saying.
"No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors."
"I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members said.
"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention."
Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist. That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."
The problem with NDAA is that as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the latitude to interpret the NDAA act in a way that serves the purposes of the President. He can simply say, that you are being detained indefinitely because you are a "person of interest," and are simply suspected of being a terrorist. There may be no proof you are a terrorist, or giving aid and comfort to a terrorist, but you could be detained "just in case," for an indefinite period, without rights to an attorney, an appeal or trial. Furthermore, all future presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, would have the same latitude.
I know some of you will probably feel just the opposite, you'll read me the riot act, remind me of 911 (yes, I know about that, the illegal invasion of Iraq, all of it), but just remember this, it could be you who is picked up and detained, and then you find out, whoops, that you can't call an attorney, even your family.
Courtesy of an article dated December 31, 2011 appearing in Before Its News
Recent Comments