Monthly Archives: September 2020

FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor Investigating Hunter Biden. Biden Admits He Works For Globalist Richard Haass Also.

FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor


Posted By Tim Hains
On Date September 27, 2019

In this clip from a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden seems to brag about threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the firing of a prosecutor he did not like.

In September 2019, House Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump over a whistleblower’s accusation that he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the Ukrainian government to investigate allegations that Joe Biden’s son Hunter benefited financially from the firing of that same Ukrainian prosecutor.

And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.


I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding.

Joe Biden’s Failed 1988 Presidential Run. Plagiarism, Exaggeration and Lies.

Joe Biden’s Plagiarism Problem

Source: RealClearPolitic’

By Tim MurtaughJuly 23, 2020

Last week, Democrat nominee for president Joe Biden delivered an economic speech under the slogan “Build Back Better.” Despite the radical proposals contained within the speech, that’s some clever branding.

However, Joe Biden didn’t come up with the slogan, the United Nations did. That’s right—Joe Biden and his campaign plagiarized the title directly from a United Nations climate change initiative launched in April. In fact, Biden’s released economic plan seemed eerily similar to President Donald Trump’s “America First” message.

Following these latest incidents, one can’t help but flash back to Biden’s well-documented history of plagiarism, which dates to his first presidential campaign in the summer of 1987, a bid that ended ignominiously amid repeated examples of plagiarism and outright fabrication.

It’s also important to note that he’s been accused of lifting entire sections of speeches from others for his own use without attribution. And of copying, almost word for word, policy platforms of other candidates.

He’s even been caught lying to voters about his academic record. Biden acknowledged that he had plagiarized during his time at Syracuse University Law School. The law school had him repeat a first-year class, after initially flunking him, for copying at least five pages from a published law review article.

Thirty-three years is a long time ago. The problem is that Joe Biden has never really stopped. In 2008, then-Sen. Biden copied an entire paragraph from a Time magazine story on then-newly elected President Lee Myung-Bak of South Korea and used it for a speech, without attribution. Biden had the stolen language read into an official congressional resolution in February 2008.

His problem with copying the work of others is so widespread that a 2019 incident, in which the Biden campaign released a climate plan using exactly the same language as outside left-wing groups, without attribution, barely made news.

The most egregious example, as described by Maureen Dowd when it happened, occurred Aug. 23, 1987, during a debate at the Iowa State Fair. Biden had been lifting entire lines of his stock stump speech from Britain’s then-Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, who was campaigning for prime minister across the pond.

“He [Biden] lifted Mr. Kinnock’s closing speech with phrases, gestures and lyrical Welsh syntax intact for his own closing speech,” Dowd reported for the New York Times.

As reporters dug deeper, they found more. Biden didn’t just steal Kinnock’s political rhetoric, he appropriated his life story, including a coal mining grandfather. This was worse than it looked: Kinnock’s Welsh grandfather did work in the mines. Biden’s, although he lived in Pennsylvania coal country, sold cars. Did Biden believe that British politics was so removed from Americans’ experience that he could get away with it? Maybe, but if that were the case, Biden wouldn’t have ripped off lines almost directly from John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert Kennedy.

Referring to the gross national product during a Feb. 3, 1987, speech in California, Biden said, “This standard is not a measure of how we can evaluate the condition of our society. It cannot measure the health of our children, the quality of our education. The joy of their play.” His words closely mirrored those of Robert Kennedy, who said the following during a March 18, 1968 speech in Kansas: “the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.”

On June 9, 1987, when declaring his candidacy, Joe Biden said, “Let us pledge that our generation of Americans will pay any price, bear any burden, accept any challenge, and meet any hardship to secure the blessings of prosperity, and the promise of opportunity, for our children.” Biden’s words were not attributed to President John F. Kennedy, who famously said during his Jan. 20, 1961, inaugural address: “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any fall, to assure the survival, and the success of liberty.”

These very specific instances sunk Joe Biden’s chance at being the nominee in 1988. More importantly, these acts of blatant dishonesty highlight some very grave concerns over his integrity and character.

Now, 32 years later, the American people should come to the same conclusion about Joe Biden — he’s nothing more than a 47-year career politician and empty suit, willing to say and do anything to fulfill his personal political ambitions.

Racist Joe Biden Fought For Segregation In Schools And On School Buses. Proof Joe Biden Is A Racist.

Audio Below From NPR Interview With Joe Biden From 1975.


Racist Joe Biden Fought For Segregation In Schools, Experts Say.

By Pamela Geller – on June 4, 2020

The Biden bill “heave[d] a brick through the window of school integration,” said one of the lawyers who had won the Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal school segregation 21 years earlier. And according to Greenberg, Biden was the man with his hand on the brick.


Joe Biden didn’t just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say.

Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say.

By Janell Ross, NBC News, June 25, 2019:

In a 1975 Senate hearing, the legendary civil rights lawyer Jack Greenberg had something to say to freshman Sen. Joe Biden.

Greenberg, longtime director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, took Biden to task for sponsoring a bill that would limit the power of courts to order school desegregation with busing. It was a move that followed the wishes of many of Biden’s white constituents in Delaware.
The bill “heaves a brick through the window of school integration,” said Greenberg, one of the lawyers who had won the Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal school segregation 21 years earlier. And according to Greenberg, Biden was the man with his hand on the brick.

Biden’s role in fighting student busing more than four decades ago has received renewed attention after the 76-year-old presidential candidate touted his ability to compromise with segregationists during his long Senate career. Biden said he disagreed strongly with these Southerners’ views but needed to work with them to get things done. Biden’s comments set off a firestorm among his political rivals and some political analysts, who described his language as offensive and anachronistic.

But political experts and education policy researchers say Biden, a supporter of civil rights in other arenas, did not simply compromise with segregationists — he also led the charge on an issue that kept black students away from the classrooms of white students. His legislative work against school integration advanced a more palatable version of the “separate but equal” doctrine and undermined the nation’s short-lived effort at educational equality, legislative and education history experts say.

“Biden, who I think has been good overall on civil rights, was a leader on anti-busing,” Rucker Johnson, author of the book “Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works,” said. “A leader on giving America the language to oppose it despite it being the most effective means of school integration at that time.”

That, of course, is not how Biden sees it.

On Saturday, Biden defended his work with segregationist senators in an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC: “You got to deal with what’s in front of you and what was in front of you was a bunch of racists and we had to defeat them.”
Joe Biden responds to controversy over his segregationist comment
June 23, 201912:07

After this article was originally published, Biden’s national press secretary, Jamal Brown, emailed a statement saying that Biden was never opposed to integration, and in fact supported the concept. But he said Biden opposed Delaware’s busing methods, and included statements from black activists in Delaware who also opposed busing.

In March, Biden’s spokesman, Bill Russo, said the former vice president believes he was right to oppose busing.

“He never thought busing was the best way to integrate schools in Delaware — a position which most people now agree with,” Russo told The Washington Post in March. “As he said during those many years of debate, busing would not achieve equal opportunity. And it didn’t.”

In 1975, Biden was representing a state where one of the first major urban school desegregation plans had been ordered by a court. Many white parents in the Wilmington area were angry. In response, Biden sponsored not just the bill limiting courts’ power but also an amendment to an appropriations bill that barred the federal government from withholding funding from schools that remained effectively segregated.

The amendment went beyond the busing issue, affecting school systems that effectively separated students by race whether or not they used busing. Co-sponsors included segregationist Sens. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. The amendment passed the Senate on a 50-43 vote, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. (Biden was not alone among northern Democrats who supported it — in that group, 14 supported the amendment and 26 opposed it, according to the Congressional Quarterly.)
Foreign Relations Business Meeting
Sen. Joe Biden shakes hands with Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., at the Capitol on Oct. 8, 2002. In the 1970s, Helms supported some of Biden’s legislation to limit school integration.Scott J. Ferrell / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images file

When Biden rose to defend the amendment, he said that the “assignment of schools and/or classes because of a person’s race … is a counterproductive concept that is causing more harm to equal education than any benefit.”

Biden’s anti-integration efforts didn’t end in 1975. Two years later, he co-authored a bill that barred federal courts from ordering busing plans unless courts found evidence of discriminatory intent. That legislation failed.

A 1977 report on school desegregation by the Civil Rights Commission, a federal agency, described Biden’s activities as stymieing school integration.

Federal data analyzed by Johnson and other researchers shows that busing succeeded in narrowing racial achievement gaps before frontal assaults and legislative maneuvers by Biden and others rendered it easier for districts under court order to be released from integration demands. America’s school integration efforts lasted, all told, no more than 15 years, Johnson said.

Johnson has reviewed data on more than 10,000 students from this period, who were studied for decades afterward. He found that black adults who spent the most time in integrated schools attained more education, completed college, maintained better health and earned higher incomes than peers who spent less time or no time in integrated schools. All of this happened without any reduction in white student grades or outcomes, the data shows. And white adults who attended integrated schools reported better understanding of issues affecting nonwhite Americans.

“Integration is a social good which also happens to make for high-quality education,” said Johnson, an economist and professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is also the one thing that has worked but the one thing most people don’t want to talk about and many people fight if we even try.”

Joe Biden Unmasked As A Pro United Nations World Government Villain. “The Irish Joker.”


“Build Back Better”: Biden Rips Off Orwellian UN Slogan.

by Alex Newman September 5, 2020 ( September 16, 2020 )

With the new “Build Back Better” campaign slogan, 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden has been caught plagiarizing yet again. However, compounding the seriousness of this “faux pas,” this particular instance of plagiarism, which was ripped off from the United Nations, has enormous implications for the American people and their liberties.

The slogan is now a catch-all phrase to push every Deep State policy prescription ranging from globalism and Big Government to “climate” schemes and “sustainable development” that would crush whole sectors of the economy. It goes hand in hand with the UN-backed “Great Reset” and the totalitarian “Green New Deal.”

Perhaps hoping nobody but globalists and Deep State bigwigs would notice the obvious connection, the former vice-president’s campaign for president has been touting its “Build Back Better” scheme all over its website and beyond for weeks. However, there was no mention of the UN’s own “Build Back Better” scheme upon which it seems to be based — and that is not surprising, since American voters would likely be horrified. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is using the same phrase, too, as are authorities in Canada and multiple other nations. The World Economic Forum, which is pushing the “Great Reset” alongside the UN and the IMF, is also peddling “Build Back Better” as a slogan to “reinvent capitalism.”

In all cases reviewed by The New American magazine, the goal of the “Build Back Better” campaigns is to promote a “rebuild” of society or different elements of it based on progressive, globalist values in response to some sort of crisis. Originally, it was about “building back” in a UN-desired way after natural disasters. But COVID19 did not destroy any buildings or infrastructure. Now, then, the phrase is being applied to rebuilding the economy and governance — and hence, the framework of society — following the economic devastation wrought by governments over coronavirus hysteria and other ongoing crises. It appears to have much in common with the radical Green New Deal promoted by communists in the United States and other nations.

First approved by the UN General Assembly in 2015, the UN’s “Build Back Better” machinations were originally promoted by the Japanese government as part of the UN “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.” Among other points, the UN scheme called for building better infrastructure following disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. However, the plan was openly globalist in nature, also promoting “international cooperation” as well as “psycho-social support and mental health services” amid the aftermath of disasters. Before the UN adopted it, Bill Clinton used the slogan in 2006 while serving as UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery.

Today, the UN’s use of the phrase has now morphed into something much broader, with the UN peddling the “Build Back Better” concept across a wide array of policies. In line with the UN, national governments and even the Democrat presidential candidate are using the slogan as cover for restructuring their societies and nations following the devastation unleashed by government responses to COVID19, as well as the Deep State-backed riots that plagued Democrat-controlled American cities in recent months.

“Make no mistake: America has been knocked down,” Biden’s campaign website says, pointing to massive unemployment and destruction of businesses amid coronavirus lockdowns (ironically engineered mostly by totalitarian-minded Democrat mayors and governors). “And, Black and Latino Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and women have never been welcomed as full participants in the economy.”

The chaos and destruction now offers a perfect opportunity to “Build Back Better,” the campaign explains on its website. “Biden believes this is no time to just build back to the way things were before, with the old economy’s structural weaknesses and inequalities still in place,” the campaign states online, again echoing the UN in terms of strategy. “This is the moment to imagine and build a new American economy for our families and the next generation.”

Among the key policy prescriptions offered by Biden’s handlers as part of the “Build Back Better” scheme are massive wealth redistribution schemes. Basically, the federal government would seize more money from taxpayers (or steal it surreptitiously by printing it, thereby diminishing the purchasing power of the dollar) to hand out to those same Americans, corporations, state and local governments, and others. Of course, Congress is actually responsible for all appropriations, but the Biden campaign never mentioned that complication.

The Biden campaign’s “Build Back Better” schemes also called for creating a “Public Health Jobs Corps” that would supposedly “fight the pandemic.” While the campaign was short on details about this massive new “corps,” presumably this would including hiring massive numbers of snoops for Orwellian “contact tracing” programs that have been backed by George Soros, Bill Gates, the Clintons, various socialist schemers, and other insiders. Biden’s campaign wants to create a New Deal-style “Environmental Conservation Corps,” too.

Biden will also “mobilize the American people in service of four bold, national efforts” outlined on the site. These schemes include boosting “sustainable” projects, helping Big Labor bosses acquire more dues-paying union members, handing out more corporate welfare, fighting the supposed “climate crisis,” having government take more responsibility over the raising of children under the guise of easing the “burden” on parents (and especially mothers), and much more. All of this will be paid for with higher taxes, Biden’s campaign admitted. The “climate” schemes alone would cost $2 trillion over his first term.

Finally, the “Build Back Better” plan seeks to “mobilize across the board” to fight against what the Biden camp called the “systemic racism” of America — the nation that literally elected his half-black former boss to the highest office in the land, twice. This mobilization against racism would include federal wealth transfers from Americans with lighter skin tones to those with darker skin tones, federal funding for “entrepreneurs” with the correct skin color, police and “criminal justice reform,” and much more.

Nowhere does Biden give credit to the UN for the “Build Back Better” slogan, despite its well-documented origins. But this is no surprise. In 1988, the New York Times reported that Biden “quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader at the time.” Incidentally, the same Times reporters also noted that Biden “was found to have suffered two aneurysms” shortly after withdrawing. According to media reports, Biden also plagiarized while in law school, and even stole material from a Bobby Kennedy speech. The media has remained largely silent.

Of course, it is not just Biden or Democrats who are hopping in bed with the UN to re-build society based on new values while using UN slogans to market the schemes. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is also leading the way. “If we are to defeat COVID19, achieve a global recovery, and avoid a future pandemic, we must work together across borders,” he said. “Our national efforts will count for little unless they are fortified by international cooperation…. Once we move beyond the emergency phase, we owe it to future generations to Build Back Better.” Building back better, according to Johnson, means enforcing a “fairer, greener and more resilient global economy.”

Not everybody is buying the catchy but Orwellian slogans, though. In May of 2020, the brilliant British commentator and climate-hysteria-destroyer James Delingpole argued that the Build Back Better terminology was merely the latest “code phrase” for “green global tyranny.” Pointing to the slogan as employed by Johnson and the UN, Delingpole explained in Breitbart that “what it actually means is more world government, more green taxes and regulation, more expensive energy, more identity politics, more corporatism — and, of course, less freedom and entrepreneurialism.”

Delingpole is right. And the U.K. “Build Back Better” campaign, backed by a dizzying array of fringe left-wing and environmental extremist groups, was literally initiated by “Green New Deal UK.” As Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explained to The New American, the Green New Deal is a “recipe for mass suicide” that, if implemented, would decimate humanity and the natural environment.

Deep State Insider Mark Carney, former head of the U.K. and Canadian central banks and a Bilderberg attendee, has also been peddling the “Build Back Better” scheme. Speaking of the ongoing economic devastation, Carney said the “sustainable” so-called “new economy” that is emerging will require a “massive re-allocation of capital.” The former Goldman Sachs banker suggested who industries would be wiped out as part of this transformation.

“Every financial decision will have to take climate change into account,” he said, adding that Big Government would force these dramatic changes under the guise of stopping supposed man-made “climate change.”

Building on that, Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and the radical left-wing administration of Justin Trudeau are promising to “Build Back Better” in Canada. Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is urging nations to adopt “Build Back Better” as a tool for achieving a more “sustainable” future after COVID19.

While plagiarism is bad, that particular Biden scandal pales in comparison with the devastation to freedom and prosperity that would result from allowing him to implement the plagiarized UN-OECD-WEF-globalist-Deep State plan to “Build Back Better” and use a “Great Reset” to transform life on the planet. Biden, who recently boasted of working for Council on Foreign Relations boss Richard Haass, should acknowledge where he gets his dangerous ideas and slogans from. But more importantly, he should either respect the oath he took to the U.S. Constitution, work to amend it using constitutional procedures, or withdraw from politics completely.

Planned Parenthood Claims “Black Lives Matter,” But Kills 247 Black Babies in Abortion Every Day.



Abortion giant Planned Parenthood which kills an estimated 247 black Americans every day has weighed in on the recent race conflict growing in America. The abortion giant has stated via their social media that “black lives matter” and that justice must be achieved “for all of black America.”

Eden Linton, SPUC Youth and Education Officer said: “As a mixed-race woman, Planned Parenthood weighing on current racial tensions is hypocrisy at its worst.”

Racial tensions spread across America after Minneapolis police were filmed, it seems clear, killing a black man, George Floyd. Since the footage of George Floyd emerged online, demonstrations and protests have spread across America and the globe under the banner ‘black lives matter.’

Through a series of social media statements, abortion giant Planned Parenthood who profit from the killing of unborn black Americans, have voiced their position in support of the black lives matter movement.

Planned Parenthood said: “We’re devastated, grieving, and outraged by violence against black lives. We must continue to demand accountability, justice, and an end to the inequity that continues to define every moment of life for Black America from the racist institutions that uphold white supremacy.

“White supremacy is more than lynching and white hoods — it’s in the biases people hold when they see black people and how violently those biases can play out. It’s in the over-policing of black people, upheld through racist institutions that inflict violence without punishment under the law.”

Planned Parenthood are the perpetrators and profiteers of violence

Reacting to the comments made by Planned Parenthood, SPUC’s Eden Linton said: “Planned Parenthood’s statement claiming to be devastated by the violence faced by the black community is outrageous and hypocrisy at its worst.


“Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger – a racist eugenicist who sought to sterilise and exterminate the black population. Not only was Planned Parenthood founded with the goal of controlling the breeding of ‘inferior races’ but to this day, Planned Parenthood still celebrates Sanger, branding her a ‘woman of heroic accomplishments.’

“This attitude of targeting the black community has been perpetuated within the modern abortion industry, which targets poor black neighbourhoods where high rates of single parenthood prevail.

“A startling 2016 study exposed that in New York City, more black babies are aborted than there are born. Similarly, in 2010, Planned Parenthood fell under scrutiny after a census suggested that the abortion giant was preying on black communities as 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities.

“Institutions such as Planned Parenthood openly celebrate the starvation, suctioning and dismemberment of black Americans through abortion procedures each day. They are not ‘devastated’ by the violence towards black Americans, they are the perpetrators and profiteers of the violence.”

Planned Parenthood’s brutality towards the black community

It is estimated that abortion is the leading killer of black Americans in the USA.

259,366 black Americans are killed by abortion each year. This death toll is greater than every other leading cause of death for black Americans combined.

Abortion-induced deaths of the unborn in the black community are 69 times higher than HIV deaths, 31 times higher than (all other) homicides, 3.6 times higher than cancer-related deaths, and 3.5 times higher than deaths caused by heart disease.

Ms Linton added: “If as a society, we are truly sincere about rooting out institutionalised racism from the structures of our society, we must ensure the abortion giants like Planned Parenthood are the first to be dismantled.

“The key interest Planned Parenthood has in black America is profiting from the spilling of black blood through abortion. If justice is to be achieved for black America and for all Americans regardless of their ethnic background, Planned Parenthood should close its doors.”

New Police “Robocop” Like Smart Helmet To Be Used In U.S. Airports To Track Covid-19 And Use Facial Recognition Software.

by Tyler Durden
Sun, 08/30/2020 – 22:55

Authored by Jack Burns via The Free Thought Project,

It took 33 years but Robocop is now here. Well, not exactly, but the rise of the police state fueled by advancements in technology have given birth to a heads up display equipped helmet sure to please the most anxious of peace officers. It’s called a “Smart Helmet” and it can screen airport passengers for the COVID-19 virus as well as provide the scanning officer with other vital records.

Public officials in Flint, Michigan cannot provide clean drinking water to their residents but travelers to Bishop International Airport can get a glimpse of the new robotic cop helmets where they’re currently deployed.

Under the guise of screening passengers for COVID-19, the Smart Helmet, produced by KeyBiz based in Italy, can scan travelers’ body temperatures from over 20 feet away.

But the Smart Helmet is not limited to temperature body scans which any laser guided thermometer can do, not in the slightest. Facial recognition software is installed which can provide the police officer with information related to outstanding warrants, if an individual is identified on a terror watch list or a no-fly list, and can read license plates for outstanding warrants, stolen vehicle information, criminal histories, etc. Even if you are completely innocent, you will be subject to these scans.

Temperature scans can be done at a distance of 21 feet or less. The helmets have already been deployed in Italy and elsewhere around the world. Michigan’s ABC12 reports if someone’s temperature is in excess of 100.4 degrees, more investigation into the traveler’s health will be conducted to determine if the passenger is too sick to travel.

Anyone who isn’t a passenger who registers a temperature above 100.4 degrees will be asked to leave the terminal building after police conduct some limited coronavirus contact tracing to find out what areas of the building may have been exposed.

We at TFTP have warned our readers for quite some time the COVID-19 pandemic would be used as an onus for a greater invasion of privacy. Some of us here at TFTP are old enough to remember when boarding a plane was a simple as buying a ticket and getting aboard.

Fast forward nearly 20 years and there are quite a few things which happen the minute your ticket is purchased.

First, your name, age, and birth date are checked to see if you’ve been added to a terror watch list, a no-fly list or otherwise. Then, when you’re cleared to travel, you must soon possess a “Real ID”. Without it (come October) you won’t be allowed to fly. Upon arrival to the airport, your identification is scanned and further checked in databases for any flags which may arise.

Afterward, all of your pockets must be emptied, your shoes taken off, your belts, hats, and metal jewelry removed. You’re placed into a sniffing device to check to see if you’re carrying the scent of bomb making materials.

Next, your entire body image is scanned. Later, a total stranger may pat you down and grope your private parts as you wait for the all clear sign to be given at which time you can retrieve your belongings. But that’s only if the x-ray technician doesn’t think your hand sanitizer has too many ounces in its container.

Now, it seems Mr. Robocop will take your temperature against your will, search through your criminal history and examine your facial features. All of these things will likely be cataloged in another alphabet agency’s database.

The entire invasion of privacy will fall under the auspices of fears surrounding a fairly mild pandemic using slogans like “it’s for your health and safety.” And you thought it was about keeping America safe from terrorism. Think again, this makes me long for the good ole days when the only danger in flying was smelling like cigarette smoke from all the puffers aboard.

Unacast Corporation Admits Tracking American Citizens Cell Phone Location During Covid-19. But The Tracking Was Happening Before Covid-19…………..

Like it or not, tech companies can use your phone location data to map social distancing.
Is slowing the spread of coronavirus worth compromising your privacy?

By Sara Morrison Mar 26, 2020, 7:20am EDT
Since the coronavirus pandemic began, businesses from Ford to Facebook have offered up their services, money, and face mask stashes to try to help. Some companies that deal in your data are stepping up, too, offering their data analysis services to try to track or stop the spread of the virus.

On one hand, it’s a welcome change to see this data — data that’s usually supplied by you often without your knowledge or consent, then used to make other companies richer — also being used to help other people. And these days, we can use all the help we can get.

On the other hand, the situation draws attention to just how granular this data collection can be and how little control we have over its collection, who gets it, and what those companies do with it.

Unacast, a data company that collects and provides cellphone location data and analysis to the retail, real estate, marketing, and tourism industries, recently revealed something called the Social Distancing Scoreboard. The scoreboard is an interactive map that assigns letter grades to every state and county in America based on how well Unacast’s data analysis infers that its residents are practicing social distancing. It’s the first product from the company’s new COVID-19 Location Data Toolkit, and over the coming days and weeks, more location data will be added that the company hopes will show trends and patterns.

“This is a pro bono initiative,” Jeanne Meyer, a spokesperson for Unacast, told Recode. “They have 25 data scientists that took five years’ work and spent four days cooking this thing up to help with what’s happening.”

One way the maps could help is by showing health officials that surrounding countries are getting better grades, which would imply that their messaging to local residents about social distancing needs improvement.

“What that’s going to tell a local official is, ‘What are we doing? What is that county doing that we’re not?’” Meyer said. “They’re very large conclusions one might draw, but I think the value with this will come over time.” According to the Washington Post, Unacast’s scores haven’t been vetted by public health officials or epidemiologists, so it’s hard to say how reliable they are or what they’ll be able to tell us.

Unacast isn’t the only tech company to use its data these days for what it says is a public good. Facebook’s “Data for Good” program uses de-identified aggregate data from its users to power its Disease Prevention Maps, which can give insights into where people live and where they move that may help health organizations track the spread of diseases or predict where they’ll hit next. Kinsa Health uses data from its smart thermometers to try to detect unusually high levels of illness for its US Health Weather Map, which the company says has accurately predicted the spread of the flu in the past and might be able to track coronavirus outbreaks now.

But Unacast is a bit different. For Facebook’s program and in Kinsa’s app, you have to opt in to having your location tracked, and then you have a direct relationship with those companies. Unacast, on the other hand, collects data about you from a variety of third-party sources. According to its privacy policy, these sources include Unacast’s partners as well as the software development kit, or SDK, it places in apps. (SDKs are a package of tools that make it easier and faster for developers to build apps. Those tools can also include ways to track user data and report it back to the SDK provider. In this case, that’s Unacast.)

The sticking point is that you may grant permission to one of those apps to access your location data without knowing that this location data is also going to Unacast. There’s no easy way for the typical user to see what SDKs an app may use, and app privacy policies usually say the information is going to third parties without revealing who those parties are. Unacast says on its website that its SDK is its “preferred” data source, but when we asked for specifics, the company would not say which apps or partners it works with. An analysis by mobile app intelligence company Apptopia found Unacast’s SDK in all kinds of iOS and Android apps, including smart TV remotes, period trackers, games, free wifi locators, weather forecasters, and step trackers. You can always turn location tracking off for those apps, but some of them obviously need the location services to be able to work at all.

“[Unacast’s] privacy statement basically screams that it’s up to you to monitor which apps you use and your phone settings, if you don’t like the fact that companies like them are getting access to your location data,” Jennifer King, the director of privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, told Recode. “In that respect, at least, it’s a bit more helpful than most notices and gives us a decent map as to how they’re getting the data.”

But this means that a company you’ve likely never heard of has a lot of data about your phone and, by extension, you. That data includes your device’s unique advertising identifier; location data specific enough to detect which fast food restaurant the device is in and how long it’s been there; and the network name and MAC address of the wifi router the device is connected to. Unacast’s marketing materials show how specific this data can get:

And this very granular data is how Unacast can tell how well people are distancing themselves from each other: In order to deduce how people’s travel patterns have changed, it has to know what those patterns were in the first place, all the way down to the de-identified individual data point.Unacast also discloses some of this information to third parties, though the company says it never shares identifying data like your name or email address. The company also further hashes, or anonymizes, the device identifiers it pulls in, which adds another layer of anonymity, Meyer explained. That said, it is possible to identify a specific person even from such “anonymized” data points, which is why many privacy advocates prefer using the term “de-identified” data rather than “anonymized,” reasoning that nothing is ever truly anonymous.

Importantly, Unacast’s Social Distancing maps don’t show specific individuals. What the public sees is only the analysis of that data, and it only goes down to the county level. (Unacast CEO and co-founder Thomas Walle goes into more detail on the methodology here). Taken at its word, Unacast is adapting technology and data it already uses for its business purposes to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

While the map itself might be a helpful tool, it also makes these data collection practices that go on behind the scenes — and how specific the data collected can get — much more apparent. Unacast is hardly the only company doing this kind of data crunching. Marketing company oneAudience, for example, puts its SDK in apps to collect information about users. As Facebook claimed in a recent lawsuit, the company also secretly harvested social media data, although oneAudience said this collection was unintentional and that it has updated its SDK to stop it. Unacast says it has always been “committed to protecting and respecting data privacy and see[s] privacy as a key driver for the growth of location technologies” and that it follows all applicable privacy laws, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act.

There’s no reason to doubt this. The problem is there’s also no way for an average consumer caught up in Unacast’s net to know exactly what’s going on with their location data, including which companies have access to it and which companies are properly protecting it. Broadly speaking, there aren’t federal laws that prevent this data from being collected, and it’s hard for consumers to take advantage of the privacy rights they do have when most of them don’t even know data collection companies like Unacast even exist.

“There is no way that anyone would know that their location data is being collected from any particular app and then sold on to companies like these,” King said. “At least now you have a right (in California) to request that your data be deleted from their dataset, but fundamentally we should have laws that limit the abilities of third parties to collect your location data without your affirmative consent.”

While Unacast is simply repurposing its existing data sources and presenting only anonymous, aggregated data, companies in other countries have been more willing (or forced) to hand over personally identifiable data. The Chinese and Iranian governments have come out with apps that track their citizens’ movements during the pandemic, while Israel is considering tapping into cellphone location data gathered for antiterrorism purposes to track infected people and their contacts. The South Korean government combined several sources, including phone location data, to track the movements of coronavirus carriers. It then made that information public, prompting private developers to turn that data into maps of coronavirus carriers.

There are concerns among privacy advocates that the serious nature of the pandemic could cause privacy rights in this country to erode, too. In which case, the question then becomes: Do the temporary benefits of this data outweigh the long-term privacy implications?

For King, at least, the answer is no.

“Just because we can make pretty maps with people’s data doesn’t mean that we are gaining useful or actionable insights from that data,” King said. “I would want to hear what tools public health researchers say they need and what would help them, rather than what data scientists who have access to location data can cook up.”

Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.