Category Archives: Digital Gulag

Apple Facetime Bug Lets People Spy On You.

proxy.duckduckgo.com

Apple FaceTime bug lets you listen in on people you call, even if they haven’t picked up their iPhone

Todd Haselton

cnbc.com

There’s a FaceTime bug that lets you hear through someone else’s iPhone, even if they haven’t answered your phone call. It was previously reported on Twitter by user Benji Mobb and reported by 9to5Mac.

CNBC tested it and verified that it’s a real bug. I tried placing a video call to my editor from my iPhone using Apple’s FaceTime app. Then, before he picked up, I used the menu option to add somebody else to the call and, as 9to5Mac’s directions state, I added myself to the call. Suddenly, I could hear my editor, even though he never picked up. We continued having a conversation while his phone only gave him the option to answer. There was no indication that the call had already gone through.

The Verge reports that, if the person you’re calling tries to end it by tapping the power button on their phone, it sends video but no audio. That means the person calling you can see a video of you or your surroundings as if you’d answered the call. I replicated this with a friend.

This bug seems to rely on the FaceTime Group Call feature, since you’re trying to add another person to the call. Group FaceTime launched last year.

There’s obviously a big privacy concern here. You could theoretically call anyone with FaceTime and, using the steps above, listen in on their conversations.

Apple, which is scheduled to report earnings on Tuesday afternoon, said a fix is coming this week. “We’re aware of this issue and we have identified a fix that will be released in a software update later this week,” a spokesperson told CNBC. It also deactivated Group FaceTime to prevent people from exploiting the bug before it releases a fix.

In the meantime, and to be extra safe, the fastest fix right now is to just turn off FaceTime. Here’s how:

Open Settings on your iPhone or iPad

Choose FaceTime

Toggle FaceTime to off.

Facebook And Twitter Can Still Stalk You Online Even If You Delete Your Account – By Spying On Your Friends.

facebook-and-twitter-can-still-stalk-you-online-even-if

usatodaypost.com

DELETING your social media won’t stop tech firms from tracking your every move.

That’s the terrifying conclusion from a new study that investigated how apps like Facebook and Twitter can follow people who don’t even use social media sites.

Last year saw Facebook admit to a number of privacy blunders that left tens of millions of users exposed.

Many users responded by simply deleting their Facebook accounts – their only hope of regaining control over privacy.

But research published in Nature Human Behaviour shows that account deletion isn’t enough.

Data scientists were able to accurately predict a person’s posts without ever looking at their social profile.

There’s no place to hide on a social network,” said Lewis Mitchell, co-author and senior lecturer in applied mathematics at the University of Adelaide.

More than 30million Twitter posts from 13,905 users were gathered up by the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide.

Researchers were then able to use the information from Twitter messages of 8 or 9 of a person’s contacts – and then predict that person’s later tweets.

According to the study, even if a person leaves a social media site (or never even joined), posts from friends can still provide about 95% of the “potential predictive accuracy”.¨

“You think you’re giving up your information, but you’re giving up your friends’ information too,” said James Bagrow, a mathematician at the University of Vermont who led the research.

It means that normal people will struggle to avoid the clutches of social media sites, who can build profiles on people and use this for ad-targeting purposes.

Even if you don’t have social media accounts, it’s still possible for websites to track your movements across the web – building a picture of what you like and don’t like.

This can then be used to show you ads that companies think you may be interested in.

And even if you never use any social media site, it’s still possible to build up a profile on you, researchers warn.

“You alone don’t control your privacy on social media platforms,” said Bagrow.

“Your friends have a say too.”

How to delete Facebook – easy steps to QUITTING for good

Here’s how to quit right now…

Temporarily deactivating your account is really easy – and you can log back in at any time to undo it:
Follow this link
Choose “Manage your account” and then scroll down to click “Deactivate your account”

Facebook has a special page for permanent account deletion, which you can find below:
Click here for deletion page

It’s worth noting that you can also download a copy of your information from Facebook as a back-up:
Click the down arrow at the top right of any Facebook page and select Settings
Click “Download a copy of your Facebook data” at the bottom of the General Account Settings
Click Start My Archive

New 5G Cell Phone Signals Causing Cancer.

cell-tower1

CELL PHONES, CELL TOWERS & CANCER — LINK PROVEN, BUT 5G ADVANCES

New technology could be extremely harmful to humanity

David Knight | Infowars.com – NOVEMBER 2, 2018

A 2016 study on lab rats exposed to cell phone radiation proves a cancer link for males and extensive epidemiological studies done in the 80’s & 90’s in multiple countries showed at least a fourfold increase in cancer.

Here’s the data that caused the Federal government to block any prohibition of cell phone towers in the 1996 Telecommunications Act — the data they don’t want you to see as they rush to 5G.

SWIMMING IN AN ELECTROMAGNETIC SOUP

World Mercury Project – AUGUST 29, 2018

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as “possibly carcinogenic” in humans, but the agency refrained from drawing conclusions about any cancers other than brain cancer. Discussing children’s exposure to EMFs and RFR, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been similarly wishy-washy, but it does concede that there are three factors that “theoretically” increase children’s risks:

First, children’s nervous systems “are still developing and, therefore, [are] more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer.”

Second, children’s heads “are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radio frequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones.”

Finally, “children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.”

In the spring of 2018, it became more difficult to prevaricate about the evidence. The government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) convened a panel of experts to review findings from its $25 million study on the health effects of cell phone radiation. The expert panel reported “clear evidence” of carcinogenic effects for several types of cancer, including not just brain cancers but previously rare cardiac tumors and adrenal cancers, as well as evidence of disturbing associations between cell phone exposure and precancerous health effects (such as tissue damage) along with noncancerous effects such as low birth weight and birth defects.

The experts agreed that the NTP study, though conducted in rats and mice, was highly relevant to human health. Shortly thereafter, the Italy-based Ramazzini Institute, an independent cancer research organization, published a study that showed cancer-causing effects associated with cell towers that were “consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study.”

Despite governmental claims of insufficient evidence, the 2018 studies actually were only the latest in a long list of studies documenting cancer and other health risks associated with chronic exposure to EMFs and RFR—dangers that are more than “theoretical” for children with their still-developing bodies and brains. According to the 2012 BioInitiative Report—an extensive scientific review by 29 highly qualified medical and scientific experts from 10 countries—1800 studies were published between 2007 and 2012 that reported adverse health effects “at [EMF/RFR] exposure levels ten to hundreds or thousands of times lower than allowed under safety limits in most countries of the world.”

The report’s chapter dedicated to childhood cancers makes the same point, stating that “long-term effects such as cancer seem to be evoked by levels [of exposure] several orders of magnitudes below current guideline levels.” Children are accruing these exposures everywhere: “in education, in housing, in commerce, in communications and entertainment, in medical technologies and imaging, and in public and private transportation by air, bus, train and motor vehicles.” With the current roll out of even more biologically invasive technologies such as 5G antennas (which rely on extremely high-frequency millimeter waves) and “smart” utility meters that pulse on a 24/7 basis, children’s cancer picture has little chance of improving.

Amazon Bans Book Holy Serpent Of the Jews By Texe Marrs.

Holy Serpent of the Jews, has been banned by Amazon.com. The subtitle of this book perhaps provides a clue as to why Amazon would wish to suppress this powerful information. The subtitle reads: The Rabbis’ Secret Plan for Satan to Crush Their Enemies and Vault the Jews to Global Dominion.


texemarrs.com

Banned by Amazon: Book Truthfully Quoting Rabbis

Wanna read a book about ghoulish sex perversions, maybe something about child torture, cannibalism, witchcraft or some blood fetish? Amazon.com, the world’s largest bookseller, has it for you. In fact, Amazon has about seven million books and volumes covering the waterfront of sex crimes, incest, bestiality, and occult deviance.

Whatever evil or mind-bending hedonistic pleasure you’re into, Amazon’s got just the right book for you. For example, discover the depths of Satanism by ordering Anton LaVey’s monstrous The Satanic Bible. It’s on Amazon’s bestseller list. That one book alone has warped the lives of tens of thousands of young readers prone to its heinous lies. The Satanic Bible recommends the human sacrifice of innocent children. So if you’re into that, help yourself. Order the infamous book through Amazon.com.

And if it’s dirty politics and scummy social ideology you’re into, you’ll want to investigate some of Amazon’s political titles, like The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, or the many titles written by America-haters and socialist ideologues, such as books by Saul Alinsky and Leon Trotsky.

But with all these evil titles that are for sale, including perverted volumes by Aleister Crowley, the British Satanist who boasted of being “666” and “the most wicked man on planet earth,” and the scourge of bondage and sadism, the Marquis de Sade, there’s one title that Amazon now refuses to handle and sell. That would be my book, Holy Serpent of the Jews.

Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon, is the billionaire who owns both that global company and the disreputable newspaper, The Washington Post.

Holy Serpent Banned by Amazon

Amazon has informed me by email that Holy Serpent of the Jews does not meet the company’s “Content Guidelines.” The hideous books by LaVey and Crowley, not to mention the graphic photo book, Sex, by Madonna, and the new book by Lena Dunham, in which she describes how she once sexually abused her little sister, do presumably meet Amazon guidelines.

Now, please consider: Holy Serpent of the Jews has no graphic sex. The book contains no profanity, none whatsoever. What it does, however, is quote actual Jewish rabbis, modern and ancient. Amazon, owned by Mr. Jeff Bezos, himself a Jew, is apparently incensed at my quoting of these rabbis.

Moreover, Holy Serpent of the Jews quotes not only top, authoritative rabbis, it also quotes Judaism’s most holy book, the Babylonian Talmud, and it quotes the Jewish Kabbalah, which thousands of rabbis regularly quote and teach from. This, too, apparently, is too much for Mr. Bezos to stomach.

Lies Preferred Over Truth?

You see, I, as author, am not a Jew. But I am a religious authority, and a world-famous expert on the religious cult known as Judaism. What I witness in Holy Serpent of the Jews about Judaism will stand up in any court in the world, except perhaps in Israel. In Israel, as at Amazon.com, truth is not a defense. To Jeff Bezos and the Amazon officials, apparently lies are acceptable, yes, even preferred.

So, Holy Serpent of the Jews is being suppressed by the world’s largest bookseller. This, to me, is a badge of honor. What will I do about this travesty in which a book that is honest and authoritative is removed, like the politically incorrect news clips that abruptly went down George Orwell’s “memory hole” in 1984? We will continue to offer this book and leave the sales up to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Why are we so very insistent on continuing to sell Holy Serpent of the Jews? Simply because we strongly believe that Jews and Gentiles alike are chosen by a loving God for redemption and a future of contentment. As I state on p. 16 of the book, “The New Testament…proclaims that Jesus Christ has chosen His people out of all the nations and races on earth. Jews, Gentiles it makes no difference to Jesus: ‘Whosoever will may come.’”

My prayer is that all who read this book will believe in the saving words of Jesus Christ, and come to the Cross of Calvary.

 

Chinese Communist Customer Score Being Used In The United States Secretly.

im-34082

toptechnicalsolutions.com

Two people call customer service at the same time to complain about the same thing. One waits a few seconds before a representative gets on the line. The other stays on hold. Why the difference?

There’s a good chance it has something to do with a rating known as a customer lifetime value, or CLV. That secret number is used by all manner of companies to measure the potential financial value of their customers.

Your score can determine the prices you pay, the products and ads you see and the perks you receive.

Credit-card companies use the scoring systems to decide what to offer customers who want to cancel their cards. Wireless carriers route high-value callers immediately to their most skilled agents. At some airlines, a high score increases the odds of a seat upgrade.

In the model, the scores ranged from $8.52 to $203.93.

Company will refrain from marketing to such customers and won’t be in a hurry to answer their messages.

Single man, 22

High-school diploma

Lives in rural area

Shops rarely, mostly on weekdays

Usually buys at deep discounts

Returns merchandise excessively

Company will send an occasional discount.

Single woman, 31

Bachelor’s degree

Lives in suburbs

Shops a fair amount

Browses for discounts but often exceeds budget

Never returns merchandise

Company will invite such customers to VIP events and ensure their complaints get answered first.

Married woman, 41

Graduate degree

Lives in big city

Shops regularly, mostly on weekends

Usually pays full price and rarely returns items

Buys and browses best-quality items

“There’s no free lunch,” says Sunil Gupta, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School who has researched models for calculating lifetime value. “The more profitable you are, the better service you will get.”

These days, companies are resorting to all sorts of data and scores to size up consumers and predict their behavior. Retailers use risk scores to try to limit merchandise returns and prevent e-commerce fraud. There are scores to measure the likelihood a person will become sick, cancel a subscription or bad-mouth a company.

Everyone with a bank account, cellphone or online shopping habit has at least one CLV score, more likely several. And most people have no inkling they even exist, let alone how they are used, what goes into them or how accurate they are. Unlike credit scores, CLVs aren’t available to consumers and aren’t monitored by any government agency.

“There needs to be a public conversation around the accuracy of the scores being used,” says Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, a nonprofit digital-privacy research group. “You can essentially be accused of being cheap or a fraudster, and it may not even be true.”

To determine how the scores are compiled and how they are used, The Wall Street Journal interviewed data scientists who develop the models and employees of the software and analytics firms that help companies put them to use.

Most CLV score users contacted for this article declined to comment on how they score customers, citing competitive reasons. Many say the scores make them more comfortable offering costly services and products in the short term because they are confident they will pick up more business in the long term. Some say they aim to increase each customer’s lifetime value by encouraging repeat business.

In some respects, the scores are just a high-tech version of what shopkeepers have done for generations—make judgments on a customer’s value based on how they look or behave. As far back as 20 years ago, academics were publishing models to calculate the future value of customers.

Now there are hundreds of analytics firms that calculate customer lifetime value, each with its own approach. Some of them put a value on shoppers based simply on what they spend, while others use hundreds of data inputs, adding and deducting points for demographic information such as ZIP Codes or behavioral details such as the number of returns they make or when they shop.

“Not all customers deserve a company’s best efforts,” says Peter Fader, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who helped popularize lifetime value scores. His scoring method is based on transaction history, which he says is all companies need to determine how customers will behave in the future. This year, he sold the firm he co-founded, Zodiac Inc., which performs such analysis, to

Nike
Inc.

The data that goes into a score can come from transaction records, website interactions, customer-service conversations, social-media profiles and third-party brokers such as Acxiom LLC and

Alliance Data Systems
Corp.’s

Epsilon, which sell information on such things as the number of bedrooms in a house and the type of credit card someone carries. Each piece of data is weighted based on past patterns and perceived level of predictability.

Marital status is often factored in, with some companies assuming that singles are better customers, and others, the opposite. Age also is a common input, potentially penalizing older people because of their shorter projected lifespans.

Father Of Web Says Tech Giants To Big And May Have To Be Split Up.

Father of Web says tech giants may have to be split up

reuters.com

Guy FaulconbridgePaul Sandle

LONDON (Reuters) – Silicon Valley technology giants such as Facebook and Google have grown so dominant they may need to be broken up, unless challengers or changes in taste reduce their clout, the inventor of the World Wide Web told Reuters.

The digital revolution has spawned a handful of U.S.-based technology companies since the 1990s that now have a combined financial and cultural power greater than most sovereign states.

Tim Berners-Lee, a London-born computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, said he was disappointed with the current state of the internet, following scandals over the abuse of personal data and the use of social media to spread hate.

“What naturally happens is you end up with one company dominating the field so through history there is no alternative to really coming in and breaking things up,” Berners-Lee, 63, said in an interview. “There is a danger of concentration.”

But he urged caution too, saying the speed of innovation in both technology and tastes could ultimately cut some of the biggest technology companies down to size.

“Before breaking them up, we should see whether they are not just disrupted by a small player beating them out of the market, but by the market shifting, by the interest going somewhere else,” Berners-Lee said.

Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook have a combined market capitalization of $3.7 trillion, equal to Germany’s gross domestic product last year.

LOVE AND HATE

Berners-Lee came up with the idea for what he initially called “Mesh” while working at Europe’s physics research center CERN, calling it the World Wide Web in 1990.

When asked who had the biggest intellectual influence on him, he said: “Mum and Dad.”

“They were building computers, so I grew up living in a world where everything was mathematics and the excitement of being able to program something was very fresh,” he said.

There was, he said, no ‘Eureka’ moment.

Instead, it was hard work, the experience of working in computer science and an attempt to overcome the frustrations of trying to share information with colleagues and students.

“Eureka moments are complete nonsense. I don’t even believe the one about Archimedes. He had been thinking about it for a long time,” he said.

Now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Oxford, Berners-Lee expressed dismay at the way consultancy Cambridge Analytica obtained the personal data of 87 million Facebook users from a researcher.

That scandal, he said, was a tipping point for many.

“I am disappointed with the current state of the Web,” he said. “We have lost the feeling of individual empowerment and to a certain extent also I think the optimism has cracked.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and pledged to do more to protect users’ data.

But social media, Berners-Lee said, was still being used to propagate hate.

“If you put a drop of love into Twitter it seems to decay but if you put in a drop of hatred you feel it actually propagates much more strongly. And you wonder: ‘Well is that because of the way that Twitter as a medium has been built?’”

Communist Chinese-style ‘Digital Authoritarianism’ Grows Globally.

45df1185c5ae838904a183db53e85bbf582b0fe4

france24.com
01 November 2018 – 09H59

WASHINGTON (AFP) –

Governments worldwide are stepping up use of online tools, in many cases inspired by China’s model, to suppress dissent and tighten their grip on power, a human rights watchdog study found Thursday.

The annual Freedom House study of 65 countries found global internet freedom declined for the eighth consecutive year in 2018, amid a rise in what the group called “digital authoritarianism.”

The Freedom on the Net 2018 report found online propaganda and disinformation have increasingly “poisoned” the digital space, while the unbridled collection of personal data is infringing on privacy.

“Democracies are struggling in the digital age, while China is exporting its model of censorship and surveillance to control information both inside and outside its borders,” said Michael Abramowitz, president of Freedom House.

“This pattern poses a threat to the open internet and endangers prospects for greater democracy worldwide.”

Chinese officials have held sessions on controlling information with 36 of the 65 countries assessed, and provided telecom and surveillance equipment to a number of foreign governments, Freedom House said.

The accusations made by Freedom House are “without basis, unprofessional, irresponsible, and have ulterior motives,” said Chinese foreign ministry official spokesman Lu Kang at a regular press briefing in Beijing on Thursday.

Cyberspace is complex, he added, and requires “the global community, including governments, businesses, think tanks and media to adopt a constructive attitude to maintain it.”

The report found 17 governments approved or proposed laws restricting online media in the name of fighting “fake news,” while 18 countries increased surveillance or weakened encryption protection to more closely monitor their citizenry.

According to the researchers, internet freedom declined in 26 countries from June 2017 to May 2018. Gains were seen in 19 countries, most of them minor.

– China’s ‘techno-dystopia’ –

One of the greatest threats, Freedom House said, is efforts by China to remake the digital world in its “techno-dystopian” image.

It cited a sweeping Chinese cybersecurity requirement that local and foreign companies “immediately stop transmission” of banned content, and compels them to ensure that data on Chinese users is hosted within the country.

This has been followed by “hundreds” of new directives on what people can and cannot do online, and tighter controls on the use of VPNs to evade detection.

The report said leaked documents and other evidence suggest as many as a million Muslims may be held in internment camps in Xinjiang, many as a result of nonviolent online activities.

China appears to be using its big tech firms involved in telecom infrastructure to extend its dominance and gain an edge in surveillance, according to Freedom House.

Companies such as Huawei — largely banned from contracts in the US and Australia — are building infrastructure in many parts of the world including Africa and Latin America, according to Freedom House board chairman Michael Chertoff, a former US secretary of homeland security.

“This opens up a potential for exploiting information in these countries by having technological backdoors that can be used by the Chinese government to collect intelligence,” Chertoff said.

– Suppressing dissent –

The researchers said online freedom is facing threats in democratic and authoritarian states.

India led the world in the number of internet shutdowns, with over 100 reported incidents in 2018 so far, claiming that the moves were needed to halt the flow of disinformation and incitement to violence.

Similar actions were taken in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

“Cutting off internet service is a draconian response, particularly at a time when citizens may need it the most, whether to dispel rumors, check in with loved ones, or avoid dangerous areas,” Freedom House researcher Adrian Shahbaz said.

“While deliberately falsified content is a genuine problem, some governments are increasingly using ‘fake news’ as a pretense to consolidate their control over information and suppress dissent.”

Shahbaz said more governments, including Saudi Arabia, are employing “troll armies” to manipulate social media and in many cases drown out the voices of dissidents.

“It has now become a tool of authoritarian diplomacy to deploy an army of electronic trolls,” he said.

The researchers said online freedom also declined in the United States in part due to the rollback of “net neutrality” rules which ensured that all data be treated equally, without “fast” or “slow” lanes for commercial or other reasons.

It said online freedom also faces threats in the US as a result of the reauthorization of a surveillance law and a “hyperpartisan” environment in social media marked by large disinformation efforts.

« Older Entries