The article does not say that they provided us with evidence of weapons of mass destruction at all. It says their internal assessment was based on speculation, not whatever you're trying to imply. Also:
"The committee also found that Israeli intelligence did not intentionally mislead Israeli officials about prewar Iraq’s WMD capabilities, nor was there an attempt to push the United States into invading Iraq, AP reported."
You'd better come up with some pretty convincing evidence for such allegations. There's nothing even related to your assertion in your link, neither in the "source to link" (that does not support anything the link says, which in its turn does support anything you say).
"Israel’s intelligence assessments of Iraq’s prewar WMD capabilities were based mainly on speculation, an Israeli parliamentary committee said in a report released yesterday (see GSN, March 24)."
First paragraph clearly states that this was based on speculation.
“Why didn’t we succeed in laying down a broad and deep (intelligence) framework so we could rely on reports and not speculation and assumption? That is the central question,” said inquiry head Yuval Steinitz of the governing Likud Party.
"The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has led to a close scrutiny of the role of intelligence agencies in both the United States and Britain. As Brigadier General (ret.) Shlomo Brom, points out, Israeli intelligence, which was in full agreement with American and British intelligence estimates, has, however, remained "in the shadows." General Brom, a senior research associate at Tel Aviv University's Jaffe Center, calls for an inquiry into the performance of Israeli intelligence agencies. In an article titled "The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure," first published in "Strategic Assessment," General Brom makes three key points: (1) Israeli intelligence agencies failed because they did not realize that Saddam Hussein's main goal was survival; (2) Israeli intelligence tends to adopt the worst-case scenario; (3) Inflated threat assessments exact a heavy price."
I'm not sure if you are unaware or not but there were no WMD's in Iraq. These are facts not allegations. The US, Israel and Britain were primary nations selling the American people a war based on bad intelligence and it can happen just as easily today as it did then.
So in short, you are backing out from your claim that Israeli intelligence provided us with evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that helped push a war? Good, so there’s no argument.
In case you’re implying the parent should also provide evidence: it’s way harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence. I’m not sure if that’s a universal rule (in math for instance) but it’s certainly in something like a magic teapot behind mars.
I do think the strength of evidence should be somewhat correlated to the weight of claims,
Maybe a sidenote to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've expressed similar sentiment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17738147
I really hope this statement gets people to think about the crypto realm in a different way. What you described is exactly why I see this as a tool for revolutionary progress.
Not so long ago, you would have had little to no option and would have been a victim of oppressive systems. This technology allowed you to overcome something people have been helplessly outmatched by for a hundred years.
I am glad you shared this and sincerely hope you the best.
Its worth noting that many "western" cultures are becoming more hostile to their citizens, removing privacy and many things our parents and grandparents took for granted. We should be embracing things that gives us privacy.
We already have banks and payment systems playing alongside thought police. Saying something that is dissent has gotten people to lose their bank accounts [0]. I am not condoning these actions by this example but I am saying its becoming more normal. There are also issues with patreon dropping people over online political affiliation.
I don't know how many here follow the global economy but if you do, you will see the US economy is in a dangerous place. This commenter talks about the central bank taking his money and that can happen here with something call "bail-ins" [1] which takes money from account holders in the event of another "too big to fail" moment.
This may have been in Argentina but people should realize, that although you may not feel you need it today, you very well could need it I'm your country soon.
I am in the same boat with my unease of the situation. Entitlements are already putting the US in crippling debt, however, I am worried that automation will destroy so many jobs that we need a universal basic income.
Which I am personally not advocating. I am unsure of how I feel about it.
Universal basic income seems to be the only viable way forward. So far I have not heard any other good solution to the societal problems automation is causing. The other alternative would be to slow the progress, but that’s even worse. We need to let people learn new skills, and universal basic income makes that possible. There will be obviously freeloaders, which is the main issue with this approach. This is extremely difficult problem to solve, and the current political climate makes it even more difficult to find acceptable solution
Are there any other viable alternatives? How can we help people who don’t have marketable skills get back to work and contribute to the society?
Every person in these towns that have this violation of basic rights, should be demanding the takedown immediately but they won't. Again and again the people of this country fall for the "trust us. We are her to help you." lie that our government sells. If they do care, many people are in a state of disagreement and division so much that they won't work together out of spite if it means working with another ideology.
America, land of the free and home of the obedient and fearful. Seeing this, I can't help but feel like we have gone too far to have any return to what privacy we did have.
I actually read through that entire document out of curiosity. As far as I can tell it only applies to audio recording (and telegraphs, and cable TV, and a couple other misc items, but not video from what I see). Also, there's the bit right at the top:
> Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the effective date of this chapter.
I'm not sure how large or small that loophole is according to the courts.
-----
Then as I was glancing through it, I noticed that this is the law that makes CA a two party consent state:
§632(a)
> without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication
§632(d)
> evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible
So that sucks.
§633.5
> do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of
But at least it's slightly better as of... 2018. It only took them until 2018 to add that. FFS.
-----
This one was a pleasant surprise though:
§637.7
> No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
> So is it a misdemeanor to track your child via their cellphone in CA?
It's worth looking at the whole section:
CA Penal Code § 637.7 (2017)
(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
electronic tracking device to determine the location or
movement of a person.
(b) This section shall not apply when the registered
owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to
the use of the electronic tracking device with respect
to that vehicle.
(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking
device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other
movable thing that reveals its location or movement by
the transmission of electronic signals.
(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f) A violation of this section by a person, business,
firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation
licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000)
of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute
grounds for revocation of the license issued to that
person, business, firm, company, association,
partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions
that provide for the revocation of the license as set
forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of
the Business and Professions Code.
I guess it depends on how you define "vehicle or other movable thing". Children are technically things and they are technically movable, so if the child didn't consent to being tracked, I guess it's technically illegal (and since a child probably does not fit the definition of "vehicle", it's not sufficient for the "owner, lessor, or lessee" of a child - i.e. a parent or guardian - to provide that consent).
However, IIRC there are a lot of cases where a parent's consent is considered to be equivalent to the child consenting, and this might be one of them; as long as the parent consents to the child being tracked, it'd be legal in such a case.
Agreed in general, but the thing is... children can't generally enter contracts or otherwise "consent" to most things in a legal context. True that parents can be stand-ins sometimes, but I'm not at all clear on what the limits for that are.
I too was initially confused by the "or other movable thing" part, but I'm pretty sure the the cell phone itself qualifies as a movable thing in this context.
Great point: let’s have an honest and fact-based discussion. This blog post isn’t that. Turn up at a council meeting and tell the elected politicians that you don’t want to be spied on. Make the police defend their use of the footage. Convince others to agree with you. That’s democracy and at this level of government it works pretty well.
Thanks for the recommendation. As for the year it doesn't shock me in certain aspects. The camera data in the early 2000's is something I didn't consider though.
I notice many people don't know or think that corporations use customer cards for more than a discount. I worked for one of the largest retailers in the U.S. and learned how far the "Plus" card data really goes. All of that data is sold as very in detailed profiles of customers to brokers who sell the data to other corporations and institutions.
I worked for them for 10 years and watched it evolve from data harvesting through rewards cards to utilizing the checkout as an avenue of further data collection through facial recognition cameras and even heat sensors throughout the store building heat maps of customer flow.
I am not sure exactly about the heat map data being sold or not, however, I am sure some broker could find a market for it but I do know the checkout camera data was sold.
The company started utilizing the card system in the 90's and its checkout camera with heat mapping in the early 2010's. Personally, I never used a customer card with my name or address just to maintain some privacy level.
There's an increasing amount of companies that are unfortunately using credit cards to track consumers. The only reliable option to 'opt-out' of tracking these days seems to be paying with cash.
I'm interested in hearing more about the point of sale tracking and facial recognition though. Was face recognition just being used to track customers around the store through to checkout? Or are you suggesting that 'face id' data was captured and shared alongside purchasing activity, tied to the individual to a 3rd party??
At the time I left, which was 4 years ago roughly, the facial recognition was used at the checkout area only. The perational area going from the beginning of the gondolas (aisles) that are where you might say the back of a line would be, all the way to the exit doors.
This covered a large area but the only area using this at the time. The face ID system worked with the thermal mapping, which was used throughout the store, to create a projected customer volume for the front end management to prepare for. For instance the system tells the team that they have 1 register open but need 3 open now and 5 in 1 hour.
The data from the facial recognition cameras was sold, this I know for certain, however, I do not know to what amount that data was put into the specific customer profile being built. My honest impression is it was being sold in a package with card profiles to make a better product for brokers.
I've gone through meetings of how much this company wants to track you, how granular the specific customer profile was before the face & heat map system and the companies drive to find a place in the newer data markets that its competition was dealing in, in order to stay in business.
this is facinating information. I hadn't thought retailers were this sophisticated with tracking users in-store, let alone few years ago. That said, the use case you've noted, like alerting where more registers are needed, make perfect sense.
The face recognition piece is something I'm still trying to wrap my head around. If they were selling facial recognition data to a 3rd party, and this is a common practice within the industry, there is (presumably) an intermediary that has a very comprehensive view of all consumer purchasing behavior in a given geography and can (potentially) track people in real-time.
Can you comment on some of the data brokers / tech players in this space [?] Is it the likes of acxiom? I've seen data being purchased where there's mastercard & visa purchase information, but it was all in aggregate and for silly things like banner advertising. I'm curious at who's in this space and how they're monetizing this data. It sounds like a (potential) goldmine for market researchers, marketers and manufacturers.
Also, were there any mechanisms to stop competing retailers from buying this data and luring away loyal customers?
I'll do my best to with the information I have to answer.
Can I name specific players who are brokers/buyers?
To put it simply no, I was never made aware to whom the company sold this information to exactly. I would be highly interested to know the specifics of this part of chain as well. I was lower in the totem pole with friends and good relations further up that made me aware of the practices.
In my role, we were told details on the collection of information and how the company used it in house. Those higher up were made aware of the practices I mentioned earlier and through conversations with multiple people who would know, it was made abundantly clear that this was going on and our competition was participating in similar practices as well.
How was it monetized?
So specifically, I can speak to the rewards card aspect and what the profiles looked like to us and what I was told happens to them when sold. Although I'm sure you probably know, when I say "plus" card or "rewards" card, I am referring to an in-house system that the customer signs up for in the store with personal information which they are then given a card for that retailer which gives lower prices and "bonus" coupons sent by mail, until coupons moved to a digital format. Some retailers do it differently but with ours, it was almost a necessity to have it just to shop there due to price differences. It would be much more expensive to not use our card system .
When the customer signs up, they are asked Name, Age, Address and Phone Number. Scanning the card at checkout gave the customer those possible savings advertised on shelf as well as later on in its role, the customer would have E-coupons loaded directly on to the account that this card was tied, which were based off of the buying habits and influenced by seasonal changes.
It put a list of everything you ever bought and applied that to the information given upon signing up such as age and where you lived which gave information on the demographics of the customer(I am not sure if it was in-house or if this was a third party's work).
It was shortly before I left in about 2014 that we had meetings discussing just how much data was in the card holder profile. Again not sure if all this was done by them but we talked about buying habits, health and wellbeing status based on diet, income, frequency of trips, gasoline purchases in our fuel centers and major gasoline player who had a partnership with us and there was specifically a push for the card system to be moved over to an app that gave the company location data. This was something they really were pushing for at the time.
So these profiles of a customer were sold in bundles of groupings. Demographics of a certain type would be in this group or that group based on what they could ascertain through your buying habits and social standings with groups of similar incomes.
From my understanding people in multiple industries were buying this so that could utilize a subset of the data within the profile to target certain people or build a profile of a certain area to get better ideas of future business opportunities possibly coming to those locations and how to maximize their profits by tailoring the services to that area.
How it got to them and how it was applied with facial recognition data, I was not aware of, only that it was also being sold in some way. I did not know what if any rules there were on competitors data and how that was handled once it went to those buying this information. I know our competition had many of the same practices that probably built similar data sets but I am thinking there were ways to mitigate anything being given out that would give an edge to competition. I say that based on how we viewed and interacted with those other stores and my employer were obsessive of getting the smallest of advantage over everyone around them.
I am sorry this is so long but I wanted to give what I could in as much details as I had. Its a very interesting topic that people are shocked by when they learn about it. I also wish I could give exact players further along the supply chain but I don't have the facts on that specific although, as I said, I would be very interested to know myself.
I feel the same. When looking into some new linux distros out of curiosity, I'm noticing a trend that these new devs are putting it on source forge and immediately I am "turned off." Its not rampant but it has happened enough for me to hope this isn't going to be an escalating practice.
Speaking as another southerner, I can't agree more. Looking at how Seattle is doing it vs how it works down here made me jealous.
The place I live is under intense investigation for its confidential informant practices that are leading to people being framed and convicted for crimes they didn't commit. The use of surveillance here is something we should be worried about as it could and probably is being used in this process.
That said, I have had family in multiple southern states who were law enforcement officers for generations and I can say that transparency will come here last due to an ingrained culture within many law enforcement agencies here. Sadly, we probably need it more than anywhere.
Agreed. This is probably the most insane idea yet of government implementation of technology scam. Bet the people behind it get reelected which is the most astonishing thing to me.
https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/israeli-intelligence-based-p...