ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Political Outcast

Vision to America

WND News Alerts

WorldNetDaily.com


Why is church denomination cannibalizing its congregations?
Churches belonging to an evangelical Christian denomination are being broken into, their offices ransacked, financial records taken, their utilities cut off, their doors padlocked and their property sold out from under them.
Is it those radical Islamists persecuting Christians again? Perhaps North Korea's secret police? Homosexual activists venting their rage against supporters of biblical marriage? Overzealous government bureaucrats taking their notion of separation of church and state too far?
No. No. No. No.
It's the denomination's own leaders!
Now, one plundered Southern California congregation is resisting the best way it know how ...
Read the latest now on WND.com.
Plus!
The 'sick man of Europe' is ... Europe!
You'd think, after two world wars, the overthrow of Soviet oppression and development of the EU, the Europeans would have figured out how to make their continent work.
They haven't. Here's the lowdown on the breakup that's sure to shakeup much of the rest of the world ...
Click here for details.

Must Read News
Other Highlights
    U.S. sees Israel as spy threat
  • Ousted Penn State chief has new national security job
  • Officials: Ebola breaks out in Uganda
  • Denver preschool teacher busted for child porn
Make WND your homepage today!
Daily Blessing

Your daily dose of spiritual inspiration
Today's Scripture reading from the Holy Bible
Joke Of The Day
Today's Poll

The Cowboy Byte

CowboyByte
July 28, 2012 News and Thoughts for the day
Today's Cowboy Headlines: Headlines you may have missed: Today's Featured Article:

Score One for Religious Freedom

Follow Cowboy Byte on TWITTER!

Join Cowboy Byte on FACEBOOK!

Fox affiliate intern killed in movie theater massacre

The High Privacy Price of Auto Insurance Monitoring Discounts

The High Privacy Price of Auto Insurance Monitoring Discounts
Data about location and driving habits speak volumes about drivers' personal and private lives. While some individuals do not care a great deal, perhaps they should consider how this data may be used in the future -- whether by the government in a criminal case or a spouse in a divorce lawsuit.
A recent report in The Wall Street Journal sheds light on a new "Big Brother." Some of the largest automobile insurance companies are now using driving data obtained from GPS and other devices to create preferred pricing for those who submit real-time driving data that demonstrate their good driving habits and low risk.
So, if drivers travel at the speed limit, don't make erratic turns, and go short distances, they may get discounts of as much as 30-50 percent. The economics may be very attractive.
However the of loss of personal privacy may be an unintended effect of immense proportions.

How It Works

Progressive Insurance calls its program "pay-as-you-drive," and State Farm Insurance's program is "Drive Safe and Save." Here is how it works: Insureds permit devices to be installed in their vehicles, or allow insurance companies access to data from onboard GPS devices such as General Motor's OnStar and Ford's telematics.
Progressive, for example, provides a small digital device that plugs into the car's diagnostic port, usually located on the lower edge of the dashboard. The device chirps when the car is driven outside Progressive's range of acceptability (whatever that may be), and while monitoring speed, as well as of length of time at certain speeds. This information is transmitted to the company and can be taken into account at rate-setting time.

What Are the Privacy Issues?

Data about location and driving habits speak volumes about drivers' personal and private lives. While some individuals do not care a great deal, perhaps they should consider how this data may be used in the future -- whether by the government in a criminal case or a spouse in a divorce lawsuit.
The main issue is around the data collected and the data actually used. There may be some differences in such information depending on the technology employed.
Progressive, which uses the digital device referenced above, states in its Privacy Policy that it does not collect GPS data about the location of the drivers:
Data We Don't Collect Snapshot focuses on how safely, how often, how far, and when you drive, NOT where you drive. The Snapshot device does not contain GPS technology and does not track vehicle location or whether you're exceeding the speed limit. We also don't know who is driving the car in which the device is installed.
Keep in mind that that even without these devices, there are other ways to obtain location data. If a driver keeps a cellphone on while in the car, the cellphone leaves behind a GPS trail, and collectively the time, usage, and GPS data could be significant information in a later divorce or criminal proceeding.
Many auto manufacturers provide and use onboard systems, such as the OnStar and telematics devices. Data from those devices monitor vehicle performance and provide diagnostics of vehicle systems. GPS data helps locate vehicles that have broken down and assists drivers in accidents. That data can be used for insurance purposes, as noted above.
What happens if the driver cancels the service for any reason, including not wanting to pay for it? The natural expectation would be that the monitoring would cease, but that may not be so. Effective December 2011, the OnStar GPS navigation and emergency services company continued to collect vehicle data from customers who terminated their agreements. That happened because terminating the service and deactivating the device are separate processes.
The 10-page OnStar Privacy Statement includes the following provision:
Unless the Data Connection to your Vehicle is deactivated, data about your Vehicle will continue to be collected even if you do not have a Plan. It is important that you convey this to other drivers, occupants, or subsequent owners of your Vehicle. You may deactivate the Data Connection to your Vehicle at any time by contacting an OnStar Advisor.
In addition to GPS location data collected, the Privacy Statement goes on to specify additional information OnStar collects:
  • your contact information, (including your name, address, telephone number and email address);
  • your billing information (including your credit card number);
  • information about the purchase or lease of your Vehicle, such as the vehicle identification number (VIN), make, model, year and date of purchase or lease and selling/preferred dealer; and
  • other information that you voluntarily provide to us (such as your language preference, your license plate number and/or your emergency contact information).
Most people to do not understand that their privacy is at stake with these devices.

Can Device Data Be Used in Court?

Maybe -- it's not always clear. As I discussed in my column entitled "GPS, Privacy and the Supreme Court," GPS data is now widespread in divorce proceedings. However, without a warrant, GPS data is unlikely to be used in criminal courts after the October 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Jones, but now more police may get warrants to track alleged criminals by GPS in their cell devices and autos.
Just look at Progressive's Snapshot Privacy Policy, which clearly states that the data collected will be provided in civil litigation and to the police:
When We May Disclose the Data to Others We will not share Snapshot data with any third parties unless it's necessary or appropriate to service your insurance policy, prevent fraud, perform research, or comply with the law. For example, Snapshot data may be disclosed:
  • when we're legally required to provide Snapshot data, such as in response to a subpoena in a civil lawsuit or by police when investigating the cause of an accident;
  • when we're required to provide Snapshot data to a state department of insurance to support renewal rates;
  • to service providers who are contractually required to maintain its confidentiality; and/ or
  • as otherwise required by law.
While Progressive's Snapshot does not capture GPS location data, OnStar and telematics do collect it, and as a result, the exact location of people -- think spouse location on a specific date and time in a divorce case -- would be available with a subpoena. OnStar's terms of service specifically state that OnStar collects data about the vehicle's use and location:
The information we may get from your Car includes things such as: data about its operation; data about your use of the OnStar Services; the location of your Car...
Clearly, if subpoenaed, the OnStar data could be evidence of location and perhaps other information, including how fast someone was going before an accident.

Some Conclusions

Maybe people just don't care about the privacy of their whereabouts any longer, given that their smartphones provide location, and their location is already being monitored.
But if ever the GPS or other device data hurt them in the courtroom, they will surely regret the day they gave up their privacy.

E-Commerce Times columnist Peter S. Vogel is a trial partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell, where he is chair of the eDiscovery Team and Chair of the Technology Industry Team. Before practicing law, he was a systems programmer on mainframes, received a masters in computer science, and taught graduate courses in information systems and operations research. His blog covers contemporary technology topics.

Colorado Massacre Linked To Historic Bank Fraud? Self Thinking Killer Dr...

Texas girls arrested, facing felony charges for making fake Facebook profile

Unclear if students, 12 and 13, remain in custody July 26, 2012

TEXAS — Two young students in Hood County have been arrested for creating a fake Facebook account using the name of a classmate, and were taken to a juvenile detention facility on felony charges.
The girls, ages 12 and 13, were each arrested July 16 on a count of online impersonation, a third-degree felony, said Hood County Sheriff Roger Deeds.
Deeds said the victim’s mother alerted authorities June 28 after she discovered the site. The victim, a girl who did not have a real Facebook page, did not know about the site until it had been active for more than a month, he said. The account had 63 friends before it was shut down.
The profile, which was seized by the sheriff’s office, displayed a photo of a celebrity that resembled the 12-year-old girl. Lt. Johnny Rose of the Hood County Sheriff’s Office said the girls made threats to other students while pretending to be the victim and “damaged the victim’s reputation.” Rose did not say what those threats entailed.
The site was monitored for weeks before the arrest was made, he said, noting the victim figured out who was behind it. After the arrest, the girls were transported to the Granbury Regional Juvenile Justice Center.
What happened next remains a mystery. It is unclear whether the girls are still in detention or if they were given a court hearing.
On Wednesday, Rose said the girls were still being held at the center and were awaiting a hearing with County Court-at-Law Judge Vincent Messina. On Thursday, 10 days after the arrest, Deeds said he believed the girls had attended a hearing and were released, but he could not confirm that. He said the case is now out of the hands of the sheriff’s office.
But Messina has not held any hearings in the case, a staff member in Messina’s office said Thursday. An official from the district court in Hood County said the case had not been heard in that court.
County Attorney Kelton Conner was out of the office until Monday and could not be reached for comment.
According to the county’s website, “if sufficient evidence exists your child may possibly be placed in detention for a 10-day period, with hearings held every 10 days.”
Texas state law, however, appears to entitle juveniles to a detention hearing no later than the second working day following arrest.
As to the current location of the girls, Deeds said the only person who could confirm whether the girls have been released from the center is Beth Pate, the juvenile probation director. Deeds said Pate was on vacation the week of the arrest, and she remained unavailable for comment Thursday.
An official from the juvenile justice center hung up when asked about the girls on Thursday.
Texas’ online impersonation law was enacted in 2009. The law makes it a felony to use the “name or persona” of another person, without their permission, to create a page or send a message on a social networking website “with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person.”
Only a handful of cases have been brought under the law. One of the first was dropped earlier this year because the man charged did not live in Texas.
Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate with the Student Press Law Center, said he believes the law is unconstitutional – not only in the case of the two girls, but on its face.
“After the ‘stolen valor’ case, it’s hard to see how you can prohibit lying,” he said. “Because this isn’t a law that prohibits what we normally think of as identity theft. And it’s hard to understand what an ‘intent to harm’ is in this context.”
Goldstein referred to a June 28 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a federal law that criminalized lying about receiving military decorations. The Court ruled that lying – without seeking any financial gain – is protected by the First Amendment.
By Sydni Dunn, SPLC staff writer

For More Information:

Fleshing Out Skull & Bones with Author Kris Millegan



'An expose of Yale's super secretive and elite Order of Skull & Bones.

This chronicle of espionage, drug smuggling, and elitism in Yale University's Skull & Bones society offers rare glimpses into this secret world with previously unpublished documents, photographs, and articles that delve into issues such as racism, financial ties to the Nazi party, and illegal corporate dealings. Contributors include Antony Sutton, author of America's Secret Establishment; Dr. Ralph Bunch, professor emeritus of political science at Portland State University; Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, authors and historians; and Howard Altman, editor of the Philadelphia City Paper.
Fleshing Out Skull & Bones'

Just a face in a crowd? Scans pick up ID, personal data

As you scan the face on that giant billboard, it may just be scanning your face right back.
Increasingly sophisticated digital facial-recognition technology is opening new possibilities in business, marketing, advertising and law enforcement while exacerbating fears about the loss of privacy and the violation of civil liberties.
Businesses foresee a day when signs and billboards with face-recognition technology can instantly scan your face and track what other ads you’ve seen recently, adjust their message to your tastes and buying history and even track your birthday or recent home purchase. The FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies already are exploring facial-recognition tools to track suspects, quickly single out dangerous people in a crowd or match a grainy security-camera image against a vast database to look for matches.
Many fear that future is coming too quickly, with facial-recognition technology becoming increasingly advanced, available and affordable before restrictions on its use can be put into place. Concerns have been raised on Capitol Hill in recent weeks that FBI searches using the technology could trample Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, while some in the industry say excessive regulations could cripple cutting-edge technology.
“In our country, government shouldn’t be looking over your shoulder unless it has a reason,” said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech, privacy and technology project. “They should not be collecting data on innocent subjects.”
The potential to “data-mine” raw video or photography using facial-recognition technology is another concern, he said, but one that could clash with First Amendment rights on the right to photograph.
Facebook enters the fray
Sparking fresh concerns on the commercial front was social media behemoth Facebook’s acquisition last month of the Israeli technology company Face.com.
The acquisition enabled Facebook to implement a feature called “tag suggestions,” which lets the social networking site use facial recognition technology to make suggestions about who is in a picture. Users can opt out of this service, but the default setting is “on.”
Although there are no rules governing the use of this information, Facebook, which is estimated to have pictures and demographic information for more than 900 million users, has publicly stated multiple times that it will not allow any third-party access to its database. This includes the government, though it has cooperated with law enforcement officials in a limited manner, a company spokesman said at a July 18 Senate hearing on face-recognition technology concerns.
One proposal is for a comprehensive privacy law, similar to those in many European countries. This would provide for a “privacy commissioner” to deal with concerns raised by technological developments as well as basic rules such as a requirement to ask permission before using any pictures or videos.
“If companies take and use [my picture], that’s fine,” said Justin Brookman, director for consumer privacy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Just tell me about it.”
In a 2011 report, the center urged Congress to employ a mix of legislation, industry self-regulation and privacy-enhancing technologies to create an overarching privacy policy. That policy would require companies to obtain informed consent before using the technology to identify people.
But Marcus Dunn, director of government relations at the Security Industry Association, said the technology is not advanced to the point where new legislation is needed, and new regulations could end up doing more harm than good.
Before then, he said, new, cheaper or less-invasive technology may supersede facial-recognition tools, so the government should proceed with caution.
“If taxpayers don’t have to pay for a whole new agency to be set up for it, or for three extra staff people, or for a new bureau at the FBI, that’s savings for taxpayers, and that’s always good,” he said.
Work in progress
Despite major advances in the technology in recent years, many limitations remain, said Brian Martin, director of biometric research for MorphoTrust USA Inc. He told a Senate hearing this month that while recognition algorithms match faces accurately 99.7 percent of the time, the studies are conducted only in controlled situations with perfect pictures and perfect lighting. In less-pristine settings, pictures may be blurry or have large shadows, and the reliability rates will suffer.
The success rate also represents only verification, rather than identifying an unknown person from a picture. Such identifications almost always need a human observer to verify that the computer is correct, he said.
“I don’t think that the accuracy of face recognition, for good-quality pictures, will continue to improve at the rate that it has in the last 10 years,” Mr. Martin said. “However, for the uncontrolled cases, when you’re not looking at the camera, I do think that over the next couple of decades there will be a substantial improvement in accuracy to help these forensic type of cases.”
The FBI’s Next Generation Identification program also may accelerate the rate of progress. It will provide a national database of mug shots, enabling law enforcement officials to use the facial-recognition technology to quickly search pictures of suspects against photos of anyone who has been arrested. Set to take effect in 2014, it has caused concerns that officials can discover a criminal past of anyone for whom they can obtain a picture, with or without probable cause.
Sen. Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who chaired the Senate hearing, noted that FBI training manuals already show facial-recognition technology being used to identify protesters.
“I fear the FBI pilot program could be abused not only to identify protesters but to target them as well,” he said.
Larry Amerson, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association and sheriff of Calhoun County, Ala., told lawmakers that one major use for facial-recognition technology would be to prevent the accidental release of felons who still have time to serve. Prisoners set to be released often will switch identities with someone else for a variety of reasons, enabling the wrong person to go free. Georgia has used facial-recognition technology for eight years to prevent this from happening, Mr. Amerson said.
“While fingerprints take hours and days for analysis, some advanced facial recognition in use today by U.S. law enforcement is as accurate as fingerprints, but results are obtained in seconds, not hours, in identifying criminals and perpetrators attempting to use false identities and aliases,” Mr. Amerson said.
Some go further, arguing that there is nothing wrong with using the technology to aid criminal investigations. Nita A. Farahany, a law and genome sciences and policy professor at Duke University, said using a computer to scan faces is the same as a police officer scanning faces in a crowd.
“A Fourth Amendment search only occurs when the government intrudes upon a legally cognizable interest of an individual,” Ms. Farahany told the hearing. “Neither scanning an individual’s face in public afar, nor querying a database to see if there is a match, intrudes on a cognizable privacy interest of an individual.”
Regardless of whether the technology violates rights or not, legislation is necessary, the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Mr. Brookman argued.
“Something has to be done, because otherwise we are living in a world of ubiquitous identity” where you can’t walk out your front door,” he said.

Abortion Lobby Pours on the Political Cash

National Pro-Life Alliance


We see the national media frequently complain about the amount of money that the so-called super-pacs are spending on the 2012 election.

Odd though, you virtually never hear about all of the money that pro-abortion forces are pouring on to elect their candidates.

I wrote you recently about the abortion lobby gearing up to spend money this election cycle.

And boy, are they spending a lot.

Pro-abortion lobbyists like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Emily’s List have vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to put their pro-abortion candidates in office.

We’re talking millions and millions of dollars in fundraising dinners, television ads, and rallies to get out the vote.

The pro-abortion lobbyists at Emily’s list spent tens and tens of millions of dollars in the 2010 election to push their pro-abortion candidates.

And they’ve vowed to spend drastically more in 2012 to elect 38 very vocal pro-abortion candidates.

NARAL has been busy hosting lavish fundraisers with several different prominent pro-abortion advocates, like Kathleen Sebelius and Michelle Obama, so they can keep their grip on a pro-abortion majority in the Senate.

And Planned Parenthood has already spent nearly $1.4 million, in what amounts to laundered taxpayer money, on attack ads against pro-life candidates, with promises of much, much more to come.

Meanwhile the Obama Administration, through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has gotten into the act, paying $1.5 million to a Madison Avenue ad agency to promote a pro-abortion agenda on the internet.

Your tax dollars at work.

Sometimes it just seems overwhelming, doesn’t it?

But, thanks to your support, your National Pro-Life Alliance is fully engaged.

We’re going to be going toe-to-toe with the abortion lobby for the lives of millions of beautiful unborn babies and the future of our country.

With the support of NPLA members, we are countering the abortion industry’s wanton campaign spending by quietly identifying and mobilizing almost 2 million pro-life households in target House and Senate districts. 


Pro-lifers know that there’s strength in numbers, and thanks to your support our numbers are growing.

Pro-abortion forces may seem tough and callous, but we have the strength of righteousness on our side.

Because there’s no getting around it.

It’s just plain wrong to kill babies, whether one uses American tax dollars or not.

That’s why your support for your National Pro-Life Alliance’s effort to not only eliminate tax funding of abortion, but to ultimately pass a Life at Conception Act is more critical than ever.

We need your voice and your contributions to reach even more pro-lifers.

For Life,
Martin Fox
Martin Fox, President
National Pro-Life Alliance

P.S. Please consider chipping in with a small donation to help the National Pro-Life Alliance to expand our mobilization program to galvanize even more pro-lifers with this information.

Freedom Outpost

Patriot Update News


cnooc After Obama Blocks Pipeline, China Readies $15.1B Canadian Oil Deal When President Barack Obama blocked the Keystone Pipeline, Republicans said the move would encourage Canada to pursue oil deals with China instead of the United States and cede a massive chunk of North American oil assets … ... READ MORE
paper An open letter to Mitt Romney   Dear Future President-Elect Romney, I am writing to voice the concerns of many good Americans today. You have some monumentally important choices coming up. The first of which is the decision on your Vice President, ... READ MORE
TOP STORIES LATEST COLUMNS ABOUT PATRIOTUPDATE.COM
  • PatriotUpdate.com is dedicated to the ideals of a free press, featuring headlines submitted by our readers as well as daily commentary provided by our editors and guest writers. Of particular note are the regular syndicated columns of well-known thinkers, including Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, Chuck Norris, Dick Morris, Floyd Brown, and Michael Reagan. 
MUST-SEE VIDEOS
TODAY'S CARTOON