Sunday, June 17, 2012

United Kingdom Proposes Mega Archive Of Citizens’ Internet Activity, Phone Calls, And Messaging

To stay positive, think of it as the creation of a giant quilted tapestry, weaving together everything anyone in the country says or does. Via the Washington Post:

British authorities on Thursday unveiled an ambitious plan to log details about every Web visit, email, phone call or text message in the U.K. — and in a sharply-worded editorial the nation’s top law enforcement official accused those worried about the surveillance program of being either criminals or conspiracy theorists.

The surveillance proposed in the government’s 118-page draft bill would provide authorities a remarkably rich picture of their citizens’ day-to-day lives, tracking nearly everything they do online, over the phone, or even through the post.

Home Office Secretary Theresa May said in an editorial published ahead of the bill’s unveiling that only evil-doers should be frightened. “Without changing the law the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and pedophiles,” she said.

What May didn’t mention in her editorial — and the Home Office left off its press release — was that the government also is seeking to keep logs of citizens’ Internet history, giving officials access to the browsing habits of roughly 60 million people — including sensitive visits to medical, dating, or pornography websites.

Prefer to send mail the old-fashioned way? That would be monitored, too. Address details and other markers printed onto envelopes would be copied; parcel tracking information would be logged as well.

Source: Disinformation

Big Pharma Continues Drug Experiments in Underdeveloped Nations for Profit

Pharmaceutical corporations, like Novo Nordisk, have been using underdeveloped countries as testing grounds for experimental drug trials. Doctors are beginning to speak out against this practice, citing that it has more to do with increasing profits and less to do with scientific research.

In countries like India and South Africa, where the citizens pay for their medicines, these drug trials are quite profitable for drug corporations.

While drug licensing authorities do not require post-marketing studies, major drug corporations regularly contend that they must conduct more experiments on the human population. Using third-world nations is the easiest way to do so considering that the general population in those countries does not have the ability to speak out and protest.

Edwin Gale, emeritus professor of diabetic medicine at Bristol University in the UK, published a paper that questions the practices and purposes of drug trials in underdeveloped nations.

Pharmaceutical corporations, conducting post-marketing trials for analogue insulin (which cost more than 4 times as much as conventional human insulin) so that new forms of insulin can be produced for sufferers of type 2 diabetes was studied by Gale.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) reviewed the data provided by Gale and found that there was no additional cost benefit for people.

Gale maintains that since 2005 more than 400,000 people worldwide have been coerced into participating in post-marketing trials involving analogue insulin. These trials, providing limited scientific value, were conducted on nations where their citizens were of low-income and of little value to the drug corporations.

Gale notes that the doctors who participated in the trials did so without overt malice but showed that the “patient or healthcare system pays for a more expensive agent instead of one that is cheaper and equally effective, and the public is offered misleading claims of comparative merit based on studies of limited scientific value.”

John Yudkin, emeritus professor of medicine at University College in London, conducted a second study where he found that Novo Nordisk “used trade agreements in South Africa to block the government’s use of generic antiretroviral drugs” and in 2010 “Novo Nordisk invoked negative headlines by threatening to withdraw all its products from Greece because of a governmental order to cut all drug prices by 25%.”

In 1996, Pfizer conducted controversial drug experiments using Nigerian children. They were given the then unregistered antibiotic Trovan at the Infectious Diseases Hospital in Kano.

According to officials in Kano, 50 innocent children died because of the experiment; while untold others developed mental and physical deformities.

This experiment was perfectly timed. While a meningitis epidemic broke out in Nigeria, Pfizer happen to coincide this problem with the reveal of Trovan, which was distributed to Nigerians in response to the “outbreak”.

To receive the Food and Drug Administration’s certification of approval, Pfizer used Africa as their clinical trial laboratory to produce the proof they needed to make Trovan a profitable endeavor.

Africa has been the scene of numerous reports of unethical experimentation and deadly clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical corporations over decades. While the citizens of Africa are largely illiterate and ignorant of the damages clinical trials can produce, they are the perfect people to experiment on. Their governments use the clinical trials as if they were distributing safe medication in a basic threat to either take the experimental drugs or receive no medicine at all.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Dr. Aubrey Levin headed a project that forced South African gay and lesbian army soldiers to undergo sex change operations while enduring electroshock therapy, chemical castration, and various medical experiments in military hospitals.

In the 1970s Depo-Provera was used as a population control experiment in Zimbabwe under the guise of “family planning programs”.

Sterilization experiments were conducted in Namibia by Dr. Eugen Fischer against mixed-race children as an attempt to justify the national ban of mixed-race marriages in South West Africa. Fischer went on to conduct similar experiments on victims in Jewish concentration camps with Hams Harmsen, founder of the German branch of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

The smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the World Health Organization was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa. About 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO.

Prior to 1979, there were no reported cases of HIV/AIDS in Africa, according to Luc Montagnier, a French Pasteur scientist. By calculating Montagnier’s isolation of the first HIV case in Paris, France, the first cases of HIV must have begun in the fall of 1982.

While AIDS was first announced in 1981, there were yet no reported cases proving that there was an African epidemic. Those populations in underdeveloped nations like Africa succumbed to the disease much quicker. Because of the lack of access to medical care, up to 40% of the population is estimated to be killed off.

For more than three decades, through medical terrorism, pharmaceutical corporations have used third-world people as guinea pigs for experimental drugs without regard for their health or even their very lives.

As of today, the drug corporations have not answered for their crimes against humanity. They will not be brought to justice until we expose their actions and demand that they be held accountable.

Source: Activist Post

The Insects Are Watching: The Future of Government Surveillance Technology

In June of 2011, the US military admitted to having drone technology so sophisticated that it could be the size of a bug.

In what is referred to as the “microaviary” on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, drones are in development and design to replicate the flight patterns of moths, hawks and other air-borne creatures of the natural world.

Greg Parker, aerospace engineer, explains: “We’re looking at how you hide in plain sight” for the purpose of carrying out espionage or kill missions.

Cessna-sized Predator drones, used to carry out unmanned attacks, are known around the world. The US Pentagon has an estimated 7,000 aerial drones in their arsenal.

In 2011, the Pentagon requested $5 billion for drones from Congress by the year 2030. 

Their investigative technology is now moving toward “spy flies” equipped with sensors and mircocameras to detect enemies and nuclear weapons.

Parker is using helicopter technology to allow his computer-driven drone “dragonflies” to become precise intelligence gathering weapons. 

To have a computer do it 100 per cent of the time, and to do it with winds, and to do it when it doesn’t really know where the vehicle is, those are the kinds of technologies that we’re trying to develop. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has unveiled hummingbird drones that can fly at speeds of 11 miles per hour.

DARPA is also inserting computer chips into moth pupae in the hopes of hatching “cyborg moths”.

Within DARPA is the Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project (HIMEM), whose aim is to develop shutterbugs – insects with cameras attached to their very nervous system that can be controlled remotely. Under HIMEM, there are researchers working on cyborg beetles.

Other institutions are hard at work for the US government, developing more insect technology.

The California Institute of Technology has created a “mircobat ornithopter” that flies and fits comfortably in the palm of your hand.

A team at Harvard University has successfully built a housefly-like robot with synthetic wings that buzz at 120 beats per second.

Back in 2007, at the International Symposium on Flying Insects and Robots, Japanese researchers unveiled a radio-controlled hawk-moth.

While the US military would have the American public believe that these new “fly drones” are used for overseas missions, insect drones have been spotted surveilling streets right here in the US.

It is believed that these insect-like drones are high-tech surveillance tools used by the Department of Homeland Security.

The US government is experimenting with different types of micro-surveillance capabilities, such as cultivating insects with computer chips in them in the hopes of breeding software directly into their bodies to control flight patterns remotely.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been working on this technology since the 1970s. Known as the “inscetothopter”, it was developed by the Office of Research and Development for the CIA. 

It appears to be a dragonfly; however, it contains a tiny gasoline engine to control its four wings. It was subsequently classified as a failure because it could not maintain flight against natural wind patterns.

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has created a butterfly-shaped drone that is the smallest built thus far. It can hover in mid-flight, just as a helicopter and take pictures with its 0.15 gram camera and memory card.

The “butterfly” imitates nature so well, that birds and other insects are convinced it is real and not man-made.

Source: Activist Post

Saturday, June 16, 2012

How to Turn on Do Not Track in Your Browser

In recent years, online tracking companies have begun to monitor our clicks, searches and reading habits as we move around the Internet. If you are concerned about pervasive online web tracking by behavioral advertisers, then you may want to enable Do Not Track on your web browser. Do Not Track is unique in that it combines both technology (a signal transmitted from a user) as well as a policy framework for how companies that receive the signal should respond. As more and more websites respect the Do Not Track signal from your browser, it becomes a more effective tool for protecting your privacy. EFF is working with privacy advocates and industry representatives through the W3C Tracking Protection Working Group to define standards for how websites that receive the Do Not Track signal ought to response in order to best respect consumer's choices. 

The following tutorial walks you through the enabling Do Not Track in the four most popular browsers: Safari, Internet Explorer 9, Firefox, and Chrome.

Safari

On the menu bar at the top of your screen, click on Preferences.

Select the Advanced preferences panel, shown in the screenshot below.

Check the box at the bottom of the menu labeled "Show Develop menu in menu bar."

On the menu bar at the top of your screen, click on Develop, shown in the screenshot below.

Click on "Send Do Not Track HTTP Header."

Congratulations. You have enabled Do Not Track on your Safari browser.

Internet Explorer 9

On the menu bar at the top of your screen, click the Tools button, which is shaped like a gear.

Point to Safety, and then click Tracking Protection, shown in the screenshot below.

Go to the Manage Add-on dialog box, shown in the screenshot below.

Click Tracking Protection List, and then click the Enable button in the lower right-hand corner of the box, shown in the screenshot below.

Congratulations. You have enabled Do Not Track on your Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 browser.

Firefox

On the menu bar at the top of your screen, click on Preferences.

Select the Privacy tab, shown in the screenshot below.

At the top of this menu, check the box labeled "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked."

Congratulations. You have enabled Do Not Track on your Firefox browser.

Google Chrome

To enable Do Not Track in Chrome, you will need to install the Do Not Track browser extension.

On the menu bar at the top of your screen, click on Window.

In the Window menu, click on Extensions.

Chrome will display a control panel which shows all of the extensions you have installed on your browser, shown in the screenshot below.

If you do not have any extension installed, click the Browse the gallery, shown above. If you have extensions installed already, scroll to the bottom of the control panel and click the Get more extensions link. These links will take you to the Chrome Web Store, shown in the screenshot below.

In the search box in the upper left hand corner, type "Do not track."

Select the Do Not Track extension. EFF recommends the extension written by Jonathan Mayer and click "Add to Chrome."

In the drop down menu, shown in the screenshot below, click "Add."

Congratulations. You have installed the Do Not Track extension on your Chrome browser.

Busted: Biotech Leader ‘Syngenta’ Charged Over Covering Up Animal Deaths from GM Corn

In a riveting victory against genetically modified creations, a major biotech company known as Syngenta has been criminally charged for denying knowledge that its GM Bt corn actually kills livestock. What’s more is not only did the company deny this fact, but they did so in a civil court case that ended back in 2007. The charges were finally issued after a long legal struggle against the mega corp initiated by a German farmer named Gottfried Gloeckner whose dairy cattle died after eating the Bt toxin and coming down with a ‘mysterious’ illness.

Grown on his own farm from 1997 to 2002, the cows on the farm were all being fed exclusively on Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn by the year 2000. It was around this time that the mysterious illnesses began to emerge among the cattle population. Syngenta paid Gloeckner 40,000 euros in an effort to silence the farmer; however, a civil lawsuit was brought upon the company. Amazingly, 2 cows ate genetically modified maize (now banned in Poland over serious concerns) and died. During the civil lawsuit, however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was responsible. In fact, they went as far as to claim having no knowledge whatsoever of any harm.

The case was dismissed and Gloeckner, the farmer who launched the suit, was left thousands of euros in debt. And that’s not all; Gloeckner continued to lose many cows as a result of Syngenta’s modified Bt corn.

After halting the use of GM feed in 2002, Gloeckner attempted a full investigation with the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta involved. The data of this investigation is still unavailable to the public, and only examined one cow.

In 2009, however, the Gloeckner teamed up with a German action group known as Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and to ultimately bring Syngenta to the criminal court.

Using the testimony of another farmer whose cows died after eating Syngenta product, Gloeckner and the team have charged the biotech giant for the death of over 65 cows, withholding knowledge of the death-link, and holding the corporation liable for not registering the cattle deaths. The team is even charging Hans-Theo Jahmann, the German head of Syngenta, personally over the withholding of knowledge.

The charges bring to light just how far large biotechnology companies will go to conceal evidence linking their genetically modified products to serious harm. Monsanto, for example, has even threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont if they attempt to label its genetically modified ingredients. Why are they so afraid of the consumer knowing what they are putting in their mouths?

Source: Activist Post

Bank Yankers

And now for some comedy, what a crazy world we live in.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

When the government gathers or analyzes personal information, many people say they're not worried. "I've got nothing to hide," they declare. "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private."

The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. The data-security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the "most common retort against privacy advocates." The legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as an "all-too-common refrain." In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal, thus making the contest with security concerns a foreordained victory for security.

The nothing-to-hide argument is everywhere. In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television. In a campaign slogan for the program, the government declares: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Variations of nothing-to-hide arguments frequently appear in blogs, letters to the editor, television news interviews, and other forums. One blogger in the United States, in reference to profiling people for national-security purposes, declares: "I don't mind people wanting to find out things about me, I've got nothing to hide! Which is why I support [the government's] efforts to find terrorists by monitoring our phone calls!"

The argument is not of recent vintage. One of the characters in Henry James's 1888 novel, The Reverberator, muses: "If these people had done bad things they ought to be ashamed of themselves and he couldn't pity them, and if they hadn't done them there was no need of making such a rumpus about other people knowing."

I encountered the nothing-to-hide argument so frequently in news interviews, discussions, and the like that I decided to probe the issue. I asked the readers of my blog, Concurring Opinions, whether there are good responses to the nothing-to-hide argument. I received a torrent of comments:

  • My response is "So do you have curtains?" or "Can I see your credit-card bills for the last year?"
  • So my response to the "If you have nothing to hide ... " argument is simply, "I don't need to justify my position. You need to justify yours. Come back with a warrant."
  • I don't have anything to hide. But I don't have anything I feel like showing you, either.
  • If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have a life.
  • Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
  • It's not about having anything to hide, it's about things not being anyone else's business.
  • Bottom line, Joe Stalin would [have] loved it. Why should anyone have to say more?

On the surface, it seems easy to dismiss the nothing-to-hide argument. Everybody probably has something to hide from somebody. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn declared, "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." Likewise, in Friedrich Dürrenmatt's novella "Traps," which involves a seemingly innocent man put on trial by a group of retired lawyers in a mock-trial game, the man inquires what his crime shall be. "An altogether minor matter," replies the prosecutor. "A crime can always be found."

One can usually think of something that even the most open person would want to hide. As a commenter to my blog post noted, "If you have nothing to hide, then that quite literally means you are willing to let me photograph you naked? And I get full rights to that photograph—so I can show it to your neighbors?" The Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty expresses a similar idea when he argues: "There is no sentient human being in the Western world who has little or no regard for his or her personal privacy; those who would attempt such claims cannot withstand even a few minutes' questioning about intimate aspects of their lives without capitulating to the intrusiveness of certain subject matters."

But such responses attack the nothing-to-hide argument only in its most extreme form, which isn't particularly strong. In a less extreme form, the nothing-to-hide argument refers not to all personal information but only to the type of data the government is likely to collect. Retorts to the nothing-to-hide argument about exposing people's naked bodies or their deepest secrets are relevant only if the government is likely to gather this kind of information. In many instances, hardly anyone will see the information, and it won't be disclosed to the public. Thus, some might argue, the privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important. In this less extreme form, the nothing-to-hide argument is a formidable one. However, it stems from certain faulty assumptions about privacy and its value.

To evaluate the nothing-to-hide argument, we should begin by looking at how its adherents understand privacy. Nearly every law or policy involving privacy depends upon a particular understanding of what privacy is. The way problems are conceived has a tremendous impact on the legal and policy solutions used to solve them. As the philosopher John Dewey observed, "A problem well put is half-solved."

Read more: The Chronicle