cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Total surveillance society becoming reality
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Conspiracy, Terrorism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:22 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Put CCTV in EVERY home: Householders should help us trap burglars, says Scotland Yard chief

   Bernard Hogan Howe said people installed their CCTV cameras too high
   This meant only the tops of the criminals' heads were caught on film
   Families should install their own cameras to help catch burglars, he said
   The Met chief said Britain needed more cameras to help fight crime

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...ce-help-police.html#ixzz3TsrcC75p
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NSA Doesn’t Need to Spy on Your Calls to Learn Your Secrets

Governments and corporations gather, store, and analyze the tremendous amount of data we chuff out as we move through our digitized lives. Often this is without our knowledge, and typically without our consent. Based on this data, they draw conclusions about us that we might disagree with or object to, and that can impact our lives in profound ways. We may not like to admit it, but we are under mass surveillance.

Much of what we know about the NSA’s surveillance comes from Edward Snowden, although people both before and after him also leaked agency secrets. As an NSA contractor, Snowden collected tens of thousands of documents describing many of the NSA’s surveillance activities. Then in 2013 he fled to Hong Kong and gave them to select reporters.

REST: http://www.wired.com/2015/03/data...nsa-metadata-spying-your-secrets/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

U.S. tracked phone calls for two decades in anti-drug program: USA Today

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government started keeping secret records of international phone calls made by Americans in 1992 in a program intended to combat drug trafficking, USA Today reported on Tuesday, citing current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials.

The program, run by the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration, was halted by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 amid the fallout from revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about NSA data collection, the paper reported.

The DEA program was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime, USA Today said.

The program amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls made from the United States to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking.

Federal investigators used the call records to track drug cartels' distribution networks in the United States, allowing agents to detect previously unknown trafficking rings and money handlers, the paper said.

The program did not intercept the content of calls but it did record the phone numbers and when they were dialed.

When the data collection began, agents sought to limit its use mainly to drug investigations and turned away requests for access from the FBI and the NSA, the paper reported.

Agents allowed searches of the data in terrorism cases, including the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people in 1995, helping to rule out theories linking the attack to foreign terrorists, the paper reported. They allowed even broader use after Sept. 11, 2001, it said.

Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told USA Today the DEA "is no longer collecting bulk telephony metadata from U.S. service providers."

Instead, the DEA assembles a list of the telephone numbers it suspects may be tied to drug trafficking and sends electronic subpoenas to telephone companies seeking logs of international telephone calls linked to those numbers, the paper said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Pre-Crime: People Will Soon Be Arrested For Thinking About Committing A Crime

A pre-crime system called Beware, for example, is capable of rating citizens of Fresno, California, as posing a high, medium or low level of threat. Press accounts say the system amasses data not only on past crimes but on web searches, property records and social networking posts.


Being Arrested For The Crime You Have Not Yet Committed

Computers are getting pretty good at predicting the future. In many cases they do it better than people. That’s why Amazon uses them to figure out what you’re likely to buy, how Netflix knows what you might want to watch, the way meteorologists come up with accurate 10-day forecasts.

Now a team of scientists has demonstrated that a computer can outperform human judges in predicting who will commit a violent crime. In a paper published last month, they described how they built a system that started with people already arrested for domestic violence, then figured out which of them would be most likely to commit the same crime again.

The technology could potentially spare victims from being injured, or even killed. It could also keep the least dangerous offenders from going to jail unnecessarily. And yet, there’s something unnerving about using machines to decide what should happen to people. If targeted advertising misfires, nobody’s liberty is at stake.

For two decades, police departments have used computers to identify times and places where crimes are more likely to occur, guiding the deployment of officers and detectives. Now they’re going another step: using vast data sets to identify individuals who are criminally inclined. They’re doing this with varying levels of transparency and scientific testing. A pre-crime system called Beware, for example, is capable of rating citizens of Fresno, California, as posing a high, medium or low level of threat. Press accounts say the system amasses data not only on past crimes but on web searches, property records and social networking posts.

Critics are warning that the new technology had been rushed into use without enough public discussion. One question is precisely how the software works — it’s the manufacturer’s trade secret. Another is whether there’s scientific evidence that such technology works as advertised.

By contrast, the recent paper on the system that forecasts domestic violence lays out what it can do and how well it can do it.

One of the creators of that system, University of Pennsylvania statistician Richard Berk, said he only works with publicly available data on people who have already been arrested. The system isn’t scooping up and crunching data on ordinary citizens, he said, but is making the same forecasts that judges or police officers previously had to make when it came time to decide whether to detain or release a suspect.

The Technology Shown Us In Minority Report Has Already Come True:

He started working on crime forecasting more than a decade ago, and by 2008 had created a computerized system that beat the experts in picking which parolees were most likely to reoffend. He used a machine learning system – feeding a computer lots of different kinds of data until it discovered patterns that it could use to make predictions, which then can be tested against known data.

Machine learning doesn’t necessarily yield an algorithm that people can understand. Users know which parameters get considered but not how the machine uses them to get its answers.

In the domestic violence paper, published in February in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Berk and Penn psychologist Susan Sorenson looked at data from about 100,000 cases, all occurring between 2009 and 2013. Here, too, they used a machine learning system, feeding a computer data on age, sex, zip code, age at first arrest, and a long list of possible previous charges for such things as drunk driving, animal mistreatment, and firearms crimes. They did not use race, though Berk said the system isn’t completely race blind because some inferences about race can be drawn from a person’s zip code.

The researchers used about two-thirds of the data to “train” the system, giving the machine access to the input data as well as the outcome – whether or not these people were arrested a second time for domestic violence. The other third of the data they used to test the system, giving the computer only the information that a judge could know at arraignment, and seeing how well the system predicted who would be arrested for domestic violence again.

It would be easy to reduce the number of repeat offenses to zero by simply locking up everyone accused of domestic violence, but there’s a cost to jailing people who aren’t going to be dangerous, said Berk. Currently, about half of those arrested for domestic violence are released, he said. The challenge he and Sorenson faced was to continue to release half but pick a less dangerous half. The result: About 20 percent of those released by judges were later arrested for the same crime. Of the computer’s choices, it was only 10 percent.

Berk and Sorensen are currently working with the Philadelphia police, he said, to adapt the machine learning system to predict which households are most at risk of domestic violence. Those, he said, can be targeted with extra supervision.

The parole system has already been implemented in Philadelphia. Parolees in the city are assigned to high-, medium- and low-risk groups by a machine-learning system, allowing parole officers to focus most of their attention on the high-risk cases.

One downside might be a more one-dimensional decision-making process. Several years ago, when I wrote an article on the parole system for the Philadelphia Inquirer, I learned that some parole officers found the system constraining. They said that they could have a bigger impact by spending more time with low-risk offenders who were open to accepting help in getting their lives together – getting off drugs, applying for jobs, or getting a high school degree.

Their concern was that their bosses would put too much faith in the system and too little in them. This echoes the problem Berk says worries him: That people will put too much trust the technology. If a system hasn’t been through scientific testing, then skepticism is in order. And even those that have been shown to beat human judgment are far from perfect. Machine learning could give crime fighters a source of information in making decisions, but at this stage it would be a mistake for them to let it make the decisions for them. source
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oliver Stone says every studio turned down 'Snowden'

Despite a good cast, a good budget, and a good script, veteran filmmaker Oliver Stone says every studio turned down the opportunity to make Snowden, the story of Edward Snowden, the famed CIA contract employee who famously leaked classified information about secret global surveillance programs being run by the NSA.

Stone, who made his first-ever appearance at Comic-Con on Thursday, ultimately found his financing from France and Germany, where he shot the majority of the movie (which Open Road Films will debut on Sept. 16). Joining Stone on the first official day of Comic-Con were his film's stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays the titular character, Shailene Woodley, who plays Snowden's girlfriend Lindsay Mills, and Zachary Quinto, who portrays Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald.

Despite the rousing applause for the filmmaker behind such iconic films as Platoon, Wall Street, and The Doors, among many others, the panel conversation turned pretty serious pretty fast with Stone lamenting the fact that today's society is "feeling the 1984 Big Brother vibe" and all the cast members urging the primarily young audience to educate themselves on the level of surveillance currently in their lives.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Conspiracy, Terrorism All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum