Flying Microchips The Size Of A Sand Grain, Used For Population Surveillance

This is yet another in a series of technology reveals I am doing to expose what THEY ALREADY HAVE IN THE CAN. Which means, this isn't futurism, but NOW.

Flying Microchips The Size Of A Sand Grain, Used For Population Surveillance

Privacy? Forget About It - Smallest-Ever Human Made Flying Structure Is A Winged Microchip, Scientists Say Can Be Used For 'Population Surveillance & Control'...

It's neither a bird nor a plane, but a winged microchip as small as a grain of sand that can be carried by the wind as it monitors such things as pollution levels or the spread of airborne diseases.

The tiny microfliers, whose development by engineers at Northwestern University was detailed in an article published by Nature this week, are being billed as the smallest-ever human-made flying structures.

These are passive, which means they work by voice activation. Sound turns them on to transmit and with audio and video fingerprints of most of the Earth's population, it's easy to ID whom is talking and where.

After a heavy chemtrail day, take a magnifying glass to your car window and look it over for these things. 

https://rumble.com/vmyg3o-flying-microchips-the-size-of-a-sand-grain-used-for-population-surveillance.html

Government Spying On Our Cars

Law Enforcement Freaks Out Over Apple & Google's Decision To Encrypt Phone Info By Default

Last week, we noted that it was good news to see both Apple and Google highlight plans to encrypt certain phone information by default on new versions of their mobile operating systems, making that information no longer obtainable by those companies and, by extension, governments and law enforcement showing up with warrants and court orders. Having giant tech companies competing on how well they protect your privacy? That's new... and awesome. Except, of course, if you're law enforcement. In those cases, these announcements are apparently cause for a general freakout about how we're all going to die. From the Wall Street Journal:

One Justice Department official said that if the new systems work as advertised, they will make it harder, if not impossible, to solve some cases. Another said the companies have promised customers "the equivalent of a house that can't be searched, or a car trunk that could never be opened.''

Andrew Weissmann, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation general counsel, called Apple's announcement outrageous, because even a judge's decision that there is probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed won't get Apple to help retrieve potential evidence. Apple is "announcing to criminals, 'use this,' " he said. "You could have people who are defrauded, threatened, or even at the extreme, terrorists using it.''

The level of privacy described by Apple and Google is "wonderful until it's your kid who is kidnapped and being abused, and because of the technology, we can't get to them,'' said Ronald Hosko, who left the FBI earlier this year as the head of its criminal-investigations division. "Who's going to get lost because of this, and we're not going to crack the case?"

That Hosko guy apparently gets around. Here he is freaking out in the Washington Post as well:

Ronald T. Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, called the move by Apple “problematic,” saying it will contribute to the steady decrease of law enforcement’s ability to collect key evidence — to solve crimes and prevent them. The agency long has publicly worried about the “going dark” problem, in which the rising use of encryption across a range of services has undermined government’s ability to conduct surveillance, even when it is legally authorized.

“Our ability to act on data that does exist . . . is critical to our success,” Hosko said. He suggested that it would take a major event, such as a terrorist attack, to cause the pendulum to swing back toward giving authorities access to a broad range of digital information.

Think of the children! And the children killed by terrorists! And just be afraid! Of course, this is the usual refrain any time there's more privacy added to products, or when laws are changed to better protect privacy. And it's almost always bogus. I'm reminded of all the fretting and worries by law enforcement types about how "free WiFi" and Tor would mean that criminals could get away with all sorts of stuff. Except, as we've seen, good old fashioned police/detective work can still let them track down criminals. The information on the phone is not the only evidence, and criminals almost always leave other trails of information.

No one has any proactive obligation to make life easier for law enforcement.

Orin Kerr, who regularly writes on privacy, technology and "cybercrime" issues, announced that he was troubled by this move, though he later downgraded his concerns to "more information needed." His initial argument was that since the only thing these moves appeared to do was keep out law enforcement, he couldn't see how it was helpful:

If I understand how it works, the only time the new design matters is when the government has a search warrant, signed by a judge, based on a finding of probable cause. Under the old operating system, Apple could execute a lawful warrant and give law enforcement the data on the phone. Under the new operating system, that warrant is a nullity. It’s just a nice piece of paper with a judge’s signature. Because Apple demands a warrant to decrypt a phone when it is capable of doing so, the only time Apple’s inability to do that makes a difference is when the government has a valid warrant. The policy switch doesn’t stop hackers, trespassers, or rogue agents. It only stops lawful investigations with lawful warrants.

Apple’s design change one it is legally authorized to make, to be clear. Apple can’t intentionally obstruct justice in a specific case, but it is generally up to Apple to design its operating system as it pleases. So it’s lawful on Apple’s part. But here’s the question to consider: How is the public interest served by a policy that only thwarts lawful search warrants?

His "downgraded" concern comes after many people pointed out that by leaving backdoors in its technology, Apple (and others) are also leaving open security vulnerabilities for others to exploit. He says he was under the impression that the backdoors required physical access to the phones in question, but if there were remote capabilities, perhaps Apple's move is more reasonable.

Perhaps the best response (which covers everything I was going to say before I spotted this) comes from Mark Draughn, who details "the dangerous thinking" by those like Kerr who are concerned about this. He covers the issue above about how any vulnerability left by Apple or Google is a vulnerability open to being exploited, but then makes a further (and more important) point: this isn't about them, it's about us and protecting our privacy:

You know what? I don’t give a damn what Apple thinks. Or their general counsel. The data stored on my phone isn’t encrypted because Apple wants it encrypted. It’s encrypted because I want it encrypted. I chose this phone, and I chose to use an operating system that encrypts my data. The reason Apple can’t decrypt my data is because I installed an operating system that doesn’t allow them to.

I’m writing this post on a couple of my computers that run versions of Microsoft Windows. Unsurprisingly, Apple can’t decrypt the data on these computers either. That this operating system software is from Microsoft rather than Apple is beside the point. The fact is that Apple can’t decrypt the data on these computers is because I’ve chosen to use software that doesn’t allow them to. The same would be true if I was posting from my iPhone. That Apple wrote the software doesn’t change my decision to encrypt.

Furthermore, he notes that nothing Apple and Google are doing now on phones is any different than tons of software for desktop/laptop computers:

I’ve been using the encryption features in Microsoft Windows for years, and Microsoft makes it very clear that if I lose the pass code for my data, not even Microsoft can recover it. I created the encryption key, which is only stored on my computer, and I created the password that protects the key, which is only stored in my brain. Anyone that needs data on my computer has to go through me. (Actually, the practical implementation of this system has a few cracks, so it’s not quite that secure, but I don’t think that affects my argument. Neither does the possibility that the NSA has secretly compromised the algorithm.)
Microsoft is not the only player in Windows encryption. Symantec offers various encryption products, and there are off-brand tools like DiskCryptor and TrueCrypt (if it ever really comes back to life). You could also switch to Linux, which has several distributions that include whole-disk encryption. You can also find software to encrypt individual documents and databases.

In short, he points out, the choice of encrypting our data is ours to make. Apple or Google offering us yet another set of tools to do that sort of encryption is them offering a service that many users value. And shouldn't that be the primary reason why they're doing stuff, rather than benefiting the desires of FUD-spewing law enforcement folks?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140923/07120428605/law-enforcement-freaks-out-over-apple-googles-decision-to-encrypt-phone-info-default.shtml

‘Beware’ is new software for use by law enforcement that collects information from billions of records to determine who is likely to commit a crime and then labels them as a public threat.

‘Beware’ is new software for use by law enforcement that collects information from billions of records to determine who is likely to commit a crime and then labels them as a public threat. First they spy on you, set you up, then the take down, as they call it.

New software allowing for predictive policing may be coming to a police department near you. Beware, made by telecommunications company Intrado, searches billions of records to find and predict potential crimes, including at the local level.

FBI wanted access to a hotel guest's room without ...

Refreshing News: FBI wanted access to a hotel guest's room without ...: The FBI wanted access to a hotel guest's room without a warrant. So agents broke his Internet connection, and then posed as Internet t...

google watches you ALWAYS

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sm-cdn/reports/NSA-Black-Paper.pdf

replace Google, https://duckduckgo.com/
replace Chrome, https://www.torproject.org/
replace Gmail, https://www.hushmail.com/

Ventura County Reporter - The drones are coming

Ventura County Reporter - The drones are coming

WRONG!

The drones are already flying and we've both photographed them and see them often. But if you cannot even see HUGE chemtrails overhead, doubtless you'll not see drones.

FAA Has Authorized 106 Government ‘Entities’ to Fly Domestic Drones

That buzzing sound you hear is a spybird watching everything you do...out in the world, at the beach, in the forests, everywhere. In order to effect control, one must first observe. Hey, the killers have to know where you are so they can kill you after all. Common sense really.

CNSNews.com) - Since Jan. 1 of this year, according to congressional testimony presented Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Aviation Administration has authorized 106 federal, state and local government “entities” to fly “unmanned aircraft systems,” also known as drones, within U.S. airspace. “We are now on the edge of a new horizon: using unmanned aerial systems within the homeland,”

House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Michael McCaul (R.-Texas) said as he introduced the testimony. “Currently,” said McCaul, “there are about 200 active Certificates of Authorization issued by the Federal Aviation Administration to over 100 different entities, such as law enforcement departments and academic institutions, to fly drones domestically.”

Is nothing off limits? Now Google (in reality, intel agencies) plans to spy on background noise in your phone

Adverts could soon be tailored according to the background noise around you when using your smartphone, if a patent application by Google becomes reality.



The search engine giant has filed for a patent called ‘Advertising based on environmental conditions’.


As that title implies, it’s not just background sounds that could be used to determine what adverts you seen on your mobile phone. The patent also describes using ‘temperature, humidity, light and air composition’ to produced targeted adverts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118673/Google-patents-advertising-tailored-background-sounds-phone-calls.html

Your HDTV is watching you

Ten years ago, I wrote an article detailing the emerging technology in flat screen and plasma TVs that had within them, microphone and buried cameras/electic eyes, which were motioned activated. That article got lots of laughs from everyone, but it was out there and so were the products that had them. I explained that these TVs were tied into cable providers, essentially acting as an always on seeing/hearing device for the intelligence agencies.

Since that time, it has emerged that yes, not only does the technology exist, but Sony. LG, and Samsung have it installed in their systems, including other features.

This makes those large flat screen babies big bonanza spy devices for the spook agencies and in every home.

As the following article by someone else details, it's explained away as a limited hangout (agency term.) You are being watched, but it's only for advertisement purposes. Honest. Really. It's only to sell you junk for Walmart.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

So, I guess it's okay for your living room to be hooked in to the network (so are the CIA and everyone else, think cloud services) and that everything that happens in your home is being filmed and recorded 24/7 and there is no way you can disable the thing, once installed. And if only for ad tracking, why do they need to listen and watch.

This reminds me of laptops, which are always on video and audio recording devices that have been proven in the last few years as being abused by school districts, businesses (Aaron brothers surveills its customers that it sells or rents to, fact.), and federal agencies (FBI, etc - search google and see the court cases where this has come to the surface.)

You feel okay with that? Your TV and agencies and persons unknown watching every little thing you say and do in your house and YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEM TO DO IT, TOO. You pay for the TV and the cable service.

What a real windfall of survelliance for the spy agencies. You pay to be watched by them.

--------

Samsung’s 2012 top-of-the-line plasmas and LED HDTVs offer new features never before available within a television including a built-in, internally wired HD camera, twin microphones, face tracking and speech recognition. While these features give you unprecedented control over an HDTV, the devices themselves, more similar than ever to a personal computer, may allow hackers or even Samsung to see and hear you and your family, and collect extremely personal data.






While Web cameras and Internet connectivity are not new to HDTVs, their complete integration is, and it’s the always connected camera and microphones, combined with the option of third-party apps (not to mention Samsung’s own software) gives us cause for concern regarding the privacy of TV buyers and their friends and families.



Samsung has not released a privacy policy clarifying what data it is collecting and sharing with regard to the new TV sets. And while there is no current evidence of any particular security hole or untoward behavior by Samsung’s app partners, Samsung has only stated that it “assumes no responsibility, and shall not be liable” in the event that a product or service is not “appropriate.”



Samsung demoed these features to the press earlier this month. The camera and microphones are built into the top if the screen bezel in the 2012 8000-series plasmas and are permanently attached to the top of the 7500- and 8000ES-series LED TVs.



A Samsung representative showed how, once set up and connected to the Internet, these models will automatically talk to the Samsung cloud and enable viewers to use new and exciting apps.



These Samsung TVs locate and make note of registered viewers via sophisticated face recognition software. This means if you tell the TV whose faces belong to which users in your family, it personalizes the experience to each recognized family member. If you have friends over, it could log these faces as well.



In addition, the TV listens and responds to specific voice commands. To use the feature, the microphone is active. What concerns us is the integration of both an active camera and microphone. A Samsung representative tells us you can deactivate the voice feature; however this is done via software, not a hard switch like the one you use to turn a room light on or off.



And unlike other TVs, which have cameras and microphones as add-on accessories connected by a single, easily removable USB cable, you can’t just unplug these sensors.



During our demo, unless the face recognition learning feature was activated, there was no indication as to whether the camera (such as a red light) and audio mics are on. And as far as the microphone is concerned the is no way to physically disconnect it or be assured it is not picking up your voice when you don’t intend it to do so.



Samsung does provide the ability to manually reposition the TV’s camera away from viewers. The LED TV models allow you to manually point it upward, facing the ceiling; the plasma’s camera can be re-aimed to capture objects in the rear of the TV according a Samsung spokesperson.



Privacy concerns



We began to wonder exactly what data Samsung collects from its new “eyes and ears” and how it and other companies intend use it, which raises the following questions:



* Can Samsung or Samsung-authorized companies watch you watching your Samsung TV?



* Do the televisions send a user ID or the TV’s serial number to the Samsung cloud whenever it has an Internet connection?



* Does Samsung cross reference a user ID or facial scan to your warranty registration information, such as name, address etc.?



* Can a person or company listen to you, at will, via the microphone and Internet connection?



* Does Samsung’s cloud store all this information? How secure is this extremely personal data?



* Can a hacker intercept this data or view you via the built in camera?



* Can a third-party app program do any of the above?



* Exactly what information does the TV send to Samsung or other parties?



* Does Samsung intend to sell data collected by its Smart TV owners, such as who, what and when one is viewing?



Companies desiring to provide highly targeted advertisements to you via the TV screen or external marketing would find this data extremely valuable. “Hey, you look a little tired, how about some Ambien? I’m seeing a little grey, have you tried Grecian Formula? Joe, it looks like you packed on a few pounds recently, here’s information from Weight Watchers. Hey kids, you look bored, look at these TOYS!”

http://hdguru.com/is-your-new-hdtv-watching-you/7643/

FBI can't find its GPS bugs? Right...

The FBI Can’t Find Many of Its GPS Trackers Now That They’re Turned Off
The US Supreme Court had outlawed the warrantless use of GPS trackers so the FBI complied by shutting down all its devices but now is apparently having trouble actually retrieving the hardware. Because the GPS units are turned off. And the FBI has no idea where they are unless they're on.

The Court ruled in U.S. v. Jones that the Federal Bureau use of unwarranted vehicle-based GPS tracking units was illegal on the grounds that the practice violated the 4th Amendment—specifically that the act represented a search and constituted trespassing. The FBI complied and nixed its 3,000 currently active GPS tracking devices but that's where the problem lies.

Turns out the FBI can't locate the devices unless they're active. The Agency so determined to retrieve its toys that it has petitioned the court to briefly turn the devices back on for the sole purpose of finding and retrieving the hardware. I bet they wish they'd just bothered with those warrants now.

Just because it's illegal for the feds to do this, doesn't mean they will stop spying on people. They always have, will, and will do whatever they want, to whomever they want.