New Control Over Privacy on Facebook

Image via CrunchBase Why do I post things like this? Simple to help others wake up and see what it going on in the world. It's to help those who actually read it see the reality of many subjects that are not talked about much either online or on the news. But, most of all to grab the attention of these places and people to hopefully get results that we need.

I saw this article today and have to say. It's good to see people actually paying attention out there. Yet somehow I thought Google would have listened as well. But to see Facebook actually making changes. I'm impressed. Looks like some actually do listen. It's good to see results. Though it may not be enough, It's a good start. Now if only Google plus would listen as well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-Control-Over-Privacy-on-nytimes-2340101277.html?x=0&.v=2
Privacy worries have bedeviled Facebook since its early days, from the introduction of the endless scroll of data known as the news feed to, most recently, the use of facial recognition technology to identify people in photographs.
At the nub of all those worries, of course, is how much people share on Facebook, with whom and — perhaps most important — how well they understand the potential consequences.
The company has struggled to find a balance between giving users too little control over privacy and giving them too much, for fear they won’t share much at all. Seeking a happy medium, Facebook announced changes on Tuesday that it says will help users get a grip on what they share.
When the changes are introduced on Thursday, every time Facebook users add a picture, comment or any other content to their profile pages, they can specify who can see it: all of their so-called Facebook friends, a specific group of friends, or everyone who has access to the Internet. These will be indicated by icons that replace the current, more complicated padlock menu.
Similar controls will apply to information like users’ phone numbers and hometowns and whether they like, say, death metal bands, on their profile pages. Users will no longer have to seek out a separate privacy page to tweak who sees how much of that personal information. Nor will they have to bother to remember what those settings were.
Company officials say they hope the changes will simplify the process of establishing who knows what about your life on the Internet — and hopefully, save a few people the embarrassment of unwittingly sharing too much.
See the full article here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-Control-Over-Privacy-on-nytimes-2340101277.html?x=0&.v=2
Of course I still trying to figure out how most of these plan to investigate themselves being that they are all part of the same group. For those that don't know may want to look at many posts I've done on here before about them.
But, Even the New York Times picked up on it. I'm Impressed.

Facebook ‘Face Recognition’ Feature Draws Privacy Scrutiny

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/technology/09facebook.html
BRUSSELS (Bloomberg News) — European Union data protection regulators said on Wednesday that they would investigate Facebook over a feature that uses face-recognition software to suggest people’s names to tag in pictures without their permission, and a privacy group in the United States said that it planned to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over the feature.
A group of privacy watchdogs drawn from the European bloc’s 27 nations will study the measure for possible rule violations, said Gérard Lommel, a Luxembourg member of the so-called Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. Authorities in Britain and Ireland said they are also looking into the photo-tagging function on the world’s most popular social networking service.
“Tags of people on pictures should only happen based on people’s prior consent and it can’t be activated by default,” said Mr. Lommel. Such automatic tagging suggestions “can bear a lot of risks for users” and the European data protection officials will “clarify to Facebook that this can’t happen like this.”
I will soon have more on this information soon. Why. Because people need to know about it.

See recent posts on this here.

Why Facebook Facial Recognition Should Scare You

 http://todaysworldnewsinfo.blogspot.com/2011/08/facebook-facial-recognition-system-why.html

How Dangerous Is Facebook's Facial Recognition Software? | IdeaFeed | Big Think

http://todaysworldnewsinfo.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-dangerous-is-facebook-facial.html

Facebook's facial recognition system, why it's scary

http://todaysworldnewsinfo.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-facebook-facial-recognition-should.html

Related articles

• VIDEO: How to opt out of Facebook facial recognition (kobn.wordpress.com)
• Researchers develop cheap facial recognition system to predict SSNs (slashgear.com)
• Facebook Makes It Easier to Opt Out of Facial Recognition [Blip] (gizmodo.com)
• New Facebook Privacy Controls, Sprint for iPhone 5 and RIM's New Curves: BYTE Newsbriefs (informationweek.com)
• Facebook shows users how to turn off facial recognition (telegraph.co.uk)
• Does Facial Recognition Technology Mean the End of Privacy? (futurelab.net)
• Facebook's Updated Privacy Settings (beast4romtheeast.wordpress.com)
• Facebook Finally Simplifies Privacy (adweek.com)
• Facebook Tweaks Face-Recognition After Privacy Complaints (huffingtonpost.com)
• Facebook's facial recognition system, why it's scary (cbsnews.com)
• Facebook overhauls privacy settings (canada.com)
• Facebook Caves, Simplifies Privacy Settings (abcnews.go.com)
• Facebook: changing to protect your privates (theage.com.au)
• Facebook Revamp To Give Users More Privacy (news.sky.com)
• Facebook changes privacy options (mirror.co.uk)
• Facebook's new privacy controls (thesun.co.uk)
• Facebook overhauling its privacy settings (edugeek.net)
• Facebook Making Their Privacy Features Easier To Use! (perezhilton.com)
• On The Road To TwitBook: Are Facebook's New Sharing Features Defensive Or Preemptive? (techcrunch.com)

How Dangerous Is Facebook's Facial Recognition Software? | IdeaFeed | Big Think

Image by city burns via FlickrThe more and more I have studied on this, the more I have found that this could be a very dangerous system of technology. That most people don't seem to think about. I know several people, I mean hundreds that the last thing they need is thier past to catch up to them to literally ruin thier lives. This tech and the new internet regulations will put many of these people in serious danger.
To be able to take a picture of someone walking down the street, and then to find them on either Facebook or Google plus in and instant, find out who they are and follow thier every move. Is this dangerous or not? People need to wake up and think about this.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/39556

What's the Latest Development?
Rather than laboriously tagging photos of your friends, Facebook released facial recognition software last winter that makes educated guesses about who is in your photos. Rolling out the software slowly and allowing users to opt out quelled criticism but a new study from Carnegie Mellon "finds that the technology can help researchers locate people's social security numbers, just from the information on their Facebook profiles and their photo." With a 30 percent success rate, researchers were able to find the last five digits of an individual's social security number.
What's the Big Idea?
Facebook has become notorious for its violations of privacy, simultaneously earning it the status of the world's most loved and hated website. Because most people on Facebook use their real identity, the social networking platform has become a powerful identification tool. And while we are accustomed to thinking about Internet privacy as regards our online lives, given advances in programs like facial recognition software, we should consider how online privacy will affect our real lives. Facebook currently faces legislation over giving user data to advertisers.
Read it at The Atlantic Wire

The Dangers of Using High Tech Facial Recognition Software to Catch Criminals

Posted on August 15, 2011 by ricardo.ledan

http://www.ghacks.net/2011/08/14/the-dangers-of-using-high-tech-facial-recognition-software-to-catch-criminals/
In light of the rioting in London, British police have been using CCTV in combination with facial-recognition software footage in order to identify and separate the criminal elements in the crowd. The article goes on to speculates on the need of creating a database for “confirmed” faces (primarily faces that can be linked to an identity). The article even illuminates the issue of quality control and some of the problems that lighting, distance, and clarity plays in distorting and inevitably making it harder to match. With facial recognition technology commonly found in television and movies unavailable, combined with the likely chance to misidentify individual (which could also be used to benefit criminals); it seems that British officials have the daunting task ahead of them. Also police fear that people who resemble rioters (solely the images) may be in danger

Dangers Of Facebook Face Recognition On Picture Uploads

http://www.techwench.com/dangers-of-facebook-face-recognition-on-picture-uploads/

digg

Ok, I think this is one of the more problematic features of Facebook with dramatic potential of invading your privacy much more than you ever wanted. Facebook is activating face recognition for photos that users upload to their Facebook profiles. And as always, Facebook is activating this feature by default and the user has to turn it off afterwards.

I don’t care what everyone does on Facebook, I do not use it for me personally. However, I think there are quite a few privacy issues involved in this one. What if somebody uploads a picture of a group of people and the software recognizes you even though you do not want to be recognized and name tagged? I mean, how do we know what happens down the road with this type of information?! The invasion of our privacy is immense and profiling and tracking of people can be become a huge issue. We’re already being tracked with the cell phones that we carry around. Now imagine you are walking through a subway station one day and the same software that recognized you on Facebook connects to the camera system in public places. Yes, I know it is a long stretch, but think more like “Big Brother” scenarios. Right now it is just Facebook. Other companies are doing the same thing. They are not connected today, they might be connected tomorrow.
And still more to come on this subject. If you don't see a link yet go to the home page to read more.

Related articles

• The Dangers of Using High Tech Facial Recognition Software to Catch Criminals (ghacks.net)
• The Facial Recognition Revolution (designmind.frogdesign.com)
• How Dangerous Is Facebook's Facial Recognition Software? (bigthink.com)
• Police Used Facial Recognition Software To ID Suspects in UK Riots [Riots] (gizmodo.com)
• OH, GOODY: Facial recognition software could reveal your social security number. "According to a n... (pajamasmedia.com)
• Facial Recognition Software Acquired by Google (bigbrotherwatch.org.uk)
• Google Purchases Facial-Recognition Software Firm (socialtimes.com)
• Facial Recognition Software & Social Media Sites Increase Privacy Risk (psfk.com)
• Make a "photobio" video from your digital pics using facial recognition software (geek.com)
• Facial recognition software takes one glance at you and brings up your Facebook profile [Surveillance] (io9.com)

The horrible process of How-To Permanently Delete Your Facebook Account

Image via CrunchBasehttp://www.groovypost.com/howto/security/permanently-delete-your-facebook-profile-account
Over the last 12 months, Facebook has seen its share of controversy in regard to account privacy and its terms of service.  It’s hard to say what sparked all the excitement: Rapid growth of the service (#3 on the internet overall)? Parents growing awareness of the site and how their kids were using it?  The Media?  Or perhaps they deserved it based on their unethical business practices, privacy policy and terms of service?
Whatever the reasons, it’s obvious some no longer trust the internet giant as I seem to keep hearing the same question over and over again:
“Is it possible to delete my facebook account?”
and
“I managed to deactivate it so it’s deleted right?”.
You would think the answer would be fairly straightforward however I have to admit, it took quite a bit of digging to come up with the answers surrounding account / profile deactivation and full blown account removal from the service.  After doing the research and walking through the deceptive complex process, it was very apparent that Facebook has done their very best to prevent its customers from leaving their service thus limiting the amount of customer data being scrubbed from their service.
 

Personally, I really feel Facebook has definitely crossed the border of unethical behavior on this.  After all, they don’t “actually” provide an interface to delete your account and end your agreement with them regarding the use of your personal data per section 2.1 in their terms of service.
Here, let me show you.  First I’ll explain Facebook Account Deactivation since this is the only option offered in their User Interface.

Deactivating Your Facebook Account, Is it the same as Account Deletion?

Users can deactivate their Facebook account from the user interface without too much trouble however Facebook will ask you to confirm your decision (more on this) by displaying one of your friends and telling you “Your Friend will miss you”.  In my example for instance, I’m pretty sure it took at least a few days for “P-Diddy” to get over losing me as a FaceBook friend. 
Be sure to see the rest of this hideous process at the link below.
http://www.groovypost.com/howto/security/permanently-delete-your-facebook-profile-account
more here.
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16929680703

I REPEAT: Your profile isn't deleted right away! You must NOT log in to, or interact in any other way with Facebook for at least two weeks, as it will cancel the deletion request. That includes NOT logging in to Facebook using any client (like the iPhone app or IM:s like Pidgin), NOT clicking embedded Like-buttons on other websites, NOT logging in to other services using Facebook Connect (like Digg) etc etc.

Hey, while your're at it, delete all your browsing/forms history and cookies as well, to minimize the risk of accidentally using your account! 

Related articles

• How to Delete Your Facebook Account [Emailable Tech Support] (lifehacker.com)
• How to Permanently Delete Your Facebook Account (lockergnome.com)
• How to deactivate your Facebook account (guardian.co.uk)
• Facebook: the virtual Hotel California | Edgar Whitley (guardian.co.uk)
• Deactivating Facebook (strategicallycommunicating.wordpress.com)
• How to delete your Facebook account (rovemonteux.net)
• Deleting a Facebook Account (allthingsd.com)
• #ff Privacy For Dummies (dave-lucas.blogspot.com)
• De-Networking (beyondthepopcorn.wordpress.com)
• AccountKiller Details How to Delete Your Account from Nearly Any Web Site (kozar.wordpress.com)
• Facebook for BlackBerry Smartphones v2.0 (Beta 3): Wi-Fi Support and More (blogs.blackberry.com)

Facebook, Walmart Becoming “666 Digital Beast” of the 21st Century

Image via Wikipediahttp://altnewsreport.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/facebook-666-beast
Watch http://www.youtube.com/user/peltecs?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/0/3V38WT2YVlg
This is the final red flag alert for the approach of  overt social  fascism. There is nothing covert about what the TV reporter in the video clip above is describing. Do you see where all this is going? Do the math.  With facial recognition software in place on Facebook, whenever the FED is monitoring your conversation, they know who you are, by face, and they will intervene and “correct” your conversation if they feel you are crossing some line they have established. You are not only being watched and listened to which is unauthorized personal surveillance, but they will now tell you what you should or should not be saying, that is to say, they will “weigh in” and “correct the conversation.”
Outrage is not a word that even comes close to how I feel about this newscast. The sheer hubris and audacity evident in the statement staggers me.
Since when does anyone in Canada or America need to be “corrected” by some anonymous government official when they are in an online conversation?  Being surreptitiously monitored by the government is awful enough. The very premise of what this reporter is suggesting throws every constitutional right to privacy and free speech out the window. If these kinds of public mass PSY OPs, disguised as TV news broadcasts, are already airing in Canada, then how soon will PSY OP TV broadcasts like this one air in the US? Is the mass TV network PSY OP already creeping into America’s living rooms which will suggest, in oh so blithe and cheerful conversational terms, that it’s now “OK” not only for the FED to listen in and ID you by photo while you chat with friends online on Facebook, but to actually intervene in the conversation and “correct” it when they deem appropriate?
Read also: 666 Marriage From Hell: Facebook and RFID

I also quickly discovered that Christians and Christianity are not the “favored” identities to the computerized Facebook protocols. One evening I had another spooky and inexplicable experience. I wanted to place certain keywords in my profile so that other Christians could find me a little bit easier. [ My entire reason and motive for joining Facebook had been to not only investigate just how secretly rotten this portal is, but to examine how it worked and report on it, which I am doing now. ]
So I was trying to enter the keyword phrases like:” Jesus follower“, “Jesus of Nazareth”, “Lord Jesus Christ” “Christian Conservative” “Tea Party Patriot” and so forth into my profile. Every time I entered these phrases they vanished. They just disappeared. I entered and re-entered these keyword phrases 6 times over before I realized that the pre-coded protocols of Facebook WAS NOT going to allow me to place those phrases into my profile, yet there was a persistent ongoing effort to get me to put into the profile instead:

 

 

Related articles

• Facebook's facial-recognition software prompts privacy concerns (news.consumerreports.org)
• How To Stop Facebook's Facial Recognition Software from Automatically Tagging You in Photos (businessinsider.com)
• Privacy Regulators See Red Over Facebook Facial Recognition (martingysler.com)
• Facebook growth slows for second straight month (venturebeat.com)
• Facebook Facial Recognition : on by default - and other considerations! (nwapchelp.wordpress.com)
• Facebook Is Becoming The "666 Digital Beast" of the 21st Century (altnewsreport.wordpress.com)
• European regulators investigating Facebook facial recognition over privacy concerns (venturebeat.com)
• Weekly newsletter (bigbrotherwatch.org.uk)
• Privacy Regulators See Red Over Facebook Facial Recognition (searchenginewatch.com)
• Facebook, Photo Recognition & Privacy (globalneighbourhoods.net)
• Doing Multilingual Keyword Research that Works (clickfire.com)
• Mario Teguh Is Third Most Engaging On Facebook (allfacebook.com)
• Facebook Can Block You For "Liking" Too Many Things (businessinsider.com)
• Philippians 1.10: To Live is Christ (cornerstonefellowship.wordpress.com)
• Another fake "Facebook profile views" application - how many girls and boys have viewed your wall (commtouch.com)
• The other side of Grace ... (thepauls.wordpress.com)

FEMA to confiscate food from local farms in emergencies?

Image via Wikipediahttp://www.naturalnews.com/032357_FEMA_food_confiscation.html
(NaturalNews) - Since our nation's founding the federal government has, in times of emergency, claimed extra-constitutional powers and authority. Under the guise of acting in the public's best interests, Washington has taken away privacy rights, free speech, and habeas corpus, among others. There's no reason to think it wouldn't happen again.

With that in mind, would it surprise you to find out that if disaster strikes in your part of the country, the federal government is prepared to take over local food supplies, in part by confiscating farms?

It shouldn't, says "Farmer Brad," a Texas-based farmer who said in an interview about food security with Mike Adams for Natural News TV that during Hurricane Katrina, an inventory of local farms and what they produced was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"FEMA was doing an inventory of all the farms around ... metroplexes," he said, which included nearby Houston and other large cities. "They started calling up farms and wanted to know where farms were, and they were being prepared to maybe take food if they need to, from farms, you know, for a crisis like that."

Brad, of HomeSweetFarm.com, said that while the agency didn't come right out and say they would confiscate crops and cattle, "they were making food assessments, you know, what is in the local food shed in a metroplex."

He said the agency's assessment took into account a number of potential emergencies and disasters, including spikes in fuel prices or even sudden disruptions - anything that might hinder or prevent the delivery of food to stores. Such scenarios would also lead to dramatic increases in food prices as well, Brad said.

"The distribution system for food is so fragile, you know, and there's only enough food in these grocery stores to last, literally, for just a couple of days," he said, noting that store shelves during Katrina were stripped bare "within hours."

Worse, Brad said, because of mass evacuations from the big cities, traffic choked local roads, making even short-distance travel impossible. He said he and his family couldn't even get into town to go to the store.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032357_FEMA_food_confiscation.html#ixzz1MUfPBWIX

Related articles

• FEMA to Confiscate Food from Local Farms in Emergencies? (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
• Ron Paul Would Abolish FEMA (redstateprogressive.com)
• Bulk of Texans owing FEMA live in Houston area (chron.com)
• FEMA Wants It's Money Back! (hellobeautiful.com)
• "Weekly Registration Jumps By 20,000 For Alabama Disaster" and related posts (fema.gov)
• FEMA Wants Disaster Victims To Repay $22M (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
• Ala. families moving into new FEMA trailers (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• FEMA asks for return of disaster relief money (cbc.ca)
• Cheers, not jeers for FEMA at disaster sites (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• FEMA Pushes IT Upgrades to Keep Pace With Operations (news.dice.com)

Online Privacy… is there such a thing?

Now this is something I've been trying to help people understand for a very long time now. If you don't want the world to see all your information then don't post it. Don't upload it, Not even email in this case.
Check out the full article here.

Image via CrunchBase

clipped from www.ldjackson.net I’m sure we all agree that the company, and it’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, truly deserves all of it. They share/sell our information, all the while giving us new “privacy settings” in order to appease us. However, if one takes a close look at these settings, a person would quickly realize that they’re being “Zuckered”. That’s right, you are losing your privacy online! Now, that brings to mind an important question: Can you have true “online privacy”? My answer is a resounding NO! You see, those technologies are able to keep casual onlookers out… But anyone who is equipped with the proper tools can easily access your information behind those security measures. I have personally watched my brother a) Hack into a WPA2 protected network (it was ours), b) Look at information on all computers attached to that same network, and c) Actually read emails being sent from a computer on that network. Still think that you can keep your information safe online?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Facebook's Changes in Zuckerberg's Words (e1evation.com)
• Mark Zuckerberg Discusses Old And New Facebook Privacy Settings [Video] (blogherald.com)
• Facebook's Changes in Zuckerberg's Words [VIDEO] (mashable.com)
• Two cheers for Facebook's privacy reforms (blogs.ft.com)
• Mark Zuckerberg: Nobody Is Quitting Facebook Because Of Privacy Issues (businessinsider.com)
• Facebook Privacy Changes Have Nothing To Do With Advertising, Says Zuckerberg (businessinsider.com)
• Facebook Unveils Simplified Privacy Settings, Pursues Expansion With Sharegrove Buy (searchenginewatch.com)

Facebook founder and CEO responds to complaints, introduces new settings

Image via Wikipedia

I personally don't like to use facebook much. Though I do have a couple of accounts for different things I do on the net.
For the most part. I think people should know this. If your one of those that have privacy issues on the net. There is a simple fix to all that. Anything you do NOT want seen by everyone in the world. DO NOT Upload it to the internet.
Trust me, this will fix all of your problems.
If it's online anywhere. Be sure to know that anyone with any knowlegde will be able to see everything you have uploaded.
Same goes for your computer, Cell phones, anything that hooks up to wi-fi or Gps.
It really goes down to common sense.
Facebook is meant to share information. Even though many claim security this and that. It's all good to have. But any good hacker can still get in if they really wanted too.
Facebook response and I give them credit for do this.
Check it out.

clipped from www.msnbc.msn.com Facebook has been growing quickly. It has become a community of more than 400 million people in just a few years. It's a challenge to keep that many people satisfied over time, so we move quickly to serve that community with new ways to connect with the social Web and each other. Sometimes we move too fast — and after listening to recent concerns, we're responding. The biggest message we have heard recently is that people want easier control over their information. Simply put, many of you thought our controls were too complex. Our intention was to give you lots of granular controls; but that may not have been what many of you wanted. We just missed the mark. Many people choose to make some of their information visible to everyone so people they know can find them on Facebook. We already offer controls to limit the visibility of that information and we intend to make them even stronger In the coming weeks, we will add privacy controls that are much simpler to use

Related articles by Zemanta

• Facebook CEO Addresses Privacy Concerns (sfgate.com)
• Facebook admits privacy change 'missed the mark' (v3.co.uk)
• Facebook CEO addresses privacy concerns (macworld.com)
• Mark Zuckerberg On Facebook's Privacy Controls: "We Just Missed The Mark" (techcrunch.com)
• Zuckerberg promises simpler privacy settings (vator.tv)
• Facebook founder admits they dropped the ball on privacy (ghacks.net)
• Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Admits Gaffes (abcnews.go.com)
• Facebook CEO Admits They "Missed the Mark" On Privacy [Facebook] (gizmodo.com)
• Facebook CEO admits mistakes, adresses privacy concerns (infoworld.com)
• Facebook's Zuckerberg Responds To Mounting Pressure Over Privacy Issues (searchenginewatch.com)

U.K.’s ID Card Struggle Mirrors Privacy Battle in U.S.

clipped from www.insurancenetworking.com As terrorists around the globe continue to exploit weaknesses in physical and Internet security, governments are caught between a rock and a hard place. To protect a company’s or individual’s identity, we need to gather and store personal information, but at what point does that gathering and storing become distribution—and what are the attendant privacy risks? According to the reports, the ID card project was the subject of frequent criticism, with “privacy activists” saying it was overly expensive, fraught with security risks and a violation of personal liberties. The Labour Party, on the other hand, said the program would allow for tighter control over immigration and help fight crime and terrorism. But what happens if some government official does something corrupt with our data, as government officials will from time to time? To be sure, no system of identification and security will be perfect,

Related articles by Zemanta

• Larry Downes: The Other Side of Privacy (boxofmeat.net)
• UK Internet users cautious about revealing too much, says Ofcom (newstatesman.com)
• Politicians' data policy plans scrutinised (iwr.co.uk)
• UK web users 'wary of revealing too much' (guardian.co.uk)
• Managing your privacy on Facebook (news.bbc.co.uk)
• FP Tech Desk: Facebook unveils new security feature (business.financialpost.com)
• Check Your Facebook Privacy Settings With ReclaimPrivacy (readwriteweb.com)
• Borislav kiprin vcle_course_work (slideshare.net)

News Hub: Worker ID Card Spurs Controversy

Image via Wikipedia

News video

clipped from online.wsj.com News Hub: Worker ID Card Spurs Controversy 3/9/2010 12:35:28 PM Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill are proposing a new national biometric ID card that would be required of all U.S. workers. WSJ's Laura Meckler explains the proposal and the objections from privacy advocates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US Immigration Bill May Bring a National Biometric ID Card (yro.slashdot.org)
• Morning Musings: Sleeper Issues Are Education, Immigration (blogs.wsj.com)
• Electronic ID Documents (slideshare.net)
• Northerners give up ID cards for Lent figures suggest (go.theregister.com)
• Nose Scanning - A Revolution in Biometrics ! (trak.in)
• Massa Drama: Dem Congressman Muddles Rahm's Message (blogs.abcnews.com)
• Mark A. Shiffrin and Avi Silberschatz: Passports are Passé (huffingtonpost.com)

The New Airport Full Body Scanners Expose Your Private Areas To Gawking Airport Security Officials And May Damage Your DNA | The Last Days

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

• The New Airport Full Body Scanners Expose Your Private Areas To Gawking Airport Security Officials And May Damage Your DNA | The Last Days

  "The new full body scanners going into airports across the United States are being hailed as the next great innovation in airport security, but the truth is that most Americans do not understand what these machines actually do. The reality is that these machines produce an image that is the closest one can get to seeing someone's exposed body without actually seeing their skin. Every curve, every crevice and every detail of the bodies of every passenger will be completely exposed to the eyes of gawking airport security officials. In addition, a number of scientific experts are now claiming that the technology used by these scanners actually is damaging to human DNA. But even with all of these concerns, new polls reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans want these machines to be installed in U.S. airports. So are you ready to walk through full body scanners that give security officials a crystal clear look at your completely exposed body? Democratic political strategist James Carville apparently is.... "Let me buy a [security] card, then go and measure my *****, and let me get on the airplane." But is this the way that the new "Amerika" has to be? A place where all dignity and all privacy is completely thrown out the window? A place where there is no shame and where we are all reduced to little more than cattle to be herded around and embarrassed? But not only are these new full body scanners a threat to privacy, they are also potentially dangerous to our health."

  tags: gawking, news, Airport, Scanners, Scanning, Technology, Gadgets, passports, Security

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Get ready for more of those TSA body scanners! (crunchgear.com)
• Detroit terror attack: hesitation over x-ray scanners risking lives (telegraph.co.uk)
• Claim: Millimeter wave body scanners wouldn't have stopped Christmas plot. Why bother with them, then? (crunchgear.com)
• Dutch Home Affairs Minister Presents Preliminary Results of Amsterdam Airport Investigation (themoderatevoice.com)
• Invasion of Privacy vs. Safe Travel? (themoderatevoice.com)