Home | About | Donate

Privacy Advocates Quit Facial Recognition Panel to Protest Tech Lobby Chokehold


Privacy Advocates Quit Facial Recognition Panel to Protest Tech Lobby Chokehold

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Nine privacy advocates on Monday resigned in protest from a year-long attempt to develop a code of conduct for the use of facial recognition technology, citing a failure to agree on "basic, specific" safeguards with industry lobbyists.


Walmart needs to forget about embedding RFID tags in our underwear and just go ahead an implant an RFID tag in either the forearm or forehead of all of its customers. That could just be part of a mandatory loyalty program for all Walmart shoppers. Then the corporate government could more easily track us at all times.

The Mark II program could include an explosive charge that could be triggered whenever the government felt that we might have terrorist thoughts. That would be much cheaper than killing us with drones. All Patriotic Citizens would comply because only Terrorists have anything to fear from our corporate government.


Great article but Washington is neck deep on the choking end of protecting American’s privacy. They don’t want any privacy; it’s called leverage in the polite cocktail circles in D.C. Other places it’s called " heavy muscle courtesy of Vido and Guido ". Extortion, blackmail and planting phony evidence come to mind along with severe prosecutorial overreach, are par for this course, too.


Groucho Marx glasses sales shall flourish.


“Democracy” cannot mean, for example:

Sit down with gangs of marauding pirates “at the table” as equal participants to hash out society’s framework for ensuring some degree of security in your person, and in personal and communal property. Clearly, gangs of marauding pirates would be “interested parties” who have an interest in ensuring that society NOT hash out an effective framework for ensuring security of person and property.

Why the fuck are “industry lobbyists” provided a seat “at the table” as equal participants to hash out society’s framework for ensuring some degree of personal privacy in the economy, in society, in public? Clearly, industry lobbyists are “interested parties” who have an interest in ensuring that society NOT hash out an effective framework for ensuring personal privacy.

Corporations BY THEIR CONSTRUCTION will always be “interested parties” and should NEVER be “at the table” in hashing out ANY basic societal framework for ANYTHING.

“Democracy” is deeply corrupted in our world, in our time. This deep corruption must be addressed directly and forthrightly, and corporations must be harshly and strictly limited in their “rights” to influence the direction of society and the economy.

A constitutional amendment defining “corporate personhood” in a strictly limited and functional way that explicitly confers no further civil, human, or constitutional rights on these constructs, would be a good FIRST STEP in building an effective framework for a non-corrupted human democracy.

But primarily we need to grow our own popular understanding of what is at stake, and what needs to be done about it, to rein in these Frankenstein’s Monsters that dominate society, and the economy, and “our” democracy. We need a strong clear-eyed mass movement to end corporate rule, and we need to carry on a hard fight to end corporate rule, and we need to exercise popular power and END CORPORATE RULE.


No one ever wants to talk about it, but…

Rather than move toward a clear understanding of what is at stake with the cybernetic network technologies that are being built… what we are actually moving toward, is direct network interface with the brain.

No one ever wants to talk about it, but…

Research and development are RAPIDLY ADVANCING on direct chip-to-nerve network interface technology.

No one ever wants to think about it, but…

What happens to human society, and to human individuality, once humans are directly interfaced into the network; become nodes on the network; are exchanging all forms of communication en masse, directly, across the network; are transacting all forms of transaction in real time through direct network interface?

No one ever wants to look at it, but…

The clear, accelerating path of the development of technology in society and the economy, since the development of the telegraph LESS THAN 200 YEARS AGO, through (always accelerating) development of telephone, radio, television, computer, transistor, chip, network, PC, internet, cell phone, smart phone… is a clear accelerating path on which direct interface of the brain to the network is now on the immediate horizon, and will be RAPIDLY ADOPTED by “consumers” who will be thrilled at the power and convenience the new technology provides them as individuals, and who will rapidly find themselves socially and economically locked out if any choose NOT to adopt the new technological standard, but who remain profoundly ignorant of the implications of the network for their individuality, their humanity, let alone their “privacy”…

No one ever wants to think about it or talk about it, but…

In the very near foreseeable future, you will purchase an implant, have it implanted, and sign a service contract (with its highly developed and corporate-friendly “terms of service” agreement) for the services provided through the implant.


A clip from about.com about the invention of the telegraph:

In 1825, British inventor William Sturgeon (1783-1850) revealed an invention that laid the foundations for a large scale evolution in electronic communications: the electromagnet. Sturgeon displayed the power of the electromagnet by lifting nine pounds with a seven-ounce piece of iron wrapped with wires through which the current of a single cell battery was sent. However, the true power of the electromagnet was its role in the creation of countless inventions to come.

Three Telegraph Systems Emerge Based on the Electromagnet
In 1830, an American, Joseph Henry (1797-1878), demonstrated the potential of William Sturgeon’s electromagnet for long distance communication by sending an electronic current over one mile of wire to activate an electromagnet which caused a bell to strike.

In 1837, British physicists, William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone patented the Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph using the same principle of electromagnetism.

However, it was Samuel Morse (1791-1872) that successfully exploited the electromagnet and bettered Joseph Henry’s invention.

Morse made sketches of a “magnetized magnet” based on Henry’s work. Morse invented a telegraph system that was a practical and commercial success.

Samuel Morse
While a professor of arts and design at New York University in 1835, Samuel Morse proved that signals could be transmitted by wire. He used pulses of current to deflect an electromagnet, which moved a marker to produce written codes on a strip of paper - the invention of Morse Code. The following year, the device was modified to emboss the paper with dots and dashes. He gave a public demonstration in 1838, but it was not until five years later that Congress (reflecting public apathy) funded $30,000 to construct an experimental telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore, a distance of 40 miles.

Six years later, members of Congress witnessed the sending and receiving of messages over part of the telegraph line. Before the line had reached Baltimore, the Whig party held its national convention there, and on May 1, 1844, nominated Henry Clay. This news was hand-carried to Annapolis Junction (between Washington and Baltimore) where Morse’s partner, Alfred Vail, wired it to the Capitol. This was the first news dispatched by electric telegraph.

What Hath God Wrought?
The message, “What hath God wrought?” sent later by “Morse Code” from the old Supreme Court chamber in the United States Capitol to his partner in Baltimore, officially opened the completed line of May 24, 1844. Morse allowed Annie Ellsworth, the young daughter of a friend, to choose the words of the message, and she selected a verse from Numbers XXIII, 23: “What hath God wrought?”

-end clip-

100 years after the first successful use of the telegraph, the first modern computers helped construct the atomic bomb during WWII. Since then, “Moore’s Law” has seen a doubling of computing power per volume roughly every 18 months, for the past 75 years, and the computer i hold in my hand is vastly more powerful than the building-sized computers of the 1940s.

i’m some kind of amazed that no one ever seems interested to stop and try to think through what some of the implications for humanity are of the computer / cybernetic network revolution that is underway.

We’re way more interested in using the fruits of this revolution for viewing pornography, texting our friends, watching sports highlights, updating our emotional status, shopping, playing Angry Birds, posting in comment threads, watching Game of Thrones, posting and viewing photos, sharing cute cat videos, than we are interested in any of the deeper implications of the astonishing sci-fi novel we are living. But those deeper implications are deeper than we are.


Yes, the external physical powers of the new network in your drones reference, but more comprehensively the nascent new 3D printing technology, not to mention cars that drive themselves, all serve to multiply the deep implications that kill conversations. Hang in there dubet, we’ll still feed the worms in the long run.


A year or so ago, there was an article about a German scientist who was applying for a patent on a chip that could be implanted in a person. It would allow the government to track the person at any time. It also monitored your vitals or your brain waves or something and had some sort of poison in it that could be released by the government to kill you, if they thought you were doing, or about to do something “bad,” i.e., something the government didn’t like or agree with.

  • I never heard anything further. I wonder if he got the patent, and I wonder if some government isn’t making them by the million.


Adding to what you have said, corporate ownership of the media subverts real democracy. If they own the media and fund the politicians, then the so called democracy does their bidding rather than being beholden to the will of the people.