Добредојдовте
  • Users with e-mails at mail ·ru, aol ·com and gmx ·com to contact admins for registration.
  • Новорегистрираните членови повратниот одговор од форумот за активирање на сметката нека го побараат и во Junk на нивните пошти.
  • Сите регистрирани членови кои неучествуваат во дискусиите три месеци автоматски им се брише регистрацијата

 

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 2.14 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
FACEBOOK - da ne se iznenadi nekoj podocna neprijatno
Author Message
montehristo Offline
Неверан Тома
*****

Posts: 1,490
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 30
#1

Quote:Facebook - the CIA conspiracy


by Matt Greenop


Global Research, March 12, 2009
The New Zealand Herald - 2007-08-08




Facebook has 20 million users worldwide, is worth billions of dollars and, if internet sources are to be believed, was started by the CIA.

The social networking phenomenon started as a way of American college students to keep in touch. It is rapidly catching up with MySpace, and has left others like Bebo in its wake.

But there is a dark side to the success story that's been spreading across the blogosphere. A complex but riveting Big Brother-type conspiracy theory which links Facebook to the CIA and the US Department of Defence.

The CIA is, though, using a Facebook group to recruit staff for its very sexy sounding National Clandestine Service.

Checking out the job ads
does require a Facebook login, so if you haven't joined the site - or are worried that CIA spooks will start following you home from work -check them out on the agency's own site.



The story starts once Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had launched, after the dorm room drama that's led to the current court case.

Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet.

Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.

She was also an adviser to the Secretary of Defence and overseeing the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.

It was when a journalist lifted the lid on the DARPA's Information Awareness Office that the public began to show concern at its information mining projects.



Wikipedia's IAO page says: "the IAO has the stated mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralised location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver's licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data.".

Not surprisingly, the backlash from civil libertarians led to a Congressional investigation into DARPA's activity, the Information Awareness Office lost its funding.

Now the internet conspiracy theorists are citing Facebook as the IAO's new mask.

Parts of the IAO's technology round-up included 'human network analysis and behaviour model building engines', which Facebook's massive volume of neatly-targeted data gathering allows for.

Facebook's own Terms of use state: "by posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorpoate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorise sublicenses of the foregoing.



And in its equally interesting privacy policy: "Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (eg. photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalised experience. By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States."

Is the CIA really providing the impetus and the funding behind the monster growth of this year's biggest dot com success story? Maybe only the men with the nice suits and ear pieces can answer that.
Da ne bide nekoj iznenaden podocna.
In-Q-Tel e Javno-privatno partnerstvo medju CIA i biznisot.
Se sto postavuvate e i kje bide zabelazano.
An inch today is tomorrow’s mile.
22-11-2010, 02:02 AM
Reply
montehristo Offline
Неверан Тома
*****

Posts: 1,490
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 30
#2

Quote:
FBI Wiretapping of Internet Users. "All Your Data Belongs to Us"
A Seamless Global Surveillance Web


By Tom Burghardt

URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=22025

Global Research, November 21, 2010
Antifascist Calling...


In a further sign that Barack Obama's faux "progressive" regime will soon seek broad new Executive Branch power, The New York Times disclosed last week that FBI chief and cover-up specialist extraordinaire, Robert S. Mueller III, "traveled to Silicon Valley on Tuesday to meet with top executives of several technology firms about a proposal to make it easier to wiretap Internet users."

Times' journalist Charlie Savage reported that Mueller and the Bureau's chief counsel, Valerie Caproni, "were scheduled to meet with senior managers of several major companies, including Google and Facebook, according to several people familiar with the discussions."

Facebook's public policy manager Andrew Noyes confirmed that Mueller "is visiting Facebook during his trip to Silicon Valley;" Google, on the other hand, "declined to comment."

Last month, Antifascist Calling reported that the U.S. secret state, in a reprise of the crypto wars of the 1990s, is seeking new legislation from Congress that would "fix" the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and further curtail our civil- and privacy rights.

When the administration floated the proposal in September, The New York Times revealed that among the "fixes" sought by the FBI and other intrusive spy satrapies, were demands that communications' providers build backdoors into their applications and networks that will give spooks trolling "encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype" the means "to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."

And with a new "security-minded" Congress set to convene in January, chock-a-block with Tea Partying "conservatives" and ultra-nationalist know-nothings, the chances that the administration will get everything they want, and then some, is a sure bet.

"All Your Data Belongs to Us"

Caproni and her cohorts, always up to the challenge when it comes to grabbing our personal data, much like pigs snuffling about a dank forest in search of truffles or those rarer, more elusive delicacies christened "actionable intelligence" by our minders, avowed that said legislative tweaks are "reasonable" and "necessary" requirements that will "prevent the erosion" of the Bureau's "investigative powers."

Never mind that the FBI, as Wired Magazine revealed three years ago, "has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device."

Security journalist Ryan Singel reported that the Bureau's Digital Collection System Network or DCS-3000, a newer iteration of the Carnivore system of the 1990s, "connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies."

Documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit revealed that the system was created to "intercept personal communications services delivered via emerging digital technologies used by wireless carriers." A second system, Red Hook, collects "voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information."

And never mind, as Wired also informed us, that the Bureau's "computer and internet protocol address verifier," or CIPAV, once called Magic Lantern, is a malicious piece of software, a virtual keystroke reader, that "gathers a wide range of information, including the computer's IP address; MAC address; open ports; the operating system type, version and serial number; preferred internet browser and version; the computer's registered owner and registered company name; the current logged-in user name and the last-visited URL."

Insidiously, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled at the time, since the Bureau's malware doesn't capture the content of communications, it can be conducted without a wiretap warrant, because, as our judicial guardians opined, users have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when using the internet.

And with the secret state clamoring for the broadest possible access to our data, its become a lucrative business for greedy, I mean patriotic, ISPs who charge premium prices for services rendered in the endless "War on Terror."

Security Is Patriotic, and Profitable Too!

Last week, The Register informed us that privacy and security researcher Christopher Soghoian revealed that although "Microsoft does not charge for government surveillance of its users," Google, on the other hand "charges $25 per user."

This information was revealed in a document obtained by the intrepid activist under the Freedom of Information Act.

Soghoian, whose Slight Paranoia web site has broken any number of stories on the collusive, and patently illegal, collaboration amongst grifting telecoms, niche spy firms and the secret state, revealed in March that the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) system has already been compromised by U.S. and other intelligence agencies. (SSL is the tiny lock that appears in your browser when you log-on to an allegedly "secure" web site for banking or other online transactions.)

In a paper co-authored with researcher Sid Stamm, Certified Lies: Detecting and Defeating Government Interception Attacks Against SSL, Soghoian revealed that a "new attack" against online privacy, "the compelled certificate creation attack, in which government agencies compel a certificate authority to issue false SSL certificates that are then used by intelligence agencies to covertly intercept and hijack individuals' secure Web-based communications ... is in active use."

The latest disclosure by Soghoian uncovered evidence that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), shelled out some $6.7 million for pen registers and $6.5 million for wiretaps. While a wiretap provides law enforcers with "actual telephone or internet conversations," a pen register "merely grabs numbers and addresses that show who's doing the communicating," The Register averred.

While Microsoft doesn't charge the government for spying on their users, conveniently doing away with a messy paper trail in the process, Google receives $25 and Yahoo $29 from taxpayers for the privilege of being surveilled. Soghoian points out that "Google and Yahoo! may make more money from surveillance than they get directly from their email users. Basic Google and Yahoo! email accounts are free. Department of Justice documents show that telcos may charge as much as $2,000 for a pen register."

That 2006 report from the DoJ's Office of the Inspector General reported that to facilitate CALEA compliance, "Congress appropriated $500 million to reimburse carriers for the direct costs of modifying systems installed or deployed on or before January 1, 1995."

Ten years on, and $450 million later, the Bureau estimates that "only 10 to 20 percent of the wireline switches, and approximately 50 percent of the pre-1995 and 90 percent of the post-1995 wireless switches, respectively, have CALEA software activated and thus are considered CALEA-compliant."

Sounds like a serious crisis, right? Well, not exactly. OIG auditors averred that "we could not provide assurance on the accuracy of these estimates;" a subtle way of saying that the FBI could be ginning-up the numbers--and alleged "threats" to the heimat posed by an open internet and wireless networks.

As it turns out, this too is a proverbial red herring.

Whether or not the switches themselves are "CALEA-compliant" is a moot point since the vast majority of ISPs retain search data "in the cloud" indefinitely, just as wireless carriers cache cell phone geolocation and dialed-number data in huge data warehouses seemingly until the end of time, all readily accessible to law enforcement agencies--for a price.

Bringing the Hammer Down

The weakest link in the battle to preserve privacy rights, as Washington Technology revealed, are the corporate grifters feeding at the federal trough. What with the "cybersecurity" market the newest growth center for enterprising capitalist pirates, why bite the hand that feeds.

Couple this with the brisk private market in grabbing online users' data and selling it to the highest bidder, as The Wall Street Journal uncovered in their excellent "What They Know" series on web- and cell phone tracking, it becomes clear that profit always trumps democratic control and privacy rights.

In light of these disturbing trends, CNET News reported that "Democratic politicians are proposing a novel approach to cybersecurity: fine technology companies $100,000 a day unless they comply with directives imposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."

Investigative journalist Declan McCullagh informs us that legislation introduced last week by the lame duck Congress "would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to levy those and other civil penalties on noncompliant companies that the government deems 'critical,' a broad term that could sweep in Web firms, broadband providers, and even software companies and search engines."

Congressional grifter Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the outgoing chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, claimed that the bill "will make our nation more secure and better positions DHS--the 'focal point for the security of cyberspace'--to fulfill its critical homeland security mission," right alongside the National Security Agency as Antifascist Calling reported last month.

Jim Harper, a policy analyst with the right-wing Cato Institute told CNET that "Congress is stepping forward to regulate something it has no idea how to regulate. It's a level of bureaucracy that actually adds nothing at all."

While Harper's assertion is accurate up to a point, he's missing the boat insofar as demands for expanded--and unregulated--authority by our political minders to access anything and everything even remotely connected to "national security," from email to web searches and from financial transactions to travel plans, is precisely the point of an electronic police state.

The bill, the Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act (HSCPIPA), has "other high-profile backers," including Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Yvette Clarke (D-NY), the outgoing chair of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee.

Last week, Antifascist Calling reported that Clarke proclaimed that "the likelihood of a cyberattack that could bring down our [electrical] grid is ... 100%. Our networks are already being penetrated as we stand here. We are already under attack."

Clarke, who raised some $267,938 in campaign contributions during the current election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org, including tens of thousands of dollars from defense and security grifters such as Honeywell International, Dell, AT&T, Raytheon, Verizon, Boeing and General Dynamics, not to mention that sterling citizen and beacon of financial transparency, Goldman Sachs.

With a straight face, she asserted: "We must stop asking ourselves 'could this happen to us' and move to a default posture that acknowledges this fact and instead asks 'what can we do to protect ourselves'?"

With the introduction of HSCPIPA, we now have our answer!

Hardly slouches themselves when it comes to feeding at the corporate security trough, Harman raked in $654,787 from firms such as Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), while Thompson grabbed $584,938 from firms like SAIC, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, all of whom do yeoman's work, as readers are well aware, to "keep us safe."

While no Republicans have signed onto the bill, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, ultra-rightist crazy, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), pulled down some $664,657 from his loyal constituents: General Dynamics, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, OpenSecrets told us.

King, an apologist for Bush-Obama "War on Terror" policies, told Politico earlier this month that the practice of torturing terrorism suspects "saved many, many lives." And, like his Democratic Party colleague Clarke, King avers that "cyber-spies from foreign countries have already penetrated our electrical system, mapped it and left behind software that caused disruptions and disabled our electrical system."

While neither representative has provided a shred of evidence to back their wild claims, both scrupulously avoid addressing the question of who the most egregious planetary perpetrators of "cyber espionage" actually are.

A Seamless Global Surveillance Web

In a sign that the collapsing American Empire will make new wiretap rules a cost of doing business with the greatest country that ever was, foreign governments and firms that do business in the U.S. were warned that overseas internet service providers "would have to route communications through a server on United States soil where they could be wiretapped," the Times reported.

That would certainly give our corporate grifters a leg up on the competition!

Considering that the National Security Agency's ECHELON surveillance platform, accused by the European Parliament in their 2001 report of filching communications from EU businesses and passing them on to corporate "friends," I'm sure they'll just smile and suck it up.

According to the report, the NSA routinely used the program for corporate and industrial espionage and that information was turned over to American firms for their financial advantage.

For example, EU investigators discovered that ECHELON spies had "lifted...all the faxes and phone calls" between the European aircraft manufacturer Airbus and Saudi Arabian Airlines. The information gleaned was then used by two American companies, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, to outflank their Airbus rivals and win a $6 billion contract. Investigators also found that the French company Thomson-CSF lost a $1.3 billion satellite deal to Raytheon the same way.

Similarly, the new communications spying regime proposed by the FBI also has a long and sordid history. In January, investigative journalist Nicky Hager reported that under terms of New Zealand's 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, "a basic interception warrant ... allows them access to all your emails, internet browsing, online shopping or dating, calls, texts and location for mobile phones, and much more--all delivered almost instantaneously to the surveillance agencies."

Sound familiar? It should, since the template for global driftnet spying originated deep in the bowels of the UKUSA Security Agreement and the National Security Agency, the dark Pentagon entity that created ECHELON.

Hager, the author of Secret Power, first blew the lid off ECHELON in a 1996 piece for Covert Action Quarterly. He revealed that the origins of New Zealand's new system "can be traced back 10 years to when British researchers uncovered European Union police documents planning exactly the same sort of surveillance system in Europe."

That secret plan Hager reports, "known as Enfopol 98 ... aimed to create 'a seamless web of telecommunications surveillance' across Europe, and involved EU nations adopting 'International User Requirements for Interception', to standardise surveillance capabilities."

Who, pray tell, was in the thick of this nasty business? According to Hager, European researchers discovered "that the moves followed 'a five-year lobbying exercise by American agencies such as the FBI'."

Hager tells us, that similar to moves inside the United States, the island nation's Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) forced through legislation that empowered spooks "to catch ... communications, including people using overseas-based email or other services, all the local communications networks are wired up as well, to monitor messages en route overseas."

The origin of these intrusive measures, Hager reports, are the series of conferences, first hosted by the FBI-run International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar (ILETS) beginning in the mid-1990s.

According to the document posted by the secrecy-shredding web site Cryptome, international snoops averred that "Law enforcement agencies require access to all interception subjects operating temporarily or permanently within a telecommunications system," and that "Law enforcement agencies require a real-time, full-time monitoring capability for the interception of telecommunications. Call associated data should also be provided in real-time."

Fast forward a decade and we learn, Hager writes, that alongside the United States "New Zealand is integrated into the 'seamless web of telecommunications surveillance' around the globe--a system which from the start had primarily been about US agencies wanting surveillance capabilities beyond their borders."

Thus the secret state's desire, as The New York Times reported, for legislative authority demanding that foreign citizens and firms route their overseas communications through U.S. servers "where they could be wiretapped."

And with the latest push for "total information awareness"--data retention--looming ever-larger on the horizon, ISPs and wireless carriers "are forced by government to store all their customers' emails, texts, internet use and phone data...making them available to police and spy agencies to trawl for people's past correspondence and activities."

"These developments" Hager writes, "have been introduced quietly. Neither the government nor the phone and internet companies are keen to advertise their Big Brotherish activities."

Now the repressive American domestic intelligence agency that brought us COINTELPRO, targets the antiwar movement for "special handling" and gives "aid and comfort" to international terrorists like al-Qaeda triple agent, the false-flag specialist Ali Mohamed, is lobbying internet firms Facebook and Google in a bid to expand their onerous surveillance powers.

As the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out last week in their denunciation of the FBI's sought-after legislation, "this proposal isn't simply applying the same sort of wiretap system we have for phones to the Internet; it would require reconfiguring and changing the nature of the Internet."

Laura W. Murphy, the Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office said they "remain very concerned that this proposal is a clear recipe for abuse and will make it that much easier for the government to gain access to our most personal information."

"Americans," Murphy averred, "should not simply surrender their privacy and other fundamental values in the name of national security."

And with a growing revolt over egregious sexual assaults and virtual strip searches by Transportation Security Agency goons threatening to break out amongst air travelers, including calls to resist being bombarded with ionizing radiation and humiliating TSA "pat-downs," are we on the cusp of a more generalized rebellion against the capitalist surveillance state?

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.
An inch today is tomorrow’s mile.
23-11-2010, 10:02 PM
Reply
montehristo Offline
Неверан Тома
*****

Posts: 1,490
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 30
#3

Quote:Cosy cocoon or spider’s web?

Facebook: the magic mirror
by Philippe Rivière
A few days ago Facebook asked me to change my user name. The name I had chosen wasn’t obscene, it did not incite to racial hatred, it was not an attempt to usurp the name of the all-powerful Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook’s CEO, founder and majority shareholder), nor was it even vaguely similar to a registered trademark. I had chosen a name composed entirely of Braille characters. The engineers at Facebook had suddenly decided that this was no longer acceptable.

When I signed up, Facebook asked me for my real name and verified my identity by getting me to enter a confirmation code they sent to my mobile phone. They also pressed me to tell them my email password so as to be able to access my address book and retrieve my contacts – my “friends” in house terminology.

Facebook offers a cosy cocoon to its members, who can use it to communicate without being flooded with spam. It is monitored around the clock using algorithms to ensure compliance with conditions of use that nobody ever reads. The advertising is relatively discreet, and one can, at leisure, look at friends’ photos, laugh at or get indignant about the same news items, play the same games and catch up on their personal news, from the trivial to the momentous: messages exchanged on Facebook cover the full spectrum of human thought, from vital facts such as “I’m taking a shower”, via birth announcements to the sharpest observations on modern art (1).

Interactions on Facebook are always positive: you are allowed to say you “like” something by clicking on an icon, but not that you dislike it; Facebook sends you a message when someone accepts you as a friend but not when they dump you. There are various safeguards to protect users: if you are travelling and log on from an unusual location, you have to submit to a (playful) interrogation, based on photos, to prove your identity.

But Facebook can sometimes be arbitrary. Sensitive pages – such as those created by a support group for Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of having passed military secrets on the war in Iraq to WikiLeaks – are occasionally suspended, then reinstated a few days later, without any explanation. To help prevent spamming, members are invited to report nuisance messages: Facebook then suspends the nuisance user’s account. All kinds of activists have used this manoeuvre to get their political adversaries suspended. Facebook also occasionally succumbs to the temptation of censorship, blocking links to file-sharing, artistic or political websites – or sites such as such as seppukkoo.com, which tells users how to delete their information and leave Facebook.

This clever mixture of private life and voyeurism, a sickly-sweet diet of moderate transgression and monitored freedom, has proved to be a winning recipe for Zuckerberg. Facebook has accumulated a prodigious 500 million subscribers of whom 50% log on every day, and for a total of 700 billion minutes every month. Some 200 million people access the site from their mobile phones. Having started from nothing – or almost, since the prestige of Harvard University played a not insignificant part in its dazzling launch in February 2004 – Facebook is now the world’s largest website, although it still has only 1,700 employees.

Just click ‘like’
The personal data supplied so freely by Facebook users are highly coveted. They allow far more precisely targeted marketing – by gender, age, date of birth, language, country, city, educational background, interests, etc – than traditional media surveys, to audiences approaching the size of those commanded by television. As of 13 December, Louis Vuitton, the maker of luxury luggage, was in direct communication with 1,731,698 internet users. By clicking the “like” button, these people encouraged their friends to do the same. The content of the Louis Vuitton page ranges from fashion shows to the singer Bono’s travel blog “The Heart of Africa”.

Among the most popular pages are those of brands such as Starbucks, Coca-Cola and Oreo, which attract audiences of 10-25 million. But the big brands aren’t alone in working this seam. At their own level, local tradesmen, lesser-known authors and small businesses use the same system to promote themselves. Even Le Monde diplomatique has joined in: its French Facebook page, set up at the end of 2009 on the initiative of a subscriber, already has 49,048 followers. (Its more recent English page has 2,309.)

By allowing users to create and polish their personal brand, Facebook has become the magic mirror of our narcissistic and self-publicising era. The Facebook experience gives users the impression of being on stage, performing in front of 130 people (the average number of “friends”), who applaud their every gesture and witticism. The more faithfully the electronic mirror reflects our personality – or how we would like to think of ourselves – the more we become intoxicated with our reflection (2). This encourages users to feed their Facebook page, sometimes compulsively, by posting information on their likes and dislikes, their address and their location in real time, using various geo-positioning techniques, or chronicling their love life.

But Facebook doesn’t plan to stop there: it is now trying to extend its operation from a members-only site to the whole web. Since April 2010 Facebook has offered a “like” button that webmasters can build into their site to facilitate “buzz”; thanks to this seemingly innocent function, already implanted on a million websites, Facebook boasts that it can track the visits of 150 million individual users on the web every month and thus refine their profiles. The better to serve internet users (and the better to pin them down), Facebook has also recently launched an electronic messaging service offering email, SMS and chat functions. This has brought it into direct competition with Google, the other internet giant.

Facebook guarantees that only our friends can access the mass of text and image information that constantly pours into its databases. In November 2010 an investigation by The Wall Street Journal revealed that some of the biggest game operators on Facebook were holding the personal data of gamers and their friends. Facebook decreed a “zero tolerance” policy on data brokers and gave an assurance that it “has never sold and will never sell user information”. (Clearly, this statement overlooks the Patriot Act, which allows the US authorities to requisition personal information held in the US.)

In 1993 a memorable cartoon in The New York Times explained that “on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”; in 2010 anonymity is on the way to being abolished. At the Techonomy conference on 4 August 2010, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt said: “Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don’t have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You’ve got Facebook photos!” This state of affairs was not only irrevocable but also, in his eyes, necessary: “In a world of asymmetric threats, true anonymity is too dangerous… You need a name service for humans… governments are going to require it.”

Although it is still possible to cheat, it will be increasingly difficult to do so in the future. The world’s most powerful online architects and its political leaders plan to “civilise” the free internet, which they still see as a lawless zone. If they succeed in domesticating the internet, stating your real identity will be the price you have to pay in order to enjoy full access. The word “web” was originally an image used to describe a decentralised system of interconnected information networks. Nobody imagined that a spider would actually take up residence at its centre and start spying on the activities of all internet users.
Извор
An inch today is tomorrow’s mile.
31-12-2010, 12:43 AM
Reply
Nikola Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 512
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 12
#4

И што со тоа ако биде забележано? Ме мрзи толку многу на англиски да читам, те молам накратко објасни.
31-12-2010, 12:59 AM
Reply
montehristo Offline
Неверан Тома
*****

Posts: 1,490
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 30
#5

(31-12-2010, 12:59 AM)Nikola Wrote: И што со тоа ако биде забележано? Ме мрзи толку многу на англиски да читам, те молам накратко објасни.

Quote:In November 2010 an investigation by The Wall Street Journal revealed that some of the biggest game operators on Facebook were holding the personal data of gamers and their friends

Quote:Facebook decreed a “zero tolerance” policy on data brokers and gave an assurance that it “has never sold and will never sell user information”. (Clearly, this statement overlooks the Patriot Act, which allows the US authorities to requisition personal information held in the US.)
Очигледно дека ФБ е брокер на информации, а како брокер сака да ги отстрани другите брокери, додека во исто време ти вели ние не тргуваме со твоите информации.
An inch today is tomorrow’s mile.
(This post was last modified: 31-12-2010, 01:59 AM by montehristo.)
31-12-2010, 01:59 AM
Reply
МрачниотКоњаник Offline
stop the brainfcuk
*****

Posts: 1,391
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 1
#6

Како го пропагираат низ медиумите, го фалат и воспеваат основачот и ги надувуваат бројките за членство, секако дека сето тоа оро изгледа сомнително.
Петстотини милиони корисници, веднаш бројката изгледа сомнително- можеби има петстотини милиони налози, ама еден налог не е еднакво на еден корисник. А компаниите што имаат свои фејсбук профили? А фиктивните профили (личности од романи, филмови и ТВ шоуа)? И тие се бројат како корисници? А корисниците со повеќе профили? Како фино си ја надувуваат бројката Nenene Baeh
Вика zero tolerance policy, а пријавувањето профили е децентрализирано и секој шо има е-маил адреса може да лепне профил. Кој тогаш проверува кога е прекршена некоја policy кон која Фејсбук има zero tolerance? Da_ne_si_lud
Неодамна (воведувањето на Фејсбук дискусиони групи) и самиот основач го беа зачлениле во фиктивна група со педофилска инспирација без негово знаење Baeh
Сега се шушка дека Фејсбук од Нова Година ќе се понуди на берзата на хартии од вредност (Initial Public Offering- IPO) па сите приватни податоци изложени на Фејсбук ќе бидат предмет на купопродажба.Baeh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Борба за слобода од шарените окупатори!
01-01-2011, 06:32 PM
Reply
montehristo Offline
Неверан Тома
*****

Posts: 1,490
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 30
#7

(01-01-2011, 06:32 PM)МрачниотКоњаник Wrote: Како го пропагираат низ медиумите, го фалат и воспеваат основачот и ги надувуваат бројките за членство, секако дека сето тоа оро изгледа сомнително.
Петстотини милиони корисници, веднаш бројката изгледа сомнително- можеби има петстотини милиони налози, ама еден налог не е еднакво на еден корисник. А компаниите што имаат свои фејсбук профили? А фиктивните профили (личности од романи, филмови и ТВ шоуа)? И тие се бројат како корисници? А корисниците со повеќе профили? Како фино си ја надувуваат бројката Nenene Baeh
Вика zero tolerance policy, а пријавувањето профили е децентрализирано и секој шо има е-маил адреса може да лепне профил. Кој тогаш проверува кога е прекршена некоја policy кон која Фејсбук има zero tolerance? Da_ne_si_lud
Неодамна (воведувањето на Фејсбук дискусиони групи) и самиот основач го беа зачлениле во фиктивна група со педофилска инспирација без негово знаење Baeh
Сега се шушка дека Фејсбук од Нова Година ќе се понуди на берзата на хартии од вредност (Initial Public Offering- IPO) па сите приватни податоци изложени на Фејсбук ќе бидат предмет на купопродажба.Baeh

Запрашај се само зошто нема dislike или do not like избор на ФБ?
ФБ му доаѓа нешто како еден филтер/пајажина низ кој некој сака да ни го прикаже светот онаков каков таа организација(тука не мислам на ФБ) сака да го прикаже со цел да ни си поставиме никакви прашања со што би ја заталасале онаа кревка пајажина која ни е пред очите а не сме спремни да ја одтргнеме.
Сите ние сме изложени на пропаганда 24 часа, било да е тоа на интернет, печатени медиуми, радио,телевизија.
Цело време сите сме бомбардирани со разно ѓубре од информации како пр: Секојдневно пратење на Холивудските актери и актерки, припадници на разни фамилии, што јадат, како се облекуваат, или вклучување во реално време во гонење на некој криминалец, значи одвраќање на вниманието од вистинските теми.
Можете да се присетите од наше поблиско минато , еве да наведам две случки, Атентатот врз Глигоров и признавањето на Америка на нашето име.
Што беше ефектот од овие две скучки?
Според моето скромно мислење:
1.Атентатот врз Глигоров имаше за цел да се одвлече вниманието од гласањето во парламентот кој ја парафира привремената спогодба со Грција(Грците тоа уште го немаат сторено, од нивна страна, ако тие се повлечат од договорот, тоа за нив нема да има некакви реперкусии, прво внатрешни, нив никој нема да може да ги тужи за велепредавство, кај нас бидејќи пратениците гласале и со тоа се согласиле да ни го продадат името, секој може да ги тужи за велепредавство, надворешно, бидејќи нивниот парламент ја нема парафирано оваа спогодба, некој ќе може да рече дека внатре во нивната држава немало подршка за ова спогодба бидејќи тие не верувале дека Скопјаните ќе испорачаат тоа што потпишале, ние сме вржани со таа спогодба бидејќи нели пратениците потпишале(за што ќе мора да одговараат)) и од друга страна да се превзеде палката на главниот диригент од стариот лисец, нели.
2.Ефектот од признавањето беше тоа што СДС го искористи за да ја пасивизира рајата да не излезе на гласање за новата територијална распределба.
Ако се знае дека Бучковски се договарал со амбасадорката Јованович за невраќање на Хашките случаи се до истекот на мандатот на СДС тогаш може и да се претпостави дека можеби се договориле да ја пасивизираат рајата заедно, ако еднаш му учинила амбасадорката, зошто да не му учини и втор пат, прашање тука е со што има возвратено, тоа треба да се вклопи во временскиот период и да се дојде до отстапката или услугата.
Ако има некој на оваа тема да ме дополни или исправи, повелете.
Од друга страна ФБ му доаѓа како пасивизирање, на начин на прикажување на ФБ како нешто што може да се котролира со неколку притисоци на неколку копчиња, или илузија на живот преку некакви фарми до стекнување на пријателства.
Во продолжението на мојата мисла околу целата работа со ФБ едно размислување на тема на Големиот Брат во електронската ера.
Пријатно читање.

Quote:
Big Brother: America's Police State Mentality in the Electronic Age

By Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay
[Image: 22596.jpg]
URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=22596

Global Research, January 1, 2011
TheNewAmericanEmpire.com



“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman (1775)

“Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.”Norman Vincent Peale (1898 –1993), American Christian preacher and author

"A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. ...At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration." George Orwell (1903-1950) (Eric Arthur Blair), (book: 1984)

“Since information gives power, access to personal files can lead to unreasonable pressures, even blackmail, especially against those with the least resources, people who depend upon public programs, for example. Big Brother isn't a camera. Big Brother is a computer.” C.J. Howard, political novel “Cybercash”

In 2049, when the 100th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell political novel “1984” will be celebrated, it will be recalled that the immediate post September 11, 2001 period marked the beginning of a gradual decline in personal liberty and freedom, especially in the United States but also elsewhere, and the emergence of a great information-obsessed Leviathan. Freedom rarely disappears in one fell swoop. Its disappearance is rather the end result of a thousand encroachments.

Pushed to the extreme and without clear democratic oversight, it becomes the mark of a totalitarian state, when authorities feel that they never have enough information on the people. It is because information is power and state bureaucrats and politicians naturally like to be in control; on the one hand, releasing as little information about their own actions through an imposed secrecy, and on the other, accumulating as much information as possible about the citizens.

And today, modern governments have all the tools to transform their country into a creeping police state, more so now then ever before, in this electronic age. They have access to information technology that previous full-fledged “police state” governments could only have dreamed about.

Nowadays, with super computers and revolutionary new models to gather information and build databases, governments, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians, are in a position as never before to accumulate and correlate tremendous amounts of personal information on their citizens, from public (federal, state and local) as well as from a plethora of private sources. Government intelligence on each and every citizen is thus rendered much easier and, I would add, much more frightening. Indeed, the potential for abuse is enormous.

In 2002, for example, retired Vice Admiral John Poindexter proposed that the U.S. government create a tracking and monitoring system called "Total Information Awareness", in order for the U.S. government to gather information in a preventive way about individuals from widely varied sources, including tax records, telephone calling records, credit card charges, banking transactions, airline or ship reservations, and various biometric databases, without taking into consideration civil liberties or a citizens' right to privacy, the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974, or without having to request search warrants and without having to give prior notice to the persons involved. —The pretext was to allow the government to thwart possible terrorist activity, thus creating an unlimited appetite for information.

Well, there are clear signs that this massive data mining system on individuals is now solidly in place and is in full operation and can be expected to grow over time. George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s network of fusion centers, launched in 2003, has allowed the government to centralize a host of previously disparate information about Americans and foreigners alike, whether related to personal and business records, drivers licenses, local taxes, local infractions, police records, etc., through a host of coordinated information-sharing networks. (N.B.: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on November 25, 2002 and is the domestic equivalent of the Department of Defense.)

Secondly, central provisions of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, allow the government to operate roving wire taps, search any individual’s business, personal, and even library records upon presentation of a national security letter, and spy on so-called "lone wolf" suspects, i.e., foreign nationals who have no known links to groups designated as terrorist. On this, the current Obama administration, by extending those provisions, is scarcely different than the previous Bush administration.

Thirdly, since passports and tight intelligence screening have been made a requirement for most international travel by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, since January 1, 2008, every individual traveling in and out of the United States has all his or her whereabouts and movements recorded so the government knows at all times his or her address and the places he or she has traveled to and from.

For instance, U.S. Transportation Security Administration's recent decision to use full-body airport X-ray scanners and full body groping at airports is another example where so-called security procedures are applied blindly and indiscriminately. There is more to come, since it has been announced that such invasive intelligence screening is coming to hotels and shopping malls, as well as to trains, buses and ports, etc.

These are some of the main features of the new government apparatus to gather information on people. There are many others. —Take for instance the requirement, since 2002, that all American high schools must give Pentagon military recruiters the names and contact information of all their juniors and seniors. Failure to comply on their part may result in the loss of government funding.

The logical next step for the U.S. government would be to follow a recent Italy's lead and outlaw outright the use of cash for most transactions, except for small ones, thus providing the government even more minute information about an individual's income, purchases and displacements. Nothing will escape the watching eye of the government in the electronic age. People will be filed, photographed and corralled.

Indeed, the way mass government surveillance systems are growing, by year 2020, chances are good that Americans will be living in a “Brave New World”!

—CYBER BIG BROTHER would know it all and it will be watching you.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: http://www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.

The French version of the book is also now available. See: http://www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/ or on Amazon Canada
An inch today is tomorrow’s mile.
03-01-2011, 09:15 PM
Reply
Вовата Offline
Posting Freak
*****

Posts: 1,983
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 33
#8

(03-01-2011, 09:15 PM)montehristo Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 06:32 PM)МрачниотКоњаник Wrote: Како го пропагираат низ медиумите, го фалат и воспеваат основачот и ги надувуваат бројките за членство, секако дека сето тоа оро изгледа сомнително.
Петстотини милиони корисници, веднаш бројката изгледа сомнително- можеби има петстотини милиони налози, ама еден налог не е еднакво на еден корисник. А компаниите што имаат свои фејсбук профили? А фиктивните профили (личности од романи, филмови и ТВ шоуа)? И тие се бројат како корисници? А корисниците со повеќе профили? Како фино си ја надувуваат бројката Nenene Baeh
Вика zero tolerance policy, а пријавувањето профили е децентрализирано и секој шо има е-маил адреса може да лепне профил. Кој тогаш проверува кога е прекршена некоја policy кон која Фејсбук има zero tolerance? Da_ne_si_lud
Неодамна (воведувањето на Фејсбук дискусиони групи) и самиот основач го беа зачлениле во фиктивна група со педофилска инспирација без негово знаење Baeh
Сега се шушка дека Фејсбук од Нова Година ќе се понуди на берзата на хартии од вредност (Initial Public Offering- IPO) па сите приватни податоци изложени на Фејсбук ќе бидат предмет на купопродажба.Baeh

Запрашај се само зошто нема dislike или do not like избор на ФБ?
ФБ му доаѓа нешто како еден филтер/пајажина низ кој некој сака да ни го прикаже светот онаков каков таа организација(тука не мислам на ФБ) сака да го прикаже со цел да ни си поставиме никакви прашања со што би ја заталасале онаа кревка пајажина која ни е пред очите а не сме спремни да ја одтргнеме.
Сите ние сме изложени на пропаганда 24 часа, било да е тоа на интернет, печатени медиуми, радио,телевизија.
Цело време сите сме бомбардирани со разно ѓубре од информации како пр: Секојдневно пратење на Холивудските актери и актерки, припадници на разни фамилии, што јадат, како се облекуваат, или вклучување во реално време во гонење на некој криминалец, значи одвраќање на вниманието од вистинските теми.
Можете да се присетите од наше поблиско минато , еве да наведам две случки, Атентатот врз Глигоров и признавањето на Америка на нашето име.
Што беше ефектот од овие две скучки?
Според моето скромно мислење:
1.Атентатот врз Глигоров имаше за цел да се одвлече вниманието од гласањето во парламентот кој ја парафира привремената спогодба со Грција(Грците тоа уште го немаат сторено, од нивна страна, ако тие се повлечат од договорот, тоа за нив нема да има некакви реперкусии, прво внатрешни, нив никој нема да може да ги тужи за велепредавство, кај нас бидејќи пратениците гласале и со тоа се согласиле да ни го продадат името, секој може да ги тужи за велепредавство, надворешно, бидејќи нивниот парламент ја нема парафирано оваа спогодба, некој ќе може да рече дека внатре во нивната држава немало подршка за ова спогодба бидејќи тие не верувале дека Скопјаните ќе испорачаат тоа што потпишале, ние сме вржани со таа спогодба бидејќи нели пратениците потпишале(за што ќе мора да одговараат)) и од друга страна да се превзеде палката на главниот диригент од стариот лисец, нели.
2.Ефектот од признавањето беше тоа што СДС го искористи за да ја пасивизира рајата да не излезе на гласање за новата територијална распределба.
Ако се знае дека Бучковски се договарал со амбасадорката Јованович за невраќање на Хашките случаи се до истекот на мандатот на СДС тогаш може и да се претпостави дека можеби се договориле да ја пасивизираат рајата заедно, ако еднаш му учинила амбасадорката, зошто да не му учини и втор пат, прашање тука е со што има возвратено, тоа треба да се вклопи во временскиот период и да се дојде до отстапката или услугата.
Ако има некој на оваа тема да ме дополни или исправи, повелете.
Од друга страна ФБ му доаѓа како пасивизирање, на начин на прикажување на ФБ како нешто што може да се котролира со неколку притисоци на неколку копчиња, или илузија на живот преку некакви фарми до стекнување на пријателства.
Во продолжението на мојата мисла околу целата работа со ФБ едно размислување на тема на Големиот Брат во електронската ера.
Пријатно читање.

Quote:
Big Brother: America's Police State Mentality in the Electronic Age

By Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay
[Image: 22596.jpg]
URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=22596

Global Research, January 1, 2011
TheNewAmericanEmpire.com



“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman (1775)

“Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.”Norman Vincent Peale (1898 –1993), American Christian preacher and author

"A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. ...At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration." George Orwell (1903-1950) (Eric Arthur Blair), (book: 1984)

“Since information gives power, access to personal files can lead to unreasonable pressures, even blackmail, especially against those with the least resources, people who depend upon public programs, for example. Big Brother isn't a camera. Big Brother is a computer.” C.J. Howard, political novel “Cybercash”

In 2049, when the 100th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell political novel “1984” will be celebrated, it will be recalled that the immediate post September 11, 2001 period marked the beginning of a gradual decline in personal liberty and freedom, especially in the United States but also elsewhere, and the emergence of a great information-obsessed Leviathan. Freedom rarely disappears in one fell swoop. Its disappearance is rather the end result of a thousand encroachments.

Pushed to the extreme and without clear democratic oversight, it becomes the mark of a totalitarian state, when authorities feel that they never have enough information on the people. It is because information is power and state bureaucrats and politicians naturally like to be in control; on the one hand, releasing as little information about their own actions through an imposed secrecy, and on the other, accumulating as much information as possible about the citizens.

And today, modern governments have all the tools to transform their country into a creeping police state, more so now then ever before, in this electronic age. They have access to information technology that previous full-fledged “police state” governments could only have dreamed about.

Nowadays, with super computers and revolutionary new models to gather information and build databases, governments, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians, are in a position as never before to accumulate and correlate tremendous amounts of personal information on their citizens, from public (federal, state and local) as well as from a plethora of private sources. Government intelligence on each and every citizen is thus rendered much easier and, I would add, much more frightening. Indeed, the potential for abuse is enormous.

In 2002, for example, retired Vice Admiral John Poindexter proposed that the U.S. government create a tracking and monitoring system called "Total Information Awareness", in order for the U.S. government to gather information in a preventive way about individuals from widely varied sources, including tax records, telephone calling records, credit card charges, banking transactions, airline or ship reservations, and various biometric databases, without taking into consideration civil liberties or a citizens' right to privacy, the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974, or without having to request search warrants and without having to give prior notice to the persons involved. —The pretext was to allow the government to thwart possible terrorist activity, thus creating an unlimited appetite for information.

Well, there are clear signs that this massive data mining system on individuals is now solidly in place and is in full operation and can be expected to grow over time. George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s network of fusion centers, launched in 2003, has allowed the government to centralize a host of previously disparate information about Americans and foreigners alike, whether related to personal and business records, drivers licenses, local taxes, local infractions, police records, etc., through a host of coordinated information-sharing networks. (N.B.: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on November 25, 2002 and is the domestic equivalent of the Department of Defense.)

Secondly, central provisions of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, allow the government to operate roving wire taps, search any individual’s business, personal, and even library records upon presentation of a national security letter, and spy on so-called "lone wolf" suspects, i.e., foreign nationals who have no known links to groups designated as terrorist. On this, the current Obama administration, by extending those provisions, is scarcely different than the previous Bush administration.

Thirdly, since passports and tight intelligence screening have been made a requirement for most international travel by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, since January 1, 2008, every individual traveling in and out of the United States has all his or her whereabouts and movements recorded so the government knows at all times his or her address and the places he or she has traveled to and from.

For instance, U.S. Transportation Security Administration's recent decision to use full-body airport X-ray scanners and full body groping at airports is another example where so-called security procedures are applied blindly and indiscriminately. There is more to come, since it has been announced that such invasive intelligence screening is coming to hotels and shopping malls, as well as to trains, buses and ports, etc.

These are some of the main features of the new government apparatus to gather information on people. There are many others. —Take for instance the requirement, since 2002, that all American high schools must give Pentagon military recruiters the names and contact information of all their juniors and seniors. Failure to comply on their part may result in the loss of government funding.

The logical next step for the U.S. government would be to follow a recent Italy's lead and outlaw outright the use of cash for most transactions, except for small ones, thus providing the government even more minute information about an individual's income, purchases and displacements. Nothing will escape the watching eye of the government in the electronic age. People will be filed, photographed and corralled.

Indeed, the way mass government surveillance systems are growing, by year 2020, chances are good that Americans will be living in a “Brave New World”!

—CYBER BIG BROTHER would know it all and it will be watching you.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: http://www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.

The French version of the book is also now available. See: http://www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/ or on Amazon Canada

Параноици всякакви...
03-01-2011, 09:39 PM
Reply
montehristo Offline
Неверан Тома
*****

Posts: 1,490
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 30
#9

(03-01-2011, 09:39 PM)Вовата Wrote: Параноици всякакви...

Немој да бидеш параноик, и ќе бидеш киклоп како Киро.
An inch today is tomorrow’s mile.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2011, 10:07 PM by montehristo.)
03-01-2011, 10:06 PM
Reply
Вовата Offline
Posting Freak
*****

Posts: 1,983
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 33
#10

(03-01-2011, 10:06 PM)montehristo Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 09:39 PM)Вовата Wrote: Параноици всякакви...

Немој да бидеш параноик, и ќе бидеш киклоп како Киро.

По малко чети параноици, повече чети закони, съдебни прецеденти и повече мисли. Какво казал някой изперкал куук за близнаците, за черни руски хеликоптери над Оклахома или за афери на фейсбук не ме вълнува особено. А ако спазваш законите и тебе не би трябвало да е притеснява...
03-01-2011, 10:13 PM
Reply
МрачниотКоњаник Offline
stop the brainfcuk
*****

Posts: 1,391
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 1
#11

(03-01-2011, 10:13 PM)Вовата Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 10:06 PM)montehristo Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 09:39 PM)Вовата Wrote: Параноици всякакви...

Немој да бидеш параноик, и ќе бидеш киклоп како Киро.

По малко чети параноици, повече чети закони, съдебни прецеденти и повече мисли. Какво казал някой изперкал куук за близнаците, за черни руски хеликоптери над Оклахома или за афери на фейсбук не ме вълнува особено. А ако спазваш законите и тебе не би трябвало да е притеснява...

Вовата, Американците купуваат руски хеликоптери и тоа не е никаква тајна, згора на се` дадоа репортажа од Авганистан кајшто се виде како летаат во руски хеликоптери и репортерот доби потврден одговор на прашањето дали хеликоптерите се руски. Зборуваме за хеликоптери на американската армија, не на некој сојузник или на авганистанската армија во основање.
Аферите на Фејсбук, еве сега се разви една афера како видна брокерска куќа ја има проценето вредноста на ФБ на 50 милијарди долари. И веднаш се најави истрага. Ни еден Боинг не е вреден 50 милијарди.
Нема врска тоа со “спазвањето“ на законите Вова, туку со колективниот надзор над што повеќе народ и печалење троа пари згора на се`.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Борба за слобода од шарените окупатори!
07-01-2011, 06:49 PM
Reply
Вовата Offline
Posting Freak
*****

Posts: 1,983
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 33
#12

(07-01-2011, 06:49 PM)МрачниотКоњаник Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 10:13 PM)Вовата Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 10:06 PM)montehristo Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 09:39 PM)Вовата Wrote: Параноици всякакви...

Немој да бидеш параноик, и ќе бидеш киклоп како Киро.

По малко чети параноици, повече чети закони, съдебни прецеденти и повече мисли. Какво казал някой изперкал куук за близнаците, за черни руски хеликоптери над Оклахома или за афери на фейсбук не ме вълнува особено. А ако спазваш законите и тебе не би трябвало да е притеснява...

Вовата, Американците купуваат руски хеликоптери и тоа не е никаква тајна, згора на се` дадоа репортажа од Авганистан кајшто се виде како летаат во руски хеликоптери и репортерот доби потврден одговор на прашањето дали хеликоптерите се руски. Зборуваме за хеликоптери на американската армија, не на некој сојузник или на авганистанската армија во основање.
Аферите на Фејсбук, еве сега се разви една афера како видна брокерска куќа ја има проценето вредноста на ФБ на 50 милијарди долари. И веднаш се најави истрага. Ни еден Боинг не е вреден 50 милијарди.
Нема врска тоа со “спазвањето“ на законите Вова, туку со колективниот надзор над што повеќе народ и печалење троа пари згора на се`.

Пред да ми одговараш снизходително прочитай внимателно вто имам напишано па има Гугл ако не си разбрал побараj и тогаз пиши глупости.

ЦРНИ хеликоптери над ОКЛАХОМА. Тоа беше историjа на параноиците конспиратисти дека амеиканската влада се соработува со руската да направи диктатура во САД, Фриймен ъв Монтана и слично изтории од времена кога на тебе можда и некой друг ти го бривел носот.

Сето зависи ЗА ШТО користиш и НА КАКОВ начин и СО КАКВА цел на ФБ. Ако се бавиш со работи што на ФБР не му се бендисват, ке те наjдат и без ФБ. ФБ постои од колку две – три години? Што праеше ФБР пре 1956 прашам се?

За законите важи следново. Секоj може да има секаква информациjа за тебе (и jа има без ФБ – не биди наивен). Едно е да jа има друго е да МОЖЕ законски да jа изкористи. Тоа е САД не е Танганаjка.
07-01-2011, 07:30 PM
Reply
МрачниотКоњаник Offline
stop the brainfcuk
*****

Posts: 1,391
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 1
#13

(07-01-2011, 07:30 PM)Вовата Wrote: Тоа е САД не е Танганаjка.

Ау Вово, знаеш колку примери има каде САД = Танганајка? За почеток еден официјален податок (ова не е теорија за заговор на некој планинец од Монтана) дека 1 од 6 американци страда од глад. 1 од 6.
Пред 1956 FBI (тоа се за тебе ФБР?) а и потоа а и не само тие па и ЦИА па НСА фино си отварале истраги овластено или не, со основана причина или без неа само сега е послатко зашто имаат повеќе податоци од било кога за повеќе луѓе од било кога во нивната историја.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Борба за слобода од шарените окупатори!
08-01-2011, 06:10 AM
Reply
МрачниотКоњаник Offline
stop the brainfcuk
*****

Posts: 1,391
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 1
#14

Освен скандалозната проценка на една од највидните брокерски куќи, на видело излегуваат нови детали непосредно пред ФБ да биде понудено за откуп преку акции. ФБ има собрано преку 1.5 милијарди долари пред и да се понуди за откуп, од кои две третини се анонимни странски акционери (вложиле преку Голдман Сакс) а последната третина е руска компанија Digital Sky...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Борба за слобода од шарените окупатори!
21-01-2011, 11:57 PM
Reply