by, RT | h/t Blazing CatFur
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wants to prevent information about its creepy biometric database, which contains fingerprint, face, iris, and voice scans of millions of Americans, from getting out to the public.
The Department of Justice has come up with a proposal to exempt the biometric database from public disclosure. It states that the Next Generation Identification System (NGI) should not be subject to the Privacy Act, which requires federal agencies to give people access to records that have been collected concerning them, “allowing them to verify and correct them if needed.”
Video courtesy of: ABC7 WJLA
The proposal states that allowing individuals to view their own records, or even an account of those records, could compromise criminal investigations or “national security efforts,” potentially reveal a “sensitive investigative technique,” or provide information that could help a subject “avoid detection or apprehension.”
The database contains biometric information on people who have provided fingerprints to employers, or for licenses and background checks, as well as on convicted criminals and those that have been suspected of wrongdoing even for a short period of time, according to Underground Reporter.
The proposal argues that the FBI should be able to retain the data it has collected on individuals even if they are later found to have done nothing illegal, as the information “may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light.”
The FBI claims the retained data could also be used for “establishing patterns of activity and providing criminal lead.”
In addition, the FBI’s proposal calls for an exemption to a clause which requires agencies to maintain records proving that their determinations regarding individuals in their data base are fair and legally justified, arguing that it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.”
The proposal is open for comment until June 6.
Facial recognition is being used outside the realms of law enforcement as well. For example, a nightclub in Sydney uses the technology to identify clubbers previously deemed unruly to prevent them from getting in again.
Video courtesy of: fbi
Facebook has long used facial recognition software to identify people in uploaded photographs and offers facial recognition as a method of verifying a user’s identity.
There are now even facial recognition apps that can identify strangers on the street. While this may be great news for stalkers, it is less so for those not inclined to reveal their identity to random passersby.
Meanwhile, there are companies making products that can confuse or fool facial recognition software. A Japanese company has invented a “privacy visor” that will “scramble digital facial recognition software,”Biometric Update reports.
Specially made clothes and camouflage make up can turn a face “into a mess of unremarkable pixels” in order to throw the technology off.
Inside the NGI, in the words of the FBI
The information stored on the FBI’s Next Generation Identification System, the biometrics database it is trying to keep under wraps, gives federal agents access to a number of identification systems.
Here’s a rundown on the tools on offer to law enforcement, as detailed on the FBI’s website:
The Interstate Photo System contains 23 million front-facing photographs that can be used to identify suspects without human intervention.
The Repository for Individuals of Special Concern (RISC) allows agents in the field to rapidly identify detainees and criminal suspects by searching a repository of Wanted Persons, Sex Offenders Registry Subjects, Known or appropriately Suspected Terrorists, and other persons of special interest.
The Latents and National Palm Print System is an updated database of finger and palm prints that can be searched on a nationwide basis.
The Rap Back Service notifies agencies of the activity of individuals after “the initial processing and retention of criminal or civil transactions.” The service can “notify agencies of subsequent activity for individuals enrolled in the service. Including a more timely process of confirming suitability of those individuals placed in positions of trust and notification to users of criminal activity for those individuals placed on probation or parole.”
Iris Recognition is “poised to offer law enforcement a new tool to quickly and accurately determine identity.”
— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) May 20, 2016
— Lauren Walker (@laserlauren) May 13, 2016
Kings Cross club using facial recognition cameras to identify patrons previously banned for bad behaviour. @Sacre88https://t.co/T8hT9PdNmT
— 7 News Sydney (@7NewsSydney) May 19, 2016
When you find out that the snapchat face swap is actually being used for a facial recognition database for the FBI pic.twitter.com/pDZrA461nQ
RT @bobatl: when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ☕️🐸pic.twitter.com/mfE7BPJgf9
Fun hands on workshop @webwewant festival on tricks to fool facial recognition software.Seems Adam Ant had it right. pic.twitter.com/vb6wicMwiB
by, Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton | Truth Stream Media | h/t Alt-Market.com
The Declaration of Independence boldly states:
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Thomas Jefferson, writing on behalf of the independent-minded colonists in 1776, backed up the Declaration’s conclusion with numerous examples of British tyranny, stating: “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
Compare them to the United States and global system we live under today.
Are we now free? Examine the balance of power between individuals, endowed with natural rights by God, and government, Constitutionally bound to only limited powers, as well as the leading corporations of the private sector.
A 1946 national archive film released by Encyclopedia Britannica titled “Despotism” outlines several yardsticks for measuring the balance of power of a free society and that of an outright a despotism, according to scales of respect, power, economic distribution and information. Concentrated power and wealth, centralized information and monopolistic or oligopolistic control in any one of these areas tends to negatively affect the others, and renders freedom a mere illusion.
“Look beyond fine words and noble phrases,” the analyst in the archive film warns. The rhetoric of freedom in America or anywhere else on planet Earth is irrelevant if the power, wealth and opportunity resides in the hands of just a few, or worse a single entity. By any yardstick, society today is very far gone; the once free United States of America is far down the path of dictatorship, though it keeps wrapped in the stars and stripes of the flag and the lofty words of its founding ideals.
Now what? It is the duty of free people to seek and demand a better society once again.
by, J.Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
As many of us Americans watch the events unfold in Egypt, it is hard not to compare their situation to that of our’s. Mohamed Morsi was allegedly fairly elected by the citizens of Egypt and he ran on the platform of being a “uniter.” Sound familiar? He pledged to the Egyptian people to govern from the center and represent all of the various groups and factions, to include the Coptic Christian minority. As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood prior to the 2012 elections in Egypt, it should have been clear to the people where his loyalties would be placed. If it was not obvious to the Egyptian citizens from the beginning, it certainly did not take them long to see the effects of their misplaced trust. Morsi stated that he would protect the Coptic Christians and their freedom to worship as they chose, although in reality, this was not the case. He actually formed hard line Islamic Muslim Brotherhood Militias to attack the Christian minorities and there were many instances of deaths, tortures and disappearances. Not to mention the damage to Churches and private property owned by the Coptics. Morsi went hard left and led a fascist regime that was controlled by the few and for the fewer. On his watch, the economy went south while unemployment skyrocketed and all he cared about was maintaining his grasp on power. Well, the people decided things had gone too far for too long and the cry for freedom went out.
This cry for freedom did not go unheard. About a week ago, millions of Egyptians decided to gather in protest in Tahrir Square and let their feelings be known. It did not take long before one General within the Egyptian Army made the decision and subsequent announcement that “We, the military stand with the people..” Not only did he issue a statement that clearly expressed the sentiment that the military would defend the people from attack, but he gave President Morsi a 48 hour ultimatum to step down from office or he would be taken down. True to their word, as Morsi refused to relinquish his position, the military came forward and surrounded the Presidential quarters and declared “Morsi is out and we are in control.” And, just like that.. the people were handed their nation back from the hands of a dictator. What began as a movement of dissension within the citizens, was picked up by one General in the military and from that, freedom was reborn. How ironic that Egypt may now find the Fourth of July as their day of Independence as well.
Today we find ourselves in a very similar position in America. More than half of the citizens believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction fast. We were sold a lie and even though half of us did not make the purchase, all of us are paying the price. We were promised a government of transparency and what we were given is anything but. We were told that Obama would be a “uniter'” and in reality, the nation has never been more clearly divided. You do not have to look far to see the dissension in America today and the high level of disgust. And yet, the majority of citizens have evidently not reached the point of taking their message from the pages of their social sites and acting on them in the streets. I believe there are several contributing factors to this reality, one being the unanswered question: “If I go out in the streets, will I be there alone or will others come in behind me?” So, this is a question that must be answered.
On this very day 237 years ago, we declared our independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, although are we still independent today? We are in dire need for a new found declaration from the tyranny of the kingdom within. It is very important that all of our service members understand and remember the Oath of Enlistment they took when they were sworn into the Armed Forces of the United States.
The Oath of Enlistment to the Armed Forces of the United States of America:
This is the oath taken by Enlisted Members:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
This is the oath taken by Commissioned Officers:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
* Note that the Oath taken by Commissioned Officers only specifies allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not to the President.
The Constitution is the very foundation of our republic and the fabric from which all of our freedoms are derived. Today in America, this document is being shredded one right at a time. Freedom is not truly freedom if it only exists on paper. So, we find ourselves at a crossroad. We have to decide whether to make a turn for freedom or continue straight ahead on the same path we are on, which leads to deeper tyranny. The clock is ticking and we could reach a point in the very near future where we have no choice to turn.
So I ask all of our members of the Armed Forces of the United States, from the newly enlisted Private to the highest ranking General: Where will your loyalty lie? If we the people rise up against our leaders, will you rise up with us or will you rise up against us? Is there a General among us that will have the courage of his conviction to uphold the oath he took “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?” Because today we have an enemy to that very document and that is the enemy within. Is there a General among us that will call on his men and women in uniform to stand with us, the people, or is that just a luxury for the people of Egypt? Would you have the courage to order your troops to surround the White House? Would you be brave enough to declare that “We the military, stand with the people and we are overthrowing Barack Hussein Obama?” The day could come in the very near future where the Generals will have to ask themselves: “Do I uphold the Constitution and the rights of the people to abolish their current government or do I follow orders from the President?” “I was just following orders.” Where have we heard that before? We hope there is a true General among us, “the people” and we pray that “we the people” do not stand alone.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, 1776
editorial footnote: We ask that you please share this, especially with all military personnel. Thank you.
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
What would the world look like today if the Chinese never invented black powder? What would the world look like today if the first hydrogen atom was never split?
What might have been or what could have been doesn’t really matter at this point. The proverbial genie was let out of the lamp many centuries ago and all that matters now is, where do we go from here?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is little greater that separates us as Americns from the rest of the world than those words above. Many of our freedoms are common freedoms shared with many nations, but the ‘..right of the people to keep and bear arms..’ is that which sets us apart. Our insightful forefathers knew long ago, just as they required the Second Amendment to acquire our republic, we would one day require it ourselves, in order to preserve it and keep it secure. Not necessarily secure from a foreign invader, but secure from the enemy within. What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand? Oh, they understand it very well. They understand that, the only barrier that stands between us, the people and tyranny are those hallowed words. They understand, as we do, that the second amendment is the one amendment that ensures and secures all of the rest.
Today in America, there is a liberal constituency that have disillusioned themselves into thinking that we would somehow be safer without guns. They believe that all murders would end and suddenly utopia would wash up on our shores and everyone will sit around the campfire, holding hands while singing kumbaya. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. You see, the act of murder is not begot from the barrel of a gun, but rather, it’s born from the heart of man. Long before those Chinese alchemists accidentally stumbled upon the synthesis for black powder, murder existed. Whether it was by the stone or by the sword, murder long predates the gun. Even if every firearm was removed from the planet by midnight tonight, we would awake to the stories of murder tomorrow. Whether it be by the sword of the Arab, the noose of the Persian or the knife of the Westerner in the kitchen sink..murder would not cease to exist.
If the liberals truly cared about saving lives, they should focus their efforts on the heart of man. They would concentrate their efforts on enforcing the laws on the criminal, instead of forcing their agenda onto the innocent. Especially considering, criminals do not obey gun laws. Hence, the term ‘criminal.’ Therefore, why would they suddenly obey those laws, once our rights are taken away? The truth is..they wouldn’t.
So, what would an America with no second amendment look like? If we, the citizens of the Republic ever allowed this right to be taken from us, to what nation would we awake the next day? In order to gain a greater understanding of that reality, first we must look to the past. Many nations have already walked that path, so let’s see how that worked out for them, shall we?
1—–Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.
2—–The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 – 1917.
3—–The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently from 1929 – 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
4—–China. Gun control laws were enacted in 1935. Between 1948 – 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were likewise murdered.
5—–In the United States the first gun control laws were enacted during the Civil War era to prevent guns from falling into the hands of black slaves who might be inclined to attack their masters and thereby keeping control in the hands of the latter.
6—–Guatemala. Gun control laws were passed in 1964: as a result, between 1964 – 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians met their deaths.
7—–Uganda. Established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 – 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.
8—–Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, subsequently from 1957 – 1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths.
The following is the expanded version with pictures and some interesting supporting links:
Armenians being marched off to the death camps.
In 1938, Germany enacts gun control laws which were targeted squarely at the Jews. Between 1939 and 1945, 13 million Jews and other undesirables were rounded up and exterminated by the German government.
Adolph Hitler’s own thoughts on gun control:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
China establishes gun control in 1935. From 1949 to 1975, 50-60 million Chinese citizens are exterminated by the Chinese government lead by the infamous Mao Zedong.
The soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, made use of existing gun laws to ensure that his extermination of some 60 million people went smoothly.
The first Soviet gun controls were imposed during the Russian Civil War, as Czarists, Western troops, and national independence movements battled the central Red regime. Firearm registration was introduced on April 1, 1918.  On August 30, Fanny Kaplan supposedly wounded Lenin during an assassination attempt; the attempted assassination spurred a nationwide reign of terror.  In October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the government) ordered the surrender of all firearms, ammunition, and sabres.  As has been the case in almost every nation where firearms registration has been introduced, registration proved a prelude to confiscation. Exempt from the confiscation order, however, were members of the Communist Party.  A 1920 decree imposed a mandatory minimum penalty of six months in prison for (non-Communist) possession of a firearm, even where there was no criminal intent. 
After the Red victory in the Civil War, the firearms laws were consolidated in a Criminal Code, which provided that unauthorized possession of a firearm would be punishable by hard labor.  A 1925 law made unauthorized possession of a firearm punishable by three months of hard labor, plus a fine of 300 rubles (equal to about four months’ wages for a highly-paid construction worker). 
Stalin apparently found little need to change the weapons control structure he had inherited. His only contributions were a 1935 law making illegal carrying of a knife punishable by five years in prison and a decree of that same year extending “all penalties, including death, down to twelve-year-old children.” 
Uganda established gun control in 1970 (Firearms act of 1970- This legislation made legal ownership of firearms more difficult than the pre-existing 1956 British colonial legislation through an expanded system of firearm registration and prohibitive licensing. It also banned a wide range of firearms. Civilian ownership of firearms, already low in Uganda, appears to have been virtually eliminated (Simkin, et al., 1994, pp.285-289). Between 1971 and 1979, 300,000 Christians are rounded up and exterminated by the government of Idi Amin.
Cambodian gun control was a legacy of French colonialism. A series of Royal Ordinances, decreed by a monarchy subservient to the French, appears to have been enacted out of fear of the Communist and anti-colonial insurgencies that were taking place in the 1920s and 1930s throughout Southeast Asia, although not in Cambodia.  The first law, in 1920, dealt with the carrying of guns, while the last law in the series, in 1938, imposed a strict licensing system.  Only hunters could have guns, and they were allowed to own only a single firearm.  These colonial laws appear to have stayed in place after Cambodia was granted independence. The Khmer Rouge enacted no new gun control laws, for they enacted no laws at all other than a Constitution. 
Cambodia was a poor country, and few people could afford guns.  On the other hand, the chaos that accompanies any war might have given some Cambodians the opportunity to acquire firearms from corrupt or dead soldiers. There is no solid evidence about how many Cambodians, with no cultural history of firearms ownership, attempted to do so. 
As soon as the Khmer Rouge took power, they immediately set out to disarm the populace. One Cambodian recalls that:
Eang [a woman] watched soldiers stride onto the porches of the houses and knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. “We are here now to protect you,” the soldiers said, “and no one has a need for a weapon any more.” People who said that they kept no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves. . . . The round-up of weapons took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed, they dropped their pretense of friendliness. . . . The soldiers said everyone would have to leave the village for a while, so that the troops could search for weapons; when the search was finished, they could return. 
People being forced out of villages and cities were searched thoroughly, and weapons and foreign currency were confiscated.  To the limited extent that Cambodians owned guns through the government licensing system, the names of registered gun owners were of course available to the new government
What do all of these Cambodians have in common? They were unarmed and they were killed by their radical left wing government.
More recently, In Rwanda during the 1990s, some 800,000 unarmed Tutsis were slaughtered by the new Hutu government. It is interesting to note that most of the murders were committed with machetes. More interesting than that, however, is the fact that communist China supplied the Hutus with 581,000 machetes in 1993 BUT Even more interesting than that is that the former Secretary General of the United Nations, one Boutros Boutros-Ghali, facilitated the arms deals with the Hutus, the deal that facilitated the genocide. In 1990, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, Boutros-Ghali, facilitated an arms deal which was to result in $26 million worth of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda and then used to perpetrate a genocide a few years later. China. The UN. Gun control. Genocide.
Made in China
Rummel defines democide as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”
His research shows, further, that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.
Bottom line, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be killed by your government than by a gun wielding maniac in a theater especially if you have allowed your government to disarm you. It should be obvious to you after reading this, that it has primarily been radical left wing socialist/communist governments imposing gun control and then perpetrating genocide against select members of the newly disarmed populace. It is also worth mentioning that gun registration typically precedes these events. It ought not be surprising to you that the leftists of this country are the ones pushing for gun control in the name of preventing crime despite an abundance of evidence that shows that gun control does not prevent crime. Further, it should come as no surprise that registration of long guns is increasingly being touted as a “reasonable” gun control legislation. Sales of assault rifles ending up in the hands of Mexican cartels was, in fact, to be the just cause for this incremental step towards subjugation of the free men and women of America. Luckily, their machinations were sufficiently exposed and thus foiled. They know what they’re trying to do. They do have an agenda. They do intend to disarm this country one way or another. Remain vigilant my friends. Not one step backwards. Ever forward. The life you save may be your own.
A Special ‘Thank you’ to: R.Cone and U.areme for contributing to this article.
reference attribution: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2913152/posts