Archive for category Data Collection

Facebook “Celebrate Pride” Rainbow Filter a Psychological Experiment

 Written by    

rainbow filter

After the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional boundaries and overruled state laws and even state constitutions by legalizing same-sex marriage, millions of Facebook users took advantage of a tool that the site made available to filter their profile picture with rainbow hues. It now looks as if Facebook’s “Celebrate Pride” tool was a social/psychological experiment with more than 26 million unwitting subjects.

In the past, “gay pride” Facebook users have demonstrated their support of the homosexual agenda in a variety of ways. There have been the silhouettes that look like the signs on restroom doors but show two male figures (or two female figures) holding hands, simple rainbow squares, a variety of equals signs, and a myriad other symbols of “gay pride” that they could use as their profile pictures or cover photos. Not one of those options was created by Facebook. This time was different. This time Facebook created a rainbow filter which made it easier and more uniform.

The “Celebrate Pride” tool — which was launched by the social media giant almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on same-sex marriage in typical 5-4 fashion — became the overwhelming symbol of choice for those Facebook users who wanted to demonstrate their elation over the decision. The result was that nearly all the profile pictures which show support for the unconstitutional decision are the product of the “Celebrate Pride” filter.

Facebook has denied that the filtering tool is an experiment of any type, claiming that is is merely a way for its users to show their support for the court’s decision. But there are reasons to doubt the sincerity of the company’s denial.

This would certainly not be the first time Facebook experimented on its users.

Reporting on this most recent example, The Atlantic pointed out that in June of 2014, “Facebook manipulated what users saw when they logged into the site as a way to study how it would affect their moods.” This was accomplished by creating what were essentially “test groups” and filtering their timelines to show some groups only positive posts from their friends while showing other groups only negative posts from their friends. Facebook then monitored the “mood” that each user selected from the drop-down menu when making a post of their own.

And in September of 2012, the National Institutes of Health reported the findings of a Facebook experiment on manipulating the way people voted in the 2010 congressional elections. The results of that study claim that by filtering the political posts and ads that were shown to Facebook users, and monitoring the websites those users visited after seeing those posts and ads, the Internet giant was able to steer users to a particular point of view and influence their voting patterns.

Setting aside the merely circumstantial evidence, perhaps the greatest reason to disbelieve Facebook’s denial in this case is a paper written on the subject that was co-authored by a data scientist at Facebook itself. The paper, published by Facebook in March of this year, discusses the fact that in March of 2013, three million Facebook users changed their profile picture to an “equals” sign and that Facebook looked at the metrics of those users to determine the reasoning behind that change. The report examines the fact that the main dynamics impacting whether users adopted the equals sign as their profile picture were how many of their friends had already done so, the demographics of the users, and how often those users typically change their profile pictures. The report concluded that “the probability of adoption [of the equals sign as a profile picture] depends on both the number of friends and the susceptibility of the individual.”

It seems that Facebook decided to take this experiment to the next level to see whether “the susceptibility of the individual” could be altered. Considering that the number of users who adopted a “gay pride” profile picture went from three million in March of 2013 to more than 26 million once Facebook standardized the method for doing so and put the Facebook stamp of approval on it in June 2015, it seems the answer is yes.

Of course it is no surprise that Facebook is supportive of the homosexual agenda, but the release of this particular tool seems to be at least equally geared toward the company’s own agenda: performing experiments on users to determine how well Facebook (as a company) influences the way Facebook (as a social media site) is used, and the way that use shapes the conversation.

The experiment is almost certain to allow Mark Zuckerburg’s empire to better manipulate the way issues are discussed — and to garner huge profits while doing so.

Read more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/21233-facebook-celebrate-pride-rainbow-filter-a-psychological-experiment

Tags: , ,

IRS Claims Need to Track Taxpayer License Plates

we the people preamble license plate readers IRS surveillance taxpayersTired of the National Security Agency (NSA) listening to and recording your phone calls? Tired of them monitoring your social media posts? Tired of the Department of Homeland Security paying local police to install surveillance cameras capable of making citizens into suspects? Sadly, there’s no time to rest, as several other federal agencies are jumping on the surveillance bandwagon.

Bloomberg reports that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Forest Service (among others) have awarded nearly half a million dollars to Vigilant Solutions, a California-based company that provides tools for tracking license plates and for accessing license plate databases.

Why would the IRS and the Forest Service need the technology to track the license plates of Americans? Bloomberg explains:

 

“The IRS uses a variety of investigative tools similar to other law-enforcement agencies to assist with criminal cases,” Eric Smith, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. He declined to say how the IRS used the records in its investigations.

The Forest Service, part of the Department of Agriculture, awarded Vigilant a contract valued at as much as $47,019 for its “CarDetector” system in August 2009, records show. The product scans and captures license plate numbers, compares the data to law enforcement lists of wanted vehicles and sends alerts when such vehicles are detected, according to the company’s website.

“License plate readers are helpful to our law enforcement officers with illegal activities on national forest system lands in California,” Tiffany Holloway, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in an e-mail. She declined to comment about what types of crimes the tools are used to investigate or provide examples of how the technology has helped law enforcement.

Of course, there is a quid pro quo in the IRS’s purchase of license plate tracking technology.

Owe money to the IRS? Having trouble making your mortgage payments? Ever been sued or been arrested?

Soon, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will know the answers to these questions before you pass through security, and they might affect whether you are cleared for travel.

In an article from October 2013, the New York Times reported, “The Transportation Security Administration is expanding its screening of passengers before they arrive at the airport by searching a wide array of government and private databases that can include records like car registrations and employment information.”

The complete list of sources of personal data reviewed by the TSA also includes:

▪ private employment information

▪ vehicle registrations

▪ travel history

▪ property ownership records

▪ physical characteristics

▪ tax identification numbers

▪ past travel itineraries

▪ law enforcement information

▪ “intelligence” information

▪ passport numbers

▪ frequent flier information

▪ other “identifiers” linked to DHS databases

What does all of this have to do with “national security?” The New York Times writes that “the agency says that the goal is to streamline the security procedures for millions of passengers who pose no risk.”

The TSA released the documents detailing the depth of this screening, but has refused to comment publicly.

Speaking under condition of anonymity, a TSA official told the New York Times that “the main goal of the program was to identify low-risk travelers for lighter screening at airport security checkpoints, adapting methods similar to those used to flag suspicious people entering the United States.”

If the traveler is a member of an airline’s frequent flier program, the airline will be required to share the person’s travel history with the TSA.

Benjamin Newell, a spokesman for the Air Combat Command — another federal agency that has contracted with Vigilant to provide license plate tracking tools — told Bloomberg that all the secret surveillance will make America safer. “The more aware we are of who is entering a military facility, the better we are able to protect the lives and equipment on that base,” Newell said in a phone interview, as reported by Bloomberg.

Not everyone is falling for the liberty for safety bait and switch, however. According to the Bloomberg story, “NetChoice, a Washington-based trade association that represents e-commerce businesses, is concerned that groups opposing the tools offer ‘no recognition at all of the benefits of license plate recognition in stopping crime or saving lives,’ said Steve DelBianco, its executive director.”

The justification, however, is the mantra of the local and federal agencies speedily erecting the watchtowers of the surveillance state. As reported by The New American in January of this year:

Local leaders in Houston, like those in so many other cities across the country, have approved the installation of new surveillance cameras. These 180 new cameras bring to nearly 1,000 the number of known surveillance cameras in the country’s fourth largest city.

The eye of the government will reportedly cover the city’s “public areas around downtown, stadiums and the theater district.”

Local CBS affiliate KHOU reports on its website that Houston police chief Charles McClelland believes the city needs the nearly 1,000 cameras to “provide necessary police coverage.”

And just where did Houston get the money to buy these new cameras? There’s no provision for the expense in the mayor’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget, so the city’s not paying for these “critical” services so necessary for the “safety” of its citizens. 

Department of Homeland Security to the rescue!

In the article announcing the deployment of the new devices, KHOU reports, “The city has spent more than $18 million in federal money to build its camera system and has another $5 million in reserve.”

Perhaps citizens should overlook their elected leaders’ acceptance of such federal largesse, given that the 900 or so surveillance cameras already in place have had such a favorable effect on crime rates in the city.

Not so much.

Again, from KHOU: “Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.”

If this surveillance isn’t reducing crime, what’s the true purpose behind the purchase by the IRS, Homeland Security, the Forest Service, the TSA of software and hardware that can keep anyone under surveillance at any time? 

“Ultimately, you’re creating a national database of location information,” Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Jennifer Lynch told the Washington Post in February. “When all that data is compiled and aggregated, you can track somebody as they’re going through their life.”

After learning of the IRS’s obtaining of the license plate tracking technology, Lynch updated her criticism. “Especially with the IRS, I don’t know why these agencies are getting access to this kind of information,” she reportedly said. “These systems treat every single person in an area as if they’re under investigation for a crime — that is not the way our criminal justice system was set up or the way things work in a democratic society.”

Lynch is right. Any deprivation of liberty without conforming to the requirements set out in the Fourth Amendment is one too many. If we are a Republic of laws, then the supreme constitutional law of the land must be adhered to every time the government wants to search and seize anything from Americans. 

The standard is not whether or not the IRS or the Forest Service claims that investigations create exigent need to violate the Constitution. The standard is the Constitution — for every issue, on every occasion, with no exceptions. Anything less than that is a step toward tyranny.

Taken together, the scope of the snooping carried on by the federal government places every American under the threat of constant surveillance. The courts, Congress, and the president have formed an unholy alliance bent on obliterating the Constitution and establishing a country where every citizen is a suspect and is perpetually under the never-blinking eye of the government.

The establishment will likely continue construction of the surveillance until the entire country is being watched around the clock and every monitored activity is recorded and made retrievable by agents who will have a dossier on every American.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Tags: , ,