THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FBI, FINCEN, FTC, FEC, SEC, OGE, DOJ, INTERPOL AND CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS (THE MASTER REPORT IS OVER 2000 PAGES). SEE WHY:
TOXIC COMPANIES (LINK)
They got together and created an organized crime “tech mafia”.
Problem is…. All mobsters go to prison…
YES, THEY ARE THAT BAD: ACTUAL PLAN TO CREATE A SILICON VALLEY ___MAFIA___ REVEALED BY ABC NEWS
AND: A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE CRIME 1.2
OH LOOK: Boys will be boys
THESE GUYS: Building a Psychopath: How Hollywood and Silicon Valley VC’s and Executives Turned Out To Be Such Scumbags
THEIR DELUSIONAL PARTY OF SEX AND DRUGS: Burning Man Aggregates The Single Largest Collection of Assholes On Earth THE SILICON VALLEY TECH MAFIA
MORE ON THAT PARTY: Burning Man Chronicles
THE DIRT ON THE CARTEL: HOW_CORRUPTION_ACTUALLY_WORKS
How Hollywood and Silicon Valley VC’s and Executives Turned Out To Be Such Scumbags
SAN_FRANCISCO’S_CORRUPTION_CULTURE
SILICON VALLEY BURNING MAN SEX CULT
Stanford_University_Teaches_Promotes_And_Protects_Sociopaths_And_Hate
TECHTOPUS – This Lawsuit proves they are a CARTEL
THE_DIRTY_DEEDS_OF_SILICON_VALLEY
THE_DIRTY_DEEDS_OF_SILICON_VALLEY_VOLUME_TWO
The_Silicon_Valley_Tech_Mobster_Cartel
THE VC CROWD RUNS THE OVAL OFFICE
Why Elon Musk and John Doerr hate hydrogen more than anything on Earth
Links To Third-Party Evidence Files Proving Each And Every Assertion:
https://stopelonfromfailingagain.com
https://fusion4freedom.com/about-gcf/
https://fusion4freedom.com/the-green-corruption-files-archive/
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/index_en.html
http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Corruption/Corruption
http://www.traceinternational.org/
https://anticorruptionact.org/
http://www.anticorruptionintl.org/
http://www.giaccentre.org/dealing_with_corruption.php
https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/FightCur.html
https://www.opus.com/international-anti-corruption-day-businesses/
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/theme/anti-corruption
https://www.ethicalsystems.org/content/corruption
https://sunlightfoundation.com/
http://www.googletransparencyproject.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelgate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
The college bribery scandal reveals an ugly truth: our society is unjust, dominated by a small Silicon Valley elite.
The most destructive and pervasive myth in America today is that we live in a meritocracy. Our elites, so the myth goes, earned their places at Yale and Harvard, on Wall Street and in Washington—not because of the accident of their birth, but because they are better, stronger, and smarter than the rest of us. Therefore, they think, they’ve “earned” their places in the halls of power and “deserve” to lead.
The fervor with which so many believe this enables elites to lord over those worse off than they are. On we slumber, believing that we live in a country that values justice, instead of working towards a more equitable and authentically meritocratic society.
Take the Operation Varsity Blues scandal. On Tuesday, the FBI and federal prosecutors announced that 50 people had been charged in, as Sports Illustrated put it, “a nationwide college admissions scheme that used bribes to help potential students cheat on college entrance exams or to pose as potential athletic recruits to get admitted to high-profile universities.” Thirty-three parents, nine collegiate coaches, two SAT/ACT exam administrators, an exam proctor, and a college athletics administrator were among those charged. The man who allegedly ran the scheme, William Rick Singer, pled guilty to four charges of racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and obstruction of justice.
As part of the scam, parents would “donate” money to a fake charity run by Singer. The funds would then be laundered to either pay off an SAT or ACT administrator to take the exams or bribe an employee in college athletics to name the rich, non-athlete children as recruits. Virtually every scenario relied on multiple layers of corruption, all of which eventually allowed wealthy students to masquerade as “deserving” of the merit-based college slots they paid up to half a million dollars to “qualify” for.
Cheating. Bribery. Lying. The wealthy and privileged buying what was reserved for the deserving. It’s all there on vivid display. Modern American society has become increasingly and banally corrupt, both in the ways in which “justice” is meted out and in who is allowed to access elite education and the power that comes with it.
The U.S. is now a country where corruption is rampant and money buys both access and outcomes. We pretend to be better than Russia and other oligarchies, but we too are dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
The average American citizen has very little power, as a 2014 study by Princeton University found. The research reviewed 1,779 public policy questions asked between 1981 and 2002 and the responses by different income levels and interest groups; then calculated the likelihood that certain policies would be adopted.
What they found came as no surprise:
A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favor) is adopted only about 18 percent of the time, while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favor) is adopted about 45% of the time.
That’s in stark contrast with policies favored by average Americans:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
The conclusion of the study? We live in an oligarchy:
…our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. …[T]he preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
The belief in the myth of merit hurts the smart kid with great grades who aced his SATs but was still rejected from Yale and Harvard. It hurts talented athletes who have worked their tails off for so many years. It hurts parents who have committed hundreds of school nights and weekends to their children. It hurts HR departments that believe degrees from Ivy League schools mean that graduates are qualified. It hurts all of us who buy into the great myth that America is a democratic meritocracy and that we can achieve whatever we want if only we’re willing to expend blood, toil, sweat, and tears.
At least in an outright class system like the British Houses of Lords and Commons, there is not this farcical playacting of equal opportunity. The elites, with their privilege and titles, know the reason they are there and feel some sense of obligation to those less well off than they are. At the very least, they do not engage in the ritual pretense of “deserving” what they “earned”—quite unlike those who descend on Washington, D.C. believing that they really are better than their compatriots in flyover country.
All societies engage in myth-making about themselves. But the myth of meritocracy may be our most pervasive and destructive belief—and it mirrors the myth that anything like “justice” is served up in our courts.
Remember the Dupont heir who received no prison time after being convicted for raping his three-year-old daughter because the judge ruled that six-foot-four Robert Richards “wouldn’t fare well in prison”? Or the more recent case of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who had connections to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and faced a 53-page federal indictment for sex-trafficking over two dozens underage girls? He received instead a sweetheart deal that concealed the extent of his crimes. Rather than the federal life imprisonment term he was facing, Epstein is currently on house arrest after receiving only 13 months in county jail. The lead prosecutor in that case had previously been reprimanded by a federal judge in another underage sex crimes case for concealing victim information, the Miami Herald reports.
While the rich are able to escape consequences for even the most horrific of crimes, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Approximately 7 million people were under some form of correctional control by the end of 2011, including 2.2 million who were detained in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. One in every 10 black men in his thirties is in prison or jail, and one out of three black men born in 2001 can expect to go to prison in their lifetimes.
While black people make up only 13 percent of the population, they make up 42 percent of death row and 35 percent of those who are executed. There are big racial disparities in charging, sentencing, plea bargaining, and executions, Department of Justice reviews have concluded, and black and brown people are disproportionately found to be innocent after landing on death row. The poor and disadvantaged thereby become grist for a system that cares nothing for them.
Despite all this evidence, most Americans embrace a version of the Calvinist beliefs promulgated by their forebears, believing that the elect deserve their status. We remain confident that when our children apply to college or are questioned by police, they will receive just and fair outcomes. If our neighbors’ and friends’ kids do not, then we assure ourselves that it is they who are at fault, not the system.
The result has been a gaping chasm through our society. Lives are destroyed because, rather than working for real merit-based systems and justice, we worship at the altar of false promises offered by our institutions. Instead we should be rolling up our sleeves and seeing Operation Varsity Blues for what it is: a call to action.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She’s the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC.
http://www.projectveritasaction.com
Catch and Kill By Ronan Farrow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_Kill:_Lies,_Spies,_and_a_Conspiracy_to_Protect_Predators
Permanent Record By Edward Snowden, https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Record-Edward-Snowden/dp/1250237238
Brotopia By Emily Chang, http://brotopiabook.com/
Throw Them All Out By Peter Schweizer, http://peterschweizer.com/books/throw-them-all-out/
The Circle By David Eggers, https://archive.org/details/circle00dave
World Without Mind By Franklin Foer, https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Mind-Existential-Threat/dp/1101981113
A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley By Corey Pein, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35684687-live-work-work-work-die
Disrupted By Dan Lyons, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030703-disrupted
Chaos Monkeys By Antonio García Martínez, https://www.antoniogarciamartinez.com/chaos-monkeys/
The Creepy Line By Matthew Taylor, https://www.thecreepyline.com/
The Cleantech Crash By Leslie Stahl, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleantech-crash-60-minutes/
Congress: Trading stock By Steve Kroft, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/
Stanford University Is a cesspool of spies and foreign bribes from the governments of China, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
– 32 San Francisco families are under investigation for influence-peddling Stanford
The Education Department has been asked to run investigations into Stanford University, who has been caught accepting bribes to place rich kids in the school, as part of a continuing review that it says has found U.S. universities failed to report at least $6.5 billion in foreign funding from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, according to department materials viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The investigations into the Ivy League schools are the latest in a clash between U.S. universities and a coalition of federal officials including law enforcement, research funders such as the National Institutes of Health, and a bipartisan group in Congress that has raised concerns about higher-education institutions’ reliance on foreign money, particularly from China.
Representatives for Stanford said the regents “hope to avoid any trouble”.
The department described higher-education institutions in the U.S., in a document viewed by the Journal, as “multi-billion dollar, multi-national enterprises using opaque foundations, foreign campuses, and other sophisticated legal structures to generate revenue.”
U.S. universities have generally defended their international collaborations and said the Education Department’s reporting requirements remain unclear, which officials deny.
Universities are required to disclose to the Education Department all contracts and gifts from a foreign source that, alone or combined, are worth $250,000 or more in a calendar year. Though the statute is decades old, the department only recently began to vigorously enforce it.
Officials accused schools of actively soliciting money from foreign governments, companies and nationals known to be hostile to the U.S. and potentially in search of opportunities to steal research and “spread propaganda benefitting foreign governments,” according to the document.
In addition, while the department said it has found foreign money generally flows to the country’s richest universities, “such money apparently does not reduce or otherwise offset American students’ tuition costs,” the document said.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Should Stanford University be wary of accepting money from foreign governments hostile to the U.S., such as China, Russia and Iran?
U.S. officials say China uses a variety of means to target academia, including government-funded talent recruitment programs such as the Thousand Talents Plan. The arrest last month of the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department on federal charges of lying about receiving millions of dollars in Chinese funding through the program while the U.S. shelled out more than $15 million to fund his research group catapulted the issue into the spotlight.
In a letter to Harvard dated Tuesday and posted on the Education Department website, officials cited the recent Justice Department case and asked the school to disclose records of gifts or contracts involving the governments of China, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. It also requested records regarding telecommunications giants Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. of China; the Kaspersky Lab and Skolkovo Foundation of Russia; and the Alavi Foundation of Iran, among others.
The Education Department said Yale had failed to disclose at least $375 million in foreign funding after filing no reports from 2014-17, according to a document viewed by the Journal. The department, also in a letter Tuesday to the university, sought records regarding contributions from Saudi Arabia, China and its telecom giants, Peking University’s Yenching Academy, the National University of Singapore, Qatar and others. It also asked the university to detail foreign funding of Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center and the new Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs.
The Education Department is alleging that Yale University didn’t disclose at least $375 million in foreign funding and is seeking records from the school.
Photo: Jessica Hill for The Wall Street Journal
If the schools refuse to disclose the information, the Education Department can refer the matter to the Justice Department, which could pursue civil or criminal actions.
Some university officials have dismissed the U.S. government’s broader national security concerns regarding foreign involvement in universities as hyperbolic, or even discriminatory, and said there should be no restrictions on unclassified research meant to be published anyway.
They have also said international collaboration—particularly with China—is essential to advancing scientific discoveries that will benefit humankind.
A February 2019 investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations called foreign government funding of U.S. universities “a black hole” and said it found that nearly 70% failed to properly report funding from Chinese government-backed cultural and language programs known as Confucius Institutes.
Sens. Rob Portman (R., Ohio ) and Tom Carper (D., Del.), who lead the Senate panel, said in a joint statement the Journal: “The fact that $6.5 billion in foreign gifts to U.S. institutions went unreported until now is shocking and unacceptable…We are pleased that the Department of Education is increasing enforcement efforts and taking a step towards ensuring academic freedom in America.”
Education Department officials in June 2019 launched a series of investigations into universities’ foreign funding. The Harvard and Yale investigations are the department’s seventh and eighth probes following others at schools including Georgetown University, Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Education Department officials said in the document viewed by the Journal that its investigations have prompted public and private universities across the country to come forward since July 2019 to collectively report more than $6.5 billion in previously undisclosed foreign funding.
A spokeswoman for MIT said the university’s reporting of foreign gifts and contracts has been based on “improved processes” since January 2019 and that it is committed to working constructively with federal officials. Georgetown and Cornell didn’t immediately comment.
The Education Department has hit back at university groups that have criticized its recent enforcement drive. For example, in a September 2019 letter addressed to one group that represents more than 200 universities, an official called the universities’ reporting duties “plainly evident.”
He added: “You have asked the Department to ‘work with the higher education community to…balance the interests of transparency and the complicated nature of reporting.’ There is no statutory basis for any such ‘balance.’”
Anne Broache. “FBI wants widespread monitoring of ‘illegal’ Internet activity”. CNET. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
-
“Is the U.S. Turning Into a Surveillance Society?”. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society” (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 15, 2003. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“Anonymous hacks UK government sites over ‘draconian surveillance’ “, Emil Protalinski, ZDNet, 7 April 2012, retrieved 12 March 2013
-
Hacktivists in the frontline battle for the internet retrieved 17 June 2012
-
Diffie, Whitfield; Susan Landau (August 2008). “Internet Eavesdropping: A Brave New World of Wiretapping”. Scientific American. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
-
“CALEA Archive — Electronic Frontier Foundation”. Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Archived from the original on 2009-05-03. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
-
“CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet”. Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved 2009-03-14.
-
“CALEA: Frequently Asked Questions”. Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved 2009-03-14.
-
Kevin J. Connolly (2003). Law of Internet Security and Privacy. Aspen Publishers. p. 131. ISBN .
-
American Council on Education vs. FCC Archived 2012-09-07 at the Wayback Machine, Decision, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 9 June 2006. Retrieved 8 September 2013.
-
Hill, Michael (October 11, 2004). “Government funds chat room surveillance research”. USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
-
McCullagh, Declan (January 30, 2007). “FBI turns to broad new wiretap method”. ZDNet News. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
-
“First round in Internet war goes to Iranian intelligence”, Debkafile, 28 June 2009. (subscription required)
-
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly Media, 1-5.
-
Anthony Denise, Celeste Campos-Castillo, Christine Horne (2017). “Toward a Sociology of Privacy”. Annual Review of Sociology. 43: 249–269. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053643.
-
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Demsmarais, S. (2014). ” Creeping” or just information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 35-50.
-
“How Stuff Works”. Retrieved November 10, 2017.
-
[electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/high-tech-gadgets/should-smart-devices-automatically-call-cops.htm. “How Stuff Works”] Check
|url=value (help). Retrieved November 10, 2017.
-
[time.com/4766611/alexa-takes-the-stand-listening-devices-raise-privacy-issues “Time Alexa Takes the Stand Listening Devices Raise Privacy Issues”] Check
|url=value (help). Retrieved November 10, 2017.
-
Story, Louise (November 1, 2007). “F.T.C. to Review Online Ads and Privacy”. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
-
Butler, Don (January 31, 2009). “Are we addicted to being watched?”. The Ottawa Citizen. canada.com. Archived from the original on 22 July 2013. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
-
Soghoian, Chris (September 11, 2008). “Debunking Google’s log anonymization propaganda”. CNET News. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
-
Joshi, Priyanki (March 21, 2009). “Every move you make, Google will be watching you”. Business Standard. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
-
“Advertising and Privacy”. Google (company page). 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
-
“Spyware Workshop: Monitoring Software on Your OC: Spywae, Adware, and Other Software”, Staff Report, U.S. Federal Trade Commission, March 2005. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
-
Aycock, John (2006). Computer Viruses and Malware. Springer. ISBN .
-
“Office workers give away passwords for a cheap pen”, John Leyden, The Register, 8 April 2003. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
-
“Passwords are passport to theft”, The Register, 3 March 2004. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
-
“Social Engineering Fundamentals, Part I: Hacker Tactics”, Sarah Granger, 18 December 2001.
-
“Stuxnet: How does the Stuxnet worm spread?”. Antivirus.about.com. 2014-03-03. Retrieved 2014-05-17.
-
Keefe, Patrick (March 12, 2006). “Can Network Theory Thwart Terrorists?”. New York Times. Retrieved 14 March 2009.
-
Albrechtslund, Anders (March 3, 2008). “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance”. First Monday. 13 (3). Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Fuchs, Christian (2009). Social Networking Sites and the Surveillance Society. A Critical Case Study of the Usage of studiVZ, Facebook, and MySpace by Students in Salzburg in the Context of Electronic Surveillance (PDF). Salzburg and Vienna: Forschungsgruppe Unified Theory of Information. ISBN . Archived from the original (PDF) on February 6, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Ethier, Jason (27 May 2006). “Current Research in Social Network Theory” (PDF). Northeastern University College of Computer and Information Science. Retrieved 15 March 2009.[permanent dead link]
-
Marks, Paul (June 9, 2006). “Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites”. New Scientist. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
-
Kawamoto, Dawn (June 9, 2006). “Is the NSA reading your MySpace profile?”. CNET News. Retrieved 2009-03-16.
-
Ressler, Steve (July 2006). “Social Network Analysis as an Approach to Combat Terrorism: Past, Present, and Future Research”. Homeland Security Affairs. II (2). Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
McNamara, Joel (4 December 1999). “Complete, Unofficial Tempest Page”. Archived from the original on 1 September 2013. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
-
Van Eck, Wim (1985). “Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk?” (PDF). Computers & Security. 4 (4): 269–286. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.35.1695. doi:10.1016/0167-4048(85)90046-X.
-
Kuhn, M.G. (26–28 May 2004). “Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays” (PDF). 4th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Toronto: 23–25.
-
Asonov, Dmitri; Agrawal, Rakesh (2004), Keyboard Acoustic Emanations (PDF), IBM Almaden Research Center
-
Yang, Sarah (14 September 2005), “Researchers recover typed text using audio recording of keystrokes”, UC Berkeley News
-
“LA Times”. Retrieved November 10, 2017.
-
Adi Shamir & Eran Tromer. “Acoustic cryptanalysis”. Blavatnik School of Computer Science, Tel Aviv University. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
-
Jeremy Reimer (20 July 2007). “The tricky issue of spyware with a badge: meet ‘policeware'”. Ars Technica.
-
Hopper, D. Ian (4 May 2001). “FBI’s Web Monitoring Exposed”. ABC News.
-
“New York Times”. Retrieved November 10, 2017.
-
“Stanford University Clipper Chip”. Retrieved November 10, 2017.
-
“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act” Archived 2012-02-14 at the Wayback Machine, U.S. Senate bill S.2048, 107th Congress, 2nd session, 21 March 2002. Retrieved 8 September 2013.
-
“Swiss coder publicises government spy Trojan”. News.techworld.com. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
-
Basil Cupa, Trojan Horse Resurrected: On the Legality of the Use of Government Spyware (Govware), LISS 2013, pp. 419-428
-
“FAQ – Häufig gestellte Fragen”. Ejpd.admin.ch. 2011-11-23. Archived from the original on 2013-05-06. Retrieved 2014-05-17.
-
“Censorship is inseparable from surveillance”, Cory Doctorow, The Guardian, 2 March 2012
-
The Enemies of the Internet Special Edition : Surveillance Archived 2013-08-31 at the Wayback Machine, Reporters Without Borders, 12 March 2013
-
“When Secrets Aren’t Safe With Journalists”, Christopher Soghoian, New York Times, 26 October 2011
-
Everyone’s Guide to By-passing Internet Censorship, The Citizen Lab, University of Toronto, September 2007
-
Diffie, Whitfield; Susan Landau (August 2008). “Internet Eavesdropping: A Brave New World of Wiretapping”. Scientific American. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“CALEA Archive – Electronic Frontier Foundation”. Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Archived from the original on May 3, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
“CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet”. Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
“CALEA: Frequently Asked Questions”. Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). September 20, 2007. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Hill, Michael (October 11, 2004). “Government funds chat room surveillance research”. USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved March 19, 2009.
-
McCullagh, Declan (January 30, 2007). “FBI turns to broad new wiretap method”. ZDNet News. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
-
“FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats”. Wired Magazine. July 18, 2007.
-
Van Eck, Wim (1985). “Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk?” (PDF). Computers & Security. 4 (4): 269–286. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.35.1695. doi:10.1016/0167-4048(85)90046-X.
-
Kuhn, M.G. (2004). “Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays” (PDF). 4th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies: 23–25.
-
Risen, James; Lichtblau, Eric (June 16, 2009). “E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress”. New York Times. pp. A1. Retrieved June 30, 2009.
-
Ambinder, Marc (June 16, 2009). “Pinwale And The New NSA Revelations”. The Atlantic. Retrieved June 30, 2009.
-
Greenwald; Ewen, Glen; MacAskill (June 6, 2013). “NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others” (PDF). The Guardian. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
-
Sottek, T.C.; Kopfstein, Janus (July 17, 2013). “Everything you need to know about PRISM”. The Verge. Retrieved February 13, 2017.
-
Singel, Ryan (September 10, 2007). “Rogue FBI Letters Hint at Phone Companies’ Own Data Mining Programs – Updated”. Threat Level. Wired. Retrieved March 19, 2009.
-
Roland, Neil (March 20, 2007). “Mueller Orders Audit of 56 FBI Offices for Secret Subpoenas”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 19, 2009.
-
Piller, Charles; Eric Lichtblau (July 29, 2002). “FBI Plans to Fight Terror With High-Tech Arsenal”. LA Times. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Schneier, Bruce (December 5, 2006). “Remotely Eavesdropping on Cell Phone Microphones”. Schneier On Security. Retrieved December 13, 2009.
-
McCullagh, Declan; Anne Broache (December 1, 2006). “FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool”. CNet News. Archived from the original on November 10, 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Odell, Mark (August 1, 2005). “Use of mobile helped police keep tabs on suspect”. Financial Times. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
“Telephones”. Western Regional Security Office (NOAA official site). 2001. Retrieved March 22, 2009.
-
“Can You Hear Me Now?”. ABC News: The Blotter. Archived from the original on August 25, 2011. Retrieved December 13, 2009.
-
Coughlin, Kevin (December 13, 2006). “Even if they’re off, cellphones allow FBI to listen in”. The Seattle Times. Retrieved December 14, 2009.
-
Hampton, Brittany (2012). “From Smartphones to Stingrays: Can the Fourth Amendment Keep up with the Twenty-First Century Note”. University of Louisville Law Review. Fifty One: 159–176 – via Law Journal Library.
-
“Tracking a suspect by mobile phone”. BBC News. August 3, 2005. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Miller, Joshua (March 14, 2009). “Cell Phone Tracking Can Locate Terrorists – But Only Where It’s Legal”. FOX News. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Zetter, Kim (December 1, 2009). “Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online Feds ‘Pinged’ Sprint GPS Data 8 Million Times Over a Year”. Wired Magazine: Threat Level. Retrieved December 5, 2009.
-
“Greenstone Digital Library Software”. snowdenarchive.cjfe.org. Retrieved June 3, 2017.
-
Sanger, David (September 26, 2014). “Signaling Post-Snowden Era, New iPhone Locks Out N.S.A”. New York Times. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
-
Gellman, Barton (December 4, 2013). “NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show”. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
-
Nye, James (October 26, 2014). “British spies can go through Americans’ telephone calls and emails without warrant revelas legal challenge in the UK”. Mail Online. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
-
“Rise of Surveillance Camera Installed Base Slows”. May 5, 2016. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
-
“Smart cameras catch man in 60,000 crowd”. BBC News. April 13, 2018. Retrieved April 13, 2018.
-
Spielman, Fran (February 19, 2009). “Surveillance cams help fight crime, city says”. Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved March 13, 2009.[permanent dead link]
-
Schorn, Daniel (September 6, 2006). “We’re Watching: How Chicago Authorities Keep An Eye On The City”. CBS News. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“The Price of Privacy: How local authorities spent £515m on CCTV in four years” (PDF). Big Brother Watch. February 2012. p. 30. Retrieved February 4, 2015.
-
“FactCheck: how many CCTV cameras?”. Channel 4 News. June 18, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2009.
-
“You’re being watched: there’s one CCTV camera for every 32 people in UK – Research shows 1.85m machines across Britain, most of them indoors and privately operated”. The Guardian. March 2, 2011. Retrieved January 7, 2017; “In the press: How the media is reporting the 1.85 million cameras story”. Security News Desk. March 3, 2011. Retrieved January 7, 2017.
-
“CCTV in London” (PDF). Retrieved July 22, 2009.
-
“How many cameras are there?”. CCTV User Group. June 18, 2008. Archived from the original on October 23, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2009.
-
Den Haag. “Camera surveillance”. Archived from the original on October 8, 2016. Retrieved December 2, 2016.
-
Klein, Naomi (May 29, 2008). “China’s All-Seeing Eye”. Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on March 26, 2009. Retrieved March 20, 2009.
-
“Big Brother To See All, Everywhere”. CBS News. Associated Press. July 1, 2003. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
-
Bonsor, K. (September 4, 2001). “How Facial Recognition Systems Work”. Retrieved June 18, 2006.
-
McNealy, Scott. “Privacy is (Virtually) Dead”. Retrieved December 24, 2006.
-
Roebuck, Kevin (October 24, 2012). Communication Privacy Management. ISBN .
-
“WIKILEAKS: Surveillance Cameras Around The Country Are Being Used In A Huge Spy Network”. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
-
“EPIC Video Surveillance Information Page”. EPIC. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
Hedgecock, Sarah (August 14, 2012). “TrapWire: The Less-Than-Advertised System To Spy On Americans”. The Daily Beast. Retrieved September 13, 2012.
-
Albrechtlund, Anders (March 3, 2008). “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance”. First Monday. 13 (3). Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Fuchs, Christian (2009). Social Networking Sites and the Surveillance Society. A Critical Case Study of the Usage of studiVZ, Facebook, and MySpace by Students in Salzburg in the Context of Electronic Surveillance (PDF). Salzburg and Vienna: Forschungsgruppe Unified Theory of Information. ISBN . Retrieved July 28, 2012.
-
Ethier, Jason. “Current Research in Social Network Theory”. Northeastern University College of Computer and Information Science. Archived from the original on November 16, 2004. Retrieved March 15, 2009.
-
Marks, Paul (June 9, 2006). “Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites”. New Scientist. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Kawamoto, Dawn (June 9, 2006). “Is the NSA reading your MySpace profile?”. CNET News. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Ethier, Jason. “Current Research in Social Network Theory”. Northeastern University College of Computer and Information Science. Archived from the original on February 26, 2015. Retrieved March 15, 2009.
-
Ressler, Steve (July 2006). “Social Network Analysis as an Approach to Combat Terrorism: Past, Present, and Future Research”. Homeland Security Affairs. II (2). Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
“DyDAn Research Blog”. DyDAn Research Blog (official blog of DyDAn). Retrieved December 20, 2009.
-
Singel, Ryan (October 29, 2007). “AT&T Invents Programming Language for Mass Surveillance”. Threat Level. Wired. Retrieved March 19, 2009.
-
Singel, Ryan (October 16, 2007). “Legally Questionable FBI Requests for Calling Circle Info More Widespread than Previously Known”. Threat Level. Wired. Retrieved March 19, 2009.
-
Havenstein, Heather (September 12, 2008). “One in five employers uses social networks in hiring process”. Computer World. Archived from the original on September 23, 2008. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Woodward, John; Christopher Horn; Julius Gatune; Aryn Thomas (2003). Biometrics: A Look at Facial Recognition. RAND Corporation. ISBN . Retrieved March 15, 2009.
-
Frank, Thomas (May 10, 2007). “Face recognition next in terror fight”. USA Today. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Vlahos, James (January 2008). “Surveillance Society: New High-Tech Cameras Are Watching You”. Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on December 19, 2007. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Nakashima, Ellen (December 22, 2007). “FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics: $1 Billion Project to Include Images of Irises and Faces”. Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
-
Arena, Kelly; Carol Cratty (February 4, 2008). “FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping”. CNN. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Gross, Grant (February 13, 2008). “Lockheed wins $1 billion FBI biometric contract”. IDG News Service. InfoWorld. Retrieved March 18, 2009.
-
“LAPD: We Know That Mug”. Wired Magazine. Associated Press. December 26, 2004. Retrieved March 18, 2009.
-
Mack, Kelly. “LAPD Uses Face Recognition Technology To Fight Crime”. NBC4 TV (transcript from Officer.com). Archived from the original on March 30, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
-
Willon, Phil (September 17, 2009). “LAPD opens new high-tech crime analysis center”. LA Times. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
-
Dotinga, Randy (October 14, 2004). “Can’t Hide Your Lying … Face?”. Wired Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2009.
-
Boyd, Ryan. “MQ-9 Reaper”. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
-
Friedersdorf, Conor (March 10, 2016). “The Rapid Rise of Federal Surveillance Drones Over America”. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
-
Edwards, Bruce, “Killington co-founder Sargent dead at 83” Archived September 4, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Rutland Herald, November 9, 2012. Retrieved December 10, 2012.
-
McCullagh, Declan (March 29, 2006). “Drone aircraft may prowl U.S. skies”. CNet News. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Warwick, Graham (June 12, 2007). “US police experiment with Insitu, Honeywell UAVs”. FlightGlobal.com. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
La Franchi, Peter (July 17, 2007). “UK Home Office plans national police UAV fleet”. Flight International. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“No Longer Science Fiction: Less Than Lethal & Directed Energy Weapons”. International Online Defense Magazine. February 22, 2005. Retrieved March 15, 2009.
-
“HART Overview” (PDF). IPTO (DARPA) – Official website. August 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 5, 2008. Retrieved March 15, 2009.
-
“BAA 04-05-PIP: Heterogeneous Airborne Reconnaissance Team (HART)” (PDF). Information Processing Technology Office (DARPA) – Official Website. December 5, 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 27, 2008. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Sirak, Michael (November 29, 2007). “DARPA, Northrop Grumman Move Into Next Phase of UAV Control Architecture”. Defense Daily. Archived from the original on March 9, 2012. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Saska, M.; Chudoba, J.; Preucil, L.; Thomas, J.; Loianno, G.; Tresnak, A.; Vonasek, V.; Kumar, V. Autonomous Deployment of Swarms of Micro-Aerial Vehicles in Cooperative Surveillance. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). 2014.
-
Saska, M.; Vakula, J.; Preucil, L. Swarms of Micro Aerial Vehicles Stabilized Under a Visual Relative Localization. In ICRA2014: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2014.
-
Anthony, Denise (2017). “Toward a Sociology of Privacy”. Annual Review of Sociology. 43 (1): 249–269. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053643.
-
Hildebrandt, Mireille; Serge Gutwirth (2008). Profiling the European Citizen: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN .
-
Clayton, Mark (February 9, 2006). “US Plans Massive Data Sweep”. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
Flint, Lara (September 24, 2003). “Administrative Subpoenas for the FBI: A Grab for Unchecked Executive Power”. The Center For Democracy & Technology (official site). Archived from the original on March 8, 2009. Retrieved March 20, 2009.
-
“”National Network” of Fusion Centers Raises Specter of COINTELPRO”. EPIC Spotlight on Surveillance. June 2007. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
anonymous (January 26, 2006). “Information on the Confidential Source in the Auburn Arrests”. Portland Indymedia. Archived from the original on December 5, 2008. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
Myers, Lisa (December 14, 2005). “Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?”. NBC Nightly News. msnbc.com. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“The Use of Informants in FBI Domestic Intelligence Investigations”. Final Report: Book III, Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. April 23, 1976. pp. 225–270. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America’s Underground Legal System | Prison Legal News”. www.prisonlegalnews.org. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
-
Ross, Brian (July 25, 2007). “FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants”. Blotter. ABC News. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“U.S. Reconnaissance Satellites: Domestic Targets”. National Security Archive. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Block, Robert (August 15, 2007). “U.S. to Expand Domestic Use Of Spy Satellites”. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
Gorman, Siobhan (October 1, 2008). “Satellite-Surveillance Program to Begin Despite Privacy Concerns”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
“Fact Sheet: National Applications Office”. Department of Homeland Security (official website). August 15, 2007. Archived from the original on March 11, 2009. Retrieved March 16, 2009.
-
Warrick, Joby (August 16, 2007). “Domestic Use of Spy Satellites To Widen”. Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
-
Shrader, Katherine (September 26, 2004). “Spy imagery agency watching inside U.S.” USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
-
Kappeler, Victor. “Forget the NSA: Police May be a Greater Threat to Privacy”.
-
“Section 100i – IMS I-Catcher” (PDF), The German Code Of Criminal Procedure, 2014, pp. 43–44, archived from the original (PDF) on September 25, 2015, retrieved November 27, 2015
-
“Two Stories Highlight the RFID Debate”. RFID Journal. July 19, 2005. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
-
Lewan, Todd (July 21, 2007). “Microchips in humans spark privacy debate”. USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
-
McCullagh, Declan (January 13, 2003). “RFID Tags: Big Brother in small packages”. CNET News. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
-
Gardener, W. David (July 15, 2004). “RFID Chips Implanted In Mexican Law-Enforcement Workers”. Information Week. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
-
Campbell, Monica (August 4, 2004). “Law enforcement in Mexico goes a bit bionic”. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
-
Crowder, Stan, and Turvery E. Brent. Ethical Justice: Applied Issues for Criminal Justice Students and Professionals. 1st ed. Academic Press, 2013. p150. Print.
-
Claburn, Thomas (March 4, 2009). “Court Asked To Disallow Warrantless GPS Tracking”. Information Week. Retrieved March 18, 2009.
-
Hilden, Julie (April 16, 2002). “What legal questions are the new chip implants for humans likely to raise?”. CNN.com (FindLaw). Retrieved March 17, 2009.
-
Wolf, Paul. “COINTELPRO”. (online collection of historical documents). Retrieved March 14, 2009.
-
“U.S. Army Intelligence Activities” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 8, 2015. Retrieved 25 May 2015.
-
“Domestic CIA and FBI Mail Opening Programs” (PDF). Final Report: Book III, Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. April 23, 1976. pp. 559–678. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 5, 2011. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
Goldstein, Robert (2001). Political Repression in Modern America. University of Illinois Press. ISBN .
-
Hauser, Cindy E.; McCarthy, Michael A. (July 1, 2009). “Streamlining ‘search and destroy’: cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management”. Ecology Letters. 12 (7): 683–692. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01323.x. ISSN 1461-0248. PMID 19453617.
-
Holden, Matthew H.; Nyrop, Jan P.; Ellner, Stephen P. (June 1, 2016). “The economic benefit of time-varying surveillance effort for invasive species management”. Journal of Applied Ecology. 53 (3): 712–721. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12617. ISSN 1365-2664.
-
Flewwelling, Peter; Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United (January 1, 2003). Recent Trends in Monitoring Control and Surveillance Systems for Capture Fisheries. Food & Agriculture Org. ISBN .
-
Yang, Rong; Ford, Benjamin; Tambe, Milind; Lemieux, Andrew (January 1, 2014). Adaptive Resource Allocation for Wildlife Protection Against Illegal Poachers. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems. AAMAS ’14. Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. pp. 453–460. ISBN .
-
Mörner, T.; Obendorf, D. L.; Artois, M.; Woodford, M. H. (April 1, 2002). “Surveillance and monitoring of wildlife diseases”. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics). 21 (1): 67–76. doi:10.20506/rst.21.1.1321. ISSN 0253-1933. PMID 11974631.
-
Sprenger, Polly (January 26, 1999). “Sun on Privacy: ‘Get Over It'”. Wired Magazine. Retrieved March 20, 2009.
-
Baig, Edward; Marcia Stepanek; Neil Gross (April 5, 1999). “Privacy”. Business Week. Archived from the original on October 17, 2008. Retrieved March 20, 2009.
-
Solove, Daniel (2007). “‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy”. San Diego Law Review. 44: 745. SSRN 998565.
-
“Is the U.S. Turning Into a Surveillance Society?”. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society” (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 15, 2003. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
-
“Privacy fears over online surveillance footage broadcasts in China”. December 13, 2017.
-
Marx, G. T., & Muschert, G. W. (2007). Personal information, borders, and the new surveillance studies Archived August 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 375–395.
-
Agre, Philip E. (2003), “Your Face is not a bar code: arguments against automatic face recognition in public places”. Retrieved November 14, 2004.
-
Chayko, Mary (2017). Superconnected: the internet, digital media, and techno-social life. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
-
Nishiyama, Hidefumi (2017). “Surveillance as Race Struggle: On Browne’s Dark Matters”. Theory & Event. Johns Hopkins University Press. 20 (1): 280–285 – via Project MUSE.
-
Browne, Simone (October 2, 2015). Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Duke University Press Books. p. 224. ISBN .
-
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California. (July 30, 2008). “People vs. Diaz”. FindLaw. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
-
California Fourth District Court of Appeal (June 25, 2014). “Riley v. California”. Oyez – IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved February 1, 2013.
-
“The Secrets of Countersurveillance”. Security Weekly. June 6, 2007.
-
Birch, Dave (July 14, 2005). “The age of sousveillance”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
-
Eggers, David (2013). The Circle. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, McSweeney’s Books. pp. 288, 290–291, 486. ISBN .
-
Steve Jobs, you might remember, was called one of Silicon Valley’s “leading egomaniacs” by Fortune Magazine. The downside of this theory means that entrepreneurs are now going to go out of their way to be assholes. I anticipate a lot of temper tantrums and hospitalizations from people trying out Steve Jobs’s fruitarian diet.
Silicon Valley isn’t Autistic, It’s Just Full of Assholes – Elaine’s Idle Mind
While Wall Street investors spend their days kissing client ass, Sand Hill investors have their asses kissed by legions of startup founders. Not only does Silicon Valley extol those who were born on third and scored on a wild pitch, we stroke their egos until they’re convinced that they scored a triple and stole home. Success is never accidental.Don’t Worry, You’re Right: Silicon Valley’s Top CEOs Are All Assholes | Observer
Money, power and hubris have always been a toxic brew in corporate America. But Silicon Valley seems to add extra ingredients, like self-righteousness and a messianic complex. The message is…Why are there so many assholes in Silicon Valley? And how do you deal with them …
Sometimes business owners are assholes because they have to be – often Silicon Valley businesses are great ideas but relatively untried and untested, which means that brutal decisions have to be made to stay afloat. Tbh I don’t think it’s as bad as the media makes it out to be and frankly I can’t blame some of them for being assholes.Silicon Valley’s a**hole economy | Salon.com
Oct 18, 2018Keith A. Spencer is a senior editor for Salon. He manages Salon’s science, tech, economy and health coverage. His book, ” A People’s History of Silicon Valley: How the Tech Industry Exploits …About – Silicon Valley Sex Abuse & Mysogyny
THE ASSHOLES OF SILICON VALLEY THE VC’s “CULTURE OF RAPE”, MISOGYNY AND FRAT HOUSE BEHAVIOR … were ten or so of the highest profile angel investors in Silicon Valley. These investors, known as “super angels” because they have mostly moved on to launch small venture funds of their own, are all friends of mine. I knew each person in the …Why Silicon Valley CEOs are such raging psychopaths
Sep 26, 2020Silicon Valley has a psychopath problem — exemplified by the bad behavior of notorious tech CEOs such as Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Elizabeth Holmes. NY Post photo composite/Mike Guillen…Stanford University – End the Blow-off
THE VC MENTAL ILLNESS. RIGGING THE STOCK MARKET WITH HIGH-TECH. THE ASSHOLES OF SILICON VALLEY. THE VC’s “CULTURE OF RAPE”, MISOGYNY AND FRAT HOUSE BEHAVIOR. WHAT CAN YOU DO TO END THIS? HOW KLEINER AND MUSK RIG INDUSTRIES.
