Tuesday, July 10, 2012

586 Google head Eric Schmidt identifies China as enemy. Wi-Fi Symbol on your Credit Card

Google head Eric Schmidt identifies China as enemy. Wi-Fi Symbol on your
Credit Card

Newsletter published on 3-3-2013

(1) Google warns of China threat, while itself contributing to
Surveillance at home & Colour Revolutions abroard
(2) Wi-Fi Symbol on your Credit Card
(3) Google head Eric Schmidt identifies China as dangerous enemy
(4) Eric Schmidt predicts the end of Anonymity on the internet
(5) Google Glasses will threaten private information
(6) Drones over there, total surveillance over here

(1) Google warns of China threat, while itself contributing to
Surveillance at home & Colour Revolutions abroard

- Peter Myers, March 3, 2013

While warning about China (item 2), Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen take
credit for unleashing the Arab Spring. The State Dept had been
organizing dissidents and orienting them to the use of social media:

For example, see "Google's Revolution Factory - Alliance of Youth
Movements: Color Revolution 2.0"
by Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, February 19, 2011

In 2008, the Alliance of Youth Movements held its inaugural summit in
New York City. Attending this summit
was a combination of State Department staff, Council on Foreign
Relations members, former National Security
staff, Department of Homeland Security advisers, and a myriad of
representatives from American corporations
and mass media organizations including AT&T, Google, Facebook, NBC, ABC,

Google will contribute to the surveillance state with its Glasses
product (item 5). Massive surveillance in combination with savage
inequality means elite control (item 6).

Schmidt and Cohen warn of instability in China (item 3), implying that
they support revolution there. Yet they see no prospect of a revolt
within the US against the betrayal of the nation by the
intertnationalist elite. If such a revolt eventuates, eg in the wake of
economic collapse, I don't believe that surveillance could stop it.

(2) Wi-Fi Symbol on your Credit Card

douglas schorr <douglas.schorr@gmail.com> 28 December 2012 18:45
Subject: RFID Credit Cards IMPORTANT

Wi-Fi Symbol on your Credit Card


Check your newer credit cards for the Wi-Fi Symbol on it. You need to
watch the video below to really know why I sent this to you.

I read this about a couple weeks ago, and then checked my cards for the
little "Wi-Fi Signal Icon" on each one. I found none w/that signal on
them, but I was determined to watch for it when my cards came in on

Well, yesterday I got my CHASE SLATE card AND THERE IT WAS ! My first
time to see it. I'll not activate that card after seeing this. I guess
I'll go to the bank and see if I can replace it w/a non Wi-Fi (Radio
Frequency Card)....?

Thought all my contacts ought to see this i! f you

have not already seen this demo....wow!

(3) Google head Eric Schmidt identifies China as dangerous enemy


February 1, 2013, 4:18 PM

Eric Schmidt Unloads on China in New Book

By Tom Gara

Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt is brutally clear: China is the
most dangerous superpower on Earth.

Corporate Intelligence reviewed preliminary galleys of Schmidt’s new
book, “The New Digital Age,” (Random House) which debuts in April. And
Schmidt’s views on China stand out the strongest amid often predictable
techno-utopian views of the future.

Some of these views are both cliched and camera-ready . He imagines that
soon an “illiterate Maasai cattle herder in the Serengeti” will use a
smartphone to “inquire the day’s market prices and crowd-source the
whereabouts of any nearby predators.”

Other parts of the book are a much darker take on how authoritarians,
extremists and rogues of all varieties are becoming just as empowered as
that Maasai herdsman. And the good guys, whoever they are, have yet to
work out how to properly defend themselves.

The new book is co-written by Jared Cohen, a 31-year old former State
Department big shot who now runs Google Ideas, the search giant’s think

The Schmidt and Cohen partnership has at least one other impressive
credit to its name. The two wrote a long essay,“The Digital Disruption,”
published in November 2010. In its opening paragraph, it predicted that
“governments will be caught off-guard when large numbers of their
citizens, armed with virtually nothing but cell phones, take part in
mini-rebellions that challenge their authority.”

A month later, a wave of popular uprisings began across the Arab world.
As the Egyptian revolution kicked off in January 2011, Cohen, so the
story goes, was not only in Cairo: he shared dinner with Google
executive and high-profile activist Wael Ghonim just hours before he was
snatched from the streets by security forces.

With the Arab uprisings rolling onward, “The New Digital Age” picks up
where that previous essay left off, taking a big-picture view on how
everything from individual identities to corporate strategy, terrorism
and statecraft will change as information seeps ever deeper. And in this
all-Internet world, China, the book says again and again, is a dangerous
and menacing superpower.

China, Schmidt and Cohen write, is “the world’s most active and
enthusiastic filterer of information” as well as “the most sophisticated
and prolific” hacker of foreign companies. In a world that is becoming
increasingly digital, the willingness of China’s government and state
companies to use cyber crime gives the country an economic and political
edge, they say.

“The disparity between American and Chinese firms and their tactics will
put both the government and the companies of the United States as a
distinct disadvantage,” because “the United States will not take the
same path of digital corporate espionage, as its laws are much stricter
(and better enforced) and because illicit competition violates the
American sense of fair play,” they claim.

“This is a difference in values as much as a legal one.”

The U.S. is far from an angel, the book acknowledges. From high-profile
cases of cyber-espionage such as the Stuxnet virus that targeted Iranian
nuclear facilities, to exports of surveillance software and technology
to states with bad human rights records, there is plenty at home to

And those criticisms will become louder and more politically resonant,
Schmidt and Cohen claim, as the distinctions between states that support
freedom online and those that suppress it become clearer. The pair even
speculate that the Internet could eventually fracture into pieces, some
controlled by an alliance of states that are relatively tolerant and
free, and others by groupings that want their citizens to take part in a
less rowdy and open online life. Companies doing business with the
latter could find themselves shunned from the former, the book suggests.

In this roundabout way the pair come close, on occasion, to suggesting
western governments follow China’s lead and form closer relationships
between state policy and corporate activity.

Take the equipment and software that comprises the Internet. Most of the
world’s IT systems were once based almost entirely on Western
infrastructure, but as Chinese firms get more competitive, that is
changing, and not necessarily for the better, they say:

In the future superpower supplier nations will look to create
their spheres of online influence around specific protocols and
products, so that their technologies form the backbone of a particular
society and their client states come to rely on certain critical
infrastructure that the superpower alone builds, services and controls.

Chinese telecom equipment companies, rapidly gaining market share around
the world, are at the front lines of the expansion this sphere of
influence, they say: “Where Huawei gains market share, the influence and
reach of China grow as well”. And while western vendors like Cisco
Systems and Ericsson are not state controlled, the will likely become
closer to their governments in the future, Schmidt and Cohen say:

There will come a time when their commercial and national interests
align and contrast with China — say, over the abuse of their products by
an authoritarian state — and they will coordinate their efforts with
their governments on both diplomatic and technical levels.

But for all the advantages China gains from its approach to the
Internet, Schmidt and Cohen still seem to think its hollow political
center is unsustainable. “This mix of active citizens armed with
technological devices and tight government control is exceptionally
volatile,” they write, warning this could lead to “widespread instability.”

In the longer run, China will see “some kind of revolution in the coming
decades,” they write.

(4) Eric Schmidt predicts the end of Anonymity on the internet


February 1, 2013, 6:57 PM

The Future According To Google’s Eric Schmidt: 7 Points

By Tom Gara


We’ve been taking a look through unreleased galleys of Google executive
chairman Eric Schmidt‘s new book, “The New Digital Age”, to be released
this April. In our main post we looked at how the book, co-written with
Google Ideas chief Jared Cohen, had some tough words to say about China
and its history of internet censorship and cyber espionage.

But there’s more! Aside from promising a future with “integrated
clothing machines (washing, drying, folding, pressing and sorting) that
keep an inventory of clean clothes and algorithmically suggest outfits
based on the user’s daily schedule,” and — drumroll — “haircuts that
will finally be automated and machine-precise,” the book share’s
Schmidt’s take many other hot-button online issues.

Here’s a lines we thought were notable:

Anonymity: “Some governments will consider it too risky to have
thousands of anonymous, untraceable and unverified citizens — “hidden
people”; they’ll want to know who is associated with each online
account, and will require verification at a state level, in order to
exert control over the virtual world

Search engines: “Within search results, information tied to verified
online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such
verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the
top (verified) results. The true cost of remaining anonymous, then,
might be irrelevance.”

The Next EU?: ”States like Belarus, Eritrea, Zimbabwe and North Korea —
authoritarian, with strong personality cults and a pariah status
elsewhere in the world — would have little to lose by joining an
autocratic cyber union, where censorship and monitoring strategies and
technologies could be shared.”

Tech companies: “Thick skin will be a necessity for technology companies
in the coming years of the digital age, because they will find
themselves beset by public concerns over privacy, security and user
protections…They’ll also have to hire more lawyers. Litigation will
always outpace genuine legal reform, as any of the technology giants
fighting perpetual legal battles over intellectual property, patents,
privacy and other issues would attest”

Electronic conflict: ”It’s fair to say we’re already living in an age of
state-led cyber war, even if most of us aren’t aware of it.”

Journalism: “The effect of having so many new actors involved, connected
through a range of online platforms into the great, diffuse media
system, is that major media outlets will report less and validate more….
In fact, the elite will probably rely more on established news
organizations simply becayse of the massive swell of low-grade reporting
and information in the system.”

Twitter: “Twitter can no more produce analysis than a monkey can type
out a work of Shakespeare.”

(5) Google Glasses will threaten private information

Watch Out for Google Glasses

By Anton Wahlman

02/25/13 - 08:21 AM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- By the end of this year, our society will
undergo a most peculiar form of societal change -- and it will involve a
lot of strife and conflict. The cause? Google (GOOG) Glasses.

Google Glasses will impact societal behavior from the moment they
arrive. As soon as you see them, you're aware that you might be filmed.
People don't like being filmed.

Yes, every smartphone can record you and take pictures. But you know
when this is happening. It isn't a constant feeling that everyone around
you is filming you from every angle. You see them when they do it.

Google Glasses are different. More than just photos and filming, what
happens to this data?

Let's say that I'm standing behind the counter at a business
establishment -- bank, fast-food restaurant, airline check-in counter,
whatever. My Google Glasses might display the social security number,
the general rap sheet, social media appearances, and so on, of the
person in front of me.

Perhaps that's a good thing. Some people will think it's creepy, though.
Can you imagine the bar scene when people start wearing Google Glasses?
Within a second or two, you will have all available information about
the person in front of you. Some of that information may not be so

Public places will have to come up with new policies. Hotels, airports,
restaurants, gyms and schools will want some say in whether you are
allowed to wear these Google Glasses on their premises. You can just
hear the panic buttons after the first pictures from people cheating in
school or filming in the locker room are released on YouTube. Conflicts
about are certain to get very ugly.

Other dimensions immediately appear. What if future versions of Google
Glasses are very difficult to detect in terms of looking different from
regular glasses?

What happens when you walk into an establishment today wielding a video
camera in the faces of the staff? In a restaurant, a bank lobby, or a
gym? You will be asked to turn that thing off, and if you don't obey
quickly, you will be escorted from the premises.

Google Glasses will make all social/public interaction highly awkward.
You're on YouTube everywhere you go. A few short months after their
introduction, Google Glasses could already be so widespread that you
will be on camera once you stick your nose out your front door.

Privacy lawyers, saddle up!

The Google Glasses data captured in the form of pictures and videos will
not only be used by the person wearing the glasses. The person capturing
the images may want to "auto-tag" these media with the identities of the
people in the picture/video.

Some people prefer to stay off the grid. They pay cash, they drive a car
without GPS, they don't have a cell phone, and they're not members of
online social networks. They have been able to stay out of most publicly
available databases.

Once a meaningful percentage of people start walking down the street
wearing Google Glasses, not so much. There will be no place to hide --
unless the government legislates Google Glasses, or private
establishments decide to ban them.

What about Google itself?

Google Glasses will be the critical ingredient in the personal
information arms race of the (soon to arrive) future. If other people
wear them, why shouldn't I? I predict that everyone with means will rush
to obtain them, especially as the price falls from $1,500 to $1,000 to
$500 and eventually below, over the first two years.

If Google succeeds in bringing these kinds of glasses to market before
key competitors, most notably Apple (AAPL), but also Microsoft (MSFT),
the advantage could prove to be decisive. Google already has a 70%
smartphone market share with Android, so it's pretty much already there,
but don't forget the Microsoft's market share in the PC business was
close to 95% until only a few short years ago.

Seeing as Google is likely to engineer some sort of tie-in between the
Glasses and Android smartphones, the Glasses should be a tremendous boon
for Android. Anyone looking at their iPhone would have to seriously
consider switching.

Google Glasses may cause societal chaos, but they will be great for
Google's finances.

At the time of submitting this article, the author was long GOOG and
AAPL, and short MSFT.

Follow @antonwahlman

(6) Drones over there, total surveillance over here

The massive surveillance system built up over the last 10 years is the
domestic companion of overseas drone killings.

by Saskia Sassen

Last Modified: 19 Feb 2013 11:05


The big story buried in all the commentary about the US government's
drone policy is that the old algorithm of the liberal state no longer
works. Focusing on drones is almost a distraction, if it weren't for the
number of men, women and children they have killed in only a few years.
What we should focus on is the deeper condition that enables the drone
policy, and so much more, and that is the sharp increase in
unaccountable executive power, no matter what party is in power.

The 1960s and the 1970s saw the making of laws that called for the
executive branch of government to be more responsive to basic principles
of a division of power and accountability to citizens. Many of its
owners were curtailed by the legislative. With Reagan, Clinton and
especially Bush-Cheney, many of these laws were violated under the claim
of a state of exception due to the "War on Terror".

What we are facing is a profound degradation of the liberal state. Drone
killings and unlawful imprisonment are at one end of that spectrum of
degradation, and the rise of the power, economic destructions and
unaccountability of the financial sector are at the other end.

The massive surveillance apparatus built up over the last 10 years is
the domestic companion of the overseas drone killings. It is one outcome
of this deep decay of the liberal state. While much is not known about
either, we know enough to recognise its potential for enormous abuse.
What is known is that there are at least 10,000 buildings across the US,
with a massive concentration in Washington, DC, engaged in ongoing
surveillance of all of us residing in the territory of the US.
Surveillance and counter-terrorism activities employ about one million
professionals with top level secret clearance. One estimate has it that
every day over two billion emails are tracked. And on and on along these

The basic logic of such a surveillance system is that for our security
as citizens we are all being surveilled, or potentially so. That is to
say, the logic of the system is that we must all be considered suspect
in a first step in order to ensure our safety. Who, then, have we the
citizens become, or turned into? Are we the new colonials?

The source of this excess of executive power is a foundational
distortion at the heart of the liberal state. The liberal state was
never meant to bring equality of opportunity and full recognition of all
members of the polity. Inequality was at its core since its beginning -
between owners of the means of production and those who only had their
labour to sell in the market. But even so, the so-called Keynesian
period throughout much of the west engendered a prosperous working class
and an expanding modest middle class. It was a partial democratising of
the economy. In the 1980s, this began to disintegrate.

In the 2000s, just about all liberal democracies were in sharp decline,
with growing inequality, weakened unions, impoverishment of the modest
middle classes, and an enormous capture of the country's profits by the
top layer of firms and households. This is all captured in a couple of
numbers found in the US census: In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners in
New York City received 12 percent of all the compensation to workers in
the city, a reasonable level of inequality in a complex economy such as
is NYC. (This share excludes non-compensation sources of wealth, such as
capital gains, inheritance, etc.) In 2009, the top 1 percent received 44
percent - a level of inequality that cannot be good for the city's economy.

At its most extreme, this combination of massive surveillance and savage
inequality may be signalling a new phase in the long history of liberal
democracies, one where the executive branch gains power partly through
its increasingly international activities. Over the last 20 years and
more, this incipient internationalism has been deployed in support of
developing a global economy and fighting the "War against Terrorism";
thus the big-bank bailout is not so much a "return of the strong
nationalist state" as some would have it, but rather the use by the
executive branch of national law and national taxpayers' money to rescue
a global financial system.

This is a kind of internationalism. Pity it is being deployed for this.
It is possible that these new international capabilities of the
executive branch might be reoriented to more worthy aims - climate
change, global hunger, global poverty and many others requiring new
types of internationalisms.

Saskia Sassen is Robert S Lynd professor of sociology, and co-chairs the
Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University. She is the author of
Cities in a World Economy; Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval
to Global Assemblages; A Sociology of Globalization (Contemporary
Society Series) and others.

Follow her on Twitter: @SaskiaSassen

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

No comments:

Post a Comment