Engaging interviews with farmers, scientists, and industry insiders reveal the great extent to which the manufacture of the food on your plate is being patented and controlled by corporations with little regard to the health implications for us or for future generations.
To view this excellent health documentary free (86 minutes)
What are you loyal to? Yourself, your family, your friends, your government, or all the people who make up the citizenship of your country? Does it make any sense to be loyal to your leaders, if you have to sell out and be disloyal to all the people you share your country with? Having loyalty as a blanket policy that allows authority to do whatever it wishes, is the goal of government. When your loyalty becomes abused by the people you are being loyal to, then what?
Why does it take a Kid to do, what adults should have done years ago? ~Blain Tomlinson
For more than a decade now, Americans have made peace with the uneasy knowledge that someone — government, business or both — might be watching.
We knew that the technology was there. We knew that the law might allow it. As we stood under a security camera at a street corner, connected with friends online or talked on a smart phone equipped with GPS, we knew, too, it was conceivable that we might be monitored.
Now, though, paranoid fantasies have come face to face with modern reality: The government IS collecting our phone records. The technological marvels of our age have opened the door to the National Security Agency’s sweeping surveillance of Americans’ calls.
Torn between our desires for privacy and protection, we’re now forced to decide what we really want.
“We are living in an age of surveillance,” said Neil Richards, a professor at Washington University’s School of Law in St. Louis who studies privacy law and civil liberties. “There’s much more watching and much more monitoring, and I think we have a series of important choices to make as a society — about how much watching we want.”
But the only way to make those choices meaningful, he and others said, is to lift the secrecy shrouding the watchers.
“I don’t think that people routinely accept the idea that government should be able to do what it wants to do,” said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It’s not just about privacy. It’s about responsibility … and you only get to evaluate that when government is more public about its conduct.”
The NSA, officials acknowledged this week, has been collecting phone records of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone customers. In another program, it collects audio, video, email, photographic and Internet search usage of foreign nationals overseas who use any of the nine major Internet providers, including Microsoft, Google, Apple and Yahoo.
In interviews across the country in recent days, Americans said they were startled by the NSA’s actions. Abraham Ismail, a 25-year-old software designer taking advantage of the free Wi-Fi outside a Starbucks in Raleigh, N.C., said in retrospect, fears had prompted Americans to give up too much privacy.
“It shouldn’t be so just effortless,” he said, snapping his fingers for emphasis, “to pull people’s information and get court orders to be able to database every single call, email. I mean, it’s crazy.”
The clash between security and privacy is far from new. In 1878, it played out in a court battle over whether government officials could open letters sent through the mail. In 1967, lines were drawn over government wiretapping.
Government used surveillance to ferret out Communists during the 1950s and to spy on Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders during the 1960s. But in earlier times, courts, lawmakers and the public eventually demanded curbs on such watching. Those efforts didn’t stop improper government monitoring, but they restrained it, said Christian Parenti, author of “The Soft Cage: Surveillance in America from Slavery to the War on Terror.”
The difference now, he and other experts say, is that enormous advances in personal technology and the public’s broad tolerance of monitoring because of shifting attitudes about terrorism and online privacy have given government and private companies significantly more power — and leeway — to monitor individual behaviour.
The tolerance of government monitoring stems in large part from the wave of fear that swept the country after the 2001 terror attacks, when Americans granted officials broad new powers under the PATRIOT Act. But those attitudes are nuanced and shifting.
In a 2011 poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 54% of those surveyed felt protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms should be a higher priority for the government than keeping people safe from terrorists. At the same time, 64% said it was sometimes necessary to sacrifice some rights and freedoms to fight terrorism.
“Whenever something like 9-11 happens, it does tend to cause people to change their minds,” Richards said. “But I think what’s interesting is it has to be a long-term conversation. We can’t, whenever we’re scared, change the rules forever.”
But up until now, there’s been only limited debate about where and how to redraw the lines on surveillance. At the same time, explosive growth in social networking, online commerce, smart-phone technology, and data harvesting for targeted marketing have introduced many Americans to all sorts of rich new experiences and conveniences. People have become enamoured with the newest technology and media without giving hard thought to the risks or tradeoffs, experts say.
“This … has really dulled our sense of what privacy is, why it’s important,” Parenti said. “The fact of the matter is that millions of people are actively participating in keeping dossiers on themselves.”
It can, at first glance, seem a leap to draw a line between the way we share our private lives on Facebook or our search habits with Google and concerns about government surveillance. But surrendering privacy, whether to business or government, fundamentally shifts the balance of power from the watched to the watchers, experts say.
Americans may have largely accepted the idea of sharing personal information with businesses or in open forums as the necessary tradeoff for the use of new technologies. But they have done so without stopping to consider what those businesses are doing with it or how police or security officials might tap into it.
“We’ve allowed surveillance of all kinds to be normalized, domesticated, such that we frequently fail to tell the difference between harmful and helpful surveillance,” said David Lyon, director of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. “And we assume all too easily that if it’s high tech, it’s better.”
‘The younger generations are so used to putting everything about themselves out there that maybe they don’t realize they’re selling themselves out’
In interviews in recent days, many people described a growing sense of unease about the trade-offs between privacy, technology and the desire for safety.
In Chicago, Joey Leonard, a clerk at the Board of Trade, sat outside at lunch hour checking apps on his smart phone and ruminated about the government’s actions. Leonard, a recent college graduate, noted that he was just 11 at the time of the 2001 terrorist attacks. He approved of the heightened security measures to prevent a recurrence. But he said it has also becomes clear that terrorists will act even if the government is watching, raising questions about the tradeoffs.
“Society is changing and technology is changing. I understand there are threats but I do think this is a little too much,” Leonard said. “The government is trying to control everything. I feel like I’m being watched 24/7. … It’s like they’re trying to get their fingers in every aspect of your life and I don’t think it’s helping.”
In Salt Lake City, Utah, truck driver Elijah Stefoglo hadn’t heard about the NSA’s program, but said everyday interactions with technology give him plenty to consider. Stefoglo, who lives in Minneapolis, pointed out that most newer rigs come equipped with GPS tracking and even camera systems, technology he worries could be abused. At the same time, he noted, many states are fitting driver’s licenses with computer chips to track and store data, posing yet another threat to privacy.
Expectations of privacy have slowly evolved, and younger people are growing up with a different standard, he said.
“They’re trying to put it in their heads that it’s normal. You have to do this. This is for your security. If you do this, you’re going to be safer,” he said. “In what way? Criminals are still going to do whatever they want.”
Salt Lake City resident Deborah Harrison, who is 57 and manages clinical trials at the University of Utah, recalled the uncertain days after 9-11 and said, while she was shocked by the government’s efforts, she understood them. What concerns her more, she said, is whether private companies are monitoring her behaviour.
“They can track all your preferences and who knows who sells what to whom. That disturbs me actually more, than I guess the purpose of using it for national security,” she said.
Leading Journalists Expose Major Corruption in Mass Media
I read the books, and the opinion written below, was exactly my impression too.
April 02, 2012
by Mike Adams
The Hunger Games is a wildly popular new movie set in a dystopian future where an all-powerful, high-tech centralized government rules over “districts” of impoverished populations barely surviving in third-world conditions. The film, based on the book of the same name by Suzanne Collins, is important to understand becauseit depicts the very future that the global elite are trying to create. In fact, much of what is shown inThe Hunger Gameshas already begun (see below).
The film is set 74 years after a popular uprising that failed to overthrow a corrupt, centralized federal government. As punishment for the attempted uprising, the all-powerful government now requires each of 12 districts to “volunteer” a young girl and boy each year to participate in the Hunger Games — a bloodsport “breads and circuses” event that serves as the opiate of the masses to distract society from the fact that they are all slaves living under tyranny.