The Hubris of Transhumanism

There is not a single digital device that can not, and indeed has not, been at one time or another hacked.

In age where nothing is safe—not corporations, personal computers, cell phones, iPads, social media, networks, city-state-federal databases, bank, credit institutions, the government, the military, and even the great spy agencies themselves like the CIA and NSA—transhumanists foolishly chase the dream of successfully transferring a human consciousness into a digital frame, blindly hopeful such a chassis will be the one digital device in the history of Mankind that will not be subject to hijacking, hacking, surveillance, or accidental/intentional deletion.

Not only can all the above be hacked (and have been) we now know all social media and the major computer and communications corporations, collude with the major spy agencies to sell your entire accruing digital footprint en masse every month. Worse, the very spy agencies that were created expressly to protect everyone from being hacked, are the ones that don’t reveal the back door vulnerabilities they discover but rather secretly sit on them for years, sometimes decades, allowing heavy virtual and actual losses to cripple the very people they are supposed to save. And if all that wasn’t bad enough, these spy agencies (and the governments that finance them with covert budgets and slush funds and empower them with secret legislation from their many star chambers) openly reject national and global super-encryption so they can go on spying on each other.

Magically it somehow isn’t espionage when the government spies on you.

Back to transhumanism…

You can’t digitize a spirit or a soul, you would think these guys would know that but they don’t, if for no other reason than they reject the existence of spirits and souls. God’s immortality they will not countenance; their own they will go to war for and worship when perfected. Sound familiar? This is the cold will of the fallen angel whose agenda they unwittingly but expertly advance.

But let’s just pretend for a moment one can digitize at least some shade of someone’s personality… their will, let’s say.

A digitized will can be overwritten, thus making it programmable will. And that, my dear reader, is as close to a digital theocracy as you can get.

This is really what “they” want. All other motives are lures. Be smarter than that: see through the bullshit.

You never vet an idea solely based on what the good guys will do with it. You vet an idea also on what the bad guys will be able to do with it.

Intelligence is not the same thing as Wisdom.

An intelligent person may or may not know this.

A wise person certainly knows this.

And the Wise know these guys don’t make the cut and come to the most bitter of ends: in their crusade to be more than human they ironically become less of themselves.

Wisdom first.


Inventing Your Evidence


As we learned with evolutionary biology, and are now learning with the latest hucksters of physics, men will cobble together any number of assumptions required to collar you with whatever dogma is en vogue.

In the past, men and nations raised entire armies bent on conquering the land and resources of their enemies. Today, the warfare is economic and psychological.

One need not go through the effort to enslave another man or woman by force if instead, through decades of educational deceit and media indoctrination, they can convince that same man or woman there is no such thing as freedom to start with, that freedom is only an archaic superstition lusted over by stone age savages who didn’t really understand they were actually under the yoke of naturalistic determinism the entire time they were scribbling down their fantasies.

Thus dulled, that otherwise intelligent man or woman, will put the collar of slavery on themselves and call it “bling”.

Like many things in our modern age, advertising has replaced wisdom, and the very tagline you often see is actually the opposite of what the product does. In other words, “freethinking” really means “free to think anything that actually doesn’t set your mind, heart, or spirit free.”

Regrettably, we have entered a world of technological marvels where all the philosophical air castles so many deniers have created over the last century and a half, can be clandestinely re-enforced with the very “evidences” their black religions require… but only for a little while longer.

Can’t find the billions of transitional bones your theory requires to convince a reasonable man? DNA sequencing not giving you the results you want? Archaeological digs proving all the wrong theories? With our new genetic insights and clever manufacturing techniques (up to cloning and genetic splicing) it won’t be long before whatever is required will be conveniently “found” or more likely re-found, pulled out of the dusty archives of a thousand drawers from the basement of the Smithsonian or other previously discarded grave-bins.

Unrepentant Man.

He only ever goes one way.


A Police Gadget Tracks Phones? Shhh! It’s Secret


A powerful new surveillance tool being adopted by police departments across the country comes with an unusual requirement: To buy it, law enforcement officials must sign a nondisclosure agreement preventing them from saying almost anything about the technology.

Any disclosure about the technology, which tracks cellphones and is often called StingRay, could allow criminals and terrorists to circumvent it, the F.B.I. has said in an affidavit. But the tool is adopted in such secrecy that communities are not always sure what they are buying or whether the technology could raise serious privacy concerns.

The confidentiality has elevated the stakes in a longstanding debate about the public disclosure of government practices versus law enforcement’s desire to keep its methods confidential. While companies routinely require nondisclosure agreements for technical products, legal experts say these agreements raise questions and are unusual given the privacy and even constitutional issues at stake.

“It might be a totally legitimate business interest, or maybe they’re trying to keep people from realizing there are bigger privacy problems,” said Orin S. Kerr, a privacy law expert at George Washington University. “What’s the secret that they’re trying to hide?”

The issue led to a public dispute three weeks ago in Silicon Valley, where a sheriff asked county officials to spend $502,000 on the technology. The Santa Clara County sheriff, Laurie Smith, said the technology allowed for locating cellphones — belonging to, say, terrorists or a missing person. But when asked for details, she offered no technical specifications and acknowledged she had not seen a product demonstration.

Buying the technology, she said, required the signing of a nondisclosure agreement.

“So, just to be clear,” Joe Simitian, a county supervisor, said, “we are being asked to spend $500,000 of taxpayers’ money and $42,000 a year thereafter for a product for the name brand which we are not sure of, a product we have not seen, a demonstration we don’t have, and we have a nondisclosure requirement as a precondition. You want us to vote and spend money,” he continued, but “you can’t tell us more about it.”

The technology goes by various names, including StingRay, KingFish or, generically, cell site simulator. It is a rectangular device, small enough to fit into a suitcase, that intercepts a cellphone signal by acting like a cellphone tower.

The technology can also capture texts, calls, emails and other data, and prosecutors have received court approval to use it for such purposes.

Cell site simulators are catching on while law enforcement officials are adding other digital tools, like video cameras, license-plate readers, drones, programs that scan billions of phone records and gunshot detection sensors. Some of those tools have invited resistance from municipalities and legislators on privacy grounds.

The nondisclosure agreements for the cell site simulators are overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and typically involve the Harris Corporation, a multibillion-dollar defense contractor and a maker of the technology. What has opponents particularly concerned about StingRay is that the technology, unlike other phone surveillance methods, can also scan all the cellphones in the area where it is being used, not just the target phone.

“It’s scanning the area. What is the government doing with that information?” said Linda Lye, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which in 2013 sued the Justice Department to force it to disclose more about the technology. In November, in a response to the lawsuit, the government said it had asked the courts to allow the technology to capture content, not just identify subscriber location.

The nondisclosure agreements make it hard to know how widely the technology has been adopted. But news reports from around the country indicate use by local and state police agencies stretching from Los Angeles to Wisconsin to New York, where the state police use it. Some departments have used it for several years. Money for the devices comes from individual agencies and sometimes, as in the case of Santa Clara County, from the federal government through Homeland Security grants.

Christopher Allen, an F.B.I. spokesman, said “location information is a vital component” of law enforcement. The agency, he said, “does not keep repositories of cell tower data for any purpose other than in connection with a specific investigation.”

A fuller explanation of the F.B.I.’s position is provided in two publicly sworn affidavits about StingRay, including one filed in 2014 in Virginia. In the affidavit, a supervisory special agent, Bradley S. Morrison, said disclosure of the technology’s specifications would let criminals, including terrorists, “thwart the use of this technology.”

“Disclosure of even minor details” could harm law enforcement, he said, by letting “adversaries” put together the pieces of the technology like assembling a “jigsaw puzzle.” He said the F.B.I. had entered into the nondisclosure agreements with local authorities for those reasons. In addition, he said, the technology is related to homeland security and is therefore subject to federal control.

In a second affidavit, given in 2011, the same special agent acknowledged that the device could gather identifying information from phones of bystanders. Such data “from all wireless devices in the immediate area of the F.B.I. device that subscribe to a particular provider may be incidentally recorded, including those of innocent, nontarget devices.”

But, he added, that information is purged to ensure privacy rights.

In December, two senators, Patrick J. Leahy and Charles E. Grassley, sent a letter expressing concerns about the scope of the F.B.I.’s StingRay use to Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, and Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security.

The Harris Corporation declined to comment, according to Jim Burke, a company spokesman. Harris, based in Melbourne, Fla., has $5 billion in annual sales and specializes in communications technology, including battlefield radios.

Jon Michaels, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies government procurement, said Harris’s role with the nondisclosure agreements gave the company tremendous power over privacy policies in the public arena.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
“This is like the privatization of a legal regime,” he said. Referring to Harris, he said: “They get to call the shots.”

For instance, in Tucson, a journalist asking the Police Department about its StingRay use was given a copy of a nondisclosure agreement. “The City of Tucson shall not discuss, publish, release or disclose any information pertaining to the product,” it read, and then noted: “Without the prior written consent of Harris.”

The secrecy appears to have unintended consequences. A recent article in The Washington Post detailed how a man in Florida who was accused of armed robbery was located using StingRay.

As the case proceeded, a defense lawyer asked the police to explain how the technology worked. The police and prosecutors declined to produce the machine and, rather than meet a judge’s order that they do so, the state gave the defendant a plea bargain for petty theft.

At the meeting in Santa Clara County last month, the county supervisors voted 4 to 1 to authorize the purchase, but they also voted to require the adoption of a privacy policy.

(Sheriff Smith argued to the supervisors that she had adequately explained the technology and said she resented that Mr. Simitian’s questioning seemed to “suggest we are not mindful of people’s rights and the Constitution.”)

A few days later, the county asked Harris for a demonstration open to county supervisors. The company refused, Mr. Simitian said, noting that “only people with badges” would be permitted. Further, he said, the company declined to provide a copy of the nondisclosure agreement — at least until after the demonstration.

“Not only is there a nondisclosure agreement, for the time being, at least, we can’t even see the nondisclosure agreement,” Mr. Simitian said. “We may be able to see it later, I don’t know.”

Original article:

Sadly, this is as much about spying on the police forces of America as her citizens. It is also Endgame 101.

Himmler would be so proud.

A New Ride

It is a small thing, but…

My business partner Edgar Pitts and his wife Ima Aisya Pitts bought their first Indonesian minivan yesterday and for the first time in year, I didn’t have to take a cab to convenience store. Their vehicle, not mine, I nonetheless get free rides to work now which will cut my monthly taxi bills in half.

It was amazing be able to just decide on a whim to go somewhere, hop in a car, and just go… and not have to order a cab from an app, wait 10-20 minutes for it to get there, field the drivers’ calls when they can’t find our residence, or walk a quarter mile to where all the taxis hang out to score a ride.

It is truly the simple things in life.