And how to reduce your profile

Nearly everything we do online leaves a trail of data

Like many people who have taken a sudden interest in their digital privacy, you may be quite startled by what they know about you.

Google

Let's start by listing all the Alphabet-owned services you might use: Google Docs, YouTube, Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Photos, Contacts, Translate, Chrome, Maps, Wallet, and, of course, the Google  search-engine.

Depending on your settings a visit to myactivity.google.com can bring the company’s background tracking into the foreground: every search query you've ever run, most of the websites you've visited, and almost every literal step you've taken.

Also do the Google Privacy Checkup to view (and change) your default settings for logging and sharing. For example: “Let people with your phone number find and connect with you on Google services, such as video chats.” Having my phone number means you get to interrupt me with your face whenever you want: disable.

YouTube is default set to automatically show videos you have liked and channels I subscribed to: disable. Google is default set to share your photos and likes and restaurant reviews: disable.

There is also a section for advertising settings, the list of topics Google thinks you're interested in— there’s no way for me to know why Google thinks what it thinks. Then, what about information-sharing with the “2 million websites and apps that partner with Google to show ads.”

To its credit, Google offers a centralised and relatively user-friendly page to view and control your account. The breadth of the data collection is unnerving, whatever the control you may have over it.

That was a practice-run: now it's time to get heavy ...

Facebook

Thanks to a Google Chrome browser extension called What Facebook Thinks You Like you can decide whether to Obscure the Real Me with misleading signals. Like Google, Facebook has a settings page from where you can view and adjust your security and privacy settings. Also look at the “Apps and Websites” and “Ads” settings, which are not listed in a way that suggests they are related to security and privacy, even though they obviously are.

You may want to go through all the apps you have authorised for Facebook to give your events, uploaded or tagged in photos, religious and political views, hometown, current city, videos, website URL, and the content and member list of the Facebook groups you manage, and your relationship status -- and  removed the hundreds of them that have accrued there.

Facebook files patent to force your phone to record your private life at home.

You may want to download your data from an easy-to-miss link on the settings page [ here];

  • delete your search history;
  • turn the sharing defaults from “public” to “friends” or “just me” on just about everything;
  • and all the contact details for the people you have unwittingly uploaded [ here ].

Knowing all this, it’s hard to take seriously the man who in March 2018 testified before the U.S. Congress and then posted this on, yes, Facebook: “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you.”

5G Wireless Towers

Health Concerns Regarding 5G Small Cell Tower Installations

On May 29, 2018, CBS News aired a segment about the many Americans who are fighting small cell towers being installed in residential yards and everywhere else in their communities.

The wireless industry is in a race to roll out 5G service. The network is supposed to be up to 100 times faster than current data speeds, but it requires cellphone tower equipment to be closer to users than before.

Wireless companies in the U.S. say they will have to install about 300,000 new antennas – roughly equal to the total number of cell towers built over the past three decades. That’s causing outrage and alarm in some neighborhoods, as antennas go up around homes.

Decades of research – including research on millimeter waves like 5G – says there are plenty of reasons to worry about harm from exposure to all sources of cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation.

Countless doctorsenvironmental organisationsscientists, concerned citizens, and some elected officials have been fighting the installation of small cell towers in their communities because of health concerns and more.

Various other media outlets have also been reporting about this including The NationDemocracy NowNPRNewsweek, and Dr. Oz.  The Telecom Industry is being referred to as Big Wireless and compared to “Big Tobacco.”

Many U.S. broadcast news stations have also been reporting concerns about radiation exposure from these towers and other sources of new technology as well.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government agency that regulates new technology.  They are part of “The Swamp” that President Trump promised to drain.

The former FCC chairman (appointed by President Obama) started working again for the Telecom Industry immediately after leaving The FCC.  Current FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai has referred to American efforts to stop tower installation in their communities as “NIMBYism run amok” (Not in My Back Yard).  Last week FCC Commissioner, Michael O’Rielly, referred to those who are fighting as “bad actors”and stated the FCC is done with “being nice.”

Tech and security experts have labelled “The Race for 5G” as a bail-out” of the Telecom Industry.

Forcing communities to accept these small cell towers when they don’t want them goes against everything this country stands for – and what President Trump promised.  For those who want to use 5G, Samsung will be selling 5G home routers very soon so we don’t need no stinking small cell towers.

When you don’t say “no” to small cell towers in your neighbourhood, you say “yes” to small cell towers in your neighborhood.

Militarism 2018

World Beyond War has just released an updated 2018 mapping of militarism in the world. The map system can be explored and adjusted to display what you’re looking for, as well as display precise data and its sources at http://bit.ly/mappingmilitarism

Here are some examples of what it can show:

Where wars are present that directly and violently killed over 1,000 people in 2017:

Where wars are present and where wars come from are two different questions. If we look at where money is spent on wars and where weapons for wars are produced and exported, there is little overlap with the map above.

Here’s a map showing countries color-coded based on the dollar amount of their weapons exports to other governments from 2008-2015:

And here’s one showing the same but limited to exports to the Middle East:

Here are dictatorships that the United States sells or gives weapons to (and in most cases gives military training to):

These countries purchase U.S. weapons and report on it to the United Nations:

This next map shows countries color-coded based on how much they spend on their own militarism:

Here are countries colored based on how many nuclear weapons they have:

In the next map, every shade of orange or yellow (anything but gray) indicates the presence of some number of U.S. troops, not even counting special forces. Here’s a printable PDF.

The map system includes numerous maps illustrating steps toward peace. This one shows which nations are members of the International Criminal Court:

This one shows from which nations people have signed World BEYOND War’s pledge to help try to end all wars:

That pledge can be signed at http://worldbeyondwar.org/individual

These maps and more information about them can be found at World Beyond War (needs Flash Player to view).

 

The much-touted Bt-cotton leaves the party

India's 2018 cotton harvest was devastated by swarming armies of bollworms

In India, 90 per cent of the land under cotton uses a GM Bt-seed variety cotton supplied by Monsanto. But the main pest it was meant to safeguard against is back, as a virulent pesticide-resistant species.

The bollworm lays thousands of eggs and multiplies into millions of worms within days. Estimates based on surveys by the state revenue and the Maharashtra agriculture departments around November and then again in February-March indicate that the pink-worm infestation affected over 80 per cent of the 4.2 million hectares under cotton in the state. Each farmer reportedly lost 33 per cent to over 50 per cent of their standing crop.

Bt-cotton gets its name from bacillus thuringiensis, a soil-dwelling bacterium. The Bt seed contains cry (crystal) genes derived from the bacterium and inserted into the cotton plant genome (the genetic material of the cell) to provide protection against the bollworm.

Bt-cotton was meant to control the bollworm. But farmers will now find the worms surviving in Bt-cotton fields, Kranthi wrote in a series of essays in industry magazines and on his own CICR blog. Neither the ICAR nor the Union Agriculture Ministry seemed alert to the potential devastation at the time. The state and central government have since been aware of the extent of pink-worm devastation, but have not come up with a solution.

In 2006-7, Monsanto released BG-II hybrids, saying the new technology was more potent, more durable. These slowly replaced BG-I. And by now, BG-II hybrids occupy over 90 per cent of the around 130 million hectares under cotton across India, according to government estimates.

Where to now?

There is no new GM technology in sight now or in the near future that promises to replace BG-II. Neither is any technology available for more effective insecticides. India is in deep trouble on its fields of cotton, a crop that occupies vast stretches of land and creates millions of workdays in rural India.


The Ministry of Agriculture of the government of India acknowledges the problem, but has rejected the demand from Maharashtra and other states to de-notify Bt-cotton – a move that will change its status to regular cotton since Bt’s efficacy has gone.

Abundance Manifesto

Abundance and Sustainability

A radical approach to activism

Using sustainability as a keyhole to the future, the Abundance Manifesto proposes that the fulfillment of the great goal of Peace and Prosperity is assured when enough of us start by living now the same manifesto that must needs sustain it at fulfillment.

This will take a new kind of citizen, a new kind of food system, and a new understanding of the principles of sustainability – all interlocked as a framework of mutual responsibility, and self-organisation through principled critique.

It suggests that we need to consider how to shift the axis around which the process of environmental destruction actually revolves...

Trapped here in this bankosphere which requires that we must pay to live, the urgency of scarcity is a treadmill that drives our felt need to ‘get ahead’. And so we deny ourselves the garden of life by destroying it.

The Abundance Manifesto is neither politics nor religion. It is a self-critical tool that can be applied to all agendas. It encourages social morality as personal self-interest through rational reflection rather than as anticipation of karmic consequence in the near- or here-after, nor the usual moralisms.

It proposes that everything necessary for peaceful prosperity; social justice; food security; personal health and happiness is embodied here in the following enquiry

What are the things I can do, which no matter how much I continue doing them, and however many others do the same, the benefits only increase for everyone, indefinitely?

That is an idea that needs thinking about.
Read the full article here

2.0 GM Campaign

Urgent international action required to prevent release of risky technologies

It's looking as if Australia might have the dubious distinction of being the first country in the world to deregulate the use of new GM techniques such as CRISPR and RNA interference in animals, crops and microbes.

In recent years large agrochemical companies such as Dow, Syngenta, Bayer and Monsanto and other players have been investing in a suite of risky new genetic modification (GM) techniques, which industry refers to collectively as ‘New Plant Breeding Techniques’. Industry is arguing that these techniques are much more precise than older genetic engineering techniques – or even that they are not really genetic engineering at all – in order to attempt to circumvent regulation and public resistance to GMOs.

If we allow this to happen, products from these new GM techniques will enter our food chain and our environment with no safety testing and no labelling. The risks are enormous and the results could be catastrophic.

The Australia/New Zealand food regulator FSANZ has released a discussion paper on this: Review of new breeding technologies

Friends of the Earth Australia has an online submission tool. Whichever country you live in, please use it to send a comment (points are suggested for your emails) and promote this action through your networks. Since Australia is a major food exporter we are all going to wind up eating this stuff if it is deregulated. Go to: Demand all GM food be assessed for safety

In your campaign email you might like to refer the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility's statement on new GM techniques, which concludes that they "should be strictly regulated as GMOs":


Anti-GMO Media in Russia

Spreading Fears of the US Attempting a Global GMO Dictatorship

Researchers at Iowa State University expressed concerns that the activity of Russian media could harm the American GMO industry, by speculating upon how it intends to dominate the global food market.

"Russia is funding articles shared online that question the safety of GMOs in an effort hurt U.S. agriculture interests and bolster its position as the "ecologically clean alternative" to genetically engineered food, said Shawn Dorius, an Iowa State University assistant sociology professor. (Source - Feb. 2018)

The accusations are against Russian journalists trying to increase consumer interest in malicious technology take place against a backdrop of two trends. Firstly, the anti-Russian campaign launched by the Democratic Party in the US after the victory of Donald Trump in the presidential elections, and the US attempts to establish a GMO dictatorship across the world, which Russia is opposed to.

Seeds of Destruction (2007, F. William Engdahl)
This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Engdahl’s carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and world peace.

[fsbProduct asin=’0973714727′ size=’480′ align=’center’]


Author’s presentation (2014) —
GMO – Seeds of Destruction

EFSA’s Pesticides Unit

Has updated its risk assessments of three neonicotinoids (Mar'18)

Most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides represent a risk to wild bees and honeybees, according to assessments published today by the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority).

These new conclusions update those published in 2013, after which the European Commission imposed controls on use of the three neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – that are currently subject to restrictions in the EU because of the threat they pose to bees.

For the new assessments, which this time cover wild bees – bumblebees and solitary bees – as well as honeybees, EFSA’s Pesticides Unit carried out an extensive data collection exercise, including a systematic literature review, to gather all the scientific evidence published since the previous evaluations.

In New Zealand honey is harvested by and large from hill country and bush, rather than croplands. NZ beekeepers have not been that concerned about neonic pesticides: their interests being unlikely to extend to the fate of bumble- and native bees.
The NZ-EPA in 2103 approved an application for an insecticide that contains bifenthrin and imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid, but in 2014 it refused an application to import Ortus, an insecticide containing thiamethoxam, because of its threat to bees.

As early as 2013 Placemakers and The Warehouse opted to not sell these products to the public. Now Palmers, Oderings and Kings are also under pressure to take neonics off the shelf.

JOIN the CAMPAIGN

in Australia every major retailer has ALREADY agreed to phase out neonics like Confidor by the end of 2018.

InPower Recharging

The Heart of the Matter

An organisation-wide update, 17 February 2018.

For background see: Inpower

We realise that there are rumours that InPower is dormant, or has even ‘gone away’, due to the seeming inactivity. This is FAR from the truth. We have been working hard to prepare for a major promotional push of the Notice of Liability (NoL) process. This preparation had to go back to starting with a proper foundation, in order to “build the house on the rock” so that WHEN the storm comes, it will stand. Last summer when we released the NoL and simultaneously did promotional pieces with Dr. Mercola and other groups, we were overwhelmed by the response. This showed that we were not prepared for what will be coming.

But in that influx of responses, some very astute and capable people joined the movement, and have stayed. We have gone through a re-structuring of the leadership of InPower Movement, in obedience to Divine order, to get the correct people into positions to build ‘the house’ so that it can accomplish all that needs to happen. To this end, we temporarily stopped all promotions and interviews, until we could get in proper order.
From the outside it may look like we’ve gone silent or gone away, but know that WE ARE HERE. Since getting in order, and without any promo, the movement is picking up momentum, like a locomotive, and groups are joining every week across North America, and now also overseas.

Roundup Whitewash

Monsanto Now Wants to Defund the WHO

Monsanto anticipated that the World Health Organization scientists would find glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

They knew that this would happen and have been preparing to discredit them since March of 2015.

The UN for decades has been telling us what will cause cancer and what won’t cause cancer. In 2016 they came out and they say, “Roundup is a probable cause of cancer.” So rather than Monsanto saying, “Well, maybe we ought to warn people about that” instead they’re now trying to de-fund the World Health Organization because it said something that’s going to hurt their profits.

Apparently Monsanto have some friendly Republicans in Washington D.C. to push the message. They’re looking trying to de-fund IARC. A hearing was scheduled for 06/02/18 to take a look at some of these matters. It’s a really powerful move by a powerful company to try to take on these international cancer scientists.

In February 2018 Monsanto hit Avaaz, the international petition site, with a 168-page court subpoena about a petition they had just launched.


An interview with Carey Gillam, author of – Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science

View posts by category: