Connect with us

Tech

Are Police Teaming Up With Google To Catch Criminals?

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)


Following this weekend’s revelation that Cambridge Analytica, a polling and analytics firm partly funded by billionaire Trump donor Robert Mercer, Democrats have renewed their cries for increased oversight of tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to monitor whether they are being responsible stewards of the reams of personal data that Americans and people all around the world fork over to them on a daily basis.


But one issue that has fallen by the wayside as lawmakers have zeroed in on talk about so-called “Russian interference” is how do Facebook, Google and their ilk protect US citizens’ civil liberties from unlawful search and seizure?


As it turns out, they don’t – at least, not really.


As North Carolina TV station WRAL points out in a recent expose, Law enforcement are becoming more aggressive in requesting data gleaned from individuals’ cellphones when they’re investigating major crimes like murder, rape and arson – even when these requests are unjustifiably broad-based by the standards of applying for search warrants.


In one controversial technique that’s increasingly being employed in these types of investigations, police draw a perimeter around the area where a crime – like a murder, for example – occurred. They then apply (and typically receive approval) for a search warrant to collect the data from all smart phones that crossed into the perimeter around the time that the crime allegedly occurred.


WRAL uses the example of two shootings that happened on opposite sides of the city years apart. Detectives on each case used this controversial new technique, which involves requesting the metadata from any nearby phones months or even years after the crimes occurred.


(Read The Rest Of The Story)

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Media

Twitter Profile With No Tweets Or Followers Suspended

Published

on

New England – A Twitter page for a group called New England Identitarians was temporarily suspended evidently for using the word “Identitarian”. The page had zero followers at the time, and was yet to even make a tweet. In fact, the page was set to private. 

 

Regardless of what you might think of “Identitarian” ideology, most people can agree that the word itself shouldn’t trigger a ban from the public square, which is what social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter are functioning as. The First Amendment was intended to protect the public from government censorship, but in the current day the main medium for public discourse is social media. Practically speaking, there is no difference. It must be lawfully determined if these companies are neutral platforms, or if they function as publishers with editorial judgement. 

 

The same goes for the popular video platform YouTube as well. Formerly known as a free speech medium, it’s now only friendly for what are deemed acceptable opinions. Across all of these sites, “hate speech” is broadly used as an excuse to censor political views that the company doesn’t like, with a strong partisan bias against conservatives. Other free speech friendly social media networks to try are Telegram, Gab, and Parlor. An up-and-coming alternative to YouTube is BitChute.  For livestreaming, there’s D’Live. Perhaps it’s time that we all begin to migrate away from the tyrannical mainstream sites. 

Continue Reading

Tech

Social Media is the Biggest Threat to America… It’s Time to Break Them Up

Published

on

After the another mass ban by Facebook and Instagram of Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, and Paul Joseph Watson, it is evermore clear and a massive warning to all conservatives that they are not welcome on social media platforms. Something that should also be considered illegal considering their ‘public square’ standing and non-publisher status, which saves them from sued for libel but [should] curtail their ability to promote, dissuade, or ban content based on their choice.

Facebook went as far to even say they’ll ban anyone or organization that shares content from Alex Jones, Infowars, or any of the banned people mentioned, maybe even more.

Facebook is also conducting election-meddling.  Gang Emperor Yang, a meme page for Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, was removed less than a month ago.

President Trump has yet to act on this, ironically without social media Donald Trump would never be President. Considering the Media, Entertainment, and Political monopolies are aligned against him it seems maddening that President Trump hasn’t done one thing besides offer the suggestion to “be good” online.

Despite the fact that it’s hard to find to find any popular conservative right besides Ben Shapiro on the internet. When 2020 roles around it’s going to for Donald Trump’s old coalition to remain strong when his followers, his greatest allies in media, and people who helped get elected directly are being de-platformed, silenced, and banned off of social media.

Continue Reading

Tech

Facebook Fired Pro-Trump & Anti Hillary Founder of Oculus

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

Every so often, Silicon Valley’s virtue-signaling, shadowbanning, anti-conservative media titans appear in Congress or devise a quick PR campaign to show to the world just how truly impartial they are with zero liberal bias. And every single time it backfires as their true ideological face quickly emerges from behind a fake, hypocritical mask.

Take the case of former Facebook executive, Oculus co-founder and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey, who was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated a modest $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group. His donation sparked a backlash from his colleagues, which then led to him being put on leave, and six months later he was fired.

What is odd about Luckey’s termination, is that when testifying before Congress about data privacy earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg denied, or rather lied that the departure had anything to do with politics. In fact, neither Facebook nor Mr. Luckey ever said why he left the social-media giant.

Until now: according to a report from the WSJ, Luckey told people the reason for his termination from that bastion of apolitical impartiality Facebook, was his support for Donald Trump and the furor that his political beliefs sparked within his employer, and Silicon Valley, some of those people say.

Read The Full Story Here

Continue Reading

Trending

    Donate to Populist Wire

    *Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.