activistpost--2020-03-03--Internal “Investigation” Finds it Was “Proper” to Taser, Tackle Grandma Over Asking for Warrant

Bradenton , FL — Barbara Pinkney of Bradenton , in Manatee County , Florida wanted to see the warrant from the cops who had come to her home attempting to arrest a man who she says did not live there .
Because she was steadfast in her decision to see the warrant , Pinkney , a 70-year-old grandma who had never been in trouble with police before , was tasered multiple times , thrown to the ground and arrested .
Now , after they “ investigated themselves ” the department has found that tasering the grandmother over asserting her rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Sheriff ’ s Office said it found that the deputy ’ s level of applied force was lawful , proper and in accordance with agency policy , ” the report from the internal investigation released last month reads .
This grandma is now facing charges of obstruction and battery on a law enforcement officer , according to a probable cause affidavit obtained by WFLA .
To make matters that much worse , the incident unfolded at 7:30 a.m. on the day after Christmas — which also happens to be Pinkney ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the door .
Actually , there wasn ’ t a knock .
I think they kicked the door .
Bam !
Bam !
At the door , ” Pinkney said .
According to WFLA , Manatee County Sheriff ’ s Office deputies say they came to serve an arrest warrant to Tevin Turner , Pinkney ’ s grandson , on violation of probation for carrying a concealed weapon .
However , Pinkney says he doesn ’ t live there .
“ When he was on probation he gave this as his address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , ” she said .
Pinkney tried to tell the deputies this information but they wanted nothing of it .
That ’ s when this rights-flexing grandma demanded cops show her a warrant before coming in her home .
When they refused to show her a warrant , Pinkney tried to close the door .
According to the investigation , the officer explained FSS 901.19 authorized him to search the residence without a warrant because he reasonably believed Turner to be inside , but Pinkney said , “ No , you show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Florida Statute 901.19 states : “ if a peace officer fails to gain admittance after he or she has announced both authority and purpose in order to make an arrest by a warrant , the officer may use all necessary and reasonable force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is , or is reasonably believed to be.
” Video taken by her grandson ’ s wife captured what unfolded next .
As this 70-year-old grandma attempts to close the door , a deputy barges in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
This grandma is then violently thrown to the ground where she is tasered two more times .
“ I was just hollering .
I was scared .
I didn ’ t know what else to do .
I was just hollering , ” Pinkney said .
As WFLA reports , the probable cause affidavit shows Pinkney was hit three times with a stun gun in her “ left arm , ” her “ back , ” her “ upper back , ” and was held to the ground with the deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops for a warrant and refusing to let them in the house unless they produced it , this grandma had her house raided , was attacked , kidnapped and charged — all of it , on her birthday .
Pinkney — who has never had a run-in with police — told local media that she is now scared to death of cops , so much so that she won ’ t even make eye contact with them .
“ I don ’ t know .
Whenever I see police I just try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said through tears .
As WWSB reports , last month , national civil rights attorney Ben Crump and his co-counsel announced they were filing a notice of intent to sue the Manatee County Sheriff ’ s Office .
Crump said deputies did not have the right to enter Pinkney ’ s home without a search warrant after she said no to their request .
Below is this most disturbing imagery showing what happens when you ask police for a warrant to come into your own home .
As you watch the video , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ proper.
” If you think that cops attacking grandmas is a rare occurrence , think again .
As TFTP reported last year , an innocent grandma was killed by cops Oklahoma because they suspected her son was in possession of a plant .
Michael Anthony Livingston , 50 , was suspected of selling a plant that is legal in some form in well over half the country .
Because the other half of the country still violently and callously kidnaps , cages , and kills people for this plant , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother is now dead .
Geraldine Townsend , 72 , was shot and killed this week as a Bartlesville SWAT team executed a search warrant to bust Livingston for the alleged sale of marijuana .
When the heavily armed and likely militarized men kicked in the door to their home , Townsend , likely not knowing who her home invaders were , picked up a pellet gun and fired off two pellets .
A Bartlesville officer then shot and killed her .
This article was sourced from The Free Thought Project Matt Agorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matt Agorist
Bradenton, FL — Barbara Pinkney of Bradenton, in Manatee County, Florida wanted to see the warrant from the cops who had come to her home attempting to arrest a man who she says did not live there. Because she was steadfast in her decision to see the warrant, Pinkney, a 70-year-old grandma who had never been in trouble with police before, was tasered multiple times, thrown to the ground and arrested. Now, after they “investigated themselves” the department has found that tasering the grandmother over asserting her rights was “proper.”
“The Manatee County Sheriff’s Office said it found that the deputy’s level of applied force was lawful, proper and in accordance with agency policy,” the report from the internal investigation released last month reads.
This grandma is now facing charges of obstruction and battery on a law enforcement officer, according to a probable cause affidavit obtained by WFLA. To make matters that much worse, the incident unfolded at 7:30 a.m. on the day after Christmas — which also happens to be Pinkney’s birthday.
“We heard a knock at the door. Actually, there wasn’t a knock. I think they kicked the door. Bam! Bam! At the door,” Pinkney said.
According to WFLA, Manatee County Sheriff’s Office deputies say they came to serve an arrest warrant to Tevin Turner, Pinkney’s grandson, on violation of probation for carrying a concealed weapon. However, Pinkney says he doesn’t live there.
“When he was on probation he gave this as his address, but he wasn’t living here,” she said.
Pinkney tried to tell the deputies this information but they wanted nothing of it. That’s when this rights-flexing grandma demanded cops show her a warrant before coming in her home. When they refused to show her a warrant, Pinkney tried to close the door.
According to the investigation, the officer explained FSS 901.19 authorized him to search the residence without a warrant because he reasonably believed Turner to be inside, but Pinkney said, “No, you show me the warrant.”
The investigation notes that Florida Statute 901.19 states: “if a peace officer fails to gain admittance after he or she has announced both authority and purpose in order to make an arrest by a warrant, the officer may use all necessary and reasonable force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is, or is reasonably believed to be.”
Video taken by her grandson’s wife captured what unfolded next. As this 70-year-old grandma attempts to close the door, a deputy barges in, grabbing her by the arm before tasering her. This grandma is then violently thrown to the ground where she is tasered two more times.
“I was just hollering. I was scared. I didn’t know what else to do. I was just hollering,” Pinkney said.
As WFLA reports, the probable cause affidavit shows Pinkney was hit three times with a stun gun in her “left arm,” her “back,” her “upper back,” and was held to the ground with the deputy’s “knee.”
For asking cops for a warrant and refusing to let them in the house unless they produced it, this grandma had her house raided, was attacked, kidnapped and charged — all of it, on her birthday.
Pinkney — who has never had a run-in with police — told local media that she is now scared to death of cops, so much so that she won’t even make eye contact with them.
“I don’t know. Whenever I see police I just try to not look at them,” Pinkney said through tears.
As WWSB reports, last month, national civil rights attorney Ben Crump and his co-counsel announced they were filing a notice of intent to sue the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office. Crump said deputies did not have the right to enter Pinkney’s home without a search warrant after she said no to their request.
Below is this most disturbing imagery showing what happens when you ask police for a warrant to come into your own home. As you watch the video, remember that everything police are seen doing is “proper.”

If you think that cops attacking grandmas is a rare occurrence, think again. As TFTP reported last year, an innocent grandma was killed by cops Oklahoma because they suspected her son was in possession of a plant.
Michael Anthony Livingston, 50, was suspected of selling a plant that is legal in some form in well over half the country. Because the other half of the country still violently and callously kidnaps, cages, and kills people for this plant, however, Livingston is in jail and his mother is now dead.
Geraldine Townsend, 72, was shot and killed this week as a Bartlesville SWAT team executed a search warrant to bust Livingston for the alleged sale of marijuana.
When the heavily armed and likely militarized men kicked in the door to their home, Townsend, likely not knowing who her home invaders were, picked up a pellet gun and fired off two pellets. A Bartlesville officer then shot and killed her.
This article was sourced from The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--Copyright Filters Are On a Collision Course With EU Data Privacy Rules

The European Union ’ s controversial new copyright rules are on a collision course with EU data privacy rules .
The GDPR guards data protection , privacy , and other fundamental rights in the handling of personal data .
Such rights are likely to be affected by an automated decision-making system that ’ s guaranteed to be used , and abused , under Article 17 to find and filter out unauthorized copyrighted material .
Here we take a deep dive examining how the EU got here and why Member States should act now to embrace enforcement policies for the Copyright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that violate the GDPR by censoring and discriminating against users .
Platforms Become the New Copyright Police Article 17 of the EU ’ s Copyright Directive ( formerly Article 13 ) makes online services liable for user-uploaded content that infringes someone ’ s copyright .
To escape liability , online service operators have to show that they made best efforts to obtain rightsholders ’ authorization and ensure infringing content is not available on their platforms .
Further , they must show they acted expeditiously to remove content and prevent its re-upload after being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Copyright Directive , user rights advocates alerted lawmakers that operators would have to employ upload filters to keep infringing content off their platforms .
They warned that then Article 13 will turn online services into copyright police with special license to scan and filter billions of users ’ social media posts and videos , audio clips , and photos for potential infringements .
While not everyone agreed about the features of the controversial overhaul of outdated copyright rules , there was little doubt that any automated system for catching and blocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would sometimes find their legitimate posts erroneously removed or blocked .
Instead of unreservedly safeguarding user freedoms , the compromise worked out focuses on procedural safeguards to counter over-blocking .
Although complaint and redress mechanisms are supposed to offer a quick fix , chances are that censored Europeans will have to join a long queue of fellow victims of algorithmic decision-making and await the chance to plead their case .
Can ’ t See the Wood For the Trees : the GDPR There ’ s something awfully familiar about the idea of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content and has a significant effect on the position of individuals .
At recent EU copyright dialogue debates on technical and legal limits of copyright filters , EU data protection rules—which restrict the use of automated decision-making processes involving personal data—were not put on the agenda by the EU officials .
Nor were academic experts on the GDPR who have raised this issue in the past ( read this analysis by Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon or have a look at this year ’ s CPDP panel on copyright filters ) .
Under Article 22 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing , including profiling , which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
” Save for exceptions , which will be discussed below , this provision protects users from detrimental decisions made by algorithms , such as being turned down for an online loan by a service that uses software , not humans , to accept or reject applicants .
In the language of the regulation , the word “ solely ” means a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excludes any real human influence on the outcome .
The GDPR generally applies if a provider is processing personal data , which is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ( “ data subject , ” Article 4 ( 1 ) GDPR ) .
Virtually every post that Article 17 filters analyze will have come from a user who had to create an account with an online service before making their post .
The required account registration data make it inevitable that Copyright Directive filters must respect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metadata , such as IP addresses ( C-582/14 , Breyer v Germany ) , which can be used to identify the poster .
Anonymization is technically fraught , but even purportedly anonymization will not satisfy the GDPR if the content is connected with a user profile , such as a social media profile on Facebook or YouTube .
Defenders of copyright filters might counter that these filters do not evaluate metadata .
Instead , they ’ ll say that filters merely compare uploaded content with information provided by rightsholders .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about much more than content-matching .
It is the decision whether a specific user is entitled to post a specific work .
Whether the user ’ s upload matches the information provided by rightsholders is just a step along the way .
Filters might not always use personal data to determine whether to remove content , but the decision is always about what a specific individual can do .
In other words : how can monitoring and removing peoples ’ uploads , which express views they seek to share , not involve a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moreover , the concept of “ personal data ” is very broad .
The EU Court of Justice ( Case C-434/16 Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner ) held that “ personal data ” covers any information “ provided that it ‘ relates ’ to the data subject , ” whether through the content ( a selfie uploaded on Facebook ) , through the purpose ( a video is processed to evaluate a person ’ s preferences ) , or through the effect ( a person is treated differently due to the monitoring of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works by removing any content that matches materials from anyone claiming to be a rightsholder .
The purpose of filtering is to decide whether a work will or won ’ t be made public .
The consequence of using filtering as a preventive measure is that users ’ works will be blocked in error , while other ( luckier ) users ’ works will not be blocked , meaning the filter creates a significant effect or even discriminates against some users .
Even more importantly , the Guidelines on automated decision-making developed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection advisory body ( now EDPB ) provide a user-focused interpretation of the requirements for automated individual decision-making .
Article 22 applies to decisions based on any type of data .
That means that Article 22 of the GDPR applies to algorithms that evaluate user-generated content that is uploaded to a platform .
Do copyright filters result in “ legal ” or “ significant ” effects as envisioned in the GDPR ?
The GDPR doesn ’ t define these terms , but the guidelines endorsed by the European Data Protection Board enumerate some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of benefits and the cancellation of a contract .
The guidelines explain that even where a filter ’ s judgment does not have legal impact , it still falls within the scope of Article 22 of the GDPR if the decision-making process has the potential to significantly affect the behaviour of the individual concerned , has a prolonged impact on the user , or leads to discrimination against the user .
For example , having your work erroneously blocked could lead to adverse financial circumstances or denial of economic opportunities .
The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable expectations are frustrated , the higher the likelihood for adverse effects .
Consider a takedown or block of an artistic video by a creator whose audience is waiting to see it ( they may have backed the creator ’ s crowdfunding campaign ) .
This could result in harming the creator ’ s freedom to conduct business , leading to financial loss .
Now imagine a critical essay about political developments .
Blocking this work is censorship that impairs the author ’ s right of free expression .
There are many more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often be unavoidable .
There are three grounds under which automated decision-making may be allowed under the GDPR ’ s Article 22 ( 2 ) .
Users may be subjected to automated decision-making if one of three exceptions apply : • it ’ s necessary for entering into or performance of a contract , • authorized by the EU or member state law , or Copyright filters can not justly be considered “ necessary ” under this rule .
“ Necessity ” is narrowly construed in the data protection framework , and can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required under terms of service .
Rather , a “ necessity ” defence for automated decision-making must be in line with the objectives of data protection law , and can ’ t be used if there are more fair or less intrusive measures available .
The mere participation in an online service does not give rise to this “ necessity , ” and thus provides no serious justification for automated decision-making .
Perhaps proponents of upload filters will argue that they will be authorized by the EU member state ’ s law that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what the directive requires has been ambiguous from the very beginning .
Copyright Directive rapporteur MEP Axel Voss insisted that the Copyright Directive would not require upload filters and dismissed claims to the contrary as mere scare-mongering by digital rights groups .
Indeed , after months of negotiation between EU institutions , the final language version of the directive conspicuously avoided any explicit reference to filter technologies .
Instead , Article 17 requires “ preventive measures ” to ensure the non-availability of copyright-protected content and makes clear that its application should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor to the processing of personal data , except where provided under the GDPR .
Even if the Copyright Directive does “ authorize ” the use of filters , Article 22 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the GDPR says that regulatory authorization alone is not sufficient to justify automated decision-making .
The authorizing law—the law that each EU Member State will make to implement the Copyright Directive—must include “ suitable ” measures to safeguard users ’ rights , freedoms , and legitimate interests .
It is unclear whether Article 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet these standards .
Without “ necessity ” or “ authorization , ” the only remaining path for justifying copyright filters under the GDPR is explicit consent by users .
For data processing based on automated decision-making , a high level of individual control is required .
The GDPR demands that consent be freely given , specific , informed , and unambiguous .
As take-it-or-leave-it situations are against the rationale of true consent , it must be assessed whether the decision-making is necessary for the offered service .
And consent must be explicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give an obvious express statement of consent .
It seems likely that few users will be interested in consenting to onerous filtering processes .
Article 22 says that even if automated decision-making is justified by user consent or by contractual necessity , platforms must safeguard user rights and freedoms .
Users always have the right to obtain “ human intervention ” from platforms , to express their opinion about the content removal , and to challenge the decision .
The GDPR therefore requires platforms to be fully transparent about why and how users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The significant negative effects on users subjected to automated decision-making , and the legal uncertainties about the situations in which copyright-filters are permitted , should best be addressed by a policy of legislative self-restraint .
Whatever decision national lawmakers take , they should ensure safeguards for users ’ privacy , freedom of speech and other fundamental rights before any uploads are judged , blocked or removed .
If Member States adopt this line of reasoning and fulfill their legal obligations in the spirit of EU privacy rules , it could choke off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filters .
This will set the groundwork for discussions about general monitoring and filtering obligations in the upcoming Digital Service Act .
( Many thanks to Rossana Ducato for the exchange of legal arguments , which inspired this article ) .
Christoph Schmon is EFF ’ s International Policy Director .
He bridges EFF ’ s domestic priorities with our international policy strategy and helps to make sure that digital rights are respected and enforced beyond the United States borders .
Christoph has deep expertise in EU policy-making and a special focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Christoph Schmon
The European Union’s controversial new copyright rules are on a collision course with EU data privacy rules. The GDPR guards data protection, privacy, and other fundamental rights in the handling of personal data. Such rights are likely to be affected by an automated decision-making system that’s guaranteed to be used, and abused, under Article 17 to find and filter out unauthorized copyrighted material. Here we take a deep dive examining how the EU got here and why Member States should act now to embrace enforcement policies for the Copyright Directive that steer clear of automated filters that violate the GDPR by censoring and discriminating against users.
Platforms Become the New Copyright Police
Article 17 of the EU’s Copyright Directive (formerly Article 13) makes online services liable for user-uploaded content that infringes someone’s copyright. To escape liability, online service operators have to show that they made best efforts to obtain rightsholders’ authorization and ensure infringing content is not available on their platforms. Further, they must show they acted expeditiously to remove content and prevent its re-upload after being notified by rightsholders.
Prior to passage of the Copyright Directive, user rights advocates alerted lawmakers that operators would have to employ upload filters to keep infringing content off their platforms. They warned that then Article 13 will turn online services into copyright police with special license to scan and filter billions of users’ social media posts and videos, audio clips, and photos for potential infringements.
While not everyone agreed about the features of the controversial overhaul of outdated copyright rules, there was little doubt that any automated system for catching and blocking copyright infringement would impact users, who would sometimes find their legitimate posts erroneously removed or blocked. Instead of unreservedly safeguarding user freedoms, the compromise worked out focuses on procedural safeguards to counter over-blocking. Although complaint and redress mechanisms are supposed to offer a quick fix, chances are that censored Europeans will have to join a long queue of fellow victims of algorithmic decision-making and await the chance to plead their case.
Can’t See the Wood For the Trees: the GDPR
There’s something awfully familiar about the idea of an automated black-box judgment system that weighs user-generated content and has a significant effect on the position of individuals. At recent EU copyright dialogue debates on technical and legal limits of copyright filters, EU data protection rules—which restrict the use of automated decision-making processes involving personal data—were not put on the agenda by the EU officials. Nor were academic experts on the GDPR who have raised this issue in the past (read this analysis by Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon or have a look at this year’s CPDP panel on copyright filters).
Under Article 22 of the GDPR, users have a right “not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.” Save for exceptions, which will be discussed below, this provision protects users from detrimental decisions made by algorithms, such as being turned down for an online loan by a service that uses software, not humans, to accept or reject applicants. In the language of the regulation, the word “solely” means a decision-making process that is totally automated and excludes any real human influence on the outcome.
The Copyright-Filter Test
Personal Data
The GDPR generally applies if a provider is processing personal data, which is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“data subject,” Article 4(1) GDPR). Virtually every post that Article 17 filters analyze will have come from a user who had to create an account with an online service before making their post. The required account registration data make it inevitable that Copyright Directive filters must respect the GDPR. Even anonymous posts will have metadata, such as IP addresses (C-582/14, Breyer v Germany), which can be used to identify the poster. Anonymization is technically fraught, but even purportedly anonymization will not satisfy the GDPR if the content is connected with a user profile, such as a social media profile on Facebook or YouTube.
Defenders of copyright filters might counter that these filters do not evaluate metadata. Instead, they’ll say that filters merely compare uploaded content with information provided by rightsholders. However, the Copyright Directive’s algorithmic decision-making is about much more than content-matching. It is the decision whether a specific user is entitled to post a specific work. Whether the user’s upload matches the information provided by rightsholders is just a step along the way. Filters might not always use personal data to determine whether to remove content, but the decision is always about what a specific individual can do. In other words: how can monitoring and removing peoples’ uploads, which express views they seek to share, not involve a decision about based on that individual?
Moreover, the concept of “personal data” is very broad. The EU Court of Justice (Case C-434/16 Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner) held that “personal data” covers any information “provided that it ‘relates’ to the data subject,” whether through the content (a selfie uploaded on Facebook), through the purpose (a video is processed to evaluate a person’s preferences), or through the effect (a person is treated differently due to the monitoring of their uploads). A copyright filter works by removing any content that matches materials from anyone claiming to be a rightsholder. The purpose of filtering is to decide whether a work will or won’t be made public. The consequence of using filtering as a preventive measure is that users’ works will be blocked in error, while other (luckier) users’ works will not be blocked, meaning the filter creates a significant effect or even discriminates against some users.
Even more importantly, the Guidelines on automated decision-making developed by the WP29, an official European data protection advisory body (now EDPB) provide a user-focused interpretation of the requirements for automated individual decision-making. Article 22 applies to decisions based on any type of data. That means that Article 22 of the GDPR applies to algorithms that evaluate user-generated content that is uploaded to a platform.
Adverse Effects
Do copyright filters result in “legal” or “significant” effects as envisioned in the GDPR? The GDPR doesn’t define these terms, but the guidelines endorsed by the European Data Protection Board enumerate some “legal effects,” including denial of benefits and the cancellation of a contract.
The guidelines explain that even where a filter’s judgment does not have legal impact, it still falls within the scope of Article 22 of the GDPR if the decision-making process has the potential to significantly affect the behaviour of the individual concerned, has a prolonged impact on the user, or leads to discrimination against the user. For example, having your work erroneously blocked could lead to adverse financial circumstances or denial of economic opportunities. The more intrusive a decision is and the more reasonable expectations are frustrated, the higher the likelihood for adverse effects.
Consider a takedown or block of an artistic video by a creator whose audience is waiting to see it (they may have backed the creator’s crowdfunding campaign). This could result in harming the creator’s freedom to conduct business, leading to financial loss. Now imagine a critical essay about political developments. Blocking this work is censorship that impairs the author’s right of free expression. There are many more examples that show that adverse effects will often be unavoidable.
Legitimate Grounds for Automated Individual Decision-Making
There are three grounds under which automated decision-making may be allowed under the GDPR’s Article 22(2). Users may be subjected to automated decision-making if one of three exceptions apply:
it’s necessary for entering into or performance of a contract, authorized by the EU or member state law, or based on the user’s explicit consent.
Necessity
Copyright filters cannot justly be considered “necessary” under this rule. “Necessity” is narrowly construed in the data protection framework, and can’t merely be something that is required under terms of service. Rather, a “necessity” defence for automated decision-making must be in line with the objectives of data protection law, and can’t be used if there are more fair or less intrusive measures available. The mere participation in an online service does not give rise to this “necessity,” and thus provides no serious justification for automated decision-making.
Authorization
Perhaps proponents of upload filters will argue that they will be authorized by the EU member state’s law that implement the Copyright Directive. Whether this is what the directive requires has been ambiguous from the very beginning.
Copyright Directive rapporteur MEP Axel Voss insisted that the Copyright Directive would not require upload filters and dismissed claims to the contrary as mere scare-mongering by digital rights groups. Indeed, after months of negotiation between EU institutions, the final language version of the directive conspicuously avoided any explicit reference to filter technologies. Instead, Article 17 requires “preventive measures” to ensure the non-availability of copyright-protected content and makes clear that its application should not lead to any identification of individual users, nor to the processing of personal data, except where provided under the GDPR.
Even if the Copyright Directive does “authorize” the use of filters, Article 22(2)(b) of the GDPR says that regulatory authorization alone is not sufficient to justify automated decision-making. The authorizing law—the law that each EU Member State will make to implement the Copyright Directive—must include “suitable” measures to safeguard users’ rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests. It is unclear whether Article 17 provides enough leeway for member states to meet these standards.
Consent
Without “necessity” or “authorization,” the only remaining path for justifying copyright filters under the GDPR is explicit consent by users. For data processing based on automated decision-making, a high level of individual control is required. The GDPR demands that consent be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. As take-it-or-leave-it situations are against the rationale of true consent, it must be assessed whether the decision-making is necessary for the offered service. And consent must be explicit, which means that the user must give an obvious express statement of consent. It seems likely that few users will be interested in consenting to onerous filtering processes.
Article 22 says that even if automated decision-making is justified by user consent or by contractual necessity, platforms must safeguard user rights and freedoms. Users always have the right to obtain “human intervention” from platforms, to express their opinion about the content removal, and to challenge the decision. The GDPR therefore requires platforms to be fully transparent about why and how users’ work was taken down or blocked.
Conclusion: Copyright-Filters Must Respect Users’ Privacy Rights
The significant negative effects on users subjected to automated decision-making, and the legal uncertainties about the situations in which copyright-filters are permitted, should best be addressed by a policy of legislative self-restraint. Whatever decision national lawmakers take, they should ensure safeguards for users’ privacy, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights before any uploads are judged, blocked or removed.
If Member States adopt this line of reasoning and fulfill their legal obligations in the spirit of EU privacy rules, it could choke off any future for EU-mandated, fully-automated upload filters. This will set the groundwork for discussions about general monitoring and filtering obligations in the upcoming Digital Service Act.
(Many thanks to Rossana Ducato for the exchange of legal arguments, which inspired this article).
Article source: EFF
Christoph Schmon is EFF’s International Policy Director. He bridges EFF’s domestic priorities with our international policy strategy and helps to make sure that digital rights are respected and enforced beyond the United States borders. Christoph has deep expertise in EU policy-making and a special focus on international copyright law and online intermediary liability.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--Lies, Damned Lies, and Coronavirus Infection Numbers — Propaganda Watch

How many people have been infected with Covid-19 ?
And how many people have died ?
And how do we @ @ @ @ @ t rhetorical questions .
They are real questions with real answers .
Today on # @ @ @ @ @ the numbers and asks how these numbers are being derived and what they might be @ @ @ @ @ diagnosing coronavirus patients by looking for ‘ ground glass ’ in their lungs .
Take @ @ @ @ @ scans .
• Key Missteps at the CDC Have Set Back Its Ability to Detect @ @ @ @ @ • Coronavirus : The “ Cures ” Will Be Worse Than the Disease Subscribe to @ @ @ @ @ peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as @ @ @ @ @ Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit @ @ @ @ @ Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today @

By corbettreport
How many people have been infected with Covid-19? And how many people have died? And how do we know? These aren’t rhetorical questions. They are real questions with real answers.
Today on #PropagandaWatch, James breaks down the numbers and asks how these numbers are being derived and what they might be hiding.
SHOW NOTES:

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--Airbnb Gives Renters Secret Risk Assessments And Personality Tests

What does the Church of Scientology and Airbnb have in common ?
If you answered secret risk assessments and personality tests , then give yourself a gold star .
If you have you rented an Airbnb in the past six years , the odds are pretty high that you have been given a secret risk assessment and personality score .
According to an Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC ) complaint , Airbnb ’ s secret renter risk assessments are just as specious as the Church of Scientology ’ s personality tests .
According to EPIC , Airbnb uses a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scores.
” For six years , Airbnb has been using their “ determining trustworthiness and compatibility of a person ” algorithm to create risk scores of every renter .
Airbnb also uses their secret algorithm to rate renters ’ personalities .
Personality comprises the emotional and cognitive characteristic of a person .
Behavior is how a person acts or reacts , sometimes toward another person , in a certain situation .
A person with positive personality or behavior traits such as conscientiousness and openness , for example , is often perceived as more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative personality or behavior traits such as neuroticism and involvement in crimes , for example , is often perceived as untrustworthy .
Airbnb does not want people who are “ shy , anxious or depressed ” to rent their apartments , condominiums or homes because those types of people are likely to leave negative comments .
But Airbnb will rent to people with a “ high trustworthiness score ” because they are more likely to leave positive comments .
Airbnb uses their secret algorithm to check renters social network profiles , email address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date of birth , social connections , employment history , education history , driver ’ s license number , financial account information , Internet Protocol ( IP ) address , and device identifier .
EPIC ’ s complaint claims Airbnb uses their algorithm to score a renters ’ trustworthiness based on their social media profiles .
Airbnb ’ s algorithm is also used to identify renters with Machiavellianism and negative personalities .
By identifying so-called negative personality or behavior traits of their renters , Airbnb has essentially turned property owners into untrained psychiatric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renters emails , phone conversations and in-person encounters with owners and adds them to their secret risk assessment .
Airbnb ’ s algorithm considers derogatory or angry words an anti-social personality trait .
This is horrifying , everything a renter says and does goes towards their personal risk assessment .
Airbnb ’ s risk assessments and personality tests are about as accurate as the Church of Scientology ’ s E-Meter which purport ’ s to identify a person ’ s negative traits using “ a box ; a needle ; one battery ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ copper wire.
” Airbnb has one more trick up their sleeve so to speak : they are also checking renters ’ names against secret U.S. government watchlists .
Airbnb has turned a once innocuous thing like renting an apartment , condominium or home into a corporate surveillance nightmare replete with secret risk assessments and anti-social personality scores .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By MassPrivateI
What does the Church of Scientology and Airbnb have in common? If you answered secret risk assessments and personality tests, then give yourself a gold star.
If you have you rented an Airbnb in the past six years, the odds are pretty high that you have been given a secret risk assessment and personality score.
According to an Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) complaint, Airbnb’s secret renter risk assessments are just as specious as the Church of Scientology’s personality tests.
This complaint concerns Airbnb’s deployment of a risk assessment technique that assigns secret ratings to prospective renters, based on behavior traits using an opaque, proprietary algorithm. Airbnb has failed to show that its technique meets the fairness, transparency, and explainability standards for AI-based decision-making set out in the OECD AI Principles and the Universal Guidelines for AI.
According to EPIC, Airbnb uses a secret algorithm to generate renter “risk scores.”
Airbnb generates a risk assessment score for consumers before their reservations are confirmed.As the company explains on their website: Risk scoring. Every Airbnb reservation is scored for risk before it’s confirmed. We use predictive analytics and machine learning to instantly evaluate hundreds of signals that help us flag and investigate suspicious activity before it happens.
For six years, Airbnb has been using their “determining trustworthiness and compatibility of a person” algorithm to create risk scores of every renter.
Airbnb also uses their secret algorithm to rate renters’ personalities.
Personality comprises the emotional and cognitive characteristic of a person. Behavior is how a person acts or reacts, sometimes toward another person, in a certain situation. A person with positive personality or behavior traits such as conscientiousness and openness, for example, is often perceived as more reliable and trustworthy. A person with negative personality or behavior traits such as neuroticism and involvement in crimes, for example, is often perceived as untrustworthy.
Airbnb does not want people who are “shy, anxious or depressed” to rent their apartments, condominiums or homes because those types of people are likely to leave negative comments.
But Airbnb will rent to people with a “high trustworthiness score” because they are more likely to leave positive comments.
Airbnb uses their secret algorithm to check renters social network profiles, email address, telephone number, geographic location, date of birth, social connections, employment history, education history, driver’s license number, financial account information, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and device identifier.
Activist Post Recommended Book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
EPIC’s complaint claims Airbnb uses their algorithm to score a renters’ trustworthiness based on their social media profiles.
According to the patent application, machine learning inputs include personal data collected from web pages, information from databases, posts on the person’s social network account, posts on a blog or a microblog account of the person, a comment made by the person on a website, or a directory listing for a company or association.
Airbnb’s algorithm is also used to identify renters with Machiavellianism and negative personalities.
A particular personality trait can be badness, anti-social tendencies, goodness, conscientiousness, openness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, narcissism, Machiavellianism, or psychopathy or is involved in pornography, has authored online content with negative language, or has interests that indicate negative personality or behavior traits.
By identifying so-called negative personality or behavior traits of their renters, Airbnb has essentially turned property owners into untrained psychiatric and behavioral therapists.
Airbnb also reviews renters emails, phone conversations and in-person encounters with owners and adds them to their secret risk assessment.
The method provides the behavior trait metrics and the personality trait metrics of the first person and corresponding metrics for a second person as input to a scoring system and obtaining as output from the system a compatibility score between the two persons.
Airbnb’s algorithm considers derogatory or angry words an anti-social personality trait. This is horrifying, everything a renter says and does goes towards their personal risk assessment.
Airbnb’s risk assessments and personality tests are about as accurate as the Church of Scientology’s E-Meter which purport’s to identify a person’s negative traits using “a box; a needle; one battery; two cans; and a bunch of copper wire.”
Airbnb has one more trick up their sleeve so to speak: they are also checking renters’ names against secret U.S. government watchlists.
Airbnb has turned a once innocuous thing like renting an apartment, condominium or home into a corporate surveillance nightmare replete with secret risk assessments and anti-social personality scores.
Article source: MassPrivateI Blog
Image credit: Airbnb
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--10yo Boy Handcuffed, Arrested, Charged with Felony for Playing with a Nerf Bow and Arrow

Colorado Springs , CO — In today ’ s fearful society , even obvious toy “ guns ” like Nerf guns can land innocent children in the grips of the police state .
A Colorado family is now sharing their story in hopes that this insanity will be exposed and kids can hopefully get back to being kids .
The Carson family ’ s 10-year-old son was arrested , handcuffed , and charged with Felony Menacing , a Class 5 felony , for playing with a Nerf bow and arrow .
Gavin , like all boys his age , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his buddy grabbed his broken Nerf bow and arrow last year and went outside to play and imagine .
“ The toy bow was an orange Nerf bow .
It didn ’ t work .
Nothing could shoot out of it .
Nothing would come out of it .
The weapon , well toy I had , had an orange tip .
It was also broken and couldn ’ t shoot anything out of it , ” Gavin said , according to FOX 21 .
Even if the Nerf toy was functional , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have hurt anyone or anything .
Nevertheless , when a loyal subject of the crown saw the two children playing with it , he just had to involve the police state .
“ He slammed his breaks and started reversing as fast as he could , ” Gavin said .
“ He came up and started getting very heated and was very mad .
I was at the time , very scared.
” When the angry man began yelling at the small children , they ran home because he scared them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s parents , as seen on the family ’ s doorbell cam .
This fearful subject then called 911 to report two small children for playing with a Nerf bow and arrow .
Seriously .
According to the Carpenter family , El Paso County Sheriff ’ s deputies arrived and arrested both Gavin and his friend .
He was handcuffed and taken to the Colorado Springs Police Department for mugshots and fingerprinting .
“ They came back over , told me my rights , and told me what was going to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I got into the car , ” 10-year-old Gavin Carpenter said .
“ I told them I had no intention to have scared them or have any threat to their life , ” Gavin said .
This small child was held in jail for hours and not released until 10:30 p.m. Gavin ’ s family immediately hired an attorney to help get the charge dropped , but the DA refused and fought to permanently scar this little boy ’ s life forever because he pointed a Nerf bow and arrow at cars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no , that the District Attorney wasn ’ t going to throw this out , ” Gavin ’ s father Chris said .
“ That is when we moved into the diversion program.
” Gavin was then sentenced to community service , forced to write an essay , and given multiple other tasks just so he didn ’ t carry around a felony charge for the rest of his life—for playing with a Nerf toy .
“ So if you run his name , nothing will show up , but he did have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least half a year , ” Chris said .
EPSO released this statement when we asked about the arrest : In an odd twist , the family wants to restore Gavin and his friend ’ s faith in police — who kidnapped and caged their son for a Nerf bow and arrow and charged him with a felony .
“ Were trying to establish now for the boys a few events to help build trust in law enforcement because it was shattered .
We want them to not be scared and show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they need to show them the proper respect , ” Chris said .
Sadly , this father didn ’ t learn that trust is a two-way street .
When an officer kidnaps a child for playing with a Nerf gun and seeks to ruin his life by charging him with a felony , he is not to be trusted .
Gavin is lucky he escaped this incident with a simple arrest and charges .
A 14-year-old boy named Antonio Arce was not so lucky when he played with his orange-tipped toy gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cop , that cop killed him , shooting him in the back twice .
Last month , the officer , Joseph Jaen , who killed Antonio was cleared in his death—despite shooting the child who was unarmed and running away .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matt Agorist
Colorado Springs, CO — In today’s fearful society, even obvious toy “guns” like Nerf guns can land innocent children in the grips of the police state. A Colorado family is now sharing their story in hopes that this insanity will be exposed and kids can hopefully get back to being kids. The Carson family’s 10-year-old son was arrested, handcuffed, and charged with Felony Menacing, a Class 5 felony, for playing with a Nerf bow and arrow.
Gavin, like all boys his age, has an imagination. So, he and his buddy grabbed his broken Nerf bow and arrow last year and went outside to play and imagine.
“The toy bow was an orange Nerf bow. It didn’t work. Nothing could shoot out of it. Nothing would come out of it. The weapon, well toy I had, had an orange tip. It was also broken and couldn’t shoot anything out of it,” Gavin said, according to FOX 21.
Even if the Nerf toy was functional, Gavin’s use of it couldn’t have hurt anyone or anything. Nevertheless, when a loyal subject of the crown saw the two children playing with it, he just had to involve the police state.
“He slammed his breaks and started reversing as fast as he could,” Gavin said. “He came up and started getting very heated and was very mad. I was at the time, very scared.”
When the angry man began yelling at the small children, they ran home because he scared them. The man then verbally accosted Gavin’s parents, as seen on the family’s doorbell cam.
This fearful subject then called 911 to report two small children for playing with a Nerf bow and arrow. Seriously.
According to the Carpenter family, El Paso County Sheriff’s deputies arrived and arrested both Gavin and his friend. He was handcuffed and taken to the Colorado Springs Police Department for mugshots and fingerprinting.
“They came back over, told me my rights, and told me what was going to happen. They put handcuffs on me, and I got into the car,” 10-year-old Gavin Carpenter said.
“I told them I had no intention to have scared them or have any threat to their life,” Gavin said.
This small child was held in jail for hours and not released until 10:30 p.m. Gavin’s family immediately hired an attorney to help get the charge dropped, but the DA refused and fought to permanently scar this little boy’s life forever because he pointed a Nerf bow and arrow at cars.
“It was just a hard no, that the District Attorney wasn’t going to throw this out,” Gavin’s father Chris said. “That is when we moved into the diversion program.”
Gavin was then sentenced to community service, forced to write an essay, and given multiple other tasks just so he didn’t carry around a felony charge for the rest of his life—for playing with a Nerf toy.
“So if you run his name, nothing will show up, but he did have a Class Five Felony on there for at least half a year,” Chris said.
EPSO released this statement when we asked about the arrest:
If anyone is dissatisfied with the actions of any employee of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, they have administrative avenues available to them. We encourage citizens to take advantage of those avenues.
In an odd twist, the family wants to restore Gavin and his friend’s faith in police — who kidnapped and caged their son for a Nerf bow and arrow and charged him with a felony.
“Were trying to establish now for the boys a few events to help build trust in law enforcement because it was shattered. We want them to not be scared and show that law enforcement is their friends, and they need to show them the proper respect,” Chris said.
Sadly, this father didn’t learn that trust is a two-way street. When an officer kidnaps a child for playing with a Nerf gun and seeks to ruin his life by charging him with a felony, he is not to be trusted.
Gavin is lucky he escaped this incident with a simple arrest and charges. A 14-year-old boy named Antonio Arce was not so lucky when he played with his orange-tipped toy gun. When he ran away from a cop, that cop killed him, shooting him in the back twice. Last month, the officer, Joseph Jaen, who killed Antonio was cleared in his death—despite shooting the child who was unarmed and running away.
Article source: The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--More U.S. Congress Members Confront FCC About 5G Safety and Health Risks.  Is Yours One of Them?

Opposition to 5G has been ongoing since 2017 when doctors and scientists asked for a worldwide moratorium on installation .
Unfortunately , this didn ’ t stop deployment and there have been reports of people and animals getting sick after it was turned on since 2018 ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
In February 2019 the telecom industry gave congressional testimony that they have NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe .
That didn ’ t stop deployment either .
In December 2019 , doctors , scientists , engineers , and public advocates asked President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Multiple 5G lawsuits have also been filed in the U.S. ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Cities and countries have even tried banning it .
Some American elected officials have been taking action , though , and confronting the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) about their role in this .
After all they are supposed to be protecting the public from the telecom industry even though they haven ’ t done that since long before the Trump administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ see 1 , 2 , 3 ) has made them more dangerous .
Thanks to Environmental Health Trust for this compilation of letters to the FCC from Congress members .
“ I am disappointed by Chairman Pai ’ s response to my concerns about the FCC ’ s radiofrequency exposure safety standards .
The FCC needs to be more transparent about its research and decision-making process related to 5G .
It ’ s important that legitimate efforts are made to inform the public about the research in a detailed manner so they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern wireless technology .
I am exploring legislative remedies to ensure greater accountability and transparency.
” Congressman Lipinski ’ s letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai can be found here .
Chairman Pai ’ s response can be found here .
Read this on Congressman Dan Lipinski ’ s Website “ FCC Must Be More Transparent About 5G Research ” Environmental Health Trust has compiled several letters from members of the US Congress .
So far the FCC has responded without any documentation showing 5G is safe for humans , wildlife and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FCC • November 19 , 2019 Letter to the FCC from Rep. Daniel Lipinsky IL on the FCC Review of RF Health Effects and Cell phone test systems that allow excesses above the legal limit .
The Chicago Tribune investigation is mentioned .
• September 13 , 2019 , Letter from Rep DeFazio and Rep Suozzi Letter to the FCC on Chicago Tribune Study • December 3 , 2018 , Letter from Senator Richard Blumenthal ( Connecticut ) and Rep Anna G. Eshoo ( California ) to the FCC • April 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suozzi ( New York ) to the FCC • April 15 , 2019 , Letter from Rep. Peter A. DeFazio ( Oregon ) to the FCC • July 18 , 2019 , Senator Anna Eschoo ( CA ) and Senator Jeff Merkley ( OR ) Letter to the FDA Read the published research on 5G here .
Misinformation about 5G has been reported by many sources including The New York Times .
In January one of their reporters was accused of violating a truth and accuracy code for this by the Press Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Of course , 5G isn ’ t the only source of unsafe technology .
Cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation – 1G through 4G – are also biologically and environmentally harmful .
Pollution from all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation ( “ Electrosmog ” ) was also problem before 5G .
Environmentalists and health experts have been insisting that we should be reducing sources of Electrosmog .
The “ Race for 5G ” does the exact opposite and includes blasting 5G at Earth from space with satellites .
The first Global 5G @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Opposition continues to increase in the U.S. and worldwide .
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other sources of unsafe technology .
For more information , visit our archives and the following websites : Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue @ @ @ @ @

By B.N. Frank
Opposition to 5G has been ongoing since 2017 when doctors and scientists asked for a worldwide moratorium on installation. Unfortunately, this didn’t stop deployment and there have been reports of people and animals getting sick after it was turned on since 2018 (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
In February 2019 the telecom industry gave congressional testimony that they have NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe. That didn’t stop deployment either. In December 2019, doctors, scientists, engineers, and public advocates asked President Trump for a moratorium on 5G (see 1, 2, 3). Multiple 5G lawsuits have also been filed in the U.S. (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Cities and countries have even tried banning it.

Some American elected officials have been taking action, though, and confronting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about their role in this. After all they are supposed to be protecting the public from the telecom industry even though they haven’t done that since long before the Trump administration. The “Race for 5G” (see 1, 2, 3) has made them more dangerous. Thanks to Environmental Health Trust for this compilation of letters to the FCC from Congress members.
Congressman Dan Lipinski (IL-3) released the following statement today:
“I am disappointed by Chairman Pai’s response to my concerns about the FCC’s radiofrequency exposure safety standards. The FCC needs to be more transparent about its research and decision-making process related to 5G. It’s important that legitimate efforts are made to inform the public about the research in a detailed manner so they can have confidence in the safety claims about modern wireless technology. I am exploring legislative remedies to ensure greater accountability and transparency.”
Congressman Lipinski’s letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai can be found here. Chairman Pai’s response can be found here.
Read this on Congressman Dan Lipinski’s Website “FCC Must Be More Transparent About 5G Research”
Environmental Health Trust has compiled several letters from members of the US Congress.
So far the FCC has responded without any documentation showing 5G is safe for humans, wildlife and the environment.
Letters From Elected Officials to the FCC
Read the published research on 5G here.
Misinformation about 5G has been reported by many sources including The New York Times. In January one of their reporters was accused of violating a truth and accuracy code for this by the Press Council of Ireland. So there’s that.
Of course, 5G isn’t the only source of unsafe technology. Cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation – 1G through 4G – are also biologically and environmentally harmful. Pollution from all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (“Electrosmog”) was also problem before 5G. Environmentalists and health experts have been insisting that we should be reducing sources of Electrosmog. The “Race for 5G” does the exact opposite and includes blasting 5G at Earth from space with satellites.
The first Global 5G Opposition Day was held in January. Opposition continues to increase in the U.S. and worldwide.
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other sources of unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--New Mexico Sheriffs Preparing to Sue Over Red Flag Law

Cibola County , New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace says he and other sheriffs from around the state are meeting with attorneys this week as they get ready to file suit over the state ’ s new red flag law , signed last week by Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham .
During the signing ceremony , Grisham said that sheriffs who weren ’ t prepared to enforce the new law should resign , but Sheriff Mace and other sheriffs are taking the matter to court instead .
Mace said that the sheriffs will be holding meetings with several different attorneys over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategies before filing suit to block the law from taking effect .
Mace believes the new law infringes on the rights of residents in New Mexico , and not just their right to keep and bear arms .
He says the law establishes a bizarre “ civil search warrant ” process that violates the Fourth Amendment , and the seizure of firearms of those who ’ ve not been accused of a crime , much less convicted of one , is also a violation of the Fifth Amendment ’ s taking clause .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake , there ’ s also the pragmatic argument against red flag laws .
As Sheriff Mace points out , when someone has been deemed by a court ( in a one-sided hearing ) to be a danger to themselves or others , the law gives the individual in question 48 hours to turn over their guns .
Seems kind of odd to give a dangerous person two entire days to do dangerous things , does it not ?
And of course , once the firearms are seized , the dangerous person is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knives aren ’ t confiscated .
Neither are their car keys .
It ’ s only the guns that are taken away under a red flag law .
The dangerous person is left behind , without any mental health treatment at all .
Mace poignantly describes the current crisis in mental health in New Mexico , where he and deputies have to drive 100 miles in order to get to the nearest inpatient treatment facility .
If that facility has no open beds , individuals in crisis are often housed in the county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they could actually receive help .
Red flag laws are a cheap way for politicians to say they ’ re “ doing something ” about mental health when all they ’ re actually doing is stripping people of their constitutional rights and offering up a soundbite solution to a deadly serious problem .
Sean Walton is a researcher and journalist for The Daily Sheeple .
Send tips to [ email protected ] Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Sean Walton
Cibola County, New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace says he and other sheriffs from around the state are meeting with attorneys this week as they get ready to file suit over the state’s new red flag law, signed last week by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. During the signing ceremony, Grisham said that sheriffs who weren’t prepared to enforce the new law should resign, but Sheriff Mace and other sheriffs are taking the matter to court instead. Mace said that the sheriffs will be holding meetings with several different attorneys over the next few weeks to discuss litigation strategies before filing suit to block the law from taking effect.
Mace believes the new law infringes on the rights of residents in New Mexico, and not just their right to keep and bear arms. He says the law establishes a bizarre “civil search warrant” process that violates the Fourth Amendment, and the seizure of firearms of those who’ve not been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one, is also a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause.
In addition to the constitutional issues at stake, there’s also the pragmatic argument against red flag laws. As Sheriff Mace points out, when someone has been deemed by a court (in a one-sided hearing) to be a danger to themselves or others, the law gives the individual in question 48 hours to turn over their guns. Seems kind of odd to give a dangerous person two entire days to do dangerous things, does it not? And of course, once the firearms are seized, the dangerous person is left to their own devices. Their knives aren’t confiscated. Neither are their car keys. It’s only the guns that are taken away under a red flag law. The dangerous person is left behind, without any mental health treatment at all.
Mace poignantly describes the current crisis in mental health in New Mexico, where he and deputies have to drive 100 miles in order to get to the nearest inpatient treatment facility. If that facility has no open beds, individuals in crisis are often housed in the county jail, instead of in an institution where they could actually receive help. Red flag laws are a cheap way for politicians to say they’re “doing something” about mental health when all they’re actually doing is stripping people of their constitutional rights and offering up a soundbite solution to a deadly serious problem.
Sean Walton is a researcher and journalist for The Daily Sheeple. Send tips to sean.walton@thedailysheeple.com.
Image: Tenth Amendment Center
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-04--FEMA Is Preparing For Coronavirus “Emergency Declaration”

As Americans scramble to prepare themselves for the possibility that the coronavirus outbreak becomes a pandemic , FEMA ( Federal Emergency Management Agency ) is also preparing .
FEMA is “ aware of the gravity of the situation ” and ready to assist in a coronavirus response .
FEMA officials are preparing for an “ infectious disease emergency declaration ” by the president that would allow the agency to provide disaster relief funding to state and local governments , as well as federal assistance to support the coronavirus response , according to agency planning documents reviewed by NBC News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1988 Stafford Act to enable FEMA to provide such disaster assistance .
Emergency declarations are most often used in the event of natural disasters but can be used to help manage disease outbreaks .
“ To me , this is another indication that the president and the White House are finally aware of the gravity of the situation , ” said Michael Coen , who was FEMA chief of staff during the Obama administration .
“ They need to consider all tools available to them and have contingencies for action.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Tim Manning , who was a FEMA deputy administrator under President Barack Obama .
“ I hope this discussion has been happening continuously over the last couple of months.
” An emergency declaration would allow FEMA to provide disaster medical assistance teams , mobile hospitals , and military transport , among other kinds of federal support , Manning said .
But it isn ’ t immediately clear just what all of that could mean .
What To Expect From FEMA After A Disaster ( Spoiler : It ’ s Not Good ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Mac Slavo
As Americans scramble to prepare themselves for the possibility that the coronavirus outbreak becomes a pandemic, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is also preparing. FEMA is “aware of the gravity of the situation” and ready to assist in a coronavirus response.
FEMA officials are preparing for an “infectious disease emergency declaration” by the president that would allow the agency to provide disaster relief funding to state and local governments, as well as federal assistance to support the coronavirus response, according to agency planning documents reviewed by NBC News.
The Trump administration would have to use the 1988 Stafford Act to enable FEMA to provide such disaster assistance. Emergency declarations are most often used in the event of natural disasters but can be used to help manage disease outbreaks. “To me, this is another indication that the president and the White House are finally aware of the gravity of the situation,” said Michael Coen, who was FEMA chief of staff during the Obama administration. “They need to consider all tools available to them and have contingencies for action.”
“I actually find this reassuring,” said Tim Manning, who was a FEMA deputy administrator under President Barack Obama. “I hope this discussion has been happening continuously over the last couple of months.” An emergency declaration would allow FEMA to provide disaster medical assistance teams, mobile hospitals, and military transport, among other kinds of federal support, Manning said.
But it isn’t immediately clear just what all of that could mean.
FEMA’s disaster relief fund has a current balance of $34 billion, according to the latest agency update. “It’s money that’s sitting there and ready,” said another former FEMA official, who declined to be identified. –NBC News
What To Expect From FEMA After A Disaster (Spoiler: It’s Not Good)
Article source: SHTFPlan.com
Image credit: The Anti-Media
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-04--Redditor Wins Fight to Stay Anonymous

Redditor Wins Fight to Stay Anonymous

– A Reddit commenter has won their fight to stay anonymous after facing an improper copyright claim from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society , a group that publishes doctrines for Jehovah ’ s Witnesses .
A U.S. District Court judge has granted a motion to quash a subpoena for the identity of “ Darkspilver , ” a Redditor represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) .
“ Our client shared comments and concerns about the Watch Tower organization—something they have every right to do , ” said EFF Staff Attorney Alex Moss .
“ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that a judge saw the important free speech and fair use issues at play here.
” Darkspilver is a lifelong member of the Jehovah ’ s Witness community who chose to share comments and concerns about the organization via one of Reddit ’ s online discussion groups .
Darkspilver ’ s posts included a copy of an advertisement asking for donations that appeared on the back of a Watchtower magazine , as well as a chart they edited and reformatted to show the kinds of data that the Jehovah ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved to quash the subpoena , arguing that the posts were lawful fair uses of the material , and therefore non-infringing .
Darkspilver had deep concerns that disclosure of their identity would cause them to be disfellowshipped by their community .
Darkspilver has seen Jehovah ’ s Witness community members who raise questions be excommunicated or “ disfellowshipped , ” where family and friends remaining in the community cut off normal social interactions .
A magistrate judge ruled last year that Darkspilver did not infringe by posting the chart , but that Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim with respect to the advertisement , subject to strict limitations .
The judge ordered disclosure of Darkspilver ’ s identity to Watch Tower ’ s lawyer , so the organization could try to shore up its legal claims .
EFF appealed that decision to the District Court .
An opinion released Monday said , “ The record establishes that Darkspilver made fair use of the Watch Tower ad and chart .
Consequently , he did not infringe Watch Tower ’ s copyrighted works , and there is no basis in the DMCA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his identity.
” “ This copyright claim was absurd from the start , ” said EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry .
“ The DMCA subpoena process is not supposed to be a pretext for unmasking lawful speakers.
” Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

San Francisco – A Reddit commenter has won their fight to stay anonymous after facing an improper copyright claim from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, a group that publishes doctrines for Jehovah’s Witnesses. A U.S. District Court judge has granted a motion to quash a subpoena for the identity of “Darkspilver,” a Redditor represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
“Our client shared comments and concerns about the Watch Tower organization—something they have every right to do,” said EFF Staff Attorney Alex Moss. “We are glad that Darkspilver is safe from unmasking, and that a judge saw the important free speech and fair use issues at play here.”
Darkspilver is a lifelong member of the Jehovah’s Witness community who chose to share comments and concerns about the organization via one of Reddit’s online discussion groups. Darkspilver’s posts included a copy of an advertisement asking for donations that appeared on the back of a Watchtower magazine, as well as a chart they edited and reformatted to show the kinds of data that the Jehovah’s Witness organization collects and processes. EFF moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the posts were lawful fair uses of the material, and therefore non-infringing.
Darkspilver had deep concerns that disclosure of their identity would cause them to be disfellowshipped by their community. Darkspilver has seen Jehovah’s Witness community members who raise questions be excommunicated or “disfellowshipped,” where family and friends remaining in the community cut off normal social interactions.
A magistrate judge ruled last year that Darkspilver did not infringe by posting the chart, but that Watch Tower should be able to pursue its claim with respect to the advertisement, subject to strict limitations. The judge ordered disclosure of Darkspilver’s identity to Watch Tower’s lawyer, so the organization could try to shore up its legal claims.
EFF appealed that decision to the District Court. An opinion released Monday said, “The record establishes that Darkspilver made fair use of the Watch Tower ad and chart. Consequently, he did not infringe Watch Tower’s copyrighted works, and there is no basis in the DMCA for a subpoena to compel disclosure of his identity.”
“This copyright claim was absurd from the start,” said EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry. “The DMCA subpoena process is not supposed to be a pretext for unmasking lawful speakers.”
For the full opinion:
https://www.eff.org/document/c-order-re-motion-quash
Article source: EFF
Image: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-03--Smartphones vs. Brains:  Neuronal Disruption, Memory Impairment, Impulsive Behavior, Loss of Muscle

Smartphones vs. Brains:  Neuronal Disruption, Memory Impairment, Impulsive Behavior, Loss of Muscle Control

Research as determined that exposure to cell phone radiation and WiFi is capable of more than increasing cancer risk ( see 1 , 2 ) .
It can also disrupt the blood-brain barrier which can cause it to leak .
2017 research revealed that 5 minutes on a cell phone can cause significant memory impairment .
More recent research revealed that exposure can cause memory damage in teens .
Additional research has revealed how neurotransmitters are affected by smartphone use .
Not good .
Is Your Smartphone Compromising Your Brain ?
We are living in a smartphone world .
Take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go , folks are staring at their phones like zombies .
These little devices are obviously addictive .
And too many people can ’ t seem to put them down or stop peering at their screens .
The problem with this obsession goes beyond the social and relational implications .
Researchers are finding that all of that phone use is warping the structure of the neuronal networks in our brains .
And not in a good way .
One of the chief concerns highlighted by new studies of how smartphones affect the brain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
White matter in your brain forms an informational highway that lets neurons in different parts of the brain communicate with each other .
This tissue , deep within the brain , contains nerve fibers and axons that facilitate the conduction of electrical signals .
And the changes that using a smartphone makes to the brain ’ s white matter , say Asian researchers , may have a “ sustained negative impact on thinking , remembering , attention and emotion regulation.
” 1 The researchers found that disruptions in the brain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also cause diminished proprioception ( the perception of where your body is ) and lead to what are called “ sensorimotor deficits.
” These deficits can result in some loss of coordinated muscle control .
The researchers point out that at least half of young adults are now engaged in what the scientists call “ smartphone dependence , ” and that overuse of smartphones around the world has become epidemic .
Another study in Asia shows that hours spent on your phone can change the balance of neurotransmitters in your brain in ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatigued .
Staring at that little screen too much , the study found , can result in increases in a brain chemical called gamma aminobutyric acid ( GABA ) .
One of GABA ’ s functions is to moderate neuronal signals in the brain and regulate muscle movement and vision .
And at the same time as smartphone use is linked to an increase in GABA , researchers found an apparent simultaneous drop in a neurochemical called Glx ( glutamate-glutamine ) .2 This could be problematic because other research has found that low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gambling problems and increases in impulsive behavior.3 This begs the question , with so many children hooked on smartphones , some starting as young as seven years old , how much of the recently reported increase in impulsive behaviors and lack of attention and focus is related to their smartphone use ?
While the researchers I ’ ve discussed weren ’ t studying children , they found smartphone use causes changes in the brain that are alarming –even more so if they occur in children .
For example , these changes in neurotransmitters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the brain called the cingulate cortex .
This brain location contains neurons that control your blood pressure and pulse rate and are also involved with emotional shifts and your ability to make reasonable decisions .
According to the scientists , the imbalance of neurotransmitters may hamper your learning abilities and make it harder to retain new information .
Other problems linked to smartphone use include : Interrupted sleep and weight gain : Research at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark showed that phone use at night results in significantly less sleep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet another study in Asia – folks on that continent are as hooked on their phones as we are – found that the more you use your phone , the worse you sleep.5 Possible increased risk of cancer : Research at the University of Houston shows that in the evening the blue light from your phone can shrink your body ’ s nocturnal secretion of melatonin by almost 60 percent .
Aside from helping you sleep , this hormone helps the body fight off cancer.6 And the brain cancer risk due to smartphone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as I ’ m concerned .
Based on what I ’ ve learned , I recommend minimizing cell phone use and never hold a phone close to your ear .
Always use headphones or put the phone on speakerphone when you talk .
Decrease in memory and intellectual performance : A study in Switzerland found that radiation from phones , when you hold them near your head , is linked to poorer memory in young adults.7 They echo the advice I just gave to use headphones or the speakerphone .
Now I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careful , I can be as obsessive about my phone as anyone .
But nowadays I make a concerted effort to frequently turn my phone off , put it away and reconnect with the real world .
You remember that one , right ?
The one that surrounds you and is not connected to the Internet ?
Spending more time there and not in cyberspace , says the research , can make you happier .
Sounds good to me .
So wouldn ’ t it be better if elected officials stopped asking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone ( especially kids ) to significantly reduce their exposure to smartphones and other digital , electronic , and wireless tech ?
In related news – there ’ s a class action lawsuit against 11 smartphone models for exceeding federal RF safety levels up to 500 % ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information , visit our archives and the following websites : Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Research as determined that exposure to cell phone radiation and WiFi is capable of more than increasing cancer risk (see 1, 2). It can also disrupt the blood-brain barrier which can cause it to leak. 2017 research revealed that 5 minutes on a cell phone can cause significant memory impairment. More recent research revealed that exposure can cause memory damage in teens.
Additional research has revealed how neurotransmitters are affected by smartphone use. Not good.
From Awakening From Alzheimer’s:
Is Your Smartphone Compromising Your Brain?
We are living in a smartphone world. Take a look around. Almost everywhere you go, folks are staring at their phones like zombies.
These little devices are obviously addictive. And too many people can’t seem to put them down or stop peering at their screens.
The problem with this obsession goes beyond the social and relational implications. Researchers are finding that all of that phone use is warping the structure of the neuronal networks in our brains. And not in a good way.
The Brain’s White Matter Matters
One of the chief concerns highlighted by new studies of how smartphones affect the brain centers on their influence on white matter.
White matter in your brain forms an informational highway that lets neurons in different parts of the brain communicate with each other. This tissue, deep within the brain, contains nerve fibers and axons that facilitate the conduction of electrical signals.
And the changes that using a smartphone makes to the brain’s white matter, say Asian researchers, may have a “sustained negative impact on thinking, remembering, attention and emotion regulation.”1
The researchers found that disruptions in the brain’s white matter linked to smartphone use may also cause diminished proprioception (the perception of where your body is) and lead to what are called “sensorimotor deficits.” These deficits can result in some loss of coordinated muscle control.
The researchers point out that at least half of young adults are now engaged in what the scientists call “smartphone dependence,” and that overuse of smartphones around the world has become epidemic.
Neurotransmitter Changes Result in Anxiety, Fatigue
Another study in Asia shows that hours spent on your phone can change the balance of neurotransmitters in your brain in ways that can make you more anxious and fatigued.
Staring at that little screen too much, the study found, can result in increases in a brain chemical called gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA). One of GABA’s functions is to moderate neuronal signals in the brain and regulate muscle movement and vision. And at the same time as smartphone use is linked to an increase in GABA, researchers found an apparent simultaneous drop in a neurochemical called Glx (glutamate-glutamine).2
This could be problematic because other research has found that low levels of Glx may be linked to gambling problems and increases in impulsive behavior.3
This begs the question, with so many children hooked on smartphones, some starting as young as seven years old, how much of the recently reported increase in impulsive behaviors and lack of attention and focus is related to their smartphone use?
While the researchers I’ve discussed weren’t studying children, they found smartphone use causes changes in the brain that are alarming –even more so if they occur in children.
For example, these changes in neurotransmitters affect what takes place in a part of the brain called the cingulate cortex. This brain location contains neurons that control your blood pressure and pulse rate and are also involved with emotional shifts and your ability to make reasonable decisions. According to the scientists, the imbalance of neurotransmitters may hamper your learning abilities and make it harder to retain new information.
Other problems linked to smartphone use include:
Interrupted sleep and weight gain: Research at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark showed that phone use at night results in significantly less sleep and a greater chance of being overweight.4 And yet another study in Asia – folks on that continent are as hooked on their phones as we are – found that the more you use your phone, the worse you sleep.5
Possible increased risk of cancer: Research at the University of Houston shows that in the evening the blue light from your phone can shrink your body’s nocturnal secretion of melatonin by almost 60 percent. Aside from helping you sleep, this hormone helps the body fight off cancer.6 And the brain cancer risk due to smartphone emissions of EMFs is now established as far as I’m concerned. Based on what I’ve learned, I recommend minimizing cell phone use and never hold a phone close to your ear. Always use headphones or put the phone on speakerphone when you talk.
Decrease in memory and intellectual performance: A study in Switzerland found that radiation from phones, when you hold them near your head, is linked to poorer memory in young adults.7 They echo the advice I just gave to use headphones or the speakerphone.
Now I admit that if I’m not careful, I can be as obsessive about my phone as anyone. But nowadays I make a concerted effort to frequently turn my phone off, put it away and reconnect with the real world. You remember that one, right? The one that surrounds you and is not connected to the Internet? Spending more time there and not in cyberspace, says the research, can make you happier. Sounds good to me.
So wouldn’t it be better if elected officials stopped asking for more research and finally just started warning everyone (especially kids) to significantly reduce their exposure to smartphones and other digital, electronic, and wireless tech? In related news – there’s a class action lawsuit against 11 smartphone models for exceeding federal RF safety levels up to 500% (see 1, 2).

Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-03-04--Houston’s Mayor Turner Partners with Tech Companies to Build a Surveillance City

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo have announced a call for $ 8.5 million in funding for new “ technological enhancements ” , including working with Amazon ’ s Ring doorbell camera and ShotSpotter .
• Amazon ’ s Ring takes heat for considering facial recognition for its video doorbells • Amazon ’ s Disturbing Plan to Add Face Surveillance to Your Front Door • We ’ re Spending Millions On This High-Tech System Designed To Reduce Gun Violence .
Is It Making A Difference ?
Please help us advance truth , healing , community building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and build a better world : The Conscious Resistance Network can be found here : The Conscious Resistance Network is an independent media organization focused on empowering individuals through education , philosophy , health , and community organizing .
We work to create a world where corporate and state power does not rule over the lives of free human beings .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Conscious Resistance
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo have announced a call for $8.5 million in funding for new “technological enhancements”, including working with Amazon’s Ring doorbell camera and ShotSpotter.
Journalist Derrick Broze shared these concerns with Houston City Council.
Sources:

Please help us advance truth, healing, community building, and empowering the people to wake up and build a better world:
https://www.Patreon.com/DerrickBroze
https://paypal.me/consciousresistance
Support via crypto:
https://bitbacker.io/user/dbroze/#profile-panel
https://www.subscribestar.com/derrick-broze
The Conscious Resistance Network can be found here:
https://www.theconsciousresistance.com
https://flote.app/ConsciousResistance
https://www.Minds.com/TheConsciousResistanceNetwork
https://www.steemit.com/@dbroze
Discord channel: https://discord.gg/tQrNTYS
Join our text list for direct updates: https://www.remind.com/join/dbjourno2
The Conscious Resistance Network is an independent media organization focused on empowering individuals through education, philosophy, health, and community organizing. We work to create a world where corporate and state power does not rule over the lives of free human beings.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.